Reviews written by registered user
|266 reviews in total|
As most other TV-series, "Dawson's Creek" started out great, with good
acting, a nice setting and interesting characters. But soon it degenerated
and fell into that same messy trap that most TV-series are prone to fall
into: going on for too long. The intrigues and developments become really
long-winded and turn into a really messy soup of connections, emotions and
ties - and you can clearly tell that the episodes are no longer written all
at once but on occasion, and then the series looses it.
Also, the very likeable characters of "Dawson's Creek" are super adolescents, not only being able to distinguish every emotion from another and label it, they are also able to express their every thought and deed in a very advanced vocabulary. Now, I know that there are lots of young people out there who are that clever - but Capeside is perfectly infested with these genetically enhanced beauties. I'm actually not being cynical here, I just find it hard to let slide.
All in all, I think it's a good show that I don't enjoy watching anymore - there are a lot worse TV shows than this one, and I'm glad that, if somewhat unbelievable, "Dawson's Creek" can at least teach kids how to correspond to their lives.
"Bad Taste" sure is one of the most disgusting films I have ever seen, but it is also insanely funny, and most of the disgust turns into laughter right away. As such, it is kind of harmless, but I know few people who continued eating their popcorn while watching it - myself included. Of course, there is nothing to be said about anything else in this film since it is very, very far from being serious. It's the kind of film a bunch of film students would make if they (or rather, the school) had the money.
Even bloodier than "Bad Taste", this film is really something special - if you're into mayhem and gore. But once again, the gore and the splatter is there to fill a comic purpose. It's way too much to be even considered serious, and the over-the-top finale is a tribute to all the splatter movies of the world - certainly the final scenes contain enough fake blood and intestines to fill them all up. But even some of the calmer (if there is such a thing) moments of the film are very funny, evidence of a little bit more cleverness than just a gore feast - the dinner scene is just amazingly funny. All in all, a masterfully stupid film that is just as funny as "Plan 9" or the likes.
Speed is a top-notch action movie, energetic like few and incredibly fast-paced, funny at some points and with a fairly original plot. Stealing the show, Sandra Bullock and Dennis Hopper are really the main characters here, Keanu Reeves merely adds juice to the action - but he still performs very well, his usual wood-like appearance is eradicated by a clever story, quick turns and great visuals. "Speed" does a great job of adding something new to the abundant flora of action flicks. Too bad that its reputation had to bee tainted by the rock-bottom sequel.
It's hard to understand why this film was ever made, because there is no real point to it. It's an endearing film, the characters are all likeable and performances are good. But the predictability of the film really takes the entertainment and afterthought away: there are almost no surprises, and the film has been dragged out to last long enough - mainly by Grant's acting, a genre of its own from which it seems he will never escape. Small movie, small theme and very light entertainment.
It took me quite a while to appreciate this film - mostly because I wasn't
familiar with Burton's fabulous, overblown proportions and great vision.
"Edward Scissorhands" was just too weird for me. I am happy to say that it
has grown on me - though being far from Burton's later work, such as "Ed
Wood" or "Sleepy Hollow", it is still strikingly original and is a very
The tidy, perfect and very unreal suburb in contrast to the dracula-style castle that has somehow been left standing right in the middle of it is just the sort of dreamy juxtaposition that one could expect from Burton. It is a treat to be surprised by it and it feels very novel. The nosy, in-your-face housewives who center their absurd lives around what's going on in the neighborhood are a vital part of this juxtaposition. It makes you wonder which part of this weird place is for real and which isn't. And Edward himself, a bizarre freak whose life is turned upside down by kind and unkind (and just plain dumb) suburban dwellers - Edward must be one of the most haunting and sad characters I have ever seen, and Depp is absolutely perfect for the part.
In many respects the characters are pretty normal - they have been tweaked somewhat to allow for their extravagant behavior and their calculating meanness, but other than that, they are just people. But put in these awful, cheerily colorful surroundings, they seem even more twisted than they already are. And Edward, apart from his appearance, is more normal than any of them. A film full of wonders. It's inspiring to think that Tim Burton thought this movie up as a kid.
A massive spoof on 50's style alien horror flicks in general and "Plan 9" in particular. There are innumerable references to this film in "Mars Attacks", and no wonder - after having made "Ed Wood" just a couple of years before, Tim Burton no doubt wanted to explore the genre further. I know this film isn't very popular, but I think it is hilarious and has just the right mix: one part old horror in hindsight and three parts 90's effects. If one loves old and awful horror pictures, Tim Burton is the man, because he sure does too.
Being a cult classic, this film is actually one of the better trash B-movies out there. It's raw, stupid and quite a bit pretentious - but it's very entertaining and intelligent enough for a lazy evening. This movie also bears the distinction of boasting the worst character name in all of movie history: Snake Plissken. That's priceless.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Unlike most others, I actually think the "Leathal Weapon" movies improve with each sequel - thus #4 is the best and #1 is the least good. Don't hate me for it. I think they're all good. But the brainlessness of the films are easier to explain (and appreciate) if one sees them as action-comedies.
This film also brings a good closure to the saga - many things are settled for good: Leo Getz becomes a member of the family, Riggs can finally lay the memory of his murdered wife behind him and marry Lorna, and during the end credits, we get to see evidence of the friendship between the members of the "Lethal Weapon" crew: photos from all four films and the unmistakable song line "Why can't we be friends". I actually find this violent, brainless movie to be very heart-warming - not only because of the love between the characters, but because of the obvious love between the actors and of how fun it must have been to make this film.
I keep asking myself why this film got so slandered long before it
premiered. It had an oversized price tag, but that is just an excuse. The
film itself isn't so bad - which is why the criticism quieted pretty quickly
after the film opened. Short mindedness is the greatest enemy a movie critic
can face, and it seems not many are up to the task.
I give this movie 6 out of 10. It doesn't live up to the price tag and is wildly over ambitious - but it is extremely entertaining and feels very novel being set almost entirely at sea. That the bad guys, the "Smokers", are more of a bunch of clumsy, kiddie matinee evil-but-stupid smokers (!) are more to the films credit than anything. Without Hoppers REALLY funny character, this film would have been way too serious to pull it all off. "Waterworld" is the kind of film that I like to watch again and again - it's catchy, funny, weird and at times absolutely brainless. The cost of the film is bewildering, since it is hard to spot just what would be so expensive - and somewhere along the road priorities must have slipped: some of the special effects are just awkward. To exemplify, one of my favorite parts of the movie is when the Mariner takes Helen down to see the world that has been buried by water. The special effects here are really bad and the moment is almost lost because of it. The idea is haunting and scary - just not very well realized.
The characters are, more or less strange, imaginative and, to be honest, simple - the one standing out is Costner himself, never smiling, very bitter and angry all the time and with good reasons. Helen and her daughter are the only "normal" characters in this unusual film. My favorite character? The guy sitting in the oil tanks of the giant tanker (the Smoker's home base).
There is a plot hole in the story, of course - but it must be the largest one I've seen and accepted at once: melting the polar ice caps would not raise the sea as much as is depicted in "Waterworld". But what the heck...it's just for fun, isn't it?
|Page 5 of 27:||              |