filmismagic Reviews

Behind Enemy Lines (2001)

I'd much rather enjoy a parody spin-off where Burnett grabs the wrong disc

[3/10 · 29 November 2023]

As someone from Former Yugoslavia myself (not Serb though), it's hard not to automatically approach a film featuring the much-forgotten Bosnian conflict through a specific lens. After all, it was the first major war on European soil since WW2 (until the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in recent years) and caused over 100,000 deaths, displacements, and broken survivors still traumatised to this day. Though the majority of atrocities documented were committed by Serbs, innocent civilians from all sides were killed or tortured in vast numbers, and very few movies out there have been made (both from Western or Balkan media) that managed to depict the wars without some questionable sort of bias and agenda. Of course, being Hollywood in a much different era to now, the production for Behind Enemy Lines was inevitably going to be a film made about Americans, for Americans, with the incredibly complex Balkan situation merely serving as a convenient backdrop. Sure, there'd be some briefly touched-on *sympathy* for the Bosniaks, but otherwise viewers wanting a fun time won't care about authenticity here. It's clear as day which ethnicity are the bad guys (though judging by early-to-pre-2000s Hollywood standards, that could easily be anyone without an American accent), and you can already tell the US military by contrast is going to be portrayed in a heroic and near-invincible way - any faults of theirs that may occur are only due to external factors, not their own mistakes. You couldn't have a better method of motivating more recruitment applications for young simple minds that still think war is a Call Of Duty game.

Despite the poor ethics, I can still try to appreciate a film for its other aspects. But the ethics are not even the worst thing about the movie, far from it actually. The worst thing is the utterly comedic disregard for realism in almost every possible manner you can think of (plot, setting, physics, technology, action, hostile situations, you name it). How so many absurd scenes can market itself as a serious war film is beyond me. Now I don't expect even the most nuanced and carefully crafted of films to be 100% realistic, nobody does. Heck, I'm not even a historian or military scientist. But there's just so many moments in this film so laughably over-the-top it's impossible to suspend any disbelief. I'm not exaggerating when I say it puts the laws of physics of actual comedy parodies like Hot Shots to shame. When the scene occurred with the pilots ejecting from their plane many seconds apart from each other, I couldn't tell if the moment later - where their cockpit seats still somehow manage to collide and bounce of each other while high in the air with a BOING sound - was intentional or a lucky camera take. Either way, Abrahams and the Zucker brothers could take notes. And I haven't even gotten to the part yet where the protagonist is unscathed by explosions barely 2 metres next to him, or the fact that he still keeps getting off the hook despite his disobedient and cocky attitude towards his superiors (is this the military or not?), or how laughably incompetent the Ushanka-wearing "bad guys" are (Apparently they have a real habit of stepping on their own mines). Had this movie been classed as "comedy"; I would actually appreciate and enjoy it more. Even the film's epilogue looks and sounds like something you'd expect either from a documentary, or a parody, of which this film is neither.

I also never understood why it's so common to make the villains look so incompetent, because doing so usually diminishes, not enhances, the tension that an action/survival thriller like this is trying to invoke. I'm sorry, but having 3 helicopters take on an entire battalion with armoured vehicles barely meters away, with absolutely none of them getting shot down or damaged is laughable, even by Rambo sequel standards. Meanwhile, our hero literally slides with his legs on the ice towards dozens of enemy soldiers to retrieve some disc in his plane wreckage, firing his pistol like he's in a Matrix movie. Again, parody much?? Meanwhile, the *good guys* always seem to get it right. In situations that should have them utterly decimated, they not only survive with little to no consequences, but even go above and beyond in the success of their objective. It doesn't take long into the movie to pick this up and from then, any suspense that could have been conveyed is completely diminished.

To acknowledge some positives, I was actually surprised at how articulate the spoken Serbo-Croatian was for one or two of the *bad guys* given that almost none of them appeared to be Former-Yugoslav actors - of course, I'm judging merely by Hollywood standards, and the brokenness of the rest of the foreign speakers was blatantly obvious (Just picture a Brit talking in a Trans-Atlantic accent and claiming to be Texan, and you'll know how it feels). Still, it's better than having Serbian characters falsely converse in Hungarian. The VFX and cinematography are quite well-done in their own right, and pull off the bleak atmosphere of 90s Balkans. Gene Hackman is fine to watch as always, even if a movie like this is well beneath his station. I never cared much for Owen Wilson even as a comedic actor, but I must give him credit for nailing the serious role quite well. Unfortunately, that's about as far as the positives go, and still get ultimately overshadowed by the film's greater flaws.

Behind Enemy Lines is one of those movies that, give or take a few genuinely entertaining scenes, is only enjoyable if you either switch your brain off fully or use it to pick apart and tease all the absurd aspects appearing throughout the film with your friends. Admittingly, there were a few times I was drawn into what I was watching. But even when overlooking the jingoistic nature of the movie, it's hard to overlook the absurdly unrealistic tone. Movies don't need to be realistic to be fun or even good, but there is a line (pun not intended) and the movie catapults itself way past it. This film may serve as a good time for some, but whether as a profound take on the Bosnian/Yugoslav Conflict or an intense and engaging action/thriller, it fails in both departments.

Mortal Engines (2018)

If you haven't read the novels, you might enjoy it.

[5/10 · 21 December 2018]

Probably the first thing that struck me about both, audience's and critics' responses is that many seem to have not read the original Mortal Engines novel. While it's a truth universally acknowledged that film adaptations differ from their source material, I don't see that as reason alone to bash a film. If anything, movies have the potential to reach heights the original novel could not. It doesn't happen often but there have been moments, and when I first heard about Mortal Engines and Peter Jackson producing it I was hoping they create something REALLY special with this excellent story. I know it's a bit of meme by now to hear fans of the novels bash their film versions, but believe me it's not something I would do unless I had some very good reasons. Mortal Engines (2018) is one such example, sadly enough.

To briefly sum up the plot, the movie takes place in a post-apocalyptic Europe affected by a tragic disaster and war. Because of this most iconic cities and towns are now running on engines and wheels in order to scavenge for valuable resources and survive. Tom, a historian from London, through unfortunate circumstances bands with Hestor, a scavenger and outcast, who wants to avenge her mother's death by assassinating Thaddeus Valentine, the Head of London's Guild of Historians, who intends to solve London's dilemmas by acquiring an ancient weapon that can help the city penetrate a Shield Wall that no other city succeeded in doing.

The original novel was made for children, but it still had a lot of dark and complex themes throughout. Much was left ambiguous, but you at least were given some details of what drove the world into the state it is in now and the politics it produced. Both Hester and Tom were flawed individuals that made decisions that constantly caused distrust in their relationship, yet I understood why they stuck together and didn't root for one over the other. In the movie, they were just both annoying and acted stupidly at times or made decisions without any clear motive. I just could not identify with either of them here, even when knowing details about them that the film doesn't tend to address. Oh, also the usual movie trope where all of a sudden they "love" each other, despite knowing each other for so little time during which one of them tries robbing the other assuming that they're dead.

The thing that bugged me the most was that the novel had many great and surprising moments. Not only did they not appear in the movie, but they were even REPLACED with cliché situations. Apologies but MASSIVE spoiler in next several lines: Example, the main villain's daughter in the book has a much more relevant role, and even gets indirectly killed by him, causing him guilt that is only barely redeemed by him helping the protagonists escape while he stays with his dead daughter as the entire city gets destroyed. In the movie, the villain is too black-white and dies a villainous death while his gorgeous blonde daughter ends up surviving with the majority of London. This is just one of several examples where intense moments are changed for no clear reason, other than to dumb things down for a more family-friendly audience I guess. For something Peter Jackson produced, I'm amazed this turned out to be the case. I never read the original Lord Of The Rings books so could not judge how faithful he stayed to them as he directed his trilogy. What I can say however is that the films kept me engaged and had a lot of twists and turns that I wasn't expecting. While not without faults, those films were anything but cliché. Even if I hadn't read the Mortal Engines novel prior, I'd still be disappointed by the storyline in this movie and how predictable it is.

I've stopped trusting film critics a long time ago, but sadly this is one case where some of them are actually right. It puzzles me that Philip Reeves (the author) would give such positive response to this watered-down, PC version of his astonishing story. Still, in a sad age of cinema that's overloaded with superheroes, remakes, reboots and sequels, Mortal Engines really is a breath of fresh air. It portrays a world that hasn't really been done before and always looks visually stunning throughout. For that alone I can see why those going into it blind would be so captivated by it, and is why I generously give it 2.5/5. But as an adaptation, it just isn't a very good movie. The world's lore is very underplayed and the adventure is too predictable and dumbed down. Retaining most of the book's complexity wouldn't have necessarily made the movie longer or above a PG-13 rating, so why the producers and filmmakers settled for this result really puzzles me. If you decide to go see it, I strongly encourage you to borrow the book (and its sequels) from a library afterwards. I know it's common to hear "Read the book!" from die-hard fans, but trust me; if you stick to the movie you'll miss out on some truly wonderful stories and adventures that the world of Mortal Engines has to offer.

Half-Life (1998 Video Game)

It's nearly 2010 now, and it is still amazing!!

[10/10 · 16 November 2009]

OK, if you are incredibly used to gameplay in most games nowadays, you may find it hard to be awed by this game. Same goes for graphics, but there is no way that the opinion of the story or the level design can ever change. That's also to say that for the time the graphics and gameplay truly amazed.

Valve has become one of my favourite developers (if not my favourite) thanks to this game and their more recent ones. Half Life is their first game so it is difficult to imagine such innovation, especially due to the fact that it is also quite old. The game never shifts from your perspective and your character, Gordon Freeman does not talk. There is also never any time skipping (except during one part when you are unconscious) and the game is very long. Single player has never been done better.

But it is perhaps the gameplay that is the most impressive thing. The first level and the second one(anomolous materials) are my favourites because in the first, you feel tension and an amazing feeling from the intro. The second is great because you have a highly interactive environment. Play with the microwave in the eating room and it will make sense what Magnusson says to you in HL2 Episode 2 before you fight the striders. Turn the lights off in a room where scientists are drawing on the board, they will be annoyed. Or play with the security switch beneath Security guard Barney's desk at the beginning of the mission and see what happens. You have an environment in this game that you can easily interact with.

The gunfights are enjoyable too. They are not easy sometimes, but they are plain fun. There is a range of weaponry you get in the game and some like throwing a dangerous but cute insect which inflicts damage on enemies and screams like crazy, are awesome features. The game features well thought-out puzzles which are not always simple, but never overly difficult. This is an old game and is quite often linear, but it is not just the design and non-repetitiveness that is amazing, but also the replay value. You will replay missions not just for sheer fun, but also to find hidden locations and how to treat allies. There is no limits to who you shoot so you could always decide how to treat a security guard or scientist. You could ask them to come along, leave them where they are, or just send them to the light. Also the game features two different endings. The amount of choice for a '98 game here is incredible.

The visuals bring an amazing, sometimes frightening atmosphere. The physics are also totally amazing as half the objects you encounter are destructible. There is no ragdoll (which is to be expected), but you can make a body explode to pieces with the crowbar or grenade if you want. Also, they never disappear so corpses aren't just sleeping ghosts that fade away eventually. The sound is also pretty good. There are some neat sound effects for weapons, explosions (and some of the gore). The music is good too. Some of it is basic in style, but fit their moments really well.

This may not be THE BEST game ever for me, but it sure is one of the best. It is exactly the thing that made modern FPS's what they are today. The AI is decent, the zombies are disturbing. It is difficult to find a flaw in this game. The sequel is also revolutionary, but it is a bit more restricted than this game and a lot different in many parts of design. Regardless, go get both of them now.

Gears of War 2 (2008 Video Game)

This is a fair sequel

[7/10 · 4 July 2009]

I think you can see that judging by my rating that I don't share as much enthusiasm as for Gears of War 1, but that's not to say that Gears of War 2 is a bad game. It is actually really good and a great action game which is loads of fun to play. Nevertheless, there are some flaws that Epic Games should have looked into.

I have played some missions in the campaign, just enough to get the story. Clearly, the characters and dialogue have improved and the story itself has more depth and twists. You get to have a small sub-plot about Dom in this game. The cutscenes have improved and have a lot of depth. When Dom finds his wife, it was one of the most well-directed video game cutscenes I have ever seen. Seeing both their faces made me think that all this is real. Obviously, the story was a big improvement over the original game (and the originals story was not bad either) both emotionally and in structure.

Gameplay is very good. It has a few improvements to the first game like a chainsaw duel, execution moves, surviving while wounded by crawling, new weapons (like flamethrower) etc. Even though the improvements are there, I do not think there are as many as I hoped there would be for a sequel. It seemed more like an expansion to me. The campaign's story was good, but I don't think that most of the mission design was as good as it should have been. In co-operative duel, there has these features (chainsaw duel, execution moves) plus the environment is not safe either since in some maps, strong hailing rain will occasionally appear and if you stay outside too long you will ...well, die!! The gore has increased as well so the game is more fun (but makes it less suitable for a younger age). The most note-worthy improvement in co-operate versus mode is that you can add bots to the field so if you are a loner, you do just that to have all the fun.

The graphics have improved from the first game. This shows the capabilities of an Xbox 360 video game. The rendering and detail has made a great improvement. The blood is more colourful as in the first game, the blood was always dark, dark red. They are quite close to challenging Call of Duty 4 or Crysis graphics in terms of realistic-looking.

The music overall, is not much of an improvement over the previous game's intense songs, but the main menu theme for this game is better than for the first. All in all, Gears of War 2 is a very good game which fans of the first one will enjoy. I am just a little bit disappointed, because after playing Half Life 2, I thought that as a sequel, this would have more improvement then it does. Nevertheless, it is a great game and should still be bought even if you have the first game on an Xbox 360, just don't get it at full price.

Ben 10: Alien Force (2008–2010)

Surprisingly better than the first Ben 10

[10/10 · 12 June 2009]

My little brother watches Ben 10 and Ben 10 Alien Force. I took a look at them myself and both are really good, but Alien Force has made a lot of improvement, I have to admit. Almost everything about Alien Force is better than Ben 10. Let me talk about it.

The characters have matured and that is actually a good thing. I often felt that the character relationship between Ben and Gwen in the original series was pretty over-done seeing how they treat each other. In this Ben 10 series, they are quite close and it actually works well. Kevin Levin was an evil brute who used his powers only for his satisfaction in the old Ben 10. Now, he is encouraged to work with them as they learn that Max Tennyson went missing on a plumber's case and they try to find him. The characters are a lot better than in the first and have far better design. The voices in this series is better than the previous as it makes the characters more unique and likable.

The stories in the episodes are much better as well. The episode's stories themselves prove that Alien Force is for older kids. The reason is that the plots may be a lot more difficult to understand and are a bit more complex. Nevertheless, just as the series and Ben himself have grown up, the targeting audience from Ben 10 has grown up as well. It is a bit less violent, but has a much darker feel due to the improvement in animation and tension and is more confusing for little kids.

This series also has better music than the original Ben 10 and more detailed fight scenes and even more unique and detailed alien designs. In Alien Force, Ben changes into totally different E.T.s when he is about to fight. Ones like Swampfire, Humoungosaur and Brainstorm all feel very original and more interesting types of aliens.

Though I was originally a fan of the first Ben 10, I have changed my mind for Ben 10 Alien Force. Ben 10 is good for kids to start off with then, and Alien Force is good for them to view when they have grown out of the original Ben 10. I will definitely say that Ben 10 Alien Force is better than the first due to its improvements.

The Adventures of Tintin (1991–1992)

A flawless adaptation of the comic books

[10/10 · 15 May 2009]

I used to love watching this when I was young. I noticed that with some children/family shows, I hated them when I view them now because I sometimes see them as rip-offs or a way of making kids dumb (some of the playhouse Disney shows for example, and even some of the Asterix films). However, in this case, watching it again after a long time made me like it even more.

Tintin and the Lake of Sharks was a total screw-up!!! An absolute disgrace to the comics. The voices (Captain Haddock sounding like Popeye), the ridiculous music (especially when there is one part when the two kids sing an annoying song, making it a musical), the cheap animation and a number of Tintin-related factual errors like Calculus hearing badly and hearing well most of the time, the inaccurate characters ...all of it made it horrible a movie. The series has none of these flaws.

The visuals remain true to Herge's fantastic drawing style and the animation fits really well with it. The music in the series is perfect for Tintin. The humour remains the same(just as good), with a couple of clever add-ons for the Thompsons. The characters remain the same as in the comic books. The voice-cast is perfect and the voice-acting by everybody makes the characters portrayed exactly like they were in the books. The Thompsons are really hilarious and their voices were a joy to listen to, making the two detectives in the comics really come to life. My congrats to them, the voices of Tintin and Captain Haddock and the rest of the cast.

The stories remain true to the books even though any fans of the books will easily spot a few differences. I am pleased to say that they actually fit really well with the episodes, because picturing some of the edited parts being identical to these parts in the book instead of being altered, just wouldn't work. And hearing me say that the stories are reasonably true to the books clearly means that they are fantastic, matching the clever imaginations and twists that Herge came up with in his books.

A flawless adaptation is perhaps the best way to describe the series. Forget about that movie which rips off the books. If you want an enjoyable, loyal series, then pick this one as soon as you can.

The Jungle Book 2 (2003)

Another rip-off! Will they stop making sequels?!

[8 October 2008]

This film is as awful as Little Mermaid 2. Maybe it is not so much like a remake, but the songs in this one are nothing like the first one's. The story in this one is bad too. So what if there are a few funny moments? Can that forgive the film. Hell, the animation in this one is even worse than in the original. The characters have little detail to their illustrations. I am very, very disappointed in Haley Joel Osment and John Goodman for working with this film. Two of the new characters, Shanti and Rajaan who are Mowgli's friends are very annoying. Shanti starts out at the end of the first as this beautiful girl whom Mowgli will share the rest of his life with. Then she becomes so annoying that you actually hate her! The voice acting is "okay". I expected more from the people though. A very insulting thing abut this sequel is that even though they sing the bare necessities. Haley Osment and John Goodman clearly have a gift in music, but as Mowgil and Baloo, they sing off tune in this song.

This sad sequel is just another rip-off of a great film based on a well-known novel. This film should just be ignored.

Little Man (III) (2006)

What a waste of time!

[1/10 · 8 October 2008]

This is exactly the reason why many people remain homeless . . . because stupid producers pay their money to make awful films like this instead of donating if they can bother!

This film is even worse than white chicks! Little Man has a lame excuse for posing a character midget as a baby. Story is awful considering it was written by six people. The idea still wouldn't be too bad though, if it was original and not a rip-off of a cartoon episode. it has funny moments but some of them are way over-done and some are just stupid. The acting was very, very bad. So was the directing. Anyone involved in this film should be ashamed of themselves. it is racist and very offensive to midgets. I mean, instead of showing sympathy to them, the film-makers make fun of them! It really disgusts me how they do it. They see midgets being just like babies. And for a character who is a midget, pretending to be an abandoned baby just to get a diamond from a certain family. That is its lame excuse for showing something like that. It just was not worth it. Don't watch this film. It is a huge waste of time and money.

Æon Flux (2005)

Very mediocre

[5/10 · 30 September 2008]

Aeon Flux is an adaptation. That is true, but it is a poor one. Story and imagination is not great and dialogue is a bit poor and even the great special effects and entertaining action cannot make up for it.

When I first saw it a couple of years ago, I thought it was good, but I was young then. I still was not in high school yet and I did not see so many sci-fi films until today. I think that even the acting in this could have been better. If the writers worked on the dialogue, they might have been able to make the story a lot more interesting, and the acting a lot easier.

Good luck to them if they make a sequel. I expect some improvement and if there is, I might forgive them for this.

Shark Tale (2004)

Very poor

[1/10 · 8 September 2008]

The people who made this film and written are no professionals. This is a film about a fish called Oscar who is a hero because everyone thinks he killed a shark. Shark Tale is voiced by several stars (Robert De Niro, Jack black, Will Smith, Renee Zellweger) and even with good old Martin Scorcese. I am very disappointed in them for wasting their time on this joke.

The story is simple and easy to write and you know why? Because the fish are just like humans. They have trash cans, modern houses and TVs, playstations, electricity etc underwater!! I think they really over-exaggerated here. Finding Nemo was great not only because of the story, but it was very realistic with everything; colour, animation etc. This world the fish live in is as though it was fish in this world instead of humans and that they knew how to fly. Colour was good, but much too colourful for me. They rip off dialogue, music and other stuff from great films like The Godfather, Jaws, Apocalypse Now etc. There are a few funny moments, but overall the humour is lame and totally unsuccessful as to being hilarious.

Also, this film is a bit too inappropriate for kids. Sure, maybe some crude humour here and there, but rude dialogue and a sexy fish (if you saw this you will know what I mean) and the ridiculous idea of a shark that says he is a vegetarian? What were the writers thinking? I don't know. Maybe they were not thinking at all.

I do not see how this could be nominated for best animated feature Oscar. I would expect something like this to get nominated a razzie award. This film is strictly for immature people, especially immature teenagers.

We Are Not Angels 3: Rock & Roll Strike Back (2006)

This isn't a comedy

[2/10 · 29 August 2008]

I have not seen the first one yet, but I watched the second and I enjoyed that. I took the liberty of watching this. Well, where are the laughs? I understand that people may not have liked the second because it is a sequel. Maybe it will happen to me when I see We are not angels 1.

Anyway, this one is more to do with music, but the film is quite boring and without much humour at all really. I think Srdjan Dragojevic is a great writer, but he disappointed me with this. It shows the typical story of the angel and the devil but they are not interesting because they ARE NOT FUNNY. That goes for the rest of the characters. This film better hope I do not give it a one after watching the first.

The only reason I do not give it a one though, is because of the beautiful visuals this film has with lighting and cinematography. However, that is not enough to like this garbage. If it had some funny moments I could at least respect it, but sadly no. I cannot stop you from watching this, but remember: YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (2003 Video Game)

Classic Game! And one of the best games that exist.

[10/10 · 2 August 2008]

my goodness, no wonder it got so many game of the year awards. There are so many good things about it it would take hours to describe them and say them all.

Graphics will be regarded as poor, nowadays, but there are a lot of things that will stay for generations. And the graphics are actually good for 2003.

Story is certainly the best in a video game and would win best adapted screenplay Oscar if made into a movie no matter what other movies were nominated for that. This is one thing that keeps you through the game.

Gamplay is awesome. Though the main moments of the story always stay the same, you can choose your dialogue, determining whether you are falling closer to the dark side or not. It means you can always play through the story differently. And you may encounter people with problems. You can either choose to help them or not. And once you have, you can decide to let them keep the reward they give to you, or thank them for it or threaten them to give you more. And you can choose different faces for character. Though you cannot customise them there is a range of choices.

And the music is perfect for this game. Except for the opening titles this game has its own star wars music and it is totally successful. It fits in at the right times very well. Jeremy Soule, you ROCK!!

The voice-acting is very well done. It sounds so real, you see the characters as real people. Especially when you ask them about their background.

This is game for everyone. Whatever you own, PC or Xbox (I own this on PC), you should get this game for that game machine. No matter what types of games you like, you will adore this one. This game has a mixture of flying game and other stuff, though you do not actually pilot the ship. And you can race and it is role-play too. The only thing I think is not part of it is strategy, but you won't care. So even when it is 2010, I insist you buy it!

The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea (2000 Video)

Was A Sequel Really Necessary?!

[1/10 · 2 August 2008]

Probably for Temple Matthews who written basically a remake with few changes that just make it worse. SPOILERS: It's much similar to the original. Melody, Ariel's new baby daughter is threatened by Ursula's sister, Morgana. Morgana escapes, but keeps her promise to take Melody away from them. (Ursula had a sister?!) And she's not flashy a villain as Ursula was either. This is where similarity is. Melody is kept from the sea until Morgana is captured, but she doesn't know a thing about it, because everyone kept it secret. A wall surrounds the palace to keep her in and Morgana out. She goes under the wall day to day to have a swim and talk with Sebastian, who is not as funny or fun anymore. She finds a seashell with her name on it and runs away from home and to look for answers and finds Morgana. Here is a similarity; Morgana tricks Melody, making her happy by turning her into a mermaid. Meanwhile, Eric, Melody and King Triton look for her. To stay a mermaid she needs to steal the trident from Triton. So Melody does, because she does not know King Triton is her grandfather. She makes friends with a penguin and a walrus and here is where it is awful. The penguins who live with them in an icy ocean, hate them because they are cowards. So they try to prove they are heroes and fail. That does not suit the little mermaid. And the dialogue during those conversations between the penguins and those two characters is ear-bleeding. you know why? Because the first had a great story. This one is not and is not magical. It is just an example of how bad many sequels are.

Melody finds them and they help to take her to Atlantica to prove themselves. After taking the trident, Ariel finds Melody with Morgana. Melody is angry at her mother for keeping her from the sea so she gives the trident to Morgana, then she shows her true colours once she grabs it. Poor Ariel and Melody are in her custody. The penguin and the walrus begin to prove themselves when they fight Morgana's shark friend. Sorry I did not mention him earlier. Both have fulfilled their courage in the end (predictably). Eric, King Triton and his soldiers arrive but are forced to bow down before Morgana by the power of the trident. Melody takes it, throws it to Triton and he ices Morgana (literally). Then Ariel apologises to Melody and thinks it is all her fault. It was not! Ariel did the right thing to protect Melody, but they never say so. Triton offers Melody to live in sea or land. She in fact has a "better idea". She uses the trident to vaporize the wall so humans and mer-folk can be together. Then everyone sings an awful song. THE END.

Whoevers seen it and likes this obviously hasn't seen the original. I don't dislike this because I am a teenager. I liked it when I was very little. Then as I grew older I began to see what is bad about this film. Young, young kids will enjoy it, but it is likely that when they are in primary school, they will forget about it. Normally I would think I over-judged a film and it was better than I remember when I watched it again, but not this one. Only much worse. Story is no exception. If you thought, by reading this that the story is good, read more of this comment and you will know the other bad points: Well, you know the story now. I'm sorry for spoiling it for you, assuming you read it but I had to point out some bad parts of it. One of the worst things that taken a step backwards is the animation. Colour is awful. The original had beautiful colour. Watching this almost made me want to go blind. Even the illustrations and landscape design were not good. The original had beautiful, magical colouring and beautiful underwater landscape design and for land as well, making it a joy to watch.

The music is good at times, but for this kind of movie it is unbearable. Compared to the first movie, its crap. Songs are not well composed and you wouldn't hear many good voices. Tara Strong is a great voice-actor, who even displayed Mel Blanc-style talents, but she cannot sing a tune. She at times either sang too high or did not keep track for the melody in the song. So much for having "Melody" as a name.And the music is not at all beautiful or moving. Little Mermaid 1 won an Oscar for it and it truly deserved it. This one deserved a razzie award for worst musical score in a sequel if it would exist.

I did not like the voices. Several people who played characters from the first, are here too. Jodi Benson is a great singer, but now that she is older, no offence to her, her voice is too deep and not so beautiful anymore. Most disappointing is that she and others from the first cast were part of this. If I was chosen for this film, just by reading the script, I can tell it would be a bad sequel. The characters are different now. Ariel is more wiser now, yet annoying. They overdid her character, making her too mature. In sequels you are not meant to change the characters unless it is for a special reasons. She was sixteen in the first. There is little chance she changes. That is the stage when you become the person you are going to be for the rest of your life. Screenwriters should think of that. They should think of the character.

Well, I suppose that is it for me. I hope you find my comment useful, because I am sure a lot of you will agree with my point of view.

Crysis (2007 Video Game)

9.0 stars?! The negative voters should be ashamed of themselves!

[10/10 · 7 June 2008]

This game is just too underrated here on IMDb. Even if everything else was not good, the graphic detail is amazing enough for Crysis to get a high rating. Gamespot was right to give this a 9.5 and say its visually stunning and filled with intelligent gameplay and easily one of the greatest shooters ever made.

If you don't see it getting sold much in gaming shops, this is because the game demands a very fast PC and a really good graphic card. Don't buy this game before you get one of the newest PCs and graphic cards, but if you buy special edition, you can watch a DVD about the making of the game and listen to the awesome soundtrack by Inon Zur.

One of the big things about this game is the gameplay. It is heaps of fun and beyond the basic gameplay Call of Duty Modern Warfare features. You can grab a soldier and throw him into a house and make it collapse. Like in Half Life 2, you can even grab any object you want eg, book, teapot, magazine, chair, table, bottle, even a live chicken etc. It makes the action really intense, and the physics to look terrific. Your nano-suit can switch modes to maximum speed, maximum armour, cloaking, and maximum strength (makes you throw soldiers further away and lift larger objects and jump as high as in Halo) I saw what Halo 3 originally got. 9.8? Never! I enjoyed Halo 2, but Halo 3 is no different than the others. Only that graphics are improved. Gameplay is like what it was in 2003. Just a simple shoot 'em up. Crysis is something original. Crysis is twenty times better than Halo. Even Call Of Duty 4 had rather decent game-play, unlike Halo 3. the AI in this game are smart. When you punch them, they react realistically. Their heads don't just get knocked back. You see their reactions from their face, how they open their mouths and close their eyes. When they are alert, they look everywhere around, so if you are playing stealth, you have to be careful.

The story is not bad at all. I am a lot into story lines in games and films. Crysis does not have an original plot. Aliens attack Earth, but the structuring is great and it flows very well, with many twists. US archaeologists have discovered something on an island not far from Korea. Their last transmission indicated that that the Koreans taken control of the island and took them hostage. You are sent by a squad of US Special Forces. You wear nano-suits for the operation. Once you're there, you find out about aliens and eventually fight them (I haven't got up to that part yet.). And the aliens are trying to ice the planet (literally).

The landscape in this game is beautiful. It is much similar to Far Cry. When you swim, you can see fish underwater. This is a free-roam game, so along the way if you explore you may encounter strange secrets as part of secondary objects (if you look hard for Badowsky after going over a waterfall you might get slightly shocked by what you see). The game encourages exploration not only for different enemy tactics but also to see if you can discover a few small secrets.

Overall, it is a great game. Almost perfect as a matter of fact. My only complaint is that enemies absorb a bit too much damage. I'm not saying it is too hard, but they have to be shot at least three times to die using an assault rifle. Buy this game, if you have a good PC. This is one of the coolest games around.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Well Worth It's Rating . . .

[3/10 · 28 January 2008]

I have seen war movies of poor quality like Battle Of the Bulge etc. However, they were ten times better than this one. It's been a few years since I have seen this movie, but I have not forgotten much. Of course, there is great special effects in the battle sequences and the soundtrack is absolutely wonderful, especially the Japanese-themed music, but that is not enough to redeem this film from the bad points.

DIRECTION: Not too impressed. The camera angles were not so bad and it would look like it is well-filmed, but there were times when the camera just shook way to much and was not in the right position (I will talk about that later). It looked like the scenes were filmed in one take. It looked as though the director was not doing much directing at all. It seemed liked he told the actor/actress to do or say something but not how to, which might be one reason for the horrible acting.

CAST/ACTING: Also pretty bad. Why was Ben Affleck chosen for the main role? In my experience he showed one of the worst performances I have ever seen! He looked like a puppet being pulled by strings. He should have won his Razzie Award nomination for worst actor! As for Kate Beckinsale, she was not a bad choice, but mainly because of her good looks. Her acting was okay but would not win an Oscar.

SCREEN WRITING: Quite bad. Actually the emotion and settings would make this script closer to average, but thanks to the unbearably simple dialogue and historical inaccuracy and pointless love triangle, it makes this screenplay much below average. I understand that romance was put to reveal an anti war-like message, but that is not powerful enough. It is just so weakly portrayed. And war was not just about leaving your loved ones, but also about children losing their father and ladies losing their boyfriend/husband. They insulted that truthful reality by making Americans look invincible in the second half. I say that if Randall Wallace included something more realistic, and the second half of the movie was edited out (when the Japanese are bombed) he might be able to redeem this film, but sadly he didn't. Another problem is that you don't even care about the characters because they don't seem important. Josh Hartnet's character was decent, but Ben Affleck's character was wooden. The movie is simple American propaganda. It makes them look like invincible heroes and Pearl Harbour their victory. 4 planes shot down expertly by 2 American pilots and them making evasive manoeuvres to clash the Japanese planes. That is not how the battle went. This is not a documentary, but to make a good script about history, you need to stay true to the facts. This is why we should not respect Hollywood films like this for their style.

CINEMATOGRAPHY/CAMERAS: I did not last see it at my house so I don't know if the TV had wide-screen, but if it did cameras were not well-positioned. The angles were fine, but in the beginning when Capt. Rafe McCawley reports to his commander at the airfield the camera is aiming at him from his front-right and cutting almost half of his face. Who in the world could think of doing that. Also, earlier on when the kid at the field runs and follows his dad. The crane shot for only one second has the kid in view at the left then it just shows the field itself for a few seconds more. Seeing all this it probably was the TV, but regardless of that Michael Bay should have studied these scenes better and try to make the camera shoot at the right position.

I won't say any more because all I wanted to list were the really bad points. So trust me, there are much better films worth 3 hours of your life which are a little bit less than 5.3 stars. Not to mention even better ones. So I have one thing to say . . . this movie is well worth it's rating, if not lower.

Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)

I don't know what to say . . .

[10/10 · 17 December 2007]

When I first heard of 'Letters From Iwo Jima' I was interested in seeing it and so were my parents. I could not see it in cinemas so I waited till it came on DVD. I saw and it was magnificent!

When I saw Flags Of Our Fathers I gave it 9/10, not 10/10 which I am glad I did, because on my birthday a few days ago, I was given this movie as a present and I watched it. Afterwards I could hardly speak. This movie was so breathtaking. This could probably be the best war movie ever. Its direction by Clint Eastwood was unbelievable. Perfect lighting and cinematography and music. This movie makes you feel as though you are part of it, even on a small TV screen. It does you a favour, this movie. If you watched Flags Of Our Fathers and hated the Japanese in that movie, then watch this film and you will hate the Americans even more. This thing happened to me when I watched Flags then Letters.

This film tries to teach you that there is no good or bad in battle. Everyone has the same feelings as one another. If I could I would rate this 11/10. I never seen such a powerful film. For me, it is possibly even better than the 'Godfather' (which is/was my number one film). Of course, they are different genres, but Letters has so much more power and emotion, I would say.

When I heard that some people despised the film because of an American executing two Japanese prisoners, I was really surprised. Then when I checked that those commenters were American, I was no longer surprised and felt disgusted instead. Do they honestly think that Americans are the most innocent people in the world? I think its time to stop believing stereotypical Hollywood action films and understand that every side had faults (even though the bad definitely had more). In World War 2, both sides committed atrocities. That scene portrays reality; what most of the marines would have been like. A lot of civilians in Iraq are killed because of US soldiers so why does that mean that ALL Americans in World War 2 are good? Anyway, this film shows both sides as neutral when you see what the Japanese do to the Americans and what the Americans do to the Japanese.

People pay most attention to Eastwood's Directing. I do think he deserved an Oscar instead of Scorcese definitely, but what really surprised me the most was the script. Not only is it very moving, but it has a clever story too. I was shocked that it got little attention.

I felt more shock hearing it's nominations at the 79 Annual Academy Awards after watching this movie than I did before. It won one Oscar, yes but only for sound editing. It was nominated also for best picture, best director and best original screenplay. The movie deserved Oscars for all three of them. I was also shocked after watching this that Little Miss Sunshine won the Oscar for best original screenplay. I have seen it and I think it is well written, but Letters has a far more intelligent and meaningful story. I have never seen such screen writing for a movie. This is possibly one of the best written movies scripts I have ever seen. Not to mention one of the best direction in movie history.

For me, this is not only one of the best war films, but possibly one of the GREATEST FILMS Ever made, and deserves a rating above 8.5. Watch it! It is a movie for everyone to see. It will teach you something. But watch Flags Of Our Fathers as well. That one is also pretty good.

The Incredibles (2004)

"Incredible" Movie

[10/10 · 24 September 2007]

What have I got to say about this? It's FANTASTIC! It is a wonderful movie! I absolutely love the animation in this film. I never expected super-heroes to be in an animated film. Movements are pretty realistic, story has funny moments and voices are well chosen. Characters are well designed and portrayed. At first just by looking at a poster I did not think it would be a great movie. The picture of the super-hero family made me think that the movie would be more enjoyed by younger children, but you cannot judge movies and books by their cover. Anyway, this is not a film many little kids may enjoy, but older kids and adults might really like it. Story is very imaginative and it is in a way something new to animation.

Do not bother to listen to any people who hate it because you will not.

Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

Clint Eastwood did a fantastic job! Oscars should have been won!

[9/10 · 17 September 2007]

After hearing what critics said about this film, I got it out from the library and watched it. Clint Eastwood directed this film fantastically! Even script is quite decent.

This movie tells the story about the battle of Iwo Jima, but also about the flag-raisers, how they have memories of their time on the Island, showing flashbacks. This movie is portrayed so beautifully. I just love the cinematography. I like some action and I think there is enough in this film, though the screenwriters may have spread them out a bit too much, making them appear only occasionally. Another thing I do not like about this movie is that it tells more about the American flag-raisers of the Island being honoured for putting up a flag, less about them at Iwo Jima. This film's review is 7.3 stars. I believe it deserves much more, like 8.3, but it would probably have got it if action sequences were longer and they revealed more of Iwo Jima.

I would recommend this highly to fans of Clint Eastwood's films. I love it, though there could be a bit more improvements to the script. Then I would give it 10/10 stars.

Company of Heroes (2006 Video Game)

One Of the Best (if not the best) Real-Time Strategy Game Ever!

[10/10 · 17 September 2007]

I bought this game a year ago. I have been hearing great reviews of this game. That critics gave it more than 90%. I tried it and this is a masterpiece! I did not at first have great interest in RTS PC games any more after playing "Rise Of Nations" and "Age Of Empires" etc, because I guess they just got boring. Yet, when I read a PC Gamer magazine, and found reviews of it to be great. I bought it, hoping I would enjoy it. And, after playing it for 9 months I still love it! This game is about invasion of Normandy in World War 2. You play 15 levels in campaign as Americans, including D-Day, Saint lo and Chambois. But there is also skirmish, and there you can play as Germans as well, but you cannot play any map locations that are from campaign.Also what is fun is that it is a half-simulation game. Soldiers can pick up abandoned weapons. Soldiers don't just build buildings, but even sand bags, mines, barbed wire and tank traps. What is also good is that you can zoom in and out real closely and change camera angle from over 1000 locations. The final and probably best bit of this is that terrain is destructible and combat is intense and a quite realistic.

I would recommend it to everyone, not just fans of this genre. It is a very fun game and entertaining. But to enjoy it the most you have to play it on a very fast PC and have a good graphic card.