Do I recommend seeing the Exorcist II? You bet I do! It's so ridiculously bad, you're sure to enjoy yourself. You will laugh out loud at the hypnotism scene. Your sides will hurt at the priest's attempts to put out a fire with a crutch. And was Richard Burton possessed by William Shatner for this movie? One of the best bad movies ever. Someday they'll make a movie about this movie, I'm sure of it. The director didn't like the original Exorcist! Who hires a director for a sequel when he disliked the original? And this was the most expensive movie produced by Warner Bros. at the time? Where did it all go?
Reviews
6 Reviews
The final word on Fire Walk With Me
12 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
It's difficult to come to terms with this movie if you're a huge fan of the TV series and a huge fan of David Lynch.
There are a lot of problems with this movie. I believe that ultimately the Twin Peaks formula just didn't translate to the big screen.
The first half hour is a completely different movie. And it's fantastic: definitely the best part of the movie. Then it snaps into Twin Peaks mode. But we forget what Twin Peaks was all about, and so the intentionally corny dialog and melodrama just seem like corny dialog and melodrama instead of the campy irony that the TV Series had. In the TV Show, the occasional shots of the soap opera "Invitation to Love" really drove the point home.
The production value of a movie instead of a grainy TV show is working against this movie, as well.
And then there is just no light-hearted fun, here. All the charm of Twin Peaks is subsumed by focusing on its dark underbelly. Swearing, violence, incest, drug abuse. If you read the original script for the movie, there was more of the original wacky and charming characters, but it never made it to the final version.
Finally, so much time has to be spent setting up everything so that it aligns with the show: that's the problem with prequels.
Yet with all these problems, this movie can't be dismissed. It has a lot of great, weird moments. The first half-hour, the red-room stuff, the cream corn, the grandmother and the magician, etc. It's a chore to sit through a lot of the stuff that depicts Laura Palmer's descent, but it's worth it to get to the wonderful bits of weirdness. But, alas, it never resurrects the indescribable magic of the TV Series.
There are a lot of problems with this movie. I believe that ultimately the Twin Peaks formula just didn't translate to the big screen.
The first half hour is a completely different movie. And it's fantastic: definitely the best part of the movie. Then it snaps into Twin Peaks mode. But we forget what Twin Peaks was all about, and so the intentionally corny dialog and melodrama just seem like corny dialog and melodrama instead of the campy irony that the TV Series had. In the TV Show, the occasional shots of the soap opera "Invitation to Love" really drove the point home.
The production value of a movie instead of a grainy TV show is working against this movie, as well.
And then there is just no light-hearted fun, here. All the charm of Twin Peaks is subsumed by focusing on its dark underbelly. Swearing, violence, incest, drug abuse. If you read the original script for the movie, there was more of the original wacky and charming characters, but it never made it to the final version.
Finally, so much time has to be spent setting up everything so that it aligns with the show: that's the problem with prequels.
Yet with all these problems, this movie can't be dismissed. It has a lot of great, weird moments. The first half-hour, the red-room stuff, the cream corn, the grandmother and the magician, etc. It's a chore to sit through a lot of the stuff that depicts Laura Palmer's descent, but it's worth it to get to the wonderful bits of weirdness. But, alas, it never resurrects the indescribable magic of the TV Series.
White Noise
(I) (2005)
What happened, Michael Keaton?
16 January 2005
Remember when Michael Keaton was awesome? He must be getting some pretty horrible scripts these days if this is the one he settled on. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. I'm sitting in the theater thinking to myself over and over "Who cares!?!"
1. Don't care about the characters 2. Don't care what's happening 3. Don't care what's going to happen
A few cheap jumps. That's it. Terrible writing and terrible direction. A lot of the story didn't make sense, and you just aren't invested enough in the characters or the plot to bother with the brain power to figure it out. You know you're in a bad movie when the whole theater is laughing out loud at stuff that's supposed to be serious or scary. 2 out of 10.
1. Don't care about the characters 2. Don't care what's happening 3. Don't care what's going to happen
A few cheap jumps. That's it. Terrible writing and terrible direction. A lot of the story didn't make sense, and you just aren't invested enough in the characters or the plot to bother with the brain power to figure it out. You know you're in a bad movie when the whole theater is laughing out loud at stuff that's supposed to be serious or scary. 2 out of 10.
Wes Anderson Makes Goooooood Movies
6 January 2005
I don't buy many movies, but I buy Wes Anderson movies; they stand up to multiple viewings. They are infinitely watchable. There's just so much going on on screen in any given scene. Beautifully shot and never predictable, even when there's no action or laughs I'm still amused.
This isn't Anderson's best movie; it doesn't have the laughs of Royal Tenenbaums, but it is still full of fascinating characters, ludicrous situations, majestic scenery, and great dialog.
I can't understand why this movie would get bad reviews. Critics are always bemoaning the lack of originality in Hollywood. Life Aquatic doesn't have a single cliché, one predictable moment or line, it's fresh and eye-popping ... why? Why would this movie not be praised to the heavens? Thank goodness for the savvy users of IMDb. 8.5 out of 10. Don't miss it!
This isn't Anderson's best movie; it doesn't have the laughs of Royal Tenenbaums, but it is still full of fascinating characters, ludicrous situations, majestic scenery, and great dialog.
I can't understand why this movie would get bad reviews. Critics are always bemoaning the lack of originality in Hollywood. Life Aquatic doesn't have a single cliché, one predictable moment or line, it's fresh and eye-popping ... why? Why would this movie not be praised to the heavens? Thank goodness for the savvy users of IMDb. 8.5 out of 10. Don't miss it!
Open Water
(2003)
Nothing Quite Like It
5 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is a film like no other I've seen. It is not really a horror movie, doesn't really have that independent feel to it. It's experimental in that most of the movie is just the two stars stuck in the ocean. There isn't a lot of trumped up action sequences or scary music.
It's the fact that it's so real-looking that adds so much dread: the acting and dialog is very natural, and the shots have a sort of documentary feel to them.
I hope the fact that this movie did so well spurs others on to make similar-type films. Over-acting and overproduction only take away from a film's air of reality. This movie demonstrates quite clearly that you don't need hokey melodrama, over-stylized cinematography, and special effects to make a great movie. In fact, in many cases they are only a distraction from the story. 8 out of 10.
It's the fact that it's so real-looking that adds so much dread: the acting and dialog is very natural, and the shots have a sort of documentary feel to them.
I hope the fact that this movie did so well spurs others on to make similar-type films. Over-acting and overproduction only take away from a film's air of reality. This movie demonstrates quite clearly that you don't need hokey melodrama, over-stylized cinematography, and special effects to make a great movie. In fact, in many cases they are only a distraction from the story. 8 out of 10.
Search and Destroy
(1995)
An Amazing Surprise!
4 January 2005
This movie is incredible. It's got fantastic dialog and terrific performances from Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper. That it was originally for the stage is pretty obvious; it just has that feel to it. But so did Glengarry Glen Ross, and that too was a terrific movie.
I don't know if the film is really any sort of meaningful commentary on modern life. I think maybe it tries. The whole thing centers around an infomercial for an adventure story that's a metaphor for self-improvement/self-discovery a la Celestine Prophecy. Mostly it's just about weird characters in weird situations and excellent dialog.
I can't say enough good things about this movie. Anyone who has a taste for weird, black-comedy is going adore this film. 8.5 out of 10.
I don't know if the film is really any sort of meaningful commentary on modern life. I think maybe it tries. The whole thing centers around an infomercial for an adventure story that's a metaphor for self-improvement/self-discovery a la Celestine Prophecy. Mostly it's just about weird characters in weird situations and excellent dialog.
I can't say enough good things about this movie. Anyone who has a taste for weird, black-comedy is going adore this film. 8.5 out of 10.
Tell Your Friends