Author: Stan

Today’s quick review: Alone in the Dark. Ever since Lionel Hudgens (Matthew Walker) subjected him to paranormal experiments as a child, Edgar Carnby (Christian Slater) has sought the truth about his past. His journey has take him across the globe in search of artifacts from the Abkani, an ancient civilization that tampered with dark forces. Edgar’s search finally comes to a head when Lionel finds what he needs to unleash the darkness again.

Alone in the Dark is a budget action horror movie from director Uwe Boll. It is loosely based on the video game of the same name. Alone in the Dark follows Edgar, his girlfriend Aline (Tara Reid), and his rival Burke (Stephen Dorff) as they try to stop the creatures Lionel Hudgens has released in his quest for power. The movie makes a credible effort with its plot and action, but its shaky fundamentals mean that it brings little to the table.

Alone in the Dark actually delivers decent action by the standards of budget films. The fights avoid the usual trap of being too static, offering plenty of gunfire, a modest amount of secenery damage, and adequate creature designs. Even so, the movie’s action leaves a lot to be desired. The movie never manages convincing gore or suspense, the stunts are not especially ambitious, and the creatures are animated with bottom-of-the-barrel CGI.

Alone in the Dark is on even shakier footing when it comes to its story. The basics of the story work well enough: a paranormal investigator, secret experiments, evil creatures, and a power-crazed scientist. But when it comes to stitching them all together, Alone in the Dark runs into trouble. Its main characters are constantly behind the curve, doing little to drive the plot. The plot itself has plenty of holds and leads to an unsatisfying payoff.

Missing in all of this is the horror movie Alone in the Dark purports to be. Every now and then the film will remember its title, going through the motions of suspense for a brief moment. but these moments are poorly handled and doled out infrequently. Alone in the Dark latches onto action early and sticks with it, focusing more on its characters shooting at the creatures than building up any sort of tension or sense of atmosphere.

As such, Alone in the Dark has very little to recommend it. Other movies with higher budgets and clearer vision scratch the same urban fantasy itch, while the movie’s horror contribution is almost nonexistent. Alone in the Dark shows faint potential, with action scenes and plot points that could have worked in better hands. But its pervasive weaknesses in terms of acting, tone, and writing mean that most viewers will want to skip it.

For a paranormal investigator backed by a more interesting world and better plot beats, try Constantine. For a more colorful, comedic, and action-packed take on urban fantasy, try Hellboy. For globe-trotting fantasy adventure with a more fun tone, try the Librarian movies. For a Uwe Boll film of more ambitious scope, try In the Name of the King.

2.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 3.5 for poor execution of a generic story.

Today’s quick review: BloodRayne: Deliverance. In the Old West, Rayne (Natassia Malthe), a half-vampire gunslinger, travels to the quiet town of Deliverance to meet a close friend. But when she arrives, she finds her friend dead and the town in the clutches of Billy the Kidd (Zack Ward), an ancient vampire with a plan to make an army. Narrowly escaping Billy and his gang, Rayne teams up with Pat Garrett (Michael Pare) to take back the town.

BloodRayne: Deliverance is a fantasy action Western from director Uwe Boll. The movie picks up with Rayne as she makes a new life for herself in the West. Deliverance fits comfortably into the same mold as the original BloodRayne: a budget action flick that relies on its heroine for its thrills. But Deliverance also comes with many of the same issues, including limp action, slow pacing, and thin character work and storytelling.

Deliverance’s problems start with its heroine. Rayne makes for an ineffectual vampire hunter. Her powers as a half-vampire rarely matter, she’s prone to rushing in without a plan, and her track record against Billy the Kidd’s gang is mixed at best. More generally, Rayne’s personality shifts from scene to scene, and Natassia Malthe doesn’t have the stage presence to pull off the role. With a weak protagonist, the rest of the film never clicks.

Even beyond Rayne herself, Deliverance has issues. The plot is tenuous even relative to the first movie’s standards. Characters are killed off just as unceremoniously as they’re introduced, meaning that Rayne’s allies only ever act as placeholders. The movie’s pacing is another major strike against it. Deliverance takes a long time to even introduce its main character, and its attempts to draw out its action seems simply sap them of tension.

BloodRayne: Deliverance ends up being a movie with very little to offer. Its action, story, acting, and overall craftsmanship all fall short of what they should be. Its only appeal lies in its premise, a vampire hunt in the Old West, and the rare moment of unintentional comedy. Fans of the original BloodRayne or Uwe Boll’s work in general will know roughly what they’re in for. Everyone else will want to steer clear.

For a more interesting horror-tinged Western fantasy, try Jonah Hex. For an offbeat Western with an emphasis on action and unusual characters, try The Warrior’s Way. For more stylish vampire action, try the Underworld series. For a somewhat more engaging action movie from Uwe Boll, try In the Name of the King.

2.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 3.5 for a premise with modest potential and badly flawed execution.

Today’s quick review: I, Frankenstein. Born of a mad scientist’s experiment, Adam Frankenstein (Aaron Eckhart) only wants to be left alone. But when Prince Naberius’ (Bill Nighy) demons find him yet again, Adam decides to take the fight to them using the weapons given to him by the Gargoyle Order. To get the answers he seeks, Adam will need the help of Terra (Yvonne Strahovski), a scientist working to uncover the secret of reanimation.

I, Frankenstein is an urban fantasy action movie that drops Frankenstein’s monster into the middle of an age-old war between the forces of light and darkness. Adam’s neutrality is put to the test as the demons try to capture him for use in a ritual, while the gargoyles, fearing what he’s capable of, contemplate his destruction. Its action and premise make I, Frankenstein a decent watch, but it’s outclassed by most of the other films in its genre.

I, Frankenstein is a formulaic entry into the urban fantasy genre. Its two distinguishing features are its uses of Frankenstein’s monster as its protagonist and gargoyles as one of its warring factions. Neither of these twists is enough to obscure the story’s roots. Adam is a classic loner, while Naberius’ plan, Adam’s relationship with Terra, and the secret war between gargoyles and vampires will all seem familiar to fans of the genre.

The plus side of all this is that I, Frankenstein holds some of the same appeal as its brethren. The action isn’t groundbreaking, but it does make for some fine popcorn fodder, with CGI demons and gargoyles blasting each other to pieces at close range. The story strikes a similar balance: predictable but adequate for the needs of the movie. However, its world-building and character development are noticeably lacking, leaving the movie feeling thin.

I, Frankenstein is a passable pick for fans of fantasy action set in the modern day, but it falls short of the standard set by the competition. In terms of action, creativity, and storytelling, I, Frankenstein is beaten out by a number of other films like it. As such, only viewers who are looking for a light bit of action should give it a watch. Those looking for something memorable or impressive should search elsewhere.

For urban fantasy in a similar vein, try The Last Witch Hunter or The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones. For a similar reimagining of a classic horror character, try Dracula Untold. For a hidden war with better action and more style, try the Blade or Underworld series. For a fantasy action movie that makes more creative use of a limited budget, try Solomon Kane.

5.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 5.5 for serviceable action with a thin story to back it up.

Today’s quick review: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. To avenge the murder of his mother at the hands of a vampire, Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) trains with vampire hunter Henry Sturges (Dominic Cooper), who teaches him to harness his desire for vengeance. Armed with his trusty axe, Lincoln goes hunting for Adam (Rufus Sewell), the vampires’ leader. But Lincoln soon realizes that to win his fight, he will need the help of America itself.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is an action horror movie based on the novel by Seth Grahame-Smith. The movie reveals a hidden side to Lincoln’s life as a lawyer, a politician, and a husband: his lifelong quest to rid America of an enormous vampire infestation. The pivotal events of Lincoln’s life serve as the backdrop to his skirmishes with Adam’s forces. The result is a schlocky but enjoyable watch that does some creative things with its premise.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter promises action, and it delivers. The fights pit Abraham Lincoln’s silver axe against the vampires’ strength, speed, and fangs. The action scenes make liberal use of CGI, slowdown, and swooping camera angles, with a couple of inventive set pieces as well. The action can feel a little repetitive, given that axe versus vampire is the film’s main matchup, but there’s enough style to the combat to satisfy action fans.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter does have some room for improvement. The semi-biographical nature of the plot leads to odd pacing for an action movie, skipping years of Lincoln’s life to catch the events that are historically relevant. Benjamin Walker is a mixed bag as Lincoln, faring well enough but never truly shining. And while the movie does have its absurdities, it plays its premise with a straighter face than some viewers may be expecting.

None of these flaws are enough to keep Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter from accomplishing what it sets out to do. Solid craftsmanship, enjoyable action, and some clever uses of its historical setting make the movie a worthwhile pick for anyone interested in its premise. The one catch is that viewers hoping for a more overtly comedic tone may not get exactly what they want. Fans of realistic action or grounded drama should steer clear.

For a schlockier action horror movie with a similar premise and more comedy, try Van Helsing or Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. For action fantasy that dabbles with a historical setting in similar ways, try The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Jonah Hex. For a battle with vampires in a modern setting, try Blade or Underworld.

5.9 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 for a novel premise and solid action, with a few flaws that keep it from greater heights.

Today’s quick review: Daybreakers. Ten years after the majority of the world’s population were turned into vampires, blood shortages have pushed them to the brink of starvation. Ed Dalton (Ethan Hawke), a hematologist for one of the largest blood suppliers, is working tirelessly to develop a safe blood substitute. But his research takes a different path when a human survivor (Claudia Karvan) introduces him to a cured vampire (Willem Dafoe).

Daybreakers is a sci-fi action movie about a future where vampirism is widespread and society has undergone drastic changes to accommodate it. Ethan Hawke stars as Edward Dalton, a vampire scientist trying to end vampires’ dependence on humans. Daybreakers puts a fair amount of effort into its world and uses it as a foundation for a decent plot and a smattering of action. However, no single aspect of the movie is enough to make it stand out.

Daybreakers’ greatest feature ends up being its setting. The film works out the myriad changes that a world of vampires would need to make in order to function, ranging from food and social status to the means used to protect vampires from sunlight. The changes are integrated well into the story, doled out at steady pace and meaningful to the plot. None of the changes are jaw-dropping, but they do make the world robust and interesting to explore.

Beyond its setting, Daybreakers fits comfortably into a particular niche of the dystopian sci-fi genre. The plot has a reasonable progression as Ed tries to first work within the system and then outside it to solve the blood shortage. Ed makes for a sympathetic protagonist, if not an especially deep one. The action is never central to the film, but it is fairly satisfying, with gory combat between vampire troops and human survivors.

Overall, Daybreakers is a solid entry into the sci-fi action genre. The movie is far from groundbreaking, but it has everything it needs to please fans of the genre: a rich world, a decent cast, and well-constructed plot studded with a bit of gory spectacle. Those looking for popcorn will get just what they want. Those hoping for all-out action or a deeper plot can do better elsewhere.

For better vampire action, try either the Blade or the Underworld series. For a more action-oriented sci-fi movie with a similar plot, try Equilibrium. For a more thoughtful sci-fi drama starring Ethan Hawke, try Gattaca. For a dystopian sci-fi thriller that offers both action and speculation, try Minority Report.

6.4 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for satisfying execution of a decent premise.

Today’s quick review: Contagion. While on a business trip to Hong Kong, Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) contracts a virus that kicks off a global epidemic, spreading within days to the world’s major cities. As doctors around the world (Laurence Fishburne, Kate Winslet, and Marion Cotillard) work to contain the virus, trace its origins, and develop a cure, Beth’s husband Mitch (Matt Damon) tries to care for his family in a world gone mad.

Contagion is a thriller with an ensemble cast from director Steven Soderbergh. Contagion charts the course of a global epidemic, from its inception to its spread to the race for a cure. The movie offers a realistic look at a terrifying scenario, examining the societal and personal consequences of a widespread disease. Its high stakes and comprehensive scope make Contagion a strong pick for viewers interested in real-world drama.

Contagion does its homework and isn’t shy about showing it. The movie touches on nearly every facet of disease response: quarantine procedures, the lab tests used to study the virus, the reaction of the public, and the personal toll on the infected and their loved ones. The emphasis on realism does undercut the story in a few places, where the movie stops to dish out more technical terminology or debunk a myth, but on the whole it pays dividends.

The consequence of this broad approach to storytelling is that no single character gets the spotlight. There are arcs for the characters, but they tend to be fragmentary, parts of a larger mosaic rather than pictures in their own right. The distributed nature of the plot also means that Contagion has to work to keep the viewer’s interest. The movie relies heavily on its soundtrack and sense of paranoia, rather than its plot, to maintain tension.

How much you get out of Contagion will depend on what you’re looking for. Those interested in a detailed portrait of a modern-day epidemic should look no farther, as the film’s broad scope and solid execution make it a full treatment of its premise. Those looking for a tidier story with conventional thrills will want to look elsewhere. Contagion has plenty to offer in terms of plot and atmosphere, but its drama won’t resonate with everyone.

For a more fanciful, action-oriented take on a similar premise, try Outbreak. For a similarly grounded look at the drug trade, try Traffic. For a somewhat similar look at a financial crisis, try Margin Call or The Big Short.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for comprehensive scope and attention to detail.

Today’s quick review: Outbreak. Colonel Sam Daniels (Dustin Hoffman), an Army virologist, faces a doomsday scenario when an outbreak of a deadly new virus reaches the United States. With the help of his ex-wife Robby (Rene Russo), a doctor at the CDC, Sam attempts to find a cure for the virus before it escapes containment. But their efforts are hindered from above as General Billy Ford (Morgan Freeman) tries to keep a decades-old Army secret.

Outbreak is an action thriller about a viral epidemic and the doctors working to stop it. Dustin Hoffman stars as Sam Daniels, a doctor whose devotion to his work has led to his greatest successes and his greatest failures. Outbreak takes a potentially dry premise and spins it into a solid thriller with a race-against-time plot and surprisingly passionate performances from its cast. The result is a tidy watch that keeps its promises.

Outbreak’s best feature is its plot progression. The outbreak of the disease, tracking it to its origins, and coming up with a cure are all hooks that the film takes advantage of. The added pressures of dying patients, overworked doctors, and an Army cover-up round out the plot nicely. The supporting cast is another draw, with roles for Kevin Spacey, Cuba Gooding, Jr., Patrick Dempsey, and Donald Sutherland.

While Outbreak skews more dramatic than the typical action thriller, it’s still a few steps away from realism. The movie pays lip service to the issues involved in a real-world epidemic without feeling bound by them. Lab work and quarantine procedures share space in the film with helicopter chases and contrived twists. Outbreak actually does a good job of balancing realism and fantasy, but viewers hoping for a straight drama will be disappointed.

Outbreak is a solid pick for those who want some excitement without diving into full-blown action. Although parts of the film are predictable, and the liberties it takes will rub some viewers the wrong way, Outbreak makes good on its premise. Its plot and its acting make it a full, satisfying watch. For a more factual take on the same subject matter, try Contagion. For a sci-fi action movie with similar elements, try Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

6.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 for solid plot progression and a strong cast.

Today’s quick review: Human Lost. Years in the future, humanity has attained immortality through its link to the SHELL system. But a dark fate awaits those who detach from the system: transformation into destructive mutants known as Lost. Yozo Oba (Austin Tindle), a troubled painter, awakens to his destiny when he transforms into a Lost while keeping his humanity. Now Yozo must decide whether to protect the SHELL system or burn it to the ground.

Human Lost is a Japanese CGI-animated sci-fi action movie. Human Lost is set in a future Japan where the longevity of an elite few renders the rest of the population functionally immortal, at the cost of living and toiling in a polluted world. Masao Horiki (Rob McCollum), an outsider with ties to the Lost, threatens to destroy the system entirely, even as Yoshiko Hiiragi (Macy Anne Johnson) seeks to save it, with Yozo caught painfully in the middle.

Human Lost invests heavily in its world and story. The movie weaves in exposition with its action until the setting is detailed enough to support the story it’s trying to tell. The movie examines the nature of society and mortality in a world where death isn’t permanent, falling short of deep insight but certainly scratching the sci-fi itch. The plot is complex and builds on itself nicely, although its logic begins to fall apart near the end.

Human Lost delivers on spectacle as well. The visuals are a step up from Polygon Pictures’ previous work, offsetting their stiff CGI animation with dynamic camerawork, interesting character designs, and a much improved use of color. The action is another big draw, with elaborate fights involving the monstrous Lost and a suitable degree of violence. The action scales up surprisingly towards the end, though, like the plot, it loses some cohesion.

Human Lost will appeal to fans who want their sci-fi to have a balance of spectacle and speculation. Neither side of the film works well enough to carry it alone, but together they’re enough to give sci-fi fans plenty to chew on. Sticklers for writing that’s meaningful, coherent, or original writing may want to steer clear, though. Human Lost has a lot to offer, but it lacks the focus, payoff, and depth of more visionary films.

For far-flung sci-fi in a similar vein from the same studio, try Blame!. For a more thematic sci-fi classic set in a similar world, try Akira or Ghost in the Shell. For an action-oriented CGI-animated science fiction movie from Japan, try Appleseed, Appleseed Ex Machina, or Vexille. For one with more detailed animation and a more horrific tone, try Gantz: O. For more speculation about a controlled future, try Logan’s Run or Minority Report.

5.6 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a rich sci-fi world, vivid visuals, and a healthy dose of action, tempered by a few imperfections.

Today’s quick review: Waterworld. Years in the future, the melting polar ice caps have flooded the Earth and forced humanity’s few survivors to adapt to life on the planet’s endless oceans. A nameless mariner (Kevin Costner) gains a pair of unwelcome passengers when he saves Enola (Tina Majorino) and her guardian Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) from Deacon (Dennis Hopper), a ruthless pirate who believes that Enola holds the key to finding dry land.

Waterworld is a sci-fi adventure set on a flooded, post-apocalyptic Earth. The story follows a drifter with a boat and a pair of gills as he becomes embroiled in the search for dry land, long thought a myth. Waterworld features a creative setting, an adventurous tone, a serviceable plot, and decent dynamics between its characters. However, its uneven execution keeps it from being as thrilling, endearing, or memorable as it tries to be.

Waterworld gets the basics right. The setting is unique among post-apocalyptic fiction and gives the movie a solid foundation to build on. The premise and the details of the setting are far-fetched, but they also pave the way for some clever touches. The plot can be predictable in places, but the broad strokes fit the adventure genre well. The evolving relationship between the mariner, Helen, and Enola is also handled with reasonable skill.

Waterworld does have its rough spots, though. The gritty nature of the setting fits oddly with the film’s swashbuckling action and comical villains. In particular, Dennis Hopper turns in an energetic but distracting performance as Deacon, a pirate leader who operates out of a rusted oil tanker. The plot is prone to odd digressions and inconsistent logic. Finally, the lead trio can be somewhat grating as they butt heads with one another.

Taken with a grain of salt, Waterworld makes for a decent adventure with some unique qualities but mixed execution overall. Those willing to take its quirks in stride should give it a shot, as it has enough in the way of simple fun to be an entertaining watch. But those looking for a polished watch, a thoughtful story, or gripping action will want to steer clear. Waterworld is outclassed by other adventures, but not entirely without value.

For a sci-fi movie with a similar tone and more pronounced flaws, try Battlefield Earth. For a movie that makes similar use of Dennis Hopper and has a goofier tone, try Super Mario Bros. For a more serious take on a dystopian plotline, try The Book of Eli or Children of Men. For a swashbuckling adventure with similarly mixed execution, try Cutthroat Island. For a better balance of action, setting, and adventure, try Pirates of the Caribbean.

6.2 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 for a decent premise held back by a few questionable choices.

Today’s quick review: Zombieland: Double Tap. After years of survival in the zombie-infested ruins of America, Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) has decided to put down roots. Along with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), Wichita (Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), he sets about turning the White House into a permanent home. But when Little Rock runs off with a boy her age, the others must embark on a cross-country roadtrip to find her.

Zombieland: Double Tap is a zombie action comedy with colorful characters and a light tone. The sequel picks up years after the events of Zombieland, when Columbus and his friends have mastered the zombie apocalypse and are looking to settle down. Double Tap holds much of the same appeal as the original, with an excellent cast, sharp writing, and a unique sense of humor. The one thing it’s missing, however, is the first film’s heart.

Double Tap runs on the same mixture of character-driven banter, cultural references, and zombie slapstick as the first film. The four returning cast members have great chemistry together, making even the film’s basic interactions a treat. They’re joined by a handful of newcomers who fit right in. The humor skews even more self-aware than in the original, but the writing is still sharp, the setting is still fun, and nearly all of the jokes land.

The catch is that Double Tap is even less grounded than its predecessor. Where the original Zombieland dealt with the collapse of civilization and its effect on the survivors, Double Tap treats its world as a playground. It emphasizes comedy and personal relationships almost to the exclusion of survival and deeper forms of drama. This leads to a lighter watch with plenty of opportunities for comedy, but with less nuance and emotional payoff.

Zombieland: Double Tap is a well-executed and thoroughly entertaining comedy that will appeal to a broad audience. The sequel is missing the subtler qualities of the first one, including its rich character arcs and sense of balance. But what it lacks in subtlety, it makes up for in raw comedy, making it a worthy successor to an excellent film. For more in the same vein, try the original Zombieland or Shaun of the Dead.

7.3 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for great characters, fun comedy, and a dash of action.