JackSparrow92 Reviews

Highlander (1986)

Colossally dumb and epically fun

[8/10 · 10 March 2015]

Back in 2007, an online reviewer summed up the movie "300" like this: "I can't spoil the plot because THANK GOD THERE ISN'T ONE. Just ass kicking that kicks ass that, while said ass is getting kicked, is kicking yet more ass that's hitting someone's balls with a hammer made of ice but the ice is frozen whiskey."

That basically describes Highlander, only twenty years earlier.

Highlander's central message can be summarized like this: if your life involves swords, magic, sex, and bombastic heavy metal-esque music, you -- and your life -- are automatically awesome. There's no wonder that it resonated so strongly with male geeks. Connor MacLeod is pretty much every male D&D nerd's idealized version of himself: a master swordsman, women love him, and he lives in an amazing New York condo full of ancient and medieval artifacts.

You really owe your brain an apology after watching Highlander... but it'll be a half-assed, passive aggressive apology ("okay, fine, SORRY..."), because the movie is so enjoyable and fun in its absurdity.

The Sacrament (2013)

Surprisingly good

[7/10 · 21 November 2014]

While not the greatest movie I've ever seen, I was quite impressed with this movie. I tend to enjoy the found footage genre so that made it easier to appreciate. The acting was a bit shaky in parts, but certainly not to the extent of ruining the movie. And I found the climax of the film (the mass suicide) to be pretty chilling.

Gene Jones, in particular, gave an excellent performance. My first thought on seeing him was "good lord, they're following THAT ugly bugger? Don't messianic figures usually need at least SOME degree of physical charisma? How realistic is this?" But there was something in his delivery of his sermons that was powerful, even convincing on a surface level.

Yes, I know the whole thing is massively cribbed from the actual Jonestown massacre, but that doesn't stop this from being quite an effective thriller flick.

Contracted (2013)

Were all the people around her blind, or just idiots?

[3/10 · 17 June 2014]

This movie started out well, with the potential to become an effective, disturbing and scary "horror-movie-with-a-side-of-cautionary-tale".

However, the way all the other characters acted around Samantha (except maybe the doctor) practically ruined the movie for me. I mean, for god's sake.... both her eyes are bloodshot, she's losing her hair, she's white as a sheet with visible blue veins, her nails are bloody and falling off, and nobody reacts with more than a "oh, you should probably get that looked at"?

And by the time she has sex with that guy, one of her eyes is white and she has a huge scab on her mouth and rotting teeth. And he still wanted to schtup her? What was he, blind? Give me a break.

It's too bad, because it otherwise could have been a scarier and more shocking movie. By the last half hour I was groaning at the other characters' absurd reactions to her obviously deteriorated state. I kept thinking that perhaps there was supposed to be some satire that I just wasn't seeing, a la "Shaun of the Dead", but there wasn't. Disappointing overall.

All About Steve (2009)

Pleasantly surprised

[7/10 · 2 January 2013]

I watched this last night. At the time, I didn't know much about it, other than who was in it. And I wasn't aware of the overwhelming negative reviews the movie had received.

I enjoyed it. Yes, Mary could be annoying, but wasn't that the point? How are we supposed to empathize with Steve for wanting to end the date after five minutes when he was about to get laid? And I have to say that Sandra Bullock's performance was excellent -- she embodied Mary's quirks completely, even nailing her mannerisms and facial tics. (And she looked pretty damned hot coming down the stairs the second time at the beginning of the date.) The situations were hokey and somewhat contrived, but again, that's the point, because the movie has more to say than what its surface appearance shows.

As I often do, when the movie was over, I looked it up online, and saw the slew of bad reviews, "worst movie of the year", etc. And I was very surprised. What really blew me away was that some of the negative reviewers didn't seem to "get it", or got some of the facts wrong. For instance, even Roger Ebert described the scene in which Mary is running along beside the news van, "breathlessly small-talking to Steve through the window. If Steve had any mercy, he would stop or speed up -- anything would be better than playing her along." STEVE WASN'T DRIVING -- he was cowering in the back, while his co-worker continues to tell Mary about Steve's supposed interest in her. Another review indicated the belief that Mary was only staying with her parents temporarily while her apartment was being fumigated, missing the point that the fumigation is a cover-up for the fact that a 40-something still lives with her parents. How a reviewer could miss that is puzzling, since Mary is seen in her bedroom, which is completely set up and well-lived in.

And then there were those reviewers who couldn't see the second level: the movie is a commentary on the absurdity of America's sensationalist media.

Personally, I think this movie fell victim to a form of mob psychology. The desire to eviscerate the movie turned into critical blood lust, preventing many from appreciating what was actually a quirky, off-beat, and at times hilarious movie.

Red Tails (2012)

Not perfect, but Lucas gives the subject the popcorn treatment in an effective fashion.

[7/10 · 23 January 2012]

I've been something of a George Lucas apologist for a number of years. I was overall disappointed by The Phantom Menace, but felt he redeemed himself with Episodes II and III. And I enjoyed Indiana Jones 4, despite its flaws.

Thus I was quite ready for the reflexive dog-piling on Lucas who, it seems, is doomed to be perpetually the victim of some curse requiring critics to automatically eviscerate his work.

Lucas's films have to be approached with a central realization in mind: the man doesn't make complex dramas or highly detailed, accurate biopics. He makes popcorn movies.

And you know what? IT'S OKAY THAT HE MAKES POPCORN MOVIES.

In my view, it's also okay that he fictionalized the story of the Tuskeegee Airmen and that the film is "inspired by" their story, rather than based faithfully on it. I don't know much about the real story myself, but my understanding is that it's pretty spectacular. And if a chunk of the people who see this movie are sufficiently inspired to actually go out and learn more about the heroism of the real-life Tuskeegee Airmen, then the film's mission will be, in part, accomplished.

And what of the film itself? Visually, it's spectacular. Of course we know much of it is CG, but we know that about every movie with special effects nowadays. So that's a meaningless criticism. It looks beautiful. Overall, the performances are excellent by the central cast who are largely unknown actors. Cuba Gooding chews scenery a bit too much in parts, but not sufficiently that it wrecks the movie. Dialogue has never been Lucas's strong point, but the creaky parts are sufficiently few that, again, they don't wreck the movie.

There's barely enough time in a two-hour movie to delve deeply into the personalities of so many characters, but the movie does a serviceable job with the time available. And the romance between Lightning and a gorgeous Italian girl manages to illustrate the awkwardness of such situations, and the additional awkwardness arising from lack of a shared language, without making us groan a la "Attack of the Clones". It's probably the best romantic interaction in a Lucas movie since the early days of Han & Leia, or Indy & Marion.

And, the film's main theme -- racism -- is portrayed effectively. We empathize with the film's protagonists. We cheer their heroism, and we feel our blood boil when, on the solitary occasion in the movie, the N-word is flung at one of them.

In closing, I'd describe Red Tails using the same language that a reviewer in my local paper used to review "Return of the Jedi" nearly 30 years ago: "It is a good film that, simply, could have been better. No mean feat these days."

Protocols of Zion (2005)

Well-intentioned, but missed the mark

[5/10 · 25 July 2006]

An interesting and engaging subject matter, and one that deserves discussion and attention. However, I found Levin's presentation to be meandering and unfocused. The film was entitled "The Protocols of Zion" but devoted relatively little time to the eponymous text -- more of a survey of anti-Semitic attitudes in contemporary America. Which is itself a worthwhile subject of course, but it seemed that Levin started off trying to make a documentary on one subject, and instead ended up with a documentary on a related, but different, subject. It seemed as though he would occasionally remember what the title of the film was and throw in another of the "Protocols".

A well-intentioned film on an important subject, which unfortunately missed the mark. I'd be very interested to see a documentary that actually discussed the Protocols of Zion in depth.