Just saw this at Quentin's Grindhouse Fest at the Beverly in L.A... Best Movie Ever!!! We haven't stopped giggling since we left the theater... this is one of those movies that's so awesomely bad it's good. It's a teen comedy, soft core porn, musical and action-adventure extravaganza! This movie has it all: wacky high school hijinks, sexy cheerleaders who get naked at the drop of a hat, crooked developers out to destroy the school and full-on musical and dance numbers. Be on the lookout for David Hasselhoff in his best role ever: Boner! The whole movie was so insane, so wall to wall outrageous it almost blew our minds. Seriously, who needs drugs if a movie can get you this high? Truly, a cinematic milestone not to be missed!
Reviews
3 Reviews
The Island
(2005)
Come on people... this movie SUCKS
24 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
It's amazing how the comment sections have been co-opted by studio flacks masquerading as fans. This movie is already tanking (opened at No. 4) and you can just smell the desperation. When you're reading a positive review that sounds more like a press release than a casual remark, you're probably reading the work of a publicist. Just FY to the I people.
You can't rate Michael Bay movies against other films, as they fall into their own category that almost defies criticism; you can only compare one Bay film to another. If you're of the opinion that "Armageddon" is somewhere near "Lawrence of Arabia" in quality then sorry, you're beyond help. His films are loud, bombastic, misogynistic exercises in excess. If you go into "The Island" expecting that then you'll find it. Just don't call it a "good" film.
As to the comments about how great the story is this time out, let me just say there isn't ONE moment in this film that is not derivative of another scifi film. It lifts liberally and shamelessly from "The Matrix", "Logan's Run", "Blade Runner", "Coma", "THX-1138" and a cult film called "The Clonus Horror". In fact there are so many similarities between "Island" and "Clonus" -- plot, circumstances, costumes, human-sized Ziplocs -- that I think the creators of the old film could sue. If you think it's okay to support this kind of 'throw it in a blender' approach to screen writing then don't complain when the studios keep churning out these Franken-films made from parts of other (better) films you've already seen.
The most disturbing part of the film is not the depiction of human cloning, but the depiction of women and minorities. The future that Bay paints is practically lilly-white, despite what you see now when you step outside. I think I saw a few token minorities sprinkled amongst the clones but most of them are white. The handful of black characters in the film (with the barest of exception of Hounsou's) only further the usual stereotypes; there's the big sassy woman with attitude, the guy who's friends with Jesus, and the athlete. And women in general don't come off any better, represented as perfume models, strippers, baby factories or your basic dumb whore. If you support this film, are you saying you support this brand of racism and misogyny too?
You can't rate Michael Bay movies against other films, as they fall into their own category that almost defies criticism; you can only compare one Bay film to another. If you're of the opinion that "Armageddon" is somewhere near "Lawrence of Arabia" in quality then sorry, you're beyond help. His films are loud, bombastic, misogynistic exercises in excess. If you go into "The Island" expecting that then you'll find it. Just don't call it a "good" film.
As to the comments about how great the story is this time out, let me just say there isn't ONE moment in this film that is not derivative of another scifi film. It lifts liberally and shamelessly from "The Matrix", "Logan's Run", "Blade Runner", "Coma", "THX-1138" and a cult film called "The Clonus Horror". In fact there are so many similarities between "Island" and "Clonus" -- plot, circumstances, costumes, human-sized Ziplocs -- that I think the creators of the old film could sue. If you think it's okay to support this kind of 'throw it in a blender' approach to screen writing then don't complain when the studios keep churning out these Franken-films made from parts of other (better) films you've already seen.
The most disturbing part of the film is not the depiction of human cloning, but the depiction of women and minorities. The future that Bay paints is practically lilly-white, despite what you see now when you step outside. I think I saw a few token minorities sprinkled amongst the clones but most of them are white. The handful of black characters in the film (with the barest of exception of Hounsou's) only further the usual stereotypes; there's the big sassy woman with attitude, the guy who's friends with Jesus, and the athlete. And women in general don't come off any better, represented as perfume models, strippers, baby factories or your basic dumb whore. If you support this film, are you saying you support this brand of racism and misogyny too?
PTU
(2003)
Great study in moody, low-budget filmmaking
16 November 2003
I saw a screening of PTU at UCLA tonight, with the director (and his translator) in attendance. I found the film to be a bit slow in spots, but I was willing to go along with the deliberate pace and slow burn of the film. I think in this country we're way too spoiled on visual chaos, with most studio films thrusting a car chase or a slapstick joke in our face every two minutes or so. It doesn't have to be that way. The film was shot beautifully and there is a quiet cool about the whole thing, very reminiscent of a Lee Marvin vibe as someone else here pointed out.
To did stay to answer questions after the movie, and although this did not alter my opinion of the film it did make me appreciate it even more. It was shot over the course of two years, while he would stop to make other commercial films; some actors gain or lose weight on screen! The budget only came out to $400k U.S. Several of the actors were actually crew people from his other films. One person asked him how he made his cinematography choices (i.e. the constant pools of light) and he laughed and said it was strictly budgetary; they couldn't afford to dress every set and they only had a few overhead lights, so voila! I think the limitations of what they had to work with only make the film stronger, much like Jaws is a better movie because the shark always broke down.
To did stay to answer questions after the movie, and although this did not alter my opinion of the film it did make me appreciate it even more. It was shot over the course of two years, while he would stop to make other commercial films; some actors gain or lose weight on screen! The budget only came out to $400k U.S. Several of the actors were actually crew people from his other films. One person asked him how he made his cinematography choices (i.e. the constant pools of light) and he laughed and said it was strictly budgetary; they couldn't afford to dress every set and they only had a few overhead lights, so voila! I think the limitations of what they had to work with only make the film stronger, much like Jaws is a better movie because the shark always broke down.
Tell Your Friends