LordAndrew Reviews

Gummo (1997)

Freak Show

[8 January 2006]

Apparently there is something fundamentally interesting about strange looking people doing weird things. What other explanation is there for the success of Jerry Springer's show. Gummo is essentially the Jerry Springer show out of the studio.

It appeals in much the same way as a lot of horror films do. Gummo would almost fit right in with classic films such as Deliverance, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and The Hills Have Eyes, except for one minor detail: there is absolutely no plot. Despite this fact it was still mildly entertaining. There is a bath time scene which is borderline brilliant.

I'm always sort on interested in what qualifies something as art. Gummo has some characteristics of an art picture, it's dense and doesn't have much interest in telling any sort of traditional story. What it lacks is any real direction, it really doesn't seem to be saying anything deeper then, "Hey, check out these freaks."

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Something Has Got to Give

[18 November 2005]

There is clearly a big problem with adapting an 800 page book as a 150 minute movie. In order to do this successfully a great deal of solid film-making craft is required. I don't believe either Steven Cloves or Mike Newell are even remotely capable of this sort of craft.

Did the film cut too many things out, was that the problem? I don't think so. The problem seems to be that they tried to include as many of the little details from the book as they could and failed to ever do those details justice. For instance, what was the point of including the reporter? What did the scenes with the reporter add to the story? The plot point only established that Harry is an interesting character, which we already knew. The total dismissal of the reporter character throughout the rest of the story should be an indication of her importance. With a novel of this size the goal should be to capture the essential pieces of the story, to recreate whatever it is that makes the book interesting. I would have cast my vote for focusing on the experience of the three leads.

The only thing that really disappointed me about the movie was the lack of depth of Harry, Ron, and Hermione.

Whoever does the next film should do himself a favor and check out how L.A. Confidential was adapted, hopefully he'll learn something.

A History of Violence (2005)

Elegant yet Flawed

[1 October 2005]

As much as I liked the movie as the story unfolded, I have to admit it left me feeling very much under whelmed.

The issue, I think, is that the movie is essentially a character study with crucial pieces of a main character's background missing. At the end of the story we know that the character was a much different person early in life, that a dramatic transformation occurred. To my mind it seems there should be some explanation about why the change occurred in the first place, but that is not provided. Some may say this is irrelevant, but how could the reasons he turned away from his violent life be irrelevant when all the movie seems to be saying is that the capacity to act violently is a necessary and valuable part of humanity? Why would he turn away from it?

As for the violence in the movie I would have to say that there isn't a director today that handles violence and gore better than Chronenberg. Every violent act in the film is very much justified and each spurt of blood plays like vindication. He has found a certain beauty in splattered guts, the result of a good man being pushed too far.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Sucks to be Willy

[16 July 2005]

As cheesy and sometimes laughably bad as the Gene Wilder Willy Wonka film was it at least came through with the goods in the end. This much slicker and overall better version makes a few fatal mistakes and collapses with 15 minutes left.

I guess having our current Weirdo Wonder Boy in a role as an eccentric recluse makes any harm done to the overall story justifiable. Therefore, we have a "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" in which Charlie isn't even the main character.

In fact, to call Charlie a character at all would be a major embellishment. Our Charlie starts the film as the Perfect Little English Boy and end exactly as he began. He has nothing to learn from Willy Wonka or anyone else for that matter.

The only story arc belongs to good old Willy. I enjoyed Depp's performance for the most part but I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, for him to tell us something worth hearing. The movie is ultimately a failure because he has nothing to tell us. He's a nut, nothing more.

The only point the movie has is made painfully obvious 10 minutes in, everything else is pure eye candy.

Bewitched (2005)

Nora Ephron Sucks and so did Bewitched

[1 July 2005]

To it's credit Bewitched is something of a paradigm shift away from the typical little to big screen transition. Those lovable little twits that brought us "You've Got Mail" have delivered a film not about a witch named Samantha and her idiotic husband Darren, but something much more interesting, a film about a remake of a TV show about a witch named Samantha.

Now the really hilarious thing about this is that the actress playing Samantha is really a witch who wiggles her nose and has an extended family that's almost identical to the family on the original TV show, Huzza!!!! You may wonder how this strange coincidence could be handled gracefully. My answer is, I don't know, and by the way that's the Ephron Sisters answer too.

Another strange thing is that the witch seems to be free to rewind time whenever she messes things up. I've always wondered when I've seen this in movies, what happens to the other 6 billion people, wouldn't there be some sort of butterfly effect? Makes you think she's sort of a selfish bitch. I wish I had that power so I could get back the 90 minutes I wasted on this garbage.

Apocalypse Now (1979)

Kurtz's Final Judgment

[1 July 2005]

As a huge fan of the novella, and someone who actually understands it, maybe it isn't fair for me to comment on this movie. Even if the movie had been done correctly, and had done justice to the book, I probably wouldn't have been all that happy with it. But even so, I think I have the right to complain when a deep and though provoking story, with a fairly clear message, is drained of all meaning in the movie version.

In the novel Kurtz's dying words, "The Horror, the Horror" were a summing up of everything the story was saying. That man is basically evil, our hearts are black, all we seek is our own pleasure, and that the only thing keeping us from becoming savages ourselves are the carefully placed guidelines of society.

The movie isn't so clear about "The Horror" line. As near as I can tell, and from talking to people who haven't had the pleasure of reading the novel, "the horror" is referring to war itself. My response to this is "duhhhhhhhh." Of course war is horrible. The movie should have ended after it's only brilliant scene that makes this abundantly clear. The scene where the soldiers kill a child after she makes a silly move to save the life of her pet puppy. Now do you really need to be told that war is horrible after this? Is that a conclusion you need some help to reach? If it is then you're a moron!

Irreversible (2002)

Interesting Failure

[16 November 2004]

The movie was a real experience, I'll give it that. Unfortunately one minute out of 90 can't save an otherwise boring and pointless movie.

No one can really tell what influence "Memento" had over the making of this movie but it is clear that "Noe", what a pretentious ass, didn't understand why that movie worked. You can't structure a traditional story in this way.

There was one climactic event in the whole story, and it's gone 10 minutes into the movie. (The rape paled in comparison to what preceded it). What's left, 80 minutes of exposition, was doomed to fail.

What would this movie be without it's style. What would people say about it then. They would say nothing, because this movie wouldn't exist.

Saw (2004)

Not a Very Gratifying Experience

[14 November 2004]

I think the most a person can hope for with a movie like this is to be sent out of the theater surprised. Movie goers are willing to forgive a lot of faults if all the pieces fall together in the end. This movie did not have an easy task, we've all seen this hand played before, but I think they could have done better. The movie really has no final payoff, none of the pieces fall together, we don't even get the obligatory explanation scene. I find this to be unacceptable, I think it might have something to do with Saw 2, seems like a pipe dream to me.

A lot of people have been bringing up Seven. I agree that Saw is very much influenced by David Fincher, but I think it is closer to The Game.

*Spoiler* One more thing, what did the guy with the key in his belly do to deserve being gutted while still alive?

Brilliant American Accent Cary, ask your voice coach how to correctly pronounce "murder."

Born Yesterday (1950)

Unpleasant, Nails on a Chalkboard Bad

[13 October 2004]

I guess it's not bad enough to center a movie around the hijinks of a couple white trash, alcoholic, morons, you have to add the most annoying voice in recorded history to seal the deal. I would rather turn gay and marry Steve Urkel from Family Matters than be subjected to this again.

How was this a comedy. I can't think of one thing that was ever even remotely close to being funny. I can't remember anything that even played for a laugh. I must admit, I did smile once. It was nice to see Harry slap her around a bit.

I think that if they had existed at the time we very likely would have seen a consensus between the Razzies and the Oscars.

Gigli (2003)

J-Lo is Absolutely Repulsive

[19 September 2004]

I don't think I've felt as disgusted by a hot woman in my life. She could puke on my head and I would still find her more charming than I did watching this movie.

There is nothing hot about a woman talking in great deal about her gear. The movie made the unfortunate mistake of going into great detail about this topic. Even worse, the two main characters constantly used the 'V' word to describe it. Maude was right I can't stand hearing it, but I guess that's my deal.

I found the stretching scene to be particularly disgusting. Did any of you notice that at the end of her diatribe on the merits of that part of the female anatomy, she rolled towards the camera with her legs open? I've seen more subtlety at strip clubs.

And "Turkey Time." Need I say more?

For shame J-Lo, for shame!

Halloween (1978)

Incredibly Stupid

[18 September 2004]

I'm not a very big fan of the horror genre in general. There are a few movies that I think are successful. Ironically, I think the Scream movies, which pay homage to this film, are far superior. I'm sure my credibility is gone now, but they at least accomplish their goals, which is more than I can say for this film.

Stupidity of the kind these characters exhibit is not found anywhere other than horror movies and short buses.

So many of the supposedly scary scenes could have been easily avoided by anyone with the brain power of your average squirrel. This made it difficult for me to feel anything other than frustrated. It's impossible to experience any fear when you're constantly shaking your head in disgust.

*Spoiler* For instance, when Jamie Lee stabs the killer and leaves him for dead, why the hell does she drop the knife right next to him. He's pulled this act before, just five minutes earlier, and she knows it. And why does she turn her back on him, nobody would do that. A normal person would take the knife and slit the guy's throat. This is supposed to be the movie's big moment and it's ruined by the ineptitude of a director who knows nothing about suspense.

Watching Psycho and ripping of Hitchcock does not make you a good director. I also love the way the doctor justifies not notifying the town's people that there is a psychotic killer on the loose. Sure, that would happen.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the best horror film of that era, no question.

Swimming Pool (2003)

The Final Word on Swimming Pool (yeah right)

[5 September 2004]

I've been pondering the conclusion of the film for the last week and I now feel I have the definitive answer.

The swimming pool was actually a computer controlled virtual reality designed to keep humanity in check in order to turn a human being into a battery.

See in this virtual reality, lets call it "The Grid", people have the ability to change their appearances in real time. The real trick is to design a bathing suit that will fit a nice figure and then suddenly fit a not so nice figure. But then I guess computers are pretty smart, unlike some people.

I just wonder if this is really considered a work of art. An artist says something through his work. This says nothing. I think people will label something art just because it seems deep. This movie seems deep but in reality there is just no way to explain what happens. No meaning can be legitimately drawn from the movie. Any explanation one arrives at can not be fully supported by the movie, lots of blanks need to be filled in. It's really just sloppy, not art.

And what's the deal with the cross?

Jesus Christo Loves You All

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

I wasn't expecting much, but more than this

[14 August 2004]

I was a very angry man walking out of the theater. I knew this movie would suck. Any time a movie doesn't allow critics to review it you know there's a problem. So, I was ready to watch a crappy movie. I was ready to make certain concessions. Nothing original necessary, no great plot, little coherence is even necessary. All I ask is that you don't require me to be a moron to enjoy it. Unfortunately it failed at even this meager task.

The story takes place at the end of 2004. But for some reason the boss of "The Company" who is very much alive in Alien3 is dying, and oh no *spoiler* dies in this movie. No explanation is offered. How is it that a man who dies in a pyramid buried hundreds of feet under ground which is latter blown up is alive hundreds of years later looking exactly the same as he did before. I don't know, does our good friend Mr. Anderson know the answer? I think not.

Another thing. Where did all the full grown aliens come from. One minute they're bursting from the chest 5 minutes later they're full grown. What gives? You get the feeling that the guy who wrote this movie never even saw the alien movies.

Finally the fight scenes between aliens and predators were pathetic. It looked just like two guys in costumes rolling around on the floor. I wouldn't have been surprised to see miniature cardboard sky scrapers at their feet.

Oh Predator we'll be friends forever . . .

The Village (2004)

It's Clear Who he Wants to be Just as it's Clear he Never Will be

[14 August 2004]

I feel very bad for M. Night. He has built up quite a reputation. People were eagerly anticipating his next move. People were talking about him. He was loved! He was great! He could do no wrong! He must have believed his own hype. He shot for the moon and missed by a mile. His skill of building up suspense could not save him.

For me bad dialog can ruin a movie. The dialog in this movie was unpleasant to say the least. It was like a B movie's impression of what a bunch of turn of the century people would speak like. I believe this was probably deliberate, but come on, does he really have to torture us for 75 minutes before he tells us why.

The reason I say he wants to be Hitch is his unbelievably pretentious cameo at the end of the film. The camera can't show him that would be too obvious we should see him in a reflection, you know we're all watching for him, it makes it so happy to spot him. What the hell was that scene doing in the movie anyway.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

What the Hell is it with the Third Movie?

[8 November 2003]

Stop killing your legacies you jack-asses. First, we have the Star Wars Trilogy. Jedi almost ruins it for me. Don't even get me started on the new films. Then we have old FFC and his Godfather "Trilogy." Michael Bay could have made a better movie than that third POS. We also have Indiana Jones and the Scream movies undermined by their third installments.

And now we have this. The worst insult of all. (Well, GF3 might have been worse).

I always wondered whether the Matrix films were action films with philosophy tacked on, or if the reverse was true. This movie answers the question pretty clearly. The pseudo-intellectual brothers have shown themselves to be no better than Roland Emmerich, the afore mentioned Michael Bay, or Joel Schumacher. But, at least they waited till the third film to make it clear that all the philosophy didn't add up to anything. Small consolation I know. I will fondly look back at the time when I could watch the original Matrix with joy. That's all gone now. All that is left is this gaping hole in my heart.

Anyway, I could go on and on about the problems but that's been covered pretty well already. All I have to add is this: At what point did Morpheus go from a bad-ass to a wimp? Sad, very sad.

I'm praying for Return of the King.

Signs (2002)

The next Spielberg?

[7 August 2002]

M. Night Shyamalan is, in my opinion, one of the two or three most talented young film makers around today. Even so, I don't think it is right to compare him to Spielberg at this point. The links between the two are probably drawn because of Jaws and Close Encounters. I don't think that it makes sense to connect Signs with either one of these films. Shyamalan's film is really nothing like Close Encounters. Signs is a thriller along similar lines as Jaws but it is really a lot more sophisticated. I think Shyamalan's films are closer to Hitchcock than Spielberg. In any event we need to see more from him before we can draw any comparisons.

I wonder if when X-Men 2 comes out they will be labeling Bryan Singer the next Spielberg. He seems like a more likely choice.

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

What was Lucas thinking?

[19 May 2002]

George Lucas is not a writer.

This fact will be apparent to anyone who watches this movie. A lot of people are blaming the actors but I think that is wrong. They were given dialog that could not be repeated in any way that would sound remotely natural. Anyone who has seen Pulp Fiction knows that Samuel L. Jackson is good with dialog, but even his readings were awful. The actors must not have been allowed to deviate from the script in the slightest way. Each line was probably treated like it was sacred. As director, Lucas probably treated the script like scripture.

Lucas says he doesn't read reviews. Well he needs to start.

If the next movie is going to be good Lucas is going to have to hire a real writer and give up his director's chair.

One more thing, I decided to watch The Empire Strikes Back again after this disaster. It's hard to believe the same person is responsible for both of these movies. The romance between Han and Leia was so good, and this new romance is so bad.

Lucas needs to bring back Lawrence Kasdan.