Change Your Image
danielviam
Reviews
Mars Needs Moms (2011)
Not even a base hit.
Milo:What is going on? Gribble:Mars needs moms, so the aliens are stealing them from Earth to raise their own kids.
If this exchange sounds natural or realistic to you, then go see this movie, by all means... If you find it cringe-inducingly awful, ask for your money back, like I did. I have in the past watched truly awful Disney products--but never something this bad. I never realized that Computer-created characters need acting ability too; not to mention writing lines that don't include title tags (see above) and plugs for Disney's parks and products.
If I was a mother taking her kids to this, I think I might have a few questions for Disney... Like why incinerating mothers, executing them, and rescuing them mainly from a desire to have then take the rescuer to Disneyland (apparently going broke is at least preferable to execution) is considered appropriate Disney fare now.
Oh yeah, for the record many of the "Martians" are about as lovable and appealing as Jar-Jar Binks; mouthing 70's slang is NOT a surefire way to guarantee that the character will sell more McDonald's happy meals. Sorry there, Disney.
Disney, PLEASE actually look at Pixar's films... Look at the depth of character, the writing, the actual plots... I think you just made Berkeley Breathed want to return to drawing cartoons himself, as "Bloom County" was far better than any of your recent efforts.
And to everyone who gave this excrement a Ten... Shame on you.
Dirty Love (2005)
What are the 10s thinking?
Why is it that so many movies on this database have so many votes at one, then so many at ten, and none in between? This is supposed to be a rating system--1 TO 10. Instead, it becomes a battle between people who hate it and the misguided few (or practical jokers) who love it.
There is NO reason to give this film anything above a ONE. To the large amount who gave it a 10--what are you thinking? I have to assume that this is a practical joke--that dozens of drunks thought it would be hilarious to award this piece of slop a high rating, maybe even get it into the top 250. Bad news guys--that will never happen, because there are more intelligent viewers on this database than practical jokers.
To anyone who WASN'T joking when they gave this thing a 10, I ask of them a simple question--have you seen any other movies this decade? I would respectfully request that you first watch the top 20 films on the top 250, then honestly report that this dog deserves anything whatsoever over a one.
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
A triumph of style--over substance.
I'd like to keep this short--so I'll jump straight to the meat. The term originality, so often used in any review of Tarantino's work, should never be applied to this movie. There is nothing NEW here--but such is Tarantino's excellence that even this hackneyed material seems new. The revenges story is as old as Greek tragedy--maybe even older. He even throws in the old, clichéd mother/child motif. Let's face it, revenge drama, even with female protagonists, is nothing new at all. Worse, let's just face it. It's a BAD plot--because we know the outcome. The protagonist might suffer. Might get beat up. Might even fall into a coma for 4 years. But eventually they will WIN--this is never in any doubt. Perhaps this total predictability is why I don't much like this type of film.
The use of continuity in this film was as usual, confusing and jumping through time. The first big fight, killing Vernita Green comes AFTER the climactic death of O-Ren at the end of the film. Hate to tell you Quentin--Brilliant in "Pulp Fiction," boring here. It was new ONCE. Just once is all you get.
Where this film shines is the usual strengths--Quentin's use of Mise-en-scene, character, and of course music. Only Quentin Tarantino can take a scene of O-Ren and henchfolk entering a bar, and make it as heartstoppingly cool as the scene is in this film. THIS is brilliant movie-making--I wish the rest of the film lived up to that level.
Unfortunately, the creativity stops there--in endless Homages to all the different fave movies of Tarantino. Spaghetti Western, Hong-Kong Grind, Anime--all here. Unfortunately, I feel that the uses of all these other styles--ultimately leads to no real style of his own.
I realize that Quentin Tarantino did NOT intend this film to be original--it is rather an affectionate nod to styles that have influenced his own style. Unfortunately, I'd rather watch "Adaptation" and see something completely new. Perhaps when he finds his own unique style again I'll return to his fold. I can only give this movie 7 out of 10.
PS to Quentin--Good Job At Cannes.
Citizen Kane (1941)
The story isn't the point
The real importance of "Citizen Kane" is not its story, although the script is a strong character study. The strength of "Kane" is in its incredibly creative use of light, camera movement, and deep focus to create a film that at the time was literally revolutionary.
It is important to remember that "Kane" was Orson Welles' first film. He had just attained both fame and notoriety with his "War of the Worlds" broadcast, and had only his radio background to sustain him. RKO studios, then in serious financial trouble, saw him as a man capable of creating a riveting story, not as an innovator.
Fortunately, in Welles they had also hired a man capable of attracting brilliant men to his side. Cinematographer Gregg Toland was at the time probably the best in the business; he is given top billing by Welles in the final credits.
At the time that "Kane" was made, film in America was in a rut. The ideal, which movies stuck to, was to create a "Natural" look--no obvious lighting, the camera at eye level, no obvious cuts or transitions. Welles, unfamiliar with all this, used obvious light, a VERY mobile camera, and wipes, fades--all the techniques that modern filmmakers used today. The American Film Institute, in its highly controversial "Top 100," listed Kane as the #1 American movie. Although many would disagree, I feel that its impact on the way films are made today might give it the merit to have that high place.
Canadian Bacon (1995)
Michael Moore's OTHER work
I had to comment on this film after seeing a remark from another commentator that the writer was Canadian. Actually, the writer/director was Michael Moore, the writer/director of the acclaimed documentary "Bowling for Columbine." And he's from Flint, Michigan. Last I checked, that isn't in Canada yet, although maybe Mike wishes that it was...
A lot of Moore's low opinions of the military, the media, and of course the people in power are very visible in this one. The cleverness of the actual script, however, doesn't help the overall film, which is sadly just not that good. Despite John Candy and Rhea Perlman's ability, this film just doesn't ever really take off. I watched it once, and that's enough for me.
It's also interesting to note, however, that if this movie had done well, perhaps Mr. Moore would be making sly, Coen-brothers like films, instead of the brilliant "Bowling for Columbine." So I choose to see this film's mediocrity as a GOOD thing... Notice, though, that the film made fairly recently by a former Columbine resident and friend, namely the "South Park" movie, had at its base... An American/Canada war. You can tell a man from the quality of his imitators.
JFK (1991)
All conspiracy theories aside...
I've read a lot of the reviews here, and frankly, I'd rather comment on the movie, not the theories.
The performances here are superb. This is one of Gary Oldman's defining performances--it took me over half the film to suddenly realize that Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact Gary. He submerges so far into character that he is almost invisible--an incredible feat of acting that few can accomplish so easily.
Another wonderful performance is delivered by Tommy Lee Jones as Clay Shaw. A truly subtle, interesting portrayal--all allegations about his behavior and involvement aside.
As a former Dallas resident, the theories no longer hold interest to me. This is not a historical document, but a movie. But the comments on this site interest me, because they do show that "JFK" accomplished something--they awoke interest in a period of our nation's history that deserves interest.
I doubt that we will ever know the truth--but at least JFK has inspired many to look for it.