The film starts out with a pretty good plot and storyline, but as the film continues, it just seems to drag on. It needed to move at a quicker pace, or modify the storyline to keep the watchers attention and interest. I’ve seen it all the way through once(1x), after that I always leave the movie 50-75% complete.
> **RATING: _2.5_ / 5**

Just slightly better than the first only because there's more killings in this and Chucky is a lot funnier. Some of the acting was a little off.

Maybe it doesn't have that actual thriller elements of the original, but that's completely reasonable. Once you see Chucky go full force for the first time, it's pretty hard to try and reel him back in to a "Is he or isn't he" mystery for the sequels. And even if it is a step down from the first _Child's Play_, getting to watch new characters experience their "I was so wrong I died" moments is always a cause for glee.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Oh dear, this one's pretty bad. There are a lot of faces in this movie but non of them could save this disaster. Which is a shame, because this could have been a really intense and thrilling film in the hands of a different director. Instead, it comes across as a made-for-TV movie. John Woo's direction is lacklustre and cliche, the editing is lazy and the soundtrack is overblown, unfitting and downright intrusive.

I guess Free Willy depends on how old you were in 1993.
For the most part, I really like Family Friendly, if they are done right they can be entertaining and uplifting. And, the kid in me can still see how people would love it, and still love it, if they saw it as a little kid.
But I was 13 when Free Willy came out, and, honestly, it's not E.T., it's not The Goonies, it's not even Radio Flyer let alone Sandlot.
It's a little too trite, a little too earnest, a little too childish and it lacks the fun and sense of adventure that films like Flight of the Navigator and The Explorers still hold.
In other words, for a family friendly movie, it's more kid friendly and not family enough, and it doesn't age well. I think if you are older than 10 when you see it, you're likely to throw the 1 star out there because it honestly doesn't have that much to offer to people much older. And, if you are under 10 when you saw it, year, it's probably a nostalgia classic to you.
It's just one of the family friendly movies that forgot it's supposed to be fun for the whole family, and that makes it age dependent.

**Despite being predictable and loaded with clichés, it is a film that marked a generation, alerted many consciences to very serious issues, and is still very beautiful thirty years later.**
This is certainly one of the films that made an impression on people during the 90's, and that maintained its popularity and sympathy for many years. Today I think it has been forgotten, and in part I feel sorry for it. However, I believe that the film has already done its job: not only did it entertain those who saw it and continue to see it, but it also had a certain social role in the way it awakened in younger people (but not only them) a certain awareness of ecology, for the preservation of endangered animals and species. I also believe that the film had a certain responsibility for changing the thinking of zoos and places that keep animals in captivity: instead of being “animal deposits” for public entertainment, they became institutions with ever greater relevance in the preservation of animals: today, they are essential for the survival of species whose natural habitats have been destroyed and which are only perpetuated in captivity. They also take the lead in the assisted reproduction of many animals, such as the Giant Panda Bear, for example, as well as in the rescue, veterinary treatment and preparation of animals that, having been illegally hunted or lived many years in human company, need to return to wildness.
Thus, this film turns out to be more relevant for the effect it had on people than by itself. Analyzing it in a simple way, it is a rather sugary film, loaded with clichés and without great artistic quality. A family entertainment film, excellent to watch with the kids and which, for years, was almost institutional on television during the Christmas season. The script is quite simple, and takes a rebellious and angry teenager to regenerate when he begins to have contact with an orca that has lived in captivity for years. The friendship between them is touching and sincere, as well as the boy's efforts, and the friends he makes, to release her to the seas, in a race against time and against the action of the villains, the owners of the park where she is kept, and who don't care about her at all. It is an extremely predictable film, which excessively romanticizes the release of animals kept in captivity, making the public forget that a whole previous preparation is necessary, taking several years, and that we never know if the animal, after years depending on humans, is it really going to adapt. Keiko, the orca that the movie used (and who lived in captivity for years after the movie), would eventually be prepared and released to the sea, but as we know, she never adapted to the wild.
The film has a good cast, but a terrible conception of characters. None of the characters are really good and all are clichés: the heroic teenager, the Native American full of ancestral wisdom who knows animals like no one else, the arrogant capitalists with no respect for anything or anyone... Excluding the orca Keiko, it's Jason James Ritcher who will stand out as an actor, in the role of the teenager who saves the day. He does what it takes, and I think he was relatively credible in his effort. Michael Madsen also deserves praise for his work, in a film that, incidentally, will be one of the most popular of his artistic career. Lori Petty and Jayne Atkinson are pretty good, August Schellenberg does what he can with the cliché given to him. The rest simply doesn't matter.
Technically, the film stands out for its good cinematography. A lot of '90s movies seem ancient when we see them now, but this is one of those laudable exceptions that deserves to be mentioned. The filming locations, as well as the sets, also deserve a positive note for their visual beauty. The sound effects are very good, and the visual and special effects deserve praise, in particular the animatronic whale, which is quite realistic. Finally, a note to praise the quality of the main theme of the soundtrack created for this film, which is one of the most beautiful of its time.

While The Unforgivable may not be groundbreaking, it proves to be a good film propelled by fantastic performances.
The overarching message of the film works, even with all the filler subplots. If a few characters were trimmed from the narrative, particularly the cop's sons, this film would have had a much tighter and more effective story. Despite that, I still had a great time with it. I think the twists worked and the flashback scenes were woven into the narrative really well. I wasn't a huge fan of the final act, but it did not hurt my overall enjoyment of the film.
What really helped aid the movie were the incredible performances from an all-star cast. Sandra Bullock delivers a heartbreaking, emotional performance that had me tearing up on more than one occasion. Her chemistry with Jon Bernthal is fantastic, and that relationship was a real highlight of the film for me. Vincent D'Onofrio was excellent, although his goatee was incredibly thick! Viola Davis was criminally underused, but her scenes were incredibly effective. My favorite scene from the whole movie had her in it. The "antagonists" of the movie were bad. The acting was average at best; I really think this movie could have worked without them being included.
Overall, The Unforgivable is a solid entry into Netflix's original film catalog and one that I would highly recommend.
Score: 63%
Verdict: Decent

"Claire" (Michelle Pfeiffer) and "Norman" (Harrison Ford) are an happily married couple with a lovely lakeside home. It turns out that she has only recently survived a nasty car crash, and so when she starts complaining about some inexplicable things happening in their home, "Norman" suggests that she see a therapist to try to alleviate here ever increasing paranoia. Her friend "Jody" (Diana Scarwid) uses a ouija board and soon "Claire" is convinced that the empty house next door is being haunted - but why? Who is the paranormal woman she hears and sees, and what has is to do with her and her family? Robert Zemekis starts this off quite tensely, the imagery is scary and effective. The lack of gory or silly special effects gives it a chill that for the first hour, or so, works fairly well. Sadly, though, it runs out of steam and the storyline just loses it's way. The last half hour has more endings than you can shake a stick at, and when it does finally conclude I felt the whole thing was pretty far-fetched and unsatisfactory. Ford just isn't really at the races here - he was/is much better with roles that allow him to demonstrate his considerable charisma and personality. With no such opportunity here, his character is just flat - at times too earnest, at others just implausible. The title suggests much more that this mid-range horror thriller delivers.

Not a great film, but two things that made it bearable:
1) Directed by Robert Zemeckis
2) I watched it in a hotel room

***Ghostly happenings in northern Vermont with Ford & Pfeiffer***
A couple living on Lake Champlain (Harrison Ford & Michelle Pfeiffer) face the empty nest syndrome as the wife experiences increasingly spectral happenings. Diana Scarwid, James Remar and Miranda Otto have peripheral roles.
"What Lies Beneath" (2000) is a Hitchcockian drama/mystery with a bit o’ horror. It starts by borrowing from "Rear Window" (1954), but thankfully veers from there. At a little past the hour mark I was starting to get restless. The story was progressing too slowly with too many doors inexplicably opening. I suppose it didn’t help that Pfeiffer doesn’t trip my trigger, although she’s serviceable (I wouldn’t say I DON’T like her); and Harrison’s character seems unjustifiably gruff and impatient.
However, the Upstate Vermont/ New York locations are fabulous and a mysterious mood is effectively established. The way things pan out is unexpected, unless you saw the trailer first, which outrageously spoils it. The concluding F/X sequence is beautiful in a ghostly way and satisfyingly brings closure. What didn’t make sense earlier is elucidated. At the end of the day, the movie’s underwhelming, but not altogether unworthy if you’re in the mode for a flick of this sort.
The film runs 2 hours, 10 minutes, and was shot in the Lake Champlain region of Vermont/New York (Burlington, D.A.R. State Park, Waterbury & Westport) with other stuff done in Southern Cal (Los Angeles, Playa Vista & Culver City).
GRADE: C+/B-

You're not yourself today are you?
Claire and Norman Spencer's marriage starts to fall apart when she believes there is a ghost in the house. Things gather apace when Claire is convinced that the spirit is trying to tell her something. Something that could be too close to home for comfort.
Robert Zemeckis does Hitchcock? Well yes, the influence is obvious, unashamedly so. But the trouble with that, is having the maestro as a benchmark renders all other modern day attempts as folly. However, casting aside that gargantuan issue, What Lies Beneath is an effective creeper come thriller that boasts star credentials.
Directed by Zemeckis, formed from an idea by Steven Spielberg (from the story by Sarah Kernochan) and starring Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer as the fragmenting Spencer's. That's a pretty tidy bunch from which to launch your movie. What follows is a mixture of genuine unease and mystery, red herrings and standard boo jump moments, all of which almost gets lost on a saggy middle section as Zemeckis plays Hitchcock one too many times and loses sight of the supernatural heart of the piece, not helped by Clark Gregg's meandering script I might add. None the less, the picture gets pulled around for the finale as the spooky combines with thriller to produce some quality edge of the seat stuff. But it's only then that you totally realise that the makers here have tried to cram too much in to one film. In eagerness to manipulate the audience for the fine ending (though you probably will have it worked out at the half way point) the film just ends up as being confused as to what it mostly wanted to be.
Pfeiffer is excellent and looks stunning and Ford gives it gusto when the script allows. Support comes from Diana Scarwid, Joe Morton, Miranda Otto and James Remar. The house is suitably eerie with its waterside setting and Alan Silvestri's score is perfectly in tune with the creepy elements of the piece. It's a fine enough film in its own right, regardless of the Hitchcockian homages. It's just that it should have been a far better horror picture than it turned out to be. 7/10

This was the first movie I ever seen with Will Ferrell in it. I thought it was hilarious. The movie ain't really that good, but it's so funny that it doesn't really matter.

Okay, I get it: I have seen many critiques about this movie relying upon inaccurate science and featuring plot holes here and there. I admit to a bell going off in my head when our main hero Augustus seems to exhibit no death-like characteristics after diving into frigid arctic waters. But I have a tendency to suspend my disbelief in science fiction movies if the characters, the dialogue and the general story keep my interest.
What kept me connected to the action was not the spaceship stuff, but rather the faltering, slowly developing interaction and relationship between Augustus and Iris, the girl left behind during the evacuation. It is handled patiently and believably. I found myself quite invested in them becoming close. (And I am setting aside the odd hints that Iris might not even exist outside Augustus’s own mind.)
The scenes on board the spaceship Augustus is trying to contact were less compelling for me. My, those folks were consummate professionals, weren’t they? They bantered back and forth, but where were their emotions for the most part, except under extreme duress? Besides Maya, I wouldn’t have been shocked to learn they were androids.
The Midnight Sky was entertaining enough to keep my interest, but it seemed to leave several questions in my mind, not the least of which was: it is well and good to send Adam and Eve to populate a new planet, but outside of serious incest, how are they to get past the first generation?

Nobody smokes anymore, Snow!
I was kind of inclined to headline this as being the movie guaranteed to make highbrow film fans froth with incredulity. That anyone could enjoy such a derivative, tongue-in-cheek, low ambition piece of schlock, is surely cause for venomous spleen venting from the serio film brigade. They call them guilty pleasures, but thing is, I just don't feel guilty about having such a wonderfully fun filled great time with the Luc Besson produced Lockout.
Plot? Well it's the future and basically Guy Pearce (Snow) is wrongly convicted of a crime and sentenced to do stir in stasis until whenever. But up in space at the MS1 prison facility, home to all the maniacs found in "Demolition Man", the president's daughter, do-gooder babe Emilie Warnock (Maggie Grace), is suddenly taken captive and it's a big hostage situation. This looks like a mission for a serious hard bastard type! Well "Snake Plissken" wasn't available, so they get Snow, who is bulked up, full of wise cracks and has a point to prove. Guess what follows? Yep, complete popcorn frenzy as Pearce and Grace cut a swathe through MS1 and have a date with coolness personified.
On the way, via a truly gorgeous sci-fi affected Blu-ray print, we will tick off the homages and influences and compare notes with our viewing partners about how it's a "Snake Plissken" movie but with Shane Black type dialogue. While those who are partial to a bit of sci-fi design are well served here. Because even though there might be the worst CGI effects ever during a chase scene (that mercifully only runs for 50 seconds), the space ships, sets and Torsion System sequence, prove that you don't need Michael Bay type bucks to please the eyes. From the quite brilliant and hilarious opening interrogation beat down, to the big reveal and punch line, this Besson produced piece is serving popcorn with a smile to a certain segment in the film watching populace.
With bits of the "Snake Plissken" movies, "Fortress", "Die Hard", "Commando", "Demolition Man", "Minority Report", "Last Boy Scout" and any other quip laden dude/wronged man on a mission movie, Lockout clearly lacks originality. But seriously! Was anyone involved playing it as anything other than a sly homage movie? No, they wasn't. Pearce is great fun in the role, but he isn't trying to worry the highbrow crowd's votes for films of the year. Anyone viewing it expecting something cerebral should feel more guilty than those who stand up to say they had a great time watching it. Ingem Ferem. 7/10

We watched this movie more or less by chance last evening. We normally do not have Canal+ in our “bouquet” but they are making a drive right now so everyone can watch Canal+ for a couple of weeks and this movie looked interesting, at least compared to the rest of the choice available that evening, so we watched it.
It was a surprisingly entertaining evening movie. It is pretty much a standard Hollywood nonsensical pop-corn movie but it is a well done one. It makes no pretence of being anything else than it is. The story is a fairly predictable action story. Hero gets framed during the introduction scenes. Quick flip to the space prison that is going to serve as the scenery of the bulk of the movie. Dumbass thinks he is more clever than everyone else so he breaks the rules. Goes bad. Prisoners break out. President’s daughter just happens to be there at the same tame. Our hero is sent in to save the day. Action time!
There are a few more complications to the story but that is pretty much it. It is a simple and solid story that pretty much holds water. It would have been a fairly standard, even mediocre, movie if it was not for our hero which is doing an admirable job of playing hero and tough guy. The dialog, as nonsensical as it is, definitely lifts the move. The action is fairly good and so are the special effects although it is by no means a movie that is held up by its effects. The main bad guy is a really irritating psychotic son-of-a-bitch. The actor is doing a good job of portraying him but the character itself bugged the hell out of me when watching the movie. He is a bit over the top that has to be said.
Anyway, the movie was quite entertaining as an evening pop-corn flick and since we picked it more or less by chance and did not know much about it before hand it was indeed a fairly pleasant surprise.

I know I shouldn't like _Kung Fury_. I know it's cheap and dumb and makes literally no sense. But it ticked so many of my appeal-boxes I absolutely cannot walk away from this with giving it anything less than three stars.
I'm glad that they didn't try to stretch this to a full ninety minute feature though, I think the premise would have well and truly grown weary by then.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Though he's not top-billed here, I found it's Fernando Rey who delivers best in this brutal and authentic-looking story of trans-Atlantic drug smuggling. Popeye (Gene Hackman) and his pal Russo (Roy Scheider) are detectives in New York determined to bring down a network of cocaine importers who are bringing the lucrative white powder in from Marseille. They suspect that it's Charnier (Rey) who is masterminding the whole enterprise, but they can't pin anything down on him. He hides in plain sight, clad in cashmere with a distinctive hat and dining in fine establishments - but always beyond their grasp. He almost teases the increasingly frustrated policemen who stray ever closer to the line as they try to apprehend him. Will either of them ever crack? Hackman is on great form as the exasperated cop and the drip-roast effect of the plot development from director William Friedkin makes that even more potent, especially when coupled with the flagrant nonchalance of his quarry, with a powerful score from Don Ellis and one of the best city car chases you'll ever see on a big screen. Scheider does enough, and there are also quite a few effective supporting contributions from the likes of Ann Rebbot as Mme. Charnier and from the odious henchman "Nicoli" (Marcel Bozzuffi). Gradually we are exposed to the ruthlessness of both sides as the stakes become higher, life becomes cheap, and the denouement again offers us a degree of palpable realism as no simple or convenient solutions are provided. It's a quickly paced and gritty representation of life amidst a culture of addiction, dependency and quite a fair degree of innovation that's still as strong today as it was in 1971.

The mirrors. They're so clean.
Mirrors is the American remake of a little known Korean film called Into the Mirror. The plot has Kiefer Sutherland as a recovering alcoholic cop, who whilst on suspension is taken to working as a security guard at a large burnt out department store and starts to see terrifying images in the many mirrors about the place...
You would think that Mirrors was a flop. The critics hated it and the horror hordes were very much divided on it, the latter of which is to be fair the norm for any big horror movie release. Yet it didn't flop, it did very well at the box offices of the world and has a decent 6.2 average on IMDb, which for a divisive horror film is well above average.
Mirrors overstays its welcome, there really was no need for it to run to just under two hours in length. While elsewhere there's some pretty poor dialogue, parts of the screenplay are pointlessly soap opera in nature, while some thinking will make you scratch your head in bewilderment at events outside of the brilliantly monolithic department store.
However, does Mirrors create a genuinely spooky atmosphere (the interiors of the store are creep fest nirvana), insert some shock moments to jolt you out your seat? Is it visually stylish, with sound work to match? And does Sutherland (and to a degree Paula Patton as his wife) overcome the trite parts of the script and give effective and committed performances? The answer to those questions is yes.
Does the ending cop out in any way? Insult the audience? No! It doesn't do that either.
It has flaws, but they are not insurmountable for the horror fan who's just looking for some good scares, atmospheric dread and some stylish touches from the director (Alexandre Aja). If you haven't seen it then give it a try, judge for yourself, you might be pleasantly surprised at what you find. 7.5/10

**Despite Bullock and King's good performances, the film is frankly predictable and never really gets interesting.**
I enjoyed _Miss Congeniality_, despite the various issues and problematic points I talked about in my review of that film, and I hoped that, at least, this sequel (which is far from being the second part of a bigger film, like Sandra Bullock said she faced all this) would be able to match the original film. Let's be fair, it had everything to achieve this: in addition to keeping the same protagonist and having a script that linked directly to its predecessor, the film kept part of the original crew and cast. Well, I'm sorry, but I feel that those expectations were disappointed: the film is not so bad, but it is below what I expected to find.
The problem starts with the script: it's a very underdeveloped and basic story, despite starting from a promising initial premise. Marc Lawrence, who has worked on the previous film, just couldn't do any better. If the first film was guided by the exaggeration of the story, this one proved to be predictable and has ideas that simply don't work, such as seeing two federal agents, posted outside their area of origin, and who have the luxury of disobeying blatantly to superior orders without this earning them an immediate suspension and the handing over of their weapons and badges. What the movie does is almost make fun of the FBI (well, sometimes they deserve it). Another problem is the melodrama that the protagonist lives after the end of her romance, which started in the previous film. This is irritating enough to prevent us from sympathizing more with the character, who is saved "in extremis" by the baggage of previously acquired sympathy.
Sandra Bullock is, frankly, the best asset present in this film. She was not only the producer but also the protagonist and, once again, she offers us a job well done, full of commitment, charm and charisma. Regina King also does quite well as a tough federal agent with anger management issues. The collaboration between both actresses is excellent, and the scenes they both star in are among the best in the film, particularly when they don't understand each other. Heather Burns and William Shatner also return for this film, in their respective roles, but the truth is that they have little to do and don't particularly stand out, apart from the demerit of other actors. Treat Williams tries but fails to do much more than he does, Diedrich Bader is very irritating in the role of a brazen homosexual with cross-dressing aspirations, and the two villains are never credible or exude any sense of real threat.
On a technical level, the film is on average, and that can be evaluated by the cinematography, editing and choice of sets or visual and sound effects. It's not a film where the production has invested a lot in technical issues. The soundtrack also leaves a lot to be desired and doesn't bring any theme or song that stays in the ear. The film's pace is slower than would be desirable, but I wonder if the plot, so confused and disordered, would perhaps allow the adoption of a faster pace without a significant loss of the intelligibility of the story. The humor is quite clever at times, but it barely strays from the conventional family sitcom jokes, puns, wordplay and physical humor (nothing against it, it's humor more suited to a family movie, and I recognize that). The costumes have some interesting ideas, but they don't go beyond what was expected to find.

I love anthologies. A well told short story is better than a long story arc or a drawn-out character study way more often than not. So, when **Trick 'R Treat** came along, it proved to me that while it's not something the majority of the population wants to see, there are filmmakers out there who still value the format.
It's too bad then that **Trick 'R Treat** wasn't more of a treat. It looks great and it has its entertaining moments. I mostly enjoyed the story of an odd girl who gets her revenge from some unlikely assistants and a man who has to deal with a strange trick or treater. Unfortunately, these stories aren't the most original things you'll ever see. They are more a tribute to urban legends and other Halloween clichés. The way that the four stories are intertwined is different. It's not a _Creepshow_-style format as there is nothing that truly divides the stories. **Trick 'R Treat** is well done but it's not particularly exciting.

A better-than-expected horror anthology with some creepy good Halloween scares.

No tricks here, just a treat.
Trick 'r Treat is written and directed by Michael Dougherty. It stars Dylan Baker, Rochelle Aytes, Anna Paquin and Brian Cox. Music is by Douglas Pipes and cinematography by Glen MacPherson. Trick 'r Treat plays out as an anthology of four Halloween related stories. One tiny figure with a burlap sack over its head links the film together.
Warner Brothers kept it on the shelf for two years, a mistake since it happens to be a delightful little frightener that appears to be made with a love of omnibus shockers from back in the day. It's never overtly scary or bloody, but it has a twisted slickness that is rather pleasing in this day and age of poor horror remakes and boorish cash cow sequels. Neatly performed by the cast and with tech credits high from the camera folk, it homages simple horror pleasures as it celebrates Halloween. With a glint in its eye and a macabre smile on the lips, this non linear treat should be perennial viewing for the Halloween hordes. Especially since it rewards still further on repeat viewings. 8/10

**A film made to make money off the success of its predecessor, but which has nothing to do with it.**
Anyone who saw the movie “The Mask” with Jim Carey, from 1994, cannot remain indifferent. It's one of those family comedies that marked the 90's and that strongly contributed to the meteoric rise of the comic actor's career. It was a film that, in my opinion, did not need a sequel, but that, if it came to exist, would have to have the same crew and a similar cast (that is, keeping, at least, Carey and some other actors). Unfortunately, this movie does everything it shouldn't have done.
In fact, any comparison between the first movie and this crap is pointless. It is not the first time that I see that there are sequels made to profit from great successes and that have virtually no connection with the preceding films. This is just one more example. Jim Carey was right not to want to associate himself with a project that failed at the outset, not least because most of the cast that associated with the film did not manage to take advantage of it beyond the financial inflow.
The film is clearly expensive and stupid. It had a high budget, which was invested in a range of CGI assets and massive and sometimes impressive visual effects, but everything else is lacking. And the film's biggest flaw couldn't be any other: the script is so amateurish and idiotic that it seems to have been written by ten-year-old children. Ideas are bad, there are a number of situations in which we feel that the public is being mocked, and our intelligence is being mocked too.
Another problem with this film is the total lack of humor. The movie was supposed to be funny and make us laugh, but we couldn't find anything funny. Much of what is shown was already done – and better – in the first film, and what has been introduced as new is a series of scatological or gross jokes that, I think, could have been cut. Even children's audiences might not be very interested in seeing this, if you think about it.
The cast does what they can, but they can't do much. Deep down, the actors end up being the least to blame for the fact that the film is rubbish. Alan Cumming turns out to be the best actor present and is the only one worth seeing work. He's an effective villain and his comedic streak is interesting, but totally wasted here. Bob Hoskins makes an appearance, but it is innocuous and adds nothing to the film. Jamie Kennedy is bad, he does a bad job, and surely he must be sorry he got into this movie. The rest is basically a bunch of extras, even when they have to talk.

Just as awful as I had anticipated. With that said, it's nothing so bad that it offended me - it's simply totally and utterly bad, to the point I kinda find it hard to hate on it because I just don't have any thoughts on it. It is, without question, undoubtedly worse than 1994's 'The Mask' in every conceivable way though.
Jamie Kennedy's version of this Dark Horse Comics character is truly dreadful, especially visually, though thankfully the film doesn't actually give that much air time to Kennedy as The Mask; like, he's there but it's predominantly the dog and the son that get much of the screen time alongside Alan Cumming's Loki - to slightly better effect too, the way the kid is animated kinda nearly works... it doesn't, but almost.
Ryan Reynolds, according to Kennedy himself, possibly wanted this role. It's lucky Reynolds didn't get his way, or he'd be stuck with a green ghoul in his past. Oh, wait!
4/10 is probably generous on my part, though there are far worse films out there that actually annoy me - 'Son of the Mask' honestly doesn't. It kinda just exists and I'm almost nonplussed about it.

This is my kind of film, and so despite that rather dodgy casting of Antonio Banderas - indeed, the pretty ropey casting throughout - I still rather enjoyed it. Banderas is a gentle poet whose eye wanders at the court of the Caliph. That earns him a new job as ambassador to the Northmen and so off he rides, with his sagely friend "Melchisadek" (a few scenes from Omar Sharif). His arrival at their camp is greeted with indifference until a messenger arrives regaling them with horror stories of a terror back home. Their soothsayer advises that thirteen men must return home to combat this evil - but the last of this warlike baker's dozen must not be of their race. Oops - wrong place, wrong time for Antonio and off he sets into an enjoyably paced series of set-piece action scenarios with a Norse theme to them. Luckily, he befriends the charismatic "Herger" (an enthusiastic but pretty hopeless Dennis Storhøi) and intrigues the new king "Buliwyf" (Vladimir Kulich) with his ability to "speak sounds" (write!) and together they gradually bond in the face of their menacing enemy. It's not a great film, no - the dialogue is poor and the acting really isn't up to much ether but there is loads of swordplay, flaming arrows and the whole thing is generally quite light-hearted and good-humoured. This mythology always lends itself well to a good story and the (underplayed) clashes of culture between the rough and ready warriors and their more refined guest adds a little richness to the plot. You won't remember it afterwards, and I bet Banderas probably doesn't want to - but it doesn't hang around and kills an hour and an half easily enough.

**Overall: Ignore the reviews. The 13th Warrior is the best Viking epic of all time!**
The greatest historical Viking battle epic you never heard of. Just like Jurassic Park and Westworld, The 13th Warrior is based on a Michael Crichton book and boasts an incredible action director, John McTiernan (Die Hard, Predator), Antonio Banderas as the leading man at the top of his career, excellent practical effects and beautiful sets and costumes. Yet, critics obliterated the film, and it failed at the box office, becoming one of the biggest box office flops of all time. I have no idea how this happened or why the reviews are so bad because this is an EXCELLENT movie. The battle scenes in The 13th Warrior are in league with other action epics like Braveheart, The Last Samurai, or Kingdom of Heaven. The story is similar to 300, where a small band of warriors face impossible odds and mixes a little horror with fantastic action and great character development. I’m not sure how The 13th Warrior ended up in the garbage can, but it belongs on the top shelf with the best action epics.

**_Good Viking Adventure -- Could've Been Great_**
The story of "The 13th Warrior" (1999) comes from Michael Crichton's novel "The Eaters of the Dead" which combines the legend of Beowulf with a historical account of an Arab diplomat who meets and dwells with the Vikings after being banished from his homeland due to an adulterous liaison.
Antonio Banderas stars as the Arab while the hulking Vladimir Kulich heads the Viking cast in the Beowulf role of Buliwyf (pronounced in the film BULL-vie). Speaking of Kulich, he would've made for an excellent Mighty Thor back in the day!
The plot of the film is great: Once Banderas meets up with the Vikings, they run afoul of a mysterious brutal tribe from the deep woods. Banderas is selected as the lone non-Viking to assist the 12 Norsemen in ridding the communities of the threat, hence "the 13th warrior." The cast, characters, story, locations (Campbell River, Vancouver Island), sets, costumes, score (Jerry Goldsmith), and cinematography are all of the highest order.
At a little over an hour and a half the film moves along briskly with a lot of action. Make no mistake, "The 13th Warrior" is a Class A film, but some story elements seem to be underdeveloped. This is probably due to the conflict Michael Crichton had with director John McTiernan. Crichton insisted on reshoots and cut at least 30 minutes of McTiernan's work, reportedly important character-developing scenes.
We see this in the very prologue of the film: The story of Banderas' banishment from his homeland due to his indiscretions is literally relayed in a matter of a couple minutes. And at the 8 minute mark we are introduced to the Vikings with very little mystery and zero suspense build-up. The contrast of the sophisticated Arab culture with the coarse, rugged Norsemen is great, but I would have enjoyed seeing these characters fleshed-out a bit more. After all, the more we know the individuals, the more we care about what ultimately happens to them.
Which brings us to the final 30 minutes of the film involving Banderas and the Vikings infiltrating the malevolent tribe's stronghold and a final attack on a Viking village. The visuals of these scenes are awe-inspiring but they fly by so quickly that the viewer is left disoriented and strangely uninvolved, not to mention unmoved by the story's outcome.
All this reveals that "The 13th Warrior" COULD have been an outstanding 140-minute Viking epic, along the lines of "Troy" (2004); instead we are left with a brisk, action-oriented, near-throwaway Viking popcorn flick. I would love to see a Director's Cut some day but Vladimir Kulich opines that it will unfortunately never happen.
Nonetheless, I appreciate the film as is. It's a good Viking adventure flick that's professionally done, despite the post-production problems. It's one of those films that gets better with each viewing, probably because everything flies by so quickly on initial plays.
Despite it's flaws, "The 13th Warrior" isn't too far from rivaling Kirk Douglas' brilliant 1958 "The Vikings" as one of the greatest Viking films ever made. A Director's Cut could possibly even topple "The Vikings" from its lofty, coveted perch.
The film was shot in British Columbia: Campbell River on Vancouver Island, Williams Lake and Pemberton, British Columbia.
GRADE: B-/B.

Finally a Natalie Portman and Zach Braff performance I can get behind!

Interesting and sometimes funny but with an aim of being more transcendental than what it actually is.

Another Bond I used to not like, while I have never seen this as one of the worst like Diamonds Are Forever, A View to a Kill and Licence to Kill, I did used to not like this film, but now I see it as a top 10 Bond film.