Change Your Image
lynnblake1108
Reviews
Scream (1996)
Ehh...nicely done, but it drags.
Scream. Now, I must admit I walked into this movie expecting a lot of humor and predictable scenes. For the most part, I got what I expected. From the very beginning, I knew Billy was going to be a key piece in this movie. Once he was so over-zealously stabbed, I knew that from there on out, it was nothing but corn syrup and make believe. As far as humor goes, the allusions to all the classic horror movies and nineties colloquialisms built into the lines made me chuckle out loud. I personally found it hilarious when Gail went to shoot at Billy, and the safety of the gun was on. It was just kind of like "
really? You couldn't check that BEFORE you busted in there? Clearly, you were waiting at the door, ready to seize the perfect opportunity, yet
you didn't think to check if the gun was ready." It's that type of stupidity that makes this movie worthwhile.
The only piece of this movie that really stuck with me is that both Casey and Sydney were both intensely watched by the killers previous to their murders. That's the only thing that actually scares me. I'm not a big fan of "cheap horror", you know, jumping out and saying boo. I much prefer psychologically disturbing movies. Before seeing this film, I had only seen one other horror movie, and wouldn't you know that it too, was directed by Wes Craven. The best thing about his movies is his straight-forward decisions. Whether they directly impact the plot or not is irrelevant, it's the mere fact that he took the time to sit down and really concentrate on choices. One thing that really stuck out was the constant popping up of labeled bags and cans of food products. I get it; it's good for funding and whatnot. Howsoever, is it really necessary to having a can of Coke in every scene, or a bag of Ruffles always chilling in the corner? The eyes of the audience are drawn to the products, they aren't just subtly used. It literally looks like they were digitally enhanced to pop out at you. I watched this movie with my two best friends, and one of them is still arguing with me for my obnoxious commentary on this very subject. It bothered me that I'd be trying to focus on a murder, when "Oh, look! They had Dunkin' Donuts in the 90's!" No. Wes Craven, you are a genius, but that particular choice (no matter how pro-active you were trying to be) drove me crazy.
One thing I didn't like about this movie is that it's sort of an open interpretation. While we know that Billy and Stu are directly involved with the murders, we don't know who specifically kills who. Sometimes, I'm really in the mood to do a little detective work and figure out all the little mysteries along the way. However, in the case of Scream, I really did not feel like going to great strides to decide which psychopath killed who. At the end of the mystery movie, I feel like there shouldn't be room for discussion. A mystery is all about two things; the evidence and the perpetrator. Therefore, I think it's only fair to present the audience with a dry, clear cut ending. At least then they can properly judge the storyline and the way the clues were presented all along.
One Hour Photo (2002)
Simply Excellent
One Hour Photo was possibly one of the most interesting movies I've watched. I don't know exactly what it is, but this movie was just really good. Before this movie, I never considered the fact that the people at a one hour photo place looked through our lives, saw the places we've been, and the people we've encountered. To me, the thought doesn't make the workers creepy, but their jobs in general feel quite invasive. This film also made me realize that we, as a society, can be very blind to those who we take for granted. For example, Sy the photo guy is clearly obsessed with Nina and her family, yet Nina just sees it as a passion for what he does. She just doesn't notice all the little things Sy does for her. Instead, she simply takes it as quality customer service. Is she naïve, blind, or just uncaring towards this meek, insignificant photo guy? Robin Williams does a fantastic job portraying the inner psyche of a scared (and creepily meticulous) young boy who is trapped inside an awkward adult.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Terribly Boring and Simply Atrocious
This movie was one of my least favorites thus far. Not only was acting poor, and special effects laughable, but overall, film was pretty atrocious. The universal concept that our dreams can haunt (and in Nancy's case, harm) us itself is fantastic. However, the delivery is less than acceptable.
The first fifteen minutes were the scariest, simply due to chaos, confusion, and the setting. After that, it becomes more comedic than anything else. I will admit that while the movie itself was less than frightening, its after-taste is simply creepy. I mean, the fact is that this girl was being hunted out of revenge, and her every move is stalked by this shadow of a man.
I have plenty of qualms with the movie, but the following is definitely number one. I've yet to see the remake, the prequel, or the sequel, so I'm just wondering who Freddy is. I don't think that it's enough to say; "Oh, Fred Krueger was a child murderer so we 'offed' him." No. There are plenty of scumbags in every neighborhood who deserve death time and time again, but we, ordinary citizens almost never intervene. Did Freddy commit an atrocity that hit close to home? It also wasn't very clear when Freddy was actually murdered. Yes, Nancy's mother was involved in the killing along with some other renegades, but how much time has passed? Were they themselves children, or was this some sort of PTA rally? Either way, it's these crucial details that make the story actually come to life. Without them, I honestly have a difficult time focusing, so this movie distracted me in that sense.
Now, onto the special effects; honestly, they weren't nearly as terrible as I had planned. While none of them were realistic by any means, they were this surreal kind of creepy that I thought was done very well. I'm actually curious about the geyser of blood. How did they create such an optical illusion? I mean, maybe they had a blender-esque machine forcibly shooting the gunk into the air, but I just don't know. I thought that special effect was really well done. Then again, I've been known to watch television shows from the sixties, so my perspective is a little different than the average teenage kid.
All in all, I will not waste money or time on the sequels.
Memento (2000)
Fabulous Film
When "Memento" first started up, I was a little bit skeptical. To my surprise, I was immediately entranced by this clever film. Obviously, the plot structure is the most notable part of this work. While the majority of the audience found it confusing and nonsensical, I thought it was perfect. You didn't have to think until you were exhausted, but it did require the audience to pay attention all the way through. The ending was somewhat predictable. I figured out that Leonard was actually Sammy Jenkins when Teddy said (for the second time) "That's who you were, but who are you now?" It made me realize that his story corresponds perfectly to that of Sammy's. It just makes me question the validity of the movie as a whole. What really happened? How do we know? Is there any way to tell? Even if we watch the movie in "order", with all the color pieces in their chronological sequence, would the movie be different? Personally, I believe the movie wouldn't be nearly as captivating nor interesting.
Another key element in this film is the concept of time and its passing. Leonard has no concept of time, and thus, we as the audience have to forget all of our preconceived notions about time. If we don't, then it's easy to get lost in Leonard's condition. For example, when Natalie leaves the house for a moment or two to manipulate Leonard, we see her exit her car, then go back to enter it, and then exit again. If we as the viewer didn't understand that time has no meaning to someone with a memory problem, then we cannot figure out why society interacts with them in such peculiar ways.
The acting in this movie was fantastic. I love Guy Pearce, and his acting choices fit in perfect correlation with how it was written. Natalie was quite an obnoxious, manipulative demon, but Stowe's acting was impeccable. Even the little characters, like Burt the rental guy, seemed to be extremely realistic, which always adds points to a film.
All in all, Memento was a fabulous film. I had no major qualms with it.
No Country for Old Men (2007)
Solid characters...but otherwise, too convoluted
No Country for Old Men was not my cup of tea. As much as I really wanted to love it, I just didn't. There were many aspects of the film that I thoroughly enjoyed, but overall, it just didn't click. For starters, I'm someone who loves background information. I want to know where these people are coming from, where they've been. This movie gave the most information about the Sheriff, who, until the final two minutes of the movie, truly made no impact on me at all.
There were two things in this movie that I loved; Carla-Jean and Llewellyn. They were just so typical that they made the rest of the film feel like it was very plausible. He was so resourceful that I was really sad to see him die. Usually when a character dies in a film it's because they have to for plot purposes or they deserve it. Llewellyn is able to escape an assassin, but can't shake off the Mexicans who are after the drug money. He wasn't killed by this unstoppable force of Anton Chigurh, he died out of carelessness. That right there is simply infuriating. As far as Carla-Jean is concerned, I found her to be a very intelligent and strong-willed individual. For example, when Anton gets her in the end and tells her to pick heads or tails, and she refuses, she isn't letting him win. I think that is key to the entire film. Even though these innocent people die and the malicious murderer escapes, at least he didn't win. Life will go on for him, but I know I'd be haunted by those final words Carla-Jean Moss muttered to me. Then again, I'm not a psychopathic murderer.
All in all, I feel like I missed something crucial. I didn't make connections that needed to be made, nor did I totally get the movie as a whole. Hopefully upon watching it a second time will build toward the movies' credibility as a whole.
Les Miserables (1978)
A Rather Centered Perception...
The piece was very nicely done in comparison to other book adaptations that I have seen. However, while the film included many scenes that are usually not covered (e.g., Marius' conflict with his grandfather), they left out many other crucial details and key scenes. The character of Jean Valjean was covered so entirely that the other characters severely lacked in development. For example, the writing staff completely left out Eponine, who is quite possibly the most complex and most piteous (and captivating) character in the story. The Thernadiers' connection to Cosette and Gavoroche is never fully established.
Overall, I would definitely recommend you watch this adaptation, whether you've read Les Miserables or not.
12 Monkeys (1995)
Psychotic and Captivating
Twelve Monkeys was pretty good. Obviously, there are some inconclusive plot holes and not everything adds up. But, to be honest, I was much too distracted by the fantastic acting and captivating storyline to be meticulous with details. The concept, while typical (life after people, apocalyptic scenarios, etc.) is really intriguing. This is what contributes to its overall appeal
the fact that something so ordinary can be so fantastic.
Now, I'm not a fan of Brad Pitt
at all. I mean, don't get me wrong, he's rather attractive and a millionaire
but I find his acting performances pretty terrible. However, in this movie
he was just phenomenal. I mean, just fantastic. I honestly believed that he was a raving, rambling lunatic and thought he deserved to be locked in an asylum. The best part about his character overall is the simple fact that he is nothing more than a distraction
a distraction to James, the future, and to the audience. By being such an attention seeker, we are naturally drawn to him, listening to his nonsensical words and watching his crazed behavior. Especially when Jeffery was placed next to James; a dismal, catatonic character whom is the epitome of psychotic, it's much easier for the audience to be entertained by Jeffery then be bored by James. Not to mention, he's a distraction from the entire virus conspiracy. We are so quick to assume it's the radical group of the Twelve Monkeys that we don't even stop to consider the others who have access to those other bacteria specimens could have ulterior motives.
The ending was probably the most frustrating moment for me. It was one of those endings that had to happen. It wouldn't make sense if James and Catherine jumped right on a plane, and spent the remainder of their days sipping margaritas on a beach in Key West. In fact, it would've been a waste of two and a half hours. However, you get so invested in these characters, and their strange story that you want to see them succeed. The most painful piece of the entire movie is that at the end, we're left to ponder the idea that this will keep repeating itself over and over, without any hope of anything changing. You can't change the past
or, at least that's what we, the audience, need to believe.