Postapocalyptic

Excellent satire of human civilization

From today's point of view this movie could seem a bit naive, but for 60's it is a masterpiece. If we take exception to outdated technology, I can not find any flaws in this movie. Camera and directing are great, the movie is a feast for the eyes. And satire of human civilization is excellent. Film tackles burning issues of 60's and 70's, that are still relevant today - hunt for sports, treatment of animals and nature overall, the conflict between science and religion, precisely between evolutionism and creationism, and most of all fear of nuclear war that was at its peak those days. Although I knew vaguely what this movie was about and I guessed how it ends at the very beginning, it did not spoil excitement a bit. I was not surprised by anything in this movie, but I was thrilled by everything. True masterpiece.

9/10

Honestly, it's OK, but I don't like it

I can not say it's a crap, and in some way, it rounds and gives a conclusion to the franchise, but at the other hand, it completely ruined overall impression of this franchise. In my opinion, they should have stayed on original movie and everything else should have been released in form of TV series, or at least they could have given up on this last one. I am glad I saw how this saga ends, but at the same time, the overall impression is spoiled. I don't know, it's hard for me to be objective about this. Honestly, I do not recommend it. From this perspective, after seeing them all, to those who did not see this franchise I suggest to watch just the original movie and maybe the first sequel and leave it on that. The first movie leaves an impression that lasts forever. Do not let sequels spoil it to you

5,5/10

Ending spoiled it...

Warning: Spoilers

A man wakes up and everything is somehow strange, but it takes some time until he realizes that everybody else is gone and he seems to be the last man on Earth. In the first part of the movie, we go with him through all psychological phases, through madness until he finally takes over control and tries to reorganize. I saw a few movies with this kind of plot and it seems to me this one is the most realistic. Then the plot thickens and speeds up and magical atmosphere of this movie slowly fades. Still, the movie keeps your attention and its quality almost to the very end. Ending scene... I did not understand it at all and I had a feeling as they took the ending of some other movie and simply stick it to this one. It feels completely wrong. I guess what they wanted to accomplish with it, but to me, it spoiled the impression of this movie as a whole and it lowered my rating to

7/10

Beautiful madness 12 February 2017

I have no idea what to say about this movie. It's rare, but it happens. It left me speechless. IMDb says post-apocalyptic surreal black comedy. It is. And also romance, drama, and horror. One of the very strangest and most original pieces of cinematography I have ever seen. If you are not too lazy to read long reviews, I recommend an excellent one written by The_Void. Anyway, if you liked "The Grand Budapest Hotel", "Four Rooms" or "Sweeney Todd" you'll love this one too. It's a must-watch piece of madness. I'm stunned. Loved it.

9/10

To deny our own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human 29 June 2016

Machines have subdued people and now use them as bio-batteries, packed in containers on huge energy farms and connected to Matrix, software that keeps human minds in a false reality in which everything is as it used to be. Relatively small resistance, in constant flight from hunter machines, at will enters and leaves Matrix, looking for a chosen one who, once freed from illusion, will take over the leadership over free men and defeat the machines.

I finally decided to give a chance to famous The Matrix Trilogy. Not all at once of course, I'm not a masochist. Even two hours straight of Keanu Reeves is at the edge of too much. First one is not nearly as good as it's popular, but I must admit that it is good.

7/10

Classic for all generations

Story is futuristic combination of Pinocchio and Wizard of Oz that ends in ambient of Day After Tomorrow. Complete atmosphere of this movie reminded me on strange mix of Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey, and if I didn't knew it was Spielberg movie I could swear that it was Kubrick. Later I did some digging and found out that movie originally was indeed Kubrick's. Kubrick was working on this project for 12 years and involved Spielberg later on. Work on it started in 1993, but Kubrick died before it was done and Spielberg took over and finished the job. Mixture of Spielberg and Kubrick elements is obvious in the movie, but it is really tricky to tell which one of them did what part. Obviously Spielberg's ending is actually Kubrick's original idea from first version even before Spielberg had anything to do with this project. Ministry was also Kubrick's idea. He was a fan and he personally called them to offer them part in the movie. First time he called, Ministry singer thought it was someone screwing with them and he hung up the phone.

A.I. combines drama, action, mystery, and even some elements of horror, into irresistible adventure that leaves deep impression and provokes thinking. Effects, directing, editing, music, and most of all depth of the story, make this movie one of the best achievements of new millennium, and in my opinion, it should be included in all lists of best movies of all times.

10/10

A choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without

If the third one is worse than the second one as much as the second one is worse than the first one... then I really do not want to waste time on it.

6/10

And I just did...

To explain the headline, here's my comment on the previous film:

"If the third one is worse than the second one as much as the second one is worse than the first one... then I really do not want to waste time on it."

6/10

Excellent choice... to avoid. It is not badly made, but it is boring to death.

5/10

"People had more than they needed. We had no idea what was precious and what wasn't. We threw away things people kill each other for now."

In post-apocalyptic America, Denzel Washington is a lone traveler, a missionary who has been traveling west on foot for three decades, carrying the last copy of The Book, in search of a place where it will be in the right hands. On the way, he comes across a settlement where the reign of terror keeps people under the boot of a gang led by Gary Oldman, perfect for the role. He tries at all costs to get hold of The Book, in order to expand and strengthen his power. There are also Mila Kunis, Jennifer Beals, Michael Gambon (Dumbledore), and, in a small but impressive role, Tom Waits.

Many say that this movie reminds them of "Mad Max". I agree that there are similarities (if only because of the post-apocalyptic setting that imposes them), but for me, its essence and atmosphere are more like King's "The Dark Tower" (the book, of course, not that lousy movie).

In their last joint venture, the Hughes brothers turned to a genre different from everything they had done before and made an excellent and multi-layered post-apocalyptic SF, which will buy both fans of a good adventure and those who like exciting and well-directed action scenes, fans of post-apocalyptic stories, but also those who are looking for something deeper in the film. This film is not only a warning about nuclear danger, but it also deals with both sides of religion. It supports the sincere faith and the true message of Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) while criticizing its abuse, which unfortunately prevails in organized religion.

Excellent scenery, exciting details, good acting of the leading cast, peppered with several strong actors in striking supporting roles, amusing references to pop culture and some classics of the genre, and biblical quotations, all wrapped in a classic, yet original story, which holds the attention from the beginning to the end. And of course, the plot twist that will make you slap your forehead and wonder how the hell you didn't catch it right away, and it was right in front of your nose the whole time.

8,5/10

Not as original as it seems, but really good

Humanity causes a new ice age. Few hundreds of survivors are trapped in a self-sustainable ecosystem of the futuristic train that circles around the frozen globe. Men in power in front, then wealthy class, and "homeless" in the tail of the train. While the front of the train lives in extravagance, tail people start a revolution to take over the train. But things are not as they look like at first sight.

Twists are not predictable, but not too original either. Although the story is good, realization even better and surroundings original, at the end of the movie I had a feeling of "deja-vu". I had two associations. First, "Train in the snow" by Mato Lovrak, which was mandatory reading in elementary schools in Yugoslavia during the '80s, and of course, I'm kidding about this. Second, and I am serious about this one, Emir Kusturica's "Underground" that had a very similar ending twist back in 1995.

I'm satisfied, but not thrilled.

7,5/10

Mediocre

An average SF action/adventure, nothing special in terms of acting, directing, effects... It does not stand out by any means, but I have no objections either. It deserves an average six out of ten, but I'll rate it a bit higher because of an interesting twist.

7/10

Not impressed

Good movie. I can not point at any faults in it. And again, it did not leave me impressed. It lacks that special charm old versions had. Even Barton's version had it. For some reason, it did not pull me into the story. As an outside observer, I have to acknowledge its greatness in all technical aspects, but the story itself left me indifferent. I wasn't moved by emotional scenes, didn't feel the tension of drama or adrenaline rush of action scenes. I watch and see it's all at a very high level, but I do not feel anything at all. It may be up to me, but I consider this to be one of weaker "Planet of the Apes" movies. The only one below this one was the movie from 1973.

7/10

The Dark Tower is one of my favorite books and definitely #1 fantasy saga, but I'll try to distance from my emotions as much as possible to bash this crap objectively. Observed as book adaptation, this movie is complete failure. Never in my life I saw anything that mutilates original material to these proportions. Believe it or not, even Russian Lolita is more faithful to the book than this blasphemy. Explanation why and how this movie insults The Dark Tower saga would become saga itself, and I really have no time and nerves to spend hours in review of something I'm sick of. As adaptation of the book this movie is 0/10. Now, if I try to observe it unrelated to the book, I must admit it is not complete disaster, but it's still lousy. If you did not read the book, movie will be too fast and confusing. Story can not be understood correctly without pre-knowledge from the book, and yet, if you have that pre-knowledge you will understand better and hate it better. Observed independently from the book this movie is below average fantasy action, and I would rate it 4, maybe 5 out of ten. And finally, visual impression is slightly above average for this genre, let's say 7/10. Overal, I'll rate it

3,5/10

I'm not sure to what extent I understood this movie, or if it is at all possible to catch everything from just one watching, and I really want to understand it fully. I think it would be best if I read the book. Complete mindfak, but not in usual way of inexplicability or unpredictability, but because story, although pretty much explained, is extremely complex and told in very unusual and original way. Movie follows six stories at the same time, switching from one to another every few moments, so in the beginning you have a feeling like someone is terrorizing your TV remote. Situation is further complicated by fact that all stories are placed in completely different epochs, six unrelated locations, and they even differ by genres, but the same cast is acting six different group of characters in all stories. Makeup and costumes are so believable that in some cases I did not recognize some actors in all their roles until end credits, while in other cases it's obvious but still beautifully done. Some transformations are bit raped but I didn't mind. Some actors even have roles in both sexes. There are four Oscar winners: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent and Susan Sarandon. At the beginning stories are seemingly unrelated, except for the cast of course, but as film progress, connections and coherence are more and more obvious, until at the end you realize that all stories make one rounded entirety, when even tragic moments gain meaning and make you smile. Whole construction is even more fascinating considering that stories are placed on 1849. boat, 1936. England, 1973. San Francisco, 2012. London, 2144. Seoul and 2311. post-apocalyptic Hawaii. Till today I never heard of this movie. I run into it by accident and I'm glad I did. This is one of rare examples of a movie that lasts 3 hours but holds attention strongly from beginning to the end. I warmly recommend it to everyone, regardless of your movie taste, because in this movie you can find overseas ship adventure, freeing of slaves, classical music, gay drama, intrigue, blackmail, 70's thriller, sex, violence, comedy, gore scenes, futuristic SF, post-apocalyptic tribal civilization, reincarnation, new worlds, romance and, well, everything you could possibly put in a movie.

8,5/10

When I sit to watch zombie movie I expect horror, action, maybe even comedy, I expect B production and certain level of frivolity. Instead, Train to Busan brings A production and very serious drama. Essentially, this is not a zombie movie. This is movie about human relations and what they become in state of panic. Story that is seen many times before, but it's usually placed in war or natural disaster surrounding, while here they placed it in zombie apocalypse. This is not original story, this is just somewhat original mash-up of pretty much outworn clichés. Mash-up of disaster drama and zombie apocalypse we already have in Walking Dead. Walking Dead + Snowpiercer = Train to Busan. So, it's definitely not original. Further, action part of the story is painfully dumb. again we have bunch of people acting stupid and illogical in order to stretch movie to two hours. Most obvious example are survivors piercing through wagons crowded with zombies. In every new wagon they find different way to get from back to front door, risking their lives again and again. The only goal of those inventive new solutions is to fill half of the movie with thrilling action, while there is simple, obvious and safe solution put aside as it does not exist. Simply tell driver to stop the train in next tunnel (cause zombies attack only people they clearly see), then leave the train through door, walk outside the train to desired wagon, enter it and journey can be continued. Logical, practical, safe, but also a scene that would last just a few minutes and deprived us of the most exciting part of the movie. Stupidity and illogicality in service of agony prolongation is something we are used to in most of horror movies, but in serious drama it simply doesn't hold. Technically and visually it's well done and personal drama is deep and strong, but overall this is unoriginal movie with stupid plot and bunch of redundant action. And it does not have even H of horror.

6,5/10

I wouldn't go so far to say it's one of the best shows ever, but within its genre and format it certainly is amongst the best few. Basic premise is pretty original, story is in style of popular sitcoms, but but goes beyond their frames and brings something new and refreshing. Humor is based mostly on shame transfers which our hero very generously throws at us. Two main characters are original and endlessly fun. Episodes are just 20 minutes long so show keeps decent pace and doesn't lose strength. It's not one of those shows that will make you hurt from laughter, but you will quickly get tied up with the main character and from that moment you will be constantly unpleasant for his shameless behavior., but still you won't be able to stop watching or resist to play next episode same moment end credits of previous one start. Huge recommendation.

9/10

For a start, in my opinion "Dance of the Dead" is not a horror. This post-apocalyptic story, placed in America after WWIII, brings brings an exciting visual experience and great acting, but although it's dark and morbid, it's not tense nor frightening. It's trump cards are the way scenes in the night club are shot and edited and Freddy Krueger in the role of main (?) villain. Ending twist is unexpected and powerful, but overall, movie doesn't have the strength of the previous episodes. Still, highly recommended.

7,5/10

Legendary "I'll be back" spoken for the very first time

Computers that control nuclear weapons become self-conscious and start a nuclear war to exterminate the human race. After the war, survivors, led by John Connor, are in the war against machines and they are winning. Machines send cyborg to the past to kill Connor's mother and prevent his birth. Humans send Kyle Reese to save her. The rest is history.

From today's perspective, this action SF is still good, but largely out-dated. Subjectively, I would rate it six out of ten. But when you take into account that it was filmed in 1984, that it had a serious impact on the genre and career of several actors, as well as anti-nuclear message and warning that technology develops faster than our ability to manage it safely, the rating must go up.

8/10

I would like to add another observation. If the film was exactly the same as it is, with the only difference that Terminator was not a robot but a ghost or a demon or something like that, it would probably be classified as a horror. This movie has all the elements of '80s horrors, and the only difference that distinguishes it from them is the quasi-scientific premise.

"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves"

Since the first terminator failed to kill Sarah Connor and prevent the birth of a man who would defeat them, the machines send a more advanced T-1000 model in 1995 to kill ten-year-old John. At the same time, future John sends reprogrammed T-800 to protect him and the madness begins again.

This time, the story is somewhat more complex, and 15 times bigger budget and advanced technology bring richer scenery and better special effects, so the film wins 4 Oscars: for sound, sound effects, visual effects and makeup. It gained cult status and, with "Star Wars" and "The Matrix", it's one of the most popular SF movies. Schwarzenegger moves from the role of a villain into the lead and gets more space to show what he's capable of and, despite popular belief, he's quite good. Linda Hamilton reprises the role of Sarah Connor and also provides much better performance than in the first film. And she looks better too. John Connor was the debut role for then fourteen-year-old Edward Furlong, which launched him among stars and provided him with a career on a big screen, and Robert Patrick made us believe in liquid metal robots and blurred the line between SF and horror.

While the first movie has an essentially stronger story and more tense atmosphere, this one is more impressive on the technical side, and it's hard to say which one is better. After all, these are two parts of the same story and can be seen as a two-part film, which in my opinion deserves strong

8/10

They should have left it at two

The third film in the "Terminator" franchise deteriorates to the level of cheap action SF. (When I say cheap I'm not referring to budget, of course.) It does not bring anything new either in the story nor visually, but copies the previous film with essentially insignificant variations. Action scenes are greatly done, but since the film is virtually reduced to an endless series of explosions, it soon becomes tedious. Nick Stahl, in my opinion, is not an adequate substitute for Edward Furlong, Clare Danes is made for romantic movies and she was thorn in my eye through the whole thing, absence of Linda Hamilton feels too much, and the Schwarzenegger performance is weaker than in previous movies, although this is more to the script than to him. Practically the only thing worth watching in this movie is the beautiful Kristanna Loken in the role of the latest Terminator model. It's not boring, but if you skip it, you won't miss much.

6/10

It's a shame that it's over after just two seasons

A year ago, I watched the first season and, since it was a well-rounded story that does not require a continuation, and since the second season has picked up predominantly bad criticism, I gave up on further watching. A few days ago, I changed my mind and watched the series all the way through. Do not make the mistake I made and believe bad reviews, because the second season is excellent, and in some aspects maybe better than the first one. I guess bad reviews are the result of a big difference between seasons, but the fact that the second season deviated from the patterns of the first does not make it worse, just different. While the first season is a mindfuck mystery and is based on confusing plot and mystical atmosphere, the second season is a post-apocalyptic SF drama. While the first season puzzles you and makes you guess, the second gives answers but, because of the strong interpersonal relationships, life dramas and several unexpected surprises and plot twists, it isn't any less exciting than the first. I believe it could have been better, but it's great anyway and it's a real shame they gave up on it after just two seasons. Don't let the fact it's canceled dissuade you from watching it, because both seasons are rounded wholes, that leave room for a continuation, but don't require it. There are no unresolved cliffhangers.

P.S. I did not mention anything about the story itself, because even the briefest summary would be an unforgivable spoiler.

8/10

I accidentally bumped into this series, I did not even know existed, and I watched the first episode with no special expectations. Seven episodes later I admit that I am hooked. The series ignores "T3" and continues on "Terminator 2", although it takes some elements from "T3". "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" can be seen as the new third part of the franchise, which is there to push and replace rather unsuccessful "T3".

In the first season, the series does not bring anything new, but is a worthy successor of cult films that precede it, and in all aspects it is more than solid. Initially, I was not overly intrigued, because I had the impression that I was once again watching "Terminator 2", just stretched on the series season, but I continued to watch because in the role of a cyborg that protects John was Summer Glau, which, you must admit, is much more pleasant for the eye than Arnold. It seems that Summer is a family friend of the house of Lannister, because just yesterday I saw her sharing the screen with Tyrion in "Knights of Badassdom", and in this series two leading female roles belong to Summer and Cersei. When you connect name Sarah Connor with the face of Linda Hamilton for more than two decades, it's very strange to see Lena Headey in that role, so the initial impression was very bad. But after just a few episodes Lena will suppress Linda from your head, if not forever, then at least till this series is over. Thomas Dekker is not Edward Furlong, but he is a good actor and this change didn't bother me at all. All supporting roles are well-cast, and there are also some familiar faces from the past, like David from "Beverly Hills 90210" who plays one of the biggest supporting roles.

I can not wait to see what the second season brings, which, according to the reviews, is much better than the first.

8/10

Terminator Violation (2009)

Have you ever wondered what the private parts of the terminators are hiding, and are these movie characters sexually functional? Even if this did not come to your mind while watching Schwarzenegger in the second and Kristanna Loken in the third film, the series "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles " very clearly insinuates this issue. The creators of the fourth film seem to have succumbed to a decades-long sexual frustration and decided to brutally rape the franchise. If you have not seen this garbage yet, I advise you to suppress curiosity in order to keep this cult franchise in a good memory.

Writers did not have any idea in which direction they will develop the story, and even who are the main protagonists. The movie is two hours of completely meaningless noisy action that does not lead anywhere. The characters are two-dimensional and totally uninteresting, acting mediocre, and even Christian Bale in the role of John Connor does not stand out from mediocrity. John Connor is practically supporting role and Bale's performance is characterless and bored, as if he was forced to play in the movie against his will. Arnold Schwarzenegger's cameo is a pretty insipid and redundant detail, and Helena Bonham Carter appears just briefly.

To avoid being hater who sees only negative things, I have to mention pretty good performance of Sam Worthington in leading role, and the scene in which Bale says legendary "I'll Be Back" and then we hear the song from the first movie "You Could Be Mine", although pathetic, is quite a successful trick to provoke nostalgia in the audience. Even I, who had fought the entire film with the urge to give up on it, for a moment succumbed to this emotional manipulation.

3/10

• What's his condition? - He's screwed. :D

• Look at that. - A shooting star. :D

Who's next? Sophie Turner? Natalie Dormer? And Gwendoline Christie could replace Schwarzenegger :D

Not only is Linda Hamilton absolutely irreplaceable in the role of Sarah Connor, but also Emilia Clarke, after all these years in "Game of Thrones", has become one with Daenerys Targaryen, and in every other role I have the impression that I'm watching Daenerys who has gone astray to the wrong set. First, in the series "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" they assigned leading role to Cersei, and now in "Genisys" they replaced her with Daenerys, and they change all the other actors as socks too... It's by itself enough to spoil the franchise, but of course, they did not stop just on that.

The story is, to put it mildly, catastrophic. The cult sci-fi action, about machines taking over the Earth and the Connor family trying to stop them, has turned into a film about the complications caused by time travel. Bunch of jumping into the past and future, and paradoxes caused by it, has complicated the story so much that I am convinced that even the authors themselves are unable to explain it logically. The focus is completely transferred from the war between machines and people to these complications, and the film has completely lost the spirit of the franchise it is trying to round up. True, "Genisys" did round up and ended the franchise, but this kind of denouement (if something so knotted can be considered a denouement at all) desecrated the franchise on so many levels that I would prefer if they had left the story undetermined instead of making such a lousy happy-ending. Not only that John Connor is the villain in this movie, but the very ending looks like it escaped from some Disney fairy-tale. Yuck.

Still, it is technically well-made and it is somewhat entertaining, so even if I would like to rate it much lower, I simply can not go below

5/10

Unfairly underrated

I sat to watch this movie full of prejudice based on bad reviews, and in the beginning, I was thinking to give up on it. But, I saw it through and my opinion has completely changed. This is a very good movie. Almost all arguments against this movie are based on the premise that it is a remake of the cult classic from 1968. If that was the case, compared to the original, this movie sucks. But it is a very wrong angle and it is understandable that conclusions based on the wrong premise, filled with emotion and prejudice, will be wrong conclusions.

Just try to watch this movie from a point of view of someone who did not see the original franchise and have no idea what is it all about, and you'll enjoy a great movie. Because this is not really a remake. The only thing they share is the basic idea that in distant future apes will rule the Earth. Other than that those are two completely different movies. Characters are new and different, the story begins slightly similar, but develops and ends completely different. This is typical Tim Burton's dark fairy-tale, original in every way, except for stealing the basic idea from cult classic. The story is interesting and brings completely new ideas that make it essentially different from 1968 movie. The way apes rise to be on the top of the evolutionary scale, the event that stops the battle and the way the main character ends his adventure are three main and totally unexpected twists that are completely new. I saw all five movies from the old franchise and I was still surprised by every plot twist here. Nothing was already seen or too predictable. Because this is not really a remake. The crash-landing scene is the only one visually similar to '60s movie. But if you think about it, he had to land somehow, and there are not so many ways to do it and survive. I mean, he could not teleport himself or catapult from ship and land by parachute from outer space...

8/10

So long and thanks for all the fish

This humorous SF adventure is an adaptation of the eponymous novel by Douglas Adams, one of my favorite books and a book that can not be adequately translated into a two-hour film. The screenplay was written by Adams himself, so I was very surprised that the source material was so terribly butchered. The film not only lacks many important details, but the entire large parts of the original story, and some things that are not in the book are needlessly added. Still, the film is not that bad, because it kept the spirit of the book and it's full of Adams's recognizable humor. If you have not read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" you probably won't have as many objections as the fans of the book, but in that case, I recommend you not to watch it, because it would spoil the book that you simply must read sooner or later. And if you did read it, you will be disappointed. I did enjoy it, but I think I more enjoyed the memories of the book that the film has awakened than the movie itself.

On the technical side, the movie is pretty good. Camera, directing, effects, everything is in place. The cast is excellent, but unfortunately totally unused, because the characterization is very poor, almost non-existent. This is probably the biggest flaw of the film, because the humor in the novel is based primarily on the characterization and character development. Only the character and performance of Martin Freeman are somewhat worthy of the source material. On the one hand, I have the urge to give it the lowest possible rating because of the desecration of this iconic book, but at the other, I am aware that the Guide is impossible to translate to this form (TV series could possibly work) and that the film, given the constraints, is pretty much success, technically well-made and quite fun. Any rating on a scale from one to ten could be reasonably justified, and since I can not decide, I'll give it symbolic

42

P.S. Before you sit down to watch this movie, do not forget the towel!

Let's start with a quote that perfectly sums up the coherence of the plot: "Ok, let me just see if I can get this straight. You were mortal there, but you're immortal here until you kill all the guys from there who have come here and then you're mortal here. Unless you go back there or some more guys from there come here, in which case you become immortal here again."

When this film came out, it was awesome to me. I was eleven back then and it bought me with a dark atmosphere, strong cast, very good effects for its time, fast pace, entertaining action, and sexy Virginia Madsen. Now, I still liked all of that, and in addition, I enjoyed several examples of great camera and directing, as well as the very good soundtrack, but this time all of that was not enough to cover for one of the worst screenplays in the history of cinema.

"Highlander II: The Quickening" retains the actors and characters from the first film, while completely ignoring the original story. Not only that it is neither sequel nor a prequel, but the stories of these two films are mutually so contradictory that it is impossible to fit them in any way. Even if we completely ignore the previous film, this one is for itself full of holes and illogicality, and it is incredibly stupid. When it comes to story, in this movie every spot is a weak spot. Immortal's mythology doesn't work, quasi-science also doesn't work, and even romance, which is completely redundant, also doesn't work. I mean, they meet for the very first time and minutes after initial introduction they are attacked. He hides her into a garbage can, fights the attackers and kills them. Then she leaves the container and has sex with him against the wall in the middle of the street. Yea, right, very believable. How much this scenario stinks is best illustrated by Michael Ironside statement:

"Yeah, listen, I hated that script. We all did. Me, Sean, Chris... we all were in it for the money on this one. I mean, it read as if it had been written by a thirteen-year-old boy. But I'd never played a barbarian swordsman before, and this was my first big evil mastermind type. I figured if I was going to do this stupid movie, I might as well have fun, and go as far over the top as I possibly could. All that eye-rolling and foaming at the mouth was me deciding that if I was going to be in a piece of s**t, like that movie, I was going to be the most memorable f**king thing in it. And I think I succeeded."

For the nine days of work, Sean Connery received three and a half million dollars and donated the whole amount to charity. I suppose he was just trying to wash away the shame. However, apart from the story, everything else in this movie I liked pretty much, so I can not completely bury it with the rating. Audio-visually I would give it a strong seven, and maybe three for the story.

5/10

The best part of the new trilogy

Technically and visually the movie is almost perfect. I believe it would leave me breathless if I saw it in the cinema. But the story itself, although very well-written, didn't excite me. The essence is touching and tragic in its truthfulness, but in my opinion, it is not presented in a sufficiently impressive way. Woody Harrelson masterfully played the role of the main "villain" and made me hate him with my whole being, despite the fact that he is one of my favorite actors.

8/10

Not nearly enough powerful

A deadly virus has "escaped" from the government laboratory and caused an epidemic of apocalyptic proportions. The human race is decimated and rare survivors, who for unknown reasons are immune to the virus, are finding each other and regrouping. In their dreams appear an old woman, who claims to receive instructions from God and calls them to herself, and the mysterious man who directs them on the opposite side. Slowly, people begin to gather in two larger camps, one in the east, the other in the west, and prepare for the final battle between good and evil.

"The Stand" is a six-hour film, directed by Mick Garris, broadcast in the form of a mini-series, if four "episodes" of 90 minutes each can be called a mini-series. The story is quite faithful to the source material, which was expected because Stephen King himself adapted his own novel into the screenplay. It gathers a wealth of familiar faces, including Gary Sinise, Molly Ringwald, Jamey Sheridan, Laura San Giacomo, Miguel Ferrer, Rob Lowe and Stephen King himself. But despite the fact that it was written by King, great cast and a length that leaves more than enough time for elaboration, the story impressed me as two-dimensional and shallow, and characterization is rather unconvincing. Still, the film is distinctly King-ish and very atmospheric, largely contributed by discrete but excellent music, mostly blues. I enjoyed it, but not enough to ever spend six hours on this adventure again. Recommendation for fans of Stephen King and B production of the eighties. The rest of you should better skip it.

6,5/10