Monstrel Reviews

Triple Frontier (2019)

Great cast, dumb script

[4/10 · 19 March 2021]

This movie had a great potential, with great actors onboard and beautiful scenery. Unfortunately, dumb plot ruined it. Protagonists had 200+ millions in cash with them and they could not hire a second helicopter? Their resources were unlimited, they could buy a fleet of helicopters or hire a small army. Well, they burned money in the campfire instead, because it was so much fun. "The best of the best warriors" could not stand the hardships of the mountain trip and went into meltdown, with uncontrolled emotions, and sudden regrets. Also, "the best warriors" could not solve the easiest logical problem: instead of one trip over the mountain in the overloaded helicopter they could make 2 trips without crashing. It's not that they didn't have money to buy gas, did they? Also, they were so dumb that they could not instruct the runaway boat to move a few miles down the coast to avoid an "army of teenagers" in the city which they didn't want to shoot at (but then shot at anyway). So apparently the only other option available for them was to go 100 miles to the other city. In their universe boats can only be boarded in the cities (that's why they swam to the boat from he beach at the end). It's hard to overlook those ridiculous plot holes and even more ridiculous ending. Was this movie supposed to be a comedy? No, all that blabbering about high moral ground means the writers were dead serious. What a waste of potential, good actors and a mountain scenery!

Solaris (2002)

Beware of reviewers!

[11 November 2020]

It's amazing how many reviewers don't know what this movie is based on and why it was made. They think this movie is based on Stanislaw Lem's book, so they compare it to the book and think they did a good job. Let me give you a bit of history instead.

It's the end of 1960s/beginning of 1970s. Stanislaw Lem and Andrei Tarkovsky discuss the future movie adaptation of Lem's book "Solaris" in Moscow. They spent 6 weeks over there and Lem was so angry that he called Tarkovsky "a fool" and left Moscow. Lem later said in an interview that Tarkovsky completely missed the idea of "Solaris" book, and instead wanted to make something similar to Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment". So Tarkovsky made a movie "Solaris" in 1972 which focuses on the tragic love story but skips most of Sci-Fi ideas from Lem's book.

Lem hated Tarkovsky's movie and openly admitted it, but nevertheless Tarkovky's movie became a cult classic, a separate masterpiece. It became popular all over the world. Many people didn't read the book but saw the movie and were impressed by it. The problem was though that Tarkovsky's 1972 movie was 3 hours long. By 2000s it also looked very outdated (the scenes of futuristic city were in fact simple street shots of 1970s Tokyo). That's why Hollywood decided on the movie remake. And Soderbergh made it with Clooney and McElhone in 2002.

Therefore 2002 Solaris is a remake of the 1972 Russian Sci-Fi classic (which is clearly stated in the description). Don't compare it to the book, watch the 1972 movie and compare them instead. Many reviewers rightly pointed out that the movie captures only a small part of the book, but they didn't see Tarkovsky's movie at all.

Now was this Soderbergh's remake better or worse than 1972 Tarkovky's movie? It's a matter of personal preference. 1972 movie was always my favorite, and I am obviously prejudiced. Still I think Soderbergh's remake captured the mood of Tarkovsky's movie and the love story was fine. Many people said that Clooney's character was emotionless but so was Donatas Banionis in 1972 movie. Chris (the character) was a man whose scientific background always contradicted with his emotions, his guilt and his love to his wife. I think that Natasha Bondarchuk (Khari) in 1972 movie gave a stronger performance than Natasha McElhone (Rheya) in 2002 movie (funny that both actresses are called Natasha). IMHO, supporting characters Snow (Snaut in the book) and Gordon (Sartorius in the book) were ok in both movies. Still, Russian movie is longer, has more characters and captures more details of Lem's book that Hollywood's movie.

For some reason they changed character names in 2002 movie. 1972 movie had the names from the book, but in 2002 movie Kris became Chris. Khari became Rheya. Snout became Snow and Sartorius became Gordon. The only name they left unchanged was Gibarian (or Gibaryan).

So my humble advice would be: enjoy both movies and the book separately, as different stories. That's how they were meant to be.

Greyhound (2020)

Great naval movie, without usual Hollywood nonsense

[10/10 · 13 July 2020]

This is one of the best naval movies that I've seen (along with Das Boot). Tom Hanks was upset with the quality of naval movies in Hollywood, so he wrote the screenplay himself, and he sure did a right thing (see virtual interview with him about the topic). This movie shows the real life on the bridge of the destroyer ship, fighting the pack of German U-Boats while protecting the convoy on the way across Atlantic. The movie is packed with action and suspense, I watched it in one sitting, holding breath and didn't notice how the time passed. And the CGI of the ocean and the sea battle is amazing! The view of the cold stormy Atlantic and the ships breaking through it's massive gloomy waves wile firing tracing ammo at the U-Boats gave me shivers... This is not your usual Hollywood movie with lots of blood, gore, obligatory love story and nude scenes, and it doesn't need all of those things. It keeps you nailed to your chair waiting what will happen in the next second, what Captain will do and how the enemy will react. And it's so true-to life, you don't need to understand much of the jargon on the bridge, but it's the real thing - what sailors used to say and do in those situations. Tom Hanks did an awesome job for both his role and screenplay. The story is told from the Captain's point of view, following the book that the movie was based on. Other characters are not so prominent, but actors do a great job too, creating a proper story mood. This movie is similar to Das Boot (my all-times favorite) though Das Boot is longer and more gloomy/dramatic. Now you can watch the story from both sides - the underwater (Das Boot) and the surface (Greyhound) and from both enemies points of view. Those two movies complement each other. If you like Das Boot, and enjoy "no-nosnsense" sea battle stories, I really recommend you watch "Greyhound", you will not be disappointed!

Beyond the Mask (2015)

Read bad reviews first then watch it, you might be surprised

[8/10 · 7 July 2020]

After reading so many bad reviews I didn't expect much, but I was pleasantly surprised. I guess the reason for most negative reviews here is "mistargeted" audience. I see many people were expecting something similar to "Ben-Hur" or "Gone with the Wind", when in fact this movie is more like "Wild Wild West", "The Brothers Grimm", and "Van Helsing". The only difference is that it's not a blockbuster, and the only famous actor in it is John Rhys-Davis.

I was still amazed at some negative reviews, let's see what reviewers are complaining about: 1. Erratic plot. - I think the plot is simple, shallow and very predictable, but it is logical and doesn't have major loopholes. I think "Van Helsing" has more loopholes than this, but it's just my humble opinion. 2. Church theme. - Seriously, I didn't really see that. There is one place where main characters pray before execution, but that's it. There are blockbusters out there that have many more religious references than this movie. 3. Historical inaccuracies - come on! Do you expect historical references from "Sherlock Holmes" with Robert Downey Jr.? Or "National Treasure"? This movie is a fairy tale/victorian steampunk/alternative reality flick, not a historical movie. 4. Bad CGI. - blockbusters really set high expectations with people. This movie has low budget so it does OK with what it has. 5. Bad storytelling. I agree with that, storytelling is rather weak, could use more twists and be more "punchy".

I also think the issue with this movie is that main characters (William and Charlotte) are not "sparkling" enough. They should have shown more expression in both love and war. It would also help if William was more cunning, but he was too straightforward and naive instead. John Rhys-Davies was OK as a main villain.

But again, to jump from B-movie to A-movie you need to tighten up everything, from storyline, characters and special effects to budget and casting. Still, it's a nice entertaining B-movie, and if you like movies like "Van Helsing" or "The Brothers Grimm" or "Wild Wild West", and your expectations are not too high, give it a try, you might like it.

Tron: Legacy (2010)

Stylish and classy

[8/10 · 2 January 2011]

This movie has crazy fast motorcycles, beautiful women in skintight outfit, what else do you need?

The plot is simple and lacking, sometimes boring, but I didn't come to watch it for the plot. I came for the visual side, and this side did not disappoint. The movie has distinct style (well, inherited from the previous Tron movie, but who cares?), and it looks classy.

Some of my friends complained that there could be more special effects, kinda like a non-stop comic action, but I think the volume of special effects was exactly what was needed to keep the movie in style.

I liked a movie and gave it a solid 8, I would give 10 if it had a little more drama and more complex but less boring dialogs. Nevertheless, highly recommended for the lovers of sport bikes and gorgeous women!

The Triangle (2005)

A very well done Sci-Fi thriller

[10/10 · 22 February 2008]

I really liked this thriller, and the fact that it was combined into 3 parts on 2 DVDs made it even better - just enough time for deep plot development. In the middle of the third part I was about to become disappointed - "meh, just another Hollywoodish ending", but I was wrong, it was not the end. The non-stop action and thrill lasted almost until the last minutes of the movie.

Despite the fact that the plot is based on a well-known subject - the Bermuda Triangle - the movie made a great Sci-Fi thriller. I have not really noticed any boring clichés, well, maybe a bit at the very end. I would really recommend this movie to Sci-Fi and thriller fans. Good job, Baxley, actors and the team!

Troy (2004)

Surprisingly good!

[10/10 · 25 January 2008]

I had doubts about this movie, but I loved it. The reasons are: -This movie follows the Iliad pretty closely. If you disagree, read the Iliad by Homer again. But opposite to the fairy tale of Homer, the world in the movie looks realistic. Which is also good, I think.

-The movie does not try to exaggerate the scene elements (the city, weapons, Trojan Horse, other things). For example, in traditional Hollywood movie, the warriors from Trojan horse would just kill everybody in the city at night, but in this movie they only do what they could do - open the gates.

-The behavior of the Iliad characters is natural. The Odysseys looks and acts like Odysseus. Hector, Priam, all others follow their historical characters. You may disagree, but that's my opinion.

-The landscape is beautiful, sunny and shiny. Opposite to 300.

-Brad Pitt is very convincing as Achilles. He acts great, he looks great and fights great. Apparently, he is the main character of the movie.

Sure, some Hollywood-ish things do present in the plot (like love story of Achilles), but I personally have no complains about it.

I would suggest to watch the movie in HD, it looks really spectacular. I really enjoyed it!

Dream Warrior (2003)

The cover art is deceiving

[3/10 · 25 January 2008]

I was attracted by the cover art on the box - the photos of armored medieval warriors in post apocalyptic world. Well, the movie has no such characters. But that is not the major problem with it.

The first half of the movie makes a good thriller, but the second half is pure disappointment. The acting is good, I have no complaints, but the plot is so weak, the characters and dialogs are so primitive, so no acting can save the movie.

This movie is about a life after some major disaster caused by the asteroid. In some local village, I guess, some part of New Jersey ;), one guy became the tyrant and rules the population of a few hundred people. Some people develop an unexplained super powers (healing, light throwing, mind reading) and this tyrant executes them if his bike police (10 people) can catch them. Those guys (called freaks) also develop an opposition. There are some prophecies about the child that will be born and lead them. But the movie does not cover what happens after the child is born - it only covers a fight of several people against the tyrant and his miniature police forces. There are also some punk communities around and the legends of some river with a pure water that runs in a two day drive from the village.

The storyline of the movie is really bleak. It does not have good action shots (except for the very beginning), and some episodes look really stupid, like this scene with a hand break at the very end of the movie. All fights are primitive and amateurish.

What also makes me laugh is that all actors wear clean and nice clothes but live in wrecks. At least their blue jeans are supposed to be dirty after a few days out in the field, don't you think? In other words, there is nothing really worth mentioning in the movie. It was supposed to be something like Mad Max or Waterworld, but it is not even close. You can spend some time watching this movie, if you do not have anything else to watch. I gave it 3 only for the good acting.

The Lost World (2001)

Amazingly good adaptation

[9/10 · 13 January 2008]

I usually hate the adaptations of classic titles (with some exceptions like "Lord Of The Rings"), but this one was amazingly good. The storyline of Arthur Conan Doyle was perfectly preserved with the majority of details. Even the adaptations brought with this movie, they kinda add to the original storyline without breaking it. There are some alternative moments, but they do not break the novel story too.

This movie is considered "boring" by many fans of classic Hollywood-style titles, but this is a strong point of this movie. The feelings, love stories, all that things are well developed. There is plenty of action and very good CGI special effects, but they are not exaggerated, they fit into the style of Victorian England and the style of original novel. Sure, there are some boring moments, but they seem boring mostly because you already know what the book is about, and the mystery does not touch you a lot.

The only character that would need improvement to match the Arthur Conan Doyle's novel is Prof. Challenger (played by Bob Hoskins). Hoskins is not bad here, it is just his character is not so bright, emotional and well-developed as the book's character. On the contrary, Lord Roxton's character is amazing. He is indeed the leading character in the movie, to the contrary of the book. Other characters are just very good, including the convincing dinosaurs.

I gave this movie 9, but not 10, because I give 10 to my most favorite movies only. And also because of Prof. Challenger's underdeveloped character. But this is a very good novel adaptation in all regards. Way to go, BBC!

Mr. Bean's Holiday (2007)

Sorry, it was boring

[4/10 · 4 January 2008]

I am a big fan of Mr. Bean, but this movie was just boring. I expected better humor and more of Charlie Chaplin style tricks, that Mr. bean is usually so good with.

This time Mr. Bean was himself, but he did not have much much of a show. Plus people around him looked unusually gloomy and boring (especially the Russian father and Carson Clay). The humor was plain and of a very low (not funny) level.

The part of the reason, I guess, is that too many people of different nations gathered around Mr. Bean. They do not understand each other, and Mr. Bean just doesn't care. It is difficult to create a good humor here, since all comedy is getting on the level of sign language.

I think that the movie with similar plot - "Vacation" with Chevy Chase - was much funnier than "Mr. Bean's Holiday".

I gave this movie 4 stars, just because of Mr. Bean's incredible mimics.

Around the World in 80 Days (2004)

Amaizingly Stupid and even Not funny

[2/10 · 22 January 2007]

I usually try to find something good in the movie, even if everyone bans it, but this movie was really bad from all sides. Let's see:

• The humor. My friend knows all salty jokes and enjoys performing in the pub. Sometimes, when invited to a family party, he tries to be funny with children, and that looks horrible. But I tell you, he still does much better than the script in this movie. The humor here is just plain flat and stupid. Sometimes stupidity is funny, but not in this movie. It looks silly.

• The characters. Monique looks like a cheap annoying hooker from the saloon in the old western. I hate this character so much. Phileas Fogg does in some way resemble gentleman, but periodically acts like an imbecile. Supporting characters act and look like imbeciles all the time.

• The manners. There are none. One example: Phileas Fogg, pure English gentleman, perfectly dressed like a noble man, shakes hands with french lady in the modern American way. Another example: police inspector in London looks and acts like a teenager after trying the first drink in his life. Weird. This is sad to watch as the costumes in this movie are really good and match the time period.

• The fight. This movie is supposed to be "the Jackie Chan's movie". In this case it's the worst Jackie Chan's movie. The fights are not convincing. Looks like Jackie performs in the kindergarten, in front of the infants.

• The CGI. It is by all means bad. The hand-painted view of the landscape pretending to be the birds eye view? Silly.

• The plot. This is by no means the Jules Verne's novel. Not even the parody. Only the title, the names, and the fact that they travel around the world in 80 days are the same, nothing else reminds of the book. No wonder...

If they were trying to shoot the parody, they should have done everything on the theatrical stage. Then it would make some sense. I gave this movie 2 stars only for the costumes. The rest is nonsense. I wonder how Jackie Chan felt when performing in such a poor movie.

Suburban Commando (1991)

One of my favorite 1990s classics

[9/10 · 20 January 2007]

This movie gets into my category of favorite classics of 1990s. Sure, it is more kids movie than even a family movie, and it can not compete with glowing old stream-liners like Back To The Future, not to mention recent Harry Potters, etc., still, it delivers the unique combination of funny comedy and warm atmosphere of kindness and personal achievement. You can rarely meet this combination in movies nowadays.

What I also like is that the struggle of good and evil is going on more realistic sci-fi level than usual (no mystically flying superheroes and other such things). And the Hulk Hogan's character is perfect for him. This movie is probably Hogan's best. Christopher Lloyd also performed great (as usual), and the acting of many supporting characters was solid good and fit the plot precisely.

So if you want the entertaining comedy for your family and you want to chuckle at some scenes for yourself, watch this movie. Hogan there looks like a big kind-hearted superhero uncle, so your kids will love him.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

The "dark side" and the "light side" are mixed up

[10/10 · 17 December 2006]

It happened that I had to watch this movie on rather small computer screen with crappy sound, so I expected those annoyances to spoil the entertainment. Amaizingly, I was deep inside the movie after first several minutes and forgot about everything around. Still, the feeling is strange...

The quality of the movie was great by all means, it is the plot that made me somewhat perplexed. The first movie in trilogy (yes, it is going to be a trilogy) was much more straightforward: romantic love drove the whole plot, and the confrontation was obvious: the pirate against the law, the captain against the mutineers.

This sequel brought a lot of contradictions into the plot: now the enemies are friends and friends are enemies. Everyone of main characters sometimes acts on the evil side, even Elizabeth, when she condemned Jack Sparrow to death for selfish reasons. Everything starts as a noble quest caused by injustice and love, but quickly turns to the marathon of individual ambitions.

Jack Sparrow looses his heroic appearance and becomes a sneaky bastard for the major part of the movie. Will and Elizabeth seem to forget about their love, he looks after helping his father, and she is preoccupied with the idea of turning Jack Sparrow to a good side, and apparently flirting with him. Which does not stop her from meanly trading his life for others safety after a long and passionate good-bye kiss.

Commandor Norrington is not a nobleman any more, he becomes a drunkard and is now preoccupied with his own ambitions, and he is ready to cut the throat for that. The members of the crew turn their sides several times during the movie, but nobody hold that against them, it is considered "normal". Well, pirates they are.

In other words, there are no "good" and "bad" characters in this movie as they were in the "The Curse of the Black Pearl". Even the biggest villains of the previous movie are employed to help the heroes in this one.

Personally, I welcome such a dualism in the main characters. This breaks a long lasting tradition of pure "good" and "evil" and makes the movie more "realistic". I still wonder how children will take that. Will it teach them that they have equal right to do good and evil things? But I understand why ghosts of the sea are not very frightening. This is by no means a horror movie for children, it is an adventure. And a good one, at that.

So I give this movie +10, since it is a wonderful entertainment. And I am forced to be waiting for the third part of the trilogy to see who will end up on the "dark" and who on the "light" side.