Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 7 Days In Entebbe (2018) in Movies
Mar 22, 2018
Doesn't really work
Most of us (including me), when we heard about the new film 7 DAYS IN ENTEBBE, thought to themselves "didn't they just make this film a few years ago...?" The answer is yes. A similar film to this - RAID ON ENTEBBE - was a TV movie made a few years ago - 42 years ago, to be precise. It starred Peter Finch, Martin Balsam, Jack Warden and good ol' Charles Bronson. Made a mere few months after the true events, this slapped together movie was an old-fashioned "shoot 'em up."
This film is most definitely not.
7 DAYS IN ENTEBBE tells the true story of the 1976 Air France Hijacking of (mostly) Israeli citizens that settle in Entebbe, Uganda (under the leadership of crazed dictator Idi Amin) - refusing to negotiate with terrorists, the Israeli government plan, stage and execute a daring rescue mission.
Sounds like a pretty good plot for a Charles Bronson shoot-em-up.
In this version, Director Jose Padilha (the 2014 remake of ROBOCOP) decides to focus most of his attention not on the hijacked Israeli citizens, but rather, a pair of German hijackers juxtaposed against the political infighting in Israel between Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres. The Israeli governmental infighting was interesting to watch with intriguing characters and cat-and-mouse back-stabbing politics while the plight of the kidnappers was underwritten and underwhelming. Consequently, this film was "just okay".
Oh...and it had about an hour-fifteen minutes of content stretched over an hour-forty-five minutes, so to stretch things out, Padilha decided to cut back and forth between the action (what there was of it) and a modern dance recital. Clearly he was trying a metaphor of the dance punctuating the emotions and actions elsewhere. It just didn't work for me.
Neither did this film. Skip this one and check out the Charles Bronson shoot-em-up.
Letter Grade C+
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This film is most definitely not.
7 DAYS IN ENTEBBE tells the true story of the 1976 Air France Hijacking of (mostly) Israeli citizens that settle in Entebbe, Uganda (under the leadership of crazed dictator Idi Amin) - refusing to negotiate with terrorists, the Israeli government plan, stage and execute a daring rescue mission.
Sounds like a pretty good plot for a Charles Bronson shoot-em-up.
In this version, Director Jose Padilha (the 2014 remake of ROBOCOP) decides to focus most of his attention not on the hijacked Israeli citizens, but rather, a pair of German hijackers juxtaposed against the political infighting in Israel between Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres. The Israeli governmental infighting was interesting to watch with intriguing characters and cat-and-mouse back-stabbing politics while the plight of the kidnappers was underwritten and underwhelming. Consequently, this film was "just okay".
Oh...and it had about an hour-fifteen minutes of content stretched over an hour-forty-five minutes, so to stretch things out, Padilha decided to cut back and forth between the action (what there was of it) and a modern dance recital. Clearly he was trying a metaphor of the dance punctuating the emotions and actions elsewhere. It just didn't work for me.
Neither did this film. Skip this one and check out the Charles Bronson shoot-em-up.
Letter Grade C+
5 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Feb 24, 2018 (Updated Feb 24, 2018)
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a solid film-going experience, albeit a little cheesy at times. While its overdone ending keeps it just short of a being an action/adventure classic, I have to say I was impressed with how well they were able to take the source material of the original and truly make it something entirely new. In this newer version of the remake, four kids in detention get trapped inside a video game and have to play their way out. They are eached armed with a set of "lives" and, just like in a game, losing lives brings you closer to losing everything. They must rely on the skills of their avatars to traverse the dangerous jungle terrain.
Jumanji gives you conventional funny meaning it's not going to be one of those films where you spend half of it doubled over in laughter. When it comes to characteristics of a solid film, however, the film checks all the boxes. Solid, hilarious characters that make it easy to root for them. The Bethany/Jack Black role alone was enough to keep a smile on my face for the majority of the movie. He is the ringleader in a lot of the hilarious moments, but the other stars (Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart) provide plenty of comedy as well. While the comedy isn't side-splitting, I give it it's due respect for being consistent. A solid, flowing story gets the same recognition as it never lingers in one spot for too long. The action does a good job of connecting plot points while not being overbearing.
I thought that by the time I finally got around to writing this, I would be recommending Jumanji for a home viewing. However, due to some great box office success, it's still kicking in theaters. So....go see it if you haven't already! I give it a solid 90.
Jumanji gives you conventional funny meaning it's not going to be one of those films where you spend half of it doubled over in laughter. When it comes to characteristics of a solid film, however, the film checks all the boxes. Solid, hilarious characters that make it easy to root for them. The Bethany/Jack Black role alone was enough to keep a smile on my face for the majority of the movie. He is the ringleader in a lot of the hilarious moments, but the other stars (Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart) provide plenty of comedy as well. While the comedy isn't side-splitting, I give it it's due respect for being consistent. A solid, flowing story gets the same recognition as it never lingers in one spot for too long. The action does a good job of connecting plot points while not being overbearing.
I thought that by the time I finally got around to writing this, I would be recommending Jumanji for a home viewing. However, due to some great box office success, it's still kicking in theaters. So....go see it if you haven't already! I give it a solid 90.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Feb 10, 2020
This "remake" of the cult classic 80s slasher is actually one of those modern horror soft reboots, that could be considered a sequel, in this case, following on directly from the original, but ignoring any of the original follow ups.
It's probably not accurately, a re-tread of the first four films, all rolled into a slick looking update.
That's precisely what the main positive is. Friday the 13th looks great. It has good production values, largely practical effects when it comes to the nasty stuff, and even boasts a few striking images here and there.
The main man himself, Jason Voorhees, is portrayed here as a kind of hunter, merely protecting his territory, and this time around, he's an absolute beast, he's brutal, he runs, and he is genuinely quote terrifying at times. The film cycles through both his original potato sack look, and his more well know hockey mask look, and actor Derek Mears successfully plays him off as an imposing threat.
The rest of the cast is where Friday the 13th really suffers. With the exception of Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker, and Arlen Escarpeta, none of the human characters are remotely likable. I get that the writers were probably going for the whole rooting-for-them-to-die-horribly schtick, but honestly, these characters are so exhausting, non-funny, and irritating that it genuinely makes the bulk of the movie unenjoyable.
There's zero character development, and an unnecessary opening narrative (that lasts 25 minutes) about a separate group of equally unlikable douche bags makes the plot an absolute drag.
I did like the opening scene, that re-tells the climax of the original film in a stylish black and white sequence with the odd flash if colour, and a lot of the Jason action and kills are ridiculous and exciting, and that makes Friday the 13th just about watchable as a dumb-but-entertaining popcorn horror.
Here's hoping the whole rights issue gets sorted soon so someone can try again!
It's probably not accurately, a re-tread of the first four films, all rolled into a slick looking update.
That's precisely what the main positive is. Friday the 13th looks great. It has good production values, largely practical effects when it comes to the nasty stuff, and even boasts a few striking images here and there.
The main man himself, Jason Voorhees, is portrayed here as a kind of hunter, merely protecting his territory, and this time around, he's an absolute beast, he's brutal, he runs, and he is genuinely quote terrifying at times. The film cycles through both his original potato sack look, and his more well know hockey mask look, and actor Derek Mears successfully plays him off as an imposing threat.
The rest of the cast is where Friday the 13th really suffers. With the exception of Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker, and Arlen Escarpeta, none of the human characters are remotely likable. I get that the writers were probably going for the whole rooting-for-them-to-die-horribly schtick, but honestly, these characters are so exhausting, non-funny, and irritating that it genuinely makes the bulk of the movie unenjoyable.
There's zero character development, and an unnecessary opening narrative (that lasts 25 minutes) about a separate group of equally unlikable douche bags makes the plot an absolute drag.
I did like the opening scene, that re-tells the climax of the original film in a stylish black and white sequence with the odd flash if colour, and a lot of the Jason action and kills are ridiculous and exciting, and that makes Friday the 13th just about watchable as a dumb-but-entertaining popcorn horror.
Here's hoping the whole rights issue gets sorted soon so someone can try again!
JT (287 KP) rated Fright Night (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Colin Farrell as a vampire? He would hardly be my choice as the leading man in this one, yet beneath it all you get the impression that he loved every minute.
As Jerry, the new neighbour who has moved into a quiet suburb deep in the Las Vegas desert, he has all the charm and likeability of any new dweller. That is until his true identity and ambitions are revealed.
Opposite Farrell is Charley (Yelchin), a nerd who has suddenly burst out of his shell and blended in with the upper echelons of high school society. Enough that he has bagged Imogen Poots as his girlfriend.
It’s very much a no brainer when it comes to the plot, but Yelchin does enough in the early parts to keep you hooked in. Battling with his former best friend played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who yet again does the role so well, he suddenly realises that there is more truth to the rumour that Jerry is devouring the locals.
The humour keeps the film ticking along and the introduction of David Tennant as Peter Vincent, a Vegas showman who as luck would have it, has the largest amount of vampire collectables going.
The special effects and gore elements are exciting, but its hardly frightening anyone to the core, which is a shame. If you’re going to do a remake then make sure its executed as well as it can be.
For me though the film is about Farrell, contented with playing the nice guy for the most part of his career its great to see him opening up to a new role. Even his Horrible Bosses turn showed that he had the potential for a badass, and long may it continue.
It’s not a patch on the original, and let’s be fair not a lot of remakes ever are, but its a credible effort from Gillespie. Farrell here sticks two fingers up to Twilight, and I bloody loved that!
As Jerry, the new neighbour who has moved into a quiet suburb deep in the Las Vegas desert, he has all the charm and likeability of any new dweller. That is until his true identity and ambitions are revealed.
Opposite Farrell is Charley (Yelchin), a nerd who has suddenly burst out of his shell and blended in with the upper echelons of high school society. Enough that he has bagged Imogen Poots as his girlfriend.
It’s very much a no brainer when it comes to the plot, but Yelchin does enough in the early parts to keep you hooked in. Battling with his former best friend played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who yet again does the role so well, he suddenly realises that there is more truth to the rumour that Jerry is devouring the locals.
The humour keeps the film ticking along and the introduction of David Tennant as Peter Vincent, a Vegas showman who as luck would have it, has the largest amount of vampire collectables going.
The special effects and gore elements are exciting, but its hardly frightening anyone to the core, which is a shame. If you’re going to do a remake then make sure its executed as well as it can be.
For me though the film is about Farrell, contented with playing the nice guy for the most part of his career its great to see him opening up to a new role. Even his Horrible Bosses turn showed that he had the potential for a badass, and long may it continue.
It’s not a patch on the original, and let’s be fair not a lot of remakes ever are, but its a credible effort from Gillespie. Farrell here sticks two fingers up to Twilight, and I bloody loved that!
JT (287 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I've always said that the vast majority of horror remakes just don’t better the original, and this one can also join that list. Stephen King adaptations are a bit hit and miss and this new incarnation is no different.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel. The film follows the Creed family as they relocate to the outskirts of a quiet town in Maine, called Ludlow. Head of the family Louis (Jason Clarke), is starting a new job at the university hospital and their new home feels like the perfect place to settle.
But it doesn’t take long for things to go pear-shaped when daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence) stumbles across a Pet Sematary (misspelt). There she meets neighbour Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) who warns her that it is not the place for a young girl to play – despite a procession of creepy children in masks walking through the woods. However, a family tragedy sparks Jud to reach out to Louis and offer him a way to resurrect the past.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel
Co-directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer Pet Sematary skims over family relationships and races right to the tragedy (which was blatantly given away in the trailer) to satisfy the audience by giving them what they want. However, there is not enough time for Kölsch and Widmyer to delve deeper into the pages of King’s novel to extract parts that could have enhanced the narrative even further.
The ending is unsatisfactory and the directors, looking to impart their take on the story, change and leave out significant parts of King’s book. This is both annoying and surprising. That said, the film is not without the odd positive, despite falling just short of being a decent horror remake.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel. The film follows the Creed family as they relocate to the outskirts of a quiet town in Maine, called Ludlow. Head of the family Louis (Jason Clarke), is starting a new job at the university hospital and their new home feels like the perfect place to settle.
But it doesn’t take long for things to go pear-shaped when daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence) stumbles across a Pet Sematary (misspelt). There she meets neighbour Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) who warns her that it is not the place for a young girl to play – despite a procession of creepy children in masks walking through the woods. However, a family tragedy sparks Jud to reach out to Louis and offer him a way to resurrect the past.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel
Co-directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer Pet Sematary skims over family relationships and races right to the tragedy (which was blatantly given away in the trailer) to satisfy the audience by giving them what they want. However, there is not enough time for Kölsch and Widmyer to delve deeper into the pages of King’s novel to extract parts that could have enhanced the narrative even further.
The ending is unsatisfactory and the directors, looking to impart their take on the story, change and leave out significant parts of King’s book. This is both annoying and surprising. That said, the film is not without the odd positive, despite falling just short of being a decent horror remake.
JT (287 KP) rated Anna (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Tell me if you’ve heard this one before? A young woman is pulled from a life of drugs and abuse and given a fresh start as a deadly assassin. Once on the inside, she uses her skill set and good looks to complete various assignments while falling for her handler. She then decides that her new life is not for her after all and wants out.
Writer/director Luc Besson has pretty much rehashed the script for Nikita (aka La Femme Nikita). That film had a remake too, Point of No Return, which starred Bridget Fonda and Gabriel Byrne. This latest offering doesn’t do anything new whatsoever. There are several well choreographed and extremely violent fight scenes as well as a car chase which seems to be a staple part of any Luc Besson film.
It’s not the most intelligently written action thriller. And there are plot holes all over the place.
The sexual exploitation is not as fierce as Red Sparrow. Anna uses an array of colourful wigs and lingerie to entrap her victims before ultimately putting a bullet in them. This only seeks to justify her sex appeal. The supporting cast is OK but nothing special. Helen Mirren is probably the stand out of the bunch, although her character has a striking resemblance to Edna from The Incredibles – or maybe that’s just me?
When Cillian Murphy‘s CIA agent gets involved it becomes hard to know who is double crossing who, and the extra plot strand threatens to confuse things. What results is a kind of Cold War love triangle which gravitates towards an interesting finale only ruined by predictability.
It’s not the most intelligently written action thriller. But it is fun and film fans should appreciate Besson’s high energy and European flair. I prefer him as a writer than director. Anna doesn’t shy away from bringing graphic violence in a Wick-esque style which is often lost with Hollywood blockbusters, so that gets a big tick. But it’s hard not to look past a regurgitated storyline.
Writer/director Luc Besson has pretty much rehashed the script for Nikita (aka La Femme Nikita). That film had a remake too, Point of No Return, which starred Bridget Fonda and Gabriel Byrne. This latest offering doesn’t do anything new whatsoever. There are several well choreographed and extremely violent fight scenes as well as a car chase which seems to be a staple part of any Luc Besson film.
It’s not the most intelligently written action thriller. And there are plot holes all over the place.
The sexual exploitation is not as fierce as Red Sparrow. Anna uses an array of colourful wigs and lingerie to entrap her victims before ultimately putting a bullet in them. This only seeks to justify her sex appeal. The supporting cast is OK but nothing special. Helen Mirren is probably the stand out of the bunch, although her character has a striking resemblance to Edna from The Incredibles – or maybe that’s just me?
When Cillian Murphy‘s CIA agent gets involved it becomes hard to know who is double crossing who, and the extra plot strand threatens to confuse things. What results is a kind of Cold War love triangle which gravitates towards an interesting finale only ruined by predictability.
It’s not the most intelligently written action thriller. But it is fun and film fans should appreciate Besson’s high energy and European flair. I prefer him as a writer than director. Anna doesn’t shy away from bringing graphic violence in a Wick-esque style which is often lost with Hollywood blockbusters, so that gets a big tick. But it’s hard not to look past a regurgitated storyline.
JT (287 KP) rated The Wolfman (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As what we would describe as the classic monster horror, this remake of the 1941 black and white picture in some way does itself and the original some justice.
Back then horror was starting to carve itself out to a market of film goers who really didn’t have much of an idea as to how film could and would change their lives. The likes of Dracula and Frankenstein had also achieved great historic status.
The plot of the story stays true, man is bitten, man becomes werewolf, all hell breaks loose and it is the efforts of a love interest that tries in vein to break the curse. Something which not even the gypsies could achieve.
Special effects wise its impressive, Del Toro went through make up hell in order to gain the look, some three hours to apply and one to remove so his dedication must be applauded. As to whether he was the right choice for the part is another question, in some parts, in human form he loodke out of place with his foreign slightly merged American accent.
The original film ultimately was basic, a drama that based itself around a werewolf, there was no gore and hardly any blood. So of course it was only fitting that this film should contain both, and vast quantities of flying limbs and spouting red stuff. Did it need it? It surely must have only been there too satisfy an age where any lack of these effects would seem a disappointment.
The supporting cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot, Hugo Weaving as Inspector Abberline and the beautiful Emily Blunt as Gwen all do a wonderful job adding their talents to the narrative. Hopkins especially was his usual dark, sinister and composed self.
There are some truly scary scenes, and some fantastic shots of a Gothic London but the film tends to drift off in places. Overall its a worthwhile watch but doesn’t do enough to really make it one of standouts of 2010.
Back then horror was starting to carve itself out to a market of film goers who really didn’t have much of an idea as to how film could and would change their lives. The likes of Dracula and Frankenstein had also achieved great historic status.
The plot of the story stays true, man is bitten, man becomes werewolf, all hell breaks loose and it is the efforts of a love interest that tries in vein to break the curse. Something which not even the gypsies could achieve.
Special effects wise its impressive, Del Toro went through make up hell in order to gain the look, some three hours to apply and one to remove so his dedication must be applauded. As to whether he was the right choice for the part is another question, in some parts, in human form he loodke out of place with his foreign slightly merged American accent.
The original film ultimately was basic, a drama that based itself around a werewolf, there was no gore and hardly any blood. So of course it was only fitting that this film should contain both, and vast quantities of flying limbs and spouting red stuff. Did it need it? It surely must have only been there too satisfy an age where any lack of these effects would seem a disappointment.
The supporting cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot, Hugo Weaving as Inspector Abberline and the beautiful Emily Blunt as Gwen all do a wonderful job adding their talents to the narrative. Hopkins especially was his usual dark, sinister and composed self.
There are some truly scary scenes, and some fantastic shots of a Gothic London but the film tends to drift off in places. Overall its a worthwhile watch but doesn’t do enough to really make it one of standouts of 2010.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
Lacking in heart
The Lion King is one of my all time favourite Disney films, so I approached this 'live action' remake with a lot of trepidation, and I'm afraid to say I was right to be worried.
Visually it looks stunning, which shouldn't really be a surprise as it has been brought to us by the same guys that did The Jungle Book. However I'm afraid the visuals are pretty much all this film has going for it. This film is virtually a carbon copy of the original animation but with all of the heart, soul and humour taken out of it. The problem with these Disney live action remakes is they're unnecessary and stuck in a difficult position - differ too much from the original and people hate it, but sticking too close to the original and it begs the question as to why not just watch the original? It's more difficult for The Lion King as it's gone from being cartoon animation to CGI animation and apart from looking more natural, that's the only real difference.
They've lost virtually all of the magic that made the original great in the first place. The humour either falls flat due to the poor execution, or has been removed and replaced with something much less witty and funny. I mean, where was dress in drag & do the hula?! I dont think the voice cast helps. Other than Chiwetel Ejiofor and of course James Earl Jones, the rest of the voice cast just seemed ridiculously out of place and ill fitting with the film. I cringed every time I heard Zazu as Jon Oliver is definitely no Rowan Atkinson! And dont even get me started on Beyonce. We really didnt need her horrific versions of songs thrown in too. Although the rest of the songs did at least make the rest of the film more bearable.
Altogether despite the stunning CGI, this is a very poor copy of the original and definitely one I wont be watching again - just stick to the original.
Visually it looks stunning, which shouldn't really be a surprise as it has been brought to us by the same guys that did The Jungle Book. However I'm afraid the visuals are pretty much all this film has going for it. This film is virtually a carbon copy of the original animation but with all of the heart, soul and humour taken out of it. The problem with these Disney live action remakes is they're unnecessary and stuck in a difficult position - differ too much from the original and people hate it, but sticking too close to the original and it begs the question as to why not just watch the original? It's more difficult for The Lion King as it's gone from being cartoon animation to CGI animation and apart from looking more natural, that's the only real difference.
They've lost virtually all of the magic that made the original great in the first place. The humour either falls flat due to the poor execution, or has been removed and replaced with something much less witty and funny. I mean, where was dress in drag & do the hula?! I dont think the voice cast helps. Other than Chiwetel Ejiofor and of course James Earl Jones, the rest of the voice cast just seemed ridiculously out of place and ill fitting with the film. I cringed every time I heard Zazu as Jon Oliver is definitely no Rowan Atkinson! And dont even get me started on Beyonce. We really didnt need her horrific versions of songs thrown in too. Although the rest of the songs did at least make the rest of the film more bearable.
Altogether despite the stunning CGI, this is a very poor copy of the original and definitely one I wont be watching again - just stick to the original.
FINAL FANTASY TACTICS: THE WAR OF THE LIONS (iPad)
Games and Entertainment
App
!!IMPORTANT!! Please note the following regarding the latest update: [iCloud Save Data...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Cube Zero (2004) in Movies
Jan 19, 2021
Somewhere between the competent tightness of Cube and the rancid excrement of Cube 2: Hypercube, lies the average but relatively entertaining Cube Zero. Cube.
I was honestly expecting some flaming garbage at this point, but this prequel to the series improves on Cube 2 in every way. Its characters are either more compelling or more schlocky, the design of the rooms and traps are much better and less bland, the godawful CGI has been switched out for a mostly practical effort, and it's gory again! Like the first one, the gore is fairly seldom, but it's pretty grim when it hits. The opening kill (again, like the first movie) is a doozy.
It doesn't just ape the first film however, as Cube Zero actually attempts to do something different with the narrative. Whilst a chunk of the plot follows a group of people once again stuck in the trap filled maze, trying to figure out how to leave, the other half takes place outside of the Cube, more specifically, in a place where engineers work, and monitor the test subjects progress. It holds back on telling us too much, which is a wise move, and changes up what has already become a stale formula. However, this is also a big negative as it's just a bit boring.... When the film kept cutting back to the people inside the Cube, I found myself engaged way more, before swiftly being back to watching some dude playing chess... It just drags.
The last third is a bit more interesting, and kind of links back to the first film (I think? The last scene was really confusing) and overall, doesn't over complicate things to the point of extreme boredom like the second film.
Overall, Cube Zero is a perfectly watchable bit of fluff. Its never going to set anyone's world on fire but it's serviceable in what it does, and is entertaining enough to warrant one last dip into this series before an inevitable remake surfaces at somepoint.
I was honestly expecting some flaming garbage at this point, but this prequel to the series improves on Cube 2 in every way. Its characters are either more compelling or more schlocky, the design of the rooms and traps are much better and less bland, the godawful CGI has been switched out for a mostly practical effort, and it's gory again! Like the first one, the gore is fairly seldom, but it's pretty grim when it hits. The opening kill (again, like the first movie) is a doozy.
It doesn't just ape the first film however, as Cube Zero actually attempts to do something different with the narrative. Whilst a chunk of the plot follows a group of people once again stuck in the trap filled maze, trying to figure out how to leave, the other half takes place outside of the Cube, more specifically, in a place where engineers work, and monitor the test subjects progress. It holds back on telling us too much, which is a wise move, and changes up what has already become a stale formula. However, this is also a big negative as it's just a bit boring.... When the film kept cutting back to the people inside the Cube, I found myself engaged way more, before swiftly being back to watching some dude playing chess... It just drags.
The last third is a bit more interesting, and kind of links back to the first film (I think? The last scene was really confusing) and overall, doesn't over complicate things to the point of extreme boredom like the second film.
Overall, Cube Zero is a perfectly watchable bit of fluff. Its never going to set anyone's world on fire but it's serviceable in what it does, and is entertaining enough to warrant one last dip into this series before an inevitable remake surfaces at somepoint.
Andy K (10821 KP) Mar 22, 2018