Review: Man of steel - best summer film

Henry Cavill is excellent as Kal-El

I never had any doubts when Zack Snyder was selected among many by (the producer) Christopher Nolan as the director of a now more realistic take on the famous Superman. Despite a semi-decent effort with "Superman returns" at 2006 by Brian Singer, most of the fans and the rest of the not so familiar with the context, audience craved more action, bigger stakes and frankly a story they could related to.

Fantastic effects and art design

Snyder and mostly Goyer (writer) heard our prayers, studied "The avengers" for spectactle notes and applied the Nolan-call me reality based - film technique. Therefore, we got "man of steel". This is a film so rich in visual detail; for that alone it requires to be seen on the big screen and pay the ticket price. The story itself is not that groundbreaking but it is easy to follow and contains enough sentimental moments that enables the audience to participate in the spiritual journey of Kal-el. The movie does not focus on how Superman became Superman but in the internal conflict of who superman is. Is superman the adopted (and wounded) son of the Kent family or the powerful offspring of a doomed world (Krypton)? There are clever takes on this matter, handled with care and enough emotional value that immediately transcends this film in the pantheon of excellent comic book adaptations. The display of various important flashbacks during his childhood and early stages of adulthood builds the character of our hero and gives us an intriguing sight into his psychosynthesis, something that most movies utterly lack or reveal with an emphasis on the uber-drama. Additionally, the semi-plausible explanation of the beyond human boundaries powers is a nice touch. Goyer and Co have actually done nice homework taking out the kryptonite (bullshit) and focused on a 21st century take on an almost invicible character.

Best villain since Loki and Bane of last year. Michael Shannon nails the role of General Zod

Russell Crowe and Kevin Conster are oustanding as the two, not necessarily polarised father figures of Kal-El/Clark Kent bringing epic gravitas on their roles and surprising me with their meticulous and powerful performances. It is fascinating to see them both utilized excellently as supporting members of a diverse cast that includes highly eclectic actors/actresses that serve the plot, with their influence shaping the hero's character. The rest of the cast are superb but I have to give special mentions to the two main villains: General Zod and Faora. Michael Shannon as Zod is a revelation, a terrific and yet terrifying villain. An equal of Superman and a supreme warrior, he does not necessarily wants to wipe out the world or extract revenge for the wrong reasons. Instead he simply seeks out to do what he was supposed to do - protect Krypton or what's left of it and rebuild it better despite the outcome of collateral damage in the process (us). This is an interesting characterization that does not follow the stereotypical psycho attributes that an antagonist shares. He is not an irrational or illogical or crazy being. Shannon's charisma is in full acting force here (especially when he yells), outshining pretty much everyone that happens to be on the screen with him. Faora on the other hand is the true surprise. While she does not have any character moments that could develop further her character, she is presented in such a dominating way that will become officially a fan favourite for the years to come. Her specific fighting style is incredible while the cold performance of Antje Traue gives us one Faora trully unforgettable and merciless. 

Antje Traue  is just awesome as Faora

And so we reach to the probably main point of "Man of steel". How is Henry Cavill? He is very good and actually charismatic. Despite spending the whole film being dead serious, he can pull off the role of Superman just fine. This is not HC on the screen, he is Kal-El. Only few actors can actually do this trick. Convincing but not ridiculously pumped up or overwritten, Cavill injects little nice touches to his hero, allowing him to be consumed and to create a memorable and sympathetic character. Not a cry baby, or a whiny bitch. Just an self-isolated individual with great powers that is struggling to identify himself with the human race.

Snyder's direction contains some very epic and yet artistic shots that embrace the sweeping mayhem showcased on the big screen. I personally loved his work in any film - even Sucker Punch - and I love that he is not simply trying to do a directional gig. His style can be noticed in almost every frame and the use of handheld camera work suggests a more personal feeling. The action scenes are even bigger than the level "The avengers" set with Smallville and Metropolis getting completely trashed during the films biggest fights accompagnied by a fantastic sound design. Particularly, the scramble between Kal-el and Faora is explosive and Snyder gets loose with his gigantic budget at his disposal while the final face off requires multiple viewings to appreciate the level of destruction. These are action scenes that fanboys have been waiting for years. Cleverly done, nicely put together with world class acting. Not too short, not too long, just enough to please our eyes with poetic mass catastrophic sequences.

Credits need to be given to the production and costume design departments that put a colossal effort to bring the world of Superman into life without looking the slightest of silly. Especially the Krypton costumes are so magically awesome that I was mesmerised every time I was seen one on the big screen while the dark liquid metal enviroment of the planet itself is a truly unique visual approach.

If there was something that I did not like was Lois Lane. While she gets a nice introduction and she is a bit far from the stereotypical damsel in distress role ,unfortunately towards the ends of the film she turns out to be exactly that, serving no purpose to the story and falling for Superman within one day :P (Remember Thor's romance). This makes it a bit too unbelievable with all the craziness that has been escalating towards the climax. Also Faora - one of my favourite characters ever - does not have a single scene to reveal any emotional complexity besides being badass and destroying stuff. The long length of the film could tire some, particularly the last hour which is a massive constant action scene while some trims in the flashbacks could give the "Man of steel" a faster pace.

Great opening and a top form Russell Crowe

Having said that, MOS is by far the best summer film and one of the best comic movies out there. It has been crafted with care, style and excellence from Snyder and Co. It offers beyond this world spectacle and a terrific set of villains to keep you occupied. There is a lot of heart beneath the blockbuster's shiny surface. This isn't a film about Superman. This is a film about Kal-el and his place in our world. To Snyder, Goyer and Nolan, I salute you.

+ fantastic villains (with credible motivations)

+ terrific action sequences

+ lots of spectacle

+ special effects are top notch

+ incredible costume design

+ powerhouse performance of Michael Shannon

+ great cast

+ Antje Traue as Faora

+ Russel Crowe/ Kevin Conster outstanding

+ solid script, not a single element of ridiculousness

- Amy Adams' role

- more screentime for Faora's character development

- a bit exhausting flashback sequences

9/10

Review: Fast and Furious 6 - most honest blockbuster of the year?

Rodriguez is back- always a good thing

So "Fast 6" as I call it. Is it better than "Fast 5"? Not at all. However, it is a major improvement over any of the other entries in the franchise. How many film series you know that have their best film as the fifth one? After the adrenaline shot in Rio, "fast 6" has to stand its ground against its massive (now) hype. Has Justin Lin and his team accomplished that? Well yes and no.

No because the addition of a James Bond intrigue falls flat on its face (with links to part 4) while the villain - played excellently by Luke Evans - is so generic that his stereotype has seen in thousands and thousands of films so no impression is made in that area. Frankly, there is nothing interesting going on: Yeah, we have the same characters returning to fight the villain's gang (this time with The rock being on their side) because they are the best and they just happened to have Letty with them ... and that's it really. "Fast 5" had everything: a gorgeous setting, 2 antagonists, a fantastic heist sequence, great cast chemistry and superb humour. Here, we do see London but it is not shot the same way Rio was. It looks pretty generic and since everything is taking place during the night, it is diminishing any chances to enjoy the different scenery. 

Carano is excellent and shares great chemistry with The rock as his sidekick

Due to the fact that all these events are occurring before "Tokyo drift", certain storyline choices are utterly clumsy (see Han's and Gisele's arc) while Jordana Brewster now is the damsel in distress - super disappointing -, a left out of the plot because of baby issues. Same thing applies for the relationship between Dominic and Helena. We end up "Fast 5" with them getting together and the coming of Letty should have spiced the things up a little bit but the writer has already decided to take this out in a single shot just to keep these characters together. Any characterization of the villain and his minions would have been a nice touch as they seem to be the counterpart of Torreto's gang instead of just one-dimensional beings that are waiting to kick ass or to have their asses kicked. Add on that, the amount of ridiculousness that is being displayed here is astonishing with airways being more than 80 miles long (!), physics laws that exist in the Matrix, now have immigrated to our reality, and nobody seems to care for all those civilians dying in the process of hunting Shaw (Luke Evans). 

Gisele - one my favourite characters. She does more this time around

But who am I kidding? The filmmakers never pretended making the highest form of art. This is a film created for one purpose to entertain without insulting your brain. Yes, there are the British stereotypes, macho American lines, cool scenes and dramatic pauses for no reason but if you look it as a well made action parody, then you will have a blast. As I mentioned above, I did not enjoy it as the fifth film but it is an absolute blast when it comes to staging action sequences. With the addition of brilliantly (and over the top) choreographed fights - particularly a nasty cat fight between Carano and Rodriguez in London's metro-  part 6 delivers. They have tanks, airplanes, cars, buses, tracks and other types of vehicle mayhem  so our eyes can see a feast of stunts (with a bit more CGI this time). The cast is still lovable and its interactions have a human element that lacks from most of today's blockbusters. It is not rocket science neither at the level of a Tarantino flick but it works well within the context of the film and makes it more enjoyable. The new characters are a welcome addition - Carano is excellent and feels right at home, more than she was in "Haywire", Joe Taslim kicks some serious ass although a bit underused - and a tank chase is so frenetically well shot that it is almost impossible not to appreciate the craftmanship

A bit of a step down due to the departure of certain characters, convoluted but yet at the same time generic plot, "Fast 6" is still loads of fun with a much more promising teaser for the now inevitable seventh film. Curious!

+ New cast additions
+ chase sequences
+ humour
+ stunts
+ fights!
+ brings everything to a cirle
+ teaser!
- a bit CGI in some places
- clumsy storytelling
- overwhelmed with generic yet convoluted plot
- damsel in distress - not in place with this franchise
- under-developed villains

7/10

Review: Star Trek into darkness - Above average sci-fi

I will admit it that I am not a Star Trek fan. In fact, I hate it. I am a huge STAR WARS geek and a fan of epic scale stories rather than the space missions of the Enterprise crew. Having said that, I was pleasantly surprised with "Into darkness". Abrams has done a solid job (not exceptional) into bringing a new life to the franchise. The first film was decent, the second is just bigger but not really super advanced good. 

Villain of the year?

There are huge plotholes that I tend to ignore pointing out here - that hack Lindelof - call me Prometheus, is behind the writing - because this chapter is entertaining to watch. ST finds a charismatic villain - a superb Benedict Cumberbatch that channels a lot of Loki in this one - gets captured, starts playing with everyone's minds - that this time drives the story forward and kicks some serious amount of ass particularly in the second half. His existence enables Abrams to stage chaotic action scenes (especially in the last third of the film) while the space sequences are thrilling enough to make you remember that this guy is now responsible for the biggest franchise of all time - STAR WARS. 

Cumberbatch amps the mayhem

If I have to pick any flaws that would go with the story with two three theoritically shocking twists that anyone who has seen a decent sci-fi flick could spot them from a mile away. The lens flare really outstays its welcome being constantly present in almost every frame gets annoying for the eyes. It is going overkill man! Certain science is pure joke- I know what are you thinking. you watch Star Trek for science - fuck no but when you can actually do impossible things regarding life or death, then pretty much anything loses its humanity and sense of danger!

Add on that that the women do not do anything besides being sexy and a nice part of the background- seriously Uhura has been reduced to a whiny Spock girlfriend - no action, no memorable lines, nothing. Lame. Perhaps because the writers (three of them, including the hack) are focused in the bromance between (an excellent Zachary Quinto) Spock and Kirk (channelling his Shia LaBeouf performance). These two are the core of the film and bring any layers of emotional attachment to our heroes. Towards the end, you will find yourself rewarded with actual caring dialogue and human characters, something that is so much lacking from modern day blockbusters. The rest of the cast are ok although they do not have any spectacular scenes to sign which is a shame considering the talent behind it (Pegg, Urban, Weller, Greenwood)

Excellent chemistry

"Into darkness" is a solid improvement over the first one but nothing major. Sure, it displays cutting edge effects and outstanding set design, but it is not different than anything else outhere. Well made, it feels a prelude of episode 7 with a bit of Avengers mix (the characterization of the villain, his plan, his portrayl). The humour is more hit than miss, but anyone who didn't like the first one, won't find anything to like here either. If on the other hand, you truly believe that sci-fi adventures with a proper villain is your thing, give it a shot. Perhaps even if you are not interested in it, give it a shot, because Cumberbatch owns the scenery.

+ great action sequences

+ Benedict Cumberbatch - tremendous

+ Kirk - Spock relationship

+ superb cast

- any female on this one does not do something awesome!

- ... they just stand

- huge plotholes

- too much lens flare! Stop it already!

6.5/10

Review: Lords of Salem ... a combination of Kubrick, Polanski and Lynch with witches

Cinematography 1 - out of this world

You have to admire Rob Zombie. The man has been always doing what he really wanted without being concerned about (mainstream) success or fan service. His films are exactly what he wants them to be, 100% Rob Zombie movies. "Lords of salem" is a bizarre hybrid of multiple cinematic homages and tributes that is more hit that miss. The concept is fairly intriguing - modern day witches and curses in Salem. What's not to like? Depending the perspective, it could be plenty, but as a horror fan I acknowledge "Lords" as an experimental film of a constantly evolving filmmaker who keeps challenging himself with different material.

People who didn't like the brutality in his previous work, are not going to be impressed here either unless they tend to love slow-burn flicks. Those though who have decided to join the ride, may find lots of elements to discuss about. Surely his most ambitious movie to date, "Lords of Salem" has an almost hypnotic rhythm with sudden scare bursts to keep the interest and andrenaline at high levels. The man knows how to stage atmospheric, dreamy sequences and then to establish a way of pulling the rag under your feet. His methodical camerawork - a massive tribute to Kubrick and Polanski with a a mix of (really weird) Lynch imaginery - is truly incredible. The scares are meticulously placed through the film and caught me off guard without the utilization of cheap tactics that so many now directors of the saturated genre are applying. I was genuinely impressed just as I was thrilled when I saw his "Halloween" remake. The sound design requires loads of praise - its production is top notch - as well as the score by John 5 - Zombie's guitarist - which manages to assimilate a John Capernterque vibe with a bit of the "Shining"s string themes. The songs have a Tarantino vibe and even now Mozart's requiem can not be listened without brining some graphic pictures of the film in my mind.

Cinematography 2- out of this world

However, the most impressive thing in the film is not the story itself - what story really? This is a movie that oozes style. Style over substance. But what style is that! The visuals and the cinematography of Brandon Trost are nothing but glorious, truly enhanced through high definition. Particularly the "auditorium" and "church"(?- whatever the fuck was that) are a sight to be reckoned with. If it was in my hands, "Lords" would have got an Oscar. It is pleasant that there are still people in the movie business, actively trying to differentiate their horror films in a way or another from the rest - in this case, Zombie was smart enough to give his movie a polished, surrealistic feeling ignoring any conventions or rules. The visual palette is so strong that each scene gets a different energy though the implemented colours:  red neon crosses in dark rooms, pale white stage, dark yellow camp fires for witch gatherings, foggy blue aftermath mornings and more.

SMZ does a decent job at her first leading role gig

Surprisingly, Sheri Moon Zombie is actually pretty good at her first leading role although she does not have much to do with pointless scenes of nudity (no problem with that either, she is a fine striking woman!). Everyone else is doing a solid job with the true standout being Meg Foster - the horror 70's icon - as the lead witch Morgan - a challenging and surreal role for sure. "Welcome" is still echoing in my ears with her rusty voice while Judy Gleeson's "happy" face can make you truly uncomfortable and Bruce Davidson brings some warm hearted honesty on the table.

Meg Foster is fantastic

Yes, you mentioned that all is great: visuals, performances, cinematography, direction, sound and music. What about the bloody story? Well frankly, this is the film's biggest problem: There is no story really. The way it starts and ends is pretty much the same. Since there are no twists and turns, any anticipation of what might happen, what could have happened and what could have been avoided, would definitely add and increase the (if any) tension. However, due to the ambiguity of David Lynch that Zombie tries (so hard) to incorporate, "Lords" simply fails. If he had followed a simpler route - classic horror films with witches - "Lords" would have been a masterpiece, no doubt about that. But perhaps he felt the need to do something more ambiguous that before and you can see him trembling. "Salem"'s saving grace is his visual style but in terms of depth, Zombie can't keep up. Despite the vastly improved dialogue and some glimpses of character development, there is noone where we can invest to. The lack of interaction between the witches, the main heroine and the supernatural stuff deliver an air of incoherence that is very difficult to ignore. Therefore, when the climax occurs, you pretend to be standing there with the audience but not really, no. The films abruptly ends, already emotionally detached, just like a hipster that showcases the ability to understand fragile meaning of existence when things are more simpler.

Cinematography 3 - out of this world

"Lords of Salem" had a lot of potential. It will definitely develop a cult status in the years to come because it is very different that most of the pics out there. Zombie has great ambition and visual strength but he should try to go smaller (not in budget, he is already independent) and focus into a basic horror story - just what "Devil's rejects" did. No remakes, no challenges. And then I am sure he will be able to pull it off again with fascinating outcomes. While not a failure, "Lords" are certainly bizarre unintentionally with lots of things to enjoy but the absurdity towards the end and the lack of emotional investment makes Salem a bit grounded. Perhaps, with after a second viewing I will end up liking it even more - as many have claimed. It is worth your attention though just for the fantastic photography - it is out of this world. It is beyond exceptional. I will be closing this review by saying what I said above: Style over substance, but what style!

+ lavish visuals

+ cinematography is just outstanding

+ Meg Foster

+ great cast

+ great jump scares

+ exceptional sound design

+ John 5's score

+ brilliant direction

+ interesting story

- ... that goes nowhere

- lack of emotional depth

- small running time

- false air of ambiguity

- too much ambition

6/10

Review: Iron Man 3 - solid entry but nothing we haven't seen before

Downey Jr is Tony Stark and never fails to bore or tire.

"Iron Man 3" can be classified as a decent film but not great. It is pretty much up there with the other entries only slightly better than part 2 (which is was so self-indulgent). The main focus of this franchise always has been Robert Downey Jr. He IS Tony Stark and it never gets old or tiring watching him throwing clever one liners since he is too damn much entertaining to watch. A charismatic performer, he makes Tony Stark's persona look and feel real rather than a caricature, enabling the audience to connect with him, wanting him to kick some ass with all his technological wizardry. He is the saving grace even if the film was a failure (which it isn't).

Pearse is fantastic

The plot has its twists and turns - especially one that nobody will see it coming. Shane Black and conspirators have taken HUGE liberties with their material, particularly when it comes to their villain(s) that will probably piss off fanboys (that's me). It is a clever take and something unique, but I wanted my Mandarin different (and more screentime as well). Not quite sure what they were trying to accomplish with his character - he is not Asian - (especially that China is a major part in the movie business and we do not want to hurt our box office chances now, do we?) but his persona is just WTF!? It makes no sense in my book and disrespects Iron Man's greatest foe. Unfortunately I cannot say anything else but it has to be seen to be believed. If they have kept their original premise - major head of an unknown terrorist organization that resembles Al-Qaeda, despite having my doubts, it would have made contemporary sense in the current world status. Oh well..

Great design

A welcome addition is Guy Pearce - who has been lately to many, many blockbusters - here he truly shines in a villainous role that doesn't necessarily makes him a stereotypical bad guy. He has a decent motive and Pearce portrays Aldrich Kilian with enough finesse and panache to keep us interested. He sure has more than one ace in the hole and drives surprisingly the plot forward with gusto. Everyone else is not doing much with the exception of (my beloved) Don Cheadle who gets more scenes this time around and certainly feels more confident. Paltrow is ok as Pepper Potts although I am not sure that I liked her characterization as a cheap Mary - can not do shit for myself - clone. Even though she does have a decent amount of action minutes, she becomes  "girly" for no reason, especially when you start thinking that she has survived two grandiose villain attacks in the past! Rebecca Hall is completely wasted in a badly written character (goes out of the picture like a balloon) and William Sandler is just there.

Major disappointment. Not kicking the slightest of ass and only in for 5 minutes. Not happy

When it comes to the story, the "extremis" storyline has been adapted quite good with some surprising twists that elevate this threequel a bit more than your average superhero movie. Stripping down Stark from his powers and materials makes it a more compelling storyline than having him built (again) the ultimate weapon to defeat another bad guy. There is enough material here to emphasize Stark's psychology with his frequent panic attacks and damaged relationship with Pepper but Black is focused to keep the appeal to kids worldwide. And it is a shame really as I would have liked to see a bit of a darker side from our main hero. To have him vulnerable, alone and isolated from everything and everyone being able to start from scratch. It is not something that tremendously annoys me but rather a misfired opportunity for cinematic greatness. 

One of the best action sequences of the year

His interactions with a child during the second act  is something different than the stuff we have used to see in superhero films and surely will generate good laughs with excellent comic timing by both Downey Jr and Ty Simpkins. Add on that two fantastic and thrilling action sequences - the attack on Stark's house and a sky falling rescue from Air Force One shot with a real parachuting group (no green screen - well done production team!) and so far we have the best visuals of the year and stunts too! A bit disappointed about the final act as we get multiple armour suits destroying pretty much everything although the choreography and the stunt work are nicely integrated in the most of the CGI mayhem displayed on the screen.

The (probably) last entry in Marvel's original franchise sees Robert Downey Jr in top form,  quotable one liners, surrounded by some pretty spectacular sequences and neat special effects. I just wish it could have delivered what it promised us: a bit more depth that the same but still good portion of movie food.

+ superb special effect

+ 2 breathtaking action sequences

+ Robert Downey Jr

+ Guy Pearce nails the role

+ humour is spot on

- not enough Ben Kingsley

- ...especially for what the filmmakers suggested he would do

- bastardization of Iron man's greatest adversary

- no real menace

- overusage of CGI in certain sequences

6.5/10

Review: Olympus has fallen and has crashed into oblivion

Butler is on top form but the script is not doing him any favors

"Olympus has fallen" is currently competing with "Die hard 5" for the prestigious award of worst movie of 2013. Yeah it is that bad. Before though I describe my criticisms, I need to address certain "qualities" that the film does include. First, the bad guys are REALLY, REALLY bad and that is a good thing. No more PG-13 mambo jambo. These people are evil and they will do whatever it is necessary to achieve their goals - so far, the violence is displayed - no CGI blood! yes! Second, GB. Butler is back into "serious" action mode after all these lost and tiny romantic movies. The guy has a larger than life presence on the big screen and he should get more action roles for the love of god. Third the cast which is practically wasted but that's another issue. Freeman, Eckhart, Basset, Leo, Yune, Judd (!), McDermont (!!), Forster (!!!). It is delicious to witness all these actors and actresses with different background interacting with each other, even saying morronic lines.

Now for the bad stuff: where shall we begin? The CGI in many sequences is just atrocious. Sorry not atrocious but awful. Really movie? You are trying to pull an action film in 2013 with dodgy special effects? All the helicopters, planes and building models are so obviously lame computer creations that leave you shake your head in the sheer amount of displayed disbelievability. Additionally, the action sequences. Fuqua directs the fights with too much edit and too many close-ups without enabling us to see Butler's Manning kicking some serious ass. We get to spot a punch or two and then another henchman bites the dust. The obvious references to "Die hard" are making matters worse once you start thinking about how awesome THAT film was. Great characters, terrific action and inspiring performances. You cared about McClane and you even wanted Hans to get away. Here we like Butler but we do not give a flying fuck about his "problems". He doesn't have any problems at all to be honest - just because he saved only the president he feels guilty since the first lady met her maker during an accident. Really movie? We couldn't care less. Once he starts following McClane's steps and entering the White House to perform his duties, he is getting a bit psycho and seems to enjoy all the merciless killing which kinda makes him creepy. I know that this is supposed to defuse the tension as a non serious film (although it is unintentionally) but the filmmakers consider themselves very highly and every one liner that our hero is spitting out, every brutal kill that he is making, I felt even more difficult to relate to him.

And here is the major issue of this film. It is filled with extremely bizarre character moments that give away a fake reality feeling. Doctors using mobile phones in the midst of chaos to call their loved ones ignoring (the overacting extras') pleas of help, Morgan Freeman ordering some coffee during the unfolding of important events, generals swearing in the crisis room and acting like second class citizens, people from the school of "Prometheus", particularly secret service agents standing in the line of fire! and bodies recycled in the same sets in the same dead positions in every corner. Despite a heavy dosage of action, everything is so overblown by low-quality CGI, piles of unresponding torsos and an utterly unconvincing attack in the WH. They want us to believe that an airplane can literally fly in the air above the most secure building in the world and it is not blown away into pieces? NO fucking way.

Semi-disturbing scene establishing our villains as proper bastards.

And that sums up OHF - its incredible stupidity. But what really annoys me is that during these times where bombs are planted in the Boston marathon and tensions are rising with the North Korea, it blatanly is so AMERICAN. The amount of shots of the american flag, the american way of life being threatened by an external force, the "god help us all" speech and metaphors about hell, while the american president is being totally regarded as a saint makes this one completely outdated and LAME. It is just a vehicle for the (american) masses to feel that they can kick ass and get revenge if a terrorist attack takes place in any possible way. And it is a shame because I like Butler and Eckhart is giving a decent performance. With such a stellar cast, it should have been so much more. Paying storywise homage to "die hard" is dangerous and you 'd better get this right since comparisons are inevitable. In this case, Olympus truly has fallen.

+ Butler as the lead always a plus

+ great cast

+ no CGI violence

+ BAD guys are very BAD guys

- terrible CGI

- terrible plot

- idealization of the President

- the take over of the WH is completely unconvincing

- main character not very sympathetic - he is actually a psycho!

- lack of emotional development

- no sense of danger, no suspense

- multiple idiotic things - who uses a spinning kick in a fight to the death!?!

3.5 /10

Review: Evil Dead raises the dead ... and the gore!

The cinematography of Morton is a character itself

 "Evil dead" is not a perfect film. It has flaws (no shit Sherlock - more on that later) but despite any drawbacks, it is an absolute blast to watch from beginning to end. There were initial concerns about how remake treatment of a cult classic is going to perform and by experiencing this first hand, I can honestly say that the filmmakers have done a marvellous job and respected our wishes for an ADULT horror film with no silliness included. Roll on multiple woohoos!!!!

Our heroes everybody

First time helmer Fede Alvarez (remember this name) is shooting in a frantic pace jump scares, screams, swearing, humour and gore in a symphony of excellent sound design while paying a massive tribute to the original creation of Sam Raimi (who also serves here as a producer) without self indulging himself. The camera work is truly something that gives a unique edge and FS is clever enough not to copy the legendary direction of the first film  making sure to shoot weird angles, low frame zooms in and out, and intense steadycam shots. Sure there are winks left and right (in the proper amount) for the fan service but those who are unfamiliar with the plot, will not find themselves confused with an over-abundance of information. The characters are sharply drawn (at least most of them), some initial backstory to the evil is being given and then....let the mayhem begin.

This is a truly fantastic performance in the genre of horror. Who would have thought of that?

We all know why we came to see a movie called "Evil dead". What though you and I will find here and nowhere else, is the reliability on practical effects, a big NO to CGI monstrosity bullshit, excellent performances (!) with Jane Levy practically stealing the show with her expressive body language and grimaces, gloomy atmosphere - who goes to a forest that looks like that? and outstanding cinematography, particularly when it comes to film's big (red) climax. Aaron Morton is doing wonders for a small budgeted film and I am pretty sure both he and Alvarez are going to have a bright future in their hands if they choose wisely.

She will feast upon your souls

However, I have to give credit to Sam Raimi and Bruce Campell (yes!) as the creators of the original (as director/writer and main character Ash, respectively) who ensured complete creative freedom and reign over their baby to Alvarez with one goal in mind : FAN SERVICE. Gore, gore, gore, scares, gore, gore, scares, humour! Just like the original but more technically advanced. Finally a horror film that actually is not trimmed to pass the ratings, does not have sexy babes wondering left and right for apparently no reason, incredibly stupid dialogue and questionable choices regarding the outcome of a dangerous situation. Anyone who loves seeing well crafted massacre on screen is going to be extremely pleased and cry from joy - limps getting chop off, heads are smashed, faces are curved, tongues are split in half and much more are displayed in all of their glory but for some reason I considered them fun rather than the extravagant bloody traps of Jigsaw or the brutal violence of a Rob Zombie flick. Well played, well played. All the above are assisted by the tremendous sound design that incorporates giggles, laughs, thunders, scratches, rain drops and breaths in a chaotic audio effect cluster.

Oh..what's that? The shit is going to hit the fan. True story

Having said that, the film does loose momentum during the second act, where the characters are dispatched faster than expected and most of the scares are not actually...scary (but ignore me since I have been trained in the art of horror for years). A casual fan of the genre will spot the majority coming from a mile away and it doesn't help that Alvarez has cranked everything up to 11. You feel that this is mostly a thrill ride that desperately tries to catch always your attention with something since it is devoid of quiet moments that could spice things up in the suspense section. This leads me to be able to ignore certain characters and any extra development would definitely have assist the matters - but let's get serious here. The original was like that (and even less!) and it is nice to see here Alvarez putting some effort to include a bit of drama to the plot - Mia is a heroine addict and she is supposed to go cold turkey.

Not for the lighthearted

"Evil dead" is a one of these films that do not come out very often. The hard rating, the blood and guts, all the screaming and running have helped to refine horror mainstream  and take it a step further. The overall glossy look, the fake tits and other common stuff that we keep seeing for quite some time have gone now. This is a horror story that yes it focuses on fan service but with wit, style, acting ability (!) and enough charm to keep me satisfied.

PS stay for an after credits sequence!

+ no trimmed gore!
+ Jane Levy - a new scream queen?
+ humour is spot on
+ camera work and cinematography
+ fan service most of all
+ fitting tribute to the original
+ fantastic atmosphere and setting
- a bit predictable jump scares
- some characters do not get enough development as others

8/10