thephaseshift Reviews

Neighbors (I) (2014)

Bad taste is being continually redefined...

[3/10 · 22 August 2014]

I like to watch these kinds of movies to pass the time now and then...but they're not always this bad.

It's like an 11-year old boy got a huge budget and was allowed to make a movie, basically.

One scene in particular is more than an eye-roller, it's so bad-taste it defies description. Yeah - the milking scene. My pregnant wife was sitting next to me and we could both only shake our heads in disbelief. Yeah I know - not everyone has a pregnant wife, or is pregnant. Still, it's pretty bad.

I guess the most disappointing thing in the end was that the main actress - Rose Byrne - seems too smart to be in this role. She acts stupid in the movie, and it doesn't feel right. It looks like she's dumbing herself down to the level of her hubbie. Maybe it's the Australian accent which is all too easy to confuse with a stereotypical "smart English" one, but still, she doesn't fit. Add to that various tired stereotypes and frankly boring dialog, and you have a real winner of a movie. To be honest I'm really surprised at the relatively high meta-grade it got at metacritic. Go figure.

But hey, this is just my opinion, and I'm not an 11-year old kid. If you are, maybe you'll love it. But I hope not - I have higher hopes for 11 year olds than this. It gets a 3/10 from me only because it did manage to entertain me just a TINY bit, but you can be sure it's not a keeper.

Before Midnight (2013)

A tale of growing bitterness

[7/10 · 13 August 2013]

I've been struggling to decide what I think of this movie...I thought the first two were great; I liked them even more the 2nd time I saw them. Both can be described as two people falling in love, as told through cleverly written but believable dialog.

The third one decided to go down a darker alley of "realism" by showing us how even a fairy tale-ish couple can end up wringing each other's throats. I have to agree with another review I read: it almost played out like a list of ways how NOT to argue with your partner. It was just barely saved at the end by showing us one important method for recovering from an argument (having a sense of humor), but all in all it was a bit of a downer to see the lovebirds from the previous 2 movies in this bickering state.

And I should add that for me personally, the whole scene with the dinner table conversations was a tiny bit annoying - too many different personalities sort of vying for attention, each trying to be more biting or clever than the last person, none quite convincing to me. I found myself thinking "hey, we don't CARE about you people - let's get back to Jesse and Celine please!" One could of course argue that the scene was about how they interacted with others and each other, bla bla bla...but in the end I didn't care much for the other characters.

I also caught myself thinking that Celine had become extremely bitter and aggressive, and I felt more sorry for Jesse than for her. She came across as almost inconsolable and intolerable. What a drama queen...I wonder if this was intended, or if it's somehow influenced by Linklater's personal view of women (or some woman).

I'm giving the movie a 7/10 strictly because it was generally very well played, and because the interactions between Jesse and Celine were very believable, even if less charming than they used to be. But it loses 1-2 points for breaking the mold defined by the previous movies and being less cheery. YES, I just wrote that! I actually think the charm of the 1st two movies was in their ability to create a genuinely romantic mood through believable and interesting dialog. Before Midnight shattered this dreamworld, and its appeal now lies purely in the cinematic aspects - but in the end it's just not as much fun to watch a couple squabble as to seduce each other.

Hoping for a more cheerful continuation in a few years!

Kick-Ass (2010)

Shaking head in shock - a different point of view!

[3/10 · 3 June 2013]

This is for those who might be tricked into thinking this is a harmless teen flick about wanna-be superheroes. It isn't!

I admit it - I find just about any movie that shows extreme cruelty (esp. torture) in a so-called "comic" light disgusting. So if you're a huge Tarantino fan then skip my review. Personally I think torture can NEVER be funny, because it's just so damn horrible, and it's really going on in many places as you're reading this. But that's just me.

This movie takes the next logical step in Hollywood's ongoing march towards increasing shock value. By "shocking" I mean three things: (1) increasingly cruel scenes being taken for granted (torture scenes being considered "funny" - this trend took off with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, two "golden oldies" that I personally consider pretty f'd up, even as a man - and these days no action film is complete without some good-ol' torture), (2) teens being shown to swear, masturbate (nothing wrong here, but it's just not movie material IMHO!), and basically act as crude and shocking as possible "adult style" - and this is supposed to be hilarious apparently...and it's gotten more intense in the last 10 years, and a more recent trend (3) kids (not teens - KIDS) being either killed, or killing others (obvious recent example: Hunger Games; until then it was pretty much taboo). On top of those, there's the never-ending *obsession* that America (and Hollywood) has with guns. REALLY big ones, and tons of them. It's a blazingly American phenomenon, and it's no wonder the USA has so many gun killings. I'm not saying it's *because* of the movies, but more that the movies *reflect* America's obsession with weapons as things that are extremely necessary and insanely cool.

So if you're into these recent (and not so recent) developments in Hollywood, you'll love this movie too. Basically it caters to the torture-loving, gun-totin' hormone-flooded American teen male of the 21st century. I'm not even THAT old yet but this is really too much for me, and maybe for you too.

Timeline (2003)

Bad, but not terrible

[6/10 · 6 September 2005]

I'm not going to waste my time on a detailed review here. I watched this movie with my girlfriend because I'd read the book and had no idea about the bad reviews until I'd already rented it. I was expecting the worst. In short, we enjoyed watching it - my girlfriend even liked it a lot. True, the acting is mediocre as is the screenplay, but it's still somewhat entertaining, even if not Oscar material ; ) I've seen much worse flicks that had better reviews.

If you're bored and want to see a bad but amusing movie, this is a good choice. Keep your expectations low, and maybe you'll be positively surprised!

Red Planet (2000)

MUCH BETTER than the host of bad reviews

[8/10 · 8 January 2002]

This is a GOOD movie - not superb - but GOOD. Most of you are dead wrong by calling it a lame duck.

I watched this movie without any expectations, great or small, not having read any reviews yet. This movie has been flogged and battered beyond belief, certainly way beyond my comprehension. Because it's actually a good movie! Not just 'better than the reviews', but a GOOD movie. I'm not usually so baffled by reviews, but here's one where I don't get it. It has several weak points, which is why I took off a couple of points from my rating. I would give it a 7 to 7.5/10, but kicked it up to 8 here just to make a point, really.

What people seem to be saying: 1) It's silly: FALSE. 2) It's boring: FALSE. 3) It's full of scientific inaccuracies: FALSE. So you see why I'm scratching my head here.

The critics are generally wrong here people (although Roger Ebert got it right this time - he gave it a 3/4 stars). For those of you out there who like a decent sci-fi flick, which to me should involve a somewhat believable story based on a projection into the future of some aspect of current scientific thinking, plus suspense, this is a good one. It's not perfect, but the faults don't detract much from the enjoyment. Another point I enjoyed was the attention paid to details. The equipment used makes sense, the comments made are believable and coherent, the physics is properly accounted for in most cases (within limits of some artistic license of course), Certainly it's FAR better movie than, say, Mission to Mars. Also MUCH better than the obscenely ridiculous Armageddon for example, which got its share of criticisms, but not like Red Planet's organized barrage of negativism. Sad.

So there are my three cents. It's a good movie, especially for fans of true sci-fi. It DOES suffer at a few points from a little too much Hollywoodism, but its qualities outweight its faults in this case.

Rent it and expect the worst - and you'll be VERY pleasantly surprised.

Heartbreakers (2001)

Like coca cola that's been sitting on the table for days.

[18 July 2001]

In spite of the big names (Weaver & Hackman), this film is a big disappointment. Pretty painful to sit through. The jokes are not only predictable but fall flat almost every time. That in combination with the fact that the female leads were simply incapable of pulling off comic performances made for a waste of a few bucks. Didn't hear too many guffaws in the cinema either. SPOILERS For those who go in spite of the mediocre reviews because they like the concept, prepare for a disappointment. It's just badly executed! Terrible writing and unfunny characters. It's either boring, embarrassing, or both at most times.

Gene Hackman's character was the only one who breathed some life into this flat tire of a film, but alas it's not enough to get past Weaver's sad attempt at badly-written comedy, and her big-boobed but boring and annoying daughter is also quite pitiful.

For fans of the seduction concept, just rent a copy of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, which was a WAY WAY funnier and original film.

Have I said enough? Forget renting it for that matter, it's barely worth even that except for die-hard fans of Hackman (whose character is unfortunately mercilessly and unfunnily killed off before he has a chance to turn the tables on his wannabe seductresses).

Unbreakable (2000)

A big buildup...and nothing more.

[5/10 · 5 February 2001]

Anybody got this far? If the user stats are a guide, then chances are you'll love this film. But I don't think it deserves the huge score, and the two people I saw it with agree.

It's slow for one thing. This didn't bother me - I'm patient and I enjoy character buildups and so on....if it all goes somewhere interesting. In this case the movie ends suddenly just at the point where it's starting to pick up speed, as if the idea-machine ran out of batteries.

All throughout the movie I was waiting in optimistic anticipation, enjoying the mental game, and waiting.....some interesting ideas were presented, such as the meaning of comic-book heroes in the modern world. The two main characters were interesting and mysterious.

But the movie gets all tangled up in a slow and somewhat aimless progression. Bruce Willis' character has a special power...but what is it exactly? Exactly what are his limits? Instead of developing one aspect, such as the 'unbreakable' concept, the story turns into a new spin on Steven King's 'Dead Zone', but not nearly as complete. By the end of the movie the story of Bruce Willis character's new existence has barely begun - and yet this is what I was waiting for the whole time! It ends with a couple of silly comments intended to tie things up, but it's all quite disappointing.

Had it been at least another 30 minutes longer it could have gone somewhere.

I gave the movie a 5/10 for good (albeit incomplete) character studies and some interesting ideas, but because the plot ended up disappointing and leaving a lot of ideas in the fetal stage I took off 5 points. If you into it expecting it not to deliver on its main ideas, then you may really enjoy it.

Sorry - it's really not nearly as good as everyone seems to be making it out to be. I preferred Sixth Sense....and The Dead Zone!

Stranger Than Paradise (1984)

A seductive character and mileu study

[25 September 2000]

Reading over the comments so far, it seems that most people think this film is great, with a rare few criticizing it for being a boring 'student-film'.

People, this is for sure not a film for those who've been brutalized by too much Hollywood cinema - it's a quiet movie that you absorb slowly. It's very well done and quite absorbing. Sure it makes me think of so-called student-films (my brother is in film school), but that's not to say it's not a damn good one. There's something to be said for beautiful photography (the black and white images go so well with the feelings of emptiness and coldness) and the search for a meaning in life. These people are desperately in need of meaning and affection, none of which they seem to be able to find - or give. This is a movie about that desperate search.

And it's well worth seeing - for those with a bit of patience and artistic sensibility. It's a movie about emptiness for sure, but is by no means 'boring'. I'd give it 4/5 stars.