Change Your Image
bumbletbw
Reviews
Man of Steel (2013)
Michael Shannon is Awesome and Man of Steel Sucks
**Spoilers** Nothing too specific, but if that sort of thing ruffles your panties, just read the title, move along, and just know I was disappointed. Without further ado:
I went to see MoS last night, and it was underwhelming in all of the ways that Batman Begins wasn't. The film had the tall order of fitting in all of this mythos and still delivering on being a comic book action movie. It was too much to fit into the running time to see Jor-El deal with Krypton and Zod, send Kal to Earth, watch Clark grow up and deal with super puberty, find his special purpose, and then have all of the consequences manifest themselves in some serious Michael Bay explosion action in one go. No one person really brings this movie to a screeching halt, it simply drags this millstone of a backstory along the whole way and tries to distract you from the lack of character development with explosions for the final third of the movie.
I give the writers some credit for having the balls to give Lois the grit and intelligence a fictional Pulitzer-winning investigative reporter should have, she isn't a damsel in distress, and a pair of glasses isn't going to fool her for decades. I also give the writers the credit to have this chain of events end in the only option left to Superman. The problem from here is that you've taken two very archetypal Superman story dynamics and flushed them for no real reason. And at the end, after they've made Superman's identity the worst kept secret in the solar system, they put the hornrims on the 6'4" crossfit superbeast whose hometown was just leveled by aliens, and hope that no one noticed.
It's annoying to see Batman done so well, and see Superman and Green Lantern handled to death while Marvel hits all of their stories on the mark, even with a crossover story. Maybe Warner Brothers should take a cue from Disney and let DC handle some of these IPs in house.
Cloverfield (2008)
Feel Good Comedy of the Year!
Hey, have ten bucks and two hours of your life to blow? Why not try Cloverfield! If you like motion-sickness inducing, hand-held, close-up, can't-focus-on-anything movies (a.k.a., anything by Michael Bay) then this is a movie for you and your six second attention span! Wait ... what was I saying? Oh yeah, there's this thing that runs rampant on Manhattan. No one knows what the hell it is, it's just there. In the meantime all of the monster crap interrupts a very special episode of Dawson's Creek, you know, the one where Dawson's going to leave for Japan and he finds out at the party that Joey's been sleeping around on him? Alright, now picture that, filmed with your dad's handycam in the middle of a Godzilla movie. It's a big sh!te sandwich coupled on either side by two slices of moldy bread. That's how fresh and satisfying of a movie this is.
But hey, on the bright side, everyone died and that made me smile.
It's a big-budget C-movie, and while that may sound like something entertaining to fans of shlock films, trust me when I tell you that it's not. Give me Godzilla vs. Mothra any day over this steaming pile. At least those movies have heart.
I Am Legend (2007)
It Is Legendary Crap
If what entertains you is "breathtaking" visuals, then you might like this movie. If you're looking for loads of CGI of a bombed out, deserted NYC, deer, lions and a handful bad quasi-vampires who don't do anything but run scream and jump at people, then this is the one for you. Everyone who thought that Transformers was an amazing flick, then I Am Legend will be right up there.
If you're looking for a story, if you're looking for character development, you need not apply. If you're looking for any sort of the artistry that is required to make a good movie, The Mist is playing in the theater right across the hall.
One of the worst movies of 2007.
The Mist (2007)
The Kind of Excellence You Should Expect
Yet another King/Darabont collaboration. If you've seen the trailers, then you know the premise. A mist encompasses a small Maine town containing hordes of unknown, man-eating beasties. We follow a supermarket full of people as they try to deal with the situation. That's all the set-up you need.
This is the best film in theatres that no one is talking about. After having been out for three weekends, it has yet to crack the top 5 in the US box office. Amateur and professional critics alike are undeservedly pegging this film as a monster movie. Yes, there are monsters in this movie, but this bill of fare is not simply cheap schlock. There is much more going on here than cheap scares and flesh-ripping gore, and from what I can tell, that seems to be the biggest complaint.
"The monsters aren't scary enough," "The special effects don't look good." "I didn't like the ending, it's depressing."
That's the difference between this film and the bubble-gum horror that audiences have been subject to and come to expect from the genre for far too long. This movie isn't about the gore, it doesn't need cheap scares and squirms to frighten the audience. This isn't Saw. It doesn't need hyper-realistic CGI monsters to be frightening. That isn't what is supposed to scare you. It's fluff.
This movie is about the demons within mankind. Sure that sounds trite and at times it is, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's still a true and effective theme in literature and film. This movie is about what fear can do to the Average Joe when there is no one to enforce the rule of law. This movie is Lord of the Flies in a supermarket with a backdrop of Lovecraftian paranormality. That's why it's so effective. You could change the venue and the outside threat and this story would remain as poignant and powerful as ever. This is the kind of social commentary that is especially pervasive and effective in this genre of film and literature. This story ranks with Planet of the Apes and Fahrenheit 451 and I think it will be remembered with a similar fondness for a long time to come.
Forget the imaginary monsters on the outside. Be scared of the very real monsters on the inside.
This is the best new film I've seen in years. Go see it.
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
Action-Film-o-Matic
I don't know what to say about this flick other than "don't believe the hype." Once that new movie smell wears off, what some are calling "one of the best action movies of 2007" will ultimately be forgotten in five years much the same way how Die Hard 2 faded into the background. My biggest gripe about this flick is that it isn't a Die Hard movie, it's just another summer blockbuster with an overblown effects budget. You could replace John McClane with another smart-ass bald guy and get the exact same picture. The only reason this is a "Die Hard" movie is to sell tickets, plain and simple.
Die Hard 4 is the Hollywood Action-Film-o-Matic machine at work, creating what is essentially formulaic action porn - everything that happens in between the action sequences and explosions is filler, and if you had this on DVD, you'd skip to the "good parts" and forget the rest. This flick shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as the original. A lot of people are telling me that I'm expecting too much from what is a great "popcorn flick". I just can't help but get upset when I see one of my boyhood movie gods muddle through this much mediocrity. John McClane and Bruce Willis are too cool for this shite.
Smokin' Aces (2006)
Decent Premise, Schizoid Execution
Some big-mouthed, coke-head Wayne Newton of the American mob world is moving to make a coup on the king. So, on his deathbed, the ailing Don puts a million dollar contract on the schmuck to the person that brings him his heart. The FBI is looking to take the upstart, Buddy "Aces" Israel (Jeremy Piven), into custody to bring down the mob on this side of the Atlantic. Israel's lawyer hires bail bondsmen to drag him back to Vegas to negotiate with the feds. Meanwhile, word leaks of the seven figure bounty and several of the world's craziest and brazen hit men descend on Lake Tahoe and his supposedly discrete penthouse locale to collect, dead or alive. Mayhem ensues. Sound interesting? It isn't.
What sounds as though it could have had the potential to be a slick, stylish mob and/or action film falls flat on its face because it has absolutely no idea in which direction it wants to go. Is it a mob film? Is it a shoot 'em up? Is it a comedy, or are we supposed to be in suspense? Are we just supposed to be awestruck by the various absurd arsenals of deception and large-calibre weaponry of our barely introduced assassins? Who is the focus of this picture? The dying Don? The FBI and its agents? The hit men? Buddy Israel? The answer? There isn't one.
The movie bounces around between several dozen characters whilst everyone descends on Tahoe. Once they get there all hell breaks loose, and it ends in an incomprehensible, bloody mess and what little semblance of a plot looses all momentum. Then to top it all off, Joe Carnahan - the writer and director - tosses in a bit of a morality tale, trying to turn it all into an allegory of America's current foreign policy.
The fact of the matter is that this movie tries to be so many different things simultaneously, that it isn't really anything. The story isn't clever, it certainly isn't cohesive, and the characters are flatter than the paper the dialog was written on - to no fault of the actors. There's a saying about a silk purse and a sow's ear that applies here. Jeremy Piven gives us the best performance in the film for two reasons: One, he's a talented performer. Two, he's the only one with enough screen time and background with which the audience is remotely able to connect.
People want to compare this to Tarantino. Don't. Think more along the lines of Tony Scott on amphetamines directing a bad combination of Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia and It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World with a hackneyed Usual Suspects twist ending.
The bottom line here is that no matter what you think you're going to get with this picture, you're probably only going to get about five minutes of it. Save your money, and watch it at home in three months.
The Magnificent Seven (1960)
A Good Premise ...
But this movie just does not hold a candle to the Japanese original in any capacity. I found the script to be tremendously void of emotional attachment. You learn very little about the characters, which leave the viewer to his own devices to explain away why seven random mercenaries would suddenly want to risk life and limb to save a handful of farmers for no reward or glory. At no point of time during the film did I believe that these characters would do what they ultimately would for these peasants were it not written down on a piece of paper.
Yul Brenner, while a great King of Siam, is perhaps the worst cowboy ever to don a stetson. He's as stiff on the screen as the leather on his saddle. While some see this as stoicism, I interpret it as skin-deep acting. The rest of the seven protagonists aside from perhaps Charles Bronson are given no personal history at all, so you're not even quite sure what kind of qualities these particular gunmen bring to the table. James Coburn's character is a mere shadow of his Japanese counterpart, the only thing we ever come to know about him is that he throws a knife well and he dies without ever doing anything really significant or awe-inspiring.
All-in-all, I would say that this was a poor adaptation of a marvelously nuanced original story that not necessarily can't be duplicated, nor would I say that the characters and themes do not translate well. What I would say is that this version is a mere husk of what it could have, and when one considers the immense talent involved, SHOULD have been in every imaginable way. A giant let down after seeing all of the good things said, but I think my opinion is unsurprising to anyone who has seen Kurosawa's original.
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
Long, uninteresting and dated.
Amid seemingly endless acclaim, I ventured into this film believing I was about to see a film worthy of being in the IFC's top 100. Rarely am I ever this disappointed.
The pacing of this movie is slow, slower and arduously slower still. The plot unfolds at a snail's pace with backstory. The acting is rigid and wooden, a trait with which although I am accustomed unfortunately was on this occasion yet another sign of the film's age. I found the characters to be distant and unrelatable, however this works in favor of Angela Lansbury's character because that's exactly how she is supposed to be.
The plot is contrived, and reeks not only with Cold War paranoia of communists abroad, but the "subversive" right wing hard-liners at home set out to put all of Hollywood in forced labor camps as "Sen. John Iselin" and his "Iselinism" is a painfully obvious attack on Joe McCarthy.
Outside of the premise, there was little interesting or endearing about this movie. I almost enjoyed the dream sequences as they reminded me of something from a Stanley Kubric film, and the feel and look of the movie vaguely reminded me of Dr. Strangelove from time to time, but overall I found it dreadfully boring, poorly acted and altogether far-fetched. I can honestly say that if I never saw this film again, I'd feel no regret.
Saw II (2005)
I went to see Saw. I saw Saw II, too. Should you?
While I'll admit that I couldn't watch some of the scenes (I'm squeamish, that's not that hard), I do have to strike down any serious comparissons that this series draws to David Fincher's SEVEN. Unlike SAW, SEVEN had a few things going for it that this series never had, but namely great actors (three Oscar winners), and David Fincher. You can argue about Fincher's talent all you want, but his stench can clearly be seen all throughout these two movies, particularly this installment. The death trap house might as well have been a soap factory at 1537 Paper Street and have had the names of the seven deadly sins written around the place.
SAW II is a steaming pile of crap, completely exploiting the unexpected success of a movie that was originally intended to go straight to DVD. The first movie had some credible and talented actors, namely Cary Elwes, Danny Glover and Tobin Bell (an accomplished actor who had long before paid his dues in bit parts for over twenty five years). While Tobin was obviously going to be featured in this film, his character was relatively undeveloped from the end of the first film. It also seems the folks in charge were unable to line up established actors, so they settle for Marky Mark's little brother in his first high profile since his (two minute) roll in THE SIXTH SENSE, and two quasi-known actors rounding out the cast of newcomers are Glenn Pummer (SHOWGIRLS) and Beverly Mitchell (7TH HEAVEN).
But who cares about who's in it? The question is whether or not it's worth your time and money. When you take this thing down to the brass tacks we have an un-intriguing story that sells itself short by trying to make us flinch, cringe and squirm in our seats by building tension that is never relieved, and grossing us out with practical and CGI special effects. So I suppose by those standard, this movies is successful. Unfortunately for this franchise, the ending isn't clever ... well neither was the first one, but this one is even less so than their last attempt at an USUAL SUSPECTS twist. The characters have as much depth as a cookie sheet. Never once do any of the characters try to think their way out of a situation, they simply stumble around from one blatantly obvious trap to another. Just about the only thing that would make this movie less cheesy is if they'd cut through the crap and have Michael Myers, Leatherface or Jason Voorhees jump out wielding a machete. This movie isn't a thriller, it's a glorified snuff flick. I've seen movies made for the Sci-Fi channel that had better writing.
My final verdict is that you might as well save yourself from the $20 outing and go rent RETURN OF THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE or FACES OF DEATH, or even read a Dean Koontz novel. Nearly anything would be better than wasting your money on this pitiful excuse for a horror flick. While this movie may inspire its own imitators, this series will ultimately collect dust at your local movie rental store with the occasional passerby reminiscing with his friend, "Dude, you remember those movies? God did they suck."
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
One of the worst movies EVER
I knew this movie would be bad, unfortunately it was worse than expected. The plot is paper thin: OK, after 150 years of mass fossil fuel consumption, global warming shifts the flow of the gulf stream. This creates a drastic change in the weather patterns and in a matter of days three gigantic hurricane-like snow storms engulf the entire northern hemisphere. Dennis Quaid and Ian Holm play scientists who see the immediate threat that the storms pose and are unable to bring it to the attention of an apathetic White House. About twenty minutes into the film, the storm has begun and the drama that unfolds. These severe storms rip through the world, tearing LA apart with monster tornadoes, burying the Brittish Isles in snow and ice, and flooding New York before turning the 5 boroughs into the world's largest ice cube tray. Amidst all of this chaos, the governments of the world (namely the US) sit on their hands and watch the major urban centers of the world be ripped apart by these horrific storms. Meanwhile, Dennis Quaid's son in the picture, Sam (played by Jake Gyllenhaal of Donnie Darko fame), is trapped in NYC after traveling from DC to compete in a team academic competition, which Sam joined to get to know Laura (played by Mystic River's Emmy Rossum).
If you have an attention span of less than two minutes, you have a 50/50 shot of enjoying this movie. There are too many story lines competing for screen time in this movie. None of the characters have any depth, and the plot is thinner than rice paper. The only reason to see this movie is for technical reasons, and even in this respect, the movie is not noteworthy. The CGI isn't anything spectacular, and there weren't even any cute little scientific tidbits which you are generally able to take away from these types of movies which suggests to me that there was more time spent photocopying the script than there was actual research. In the end this movie is nothing more than a thinly-veiled politically oriented movie that take weak shots at the current American government, and even weaker shots at trying to act.
Acting: D- Directing: F Visual Effects: C+ Script: F-
Average: 0.75 out of 4
Seriously, this film made Van Helsing seem Oscar worthy.