Change Your Image
aroussil
Reviews
Revenge (2000)
One of the worst films I have ever seen
The other comments that rave about this pathetic attempt at filmaking must be members of the cast's families. I had to view it till the end, hypnotized by disbelief. It's a serial killer story like Clint Eastwood's "Sudden Impact". Typical of poor writing, it requires the good guys to have a collective IQ under 20 otherwise the feature would be ten minutes long. Everything is telegraphed from beginning to end. The detectives are continuously behind a very stupid criminal who would have been caught by the lowliest real detective. People are dropping like flies under the most suspicious circumstances, they know the originating incident and everything is virtually lying in front of them, but they just can't figure it out. Also indicative of very poor writing, the characters ore full of attitude without anything between the lines. I would use this film to show film students what not to do as it contains all the errors a filmmaker can make. To top all this, It has that glossy stilted, commercial, TV, Canadian, Kodak film stock look. There is a complete lack of attention to any kind of detail. It's really hard to know where to start on this lemon. It always amazes me that you can actually finance such crap without anyone noticing.
Starship Troopers (1997)
Europe VS America
Europeans just don't get it. Heinlein is pure American and his Ideas are almost Jeffersonian. They don't get Capra either. It seems naive and sentimental. The don't buy the message and don't believe for a minute that one man can win against the powers that be. Paul Verhoeven doesn't believe Heinlein's Ideals and it shows. Heinlein never saw this future as a fascist society as many people who saw the film seem to think. This was a proposal for an Ideal society based on his interpretation of American Ideals. Voting is much less important than innate civil rights. Only those who give up their freedom through Civil service can vote. The entire philosophical aspect is there but weak and this severely handicaps the film. The casting was very television-B movie and the costumes were awful. The whole Robo-cop feel was transposed onto the film. It would have required someone that actually had a feel for Heinlein to sell the underlying Ideas. Even the military camaraderie was botched. In Aliens the military felt much closer to Heinlein and Cameron or Ridley Scott would have done a much better job. There went a chance to make a really powerful film. God help us when they decide to do "Strangers in a Strange Land"
Battlefield Earth (2000)
Pulp fiction, alien style.
L. Ron Hubbard would have advised against doing this movie because he had a realistic view of his writing skills. He was a gun for hire and paid by the word for any pulp genre. Scientologists should read Hubbard's prefaces to the very books they so venerate. Aside from being too long a book, the pulp formula made the characterization shallow and cheesy. Aliens talked as if they stepped off the street of an American city so there was little hope of anything good coming out of it. Combine this with heavy backseat driving from Travolta and the church of Scientology and you have the Ideal film to show students what not to do. It was not an accident they chose Christian to direct. The book spent a lot of time justifying and explaining the improbable story, a luxury you can't afford in film. It festered Right down to the ludicrous alien costumes with their huge over-sized boots that actually had made the Psychlos smaller and awkward. I believe Travolta and Kelly will need some extra sessions on the E meter to get back up on the Scientology food chain. They should take a tip from Mr. Hubbard who was never blinded by Faith and adoration. They might also read up on Heinlein one of his best buddies who wrote "Stranger in a Strange Land" the basis for Rael and company. Both men hated Psychology and loved a good joke. Great guys, but they would have choked on their pop-corn had they seen this film
AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)
Monkeys playing chess
It must have been clear when reading the AVP script that there was no character development and virtually no personality present in this film. How do they get financing for projects with such flaws? Give me their names, I have some bridges to sell.
Films like Alien, Aliens, and to a lesser extent, Predator, have full-blown characters that create real human conflict and evolve as the film progresses. It's not rocket science, particularly with the Alien and Predator series as the characters are very well defined in both the books and in prior films. The female lead is a crucial role and you can see that Ridley Scott and Cameron did not cast a girlie-girl with a chip on her shoulder. They cast Sigourney Weaver who did not make girlie faces during every conflict with the aliens. Sanaa Lathan just isn't believable. Everyone is so goody two shoes. Weyland is usually the evil genius in the books but is woefully nice in this role. Where's the conflict. Whether we take the Ripley character or Machiko Naguchi from the books, we do not find well-adjusted complacent personalities. They both have warrior hearts that are out of sync with their lives and occupations. Conflict with the Aliens exorcises the beast that gnaws at them and fulfills a profound need. That's why they are credible when they start to kick alien ass. Is that so complicated?
Even the Predators remain undeveloped despite massive quantities of exposition endless explanations and the occasional moment within the action. But it is a confused mess to all except for the Predator geeks. Predators are like the Roman soldiers in "Gladiator" with a strict code of honor only multiplied many times over. The life of these hyper honorable hunters is what the female lead finds so attractive. She is already one of them before she ever meets them.
I feel that it is not only incompetence but also a fundamental misogyny with many directors that can only pay lip service to a competent and ferocious female role. Ridley Scott does not have problems with strong women or strong men for that matter. When he reads a book or script, he sees the "essence" as Marcus Auralius once said. Paul W.S. Anderson is like a monkey playing chess; he knows how to move the pieces but can't understand what he is doing. With all the producers that support his efforts, there must be a gaggle of monkeys roaming Hollywood. What a waste!