BloodRayne (2005)

What is it with Uwe Boll and video games? This bloke alone must have a thing for decimating one series of video games after another with his crude movies, even if they bomb in the cinemas. I am talking about this abomination, BloodRayne. As if he hasn't done enough to House Of The Dead and Alone In The Dark video game series with his movies, he damages the reputation of this video game series. It's an arduous task to review every detail of this movie as I have neither played the game, nor have I researched it online. But watching this movie has proven to be a real headache.

So let's see, we have Kristianna Loken playing the lead role Rayne (she had a much pleasant role in Terminator 3), Michelle Rodriguez as Katarin (she too was better off in Resident Evil), Michael Madsen as Vladamir, Matt Davis as Sebastian, and Ben Kingsley (he was better off in Prince Of Persia: Sands Of Time) as the overlord Kagan, to mention but a few. Something always bothered me as to why these people were brought together into this movie; I mean they share no chemistry with each other and, they are possible misfits with little or no development throughout the course of this flick. Listening to their dry dialogue and watching them perform on screen was pretty much torture.

So what does it mean to be a vampire? Well a vampire is weak against silver, garlic, crosses and holy and sunlight. A dhamphir, on the other hand, bears all the strengths of a vampire, but none of its weaknesses. But BloodRayne is a sham: she is weak against water, holy or not, and shows little strength. If I were to compare her with Blade, she would certainly be a deviation from her video game character.

Remember the infamous sex scene from Alone In The Dark where Carnby makes out with Cedrac? Well it looks like the same idea is recycled into this movie where Rayne makes out with Sebastian for no apparent reason whatsoever. Why? Why? Why?

 

Now the visual effects in flashbacks, who could imagine that those cloudy screens and translucence were proper? I mean there are moments where images looked as though they were either vibrating, or were immersed in water and distorted as a result. On top of that, these flashbacks were too frequent and out of rhythm.

 

Lastly is the level of violence. As if it had to be more violent and gorier than it was in the previous film, Alone In The Dark, accompanying several fight scenes which most viewers would describe as sub par or, in my own words, videogame-esque--lifeless and without momentum. I guess Boll was so cheap that he could not be bothered to hire a professional choreographer to train the actors for fight scenes. (Watch out also for animal abuse at a carnival at the beginning.)

 

So any mention of Uwe Boll attached to any movie would spell a catastrophe in the box office. Watching this movie was like having my nails peeled off with a penknife whilst strapped to a chair. I wouldn't want anyone to watch this flick and lose 92 minutes of their life.

The Green Hornet (2011)

 I heard of this movie in 2011--alongside The Green Lantern--on a TV advert and thought, "Should I go see this movie or not?" Apparently not; I was not as keen to watching this as I was to Watchmen (2009). Thankfully I watched it on DVD, and boy was I dazed. I mean, really, this was painful to any healthy human mind. Watching this crud was like watching Batman & Robin (1996). So let's see why.
There's Britt Reid (Seth Rogen); I kind of remember Rogen from Maximum Risk. In this movie he [Reid] is just the same as he was as a ten-year-old: obsessed with heroics, bratty and heady. As his dad (James Reid) reprimanded him for getting in trouble in school trying to stop some bullies, Britt seems to get all the attention he wants. Trying to become a hero seems to be a child's dream come true to him, even though he does not think or plan like any comic hero would. All he does as an "adult" is disgrace his father by partying like an animal on purple codeine, curse, bark, vandalize his late father's statue and his newspaper by proving very unprofessional--yet he calls his dad whatever he thinks he is. So with all this character of a ill-mannered man, you wouldn't expect him to ever execute his role as the Green Hornet.
I also feel very sorry for Kato (Jay Chou): he is the real deal as he kicks ass, but many of his fight moves are too unrealistic and unconvincing--one would wonder how he could scan those weapons and their users in such thin timeframe. It is unbelieveable. Plus he has the real brain of a superhero, yet he is just overlooked as a mere chauffeur. Britt is a real "knobhead", someone who should be killed in those action scenes.
And don't let me get started on this villain, Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz). I can't imagine any villain to be duller than this--even Mr. Freeze from Batman & Robin looked more intimidating as a villain than Chudnofsky. Even Danny Clear at the beginning criticised the guy for his uncharismatic outlook, as if he was a real critic himself. Maybe Clear has a vivid point afterall!
In all, the plot is thin, the actors are bland, the action sequences are tasteless, and the visual effects are eye-gouging.

Catwoman (2004)

Now what is wrong with Hollywood? I mean, jeez, why greenlight this tripe?! Catwoman? I think it would have been better to title it Catbroad or Catlady, just as would have The Asylum studio.
What was wrong with Batman Returns? Didn't it do us justice by explaining Catwoman explicitly as in the comics? Her origin, her bio, her alter ego. Didn't the movie do an excellent job at it? That is the reason it is considered by many to be one of the best movies in the Batman franchise, thanks to Tim Burton, even though it is darker than its predecessor, Batman.

 

So this Catwoman movie was released in 2004, and unsurprisingly it was a failure in many ways. The main points to take into consideration are the differences between this character and her comic counterpart, and the opening credits:

Based on characters created by Bob Kane and published by DC Comics

Apparently, none of the characters from the comics made it into this movie, not including Batman/The Dark Knight/Bruce Wayne, Selina Kyle, Alfred Pennyworth, Commissioner Gordon, or even Robin/Dick Grayson, to mention but a few, and not there is not one mention of Gotham City. So why this credit? I don't think Bob Kane would want to see his name on the screen!

 

So Catwoman's alter ego is Patience Philips (wtf?!), played by Halle Berry, whom I remember quite well for her role as Storm/Aurora Monroe in the X-Men trilogy. She is unknowingly killed off in a cosmetics factory and is--get this crud!--"brought back to life by a cat with one breath". Are you f#@kin' kidding me?! Now she has cat-like powers: she sees like a cat, hears like a cat, and, goodness, she acts like a cat. So be prepared for some weyward wide-angle shots and over-the-top acting by Berry, and not to mention misuse of CGI to animate her ability to "climb walls and scurry along them horizontally". And just like the cinematic travesty Batman & Robin (1997) where Mr. Freeze shoots ice puns, Catwoman spits out overly insufferable cat-related puns.

 

And let's not forget that loathsome costume she dons: a pair of slashed trousers, a matching bra and that mask/hat. I mean, is that modest, compared with the signature lycra suit sported by the Catwoman in the comics? Was it because the original costume donned by Michelle Pfeiffer's character was too discomforting? Or are you lot just perverts? Oh my Lord, I can't forgive these writers! Curse you, John Brancato, Michael Ferris and John Rogers!

 

So, fans if Batman and the real Catwoman should beware if this nonsense. I have watched this movie and could not find a solid ground for a comprehensive plot to even exist. The writing is haphazard, the acting is flimsy and hammy, the CGI was abused and, above all, this movie has no loose, yet alone firm, connection to the character from the comics. Catwoman without Batman and Gotham City is like Steel without Superman and Metropolis. Avoid at all costs.

The Last Airbender: Plan 9 From M. Night Shyamalan

In the year 1953, we had Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space.
In 2000, the turn of the century and a new millennium, we had Battlefield Earth, which some have dubbed Plan 9 From Ron Hubbard.
In 2005 we had Alone In The Dark, which I personally dub Plan 9 From Uwe Boll.
Finally in 2010 we were treated to the latest train wreck, The Last Airbender, which I personally nickname Plan 9 From M. Night Shyamalan.
All four of the movies above are considered to be the worst movies of all time, with three of them respectively based on a book, a popular series of video games, and an anime series aired on Nickelodeon subject to univeral acclaim and with strong fanbase.
Unfortunately it seems bad movies just keep on coming. Why? Because those fat-head movie executives just wouldn't read the script and study the source material before greenlighting the movie. And believe me when I tell you that Uwe Boll's movie Alone In The Dark, doesn't bother me any more as I have watched the movie repeatedly and am not a fan of the games it was deeply poorly based on. But since I've watched the anime, Avatar: The Last Airbender, a.k.a. Avatar: The Legend of Aang, and am now very much familiar with it, I cannot watch this theatrical abomination without shedding tears and bawling in anguish. It simply destroys all expectations of every fan of the series: if the show was excellent, so must this movie be astounding.
I loved the show: the art, the cultures, the special effects, the evolution of the story, the plot, the characters and their development, and above all, humour! I could get it all from this show. But not from this movie! No way, even though it does offer special effects! Watching this movie is the ultimate heart-stopper! You would regret wasting 90 minutes of your life after this torrid experience, and you will get no refund for it. I would be better of watching Walt Disney's Inspector Gadget of 1999, Super Mario Bros. of 1993, Street Fighter of 1994, or even Dragon Ball Evolution of 2009, but not The Last Airbender! Any fan of the Avatar series (let me remind you I am not referring to James Cameron's Avatar!) would warn you against this movie; I'd do the same for your own good.

Son Of The Mask (2005)

Well here's a movie you would want to forget; a sequel to the successful movie featuring Jim Carrey, The Mask (1994). But really, this is more like a remake than a sequel since it now takes place in Fringe City, even though it initially opens up in Edge City. Also, none of the actors from the first film, including Carrey himself, reprise their roles; although the actor who plays Dr. Neumann reprises his role. So while Edge City is characterized by a dark tone, Fringe City is characterized by a rosy, colorful atmosphere.

So what is so bad about this movie? Well, there is idiotic and mostly unintelligible dialogue, dry acting on one hand and hammy acting on the other, horrible CGI work, an almost non-existent plot and abundant toilet humor.

It appears this movie spent so much money on CGI and ended up rendering some characters far too scary for even children. If you watch the 'baby born of the Mask' competing with Otis the Dog, the whole house is turned into a war zone as is the case in Tom & Jerry. The reaction from young viewers will be shock and disgust. Even before the rivalry, the baby is reanimated in various faces of characters from other cartoon classics like The Flintstones, Michael J. Frog and Woody Woodpecker. In addition, Otis with the Mask on takes on facial images of Wile E. Coyote, leaving disgust in one's eyes. In all, the heavy use of computer animation turns this flick into a live-action cartoon, a parody of The Mask.

I forgot to mention various camera angles: fish-eye views, close-ups and wide-angled shots. These are frequent throughout this movie and they distort the images well enough, as if the CGI wasn't grotesque enough already.

Toilet humor has been prevalent from the beginning, where a couple with five children talk like lobotomized patients; almost three times was the word "poop" mentioned in one scene--disgusting. Then this kid dubbed "Captain Underpants" headbutts Tim in the crotch (I don't think Kennedy was able to recover from that scene for hours!) I could see the look on Tim Avery's face, which are also our faces of bewilderment. I would bet that Jamie Kennedy made that face because he knew his film career had just begun to dissolve and implode. And another memorable scene, what I call the golden fountain, is truly the moment where I think Kennedy was not really acting but was seriously appalled by the very idea. I don't really know if I should feel very sorry for him.

And the Mask, this guy is the ultimate bomb. He is no charismatic genius, nowhere near his predecessor. His smooth, Elvis Presley-esque voice and flat personality leaves one utterly disappointed and deceived to the point of walking out of the cinema. This Mask looks more like a green-faced Ken doll with a wooden spirit, plastic hair and no charm. No wonder we only see him on screen for less than twenty minutes.

Here it is: hammy acting, choppy delivery, repetitive or inane dialogue, stagnant chemistry, gross misuse of CGI, and idiotic plot. What more can I explain? This movie was produced long after airing The Mask series, which many would note to be more mature but adequately humorous compared to this bomb. In fact this sequel is pointless since Jim Carrey declined to reprise his role, or if the script was rewritten entirely. So why bother in the first place?

Blood: The Last Vampire: The Anime (2001) vs. The Live Action (2010)

I have seen two movies based on the same source material, and have discovered the anime to be shorter than the live action version. Somehow it is the former which was well received by critics and audience, while the latter was not. So let's see why this is the case.

The plot revolves around Saya, a female who is on a hunt for the vilest and oldest demon, Onigin. A high school has become a breeding ground for demons called bloodsuckers, and a school nurse has become caught in a crosdfire and now bears witness to the infestation. Now it is up to Saya to draw out Onigin and kill it for good. Saya plays her role as a cold, fearless warrior who shows no laxity to nonsense in her fight against evil.

Similar plot to the one above, but too much detail irrelevant to the hunt for Onigen has been added to make film longer. For instance, Saya not only has to protect a schoolgirl named Alice from Onigen and its underlings, but also from The Council whose agents kill General Howard McKee, Alice's father, and try to kill her off as well to cover up their felony. To add insults to injury, there are several plot twists alluding to Onigen's alternate forms, and a backstory to Saya's past which does not fit in with the plot at all.
On top of it all, the real other issues with this version are Alice, who plays the annoying deadweight of a damsel-in-distress; the awkward CGI work on Onigen; the overly prolonged assault scene of Saya against the demons. The worst of it is the ending where some female demon--who reveals herself to be Saya's mother!--is the main enemy, and no explanation was offered regarding Onigen--whether he died or not. It is then after all this we finally witness Saya crack and weaken to a sentimental wreck! Anticlimatic.

So if you find the anime and live action movies based on the same material, sticl with the anime for it is quality that counts and not the running time length.