TDeMona

The stench of neon lights in a sinful city street are always interesting to me, and these are the elements this film promised. On that front it absolutely delivered, but what else? The movie takes place, as the name suggests, on one night in a decrepit hotel. One positive I can say is that the hotness of the summer night is absolutely palpable in this piece.

The story is about an old crook who gets out of the prison. His best friend, our main protagonist, has a plan to move to Las Vegas and start a new, legit life with the money he has managed to save. But the old jailbird's blood flow's too hot and he kills a prostitute in anger. Now the duo must get rid of the body before the buss leaves and before this messes their shiny new future before it even begins.

That's a nice premise and all, but few things stuck up like a sore thumb. First of all, the recently released character is a complete jerk, and thus as a watcher it was rather difficult to accept our main character's necessity to keep this parasite out of responsibility just because, we are told, they used to be mates. The main dude himself was fine, but a more three dimensional sidekick would have made a more balanced double act so that a viewer would not want anything bad to happen to either of them.

Secondly, neither of these old crooks really develop as characters throughout the thing. The movie just ends and doesn't really resolve anything - as if they would have started to free ball the script without any idea where they were heading.

Actually much more interesting than the main story is a B-plot about a young, empty headed girl whom a slippery tongued pimp (Vinnie Jones) half cons to become a prostitute. The girl is completely at lost inside her tough interior, but luckily meets an older harlot who takes her under her wing. This particular hooker is the best and most positive character in the film. Their plot line actually goes somewhere, which is welcome.

Other good stuff: the world of the film is made nicely pathetic and slimy. This is good. The drunken idiot who works the hotel's reception is a fun character. The almost "Weekend at Bernie's" -style corpse charade by the main duo at the end part of the film goes into a total farce. This, and other humour is good to balance out the darkly lit nihilism.

Unfortunately, in the end the result is still somewhat forgettable. The drama never ascends the smallness of it's characters which became rather numbing after a while. Also we had slowness and nothing really happening at times. It isn't, by no means, a horrible film and one can still do much worse.

Naturally the only reason to watch this for me was the fact that it had Sharon Stone in it. Unfortunately, though I was expecting absolutely nothing, I somehow got less.

The movie takes place within the rustic country side, in the world of the rednecks, the folksy, "The Real America. The Small Town America". Thusly it must belong to the "city idiots move to the country side and get buggered, either literally or figuratively, by hicks" -genre. This is not merely flogging of the dead horse anymore, but waving your whip over the nearest glue factory. Yes, Deliverance was and is a brilliant film, but it also contained such elements as a plot, some common sense, mood and characters you didn't hope to die from the word go.

The story is, in all of it's generic depression, this: Sharon Stone and her husband, a documentary movie director guy, move out of the city since their children are either bred wrong or it's just natural selection that makes them run in front of cars like it's going out of style. They manage to find a huge Wayne's Manor with it's own forest, the yard the size of a golf course and a swimming pool for about $3,50, since "it's foreclosed, yo, so the bank sells it real cheap like". But who would have know, the former owner shambles in looking for a job.

I hated this character from his very first scene. And I don't mean that he is written to be a hateful character; I mean I am amazed how it is possible to write such a generic, pointless, irritating and uninteresting main antagonist. Of course also the dad starts to immediately hate this newcomer and this feeling is mutual. The audience merely hates everybody, since they are all equally boring, pretentious, over reacting bunch of monkeys.

My very favourite series of events begins when the redneck dude saves the children from a snake that is in the pool. When he himself gets fired, the whole house is suddenly full of snakes. And every family member magically places their hands on the slimy buggers at the exactly same moment. I can hardly imagine the mountain of Oscars that must adorn the window sills of the responsible parties' trailers. And somehow the horrendous musical score manages to make this embarrassing mess even stupider than it already is. Which is an considerable effort.

Of course the movie is also eternally long. After 30 minutes I had spent all my hospitality, but the thing just keeps chugging along. To my peer Sharon Stone fans: let it be known, that she does what she can with the stuff she is given, but her role could just as easily be played by a marionette made out of dead rats. Juliette Lewis is also present, wasted like everything else.

In the name of honesty I have to report that there were few rather decent scenes near the end, and they bothered to even pay off some of the things that are set in motion. This is good, because almost an hour and a half is used to nothing but these preliminaries. Also, the ending is so sickly anticlimactic and the zenith of predictable, that even the makers of silent movies would have laughed it out of the room. You could easily foretell everything that happens, and usually it looked better made and more visionary in your mind.

So, this was, in a word, wretchid. I was lucky I saw it on the television and didn't pay a dime. Even though I would like to urinate on my audiovisual equipment just to make sure no remnant of it remains within my apartments threshold.

After Romans and Tolkien's Orcs, vikings are pretty much the coolest thing there is. So it was only a matter of time before I gave a chance to this show. I have, however, only seen the first season, so take into consideration, that this review is only based on that.

The show looks rather good. The intro sequence is fine both musically and visually. Apparently no unnecessary CGI is not used, which is always great. I also liked the fact that the cast very much looks like real vikings down to their hair pieces, and everything seems dirty and grimy. Costume and art departments deserve appreciation for their skills.

And that's about the good of it, since the show is thought out and written extremely poorly. The season doesn't seem to have any sort of sensible structure or goal, but rather fumbles around from here to there. At the worst, the dialogue comes of as old time -style exposition hell where characters with great pain explain to themselves their own mythology, and at best terse and unnatural. Some individual scenes might work, but then the show surprises you with bewildering bafflement: for example the scenes at the court of Northumbria would suit well to one of the Uwe Boll's In the Name of the King -movies.

Why couldn't the whole season be about one, single raid mission to somewhere? They could have left during the first episode, and the whole thing would have been about adventuring, bonding and back stabbing of the crew. That could have been so interesting! Not to mention, it would have necessitated some sort of an arc and a goal. Now we spam ourselves here and there, and every long and dangerous sea voyage is over in two scenes. It's a wonder these vikings don't take us with them to the moon when they're at it.

About the actors: Gabriel Byrne does his villain role in autopilot. Other than that, as I said, it's nice that the actors look believable vikings, but they could still be able to act. Especially the main character is unbelievable annoying mumbler with a very punchable joker grin that never leaves his face. The actor of his brother would have been actually a rather charismatic performer, but doesn't yet really get to do anything.

We also get a woman, who has a sword and kills people. This is nothing if not cool (historical accuracy be damned). Unfortunately she has the ungrateful task of being pregnant and crying about her husband much more than doing anything interesting for much of the show. The child actor is also one of the worst I have ever seen - and now, when we have finally learned to actually spend some time and effort to really find talented, good young actors and actresses to TV shows.

Well, truth be told, Gustaf Skårsgard appears as a rather interesting character - sure, someone could say over the top, but I'd rather take that than the gray forgetfulness disappearing into it's own rectum.

The show has some blood and some nudity, but that about covers it's "adult" themes. All those lovely, dark spiders living in the human souls, that make the following of long shows such a perverse pleasure, are only noticeable in their non appearance. The characters are as interesting as card board cut outs. Even Batman -show of the 60's operated in more dimensions.

Vikings was an unbearable disappointment in every way. Like Heroes at it's time, this also had almost limitless potential but every time there was a choice between poignant, interesting and exiting on the other hand and pointless, boring and tired on the other, it is determined to pick the second one. Other easy comparison is the contemporary Spartacus -show - especially as the bad writing goes - but even that at least had some balls and exploitation values, if nothing else. Vikings would have been something unbelievable if it had come out in 1993 instead of 2013, but what's it's purpose in the era of Game of Thrones, Rome and Boardwalk Empire, I simply do not know.

I must admit I have seen some rather impressive comic based movies lately, that must have lulled me into a false sense of security.

Somewhat new Marvel offering Ant-Man had all the possibilities to be a rather enjoyable adventure action film: a fun concept about a guy changing size, comic books that nobody really cares so the film makers should be able to paint with almost any sort of brush, good actors cast and above all, the movie was reported to be a comedy, so maybe it would give us something more than the usual fare about a loser changing his life for the better through unbelievable super powers (whilst simultaneously learning humility and that Uncle Ben was right). Even the trailer looked quite okay.

And how hard can a disappointment be.

I haven't despised anything related to Marvel Comics this much since X-Men Origins: Wolverine. And even though Ant-Man isn't quite the same mile stone of ineptitude, the curve of annoyance was pretty much stabilized to pretty much the same level.

But let's start with the positive: the movie is, of course, very visually appealing. That is rather expected from a budget this size, but the pomp and circumstance even has some sense of style behind it.

Evangeline Lilly is by far the best the movie has to offer, since her role most resembled a real character. Oh, if only this movie would have been about her. Michael Douglas was there too, somewhere, and he is, of course, a very fine actor. In smaller role we had Bobby Cannavale from the outstanding Boardwalk Empire. Even our main lead Paul Rudd didn't seem to be a completely charisma free, zero-interest lump of wasted resources, and if the script would have been something else than a puddle of repulsive night soil even he might have amounted to something.

There is a scene where Ant-Man battles Falcon, and this moment had a real Marvel Comics -feel to it. Luckily it was over in an instant.

Then to those bad aspects. Somehow I have a feeling this list is going to be longer.

The "humour" of the film - term here applied with it's laxest meaning - was absurdly horrible. As if a modern, American sitcom that had three episodes made before mercifully putting it out of it's misery was submerged with to the worst humorous episodes of Baywatch. Pseudo-clever, nerdy blathering of nothingness with internet terminology sprinkled in. To take a scene straight out of Spider-Man and do it in exactly the same way, but end it in some forcedly awkward one liner is not, has not ever been and will not never ever be funny.

And don't let me start on the so called comic relief characters, that manage to form a level of nail scraping on the black board all by themselves. These three wacky comrades who come from the rogue-like background of our main character and have no reason to reside in the movie after the first few scenes, even get to say their last words in the piece. They act and talk like an internet meme made flesh with satanic magic and pure evil.

No Rob Schneider, no Adam Sandler, no Marlon Wayans has ever been equal to the grotesque awfulness that this movie calls it's side characters. And decides we should care about them on some level. Jar Jar Binks is the best thing that has ever happened to the art form of film making after these dudes.

Before the release of the film people talked about the main character being an anti hero. This is all fine, since I adore anti heroes. But what does this mean in Ant-Man's case? That the protagonist is contained in a prison in the beginning of the film for braking the law for a really good reason.

Goddamn, you guys. Watch Dirty Harry. Watch A Clockwork Orange. Watch Escape from New York. Those films star anti heroes. This is the same, used and abused Spider-Man again with his troubles with family members and endless babbling about the mythology of heroes than always before, now just with a very slightly edgier, calculated finish. No personality to be found here. Uninteresting banana peel on the floor of existence only fitting for a first person shooter video game.

Michael Douglas gets lost into his wannabe Obi-Wan -role, and the most he gets to do is mumble directions to our protagonist's earplug and have at least five obligatory speeches about the importance of heroism, the joy of helping others and blah blah bloody blah.

The antagonist simply could not be any more boring. Characteristicly speaking ethereal, hairless plank of wood. To have a completely unmemorable block of cheese and then have the same powers as the lead for the end is only horribly stupid and unimaginative. Actually it's so sad state of affairs there should practically be a law against it. Doesn't Marvel have enough baddies to put into their movies? Is this Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III -style nonsense truly necessary?

In the end, what we have here is a movie equivalent for an atrocious, smoking pile of toxic waste. If you want to see a humorous super hero film, rather watch Steel. Yes. Even that is a better film. Or reward yourselves and see Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, for it is actually funny and has a successful adventure plot. I mean, sure; it's overtly cute fun for the whole family, but so is this.

This much of horrible indifference with no soul is that cancer that threats to engulf the entire fictive entertainment business. This could, and should, have been almost anything but what it is - but then, that would have demanded some imagination and love for the art instead of just shoveling CGI spurts to the faces of the wife beater and stench of sweat wearing audience.