Sithlord-20 Reviews

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

A Trilogy with One Film Too Many

[5/10 · 5 November 2003]

CONTAINS SPOILERS

Upon leaving the theater after watching the culmination of the 'Matrix' trilogy, I was wondering only one thing: why was this story three movies long? The fatal flaw of 'Revolutions' is that it renders 'Reloaded' completely irrelevant. In fact, I daresay you wouldn't even need to see 'Reloaded' to understand 'Revolutions.' This series would have been much better served to take the best ideas from both films and trimmed them down into one.

Now that I can reflect on the trilogy as a whole, I can almost picture how the sequels came into being. The Wachowskis sat down and said to each other "Now where can we take this story?" (I will never believe they originally planned it as a trilogy from the beginning). They rattled off a deluge of ideas, but instead of paring them down into a coherent narrative, they crammed EVERY concept they had into 'Reloaded' and then when it came time to resolve everything in 'Revolutions,' they just came up with a few interminably overlong action sequences and resolved the two main conflicts (Zion vs. The Machines and Neo vs. Smith).

Everything else in 'Reloaded' is all but ignored. Didn't understand the Architect's monologue? Guess what, you don't need to. It's not ever mentioned here. Want some of those conflicting philosophies on the nature of reality clarified? Don't hold your breath. Want to know about Merovingian's role in the grand scheme of the Matrix? You won't find out (his appearance here is little more than a cameo). The Twins, the Keymaker, the relationship triangle between Morpheus and Niobe and the general....all of it ignored. In fact, Morpheus has such a trivial role in this final chapter that it's pathetic. He doesn't guide Neo, he doesn't fight anyone, he doesn't even give lame speeches at Zion raves. He's just there to get yelled at by Niobe and watch others die in the defense of Zion.

If only the Wachowskis had just streamlined all their ideas into one coherent film, maybe they would have given us something to stand the test of time. Something to put alongside 'Star Wars' and 'The Lord of the Rings.' But instead they opted to pummel us with a 2 1/2 hour philosophy lecture with 'Reloaded' (albeit with a few stellar action sequences) and a generic resolution that offers no answers with 'Revolutions' (which has redundant, familiar action sequences recycled from the first two films). This trilogy cannot be whispered in the same breath as those classic fantasy epics.

So should I care? Should I try to decipher all their vague intentions in making these films? Should I attempt to make sense of it all?

I choose not to.

The Matrix - 9/10 The Matrix Reloaded - 7/10 The Matrix Revolutions - 5/10

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

Not Scary. Not Suspenseful. Not Gory.

[1/10 · 19 October 2003]

This movie is worse than Cabin Fever. It is worse than House of 1000 Corpses. It is worse than Underworld. In fact, it is worse than every horror movie in the last 10 years. I did not jump one single time, nor did I ever feel any semblance of suspense. But the greatest travesty this movie perpetrates is than it is not bloody or gory in the slightest. People get hacked to death with a chainsaw, but we never see it. Where's the splatter? Instead the filmmakers assault us with a cavalcade of bizarre (read: lame) hillbillies, trying to create some sensation of eerieness. They fail miserably.

It is also impossible to sympathize with the victims; they are all annoying. The dialogue didn't help, but the kid with the glasses is the worst actor in the long sad history of bad horror-movie actors.

I implore you not to waste your time nor your money. There should be a constitutional amendment outlawing horror movie remakes. This movie is the proof.

IMDb doesn't allow it, but this movie deserves a 0/10.

Dreamcatcher (2003)

HILARIOUSLY INEPT!

[2/10 · 22 March 2003]

May Contain Spoilers

REDEMPTION FOR GEORGE LUCAS AND MARTIN SCORSESE!

'Dreamcatcher' is for all the Star Wars critics out there who whined so self-righteously at Lucas's somewhat stilted dialogue in his two recent prequels. How they cried for the return of Lawrence Kasdan, who co-wrote 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi!' Well now we get to see what Kasdan opted to lend his attention to when Lucas passed him over. 'Dreamcatcher' is one of the most atrociously pathetic examples of cinema in recent memory, with dialogue so corny, a plot so convoluted, and a concept of aliens so absurd that it makes Stephen King's own abysmal 'Maximum Overdrive' look like 'The Day the Earth Stood Still.' Kasdan has lost all concept of pacing, of theme, of capable acting performances. His career has now officially jumped the shark.

But Kasdan can't take all the credit. Due consideration must be given to the co-writer of this affront to filmdom, William Goldman. Here is a man who recently wrote an unprovoked tirade in Variety attacking Martin Scorsese, piously proclaiming that Marty does not deserve an Oscar for directing 'Gangs of New York.' Now he presents us with this dreck, a script so laughably incompetent that Michael Bay would have rejected it. Meanwhile, 'Gangs' is up for 10 Oscars. What appalling gall this hack has. Whatever you may think of 'Gangs,' its worst ten minutes are 100 times better than all of 'Dreamcatcher.'

The only reason I would ever recommend anyone watch 'Dreamcatcher' is that it contains more unintentionally funny moments than I have seen in a movie in ten years. When Thomas Jane's 'Henry' answered a phone call from the mental incarnation of his alien-possessed friend 'Jonesy' by talking through the grip of a pistol (which was once owned by John Wayne, natch), I lost it. I was literally laughing out loud for several minutes, tears rolling down my cheeks. This train wreck of a movie is replete with such moments. If you can see it for free, take it in just to laugh at its ineptitude. If you are required to pay, however, avoid it like the plague.

Rating 2/10 (one extra point awarded for unintentional humor)

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Flawed Where "Fellowship" Wasn't, but Still a Grand Epic

[8/10 · 31 December 2002]

Contains Spoilers

Let me start by saying that I thought "Fellowship" was as close to perfection as film gets. A brilliant realization of the classic book, of which I am also a devout fan.

But unlike other Tolkien devotees, I will not criticize this adaptation simply because it alters certain aspects of the novel. It is a necessary evil in converting a written medium to a visual one. I did not have a problem with Arwen's expanded role in "Fellowship," nor did I lament the loss of such characters as Tom Bombadil. All the changes Peter Jackson made to the first book worked sublimely well on screen.

But he was not so wise in his adaptation of "The Two Towers." Many changes he made simply do not work. And by "not work," I mean in a purely cinematic sense. My reservations include:

1) Aragorn going over the cliff. This is redundant in that the same thing happened to Gandalf. It is not suspenseful because in every trailer and TV spot we have seen Aragorn fight in the battle of Helm's Deep. It also dedicates far too much screen time to getting him back to the keep, thus slowing the film and accomplishing nothing save for forcing an unnecessary appearance of Arwen.

2) The Ents get tricked. The oldest, wisest beings in Middle-earth yet they have no idea what's going on, nor do they offer to help until they are tricked by Merry and Pippin. Defeats the whole purpose of the Entmoot scene and belittles their characters.

3) Shelob pushed to the 3rd film. I don't care what anyone says, this was a huge mistake. As written in the novels, the climax of "Towers" is a perfect, classic cliffhanger. It would have been on par with "The Empire Strikes Back," when Han is whisked away by Boba Fett and Luke learns a little about his family tree. Now imagine if "Empire" had ended BEFORE the lightsaber duel between Luke and Vader and you get some idea of the error Jackson made here. He instead gives us a brief, anticlimactic aside to Osgilath where nothing really happens that hasn't happened before. Worst of all was Sam Gamgee turning into Sam Rockne with a "Some things are worth fighting for" speech that was so corny it made me laugh.

I also felt the film didn't flow very well and could have been edited together much better. At several points in the movie I checked my watch and wondered, "I haven't seen Frodo and Sam for about 45 minutes. What the hell happened to that story?" In comparison, watch any of the "Star Wars" films and marvel at how perfectly they balance and fade to several concurrent story lines. "Towers" lacked this fluidity.

Aside from these flaws, however, I greatly enjoyed "Towers." Its action sequences are unparalleled and the casting remains perfect. For pure visual flair this series sets the benchmark for everything else out there. I eagerly await "The Return of the King," which will hopefully live up to "Fellowship." The first film in this trilogy ranks a 10, but "Towers" falters slightly and falls to an 8.

Score: 8/10

Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)

It's Funny. What More Do You Want?

[7/10 · 29 July 2002]

This ain't "The Godfather," folks. Don't go expecting a labyrinthine plot, Oscar-cailber acting or a rousing John Williams-esque score. Go, and expect to laugh, and you won't be disappointed.

Yes, there are a LOT of gags from the first two Austin Powers films recycled here. Some work, some have become stale. And yes, there is a greater quotient of toilet humor here than in the first two. Again, it's a hit-and-miss affair. But I laughed more in the first 10 minutes of "Goldmember" than I did in all of "Men in Black II." In the end it's Myers' comedic ability that makes this third entry in the series fly.

No, there haven't been very many good comedies this summer. In fact, they've all been pretty much awful, so to say this is the funniest movie of the summer season would hardly be a compliment. I'll just be content to say it's damn funny. Go see it.

Rating: 7/10

Cremaster 3 (2002)

Not Worthy of Any Discussion Whatsoever

[1/10 · 16 July 2002]

"Cremaster 3" does not merit analysis because it does not even merit being called a film. It's a series of deliberately cryptic, bizarre imagery and nothing more. It tries to make some artistic statement through its lack of dialogue but succeeds only in rendering its sequences redundant and insultingly boring. People who think crap like this is art fail to realize that stringing together a bunch of unrelated images is no difficult task. Making a coherent, intelligent film, however, is difficult. This director has no talent so he took the easy way out. I choose not to rate "Cremaster 3" because to do so would validate its status as actual filmmaking. I refuse to acknowledge it even exists in the media of film.

The Sum of All Fears (2002)

Doesn't Work

[4/10 · 8 July 2002]

Contains Spoilers

As a Tom Clancy fan and a reader of the novel on which this movie was based, I must express my dissatisfaction with its film adaptation.

"The Sum of All Fears" was a massive tome of a book, upwards of 1000 pages. Condensing that into a two hour movie is not only a daunting task, but a near impossible one as evidenced by the sloppy manner in which the plot unfolds. It feels as though a bunch of crucial scenes were slapped together, with no explanation of how the characters get from point A to point B. The result is a mess which leaves way too many questions unanswered.

Other problems include the lack of character development in the neo-Nazi character, poor casting (Liev Schreiber as John Clark? Give me a break), and most appallingly, a woefully boring nuclear explosion. What you see in the TV spots is what you see on screen. Some cars get blown off the road, a helicopter crashes, and there's one shot of a mushroom cloud. Up to this point I was wondering how they were going to top the nuclear explosion in "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," but sadly they didn't even try.

And finally, there's Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan. He just doesn't inhabit this role. He's no Harrison Ford, nor is he Alec Baldwin. As far as I'm concerned, this franchise is dead.

Rating: 4/10

Men in Black II (2002)

Utterly Forgettable

[5/10 · 7 July 2002]

"Men in Black II" is so lightweight that it doesn't merit a lengthy review, so I'll keep it brief.

This movie was a big disappointment. Its main problem? It's not funny. About 95% of the jokes fall flat and Frank the talking dog gets annoying after only a short time on screen. I know what to expect from blockbuster sequels, so I didn't go into the theater expecting an "L.A. Confidential" style plot or "American Beauty" level acting. But I do want it to deliver where it should: in comedy, in pyrotechnics and special effects.

"MiB II" fails in all three areas. It also took WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too long to get to Tommy Lee Jones. Hard to believe, considering this movie is about 85 minutes long, but the filmmakers pull it off. This sequel lacks all the charm and originality of the original, which I heartily enjoyed.

In the end, this movie proves to waste two thoroughly likeable characters as they spit out an endless series of lame jokes. Based on early box office returns, this movie is going to be huge. But if you've not yet seen it, I say wait for the video.

Rating: 5/10

Spider-Man (2002)

Stunningly MEDIOCRE

[6/10 · 30 June 2002]

Contains Spoilers

Having just returned from a 2nd viewing of "Spider-Man" (I initially saw it on its opening day of May 3), I was appalled how poorly this film holds up upon repeat visits. The first time I found it exciting, though not spectacular. The second time, I spent more time checking my watch and snickering at the movie's inadequacies than I did losing myself in this comic book world.

The truth is that "Spider-Man" is riddled with inconsistencies, plot holes and uninspired characters. Those who think that the dialogue in "Attack of the Clones" is bad should revisit the marble-mouthed conversations here. Peter's rambling to Mary Jane in Aunt May's hospital room is absolutely atrocious, as are most of their scenes together.

For the sake of brevity I will not list all the inconsistencies in the plot, but here are a few:

Uncle Ben's "Great Power" Speech - Where did this come from? What great power? Peter is a science geek all his life, then he knocks one guy down at school and all of a sudden he's got great power? I think not.

Uncle Ben's Killer - The criminal steals from two people: one is a burly middle aged wrestling promoter from whom he steals thousands of dollars, the other is a decrepit old man from whom he steals a rolling wreck of a car. So he only pistol whips the promoter, but has to shoot the old man? Yeah, that makes sense.

Pumpkin Bombs - Capable of vaporizing human flesh, yet when one explodes six inches from Peter's face in the finale, it only tears up half his mask. Guess latex renders them powerless. Right.

But the major failing of the film is this: TO WHOM IS THE GREEN GOBLIN A THREAT? His paramount concern is stopping a corporate merger? My God, how will the world ever recover?! Where is the grandiose scheme that makes the world recoil in fear? Lex Luthor wanted to sink California into the ocean. Magneto tried to turn every resident of New York City into a mutant. The Joker tried to kill the residents of Gotham with poison (twice!). But the Goblin? He's got a board of directors as his nemesis. Pathetic.

Which is not to say "Spider-Man" is all bad. The film is well cast with capable acting performances. J. Jonah Jameson is hilarious and some of the action scenes are genuinely exciting. The CGI works (for the most part) and Danny Elfman contributes a rousing score. But I get the feeling that every time I will see this movie in the future, I'll find more things wrong with it. What a shame.

Rating: 6/10

Minority Report (2002)

THE BEST ARYE GROSS MOVIE EVER!

[8/10 · 23 June 2002]

But that's not saying much, is it? "The Experts" anyone? Didn't think so. OK, on to the real review...

Contains Spoilers

"Minority Report" is a very good movie, but not nearly as superb as some on IMDB would have you believe. But in this day and age, it is so rare that we are treated to an intelligent, thought-provoking action/sci-fi movie that you just have to admire it. Yes, this is a welcome rebound from Spielberg after the dreadful "A.I." He is smart enough to show us a vision of the future that is neither a bleak wasteland nor a candy-coated utopia.

I, for one, very much enjoyed the muted cinematography and felt it added realism to the visual effects. The plot is solid, if somewhat predictable. Even though an observant viewer can see where the story is headed, there are enough twists and depth to the loyalties of each character that Spielberg keeps you guessing just enough to be enthralled. The acting is solid throughout, with special accolades going to Ruffalo as an impassioned investigator.

I did feel, however, that the film is conceptually flawed. One of the main themes driven home near the conclusion is that if you know what the future is to be, you have the power to alter it. This is obviously true, so why weren't the Precrime units used as a deterrent instead of an arrest force? If they can see someone is going to commit murder in 3 days, why not just go to their door and tell the future murderer that if he/she goes through with it that they're going to live the rest of their lives in a plastic tube with a pair of lobotomy earphones? That would stop me from committing murder. As for yet another minor complaint, I thought the overabundance of product placement was distracting.

But aside from those quibbles, I found this is to be a challenging, exciting and cerebral movie. Definitely worth a viewing.

Rating: 8/10

The Bourne Identity (2002)

Solid Spy Thriller

[7/10 · 16 June 2002]

Contains Spoilers

I must admit going into "The Bourne Identity" I had misgivings about Matt Damon inhabiting the role of a super-spy, but less than a half hour into the film my fears were allayed. Damon has a fine presence as our amnesiac hero, Jason Bourne, and creates genuine chemistry with his lovely co-star, Franka Potente. There is also a solid supporting cast containing some of our best character actors, including Chris Cooper and Brian Cox.

What does not work in this film is baby-faced Julia Stiles as another operative---a communications expert---but her role is so thin and undeveloped that she's little more than a glorified telephone operator. The pacing also seemed a bit tepid at times, and there are many familiar spy thriller elements (rogue CIA operatives, Swiss bank accounts, inept assassins).

But in the end "The Bourne Identity" is intelligent and involving. There is a tense car chase which reminded me of another underrated film, John Frankenheimer's "Ronin," as well as several other moments of suspense and intrigue. The plot is complex without being confusing, but in the end it's Damon makes the film fly.

Rating: 7/10

Bad Company (2002)

Embarrassing for All Parties Involved

[2/10 · 8 June 2002]

Chris Rock is a talented comedian, and Anthony Hopkins is one of the most revered thespians working today. So why would either of them subject themselves to the humiliation of appearing in this appallingly inept piece of recycled action garbage? I think the answer is obvious: producer Jerry Bruckheimer has a really big checkbook.

Hopkins sleepwalks through the entire film, delivering every line in the same bland, mirthless monotone. And sure, Rock gets off maybe a half-dozen one liners that made me laugh, but that's low praise considering I also had to endure two hours of formulaic plot, logical inconsistencies (I can't count how many times the CIA had the villains surrounded by legions of troops with sniper rifles, only to let them escape), inane shoot-outs and boring chase sequences.

There is not a single original idea in this whole film, and consequently, not a single moment of suspense or excitement. "Bad Company" serves only to cement director Joel Schumaker's status of one of the most obscenely incompetent filmmakers working today (right down there with Michael Bay and Dominic Sena). Avoid this movie at all costs.

Rating: 1/10

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Another Disappointment in a Summer Replete With Mediocrity

[4/10 · 28 July 2001]

Does anyone else out there fondly remember summers past when James Cameron would wow us with intelligent action flicks like "True Lies" or "Terminator 2," or Steven Spielberg would show us the true measure of his genius with an Indiana Jones adventure or the original "Jurassic Park"? Much to my dismay, those days are long gone.

"The Mummy Returns" was an exercise in overkill. "Pearl Harbor" was a tedious bore. "Tomb Raider" and "Swordfish" were both so thoroughly awful they don't even merit discussion. Spielberg's "A.I." was a pretentious mish-mash of vague concepts. And you know things are bad when the usually reliable Disney delivers an uninspired dud like "Atlantis: The Lost Empire." Only slightly better were "The Score" (buoyed by its actors) and "Jurassic Park III," whose makers were wise enough to give us only 90 minutes of a rapidly tiring novelty.

Which brings us to this disgrace. While I am not a huge fan of the original, I am sure this version is sure to enrage those who are. The writers of "Planet of the Apes" have substituted a series of lame jokes and puns for an actual plot, while subjecting us to a bunch of bland, one-dimensional characters and familiar action sequences. The incessant screeching and growling of the apes stands as the most annoying redundancy in a film since the depth charges of "U-571." Only the superb make-up by Rick Baker et al. make this film worthy of a one-time viewing.

Finally, some thoughts on the director, Tim Burton. For the life of me I cannot figure out why so many people adore his work. Yes, I love "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure," and the original "Batman," while no masterpiece, is one of the best comic book movies to date. But his track record of late is atrocious: "Sleepy Hollow" was awful, and until I saw "Mars Attacks!" I never thought I'd see Jack Nicholson give a truly bad performance in a film. I will give "Beetlejuice" full marks for comedic value and originality, but "Edward Scissorhands" is a cheesy sentimentalist abomination.

I find it interesting that "Ed Wood," far and away Burton's best film, is the one least remembered or mentioned by his legions of acolytes. The talent of which he is capable shines through that film, but it appears he has sacrificed it for the allure of big-budget bombast like "Planet of the Apes." Chalk Mr. Burton up as another casualty of Hollywood's war on artistic filmmaking.

U-571 (2000)

Brings Nothing New to the Genre

[5/10 · 26 April 2000]

First of all, I don't care that this film bends historical fact for dramatic license. There is no "based on a true story" disclaimer at the beginning of the film, and at the end a postscript gives credit to the Brits who actually recovered the real Enigma device.

But as a movie, "U-571" is plain weak. While the acting is passable, the characters are shallow and one-dimensional. I didn't care if they lived, died, sacrificed themselves for their shipmates or whimpered like cowards. The main "action" of the film is a redundant, almost endless series of depth-chargings, each louder and more obnoxious than the last. There are no surprises and the climax is an unrealistic mish-mash of bad special effects and sappy heroism.

Everyone should forget this flashy mess and go rent the minimalist yet riveting "Run Silent, Run Deep" and marvel how great acting is always better than underwater explosions.

G.I. Joe: Arise, Serpentor, Arise! (1986 TV Movie)

Cobra Creates a New Leader

[10/10 · 17 April 2000]

Due to Cobra Commander's continued incompetence as military leader, Dr. Mindbender and Destro hatch a plot to create the ultimate tyrant by combining the DNA of history's greatest conquerors (a concept which predated the similarly-themed Jurassic Park by a decade). The Joes launch an all-out defense of the crypts of Genghis Khan, Sun Tzu, Alexander the Great, and even Vlad the Impaler (Dracula), amongst others, taking them--as usual--all over the world to thwart Cobra's plans.

Unlike the previous G.I. Joe mini-series, this one tends to become somewhat redundant in the second act, as Joe and Cobra clash fangs time and again at grave after grave. Save for that minor liability, the story is intense, replete with humorous dialogue and memorable action sequences.

From the opening showdown against Cobra's new Battle Android Troopers (BATS) to Serpentor's megalomaniacal assault on Washington, D.C., this G.I. Joe adventure more than satisfies. In a cartoon filled with fascinating characters, with admirable heroes and redoubtable villains alike, the new Cobra leader is a welcome addition.

G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero - The M.A.S.S. Device (1983)

Best Cartoon Ever

[10/10 · 4 April 2000]

This five-part mini-series introduced the world to what would become (at least in my opinion) the best cartoon ever put on TV. All the ingredients which would become the hallmarks of the series were in place: superb animation, a wide array of complex heroes and villains, fervent patriotism and, most importantly, non-stop action.

In their first of countless conflicts with the terrorist organization Cobra, the G.I. Joe force--Duke, Scarlet, Lady Jaye, Snake Eyes, et al--face arms dealer Destro's nefarious MASS device. Their battle takes them around the world in a desperate race to retrieve the three elements which power MASS, from the frigid Arctic to the ocean floor. The showdowns are awesome and incessant, right up to the final assault on Cobra Commander's hidden temple.

I watched this show religiously as a kid, and now, in my mid-twenties, I find it just as stimulating as ever. For Cold War propaganda at its best, nothing tops G.I. Joe.

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

A Subpar Entry in the Bond Canon

[6/10 · 21 November 1999]

Unlike many, I have enjoyed Pierce Brosnan as Bond. He appears to have more fun with the role than any of his predecessors since Connery. But "The World is Not Enough" was a disappointment. It lacked the creativity of Brosnan's two previous efforts, and instead pieces together action sequences from other Bond films. We get souped-up versions of the boat chase from "From Russia With Love," the skiing scene from "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," and the old we've-got-to-deactivate-the-bomb gimmick from "Goldfinger," and "A View to a Kill," amongst others.

Both "Goldeneye" and "Tomorrow Never Dies" had wonderfully grandiose villains intent on striking fear in the hearts of everyone on earth. But the bad guys in "T.W.I.N.E." are rendered impotent by their lack of ambition. So while Robert Carlyle gives a chillingly malefic performance as Renard, it is wasted in a film which felt more like a Timothy Dalton Bond flick than the two brilliant throwbacks to the heyday of Sean Connery that Brosnan previously made.