Change Your Image
royale_w_cheez44
Reviews
Heavenly Creatures (1994)
Challenging, Heady
"Heavenly Creatures" may very well wind up being, first and foremost, "that one film Peter Jackson did in the 90s with Kate Winslet". Hell, it probably already is. At least, it's the attitude I went into the film with. That simplistic title betrays the fact that "Heavenly Creatures" is an extremely accomplished work, and a challenging one at that.
Though I was not familiar with the true story behind the screenplay, it goes without saying that sympathizing with a couple of emotional, dramatic, downright selfish girls who go to extremes by the end of the story cannot be expected from a normal audience. That said, Jackson doesn't canonize them as tragic heroes as much as he fleshes them out as lost souls, whose pursuit of love and companionship is clouded with delusions of endless despair.
The film is visually intoxicating and in-depth almost to a fault, really delving into the idyllic fantasy realm that Pauline and Juliet create. It's a nebulous world that falls just somewhat short of allowing the audience into its threshold, perhaps due in part to the incredible performances of Winslet and Lynskey, both of which regard their fantasy as their own little secret.
Even if the off-putting and confusing nature of the emotional, eccentric leads makes the film a difficult experience to be fully immersed in, the ending packs a powerful punch. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker, what could be "movie of the week" material becomes a traumatic, devastating end and a tragic understanding of how the search for something so pure and innocent can go so wrong.
Margot at the Wedding (2007)
Atroicious. Hugely disappointing.
I loved "The Squid and the Whale". And I loved "Greenberg".
"Margot at the Wedding" is simply one of the most atrocious films I have ever seen, and one of the most disappointing products of such a great cast and director.
There is not a single likable, redeemable character, nor is there a storyline that pays off. Imagine 90 minutes of watching a group of repugnant, shallow, neurotic people interacting and arguing about a wedding that we never get to see.
Did I also mention the craft? The film is so amateurishly shot and cut together that you'll find yourself distracted by the lingering shots of an underexposed, awkwardly composed image. Or you might not understand the jarring shift in tone or pacing from an unmotivated scene change. I simply cannot wrap my head around what they were trying to achieve.
And what makes it all even worse is what could have been. Noah Baumbach has proved himself to be a compelling director and storyteller in the past, even with unlikable characters such as Ben Stiller's Greenberg. Nicole Kidman often makes fascinating, adventurous choices in the roles she portrays. What we are left with is a sloppy, nihilistic mess of a film about a miserable family without any intuition of how decent humans should behave, thus robbing the audience of any sort of fulfillment or engagement that one would hope for in watching a film.
If the film had ended with the tree falling on their house and killing them all, I might have seen a redeeming quality in the poetic justice of the situation. Instead I'm left with a bitter aftertaste of a meandering, boring, dreadful film about people with whom nobody could relate, and therefor engaging in their conflicts was in no way possible. It isn't easy to sympathize with such miserable souls such as those in this film... what a shame.
Bin-jip (2004)
Slow, but stay with it
What struck me from the beginning of this film is how meticulously crafted it was. It's beautifully shot and manages to mostly present its characters in a fascinating and believable way, even though the lead male and female say no more than three sentences between them.
This very unconventional love story between the two characters is quite unlike anything I have ever seen. Again, in a film with very sparse dialog, the acting is very subtle but the two leads hit very telling notes in their interactions with each other. It all takes place in a very slow process, but in the end you get a very unique and tender love story.
That being said, this film is very, very slow. Glacial, at times. Some viewers might find this a frustrating viewing experience. I found myself BEGGING for one of the characters to open up and pour out their inner most feelings and fears. There were times where the characters' refusal to speak just seemed totally unlikely and mind-bogglingly over indulgent on the filmmaker's part. There are also times that I was wondering if this film had somehow transitioned into a supernatural tale and wanted clarification ... But alas, less is most definitely more in this case.
I cannot stress enough: This movie is a test in patience and in the willingness of a viewer to watch a story slowly but beautifully pan out. The final five minutes (which contain the film poster/DVD cover's captivating image) quite literally made the movie for me. Giving it more thought now that it is finished, I'm very happy that I stayed with this film. I can't recommend this movie for everyone, but those who consider themselves students of film should give this one a look. If you're like me, your memory of this film will be one of a challenging but engaging work of art.
Boksuneun naui geot (2002)
Unlike Anything You Will Ever See
As a huge fan of Chan-wook Park's most widely acclaimed film Oldboy, I can tell you that nothing, NOTHING can prepare you for Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. As dark, powerful, and mesmerizing as Oldboy is, this film is on such a different level of tragedy and pure human drama that is absolutely unshakable.
I cannot reveal the plot, because watching the story unfold is something unbelievable. At times it's funny, at times odd, at times so immensely heartbreaking and tragic that you won't believe what you are seeing. In this tale of revenge (sought out by multiple characters), there are not true villains or heroes. Each character has their intentions and motives, and we see each of them descend into the darkest facets of human nature.
Chan-wook Park made a film so rich and deeply realized and felt that you you the viewer feels for every single character, flawed as they may be. That goes without saying that the acting is superb across the board. Kang-ho Song (from the recent Korean blockbuster "The Host") is breathtaking and gives a moving performance that one truly has to see to believe. I was pleasantly surprised with Du-na Bae, who created a character so unique that I didn't even make the connection that she was in "The Host" as well. And of course, Ha-kyun Shin's portrayal of a deaf and dumb man is subtle and nuanced in the most mesmerizing way.
The technique used in the film is astounding. The imagery is resonant and unlike anything I have seen before, from the bizarre sequences of disconnect (those who see it will see what I mean) to the hauntingly powerful images. Everything evokes emotion unlike any movie in recent memory.
The brilliant writing, directing, and acting make this unlike anything you have ever seen before. Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is on such a different level than the average film, in every aspect. You won't believe your eyes and, when the credits roll, your heart is broken for every character. Truly, it's a film experience like no other.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
The weakest of the trilogy, but still good fun
Critics have been relentlessly bitchy about Spiderman 3. Even though I see where they are coming from when they say that it wasn't as good as the previous film (it isn't), there are too many villains (there are), too many subplots (there are), and some contrived story elements (there are), the film is just what you would expect in a summer movie: action, adventure, and an enormously entertaining film.
Following up the superb Spiderman 2 was something that might have set this film up to "disappoint" from the beginning. With Spidey 2, you had a magnificent villain, a sincere, human storyline to accompany the action, and a plot that worked seamlessly. The fact of the matter is that Spiderman 3 cannot match its predecessor in those respects. It simply doesn't work all the time, but when it does, it shines and creates some of the most audacious moments in the entire series.
The attempt to up the ante falls flat in some respects. The film is just jam packed with so many subplots and characters that it struggles to keep everything in place. You have Peter and MJ's romance, Peter's revenge story against Flint Marko, Peter Parker "gone bad", Peter meets Gwen, you get the idea. If nothing else, the story line is quite convoluted and it doesn't always work. Eddie Brock, played spot on by Topher Grace, is also seems rushed. His character was one that needed further development, not to mention more "villain" screen time. And don't even get me STARTED on the helpful Osborne butler. Those who have seen the film will know what I'm talking about. All in all, I believe that the film would have worked out better if maybe Venom were eliminated from the script.
That's not saying that Spiderman 3 lacks the sincerity of the second movie, because it certainly has its moments. We see the humanity in Flint Marko (an excellent Thomas Haden Church), or glimpses of a Harry Osborne not bent on revenge, played terrifically by James Franco. The bits that hit spot on in the first films (Aunt May giving Peter money, MJ's abusive parents) aren't quite matched, but Spiderman 3 still has plenty of genuine heart to go around. It also keeps a lot of the humor from the previous films, with an especially brilliant Bruce Campbell cameo. However, these moments are often times overshadowed by a problematic script and story.
But above all, this film is great fun and a visual masterwork. The action is superb and edge-of-your-seat, and absolutely breathtaking in its best moments. Embarrassingly enough, I think I actually gasped out loud in one of those "close call" moments. There is one especially "holy crap" sequence of Sandman coming together that is so brilliant and haunting that I would almost see the film again for that one scene.
Don't let the negative aspects or critic nitpicking turn you away from seeing this film. The fact of the matter is that despite a story that doesn't gel as well as those of the first two and multiple plots that could have been split up into separate movies, the audacious action, superb visuals, and terrific cast that almost makes up for the jam packed storyline make this a great summer movie, if not a completely disposable one. While it may be a step down from Spiderman 2, I can guarantee that it achieves what VERY FEW comic book films have in the past.
And of course, that's not without saying that it absolutely murders, buries, and spits on films like X-Men: The Last Stand. People should stop using the term "disappointment" so loosely when you have films like that.
The Fountain (2006)
A Completely Misunderstood Masterpiece
Given the seemingly mixed reactions to this film, I am totally aware that some people simply do not "get" it. Just because I am aware of their distaste for this film doesn't mean I understand it, because I believe that The Fountain is nothing short of a masterwork.
For those with open minds and hearts, The Fountain is quite a moving film, visually and emotionally. Darren Aronofsky, the director, created a multi-layered picture that works on all levels. The trailers were, I admit, a bit misleading, showing this as a bit more of an epic. Don't get me wrong, the scope of the movie is breathtaking in every way, filled with imagery that stands among the greatest and most powerful in recent memory. However, the heart of the film is a love story.
Hugh Jackman gives a phenomenal performance as a tortured soul desperately seeking a cure for his wife, played by Rachel Weisz with beautiful subtlety. The stories they tell, through their many facets and details, are emotionally gripping and monstrously heartbreaking. The film's conclusion, bringing everything together, is powerful enough to leave you sitting stupefied through the entire credits.
That's not to say that the film is easy to interpret. Everyone has their own opinions on what exactly happened, so needless to say that some will be turned off by that aspect.
But don't let that turn you away from seeing it. Though the film bombed commercially and was robbed of any awards (score and cinematography being the most obvious omissions in award show nominees), I believe The Fountain remains one of the best films of 2006. For those who believe, this film is not one that you will soon forget. It's an unprecedented visual and emotional masterpiece.
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)
Misses the Mark Completely
"Talladega Nights: The Balad of Ricky Bobby" is a Will Ferrell vehicle (no pun intended) in the same vein as "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy" (as you can tell by the similar, pretentious titles). I can't really explain why "Talladega Nights" worked for all those I saw it with and all of my friends, and yet there was really nothing in it that worked for me. Mind you, I loved "Anchorman" to death, and still think that it's a hilarious movie. However, TN was the exact opposite for me. Maybe it's because I don't follow NASCAR at all, or maybe it's because the same formula just didn't work the second time around.
Will Ferrell and others on screen were said to have improvised all of the time, much of the footage making it into the film. This fact seemed painfully obvious to me, watching scenes and gags that dragged on and on, losing steam quickly. You can especially tell at the dinner scene with the "Baby Jesus" joke and with the two bratty and annoying boys who weren't funny to begin with. The film on a whole actually felt like watching outtakes on a DVD for an hour and a half. I personally like my comedy to be something other than watching the actors screw around the whole time.
The actors, even Will Ferrell, couldn't carry this over-bloated film. The characters were completely boring and didn't have any of the appeal of those in "Anchorman". Sacha Baron Cohen makes for the only worthwhile aspect of the movie (and gave one of the three stars in my rating), sporting a hilarious French accent and yet again creating another brilliant character. Everything else falls flat completely, with a storyline that goes nowhere and jokes that for the most part seem to be pounding you over the head saying "It's funny! It's funny!". Satire? Far from it.
Is it just me? The more I think about it, the more I say "no". TN tries too hard to duplicate the magic that Ferrell and company made with "Anchorman", and almost none of it works. Though I tried to look through the barrage of product placement and the in-your-face, dragging jokes, I could find nothing special about this movie. It may work for some, but for others (and myself) it comes off as a work solely meant for the self-indulgent purposes of Will Ferrell and friends.
Superman Returns (2006)
A Spectacular, Thrilling, Funny, and Emotional Popcorn Flick
Bryan Singer has saved the day once again. This film under any other director, be it McG, Tim Burton, or Brett Ratner, would have flopped beyond belief. It took a long time to get a Superman sequel off the ground, but it was worth the wait. The casting, plot, and economical risks have all paid off. Superman Returns is up with Batman Begins and Spiderman 2 as one of the best superhero films ever.
One of the things this film does best is use the classic '78 Superman and its sequel as a base for the film. The original John Williams music is still as triumphant and incredible as ever, and Marlon Brando's disembodied head and voice are used to great effect. But don't let that fool you: SR is anything but a remake. The creative minds behind the film did wonders in updating Metropolis as well as making the idea of why the world needs Superman relevant to today.
Don't let his anonymity fool you: Brandon Routh was an absolutely perfect choice to play Superman. Not only does he have striking resemblance to the late great Christopher Reeve, but he does as good of a job owning the role that Reeve made. He's hilarious to watch as the awkward Clark Kent, and you can really see the pain and emotion that he carries with him as he returns from his home planet. His kind are all gone, Lois Lane has moved on, and he is once again given the burden to guide the people of earth. You couldn't have asked for a better choice Superman.
The rest of the cast shines, too. Kate Bosworth (despite drawing the most criticism from everyone else) does great at being the fearless Lois Lane and shows amazing vulnerability when she realized that she may still love Superman. She lacks the big personality that Margot Kidder brought to the role, but that's a minor complaint. Kevin Spacey, Parker Posey, and the rest of the cast also play their parts to perfection and bring a lot of humor and heart to the film. Not to mention the little boy who played Jason, who I thought was a perfect choice.
Despite Singer saying that SR was the closest thing to a chick flick he has ever done, don't let that fool you into thinking the film lacks the action. Seeing Superman rescue a plummeting airplane from the sky is classic, as is Superman deflecting a bullet off of his eyeball. You'll be pinned to your seat the whole time, you'll have no idea that the film is two and a half hours long. And the movie is a beauty to watch. The special effects are jaw-dropping throughout, and the atmosphere is done superbly. Watching Superman and Lois fly through the sky at night is hauntingly beautiful, as Superman tells her that everyday he hears people crying out for a savior.
And that brings me to perhaps the most essential part of the movie: heart. Recent superhero outings like Fantastic 4 and X-Men: The "Last" Stand had none of it, playing out like Saturday morning specials with nothing but bombast and uninteresting characters. It's obvious that Bryan Singer but his heart and soul into this movie. The last half hour of SR is pure drama, and you feel the intensity for every second of it. Any other director would have ruined the movie by now, but Singer makes these characters living and breathing. It's near impossible not to get caught up in it.
Though SR may not be the most successful movie of the summer, being out performed by mindless wastes of celluloid like "X3" and "The DaVinci Code", it stands out as one of the best. The film's scope, action, visuals, humor, and heart make it a must-see for any and all moviegoers. SR completely redeems the old Superman saga and hopefully promised a start for more Superman films to come.
10/10
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
The Last Stand? My Ass.
I loved X-Men. It had a brilliant script that combined character development, drama, humor, politics, and action seamlessly. It was the film that basically single-handedly revived the superhero genre and brought us great films like Spiderman, Hellboy, and Batman Begins. X2 was even better, stepping up the action, story, and drama. Bryan Singer, the director of the X-Men and X2 worked miracles, and hiring him for X-Men 3 seemed like a no-brainer.Yet, for some reason, it did not happen. Fox Studios waited. And waited. And waited. And waited. Until Bryan decided to move on to do Superman Returns. Fox could have (and should have) waited for Singer to finish Superman and work on X-Men 3. Since they decided to get the film out fast, they threw together a half-assed script, hired a dependable (but uninspired) director, and pulled all of the stops much to the audience's dismay. What could have been was a fantastic finale to a great trilogy. The finished product was a disappointing and forgettable film that doesn't live up to the first two X-Men movies.
To be completely fair, X-Men 3 is not a terrible movie. It has a great introduction with a young mutant boy plucking his wings out. It's really sad to watch, almost like Singer's brilliant Holocaustal intro to X-Men 1. That being said, what Brett Ratner lacks in creativity and dramatic intuition, he makes up in excitement. Yes, he does bring much excitement to the picture, so you can at least count on not being bored. In all honesty, though, X3 was not Ratner's fault. It was the screenwriters'.
When I say "pull all of the stops", I wasn't kidding. They cram the movie full of mutants that never really do anything and really have no point. Plus, the new villains really do nothing and are really lame. But here is what really ruins the films for me: The writers kill off SO MANY CHARACTERS in a HALF ASSED WAY. They do this only to basically write themselves a loophole so they can find a way out.
For God's sake, it's almost like they knew what they were doing was WRONG. Scott dies, but you never see it on screen. Charles, dies, but he is alive in another body at the end. Jean dies, but will most likely come back to life anyway. Rouge, Mystique, and Magneto ALL are injected with a cure for the Mutant X gene, but at the end you are given a clue that maybe it doesn't work. Not only did they insult the intelligence of the general public, but they also contradicted the title: "THE LAST STAND". They had in mind that this was in no way the last film. The only way this could have been handled worse is if Logan woke up from a dream at the end of the movie to find out that everything was okay.
I wanted to love this film. I really did. And there is some to like. On occasion, Jean's super-disintegration powers look visually amazing. And, like I said, the film is exciting enough to keep one entertained. Plus, Kelsey Grammar makes a pretty good Beast. If only they would have had more time to put this together, then they could have fleshed out Beast and every other character in the film.
I think I have said enough about this film. A fantastic series was brought to a painfully unspectacular ending because of the studio's desire to get the film out. The result: a mediocre script and an instantly forgettable movie. If you can see this film with low expectations and can forget how brilliant X-Men and X-Men II were, then you may enjoy this film for what it's worth. Just maybe.
Poseidon (2006)
Hugely Entertaining
I went into this film with really low expectations. Bad reviews, a disastrous opening week, yada yada yada. To my pleasant surprise, Poseidon was worth my $5.50. It's a near perfect summer popcorn flick: big budget, amazing visuals, and excitement that doesn't quit.
But you'd think that with a bigger budget they could have gotten a better script. After some cringe-inducing lines, very undeveloped characters, and a gaping (and annoying) plot hole or two, you eventually just shut off your brain and go along with the ride. Despite its shortcomings, Poseidon is incredibly well done. The visual effects are absolutely stunning and the underwater cinematography is gorgeous and scarily effective.
Did I mention that the movie is a blast to watch? The excitement kicks in immediately (at the expense of plot, but, oh well) and the body count is through the roof! If the writers did one thing right, it was create an suspenseful atmosphere with a few surprises. With characters dropping like flies, the tension is at a boiling point for most of the film. It's really intense and incredibly fun to watch.
But it's really a shame that this movie is failing. It certainly delivers all of the goods that a summer movie should. Wolfgang Peterson certainly did a great job of creating an intense but bleak adventure that is terrific entertainment, if nothing else.
The Omen (2006)
Uninspired, Unnecessary, and Completely Forgettable
You'd have to be living under a rock for the past three years to figure out that Hollywood is running out of ideas for movies, horror films in particular. And typically, these remakes fail to emerge as quality films or bring anything new to the table. The Omen is no exception to this rule, with its dreadful script, disappointing cast, and uninspired direction. and the way it sticks so close the original Omen film that it is a near shot-by-shot remake.
Liev Schreiber practically sleep-walks through the whole movie and has some sort of perpetually confused expression on his face. Terrible casting choice. And the little boy who plays Damien just looks evil. Clearly, subtlety went went out the window when they casted this kid. He just looks too evil and creepy, not surprising the audience one bit when they realize that he actually is, well, evil. In my opinion, they should have got a kid who had a bit more range of emotion and maybe one who was actually kinda cute. The cast does have one saving grace, though. Mia Farrow is extremely creepy and fun to watch as the nanny. It's a blast to see her in all her psychotic glory, and it's probably when the movie reaches its peak.
And I just couldn't stand the script. I for one thought it was really unclassy when they kind of exploited images from 9-11 and the tsunami to tie in to the apocalyptic theme. I also literally scoffed in the theater at some of the dialog. It was all pretty bad stuff, even for a remake. "Drink his blood!", indeed.
The way that John Moore directed this film was pretty bland. Yes, it occasionally had some great atmosphere, but I could pretty much point out when a jump scene would occur. And his attempt at some sort of "stylish" visuals fall flat, with the whole sharp red color in every scene. It's been done before in the Sixth Sense, and it was done with subtlety and ingenuity.
As I see it, The Omen all comes down to this: some Hollywood execs were looking for a quick buck, but didn't feeling like writing anything new. So, they used a classic film, used no class in adapting it to fit with current catastrophes, hired a dull yes-man director, and decided that it would be cool to release a movie on 6-6-06. The end result is a forgettable and uninteresting mess saved only by Mia Farrow and a good decapitation scene. I wouldn't even watch this on TV.
War of the Worlds (2005)
People let Tom Cruise's public life ruin the movie for them. I didn't.
I know that the release of War of the Worlds caused a freak sequence of events... Tom Cruise going on Oprah, making an ass of himself, Tom Cruise talking with Matt Lauer, making an ass of himself, et cetera et cetera. I believe that this chain of events made people not like War of the Worlds. They forgot how truly great that it really is!
Keep in mind that War of the Worlds is not a remake of the book or the 1950's movie. It tells its own startling story of survival, and it does it wonderfully. Even though this is not even close to as good as the last Cruise/Spielberg collaboration (a masterpiece by the name of Minority Report), this is escapism at its best.
The scene introducing the tripods was one of the most intense, frightening, and perfect scenes ever made. It stands up to some of Spielberg's best action sequences in his whole career. And the visuals of the film provide an eerie allusion to what it would be like if Americans lived like refugees... something bigger than 9/11 that would possibly destroy every one of us. How far would people go to live? What would you do to survive? On that note, the film is a success! The devastation done to entire cities is really scary and brilliantly visualized.
Several scenes belong in a time capsule. The tripods emerging, the red weeds, the capsizing of a ferry, and Rachel looking down the river... classic. Bearing witness to what the aliens were capable of is shocking and is the stuff nightmares are made of. Visually, both technically and aesthetically, the movie is brilliant.
And with Tom Cruise's public life, people do forget how great of an actor he is. His intensity and emotion really brings life to the film, and his reaction to the first alien attack is brilliantly executed. Dakota Fanning, in my opinion, does amazing. Watching that girl freak out with panic attacks is like you're not even watching a movie. She's remarkable.
Though the third act is impressive and suspenseful, as well as emotional and on a more intimate scale, it isn't as intense and satisfying as earlier scenes, which are brilliant. And I am sure that you've heard of the ending... well yeah, it is a BIG let-down. Let's just say that if it would have ended (partially) the way one would expect, the film would have been much more dramatically appealing and emotionally powerful. As for the ending narration... it's in the book. It's not too hard to understand if you just look at it scientifically I guess.
However, though not perfect, War of the Worlds delivers an experience that anyone would want in a summer movie. Spielberg proves how fantastic of a director he is when it comes to sending you to a new world, and I think that it will (or should) become a science fiction classic. It just disappoints me so much that many people have let Cruise's off-screen antics get in the way of their enjoyment of the film.
V for Vendetta (2005)
An Astonishing Film
Unfortunately, V For Vendetta was advertised to the masses as a new action science fiction film in the same vein as The Matrix. In reality, V For Vendetta, although it has a few great action scenes, is not about cool slow-mo knife fights. It's a thought provoking film that makes you question how far you would go to be free.
I can see though that this film may not be for everyone. If you only wanted to see it for the action scenes, you will be sorely disappointed. If you're a far-right winger and think the film's an extreme-leftist attack on Bush America and have a closed mind, then you also shouldn't see it. And if you're a die hard fan of Alan Moore's graphic novel, you might want to spare everyone else of your obnoxious nit-picks. And if you're a bit slow, you might want to see The Benchwarmers, because this film's plot is complex and thought-provoking.
What makes V For Vendetta work is the actors. Stephen Rea gives an under-appreciated performance as a cop tracking down V, and John Hurt is fiercely brilliant as a Big-Brother type character. Hugo Weaving does absolute wonders with his voice and body language, creating an unforgettable character. This is really Natalie Portman's movie, though. Completely making up for her stilted and wooden Star Wars performances, Portman gives an earth-shattering, emotional, and eventually hairless performance as Evey. She handles the character with true grace and maturity, and develops it flawlessly. The power she channels through Evey really make this film stick to you.
The ending of the film is just... oh my God. This film must have one of (if not only second to LOTR) the best final scenes from the past decade. I can't spoil it for you, because words cannot describe it. You have to see it for yourself. All I can say is that it is really EPIC and SWEEPING. It wraps the film up flawlessly.
In a wasteland that is called "FIRST QUARTER FILMS OF THE YEAR", V For Vendetta emerges as an incredible film in a time of utter garbage. Although it might be beat at the box-office like disposable trash like "Failure to Launch" and "Ice Age 2", I believe it will stand out as one of the greatest films of the year. Remember, remember....
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
A Brilliant, Startling, and Unforgettable Film
I became an instant Kubrick fan once I saw 2001, and I became even more hooked when i saw Dr. Strangelove. A Clockwork Orange solidified my belief that Kubrick is bar none the greatest director ever. This truly unique sci-fi film remains the most disturbing movie I have seen, and it's 35 years old.
The fact that this film lost Best Picture to The French Connection puzzles me and yet, at the same time, doesn't surprise me. The Academy could never reward such a daring film as this, especially a science fiction film. 35 years later, this movie would still warrant a hard R rating, if not a near NC-17. The way that Kubrick puts the violence in the film like it's no big deal is really scary and disturbing, which makes the movie marvelous.
The cinematography and editing of this picture are truly mind-blowing. From the opening image of the anti-hero, Alex, staring down the camera, to the eerie ending shot, you cannot keep your eyes off of the screen. The way the film was shot remains cutting edge to this day, and you'd be amazed at how long the takes are and how mind-blowing the cinematography is. And one could never forget the sex scene, basically a motion blur, to the William Tell Overture. The use of slow-motion was also used perfectly, a breath of fresh air in a time where it is used sloppily and for no reason.
The direction is like none other. The rape scenes are unflinchingly done, and the sporadic and flashy style (rendered cliché by films such as Saw) makes for some of the triipiest scenes on film. Kubrick did wonders with the camera and made for an insane trip, with a startling message of violence in our youth and the effects of a government experiment. One must watch this movie more than once to truly appreciate it.
What really, really makes the film so incredible is Malcolm McDowell. His portrayal of Alex, a young delinquent who entertains himself with violence and rape, is truly one of the greatest performances on film. His nasty sneer and devilish performance is flawless. You can see the way he holds back a grin when he says he's going into jail for murder, and during the treatment scenes, his delight turning to utter shock is unforgettably real. He makes the film what it is: a classic.
As much as I have gushed about the movie, it is definitely not for the faint of heart. The rape scenes get very out of control, and the subject matter is incredibly disturbing. However, if you keep an open mind and aren't a stupid teenager who will watch it for some T & A, you'll realize how amazing of a film this is, and how well it holds up after three and a half decades.
Domino (2005)
Not as bad as you'd think, but certainly disappointing
I saw the trailer for Domino and I was highly anticipating it. Then, Domino was panned left and right when it came out, and having all of that criticism in mind, I saw the movie with very low expectations. Well it was better than I thought it would be, but it was nowhere near my initial expectations for the flick.
Domino could have been absolutely fantastic. Richard Kelly is a gifted screenwriter, and his script for Domino is actually one of the higher points. It's not as good as Donnie Darko's script, but it's pretty sharp. Tony Scott, on the other hand, doesn't quite serve as an effective director. The visual style looked good in the trailer, maybe, but overblown into two hours of film is WAY too much. I found it obnoxious when a character said something like "I lost my toe", and then some subtitles came up that said the same thing, yet flashily and annoyingly. Also, the flashiness and jittery camera is extremely annoying and just gives the film an MTV-style look that will most likely look extremely dated in a few years.
The soundtrack was another gripe. Most of the time it was horrendous rap music. And the various pop-culture references will most likely hold nothing to people in the coming years. On the upside, Kiera Knightly and Christopher Walken add some life to this over-blown movie, but it's not enough.
In the end, Domino is a way overdone movie that could have been fantastic with a better director and if it maybe didn't try too damn hard. But the script and performances do their best to make this an entertaining, if ultimately forgettable, ride.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A landmark in science fiction that still holds up today.
As fantastic as 2001: A Space Odyssey is, it is truly not a movie for everyone. You either love it to death, or you pan it as the worst film you have ever seen. There really isn't any between ground, because it isn't necessarily the most audience friendly film on the planet (sorry). It has a long runtime, it's story is complex and somewhat muddled, it moves fairly slow, and there are periods in which nothing is said for 10 minutes at a time. However, if you're like me, you will truly appreciate the epic beauty and groundbreaking achievement that this film is. It is perhaps the most influential science fiction flick ever. Maybe even more so than Star Wars.
To people who can truly appreciate the poetic vision that Stanley Kubrick had, 2001 is an unforgettable film. You have the majestic theme song (one I had heard before I knew of the movie), a truly classic villain (HAL 9000 in all of his creepy glory), and special effects that still hold up today as out of this world and glorious visuals.
Though this film is fairly slow, I couldn't keep my eyes off of the screen for the whole runtime. The special effects have a look and feel to them that looks 100% believable, maybe even more so than most viz fx today. The imagery mixed with the lovely orchestral music create images that will stick with you forever. And, being that it was released before man even landed on the moon, it is a truly visionary look at the then-future. It's amazing to see how close our world today is to that in the movie.
The segment of the film with the astronauts with HAL 9000 is classic. The quiet atmosphere throughout the whole story sets the mood of a "so-tranquil-you'll-kill-yourself" feel. And once HAL 9000 gets some glitches, you really REALLY see the sh*t hit the fan. Everything about HAL 9000, the smooth and calm voice, the red light that always watches, and a computer with a desire to stay alive. Groundbreaking stuff.
Though the story is muddled and the ending almost incomprehensible, the theme of the movie can really be applied to today. How humans have remained dependent on technology, from the humanoids in Africa to the astronauts on Jupiter, and how eventually us humans will not be the most intelligent life form in the universe.
For anyone turned off by the ending, I would highly recommend reading the novel of the same name. It was released simultaneously with the movie and really sheds some light on the Monolith and the mission to Jupiter. It's as good as the movie, which is really saying a lot.
That being said, 2001 is either a movie that you will love or hate. I've heard claims that the film is boring pretentious art-house garbage, but I found it to be a fascinating, ground-breaking, sci-fi classic that will surely go into history as a monument not only in film, but in the way we look at the universe.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
What you'd expect from Tim Burton and Johnny Depp
Instantly when this film was released everyone was comparing it to the musical "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" released in 1971. Well to tell the truth, this version really ISN'T a remake. After all, it was based solely on the book, and the screen writer never even saw the 1971 musical. That being said, "Charlie" sticks much closer to its source material and, in the end, is a better movie. Yes, "Willy Wonka" has a tremendous amount of sentimental value for me, and Gene Wilder gave a twisted performance, but "Charlie" has much more heart and is visually amazing.
The new title of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" instead of "Willy Wonka" really makes it evident of who this movie really is about: Charlie. Freddie Highmore plays Charlie with such honesty, he is a really endearing character and a truly selfless person. Much of the film's charm really comes from the heart that Freddie Highmore puts in to his performance. He really has quite a career ahead oh him.
I know that a lot of people had a complaint about the Oompa Loompas, like how they "didn't sing the Oompa-Loompa songs like in the old one!" Well actually the songs in the movie contain actual lyrics in the book, and the songs are pretty catchy in a weird and kind of annoying way. And it's really great to get a look at the Oompa Loompa's origins and Wonka's childhood and background.
Johnny Depp is energetic and he simply demands to be seen, as always. He gives a hilarious and wild performance as Wonka, although a far cry from Gene Wilder's psycho maniac Wonka. He is really convincing in the way that he really has no social skills and can't interact with people. And another thing I liked about this film over "Willy Wonka" was the connection between Charlie and Wonka. In the "Willy Wonka", they really show no connection until the end, which by itself is pretty abrupt. However, you can tell that there's real bond that forms between these two from the start, and it works out much better.
Visually the movie is a miracle. It steps up from the 1971 musical in terms of color and style, and it has a very vibrant and imaginative look to it. Granted, some of the visual effects look like crap, but the overall experience is a wonder.
"Charlie" ranks right up there with some of Tim Burton's best films, such as Edward Scissorhands or Big Fish. It's visual flair and big, big heart is irresistible and hugely entertaining. I would recommend this for anyone who even liked "Willy Wonka", or anyone who likes Roald Dahl and his twisted imagination. This is a movie with tons of laughs and a lot of charm, so it really stands out as one of the best family movies in recent memory. Absolutely superb.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
A fantastic film that stands out as the best "Potter" yet
Let me start off by saying this: my review is NOT about how well Mike Newell left in every minute detail from the book, or how much the screen writers had to leave out. This review is on how the big screen adaptation captures the spirit of the novel while coming alive in its own way on film. That being said, "The Goblet of Fire" pulls off a feat I thought was impossible and it compresses the hefty book into a two and a half hour movie. It's brilliant.
The first two Potter films were very good, but had some problems with playing it a bit too safe and maybe even cramming too much material into the film. "Azkaban" was a breath of fresh air and was a fantastic new look and mood to the series. As good as "Azkaban" was, "Goblet" is even better. The action is absolutely stunning, the actors are getting skin deep into their characters, and story more engaging.
One of the things I loved most about "Goblet" was its totally real portrayal of the kids. No longer pre-teens, the kids are experiencing all the woes of the teenage years, and it works out great. It's especially fun to see them embarrass themselves in front of their crushes, or awkwardly handle themselves to the girls they'd like to ask to the Yule Ball. And FINALLY, Fred and George Weasly have major roles in the movie. Jeez, it's about time! Like I said, the young actors due this spot on. Rupert Grint is better than ever. Daniel Radcliffe is very funny and develops his character well. A complaint with him though is he isn't that convincing when he needs to get really emotional. Sorry, Harry! Emma Watson, although looking beautiful, over does it a bit too much. Her performance in "Azkaban" was very natural, but in "Goblet" she is much too over the top and moody. It's a minor complaint. The adults are all perfectly cast, with Ralph Fiennes being a scary yet subtle Voldemort. There couldn't have been a better choice for him. Brendan Gleeson was also fantastic and eccentric as Mad Eye Moody.
The action is better than any Potter film before. The dragon is the best on screen dragon I've ever seen, and the underwater challenge is beautifully shot. Not much Quidditch in the film, but an amazing modern stadium at the World Cup does the job enough. The mood in this is even darker than the last, especially the last 20 minutes, which, by the way, are CLASSIC.
So, in the end, if you Arden't one of the five people who haven't seen "Goblet", it's a funny, thrilling, dark, and excellent addition the newly revived fantasy genre. I have one more thing to say, though: David Yates has some BIG shoes to fill when he directs the next Potter film.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
Marvelous
When this film was announced it was obvious that it would be compared to LOTR to no end. This review is not one to compare it to LOTR, because it is no Lord of the Rings. What is? In its own right, though, "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" is a fantastic film that should please both C.S. Lewis fans and fans of fantasy in general.
Let me start with the acting: WOW. I have never seen such an incredible cast of young actors. All of them are really amazing, especially the young boy who plays Edmond. His character is so complex, and it must have been really hard to develop. He did it flawlessly and really makes the transformation believable and dynamic. The little girl playing young Lucy also gives an incredibly wondrous and endearing performance. The other two actors are also astounding and pitch-perfect. I can honestly say that this is the best cast of kids ever assembled.
Tilda Swinton as the White Witch is a really cool and truly evil villain. She did incredibly at being both a seemingly kind yet cold-hearted (sorry) and fierce tyrant. Another perfect choice. Liam Neesan is fantastic as usual. What else can I say? The acting was perfect.
The story is handled very closely to that of the book and when it makes changes, they work. The opening scene is very focusing on the time-period in which they live, and the writers did a great job of filling in when C.S. Lewis would, for example, leave this to the readers' imagination.
Special effects on a whole was pretty well done. Tumnus' legs are pretty unbelievable, and the Beavers work amazingly well as living, breathing characters. However, I saw the credits listing several companies responsible, and sometimes it shows. There are a few moments when the effects look herky-jerky or cartoony, but overall they are pretty top-notch. Aslan, Tumnus, and the beavers alone make this film worth an effects nod at the Oscars, and the big-battle scene is pretty amazing to look at with the sheer multitude of creatures.
Now lets get to what you've all been waiting for: the battle. Yep, it's amazing. It was really great how they handled this. In the book, the battle is only described as it came to a close. The film stretches it out over 20 minutes, and every minute is spectacular.
I had a few gripes with the movie, though. I found the wolves to seem kind of out of place with their somewhat tough-guy accents. The score of the film is different and not half-bad, although some may not like its electronic blips and synth lines. It fits pretty well with the mood, though. Some won't like the part with Father Christmas, but it was in the book and HAS TO BE IN THE FILM! "LWW" is a great entry in the fantasy genre and one of the best films of the year. It's a movie that everyone can enjoy, and it will probably become a classic. Not only that, but it could possibly be the beginning of a promising new fantasy franchise.
The Brothers Grimm (2005)
Great moments, overall disappointment
Terry Gilliam is a genius. Brazil is one of the best movies of the '80s and one of the best Sci-Fi movies ever, not to mention his involvement in Monty Python. I had high hopes for this flick. Afterall, it's been awhile since his last movie. I heard some bad news of production conflict and crappy script writing. I hoped for the best, and I was partially satisfied. However, in the end, this simply doesn't measure up to his past movies.
The first half hour of the movie is Boring with a capital B. I almost fell asleep when I watched this part. It's incredibly slow and doesn't do much to make the story progress. It's not until a bit more than half way through when we get to experience some true Gilliam magic, although it doesn't save the film completely.
Now, like I mentioned earlier, I heard that the script was one of the worst of the year. I don't think it was that bad, but it really wasn't all that good. The dialog lacked punch that usual Gilliam films have. the acting was satisfactory, although Ledger fits the mood and character much better than Damon. Peter Stormare provides some laughs, even though he sports the same accent as he did in "Armageddon" and "Minority Report". I was also a little disappointed that the film hardly made any references to The Brothers Grimms' fairy tales. just a few little homages showed up here and there, and I felt they could have used the source material for good.
Visually, this film is pretty incredible. It was definitely worth seeing on the big screen for the crazy visuals alone. Some of the visual effects were kinda bad, though, such as the cartoony wolf and a "WTF was that?!" gingerbread man. There's some really marvelous and imaginative images, though. The best parts of the movie involve a horse and a kid, and a tiny little kitten. That's all I will say.
In the end what you get with TBG is a commercial flick that still has a little bit of Gilliam's touch. I just hope Tideland is better (and that it gets released soon), and that he'll get started on films closer to his masterpieces. Even though the acting, writing, and such come up a little flat, TBG is still a visual feast that happens to get decent half-way through.
Shaun of the Dead (2004)
Zombies, Comedy, Romance...What else could you ask for?
Shaun of the Dead is a truly unique film in the aspect that is seamlessly combines zombie horror with a romantic comedy. What I expected was a funny, but shallow zombie/comedy flick, but underneath the blood and humor, it really is a heartfelt movie.
The movie begins like you would expect it to. It was hilarious, with lots of subtle hints of what would happen later. The actors are all fantastic and each one of them is hilarious in their own way. The script is sharp and witty (although a lot of that British humor might have gone way over my head) and the direction was spot-on. What I didn't expect, though, came toward the end. Near the conclusion, the film actually gets pretty heavy. From such themes as keeping those you love alive, but keeping everyone safe and being in complete desperation make this a surprisingly intense movie. I also really really liked the use of Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now" and the references to "Night of the Living Dead". It's also fun to look out for zombified people who were normal in the beginning.
Overall, Shaun of the Dead is a great horror/comedy film that is a total blast. Any fan of zombie horror or British comedy is surely going to love it.
Cellular (2004)
Goofy, but enjoyable
Cellular is one of those action movies that will most likely be forgotten within a year or two, but it's still a pretty enjoyable movie (I won't go over a synopsis you can do that yourself).
For an incredibly mainstream thriller, the concept isn't half-bad. It's the somewhat corny execution that makes it average. Jason Statham never really makes it believable that he's a truly bad guy, and what's at stake could have been made a bit more obvious. Chris Evans does a good job of being a jerk who has to take responsibility, but Kim Basinger comes off slightly stilted. I can't really blame her, though, the script was below average. William H. Macy is business-as-usual, but ends up delivering a funny performance. Overall, the movie would have been much better if they aimed for a gritty action thriller, more than a silly action-comedy. Afterall, when the most memorable part in the movie is an incredibly flamboyant lawyer, you know that your suspense flick isn't quite up to par.
It's not bad, though. I was entertained for the whole time, and there was nothing truly awful about the movie. I guess if you're in for a mindless, corny pop-corn flick, you can't go wrong with Cellular.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Not brilliant, but an overall satisfactory addition to Star Wars
Let me start off by saying that this movie was R-O-B-B-E-D at the Academy Awards. No nominations for Best Costumes, Best Makeup, or Best Art Direction is downright stupid. Aesthetically, this film was downright beautiful. I really honor George Lucas for realizing a time when The Republic was at its prime, and it was basically a golden age for the galaxy. The special effects are also fantastic and, in my opinion, was the first really big visual effects film that broke down the door for other FX films like LOTR. Truly brilliant.
Writing wise, I felt the film was kind of flat and uninspired, if you will. The plot was almost incoherent (even now I don't know what the film is exactly about) and the story with the Trade Federation is unnecessarily complicated. The dialog is probably the worst of the six (but AOTC had some bad lines). "Are you an angel?" If you compare it to the original trilogy, dialog like that doesn't seem right and comes off sort of awkward. However, I will give George Lucas credit for bringing attention in very subtle ways to Palpatine and his intentions. Seeing him rise to power is a really neat tie-in to the original trilogy.
Acting wise, the movie isn't all too spectacular either. Liam Neesan does his best to keep the movie flowing, and for the most part, he does pretty well. He didn't really have that great of a script to work with. Ewan McGregor wasn't given that great of a part, but it's obvious that his time to shine came in the next two episodes. Pernilla August does a wonderful job of playing the mother part, and it's a shame that they gave her such a small role. Jake Lloyd, to put it very very kindly, was stilted. He tried, I know, but I can't help but roll my eyes when ever I hear "Yipee!". On the other hand, it's hard to hold your own when you have a bad script to work with. Ray Park is the best performance of the film, even though he delivers the fewest lines. His intensity and the way he digs in to the role makes you unable to take your eyes off of him whenever he's on screen. They couldn't have made a better cast choice.
I haven't said much positive about the movie, but I will say now that the action in this film is unparalleled. Almost instantly the excitement grabs a hold of you and keeps you wanting more. Some of the best sequences, such as the stunning three-person lightsaber duel and the masterfully executed podrace scene, hold their own against the best action of the saga, and even manage to surpass some. George Lucas did a marvelous job of planning these scenes, and even though the film may have been panned, it is undeniable that these sequences influenced action films of the coming years. Action in one word: breathtaking.
If there was another nit-pick I could make, it would be how this film really looks nothing like the original films. It's a beautifully shot and decorated movie, I know, but I can't help but think "How did it change so fast in 30 years? Why has everything gone to crap?" Oh, and don't even get me started on that Yoda! It's not that he's a puppet, but that he looks NOTHING like he did in the other films! I really hope George fixes this in the future. And I don't think I need to talk about the Gungans. It's been beaten to death and I personally didn't mind Jar Jar as much as everyone else did.
That being said, this movie was by no means the piece of crap mess that people originally said. I thought it was a fun, epic, visually amazing, yet emotionally flat addition to the Star Wars saga. Yes, it was a bit disappointing and yes, it is the worst of the Star Wars films, but it's still a non-stop thrill ride that is well worth watching and is actually better once you've seen the other five films.
Rat Race (2001)
Possibly the worst ending in cinema history
How could a movie with an all-star ensemble cast and a promising formula be this much of a letdown? Simple: put a crappy rock group for ten-year-olds in the finale, send across a message in the sappiest way, and have everyone sing along to "All-Star".
I would have loved this movie. John Cleese is a genius, Rowan Atkinson is hilarious, I'm a huge John Lovitz fan, the cast was absolutely flawless, and it even has Newman in it! The whole beginning of the film is rather amusing. Overall it was pretty damn funny, especially John Lovitz's accidental entrance into a WWII vet convention as Hitler. I'd have given this movie at least a 7 if it weren't for the most dreadful ending in years, if not in decades.
Okay, here it is. Everyone is running for the money, and everyone in the race literally has their hands on it, until....*gasp* they stumble into a charity concert! Guess who's playing...? SMASHMOUTH! Oh my gosh, I didn't know that this movie was sponsored by Nickelodeon! They want to share the money amongst themselves, but then they find out that they really should give it to the poor children who need it. Fair enough, if it can send a message, great, but don't you think they could have pulled it off a LITTLE better? Okay, so they give the money away. To end the movie, they tell everyone that John Cleese's character will match the money they donate...oooh....karma! And to top it all off, the competitors all sing "All-Star" with Smashmouth. I couldn't think of a worse group and/or song to end the movie with. Truly this is a sign of the Apocalypse.
In short, you'll probably be better off watching this movie up until the very end. You'd like it much better and you'd actually have memories of the movie being funny, not crappy.
Anger Management (2003)
An enjoyable movie that was ruined by its ending
This film sure looked promising in the trailers. With Jack Nicholson doing what he does best: playing a complete psycho; and a more edgy and better premise. This looked like it could have been a redemption for Sandler's streak of crappy movies.
It started out good, and don't get me wrong, this movie isn't a terrible movie. Jack Nicholson was a riot and the movie was daring to go beyond the PG-13 rating. There were also plenty of hilarious cameos and bit parts, such as Guzman and Turturro. Woody Harrelson is HILARIOUS as a transvestite named Galaxia trying to seduce Sandler. He's probably the funniest one in the movie.
Ultimately the film falls apart at the ending. After all of the pieces fall together, that makes the events before far less amusing and it would have been funnier if the characters were to remain the same instead of having some sort of ending revelation.
That being said, if you're sick of Adam Sandler's bad movies, this is quite refreshing for the first 7/8 of it, but don't expect much from the ending. It's lame as hell and ruins the movie almost completely.