Change Your Image
JasonL
Reviews
I Am Legend (2007)
Disappointing due to lack of originality
The storyline of the movie lacks originality because its components have appeared in various other movies before, to name a few
28 Days Later: for the existence of a community of survivals after apocalypse
12 Monkeys: for a virus killing most human beings
Serenity: for people trying to invent a medicine to cure people, but instead kill most people, leave a small amount to become berserk
Shawn of the Dead: zombies
Casted Away: for a lonely guy with a pet as friend
The story is so predictable that I was totally bored through the whole movie and wanted my money back at the end.
Not recommended for any one who has seen the above mentioned movies.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
good character development and not-so-bad sci-fi ideas
It's a surprise that they made a sequel which does not suck, especially considering it is based on cartoon
character developement is very good and believable, especially for spiderman. he is a hero not because he has super power but because his heart. he never abuses his power and is never corrupted by his own power. (in contrast, no one can escape the corruption of the ring in the Lord of the Rings.) even in his worst times. that may be the reason why people love him. compared to spiderman, other superheros, like Wolverine in X-men, Blade in Blade, even Neo in Matrix, are pretty pale due to insufficient character developement. Spiderman is more like a real guy.
A second good thing is the sci-fi idea in this movie is not so silly. At least the author knows using laser for nuclear fusion, and fusion needs Tridium, and the power of sun comes from fusion. although whether fusion can be realised as in the movie and whether it causes strong magnetic field is dubious. also the mechical tentacles with neural interface and AI is pretty cool. The difficulty of stopping a train is pretty well done. At least the director shows respect for physics, which many other movies do not. it is a good combination of reality with wild imagination.
final conclusion. character is still one of most important elements of a movie. without it even the best CG is garbage.
Money for Nothing (1993)
under-rated
This movie is based on the true story of Joey Coyle who found some money lost by a bank and tried to keep it. It is very realistic and the cast includes lots of familiar names like John Cussak, Philip Seymore Hoffman, Benicio Del Toro and Michael Madson, all giving convincing performance. For me it should be rated about 7.2.
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Matrix series are sci-fi movie for programmers, not philosophical movie
Contains spoilers some one will like it, but some one will dislike it.
I think it is not as good as Matrix I, but better than Matrix Reloaded.
It's quite consistent with the other two Matrix movies, full of actions, very exciting battle scenes. The zion battle can match the Helms Deep battle in Lord of Rings The Two Towers.
From this movie you can get a more overall view of the 'real world', including both zion and the machine city, where the brain of the machine is located. You can have a better understanding the position of the machines, the virus agent Smith, Oracle, Architect, and zion in the 'real world'.
But the plot is less creative than the first Matrix movie. It is somewhat,..., cliched. Although there is still some surprise awaiting you.
From the beginning, Matrix is not a 'hard sci-fi' movie. By 'hard sci-fi' I mean sci-fi's shows more respect for fundamental physics, such as 'contact' and '2001 space odessy', which are generally great works of real scientists.
Matrix, is somewhat between 'soft sci-fi' and 'hard sci-fi'. It is 'hard' in the aspect of programmer's point of view. Its constructs, the 'program characters' in the matrix, are quite believable to programmers. Because if you design such a system, there may really be such objects. (unfortunately some non-programmer audience tends to regard those 'program characters' like oracle, seraph, architect as philosophical symbols, that's a total misunderstanding, and will definitely result in confusion and disappointment. Matrix is a sci-fi movie for programmers, not a philosophical movie for folks. it has some philosophy, but its main interests is not there).
Matrix is not 'hard sci-fi' because it makes some ridiculous assumptions which physicists will laugh. For example, use human body as batteries for machines, neo's super-natural capability extends to real world without any physical explanation ('The One has power not only in Matrix, but also in real world', that's it, no explanation. no wonder people have quarreled on this problem will feel being fooled by the W brothers)
Another major plot hole is the negotiation between the machine's head with neo. After neo helped the machines killed Agent Smith in Matrix and died, why should Machine still obeys its promise? It can jut destroy Zion without any problem. Neo has died, no one can threat the machines, why should machine obey its promise? I don't believe machines have moral standard like human.
Finally a summary of the plot for those interested:
At the beginning of the movie neo was in coma, but actually his mind was trapped in a place between matrix and real world, which is represented as a train station, which is controled by a train man who obeys order of Merovigin. Morpheus and Trinity knew that from Oracle and saved Neo from the trap.
Agent Smith converted more and more entities in Matrix to himself. Oracle feels the threat of Agent Smith. If no one stop him, that will be the end of the Matrix. Oracle knew that, so she gave some hint to Neo. Soon after that, Agent Smith find her, and converted her and Seraph to his copies.
At the same time, there is a battle between machine and Zion. That is a battle in despire. Machines are overwhelming in numbers. Obviously human will lose this battle finally.
Neo and trinity went to the machine city. They encounter strong defenses and Trinity died there. Neo finally faces the head of the machine. He negotiated with the machine head: he will help the machine destroy Agent Smith, while machine will stop destroying Zion.
Machine help Neo back to Matrix, where he fights with Agent Smith and lose. Agent Smith converted Neo into himself. But since Neo was plugged by machine. Machine can decode and destroy the entity he is converted into. And machine also destroyed all other copies of Agent Smith.
So Neo died in real world. But machines kept their promise and left Zion. And the order of Matrix is restored, and Oracle and Seraph and others restored to their original state.
Final words from Oracle, Neo may or may not be back.
That is matrix. So there is temperary peace between human and machines. Some one did not understand the movie at all. Some one are not satisfied with the result. But what do you expect? what can you expect?
Maybe they should let Neo live and destroy all machines? That may be more cliched.
Memento (2000)
another puzzle-movie
This movie is exactly like a puzzle. It is narrated section by section, but the time order of the sections are reversed, so you know the last thing first, and the first thing last. You keep wondering what the hell has happened. Technically it is great. It is like an experiment. In the beginning there is a section shown reversed, you may ask what if the whole movie shown reversed, then the movie answers the question itself.
Guy Pearce (LA Confidential) played a guy who has no short-term memory (forget things after several minutes). Carrie-Ann Moss (Trinity of The Matrix) played a bitch. Both give very strong performance.
The movie has some philosophical implications about human nature. It has some common points with Dark City, The Usual Suspects, Rosamon, Waking Life, eXistenZ, The Matrix and Vanilla Sky, which all blend reality with non-reality and are all concerned with the question "what is real" or "what makes a person a person".
Without memory we are not the person we were.
Guy Pearce sets up objects for himself, otherwise he loses meaning of life. How about others?
The movie also described a world that is "so damn mean". It is multi-layered.
Unbreakable (2000)
it is actually not so bad after you think back
I really got impatient when I was viewing the movie the first time. It is so slow-paced that I said to myself, "it is like the Six Sense!" Later I knew it was directed by the same director, and he also directed The Signs. All three movies bear strong personal styles: slow-paced, dark atmosphere, slow movement of cameras, even the people are all speaking slowly and in low voices.
Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson act quite good in this movie.
The music is not bad.
-spoilers-
Lots of people got impatient with the kid pointing the gun to his father and think that is too childish, me too. That's too unrealistic. But other than that, the plot is not so bad. The twist at the ending is a surprise to me. I think it's good. And if you think back, it is absolutely reasonable. Imagine a lone child who can only get some fun from comic books, and is called "Mr. Glass" by other kids. It is quite believable his mind is twisted. It is a miracle that his psychotic theory becomes true and he finds there IS an unbreakable hero.
-end-
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
convincing, but need more evidence
The director is brave and admirable.
The movie tries to convince the audience that so many people get killed in US every year because US lacks a law of gun controlling. It provides some figures and analysis which sounds reasonable. The facts are well organized and edited. There are also quite a lot of humor and intense moments, which show the confrontation between the director and K-mart (for selling bullets which were used by the teenage killers in Columbine) and the chairman of NRA. In some sense it goes beyond documentary and is like a drama, but it is enjoyable.
However, I think to reach the conclusion that lacking a law of gun controlling is the cause of so many people killed by guns, there is something more to do. Instead of comparing the number of people killed by guns in different countries, we should compare the rate of people murdered by guns to all people murdered. The conclusion may be the same, but it can exclude the possibility that so many people get killed because of high crime rate.
It also discusses the "fears" in US, and has some deep insights. In overall this is an enlightening documentary and worth viewing.
eXistenZ (1999)
mind-blowing, a true game fun's movie
This movie is breath-taking and mind-blowing. But I think maybe it can only be appreciated by die-hard RPG funs. It is like a game. One problem is the plot is too game-like and just has too many twists. The twists are excessive. Jude Law gives a very good performance. I really like him in this movie, just as Jerome in Gattaca and Gigglo Joe in A.I.
Pi (1998)
Just another "Human should not do it because God not allow" bulls***
Spoilers:
You know what's the idea behind the movie? They think there are some knowlege that human should never touch. In the movie a mathematician try to find the pattern from stock market data, and he got a 261 digit number, which turns out to be the number got by another mathematician who study the pattern of pi, and this number is sought by a group of Jewish rabiis because if translated, it is the name of God! This number stays in the mathematician's head and drove him crazy, so finally what's the conclusion? He said, it's like "you cannot stare at the sun because it is so bright it will damage your eyes," so human should not seek the secrete of the god because it will drive them crazy. What a bulls***! What a shame.
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I bet the director think we should bend down and pray! But I don't buy a single bit of it.
Science is boundless.
Se7en (1995)
the end is bad because it is predictable
spoilers:
It is obvious that Brad Pitt has performed the sins of wrath not only once in the movie, therefore he would be punished at the end. Also there are implications near the ending that Brad Pitt did not go home after John Doe got caught and he mentioned he should call home or do something like that but he did not. When I saw the three guys driving along I was wondering who would die. At first I thought John Doe might have set up some trap to kill the two detectives. But when I saw the box I knew at once that Brad Pitt's wife's head was in it and Brad Pitt would kill John Doe.
To me this movie is not as good as the Usual Suspects. The characters are not interesting. The plot is so so. Seven sins, so what?! Nothing is left in my mind after viewing it.
Dark City (1998)
as good as Matrix, maybe better
I have seen lots of people compared Dark City with Matrix. They are quite similar in certain ways: both are about what is real and not real, both have a hero (in Matrix, Neo; in Dark City, John) with super power which can save the world, both have a mentor for the potential hero (in Matrix, Morpheus; in Dark City, the doctor), both have non-human forces controlling humans.
One difference between them is Dark City put more emphasis on how John discovered the truth, while Matrix put more emphasis on how to overthrow the non-human forces (how to let Neo unlash his potential power), but the problem with Morpheus and his team is they do not really know how to do that, so finally Neo obtaining his power is attributed to the magic of love, which is not very satisfactory.
Another good thing about Dark City is they depict a good scientist, which is relatively rare in sci-fi movies. Except in really "scientific" movies like Contact or 2001 Space Odyssey, scientists are quite often depicted as either mad dangeous weirdos. But in this movie, the doctor is the real hero, who has his own ideas, wisdom and courage, although he looks quite nerdy.
The atmosphere of the movie is very dark for most of the time, somewhat reminding me of Blade Runner. At the end of the movie John changed the orientation of the floating land so that they get sunlight. That's a happy end.
I like this movie. It makes you think. It discusses the relation of reality, memory and human nature and the possibility of chaning one's memories. The idea is creative while the way it is presented is clear, not as cryptic as Donnie Darko. Rate: 8 out of 10.
Donnie Darko (2001)
very difficult to understand ... but I love it
Donnie Darko is one of the most confusing film I've ever seen. It is difficult to understand because it is based on the fictitious theory of time travel invented by Roberta Sparrow (Grandma Death), one character in the movie. The theory is elaborated in her book "Philosophy of Time Travel". The book appears in the movie but unfortunately the audience never get the chance to know the detailed contents of the book, and without knowing the details of the theory many things happened in the movie become unexplainable and misterious.
I saw the movie twice but it was still a riddel to me, but even I could not fully understand it it still attracted me a lot, which I think it was mainly due to the performance, cinematography, sound effect and music. It has an enchanting dark atmosphere which I like. Then I searched the website and found the book "philosophy of time travel" and understood the movie.
I think the plot still has some flaws, although it may be my misunderstanding. One thing, if my understanding is correct, at the end of the movie Donnie sent the engine of the airplane from the tangent universe back to the primary universe to eliminate the tangent universe because otherwise the tangent universe will collapse into a black hole which will devour everything. But the problem is where the engine at the beginning of the movie come from. Because at that time Frank already guided Donnie away from his house it should be happened in the tangent universe.
Any way, this movie makes me think. And after seeing it I see the world with different eyes. What if I am actually living in a tangent universe and the world will end in a month? Is it possible? Such questions may pop up in my mind, and also the emotions which have been experienced by Donnie Darko.
Ying xiong (2002)
a special movie
The first time I saw this movie, I thought it had lots of problems. For example, many fighting scenes disobey physical laws due to the wireworks, which renders them unrealistic. Also the theme and plot are a little pretentious, and some fighting scenes do not serve the theme.
However, the strange thing is that even though I think this movie has many problems, I still want to see it again and again. It seems to have some special attractions.
Maybe because it is too beautiful and arty: The mountains, lakes, deserts and ubiquitous winds, the fighting scenes (although sometimes not realistic), the yells during the fighting (borrowed from Peking Opera), some creative SFX and super cool body movements.
In a summary, this movie is recommended for a viewing. See it, and judge it by yourself.
A Beautiful Mind (2001)
Unsuccessful Portrayal of Scientists
I do not understand why this movie is rated so high.
The scripts of this movie seem to be written by some one who never did scientific research himself. It's totally his imagination and showing of his ignorance of science.
"Contact" is much better.
Casper (1995)
a beautiful fairy tale for a grown-up
I feel regretful so few people would like to comment on such a good film. Actually I like it because it was cameraed from a child's viewpoint and brings back the imaginations belong to your childhood.
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
The best SF film
No doubt this is the best SF film ever made. I saw it about 10 times. Compact, beautiful, slick, elegant, no redundancy, no frills. The style of Aliean, not the style of Titanic. Arnold Schwarzenneger is cool! Only one task, to accomplish your mission, never give it up. You will never forget his images.
The Running Man (1987)
The recording of a simple action game
This film is just like a simple computer action game. You just see Arnie run, kill enemies. Almost nothing exciting.
Predator (1987)
A realistic SF film
This SF film is special because it is very realistic. If an E.T astronaut with much more advanced science and techs landed on earth by accident and he has to hunt for food, he may hunt human beings and regard us just as inferior animals, just like we human beings hunting wild animals. The problem is whether we can defeat them at this situation. Arnie played a good role of his classic style, adamant, never surrender. And, of couse, at last he will win. To gain some confidence for our human being. But what if E.T really invades? This film may bring you some thoughts.