The Gnat: Fly on the Wall Reviews

Southland Tales

I don't know what to think about this film. There were some parts that I enjoyed a lot as they had depth to them and were interesting, and there were some parts that were so bad that they were laughable. This was an entertaining film, but I wonder a lot about it when Justin Timberlake was the best thing that the film has going for it.

There was a big attempt at having depth in this film. It was meant for something that was really weighty and gave a person a lot to think about. I mean, the end of the world and a lot of readings from the book of Revelation, that should be a weighty matter. However, that wasn't played out all that well in the film. At a few points in time it was interesting, mainly on Timberlake's narration segments, but otherwise a lot of it was just a convoluted mess.

Some parts were really funny as well. Things would happen that were just obviously going to happen and that didn't go along all that well with what the rest of the film was trying to say. And the casting for some of the characters was just odd and off. Dwayne Johnson wasn't terrible in this film, but he wasn't great either. He did a solid job with his nervous ticks, but otherwise wasn't anything all that great. Gellar and Moore both were pretty solid in the film, and Timberlake stole the show with his character. The one pseudo-musical scene in the film with Timberlake was rather entertaining.

Overall this film was just to convoluted to actually work. I spent too much time trying to figure out if there was real depth to the film and trying to figure out the story of the film, that it didn't really matter at the end. In Donnie Darko, you know what is happening with the story throughout the film, even if you never really get it or understand it, in this film, it is much more of a mess. It still had a lot of entertaining parts, just has some troubles as a whole.

Overall Grade: C
Acting: C+
Story: D
Audio/Visual: A-

__________________
"As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away."
-From Identity

Escape From New York

Definitely a cult classic type of film. I don't know what I think about it though. I mainly know that I don't remember 1997 being anything like that, unless what New York really is, is that well a kept secret.

Overall this was an entertaining film. The characters were interesting, and the whole thing was fun to watch. Watching the action of the characters beating up each other is always a good time. The plot wasn't all that deep, but it didn't have to be. This film is purely about the action.

The dystopian world that is created in this film really isn't seen, from the outside, so you can't tell if the government is really good or bad in this film. It seems likely that it is notably over its bounds in what it has done, but it can't be told if there was a justifiable reason for it being like that. There is a dystopian world within the prison, but that isn't seen all that well either. There is a ruling elite that is mentioned and shown a lot, and then there are the sewer/subway people who show up in the beginning of the film, but are dropped pretty quickly after taht.

Overall I enjoyed this film some. It wasn't one of those cult classic films that I can watch over, and over again, but it was entertaining. Snake Plisskin is a good character in the film, and a memorable character, which the film does have going for it.

Overall Grade: C+
Acting: C
Story: B-
Audio/Visual: B-

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium

This is basically a children's film. The type of humor in it is meant to be funny to children, and there isn't the subtle humor that often shows up in children's films that is meant for adults. However, that doesn't detract from this film much, you just need to realize it before seeing the film.

With a film that is meant to be entertaining to children there are a few key things that have to occur. The characters must be rather interesting/unique to watch on the screen, and the film has to be vivid in its colors and details. This films does a good job of both of these things.

Dustin Hoffman plays the lead character, Mr. Magorium, and while it isn't one of his best roles, it isn't a terrible character. Hoffman seems very wooden in the role, forcing his character through the motions, as compared to being natural in a lot of other film roles that he has done. However, the acting is picked up where he leaves it, quite capably by Natalie Portman, Jason Batemen, and Zach Mills. Portman does a good job in her role, but it is really Batemen and Mills who steal the show from their secondary character positions. Add in the fact that Jason Batemen's character is refered to as "mutant" throughout the whole film, the characters are rather entertaining.

Visually this is a good film as well. The use of color, and the lack of color, work very well. It juxtaposes the two positions of childhood, and the magic of imagination (played out as real magic in this film), with the darker, drearier world of the adult, which is shown when the magic/imagination disappears. It definitely catches the eye with the very vibrant colors that are shown throughout a lot of the film, and the detail of the sets. The eye definitely has a lot to focus on, and, while it isn't distracting, one won't stop paying attention from the image because it grabs you.

Overall this is a kids film, and therefore a fair number of people won't enjoy it nearly as well as they could, simply because it isn't meant to be taken seriously at all, you have to watch it in the mindset of a kid. With that said, it is a rather fun film, cute and funny I think are the best words to describe it.

Overall Grade: B-
Story: B-
Acting: C+
Audio/Visual: B+

Clue

This is my second viewing of this film, as I just recently picked it up at Target since it was cheap there. And it is as entertaining as I remember it.

As the title of the film suggests, it is based loosely off of the board game, Clue. It basically has the same characters and the same rooms (as well as some extra rooms such as a cellar, upstairs, and attic that aren't on the board game, but they aren't all that important in the film). It then chronicles the tales of who killed Mr. Body, as the guests try and figure out the "who done it" prior to the police arriving.

What this film does best is create laughs. The murders aren't supposed to be scary, and the suspense of "who done it" isn't supposed to be suspenseful, it is mearly the means in which they drive the jokes along with. This film uses both the physical humor as well as a lot of sarcastic humor as well. And it doesn't really miss with either type of joke.

It also uses random humor a lot. The film ends three times, giving three different possible endings. It does state that the last ending is the real ending, but all of them seem possible, and are rather humorous to watch. Also in the random humor it uses some dialog that reminds me a lot of Abbott and Costello's "Who's On First" routine. If you've seen the film, or when you see the film, it is the "Is There Anyone Else In The House" dialog that goes on during one of the scenes.

This film is a good comedy and I enjoyed it a lot. It is definitely a film that I would recommend, and while it doesn't have any depth to go along with it, or it isn't a comedy with a heart, it is very entertaining and a good popcorn film.

Overall Grade: B
Acting: B-
Story: B+
Audio/Visual: B+

Santa's Slay

From the title, you can tell that this is going to be one of those deep thinking types of films. Or you can tell that the only way that it will be good is if this film has a cult film feel to it, fortunately it does have that, otherwise it would have been terrible.

The basic idea is that Santa is the spawn of Satan, and he was tricked/beat by a former Angel and forced to be the Santa that we know for 1,000 years. Now his 1,000 years are up, and he is going to Hell (the name of the town where the Angel lives) to get his revenge. And who plays Santa, but the wonderful Bill Goldberg, a former professional wrestler.

So this film is one of those films that it is so bad at points that it is funny. Things are just so ridiculous and absurd, that you just can't stop laughing. Especially with how odd some of the killings that Santa does are, they really are just out there. The first scene is Santa's return to killing, and it is just so funny because of how he kills all the people sitting down to a Christmas dinner, and just how the characters in that scene are, you kow it is going to be a cult tyype of film.

Overall the story is just out there, the acting is poor, in the flash back sequence that they use to show how Santa had to become good, it is just funny, because it is done with puppets, however, it is a fun film, I am looking at buying the film at some point in time just because how absurd the film is. It is one that some people won't like because they were actually expecting something semi-serious from it, but it is great with how absurd it is. The only reason I even heard about this film (which I am glad that I did), was because Emilie De Ravin (from Lost) is in it. Oh, the Christmas songs in this film are just great, generally not the typical Christmas carols that you hear.

Overall Grade: B
Story: C
Acting: D
Audio/Visual: C+

Hard Candy

I had heard about this film, and I had been wanting to see it. After seeing it I felt a little disappointed by it. It isn't a bad filim, but from what I had heard about the film, I thought that it was going to be better.

One of the things I had heard about the film was the ending, and how shocking it was. I don't know where they were getting it from, I had the ending figured out, as well as most of the film, long before it got there. That is one of the big things that disappointed me, for the quality of film that it was, with good acting, cinematography, etc. it was a film that was pretty easy to see through. It didn't have to be a ton more complex in its story, but a little bit more would have been better.

The acting, like I said, was very good. Ellen Page did a very good job in this film. In the two films I've seen of hers, she has been cast as someone a few years younger then she actually is at the time. I thought she made an all right 16 year old in Juno, but I would have believed 18 more, and in the case of Hard Candy, she is said to be 14 (which can be debated), but she doesn't quite pull off someone close to that age. I would say that she likely could have pulled off 16-18 again, but as good as she does, she doesn't feel 14.

Overall this isn't a bad film, it was a bit less then I was expecting it to be, but it definitely had some strong points to it. It is a fairly disturbing film that isn't all that graphic, which is nice to see since there are a lot of films that are disturbing, but have to show as much as possible to make it disturbing, Hard Candy is more mentally trying.

Overall Grade: B
Story: C+
Acting: B+
Audio/Visual: B+

2001 Maniacs!

This film had the feel from the beginning of being a cult classic type of film, unfortunately, it doesn't live up to that hype. It mainly just turns into a really poorly done horror film with very few redeeming qualities.

The story in the film is pretty predictable. They hint at the beginning to the big twist that is going to occur at the end of the film, and they basically foreshadow ever big plot point in the film. It isn't terrible that they do that, but it doesn't help the film out at all. And for a horror film, you shouldn't foreshadow the obvious jump scenes as much as they do, because they really aren't jump scenes at all.

In a cult classic/B horror film, the acting is generally bad, and in this case, it is pretty bad. There aren't any performances that stick out as sore thumbs as they are terrible, but there aren't any good performances either. It is just mainly ho-hum type acting because all of the characters are pretty predictable.

The one thing that it does have slighly going for it are the death scenes, which there are a good number of. They are fairly creative, without anyone dying the same way, or dying in very quick, predictable manners. A lot of them are pretty corny, especially one where a guys eyes pop out of his head when he gets crushed, but they are generally all pretty different.

And I guess another thing that isn't too bad are a few musical numbers in the film. They aren't good by any means, but they fit the cult classic feel that the rest of the film misses on. They are pretty corny and odd little songs, but they are something that you remember about the film.

Overall this is a pretty poor film. It misses on a whole lot more things then it hits with. I wouldn't really recommend watching it, unless you want to see a really poorly made B horror film. It could have been a cult classic, but it isn't. It is a remake/remix of a 1964 film entitled Two Thousand Maniacs (and I do plan on seeing the original some time).

Overall Grade: D
Acting: D+
Story: D-
Audio/Visual: C+

Thanks for the reviews Gnat. I've been wondering about Southland Tales and whether I want to bother watching it.

Just don't expect it to be like Donnie Darko at all, there isn't that level to Southland Tales like there is in Donnie Darko, it is decently entertaining with some fun scenes, but don't expect more then that, but I wouldn't say avoid it either, if you want to see it, it is worth seeing, just to enjoy it.

Screamers

This is a classic Sci-Fi type of film, it isn't one of the huge budget films, but the story is what you would expect from a Sci-Fi film, as it is based off of a book by Philip K. Dick. Definitely entertaining, and it has a moral message to it. The story and setting work really well in this film.

The story is the typical Sci-Fi film type of story. It is set in the future on a planet between two factions (even though it is still tied into earth) who are at war over a mineral found on the planet. Peter Weller plays a military man who has been holding out a base for years on the planet, with the help of some robotic, replicating buzz saws known as "Screamers". However, the "Screamers" have adapted and made new, different, versions of themselves that look like humans. And as a typical Sci-Fi film can do, it can go all different sorts of ways from there.

The setting is also good. They do a good job with the futuristic looking, devistated planet. Especially since it is pretty obvious that the film is low budget. For that reason the setting is surprsingly good. There was one or two shots where the special effects were well below snuff, but for the most part all of the special effects and visuals were solid enough.

For those who like Sci-Fi films, this should be a film that you make an effort to see. It isn't huge and visually stunning like a lot of Sci-Fi films are, but it is well made with a classic Sci-Fi story. It has a moral message/question to it, and it is entertaining. I would definitely recommend this film.

Overall grade: B
Acting: C+
Story: A-
Audio/Visual: B

Stargate: Ark of Truth

This film is for the fans of the show, "Stargate SG-1". It picks up the storyline with the same characters from the show, and does a great job doing so. It will not make sense, however, to those who don't know the show as it doesn't bother to fill in the back story of what has been going on, and who the bad guys are, etc.

Acting wise, it is as good as the shows acting was, as it was the same cast (pity no guest appearance by Richard Dean Anderson). This means that it was solid acting, but not on the level of a fair amount of films (albeit better then some I have seen recently). It was, like I said, what was expected though, the characters were still the same from the show, which was important.

The story in the film was good. It wrapped up the arc of the storyline that the tenth season of the show had ended on, and it did a good job wrapping it up. It was a classical story in the Sci-Fi sense of things, as like Screamers, it had a moral message/question to the story that the characters had to debate. So, it was nice that it had more depth then a lot of TV based films.

Visually this was good as well. It had the budget so that they didn't have to skimp on the special effects. There still were giant space battles, like in the TV Show, and elaborate and beautiful locations. This helped the film stay a lot like the show, which was important to do, because this film was made for the fans of the show. If they had been forced to deviate from that, it would have been a bad thing.

Overall this is a film for the fanboys of the show. If you like the show throughout it's whole run, then you will like this film. If you haven't seen the show, you will be lost with this film, and if you watch the show and don't like it, you probably won't find this film all that great. It is an entertaining film for those who like the show, though, and they shouldn't be disappointed by it.

Overall Grade: B
Acting: C+
Story: B+
Audio/Visual: B

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

I had a field day with films over the weekend (in case you can't tell by all the reviews being put up) in order to get ahead for my 100 films in 100 days. I had been wanting to watch this film for a little while, and I finally was able to do so. This film is an entertaining film that does the crossover between animation and live action quite well. And the story isn't all that bad either, it borders on absurd/cartoonish while keeping a film noir/detective feel to the film.

As the titles suggests, the story revolves around the work of Eddie Valiant trying to figure out, "Who framed Roger Rabbit." For some reason Roger Rabbit (a cartoon character who makes comedies) is being set up for the murder of Marvin Acme, the man who owns Toon Town (where all the cartoons live). Eddie Valiant has to figure out who and why, before it is too late for Roger Rabbit and Toon Town. The story isn't one that is all that unique, but it is done well enough, and it is entertaining to watch, plus it is a classical type of story.

The combination of toons and live action works well in this film. The interactions between Eddie Valiant and Roger Rabbit work very well, and are humorous, and they seem like they are possible. There is disjoint between the two areas of toon and real people. If there had been any disjoint at all, it would have ruined the film in a heart beat. Also the fact that a lot of classic toons are used in the film, makes it even better.

Overall this is an entertaining film. It is enjoyable to watch for a few laughs and a classic detective story. There isn't really any depth to the story, but for this film, it doesn't really need to have any depth to it, it is more purely about the entertainment value of the story.

Overall Grade: B-
Story: B-
Acting: C+
Audio/Visual: B+

Atonement

This film is a masterpiece of story, visuals, and acting. There really weren't many flaws in this film that I noticed. The strength is definitely the story, in my opinion, but none of the other aspects of film seemed to detract from the story that was being told/shown on the screen.

The story in this film is just brilliant. It is told extremely well, and the only "rough" spot it seems to hit is at the end, in the last couple of scenes. However, as those scenes progress, they don't end up being a flaw at all. It is really a tragically and beautifully told story and knows how to play at ones heart strings. And it does so extremely well.

The acting is also done extremely well. People say that Kiera Knightley only knows how to pout, which I think is an understatement of her ability, but she does a brilliant job in this film playing a tragic, heartbroken character. Saorise Ronan does a very good job as Knightley's sister at a young age. All permutations of Ronan's character (done by three different actresses including Ronan) are done very well, but Ronan is the storngest of any of them. And James McAvoy does a good job in his role in the film as well. Those three are the main characters, and when all of them can do well, it causes the film to be quite impressive.

And the direction in this film was extremely good. Joe Wright does a good job of getting the most from his actors and actresses in this film (and in his previous one Pride and Prejudice), and he knows how to find good shots to make up a film. This film is shot very beautifully and there are several times where there is very limited dialog going on, but that is okay, because there doesn't need to be dialog to get across the emotion that is trying to be conveyed.

This is the best film that I have seen with the 2007 year as the year for it. I liked the film Juno a lot (and I still have to see some of the top ones), but I simply love the story in this film (as well as the acting and directing). I am a sucker for romance/tragedy films, though. Even with being a romantic at heart, I would still highly recommend this film to people who aren't. It is just beautifully done and told.

Overall Grade: A+
Story: A+
Acting: A
Audio/Visual: A

Beowulf

This was an interesting film because of the fact that it was an animated live action film. It is transitioned from real actors and actresses in to a CGI world, and it is transitioned for the most part very well.

The story of Beowulf is told well. The writing of Niel Gaimen and Roger Avary transitions the epic poem of Beowulf into film quite well. It is a good and entertaining version of the tale, while, I feel, not going that much against the roots of the epic. Like all adaptations, things need to be changed some to transition the tale from paper to film, but as compared to a lot of adaptations (I'm looking at you Bourne films) it doesn't completely change the story, but instead takes the story and makes it for film.

The acting in the film was good, granted all the people were turned into CGI characters, but the actors and actresses did a good job, and there were a lot of well known names in the film, such as Jolie and Hopkins. It wasn't what I would call perfect acting, but I have a feeling some of the acting was lost in the transition between real life and CGI.

The CGI in the film was good, but I feel like it showed that there is still a gap between what technology will be able to do with the CGI and what it can do now. It probably would be good to see a CGI film done in a few years to see how much better the visuals can be. However, they were good in the film, but bordered on cartoonish at some points, which was disappointing in my opinion, I think that it didn't do justice to the talented actors and actresses in the film.

Overall it was entertaining. It was fun to watch and the story was good, but I felt like it was lacking as compared to what it could have been. Would I recommend seeing it, yes, but don't expect it to be an earth shattering film, it is good, but not a great film.

Overall Grade: B-
Story: B+
Acting: B-
Audio/Visual: B-

American Psycho

This was an interesting film. It doesn't have the typical story structure, when all is said and done, and it leaves itself open for interpretation of what was going on, but I don't think that is a bad thing. It was enjoyable to watch, being nicely dark and twisted.

American Psycho seemed to be more of a character sketch peice then a typical story based film. This isn't a bad thing, but if a character sketch isn't done right, it becomes a very bad thing, very quickly. This film, however, succeeds quite nicely as a character sketch film. The look into the ramblings of the mind of the main character is done extremely well. And the dialog that he spews out, especially about music, is quite interesting to listen to.

As I said earlier, this film leaves itself open for interpretation. With the ending really not clearing up anything that has happened in the film. I tend to enjoy this technique as it allows the viewer to reflect on what he/she has just seen. And while American Psycho isn't a film that has some profound moral impact/thought to think about, it does a good job being a film that allows the viewer to think about the film and try to figure out exactly what was going on in the film, as it isn't as straight forward as it seems.

The acting in this film is good. Christian Bale does a good job in the lead role, and the supporting cast doesn't let him down. The characters seem a bit abbrasive, but that is more because that is how they are supposed to be, then because of a deficiency in the actors acting ability. Bale is definitely the star of the film, though, with his performance, of a character which wouldn't be all that easy to play.

Overall this was an enjoyable film. I can see it being a film that some people don't enjoy exceedingly, just because it isn't the traditional narrative that people are so used to, and it doesn't wrap itself up as nicely as most Hollywood films do, but I don't see that as a weakness in the film. It isn't what I would call a great film, but it is certaining interesting and enjoyable.

Overall Grade: B+
Story: B
Acting: B+
Audio/Visual: B+

Cool Runnings

This is a Disney film, so that sort of gives away what type of film it was going to be. But it was a good, mindless, entertaining film. It had a nice little moral to it, with a feel good ending to the story. It was enjoyable to watch, but nothing all that amazing about it.

The characters in the film were basically stereotypes of the various countries from which the characters were, with minor exceptions/twists to the stereotypes, so ti wasn't ground breaking in that way at all. And what the characters did was really what is expected of the type of character. It really didn't impress me in any way because of how the characters were, but I wasn't really expecting to be impressed by them.

The story is based off of the Jamaican bobsledding team that actually did exist, I don't know enough about them to know how accurate it is, but it is one of those feel good sports stories that always seem to be based off of something true. And for that type of story/film, it always is the same type of plot point. Some character(s) have to overcome adversity, and there is some evil character/person from in the person's past who will foil them, momentarily, only to have a change of heart, doesn't have to be complete, and the athletes triumph in will, if not actually win it all. So, this film matches exactly how the typical based on a true story sports film works, but since you expect it to be like that, it isn't really a bad thing.

Overall this film is about having fun with the stereotypical characters. It is a lot of goofing around and just enjoying everything type of film. There have been better versions of the true sports story film made, but this one is fun to watch as well. It isn't one that I would highly recommend, but if you want to see a nice feel good story, this one works.

Overall Grade: C+
Acting: C
Story: C
Audio/Visual: C

Time Bandits

This film is a very entertaining film from the people who made Monty Python. Gilliam does a great job directing this film, which really does follow in line with the Monty Python's Flying Circus sketches on the TV. It is full of a lot of slapstick/sarcastic types of humor, but it also blends in some dark humor as well.

The variety in humor keeps the film from becoming boring or overdone as a lot of comedies films tend to do. Where they recycle the same type of joke over and over again in the film. Time Bandits keeps the jokes so random and so different, that the jokes never grow stale or boring. And the ending to the film is one of the darkest that I've seen in a long time, but so very funny/wrong.

Story in the film follows along the lines of the jokes in the film, it is very random and absurd. The odd thing is that I can see some serious director (or even an author like Michael Crichton (spelling is likely wrong)) making a film about the same subject matter and having it being a pretty serious film/story. Obviously with the Monty Python crew, the story isn't going to be serious at all. They do a good job blending the various period peices together in an entertaining manner.

Visually this film is good as well. It isn't astounding by anymean, but they had some rather fun shots and odd sets that worked out very nicely. The characters were also interestingly dressed throughout a lot of the film. They did a good job recreating the period scenes that were done in the film. It isn't amazing visual/shots in this film, but it wasn't all that bad either.

Overall this film is about how odd and quirky they can make it. They do a good job of blending this with the story and keeping it funny while not too random. It doesn't get stale or old as it goes through, and I tend to think that I'll remember that comedy more then most comedies.

Overall Grade: B
Acting: C+
Story: B+
Audio/Visual: B-

Wow I must visit your reviews more often

Just watched American Psycho A very good description of how Psychopaths can't feel and can fit into society by pretending emotion

I Love Cool runnings one of my guilty pleasures

What more could i say about time Bandits, love it, love Monty Python humour

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

An American Werewolf in London

This is a pretty well made horredy (horror/comedy), with some cult classic appeal. I feel that it just misses a little too often in how it is done to be a top notch cult classic film.

As it goes for a comedy film, it is pretty hit or miss. There are a few good parts, such as the scene in the porno-theater where the main character is talking to a bunch of corpses, but there are a lot of misses as well. If the jokes had been better done, I would have enjoyed this film more, but as it is, I feel like this film didn't really make up its mind as to which part of the horredy that it wanted to focus on more, and it ended up falling awkwardly in the middle.

The horror aspect of the film wasn't much better. There were a few odd horror-esque scenes that worked out somewhat well, mainly some of the main character "visions/dreams", but otherwise there really wasn't much horror about it. Not that you expect the horror in a horredy to be good, but this film, it wasn't on par with the horror in most horredies.

The best part of the film is that there was one scene were they did some heavy forshadowing, but they didn't end up having what was forshadowed happen.

That was probably my favorite scene/sequence of events in the film.

Overall this was a pretty average film. It wasn't that great a horredy and the cult classic aspect wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great either. It mainly was just off on the mark that appeared it was trying to hit.

Overall Grade: C+
Acting: C
Story: C-
Audio/Visual: C+

Escape from L.A.

This is a fun film to watch, it doesn't try to take itself as seriously as the first film, Escape from New York, and that works in its favor. The story is absurd, and the characters are pretty absurd as well. Escape from L.A. works very nicely as a cult classic type of film.

It starts out down the cult classic line by having a very memorable main character in Snake Plissken. He is a very cocky and noticable figure in the films, who does a good job being the dominant prescense for the films. In this film, there are also very good supporting characters. The main bad guy in L.A., as well as Map of the Star's guy are two pretty memorable characters that help support the cult classic type of feel of the film.

The story is also very cult classic like, it is placed in an odd, post-apocolyptic, distopian type of world, which the first is as well. But in Escape from L.A. everything is just a little bit further out there, and the story works a little better itself. What drives the story the most are the characters in the story, but the actual storyline is pretty typical for this type of film, and pretty entertaining. There is a little more riding on this story then I feel on the original story, or at least a little more that the audience can care about.

Also in this film they do a good job creating a distopian environment in L.A.. It is in the not to distant future, but because in L.A. technology has stopped moving forward, and is actually regressing to some extent, it is quite good in how it shows the world. The carnage and destruction are very well done in this film. And while it was pretty well done in Escape from New York, I feel like the scenes were better and the locations were more impressive in Escape from L.A.

Overall this is an entertaining film. As it is a cult classic film, it isn't a great film by any means, but it is certainly entertaining and memorable. The characters are what make the film, and fortunately they are memorable characters in the right way. So, while this isn't a film that will get critical recognition, it is a very entertaining work.

Overall Grade: B+
Acting: B-
Story: C+
Audio/Visual: B+