Glass - a review

The final issue of the Unbreakable-trilogy. Our three ‘blessed’ people: Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson), The Horde (James McAvoy) and The Overseer (David Dunne) are captured and placed in a mental institution. Are they all insane to believe that they are superhuman or is there something at play here? Mr. Glass knows.

Glass just doesn’t work!

It’s a well made movie that gets bogged down by the sequel-curse.

Scream 2 explained the rules for a horror sequel. Me, here; I could explain the rules of a comic-book-movie sequel. But the Unbreakable-trilogy is a special case in that regard because it isn’t as flashy as your run-of-the-mill Marvel or DC extravaganza. One could, very well call the trilogy ‘urban drama’.

Still a lot of the things Glass does are reminiscent to ‘mistakes’ in various sequels made previous. The movie could’ve done without those. Let’s just name some things that I noticed.

Mr. Glass

The movie is called Glass. Yet, the main character of the movie isn’t really Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson) himself but rather The Horde (James McAvoy). The Horde steals every scene he is in whilst Mr. Glass is catatonic for the first hour.

Then, when Mr. Glass comes to play his master scheme is above all underwhelming.

This has a lot to do with the premise of the ‘two towers’ –two new skyscrapers set to be unveiled at a certain date. The movie is dangling the carrot of a massive fight between The Overseer (Bruce Willis) and the Horde at this location in front of the audience yet it never gets there.

This sort of trick never really works unless it is a misdirection for something greater –like, for instance, the brilliant forty-minute dialogue in Kill Bill volume 2 (and still it gave us the showdown).

Instead the main fight takes place (in daylight) at the front lawn of the institution. That doesn’t quite work for me.

The Horde

Whenever a sequel is made writers want to return to previous characters. This isn’t always needed. Glass is filled to the brim with (basically) unnecessary characters. Elijah’s mother makes an appearance, Dunn’s son, Kevin’s surviving victim. And none of them really get a lot to do.

Not to mention the unneeded M. Night cameo.
The cameo was fun (I can’t blame the man) but his character-explanation was cringe worthy.

Though, I understand that in a meta-sense, he's talking to the public here.

I understand that it’s a reference to the comic-books (it is even spotlighted by Mr. Glass’s comment). But if characters don’t get involved in the story and are reduced to merely standing about watching things happen then they have no function.

The Overseer

As is often the case in sequels the actors might have changed their persona and as such changed their attitude to a role. Harrison Ford is often grumpy nowadays and Al Pacino is always shouting. Bruce Willis is also a bit more grumpy but he does give his best in this movie. Yet, the script doesn’t allow him to overcome this 'grumpyness' by giving him some more character work.

I believe that an actor can get into an 'old part' like a pair of comfortable slippers. But he/she does need some scriptual thing to get him there. Glass simply doesn't give Bruce Willis the leeway to build upon.

This is especially apparent by the exclusion of the mother/wife character previously played by Robin Wright. There isn’t a moment of sadness or remorse allowed for the actor (Bruce Willis) to work with.

I believe the movie should've kept her character; if not for the simple fact that it is far more believable that she's still alive rather than Elijah's mother.

It is obvious (I own the DVD so I know) that the flashbacks in Glass are deleted scenes from Unbreakable.

It’s fun to include them in this movie but it only serves as a connection rather than a enrichment of the story.

It can also be seen as ‘cheap’.

Come out to play: Patricia

When dealing with sequels writers often don’t want to include new characters. They just want to ‘play around’ with the ‘cool ones’ they already created.

The female psychiatrist (Sarah Paulson), is a prime example of this, as she has no backstory whatsoever. She’s just there.

One short scene between her and James Dunn’s son reveals a little bit about her but, for the rest, she remains a mystery. Again, this moves all the focus to The Horde.

But, of course, this takes away, all possibilities for a fresh new story.

Come out to play: Barry

I applaud the fact that M. Night decided to let go of ‘twisting’ in every movie he touches. However, the reveal he pulls in Glass (it’s not a twist in the ‘pull the rug from under you’ kind of way) comes far too late.

This is the suspense element. The audience is never informed about a possible double agenda some characters might be having because ‘we’ never got to know the character. So when the story shifts the audience (or me, at least) isn’t really impressed.

SPOILER: Also the reveal about Kevin Crump’s father has been canon ever since Split

 so that, to me, wasn’t very impressive either.

Come out to play: Dennis

In my perfect version of the movie Glass a lot of the returning characters should be written out.

The characters left who are needed to tell the story should be explored more and, above all, interact with each other more. With this some more focus on the relationship between Mr. Glass and the Overseer would be very welcome (they don’t share a single scene face-to-face together). And -only then- some more suspense by informing the audience about what is really going one would be great. Lastly I would drop that whole ‘two towers’ carrot. Because, if you aren’t even going there don’t warm the audience for it.

Now, in the current version, Glass feels like a 90 minutes movie that would’ve worked better as a one-hour movie. Meaning, some new storylines should’ve been introduced to make it longer, better and more fulfilling.

I think this movie came too soon for M. Night. He should’ve worked on the script a few drafts more.

Come out to play: Hedwig

Still, the movie as is, is quite a fun feature. Glass shows, once again, that M. Night is far more at home with a small scaled movie than he is with blockbuster world-building franchise-fare. His shots are playful. Each and every reflexion shot is a feast for the eyes.

He does know how to get the best out of actors (McAvoy is the prime example here; the way he shifts from personality to personality is great). But, at the same time, he is still lacking the iron grip of ‘reeling in’. This either on set or by editing after. Meaning: he gives James McAvoy far too much room in this movie to play with. Again, for a movie called Glass, it is basically Split 2.

Come out to play: Beast

I had a fun time at the movies. I understand where the writer/director wanted to go with this well shot and acted (for the characters that were allowed to) movie. But, at the same times, I was underwhelmed. I could see the potential on the horizon but Glass never really gets there.

Glass is the weaker of the three (like the Godfather III) in the trilogy. A good movie; but not the perfect end I hoped for.

Tim’s Vermeer – a review

An entrepreneur –slash- inventor has stumbled upon a theory that the Golden Age Dutch painters used a photographic technique to make their paintings. Once he told his friend Teller his theory this documentary was made. As we –the audience- journey with this man: Tim as he explores the probable impossibility.

Like everybody I know who Penn and Teller are. Two gifted magicians who are always upfront about the fact that it isn’t ‘magic’ they are performing but a trick. Honest magicians as it were.

So imagine my surprise when these two ‘career fraudsters’ produced and directed a documentary in which they are selling quite a strange concept: that Dutch Golden age painter Johannes Vermeer used photographic techniques to make his paintings.

Just reading the basic premise sent my mind spinning and screaming: “mockumentairy”! I mean, it’s much in the style of Welles’ A for fake in which the director claimed that Picasso didn’t make his paintings (only for him, in the last minutes or so, gleefully acknowledging that he made the whole thing up).

Yet, in Tim’s Vermeer there is no twist ending. The theory posed is brought as real.

But I have my doubts about it. Visually the movie isn’t very convincing that (our hero) Tim actually managed to create the entire painting he set out to do. There are quite a few shots of him, in fact, paining but only short shots. That combined with the elephant in the room of two known tricksters the sense of ‘possible bamboozlement’ stays with you right through the end credits.

It could all be a ‘long con’, with the creators only revealing the truth years into the future.

But it could also not be. That’s the fun part and also the point I’m making. Tim’s Vermeer has willingness to believe stacked against itself. There’s, throughout the movie, an aura of doubt present that I simply could not shake.

But this feeling is exactly the thing that elevated the movie for me. Because this ambiguity made me constantly accept and reject notions posed in the movie. I, as an audience felt like an active part in the movie. But, in the end, I’m still not a 100% convinced that what I saw was real.

But what if it is?

The ambiguity (maybe unwittingly) helped the movie. But this can only happen if a movie is good to begin with. You could throw all the ambiguity in (e.g.) Terminator Salvation but, in the end, it is still a terrible movie.

So let’s, for the sake of argument, accept that what Tim’s Vermeer is telling us is real. That there is an inventor who never painted before in his life who- by means of experimenting with a camera obscura managed to prove his theory that the master painter Johannes Vermeer could’ve used the same technique for his paintings.

To sell such a grand notion the movie does exactly what needs to be done: ease the audience in slowly. After the first bombshell: “I never painted before in my life” the movie takes a step back to let the audience get accustomed to the protagonist Tim.

These scenes are there just to get to know the man. Is the man smart enough? Yes. Is he silly enough? Yes. Is he rich enough? Yes.

With accepting this character/person as the one who could possibly pull it off the whole theory posed becomes plausible.

Then the movie slowly start to show the experiments. An old picture first, then a milk jug. Just to prove that the technique is possible.

After that –by going ‘on the road’- it’s time to bring in the professionals who start off as (the audience) critical but then begin to see the possibility.

Only after a full hour, does the movie spring the big finale on the viewer by having ‘our hero’ (by now) painting a full colour, full size, copy of Vermeer’s Music lesson.

It is a gradual storytelling technique Tim’s Vermeer uses that (much like a magic trick) eases the audience in. By the end of the movie you are more than willing to accept that the camera obscura technique is possible and that Tim is a hero.

In this sense the movie follows three paths: informative, road movie and feel-good. And, like layers of paint these elements complement each other.

You can’t finish this movie without a smile on your face. Maybe it’s all a big magic trick but, basically, you don’t care. What Tim’s Vermeer delivers is an intriguing theory about Golden age painting in the Netherlands combined with a charming hero for the audience to root for.

But I still have my doubts.

Mixed Tape Movies: Welcome to the jungle

In the eighties it was the-thing-to-do to make a mixed tape (like an mp3 but touchable, always in need of a pencil and definitely cooler). On it you would make a little playlist of all the cool songs. Now the trick was to make each song correspond with the rest of the tape. In this post I will try to do the same with movies.

Every once in a while I will select a general topic and select movies to accompany it. As you can see the more child-friendly movies are at the start of the day, but  when night falls: ‘here be monsters’. Please feel free to give suggestions of other unknown movies.

One rule though: Auteur themes like ‘Shakespeare’ or ‘James Bond’ are not allowed. ‘Spy-movies’, naturally, are.

Theme: Welcome to the jungle.

I’ve never been to the jungle. I’ve never handled a machete to carve my way through the bush. But, talking about movies I do know one thing: jungles are always adventures. Now I kept away from Indiana Jones (not a lot of jungles in those movies) or King Kong just to keep things interesting. So put on your raincoat and grab your knife because you are going into the green!

08:00-10:00

The jungle book: The classic. Forget about the various live-action remakes. This Jungle Book is the only one that matters (though I thought the Netflix version was rather good as well). It has everything a good Disney has to offer: brave heroes, dastardly villains and a good heart at its core.

10:00-12:00 

Jungle 2 jungle: The idea is simple: New York is called a ‘jungle’. So; why not take a real jungle kid there. And so the story was born. However, leave it up to Disney to get a sweet tale out of it.

12:00-14:00

George of the jungle: I love this little rage in the ‘90s when (lesser known) pop-culture items were made into big movies (Dennis the Menace, Mr. Magoo and the Stupids being the others I enjoyed). ‘George’ is hilarious all the way (even the sequel). I don’t know why really but it has a heart and it has George slinging his vine into a tree every three minutes so I’m happy.

14:00-16:00

Tarzan: Phil Collins wrote some of his best songs for this movie (though Jesus he knows me is still the best) which, as it turned out, caused the whole ordeal known as The emperor’s new groove (watch the fascinating documentary The sweatbox). Still this movie stands as one of the best ‘new wave’ Disney animations. The last moment in time in which the studio wasn’t afraid to show some real terror.

16:00-17:00

Romancing the stone: A love story at its core. This movie has everything, thick jungle plants, swinging vines, drug smugglers, crooked bridges, hungry alligators and -of course- ‘Pepe’. This movie is 80s adventure to the max and so enjoyable.

17:00-19:00

Medicine man: Sean Connery is terrible at accepting scripts (he turned down the role of Gandalf and his tailor-suited role in Skyfall). But when he accepts a script he gives his all. Here he plays the man curing cancer in a movie troubled by terrible voice-overs. But still, with Connery on the job you can only marvel.

19:00-21:00

The emerald forest: A boy gets lost in the jungle. The father (after grieving) continues his job at the local dam. The boy returns and father and son reunited over the destruction of the villainous, environmentally dangerous, dam.

This is the story in a nutshell but, strangely enough, it works. Moreover, it tells you that movies in the 80s were a lot more preoccupied by making the world a better place than they are now.

21:00-23:00

The secret of the Incas' empire: Now, I had a blank to fill. I haven’t been able to re-see this movie for over twenty years (yes, I’m that old). So my review is based on memory and thus biased.

What did I like about this movie when I was a child? It was bloody bloody! It had a nice Indiana Jones kinda fibe to it, and it ended happily within a guy swinging a vine above a pit of lave yelling: “I’m not bloody Indiana Jones!” to his girlfriend in need of rescue.

If I can ever refind it on youtube I will write a full article about it. For now accept this movie as an Italian rip-off of the Indiana Jones-franchise and have fun with it, because that’s what it had with it, a lot of fun whilst waiting for Indiana Jones 4…oh sh*t.

23:00-01:00

Anaconda: Forget Snakes on a plane. Just focus on one big bloody snake –meters long. This snake has every intention of eating each and every explorer trying to find it. Luckily the movie knows that that’s not enough to keep an audience invested so it toys around the genre. Basically Anaconda is a dark comedy. And if you see it as such (with some beers) it becomes hilarious.

01:00-03:00  

Predator: The official ‘rumble in the jungle’. An intergalactic hunter versus our own ‘Dutch’ Arnold Schwarzenegger (the guy is so impressive he never had to change his name). The interesting thing is the amount of blood this movie allows. This is ‘Arnie’ at his finest. All of it taking place in the tropical jungle.

Honourable mentions:

Tropic Thunder: A fun genre movie that pokes fun at the cinema industry. And that's the point, it's more about the movie-business than it is about the jungle.

Boy Erased – a review

A young man Garret (Lucas Hedges), son of a priest, discovers that his sexuality leans towards men. To counter this he enrols into a religious program that will ‘cure’ him of his ‘affliction’. As this is the only way, he (and his father) believes, that he can stay in God’s good grace.

Up front: I’m agnostic. I’m pro-homosexuality. And I distrust people who use religion for their own agendas (so most religious people).

So Boy Erased is a movie that peaked my interest. The added bonus is that it has the Aussies Kidman, Edgerton and Crowe in it.

To get the biggest critiques out of the way first. This movie can be labelled ‘Oscar bait’. It is released right before the award-season and it features ‘Academy worthy subject material’.

Of course this isn't the movie's fault. Rather a: mistake after the fact (after the movie was shot).

This is a bit of a shame because this (wanting to be Oscar material) takes away a bit of the message of the movie: the perversion of organized religion.

Second, I would argue, that the movie doesn’t really go that deep into the whole conversion theory as I expected. But that’s probably me expecting a new Oranges are not the only fruit which featured a full blown gay-banishment-exorcism.

Still as an insight into the extremities of religion's dealing with homosexuality this movie asks quite a few intriguing questions that don’t always give you a black-and-white answer.

Note here that I am constantly using the word ‘religion’ not ‘faith’.

Homosexuality and religion

The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. I looked it up (Leviticus 18:22) in my version. However, my version is the newest translation of a 1800-year-old book. But let’s not discuss theology here. Here I wish to focus on the practice this movie focuses on: conversion therapy.

To deny a person to be who he or she is and actually using God’s (possible) wrath as a tool to break people into becoming someone they are not.

This is an interesting concept for a movie to ‘toy around with’. And this is what you see in Boy Erased. Each and every character who works for the church honestly believes that he is doing the right thing. That by ‘curing’ homosexuality they are saving a young person’s soul.

Can you blame a person for believing that he’s helping you?

The movie is (at times) pretty straightforward about it. One character in particular is all ‘God saved me’ in public but the minute he’s alone with the protagonist the name-calling begins. This is a creep who honestly believes he has God on his side – so he’s allowed to be two-faced despicable.

Yet, another character is basically ‘just’ bad at the job he believes in. Does that make him a clear-cut villain? This is a question that lingers.

Ambiguous love

I’m a romantic at heart so of course I want the main protagonist to tenderly fall for the handsome bloke across the room. But, what I found intriguing in Boy Erased in that both of Garreth’s flings shown aren’t a hundred percent free will.

The first one is obvious, no discussion. But the second, no matter how tender and sweet the man was, Garreth still smoked a joint beforehand.

It’s this ambiguity that I liked. Love isn’t always easy. And by making it a bit more problematic for Garreth the movie is giving some points to the ‘conversion program’. ‘Point’ that get squandered minutes later, no problem there. The movie is quite clear in its standpoint.

Times a changing

The third question is about feminism. In various religious cults the women are behind the men. Not next to them. Boy Erased highlights this by one very simple trick: The protagonist’s father owns a car dealership yet it is the mother who drives everywhere. A woman behind the wheel is, in various religions, still a big no-no.

So the fact that the father ‘allows’ his wife to drive but, at the same time, does not allow his son to be gay makes for an interesting juxtaposition.

Naturally this all comes to show when the twitchy, nervous mother (a wonderful part by Nicole Kidman) slowly but surely decides to go against her husband and protect her son.

Organized religion is losing its grip on the world as people are treated more and more equal. A message that rings through the mother-character. But, at the same time, she will stick with her husband for all eternity.

Storytelling

Joel Edgerton is quite the gifted actor/director. His previous film The gift was a brilliant little thriller that, on a slow pace, managed to get the best performances out of its actors.

Boy Erased has the same slow pace. With the occasional flash-back the movie tells a pretty straightforward story. It takes about ten minutes for the credits to appear.

The movie doesn’t rely on flashy camera movements. And even the sets and costumes are soberly styled. Only once does the movie allow some warm lights onto the screen which is, of course, when Garret has his first real love-affair with another man.

Edgerton’s movies feel documentary like. Just place the camera and let the story unfold. Which is a style that works perfectly for the stories he’s telling. Crowe, Kidman, Hedges and Edgerton himself shine as the camera almost leans back and takes it all in.

Cured?

I haven’t read the book the movie is based up. So plot points that I felt overdid the message a bit might have happened in real life –I don’t know.

Still, for a movie that quite clearly states that conversion theory is a devilish torture technique. It also offers enough food for thought to wonder about.

It is this ambiguity that I liked. It is easy to call religious people 'out of whack'. But it is another thing to investigate: why!

Bumblebee – a review

A young girl Charley (Hailee Steinfeld) finds a yellow Volkswagen Beatle on a shipyard. Taking the car home she soon discovers that she is now part of an interstellar war between the Autobots and the Decepticons.

We all have that ‘one friend’ with a terrible taste in movies. It’s not that they have bad taste per se, but rather that they can’t recognize the stinker amongst the pearls. So, a few years back I made the mistake of letting him pick the movie; he chose Transformers: the dark side of the moon.

Thankfully that movie is utterly forgettable. And according to what I read online the down-wards spiral of quality continued into the latest outings. That is until the franchise got rebooted and Bumblebee was born.

The rise of Bumblebee

Who would’ve thought? A rather good Transformers-movie. In fact Bumblebee is actually a rather enjoyable movie in its own right.

Now there are quite a few tricks pulled that made it happen. But the bottom-line is that Bumblebee knows what it is selling and knows how to keep an audience invested.

Bumblebee Back

The main trick is the setting and the story. The western entertainment industry is currently in yet another nostalgic phase (thanks to Stranger Things amongst others). So, obviously setting Bumblebee in the 1980s allows for all kinds of retro-vibes.

And since Bumblebee speaks through music on the radio it allows the movie to use some good songs.

In that sense it is a shame that the movie uses a current song for the credits. But that’s just nitpicking.

But most of all the writer of the movie managed to include a whole array of scriptural gags that come back time and again. It’s the summer blockbuster blue-print (invented in the ’80s) that is used here to the letter.
For instance: The main protagonist excels in a certain sport, of course this will be used at some point in the movie. Bumblebee watches a certain movie. Of course he will mimic what he saw at a certain time.

It may be a safe bet but it is also something the audience enjoys. So why shouldn't I?

Bumblebee heart

But most of all the screenplay tries to give the movie a heart. It may be a plot-point that has been done to death but; if it is suitable, capably written and well acted it always works!

So where every Transformer to date has been all about smashing robots and Shia Labouf trying to get it on with the new girl on the block. Bumblebee actually delivers on a caring protagonist with a loving family and even a military man in Michael Cena who has character, humour and (oh my) intelligence.

The robot smashing, in this sense, is almost an afterthought. This movie knows that a fight sequence only works if the audience is invested. So you need a lot of story before ‘push comes to shove’.

And, then, when the fight sequence finally happens it is a well choreographed feast for the eyes. No quick annoying editing. No shaky cam. Quite well staged robot-kung fu (or karate).

A female action movie

Bumblebee was written by a woman. This isn’t particularly needful information if not for the fact that, while there are many tropes from past (safe '80s) movies being reused it are the gender (sexual) tropes that are turned upside down.

The protagonist is her own strong woman who doesn’t let others dictate her life for her. So there is no smooching between her and her (maybe) boyfriend when the moment arises.

Heck, in this movie it are the boys who keep on losing their shirts for no reason at all.

But, most of all, our heroine is human. She brushes her teeth and rinses (how often does that happen in movies), she has pimples, she doesn’t wear high-heels during a robot fight and actually knows how to work a wrench. All rather refreshing.

Cinematography

The reason why I decided to give Bumblebee a go was because of the director Travis Knight. Me, being a massive Laika-junky, and him having done Kubo and the two strings my interest was peaked.

Also the fact that Hailee Steinfeld was in it helped; because I don’t think I’ve ever seen her deliver a sub-par performance (though I’m not a fan of her music).

(I wrote this bit ages ago; looking for a moment when I could use it):

The Taken-clones like 3 days or Erased.

Basically they are European vacations for the actors.
(Especially the young actresses playing the obligatory teenaged daughter).

In short: Liana Liberato had to work a lot harder than Haylee Steinfeld did.

So Liana spent less time on the beach than Haylee did!

She’s one of the next generation actors and actresses who are quite gifted in the craft. Unfortunately some of these actors (I’m not naming names) are terrible at choosing which movie to appear in.

Travis Knight makes good usage of the notion that there is a relationship between a giant robot and a teenaged girl. Much like Del Toro’s Pacific Rim or studio Ghibli My neighbour totoro he too uses the image of juxtaposing the two characters next to each other in various stylized shots.

One shot in particular that I enjoyed is an easy one to spot in the climactic fight.

Above all, for a director, Bumblebee is an effects movie. But instead of letting most scenes roll out of the computer, Knight actually made the effort of creating a shot where the CGI would fit in without overtaking the entire frame.

Is it a reboot (I hope so)

In the end Bumblebee is a blockbuster movie to enjoy on a Friday night out. It is a bit more keyed to the younger female audience. But that should bother nobody.

And, of course, the Asian market where people love the Transformer movies.

As a movie it is well shot with a coherent plot (for once) and interesting character-development running between the robot smack downs. A swell ride of a movie that (‘here I go’) actually managed to transform the transformers franchise for the better.

Overlord – a review

A platoon of soldiers are parachuting into enemy territory to destroy a radio tower on top of a church. Once landed they find far more than they have bargained for as the evil oppressors' scientists have tapped into something vile and unholy.

Overlord began as a hard sell for me. The first fifteen minutes alone are filled to the brim with eye-rolling moments. The obvious one being the American tendency to rewrite history. African-American soldiers were rare in WOII (only 125.000 according to Wikipedia) and that is without the racist segregation they endured.

But I could’ve lived with that if the characters actually behaved like soldiers.

It gets worse

The most basic of military tactics are forgotten almost instantly. The main character removes his helmet for no logical reason. Then he and his platoon stomps around in enemy territory while having loud conversations. Not to mention the brilliant idea to walk through an open field instead of hiding in the tree line.

Okay, so we’ve got incapable soldiers and creative history lessons. Again that would’ve been fine if the characters were interesting. Unfortunately, they’re not!

There’s no intriguing back-story, character-motivation or any of that. Basically Overlord offers a bunch of archetypes (the loudmouth, the romantic, the tough guy) thrown into the mix together. Most of the characters are, in fact, actually more annoying than intriguing.

Then, in some leap of logic, the movie feels the need to explain to the audience that Nazi’s aren’t nice people (being mean to a little kid). This I found rather strange because, after all, they are bleeding Nazi’s. Why does the movie go all out to emphasize their villainy?

Could it get even worse?

Scriptwriting then. That’s some insane creative writing across the board. Two examples:

1. We knocked out the head-Nazi do we A) kill him with a knife, strangulation or go all ‘The hateful eight’ on him? Or, B) we tie him up so he can escape later in the movie?

2. A character needs to enter the enemy base do we A) make it part of his plan. Or, B) let a dog chase him into a moving truck.

Again this soldier-extraordinaire is walking in the middle of the road.

And then there are the clichés like: everybody speaking English. Enemy soldiers being absent when important plot-points are being discussed. The inclusion of the local woman who happens to move the plot forwards. The heroic sacrifice. People getting the drop on somebody. The (numerous) just-in-time-saves. Or, my personal favourite, the American-super-soldiers-who-can-kill-tons-of-Nazi’s-and-somehow-survive.  

By the end of this World-War-II-movie-cliché-train I was convinced that Overlord would offer up a twist that reveals some stoned gamer trying to retell the story of Return to Castle Wolfenstein to his friends and failing.

I can’t be that terrible can it?

There must be something I liked about Overlord?

Well, the gore is fun –if you like such a thing (I don’t care much about it- though I did enjoy the literal talking head). The scares are mostly of the ‘Boo-calibre’; but thankfully not overdone. And there are two clever shots in the movie: ‘the first parachute jump’ and the ‘base escape’. But that is mostly it.

The rest of this movie is just an insane rehash of hateable card-board characters with a ramshackle cliché-filled plot to get them from A to B. It's not even silly fun, but annoying.

Yes the movie is that terrible; I’m amazed about it.

Overlord truly is a terrible, terrible movie. There are no two ways about it for me. I would only recommend this movie to those people who like to (out loud) predict what is going to happen next.

Usually these persistent bastards people are wrong in their prediction. But even they can’t go wrong with seeing everything Overlord has to offer a mile away. If they can stay awake that long that is.