dafuzzbudd Reviews

The Toy (1982)

Richard Pryor is a very funny man

[7/10 · 14 October 2010]

Richard Pryor is a very funny man. This was my first experience seeing him in a movie and I will be looking for more. The movie starts out about Pryor needing to find a job. He gets hired by a rich CEO to be his kid's toy. Towards the end the plot starts to break away from what the movie initially starts to do and gets too serious and uncomfortably unfunny at times. There's a scene where they go fishing and it felt like an forced switch up of scenery.

The racial humor is carried well by Pryor and made the movie overall a good watch.

7/10

Flawless (2007)

Flawless is a far from accurate description

[4/10 · 1 September 2009]

I watched this movie based of of a Netflix recommendation. Hit or miss it may be, it's a system that usually proves accurate.

Unfortunately for this case, the setup for this movie sounds like an easy win as an average heist movie. But there's something about the acting that fails a proved story. I can deal with bad acting, e.g. Breaking Point, when the direct places concentration elsewhere. In Flawless, the movie's main focal point of suspense is Demi Moore. She shows that she can be an alright actor, the problem is her flow is AWFUL. She has no feel for her place in any scene.

The scene where the detective confronts Demi in her own office is an important scene that Demi ruins with her bad acting. Demi starts off the scene extremely nervous. The direction/editing does a great job at jump-starting the mood of this scene (even though she only dropped some folders). The camera is then cleverly positioned to just barely capture Demi Moore's hands in the shot. The scene is going along well, you can barely see Demi Moore nervously fidgeting with her hands. Where this starts off as a subtle showing, changes into an obtrusive IS IT OBVIOUS ENOUGH THAT SHE'S NERVOUS?! She almost gives the impression she's trying to clean her hands of some horrible substance. Then, from no sign, she flips to her originally seen tough-feminine role. Her character is already an emotional undirected mess, but it's made so obvious here. The character is plowed through and there's no care for circumstance. Demi Moore is a bad actor.

Michael Caine makes a strange appearance in this movie. he acts his part fine. This doesn't really hurt the movie, but how does the low-life janitor come up with the mastermind scheme to overthrow a diamond business? Now thinking about it I guess he originally took up the job for the sake of the plan. Maybe it's the dynamic between Demi and Michael that doesn't feel right.

The movie didn't sit evenly with me. At the end of it I wasn't sure what i just watched. The movie went on it's own roller-coaster ride while forgetting to strap in the audience.

Road to Perdition (2002)

Road to No Where

[7/10 · 15 June 2009]

Let me start this off by saying this movie is beautiful. By a technical standpoint, perfection was achieved. I'll remember this movie as proof of example; outstanding direction/cinematography cannot fully compensate for a lackluster plot.

On paper, the plot is an average set up. Relationships in a crime family are tested, but none are ever stretched too far. In this sense it feels somewhat familiar and not very original.

But what does keep this movie from being average-blah, is the care put into EVERY shot. I give a huge amount of credit to the cinematographer. A good amount of noticeable techniques were used. I particularly liked one symmetrical pillar shot that used a zoom in dolly in trick. A slight variation of the Vertigo introduced, zoom in dolly out.

But with all of these wonderful shots I noticed something. There was so much technically stunning camera work, I found myself completely drawn out of the story. Was this done intentionally? To some degree I think so. This nicely compliments the dark and rainy 1930's settings.

Noticing this I tried to put more thought into the plot. There basically was none. The characters were cold and lacked development. Any dialog is important and used sparingly. I couldn't stop myself from drawing comparison to The Godfather. What Road to Perdition lacks is any underlying intensity between the characters. I never feel like they were a tight-knit family and do feel as if I'm simply watching characters play their parts. The story has no poetry and feels more like a collection of parts that aren't worth its sum.

I appreciate it in its stunning visuals, but once the credit rolled I felt nothing. And I find no reason to return back to it.

Payback (I) (1999)

Not bad, but a bit of a let down

[6/10 · 6 June 2009]

The first time I heard about this movie was from my friend who was preaching on how wide the difference was between the DC and original. The unusual concept of Mel Gibson as a villain/good-guy got the movie stuck in my head. I researched into it on IMDb and added the DC version to my 'need to watch' movie list. I figured I'd be in for an experience that bends the usual revenge scenario.

The movie opens at a slow pace and puts you in the middle of the story. Alright, this isn't a bad way of placing suspense with the audience. Problem is that with a plot like this, it feels way too cut/copy/paste from Reservoir Dogs. While this popped in my head it didn't take away from anything, I continued to watch. I then watch a scene where the super-cool typical 90's style character Porter has a scene with a woman that wronged him. I over exaggerate bit. I begin to notice that Porter has too many character stereotypes that make this movie feel unrealistic and take away from it's supposed gritty tone. I sometimes think I'm watching Sargeant Briggs.

This is a revenge movie, and the reason for this revenge rampage is sufficient enough to make you care about Porter's forthcoming adventure. After this reason, the plot falls very hard. There are two bad guys that are overly annoying and geeky (the kind that don't actually work in the mob). I see this as a cheap was of getting the audience involved in wanting a brutal killing that does get delivered.

The original bad guy is dealt with half way through the movie which leaves the second half feeling a tad unguided. This doesn't default as a bad thing but Porter's goals are no longer about revenge at this point. Porter can't be considered 100% bad-guy because he kind of deserves the money he seeks. I feel like this fact is hidden while the movie is promoted for 'rooting for the bad guy'. I do give credit for being one of the only movies like this, but there's no teeter-totter argument with Porter being good or bad. He is a criminal, but keeps earning our sympathy so his bad deeds feel justified.

Interestingly, he isn't the guns blazing psycho type. He deals with the bad guys by taking advantage of every impassibly tiny vulnerability. And each big crime boss only has two dumb body guards.

There is an obvious plot device that saves this movie from being complete generic trash: Porter kills people in cold blood. The premise that hooked me into watching this movie was delivered successfully. This made the film entertaining in-spite of the lacking aesthetic value. Lucy Lui shows up being sexy as always, playing a sadist prostitute. While being top-notch sex appeal, she does nothing for the plot. Another scene to note is the van gun fight against the Asian gang. This was scripted well and stood out as being unique.

The ending is unimportant. By the time it was over I wasn't sure what I just watched. i didn't learn anything. The movie tries to throw a fresh spin on a typical 90's crime movie. While it succeeds at some points, the lame plot ruins the idea. It feels like someone tried to cover up a cooker cutter movie with an original concept. In the end it feels like a half hearted attempt that doesn't live up to the hype and i feel let down. I now understand why this movie isn't more popular than it is.

Doom (2005)

GARBAGE, through and through

[3/10 · 23 April 2009]

I've been staring at this movie on my DVR, for just over a year now. On a lonely night I decided to start it up, to see if this 'Doom' movie lived up to any expectation.

The opening of the movie is something that has been copied from a generic sci-fi plot. Mercenaries are send to a plant to protect/figure out whatever strange event is happening.

The middle of the movie starts to open up a plot that, while not original, keeps you planted for a conclusion.

*At this point I decided to give my brain a rest and resumed the movie the following day*

****SPOLER**** I picked up about 1h10m through, where the main merc (The Rock) kills the new recruit for rightfully questioning his order. I should go into this further to develop this point of disgust, but I feel like it already speaks for itself.

The plot is meaningless, the direction reminds me of a generic 90's sitcom where there's lots of times the camera is plainly centered on the speaking character, or the camera is symmetrically planted on the actor with action.

In sum, this movie has HORRIBLE cinematography, a stereotypical plot, average acting/cast, and no reason to watch. This movie was free for me to watch (Starz) and I could not finish it after (the Rock) shot his own squadron in the head for no valid reason. While racking my brain I've realized that this is the only movie I've ever turned off mid-way through.

May everyone involved in the creation of the movie find careers elsewhere.

The Beat That My Heart Skipped (2005)

missed the mark

[5/10 · 11 March 2007]

I rented this film based on a whim. The box had some good quotes and such so I took it home.

The movie opens up slow setting the plot. Father problems, boring conversation and dialogue. Any discussion of how intense the draw between Tom's artistic world vs. his gangster one is garbage. The man grew up and into the gang life stlye and is now trying to find himself through art.

The whole story felt like it needed more. The main characters are referred to as "gangsters"? They beat the homeless. I cant help but imagine how this movie would of turned out if it were made for an American audience. It felt as if the director wanted to play a kind of safe-feeling tone. I felt pretty certain when predicting that the end bad-guy would NOT get shot because I couldn't imagine seeing something so gruesome actually being shown. I was a bit surprised when they actually showed the father's dead body.

The only thing that made me certain my time was not entirely wasted was the cinematography. Some of the shots of Tom driving drew me back into the character's mindset. Tom with his piano teacher was a happy surprise.

If there is any moment where a movie can capture any true sense of life then I can consider it a worthy watch. I felt a few of these moments such as when Tom asks her to pause in the doorway. It reminded me how random and admirable life can be. At the end I did not feel motivated or as if i had just seen a good movie. The director has skills, they just did not show through here.