National Treasure: Book of Secrets

Action/Delusion/Complete lack of grounding in reality/Adventure starring among others Nicolas Cage, Jon Voight, Helen Mirren and others.

—

Benjamin Gates is back. This time he’s knee-deep in a convoluted plot to clear the name of his ancestor Thomas Gates, and apparently this is done by finding a lost city of gold.

—

I kinda liked the first National Treasure. It was somewhat fresh and somewhat exciting. There was no big surprise that there’d be a sequel since it was –as far as I know– a huge financial hit. That’s the way Hollywood works, go where the money is.

So, this is the sequel. Apparently it’s going to be turned into a franchise as well, as is very obviously hinted at through the film.

How to summarize this? Nicolas Cage drones through a confusing and special effects-heavy plot dealing with everything from the Queen of Englands desk to Abraham Lincoln and the statue of Liberty. There isn’t a single stone unturned, for a moment I was expecting Thor, the god of thunder, to make an appearance and help Nic Cage out in his quest for justice and money.

If you liked the first one, you’ll probably get a kick out of this one too. I however think it’s vastly inferior to the spunky tempo of the first one. The plot is littered with really surreal Deus Ex Machinas, subplots run into the sand, the plucky blonde that accompanied them in the first film has in this one been reduced to pretty window-dressing since her only function is to look surprised or hand Cage a keypass every now and then. Riley the computer-geek and general nice guy does the same, basically just performing magic on command. He also got saddled with providing the comic relief for the entire film, and this makes him barely less annoying than anyone else.

To watch this movie you need to heavily suspend your knowledge of how anything works. The laws of physics gets thrown out the window immediately –apparently you CAN crash a car so badly it looks like junk afterwards without wearing seatbelts and yet not getting smashed into a million tiny bits of meat and broken bones. Also, even though the movie is littered with Apple-products none of them actually seem to function like an Apple-product. Every laptop is running the magic Hollywood-OS that chirps and beeps when scrolling text, and hacks into the british department of motor-vehicles at the push of a button. And OF COURSE all the traffic cameras in the UK are tied into the internet, so you immediately can download a photo of your grinning self running a red light. French cops will apparently happily help in translating clues taken from a statue. And a golden city buried underground hasn’t been discovered for hundreds of years, despite the fact that a national monument is built on top of it and every year hundreds of thousands of people stomp the area. And the president of the USA keeps a tiny book in the library of congress, and this book contains every secret and conspiracy theory ever produced. Aaaaand, primitive machinery built hundreds of years ago will work perfectly despite being soaked in water, oil and various other liquids without any maintenance.

This movie tries hard to be a mix between Indiana Jones and Jason Bourne. The first one was fun, this one is a lot more flat and tries too hard to mix too many things into the what-have-you. Top it all off with Nicolas Cages droning voice and expensive hairpiece and you’ve got National Treasure: Book of Secrets.

The only really fun and dynamic scene in the film is when Nicolas Cage slides down a banister and then starts howling absurdities at a security guard.

Other than that, don’t watch this movie if you’re going to pay for it. It’s just not worth it.

Aliens vs Predator: Requiem

Action/scifi from 2007.

—

The Aliens and one lone Predator descend on a small village somewhere in the USA, squeezing the local humans between them.

—

Yeah, I guess that’s a pretty good summary of the story. The Predator (or Yautja, as they’re known in the expanded universe) takes on the task of cleaning up after the botched mission in the previous movie. Why? Because that ship crashed, and this lone creature was sent to erase the traces.

The story is a bit weird actually. The Predator first does an excellent job of removing any traces of aliens or Predators using some weird blue liquid that dissolves everything it touches, all the while staying out of most of the action. It gets a little weird after a while when he decides that he’s no longer there on a covert mission and instead goes off and starts collecting trophies instead.

So, the story is a bit iffy. It works, I suppose, but it’s not very logical.

It’s easy to think that this movie is crap. And I would assume that to someone not very into the whole AvP mythos it would just seem like another stupid actionfest. But I liked it. I went in with very low expectations since I thought the first AvP movie did a really half-assed job. So, expectations were low and interestingly enough, I think that if you’re a fan of Aliens, Predators or the concept of them kicking the crap out of each other then this movie might be for you.

Sure, you have to ignore that logical jump mentioned in the storyline, but the ingredients are all there and they seem in my opinion to have been mixed into the right kind of dish. I was annoyed at how stupid the Predators in Paul W.S. Andersons take were, but I can assure you - this time around the Predator takes no crap from anyone. He’s just as kick-ass as Predators should be, and whatever mistakes he does (because he does a few) is simply him being faced with an even more kick-ass enemy - in this case the Predator-Alien hybrid briefly glanced in the first film.

I’d say it’s obvious that Colin and Greg Strause who directed this did some research beforehand. A lot of the concepts in this movie are almost directly lifted out of previous films. In fact, they even pay homage by lifting a few lines from previous Alien/Predator films, most notably the classic “Get to the chopper” but without Arnold saying it. Normally I would wrinkle my nose at such a pathetic attempt to score fanboy-points, but in this case it actually works. Hell, a lot of the musical cues are taken from earlier films (the weird drums whenever the Predator does something, the dark horns when the Aliens do something) and again I would normally scoff at this. But not here, here it helps convey the gravitas behind the mythos.

Now, I understand that making a film out of something like this is tricky. You have to give it enough personal touch to make it “yours” as a director, while not changing too much and thus upsetting the fans of what you’re making a movie out of. This one manages to walk the line, if you ask me. PWSA changed a little too much, while the Straus brothers manage to keep it. Sure, they don’t add much new to the mix, but when the mix as it was is excellent then why bother?

This movie has action, and as far as being an AvP-movie I’d say it’s more faithful to the concept than the first one. The ending is a bit anticlimactic, but it has a very neat minor twist to it. I’m not going to spoil that for you though.

I liked it. If you’re a fan of the AvP-mythos then I think you’ll like it as well. It’s plenty gory, and the Predator is kick-ass. Recommended.

The Golden Compass

Fantasy from 2007 starring among others Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig and Sam Elliott.

—

In a parallell universe young Lyra Belacqua goes on an adventure up in the arctic. Or something. Here, I’ll just steal the summary from IMDB instead of writing my own: “In a parallel universe, young Lyra Belacqua journeys to the far North to save her best friend and other kidnapped children from terrible experiments by a mysterious organization.” Yeah, I guess that works as a plot summary.

—

Okay, back in October when I mentioned this film I was pretty interested in it. Mainly that interest stemmed from the controversy the film (as well as the books it’s based on) was causing among the fundamentalist christians over in the US, but also because I thought it might be entertaining. When I read about it sounded kind of like Narnia crossed with the Lord of The Rings.

So, now I’ve seen it and what do I think of it?

I think it’s a pretty but incredibly dull affair.

Sure, it’s a nice production and visually it looks kind of like a steampunk-version of Narnia. It’s filled with computer-animation and gorgeous environments, and it’s got some pretty impressive actors. Yet it all feels so darn wasted.

The story is filled with incredibly heavy-handed metaphors for things Philip Pullman doesn’t like. It doesn’t really take a big brain to see that the magistrate is in fact the church, and they want to outlaw science (the dust) and free will. But the way these otherwise interesting metaphors are presented is so obvious. The whole world built in this film is just flat, there’s no excitement. It’s wooden.

And speaking of wooden. Let me tell you what else is wooden in this film. The acting. It’s like watching a bunch of planks sprouting ridiculous lines. Even Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman who usually manage to bring some kind of gravity to films fail miserably here. In fact, Daniel Craig barely even makes an appearance in this film, and Nicole Kidman is some generic Cruella DeVil-like villain. Pretty much every character in the film is just some two-dimensional cliché that’s been tossed into the mix to make it seem exciting. Casting Sam Elliot as the swaggerty adventurer with an accent as wide as his cowboy-hat is just too obvious.

Speaking of the dialogue. I mean, seriously, even in an alternate dimension, who the hell speaks like they do in this film?

Let me give you an example:

Normal film: RUN!

The Golden Compass: My young friend, I fear that now is the time where we must apply force to our legs and outrun the foolish enemy behind us. Lead the way and I will attempt to stave the flood of… etc etc etc etc and so forth and so on.

No, I think that the only people who will get a kick out of this film are already fans of the books. We who haven’t yet read them just find that this film is so self-important it’s almost falling over itself, and it’s formulaic and utterly boring delivery just underscores that. I had trouble keeping my eyes open, and I doubt that any kid who’s not a fan of Lyra will have troubles doing it too.

Watch this only if you have nothing else to do, and only if you aren’t paying for it. I don’t care that Phil Pullman is an atheist and is making the religious right nervous - this film is most of the time like watching paint dry.

If you want a fun and exciting film set in an alternate reality I instead recommend you go off and rent Stardust. Now that movie was fun!

Cloverfield (2008)

Action/Scifi/Drama featuring a bunch of virtual nonames.

—

A monster attacks New York City and a small group of survivors equipped with a camcorder try to make it out of the city alive.

—

This. Movie. Is. Awesome.

I’ll say it again for emphasis. This movie is awesome. This movie will blow your socks off, rip your shirt to pieces and not introduce itself to your parents.

The story is pretty non-descript, but this is not a story-driven movie. The story rather acts as a frame to the characters. This is a disturbingly realistic and amazingly intense film. It is not your average hollywood-movie, filled with a bunch of overpaid actors hamming it up in front of a bluescreen.

The film is presented as a piece of government evidence, retrieved from a camcorder found in what was previous to the events in the film Central Park. The whole film actually looks like something that was shot by someone holding a camcorder, while being a part of the events.

And in case you didn’t already hear me say it, it is awesome. This is not your average monster-movie. The only thing it raises is questions. The really wonderful thing about it is that the way it’s filmed makes you forget that it’s fiction. You feel as if the boundary between reality and what you’re watching disappears. You have to remind yourself that this, despite appearances, never happened.

This movie is as awesome as Godzilla should’ve been back in 1998.

See it. Even if you’re not into monster-flicks, or action, or scifi. See it because it’s awesome, see it because it’s not cheesy, it’s not cliché. Strongly recommended.

I’m a fan of Terry Pratchetts books. I’ve read most of the Discworld-novels, and I was a bit saddened when Good Omens fell through as a feature-film. It should be noted that Good Omens is not a Discworld-novel, yet it’s a spectacularly entertaining read none the less.

So, a few days ago I found out that a two-part miniseries had been produced, based on Terrys two first books set in the Discworld. This was called “The Colour of Magic” (note british spelling) and was based on the first book with the same name, followed by the accompanying novel called “The Light Fantastic”. Part one of the miniseries was of the first book, and so on.

Unfortunately it was broadcast on channels not available in Sweden, and it was only thanks to the miracle of file-sharing that I found it.

In the process, I also discovered that a similar mini-series had been produced based on his book “Hogfather” and broadcast christmas 2006. It was broadcast on the same channel as Colour of Magic, and again it was thanks to filesharing that I managed to find it.

I know that I linked to The Pirate Bay, but I urge anyone who enjoys these to try to find the DVDs and show financial support for them as well. I know I’m going to.

—

I watched The Colour of Magic first, and you know - it wasn’t quite up to my expectations. I’m not saying that it’s a bad production, because it isn’t. It’s actually quite good for a TV mini-series. Special effects are perfectly acceptable, production-design is very good, acting is up to par.

But it doesn’t have the pungency of Terrys books, and the story takes a lot of liberties with the source-material. Adding insult to injury in this department, a lot of the story doesn’t really make sense. There’s a lot of things that don’t add anything to the plot, except as filler-material.

Also, I don’t know about the dragons. Admittedly it was quite some time since I last read The Colour of Magic, but dragons are generally a no-no in the Discworld. It’s not that they don’t exist (because they do), it’s rather that they’re not a common commodity. I don’t remember exactly what happened in the book, but that whole bit doesn’t serve any purpose in the adaption. I just felt that it was filler, a poor excuse to show a rather beautiful woman in scantily clothing.

The thing that I missed the most though was the wacky humor that permeates Terrys books. Whenever I’ve read a Discworld-novel I’ve always felt as if I was reading some strange mix of Monty Python and Lord of The Rings. His writing is so textured, he gets every accent and every smell just right.

This was sadly missing in the mini-series. It didn’t have the wacky humor, and the few times it did it just felt pasted-on. The actors are obviously struggling to portray their characters, but somehow everything just falls a bit flat. The texture of the novels just don’t appear. Combined with the liberal deviation from the source material I actually felt a bit bored at times.

Wait! There’s good stuff too. Admittedly it’s not quite what I expected, but it does get quite a lot of things right. David Jason (known to most people as the bloke in A Touch of Frost) is quite good as Rincewind. I always imagined Rincewind as in his mid-late 30s, while David Jason is 68. So at first I cringed a bit, but I warmed to the concept quite quickly. I guess my estimate of Rincewind being much younger probably stems from the two mid-90s adventure games based on Discworld, where he’s portrayed as surprisingly young, as well as voiced by Eric Idle.

Also, Christopher Lee as the voice of Death is just… oh, I’m at a lack of words to describe how perfect it is. Christopher Lee doesn’t just voice Death, he IS Death. Jeremy Irons does an all too brief part as the chilly Lord Vetinari, the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork. Cohen The Barbarian is as old as I always imagined him to be, and equally grumpy as well.

Should you watch this? If you’re a Discworld-fan, then most definitely. It probably won’t be quite what you expected, but at least they didn’t mess it up too badly, and the production is quite well-done. If you’re not a Discworld-fan, then you might be a bit confused since some things are never really explained, but the fantasy-feel and good looks might keep you happy anyways.

Oh, and Terry Pratchett himself makes a cameo in the beginning and the end.

—

After watching the Colour of Magic I watched Hogfather. Well, not IMMEDIATELY afterwards, but a day or so later. Everyone who compared Hogfather with Colour of Magic said that the former was actually much better then the latter, despite having a smaller budget and less big-name stars. In fact, there are no big-name stars in Hogfather.

I was stoked however. If Hogfather was at the very least as good as Colour of Magic, it would totally be worth it.

And oh boy, was it worth it.

Hogfather is one of my favourite Discworld-novels. It has a very wacky humor, as well as some slight satire of the consumer-driven holiday we call christmas. It also has some interesting philosophical thoughts about religion and the origin of beliefs, but it’s sugarcoated in wackiness.

In short, the story is about how Hogfather (the Discworld-version of Santa Claus) goes missing, and Death (yes, THE Death) has to fill in for him for various convoluted reasons. Much of the humor derives from Deaths lack of… well… humanity.

The story is a lot more complicated, but that’s the short version.

So, how good was Hogfather? Let’s just say that it was everything that was good about CoM, and everything good that CoM should’ve been. Hogfather sticks very closely to the source-material, even taking a lot of dialogue verbatim from the book. The story is to my recollection exactly as in the book, and everything happens like in the book. It’s a very faithful adaption. Which I find somewhat interesting, since it’s the same bloke who adapted and directed both CoM and Hogfather.

David Jason appears in this one as well, although here he portrays Albert, Death’s butler and right-hand-man. It was a bit confusing at first, but David Jason is obviously a somewhat versatile actor and fit snugly into the part of Albert. Death isn’t voiced by Christopher Lee though, and his predecessor doesn’t have quite the same Deathiness to the voice.

Other than that the casting is spot-on. Susan (the granddaughter of Death, don’t ask - it’s complicated) is perfect, just as I imagined her. The wizards are perfect, and one of my many favourite actors makes a beautiful performance as the pragmatic and slightly whimsical Mustrum Ridcully, the archchancellor of Unseen University.

So is this worth watching?

Well, unless you’re rather daft and haven’t caught on to me really liking this one yet, then let me spell it out for you: yes, it’s very, very watchable. Doesn’t matter if you’re a Discworld-fan or not. Unlike CoM, Hogfather has plenty of the wacky humor that was sorely lacking in CoM. It has the Discworld-texture, the feel is right there. And best of all, despite it’s alleged much-lower budget it still has decent special-effects and good production-value overall.

The Mist

Action/Horror/Scifi/Drama starring among others Thomas Jane and Marcia Gay Harden.

—

A strange storm descends on a small village in the northeastern USA. Immediately afterwards a thick mist envelops the town and traps a number of citizens inside a supermarket. Strange noises are heard from the mist, and people venturing into it are brutally killed. It’s discovered that strange creatures roam inside the mist, and a stand has to be made inside the supermarket by the survivors…

—

At first this movie seems like a very cheap knock-off of the old John Carpenter-classic The Fog. Even the title alludes to it, and it shares a lot of obvious themes with it’s predecessor. After a while it changes, and you start to assume that this will be a cheap monster-movie full of standard scares.

And that’s exactly what it is. At least at first glances.

Because, after a while the monsters become simply a backdrop to the madness that humans produce all by themselves. The movie changes gears, changes tempo, changes focus and instead become a surprisingly disturbing account of the darker nature hidden within humans. When the order around people are shattered, so is the illusion of civilization. The characters in the movie revert to a much more primitive and less coherent state of mind.

Up until that change in pace and focus I was rather bored by the whole thing. I even rolled my eyes at some of the typical Stephen King-stereotypes (since this movie is based on a novella by him) that are common both in his writings and even more so in movies based on his works.

But after the change, it became a fascinating and rather scary insight into the abyss of the human soul. Several themes work parallel to each other, but the most obvious theme is Rationality vs Religion. The rationality is represented by a continuously diminishing group of people led by David Drayton (Jane) and the Religion contingent is led by the impressively deranged Mrs. Carmody, (Harden). She is certain that the mist and it’s denizens are the wrath of god, and her unstable mentality gets the better of both her and the people she preaches to.

All during this disaster of the soul I sat thinking, wondering how Frank Darabont (the director) would wrap this all up. Would he go for a cheery Hollywood-ending where everything thanks to some Deus Ex Machina just goes away? Or, would he go for the horrible ending that was implied several times through the movie?

I don’t want to spoil this for people, but he did both of those things. The ending is horrible, not because it’s bad but because it’s a cruel and evil fate that befalls those who is damned under it. It’s beautifully gut-wrenching, and I can safely say that anyone who isn’t depressed by it must lack all forms of emotion. It’s the bleakest ending since Leaving Las Vegas.

Strongly recommended.

I love movies. It’s a passion bordering on obsession. Some movies I hold very close to my heart, such as Blade Runner. Sadly though, I’m a lot more disillusioned with the industry behind movies than I used to be. These days I hold a pretty cynical opinion of the so-called “entertainment industry” and I understand why Philip K. Dick was so opposed to letting his novel become a movie…

None the less, there are some movies that I’m looking forward to.

The first one is Horton Hears a Who, based on the childrens-book by the same name. Authored by Dr. Seuss. It’s rare in Sweden to come across pretty much anyone who knows who the heck Dr. Seuss was, much less has actually read any of his brilliant books. I understand though why they probably didn’t gain much attention outside of the US of A, since the language in them provides quite a challenge to translate.

I, on the other hand, grew up in a bilingual, bicultural (is that even a word?) home and Dr. Seuss’ books are a staple of my childhood. Green eggs and ham, sam I am, the whole nine yards. I think that Horton was included somewhere in the mess of books, and even as an adult I get a kick out of reading them. I guess it’s my inner child making itself heard, or something. None the less, they’re filled to the brim with whacky wordings and equally nonsensical drawings. In hindsight it was obvious that the only medium that could translate the controlled madness of Dr. Seuss was of course animation, and here is where computer-animation truly shines. Sure, The Grinch was a valiant attempt to make a live-action version, but it lacked the substance and wild-eyed giggle of the book. Plus, it stripped away the originals subtle criticism of capitalism and replaced it with sugary hollywoodness.

I hope this will keep the spirit of the original material. At the very least it will provide a very interesting visual experience.

Number two is the latest offering from one M. Night Shyamalan. You know, the director/writer behind movies such as The Sixth Sense, Signs, The Village? He’s pretty secretive about his projects, but it’s been revealed that his latest film is called simply The Happening. The trailer seems interesting, and you can bet your sweet patootie that there will be a twist ending to this one.

The next one is Kung Fu Panda. It’s a computer-animated movie featuring Jack Black as a Panda who somehow is involved with, well, Kung Fu. The trailer is light on substance as to what the actual story may be — it loooks a lot more like some kind of teaser. Animation looks funny though, and you gotta love a movie that dares to have the tagline “Prepare For Awesomeness”.

Four on my list is JJ Abrams restart of the somewhat tired Star Trek-franchise. As of yet there’s very, very little details about what it will be about, but it has been confirmed that it will be the TOS-crew and one of their early missions that will provide the substance for this one. That means Spock, Kirk, Scotty and the rest will be featured, but in very young incarnations predating the original series run in the timeline of Trek.

I grew a bit tired of Star Trek after the previous one (Nemesis) that was the last movie featuring the TNG-cast. I wondered how they would manage to make another movie after that one, considering that even hardcore fans weren’t too happy with the floundering Enterprise. However, I do approve of using the TOS-concept as a base for a new movie, and the teaser sure sets the scene well for this one. Won’t be out for at least a year though.

Number five is a movie called Doomsday. It has a plotline that just screams to be love by me. It involves Scotland being contaminated with some kind of mutated disease, and getting literally built into a prison for whoever live there in order to prevent this plague from spreading. 25 years later the plague is discovered outside of Scotland, and a merry crew of adventurers must venture inside the iron gates to find a cure inside of Scotland.

The trailer looks a lot like Resident Evil combined with Mad Max. I’m a huge sucker for post-apocalyptic movies, and this one tickles my funny-bone in a big way. The Mad Max-movies are easily among my favorites of all time, and Doomsday looks promising.

Last but not least is the new Indiana Jones-flick. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, premieres in May. Last time we saw Indy was in 1989. Well, actually I didn’t see it since I was 11 years old then, but that’s when he was chasing the last crusade. This time Indy is back, aged quite a bit and teamed up with Shia LaBeouf who seems to have stolen Martys leather-jacket from the second Back to The Future. Looks like good, clean old-fashione matiné-style fun. Hopefully Spielberg and Lucas doesn’t frell it up too badly.

Resident Evil: Extinction

Action/Horror/Scifi from 2007 starring Milla Jovovich.

—

In the third installment of the Resident Evil-franchise we again get to familiarize ourselves with the heroine Alice (Jovovich). This time it’s really bad. The events of the previous film didn’t stop the T-virus from spreading, and it not only infected most of the human population of the world (turning them into dangerous zombies) it also killed the forests, nature, infected animals and generally wreaked havoc on our planet. The world as we know it is gone, replaced with a merciless desert eating away at what little natural resources are left. Alice maintains a day-to-day life until she gets reunited with other survivors of the Raccoon City-massacre in the previous film, and they decide to head for Alaska where supposedly there are more survivors. The remnants of the Umbrella Corporation have other plans in mind however…

—

I’m not really the target-audience for movies of this kind. I have a difficult time relating to the whole zombie-thing, and even though I enjoy most horrorfilms I have a somewhat strained relationship to this kind of movie. In general I feel that the zombie-genre is ridden with heavy clichés and that every attempt to modernize it simply confirms this theory.

I’ve never played a Resident Evil-game either, so I have no idea what all that is about, other than that most RE-fans seem as rabidly obsessed as the zombies in the games themselves.

(relax, I’m just joking)

So, while I had a somewhat fun time watching the first film, the second one soured me pretty bad on the whole concept. The first one had a good feel to it, and even though it was somewhat laughable at times it still provided decent entertainment. But the sequel was a far cry from being entertaining. It was almost painfully bad, and took itself way too seriously. Add to that, it was astoundingly silly in most every department, and as always riddled with clichés of the genre.

The groundwork didn’t look good for the third one. In fact, I considered not watching it at all. But it turned out I was in the mood for something braindead and filled with action, so I relented and gave it a go.

Surprise, surprise. It wasn’t as bad as I expected. Sure, it won’t win any awards for… well… pretty much anything, but it was pretty solid entertainment, and I didn’t yawn or check my watch a single time. Admittedly this also suffers from a lot of tired clichés, and Russell Mulcahy (yes, THE Russell Mulcahy, of Highlander-fame) falls pretty heavy for the temptation of using old by-the-book techniques to scare the viewer. The costumes are bordering on silly, and I always find it a bit amusing in movies of this kind how the hot chicks always have perfect makeup despite having spent years wandering the desert.

But for all it’s drawbacks this movie somehow works. A lot of people complained about a perceived lack of action, but I thought it was fine. I don’t really like movies who try to cover a thin plot or crappy acting by shoveling lots of action-sequences over the viewer, and I felt that this movie was somewhat balanced. Plus, the whole Zombies Meets Mad Max In The Desert-concept was interesting. I’ve always liked post-apocalyptic movies, and this fit the bill fine.

All in all, I’d say this is the best of the three movies so far. Which means it’s pretty mediocre, but hey - it wasn’t meant to be another Citizen Kane or something. Think of it as entertainment for teenage guys. And Milla has nice legs.

+ Desert
+ Milla Jovovich
+ Not too silly zombies
+ Guns, Guns, Guns
+ Lots of sand
+ Las Vegas buried in sand
+ Action
+ Weird ending
+ Slightly more character development than previous movies

- What’s with the ridiculous boss in the end of every movie?
- Tired dialogue
- Wooden acting
- Predictable plot
- Lots of genre-clichés, i.e. groups splitting up then getting killed off one at a time, monsters jumping out of closets, etc.

Seraphim Falls

Western/Drama starring Pierce Brosnan and Liam Neeson

—

At the end of the Civil War, a colonel hunts down a man with whom he has a grudge…

—

I borrowed that plot outline from IMDB. It pretty much sums up this movie, even if it’s not completely accurate. This movie starts out with a very slow pace, and nothing changes through it. I suppose that there’s some deeper meaning to it, but mostly this was just a drawn out, tiresome and somewhat boring affair with some pretty scenery-shots.

Most of the plot focuses on revenge, a common theme in westerns. Unfortunately the slow pace of the movie combined with the boring and in my opinion somewhat generic stock-western characters kills off any intrigue. My guess is that the writer/director wanted to create a mystery and slowly unfold the reason for the manhunt through flashbacks over the course of the movie, but this just makes it very boring in the beginning and when the conflict finally is revealed you’ve pretty much figured it out already. There’s no real suspense anywhere.

Minor characters show up out of nowhere and make absolutely no impact on anyone or anything. In fact, most of the supporting characters are more interesting than the main two characters, and when they disappear without a trace it just makes the whole thing more tedious.

But, there are some beautiful shots of scenery, and the music is probably a good cure for insomnia. Other than those two high points there really isn’t much to recommend this movie for. Bland and uninteresting characters, slow pace, borderline cliché-story doesn’t really work for a period-piece such as this. I really wonder what Brosnan and Neeson saw in this project.

Go grab Unforgiven and pop it in the DVD-player instead. Much better movie dealing with similar motifs.

I just found out that Heath Ledger died yesterday. My first reaction was that it was a bad joke, but after reading Wikipedia it turned out to be true.

This has somewhat shaken me. Ever since I first saw him in 10 Things I Hate About You I knew that this was a talented guy to keep an eye on in the future. It turned out I was right, he’s done some pretty impressive movies.

And all of a sudden he drops dead.