serennishiyama Reviews

Paul (2011)

Unexpectedly, it was complete Tripe.

[1/10 · 12 October 2011]

From the start let me say that I have loved Frost and Pegg's previous offerings. They were actually funny. This was puerile garbage, the sole purpose of which seemed to arrogantly mock religion. They didn't even bother to be clever about it; it was just one long hate-on for anyone who doesn't agree with their rigid ideology. The first thing you need to mock religion is apparently a tired stereotype: the maniac-retard-redneck who is completely irrational and shuns all things scientific. Check. We have our straw-man, or straw- woman, that is easily mocked and knocked down. Second, we need a wise-cracking evolutionist alien who knows better than everyone else because the writers created their universe that way. Yawn. I find it most humorous that in a real debate of scientific fact these same writers would be bewildered, but in the safety of the universe of their own opinion they REQUIRE the Deus-Ex Machina of the alien "Paul" to champion their pro-evolution ideology; which he does not by rationality, but by his magical alien touch that convinces you he is right, and that the universe is a pointless, chaotic, jumble of meaninglessness. Oh yeah, and he can work healing miracles with a touch as well. Who needs religion when the writers have crafted their own replacement for it so effortlessly? Seriously, this movie isn't the fun- filled buddy-movie romp it was purported to be. It's just a 97 minute long unfunny waste of time in which blind intolerance and stomach- churning arrogance are the order of the day.

Robin Hood (2010)

Under-Rated Gem! Cleverly written and cleverly wrought.

[10/10 · 19 September 2010]

First off, to address those so-called "critics" who take issue with Ridley Scott for taking literary license with history, what else could he do when dealing with a FICTIONAL CHARACTER? I mean really! Robin Hood is fanciful mythology that is set in a real, historical context. ANY interaction the character has with any historical figure or event is going to be taking liberties with real history. So complaints of the Magna Carta being alluded to or specific battles, places, or interactions with persons can be nothing BUT literary license which any sensible and fair person must excuse when watching a film about a fictional character. Films require the willing suspension of disbelief from intelligent audience members. Viewers incapable of that should never watch fiction, and stick only to documentaries. That said, Ridley Scott does an excellent job weaving the fiction which is Robin Hood into real situations, and this origin story sets the stage politically and on a personal level the events to come in any sequels (One hopes)that will result. None of the other films or portrayals has even bothered to do so. Robin Hood shows an attention to detail on the matters of medieval life, even so far as to show the hardships that even Nobles had to face. To that end, Marion Loxley's character is shown as a great example of noble womanhood. Robin and Marion's romance is slow in blossoming and therefore much more believable than the typical Hollywood drivel that passes for romance. Finally, the true gems that shine in this film are the Merry Men, wonderfully played by Scott Grimes, Kevin Durand, and newcomer to film Alan Doyle. Each brings life and vibrant believability to their characters. And on a personal note, Alan Doyle was a wonderful choice as Alan A'Dayle. Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe could not have made a better choice. I highly recommend this film.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

The Critics should remove the Stick!

[7/10 · 9 August 2009]

I just saw G.I. Joe, and I must say that I actually enjoyed it. This is NOT a masterpiece. This is a fun, Summer action flick. The so-called professional critics who obviously miss that point do not deserve their cushy jobs. The action is unbelievable, non-stop, breathless, and requires a total suspension of disbelief. The critics that have a problem with that should remember one thing. This is a movie based on a cartoon that's sole purpose was to sell a set of toys to 5-12 year old boys. Nothing more. Expecting "War and Peace" from this source material shows a lack of insight and intelligence from most of the reviews that I have read. If you like action films, you will enjoy this one. If you want angst-ridden characters stopping every five minutes to discuss their feelings... pull the stick out and move along to a sappy low-budget romance; this isn't your kind of film.

The Golden Compass (2007)

Truly a tragedy. Hopefully the film studios have learned a lesson.

[1/10 · 4 December 2008]

I must admit that I am not a fan of Pullman's novels. I have read them, and understand his point of view. But when I read a fantasy novel, I want adventure, not a dogmatic sermon. We get it. You hate the Church. Yawn!

Now the problem with the film The Golden Compass is that although Pullman had a large amount of influence on it, it appears that he completely sold out his ideals for the cash. The movie only vaguely resembles the novel on which it is based. Almost all of the anti-religious references are absent. In short, Pullman did not stand up for his artistic integrity and preserve the central themes of his book. Apparently he didn't have much artistic integrity if this film is the result. The film suffers from dull storytelling that the simply awful director(s) hoped would be glossed over by flashy CGI. All in all this film was a waste of time and money. I literally felt myself age while watching it.