Only watch this if you love absurd plot holes and hate sci-fi. I spent 90 minutes waiting for it to get better, but the credits rolled first. It's about as shallow as a puddle, and I'm really angry that movies this dumb get funding, when much more creative and interesting ideas get mothballed. If I explained why I'd have to start including spoilers, and frankly, this isn't worth it. I just feel like I owe a serious warning to people who might be intrigued by a recent "7"-rated movie that appears to explore a sci-fi theme. The writers here seemed to take glee in beating the viewers over the head with their scientific ignorance, but maybe that was a plan, because the gushing reviews came from people who were equally confused about science. I guess there are more people of that sort than I'd like to think. Well, sometimes a good story can make up for bad sci-fi, but even that's completely missing here. This is what one expects from dull students who drop out of college after one philosophy class. Anyway, now to get a very bad taste out of my mouth!
Reviews
41 Reviews
District 9
(2009)
If a movie must be lame, it should at least be fun!
20 January 2010
The first ten minutes of this movie were promising, but after that it was basically a zombie romp genre piece - and not a good one. I appreciate a good, campy zombie movie, but this was dumb without being either fun or interesting. Just picture all the worst elements of Avatar without a shred of what's good in Avatar. That's just too much to swallow.
One thing that was done well: Things looked really grimy, and that was cool. The closest movie to this (and superior) is Braindead - also associated with Peter Jackson. But that movie never forgot that it was not meant to be serious. This one started off interesting, then outed itself as a zombie-style humor piece, and then completely lost both threads and spent 60+ minutes being stupid while forgetting to be funny.
One thing that was done well: Things looked really grimy, and that was cool. The closest movie to this (and superior) is Braindead - also associated with Peter Jackson. But that movie never forgot that it was not meant to be serious. This one started off interesting, then outed itself as a zombie-style humor piece, and then completely lost both threads and spent 60+ minutes being stupid while forgetting to be funny.
I Am Legend
(2007)
Instultingly bad writing; interesting concept executed miserably
25 December 2007
I want to warn anyone with half a brain: Do not see this movie! Please! You will sit in your seat and scream "Why is the protagonist such an idiot?" How come he's the last person alive and the power is on? If he so allegedly smart, why is he too stupid to think of trying X or Y or Z or ... ? It quickly becomes obvious that the screenwriters didn't really think very hard about the scenario they composed, they most certainly had no knowledge of the profession of medical research, and most criminally, they just didn't care. I don't want to cite examples because I don't want this post to contain spoilers. But believe me, there are countless examples.
This movie should just be avoided, left alone at the video store, and erased from history. By the time it gets to the laughable resolution, it's really that infuriatingly bad.
This movie should just be avoided, left alone at the video store, and erased from history. By the time it gets to the laughable resolution, it's really that infuriatingly bad.
Die You Zombie Bastards!
(2005)
Just cheap and boring
22 January 2007
This movie is just amateur incompetence, not only in the way it looks (which I can forgive) but also in the acting, writing and the whole concept behind it. It's just stupid. Not campy, quirky, or even slightly clever or slightly interesting.
As anyone knows who rents a movie like this, there are dozens of excellent, cheap and hilarious zombie movies, made by people with an actual sense of humor. See, for example, Tokyo Zombie. That was a hilarious experience. Don't torture yourself with this worthless movie. It looks like something that was made just for the "buddies" of the people in it, and I'm sure they find it brilliant to watch themselves pretend to act, but the result does not need a wider release.
As anyone knows who rents a movie like this, there are dozens of excellent, cheap and hilarious zombie movies, made by people with an actual sense of humor. See, for example, Tokyo Zombie. That was a hilarious experience. Don't torture yourself with this worthless movie. It looks like something that was made just for the "buddies" of the people in it, and I'm sure they find it brilliant to watch themselves pretend to act, but the result does not need a wider release.
Babel
(I) (2006)
Pointlessly depressing (but technically good)
7 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I suppose that if the four separate stories that compose this movie have a uniting thread, it's that there is no real justice in the world, but... duh! If you're unsure of this fact and would like to see it represented in a 2.5 hour film, you should see Babel. To me, it just seemed like the writers couldn't think of an interesting story, so they decided that movie audiences will pay to see *lots of stuff happening in interesting and photogenic locations.* I don't know, for me it wasn't enough - or maybe it was too much. Too many events, not enough heart.
It's worth saying that the individual episodes that compose the movie were themselves captured in a realistic way and probably do give the viewer some idea about what it's like to be in those photogenic places represented in the film.
It's worth saying that the individual episodes that compose the movie were themselves captured in a realistic way and probably do give the viewer some idea about what it's like to be in those photogenic places represented in the film.
Beautiful graphics, moronic story
24 September 2006
Wow, the writer/director had his whole life to put together an interesting, consistent fictional world, and an interesting story. I mean, this was his only project. And what is the result? A complete waste of time.
I'm sorry, but it's very hard for me to suspend disbelief when I'm asked to presuppose that the entire world, including the characters on the screen, are complete idiots. Without leaving any spoilers, I'll just say that I've seen MST3K movies with fewer plot problems. Seriously, so much stuff just wasn't thought through that I felt insulted by the movie. As it went on, I started feeling spat on, then urinated on, and then... mercifully the whole ordeal ended.
What didn't help matters is that Gwyneth Paltrow showed acting that was about as amateurish as my 7th grade drama class. Since she's not an incompetent actress, I blame the director. For shame, mr. whoever! Go back to being a ... whatever-you-were before you sold some studio sucker your script.
I'm sorry, but it's very hard for me to suspend disbelief when I'm asked to presuppose that the entire world, including the characters on the screen, are complete idiots. Without leaving any spoilers, I'll just say that I've seen MST3K movies with fewer plot problems. Seriously, so much stuff just wasn't thought through that I felt insulted by the movie. As it went on, I started feeling spat on, then urinated on, and then... mercifully the whole ordeal ended.
What didn't help matters is that Gwyneth Paltrow showed acting that was about as amateurish as my 7th grade drama class. Since she's not an incompetent actress, I blame the director. For shame, mr. whoever! Go back to being a ... whatever-you-were before you sold some studio sucker your script.
Serenity
(2005)
So good that I don't want a sequel!
16 October 2005
Seriously, this was a brilliantly-designed world with perfectly-conceived characters, who live through a gigantic story. I know Whedon was thinking he'd do a sequel, though disappointing box office returns are making that seem less likely now. Shamefully, we'll have to wait for the DVD release before this makes back the studio's money - unless foreign audiences are less stupid than we Americans. Anyway, I really think that this story must live on as a weekly show, not as a series of movies. Put this genius stuff back on TV, get it syndicated, that's how it will take off. As an owner of the Firefly DVD set I can tell you that nobody sees this without loving it. It's the same with the movie. It's not just sci-fi fans who get this stuff. It's everyone. Sadly, the vast majority of that everyone don't seem to realize that this is a great movie for them, but that will be solved with just mere exposure. This movie is good enough so that it might have done it on its own. Bad marketing prevented that, I guess. Now we need the show back.
Super Troopers
(2001)
Pure genius! Rent this, invite friends, be a hero.
6 November 2004
This is the funniest movie I have seen in three years. I hope this group of writers/actors stays together. They are a bazillion times better and smarter than that Clerks/Dogma stuff that you might think is comparable.
One way to put it: this is a wonderfully stupid movie that never insults your intelligence, and I can't think of 10 movies I'd say that about. And all of them are classics. So is this.
I'm shocked by how underrated this is. Must I also lose my faith in the voters at IMDb? Gah! Where has all our common sense gone? We worship at the feet of Animal House, and then give this movie a six-point-sumthin? Maan, that's backwards!
One way to put it: this is a wonderfully stupid movie that never insults your intelligence, and I can't think of 10 movies I'd say that about. And all of them are classics. So is this.
I'm shocked by how underrated this is. Must I also lose my faith in the voters at IMDb? Gah! Where has all our common sense gone? We worship at the feet of Animal House, and then give this movie a six-point-sumthin? Maan, that's backwards!
Waiting for the de-cheesified version
22 December 2003
First off: the effects in the battle scenes were awesome. The technical team behind this movie is the greatest that's ever been assembled, bar none.
But there are deep flaws in this movie, flaws that could have been fixed very easily and cheaply. You forget about them during the battle scenes, but you can't escape them.
The most serious general flaw is the unforgivable shallowness of the characters. Really, they are pure lifeless caricatures. Everybody declares their one "motivation" and then follows it. Sam "protects Frodo". Frodo "is a good hobbit who tries to do the right thing but the ring tempts him." Theodan (played well, at least) hesitates before he helps Gondor, but in a "Lucas-moment" captured on camera he decides, for no apparent reason, to ride down to his death in Gondor anyway. Denethor (the second-most butchered character of the trilogy) is just mad and villainous for some inexplicable reason, so Gandalf whacks him a few times to get him out of the way. It's fine, because he's apparently evil. Faromir (the most butchered character) had his Lucas-moment transformation in the last movie, and here he is just a prop. (Good actor; terrible role). Who else... Yes, Aragorn: "I am a dirty but noble ranger who has to accept a heavy responsibility" (and I have erotic dreams about my elf-girlfriend so she gets more screentime. Arwen is a prop, photographed with a soft-lens effect. Mary, Pippin: Start taking responsibility after all this time. Gimli: comic relief again. Legolas: there to say things that no sane living person would say in order to inform the audience what's happening. Oh, and he has to do one physics-defying radical battle stunt to show off that along with knowing how to state the obvious, he has impressive dexterity. Eowyn: Woman who's mad the men don't let her fight, has a crush on Aragorn, of which comes nothing. Later makes eyes with Faromir. Seagol: "prototypical split-personality. This confused some people into thinking that his character is the most complex, and (a truly pathetic statement about the movie) he might well be. Still his "character" is so silly that you start thinking Jackson designed him to make the kids laugh, like JarJar.
So, you might say: well, we only had 3.5 hours; that's not enough time to develop the characters and the plot. Bull. Now it's true, Jackson dropped many balls in TTT and it's now too late to pick them up. But at least the most absurd caricatures could very easily be patched up. Jackson CAN do it, if he puts his mind to it. He did a great job with Boromir in FotR. It's not from many minutes of screentime. If was from not dumbing down the part, and repesenting his motivations as Tolkien did. Faromir got robbed in TTT because Jackson had no interest in making him a real character. But what he does with Denethor is unforgivable. Instead of an apathetic evil guy, Denethor was a great and wise leader from the elder line of men. He was profoundly intelligent and cared deeply for Gondor. But he was utterly without hope because he was demoralized through direct contact with Sauron by the seeing stone which wasn't mentioned. Denethor, unlike Gandalf, had a sane plan for how to deal with the ring: Keep it in Minas Tirith, the most defensible place in the West. Now, I know that Gandalf has mystical insight into the future, and that helped him launch the "Kamikaze Frodo" plan, but on the face of it, the plan is patently absurd. Denethor (and Boromir) are no fools to think so, and Denethor is quite understandably upset with Faromir for sending the ring into almost certain capture by Sauron. How long would it take to convey this situation of Denethor's? Less time than Pippin's absurd song, or Gandalf's absurd lecture on the afterlife, both of which served no purpose and weren't in the book. This alone would have added mountains of credibility to the movie. But no. Instead, characters either act exactly according to their stereotype, or just randomly (like Denethor insisting Faromir attack the entrenched orcs in Osgiliath but not caring about the defenses of his own city - totally senseless and random).
Oh, how I wish a real Tolkien fan and an intelligent person were there to smack Jackson (as he had Gandalf smack Denethor) when Jackson is tempted into an act of cheesifying tyrrany!
But nobody smacked him, so he produced a movie loaded with manipulative Hollywood cheese at every turn. Feel sad now. Feel excited now. Oooh, watch out, that guy's evil! Frodo and Sam are weary. Really, really, really. There is even cheesy music to make it all more shallow and spare you the burden of having to think. Every individual sequence has some sort of a climax, many done not through character development but through sheer Hollywood manipulation. After 3.5 hours of that, you're climaxed out. Or rather, you're left a bit cold for the sequences where the real climaxes are supposed to be.
In general, you leave with the sense that the worst of Hollywood shallowness tamed a gem of literature which self-consciously tried to distance itself from that sort of shallowness. If you were a fan of the book, you'll leave having been entertained... but if you don't feel a bit dirty afterwards, you've forgotten too much of the book.
But there are deep flaws in this movie, flaws that could have been fixed very easily and cheaply. You forget about them during the battle scenes, but you can't escape them.
The most serious general flaw is the unforgivable shallowness of the characters. Really, they are pure lifeless caricatures. Everybody declares their one "motivation" and then follows it. Sam "protects Frodo". Frodo "is a good hobbit who tries to do the right thing but the ring tempts him." Theodan (played well, at least) hesitates before he helps Gondor, but in a "Lucas-moment" captured on camera he decides, for no apparent reason, to ride down to his death in Gondor anyway. Denethor (the second-most butchered character of the trilogy) is just mad and villainous for some inexplicable reason, so Gandalf whacks him a few times to get him out of the way. It's fine, because he's apparently evil. Faromir (the most butchered character) had his Lucas-moment transformation in the last movie, and here he is just a prop. (Good actor; terrible role). Who else... Yes, Aragorn: "I am a dirty but noble ranger who has to accept a heavy responsibility" (and I have erotic dreams about my elf-girlfriend so she gets more screentime. Arwen is a prop, photographed with a soft-lens effect. Mary, Pippin: Start taking responsibility after all this time. Gimli: comic relief again. Legolas: there to say things that no sane living person would say in order to inform the audience what's happening. Oh, and he has to do one physics-defying radical battle stunt to show off that along with knowing how to state the obvious, he has impressive dexterity. Eowyn: Woman who's mad the men don't let her fight, has a crush on Aragorn, of which comes nothing. Later makes eyes with Faromir. Seagol: "prototypical split-personality. This confused some people into thinking that his character is the most complex, and (a truly pathetic statement about the movie) he might well be. Still his "character" is so silly that you start thinking Jackson designed him to make the kids laugh, like JarJar.
So, you might say: well, we only had 3.5 hours; that's not enough time to develop the characters and the plot. Bull. Now it's true, Jackson dropped many balls in TTT and it's now too late to pick them up. But at least the most absurd caricatures could very easily be patched up. Jackson CAN do it, if he puts his mind to it. He did a great job with Boromir in FotR. It's not from many minutes of screentime. If was from not dumbing down the part, and repesenting his motivations as Tolkien did. Faromir got robbed in TTT because Jackson had no interest in making him a real character. But what he does with Denethor is unforgivable. Instead of an apathetic evil guy, Denethor was a great and wise leader from the elder line of men. He was profoundly intelligent and cared deeply for Gondor. But he was utterly without hope because he was demoralized through direct contact with Sauron by the seeing stone which wasn't mentioned. Denethor, unlike Gandalf, had a sane plan for how to deal with the ring: Keep it in Minas Tirith, the most defensible place in the West. Now, I know that Gandalf has mystical insight into the future, and that helped him launch the "Kamikaze Frodo" plan, but on the face of it, the plan is patently absurd. Denethor (and Boromir) are no fools to think so, and Denethor is quite understandably upset with Faromir for sending the ring into almost certain capture by Sauron. How long would it take to convey this situation of Denethor's? Less time than Pippin's absurd song, or Gandalf's absurd lecture on the afterlife, both of which served no purpose and weren't in the book. This alone would have added mountains of credibility to the movie. But no. Instead, characters either act exactly according to their stereotype, or just randomly (like Denethor insisting Faromir attack the entrenched orcs in Osgiliath but not caring about the defenses of his own city - totally senseless and random).
Oh, how I wish a real Tolkien fan and an intelligent person were there to smack Jackson (as he had Gandalf smack Denethor) when Jackson is tempted into an act of cheesifying tyrrany!
But nobody smacked him, so he produced a movie loaded with manipulative Hollywood cheese at every turn. Feel sad now. Feel excited now. Oooh, watch out, that guy's evil! Frodo and Sam are weary. Really, really, really. There is even cheesy music to make it all more shallow and spare you the burden of having to think. Every individual sequence has some sort of a climax, many done not through character development but through sheer Hollywood manipulation. After 3.5 hours of that, you're climaxed out. Or rather, you're left a bit cold for the sequences where the real climaxes are supposed to be.
In general, you leave with the sense that the worst of Hollywood shallowness tamed a gem of literature which self-consciously tried to distance itself from that sort of shallowness. If you were a fan of the book, you'll leave having been entertained... but if you don't feel a bit dirty afterwards, you've forgotten too much of the book.
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
(2001)
Brilliant music, amazing movie
5 July 2003
I'll just say one thing: merely the "origin of love" song, accompanied by brilliant animation, has more art and genius than 100 normal full-length American films. And the whole movie is just plain awesome, on so many levels. Wow!
Almost the worst movie I've seen
28 June 2003
If it weren't for Matrix Reloaded, this would have been the worst movie I have ever watched. I was hoping it would retain that title, but alas, no. Like the Matrix sequel, this one is much more entertaining when you think of it as a parody that other people don't get.
Orange County
(2002)
Not witty, not clever, usually not funny
27 June 2003
This belongs in the same genre as Jay & Silent Bob movies, and is almost as badly written. Basically, it's a story of a young, nerdy kid who didn't get into Stanford because of a clerical error, and acts like his life will end if he doesn't get in right away. (He's not all that bright, as the thought of waiting for Winter quarter to get in fails to occur to him.) Anyway, a bunch of supposedly zany things happen to him as he tries to get admitted, a process inadvertantly hindered in one way or another by his caricature-dysfunctional California family.
That's not a great premise, and it's an even worse movie, because from there, all the gags follow a predictable, by-the-numbers course. I do remember a few guilty laughs for low-brow physical humor, but it takes more than that to make a funny movie. Oh, and tacked on to all that is supposed to be some sort of a heart-warming point, a lesson they all learned that day. But it's so lame that you wish they just stuck to fall-down "look, I'm stoned and silly" routines.
That's not a great premise, and it's an even worse movie, because from there, all the gags follow a predictable, by-the-numbers course. I do remember a few guilty laughs for low-brow physical humor, but it takes more than that to make a funny movie. Oh, and tacked on to all that is supposed to be some sort of a heart-warming point, a lesson they all learned that day. But it's so lame that you wish they just stuck to fall-down "look, I'm stoned and silly" routines.
Frida
(2002)
Really pretty good!
27 June 2003
As someone hates mainstream movies that pose as independent, "outsider" work, I have to say that I didn't hate this. Actually, I quite liked it. Sure, the movie didn't really take any risks, and the story itself is interesting enough that it didn't have to, but what I think I appreciated the most is that it wasn't a morality tale. At no point did I feel preached to, though there were ample opportunities. In general, I have to grudgingly admit that this was quite well done. Again, as someone who hates mainstream movies posing as independents, I'm not capable of higher praise.
Close-Up
(1990)
This is a courtroom drama unlike any you may have seen.
25 June 2003
I find it amazing that this movie works as well as it does. The people in it are not actors. They are ordinary Iranian citizens who happened to be involved in a curious incident that aroused the interest of a very talented film director. As an American who is aware of the tension between Iran's government and its vibrant film industry, you can't help but to scour this simple story for an ideological message. Is it a protest film? Is it an "all is well with Iran" film? Well, it's not either. It's just a simple and relatively mundane story told by the people who actually lived it.
What I got out of it, and your mileage may vary, is a deep sense that there is something beautiful about seeing a relatively small matter as an event of deep significance, one that requires all your attention. There is no larger story that gives meaning to the small events portrayed in the film, but the people in it, as well as the filmmakers themselves, imbue them all with a great seriousness. All of it is done without a hint of parody or ulterior motive.
And it's not like Iran didn't have "big" issues to confront in 1990, as it was rebuilding its society after the brutal war with Iraq. The cheap and obvious thing to do, which many foreign movies try, is to tell a simple story with a background of an emotionally charged historical time. It's quite beautiful to see this movie avoid that trap. It's not like you'll be moved to tears or something, but that's a part of the point! In a way, the film's ostensible lack of manipulativeness is so fresh to American eyes that you might find yourself moved on a much deeper level. Well, that, or you might be totally confused. After all, there is no background score to instruct you on how you should be feeling at each instant.
What I got out of it, and your mileage may vary, is a deep sense that there is something beautiful about seeing a relatively small matter as an event of deep significance, one that requires all your attention. There is no larger story that gives meaning to the small events portrayed in the film, but the people in it, as well as the filmmakers themselves, imbue them all with a great seriousness. All of it is done without a hint of parody or ulterior motive.
And it's not like Iran didn't have "big" issues to confront in 1990, as it was rebuilding its society after the brutal war with Iraq. The cheap and obvious thing to do, which many foreign movies try, is to tell a simple story with a background of an emotionally charged historical time. It's quite beautiful to see this movie avoid that trap. It's not like you'll be moved to tears or something, but that's a part of the point! In a way, the film's ostensible lack of manipulativeness is so fresh to American eyes that you might find yourself moved on a much deeper level. Well, that, or you might be totally confused. After all, there is no background score to instruct you on how you should be feeling at each instant.
Hulk
(2003)
People hate it because it's not stupid
23 June 2003
You know, I expected to not like The Hulk. I saw it against my better judgment. Boy was I surprised! Now I know what all those people are complaining about: you see, this movie is not stupid. It's not designed for idiots who want only to see some green guy trashing stuff.
Most of the complaints you see are like "oh, it's not linear enough" and "oh, the setup takes too long." You see, what these "linear" (i.e. stupid) people have missed is that Lee is making art. He got a huge budget and that sets up the expectations for a huge budget movie, and by those standards, The Hulk is too complicated and not manipulative enough. Dumb people get confused easily and find it terribly distressing, so bashing on this movie makes them feel better. Well, let the fools have their tartar sauce.
Of course this movie has some problems to pick on. What I'm talking about is the overall presentation, which I thought was wonderful. As somebody who liked Crouching Tiger and Eat Drink Man Woman, I think this movie is better. Well, definitely better than Crouching Tiger. It's definitely more ambitious, so people who prefer a traditional genre piece like Spiderman will be disappointed.
Most of the complaints you see are like "oh, it's not linear enough" and "oh, the setup takes too long." You see, what these "linear" (i.e. stupid) people have missed is that Lee is making art. He got a huge budget and that sets up the expectations for a huge budget movie, and by those standards, The Hulk is too complicated and not manipulative enough. Dumb people get confused easily and find it terribly distressing, so bashing on this movie makes them feel better. Well, let the fools have their tartar sauce.
Of course this movie has some problems to pick on. What I'm talking about is the overall presentation, which I thought was wonderful. As somebody who liked Crouching Tiger and Eat Drink Man Woman, I think this movie is better. Well, definitely better than Crouching Tiger. It's definitely more ambitious, so people who prefer a traditional genre piece like Spiderman will be disappointed.
Fever Pitch
(1997)
Really quite good, but maybe my expectations were too high
17 June 2003
This was a very good movie, but not quite as impressive as 'About a Boy' and 'High Fidelity' which were also based on Nick Hornby books. For some reason, the screenplay missed some opportunities. For one thing, the protagonist just didn't seem like a real person. I mean, I know he was supposed to be a stereotype, but Hornby's work is usually excellent at making "fanatics" look like interesting and complex human beings. Here he didn't succeed to the to the degree he probably could have.
High Fidelity
(2000)
The best date movie ever made, bar none.
9 June 2003
I feel stupid for renting this DVD out of curiosity and watching it alone. I am contemplating whether I should pretend that it never happened, and on my next "let's just rent a movie" date I'd pick it up and say something like "oh, I heard 'High Fidelity' was supposed to be good. Have you heard of it?"
Yeah, that's if I were smooth and manipulative. I'm sure it would work. Unless I had a date with an extraterrestrial or a complete idiot, we would do a lot of bonding from just watching this together. But no, I'm too honest to deceive a date like that. If it's not too late for you, be advised. This is the best date movie ever, and I don't imagine a better one will be made.
Yeah, that's if I were smooth and manipulative. I'm sure it would work. Unless I had a date with an extraterrestrial or a complete idiot, we would do a lot of bonding from just watching this together. But no, I'm too honest to deceive a date like that. If it's not too late for you, be advised. This is the best date movie ever, and I don't imagine a better one will be made.
The Big Lebowski
(1998)
Among the 5 ultimate cult classics.
28 May 2003
There are some movies that are written so well that you inadvertantly memorize big sections of the script, and realize later that your friends have as well. This happens with Monty Python movies, Spinal Tap, Pulp Fiction, and Big Lebowski. I'm serious. This movie belongs into the comic stratosphere.
Gags and one-liners... but no atmosphere
28 May 2003
This movie foreshadows well the modern Hollywood blockbuster. It gets all its mileage out of individual gags that are sort of strung end-to-end, and there you have the movie. Everything is a bit light and fluffy, and the whole production seems to say "Look! Heartthrob actors, dressed up like cowboys, doing cowboy stuff!" It certainly has entertaining portions (along the lines of Hollywood's usual "something for everyone"), but I wouldn't call it a good movie. Best watched after Sergio Leone's masterpieces have faded from memory. I didn't take that advice and found myself thinking "this is so weak!"
Daisies
(1966)
First you think "what the hell?" and then you think "YEAH!!"
28 May 2003
This is really worth seeing. It's hard to explain why. There is no plot. There is no character development. There is a lot of beautiful surrealism. Like with anything from Dada and related art, the full effect only hits you after you stop asking "Why?" and "Whaa?" and "What the hell?". When you past that point, you'll have a great time.
The charming nihilism captured in the movie is something that we couldn't duplicate nowadays, even if we tried.
The charming nihilism captured in the movie is something that we couldn't duplicate nowadays, even if we tried.
The Matrix Reloaded
(2003)
The dumbest movie since Highlander 2
17 May 2003
I saw this movie with a big group of friends, and we actually managed to have a good time in the end, but only because we stayed up until 4 am, drinking and laughing about the unforgivable stupidity of every single scene in this movie. Just about every single movie parodied by Mystery Science Theater 3000 was, by objective standards, a better movie than Matrix Reloaded.
My advice to anyone who is forced to see it: Think of it as a parody, as an attempt to spoof the genre. Seen like that, it's sorta funny. But if you can, avoid this catastrophic movie like the plague.
Thanks to the sequel, I now feel dirty for having liked Matrix 1. The sequel is so bad that it makes even the original impossible for me to like anymore.
My advice to anyone who is forced to see it: Think of it as a parody, as an attempt to spoof the genre. Seen like that, it's sorta funny. But if you can, avoid this catastrophic movie like the plague.
Thanks to the sequel, I now feel dirty for having liked Matrix 1. The sequel is so bad that it makes even the original impossible for me to like anymore.
Equilibrium
(2002)
So pathetically stupid that you won't know whether to laugh or cry.
3 May 2003
This is clearly one of the dumbest movies I've seen in years. I mean, it's mind-numbingly dumb. It makes the worst Star Trek episodes look well-conceived and conceptually coherent.
If IMDB had an option to ignore the opinions of everyone who liked this movie, I would pay membership fees. This movie is an almost perfect idiot test: if you can sit through it without screaming about the moronic premise and plotholes and internal contradictions, you are one. It's not quite a perfect test, because surely there must be a less cruel way of testing idiots than to make them watch this nightmare.
If IMDB had an option to ignore the opinions of everyone who liked this movie, I would pay membership fees. This movie is an almost perfect idiot test: if you can sit through it without screaming about the moronic premise and plotholes and internal contradictions, you are one. It's not quite a perfect test, because surely there must be a less cruel way of testing idiots than to make them watch this nightmare.
The Ice Rink
(1998)
Bring this to a party and be a hero!
14 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I picked up this DVD at my public library, intending to watch it on my own when I need to relax. The same night, a bunch of my friends and I were invited for a movie-in night, and I mentioned I have a French film about hockey with Bruce Campbell. They were skeptical, but since they couldn't agree on what to watch, we watched Ice Rink. I was just hoping that it wouldn't be too embarassing, because I'd get blamed...
What I didn't expect was that the movie would be absolutely brilliant. Nobody else did either. By the end, I was being cheered, toasted and clebrated as a movie-genius. For the rest of the night, we couldn't stop making Ice Rink jokes and references. After considerable merriment, we came to the following conclusions:
1. There might not be anyone in Europe who knows less about hockey than the French. The Greeks are their only competition. (This fact made the movie so funny... the director was keenly aware that Frenchmen on hockey skates are like fish out of water, except much funnier.)
2. Every movie is improved by the appearance of Bruce Campbell. Yes, EVERY movie. In this one he was awesome. He played the role of the "all buisiness" American actor, but despite the fact he was depicted as intensely American (arriving in a big black limo with a USA jacket), his character turned out to be the most sane and reasonable person in the movie. I took this to be another poke at "Frenchness".
3. "Ice Rink" should have its own cult, like Spinal Tap and similar classics.
4. I was very clever for bringing this movie to the party.
I won't include any spoilers--only advice. If you want to be the hero of a gathering, be kissed by people you barely know, and respected as someone with a finger on the pulse of world filmmaking, bring this movie. Just pretend you came across it "browsing" and that you thought it "looked like an interesting longshot." You'll be a hero too!
What I didn't expect was that the movie would be absolutely brilliant. Nobody else did either. By the end, I was being cheered, toasted and clebrated as a movie-genius. For the rest of the night, we couldn't stop making Ice Rink jokes and references. After considerable merriment, we came to the following conclusions:
1. There might not be anyone in Europe who knows less about hockey than the French. The Greeks are their only competition. (This fact made the movie so funny... the director was keenly aware that Frenchmen on hockey skates are like fish out of water, except much funnier.)
2. Every movie is improved by the appearance of Bruce Campbell. Yes, EVERY movie. In this one he was awesome. He played the role of the "all buisiness" American actor, but despite the fact he was depicted as intensely American (arriving in a big black limo with a USA jacket), his character turned out to be the most sane and reasonable person in the movie. I took this to be another poke at "Frenchness".
3. "Ice Rink" should have its own cult, like Spinal Tap and similar classics.
4. I was very clever for bringing this movie to the party.
I won't include any spoilers--only advice. If you want to be the hero of a gathering, be kissed by people you barely know, and respected as someone with a finger on the pulse of world filmmaking, bring this movie. Just pretend you came across it "browsing" and that you thought it "looked like an interesting longshot." You'll be a hero too!
Bowling for Columbine
(2002)
Learn Sociology here
11 March 2003
I am only writing this comment because I want some place where I can say "thanks" to Moore for making this film. He is a smart guy and knows how to make an argument. At the same time, he clearly made this movie as himself, putting no distance between him the person and him the filmmaker. The whole film then a chronicle of the bewilderment of someone who cares about his neighborhood and about other people. For this reason, it is really easy to see the world through his eyes. In the movie, he's a real guy. He screws up some interviews, you feel embarassed for him in places, but you see why he's there.
This movie needs to be burned into the minds of Americans. Then, I have a feeling solutions would suggest themselves more easily.
This movie needs to be burned into the minds of Americans. Then, I have a feeling solutions would suggest themselves more easily.
Chomsky is a hero
11 March 2003
Noam Chomsky is probably the most intelligent person in the world. Nobody alive has furthered science to the degree that he has. But he proves his profound intelligence in this meticulously-justified yet enlightning conclusions about the current state of politics and the media. To this day, not one single plausible counterargument to his conclusions has emerged. That's probably because Chomsky is right again.
Tell Your Friends