Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
BigPimpinTom88
Reviews
Saw V (2008)
A lot of good parts, but a lack of focus leads to an unsatisfying whole
Spoilers ahead...
I've been taking film-making classes in college almost as long as I've been following the Saw movies. One thing I've always noticed is how they defy some rules of storytelling. I'll give you an example: I've been taught that, generally, flashbacks are a telltale sign of weak writing- that there are better ways to relay the information. But in the Saw series, they not only define the films' style, but they actually work.
With each sequel, they not only they bridge the gap between the movies, making them feel like direct continuations rather than sequels (a rarity in ANY franchise), but the new information changes the way you watch the previous ones. Adam and Dr. Gordon's situation in the first Saw seems hopeless the first time around, but seeing another four movies that only serve to bury them, and knowing what a small part they are of such a big picture, their predicament becomes outright dire.
In spite of its virtues, this effect is a double edged sword. It reached a point where, if one of the movies outright sucked, it wasn't some distant, isolated sequel that I could simply not count. So, I had to watch each new installment, lest my life feel incomplete, but I had to enjoy it, otherwise it would take away from the others.
Then came Saw IV. They relied less on answering old questions, and more on introducing new characters and traps at breakneck speed. The movie forsook a lot of the series' plausibility, but it created a feeling of chaos so effectively, it was completely forgivable. In fact, the first half of the twist- having it take place during the third movie- was sheer brilliance. But the second- Hoffman being the new Jigsaw- was hard to wrap my brain around. There was no explanation whatsoever. It was a good twist, in the sense that I didn't see it coming, but at first I didn't accept it. But after repeat viewings, it sank in. I came to love the movie like the others, and reasoned that they meant to leave it to be explained in the next one. And lo, a year later, my prayers were answered
more or less.
Hoffman is revealed to have had no family, except for his sister. And, at some point, she is killed by her boyfriend Seth, who only serves 5 due to a 'technicality.' Hoffman, a veteran cop, becomes disenfranchised with the justice system. So, he kidnaps Seth and puts him in a lethal pendulum trap, modeling the whole thing after the Jigsaw killer to cover his tracks. Jigsaw finds out, kidnaps Hoffman, and blackmails him into assisting with his work- a very cool scene, by the way. We are then treated to tantalizing glimpses of Hoffman helping kidnap Paul, the man in the razor wire trap from the first film, and setting up the nerve gas house from the second. As all this unfolds, Strahm, embittered by the death of his partner and his discharge from the case, pursues Hoffman.
This is all great material, but it's not enough. There has to be a present tense game unfolding, right? Well, there is
kind of. But it's almost a subplot, where it should have been the main focus of the movie. The characters and traps are interesting, but not enough time is spent with them for us to care. And, to make matters worse, they really have no correlation the main plot. No one knows about them, and no one is looking for them. Hoffman's main goal is to cover his tracks, which makes it seem silly that he's playing another game in the first place.
As it turns out, this new game only exists for the purpose of implicating Strahm as the other Jigsaw accomplice. If this is supposed to be the twist, it's pretty weak. The seeds for this are planted early on, and by the middle of the movie, Hoffman's intention to do so is rather obvious. And, as much as I like returning characters having a big part, Strahm doesn't really carry the movie's theme like he should. He hasn't done anything "wrong." This causes movie to come across confused. There can't really be a twist if there's no lesson for him to learn.
That's the main "biggy" I have regarding the film, but there's no shortage of little things to nitpick. For starters, there is some pretty ridiculous, redundant, and on-the-nose dialogue. A lot of important information is casually conveyed in conversation. Also, the characters' awareness of Jigsaw and his motives takes away from the experience. "Close the door so we can hear the rules." Ugh. And, for all the splendor of the movie's flashbacks, they raise some continuity issues. Hoffman only models his trap after Jigsaw. Jigsaw is not involved. But somehow, Jigsaw's puppet and VOICE are on the tape. Also, if Hoffman is making it look like a Jigsaw killing, that means the Jigsaw killer is already established, right? Well, after Hoffman is recruited, we see him assisting Jigsaw with the razor wire trap. But wait, wasn't that the first one the police found? Traditionally, the Saw movies haven't made mistakes like these. What a disappointment, especially considering how well done the scenes themselves are. It just doesn't add up.
Then again, nothing adds up. The movie ends on a "that's it?!?!" note, and the whole thing feels like an epilogue to Saw IV rather than its own self-contained story. The Saw films have traditionally catered to the fans (in the form of flashbacks, cameos by past characters, tying up loose ends, etc.) but this time around, if feels like that's ALL they set out to do- and they didn't even do that 100% right. So, I'd say this one's more miss than hit. Then again, I've only seen it once. Maybe I'll come around, just as I do every time. But I kind of doubt it.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
I'm glad I let all the bad hype sink in before I saw it
Everyone seems to be griping about how bad this movie is, especially in my circle of friends. I didn't end up seeing it opening weekend, which was plenty of time to take it all the negative hype and imagine every possible way this movie could be as embarrassingly bad as people have claimed. The particular scenes that were the most heavily criticized, surprisingly, did not bother me. The scenes that did, however, weren't mentioned by anybody I know. Here they are.
Betty Brant's buzzer that alerted Jameson about his blood pressure was too comical and over-done. I did, however, find his forced calm demeanor very funny.
When Sandman grew into a huge monster and growled, it took away all of his sympathetic human qualities and made him too over-the-top unbelievable.
The brief shot where Peter brushes his hair down into his forehead with his hand is all that truly sells the "emo teenager" thing that everyone complains about. Without that shot, it would not have come across as such, in my opinion.
I enjoyed the second, out-of-costume fight between Harry and Peter. But the scar that it left Harry with for the rest of the movie looked really fake. It was too small given the damage he sustained, and too bubbly.
I thought the news coverage of the construction site standoff was cheesily done (it came across like a reality show) and unnecessary. The commentary was not needed, and it was a weak way to establish what was happening. They added an extra element of unbelievability by referring to Flint Marko as "the sandman"- the only time in the movie any villain is referred to by name- thus grounding it in the realm of the comic book. And, during the scene where spidey is getting pummeled (which would have been emotional if sandman wasn't a giant monster), the news anchor's commentary stripped the scene of it's intimacy.
There were spectators close to the battle, and during the fight, it would cut to them and some comical moment would ensue. These comical moments took away all suspense, and I found it surprising that none of the people seemed frightened by what they were watching, but more content with spouting one-liners. And during the wide shot with the giant sandman, the spectators were so close to him that it seemed like a staged circus show.
The battle was too big and too public. I understand that it was Venom's intention to "humiliate" Peter Parker, but it was such a personal fight that it didn't need either element.
Harry having a change of heart and joining the battle to help Spidey didn't seem to fit. It was the less 'obvious' thing that could have happened, sure, but it didn't do it for me.
But overall it was really good. Not as good as 1 or 2, but a better 3rd movie than X-Men 3 (which I still liked, but was similarly hated). People are often citing the sillier, more comical and light-hearted moments in the movie as what's wrong, but keep in mind that the first and second movies weren't dead serious either. That said, given spidey's core struggle in the film, this one should have been the most serious of the three.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
So underrated it makes me sick...
Includes mild spoilers
In recent years, Hollywood has been producing sequel after sequel for no other purpose than making lots of money. Sequels are often, if not always, empty and hollow money-makers. Despite what has been said many times before, The Lost World: Jurassic Park is not one of these films. It solidly stands alongside the original and complements it very well.
First of all, I would like to set aside all of this mindless yammering about this movie being a butchered adaptation of Michael Crichton's novel of the same name. If you call the movie and the book different, then you are not a true Jurassic Park fan. Sure, the characters and events are drastically different, but when you get right down to it, the true heart and spirit of the movie and book are identical. They are both scientifically profound,including moral issues about whether or not it is right to exploit dinosaurs for profit. They both revolve around two teams: one is a team of dinosaur advocates and the other is a team of evil hunters who plans to raid the island. All of the characters of the book are still there, but they often manifested as someone else. If you pay close attention and analyze the movie it should be quite obvious. My only minor complaint is the exclusion of Lewis Dodgson. I feel that he is an essential villain to the story.
Cinematically, this movie is brilliant. It is flawlessly directed, written, and acted. The locations are breathtaking. The score is beautifully composed and conducted. The CGI is as good as ever. Stan Winston's robotic creatures are painstakingly detailed and lifelike. What more can you as for?
And I am going to go nuts if I hear one more complaint about the San Diego scene. Sure, it's over the top, but it is a logical course for the plot to take. It is ironic because Peter Ludlow wanted to do what John Hammond failed to to, but in turn he caused more of a disaster than his uncle ever did.
Anyone who claims that Jurassic Park 3 is a better sequel is out of their mind. Take the time to appreciate this movie for what it is. The Lost World: Jurassic Park is pure cinematic excellence!
Raptor (2001)
And the Academy Award Goes To...
Why isn't this movie on the bottom 100? Raptor is, without a doubt, the worst movie I have seen in all of my fifteen years of life. I have never before witnessed such a catastrophic mess as this. Absolutely everything about it is awkward and cheaply done.
Nobody in the cast gives a somewhat decent performance. The dialogue is utterly incoherent and the humor is anything but humorous. Corbin Bernsen was the most painful part of the whole thing. I can't help cringe when I recall some of his lines, like "In or out? You're worse than a cat!" and "Your lady friend isn't a very good poker player. She's just revealed her hand."
The raptors are a joke. Even I could make more realistic dinosaur effects than these filmmakers have shamelessly done. It is an insult to the actual velociraptors, or any dinosaur for that matter. Not only that, but the killing scenes are too gruesome even for me. I don't seriously think these animals would rip their victim to shreds and throw pieces all over the ground just to make everything look gorier. Besides, the blood and guts are all useless when you can see the deaths coming from miles and miles away.
I am a big fan of Jurassic Park movies and of dinosaurs. Maybe the filmmakers didn't anticipate anybody with a shred of intelligence or sense to disregard bad filmmaking to stumble upon this movie on HBO late at night, like I did. If I could say one thing to anybody involved in this film, I would have to quote Dr. Alan Grant from the first Jurassic Park...
"Just try to show a little respect."