paha_kuukkeli

I read the book before watching the film. Book had quality characters and a story that, for the most part, made sense if you accepted the premises. On the other hand I thought the book was poorly written. In other words the book was good content in somewhat bad package. I'd rate the book 7/10.

Unfortunately the movie ruins lot of what was good in the book (surprising because they're written by the same person): characters are stripped of their personalities and thus lose their motives; interesting group dynamics from the book are replaced by seemingly random decisions; many major plot elements stop making sense with some crucial stuff removed from the story. The end result is completely different and worse story with lots of shared elements.

It would be unfair to say it's really bad movie but it isn't good either. Acting is fine for the most part and the film looks great considering the budget. It's just that more faithful interpretation of the book could have been so much better. 5/10 is my verdict.

Pitch Black was above average sci-fi/action/horror movie and it had very interesting main character called Riddick. The Chronicles of Riddick manages to completely lack the first and to somewhat ruin the latter.

First I found the fantasy elements of the movie somewhat stupid. Where was all that in Pitch Black? I have nothing against fantasy films but to me it seems that the whole world of Riddick went through the looking glass sometime during those five years and it just doesn't make sense.

Second problem was that I obviously wasn't part of the target audience - the movie felt very childish with all the WWE fight scenes, illogical series of events that doesn't deserve to be called a plot, lack of graphical violence while being an action movie etc. I really wasn't expecting Riddick to return as some kids' action hero.

And then the story itself. One part David Eddings, one part Star Wars and one part pick-your-favorite-super-hero pretty much sums up this movie. As a formula that might sound even cool but not with the script of this caliber and not with the expectations I had for a Riddick movie. How can anti-hero make his job in a PG-13 film?

While Musa offers very little new to the genre of historical action epics it manages to be more entertaining than most of its ilk. It's rather difficult to explain why it is so though.

Film's story is quite thin and despite its connections to real history it mostly acts only as very straightforward device to take characters from one battle to the next. Characters are pretty much your typical collection of stereotypes; proud and insecure general, snobby princess, humble and noble veteran captain and of course the honorable and brooding hero. If you've seen a few of these movies before you'll know exactly what's going to happen in this one.

Acting is quite good though some of the characters give little space for expressing anything beyond their caricature traits. Action sequences are very well made and enjoyably bloody. I must emphasize the fact that fights in Musa are not the massive battles between armies like in Braveheart but skirmishes comprising few dozen people at most (I don't find this necessarily bad but it makes me wonder the budget of $60M).

Cinematography is generally beautiful but I could have lived without some of the most clichéd slow motions (like the ones during the final battle). Score is rather bland and the song during the ending credits fits the movie amazingly poorly.

What else? Well, despite my partially negative review I actually enjoyed the movie. It's way above the Gladiator and about as good as Braveheart (comparing it to movies that seem to appear in most of the reviews anyway). 7/10