6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Bad in all the "right" ways, DOA is just a hell of a lot of fun to watch!
14 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I find it rather hilarious that people actually take films like this seriously. How they write out these long-winded reviews (that probably had more thought put into them than the entire creative process of this film), calling it horrible, poorly put together, an abomination, dumb, brainless, sophomoric, etc. It's all just pointless, and a big waste of time. DOA: Dead or Alive isn't trying to be a meaningful film. It's not trying to be The Godfather or Citizen Kane. With that said, I'm now going to waste my time typing out a long-winded review... but a positive one :D

First the story... or lack there of. DOA centers around a fighting tournament called... you guessed it, DOA, where fighters from all over the world are apparently randomly picked. They come to this tournament, fight, and then crown a champion. That's about all there is to it. Oh yeah, there's also some kind of plot twist later on where the leader of the tournament turns out to be evil (big surprise) and he's apparently trying to make a pair of high-tech sunglasses that will make him the greatest fighter of all time. No, I'm not joking, that's actually what happens. I swear to god.

DOA is all about the over-the-top action, and watching some of the most beautiful woman on earth kick lots of ass (as well as show it) and boy does it deliver these things in spades. Now granted, a lot of movies that strictly rely on these types of simple tactics to entertain truly are horrible and sometimes even unwatchable, but there's a certain charm to DOA that just makes it a joy to watch. It's as if the film KNOWS that it's a crappy video game movie, and it embraces it. In doing so the film stacks cheese on top of cheese and ham-fisted acting, and becomes all the more fun and memorable for it.

Compare DOA with other movies based on video games if you want an idea of what I mean. Movies like Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li and Mortal Kombat are huge failures because they take themselves WAY too seriously, and that's a big no-no when your premise is so silly. DOA knows what it is, it doesn't try to be dramatic or touching, it doesn't try to be anything memorable (granted there are a few "I WILL AVENGE YOU!!!" type cringe-worthy moments, but they are short and quickly lost in the endless shots of T&A and action).

Make no mistake, DOA is a pretty poorly-made film. The story is non-existent, the acting and dialogue are atrocious (but there's a certain playfulness to it all that still makes the actors a joy to watch), some of the special effects, if you want to call 'em that, are pretty laughable.

However, for everything that DOA does wrong, it also does something right. The acting, as bad as it is, has a hidden, perhaps even unintentional genius to it, almost as if the actors are saying "yeah I suck, but damit I'm having a good time making this film!". One thing I have come to learn about film is that *most of the time* if the actors are noticeably having a good time making the film on screen, the audience will in turn have a good time with the actors.

One thing DOA does exceptionally well is the fight choreography. It's simply the best I have seen in a video game based film (MK, Street Fighter, Tekken, take some lessons!). What makes it all the more memorable is that while we are watching these amazing fights, the director never lets us forget that we are watching a ridiculous cheese-fest.

Amidst all of the mind-blowing stunts and flawless direction during these moments, the director will insert a shameless boob or ass shot, or some kind of horrendously bad special effect. The expert filming techniques during the fight scenes in combination with the hilariously bad amateur moments, no matter how unintentional, are simply brilliant and really give this film a character and soul of it's own.

Perhaps one of my favorite elements of DOA is Eric Roberts (yes, Julia Roberts' brother!). Once kind of a household name in the 80s, Eric fell from grace and for a large part of the 90's and 2000s, mainly appeared in crappy B-movies (kind of like this one but without the fun). Here Roberts' plays a hilariously awesome ham-clenching villain whose sole-purpose in life is to create the ultimate sunglasses and take over the planet. Roberts plays the character pretty straight, but his occasional 'moustache twirling' and hilariously bad and nonsensical motivations work extremely well within the context of the film.

In closing, I think the best way I can explain DOA is by calling it an "accidental masterpiece". It's successful in my opinion, for a lot of the reasons that Plan 9 from Outer Space became successful over time. These films have a charm to them, something pure, perhaps a highly motivated director with a very loving passion for creating films, but lacks the skill to actually make good ones. They do a lot of things wrong, but these mistakes miraculously come together in actually making the film memorable. Unlike Plan 9 however, DOA actually manages to do some things well.

I give DOA 8.5 crotch shots out of 10. Now THIS is how you make a movie based on a video game!
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inception (2010)
7/10
Christopher Nolan continues his climb to the top... of the most overrated directors list
8 December 2010
If there was ever a film to label as "overrated", it would be The Dark Knight. If there was ever another film to label as "overrated", it would be Inception. I just don't understand what it is about Christopher Nolan's films but they have the tendency to receive large amounts of unwarranted and undeserved praise.

While they are very well-made films, they are for the most part nothing more than entertaining popcorn flicks (Memento being the one exception). Popcorn flicks of the up-most quality but nothing truly memorable or deep. Now that I have gotten that out of the way, lets get on with the review.

Now, basically, Inception is a heist film with a twist. The heists take place inside of a dream, thus allowing for some creative and tricky special effects to be pulled off. These effects are pretty amusing to watch, most notably a scene where the gravity of a hallway is shifting and the two actors are duking it out amidst the gravity shifts, and this makes for some impressive-looking chaos.

The story while somewhat original, wasn't pulled off as smoothly as it could have been in my opinion. There were just far too many plot holes that you could drive a tank through. Now with a certain proper ending, these plot holes would diminish, but Nolan has yet to confirm just what the ending means so the plot holes are left intact. If you want a better idea of what I mean by that, PM me.

Acting for the most part is good and gets the job done. Just don't expect anything Oscar-caliber here. If there was one stand-out performance in Inception, I would definitely say it's from Leo Dicaprio. The guy proves time and time again that he's one of the better young actors working right now. The rest of the cast gives passable performances, but nothing special. Michael Caine is wasted, and I feel the only reason he was hired was to get his name on the box.

Not much needs to be said about the special effects. They're some of the best yet, and at times even creative. Possibly the strongest aspect of the film, next to the effects, is the musical score. Inception has one of the best scores in recent memory. My hat is off to Hans Zimmer. The effects, score, and flawed but intriguing story come together in making Inception a very enjoyable and entertaining film. It's definitely smarter than your average popcorn flick, but at the end of the day it's still just a popcorn flick. Nothing more, nothing less. It lacks the emotional punch and attention to detail that made District 9 so great (now that's a true masterpiece, and one of the greatest sci fi films ever made).

I give Inception 7.5/10 and highly recommend it to anyone looking for a fun film that will also make them think a little bit.
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rogue (2007)
7/10
Rogue is the "Jaws" of killer croc movies
5 December 2010
Don't be fooled by the title of my review, as Rogue simply isn't as good as Spielberg's masterpiece, but at times it comes close. This is undoubtedly the best killer croc film ever made (not saying much), mainly because director Greg Mclean uses many of the tried and true suspense techniques seen in Jaws.

We never get a good look at the croc until towards the end of the film, giving it's final reveal impact. A lot of the deaths happen off-screen, and the only clue we're given to their demise is their sudden disappearance and the horrified reactions of the other characters.

Speaking of characters, they're very likable for the most part with a few annoying exceptions, but horror films typically have a couple characters that you are rooting for to die. This is in large part due to the quality acting, most notably from leads Radha Mitchell (a very underrated actress) and Michael Vartan. Big-time Hollywood actor Sam Worthington also has a small but memorable part.

Special effects are top-notch, which I found surprising considering Rogue's small budget and limited theatrical run. The crocodile looks, moves, and acts very believable, and this was very welcome after seeing the stupidly fast and unrealistic croc in Primeval (another killer croc film released in the same year, and no where near as good).

Perhaps the film's strongest aspect, other than it's ability to build suspense, is it's footage of the Australian wildlife and landscape. It simply looks beautiful, and in combination with the actors and accents makes Rogue feel authentic. All of these things come together in crafting a very solid horror/thriller. Words can't even describe the superb climax, and proves that Greg Mclean is a masterful director. I will definitely be keeping an eye on his future work.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Had the misfortune of having to live up to it's predecessors' impossibly high standards
4 July 2010
Standards which it could never achieve, and wasn't really meant to anyways. As a brainless action flick, it's very well made. The crane chase, no matter how implausible, was amazing and is easily one of the best chase scenes of the decade. The film's main problem, for me at least, is that it spends it's best action scene too early on in the film, and everything that came afterwards was just OK. Still, it's a good action film, and I believe people have come to respect it more after witnessing the travesty that was Terminator Salvation. Just don't go mentioning T3 in the same breath as it's predecessors.

PROS:

-Crane chase, crane chase, crane chase! Brilliantly set up and shot, and incredibly thrilling. This is the one point where T3 almost matches the heights of the first two films, and what it SHOULD be remembered for. Yes, it is highly implausible, but that's not the point.

-Arnold is amusing, almost playing a parody version of his previous Terminator roles. You can tell he had fun.

-Kristanna Loken makes for a good villainess. She doesn't even touch Robert Patrick, but she brings enough menace to the table to actually feel like a reasonable threat.

-Ending. I'm not gonna spoil it but it is fittingly dark. Gotta give the director props for not coping out on it.

CONS:

-Nick Stahl. Dull. Flat. Boring

-Claire Danes. Dull. Flat. Boring

-The scale/size and quality of the action scenes following the crane chase took a big nose-dive. They are OK, but that's just it. Only OK does not pass in a Terminator film. I get the feeling that most of the film's budget went towards the crane chase, as everything else feels lackluster by comparison.

-This is the biggest flaw for me. The musical score. Where in the hell did that AMAZING and GOD-LIKE score from T2 go? No, those are not overstatements. T2 literally had one of the greatest scores in film history (Brad Fiedel's masterpiece), and I'm just dumbfounded that the creators of T3 seemed completely oblivious to this fact, because T3 has an almost non-existent score. What actually is there is very flat, dull, and BORING. Why oh why did they not try harder in this department?

In closing, Terminator 3 would have gotten MUCH more praise had it not been a Terminator film. 7/10 for this entertaining blockbuster.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A passable sequel, though unnecessary. (may contain some spoilers)
17 May 2010
If there was ever a film that didn't need a sequel, it would be The Descent. It was one of the greatest horror films of the past decade, unique for it's stunning sense of claustrophobia, dread, and the fact that it's main cast consisted of nothing but females. It had two endings. The original ending in the UK version was replaced in North America for a slightly lighter ending (which was highly criticized by some fans). The sequel follows the second ending where Sarah escapes from the cave.

I will describe the story in a nutshell (as others have already explained it in detail I'm sure). Sarah is taken to a hospital where she is questioned by officers as to the disappearance of her friends. For some odd reason though she remembers nothing, so in an attempt to trigger her memory, the officers form a search team, and return her to the nightmarish cave containing the monsters from which she barely escaped. From here on it's basically the same thing as the first film, only no where near as good or refreshing.

Gone is the sense of claustrophobia, as the direction just simply isn't as good, and because of it the cave feels much bigger spaced than what it did in the first. This in turn takes away a lot of the fear and dread. Also gone is the all-female cast, replaced with a mixed gender cast, which takes away from the uniqueness of it all. Sarah, one of two returning characters from the first film (the other woman from the first appear in recordings and flashbacks), is one of the highlights, and actress Shauna Macdonald brings back a lot of the fear and strength that her character had in the previous film.

The character of Juno also returns (who was arguably the best part of the first, and is one of the greatest female anti-heroes in the history of film), but her return doesn't make much sense. She is quite the badass no doubt, but it's still hard to believe that she could have survived down there as long as she did with a seriously injured leg and a seemingly endless amount of killer monsters. Regardless though, it was still a joy to see her kicking butt again, at least for me. The female characters are still good in this sequel, while the male cast members are very forgettable.

The sequel is unsurprisingly very gory, and it does feature some cool kills, as well as some disposable ones. A decent portion of the film lacks tension and suspense however. The best thing I can say for this sequel is that in the final 30-40 minutes or so, there are glimpses of the brilliance that was so prevalent in the first film. While it's no where near as good as the first and totally unnecessary, it's still passable. It's much better than a lot of the crap horror movies that have come out recently, namely the Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street remakes.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
God awful sequel
8 April 2010
As someone who enjoyed the first Boondock Saints (I don't praise it up and down like most, but I recognise it as a well made film) I thought that the sequel was terrible. First off, the use of the words "retarded" and "gay". Now I'm not the type to spout off about political correctness and what have you, but those words just felt totally inappropriate in this. It's fine when they are used in good taste and humor, kind of like how Tropic Thunder handled it, but in here they are just used as petty insults and it came off as amateur writing on Duffy's part. His inexperience definitely shines through in that department.

Next, and what I thought was particularly well done in the first Boondock Saints, was the crime scene investigations. In BDS2, they just felt awkward and out of place. I haven't seen much of Julie Benz's work, but strictly going off of this, she is a terrible actress, and lacks all of the charm that Willem Dafoe brought. In the first BDS, the CSI scenes were cleverly done, showing Dafoe go through the motions of the killers, and brilliantly showing his character's expertise, but he also showed imperfection (mistaking there being 4 killers instead of 1 Poppa for example).

In BDS2 the CSI scenes involved completely pointless fluff, like Benz in a cowboy outfit, shooting at nothing while explaining what happened. It made no sense and just came off as stupid. The scene where she was walking between the gunmen pointing her fingers and trying to look sexy was equally pointless and stupid. That's not even how the gun fight went down so why would they show it like that?

Lastly, the jokes just were not clever at all. The only joke that I thought was particularly clever was a scene involving a plan with a forklift going horribly wrong. The Mexican and gay jokes could not be any more unfunny. At times I felt like I was watching a recent direct to DVD National Lampoons movie. The film as a whole just seemed incredibly poorly written and juvenile. I was dumbfounded by the drop in quality from the first film.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed