This is not a great movie. But it was never supposed to be. It's exactly what you might expect from any trailer you would have seen - or just from looking at the cover. Jason in space killing sexy coeds. There are a few funny, almost campy, sci-fi bits - nanobots, an android, a spaceship, etc. Enough to take it over the top and really push it all into mindless, violent fun. If you go into a Jason movie expecting anything more then you just don't get the point. This one pushes the "oh no they didn't!" factor more than the others.
Reviews
9 Reviews
Halloween Kills
(2021)
Critics missed the point
23 October 2021
Maybe not all critics missed the point but a lot did. Yes this film could be considered "a mess". It's certainly chaotic and very frenetic. But that's kinda the point. Myers has thrown the town into chaos and turned its citizens into monsters. And that's half of what it is about - how good people do horrible things when they stop exercising rational thought and act on emotion only (just look at Facebook). They ignore details and do terrible things in the name of self righteousness. I absolutely loved that.
The other half is just the kills. I mean, this is a slasher movie, and one of the best. Unlike the previous film it doesn't focus on character development, or Laurie's relationships with her family (although that is there a little). It focuses on a monster and how he turns others into monsters. And it's extremely atmospheric and scary and the newly added music is awesome. I liked it better than it's predecessor. Of course I am a genre fan. If you are looking for drama or character development look elsewhere. It was never supposed to be about that. It's as close to perfect as a slasher film can get.
The other half is just the kills. I mean, this is a slasher movie, and one of the best. Unlike the previous film it doesn't focus on character development, or Laurie's relationships with her family (although that is there a little). It focuses on a monster and how he turns others into monsters. And it's extremely atmospheric and scary and the newly added music is awesome. I liked it better than it's predecessor. Of course I am a genre fan. If you are looking for drama or character development look elsewhere. It was never supposed to be about that. It's as close to perfect as a slasher film can get.
Prometheus
(I) (2012)
Man's tendencies to seek grandiose or quasi-religious answers to philosophical questions
28 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I think that many people missed the point. The movie has been criticized for panning to pseudoscience, for lacking clarity or even depth. By paying attention to the subtext of this movie it is plain that it does none of that.
The central theme of the movie concerns man's tendencies to seek grandiose or quasi-religious answers to philosophical questions, often when a much more profane answer will better reflect reality. This is stated openly, albeit somewhat obliquely, in a discussion between the android character and the scientist. When they are discussing why the aliens seeded mankind, why they "made us", the android compares this to why men built him. It is "because they can". While the reason for the journey was to discover some profound truth concerning the origins of mankind, perhaps the "Engineers" seeded earth because they could. This is often the reason why people undertake any number of actions, simply to experiment or for the sake of novelty.
This theme is pointed to again many times throughout the movie. For example, it is discovered that the place where they have landed is not something grandiose or exalted, it is a biological weapons factory. And that the "Engineers" are not some morally superior god-like race of aliens, they are simply technologically advanced and are either morally corrupt or else have an entirely different moral paradigm than us.
And the android character, whose motivational and moral ambiguity was brilliantly portrayed by Fasbender, may have simply wanted to kill his "parents" as he stated. His portrayal seemed akin to a highly intelligent and somewhat off-kilter child. This fit perfectly as the child who realizes that all the adults are somewhat deluded but he doesn't explain it to them because they would never listen to a mere child.
Even at the end of the movie, the heroine cannot face the profane reasons that have been provided. Rather than just accept that perhaps mankind was another piece of experimentation, or perhaps even another biological weapon, she decides she must seek out the "Engineers" to find other answers.
If viewed in this way it becomes apparent that, while the idea of mankind being seeded by aliens is certainly pseudoscience, it also points to the same tendency which the movie spends its time ridiculing.
Overall the movie was intelligent and very well made. Fasbender shone brightest with a thoroughly post-modern portrayal of the android. Of course the effects were mesmerizing and there was plenty of action to keep enthusiasm at a high level.
While the pseudoscience was initially was disconcerting, the discussion between the scientist and the android soon pointed to a deeper subtext that soon fully redeemed the film. The only problem is that one is left wondering about the intelligence of the film during its beginning. However, the viewer is presented with enough excitement, interesting characters and incredible special effects to hold their interest until then. One just needs to pay attention and give the film some thought to truly enjoy it.
The central theme of the movie concerns man's tendencies to seek grandiose or quasi-religious answers to philosophical questions, often when a much more profane answer will better reflect reality. This is stated openly, albeit somewhat obliquely, in a discussion between the android character and the scientist. When they are discussing why the aliens seeded mankind, why they "made us", the android compares this to why men built him. It is "because they can". While the reason for the journey was to discover some profound truth concerning the origins of mankind, perhaps the "Engineers" seeded earth because they could. This is often the reason why people undertake any number of actions, simply to experiment or for the sake of novelty.
This theme is pointed to again many times throughout the movie. For example, it is discovered that the place where they have landed is not something grandiose or exalted, it is a biological weapons factory. And that the "Engineers" are not some morally superior god-like race of aliens, they are simply technologically advanced and are either morally corrupt or else have an entirely different moral paradigm than us.
And the android character, whose motivational and moral ambiguity was brilliantly portrayed by Fasbender, may have simply wanted to kill his "parents" as he stated. His portrayal seemed akin to a highly intelligent and somewhat off-kilter child. This fit perfectly as the child who realizes that all the adults are somewhat deluded but he doesn't explain it to them because they would never listen to a mere child.
Even at the end of the movie, the heroine cannot face the profane reasons that have been provided. Rather than just accept that perhaps mankind was another piece of experimentation, or perhaps even another biological weapon, she decides she must seek out the "Engineers" to find other answers.
If viewed in this way it becomes apparent that, while the idea of mankind being seeded by aliens is certainly pseudoscience, it also points to the same tendency which the movie spends its time ridiculing.
Overall the movie was intelligent and very well made. Fasbender shone brightest with a thoroughly post-modern portrayal of the android. Of course the effects were mesmerizing and there was plenty of action to keep enthusiasm at a high level.
While the pseudoscience was initially was disconcerting, the discussion between the scientist and the android soon pointed to a deeper subtext that soon fully redeemed the film. The only problem is that one is left wondering about the intelligence of the film during its beginning. However, the viewer is presented with enough excitement, interesting characters and incredible special effects to hold their interest until then. One just needs to pay attention and give the film some thought to truly enjoy it.
Avatar
(2009)
Predictable. Dances with Wolves in Space
30 December 2010
I was very impressed with the effects. They were wonderful. Ultimately, however, the storyline was utterly predictable. The emotions shown were overly maudlin and the characters were two dimensional. Were it not for the special effects, after the first 20 minutes one would be better off simply imagining the rest. While it has been claimed that the movie's message is "anti-business", it is really another rehashing of the "Noble Primitive" tale, an idea which Hollywood has done to death. It seems somehow ironic that it was done using millions of dollars with cutting edge technology to create a futuristic science fiction movie. Or, if its message really is a warning against the evils of big business, it certainly has made a lot of money. I give it 5 stars for the special effects, because they almost make it worth watching.
Eye of God
(1997)
An elegy for small-town faith
30 December 2010
This is a wonderful study of the face of evil and its impact upon the lives of its characters. The narrative is nonlinear and may be confusing at first if one is not warned, but once a viewer is aware of this he/she should have no difficulty understanding the film. The storyline is initially split and follows two seemingly unrelated characters, which are somehow (at first we don't know) linked through a third subplot involving a small-town sheriff and some crime which has yet to be revealed. One storyline involves a teenage boy who has experienced the worst type of loss and is now emotionally alone in the world. And there is a small-town waitress who has established a relationship with an ex- con over years in a pen-pal program. The waitress has a glass-eye which is a symbolic reference to the movie's title. This glass-eye exists in the world of the inanimate, and the scenes of human despair and sorrow are reflected in and across it without judgment, action, or recourse, as the Eye of God viewing this world exists totally separated of its theater. At the film's end we are reminded of the story of Abraham and Isaac and that the actions of any Judeo-Christian god are very seldom held up to the same standards to which he holds his people. This movie took my breath away and haunted me for days after I initially saw it. It's memory still haunts me.
Zombieland
(2009)
Tries too hard to make zombie bashing "cool" with little else.
3 April 2010
This movie was fun, but I was thinking it would be more of an actual zombie movie. In reality it is a romantic comedy with zombies. It follows the standard romantic comedy formula wherein boy meets girl. Girl hates boy. Boy and/or girl wins the other over and they fall in love. Yawn.
And while Shaun of the Dead was also a romantic comedy, this movie spends all its time being cute and kitschy and does not offer up any moments of real horror (Shaun had quite a few moments) and thus fails in what it purports to be - a zombie movie.
However, the part with Bill Murray almost makes me want to give the movie more stars than it deserves, because it is brilliant. But in the end this movie tries too hard to make zombie bashing "cool" and spends no time at all scaring its audience or making them think.
And while Shaun of the Dead was also a romantic comedy, this movie spends all its time being cute and kitschy and does not offer up any moments of real horror (Shaun had quite a few moments) and thus fails in what it purports to be - a zombie movie.
However, the part with Bill Murray almost makes me want to give the movie more stars than it deserves, because it is brilliant. But in the end this movie tries too hard to make zombie bashing "cool" and spends no time at all scaring its audience or making them think.
The Twilight Saga: New Moon
(2009)
Awful. Maudlin, insipid.
2 April 2010
I was surprised by the first movie. It was rather good in a stylish, ultra-romantic, popcorn sort of way. But this movie just laid it on far too thick.
Bella was a totally unsympathetic main character. I kept wanting to slap her and say "Just get on with your life!" And really, the scene with her sitting in the chair and the camera rotating around her and the month names being displayed! Come on! This movie was horrible. Just horrible. I truly hope they do not make another because my daughter may want me to watch it with her.
There were too many things wrong with this movie to even go into. Just don't waist your time.
Bella was a totally unsympathetic main character. I kept wanting to slap her and say "Just get on with your life!" And really, the scene with her sitting in the chair and the camera rotating around her and the month names being displayed! Come on! This movie was horrible. Just horrible. I truly hope they do not make another because my daughter may want me to watch it with her.
There were too many things wrong with this movie to even go into. Just don't waist your time.
Star Trek
(2009)
Good guys win, bad guy looses and the special effects are great. But it's not really Star Trek.
14 November 2009
I am a trekker/trekkie. I have been all my life. And I wanted to love this movie. I really wanted this movie to re-boot the franchise so that I could continue to have new Star Trek movies to watch. Even after I first saw this movie, the day it was released, I was trying to tell myself that I loved it. I tried to excuse it for all its blockbuster simplicity and its lack of depth. But in the end I honestly felt like "Armageddon" had been remade with characters with Star Trek names. While it was a good action flick, even an excellent action flick, it just was not Star Trek.
The best Star Trek always asked questions. It always presented difficult social questions in a way that people could see them for what they were, without throwing them in their faces with platitudes and slogans. I remember the presentation of torture in the "Chain of Command" episode of the Next Generation. I remember the Voyager episode "Prey" asking questions about the sanctity of all life. And almost every episode of the original series asked very important social questions.
And there were the science elements of the fiction in Star Trek. The communicator became the cell phone of today. The Army is working on a real phaser (PHASR - with stun). And many of the ideas in the episodes were inspirational to real scientists (there is a real theory for warp drive in physics today).
So, what did the new movie give us: Red Matter and the importance of teamwork . . .
In the end I can't bring myself to consider this real Star Trek. It's a blockbuster action movie, and a good one, but it doesn't wrestle with serious issues, it doesn't play with scientific ideas, it really doesn't make you think at all. It's just a shoot-em-up where the good guys win, bad guy looses and the special effects are great. But it's not really Star Trek.
The best Star Trek always asked questions. It always presented difficult social questions in a way that people could see them for what they were, without throwing them in their faces with platitudes and slogans. I remember the presentation of torture in the "Chain of Command" episode of the Next Generation. I remember the Voyager episode "Prey" asking questions about the sanctity of all life. And almost every episode of the original series asked very important social questions.
And there were the science elements of the fiction in Star Trek. The communicator became the cell phone of today. The Army is working on a real phaser (PHASR - with stun). And many of the ideas in the episodes were inspirational to real scientists (there is a real theory for warp drive in physics today).
So, what did the new movie give us: Red Matter and the importance of teamwork . . .
In the end I can't bring myself to consider this real Star Trek. It's a blockbuster action movie, and a good one, but it doesn't wrestle with serious issues, it doesn't play with scientific ideas, it really doesn't make you think at all. It's just a shoot-em-up where the good guys win, bad guy looses and the special effects are great. But it's not really Star Trek.
Alien Resurrection
(1997)
Riveting
17 June 2008
While this movie is not entirely perfect, I felt the need to give it a 9 due to its overall rating of only 6.1.
Too many people compare this Alien to the Aliens of past films. This is ridiculous, because every sequel has been almost categorically different from its predecessor. While the original movie was a groundbreaking landmark of horror-science fiction, the second movie, Aliens, was much more of an action flick than a horror movie. And the third movie, while attempting to be something of a return to the claustrophobic, narrow corridor brand suspense and horror of the first, was nonetheless a far different movie with a far different alien.
This movie is a masterpiece. It exudes style, much in the same vein of The Matrix, but with a definite monster movie twist. This exuberance of style does threaten, at times, to overwhelm its viewers, but it is peppered with enough gut-wrenching violence that one's attention stays just under the threshold.
This movie does demand, much more than its predecessors, that the viewer 'suspends disbelief.' The gore of this movie seems to be its only realism. Realism is sacrificed in the name of style, but to wonderful effect. Anyone who would expect any less must not be at all familiar with Jeunet, the movie's director (see "City of Lost Children").
What this movie lacks in realism, it more than makes up for in style. Furthermore, while fans may have been disappointed by a lack of realism, I do not know how they could expect a character who was burnt to a crisp in the previous sequel to return within a realist paradigm. Even if it is science-fiction, one need only note that truly dead characters more often return to life in the likes of Friday the 13th and Halloween than 2001.
And the ending sequence of the film is beyond harrowing. One of the greatest all-time monster movie endings I have ever seen. However it is definitely not for those with a weak stomach.
Too many people compare this Alien to the Aliens of past films. This is ridiculous, because every sequel has been almost categorically different from its predecessor. While the original movie was a groundbreaking landmark of horror-science fiction, the second movie, Aliens, was much more of an action flick than a horror movie. And the third movie, while attempting to be something of a return to the claustrophobic, narrow corridor brand suspense and horror of the first, was nonetheless a far different movie with a far different alien.
This movie is a masterpiece. It exudes style, much in the same vein of The Matrix, but with a definite monster movie twist. This exuberance of style does threaten, at times, to overwhelm its viewers, but it is peppered with enough gut-wrenching violence that one's attention stays just under the threshold.
This movie does demand, much more than its predecessors, that the viewer 'suspends disbelief.' The gore of this movie seems to be its only realism. Realism is sacrificed in the name of style, but to wonderful effect. Anyone who would expect any less must not be at all familiar with Jeunet, the movie's director (see "City of Lost Children").
What this movie lacks in realism, it more than makes up for in style. Furthermore, while fans may have been disappointed by a lack of realism, I do not know how they could expect a character who was burnt to a crisp in the previous sequel to return within a realist paradigm. Even if it is science-fiction, one need only note that truly dead characters more often return to life in the likes of Friday the 13th and Halloween than 2001.
And the ending sequence of the film is beyond harrowing. One of the greatest all-time monster movie endings I have ever seen. However it is definitely not for those with a weak stomach.
Tell Your Friends