marknovack Reviews

Lady in the Water (2006)

Yet another miss from the same.

[4/10 · 28 October 2006]

Contrived. Motionless. Impossibly false characters. Boring. Without reason. A 10 minute movie packed into 105 minutes. So much for the story line. The director's name is the first that appears in the closing...nice of him to remind the viewer of who is responsible for the outcome.

Mechanically, the movie is well filmed, well edited (I guess), and looks decent on screen. Paul Giamatti is a fine actor who deserves much better writing for his talents.

This is the third film by this director that I have seen and they are all too similar in format for my taste. The dialog is performed with a "who cares" feeling, almost like the director filmed the cuts before the actors were awake. Monotone lines, an inflatable date has more passion within.

Stealth (2005)

If you know anything about fighters...

[3/10 · 4 February 2006]

...then do not see this film. OK, that is humor. This movie has incredible special effects...the best CGI flying I have yet seen. However, fighter aircraft flying and fighting at a visual speed of mach 10 or better, fuel range that would make a 747-400 look like a short-ranged puddle jumper, pilots subjected to uncountable g forces that would crush them instantly flying like a Sunday drive without so much as a red face, and a 100% slap in the face to Navy discipline, this movie is nothing less than absolutely ridiculous. For realism, this has to be the worst aviation type film I have ever seen. When I think of another film that disregards so flagrantly the laws of physics and reality, only "The Three Stooges go to the Moon" comes to mind.

Realism is a 1. Entertainment value is a 6. My wife who knows nothing about airplanes found it fun until the most ridiculous ending. I found it silly but managed to finish a good novel while it played.

So, in this review of mine, keep in mind your expectations. If you hope for an exciting film and could care less if its total fantasy, then check it out. If total farce films bother you, then pass for the next film.

The Osterman Weekend (1983)

Not the movie I wanted to see

[2/10 · 26 January 2006]

I watched this movie twice over one weekend. "Twice" you ask and then gave it a 2? Well, the first time I watched it with the sideways look that a dog might give its master when thoroughly confused. The second time was only because I could not believe that it was as bad and unintelligible as I thought it had been. As it turned out, I was right the first time.

This is a movie for those who have read the book and want to complete the Osterman cycle...book and movie. Then the movie would, perhaps, make sense. As a stand alone film, it seems to hope to rely on its vagueness and strangeness to make the viewer believe he is watching a genius at work, but alas, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

Disappointed, just another "cult" classic

[3/10 · 30 October 2005]

There is plenty here written on the movie so I'll refrain and simply give my entertainment opinions. Very little. If you are a fan of this subject since you were young, then don't miss this opportunity to complete your circle of HGTTG media. If you are a big sci-fi fan wanting to see a film billed as sci-fi, then pass this one by. It took me three sessions to get through the film...it put me to sleep. Obviously, its a film for those who know the characters from the novel and want to see the characters put to life on the big screen. There was a funny part but it was so quick that I don't even remember what it was. The best part of the film for me was the dolphins singing the introductory title in a typical Broadway fashion of "music over the top". Definitely a "fans" movie and not for general entertainment in this viewer's opinion. Children should find it thrilling with the strange alien characters regardless of the plot as it plays somewhat like a Disney film only with less motion and plot. I give it a five only because there are many more worse films more deserving of 1's, 2's, 3's, or 4's.

28 Days Later (2002)

Not at all what I expected. Just another zombie movie with a bad ending.

[5/10 · 25 March 2005]

After reading the the reviews I took the time to see the movie. What a disappointment. Well made, reasonably budgeted, not terrible acting, what started out as a promising movie turned into a monster movie thriller of zero depth after 10 minutes. There was a good shock scare in the first twenty minutes, after wards, all the horror relied on gore and camera angles because the story lost any sensible momentum and direction and proceeded in a direction that reeks of lazy writing and a "just get it into the theaters" attitude. If you are looking for a thriller with a message, keep looking. Battlefield Earth had more of a message than this film, at least it had a betrayal. I gave it 5 stars because its better than a B film, but if I was rating it on what it claimed to be, it would have earned only 1. The ending was also weak. Filmmakers should be aware that writing a weak and confusing ending is not the same as being artistic and creative. Its like they hope viewers are all so dimwitted and will be so confused that they think its awesome because its beyond their comprehension, except that in this movie there is nothing to comprehend. Its a shame because the opening moments gave promise and hope for a good film.

NOTE: I think kids will LOVE this film. Parents must determine if they are mature enough to handle watching because the only message contained in the film is that British soldiers become rapists in times of zombies (poor taste). It will keep them up for nights on end terrified of the dark.