Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 130:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
1294 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Identicals (2015)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
A riddle-movie that has no riddle to solve and isn't even a proper movie., 23 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Anyone familiar with that hipster piece-of-sheet "Primer" might get an inkling just how confusing, muddled and outright moronic "Identicals" is. Actually, even "Primer" is like "Dumbo" compared to this – simplistic: that should tell you quite a lot. I've seen over 3,700 movies so far, and I've never – literally never – seen a movie as utterly devoid of sense and logic as this almost randomly put-together drivel. There is no point to this mess, none whatsoever.

What kind of a world do the characters inhabit? No info. Present or future? Zip. Why are people being altered? Nope, the director doesn't know either. For what purpose are they being cloned? Sorry, nothing. Who else knows about this mysterious corporation aside from the people it pointlessly tortures? Can't help you there, because there's literally not even a hint of a clue of an indication to even contemplate answering that question. What changes about the main character, if he even does change? Nope, sorry. Which is the real brunette? Nope. What the hell is going on? I have no clue; no-one does. (That includes the few glue-sniffing hipsters who convinced themselves that they understood this mess.) Why does the corporation resort to beating up its clients when their scientific methods fail to work? (Admittedly, that was kind of funny, if unintentionally. Imagine that: a mega-powerful corporate entity that devises all these advanced technological cloning/brainwashing/whatever techniques, and yet they resort to the old-boot-in-the-groin method when things don't go as planned! Very Python-like.) What's the basic story? I really couldn't tell you, and neither could the lazy writer-director.

Who is what and where is why? Now we're getting closer. That's more like the kind of question this movie deserves, because idiotic movies don't deserve intelligent/normal questions. So in that vein, who's the guy who said that thing just before that thing happened that made no sense just after the main character said something to that other guy? I can't answer that either, but somehow I'm more at ease with such questions, when it comes to "reviewing" a pile of pig-dung such as this pretentious, "arty" mess.

The only clues you ever get in this pile of scorpion-vomit is in the first 5 minutes: they tell you that the movie will be incomprehensible and unwatchable. So what I said earlier about the movie not offering any clues whatsoever is not entirely true, technically speaking at least. Such is the blatant incompetence of this movie's coke-sniffing "auteur" that the movie's first 5 minutes already prepare you for an excruciatingly dull experience. Not only is the utter confusion of the script very obvious from the get-go, but the movie's extremely slow pace becomes a serious problem soon thereafter.

Alex, your cue.

I kid you not, oh my Brothers, but when I viddied how boring this movie is, I started fast-forwarding it and the like. Despite that, oh my Brothers, the movie still seemed to move at a snail's pace! Suddenly I had the urge for a bit of the old' ultra-violence. I viddied myself tolchoking the actors and the director and everyone else involved in this gloopy film, and what heavenly visions of the red red kroovy I had, oh my Brothers! It was as beautiful as Beethoven's 9th to imagine myself and my three droogs smashing the director's empty golova. We always rather enjoyed beating up on those sophistos which you may know as hipsters these days, oh my Brothers, but for this scribbler-director our gang would have had a special kind of horrorshow cocktail of chains and nozhys reserved.

Thank you, Alex, always a pleasure to hear your take.

Sure, it doesn't take much to get Alex to go mental on people, waving around with his fists and knives, but surely anyone who saw the film must share at least the basic sentiment of Alex. This shoddy film does indeed move at a snail's pace and has absolutely zero logic. Literally nothing is explained to the suffering viewer who doesn't get 5 unknowns and 23 "knowns" so that he at least has a mathematical shot at finding the answers. No, this is an unsolvable riddle, with 29 unknowns and maybe 2 or 3 "knowns". And lest you fall into that classic hipster trap of thinking that your imaginary mighty intellect can figure this out as some kind of a puzzle movie, rest assured that there ARE no answers because this isn't a riddle. Anyone who mistakes random garbage for an intellectual riddle needs a good tolchoking from Alex and his droogs. And I mean that with the best of intentions: the pummeling might result in an accidental lobotomy which I am sure greatly increases odds of "de-hipstertization".

Come to think of it, I am not even sure this non-cinematic aberration can qualify as a movie. It has actors, yes. But it has no plot.

The overacting by the lead actor doesn't help either. This chump looks like a kid who just got out of drama school (the Nick Cage department), raring to show what he's got. He hasn't got squat: no charisma at all. But at least he has a penchant for contorting his face whenever playing the evil twin, which is good if you're into cheesy, broad performances and other types of celluloid buffoonery. I hated the female lead too; if that's attractive and sexy, I don't know what's ugly then.

Hideaways (2011)
Diana Ross?, 20 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A soppy romantic fantasy for housewives and mentally-challenged kiddies. The moment Rachel steps into Harry's forest cabin, you just know that he will somehow end up healing her. Which in turn means he has to die. (How poetic.) Which in turn means the movie will end with Rachel holding their love-child, telling it about Harry's bizarre affliction. All of that can be predicted – and in fact I did predict it – already before the movie's half-way point.

A trite formulaic drama with all the usual boring clichés. Let's not forget the moronic plot-devices too. My favourite: in order to split up Harry and Rachel (so that Harry can predictably get killed by his old buddy), the writer injects a terribly dumb scene in which a random patient stops Rachel during a fire-alarm to boast about his miracle healing, and he does this by holding her ARMS REAL TIGHT AS IF HE WAS GONNA MURDER HER.

The only good thing about the movie is Rachel Hurd-Wood who looks stunning (if a little too tall for my liking). The movie's best scene – bar none – is when Rachel is putting on her bra. (I just wish they showed her take it off.) Just fast-forward to that and ignore the rest of this sheeet.

Guess what name their love-child gets? Diana (F-ing) Ross. Because Rachel likes Motown. Now you get some idea what kind of crap this is, and what kind of a mindless oaf wrote it. Diana Ross! F off.

Mr. Stormare, are you sure you want our next experiments to entail throwing people out of airplanes?, 17 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is one of those dumb thrillers that you straight away give up on, in terms of expecting a logical wrap-up. You just know: "Whatever they do, no matter how hard they try, they will not be able to make any of this make sense in the end. It would take sheer one-in-a-million genius to tie up this nonsense in any kind of half-way logical and rational manner".

In fact, even this is an optimistic notion. The movie goes above and beyond the call of duty and serves up an explanation far dumber than could be expected even by the likes of myself. They truly "exceeded all expectations" by coming up with a twist that even an amoeba would be embarrassed to stick into its script.

So just how dumb is the movie? The premise: a mysterious organization conducts violent, murderous, sadistic experiments on random U.S citizens, as part of their "mind control" experiments. The silver lining in all this nonsense: the movie turns out not to be about mind control because, frankly, that'd be too dumb, even for the likes of De Palma, Stephen King, John Woo, Dario Argento or Hitchcock – the masters of illogic. You collect a bunch of people to have them killed one-by-one in a room to find out which one has ESP powers? That would have been the dumbest premise of all time.

Or not? Astoundingly, the real explanation turns out to be actually even sillier: the point of the whole sadistic nonsense is to find people who'd make good suicide-bombers against Islamic terrorists!!!!! (I hope I typed enough exclamation marks.) The rationalization being that you have to "fight fire with fire". Except that "fighting fire with fire" was never intended to be taken LITERALLY. Fighting fire with fire does not mean using the SAME weapons or strategy as the opposing side; it merely means using violence to fight violence, or to be just as ruthless as the enemy. (A very basic concept that peacenik libtards will never ever be quite able to grasp because they exist in a cozy Disney bubble which was created for them, ironically enough, by capitalism and military might which they consider the two greatest evils.)

They could have just put out an ad saying "GOVERNMENT LOOKING FOR VOLUNTEERS TO BE SUICIDE BOMBERS". Stupid? Yes, sure. But even that would have made more sense – and certainly would have reduced the number of American VICTIMS – which this lunatic program was ultimately - supposedly - about. (The irony is so thick it could be used as a shield in a Star Trek episode.) A secret program that is intended to PROTECT U.S. citizens ends up killing hundreds!!!!! (Exclamation marks multiply without my control in this review.) Just what kind of an infantile mind comes up with these daft hollywoodisms? Does EVERYONE get free lobotomies and the best Bolivian mushrooms in Tinseltown? The first U.S. thrillers were dumb to begin with, they always were, but as the years go on they just seem to get progressively idiotic.

Just think about it: America actually needing suicide bombers to fight extremist Islam. How exactly is that supposed to work in practice? Besides, doesn't the American military have plenty of superior weaponry to neutralize its militarily inferior enemies without having to strap bombs onto civilians? Or are the extremely zombified writers of this cretinous mess implying that Americans need to start killing the enemy's civilians randomly in order to beat them? That obviously wouldn't work because ISIS and the Taliban couldn't give a hoot about their own civilian casualties. Did Stalin give a hoot about Russian civilians? (After all, Islamic extremists mercilessly butcher each other all the time.) So, yes, the ENTIRE premise is idiotic – from every conceivable angle, not just from the point of view of the methods of recruitment they use, this idiotic "test" of patriotism and will.

What will the sequel be about? Perhaps the military will seek to find people who can grow wings more easily than others. Will that entail experiments in which random civilians get thrown out of flying airplanes? "Mr. Stormare, this doesn't look good at all. We've pushed 190 non-volunteers from flying airplanes so far and none of them grew wings or at least showed the tiniest potential in developing flying skills." Or perhaps the sequel (appropriately titled "More Killing Rooms Coz We Just Love To See Them Squirm and Suffer For No Valid Reason") will be this inane mystery organization trying to collect Americans who have a high midiclorian count? In order to find these potential Jedis, "the organization" will hand out swords to captives and see which one of them loses the least limbs in a great big battle royale. Those who come out on top in sword-and-sorcery move up to the next experiment level which entails the guinea-pigs having to lift entire buildings with their Jedi powers. All who fail to do so get massacred on the spot by evil "genius" Stormare, who seems to enjoy killing civilians a tad too much for someone who wants to protect his country.

Surely, even the dumbest movie-goers must have noticed how unscathed the black guy came out of after having been repeatedly pummeled by Hutton. That guy didn't have so much as a blood stain right after Hutton finished handing out vicious, numerous punches at him. That alone exemplifies the utter stupidity and laziness of the glue-sniffing clowns who concocted this drivel.

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Terrorists, take notes., 16 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Hitchcock is famous for saying that actors are like cattle and for treating them that way. So-far-so-good. The snag is that he also treated his viewers like cattle, or sheep. Hitch may have had a chip on his shoulder regarding his appearance, but he definitely felt intellectually superior to just about everyone else. (Kinda like myself.) Unfortunately, that intellectual "superiority" never really translated itself into the scripts. His legendary (yet overlooked) disregard for common sense and his disdain for maintaining at least a modicum of realism make him a sort of Svengali who paved the way for bumbling logic-haters such as De Palma, Woo, Argento – just to name the most obvious makers of idiotic thrillers.

NBN is somewhat of a comedy too, but not all-out, which means it's subject to logic-hole dissection. There are glaring logic problems, nonsense of monumental proportions.

Grant leads cops to the villa where he was held hostage, which had been open despite the real owner later stating that it was all closed up. Sillier still, the crooks (for some bizarre reason) turned part of the library into a mini-bar. One of the stupidest scenes in cinema history is when Grant opens the mini-bar to show it to cops but finds only books. I'd expect that in a Python sketch, not in a movie that purports to be a spy thriller: you know, an actual tale of crime-and-espionage that is supposed to deal with real humanoids, as opposed to all-knowing/all-powerful cardboard characters. Well, not quite so powerful: they don't drug Grant enough to prevent him from speeding away. Nor are they smart enough to realize that the man they're looking for doesn't even exist. Mason trusts his goons implicitly: if they say that Grant is Kaplan, then he MUST be Kaplan! Despite the fact that even an amoeba would've figured out half-way through the film that Grant was a victim of mistaken identity; but Mason still doesn't get it. Mason plays a moron, you see. Sure, he's a suave and cunning secret agent and all that – but also a moron. That's Hitchcock for ya: wants to have his (huge) cake and eat it too. Nor does it make sense that the goons mistake Grant for Kaplan in the first place – considering he doesn't exist hence they can't know what he looks like.

Mind-boggling is that supremely idiotic elevator-laughing scene. For a moment there, I thought I was watching an Ed Wood movie or a Luc Godard turkey. It was that clownish. You can't take anything seriously after that.

But not nearly as dumb as what follows. The murder scene in the UN epitomizes everything that's wrong with Hitchcock's movies: they not only insult the viewer's intelligence (admittedly, I might be in the minority here), it insults amoeba intelligence too. (Amoebas are integral to this review.) If amoeba were dumb enough to watch Hitchcock films (and I hear they're not), they'd laugh at that scene. Grant talking to a UN politician – just as someone stabs him from behind – is the stuff of B-movie cheese. Even pulp fiction comic-books have more dignity. This had been a pythonism before Python was even formed. If only terrorists realized how easy it is to kill politicians! Those stupid terrorists and their bombs and their intricate assassination plots: so bloody unnecessary. Hitchcock shows them how easy it can be! You just wait for someone to talk to your victim and then you stab your target in the back and run away – while the other person gets all the blame! It's so simple, duh. Come on, terrorists, you're so dumb to use bombs and plan things for months.

I don't know who wrote Hitchcock's scripts, whether he hired lobotomized amoeba or just fellow misanthropes who thought that every single viewer was a booger-eating cretin, but I do know that whoever wrote the NBN script must have thought that it would be nifty to have a kamikaze pilot chase Grant around. Don't get me wrong, the plane-chase segment is the absolute highlight of this overrated movie, but the pilot must have been a WW2 Japanese who thought the war was still on. Because why else would he crash into the truck? Who the hell gave this guy a pilot's license? Does Mason hire incompetent fools? (His goons can't even tell humans apart.) He seemed to be fine dusting crops, but once he started chasing Grant (which was kinda 10000:1 in his favour) all his pilotary skills just evaporated. Or, as I suggested, he was Japanese and thought Grant was holding a secret message to the President about the Emperor's whereabouts. But even then, you'd expect him to be a little more accurate and hit the front of the truck. (You know, if Hitch ever did make a movie about an American trying to assassinate Hirohito, I bet the entire plot would be set in Kansas instead of Japan. Not to mention that Hirohito would be played by Gary Cooper, coz that's how they cast movies back then.)

After the chase, Grant locates the blonde who'd set him up to be killed. Ever the "Golden Era" gentleman, Grant doesn't mind too much that she was responsible for him being nearly cut up into pieces by a propeller. He is still fairly affable toward her, all things considering, if a little sarcastic and moody. It's the kind of "old-school" nonsense we get to see in such flicks.

Eventually Grant finds out the truth from the old geezer, yet he doesn't scream at him for allowing her to set him up in the desert. Is Grant that dumb then? Not only that, we're supposed to root for Grant who wants to spoil CIA's plans just so he can get it in with the blonde. So their love-affair is more important than (inter)national security?

The decision to run away via Mount Rushmore is pretty bloody stupid too.

Byzantium (2012)
0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
There is a big fat irony here, and it's extremely amusing that the feminist writer didn't detect it., 16 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Ts ts ts. You just can't trust women with a secret, can you. No wonder the vampire brotherhood allows no women in their precious little club. Moira Buffini, the woman who came up with this story, injects a predictable slab of tiresome feminism, but she does it in a clumsy way, actually shooting herself (and her "cause") in the foot. During the course of "Byzantium", Gemma and Saoirse actually PROVE that the Brotherhood was right not to want women anywhere near this vampiric power: both gals are reckless and undisciplined in how they lead their lives – which surely could not have been what Buffoni was trying to convey. Pretty hilarious, if you ask me.

Already the first 10 minutes or so show strong indications of oncoming buffoonery from Buffooni. Saoirse randomly throws away pages from her biography (how poetic!), and one just happens to land in the hands of an old man who just happens to want to die, not to mention just happens to be demented enough to believe her fanciful story. So the old geezer believes a crazy story scribbled on a flying piece of paper rather than call the shrink squad to lock her up? How convenient. Hence the page-throwing is a form of fishing, in a sense, for benevolent vampires: "Yoohooo, anyone interested in dying so I can suck their blood without remorse?! Anyone???"

More nonsense follows suit after a blond vampire captures Gemma after a spectacular chase. Despite having had his head smashed with a bottle by Gemma just minutes earlier, and despite having had spent TWO CENTURIES hunting for her, this male vampire is daft enough to actually trust Gemma's blatant and obvious lie that she just wants to "clean his wound"; so the blond guy sits down like a bloody fool, turning his back to her - after which she very predictably hurts him. Well, kills him. That sure seemed easy!!! Makes one wonder how come Gemma didn't kill those incompetent Brotherhood goons much earlier! It sure seemed easy to dupe the blond one, plus she had already had 200 years by then to do it. So basically she's dumb, and they're dumb. Great start to the movie! A bunch of dim-witted vampires.

We are expected to root for the blood-sucking female pair; they're supposed to be goody-two-shoes vampires, and yet Gemma behaves like a parasitic egotist from the get-go. The pair simply torches their flat, endangering many innocent lives, rather than just cleaning up the mess they'd made – which a fire anyway didn't hide. We're supposed to root for these murderous jackasses? Either Neil Jordan's moral compass is skewered (as happens so often with film folk), or he'd been sniffing excessive amounts of Bolivian mushrooms during pre-production. Or he'd been shagging Buffoni.

Already the movie's intro fails, because it actually defines Gemma as lecherous, vicious, greedy and vile (which wasn't Buffooni's intention). Great role-model, huh?

Proof that Buffoni and Jordan wanted us to root for Gemma and her spawn comes at the end of the movie. Sam Riley, the token non-evil male vampire, commends Gemma on her moral sense: "Your instinct is to protect the weak", he says stupidly. He puts Gemma on a pedestal despite the fact that we've seen her kill several innocent people, leaving a bloodbath; on top of that we must logically assume that's just a small part of the 200-year slaughter-orgy, considering the film only focuses on the first few days and the last few days of her 200-year-strong blood-suckery. That woman Buffooni is in a serious war with logic. One should never battle against logic. Unless of course one has an army of brainwashed movie fans to fall back on (which one usually does).

It's pretty bizarre, but goody-two-shoes Riley actually asks for Gemma's pardon (?!) after he saves her ass yet again. He was the one who actually warned her against going along with Johnny Miller 200 years earlier: when he picked her up on his horse and proceeded to ruin her life. If anything, Gemma should have said: "I was such an idiot not to heed your advice. But I was young and dumb and horny and Johnny Miller just seemed so dashing." Plus, Riley actually saved HER by lopping off the bald vampire's head; it wasn't Gemma who saved him. So instead of Gemma falling on her knees, thanking this guardian angel for continually looking out for her, she puts up an arrogant front in that last scene, and roles are reversed – much as logic is viciously raped: more evidence of confused writing from a feminist who thought she knew what she was doing. Don't they all though? Delusion comes right after denial. Feminism is one of the more cretinous isms of our age: it is steeped in nonsense, illogic and wishful thinking (as all left-wing beliefs are).

There are other peanut-brained moments. During one of her moments of tiresome "poetic" narration, Saoirse says how much she likes solitude, yet just moments later starts playing a piano in a crowded lobby of a nursing home. Seems kinda attention-seeking, or? Perhaps Debussy was intended to be yet another fish-trap, baity-hook, to find more old people to con out of their blood. The movie's premise is pretty comical, when you think about it. Are we to actually believe that Saoirse survived 200 years by feeding only off volunteers? Saoirse as a vampiric Kavorkian?

Ever hear of a male fantasy? Movies are full of them. Here we have a female fantasy: a prostitute customer, Mays, who "just wants human contact" rather than the in-out. That'll happen.

Regardless of all the logic holes, a far-fetched premise and an incredibly bold attempt to ask us to sympathize with a vicious vampire, the movie isn't bad, because there is an actual story and it moves along; more than can be said for most horror flicks.

When you double-cross your gangster boss, 32 years later you end up a head shorter., 14 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Losing a whole 7 inches of height after you betray someone might be written in small letters in the typical Faustian contract. Just guessing. But the staggering height difference between Bettany (who plays the young McDowell) and McDowell really is the least of this film's problems.

It is no mere coincidence this pitiful gangster drama came out right in the thick of the Tarantino and Ritchie hype. McGuigan, a shoddy wannabe who later filmed trash such as "Lucky Number Slevin" and "Victor Frankenstein" (who the hell casts that nepotistic nerd from Harry Potter in a lead role?!), must have thought that he too has what it takes to make a thrilling, entertaining, slick, modern gangster flick. He didn't, and he doesn't. Not even close.

Already during the casting process McGuigan had shot himself in the foot over and over, condemning the movie to failure. I don't mean Malcolm McDowell. He is just a ruse to get us ("A Clockwork Orange" and "O Lucky Man" fans) to watch this crap. Sure enough, the film starts off with McDowell parading around smugly as a Cockney gangster, but that lasts only a few minutes. He is swiftly REPLACED for the next hour by Paul Bettany as the story shifts to swinging 60s London. I mean, BETTANY! As a "hip" Tarantino-like 60s gangster. You read that right. Bettany snarls and contorts his face the best he can (which isn't saying much), trying desperately to be a convincing thug, but it's like watching a 5 year-old impersonate Superman, or like watching a hamster do a Sid Vicious impression. Thewlis as a suave, charming, elegant crime boss who woos the beautiful Saffron Burrows? No spelling errors here, you read that right. These two are central characters and both were utterly miscast by hiring two soft-ass acting-school Englishmen who look about as threatening as a pair of garden gnomes. McGuigan should have taken lessons from (the old) Scorsese and (90s) Ritchie how to cast gangster films. He should have shown up on Scorsese's doorstep and begged him for a course in 101 Mob Casting. Actually, even the average movie-goer could cast a gangster film better. It's just common sense, something McGuigan severely lacks.

However, the worst piece of casting – even worse than Bettany – is the chubby nerd that McGuigan cast as gang-boss Lenny. Nor for a second did I have the feeling I was watching a vicious 60s Cockney gangster. The scene in the bar sort of sealed it for me; at that point I realized that this movie will be just a serious of screw-ups. Lenny's behaviour is something like a cross between the Joker and Jim Carrey: utterly laughable, but not in a ha-ha way. Things get much worse when this idiotically conceived character gets tortured by Bettany, a segment that features the full range of the writer-director's incompetence: stupid camera angles, totally unrealistic torture scenes (with Lenny waving around with an arm long after he should have been stone-cold dead – cut up in at least 100 places), and Lenny TAUNTING his tormentor just before he gets killed! Well, THAT has to be seen to be believed. No sense in me trying to describe the utter inanity of it.

As if it weren't bad enough that Bettany simply doesn't have the look of a sadistic gangster – or that he's a mediocre uncharismatic actor at best - his character doesn't make much sense either. His reactions to his boss Thewlis flirting with Burrows are baffling: is he AMAZED that his boss tries to pick a up a "bird"? What exactly annoyed him so much about Saffron or about Thewlis's womanizing is beyond me. It can hardly be a startling revelation for a goon to see his boss mingle with women.

The final segment with Thewlis and McDowell is too stupid for words. Overacting, stupid dialog, and McDowell bafflingly almost begging/taunting Thewlis to kill him – even offering him a gun! Absurd and illogical on every conceivable level. Where did McGuigan study human behaviour? On planet Zong? He even has McDowell jumping off a building, which is about as gangstery as the utterly ludicrous Romeo-and-Juliet fairy-tale between crime boss Thewlis and Saffron. Truly, this script was written by a moron – for morons – and I've already mentioned the moron's name often enough for you to know never to watch anything this moron directs or writes.

Thewlis comes out of prison after a whopping 32 years. Instead of giving us a REALISTIC revenge ending, the pretentious, utterly clueless McGuigan resorts to a POETIC ending, with McDowell handing Thewlis a gun, asking him to kill him. (A scene that is stupid beyond belief.) McGuigan fails to understand that gangsters cannot and should not be romanticized, and even if they are, give them a modicum of "respect" and portray them as they really are: as simple-minded narcissistic bullies with a penchant for extreme violence. Dividing up the central characters into "good" and "evil" displays an amazing lack of common sense. Wanting us to believe that McDowell sees no purpose in living – just because his former boss Thewlis is out of jail and about to get married with a woman McDowell never had any romantic connection to anyway – does not constitute "psychological drama". It constitutes blatant stupidity; far-fetched, wholly unrealistic characterization which only a clueless, wimpy upper-class film student could come up with.

McDowell, who seems to be a fairly intelligent (and very funny) guy, especially for an actor (they tend to be extremely stupid), likes mentioning this film as one of the few he's proud of having done in recent decades. Then again, he also called Rob Zombie a "genius", so we can pretty much ignore any value judgments from him. When Rob Zombie is a genius, then all standards and criteria crumble like a deck of cards.

Terminus (2015)
4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
When infants try to be politically poignant., 14 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A shoddy, stale-looking, dull sci-fi that manages to make alien contact as mundane as ordering French Fries. To make things worse, the "auteur" of this low-IQ piffle focused much more on politics than on sci-fi, filling up the movie with tons of extremely stupid fake-CNN news-flash exposition, which shows the U.S. invading Iran and eventually causing the outbreak of WW3. (The notion that a liberal-lead U.S. would even contemplate such a move is truly hilarious. What, Obama or Hellary invading Iran to save Israel? Bolivian mushrooms must be very cheap these days.)

So no, I am not joking in the slightest when I tell you that this garbage is a cross between "Born on the 4th of Scientology"… Sorry, got confused there… A cross between "Born on the 4th of July" and "2010". Is it as dumb as it sounds? Much worse. Because dumb can be occasionally entertaining, but this idiocy is just excruciatingly boring.

The premise of an alien being restoring human limbs is not bad, but it's handled with such incompetence by the writer and the actors (especially that sociopathic secret agent: over-actor extraordinaire) that it makes no difference what potential there was or wasn't in it. Certainly there was zip potential in combining left-wing propaganda with alien contact. I'm pretty sure some pompous mongrel had already done that anyway.

To give you a hint just how much muddy pee-worthy incompetence the film swims in, the director can't even make up his mind whether the story takes place in the States or Australia, because there are clear indications of both.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A great advertisement for the dangers of adoption., 11 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SH2, just as its predecessor, pushes its anti-adoption cause without shame – or does it? Sure, Sean Bean and wifey adopted a demon child without knowing it, and their lives ARE ruined as a result: they are constantly on the run, stressed out and in fear, and Mr Bean is even sought after by authorities for killing a member of the evil cult. And yet, Heather is still loved by her parents. But if someone offered them a chance to go back in time and NOT adopt a demon spawn but to have a normal kid instead, would they take the chance?

There is one serious logic flaw in the script, and that's Heather's entrance into Silent Hill. We are told that she has to go back to her birthplace of her own accord, and yet just a minute after we're informed that this was the rule, she is kidnapped and dragged into the town. Dunno, perhaps being kidnapped is considered "free will" by demon-worshiping small-town cults. What do I know: I've never had any contact with any such group, except the occasional Jehovah Witness person handing out comical leaflets.

Blindness (2008)
Blandness., 11 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

We've already had disaster movies about ice age, nuclear war, large space rocks plopping on our dumb collective heads, zombies, virus plagues, killer bunnies, killer bees and many more. So perhaps it was time to lend a comical twist to this genre with some slapstick. What can bring more mass slapstick than everyone turning blind?

But - this isn't a comedy. This is for real. That blind guy BLACKMAILING blind women to sleep with him and his blind gang (he has a gang???) was NOT intended to be funny. I don't understand how, but it was intended to be powerful, thrilling, moving drama. It moved me alright: I blew snot out of my nose watching blind men sexually harass blind women. I don't think I've seen anything quite as inane as a blind man waving around with a gun threatening to kill people. (I know, it sounds even funnier on paper, but trust me, seeing it is the real deal.) Shouldn't Eddie Murphy be doing that in a cheesy comedy?

So let me get this right: a group of blind men act as thugs by holding all the other blind people hostage to their silly demands (which includes money and wrist-watches - utterly worthless items in that environment). Why wasn't this on Monty Python, frcrissakes. I bet Palin and Cleese were smashing their left-wing heads against the walls, wondering "how come we didn't think of this?!" No, I am not talking about another Python sketch. I'm talking about a fourth Python movie!

Julianne Moore – very conveniently – sneaks into the quarantine facility, acting as the eyes of the group. Does she ever for a second consider how EASY-PEASY it would be to snatch a gun from a blind man? She could have prevented that entire sex-gang segment from turning this into another "Battlefield Earth", just by taking his gun away. But it didn't suit the writers' intentions. That's a classic case of an incompetent writer relentlessly pushing a moronic plot-device just so the story moves come-hell-or-high-water into the desired direction.

I just wonder why the writer-fool didn't milk the blind-gang shtick to its full potential. The entire movie could have been about that. For example, what if leader thug decided that all the others had to perform a play for his gang? Wouldn't that have been just as funny? What if he decided that the women had to form a girl-power pop-group, complete with sexy dance moves? (Yes, the blind wouldn't be able to see the dancing, but since when is this movie concerned with trifles such as logic and common sense?)

The more intelligent movie-goers (you know… the non-hipster ones) complain about the extremely stupid dialogue and the flat, lethargic acting. They have every right to complain, because the conversations are generally imbecilic, and the performances just plain lazy. Julianne Moore has a perpetual moronic grin that makes her looked stoned. She's the Mother Teresa of the movie, and she hams it up as only she knows how to. Admittedly, Meryl Streep would have been far worse, hamming it up with a badly done bizarre accent, no doubt. (As for Mother Teresa, that's just an expression. You didn't seriously think that I consider her a saintly person? The woman was a greedy, lying, two-faced, evil witch assigned the phony image of a Nightingale by those pedos from Vatican, with generous help from the lobotomized international zombie press.)

Moore is so sickeningly understanding and so Hollywoodly compassionate that she doesn't even get too offended when her husband cheats on her with another woman. In a PROPER comedy (as opposed to an unintentional one) Moore would have slapped him around, him not being able to defend himself and that would have been both realistic and hilarious; a win-win situation: all bloodied and embarrassed (for being beaten up by his tiny wife who also wipes his hinder), he could have said something like "oh come on, honey, give a guy a break! I'm blind, she's blind, we're so miserable, can't you just continue feeling sorry for us and let us get on with the in-out?" Oh the fun I'd have re-writing this stupid script.

The movie improves a lot (which isn't saying much) once the blind group breaks out of its silly prison camp and ventures outside. There are some nice post-apocalyptic scenes of garbage and chaos, and that's what the movie should have been about, instead of putting us through the torture of watching these clowns fumble about for an hour in some exaggerated Nazi camp. That's the wrong type of garbage and chaos.

Speaking of which, I don't know what flaming Marxist wrote the novel this drivel is based on, but he must suffer from severe paranoia if he actually believes that any government – in a functioning, wealthy democracy – would treat a bunch of infected mystery patients like utter garbage. Jesus wept, if the gov't were so vicious, wouldn't the prisons be run like concentration camps? Wouldn't the media experience extreme Putin-like censorship? Set this idiocy in Putin's Russia or that round-headed mongrel's North Korea and it would at least make some sense, but the notion that the blind would simply be segregated – and then basically left to fend for themselves (!) in the States or Canada is asinine, bizarre and very much the result of a deluded left-winger's psychotic episodes no doubt brought about by an excessive intake of Bolivian mushrooms and numerous viewings of Michael Moore's propaganda "documentaries". Whoever wrote this garbage should get the anti-Nobel Prize for Anti-Literature. This premise is dumber than Philip K. Dick's "Counter-Clock World".

Parallels (2015/I)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Just give me any Earth with Constance Wu in it., 11 October 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A building that acts as a portal to alternative Earths? So far so good. That's the kind of movie for me. Unfortunately, the first Earth that the trio (plus Wu) get to visit is a sort of cliché B-movie version of "Mad Max 2" – and that's definitely one of my more peevy cinematic pet-peeves. Sure, the location looks kinda nifty, but the characters and the plot revolving around that Earth are stereotypical and you know straight off the bat it's going to be boring. Thug gang kidnaps the innocents and they have to free themselves to reach the portal on time: who the hell didn't see that coming? A plot-line from 10,000 movies and TV shows.

Things get better when they visit a more advanced Earth than our own. For some reason, the foursome split up into two groups, which is asinine. Not quite as dumb as horny dumb teens splitting up in a haunted mansion, but still quite daft. It's not as if they were tourists strolling through Manhattan or Paris, sightseeing.

The finale became quite interesting, what with that elevator leading to who-knows-where-and-whom, and the appearance of the siblings' father. Or is he? The angry bald guy who makes gadgets hacks the building, which is a nice touch (I actually thought he was building yet another nuclear device to blow up THAT Earth as well! – which would have been extremely stupid), but his warning about Carver remains unresolved: why did he try to warn the others about him? Where did Baldy go? Whom did he meet up there? What was he told by the building's makers? Not only is all of that unresolved, but we don't even get to find out what the mysterious sphere was for. I mean, Ronan had it in his bag since the movie started, and yet it never amounts to much more than a plot-device for Wu to tell us that there is a place called Coreworld.

That's the movie's basic problem: too many loose ends completely ignored and unexplained. A certain measure of mystery is perfectly acceptable – even advisable – for such movies, but too many loose ends lead to confusion and a sense that the script is underdeveloped. At the very least there should be a sequel to wrap things up, but low-budget indie movies aren't exactly known for sequeling themselves that much.

Aside for the fun premise, my biggest congrats goes to whoever cast Constance Wu, because that woman makes all the female A-listers look really bad (which isn't saying much), such a refreshment in the Age of Ugly Nepotists. I said this a million times, but I'll say it again: why can't a beautiful woman like her have a career the way Aniston and Kunis have? Because one is a nepotist and the other, well, we won't go into that. Or how about that daft little floozy Johansson? She gets hyped more than Coca Cola. Hollywood insiders will know exactly what I'm talking about. The outsiders will want to pelt me with food.

Page 1 of 130:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]