Change Your Image
srbestafka
Reviews
The Family Stone (2005)
Response to Virgtrom's Comments
My wife and I completely agree. I honestly can say I rented it because the my wife wanted to see it and really was in no mood to see another laugh out loud, 'hilarious' (as the box states) romantic cookie cutter comedy....then 1/3 of the way into it I was engrossed and by the end thought it was a touching movie...not a classic but definitely a tear jerker/serious flick. Much better than I had expected and severely mismarketed.
How anyone can list this movie as a comedy is beyond me. They also should have played up the holiday vibe to the movie as well.
Bottom line is, I was impressed by the acting, and the feeling of a real family this movie gave me. This is from a person who hates Diane Keaton and Sarah Jessica Parker!
Elephant (2003)
People Disappoint me
Quite simply, I have read many of the posts here since seeing Elephant and the human race continues to disappoint me more and more each day.
Elephant was a near perfect execution of idea by Van Sant. The purpose was to show the normalcy of every day life in a high school. The calm, the simple interactions, the various problems many of the kids have and share.
The long tracking shots serve to build tension and create a sense of isolation that each of the kids feels...but many people on IMDb simply say they were "boring" or that the film had "no plot" and was "stupid"...ugh?!?! SPOILER: The purpose of showing the 2 kids entering the school early on in the film is not some shoddy attempt at foreshadowing...it is to show you through the overlapping timelines that this was going on while all of the other 'normal' daily activities were being carried out. It also serves to provide a tension for the rest of the flick...every long tracking shot now, every turn of the corner, you wonder and sit at the edge of your seat wondering if this person will be shot suddenly.
It is quiet and the acting is overly calm to show us how abruptly that can change...out of nowhere and without purpose. Van Sant wants us to see that no one can explain why these 2 did what they did, nor why they picked people they picked. It is the randomness that makes this so emotional.
SPOILER: I don't believe the gunmen are gay...they kiss simply because they have never kisses anyone before and knowing they are going to die wanted to experience that.
They introduce Benny late, after the massacre starts and he walks confidently into the fray because he is to represent the 'hero' type. He defiantly walks towards what is happening as though he can save the day, like some movie. When he arrives, he surveys the action and gets ready to act...the result is more what might happen in the real world, not the movies, and it is quite effective.
Van Sant also does not need to 'finish' the story because what happens after the shootings is not the purpose of this movie. It is to give us a snapshot into how quickly this can happen and without warning, like the Elephant in the living room. Resolution is not needed, because after-all, there never was any resolution in the world events this was loosely based on...we still don't know why these things happened and that is the point.
Again, it saddens me that this many people on IMDb simply classify this as slow, stupid, worst movie ever, etc. Are we not the most intelligent and well educated country in the world, then why are so many people unable to look beyond Michael Bay crap, this week's run of the mill Romantic comedy, rehashed old horror remakes and teen idol vehicles...when something really makes you think, people simply say it is stupid. Sad.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Very Disappointing
OK, this was an exercise in two movies...the first half being riveting, intense and genuinely well directed. The second half is rehashed Jurassic Park cheap setup thrills, incredible suspensions of disbelief and a very rushed and hacked on ending. I say this not because I did not know the ending...most of us do, but because it was even more abrupt and disorienting than the book and the original '54 film, almost tacked on.
What's worst are the many...and I mean many plot holes...I won't go into them but there are things that happen in this film that make no sense within the guidelines of the world Spielberg has created...rule #1 of films...you can bend the rules of the real world, but adhere to them within your own film and no one will buy it...he broke that rule.
As far as entertaining...yes it was, but after-wards I found myself very upset at how much of a missed opportunity this was. It was not bad but so filled with holes it annoyed me when thinking back over the film.
The effects are top notch. I mean top...the tripods themselves are so realistic I could swear they were models...they have none of the typical glossy CGI look to them, especially when shown in broad daylight with sun reflecting off of them. The only effects I did not enjoy were the tentacle arms in the basement scene (which incidentally lasts wayyyy too long, cops most of its choreography from Jurassic Park and is just plain silly)...as well as the aliens themselves. We did not need to see them at all and when we did they were a let down...but those tripods were insanely realistic.
All in all, a fun movie, but certainly not the triumph critics would have you believe. Not sure why but this and Land of the Dead are getting great reviews. Land of the Dead just plain stunk and this one is a major letdown yet critics adore them...hmmm, could they be trying to get more butts in the seats based on the long slump the box office has been in???
Land of the Dead (2005)
Letdown
I can honestly say I was not expecting too much. I do enjoy the Romero films for their innovation, social commentaries and gore/scares, despite their shortcomings and generally B movie qualities. With that said this movie no longer has the B movie feel. It feels much more like a professionally made movie, editing, soundtrack, visuals, etc...BUT...it lacks innovation, gore/scares and the social commentary this time around is so forced it gets annoying and interferes with logic.
Gore: once you've seen the tearing flesh effect you've seen it. No matter how many times it is shown and from different angles it is still the same and was done to better effect in the DOTD remake, as were the gunshot wounds and for that matter scares. This movie lacks any intensity barring a couple of cheap jump out scares. For a movie called Land, I never got the sense that there were more than the 6 or 7 on screen at anytime. One of the problems with focusing on the evolution of the zombies is you have now humanized them and are forced to follow them throughout to tell your story, which means they are no longer scary.
Logic: Spoiler ahead: why in this chaotic world would Cholo want $5m?? Where is he going to spend it? Why would Dennis Hopper shoot someone and then turn his back on them as if everything is OK knowing they are going to turn into a zombie? Why would that person not get up at that point? Why later does someone get up and he is shocked? Why would Riley and company watch in complete horror and disgust at the feeding frenzy, blow the place to hell and then suddenly empathize with the zombies and let some of them go because they are "just like us"?? With all of the fast vs slow zombie stuff, why does some are some very agile in this flick and in some scenes they are very lumbering? Which is it?
Bottom line is virtually nothing clicked, the epicness it needed was lacking and the commentary went too far...biggest problem though, what is scary about zombies who have now been painted as the heroes...the ones we follow throughout the film?Really disappointed, from a person that was expecting something pretty weak.
3/10, and only since there were 3 gore scenes that were somewhat fresh (whereas all of the rest of them were the same old crap done again and again) (good scenes were spinal cord zombie, split arm scene and hand in mouth scene, you'll know them when you see them). Also got a 3 for a few cool references to other zombie movies and horror flicks from the past.
Batman Begins (2005)
One of the best movies of the year
Quite simply I had built a lot of expectation for this and was afraid of a let down. Despite such high expectations, this film greatly exceeded them! This is a true film, taking time to develop characters, motivations, conflict, depth. Bale turns out to be the best Batman to date...but more importantly the best Bruce Wayne which is truly what makes Batman what he is. The entire cast is spot on, perhaps with the exception of Katie Holmes who is just too cutesy for the hard/idealist DA role, not bad but not as convincing as everyone around her. The action is spot on and well staged/shot. The effects are perfect as they are seamless in a Forrest Gump sort of way, they never draw your eye towards them, they simply enhance. Most of the film appeared to contain little CGI as well so right out of the shoot that synthetic CG look is absent, a good thing.
The treatment still requires suspension of disbelief because after all we are still talking about a man in a costume....but since this could never be realistic the best way to sum this up is that the film is extremely plausible within the world it has created and never once did I find myself in disbelief or mocking anything I saw on screen. Performances carefully came close to the that edge between believable and over the top, but with such nuanced actors they never went over that line, making them extremely powerful and controlled characters.
Spoiler: The hallucination scenes and use of fear as a weapon are very intense for children. Make no mistake. With all of the hoopla over how dark Star Wars was, it holds no candle to this one. Hallucinations consist of fear induced by gases...people see rotting flesh, maggots, demons, zombie like creatures, fire breathing horses, etc. As an adult these scenes were amongst the best but be forewarned that children under 13 should probably not see this as these scenes are meant to represent harsh nightmares.
Also the ending was somewhat expected knowing this is planned as a trilogy however it also was so perfectly done, I applaud how not "in your face" this scene was in terms of setting up the next one, contrary to how Spiderman 2 ended.
9/10, 1pt off for Katie Holmes and couple of one liners almost required in comic films (although none of them made me cringe like other movies).
Awesome.
Sin City (2005)
One of best films of last 10 years
I just got back from Sin City and have to say that this film easily exceeds most of its buzz. The biggest danger I thought it faced was too much novelty and once that wore off the film itself might be suspect...don't worry. It is not. The atmosphere is brilliantly setup in the opening "framed" Josh Hartnett story. It gets you used to the environment and the mood of the film. Then something abruptly happens that prepares you for what is to come. From there on in I was completely glued to the screen. I could not wait to see what was coming next...and not just visually, but in story, classic lines of dialog, etc. Very riveting. I will say that although this is extremely violent, since it is so stylized it does not appear as gory as many people are saying. Many of the acts themselves are very violent but in the B&W or slightly colored world of Sin City these acts are simply devices in the film, not gory, gratuitous violence. With that said, anyone under probably 16-18 should stay far away from this film...the subjects are way too strong. Bottom line though is this is a modern classic and something I am already eagerly awaiting on DVD...truly one of a kind and not since Pulp Fiction has a film so dramatically altered what we have come to accept in modern film. Although not for everyone and perhaps having a lesser broad appeal than Pulp Fiction, this film in my opinion will make that kind of impact on modern film, how movies are made and will undoubtedly spawn many imitators. 10/10!
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
Uhm?
OK, I enjoyed the first one for what it was despite it being a Paul Anderson movie...entertaining drivel but fun. This sequel is unbelievably bad...I guess it does hit its mark though as a game inspired film since so much of it is like playing a game...I would still recommend it to see some truly bad scenes, bad acting, editing, etc and to watch the DVD making of where everyone is trying to act excited and making comments about how great it is...also props to the comic relief dude from Friday...he had a couple of really funny lines. His comment on why didn't you tell me you were bit MF'er, I was hanging with you and everything was funny...as were his custom guns.
Death Wish 3 (1985)
What The?
OK, I just flipped channels and caught DW3. I watched it knowing it would be trash..BUT..as a person who has seen tons of films, this one stands up there as one of the most purely bad films I have ever seen...I'm not kidding. It is so bad you have to watch it, like a bad accident you can't turn away from. Sometimes these kinds of films work, IE, Troma movies...but watching Martin Balsam and Charles Bronson slum it up like this is painful....What's even funnier is I pulled up IMDb to see what other people said and it actually scores a 4.1/10??? I can't believe it made it past 1.5! Equally as funny is this is not even the pinnacle of this series...somehow this garbage warranted part 4 and 5? And to top it all off, some dude's comments on here referenced this as the best of the series and his favorite film of all time??? Statements like that scare me about this world!
Day of the Dead (1985)
Couple of points.
I have to say I am in the middle on this one. I always liked this one but never to level of the original DOTD or even the new DOTD. With that said I saw it again recently and it is pretty basist horror. Stripped down cast, all the money in the gore, etc. I watch movies like this to be scared or get the thrill of the gore/effects...unlike newer crap like the TCM remake which shows nothing and does not scare.
I also agree with people that the original script idea sounded awesome and it's a shame that it was never made.
Also, if this movie was supposed to represent the last of humanity, how is it that they have electricity (ok, maybe generators, although we do see them scowering for gas when they are outside so that doesn't quite hold up) and how is it they have running water? Water fountains? Some silly stuff really but then again it was at least entertaining.
I'm up for a 4th one...I could even go for him rehashing his original Day script and revising it.
Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie's Island Adventure (2003)
uhm?
I knew this would be one of the worst movies I could have imagined...but in just 20 short minutes it actually exceeded my low expections by being possibly THE worst movie I have ever seen.
I have already wasted too much time typing about it...trust me, it sucks.
Signs (2002)
One of the best Movies of the Year.
I just got back from Signs and checked out some of the other readers' comments...I cannot believe the negative things people are saying about this movie! First off, this is one of the few movies I have seen that does not spoil the film in the trailers! Thank you! It is much different than you may think based on the trailers, however that is its strength. The performances are excellent and the limited use of special effects is powerful...kind of like in Forrest Gump where you were aware that what you were watching was an effect, however it was seemlessly integrated into the story...in other words...don't expect Independence Day effects, the ones in Signs are much more subtle and used to perfection. The tension in this movie continually builds throughout the film and it reminded me alot of Hitchcock films. The reactions of the characters are much more akin to how a normal person would reacte in these circumstances, not the de-sensitized, one liner spewing reactions we get from most Holloywood movies.
It is hard to go into much detail without spoiling, so I will leave it at this: this is an awesome movie, albeit one which will likely be underappreciated by most of the movie going public...it's a shame, because it is a true work of excellence.
Donnie Darko (2001)
Very Compelling Film, Under-marketed
I finally got to see this last night. Living in Raleigh, NC basically means any movie that is cool, interesting or though provoking will never be released here...so when I read about this, then heard it wasn't coming here I knew this was something I would have to see. Picked it up on DVD last night and was blown away. This is another film in the Lynch, Fincher, PT Anderson vein. It will require multiple viewings to fully appreciate it but despite having seen it just once I can honestly say this film is an incredible work. The direction reminds me of PT Anderson which of course reminds me of older Altman and Scorcese...long tracking shots sync'd to music just so. The images are strange (ie, the rabbit and some of the sky shots)...and the pacing is Kubrick (title cards telling you the days of the month that progressively decrease in their duration: ie, Oct 2 followed by Oct 15 or something to that effect, then later it is like Oct 29, 6pm, Oct 29 8pm)...The advertising for this was almost as bad as Vanilla Sky's love story/Peter Gabriel crap...they portrayed this film as a horror movie about a giant rabbit. It is not. It is so much more meaningful touching on horror, sci fi, and themes explored in American Beauty. I had a small problem with Patrick Swayze as the self help guru. Since elements of the film reminded me of PT Anderson, Magnolia's Tom Cruise character came to mind everytime I saw Patrick trying to do his self help schtick. Thankfully he is such a minor character that this does not detract from the overall film. I am off to watch it again now with the director's commentary. FYI, for an added treat go to the website and take a head trip inside Donnie's mind...one of the coolest sites I have ever been on.