markles Reviews

X2 (2003)

X-crement

[2/10 · 7 May 2003]

this is a bad movie. there is no drama, there is no character development. all of the dialogue is completely expository. the direction is flaccid and amateurish(three instances that come to mind are wolverine touching stryker's hand through the ice wall, cyclops crying after jean gray saves the airplane and nightcrawler reciting the lord's prayer). it not drama. it's contrived. the plot isn't interesting at all, though a good portion of it is confusing for a x-men virgin like myself(though i saw the first film). case in point--the love triangle with wolverine, jean gray and cyclops. that little bit had no bearing on the story whatsoever. zero. the special effects add nothing to the film, with the exception of the opening sequence with nightcrawler(by far the best sequence in the movie). X-2 was extremely boring; the last half hour stretched on forever. on top of all this, the film came off as preachy. i got the whole 'mutants are oppressed' thing in the first movie. no need to beat me over the head with it.

juvenile, bland, contrived and unimaginative, i didn't enjoy x-2 at all. i went to see it on opening day...i'm not predisposed to disliking such a film; in fact, this is the kind of film to which i most look forward. i love blockbusters and special effects. i love action and superheroes. this one just didn't do it. it didn't work. this one was aimed at 14 year old boys, not at me. i remember myself at 14 and i can assure you i wouldn't have enjoyed x-2 at that age, either. it's crap. it's garbage. it is a coloring book filled with the wrong colors by a retarded infant.

That '80s Show (2002)

Insultingly Terrible

[7 February 2002]

I didn't mean to watch the first episode, but I left my television on Fox after a Seinfeld episode had concluded. The promos for That 80's Show were not the least bit promising, but the moments from the ads were, in fact, the funniest bits from the episode...still, they weren't the least bit funny. I could stomach only 15 minutes before I had to turn off the television.

I remember the 80's. Referencing things from that decade does not qualify as humor, but that is all that the show attempted. Characters provide humor, but these characters were weak and forgettable...placed merely as the deliverers of referential one-liners. I don't recall being constantly aware of the 80's during the 80's. Things were simply the way they were. That 70's Show could take place in any time period and it would still be funny(at least the first 2 seasons would still be funny)...it's a comedy that happens to take place within the 70's. That 80's Show(at least the first 15 minutes of the first episode) could exist nowhere else because every single line is a tired 80's gag. Situation comedy doesn't work when the situation is the comedy. Imagine Seinfeld if every joke, even every line, were some lame reference to living in New York. Imagine Cheers if every bit were about bars. Imagine The Simpsons if every episode revolved around the fact that the characters were all cartoons. They would've all been canceled after a few episodes, and I hope Fox cancels That 80's show immediately. It sucks.

How this tripe could ever pass as entertainment is beyond me.

Gladiator (2000)

The best movie in years...FOR ME TO POOP ON

[1/10 · 11 May 2000]

Let me preface this by saying I'm a fan of most of Ridley Scott's work. Bladerunner is a terrific flick and Alien ain't too shabby, either. Then I saw the trailers for Gladiator and some early reviews(almost exclusively raves) and got excited for a good, well-made film. What I got was the most boring movie I've seen in a theater in quite some time. Initially, I gave the film the benefit of the doubt...a lot of people liked this so it must get interesting sooner or later. About 45 minutes into the film, however, I realized it wasn't going to get any better. I first looked at my watch at that point and proceeded to do so at least every ten minutes thereafter. I hoped the reel would catch fire and save me from watching the last hour but, alas, I had to watch until the end. I probably would've left but I attended the film with my father and we hadn't been to a movie together since T2...what're ya gonna do?.

Gladiator was lifeless and unoriginal. The plot was shabby and often laughable, and I honestly believe the folks at MST3K could've had a pretty good time with it. Much of the dialogue was cheesy, the camera work was largely uninspired and every time a computer generated 'roman' backdrop was on screen the characters amidst them were fuzzy and shadowy. At other times Scott included footage to purposely sicken the audience, i.e. the "snot" scene. Did anyone else find that as nasty as I?

Another problem with this film as that, despite its epic running time, the plot progression is hasty and incomplete. Maximus goes from general to slave in about 3 scenes(why is he a slave again?) and kills around 7 people as a gladiator before becoming the most popular man in Rome. There's plenty of room for good development within two and a half hours. Instead, Scott pushes Gladiator's sub-par progression only within the brief action scenes(the only interesting scenes in the entire movie...honestly) and offsets them with minutes upon minutes(hours?) of crap that doesn't go anywhere. The raves this movie has received confuse me. Gladiator is the most overrated movie in years.

If you're looking for a good movie along the same lines, watch Conan the Barbarian. Gladiator uses roughly the same story line, but Conan is about 3000 times more entertaining. And don't get popcorn before you enter the theater. Believe me, you'll welcome any excuse to get up and stretch your legs before the movie actually concludes.

The Big Hit (1998)

The Big Sh*t...

[1/10 · 18 December 1999]

Spoof or no spoof, this movie was incredibly painful to watch. I found no humor in the outlandish gun fights or car chases, and the dialogue was utterly reprehensible. And that cooking scene...ugh, I did not need to see the stuffing of a bird used as foreplay. What a great big pile of crap.

The Sixth Sense (1999)

decent...

[6/10 · 22 October 1999]

I enjoyed the Sixth Sense, but I saw the "surprise ending" a mile away. When I first saw the trailer I thought, "I bet..." and I was dead on, without hearing anything about the film. I guess that minimized the overall impact of the movie, but that's the risk a film like this runs.

Forest Gump, Jr. was terrific as Cole.

Random Hearts (1999)

like Ishtar...just not as funny

[1/10 · 9 October 1999]

If you like Harrison Ford, you probably shouldn't see this movie. If you're a fan of Pollack, you should stay away as well. In fact, if you like movies at all you should sit on your seven bucks and skip this disaster. Random Hearts is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. In the first 30 minutes, I kept wondering how the movie would reel me in. I then discovered that this would not happen and sat through the last 1:45 in pure amazement that I hadn't left the theater. I have walked out on two movies in my entire life and Random Hearts made a strong bid for number 3. The only reason I didn't leave was that the film bored me to such a point of lethargy that I could not muster the strength to leave my seat. The script was terrible, the acting was uninspired and awkward, the direction was cheesy(how many times must I watch two forlorn characters touch fingers through a pane of glass?) and the score was downright annoying. Also, the scene in the airport parking lot was one of the worst I have ever seen. I laughed out loud(no, it wasn't supposed to be funny) and then actually shielded my eyes to thwart an oncoming feeling of blindness. Ford as the star and Pollack as the director may garner funding, but it won't necessarily make a good movie. Random Hearts was pure cinematic torture. Parting questions:

1) Did Harrison Ford lose a bet? 2) Is a week long enough to mourn for a deceased spouse?

If anyone can answer yes to these, the movie makes a lot more sense.

Troll 2 (1990)

awesome

[1/10 · 20 September 1999]

Yes, this movie is the best bad movie ever made. This is probably the only bad movie that would be rendered less funny if produced for MST2K. Almost all of the reviews posted here are dead on(aside from those written by people who didn't enjoy the film...those who need to take a physical), but i felt compelled to write a review of my own because no one has yet mentioned my favorite line from the film:

"They're eating her. And then they're going to eat me. OH MY GOD!"

I do not feel, however, that any schmo with a camcorder could make a film of equal entertainment value. It takes more than just lethargy and poor planning to make a movie this bad...you truly have to lack any sort of talent whatsoever. Only one person could have made a film this bad; and, I'm afraid, he was born to do so.

The Tiger Woods Story (1998 TV Movie)

wow...

[1/10 · 2 August 1999]

What a piece of poorly acted crap. Pure Tiger Woods propaganda. I accidentally caught this 'film' during some channel surfing and it was so mesmerizingly bad I couldn't manage to manipulate the remote control. Reminiscent of the Senor Spielbergo directed Monty Burns epic in the Springfield Film Festival, an actual football to the groin(not just watching it happen to someone else) may be better than watching this 'movie.' A must see for anyone intrigued by poor cinema, "The Tiger Woods Story" will certainly turn your stomach.

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)

insulting...

[1/10 · 28 June 1999]

Austin Powers 2 was an insult to my intelligence, though I did shell out the five bucks without anyone forcing me to do so. The movie had all of the same jokes from the first film without any of the wit, and Mike Myers somehow managed to run(well, hammer) the already tired bits of AP1 even farther into the ground. He also managed to over-saturate the film with sub-juvenile bathroom humor--an extremely overweight character's bowel movement simply isn't funny.

Though the first movie had its moments, the sequel came across like a joke that wasn't terribly funny the first time you heard it, only you've heard it 15 times since and this time it comes from someone who doesn't know how to tell it. Unfortunately, I fear we'll be given a third installment in which the same old gags don't work yet again.

Give us a break, Mike. Write something creative.

Soldier (I) (1998)

i think some of it stuck to my shoe.

[2/10 · 16 April 1999]

the movie sucked so i'll make this as brief as possible. the plot--kurt russell gets thrown away on a garbage planet and the 'new soldiers' happen to run a training mission on that very planet(what a coincidence). did i mention the planet is supposed to be barren? okay, so the new guys show up and kurt kills them. end of story(well, there are some castaways, but that doesn't really seem to matter). as far as acting goes, there's a difference between acting without dialogue and sitting around, doing nothing, for half a movie, which is what kurt did. i actually started laughing as he sat, again motionless, in the dance scene. then he pulls the outsider, sit-on-the-roof-and-cry routine. what the hell was that? and as far as this being a movie about dehumanization...huh? at the beginning, maybe, but all i saw in the last half hour was kurt trying to come up with as many different ways to kill people as possible. it was like FRIDAY THE 13th, part 3. the end was thoroughly amusing as it seemed to have been taken directly from the EMPIRE STRIKES BACK(i.e. leia and luke look over the galaxy). i know i didn't imagine that. i was just waiting for the mute kid (not grieving at all a full half-day after his father died) to pull a tiny tim and say something to sergeant todd, his 'new father.' by the way, was i the only one who laughed every time they showed a spaceship? the garbage ships looked like egg cartons and the rest of the effects looked equally silly. this flick is a giant piece of crap, but it's interesting to watch because it's so damn bad. enjoy.

Black Rider (1993)

definitely memorable

[10/10 · 10 April 1999]

i didn't know what to expect as i watched this short german film. i'd never read or heard anything about it, knowing only that it would be about racism. let me say that you will not get what you might expect.

i don't want to ruin the beauty of this film so i'll leave out any details and merely say that i thought of the ending about 10 times between the movie's conclusion and my bed-time, and that each time i did so, a huge smile crossed my face, accompanied by a chuckle. watch it.

Cruel Intentions (1999)

How did this movie get a 7+ rating?

[2/10 · 29 March 1999]

Let's see...the acting was okay, the screenplay wasn't THAT bad, but this was no good movie. First of all, it looked as if it had been edited with a meat cleaver--I can recall only one shot that lasted more than 20 seconds and virtually EACH LINE of dialogue was followed immediately by a cut. Both of these are pet-peeves of mine. Would it kill the director to let the actors act for more than a few seconds at a time? Would it kill the editor to allow more than a yard of continuous footage to grace the final product? To be honest, I knew this was going to be an uninspired film before the opening credits had concluded(uninteresting footage, bland music, distracting). Another distracting element was that of the score. I'm talking about the back-ground music during those SMG/RP scenes in which the soundtrack did nothing but alert me to the fact that the score was monotonous and bland to a boredom-inducing level. Don't these film makers realize the value of an interestingly shot, creatively edited, properly scored film? I guess not. A bunch of other things bothered me as well, but I'll limit the rant to these: 1) no high-school students act like this. I know it's a generalization but I'm willing to go out on a limb. 2) the 'virgin manifesto' writer succumbed to the temptations of sex by hearing the oldest after school special sex no-no(if you love me you'll...). and after that didn't quite work out she waited, what, two days? Come on. 3) I thought they had something with the ending but they crapped it up with the look/shake head scenario and the silly flashbacks. It just shows that the film makers wouldn't know a good scene if it bit them on the ass(which this one practically did). Finally, 4) Why was Reece Witherspoon driving Sabastian's car in that last scene? Whassup with that? I'd be curious to see what a competent director/producer/editor could do with the script.

Wing Commander (1999)

Ouch...

[1/10 · 13 March 1999]

Wing Commander should easily go down as the worst movie of 1999. Somehow the filmmakers managed to create a film that is completely devoid of both excitement and interest. To be perfectly honest, I attended the screening to see the preview for the new Star Wars movie, and I can honestly say it would have been more worth the money if I had left before the movie began. I equate this film to last years worst, Godzilla, in that both were billed as 'action' films and both bored me to the brink of suicide(or at least self-mutilation). I was actually amazed that space-battle scenes could be so unenchanting. I defy anyone to locate a scene that is worth watching at all. When the movie finally ended(and thank god it did), I felt as if we were just nearing the point when something was actually going to happen; this is because there was no build up, little to no character development, and not even a hint of a climax, not to mention the 'ending' had absolutely nothing to do with any of the previous 89 minutes. I challenge anyone to take this same basic subject matter and make a less interesting movie. In addition, the script writer decided to steal from the Star Wars movies and slip it in with the hopes that no one would notice: Paladin=Obi Wan, Freddy Prinze=Luke, the Pilgrim mental ability=the Force, Merlin(the A.I. flight assistant)=the radar gizmo on Luke's X-Wing, and the final hyper-space-jumper-thing=the Death Star. I'm surprised no one broke out a 'light sword,' 'millenium eagle,' or an 'R3-D3 droid.' And on top of all of this, the movie was full of plot holes and shortcomings, i.e. the bad-guys are horrible fighters, the Pilgrims were able to 'evolve' significantly over a period of 500 years, the weapon of choice is still a machine-gun, the bad-guys leave their prized war possession guarded by about five morons without any real weapons, there's a giant gravity-well right next to the earth, and music has evolved almost not at all over half a millenium. Please don't go to the theater just to see the trailer. For the love of god, please don't make the movie executives believe we actually want to see movies like this.

Depth Solitude (1995)

Beautifully shot, potent, amazing...

[9/10 · 27 February 1999]

I was immediately drawn to this 6 minute short because of the cinematography. The entire film takes place beneath the surface of a swimming pool and each shot is clean and beautiful, in stark contrast with the actions of the pool cleaner/bottom dweller. The sound, soundtrack and lighting increase the film's potency (particularly the scenes in which the cleaner opens the gate, 'walks the dog,' and carries the woman through the wall of bubbles, and my favorite, in which the woman first dives into the pool as if she's just burst from a brilliant explosion of light) and Max Von Sydow's narration puts it over the top...though it would have been terrific without.

While the cleaner dons ancient scuba gear and resembles a monster, we can still relate to his problems in a demented sort of way, whether through the image of him beneath those who do manage to stay afloat, his desire to create, the luxury of a comfortable job or the universal desire for companionship. At the heart of matters, though, the cleaner lives beneath the surface and his struggle for happiness, and the fact that happiness achieved actually becomes bothersome, leaves a lasting impression.

This film is out on a DVD entitled 'Short Cinema Journal, 1:2'. If you can find this video, or any others in the series, I recommend you buy it. They have finally allowed me entrance into the world of short film.

A Simple Plan (1998)

Unoriginal, uninspired, boring and bad...

[3/10 · 24 February 1999]

Let me first say that Billy Bob Thornton did a wonderful acting job in this overhyped, sub-par film. His bit was virtually the only piece holding the picture together. The plot is nothing new (three could-use-the-dough types find a lot of money and don't anticipate the problems that follow), the characters are forced (a manipulative wife, a college educated grain worker(?), a drunk and a possibly retarded, middle-aged virgin), and the pace is excruciatingly slow. The most difficult thing for me to swallow about the film is the blatant omission of any well shot scenes. All one needs to do is watch Fargo to see the beauty with which barren snow-scapes can be filmed. I also had trouble with script shortcomings (i.e. Paxton getting the gun in the sheriff's office and the fact that no one checked up on the FBI agent) and still cannot figure out just who decided Bill Paxton is a leading man. After clearing the abundant and silly raven images out of my bored brain I was left thinking, 'why didn't anyone care enough to try to make this a good movie.'