Change Your Image
jamalio9
Reviews
Hulk (2003)
SMASHY SMASHY JUST FOR FUN!
An awesome achievement in master story telling (thanks to Ang Lee) and state of the art SFX, the Hulk is easily the most satisfying movie this summer. The pacing is far better than Matrix Reloaded's jumbled mess of combing scenes that don't belong in the same movie, and even the still great X2 that has a habit of starting then stalling with great action set pieces, then long stretches of character exposition, and making the mistake of having the best action scene at the very start of the movie, with not much afterwards to live up to it. I don't understand it when people say the Hulk, compared to X2 (which admittedly had more humour) takes itself too seriously, and Lee is not ashamed to blow up the screen and show us some truly amazing action/FX shots, whereas Brian Singer seems as though he wants to focus more on the themes and issues of being a mutant, rather than the capabilities these mutants have of kicking some serious butt. And also the rather zealous approach of wanting to make it into a huge series, when we know that round 4 or 5, no ones gonna care (apart from the comic book geeks).
Forget Daredevils' tacky direction, as I forgot I saw the damn thing, and I cant actually remember seeing any more big budget fare so far this year, and lets focus on the hulk. Slowly and steadily building up the tension and stretching the exposition, whilst simultaneously revelling in the master editing techniques (include swipes, split screens, CGI zoom ins and so on, recalling the style of a comic book, truly genius) the film at this point, unlike many others in the genre, hardly has a weak scene. Ok, so at the very start there's a clichéd over use of music score (which thankfully goes away pretty soon) and at first the child hood scenes seem ludicrous, but are used to better use in flashback later on in the film and to further develop the motivations, putting them into better context. On the whole I actually enjoyed this part of the film. None of the dialogue felt that hammy, none of the acting wooden or forced, no over the top, why use-actors-to-express-characters-emotions-when-you-can-get-a-composer-to-do- it type score. Now the hard parts out the way, the part that relies on proper character and film mechanics, it worked (although never quite bang on, but then it never would be). But was convincing enough, and even had a couple of truly beautiful, artistically creative sequences that recall loss and tragedy. My favourite scene, when Nolte gives his speech about a tragic moment that, in no way can ever be changed or compensated and becoming nothing but a memory, is truly heartbreaking, with barely a single bit of CGI in sight.
Then when the hulk kicks in and gets mean, damnit, it'll kick you. Hard. The climax is truly spectacular, showing you some heart stopping, never before seen stuff as the hulk leaps around and goes ape s***. People who say these SFX are rubbish, would probably say that you're holding up 5 fingers, when in actual fact you're holding up your index one. In reverse. At them. What the hell are these guys on? Yeah, I agree, Citizen Kane is a TERRIBLE film! Robert De Niros' best performance was adventures of Rocky and Bull Winkle, and NOT Raging Bull or The Deer Hunter. Al Pacino's best performance was Dick Tracy, and NOT Serpico or Godfather Part 2. STUPID MONGER! Now go book an appointment at the opticians, then see the film again when your vision has improved.
The use of CGI is so seamless, the expression on the hulks face and his movement with little to no blurring effect (always a fault of CGI) is pitch perfect, and Ang Lee has an ability not unlike Peter Jackson to shoot these scenes in a matter of fact, no big deal, seamless kinda way, which enhances it (note the Hulk rampaging about on the TV monitors, we only seem him in close up if we have to). Technically he's better than Gollum, although Gollum wins hands down in the performance stakes, whereas Hulk is more of an abominable creation that goes mad and smashy smashy just for fun, and does this with true grace and beauty, going YEAH YEAH! and loving it. Ace.
With 45 minutes of near flawless exposition, with more than adequate performances from all concerned (especially Nick Nolte and Eric Bana) and a not disappointing in the slightest, damn near ground breaking use of SFX climax, this, my friends, is how you make a genuinely a** kicking, overall more than satisfying big budget movie, that may hold up to numerous repeated viewings. Oh and it's the best, and most innovative, comic book adaptation since Superman.
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)
A WONDERFULL, MAGICAL FILM- FUN FOR ALL THE FAMILY
the best kids movie since driller killer, henry is about a freindly stranger who likes to invite people (especially women) back to his pad for tea and cakes, and to show them his furry cuddly bears. sometimes to watch a nice little family movie, shot on video camera, often involving birthdays or a nice little tea party that takes place in the front room, even hide and seek. but henry is unhappy. he is unhappy because he is lonely, that people only use him for his tea parties, and they dont really like him. This then becomes a tail of tragedy, and features a very moving performance by michael rooker. when he looks into the camera and says 'Why have they left me? Because I didn't get bring the buckaroo. Oh lord, WHY DIDNT I BRING THE BUCKAROO?' it truelly becomes a moving, heart breaking moment in modern cinema.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
AN UNEXPECTED CAMP CLASSIC
The definition of camp: a film comprising of risible acting, risible dialogue, bad plot structure and awful, strange use of music.
THE MATRIX RELOADED = CAMP WITH A CAPITAL C.
And who would have thought it? The broposkis made a landmark film back in 99 with the original. It was flawless. People regarded it as a 'cult' classic. I'm sorry but the term 'cult' does not apply here. Save that for blue brothers, breakin', flashdance, footloose or whatever, basically films that have a charm deep rooted in quirkiness and have dated in the coolest possible way, that have gained a fan base overtime. The matrix was a classic film the same way that the godfather was a classic film. Of course they are different, but they were pushed to the limit of greatness within its own genre, and that's what makes them great films.
Enter matrix reloaded. One question you guys, what the hell happened? Music, editing, acting, pacing, sense of wonder, sense of awe, perfection of craft in the script, so what does that leave? Oh yeah. SFX. We still have those. And kung fu. Too much bloody kung fu.
The neo from the end of the original hasn't advanced. Hes no longer god like. He is the neo who was trained by morpheus to do kung fu, has polished up a bit, and can now fly. That's just sheer laziness in terms of character progression, and as a result the film suffers from what could've/ should've been. Instead we get something..quite different.
The MR is the last thing anyone with half a brain cell and the slightest hint of anticipation ever expected. Its as if the simulation for the world of the matrix has become a porno movie with sexually experienced and talented actors taking place of the real actors (and you kind of expect Ron Jeremy to board the nebuschar or whatever and ask trinity if she likes anal). Except its all foreplay and you never see trinity (oh, oh oh, and I would pay 10 times the amount to see monica belucci with the things like this) nekkid. It's this kind of approach that WILL divide audiences and critics and WILL be a cult classic. Ok so its different from the original, its bound to be. But the acting is like fleshgordon (or porno), the dialogue like ulysees, or starcom or animalympics or something like that (or even porno), and the underground dancing scene in zion, if anyone here remembers, like fraggle rock (or, dare I say it, porno). I could almost hear the theme tune 'drag your cares away, worries for another day...', amongst the truly crap 90s techno and imagine one of those green little things get p***** that red ate his little glass thing he spent ages working on. Either that or the music video to duran duran's 'wild boys'. And what you get is some rumpin pumpin betwixt this, which makes it seem even more strange. I DO understand the significance of this scene, its just that its cheesier than a cheesecutters cheese slicer after its cut the cheesiest of cheeses on the cheese market. In France.
And in one scene I could've sworn I heard the drum n bass 'cover version' of sesame street in one of the kung fu scenes. Either that or it was sonic the hedgehog or marioland or something. I just hope to god I'm wrong when I see it a second time (it was probably just linkin park).
People compare this to the phantom menace. Actually, I'd say its more like attack of the clones, as it's not COMPLETELY flat, and it's marginally better. It's a pretty bad film that has some cool scenes. Comes to think of it, This is like batman returns going onto batman and robin. But that I could understand. Joel Schumacher is a fruity, campy man who saw this franchise as his big chance of displaying fetishist desires of leather and rubber costumes (GO TO IT MACHY, YA BIG FRUIT!). The matrix reloaded is made by the same directors. Go figure.
This film had the most interesting effect on its audience that I've seen in a while. People just walking in and out of the cinema, casually complying with the rules of nature, not caring if they miss anything. That's because the first half is like a TV movie and people felt right at home (the last half, thankfully, is a lot better, and NEARLY has some of the intrigue you got in the whole of the first one). X men 2 didn't have that effect on its audeince. Lord of the rings, despite being longer film(s), didn't either. And the first Matrix sure as hell didn't. The reason is that those films had a coherent narrative and made its subject matter seem interesting. I find it so bizarre that the bloposkis, after demonstrating with such deftness with the original, did such a cut n' paste job. At the end of the day, films divide critics into love and hate categories. A personal opinion based on personal taste. But narrative structure is universal and compulsive to what makes the film easy to sit through and digest. If there is a problem of narrative, its there and no opinion can divide that, and as a result the film can and will- suffer.
But, the thing is, everything I've said so far is not actually criticism. This IS a cult classic because of how it is and I love this sort of thing. I just never expected it from a matrix sequel. The bloposkis have screwed up the chance of making one of the best trilogies of all time BIG time. And that's no mean feat. I love this film dearly and cannot wait to see it again, because I love films that are so bad there good. It works better than those two sh** star wars films because its adult oriented and there still remains a sense of intrigue of what the hell is going on. Its hilarious in places, sometimes intentional, sometimes, as with the zion/rumpin pumpin scene, un-intentional. But you do get the impression that the campiness was deliberate. The final shot of the film contains a very abstract revelation (that wont be revealed until revolutions is out) the music goes -DERR DERRR!! Fade to black. I'm not kidding. And that sums this up pretty well, ridiculous and confusing.
Put the matrix reloaded into a blender and the ingredients would be- the phantom menace, batman and robin, attack of the clones, flashgordon, bound (for the rump and pump) death race 2000, blade 2, remo williams: the adventure begins, fragglerock, plus anything with Ron Jeremy, Sarah Young or annabel Chongonem (minus the gratutious exposition), add a small pinch of the original matrix, = THE MATRIX RELOADED. And the result is one of the most 'interesting' sequels of recent memory.
Peter Jackson, you can rest easily, the holy trilogy moniker will be yours.
American Psycho (2000)
LENGTHY BOOK TO FILM COMPARISON: MAY ONLY MAKE SENSE TO THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN THE FILM AND WERE DISSAPOINTED
There are numerous things wrong with this otherwise faithfull adaptation in terms of it's structure, plot and ability to portray a strong focus on it's lead character (although heavily watered down). For starters, it is far too tame. You may argue that a lot of the explicit sex and violence in the book was unnecessary but the truth is the Patrick Bateman in the book is obsessed with detail, perfection and routine, so he explains popular culture, food and restaurants and bathing products with the same explicit nature as he describes his killings with his victims and the sex he has with them beforehand. This was missing. I never once heard Patrick Bateman describe what he likes to do to his female victims in sickening detail. Although this was sick it does serve a purpose and would have proven to be a very uniquely cinematic function that would be very disturbing and almost something we have never seen before in a film. Plus the fact it would sidestep the censors as its not physical violence being committed, merely psychological. They lost something unique in this. Also Patrick Bateman in the book does some unbelievably f***** up things to his victims which makes it hard to read. That's why there was all the controversy. The film does NOT have this effect and it should at least have been shocking, and the fact that there was no controversy surrounding the films release sums it up quite well. It's like a book that is really heartbreaking and sad and brings you to tears but the adapted film doesn't make you feel this way- you often think that something important was missing and the film makers have missed the point.
Secondly were the production values. In the book you imagine the locations- Bateman's apartment, his office, the parties they attend, the nightclubs and restaurants, to exceed anything we could ever imagine and associate with 'rich' in reality. In the book they are lavish, far more than we could ever imagine. Now its fairly obvious that this film is relatively low budget and as result it suffers a little by showing us locations we would associate with upper middle class in a TV sitcom, not upper class people who have that sense of materialistic achievement the likes of which we never knew existed. And it's a little too obvious that most of it was shot in a film studio. Many of the characters in the book would frown upon the living conditions of what the characters in the film have.
Thirdly was Patrick Bateman himself. He was never this much of a geek in the book. He was a very powerful, ruthless man, who describes all that sense of materialism that is apparently appealing to most humans, whilst displaying a sense of genuine animosity and sinister ness that you would almost regard as 'inhuman'. A lot of people miss the point of this; sometimes your confused as to whether he is human or some form of demon and it plays with your perceptions a little, thereby proving to be the most disturbing element of the book itself. Patrick Bateman in the book is actually very well respected and his possibly so far at the top of his game its no surprise he appears to be inhuman. In the film he is a run of the mill yuppie that is a bit of a loser compared to his mates. In the film he does what he does 'cause he feels he has no choice, in the book he does what he does 'cause he gets such a kick out of it and is such a spoilt brat that enjoying the most expensive things in life are not enough for him. He is so disgusted with meals, clothes, other products etc that don't cost thousands of dollars and aren't the best it is actually quite unbelievable yet interesting, and you get the sense that he spends a thousand just to walk out his door. You don't get a sense of what an expensive life Patrick Bateman lives in the film. Also in the book he really is a ladies man and wherever he goes he always gets a chicks phone number- which would lead onto inevitable consequences. In the film he often has to rely on hookers- one of which the ugly blonde one, who is so ugly the character in the book wouldn't even look at her (the book version of his character is VERY fussy about his women and wouldn't have sex with her unless she was 100% perfect looking, and NOT one that has the characteristics of a yorkshire terrier). In short, the book version of Patrick Bateman would have eaten the one in the film (literally alive) for breakfast in terms of greed and corruption and wanting the best of everything.
Fourthly was the scope of the film, again a fault with the films production values. In the book the characters get up to far more interesting things- conference meetings, huge parties, rock concerts, opera and so one, in the film all they ever seem to do is go to the same nightclub and restaurants and sit around and talk. As a result the film shows little achievement as to some of the excitement the characters get up to. That's also what was disturbing about the book, it shows a lifestyle that these yuppies have that entices you and almost makes you feel a little envious of what they get up to. In the film the characters lives are just boring, plain and simple.
Last of all (and thank god after all my bitching) the other characters in the book are far more complex and interesting than the 1 dimensional representation we get of them in the film. All of them are obsessed about the same things as Bateman who isn't such a loner and makes you question whether or not they get up to the same things as Bateman despite the fact that they give the impression otherwise. All of them are vain and are obsessed with looking good and getting the best out of everything. Again in the film they are just traditional yuppies.
Well I'm sorry I've bored you after this lengthy comparison but if you have read the book long ago as I have; and expected something special and monumental as the book was, rather than a film that was too small scale and lacked the passion and ambition it so desperately needed, I'm sure you'd agree. There should have been moments in this film that really shocked you into realising what a human being is capable of in terms of committing acts of evil towards others but alas, all we got was a naked guy running down a corridor wearing sneakers and wielding a chainsaw. I feel that the strongest thing about the film is easily Christian Bales' outstanding performance, and you wonder what could have been achieved in the hands of a greater director like Oliver Stone, Brian De Palma or even Martin Scorsese, who had a bigger budget and a little more verve and daringness to do it more justice, rather than Mary Hannon's merely competent but pedestrian and un-cinematic take on the book
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
AN UNEXPECTED CAMP CLASSIC
The definition of camp: a film comprising of risible acting, risible dialogue, bad plot structure and awful, strange use of music.
THE MATRIX RELOADED = CAMP WITH A CAPITAL C.
And who would have thought it? The broposkis made a landmark film back in 99 with the original. It was flawless. People regarded it as a 'cult' classic. I'm sorry but the term 'cult' does not apply here. Save that for blue brothers, breakin', flashdance, footloose or whatever, basically films that have a charm deep rooted in quirkiness and have dated in the coolest possible way, that have gained a fan base overtime. The matrix was a classic film the same way that the godfather was a classic film. Of course they are different, but they were pushed to the limit of greatness within its own genre, and that's what makes them great films.
Enter matrix reloaded. One question you guys, what the hell happened? Music, editing, acting, pacing, sense of wonder, sense of awe, perfection of craft in the script, so what does that leave? Oh yeah. SFX. We still have those. And kung fu. Too much bloody kung fu.
The neo from the end of the original hasn't advanced. Hes no longer god like. He is the neo who was trained by morpheus to do kung fu, has polished up a bit, and can now fly. That's just sheer laziness in terms of character progression, and as a result the film suffers from what could've/ should've been. Instead we get something..quite different.
The MR is the last thing anyone with half a brain cell and the slightest hint of anticipation ever expected. Its as if the simulation for the world of the matrix has become a porno movie with sexually experienced and talented actors taking place of the real actors (and you kind of expect Ron Jeremy to board the nebuschar or whatever and ask trinity if she likes anal). Except its all foreplay and you never see trinity (oh, oh oh, and I would pay 10 times the amount to see monica belucci with the things like this) nekkid. It's this kind of approach that WILL divide audiences and critics and WILL be a cult classic. Ok so its different from the original, its bound to be. But the acting is like fleshgordon (or porno), the dialogue like ulysees, or starcom or animalympics or something like that (or even porno), and the underground dancing scene in zion, if anyone here remembers, like fraggle rock (or, dare I say it, porno). I could almost hear the theme tune 'drag your cares away, worries for another day...', amongst the truly crap 90s techno and imagine one of those green little things get p***** that red ate his little glass thing he spent ages working on. Either that or the music video to duran duran's 'wild boys'. And what you get is some rumpin pumpin betwixt this, which makes it seem even more strange. I DO understand the significance of this scene, its just that its cheesier than a cheesecutters cheese slicer after its cut the cheesiest of cheeses on the cheese market. In France.
And in one scene I could've sworn I heard the drum n bass 'cover version' of sesame street in one of the kung fu scenes. Either that or it was sonic the hedgehog or marioland or something. I just hope to god I'm wrong when I see it a second time (it was probably just linkin park).
People compare this to the phantom menace. Actually, I'd say its more like attack of the clones, as it's not COMPLETELY flat, and it's marginally better. It's a pretty bad film that has some cool scenes. Comes to think of it, This is like batman returns going onto batman and robin. But that I could understand. Joel Schumacher is a fruity, campy man who saw this franchise as his big chance of displaying fetishist desires of leather and rubber costumes (GO TO IT MACHY, YA BIG FRUIT!). The matrix reloaded is made by the same directors. Go figure.
This film had the most interesting effect on its audience that I've seen in a while. People just walking in and out of the cinema, casually complying with the rules of nature, not caring if they miss anything. That's because the first half is like a TV movie and people felt right at home (the last half, thankfully, is a lot better, and NEARLY has some of the intrigue you got in the whole of the first one). X men 2 didn't have that effect on its audeince. Lord of the rings, despite being longer film(s), didn't either. And the first Matrix sure as hell didn't. The reason is that those films had a coherent narrative and made its subject matter seem interesting. I find it so bizarre that the bloposkis, after demonstrating with such deftness with the original, did such a cut n' paste job. At the end of the day, films divide critics into love and hate categories. A personal opinion based on personal taste. But narrative structure is universal and compulsive to what makes the film easy to sit through and digest. If there is a problem of narrative, its there and no opinion can divide that, and as a result the film can and will- suffer.
But, the thing is, everything I've said so far is not actually criticism. This IS a cult classic because of how it is and I love this sort of thing. I just never expected it from a matrix sequel. The bloposkis have screwed up the chance of making one of the best trilogies of all time BIG time. And that's no mean feat. I love this film dearly and cannot wait to see it again, because I love films that are so bad there good. It works better than those two sh** star wars films because its adult oriented and there still remains a sense of intrigue of what the hell is going on. Its hilarious in places, sometimes intentional, sometimes, as with the zion/rumpin pumpin scene, un-intentional. But you do get the impression that the campiness was deliberate. The final shot of the film contains a very abstract revelation (that wont be revealed until revolutions is out) the music goes -DERR DERRR!! Fade to black. I'm not kidding. And that sums this up pretty well, ridiculous and confusing.
Put the matrix reloaded into a blender and the ingredients would be- the phantom menace, batman and robin, attack of the clones, flashgordon, bound (for the rump and pump) death race 2000, blade 2, remo williams: the adventure begins, fragglerock, plus anything with Ron Jeremy, Sarah Young or annabel Chongonem (minus the gratutious exposition), add a small pinch of the original matrix, = THE MATRIX RELOADED. And the result is one of the most 'interesting' sequels of recent memory.
Peter Jackson, you can rest easily, the holy trilogy moniker will be yours.
Assaulted Nuts (1984)
WHERE IS THE SALT, HUH?
This is good one to see with freinds and to knock on the head with a beer. This film is about a great astonishment kinds of feelings with girksis and is really a food one. I say it is good with a beer because, really, it is one of the kind. It might not be as good as unsalted nuts, but is nearly, very much so, and all the actors are so good, it desreves its place. It will suck you in and make you come in another world, and leave you exhasted, but begging for more.