Okay, this definitely had effort put in it, which is more than you can say for other bad movies. This was, indeed, a bad movie (and I do mean baaaaaad), but at the same time, it wasn't god-awful. The acting wasn't horrible, the screenplay wasn't terrible, and the killers weren't cheesy or over-the-top. But it was still bad. The villains are a good place to start. The problem with most post-Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1970's version) villains is that they are Leatherface with a different mask. This includes everyone from 1977's The Hills Have Eyes to Friday the 13th to Halloween. This version of the Texas Chain Saw Massacre, while being fundamentally faithful to the original villain, could have attempted a more creative villain. The other villains had little in common with the original. They were not extremely poorly written, but there was not enough to them to make them their own characters, unlike in the original. (I would like to take this moment to point out the fact that I am not just bashing this movie for being unlike the original. I did actually see the remake before the original.) The list of clichés was increased beyond what was established in the original. Which I hated. It made the film become extremely predictable, which lowered the scare factor substantially. There were several character alterations in this film and I have mixed feelings about them. In the original, the hitchhiker was a member of the family that attempted to kill the travelers. In this one, the hitchhiker was a victim who commits suicide in the van. I was not a fan of this change because I felt like this change was made only to increase the gore in the movie rather than for any significant plot movements. However, I did appreciate the fact that there was a police officer who was a member of the family. Even as its own movie (disregarding the original version entirely) this remake has nothing new to offer to the audiences. The characters are stereotypical and the actors are relatively wooden, if not terrible actors. There is little action worth watching and not much happens that is outside the audience's expectation. This isn't the worst movie ever made. It isn't even the worst remake ever made. But it is still a very bad movie. 4/10
Reviews
47 Reviews
Dante's Peak
(1997)
There Is No Suspense
15 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Dante's Peak is a below average disaster movie that benefits from the great on screen personalities from Pierce Brosnan and Linda Hamilton, but suffers from... virtually everything else.
Actually, I'll begin by saying that the everything regarding the erupting volcano looked really cool (except for all of the miniature cars that had no one in it and were obvious models). From the prophylactic clouds to the running lava to the way the earthquake sequences were shot, the erupting volcano looked really cool.
But it only *looked* cool. This film is so incredibly predictable that there is no suspense throughout this movie whatsoever. The audience gets a good taste of every conceivable archetype that could appear. A boss who's underplaying everything and acts as the films "villain," an expert no one will listen to, the stubborn old woman who won't leave her home even when it's three minutes away from burning down, the token children who are already one inch away from death...
And the scientific inaccuracies are astounding, which includes a truck that *drives* *over* *lava*. If cars could do that as easily as it was in that particular scene, there wouldn't be much need in leaving, would there? Nothing unpredictable happens in the film. All of the good guys live, anyone who was "bad" or "stubborn" dies.
The highlight of the film was Pierce Brosnan, who seems to be too good to even be in the film. He doesn't give what I would consider to be a "powerhouse" performance, but compared to all of the other relatively lazy acting that appears in the film, it's easy to view his performance as being exceptionally awesome.
At the end of the day, Dante's Peak is nothing special. There's little to offer audiences, and there's no original thoughts in this movie.
4/10
Actually, I'll begin by saying that the everything regarding the erupting volcano looked really cool (except for all of the miniature cars that had no one in it and were obvious models). From the prophylactic clouds to the running lava to the way the earthquake sequences were shot, the erupting volcano looked really cool.
But it only *looked* cool. This film is so incredibly predictable that there is no suspense throughout this movie whatsoever. The audience gets a good taste of every conceivable archetype that could appear. A boss who's underplaying everything and acts as the films "villain," an expert no one will listen to, the stubborn old woman who won't leave her home even when it's three minutes away from burning down, the token children who are already one inch away from death...
And the scientific inaccuracies are astounding, which includes a truck that *drives* *over* *lava*. If cars could do that as easily as it was in that particular scene, there wouldn't be much need in leaving, would there? Nothing unpredictable happens in the film. All of the good guys live, anyone who was "bad" or "stubborn" dies.
The highlight of the film was Pierce Brosnan, who seems to be too good to even be in the film. He doesn't give what I would consider to be a "powerhouse" performance, but compared to all of the other relatively lazy acting that appears in the film, it's easy to view his performance as being exceptionally awesome.
At the end of the day, Dante's Peak is nothing special. There's little to offer audiences, and there's no original thoughts in this movie.
4/10
Transformers
(2007)
The Robots Were Astonishingly Bland
15 September 2010
I found myself liking the first third of Transformers and being completely disengaged with the film after that.
I think that the best choice Michael Bay has made in his entire film career was putting Shia LaBeouf in the lead role of this film. I'm not going to swear to this, but I felt like he was improvising at least half of his dialogue. Which is great, because the screenplay was not very interesting at all. I found myself enjoying everything that LaBeouf's characters said more than any other part of the movie. He's funny, quirky, and, surprisingly, a decent actor. I first saw his work in Holes and then again in Disturbia. I must say that I feel like LaBeouf is on his way to making some really excellent work in the future.
Megan Fox, on the other hand, was less than satisfying. Everyone has been talking about how pretty she is and, yes, I think that's the only reason she was in the film. Her character was completely unnecessary to the story and could have been taken out entirely. But, instead, the audience gets about a thousand shots of her "looking hot" and very few shots of her actually doing anything important with the story. Still, even though I don't think she's a very good actress, I had to admit that her acting was still much better than Liv Tyler's in Armageddon or Kate Beckinsale's in Pearl Harbor. She's not a *bad* actress, but she doesn't offer any meat to the story beyond being a love interest for LaBeouf's character.
As for the character development in general, I didn't see any. Unsurprisingly. I didn't expect any, and I didn't get any. But, here's my biggest issue with that: these robots should be interesting. But they aren't. These robots probably make up for most of my criticism with this film. The special effects were really good (*really* good), but the robots were astonishingly bland. And I thought they looked ugly. Believe it or not, I thought there was *too* *much* detail to them. There were so many chunks of metal sticking off of them that it made them all hard to recognize. Yes, that was a big complaint I had with the film. Except for two of the robots, they all looked the same! I had no idea what robots I should be rooting for during the fight scenes. I felt like they all were Megatron fighting Megatron. The only two robots I could recognize were the yellow one and Optimus Prime. And that's only because they were different colors from the other robots. I mean, this was not a very good-*looking* film. That surprised me, because Bay's films are at least fairly decent with the art direction, but not here. The colors were too saturated in some places, but not when it came to the robots. And, like I said, all the robots looked the same to me.
And I wasn't very impressed with the action sequences either. I felt like there wasn't enough coherence to it. It was a lot of stomping around and not a whole lot of anything else. And the action starts about halfway through the movie and doesn't stop until the film's over. The rest of the characters in this movie, apart from LaBeouf and the robots, didn't really serve a purpose for the story. There were a few characters who I didn't even know why they were getting screen time. The movie dips in and out of the main plot line at a ridiculous rate. There's an interrogation scene for two characters. I was confused because I had no idea what purpose they were serving. I didn't know why the scene was even in the film.
If I had to sum up Transformers, it would be that there was a lot of decent effects surrounding incoherent action sequences, ugly robots that looked the same, useless characters, little plot, cheap dialogue, and not much else. This is Michael Bay's best film, but that's not saying much since I hated his other films.
3/10
I think that the best choice Michael Bay has made in his entire film career was putting Shia LaBeouf in the lead role of this film. I'm not going to swear to this, but I felt like he was improvising at least half of his dialogue. Which is great, because the screenplay was not very interesting at all. I found myself enjoying everything that LaBeouf's characters said more than any other part of the movie. He's funny, quirky, and, surprisingly, a decent actor. I first saw his work in Holes and then again in Disturbia. I must say that I feel like LaBeouf is on his way to making some really excellent work in the future.
Megan Fox, on the other hand, was less than satisfying. Everyone has been talking about how pretty she is and, yes, I think that's the only reason she was in the film. Her character was completely unnecessary to the story and could have been taken out entirely. But, instead, the audience gets about a thousand shots of her "looking hot" and very few shots of her actually doing anything important with the story. Still, even though I don't think she's a very good actress, I had to admit that her acting was still much better than Liv Tyler's in Armageddon or Kate Beckinsale's in Pearl Harbor. She's not a *bad* actress, but she doesn't offer any meat to the story beyond being a love interest for LaBeouf's character.
As for the character development in general, I didn't see any. Unsurprisingly. I didn't expect any, and I didn't get any. But, here's my biggest issue with that: these robots should be interesting. But they aren't. These robots probably make up for most of my criticism with this film. The special effects were really good (*really* good), but the robots were astonishingly bland. And I thought they looked ugly. Believe it or not, I thought there was *too* *much* detail to them. There were so many chunks of metal sticking off of them that it made them all hard to recognize. Yes, that was a big complaint I had with the film. Except for two of the robots, they all looked the same! I had no idea what robots I should be rooting for during the fight scenes. I felt like they all were Megatron fighting Megatron. The only two robots I could recognize were the yellow one and Optimus Prime. And that's only because they were different colors from the other robots. I mean, this was not a very good-*looking* film. That surprised me, because Bay's films are at least fairly decent with the art direction, but not here. The colors were too saturated in some places, but not when it came to the robots. And, like I said, all the robots looked the same to me.
And I wasn't very impressed with the action sequences either. I felt like there wasn't enough coherence to it. It was a lot of stomping around and not a whole lot of anything else. And the action starts about halfway through the movie and doesn't stop until the film's over. The rest of the characters in this movie, apart from LaBeouf and the robots, didn't really serve a purpose for the story. There were a few characters who I didn't even know why they were getting screen time. The movie dips in and out of the main plot line at a ridiculous rate. There's an interrogation scene for two characters. I was confused because I had no idea what purpose they were serving. I didn't know why the scene was even in the film.
If I had to sum up Transformers, it would be that there was a lot of decent effects surrounding incoherent action sequences, ugly robots that looked the same, useless characters, little plot, cheap dialogue, and not much else. This is Michael Bay's best film, but that's not saying much since I hated his other films.
3/10
Pocahontas
(I) (1995)
It's Stupid
15 September 2010
Pocahontas is very possibly Disney's worst creation. This movie has two (count them: two) redeeming qualities. 1: The music is pretty cool. Not astounding, not amazing (it doesn't even come close to The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, or even freaking Aladdin), but pretty cool. 2: The animation is nice to watch. Again, not astounding, not amazing (nowhere near as cool as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, or freaking Aladdin), but it is a high point of the film. Other than that, it blows.
The biggest problem with the movie is that it pretty much takes US history and Native American history and rapes it. Pocahontas, instead of being like 13, is a full 18. Why? So she can have a love affair (something too often milked by Disney) with John Smith, whom is basically worshipped in this movie. Granted, I don't think historical accuracy should make or break a film, but here, it's WAY off. It's like if a movie depicted George Washington with superhuman strength. We kill Native Americans for gold, Pocahontas and John Smith communicate through freaking *magic*, and coastal Virginia is abundant in cliffs. Cliffs!
And it's also saying something if I didn't even find this movie very entertaining when I was younger. Not because of the historical inaccuracies, but because it's just stupid. The characters are bland as sh*t, all of the parts concerning magic are nonsensical, and the storyline is wholly undeserving of its "epic" depiction. I put the word "epic" in quotes because even though they did try to make it look epic, at the end of the day, it just didn't happen.
So, Pocahontas's biggest problem is that it's stupid. I feel like the filmmakers never bothered to read any history or anything about this subject. At all. And the characters are dull, the voice actors aren't really all that interesting, and the dialogue is pretty much worthless. Not Disney's best endeavor. Very possibly Disney's worst.
3/10
The biggest problem with the movie is that it pretty much takes US history and Native American history and rapes it. Pocahontas, instead of being like 13, is a full 18. Why? So she can have a love affair (something too often milked by Disney) with John Smith, whom is basically worshipped in this movie. Granted, I don't think historical accuracy should make or break a film, but here, it's WAY off. It's like if a movie depicted George Washington with superhuman strength. We kill Native Americans for gold, Pocahontas and John Smith communicate through freaking *magic*, and coastal Virginia is abundant in cliffs. Cliffs!
And it's also saying something if I didn't even find this movie very entertaining when I was younger. Not because of the historical inaccuracies, but because it's just stupid. The characters are bland as sh*t, all of the parts concerning magic are nonsensical, and the storyline is wholly undeserving of its "epic" depiction. I put the word "epic" in quotes because even though they did try to make it look epic, at the end of the day, it just didn't happen.
So, Pocahontas's biggest problem is that it's stupid. I feel like the filmmakers never bothered to read any history or anything about this subject. At all. And the characters are dull, the voice actors aren't really all that interesting, and the dialogue is pretty much worthless. Not Disney's best endeavor. Very possibly Disney's worst.
3/10
The Bucket List
(2007)
I Am Rarely So Displeased
15 September 2010
The Bucket List was an astonishing disappointment for me. Casual viewers may be pleased, but anyone searching for in-depth filmmaking or any kind of emotional response that goes beyond the guiltless emotional milking of the subject matter will be genuinely let down.
That's what really made me mad about this movie. The filmmakers seemed to believe that as long as they promoted the idea behind this picture--two men living out their greatest dreams before they die--they didn't even have to try.
Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson very rarely give bad performances, however, and this movie was no different. The best decision the filmmakers made was the casting decisions of Freeman and Nicholson, two actors guaranteed to give one hundred percent every time. They make the film worth watching, but they can't save the film from being completely forgettable for me.
The director, as I said before, seemed like he wasn't even really trying. He gives us hardly any time to watch these two magnificent actors get to know each other before thrusting them into airplanes and racecars. The movie feels like a horrible cut and paste job as we are simply moved from one location to another with very little time to become acquainted with what's going on in each scene. It's like the the director said "Screw it; it's inspiring, and don't try to deny it." I felt no emotional connection to these characters. They were just haphazardly moving through the picture with little to no direction being put into the scenes they were in.
I was told prior to going to this movie that it was suppose to be a comedy, but I never really laughed during this movie. There were a couple of jokes, but nothing out of the ordinary. And I couldn't help but wonder why I was suppose to find this subject matter funny to begin with. Two old men are dying. Yes, very funny.
The screenplay is equally half-baked. I think that there was virtually no effort put into this picture. The actors showed effort, sure. But the director, screenwriter, and even editor all seemed to not really care how the scenes were put together. Again, they were just overly reliant on the subject matter to sell the film.
The only part of the movie that really stuck out to me as being genuine was toward the end, concerning the joke about Nicholson's coffee and they are able to cross "Laugh until you cry" off their bucket list. Everything else just seemed to revolve around visiting places, which is nice, but it's not like they really did anything when they got there. There was just so little about this movie that seemed genuine.
Everything had to be forced or fabricated. I am rarely so displeased with a motion picture. But my biggest problem with The Bucket List is how forgettable it was. I saw this in theatres when it came out. For a couple months after that, there was some talk about the picture. But all of that died down very quickly and it wasn't really brought up anymore after that, and I even completely forgot about it. I think that because there was so much Hollywood bullshit thrown at the audience from this picture that it ends up leaving no real lasting impact on them. It's nothing new, really. The message is just "live life to the fullest before you die," which can be found in pretty much every other movie made before this one, but was never quite as literal as here. Clichéd, half-a**ed, forgettable, and completely unmoving, this is not a movie I recommend for anyone looking for any kind deep meaning from a movie.
4/10
That's what really made me mad about this movie. The filmmakers seemed to believe that as long as they promoted the idea behind this picture--two men living out their greatest dreams before they die--they didn't even have to try.
Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson very rarely give bad performances, however, and this movie was no different. The best decision the filmmakers made was the casting decisions of Freeman and Nicholson, two actors guaranteed to give one hundred percent every time. They make the film worth watching, but they can't save the film from being completely forgettable for me.
The director, as I said before, seemed like he wasn't even really trying. He gives us hardly any time to watch these two magnificent actors get to know each other before thrusting them into airplanes and racecars. The movie feels like a horrible cut and paste job as we are simply moved from one location to another with very little time to become acquainted with what's going on in each scene. It's like the the director said "Screw it; it's inspiring, and don't try to deny it." I felt no emotional connection to these characters. They were just haphazardly moving through the picture with little to no direction being put into the scenes they were in.
I was told prior to going to this movie that it was suppose to be a comedy, but I never really laughed during this movie. There were a couple of jokes, but nothing out of the ordinary. And I couldn't help but wonder why I was suppose to find this subject matter funny to begin with. Two old men are dying. Yes, very funny.
The screenplay is equally half-baked. I think that there was virtually no effort put into this picture. The actors showed effort, sure. But the director, screenwriter, and even editor all seemed to not really care how the scenes were put together. Again, they were just overly reliant on the subject matter to sell the film.
The only part of the movie that really stuck out to me as being genuine was toward the end, concerning the joke about Nicholson's coffee and they are able to cross "Laugh until you cry" off their bucket list. Everything else just seemed to revolve around visiting places, which is nice, but it's not like they really did anything when they got there. There was just so little about this movie that seemed genuine.
Everything had to be forced or fabricated. I am rarely so displeased with a motion picture. But my biggest problem with The Bucket List is how forgettable it was. I saw this in theatres when it came out. For a couple months after that, there was some talk about the picture. But all of that died down very quickly and it wasn't really brought up anymore after that, and I even completely forgot about it. I think that because there was so much Hollywood bullshit thrown at the audience from this picture that it ends up leaving no real lasting impact on them. It's nothing new, really. The message is just "live life to the fullest before you die," which can be found in pretty much every other movie made before this one, but was never quite as literal as here. Clichéd, half-a**ed, forgettable, and completely unmoving, this is not a movie I recommend for anyone looking for any kind deep meaning from a movie.
4/10
The Proposal
(I) (2009)
Nothing Special At All
15 September 2010
In my review of The Break-Up, I expressed my frustration at modern romantic comedies. This one is that exactly. I mean, this movie feels like the stereotypical romantic comedy. More formulaic than just about any film that I've ever seen.
After awhile, I started getting the same feeling that I did when I saw Prom Night: I was calling out what was going to happen next thirty minutes before it happened. It got quite annoying. There's a scene for an obvious setup for a gag in which Bullock and Reynolds end up in the same room without seeing each other and both get naked to take a shower. It's such an obvious setup for "hilarious misunderstanding" that I wanted to turn off the film. And the film is *so* predictable. They force themselves with each other but then *gasp!* they start falling for each other. I mean, *who* could have seen *that* coming?!
As for the performances, they were nothing special at all. I thought Reynolds did okay, but his character was entirely uninteresting to me. As for Bullock, she was bad. She wasn't Kristen-Stewart-bad, but she was still worse than I've ever seen her before. She just seems so lazy with it, as if she didn't really care about the picture. Sandra Bullock played an executive type character who will be kicked back to Canada from whence she came, so she must marry to stay in the country and with her job.
But here was a *huge* problem I had with the movie: why did that guy *care* if they were really in love or not? A marriage is a marriage, dude, so calm down. It's not like they were forging the marriage, so what is going to matter if she just does it to stay in the USA? I did not like The Proposal much at all. Of course, I liked Betty White, but that's because she was Betty White. And even she was subjected to some really lame setups.
The Proposal wasn't total crap, but it's devotion to formula is what made me so frustrated by it. It might have had some potential if the filmmakers had bothered to do anything new with the film, but they didn't bother. No effort put into story, so no effort by me to be entertained.
3/10
After awhile, I started getting the same feeling that I did when I saw Prom Night: I was calling out what was going to happen next thirty minutes before it happened. It got quite annoying. There's a scene for an obvious setup for a gag in which Bullock and Reynolds end up in the same room without seeing each other and both get naked to take a shower. It's such an obvious setup for "hilarious misunderstanding" that I wanted to turn off the film. And the film is *so* predictable. They force themselves with each other but then *gasp!* they start falling for each other. I mean, *who* could have seen *that* coming?!
As for the performances, they were nothing special at all. I thought Reynolds did okay, but his character was entirely uninteresting to me. As for Bullock, she was bad. She wasn't Kristen-Stewart-bad, but she was still worse than I've ever seen her before. She just seems so lazy with it, as if she didn't really care about the picture. Sandra Bullock played an executive type character who will be kicked back to Canada from whence she came, so she must marry to stay in the country and with her job.
But here was a *huge* problem I had with the movie: why did that guy *care* if they were really in love or not? A marriage is a marriage, dude, so calm down. It's not like they were forging the marriage, so what is going to matter if she just does it to stay in the USA? I did not like The Proposal much at all. Of course, I liked Betty White, but that's because she was Betty White. And even she was subjected to some really lame setups.
The Proposal wasn't total crap, but it's devotion to formula is what made me so frustrated by it. It might have had some potential if the filmmakers had bothered to do anything new with the film, but they didn't bother. No effort put into story, so no effort by me to be entertained.
3/10
Clash of the Titans
(2010)
No Effort At All Had Been Put Into It
15 September 2010
A severe disappointment. To be honest, I could only expect this one to be a movie with "great visuals, but weak story," but I was unprepared for just how bad this movie was.
My first huge complaint with this movie is with Sam Worthington and the character he plays. Worthington seems to be making a point to play overly bland characters. In Avatar, he played a character who's part could have been covered by anyone--literally anyone, with the movie's CGI his role could have been filled by an ape--and Worthington didn't bring anything to the table. In Clash of the Titans, he brings less than nothing to the table. His performance is so wooden and his character is so bland, that I was more interested in Medusa, who has no lines and is only in fifteen minutes of the movie, than his character, Perseus. I couldn't get over how bland his character was; I just kept thinking to myself "Wow. I didn't realize Perseus was so boring." But Worthington wasn't the only bland character in this movie. Liam Neeson (Schindler's List, Star Wars I, Batman Begins) and Ralph Fiennes (Schindler's List, Harry Potter 4 & 5, Red Dragon) I can usually trust to give great performances and were the main reasons I decided to give this picture a chance. To my great astonishment, not only do both actors portray boring characters, but both actors are just so bad. Liam Neeson keeps putting weird inflections into everything he says and Ralph Fiennes plays half of the movie with this annoying hoarse voice and sounding like he wants to get up a fur ball.
And then there's the movie's dialogue. Again, I wasn't looking for anything particularly phenomenal; just competence. The dialogue was so stilted and so bad that I was hoping that the last hour of the movie would be played in silence. It wasn't the worse dialogue I've ever heard; if it had that probably would have been fun to listen to. The dialogue was just so mediocre--as though no effort at all had been put into it--that it really gave me pain to listen to it.
Usually in these kinds of films, they can make up for a lot of their short comings with good action. Not in Clash of the Titans. The action scenes are thrown haphazardly together and sometimes you can't even tell what's going on because the director made the awful choice of using shaky-cam while filming the intense action sequences. I felt like I was watching Cloverfield again, but in Cloverfield you were supposed to not know exactly what was going on, but you did get enough information to know. Here, you get nothing. At one point, Perseus jumps out of a giant scorpion's back. I guess I missed how he got in there in the first place because that part utterly confused me.
The one scene in the movie that I really did like was the fight with Medusa. Not only was the director actually able to balance the action scenes right, but the character of Medusa was really fun to watch. Other than that, there really wasn't anything else in the movie that grasped my attention that well. A lot of the scenes were directed poorly and some of them served absolutely no purpose. And some characters are treated the same way. There are two characters who--I think--were meant to be our comedy relief. But they get hardly any screen time, leave halfway through the movie, and make one 4 second appearance toward the end of the film, but aren't mentioned after that. They did seem like some vaguely interesting characters, claiming they knew exactly how to kill such creatures as centaurs. I would have liked to get to know more about them, but they're hardly given any time on screen after that.
Clash of the Titans was an interesting experience with some pretty cool visuals, but the direction, acting, screenplay, and characters were so badly conceived that the film ends up leaving no impression of any kind on the audience, except, perhaps, that this was a complete waste of time.
3/10
My first huge complaint with this movie is with Sam Worthington and the character he plays. Worthington seems to be making a point to play overly bland characters. In Avatar, he played a character who's part could have been covered by anyone--literally anyone, with the movie's CGI his role could have been filled by an ape--and Worthington didn't bring anything to the table. In Clash of the Titans, he brings less than nothing to the table. His performance is so wooden and his character is so bland, that I was more interested in Medusa, who has no lines and is only in fifteen minutes of the movie, than his character, Perseus. I couldn't get over how bland his character was; I just kept thinking to myself "Wow. I didn't realize Perseus was so boring." But Worthington wasn't the only bland character in this movie. Liam Neeson (Schindler's List, Star Wars I, Batman Begins) and Ralph Fiennes (Schindler's List, Harry Potter 4 & 5, Red Dragon) I can usually trust to give great performances and were the main reasons I decided to give this picture a chance. To my great astonishment, not only do both actors portray boring characters, but both actors are just so bad. Liam Neeson keeps putting weird inflections into everything he says and Ralph Fiennes plays half of the movie with this annoying hoarse voice and sounding like he wants to get up a fur ball.
And then there's the movie's dialogue. Again, I wasn't looking for anything particularly phenomenal; just competence. The dialogue was so stilted and so bad that I was hoping that the last hour of the movie would be played in silence. It wasn't the worse dialogue I've ever heard; if it had that probably would have been fun to listen to. The dialogue was just so mediocre--as though no effort at all had been put into it--that it really gave me pain to listen to it.
Usually in these kinds of films, they can make up for a lot of their short comings with good action. Not in Clash of the Titans. The action scenes are thrown haphazardly together and sometimes you can't even tell what's going on because the director made the awful choice of using shaky-cam while filming the intense action sequences. I felt like I was watching Cloverfield again, but in Cloverfield you were supposed to not know exactly what was going on, but you did get enough information to know. Here, you get nothing. At one point, Perseus jumps out of a giant scorpion's back. I guess I missed how he got in there in the first place because that part utterly confused me.
The one scene in the movie that I really did like was the fight with Medusa. Not only was the director actually able to balance the action scenes right, but the character of Medusa was really fun to watch. Other than that, there really wasn't anything else in the movie that grasped my attention that well. A lot of the scenes were directed poorly and some of them served absolutely no purpose. And some characters are treated the same way. There are two characters who--I think--were meant to be our comedy relief. But they get hardly any screen time, leave halfway through the movie, and make one 4 second appearance toward the end of the film, but aren't mentioned after that. They did seem like some vaguely interesting characters, claiming they knew exactly how to kill such creatures as centaurs. I would have liked to get to know more about them, but they're hardly given any time on screen after that.
Clash of the Titans was an interesting experience with some pretty cool visuals, but the direction, acting, screenplay, and characters were so badly conceived that the film ends up leaving no impression of any kind on the audience, except, perhaps, that this was a complete waste of time.
3/10
Defiance
(I) (2008)
Edward Zwick Is Not A Skilled Director
15 September 2010
There is little to nothing that distinguishes Defiance from every other WWII and Holocaust film I have ever seen. Less than that, in fact. It rips off greater films and offers nothing new to the table.
But the performances in Defiance were worthy of attention. Daniel Craig and Liev Schreiber play a pair of brothers who have decided to not be part of the body count left in the wake of the Nazis' decimation. Their performances are strong and come from a pair of actors who have given a lot into their roles. And I would say that most of the actors in this film follow that, in spite of the little characterization given out of the screenplay written by Clayton Frohman and Edward Zwick. I refuse to believe that the story from which they based their screenplay had such poor character development. I wanted to know something about the characters who were fighting for their lives, but we got very little of that. And what we did get was unsatisfactory. This was a film that was far more interested in giving the "uplifting message" rather than giving audiences a decent story.
And nothing shows that more than the extremely obvious similarities between this film and Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, two vastly superior films. There is even a moment during one of the battle scenes in which the commanding character has a bomb go off by his head and the film starts going in slow motion. That scene is almost a shot-by-shot rip off of Saving Private Ryan.
The one part of the film that truly impressed me was the music. I loved the soundtrack of this film. The music was easily the best part of the movie, and I wish the rest had matched that. But it didn't. Director Edward Zwick is not a skilled director. When he is not stealing material from Steven Spielberg's films, he is taking inspirational speech scenes directly from Braveheart, even putting in the extra effort in allowing the commander to ride a horse during the speech, even though I'm pretty sure the character does not ride the horse for the rest of the picture.
Does Defiance have anything to offer audiences? Not in the slightest. Are there qualities of this movie worthy of attention? Not really. Does this movie do anything to truly make itself its own film with its own story? Unsatisfactorily, no.
3/10
But the performances in Defiance were worthy of attention. Daniel Craig and Liev Schreiber play a pair of brothers who have decided to not be part of the body count left in the wake of the Nazis' decimation. Their performances are strong and come from a pair of actors who have given a lot into their roles. And I would say that most of the actors in this film follow that, in spite of the little characterization given out of the screenplay written by Clayton Frohman and Edward Zwick. I refuse to believe that the story from which they based their screenplay had such poor character development. I wanted to know something about the characters who were fighting for their lives, but we got very little of that. And what we did get was unsatisfactory. This was a film that was far more interested in giving the "uplifting message" rather than giving audiences a decent story.
And nothing shows that more than the extremely obvious similarities between this film and Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, two vastly superior films. There is even a moment during one of the battle scenes in which the commanding character has a bomb go off by his head and the film starts going in slow motion. That scene is almost a shot-by-shot rip off of Saving Private Ryan.
The one part of the film that truly impressed me was the music. I loved the soundtrack of this film. The music was easily the best part of the movie, and I wish the rest had matched that. But it didn't. Director Edward Zwick is not a skilled director. When he is not stealing material from Steven Spielberg's films, he is taking inspirational speech scenes directly from Braveheart, even putting in the extra effort in allowing the commander to ride a horse during the speech, even though I'm pretty sure the character does not ride the horse for the rest of the picture.
Does Defiance have anything to offer audiences? Not in the slightest. Are there qualities of this movie worthy of attention? Not really. Does this movie do anything to truly make itself its own film with its own story? Unsatisfactorily, no.
3/10
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
(2009)
We're--Somehow--Supposed To Care
14 September 2010
I always admired Hugh Jackman, but X-Men Origins: Wolverine was doomed from the get-go. I think centering a whole movie on what I consider to be an overrated character was a poor choice for the first X-Men Origins story.
The biggest flaw with this film was the idea behind it. I can imagine the appeal behind this character; he is dark, mysterious, and fairly bad-a**. Still, I couldn't imagine him being someone to do a whole character study on, and after seeing this film, I can see that I was right. I feel no emotional or intellectual connection with this character. He's not all that interesting, and I can't even feel humanly concern for him since he, apparently, cannot die. Usually the godlike character is the villain in the movie, but in this film, we're—somehow—supposed to care about and support him.
The action sequences weren't all that much to look at either. For starters, the special effects look like they were taken out of a Twilight movie. They were awfully computer generated and that really cut down on the entertainment factor for me.
We are also subjected to just about every cliché in the book. The biggest one was when an explosion happens and Wolverine walks away as though he didn't notice. Yeah, we know you're bad ass, but now we also know you're a pretentious prick.
Basically, this movie is a character study on an incredibly uninteresting character, one we can neither identify with nor care for.
And the god-awful effects really didn't help at all.
3/10
The biggest flaw with this film was the idea behind it. I can imagine the appeal behind this character; he is dark, mysterious, and fairly bad-a**. Still, I couldn't imagine him being someone to do a whole character study on, and after seeing this film, I can see that I was right. I feel no emotional or intellectual connection with this character. He's not all that interesting, and I can't even feel humanly concern for him since he, apparently, cannot die. Usually the godlike character is the villain in the movie, but in this film, we're—somehow—supposed to care about and support him.
The action sequences weren't all that much to look at either. For starters, the special effects look like they were taken out of a Twilight movie. They were awfully computer generated and that really cut down on the entertainment factor for me.
We are also subjected to just about every cliché in the book. The biggest one was when an explosion happens and Wolverine walks away as though he didn't notice. Yeah, we know you're bad ass, but now we also know you're a pretentious prick.
Basically, this movie is a character study on an incredibly uninteresting character, one we can neither identify with nor care for.
And the god-awful effects really didn't help at all.
3/10
X-Men: The Last Stand
(2006)
Left An Ugly Taste In My Mouth
14 September 2010
X-Men: The Last Stand left an ugly taste in my mouth by its close. I was so in love with the previous two movies, but then this one failed to do what the first two succeeded so brilliantly at doing. First of all, the characters in Last Stand were not balanced well at all. The way the characters were balanced was what was so impressive about the first film, but that seems to have been, unfortunately, abandoned. I kept wanting more out of these characters, and I wasn't getting that.
***Warning: Here There Be Spoilers*** I also want to take a minute to talk about the way the deaths of some of the characters were handled. It wasn't so much that they died but where their deaths were placed in the story. Cyclops is killed off entirely too early, before the audience even has a chance to become acquainted with the pains he has been feeling. Yes, character developments have finally taken a backseat to action and effects in the X-Men movies. But I also disliked entirely what they did to Rogue. By the end of the film, she has given up her powers. I thought one of the most interesting stories of the last two films was Rogue's and the way she had to try to have a relationship with Iceman when she couldn't touch him. But instead of working out this problem, the writers take the easy way out and give her the Cure instead. Rogue was one of my favorite characters, but Last Stand turned her into something I did not like. ***
As for the rest of the characters in this movie, I think the writers (Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn) tried too hard to balance too many characters. And they don't. Characters sporadically enter the movie and drop out, we're given no time with any of them, and the film doesn't even try to keep their story lines straight. For instance, there was a very interesting character known as Angel with wings growing out of his back. He appears in the beginning of the film, once briefly in the middle, and once even more briefly at the end. I wanted more time with this character. I wanted to learn something about him. No luck. And there was a lot of that going on.
As for the main villains, our "Class 5" mutant is entirely too powerful. She can lift a house and rip people apart. She can nearly destroy an entire island. Why was there even that final battle? She could have obliterated all of the opposing mutants like they were nothing. This was a very unnecessary addition to the movie that just left the film with an overabundance of plot holes. And there is no focus to this story. None of the characters are given the attention they deserve, and there were some fairly interesting characters in this film, including Beast.
As for the final battle, I was disappointed. There was not a lot of intelligence put into the battle; instead it was full of more explosions than anything else. I didn't think Brett Ratner did the mutants justice with the battle. The one scene that shows that best was the battle between Pyro and Iceman. I was really excited to see this battle. We had seen plenty of evidence of the great power exhibited by both mutants already, and I knew that it would be epic. It wasn't. Ratner did not take this battle *nearly* as far as he could have. It could have been great! But instead, the two mutants just have a brief tug-of-war type fight and then it's over.
The screenplay was the biggest problem with The Last Stand, but Brett Ratner did not do his job either. It's sad because I have liked three of Ratner's other movies and I expected good from him here. I had seen him do some great work in the first two Rush Hour movies and Red Dragon, but his direction style is disappointingly dull in The Last Stand. I expected more out of him. I didn't get it.
I wasn't even all that impressed with the special effects in this film. I thought they were wonderful in the first two movies, but all special effects after 2003 look entirely too CGI, and The Last Stand is no exception.
I was disappointed and disheartened by The Last Stand. I was left wanting more out of the X-Men series rather gaining any satisfaction from it. I want to see an X-Men 4 with Bryan Singer back as a screenwriter and director because I want some great character work done again. X-Men: The Last Stand was not the kind of X-Men movie I wanted.
4/10
***Warning: Here There Be Spoilers*** I also want to take a minute to talk about the way the deaths of some of the characters were handled. It wasn't so much that they died but where their deaths were placed in the story. Cyclops is killed off entirely too early, before the audience even has a chance to become acquainted with the pains he has been feeling. Yes, character developments have finally taken a backseat to action and effects in the X-Men movies. But I also disliked entirely what they did to Rogue. By the end of the film, she has given up her powers. I thought one of the most interesting stories of the last two films was Rogue's and the way she had to try to have a relationship with Iceman when she couldn't touch him. But instead of working out this problem, the writers take the easy way out and give her the Cure instead. Rogue was one of my favorite characters, but Last Stand turned her into something I did not like. ***
As for the rest of the characters in this movie, I think the writers (Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn) tried too hard to balance too many characters. And they don't. Characters sporadically enter the movie and drop out, we're given no time with any of them, and the film doesn't even try to keep their story lines straight. For instance, there was a very interesting character known as Angel with wings growing out of his back. He appears in the beginning of the film, once briefly in the middle, and once even more briefly at the end. I wanted more time with this character. I wanted to learn something about him. No luck. And there was a lot of that going on.
As for the main villains, our "Class 5" mutant is entirely too powerful. She can lift a house and rip people apart. She can nearly destroy an entire island. Why was there even that final battle? She could have obliterated all of the opposing mutants like they were nothing. This was a very unnecessary addition to the movie that just left the film with an overabundance of plot holes. And there is no focus to this story. None of the characters are given the attention they deserve, and there were some fairly interesting characters in this film, including Beast.
As for the final battle, I was disappointed. There was not a lot of intelligence put into the battle; instead it was full of more explosions than anything else. I didn't think Brett Ratner did the mutants justice with the battle. The one scene that shows that best was the battle between Pyro and Iceman. I was really excited to see this battle. We had seen plenty of evidence of the great power exhibited by both mutants already, and I knew that it would be epic. It wasn't. Ratner did not take this battle *nearly* as far as he could have. It could have been great! But instead, the two mutants just have a brief tug-of-war type fight and then it's over.
The screenplay was the biggest problem with The Last Stand, but Brett Ratner did not do his job either. It's sad because I have liked three of Ratner's other movies and I expected good from him here. I had seen him do some great work in the first two Rush Hour movies and Red Dragon, but his direction style is disappointingly dull in The Last Stand. I expected more out of him. I didn't get it.
I wasn't even all that impressed with the special effects in this film. I thought they were wonderful in the first two movies, but all special effects after 2003 look entirely too CGI, and The Last Stand is no exception.
I was disappointed and disheartened by The Last Stand. I was left wanting more out of the X-Men series rather gaining any satisfaction from it. I want to see an X-Men 4 with Bryan Singer back as a screenwriter and director because I want some great character work done again. X-Men: The Last Stand was not the kind of X-Men movie I wanted.
4/10
Prom Night
(I) (2008)
Predictable And Not Scary
14 September 2010
This movie is as frightening and stale as left over cabbage. The acting isn't too bad... But the screenplay is terrible, clichéd, and predictable. I could literally call out what would happen before it happened. 30 minutes ahead of time.
The killer was actually a fairly interesting (if rather pointless) character. The emphasis could have been more on him instead of Snow's character. Although, that still would not have been nearly enough to save this monstrosity of a motion picture.
Its biggest problem, besides being predictable and not scary, was that the story line was completely uninteresting. I didn't give a rat's ass if these characters lived or died anyway. I guess that's what makes this a slasher film.
There's absolutely nothing to this movie. A bunch of horny teens go dancing in a hotel on prom night. A guy with a knife comes along and kills some of them. End of story.
This movie is awful and one of the worst movies I had the displeasure of seeing in theatres.
3/10
The killer was actually a fairly interesting (if rather pointless) character. The emphasis could have been more on him instead of Snow's character. Although, that still would not have been nearly enough to save this monstrosity of a motion picture.
Its biggest problem, besides being predictable and not scary, was that the story line was completely uninteresting. I didn't give a rat's ass if these characters lived or died anyway. I guess that's what makes this a slasher film.
There's absolutely nothing to this movie. A bunch of horny teens go dancing in a hotel on prom night. A guy with a knife comes along and kills some of them. End of story.
This movie is awful and one of the worst movies I had the displeasure of seeing in theatres.
3/10
Halloween
(2007)
Cliché Land
14 September 2010
I asked the library for Halloween. I expected the original. I got the remake. I hate the library for that now.
The first forty-five minutes of the film were honestly not that bad. I kind of enjoyed watching young Michael Meyers kill his family and slip into madness. I mean, it was nothing brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, but if the movie had continued along this path, it might have been at least tolerable. But the movie starts slipping drastically into extremely-sucky territory once the kid stops talking and grows up.
We also enter cliché land just as quickly. I think the most clichéd moment was when Meyers went back to his old house to retrieve the mask the audience recognizes as synonymous with the character.
Then we had the annoyance of watching a bunch of teens die while having sex. And I'm talking every teenager who has sex in this movie dies within the next five minutes. Tops.
The ending got me the most. I don't want to give away what happens, so I'll just say that Meyers should have died, but turns out he didn't and started a chase scene that continued for the next twenty minutes. I wish I was making that up. A twenty minute chase scene.
Of course, he doesn't kill the final girl. Yes, they even include the final girl into the list of clichés. I'd worry about giving that away, but I don't think anyone would be surprised.
This movie was terrible. Absolutely terrible. As soon as I see the original, I will review that. Maybe it will be better.
3/10
The first forty-five minutes of the film were honestly not that bad. I kind of enjoyed watching young Michael Meyers kill his family and slip into madness. I mean, it was nothing brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, but if the movie had continued along this path, it might have been at least tolerable. But the movie starts slipping drastically into extremely-sucky territory once the kid stops talking and grows up.
We also enter cliché land just as quickly. I think the most clichéd moment was when Meyers went back to his old house to retrieve the mask the audience recognizes as synonymous with the character.
Then we had the annoyance of watching a bunch of teens die while having sex. And I'm talking every teenager who has sex in this movie dies within the next five minutes. Tops.
The ending got me the most. I don't want to give away what happens, so I'll just say that Meyers should have died, but turns out he didn't and started a chase scene that continued for the next twenty minutes. I wish I was making that up. A twenty minute chase scene.
Of course, he doesn't kill the final girl. Yes, they even include the final girl into the list of clichés. I'd worry about giving that away, but I don't think anyone would be surprised.
This movie was terrible. Absolutely terrible. As soon as I see the original, I will review that. Maybe it will be better.
3/10
X2
(2003)
Great Fun And Highly Intelligent
14 September 2010
What made X-Men great was its intense action, fantastic characters, and wonderfully intelligent screenplay. What makes X2: X-Men United great is some intense action, fantastic characters, and wonderfully intelligent screenplay.
X2 gives audiences a lot of new ideas that the first movie offered, with some added bonuses as well. The characters are even deeper here, and the film isn't quite as Wolverine heavy (even though I didn't think he was overly done in the first film either). But this film also takes its time with its characters a little bit more, which is what is so endearing about both of these movies.
There is a surprising amount of tension in this film, especially concerning Xavier's cerebro, which I didn't expect. The tension builds beautifully during the action sequences (and these sequences did not disappoint).
I also loved what they did with the villains here. Magneto, the main villain of the previous film, switches sides in X2 a couple of times, since he cares more for the rise of mutants than he does the well-being of average humans. But X2 introduces a new villain in a Lex Luthor type role. He's an average human with no special powers, but who pulls a lot of strings to get what he wants. In fact, I felt like this film played out more like Luthor than Luthor did in the Superman films.
Every one of the X-Men has a big role in this film. Every one of them was played out very well and written in with a firm hold onto the story. Each one of them has his or her own story that is told fully and completely and that the audience can follow exceedingly well.
In short, I liked X2. I'm not sure if I liked it more than the first film, but both of these movies do a lot with characters that I think a lot of superhero films (and action films in general) can learn from. Great fun and highly intelligent, X2 is an excellent film.
9/10
X2 gives audiences a lot of new ideas that the first movie offered, with some added bonuses as well. The characters are even deeper here, and the film isn't quite as Wolverine heavy (even though I didn't think he was overly done in the first film either). But this film also takes its time with its characters a little bit more, which is what is so endearing about both of these movies.
There is a surprising amount of tension in this film, especially concerning Xavier's cerebro, which I didn't expect. The tension builds beautifully during the action sequences (and these sequences did not disappoint).
I also loved what they did with the villains here. Magneto, the main villain of the previous film, switches sides in X2 a couple of times, since he cares more for the rise of mutants than he does the well-being of average humans. But X2 introduces a new villain in a Lex Luthor type role. He's an average human with no special powers, but who pulls a lot of strings to get what he wants. In fact, I felt like this film played out more like Luthor than Luthor did in the Superman films.
Every one of the X-Men has a big role in this film. Every one of them was played out very well and written in with a firm hold onto the story. Each one of them has his or her own story that is told fully and completely and that the audience can follow exceedingly well.
In short, I liked X2. I'm not sure if I liked it more than the first film, but both of these movies do a lot with characters that I think a lot of superhero films (and action films in general) can learn from. Great fun and highly intelligent, X2 is an excellent film.
9/10
X-Men
(2000)
Startlingly Fun Movie To Watch
14 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
X-Men surprised me with its intelligence, marvelous direction, and wonderful characters.
A startlingly fun movie to watch, X-Men is one of the better comic book adaptations out there. In fact, I'd say it was the best one made until Spider-Man came out. Even then, it's a close call. X-Men does really well with balancing the terrific number of characters it features on screen. I think this is the movie's best aspect. It gives us a lot of depth to every character on screen. Including Wolverine, who I was not pleased with when I saw X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It's a little ironic that there was more depth given to Wolverine in a film that was not strictly about Wolverine than the "character study" film did that was supposed to be solely about Wolverine. I started to feel an interesting connection to this character. This is incredibly important because this is the first time I had ever thought much of anything for Wolverine, including in other films, TV shows, and comic books. Excellent development.
I was even more impressed with some of the side characters, like Rogue. Rogue was portrayed beautifully by Anna Paquin. I was unprepared for the level of intensity that this young actress was able to bring to the table with her character. She seemed frail, but independent. Strong and weak at the same time. And there was so much emotional strength given to her that by the time we got to the climactic battle, I was genuinely concerned for her. I also really loved the friendship that was played out between her and Wolverine. It was done extremely well and the two shared some really impressive scenes.
Cyclops, Storm, and Jean Grey were a little underplayed, but I was still satisfied with the level of character development that we still got from them. I was able to take all these characters seriously and I was able to follow each of their own inner struggles in a way that, again, I had not anticipated.
Ian McKellen was yet another surprise for me as Magneto. I had never held much stock in the villain, believing him to be nothing particularly special. And when I saw the old man who was to play him, I couldn't hold back my scoff. But the surprises kept coming through and I couldn't help but love this guy's performance. He plays the villain Magneto very well, giving a powerful and poignant performance. That's nothing to scoff at.
And while I am talking about the actors and characters, I cannot forget Patrick Stewart who played Professor Xavier. I think this was the best performance in the film. Patrick Stewart really brought this character to life, giving the audience an incredibly powerful performance. There was a scene when he was talking to Wolverine and Cyclops and I suddenly realized I was leaning forward in my chair to hang onto every word this guy had to say. A brilliant and underrated performance.
Then there were the incredible visuals in this story. Whether they were all CGI or not I did not know and neither did I care. This film was still made before everything had gone to such gargantuan lengths in the computers and I could tell the effort that was put into the visuals. And they looked really darn good.
But what impressed me still more than anything else about X-Men was the direction. This film was directed by Bryan Singer, and he gives the audience some really intense direction. I was blown away by the cinematography among everything else. Singer is a wonderful director. I haven't seen any of his other films, but I want to now.
X-Men is an entertaining and--above everything else--fun ride that is sure to grasp comic book fans and non-comic book fans alike.
9/10
A startlingly fun movie to watch, X-Men is one of the better comic book adaptations out there. In fact, I'd say it was the best one made until Spider-Man came out. Even then, it's a close call. X-Men does really well with balancing the terrific number of characters it features on screen. I think this is the movie's best aspect. It gives us a lot of depth to every character on screen. Including Wolverine, who I was not pleased with when I saw X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It's a little ironic that there was more depth given to Wolverine in a film that was not strictly about Wolverine than the "character study" film did that was supposed to be solely about Wolverine. I started to feel an interesting connection to this character. This is incredibly important because this is the first time I had ever thought much of anything for Wolverine, including in other films, TV shows, and comic books. Excellent development.
I was even more impressed with some of the side characters, like Rogue. Rogue was portrayed beautifully by Anna Paquin. I was unprepared for the level of intensity that this young actress was able to bring to the table with her character. She seemed frail, but independent. Strong and weak at the same time. And there was so much emotional strength given to her that by the time we got to the climactic battle, I was genuinely concerned for her. I also really loved the friendship that was played out between her and Wolverine. It was done extremely well and the two shared some really impressive scenes.
Cyclops, Storm, and Jean Grey were a little underplayed, but I was still satisfied with the level of character development that we still got from them. I was able to take all these characters seriously and I was able to follow each of their own inner struggles in a way that, again, I had not anticipated.
Ian McKellen was yet another surprise for me as Magneto. I had never held much stock in the villain, believing him to be nothing particularly special. And when I saw the old man who was to play him, I couldn't hold back my scoff. But the surprises kept coming through and I couldn't help but love this guy's performance. He plays the villain Magneto very well, giving a powerful and poignant performance. That's nothing to scoff at.
And while I am talking about the actors and characters, I cannot forget Patrick Stewart who played Professor Xavier. I think this was the best performance in the film. Patrick Stewart really brought this character to life, giving the audience an incredibly powerful performance. There was a scene when he was talking to Wolverine and Cyclops and I suddenly realized I was leaning forward in my chair to hang onto every word this guy had to say. A brilliant and underrated performance.
Then there were the incredible visuals in this story. Whether they were all CGI or not I did not know and neither did I care. This film was still made before everything had gone to such gargantuan lengths in the computers and I could tell the effort that was put into the visuals. And they looked really darn good.
But what impressed me still more than anything else about X-Men was the direction. This film was directed by Bryan Singer, and he gives the audience some really intense direction. I was blown away by the cinematography among everything else. Singer is a wonderful director. I haven't seen any of his other films, but I want to now.
X-Men is an entertaining and--above everything else--fun ride that is sure to grasp comic book fans and non-comic book fans alike.
9/10
Kangaroo Jack
(2003)
As A Family Film, Kangaroo Utterly Fails
14 September 2010
Kangaroo Jack isn't so much a bad movie as it is mediocre and utterly confused. This movie feels like it's having an identity crisis where it's not entirely sure what message it wants to send, what genre it wants to fit, what audience it wants to target, and where it even wants to end up.
The leads are slightly entertaining, albeit not very funny. They seem like they're trying to put in a bit of effort into the movie, which is welcomed gratefully, but the biggest problem here is the screenplay.
The screenplay is just hackneyed, clichéd, predictable, and extremely stale. The whole idea behind the picture isn't all that creative, but it did have a bit of potential, I thought, had they been able to realize what they were writing wasn't really all that funny. This is one of those films that I can't blame the actors for. They were capable and had enough chemistry that they could have pulled off a decent comedy. The problem was that the director had no idea if he wanted to do a kiddy film or a comedy or a Rush Hour knock off or a crime thriller...
As a family film, Kangaroo utterly fails. There's nothing here that I think kids under the age of eleven would find enjoyable, and anyone over that age would be a little too sophisticated for the jokes in this romp.
But even if the film had aimed more for adults rather than kids, I still don't think the filmmakers would have been able to pull it off. Bottom line, the jokes are too adolescent, unless they're being crude, and the dramatic parts are far too silly.
3/10
The leads are slightly entertaining, albeit not very funny. They seem like they're trying to put in a bit of effort into the movie, which is welcomed gratefully, but the biggest problem here is the screenplay.
The screenplay is just hackneyed, clichéd, predictable, and extremely stale. The whole idea behind the picture isn't all that creative, but it did have a bit of potential, I thought, had they been able to realize what they were writing wasn't really all that funny. This is one of those films that I can't blame the actors for. They were capable and had enough chemistry that they could have pulled off a decent comedy. The problem was that the director had no idea if he wanted to do a kiddy film or a comedy or a Rush Hour knock off or a crime thriller...
As a family film, Kangaroo utterly fails. There's nothing here that I think kids under the age of eleven would find enjoyable, and anyone over that age would be a little too sophisticated for the jokes in this romp.
But even if the film had aimed more for adults rather than kids, I still don't think the filmmakers would have been able to pull it off. Bottom line, the jokes are too adolescent, unless they're being crude, and the dramatic parts are far too silly.
3/10
Click
(2006)
Egregiously Unfunny
14 September 2010
If there's one thing about movies that I cannot stand, it's when a movie rips off other ideas, movies, or stories. If there's another thing about movies I cannot stand, it's Adam Sandler. This movie is what I like to call a "Double Whammy." Now, to be fair, I feel like Adam Sandler himself was not as bad here as I have seen him in the past. Is he good? Well, I can't go that far. But, he does put in an inkling of effort, which really shows in the last few scenes of the movie. Throughout the rest of the movie, though, he is egregiously unfunny. He tries at the jokes, but he fails, miserably. This movie is basically the plot of It's a Wonderful Life, mixed with a little Christmas Carol, and topped off with a little Back to the Future for good luck. It insults me that so much unoriginality could go into what starts off as a halfway decent premise. Not a great premise, but halfway decent. It's a fairly good idea—a remote that can control every part of your life, like brightness or languages. Except, wouldn't it have been nice for someone to turn this baby into a universal translator instead of playing to Adam Sandler's needs? Other than that, the characters aren't all that interesting. We've seen all of these characters before, and even most of these lines before. The only part of this film that was any good was at the very end. I won't give it away, but it wasn't played out all that badly. As for the rest of the film... Well, simply put, there's a reason why George Bailey was such a nice guy in It's a Wonderful Life; it's kind of hard to feel sorry for a douche bag.
3/10
3/10
Facing the Giants
(2006)
They Used God As A Gimmick
13 September 2010
If you haven't seen or heard of this movie, I suggest staying away from it, unless you are very religious.
Facing the Giants has one scene that was fairly decent. The rest of the movie bombards the audience with clichés and superficial messages about putting faith in a higher power to win the big games. Which, to me, seems a little counterproductive.
Now, I did say that there is one scene in this movie that was pretty cool, so I'll get it out of the way and talk about it now. That scene occurs somewhere in the middle. The head coach calls out the token tough-guy leader who's not believing in himself and his team. The coach calls him out and they run through what I have to admit is a pretty cool sequence. That scene is worth checking out, but only that scene. The rest of the film is plagued by terrible acting, a horrendous script, and with absolutely no surprises. What makes me a little sad about this movie is that the filmmakers were a little overly reliant on the religious aspect of this movie to sell it. I'm not against religious films, as long as they make an attempt to give us a *decent* film. But we don't get that. The acting is just painful to watch.
But there's not even anything new with the story. The audience has seen virtually every aspect of this story a thousand times before. Every other football movie I've ever seen--from Radio to Remember the Titans--has elements in this movie. The *only* difference here is that they centered the whole movie on god. And that was their gimmick. Seriously, they used god as a gimmick. Don't they find something wrong with that?
I do not recommend this film, and I certainly found no value from it. Not spiritually, aesthetically, or interestingly.
2/10
Facing the Giants has one scene that was fairly decent. The rest of the movie bombards the audience with clichés and superficial messages about putting faith in a higher power to win the big games. Which, to me, seems a little counterproductive.
Now, I did say that there is one scene in this movie that was pretty cool, so I'll get it out of the way and talk about it now. That scene occurs somewhere in the middle. The head coach calls out the token tough-guy leader who's not believing in himself and his team. The coach calls him out and they run through what I have to admit is a pretty cool sequence. That scene is worth checking out, but only that scene. The rest of the film is plagued by terrible acting, a horrendous script, and with absolutely no surprises. What makes me a little sad about this movie is that the filmmakers were a little overly reliant on the religious aspect of this movie to sell it. I'm not against religious films, as long as they make an attempt to give us a *decent* film. But we don't get that. The acting is just painful to watch.
But there's not even anything new with the story. The audience has seen virtually every aspect of this story a thousand times before. Every other football movie I've ever seen--from Radio to Remember the Titans--has elements in this movie. The *only* difference here is that they centered the whole movie on god. And that was their gimmick. Seriously, they used god as a gimmick. Don't they find something wrong with that?
I do not recommend this film, and I certainly found no value from it. Not spiritually, aesthetically, or interestingly.
2/10
The Break-Up
(2006)
Depressingly Short On Laughs
13 September 2010
I'm sick of these kinds of movies I really am. I'm sick of them. Every year, we get a slew of movies exactly like this one. A romantic comedy with a gimmick. The gimmick can be anything. They met online. They're different races. Their families don't get along. This time, they're breaking up but neither wants out of the apartment they share. Why is this entertainment? It's like watching divorce court or Judge Judy. By the way, in real life, this whole manner would have been taken to a judge who can make a clear cut decision on the matter.
Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn I have always admired as actors, but they have little on screen chemistry here. Which one could argue is fine because the characters are breaking up, but no scene with the two of them together really rises to much at the end of the day.
The dialogue is cheesy, the set up is only so-so, but nothing about it is memorable. Maybe it's because there have already been so many variants on this kind of movie before that by the time I get to this one, nothing's new. Nothing's genuine. Nothing grasps my attention. Nothing stands out. It's not like it's impossible to write good romantic comedies. It just needs to start with a talented screenwriter. We don't get that here.
The Break-Up is also depressingly short on laughs, which is awful considering the talent that's on the screen. I know both of these actors have what it takes to play decent roles. Why aren't they given any? Generic, slightly clichéd, overly used, nothing special, nothing new, and lazily put together, The Break-Up is a forgettable waste of time.
2/10
Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn I have always admired as actors, but they have little on screen chemistry here. Which one could argue is fine because the characters are breaking up, but no scene with the two of them together really rises to much at the end of the day.
The dialogue is cheesy, the set up is only so-so, but nothing about it is memorable. Maybe it's because there have already been so many variants on this kind of movie before that by the time I get to this one, nothing's new. Nothing's genuine. Nothing grasps my attention. Nothing stands out. It's not like it's impossible to write good romantic comedies. It just needs to start with a talented screenwriter. We don't get that here.
The Break-Up is also depressingly short on laughs, which is awful considering the talent that's on the screen. I know both of these actors have what it takes to play decent roles. Why aren't they given any? Generic, slightly clichéd, overly used, nothing special, nothing new, and lazily put together, The Break-Up is a forgettable waste of time.
2/10
Nothing Is Too Insulting To Our Intelligence
13 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
National Treasure 2 is a carbon copy of the first movie with a couple of new actors sprinkled in there. First of all, I could not even by into this movie. The premise behind the first movie was "Let's go find the largest treasure in our nation's history!" The premise behind this movie was "Let's go find the *second* largest treasure in our nation's history!" I had a hard enough time swallowing the plot of the first movie. This movie's plot went beyond silly and landed in the territory of stupid.
There's just too many ridiculous plot points that the filmmakers were trying to make us swallow in this one. The characters gave the same dull performances in this movie as they did in the last movie. The difference is that not even Jon Voight or Justin Bartha really put in a lot of effort this time.
And where as I found the screenplay in the last movie to be one of the better portions of the movie, here it was just absurd and astonishingly bad. Everything was pretty predictable and the screenplay never stopped throwing bullshit at the audience. "Ben's relatives helped assassinate a president! You don't care? You should! And all of the presidents kept a diary of everything they did in office! That could have been helpful to historians? Well, it wasn't!" Nope, nothing is too insulting to our intelligence evidently! The worst part of this movie is the action, or the random running and screaming and chasing the movie tries to pass off as action. It was a degenerating factor in the first movie, and the same applies here.
Whereas I had been forced to watch the first movie in my high school history classes (because the movie mentioned history I guess?), I got the opportunity to see this picture in theatres (they took us on a field trip to see it because, I suppose, there are some historical figures mentioned at some point, right? I got nothing...). One of the worst theatre experiences I have had. It's loud, it's corny, it's cheesy, it's stupid, it's a mess, and it's incredibly bogus action for an "action" movie. I put the word "action" in quotes because i really couldn't buy this as an action movie in any sense of the word.
2/10
There's just too many ridiculous plot points that the filmmakers were trying to make us swallow in this one. The characters gave the same dull performances in this movie as they did in the last movie. The difference is that not even Jon Voight or Justin Bartha really put in a lot of effort this time.
And where as I found the screenplay in the last movie to be one of the better portions of the movie, here it was just absurd and astonishingly bad. Everything was pretty predictable and the screenplay never stopped throwing bullshit at the audience. "Ben's relatives helped assassinate a president! You don't care? You should! And all of the presidents kept a diary of everything they did in office! That could have been helpful to historians? Well, it wasn't!" Nope, nothing is too insulting to our intelligence evidently! The worst part of this movie is the action, or the random running and screaming and chasing the movie tries to pass off as action. It was a degenerating factor in the first movie, and the same applies here.
Whereas I had been forced to watch the first movie in my high school history classes (because the movie mentioned history I guess?), I got the opportunity to see this picture in theatres (they took us on a field trip to see it because, I suppose, there are some historical figures mentioned at some point, right? I got nothing...). One of the worst theatre experiences I have had. It's loud, it's corny, it's cheesy, it's stupid, it's a mess, and it's incredibly bogus action for an "action" movie. I put the word "action" in quotes because i really couldn't buy this as an action movie in any sense of the word.
2/10
National Treasure
(2004)
Nicholas Cage Seems Bored
13 September 2010
National Treasure is a lot of things. Fun entertainment is not one of them.
Nicholas Cage and I have a peculiar relationship. I have seen him do great work (Kick-Ass, Adaptation) and I have seen him in less than admirable roles (this movie, its sequel). He doesn't really give a *bad* performance, but he doesn't really put in a lot of effort. He rolls over the historical information sounding like a guy who's trying to sound smart but has no idea what he's talking about. And for much of the movie, he acts lazily and with low energy. His friend in this movie, played by Justin Bartha, had a far more interesting personality. He was funny and entertaining. He was easily the most charming and fun to watch actor on the screen. That almost seems like a sad commentary when one considers the other actors he's sharing the screen with, like Jon Voight, Christopher Plummer, and Harvey Keitel.
Basically, National Treasure is stupid, a poor man's Indiana Jones. The difference is that it has none of the intense action, excitement, or intelligence of an Indiana Jones movie. It has its moments, and at times is pretty fun to find out the mysteries with the lead characters. But at nearly every turn, I am going "Oh, come on! Are we really expected to believe that our forefathers were busy with all these intricate hiding plans instead of fighting the revolution??" Yeah, that part doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, does it? The forefathers had this *huge* treasure at their disposal and they hid it for over three hundred years instead of passing it along later?
The villains are generic and uninteresting, the love interest is just token, and Nicholas Cage seems bored through most of the movie. The only two actors who put forth any effort are Jon Voight and Justin Bartha. They at least acted like they were trying and that they cared. I didn't get that from anyone else. And the action scenes in this movie were borderline pathetic. What passes off as action in this movie comes off lazy, incompetent running around and chasing.
What made this movie worth watching once was the screenplay. Was it great? No. Was it interesting? Fairly. It did have some creativity put into it, but it would be ridiculous if it didn't. It was written by three people, which doesn't really show in the final product. But the screenplay was at least competent. Final verdict: this is not a movie I recommend. It can be fun at times, but most of the time it's just rather silly.
5/10
Nicholas Cage and I have a peculiar relationship. I have seen him do great work (Kick-Ass, Adaptation) and I have seen him in less than admirable roles (this movie, its sequel). He doesn't really give a *bad* performance, but he doesn't really put in a lot of effort. He rolls over the historical information sounding like a guy who's trying to sound smart but has no idea what he's talking about. And for much of the movie, he acts lazily and with low energy. His friend in this movie, played by Justin Bartha, had a far more interesting personality. He was funny and entertaining. He was easily the most charming and fun to watch actor on the screen. That almost seems like a sad commentary when one considers the other actors he's sharing the screen with, like Jon Voight, Christopher Plummer, and Harvey Keitel.
Basically, National Treasure is stupid, a poor man's Indiana Jones. The difference is that it has none of the intense action, excitement, or intelligence of an Indiana Jones movie. It has its moments, and at times is pretty fun to find out the mysteries with the lead characters. But at nearly every turn, I am going "Oh, come on! Are we really expected to believe that our forefathers were busy with all these intricate hiding plans instead of fighting the revolution??" Yeah, that part doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, does it? The forefathers had this *huge* treasure at their disposal and they hid it for over three hundred years instead of passing it along later?
The villains are generic and uninteresting, the love interest is just token, and Nicholas Cage seems bored through most of the movie. The only two actors who put forth any effort are Jon Voight and Justin Bartha. They at least acted like they were trying and that they cared. I didn't get that from anyone else. And the action scenes in this movie were borderline pathetic. What passes off as action in this movie comes off lazy, incompetent running around and chasing.
What made this movie worth watching once was the screenplay. Was it great? No. Was it interesting? Fairly. It did have some creativity put into it, but it would be ridiculous if it didn't. It was written by three people, which doesn't really show in the final product. But the screenplay was at least competent. Final verdict: this is not a movie I recommend. It can be fun at times, but most of the time it's just rather silly.
5/10
Fantastic Four
(I) (2005)
Just Lame
13 September 2010
Okay, after the Spider-Man movies, I was intrigued by this latest superhero flick. I knew it would probably be cheesy because the show and comics were kind of lame, but so were the Spider-Man shows and comics. However, I was astonished as to how stupid this movie was. Who was the genius that thought Alba would make a good addition to this film? She's terrible. She's awful. She's there solely for the scene when she takes off her clothes.
The effects were... half way decent. Almost. The screenplay is crap. And I do mean crap. And the only person who is the least bit interesting to watch in this film is The Thing. So, 25% of the actors in this movie make any effort. I think that pretty much sums it up.
As if the movie couldn't give me enough to gripe about, the villain was just lame. I mean, he wasn't scary or bad a** or anything. He was just... kind of mean and ticked off. The story is full of plot holes that I could go into detail about, but that would take up way too much time...
All in all, nothing about this movie reaches the "decent-movie" mark. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Wasn't this suppose to be the *Fantastic* Four?
2/10
The effects were... half way decent. Almost. The screenplay is crap. And I do mean crap. And the only person who is the least bit interesting to watch in this film is The Thing. So, 25% of the actors in this movie make any effort. I think that pretty much sums it up.
As if the movie couldn't give me enough to gripe about, the villain was just lame. I mean, he wasn't scary or bad a** or anything. He was just... kind of mean and ticked off. The story is full of plot holes that I could go into detail about, but that would take up way too much time...
All in all, nothing about this movie reaches the "decent-movie" mark. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Wasn't this suppose to be the *Fantastic* Four?
2/10
Armageddon
(1998)
The Michael Bay School Of Film
13 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Armageddon was a cheese ball of a mess. Michael Bay must have worked extremely hard to make sure this movie was about as god-awful as he could get it.
I'll start out with Mr. Bay. The Michael Bay School of Film has three rules: Rule#1: Have stuff go wrong *constantly!* It raises tension and totally never gets annoying or takes away from the storyline! Rule#2: Explosions are good! Put in lots and lots of explosions! Rule#3: Move the camera constantly! Like, every single darn shot! Never ever pause to look at anything or develop a scene! No, we don't have the time for that stuff! A lot of the disaster in this disaster flick was really confusing. The scene where the space shuttle is destroyed and everyone inside it dies was pretty cool, but I had to rewatch that scene twice to see what the heck was going on and who was even in the shuttle.
Now, I won't start bashing the movie for being scientifically inaccurate. I can let a lot of that slide. I'm watching this to be entertained, not taught. Of course, it could at least entertain me. That would be nice. And a lot of the movie had moments where I was going "Okay, no. That's where I draw the line." For instance, they knew 18 days ahead of time that this asteroid was coming? If you know *anything* about astronomy, you know that it's extremely difficult to predict when an asteroid is going to hit the earth. You have a better chance of predicting next year's weather forecast. But what really struck me was that the movie was really predictable. I won't give away the ending, but halfway through the first act, you're probably aware how it's going to end anyway.
As for the screenplay and storyline itself... holy god what a mess. First of all, through the first half hour of the movie I was going "Okay, it'd be nice if you would slow down and take some time to develop some of these characters. Or at least let us learn something about them." And then he did slow down. Way too much. He just decided "Screw it," and didn't take his story *anywhere* for a good half-hour or so.
And then he brutally forces a lot of the emotion in the movie. It's like in those retarded spoof movies where the filmmakers are going "Laugh, darn it!" except Bay is saying "Cry, darn it!" To give it credit, there was the scene with Will Patton and his ex-wife that was actually pretty well done. Of course, the scene barely finishes before we cut away from it (in fact, I'm pretty sure the scene wasn't quite done yet). What does he cut to? A strip club. Thank you for that, movie. I didn't start watching this to see a drama about an asteroid destroying the earth. No, I wanted to see a strip club! Continuing on, the characters were really poorly developed. A good example is Ben Affleck's character. I mean, why am I supposed to care about this guy?? He's obviously incompetent, makes all the wrong choices, and he's kind of a douche bag. He really is just useless. Am I supposed to care about him because he's in love with Liv Tyler? I'm really not sure why she is anyway, except because, as Bruce Willis even says early on in the film, she "doesn't have any other options." This brings me to the acting. God did these actors suck. I really expected a lot out of Willis. I look at Die Hard and Pulp Fiction and I think, "okay, he's going to give a good performance." But, he really doesn't. I mean, for the first act of the movie he has some non-descript accent. And then he loses it as the story progresses. Then there's Liv Tyler. At least now I know where Kristen Stewart learned how to act for the Twilight movies. Tyler's entire performance was based on moping and never ever changing her facial expression. As for Ben Affleck, he sucks. Plain and simple. He was annoying, I hated his character, and he just sucked.
There were a couple of redeeming actors, however. Steve Buscemi actually gave me some entertainment from his on screen persona, and Will Patton seemed to put in some effort and try. I'll give them points for giving decent performances.
Another very redeeming quality from the movie was the music. The soundtrack was awesome. I really just wanted to turn off the picture and just listen to the music. But, alas, I could not.
As for the special effects--the Oscar nominated special effects, no less--they were really cool. But they were also done in a hurry. We'd see about seven seconds of special effects and then the movie would get ADD and start filming stuff falling down somewhere. The cameraman just didn't seem to be able to stick with the scene no matter how hard he tried. Ever.
Frankly, this is one of the worst directed movies I've ever seen. There's hardly anything entertaining about it and the main character seems to be the $4 million explosions rather than Willis, Affleck, or Buscemi. And the characters were extremely hard to keep track of, the action sequences were thrown together haphazardly, and a lot of the logic in the movie was just bulled together. The movie was just bad. Disjointed, campy, incompetent, and bad bad bad.
2/10
I'll start out with Mr. Bay. The Michael Bay School of Film has three rules: Rule#1: Have stuff go wrong *constantly!* It raises tension and totally never gets annoying or takes away from the storyline! Rule#2: Explosions are good! Put in lots and lots of explosions! Rule#3: Move the camera constantly! Like, every single darn shot! Never ever pause to look at anything or develop a scene! No, we don't have the time for that stuff! A lot of the disaster in this disaster flick was really confusing. The scene where the space shuttle is destroyed and everyone inside it dies was pretty cool, but I had to rewatch that scene twice to see what the heck was going on and who was even in the shuttle.
Now, I won't start bashing the movie for being scientifically inaccurate. I can let a lot of that slide. I'm watching this to be entertained, not taught. Of course, it could at least entertain me. That would be nice. And a lot of the movie had moments where I was going "Okay, no. That's where I draw the line." For instance, they knew 18 days ahead of time that this asteroid was coming? If you know *anything* about astronomy, you know that it's extremely difficult to predict when an asteroid is going to hit the earth. You have a better chance of predicting next year's weather forecast. But what really struck me was that the movie was really predictable. I won't give away the ending, but halfway through the first act, you're probably aware how it's going to end anyway.
As for the screenplay and storyline itself... holy god what a mess. First of all, through the first half hour of the movie I was going "Okay, it'd be nice if you would slow down and take some time to develop some of these characters. Or at least let us learn something about them." And then he did slow down. Way too much. He just decided "Screw it," and didn't take his story *anywhere* for a good half-hour or so.
And then he brutally forces a lot of the emotion in the movie. It's like in those retarded spoof movies where the filmmakers are going "Laugh, darn it!" except Bay is saying "Cry, darn it!" To give it credit, there was the scene with Will Patton and his ex-wife that was actually pretty well done. Of course, the scene barely finishes before we cut away from it (in fact, I'm pretty sure the scene wasn't quite done yet). What does he cut to? A strip club. Thank you for that, movie. I didn't start watching this to see a drama about an asteroid destroying the earth. No, I wanted to see a strip club! Continuing on, the characters were really poorly developed. A good example is Ben Affleck's character. I mean, why am I supposed to care about this guy?? He's obviously incompetent, makes all the wrong choices, and he's kind of a douche bag. He really is just useless. Am I supposed to care about him because he's in love with Liv Tyler? I'm really not sure why she is anyway, except because, as Bruce Willis even says early on in the film, she "doesn't have any other options." This brings me to the acting. God did these actors suck. I really expected a lot out of Willis. I look at Die Hard and Pulp Fiction and I think, "okay, he's going to give a good performance." But, he really doesn't. I mean, for the first act of the movie he has some non-descript accent. And then he loses it as the story progresses. Then there's Liv Tyler. At least now I know where Kristen Stewart learned how to act for the Twilight movies. Tyler's entire performance was based on moping and never ever changing her facial expression. As for Ben Affleck, he sucks. Plain and simple. He was annoying, I hated his character, and he just sucked.
There were a couple of redeeming actors, however. Steve Buscemi actually gave me some entertainment from his on screen persona, and Will Patton seemed to put in some effort and try. I'll give them points for giving decent performances.
Another very redeeming quality from the movie was the music. The soundtrack was awesome. I really just wanted to turn off the picture and just listen to the music. But, alas, I could not.
As for the special effects--the Oscar nominated special effects, no less--they were really cool. But they were also done in a hurry. We'd see about seven seconds of special effects and then the movie would get ADD and start filming stuff falling down somewhere. The cameraman just didn't seem to be able to stick with the scene no matter how hard he tried. Ever.
Frankly, this is one of the worst directed movies I've ever seen. There's hardly anything entertaining about it and the main character seems to be the $4 million explosions rather than Willis, Affleck, or Buscemi. And the characters were extremely hard to keep track of, the action sequences were thrown together haphazardly, and a lot of the logic in the movie was just bulled together. The movie was just bad. Disjointed, campy, incompetent, and bad bad bad.
2/10
Strange Wilderness
(2008)
Never Laughed Once
13 September 2010
Strange Wilderness is fantastic for the fact that it is completely unfunny. I mean, I never laughed once during this movie. It's incredible. Not once. It tried, I'll give it that much. It certainly tried. Throughout the entire movie, though, you had to find the joke. Either that, or they would play a joke (that didn't make us laugh the first time) about 4 times over in succession (didn't they ever hear about the rule of 3 in comedy?). Totally unfunny. I never laughed once during this movie. Which amazes me. I usually laugh at *something* during a terribly done comedy (though more often than not it's at how stupid the movie is). I mean, that's pretty much it, really. For the most part it was just mediocre, but what makes it god-awful is the fact that succeeds at making the audience laugh 0% of the time.
2/10
2/10
Not Quite Enough For Me
12 September 2010
A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master I liked just about as much as its predecessor. Yet again, the greatest degenerating factor here is the character development. Or, of course, the lack there of. Actually, the characters here were a little more interesting than the ones in the past two Elm Street movies. Well, one was. I really liked the character of Rick. I truly did. I thought he had a little bit of depth to him and I could really make a connection to this guy. Was he a fantastic character? Not really... but he was still a lot more interesting than a lot of characters I have seen in these movies. Of course, a part of that might even be credit to the actor. He was the one decent actor on screen, besides Englund.
For, you see, the acting in Dream Master was deplorable. It wasn't just bad; it was embarrassingly bad. Lisa Wilcox played Alice Johnson, the Final Girl of the last film as well. Except now she is played by an actress who cannot act save her life. It's a shame. She has a very pretty face, but not an acting ability to match. She was over-dramatic part of the time and under dramatic the rest of the time. I could not get a rhythm or sense of truth in her acting at all. It was extremely difficult, for that reason, for me to care for that character. But Wilcox wasn't the only one. Danny Hassle, who played Wilcox's love interest, was equally bad, and I don't think Brooke Theiss (Debbie) was trying at all. I mean, these were really some bad, bad, bad, bad acting. And the dialogue itself was not a whole lot better. Once again, as in the last film, the film decides, inexplicably, to barrage its audience with puns thrown out by Freddy. I always gave Freddy more respect than that, but evidently I gave him too much respect. His character has reached the same level as Mr. Freeze from Batman And Robin.
***Warning: Here There Be Spoilers*** And, once again, I am left with a stupid Elm Street movie ending. In the end of the movie, Kristen hears some children sing a song of how to kill Freddy: by showing him his own reflection. Who were those children? How come they knew how to kill Krueger but had never done so themselves? Where did they get this information? How come Krueger completely ignores their presence? And if the argument is that they are victims of Freddy, riddle me this: how can they be his victims if all of his victims are located inside his skin? Speaking of which, why was Freddy's reflection what set off the victim's rage that ripped him apart? What kind of magic or voodoo did that set off? And is it just me, or does Freddy keep falling to some pretty lame deaths? Like being killed by the power of love in Elm Street 2 or just having his bones get buried in Elm Street 3. ***
But, all of that aside, there were a few really nice things about this film. What struck me the most were three aspects of the movie. First of all, the direction was pretty good. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad at all. Renny Harlin took over from Chuck Russell (the last film's director), and I was very pleased with his style. I would even say that in many instances, I was a little impressed. He moves his camera very well, knows how to set up the scenes, and does a decent job with the dream sequences.
The dream sequences were, by the way, the second really good aspect of this movie. These dream sequences were whole-heartedly creative and I have to admit I was pretty struck by the visuals at times. In fact, I enjoyed the dream sequences so much, I'd say they rival the ones that appeared in the first movie. The only downside is that while in the first movie Craven put in a lot of effort to blend the dreams with reality, this film makes it pretty obvious what is a dream and what is reality. Still, they aren't bad at all.
And the third great part of this movie was, of course, Robert Englund. I don't think I talk about him enough for these films, but Englund does have a great on screen presence, even if his character isn't always written the best. I could tell Englund was having a lot of fun with his role, even more so than in the last two films. So, that effort was appreciated.
Still... Those contributing factors was not quite enough for me to call this film a worthwhile experience. The acting was too god-awful, the dialogue was too stupid, and the audience still didn't get enough time to become acquainted with these characters. But, this was not an awful movie, and I would say that if the next film was any better at all, I'd give it a thumbs up in a heartbeat.
5/10
For, you see, the acting in Dream Master was deplorable. It wasn't just bad; it was embarrassingly bad. Lisa Wilcox played Alice Johnson, the Final Girl of the last film as well. Except now she is played by an actress who cannot act save her life. It's a shame. She has a very pretty face, but not an acting ability to match. She was over-dramatic part of the time and under dramatic the rest of the time. I could not get a rhythm or sense of truth in her acting at all. It was extremely difficult, for that reason, for me to care for that character. But Wilcox wasn't the only one. Danny Hassle, who played Wilcox's love interest, was equally bad, and I don't think Brooke Theiss (Debbie) was trying at all. I mean, these were really some bad, bad, bad, bad acting. And the dialogue itself was not a whole lot better. Once again, as in the last film, the film decides, inexplicably, to barrage its audience with puns thrown out by Freddy. I always gave Freddy more respect than that, but evidently I gave him too much respect. His character has reached the same level as Mr. Freeze from Batman And Robin.
***Warning: Here There Be Spoilers*** And, once again, I am left with a stupid Elm Street movie ending. In the end of the movie, Kristen hears some children sing a song of how to kill Freddy: by showing him his own reflection. Who were those children? How come they knew how to kill Krueger but had never done so themselves? Where did they get this information? How come Krueger completely ignores their presence? And if the argument is that they are victims of Freddy, riddle me this: how can they be his victims if all of his victims are located inside his skin? Speaking of which, why was Freddy's reflection what set off the victim's rage that ripped him apart? What kind of magic or voodoo did that set off? And is it just me, or does Freddy keep falling to some pretty lame deaths? Like being killed by the power of love in Elm Street 2 or just having his bones get buried in Elm Street 3. ***
But, all of that aside, there were a few really nice things about this film. What struck me the most were three aspects of the movie. First of all, the direction was pretty good. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad at all. Renny Harlin took over from Chuck Russell (the last film's director), and I was very pleased with his style. I would even say that in many instances, I was a little impressed. He moves his camera very well, knows how to set up the scenes, and does a decent job with the dream sequences.
The dream sequences were, by the way, the second really good aspect of this movie. These dream sequences were whole-heartedly creative and I have to admit I was pretty struck by the visuals at times. In fact, I enjoyed the dream sequences so much, I'd say they rival the ones that appeared in the first movie. The only downside is that while in the first movie Craven put in a lot of effort to blend the dreams with reality, this film makes it pretty obvious what is a dream and what is reality. Still, they aren't bad at all.
And the third great part of this movie was, of course, Robert Englund. I don't think I talk about him enough for these films, but Englund does have a great on screen presence, even if his character isn't always written the best. I could tell Englund was having a lot of fun with his role, even more so than in the last two films. So, that effort was appreciated.
Still... Those contributing factors was not quite enough for me to call this film a worthwhile experience. The acting was too god-awful, the dialogue was too stupid, and the audience still didn't get enough time to become acquainted with these characters. But, this was not an awful movie, and I would say that if the next film was any better at all, I'd give it a thumbs up in a heartbeat.
5/10
The Victims Are Bogus Characters
12 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Though I thought Dream Warriors was infinitely better than the previous Elm Street movie, Freddy's Revenge, I still could not bring myself to fully like the film by the time it was over.
The main problem I had with A Nightmare On Elm Street 3 is the same problem I've been having with slasher films since the first slasher film I can remember seeing: the victims are bogus characters. I really didn't like them very much at all. Granted, there was a little more depth to them than in other films, but they were still run-of-the-mill characters that I, frankly, get tired of seeing.
And the acting wasn't much to watch either. Heather Langenkamp thankfully returns as Nancy, the Final Girl from the original film. But her character really hasn't gone very far from the last time the audience saw her, so though her genuine performance was appreciated, her character's presence was a little lame. There just really wasn't a whole lot to her.
The film takes place in a psychiatric ward, a complete turnaround from the house that was used for the first two movies. Actually, this film feels more like a continuation of Nightmare than Freddy's Revenge did, even though Freddy's Revenge took place entirely in the same house and Dream Warriors did not. Anyway, the psychiatric ward was an interesting place to send the series, and I was ultimately happy with that change. But the characters in the ward didn't do a whole lot to establish themselves. Again, they were all very basic and didn't have too many personality traits.
Something interesting that this film does is expand on its title: Dream Warriors. When the characters go into the dreams, they each have their own "dream powers" to fight Freddy with. They don't really make sense, and you would think the characters would be able to pretty much do anything they want in the dream if that was the direction the filmmakers were going to take, but no dice. And the whole deal with battling Freddy in the dreams did get really cheesy and really silly really fast.
And then there were the puns. I hate movie puns (i.e., "It's the chair for you, kid!" "Feeling tongue-tied?"), mostly because NO ONE TALKS LIKE THAT! No one starts throwing out puns when they're really mad at someone. It's stupid, it's annoying, and they're not funny or clever. So what are they trying to be? The effects in this movie were clever, though. I have to give the film that. They weren't brilliant, but they were pretty interesting. But they couldn't distract me from some of the really bad dialogue and acting. But, still, all of that was better than the predecessor. I don't put much stock in Dream Warriors. It gives us new ideas, which I appreciated, but gave them to us in a very familiar way.
But I will give this to the movie: this is the first Freddy Krueger movie I have seen when I didn't completely hate the ending.
5/10
The main problem I had with A Nightmare On Elm Street 3 is the same problem I've been having with slasher films since the first slasher film I can remember seeing: the victims are bogus characters. I really didn't like them very much at all. Granted, there was a little more depth to them than in other films, but they were still run-of-the-mill characters that I, frankly, get tired of seeing.
And the acting wasn't much to watch either. Heather Langenkamp thankfully returns as Nancy, the Final Girl from the original film. But her character really hasn't gone very far from the last time the audience saw her, so though her genuine performance was appreciated, her character's presence was a little lame. There just really wasn't a whole lot to her.
The film takes place in a psychiatric ward, a complete turnaround from the house that was used for the first two movies. Actually, this film feels more like a continuation of Nightmare than Freddy's Revenge did, even though Freddy's Revenge took place entirely in the same house and Dream Warriors did not. Anyway, the psychiatric ward was an interesting place to send the series, and I was ultimately happy with that change. But the characters in the ward didn't do a whole lot to establish themselves. Again, they were all very basic and didn't have too many personality traits.
Something interesting that this film does is expand on its title: Dream Warriors. When the characters go into the dreams, they each have their own "dream powers" to fight Freddy with. They don't really make sense, and you would think the characters would be able to pretty much do anything they want in the dream if that was the direction the filmmakers were going to take, but no dice. And the whole deal with battling Freddy in the dreams did get really cheesy and really silly really fast.
And then there were the puns. I hate movie puns (i.e., "It's the chair for you, kid!" "Feeling tongue-tied?"), mostly because NO ONE TALKS LIKE THAT! No one starts throwing out puns when they're really mad at someone. It's stupid, it's annoying, and they're not funny or clever. So what are they trying to be? The effects in this movie were clever, though. I have to give the film that. They weren't brilliant, but they were pretty interesting. But they couldn't distract me from some of the really bad dialogue and acting. But, still, all of that was better than the predecessor. I don't put much stock in Dream Warriors. It gives us new ideas, which I appreciated, but gave them to us in a very familiar way.
But I will give this to the movie: this is the first Freddy Krueger movie I have seen when I didn't completely hate the ending.
5/10
Tell Your Friends