Change Your Image
fourstringwizard
Reviews
Jodorowsky's Dune (2013)
Fascinating, if not very biased
With all the hype over the recent release of Dune Part 2, I decided to check out this documentary since there's still a lot of buzz about this legendary, almost mythic, unmade film. Now, reviews for this are quite polarized, with one camp singing Jodorowsky's praises and lamenting the loss of "the greatest film never made", while the other side dismisses this as a sycophantic slog that is more propaganda than documentary. Having watched it, I can safely say there is truth to BOTH sides.
To start, this indeed is a very biased documentary. It paints Jodorowsky as an unrecognized genius who was robbed of the opportunity of a lifetime by greedy Hollywood executives. We're treated to a lot of talking, a lot of hype, a few images, and a LOT of unsubstantiated claims. Some of them I found too coincidental to truly believe, like him stumbling across Mic Jagger who instantly agrees to be in his movie. This is one example among many odd coincidences and unusual strokes of luck that made me seriously question their validity. But even if all his claims are true, fans of the "Dune" books should probably be glad this movie was never made, for several reasons. First, I'm a firm believer that filmmakers should respect the source material, and Jodorowsky (by his own admission!) had no intention of doing so. He didn't even read the book. In fact, if you believe IMDB trivia, Frank Herbert himself despised many of the concepts put forth in this movie. In addition to being a trippy (and probably disturbing) visual onslaught, the film would have completely missed the point and spirit of the source material. Some of the plot points would have, if possible, been even more bizarre and outlandish than the books, but not necessarily in a good way.
That said, I respect creativity when I see it, and there was truly a lot of it here. The concepts, design, cinematography were truly genius and, dare I say it, ahead of their time. When you see what was planned, I don't think it's far-fetched to say that the unused ideas for this film provided inspiration for other movies that came later. Is the influence exaggerated? Probably, but it is there. The end product, if nothing else, would likely have been visually stunning and an achievement in cinematography. Now, some have dismissed Jodorowsky as a con man who had no intention of actually seeing this film through, but I disagree. The man seemed to have genuine passion for this project with an equally strong, lingering resentment that it was never approved.
Do I believe this would have been the "biggest science fiction film ever made" as this documentary claims? No. Do I think it would have been better than films like 2001 or Star Wars (as this also claims)? Not for a second. However, if nothing else, this documentary is a fascinating look into the mind of an ambitious, if also somewhat nutty filmmaker, the passion he put into this project, and how Hollywood greed can hamper creativity. We continue to see that to this day.
Trick 'r Treat (2007)
The best Halloween movie ever made!
Notice I said "Halloween", not "horror" movie. That's because while there are a plethora of horror movies out there, very few of them capture the spirit of the holiday itself. Now, if you're looking for something with intense scares, this is NOT it. There are certainly scary parts, but this film does not take itself too seriously, which ends up being a good thing. This movie, rather, is a director's love letter to Halloween and all the ways we experience it, and if you ask me, he pulled it off! Told as an anthology where different stories intersect at various points, this movie is equal parts funny, scary, innocent, and adult - again, much like Halloween itself. You have characters from all stages of life experiencing and celebrating the holiday similar to how we would. Not to mention, as one would expect, there are many Easter eggs and nods to other horror icons sprinkled throughout the movie.
It's easy to nitpick on a film like this, and to be fair, it's far from perfect. However, very few directors would be able to pull off a film that balances out laughs and scares all while telling five different interwoven stories. Dougherty, however, manages to do just that. One thing that also sets this film apart is just how colorful it is. This movie forsakes the "washed out" look most horror films go for and instead gives us a vibrant palette in the form of orange jack o lanterns, bright Halloween lights, colorful costumes, etc. It really is a treat (no pun intended) for the eyes. Next Halloween, give this movie a watch! Even if it's not your favorite horror movie, it's almost sure to leave an impression on you.
Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)
Everything you loved (and hated) about the original Avatar is back
When the first movie came out, it was hailed as a technical marvel but was criticized for having a pretty cheesy and shallow plot. Well, this movie has both of those attributes dialed up to 11. The visuals, if possible, are even more impressive than those in the first movie. When I say the characters and environments are photo-realistic, that is not an exaggeration. This is one of the most visually impressive movies I've seen. That said, the plot is somehow even MORE bare-bones and cheesy than the first. Again, it's not exaggerating to say that about halfway through, I lost track of what the story was even about. You get so wrapped up in the visuals and the world that it's easy to get lost in it. That is both a good and a bad thing. Characters are, for the most part, pretty one-dimensional, especially the villains, who are about as shallow as you can get. The only exception to the bad guys is Stephen Lang's Quaritch who is a bit more fleshed out than his initial incarnation. The problem is there are so many new characters that it's difficult to give each one their proper due, although to be fair, the movie makes decent use of the time it has. Speaking of time, this movie is LONG. While the first one was long, this one drags on way longer than it needed to. By the end, even with the all the action going on, I found myself saying "Ok, let's wrap this up!".
A couple other aspects I found refreshing: despite James Cameron's weird comments on "testosterone", this movie depicts fathers and fatherhood in a positive light. Also, it doesn't rely on awkwardly-inserted quips to force a laugh out of the audience *cough* MARVEL *cough*, but instead lets the drama unfold on screen. In summary, if you loved the visuals of the first movie, you'll definitely enjoy the ones here. If the lack of a plot from the first ruined it for you, then you might want to avoid this one.
The Green Knight (2021)
Pretentious drag that butchers the source material
As so many others have said, the best thing I can say about this movie is that it is visually appealing. For what it's worth, it really makes the best of its $15 million budget. That said, I wish I had more good things to say about it since I happen to be a fan of the poem its based off. My biggest grip is how this movie utterly bastardizes the source material, and I'm not talking about plot deviations; I'm referring to how it utterly fails to capture the spirit of the original story. The original poem is an idealization of the knight, while this is a shameless deconstruction. And yes, I realize that was the director's intent, but that does not make the film any better (in some ways, it makes it worse). Plus I happen to be one of those people who's grown tired of all these Hollywood "deconstructions".
Perhaps the film would have been better if Gawain himself wasn't turned into such an unlikable character. In the old poem, he was flawed, but here, he's downright despicable. He fails at everything from being honorable, to being brave, to even being a decent fighter (example: he gets bested by a trio of thieves in a laughably easy way). Again, I realize he's supposed to be unlikable, but it makes his "redemption" in the end all the more unrealistic and out of character. Plus, this film insists so much upon being dark and brooding that it fails to remind its audience why they should care. When it's done, you're left asking "what was the point of all that?"
Oh, and yes, the movie drags. A lot. That didn't bother me as much as it did others, but again, its snail pace proved irritating. I guess in summary, If dark, brooding, slow "deconstructions" are your thing, this might be work checking out. Otherwise, my advice is find a better way to spend two hours.
Stranger Things (2016)
Season 3 = huge disappointment
Here are some ideas for improving season 4:
1. Kill Erica
2. Kill Max
10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
NOT related to "Cloverfield", but still worth seeing
Don't be fooled by the film's title - it is in no way related to "Cloverfield." You can't even call it a "blood relative" (as some reviewers have done), because they're both very different movies. If you go in expecting a sequel or tie-in, you'll be disappointed. I'd wager the only reason they share titles was to attract more viewers.
That said, this movie is an entertaining little sci-fi thriller that uses a "less is more" approach. Don't expect a lot of jump scares or action on the level of "Cloverfield". Rather, expect a constant sense of tension and danger. My main gripe with this movie is the ending, which I think could have been written WAY better, and somehow just didn't fit with the rest of the movie.
However, the best part of this movie is John Goodman's performance. As someone who's used to seeing him in more "good guy" roles, his role here was very refreshing, and he nailed it to perfection. I think it's worth seeing just for that, even if you just end up "Red Box"-ing this title.
The Good Dinosaur (2015)
Just what was Pixar thinking?
For some reason, even though I don't review movies often, I was compelled to write a review on this one (probably because I was shocked that Pixar could even put their name on this, let alone after a movie as great as "Inside Out"). I finally saw this as a Red Box rental, and when it was done, I was amazed...at how bad it was.
So why was it bad? (My in-depth, spoiler-containing review is below), but to summarize, this movie was riddled with scenes that were either pointless, violent, or downright disturbing, and not at all appropriate for little children. The tone was all over the place, the characters were un-compelling, the emotions were forced, and overall it just wasn't fun to watch. If you're a parent and are debating whether to show this to your kids, my advice is don't.
For my longer, spoiler-containing review:
First off, I'll address probably the best thing about this movie: the animation. The background animation is stellar. It's so good, some parts look as though they're real footage. However, that said, the characters themselves look like they were taken out of a Gary Larson cartoon. It contrasts very awkwardly with the ultra-realistic backgrounds. I get that this may have been intentional, but it just doesn't work here.
The context of the story is this: dinosaurs have evolved and can speak, farm, and build structures, and human beings are basically dogs. I have a really hard time taking both these concepts seriously, but I realize that's more of a personal thing, so that's all I'll say on that.
For the main characters, you have Arlo (the dinosaur), who starts out as an unlikable wimp, and Spot (the human boy) who swings between funny and irritating quite often. As far as the tone, it's all over the place. This movie doesn't know if it wants to be tragic, sad, scary, or happy. But to make matters worse, it goes overboard on the dark/disturbing parts. Some examples of this:
-The main character's dad getting killed in a flood (more on that later) -Spot ripping a giant bug's head off with his teeth -A dinosaur brutally eating an animal it had just pretended to rescue -Arlo and Spot eating a drug plant and hallucinating -A dinosaur bragging about drowning a gator in a pool of his own blood
Yup, this all from a 'kid's' movie. Now, a lot of reviewers have compared the scene of Arlo's dad dying to "Lion King", and rightly so. There are a lot of parallels between the two scenes. However, the father's death in "Lion King" served a purpose. It was foreshadowed and served as the catalyst for the rest of the plot. In "The Good Dinosaur", however, Arlo's father dying is utterly pointless. The story could have turned out largely the same if he'd lived. And that's what this movie is full of - brutality just for brutality's sake.
Even in the end, the emotions feel forced. The movie wants you to feel sad and emotional for how things turn out, but the emotion isn't earned (if that makes any sense).
So in the end, I guess what I'm saying is, stick with "Inside Out."
American Sniper (2014)
A powerful film, but must be seen with an open mind
Let me start by saying I read Chis Kyle's autobiography before seeing the movie, and I'm really glad I did. It's a great read, and there's so much more to his story than even the movie can tell. While I don't write a ton of reviews on this site, I've felt the need to defend this movie from the hoards of people who feel compelled to bash both it and Chris Kyle.
First off, to the people who may be worried this film is mere propaganda, I can't stress enough that it is NOT. Unfortunately, some people will automatically dismiss something that's even slightly pro-American as propaganda (I guess it's no longer politically correct to show America in a positive light). But don't be fooled, this is not pro-war. It is, however, very pro-veteran. The movie is meant to show one thing: that war is hell, and that it takes a toll not just on the soldiers, but their loved ones as well. Yes, it's true that it shows some Iraqis as bad guys, but that's because many of them were. However, the movie also makes it clear that there were many innocent Iraqis who just wanted to live their lives in peace. To play devil's advocate, I can see how some people MIGHT see this as propaganda, but they're forgetting one thing: this film is Chris Kyle's story, and it's told from his perspective, which brings me to my next point.
A LOT of reviewers on this site are condemning Chris Kyle; calling him things like a "psychopath", a "heartless killer" and even a "coward". It's very sad. A psychopath is someone who totally lacks empathy and will go out of their way to harm others. Chris Kyle was none of those. Yes, he killed people, but that was because he had to. He was a soldier. His duty was to protect his comrades, and that was the reason he took those lives. War doesn't give you time to ponder right and wrong. Hesitation might make the difference between life and death. The haters also love to bring up the fact that he shot a woman, as if this makes him an evil person. I guess they would have preferred it if he had let her throw that grenade and kill American soldiers... (I say woMAN by the way, because he only shot one woman during his time in Iraq, as his biography states). Also, while it's true that Chris Kyle shot people from "afar", he was also in front-line duty a lot as well. I know this because I read the damn book and saw the movie. I'm convinced many of the people who are leaving 1-star reviews haven't actually seen it, because I see them get facts wrong left and right.
So, to all the people judging Chris Kyle, grow up. You haven't been through what he went through. It doesn't take any guts to bash someone from behind a computer screen, especially one who's dead. This man saved a lot of American lives, and that was all he cared about (not his kill numbers). The only people fit to criticize Kyle's tactics are people who've actually been through war themselves, and the only one fit to judge him is God. Not some random schmo on the internet.
As far as my thoughts on the film itself: as I already said, there's a lot to Chris Kyle's story, and a movie can only fit so much. However, I think Clint Eastwood did a great job of showing the important parts, especially the moments that changed Kyle's life. The main focus of the story is his struggle with serving both his country and his family, and the toll it takes on his mind. The film does a beautiful job of capturing his struggle and the mental scars that follow him long after he returns home. Bradley Cooper does an outstanding job, and the man is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors in Hollywood. One important thing I will say, however: Chris Kyle never engaged "Mustafa" in combat. I suppose they included this to add a central "bad guy", but honestly, I think it was unnecessary. Kyle's story is interesting enough without Hollywood embellishment, but it didn't ruin the story for me.
In summary, my suggestion is go see this movie if you're on the fence! More so, thank a veteran for what they do. They put themselves through hell to serve their country, for better or worse. If you can't leave your biases at the door, however, then this film is not for you.
Thank you, veterans. R.I.P. Chris Kyle.
Babysitter Wanted (2007)
Nothing special
This movie's gotten a low rating, but I really don't understand the comments I'm reading that are giving this 8 stars or more. I for one was less than impressed.
First of all, the movie was too long. The beginning was slow and its only purpose seemed to add time to the film. The acting was not very convincing, the plot was predictable, and it included every slasher/horror cliché ever used. The good guys are all stupid (though I guess that's normal for these types of films), and the plot twist involving the child (Sam) was honestly laughable and terribly done. The way the parents behaved after the viewer found out the truth only made them seem even more ridiculous and unbelievable than before.
On top of that, the movie in general just wasn't...well, scary. It was tense in some parts, and gory in others, but for the most part, it failed to deliver. By the end of the movie, I was laughing more than cringing. This is one of those movies that can sneak up on you. While watching it, you may think, "Wow, this is cool!", but after thinking about it, you realize just how inane it was.
Obviously, others may disagree. I won't try to stop you from seeing this movie. Just be warned, if you do, you'll basically be watching a hash of all the slasher movies you've seen already.
Family Guy: Not All Dogs Go to Heaven (2009)
Some of you need to get a clue
For those of you who are atheist/agnostic and/or hardcore liberal, you can pass this up. For those of you who aren't, pay attention.
It just amazes me the sheer stupidity or lack of spine some people show. It isn't enough that Seth Macfarlane has to emphasize the fact that he's atheist in almost every episode now, he has to do it while ridiculing those who don't think the way he does.
Yes, A LOT of groups are targeted in Family Guy, but did you ever notice that Seth targets certain groups much more than others? This is, you guessed it, the religious and the conservatives. It's evolved from tongue-in-cheek, subtle satire to flat-out bashing. And I'm sick of it.
Take this episode: people are saying it was funny, but seem to look over where the humor stems from. The whole premise of the episode is to make a mockery of the belief in God. Family Guy is no longer the silly sitcom it once was; it's a platform for Seth to speak his political mind, regardless of who he offends. And people are willing to let it slide so long as they get a few chuckles on the side. Tell me, some of you so-called Christians, do you have any pride at all? Or are you just content to let Family Guy walk all over your beliefs while essentially calling you stupid and a bad guy in the process? As if THAT wasn't enough, politics aside, the show just isn't as funny anymore. It over-utilizes cutaway scenes to where it's almost like watching Robot Chicken, except half aren't even funny. The remaining bulk of humor comes from overused gags and gay jokes concerning Stewie. (God, I miss evil Stewie) The old charm just isn't there.
Yes, I'm ranting, but I just hate what Family Guy has become. And you can tell me I suck or my review sucks, but unless you're looking at this through fanboy glasses, you know I'm right.
Now I know what you're going to say: if you don't like it, don't watch it. Trust me, I won't. I refuse to support a show created by such an obnoxious jerk. But I will shed a tear for a show that I once loved to death. RIP, old Family Guy.