Category Archives: Rating: 2-2.75 stars

The Mummy (2017)

The Dark Universe franchise is off to a rough start.

Universal went all out for its new “monsters” shared universe film series by forking out the big bucks for megastars Tom Cruise and Russell Crowe in the first entry, The Mummy. The hope was that the film would kick off a lucrative Avengers-style franchise that would later feature the likes of Johnny Depp’s The Invisible Man, Javier Bardem as Frankenstein’s Monster, and possibly Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as the Wolfman.

Unfortunately, and to be honest, not to my complete surprise, The Mummy turned out to be somewhat of a disappointment. Not even Tom Cruise’s usual energy and Russell Crowe’s deep voice could save this ambitious but ultimately dull and inconsistent affair that compares unfavourably to Brendan Fraser’s adventure-packed 1999 version of The Mummy .

In this film, directed by Alex Kurtzman, Tom Cruise plays a soldier who stumbles across the tomb of an ancient Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) and unleashes a powerful curse that proceeds to wreak havoc on the world. Annabelle Wallis (from Annabelle) plays a frighteningly attractive archaeologist and Jake Johnson is the sidekick, while Russell Crowe makes a pivotal appearance as Dr. Henry Jekyll (you know, Jekyll and Hyde).

It’s clear, with Mission: Impossible‘s Christopher McQuarrie as a co-writer, The Mummy was aiming to be a similar action spectacular with a Tom Cruise doing crazy stunts plus a mix of genuine horror elements and a dash of humour.  And to be fair, the film does have each of those things, but they never fit together comfortably or transition from one tone to the other with the smoothness it required. The action is pretty good but nothing I would call awesome. The centerpiece is the zero gravity stunt Tom Cruise has been selling, but the majority of it is sadly spoiled by the trailers, along with most of the other decent action sequences. If you’ve seen a trailer or two for this movie like I had then chances are there won’t be anything that comes close to wowing you.

On the other hand, there were some solid horror moments featuring grotesque creatures, but you wouldn’t really classify them as legitimately scary. It’s certainly not at the same level as a “proper” horror film in terms of generating scares. And the humour littered throughout is sporadic and mostly cheesy. Together, the three elements failed to mesh, and it was hard to get a good feel of exactly what the film was trying to be.

The film’s biggest problem is the pains it goes to in order to set up this new extended universe. The plot is steered towards creating this world of evil and monsters, and it’s not done with much of subtlety. The result is a lot of forced dialogue and exposition, which sagged the pace and the sense of adventure I hoped the film could have had. I actually guessed the ending before I even stepped into the cinema, and it’s really not that hard to do if you think about where they are going with this franchise. I will say though that it didn’t make much sense either.

I don’t put any of the blame on Tom Cruise, who clearly did everything he could for the film. Sofia Boutella, Annabelle Wallis, Jake Johnson and Russell Crowe were all actually very solid too. Ultimately, I fault the script, which was heavily hampered by the need to lay the foundations for the future of the franchise. The story started off quite well and was exciting up to a point, but there was a lengthy middle section after Dr. Jekyll appeared that stagnated the plot to do a lot of unnecessary explaining. It’s cool they got a female mummy and all, though Sofia Boutella’s character isn’t particularly memorable and even comes across as similar to Patricia Velasquez’s Anck-su-Namun from the 1999 version.

In the end, I wouldn’t say The Mummy was horrible — it just wasn’t very good or as good as it needed to be. I wish Universal could have worked on The Mummy as a standalone first and ensured that it was a success before planning out all the later installments. They should have learned their lesson from the DCEU, which produced the similarly disappointing Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad. It seems unlikely that Universal will pull the plug on the Dark Universe franchise because Tom Cruise movies typically do gangbusters in overseas markets (I saw it in a packed house on a Wednesday afternoon during work hours) — and as we’ve seen with Wonder Woman, the ship can be straightened — but it’s going to be an uphill battle after this disappointing first entry.

2.75 stars out of 5

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

Did we need another King Arthur movie? Of course not. But I certainly didn’t mind one, especially if it’s directed by Guy Ritchie. I thought applying Ritchie’s frenetic pace and direction to this re-envisioning of the class tale might deliver a fun, action-packed experience in the vein of his Sherlock Holmes franchise. Unfortunately, Ritchie missed the mark.

Legend of the Sword does have some good things going for it. Ritchie infuses his unique style, visuals and colour palette to the King Arthur world, and you end up with a lot of wild sequences of characters running around and chirping slick dialogue in thick accents. The action is pretty fantastic too, especially all the fights and battle scenes with Excalibur. Reminded me a lot of the stylized scenes from 300, with lots of speed manipulation but less blood. The film actually looks and feels like a video game a lot of times, in a good way. And David Beckham even has a cameo!

But sadly, Legend of the Sword just doesn’t feel right. It just doesn’t come together the way it should have. For starters, as much as I like him, Charlie Hunnam feels all wrong as Arthur. He’s just…too old? He starts off as a little kid, and not that many years later, he morphs into Hunnam, who is 37 in real life (and looks it) but is supposed to be in his early 20s in the movie. As a result, he doesn’t have that youthful vibe Arthur ought to have.

Secondly, the story picks and chooses from the Arthur legend but does it in a weird way. There’s the sword of course and mention of Mordred, but Merlin is nowhere to be seen and Arthur is raised in a brothel but somehow is also taught to be a badass by a bunch of warriors. The main baddie is Jude Law’s Vortigern, Arthur’s uncle, who makes a deal with some weird demonic creature that looks creepy and fantastic but is never explained. There are also these giant elephants that are clearly ripped off from Lord of the Rings.

Thirdly, the story itself is just not very interesting. After an explosive start, the majority of the middle of the film sags as Arthur and his mates run around trying to escape enemies and forge a plan. Arthur has some character development moments, but he’s never particularly relatable. There’s some humour throughout, though I wouldn’t call it particularly funny.

On the whole, Legend of the Sword is probably better than its 28% rating on Rotten Tomatoes suggests and more deserving of its $97m box office against a $175m budget. It has nice visuals and action, and Guy Ritchie fans will appreciate his sensitivities in the direction, but the film is too strangely mediocre in terms of plot and engagement for me to recommend it.

2.5 stars out of 5

Underworld: Blood Wars (2016)

For me, the Underworld franchise is kind of like the Resident Evil film franchise — seemed like a cool idea initially, but with every passing entry I’ve cared less, albeit still enough to check it out just because they’ve gone to the effort of making another one. And it was with this indifference that I stumbled across Underworld: Blood Wars, the latest installment in the adventures of Selene (Kate Beckinsale).

In all honesty, I don’t really know what’s going on in the Underworld movies any more, and I doubt the makers of this movie had any idea either. Does it matter? Not particularly. All that matters is that Kate Beckinsale again dons her tight leather outfit and kicks a lot of ass amid some everlasting feud between vampires and werewolves — sorry, I mean lycans.

Underworld: Blood Wars seems to take a page out of the Game of Thrones handbook. The look of the sets and the new characters have a distinct Thrones feel, as does the convoluted plot full of backstabbing and double-crossing. You do need some knowledge of the previous installments to fully follow what’s going on. That said, even though I have seen the previous films I could not remember anything pertinent. Not that it made much of a difference to the experience.

The nicest things I can say about Underworld: Blood Wars is that it did not suck as bad as I thought it would, and that it’s a much better-made movie than Resident Evil: The Final Chapter.  The action is at least coherent and with a little more creativity, there seems to be some inherent logic in the storyline, and the performances from the cast — Beckinsale, Theo James (from the Divergent series), Tobias Menzies, Lara Pulver, and the great Charles Dance himself — are not embarrassing despite the shoddy lines they have to recite.

On the other hand, it really does feel like more of the same old stuff, without any genuine thrills or excitement. There are only so many ways vampires can fight werewolves. The plot is also full of annoying exposition and convenient inventions — when it needs X to happen for the sake of the plot, it concocts some character or item or special ability to make it happen. It gets tedious after a while.

So there you have it, yet another unnecessary sequel that will unlikely please anyone except the diehard, hardcore fans of the franchise. Underworld: Blood Wars is not pure trash, but there’s just nothing interesting or fresh about it to warrant your precious time.

2.25 stars out of 5

The Monster (2016)

Gotta disagree with the mainstream critics on this one.

I decided to check out the limited release horror flick The Monster after seeing that it has a decent 78% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Written and directed by Bryan Bertino (The Strangers) and starring Zoe Kazan, the film has a simple premise: A mother and daughter are hunted by a mysterious creature near the woods on a dark and stormy night after a car accident.

The stripped-down premise seemed intriguing enough, but I just couldn’t get into The Monster like I hoped I could. One of the main problems is the mother-daughter drama the film tried to shove in our faces. It’s clear early on that they don’t get along and Zoe Kazan is a terrible mother. But man, the daughter is really annoying too. Their relationship is supposed to form the emotional core of the movie and make us care about them. Instead, all the flashback sequences just made me want to see them die gruesome deaths immediately.

I was also not a huge fan of the performances. Zoe Kazan was fine and my problems with her were more due to the script, but the daughter, played by teenager Ella Ballentine, tried way too hard. I wouldn’t go as far as to call it overacting, though she was definitely overreacting with all the crying and irritating outbursts.

So was it scary? Not really. There were some effective moments early on when the atmosphere was being built up, though the actual design of the creature didn’t feel particularly original or frightening. Sadly, the final act of the film also fell back on typical horror cliches and wasn’t very believable at all. Just a disappointing experience all round.

2 stars out of 5

Masterminds (2016)

Masterminds is one of those films that seems like a good comedy premise on paper. Based on the 1997 Loomis Fargo robbery, the true story is about a bunch of dim-witted hillbillies who decide to steal US$20 million from a cash vault at a Loomis Fargo office one of them worked at. Throw in Napoleon Dynamite filmmaker Jared Hess and an SNL-heavy cast featuring Zach Galifianakis, Kristen Wiig, Owen Wilson, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, and Jason Sudeikis (that’s essentially three-quarters of the new Ghostbusters), and the potential for laughs was obvious.

In practice, however, the film is forgettable, sporadic and not quite funny enough. Given the directors and the comedians involved, you should have a good sense of the type of humour the film goes for — it’s dominated mainly wacky character traits, awkward moments, and loads and loads of stupidity. The entire film revolves around the idea that these robbers are far too stupid to carry out this multi-million-dollar heist, and they were even more stupid in how they carried themselves afterward. They are portrayed as low-class, uneducated trailer-trash hicks, and sometimes the film treads a little close to the line of making fun of such people.

It’s farcical, outrageous stuff that’s only loosely based on fact and stretched to maximum idiocy for entertainment purposes, but if you are in the right mood or are a big fan of any of these actors, it’s possible you could find Masterminds fun and enjoyable. I admit that I laughed and giggled a few times, especially during the Kate McKinnon scenes, though on the whole, the comedy was simply too all over the place. It’s like throwing a bunch of skits at the audience and hoping something sticks. 

Unfortunately, far too many of the jokes fell flat for me, and at some stage the stupidity meter was so high that it made me begin to question just how much of the movie is actually true (Answer: Not that much). Stupid is funny. Too stupid can be lame. This is particularly so when these same characters sometimes show that they can actually be quite clever when the plot calls for it.

Zach Galifianakis is good in small doses, such as an episode of Between Two Ferns or a supporting role in The Hangover. As the lead of a feature-length film, however, he can be a little too much to stomach. As I noted earlier, the stand out for me was Kate McKinnon has his weirdo fiance. Kristen Wiig also had some good moments early on, and Jason Sudeikis plays to his strengths as a creepy contract killer. Owen Wilson and Leslie Jones, on the other hand, don’t get to demonstrate their comedic chops as much as I would’ve liked.

Ultimately, Masterminds is yet another one of those comedian-driven, ad lib-heavy comedies where the amount of fun the cast had making the movie did not translate properly to the finished product. Despite a few fleetingly funny moments, it just doesn’t have enough charm or deep belly laughs to do either the cast or the premise justice.

2.25 stars out of 5

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)

 

The first Jack Reacher film received mixed reviews and complaints about the casting of Tom Cruise (since the character is supposed to be 6’5″ in the books), but I was one of its biggest advocators. It was well-paced, intense, and Bourne-like in terms of some of the action sequences. It built the character of Jack Reacher into someone who could carry a film franchise, and I was looking forward to what dangers and mysteries he would face next.

For those who have seen the trailers, you’ll know the movie starts off with a promising bang, reminding us that Reacher is a deadly weapon and a genius detective who likes to teach bad guys a lesson. The narrative then takes Reacher to his old military headquarters to meet with Major Susan Turner (played by Colbie Smulders), but when he gets there she finds out that she’s been arrested. Of course, there’s some kind of conspiracy involved, and Reacher becomes embroiled in it and must figure out the mystery before it’s too late.

Sadly, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back ended up being really flat and just a notch or two down in every category. Reacher is less charismatic and likable this time around, and the plot simply isn’t very interesting. There are way too many thriller cliches — especially when it comes to an annoying young girl who may or may not be Reacher’s daughter (Danika Yarosh) — and the action itself is uninspiring.

Colbie Smulders tries really hard to infuse some energy, but even Tom Cruise looked a little tired. It’s a little bit of a shock because Cruise always has so much bouncy enthusiasm, and filmmaker Edward Zwick is clearly capable given his strong CV (Legends of the Fall, The Last Samurai, Courage Under Fire, Love and Other Drugs). For some reason, however, the movie lacked the same kinetic energy that director Christopher McQuarrie was able to give to the first Jack Reacher and Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation.

While it’s not terrible, there’s also nothing about Jack Reacher: Never Go Back that is memorable. I’m hoping this was an anomaly and the franchise can get back on track if they proceed with a third film. It has made US$160 million on a US$60 million budget thus far, so it’s definitely possible that Jack Reacher WILL go back after all.

2.5 stars out of 5

Morgan (2016)

Just about every year, there are a couple of movie releases that will take me by surprise. They kind of popped up out of nowhere, with no buzz or early trailers, but feature a cast of big Hollywood names. Morgan is one such film.

The first time I actually saw snippets of the Morgan trailer and poster was actually the weekend before its release. I had never heard of it and couldn’t believe it when I found out that it starred the likes of Kate Mara, Rose Leslie, Paul Giamatti, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Michelle Yeoh, Toby Jones, Boyd Holbrook (soon to be seen as the main villain in Logan), and Anya Taylor-Joy (who was absolutely brilliant in The Witch).

The poster seemed intriguing as well, dominated by a dark, hooded figure I could only presume was the eponymous protagonist (or antagonist, if you will). The trailer gave away wait too much as usual, but essentially, Kate Mara plays some sort of risk assessment manager who ventures into a secluded research facility that managed to genetically engineer a synthetic human being, ie Morgan (played by Anya Taylor-Joy). Pretty much everyone else in the cast is a scientist or a handler of some sort.

I was definitely intrigued. It seemed like a thinking person’s horror movie, with elements of Ex Machina and shades of the underrated Splice. Yes, it is yet another one of those “man should not mess with nature” or “living creatures should not be kept in captivity” cautionary tales, but the fact that such a great cast had faith in the project suggested to me that it would be worth watching.

Well, I was about half right. Morgan turned out to be borderline watchable. What started off as a compelling premise and some early tension soon crumbled into predictability and genre tropes. We all know Morgan’s not as innocent as she seems and that she will get out of her glass box eventually. But instead of pursuing the more interesting and thought-provoking opportunities the premise offers, Luke Scott, the son of legendary director Ridley (who produced the film), chose to indulge in the usual slasher and horror cliches. The action isn’t handled too shabbily, though it would be a stretch to call it outstanding. Same goes for the horror elements — Morgan (both the character and the film itself) never really scared me.

At some point in the movie, it also became impossible to not guess the “twist” at the end. It’s just so obvious and telegraphed that when it is finally revealed there is no sense of shock whatsoever.

Still, I have to be fair. Morgan is still at least serviceable and better than most of the straight-to-DVD horror-thrillers these days. The initial set-up is interesting, I’ll give it that, and the execution — whether it is the action, tension, or horror — is passable. Throw in a star-studded cast who genuinely seemed to put in effort rather than mail it in for a paycheck, and you end up with a movie that isn’t a complete waste of time but could have been so much better.

2.5 stars out of 5

Inferno (2016)

inferno_ver4

Let’s be honest: No one was really looking forward to Inferno, the latest adaptation of Dan Brown’s “Robert Langdon” adventure series starring Tom Hanks and directed by Ron Howard. Well, maybe except me.

For whatever reason, the Langdon books have not translated well to the big screen. The Da Vinci Code was a relative disappointment given the hype, though I thought—if you could take the preposterousness seriously—Angels and Demons was an improvement and even occasionally exciting. But I knew Inferno was facing an uphill battle because any remaining Da Vinci Code hype had likely evaporated, and the book, which came out 3 years ago (review here), was not as good as its predecessors.

That said, I really wanted to like Inferno. I am still a sucker for adventure thrillers that wove in real history and puzzle-solving, shady government organisations and operatives, and plots that feature intriguing twists and turns.

And Inferno certainly had potential, starting off with a bang by getting right into the heart of the film’s core issue—the overpopulation of the Earth—with snippets of a presentation from Bertrand Zobrist (Best Foster), an extremist billionaire who believes the human race is heading to extinction because population growth is spiralling out of control. Before long, we’re getting horrific images of hell as described by Dante’s epic poem, Inferno, and a Tom Hanks—with normal hair too—who appears to be in the most pain he’s been in since he had urinary tract infection in The Green Mile.

So far so good. In terms of basic elements, Inferno has it all: An attractive woman who decides to help Langdon out (this time it’s the lovely Felicity Jones), a dangerous assassin (Ana Ularu), government operatives you don’t know if you can trust (Omar Sy and Sidse Babett Knudsen), and a shady underground organisation (headed by Irrfan Khan).

As you would expect, Tom Hanks spends much of the movie running around Europe with Felicity Jones, solving riddles and piecing together puzzles while dodging bullets and trying to shake their pursuers. Having learned from the mistakes of Da Vinci Code, much of the exposition (the historical facts and stuff about Dante, in particular) is summarised and explained on the go, so that the momentum isn’t slowed.

And yet, it still feels like there’s a whole lot of expository dialogue all throughout the film. It’s one of those situations where you have two leading experts on Dante who keep telling each other facts they already know about Dante. It’s for the benefit of the audience, of course, but it feels awfully clumsy and trite. Perhaps that’s the fatal problem in adapting all of these Langdon movies—there’s just no way of explaining the most interesting parts of the books in a way that’s doesn’t come across as either boring or stupid in the films.

Furthermore, while some elements from the book have already been streamlined for the film (including the ending), the story is still so outrageously preposterous and filled with plot holes that it becomes hard to take seriously. I was more forgiving in The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons about these sorts of things, but in this film it got to the extent where I couldn’t simply ignore it. The plot was far too silly for the film to take itself so seriously, and that’s why I’ve tended to enjoy the National Treasure films more.

Look, the cast is good, the performances are decent, the production values are solid, and you’ll always get a certain level of quality whenever Hanks and Howard are involved. Unfortunately, I just couldn’t bring myself to like Inferno. While I didn’t dislike the film, it just felt like they were just going through the motions because they were contracted to do the movie. Having been intrigued by The Da Vinci Code and surprisingly thrilled by Angels and DemonsInferno came out as easily the tamest and least inspiring of the trilogy.

2.75 stars out of 5

The Girl on the Train (2016)

girl_on_the_train_ver3

There is a girl—and a missing girl at that—but Gone Girl this is not.

I was so looking forward to The Girl on the Train, the film adaptation of the bestselling novel by Paula Hawkins. I heard about the book a while ago and even read the first chapter or two, but my Kindle’s battery died and I forgot all about it until I realised the film was just around the corner. So as I usually do, I decided to just watch the movie version instead.

It starts off intriguing enough: A woman (Emily Blunt) who rides a train into New York for work likes to watch a seemingly happy couple as she passes their house every day. Then of course, something shocking happens, and she finds herself drawn into a missing person / murder mystery that is somehow intertwined with her own history. Like Gone Girl, it has damaged characters, utilises the narrative device of a potentially unreliable narrator, and cuts back and forth in time and through different points of view, gradually piecing together the clues to the mystery like pieces of a puzzle.

Sadly, I would have to call Girl on the Train an average disappointment. I thought I would like it a little more, considering that I had seen some of the lukewarm reviews (just the ratings, without reading anything) and thought low expectations might be beneficial in this case. But even leaving plot holes aside, I found the story—and especially the mystery at the heart of it—very predictable (more on this later), and most importantly, lacking in genuine suspense. This film tried to be this year’s Gone Girl, a deserved smash hit, but was really just a B-grade thriller more in the vein of 2014’s Before I Go to Sleep. That was based on a bestselling book too and starred Nicole Kidman, but it came and went, doing poorly both with critics and at the box office.

As such, The Girl on the Train is a waste of a talented cast that also includes Rebecca Ferguson (the standout from Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation), Justin Theroux, Haley Bennett, Luke Evans, Edgar Ramirez, Laura Prepon, Lisa Kudrow, and the always wonderful Allison Janney, who all deliver quite solid performances.

However, there are just some very fundamental problems with the movie. First of all, the whole “girl on the train” thing is a bit of a gimmick. It sounds intriguing, but is really not much more than a hook lead into the story. It doesn’t take long before the whole train thing becomes an irrelevant part of the story. Moreover, as I understand it, the book was based in London, whereas for the film they switched the setting to New York. And yet they got Emily Blunt to keep her accent and play a British woman. It doesn’t hurt the movie much, though I think a London setting would have suited the overall vibe better.

Secondly, there is a point of view problem with this movie. I’m sure it works better on the pages of a book, because on the screen it struggles to build a proper narrative thread. The story is told from at least three points of view because there are parts of it that Emily Blunt’s character could not have possibly known. Also, it jumps back in time quite often, from several years to a few months to a few days, breaking any momentum in the suspense the film manages to build. So the structure really takes the film away from Blunt’s protagonist, and as a result it doesn’t feel like we are in this mystery with her, trying to figure everything out alongside her. Instead, we’re simply watching from afar as the story feeds us bits and pieces of information in an arbitrary way, making it feel more manipulative. It doesn’t help that there aren’t any particularly sympathetic or at least interesting characters.

Thirdly, the answer to the central mystery is not very hard to guess. I would be very surprised if more than half of the people who watched it didn’t figure it out at least an hour away from the ending. A lot of it has to do with the script, but some blame also needs to go director Tate Taylor (The Help), who doesn’t offer enough red herrings and suspects to mislead the audience. There just aren’t many alternate possibilities to explain what happened, especially because you know the most obvious answer in such movies are almost always wrong.

Nonetheless, I wouldn’t called The Girl on the Train a terrible film. It’s not poorly made and the cast and performances are pretty good. But it’s just an uninspiring adaptation that fails to bring out whatever it is that made the source material “the novel that shocked the world”.

2.5 stars out of 5

Careful What You Wish For (2015)

large_Careful-What-You-Wish-For-Movie-Poster-1

I was a little concerned I didn’t have enough material for my list of worst movies of the year, and so I decided to watch Careful What You Wish For, an “erotic thriller” about a teenager (Nick Jonas — apparently he was in some boy band with his brothers) who gets more than he bargained for during his summer vacation when he enters into an affair with the trophy wife (Australia’s very own Isabel Lucas) of a grumpy middle-aged douchebag (Dermot Mulroney). Sounds like Oscar material, right?

Sadly, despite seemingly possessed with all the elements of a terrible movie, Careful What You Wish For won’t be featured on my 10 worst movies list for 2015. I know, I’m as stunned as you are.

The movie starts off pretty much as you would expect. The teenager and his family head to their vacation home and he sees a beautiful woman moving in next door. Some casual flirting ensues and for contrived situations are created to give them opportunities to spend more time together and, most importantly, for the teen to take off his shirt, revealing a buffed bod at odds with his book-loving, virginal persona.

Up to this point, the film is as bad as any B-grade movie you might catch on late night television. It’s an erotic thriller that’s neither erotic nor thrilling. The performances are mediocre even though you can tell Jonas is really trying — Mulroney is clearly in it for the cheque, while it’s kind of sad watching Isabel Lucas relegated to these kind of roles (I think the last two films I saw her in were The Loft and Red Dawn). Perhaps its the Transformers curse. I mean, how many good roles have Megan Fox, Rachael Taylor and Rosie Huntington Whiteley had since?

Somehow, however, Careful What You Wish For redeems itself a little after a major turn in the story that’s not unpredictable but at least better than what I had been expecting. From there, the plot has a bit more intrigue and stops merely going through the motions. In the end, the film turned out to be a cautionary tale for me — don’t watch a movie expecting it to be one of the worst of the year. Instead, it wasn’t bad enough to be on the list, nor was it bad enough to be in the “so bad it’s good” category. Unfortunately, it was just another typical bad film.

2 stars out of 5