Entertaining? Yeah, if you like eye-candy. Technically any good? The f/x while faded, and lacking any detail that would make them look like they actually exist, were imaginative and neat. This is definitely a neat movie to look at. However, the acting, casting, dialogue, and story were all weak. The film, to me, seemed like just a series of weak plot points held together with kite-string, all of which are used as an excuse for visuals that seem impressive until you think about how often you've seen them in other places. Seriously. I saw things taken from movies, movie serials, comic books, novels, and TV shows--which would all be fine if the story had been interesting. There's even a cameo by Laurence Olivier, although not only did I not recognize him, when told where his cameo was, I didn't see the significance of his digital image being used. (I won't even go into how the hero is flacid, uninteresting and does nothing memorable for the ENTIRE FILM.)
How did I feel as the credits rolled? Predictably disappointed. A film that looks this good in trailers never follows through with a good movie. It's a shame, clearly, the filmmaker is visually capable of telling a good story, too bad all of the stuff that matters is missing. This guy should stick to FX and leave the filmMAKING to professionals.
Final Rating? SAM (ONLY if you can get in free and ONLY see it for the visuals.)
No comments:
Post a Comment