Cedar-4 Reviews

Shooter (I) (2007)

Bad sound editing

[4/10 · 28 February 2008]

Very interesting to read some of the comments about this flick but no one mentioned how bad the actors mumbled the dialog. I thought is was a decent enough story but the dialog was so bad you couldn't understand what the actors were saying, it took away from understanding what was going on. Someone mentioned Danny Glover's whispering his lines. I think the director did a lot of blunders by not setting up many scenes so the outcome would have made sense. There was just too much garbled dialog. Another complaint was that the film was shot too dark. It would be nice to see what's going on to at least make sense of a scene. There is a story here but just too damn hard to make out the dialog to help the viewer follow the plot. I blame bad sound editing for this fault. There were many places that just didn't make any logical sense and that was the fault of the director. It's a shame when a picture is screwed up by technicalities as this one has many. Hollywood thinks it's really "trick" to shoot a film dark. This is a lot of BS. There is a time to shoot scenes dark here and there but throughout the whole film?.....No, I'm afraid not. It's a big strain on the eyes. Sweeney Todd would be an example of this.

Comanche Moon (2008)

What a mess

[1/10 · 14 January 2008]

Was really looking forward to seeing a continuation of Lonesome Dove but this was total garbage. Cinematography was terrible. Shot way too tight. Was almost viewing the Grand Canyon through a stationary telescope. Editing was cut, cut, cut. Not even smooth. More like a bad student editor. Don't know if McMurtry did the screen play but the dialog was terrible. Really like Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holiday in Wyatt Earp but what in heck was he doing with this character in Comanche Moon??? I have no idea. Even looked like it was shot on a sound stage using the old Bonanza sets. How can the director of the original Lonesome Dove gone so wrong with this? Where was his head.............. Can't say much for the acting either. It's a shame to have messed up such a beautiful western that could have been but more like they rushed this one just to get it in the can. Have read other reviews and see that others felt the same way. Not even curious to watch the next few nights cause it would be just a waste of time like the first night was.

(2nd post)..................OK, since nothing else was on TV I must be honest and admit that I watched the last 2 nights of Comanche Moon. And I will be honest to tell you that I didn't make it to the end of either of the last 2 episodes because I fell asleep! I can only admit that I was watching the two main characters very closely and I could pick out some mannerisms that Steve Zahn did while portraying the character that Duval did such an excellent job with. So I must give Zahn credit for that. As for Karl Urban's portrayal....simple dead meat. Can only say again that I was very disappointed only because I cared so much for the original LD and like others .......have defended my feelings for a truly great western.

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

The ending didn't "make it"

[4/10 · 7 December 2007]

I enjoyed this film until the ending. The film was a bit long and could have been edited better. I found a lot of the reviews, actually just about all the reviews to be windy and a lot of hot air. Very few picked up on the ending to be a complete cop-out. I think the writers just gave up and said to themselves "we got to end this sucker, let's do it real fast and and pick up our checks". The producers must have had the same attitude because the ending was completely unrealistic! It's too bad that they couldn't come up with an ending that made some sense. Just what in hell were the writers thinking? Obviously the effort of thinking went out the window!

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Don't even waste your time on this one

[1/10 · 16 February 2007]

Ron Howard and everybody associated with this film should be ashamed of themselves. The direction, editing and how dark the film was shot was terrible. Possible the worst film of the year. Ranks down there with Babel. DaVinci was so disjointed I'm wondering if the screen writer could understand it but where in hell was Ron Howard's head? Where the heck were the producers? Didn't they go to the dailies? From what I've heard from friends and others, the book was good but there was no comparison with the film. Don't waste your time on this one but then, if you're on acid, you probably will love this it and Babel. Ron Howard..............what in hell were you doing?????

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Puzzling

[2/10 · 27 December 2006]

I thought the movie was shot nicely. The scenery was spectacular but one thing bothers me........where was the indication that led up to these two guys to jump on each other? I watched the beginning of the film a few times (yes, I am a screener recipient) and I just couldn't find it. That is the one thing that spoiled the story for me. The rest of the film had no basis just because of no build up to the tent scene. Anbody else that I bring this point up with has no answer either which leads me to the conclusion that the majority of film goers really don't care to see a movie that has a 'beginning' , 'middle' or an 'end' regarding the story plot. OK.......maybe it has a beginning and an end but where in hell is the "middle"? The "middle" being the build up of the relationship. So they like to herd sheep................is that it? It was just a job they took on. So everybody that has a job of herding sheep has a tendency of jumping on his/her partner??? No...........................the writers and director didn't do a very good job of this. After reading some of the other comments, I must add that I ,too, had a hard time understanding the MUMBLED dialog. Don't the studios 'get it'?? Isn't this the job of the soundman? I'd fire the S.O.B. or was it the mixing editor..........either one, the producers and director should have caught this. But a lot of this kind of thing goes on with many films. It's just plain old sloppyness and "they" call themselves "professionals"........yeah, right!

Babel (I) (2006)

Terrible!

[1/10 · 27 December 2006]

This film is absolute garbage. Should never have put film in the camera. Shot like a student film and whatever "story", and I use this term loosely, is weak. Mind boggling that it was even released, let alone, up for any awards. Have not seen any other of Gonzalez's films but if this is any indication, I don't think I will waste my time. It was painful sitting through it but I did. It's that thing of seeing just how bad a film can be! If you want to be totally bored then be Paramount's guest. Hollywood has really become dysfunctional. Really hard to fill up ten lines of text to describe this ridiculous film. Angry to have spent this much time about it. After reading some of the "rambling,babeling" positive comments, I can only think that these folks could really get a lot out of a 3 hour film focused on a rock. Interesting to read a few comments of how the rest of the audience reacted to this tripe. One reviewer hit the nail right on the head describing the people that found 'some meaning' with this film as being "artsy fartsy".The film was appropriately named.............. just pure BABEL.