bth2004

There really is nothing noteworthy or commendable about this movie.

The plot is a straight-ahead take on the Cinderella classic; only instead of a dilapidated manor, it's the suburbs, high school, and a diner.

The Fiona and stepsister characters are despicable but not in a fun way. Some characters are meant to be hated and you have a good time doing so. Some characters are hated and you just want them off the screen as quickly as possible. This film is overflowing with the latter.

Hillary Duff and Chad Murray are boring. I could not care less about anything Duff said, and I could not care less about Murray in any sense.

The story points are all contrived and unoriginal.

The only character that approaches likability is Rhonda. She's nice and supportive of Sam and all; we'll keep her.

Paul Rodriguez is wasted on this movie.

Overall, just a boring waste of time. Total fluff. If you want a Cinderella-type story, go watch the classic Disney animation and get the real thing. This is a sorry knock-off.

I will say without apology that most 80's movies that are period, fantasy, horror, sci-fi, or anything similar are pure garbage. This film is anything but! Let's break it down by details:

First, the acting. I won't say it was remarkable, but it certainly was above par for the time and subject matter. Julian Sands is always good as a villain, and Richard Grant always does a good job. Lori Singer was a bit weak at times, but not enough to really detract from the movie-- also quite nice to look at, and the lack of a weak romance storyline was kind of refreshing.

Next, the effects. The 80's did produce movies with better effects than this one, but they certainly weren't bad--especially for the period. I've seen things made in the new millennium that are worse.

Finally, the plot. I won't say it's scary, but the plot was certainly compelling. There were a few interesting twists here and there (especially Renferne's end), and the overall flow was well-paced and anything but dull. If you believe in magic or in God and Satan, then the kick will be even stronger.

So, you definitely want to see this at least once. It's a solid 7.5-8. Not going to win any awards, but still quite good. Praise be to God that there actually is an 80's supernatural thriller worth watching!

I'm having a hard time making my mind up about this one. Considering the subject matter, I should be all over this with resounding praise, but the execution gives me pause. Let me go into specs and see if I can make sense of it.

First, acting: scattered. Some of the actors were legitimately good (Samantha Noble probably gave the best performance on the whole). Others were obviously bad (Ahriman was forcing it way too much). Most of the others were somewhere in between--the actor playing Michael/Sammael being one of them. So, on the whole, I'd call the acting forgettable.

Effects: pretty good for a low-budget film. I think my favorite part of the effects side was the Gabriel/Ahriman battle. I was legitimately impressed with that part. With a film like this, though, you learn to gloss over the effects because it is done on a low budget.

Plot: this is where it really gets iffy for me. The lore/theology/whatever term you want to use--it was rather noncommittal. That is a little annoying for me. Yes, there were good angels and evil angels, but the idea of them coming to Purgatory and taking truly mortal forms, with all the emotional baggage that comes with it, is kinda strange.

Plus, the hierarchy in the spiritual world is hazy. There is no true mention of God or Lucifer or any being that would have the authority to rule Heaven or Hell. They don't even call places Heaven or Hell. The angels, or Arks, just refer to "The Light". Sounds kinda New- Age or something as opposed to a place where angels reside. There is barely any mention of a place for demons--the Fallen.

Maybe they were trying to make it easier to swallow for viewers who don't have any spiritual beliefs or something, but I find it a little annoying; it is already based loosely on known theological doctrine, so why not make it more accurate according to the existing theology/lore/whatever?

Also, as far as plotting goes, I don't really get the point of throwing in the Gabriel/Jade sex scene--no service to the plot (after having gone through a fury-driven battle with Asmodeus because of the other Arks getting killed, having sex with the Ark who lost her wings is not going to help him with his quest); and it just adds to the confused/noncommittal spiritual law problem I have with it.

Finally, the ending is rather strange as well: in order to remember all that has happened and to understand how it happened, Gabriel "falls from grace" and becomes a true mortal--it's a dark rip-off of "City of Angels" with Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan.

So, all in all, I call it a confused effort. Nice try, I suppose; but it was not solid enough to be worth a second go.

The tag-line was, "He was 98 lbs of solid nerd until he became...THE TOXIC AVENGER"... The tag-line SHOULD have been, "Abandon hope, all ye who endeavor to watch this." (For those who have never read Dante's "Divine Comedy", this is based on the inscription above the gateway to Hell.)

The only reason I give this a 1 (awful) rating is because I can't go into negatives. Let us be brief.

Plot line: so-so, I suppose. To be honest, I could only stand the torture that is this film for about 15 minutes, give or take.

Acting: The little of it I saw was probably the WORST I HAVE EVER EXPERIENCED IN MY LIFE--AND THAT INCLUDES "SNAKE EATER"!

Effects: cheap even for the 80's, but that doesn't really make a difference; should you watch this (out of some masochistic sense that makes you feel that you need to be punished for some mortal sin), you will be far too distracted by the atrocious, horrendous, nauseating, mind-rotting, abominable, soul-sucking, make-you-doubt-the-existence-of- God, suicide-inducing, diabolically terrible "acting" to notice the effects.

Conclusion: upon your life...if you place any value whatsoever on your sanity...if there is even a shred of intelligence or taste within you...then DO NOT WATCH THIS! You may not live to warn others; the demons that live within it may drag you to Hell before you can escape!

You have been warned...

Let me start off by saying that the last period piece I saw before this movie (both of them on movie channels) was "Valhalla Rising" and I was nearly sickened by the experience. So I was a little apprehensive going into "Centurion". Thankfully, it gave me a very enjoyable watch.

Plot, I have to say, was not the most original thing; it wasn't that weak, either. After two very bad defeats at the hands of the Picts, a Roman officer and his small band of survivors have to survive in the wilderness of Britain as they evade a band of Pict trackers--on orders from their king to avenge the death of his son at Roman hands. The Picts hound the Romans over much of the isle of Britain, it seems, and are never far away, always finding them again and again, each time taking more Roman lives. The Roman party are sheltered by a local woman--an outcast from Pict culture, therefore leaving her with little loyalty to anybody; their mutual kindness and understanding of each other's situations makes room for some feelings to develop--no sex or anything, sorry boys. After a final confrontation with the Picts, the last 3 arrive at a new garrison the legion has established--the beginning stages of Hadrian's wall. One of the men is killed by garrison guards who thought he was a Pict; the other is killed in a fight with the centurion because it was he who killed the Pict king's son. After the centurion gives his report, he has to evade his own people who try to kill him in order to save face. So, being wounded, he returns to the British woman who gave him shelter earlier.

Acting was really good the whole way through. The film doesn't allow for a whole lot of character development, but all of the characters are believable and well portrayed. Most surprising is the Pict lead tracker: a mute woman with a spear and a heart like a flaming tar pit. It has been a while since a woman was so scary on screen--and we thank her for it!

Effects were well done, but not overdone. Some of the blood was done with CGI--mainly in the battle scenes, not so much with the small group fights; when they do physical blood effects, it gets pretty gory in a couple of places. Gorgeous cinematography and landscaping--you really feel sorry for the Romans traipsing about Britain in winter without furs to wear!

All in all, a very good watch. I highly recommend it for anybody who is a fan of action and period pieces. It likely is historically inaccurate on a number of points, but that's OK; if you're a stickler, feel free to take notes. But definitely a good piece of work. Watch and enjoy!

There is no way to go into this film expecting the correct thing.

Forget noteworthy acting, because there isn't any; the dialogue is sparse, and when it is there it is bland. Mads says not a word throughout, only carries one expression on his face the entire time, and has no chemistry (or apparent interest) with anybody.

There is a small bit of good action here and there--key phrase is "small bit." As far as sound goes...lots of movies have moving soundtracks, epic background music, creepy sound effects, and the like. This film is tracked primarily by the sound of wind.

Lastly, let's go with plot. A mute and one-eyed warrior (so originally dubbed 'One-Eye') frees himself and a young boy from their Norse slave-masters and links with a band of Viking crusaders to go fight in the Holy Land. After getting lost in a thick mist, they arrive on the shores of an unknown forested land. From there, they all seem to fall into madness while trying to figure out where they are and what to do. Several are killed by unseen natives; several more are killed by One-Eye when they try to kill him and the boy. At the end, One-Eye allows himself to be killed by the natives, thus leaving the boy alone on the shore. Throughout, One-Eye sees visions of different events that seem to come up later--usually in a mild spectrovision...Oh, and at the end, the boy seems able to read One-Eye's thoughts and gives them to the 1 or 2 survivors before they leave.

Was this a good movie? Only if you enjoy seeing people in costume walk around some very pretty scenery. Don't waste time on this.

Story-wise, this is similar to the 1990's version with Gary Oldman in the title role.

Production-wise, this is more or less what you'd expect from 1970's BBC.

But there is no actual way that performance-wise, any of these actors could be considered the quintisential anybody, and that very much includes Louis Jourdan as Count Dracula himself. The entire production featured characters who were on roughly the same emotional level throughout the whole thing; for Jourdan, that level was rather dull. He was not creepy, charming, imposing, or anything else that Dracula should be.

Very disappointing.

Well, there's not all that much to say here. Let's go down the list:

The acting was rather pathetic most of the time; I know it was done intentionally, but the effect of Jake and Ellwood having no emotions ever was stupid.

The plot was kinda lame, but nice try; the whole mission from God thing in such a context just doesn't work.

The actual events of the film were ridiculous--even if they were on a mission from God. Getting away from an entire state police force, and in such a fashion--please!

I truly feel my IQ has dropped because of seeing this movie. Why it is such a cult hit, I don't get. If you haven't seen it yet, don't waste your brain cells.

OK, I can't say it outright sucked, but it's pretty darn bizarre. Here's my take-- The acting: less than truly impressive, but not bad. Vin Diesel actually has a couple of good moments there, and the girl playing Aurora was good. Michelle Yeoh was pretty good too, but not spectacular.

The effects were all fantastic from start to finish. Enough said.

The storyline was whack. The religion faking a virginal birth via a synthetic person who was raised in a monastery and being delivered by a mercenary...the whole thing is strange and not in a good way. Really trying too hard to be creative here.

PS--I cannot stand it when movies insult religion! I don't care what the religion is--Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or people who worship the spirits living in trees and dirt--freaking leave it alone, people! If you disagree, fine (I know I certainly do with some things); people have a right to believe what they want in this day and age. But don't take religion and twist it/mock it/misuse it for the sake of "entertainment"; I guess to be fair this includes things like Voodoo (I still do have to draw the line at Satan worship). If you're talking about someone's deeply held spiritual beliefs, leave it alone!

So all in all, watch it once, I guess. But this is not see-and-see-again.

Well, this is only the second Uwe Boll movie I've seen (the other being Bloodrayne) and I can see the pattern. I had hoped that maybe Bloodrayne was a crap-luck situation, but no; the other reports are dead-on. This movie, though, was BY FAR better than the other. Here's my take:

First, the acting. Let's just get it out of the way right now: there really wasn't any to speak of whatsoever from half the cast. The actors were just reading the lines. A couple of the others were over-the-top all the way through--Ray Liotta and Matthew Lillard (hope I spelled those correctly, sorry if I didn't). The only one who came close to not sucking was John Rhys-Davies; he was not bad (that's the best I can give him for this one). The rest--pathetic, and it's ALL Boll's fault.

The action, though, was pretty good. Lot of mixed genres in there--Western-style martial arts, Midieval, Kung Fu, fantasy. Thing is, it was all done well. The actors were physically on par, and the choreography was really well done.

Also, kudos to the special effects guys. The costumes, weapons, effects, etc., were all high caliber and creative. That crew gets points for doing their job right.

Last but not least, the plot. Not completely sure what to say here. Not horrible, but not that memorable either. So I guess the plot is just fairly ho-hum.

Final judgment: if you want some mindless violence, watch it. Turn the sound off while they're talking or just fast-forward to the battle sequences. The rest, forget it. And feel pity for the actors that they had to suffer under Boll's lack of ability to direct.

What can I say? Some films just plain suck. Whether they are cheaply done or filled with bad actors or have a bad director or whatever, some just aren't good. This is one of those for most every reason you can name.

First, the acting. I don't think I've seen any of these actors before (except the one who was the wizard, I have seen him in something; personally, I thought his performance was the only one in this that was worth anything), and I'm not broken up about it. Not a one was worth much at all. Amber Benson was especially bad (to everyone who likes her and thinks she's hot and everything, sorry; she's cute, but that doesn't make up for terrible acting). Jonathan LaPaglia was pretty bad too.

Next, the effects. Does anybody agree that the Gryphon effect was one of the worst CGI's in the history of CGI? Dear Lord above save us from such atrociousness! They should have spent more on that one and less on everything else! Finally, the plot. Nothing too original here, and some was cheesy-cliché--the prince and princess sleeping together (that scene was a blatant rip-off of Troy!), the two nations working together (multiple fantasy and sci-fi movies), the nations reuniting into one at the end (blah blah blah).

Don't waste brain matter watching this movie. It just is not worth it. And for the love of God, don't buy or rent it! Don't' encourage these morons to make anything else.

I can't say I've seen every vampire film out there, and I don't collect vamp memorabilia or anything, but I consider myself a fan of vampire films and lore; of what I've seen, this is one of the worst.

First, I do have to say that the acting isn't bad. There's a good cast here: Lucy Liu, Michael Chicklis (hope I spelled these names correctly), Carla Gugino, Mako, possibly a few other recognizables. Nobody does a bad job, but there are no truly memorable performances here.

Now then, the plot: there is one dimension to this plot, and from it there is no straying. An innocent reporter (Liu) is working on a story and gets attacked by a group of vampires who proceed to (semi) gang rape her, feed on her, and try to kill her. One vamp, however (Gugino), decides to turn her into an immortal. Upon awakening, the newly-made vamp goes about to take revenge on those who killed her. This quest involves her stripping down multiple times, faking being a lesbian in one instance, killing a couple of innocent people, and enlisting aid from a cop (Chicklis) whose daughter was killed...until the end when the daughter shows up as a vamp and gets killed. Finally, the lead vamp is killed by both of them, and then the cop kills the anti-heroine. No redeeming plot points.

Now let's talk about the vampires themselves: the only indication of what they are is that they drink blood and are immortal. That's it! There are no supernatural abilities that vampires are known to have--they don't even have fangs! The entire vampire experience is done away with, and it is greatly dissatisfying! Plus, the gore and depressing state of affairs is jacked way too high up. There is no room for any sort of redemption, the revenge thing is kinda cheap, and nobody is really worth rooting for (possible exception of Chicklis).

All in all, the vampire myth and the film industry together kinda tank on this one. Don't watch it, please; it's not worth your time or attention.

Well, there is a new film out, and it is nothing short of ridiculous, pathetic, cheap, and brain-rotting. Pretty much every bad thing that can happen to a movie happens in this film.

For starters, the acting. I really don't think any acting takes place in this film. This is living proof of Hitchcock's statement that actors are just moving furniture. There are actually levels of bad acting present, from mildly dull to sickeningly horrid, and all in between.

Second, the storyline. Think of a cross between Evolution (with David Duchovny and Julianne Moore) and Predator. A military scientist years ago engineered a creature that consumes energy and light. If it begins to take in energy, then it spreads faster than any virus or substance in nature; anything it touches, it kills, and it moves miles in minutes. The person who it can't kill is the son of the man who created it, whose blood contains the "antivirus" to destroy it. So, therefore, he and a (very pretty) Army official have to return to "ground zero" to let him kill the creature. Oh, and he keeps her safe from the being by covering her entire body in his own blood--gotta admit that's a new one. In other words, the story is one-dimensional and largely unoriginal.

Finally, the effects. The creature is almost entirely CGI, as you might expect in something like this. Unfortunately, this is some pretty friggin' cheesy CGI. It's the CGI that quality studios sell to amateurs to make them feel not so bad about themselves.

In short, only watch this movie if you don't value your own IQ. It will rot brain cells and leave you wondering what your life is really all about. For the sake of modern man's intellect, PLEASE do not see this and encourage these people!

___We Own the Night___ is by far one of the better movies I have seen in my life. Pretty much everything you could want in a gritty cop movie--this has it.

First off, the acting was fabulous. Joaquin Phoenix gives one of the best performances he will ever do in his entire career. He's intense, deep, and the chemistry between him and the other stars--Mendes and Wahlberg--is priceless. Wahlberg does a pretty good job in this film. He's not truly a great actor, but he fit this role well. Duvall is good in everything he does, so his performance is what you'd expect of him. Mendes also is wonderful. She does everything perfectly, and the chemistry between her and Phoenix is fantastic.

The storyline here is somewhat familiar but still has its own unique element. It deals with the cops vs the Russian mob and the individual having to choose which side he stands with. Bringing in the family ties makes it so much deeper than your usual cop film.

Only thing I have to say against this movie is there were a couple of things that added nothing to the film except to force an R rating on it. One, the constant vulgar profanity. True, many people in that element talk like that, but not to that extent I would imagine. Two, the opening scene with Phoenix fondling Mendes in the club. There was no point in adding that in the movie at all. It would have been better to leave it out.

You want to see this movie. Do NOT take children to see it; it's rated R for a good reason. Still, if you like great acting and a good storyline, this is a fantastic film for you.

Finally, there is a modern day Western and it's good! 3:10 to Yuma is one of the best movies I have seen in a while.

First off, the acting is simply superb. Great cast--Russell Crowe (in his second Western) is marvelous as the villain; Christian Bale is fantastic: if his career ever starts to tank, I'll call down curses from heaven; the other supporting actors who's names I can't remember except for Luke Wilson and I think Peter Fonda, all were top notch.

Second, the action was fantastic. There was a lot of space between action sequences and Bale only is involved in one firefight, but everything was well done, exciting, ACCURATE (as in nobody shot forty bullets from the same gun without reloading), and none of it was mindless gunfighting for the sake of gunfighting (true, that kind of thing can be quite entertaining in a Western, but if there's a purpose for it then it's so much better).

Also, the storyline was exceptionally deep for a Western. There is great character interaction and development driving the story along, something you don't get in your typical Western. Impressive.

Trust me, YOU WANT to see this movie. The only reason why I don't give it a ten is something that I don't want to spoil for you. See this movie!

This may be the dumbest film I have ever seen! The previews say "This movie breaks the mold of the Western genre". No. This movie stuffs the Western genre into a blender, adds in sci-fi, puts in a drop of porn, hits frappé, and then pours the concoction down the toilet!

Who the (expletive) came up with the idea of the spiritual visions that look like a kaleidescope on PCP? These journeys take up a good 10-15 minutes of the movie! With a small bit of voice-over, you're watching a spectral lights show instead of a movie!

The most awful thing is this: there is almost nothing in this piece of junk that can identify it as a Western! Yes, the location is in Colorado or something (an assumption because of all the mountains) and everybody wears Western-style clothing, but that's it! There are only like 3 bullets shot in the entire movie...and that's what you watch a Western to see! There's none of it! And for all the talk about revenge, you don't see any freaking revenge being taken! Come on!

The only plus is that the acting didn't suck. Several good actors in this thing--Michael Madsen was good, Vincent Cassel and Juliete Lewis did their parts well (with that bit of porno at the end that added absolutely NOTHING to the movie at all!!!!!!), and the supporting actors were good.

I beg you all, if you've not seen this movie, for the love of heaven, DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE! IT IS HORRIBLE! SAVE YOUR BRAIN MATTER AND SPEND YOUR EVENING MORE PRODUCTIVELY!!!!!

This movie actually had potential. It could have been a good action film. Instead, it was not that far above awful.

First of all, most of the acting was wooden. Considering some of the actors that this thing had--Michael Madsen, Ben Kingsley, Michelle Rodriguez--that's shocking. I'm blaming the director for that one; he or she doesn't know how to use good performers.

Second, Rayne's choreography was stilted. We all saw Kristanna whoop butt with Arnold in T3, so we know she can handle an action role. Even though she moves like a woman (as in she doesn't act butch), a woman can still fight and look like she can fight. Loken's moves were slow and girlie, not like a half immortal soldier woman.

Finally, the story line was completely one dimensional and very cliché. The most powerful of all vampires seeks items that will make him invincible. The only one who can stand up to him is a damphir--a half vampire-half human woman named Rayne who became what she is because the vampire lord raped and killed her mother. That's it--that's the plot line. It tries to add in a subplot or two, but it fails miserably.

My advice: don't waste brain matter on this movie. If you have a hankering to see Kristanna Loken, re-watch T3 or check out Painkiller Jane.

Well what can I say? The "actors" in this film (wow, that term is becoming more and more misleading all the time) are really some of the worst I've ever seen: Fabian I-forgot-his-last-name is just plain pathetic, Lorenzo Lamas (is being his normal self), and I still don't know what the crap happened to Gary Busey!

The fighting is decent at best, but they could really have played up Fabian's foot work a lot more instead of shifting cameras to compensate for what I believe is bad choreography.

The only good thing about this movie is that the fighting is fast paced and decent and the girl is hot beyond belief, and that is not enough to make a movie worth watching. Really can't recommend this one.

I have only two things to say about this Gary Daniels farce of a film.

One, the fighting in this movie is ridiculous. True, the fighters are all real martial artists and their moves are very good. They are all trained and their techniques look good. However, one must ask: how many times can someone get kicked in the head before he gets knocked out? When Daniels does a jump-spinning-hook-kick to the guy's face in the airport or train station or wherever it was, and the guy gets back up from it--would not happen!!! Two, every cast member in this film sucked! Not a one of them has any acting skill at all--especially Daniels! Don't watch this movie unless you want to see a whole lot of good martial arts techniques applied for show without the slightest bit of realism. If you want to see really good fights or even okay acting, pass this film over.

I have no idea why these people went through with making this piece of crap movie, but it was sickening in its pathetic-ness. There was not one thing good about this whole thing.

For starters, the plot. The plot is basically a crappy combination of Bloodsport and Kickboxer. The hero, Jake, goes to the Far East to track down the one who killed his brother. In order to do so, he gets entered into the same underground fighting competition that his brother had been in when he got killed. In the process, he falls for a white woman who is an exotic dancer at a club in the city there. Cliché-ridden and a knockoff of two good movies.

Second, the cast. I really can't call any of these people actors. Don Wilson, while he may be the greatest kickboxer of the century, is one of the worst actors to ever be put on camera. The rest of the cast whose names I don't know were about as pathetic as Wilson.

Then there's the fighting. Dear Lord in Heaven, I have never seen such sorry, atrocious fighting in my entire life! These supposed-to-be expert fighters and martial artist--with the exception of Don Wilson and Billy Blanks, none of these people should be mentioned in the same conversation with the martial arts! I don't know where these knuckleheads came from, but their "martial arts" was almost nauseating to watch--especially Wilson's friend that he trained with: how those were supposed to be kicks, I couldn't fathom if I were on PCP! This truly is one of, if not the, worst films I have ever seen in my life, and I have seen some pretty crappy stuff! For the sake of your brain cells, especially to your sense of the martial arts if you have any, DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!

Most of the fights here were good. However: Liam Neeson's fight--huh? Fight Club--why? Drunken Master--not really, just Jackie getting kicked repeatedly by the guy who never puts his right foot down Jet Li's two--not enough of either

Some they should have considered: Lethal Weapon--Riggs vs Mr. Joshua (great street fight) Who Am I?--Jackie Chan vs the two guys on the skyscraper roof Predator--US commandos vs the Columbians (serious bullet spraying and explosions) Men of War--Dolph Lungren vs the English/Aussie prick Return of the Dragon--Bruce Lee vs Chuck Norris

Just my personal opinion.

Finally, Lucas gets his act back together and puts out a film that truly does justice to the Star Wars franchise. Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones were far cries from what they should have been--this is what they should have been all along.

For starters, the acting is exponentially better. Something is still wrong with Portman and Christensen--their performances still lack vigor, at least at times. Still, they're far better than they were. McGregor is fabulous as Kenobi. Actually, he never really had a problem in this series, thankfully. Acting-wise, McGregor and McDiarmand steal the show--McDiarmand rocks as Palpatine.

And finally--real Jedi/Sith combat! This is how masters of the Force are supposed to fight! No huge, slow, spinning cuts, no slow moves at all--fast, hard-hitting light sabers blurring in a frenzy of laser-blade sweetness! Combined with use of the Force to hurl everything from rocks to platforms to each other, we finally get to see what Jedi dueling is all about! YAY!! And lastly, the story is outstanding. Anakin's relationships with Padme, Palpatine, Kenobi, and the other Jedi masters; Palpatine's behind-the-scene work to undermine the Republic and the Jedi; the progression of the Clone War as a backdrop to the film; love, hate betrayal, loss, power-plays--every great plot device that you can think of is in this movie in good order and progression throughout the story.

The only reason I don't give this movie a 10 is because of the still lackluster performances by Christensen and Portman. Since their characters are two of the central figures in the story, theirs should have been the best in the whole thing. Other than that, everything about this movie is spectacular. A must-see for pretty much anyone with any taste in film.

This was actually a good film. Seagal is still his old self: never talks above slightly-below normal, now and then some corny lines, and (finally) showing off his real skill. Personally, I would have put a little more money into the special effects and sent this to the theaters.

For starters, this has Seagal back in the Japanese element: in Japan, fighting Aikido and kenjitsu style, NO WIRES PRAISE GOD! Everything is the same stuff we saw in his earlier films; no trying to pass him off as a kung fu artist, no wire-crap. Instant improvement just on that.

Next, the plot leaves out two things he's had that made a number of his films dumb: one, the mysterious past that is classified by the CIA--we know he's ex-government, raised in Japan, hence his fighting prowess; two, the mystical kung fu (which he doesn't know)/Buddhist crap. He's just an ex-government guy in a place he calls home, kicking butt as only he can.

All in all, this could have been a theatrical release work if they'd put more cash into the special effects. Recommended pretty highly.

It wasn't an original idea, the thought of combining the martial arts and western film genres into a single project. It's been done before: Kung Fu with Davind Carradine, The Fighter aka Savate (a straight to video film by Oliver Gruner). However, none before were this horrible.

For starters, the acting was wooden throughout the entire film. The only recognizable actor was Gary Busey, and I truly pity him for having to resort to this kind of crap to pay his rent. It is such a fall to a truly talented actor.

Then there's the so-called martial arts in this. Holy crap, can none of these "martial artists" really do martial arts? It's almost as bad as most of Bloodfist! I've seen children who are more impressive martial artists than these people! The only possible upside to this entire thing is that the two lead actresses were very attractive, and this certainly isn't enough to carry a movie, especially if the viewer has any appreciation for acting talent.

At all costs, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!! You will waste valuable brain matter if you do! For the sake of your intelligence, do not watch this!!

I just have to say that Tony Jaa is the most perfect athlete on the face of the planet, hands down. I agree on this: the story is fairly thin, but then again, THIS IS A MARTIAL ARTS FILM!!!! THE STORY IS NOT THE FREAKING POINT!!! Tony Jaa, while not an Oscar winner by any stretch, is still a decent actor as far as I can tell (even if the movie is in Thai which is the most ridiculous-sounding language spoken by the human tongue, but that's not Jaa's fault). Still, acting ability and story aren't the point of watching this movie. This is pretty evident by the main villain being an old fart in a wheelchair with a hand-held microphone so he can speak and still be audible.

The entire reason--the only reason--to see this film (which is more than enough) is to watch Tony Jaa embarrass every martial artist to ever stroll across the big screen, even Jackie Chan and Jet Li (no offense to either, I love both their work). Any person who can perform the moves this man can pull off and do them WITHOUT WIRES deserves acclaim. No matter what you see Jaa do, you will have to catch your jaw so it doesn't smash into the floor and break.

By the way, did someone actually say this thing had only a FEW fight scenes? Once the fight scenes start, they barely stop the rest of the movie!! Trust me, folks, any action junkie will still come a little close to action overdose on this movie!