VisionThing

One of the best westerns I've seen in a long while. Knows exactly what it wants to do, and does it well. Very lean, bare-bones even, but the plain production and lack of anything unnecessary serve the austere story well.

Cinematography is very good. Acting is good despite the lack of big names, especially Tim Blake Nelson as the lead is brilliantly cast and really brings his character to life. Stephen Dorff, Scott Haze, and Trace Adkins offer solid support. Gavin Lewis however is not quite on a par with the rest of the cast. The story is straightforward and quite simple, but the dialogues are well written and everything is believable enough.

"Old Henry" does not invent anything new and has its fair share of clichés, but I did find the all-encompassing, unpretentious back-to-basics approach refreshing and enjoyed every minute. It does not outstay its welcome either. Warmly recommended to friends of westerns.

I love weird movies. I love sci-fi movies. I love kung-fu movies. I love action movies. I love comedies. True to its name, Everything Everywhere All at Once tries to be all these things, and more. It fails in most everything.

There are some positive things, but it is a short list. The basic idea and the message the movie tries to impart are potentially interesting (but the movie fails completely in conveying them, to such an extent that it has to literally try to spell them out at the end). Michelle Yeoh and Jamie Lee Curtis give their all despite the relentless nonsense they are put through. Cinematography is rather good. Fight choreographies are decent.

Everything else is just missing. There is no comprehensible plot. Michelle Yeoh's character is the only one who even tries to be anything more than a comic book caricature, and the superhuman abilities make even her totally unrelatable. Pacing is abysmal. There is nothing original nor funny in the movie. It steals ideas from a multitude of sources (like The Matrix, Marvel universe, Hong Kong kung-fu movies, animes) with an utter lack of vision on how to put any of them into good use, and adds "comedy" via elementary-school-yard-funny level completely random stuff (like butt plugs, hot dog fingers and googly eyes).

I love ice cream. I love sushi. I love pizza. I love Chinese food. I love hamburgers. There is artistry in creating delicious combinations from unexpected ingredients. But if you just blindly toss every possible ingredient you can think of into a blender, you get unsavoury, inedible mess. Tossing nonpareils on top does not help, nor does supersizing the deplorable sludge. That is what Everything Everywhere All at Once is.

In a word, meh.

The basic premise is a true and tried horror movie setting with an isolated inescapable place (small island) where everyone is stuck should things start going awry. Not original, but a solid foundation.

The plot is very simple and goes exactly where it seems to go from quite early on. After the first death there are but a couple of unexpected minor turns of events which provide some stimulus, but they don't bear greater significance.

Despite the uninspired plot, this could nonetheless work as a suspenseful horror thriller if there were well-crafted characters to care about. But there are not, only unlikable one-dimensional cardboard caricatures. To top it off, they act in a highly unrealistically calm and collected manner most of the time.

The movie could still entertain if it was funny, but it is not, it doesn't even try to be. There is some black humor worth a couple of short chuckles.

The movie could still give something to think about, and this it does try to do, but in the end there's no rhyme nor reason to anything -- the chef is just a lunatic, the staff are mindless cultists, and the "carefully selected guests" turn out to be there for either ridiculous reasons, or for no real reason at all.

The casting is good, but the actors are not really given much to work with. Highlights are Ralph Fiennes who saves what he can with his presence and stoic delivery of the demented high school philosophy ramblings, and Anya Taylor-Joy who makes her utmost to breathe life into her sketch of a character. Nicholas Hoult, on the other hand, gives the most out of place performance.

So, meh. I watched The Onion's "Sex House" on YouTube last week. It provides vastly better horror, black comedy and satire than this.

I loved Thor: Ragnarok. I thought the humour in it did a great job counterbalancing the really dark subject matter (destruction of Asgard); the humour enhanced the film. I went to see Thor: Love and Thunder giddy with high expectations, but was immensely disappointed.

The quality of writing in LaT in comparison to its predecessor is like particularly sordid fan fiction by someone who completely misinterpreted what made Ragnarok so great. (It's worth noting that Taika Waikiki did not write Ragnarok, only directed it. And none of the screenwriters from Ragnarok were involved in the making of this film.)

There is no real plot. Dialogues are horrid, chock-full of very forced out-of-place elementary school level "humour". Directing, editing, and even a lot of the CGI feel like rushjobs. Most acting is bad. The only one who seemed to put real effort into this was Christian Bale, who unfortunately has very little screen time.

To sum it up, Love and Thunder is an astonishingly bad movie. It is nothing but a cavalcade of bad jokes, pointless meandering, glaring plot holes, and degradation of the character that was Thor.

The first few episodes of Serial Experiments Lain build up a very intriguing mystery and the artistic vision is top-notch throughout, but in the end I felt the story did not fully deliver on its ample promises.

The story as a whole amounts to less than the sum of its parts because it is too incoherent and, crucially, does not really follow many of its ideas through. Leaving things open to interpretation is one thing, but I always succumb to ennui when curiosity is piqued and a sense of mystery is created with a myriad of seemingly inexplicable occurrences -- that in the end are just forgotten and left completely up in the air. Here, only the "main plot" -- Lain's own story and identity -- is resolved, and even that resolution is muddled with the needless hint about her somehow being able to have memories from the future as well. But most subplots, organisations, people... just fizzle away and are never given meaningful closure.

However, many of the story elements are exquisite. I liked very much the way several themes were handled, especially regarding the Internet (even predicting some aspects that did not really exist when this was released). I also greatly enjoyed the general disturbing, menacing undertone this series had throughout, as well as many individual scenes and story devices. Not the unprecedented masterpiece it could have been (and I thought it would be during the first episodes), but still both entertaining and genuinely original and visionary. 7.5/10.

I've liked most Marvel series. Of the latest ones I've seen, Loki was quite entertaining and WandaVision was best television in ages. Moon Knight is so far removed from the quality of those that it beggars belief.

The "plot" is a maundering mess. The potential of each and every character is wasted, none of them are interesting in any respect. The general register is completely off, it's weird, incoherent and distracting. The whole thing feels like an overlong SNL parody of a superhero movie. Directing, most acting, humour, CGI, dialogues are all of incredibly poor quality. The end result is an unwatchable mess with no redeeming qualities (except perhaps the music, which is good in itself, however even this aspect is marred as the series tries to ape the Guardians of the Galaxy recipe of using old hit songs but without actually linking the music to the characters in any way).

This is a very ambitious film, lasting three hours and telling six different stories from different eras and places, all still supposedly connected to each other.

Casting is good. Each main actor plays multiple parts. Make-up and CGI are not always as good as one would expect from a high budget film, but they don't make or break this film. All the stories are constantly interlaced, and this editing choice makes the film interesting by itself.

The biggest problem is that none of the individual stories are neither very original nor very interesting. Their connection to each other is also extremely vague and superficial. The grand idea is apparently the continuity of souls, but the film really fails to consummate this, apart from using the same actors in all the stories and an occasional reference to something created by or about the characters from the past.

Regardless of its shortcomings, I was moderately entertained by the kaleidoscopic journey that Cloud Atlas offered for its entire length. It is not a masterpiece, but it's not a turkey either. 6,5/10.

The premise of an old, long since retired Sherlock Holmes with a failing memory trying to reconstruct his final case is an intriguing one. However, this was not quite what I expected, this is more a drama movie than a detective movie.

Cinematography is very good and the locations are beautiful, if a bit scarce. Casting and acting in general is good, Ian McKellen is superb (albeit writing undermines his performance somewhat by fluctuating the old Holmes' mental and physical capabilities wildly as required by drama).

Writing is subpar in other aspects as well. The original case is ridiculously poorly contrived (husband's actions don't make a modicum of sense). Actions of the person who invited Holmes to Japan are similarly senseless. The hostile attitude of the housekeeper makes no sense either (apart from inducing conflict to older Holmes' story -- another distracting vehicle simply to create more drama).

In summary, too much cheap melodrama, and the writing is anything but clever. Quite the opposite of what I would expect from a Holmes movie. If one was able to watch this solely as a British drama movie with no expectations created by the name of Sherlock Holmes, it could work better.

A movie can be artistic, incoherent, black-and-white, hard to follow, have a very abstract story with no real resolution, and still be great. I love Eraserhead, for example. But The Lighthouse...

The Lighthouse has a very promising setting, great actors, and in the beginning, great visual and aural atmosphere. Both characters are unlikable, they are borderline caricatures, but the first half of the movie still succeeds in building up enough mystery and tension to make the watcher wonder what it all will really be about.

But then it goes nowhere from there. All the build-up is for nothing. Nothing gets developed into fruition nor resolved. It seems like the creators had a script for the first half only.

The latter half of the movie is repetitive, unwatchable mess. It loses the tension, loses the atmosphere, loses any semblance of coherence. It is horrid. There is no mystery. There is no story. Anything interesting built during the first half goes out of the window. There is nothing worth watching anymore, just endless, pointless rambling and raving. It is like a parody of all the worst qualities of an art house movie.

Anyone praising this sorry turd as a 10/10 cinema masterpiece must be paid, trolling, or on acid. You'd be better off watching two drunkards fight on the street. The same intellectual content, but at least there would be a resolution, and it would not last this long.

I liked the first Deadpool a lot more than I thought I would. It was not a joked-down super hero movie. It had a solid and interesting plot, strong performances, it looked good, it made me care for the characters, and as a bonus, most of its jokes worked. I found it to be quality entertainment.

Unfortunately Deadpool 2 was an exact opposite; I liked it a lot less than I thought I would. It does look good. There are some great action sequences. But this time they forgot to add a plot, and the humor is forced and recycled. The whole affair plays out like a stand-up comedy night starring a comedian who tries WAY too hard, and has 1/10 ratio of adequate jokes.

The movie tries to make up for the lack of a story with an abundance of characters. Unfortunately the only interesting new character in the movie is Domino (who has quite limited screen time), the rest are utterly forgettable (with poor acting to boot, but honestly they are not given much to work with). They have even managed to completely ruin Cable.

The first Deadpool movie was touching, funny and outrageous. This sequel is jejune, tacky and insipid. Still watchable as a brainless action movie, but disappointing after the excellent predecessor.

Appointment with Death is one of my favourite Agatha Christie novels. This adaptation rewrites most aspects of the original novel, and none for the better. There are too many characters, reduced to over-the-top caricatures with the nuances and plausibility of a B horror movie cast. Very messy directing. As a result the whole affair is hard to follow and uninteresting. To top it off the new ending is laughably bad (think about how utterly cruel and traumatizing that would be to the child). Even Tim Curry is rather bad in this. However, the sceneries are sublime.

I started watching Lantana thinking it was a crime movie. It is not. It is a realistic drama focusing on human relationships. I usually strongly dislike such, but this one was so well-crafted it kept me interested throughout. Not innovative, but writing, directing, and acting (with the exception of Geoffrey Rush, who appears completely detached) were of very high quality. If you like down-to-earth dramas, you will probably enjoy this.

There are many much more thought out reviews that say the same, so just a brief summary. I'm a 35+ guy. I still love many Disney and other animated "kids'" movies that I get to watch, they are often much better and thoroughly thought out than "normal" movies and usually have food for thought & gags for adults as well. Frozen had promise as well, but there were weak developments throughout and the big plot twist and everything after it were insulting to a viewer's intelligence.White became black, because the plot required it. Death was revoked with no explanations,because the resolution required it. It is pretty to look at and I even did like the songs, but targeting younger audience should not be an excuse for blatantly subpar story-telling.

For a modern big budget film, this one was OK. However, it failed to evoke any feelings whatsoever. Dissection below.

Good things first. The movie is visually brilliant. It is believably rough and dirty where it needs to be, and stunningly beautiful when the story allows more artful scenes. There are some good acting performances (Harrison Ford, Dave Bautista (!), Barkhad Abdi). The basic plot is OK, one could build a very good movie around it. I very much liked how the movie handled the theme of relationships and contemplated to what extent AI could replace a physical partner. And the direct references and links to the original Blade Runner movie were very clever and graceful, they did not feel like fan service at all but natural and integral parts of this movie.

Why did it fail to evoke any emotions, then? (Disclaimer: most of the reasons are probably due to personal preferences, very subjective. Your experience may be completely different.)

One issue was the editing and pacing of the film. Pacing worked very well in the beginning, but the flow was lost somewhere in the middle, and the latter half of the movie was stagnant on several occasions, losing its grip of the viewer as a result. There were also a couple of occasions where despite the tranquil pace the movie failed to present key plot developments in a clear manner -- what exactly happened, why something was done, or how did we end up in this situation from the end of the last related scene.

Second issue was a combination of casting and screen writing. Ryan Gosling is not a bad actor, but perhaps best suited to sympathetic heartthrob roles; in my opinion he lacks the kind of rugged charisma and screen presence that would be needed for playing this kind of role with such vast screen time. However, the role is extremely challenging -- to function as a focal point of the whole movie he should be identifiable, charismatic, memorable; on the other hand he should convincingly portray a machine without a free will whose job is to kill his own kind. Gosling makes a brave effort, but the end result is bland. The antagonists are simply trite. Jared Leto is miscast, stale at best and atrocious at worst; instead of a menacing, wildly ambitious genius he comes off as a fledgling cult leader who is practicing his first sermons. However, the actor was not given much to work with, the whole character is but a dim imitation of Dr. Eldon Tyrell from the first Blade Runner movie. Sylvia Hoeks does better job with what she was given, but again, it was not much: the writers resorted to the cheapest B movie trope and imply that the bad guys are bad by making them use violence as the first and only solution to every problem, and Hoeks' character was not given any nuances apart from a sadistic streak that seems odd in a machine.

Finally, there was the soundscape of the movie. This film is practically devoid of emotional music. Sounds consist mostly of thunderous rumbles and shrill synth sounds instead of real melodies; there is also a Shepard tone playing during one key scene. Absence of emotionally manipulative soundtrack could be a positive thing, but it also means that the movie has one less tool to convey and evoke feelings with. The original Blade Runner movie was greatly enhanced by the Vangelis' outstanding score. Unfortunately the monotonous dreary auditory stimulus that is the "score" of Blade Runner 2049 makes the many already pallid qualities of the film appear even more vapid.

3/5.

Here's how to enjoy Catwoman:

1) Grab a six-pack. 2) Drink it. 3) Grab a six-pack. 4) Watch first 40 minutes of Catwoman while consuming the six-pack. 5) Call a friend and hit the town.

After the first 40 minutes the plot gets too silly, the acting too embarrassing and the CGI too terrible to bear no matter how drunk you are. Although they are quite horrendous to start with -- honestly, few comics are this badly written, and Garfield has more realistic animation than the feline CGI in this movie; maybe Halle Berry cutting her hair was the actual coup de grâce? Well, it doesn't really matter. What's important is to follow the recipe, or avoiding this movie completely.

I came to watch this only because it was on TV while I was sick and had absolutely nothing else to do. I did not know in advance that Eric Cantona (former soccer star of Manchester United and French national team fame) was in this. I had heard that he's making art films or somesuch nowadays, but thought his acting career couldn't consist of much more than cameos to attract attention.

This prejudice turned out to be ill-advised; Cantona is actually quite solid in this film playing an obsessively eating cop. Rachida Brakni is also a nice choice for Elsa, she's refreshingly different femme fatale. The rest of the cast is nothing special, but they suffice. Sadly the story is a bit too insipid and the characters too far stretched to really be emotionally effective.

I especially enjoyed the score of this movie -- the refined and beautiful music really elevates the film. Also the settings and cinematography are professional work. An ambitious movie, which falls a bit short but has enough artistic quality to be enjoyable.

As often happens, I refused to believe the options of other people and chose to watch this movie on TV despite its unanimous "bomb" reputation. After all, I had found even John Carpenter's B-movieish "Ghosts of Mars" quite entertaining, and was certain this could not be worse, what with a decent cast and much bigger budget and a director responsible for semi-enjoyable "Snake Eyes", "Mission: Impossible" and "Carlito's Way" immediately prior to taking over this one.

Unfortunately all the good will and open-mindedness in the world could not help this film shine. It is morbidly boring, outrageously stupid and utterly pointless. Why? Let's see.

• The cast lacks truly charismatic actors, and is further crippled by very bad writing and tepid directing: these supposedly cream-of-the-crop astronauts act like panic-ridden teen girls whenever not busy wallowing around the ship in seemingly endless slow-motion scenes.

• The grand idea of the script could be straight from the first attempt at sci-fi writing of a 5-years-old, and somehow fittingly the accompanying CGI associated more with Looney Tunes than an alien culture. This vacuum of a screenplay is spiced up with supposedly tragic deaths of characters you don't ever get to care a damn about.

• Apart from these things, there is absolutely nothing else going on in the movie. So we have a tedious journey with annoyingly unrealistic and dimension-lacking crew, with anti-climatic "revelation" at the end of the road, offering zero entertainment value. And we have even more blatantly mumbo-jumbo "science" than usually in Hollywood movies, offering zero sci-fi value. AND the whole mess is appropriately capped by monumentally nonsensical ending.

Do not make the same mistake I made; take the heed and avoid this film. 1/5

I was told beforehand that this movie sucks big time. I did not believe. "Hey, it's a summer movie -- it's not supposed to be a timeless classic, but just some brainless fun you can eat your popcorns by," I thought. "It has a promising leading duo and a lot of monsters, so how bad can it be?" Well, the answer turned out to be: utter crap. Two major problems: the script is awful (which should not surprise anyone, and this alone would not trouble this sort of movie at all), and the cast is horrible. Two notable exceptions are Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale: Jackman is a fine choice for the leading role, but he is not given much to work with, and Beckinsale looks nice and spicy, but she's given nothing else to do. They also seem to have absolutely no chemistry between them. The rest of the cast is so recklessly awful you'd be hard pressed to find such lack of talent in the most backward theatre of the planet.

Richard Roxburgh is the worst Dracula ever, by a margin the size of the moon. Apparently his vision was that Dracula became such a loathed figure because of his loud-mouthed, goofy manners. He is a complete failure, as the performance is stupid, annoying as hell, and yet not at all funny. And it gets worse: both Kevin J. O'Connor as Igor and Shuler Hensley as Frankenstein's monster do their very best to top Roxburgh in a half-witted noisy overacting contest. AND they all are outplayed by Dracula's brides, who hiss, make faces and screech like rabid wombats.

There is nothing entertaining. There is nothing scary. There is nothing funny. There is just a lot of pointless CGI and an abundance of annoyingly bad performances. This is not brainless fun, this is just brainless.

3/10

(P.S. Oh, and the score which some people here seem to claim makes this movie. If you have seen more than 20 movies, you have practically heard this soundtrack, only probably a better version of it. The score is nothing else but an uninspired two-a-penny variation of the most clichéd string arrangements for spectacle-type movies. It does in no way break the film -- it is probably the closest call to a proper element this movie has -- but most definitely it also does not make this film.)

Whoever designed the cover for this film ought to be shot. But don't be put off by its ghastliness or the silly name, Brassed Off is actually a top quality movie.

The synopsis for Brassed Off must have had an overwhelming potential to turn out either as an exceedingly cheesy film about rugged-coal-workers-who-yet-display-soulfulness-through-music or, possibly worse, as an uplifting musical. Thankfully, it is not a musical. It is not a tacky comedy either. It is actually one of the best dramas I have ever seen.

Granted, the movie is a bit predictable and contains a few scenes that feel overly calculated. But all in all the potentially goofy script unfolds with amazing grace, turning into an enjoyable movie portraying grey, gritty imagery populated by highly competent and flawlessly performing cast. Thanks to them, the end product is not pathetic, but poignant; this is not cotton candy, but main course. Even the compulsory happy ending has an edge to it.

8,5/10

This happened to be just starting on TV when I opened it, and as I felt too lazy to change the channel, I ended up watching it. Man, was that fortunate.

This film is more of a fairy tale than a demanding drama, and at times openly sentimental one. It is definitely what one could call a feel-good movie, and I usually find such either boring or irritating. Yet this film is so very well done I could not help but love it. The script will not twist your brain; it is conventional, but flawless. The actors are brilliant, every single one is a perfect fit for the role. There is not much of a score, but the bits of music enhance the movie beautifully.

If you can appreciate other things than expensive pyrotechnics, vicious murders or saving the world in a movie, do watch this if you ever have the chance. 5/5

This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Unfortunately it is not even bad in a funny way, just plain bad. But interestingly it was so bad that I felt compelled to try and find out why exactly I found it so displeasing.

The setting -- little Alaskan village swallowed by long dark winter -- is very moody, and would give nice background to a movie. Also, rather nameless Jeremy Ratchford serves a surprisingly solid performance as the artless police chief. However, both of these achievements are completely wasted in this nadir of Malcolm McDowell's eventful career.

As there are definitely no deeper levels to this movie, I presume that this is supposed to be a study of absolute evil, journey into the dark side of human mind, portrait of a psychopath... Which could still be put together in various competent ways, despite being quite a tired idea. One could make a decent horror flick, for example -- but there are no horror elements in this film; no gore-fest, nothing shocking, no scenes that would fill you with fear or suspense.

One could also weave a thrilling whodunit, with vivid characters and clever plot twists -- but there are no believable characters, there is no-one you would like or care a bit for, nor is there much logic to any of the characters' actions (or anything else, for that matter; in fact most things in this movie are wildly illogical, if you somehow manage to pay attention and still keep on watching).

With the inconceivable storyline and silly, sketchy characters one could still accomplish a refreshingly different looney-on-the-loose movie by adding either black humour or sheer slapstick to the mix. Alas, there are no jokes, no humour of any color, not even good one-liners here.

What you do have is recklessly overacting Malcolm McDowell, wooden Garwin Sanford who seems to think he is in a comedy, and a whole set of goofily portrayed Alaskan variety hillbillies. This added to a completely pointless script and more logic mismatches and continuity problems than in Plan 9 From Outer Space amounts pretty much to nothing.

...SPOILERS AHEAD... The only thing this movie has going for itself is the way the story is told, how the viewer is led to believe s/he knows the truth from the very beginning. Now I must admit that I am not too fond of films with umpteen plot twists in the end, and having no plot twist is kind of a plot twist in itself, only in this case it does feel like an anticlimax instead of a touch of genius. The only amusement there is to get from this movie is pondering "can this really be all there is to this movie?" Sadly, the answer is yes.

Swallowtail has a very complex and original storyline, which has all the elements it needs to be both touching and highly entertaining. However, the storyline is very fragmented and lacks the dynamics to carry its weight gracefully, and the length of two and half hours is not helping at all.

Casting seems to be mostly based on the looks, being of a standard soap opera quality rather than character studies -- then again, the movie is never intended to be deeply psychological, but a vivid cabaret of art house qualities, drama, and violence. Also, Chara who acts the role of Glico is cute as a button, but I found her quite unfitting for the role as she really can't sing. However, apparently that does not keep you from being a musical success in Japan in real life either, as Chara is actually a pop star there... So it actually figures. ;)

Due to the kaleidoscopic nature and excessive length of the movie I had real troubles focusing on the movie at times, but at least it was refreshingly different and original -- it was enjoyable for a change to watch a movie where every twist and turn was not predictable and customary. Swallowtail tries hard and has a lot of amateurish charm, but in the end manages to be only a curiosity rather than a masterpiece. **/*****

Miss Congeniality does not have much potential, yet some of it is left unfulfilled.

The script as a whole is, to put it eloquently, bad. The synopsis has clearly been an act of sheer brilliance to start with: let's take an unladylike female police officer and make her become a Miss USA contestant! Then, one could imagine, this abstract has been sent to kindergarten, where everyone has been allowed to write down one scene, with instructions to stick with the first one that comes to mind from this set-up. Eliminate doubles, and voilà, we have the script!

Still, a lot can be saved with casting. Here Miss Congeniality almost succeeds, having two strikes and one miss with the main characters -- not too bad. The leading lady Sandra Bullock turns out to be really good in physical comedy, making many of the not-so-funny jokes and slapstick pieces worth a snicker with small gestures and expressions. And Michael Caine gives her sterling backup; he absolutely shines, making every scene he is involved with enjoyable through his presence and talent. Also, William Shatner gives a delightful and relaxed performance in a small role as an aging celebrity host. Benjamin Bratt, on the other hand, has a wrong character in a wrong movie.

In the end, try as they might, Bullock and Caine can not make this movie good. They can only momentarily make you forget it is bad. Of course, if a person falling down repeatedly due to high heels spells divine comedy to you, this one is guaranteed to be a cracker. If not, there are still some rare but really funny bits making it all bearable, if you have absolutely nothing else to do. ** / *****

This Shaft is not like its predecessors, yet it definitely fails to be an improvement. It lacks the swing and amusement value of the 70's blaxploitation movies, as well as the production values that modern day approach might have added to it.

Casting is not on spot either. Samuel L. Jackson should make an excellent Shaft, but he merely poses around, failing to give an ounce of soul to his character. Jeffrey Wright is the sole success, portraiting his latino bad guy stereotype with as much credibility as the substandard script allows. Anyone else is not given enough to work upon.

This Shaft is stiff, cold, and boring, and the fact that the movie has the look of a cheap TV film from the 80's does not help at all.

The starless cast, the director with but one mediocre movie under his belt, and especially the cheesy idea of combining medieval imagery with modern pop music (indicating either a half-muled attempt of modernization to attract teen audience, or alternatively sheer silliness for silliness' sake) all seemed to spell TURKEY with Brobdingnagian flaming letters. However, A Knight's Tale turned out to be moderately entertaining watch-with-your-brain-switched-off film.

Two out of my three main concerns were actually the strong points of this movie: the unorthodox music selections actually work surprisingly well and blend to the action, and the cast is excellent -- especially fresh and vivid Shannyn Sossamon playing the main character's love interest and Rufus Sewell portraying the ominous rival suitor stand out. When so much is done right, it is all the more annoying that both the storyline and the characters lack depth and inventiveness completely.

The genre clichés, silly dialog and tame twists would not be enough to spoil the movie, but at least I found the emotional manipulation in this film to be exasperatingly clumsy, like one syllable words being mouthed to a deaf idiot child. There were no two sides to nor nuances in anything, and especially towards the end there were several scenes that had no motivation or reasoning apart from making you feel in a certain way (listing them here would spoil the movie, but they should be quite obvious to spot). A good movie is engineered to affect viewer's emotions, but this influencing should be subtle; in this case you could not only see the strings, you could also see the hands of the puppeteer. I felt underestimated as a viewer, but then (as nowadays usually seems to be the case), probably that's simply because I am not the target audience for this movie...

If the storyline could at some points be replaced with plates like "Feel joy" or "Hate this guy", the characters do not offer much more, the whole lot is of the cardboard variety. The hero is spirited, his nemesis is evil and treacherous, the lady is flimsy and bratty (modern adaptation of a mysterious woman? :), female blacksmith is female and blacksmith, and so on. Too bad that the creators of this movie had ran out of ambition; the resulting flick still goes quite nicely with beer and pretzels, though. 5/10