This was a wonderful tribute to the memory and career of such a unique performer and gave great insight into how far back and important he was on the comedy industry. I don't understand the reviews condemning the fact that other comedians told the straight up story of how Bob was. Based on what they all said he wouldn't have wanted it told with fluff, but instead as honestly as they stated. My only issue with the film was that I wish it were longer. While there probably wasn't that much more to say about his career, all the clips from his Super Dave stunts on "Bizarre" had me longing to revisit them all again.
Reviews
23 Reviews
Fox Trap (2019)
(2016)
Decent slasher with a nice twist
24 November 2019
While the movie isn't of itself particularly special, it is one of the better slasher movies I've seen in years. The story isn't all that original, but it's a faithful slasher formula, with solid acting and directing. Plus, the killer turned out to be a nice twist on the usual reveal.
Murder on the Orient Express
(2017)
I'll Tell You Whodunit - Kenneth Brannaugh
21 November 2017
The true crime in this film is how badly Kenneth Brannaugh's hubris murdered a nearly century-old classic character and made a tremendous case for an ending to remakes, as this one totally spit on the 1974 Sidney Lumet version as well as the novel.
It's really a shame that Brannaugh once again used a film he was directing to highlight himself as much as possible at the expense of making a good movie. This could have been a modern day ensemble cast re-telling of a classic tale. But thanks to Brannaugh, it instead was a complete and unnecessary overhaul of a great story for the worse. For some reason, Hercule Poirot is now part James Bond, and while it was one thing to add a little diversity to the cast, it was completely ridiculous to then add a ton of garbage about racism.
If you're not very familiar with Agatha Christie you may find something good in the film. But if you are a fan, do not bother wasting 2 hours on this complete and utter dreck.
It's really a shame that Brannaugh once again used a film he was directing to highlight himself as much as possible at the expense of making a good movie. This could have been a modern day ensemble cast re-telling of a classic tale. But thanks to Brannaugh, it instead was a complete and unnecessary overhaul of a great story for the worse. For some reason, Hercule Poirot is now part James Bond, and while it was one thing to add a little diversity to the cast, it was completely ridiculous to then add a ton of garbage about racism.
If you're not very familiar with Agatha Christie you may find something good in the film. But if you are a fan, do not bother wasting 2 hours on this complete and utter dreck.
The Snowman
(2017)
Missed Opporunity and Hollywood Bastardization of a Terrific Novel
26 October 2017
It's apparent this film was made solely for fans of Jo Nesbø, as the story is muddied with seemingly randomly chosen scenes and aspects of the novel and complete disregard and jettisoning of more important parts of the tale, sure to confuse the average movie-goer. Fortunately, I have read all the novels in the series, so I understood all the background of the characters which was mostly skimmed over or poorly displayed.
A real shame, because Jo Nesbø's books are incredibly layered and nuanced and keep you guessing. Whereas this movie changes much more interesting aspects of the original story to instead regurgitate typical Hollywood thriller plot lines.
On top of all that, they relegate a couple of semi-major and entertaining characters to nameless ones with a few meaningless lines in the film. And they didn't even pronounce the main character's name correctly. In Norwegian, "Hole" is pronounced "HOO-leh", a source of humor in a few of the books.
The good and bad news is, this mess of a film likely nixes any chance of it turning into a mediocre series.
A real shame, because Jo Nesbø's books are incredibly layered and nuanced and keep you guessing. Whereas this movie changes much more interesting aspects of the original story to instead regurgitate typical Hollywood thriller plot lines.
On top of all that, they relegate a couple of semi-major and entertaining characters to nameless ones with a few meaningless lines in the film. And they didn't even pronounce the main character's name correctly. In Norwegian, "Hole" is pronounced "HOO-leh", a source of humor in a few of the books.
The good and bad news is, this mess of a film likely nixes any chance of it turning into a mediocre series.
Truth or Dare
(2017 TV Movie)
Pretty Good for a Syfy Movie
9 October 2017
For a made-for-Syfy movie, Truth or Dare was much better than the channel's usual fare. The film was actually somewhat scary and gory, the story a much more solid one, and the acting and directing far above the norm. It's by no means a masterpiece, but on the whole it holds together consistently throughout and is pretty enjoyable. 7/10
The Dinner
(I) (2017)
A Wasted Opportunity
12 August 2017
The novel upon which the film was based on (the third film, in fact, to be adapted from the novel) is a complex, twisted, darkly humorous tale, whose sections are broken up by, and compared to, a series of dinner courses; thus the title, The Dinner.
In this adaptation, however, the biggest mistake is the complete forgetting of the central plot device - the dinner meeting in the film considers the setting to be a mere excuse for the people sitting together. That is, when it remembers the characters are actually having a dinner discussion. Too much of the time the story shows things happening everywhere but at the restaurant, and includes completely bizarre and unnecessary elements like Steve Coogan's first wife dying of cancer and his obsession with Gettysburg. And somehow, Richard Gere's character is made out to be a noble, heroic one, even though I cannot recall that character having those qualities in the book. So far as I can remember, all the adults are morally ambiguous at best.
In an effort to make Americanize this story, the movie ultimately removed every aspect that made the book so great. I strongly recommend skipping this utter waste of time and reading the novel instead.
In this adaptation, however, the biggest mistake is the complete forgetting of the central plot device - the dinner meeting in the film considers the setting to be a mere excuse for the people sitting together. That is, when it remembers the characters are actually having a dinner discussion. Too much of the time the story shows things happening everywhere but at the restaurant, and includes completely bizarre and unnecessary elements like Steve Coogan's first wife dying of cancer and his obsession with Gettysburg. And somehow, Richard Gere's character is made out to be a noble, heroic one, even though I cannot recall that character having those qualities in the book. So far as I can remember, all the adults are morally ambiguous at best.
In an effort to make Americanize this story, the movie ultimately removed every aspect that made the book so great. I strongly recommend skipping this utter waste of time and reading the novel instead.
Good, but inferior to the first, and if you don't love the original, you'll probably hate this one.
9 April 2017
I enjoyed the film, but didn't love it like I do the the first movie. While they managed to capture the essence of the original film - telling the story in bits and pieces, out of order, any with layers within layers - but whereas they reached a point where that formula again worked, the film then went way too over-the-top in an attempt to really out crazy its predecessor. It was also disappointing that, while the first movie had reasonably well-developed, multi-layered characters, with the exception of the main character Siouxsie, all the others were ridiculously shallow one-note caricatures in this one. If you really loved Bad Kids Go to Hell, you're more likely to get some enjoyment out of this one, but don't expect it to be as good.
Exhibit A
(2007)
Don't Know What Film Other Reviewers on Here Watched, But This Was Garbage
30 March 2017
I am really shocked to see how many average to great reviews and ratings this piece of trash has. The majority must be associated with the film, or have never watched a good movie in their life. The premise sounded like something a little different in the found footage genre, but alas, it was the same old story just with different characters. Not only do the characters devolve during the movie, but so does the plot. It's like in the second half they completely forgot what was established in the beginning of the picture. The acting was over-dramatic, especially by the parents, and lacked any believability. The story and direction spiraled downhill faster than the disintegration of the family unit. An utter waste of time, even if you're a found footage fan.
The Possession Experiment
(2016)
Disappointing
9 March 2017
I watched this film because the plot sounded like a different twist on a worn-out sub-genre, and because it was made by a local production company (I even recognized some of the exterior shooting locations.) The concept was OK, most of the special FX were decent and the editing of the horrific visions was done well, albeit much like a music video, which is what I believe the production company is known for. However, the movie turned out to be yet another mediocre indie disappointment due to poor directing, a bad script and, as pretty much every other reviewer has mentioned, absolutely abysmal acting. I think if they'd taken their time to produce a solid short film based on the concept they would have been better off. Feature films are not their strong point.
The Darkest Hour
(2011)
Sub-par and predictable.
25 December 2011
Take a SyFy movie, add competent actors, sometimes better special effects and a slightly interesting second half, and you get The Darkest Hour.
Much of the dialog is amateurish; half the special effects are terrific (when people are disintegrated), half are only a few steps better than what The Asylum churns out (when the aliens view people, the aliens themselves); the direction is mediocre; the plot ridiculously predictable.
Legitimate actors and a fairly interesting last 45 minutes of the movie are the only redeeming qualities.
Wait for Netflix on this one.
Much of the dialog is amateurish; half the special effects are terrific (when people are disintegrated), half are only a few steps better than what The Asylum churns out (when the aliens view people, the aliens themselves); the direction is mediocre; the plot ridiculously predictable.
Legitimate actors and a fairly interesting last 45 minutes of the movie are the only redeeming qualities.
Wait for Netflix on this one.
Green Lantern
(2011)
GL was awesome. The critics are all WRONG.
18 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I have no idea what movie all the critics who bombasted Green Lantern saw, but it must have been something else, like Kung Fu Panda 2.
The GL mythos is a very complex and complicated one, which even followers of the comic could easily get confused by at times. However, the makers of this film did an admirable job of explaining the background and rationales of the story in an easily understandable manner, which even those with no prior knowledge of GL could comprehend.
There were major plot elements which were drastically changed from the original comic stories. Yet, in the film they were altered and explained in a fashion that made them accessible to the average moviegoer without alienating fans of the comics.
Ryan Reynolds excelled as Hal Jordan, making him a believable, funny and exciting. Mark Strong was great as Sinestro, and the rest of the cast did a fine job as well.
*Possible spoiler* And this movie was made solely for the purpose of introducing Green Lantern and setting up the next story in which he will face off against Sinestro. That story looks to be even greater than this one was.
The GL mythos is a very complex and complicated one, which even followers of the comic could easily get confused by at times. However, the makers of this film did an admirable job of explaining the background and rationales of the story in an easily understandable manner, which even those with no prior knowledge of GL could comprehend.
There were major plot elements which were drastically changed from the original comic stories. Yet, in the film they were altered and explained in a fashion that made them accessible to the average moviegoer without alienating fans of the comics.
Ryan Reynolds excelled as Hal Jordan, making him a believable, funny and exciting. Mark Strong was great as Sinestro, and the rest of the cast did a fine job as well.
*Possible spoiler* And this movie was made solely for the purpose of introducing Green Lantern and setting up the next story in which he will face off against Sinestro. That story looks to be even greater than this one was.
Burning Palms
(2010)
No redeeming value whatsoever
30 May 2011
Considering some of the talented actors and the general premise of this movie, it should have been, at the very least, an average or at least slightly amusing film. Instead, it's a ridiculously cynical, bitter, awful tale that throws societal taboos around like confetti at a ticker-tape parade for no other reason but to see how many can be clumped together in on movie.
The stories try to be sardonic and darkly whimsical. But the absolutely terrible script and overly despicable and poorly written characters instead result in an utter waste of the viewers' time.
For the reviewers who compared this to anthologies such as Pulp Fiction, Creepshow or Trick 'r Treat, they are insulting the very essence of much better such films.
Burning Palms completely misfires on all cylinders, and unless you're a stuck up film school snob who thinks they find more meaning in films than is actually there, avoid this one at all costs. It's not worth an iota of your time.
The stories try to be sardonic and darkly whimsical. But the absolutely terrible script and overly despicable and poorly written characters instead result in an utter waste of the viewers' time.
For the reviewers who compared this to anthologies such as Pulp Fiction, Creepshow or Trick 'r Treat, they are insulting the very essence of much better such films.
Burning Palms completely misfires on all cylinders, and unless you're a stuck up film school snob who thinks they find more meaning in films than is actually there, avoid this one at all costs. It's not worth an iota of your time.
My Soul to Take
(2010)
I Can't Believe Wes Craven Made This Garbage
9 October 2010
Despite numerous warnings to avoid this film, I shelled out my money, including the ridiculous $3 extra for 3D glasses, figuring, it's Wes Craven, how bad can it be? Well, the answer is, extremely, horribly, atrociously bad. MSTT made Shocker look like Citizen Kane. I've seen better efforts at the After Dark Horrorfests and coming from The Asylum on SyFy.
MSTT had a script and dialog of the level of some fresh-out-of-some-two-bit-drama-school reject, not of a nearly 40-year veteran of filmmaking. Half the dialog made no sense whatsoever, and the emotions of the actors was usually misplaced.
While the story had promise, the execution failed completely. At first, the action seemed forced to get to the central elements Craven was looking for, then the resolution bogged down in complete incoherence.
Craven can't blame some one else's script or studio insistence on cuts, 'cause this atrocity was all his. If this is the best he can do, he should retire. He's proved he has nothing left to add to horror.
And if my negative comments still don't dissuade you from seeing this atrocity, make sure you at least seek out 2D instead of the extra money for 3D, because...
THERE WAS NO Discernible 3D IN THE FILM WHATSOEVER!!!! Scenes which should have popped out of the screen, such as the ambulance crash, DIDN'T! It's quite obvious the studio realized what a piece of crap MSTT was and how it would plummet in ticket sales once work of mouth got out, so they did post-filming 3D conversion to bilk the poor suckers who went to see it opening weekend out of a few dollars more.
The only reason I didn't rate this a 1 is because, sadly, I have seen worse. But this one should be avoided at all costs.
2/10
MSTT had a script and dialog of the level of some fresh-out-of-some-two-bit-drama-school reject, not of a nearly 40-year veteran of filmmaking. Half the dialog made no sense whatsoever, and the emotions of the actors was usually misplaced.
While the story had promise, the execution failed completely. At first, the action seemed forced to get to the central elements Craven was looking for, then the resolution bogged down in complete incoherence.
Craven can't blame some one else's script or studio insistence on cuts, 'cause this atrocity was all his. If this is the best he can do, he should retire. He's proved he has nothing left to add to horror.
And if my negative comments still don't dissuade you from seeing this atrocity, make sure you at least seek out 2D instead of the extra money for 3D, because...
THERE WAS NO Discernible 3D IN THE FILM WHATSOEVER!!!! Scenes which should have popped out of the screen, such as the ambulance crash, DIDN'T! It's quite obvious the studio realized what a piece of crap MSTT was and how it would plummet in ticket sales once work of mouth got out, so they did post-filming 3D conversion to bilk the poor suckers who went to see it opening weekend out of a few dollars more.
The only reason I didn't rate this a 1 is because, sadly, I have seen worse. But this one should be avoided at all costs.
2/10
Drag Me to Hell
(2009)
Intense and Funny - Classic Sam Raimi
30 May 2009
The early trailers for Drag Me to Hell dubbed it as (sic) "the return to classic horror", and for once at least, they are correct.
Sam Raimi manages to incorporate genuine thrills and terror using the old-fashioned format of surprise, misdirection and suggestion. As a frequent viewer of horror films, little surprises me, but in this film I was caught off-guard several times while watching it.
While the majority of the movie is kept on a serious and foreboding level, much like the original "Evil Dead", Raimi can't help but throw in elements of the absurd and slapstick during some of the more horrific scenes, thus reducing the tension and echoing the latter 2/3 of the "Evil Dead" trilogy.
WHile I have nothing against the modern trend of horror movies to provide shocks merely in the form of how much blood and gore they spill, this flick was wonderfully refreshing. It's a must-see, not just for Raimi fans, but for anyone who loves a good scary story and a great movie in general.
Sam Raimi manages to incorporate genuine thrills and terror using the old-fashioned format of surprise, misdirection and suggestion. As a frequent viewer of horror films, little surprises me, but in this film I was caught off-guard several times while watching it.
While the majority of the movie is kept on a serious and foreboding level, much like the original "Evil Dead", Raimi can't help but throw in elements of the absurd and slapstick during some of the more horrific scenes, thus reducing the tension and echoing the latter 2/3 of the "Evil Dead" trilogy.
WHile I have nothing against the modern trend of horror movies to provide shocks merely in the form of how much blood and gore they spill, this flick was wonderfully refreshing. It's a must-see, not just for Raimi fans, but for anyone who loves a good scary story and a great movie in general.
Star Trek
(2009)
Greatest. Star Trek. Ever. Period.
9 May 2009
As someone who grew up with the original Star Trek in syndication, plus the jump from the small screen to the big with the original movies, plus having watched TNG, Deep Space Nine and Voyager, I knew JJ Abrams had big shoes to fill with his reboot of the sci-fi series that grandfathered almost all of modern-day sci-fi.
And Abrams proves himself to be the master of excitement, suspense and pure adrenaline action with this offering.
The film is packed with clever homages to the original show and movies, whether it be snappy lines, such as Bones' famous "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a...." to the Kobayashi Maru scenario.
The cast is phenomenal, from Pine's Kirk, to Pegg's Scotty, Quinto's spectacular Spock, Cross' Sarek, and my personal favorite, Karl Urban as McCoy.
Though the subplot is admittedly one we've seen dozens of times throughout the Trek Universe, Eric Bana nonetheless plays a great baddie, and what would Star Trek be without a villain out for supreme revenge.
Whether you're a long-time Trekkie, or new to the story, this movie is what summer action flicks is are all about, and to date, this is the best picture of 2009.
If IMDb's rating system went higher, I'd give this 14 stars.
And Abrams proves himself to be the master of excitement, suspense and pure adrenaline action with this offering.
The film is packed with clever homages to the original show and movies, whether it be snappy lines, such as Bones' famous "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor not a...." to the Kobayashi Maru scenario.
The cast is phenomenal, from Pine's Kirk, to Pegg's Scotty, Quinto's spectacular Spock, Cross' Sarek, and my personal favorite, Karl Urban as McCoy.
Though the subplot is admittedly one we've seen dozens of times throughout the Trek Universe, Eric Bana nonetheless plays a great baddie, and what would Star Trek be without a villain out for supreme revenge.
Whether you're a long-time Trekkie, or new to the story, this movie is what summer action flicks is are all about, and to date, this is the best picture of 2009.
If IMDb's rating system went higher, I'd give this 14 stars.
Knowing
(2009)
Sometimes not knowing is better...
21 March 2009
Let me preface this by saying I am by no means panning this movie. The general premise was intriguing, the action and intensity for the first 3/4 of the film was terrific.
Nicholas Cage, who time and again has proved he has no range as an actor, once again plays a perfect role - a now alcoholic, cynical, one-dimensional widower with a precocious young son.
The unearthing of a 50-year old time capsule and subsequent discovery of a list of numbers inside that appear to have predicted every major disaster on earth for the past 50 years, combined with witnessing a disaster called for in the document, suddenly turns Cage's world upside down.
As he seeks answers to what's happening, the plot thickens, excitement ensues...until the sudden appearance of mysterious strangers who seem to have direct connection to what's happening. Unfortunately, the more they show about them, the more outlandish this supernatural subplot becomes.
By the last 20 minutes of the film, it appears the filmmakers had two stories in mind, neither of which was long or substantial enough to last two hours. So, they smashed both plots together to create the final product. Had I not seen the end of the movie, I think it would have been a better overall experience, regardless of not know how it all comes out.
The first 75% merits an 8, but the ridiculous ending is worthy of perhaps a 2 rating, thus reducing the overall movie.
Nicholas Cage, who time and again has proved he has no range as an actor, once again plays a perfect role - a now alcoholic, cynical, one-dimensional widower with a precocious young son.
The unearthing of a 50-year old time capsule and subsequent discovery of a list of numbers inside that appear to have predicted every major disaster on earth for the past 50 years, combined with witnessing a disaster called for in the document, suddenly turns Cage's world upside down.
As he seeks answers to what's happening, the plot thickens, excitement ensues...until the sudden appearance of mysterious strangers who seem to have direct connection to what's happening. Unfortunately, the more they show about them, the more outlandish this supernatural subplot becomes.
By the last 20 minutes of the film, it appears the filmmakers had two stories in mind, neither of which was long or substantial enough to last two hours. So, they smashed both plots together to create the final product. Had I not seen the end of the movie, I think it would have been a better overall experience, regardless of not know how it all comes out.
The first 75% merits an 8, but the ridiculous ending is worthy of perhaps a 2 rating, thus reducing the overall movie.
Unearthed
(2007)
Could'a been good, but made every effort to be bad.
9 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Let me preface this review by saying, while there may be some plot spoilers contained below, I doubt that if I transcribed the script word-for-word I would spoil the movie for anyone. The director/producers managed to spoil this movie quite well on their own.
OK, a movie about an archaeological dig unearthing some ancient creature that starts killing people stranded in the area. Certainly nothing original there, but, ya never know. The director may come up with some new twists. Well, if the director did, he did an impressive job of not sharing it with the audience. Nor did he make any attempt to reveal whatever he had in mind for tying all the unidentified story-lines behind the characters together. Characters are barely introduced at the beginning of the movie, and there is but a hint of character development for anyone but Sheriff Annie.
As far as the filming goes, I've seen camera phone recordings of higher quality than was used in this movie. Apparently, the director dealt with a shoe-string budget by making extensive use of shaky out-of-focus shots whenever there's action, the monster attacking people, people running, caves collapsing, etc. And in today's film-making age, where night shots are shot in daylight/artificial light and then darkened on a computer in the editing room, this film nonetheless shoots it's night scenes outside at night using cheesy night-vision filters. How innovative. Let the audience barely see what's going on so they can feel like they're truly in the dark.
The computer graphics are state of the art....were this still 1992. It's blatantly apparent that one of the director's favorite films is Alien3, as the monster graphics look like he pulled old footage of the alien scampering along the walls from the David Fincher film. And worse than that, he copies the scene in which the alien moves its face close to Sigourney Weaver by having Unearthed's monster, dripping goo from its mouth and all, move its head close to the face of a cringing Tonantzin Carmelo (who is covered in radioactive muck, yet never seems the least bit bothered to be so). What's really sad is, the real creature apparatus which is used in only a handful of shots did look well-crafted. However, most of the scenes of the creature are such pitiful CGI, they make made-for-Sci-Fi channel movie special effects look good.
Had any effort been made to develop the characters, explain what was really going on with them early in the film, and some legitimate filming done instead of rough-shod disjointed quick cuts and camera angles, this COULD have been a decent film.
OK, a movie about an archaeological dig unearthing some ancient creature that starts killing people stranded in the area. Certainly nothing original there, but, ya never know. The director may come up with some new twists. Well, if the director did, he did an impressive job of not sharing it with the audience. Nor did he make any attempt to reveal whatever he had in mind for tying all the unidentified story-lines behind the characters together. Characters are barely introduced at the beginning of the movie, and there is but a hint of character development for anyone but Sheriff Annie.
As far as the filming goes, I've seen camera phone recordings of higher quality than was used in this movie. Apparently, the director dealt with a shoe-string budget by making extensive use of shaky out-of-focus shots whenever there's action, the monster attacking people, people running, caves collapsing, etc. And in today's film-making age, where night shots are shot in daylight/artificial light and then darkened on a computer in the editing room, this film nonetheless shoots it's night scenes outside at night using cheesy night-vision filters. How innovative. Let the audience barely see what's going on so they can feel like they're truly in the dark.
The computer graphics are state of the art....were this still 1992. It's blatantly apparent that one of the director's favorite films is Alien3, as the monster graphics look like he pulled old footage of the alien scampering along the walls from the David Fincher film. And worse than that, he copies the scene in which the alien moves its face close to Sigourney Weaver by having Unearthed's monster, dripping goo from its mouth and all, move its head close to the face of a cringing Tonantzin Carmelo (who is covered in radioactive muck, yet never seems the least bit bothered to be so). What's really sad is, the real creature apparatus which is used in only a handful of shots did look well-crafted. However, most of the scenes of the creature are such pitiful CGI, they make made-for-Sci-Fi channel movie special effects look good.
Had any effort been made to develop the characters, explain what was really going on with them early in the film, and some legitimate filming done instead of rough-shod disjointed quick cuts and camera angles, this COULD have been a decent film.
Dagon
(2001)
True Lovecraft Fare
23 October 2007
Although this film was low-budget and filmed in Spain - two features that would normally make anyone cringe at the thought of watching it - it was actually a well-done production.
The movie has the right amount of macabre elements and a very stygian atmosphere much like the writings of the master Lovecraft himself. Unlike many attempts at adapting H.P.'s works in the modern world, this one manages to remain true to the atmosphere and style of the Cthulhu Mythos.
Not only should Lovecraft fans enjoy this film, but horror lovers in general should find this worth viewing.
The movie has the right amount of macabre elements and a very stygian atmosphere much like the writings of the master Lovecraft himself. Unlike many attempts at adapting H.P.'s works in the modern world, this one manages to remain true to the atmosphere and style of the Cthulhu Mythos.
Not only should Lovecraft fans enjoy this film, but horror lovers in general should find this worth viewing.
The Kingdom
(2007)
Action-Packed Political Thriller without Political Preaching
1 October 2007
Unlike many films of recent that deal with the subject of the Middle East, "The Kingdom" merely uses it as a backdrop for a real thrill-ride of a film.
Yes, it was at times unrealistic, but this film concentrated on putting forth an exciting thriller for entertainment purposes, and entertain it did. The tension slowly builds throughout the film, climaxing in shootouts reminiscent of such other political thrillers as "A Clear and Present Danger".
And yes it did have political statements. But at no time did it preach it's views, and in many ways, showed things in a reasonably neutral, but matter-of-fact perspective of how and why certain political situations are the way they are today.
If you like tense thrillers with some shoot-em-up thrown in for good measure, you'll enjoy this movie.
Yes, it was at times unrealistic, but this film concentrated on putting forth an exciting thriller for entertainment purposes, and entertain it did. The tension slowly builds throughout the film, climaxing in shootouts reminiscent of such other political thrillers as "A Clear and Present Danger".
And yes it did have political statements. But at no time did it preach it's views, and in many ways, showed things in a reasonably neutral, but matter-of-fact perspective of how and why certain political situations are the way they are today.
If you like tense thrillers with some shoot-em-up thrown in for good measure, you'll enjoy this movie.
Snakes on a Plane
(2006)
Now I Know Why This Movie Tanked at the Box Office
26 August 2007
Is it possible to rate a movie a 0 or less? The filmmakers couldn't understand why this film, which generated tons of internet excitement prior to its release, was one of the biggest bombs of last year. After watching the first 38 minutes on HBO, I can't believe they were the least bit surprised. (After the scene where a snake jumps into a screaming woman's mouth to latch onto her tongue, I just couldn't take any more.) The trailers with Samuel L.'s now world-famous quote about the snakes, had the only good parts, if there actually were any, in the film. Why Jackson or Marguilles would sully their names by appearing in this atrocity is beyond me. While most of the characters aren't to be taken too seriously, they are, regardless, written and acted so cheesily, the movie makes a 4th grade play look like Citizen Kane. And in today's cgi-driven Hollywood, how they managed to make the snakes look more cartoonish than Sci-Fi Network low budget monster flicks is equally puzzling. If it were possible, I'd rate this a great big goose-egg, as it is easily the worst attempt at a film I've seen in years.
Sunshine
(2007)
A surprise original hit in a summer of blockbuster sequels
30 July 2007
It's a shame that Fox Searchlight appears to have deemed this film not worthy of advertising, because it was a highly intelligent, taut sci-fi thriller, the likes of which hasn't been seen in what seems like forever.
Danny Boyle adapts his trademark filming style to the sci-fi genre really well, and his leading man from 28 Days Later, Cillian Murphy, gives his best performance since that flick.
The science and the thrills were all much more realistic and believable than similar science-thrillers of recent years. The only drawbacks of the film are, the end was unnecessarily over-melodramatic and poorly filmed in parts, with too many blurry shots and quick cuts. But on the whole, the film was great, and I highly recommend it, especially to fans of Sci-fi, thrillers and Danny Boyle.
Danny Boyle adapts his trademark filming style to the sci-fi genre really well, and his leading man from 28 Days Later, Cillian Murphy, gives his best performance since that flick.
The science and the thrills were all much more realistic and believable than similar science-thrillers of recent years. The only drawbacks of the film are, the end was unnecessarily over-melodramatic and poorly filmed in parts, with too many blurry shots and quick cuts. But on the whole, the film was great, and I highly recommend it, especially to fans of Sci-fi, thrillers and Danny Boyle.
King Kong
(2005)
A disappointing and vastly over-rated film due to CGI getting in the way of a good story.
17 November 2006
King Kong is one of the greatest disappointments I have ever experienced at a movie theater. People who loved this film seem to have been hypnotized by the CGI and failed to notice how the film was way too long, how poorly cast it was, and how many of the graphics looked more like a video game than a modern computer generated movie. Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody give fine performances, a testament to their abilities as actors, especially considering they had very little dialog. Jack Black, however, was sadly mis-cast for this film, and gave a performance that suggests he regretted getting involved. the two biggest drawbacks to the film, however, stem from: -Other than the CGI of Kong himself, the remaining dinosaurs, animals, etc. were sadly unrealistic looking. Jurassic Park, made 12 years earlier, had much more realistic CGI creatures. -Peter Jackson's own legend thanks to LOTR grossly got in the way of making a good film. It was about an hour too long, due mainly to him building the background much more than was necessary, and forced you to sit for nearly an hour before the crew even arrives at Skull Island. Additionally, scenes like the one with the stampeding dinosaurs, which would have worked fine had they lasted a minute or two, went on for what seemed an eternity. All-in-all I left the theater longing for Peter Jackson to return to movies like The Frightners rather than subject us to a disastrous remake like this one again.
Tell Your Friends