paulo20 Reviews

I Am Legend (2007)

CGI basically kills it

[3/10 · 4 June 2010]

All other weaknesses of this film aside (and there are several), it could have been an effective thriller if real people were used. I mean, why not go the extra mile and create real monsters? The cartoon ghouls are just not scary at all. They evoke laughter more than fear. When these CGI monsters open their jaws impossibly wide, it doesn't look scary, it looks stupid. Hollywood, buy a clue. Even when monsters are strapped to tables on labs, they're digital. It's utterly unbelievable.

Real effects could have made something of this movie, which otherwise is rather dull, with frequent flashbacks to before the apocalyptic virus wiped nearly everyone out and scenes of Will Smith picking corn, talking to mannequins and shooting golf balls. There is one horrible scene where Smith is watching SHREK and parroting the lines spoken on the screen.

But everything really falls apart because the protagonist is never threatened by anything real. SCOOBY DOO holds more thrills and suspense.

Zathura: A Space Adventure (2005)

Oxygen in Space

[3/10 · 30 May 2010]

Wow, this film just wasn't very good. Nothing wrong with the visual aspect, that I noticed, and the basic premise seems to be a sound one, but its execution and just about everything else about this movie stunk. You probably know the premise (JUMANJI in space), so no need for me to go over it.

But I bet you didn't know that there's oxygen in space. Or so this movie would have you believe. Aliens and a robot move around and about the house and liberally smash great big holes into the house but the inhabitants, two boys and their elder sister can breath just fine. One might chalk this up to this being a fantasy or some such, if not for the fact that the characters themselves make a point about the concern about air. Also, at one point, a couch is set on fire, set loose into deep space and continues burning, blithely unaware of the laws of physics.

As for the acting, the two boys and teenage girl are grating and their acting is not very good but I blame this on a terrible script. The actors do the best they can with the lines given.

As for the plot, it's just an exercise in random events. Let me cite a few examples. At one point, the game produces a gold card, granting the player a wish. What does the kid wish for, while they're flying around, lost in space, with a murderous robot in the basement, and aliens blowing firing laser cannons at their house, and they're constantly screaming at each other at the top of their lungs? He wishes for a football, signed by Brett Favre. No, really.

But the stupidity doesn't stop there. The sister quickly develops a crush on the Astronaut, a man who got rescued from space as a result of the boys playing the game. This Astronaut reveals to the older brother that he too played the game, got a gold card and wished his brother were never born. Thus he strongly cautions the the boy about what he wishes for (before he wishes for a football). This is significant because, later in the game, the same kid gets another gold card. This time he wishes for the Astronaut's brother to come back...

And then, we have a "twist." The vanished brother is none other than the younger brother. The Astronaut is none other than the older brother aged about 20 years and trapped in space from playing Zathura. The movie does nothing to explain this odd paradox (or anything else for that matter); you're just meant to accept it.

Of course, we're also either asked to accept or expected to forget that the Astronaut wasn't able to recognize his younger brother, nor his younger self, nor the sister who had a crush on him (btw, we're meant to find this particular development humorous). The only twist here is in the movie's logic.

The Unforgiven (1960)

Very little to like about this film

[2/10 · 14 May 2010]

This film is an unlikable mess and somehow I got suckered in to watching the whole stupid thing. No well-ordered review here; I'm just going to list things about the movie I hated (which is just about everything).

At the beginning of the movie, there is a weird old man who wanders in. He knows a scandalous secret and comes to tell it. The secret is that one Rachel Zachary, living amongst her adopted white family for all her life, is not white herself but an Indian.

That's right, the film would have us believe that Rachel Zachary (Audrey Hepburn) is a full-blooded Indian (of the Kiowa tribe) somehow living amongst her adopted white family for a number of years before the secret is out. I could accept that she is a "half-breed" (and indeed I was under that impression for most of the film), which would go a long way towards explaining how the secret could be kept for so long, but, really, to reveal that she is a full-blooded Indian (and that she needs to be stripped down in order to confirm this) is simply an insult to the intelligence. BTW, the weird old man ends up getting hung, but I couldn't for the life of me say why.

This movie is making some sort of statement about racism. Well, if it wanted to give the idea that whites were racists against Indians, mission accomplished. Everybody in this movie hates Indians, and that includes Rachel, even after she finds out she is Indian. And at one point, after she makes the point that she is a Kiowa, her adopted brother, Ben (Lancaster) declares "only in blood, not in anything else." Let's just say my sympathies were not with the Zachary family from this point.

Actually, they had already lost my sympathies when Ben orders his youngest brother to kill a Kiowa who had come in peace. The Indians also learn Rachel's secret and want her back into the tribe. They're willing to barter for her and come to the Zachary home under a flag of truce. Then Ben gives his order, which effectively ends any peaceful negotiation. The Indians then besiege the Zachary home. But here I find even if my sympathies somehow were with the Zacharys, I would have little need to worry. Because every single shot the Zacharys fire, hits and kills and Indian. Every. Single. Shot. Even Rachel, conflicted over her heritage and loyalty to her family, manages to kill one without even trying. The Zacharys meanwhile, suffer one fatality, Mother Zachary. And the Kiowas don't seem to have a single firearm. Later, when the Zacharys are cornered in their cellar by a fair number of Kiowas, another brother of Rachel's comes to the rescue and turns the tide all by himself. It's another insult to the intelligence.

The reason Ben orders his brother to kill an Indian is because Rachel intended to go to the Kiowas willingly and Ben did as he did to prevent this (also, his family became ostracized after Rachel's secret was revealed, so Ben felt there was no way out in any case). But Ben's love for his sister is revealed to be more than fraternal, which is disturbing despite the obvious fact that Rachel is not his biological sister. Rachel, meanwhile, ends any doubt that she hates Indians when she murders one (who turns out to be her own, biological brother) at point blank range.

There is happy music at the end of the movie, when the Zacharys (sans Mom Zachary) walk out of their house and stand awkwardly in the sunshine, beholding all the dead Indians and a flock of birds flying in V formation, symbolizing...something...

Anyway, I detest this film. It makes me feel ill just thinking about it. I can completely understand why director John Huston didn't like it either.

Dead Snow (2009)

As if they weren't bad enough when they were alive...

[5/10 · 9 May 2010]

This movie isn't great or original by any stretch of the imagination. And it's certainly not as funny or clever as SHAUN OF THE DEAD, but it is entertaining enough in its own right. Still, again, not the roaring success it's made out to be. It's actually kind of spotty and it's mostly that it's reasonably well-paced that it isn't a disaster.

The movie includes the standard stupid teenagers or twenty-something vacation goers, in this movie, medical students, caught in an isolated place (references are even made to this by one of the ill-fated campers); in this case, a cabin in the snowy Norwegian mountains, just asking to get picked off by something; in this case, Nazi ghouls who, at one point are stealthy enough to swiftly run past a man to slit his throat or strong enough to physically pull apart another man's skull, then later fall down at will or have their heads kicked in and burst apart like rotten melons.

But it's not these incongruities that are the main problem. The film evidently has a twist at the end. Apparently, all the ghouls are after is a small box of treasure they'd amassed during WW2 and that one of the twenty-somethings found in a hole in the floor of the cabin. Apparently, it was finding this box that awakened the ghouls and one of the characters revealing it to them seems to appease them. But if this is the case, it fails to explain why two other characters, who have nothing to do with the treasure, are killed. If the answer is that the ghouls kill because they are ghouls, then what's the big deal about the treasure?

But it has some good makeup and effects going for it and, as I said, it's well-paced. Certainly not the worst movie of its type.

Epic Movie (2007)

Ipecac Movie

[1/10 · 29 November 2009]

It's disappointing enough to see Jennifer Coolidge and Fred Willard in this turd (I missed the Crispin Glover as Willie Wonka) but it's a severe disappointment to see Kal Penn in this, who'd recently starred in the thoughtful and, well, epic THE NAMESAKE. This is a rather extreme step down from that movie. Heck, this is a step down from HAROLD & KUMAR. IPECAC, sorry, EPIC MOVIE is just epic trash. Penn and the others named couldn't have been in this for anything more than the paycheck.

It's almost inconceivable that this was even meant to be funny. Almost as if the aim was to make a purposely unfunny movie and see who would be dumb enough to laugh.

Just RELENTLESSLY unfunny.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

Excruciatingly dull

[3/10 · 16 May 2009]

I dunno, maybe the fault is with me; I'm open to that possibility. But I just couldn't sit all the way through this one. I gave it about 2 hours (of its 160 minute running time) but it felt more like four. THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY is one minute longer than this film but it's highly watchable from beginning to end.

I realize the movie was perhaps more character-driven than plot-driven, but that's still no excuse for a film to be this lugubriously paced. Check that, there is no pacing in this film. It just sort of rolls along like the clouds that are frequently and lovingly focused on in this movie. As with rolling clouds, it's hard to get a sense of movement in the movie.

To be fair, the cinematography and the photography is gorgeous but it doesn't make up for the lack of anything interesting going on. Characters sit around and talk a lot and there are a lot of what I think are supposed to be menacing and enigmatic looks from Jesse James but which only really added to the overall tedium.

And here I thought ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST was slow. And it was, but it has absolutely nothing on THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES (and at least the former film had Claudia Cardinale to look at). WEST is actually 15 minutes longer than this film but I wouldn't be able to notice the the difference.

On a different note, it says on the Trivia page that "When casting for the role of Robert Ford it came down to Casey Affleck and Shia LaBeouf. Affleck eventually got the role, because LaBeouf was felt to be too young." Weird, since Robert Ford was 20 and LeBeouf was 21 at the time of the film's release, while Casey Affleck was 32.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

I will NEVER believe the hype again...

[4/10 · 8 February 2009]

Or never pay 11 bucks for it again, anyway. All I've heard was good things about this movie and assumed it would be $11 well spent. Well, so much for that.

This movie is a "boy meets girl" fairy tale story, and I don't mean that in a good way. I know it's supposed to be uplifting and heartwarming but it rings hollow. It's based on nothing more than a gimmick. Seriously, this movie is about a series of improbable events and the rationale by which we're to believe it all is that it's destiny. And, the thing is, I'd buy into it if I could buy that the two characters (boy and girl) had any sort of chemistry. But they don't.

To sum up as briefly as possible: boy meets girl (who, along with his brother, is orphaned at a young age), then boy loses girl. Luckily, some years later, boy finds girl again. But, since his brother is a dick, he loses girl again (he loses contact with his brother as well). Some years after that, he is able to find her again (as well as his brother), but things are complicated. She has somehow fallen in with the wrong crowd and is married to a gangster, who then whisks her away, so boy again loses girl. But he doesn't give up and gets the idea to go on the popular game show "Who Wants to Me a Millionaire," which, he reasons, she'll be watching.

He then goes on the show and answers all but the last question before the show's hour is over. He then ends up at the police station where he is roughly interrogated on suspicion of cheating. It is this point at which the movie starts, and we are then given the rest of the story alluded to above via flashbacks. That is the film's narrative device, to show each question and flashing back to the point where the boy got the answer (except for a few questions for which he uses his lifelines). Turns out, each answer was gotten in the same order as the questions on the show.

As you can probably imagine, yes it's all HIGHLY improbable. ASTRONOMICALLY improbable even. But hey, it's DESTINY and the girl actually does come to watch the live broadcast of the game show and even ends up being one of his lifelines! (Although she doesn't know the answer – more on this later) Then they meet at an oddly empty train station, declare their love for each other and touch lips. Then they, and a bunch of mysteriously appearing other people, go into a funky Bollywood dance number over the end credits. YAY! Except not YAY! BOO! Again, I think I'd be willing to buy this fairy tale if the love angle between the boy and girl was in any way believable. But I didn't see it, feel it or believe it for a second. The characters barely had time to know each other. When the two first meet, they're about seven years old, i.e. a while before puberty, and together for a few days at best before they are separated. When they are reunited a few years lager, they are together for perhaps an even shorter time. When they meet still later, well the girl is hot, but the chemistry between the two still fails to come through, mostly because it's never adequately established before this. The fact that the two characters (as well as Salim) are played by three sets of actors (young, older, oldest) doesn't help. Thus the message of destiny ultimately falls flat.

The movie even poses a multiple choice question asking how Jamal could have known the answers to the WWTBAM questions. Choice A was "he cheated," choice D, "it is written" (I forget what the other two were). When I saw this, I had no idea that the answer would actually turn out to be D, "it's written." Yep, it's written alright. And do you know where it is written? In the script. I'm sorry to say, it really doesn't go any deeper than that.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

A mess

[1/10 · 25 January 2009]

Hard to fathom how this scored a 7. It's also hard to say which is worse, SPIDER-MAN 3 or this turkey. I'll call it about even. Both feature shoddy plots and poor characterizations with dubious motivations.

The most egregious example in X-MEN 3 is the Jean/Grey Phoenix character. Jean Grey died in the 2nd movie and is reincarnated here as the Phoenix? Why? Because it happens in the comics, I guess. But what's missing from the comics is the story behind it all. I'll admit, I missed the first 20 minutes of this movie so I missed the actual resurrection but I somehow doubt I missed enough that it would have made any sense in this movie. Killing Cyclops and the Professor sure didn't make any sense. In short, the idea of the Phoenix is poorly realized here (for starters, the Phoenix-Force manifested itself as a bird of fire, not some sort of bug-eyed vampire queen). The filmmakers simply have no idea what to do with it. At the end, the solution is for Wolverine to stab her. Yay. (As a brief aside, Wolverine, it seems, is the only one who can approach the Phoenix because, while she is able to disintegrate everyone else, she can't do the same to Wolverine because he can instantly heal any damage done to him? How does this work exactly? Where does he get the biological material to patch up such terrible injuries? Is it magic?) Other characters hardly register. The new characters are just there, though admittedly there isn't enough time to develop their characters. But the established characters hardly fare any better.

I'd like to comment about the look of the film. The effects are nice but I'm finding less and less reason to give a movie good marks because of them. Good effects should be a given. Of course, so should a good story but I would suggest maybe it's not as easy to craft a good story as it is good effects.

Anyway, the characters all wear fancy leather uniforms in these movies because, supposedly, "spandex" would look stupid on film. But the movie outfits look stupid in their own right, with a few arguable exceptions, and lack the pizazz of the comics. Magneto looks sillier than most, certainly a ways sillier than his comic book counterpart, and would look silliest of all if it weren't for the film's Juggernaut character. I mean, were they serious about this? Did they really think this is an improvement over the comic depiction? I'm beginning to believe that it's not the comic book costumes that look silly, it's the filmmakers' inability to bring them properly to life. So we end up with these ugly "leather" uniforms. Blah. Meanwhile, Wolverine's hair looks atrocious. Storm's hair is actually an improvement over the banged wig but it's still not a style that works for the character. Lastly, I was never much of a fan of the casting in any of these films. Magneto, for instance, was never a wrinkled, joweled old man in the comics.

Anyway, to sum up, the movie lacks in just about every area except special effects but so what? I can only hope this really was the "Last Stand."

Superman Returns (2006)

This simply can't be a movie about Superman

[1/10 · 6 January 2009]

How could this have scored a 6.7 out of 10??? HOW??? This movie is a wreck, a disaster on practically every level. It fails as a Superman movie and as a movie period. Let me say I'm not a big fan of Superman. That's not to say I dislike him but he just never struck me as all that interesting. But he doesn't deserve this kind of treatment. Even I, a casual fan at best, am aware of the qualities that define him and the poser seen in this turkey lacks some the basic ones. To wit: - I can understand wanting to have a movie in which "Superman Returns" after a long absence, but you've got to come up with something better than that Superman learns of chunks of his home planet floating around and just HAS to go investigate. And these are chunks, right? So why assume there's going to be a habitable world? And, if this is so important, it should be worth an explanation to the people you're abandoning for 5 years, especially the love of your life instead of just taking off without a word? Then come back and expect everything to be as it was? Utterly ridiculous. And NOT Superman.

• The character this movie tries to pass off as Superman is seen STALKING Lois Lane. To be particular, he is spying and listening in on her. Again, this is NOT Superman. This is a super-powered creep.

• More creepiness: the kid Lois has seemingly conceived and is raising with her new husband is actually "Superman's" kid by Lois. At the film's conclusion, the character that looks like Superman is seen standing over his son's bed and saying something like "mumble, like the father, so the son, mumble mumble." Creepy as all HELL.

Random reasons why this movie otherwise sucks:

• The pacing is dull and plodding. The film seems more concerned with showing off effects than telling a story. The effects are nice, but who cares if there's no story and what little there is moves like a drunken snail?

• The characters are dull and plodding. Hardly any of these characters except, perhaps, for Spacey's, seem to exhibit any sort of pulse; not even the alleged comic relief character, Jimmy Olsen (played by Sam Huntington) who comes off more annoying than anything. Frank Langella, playing Perry Mason was just...there. Ditto for James Mardsen, playing Richard, Lois' husband. Lois (played by Kate Bosworth) shows some personality, but it's mostly annoying and her expressions show either a sense of mild annoyance and vague concern. Brandon Routh, playing the titular hero, comes off as a mannequin (I understand he wore blue contacts for the part but they look more like black. It adds to his creepiness). And the kid seemed positively catatonic, or at least bored. As for the villains, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor does his best (I suppose) but doesn't really do anything interesting and Parker Posey and Kal Penn (Kumar, of Harold and Kumar) barely register. The former mostly just struts around carrying a dog and crying and fretting a lot. The latter hardly even says a word. Their parts could have been played by anyone.

• Lois Lane is not only annoying, she is also an idiot, going alone into a strange place and taking her son with her. She also leaves her cel phone in the car with the window open.

• When Richard, Lois and her kid fly back to retrieve Superman (once again, putting the child at risk) the catatonic (or bored) kid casually mentions seeing Superman in the ocean. How long was casting held for this role, I wonder? It's a performance that would make George Lucas proud. Anyway (to my annoyance) we don't see what the kids sees, just a random POV shot of Superman in the water. Blah!

• The colors are drab and depressing. The red parts of Superman's costume reflect this being more of a dull burgundy, almost murky brown. And his cape looks like it's made out of vinyl. It's gag-inducing. And what's up with the 'S' on his belt? A bit redundant, no?

• Crystals that grow? Really? Okay, sure, whatever. But how about this plot of Luthor's to grow his own continent? He explains that "people will always want land." Meaning the (billions of) people he intends to wipe out and the land (the continental US) he intends submerge under water? Cripes, what a s***#y plan.

• The film is inconsistent. As noted by others, Superman (or, rather, the unreasonable facsimile) loses his strength when standing on an island infused with Kryponite and then being stabbed with a shard of the stuff. Yet later he is shown to carry the entire island and hurl it into space, with the stuff all in his face, no less. Why not quickly fly down, quickly nab the villains, take them to justice, then deal with the island? He can fly really fast, right? But, no, there has to be a big dramatic scene where "Superman" has to sacrifice himself for the world. Gag me with a rusty spoon. The film wants to milk every scene for as much drama as possible, with the end result that there is little to no drama at all.

• The villains' (Spacey and Posey) big comeuppance comes down to a very anticlimactic fate of being stuck on an island and Luthor contemplating eating Parker Posey's dog. Ugh! Luthor's mute henchmen, meanwhile, have a large rock fall on them, which likewise doesn't produce any sort of payoff. It's just something that happens.

Anyway, I could go on, but why protract the pain? This movie should never have been made. It simply should not be.

Out for Justice (1991)

Runs a fine line between ridiculous action flick and brilliant parody

[4/10 · 30 December 2008]

I caught this on "American Movie Classics" last night. Presumably, the definition of the word 'classic' has been altered since last I checked.

Anyway, Seagal plays his standard invincible cop/military man/whatever, with an apparent license to kill, who's out for "justice" against a wannabe wiseguy who has killed his best friend in front of his family and about 20 other witnesses. He also shoots a random woman driver for mouthing off at him. The zaniness starts there and it only gets worse (or better, depending on what kind of movie this is).

Seagal assigns himself to the case. There is no due protocol, no authority figure. Nothing. Seagal just goes after the perp. Jerry Orbach makes an appearance; perhaps to impart a sense of respectability and the idea that Seagal is not a one-man police force in the borough of Brooklyn. Though he might as well be, since few, if any, other police are visible and Orbach does nothing other than, essentially, appear.

Seagal is also apparently friendly with the local mob, who are painted as being somehow noble and who are incensed at the rogue gangster's actions. They, too, vow to find the gangster, though it becomes apparent that these folks can barely find their way out of a paper bag.

The real tragedy (or triumph) of this movie is the actor playing the rogue gangster, William Forsythe, who has earned my eternal respect for his brilliant turn in "Raising Arizona" but he utterly debases, abases and freebases himself here. He seems to be doing everything possible to destroy the respect he gained in that other movie. Or he's doing a brilliant send-up. Hard to tell which.

Anyway, when his time is finally up, there is little drama in his one-sided confrontation with Seagal (which occurs in a kitchen), only more comedy, as Forsythe grabs every possible item available, lunges at Seagal with it and has each weapon blocked in exactly the same way and turned back on him. Finally, Seagal takes one of Forsythe's makeshift weapons, a corkscrew, and rams it into his forehead. When a noble mob guy shows up, Seagal takes his gun and pumps a few shot into Forsythe's bloody corpse for good measure. The End. Or it was for me, anyway.

WALL·E (2008)

Great animation (as ever) but lacks a compelling story

[4/10 · 30 November 2008]

Nothing much to say, really, about the animation. PIXAR steps it up another notch. Simply stunning, which is par for the course for PIXAR. I gave the film six stars and at least five of them go to the visuals.

However, the story didn't really match those visuals. And the two robot leads were cute, I'll grant, but not much more than that.

SPOILERS FOLLOW.

Basically, humans created the mess that made it necessary for them to leave the planet. And we're supposed to root for them to come back? I'm sorry, I just don't get it. It's not a strong enough reason for me to root for the protagonists. And the antagonists are, likewise, not compelling enough, with no real apparent motivation for keeping the humans from re-inhabiting earth, unless it's to protect the earth from humans overloading the world with trash again, in which case, I'm not sure we shouldn't have rooted for them instead.

And what about the other species? We see fish in the end credits. Presumably, the planet was okay for them and other species? The movie doesn't really go into that, unless I missed something.

Meanwhile, while the humans were away, they came to rely on being carted around on hover-chairs. As the film explains, this leads to some bone loss. And their ability to walk has apparently atrophied over the centuries. Only it hasn't, as we see the uniformly obese humans learn to walk again, much like overgrown infants learn to walk. Perhaps this is meant to be symbolic, but it doesn't make a lot of logical sense.

Finally, I'm not sure why a live action Fred Willard was used, but this is a minor point. Given the rest of the movie, I find that I really don't care. I just find it a little odd.

Silver Surfer (1998)

Not sure what the hoopla is.

[3/10 · 6 May 2008]

I'm not sure what people see in this cartoon. I've seen only bits and pieces of it but nothing there to make me want to watch any further. The animation is substandard and the voice work is...odd. The lead character's voice is this weepy, touch-feely sort of deal and Thanos sounds like a Blue Meanie.

Going by what little I've seen, the show seems to depend quite a bit on exposition. In the episode I saw, the Silver Surfer had seemingly interminable internal monologue.

I dunno, it could be I've been spoiled by Bruce Timm, but somehow I don't think so.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Spider-Man jumps the shark

[2/10 · 29 December 2007]

This is a bad film and, by association, if nothing else, the other two have become sullied. I have to wonder if any of these films were ever any good. Maybe I've just been fooling myself.

Anyway, there is little to say in defense of THIS film and whether or not the other two are any good, this 3rd film has put me off watching them ever again. Because Sam Raimi has clearly lost the plot, if he ever had it.

The film is a complete mess. There are at least four story lines going on here, and they are rather clumsily intertwined.

First we have a look at Mary Jane's attempt at a singing career and why it fails. Of course, I was under the impression that she wanted to be an ACTOR, not a singer and that she seemed as if she would do OK as the former. It's an obvious contrivance but it's not the only one. BTW, this is the character at her utmost unlikable (and about as far from the original vivacious comic book character as possible).

Then you have Harry Osborne becoming the next Goblin. He sneaks up on Peter Parker while he's on his bike (btw, what happened to his Spider-Sense? It's entirely missing in this film) then starts wailing the tar out of him, until Peter finally turns the tables and knocks Harry out cold. After a brief scare that he might be dead, it turns out he's OK, except for partial amnesia (another weak plot point).

Then you've got the Sandman, yet another sympathetic villain (and one who comes by his powers for no other reason than that the plot requires it). In the comic, he was a thug (except for one short period) who's fairly powerful and menacing. Here, he's a caring father who pulled off a heist to get money to save his dying daughter (well cry me a river, why don't you?) and not very effective or menacing (and Thomas Haden Church, the actor portraying him, seems to concede most of the characters' screen time to a series of roaring and groaning special effects). During this heist, he accidentally shoots and kills Peter Parker's uncle Ben. The purpose of this otherwise purposeless alteration of the Spider-Man origin story is to present some sappy message of forgiveness at the end. YAWN! Why can't we just have villains that are jerks?

Oh wait, we do, in the form of Eddie Brock, a rival photographer who's attempting to land a staff job at the Daily Bugle. But if not for the major plot point of the squishy black glob from space, I'd say he comes off as little more than an after-thought. And his alliance with Sandman is never explained and never convincing. Add to that a rather poor performance by Topher Grace. That's not to knock Grace, though; I think he could have done better if there were time to focus on Brock/Venom.

Somewhat intertwined with this storyline is Peter Parker's turn to the dark side. The squishy blob envelopes him, giving him a black costume and he becomes Dark Spider-Man, one who acts without inhibition or remorse when dealing with his enemies or even his friends. We witness a campily embarrassing scene parodying Saturday Night Fever and another where he attempts to humiliate Mary Jane by interrupting her jazz number with his own (btw, it was never established, to my knowledge, that Parker played the piano).

Then, there's Gwen Stacy, a significant character in the comics, but here she's just reduced to nothing more than a weak plot device. (Also, in an ironic bit of casting, the actress's natural hair color is red, as is Mary Jane's, while Dunst's natural hair is blonde, just like Stacy's). Actually, she serves as a reminder of how the filmmakers dropped the ball from the very beginning. They failed to feature Gwen in the first movie and create a significant story out of it and now they're reduced to presenting the character as a cypher. Better not to have used her at all, I think(I've always wondered about wanton changes to comic book stories when they're adapted to film. I mean, these things are already STORYBOARDED and at least some of them are GOOD STORIES).

Added to this convoluted mess is the suggestion of a sort of "The Cult of Spider-Man." Footage of him shows up on giant screens; he's invited to and shows up at a ceremony to receive the keys to the city and get kissed by Gwen Stacy (part of another weak plot device); plus the final battle scene involving the Sandman, Venom, the Goblin and Spider-Man; and all the while you've got hordes of idiots screaming "Spider-Man! Spider-Man!" as well as a female and (for some reason) British reporter portentously describing the events of the battle. It is as embarrassing as described and it struck me that it was not unlike this in the other films, though those films were infinitely more watchable, if nothing else.

What's basically happened here is that at least a year's worth of comic story lines (Harry Osborne, black costume, Venom) is being ham-handedly smooshed into a story that already features the "touchy-feely" Sandman storyline and some angst-ridden crap about MJ. The final results aren't pretty. The movie should have focused more on Brock/Venom and left Sandman out of it. There was already enough to go on with Harry and Peter for another plot thread. The movie also could have, nay should have, done without Mary Jane's ordeals. And I think we've seen, and heard, enough of her being dangled off of something and screaming her stupid, red-dyed head off.

Transformers (2007)

Why can't they ever get it right?

[2/10 · 28 December 2007]

Why can't anybody ever get the Transformers right? It's possibly one of the coolest concepts ever to be conceived and yet in every nearly incarnation, the execution has been wanting.

First, there was the so-called G1 TV series, which I fondly remember but, sadly, it just doesn't stand the test of time.

Then we had Beast Wars, an idea which never appealed to me, despite some good things I'd heard about it.

Then we had various crappy anime series.

Then we have this. Others have already ably described the various things that are wrong with this movie, so I won't bother to do the same, except to add that it's a damned shame that Frank Welker couldn't reprise his role as Megatron's voice and also that Optimus Prime seemed fairly powerless against Megatron and needed Spike to defeat him. BOOOO! As for the designs, I can appreciate the need or desire to update the designs but I don't see how that translates to changing them completely or making them overly complex. Less is more.

And now, we have the new animated series, the pilot of which aired recently on Cartoon Network. Early returns don't look promising on that one either (in other words, I don't care for what I've seen so far).

Sigh. I wonder if we'll ever see the Transformers done right.

Beowulf (2007)

4 stars...for the dragon.

[2/10 · 9 December 2007]

Others have said it better than me but that's not going to stop my putting in my 2 pence. Here we have yet another classic work that has been compromised to presumably tell a more, presumably, "believable" tale. We're expected to believe Beowulf is flawed and that he's bragging about his exploits, yet we witness him performing the kind of feats he's supposedly bragging about. Perhaps someone can explain that to me.

The part where he demonstrates he really is flawed is when he is seduced by the presumably irresistible "Monster Queen" as played by Angelina Jolie. This is some pretty tawdry film-making. Basically, we're led to believe that no man, however hardy, can resist seduction and we're left with this bitter taste at the very ending of the film. That this is all part of some vicious, unending cycle.

We also have an alleged romance between Beowulf and Wealthow invented for the movie, yet I never saw any evidence of it on the screen, so why bother? The character herself was annoying as all get-out. Most of her "performance" was in giving endless wistful looks and showing off how pretty her face is. To be fair, some of these ideas themselves aren't really that awful...when explored on their own. When transposed on an epic work, they just ring false.

As does the animation. Loved the scenery but the character animation didn't do it for me. Despite, the exquisite textures (on the main characters, anyway; the extras looked like they came straight out of the Shrek movies), the renderings of humans didn't strike me as particularly convincing, especially the eyes. They are just off. They come off as cold, and thus, so do the characters. And men riding horses came off as risible.

However, the dragon sequence was awesome (despite the nature of the beast being changed for the film); cant' find any fault with that, probably because I'm a sucker for dragons. Hence the relatively generous rating.

300 (2006)

Watchable but still bad

[3/10 · 15 August 2007]

I gave this film a generous 4 stars but it's not one I would particularly watch again (except with the accompanying RiffTrax by Mike Nelson and co. - actually looking forward to that).

I enjoyed the comic series for what it was - it was well-paced and nicely illustrated - but this film failed to invoke the experience of the comics. There are some well-done action scenes (the film even manages to make a sex scene into an action scene, although it comes off as more amusing than erotic) and endless scenes of guys getting impaled, decapitated or whatever, but it's all very thin. There is very little behind it all, despite it being based on historical events. Even Braveheart (a movie I no longer appreciate as much as I used to) managed to instill its battle scenes with some weight.

Comparisons have been drawn between this film and a video game and they're not unfounded. Blood flies everywhere, but it's all fake and doesn't land anywhere. Impalements, dismemberments and decapitations abound but when the camera pans to the battle scene, nary a drop of the red stuff is seen anywhere. It's like the film cut costs by avoiding the use of fake blood. Whatever the case, it looks fairly silly and adds to the "weightlessness" of the film.

Then there are the beasts and monsters that appear in this movie, making the film something of a "historical fantasy" but they really don't add much to anything. For one thing, the CGI is terrible, notably for a wolf and some elephants. As for the elephants, they are described as being "clumsy," so why should I care? There is a war rhino that is, of course, utterly ridiculous and an ogre's fight with Leonidas is just an all-too familiar rehash of recent cinematic melee. There is a thing with the cleavers for forearms that was just bizarre and I don't know what the story is with the goat-headed guy. These scenes are merely "eye candy" and don't add much else to the film.

The performances were ridiculously overstated, I thought, making the dialogue come off as cheesy. For instance, David Wenham, the actor who helped assassinate the character of Faramir in LoTR, was even worse here. He adopts an odd and unappealing narrative voice and just seems to go on an on, especially at the end of the movie.

And then there's the villain, who almost makes everyone else look better by comparison. Rodrigo Santoro's performance would be utterly laughable if it were not almost painful to watch. Why Frank Miller decided to depict Xerxes in the comic book this way, I can't say, but one can more easily overlook Xerxes' appearance there. Here it stands out like a, well, a bunch of fake body piercings.

I could go on and on, but I think the only way to see how bad it is is to watch it.

Superman: Brainiac Attacks (2006 Video)

Disappointing

[3/10 · 24 June 2006]

First off, though it's nice to have Tim Daly back as Supes (not that there's anything wrong with the voice acting of George Newbern), Clancy Brown and no Corey Burton (as Lex Luthor and Brainiac, respectively) are absent, so it loses points there. In their place are Powers Boothe and Lance Henriksen. Boothe is certainly no Clancy Brown (though he makes a good Gorilla Grodd), but Henriksen, as Brainiac, is particularly bad; less than a pale shadow of Corey Burton. I would say the lack of proper voice talent alone is enough to give this a miss. But anyway, moving on...

The story is...not so good. Actually, there are 3 annoying things about it: 1) It forgets that Brainiac is, himself, from Krypton, at least in the SM Animated series. He appears in Superman's very first episode. 2) It ignores any continuity from the Superman and JLU series. I know it was never intended to but that doesn't make it any less lame. To be specific, Lex Luthor and Brainiac were already allies, in both series, with results far, far, better than what's seen here (and that may actually be an understatement). So it's hard to see why anyone would be impressed with this story. 3) It's boring and thin (the story, that is). Much of the time is taken up with Superman and the Brainiac robot (which sports a terrible design) thrashing the tar out of each other and lots of missiles and beams being shot all over the place. Besides that, there seems to be no motive for Brainiac's destructive rampage. His M.O. is to absorb the data of planets and then destroy the planets themselves so that he is the sole possessor of said knowledge. Here he just goes around Metropolis shooting things. He even spouts clichés and...laughs. It's all really rather dull and pointless.

Characterizations are not very good either. As mentioned, Brainiac just goes on a destructive binge for no apparent reason. The characterizations of Superman, Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen are a bit flawed, too, but most apparent is that of Lex Luthor. Instead of the arrogant, sinister figure we've seen in the series, here we get a clown. It's almost as if Luthor has sustained some sort of brain damage and has turned into some sort of idiot savant.

That leaves the animation, the only saving grace for this rather pointless exercise. But it's not reason enough to watch this (at least not more than once), not when you get the same quality animation with JLU, etc. only paired with much better stories.

Mean Creek (2004)

Not bad, but the basic premise is hard to believe

[5/10 · 18 June 2006]

This movie is reminiscent of the film Bully (2001), in which a group of kids are bullied by another kid, so they plot his death. Here, they don't plot the kid's death, but he ends up dead anyway. The other difference is, the bully in the film Bully seemed to deserve it, while the kid in this film didn't even seem to deserve the original intent, which was a prank to humiliate him (i.e. make him strip to his birthday suit, throw him in the creek and have him walk a considerable distance home that way).

Anyway, the film opens with the alleged bully (Josh Peck, from "Drake and Josh") adjusting his video camera so that he can film himself shooting hoops. Not long after, Rory Culkin enters the frame and messes with his camera. This prompts Peck to shout out in indignation and to beat up Rory Culkin, telling him that he warned him not to touch his camera. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but it seems if some aggressive fat kid who outweighs you by about 100 pounds, tells you not to touch his property or "he'll kill you", you listen. Unfortunately, this warning didn't take, and Rory Culkin ends up with a bruise on the side of his face.

My point here is that, while it may not be cool to get beat up for touching someone's camera, if the person was actually warned you not to do so and you do so anyway, I don't know if I'm inclined to feel any sympathy. Also, we're expected to believe that Little Kid is a frequent victim of the fat kid's attacks, but all we see is the incident of Culkin messing with Fat Kid's camera so we can only imagine instances where Fat Kid picks on Little Kid because he feels like it. At any rate, if someone beats on you a lot, wouldn't you stay as far away from that person as possible, as opposed to touching their stuff?

Anyway, seems that Rory Culkin has a big brother, not Macaulay or Kieran or any other Culkin in this case, but Trevor Morgan (the sarcastic, arrogant kid from The Sixth Sense) who seems like he and his friend, Tough Kid (Scott Mechlowicz) and Sensitive Kid (Ryan Kelley) can beat up Fat Kid (or at least tell him to back off). But high-falutin' Culkin has other ideas, saying that "if we hurt him, we're no better than he is. First off, seriously, do kids really talk like this? Second, like it's much better to make Fat Kid walk a long way home wet and naked? Anyway, most of the group have second thoughts and decide not to go through with it, except Tough Kid, who gets ticked off by Fat Kid initiates a Truth or Dare game and dares him to strip naked and jump in the water. However, the truth comes out that that was the intent all along, whereupon Fat Kid gets ticked and starts insulting the heck out of everyone, notably Tough Kid, whom he mocks about the suicide of his father, very loudly and obnoxiously. This ends up with Big Brother pushing Fat Kid into the drink. He screams frantically for help, but the other kids just stare at him for a while from the boat. Suddenly he bangs his head on an unseen rock, bleeds and goes unconscious. This breaks Big Brother out of his stupor and he belatedly jumps in to rescue him. But he and his friends are too late and so passes Fat Kid.

So, anyway, what's the idea there? Why would the others just let Fat Kid scream and flail around like that for a good minute before they do anything about it? That secretly they all want him dead, so they subconsciously decided to do nothing? Or are they just dumb? I'm going for the latter option, because this whole premise seems dumb. Not that the prank is realistic but most of these kids don't seem like the kind of people who'd go for that sort of thing. Indeed, most of them back out and say stupid things like "we did it because you were mean but then we liked you." Anyway, in the second half or so, the group decides to bury the body and make pretend it never happened. However, everyone, except Tough Kid, decides they can't carry that around with them for the rest of their lives and so decide to come clean. This part actually makes for compelling viewing. Unfortunately, the setup is rather weak, so the film isn't exactly what it could be.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

A piece of Sith

[1/10 · 6 June 2005]

Strategically mix up the letters in the word Sith and you'll have an apt one-word description of this movie and the other prequels.

I'm basically going to try hard to forget I ever watched any of these movies. Putting aside the problems with dialogue, acting, story, pacing as well as the utter lack of any interesting characters, anywhere, these movies look nothing like the original three They might as well have occurred in another universe entirely; for all intents and purposes, they did. That would have been the real challenge, I think: to duplicate the look and feel of those films, not creating these soulless, digital monstrosities. I'm going to have watch the 3 original, un-meddled with movies to try and wash the memory of these other so-called Star Wars movies from my consciousness.

Did these movies really need to be made? I answer no, but perhaps only because the end result is so terrible. A better job certainly could have been done; I think anything the fans imagined is probably superior to this cinematic poo. But, of course, these are George's toys; nobody else is allowed to play with them. The best anyone can do is forget these prequels ever existed. Thank "the Force" it's finally over. If there's any justice, there will be a restraining order to keep Lucas 500 ft. away from a camera.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

The Lashin' of the Christ

[1/10 · 20 May 2005]

I saw this yesterday, out of curiosity, probably of the morbid variety, I'm almost ashamed to say. But it was made and put out there to be seen and so I saw it. Having seen this piece of blood-soaked propaganda, I'm almost glad I did because, it reaffirms my non-belief (being a lapsed Catholic) in the Christian faith, a result which I'm sure is contrary to Mel Gibson's purpose.

Which wa to beat practicing Christians (primarily, Catholics) over the head with a 2-hour guilt trip, at least half of which involves Jesus getting beaten, spat upon, choked, scourged, beaten, spat upon, lashed, beaten and then lashed and beaten; then nailed onto a cross of wood. This will really dig in the message of guilt and just how horribly Jesus died for and because of us. This is basically the basis of the Christian faith, not message of love and peace and all that jive (at least not by the Gospel according to Mel).

Anyway, I'm not too knowledgeable about the historical record and how historically correct this film is or isn't, but there are some things that don't make a whole lot of sense in this film (or religion).

Pilate, for example, is shown as a humane, almost kindly figure, who doesn't wish to have Jesus crucified (he even has a weepy, sensitive wife who asks him to let Jesus go). At first, he refuses to do so, and instead orders him to be merely chastised instead. Somehow this order (there is even a scroll with orders on it) is interpreted to mean "please beat and scourge this man to within a centimeter of his life and laugh maniacally while doing so." We know the punishment order is misinterpreted because, after what seems like a good hour of sadism, Pilate's right-hand man, Abenader, arrives and yells at the torturers for misinterpreting Pilate's orders. Shortly thereafter, Jesus is beaten and spat upon some more, then has a crown of thorns slammed on his head. Later, as the bloodied, ragged figure is made to carry his cross all the way to the crucifixion site, he is punched, kicked, lashed and spat upon every step of the miserable way. Significantly, none of the other "crucifixees" are so abused. Abenader swings by on horseback and tells the soldiers to help Jesus carry the cross, then goes off again doing basically nothing else to get the soldiers off Jesus' back because they continue to beat and whip the living $#!+ o out of him (still laughing maniacally). The point here is: Pilate, this supposedly just, humane leader who doesn't want to punish Jesus, apparently has no say on how his underlings treat his charges and is somehow ignorant of how he is punished.

Also making little sense is an earlier scene, in which Peter practically goes "lethal weapon" on the Jewish soldiers who arrest Jesus, even cutting one soldier's ear off. It takes basically all the soldiers to hold Peter down and he only relents when Jesus tells him "those who live by the sword, die by the sword...to which Peter could've answered, "better to die by the sword than to die by the cross," but I digress. Strangely, Peter is not arrested and is let off without so much as a slap on the wrist, while Jesus is slapped around while being dragged off. The stranger thing is, later, after witnessing Jesus getting slapped around, this same Peter is accosted by several bystanders who accused of being a disciple, to which Peter shows no sack whatsoever and denies knowing Jesus. First off, why does this matter when he can get away with beating up guards and lopping off ears and second, why the hell should he even be afraid of some bystanders after he just whupped ass?

Overall, perhaps to temper the relentless gore, there are some flashback scenes of Jesus relating his messages of love and forgiveness. But is there any forgiveness in the movie? Not so sure about that. Jesus looks at Judas and Peter when they've respectively betrayed and denied him. When Jesus's body is taken down from the cross, Mary holds her son in her lap, then looks, accusingly, at the audience. Yeah, nice message of forgiveness there, Mel.

Anyway, this is run on too long (slow day) so I'll just end with the following: Jesus, in a flashback, tells his followers "love your enemies because if you love only those who love you, where is the reward in that?" Uh... for starters, you won't get the tar kicked out of you and hung on a cross, maybe?

The Beguiled (1971)

Interesting film

[31 January 2005]

But the thing most interesting about it is that Eastwood actually shows some acting ability in it, something he evinces in hardly anything else he's done. That's not to say he's a bad actor; just that range or outpouring of emotion are not his strong suits. He is what he is and most of his roles have not required any exceptional acting ability. In this film, he comes darn close. I'm referring to a particular incident in which Eastwood's character has his leg amputated. When he comes too, his expressed horror at the discovery is very convincing. Eastwood also shows anger in this film better than in any other film I've seen of his.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

It's lame; somehow or other, it's lame just the same.

[3/10 · 15 December 2004]

Why? Why was this made? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's bad, necessarily, just pointless, which is almost as, well, bad. Amazing how all this money was spent and the final product doesn't even come close to either the 10-page story (or however many pages it was) and the 1/2 hour-long 1966 cartoon.

Visually, this live-action Grinch is perhaps the best rendition (the Grinch himself, that is; the live-action Whos look ridiculous), but that's about all this movie has over the other two. Compare the flawless narration of Boris Karloff to the lackluster narration of Sir Anthony Hopkins (who sounds as if he'd rather be doing anything else; I got the strong sense that he was bored to tears doing this) and you can't help but wonder what's the point. Compare Thurl Ravenscroft's rendition of "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" to Carrey's spastic rendition and you'll want to sew Jim Carrey's lips shut.

Finally, compare the pacing. This story didn't need to be more than a few pages or half an hour long. Yet, somehow, this film is 104 minutes! 80 minutes, I can perhaps understand, but 104? Why, for example, the protracted role of Cindy Lou Who? Not enough justification to make a movie, I'm sorry to say. At one point when she asks Grinch-Santa what Christmas is about and he tells her toys, she answers "that's what I was afraid of."

Excuse me while I gag myself with a fork.

"Unnecessary" is all I can think of to say.

The Birth of a Nation (1915)

A remarkable film, yet also a deplorable one

[3/10 · 13 December 2004]

Even I, being a casual movie viewer, can recognize some of the things that make The Birth of a Nation such a landmark film. But like any casual viewer of films, I can't overlook the outrageous racist propaganda that is its subject. All the apologist remarks and arguments about historical context or what have you t won't compel me to view this film again (though I do think it should be seen at least once by anyone with more than a casual interest in the history of film). As it is, when I watched it, I often had my thumb firmly on the fast forward button. I may have missed a few nuances of story but I couldn't imagine myself sitting still through a 3-hour silent film.

Which brings me to my next point: why did this film have to be 3 hours long? The film's racist ideology aside, this film is faulty. More specifically, as I suggested before, it's too long. The second and third acts justify their length, but the first act takes too long establishing things. When we're given the gist of a scene with the title card (or whatever you call it), why do we need lengthy (or at least substantial) stretches of soundless dialogue and theatre-acting? Hello? The audience doesn't know what the heck the actors are saying? Why prolong these scenes? When we're told Lincoln is to sign such-and-such bill (for a more concrete example) why do we need to see Lincoln actually sitting down and signing the bill? Let's face it, the most remarkable thing about the film are its innovative battle scenes and various other innovations that modern moviegoers take for granted. In other words, except for the battle scenes, when the film isn't' being offensive, it is being boring. The other quibble I have with the film is the choice of music. Using Civil War time music is fine, but why bring Beethoven into it? I felt the use of Beethoven's 6th was incongruously used and somewhat profaned in this film.

Anyway, all told, it would be hard enough to make the average movie viewer, weaned on colors and sounds and special effects and whatnot, to appreciate this film if it WEREN'T racist. As it is, its subject remains a formidable barrier against such enlightenment.

As a final note, to those who defend the alleged truthfulness of the film, well, there is perhaps a kernel of truth in every instance of propaganda but, remember, it was also true that white Americans owned black slaves. And there is very little propaganda surrounding this particular truth. So I hope you'll forgive me if I fail to feel any sympathy for "the poor, white Southerner."

The Cat in the Hat (2003)

Satire?

[29 November 2004]

One reviewer lauded this film, saying it was a clever satire of our society.

I beg to differ. It could have been, but what I saw was more of a reflection, perhaps, of the worst in people. If it's satire, it's not very good satire.

To be fair, the film wasn't as unwatchable as all the bad reviews led me to believe it would be. But it's still bad. Above that, it's relentlessly mean-spirited and cynical and I'm not just talking about the fart jokes and what have you. Mike Myers' Cat, apart from not being funny, or funny enough, just does not come across as a likable character. In fact, whatever humor Myers' conveys seems to come from the fact that his character has an unwholesome edge to it; as if he's incapable of playing someone likable while being funny. The other characters barely register or give any basis on which to form any response at all. Lastly, the Cat appeared to teach the kids to have fun. Mostly what I saw was the kids being exasperated or scared out of their wits; most of the time they appeared to be angry at the Cat (with good reason). They didn't seem to me to be having much fun at all.

Strangers on a Train (1951)

Questionable premise (and ending)

[22 November 2004]

The premise itself is not what's questionable, but how Bruno Anthony handles it. The idea was that he and Guy to commit each other's murders. There would be no link and each would have alibis. However, Bruno creates a link by frequently pestering Guy and crashing the parties that Guy attends; there are several potential eye witnesses. At this point, if Guy does indeed intend to kill Bruno's father, how is it possible that either would get away with it? Bruno would have an alibi, but he would be linked to Guy and police would start inquiring into how/why the two knew each other; it would look awfully suspicious and, no matter how outrageous the idea, that they would enter into a contract to mutually kill each other's nemseses, the police would look into it.

As for the ending, it isn't necessarily the idea that a cop would recklessy fire in the direction of a merry-go-round and killing the operator that undermines credibility, but that's he's not reprimanded for it. I guess this part is left to the audience?

Despite these questions and flaws, the film is still very entertaining and manages to lay on the tension nicely. Robert Walker is excellent as Bruno Anthony.

One last note: this film is given hilarious tribute in Throw Momma from the Train.