Month: February 2020

Released: February 2020

Director: Cathy Yan

Rated R

Run Time: 109 Minutes

Distributor: Warner Bros.

Genre: Action/Comedy

Cast:
Margot Robbie: Harley Quinn
Rosie Perez: Renee Montoya
Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Helena Bertinelli/Huntress
Jurnee Smollett-Bell: Dinah Lance/Black Canary
Ewan McGregor: Roman Sionis
Ella Jay Basco: Cassandra Cain
Chris Messina: Victor Zsasz

I’ve been a huge fan of comic book movies since I can remember.  Two of the first comic book movies that I ever saw were the big ones: Superman: The Movie and Tim Burton’s Batman.  Superman was and still is an incredibly wonderful film.  I have the same feelings towards Batman.  It was a dark and Gothic film that was just wild.  Now, not everything that’s come out of the comic book world has successfully made the transition to film.  Some of the Superman and Batman sequels ended up being god-awful movies in general.  In fact, Batman and Robin almost killed the genre entirely when it was released back in 1997.  Thankfully, Blade came out the following year and was a major hit, but it wasn’t really until Marvel’s X-Men film that the genre was given new life.  The genre has had its ups-and-downs over the years, but it’s stronger than ever.  Marvel took the lead and Warner Bros. and DC have struggled to keep up.  It wasn’t until 2017 that DC and Warner Bros started hitting their stride with films like Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam!, and Joker.  These are absolutely fantastic films that prove that DC can still make good comic book movies.  So, what the hell happened with Suicide Squad and the new Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey film?  I’m calling the new film that because the original title was changed from this: Birds of Prey And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn.  That title was just one of the MANY problems this movie had.  Let’s dig into it.

The film follows Harley Quinn as she and The Joker have broken up.  As a result, everybody that she’s wronged is after including one Roman Sionis, a ruthless crime lord.  Roman is after a young pickpocket who stole a diamond that has information that Roman needs to get the resources to control all the crime in Gotham.  Teaming up with Dinah Lance, Huntress and cop Renee Montoya, they try to protect the young thief before Roman gets his hands on her.  Okay, I’ve got a bit of a mini-rant here:  When you’re marketing a film, especially with trailers, you eventually want to let the audience know what the movie is about.  Harley Quinn didn’t fucking do that.  The trailers didn’t tell me anything about the plot.  I didn’t figure it out until I actually saw the film, and the actual plot is…..lame.  The McGuffin of the film is a diamond.  A diamond.  I guess one could argue that the girl, Cassandra Cain is also a McGuffin.  From what I understand, the film was supposed to be about these women who team up to become the Birds of Prey, a group of female superheroes, I guess?  Here’s the problem:  These women don’t actually team up until the third act of the film, essentially making this a movie about Harley Quinn, which is what it should have been in the first place.  There is no real substance here.  This was supposed to be DC’s answer to Guardians of the Galaxy.  Here’s the problem:  It’s nowhere near as good.

Let’s talk about the stuff in the film that was actually good.  Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn is a revelation.  When she showed up in Suicide Squad, she nailed it.  She’s just as fantastic here.  She gives the character that manic insanity that defines Harley Quinn.  Jurnee Smollett-Bell as Black Canary was wonderful.  She was gorgeous and she kicked ass like there was no tomorrow.  Ewan McGregor has always been one of my favorite actors, and he steals the show whenever he’s on screen as Roman Sionis/Black Mask.  His chemistry with Chris Messina’s Victor Zsasz was absolutely magnetic.  Messina as Zsasz was really good.  That’s a character that is absolutely evil, but he still pales in comparison to McGregor’s character.  The action in the film earns the film its R-rating.  It hits hard and sometimes it’s pretty funny.  Watching Harley Quinn go to town on Sionis’ goons was pretty satisfying, and the final battle between the women and Sionis’ army was just….wow!  It was good.  When the women are on screen together, it’s one of the best on-screen team-ups I’ve seen in a while.  The chemistry between the characters is crazy awesome.  The film is also well-shot and is very colorful.

Okay, now let’s really get into why this film didn’t work for me.  Before anybody starts in with the whole “feminist” angle, let me be as forthcoming as I can be.  I have no problems with movies that have a feminist angle.  To me, it’s not as important as whether or not the film succeeds on its own merits.  Harley Quinn does not.  First of all, the character of Harley Quinn herself.  I love Margot Robbie as Quinn.  I think she’s absolutely wonderful.  The problem is that Quinn is what some critics call a side-character of a side-character.  She’s a side-character of the Joker, a force of nature unto himself, and Quinn is basically a knock-off of said force.  She’s a relatively new character in the grand scheme of DC Comics.  I think the character can be interesting, but she’s always been a one-note character and she can’t carry a major story by herself.  Another problem is the inclusion of Huntress.  It’s not that she shouldn’t have been included, but she really doesn’t figure into the film until the final act.  She gets no real character development outside of the fact that she is there to avenge her family.  That’s it.  The writing is also all over the place.  Yeah, the main characters and villains are very entertaining, but there’s nothing to this film beyond that.  The scripts seems to have been cobbled together by various people and the ideas just aren’t meshing.  It’s a puzzle where the pieces don’t fit.  The movie never should have been called Birds of Prey.  It’s not about them, it’s about Harley Quinn.  The fact that Warner Bros changed the name of the film after it’s opening weekend speaks volumes to the idea that this film was mishandled in the same fashion that Suicide Squad was.

Birds of Prey, at the end of the day, is a film that I feel never should have been green-lit in the first place.  It features characters that not a lot of people know a whole lot about, except for Harley Quinn and maybe Black Canary.  Outside of that, this film comes on the heels of a vastly superior film, Joker, which didn’t feel like a comic book movie, but was far more compelling.  Warner Bros. and DC Films have been on a role since 2017, so Birds of Prey not performing as well as Warner Bros. may have hoped isn’t going to be a deal breaker for the DCEU.  It really didn’t have a chance of being a huge movie anyway.  However, the writing and the direction of the film, combined with a horrific marketing campaign basically doomed this project from the start.  Sometimes a project that sounds good on paper should just stay that way.  There are definitely things that I like about this film, but they don’t come together in a coherent piece like they should.  Because of that, I just couldn’t connect with what was happening on the screen.  The women were fantastic as was Ewan McGregor, but even the most gung-ho of performances can’t save Birds of Prey/Harley Quinn from obscurity.  This is a film that’s going to be forgotten in a matter of weeks.  There are going to be people that enjoy it, and I think that’s great, but for me it just didn’t click.  I went in with pretty low expectations and I still came out disappointed.  Sorry, WB, try harder.

My Final Recommendation: Birds of Prey? More like Birds of Meh. 5/10.

As somebody who loves watching movies and blogs about it, I really enjoy the freedom to pick and choose the movies that I get to watch.  A lot of professional critics don’t get that freedom, so I’m kind of grateful that I do.  I watch all sorts of movies.  Like most people, I tend to gravitate towards genres and movie-types that align with my interests.  I love science fiction, action, horror, drama, musicals, and some comedies.  Every once in a while, I do branch out and check out different kinds of movies that are recommended by YouTubers and other critics.  Sometimes, I feel rewarded by my efforts and other times not.  I rarely regret watching certain kinds of movies.  It’s often a learning experience about how far I’m willing to push myself for my craft.  While I tend to watch a lot of films that can be approached by almost anybody, I have seen things that aren’t as accessible.  It’s not necessarily the actual availability of the film, but rather the content of the film that provides the barrier to entry.  For this particular list, I’m going to go over some films that I feel are absolutely fantastic, but not easily recommendable because the content can be rather grueling or controversial.  Let’s begin, shall we?

The Nightingale

I reviewed this one very recently, so it’s still fresh in my mind.  Wow.  This is definitely a brutal film, especially the first twenty minutes.  The level of violence and brutality on display here is enough to shake even the toughest film-goer.  The brutality is not just there for the sake of brutality, but to show a reality that convicts and the aboriginal people of 1825 Tasmania had to deal with from the British Empire.  It’s handled in a way that doesn’t feel exploitative like I Spit on Your Grave.  This is far more realistic and the historical context makes it have more of an impact.  If you can stomach the brutality, you have a film here that explores the natures of violence and revenge and how one constantly feeds the other.  The performances here are absolutely fantastic.  Aisling Franciosi, Sam Claflin, and Baykali Ganambarr all deliver performances that deserve recognition.  I think The Nightingale is a great film, but you have to sit through some pretty harsh material in order to see what the film is going for.

The Passion of the Christ

I honestly don’t consider myself a religious person or a believer, but I do appreciate some films that deal with certain religious themes and characters.  Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ is one of those films.  This was a very controversial film when it was released because of the level of violence in the film and how it portrayed certain Jewish characters as villains.  The thing is, if you read the stories about Jesus, he was betrayed by his own people.  However, he knew it was going to happen, and he allowed it to happen.  This is an emotionally grueling film that has some pretty harsh violence, but the brutal honesty of what Mel Gibson was trying to convey here was lost in the controversy surrounding not only the film, but Gibson’s own personal demons.  This is a tough movie, but it’s a movie with a message about forgiveness that is sadly lacking in today’s society.  Jim Caviezel’s performance as Jesus is absolutely astounding, even though his personal career took a major hit.  I think this film is incredibly underrated.  Is it the best film about Jesus?  That can be debated forever, but it is certainly a very compelling one.

12 Years A Slave

If Jennifer Kent’s The Nightingale was a look into one of the darkest moments in Australian history, then 12 Years A Slave is a look into one of America’s darkest moments.  Oddly enough, both films take place in almost the same time period, only separated by about 16 years.  Slavery was one of the worst atrocities that was committed on American soil, and Solomon Northup’s story was one of thousands.  It’s a tragic film about one man’s struggle to survive so he can escape back to his family.  Like the previous films on this list, 12 Years A Slave pulls no punches.  You see Northup being captured, sold and beaten over the 12 years that he spent in captivity.  Chiwetel Ejiofor’s performance is absolutely incredible and it’s definitely the one that keeps us watching.

I Saw The Devil

Never let it be said that Westerners have a monopoly on making brutal and hard-hitting films.  I Saw The Devil is an outstanding Korean revenge thriller that follows a detective hunting down a serial killer that brutally murdered his wife.  This movie is incredibly savage.  I saw this one years ago, and I haven’t seen it since.  It’s a haunting movie.  The violence is absolutely grisly and brutal, but it does serve a purpose.  The detective’s acts of revenge against his wife’s murder escalate to the point where he himself becomes a monster.  The film is pretty heavy-handed on the nature of revenge and how truly destructive it can be.  It’s a great movie with awesome performances, but it’s one that I am in no hurry to watch again.  I have to give it to South Korea, they really know how to craft a powerful and intense thriller.

The Hate U Give

The first, and most likely only PG-13 film on this list, The Hate U Give is based on a young adult novel of the same name.  It follows young Starr Carter as she struggles to deal with being caught in the middle of a police shooting that killed her friend.  While this film is the most accessible of the films I’ve already listed, don’t let the PG-13 rating fool you.  This is a film that deals with a very real problem in today’s world:  The systemic racism that’s a part of our so-called justice system.  Starr’s attempts to come to terms with a broken system leads her to find her voice against said system that failed her community.  While the film isn’t graphically violent or anything like that, it does offer a fairly honest look into a problem that’s affecting the African American community.  Like I said, the PG-13 allows more people to actually see this, but it’s not the easiest film to sit through, because of how emotionally powerful it is.  This is a film that will make you angry, and it should.  Films have power, and the fact that this one didn’t get as much attention as it deserved is criminal, in my opinion.

Joker

Joker is one of the more accessible films on this list, but that doesn’t mean it’s not uncomfortable to watch.  Everything from the cinematography, sets, and costumes to the performances and direction gives this “origin” story a more realistic vibe than you’re used to seeing from a character like this.  Joaquin Phoenix’s award-winning performance is one for the record books.  But the situation that Arthur Fleck is in combined with the fact that he’s been abused, not just by his mother, but also by a broken system and society that doesn’t care about him.  While Fleck suffers from some pretty severe forms of mental illness, it’s handled in such a way that makes him more sympathetic.  Yet, audiences are uncomfortable with the idea of humanizing a character that would become the future Clown Prince of Crime in Gotham City.  That’s the point, though.  This is a study of a character that’s been failed by everything and everyone around him and when he breaks, it’s all the more tragic.

Silence

Talk about a soul-crushing experience.  Martin Scorsese directs Silence, a film that follows two Jesuit priests who sail to Japan to find their lost mentor.  When they arrive, they are greeted by several Japanese converts, but they are also hunted down by the local government, aimed at stamping out Christianity.  As I said above, I’m not a believer, but seeing people of faith being crushed under the heels of an oppressive government is a hard thing to watch.  It’s definitely violent at times, although not overly graphic, but the way the Japanese soldiers treat the Christians is incredibly brutal.  You don’t have to be a believer to understand the suffering and brutality that’s being shown.  This is all based on actual events during the 17th century in Edo-era Japan.  It’s definitely worth watching at least once.  It’s an experience.

Those were my picks for some of the toughest movies to sit through.  Movies don’t always have to be entertaining to make an impact.  Sometimes, movies need to go to some really dark places to get their point across.  At the same time, sometimes an audience needs to get slapped in the face with some ugly truths about human nature.  The films that I brought up are absolutely incredible in nearly every way.  They’re not perfect by any means, but they are exceptionally well-crafted and performed.  Do I recommend these films?  Yes, but with a caveat:  Some of these movies feature some pretty brutal imagery and if you have an aversion to such imagery, I would advise you to look elsewhere.  For those that are brave enough to sail these waters, you’ll find films that can be rewarding in different ways.

Released: August 2019(Australia)

Director: Jennifer Kent

Rated R

Run Time: 136 Minutes

Distributor: IFC Films/Shout! Factory

Genre: Drama/Thriller/Horror

Cast:

Aisling Franciosi: Clare
Sam Claflin: Hawkins
Baykali Ganambarr: Billy
Damon Herriman: Ruse
Harry Greenwood: Jago
Michael Sheasby: Aidan

Before I begin this review of Jennifer Kent’s The Nightingale, I want to let everybody that know that I’m issuing a trigger warning for this film.  What I mean by that, is that there is imagery in this film that could trigger a powerful emotional response to what’s being shown.  In fact, at last year’s Sundance Film Festival, there were explicit warnings about the graphic nature of The Nightingale.  So much so, that they ended up having counselors at the ready in the event of somebody having a severe emotional reaction to the film’s content.  Various review sites and YouTubers have issued such warnings for this film.   Because of all that, I feel that is also my responsibility to issue a warning.  The Nightingale has multiple and graphic depictions of rape and brutal violence.  The context for all of this is based on actual history, but even so, if you have been a victim of a sexual assault or are easily disturbed by really graphic imagery, skip this movie.  In fact, if you are one of my readers and have been a victim, I would suggest that you either close the tab, hit the back button, or just close the browser and go somewhere else.  This is not a film for everyone and it is certainly not for those that are easily triggered.  You have been warned.

The Nightingale is set in Tasmania in 1825 when the British Empire was expanding it’s colonies and control over Australia.  The film follows Clare, a married Irish convict with a child, who is an indentured servant of Lieutenant Hawkins.  Hawkins is an ambitious military officer with his sights on a captaincy in a northern town.  After performing for a group of British soldiers, Clare asks Hawkins to release her as part of an agreement made three months prior.  Discovering that Hawkins won’t release her, Clare’s husband confronts the Lieutenant.  As a result, Clare and her family are brutally assaulted by Hawkins and his men.  Left for dead, Clare sets out on a quest for revenge against Hawkins by employing a local Aboriginal tracker named Billy.  I knew going into this film that The Nightingale wasn’t going to be a pleasant experience.  It really isn’t.  The first twenty minutes of the film are the cinematic equivalent of getting sucker punched and then getting kicked when you’re down.  What separates this film from something like say, I Spit on Your Grave is context and realism.  I Spit on Your Grave, while it has its brutal moments, it is ultimately a revenge fantasy.  The Nightingale is a story that is set in one of the darkest periods in Australian history.  As a result of that, Clare’s plight is but one of many similar stories that have played out over the course of Australia’s colonization.  The reality was that a lot of these British officers got away with a lot of terrible things that they did to not only the prisoners that were shipped from England and Ireland, but also the native Aboriginal tribes.  When you understand the historical context of the film, it makes the imagery that much more potent and the story that much harsher.  It’s a fantastic story and it’s one worth telling.

When it comes to the villains of the film, they do seem pretty two-dimensional, except for Hawkins.  This character is a guy that is only looking to improve his station and get a promotion.  He’s willing to step on any and everybody to get there.  This man is clearly some kind of patriot because he’s willing to do things for the British Empire.  That’s about the only real compliment that I can give such a despicable character.  Hawkins is a very ugly character on the inside and the cruelty that he inflicts on others reflects that ugliness.   His subordinates, Ruse and Jago, are just as guilty of heinous crimes as he is, although Jago seems to have a little bit of a conscience.  It doesn’t really help the character in the grand scheme of things, but it does go to show that even some brutal people are capable of some kind of regret.  Ruse, on the other hand, is a boot-licking carbon-copy of Hawkins.  He’s just as vile.  Sam Claflin’s performance as Hawkins is extraordinary.  This guy is known for playing relatively decent people, but in the case of The Nightingale, Claflin really dives in to make his character so hateful without him becoming a cartoon.  It takes real talent to do something like that.

Aisling Franciosi stars as Clare.  This was such an emotionally powerful performance that I couldn’t take my eyes off of her.  Films like this can’t be easy to make, especially when you’re dealing with such brutal imagery.  Her character is put through the ringer throughout the whole movie and she just nails every single moment.  From her anger to her moments of vulnerability, Franciosi is an incredibly gifted actress that gives it her all.  Baykali Ganambarr, in his first film, is simply magnetic as Billy, the Aboriginal person that Clare hires to guide her through the wilderness.  The moments between Clare and Billy are the reasons why I love movies.  The interactions between these two is wonderful.  Despite the character being a second-class citizen herself, Clare is racist against Billy and vice versa.  Over the course of the film, when these two begin to discover that they really aren’t that different in terms of their experiences with the English soldiers, you begin to see a stronger bond form between the two.

The Nightingale is a brutal film to watch.  The violence in the film isn’t always physical or sexual, even though that plays heavily into it.  The violence is also psychological.  Hawkins belittles and berates his subordinates any chance he gets, and Clare just comes down on Billy at times.  Aside from the fact that the film is set in 1825 Tasmania, what makes the violence in this film tough to watch is that it’s not an over-the-top gore-fest.  The film is an examination of violence and while it does shove your face in it from time to time, it’s never done in a way that feels exploitative.  It feels real, and you feel like you are in the middle of it.  The way that Jennifer Kent handles the brutality in the film is one that is based on historical events, as I have stated before.  Instead of being your typical revenge-thriller like the aforementioned I Spit on Your Grave, Jennifer Kent asks the question of how violence affects people, both the victim and the perpetrator.  Initially, Clare wasn’t going to let anything get in her way of killing Hawkins and his men.  However, because of her time spent with Billy over the course of the film, you begin to see her having doubts.  When she kills one of the soldiers, you see how devastating the effect of the act has on her and it’s tragic.  One of the bigger themes of the film is the futility of revenge and how damaging it can be to a person’s soul.  I love the fact that the film doesn’t offer the audience the typical cathartic effect that a revenge film normally would.

One of the things that I really love about this film is the way it was shot.  The cinematography is simply amazing.  The film was shot on location in Australia and Tasmania, so the authenticity of the film feels incredibly realistic.  The Nightingale was shot in the Academy ratio of 1.37:1.  What that means is that the film has two black bars on the sides of the screen if you’re watching on a wide-screen TV, which most of us are these days.  Other-wise, the film would be presented as a full-screen presentation.  I’ve seen two other modern films that utilize this ratio: The Lighthouse and The Assassin.  There’s a reason why this aspect ration was picked for this film.  The purpose of the Academy aspect ration is to focus on characters and their faces instead of the surrounding environments.  It allows for a more intimate and character-driven experience.  Because of that, the film ends up focusing on the pain and anguish of the characters as they are being brutalized, making for a far more uncomfortable experience.  It’s incredibly effective and I applaud Jennifer Kent for doing that.  If there’s really an issue that I have with this film, is that runs a little too long.  At 2 hours and 16 minutes, I feel that some scenes could’ve been trimmed a little bit to tighten up the pace a little bit.  I wouldn’t cut out ANY of the brutality, because that’s essential to the film’s purpose, but I would have cut back on some of the wandering and less important details.

The Nightingale is an experience of a film.  It’s a dark, bleak, and often depressing look at a very savage period in Australia’s history.  However, I think this film is very important in that regard.  We, as a society, stand here with a chance to learn from our history and not to repeat our mistakes.  There are a lot of moments throughout history that many “civilized” nations would like to forget, but shouldn’t.  Yeah, the film is loaded with scenes of brutal violence and rape sequences, but it’s important that we do see the ugly side of humanity so that we can learn not to do it anymore.  Do I recommend The Nightingale?  Not easily.  It’s an amazing film in every way from the filming and directing to the performances.  However, because of the graphic nature of the content, I can only recommend this film to those who are willing to stomach a very brutal and unflinching film.  It’s a powerful experience, but it’s not for everyone.  If you can make it past the first twenty minutes, I think you are going to be in for one hell of a film.

My Final Recommendation: 9/10.

Released: February 2020

Director: Ivan Silvestrini

Run Time: 95 Minutes

Rated PG-13

Distributor: Universal 1440 Entertainment

Genre: Fantasy/Adventure

Cast:
Joseph Milson: Darius
Jack Kane: Lukas
Carolina Carlsson: The Snake
Tam Williams: The Scorpion
Richard Ashton: The Wolf
Ross O’Hennessy: The Bear
Helena Bonham Carter: Siveth

When I made that post about franchises that just don’t seem to die, there were a few franchises in there that were unexpected: Tremors, The Scorpion King, and Dragonheart.  While these films certainly have an audience, I honestly didn’t expect that to be enough to warrant multiple entries, yet here we are:  6 Tremors films, with a 7th on the way, 5 Scorpion King films, and now 5 Dragonheart movies.  Quite a world we live in, right?  Honestly, Scorpion King and Tremors were franchises where sequels were not outside the realm of possibility.  Dragonheart, though?  The original film had a pretty definitive ending, so a sequel didn’t seem possible.  For some reason, though, A New Beginning was released back in 2000.  It was a movie that just doesn’t make sense.  Given how much time had passed between the original and the second, having a dragon suddenly show up after the last living dragon was killed in the original film made no logical sense.  The third, fourth and fifth films are all prequels to the original, so THAT makes sense.  For this review, I’m taking a look at Dragonheart: Vengeance, the fifth entry into the Dragonheart franchise.

Dragonheart: Vengeance follows young Lukas as he witnesses his family being murdered by a group of raiders.  Seeking revenge for his family’s death, he heads to the nearby castle to look for help.  After encountering Darius, a local mercenary, Lukas is then pointed to a nearby forest to seek help from a dragon, Siveth.  This particular dragon was banished from the kingdom because of an incident involving the king and she has been living in exile ever since.  After hearing the boy’s story, Siveth, along with Darius, team up to help Lukas find justice.  It’s as straight-forward a story as you can get in a fantasy film.  It checks all the boxes that are required for a film like this.  It’s not a terrible story and it does have a message about the dangers of vengeance, but the lack of subtlety is pretty front-and-center.  Then again, you’re not going into a film like this for a life-changing experience.  No, you’re going in it for a tale of good versus evil, dragons and epic battles.  The plot is there to just move things along, and it does alright with what’s here.  For a direct-to-video sequel, it’s not that bad, actually.

Let’s get the acting out of the way first.  The acting here is pretty standard for a DTV film.  There are a couple of standouts here, though.  Joseph Milson plays Darius, the sell-sword who teams up with Lukas, and I have to say, he’s pretty fun to watch.  I would have to say that the character of Darius is the Dragonheart-equivalent of Han Solo.  While I wouldn’t say the character is a total anti-hero, he is a rogue with a heart of gold.  That knows how to swing a sword.  Jack Kane as Lukas?  There are times when he’s convincing and there are times when he’s clearly over-playing it.  He can handle himself pretty well, physically, but when it comes to the emotional aspect of the character, he falls kind of flat at times.  The villains are pretty much your standard card-board cut-out villains.  You have four main villains with a particular theme: The Snake, The Bear, The Wolf, and The Scorpion.  Only The Snake and The Scorpion seem to pose a threat.  The real star of the show, however, is Helena Bonham Carter as Siveth, a female, ice-breathing dragon.  It’s a first for the series in more ways than one.  In my opinion, she’s the best person to voice a dragon since Sean Connery in the original film.  While Carter is known for playing really quirky characters and bizarre villains, she gives Siveth a noble and warm presence despite the fact that the character breathes ice.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Carter modeled her performance after Connery’s, and that’s not a bad thing.  She’s quick-witted with a biting sense of humor, but also gives the character a sense of grace that we haven’t seen since the original film.  I absolutely loved what she did here.

Dragonheart: Vengeance is a pretty low-budget feature and you can definitely tell at times.  However, a lot of the film was shot on location in Romania, and there is definitely some pretty stunning cinematography here.  The CGI is not bad.  I wouldn’t say that the CGI on the dragon was as good as the third film, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the second and fourth films, in my opinion.  There’s just enough done right to make Helena Bonham Carter’s personality come through, that makes it interesting to watch.  Other-wise, everything else is done practically.  Epic battles?  Not really.  We get to see the aftermath of some, but the fight scenes that ARE there are done pretty well.  There’s some decent sword choreography going on.  The set and costume designs aren’t actually that bad, surprisingly.  Unfortunately, the budget does show up in a bad way at times.  Some of the writing is just….awful.  Especially when it comes to the humans.  It’s not as bad as The Room or anything, but there needed to be a few more re-writes here and there.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with Dragonheart: Vengeance.  It’s not super-violent, so families can watch this one, but there are some violent moments here and there.  I really like the chemistry between Darius, Lukas and Siveth, as those are really the standout performances here.  Of the villains, I would have to say that The Snake is the standout.  She is as vicious as she is beautiful.  At the end of the day, I would argue that while Vengeance isn’t the greatest film in the world, it’s definitely a better sequel than A New Beginning and Battle for the Heartfire.  Helena Bonham Carter’s Siveth makes for the best dragon since Sean Connery’s Draco in the original film.  While the film definitely has its issues, and most of that is due to its budget, I would say Dragonheart: Vengeance is worth at least a rental.

My Final Recommendation: Dragons are awesome.  Anybody who says otherwise is wrong.  It’s a scientific fact.  8/10.