Change Your Image
mattmatthew808
Reviews
Millennium: Lamentation (1997)
Still gives me the heebie jeebies.
Never really understood the appeal of horror films. Maybe it's one of those "if you get it you get it" sorta things, but the only films and shows that have scared the living bajeezus outta me had baddies that you never really saw, and even when you saw them, they defied comprehension.
What's genius about this episode is how the writers distract you from who the real villain is. We all assume it's Fabricant, who, as terrifying as he is, is but a footnote to the greater evil. The nature of this evil, even by the episode's end is still unclear. It is able to take on a myriad of physical forms, but what its intent is towards Frank Black is as ambiguous as it is menacing. One of these manifestations, Lucy Butler, seems at first harmless, but slowly, the viewer starts to suspect something indescribably insidious about her — her subtle machinations to manipulate Frank and bend him to her will to an unknown end is by far one of the most terrifying things I've ever seen in a television show.
Hwasango (2001)
pretty friggin terrible.
I rated it as 1 out of 10 stars only because there was no 0.
How can a movie that looks like it was funded with the budget of Lord of the Rings be so friggin awful? How do people love this movie? I remember watching bits of Battlefield Earth, the movie that got a whopping 2% on Rotten Tomatoes, and its editing and storytelling were so choppy, confusing and cliché not to mention completely over the top.
I can't recommend this movie to anyone, unless you're a big fan of watching crap. And perhaps masochism. Maybe also sh** fetish.
I also have to wonder about people that say this movie is 'pure genius.' The only thing pure about this is that it's pure garbage.
Casino Royale (2006)
A better Bond.
It is often in the superhero genre in comics that decades of hokeyness precedes reinvention of a classic character by a writer that refuses to write by 'what is' but rather 'what could be.' Such was what Miller did for Batman, and what Moore did for the Swamp Thing.
With James Bond, however, it starts with a book that already had greater character depth, followed by movies which took mere sound bites of the character and created a formulaic Bond which remained largely unchanged for decades. Casino Royale, however, marks a return to its roots.
This Bond is still suave and smooth but not ridiculously so - there are still obvious chinks in his armor. He plays the role of secret agent inasmuch the same way as Newman played Fast Eddie in the Hustler against Gleason's Minnesota Fats - insecure, needing to prove something to himself - but the kind of insecurity that's often mistaken for overconfidence.
While it's a much better Bond, it's far from being a perfect movie. There are love interest scenes that could've been cut in half, or cut out completely. The film attempts to rationalize the purpose of the love interest as relating to the plot, but it feels tacked on - it would have better served the film if it retained a high level of sexual tension, but without succumbing to the lovey-doveyness of it.
All in all, Craig is a good Bond. I enjoyed his work in Road to Perdition as Connor. It's nice to see a Bond that is far more 'real,' than his predecessors.
A River Runs Through It (1992)
a very poignant film
as a habit i always like to read through the 'hated it' reviews of any given movie. especially one that i'd want to comment on. and it's not so much a point-counterpoint sorta deal; i just like to see what people say on the flipside.
however, i do want to address one thing. many people that hated it called it, to paraphrase, 'beautiful, but shallow,' some even going so far as to say that norm's desire yet inability to help his brother was a mundane plot, at best.
i'd like to disagree.
as a brother of a sibling who has a similar dysfunction, i can relate. daily, you see them abuse themselves, knowing only that their current path will inevitably lead them to self-destruction. and it's not about the specifics of what they did when; how or why paul decided to take up gambling and associating with questionable folks; it's really more how they are wired. on one hand, they are veritable geniuses, and on the other, painfully self-destructive (it's a lot like people like howard hughes the same forces which drive them are the same forces which tear them apart) and all the while you see this, you know this, and what's worse, you realize you can't do a damn thing about it.
for norman maclean, a river runs through it was probably a way to find an answer to why the tragedy had to occur, and who was to blame. in the end, no one is, and often, there is no why. but it takes a great deal of personal anguish to truly come to this realization. sometimes it takes a lifetime. and sometimes it never comes at all.
National Lampoon's Animal House (1978)
what a waste of time
terrible, terrible movie. it's not even funny, or even clever. this movie makes revenge of the nerds look like a masterpiece, and porky's ingenious. (the latter two are movies i actually LIKE). but this, this is an insult to the whole genre. i really don't understand how anyone calls this movie a classic. i'd say the most clever part of the whole movie is the courtroom scene and even then, it's pushing it. and the genius of belushi? good god, where? he was a crass, raving lunatic in this movie. hardly what i'd call comedy. and the rest of the cast, not funny at all. their so-called star lineup? cmon. kevin bacon played a minor role at that. so did donald sutherland. hardly the role i'd expect to see him in after an amazing performance like in Mash. ugh. there goes 1 hr and 49 min of my life i'll never get back.