jaggedyer Reviews

Melinda and Melinda (2004)

Beautiful Duality Between Comedy and Tragedy

[9/10 · 14 August 2015]

This movie is inspiring. Two stories taking place, simultaneously, with the same character. While one is a tragedy the other is a comedy. The concept is incredibly original and I have yet to see in any other film! This is some of Woody Allen's best work! The type-casting and acting are perfect here. More importantly, you'll see that while Comedy and Tragedy may seem juxtaposed, the ending shows a beautiful convergence of the two. Questions about play writing and the difference between them is blurred. Very creative writing. Not to mention this a brilliant and great movie! I am surprised at the low ratings.

I have seen 40 Woody Allen movies and this movie belongs up there with Midnight and Paris, Annie Hall, and Hannah and Her Sisters.

Whatever Works (2009)

Worst of Woody Allen

[4/10 · 12 August 2015]

Firstly, I am a big fan of all Woody Allen movies. In fact, I've seem all 40 or his movies. However, I feel his cast, coupled with his misunderstanding of the 'south' has forced to a 4/10 rating for this. I am from the south and his misunderstanding of the the entire script is wrong. The acting is terrible, I believe Woody gave too-much lee-way to the actors or did not type-cast them correctly. It isn't a horrible movie, just seems unnatural and DEFINITELY not his best work. Perhaps he rushed it a lot. This is the worst of of his movies I have seen thus far. I feel he chose the incorrect actors and did not type-cast this entire movie well. It was almost as if he was stoned the entire time he was directing this. This is my opinion.

Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)

Fifty shades of disturbing!

[1/10 · 14 April 2015]

This is a bad snuff film. There are no redeeming qualities in this movie, the protagonist is a prick the, the girl is stupid and vulnerable. Then comes the the incredibly over-the-line sadomasochism sex scenes. Which by the way, are more like a horrible porn film. How did this even pass an "R" rating? I guess the main feature of the film is that she somehow "changes him". Which I don't really see depicted and quite frankly is nothing like the book the movie was based on. There is actually nothing I liked about the movie. I think the acting is poor, the character development is poor, the directing is poor. I feel like the creators just made "cheap shots" with all nudity and explicit depictions of disturbing sex scenes to compensate for their lack of talent to put together a decent movie.

Stalker (1979)

Terrible!

[1/10 · 2 January 2012]

Don't listen to the "deep thinkers" who have rated this movie up to the top 250 (somehow). There is absolutely not one redeeming thing about this film. This movie is pure trash, but for some reason, people seem to think if they can perform a post-analysis of a movie and find some cool allegory, then that will somehow make up for a piece of trash lacking in every other department of "good film-making". Don't waste the 3 hours of your life. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. If anyone is wondering if I "got it", yes I "got it" but after looking through a fixed camera at 3 men sitting back-to-back, for 7 mins, who really cares if they "get it"? If you want to see a good existential movie, try THX1138 or Kontrol. Life is too precious...

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)

Deceitful "documentary"

[1/10 · 7 August 2009]

I don't know if this movie could even be considered a legitimate documentary. The movie is filmed with interjected scenes of Nazi war camps while the interviews are taking place. Apparently Ben Stein blames the holocaust on science and uses this to support his view against evolution. The entire "documentary" is misleading, he rarely shows any subtext of who he is talking to or make mention of any of their accreditation. Ignoring this, Ben never actually makes any real scientific points at all during the entire film. He never even stumps or even makes it appear that he has stumped a scientists anywhere in this film.

Apparently, Mr. Stein's entire objective of this film is to convey no real science (not there there is any in ID to begin with) but rather to preach out about free speech and how we should "teach the controversy". However, there is no real controversy, the "controversy" was already sorted out decades ago. I guess this means we should teach alchemy AFTER the discovery of chemistry because some backwards, ignorant, bronze age people from a time capsule still think alchemy is viable science.

Creationism's explanation for the unexplained is that of supernatural. However, by definition supernatural is unknown. So what the film is really saying is: we cannot explain X with current knowledge, therefore, X = supernatural = unknown (why is there a middle term there?). Just because theory A may not explain X does not mean that theory B automatically explains X.

Disregarding everything that I have mentioned above, the movie is still directed poorly, uses cheesy clips and doesn't flow well.

It is a terrible and misleading movie.