Film Reviews - AvPGalaxy's Own Critics!

Started by Secret Hero, Mar 07, 2008, 07:25:42 PM

Author
Film Reviews - AvPGalaxy's Own Critics! (Read 277,463 times)

Hubbs

Van Helsing (2004)

Pretty much the ultimate modern day homage to all the classic Universal monster flicks of the 30's and 40's, more specifically the few monster mash movies that were made including all the legendary monsters. Stephen Sommers takes his own hammy over the top Indiana Jones-esque schlock style from 'The Mummy' franchise and plumps it firmly into the Transylvanian homeland of Dracula, no CGI sparred. Oh and Kevin J O'Connor is brought along too yet again.

The plot? Van Helsing must do battle against Dracula and his minions plus werewolves and Frankenstein's monster...the end. This really is such a tough film to review for me, we all know Sommers from his Mummy films and we all knew exactly what to expect from his directing. This guy revels in complete tongue-in-cheek schlock action which is usually realised through heavy use of CGI. Its an old saying but think Indiana Jones but even more ludicrous, even more silly, even more quickfire quips and outrageously over the top everything. We all know this and going into this movie we again...all knew this, we knew it would be nonsense of the highest order, so I simply cannot complain about the fact the film is a total load of hammy cliches. I knew it would be! the only reason I wanted to see the film was simply down to the content...Universal's monsters.

This is the only reason why I had to see the film and why I give it kudos of any kind, the pure unadulterated fantastico monster mashing. But again I'm hampered! yes again!! the reason being I absolutely adored the concept behind this, the art direction, the atmosphere, the sets, the lighting, the use of that olde worlde Victorian steampunk style etc...but there are so many things about the film I hated and wanted to change. So many ideas that just begged to be awesome but the route they chose killed me artistically!

The monsters...ah those epic monsters...what the hell did they do to Dracula?! seriously! Could they have gone any further away from how this character should have looked at least. Sure Roxburgh does a good job with the role and stereotypical accent but his look...holy crapenstein! the Prince of Darkness looks like a rock star with that camp hair and God awful earrings. Yeah you could say that suits his style but the film is set within 18th Century not the present, it feels all wrong. They do get his Brides kinda right in monster mode at least although they seem to be dressed in Arabic style attire to me in human form, at least they are suitably hot although totally cliched with a blonde, a brunette and a redhead (why am I even saying cliched here?).

The werewolves look fantastic in wolf mode, love the thin pointed Batman type ears and overall colour schemes. Hated the transformation process though, instead of morphing they rip their skin off or shed which just doesn't seem right to me. That sorta indicates they would have multiple layers of skin going on and on plus what would their actual origin form be because there would always be another form underneath if you get me. The continuity is also off with the transformation because in some scenes their form seems to melt off.

Frankenstein's monster has a nice touch of the olde worlde steampunk theme going on about his person. I liked the jets of steam coming from his leg hinges/hydraulics and the metallic body sections, almost cyborg-like, but I didn't think much of the green CGI electric current on view in his head plates...bit too far there. On the flip side Van Helsing sports the usual superhero-esque long trench coat, broad rimmed hat and face hiding scarf in a dark brown colour scheme, but his weapons have a lovely steampunk style to them with a nice old fashioned cogs and wheels mechanical aspect (18th Century remember). Van Helsing feels very much like a historic version of 'Blade' and 'James Bond' rolled into one, and of course to complete that air of coolness he has his nerdy bumbling sidekick who supplies him with all his monster killing gadgets.

What I really couldn't get on with was the quite bizarre 'Alien' rip off where Dracula is trying to raise an army of his minions who have been incubated in 'Alien-esque' eggs! Apparently when vampires mate they create a sort of flying Gremlin/gargoyle type creature...in an egg, does the female vampire lay an egg or something?? The only way to do this is by using power generated from Frankenstein's monster? I think that was the game, beats me why. I also must ask why Dracula has hordes of little munchkins wearing gas masks as his henchmen, who the hell are they suppose to be? surely other vampires or zombies or something would have been better. Oh and where exactly is Dracula's icy fortress suppose to be? the good guys go through a portal of some kind to get there...sooooo is it not in Transylvania?

There are many bits that I could mention that frustrate me and force me to nit pick, I know its a daft Sommers film but it could of been a classic Sommers film had these things been different. There are VAST amounts of CGI throughout the film which at times work but at others look dreadful (more so than 'The Mummy' films, quality and quantity wise). Things like the little Transylvanian town at the start, Frankenstein's castle, moody skylines, werewolves, Dracula's Brides and some gore look really neat. On the flip side there is the entire action sequence finale where things get so absurd and incredible as the heroes leap around between these towers with ropes, seemingly invincible to everything that the film becomes a hyper cartoon. Again I know you're meant to leave you're brain at the door but really, some of the feats pull you right out of the film they are so super ridiculous. I also hated the awful looking CGI enhanced vampire jaws when vampires in human form roared or hissed showing their fangs. Why is that necessary? just use makeup and their real mouths! it looks like something out of the Mortal kombat films ugh!

A guilty CGI pleasure though must be the all out badass battle between a werewolf Van Helsing and Dracula in full winged demon form. Its a total CGI fest of course but these two monsters are pretty sweet looking and I simply can't resist it, just what a monster mash requires, almost on form with a Godzilla vs King Kong face off...almost. So yes the entire thing is practically 'The Mummy' in Transylvania but if you're of a fan of this classic genre then it should still win you over. Ironic that the film may have been even more spectacular if they had squeezed in a few mummies and maybe a creature from the Black Lagoon, overkill? nah that comes as standard with Stephen Sommers.

6/10

Hubbs

X-Men (2000)

Well this certainly feels a bit dated these days, the very first X-Men film, the backbone of the modern comicbook adaptations craze, the one that started it all. Had this film not done as well as it did then we possibly wouldn't have all the superhero flicks we have today. Heck just looking at the films poster shows how far this genre has come, its positively awful, bland and extremely unimaginative, the two groups just standing there against a city skyline, eh?

I remember this coming out back in the day and I recall pretty much poo pooing it as an obvious looking lazy CGI filled cheese fest. Upon seeing the film I didn't actually like it all that much, mainly I think down to the lack of decent action. Low and behold yet again my personal tastes have changed with age and I find myself actually appreciating this film a lot more now. The plot naturally includes the origins of certain main characters and the introduction of the X-Men lead by 'Charles Xavier' and his school for the gifted (mutants). We are also introduced to the bad mutants lead by 'Magneto' and his dastardly plan to turn all the world leaders into mutants presumably so they know what its like to be a mutant.

'Storm? Sabretooth?...What do they call you? 'Wheels'? This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard'

The general plot may be simple but I do like the easy to understand similarities with real time age old issues such as prejudice discrimination and plain racism. Magneto's ('Erik Lehnsherr') family were German Jewish and killed by the Nazi's during WWII, so he had first hand experience of the effects a madman can have in power, himself being a Holocaust survivor. Ironically though Magneto himself turns into the thing he once survived and fought against as here he wants to exterminate the human race to protect the mutant race. Whilst Xavier wants to gain peace between humans and mutants Magneto is constantly trying to start a race war between them, not too subtle but hey it works.

The main thing I notice with this first film in retrospect is how much dialog there is and how little kickass action there is. There is a heck of a lot of exposition to take in as we learn about the various characters and their individual flaws and powers etc...But that's not to say its boring, not at all, its actually delivered very well and you want to know more, meet more mutants and see their powers. The action is sporadic and not exactly top dollar in all honesty, we mainly see 'Wolverine' getting into the odd scrap, mutants going up against the police but not killing any and the finale at the Statue of Liberty gives us some semi decent one on one action but the CGI and wire work is pretty hokey to be fair. Prime example being the scene where Wolverine does a 360 spin around a section of the Statue using his claw...looks real nasty.

Most of the characters are really well visualised and well cast there's no denying that, twas the worry at first, that these guys would all look ridiculous in their silly costumes. But no! almost every character is realistically designed and performed. The main three of course being Stewart, McKellen and Jackman all brilliantly cast adding such a classy authentic epic feel to the comicbook tomfoolery, Jackman being the main surprise as he was completely unknown. At the same time Marsden, Berry and Janssen also come across in a surprisingly believable fashion, none of these actors ever really come across as hammy which is some feat in this. The only characters that let the side down visually has to be 'Toad' and 'Sabretooth' both of whom look totally daft.

I'm not an X-Men fanboy so I don't know the ins and outs of the franchise but some things I do find a bit silly. For a start Toad is just a pointless character, his tongue, jumping and spitting green goo are his mutant super powers?? how is he useful? how does he crush a human by jumping on him? and why include him in this film?! The main main running quibble I have throughout has to be the invincibility thing going on. Wolverine especially is virtually unbeatable, you can't kill the guy so it seems pointless to have him fight at all, we know he can't die or get hurt. Then there's the fact that most mutants seems to be super strong...but why? OK they have unique powers but is a side effect to this automatically having super strength because they all have it apparently. How come Magneto can fly? he can manipulate metal but how does that enable him to fly? and how the hell does 'Rogue' get through even one day without being able to touch another human? Her super mutant power seems utterly pointless and more of a curse than anything surely as she can kill real easy.

In the end the film does start to crack towards the finale as things do get a tad stupid, inconsistencies with mutant power abilities, the fact no one notices all the commotion going on at the Statue of Liberty, all the destruction, 'Mystique' doubling as the Senator but showing her yellow eyes etc...I guess the main thing that made me think was simply...Magneto is kinda right, mutants should be very weary of humans, maybe not wipe them out but you can kinda see his angle, humans are a violent dangerous unpredictable species. On the other hand I dunno why he worries so much because in any war the mutants would win hands down.

The film isn't your standard comicbook flick gotta give it that, its not light-hearted silly kids stuff, there is a good solid serious tone to everything that does combine well with this material. Dealing with mutants as people who are treated differently because of their looks or abilities is a strong concept that many will relate to. Visually everything generally is quite realistic and doesn't look like a comicbook movie. The black leather outfits, big rich 'Wayne Manor-like' X-Men school, fancy super hi-tech gadgets/equipment and big black super jet are all cliched sure but obviously you need some fun fantasy elements. Despite being 14 years old this film still holds up well today and even better it still blends in with the whole X-Men franchise which has since moved on big time.

7/10

Hubbs

X-Men 2 (aka X2, 2003)

So Toad and Sabretooth are dead and buried then it seems, guess they weren't that popular huh. Not surprising seeing as they were the worse characters from the last film. So after the unexpected smash of the original film we got this sequel adding more characters, more effects and a bit more much needed action.

Moving on from the first film we discover now that Magneto has been tortured into giving up vital information about Xavier's school for mutants by the nasty new bad guy William Stryker. Stryker and his team capture Xavier and plan to create another Cerebro so they can brainwash Xavier into wiping out all the mutants of the world with his mental powers. Now is the time...the X-Men and Magneto's naughty mutants must join forces to save all mutant kind.

Everything kicks off nicely with the cool introduction of new character Nightcrawler, who is performed with a likeable heartfelt sincere persona by Alan Cumming. Its a good start to the film because not only do we get a slick sexy Matrix style ass-kicking sequence courtesy of the Crawler, but this guy looks good, he's accurate to the source material and simply feels very fresh and original especially with that German accent. The one thing I don't get about this guy is the fact he can only teleport when he can see where's he's teleporting too. Surely when you teleport to anywhere you can't see where your going right? so what difference does it make?

This film clearly tries for the 'Empire' tone by making everything quite dark with lots of pending doom and gloom. As we all know the film also ends on a downer with major character Jean Grey kicking the bucket, new boy Pyro switching to the dark side and Wolverine discovering some of his bleak past plus having to fight another similar mutant. In general the whole team are feeling like shit come the end of the day plus they no longer appear to be safe in their 'Wayne Manor-esque' home.

But not only this we also get a much more violent film than the safe fast cut first flick. When Styker's men storm Xavier's mutant school armed to the teeth with automatic weapons we see Wolverine tear into some real hack n slash action as he rampages through the building slicing n dicing soldiers left right and centre (finally!). We also see a hint of mutant power from some younger students at the same time. Of course there is no blood or guts anywhere in the film but we do see Wolverine piling into bad guys impaling them pretty good with no cuts. This sequence to me shows another possible Nazi angle again as a community of 'different' people are invaded, rounded up and taken away from their home by armed soldiers, not even women and children are left.

I liked how the story develops Pyro Iceman and Rogue together as they come to terms with their powers plus adolescence. The scene where Iceman outs himself to his parents is a cute scene with very real message which some folk will relate to. Some nice little touches of humour admittedly but its all very tame and easy going. The fact Iceman is obviously the good guy and Pyro is obviously the quick tempered bad guy feels a bit too simple, amazed one isn't wearing blue and the other red whilst fighting over Rogue. I didn't really like the inclusion of Lady Deathstrike though, she felt unnecessary and merely there just for a showdown with Wolverine at the end...which she ultimately was as she did nothing else the entire time. She's in and out quick, a sidekick that's killed off neatly, only there for the visuals and adding to the character roster. The fight was also completely lacking in any excitement because we know neither of these characters can be hurt, this being a problem with these films at times, invincible people fighting each other.

Although I must admit I liked the concept of Stryker using his mutant son to control other mutants with a serum from his brain and the fact he induces Xavier into almost killing off everyone. OK sure the fact they managed to built another Cerebro seemed far fetched as I thought that was a special contraption that only Xavier and Magneto could devise but none the less it worked.

I don't deny the film is dark but maybe it tries a little too hard? I'm not trying to nit pick but it does feel a bit forced especially when Grey didn't really have to die as far as I can tell. The jet wouldn't start due to a malfunction, so Grey goes outside and protects the jet from the tidal wave of water whilst using her powers to start up the jet. Why didn't she just start the jet up from inside or am I missing something here? I think I am missing something aren't I...??? Anyway it kinda felt odd that she dies in this way as if to try and create this iconic emotional death which I didn't really feel, it just seemed like a daft waste (and to kick start the Phoenix plot).

Everything does feel a bit clockwork to be honest, there aren't any major surprises really (you can see things a mile off) but none the less it does hold your attention to the end. The visuals are on the whole much smoother and glossier than the first film, the actors are really getting into their respective roles, multiple characters are handled well by Singer and the film is also a highly positive encouraging shout out for gay people, teens, underachievers, outcasts, bullied people and any minorities on the whole. Although I still don't get how that highly advanced metal detector that scanned everything on and in the human body didn't pick up all that iron in the guards bloodstream, oh well.

7/10

Hubbs

X-Men: The Last Stand (aka X-Men 3, 2006)

So what happened to the Nightcrawler? he was a good soft centred character with potential in the last film, what the Hadoken?? So yet again after the following smash success of the sequel, which may or may not have been a surprise, we get the trilogy bookend to the saga. Naturally we are pummeled with lots more characters, even bigger set pieces, even bigger action and various big deaths scenes, oh and Brett 'Rush Hour' Ratner takes over the reigns...which means it could well stink.

Plot time...Worthington Labs announce the cure to mutantism, well a drug that will suppress the mutant gene in mutants. This of course could be good news for certain mutants like the awkward Rogue (don't listen to Storm sheesh!), but for ultra cool mutants like Magneto, Wolverine, Iceman etc...it sounds like the worst idea since Brett Ratner took over the reigns for this third film. The 'cure' comes from the genome of a young mutant boy so obviously Magneto sets out to kill the boy with his alternate (not exactly evil in the evil sense) mutant army, only the X-Men can stop them.

I don't get the humans in this saga though, surely having people like this around with these powers would help mankind greatly. Sure there would be problems but on the whole if peace is kept as many want then the advantages for humans and mutants to work together would be astronomical! Plus aren't people amazed and in awe of these powers, hardly every day stuff is it.

So its back to more origins again and lots more exposition as we see how a young Jean Grey met up with Magneto and Xavier (I type Magneto because its easier than his human name) who have both had major CGI airbrush work done to their pretty faces. We then get to see a rather abrupt and brief origin for Angel which leads into some obligatory training sequences for the regular team followed by an intro for Beast and the steps being taken to find Magneto. Once the story skips through all this its back to Xavier's school again so we can have yet more origin chat as Beast visits.

One thing I noticed about Beast in this franchises continuity is way back in 'X2' we saw Beast as a youngish middle aged man in human form on the TV. According to comicbook lore (if we are picky here) Beast was actually one of the X-Men team from a young age I believe plus he was shaped like a gorilla. What we see of him in that brief cameo doesn't really match up although admittedly we don't see all of him. I would also hazard a guess that he would of been blue and furry by the age he looks in that cameo, like I say I'm just being picky.

This film feels more in tone with the original in the sense that everything is slowing building towards the finale. The plot is developed step by step in easy to swallow doses so each little story can expand and finally blend at the end. It does feel a bit slow admittedly but again it still manages to hold your attention well by slowly giving you more bang for your buck. Gotta be honest though some characters do feel squeezed in for no reason, Angel doesn't really do much, he's just there for visuals where as Multiple Man is around for one booby trap/gag moment.
There also seemed to be some tomfoolery with the Omegas group involving big visual changes and sexual gender alterations. Not that that's a problem as Omahyra Mota as Arclight was an inspired casting choice but the others felt very generic and bland looking. Not really sure how Kid Omega's power of being a mutant porcupine would come in handy unless you do the only thing he does in the film which is kill someone by hugging them. Its also these guys that start to mention mutants in class divisions depending on how powerful they are...where did that come from?

I find Pyro hilariously dumb in this film though. This guy goes around acting all tough and macho when confronting new mutants despite not knowing what they can do. For all he knows they could kill him easily with their unique mutant power, all he can do is control fire! geez dude don't be such a plum. Another stupid point was after Xavier gets obliterated Beast suggests the school close...eh?! why you big blue goon! surely the best way to honour him would be to keep the school going, no way Xavier would want it to shut down, go plait your hair sheesh!

In general everything is fine up to the big showdown where for some bizarre reason Magneto decides to detach and use the Golden Gate Bridge as a crossing to Alcatraz. I mean yeah it looks impressive and fancy in all its CGI glory but really? why not just use a large boat or fly...most of you all do that. Plus that may give you more stealth for the attack. The actual main battle is reasonably well directed and sorta utilises everyone but the fact the soldiers have the cure in gun form does make a bit of a mockery of it all. Yes many mutants get 'cured' but I don't really think any of them would stand a chance with all that stuff flying around.

Its all pretty much the same again but with nicer visuals. Beast looks awesome and is portrayed really well by Grammer, Grey in Phoenix form does look pretty good to me and her story fits OK as far as I'm concerned although I know some fanboys didn't like it. Wish we knew exactly what happened to Cyclops though. Everyone else is on good form and haven't varied from their previous performances so its all good in that sense (Juggernaut is a bit iffy looking though isn't he, not sure why they cast Vinnie Jones there) and as I said there are some big characters getting kicked to the curb throughout and towards the end which was very cool I can't deny. Not quite as classy as the previous two sure, but it does the job...what else did you expect?

6/10

Gazz

Edge of Tomorrow
2014, dir. Doug Liman



Since 2002's The Bourne Identity, Doug Liman has established himself as a fairly competent action director, however poor scripts and production problems have often mired the quality of his blockbuster films. The aforementioned Bourne film was wrought with production issues, though ultimately salvaged by extensive reshoots, while Mr and Mrs Smith crumbled under the weight of its own star-power. And though Jumper featured some promising but pulpy sci-fi ideas, it unfortunately took them nowhere with a typically underwhelming David Goyer script (ie. piss poor dialogue and characters).
Liman's blockbuster films may pop on screen but they merely fizzle away on the page and from the outset the unfortunately titled Edge of Tomorrow (sounding more like an American soap opera than a sci-fi war film) looked typical of the director's oeuvre. The explosive Saving Private Ryan meets The Matrix aesthetic of the trailer engaged, while the already-done sci-fi take on Groundhog Day set up hung over the film like a damp rag. But with Edge of Tomorrow Liman has delivered where so many have failed, by bringing smart filmmaking to a simple story and refusing to neglect a sense of fun.

Based on the novel 'All You Need is Kill' by Hiroshi Sakurazaka, Edge of Tomorrow begins during the midst of a war against a race of alien creatures that have overtaken Europe. They're known as 'mimics' due to their ability to predict their opponents every move. Refreshingly Liman avoids covering the initial invasion almost entirely, introducing us to the situation through use of interviews and news footage. We're informed that humanity has begun to fight back and win in their war against these tentacled mechanical monsters. This is thanks in no small part to seasoned warriors such as Emily Blunt's Rita (or 'Full Metal Bitch' as the propaganda posters call her) who has tallied more confirmed kills than any other soldier. During this montage Liman introduces Tom Cruise's Cage as the media face of the military, who is seen beckoning young Americans to war with the promise (and grandeur) of a sure victory. Before the title sequence is over the players and world has been effectively set up. It's efficient, to the point and allows for cutting straight to the meat and potatoes of the story.

After the attempted blackmail of a senior officer, Cage's cowardice lands him in trouble and with a first class ticket to the front-line. Out of his depth on a battlefield that is increasingly looking like a well-planned trap and surrounded by hardened grunts that are counting down the remaining the seconds of his life, Cage stumbles from one action-beat to the next until meeting his inevitable demise. But by a twist of fate Cage is forced to relive the day over and over again, meeting his end in a whole manner of violent, shocking and often funny ways. That is until he meets Emily Blunt's Rita, who holds information that may help Cage both break the cycle and end the war for good.

Unlike Duncan Jone's Source Code (that other Groundhog-Day science fiction picture) there is no thriller style mystery to unravel in Liman's film. Starting from a similar platform, Edge of Tomorrow instead takes inspiration from Paul Verhoeven's Starship Trooper and James Cameron's Aliens, both in story and character (and not to mention an actor in Bill Paxton). Much like with those sci-fi classics, the marines here are all action and little thought military clichés, running gung-ho to their own slaughter at the hands of an enemy they've vastly underestimated. But whereas Starship Troopers has the dumb but strong Rico and Aliens' the overlooked but brave Ellen Ripley at their centres, Edge of Tomorrow's Cage is the coward who'd rather sit this one out, forced into action only when the inescapability of his situation becomes starkly apparent.

It is easy to hate such a yellow-bellied individual as Cage, and the film practically asks us to early on. He's cowardly, uncaring and knowingly admits to sending thousands of young soldiers to their deaths through his own propaganda tactics. By making him dislikeable, his many demises become an effective focus for comedy. But Cruise imbues Cage with just enough charm that one finds them self endeared to him as he grows. It helps that he has the always-dependable Blunt to bounce off in many of his scenes, providing the film with a couple of fleeting but decent emotional beats. Blunt's Rita is the core of the film; she gets the best lines, the best action and is easily the most likeable character on display. Her performance in Edge of Tomorrow had me asking the question, when will Emily Blunt become the blockbuster star she's been threatening to for years?

Despite a few ham-handed scenes of exposition, Edge of Tomorrow succeeds because Liman and his writing team (Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth) have focused their efforts on telling a simple story in the most engaging way possible, centring on timing and structure to deliver effective action, comedy and character beats. There's a great deal of knowing restraint on display from Liman, allowing for the same battlefield to feel fresh an hour in to the film despite us having witnessed the action a countless number of times. But for their attention to structure, Edge of Tomorrow's greatest attribute is instead its playful tone. In another filmmakers hands it would have been a grim-dark slog through murky battlefields with tortured souls as our guide. Instead it's a well-structured and fast moving roller coaster ride replete with action thrills and more than a few hearty laughs.

Rating: 4/5

Hubbs

Erik the Viking (UK, 1989)

Now this is a film long since lost in the annals of time. Much like the excellent 'Jabberwocky' movie by Terry Gilliam this movie has also been somewhat herded into the Monty Python film collection as a kind of extension to the Python universe. The same could also be said for the movies 'Yellowbeard' and 'Timebandits', unfortunately neither 'Erik' or 'Yellowbeard' are any good really and both fall flat, although this is better than the Chapman vehicle.

Inspired by Jones's own children's story book but strangely enough not following his own creation, the film revolves around Norse mythology although I'm unsure how closely, I doubt its that close. We follow Erik and his viking crew as they travel to Asgard so they may ask the Gods to end the age of Ragnarök. They all believe the sun has been swallowed by Fenrir the mighty wolf which has plunged their world into darkness. So its a travelling into the unknown type adventure which was very popular in the 80's.

I guess the main issue I had with this film (first time seeing it!) was the fact it felt like it was trying to copy various other movies in terms of visuals at least. The whole mystery voyage into the unknown and looking for mystical fabled items angle is cool but so very dated and to be really truly honest this film just felt like a combination of all of the films I mentioned above. The visuals aren't even that exciting really, most of the start is set within a drab dreary Viking village, then we move onto a drab and dreary sea sequence, then we get some exotic visuals but eventually its back to drab and dreary as they find Asgard. Most of the movie looks very cheap and cheerful too, the sea monster is quite nice and typically Python-esque but all sets and costumes (especially wigs) just look very tacky.

I realise Jones has gone for that simple dirty cheap look (classic Python look) but it comes across as a tired attempt. 'Time bandits' had the same kind of visual approach but it also had some good location sequences and an exciting story, this story of Erik didn't really grab me at all. I didn't feel anything for any of the characters, their journey seems too easy, they find their goal quite quickly without doing much, the Gods are just kids which was anti-climatic, nothing really happens during the adventure that is of any real consequence...no urges of pending failure and the finale is really very weak.

I can't even say any of the characters were good fun...the same old routines which have been seen before in better films. There is a strong element of forced comedy throughout the film which is never really that amusing. The silly goofy characters are just trying way too hard, a good example would be the entire sequence set on Hy-Brasil with Jones in a familiar high pitched speaking role. As for Robbins as Erik...he is miscast in my view, far too meek, not really good looking enough for the hero and with an American accent!...sheesh! what on earth was Jones thinking?! Not even the powerhouse that is John Cleese can help this dull tale, his portrayal of the evil 'Halfdan the Black' as a soft spoken good mannered pleasant seeming chap (basically Cleese playing Cleese or his Robin Hood character from 'Timebandits'), again just felt rehashed and out of place. 

There are one or two nice visual moments like the Viking ship going over the edge of the flat Earth and as I said the sea monster (what you see of it), but that's about it. I found the whole thing rather underwhelming frankly despite the solid UK cast and alluringly cool little movie poster. Its pretty unexciting with little to care about and a terrible finale, there are better Python-esque fantasies out there.

3.5/10

Hubbs

3 Days to Kill (FRA/US, 2014)

So what's the deal then, first up Liam Neeson started acting in action flicks and being this aging gruff wrinkled badass, now all of a sudden its Kevin Costner's turn apparently. Just like Neeson...Costner now has a leathery wrinkled face with a nice gentle tan, lots of greying white facial hair and an overall generally scruffy appearance...your average over middle aged man's action man look.

The plots sees a dying former CIA agent (Costner) hired by another top CIA female agent/assassin (Heard) to bring down an arms trafficker. The reason Costner is dying is because he has brain cancer that has spread to his lungs, hence why he has been dropped by the CIA. The reason why Heard wants to use Costner is because he is the only living person to see the bad guys face recently after a botched undercover stakeout.

Whilst watching this I couldn't help but think that I recognised the visual style and uber cooly shot assassin/hitman/espionage theme. I know we have seen this type of stuff many times before but it all seemed very much like a Luc Besson flick to me...low and behold it was a Besson flick! The whole sultry sexy hooker-esque looking femme fatale angle was very familiar and positively wreaks of Besson's brain at work. Amber Heard even looks like 'Nikita' in some scenes towards the finale, that's not a bad thing as she does look hot but its just unbelievably unoriginal as Besson does the same thing EVERY TIME!

Another pretty big issue was the fact the film just doesn't know what it wants to be. The whole thing has that 'Leon' vibe running through it as the main character tries to juggle his hitman/undercover agent life style with his wife and teenage daughter. Naturally his wife hates the fact he works, or did work, for the CIA and his daughter has no clue. Most of the film time is spend with Costner's character trying to be a good dad and make things up with his wife, lots of father daughter moments, heart felt moments, flashbacks to childhood memories etc...its all very schmaltzy in places. Problem is this feels like a mess as its interspersed with sequences of high octane action with a sexual undercurrent whenever Heard is on the scene with her pouting full red lips and tight outfits.

So what is it? well its an action/assassin/undercover James Bond agent/slick espionage/drama/coming of age/teen thriller/redemption/comedy movie...you get that? Yep its got everything! thing is you don't want half of it and most of it is boring as hell.

I guess its down to the quite frankly laughable performance by a clearly seriously aged Kevin Costner who is obviously way too old for this shit. Yeah Neeson managed to pull off the wrinkled hardman act surprisingly well but unfortunately Costner fails at his first hurdle looking like he's about to collapse under the weight of his own ego. What made me laugh is the fact his character is meant to have this terminal cancer in his brain and lungs yet he looks fine! no problems here folks. On top of that the ridiculous plot notion of the Heard's character having some secret formula that cures cancer (or halts for a time) completely robs you of any suspension of disbelief. I hope Costner's character gets that stuff to the local hospital after all this.

So yes there are some nice plosions, car chases, fisticuffs and general espionage tomfoolery but who cares, we've seen this stuff a gazillion times over in far far better espionage movies...and crap ones. Naturally being set in France (Luc Luc Luc...shake it up a bit for Christ sake?!) all the lead cars are naff Peugeot's that somehow manage to keep up with top spec Audi's and all action sequences are set in stereotypical Besson locations...seedy night club, posh restaurant, posh club, the biggest seediest and most extravagant tattoo parlour I've seen, hotels and French downtown streets (I give you 'Ronin'). But as said this might not be too bad if it wasn't split up by lame ass sequences where Costner teaches his teen daughter to ride a bike, teaching her to dance, talks to her about boys, rescues her from yet another seedy night club, lots of heart to heart chats with the wife and daughter about being a better parent blah blah blah.

I realise the film is all about redemption and the main character becoming a family man again but Jesus...lets make up our minds shall we. Either you want a kick ass body count flick or you want a loving family man flick, while we're here it would be a good idea to decide whether the film is gonna be serious or just a daft light-hearted romp. At one point Costner's character is shooting an innocent bouncer in the foot in clear view of everyone! beating young men half to death in a night club and generally causing much death and destruction around gay Paree yet with no consequences at all...and its not half bad in a semi serious manner. The next minute he's got some bloke taped up in his bathroom ready for some torture and instead gets him to speak to his daughter about a spaghetti sauce recipe over the phone...oh the hilarity!

With the stupid little funny moments this could easily be one of those shitty Bruce Willis vehicles like 'Red' which tries to incorporate expensive big budget violence and laughs with an OAP in the lead. Bottom line we all know damn well this basically should of just been another Neeson vehicle, I guess Besson thought it best to change the lead OAP. Its pretty much Costner's attempt at the genre but unfortunately for him someone forgot to tell Besson to try and actually come up with something original and not constantly dissect and regurgitate his previous work.

4/10


Hubbs

Rio 2 (2014)

Another animated movie based on another species of animal, why? because they can and its another easy money maker. I'm waiting for an animated movie based on dung beetles and elephants...why? I dunno, they haven't milked them yet so game on, we're clearly gonna get an animated movie about every flippin creature on Earth eventually.

So the first film was set in Rio and I'm guessing this film will move into the rain forest? did you see that coming? So I'm guessing as the film is set deep within the Amazonian rain forest the plot will cover the destruction of the rain forest and 'Blu' and co becoming naturalised to jungle life...see that coming? Is any of this film even remotely original in any sense? does it even try?! the answer is no, this is merely the same formulaic albeit gorgeous looking CGI flick we've now seen about a thousand times.

So the film is a formulaic cookie cutter production and like other identical films there are a few positive things I can mention. Firstly the visuals are of course sumptuous, I mean really bright bold glossy colourful and extremely well animated. This is naturally no real surprise as these days CGI movies have reached a point where the skills and computer technology are in their prime, you expect them to look stunning, you know they will, its so routine that you could actually argue that people don't even notice the visuals anymore.

The other thing I like about these films is how they manage to highlight typical traits of the particular species in question, both behavioural and environmentally. This normally covers obvious things we all know about the specific species and their habitat, common knowledge, but also little winks or tit bits that maybe someone with that extra bit of animal knowledge might spot...which is cool. This normally also covers the various other creatures in the film too, for example the dart frog character being pointed out as not actually poisonous and spotting the various tropical birds hidden throughout the foliage.

In all honesty though apart from that most of this film is the same spiel all over again. You have all the same characters from the nerdy yet plucky hero who is utterly useless, the lively kids, the sidekicks voiced by various famous people, usually a rap star of some kind, to the stereotypically British voiced bad guy who sounds like Tim Curry and his own silly sidekick. Yeah sure there are some reasonable visual gags here and there but really the entire film hinges on the likable dastardly vocal performance of Jemaine Clement, everything else is dull. So cliche that 'Eduardo' the gruff father has a buzz cut style tuft on his head, is this Macaw from the 50's USA?

I must also be negative about the use of way too many song sequences, is it possible a new animated film can actually make it through its run time without one dreadful rap/hip-hop tune? no apparently not. It seems either Hollywood or kids these days love this stuff because every CGI animated flick seems to have some hip-hop or rap in it which instantly destroys any self respect or quality the film was aiming for in my opinion. Add to this the now statutory inclusion of rap/hip-hop/pop stars for voice work too, plenty of folk out there but yeah sure, lets use some bland untalented popstars just to lure in more kids.

I still don't get how this particular universe is suppose to even work, they are real birds and squawk or chirp when communicating with humans. They live like birds, eat like birds...do everything like real birds...yet Blu owns his own tiny GPS, electric toothbrush and various other tiny items that seem to have been made...for birds? Yeah I know I'm being extremely picky over a silly kids movie but I just couldn't help but think to myself...where would Blu possibly get this stuff from?? Quite liked how the word 'pet' is a dirty word for the birds though.

Business as usual then, wash rinse and repeat formula, safe but sorry, if it ain't broke?...or was it maybe broke from the start?? *raise eyebrow*. The finale is daft and kinda spoils what little the film had going for itself, its not like the film even mocks itself, it takes itself relatively seriously in terms of the adventure. Grandiose in the eye candy department, wetter than mackerels bumhole, friendlier than a very friendly fat handlebar moustached German in tight leather lederhosen, ecologically sound (and shoved down your throat) and with more cutesy critters than you can wave your gun at. Its the same as everything else but its about birds...and its a sequel.

5.5/10

Hubbs

Guest House Paradiso (UK, 1999)

Right lets get down to it then, this is basically the Bottom movie end of story, yeah sure there are the odd changes and snips around the edges but its quite simply Bottom on the big screen. Rik and Ade have played the same type of characters for their entire careers undoubtedly but these two fellas are clearly 'Richie' and 'Eddie' of Hammersmith, I think all the fans can agree on that despite what the guys say.

This works for and against the movie in my opinion. Basically we see the many of the same gags, pratfalls and violent slapstick from the TV show...and when I say the same I mean pretty much identical. The only difference is of course its been fleshed out on the silver screen with a better budget so everything looks slicker. Again this is not a problem essentially, I am very happy to see Rik and Ade knock seven shades of shit out of each other with the use of bigger and better effects...to a degree. But at times during the film I did find myself thinking they are rehashing too many old classic sight gags, verbal gags and violent gags and somehow it doesn't actually look as good!

How is this possible you might ask, well personally I think its down to the fact the TV show was actually more adult than the film and much more grittier. The constraints of the TV show elevate the material because it feels more anarchic and wild yet at the same time restricted, the stunts and effects are slapped together and seem really dangerous and realistic, plus the lack of any swearing somehow made it feel even ruder and filthier which I can't workout, the tempting hints I guess. In this film everything just seems a bit slow and tired, the guys are obviously not as young anymore but the fights and pratfalls just feel weaker and less inventive.

'Pheeb...One boiled egg.'

The sets in the film are nice and have that classic typically dated British seaside B&B visual atmosphere and vibe going on. Watching carefully I loved all the old set decorations strewn around the hotel like the old paintings and historic furniture. The kind of stuff your gran had when you were a kid back in the day, or even your parents back in the late 70's and 80's (if you're around my age). I also really liked all the little nooks, crannies and secret passage ways throughout the hotel which are used by Richie to spy on people and pinch things. It all adds more scope and depth to the setting plus adds inventive ways to create more laughs...which it does nicely in one sequence.

So the films visuals around the hotel do look good n grimy as you'd expect, certain props are used disgustingly well used for various painful moments and the sets are well designed reflecting that classic Bottom feel from the Hammersmith flat. The extra cast members are a solid oddball bunch that back at the time were relatively unknown but have now gone on to bigger things, most notably Bill Nighy and Simon Pegg. Neither of the pair actually have massive parts in the film of course as it all revolves around Richie and Eddie, but they add a much needed boost to the overall quality. Nighy probably gets the best of it with his face-off against Mayall in some classic Fawlty Towers-esque scenes at breakfast. Never really liked the character or performance from Cassel as it just felt way out of place really, other than that I still don't get why they didn't cast all their old school mates from previous shows, we get 'Spudgun' so what about the rest?

'Mmm Lady Diana Princess of Wales...slap me up you bitch'

Despite some great looking bits n pieces and some decent scenes of Mayall madness and campness, at the end of the day I couldn't help but feel slightly underwhelmed by the whole thing. I think like most folk I went into this with really really seriously high expectations from the pairs glittering TV career and basically the film could never live up to that. Don't get me wrong the guys have a bloody good go and the movie definitely delivers what you want from the duo in terms of crude crass vomit inducing toilet humour. I just really think this should of been a much stronger blend of their live stage show and the TV show, it should of been an all out adult comedy really. They try their best but it really feels like the laughs are being forced out after a bad spell of comical constipation. Was never too sure on that film title either.

6/10

Hubbs

The Siege (1998)

Well back in 1998 this entire premise seemed quite far fetched, virtually in the realms of fantasy by the kind of overly paranoid Yanks that stockpile guns and tinned food. Then unfortunately the unthinkable happened as America was indeed attacked and hit hard on their own turf with the dreadful September 11, 2001 terrorist suicide bombings of the World Trade Center in New York. It is only now that this film really does have a much darker meaning with the events of the movie disturbingly realistic when once thought of as hyper reality.

The story simply sees New York under threat from terrorists in random attacks across the city by an unknown force suspected to be Arabic. Its up to Denzel Washington and Tony Shalhoub to track down and stop the attackers before things get out of hand. Of course things do get way way out of hand as the attacks become more ferocious and the FBI's leads dwindle. In the end the military are drafted in as martial law is declared with Brooklyn locked down around the Arabic community.

Apart from the very real threat of terrorist attacks anywhere at anytime the films main focus is on racial profiling, hardcore stereotyping and prejudice. There is a strong morality tale between good and evil that not only covers the obvious but the use of Nazi-like tactics by American troops on Arabic/Muslim American citizens as they are rounded up and detained in mass makeshift holding areas. I really don't need to go into the obvious concentration camp connections here do I. But there is more as we also get Bruce Willis (badly miscast) as a Major General who is intent on getting information out of suspects in any way possible, illegally of course. Here you see the little twist of the Yanks being no better than the terrorists they are fighting, becoming what they fear and stand against, taking away the right to a court of law, innocent before proven guilty, liberty and justice, human rights go bye bye.

When the shit hits the fan and terror is taking control of the streets, power is granted to various officials, its then that we see the darker side of some people. Willis' character has the orders to basically protect his country and the American way of life by any means necessary, do what needs to be done whilst the upper echelons look the other way. Of course Washington's character stands firm and will not allow this kind of behaviour to carry on, there are still laws and rights. Gotta be honest though at times you do feel he is being too PC considering the circumstances, he's almost too heroic and saintly when in reality someone might buckle. The message is forced even more once Shalhoub's sons is also rounded up and taken away causing him to toss his badge. The message slaps you across the face sure but it works effectively.

This being a Washington movie you know its gonna be decent, you just know...and this doesn't disappoint. Visually its very slick and  effective in getting across its now very realistic message. The only let down for me was probably Bening who didn't really fit her part in my opinion, she comes as someone more concerned about their hair looking right plus her plot setup with the Middle Eastern chap is too obvious really. Tension is reasonable but the film is a little too mainstream for you to actually start sweating over the outcome, its not like Washington is gonna bite the bullet is it, everyone else is fair game but not Denzel.

The ending is way too God bless America for my liking, although expected. Too neat and tidy as all the citizens are released with schmaltzy hugging scenes and Washington preaching about their forefathers and how they fought and died for the life they have today. He's right sure but it feels too much like an all American Boy Scout speech, you half expect the Star-Spangled Banner to kick off with fireworks in the sky.

As said its funny how back in 1998 this all seemed so unlikely, the notion that the US could be attacked on their own soil in such a devastating way. This whole martial law scenario and the rounding up of specific people was always possible but it still felt more like an old World War II flashback. These days the entire aspect has come true to a certain degree although not as bad as depicted in the film, its a much easier prospect to see becoming a reality within the US these days that's for sure. In the end the story boils down to the terrorists winning on a psychological level simple because the US way of life has been changed dramatically. Justice and democracy have gone out the window, fear and suspicion sits in its place.

6/10


Hubbs

Hubbs

#1135
From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money (1999)

So judging by the films cover you could be fooled into thinking this film was set in the 'Twitty Twister' and that Danny Trejo was a large part of the story. Alas this couldn't be further from the truth, this isn't necessarily a bad thing of course but they are clearly trying to hook your attention.

The plots follows a group of criminals who are planning a bank heist. The group are to meet in a seedy motel somewhere in Mexico but through various circumstances are attacked and turned into vampires one by one. During the heist the main protagonist discovers his mates are vamps and must fend them off along with the police force which turn up. In the end the film merely becomes a vampire vs police escapade with the lone surviving criminal teaming up with the Texas Ranger that was on his tail.

This second splatter fest starts off really slow and quite dull if you ask me, we merely follow Robert Patrick as he recruits the old gang for the heist. The group itself are a mixed bag and you can see they have tried to create that iconic team of hardass oddballs we've seen many times before. You've got a fat guy with a ponytail and goatee (the homosexual sadistic porn shop owner from 'Pulp Fiction'), an aging cowboy, a young innocent looking guy (Woody Harrelson's brother) and the stereotypical tough guy played by Raymond Cruz who kinda feels like a male version of 'Vasquez' from 'Aliens'.

Once things get going on the road trip it still takes its time and feels slow. There is a pointless cameo for the 'Titty Twister' merely so they can shove in Danny Trejo with an aimless subplot and so the crooks can start getting bitten. I still have absolutely no clue how Trejo's character is suppose to have survived the first film after being reduced to mush. This also tends to bring up the continuity issue of where are all the other characters from the first film? If Trejo's 'Razor Eddie' is still alive then surely all the other main vampires and fallen bikers are still alive and well too (or undead and well). Plus the vampire bar is clearly a bad small set and doesn't really look like the original films set. This was a real let down for the film seeing as the bar is the main money shot of the franchise, where it all happens so to speak.

The film really picks up when all the cops turn up to stop the bank heist and the undead crooks all go berserk. The whole story takes a U-turn and goes from dark vampire splatter horror to an over the top action bonanza with the four baddie vamps gunning down hordes of policemen and S.W.A.T. teams amidst exploding police cars. Remember when Arnie takes down all the cops and cop cars with his minigun in 'T2'? well this is pretty much identical to that accept there is lots of blood and body parts flying around. I can't lie, I really did enjoy this part of the movie as it really changes the pace of the film upping it drastically. The action isn't the best choreographed action you've seen but it does the job and its pretty neat watching these invincible vampires leaping around and taking down various armed police.

Like much of the film the effects are all hands-on real time effects using fake blood, prosthetics, heavy makeup, puppets etc...and like the original film it works giving a much grittier 80's feel to the proceedings. There is a touch of CGI for the melting vamp shots which is a bit hokey looking but again like the original film it doesn't detract from the nicely handled gore.

I did like this film once things started to actually get going with the vampires, but boy does it take time for that. Much of the run time is a bit dull in all honesty...until the excellent shoot out with the cops. It is a bit frustrating at times too as some shots are badly edited, the sets are pokey, location work is visually unexciting and overall it does look very cheap and cheerful. I can overlook that but geez! here and there it really looks poor. There is a small Bruce Campbell cameo at the start which really feels like its there just to gain more interest with horror fans as again it pointless. Basically most of this film is very average but the violent finale makes up for most of it. The final bit of dialog between Patrick's criminal character and Hopkins' Texas Ranger was hinting to set up a vampire hunting team possibly for the third film, I thought...guess not.

Cute bit of info, the character of 'Deputy Edgar McGraw' in this film is the son of 'Sheriff Earl McGraw' from the original film. In the original film Sheriff McGraw is played by Michael Parks who is the real life father of James Parks who plays Deputy McGraw in this sequel.

6.5/10


KiramidHead

Quote from: Hubbs on Jul 28, 2014, 12:42:04 AM
Cute bit of info, the character of 'Deputy Edgar McGraw' in this film is the son of 'Sheriff Earl McGraw' from the original film. In the original film Sheriff McGraw is played by Michael Parks who is the real life father of James Parks who plays Deputy McGraw in this sequel.

Both characters also appeared together in the first Kill Bill. :)

Hubbs

Machete Kills (2013)

Hey I just realised something that I forgot to mention in the original movie review. You all remember Rodriguez's film 'Desperado' right. Well isn't the character of 'Machete' first seen played by Trejo in that film? the dude with all those small throwing knives strapped around his waist, its virtually the same character.

Well once again this movie kicks off with those washed out, scratchy grungy 70's looking exploitation visuals. We actually get quite a neat little retro styled cinema introduction to yet another parody trailer for yet another Machete flick, this time in space. There is that same deep gravely voice narrating the trailer as the corny trademark infringing action explodes onto the screen accompanied by more cheesy action music and lots of hammy retrotastic onscreen text. Quite liked the little moment where 'Bleep' the robot played by Justin Bieber (not really) gets blasted to pieces.

From here on though the decision has been made to continue the rest of the films visuals in regular glossy Hollywood fashion dropping the rough grungy B-movie look. I'm not really too sure why they would do that seeing as that visual appearance is the whole point of the franchise, that's its quirky raison d'etre, without it the movie just becomes another daft action flick...only this is just absurdly ridiculous bordering on spoof-like. Unfortunately this is exactly what happens, this movie is so slapdash and crazy that you simply can't really enjoy it. All rules of reality and beyond go completely out the window as Machete is 100% invincible and can literately do anything that is required. Jumping from a great height out of a helicopter into a speed boat and taking out the bad guys on board...no problem, just press the X button and the right shoulder button to perform this special move.

Thing is you have the same issue when reviewing these type of flicks. I know its all been shot like this on purpose, I realise the extreme gory bullet ridden lunacy is part of the intentional charm, I realise the characters are larger than life and totally hokey and the whole movie is just a big insane comicbook of violence. I think we all know this, but at what point does it simply go too far and become shit? The plot really doesn't matter in this film (Machete vs Gibson and lots of various henchmen) as its entirely about the action set pieces, one after another, bigger and bigger, more and more over the top. Nothing matters in the film anymore because the protagonist is so God-like its all meaningless, its like playing a videogame with the infinite energy cheat on, fun at first but very boring after about ten minutes.

There are only a few positives with this film, one being the unique mix of casting (kinda). The first movie had Seagal as the main boss, this time its Mel Gibson...and I can't deny he does save the day. Seeing Mel play the Bond-esque villain is a real breath of fresh air and he clearly enjoys it. Lets not get carried away he doesn't really do much other than stand around and reel off cliched dialog but his presence is felt, he oozes a slick charm that just makes his villainy so watchable (despite it being highly childish nonsense). The moment he puts the silver mask on the film just sinks to yet another level of utter childish meaningless futile crapola...yet somehow its kinda cool. Why would his voice deepen with the mask on? why are his footsteps now like Robocop? why does he not treat his face before putting the mask on? and how does the mask not move around and feel really uncomfortable? Pointless questions I know but I gotta ask.

The rest of the cast are mainly the same as before accept we have more outrageous cameos this time. Lady Gaga as a hitwoman with a talent for disguises (I think)...this led to various little pointless cameos. Savini is back but has changed sides, Rodriguez still plays the tough bitch and still looks like she needs a wash whilst Charlie Sheen goes by his birth name to play the US President. Probably the second best thing about this film after Gibson, Sheen basically plays 'Charlie Harper' as the US President...which basically means he's playing his usual womanising self.

The best description for this film frankly is a violent adult version of Austin Powers mixed with James Bond. It sounds like a cheesy thing to say (or type even) but its true! you only have to see the last half of the film which is set in some kind of big weapons lab to realise what I mean. Hell...Gibson only needs a white cat under his arm and the transition would be complete. The only other thing I quite liked was the fact the ending is open and leads into the plot from the trailer you see at the start of the film. The down side of that is the worry they might actually make a third film called 'Machete Kills Again in Space'! This may as well be a comedy because it sure as hell would be a total spoof of damn near everything ever. Time to let this go I think Mr Rodriguez, you had your fun in the first film which was quite good, but this has now gone too far, its been milked and the moment has well and truly past.

4/10

First Blood

shut your whore mouth

Spoiler
but tickle my balls
[close]

Hubbs

Quote from: First Blood on Aug 03, 2014, 03:55:25 AM
shut your whore mouth

Spoiler
but tickle my balls
[close]

Why is everybody wanting to sexually assault me in some way lol!

First Sweeper now you...geez get in line!

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News