director9ff Reviews

Batman (1989)

WHEN WILL SHE STOP SCREAMING?!

[5 August 2003]

I'm not a comic book fan, nor am I a "Batman" fan. But unfortunately enough, my brother is... and he just had to get this from our local library. Having seen this before and being rather neutral to it, I wasn't expecting much whenever I happened to be in the room when he watched this.

The story is simple, and also simply stupid, which is #1 on Things I Hate About Batman (TIHAB, if you're acronym-ish). Maybe it's just me, but when you knock almost everyone out at a museum, it makes more sense to actually steal the paintings than to deface them. The Joker doesn't realize this, apparently, so he throws paints onto them. Even if he thinks he's improving art, well, even I know that flat, 2D colors don't enhance things.

Also, rather than actually bothering to get better plastic surgery done on his face, the Joker decides to go and just put makeup on. If he's such a good criminal, why doesn't he do that after a while? Duh.

#2 on TIHAB is the worst part of the film: Kim Basinger's character. I know, Batman & the Joker need a love interest, but couldn't they have her progressively get quieter? You'd think she'd get used to all this anarchy around her, but no. She screams throughout the whole film, and I can just picture other events with her character: "AHHH! A fly is on my monitor!" "AHHH! I heard a noise!" "AHHH! This pencil is sharp!"

Since I can't think of anything else to bash on about this film, I'll just stop with this quote from the film:

AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHH H!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Kim Basinger's character (repeated line).

The Singles Ward (2002)

"The Apartment" for Mormons

[31 July 2002]

Even though I'm Mormon, I didn't get most of the jokes. But this doesn't matter, as some parts are funny even if you aren't Mormon. (i.e. "Yes! I'm going to Boise, Idaho! Where's a map?")

Later after seeing this, I noticed similarities to "The Apartment," as both are films based on a place you wouldn't really think would have romantic relationships between members unless you go there. Also, there are many scenes in apartments, and have something about religions in other apartments besides the main character's (the doctor in "The Apartment" seems to be Jewish, while one occupant in "Singles Ward" isn't Mormon compared to everyone else).

Both are good films, though on different levels.

The Glass House (2001)

I should have known (spoilers)

[3/10 · 23 July 2002]

I should have known that this film would be stupid. It acts smart, but you can tell from the beginning that these Glasses killed the parents.

Also, the ending is totally unreal. There seems to be NO proof that there has been any problem, aside from total paranoia, so how do these kids stay out of jail? Also, the Glass guy survives getting hit on the head with something hard, driving over a cliff, but can't survive getting hit by a car? PLEASE! The ending should have had that "one fatality" police officer staying alive, but upon hearing their alibi as to why they disconnected the breaks, he gets them thrown into jail. It is NOT believable when they are still eligible for foster care despite having killed two people!

Everyone, begin to throw your stones.

Spider-Man (2002)

Constantly hitting my head

[29 June 2002]

Why did I see this?! My brother was constantly telling me that some people he knows liked it. I kept trying to say no, but I kept saying, "I don't know." Eventually, I just decided to go see it.

Just when he gets his spider-powers, the film documents how headache-inducing the camerawork can be, constantly moving when he's swinging around. I didn't like the idea of unlimited web shooting--after all, it must have provided a challenge in the comics, and he's a science whiz, so what's to stop him from designing something like that? It showed where it stuck at one point (a crane at a construction site), but after that, we have few ideas of where it could stick! And, they stole from other movies, such as the much more enjoyable "Arthur" (about getting to the neighborhood through multiple rides), and the boring "Episode 1" (about Mary Jane being an "angel").

I have got to stop believing the majority. (Well, in the case of "Minority Report," maybe I should believe them.) Why do you need a comics adaption of every single comic book?

Make more movies like "Cube," "Waking Life," "Pi," or at least "AI: Artificial Intelligence," Hollywood! Or, to Sam Raimi, go back to making movies like "Darkman." It wasn't very great, but it was way better than selling out!

1/6

Monty Python's and Now for Something Completely Different (1971)

Actually quite funny

[7/10 · 20 June 2002]

Rather than see it as an introduction to the Python, I saw this just to see the only other Python film that was PG in the US. I had seen "Monty Python And The Holy Grail," which wasn't as funny (A killer rabbit? Policemen arresting knights? A knight killing innocent people for no reason? IS NOT FUNNY! --small giggle--). I actually laughed more at this than at "Holy Grail," possibly because it wasn't just one thing with a few things different--it was almost always completely different!

Having seen 1.03 episodes of the show, I must say that though they seem to have a longer time with the sketches because it wasn't restrained to about 5 minutes ("The Deadliest Joke In The World" had more content that I would have liked to see in this), this had more sketches and was much funnier. Their best movie (even though lots are saying that they could have done better). Rating: 4/6 (for being rrreeeaaalllyyy weird)

Clockstoppers (2002)

Pretty good for a kid's film

[18 June 2002]

I usually like thinking films more than mainstream ones. This was actually good, though.

A teenager who desperately wants a car finds a watch that enables him to enter "hypertime," where everything around him stops (or goes rrrreeeeaaalllyyy slow). But there are (what else?) people after the watch, which actually stops his antics with the watch, and puts his life and his father's at risk.

Some things aren't right. For example, if you were moving so fast, than how come (I think) a television set isn't moving as fast as him? (It would be constantly remaking the image, not showing it just as slow as everything around him.) Also, if the watch allows anything touching him to go into hypertime as well, and he's touching the ground, than how come everything doesn't go into hypertime minus the airplanes in the air? And, a car going at over 200 mph has everything outside of it looking like it's standing still? You'd have to go 186,000 miles per second for that to happen.

But that's not the point of the film. The point is to have fun. And I enjoy relativity, so the time freezing makes the film better than it would be without a quick explanation on going faster than everything else.

Rating: 4/6

Waking Life (2001)

I knew this would be weird, but...

[10/10 · 6 June 2002]

I never thought it could be this strange. Some parts weren't entirely necessary (the scene in the jail, and the bar scene that ends in two guys getting shot), but everything else worked. The best part is (possibly could ruin the movie up here) they never told you if that main character woke up for real or had another false awakening. Plus, the final images were rather confusing--another plus.

The animation was especially good, to where you could think that they hadn't really filmed this in live action at all. (Note: Part of the live action "Waking Life" was shown on the DVD--and it seemed more like a documentary than a normal film.)

Go see this unless you have very little idea of how to pay attention to a film.

Pi (1998)

3.14159265358979

[8/10 · 27 May 2002]

My favorite film in the world is "Cube," and one of the things that made me like it was the usage of half-complex mathematics to enhance the plot. (I don't see primes as being truly complex unless it goes into over 2 digits, but since it used 3-digit primes, that made it more complex.) Remembering some time after seeing "Cube" about some film called "Pi," I looked at the plot, and found myself wanting to see it so much that I memorized 15 digits of pi before watching it. (3.14159265358979)

Some things about "Pi" aren't perfect, such as the fact that the "supercomputer" Max built uses those big floppy disks, long outdated even in 1998, and the idea of a 216-digit number actually enabling someone to see everything (i.e. the upcoming numbers on the stock market), but those are minor complaints. The movie introduced me to such theories as the golden ratio, theta, golden rectangle, spirals in everything, etc. (Note: I'm almost out of 6th grade--not a safe age to watch this at--so if I seem to not have heard of something they introduced in high school, that's why. Also, I'm using the names given in the film, so if they're wrong, I haven't learned their correct names.) The movie actually has a reason for using weird music--for example, the music playing whenever Max has a headache almost makes you have a headache (possibly when combined with black-and-white photography).

Rating: 10 out of 6 (almost as good as "Cube")

The Outer Limits (1995–2002)

This is more insane than the millions who have seen "American Pie" (2)

[6 March 2002]

Rule #1 on Remakes of Anthology Shows: Watch the original enough to know what it's about.

The makers of the new "Twilight Zone" probably did this. But remaking "Twilight Zone" is EASY--it was about all sorts of things.

The Outer Limits is a whole different story. The original was about three things: Monsters, details of science, and human nature. The new one is more like "Tales From The Crypt" (cable anthology show) with "The Twilight Zone" (all about multiple things) and a little dash of "TOL" (a few remakes of old episodes).

Notice something? I've seen PLENTY of episodes of the original because they were so appealing--even "Specimen: Unknown" couldn't stop my viewership. The new, however, had me for exactly 1 hour and 12 minutes.

For one, let's go over the narration. The New Control Voice sounds nothing like Vic Perrin! With the "controlling transmission" thing, it is so different. "We can deluge you with a thousand different channels, or sharpen one image to crystal clarity--and beyond. We can shape your vision to anything our imagination can concieve." The original had "if we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper." "We can roll the image. We can make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity." "We repeat, there is nothing wrong with your television set." NONE OF THAT!

Also, the episodes have been tuned to a "Twilight Zone" feel. Compare two episodes of the original and the new:

ORIGINAL "The Architechts Of Fear:" A group of scientists decide to change one of them into a strange creature in order to get the world to be peaceful. But the person who changes will be announced dead and will never return to normal life. The person dies, and his pregnant wife learns the truth.

NEW "Descent:" A scientist cannot get funding for a project involving primitive people who hunted food rather than bought, so he injects the genes of one into himself. He turns into a hunter, and beats a man to near death. When another scientist finds out what he did, she tries reversing it, btu he doesn't want to. He is turned into an exhibit on primitives, which he earlier didn't like.

Okay, bad choices. But "Architechts" was one of the best. "Descent" was the only one I watched all the way through.

Overall, the old one is better. Even though it has cheesy ideas (a two dimensional monster?), at least they worked. The new one could have been something good. If only they thought of NOT calling it "The Outer Limits."

Sunset Boulevard (1950)

Audiences don't know somebody sits down and WRITES a picture. They think the actors make it up as they go along.

[8/10 · 5 March 2002]

In about 5 months, I've found about 7 great movies. This is one of them.

A screenwriter hides his car in a garage that he doesn't know belongs to Norma Desmond, a once-great silent film queen. Now she has written a picture that (brace yourselves) is longer than "Titanic," and is much worse. He tricks her into paying him a lot, but then everything seems to go wrong...

Watch this. NOW. Unless you actually LIKE what Hollywood makes; this un-glorifies Hollywood to what it truly is.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

There's a mathematical explanation of how you're wearing a bad tie

[10/10 · 13 February 2002]

After so much bad stuff in 2001, we finally got to something wonderful: A Beautiful Mind. To anyone who thinks that action films are the only worthy films to get released, see this. The story of John Nash is appropriately beautiful, and must be seen by everyone to be believed.

I can't think of anything else to say! It leaves you speechless; there's my explanation.

Animal Crackers (1930)

"Do you know what the T in my name stands for?" "What?" "Edgar."

[7/10 · 8 January 2002]

One of the silliest films ever made (of course, it's a Marx Brothers movie) has some of the silliest dialogue.

IE "Signor Ravelli's first selection will be, 'Somewhere My Love Lies Sleeping,' with a male chorus."

"How much do I owe you? (African gobbledygook) $1.35? This is an outrage!"

"Fear is not in you!" "Excuse me, sir, but there's a catepillar on you." (Spaulding freaks out)

"How much do you charge to run into an open manhole?" "Just the cover charge." "Well, drop in sometime." "Sewer."

Only thing holding it down is an out-of-place ending (SPOILER--doesn't everybody die?), but it is still really funny.

Cube (1997)

People Can Ignore Movies Like This?

[10/10 · 24 December 2001]

The Twilight Zone had one episode that involved five people finding themselves in a huge cylinder with no way out but the top. This, for some reason, sounds strangely familiar...

Wait, I'm writing a review on the movie that takes this concept to another 3-dimensional shape, "Cube," and also manages to make it more like a guessing game as to what will happen next.

Six people (doctor, student, cop, escape artist, normal person, autistic person) find themselves in a maze of cubes, with no idea of why they have been imprisoned there or how to get out. They explore the cubes to get out.

All these movies made with big budgets and no script are being noticed these days? (Especially 2001, where we got so few good movies that I get a headache thinking about them.) Movies like this, "Arlington Road," "Finding Forrester," and "2001: A Space Oddysey" get little attention? (True, "Arlington Road" and "Finding Forrester" had big budgets, and "2001" is almost outdated, but "AR" and "FF" have scripts, and "2001" is still good and confusing.) No wonder. People are too obsessed with huge action movies with no idea of where to stop and not smart enough to "get" movies like these (that's the point).

I saw this "butchered" on Sci-Fi channel, and it was still a smart, daring movie--how else do you explain things like the opening victim of a trap? Or the entire deal with (spoiler) the rooms going around in circles? Or things like all those traps (see first "how else do you explain" question) like chemical spraying to melt faces, sound activated spikes, and such?

Rating: 12/10

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

How in Middle-earth Is This #1 On Top 250?!?

[5/10 · 21 December 2001]

This film first hit my mind as a film that started out good, but went downhill as a result of the near 3-hour length. Now I think that it was good, but just suffered much from that 2-hour-58-minutes length. But I have still a question:

How in Middle-earth is this #1 on the Top 250? The ending is like that of the first parts of a serial, the film feels like it's 68 years long, and there are too little in-jokes at Middle-earth history, and it manages to beat all films? Please! (If any film deserves to be there, it's "Arlington Road.")

Length doesn't make a movie good (good thing, too--I don't see "Titanic" anywhere on the list)--it's story, quality, and occasionally entertainment. This has a story that's nearly half a century old, wavers into "okayness," and, well, is entertaining the masses. But who cares? We need this brought down to at least 20.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Why omit things?

[26 November 2001]

It seems that this movie has won the hearts of people who have read the book, and NOT read it. But I must say that this was way too slimmed down. For example, we see one Quidditch game (if you don't know, I'll explain later) to the books plural number (I wasn't counting the Quidditch games). Also, there was a conversation on Harry at the beginning of the book, and I think it was also between Uncle Vernon (I forget, is that his name?) and some other person that I don't remember the name of. I also remember Dumbledore choking on the ear wax flavored Bertie Botts' Every Flavor Beans (ICK!). The snake at the beginning had more speech... we never see Dudley's gang... the Midnight Duel's gone... Norbert (Hagrid's dragon) flies away, and they don't attempt to sned him to Ron's brother... the list goes on... Why omit so much stuff? My guess is that the filmmakers didn't want to bore the kids with a 3-hour film. However, younger children would be scared away by the scary moments, and I think that the remainder have sat through "Titanic." (Don't ask me why. I hate the movie, and haven't even seen it!)

Okay, on to other things. Why not add in a few things? I wanted to see Nearly Headless Nick (John Cleese) push his head off (it's still hanging there--that's how he's nearly headless), put it back, and exclaim, "Thank you, God! Thank you so BLOODY much!" (FYI: This is from "Fawlty Towers," a TV show of his.) In the finished product, I remember him smiling (I didn't even need a Remembrall)! Why?

No, I didn't hate the movie. Despite a nagging want for more details, the film did good with what was left. FOr example, the ONE Quidditch game made me feel dizzy (a bit). That's good for a flying sport with 4 balls! (Weird, yeah...) The film even did things I don't remember from the book (must have skipped some lines), like trap Dudley in the snake's cage. (Hahahahhahahah.)

Joke Rating: 9(3/4)/10 Real Rating: 5(1/2)/10

Shrek (2001)

Ugh. Go see something else.

[1/10 · 8 November 2001]

An overrated piece of junk could be described as the movies on MST3K. Some (no... 199/200 of them) movies today are being added to this part of lists. Here's another: "Shrek." The plot is flat, it doesn't make me burst out in laughter, and it makes Mike Myers and company look worse. Watch "Toy Story" instead... quickly, before you are destroyed by this!

Rating: -12/6 PS: Now, when I refer to this movie, I shall say, "Shrek" (AAAHHH!)

The Matrix (1999)

How did I think that this was the greatest film ever at one point?!

[8/10 · 6 November 2001]

To think that I actually thought that this was the greatest movie ever! I have seen this about 9 times (this is an estimate), and now I know that great story means little to a film's overal quality!

I know nothing about philosophy! Thus, I can't judge the film'sidea of our somewhat "cool" world (didn't mean to conjure up bad images of Brad Pitt, sorry) is simply a front for the real world, one that looks so drab. in my idea, it could b, but so much is unexplained...

Rating: 3/6

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

This wasn't supposed to be comedy... oh, well

[9/10 · 6 November 2001]

Like "Pearl Harbor," (AAAHHH!) this film had comedy despite the fact that it was a drama. For example, when Andy is ordered to turn off music that is annoying to the Warden (but not to the rest of the prison... they just listen), Andy turns it up!

But, unlike "Pearl Harbor" (AAAHHH!), this film actually needed a bit of GOOD laughter, whereas "PH" (AAAHHH!) was laughable in itself, with unneccesary BAD comedy.

Anyway, I read the novella first and let me tell you, the film (edited-I watched on TNT) has many differences and add-ons. For example, that bit of comedy wasn't in the book (heck, NO comedy was in the book). Also, (spoiler) when Andy has disappeared, the Warden didn't throw his hand-carved chess pieces at the poster-he tore it down. Also, the novella wasn't 100 pages, whereas this movie (on TNT, with commercials and edits) was 3 hours whole!

I am STILL deciding on where to put this better-than-most-films-these-days movie on Favorites list. I am tempted to put it near the top (not at the top-there are better films), but somewhere online someone said that it was a middle-movie (an okay one). Another person declined, but after watching again, they agreed. So, I'll put it somewhere in the middle.

I liked it very much, but it's not my favorite movie ever, nor the second. Rather... ah, heck, I can't decide right now!

Rating: 4.5/6

How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966 TV Movie)

W-w-a-a-y-y better than the remake

[4 November 2001]

When this comes on TV again, watch it. No, no, let me rephrase that. TAPE it, then watch it again (or rather, for the first time if you haven't seen it before), and again (now I'm certain). Don't analyze.

Why am I, an amatuer movie critic who seldom likes films, and less TV movies, saying this? Let me put it this way: It's WAY better than even half of the remake with Jim Carrey (AAAHHH!). The remake was so poor, the only thing they changed was the quality of special effects, added length and unneccesary sub-plots. That doesn't make a good film. (Besides, J-j-jim Carrey is in it! AAAHHH!) They don't even change the ending!

Speaking of the ending, that's the only flaw: An ending that's telling you to give up on your dreams! I might be taking it too far, but really, the Grinch hates Christmas, tries to destroy it, and ends up giving it back! I realize that destroying Christmas is too much for kids, but that doesn't stop me (an 11-year old) from wanting him to destroy Christmas!

Rating: 6(1/2)/6 (This isn't the best, but it's good).

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

C-o-n-f-u-s-i-n-g--but really great

[9/10 · 29 October 2001]

The filmmakers once said, "If you understand 2001 completely, we've failed." If me and my family are any indication, they've succeeded. It is confusing. There is no way that you can know much of what's going on! Yet, this film is great. At some points, I was half-amazed that it was made in the 60's because of the SFX-it looked like CG from films like "Tron!"

If only Hollywood made more fils like this. There once was a time when, rather than making films for money, they made films for art-not computer graphic art, but film art. Now they just make films that are CGI-fests with little (if any) challenge for your brain, and created solely for money. Yawn. Sure, some good films come out (Arlington Road, Finding Forrester) but they do poorly at the box-office. Films like this are hard to come by within 1990-the present, so go and watch this. Be confused. Avoid that new actioner that's come out, along with that horror film. Take some time to think the film over. Then watch it gain. And again. Teach executives a lesson.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

Good film

[9/10 · 24 October 2001]

When a film gets this kind of raving from me, you know it's good. (I hate 99/100 of the films... er, drivel, that's released.)

Anyway, being so religous, I liked the touches that make Klatuu look like Christ (likes kids, people misunderstand him, etc.). Loved the film for it's main message. (One that Osama Bin Ladem needs to learn, badly.)

Rating: 6/6 (Not the best, but many times, that's good)

Stargate (1994)

???

[2/10 · 20 October 2001]

What in the world was going on? The Seventh Symbol? Ra in somewhere other than Egypt? Just about anything else in the film makes as much sense.

Okay, so Spader wants to prove that something someone discovered was a fraud. No one believes him, so he's invited to search something about a Stargate.

What will this do to his thing about the fraud? NOTHING!

Anyway, so they go through, and see Ra, the Egyptian sun-god in what looks like Egypt. From there, nothing makes sense. Banning reading and writing? A machine that heals you when there's nothing else nearly as technologic around?

Zzzzzzzzzz...

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

Jim Carrey wasn't in makeup; that's how he REALLY looks

[2/10 · 18 October 2001]

Seeing as Christmas is approaching, and it's tradition for people to write jolly (or not) reviews for films, and Hollywood to make un-jolly films for them to review... hold on, I'm sorry, it's really approaching Halloween. But remember: This is scary!

Anyway, I'd better warn you about something: Jim Carrey really looks like himself in this film. Those clips you've seen with him getting buried in makeup? Played backwards; they're putting makeup on him so he looks rubber-faced.

Special effects look good in this film, but really, do you expect us to believe that there's a town inside a snowflake? No! Also with bad features:

Jim Carrey's in it-enough said! Unneccesary subplots like Cindy Lou Who's biography makes the film go on for 13 hours! We can't believe that a tunnel will take you upward and harm you!

More is that they do not change the ending. Come on, (spoiler) for one, it's telling you to give up on your dreams! I mean, Al Gore doesn't push the Christmas stuff that he stole from Whyville over the mountain! Don't tell me that it was in Dr. Suess' story; it still tells you that dreams are silly!

Also, there is no point to remaking good films anyway. What do I mean, you ask? Psycho, Planet of the Apes, and now this piece of ****. And to think, we pay money to see CGI-and-nothing-else films like this!

Rating: -86566/6

PS: Notice that I never said one specific word from the title? PSS: In the rating, look at the last three numbers. That describes it!

The Pumaman (1980)

Evil wins in this movie! I mean, the Pumaman won...

[8 October 2001]

My guess on WHY this guy is named Pumaman if he does nothing like a puma:

Flying: The writers were really high, and saw flying pumas.

Going into scenes that we've seen already: How else was he supposed to go places? Drive a car? Fly a plane? NO! He's a pumaman! Pumas don't drive cars! Pumas go into scenes they've seen a bajillion times before!

Any other "superpower:" The screenwriters had to do SOMETHING to get their film more than 13 seconds long!

Anyway, I've obviously seen this on MST3K, and there's good reasons: They're funny, and I don't want these to kill me!

"Why do you want the mask?" "In order to be SMOKING!"

"This has been a test of the audiences patience."

Unbreakable (2000)

Better than the 6th Sense

[7/10 · 7 October 2001]

When a director's first film makes you think he's good, and the second tops it, you know that he's another Speilberg. (Then again, lots of films top "Jaws...") This would be one of those films. Riding the success of the rather overrated "Sixth Sense," M. Night Shymalan made a film that, rather than deal with superheroes as guys who fly around and KNOW their powers, made them look like they might not now that they have the power.

Security guard Willis is on a train home one day when the train crashes. (Call it Nightmare at A Few Inches...) He is one of the two-wait, one, the other died soon later-survivors, and he is completely unharmed. Enter Elijah Price (Jackson), a man who has a disease that makes his bones as hard as paper. He was introduced to comic book heroes in his childhood, and owns an art gallery with (what else but) comic book heroes. He thinks that Bruce is a superhero, and then... well, from there on in, you have to see the film.

Notably, if you thought that Sense was slower than a turtle, this goes at a speed of 10 out of 100. Some parts aren't made for those with impatience, but you have to go through those to get to the good parts.

And finally, the twist in the end. I have seen this once (when I get the video, I'll see it again), so I wouldn't know if the twist is just a fast one or really makes sense. (No pun intended.) I won't ruin the ending, because to do so would be a crime.

Rating: 5/6 Reasons: Slower pacing than a turtle is absent, but some scenes really could have been sped up.