Change Your Image
Skullbussa
Reviews
Man of Steel (2013)
Cavill, Costner, Crowe, and Lane can't save this mess
The four captioned actors do a splendid job selling the exposition to an audience who has become very familiar with the legend over the years. Costner in particular has two exceptional scenes with Cavill where we learn that what makes Superman super is not just his powers from Krypton but from what his adopted father has taught him about being a man.
Frankly, other than the first act that these four actors give us, Man of Steel is arguably little better than the last tedious entry into the Superman film franchise. Once Superman is encouraged to 'just be himself' by his Kryptonian father Jor-El, the film very quickly degenerates into a exceptionally boring slug-fest that is more than a little reminiscent of the Transformers films.
And this begs the question, if Superman so values human lives, why does he choose populated areas for his fisticuffs? Entire buildings are destroyed as part of the collateral damage. Why not lure the fight into unpopulated areas or even outer space? Surely, as skyscrapers collapse in the middle of downtown Metropolis, innocent lives are being lost?
But Superman does seem to care very much about saving Lois Lane, played by a very doughy- looking Amy Adams. They quickly go from two people introduced as a matter of circumstance to lovers kissing; strange, as it seems the characters share very few screen minutes together. There is no palpable romantic tension or chemistry between these two characters. Zero.
After about 10 minutes of watching Superman wrestle with a cheap-looking CGI monster, I realized that this film had absolutely very little that was original or inspired about it. It is a quite-frankly desperate attempt by Warner Brothers to resuscitate a much-needed franchise; this film will be a moderate success but that is not good enough. It needed to be at least as good if not better than Batman Begins and this film is not even in the same league as that film, flawed as it was.
In summary, it is a film of a mixed pedigree (Nolan vs. Snyder, one an established artist and the other not so much) that makes a few smart decisions regarding efficiency of exposition but ultimately succumbs to a third act that is astonishingly dull. Newsflash: 15 minutes of characters pounding the hell out of each other is not better entertainment than the same scene condensed into a few minutes.
Lincoln (2012)
Is this Spielberg's worst movie?
Make no mistake, this is not art nor is it even a movie: in fact it is nothing more than a recording of a play thats only aspirations is to be shown in high school classes across the United States for many years to come.
My faults with the film:
-Spielberg's Lincoln speaks only through tedious, predictable allegories. These speeches are so boring that more than one character simply walks away during it's interminable running. I wish I could have walked away too.
-Black people are treated as oracles and not human beings. The black characters in this film exhibit no manner of humanity and are reduced to simple plot devices. We don't care about their plight because they're not like us. They're heartless machines.
-Relations between races in this film are portrayed in a dishonest way. Black soldiers and servants openly challenge and speak to Lincoln as if he's a fellow black man. This isn't the way things were and pretending that it was (from the very first scene!) simply disallows the film from building any heart, any credibility, any weight or substance. We learn quickly this is not a film about an important American historical figure, it is a (very) liberal interpretation. Since we do not see how poorly black people were treated we do not care about Lincoln's ultimate success with his proposed 13th Amendment.
-Characters do not develop, character arcs fizzle, conflicts left unresolved. What of Mary Todd Lincoln's impassioned speech to Lincoln regarding the enlistment of their son? She demands to be locked up in a crazy house if the senior Lincoln permits his son to join Grant's side. Well, Robert joined the army and Mary Todd is still in Washington. What was the point of that scene other than to give Sally Field something to do? Why are Sally Field and Joseph Gordon-Levitt even in this film? They have no bearing on the narrative this film attempts to tell!
Look, I did not expect this film to give an accurate representation of Lincoln's life. What I did expect is that I would get a tight, entertaining 2 hour slice of our greatest President's most critical hour. Instead I got a pandering, meandering, vapid, and vacuous play- on-celluloid treatment from one of the former cinema greats. This preachy, hunky-dory disease has plagued Spielberg since we were treated to those awful Present Day scenes in Private Ryan. Here it culminates into a suffocating veil which absolutely ruins any hope of this film being a success.
Thoughtless, generic, boring drivel.
Super 8 (2011)
Worth it for the first hour but ultimately derails in the end
I simply cannot understand how someone who is clearly talented can put together an hour or more of really fun summer movie and then blow it.
The homages to Jaws, Close Encounters, and E.T. are a real hoot but really ring hollow when you start to see the chinks in the films armor. The interaction between the children and the period costumes and set design are the star of this movie, not the script. The monster and his tale of trying to get home are simply there to push the narrative and it is clear that Abrams has no joy in telling that story.
Once the girl disappears from the group the film basically loses all energy, the characters begin to act erratically, and the suspension of disbelief is exhausted.
I wonder what Spielberg must have thought previewing the final cut of this film. Did he shift in his seat and wince at the absurd ending? Did he think of ways he could have done it better?
I'd love to see Spielberg go back to making movies like this. It will never happen. And it's a shame, because he did it better than anyone.
Game of Thrones (2011)
Bad pacing, spotty writing and acting - but still watchable
Fresh from finishing the first book in the series, I was anxious to catch the first two episodes of this series. It's absurd to expect a film to ever deliver the kind of rich experience a good book does but I still found myself let-down by some of the decisions made by this production.
The film does look good, the actors look their parts. I cannot fault the picture for the way it makes do with a limited budget. Yet I found myself rolling my eyes at the clearly Caucasian actor who, besmeared with tanner and eye makeup, is made to be Khal Drogo. It reminds me of John Wayne westerns where the "Indians" were simply random white actors who were covered in shoe polish.
Which brings me to my next complaint - there is just too much Daenerys in these opening episodes. She is a very important character but the way in which she has nearly equal screen time to the Starks ruins her character arch and I wonder what will be left for her to do at the end of this first season.
The worst offense of these two episodes is, as many others have pointed out, the terrible scene where Bran is thrown to his doom. This scene is accompanied by light-hearted music and the way the scene is portrayed smacks of a daytime soap opera; the Lannisters even look the part here.
I understand that HBO enjoys pushing the sexual envelope and I am no enemy of seeing a beautiful naked woman, but it just seems that the sex and nudity are exploitative in this film. The book had a lot of it, but it used it less frequently so that it would have more effect.
Overrall the films do not seem like they're in expert hands. The acting can sometimes be splendid and other times I am shocked that a scene was spared the editor's mouseclick...there is just very little consistency. Each scene soars or falls flat in alternating order and after a while this just becomes a little tiring.
Source Code (2011)
Uninspired, half-baked thriller left me clock watching
A tired movie begets a tired movie review.
Look, I just left this film feeling like somewhere, some tiny speck of original thought crept into the screenwriter's head when he was writing this movie: The film does make the audience think. A brain puzzle in the same vein as the (much) superior "Inception", this film just constantly reminds the viewer how we are in the hands of mediocre talents who are too lazy to see an idea through and rely upon tired concepts to caulk together a story.
There is no need to poke holes in the pseudo-science surrounding the out-of-body concept employed in Source Code; it is immediately self- contradictory as our protagonist wanders into areas (train station, other train cars) that his host never did and therefore could not have known for Colter to experience. Unlike Inception, which doggedly follows its own rules of dreams, the world of this film writes, breaks, and re-writes the rules.
But this really isn't the biggest problem with the movie. The biggest problem is the ridiculous and ham-fisted approach Colter takes to finding the bomber. He thuggishly roughs up a variety of passengers, wasting the viewer's time with red herring after red herring. Our director wastes a golden opportunity to weave one hell of a whodunit and instead spends precious time trying to develop a love story nobody gives a hoot about.
I do not feel that I know anything more about these characters at the end of the film as I do at the beginning and I certainly don't care about them any more either. What could have been the emotional high point of the film, a phone call that Colter places to his father, is handled so poorly that I threw in the towel and just waited for the lights to come on.
Winnebago Man (2009)
Completely incompetent documentary about an interesting man
This documentary is worth watching due to the vigor and articulate nature of the subject, Jack Rebney. My recommendation for viewing comes despite the clumsy efforts of the filmmaker, not because of them.
Director Steinbauer's exploitation of his subject crosses the line in such vulgar ways that it reminds me of Tod Browning's "Freaks". Mr. Rebney clearly is lonely, despite his solitary endeavors, and wants to share his mind with others. While Jack's opinions may or may not fit in with whatever narrative Steinbauer's trying to construct, to filter them out of the film is disgraceful and disrespectful to Mr. Rebney.
The director is an amateur. He has absolutely no idea how to harness Mr. Rebney's energy nor how to let the man tell his story without ham-fisted direct questioning in front of a camera.
I firmly believe that the vast majority of the accolades put upon this film are born out of good-will towards Mr. Rebney and not because of the artistic merit of this documentary.
Zombieland (2009)
Why do people from my generation love this garbage?
I am tired of self-referential, "clever", witty, quirky films; films where characters are straight off of the Judd Apatow assembly line. You know, the obnoxiously talkative, obsessive-compulsive, love-lorn nerdy Jew, the sassy yet droll, wise-beyond-her-years teenage girl, the big- mouthed outrageous hillbilly.
This is a slickly-produced but very hackneyed retread of every teen comedy released in the last several years. There is not a single part of this movie that shows even the least bit of original thought. Simply put, this movie is an embarrassing exercise in fan service; jam-packed with tons of Hollywood references, gratuitous (but pointless) zombie carnage, and the timely popping-up of cutesy text...all of it there to remind us just how *cool* and *smart* the filmmakers are.
How can people in their 20s/30s not see through this ruse? When movies make an effort to try to tell you how clever they are they cease to be clever. I suspect that many of those who are (idiotic) enough to give this movie more than a 4 rating are probably Kevin Smith/Joss Whedon fans who have difficulty discerning between a film and a tapestry of scenes of "witty" dialog sewn together.
Compare this to Robert Rodriguez' superior "Planet Terror". It's full of colorful characters we haven't seen before played STRAIGHT. The tone of the movie is serious and that's what makes the film so much more entertaining (and funny). And most importantly, we're spared the constant reminder of just how precocious the filmmaker is.
I give this movie 3 stars instead of zero due to an inspired title sequence.
The Planets (1999)
This is essential viewing, should be shown in classrooms
It is impossible for any documentary to be completely up to date. Criticizing this series for not including anything discovered after '99 isn't fair. Yet, we lament that this information is missing only because this BBC production does such a GREAT job of presenting it.
I would give this series a 9 for the 3rd installment "Giants", alone. The story of the Voyager probes is simply fascinating and must rank as one of man's greatest under appreciated accomplishments.
Would it not be nice to have this series updated with new data and presented in high definition? As others have commented, the information from Cassini alone warrants a "brush up" of the series.
Deadwood (2004)
Most pretentiously written television show in history
Let's just throw out the profanity argument: this show is horrible even if we come to the incorrect conclusion that people in this time and place used terms like "motherless c*nt" (they did not).
The only thing worse than a fat man in a yellow bikini is a fat man in a yellow bikini who thinks he's attractive. Thus the delusion this show suffers. Never have I come across a television show that tries so hard to show off its writing. Laughter is the only fitting response to the ponderous, labored writing.
And most amusing is the praise heaped on this show by people who are easily romanced by what they interpret as fancy language.
I'll give the show 3 stars based on the fine actors, their efforts wasted on third rate hack writing.
Fainaru fantajî sebun adobento chirudoren (2005)
Lots of action, no story make for a boring movie
Even if you liked The Spirits Within, you might not like this one.
I am a big Final Fantasy fan and apparently one of the minority who enjoyed "FF: The Spirits Within" not only for its great look but for the quality voice acting, the intriguing (although a little weird at times) story, and the overall high production quality. It was a great popcorn movie.
This movie, FF7: Advent Children, however is nothing like the older movie. Advent Children is clumsy, has a 5 minute story that takes 90 minutes to execute, has spotty visuals that are great in one scene and terrible the next, and overall fails to impress.
To be honest, I felt this movie was nothing but a Final Fantasy game's numerous cut scenes edited into one continuous video. The movie is almost entirely non-stop action but the viewer rarely has any idea who is fighting whom because the virtual camera is literally flying 360 degrees around the action at all time. It's disorienting and just plain bad film-making. The film's settings are almost always better looking than the characters. Barret and Cloud look great, Tifa and Yuffie look horrible.
Another disappointment is the story. Advent Children took the most obvious, infantile approach to bringing back all the major characters from the FF7 game and the movie gives us a token 2-3 minutes with each of these characters just to make the fans happy. For those of us who played Final Fantasy 7, there is nothing new here to witness. No surprises, no drama. The movie's story is so simple it is as if Square-Enix went to some fan site and asked a 12 year old Final Fantasy fan to write the script.
But here is the worst thing about Advent Children: it actually made me no longer wish for a Final Fantasy 7 sequel game. They've made all the characters boring, even Him (you know whom I am talking about), and I could care less if there is never another FF7 game. After watching this terrible movie, I think Square-Enix are correct when they make new games that have no attachments to the previous games.
Nobuo Uematsu's music is mostly just punched-up versions of his original score for the game. The new music he wrote for this movie actually sounds better than the hokey guitar and piano driven renditions he does of the older game music.
Monster Man (2003)
Not even worth it for the Monster Truck scenes...
Wow, where do I begin? After suffering through this wretched $1.00 rental (thanks a LOT, Family Video) I just had to make a few comments. I did not bother to write down the names of the 3 actors in the film, but hopefully you will know who I am talking about.
A monster truck terrorizes the countryside and chases two college-aged buddies to their doom. They encounter a hot girl wearing slutty clothes. I mean, this just sounds fantastic in theory. I was laughing hysterically at the DVD box while I walked it up to the girl behind the counter at the video store.
Acting: the hot girl, played by Aimee Whatever, is visibly laughing through many scenes where she is supposed to be scared. The other two major actors in the film, the fat prankster and the vanilla straight-guy are both terrible. The fat guy thinks he's Jack Black. He's not. The other actor, our hero, over-emotes and misses all his cues and comes across as some generic character you might see in a made-for-Nickelodeon movie about skateboarding in the early 90's. Look: I don't expect great performances in movies like these, but at least the actors can make an effort to not be annoying. You can be an incompetent actor but still be agreeable (i.e. John Wayne). At least that Aimee gal is attractive.
Script: Holy ****, who thought this dialogue was funny? I wouldn't have the nerve to play this out in front of my grade school drama class, much less pitch it as a film script. Unfathomably bad. More on this later.
Production: OK, this is the one place where the film definitely succeeds. Production quality is amazingly high. The look of the film is very good. Apparently the only talented person who worked on the movie was the director of photography.
OK, here are my biggest gripes: 1) The guy driving the car never drives faster than 25 miles an hour.
2) The guy driving the car is well out into the country before he realizes there is a fat man in a mask in his back seat. He is supposedly meticulous about recording gas mileage and keeping his antique car in good condition but he does not notice a 300lb Jack Black impersonator in the back? Come on.
4) Characters never change their clothes. There are two hotel scenes. Presumably, showers are available to our characters yet over the 3 days this movie takes place, none of the characters bothers to change their clothes.
5) Comedy. Lighthearted, slapstick comedy does not mix with horror. Period. You can't have our characters running away from a monster truck one second and the next second have them verbally jousting one another with some dopey light/comedy music playing. This kind of pacing virtually ruins any tension in the movie. Movies like Evil Dead 2 which mix comedy and horror understand that tension can be loosened yet never completely eliminated with humor. Monster Man doesn't get it.
I'm irritated that what could have been a VERY funny horror movie was ruined by a director who thought he was a lot more clever than he really was. Oh well.
Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause (2003)
Politics good, documentary bad
First off, I agree with quite a bit that escapes Mr. Chomsky's mouth. His matter-of-fact delivery of interesting counterpoint is what makes the man a hit on the university campus circuit. He comes across likable, unassuming, pragmatic. He doesn't cater to the current political style (obnoxious bi-partisanship) and he sets his sights on the far left as well as the far right, chastising both, and for good reason.
Unfortunately, the film itself is a dud. In fact, I would not even call this a documentary but rather just a collection of speeches. Watching "Rebel Without a Pause" is no different from watching a speaker on a 3am taped segment on CSPAN. There are no camera movements, no edits, no stylistic touches. There is no story, no narrative.
Technically speaking, the production is strictly amateurish. Audio is terrible and inconsistent; sometimes we cannot hear Noam speak, other times we cannot hear the questions that are being posited by those in attendance. When Noam is speaking rarely are we allowed to see the reactions of the audience except when we are given a quick shot of his wife who apparently attends every one of his speeches and beams with pride every time we see her.
I cannot recommend this film and would say that you're probably better off checking out his taped speeches on cassette or CD to listen to in the car.
4 out of 10 stars...and I'm in a generous mood today.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
Incompetent film for Trekkie-like Adams worshipers only
To be perfectly blunt this is the worst movie I have seen in the theater in a few years.
There is a bit of nostalgia summoned by this film. Remember all those awful low-budget science fiction films of the 1980's that tried so hard to either emulate or parody Star Wars and it's huge success? This film fits right into that group.
Yes, I am aware the book was a huge success and Adams had a loyal following. Yes, I am aware the material has a very unique sense of humor that may be lost on some people. No, I did not expect a science-fiction-action-extravaganza...I just expected good-humored science fiction.
Well, I didn't get it. None of the actors were able to reach any sort of rhythm with their line delivery. This is punctuated by abysmal editing that jaunts and juts and absolutely keeps the audience confused as to where the character dialog is going. In comedy, timing is everything, and Hitchhiker's timing is completely off. It's like watching a string of Monty Python skits backwards. Jokes are set up and dropped like cluster bombs all over the place, none hitting their mark. Rickman and Deschanel are completely wasted. Sam Rockwell is trying too hard to be Owen Wilson. And Martin Freeman (whoever the hell that is) is so painfully awful as Arthur Dent that I had to wince every time he spoke. He reminds me of my 5th grade Math teacher when he tried to entertain us with jokes.
Chances are...if you have NOT read the books you will NOT like this movie. I did read the book...at least the first 50 or so pages of it. I found it only moderately more tolerable than this dreck.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
Much better than it should be
Mostow's a hack, Arnold has lost his machismo over the years, and the story of T3 is nearly the same thing we saw 10 years ago in Cameron's T2.
So why is this movie *the* summer action movie of 2003?
Because it avoids using tacky, modern, computer special effects (*cough*...Matrix Reloaded) and instead uses classic Hollywood stunt work and REAL cars smashing into each other. Because it has a tight narrative that doesn't indulge itself while keeping the audience hostage until the climax we all paid $8 for.
The (surprisingly thin) audience for this flick on July 3rd was only happy to oblige the film with applause and laughs. This movie is great fun, much more fun than Hulk or Matrix 2. There is something charming about an action movie where the hero actually looks like a hero rather than some pallid dork in a black trenchcoat who is more interested in looking good than pounding their enemy into a pulp.
The best action sequences of the summer of 2003 are in Terminator 3, no question about it. The movie cost $170 million and you see every cent on screen. Arnold's T-101 takes more and more damage as the film progresses. You first see blood, then scaring with metal underneath, then complex CGI/makeup/prosthesis where you can actually see THROUGH Arnold's jaw structure. This is Stan Winston's best work in years and proves he is still at the top of his game.
Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor was always an annoying character and it's good to see her out of the series to focus more attention on John Connor. Sarah always came across as an anti-social, bitter hippy rather than somebody who has the burden of man's ultimate survival on her shoulders.
The script is nothing amazing, although it has an excellent ending that gives the film some real gravity. The film is full of humor and resembles the original Terminator film more closely than T2 in this regard.
If you want to know what T3 is like think of it this way:
Take T2, strip out Sarah Connor, take out about 30 minutes of worthless boy/robot bonding and ridiculous man/machine sentiment (remember that horrible weepy ending to T2? LOL!), add an Arnold who is less apt to mock himself and a very serious, somber ending and you have T3.
Really the only thing lacking is T1000 from T2. Robert Patrick did a great job, and don't get me wrong...the chick who plays the T-X does a great job as well, but for some reason she just isn't as menacing. She seems to not be able to handle good old T-101 as well as the T1000 could. I would also really like to see her in a bathing suit.
The Sum of All Fears (2002)
You will check your watch often
Even with my reserved expectations, I was let down.
Have you ever seen a big action movie and thought, "dang, I wish they'd take some of that effects budget and spend it on decent actors"? I do all the time. Well, with "The Sum of All Fears", that is exactly what they have done...and the result is surprisingly bad. Affleck aside, there are some really terrific actors on screen in this film. None get more than 4-5 lines, not enough to make us care about their characters. Entirely too much time is wasted on Ryan's asinine relationship with his Sandra Bullock-look-alike girlfriend. Not enough time is given to the truly exciting events which take place: a nuclear device detonated on American soil, a US aircraft carrier attacked, a Russian airbase leveled. All three of these events take up less than 5 minutes of screentime, which is about the same amount of time we waste on one scene between Ryan and his girlfriend in the bedroom. Another fault: the movie has no climax. You could tell everybody in the audience was waiting for a REAL climax: they were tense, still waiting for the big roller coaster ride at the end of the film (it never came). Overall, a dismal production and not anywhere near as good as Ryan's first outing (The Hunt for Red October).
The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
Slow, but damn pretty
The Coens return to top form.
After Fargo it seemed that the Coens were shooting straight for popular acceptance with their two (IMHO) weakest movies, The Big Lebowski and O Brother.
This movie finally distances them from the couch critic crowd due to the fact that it strictly art-house fare. Make no mistake about it, this movie will make little money. It lacks the explosive suprises (and the sex) of American Beauty, a Hollywood film pretending to be an art film. But this film is so far better than American Beauty that any further mention of that film serves only to tarnish the film I'm reviewing now.
The film is slow and ponderous. At the same time, it is brilliantly written and beautifully photographed as well as competently directed. The acting, as is to be expected, is top notch. This is hands-down the best Billy Bob Thornton movie since Slingblade, and he shines in role. He looks, acts, and even delivers his lines like Humphrey Bogart. It's clear the Coens are going for that look as Thornton's hair and costume strongly resembles that of the great Bogart.
The cinematography deserves its own paragragh (and an Oscar). Deakins outdoes himself in this film. It is quite possibly the best looking black and white movie I have ever seen, and this is from somebody who adores and consumes b&w film like candy. The composition and the textures are so sharp that you almost feel like you're watching the next evolution of film, even if it is good ol' black and white.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie from scene 1 and while I was aware of the slow pace, I could not tear my eyes away from the screen.
The best movie released this year, Memento be damned.
Theremin: An Electronic Odyssey (1993)
Quite boring and poorly paced
The story of Leon Theremin does not require more than 60 minutes. That is the hurdle this film tries to get around by spending way too much time talking to those whose lives have crossed paths with Theremin or his device. Theremin himself is barely intelligible, mumbling on about his recollections that have already been explained by the filmmakers. The use of the theremin in 50's sci-fi and horror films is glossed over and the film spends no more than a few minutes talking about this famous application of the musical instrument.
I love documentaries and Theremin seemed like one of those offbeat documentaries that I so love (Errol Morris'), but it is merely a pretender. Truth be told I caught myself skipping through the last few minutes of the film because it just DRAGS on and on and on. Not recommended.
Platoon (1986)
Does not live up to its reputation...
I put off seeing this film, despite being an Oliver Stone fan, after getting more than my fill of Vietnam war movies. 15 years after its theatrical release, I had the chance to catch it for the first time on the special edition DVD (an excellent disc, btw).
My reaction?
This film has aged very poorly. Either that or it wasn't much good to begin with. I noticed that almost all the situations are hackneyed (young, innocent solider getting killed without any reason, the Southern "good old boys" as war mongers, the immoral murder of simple villagers, etc). The dialogue is flat. Charlie Sheen is, as always, absolutely horrible. It is embarassing to see him up on the screen with such talented actors as Tom Berenger and Willem Dafoe. He is just absolutely out of his league. Johnny Depp is given a tiny supporting role when Stone should have given him the Sheen part...Depp being the (much) superior actor. In fact, we spend way too much time with Sheen and not enough with Forrest Whitaker, Depp, and Keith David.
As others have commented, this isn't a narrative but a collection of individual scenarios that Stone has put together. Unfortunately, most of these scene are present in other films and done much better (Full Metal Jacket).
The lines that Stone draws between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" is absolutely ridiculous: the bad guys are generally racist Southerners and the good guys are enlightened potheads. They're about as two dimensional as you'd expect from a war movie.
If you want to see a great war movie, skip this one. Full Metal Jacket and The Thin Red Line are more raw and engaging than this film will ever be. To be perfectly honest, the documentary included on the special edition DVD is much, much more interesting than the movie itself.
One final note: Tom Berenger holds his own against Dafoe, Whitaker, and Depp. I am very curious as to why his career never took off as those others did. He controls every scene he is in and this viewer was hanging on every line that he delievered. What a shame he is stuck doing garbage like "The Substitute"....
Dungeons & Dragons (2000)
So embarrassing I had to turn away on occassion
Poor Jeremy Irons.
This is quite possibly the most embarrassing movie I have ever had to watch in my life. Everything from the unbelievably bland lead character Ridley Freeborn (Justin Whalin) to the Stepin Fetchit-esque sidekick (Marlon Wayans) to the absurd sets...it all reeks of big-budget, LOW LOW B movie.
Honestly, if you want to know what this movie is like...imagine this: a group of D&D nerds with a very expensive movie camera making up a fantasy movie in their back yard. Add in some of the WORST special effects I have seen this side of a Buck Roger's tv episode, the most cringe-worthy dialogue to ever have been written, and some of the most incompetent direction I've ever witnessed.
Then there is Mr. Irons. As a defense mechanism, Mr. Irons overacts and chews the scenery for all it is worth. I am still trying to discover exactly how Mr. Irons thought this was a good career move. To get an idea how disgusted he was with the entire film, go to the "deleted scenes" section on the DVD. After one particularly ridiculous tirade from his character, Profion, you see Mr. Irons walking quickly off the set, shaking his head at the utter absurdity of the film that is Dungeons and Dragons.
NOTE: NOT WORTH THE TIME FOR LAUGHS OR SPECIAL EFFECTS (which is why I rented it)
Cleopatra (1963)
Not even worth watching as a curiousity
Who hasn't heard how bad a movie "Cleopatra" is? I certainly pored through review after review, all negative, of this infamous big-budget disaster. Still, as a fan of epic films my curiousity was aroused by Cleopatra's infamous repuatation. The number of "Its not that bad after all" reviews on the web also lit the fire under my rear to go rent the movie on DVD.
Well, big mistake.
This movie is even worse than I had expected. All of the defenders of this film point to the luxurious sets, the great acting, and the glorious costumes. I cannot imagine anything further from the truth! The costumes are laughably bad; poor Richard Burton is forced to cavort around in this absurdly short skirt that completely undermines the power of his character. He simply looks like a clown. Elizabeth Taylor's outfits are totally ridiculous, showing me more of her breasts than I'd ever care to see. It is amusing to try to guess how the next outfit she dons will display her ample bosom...the costumes use every trick in the book.
Most importantly, the script is below bad....it is unbearable. Poor Rex Harrison and Richard Burton, both fine actors, are visibly disgusted by having to deliver the most horrendous and overwrought dialogue. "A barren woman is like a river without any water"...huh? The viewer never establishes a relationship with any of the characters simply because they are all unlikable, poorly written, and simply annoying.
The music score by Alex North is quite possibly the worst score I've ever heard for a production of this size. It is mind-blowingly bad.
Worst of all is Elizabeth Taylor. Her portrayal of Cleopatra is completely incompetent. Apparently Taylor has decided to model Cleopatra after the stereotypical diner waitress; an obnoxious, loud, unsophisticated, tactless fool. From the moment she sets foot on screen the movie steps down from a "D" film to a "F". She neither exudes any of the power or grace a queen would have nor does she know how to deliver the lines (as bad as they are) in the proper behavior. It is simply a terrible job of acting, the hallmark of her career (save for "Virginia Woolf.....but that's another story) unfortunately. For other reviewers to point to her performance as one of the best aspects of this film is mind-boggling.
It is very difficult to find any positives in this film. Even the supporting cast is incompetent; it is impossible not to wince when Hume Cronyn or Roddy McDowall recite their lines. I suppose the best thing about the film is the young Martin Landau as Rufio. Landau has a knack of plowing through his lines as if he knows how absurd they sound...he is the one true soldier among a parade of clowns.
Do not waste your time with this film. It is much better spent with superior (in every possible way) films such as Ben-Hur or Lawrence of Arabia, films I'd rather watch for the 20th time than watch Cleopatra for the 2nd time.
Dune (2000)
Just as one would expect of a television movie
Allow me to preface my review by saying that I did not care for the Lynch Dune film when I first saw it. After I actually read the book, however, and returned to watch the film again I appreciated it much more although it will never be among the ranks of true great sci-fi films such as 2001. Still, Dune was a very good book and a decent film. Now comes this miniseries...
I was quite skeptical when I first heard about a Dune miniseries because I am a bit hesitant to watch things produced specifically for television audiences (generally aimed at pleasing the lowest common-denominator) but after seeing an excellent preview in an actual movie theater, I decided to watch it.
After viewing the miniseries I must offer this opinion: my initial instinct to avoid the Dune miniseries was correct.
The most important part of any film, it's screenplay, is what is most lacking in this TV interpretation. John Harrison's dull script tries very hard to sound classy by throwing in some Elizabethan speech patterns every fourth or fifth line of dialogue. The effort comes across as cheap and desperate, which is fitting since the production itself is cheap and desperate.
The special effects are, frankly, appalling. Perhaps this sort of budget computer generated effects could have passed as acceptable on television several years ago, but not now. Specifically disappointing are the renderings of all the spacecraft, which all seem to either look like lawn sprinklers (I'm not joking) or hair curlers.
More importantly, the acting is terrible. Even William Hurt (who must be horribly embarassed to be associated with this mess at the moment) comes off poorly. Worst is Alec Newman, who's portrayal of Paul Atreides is unbelievably flat and boring. Furthermore, Newman is completely unconvincing as a leader of men...he possesses neither the charisma nor physical presence on screen to command a leading role in a film. I am certain this will be his last. The only actor worth watching in this mess is Saskia Reeves as Jessica. Reeves does an excellent job of playing a woman who is both a mother and the concubine to one of the most powerful men in the Dune universe.
Dune's worst fault, however, is none of the above. John Harrison's Dune (this film) COMPLETELY and blatantly rips off production and character designs from the David Lynch film. This is completely unacceptable. I am familiar enough with Herbert's book to know which designs are his and which are Lynch's and can assure you that Lynch's original work is borrowed liberally here.
Dune has neither the script, the talent, nor budget to adequately portray the book on screen. If your reception of the original Dune film was lukewarm, I guarantee you will detest this garbage. Stay CLEAR away from it.
Red Planet (2000)
Worst movie about Mars I can remember
This movie is just dreadful.
At least Mission 2 Mars, while far from being a sci-classic like 2001, managed to entertain in a hokey, 1950-ish way. That movie had likeable characters and a plot that, while laughably unrealistic, was at least entertaining.
Red Planet pretends to be hard science-fiction, where scientific facts and plausability do not take a back seat to story. However, the film plays out to be just as ludicrous as Mission 2 Mars. The characters are given little time to develop, the acting is dead (save for Tom Sizemore who hasn't been more likeable than in this movie), the special effects are HORRIBLE, the music is gut-wrenchingly-bad, and the whole movie leaves you thinking: so what? Without spoiling too much, let me assure you that nothing amazing or fantastic happens in the story. It's very, very dull.
Shûbun (1950)
One of Kurosawa's best
I've seen dozens of films by Akira Kurosawa. Of course, I hunted down the films that have made him famous first - films like Sanjuro, Yojimbo, and the Seven Samurai. After viewing those masterpieces I moved on to his catalog of lesser-known (and much more difficult to find!) films such as this one, Shubun (Scandal).
While watching this movie I was continually amazed at how well this movie kept my interest. I firmly believe it could be presented to an audience of disinterested types and they would be quickly pulled in. It is quickly paced, competently directed, and the acting is great. Some of the early Kurosawa flicks become quite dull in spots (Ikiru), a flaw this film does not suffer from.
Toshiro Mifune (playing Ichiro Aoye), young and impossibly handsome, does not manage to steal the show in this film, as he does with nearly all of his Kurosawa rolls. In fact, Takashi Shimura gets all the juicy bits and only furthers my belief that he is among Japan's greatest screen actors.
The plot goes all over the map, taking us from lighthearted moments to some excruciatingly tragic affairs. These are not terms I throw around without hesitation...you WILL be moved.
The icing on the cake: a vile villian, one of the nastiest characters you'll ever see in a Kurosawa film and the strikingly beautiful Shirley Yamaguchi who plays the pop singer, Mikako Saijo (with whom Mifune's Aoye is caught in a tabloid scandal with).
This film has recently been released on video with new subtitles and it most certainly worth hunting down.
The Way of the Gun (2000)
Every review here has missed the point
This movie is not about clever dialogue, Usual Suspects, or even action.
It's about criminals. Way of the Gun is one of the first movies I've seen where we're boldy asked to sympathize with criminals. Real criminals. Not cool-looking criminals who perform not-so-heinous acts. Del Toro and Phillippe are murderers, straight up, no chaser.
It's the best film of 2000 not because its an expertly acted and directed movie (McQuarrie was born for this) but because it forces the audience to examine flaws in their own social workings. "Am I a bad person because I want them to get away with their crimes", an audience member may ask him/herself.
Flaws? Sure, it needs editing. Pacing needs a shot of nitro glycerin. Opening scene is painfully short. I would have liked to seen more background on our killers.
If you want to see crime sprees, go rent Heat or Natural Born Killers. If you want to see a revolutionary crime film (is this possible in the year 2000? You bet), go see Way of the Gun.
Dead Man (1995)
a pretentious film from a great filmmaker
I've seen a handful of Jarmusch's films and this one is clearly his worst. A meandering, senseless narrative accompanied by some first rate actors. Jarmusch has always been one to put his characters first but this time he goes too far--the story suffers for it. It's as if Jarmusch thought of some really interesting characters then had to bind them altogether with an afterthought plot.
Also, I'm amazed at how people heap praise upon the look of the film. Let's make no mistake about it: Jarmusch knows how to handle the camera. However, this film is plain ugly. There is no rhyme or reason as to why it has the high-contrast look. Mr. Jarmusch apparently lacked a vision for his film and threw on the tired art-house film high contrast b&w look to make pseudo-sophisticates think: "Wow, the cinematography is beautiful."
Before getting into Jarmusch's films I was told by others to start with Dead Man to break into his world. I'm glad I didn't otherwise I would never have bothered to check out his other superior films. If a reader of this review wants to know where to begin, start with "Ghost Dog" which is a more accessible and infinitely superior film.