Change Your Image
kinky_friedman
-Bill Clinton
Reviews
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Well-done, but flawed
Sam Raimi was doing a great thing with the Spiderman series. The action was high quality, and the stories stellar. The first two are perfect comic book movies. Spiderman (2002) had the best story of any superhero film, and Spiderman 2 (2004) had the best use of license and action of any superhero film. Both had consistently good acting and production qualities.
The good news is that some of the qualities of the first two carry over. There is still great direction and production qualities. The acting is still great, because the fine dialog is still in the movie.
The bad news is... everywhere. The story isn't that good. It's really the most flawed part of the movie. They try to fit so much into one film. Three villains headline the movie: New Goblin, Sandman, and Venom. At first I thought the film felt rushed with three villains, but this proved to be a bias I shouldn't have. Though it was a bit rushed, the villains and their battles flowed pretty easily. Sandman was well-developed, but Venom was entirely too rushed. The development of Venom worked well, but once Eddie Brock became Venom, he was ready to kill Spiderman. We were propelled directly into the climatic fight. It should be noted that Sandman's creation is a bit cheesy, and unrealistic. For a Spiderman movie...
A lot of comic book material was handled poorly. Eddie Brock was horribly cast. Venom shouldn't be laughable. He should be frightening and menacing. They failed to capture the true heart of the character. Sandman was well-done, minus his before-mentioned far-fetched creation. He seems to be ripped straight out of the comics. The best part of the movie was seeing the New Goblin. We've been waiting for the moment the entire trilogy, the moment two friends must fight because of ignorance. It's handled well. But since the fight between the two happens in the first ten minutes, it feels a bit rushed. You'll also feel copped-out; Harry gets amnesia and forgets his bane with Peter. It seems redeemed, though, because all of Harry's screen time is used regaining his knowledge, eventually following back in love with MJ and gaining his hatred of his past and Peter.
The action of Spiderman 2 is a hard act to follow. Part three falls short, but that doesn't mean it sucks. Sandman throws an interesting dynamic into the fight scenes. His sand powers are an advantage and disadvantage. It's up to the protagonists- yes, it's plural- to harness the sand to their advantage. Ultimately, Sandman may be more powerful than Doc Ock of Part 2, but he's not as smart, and thus the fights aren't as smart or thrilling. It's more about brute force, here. New Goblin is essentially the Green Goblin, except a more maneuverable glider, some cooler gadgets, and New Goblin is in better shape. The Venom sequence is a perfect emulation of a Stan Lee-quality comic. Venom is a menace. Even if you're not satisfied by his build-up, you will be happy with the fight. And of course, many punches are thrown in free fall. Thank you, Sam Raimi.
From previous performers, expect more of the same in acting. Both the good and the bad. Topher Grace is awful. Though the part is written well, he plays the role comically. It's just not Eddie Brock. And he's not menacing both in voice and physical features. Howard is a nice Gwen Staci. She is very girly and very in tune with the character. Cromwell is also an all right Chief-of-Police. But not stellar. I have no complaints about Church's performance as Sandman. He is surprisingly as bitter as he should have been.
There's some scenes played solely for laughs. This annoyed me, because the story should have been the darkest of the series. It's all about revenge! Oh, and there's one scene I simply wish didn't exist. Peter, entranced by the Venom symbiote, goes to a jazz club with his new girlfriend. A crazy dance scene results. The scene is there to express how the symbiote has changed him, but it simply wasn't the right way to show the symbiote had a negative affect on Peter.
Overall, I give this film a B-.
Facing the Giants (2006)
Absolutely God-awful. I'm a Christian telling you not to see this!
Every so often a Christian film will come up that will break up the trend of crappy Christian movies. Facing the Giants is not that film. In fact, if anything, it feeds into the trend.
The problems start early. The opening titles looked interesting and epic, up until the title card. They use fancy 3-D letters that periodically faded into a new Burns-effected still of a football field. But when the titles reached "FACING THE GIANTS," the shadow effects looked funny. The shadows were flipped! It was laughably obvious, though I think a 10-year-old might miss it.
The acting is bad, really bad. That is, unless you like obviously fake southern accents (like everybody has in Georgia, right?) and crying without tears. No one here came from Julliard. In fact, it would seem that everyone was hired straight out of a YMCA acting class. Yes, it's that bad. There is not a single good actor on this feature.
The writing was equally bad. I expected all the sentimental Christian messages, but what really surprised me was the use of stereotypes. Every teacher and student is a typical southerner. The coach is awarded with a red pick-up truck after improving the students lives. The worst stereotype was the black teacher, who used inner-city grammar AND taught and coached students. Honestly, this character was comparable to Chris Tucker in Jackie Brown. I half expected him to say "Fo' Shizzle".
The Christian message is nothing new here. We see it in every movie funded by a church. What really burns me is the negative attitude to football coaches in general. Basically, this film implies that all coaches are torturous and heartless, and only want to win games. Love 'em and leave 'em is their attitude to their athletes, that is unless they can get them a scholarship. Now I lettered in high school football and played at two schools, with a total of five coaches. Never once had I had a coach tell me football was all about winning, and I was never told that you only play football for personal glory; this film implies that those are the morals taught amongst football coaches.
Oh, and by the way, the film has the ultimate sexual innuendo. It's hilarious and lasts about 5 minutes, but you won't notice it until it's about half-over. It's unmissable, even for the most pious viewer.
All in all, you expect a Christian movie to have quasi-quality production qualities, a good message, decent acting, and unique storytelling. This film featured none of those things. The stars are awarded for the decent cinematography and the unintentional enjoyment; and, all-in-all, it did have a good message. Just nothing fun.
Never Among Friends (2002)
Absolute garbage.
Who says you can't make a film with under 10 grand? I do. This isn't a film, this barely qualifies as a movie. The dialog isn't the worst, albeit clichéd. The concept itself is so uninspired and typical, I'm surprised it got the green light. I know the screenwriters have heart and can write something better than this, but they chose to follow an easy concept instead of taking a risk. The directing and producing's pretty bad. You don't have to see the movie, just look at the stills! Horrible marketing job.
It's so sad to see the producer's lackeys going around the internet promoting Never Among Friends. Why do you care? You weren't paid! The producer hates you. It's a bit amateur and childish, what these people are doing, if you ask me.
You Only Live Twice (1967)
Bond in Japan? Tries and succeeds
You Only Live Twice, I'll admit, is gimmicky. The novel was written and movie made for the sake of having a story of James Bond in Japan. They just didn't use as blatant a name as "007 in New York." That being said, there's a good movie made from this.
For a movie from 1967, the production qualities are great. The direction is particularly good during action scenes. There are some great aerial shots, although the definition suffers because, well, it's Panavision. But the action scenes are of good quality.
That being said, Roald Dahl made some bad decisions. We are all used to the formulaic Underground Lair finale. Bond always manages to save the world and himself singlehandedly. Not so in YOLT. In fact, he's aided by an army of ninjas and the Japanese secret service in the climax. Mr. Dahl also went out of his way to objectify the women of Japan. I know it's the way of the people, but...
Another unnecessary qualm is using Japan too much. For some reason, Bond needs to disguise himself as an Asian, although he doesn't alter too much physically. If anything else, he ends up looking like Spock. One of the antagonist's assistants is Asian, although that is unnecessary. She is clearly white with crappy make-up.
What Roald did do write is pacing. The action scenes and development scenes are intertwined perfectly, and the film's pacing is great. It is also very plausible for a Bond movie. This is also the first true (and satisfying) appearance of Mr. Evil, I mean Blofeld.
Alright, let's talk about the most apparent twist on this Bond outing- the setting. The setting isn't just there- 007 interacts with the environment he's in. When Bond fights in Paris, he could be fighting in London or New York. But James Bond uniquely interacts with Japanese buildings and adapts somewhat to their traditions.
The cast is hard to criticize. On one hand, they are monotone except for Sean Connery, on the other hand they might be really good Japanese actors who don't speak English. Either way, everyone except Bond disappoints because of a less than engaging plot.
This movie is good. I recommend it to any James Bond fan, Japan enthusiast, or both. It really succeeds as a James Bond movie in Japan. It's not the best story (I mean, it is basically a cash-in), but the action scenes are a must for said fans.
Overall, I give You Only Live Twice a B+.
Casino Royale (2006)
The best Bond movie ever
Casino Royale is the best Bond movie I've seen. Granted, I've yet to see a few fan favorites (including From Russia with Love and Thunderball, which are on Spike tonight), but this beats Goldfinger and probably even my favorite, Dr. No.
The direction and script, the two most important issues to me, are fantastic. Martin Campbell kicks his own GoldenEye's ass by a mile. The tone is dark and moody, the way the novel was written. There are no qualms of production quality or direction here. The poker scenes, fight scenes, and development scenes are flawless.
The script is almost perfect. It stays true to the novel, albeit modernized. For example, terrorists are now the enemies, not Russians, and the game at hand is poker, not baccarat. The only problem with the script is that there are some unnecessary scenes, which make it drag out in the middle, and part of the unnecessary problems include a pretty worthless Bond girl. It should also be noted that it's a whopping 150 minutes, which is time consuming. It does keep you entertained through and through, but the first half hour to hour are really inessential to the story.
The action scenes, which is why most people like 007, are fantastic. They are few of them, proportionally, however. The first action scene is Bond chasing an African bomb maker, and includes some far-fetched stunts. However, these stunts are believable by Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan standards. There is also a car chase on an air-strip, and a two-on-Bond stairwell duel. The last action scene, in Venice, is both heart-breaking and action-packed. But all these scenes are great.
Not only is Casino Royale a fantastic Bond movie, it's an equally cool poker movie. In case you've been living under a rock and haven't seen any marketing for this movie, you know the story. Bond has to outplay La Chiffre, a French poker expert who supplies bad guys money he wins from Poker games. If he loses- which no one expects he ever will- the people he owes money will kill him, which will disrupt the cash flow of all terrorists organizations.
When I heard they were adapting Casino Royale, I expected an enormous movie with the most luxurious casinos and exotic players. I expect cool poker scenes and high stakes. I got what I expected, which is rare for this era of disappointing films. La Chiffre is the master of poker, he even does cool tricks. Bond defeats him with style in which is possibly the most edge-of-your-seat poker game ever.
The cast is great. There are good actors, yes, but Bond isn't just about good acting. It is also about good-looking women and cool characters. Both the bond girls are hot (really hot) and the bad guy is bad. Le Chiffre is bad to the bone. Though he is not as stylized as previous villains (his power isn't too cool, he's a math expert), he is truly evil. He tortures Bond, and almost castrates him. You know he's evil when he cries blood. Daniel Craig is better than Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and George Lazenby easily, and is probably on par with Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. He's down-to-earth, but cool at the same time. He's very human, but makes you feel inferior at the same time.
Go see this movie. It's got great directors, screenwriters, and actors. This is the best Bond yet. And it's in the top 250! Overall, I give this film an A+.
Æon Flux (1991)
Weird but cool...?
I can't write too much about this show. It's not normal, but something suggestive of an acid trip. The overall quality of the show is bad, but I think that's the idea. Also, keep in mind I am talking about the shorts. I do not know about the full-length show.
Every episode features the heroine, Aeon Flux, a physically fit assassin. She has an objective every episode. Do to the lack of dialog, it's difficult to see what the objective is. But usually involves killing someone or destroying property. By property, I mean destroying a plane or a train. I guess essentially, Aeon is a terrorist.
I think the idea is there is a huge corporation that owns the world, a dictatorship if you will. Aeon is the underdog, the rebel, and with her disposable sidekicks she gets information or kills somebody. In this world, they have to check every nook and cranny on the body. That means it could be hidden in a fake tooth, a nipple, you get the idea. This can get sensual. Except they're cartoons. I bet the movie is better for apparent reasons.
The coolest part of the show is at the end of every episode, Aeon dies for her cause, only to be reborn again. That sounds cool on the outside, but I think the real uniqueness lies deeper. I think Peter Chung created this concept saying that freedom is not destroyable. Aeon Flux just symbolizes justice. But despite this philosophical point of view, the cartoon is still cool because, well, it's got some cool action scenes.
Overall, I give this show a C+.
Red Eye (2005)
Good
That's about it. It has a good score and production values, but the dialog is typical and the airplane setting takes away from the suspense. It is tense in situations, but none of the intensity takes place on the plane. The 30% after the plane sequences are well done and include an airport chase, a Craven-style suburban home chase, and a rocket launcher. Very entertaining.
But is this a Craven film? It certainly does feel like he directed it, but some of the locales are awkward for a Wes Craven film. The settings are too open, for example the climax takes place on a Miami beach and airport. This is definitely more of a thriller than a horror flick.
As a side note, Rachel McAdams is really hot. Not just in this movie, either. She's a redhead in this one. Check out some of her, shall we say, better films sometime. But this one is good...
I give this film a B-.
Per qualche dollaro in più (1965)
Good, but not great.
The film has some great characters and a great idea, but there is so much going against it.
First bad thing about the film: the editing. I can't name every single example, but there is one scene in particular in the beginning (the saloon scene, if you've scene it) where Clint gets off his horse and is crouched, and the next shot he is upright. Then, during a fistfight, he throws punches three feet away from his victim.
Second bad thing about the film: unrealistic violence. First of all, nobody bleeds. One Mexican bleeds at the end, that's about it. Secondly, I know Mortimer and TMWNN are the best shots in the west, but in one scene Mortimer blindly shoots at someone and barely clips him in the neck, as a warning shot. I thought it was cool when I saw it, but in retrospect, it's cheesy.
Third bad thing about this film: the dialog. It's just too unrealistic. It's entertaining, however, in a campy way. For example, listen to Clint Eastwood's quote: "Tell me, isn't sheriff supposed to be courageous, loyal and, above all, honest?" It made me smile, but cringe at the same time.
The rest of the film is great. There is great Western-looking sets. The characters are great and interesting, and the plot has many twists to it, so it keeps you intrigued.
Overall, I give this film a B.
Mission: Impossible III (2006)
Fantastic Action Movie
Along with Bad Boys II and M:i-2, this movie is one of the greatest action movies of the millennium. The problem with most new films is their level of complexity. For example, V for Vendetta left you thinking if terrorism is right or not. And that's great. It's propaganda, really. Why not send a message to kids via their favorite form of entertainment- an action movie? That's all good and all, but Mission Impossible is a die hard action movie (no pun intended). Instead of making you pondering like a woman, this film makes you go "whoa". I won't lie, it's straight up kicking ass. What action movies were made for.
The scenery is far from bland. You will travel to Berlin, to Shanghai, to Suburbia, and to the Vatican. The action is phenomenal. From jumping off buildings to dodging missiles to good ol' fashioned shootouts and fistfights, Tom Cruise's Ethan Hunt does every feat desired in an action flick, but done in new ways and shot in a unique fashion, due to director JJ Abram's contemporary style.
The entire film seems like "24" meets the TV show "Mission Impossible". The scenes in IMF (Impossible Mission Force) mirror 24's CTU (Counter-Terrorism Unit) and some of the combat seems like it was on 24 before; the way the missions are accomplished in this one feel like they are of the old show. The entire squad uses one another to get the job done. In the first and especially the second Mission Impossible, the entire mission seemed to be carried out by Ethan Hunt. The camera tricks Abram uses also feels like the old TV show.
Since I want to be spoiler free, I'll leave out some juicy details. But let me say a few words- the acting is fantastic, although some characters are complicated. Laurence Fishburne and his assistant really shine, and Tom Cruise pulls some tears. From his face, not mine. But nevertheless, a decent job done by the cast.
Then there are some bad issues. It gets pretty unrealistic. The opening scene is out of place (literally), and I don't know why. The opening credit's rendition of the theme song sucked, and the credits were really, really fast. Maybe two seconds per card. For some reason, we let immigrants work at IMF. There's an Australian (or something) working at the HQ, and a Chinese woman as a field agent.
Overall, I give this film an A.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
A film where the problem literally lies in the title
***MILD SPOILERS***
This movie is by no means a horror movie. Granted this film has supernatural themes in the middle, but essentially this is a tired courtroom thriller.
First of all, the main lawyer (the feminist, Ally McBeal-esquire biotch) is a tired stereotype. She's out to get the big boys and beat them at their own game! This stereotypical character is in a typical problem- she has been assigned to a nutcase defendant and has to find evidence to help prove him innocent or she won't get the job she wants. Sounds familiar? It should. The basic plot has been used in every courtroom TV drama.
But wait! This film would be boring without a twist! And a twist there is. Instead of having the defendant (played by Tom Wilkinson) be committing any old murder, he accidentally killed Emily Rose- a 19-year-old supposedly possessed by a demon- during an exorcism. The tale of the exorcism is laid out by testimonies in court.
About 90% of this film takes place in a courtroom. The other 10% takes place at Emily Rose's house and college. Had it been reversed- having the story unfold in order, and focusing on the exorcism- this film could have been interesting. Exorcisms were interesting a few decades ago when The Exorcist came out, it would be even more interesting to see how exorcisms have evolved since then in this film. But no! This film focuses on the lawyer (ironically enough named Erin) trying to get evidence to prove the priest's innocence.
The two biggest flaws are as follows.
The word "exorcist" (or any conjugation of it) demands your brain to think of The Exorcist. The Exorcist was a powerhouse beyond any other. Truly terrifying to most people. When the producers slapped on the word "exorcism" on this film, they were promising a horrific experience. They failed to execute a disturbing movie, and that is why I am left with a bad impression of it. It's just not scary.
The other flaw is that the movie treats the supernatural merely like a possibility. Maybe Emily was mentally ill, maybe Emily was possessed. Either way, the ending leaves you hanging and albeit confused and hypocritical.
But there are some good points. Great camera works and editing. Where the film is flawed in following the lawyer's hunt for evidence, you still DO want the lawyer to find the evidence and you still DO want to know the whole story. While the story of the exorcism is far from shocking, it still is fast paced and definitely not boring.
The film also has a mildly Christian message. You root for the preacher the whole thing, and the lawyer opens her eyes to the possibility of God. Perhaps she became a Christian... and the movie doesn't hide the fact it's spiritually- it blatantly displays it on the back of the box. This confuses me, because while it is spiritual, it has an unrated version...
I liked this movie, but if you don't like courtroom thrillers, you simply won't like this movie.
I give this movie a C.
The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson (2005)
Decent
This is not as good as Leno, Letterman, or Jimmy Kimmel. It's nice to see a foreigner on a late night show, but this show is the equivalant to Conan. Conan makes you grin sometimes, but are you ever in stitches like you are with other shows? The answer is no. I mean, he literally talked about nothing but soccer for 10 minutes- that's the entire monologue. This show is not THAT funny, but makes you chuckle a few times. Seeing Hollywood, Sports, and. Politics from another world's view is interesting but... it's just not that funny. I recommend Jay Leno, David Letterman, or Jimmy Kimmel instead.
I give this show a C.