Reviews written by registered user
|16 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This really is a terrible movie. And I like terrible movies. This movie
takes HUGE leaps of logic; I understand that there must be some
suspension of disbelief, but it was too disjunctured. There are still
scenes that I just don't understand, like the listing and showing of
some girl named Fiona with the other missing girls, the difficult to
discern jumps through the timeline, and all the red herring, including
the lawn boy, the "cuts happen" guy, the police psychiatrist, and the
"I keep forgetting to plug it in" leg problem. This movie revolved
around a chance to showcase Lindsay Lohan as a sex symbol without her
nudity (much like The New Guy did with Eliza Dushku, but without the
entertaining plot line). It was respectable writing to make Dakota Moss
so bold, especially with the language, but it just wasn't enough.
Realistically, with as inundated as the television/movie-viewing public is about forensic evidence, investigation, and biology (the worm-in-biology-class scene? Come on...), a movie has to at least seem intelligent.
On a side note, I was desperately hoping that everything would be pulled nicely together by the guy on the bus being the boyfriend/brother of "Fiona", which would be the girl Dakota found in the glass coffin (Dressed to Kill was one of my favorite movies). Unfortunately, believing in "stigmatic twins" is the final leap over "Lohan is crazy", which might have turned into a decent ending.
I went to see this movie, knowing nothing about the plot and having no
idea that it was based on a video game. I loved it. The plot is simple
enough to follow while at the same time being complex enough to justify
the conflict. The characters, while all static, were made essential to
the storyline, thus rendering them valid. The use of allusion,
cinematography, and, above all the MUSIC from this movie were all
One thing did bother me, though: "I think this place is haunted." It comes at an odd time and seems to snag the forward momentum of the movie for a moment.
I was not particularly excited about the first "Saw" when it came out,
when I heard an idea of the plot, etc. On a recommendation from a
friend, I borrowed it on DVD and was happy to have enjoyed the movie
That being said, I was anticipating the release of "Saw II". I was disappointed. The creativity and complexity of the first movie was gone and replaced with formulaic good-looking people. Not that the acting was stellar in the first movie, but the characters were as believable as the story allowed them to be. "Saw II" contained very static characters with a weak string tying them together. If the characters themselves weren't flimsy enough, they were put through a plot line that did not require so many victims, making it confusing. I had no idea what most of the main characters names were, only grazing the surface as to why they were put under the circumstances that they found themselves in.
Overall, a huge, involved plot was set, then managed to resolve only a few of the problems, while at the same time staging a virtual segue into more sequels. The film either should have spent another half hour finishing off the characters (which I hope will be the extended Director's cut DVD when it gets that far) or cut several of them completely from the script. The first movie was intriguing and complete, while this sequel tried too hard to be complex, and that left it feeling a little over-produced. Disappointing.
I absolutely loved Ocean's Eleven. It was well-put together, contained
great performances, and was endearing. The sequel was a pathetic
attempt to cash in on a franchise. Hopefully, it will never be
considered a black eye on the success of its predecessor.
The problem with the movie is its similarity to the first movie. In Eleven, the synergy between George Clooney and Brad Pitt is entertaining. Twelve overuses this relationship. Eleven took the time to explain why so many thieves were necessary during recruitment. Twelve seemed to struggle to fit all of the characters into the plot.
I left the theatre with the feeling that I'd just seen a very cheaply made imitation of a great thing, like the Mexican reproduction of Birds, entitled Beaks. I'm still expecting Brad Pitt to leave me a voicemail apologizing for the movie in its entirety.
Number Two: The Cosby Show
Number One: The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air
It's that simple. There has never been another show made, in my opinion, that never ceases to be funny, no matter how many times you see a particular episode. Seinfeld is funny, but most episodes get old after a while. Will Smith is an immortal.
Why does everyone expect every movie to be a groundbreaking phenomenon? This movie should have been titled "Stiffler Kung-fu", as I refer to it whenever I mention it. That being said, I went to see this movie, will see it again if someone else wants to go, and will be buying it at Best Buy the Tuesday it comes out on DVD. "Stiffler Kung-fu" is essentially a chop-socky style movie with Stiffler in it. Seann William Scott is not a serious actor. James King is still reasonably new to acting, so she is believable as the kung-fu girl. Chow Yun Fat shows the kind of versatility that his American counterparts are allowed on a regular basis (Mel Gibson's serious role in Braveheart which gave latitude for joking remarks?). All films cannot be campy, I admit. But all films cannot be deep and serious. Everything cannot be based on a true story. If you went to see this movie expecting a reflective piece on humanity, you obviously didn't watch the trailers or pay attention to the way it was presented and you are an idiot.
This movie was quantum leaps beyond Hannibal, but still severely
disappointing. This Thomas Harris trilogy is something I've read over and
over again, enjoying it each and every time. I start with Red Dragon and
wind down with Hannibal, making sure to savor every page of The Silence of
the Lambs. The middle book made the best movie and no one could expect it
to be duplicated, but I had no idea it would be blatantly defiled like this.
At least Michael Mann's Manhunter was original. Anthony Hopkins is simply
not intimidating as Hannibal Lector anymore. The scene with the exercise
gym is the best showcase of this (besides never existing in the book). The
other disappointment in Lector is the misrepresentation of the story of how
Will Graham captured the doctor originally. The novel's version is far more
enjoyable as well as more believable, and I'm curious as to what
demographics expert changed that.
Harvey Keitel simply does not play a smart enough character to be Jack Crawford. This man is an FBI Section Chief, not some strong-arm cop or hit man; he's educated and has emotions (like guilt for using people the way that he has to).
Ed Norton is phenomonal. He can play any role. What may seem like lifelessness to someone else perfectly portrays Will Graham to me; an empath who somewhat understands what he is and is terrified of his own pathology.
Ralph Fiennes is another lifesaver. At first, I didn't believe he could be physically dominating enough to be Francis Dollarhyde, but I was pleasantly surprised to be corrected, even though he did focus more on the emotional aspect of the Red Dragon than Tom Noonan did in Manhunter.
Anyone who has yet to see this movie, I beg you, miss the very last frame. Just the last line. Stop your DVD/VHS player ten seconds before the credits roll. You'll thank me.
I kid you not. I loved comic books when I was younger and enjoy seeing
things like this brought to life in a creative way. It's difficult for some
people to understand the anacronic nature of it (Superman as a kid in the
present time) and other have a problem with every character having some type
of super power, but the characters are complex, having lives of their own
while tying into the main storyline (becoming Superman/Lex Luthor/Lana Lang
as they appear in the comics). Even the more token characters (Pete, Chloe)
have their own style and place in the show.
If these reasons are not enough for you, watch it to see the most beautiful girl on television. There is no disappointment here.
There have been some excellent baseball movies made from Field of Dreams to
The Pride of the Yankees, but no movie based on the national pastime can
ever claim to be as hysterically funny as Major League. Granted, the value
of the original was hurt by the second and third attempts at re-creating the
atmosphere. Those two films were an embarrassment to all
Major League, however, personified the attitude of "Nothing to lose". Aside from the easily identified woes of the Cleveland franchise of the late-eighties, there were several actors in this film that had yet to hit big or had started to fall from grace. The incredibly strong language of the movie only made it seem that much more realistic.
Mystery Date doesn't offer a thrilling suspense, doesn't have an intricate
plotline, and doesn't have mind-boggling special effects. It does,
give an entertaining hour and a half.
This film may be able to be counted as the last eighties movie; the type where the hero is a jerky, awkward boy who does not realize the situation he is in. He does manage, however, to end up in the end with the girl of his dreams. If only one of the Cory's (Haim or Feldman) could have made a guest spot.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |