A cringe-worthy, pathetic excuse for a show made by corporate entities who want to convince you oh so bad that under the suits, round table pow wows, and power lunches, they're really just a bunch of cool, down to earth hipsters who lament the demise of "quality" music. Yeah right. Too bad they can't discern the difference between quality and crap. This show, like American Idol, plays out like another feeble attempt by the industry to perpetuate the myth that artists are nothing unless they're discovered by corporate entities willing to discover them and milk them for all they're worth. Case in point: the lead character of the show wants to start his own "indy" label with a "true" artist as the basis of his main signing. Problem is, the artist in question sounds like every other commercial piece of garbage the record industry has tried to force feed down our throats. If you really wanna make a statement in a show, how about showing a guy who believes in an artist that's obviously original and left of center (like a Bjork, for example)? When independent labels are supposed to be the last great haven to find fresh and original music, it's a sad state of affairs when they resort to churning out the same mush that the majors do. The people behind this show are incapable of making the distinction.
Reviews
32 Reviews
Sin City
(2005)
Every middle-aged, comic book geek's wet dream
14 January 2006
Before you read into my review as the ramblings of some whiny feminist, consider that I am a man who normally likes a good action film with a reasonable amount of violence, sex, etc. Now consider that I found this film extremely insulting.
Could this film be any more chock full of bad, sexist clichés? Yes, the film is visually stunning and original to look at, but the film noir, Chandleresque narrative storytelling gets tiresome after a while, the violence is ridiculously over the top, and worst of all: behind the eye candy lies a pathetic concept that falls under the weight of it's own creator's ignorance, especially towards women. You've got to love people like Frank Miller who would swear that they're trying to make bold advances towards representing women equally by introducing female characters that are strong and independent, only to fall flat on his face in the process by making ALL of the female characters either hookers, exotic dancers, drug addicts, or lesbians. (Nothing against lesbians here, but my point being that EVERY woman in this film is the product of a MALE fantasy, and a sad one at that - sad as in the type of guys who are pushing 50 and live at home, go to comic conventions, and jerk off to Star Trek reruns). Miller clearly doesn't have a clue about women. Hell, even the purest female character here, an 11 year old VIRGIN (very important to state that here, as Miller thought to as well), can't resist the temptations of Sin City, as she matures into a 19 year old exotic dancer who has the hots for "pushing 60" Bruce Willis. Woo hoo! Another male fantasy cliché! Are you counting?
Overall, incredibly dumb and immature.
Could this film be any more chock full of bad, sexist clichés? Yes, the film is visually stunning and original to look at, but the film noir, Chandleresque narrative storytelling gets tiresome after a while, the violence is ridiculously over the top, and worst of all: behind the eye candy lies a pathetic concept that falls under the weight of it's own creator's ignorance, especially towards women. You've got to love people like Frank Miller who would swear that they're trying to make bold advances towards representing women equally by introducing female characters that are strong and independent, only to fall flat on his face in the process by making ALL of the female characters either hookers, exotic dancers, drug addicts, or lesbians. (Nothing against lesbians here, but my point being that EVERY woman in this film is the product of a MALE fantasy, and a sad one at that - sad as in the type of guys who are pushing 50 and live at home, go to comic conventions, and jerk off to Star Trek reruns). Miller clearly doesn't have a clue about women. Hell, even the purest female character here, an 11 year old VIRGIN (very important to state that here, as Miller thought to as well), can't resist the temptations of Sin City, as she matures into a 19 year old exotic dancer who has the hots for "pushing 60" Bruce Willis. Woo hoo! Another male fantasy cliché! Are you counting?
Overall, incredibly dumb and immature.
Lennon must have snickered behind their backs
20 December 2005
Poor Peter Frampton. His career never did fully recover after this debacle of a film, but, rest assured, he's not the worst thing in it. I don't see the point in reiterating what others have already so eloquently stated here, except to say that this film is easily the worst project anyone involved with it has ever done, including Steve Martin, who's amassed a nice collection of steaming dung piles ever since. Even seasoned actor Donald Pleasance is on hand to join in on the fun, proving that Michael Caine's not the only accomplished actor willing to do anything for a price. And that's one of the most startling things about this film, for it's amazing how many credible people were involved who, no doubt, thought it was a great idea and were willing to give it their all. (George Martin and Geoff Emerick included).
I would rank this right up there with "Kiss Meets the Phantom" or "Skidoo," another dumbfounding attempt at a surreal musical, as one of the most entertaining musical stinkeroos of all time. Only Earth, Wind, and Fire manage to escape with any degree of integrity, turning in one of the most original reinterpretations of a Beatles song ever, and they were rewarded with a minor hit in the process. Aersomith comes close, until Steve Tyler and co. make the mistake of actually being part of the non-plot and engaging in hand to hand combat with the Bee Gees and Peter Frampton. Even Alice Cooper grapples with our falsetto heroes. Hey, that's got to count for something. Where else are you gonna see that? As if there weren't enough careers dragged through the mud on this, even more stars are assembled to sing the grand finale, such as Tina Turner, Dame Edna, and Carol Channing?! Another reviewer mentioned that the film at least shows high production values. Huh? Yeah, Billy Preston hanging on wires and shooting cartoon laser beams out of his fingertips must have easily ran the budget up to $60 million. Most of the film looks like it was shot on a back lot.
In the film's defense, (what little there is) I will say that some of the music is quite good, and it's interesting to hear the Bee Gees and Frampton re-record classic Beatles tunes their way, even if it doesn't always work.
Definitely worth seeing if you're a fan of bad films.
I would rank this right up there with "Kiss Meets the Phantom" or "Skidoo," another dumbfounding attempt at a surreal musical, as one of the most entertaining musical stinkeroos of all time. Only Earth, Wind, and Fire manage to escape with any degree of integrity, turning in one of the most original reinterpretations of a Beatles song ever, and they were rewarded with a minor hit in the process. Aersomith comes close, until Steve Tyler and co. make the mistake of actually being part of the non-plot and engaging in hand to hand combat with the Bee Gees and Peter Frampton. Even Alice Cooper grapples with our falsetto heroes. Hey, that's got to count for something. Where else are you gonna see that? As if there weren't enough careers dragged through the mud on this, even more stars are assembled to sing the grand finale, such as Tina Turner, Dame Edna, and Carol Channing?! Another reviewer mentioned that the film at least shows high production values. Huh? Yeah, Billy Preston hanging on wires and shooting cartoon laser beams out of his fingertips must have easily ran the budget up to $60 million. Most of the film looks like it was shot on a back lot.
In the film's defense, (what little there is) I will say that some of the music is quite good, and it's interesting to hear the Bee Gees and Frampton re-record classic Beatles tunes their way, even if it doesn't always work.
Definitely worth seeing if you're a fan of bad films.
King Kong
(2005)
A bloated and overbearing missed opportunity
19 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Let me start on a positive note by saying that there are a number of commendable things about the remake. Yes, for the most part, the effects are amazing 90% of the time, though I find that with CGI today it's the other lousy 10% that I find distracting and stand out more. Quite frankly, I don't understand how bad CGI effects manage to make it in a film that looks great for the majority, but I digress. I also admire Jackson's attempt to instill deeper meaning into the relationship between Ann and Kong. The original film made no attempt to show any growing bond between the two, as Fay Wray basically spends the whole film screaming and recoiling from being in Kong's possession. So Jackson gets some points for trying to develop some characters and their relations.
Now here's the sad part: It didn't make a difference, because he fails to develop them to a satisfying level. I hate to look for plausibility in a fantasy film such as this, but I found the character development and reactions to the situations unfolding around them wildly inconsistent. Case in point: the bound Ann sees Kong coming out of the woods for the first time. Does she scream? No, not until about 1 minute later as he's trying to remove her from her binding. And that's pretty much the only time she screams in sheer terror throughout the film. I don't know about you, but if I'm being carried around by a 30 foot gorilla against my will, I'm going to be screaming for a LONG time. So the transition from terror to "hey, I have a lovable 30 foot tall monkey friend" is too drastic. I'm not sure I'd ever warm up to being in the company of a giant ape, but maybe that's me and we wouldn't have a "love story" otherwise. Also consider the pointless development of supporting characters (such as the captain and first mate?) which leads nowhere and fails to convey any sense of care with the audience.
But most discouraging of all is the excessive overuse of eye candy and special effects that serve little purpose in moving the film along or making it engaging, for that matter. It's as if Jackson felt the need to throw everything in but the kitchen sink (again, underestimating his audience, which I find pretty insulting). Jackson doesn't give you a T-Rex fight, he gives you 3 of them, as if to outdo every aspect of the original and to say that audiences must suffer from ADD today or else we'll all get bored. This then leads to a plummet over a cliff top where Ann can land on a T-Rex's head and ride it. (can you roll your eyes too?). You also get a ridiculous stampede scene with Brontosauruses, but is that enough? No, he's got to throw a few Raptors in there too. Then he's got to have people running between everything. The bug pit is also excessive, filled with an overabundance of all manner of disgusting creatures that would never coexist in the same place at the same time, so we're given quantity not quality once again. Bottom line: what should play like exciting sequences comes across as extremely tiresome. Also, there's far less time spent exploring NYC (at least it feels that way). By the time we get to the finale, Jackson's appetite for the excessive is easily predictable, as I knew that Ann's climbing of the ladder would lead to some moment that involved the ladder coming lose (in yet another inane set of circumstances).
There's many reasons to cringe at the 1933 classic: bad acting, little character development, and dated special effects. But there's one thing it still manages to do that this remake fails at miserably: it manages to be grip the viewer and nurture the imagination.
Now here's the sad part: It didn't make a difference, because he fails to develop them to a satisfying level. I hate to look for plausibility in a fantasy film such as this, but I found the character development and reactions to the situations unfolding around them wildly inconsistent. Case in point: the bound Ann sees Kong coming out of the woods for the first time. Does she scream? No, not until about 1 minute later as he's trying to remove her from her binding. And that's pretty much the only time she screams in sheer terror throughout the film. I don't know about you, but if I'm being carried around by a 30 foot gorilla against my will, I'm going to be screaming for a LONG time. So the transition from terror to "hey, I have a lovable 30 foot tall monkey friend" is too drastic. I'm not sure I'd ever warm up to being in the company of a giant ape, but maybe that's me and we wouldn't have a "love story" otherwise. Also consider the pointless development of supporting characters (such as the captain and first mate?) which leads nowhere and fails to convey any sense of care with the audience.
But most discouraging of all is the excessive overuse of eye candy and special effects that serve little purpose in moving the film along or making it engaging, for that matter. It's as if Jackson felt the need to throw everything in but the kitchen sink (again, underestimating his audience, which I find pretty insulting). Jackson doesn't give you a T-Rex fight, he gives you 3 of them, as if to outdo every aspect of the original and to say that audiences must suffer from ADD today or else we'll all get bored. This then leads to a plummet over a cliff top where Ann can land on a T-Rex's head and ride it. (can you roll your eyes too?). You also get a ridiculous stampede scene with Brontosauruses, but is that enough? No, he's got to throw a few Raptors in there too. Then he's got to have people running between everything. The bug pit is also excessive, filled with an overabundance of all manner of disgusting creatures that would never coexist in the same place at the same time, so we're given quantity not quality once again. Bottom line: what should play like exciting sequences comes across as extremely tiresome. Also, there's far less time spent exploring NYC (at least it feels that way). By the time we get to the finale, Jackson's appetite for the excessive is easily predictable, as I knew that Ann's climbing of the ladder would lead to some moment that involved the ladder coming lose (in yet another inane set of circumstances).
There's many reasons to cringe at the 1933 classic: bad acting, little character development, and dated special effects. But there's one thing it still manages to do that this remake fails at miserably: it manages to be grip the viewer and nurture the imagination.
Batman Begins
(2005)
Arguably the finest comic adaption ever made
20 June 2005
Let me start this review off by saying that I had only a mild interest in seeing this film. The Batman franchise had run it's course, I figured, so why do we need yet another bad commercial blockbuster? What more could be said about the character that hasn't already been beaten to death? And furthermore, I grew up in the 70's loving Adam West's Batman and The Superfriends (where a hero = major virtues, 0 faults), so I've never been crazy about DC and the film industry's tiresome desire to convince everyone that the character is some dark, brooding disturbed being who strikes fear into the hearts of the enemy (come on, how frightened would you be if a guy in a goofy leotards or a rubber suit confronted you?). The Batman I loved smiles, escapes from giant snow cones, and stops the Penguin from stealing the Hostess fruitpies, and that's just the way I like to remember him. Well I'm happy to report I'm accepting the "modern" description of this character, thanks to this film.
This film is a darker, sometimes frightening retelling of the Batman legend (not recommended for small children so take heed), with a plot that draws you in, superb directing, and excellent acting, which is no small feat considering the subject and the potential for unintentional laughs (are you listening, George Lucas?!). There's no dumb rollerskating-type villains in neon or silly brain sucking machines (OK, I liked Batman 3 for it's campiness). We care about these characters and their relations are true and heartfelt (particularly Burce and Alfred's relationship). If I had to offer any negative criticism, it's that I found that the casting of Katie Holmes and Cillian Murphy to be a bit unbelievable considering their stature in Gotham (one's a DA, the other the head of an Asylum)and the fact that they both look to be about 18 (yeah, I know Katie's 26 and Cillian's pushing 30, but they sure look like they're about 18 and it seemed like their casting was a deliberate attempt to draw in younger audiences). Their acting was fine, however.
All in all, right up there with X-Men 2 as one of the best films based on a comic book hero ever made.
This film is a darker, sometimes frightening retelling of the Batman legend (not recommended for small children so take heed), with a plot that draws you in, superb directing, and excellent acting, which is no small feat considering the subject and the potential for unintentional laughs (are you listening, George Lucas?!). There's no dumb rollerskating-type villains in neon or silly brain sucking machines (OK, I liked Batman 3 for it's campiness). We care about these characters and their relations are true and heartfelt (particularly Burce and Alfred's relationship). If I had to offer any negative criticism, it's that I found that the casting of Katie Holmes and Cillian Murphy to be a bit unbelievable considering their stature in Gotham (one's a DA, the other the head of an Asylum)and the fact that they both look to be about 18 (yeah, I know Katie's 26 and Cillian's pushing 30, but they sure look like they're about 18 and it seemed like their casting was a deliberate attempt to draw in younger audiences). Their acting was fine, however.
All in all, right up there with X-Men 2 as one of the best films based on a comic book hero ever made.
A Night in Casablanca
(1946)
The Best of their later films
27 September 2004
Most historians feel that the Marxes quality went into steady decline soon after Day at the Races, and I wouldn't debate that, though I do feel that all of their post-Day at the Races films have their moments. A Night in Casablanca,
however, is an exception in that it has the most consistent laughs and feels the most like an earlier Marx-styled film, at least up until the last 10 or so minutes of a formulaic climax. But with the climax being the weakest and least "Marxian" moment of the film, you've already been hooked in and enjoyed the ride fully
enough to be forgiving. (The film almost feels like a different director took over at this moment). Groucho, in particular, seemingly aware of the incongruous
nature of the film's ending within a Marxian universe, manages to spice up the moments with a few hilarious zingers. One moment that comes to mind is in the climax during the comedy standard, "comedians in a runaway airplane trying to fly" bit that's been overdone by every classic comic on earth, where Groucho
recites a line he was probably forced to say. "We're up in the air!" (or something to that effect), followed by what appears to be a great improvised line that pretty much sums the moment up, "that's probably the dumbest thing I've ever said".
(again, I'm paraphrasing here). No, Groucho, that line is smarter than you think. I consider this film their last true hurrah and, in many ways, more enjoyable than Night at the Opera and Day at the Races in that there's no weighted musical
numbers to drag the momentum down.
however, is an exception in that it has the most consistent laughs and feels the most like an earlier Marx-styled film, at least up until the last 10 or so minutes of a formulaic climax. But with the climax being the weakest and least "Marxian" moment of the film, you've already been hooked in and enjoyed the ride fully
enough to be forgiving. (The film almost feels like a different director took over at this moment). Groucho, in particular, seemingly aware of the incongruous
nature of the film's ending within a Marxian universe, manages to spice up the moments with a few hilarious zingers. One moment that comes to mind is in the climax during the comedy standard, "comedians in a runaway airplane trying to fly" bit that's been overdone by every classic comic on earth, where Groucho
recites a line he was probably forced to say. "We're up in the air!" (or something to that effect), followed by what appears to be a great improvised line that pretty much sums the moment up, "that's probably the dumbest thing I've ever said".
(again, I'm paraphrasing here). No, Groucho, that line is smarter than you think. I consider this film their last true hurrah and, in many ways, more enjoyable than Night at the Opera and Day at the Races in that there's no weighted musical
numbers to drag the momentum down.
A childhood nightmare revisited
20 September 2004
It has taken me 24 years to find the courage to see this film again. Like another reviewer here, I was too young when I first saw this movie back in 1971 at the tender age of 7 (what were my parents thinking?!), and it's disturbing visuals have haunted me all of my life. This is a gory, gruesome film, all things considered, with quick, effective shots of mangled bodies and cute furry creatures. And that ending! Seeing Debbie's face again in the finale after all these years conjured up my repressed childhood chills once again.
Overall, a very effective film with a "Tales from the Crypt-esque" ending and some superb acting.
Overall, a very effective film with a "Tales from the Crypt-esque" ending and some superb acting.
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
(2001)
Not a bad film for an amateur/Not a good film for a professional.
18 June 2004
Let's see if I can explain this any better. In the film's defense, Writer/Director Larry Blamire obviously has a love and respect for the cheesy 50's sci fi genre he is trying to lampoon here, and he knows his subject matter well. Anyone who grew up watching these films will recognize the sources of his inspiration, and should "get it". The film does have some funny moments and humorous dialog,
and there are actually two very capable actors in Susan McConnell and Jennifer Blaire who help bring the film up a notch from the poor acting quality for which these films were notorious.
So why doesn't it play out as a truly funny satire? Because it lacks subtlety. Good parody shouldn't be so self-conscious that it drives the point home that it's a spoof constantly, and that's exactly what this film does. Consider that the same material in more capable hands, such as the cast of SCTV, for example, could
have yielded far funnier, effective results. Cheesy Sci Fi films were lampooned much more successfully by SCTV and in the film, "Amazon Women on the
Moon", but here we have a far less capable crew who seems to revel in patting themselves on the back for being so clever.
and there are actually two very capable actors in Susan McConnell and Jennifer Blaire who help bring the film up a notch from the poor acting quality for which these films were notorious.
So why doesn't it play out as a truly funny satire? Because it lacks subtlety. Good parody shouldn't be so self-conscious that it drives the point home that it's a spoof constantly, and that's exactly what this film does. Consider that the same material in more capable hands, such as the cast of SCTV, for example, could
have yielded far funnier, effective results. Cheesy Sci Fi films were lampooned much more successfully by SCTV and in the film, "Amazon Women on the
Moon", but here we have a far less capable crew who seems to revel in patting themselves on the back for being so clever.
The Great Escape
(1963)
Who's minding the fort?!
13 June 2004
I was careful to read as many reviews here before posting my own opinions,
having just watched this film for the first time this weekend.
Let's get something straight: I know my history and I know fully well that German treatment of POWs was not to the shocking level of genocide that was
commonly associated with treatment in the concentration camps. So shut up
about how much you think you know (or don't know) about the historical
accuracies of this film. We're talking about a movie, and thus it's purpose is primarily to entertain. So historical accuracy aside, does the truth necessarily make for a better film?
Where was the sense of threat in this movie? Prisoners are allowed to move
about anywhere they want, throw parties, wear what they want, whip up
moonshine, etc. It's no wonder they had no problem constructing secret tunnels. Nobody was keeping an eye on them to begin with. How hard is it to outsmart
the enemy when they're portrayed as a bunch of knuckleheads anyway? The
Germans are so lax at this camp that the prisoners are seemingly in control of their own surroundings and one wonders why they felt the need to escape at all. McQueen tries to escape and gets caught a number of times, ending up in
solitary confinement. He even strikes a few officers from time to time. Others pay for their disrespect and attempts at escape with death, but not good ole' Steve. He gets to throw drinking parties and dropkick a few more soldiers.
Bottom line: As inane as Hogan's Heroes, except you knew that the show was
supposed to be a comedy.
having just watched this film for the first time this weekend.
Let's get something straight: I know my history and I know fully well that German treatment of POWs was not to the shocking level of genocide that was
commonly associated with treatment in the concentration camps. So shut up
about how much you think you know (or don't know) about the historical
accuracies of this film. We're talking about a movie, and thus it's purpose is primarily to entertain. So historical accuracy aside, does the truth necessarily make for a better film?
Where was the sense of threat in this movie? Prisoners are allowed to move
about anywhere they want, throw parties, wear what they want, whip up
moonshine, etc. It's no wonder they had no problem constructing secret tunnels. Nobody was keeping an eye on them to begin with. How hard is it to outsmart
the enemy when they're portrayed as a bunch of knuckleheads anyway? The
Germans are so lax at this camp that the prisoners are seemingly in control of their own surroundings and one wonders why they felt the need to escape at all. McQueen tries to escape and gets caught a number of times, ending up in
solitary confinement. He even strikes a few officers from time to time. Others pay for their disrespect and attempts at escape with death, but not good ole' Steve. He gets to throw drinking parties and dropkick a few more soldiers.
Bottom line: As inane as Hogan's Heroes, except you knew that the show was
supposed to be a comedy.
Day of the Dead
(1985)
Superior to DOTD in every way.
6 June 2004
I have to admit, I did not grow up watching the Romero trilogy like many other reviewers here, as NOTLD was the only film of the 3 that I had seen (and many times at that). So my comments are coming from someone with a fresh set of
eyes watching today, and not from the jaded eyes of those with nostalgia on
their minds.
I have watched all 3 films now, and I still maintain that NOTLD is the best of the 3 films. After reading so many positive reviews of Dawn, I picked it up on DVD and was sufficiently unimpressed. You'd think that after a decade between the two films Romero would have learned some professionalism! Dawn is marred
by bad acting, bad makeup, and not much of a script. Other than the cool factor of having an empty mall to run around in, the film is extremely overrated.
Which brings us to Day of the Dead. Despite the continuing claustrophic
environment of an underground bunker (which is one of the main reasons why
NOTLD is so effective), the acting, zombie makeup, and plot are much much
improved over Dawn. Here, we have the slightly disturbed Dr. Logan who is
trying to communicate with the zombies to learn about them and, hopefully,
control their propensity for eating us, while bull-headed military men do all they can to thwart that plan (once they learn of it). This film presents new concepts in the zombie theme that keep it interesting and even plausible. we see more
personality in the zombies and even gain further realization that they are not just mindless flesh eaters, but thinking individuals (lest we forget that they were human at one time). So the scientists plan is a perfectly logical option to
controlling the zombies, until you realize just how demented he has become in his plight to learn more about them. Even Capt. Rhodes, despite being
despicable and evil megalomania, has moments of reasoning, as who doesn't
agree that perhaps the real solution is just to blow all of the mofos away.
Overall, a much more satisfying sequel to original.
eyes watching today, and not from the jaded eyes of those with nostalgia on
their minds.
I have watched all 3 films now, and I still maintain that NOTLD is the best of the 3 films. After reading so many positive reviews of Dawn, I picked it up on DVD and was sufficiently unimpressed. You'd think that after a decade between the two films Romero would have learned some professionalism! Dawn is marred
by bad acting, bad makeup, and not much of a script. Other than the cool factor of having an empty mall to run around in, the film is extremely overrated.
Which brings us to Day of the Dead. Despite the continuing claustrophic
environment of an underground bunker (which is one of the main reasons why
NOTLD is so effective), the acting, zombie makeup, and plot are much much
improved over Dawn. Here, we have the slightly disturbed Dr. Logan who is
trying to communicate with the zombies to learn about them and, hopefully,
control their propensity for eating us, while bull-headed military men do all they can to thwart that plan (once they learn of it). This film presents new concepts in the zombie theme that keep it interesting and even plausible. we see more
personality in the zombies and even gain further realization that they are not just mindless flesh eaters, but thinking individuals (lest we forget that they were human at one time). So the scientists plan is a perfectly logical option to
controlling the zombies, until you realize just how demented he has become in his plight to learn more about them. Even Capt. Rhodes, despite being
despicable and evil megalomania, has moments of reasoning, as who doesn't
agree that perhaps the real solution is just to blow all of the mofos away.
Overall, a much more satisfying sequel to original.
The Angry Red Planet
(1959)
Wonderfully awful!
13 May 2004
Fans of the "so-bad-it's good" style of film making will have a real hoot with this film. Contains virtually all of the prerequisites for cheeseball sci fi, i.e. really bad effects, cornball dialogue, comic relief, and sexual stereotypes and innuendos. What the film lacks in budget and execution it more than makes up for in pure spirit and fun. Sci Fi fans will remember Jack Kruschen from Abbott and Costello Go to Mars playing, what else, comic relief in this film as well. Red tinted Mars scenes are pretty cool and psychedelic looking. Marionette rat-spider is a scream.
Overall, a very entertaining way to spend a rainy Sunday afternoon.
Overall, a very entertaining way to spend a rainy Sunday afternoon.
The least satisfying of the series, but still good
11 May 2004
I am less enamored with this one then I was with the previous two films (particularly Two Towers, which is my favorite), though I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and say that had I seen this film on it's own without the previous prequels, I may have given it a higher rating.
No doubt about it, these films are revolutionary and the pinnacle of fantasy film making, but I just found this one a little tiring. You more or less generally know how it's going to turn out anyway (good guys will get their butts kicked a few times, but will prevail after many long, tedious battles later), so I guess I can't blame the film for delivering exactly what I expected in a final chapter, but I guess I found the journey to get there (first two movies) far more interesting than the end result. After a while, all the eye candy of CGI-created battles gets a bit tiring to look at.
So I'll give it a 10 for craftsmanship and artistry, but a 7 for holding my interest.
No doubt about it, these films are revolutionary and the pinnacle of fantasy film making, but I just found this one a little tiring. You more or less generally know how it's going to turn out anyway (good guys will get their butts kicked a few times, but will prevail after many long, tedious battles later), so I guess I can't blame the film for delivering exactly what I expected in a final chapter, but I guess I found the journey to get there (first two movies) far more interesting than the end result. After a while, all the eye candy of CGI-created battles gets a bit tiring to look at.
So I'll give it a 10 for craftsmanship and artistry, but a 7 for holding my interest.
La Dolce Vita
(1960)
Hated it.
23 April 2004
Perhaps hate is too strong a word, but it's no less one dimensional a reaction than the messages conveyed in this film. Perhaps I'm a sucker for a happy
ending or some sort of redemption, but I found this film relentless in it's cloying pretension and smugness.
The film is not without it's merits. It's shot beautifully and it's sequencing of seemingly in congruous events keeps it at least a curiosity. But when all is said and done, it's as irritating and superficial as the people it arguably glorifies.
Yeah, I know, in all likelihood Fellini intended to portray these characters as shallow and unlikeable, but that doesn't mean that I can watch their frivolous, sadistic debauchery with any degree of enjoyment. It's not that I'm a prude, as there's plenty of titilating eye candy here, but perhaps that's one main problem I have with the film. Fellini's portrayal of women in this film is misogynistic, and women are meant to be conquered and submissive in this world. But what
makes the film so unsatisfying is the fact that Fellini's opinion of this pretentious and ugly society isn't necessarily an opinion he shares as well. Instead of
conveying a clear message of how shallow and pathetic these really people
are, Fellini borders on glamorizing them and insulting his audience, as if to say, "look at how cool and happening we are and how dull and uninteresting you are for having any moral and ethical sensibilities." Of course, the great irony of all this is after watching 2 hours of people partying, they quickly become boring and dull. In this film, anyone capable of expressing love is quickly dismissed and made to appear "weak", i.e. the character of Emma, but this message can
easily be interpreted two ways. When Steiner murders himself and his child, the message we get is that he felt weighted down by his obligations and
responsibilities as a father/husband, as if to imply that marriage and fatherhood are a slow death to be avoided. Marcello comes to this conclusion, and
proceeds to pursue his life of partying and debauchery even further. OK, I can accept that if not for the fact that the film from here on in shows him whooping it up and having a grand old time, seemingly no longer at war with his inner moral demons. I consider this a failure on the part of Fellini because this implies that Marcello was absolutely right in his conclusions, since happiness is ultimately what we're all looking for and he's seemingly completely comfortable in his own skin womanizing and sadistically mistreating people now.
And that's not my idea of redemption.
ending or some sort of redemption, but I found this film relentless in it's cloying pretension and smugness.
The film is not without it's merits. It's shot beautifully and it's sequencing of seemingly in congruous events keeps it at least a curiosity. But when all is said and done, it's as irritating and superficial as the people it arguably glorifies.
Yeah, I know, in all likelihood Fellini intended to portray these characters as shallow and unlikeable, but that doesn't mean that I can watch their frivolous, sadistic debauchery with any degree of enjoyment. It's not that I'm a prude, as there's plenty of titilating eye candy here, but perhaps that's one main problem I have with the film. Fellini's portrayal of women in this film is misogynistic, and women are meant to be conquered and submissive in this world. But what
makes the film so unsatisfying is the fact that Fellini's opinion of this pretentious and ugly society isn't necessarily an opinion he shares as well. Instead of
conveying a clear message of how shallow and pathetic these really people
are, Fellini borders on glamorizing them and insulting his audience, as if to say, "look at how cool and happening we are and how dull and uninteresting you are for having any moral and ethical sensibilities." Of course, the great irony of all this is after watching 2 hours of people partying, they quickly become boring and dull. In this film, anyone capable of expressing love is quickly dismissed and made to appear "weak", i.e. the character of Emma, but this message can
easily be interpreted two ways. When Steiner murders himself and his child, the message we get is that he felt weighted down by his obligations and
responsibilities as a father/husband, as if to imply that marriage and fatherhood are a slow death to be avoided. Marcello comes to this conclusion, and
proceeds to pursue his life of partying and debauchery even further. OK, I can accept that if not for the fact that the film from here on in shows him whooping it up and having a grand old time, seemingly no longer at war with his inner moral demons. I consider this a failure on the part of Fellini because this implies that Marcello was absolutely right in his conclusions, since happiness is ultimately what we're all looking for and he's seemingly completely comfortable in his own skin womanizing and sadistically mistreating people now.
And that's not my idea of redemption.
Dawn of the Dead
(1978)
How the hell did Savini get work after this?!
11 March 2004
"Greatest Horror Movie Ever Made"; "Horror Classic"; These are some of the unbelievable descriptions listed here and applied to this incredibly overrated film. I am a huge horror film fan, and surprisingly had never seen this film until recently. I think the hige praise given to this film is largely based on the fact that people like the zombie theme so much that they're willing to overlook huge, amateuristic flaws, as well as the fact that most zombie films in the genre are actually worse than this. This means that there's much more potential for improvement in this theme that's yet to be realized. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this film to some degree, it held my interest, and I had a few laughs, but people use the term, "classic" far too lightly in this day and age. Night of the Living Dead is a true horror classic, that much is undisputed, and despite the amateur acting and cheap budget, the film still shines and unnerves today. I would also attribute much of it's effectiveness to the fact that it's in black and white, because you really can't see the results of poor makeup. 10 years after NOTLD, Romero returns to his tried and true theme that put him on the map, opting to film in color this time out. It works for the gore scenes (though blood looks more like paint), but the zombies look ridiculous. The
makeup is no better than any halloween makeup kit one could purchase, and it's very distracting, laughable, and unbelievable as a result. (save for a handful of decent looking zombies). The acting starts off extremely bad, and it seems that the actors get better as the film goes on (unless the viewer has become acclimated to the bad acting and doesn't notice it anymore). One would have hoped that 10 years after Romero made his first feature film, he would have learned something, but this film shows little cinematic improvement or direction over NOTLD. IMO, Romero is overrated and got lucky once upon a time. He made a couple fo other decent films after NOTLD (Martin, for one), but he's been milking his NOTLD success ever since for all it's worth.
makeup is no better than any halloween makeup kit one could purchase, and it's very distracting, laughable, and unbelievable as a result. (save for a handful of decent looking zombies). The acting starts off extremely bad, and it seems that the actors get better as the film goes on (unless the viewer has become acclimated to the bad acting and doesn't notice it anymore). One would have hoped that 10 years after Romero made his first feature film, he would have learned something, but this film shows little cinematic improvement or direction over NOTLD. IMO, Romero is overrated and got lucky once upon a time. He made a couple fo other decent films after NOTLD (Martin, for one), but he's been milking his NOTLD success ever since for all it's worth.
21 Grams
(2003)
The feel-good hit of the year!
21 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
21 grams. They say we lose 21 grams when we die. I say you'll lose 2 hours of your life and thank god you've got more optimism in your makeup than the messages drilled home here. This may just be the most cloying, overbearing, and pessimistic film ever made.
***Spoilers ahead***
The film is jam-packed and brimming with over 2 hours of tragedy, misery, and generally depressing themes. There isn't a single solitary moment of optimism or happiness shown in this film except for what you might speculate or conjure in your own mind after the film decides to end and leave you guessing what might happen in the future for these people. Murder? Got it covered. Suicide? Yep. How about drug addiction, slow death from illness, the denouncement of one's faith, or abortion? It's all here! It's as if the film maker went down a checklist of all the darkest themes he could think of to stuff into this film. Granted, I wasn't looking for a sweet hollywood ending, but come on! What's the ultimate message here? Certainly not perseverance or how the human spirit rises above adversity and life changing tragedy, because nobody really does in this film. In the end, the film poses the questions: when we die, what do we gain, what do we lose, yet by all accounts it makes no attempt to answer these questions thoughtfully other than what it's shown you for 2 hours prior: a very one sided, depressing view of little hope with seemingly no redemption or light at the end of the tunnel.
Granted, the film is not without it's merits. The acting is superb, the non-linear telling of the story out of sequence is interesting (though no longer a unique style of film making and done much better in films like Memento), and the grainy, drab, washed out shooting style gives the film an interesting look and helps maintain the consistent theme of dread. Hell, it even managed to keep me engaged 3/4 way through before I decided that it was unbearable and painfully apparent that the film was prepared to give up on itself (similar to how main characters chose to give up on their lives). And that's really the problem I have with the film. It's downright fatalistic! Overall, a stylish yet shallow, one-dimensional, downer of a film.
***Spoilers ahead***
The film is jam-packed and brimming with over 2 hours of tragedy, misery, and generally depressing themes. There isn't a single solitary moment of optimism or happiness shown in this film except for what you might speculate or conjure in your own mind after the film decides to end and leave you guessing what might happen in the future for these people. Murder? Got it covered. Suicide? Yep. How about drug addiction, slow death from illness, the denouncement of one's faith, or abortion? It's all here! It's as if the film maker went down a checklist of all the darkest themes he could think of to stuff into this film. Granted, I wasn't looking for a sweet hollywood ending, but come on! What's the ultimate message here? Certainly not perseverance or how the human spirit rises above adversity and life changing tragedy, because nobody really does in this film. In the end, the film poses the questions: when we die, what do we gain, what do we lose, yet by all accounts it makes no attempt to answer these questions thoughtfully other than what it's shown you for 2 hours prior: a very one sided, depressing view of little hope with seemingly no redemption or light at the end of the tunnel.
Granted, the film is not without it's merits. The acting is superb, the non-linear telling of the story out of sequence is interesting (though no longer a unique style of film making and done much better in films like Memento), and the grainy, drab, washed out shooting style gives the film an interesting look and helps maintain the consistent theme of dread. Hell, it even managed to keep me engaged 3/4 way through before I decided that it was unbearable and painfully apparent that the film was prepared to give up on itself (similar to how main characters chose to give up on their lives). And that's really the problem I have with the film. It's downright fatalistic! Overall, a stylish yet shallow, one-dimensional, downer of a film.
The Matrix Reloaded
(2003)
As good a sequel as you'd expect
22 July 2003
Have you noticed that about 90% of the reviews here start off with statements like, "I was a big fan of the original but the sequel..." or "The original was unique but this one...bla bla bla."
Talk about dull and insipid reviews! Exactly what were people expecting? Let's get something straight here and now: the original was incredibly entertaining and incredibly stupid as well, and don't deny that. It managed to be appealing on two very contrasting levels. It was cerebral and heady but also had enough fighting and shooting to appeal on a basic primal level. For every plot twist you were trying to decipher you were equally interested in seeing some major butt kicking. It was a heady, confusing and intricate plot blended with big, dumb fun. The acting was incredibly (deliberately?) bland and wooden with zero humor. Q: Who were the most enigmatic and entertaining personalities in the first film? A: Joey Pants and Agent Smith - the "bad" guys. Ironic that the agent (the least human character) turns out to be the funniest and most entertaining character in the series. So please, don't go on lamenting the salad days of the original, because that film was far from perfect and the sequel manages to give the people what they want and bring the storyline and effects up to date.
Yes, Matrix Reloaded further utilizes the now over-used and over-exposed special effects techniques that, unfortunately, have been embraced by everyone from Saturday Night Live to car commercials. That's the trademark style of these films, and you can't blame the filmmakers for being ripped off in the interim. Like it's predecessor, Matrix Reloaded offers it's share of dumb scenes as well, such as the incongruous erotic dance scene. And some action scenes actually go on a bit long.
But the film still manages to stimulate and lure you in with bigger, better action and effects, a continuing intricate (and still confusing) plot line, and fresh, amazing visuals that may seem familiar (if only in style) but are still unlike anything you've seen before.
Go see it and enjoy it, and be prepared to be equally blown away and annoyed as only the Matrix can deliver.
Talk about dull and insipid reviews! Exactly what were people expecting? Let's get something straight here and now: the original was incredibly entertaining and incredibly stupid as well, and don't deny that. It managed to be appealing on two very contrasting levels. It was cerebral and heady but also had enough fighting and shooting to appeal on a basic primal level. For every plot twist you were trying to decipher you were equally interested in seeing some major butt kicking. It was a heady, confusing and intricate plot blended with big, dumb fun. The acting was incredibly (deliberately?) bland and wooden with zero humor. Q: Who were the most enigmatic and entertaining personalities in the first film? A: Joey Pants and Agent Smith - the "bad" guys. Ironic that the agent (the least human character) turns out to be the funniest and most entertaining character in the series. So please, don't go on lamenting the salad days of the original, because that film was far from perfect and the sequel manages to give the people what they want and bring the storyline and effects up to date.
Yes, Matrix Reloaded further utilizes the now over-used and over-exposed special effects techniques that, unfortunately, have been embraced by everyone from Saturday Night Live to car commercials. That's the trademark style of these films, and you can't blame the filmmakers for being ripped off in the interim. Like it's predecessor, Matrix Reloaded offers it's share of dumb scenes as well, such as the incongruous erotic dance scene. And some action scenes actually go on a bit long.
But the film still manages to stimulate and lure you in with bigger, better action and effects, a continuing intricate (and still confusing) plot line, and fresh, amazing visuals that may seem familiar (if only in style) but are still unlike anything you've seen before.
Go see it and enjoy it, and be prepared to be equally blown away and annoyed as only the Matrix can deliver.
The Big Lebowski
(1998)
Entertaining but "slight" Coen Bros. fare
20 July 2003
I have long been a fan of the Coen Brothers films, and I admit I was hugely disappointed with the Big Lebowski when I first saw it in the theaters, especially since it was the Coen's first film release since the incredible Fargo and many viewers (like myself) had high expectations.
So I avoided viewing it again for a few years until I got the urge to complete my Coen Bros. video collection and I hoped that with the passing of some time my opinion would change. It did for the better.
Granted, The Big Lebowski is still no Fargo, and I still think granting this film a higher rating than far better Coen films is awfully gratuitous, but at least it can be viewed and appreciated on it's own terms now instead of having the critical and commercial triumph of Fargo looming overhead. Unlike films such as Fargo, Barton Fink, or Oh Brother, Lebowski plays as a loose, far less structured, and meticulous affair. The Coen Bros. quirkness abounds, but seems to be devised more for pure pleasure than imagery of any deeper, metaphorical meaning. This actually makes it unique among Coen Bros. films, because one gets the sense that they just wanted to make a straight forward (for them, at least) comedy about a character thrusted in a weird predicament that's incongruous to his persona. It does seem to play a bit forced, however, as if the Coens felt that they needed to uphold their trademark stylizations, and the dialogue does get a bit wordy and tiresome after a while. It entertains on a fairly basic surface level, whereas other films in the Coen catalog (such as Barton Fink) have an incredible amount of depth and are far more thought provoking. There's nothing cryptic or profound here, the depth of the film lies in the filmmaker's vision and the character development, but not so in a storyline with any underlying hidden meanings or moral lessons.
Overall an entertaining and engaging film, but definitely not the best Coen Bros. film nor "the funniest film ever made".
So I avoided viewing it again for a few years until I got the urge to complete my Coen Bros. video collection and I hoped that with the passing of some time my opinion would change. It did for the better.
Granted, The Big Lebowski is still no Fargo, and I still think granting this film a higher rating than far better Coen films is awfully gratuitous, but at least it can be viewed and appreciated on it's own terms now instead of having the critical and commercial triumph of Fargo looming overhead. Unlike films such as Fargo, Barton Fink, or Oh Brother, Lebowski plays as a loose, far less structured, and meticulous affair. The Coen Bros. quirkness abounds, but seems to be devised more for pure pleasure than imagery of any deeper, metaphorical meaning. This actually makes it unique among Coen Bros. films, because one gets the sense that they just wanted to make a straight forward (for them, at least) comedy about a character thrusted in a weird predicament that's incongruous to his persona. It does seem to play a bit forced, however, as if the Coens felt that they needed to uphold their trademark stylizations, and the dialogue does get a bit wordy and tiresome after a while. It entertains on a fairly basic surface level, whereas other films in the Coen catalog (such as Barton Fink) have an incredible amount of depth and are far more thought provoking. There's nothing cryptic or profound here, the depth of the film lies in the filmmaker's vision and the character development, but not so in a storyline with any underlying hidden meanings or moral lessons.
Overall an entertaining and engaging film, but definitely not the best Coen Bros. film nor "the funniest film ever made".
Beneath the Planet of the Apes - Indeed!
20 July 2003
That was the one word review I read in a TV Guide recently for this film, and I couldn't resist repeating it here.
"Beneath" was the very first film in the Apes series that I saw, at the tender age of 5, and some of the violence in the film stuck with me to this day, particularly the shooting of Brent and Taylor in the finale (what were my parents thinking?). Viewing the film recently as an adult,I found it to be a fairly weak installment in the series.
The film initially moves along at a decent and suspenseful pace, and serves to reacquaint the audience with the original's films characters and plot line. And then it gets incredibly absurd and takes a complete left turn when Brent confronts the underground mutants and their religious fanaticism for a doomsday bomb. Wha?
That's not to say the film is without it's merits. James Gregory's performance is menacing and easily one of the best characters to ever appear in the Apes series, while the return of most of the main cast from the first film is also welcoming (David Watson does a near dead on imitation of Roddy McDowell that I wasn't even aware that Roddy wasn't in this film). The makeup, sets, and music are, once again, first rate, and the mutant's sermon music is particularly disturbing, atonal, and "netherwordly".
So there are many things to like about this film, but unfortunately the plot is not one of them, and this drags the film down to being the 2nd worst in the series, IMO. The film to follow it, "Escape from the PLanet of the Apes", showed that a superb plot could overshadow the ever dimishing production values on the series.
"Beneath" was the very first film in the Apes series that I saw, at the tender age of 5, and some of the violence in the film stuck with me to this day, particularly the shooting of Brent and Taylor in the finale (what were my parents thinking?). Viewing the film recently as an adult,I found it to be a fairly weak installment in the series.
The film initially moves along at a decent and suspenseful pace, and serves to reacquaint the audience with the original's films characters and plot line. And then it gets incredibly absurd and takes a complete left turn when Brent confronts the underground mutants and their religious fanaticism for a doomsday bomb. Wha?
That's not to say the film is without it's merits. James Gregory's performance is menacing and easily one of the best characters to ever appear in the Apes series, while the return of most of the main cast from the first film is also welcoming (David Watson does a near dead on imitation of Roddy McDowell that I wasn't even aware that Roddy wasn't in this film). The makeup, sets, and music are, once again, first rate, and the mutant's sermon music is particularly disturbing, atonal, and "netherwordly".
So there are many things to like about this film, but unfortunately the plot is not one of them, and this drags the film down to being the 2nd worst in the series, IMO. The film to follow it, "Escape from the PLanet of the Apes", showed that a superb plot could overshadow the ever dimishing production values on the series.
Invisible Agent
(1942)
Entertaining but flawed WWII Hooey
16 July 2003
Like most American war propaganda films, this film probably presented the perfect propaganda needed at the time to rally a nation, but viewing it today it manages to make the allied forces (and most specifically Americans) look like racist ignorant buffoons in the process. It makes no excuses for it's blatant propaganda messages and obvious opinions of the German or Japanese ("I can't tell you people apart", to quote one of Hall's lines), nor does it even attempt to understand their cultures (Hari Kari, for example, is grossly misunderstood and misrepresented in this film). But I won't argue the issue, because, after all, it's only a movie, and America needed their villians clearly cut and defined to swallow the bitter pill of war.
But honestly, how inept is our "hero" in this film? He's supposed to be on a serious mission to thwart an air raid on New York city (I consider that pretty serious), yet the minute he touches ground on German soil he takes great risks in exposing himself by opting to make his presence known by playing pranks rather than staying low and "out of sight". He frequently jeopardizes the success of the mission because he can't resist grabbing a chicken leg or a glass of wine while in the company of the Gestapo, or falling asleep in facial makeup. And while it makes for some entertaining scenes that utilize the invisible effects, his behavior is completely implausible and downright ridiculous. Think of how easy his mission would have been had he just quietly moved about and retrieved the info he needed without bringing attention to himself. (But that doesn't make for a very entertaining movie, now does it?).
If I were the Maria Sorenson character in this film, I would have kicked him in his unmentionables.
But honestly, how inept is our "hero" in this film? He's supposed to be on a serious mission to thwart an air raid on New York city (I consider that pretty serious), yet the minute he touches ground on German soil he takes great risks in exposing himself by opting to make his presence known by playing pranks rather than staying low and "out of sight". He frequently jeopardizes the success of the mission because he can't resist grabbing a chicken leg or a glass of wine while in the company of the Gestapo, or falling asleep in facial makeup. And while it makes for some entertaining scenes that utilize the invisible effects, his behavior is completely implausible and downright ridiculous. Think of how easy his mission would have been had he just quietly moved about and retrieved the info he needed without bringing attention to himself. (But that doesn't make for a very entertaining movie, now does it?).
If I were the Maria Sorenson character in this film, I would have kicked him in his unmentionables.
The Invisible Man
(1933)
The Most Entertaining of all Classic Universal Horror Films
30 June 2003
I have recently gone on a crusade to view all of the great Universal Horror films of the 30's and 40's, as they were such a part of my childhood and I hadn't seen many of them in years. Watching these films with an older, more mature adult eye, I found that many required a certain level of forgiveness and held more of a nostalgic appeal than holding a viewer's interest on a modern level. Films such as Dracula and the Mummy could easily be considered extremely slow and stagey by today's standards (which sets the mood well for Dracula but The Mummy is the most overrated of the Universal classics). But not so with The Invisible Man.
This is a well-paced, highly entertaining classic, and despite the over the top acting styles of the day, thus particular film is actually enhanced by the dramatics. Rains is absolutely outstanding and commanding in every scene, and he's thoroughly convincing as a man coming unhinged. Many reviewers have mentioned the humor aspect of the film, but the horror is equally effective. When Kent's alone in the house with the Invisible Man and hoping he's alone to make a phone call, or when efforts are made by the police to Kent after The Invisible Man has threatened to come back and take his life, the suspense is nail biting and unnerving. Kent's demise is horrific as well, replete with his dying screams. Furthermore, the extent to which the police attempt to protect Kent and trap Griffith are completely plausible, from dusting the tops of the walls with dirt to surrounding Kent with officers. After all, how would you deal with an Invisible Man?
This is one old classic that holds up extremely well.
This is a well-paced, highly entertaining classic, and despite the over the top acting styles of the day, thus particular film is actually enhanced by the dramatics. Rains is absolutely outstanding and commanding in every scene, and he's thoroughly convincing as a man coming unhinged. Many reviewers have mentioned the humor aspect of the film, but the horror is equally effective. When Kent's alone in the house with the Invisible Man and hoping he's alone to make a phone call, or when efforts are made by the police to Kent after The Invisible Man has threatened to come back and take his life, the suspense is nail biting and unnerving. Kent's demise is horrific as well, replete with his dying screams. Furthermore, the extent to which the police attempt to protect Kent and trap Griffith are completely plausible, from dusting the tops of the walls with dirt to surrounding Kent with officers. After all, how would you deal with an Invisible Man?
This is one old classic that holds up extremely well.
Batman Forever
(1995)
Goofy fun
23 June 2003
I, for one, am fed up with all the Batman purists out there who are offended when poetic license is taken with their precious storyline. This is a movie, not the comic book, and thus it's purpose is to entertain on a grander level than some niche film that only caters to those who are familiar with the comic book storylines. I don't care if the comic book character is dark and brooding, I can except different interpretations as long as I'm entertained, and Batman Forever delivers there. I didn't grow up reading Batman comics (I was a Marvel fanatic), I grew up watching the campy TV show. The TV show was rollicking, colorful, and campy fun, and the movie chooses to follow suit. Overall, the 2nd best in the series, IMO, right behind the first film.
Hulk
(2003)
Yep, it's as awful as it looks
20 June 2003
Being a marvel comic collector all of my childhood, I was eager to see this film when I first heard about it. And then, over the course of many months, we were fed trailers that revealed more and more of the Hulk's rendering with each subsequent trailer. If you were like me, you cringed at each of these trailers, as it seemed apparent, even in what little they showed of the Hulk, that the computer generated results were terrible. But after all, realism isn't everything, especially in a fantastic and fictional storyline. After all, King Kong is still a highly entertaining classic with a good storyline, and nobody would ever mistake the stop motion in that film for a real gorilla. So I decided to shrug off the less than satisfying animation that was briefly revealed in the trailers and go see the film anyway. I'm sorry I did.
The first half of the film was fairly engaging, as the plot started to unfold and you're left wondering where it will lead to (other than the obvious and eventual transformation). But then you wait...and wait...and wait..., and finally we get the first transformation, aka the emergence of the title character. And then it's obvious, without a shadow of a doubt, that the animation is terrible. (anyone who's impressed with the visuals must think Gumby's a masterpiece of animation as well). The movement isn't fluid, and I've seen better work in Playstation games. Fine, if that's the way it's gonna be then at least we have some good acting and a good plot to carry it along, right? Wrong. While I did enjoy Sam Elliot's and Nick Nolte's performances, the leads are incredibly stiff with no chemistry at all. And the plot doesn't go anywhere, except for a last minute after thought to inject an arch villian into the climax, which ends up being just about the most anti-climactic finale I've seen in along time.
About the only positive comment I can make about the film is that it appears that Ang Lee at least tried to do a different kind of superhero film, and while many have stated that the multiple split screen shooting style was annoying, I at least found it an interesting and unique way to show a scene. Problem is, do we really need to see 5 multiple camera angles of a scene when there's nothing going on in the first place?
IMO, the worst offering in the Marvel film series yet.
The first half of the film was fairly engaging, as the plot started to unfold and you're left wondering where it will lead to (other than the obvious and eventual transformation). But then you wait...and wait...and wait..., and finally we get the first transformation, aka the emergence of the title character. And then it's obvious, without a shadow of a doubt, that the animation is terrible. (anyone who's impressed with the visuals must think Gumby's a masterpiece of animation as well). The movement isn't fluid, and I've seen better work in Playstation games. Fine, if that's the way it's gonna be then at least we have some good acting and a good plot to carry it along, right? Wrong. While I did enjoy Sam Elliot's and Nick Nolte's performances, the leads are incredibly stiff with no chemistry at all. And the plot doesn't go anywhere, except for a last minute after thought to inject an arch villian into the climax, which ends up being just about the most anti-climactic finale I've seen in along time.
About the only positive comment I can make about the film is that it appears that Ang Lee at least tried to do a different kind of superhero film, and while many have stated that the multiple split screen shooting style was annoying, I at least found it an interesting and unique way to show a scene. Problem is, do we really need to see 5 multiple camera angles of a scene when there's nothing going on in the first place?
IMO, the worst offering in the Marvel film series yet.
From Russia with Love
(1963)
What a yawn
16 June 2003
I really don't get all the positive comments about this film, except to say that there's a good many Bond fans out there who think that the Connery era could do no wrong. I've struggled to get through this one at least 3 times in my lifetime, and I barely make it. This filming is boring! IMO, this is the weakest Connery Bond film in the series (not counting Never Say Never Again), and it hasn't aged well with time. Obviously, the high action and campiness had yet to be injected into the series, but this one just creeps along with minimal action and suspense. All foreign accents are laughably bad and play like a parody of bad espionage films.
Watch it if you're a completist, then move on to any Connery films to follow.
Watch it if you're a completist, then move on to any Connery films to follow.
Go West
(1940)
I wish I could give this film an honest review...
5 May 2003
...but I can't, because I have been unable to get through it. I have made 3 attempts in the last 10 years to rent and view this film, only to fall asleep every time before the finale. It's that boring. I am a huge Marx brothers fan, but this one seems to last forever with little comedy before the much mentioned, "train scene" finally arrives. My vote for bottom 3 all-time worst Marx Brothers films along with Room Service and The Big Store.
Fritz the Cat
(1972)
How far have we progressed in 30 years?
24 March 2003
I came across the recently released DVD of this film in, of all places, the children's video section of Virgin Megastore. Whether or not this poorly miscategorized placement was of simple ignorance or whether the intent weas subversive and it was intentionally and deliberately placed in the children's section, I found myself grinning and reluctant inform anyone of the error. After all, nobody gave me any forewarnings when I was a kid either, as some things you just have to discover on your own, and the thought of some poor innocent parents popping this film on for their kid only to look on in horror at the visions that would soon unfold sounded dastardly and funny indeed.
I was 7 years old when Fritz the Cat first hit the screen, and while I didn't see the film for the first time until I was well into my twenties, the film nevertheless had a lasting impact on my childhood. This film had taken on a reputation of mythical proportions in my Brooklyn hometown neighborhood, partly due to the older teens on my street who were all too eager to share shocking details contained therein, as only the best subversive intentions can do, and further securing the film's status as "every parent's nightmare". To a child about to undergo serious growing pains and a naturally growing curiosity towards all things "adult-related", Fritz the Cat was very much my earliest childhood memory of the themes of sex, drugs, rock-n-roll, racism, you name it, and it was a symbol for naughtiness that all coming of age kids couldn't wait to catch a sneak peak of, or at least couldn't wait to reach the age when we could view such subject matter freely.
As a movie, it hasn't lost any of it's impact in 30 years, and fewer films truly capture the grittiness and raw edge of New York city in the 70's (French Connection is another good example). I dare say that it could be considered more offensive now than ever, as I fear that today many just might not "get it," despite our self-proclamation that we've come a long way in maturity and tolerance of such sensitive issues. Modern society has become so politically correct and desensitized to controversial issues that we're less tolerant and understanding of the original intent of a film such as this, especially when it's messages are not consistent with our modern value system. Thus, some of the obvious stereotypes presented in this film (such as the pigs portraying cops and the crows portraying blacks, for example), could never be presented in a film today. Granted, these images were meant to be offensive in the 70's as well, but they were obviously taken in a different light back then, as they were indicative of a specific brand of biting satire found in the 70's and hippie culture and a reflection of how that particular generation could openly address such social issues. These issues, such as racism, are clearly still relevant today, we just address them in a different manner, which is why Fritz the Cat still has potency yet is more or less looked upon as a curious time capsule of a bygone era today.
I was 7 years old when Fritz the Cat first hit the screen, and while I didn't see the film for the first time until I was well into my twenties, the film nevertheless had a lasting impact on my childhood. This film had taken on a reputation of mythical proportions in my Brooklyn hometown neighborhood, partly due to the older teens on my street who were all too eager to share shocking details contained therein, as only the best subversive intentions can do, and further securing the film's status as "every parent's nightmare". To a child about to undergo serious growing pains and a naturally growing curiosity towards all things "adult-related", Fritz the Cat was very much my earliest childhood memory of the themes of sex, drugs, rock-n-roll, racism, you name it, and it was a symbol for naughtiness that all coming of age kids couldn't wait to catch a sneak peak of, or at least couldn't wait to reach the age when we could view such subject matter freely.
As a movie, it hasn't lost any of it's impact in 30 years, and fewer films truly capture the grittiness and raw edge of New York city in the 70's (French Connection is another good example). I dare say that it could be considered more offensive now than ever, as I fear that today many just might not "get it," despite our self-proclamation that we've come a long way in maturity and tolerance of such sensitive issues. Modern society has become so politically correct and desensitized to controversial issues that we're less tolerant and understanding of the original intent of a film such as this, especially when it's messages are not consistent with our modern value system. Thus, some of the obvious stereotypes presented in this film (such as the pigs portraying cops and the crows portraying blacks, for example), could never be presented in a film today. Granted, these images were meant to be offensive in the 70's as well, but they were obviously taken in a different light back then, as they were indicative of a specific brand of biting satire found in the 70's and hippie culture and a reflection of how that particular generation could openly address such social issues. These issues, such as racism, are clearly still relevant today, we just address them in a different manner, which is why Fritz the Cat still has potency yet is more or less looked upon as a curious time capsule of a bygone era today.
Tell Your Friends