Change Your Image
crazyrabbits
Reviews
Snakes on a Plane (2006)
A brilliant, psychotically entertaining joke that pushes all the right buttons...
If you walk into the B-movie/campfest/action-thriller "Snakes On A Plane" and not feel some modicum of giddy joy when Samuel L. Jackson (a.k.a. The Man) gets fed up with the situation happening to him and yells "Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherf***ing snakes on this motherf***ing plane!", then you are not worthy enough to watch films ever again. Seriously, this movie epitomizes the concept of a "so good, it's bad" style, and you should be perfectly clear that this is what the film is, plain and simple.
Basically, the plot involves a witness (played by Nathan Miller) who witnesses the murder of a prosecutor by a generic villain named Eddie Kim, and he ends up being hunted by a group of assassins, but is eventually saved by Agent Neville Flynn (played by Jackson) and is persuaded to go to Los Angeles to testify against Kim and put him in jail. Unfortunately, Kim has found out about this, and decides to put a box full of venomous snakes on board the plane in an attempt to bring it down, and yes, you guessed it, all sorts of mayhem ensues once the plane is halfway to it's destination. It's up to Flynn and the passengers to work together, keep the plane running and keep the snakes at bay while trying to figure out what the heck is going on.
Pretty much every film stereotype that has appeared in an airplane movie is represented here. The comic relief, the reluctant passenger who has a special skill, the sacrificial lamb, the peppy attendant, a death in an airplane bathroom, people locked up in tight quarters, you name it, this film's got it, but then again, the film is supposed to be like this, so it's interesting to see how the film actually plays against those stereotypes (the married couple gets killed, the reluctant hero really doesn't have a special skill, etc.) When you go to a film called "Snakes On A Plane", you expect that there will be numerous snake-related injuries and snake deaths, and this film delivers in spades. Snake bites to every major part of the body, a snake eating a man(!), snakes getting tasered, toasted, microwaved, stomped, depressurized, and everything but the kitchen sink is in this film.
There are also scenes that take place on the ground with a group of FBI agents (led by Bobby Cannavale) who are trying to figure out who put the snakes on the plane in the first plane, and personally, I thought the action on the ground was just as good as what was happening in the air.
The acting and plot are actually pretty good for a film of this reputation. I went in expecting to see non-stop snake bashing for 2 hours, but it was actually kind of charming and funny in a way. Sure, there are numerous people who only serve to exist as cannon fodder for the snakes, but the main characters do good work with their parts, considering that their personalities are designed to be paper-thin.
This is not a film to be studied and analyzed. If you see the word "Snakes On A Plane", that's what you should go in expecting. The only thing I would have liked to see was footage of the FBI busting Eddie Kim, because he is such a throwaway villain, and it would have been nice to see him get his "just desserts". Still, that's a minor quibble, as this film does things I didn't even expect. I mean, the final plan to get rid of the snakes involves depressurizing the whole plane! It's so ridiculous that it works, and I loved it.
Bottom Line: Make no mistake about it, this film is snakes on a plane with Samuel L. Jackson, and that's about it. You should expect nothing less. I give this film a 10 out of, my highest rating, for being the most entertaining film experience I've seen all year. If you do go to see this, make sure it's with an audience who appreciates it's campiness as well. You won't regret it.
Miami Vice (2006)
Push it to the limit...no, not really
After watching the remake movie based on the popular 80's show "Miami Vice", I felt this was an interesting, but somewhat flawed film that suffers from a couple problems that keep it from becoming a truly great picture in the vein of Michael Mann's previous works like "Collateral" or "Heat", but I'll talk about the plot first.
Basically, the film is about two Miami P.D. vice cops, James "Sonny" Crockett (played by Colin Farrell) and Ricardo Tubbs (played by Jamie Foxx), who stumble onto a multinational drug-running operation after an informant named Alfonzo gives up the identities of undercover DEA agents. To break into this ring, the two cops go undercover and start a business deal with drug boss Jesus Montoya, and like Tubbs says in the film, "there's undercover, then there's in over your head", as the two men realize this may cost them everything. Meanwhile, Sonny decides to go romance the business partner of Montoya, a woman named Isabella (played by Gong Li), which could be problematic for him.
I guess the first thing I should mention is that this film has no opening credits, no mention of who the actors are, or even where the setting is. It just sort of drops you into the action. For some people, this may confuse them and make them upset, but personally, I thought it was a good way to put the audience right into the plot. Seriously, if you've been following the production of this film at all, you probably have an idea already who the main characters are and what the basic plot is, so my thought is that Mr. Mann doesn't take his audience for a bunch of idiots.
The plot is interesting, but I guess it's also something that hinders the film, as it really does feel like an extended version of one of the old series' episodes. It really made me feel like there was a sense of immediacy, and yet, also a sense of impending doom, as these two guys escape quite a few close calls in the two-hour film. From almost getting killed by Montoya's men to almost getting blown away by a bomb hidden in a trailer, these guys really get put through the wringer. I felt that Sonny's romance with Isabella really impeded the flow of the film. Seriously, he goes on a boat with her and the next 20+ minutes of the movie are them having sex and sharing time together. Sure, it's nice to see them having a good time, but what happened to everyone else?
The acting in the film was solid work all around. I think the most important thing to mention is that there is virtually no character development in the film. We simply see these two guys busting crime and going undercover, and we get the barest minimum of information about the people. We have to decide who they based on their actions or their facial expressions, and let that decide the way the story goes. This is why the acting works well, in my opinion. Colin Farrell plays a man who looks like he's been doing this job a long time, and it shows in his actions. He's probably the strongest thing about this film. However, other characters (like Tubbs, Castillo, the head drug boss, the organizer guy in the apartment near the beginning, etc.) have virtually no character development whatsoever, and only serve to drive the plot, which I didn't like.
What I also liked is that the film really is more of a team-based movie than simply "Crockett and Tubbs all the time". The other members (especially the woman named Gina, who really shines in one of the film's pivotal action scenes) all play a part in the completion of the mission, which I liked. As well, the action is very quick, very bloody and very urban. There are no fancy camera moves or slow-motion deaths. It feels a bit more realistic than the 80's show.
The film-making will probably be one thing that throws people off, and it did for me to some extent as well. Near the beginning of the film and in the final gunfight at the boat, it is often very difficult to see what the heck is going on because the camera is moving around a lot. Still, for the most part, the film looks absolutely beautiful, as it was shot in high definition, The ending is another thing that was sort of in the middle for me. While I thought the downer ending of Sonny having to leave Isabella and the drug dealer getting away worked well, the final shots were really reminiscent of Mann's earlier work, Collateral. Still, it was a fitting end for a dark police drama.
Bottom Line: While I liked the film a lot, there were things in it that kept it from being truly great. I give this film a 7 out of 10. If you want to watch it, get it on DVD when it comes out.
Mother 2: Gîgu no gyakushuu (1994)
A game that far and away exceeded the expectations of the RPG crowd...
It's somewhat sad to see how unfairly maligned the 1995 Super Nintendo classic "Earthbound" was upon it's initial release. People thought the graphics were too simplistic, and not representative of what a good RPG is (and what, Chrono Trigger had better graphics?). I would also point out that people (like myself, I must add) initially dismissed the game as being too simplistic and childish for older gamers.
How wrong I was. This isn't the best game ever, but it's certainly one of the standout games in the RPG genre to be released in the last 20 years, and I firmly stand behind that statement.
Basically, the plot goes like this: Ness, your average ordinary kid, is set on the path of a great adventure when a meteorite crashes near his home in the town of Onett. Journeying through many different cities and acquiring items, spells, and allies (including a pre-schooler named Paula, a math nerd, and the prince of a far-off Kingdom), Ness and his friends must stop the evil Master Giggas from plunging the world into eternal darkness.
What I most liked about the game was that, even though it follows a somewhat linear structure (in that you must get Item A to get to Town B, and so on), the variety and depth of the situations makes for a very immersive and fulfilling experience. To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this game. You don't kill monsters with swords and arrows, rather, you beat them to death with baseball bats, frying pans and rulers. Better still, the variety of enemies in the game is quite impressive. Ranging from wild animals to possessed zombies to demonic statues to giant piles of vomit and everything in between, the battles never feel repetitive.
Also, considering the age of this game, it still holds up quite well today, giving gamers a different role-playing experience. Instead of you winning money from battles, it all gets deposited into ATM machines that you can hit up, and then you can buy bizarre items like teddy bears that fight alongside you or even bottle rockets that you can fire at enemies. The only way to save the game is to call your unseen father up and get him to record your progress. Hell, you even use a UFO to get around in the late stages of the game! It's things like this that set Earthbound apart from the countless other RPG clones that tried to emulate the major RPG series like Final Fantasy and Chrono Trigger.
Bottom Line: Without a doubt, this is one of the best console games for the SNES. It's a shame that the cartridge is discontinued, because I think that more people should play this game. I give Earthbound a 10 out of 10, my highest rating. Pick it up if you have a chance.
Forgotten Realms: Baldur's Gate - Dark Alliance (2001)
Apparently, the sheer sight of playing a D&D game can cloud a person's mind as to what is actual quality or not...
After reading the hilarious (and terribly misguided) reviews about Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, I have decided to voice my opinions on the game. Now, I realize that this is the Internet MOVIE Database and not the Internet GAME Database, but it's on here, so that makes it fair game.
Basically, the game is about you, the player, trying to stop a group of villains from sowing discord and despair throughout Baldur's Gate and beyond. As a new visitor to the city of Baldur's Gate, you get robbed, then you have to go on a quest to find the thieves that took your possessions, which in turn to you subsequently being the sole savior of Baldur's Gate.
I own the original Baldur's Gate and expansion pack, and I have never played the second game. Needless to say, while I was playing this game, I was expecting a lot more, and my expectations were high because of the sheer volume of game-play in the first installment. However, I wasn't very impressed at all.
To begin with, while something like the original Baldur's Gate is truly mammoth in size, and can easily take over 30-40 house to complete, this game (and I kid you not) can be finished in under 8 hours (believe me, I know because I've done it). There's no depth to it. Sure, there's a variety of monsters and various riff-raff to slaughter, but it just gets old after a while. It's basically the same 20 types of enemies over and over again. In addition, while there are some nice types of weapons and armors in the game, there is little to no variety in them. The original game had a truly varied assortment of items, spells, weapons and armor to choose from, and there were literally hundreds of possible armor combinations to choose from. Here, I couldn't even buy half of the stuff in the game because it was too bloody expensive. And the best weapons in the game (i.e. those that you can sell for a profit to buy better armor) only are found in the final dungeon! Gone is the allegiance element of the first game (that is, whether you were Chaotic, Neutral, Good or anything in between), as well as most of the spells. Hell, there's not even a team element in this game. It's just you slashing monsters for a long time. There is very little variation in the landscapes and areas. It looks like the same set of paths and bridges multiplied a half-dozen times.
You can't even create a custom character or makes your own strengths and weaknesses, a fundamental part of D&D. Who's the clown on the comment page that said that this game is more D&D than any other game so far? It's a hack job, a complete butchery of what made the first game so unique and popular.
Bottom Line: Even though a new player who is unfamiliar with D&D might enjoy this, I see it as a waste of time. You can't automatically give a game a perfect score just because it's D&D-related. I give this game a 4 out of 10.
24: 11:00 p.m.-12:00 a.m. (2002)
The best episode of 24. PERIOD.
While the first season of 24 had it's up's (the first 12 episodes all formed the most cohesive plot of the show's run) and it's down's (Teri's unnecessary amnesia plot), I don't think any fan of 24 can deny that this is one of, if not the best, episodes of the entire season. 1.24 has it all: deception, miscommunication, suspense, action, pathos, and what will arguably be the greatest surprise ending ever in the show's history.
Continuing from the previous episode, in which Jack foiled another assassination attempt on David Palmer's life from the Drazens, Jack decides to trade himself for his daughter, but Nina Myers (a.k.a. Yelena) discovers that Palmer is still alive, and worse yet, since Kim escaped in the previous episode (and she safely gets away from the docks in this episode), the Drazens have no more bargaining chip. Nevertheless, the Drazens have Nina call Jack when he gets to the docks to tell him that Kim is dead. The Drazens think this will break Jack's spirit, but instead, this leads to what is arguably the greatest pier shootout in history, as Jack goes commando and drives a van barreling right into the Drazens' hideout, and single-handedly wipes out every occupant in the vicinity, including both of the Drazen brothers. It is here that we really see how Jack has been affected by the events that have transpired over the course of the day, and how he is finally letting it all out in one big orgy of violence.
In addition, we also find out that David has won the California Presidential Primary, and that he will be sworn in as President, an event that causes David to re-evaluate his relationship with his wife Sherry. I have never had any problem with the acting on the show, and this episode is certainly no exception. Dennis Haysbert and Penny Jerald both give excellent performances as David informs Sherry that he won't take her on as his running mate, and you can feel the emotions on the actor's faces.
Still, the best part of this episode is how it absolutely blindsides you. Jack has killed the bad guy, saved the Senator twice, and can now go back to his family. Of course, it's never that easy. Jack finds out that Nina was the one who killed Jamey earlier in the day, and he realizes that he was being played all along. This leads to an insane shootout in the CTU parking garage as Jack and Nina exchange gunfire while driving towards each other. In the end, though, it is Mason's calm advice that keeps Jack from killing Nina, and the ironic thing is that Nina had already hurt Jack by killing a person that he loved. It is in the final moments of the season where we find out just how needless Nina's actions were, as Jack finds Teri dead in the CTU communications room. It was so shocking that fans of the show even refused to believe she was dead, but there was nothing that could be done. I dare say that Kiefer Sutherland gives his best performance of the series to date, as he goes from anger to vengeance to elation to sadness and grief all in the span of a single episode.
One thing I also enjoyed throughout the show was that the action scenes didn't take place at the end of the episode, like they happened to do in nearly every other episode of the series, which I thought allowed more room for the characters to interact and react to situations.
I have seen this particular episode of 24 at least three times during my life, and every time I have viewed it, I have never noticed any discernible plot holes or errors. Yes, there is a flashback in the final moments of the episode as Jack is holding Teri's lifeless body and remembering their past experiences, but it is the only such instance of a flashback occurring on the show, and it works to great effect here. Again, everything just clicks, and from the use of the split-screens to the acting and direction, it is quite a sight.
Bottom Line: I believe (in my opinion) that this is the finest episode of the show's run. There isn't anything before or since that has come close to conveying the right balance of action, drama and emotion in such a small time frame. I am giving this episode a 10 out of 10. It is definitely a winner, and representative of what "24" is all about.
24: Day 4: 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. (2005)
One of the best episodes of Season 4...
To me, the greatest thing I can say about 24 is that the best episodes of the show's history don't always have to be action-oriented or violence-driven in order to have a compelling plot or be interesting. Rather, I think that the best episodes focus not just on the action, but also on the everyday happenings of the characters when they're not on the job, and this show (episode 4.8) manages to capture the personal lives of some of the customers quite skillfully, as well as providing an enjoyable episode.
Continuing from the previous episode (in which Tony Almeida arrived in the nick of time to save Jack and Audrey at the security office after they were ambushed by Marwan's thugs), Tony decides to take the pair back to his house to retrieve some information about Henry Powell, a suspected felon. When Jack and Audrey arrive at Tony's place, however, they find out just how far he's fallen since being released from prison.
I think the reason why this episode works so well is because of the established chemistry between the two lead actors (Kiefer Sutherland and Carlos Bernard). We see that Tony has fallen on hard times since Michelle left him, and as a result, he is unemployed and living with a woman he doesn't really love, which causes Jack to be resentful that Tony didn't come to him for help. Indeed, there is also a nice mixture of action (at the end) and comedic elements, as well as a couple totally surreal moments. Watching Tony sitting on his couch drinking beer out of his Chicago Cubs mug and watching soccer while Jack explains how far Tony has fallen to Audrey is definitely one of the more memorable moments from the season. In addition, there are also scenes of unintentional humor (such as Jack accidentally pulling a gun on Tony's girlfriend) and a couple hilarious jokes as well (such as Tony's remark about being unemployed).
The split-screen effect was also used to a somewhat greater degree in this episode, which I also enjoyed.
There were a couple minor gripes I had with this episode. The cliffhanger at the end with Powell's death feels unnecessary and tacked-on, and only feels like a way to have a cliffhanger at the end of the episode. Another problem I had was that there were a lot of supporting characters who were introduced here (Jen Slater, Marcy, Henry Powell) who kind of showed up, and then never appeared again (except for Jen, but she appeared for a few seconds in another episode). It would have been nice to find about more about these characters (especially Marcy, who seemed to have inside contacts in Washington). Then again, it's a minor gripe, and it didn't really affect the episode that much.
Bottom Line: I think this is one of the highlight episodes of the fourth season, and definitely representative of the feel and look of 24. I am giving this episode a 9 out of 10. A real winner.
Memento (2000)
Truly a great film; a definite must-see...
It's actually quite rare to see a full-blown character drama in this day and age, but that's exactly what "Memento", the 2001 film by Christopher Nolan, really is. I actually didn't want to write a review on this film for quite some time, because it was hard to grasp all the layers of the film, and believe me, there are many. Needless to say, though, this is one of my all-time favorite films, and it is truly a novel experience in film-making.
If you haven't seen the film, the plot goes like this: Leonard Shelby (played by Guy Pierce) is an amnesiac. Ever since an intruder broke into his home and murdered his wife (played by Jorja Fox), knocking him unconscious in the process (or so he would like to believe), Leonard is cursed with a fragmented and quickly-disappearing memory. He can remember everything that happened prior to the event, but everything that happens afterwards quickly fades away, unless Leonard writes a note about it. Throughout the course of the film, Leonard interacts with a variety of individuals in the search for the man who killed his wife, and in addition, an extraneous plot (from the audience's perspective for most of the film, anyway) occurs with Leonard remembering flashbacks about an insurance salesman named Sammy Jenkins.
It's hard to understand the film, especially since it progresses in a non-linear fashion. The movie runs "backwards", in that it shows a scene, then the scene prior to that one, then the scene prior to that one, and so on. It is difficult for the audience to understand what is going on, but it's possible that we are feeling the same way as Leonard: confused and disoriented. Even by the end of the film, some things still don't make sense, requiring multiple viewing to understand the motivations of all the characters and how they relate to Leonard.
Personally, I don't think Christopher Nolan could have picked a better cast of actors. Guy Pearce does an incredible job of portraying a helpless and confused man who is never quite sure of what's going on, but by the end of the film, the audience realizes just how out of it Leonard really is. I also thought Carrie-Anne Moss did a great job as Natalie, Leonard's lover with suspicious motives, and Joe Pantoliano as Teddy, a cop who is playing Leonard to his advantage.
It's a testament to this film that it works as well playing in a forward pattern (as seen on the Special Edition DVD) as it does when shown in non-chronological order, because it still manages to surprise the audience, and also shows how the other characters in the film manipulate Leonard for their own means.
The audience is right there along with Leonard as he struggles to figure out what the tattoos on his body mean, who his friends are, and how he can solve the mystery of his wife's killer. The only trick is that the "B-plot" of Sammy Jenkins, and Jenkins' wife forcing Sammy to do a test on her, is the real cause of Leonard's condition, and is subtly hinted at throughout the film. This puts Leonard in a new light and forces the audience to re-evaluate their opinion of him.
The directing and action are second to none. I think that Christopher Nolan realized that to tell a good story, you need a good plot, good interaction between the characters, and that you need to keep the audience guessing, something that is sadly lacking in many films nowadays.
It is true that if Leonard has a memory condition that causes him to forget things, he wouldn't be able to know that he has a problem, but I didn't notice that until the third time I viewed this film, and by that time it was just a minor distraction. Unless you have hours to try and dissect this film looking for anything that isn't true to real life, there aren't any real plot holes or inconsistencies in the film.
Bottom Line: Without a doubt, this is one of the best movies I've seen. It's hard to explain, but if you see it a couple times, you will understand what the film is all about. Rent this when you have a chance.
Police Academy: Mission to Moscow (1994)
I can't believe it came to this...
It's a sad thing when a movie franchise hits the rails, and in the case of Police Academy 6: Mission To...oh, who the hell am I kidding, the franchise started dragging from the second film! PA6: Mission To Moscow is a bland, retarded piece of film-making, and totally (and rightfully) killed off the Police Academy franchise for good (I hope). Whereas the first film was mediocre, but humorous fare, this film has killed any and all attempts at police comedies. Seriously, the stuff in this film is so outdated, cheesy and stupid that it's a miracle the film was even released in the first place.
Basically, for those of you who haven't seen the film, the plot goes like this: the Russian government is having trouble with the local Mafia, and decides to call on the Police Academy recruits for help (are you kidding me? You telling me that the Russian police are so inept that they need help from a bunch of young cadets?), and the veterans of the PA force (read: the only actors actually needing paychecks) enlist the help of some young recruits to help them stop this guy named Konstantine, who has made a new video game called "The Game" (nice marketing tie-in) that can brainwash people or hack into computers...whatever the script calls for.
This film is truly something. I mean, most of the original cast left (including the actors who played Hightower, Hooks, Proctor, and Mahoney) and were replaced by a few no-name actors. There's even a subplot in the film that deals with a young recruit trying to woo over a Russian translator (played by Claire Forlani, who really should know better than this). Heck, the main "plot" of the video game just sort of disappears for most of the movie, as does Sgt. Lassard, who strangely ends up living with a Russian family for the majority of the film. The jokes are tired and lifeless. Captain Callahan STILL emphasizes her breasts, Tackleberry STILL loves guns, Sgt. Jones STILL makes weird noises, and Captain Harris is STILL a bumbling fool.
The filmmakers should have known that when the supporting cast from the previous films backed out, they were in deep trouble. As it is, the film just drags for the entire running time. It's only saved by the performances of the veteran actors like George Gaynes and Christopher Lee (and no, I am not counting Michael Winslow). The film ends up resorting to physical humor in order to elicit a laugh, and doesn't focus on the interaction between the characters. It's just the same things from the past few films repeated, ad nauseum. The film doesn't even really have a proper ending, just Cadet Connors hooking up with the Russian woman.
Bottom Line: This truly was the death knell for the Police Academy series. Still, it did have a few good actors doing what they could to lift the material, so that is one point in the film's favor. I give this film a 3 out of 10. Stick to the original.
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
Take this one behind the shed and put it out of it's misery...
No. Just no. I refuse to believe this...film, for lack of a better word exists. I guess it was true that Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (and what a joke that title is) was the final nail in the coffin for the Superman films, at least until it was rebooted with "Superman Returns". While the first film could make you believe that a man could fly, here, you'd probably think he was sailing along on wires behind a green screen. So what was so bad about this film? For those of you who haven't seen the film, basically, it's about Superman stopping nuclear arms conflict and beating up a guy who was created from a strand of his hair. Oh, and there's some other stuff about Clark going on a date and some old guy trying to take over the Daily Planet. That's about it.
Where do I begin? The lame storyline? The truly atrocious acting? The god-awful special effects? It honestly boggles my mind to see how the franchise went from a blockbuster starring Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman and Christopher Reeve, to a piece of tripe starring Reeve and Hackman as caricatures of themselves. It feels like everyone is just hamming it up in this picture, which is a shame because the actors could have done so much more with their roles.
The "plot" is a total waste of time and space. Who cares about ever being in danger, because no matter who you are around the world, Superman will save you! Whether it's Russian cosmonauts in space or conveniently-timed subway train problems, it seems that Superman can actually sense problems in advance! That's...really stupid. And apparently, Superman is all-knowing enough that he can just ask every single world leader to disarm their nuclear arsenals, and that they will comply WITHOUT HESITATION. I mean, it's not like some of those countries based their entire economies on the development of nuclear power, right? Right? There are some really terrible special effects shots in this film. It's plainly obvious to see, because there is footage recycled from the earlier entries in the series, bizarre effect shots (most notably, one instance where Superman flies through space with his cape flapping (???), and another instance in which he flies through a subway station, and the extras don't even bother turning to look at him!), some truly horrid green screen work (in the Fortress Of Solitude with the elders and the 1/3'rd size Superman flying through the subway!), and just plain strange visual effects (Superman repairing the Great Wall Of China with some random green beam that came out of his eyes!). Needless to say, this is not the shining hallmark of glory in the FX department.
Character development? Ha! Forget it! Superman still acts like a bumbling fool, Lex Luthor is STILL a conniving clown, and it actually looks like Lois Lane has regressed in intelligence and thought from the first film. Then again, there is Nuclear Man, who barely even has a vocabulary, so I guess we should be thankful for that development.
Bottom Line: It's terrible, no doubt about that. I give this film a 1 out of 10, the lowest rating. Seriously, ANYTHING is better than this. Go watch the first one to see how the character was done right.
Die Another Day (2002)
Absolutely horrendous...
I must say, after watching the 20th entry into the James Bond franchise, "Die Another Day", I think that it was a wise move to "re-invent" the Bond franchise with a new cast, because honestly, this film is complete trash. I will admit, I haven't seen every Bond film available, but I must tell you that this movie approaches B-movie levels of campiness and cheese.
For those of you who haven't seen the film, I will explain the plot to you: James Bond (played by Pierce Brosnan, who, in my opinion, gives the only good performance in the film) goes to North Korea, ends up "killing" a Colonel in the Korean army. As a result, Bond gets captured, tortured for a while, and is then exchanged for his freedom. Unfortunately, MI6 (and M, Bond's boss) think he's compromised their security, and so Bond must work to clear his name and stop...a British guy who built a super-suit that increases his powers. No joke. Also along for the ride are Jinx (who might be a secret agent, but I honestly didn't care because she was a bland, lifeless individual), some guy named Zao who has diamonds stuck in his face (are you telling me that he can't get them pulled out?), and some other people who are just there for plot exposition.
Where do I start? The "plot" is a complete joke. If the producers had actually focused on making a believable and coherent story instead of trying to cram references in from all the previous Bond films (as per this movie's trivia page), the end result might no have been half-bad.
As it is, the story is just plain ridiculous. Bond has gone from fighting worthwhile villains (like Auric Goldfinger, Scaramanga and Alec Trevelyan) to fighting a media mogul, a man slowly being killed by a bullet in his head and a Korean-turned-British man who wears a cybernetic suit. Worse yet, it feels like the film focuses on the women, gadgets and stunts rather than the actual story, but I'll get back to that in a minute. I mean, I've seen some things in the bond films that stretch credibility, but come on, a giant laser that stalks Bond across a snowy landscape trying to fry him? A random encounter with a woman who just happens to be a spy (and Bond girl) as well? Come on.
It doesn't even feel like a James Bond film anymore.
Looking at all the Brosnan-helmed movies, James has gone from a British secret agent with a knack for getting himself into trouble, an inventive mind and a dry wit, to a one-liner spouting fool who relies too much on flashy gadgets and can apparently do anything or be with anyone just because his name is "James Bond". In addition, he is completely overshadowed in this film by other characters (most notably, Jinx, who James meets near the beginning of the film and subsequently works with her until the end of the movie).
I understand that there were some ridiculous gadgets and devices in the earlier Bond films (Moonraker comes to mind), but my God, here the level of CGI'd effects and gadgetry becomes almost ridiculous. It's like something straight out of a video game. First, we have a giant laser that can shoot at any part of the Earth, can cause untold amounts of damage...and it's being used to shoot at a guy driving really fast in his car. Next, there's a giant car chase sequence in which Bond uses an ejection seat to turn his car upright after it flips over (wouldn't the ejection seat bounce around in the car and kill him?). Finally, and in what is the most ridiculous action sequence I have seen in quite some time, Bond and Jinx successfully start up a helicopter IN MID AIR after having it fall out of a giant plane that's flying. And all this showcasing the graphics of a Playstation 2. I can contend with Bond driving a tank in "Goldeneye" or a remote controlled car in "Tomorrow Never Dies", but this is nuts.
A lot of things didn't make sense in this film. For instance, is it really possible to turn from a hard-nosed Korean general to a sword-fighting, debonair British millionaire solely on the basis of "DNA therapy"? And wasn't it true that the one woman who Bond meets at a party that knows about him probably will betray him at the end? And what about the American agents who just show up near the end for no reason at all than to provide plot exposition?
Bottom Line: This feels like the "Batman And Robin" of the franchise, which is truly sad in that it could have been so much more. I give this film a 3 out of 10, if only for Pierce Brosnan's performance, which was seriously hampered by the inanity of the script. There is no reason for me to recommend this. Go see any other Bond film for greater satisfaction.
24 (2001)
Somehow, it's become just like everything else out there...
I'll admit, when the show "24" first started, I was amazed. A well-written, suspenseful, action-packed show that only covers the span of an hour? Preposterous? Yet, that's what 24 was, and it was a great show at that. However, after viewing some recent episodes of the program (as of this writing, the show has just finished it's fifth season), it has become apparent to me what a different animal the show has changed into. First, though, let me talk about a few of the seasons in detail.
The first season follows the exploits of Jack Bauer as he attempts to keep a man named David Palmer safe from assassins, in addition to saving his family, who have been kidnapped. The acting, story and pacing in this season was amazing. Kiefer Sutherland has almost single-handedly carried the show on his shoulders with his intense performances. In addition, the supporting cast, from Dennis Haysbert as David Palmer to Carlos Bernard as Tony Almeida, everything just worked. What I found most interesting is that, unlike in the later seasons, not every single episode had Jack being engaged in an action scene. There would be episodes where he would either be on the run from the police, trying to accomplish an objective (WITHOUT killing people), or simply driving to a destination. This helped to further the arcs of the supporting characters, and made the show have a greater level of suspense, because we weren't always sure what was going to happen to the characters. Even the ending, with Teri Bauer's death, was jaw-dropping in it's unpredictability. However, there were a couple of side-stories (such as Teri's amnesia and Kim getting kidnapped AGAIN) that were distracting and annoying, but overall, I believe that it is the best out of all the seasons so far.
The second season, while it did have it's good moments, started a downward trend in quality for the episodes. In this season, Jack Bauer is called in to help stop a terrorist group called Second Wave from detonating a nuclear device on American soil, and subsequently catch those responsible for the act. It was here that it felt like the creators started to "one-up" themselves, in that they probably thought, "Okay, we killed Jack's wife and tried to kill a Senator in the first season. Now what can we do to make the stakes higher?" Still, the level of acting and characterization in the show was still second to none. The standout performances in this season included Kiefer Sutherland (as always), Penny Johnson Jerald (as Sherry Palmer, who was basically Lady MacBeth in overdrive), and Xander Berkeley as Jack's radiated boss, George Mason. There were some real standout episodes in the season, such as the bombing of CTU, Jack and Nina's shootout with the Coral Snake Commandos, the airport hanger/bomb-finding episodes, Jack and Mason's flight to the Mojave Desert, and the finale (in which Jack single-handedly takes on an entire group of enemies and wins...barely). Still, the season had numerous problems, including: the endless segments with Kim and karate-chopping boyfriend getting into trouble; the fact that Jack got tortured for an hour and a half and STILL keeps going almost-nonstop for the next four hours, the fact that characters (including Lynne Kresge, Bob Warner and Nina Myers) all disappeared from the season without any explanation; and the extraneous subplots (including Michelle Dessler's psycho brother, the misdirection that Bob Warner and Reza were terrorist suspects, the silly part with the white supremacists who take Kate Warner hostage, and basically anything Kim Bauer did throughout the last half of the season). Needless to say, it didn't have the panache or engrossing quality of the first season.
Although many people have said that the third season is the weakest of the whole series, I actually think it's probably the second-best season of the show. Yes, it did have some redundant story lines and plot holes, but overall, I believe that it is quite enjoyable to watch on it's own. The plot follows Jack and his new partner Chase Edmunds as they try to stop the spread of a virus that infects people and kills them. The first few episodes of the season had a worthless storyline in Kyle Singer and his girlfriend, but after Jack busted Ramon Salazar out of prison and got him to the airport, the plot kicked into high gear. Needless to say, the rest of the episodes (including Ryan Chapelle's murder) were brilliantly well-done.
The fourth and fifth seasons had Jack being ousted from CTU, and subsequently getting re-hired whenever CTU was in dire need of help. While the fourth season had some brilliant episodes (the stretch of time between 11:00 AM and 6:00 PM with Tony and Dina Araz were absolutely great), overall, it got convoluted and started relying on cliffhangers to keep the plot moving, which culminated in Jack having to fake his own death to stay alive.
The fifth season, while it did have some great stand-alone episodes (, the first four episodes with the airport hostage situation, the Sentox in the mall, and the Sentox getting released into CTU), it had some serious problems as well. Too many characters (including Tony, Michelle, Palmer, and Edgar) were killed only for shock value, and had no bearing on what followed after-wards. Again, the ending was stupid and silly, and had Jack being kidnapped by the Chinese. It was foolishness like this, and other things, that helped to bring the show down even farther in quality.
Bottom Line: If I were to rate the show solely on the basis of the first season, it would be a 10 easily. That's not the case. Taking into account the mediocrity of some of the later seasons, I am giving this a 6 out of 10. Go buy the first season when you have a chance, and skip the later seasons.
Alien Evolution (2001)
An intriguing documentary about the history of the Alien saga...
The documentary "Alien: Evolution" follows the history and production of the wildly successful (well, in the 70's and 80's, anyway) "Alien" franchise, and offers quite a bit of amusing and interesting information about the making of the first film, and, to a lesser extent, the sequels made in later years. The show is hosted by Mark Kermode (also of "On The Edge Of Blade Runner" fame), who narrates the whole show, and is on hand to give little quips about the production of the films.
The documentary primarily deals with the 1979 original masterpiece, and Ridley Scott, Dan O'Bannon, Sigourney Weaver and other participants are on hand to talk about their experiences making the film. Of course, where the real meat is (and is something that wasn't included on the cut version of the doc on the Alien Quadrilogy DVD set) concerns the making of Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection. Granted, all of the participants in the Aliens interviews have nothing but glowing praise for the film, but when you get down to the later entries, people have some surprisingly interesting things to say, including H.R. Giger, who compares the alien suit design in Alien 3 to a piece of excrement, and Lance Henriksen talking about how the third film destroyed all the work that was put into the first two entries, it sheds a whole new perspective on what it was like for the cast and crew to experience these films.
It is understandable that Fox would want to cut these offending bits (seeing as how they cut an hour of candid footage of David Fincher out of the Alien 3 Special Edition documentaries), so they recut the film and had it focus on the first movie instead. I don't believe this was a wise move, and I think that if the studio heads have a chance, they should release this documentary in it's original form for everyone to see.
Bottom Line: I am giving this a 9 out of 10, because, as it is, the documentaries featured on the Alien Quadrilogy set actually have better in-depth coverage of the same material posted here, but not everything. If you can find it, the documentary airs on television sometimes. Watch it if you get the chance.
King Kong (2005)
A bloated film, with some surprisingly good results...
After watching the recent remake of "King Kong", directed by Peter Jackson of "The Lord Of The Rings" fame, I began to wonder if Jackson let the power go to his head. What he produced is good, but not great. I mean, yes, it does have some good parts, but there are some things that really drag this film down.
Now, for those of you who are living under a rock and haven't seen either this or the original 1933 version, the plot goes like this: people travel to island, people encounter natives, natives kidnap beautiful actress and try sacrificing her to their big ape god, big ape likes actress, ape gets captured, ape goes to New York, all hell breaks loose, and finally, ape dies. Simple enough (and yes, I'm being cynical). It's a more or less faithful adaptation of the original film, spider pit sequence and all.
The acting performances span a wide spectrum. Jack Black (who I believe can do no wrong) and Naomi Watts both give great performances as Carl Denham and Ann Darrow, respectively, and actually put a bit of gusto into their roles. However, there are numerous characters who are just phoning in their roles, with most of the ship's crew, including Jurgen Prochnow (who really should know better than this) being given almost absolutely no lines whatsoever. I must say, though, Andy Serkis does an absolutely brilliant job as the face/voice of Kong. He actually makes you believe that he is a real being.
Speaking of characters, there are a multitude of people in this film who either disappear or are completely forgotten about. I mean, it was nice that we got to meet all of Ann's friends from the theater, but exactly what role do they play in the plot? And what's with up with that crew member named Jimmy? What kind of purpose does he serve? It seems that the film builds up his character as some sort of heroic underdog, then, his big scene is shooting bugs with a machine gun of the director of the film! There are also numerous ship members and supporting characters that are killed off en masse, and don't serve to further the story in any way (well, there was Denham's producer, but he died so that Denham can make a corny joke about doing the film for him). And for that matter, what did the captain, Denham's assistant or the other crew members think about their lost friends? Do they know? Do they care? It's sheer foolishness like this that really serves to bring the film down.
What really sucks is how SLOW the film is. I like introductions, don't get me wrong, but it takes, literally, over an hour to get to the island and begin the main plot. Everything before that is extraneous filler that has almost no bearing on the rest of the film. The heads of the company Denham works for are chasing him, but then that stops altogether once they come back at the end of the film. And there's even a big montage of New York circa the 1930's that was probably done to showcase the adherence to the time period. A long introduction worked in a film like Aliens, but it doesn't work here.
There are many plot holes in this film that serve to distract the viewer's attention from what is going on. In no particular order, I will list all that I can remember: Who are the native people, and where did they come from (better yet, where did they all go after the initial encounter with the crew)?; Where did Denham's map come from? How did the crew get Kong back to New York (and will this be answered in the extended version)? Where did Denham's assistant, the crew of the ship and Ann's friends go when they got back to New York? Okay, I digress.
The plot feels like someone wrote a few action movie clichés into the existing script for the 1933 film and made the running time longer in order to feel more complete. As it is, the movie is good, but it really suffers due to the plot contrivances. Practically every single time the main characters are in danger (whether it be from the natives, the bugs, or Kong himself), suddenly the entire crew of the ship shows up to save their collective behinds. Mind you, the action scenes are quite engrossing, but it feels like they are a distraction from the main plot, and instead are just tools to showcase the latest graphic innovations.
Bottom Line: As it is, the movie isn't bad, but it suffers from some serious flaws. I give this film a 6 out of 10. If you really want to enjoy yourself, I would suggest picking up the original version instead.
Crash (1996)
This film is not going places...
I have not read the book version of this film that was written by author J.G. Ballard, nor do I want to read it, after watching the debacle that is this film. When people tell you to read the novel the movie is based on, then the film has failed in telling you the whole story.
I will now attempt to explain the plot of this film: we first start with a woman (played very blandly by Deborah Kara Unger) having sex with a man in an airport hanger. Then we see her husband (played by James Spader) having sex with his secretary. Oh yeah, and then we see them having sex at home.
Conclusions: These people must really like to have sex.
Then, Spader's character gets into a car accident with a half-naked woman (played by Holly Hunter) and some other guy who gets killed, so he takes to also having sex with her on a regular basis. Oh yeah, and then they meet this guy named Vaughan (played by Elias Koteas) who hires Spader's character to drive him around so he can look for woman and have sex with them in the backseat while Spader's character cruises along under Highway 401.
Conclusions: These people must really like to have sex.
In addition to these people, we also find out that Vaughan really likes performing re-creations of famous car crashes. His friend (I forget what his name is) ends up getting killed in an auto accident while dressed up like Jayne Mansfield. There is also a woman (played by Rosanna Arquette) who seems to have trouble walking, and she has a giant gash on her leg, which Spader's character proceeds to have sex with at one point. Oh, and every member of the cast has sex with everyone else at one point or another in the film.
Conclusions: ???
Needless to say, the premise for the film is very shallow and very stupid. All of the characters act in silly and immature ways, including sleeping with each other's spouses, a man chasing after a couple on a busy highway (and subsequently getting killed after going off the guardrail), and reckless endangerment of themselves and other civilians.
What's probably the worst thing about this film is how it utterly fails to deliver on the promise of the "crash" culture. We see that these few characters like to have car accidents and have sex in wrecked cars, but is there anyone else who is doing the same thing? Yes, there are some people at the event where Vaughan recreates the James Dean crash, but for all we know, these people are just passive observers who have nothing better to do. As a result, the main characters look like total car fetish freaks.
Bottom Line: I'm sorry, this film is terrible. It's completely worthless, has terrible acting, a foolish concept, a ridiculous plot, AND the way it ends is stupid as well. I give this film a 2 out of 10, because it's David Cronenberg.
X2 (2003)
This sequel doesn't soar...
Due to my recent viewing of the film, "X-Men 3: The Last Stand", I went back and watched "X2: X-Men United" again? Was it as good as everyone said it was? Well...
The film, if you already didn't know what it was about, revolves around Wolverine (played by Hugh Jackman, who gives a very skillful performance) trying to stop Colonel William Stryker (played by Brian Cox), a military Colonel who (surprise, surprise) wants to kill all mutants. Oh, and there are some other characters, but they don't do much, which brings me to my next point.
A lot of the characters in this film are criminally underused. Yes, we have Wolverine chopping and impaling and slicing enemies galore, but what about everyone else? This is not "Wolverine and Friends", this is the X-Men, for God's sake! Cyclops appears for all of a few minutes, then he gets beat and kidnapped for most of the film. Nightcrawler, admittedly, has an amazing opening sequence where he attempts to assassinate the President while brainwashed, but then he becomes virtually useless until the last part of the movie, where he (you guessed it) only uses his teleporting powers, and we never get to see him fight anyone else. I think the filmmakers were trying to go somewhere with Pyro, Rogue and Bobby Drake, but as it is, they only really have a part in the middle of the film, then become background noise. There are other cameos by Kitty Pryde, Colossus and Hank McCoy as a human, but it feels like they were only put there as lip service to the fans.
The acting in the film, however, is quite consistent and strong. Most notably, Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan (as Charles Xavier and Magneto, respectively) both carry their parts incredibly well, and, as in the first film, make you feel like they've known each other for a long time, and have been through quite a few things together. The rest of the supporting cast is quite good as well, although they don't get many moments to shine.
I will say, for all the thought put into the film, there are a number of blatant plot issues. For instance, why would Jean Grey feel the need to step outside of the X-Jet and raise the ship up while controlling the tidal wave, when she could do the exact same thing while standing inside the craft? And what's with the abundance of exposition in the film? Things told to us in the beginning of the film(such as Kurt's ability to transport, Magneto's helmet, Pyro's desire to do more with his powers) are then blatantly set up as foreshadowing over and over again, and as a result, the rest of the film becomes predictable.
Another issue I had with the film is the lack of teamwork present between all the X-Men. Most of the fights in the film are set up so that a main character will go off on their own, get into a skirmish, and then rejoin the rest of the main party later on. Numerous examples of this style occur, including: Wolverine vs. Lady Deathstrike, Pyro vs. police officers, Wolverine vs. Colonel Stryker, Mystique vs. soldiers, Jean vs. Cyclops, and even Magneto vs. more soldiers.
However, the action scenes were very well-choreographed, and kept me interested in the action.
Bottom Line: In conclusion, I enjoyed it for what it was, a big silly Hollywood blockbuster, but I expected more out of it. I give this film a 6 out of 10. If they had focused more on the comic book aspects and teamwork, the film would have been much better.
Batman Forever (1995)
Slightly worse than the previous films, but not by much...
In my continuing review of the Batman films, I have decided to re-watch the 1995 part of the trilogy, "Batman Forever". It has been maligned by critics everywhere, but I did notice some good things in the film. However, there are also a lot of things that could have been taken out of the film to make it better.
The plot revolves around Batman trying to stop Harvey Dent/Two-Face (played with panache by Tommy Lee Jones), a former District Attorney who wants revenge against Batman, and Edward Nygma/The Riddler (played by Jim Carrey), an inventor who goes crazy and proceeds to try and take over the minds of every Gotham citizen to satisfy his thirst for knowledge. Along the way, Bruce Wayne also gains a partner in Dick Grayson (played by Chris O'Donnell), and also flirts with Dr. Chase Meridian (played by Nicole Kidman).
I can tell you this much. The plot is a lot stronger in this film than in the previous two installments. Whereas the nefarious plots in the previous films involved kidnapping kids, using penguins to blow up a city, killing people with beauty products, using poison balloons to kill people, and running for the Mayor of Gotham City, here in this film, it actually feels like these two guys pose an actual threat to the citizens of Gotham City. While people may say that the Joker, Penguin and Catwoman were all dangerous people, they simply acted tough, and got other people to do their work for them. Here, we actually see these two men carrying out missions by themselves.
However, that doesn't mean the actors who play them are convincingly menacing. Jones and Carrey chew the scenery up for most of the film, as do quite a few other characters, even Val Kilmer himself. His line delivery in certain scenes (notably in the scene where he thinks that Two-Face killed his family) causes unintentional laughs instead of pathos. However, the supporting cast, anchored by Pat Hingle as Commissioner Gordon and Michael Gough as Alfred, give good performances.
One notable good thing about the first two films was the moody, dark architecture that permeated Gotham City. It actually felt like a living, breathing metropolis. Unfortunately, while the Gotham City portrayed in the first two films and Batman Begins actually felt like areas that could be lived in, this film features a bright, neon city, full of bizarre architectural choices, like the window of the Wayne Enterprises Science Division overlooking a giant dam, a clone Statue of Liberty in Gotham Harbour, a strange divide between the quiet Wayne Manor and urban, neon metropolis, and the absolutely ridiculous hideout that Edward Nygma seems to have built-BY HIMSELF-on an island.
The most egregious error in the film was making it more slapstick and silly, as opposed to being dark and brooding in the first two films. Every time we see The Riddler or Two-Face, they are always cracking stupid one-liners. Even Robin makes a number of ridiculous comments. It's not vital that we see this kind of comedy in a Batman film.
Another thing that irked me was the level of stupidity in the Batcave. I understand that Batman wants to be prepared, but what the heck is he going to do with all that stuff he keeps in the Batcave? I mean, he has multiple suits (some of which are merely cosmetic changes on the same costume), and scores of gadgets, most of which I doubt he's used. In addition, some things don't even make sense. For instance, why would you need neon lights on the Batmobile, especially when you are a dark vigilante?
Bottom Line: I give this film a 4 out of 10, if only for the strength of the supporting cast and the more acceptable plot. That's not saying much, though. Joel Schumacher should have never been signed on to the franchise. He made the film more campy, more neon, and more ridiculous than it's predecessors.
Batman Returns (1992)
Would you like a rocket-firing penguin for Christmas?
In my continuing review of the Batman films, I recently saw Batman Returns again. I believe that it is one of the better comic-book films I have seen, but it is really bogged down by some issues that cause the film to drag.
Basically, the film is about the emergence of two new villains, The Penguin (played by Danny DeVito), a vengeful sewer dweller who wants to kill the children of Gotham in revenge for what his parents did to him as a child, and Catwoman (played by Michelle Pfeiffer), a former secretary who inexplicably turns to a life of crime when she is thrown out of a window by her boss, Max Shreck (played by Christopher Walken). And Batman? Christ, who cares. He barely has a purpose in the film anyway, other than to stop the two of them and have a date with Selina Kyle.
I said it before in my review of the first film, and I'll say it again here. The film focuses more on the villains than the actual title character, and that is not a good thing by any means. If the characters had any sort of interesting back-story, it might be better, but the way these two come to be villains is just ridiculous. Selina Kyle gets pushed out of a window by her boss, falls many stories, then gets "licked" back to life by cats (no, I'm not kidding), and THEN she proceeds to tear up her apartment, make a ridiculous-looking suit made up of spare leather, and suddenly she knows how to do back-flips and fighting maneuvers? A little explanation would have been nice.
The way the Penguin is characterized in the comic books is interesting, because he is a crime boss, and poses a continuing threat to the safety of Gotham. Here, we find out that he was born a freak, his parents threw him into a sewer, and then he was raised by penguins, who supposedly taught him how to read, write and commit acts of crime? And what was his plan? To become the mayor of Gotham? Did he even have any political skills of any kind? The fact that he has become a literal penguin only serves to provide fodder for bad jokes that appear throughout the film (notably, the incidents with fish being offered to him, so he can make a complete buffoon of himself).
It seems that the plans these two villains come up with are incredibly stupid and ill-prepared. First, the penguin attacks a Christmas-tree lighting ceremony, apparently to kidnap Max Shreck, and then use him to help him become the Mayor Of Gotham. In addition, he kidnaps the Ice Princess and has Catwoman hold her for ransom, then he frames Batman for her murder (even though Batman can't even be caught by the cops anyway since he sticks mostly to rooftops). THEN, when his mayoral plan doesn't work out, he gets a guy to kidnap a bunch of kids and ride through town on a slow-moving vehicle, perfect for a counter-attack. Finally, he gets a number of penguins to walk into the middle of Gotham City (which is strangely deserted), and fire off a bunch of rockets, which, in the end, we came to find out don't really do all that much damage anyway. And what did Selina Kyle do? She blows up a department store, stalks Batman around and gets shot numerous times before electrocuting her boss. Really smart planning there.
Michael Keaton gives a better performance in this film than the previous one, if only because he has shed the geeky, shy demeanor and become more forceful and assertive in his role as a protector. Likewise, the rest of the cast gives good performances as well.
I realize that in a comic book film, events may be exaggerated, but the physics at work in this film are unbelievable. First we are asked to believe that a woman who's been pushed out of a window can survive a thirty-story fall, when a woman pushed in a similar situation gets killed instantly. Then, we are asked to believe that Batman carries magical metal wings that all of a sudden take shape from his cloth cape whenever he desires it. Finally, we are asked to think that a woman who gets shot several times, then gets partially electrocuted, can survive just because she's dressed in a catsuit. It's these sorts of situations that serve to stretch the limits of the film.
In addition, the whole film seems to take place withing a time-span of three or four days, which in that time, sees Batman getting discredited by a guy who has just come from nowhere looking like a penguin, a woman making up a catsuit, blowing up a department store and following her crush around, The Penguin running for the mayor position and failing, and having the time to "take in the sights of Gotham", plan all his operations and execute them, AND crash a dinner party. Now that's what I call time management!
Bottom Line: In the end, though, the movie is enjoyable for what it is, if you overlook the ridiculous villains, threadbare plot and the lack of Batman himself. I give this film a 6 out of 10, and while it is one of the better films, you're probably better off watching the ever more dependable Batman Begins, if you want to see some more credible villains in action.
Batman (1989)
Terribly dated; should have been called "Joker"...
After watching this movie again recently, I have realized what a terrible joke this film is compared to the newest Batman film, "Batman Begins". The way people talk about this film on here, you would think that Tim Burton is some kind of legend, but that's hardly the case. If you honestly thought that this film is true in spirit to the comic book series, you are most decidedly wrong, but there are other problems at work here.
First of all, watching this film will make you realize just how little focus is actually spent on the title character. Bruce Wayne's back-story is almost completely glossed over, and as a result, it doesn't feel like Bruce is trying to save the city he grew up in. Rather, the film makes him look like a complete psycho (especially evident in the "You wanna get nuts?" scene) who picks on petty thieves. Batman is supposed to be a detective, but it sure doesn't feel like he does much detective work here. Instead, he just waits until someone alerts him to a problem, then he shows up and saves the day.
As I said in the title of this review, the film should have been titled "Joker", if only for the reason that, for most of the film, we follow Jack Nicholson around as he exploits to kill all the residents of Gotham. Not that Jack Nicholson is a bad actor, mind you, because he does what he to jazz up the role. However, I already understood his purpose within the first few minutes of seeing him, and I didn't really require seeing him sitting in his hideout cutting out pictures of Vicki Vale.
Batman does not kill. EVER. He has a sense of morals, and a sense of justice. He doesn't just run around beating up and killing guys, especially to the point of blowing up an entire chemical factory with criminals inside. It may look cool on the big screen, but it's not who he is.
I also found it surprising how stupid some of the characters are. For example, it seems that Bruce has no problem driving a woman to the Batcave, bringing her in, showing her around the place, THEN SEDUCING HER. Better yet, I also wondered how foolish the people in Gotham were when they were blindly grabbing money from the Joker's henchmen, in light of the recent event where he poisoned a woman on television who was using one of his products.
I found Michael Keaton's performance...underwhelming, I guess would be the right word. He plays Bruce Wayne like a jittering, nervous wreck, the type of guy who probably spent his high school years cramming for exams in the basement. Even when he's in the Batsuit, he looks small and unassuming. As for the rest of the cast, they do commendable jobs, especially with Pat Hingle as Commissioner Gordon and Michael Gough as Alfred.
If anyone hasn't this yet, and is wondering if the film is faithful to the comic books, prepare to be disappointed: this is nothing like the comics. There are several differences between the film and the comics, some of which work, and some of which don't. I guess having the Joker being the one who killed Bruce's parents may have worked on screen, but it sounds absolutely ridiculous once you realize that Bruce actually remembered who killed his parents all his life, and waits until the END of the film to tell Joker about this fact.
What this film doesn't do is show how the general population reacts to Batman's exploits. Like one poster stated, the people living in Metropolis in "Superman: The Movie" and the people living in Gotham City in "Batman Begins" both react to what is happening around them. People actually care what is happening to the person that is saving them. Here in this film, we have no clue if anyone knows what's going on, or for that matter, if anyone even cares about what Batman does, aside from the city paper (and even they believe he's not real) and Commissioner Gordon.
The action scenes in this film are also short and unsatisfying. It feels like Batman can just single-handedly beat up anyone, which is hard to believe, especially given the fact that we know from dialogue spoken in the film that Bruce hasn't been out doing his Batman thing for very long. Even the climactic battle with the Batwing is rushed and pointless. We never get to see the full capabilities of what Batman can do here.
Bottom Line: I am giving this film a 4 out of 10, largely because of the strength of the supporting cast. This film really hasn't aged well. I would recommend that you watch either Batman Returns or Batman Begins.
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
McG, why? WHY????
I'll just say it up front: I hate this film. If anything, this film should have been BETTER than the first movie. Instead, it just sucks the life right out of you.
For those of you who haven't seen the film, the plot goes like this: the three "Angels" (played by Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu) are dispatched to retrieve two bracelets which contain the names of secret CIA operatives, and end up getting into more trouble (read: unbelievable and unintentionally hilarious situations), as well as having to fight some old enemies.
Oh, who am I kidding? This film is nothing like that description. It's just a parade of never-ending cameos, bad acting, cheesy situations and no soul. The Angels run into numerous characters (most of whom are extraneous filler), including into the pale thin man from the first film (and yes, he still has a fetish for hair, as well as uncontrollable screaming), original Angel Kelly Garrett (and here I thought this was a remake! Guess not), Bruce Willis as a CIA agent (yeah, it was ironic that he gets killed by his ex-wife. Har-har.), Eve, Pink, the Olson Twins (!!!), and even Carrie Fisher, reprising her role from "Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back".
Heck, even the new characters in the film are shallow and derivative people. Probably the biggest addition is Demi Moore as Madison Lee, who (in an excuse to show us how much she's toned up) takes to posing for the camera on numerous occasions, if only to show us her well-crafted physique. John Cleese and Luke Wilson are here, but they are relegated to meaningless roles, and never get a chance to display any real material. Robert Patrick is in this film as well, and gets to deliver a truly horrible performance (his line, "Hey, we did it! Partner!" may be the most unintentionally funny reveal I've ever seen in a film). There's even this Irish mobster named Seamus who's just...there. Needless to say, they all drag the movie down. It's a shame that Bill Murray isn't back, because he was a great sidekick for the three female characters, delivered some witty one-liners, and the film never really recovers from his absence.
It seems like there was just a whole lot of material that was inserted into the film to drive the plot, but it screws up the whole purpose of the first film. First, we are asked to believe that Dylan willingly hung out with an Irish mobster who would hit her, and that she was aware of his dealings, yet never did anything about it. Then, we are asked to believe that the Bosley from the first film was an adopted child, who lived in the same home with another child (also named Bosley), who just happens to fill in for him whenever he goes on vacation. Finally, we are asked to believe that there was another Angel who just went renegade for no reason and wants to kill the other three Angels because of jealousy. Yeah. Right.
I don't even understand the character motivations in this film. The creepy thin man doesn't do very much except sniff hair and stalk the Angels around. Madison doesn't do a whole lot except shoot CIA informants, shoot voice boxes, and surf. Even some of the operations undertaken by the Angels are done only for T&A shots. That's it.
The physics and situations in this film are portrayed like some sort of hyper-realistic video game. There's no way in hell that you could drive a truck loaded with a helicopter off the back off a dam, have everyone climb into the helicopter, start it up, then take off, IN MID AIR, all in the space of 30 seconds. There is also no way that all of the Angels have ridiculously adept fighting maneuvers, such as leaping out of the way of oncoming bullets AND explosives, being able to fight after getting kicked in the face several times, as well having a man be able to jump off a motorbike, flip upside-down, shoot bullets from your gun, then get back ONTO your bike before they hit the ground. At least with the first film, when characters got hit, they were actually injured. Here, all semblance of reality has gone out the window.
Bottom Line: It's terrible. I saw this film at a drive-in, and I hung out at the concession stand for the better part of the movie talking to the cashier and trying not to watch what was unfolding behind me. It really is that bad. Skip it at all costs.
The French Connection (1971)
A letdown...
After watching the film "The French Connection" tonight, I couldn't help but wonder if the scriptwriter was asleep for most of the writing process. The plot is paper-thin, the characters are shallow and lifeless, and the "action" scenes are pretty corny. For those of you who haven't haven't already seen the movie, the film is about two Narcotics Division police officers from New York chasing down members of a drug cartel.
Of course, that only happens in the final half of the movie, because the first half of the film drags like a mule. The whole reasoning behind the uncovering of the drug operation is incredibly stupid. I mean, are we to believe that these two cops get jealous of an already convicted felon, then proceed to run all-night stakeouts on him? Do you realize how idiotic that sounds? Yes, they do uncover the operation, but it's only because of sheer foolishness on the villain's side. First, Alain Charnier deliberately leads on Doyle into realizing that he has shady motives, then he gets his hit-man to shoot Doyle in broad daylight! The much talked-about chase scene was good...back in 1971. Now, not so much. It's simply Doyle driving really fast down the street while avoiding vehicles. As for any other action scenes, they are few and far between.
I also thought the ending of the film was a letdown. It only feels like the plot pulls itself together in (literally) the last 10 minutes. What, are we to believe that Charnier drove his vehicle, without anyone tailing him, to the warehouse to make the deal, and all the police were waiting and biding their time for him to come over the bridge so they could arrest him? How could they know that? It seems like the writers were just rushing to tie plot threads together, such as the shooting up the other cop in the last minute, and the "title card" ending.
One thing that was impressive about the film was the acting. Gene Hackman and Roy Schieder give excellent performances for the threadbare characters that are given to them. We barely even know anything about these guys, and yet, the looks and actions they convey tell more than their words can even say. The supporting cast is largely forgettable, and I personally couldn't pick out anyone notable.
There are numerous plot holes in this film. A couple of notable examples include how it makes no sense how Charnier's car is taken apart (literally, piece by piece), and then put back together in four hours. It also makes no sense how Charnier got away from the police who surrounded the building at the end.
I am also surprised at some of the character's behavior. I didn't realize that you could put around-the-clock surveillance on someone that might not even be guilty, on the basis of a "hunch". I also didn't know that you could walk into a bar, tell of the African-American patrons to stand against the wall, then berate them and call them derogatory names while searching them. I also found it funny how no one even cared that much when people were shot, even when it was an old woman or car crash victim. Finally, was Doyle even charged with reckless driving? Christ, he almost killed a woman and child, smashed into cars and shot a man in broad daylight. Unbelievable.
On the upside, the cinematography is quite astounding, despite it taking up most of the film. Many of the shots feel gritty, washed-out and realistic, and, to be fair, there's none of that CGI stuff going around like in so many Hollywood films today.
However, I refuse to believe that this film won a Best Picture award. William Friedkin should have handed it back to the Academy.
Bottom Line: I have a feeling people will down-vote this for being mean-spirited towards the film. I don't care. It's slow, plodding and yawn-inducing. If you like this sort of film, more power to you, but I could do with less of these kinds of films.
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Early contender for best film of the summer...
Well, I just finished watching X-Men 3, and I quite enjoyed it. Even though there were a few problems I had with it, the sum is greater than the whole parts. Let me talk for a minute about what I thought was good and bad:
Good parts:
-Overall, I thought the acting in this film was great, especially Ian McKellan and Hugh Jackman, who really made you believe that they were conflicted about what they would do in the final battle sequence; I realize that it's not possible (in the case of The Dark Phoenix Saga) to translate a comic book series to the big screen, but I thought that the Phoenix subplot here was very well-done, and didn't go over-the-top, like some comics fans would have liked to seen; I liked the fact that the X-Men were working together AS A TEAM, rather than just all going off and doing their own thing; I quite liked how the Dark Phoenix character was portrayed, and I thought it was pretty damn awesome when she was breaking apart her own house in mid-air, and during the ending sequence when she tries to kill Wolverine; There were many incidents in this film that were direct references to the comics. The scene with Jean telling Scott to take his glasses off, the Danger Room and Sentinel sequence, the bridge scene, Hank reading up-side down, and even Logan stabbing Jean at the end come from the comic books; Incidents from the previous films resolve themselves here, including Rogue's wish to be human, the rivalry between Pyro and Bobby Drake, the acceptance of mutants in society, and Jean's relationship with Logan, which I thought was very well done; The effects in this film especially well done. Notable instances include the scene in the house between Magneto, Phoenix and Xavier, the Danger Room scene, and the ending, when Logan's skin is getting shredded as he makes his way towards Jean. Hell, we even get to see Bobby finally ice up!; and heck, I even thought the score for the film was amazing.
Bad parts:
A lot of characters got short-shifted in the film. I don't even know where Nightcrawler went. Mystique betrays her own friends when she gets de-powered, Angel (who shows up for all of 5 minutes), Colossus (who only exists to throw Wolverine at people and beat up soldiers), and Rogue show up in what is basically glorified cameos, because they hardly do anything. Cyclops is killed 15 minutes into the film, and numerous other supporting characters (Dr. Rao, Multiple Man, Warren Worthington, Arclight, Quills, and others) have almost no screen time whatsoever. It seems that a lot of mutants were just shoehorned into the plot en masse to get a reaction from viewers when they are killed off; I can't believe for one second that Magneto would just up and abandon Mystique after she lost her powers, after all they've been through together; The whole film just felt kind of rushed. I wish that it had been a half-hour longer, so all of the subplots could resolve themselves. As it stands, the film has a sense of closure, but some little things were unresolved; There were a few technical problems as well, such as the sky over Alcatraz suddenly changing from day to night within ten seconds, and being able to see where the Juggernaut would crash through before he hit the walls in the chase sequence with Kitty Pryde; Exactly what purpose did that Leech kid serve? He's a mutant, so I don't understand why Magneto would be trying to kill him.
What many people have to realize is that this film is not adhered to any sort of comic continuity. Yes, it takes incidents from the comics, but it is NOT a direct adaptation of the comic books. I have been reading X-Men for years, and I wasn't offended at all by the changes to the characters.
Bottom Line: I give this film an 8 out of 10. Overall, I thought it was a great film, and if the good reviews are any indication, then many of you folks will probably like it as well. Go see it now!
Blade: Trinity (2004)
Watch out for that plot hole, Blade!
I actually wrote a longer review on this film before for another website, but I have refined my opinion and have decided to write a review for the film "Blade: Trinity". Since there's already a plot summary listed here, I don't need to describe the film in detail. Needless to say, I didn't like the film, and I will go over the reason why I hated this monstrosity of modern cinema:
ACTING: Let's be honest here, folks. The only characters in the film who get any significant screen time are Ryan Reynolds, Jessica Biel, and Wesley Snipes. By and large, the acting talent in this film is completely wasted. Kris Kristofferson, Natasha Lyonne and Parker Posey's skills are not even put to good use in this film. James Remar is saddled with an utterly thankless and inconsequential role as a police detective who disappears for most of the film. I also don't agree with the claim that Dominic Purcell did a bad acting job. He has wonderful acting skills, and delivers week after week on shows like Prison Break, so to be saddled with wooden dialogue and dressing up like a Eurotrash villain probably wasn't the best use of his skills. The only character who I thought did a good job in the film was Ryan Reynolds, who got all the best lines and witty vulgar comebacks, which propped up the film somewhat for me. Wesley Snipes looked like he didn't even care anymore and was just doing the film for a paycheck, and all Jessica Biel has to do is look sexy and kill people with her magic crossbow.
CHARACTERS: By and large, most of the supporting characters in this film are wasted. Numerous people, including the police detectives, Whistler, every Nightstalker who isn't named Abigail or Hannibal, the police chief, and even the fat Irishman who gets Blade and Abigail more weapons are barely even in the film, and only exist to keep the film rolling. And let's be frank here, Blade is basically reduced to a background character in the film. It focuses on the Nightstalkers instead of Blade, which would be all well and good if this were a Nightstalkers film, but this is Blade we're talking about here. Even basic logic is thrown out the window with these guys, including a daylight(!!!) chase between Blade and Dracula(!!!!), Abigail beating up people while listening to her IPod, or the utterly stupid way Danica never kills anyone, instead choosing to goad them all the time. It's a shame, because some of these characters had real potential, but they were pushed to the sidelines to make way for the big actors. Even the character of Sommerfeld appears for all of 30 seconds and then gets killed off, and we, the audience, is supposed to feel that she made some kind of heroic sacrifice. Fat chance. No one even cares when Whistler gets killed.
PLOT: There are numerous scenes in this film that have virtually no relation to the plot at all. Hey, that scene with Blade and Abigail visiting the vampire farm was interesting for the two minutes it lasted, but the topic of harvesting humans never comes up again, and the scene is only there to get the pair away from the rest of the Nightstalkers so they can get attacked. Likewise, Whistler is killed so that Blade can go into police custody, and Hannibal is kidnapped so that the big finale can occur in the villain's building. Heck, a fat Irish guy even shows up for all of two minutes to give Blade and Abigail some weapons, and he doesn't even help them out in the final assault! As it stands, the main plot is weak and threadbare. David S. Goyer must have been thinking "bigger is better", and decided to find the most evil, devious villain he could find, but the final results were limp. Heck, even the ending feels tacked-on and disjointed from the rest of the film
PLOT STUPIDITY: Including, but not limited to: if you're a vampire, you are destroyed in sunlight, period; why do you ascend a building to the top floor, only to enter a holding cell from a higher level(?); if you are hiding from Dracula, you could always run into the air vent BEHIND you, instead of huddling near the entrance; how do you take the shape of a human person out of sight of cops and bystanders when you were a different thing in the first place(??); how do you descend a building via walkways and get past scores of cops who are ascending the building at the same time without being seen; how a "UV crossbow" doesn't burn your skin from three feet away when it has the power of a sun.
Bottom Line: I give this film 3 out of 10, only for the supporting cast and Ryan Reynolds' acting. The film is tripe. Save your money and rent one of the first two films instead.
Lost in Translation (2003)
How about...no.
The film "Lost In Translation" is a visually beautiful, yet strangely hollow film. How so, you may ask? Allow me to explain.
Basically, this film is about a aging film star named Bob Harris (played with excellent comedic timing, as always, by Bill Murray) who has come to Tokyo, Japan to film a commercial for a Japanese alcoholic beverage company. While staying at a ritzy hotel in the city, he meets a young woman named Charlotte (played by Scarlett Johannson) who is staying in the city with her photographer husband. Basically, they both get incredibly bored, and run around the city to engage in a number of hilarious encounters with Japanese people who they can't understand.
Is the acting in this film good? Better than that, it's excellent. Is the cinematography good? It's amazing. Is the film any good? Well...
My main problem with the film is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. The film claims to be a drama, yet we see many instances throughout the movie of Bob and/or Charlotte failing to understand the Japanese language, and this results in humorous misinterpretations of what the Japanese are trying to say. Lost in translation? More like lost in a pun that's gone on too long.
Another problem with this film exists in Bill Murray's character. That's not to say that Murray does a bad job, because he gives a terrific performance. The thing is, Murray is a comedic actor, not a dramatic actor. He has been doing comedy films for years, and scenes that are meant to have a serious quality become funny due to Murray's expressions and movements. This makes scenes become less grave and more light-hearted, which I don't believe was the intent of the director.
Does the film portray the Japanese in a racist light? Judging by what I've seen of Japanese culture, absolutely not. I can't speak for everyone, but I have seen Japanese citizens in the media who act like the people in this film to, so I wasn't really surprised at all.
Finally, I come to the ending. The plot summary for the film says that the the word "translation" means, "How do you "translate" what life is? What is it supposed to be about?", and that's a pretty good way to summarize how I felt about this film. It doesn't really translate anything. The incidents feel forced, the characters don't see each other that often, and we are supposed to believe that they have found some sort of epiphany in their lives. When the film ends, the characters must realize that they have to go back to reality. Bob still has a failing marriage, Charlotte is still married to her loser husband, and nothing has changed. Did they learn anything. No, nothing I couldn't have learned after watching Japanese television for a few hours.
A user on the IMDb named "M" said that, and I quote, "The crucial word in all this is SUBTLETY." I mean, it wasn't like the incidents were just forced upon us, right? Oh, I forgot. That's the whole crux of the film, to put the main characters into awkward and funny situations. There's nothing subtle about that at all. Do I like sensitive movies? Yes. However, I don't like sensitive movies that have a heavy-handed and utterly inconsequential message.
Bottom Line: Did I like this film? More or less. The acting, direction and cinematography are great. The plot is lacking. I give this film a 5 out of 10. If you want to watch, be my guest, but don't expect to get some grand revelation after watching it.
The Game (1997)
Go Nicholas, it's your birthday...
I'll be up front and honest. I really wanted to like this film. In case you haven't seen the film, or you have forgotten what "The Game" is all about, let me run over the plot quickly.
The film is about a prominent and wealthy investment banker named Nicholas Van Orton (played by Michael Douglas, who throws his usual punch and panache into the role). Nicholas is a smarmy, arrogant man who doesn't really care about many things other than his job, but when his brother Conrad (played by Sean Penn) gives him an invitation to play a real-world "game" on his birthday, Michael decides to try it out for fun. Obviously, it's not everything Nicholas had planned for. What follows are shoot-outs, explosions and multiple twists as Nicholas tries to figure out who stole all his money, who framed him, and how he can get back at those who wronged him.
So what did I think of the film? Well, the acting, cinematography and direction are all first-rate. You couldn't a better cast if you tried. Douglas, Penn, and Deborah Unger all give great performances, and you'll find yourself guessing for quite some time. The only problem I had with the film is the ridiculously illogical ending that hinges on a completely different set of variables. Basically, Nicholas goes to the Consumer Recreation Services building (the company who owns the game) and holds Deborah Unger's character hostage on a rooftop, then he accidentally shoots his brother by mistake when he comes up to talk to him, which prompts Nicholas to jump off a roof, fall through a skylight, and land in a specifically positioned air mattress. And then, he is told that the whole game was a ruse and he was being watched and monitored at all times. However, that completely invalidates half of the game. We are asked to believe that the bullets which were shot at Nicholas and Christine by the assassins (that blow holes in doors and vehicles) are blanks; that Nicholas could get back to the U.S. without money or aid; that he had to stand at a precise location to fall through the skylight and hit the air mattress; that the company would specifically ask Jim Feingold and his children to put themselves in harm's way because Nicholas is coming to find and kill him; that Nicholas would go careening down a San Francisco street at night without being hit by vehicles, and subsequently being able to figure out how to get out of the sinking car; that a company can complete major renovations in under a couple of days; and even that news reporters, relatives, fellow employees, and even American embassy employees are all acting as part of the game. It makes the preceding story completely unbelievable, and drags the film down.
Another problem I had is that the film just wraps up so cleanly. Nicholas is not at all depressed or angry about anything that has happened to him. They tell him that he beat the game and he just wears this s***-eating grin on his face like he loves life. Maybe he was happy when he was being shot at? I don't know.
Bottom Line: Despite the ending, the greater sum of the parts is enough for me to recommend this movie. I give this film a 7 out of 10. Go pick it up if you have a chance.
Crash (2004)
Paul Haggis must have sold his soul to the Devil...
When I watched the film Crash (which, if you haven't seen it already, is about the lives of people who are affected by racism in Los Angeles), I realized something. No, it wasn't that everyone is a racist. No, it wasn't that everyone as a stereotype. And no, it wasn't that the film beats you over the head with it's foolishly simple message. Instead, I realized that this film accomplishes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Forget about whether this film has any soul or not, because it doesn't. At the end of this film, the audience is no better off than when they first started watching it.
Let's talk about the characters. For one thing, almost every person in this film is a stereotype of popular cultures. Whether it be the racist white cop, the screaming and incoherent Chinese crash victim, the two African-American men who rob people (and I'll get back to that in a second), the police partner with a heart of gold, the Latino man who everyone mistakes for a gangster, the cop who has to sacrifice his ideals to get ahead, or even the fat Italian mechanic, they are ALL shallow and predictable characters. There is absolutely no one in this film I can relate to. Everyone is a shell.
Let's talk about the plot. Here's an example of the story: two African-American men are eating out at a fancy L.A. diner. They complain about how people are treating them unfairly, that they shouldn't be judged based on their skin color, and then they proceed to rob people at gunpoint. Gee, thanks for setting back race relations hundreds of years, guys. And what about the racist cop who molests an African-American woman for no reason, then proceeds to save her life the next day, and realizes the error of his ways. Would you like me to beat the "racism is bad" symbolism into your head some more? How about the cop who is forced to conform to a white person's beliefs to get a promotion at work? Still not enough? And then there's the Persian storekeeper who goes after a person who he supposedly thought robbed his store, and shoots a gun at him in broad daylight? Christ, the plot is so messed up that it's not even funny.
That brings me to another area of the movie: the characters. You tell me, when have you ever seen a white police officer launch into a rant about "you people" to an African-American customer service woman? Or when have you ever heard a policemen talk about black people like they are a nuisance? No one in this film talks like a normal person. It's ALL hackneyed dialogue designed to elicit a response from us, the viewers. Even the character behavior is all out of wack. As I said before, who talks about the mistreatment of their race and then proceeds to act in a stereotypical representation of their culture? Who decides to go out in broad daylight to shoot a man in front of many witnesses, and how do you not realize you were firing blanks? Better yet, why would you practically molest a woman in the middle of a crowded street? And there's even the part where a car chase occurs, and no one even bothers to fill out any paperwork or anything. These characters are all hopeless idiots.
And then there's the ending, where we find out one of the carjackers is suddenly Don Cheadle's brother, despite the fact that we haven't seen anything that proved he was even related to Don Cheadle's character, RYan Phillipe's character shoots a man and leaves the scene of the crime even though he is a police officer, the Persian shopkeeper honestly believing he had been saved by "an angel" when he shot blanks at a defenseless child (he was really shooting blanks, or was he too stupid to realize this?), people talking while a person is singing in the background(???), Chinese illegal immigrants stuck out in the streets, and hey, just for good measure, we find out that the African-American female receptionist is also a racist. Not to mention that it's SNOWING IN LOS ANGELES. Champ job, guys.
This film is a tired, preachy mess that is designed to pander to the lowest common denominator. Don Cheadle says in the beginning of the film that everyone is disconnected. What a load of bull that is. We only have twelve stereotyped characters making stupid decisions and interacting in idiotic ways.
Bottom Line: This type of issue has been dealt with far more effectively in other (and better) films. Maybe you've heard of a little film called "Do The Right Thing"? I'm giving this film 3 stars for the acting. Other than that, it's tripe.