real_scripts Reviews

Juno (2007)

Unbelievably bad

[1/10 · 2 March 2010]

This is a testament to the fact that big companies can make almost anyone love something with enough marketing. This one seems to have a lot going for it. It's pseudo-independent, with a little known actress. It's relatively low budget, and it's quirky. (A quality the mainstream seems to automatically accept as misunderstood genius every time now days.) In the end even Jennifer Garner's multi-million dollar smile can't save this one.

A few days prior I had watched "My Life in Ruins" and I didn't think dialog could get much worse, but "Juno" outdoes it by miles. The sparse laughs in "My Life in Ruins" turns to maybe one wry smile throughout the whole of "Juno." The writing is terrible, especially the main character and her family are unbearable. She doesn't talk like a teenager. She runs her mouth constantly throughout the whole film and uses buzz words and phrases from pop culture throughout the whole movie. It's not in the least natural sounding at all. She's just plain stupid, stupid as a teenager and stupid as a mom. Her parents seem incredibly stupid also.

Meanwhile, she's dropping names like Dario Argento, and Juno says "This is even way better than Suspiria." First of all, what would a horror fan even be comparing those two directors for? Secondly, no Argento fan would suddenly claim Lewis is better. That had to be the writer forcing her own misguided views into the film. I mean that would be like trying to compare Alfred Hitchcock and Guillermo Del Toro, and just coming out saying Hitchcock was way better. There's a certain degree where you just can't compare two artists. The scene is just one small example from a horribly written film.

The film not only insulting to teens it's also insulting to mothers and to motherhood in general. I can't believe anyone likes this film, but I wish people would stop rating it so high because the film industry is going to keep making crap movies like this if people keep encouraging them.

Assassins (1995)

Hollywood trash with some slightly redeeming qualities

[6/10 · 2 January 2006]

The first time I saw this was in a Hotel room while I was on vacation. I only saw the last half so I didn't know the full scope of the plot, but it's a simple movie so that wasn't important. What stuck out in my mind was a performance by Antonio Banderes that was so memorable I had to go back and re-watch this in its entirety very recently. Unlike many of the other viewers who posted here, I thought Julianne Moore was terrible in this film. The character was bad enough, but Julianne Moore's interpretation of the script made this aspect of the film practically unbearable. She was the most annoying and dumb woman who could possibly be in any film. Not to mention, she was an insulting mockery of Seattle women by making it seem people from Seattle could actually be like her. Her sense of style was absurd, and that little raincoat was a joke. As if everyone in Seattle wears these ugly little raincoats. I've not been very impressed with Julianne Moore anyway. I'm sure she's a very nice person off the screen, but she just seems like a flavor of the month actress, which is probably why we aren't seeing too many hits featuring her lately.

The plot is not completely innovative or complex but it's satisfactory. Unfortunately, the film is riddled with unrealistic moments that resemble the old Tom and Jerry cartoons where everyone gets smashed up but they still survive.

Banderes is what makes this movie worth watching. When I saw this movie, I took on a new opinion of his abilities. His high strung personality along with the constant swearing under breath and emotional disruptions really made his character interesting to watch. There's a definite comedic edge to Bain which had me laughing through the whole movie.

The bottom line, it's not a good movie, but somehow still rewarding and worth watching.

Project A-Ko (1986)

Gives anime a bad name

[3/10 · 15 April 2005]

I'm not sure how this receives such high ratings, except that maybe since it's not very well known the viewers tend to be the hardest core anime fans who love the genre so much that they accept anything animated that comes out of Japan. Aside from containing all of the stereotypical moments that are delivered lavishly in the worst titles in the anime genre, the plot is so shallow and the events are completely implausible even within a fantasy world. A good example of what I mean is when the protagonist and antagonist are charging at each other full speed shouting at the tops of their lungs. This happens not once but about 10 times in the film. How unoriginal can these people be? Although the art is quite good and the animation is acceptable, this film is marred by a total lack of depth and style of plot development where the viewer is supposed to accept every slap in the face and insult that a film can deliver where the writers are fumbling to hold the plot together with one gimmick after the next. If you are the type of viewer who will accept anything the writers try to jam down your throat, you'll like Project A-Ko, but if you have any need for a good plot that is built up of events that are believable within a fantasy environment then stay well clear of Project A-Ko. Go for Escaflowne, Last Exile, Robotech, or Cowboy Bebop.

Dancer in the Dark (2000)

Disappointing from Lars Von Trier

[5/10 · 20 February 2005]

I'm an enormous fan of Lars Von Trier. I own "Element of Crime" and I also have great reverence for his thematically charged "Breaking the Waves. "Dogville," although slow moving and a bit forceful at moments, was still clever and effective. "Dancer in the Dark" is the worst I have seen from him. I guess it's fair to disclose that I'm not a Bjork fan. I think she has produced some OK songs in the past, but I don't care for her vocal style. She's decent with the Celtic influenced pop wailing routines, although not nearly as good as Sinead O'Connor, but since the songs written into "Dancer in the Dark" require more traditional Broadway style vocals, Bjork just can't do it. Her voice has no strength and her projection is poor. She's not singing from the diaphragm which shows very clear in the train scene by the frequency and depth of her breaths. I want to know why Lars Von Trier picked a modern Celtic singer to perform in a more or less traditional or Broadway style vocal role, with the exception of a couple of odd style scenes like the factory scene and so on. Even then, Bjork's vocal performance was very weak.

To make matters worse the music itself was very poorly written. These song writers were of the belief that you can take a bunch of dialog and just say it in a melodic manner and suddenly it's beautiful music. Come on, even the earliest rappers know you have to have some rhythm and rhyme or else it's not going to sound good.

***Attention Spoiler Below*** As a story it's forced and unrealistic. It's about a girl who is going blind but won't tell anyone even though she can barely walk on her own, a woman who is nominated to play the lead role in a theater production but has no singing or dance talent, a woman who tries to shield her son from any small hint of stress yet is quick to smack him if he skips school, a woman who has built a complete lie around her life to keep her son from knowing she's going blind, a man who will do anything for her even though she rejects him on a daily basis and shows no appreciation for him even when his life revolves around her, a man who is in severe debt but is able to get away with claiming he keeps a stack of 2056 dollars in ones, fives, and tens in his safe deposit box, and a correctional officer who is used to watching people executed but can't keep herself from developing a strong emotional attachment to the woman she has to execute. Well is about all that or is it really about a woman who is either retarded or has extreme psychological disorders? Incredible stories are good as long as the people in them don't act unbearably stupid. ***Attention Spoiler Above***

Despite some major flaws the movie is not awful. Bjork's performance is good, probably because she's a misfit and she portrays a misfit in the film so she didn't have to really act much. Although, I did find the absence of tears in the movie ridiculous, because she's crying in about half the scenes -- would it have broken the budget to keep an eyedropper on the set? I don't think she in any way deserves an Oscar or even an Oscar nomination for this because it doesn't really show any sort of versatility. I would hate to try to see her play Ellen Ripley in Aliens or something. That would just be too excruciating to watch. I give this movie a 5 of 10....some of Lars Von Trier's other movies are so much better and this just doesn't stack up to a lot of the other movies done in the same style, for example, John Cassavette's films, Ingmar Bergman films, and other Von Trier films like "Breaking the Waves."

Elektra (2005)

Reasons I can't take this film seriously.

[5 February 2005]

I have to start by saying I was an enormous fan of Frank Miller's original 1986 "Elektra Assassin" that blindsided hardcore comic fans and left them wanting more from this genius writer who for the third time gave us something that made him nothing other than a god of comic mythology. While Miller's landmark graphic novel was gritty, disturbing, controversial, political, unpredictable, and explosive, what we are handed in Elekra's biggest vehicle for exposure to the mainstream audiences is more subdued than the first Batman movie, which starred wimpy short guy Michael Keaton, who proved early on that the extent of his on-screen talent ended with changing messy diapers on a baby's bottom. What makes this an even more fitting analogy was the shroud of pre-release rumors that this film would actually be based on Frank Miller's writing. If we think back before 1989 comic fans were misled into thinking Burton's Batman was going to be at least remotely based on Frank Miller's "Dark Knight Returns." At the time we were sorely disappointed. Now, we have reason to be sorely disappointed again. Where Hollywood has yet again succeeded brilliantly is in destroying another classic concept in the implementation stage.

There is also another important level of analysis that shouldn't go unmentioned. The portrayal of the Elektra character herself was so far from the hit comic book character that there's practically no recognizable traits. Let's take a moment to congratulate Jennifer Garner for being one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood and for dazzling the audiences, leaving men mentally exhausted and out of breath after her most memorable film as of yet, "13 Going on 30." It was a film saved by nothing other than Jennifer Garner's bare legs, cleavage, and lustrous head of hair. Those three components of the film alone would add about 10 points to the score by many standards, leaving little purpose in trying to rate the movie from an academic viewpoint.

Now, setting aside all of the desirable aspects of Jennifer Garner, let's ask ourselves: does she look half Asian in any remote sense? Let's again ask ourselves: does she look half Asian? Notice I didn't ask if she looks half Japanese, because this film is made for people who couldn't tell you the difference between a Japanese, Chinese, Cambodian, Laotian, Vietnamese, Thai, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, etc. Moreover, where was the abundance of development of Elektra's history of training in the Dojo under a Japanese Sensei. I thought Hollywood left behind that nasty habit of fitting Asian characters with Anglo actors back in the 1970's. This film is a painful reminder that some people in Hollywood still can't get beyond the stereotype that Americans can only handle seeing white protagonists on the movie screen. Shame on you, Rob Bowman! And shame on you, 20th Century Fox! You've got no respect for ethnicity.

I could go on about it but the last thing I want to mention is that if we remember correctly, Elektra had a fondness for guns, sometimes big ones. She was also a master with the Samurai sword, among other weapons, including sais of course. Yet why does this film try to suggest the only weapon she knew how to use was this big clunky looking set of prop sais. I mean, come on, she was deadlier with the sword than she was with the sais any day.

So was Rob Bowman a big Elektra fan who aspired for many years of directing the movie on the subject of his dreams? I doubt it, or else why would have have treated the comics with such disrespect. Let this be a lesson to other Hollywood directors to have more respect for the subject matters they try to portray.

The Limey (1999)

A big fresh breath amidst the putrid air of modern Hollywood.

[10/10 · 13 January 2005]

I have not seen everything by Soderbergh, but this film is so good, I wouldn't hesitate to assume this is his best film ever. The Limey is marked by depth, sophistication, and style with adequate realism to make the story actually seem believable. The plot is simple, yet the script is so well-written that it makes an extremely compelling story, together with top-notch acting by Terrence Stamp and Peter Fonda and masterful direction by Soderbergh. The dialog is so natural that some moments almost seem candid, almost like a more polished version of Cassavettes. Small touches like gun shots that actually sound realistic add even more to the atmosphere of this film. Not to mention, the music is very fitting, and adds a great deal of suspense to an already suspenseful movie. I am not by any means an unconditional fan of Soderbergh, but this film is superb. So many films have failed to accomplish what this film succeeds in doing. 10 of 10 without question.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

Pathetic

[1/10 · 1 January 2005]

Napoleon Dynamite is some of the strongest evidence that the film industry marketing engine can take any piece of mindless garbage and convince the public they like it. The jokes are moronic, witless, and overused. The main character is unlikable, not because he is a Geek, but because he's an idiotic jerk. He doesn't have a molecule of charisma. He's just plain painful to watch. I don't mean the actor BTW, because I'm not familiar with him. I mean the character, because the script sucks.

There's a place on the screen for mindless comedy, but not for mindless trash that isn't funny whatsoever. Even as an off-beat comedy, I can't believe people are voting this almost as high as 1985 "After Hours," which people need to see if they like dry humor. Even "Office Space" is 1000 times more funny than "Napoleon Dynamite." People need to check their votes a little better and stop sucking up to these two-bit distributors, or else they're going to keep putting out this awful bunk. Damn, they're probably going to make a sequel and it's going to be even worse than the first.

Wing Commander (1999)

Highly Underrated

[10/10 · 10 November 2004]

Are you sure Malcolm McDowell was in this? I know David warner David Warner is and maybe someone might mistake them for being the same person, but I didn't see Malcolm McDowell.

Having never seen the film, I bought the DVD for 6 dollars. I wasn't expecting much, because the back of the DVD shows are not at all representative of the film. Anyway, I'm a fan of sci-fi, so I decided to give it a chance.

I have to honestly say, I was surprised at how well done this film is. The plot is surprisingly developed, and there were some twists and turns along the way to maintain the interest of the viewer. Some of the lines could be considered cheesy, but these moments were isolated and were mild compared to the culture of one-liners and insincere babble that the mainstream audiences accept out of the Hollywood trend setters.

Much of the dialogue was actually plausible, and well delivered by a competent cast. Freddie Prinze, Jr. looked like he was still shaking off the remnants of a trendy teenage mindset, but he was adequate. In fact, he's a new cadet. It's no wonder he would still be somewhat immature. Mathew Lillard's character is somewhat unlikable, but well-acted, and has some redeeming qualities at the same time. I think that was the while point.

Tchéky Karyo delivers a brilliant, emotional performance. I wasn't familiar with this actor before but he is amazing.

As far as the mechanics of the film, it presents space fighting and space scenarios in a deep and intriguing manner. The good special effects helped to make it believable. The solid plot was garnished by some tense moments that seemed almost influenced by Wolfgang Peterson's landmark Das Boot. Throughout the film, Roberts brought about quite a bit of philosophical and historical content. This material was quite expertly woven throughout the film, and is tied tightly with the ending of the film as well. For that, he deserves many points. Because it's something that mainstream Hollywood seems to not be able to get right after all these years of practice.

Overall, I would recommend this for any sci-fi fan. Sadly, good sci-fi films are always underrated by the mainstream audiences. Even more sad is that there aren't enough quality films in this exceptional genre. We're handed these silly, insulting films something like The Day Robots Pummeled the Earth. Or else films that are completely tethered by poor special effects. Or we're handed a world that is set up in a very deliberate, expert manner, then expected to accept the fact that anything goes, no matter how ridiculous or silly the film unfolds after the halfway point, like in Event Horizon. Those types of film give the genre a terrible reputation, and Wing Commander certainly stands out as a superior film amongst all the garbage producers try to pass off as sci-fi. It's a definite recommend for sci-fi fans. 8/10 as a film.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Good, but not without faults.

[7/10 · 13 October 2004]

This is, of course, a popular film. I happen to own this DVD, but at the same time there are only a few scenes that stick out as spectacular in the genre of war films. The few well done battle scenes were the reason I bought this, but some of the glaring faults are what would lead me to give this film a 7 out of 10, rather than 10 out of 10 as productions like Black Hawk Down and even Band of Brothers deserve.

First, one of the most obvious problems with the film starts right in the opening scene. We see all these dirty faced, rugged looking men on their way into what is certainly the scariest moment of their lives. Then suddenly we see baby-face Tom Hanks with his smooth skin clean shaven and groomed like the son of a politician. It creates a contrast right there in the opening scene that is disruptive to the mood and becomes disruptive later on in the film as well. Don't get me wrong. Tom Hanks is a great actor, but he looked 100 times more rugged in Castaway as he did in this film.

Secondly, was Vin Diesel. OK, so people like him. Don't get me wrong here either. I'm not going to claim that he lacks intelligence outside of his films, although I know he did drop out of college but that's not relevant. However, in his films it seems like he always plays characters who don't display an IQ higher than 70. I'm not so sure this is how the characters were written as much as it is how he plays the roles. His acting is unnatural, stiff, forced, and lacks realism. He just comes off idiotic in all of his movies. He became known in the film world for a film he wrote and directed, I believe. Maybe he should try his hand at that instead of trying to be the next Arnold Swartzenegger, because he's not buff enough and he's too awkward as an actor to play that role.

Third, as I said before, the film has some great battle scenes, which is why I bought the DVD, but we have these moments that would best be described as superficial moments in the film. For example, these moments that seem like they are in place only to demonstrate Tom Hanks witticism, or moments that make the Nazi soldiers like idiots. Those scenes seemed unrealistic and annoying. Contrast this with Band of Brothers and you'll see what I mean. It's a serious film. Not a film that requires moments of dry humor. Spielberg dropped the ball on those aspects of the film.

Good film, but as a war film, not nearly as good as Band of Brothers, Platoon, or Black Hawk Down.

Tenebrae (1982)

One of Argento's all time greatest

[10/10 · 1 March 2004]

I see quite a few negative comments about this film. The comments don't do any sort of justice to the film, obviously, because if this film were not one of the greatest Giallo films all time, dozens of other top movie directors would not have borrowed style and concepts from this film. There are several scenes in this film that had never been done before and have never been paralleled since. If not in concept, definitely not in perfection of delivery. It is a shame to compare this to Suspiria. Although Suspiria was a landmark film that changed the genre of horror, I would bet Argento himself would agree that it was also the stepping stone for his future works which include even some of the fine films he has released more recently. Suspiria was primarily an experiment in stylistic narration for Argento. While making Tenebre, on the other hand, Argento used stylistics as tools to develop the plot. It is ignorant to say Tenebre lacks style, because there is a Vivid quality to this film achieved through technical perfection of photography, film lighting, special effects, and acting that takes us a large step beyond the vividness that was achieved in Suspiria. Suspiria was more like a dream, whereas Tenebre was closer to the horrors that sometimes really do occur. Argento has always been concerned with character motivations, but in this film he takes it to an even more detailed level than he did in Opera, by making the viewer relive the past just as Peter Neal once lived it. These scenes were shot with an amazing vivid quality. Of course, Argento's films are always photographed in a technically advanced manner, but frame by frame Tenebre is technically perfect. For anyone who doesn't see the mastery in this film, I recommend going back and watching it again. Observe some of the amazing camera work and listen to the music. Don't expect a two hour pitch from a two-bit script agent, like some of the films that have been coming out of Hollywood for the last 10 years. It's a film that is deep in concept and artistry.