Reviews written by registered user
|31 reviews in total|
8MMM is a sitcom about a group of unique individuals working at a radio station broadcasting to Aboriginal people in Australia. By all objective measures it is a low budget show with uninteresting plot lines and dialog. There's Jake, the clean cut station manager trying to do the right thing; Dave, the tough old bird station hand with a thick Australian accent; Lola, the Aboriginal owner with deep knowledge of her native culture and an equally thick Aboriginal accent; and Jesse, the half Aboriginal single mother trying to straddle two worlds. Somehow, the odd assemblage of characters transcends the lackluster sets and amateurish acting. Somehow the characters seem like they might be real people who are living the life they're portraying. Somehow, as a group, they ARE interesting if for no other reason than we like them. And in the process of growing to like them, we learn something about Australia, Australians, and Aboriginal people. Before I knew it, I had watched all 6 episodes of the first season. For a unique view into a unique continent and its people, check it out.
I can't understand who are writing these glowing reviews for this movie, or,for that matter, why they are writing them. The script is just awful. By script I mean the story and dialog are awful. And by awful I mean painful AND boring. And, whoever encouraged this guy (Miles Doleac) to screen-write, should be forced to spend 4 years at whatever university this movie is set in. Two things stand out as most painful. First, if not for hackneyed expressions and unrelated drivel there would be no dialog. Second, the soundtrack's music was both bad and inconsistent with the scene action. On the plus side was Leticia Jimenez. Other actors gave average performances, mainly because it was impossible to rise above the dialog and scenes given to them. Hopefully, we'll see Ms Jimenez again, and if we ever see Mr. Doleac again, it should only be in *front* of the camera.
Everything that's important to making a good movie is dreadful in this movie except....the premise.....which I immediately exclaimed to my wife "Hey, this looks like a Twilight Zone episode". The premise is a fun one and in the hands of a skillful director and scriptwriter, it would be a treat (a camera that takes pictures of the future). Unfortunately, the dialog is horribly stilted and unnatural, leading to terribly wooden performances by the actors. The sets were typically low budget, but frightfully uninspired and the cinematography was so mediocre that it must have been done by a photog student. Sadly, I must add that all of the above is not the Worst part about this narcolepsy trigger. The worst part is the pitiful excuse for an ending which gives the audience exactly no payoff for the agony they've just gone through. My wife started to turn it off a half dozen times, but I insisted we soldier through in the hopes of something uplifting or inspirational or fun or funny or anything good. But that just wasn't to be. In short, for each important movie criteria: poor, poor, poor and poor. If you'd like a fun romp with a similar premise, try Primer (2004), IMDb 7 with 55k votes.
This film barely elevates itself out of the dust bin that it crawled out of. Whether Jeff Daniels' horrible, awkward and unfunny groping of Emma Stone or his pushing 10th graders into alcoholic stupors, the disgusting aspects of this film are tough to rise above. The horrible dialog - stilted and sparse - is anything but funny and the comedic moments are completely squandered. What I find most flabbergasting is the complete lack of anything resembling plot closure or character's personal progress at the end of the movie. It just trails off into some kind of oblivion which is exactly where this movie belongs: oblivion. Having said all that, I will justify my 3 star rating by saying that the two leads prove they are worthy of being considered among the best of the best in Hollywood. Honorable mention goes to Lisa Kudrow who provides a yeoman's performance as an unlikable but decent wife.
I, like many others, was sucked into viewing this film because of Mena Suvari (American Beauty) and because of Brian Austin Green (The Sarah Connor Chronicles' Derek Reese). Well, Mena didn't make it through half the movie, and Brian was just totally miscast. Given that the stars were terrible, the awfulness of the rest of the movie was unbearable. The camera work was well below film school 101, and the dialog, sheeze, was absolutely painful. I don't think it is as bad as "Manos: Hands of Fate" but it is close. I recently reviewed "The Scribbler" and found the dialog and acting equally bad to this movie, but at least The Scribbler had an interesting and different storyline. I would also like to close by saying many of the "logical" statements made by the actors in Don't Blink were completely idiotic and made absolutely no sense relative to the facts as presented in the movie itself. That in itself made me want to stop watching....but I did persevere to the bitter end in the hopes of a huge payoff, only to get just the opposite - one of the biggest goofball endings of all time.
I've read the Graphic Novel and watched this movie and both are poorly done despite having great potential. The movie suffers mainly from sparse, unnatural dialog that is also excruciatingly uninteresting plus an almost total lack of a thematic audio track; worse still, much of the dialog is annoyingly echoey. As far as the acting goes, the main character never makes herself believable as a crazy person; Eliza Dushku, as much as I loved her as Faith in Buffy, was totally miscast as a no-nonsense medical professional in this movie; Gina Gershon was entirely underutilized. Overall, I'd like to see this movie picked up by a better production team and made into the great movie it could be. Its main strength was its presentation of the disassociative personality disorder of the main character and her descent into madness and insanity. As it stands right now, I'd recommend the Graphic Novel over the movie mainly because it will take a lot less of your time.
I can't really add much more criticism than to say "me too" to the 1-star reviews already posted. That said, I'll go on to note that this movie squandered a heluva a good storyline. And, I'm assuming that the storyline is the sole reason for the positive critical reviews on rotten tomatoes. The story involves the tragedies that befall ordinary folk during celebratory seasons, and those stories are a fact of life. Sadly the debilitating depression brought on by the double whammy of a tragedy during Chrismastime isn't represented in this movie in a way that feels interesting or genuine. I kept wanting for something visceral to happen - but nothing ever does. Or at least she could have had realistic or colorful co-workers instead of the cardboard cutouts created here. I remember how the movie "Doubt" took a small thing and through amazing dialog had the audience on the edge of their seats. Well, the dialog is so sparse in uninteresting in this movie you'll be looking for a Serta Sleeper mattress.
I am an admirer of Rutger Hauer. So when I had a chance to see Il Futuro, I took it. Sadly, there is absolutely nothing here that would make me happy to have seen it. Hauer was made to look particularly bad since that was the role. But even worse was the terrible empty lines he was forced to say - like how to make a sandwich....yuuck. The lead actress Manuela Martelli was only OK as an actress, but, again perhaps the role itself was designed to be emotionless, flat and zombie like. The only even thinly possible thing to say that wasn't awful about the film was the actress' nude body was firm and fit. And know this, there was nothing even remotely erotic about it since the scenes were choreographed to be like Walking Dead episodes. I hate to say it but do Rutger Hauer a favor and don't put this vision of his performance in your head.
This is not a movie. It is a couple of kids with a handy cam filming each other saying random, silly things. I remember some kids in high school used to say things almost as silly, but not quite. I assume they were on some kind of brain addling drug to think saying "John Stamos" over and over would be hysterically entertaining to anyone. I also assume they've yet to come out of their stupor since, if they did, they would have immediately torched every copy and poured acid on the ashes. The art of this film is on a par with kindergartners' finger painting and it makes the movie "Manos, Hands of Fate" looks like "Inception", by comparison. So, in summary, I cannot say it deserves any stars because, like I say, it is not an actual movie, it's a couple of kindergartners with their parents handy cam (without permission). Truly unbearable unless you're the kids parents.
This movie is a kids movie but does not have a good moral. It is a Danish language movie (English dub) and I am writing this from an American perspective, so I'll defer to Europeans for their take on it. But for Americans the moral will not be well thought of. The movie is about bullying and spends almost the entire time (about 80%) showing cruel images of a young boy, Ivan, being abused, which makes for a very uncomfortable 90 minutes. After a long process and very little respite, the movie ends on an abusive note. The moral of the story is that it is better to be abused by a bully than to be a bully. That will not sit well for many people. Also, the implication in the movie was that the adults (school authorities and shopkeepers) were all participants in the cruelty. As for the technical details of the animation, the movie is quite well done, and had the story been even a little bit different, (intervention by school authorities, for example) I would have enjoyed it. As it is, it seems to promote the hopelessness of the victim, and that is a view I'd rather not instill in children.
|Page 1 of 4:||   |