Reviews

I just watched this a couple of hours ago at the theater. I have been to terrible horror/thriller movies before, but this one take the cake, and not a good cake that is. The advertisement for the feature was misleading, especially if you like Val Kilmer and Ving Rhames.

The poster shows Val and Rhames as the main characters of the film. Unfortunately, that is untrue. Val had probably five or ten minutes of the entire feature, while Ving was on and off. Nevertheless, the performances were not as you might expect from such good names of Hollywood. The other characters seemed rather forced into the plot, too.

The plot itself was weak. The story seemed something recycled from previous works. I managed to figure out the plot and the final events within the first twenty minutes. That made it feel like a colossal waste of time, and waste of money too.

Some bad movies have humor or laughable moments. Seven Below failed at that too. There was nothing funny or witty there. Everything was laid out on the table, and the events were rather stiff. The themes in the movie were borrowed from other pictures. You will realize the scenes similarities when you watch this film, and you will only wonder, "how low can this go from there?"

I would say this movie was a lemon, but then I would be wrong. At least you can make lemonade or pie out of a lemon; this movie was just... Please, just give me my money and time back.

Car Warriors is a reality show, literally. The only difference between Car Warriors and other reality TV shows is that Car Warriors is not about absolute drama of what happens behind closed doors of celebrities, teenagers, or Jerry Springer type cast. Instead, the show is unscripted, and not about the Kardashians.

In this show, you will see an All-Stars Team versus a magnitude of teams from across the US. The All Stars are the permanent team, or hosts, who take on the challengers in building and fabricating used cars from scratch. Each car (each episode has a different car model and make) given to each team is identical in everything. It is up to the teams to decide what they want to do with them. Therefore, team work and artistry are important when presenting their projects to the judges.

The teams get 72 hour time frame to work and present their products. There are, however, a couple of episodes where the time is cut in half. The challenge, then, takes a whole different pace. To ensure fairness, the studio provided the teams with all parts and paints equally. Each team, also, has its own paint chamber and work area in an open indoor lot.

The show does not focus primarily on the mechanics and the details of work. Instead, we get to see the people at work and how they interact with each other. Nevertheless, we do get to learn a few things here and there, if we have our eyes and ears opened. For example, we learn that while painting a car, the paint booth's doors must be closed or the paint job will get tainted. We also get to learn some facts about the cars "under the knife;" and we learn how in order to do one thing, we have to watch for something else, which may cause the whole vehicle to collapse.

I find the show to be a good entertainment. It is not a show to win awards, but one that keeps us sitting, watching, and laughing from time to time. It's a very good way to kill some time and enjoy the craftsmanship of the teams. The reason the show got a six stars from me is because I think that there is room for improvement and further distance itself from other car shows.

Sometimes, the TV allows us access to good shows. Some other times, TV gives us crap. Although I do not particularly love the cast of "Committed," I found it shameful that talents were wasted on such a production.

"Committed" is one of those shows that networks would put in a recycle pin, or "on the shelf," because it is something that needs a lot of work. However, it is not too bad that they would cancel its existence. This particular show does not offer any intellectual process or depth of thought. Instead, it is accumulates all kinds of clichés and over-seen situation into one frame. In other words, "Threes Company" seems like an intelligent show in comparison with "Committed." And unlike any other funny TV shows, such as "Grounded for Life," "Still Standing," and some others, the funny jokes are not spontaneous and do not have anything new for an adult to be amused by; furthermore, the situations were built on silliest thoughts and assumptions that a real person would fall into.

The character development in "Committed" is committed for deterioration of mind. There is no development whatsoever, and the plot does not enhance itself. It is even worse because there is no one to advance or make the plot viable (almost plot-less). Sadly, "Committed" is nothing but a draft for TV.

The only reason I watched this show is because of three actors, Jennifer Finnigan, Tammy Lynn Michaels, and Darius McCrary (you have to remember him from "Family Matters"). Those are three actors I respect and adore, but, unfortunately, their talents were completely wasted here. Finnigan, the protagonist (also famous for her role in "Crossing Jordan") is such a pretty gal, but in "Committed" she is most annoying and stupid character with a shrieking voice. T.L. Michaels is a babe, if you remember her in "Popular," and she plays a helping character who is a nanny. McCrary is someone I was hoping to see more of his work, but being a helping character in this show, he is unable to deliver a soaring performance. Otherwise, just watching Finnigan and Michaels is enough to make an effort to glimpse at this travesty called "Committed."

The bottom line is this: the network needed something to fill in the empty slot, so they closed their eyes and randomly selected one of the scripts on the shelves. It is even clear that some elements of this show is similar to "Scrubs" where we see the character "Clown" being Clown like "Janitor" is Janitor in "Scrubs." Though, do not be mistaken, this show has nothing close to/with "Scrubs." Therefore, watching "Committed" is only watching ages fleeing from our time, and the makers of this show are the ones who should be committed.

When we thought that McClane, Bruce Willis, and the whole "Die Hard" line has been buried, the industry resurrects them again. It was a thrill to see that "Die Hard" was "coming to town," again. Thus, every fan would want to go and see what is the story, and visit with the rough copper, John McClane.

The film is not "Die Hard 4," it is "Die Hard 4.0," which says more than just a chronological order of the film sequence. The title, of course, suggests a more cyber relationship this action production is all about. The film, as the title conveys, is another computer program version. Furthermore, reveals, and connects, to the core of events the plot revolves over.

"Die Hard 4.0" is a true action film that offers more events, scenes, and thrilling fights throughout the screening. McClane returns, with strength, to life, and as always, he fights to defend his, life, country, and his family. The enemy here is, also, a terrorist who employs foreigners to do the dirty work for him. In addition, the makers of the film made it more difficult for the super protagonist as they forced him to compete with the government's "good guys." That helped with the characters' struggle, and somewhat with plot construction.

The plot of this film is not one that is "great," in fact it lacks more sense and intelligence. Some things would never, and could never happen, in the real life, but this is an action film that does not require, nor offers, a strong deep plot. Therefore, a viewer can go there for the action. Furthermore, the writers did a well job with the humor. There are jokes and funny scenes in this little program that made it "lighthearted." The direction was not as bad as other action films I have seen. In fact, the director did a decent job here. The lighting work was not bad either, but some scenes could have used a little bit extra sunshine. The editing, on the other hand, was probably the worst. Some scenes were not patched correctly. If the viewer payed attention, some characters would be out of place, not too far off, though; yet, it would be disturbing to the trained eye.

Besides the action and the humor, there is not much to say about "Die Hard 4.0." The film is primarily action, and it does not, nor tries to,reach for intelligence. However, some action scenes are cool, and seem smart. I am not found of the plot, I even thought it was dull. The six stars are only for the action and humor.

I must admit that in my younger years I liked Van Damme's films. As I grew older, Van Damme's films were becoming less intriguing. Though, what is left from those films in my memory is the respect and admiration the kid I was.

If you are an action/thriller fan, then you probably do not mind watching a B-movie just for the action and the fighting. In that case, "Until Death" may not be your favorite of the year. "Until Death" shifts track from the fast, super martial arts moves, such as in his films, "Double Impact" and "Lionheart." Instead, this film has more dialogue, more talking, and still, but less, fights. Most of the fighting is the protagonist's, Stow, struggling to get his life back, which is not that apparent until later in the film. Although, there is more words and somewhat worked-on dialogue, Van Damme's English pronunciation did not develop much.

"Until Death" seems like it wants to be counted as a major production, but it does not quite reach there. The film, simply, is about a cop, who may or may not be "bad," who needs straighten out his life, and thus, he must face the ruthless antagonist, Callahan (so very close to messing with Dirty Harry here), played by Gary Beadle. Unfortunately, the story line does not hold, and it reveals itself more than it should.

The editing and the scene shifts, as time elapsing or progression, is a little gore. I think it is more disturbing than being helpful with plot tracings. Therefore, sitting down and watching the film is not most pleasant, for me, that is.

Van Damme looks older than he ever was, of course, but the makeup did fine with hiding things. The lighting was fine, the camera angels were fine. Besides Van Damme and Gary Beadle, the cast was not an Academy Award selection; however, each played his/her part well enough.

The time of early 2000 was an amazing era for Jean-Claude Van Damme. He produces two good films "In Hell" and "Wake of Death." Amazingly, I did like "In Hell" much more than any Van Damme movie. It offered some serious depth and great cinematography. "Wake of Death" was not a bad film, yet not superb, but it offered more action and fights. I think that "In Hell" is what made me think that the level of Van Damme films has progressed; unfortunately, however, "Until Death" only brought Van Damme, and his movies, back to the gallows where they belong. The only reason is I am awarding this film four stars is for effort.

I have read many comments here that hated the film. One of my friends who accompanied me to the screening disliked it as well. He thought it was a waste of time, too. Unfortunately, many viewers, such as my friend, miss the point, as they in fact look for a point.

Unlike the new trend of films of this era, "Pathfinder" did not submit to the theme of freedom, the political freedom. None of the characters pronounce the word freedom, such as the main character of the film, "300," who shouted it out loud. Instead, the main character of the film, Ghost, battles himself and "his demons" in order to find his own freedom and to fit in. Ghost tries to look for the peace he was raised in.

"Pathfinder" challenges the modern stage of film-making, and re-introduces a somewhat Western ideology that John Wayne's "The Searchers" had introduced in 1956. Therefore, the audience has to place themselves in a position to examine each character-groups' point of view. In that respect, the film offers some depth to the little story that is filled with violent battle scenes.

The battle scenes are enjoyable. There is a certain level of combat cruciality. That is also a part of the little depth the story gives us. Thus, the issue of good and evil surfaces in the film in how battle is a balancing aspect of the life each side's lives.

Of course since this film is trying to appeal to the general audience, a certain degree of love and romance is involved. The love and romance of this film is actually not all-so-bad, although I am not quite found of. However, it brings a little strength into the issue of choice of life Ghost must endear.

I think "Pathfinder" lives up to its own introduction, "Legend." Therefore, it is filmed as such, an old legend. The film-makers saw it as such, and they wanted to let us see it too. I know I did. The dialogue(s) is not the perfect one, but must resemble the simplicity of older times. I do not think this is the greatest film ever made; however, it is a well made film which I think people will enjoy its little story, if they can go past the neo-ideology and "what's the point?" issue.