I was reading an article in the Washington Post about this film (Turkish film, America's '24' A Crossfire of pop Culture by Karl Vick) and was surprised to read about the over-the-top depiction of America's troops in Iraq. Torturing suspects, shooting innocents, and ignoring Turkish values are all certainly true of the U.S. force and seem ripe for depiction in the cinema. But organ-harvesting? A conspiracy with the Jews and Israelis regarding Sept. 11? OK, OK, we in the West can hardly criticize other nation's movie bad-guys, just watch "Rambo" or "Die another Day" to see how Hollywood feels about Communists. But I was shocked to see that one of the actors was Billy Zane! Shocked for two reasons: Firstly, how far has this guy fallen in order to have to travel to Turkey to appear in a $10 million budgeted flick? Secondly, does his conscience not bother him even a little over being in a movie that inflates the level of atrocities committed by American soldiers to a level of Naziesque genocide? The U.S. soldiers are not depicted as the 19 year old order-following, ignorant farm kids they are, but as incarnations of pure evil. Does a paycheck outweigh patriotism? Or as an actor does he feel free to take on any role, no matter how xenophobic, racist, religiously intolerant it is, safe in the belief that it is "only" fiction. The Post article quotes one Turkish movie-goer as saying, "These are things we knew were going on anyway." Thanks for perpetuating the ridiculous fantasies of a scared foreign populace Billy! Way to go! Chicago is proud of you! In so far as Hollywood can be trusted on showing the "truth" of the military conflicts in Iraq, may I recommend "Jarhead," "Three Kings," or the canceled TV series "Over There." While not perfect, they do a far better job than "Kurtlar Vadisi Irak" does.
Reviews
29 Reviews
Resident Evil: Apocalypse
(2004)
Boring. (no spoilers)
25 August 2005
Despite the stilted dialog and hard-to-connect with characters, I liked the original "Resident Evil" for what it was, a stylish conversion of a video game with undead mutant dogs. Just can't get enough of those. The sequel is just a snore. Jump cuts and WAY too much slow motion get in the way of the action sequences; characters who (once again) you don't care if they live or die; and long stretches where there is no tension or excitement, despite the intent of the director. Certainly not bargain basement awful like "House of the Dead" but not even a decent rental for a Tuesday night at home. Better to rent a George A. Romero flick if you want zombies, "Underworld" if you want a slick leather clad heroine, and any action flick by james Cameron if you want run and gun shooting.
Saw
(2004)
A good earner
20 April 2005
Wow, I am blown away with the money this flick has made:
Budget: $1,200,000 (estimated)
Gross $55,153,403 (USA) (26 December 2004)
That is amazing for a horror flick, much less one that is as graphic as this one. Add in second-run showings and DVD/video and the distributor and producers will be living large.
I think the horror "wave" is peaking now, any guesses what will be the next genre to take Hollywood's fancy? Sci-Fi? Westerns?
PS Why is the movie "Leon" a recommended choice at the bottom of the "Saw" entry? I'd think "Seven" or even that Jennifer Lopez/Vince Vaughn serial killer flick would be better choices...
Budget: $1,200,000 (estimated)
Gross $55,153,403 (USA) (26 December 2004)
That is amazing for a horror flick, much less one that is as graphic as this one. Add in second-run showings and DVD/video and the distributor and producers will be living large.
I think the horror "wave" is peaking now, any guesses what will be the next genre to take Hollywood's fancy? Sci-Fi? Westerns?
PS Why is the movie "Leon" a recommended choice at the bottom of the "Saw" entry? I'd think "Seven" or even that Jennifer Lopez/Vince Vaughn serial killer flick would be better choices...
American Splendor
(2003)
Haven't seen it? See it. (No spoilers)
30 November 2004
I had this movie sitting by my DVD player for weeks before I watched it, I just didn't know what to expect. I was certainly expecting a fairly depressing movie, reflecting Harvey Pekar's comics. But it isn't at all and excellently portrays not only Pekar's life as an underground comic book writer but also his life (the both being so intertwined it would be tough not too). Don't worry if you don't have a clue who Pekar or R. Crumb are, it is a good movie regardless and I thought took great care to ensure that all members of the audience could appreciate the points it makes. Paul Giamatti does a great job portraying Pekar, at no time did I feel it was just a caricature of the real life writer. It will unfortunately be a long time till Paul gets another chance to shoulder the main role of a flick so enjoy him in this one.
Highlander
(1986)
Good fun, a classic
13 November 2004
23% of voters gave Highlander 8 out of 10, the highest percentage of votes given for the movie,and I think that is about right. The original Highlander (before all the crap which followed) was a great popcorn flick with a fun story and a "good" bad guy. And the Queen soundtrack didn't hurt either. : ) I have seen it a few times over the years and quite enjoyed it each time. Almost certainly the peak of Lambert's career (ok, not exactly Mount Everest here but he was good in it) it helps if you have only seen this one and haven't been tainted by the truly hideous Highlander 2. (shudder) After I finish typing this I am gonna see if Highlander 2 is on the worst 100 list... if not, go there now and cast a vote of 1!
No Man's Land
(I) (2001)
IMDb's movie of the day is worth tracking down (NO spoilers)
11 November 2004
I'm glad the IMDb featured this flick as its movie of the day, it is a great film and one which I think a lot of people passed over because it has... (shudder) sub-titles. : ) I am always aghast at some people's reactions to "foreign films" (in other words not Hollywood-produced), much less if it actually requires you to READ the dialogue. If you like war movies (and I am talking about those war movies which have you contemplate the brutality and morality of armed conflict, not those that glorify it... although those can be fun too) then you will... well perhaps "enjoy" is too strong a word as I found parts truly horrifying, not in a "look at the gore" way but in a "man is a terrible beast" way... so let's say "captivate" you with its intensity and what I felt to be an honest assessment of war and this conflict in particular. Greatly acted and a great idea behind the movie, this film gets 10/10 from me, though as I mentioned it is not the same 10/10 a LOTR or Star Wars gets, this movie is not a popcorn muncher but one that will get you thinking and keep you thinking long after the credits finish.
City of Ghosts
(2002)
Read after viewing film (spoilers)
10 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Not bad but nothing special really. I think Matt Dillon became fascinated with the country and it's history and perhaps glossed over the fairly standard plot and some too obvious plot points. There was never any attempt to have interesting interactions between James Caan and Matt Dillon's characters. I like the actors when I see them in other movies, they are all talented, but they aren't asked to do anything especially difficult in terms of character development or moving along the story. Skarsgard is a fairly one-dimensional baddie though perhaps Dillon thought the sub-plot with him and his Ho fiancé would flesh him out. It doesn't. No real reason to recommend this flick to friends, better to rent other films where the individual actors really had a chance to shine e.g. "The Godfather," "Ronin," or "Drugstore Cowboy."
On Deadly Ground
(1994)
Honestly one of the worst movies I have ever seen
10 November 2004
You know, commenting on how bad a Steven Seagal movie is is a bit like beating a baby with a 2x4... too easy as there is no defense. : ) But Seagal has had some movies that worked well enough for teens to eat popcorn to at the cheapie cinema on a Sunday afternoon with nothing else to do. I remember loving "Above the Law" when I was in high school and "Under Siege" was worth it to see Gary Busey chewing the scenery. But "On Deadly Ground" is truly awful, not even worth having on the TV in the background while you do something else, it's badness seeps from it in an unholy miasma that taints your soul. : ) I cannot be sure but I would venture that this was the moment in time where you can see Seagal's career just take a huge nosedive into vile obscurity. On a related note, I caught the first 5 minutes of "Half Past Dead" on WOWOW the other day... couldn't watch anymore as it was so laughable, but not in a "Plan 9 from Outer Space" way more in a "my God they paid him MONEY to make this" way. I like the cinematic film tricks used to disguise his huge bulk... not very effective as he is so big now he has his own gravitational pull, but they did the best with what they had.
City of God
(2002)
No Spoilers, just a plea for you to see this film
6 November 2004
This movie got a lot of publicity when it came out, and is deservedly #23 on the top 250 list here on the IMDb. In the off chance you are browsing that list for movies you haven't seen yet and thus reading this comment: do yourself a favor and go rent/steal/borrow this movie. A "tour de force" {I think that's French for bloody amazing :) } of movie-making, it has to be seen to be believed. It speaks not just to the degradations and hardships of life in a Rio slum, but in any impoverished area in the world. I just now saw it, the same weekend I caught "Secret Window" at the cinema here in Nippon, the 5th Element on TV (again) and "The Core" on DVD... like comparing a diamond in the rough to 3 lumps of cubic zirconium... buried in feces... in a septic tank... : )
Scarface
(1983)
A Classic
1 November 2004
22,684 people have voted regarding "Scarface," which is a good sign that people appreciate this movie even 21 years after its release. I am not a huge DePalma fan but this movie is undeniably great, with immensely good acting, a great story, and some of the cheesiest music of the 80s. Love those electronic organs! If you haven't seen it... why are you reading this? Go see it already! At the time of it's release the violence caused an uproar but 20 years on it is not so gory, compared to some recent movies.
One of Pacino's best, man I wish he did things of this caliber recently. Take the good (Heat) with the average (The Rookie) I guess. I believe Pacino is 64 years old, so I look forward to a few more years and a few more good movies from the method actor's method actor.
One of Pacino's best, man I wish he did things of this caliber recently. Take the good (Heat) with the average (The Rookie) I guess. I believe Pacino is 64 years old, so I look forward to a few more years and a few more good movies from the method actor's method actor.
More movies like this please
1 November 2004
"Being John Malkovich," "Adaptation," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," all great and all nothing like the run of the mill grist the movie industry usually grinds out. Nice to see big stars willing to take a chance on a script that can't have been easy to follow in written form. This film is well-done, and Jim Carrey shows once again he is capable of more than just delivering one-liners. The film world needs more movies like this and less movies like "Captain Corelli's Mandolin," "Reindeer Games," and "Maid in Manhattan." Boycott the next piece of crap that shows up at your local cinema (Gigli; Catwoman; Coyote Ugly; etc.) and spend your coin supporting projects like this.
Once Upon a Time in America
(1984)
Someone who loves this movie please explain why
26 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I finally saw "Once Upon a Time in America" and it was not worth the wait. : ) Can someone who really LOVED this movie tell me why? I saw the extended version and it was like watching glaciers making love... : ) SO slow. The kids acting in the first part of the movie were painful to watch.
To give you an idea of how low an opinion of this movie I have, I saw "Sharkey's Machine" (1981) today on TV (Burt Reynold's last big movie) and let me say I enjoyed it's 70's style silliness better than this seemingly pretentious "masterpiece." Don't get me wrong, it has it's moments but in between long periods which could have been trimmed. The sets and costumes look great though... : )
************ Spoiler Alert ****************** What is with the opium den stuff? Not really explored at all, just to be taken as a given that De Niro is a Hophead? *********************************************
Anyway, someone tell me how this gets over 8 points when other ENTERTAINING flicks get the shaft. Keep in mind I also found "The Deer Hunter" too long, but couldn't get enough of the extended version of LOTR. Perhaps I am just a heathen... ; )
To give you an idea of how low an opinion of this movie I have, I saw "Sharkey's Machine" (1981) today on TV (Burt Reynold's last big movie) and let me say I enjoyed it's 70's style silliness better than this seemingly pretentious "masterpiece." Don't get me wrong, it has it's moments but in between long periods which could have been trimmed. The sets and costumes look great though... : )
************ Spoiler Alert ****************** What is with the opium den stuff? Not really explored at all, just to be taken as a given that De Niro is a Hophead? *********************************************
Anyway, someone tell me how this gets over 8 points when other ENTERTAINING flicks get the shaft. Keep in mind I also found "The Deer Hunter" too long, but couldn't get enough of the extended version of LOTR. Perhaps I am just a heathen... ; )
Mazes and Monsters
(1982 TV Movie)
Ahh memories
18 October 2004
This movie is a classic. OK not in the "what a masterpiece" sense or the "what a great undiscovered gem" sense but more along the lines of "Oh my God I am gonna pee my pants laughing at this early 80s fear-mongering flick which happens to feature a young and bewildered Tom Hanks." This is right up there with "Plan 9 from Outer Space" or "Reefer Madness." Not a movie to take seriously AT ALL, just a nice slice of Reagen-era silliness for your Sunday afternoon perusal. If you haven't seen it, it is well worth rooting out, though I fear you won't "get" the beauty of it if you are not a thirtysomething former nerd who lived through the "D&D is a product of Satan and responsible for warping my child's fragile mind" eighties. Then again people are making the same complaints about "Grand Theft Auto" and "Hitman" so perhaps it still holds its charm...
House of the Dead
(2003)
Spectacularly awful
10 October 2004
I don't think this falls into the category of "so bad it is good," it is simply craptacular. #29 on the worst movies of all time list, and deservedly so seeing as they had a decent enough budget. And really, how hard is it to make a zombie movie? The whole video game homage thing going on was weak as a concept, much less in execution. I saw on the "Man on Fire" comment board that people were claiming that as the worst movie ever... seriously, they must be watching only the best cinema out there if they think Denzel's latest foray holds a candle to this bag of pus. (sigh) I know a LOT of aspiring filmmakers who would have loved to have even a tenth of the cash they blew on this movie, and could turn out quite a decent flick in return...
Speed 2: Cruise Control
(1997)
Only #90 on the worst flick list?
10 October 2004
Come on people, add a few more votes for this big budget waste of celluloid, and get it at least down near the middle of the pack. Think of the cash that the studio forked out in order to make it. Think of how they completely overlooked the dumb-ass plot points. Remember the leeches Willem Dafoe used? How he smuggled the gear on the ship disguised as golf gear when you could stroll on a cruise ship with anything you want in your bags? The replica cruise ship they destroyed and which Entertainment Tonight featured for a week running? And let us not forget the main actors chewing the scenery like a pit bull in a nursery... Cast a 1 ballot for this and bring fairness back to the bottom 100!
On Deadly Ground
(1994)
This movie is much worse than it's ratings suggest
25 April 2004
At the moment this shining Jewel of Seagal's career (if "shining jewel" is a euphimism for "noxious eye-cancer causing crime against humanity") ranks as #100 on the bottom 100 list. Steve must be sneaking into the IMDB under psuedonyms and propping this gargantuan waste of celluloid up to keep it from descending to the depths where it belongs. A truly bad movie needs three things: a decent budget (anyone can make a cheap piece of garbage, it takes true talent to do so with tens of millions available); a bad story; and bad acting. This one wins in spades. I haven't seen most of the 99 movies in the bottom 100 (thank God) but I did see "House of the Dead" which is currently #30 and "On Deadly Ground" is definitely worse than that (well, kind of like comparing pig droppings and horse leavings... they both stink but one is bigger). When I think "action movie" the first thing that comes to mind is "ecologically-minded"... well, at least this is what came to Seagal's mind. If it is any consolation it is that this is the movie which sent Steve on his path South, making his movie profits dwindle while his girth spiralled up to challenge that of the protagonist of "Free Willy." I saw Steve a few months back on a popular tv show here in Japan, comedian Sanma's "Koi no karasawagi," and I swear to God he was wearing a muumuu. Rest in Peace Segal's career. Please vote #1 for this so as to ensure it reaches the ranking it so richly deserves...
House of the Dead
(2003)
Bad
28 March 2004
It is hard to screw up a zombie flick but they do a great job of it here. Good acting is hardly needed but at least acting which doesn't look like it came out of a soap opera is required in order to not distract you from the bloodletting. Zombie film checklist:
T & A : 10/10 SFX: 6/10 (mostly guys in body suits)
Intercutting scenes from the video game throughout the film is just silly and the matrixesque cinematography is just plain lame in a zombie flick.
Better to rent "Day of the Dead" again then see this. If you must see it I recommend being stoned.
T & A : 10/10 SFX: 6/10 (mostly guys in body suits)
Intercutting scenes from the video game throughout the film is just silly and the matrixesque cinematography is just plain lame in a zombie flick.
Better to rent "Day of the Dead" again then see this. If you must see it I recommend being stoned.
Railroad Man
(1999)
A nice change from American blockbusters
29 November 2003
A particularly Japanese take on duty and responsibility, Ken Takakura is a trainman at a rural train station. Sad, poignant, but ultimately redeeming of the choices he has had to make in order to fulfill his chosen occupation, if you are looking for action of any sort go elsewhere. This is a character drama and an excellent one. If all you know of Takekura is 'Mr. Baseball' and 'Black Rain' then you ought to see him in a role which allows him to demonstrate his strengths as an actor, delivering an amazing performance with very little overt emoting.
Hulk
(2003)
Bad
30 October 2003
This is nothing like the comic, how could Stan Lee agree to this swill? I had rock-bottom expectations when I saw it and unfortunately they were met. Which is a shame because I like both Ang Lee and Eric Bana but this is the script from hell. Existential at parts, silly in others, just a real dog's breakfast.
Gladiator
(2000)
Ridley Scott Goodness
29 October 2003
Back when Crowe was not a household word (unless you had seen ROMPER STOMPER) this is the usual brilliance by director Scott. A cool story, cool visuals and effects, cool acting... just plain cool. If you haven't seen it... why on earth not? If you have, see it again!
Chicago
(2002)
Pretty good flick
28 October 2003
My wife's favorite movie (which is usually the kiss of death as she liked the ACTING in Starship troopers) this one is very watchable and hats off to all involved for making a musical so enjoyable. Richard Gere and Rene Zellwegger are especially good. Some of the musical numbers are a bit suspect, the lyrics can leave a lot to be desired, but if you have given it a miss due to the genre, give it another chance.
Austin Powers in Goldmember
(2002)
3rd but not last in the franchise
28 October 2003
Ok some of the jokes are getting so stale you should find them in the half-off bin at your local bakery, but it has always been so. Employing the Saturday Night Live "tell a thousand jokes and hope the audience laugh at half" technique, if you found the last movies funny then you will laugh again at "Goldmember." If you though the last two weren't funny than avoid this one like Hong Kong during a SARS outbreak.
X2
(2003)
Pretty good flick
28 October 2003
I loved X-Men (the first movie), a great sci-fi comic adaptation by Bryan Singer. The second one is good as well (some think it better than the first due to its faithful homages to comicdom) but just not quite as amazing as the first. Familiarity breeds contempt? Taken for granted? Watch and you be the judge.
Signs
(2002)
Great stuff! *No spoilers*
28 October 2003
"Unbreakable" was a big disappointment after the jaw-droppingly good "6th sense" but M. Night redeems himself with this excellent and creepy film. As usual the "secret" is not all that secret and not all that cool either, but the atmosphere generated by the story does its job admirably in keeping you on the edge of your seat.
Ice Age
(2002)
A nice movie
28 October 2003
A great-looking animated movie with good voice-acting from Romano, Leary and that Dr. guy from ER. Of course a little sappy in spots (it IS for kids after all) it also is chock full of humour including the funniest beginning and ending to a movie I have seen in ages. If you don't like this one you are a bad person. : )
Tell Your Friends