madmaxmedia Reviews

Fantastic Four (2015)

Fantastic Four out of Ten

[4/10 · 31 October 2015]

Wow, a lot of problems with this movie. Since this is approximately half of a decent superhero movie, I will give it 4 out of 10. I'm not going to bother with a plot synopsis since I don't remember most of the details any more (even though I just watched the movie), and don't want to bother looking them up.

Considering this is an origin story, none of the characters are well-developed at all, even the one given the most background and screen time (Reed Richards, the stretchy guy.) Most of the characters come across as rather pouty and petulant. I think the characters had potential but spend most of the movie reacting to everyone/everything around them, rather than doing/choosing anything on their own (individually or collectively as a group), and as a result seem undeverdeveoped and not very well characterized. At one point Reed Richards disappears for a year, we never actually learn what he is doing during that time. Weird.

The most egregious error is that so much time is (ineffectually) spent during the build-up, there is no time to establish the antagonist, and instead of a satisfying finally third of the movie we get a really quick battle scene to end the movie. I have read about problems between the director and the studio, but given how weak the final movie was I doubt a much better version could have been assembled during editing.

Many have criticized the movie as being too dark in tone. I actually don't mind the darker tone of the movie at all, in fact a different direction gives a superhero movie new possibilities and directions to explore. Too bad none of them were realized.

Igor (2008)

Twisted fun (more fun than most kid's movies), and just a little coco-nutty!

[7/10 · 21 September 2008]

I took my daughters (7 and 3) to see this movie today, knowing absolutely nothing other than seeing about 5 seconds of a TV commercial. I am normally relatively picky about what my kids see, but decided to join a friend who was going anyway. Plus my daughter loves Tim Burton, and this was at least stylistically similar.

I thought this movie had a cool twisted sense of humor, and much more original than the typical warmed over rehashes we normally get from a lower-budget CGI flick. And guess what- not a single fart joke! That alone means it meets my very low expectations for what passes as children's entertainment these days. Unofortunately, I think it is a little too off- kilter for most, thus the small marketing budget as well.

A nice little take on the classic Shelley Frankenstein tale. Not sure why the accusations of Nightmare Before Christmas rip-off, Frankenstein was obviously the source material for this story. Which is a very good thing in my opinion. Me and my daughters liked it a lot.

Minnie and Moskowitz (1971)

It's okay to be crazy.

[8/10 · 4 May 2008]

Life is crazy. You're crazy, I'm crazy, we're all crazy. We're all a little bit Minnie, and a little bit Moskowitz. Sometimes it does seem best to be sensible...but then what might you be missing out on?

You gotta be you. You don't have to park cars and semi-randomly yell at people, but you can't hide yourself behind a veil (or dark sunglasses) and pretend and act like everything is okay. And sometimes, you really do have to throw caution to the wind, because why else are you alive?

I'm not going to 'rate' this love compared to Cassavetes' other movies, because they are all absolutely 100% unique works and each their own individual act of expression and exploration of our lives. In that sense they are all great, and comparisons are odious. For sure, this movie has that one crazy, sometimes maddening, but ultimately wonderful and freeing quality that all his movies have- you never know what's going to happen next, and you never know what the characters are going to think, do, or feel next. Neither do the characters themselves- and do we really want to live our lives any other way? Unlike Moskowitz, you can have a great job and judiciously sock away money into your IRA, but still live the life of an adventurer inside- in your feelings, your spirit, and your very experience of life. Yeah, we can have it both ways, that's what Cassavetes shows us. Thank God somebody did.

Killer of Sheep (1978)

A piece of humanity

[9/10 · 13 April 2008]

It's not about blacks, it's not even necessarily about the poor, it's a piece of humanity through the eyes of a sensitive filmmaker, and as such is a subtle and delicate thing. Unfortunately, all the 'hooplah' (Library of Congress, student film, etc.) about the movie I think basically buries the beauty of this movie for many viewers.

The beauty of this movie are in the subtle details that Burnett catches. The film has been described as being 'documentary' in style, but to call it that misses the deeper beauty of many of the scenes. To call it a 'slice of life' may be a bit more accurate, but even that doesn't sit well with me- it implies a sort of haphazard, random, cutesy story meant to seem ordinary but 'mean' more, or end up wrapping itself around a common Hollywood plot and message (love conquers all, try hard and don't give up, etc.) This movie is more like a wonderfully telling and sensitive and subtle piece of poetry. Without a significant plot line, all there may be are details, but the devil is in the details. Details captured from real life, not clumsy metaphors to assigned like a color-by-number picture.

I don't like giving ratings, especially too soon after I see a movie. But I'll rate it a 9 for now, and perhaps revise later (though I doubt I will ever lower my score.) A movie like this can be challenging to watch. There's no parts to piece together or 'figure out', there are no big character arcs or big dramatic moments. I'll leave it to each own's opinion whether this is a good or bad thing, but all the hyperbole aside, in my opinion this is a great movie.

Edmond (2005)

Man Flailing in the Darkness

[8/10 · 18 December 2007]

Edmond is contrived and difficult to watch. The main character is a psychotic cipher we have absolutely no sympathy for, yet I think this is what Mamet intended. If viewed in this context, some clarity perhaps emerges from this extremely murky movie.

Edmond is a symbol for man's inadequacy to deal with the world. We're all sound and fury ultimately meaning nothing. We feel empty because we're confused and clueless. I draw this inference from the fact that Mamet wrote this apparently after going through a difficult divorce. But instead of merely railing against the world itself, Mamet took a step back and reflects on his own role in his confusion and pain.

That's the angle in which the movie feels relevant and interesting to me. Its not about emptiness and the search for meaning, in this film that void is only a symptom of man's utter lack of understanding about the world or himself. Not only that, but perhaps a symptom of an ultimately unsolvable problem. Unless you count speculating about aliens and dog overlords before snuggling in bed with a fellow prison inmate as a genuine solution. Edmond is so out of touch with reality and himself that this final outcome actually works for him. I imagine Mamet went through an extremely difficult divorce, and he has in my opinion constructively poured those emotions (and thoughts) into this play.

I don't think we are supposed to sympathize with Edmond, that would have far too easy for an experienced playwright like Mamet (although perhaps we can pity Edmond.) What we see on screen is completely something else. This movie doesn't ultimately tell us some greater truth as is does deny that we are capable of understanding or grasping it, or that truth even exists. We're like the thousand monkeys banging typewriter keys and somehow squeezing out a few lines of Shakespeare, only we're worse because we actually think it means something. We don't hesitate to objectify and victimize others to soothe our own egos, and we get off on violence while mistaking it for clarity and empowerment. We revel in our basest instincts while claiming to be searching for truth and humanity and 'meaning'. Even religion is not spared here, a desperate but pathetic attempt by Edmond to wash himself of his sins. Edmond is a caricature, yet if you look at the world around you, the real world is full of similar examples. We know about as little about why the world is the way it is and why people are the way they are as Edmond understands what happens to him on his night on the town.

It's hard to imagine a real person like Edmond, but its easy to pick out and recognize his individual gaffs in our society. He's not an Everyman so much as he represents a collection of all our failings. I generally steer away from movies and interpretations of movies that abstract real life- 'this character represent innocence, that color represents evil', etc. But this one is interesting- its like laughing at (or becoming infuriated by) a fool, then finally realizing the fool really is us.

This movie is dry like many of Mamet's works, yet is also uncharacteristically visceral and worth consideration. It does give me food for further thought, so I consider this film worth watching. It's dark, but feels almost cathartic in retrospect. There ain't no answer- that's the answer, and at least the movie gives a sense of finality in that respect. Most of the reviews and comments on this movie have been very different, so I welcome any comments/criticisms to my review.

300 (2006)

A 2-hour video game cutscene

[5/10 · 3 December 2007]

The best way I can describe this movie without being too judgmental is that it is a super- pumped up, technically brilliant video game cutscene extended to 2 hours in length.

I guess my judgment seeps through there, but it seems everyone has opinions of this movie one way or the other. Fans of the movie say that if you like fruity, unintelligible foreign independent movies made by acne-ridden emo art students then this is not for you. Critics of the movie say that if you have the mental capacity and emotional maturity of a 5-year old and love monster trucks then this is the perfect movie for you. Either way there's a lot of not-too-subtle sniping going around.

All I will say as the movie is really as extreme as the opinions seem to indicate. There's really no attempt at any sort of emotional depth, or connection to reality or actual humanity in this movie, so don't bother looking for it. Whether this is good or bad is up to the viewer to decide. If you know what it is going in, then it can be an enjoyable ride. (after all I never said video game cutscenes aren't entertaining.)

Happy Feet (2006)

Great imaginative feature from George Miller

[8/10 · 2 January 2007]

This is a great animated feature from George Miller, and displays the same energy and imagination as in his 2 BABE movies. I had read some comments about the 'environmentalist angle' and suitability for younger children, and completely disagree with these comments. My 5 year old daughter chose this movie over CHARLOTTE'S WEB, and I'm glad she did (and I'm glad I took her anyways despite the comments.) Wonderful story, first and foremost centered on Mumbles the dancing penguin (never thought I'd write that.) There's a pretty obvious story about following your heart, but it's done really well and doesn't feel by-the-numbers at all. Some have derided the environmentalist subplot, but I really don't agree. This is not about electric cars, global warming, or deforestation, it's about a dancing penguin that lives among singing penguins. It's a local story about what is happening to the penguin herd, and how the protagonist sets off to try to set things right after being unfairly blamed for the problem.

The resolution of the story struck me as being very whimsical as in the BABE movies (I mean that in a good way.) With all the hoopla about environmental issues, I think there is a tendency to bring outside baggage into the movie. Pro-environmentalists might see the movie as not providing any 'answers' or not being strong enough, whereas as others might ironically see the movie as being overtly pro-environmental. I guess this is understandable, but I personally loved the story.

What is more impressive than just the plot, is how everything is presented in the movie. George Miller and the other writers have taken many of the natural behaviors of the Emperor penguins (their breeding song, migratory behavior, caring for eggs) and dramatized them for the story. Yes, they are of course anthropomorphizing the penguins, but it is done in a particularly creative and inspired way that minimizes the Disney cuteness factor. There's a feeling of the harshness of the elements that is lacking in otherwise pretty good movies like BROTHER BEAR.

Some people have commented on the suitability of the movie for younger children. There is nothing overtly sexual at all in the movie. The movie shows penguins singing their 'heartsongs' to try to attract a mate. I can perhaps see how some scenes might be construed as 'sexist', but the scenes worked for me because, well, that's what Emperor penguins do. And ultimately the movie's main message on this is about finding your soul-mate by finding your kindred heartsong. Anything else is really just played for laughs.

Finally, the animation is absolutely top notch. Some scenes are very close to photo-realistic. More importantly, the art direction is great throughout. I loved the wide shots showing the entire penguin herd. And of course, great dance numbers. Music plays a large role in this movie, and they do a great job of characterizing the penguins that are otherwise not very physically expressive- the penguins are drawn pretty realistically, so they don't have too much in the way of facial expressions.

Speaking of characterization, the voice characterizations are great as well (as was also the case in BABE PIG IN THE CITY). Very effective and entertaining, without getting too overly cute (Robin Williams is borderline but is otherwise very funny.)

Superman Returns (2006)

I really, really wanted to like (even love) this movie.

[5/10 · 17 July 2006]

I really liked many things ABOUT Superman Returns. I think Singer and writers definitely had their heart in the right place with their whole approach to re-starting/continuing the franchise. I loved the old-school feel (including using the old score.) I loved that they didn't make Superman edgy, neurotic, or otherwise post-modern. I loved the '5 years after' premise of the movie, and how they were able to humanize Superman and give his character some great dramatic story material (hard to do with a practically invincible superhero!)

Unfortunately, I didn't enjoy the actual movie so much. I thought it dragged and didn't really go anywhere, and ultimately failed to deliver on its great potential. After half an hour I was excited, after 2 hours I was wondering if anything significant would really happen. Superman loves Lois. Lois loves Superman. The boyfriend loves Lois. Clark is shy and clumsy. All the elements are in check, ready to go. But then nothing really happens. No one commits to anything or really acts, it felt like all set up and no resolution. Luthor's evil plot was pretty good, but the ending felt anti-climactic to me. I think there were so big missed opportunities that I won't go into since it would involve spoilers.

It felt like Singer wanted to set up a trilogy, so used this movie to 'set the stage'. Except 2 and a half hours of stage-setting is a really long time. More judicious editing would have helped here- I think this was a 2-hour movie max. But regardless of the length, I'd much rather have 1 or 2 great movies, than 3 so-so ones.

The cast is good on the whole. I liked Brandon Routh, but started getting put off by the underacting thing near the end. But I'd like to see him continue the role. I thought Kate Bosworth was fine, but wonder about the script in regards to Lois. She seemed to change from being bold and independent (in earlier movies) to flighty and contrary. Many people seemed to dislike Bosworth, but I am not sure if it is her shortcoming or the script's. Spacey and Posey were very solid, as expected.

There were some really great moments in the movie- when Superman saves the Shuttle and the whole world welcomes him back, and also what happens when Luthor faces Superman. And if they make a sequel, I will watch it in the theater. But while I loved what they tried to do with Superman Returns, unfortunately the actual movie was a mixed experience for me.

Armageddon (1998)

My Ultimate Guilty Pleasure- how do you assign a rating to that?

[8/10 · 24 April 2006]

This movie is my ultimate guilty pleasure. It's inane, manipulative, has hyperactive cutting, a ton of glaring inaccuracies (pointless to even discuss or debate), and probably 29 other glaring faults. And why in every dramatic slow-mo emo shot are there 3 helicopters flying in unison overhead? What's the point of having 3 helicopters flying really close together? Who cares! It looks cool. If one day I am having a heartfelt talk with my daughter, I hope there are 3 helicopters flying overhead to really 'bring it home' (and Aerosmith performing in the background.)

Despite it all, I still love watching this movie. Anytime it is on TV I can watch it 'til the end. Bruce Willis does a great job doing his Bruce Willis 'thing' (smart alecky tough guy), and the supporting cast is really great. Steve Buschemi in particular gets the best lines. An awesome assortment of ragtag castoffs (spitting funny one-liners) must save the world- who would have thunk it?

I think Armageddon was actually conceived by suits in a studio office (no really, I read that in a magazine), which is I guess another strike against it. Yet only a bunch of suits could come up with a 'high concept' like this (so high it's basically a parody by itself.) And only a director like Michael Bay could make it. He's far more suited to these types of movies, rather than big historical epics like PEARL HARBOR (which I really, really disliked.)

I read somewhere once that this movie is as close as Hollywood gets to pure cinema, in that it is basically completely divorced from reality of any kind. Is that good or bad? I don't know. I do think if you're going to ditch convention and any semblance to reality, you may as well go all the way. It's better than having something that is a confused mess that tries to be different things (Pearl Harbor.) There will be no 'it could really happen!' here.

So after all this, believe it or not I am going to give this movie a big fat whopping 8. Why? Because IMO it unabashedly succeeds at what it tries to set out to be, whatever that is. That makes no sense, since I am basically saying by all logical accounts this movie may actually suck, yet I am giving it a 8. But hey I loved this movie.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

Incredibly Funny and Witty

[8/10 · 6 February 2006]

Great cast. Kilmer and Downey Jr. deliver their hilarious punchlines with great timing and 'pitch'. There are so many funny moments in this film, mostly dialogue-driven. I'll settle for the cliché 'razor-sharp wit', but Shane Black spends the entire movie making fun of clichés like that. Downey also 'narrates' the movie, and does a great job with that as well.

The 2 male leads were excellent, non-cookie-cutter characters, especially 'Gay Perry'. Kilmer's best lines arise from his character's very self-conscious nature, whereas Downey best moments arise out of his character's naiveté about LA and crime in general (ironic considering he's a thief from NY...) I think that's why the humor was so fresh- if they had both been wise-cracking know-it-alls it might have run thin. The female lead was also pretty good, but could've been better. She was a great idea for a character, but not nearly as well developed as the other 2.

The plot is so-so, but starts to wear itself out with all the twists. I guess the various twists and turns fit the whole 'Johnny Gossamer' pulp theme, but do little more than that- fulfill a role. It's like it could've ended up being a very smart, funny, AND great movie, but it ended up 'just' being very smart and funny (that's still more than what you normally get though...) The movie also does a great job of skewering/parodying the entertainment capital of the world, starting when Downey in a laconic and anti-climactic manner tells the audience, "Welcome to LA...welcome to the party." If the plot line about Downey crashing a casting call sounds unrealistic to you, the way it plays out is actually pretty good (but I can't give away a spoiler!) It's more or less just a clever conceit to throw Downey and Kilmer together anyways.

Humor and acting get an absolute 10 out of me, the plot gets a 6 or 7, I'll say that averages out to about an 8.5 out of 10, which I'll round up to a 9.

The Replacement Killers (1998)

They needed Replacement Writers

[5/10 · 3 January 2006]

Bigger budget and better production values than the HK flicks it parrots, but ironically this film ends up feeling cheaper and lower-grade due to the utterly bland, unoriginal plot. If they made Mia Sorvino a hooker with a heart of gold to go along with CYF's killer with a conscience, then at least it would have been a unique combination of 2 totally recycled movie stereotypes.

I wish they had spent even an ounce of effort on crafting a somewhat compelling setup/ plot, as it would have likely redeemed the movie as a slick, enjoyable actioner (which is exactly what I wanted to see.) I don't need life-changing character moments or Oscar-worthy roles, but throw me something! The worst part is that the leads are good- CYF and Sorvino do their best with what they've got, and a romantic relationship could have helped even more. The movie is also pretty short, but short and to the point is fine, as long as there is a pulse behind it all. I just want something that's just a bit more substantial than the CGI cut scenes from a video game. Have I used enough metaphors to express my frustration with this movie?

I was not looking for anything special or life-changing in Replacement Killers, I was just looking for some CYF coolness in a Hollywood movie. But because there was literally nothing else in it, the movie fell completely flat for me. Go see The Killer, Hard-Boiled, or the Corrupter instead (not great but better.)

S1m0ne (2002)

Definitely interesting, if not totally profound

[7/10 · 23 September 2005]

I give this film some credit, it was very interesting and there's a little more than meets the eye (compared the trailers.) The satire is fun to watch, although not exactly the hardest or most profound target.

The cinematography was good, and the portrayal of Simone was pretty good too, from both a technical perspective as well as the performance of the actress who portrayed her. She gave Simone a sort of creepy half-human feel (hard to describe), yet not completely obvious either.

Al Pacino also does very well. I think he was actually one of the main reasons the film maintained my interest as it did. Had it been someone less capable, I can imagine being underwhelmed by the movie.

One minor disappointment is Taransky's character arc. The whole 'I'm a big egomaniac' thing seems somewhat tacked on near the end, since anyone in his position would probably feel just as resentful and disillusioned by the whole affair (especially considering all the hijinks required to maintain the illusion.) The ending is cute and fitting with the satirical nature of the film.

Not great, but definitely good IMO. Or if it was a failure in any way, it was a good failure. The pieces didn't quite all come together, but it was a mix of interesting elements. Can I make any more bland, unspecific statements?

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

The Ultimate Boy's Movie

[24 November 2003]

I enjoyed this movie despite its various flaws and lack of depth. It reminded me of old adventure movies when I was a boy, with exotic locales and characters, and lots of dramatic fights and adventure. In that way the movie was strangely nostalgic for me. That being said, a movie didn't need much sophistication or depth to capture my imagination when I was a boy, so take that as you will (it probably doesn't take much even now!)

I liked Sean Connery very much in this movie, it was a tall feat for him to stand out and not to get completely overwhelmed by all the CGI and action sequences (I would really like to see him in an action movie that is actually worthy of his participation!) I also liked the art/production design of the movie, with its sort-of-alternate history 1800's look. Even though there is too much of it, the CGI is not too bad either, with many large and ominous looking locales. It didn't bother me that Tom Sawyer was a character in this movie, this was the sort of movie where a little 'goofiness' like that fits right in anyways.

I didn't read the graphic novel, but if I had I might have been disappointed at the failure of the movie to really live up to the promise of its source material (judging by how many reviewers here talk about it.)

Hulk (2003)

Interesting story about repressed emotions and memories

[24 November 2003]

This was an interesting story about repressed emotions and memories, as told through the story of the Hulk. Giving a psychological treatment of the main character gave the movie some depth and substance that I appreciated.

However, the acting is so-so- Bana is only okay, and Nolte ultimately fails to convince or compel me as the mad scientist. Worse, the story really let me down. Although many people were put off by the "slow" beginning, I was actually enjoying the movie until things fell apart about an hour and a half in. The last 10 minutes or so were especially disappointing, as I (and apparently most reviewers here) simply didn't understand what happened. Finally, must every big-budget picture have a end sequence that opens the window for a sequel? At least don't make it so obvious. It's especially sad when you are watching the movie on video, and know that the box office returns have basically eliminated any chance of a sequel being made (I just saw League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the same thing happens there.)

By the way, the special effects are pretty good in my opinion. They don't sink or make the movie, so I'll leave it at that.

Comic books are deeper and more dramatic than many people give credit. I think Ang Lee and the writers had a very good goal, but their execution ultimately disappoints. X-Men is an example of a comic book movie with some substance as well, but also has the execution to match. (if Hugh Jackman wasn't already playing Wolverine, it would have been very interesting to see him play Bruce Banner!)