Reviews written by registered user
|11 reviews in total|
"Don't Come Knocking" is the incredibly boring story of a washed up cowboy movie actor's attempt to escape from the role he plays in real life. Unfortunately, we the audience are taken along on his mundane quest to nowhere. Solid production quality does nothing to help this humorless, dreary odyssey. The acting is good, but the drama is forced and the lines are often downright silly. Tim Roth's performance as the eccentric bounty hunter sent to retrieve the AWOL actor is simply weird, even by his standards. I was unable to care about any character in the movie - not a single one! In the end, I was hoping an asteroid would suddenly appear and strike Butte Montana, killing all the characters there. That, would have be the best way to end this pretentious movie.
"Stalingrad" is a heavy-handed propaganda film made by the Soviet
government in 1949 with three unstated goals: 1. Glorify the Russian
war effort and sacrifices that led to the defeat of the Nazis in WWII;
2. Warn the free world of the folly of opposing communism; 3. Give
credit to Joseph Stalin as the mastermind behind Russia's WWII victory.
The first goal is a worthy one, because no nation suffered the losses Russia did - an estimated 25 million killed! But the losses portrayed in the film are sterile, as if plastic toy soldiers are being knocked down by marbles. This is because the soldiers actually fighting the battle appear only as extras instead of as actual characters. The only real characters in the movie are the always calm, unanimated Stalin, his entourage of child-like kiss-ass generals, and the over-the-top German leaders they battle against. The battle scenes do not appear realistic, despite the thousands of soldiers and hundreds of authentic tanks, planes, artillery pieces, etc. used in epic fashion. This is probably because of poor directing combined with terrible acting.
The second goal was marginally achieved through the vast military might displayed on the screen. But history clearly warns that invading Russia is a risky proposition, especially in Winter, so additional warnings are unnecessary.
The third goal was undoubtedly the real reason for the movie. Historians know that Stalin was a murderous thug who rose to power as any gangster does, by simply eliminating anyone who opposes him. He was only good for killing fellow Russians, not Germans. Marshal Zhukov was the mastermind in Russia's war against Germany and he was the true hero of Stalingrad. By removing Zhukov from the limelight after WWII Stalin eliminates a possible political threat while assuming the credit for Germany's defeat.
"Stalingrad" is not a good movie, but it is an interesting historical relic. It illustrates that lies, no matter how artistically packaged, will eventually be exposed.
If the mark of a good comedy is laughter, then this was a great comedy.
I laughed throughout it, there were no real lulls. The script had just
the right mixture of jokes and sight gags to keep audiences on their
toes. This was truly outstanding comedic writing. From the
skaters'outfits to their choreography, everything was consistently
Will Farrell's characters can sometimes be a bit annoying, but in this film he was kept in check by a pair of directors who knew how to best channel his talents. There were a few times when Jon Heder seemed a bit like Napoleon Dynamite, but he usually held on to his new persona pretty well.
Overall, this is the best comedy I've seen in years.
Who greenlights two hours of arguments and lovers' spats? Who thinks audiences will want to see this? It is painful to watch. There is virtually no comedy in this movie, and no real point in watching it. If you want to hear couples quarrel you can simply walk around the local mall, rather than paying to see this dismal movie. The movie's one redeeming quality, Jennifer Aniston's nude walk-by scene, was intentionally shot out of focus. With all the time, talent and money Universal Studios channeled into this project you'd have thought they would have paid at least a little attention to the script. This is a terrible story, which no amount of star power can save.
This movie was advertised as a romantic comedy, but there was no romance and no comedy. All I saw was a boring story about a horrible person, a talent agent, whom I found myself rooting against. Talent agents are, in general, not likable characters. So why did the director think we'd enjoy spending a few hours with one, even if he's played by Ben Affleck? The nepotism and shallow nature of Hollywood seem to be accurately portrayed in this movie. Behind the red carpet glamour of the movie industry lies a dirty business totally lacking any morals or ethical standard. But this was well documented in "The Player" and doesn't need to be repeated. I couldn't bring myself to care about Affleck's character, and thus didn't get emotionally involved with this movie.
Back in the days before computers made special effects in movies, Ray Harryhausen used highly detailed creature models and laborious stop motion photography to create larger-than-life fantasy monsters. He used this technique in over a dozen films, winning several visual effects awards along the way. But his greatest work is undoubtedly "The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad" (1958). The monsters from his Island Of Colossa create a thrilling adventure for the ages. Coupled with a wonderful score by the great Bernard Herrmann, this movie is better than any of the $100M popcorn movies that studios churn out today. The story is great and the innocent, good natured dialogue from the '50's enhances the illusion that you are on an ancient adventure. These were simpler times with clear-cut heroes and villains. The way the world is today we may never see such times again, but at least we can revisit them for a few hours with this terrific film.
"The Reeker" is a great title for this stinking horror flick! While the production value is adequate for this genre (low budget slasher), it is very hard to develop any involvement for the unlikable characters who are getting picked off one by one. It is also hard to care about anything when there are no established rules. I mean we know a cross will deter vampires, but what can stop Death? Speaking of Death, the monster effects are not good - he looks comical, not scary. Also, this movie had two good-looking chicks with no nudity! If you're a director who is obviously following established genre formulas, why would you leave out the best part? Overall, this movie was really bad. But I'm sure that won't stop them from making several sequels.
This is a terrible movie. Nearly every depiction of the US Army is wrong in it - from the way they talk, wear their berets, rank, branch insignia, etc. If a director doesn't know anything about the military (and most don't) why not ask someone instead of making a movie that looks stupid? And the monsters made no sense either. There was no real science in this science fiction. The whole story just wasn't very well thought out. The actors seemed okay, and I amazed they could keep a straight face while speaking such horrible dialogue. If I had the resources (actors, production crew, $$$$, etc.) these people put into "Deep Evil" I could have made a film that would have grossed over $100M in theaters, instead of crashing and burning on cable TV. How do these guys find the funding to make such crap?
How refreshing it is to see a writer and director actually research classic literature before making a movie about it! "Troy" is very true to "The Iliad," and exceptionally well done. The movie accurately captures the methods and motivations of ancient warfare in the Bronze age. Beautiful scenery and breathtaking action keep you glued to your seat until the tragic drama plays out its course. My only minor criticism is that it ran about a half hour too long, bogged down by dialogue we didn't need to hear in order to get the point (i.e. Agamemnon must say "Achilles would just as soon spear me as talk to me!" at least four or five times). BTW, the score is fantastic and has an enormous impact on the movie - especially during Hector's death. Overall, beautiful actors turn a timeless story into what will undoubtedly become a classic movie.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
So a guy borrows a video-camera and makes a documentary about how he gets a date with Drew Barrymore in 30 days. His friends help and it becomes a big production. Unfortunately, this guy's sad attempt at breaking into show business isn't very interesting. Basically, they keep calling people in Drew's outer circle of gatekeepers in the hope of getting a lunch date with her. They do crash an event, and the guy says "Hi" to her, but is too overcome with her stardom to ask her out. Then they reenact the meeting because they didn't bring a camera into the event. I'm sure Drew is a wonderful person but pleeeease - she's not a goddess! So when they fail to get the date within 30 days they keep going (cheating!) until she eventually hears about it and decides she'd like the free publicity (and IMDb credit!). How is this even mildly entertaining?
|Page 1 of 2:|| |