Change Your Image
aaaa
Reviews
Man in the Mirror: The Michael Jackson Story (2004)
No more than a high school play
First of all, there is no actor who can be Michael Jackson. The actor does not in any way look, sound, or act identical to Michael. Second, a movie about a pop-singer is going to be very sparse in the music department when the rights to the music can't be acquired. This means reenactments of stage performances wouldn't work, unless they were done in silence with some expository movie music played over it. Last, this is not a movie so much as it is a summary, or an article, on the more recent events in Jackson's life.
Fans of his personality, energy, and image from his older albums will be disappointed, as the film quickly shifts to more recent news events and controversies. If you DO want a positive movie focusing on his prior image, see "Moonwalker." (Or play the video game for a couple minutes)
Like serial killer movies Dahmer, Bundy, and Ed Gein, this movie isn't so much about plot and drama as it is about showing events on screen, and getting a glimpse of what actually happened, but altered through artistic license and conjecture. Think of it not so much as a movie, but more as a high school play, where the actors aren't there to look or sound like their characters- they exist to convey information to the audience. The characters and dialogue here are not always believable or realistic, but they serve as a summary of events.
As a movie, it fails. But as a person's rap sheet, it does a good job of piecing various news bits together into a continuity that makes more sense than it does when machine-gun fired through the local news.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)
God awful
This movie isn't funny, isn't amusing, and is simply painful to watch. I only had some interest in it after reading some reviews here that claimed the movie wasn't as bad as some made it out to be, or that it didn't live up to the original, but held up on its own as a different take on the story. Well, rather than flesh out the strange details of the first movie, TTCM2 rewrites nearly everything, and the details that are brought back are simply repeated ad-nauseum. Rather than an interesting, more detailed view of Leatherface's family, I found characters who were repetetive, annoying, and even boring at times.
The best part of this movie is the opening text, which treats itself seriously. Then, immediately, we're warped into 1986, complete with goofy acting and ridiculous clothes. The characters don't act, they just yell their lines at the top of their lungs. And the incoherent Leatherface appearance at the beginning should have been enough warning that the entire movie would be this unwatchable.
The movie isn't scary, but it does go out of its way to make you feel uncomfortable. House of 1000 corpses is a far, far tamer movie, and is actually an enjoyable camp-fest compared to this drivel. I thought the character chop-top would have some redeeming value, as one of his lines is sampled in a Primus song, and the actor that plays him seemed fairly proud of himself for playing the character in the House of 1000 corpses DVD interviews. Instead, I find a character trying desperately to be funny and psychotic, and coming across as nothing more than stupid acting. If you've seen Dumb and Dumberer or other comedies that try too damn hard to be funny, so hard that no sublety or believability is left, then you have every last character in this movie.
The acting is intolerably dumb. Every last scene is a gruelling test of endurance. I don't care what drugs you're using, they won't get you through this film. Your ears will bleed from hearing everyone shout their lines badly into the camera.
I can understand sub-par sequels. i can tolerate bad movies. But this is far worse than bad. This is god awful. It looks like it was directed by retarded sixth graders. This does no justice to either the classic movie or the remake. Why I listened to reviews on this site claiming it was at least tolerable, or simply misunderstood, I'll never know. This movie is not enjoyable, and has no redeeming quality. It adds nothing. Not only is the acting bad, it's tainted with 80's style. It does not age well. There is no immersiveness here, only a film that tries too hard to be funny, scary, dramatic, action packed, and interesting, and fails on all counts.
I would rather open the movie case and find it filled with vomit than watch this.
American Pie 2 (2001)
The essence of a sequel.
I only saw this movie after seeing enough comments on how great this movie was, especially compared to the first. Now I have to say, it still uses the same formula as American Pie (otherwise it wouldn't be called American Pie) but it manages to do something more sequels should do.
It extends the characters. That is, it takes the first movie and goes forward, showing how the kids lives continue. I'll admit it doesn't change their character drastically, and they're still the same people in similar situations even after the movie ends. But it remains a true continuation nonetheless.
Too many sequels try to be more "extreme" and than the original and put all their eggs (or jokes) in one basket. Examples of this are Wayne's World 2, Ace Ventura 2, and Austin Powers 2. All of these tried to outdo the original so much, to the point of nearly raping the original's character, and leave little room for continuation once "everything has been done already."
AP2 does try to go further with its moments, but it still leaves the original intact, and in fact complements the original. The above mentioned movies don't.
The only real negatives are that many scenes are spent trying to be cool or teeny, and seem to take up time simply for the sake of showing young people dance around and act cool. There are times when the main characters hover just over the underdog status they maintained in the first movie, but in a way this could be seen as a good change. Still, the characters remain true to themselves, which leaves it with the fact that this is still American Pie. If you didn't like the first, you probably won't like this one. Many scenes refer to or parallel the original movie, which may tire some viewers, but the basic point of the movie is to show the same characters as they were before, only continuing their lives. This is what a sequel should be- no replacing cast members or dropping others with no explanation. We get to see what happens to all the important players in the first movie.
It also feels complete as a second movie. Questions unanswered after the first American Pie are answered and expanded on here, and there's still enough to continue on to another movie. It didn't have any real lose ends or unresolved conflicts that made it beg for a sequel, but a sequel would still work without harming this film (assuming it was done right).
So as a study on how to do a sequel correctly, AP2 would be a good choice. Its only downfall is that its still similar to the first movie, and doesn't try anything drastically different. But like I said, it wouldn't be American Pie if its was a completely different movie.
My Bare Lady (1963)
An exquisite blend of post-modern docu-drama and thought provocation
If you ever see one movie in your lifetime, make sure it is "My Bare Lady." This classic of all generations is sure to warm your heart, soul, body, and mind with its simple yet eloquent portrayal of a young mistress who decides to meet her first John, resulting in the most intriguing, classic moment in cinema at its absolute finest. Do not hesitate- run to your local video store and rent, buy, or steal this movie immediately! And bring along a box of tissues (to cry on).
Midnight Cowboy (1969)
the human character
Seeing this movie with no clue as to what it's about (call me naive, but it's the best way to see a movie) I nearly expected it to be a western set in the 1800s, until the camera slowly goes down to the 60's diner. And that's something that describes Joe, the main character, fairly well at the beginning. With mannerisms that contrast so much to the modernday lifestyle, including overfrielndliness and a couple "YEEHAW"s thrown in random conversation, I was unsure whether I was supposed to laugh or feel spite at this character.
So I chose spite. It worked, even as the story begins to unfold. The sheer obliviousness of Joe and the life he wants can either be funny or just something to scorn. And as the tone slowly sets in, you realize that certain scenes might appear to be funny for their irony in other movies, but here? Here they have a very attached tone to them. The situations seem real enough that they're barely laughable, and instead inspire pity. You realize that Joe is trying to live through New York one day at a time, with a very self centered goal, and all his actions are not done in jest. But along the way insights into Joe's past slowly seep in, and you start to wonder just who he is.
Soon, Joe's image of a completely innocent male twist as you learn about his childhood being spoiled and isolated from the street life, making him believe in a different world than what exists. You learn of his relationship with a girl, and an open ended reason for their splitting up (was she underage? were the men her brothers?). You learn of Joe's rape and repressed sexual feelings, and the shame that goes along with it daily.
Though talkative, many scenes go unspoken, and in fact your head begins to fill in it's own scenes and thoughts. Like a book, certain things are said between the lines, and not narrated so blatantly in front of your face.
Though some parts may seem alarmist or unrealistic, the movie isn't always portraying an accurate life of New York, or even a generalization. It simply shows things. Things that exist behind the scenes. Events. It doesn't say "all things happen this way," but it shows pieces of a man's life that aren't so unbelievable. Things that are dark, and yet in their own way are parts of living and being, a little beyond notions of right and wrong.
For similar movies about a man's lost journey through a city of thought and conflicted emotion, see Taxi Driver or Eyes wide Shut.
Gladiator (2000)
It's better than bad, it's good!
I expected little from this movie. All I had to go on was a preview and a bunch of commercials and promos playing during WWF (not that I'd be watching WWF, er...). So the first thing that comes to mind is: It'll try too hard to be both Spartacus, Ben Hur, and Braveheart but only mediocre and trying to show a bunch of repetitive fight scenes with average dialogue and no plot, and try to cash in on the role of a gladiator as another action movie.
I'm glad I was wrong. Let me tell you, the one thing this movie has is character. All the roles are played with such life in their own ways, that it makes it far easier to imagine living in Roman times (though most of the actors were obvously not Roman, but we never portray other cultures that accurately do we?)
The desires and views of the gladiator owner seemed believable and real, and the emperor's daughter in the movie had a firm yet willingly distant outlook on her environment.
Caesar didn't have the exact effect of a Roman emperor I'd expect, even at his private dwellings, and seemed more like Obi-Wan Kenobi in some ways, but still he played well enough. (I guess altering the shape of the actor's skull to fit the role is out of the question.)
Maximus, the hero, was noticeably not the invincible solo-man who rises to power by kicking everyone's ass and saying "FREEEDOM!" one too many times. In fact, he seems reluctant to be in his current position (of course you'd be) and shows more hope to die quickly without anyone taking notice rather than triumph.
The main strong point of the movie is its tone- while harsh, it has both a sense of realism and a sense of telling any grand tale. The opening battle is so choppy and confusing, it adds greeatly to the effect of not only being surrounded by countless enemies in the nearly unseeable night, but the thought in the back of your mind that says "So I'm supposed to survive all this?"
The gladiator fights, on the other hand, are close up and give a chance to see the fight from the hero's eyes, and not from the distance of the gladiator seat. Maximus kills through both strength and luck- even with armor, both strategy and weakness must be exploited, and this general is fully knowledgeable in that. He doesn't charge in like a madman, but only strikes when he expects to win. I felt this gave more credibility to the fights, especially seeing the fragility of the typical human against the slashing of steel.
This movie requires you to care about its characters as well. You must place your eyes within the characters through each scene, and realize their plights. The movie mixes both a present day familiarity with a portrayal of life 2000 years old, which is sometimes accurate and sometimes altered simply for the audience to swallow easier.
The other part of this movie that makes it great (and has been criticized for) is its very play-like atmosphere at times. It shows characters through archetypes, with lines and dialogue that represent who they are, even in their shifting moods. Oftentimes drama is used in place of what could be more normal scenes, making the movie seem more like a grand performance, where the characters and story is shone in vivid life. It tells a story well in its few hours, as if it could be transported to an Elizabethan play with no problem (minus CG effects).
And as most movies try to be too much (Star Wars: TPM), or have no idea where they are going (Battlefield Earth), this movie knows its goal- to tell a story, and tell it well.
And for that, it beat my expectations.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Naysayers, get this for once..
If you want to see a special effects horror movie like every other horror movie you've ever seen just because you're comfortable with the formula, there's a movie out called "The Haunting." Compare the two and enjoy.
First of all, let's straighten this out:
1. This is not a movie. It's a trip into your imagination. You don't watch "actors" and "acting" or monsters or gallons of blood. You immerse yourself into the environment. You pretend it's real, not because you have to, but because that's what any good movie does. It convinces you that this could happen in a given scenario, whether it be an action movie or a comedy.
2. See a doctor. If motion sickness bothers you that much, either you're either very feeble or couldn't handle even stepping into a Six Flags themepark anyway. In that case, why see a "horror" movie? Your personal problem has no bearing on the quality of a movie, just as my being thirsty because I didn't drink anything beforehand has no bearing on the movie.
3. You are, were, or will be a teenager. Teenagers act very much like this. They swear, they try to be entertaining, they rip each other's throats when their own personal ground is stepped on. If you aren't in highschool or college, at least imagine yourself to be. The same goes with any movie of a different age group, from ET to Message in a Bottle, you need to relate to the characters emotions based on your imagination, regardless of who you are. You are the characters. You see what they see. You go through all the trauma they go through.
4. The cameras have personalities. Remember the b&w camera is the 'documentary' camera, used for high quality shots. These scenes themselves are fine for an amatuer video. The color camera shown through most of the movie is the girl's own personal recording of the events. It's not supposed to be a convincing display of student filmmaking. It's her life as she sees it, and she can shake it, put it on the ground, and even p**s on it because it was never intended for you to see this. This is her personal footage and has no bearing over who sees it later in a theatre (looking from the character's point of view of course).
5. Forget the hype. Use your own personal judgement. Skip past the commercials if you can. Never expect anything better than your own imagination. Especially for this movie.
6. Forget the premise. The backstory that this is supposedly a true story is only meant to make clueless people wonder, which only makes the people who really know smile more. But don't expect yourself to fall for it. Just enjoy it. And remember you can look at the plot from either Mulder or Scully viewpoint. Mysticism or perverted human toying is up to you to decide. It can happen either way.
7. This is not a movie. It has no special effects. It has no top notch video camera with great angles and perfect lighting. It has no celebrities. This is not a Hollywood movie. You can rent plenty of Hollywood movies. This is a test of your thoughts and your emotions. So sit back and relax. And enjoy the dark for once.
The Haunting (1999)
This movie NEEDS to be MST3K'd!
If overly done computer graphics that don't really fit in with the movie scare you, then this is for you! The Haunting feels like a very high production TV movie, as if it were designed to be placed on "the wednesday afternoon movie of the week" as soon as it becomes forgotten in the theatres. The violence and swearing is kept to a minimum, so it's more of a family horror movie, even the kids can see it with no problem.
Of course the theme of a haunted house is so cliche that the movie seldom bothers to take itself seriously, relying on the cliches we already know and expect. This is useful as the plot tends to twist and turn, and isn't the typical "one by one victim" plot of most horror movies. It has a unique approach, though not a realistic one, but again the movie isn't meant to be absolutely serious.
The bad acting and mediocrity of some of the movie is the most entertaining part, and is much better seen with a group of people rather than by yourself. The Haunting is so easy to think of quick sarcastic jokes at the spur of the moment, you'll wonder why Mystery Science Theatre 3000 hasn't picked up on this already. Some examples:
When the protagonist first sees the exquisite mansion, no true reference to architecture is shown. The extremely overdone decorations don't give a hint to any cultures it was based on, meaning the creator had just decided to make an insanely detailed style by himself. But it completely destroys the "this old house" feel and seems like an overdone movie set made yesterday. Some appropriate things to yell at the screen would be "Hmm, that statue... I'd say Ikea circa 1997?" and "What great props they use nowadays!" while seeing the large books Nell goes through, intentionally covered with dirt and sawdust. After she opens one, a great line would be "I never knew they had perfect red and blue lines on paper in 1837, and the ink looks so new!" As the asian woman first appears, trying to show of her clothes and have the world revolve around her, a good question to ask her would be, "What street corner did you say you work at?" and as they go searching the house, we can predict that the movie should be pretty short if only 2 people are going to be mauled to death, and when the annoying guy comes, can predict which order he'll die in. Of course these were predictions- the movie isn't quite how I thought it would turn out, but there was a movie about 3 witches that had a similair ending climax. And the 'bloody' feet on the floor could recieve a comment like "wasn't that in a Fred Savage movie?" And the scripted dialogue can always be made fun of, like when the doctor says in the beggining "I mean you don't tell a rat he's in a maze" and the guy he's talking to can reply "Gee, I never looked at it that way. Ok, do whatever." And the special effects could be talked about in length about how it would be much more realistic if people just used frame by frame movement rather than having a fluid CG prop turn into a real prop after it stops moving.
Anyway, the plot shouldn't be spoiled, as the theme of "what the heck is going on" is what keeps it interesting, though this is a movie for people who like to be "startled" without being grossed out by blood and guts.
Too bad I saw Eyes Wide Shut before this, as it was much scarier (and reminded me of Star Wars)
Brave New World (1998)
Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
The book by Aldous Huxley is a classic, not just for its intrigueing plot and characters, but its prediction of the future which seems eerily like our own. And this made for TV movie shows just how our minds have changed, as it completely ignores the moral issues in the novel and falls prey to itself.
For example, the frequent makeup commercials airing between breaks. Beauty is everything. Nobody looks old or gets ugly.
The previews on TV. Sex sells. Sex is good. Sex is harmless. Everybody does it.
The savages being portrayed as white rather than how they are in the book. Don't offend anyone. Avoid racism.
The flashiness. Leonard Nimoy. Ooh-ahh. Everything is happy.
All the themes and slogans that cloud the minds of the common citizen to the point where it becomes human nature to them, seem to have clouded the minds of the people who made this movie. They fall to their own society's entrappings, not seeing themselves for who they are, but falling to spur of the moment emotions, be it passion or extravagance or just trying to make an extra dollar on a TV movie (games must have an economical purpose, afterall). Anyway, read the book. You'll see how you live in a whole new light.
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie (1995)
Better than the series
It's not the worst movie on the planet. The main elements that give it its flair is the fact that it has much more to work with- no old clips of the old japanese TV series. There are many similarities to the normal show, as this fits directly in continuity, but the feel that this is indeed a movie is made known. For instance, the opening skydiving scene.
The characters seem to be given a bit more depth than the series, which is mostly a series of shaken heads and pointed hands in under 30 minutes vs. the monster of the day. The special effects are not meant to be Star Wars, but they do give a far superior feeling to the series. Especially the enemies and Zords, who are merely plastic and rubber on TV. In conclusion, this is not a cheesy superhero film made on a low budget, but a part of a long and complicated story that is Power Rangers. Too bad I hate them anyway.
Suburban Commando (1991)
Thought Provoking Stupidity
The mind of a child shares many traits which are both similair and diverse from the grown adult. Most of these diversities lie in the perception of one's surroundings, and what those perceptions mean to that person.
Seeing Suburban Commando as a kid was an interesting experience, as the premise looked good enough. A self-proclaimed superhero (old wrestler) stars as an intergalactic traveller stranded on earth, and must adapt. I then saw this movie not as a cheap trick to gain humor, but a lesson in the perspective of this foreign being. Seeing it now makes me realize how worthless and unfunny it all was, but back then, my perceptions were focused on the deeper elements that surrounded the story. The irony of the space man thinking an arcade game was an actual space fighting machine, or the skateboard which travelled endlessly thorugh space, propelled by immense strength and continuing due to constant velocity. Or the whiny voices of the henchmen greatly contrasting to their overall image. And especially the man who looks as if he'd face the commando in a duel, only to succumb to the social trend of the 90's by suing his opponent. This and the traffic signal are scenes which show how we are all animals trapped between our laws and society.
No, it was not the actual scenes that made me laugh, it was the irony behind them and the message that not all things can be treated as familiar to us.
But you really don't need to see this movie for any reason.
Sudden Impact (1983)
A solid movie with a generic title
Though the film comes after Dirty Harry, I'm not sure if it fits before or after The Enforcer. In any case, it's far greater than The Enforcer, which lacked any depth in its villains. Sudden Impact gives a very mysterious air to the villain, and the entire movie focuses around her. Harry Calahan and this woman are both portrayed as realistic characters, with their own lives to deal with. The action simply isn't enough, it's the chemistry of these two with their environments that make this movie enjoyable. The female role is much better than the typical feeble girl (The Enforcer) or sexy vixen. But if you like the first movie, or are just looking for a solid story, go out and rent this. It'll make your day.