Vigilante407's Reviews

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

2/10

Mediocre by any stretch of the imagination

11 September 2005

I've watched Attack of the Clones twice; once when it first came out on DVD, and again last night. The first time I watched it, I still had a bit of the Star Wars fan left in me (I've seen the original cut of the first movie over 200 times), and I couldn't stomach most of the film. A few good action sequences, but nothing even remotely resembling a plausible story.

The second (and probably last) time I watched it, I tried to view it through the eyes of just a science fiction movie fan in general - forgetting the Star Wars mythos that Lucas co-opted for merchandising. The film still falls short on all counts except for having good special effects. Unfortunately, Lucas has forgotten that a good story is what drives a good sci-fi film, not effects that can be sold later on. There are plot-holes and gaps of logic that trucks could easily be driven through.

I'd easily prefer watching Cat-Women of the Moon or Rocketship X-M to ever sitting through Attack of the Clones again.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Man-Thing (2005)

2/10

Not even close to the comic book

9 September 2005

Here's a spoiler for you: The comic book Man-Thing is nothing like this movie. Chemist Ted Sallis was looking for a way to duplicate the Super-Soldier formula that gave Captain America his abilities. Much like DC's "Swamp Thing", he ends up getting killed in a swamp, and his essence merges with the bayou to become it's guardian, and the guardian of "The Nexus of All Realities" - a place with alternate universes meet.

Don't worry, it's not a spoiler for this movie, as not a single one of those elements is present in "Man-Thing". Sure, a few of them are mentioned as character names and irrelevant plot points, but this movie is nothing at all like the comic. Even the Man-Thing's signature feature isn't present: "He who knows fear burns at the touch of the Man-Thing!" That was one of the things that set this creature apart from your average rampaging swamp beast, and that particular facet isn't even alluded to in the story or script.

Don't waste your money renting or buying the movie. If you can see it for "free", like with Netflix, go for it, especially if you like riffing movies while you watch them.

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Solaris (2002)

3/10

Don't waste your time ... rent the original

5 September 2005

I had high hopes for this movie. I had hoped to find a good version of Stanislaw Lem's novel. I had hoped to see a good version of the original movie, with up-to-date special effects. And, strangely enough, I had even hoped to be able to see a performance by George Clooney that could be called "good" (actually, I really just hoped for "watchable").

My hopes were dashed on all counts. I guess Soderbergh figures he's a bigger name than Lem or Tarkovsky, and so all the groundwork they laid is inconsequential. This was a very bad film. We're talking "Highlander 2" bad here. Here's another film that makes that most unforgivable of errors in science fiction, as it made it all pretty damn boring. Jeremy Davies and Viola Davis are the only ones who don't seem to have phoned in their performances, though with this stodgy script, there isn't all that much difference in anyone's acting.

Rent the original 1972 movie. That's one of the best science fiction movies of all time, right up there with 2001. Get past the subtitles and watch a vastly superior and much more intelligent science fiction opus than anything George Clooney could have possibly acted in.

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

The Eye 2 (2004)

6/10

The only thing similar to the original is the title ... and some ghosts

31 August 2005

Warning: Spoilers

This wasn't a bad movie, just as the original "The Eye" wasn't a bad movie. Both are fairly good ghost stories that were marketed a bit over the top. Each has a few scary or creepy scenes, but neither is on the same level as "Ringu" or "Ju-On" as the advertising claimed.

The only similarities between "The Eye" and "The Eye 2" are the title and the fact that both have ghosts. The original is clearly the superior film. This sequel could just as easily have been called "Stupid Adulteress Who Doesn't Understand the Precepts of Her Own Religion (Even After They Have Been Recited To Her More Twice in This Movie)". The movie 's premise uses some basic ideologies found in Buddhism, and once you understand that (it was pretty easy even for an American like me to figure out after the character's first bout with suicide early in the movie), the movie's "terror" is downgraded to just occasionally "creepy".

It's not to say that it isn't an interesting movie. The main character is just acting so illogical that she doesn't make any sense, and it is hard to have any sympathy for her plight. The situation that was happening to her was explained to her at least twice during the movie, by a character she could trust. And most of her actions and reactions, particularly at the climax of the movie, caused me to lose every bit of sympathy for her, as she went from harmless movie wacko to psycho-bitch in two quick leaps (literally).

The movie had pretty good production values and the music was suitably creepy. It's definitely worth a watch once, though if you have a low stupidity threshold, I might have a few drinks first.

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

Megalodon (2002 Video)

2/10

Pretty much complete crap

30 August 2005

This movie comes off as a rehearsal for a much better film. All the elements are there ... actors, story and effects ... but everything seems like it could have used a couple of more rehearsals before they actually committed it to a permanent recording media. It just has a completely unfinished feel to it.

Even the effects are a few levels below what I would expect in a science fiction or monster movie, nowadays, reminding me of many of the storyboard animatics you see in the Extras on the DVDs for better movies. I know this movie didn't have the budget of a "Jurassic Park" or even a "Godzilla" movie, but if you can hide your poor work with opticals properly, don't use it at all.

I liked the entire concept of a megalodon attacking folks, but it just looked like a big Great White shark, or just like someone in the CGI department had forgotten to shrink the creature to normal size.

I'm glad my video store had a deal so that I basically got this DVD for free ... I'd hate to have actually paid money to rent it.

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

Nightfall (2000 Video)

1/10

Just plain bad ... and for the worst reason Sci-Fi can be bad

30 August 2005

I've always thought there were three kinds of "bad" when it comes to movies. First, there's "Highlander 2" bad - someone takes a good concept and throws everything that was interesting out the door. Then, there's "Moulin Rouge" bad - being trying to be cloyingly cute or culturally-topical and ending up with a product that's simply clichéd and lame.

And then there's the case with "Nightfall". This movie is bad because it is completely and utterly boring, as opposed to the story that it was adapted from. The film's script is boring, the effects look like someone was yawning while they added them, and the acting makes the audience yawn with the clichés they are forced to utter and perform. David Carradine is the sole saving grace of the film, but he isn't on-screen enough to make much of a difference. The two "stars" who act out the leading roles seem like they just came off a stint on "Power Rangers" (actually, I think one of them did).

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Girls on Top (1985–1986)

Very disappointing

4 July 2004

I can only say that I was very disappointed with Girls on Top. I recently watched the first DVD with the first three episodes and found it to be more annoying than watchable.

I expected a lot more, considering what a big French and Saunders fan I am, but even knowing that this series was created before their more-celebrated partnership began doesn't make this show any funnier. Dawn French has the only semi-likable character on the show ... with Tracy Ullman and Ruby Wax being completely over the top in their portrayals (Wax is an American, and I shudder to think what the British must really think of us).

Sure, I laughed a couple of times, but most of the time I just strived to try and understand what was being said. It was interesting to see Alan Rickman (one of my favorite actors) in a bit part in the first episode as well, but there really wasn't much to redeem this britcom.

If you like these actresses, check out their later work ... avoid wasting your time with Girls on Top.

6 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Vigilante407

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed