Change Your Image
hptmbedra
Reviews
Poirot: Hickory Dickory Dock (1995)
Little disappointing
I like almost all of the Poirots by David Suchet but this one is one of the weakest. Unlike other people here, I found the mouse cute in a way similar to Dumb Witness, and I didn't mind the story taking place in 1930s nor Miss Lemon getting less screen time than our rodent friend. I quite liked the cozy atmosphere of this episode and the cooking scenes were hilarious.
What I didn't like however is how primitive the story was. Smuggling diamonds without their carriers knowing is just stupid. Like how would they find the people, the place and time abroad to put the diamonds in without anybody noticing?
It starts snowballing from there. Why did the murderer unscrew the lightbulbs, ie. How did he know he would need to remain unseen exactly at the moment when the policeman would enter? Why are we pretty clearly shown the guy who cut the backpack right at the start, which is made worse by seeing the photographs and even himself before the truth is revealed by Poirot, instead of keeping us guessing? Why was Patricia killed? Just because she had seen the photograph doesn't mean she knew who's the killer. And wasn't killing off half of the house a bit too conspicuous?
I still like this episode but it's quality doesn't live up to the standard of Poirot.
The Nun II (2023)
Stop beating the dead horse
I think the Nun could have easily worked as a main character and a standalone movie but after Nun I and her lengthy appearance in a Conjuring movie its material is exhausted, unless the creators would take completely different direction.
The nun's strength came from its novelty and that's long gone. Add it to the fact that its setting copies the recently endless number of horror movies that picture demons, exorcism and christian church and you get boredom as a result. We need some fresh air.
Spoilers ahead:
The story is very unoriginal - get a christian relic and destroy a demon. But what's even worse is that Nun II falls into the same stupid patterns other lazy horror movies do. The demon, in the beginning only looming, carefully exposing itself to the victims it's feeding on, gets blatantly exposed in the end as slow and stupid.
Again we get members of the church reciting rites with crosses in their hands, and I am already tired of it. There is nothing interesting about it and show me a movie where it has ever worked. Ok, there is one original feature in this movie since none of the exorcists or in fact any senior members of the church want to go to vanquish the demon and they send 2 (non-demonic) nuns instead, while the senior members hang out in Vatican palace or in libraries, which is kind of funny I admit.
It's a shame really because the demon nun is generally a great character and if treated right, it could have been as successful as Annabelle. But unfortunately the creators thought the nun will carry the franchise on its own without providing anything new or original. Well, they were wrong, since as soon as the novelty wore off, there was nothing interesting left.
Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities: Pickman's Model (2022)
Bit underwhelming
This episode is full of promise but ends up being overdrawn, boring and without much material to tell.
There are no aha moments because it's really obvious what's going to happen. A good suspense is here and there but it is evident the authors tried a little too hard to scare the audience but didn't have the craft to do it properly. As a result I was bored a lot and seeing the characters petrified just wasn't believable.
It's very long. I can easily imagine it taking just half the time with its material. Some scenes telegraph from the very start what's going to happen (final one for instance) but are stretched out which makes them incredibly painful to watch.
Scream (1996)
Schizophrenic let down
This movie doesn't know whether it's a comedy or horror. It mixes both but each is undercut by the other and as a result it falls flat by being neither scary nor funny.
The acting is completely over the top. I mean Neve Campbell's fine, but her male friends seem to be on drugs all the time, and Billy is just creepy. It made me cringe every time this bunch had a dialog. I am not sure this was on purpose to make a parody of itself, but in any case it made me feel I am watching something unbelievably stupid.
Honestly I had much more fun watching Scare Movie. Scream is too long, quite boring with not much interesting going on, stupid dialogs and underwhelming revelation, undercut again by the parody element.
I'd say one probably should see it to know what the successive films like Scary Movie build on, but on its own I don't recommend watching it, unless you play it in the background and don't pay much attention.
Im Westen nichts Neues (2022)
Inaccurate and lacking substance
This movie is something very different from what I expected. It doesn't do justice to its source material, nor the war it vainly tries to portray.
Let's go through a list of things I found the most striking:
1. Why does the movie have to start in 1917? In the book it makes sense to see young worriless lads cheerfully enlist. In 1914 nobody knew what was coming - quite the opposite, many people were excited about the war! But 3 years later? One would have to be blind and deaf to ignore what a giant killing machine the war had become.
2. The movie drags, and I mean a lot. Between the 2 first battles, not much really happens, and I am talking a whole hour here! We don't get to know the lads much - who they are, what motivates them, nothing except for showing them fight and hang out in the rear.
3. An attempt to portray Stab-in-the-back myth's origins is made which I think is a great idea in general, since it explains why WW had to happen all over again in just 20 (!) years, but is poorly executed here. It shows a high ranking general complaining about armistice, claiming the civilians are selling off the Vaterland and pledging to fight to the last breath. This is preposterous. Yes I am sure there were fanatics among generals, and yes the myth originated from an assumption that Germany could have kept fighting on, but it was predominantly the generals who *knew* that the situation on the front was untenable. There were talks of seeking armistice in German high command already in 1917 due to the horrendous casualties German army had suffered in the first 2 war years. How much the generals were aware of this is corroborated by the change in their military doctrine from offensive to defensive in 1917. Sure, the Brest-Litevsk peace gave the Germans a chance to make one last ditch effort, but after it it became clear to the generals that the war can't be won, especially with the US joining the war. So showing a general uttering those serious accusations, thereby reinforcing that myth just because a mere armistice (do not confuse it with Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919) was going to be signed is inaccurate.
4. My last point concerns the battle where tanks appeared. The whole of it makes no sense. First of all it takes place on November 8th 1918. At that point, the trench warfare was very much thing of the past, since the Hindenburg line was long overcome and the war on the western front became a dynamic instead of a static one. Given that, why do we see then the German platoon return into trenches with no-man's-land in front of them? Then we see the French attack and German counter attack exactly in the old style typical to early years of WWI - wave of men attacking strongpoints defended by machine guns. At this point of war, this tactic was long obsolete because it was seen as unnecessarily wasteful. Generals on both sides had long realized that gaining few square kilometres for the price of massive casualties is pointless. But what I find most unsettling is the way the Germans defended against tanks. At this point, tanks were nothing new to Germans, and they would have known that exposing themselves by shooting at them from small arms is not a good idea. Sorry to say that, but this sequence is just lazy.
After this I decided to not waste my time with watching the rest of it. I mean those inaccuracies are pretty bad, but perhaps my biggest complaint is the film's title. Why is it called All Quiet on the Western Front, if it completely misses its point? The book and the previous films duly show how war changes people and their views through the horrific events its participants get to experience, how those views contrasts with those of people who stayed at home (now when I think about it, their portrayal, although implicitly, does better justice to the origin of the Stab-in-the-back myth than the 2022 film), and how one can have compassion even with his "enemy".
This 2022 version doesn't bother to convey this message and instead concentrates on the theme that war is bad, and even this simple, obvious message is poorly delivered.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
How can The Desolation of Smaug fail on so many levels?
I recently started reading the LOTR series, and though the books are not mind blowing, they are pretty good nevertheless. I enjoy them a lot also due to a fact that they explain what was sort of unclear in the movies - interesting details or things that make click in the head and allow you to see the whole picture. And although the movies lacked those here and there, they followed the books very closely and did the source material justice, to viewer's benefit.
Now I can't judge Hobbit the same way because i didn't read it yet, but I suspect that 300 pages book isn't enough material for 8-9 hours of screen time, and this is how the second installment feels. I found many parts of the story unnecessary: Politics in the lake town, skirmish with orcs on river banks and honestly also Gandalf's quest in Dol Guldur. The quest didn't reveal anything new about the Dark Lord; on the contrary it presented him (and the whole place) in surprisingly underwhelming fashion.
The film tries to keep you on the edge of your seat with never ending action and ubiquitous dangers, but it fails miserably. The fellowship always survives, no matter the situation, and I am not even talking about elves being invincible ninjas. It is clearly established that nothing can happen to our heroes, so the opposite of suspension is actually achieved.
The CGI is somehow worse (maybe from overuse?) compared to LOTR and together with the endless bombastic action the movie, to its detriment, feels like a video game.
It also tries too hard to capture the magic of the original movies by showing familiar characters and objects. Thorin is another Aragorn, but with less charisma and not many likable traits. I felt really bad for him when he had his speech in the Lake town about how he will share the gold from Lonely Mountain ... and not much else. The dwarfs are another fellowship, but much less likable? The whole company seems to use Bilbo rather than treat him with respect which doesn't make sense - he saved them all multiple times. I am really curious how it is in the book, but here I couldn't care less about any one from the company due to how they behave. Then Gandalf - he had such presence in originals, but here he is just a shade of himself. Legolas is completely different, jealous, always serious looking killer without traits. And Bilbo has barely any dialogs going for him, which is strange for a Hobbit movie. And there is of course the Arkenstone - the Ring overloaded. I don't know what role the stone played in the book, but maybe it would have been better to treat it differently.
Reading reviews here I am surprised nobody mentioned music. It felt off in many places. For example, when in the Lake town they found that they lack on good weapons and are spied upon, a dramatic, urging music goes off but nothing is really going on on the screen, no danger is approaching.
Last but not least, the ending is, mildly said, over the top, but what disturbs me the most is that the dragon just flies away after they pour gold on him. What kind of plan was that? To make a huge gold statue and drown him in it once it melts? Not only wasn't this plan ever discussed, there is no way I can see it could have worked.
To summarize, I am actually glad that I have seen the movie, because it makes me want to read the book even more than before. But apart from that, I can't recommend it, as the movie is really bad on so many levels.
Don't Breathe (2016)
This movie is plain stupid
I would put a stamp "somehow plausible" on this movie in the beginning but that wouldn't hold much longer after it got so ridiculous towards the middle that I rather spared my precious time by turning it off.
It is true that you have to like or somehow identify with the characters in order to really live the horror and this movie offered a very interesting twist: What if you actually liked also the character causing the horrible things happen? Reading the film's description, I expected a poor (but not exactly when he gets triggered) old vet who is forced to defend himself, and because it is dark and he's on his own battlefield, gives hell to the perpetrators. But they give us a guy who is a total monster and whom I would kill myself and then burglars, who try to justify their crimes by pretending to be some kind of modern Robin Hoods. They are such an unbelievable bunch of characters and their hope, that if they steal enough money, their lives will change, is ridiculous. So you have nobody left you can root for and therefore you don't care that much what happens to them, so you are basically left with jump scares and nonsensical plot.
Because what sense does it make to do houses, steal under 10k, sell the stolen stuff below the market price to a guy who takes 40% for him, and divide it between 3 people? After a few houses, wouldn't the police see the pattern considering the security installations are always the same? Fast forward to the house: Why is the old guy able to magically sniff out shoes but totally misses persons moving next to him, sweating and doing noise in the process? I know that blind people's senses sharpen so that they can eg. tell you what liquor is inside a bottle that just fell to a ground, so that doesn't sound particularly hard. And speaking about blindness, how the hell do you abduct a girl from rich neighborhood, prepare her this harem and never do a mistake such that she can escape, being blind?? And what kind of BS is this idea of impregnating her so that he can have his daughter again?
Needless to say, this was the moment where I quit. I rarely don't make it to the end but this movie just managed to persuaded me that I have my laundry to do. Avoid if you can.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)
Ehmm, could we have something interesting happening please?
I am disappointed even more than after watching the first installment. I hoped the movie makers learned from their mistakes. I expected an interesting plot about Dumbledore and Grindewald, and yes, I wanted to follow an actual plot! But boy, did I want too much? In recent years it certainly seems so.
It is hard to see which from the many plots is the main one. Sure it is named The Crimes of Grindelwald but there is actually very little happening around him. I saw at least 6 story lines which includes the two lovestories, saving the animals, Dumbledore's struggle against ministry, Grindelwald and his vague plan to enlist this Credence guy and Credence's struggle to learn about his past together with Nagini (?). All in all we are presented many characters with many twisted interconnections which are very hard to follow and totally distract from the main and cool stuff, which at least for me was supposed to be the interactions between Dumbledore and Grindelwald and them performing some great magic. I couldn't care less about love stories or shallow sidestories of characters I barely got to know.
And although there are so many characters, there is hardly anything substantial happening on the screen. It is all just sidequests combined with jokes kinda leading to an awkward finale (oh yes, Nazis again). Basically nothing of substance happens between Dumbledore and Grindelwald and Grindelwald hardly does any crimes except for trying hard to be Hitler. And at the end you are presented with a bait to watch the next installment, of course.
The jokes are much more forced than in the first movie. I had the feeling the movie makers desperately wanted to sell this movie both to children and adults, but there are way too many "story"lines and characters for children to follow and the tone is not serious enough for adults. They try to make the tone darker but every now and then interrupt it with outta place silly jokes. Not good.
Also the references felt like being thrown at us without a thought. Yes they show Hogwarts, but they totally lack the magical atmosphere known from HP. They show Dumbledore teaching, but it is a total rip off of Lupin's lecture. Why do they even try to include McGonagall? Or Nagini?
All summed up, this movie is a money grab and unfortunately not an exception in today's movie making full of plotless movies. I read somewhere that there will be 5 Fantastic Beasts films in total. If that is true doesn't matter. A movie this long needs to be good by itself, not just a particle which doesn't make sense on its own. Avoid if you can, and stick to the HP movies.
Fifty Shades Freed (2018)
Am I the only one who will comment on the plot?
Many negative reviews here pose as a swift rejection of the movie as stupid or boring, which doesn't satisfy me. They are just too polarizing and shallow without actually dealing with various qualities of this film in order to find common ground of discussion for both lovers and haters.
I want to concentrate on the plot as something that both audience groups must have noticed. No I will start of as the simplistic reviews I was criticizing, but yes, the plot is boring and half-witted. I mean I really didn't have any expectations at all (I survived the previous two movies just alright) except maybe I was looking for a change in the narrative, maybe reflecting upon all the critics. But no, it is still the same. The film tries to get your attention (again) by boasting about the fortune and the stuff Mr. Grey can buy and really, this was boring in the second movie already. And because there is no chemistry between the leads, it totally looks like the only appeal Grey has towards Anastasia is his body and money. I will take a wild guess here that in the book, as I haven't read them, it goes from wild sex to love, but here the love is not visible at all. And the wild sex neither, I mean it is kinda your everyday sex with few extra tools, nothing steaming hot, just normal stuff. For me, the hotest one was in the car to be honest - the only one with some passion in it.
So this is kinda the first part of the movie - money display. The second (they both mingle) is about Jack Hyde's revenge and here we get from boring to boring and stupid. Jack Hyde is on one hand almost a ghost, a genius who can break into data highly secured centers and apartments and can utilize just a small time window to follow Anastacia as soon she escapes from her detail in that R8. But on the other hand, he is a dummy who gets caught like a small child because he's not careful enough. Then we go through completely unnecessary Anastacia's silence towards Grey as she is forced to meet Jack - totally illogical right? What was her plan you say? And are we supposed to believe, that that driver woman blackmailed by Jack, risking just a new porn video online, would commit such a deed risking being guilt of kidnapping, murder and possibly other charges, spending therefore a lot of time in prison? I don't think so.
Although I am a guy, I do enjoy romantic movies sometimes, but this one is not romantic, is not interesting and doesn't make lot of sense. I went to see it openminded and was disappointed anyway.
No Country for Old Men (2007)
Possibly valid idea ruined by plot holes and resignation
People are trying to figure out what is the message of this film in many reviews. My take is that it tries to deliver an experience similar to Unforgiven (1992). Unforgiven is about giving up on the romantic idea of the life in the West back then, the black and white characters etc. and portrays this time period in a way it might have actually looked like, while it even brings attention to such details, although pretty iconic to conventional westerns, as the way the shootouts were potrait vs. how they really happened or what was required to kill a man. Along these lines, NCfOM tells us or shows us rather that a single man can't resist mafia and professional killers, that the death is not heroic and that there is no happy ending once you get involved in drug business.
This idea is fine and I must admit I like Unforgiven very much and was therefore ready to like NCfOM, but the problem of is the execution of the idea.
The first half of the film is actually pretty good and I was on the edge of my seat there. Especially at the moment where Chigurh was conversating with Carson or Llewelyn made me hope for other character dimensions to come out of these guys, which would have been very enjoyable because these characters were really interesting. But the second half lacks everything you expect at that point which peaks at the end where it fails to deliver any conclusion (though not necessary generally, this movie definitely deserves it) or explanation and at the same time it makes you wonder about the amount of plot holes (were there tens or hundreds? was I asking).
At certain point in the second half (trip to El Paso - won't tell you more, but you will guess it anyway once you see it) the film lost me and I made it to the end just thanks to the momentum of the first half. Seriously, towards the end, the nihilistic, resignated, given up tone was the biggest obstacle for me to finish watching the movie. Put altogether with the unnecessary violence on top, I gladly turned it off eventually and said to myself that I shall now go to sleep, which I should have done at least an hour ago.
Ang-ma-reul bo-at-da (2010)
Way off
I don't understand both the IMDb score and the positive reviews here. I must admit the beginning was fairly ok - punishing murderer's sins could have led to interesting situations and psychology, but the whole point was undermined by everyone acting unbelievably stupid and/or reckless and by the filmmakers, ignoring basic rules of what is possible.
The murderer is outright invincible. He breaks his wrist and has Achilles tendon cut and yet nobody can resist him. He proceeds to kill every person he bumps into although this must have brought unwanted heat on him quite fast. The special agent disregards the growing number of casualties to keep torturing the murderer in the name of his wife, which says more about his cynicism than his caring for her and potential future victims. The police is totally inept and don't get me started on the victims behavior.
Since the first killing after the murderer was let go the whole plot became ridiculous and messy and the violence pointless. The motivations and deeds of the characters were revealed as fantastic, stupid and inconsistent, and at that point I stopped caring about the movie completely and was just waiting for the end which came way slower than I hoped for. All in all, huge disappointment.
Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
I don't hate it, it was just boring
After heaving read so many negative reviews, I managed to hate the movie without seeing it. So I told myself: Let me watch it and give the hate some basis.
The other reviews and possibly also The Force Awakens prepared me well for all the nonsense like ignoring basic rules of physics, of Star Wars etc., so that didn't bother me. What was bad enough though the movie was just too long (or felt too long) and I didn't care about the First Order, the Rebels, nor any of the characters except for Snoke and Poe. The motivations of the characters are unbelievably shallow and exactly that was the reason it didn't get me involved.
Also, I hoped to get answers like who is Snoke, how come is he so powerful and also some explanation of the whole conflict, vainly. What I got instead was battle here battle there, the heroes getting out of trouble with incredible luck through convenient coincidences and wannabe dramatic moments. Business as usual, no surprises (except some rare moments like the Snoke situation or Luke at the end). Pure boredom.
Voldemort: Origins of the Heir (2018)
Not enough money is not an excuse
Let me tell you, that I appreciate the enthusiasm of the fans who made this movie and I think it is especially good for them. They took the matters into their own hands and created something and I value such a thing and it is valued by our society as a whole, I am sure.
But I refuse to give 10/10 just because they are not profis and they didn't have the budget. Instead, I take the film for what it is with that in mind, that a feedback must be sincere in order to serve as basis for a future improvement.
That being said, watching this film was an akward experience for me, although I really approached it with an open mind. Basically I have 3 problems with Voldemort OotH:
1) Acting. I know, not enough money, but we have already seen unknown actors giving superb performances. Here, nobody can act, literally. They were just saying replicas, they didn't live their characters. No one from the cast is likeable or connectable to.
2) The script. I was feeling sorry for the actors here. I mean come on! Just picture it. The first dialog takes place in a casual chat between Tom and his friend, and he just out of the blue says angrily that he will become the greatest wizard ever and his friend answers to it by saying something like: "Tom, I am just a second year student and I hardly know myself, but one thing I know, you will become the greatest wizard ever." It is just silly and unfortunately, the whole script is written in such an unnatural, forced fashion.
3) The film didn't add anything relevant or interesting on top of what was presented in the books.
It is about missed expectations to say the truth, I expected kind of something like Man from Earth, not much cost spent on visuals or actors, but a good idea evolving in interesting story telling us something not yet discovered in the books. What was Voldemort doing the whole time away? How was his quest for a dark magic? How come his body transformed to the snaky look during the years? And so on and so on. I also anticipated some character development, story carried by a good dialogue, but it just didn't happen.
I actually don't know, what the authors wanted to say with this movie. Too bad, because one doesn't need big money for a better script and a good plot.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)
Are you kidding me?
Since when movies like this one took over? No plot, no characters development, no substance, cheap jokes here and there and CGI filling up space. Just another film that tries to squeeze bucks out of franchise without genuine effort.
Nothing happens throughout the whole movie, literally. For the most of it, Eddie Redmayne searches for his beasts and tries to imprison them in his suitcase. We are supposed to be amazed by them, but we have seen alike a long time ago in previous HP, Avatar or even LOTR movies, so they alone simply don't cut it. Then there is a brief fight with "the bad slash confused guys" and that's it.
I had a hard time to find out who is the main villain almost the entire movie, and I definitely didn't discover his motives. The revelation of the villain was stupid and embarrassing and everybody except for hardcore HP fans doesn't have a chance to know what the hell is going on with him. Showing this dark matter damaging streets like each 15 minutes didn't help and got quickly boring, because it didn't pose any actual threat to our heroes, and its only purpose was to fill the holes with CGI and banging sound anyway (I guess).
I felt no connection to any of the characters whatsoever. Redmayne acts like a crazy nerdo who has feelings only for his monsters, Katherine Waterston is uninteresting bureaucratic mouse and her sister behaves like a slut. The baker was OK, but each one of them was acting unnaturally. This is completely different from HP, where I could feel for Harry (or others for that matter) struggling with his substitute family, adaptation to a foreign environment, love, hate and at last burden of great responsibility, and even though Daniel Radcliffe hasn't shown that great performance at least in the first movies, I could relate to him and understand him.
Fantastic Beasts has not brought anything new, we have seen all the wizard stuff before - all the "automated" tools working by themselves, habitable suitcase instead of a tent, creation of this defensive bubble etc. New York didn't help either, gone is the magical atmosphere from UK and Hogwarts. The magic as such is treated just too casually here.
I hadn't expected much, but still was disappointed. The thing is, that this movie isn't nowadays an exception any more, and it strongly reminds me of the last Star Wars movies, whose sole purpose is to grab your money and let you wait for next one in a trilogy to at least get an explanation and some satisfaction. Can't we produce solid standalone movies anymore? What a letdown !
Vikings (2013)
Trying to pretend first half of fourth season did not happen
First of all let me say the first 3 seasons were good, in fact the first two were just great. There is Viking tradition, there are interesting social and cultural differences between Northmen and others, there is vibrant Viking society and mainly, there is Ragnar; cunning Ragnar, who would "give far more than his eye to acquire knowledge". He is a man of progress, whose logic and wit wins against rigidity and stupidity. He is the man, who comes up with new ideas and surprises everyone who wants to defeat him. Finally, he is the only one capable of carrying this show and pushing it forward.
The third season is also pretty good, although it had slowed down a little bit, dragging the story slowly around, but who cares when Ragnar is going to raid the Paris whatever the cost!
As much I like the first three seasons, there is one thing that kept bothering me throughout second and the third one especially. Every time Ragnar kills some of his enemies (earl Haraldson, king Horik), he creates some kind of vacuum in the society he is not able to fill. Yes, he becomes earl and than king nominally, but he doesn't quite behave like one! I mean as Haraldson had been an earl, he had counselor Svein for the dirty stuff and his guard, he was a judge (in fact), blessed children etc. and all in all there was a lot of things happening around him in Kattegat. Not so with Ragnar; he is just kind of there, not ruling whatsoever, and sometimes it just feels like anarchy there, which I find not entirely plausible. Additionaly, as I have mentioned, there is a feeling of emptiness because of this, emptiness, which I am not quite able to describe. Maybe it is happening, because the second and third series already follows more story lines and can't concentrate on Vikings more, which is in my eyes a threat for this show.
Season 4 takes the good things from its predecessors - throws them away - and builds on flawed stuff of the first three seasons - which is emptiness, story distraction and fade-away from Ragnar. Starting with the most serious issue - Ragnar, it was perhaps the worst decision in the whole show to screw him up. For the entire season 4a, he feels old and tired, doesn't have any desire to explore and raid, doesn't care for his people and children much, and as if it wasn't already too bad, we have to watch him as he becomes a drug addict. This alone is just enough for me. The writers basically take the character majority of viewers cares about most and flush him into toilet. I know he must die eventually, but instead of seeing him suffering for about 9 hours (!!), it would be better to kill him off at his zenith.
Another issue, that hardly appeared in the first three series - there are many meaningless scenes which just kind of fill the time. Consider the whole Wessex feminist thing with Judith - so much time is wasted on her becoming tough and independent, but I don't see a reason why - this is something suitable for 20th century, not 9th. On the other hand there is not much explanation on key events such as why Rollo gave up on his manhood and turned into french nobleman and loving husband so easily.
The emptiness and anarchy I was talking about is really apparent in season 4. It is no more the king Ragnar and his people or the vibrant society from early seasons, it is a mixture of random characters with no depth being around. Typical ruling day of king Ragnar consists of throwing knives, ignoring everyone, doing crazy stuff and taking drugs in the shack, stalking on the rooftop and making a foreplay with that Chinese girl. Björn tries to look as serious as possible, which makes his character so flat it makes me wonder about Ragnar's successor's ability to lead the show (I doubt any of the sons is capable of that). Than the whole thing with Erlendur's revenge is wasted, as everybody knows from the start Björn will not die and Erlendur has even got no plan; when Kalf was still alive, there was a chance to take advantage of it, but now he wants to kill Björn and then will see what's next, probably.
I totally agree with others that it has become a soap opera. Consider king Finehair's arrival. It peaks at the end of an episode, when he basically says in front of everybody he wants to overthrow Ragnar, but that situation is not expanded in the next episode, which is typical for soap operas. Speaking of new characters, they are very uninteresting, and especially Yidu is a complete waste of time, and besides I find presence of a Chinese in the fjord disturbing, she just shouldn't be there; her only purpose is to be a drug dealer anyway. Then there is lot of uninteresting talking about family, children (everybody is with a child now, hearing this gives me an allergic reaction) and how it is being a father, which is just boring. And I can't help myself, but the families look like projections of 21th western family values - different from earlier seasons where we could see more freedom in sexual life and less sensitivity about children and death. Overall the episodes are too talkative and while basically nothing happens in most episodes, everything must have happened in the last one and it created a big mess, but I will not comment on that.
For me, Vikings end with the season 3 and the 4a just does not exist. I am actually reviewing the first season recently and friend I enjoy it as never, because I have found the old Ragnar again and the true nature of Vikings with him.
Vikings: Portage (2016)
Finally some interesting episode
It is strange how suddenly the Vikings have changed the direction. Seasons 1 and 2 were full of Ragnar's energy, wit and surprising moments, season 3 had slowed down a little, but still was pretty good, showing us new powerful people, new places and new opportunities for Vikings.
Not so season 4. Throughout all 8 episodes, Ragnar is suffering - and lacking almost everything I liked about him. He doesn't (until episode 8) come up with new ideas, doesn't want to go to Paris or discover new places, feels old and tired, doesn't rule in any way so it looks more like anarchy there and so on. He is just a shadow of his glorious past.
****** SPOILERS AHEAD ********
Then there are these new uninteresting characters. The king Finehair arrives, basically says he wants to overthrow Ragnar, I expect some tense things to happen, but .. in the next episode Finehair just combs his hair in the harbor and Ragnar behaves like nothing happened. And this Chinese girl is totally wasted - much of a screen time is spent on introducing her, but her only purpose is to make Ragnar an addict - what the hell? Additionally this whole emancipation Sweet Judith thing feels so weird and forced. In previous seasons, Judith had feelings for Athelstan and their baby and some character depth, but now she is just being annoying in way like "Look how tough have I become", and again, it fills so much screen time in the series and probably for nothing.
Luckily episode 8 had finally brought some fresh air. Ragnar shows after long long time his wit and comes up with something apparently nobody has every attempted before, despite other's opinion - that's the Ragnar I like. Queen Kwenthrith is no more a queen and is killed eventually and so is count Odo. These two were pretty interesting actors, so I am curious, who replaces them, on the other hand, at least something's happening. Be removing Kwenthrith from the rule, Ecbert shows again his mercilessness and it is why I love this guy. He is really consistent so far (compare it with Ragnar) and gives a great performance.
The moment when I was cheering the most (and where Ragnar surprised me completely) was killing the Yidu. Ragnar isn't that weak after all. Only downside is he's got the drugs, which shouldn't be there in the first place (as well as Yidu). The whole drug issue is so embarrassing and destructive for Ragnar's character that I just pray to God before every episode that this 'ancient Chinese medicine' will be gone for good as if it never existed (like many director's cuts).
********* END OF SPOILERS ********
Hope the remaining episodes catch up.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
It was so good at the beginning, but ...
I don't remember any other movie with such a potential that while looking absolutely promising at the beginning was more and more falling steep down to the level of garbage until the end finally came.
**SPOILERS AHEAD**
At first 5 minutes you meet the main villain - knight wearing a mask and cross light saber - looking mysteriously and tough at the same time, ready to kill and use his strong force. This is good approach as you don't meet the main villain after like an hour as you did in episode II. Additionally there is a storm-trooper, who decides after seeing his fella got shot to escape from villains and saves a rebel pilot, who knows something about a map showing whereabouts of the last Jedi.
This set up was really good and Abrams could have made a fortune out of it, but what does he do? He spoils it entirely.
The first issue are the storm-troopers who look like idiots with plastic around their bodies and toy pistols. Episode III in spite of its cons was better here as it managed to portray the clone army like regular soldiers with camouflage when deployed in specific terrain and mature guns and tactics. You can consider it a trifle, but I haven't started yet.
After a while you meet the heroine, who is beautiful but uninteresting. She is another tough life experienced girl but she's really something, as she can fly a ship without experience like a vet and escapes from tie fighters, fixes everything in range and is incredibly good in fighting of any kind. She teems up with ex storm-trooper and meets Han Solo and his hairy fella. With these guys together I have seen some completely meaningless scenes, as they fight with two gangs and unleashed monsters in Millennium Falcon for example, which doesn't contribute to the story in any way.
This is the place, where the movie already feels weird, because story is stuck. The villains are searching for the map, but nothing much is really happening. Our good team fights bad guys here and there and manages to escape every time with incredible luck and some out of place jokes.
To make things bad you learn, that the sith knight is a son of Han and Leia, whom Luke taught in using the force, but got seduced by some sith (you see him only as huge hologram and never find out, what is his story) and that they feel the good is still inside him. This kind of removes part of the mystery around him, which is not appropriate at this time and it deserves at least revelation about reasons, why he turned dark side or what is his story, but you never find out, so it looks very shallow. To screw things completely up, the sith knight takes off his mask in the middle of the movie. OK, at least show us someone, who looks really bad and determined. But what the heck have I seen? I have seen a kid who looks like professor Snape in his twenties!!! Weak looking child with shovel face. That act completely removes his aura and I wasn't able to see him as the menacing hero any more.
Film starts to be really ridiculous now. The First order (villains) looks exactly like Nazis - with their black uniforms, stupid looking caps, wannabe strict faces, red-black flags and their panzer faust" greetings. The moment, where I was really laughing how embarrassing it has become, was the speech of general Hux, who was trying to look like Hitler as much as possible. They want to destroy the rebels, but I didn't see any reason to do that, there is no objective, no strategy, they just want to destroy their planets with another death star. Yeah
again. When you don't have new ideas, make the things right by making them 20 times bigger. But why did villains want to destroy them, why they hate the rebels so bad?
Our team led by Han Solo arrives at rebel base after embarrassing meeting with general Leia (who looks absolutely uninteresting – kind of reminds me fourth Indiana Jones – guess why) goes to the rebel base and they somehow discover the plans of first order right away. After this the film becomes another movie with search and destroy objective - mission impossible goal, which you know they will complete and will save the galaxy. I haven't said that but the story is really predictable from the beginning and there probably wasn't single key surprising moment. So it is no surprise, when the rebels destroy death star.
What might be surprising is that storm trooper and the girl, both totally untrained in using the force, give the sith knight a hard time fighting him with light saber and he loses eventually. Are you kidding me?? In both prequels and original movies you see that to become good with saber one must be trained extensively, but our heroes do not need that – it was their second time holding light saber and the girl defeats trained sith ? Why didn't he at least use the force against them?
The end was so boring and laughable that I wanted to walk away as soon as possible. According to the map, the girl finds Luke Skywalker standing on top of the hill on some abandoned rocky island (looks like he was standing there for ages) and gives him light saber tribute. What was the reason Luke quit teaching, just one youngling turned the dark side, is it enough to let anything go? I don't believe that. And is the arrival of the girl with sword enough to bring Luke back? I don't believe that either.
**END OF SPOILERS**
This movie is full of cliché and is so predictable and uninteresting, that I can't recommend it to anyone.
Harsh Times (2005)
Something completely different than what I'd expected
I've read a short summary of what 'Harsh Times' is about here on IMDb and couple of reviews. After this I had got the feeling that it is going to be like the 'Training day' - how the things on the street are going on, inside look into the gangs etc. I love 'Training day' so I was really looking forward to seeing 'Harsh Times'.
***********SPOILERS AHEAD*************
Instead of it, I've seen a movie about selling a stolen gun and thinking about a new job. This already says, that there is no actual plot whatsoever. It's just about few days of some people in LA and Mexico.
There is nothing much going on at the first hour (except of beginning which was really promising)! The two friends are trying to get high and laid, meeting their uninteresting friends, looking for problems here and there, doing this and that in order to find a new job etc. There are some good tense or funny moments but it is overall boring, it doesn't follow any story and every scene looks random.
The film starts to be more interesting after the first hour, when Jim (Bale) gets a new job in Federal Task force in Colombia but then it drops again to the low level of the first hour. The last gripping moment is at the end when Jim gets crazy, gets shot and his friend Mike has to finish him (this scene was actually very good). It means the film has some opportunities - some good scenes - to get attractive, but never make use of them; 'Harsh Times' fails to build something watchable on these sequences, expanding them. Lost potential.
***********END OF SPOILERS*************
The main characters are difficult to like - as well as the others (Mike's wife, Mike's and Jim's friends ...). I couldn't feel any sympathy to any of them nor could I understand the motives of their actions. The dialog between Jim, Mike and their buddies is irritating, same every time, full of 'Man', 'Bro', 'Dawg', 'Homie...' crap and hand greetings. Problem is that it looks and sounds so forced in 'Harsh Times' and therefore quite unbelievable and embarrassingly.
Conclusion: Overall uninteresting except some promising moments, full of missed opportunities, monotonous dialogs (wannabe gangsta), unlikeable characters, no plot = disappointment. And at the top of the things it is incomparable to 'Training Day' - can't figure out why people compare these two movies to each other. Training Day has a great plot, good action, surprising and tense development. Harsh Times lacks it all.
The Night Flier (1997)
One of the best King's adaptations, really
In spite this being definitely a B-movie, it is much more successful with short Night Flier's story than many other more ambitious films trying to work with King's novels. The problem is that often King's stories are quite lengthy and for them to work, they need a lengthy setup, and it's hard to make this work in a movie. That's why I didn't expect much from this adaptation, but in the end I was pleasantly surprised. Now I wonder why the rating is only so low on this one.
This film is more about mystery than jump scares, which is pretty rare in horror genre. But it really has everything that a decent horror needs: tension, excitement, dull atmosphere, mysterious villain and one really great scene which I found more frightening than majority of more conventional horror movies can offer.
One of the things I like the most here is the depiction of the vampire - he is a charming man who has great influence on the minds of his victims and can transform himself into an awful monster. That is the right depiction of King's vampire! This vampire isn't like Barlow in Salem's Lot (1979) who looks like some hissing blue rat! Miguel Ferrer is a great match for him and really gives his best performance. I quite liked his character despite his actions were sometimes despicable.
Overall very decent movie. You will enjoy and you even don't have to be Stephen King's fan.
Brestskaya krepost (2010)
Overall solid but with unconvincing battles
I've expected a bit more from Brestskaya krepost. Thanks to the rating, I was looking forward to experience a different (Russian) view on Eastern front and was awaiting accuracy on battlefield which I am pretty sensitive about. Everything went good till German attack.
POSITIVES first:
-All visuals are good and so are the uniforms, vehicles etc.
-Film managed really good to build "calm before the storm" atmosphere. I could feel the tension in the air and it made me to continue watching.
-The film covers everything important in my opinion. Some reviewers have written about a feeling that Russians act in Brestskay krepost like it is theirs for ages and that Russians have committed many crimes in Poland which should have been shown in the movie too. I had this feeling also but I disagree with these reviewers about a matter of showing the background of Russian occupation in 1939-1941. I don't think it would add anything important to the story.
NEGATIVES:
-Overall battle performance and tactics of both sides were at least strange. As the Germans were advancing in extended order towards the Russians first time, the Russians have counter-attacked into the close combat instead of ambush and relatively safe shooting from the building. There was absolutely no reason to do that. This scene would be much more typical for Napoleonic wars than for 1941. Furthermore, attacking in urban areas in extended orders is nonsense. In reality, it was about quick moves, searching for cover, covering comrades etc. German infantry could have used some armored vehicles and move with them while hiding themselves behind them.
-Waves of Germans trying to get closer to the Russians, who were defending buildings and fortress, while running without cover or covering fire and therefore dying instantly. Although close quarter combat was not yet developed in these days, since 19th century there was a common practice in military of dividing infantrymen into at least two units or "platoons" where one covers the second during its advance and then they change roles. It would be more believable if one German unit would provide massive fire on Russian positions and the second unit would quickly advance and take some good positions, ready to cover the others.
-One of the German objectives was saving lives of their soldiers which makes the scene with captives quite unbelievable. I don't think they could have exposed their soldiers to potential fire because of some doubtful intent, probably to make Russians negotiate or what.
-Many times, Germans shout without a reason just ... to make them look more German? This is at least the Hollywood's idea of Germans but I didn't expect this in a Russian film. For example, they shout at each other: "Be aware of windows, fire at will, fire..." which are pretty "empty" useless phrases, while they are already fighting. When they are yelling this during taking a building, it becomes a problem because they tend to reveal their position to the enemy.
In spite of the negatives, it was a solid movie. If you are not as sensitive about the battles as I am, you will definitely enjoy.
Stalingrad (2013)
Doesn't deserve such rating!
Yeah I know, there are stupid scenes like burning soldiers still fighting, or intro and outro which were completely unnecessary. But still, I liked it.
This is one of few movies where both sides die in a tolerable rate. It's not like quite a few American movies with 100 enemies dead in relation to each dead American. Thank God there are no shots from the hip which a I hate so much. Everybody aims before shooting. The battles may be somehow unrealistic in some ways but if you compare it to other movies like Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates, you have to admit that the battles in Stalingrad are much more enjoyable and sometimes more realistic. Frankly, I think that Stalingrad is as good or maybe as stupid as SPR and EatG are.
The big difference between them is that while the American movies contain many stupid scenes too, these are able to cover them in a coat of manipulation, wannabe historical events, pretended realism and gore, so the people who let themselves to be manipulated or who don't know much about history of war don't recognize the stupidity. Stalingrad doesn't try to hide anything in my opinion. Some scene look thank to this more infantile but overall the Stalingrad is honest (doesn't pretend to be historical or realistic too much) in comparison to the American films which is fact I praise.
This is the reason why the rating of Stalingrad should be at least as good as by SPR or EatG or the other way around.
The Deer Hunter (1978)
Really overrated
Another big letdown. I don't simply understand what the others find so amazing about this film. The rating absolutely doesn't fit. The Deer Hunter is long and boring, insulting, full of nonsense and misinformation.
One big disappointment has come when I found out that this is no war film. There is a little footage from Vietnam and almost nothing from combat. It is called war film so I expected war. I don't want to speak about the nonsenses like Russian roulette all over Asia, 7 years long Russian roulette career, saving friend from Russian roulette through playing Russian roulette... Man I got sick of Russian roulette here, too much of it. These things have been already mentioned in other reviews.
I want to talk about the editing and script. As I thought The Deer Hunter is a war movie, I've expected something like 10 - 15 minute introduction and then training or directly Vietnam war where you can see some gradual character's development through the realism and horrors of war. I was mistaken. After first promising 5 minutes comes the 50 minutes long(!!!) wedding situation which is probably supposed to teach us about the main characters and get like them, but it goes on and on and seems like never-ending bore! It is literally empty! While watching this I was at first like: "Ok, this will last about 10 minutes, no problem." After another 10 minutes: "Ok, half an hour, I can take this." After 45 minutes: "God, it looks like the first half of movie is just wedding!" The pace was so slow and it didn't change during the whole film. Additionally, the amount of information you learn during this sequence could be told in 5 minutes. You learn that our friends like drinking alcohol, doing mess, hunting, shouting, fighting, wasting beer, being loud all the day and that they eventually go to the Vietnam. I've seen movies where such behaviour was funny or at least tolerable, but here it is so annoying when it occurs like each 5 minutes! On the other hand there is nothing told about their background, their motives, how and why did they get to Nam war... I really wanted to learn why Cazale (Stanley) is such an idiot, pointing that little gun at people all the time. The characters are really unlikeable since the beginning except for DeNiro and Walken maybe. The wedding and hunting situation ends with moving moment where one guy is playing piano and others are staring at him.
After long 65 minutes!!, the movie immediately moves to a village in Nam, where DeNiro shoots one VC and then meets his friends (what coincidence). There is no explanation of how they joined the army, how they got there, nothing. 10 seconds after meeting, few grenades explode outside the village and at this point the film immediately jumps again to a scene where our friends are imprisoned in a tiger cage in a VC camp. And again no explanation of what and how. While watching the Deer Hunter, I was getting the feeling that the movie is somehow ripped apart, incoherent.
This brings me to another issue. I didn't find out what is the main story to follow. Is it the wedding and DeNiro's secret love to Meryl Streep? Is it the promise that DeNiro will never leave Walken in Nam? Is it about the way our friends deal with war? What is it? I think there should have been some main plot, otherwise it's difficult to follow the movie.
DH contains heavy load of scenes which are unnecessarily long or unnecessary at all with meaningless dialogues. Consider for example the sequence where they argue about the boots before they go hunt. First of all, Cazale gets out of car and repeats five times: "This is not it." Then they eat, do mess, shout, fight for mustard, throw bags, waist beer and throw food again (Everyone who likes order must find it disturbing and I do). Then, Cazale asks DeNiro if he could borrow his boots. DeNiro says no. Cazale doesn't know if NO means NO or YES so they argue, DeNiro says Cazale forgets boots every time, Cazale says that DeNiro is gay, DeNiro says couple more times NO, friends wonder what is the matter with him and both Cazale and DeNiro end up angry. This lasts almost 10 minutes and every bit of the scene is meaningless! And impact of this scene? It has no impact on the story at all! Movie goes on after this and DeNiro and Cazale behave like nothing has happened. The editor could have cut out this scene and nobody would even notice! You don't see any explanation for what has just happened or what was DeNiro's motive to be so strict about the boots, but it's typical for the Deer Hunter. It is not like there is some room for you to guess how it could have happened. There are some serious story holes in the film.
The scenes like these, especially wedding situation where 10 minutes would have sufficed, should have been reduced or deleted and Cimino should have paid more attention to explanatory scenes, which could have made the movie cohesive.
Last problem I want to mention is the sound of Deer Hunter. Have anybody of you noticed too, that The Deer Hunter is pretty loud? I mean the voices of our characters are silent in comparison with the noise in the background (factory, wedding, Saigon...) and in order to hear the voices I had to keep volume on higher level, which has made watching the movie really uncomfortable for my ears. I actually loved quiet moments in DH.
All in all, The Deer Hunter is one of the biggest disappointments I have ever experienced in film watching. I gave one star more for DeNiro who was in spite of all the cons good as always.
28 Days Later... (2002)
What is the reason for 7.7 ?
I've got to stop watching the ratings first. It's the best option to avoid the big movie let downs. Same story here, attracted by the ratings, I was looking forward to see "28 days later" impatiently.
First minutes looked promising (except the monkeys situation). I like the sequences with individuals walking around while nobody else is there. The film looked cheap, but that is not a big issue from my point of view. Now, the biggest problem is the actual plot. There are way too many holes. Im prepared to take some amount of nonsensical scenes while watching this kind of movies but this film went over my limits. Among the most obvious (I am sure that one could count over one hundred idiotic sequences here but i will be brief):
-The Selena is tough as nails from the beginning, girl with no problem killing her partner. She is prepared to let others in a trouble in order to survive but later on she turns out to be sensitive and pretty weak little girl. On the other hand, the weak and confused bicycle courier Jim becomes strong and battle experienced at the end and takes out the evil military squad by using his hands and unleashing the zombie in order to save the girls(what ???). And I almost forgot that when he finds a gun, he gets rid of it, because his hands are so much more effective against trained soldiers.
-After saving Jim's life Mark tells him there is no electricity right? So how is it possible that 3 minutes later Jim watches a video tape? And where the light in the store came from? Did someone at least read the script before making this movie?
-Why have all the people abandoned all protection clothes at the beginning? (Mark and Selena, Daddy, Soldiers, all of them were protected as we saw them first time) If the Daddy would have kept at least the goggles, he could live.
-Jim continues to do stupid decisions. What was the reason he went inside the gas station? It was completely unnecessary and he was risking his life just to feel free or what. And why did they take the tunnel shortcut? The Daddy was inconsistent here. First time we saw him, he was a man dedicated to protection of his daughter, but now he was risking lives of his crew and almost got caught by zombies and then made fun of it.
-Why the soldiers show up on the road block so late, I mean after the Daddy gets infected? Wouldn't it be better to say 'Hello' as soon as possible and avoid problems? While the infected were moving every time like freaks on a speed, I wouldn't have a hard time telling the infected and healthy apart.
-Strange that the soldiers got crazy so early. The evac took place one month ago, that is a short time to become a psycho with sex as the only thing you care about.
-Looking at the infected soldier on the chain I had the feeling it wasn't a good idea mainly if you walk through wrong door at night to take a leak. When they watched the infected soldier, they didn't keep any safe distance which should avoid landing infected blood on their faces.
-Considering their survival situation, why were the soldiers wasting bullets while looking for Jim just to make sure he isn't for example in a tent over there instead of making few steps forward? The execution of Jim and sarge was stupid too. I think the major needed every man able to fire a weapon to increase their chances to survive.
I have another 99 problems with that but let me skip it. Big let down considering the film looked good at the beginning and the promising ratings here.
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
One of the worst war movies ever
Since I know a thing or two about WW2 I just cannot like this film. The plot doesn't make any sense. Sacrifice the whole "rescue" unit for sake of one's paratrooper's life? Is a search for one man (not rescue exactly) worth risking lives of a whole squad? Furthermore, how can someone expect of a small unit, which consists of bunch of infantrymen, to find one man in such a vast area? There was a big mess after attack of allied paras. They were spread all over the huge invasion area with heavy loses. Someone wrote here the idea to call 101st on radio to pull Ryan back. Realistically that would have been the best thing to do.
This movie is unbelievably insulting. The Germans are portrayed way too cartoonish as blood-thirsty savages (Americans are the good guys of course) and completely inept enemy at the same time, which of course wasn't true. The Germans were a tough enemy in spite of the fact that most of their soldiers were not equipped and trained as well as in the earlier years. If you think the portrayal of Germans in this movie is realistic, what was the reason the war lasted so long? Just bad luck and weather? No way. Some reviewers wrote that there is nothing stupid about Germans here because they made mistakes like slow reaction to the D-day or wrong estimation of the invasion's spot. But that is comparing apples to oranges - it has nothing to do with the quality of individual German units, and is a poor justification for showing individual soldiers behave stupidly for no reason.
The first scene is very intense, I'll give it that, though not accurate (MGs shooting endlessly, landing spot being to short and brutal), but I was bored by what came after. The movie tries hard to make one sympathize with the (action movie) characters but I just couldn't due to them being so ingenuine. Spielberg wants us to think they are battle hardened soldiers, but here they really feel like actors who try hard but miss the point of what being in a war was like.
The final scene is so stupid that I doubt many people actually recalled it while reviewing the whole movie. First, the Germans are constantly running from left to right and right to left in front of shooting Americans - say what you want about Germans being not trained well, but this is just not how anyone who wants to live behaves! On the other hand the Americans also run uncovered many times but with apparently greater deal of luck. In reality they would have been killed instantly if they would run across a street in front of a Tiger, which has a machine gun in the front. The rules which apply to Germans somehow don't apply to Americans.
The tactics performed by both Americans and Germans here is laughable. Germans wouldn't enter a town with tanks ahead and infantry behind them because the tanks are vulnerable in urban areas. Germans knew this to be true latest since 1941. The attack on the radar station is weird as well. The defenders were surely part of a bigger unit. It is obvious that after killing the defenders the Americans should have retired using "Hit and run" tactics because other Germans could have entered the fight. Instead of it, they argue on the very spot they've just captured about a sense of their mission like there is nothing to worry about.
All in all this film doesn't deserve the praise and it's sad how such disrespectful (to history, to Germans), cliché driven, American-centric movie still retains so much popularity. Don't watch it if you like history and portrayal of it in the way it actually happened.
Salem's Lot (1979)
Disappointment
I was really looking forward to seeing Hooper's Salem's Lot after reading many positive reviews here on IMDb. I am skeptical a bit about ratings of the classic horror movies so I didn't expect much, but I was really disappointed after watching this one. Salem's Lot is my favourite book and I've read it first - may be a problem too. You should watch the movie first in order to enjoy it more I suppose.
First hour is slow and boring. Hooper tries to cover too much from the book introduction, which is bad idea I think and it takes too much time and too much of your energy. There is nothing much going on in this part, except for Straker moving around mysteriously and the coffin situation - not enough for an hour. Hooper of course follows a book here, but I didn't care after 30 minutes about the dialog between the characters and was waiting for the vampires to finally show up.
They really did show up after 64 minutes. The moment, when the kid vampire was knocking on a window, was pretty cool. This happened couple times more but wasn't interesting any more. The vampires continue breeding then.
Although this was a moment I was waiting for, I didn't enjoy it my friend. Hooper has failed to build any kind of tension. The scenes where the vampires kill are not scary at all. In addition I didn't care about any of the characters because I wasn't given chance to like at least one of them. You don't have an opportunity to get to know their motives. You do sometimes but they are just too shallow and not believable.
The biggest let down came after Barlow had finally appeared. He should be the boss of the vampires, charming man with ability to look like human with aura of authority. Instead of it you meet something, that looks like a blue rat, like some Straker's pet. What a shame! And on top of everything I have mentioned here there is not one scary moment in the whole movie. I don't understand how did many of others get petrified after watching this.
Waste of time if you have already read the book.