drkallianc1 Reviews

Barbarian (2022)

Largely Functional Movie That Peters Out A Bit In The End

[7/10 · 17 September 2022]

Discussing this movie without bringing up spoilers is actually really difficult, but I'm gonna try.

It's atmospheric and stiflingly uncomfortable when it wants to be and funny when it wants to go that route instead, which is something I did not see coming. The scares are solid and the characters are well done with enough questions to keep you going.

The closest comparison I have is Don't Breathe in its solid set up and presentation that has several missteps in the final third. It's not all bad in either case, and I probably prefer this resolution over Don't Breathes, but I feel like someone who likes one will at least enjoy the other.

There are more than a few unbelievable moments in the finale along with inconsistencies that aren't enough to derail the production on their own, but, when put together, really add up to a lackluster resolution, that has just enough to keep your head above water.

It's not a terrible conclusion. Just not as good as the preceding two thirds.

Overall. Certainly good for at least one watch.

Some may find it warrants a second.

Paddington 2 (2017)

A Certified Banger

[9/10 · 3 September 2022]

I specifically watched this movie because a YouTube guy I watch has a half-joking bit about it being the only "Perfect Movie". It isn't completely perfect, but it is as close to perfect as a movie can be.

Humor is on point. The story is solid and goes in fun and unexpected directions. It gave me everything I wanted and certain things I didn't know I wanted.

When I got my friends to watch the first one with me they were expecting a decent movie and were shook by how good the first one is and neither of them believed the second could possibly be better.

After we watched this one, they were, once again, shook with all expectations exceeded.

Neither of these movies have any right to be as good as they are.

Tenet (2020)

Has All The Impressiveness and Emotional Investment of Watching a Master Play 3D Chess

[6/10 · 21 December 2020]

The first half of this movie is the densest exposition I have every witnessed and it is a chore to try to keep up with as they just speed run a string of heists in order to set up the second half, which is the actual "movie". It is a visually impressive feat to behold, but there is not a single "character" in this film, just chess pieces. Honestly, I would say the film could approach perfection if it had an additional hour add onto the beginning to give the characters actual personalities and give the audience time to process what they're being told. As is, it's so much so fast that it's completely disorienting. The second half is the real meat of the film and it becomes more like watching a master playing 3D chess where it's just stunning to see, though it is a touch predictable if you manage to catch on to any concepts presented in the first half. The story and characters are stupidly basic as to not get in the way of the super complex machinery of the concepts. The villain is a cartoon character and only three people get names, none of which I could tell you until over half way through the film. Go in understanding that people don't matter in this movie. They are pieces and cogs. What you end up with is something without characters, emotional investment, or any meaningful story, but is a very impressive Rube Goldberg Machine nonetheless.

47 Meters Down (2017)

A Weak Movie, But Not Without It's Merits

[5/10 · 15 June 2017]

47 Meters Down, AKA In The Deep, is a truly uneven movie experience. It has some moments that are truly wonderful that are marred by obvious issues and some truly awful moments that have a shimmer of something good within. In the end, it can neither shine as a great movie (or even a good one for that matter), nor does it dissolve into the enjoyable nonsense of a horrible one. Instead, it just lingers somewhere in the realm of mediocre.

Our two characters feel the need to spell every little thing out for us, and, by five minutes in to them actually being trapped in the cage, it was close to unbearable. There is no risk of anyone missing a single important (or unimportant) detail, as if you don't see or are unable to interpret the information for yourself, don't worry. They will tell you what they see and what it means in excruciating detail.

There are moments of serious tension of the girls outside of the cage. When they are floating in the water with everything around them clouded, you truly feel like a shark could pop out at any moment. However, the sharks only seem to show up when it is most convenient. The movie cannot seem to decide whether the sharks are purposely trying to get them or just kind of meandering about and only attacking when they happen upon them. If they could have just decided on one and stuck with it, it would have drastically improved the final product. It strives to be smart many a time, but barely manages to pull itself up to average. The only thing that manages to pull slightly above average is the cinematography, and, even then, it is primarily in the last twenty minutes or so that you get some truly awe inspiring shots.

In the end, a very average movie with the occasional spark of something.

30 Days of Night (2007)

Good Idea, I Suppose, But Fails Miserably

[3/10 · 17 November 2008]

I accept the idea that 30 days of night would be heaven on earth for a vampire, that being said, it doesn't happen that way in any part of the world, it's not scientifically possible. However, even if I chose to ignore that major detail (which, quite honestly, I did for the sake of enjoying the film) there were just too many problems with this movie for it to actually be anything more than barely watchable.

First of all, the violence got choppy (and I mean really really choppy), so much so that I could barely tell what was going on when it probably would've been really cool to see. It's almost as if they couldn't hold their camera man was ADD or the camera was too heavy for him or something. It simply got really annoying really quickly.

Second, I absolutely hate it when characters know way more than they should. For instance (and this isn't a spoiler because it's true with all vampire myths, except when you talk about that piece of trash book Twilight, but that's not important) how the hell do they know that the vampires don't like sunlight? They "explain" their reasoning, but it's such a stretch that within two seconds I came up with a million other, more plausible reasons for their "explanation" besides that they don't like the sun. I know that they could have come up with a better way of telling us that.

Third I'll compile my issues with the vampires themselves (since there are only two) when the vampires attack someone it's like their having a freaking seizure. They keep flailing their heads around, it actually looks really funny and I had to keep from laughing, which is not good when your supposed to be scared by them. My other issue with the vamps, one minute they seem like intelligent hunters, the next they seem like mindless killing machines, back to intelligent hunters, mindless... intelligent... mindless... they switch back n' forth so much I could never quite wrap my head around what I supposed to think about them! Fourth and finally (without going into spoilers that is) I watched this movie expecting a frightening horror movie... it wasn't scary, and it can only be classified as horror for a few short seconds (and anything with vampires has to be horror). For the most part, it was a slow romp through the snow here, and some gory action there... I would classify it more as drama or action than horror.

However, the look and feel of the film was good, I liked the art style a lot, so I was really hoping it was going to be good, and the story was not all that bad, enough plot holes to bug me, but I expect a few here and there... but it wasn't good, and it takes a lot more than an amazing art style and over the top gore to impress me (a matter of fact, over the top gore bugs me, I like realistic gore, that's always fun, but too much just gets way to in your face and distracts from the film itself).

Appaloosa (2008)

It's Watchable, I Suppose

[3/10 · 26 October 2008]

I guess if you're a fan of Westerns, you'll be more inclined to forgive this movie's many flaws. However, seeing as I enjoy Westerns, but I'm not particularly a fan of them, I didn't forgive a single one of them.

From the opening sequence I was thoroughly disappointed with the acting. Everyone except Ed Harris sounded like they were reading from cue cards off screen, so I became annoyed early on and the movie did nothing at all to redeem itself. The story moved along at a snails pace and, except for one part, was very very predictable. Also, for a Western movie, there was very little action. Appaloosa's does have some good points though. The action sequences they did have were brilliant and realistic (which I really appreciated). There were no drawn out gun sequences, they were quick and packed full of shooting, which makes perfect sense, since everyone in the gunfights are supposed to be well trained gunman. And the acting did gradually get better, all the way up until the last few lines, which were, again, delivered like being read from cue cards.

Like I said before, if you are a fan of Westerns, you'll probably be a lot more forgiving than I am being, so you should probably go ahead and see this movie. If you're like me, and can enjoy a Western but not particularly a fan, then ignore it. Yeah, it's watchable and you won't feel like you completely wasted your time, but there's a lot of times when you'll be thinking "Okay, someone either needs to get shot or this movie needs to end."

The Number 23 (2007)

The Number is Everywhere...

[6/10 · 21 September 2008]

I absolutely adore this movie, despite a few minor issues. I found the story to be deep and intelligent with an incredible performance by all the cast. And the further the film goes the more you can feel the paranoia of the number, and that paranoia is what keeps the film feeling insane and amazing. There are hardly any scenes wasted and all the hidden 23s kept me looking for it, even after the film was over.

I've been hearing that a lot of people were having issues taking Jim Carrey seriously because of his previous works as a comedian. However, if you just look at him as a character and not think of his other roles while you watch the movie, he does deliver an incredible performance.

Now, here are my few issues with the movie. There are a couple plot holes that distract momentarily from the overall feel, but, if you're not paying attention you probably won't notice them. However, they are there none the less. The major plot holes were that some people did not react to a situation the way that they normally would, and the morals of one character in particular (I will not say which one so I don't have to put a spoiler alert on this) change so drastically that it is hardly believable, however, again, if you're not paying attention, you probably will not notice this issue.

The major thing that makes this movie so incredible is the paranoia. The story is great, the acting is incredible, and the projection of the entire film was exceptional, but the paranoia just drove the whole thing home and made it top notch. If you don't like films that are strongly relying on paranoia, then you have absolutely no reason to see this film. However, if you love paranoia as much as I do, then this is a film you cannot afford to not see.

Hancock (2008)

Will Smith Barely Keeps This One From Being Complete Trash

[5/10 · 1 September 2008]

I was really pumped for Hancock when I first saw the commercials for it. Will Smith playing a disgruntled superhero whom starts to try to be a good hero, what could go wrong? Well... where should I start? First of all, I was expecting and funny comedy, but got an attempt at being a serious superhero film not based on a comic book, but fell flat. The concept itself was good, but the execution was just plan poorly done. I genuinely enjoyed the film in the beginning, Will Smith was witty and funny, but then it fell into the same old rut with an stupid story that almost anyone you pull off the street could have written. It would have been better if they had just stuck with the whole "superhero trying to do the right thing but messing up" idea instead of dragging it out into some bull crap story that failed to be even relatively plausible in any sense. I was so disappointed with everything that followed a certain point when they needed Hancock once again. Also, it took the movie so long to get into the real plot that it had me thinking that we were already in the main part of the story, then it just switched up on me, leaving me confused and annoyed.

The movie's saving grace, the beginning. Right from when a kid wakes up Hancock to have him stop some robbers and Hancock completely tells him off, it's funny and enjoyable. Will Smith plays his role well, just like he always does and the rest of the cast does an okay job at going about their roles, none of which are academy award winners, but still good enough.

In the end, a dirt poor story that hardly makes any logical sense kills and buries this movie. However, for some reason, just because the movie has Will Smith, it is almost impossible to not at least partially enjoy the film... so let's go with a 5 out of 10, with out Will Smith, it would've definitely been a 2 or 3.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

Worse Then I Expected... And That's Saying Something

[3/10 · 31 August 2008]

I walked into the theater not expecting more than an average film at the absolute best, and I was thoroughly disappointed. The story was exceptionally flimsy, it was more-so set on something that should have been a side-story at best and the fight scenes were short and choppy. I mean, there were two fights with creatures that should have been big time bosses, but they were dead in a few short minutes and even the final boss was taken out relatively quickly. Not to mention the poor acting, the abundance of 2-d characters, and the there were multiple times when the solution was a no brainer, but it took the characters way too long it figure it out.

There were a few moments of saving grace for this film, but they were few and far between. Like there was at least one moment of the film that genuinely made me feel something other than boredom and the beginning wasn't completely awful. Also, any of the original cast plays there roles just fine and Ron Pearlman once again plays the perfect Hellboy, which is certainly a welcome reprieve from the other casts poorly played roles.

All in all, the movie attempted to ignore anything on artistic and focus on being purely entertaining, but fell flat on both accounts. The first Hellboy was much much better. I must say that this film was even worse than Hancock (which, before this film, was the worst movie of the year in my book), at least in Hancock we got good acting and a good opening.

A 3 out of 10.

Babylon A.D. (2008)

Not That Bad... Not That Great, But Not Bad

[6/10 · 30 August 2008]

It was decent. The action sequences were definitely a bit choppy, especially the first one. Also, there were a few times when I had to go "Is that even physically possible?" and the ending left a few loose ends still left, so I was sort of disappointed with that.

If you don't pay attention, you will hate this movie. It moves fairly quickly, so once you miss something, it's gone and you will be lost. So pay attention. The story is actually pretty good and actually feels down to earth, which is more than I can say about quite a few sci-fi movies.

For the record, I went into this movie not expecting much more than average, and I was slightly surprised. If you go in expecting the next academy award winner, you will completely despise it. It is no Dark Knight, so don't expect it to be. There's not much there artistically, so, if you don't like a movie simply trying to be entertaining for the sake of being entertaining, then you won't like this one. All in all, it was a good watch, not entirely worth the price for a new movie, so I suggest waiting until it comes to the cheaper theaters (if you have one near by).

As another note (and I'll probably get some heat for this) I actually enjoy Vin Diesel as an actor. This is not his best performance, but it's certainly not his worst (even though I still moderately enjoyed Chronicles of Riddick, I admit it was pretty bad and to this day I still don't know why I like it.) I think Diesel is good at what he does, although he really hasn't been in anything that really blows me away, even my favorite Diesel film (Pitch Black) wasn't completely stunning, but it was really good. With that in mind, this is a Vin Diesel movie, so, if you're not like me and you don't like Diesel, you will not like this movie and should just steer clear of it.