Change Your Image
clay_animator
Reviews
Panic Room (2002)
Terrible screenplay
Most of the people involved in this film did a fine job, but none of that could save this awful screenplay. The entire plot is full of these little moments where the story would have ended if the character thought for a second or acted like a rational human being.
The film starts with our villains breaking in and our protagonists hiding in the titular panic room. The burglars need money out of the safe in the panic room it can't get it while it's occupied. Now, the goals of all of these characters aren't really in conflict. The burglars aren't interested in harming anyone and Jodie Foster would probably be more than happy to let them have the contents of the safe especially since she didn't even know it was there. So it would make sense for the burglars to at least try to explain why they broke in, but instead they give some cryptic answer and try to break in to the panic room.
Later in the film, the burglars try to smoke the main characters out with some propane. This at least sounds like a plan that makes sense, but the way our heroes escape this is so stupid and so implausible that it makes your brain hurt. After searching the supplies for like 10 seconds and not finding any gas masks, which seems like it should be standard for a panic room, Jodie Foster decides to light the propane on fire. If I were to make a list of ways I would deal with a room filling with propane, burning it would rank somewhere below trying to hold my breath for six hours. What's worse, is this actually works without murdering everyone like it would have in the real world.
The movies full of little moments like this. There's no real tension because the villains are idiots and a normal person could have waited it out in that room no problem. The only reason there's any conflict is because Jodie Foster is also an idiot.
Hugo (2011)
Got nomination by pandering to film lovers
There's a lot to like about Hugo, but there's also a huge glaring flaw that a lot of people overlook. First the good: each shot of this movie is gorgeous and the cinematographer did a really good job creating this world. The cast is a lot of fun and the scenes paying homage to film's history are really well done and incredibly moving. But they are also this film's main problem. The first half of this movie is about a boy named Hugo who is an orphan living in a train station. He spends his days winding clocks and trying to finish an automaton that he and his father had worked on before his father died. Most of this part of the movie is a mystery as Hugo tries to figure out how to finish the machine and how these different figures in his life are related. This plot is really interesting and engaging, which is why it's promptly dropped in the middle of the movie for a completely different story. Once Hugo discovers that this grumpy man who runs a toy store in the train station is, in fact, George Melies, one the great pioneers in early cinema, the mystery vanishes and the movie becomes How George got his Groove Back. Hugo is now a side character in his own movie and anyone who had any interest in the mystery is given a really slap-dash answer. This does lead to some beautiful and moving scenes for anyone who loves film, but these scenes have virtually nothing to do with Hugo or his father.
Unknown (2011)
It's a Liam Neeson Movie
It's really hard for me to dislike a Liam Neeson movie. He has an incredible knack for raising an otherwise crappy movie to a fairly enjoyable movie. This is definitely the case with this movie.
Unknown doesn't really have a lot else going for it. It's one of those thrillers that you know has some twist that they're just waiting to reveal, and you know these movies only use about four different twists so it's pretty easy to figure it out. And even though you already sort of know the plot, it's really hard to follow. You'll find yourself asking what's going on constantly because it's not always clear what the characters are trying to do or why they're trying to do it. I know that that's sort of to be expected in a thriller, but not when you're trying to figure out why the guy trying to unravel the mystery is making a phone call.
Even after you figure out what's going on, you realize that the whole plot is full of holes. There's a scene at the end where Liam Neeson is fighting an assassin and gets hit on the head thus restoring his memories(because that's how concussions work, right?). The big twists explained earlier is that Liam Neeson was actually a spy trying to kill a scientist so he can steal his formula for crops that can grow anywhere(this plot point has it's own set of holes, that I don't need to address here). So, Liam Neeson got his memories back and he uses it to remember his assassin training to kill the assassin that was sent in to replace him. But if Liam Neeson got his memories back, wouldn't he go back to a state of wanting to kill the scientist? Wouldn't he remember why he was going to kill him in the first place? I can accept a shoddy story for some movies, but not a thriller that's based around a mystery. It needs to make sense, but this one just doesn't.
But, at least it looks nice and of course, it has Liam Neeson
Tron: Legacy (2010)
If you liked the original, then you'll enjoy this
I should probably start by saying that the Original Tron is one of my all time favorite movies. I have a top six that shuffle around a little bit but always remain at the top and Tron is one those. Basically, if you were to say that Tron is my favorite movie, I couldn't call you a liar. That being said, I was nervous about this movie. I was afraid that this movie wouldn't be very good and would even ruin my opinion of the original.
Fortunately, this movie was not a disappointment. Quite the contrary.
First, I need to get the one universal complaint out of the way: the story. This movie has a pretty weak story and there are a few plot-holes. One that kept bugging me throughout the movie was the Kevin Flynn's age. Now, I realize that Jeff Bridges has gotten older and that they can't use that digital face for all the shots(it was pretty obvious in the opening scene), but it doesn't make sense to the story why he is that old. Do cells decay in the digital world? If so, and if a millisecond represents 8 hours, then shouldn't he be a lot older, or even dead? Here's a good warning. Don't try to think about how this story would work based on how computers actually work. You're just going to get confused. Another issue with the story is that you never really believe anyone is dead. Tron was mentioned near the beginning, but killed off in a flashback. Now, be honest. Do you really think that the characters WHOSE NAME IS IN THE TITLE is dead? Kevin Flynn also died at the end of the movie in a moment of self sacrifice. Do any of you really believe he's gone? Cops can recreate files that have been deleted and written over several times. Someone like Sam can definitely get his dad back. Besides, Disney wanted to make a trilogy of these. Kevin Flynn isn't dead.
So the story is not anything to write home about, but it wasn't in the first movie either. What people loved about this first movie is exactly why this one is so good: the visuals. This movie is beautiful. The sets, the costumes, the vehicles. It all works. The action sequences were also impressive. Today, action has sort of broken into two groups: stylistic and gritty realism. I tend to prefer stylistic because I am so tired of seeing shaky cameras in movies. Seriously filmmakers. It's called a tripod, use it. This movie has several great action sequences and it all looks impressive with that neon on black ascetic.
Here's basically how this movie's audience is going to break down. Think about Avatar. This movie has pretty much the same strengths and failures of that movie. The visuals are great, but the story not so much. If you didn't like Avatar, it was because of the weak story and if you liked it, it was because of the visuals. I predict that reactions to Tron Legacy will be similar. If you're undecided on whether you want to see it, think about Avatar.
Although, comparing this too Avatar does bring up one other flaw. The 3D is a little lackluster. Tron Legacy was actually filmed in 3D(mostly) so it's already a step above movies like Alice in Wonderland in the 3D. But I don't feel like it was utilized very well. There were times when I couldn't tell that it was in 3D and I had to take off my glasses just to see if it was in fact 3D. Now, the stuff in the real world was shot and presented in 2D, but I'm not talking about that. I did think it was a little lazy that only part of the movie was shot in 3D, but this did lead to an amazing bit when Sam was zapped into the grid. It was sort of like the scene in Wizard of Oz when Dorothy opened the door and stepped into Oz at which point the movie became color. That use of the 3D worked but besides that, I feel like it could have been utilized a bit better.
I feel like I'm fixating on the negative aspects, but believe me, this is an excellent film. One final note. The score by Daft Punk is awesome.
Interstate 60: Episodes of the Road (2002)
Does this movie suck? Most assuredly.
Alright, I have a lot to say about this movie. In short, I didn't like it.
This movie is childish while at the same time not being for kids. There is language, occasionally, and a scene where a woman talks about sex, a lot. These didn't really need to be there and probably could have been cut. It probably would have been a good idea, because this movie talks down to it's audience. It uses a lot of clichéd ideas from other movies about metaphysics or finding yourself, but it spends a great deal of time sitting there and explaining it to you. Seriously, the bulk of this movie is just people talking about what's going on in the movie.
There are a few scenes that work. The court scene, for example, was good, although I wish it were later in the movie since we had just seen the businessman. Most of the scenes sucked, though, especially the end. I know that when you have a "it's just a dream" story, you need to bring something from the dream into the real world so the audience won't feel cheated, but that was just over kill. And for the record, I saw the red club when he was flipping through the deck the first time.
I could complain about this movie for hours. It's a movie that tries to be like Alice in Wonderland or The Phantom Tollbooth, but it isn't. It handles these topics very clumsily and most of it is just a chore to sit through.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010)
It really comes down to one issue.
For the most part, this was a pretty good movie. The atmosphere was good, there are some really good scenes at the beginning and the end including a great piece of animation for the story of the deathly hallows.
The only real issue was the pacing, and it was a big one. The middle of this movie slows to a crawl as the characters spend a great deal of time doing pretty much nothing.
I'm reasonably convinced that there is no artistic reason why Deathly Hallows needed to be two movies. They've converted longer Harry Potter books into movies just fine. The fact of the matter is, this was done so the studio can sell you two tickets and I think the actual movie suffers as a result.
But of course, if you're a fan of the series, then you've seen this movie already. But for the rest of you, this is probably the weakest in the series, second two the Prisoner of Azkaban which is a movie that doesn't really work for no clear reason.
They Call Me Macho Woman! (1989)
This movie is dumb but not terrible.
It's hard for me to give this movie a bad review. Yes, almost every aspect of the movie was done poorly. The story is dumb, the cinematography is crappy, the chases don't make any sense, and the acting is just terrible.
But despite all of this, the movie is just incredibly entertaining. Every time you see a boom mic, or a stunt double that is clearly a forty year old man and not the female lead, your soul smiles a little bit inside.
I would say that this is a better bad movie than the Rocky Horror Picture Show. While RHPS kinda drags in the third act, this movie remains entertaining throughout.
Don't go in expecting a masterpiece or even competence and you're in for a good time.
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004)
Maybe I'm a bit biased
First things first, I did not actually finish this movie and in fact I didn't watch most of it. I got to the 44 minute mark and had to turn it off. This movie really fails on two completely different levels. It fails as a documentary and it fails as a musing on the workings of the world.
The bulk of this movie is made up of interviews with various "figures." The movie doesn't explain who these people are, but they are presented as scientists. They mostly just sit around and say soundbites about the wonders of nature. They don't really say anything meaningful and most of it just sounds like something you might hear in a high school graduation speech. The movie does explore quantum mechanical and other concepts, but it does it with these admittedly nice animations and scenes. That's fine, but it means that these interviews you took are almost entirely pointless and just serve to pad out the movie.
Now I spent about two weeks last year entirely dedicated to studying quantum mechanics for this thing at my school. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I would say I know a bit more about the topic than the average joe. Also, I was eating Chinese while watching this and my fortune cookie said I had "Inexhaustible Wisdom and Power," so I probably know a thing or two about what they are talking about. Quantum mechanics does put the observer in a key place, but it sort of ruins the movie's concept of us as this awesome world changing force when you realize that a small electron detector can also be an observer.
I spent the majority calling bs on the films various claims. There is no record of that story about Columbus's ships. I feel like if that were true, this problem would become apparent more frequently as various technological advances pushes our understanding of what is possible. Why doesn't this ever happen while we're watching movies? I don't believe that a giant ape can exist, but I'm able to enjoy King Kong just fine.
Alright, this review is going on way too long. Bottom line, don't see this movie. Some parts are nice, but the bulk of it is talking heads and pseudo-science.
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
what the what?
I've heard it said somewhere that David Lynch doesn't really write stories as much as he write scenes. He admitted to thinking up scenes he thought would be cool and then figuring out how they would fit in later.
This movie is an extraordinarily good example of that. I can accept that the scenes don't really have much to do with each other, but they are presented in a way that makes it seem as though they do. The scene at the silencio, I know they went there to ultimately get the box, but that was like a five minutes scene. Why did we watch that show? What purpose did it serve? While I was watching it, I kept thinking back to Donnie Darko. I didn't leave that movie understanding everything that happened, but I left feeling like there was a deeper meaning that I didn't realize yet. I didn't get that feeling while I was watching Mulholland Drive. I felt like I had just watched stuff happen for two and a half hours. Perhaps each scene was meant to have a deeper meaning. If Lynch writes in scenes and not movies, that's entirely possible. But please, don't bother trying to fit it into a story like these events are in some way related. The Diner Face Nightmare scene near the beginning of the film was a decent scene in it's own right. But I have a problem when the movie insists on saying that the scene is in some way related to everything else happening in the movie.
Someone else on here compared it to a puzzle with missing pieces, I say it's about 5 different puzzles mixed together with half of the pieces missing.
Final Destination (2000)
Might keep you entertained for an afternoon, but at the stupidity at the characters who drive the plot
I was lying in my room bored out of my mind. The weather outside was a bit crappy and I decided to see what movies I could stream from Netflix. Final Destination was on my page, so I decided to watch that.
So, the movie starts out with a French class on a plane. One kid "sees" the plane blow up, and is thrown off of the plane for inciting panic. Several other students leave with him, including one girl who left simply because she believed him. In the terminal, they watch as the plane does explode. It's interesting thinking about this in a post-911 world. The kids are interviewed about the event and then let go after about 3 hours. They know that the kid was yelling about the plane exploding, so why didn't they hold him for longer. If that had happened now, that kid would have been detained for days before they determined he was innocent, if they ever did that at all. What follows seems like a typical slasher movie, just without an actual slasher. The antagonist is supposed to be an abstract concept like fate or death, but it's really just a shadowy Michael Myers or Jason.
Now seems like a good time to talk about the characters. They suck. Throughout the beginning of the movie, the survivors are giving the psychic kid(I have a hard time paying attention to names in movies) a hard time about predicting the explosion. I don't have much experience with death, but does this make any sense? I would expect them to be grieved, maybe even happy to be alive, but why would you target the guy that saved you? It doesn't make sense. There is also the girl who got off the plane because she believed him. She talks to him about believing him, and even believes him when the first guy died. However, after they establish that it wasn't a suicide, something that everyone else was saying, she suddenly stops believing him. Why? He made a prediction of his death, said it wasn't a suicide, this was confirmed, so you stop believing him? Idiot.
I can go on forever about the crappy characters in this movie. The stupid motives for driving like an idiot, the complete lack of any valid emotion after one of your friends is decapitated, and the convoluted cabin near death scene that occurred right before the main character decides that it shouldn't have.
If you're bored, you might get a kick out of watching it for the shear stupidity. But if you are expecting an interesting supernatural thriller, skip this one like it's death was just prevented.