The Davii's Reviews

Closer (I) (2004)

7/10

The three years of my divorce wrapped into two hours

3 December 2004

While I thought the characters were interesting, I found it very difficult to watch, as my own marriage disintegrated in a fashion too familiar to these characters. The lies, the half-truths, the inability to distinguish truth from lie after being told so many lies. I could completely relate to the characters in this movie.

Though I could laugh with it, it was nevertheless painful to watch. I couldn't recommend this movie to anyone except my ex-. Even then, I have trouble believing she's understand any part of it.

This particular film was more like a documentary shot without the shaky hand-held camera. But, like the still photographs the movie mocks as being false, Closer allows only glimpses of the truth behind the myriad lies.

I want to be entertained at a movie and I cannot think of a single person to whom I'd recommend this movie. It was very well acted, scripted, and executed on all parts. But it was more painful than pleasant or enlightening.

21 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Closer (I) (2004)

7/10

The three years of my divorce wrapped into two hours

3 December 2004

While I thought the characters were interesting, I found it very difficult to watch, as my own marriage disintegrated in a fashion too familiar to these characters. The lies, the half-truths, the inability to distinquish truth from lie after being told so many lies. I could completely relate to the characters in this movie.

Though I could laugh with it, it was nevertheless painful to watch. I couldn't recommend this movie to anyone except my ex-. Even then, I have trouble believing she's understand any part of it.

This particular film was more like a documentary shot without the shaky hand-held camera. But, like the still photographs the movie mocks as being false, Closer allows only glimpses of the truth behind the myriad lies.

I want to be entertained at a movie and I cannot think of a single person to whom I'd recommend this movie. It was very well acted, scripted, and executed on all parts. But it was more painful than pleasant or enlightening.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

5/10

Visually interesting, but poor closure to the trilogy

6 November 2003

Warning: Spoilers

This film suffers greatly from the mythos and world that it created in the first two films.

*** Spoilers below ***

Just as the recent "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is tame compared to "Kill Bill" (which was so over the top, it became a Road Runner cartoon). Matrix Reloaded gave us the 100-Smith "Burly Brawl," and the half-hour chase. Matrix Revolutions provides "more, more, more" of action with sentinels, ships, gunfire, and everything that (in still panel form) would make a comic book exciting.

Characters introduced in the earlier films have diminished roles (Persephone, The Architect, the "Frenchman", and even Morpheus and Trinity are given little to do) and some minor characters are given pivotal roles (the 16-year old kid, drawing a page from Wesley Crusher by saving the day, oh, wait, no he doesn't. Psych!).

We have set-ups (the M. C. Escher-styled train station) without payoffs (sure, the gang has to solve the puzzle, but... so what? Does it matter later? Does it advance the plot? Does it in any way affect the ending?).

While "Matrix Reloaded" suffered from "Empire Strikes Back" syndrome, "Matrix Revolutions" suffers from "Attack of the Clones" syndrome, with so many things happening on-screen that "more" becomes irrelevant. If we see 10,000 sentinels, are we in 10x the amount of danger compared to 1,000 sentinels? The first film had small clusters (10?)! I think we've finally hit the asymptote on the amount of "action" that can happen onscreen. While the battles are "epic" in scale, the filmmakers do incorporate the struggles of some minor battle teams, something akin to the old WWII film "The Longest Day".

I won't even address some my disbelief that I could no longer suspend, like the huge mechanical beasts firing so much weaponry at the incoming machine sentinels while they not only aren't wearing hearing protection, but they *shout* commands to each other (standing side by side) or listen to commands from a speaker in what looks like a radio. With so much firepower expressed in that tiny area, it should have been full of smoke, noise, and confusion. (But then we couldn't see anything, saving them millions! in the process).

The Architect's mumbo-jumbo (from Matrix Reloaded) about how this Matrix wasn't the first iteration, but the sixth, was mostly ignored. Why? Why have a set up like that with no payoff? Why the Christian symbolism in The Matrix that was marginalized in the last two films?

In the end, though, it comes down to Smith asking why Neo continues to fight when "he can't win" (since he has survived as long as he has, it hardly appears to be an even battle, so is Smith trying to) and Neo responds with (spoiler!) "Because I choose to" (apparently arguing that "free will" is what separates him from the machines?). Choice is what "The Matrix" started with (blue vs. red pill). We're back to *choice*? That is the end philosophy of three films?! The Matrix has gone from uber-cool to cypher in just three films.

Art direction: 10/10 (ala "Kill Bill")

Plot : 3/10 (ala "Attack of the Clones")

Overall : 5/10 (can neither recommend seeing or avoiding)

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Shoot or Be Shot (2002)

1/10

With all respect to Mr. Shatner, avoid at all costs

27 January 2002

While I am a long-time Shatner fan (since we used to watch Trek re-runs over the dinner hour in the early '70s), I cannot think of any possible reason why he wanted to do this film, whether for personal development or business reasons. Did he lose a bet?

As a movie fan, I like to appreciate the bad films along with the great ones. But "Shoot or be Shot" doesn't have any flair or funny bits, unintentional or not.

While unrated, there were no objectionable scenes (blink or you'll miss it nudity, cartoonish gunfire "violence" with the endless bullet gunfights), so one is led to believe that the producers merely wanted to save the fee required to get the MPAA to rate it. This will make its way to cable with barely 10 seconds edited out.

Of the eight people that were in the theatre with us, four of them left mid-way, muttering statements like "This is stupid".

Shatner plays an escaped mental patient who has been denied release because he views himself as a screenwriter. The examination board stamps his request "INSANE". He runs into a group of Z-grade moviemakers who "shoot on video because its 80% cheaper than film" and decides to force them to shoot his script at gunpoint. There are a few minor subplots that develop some of the secondary characters, but for the most part, that is the whole movie.

If you want to spend 90 minutes on a Shatner "art" film, see "Free Enterprise" instead, it is a much better film.

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Davii

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed