keith96778 Reviews

Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)

Grotesquely boring

[1/10 · 23 September 2007]

Resident Evil: Extinction (2007) will hopefully extinguish any plans for a 4th installment. The thin plot is held together by banal dialogue and cookie cutter gore that has become standard fare at the box office. Overall, very unimpressive and unoriginal. It is just another zombie movie except is has nothing scary or exciting to mitigate its lack of anything else. And most of the audience will walk out like zombies after about 2 hours of mind-numbing twaddle culminating in one of the most ho-hum endings in the annals of cinematic history.

My recommendation: Avoid this grotesquely boring movie. It is really bad.

The Descent (2005)

Monsters in a hole. *SPOILERS GALORE*

[2/10 · 6 August 2006]

This is the most overrated movie to crack an IMDb 5.0 in quite some time. The only "twist" in this movie is the undistinguished cast of interchangeable thirty-something females, which, incidentally, renders an uninspired performance overall. So far as I can tell, the only reason this abomination is receiving attention is because of the novelty of the casting. If dancing bears had been cast instead of women, it wouldn't have been worse and some of the monotony might have been lightened up by some deft hoofing.

There seems to be no real point to the death of Sarah's husband and child in the first few minutes of the movie. So it works well with the rest of the film, which is similarly pointless. There is no real character development. The ladies are initially portrayed as a band of devil-may- care adventuresses engaged in madcap adolescent camaraderie, but they have no personalities to go along with the frequently unintelligible accents. At then end, you will ask yourself "Who were those people?" and you will answer back to yourself, "I don't care."

And it really doesn't matter who they are or were. The the movie is about a bunch of nitwits that go into a hole in the ground and get chased by monsters before one lone survivor escapes into the daylight. *yawn* They aren't even real monsters. They're just people wearing a few layers of cheap latex who do their best to sneer and squeak and gurgle and mug for the camera. It's blatant camera abuse.

There is no real suspense or sense of surprise. The explorers are in a hole full of monsters that are trying to eat them. The explorers are trying to find a way out before they get eaten.

They should have just called this movie "Monsters in a Hole" and been done with it. At least the audience could have left the theater wondering who the monsters where--- the hungry blind latex albinos or the mean old ladies who disturbed their tranquil existence.

I give it two stars because I think they used a pretty high quality of latex on the monsters. More like they wasted it, actually. Well, that's okay, I'll stick with two stars anyway.

Corpse Bride (2005)

The dead are to be envied.

[3/10 · 26 September 2005]

The dead are to be envied, because they cannot feel the pain this movie caused for me. What a tortured piece of nonsense. Burton is doing the same schleck over and over, but it's not getting better with practice.

Despite its apparent popularity, the Corpse Bride isn't clever or innovative or particularly original. On the other hand, it was inane, predictable, and boring. There aren't two good jokes in the whole mess. Burton seems to think that having an eye pop out is so funny that he does it a half-dozen times without ever provoking even a snicker. The musical score is an absolute disaster. For the millions of dollars wasted in production, you'd think someone could have come up with a witty ditty or two. The characters are a waste of clay unless you think a parade of goofy caricatures is entertaining. The animation isn't even impressive by today's standards.

What's to like about the Corpse Bride? You'll live through it. Or at least I did. About half-way through, I started wanting to die, but I didn't. I guess that something positive.

I give it 3 out of 10 stars. I could have gone as high as a 4 if I'd died in the first half. Hey, I'm a survivor. Tough break for Burton, I guess.

Batman Begins (2005)

Should have been called "Batman Bombs."

[3/10 · 26 June 2005]

This movie tarnishes the Batman legend forever. Even Robin wouldn't like this piece of cinematic guano.

Christian Bale is no Batman. His raspy whisper is more hysterical than menacing. How can they let something so patently foolish leave the studio? At the very least they could have dubbed in some more sinister... like Porky Pig. He's easily the weakest of all Batmans. Adam West looks good by comparison.

The chemistry is missing between and among the cast. They never seem comfortable with who and/what they are supposed to be. The interaction is stiff; the humor is forced. This could kill a couple of careers... or so one hopes.

The story is weak. We all know Batman's origins, the details could have been worked through more expeditiously and knocked a tedious hour or so off of this monstrosity. By the time this film muddled towards climax, I didn't care how it ended---I just wanted that damn thing over. And when it was over, I just wanted my money back. My second disappointment of the day as it turns out. I guess theaters don't do that any more.

Robots (2005)

This film should have been scrapped.

[2/10 · 14 March 2005]

To get right down the nuts and bolts, the assembled cast was mechanical and failed to flesh out the potential in their characters.

The plot is thin. The dialog is banal. Not a clever film.

There was not enough thought put into this junk pile to make a full-length film. Scenes are drawn out to unbelievable lengths to fill time and kill brain cells.

There really aren't any spoilers in this review. I can't bring myself to relive the boredom by relating details. It is too juvenile for adults, but the themes are too adult to be very entertaining for children. The farting was the best part; the best part stunk.

Maybe I'm just getting to old to get lost in such nonsensical drivel, but it didn't make sense from the outset. Why robots? Where are the people? Why do robots eat? Why, why, why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? Hey, but wait, I don't care----it was dumb, dumb, dumb and I'm just grateful it is done, done,done.

I give it two stars. I'm generous by nature.

Suspect Zero (2004)

I see empty seats in theaters everywhere.

[6/10 · 30 August 2004]

I believe the premise had tremendous potential. Unfortunately, this film doesn't really bring the concept to life. At least one-half of the film should have been scrapped and re-shot after some serious thought about how to bring some continuity and coherence to the plot.

The actors did nothing to help. Rarely will a movie be so totally miscast. There was no on screen chemistry between the characters WHATSOEVER. The lead

character "Mackelway" (Aaron Eckhart) was simply flat throughout the film. The only true emotion he brought to the film was agony, but it was the audience who

experienced it when watching him flop. There were a couple of scenes when he looked convincingly constipated--- but I'm pretty sure that's not what he was going for. They should have hired an actor for the part. The love interest "Fran" (Carrie-Anne Moss) was totally superfluous to the entire movie----absolutely pointless. The pairing was superficially reminiscent of Fox Mulder & Dana Scully of X Files fame, but without the spark. Moss didn't didn't have much of a part to work with and she didn't do much with what little there was. Ben Kingsley as "O'Ryan" seemed early in the film as though he might bring off a good performance, but after the first 20 minutes or so he seemed lost in the humdrummery (I just made up that word) of the rest of the cast.

Although the film is unimpressive overall, there is some good, or at least unusual, camera work that gives the film an edge at times.

This is not a movie that will earn many accolades. It didn't come together.

The best I can do for Suspect Zero is give it a Suspect Six. I suspect I gave it six because I'm in a real good mood today. I know when I wake up tomorrow I'm going to think it really deserved a four.

Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

Good scary fun

[8/10 · 22 August 2004]

This is a good old fashion scary movie with all the good stuff---suspense, twists, blood and gore. Who could ask for more?

The CGI are nothing spectacular or innovative. However, when in the context of a well- paced, sometimes enthralling, plot, the special effects take on a life beyond their technical perfection.

If you pick this movie apart, you'll notice some plot holes and cheezy make-up and maybe you won't like it. Get over yourself. Sit back, relax and get lost in the mood of the piece and you'll have a good time.

For the sake of comparison, I note that this film is easily much more scary and suspenseful than the over-hyped "The Village." There is much more sense at the conclusion of the film that the producer worked hard to make the content internally consistent and coherent. It's much more exciting.

I gave this movie an 8. It won't win any Oscars and doesn't deserve any. But it's a couple hours of good scary fun for those who enjoy the genre.

The Village (2004)

Contrived boring drek (*spoilers*)

[2/10 · 14 August 2004]

This film is some of the most contrived boring drek to hit the screen in years. It is unbelievably simple minded. The mood is set by hushed voices who constantly speak of "those of whom we do not speak." The premise is that some dodo brains with lots of money establish a village in a remote reserve to escape the horrors of modern life (all of the elders lost loved ones to violence). So what's the plan: Let's pretend we live in the 19th century by scaring the holy shit out of our children by telling them there are monsters in the woods, keeping them barefoot and ignorant about the world and depriving them of basic necessities like medicine so they die before we have an overpopulation problem on our hands.

Of course, somehow the elders who isolate everyone have somehow allowed it to leak out that there is a town on the other side of the woods where there is medicine. Why their hostages ever need to know that, I don't know.

As the years pass, none of dimwitted kids ever figure out that the "monsters" are really pig bones in red jump suits. In the end, it is disclosed that the only person in the whole village who is not in on the scam, but figures it out is the homicidal raving lunatic who impulsively stabs the fiancé of the girl he seems to want for himself. We are supposed to believe that this guy who stabs the fiancé something like 4314214432 times (but doesn't quit kill him), then wanders around soaked in blood until he gets "confined" to a room with a window (from which he of course later escapes to make more trouble) is capable of keeping the monsters secret and pretending to be one without giving himself away in the process. THIS IS JUST STUPID!! The bad news is that this isn't the most stupid part. It's just the part I'm still laughing at so I thought I would mention it.

This movie is definitely to be avoided.

It is not scary.

It is not intellectual.

It is contrived, boring drek.

I gave it 2 out of 10, but only because I accidentally missed the 1 when I poked at it.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Unremarkable

[5/10 · 13 June 2004]

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a very ordinary movie with little save an undeserved reputation to explain its widespread attraction at the box office. The kids can't act. The special effects are nothing special. You'd think with money that pored in from the 1st two movies that someone could have at least invested in some 1st rate effects and a couple acting lessons for the cast. What are the producers doing with all their money??? The storyline is silly and riddled with plot holes. Children of gullible years will likely be amused. Smaller kids will be traumatized by the dark mood and some really ugly people. Adults will be traumatized by the cheap effects ad the really ugly dialogue. The good news is that it really IS better than Potter #2; the bad news is that it is still a wretchedly boring and nonsensical mess.

I rate it 5 of 10. I'm generous by nature.

Troy (2004)

Horrific, hackneyed rubbish

[3/10 · 6 June 2004]

This movie gives new meaning to the concept of Greek tragedy. It's a tragedy the Greeks are forced to endure any association whatsoever with this overhyped compilation of tortured dialogue, hyperbole, miscasting and incompetent direction.

There are no spoilers to follow. Nothing could spoil this movie for anybody. It's slow. It's dull. The cast went through the motions, just not nearly fast enough. Handpuppets could have put more real emotion into the effort.

The good news is that Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom give their greatest performances to date in this movie. The bad news is that Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom gave their greatest performances to date in this movie. This saga should lay to rest any lingering rumors that either of them have potential to waste. They don't. The rest of the cast reportedly were paid for their work and that's more than any of them deserved. As least they came out ahead on deal.

I gave this a 3 out of 10, but only because the popcorn was fresh and nobody stepped on me as they walked out in the middle.

Bad Santa (2003)

Ho Ho Hum Hahahahahablahhhh

[6/10 · 1 December 2003]

The basic premise of the movie is well-advertised. Bad Santa (Billy Bob) is a bad man with bad habits and a bad attitude, but is he's got a good seasonal gig working with a mastermind thief who doubles as an elf. The film is laced with a running stream of profanity and vulgar behavior. Those parts were pretty good.

The movie is overplayed for my taste. The buffoonish portrayals of the major characters (except the late John Ritter, who actually was quite amusing) mask what could have been a brilliant dark comedy. Even though I thought most of the movie was distasteful, there were two points in the movie where I laughed until my sides hurt. i suspect the humor of the movie will "touch" people unevenly. There was scattered laughter almost continuously among the audience, but few (if any times) when the majority seemed to agree on the amusement.

This is movie to be seen. I recommend it not so much because I think is an outstanding film, but because it is a curiosity to behold.

My rating is 6 of 10.

Out of Time (I) (2003)

Average flick; falls short of expectations (*spoilers*)

[6/10 · 5 October 2003]

We've come to expect a lot of Denzel Washington; he doesn't deliver in this vehicle. Not much of the disappointment is attributable to Denzel's performance, though, just his choice of roles. The movie lacks originality. The dialog is inane (that means lacking sense, significance or ideas). There are no surprises except for those of us who were surprised by how insubstantial the movie is.

The ending was a dud. SPOILER COMING UP NOW. He finds the bad guys, comes close to being killed and his wife (a police detective) shows up and saves him at the last minute. *yawn* The producer missed a chance at a twist. I have the feeling they were setting up a better ending and backed off of it. Those who have seen it may remember the reference to Chris making the plan when he found out about the drug money. I really thought the medical examiner was heading over at the end to be revealed (in dramatic fashion) to be the guy who told Chris and the real mastermind behind the whole thing. That might have at least surprised somebody.

The lack of any real surprises and some plot holes (such as why the money ended up in the hotel with a bit player when it was given to Anne---why would she turn it over to some other guy???)(or why the Chief's wife, even though estranged, would not recognize his cell phone number).

My rating is 6 of 10. Without Denzel, it's a 5. He really only pushes it up to a 5.6, but I rounded it up to 6 to be generous.

Underworld (2003)

Really draining (Warning: Minor spoilers)

[6/10 · 28 September 2003]

This isn't much of a movie. Nothing too innovative. Special effects are mediocre.

The premise doesn't make much sense, but suspending belief is all part of the game for horror fans. Not a whole lot made much sense, actually, but this movie put more premium on action than logic. Unfortunately, even the action was too phony. The many (many) gun battles were bizarre. When you've got 4 guys with automatic weapons blasting at somebody six feet away, you'd expect them to hit the target once in a while. Plus, since the wolfies developed some pretty effective vampire bullets, it didn't make a lot of sense for them to spend so much time biting and howling. Good fun for them, I am sure, but a nice ultraviolet bullet between the eyes would've been much more practical. Nonetheless, they managed to rip apart a goodly number of vampires as silver bullets ripped into their fuzzy little hides. As I surveyed the carnage, it became apparent that immortality is not a big impediment to dying.

The movie is obviously setting up one or more sequels. They will stink, too. Ironically, the thought of a second one is scarier than seeing the first one.

As it was, I left the movie feeling drained. Drained of money.

I'll give this a six just because it didn't drain me of lunch (if you know what I mean).

Secondhand Lions (2003)

Cute but no cigar.

[6/10 · 22 September 2003]

It could have been a contender, but is instead destined to fade into cinematic obscurity despite credible performances by Michael Caine and Robert Duvall.

The concept here was a winner. Execution fell short. With a little more work, attention to detail, and maybe re-takes of a few scenes that just didn't pass muster, this could have become a classic. Especially if the cute little kid was played by a cute little kid rather than a poorly aging juvenile struggling to make the transition to more mature roles. Sorry to burst your bubble, Haley, but you are washed up. It's time for a reality check and an application to your local McDonald's. Hopefully they are hiring. (Seriously, compare his performance here to what he did in Sixth Sense. He's lost the magic. #$@!!! puberty!!!)

Caine and Duvall deliver their lines very convincingly. It's amazing how the skill of these gentlemen can overcome the context in which they perform. Without these guys, this movie would be a complete bust. I sort of wonder if they hired the rest of the cast to make Caine and Duvall look good, because the rest of the ensemble couldn't act at all. How in the world do these people make a living in the entertainment industry is beyond me.

Overall, Secondhand Lions will be a nice movie for most folks. It was overplayed for my tastes, but I generally enjoyed it. It deserved to be better. My rating is 6/10.

28 Days Later (2002)

28 days later ... you forget this movie.(SPOILERS)

[5/10 · 23 August 2003]

This is a very ordinary film with no original contribution to the genre. The camera work is interesting at times, but the concept and script are straight out of the vault (of hackneyed and overworked ideas). It has no real identity of its own to speak of and, thus, is hardly worth speaking about.

The movie lacks the hard edge that might have given it some distinction. It has some grit, but it is inconsistent. Scenes are painstakingly manipulated to set up suspense that never materializes, such as when the females are forced to dress up so they can be more fun(?), attractive(?) or what(?) to rape by the horny little soldiers.

Long before fashion becomes an issue, the film betrays itself with contrivances and inconsistencies in the world it seeks to create. When poor addle-brained Jim stumbles about a deserted London, for example, there is nary a clue as to the "rage" that decimated the population. Meanwhile, Selena and her original companion are scrounging out an existence in a city with grocery stores filled with food. Shortly after, Selena, who would leave anybody who falls behind, skips off to visit Jim's mum and dad for no apparent good reason. Nearing the end, Jim is handcuffed then mysteriously not handcuffed so he can rescue the ladies. The director didn't even bother with an implausible account of that fete. At least he could have inserted a bubble over Jim's head thinking "What good luck I am Houdini's great-grandson." It wouldn't have detracted from the film in the least. The list goes on and on. Even classic horror has a plot hole here and there, but never so many, so deep.

It really wouldn't have been hard to tighten up the logic of the film to give the treatment some integrity. Filmakers seem to not bother with details these days. But why bother when consumers don't demand it?

If one suspends disbelief and good taste, this film can be tolerated. Otherwise, if you're lucky, 28 days later .... you forget this movie.

My rating: 6 (scale of 10)