Sznfctm Reviews

Monster (2008 Video)

A monster movie without a monster

[2/10 · 21 May 2009]

Okay maybe this is not a rip-off of Cloverfield, and maybe I should not have watched it a few days after said movie. But still, Monster is almost exactly the same with chicks (you could sell anything with chicks, right?), without a decent plot, acting, and sadly, without a monster.

We get two girls who are in Japan to make a documentary, when Tokyo is hit by an earthquake. And this is when the movie starts to get irreversibly bad and annoying. Because the two girls, however cute they may be, just cannot seem to use the camera. In the middle of a monster attack, *everything* is filmed, except for what is actually happening. When our heroines are staring with their jaws dropped at something supposedly terrible, the camera is well... showing them, their jaws dropped, staring. Then cut, or artifacts on the film (at every 5 seconds, or when something interesting is about to happen), and we go to the next scene. Rinse and repeat. In the end, we are given 90 minutes of artifacts, girls being scared and talking nonsense, running somewhere (filming each other's legs in the process), and just hanging out in Tokyo, obviously afraid of some tentacle monster that they always fail to capture with the camera.

Besides of not being able to make a point (it is hard when you point the camera at your sister instead of at whatever is happening around you), the movie fails to convey a sense of plot. We know where the girls are trying to go, but we just do not care if they ever get there, or what happens if they do. There is simply no drama, no excitement, mostly due to the bad use of camera, and the long talky scenes, and short scary ones (usually cut by artifacts, or simply, darkness).

I can't help but to compare this movie to Cloverfield, where you got a monster, and after some time, you actually got interested in where the group is going, and in the end, you cared. Monster could have been a great movie, even without showing the monster, if it manages to make you feel for the girls, but it sadly fails. It is not simply bad, but also an uninteresting movie.

Semper Fi (2001 TV Movie)

Entertainment for marines and wannabes

[7 September 2004]

I'm just watching this movie, but I don't really like it, especially after I read the other comments. I mean, come on! Who'd be entertained to see the training of US Marines, no matter how accurate it is? As the only plot for a movie, it's sadly weak. You can find anything almost this accurate and heroic, with some action, real actors, even historical background, so why make this? The only reason I can think of is to recruit people to the Corps, especially when I see the moments where the instructors get 'soft'. This is like saying: "Join today, behind the strong, brave, heroic outlook, we are family." So - my advise is: if you want to join, see it first, and get tuned on to the task. If you have no such intentions, you might as well skip it for something less real, with more action - you'll hardly find any entertainment here.

The Whole Ten Yards (2004)

Far below ANY expectation

[3/10 · 5 September 2004]

I've just seen this movie, so impressions are pretty fresh. And honestly, I just LOVED the previous one, Whole Nine Yards. It was great, not only because of starring Bruce Willis in a comic role (which is pretty hard to find), but also because of the great cast of Matthew Perry (doing all kinds of goofs and playing quite an idiot ;) ), the beautiful and dangerous-looking Amanda Peet, and also, Natasha Henstridge, about whom I don't think I should add anything else, I mean, we know she's gorgeous, and also a pretty good actress. All in all, great cast, good story, and great laughs - it was the first episode for me.

*** MINOR SPOILERS ***

And now, coming to this. I didn't really think it might be a good idea to make a sequel to such a movie, but somewhere deep inside I feared that it'll become like this if it's ever made. I mean, on longer terms, what could the beautiful ex-mobster-wife Henstridge want from Perry? And what'd Bruce Willis alias Jimmy the Tulip be, if he settled down with a girl? This is all stupid. I dunno who thought that it'll be a good laugh if they showed all this to the public, but it was rather annoying. Neurotic Willis, taking care of the household, and also, neurotic Perry, who doesn't seem to grow up after getting hold of a lot of money and a beautiful wife. Whereas the end of the first part was great, touching, and totally happy-end (I just love when the geek gets the hottie :)) ), it begins somewhere like "10 years later", adding the realism no-one wants to see in a comedy. Frankly, after a happy end, I don't wanna see all this stuff happening, it's simply too much like real life. And as the movie continues, it gets even worse: Oz getting lower and lower, being just a doormat throughout the whole story, and in the end finding out the point of the whole plot at last (together with the audience) - it's horrible! I mean, come on! After some chasing, some action, and some not-so-mild humiliation of the characters we got to love in the first part, in the last 2 minutes we get to figure out why it all happened... now are we supposed to feel any better? Despite of all the outcome, the film was still about trashing all of the characters, and after the first 20 minutes I started to be angry and hate all of them, and there was about 60 more to go. All this, just to have a very brief, tiny moment of "catharsis" (which definitely didn't happen)? Well... nice script. Really.

*** END OF SPOILERS ***

Otherwise, there are some funny moments. I simply love the new mobster, Lazlo Gogolak, and however his mother farts all the time, which has never been funny (it sucks big time in every movie it gets introduced as a joke), at least she spoke some Hungarian for real! :)) And besides, Lazlo was a really funny character, along with the rest of the mobsters, especially his son. At least, they didn't ruin the well-built reputation of the Hungarian mob from the first part (maybe 'cos there was nothing to ruin :) ).

So... I'd recommend this film to those who like melodrama, and hate comedies, and those who hated the first one - they'll both find it growing up to their expectations. Those who actually liked the first, take care: this is much worse, the characters, and the story as well. In fact, this movie is far less than anybody who have ever seen the first, would expect. My vote is 3 of 10, just to honor the cast... it's not their fault after all.

One Magic Christmas (1985)

Touching movie - in a good way.

[8/10 · 15 August 2004]

** Spoilers herein!!! **

I've just seen this movie, due to my job. Otherwise I don't really like Christmas movies, they all have the same "let's make it touching" slimy, greasy feel to them, and I feel a bit old for that. But this one - I found it very enjoyable, and - most surprisingly, even for myself - touching in a very special way.

The story is about a poor family, especially about the mother, who doesn't believe in Christmas, and thus, doesn't like it. A Christmas angel is sent to make things right, and through a quite simple, but very twisting story (somewhere in the middle I was very surprised, and it got even better towards the end), he, of course, succeeds. The whole thing is so special, so unusual, so emotional - it's hard to describe. In the middle, just before you start to be bored by the poorness of the family - which is very deeply described, altogether with its impact on the parents' emotions -, the story breaks, and from then on, at first you'll be depressed (or at least, I was), and then, as the unbelieving mother gets back her faith, you're getting more and more cheerful too. I don't know how this film got to me so much, but it did, and since it's done in an unique way (not the usual cliches for kids), I don't mind at all.

The positive aspects are Harry Dean Stanton (I saw him in Alien, and at first, it was very unlikely that he'll make a good angel after being eaten by a space monster ;) ) as Gideon, who is a perfect Christmas angel: misterious, but very-very likeable, and you can't help feeling some simpathy for him from the beginning. At first, I thought about Mary Steenburgen as a negative point, but I figured that she was so annoying because it felt much more dramatic when she changed in the end, when she became a totally different, very nice person. Also, Elisabeth Harnois, playing Abbie, is very-very cute and plays just fine. And, I like the happy end - however, it's a Disney after all. :)

[***Here come some major spoilers, be advised!***] Negative aspects are the happy end to begin with, however: the change in the mothers beliefs is not quite realistic: after you've lost your husband, and almost your kids as well, you're not gonna change because of a mere letter sent back by Santa. Also, the ending is VERY overdone in my opinion: why does everybody got to be happy? Harry, the would-be robber getting 50 bucks is okay (he was a great character by the way, simple, but very original), but Herbie, the shop manager, keeping Ginny in and giving her a break - most unlikely. Why didn't she get a raise all of a sudden? Then I really would've shaken hands with the director... :)) And, the very end with the money was also soooo predictable (however, it's the least I expected, so well done. :) )

But hey, it's Christmas, you go all with these things, and don't get disturbed, 'cos it's a very-very nice movie after all, and once it starts to twist and turn, you begin to wait what's gonna happen next, even tough it has a pretty simple story. I really recommend this movie for everybody, even kids (despite someone mentioned the shooting scene... my message to worried parents concerning this movie: "Beware, reality may cause damage to your children's minds!" :)) ), and Christmas-movie-cliche haters, like me. You won't be disappointed at all!

Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970)

A must-see for anyone interested in WWII!

[9/10 · 17 April 2004]

I've not yet finished Tora Tora Tora, I have about 20 minutes left, but I was already impressed after the first 30 minutes. It's one of the best fact-based WWII movies. Unlike Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor, it looks and feels like something backed up with historical facts, from the first minute to the last. Instead of greasy love scenes with young Americans, you see both sides of the story from the beginning to the end. Most interestingly, the film doesn't try to judge the events - a rare thing to see in a war movie! -, it just explains and shows them all, and lets the audience do the rest. I think it's the most important reason I'd recommend it to people interested in history and WWII. A well-done historical movie - not a very hollywood-ish one, but feels like seeing history itself!

The Medallion (2003)

Jackie Chan goes to Hollywood... again.

[10/10 · 1 February 2004]

I never really liked Jackie Chan: his movies were full of the same fighting scenes, where he used all kinds of props to defeat adversaries - not really my kind of a movie, and moreover, it was boring as hell after a time. But recently - he's getting better and better.

The Tuxedo, as one of his better films, perhaps was not serious enough for hardcore Jackie-fans, as it was more like a comedy with some special effects than the usual stun-Jackie stuff. While the Tux were a little boring, it started to make Jackie a hollywood action/comedy hero. In The Medallion, it gets all better.

Okay, let's not overrate the movie: it was a comedy/action/adventure film with a fair story (enough for a background, too little for a real adventure) and directing, as well as great stunts and - fortunately - only a bit of prop-fighting from Jackie (fans don't hate me please, at least it was very-very entertaining this way), and a great deal of supporting roles (cliches, I give you that, but superbly played anyway). Claire Forlani gave her best, Julian Sands reminisced his warlock-movies, and... well, John Rhys-Davies should've played a bigger role.

Overall, this movie showed something from the future of Jackie, making comedies with stunts instead of fight movies. I recommend this movie to those who prefer a fairly light action-comedy. Those who didn't like the Tuxedo, or Jackie in typical Hollywood movies, will at least dislike this as well.

In my opinion, go Jackie, go! :) 10 of 10 for being exactly as I expected - not much more, but nothing less!

House of the Dead (2003)

House of the Dumb

[1/10 · 25 January 2004]

There are actually two kinds of game-adaptation movies: good ones, like Resident Evil, for example, and bad ones, like... like House of the Dead. However, this was not simply a bad movie: it was more like strange, stupid, pointless, AND bad. Oh, and let's not forget dumb - from all angles.

First of all, the story... let's see. A few kids are running up and down, chased by zombies, and eventually getting caught only to die a completely meaningless and unnecessary death. And this is not a plot summary, this is the whole story! I imagine the screenplay didn't have much more details than this. Then, the acting. Now that was funny... except for Jurgen Prochnow the actors were young "talents", but they didn't show much, mostly ran around screaming or shooting, before ending up dead. Fortunately the characters had no details and dimensions at all, so I didn't feel sorry for them when all of a sudden they died the most stupid way they could (one moment they were fighting like combat marines, the next they were zombie food, like if the director decided it was their turn to sacrifice themselves for nothing).

Other than those, there were a few remarkable effects in the movie I can't help mentioning. Before anyone starts to guess how much it resembled the game, I tell you: a hundred and ten per cent. First of all, there were scenes cut out directly from the arcade version of the game and placed into the movie one-in-one. This means you see the kids shooting, then for a sec you get a shooting scene from the game, then you see the kids again. There were plenty of such 'tricks' here and there - how very original, artistic, and incredibly DUMB of the director... Otherwise, fights were exactly the same as in the game, but seeing it in an arcade is more entertaining than in a movie. Imagine kids with huge guns, totally unaware of their lives being at stake or their friends getting killed time after time, shooting at countless zombies swarming around them (really, there were lots of scenes where you saw one of the "heroes" in slow-motion, shooting at a zombie running at him, while there were dozens of other monsters just running around, clearly without any intention to attack). Then, throw in a few bullett time effects (or something remotely alike), where there is your hero shooting/kicking/grinning, and the camera goes around him like in the player selection of any prestigeous arcade game. This looks good in the one-millionth episode of the Mortal Kombat series, but come on, are we doing a movie here or what? Dumb again.

Finally, a few words about the genre... just to see clearly. Horror... there was a significant amount of blood for sure, but the zombies looked more like old men and women, and seeing them chewing on the characters was laughable at most. Thriller - why so? I was not afraid a bit, only astonished by all this movie had to give. Mystery, now that's true: in the last 10 minutes or so, the remaining heroes uncovered an old legend connected to the zombies, which, however, didn't play any role at all in the plot. It just... WAS. And, to say the least, it was DUMB. Action? I give you that. There was plenty of it, from all kinds: all-out, frontal, gunpowder-smelling, sweaty, bullett-timey, arcade action. Dumb and pointless, that's true, but action

indeed.

What else should I say? I would recommend this movie to any who wants a good laugh at a stupid zombie flick with poor acting and no story. Otherwise - you may as well skip it and see a real horror movie.

No secret: 1 of 10