Change Your Image
I_am_RenegadeX
Reviews
Swiss Army Man (2016)
First 5 minutes was decent, downhill from there. Give this a miss! Watch "Cast Away" (or anything else) instead!
Without spoiling anything that's not in the synopsis, the film opens with our main character on a desert island, about to hang himself out of desperation -- when a dead body suddenly washes up on shore and causes him to reconsider. Okay... that was unexpected and I wanted to see where this was going. As the film's upbeat opening credits montage rolls, we see that the dead guy provides our protagonist with an unexpected use. By this point, I was already guessing that based on the film's title, the dead man would provide other survival-related functions, a bit like a Swiss Army Knife. Cool. Okay, so that having been established, what's next? Well, as it happens, not a whole lot. And that's a shame.
As a 10-minute short film, SAM could have worked -- but as a feature-length film, it just drags and drags. I'd already read some reviews, including the one in my local (major city) newspaper, and was aware this film wasn't for everyone. But the paper's respected reviewer gave this film 3 stars out of 4 and closed by saying, "all bets are off as to where this story is headed. But it's impossible not to get caught up in it, even if you're simultaneously repelled by it." -- though after the 20-minute mark, that couldn't be any *further* from the truth. After enduring the film first 30 minutes and wondering "Is this going somewhere?" (the protagonist wasn't), we gave it another 10 minutes, then agreed to switch it off. And that's something we very rarely do -- like once or twice every 5 years, maybe.
The next day, having looked through the "Ordered By: Helpfulness" reviews here on IMDb and seen so many high ratings and positive reviews , I decided to continue the movie, solo. I'm open minded, and no, I wasn't repulsed. But I also wasn't amused, entertained, or interested in any of the characters. I didn't find it at all "intelligent", as I'd seen some reviewers say, I didn't find anything redeeming about it, other than those first few opening minutes.
Without spoiling the ending, the last 13 minutes of the film are so contrived that if you weren't already saying "This is stupid!", then you have no excuse not to be now. And not surprisingly, the movie even ends with a fizzle.
Is Swiss Army Man unique? Sure. Is it worth watching? Most definitely not. If you do choose to watch it, well, you were warned!
Flight 93 (2006)
Weak effort. Watch "United 93" instead
The made-for-TV "Flight 93" was on A&E last night, so I watched it having recently been pleasantly impressed by the (similar/same) story of "United 93", which I rented on DVD just a few weeks ago.
Perhaps my opinion of "Flight" would be different if I had not seen "United" first, but I just didn't feel the power, emotion and anger that I'd felt while watching "United". "Flight" felt detached, poorly-acted and strangely 'calm', whereas "United" portrayed well the sense of in-credulousness of the situation as it unfolded and brought back the sick feeling we all had that day when it was realized what was actually going on. The air traffic controllers/airline people on the ground in "Flight" however seemed content to sit there serenely and simply wait for another opportunity to say, "There goes another one". And when one of the hijacked passengers uses his cell phone to give a sad farewell to his wife, she hangs up without even saying so much as "I love you".
Perhaps though my main problem with "Flight" is that it merely recreates what (is believed) to have happened, while "United" does the same while reminding us that procedures, organization & interaction on the ground were inexcusably poor, and that there are valuable lessons to be learned from this tragedy. By glossing over that aspect of the fateful day, "Flight 93" falls flat.
So if you've seen "United 93" already, don't waste your time with "Flight 93" - and if you haven't seen either but are interested in the story, make it "United".
Crash (2004)
Don't rush to judgement
If you haven't yet seen 'Crash', please do. Not because it won an Oscar for Best Picture but because it's one of those rare films that will leave you thinking about it long after the credits have rolled.
'Crash' opens with a somewhat-dazed passenger inside a car contemplating human interaction in Los Angeles: "In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something."
His partner, Ria, quickly dismisses his ramblings as a side-effect of the car crash that they have just survived. But should she be so quick to come to that conclusion? A few seconds later, she steps out of the car and engages in a confrontation with the woman driver who had rear-ended them; her angry & offensive outburst is certainly not going to help the situation...
This sets the tone for the film - a social commentary that shows how many of us are quick to jump to conclusions (often using existing prejudices or stereotypes as fuel the fire), shows how we often don't consider - or care - how our choice of actions and words are perceived by others, and the consequences that may follow as a result.
'Crash' is a powerful, complex and clever film that presents its story in a somewhat unique manner. We ride along with an ensemble cast of close to 20 central characters of varying ethnicities, whose lives accidentally overlap over the course of the 2 days that we are privy to.
Is the scenario 'realistic'? Probably not - but that's not the point.
The film is not perfect, but its few flaws should not detract from the overall experience. There are moments of truth, moments of humour, moments that may shock you, moments that will touch you, and moments that will surprise you. And, there are also many moments that will appear all-too-obvious. That's kinda of the point though - we 'stereotype' things because we've seen it all before. Sometimes we're right, and sometimes we're wrong - but the important thing to realize is that if we rush to judgement, there may be consequences..
Many people say that 'Crash' is a film /about/ racism due to the character's conflicts which all revolve around race. Viewers who can look beyond 'race' and keep an open mind throughout and who consider how things might have turned out differently had the characters attitudes and/or actions been different - will likely enjoy the film. Viewers who jump to conclusions within the first 20 minutes - will not. And that's a shame, because it is precisely those people who are apt to jump to conclusions who could likely learn the most from 'Crash'.
8.5/10
Off the Map (2003)
Not horrible, but no where near as good as the rating indicates
'Off the Map' passed the time, it was pleasant, it was sweet, certainly a little different to everything else out there, but by no means did I 'enjoy' it.
Reading all the treacly positive comments here on IMDb, and looking at the IMDb ratings categorized by age & sex, it appears that this 'is a film for everyone' (though females in all age groups will like it slightly better than men of similar age). Yet I watched 'Off the Map' this weekend on DVD with 3 other people (so we were 2 males, 2 females), and who's ages spanned 3 IMDb age-groups, and we all came away from it feeling not only a sigh of relief that the film was finally over, but disappointed that 'that' was it.
The film itself is decent: gorgeous scenery, pretty good acting, straightforward story, etc, etc. But the film plodded along so slowly that we all found ourselves looking at the clock to see how much longer before it was due to be over. And by the time it was about to finish, I couldn't even remember how we found ourselves in the flashback-that-is-the-movie to begin with!
Not all that much happens in the film, and I'm OK with that. But what could have been done better perhaps would have been to show us a glimpse of life *before* the father's depression, a glimpse at the happy, active and loving family they we are told they once were. This would have contrasted well with the family that we found ourselves watching, and perhaps made us more sympathetic towards them. Bo, of course, has memories of the better days, which is why her recollection of the time in her life that we are privy to is so much more poignant. We could have benefited from the same.
I had to laugh at the 'sexual content' advisory on the box (and the fact that someone commenting on the film here on IMDb bumped their rating up by 2-stars 'because of the nudity': there is 1 scene in which a 'live' breast is visible, and maybe 2 instances where we quickly see some nude sketches of the same person - none of which are sexual in context. And correct me if I'm wrong, but in all cases Bo, the young girl, is present (fully clothed at all times!).
I wouldn't have mentioned it - except that it shows that people have a tendency these days to over-dramatize things. Including 'how good' this film was.
On the bright side, I can say that I am thankful that Amy Brenneman's screen time was kept to under 3 minutes!
This film would have been a good 'made for TV' movie. Regardless, if you haven't yet seen 'Off the Map' and are wondering if you should rent it, ask yourself first if you'd enjoy a nice relaxing evening watching a film on The Women's Network. 'Cos this film suits it perfectly.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Can't believe this only has a 6 right now!
TBWP is on TV right now as I type this, hence my curiosity to visit the IMDb to see what rating this film had. WOW.. shock, surprise.. it's only got a 6 star rating?! The votes obviously are largely skewed by the stupid sheep who believed the film was 'real' and bought into the marketing hype, then felt ripped off, and angry at the marketing hype around it once they realized that this was a mock-umentary.
Take it for what it is.
At the time (1999), it was somewhat unique in being entirely shot with a hand-held camera. While some people may the camera shaking, going out of focus and such annoying, it all adds to the 'realness' of the concept that you as a viewer are meant to be buying into. It's not fair to take away ratings points based on 'poor production quality', 'not many special effects', 'no big-name actors', or the way in which the film was marketed.
Instead, the story is intriguing, and while it has its moments of 'less interesting' dialog, generally for much of the 84-minute running time, you are kept on the edge of your seat, or perhaps for some, hiding behind it! The premise of the film is simple, and so not much really happens ("it's about these kids who get lost in a scary forest" - true), but that's exactly why TBWP works. The film didn't need to be complicated, and it isn't - all it needed was a few 'setbacks' or 'issues' for the kids come across, and the film delivers.
On the downside, I do recall feeling at the time of my first viewing that the film was possibly too short, if anything. There are instances where you might say to yourself (or to others watching with you) "they can't be that stupid, can they?" -- but hey, the world is full of stupid people - and hey, not everyone goes to scouts and learns what you can do to help you get your bearings if you get lost in the woods..
I gave the film a 7 out of 10, though I wish IMDb allowed 1/2-pts as I feel a 7.5 is where this film is at. TBWP is not the best film ever, but it is one I would certainly recommend seeing.
The Insider (1999)
Worth watching - hard to fault
Hey this movie is 5 years old already?? How did I pass it by so many times at the video store until now? Both DeNiro & Crowe do an outstanding job in their portrayal of real-life characters involved in bringing to air one of the most damning-to-the-tobacco-industry press interviews ever.
At times a little drawn-out, but even so the long-ish running time (2 1/2hrs) was not uncomfortable. We are kept interested the entire way - this is a story about the ultimate human sacrifice - do you fight for what you believe in even if it means you could lose your job, your house, your family, and possibly even your life? And at what point do you say "enough is enough, I give up, it's NOT worth it"?
While you have to remember that this is a dramatization, you simply can't shake the fact that the majority of events that you see likely *actually happened* more or less as portrayed. A good movie, a great story. 8/10
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
A well presented look at the man America voted for
**** Forget your pre-conceived notions about who or what Michael Moore is or stands for - while 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is clearly 'Anti-Bush' and thus ruffles many patriotic American feathers, the one thing any detractors need to realize upon viewing F9/11 is this: MOORE DID **NOT** PUT ANY WORDS INTO GEORGE DUBYAH'S MOUTH!
You will see the President's mindless blather, the gaffs, the blinking, the blinking, the oh-so-frequent-blinking, the mouth open & not knowing what to say or do, will see how reliant he is on his support network below him to, and will see the now famous, ever pathetic, and frankly shocking lack of urgency in his reaction to being told of the terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center's Twin Towers.
This is all REAL. This is all Dubyah. America, this is your President!!
It is your President, as presented by Michael Moore, make no mistake about it. But Moore does a fine job of offering the viewer a 'closer look' at the President, and as a result Fahrenheit 9/11 a 'must-see' film.
Forget Iraq. Forget Saddam Hussein. Forget the oil. Forget the corruption. Forget the War on Terror, forget the "fear". Forget Michael Moore: One simply does not expect the President of the United States of America to make so many gaffs, make so many inappropriate remarks in front of the cameras, and appear so clueless so often. The result is that you wonder how anyone could have possibly voted for this man in the first place. THIS is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world??
I am writing this 2 full days after the 2004 election results are in, and as you all know by now, America voted for 4 MORE years of Dubyah. The rest of the world is dumbfounded at the result (in a global Internet "vote", only 9% of 113,522 votes went to Bush; 77% chose Kerry). In the real world America, the east-coast, west-coast, educated populations all voted against Bush. Rural middle-America and the Bible-thumping southern states all voted in favour of Bush. The consensus is clear - Americans are ignorant (of how they have been manipulated by Dubyah), and Americans are now the laughing stock worldwide.
Hopefully now that the election is over, pro-Bush Americans who were avoiding this film will now be curious to see what it was about it that their fellow Republicans were so angered over. Of course, it is of no consequence now, but do yourself a favour - watch this film with an open mind - and you will likely realize what a horrible mistake you've made (twice now).
It's a shame that the election came about a few days into November -- I'm sure Fahrenheit 9/11 DVDs will be popular next Halloween. If you keep your eyes open (and Moore keeps you captivated & things move along at a good pace) - it is, in fact, pretty scary stuff.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Obvious plot, no love, hugely overrated
The premise of the plot was easily figured out within the first half hour or so, long before the director reveals the 'big surprise' that the plot revolves around. If you have half a brain, it's insulting. I also got the impression that the director wanted to impress viewers in his weird way, by including, what, 45-minutes of unnecessary mind-warp scenes that are supposed to, I suppose, show the viewer the bond that Jim & Kate's characters had formed in their relationship and how they had come to grow apart .. and wow us with his directing, creativity and unique way of putting on film what he had in his head. It's all very tedious and contrived, but the main problem with the film is that the chemistry between the 2 main lovers is never really believable. In fact, at one point we hear the reasons why they grew apart, leaving the audience to think to themselves: "Yep.. you were fools - you should have realized that right from the start". Why pursue something so wrong? By the end of the movie, you'll be thinking "what was the point?"
I'm not spoiling anything here by pointing out that my above thought is foreshadowed by the other 'pseudo-couple'(Mary). If it ain't meant to be, it ain't meant to be!
Jim Carrie was good, Kate Winslet was good. I liked his hat. I didn't like her hair. Elijah was uninteresting. Big-hair boy was annoying & wimpy, and I have to wonder what Kirsten's character might have seen in him (another unlikely coupling!). I have to mention though - the 'geek-at-the-computer-frantically-hitting-keys' scenes reminded very much of the film 'Hackers'. Tap-tap-tap! We're getting close. Damn, he's gone! Yawn...
I gave it a 4/10. And that's only because we get to see Kirsten Dunst dance around in her panties..
Minority Report (2002)
Hmmm... interesting but flawed & over-done
1. First 10 minutes were annoying 2. It's a 'future' movie so you already know you'll be looking for impossibilities, and oh yes, they are there. 3. Insane amount of production goofs 4. Fantastic futuristic technology, yet cops can't catch their man (ex: stun guns exist today, yet they use 'vomit sticks'?). 5. Predictable 6. Lots of unnecessary/over-long & contrived scenes. 7. Over-explanations prompt questioning the logic that was just explained. 8. Serious tone at times interrupted by weak humour 9. Running time too long 10. No nude scenes ;o) (might have made the film worthwhile to see)
On the good, excellent special effects, interesting concept/screenplay.
5/10
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Nice cinematography, but there's nothing new here. Pffft.
Am I ever disappointed! I just finished watching 'The Passion' on DVD (first weekend out), and while the cinematography was excellent (undoubtedly the best production effort ever to retell this story), I sat there for the most part bored, wondering what all the fuss & hype was about. This film is over-hyped, and Mel Gibson is a rich man because of it.
The disappointment is my fault. What did I expect? I (& most likely most viwing the film) already know the story - Jesus is arrested, accused, not necessarily found guilty but sentenced by the people anyhow, beaten, then given a cross to drag up a hill where he is to be crucified. Once there he is nailed to the cross, and shortly thereafter, he dies. His body is taken down, put in a mausoleum, and the next morning, he is risen. End of story. That's it.
If you didn't know the story before, now you do - no need to thank me, but I've just saved you 2 hours so you may watch another film, hopefully more entertaining or more thought-provoking than this one.
Therein lies the problem - most of us will know the story already, but Gibson does not provide any supporting substance to the film. Save for the beating scene, which perhaps gives viewers more graphical insight into the pain & suffering that Jesus may have received than ever before attempted on film, what else is there? NOTHING! The same simple story has been recreated for film literally hundreds of times around the world in documentaries about the life of Christ. Folks, I'll say it again, there is absolutely nothing new here!
Running time is a mind-numbing 127 minutes. 45 minutes would have sufficed. Instead, scenes drag on and on, and my remote's 'Display'-button (to see how much time was left) was beginning to show the signs of wear by the end of the movie.
Possibly even more disappointing than the film itself- once the credits started to roll, I returned to the DVD's main menu hoping for some DVD-extras - perhaps a 'making of', perhaps interviews with Mel Gibson or some of the actors' thoughts about their roles as Jesus, Mary, Judas, Peter, Pontius Pilate, etc - I even entertained watching the film again this time with the director and/or actor's audio-commentary track. Sorry, no can do, this DVD has NO EXTRAS!!
It was bad enough just watching 'The Passion' one time.. but why anyone would feel the need to 'OWN IT' as they keep telling us on the TV ads, I do not know. Mr Gibson might be devoutly religious, but he is also a smart businessman; the sheep have certainly proved themselves worthy to Mel's bank account.
'The Passion' is not even a movie that has repeat-performance value!: you are not going to notice anything new upon repeat-viewing, there is nothing that repeat-viewing will help you 'understand', and there certainly is nothing that will make you grab your friends and say "ooh, watch this part, it's my favourite scene!". Own it? No. If you haven't seen it, don't even spend the money on the rental - instead find someone at work who has bought it and borrow it off them for the weekend for free.