Change Your Image
rexbot
Reviews
The Happening (2008)
The last Shyamalan film
Context: I really liked Sixth sense and the village. Lady in the Water and Signs I didn't like but thought they were watchable. Unbreakable was painful to watch but the ending made it worth the effort.
Review: To begin with the characters are unbelievable and shallow. I don't blame the actors, this is in my opinion clearly the fault of the director/screen play. You can see that there is potential but it is never brought forth. One ends up having no emotional connection to the film because one really doesn't care that much if a character lives or dies. They are hollow empty shells whose only use seems to be to give a running verbal dialog of what is visually happening on the screen.
The plot seems to be used solely as a mechanism for the director to give voice to his anti-human political stance. The devices he uses to drive the story forward are crude and intellectually insulting. It seems the director has an exceedingly low opinion of the IQ of his audience, or perhaps it is a simple lack of imagination. As one generally shouldn't blame malice when incompetence will do, I will simply state that I think Mr Shyamalan has lost his talent for story telling.
In certain scenes the visuals in the film seem designed to shock by their graphic nature. As a rule I don't mind this but there seemed to be no point other than to try to 'amp up' what is in reality a very long, drawn out, and rather pointless plot. It is so poorly done that it is in fact almost comical in certain scenes. None of the director's other films rely on gore and one gets the distinct feeling that the director is in desperation trying to rely on a cheap trick rather than put in the effort to tell an entertaining story.
The one redeeming quality of the film is in fact that it is so poorly done. Often when one initially becomes aware of a new film by a director that has done ground-breaking work in the past, one is almost compelled to see it even if their recent films "haven't worked out" (we all have bad days). The anticipation mixed with fear can be annoying. This film shows me very clearly that I can now safely ignore any further work from M. Night Shyamalan. I now feel a sense of release and so I am in a perverse way grateful to the director for making this film.
Thank you Mr Shymalan for making some truly wonderful films! Having now finished your movie-making career in style I wish you the best in whatever new field of endeavor has captured your interest.
Darwin's Nightmare (2004)
Is Change good or bad?
This documentary is basically about the fish-trade in Tanzania.
It is a sort of 'on the ground' style documentary where the film maker relies mostly on images, and the occasional prompted monologue from locals in the area.
As for the technical quality I'd say it is fairly low but then that is part of the 'charm' as higher production values would undermine the credibility of the film. All in all the quality was 'good enough'.
Some documentaries ask questions, and some answer them. This is definitely the 'ask questions, but leave the answers vague' type. Nothing on the whole wrong with this, but it does tend to leave one a bit unsatisfied, which can be a good thing if it prompts us to do further research.
I will say however that I was personally disappointed in this film. It all boils down to one question the interviewer kept asking over, and over, and over again: (paraphrasing) "These big cargo planes keep taking tonnes of fish out of Tanzania, but what do they bring in?" The answer the interviewer kept getting back was variations of 'nothing'.
This is a nice neat little factoid that seems to 'prove' the film makers 'point' that Africa is being looted of its natural resources. This is an emotional argument that has nothing to do with logic or truth. As such it is basically 'anti-intellectual', and therefore worthless as a means to further rational discourse. I feel that the majority of people who view this film will walk away not curious about Tanzania, but rather with renewed confidence in their own 'moral outrage'. This seems to me to not help anyone, though I guess it is comforting to some.
The sad fact is that morality is entirely subjective.
Change is neither good nor bad except how I (or you) as an individual choose to view it.
Think about it.
The Dukes of Hazzard (2005)
The General Lee Rules!!!
I laughed so hard I almost cried.
This movie was exactly what I expected it to be: A fun mindless ride where we watch hick country boys blow stuff up and race around in a hot cars.
Was every joke a hit and will it ever be up for an academy award: no.
However the good far out way the bad.
This movie might not be for everyone however.
Here is a little quiz to find out if this movies is for you...
If your heart soars at the thought of muscle cars making outrageous jumps over conveniently placed washed out bridges: this film is for you.
If you are the sort who is prone to self-righteous monologue: this film is not for you.
If the thought of blowing stuff up makes your heart skip a beat: this film is for you.
If you like to laugh and enjoy outrageous people doing outrageous things: this film is for you.
If it hurts you to witness the nearly nude female form: this film is not for you.
If you are afraid of what people might think of you if you admitted to liking a film like this: paint a big rebel flag on top of your car (life is too short for that sort of fear ;) ).
No matter what your score on the above quiz, go see the film anyway, get in touch with your inner-hick and get in some chuckles.
YEEE-HAAAAAAAAA!!! :)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
You are right
About Me: Avid movie goer. See 2-3 films in theaters a week.
My political views: Less government is better, pro choice (on all things), capitalism is a good thing.
I was hoping for a bit more in this movie. Moore basically presents a series of facts that point to the following:
!!!!(POSSIBLE SPOILERS if you haven't seen the film yet and if you live on another planet somewhere!)!!!!
1. Bush is barely a legitimate president due to the Florida thing.
2. Those that are really in power behind Bush are the wealthy elite which includes foreign nationals who have invested heavily in the US economy and the Bush family.
3. Those that prefer for the US to have less individual freedom and a stronger central government manipulated 9/11 in order to prolong fear and panic so that they could reduce civil liberties and increase the power of the government.
4. Bush/those behind him did everything in their power so that they could use the US military to take over Iraq even though Iraq posed close to zero danger to the US.
In short there is really nothing new. I didn't leave this film thinking that I had learned much that I didn't already know. There are lots of little facts presented in the film but no real in depth analysis or thought. I think the problem is that there was simply too much ground to cover. I feel that a full documentary on each of the four points above could have been done well. As it is it is just too much to deal with in a single film so all we get is the 10,000 foot view.
Maybe this film will go down in history as the thing that woke the American population up to the systematic destruction of all that it once stood for. Sadly somehow I doubt that this will happen.
Cast: Pretty much what you would expect. No shocking insights into anyone's personality.
Cinematography: Lots of TV footage which looks poor on the big screen. But hey it's a documentary so no big deal.
Story/Plot: Lots of unconnected dots.
Editing/Direction: Pretty good pace. The last act with the woman going to Washington seemed a bit staged.
Overall Rating: 3.5/5
The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)
Better than expected
Expectations are everything.
I sit down to a steak dinner and get served grilled-cheese I'm not going to be happy. Even if it is in fact a delightful grilled cheese sandwich.
This movie is a tasty, artery choking grilled cheese that satisfies once you get into it. Don't mistake it for what it isn't trying to be. I doubt if it will win any academy awards for acting but it held my attention the whole time and I wanted more as I left the theater. Good special effects. Interesting story that is actually more interesting than some of the cartoonish sounding names in it would suggest ('Necromongers','Underverse','Elementals', 'Furians', etc...). And of course there is plenty of action and violence. All of it very well done with usually a pleasant unexpected twist to it somewhere.
In the end I would definitely recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a good sci-fi action film. This definitely isn't the best sci-fi film ever made but I don't think you will be disappointed.
Cast: Decent enough. Vin Diesel seems to be made for the tough-guy who doesn't talk much role.
Cinematography: Well done. CG could have been a bit sharper but the design of the costumes and 'look' of the film more than make up for any technical defects.
Story/Plot: Interesting. More 'meaty' than expected which was a pleasant surprise.
Editing/Direction: Well paced. Maybe a tad slow in the middle but started and finished strong.
Overall Rating: 8/10
Dogville (2003)
A masterpiece that is not for all.
About Me: Avid movie goer. See 2-3 films in theaters a week.
This is a different sort of film which asks a lot of its audience. Several of the people in the theater where I viewed the film walked out after the first 1/2 hour or so.
The previews that I was exposed to for the film did a very poor job indeed of preparing me for what I was to see. For you see the the things that one expects to see in a typical film remain unseen in this one. Usually the scenery and location of the film are used to help tell the story and to add context and meaning to the background of the story.
Not here.
Here there are just the very bare essentials of props and scenery used, less even than most live stage performances. It is a bit shocking and mind-blowing to realize all at once that the entertainment is going to be constructed entirely of dialog and acting. I'm sure it is something like what the first art-patrons went through when subjected to the first bits of minimalist art. At first there is shock of what isn't there. Then there is even grater shock at how it brings more clearly into focus that which is (if one can get over the initial shock that is).
As we are drawn into the story however little by little we no longer care about the way in which the film is constructed as the story itself is compelling and interesting enough by far on its own merits. I will not go into the story other than to say it is something of a tale of the human condition from all points of view and a lesson in what morality really is. It has the ring of truth and is therefore compelling.
In short I would recommend this film very highly but with a warning that one must go into the film with an open mind. If you do so I believe you will be richly rewarded.
Cast: OK. No stunning performances but each cast member does their job well.
Cinematography: Excellent.
Story/Plot: Interesting, entertaining, and well thought out.
Editing/Direction: Very very well done. Always at a good pace which doesn't sprint or drag which is a good thing indeed for a 3 hour film!
Overall Rating: 10/10
The Ladykillers (2004)
Simplistic comedy ruined by interesting characters
About Me: Avid movie goer. See 2-3 films in theaters a week.
I was very excited about this film as I am a great admirer of the Cohen brothers. So it is hard to describe how truly disappointed I was by this film after watching it.
To begin with the character of the mastermind as portrayed by Tom Hanks was truly inspiring and enjoyable to watch. The rest of the cast does a solid job with each of their characters.
The thing that absolutely destroys this film is how the plot is unfolded on the screen. I'm not sure I've ever seen situations so contrived and obviously incongruent with the nature of the characters . All though the plot is simplistic and uninspired this oddly enough isn't the main problem. The problem is simply that the actors/screen writers had too much fun and did too good a job making their characters. They forgot that it needs to seem plausible that their characters would in fact be so one-dimensionally stupid as to be in the situations that they find themselves in. If this was some sort of slapstick comedy then there wouldn't be any problem as the characters would be flat and cartoonish. This in NOT a slapstick comedy however so there needs to be explanations as to why these characters would say and do the inexplicably thoughtless things that they do. Because each of the actors does such an excellent job in creating a believable if peculiar character one simply can not suspend disbelief when they do things that not even a four year old would do.
I will still look forward to the next Cohen brothers release as even a dog like this is still somewhat watchable do to the interesting characters that they create on film. I just hope they will learn their lesson on this one and realize that their beautifully created characters need at least a token of a credible backdrop on which to display them.
Cast: Tom Hanks performance was excellent, probably one of his best. Rest of cast was above average and did credit to each of their characters.
Cinematography: Good but not great.
Story/Plot: Painfully idiotic, especially the final act.
Editing/Direction: Very poor.
Overall Rating: 2/5
The Butterfly Effect (2004)
Understand Chaos Theory? Then you will probably like this film.
About Me: Avid movie goer. See 2-3 films in theaters a week.
As a general rule I absolutely hate time travel stories. The paradoxes that any time travel story creates are huge and generally are either explained through faulty logic or never explained at all which is simply an insult to the viewers intelligence.
Very, very rarely however I come across a story where the storyteller doesn't take the easy way out and actually puts some thought into it. And even more rarely they use it to create an interesting story (which all by itself is pretty rare).
So when I say I like this movie (and liked it a lot) it means that the storytellers have created something very special. Bress/Gruber have coupled a new and rather thoughtful method of time travel with a group of characters that are interesting, believable and most importantly, that are worthy of being cared for.
Like most films this one is not for everybody. There is violence, both emotional and physical. It isn't glamorized or gruesome but it is realistic which is perhaps even more disturbing. The plot is complex and necessarily told through some nonlinear storytelling methods so you have to pay attention to understand it. Most importantly a basic understanding of chaos theory is necessary to understanding how the story works and unfolds, otherwise it may not make sense. I think this may be where most of the professional reviewers lost the point and why this film currently seems to be getting rather poor reviews. So read up a bit on the subject before heading to the theater (its a fascinating subject and well worth your time, trust me).
If you have the stomach, attention span and the prerequisite knowledge however this film is simply one heck of an entertaining ride.
Cast: Excellent. I was particularly impressed with the younger actors and especially John Patrick Amedori who plays the young Evan.
Cinematography: Very well done.
Story/Plot: Complex, intelligent, well thought out and interesting.
Editing/Direction: Superb. Fast paced but the story is always driving the action. I will watch for and expect great things from the Bress/Gruber team in the future!
Overall Rating: 9/10
Chavez: Inside the Coup (2003)
Lies, Damned Lies, and Video
About Me: Avid movie goer. See 2-3 films in theaters a week.
I consider myself to be a fairly sophisticated person. I read lots of books on a variety of diverse subjects. Occasionally I pick up a copy of the Economist or US News. Yet in reality I know very little about the world around me first hand.
This documentary does a good job in explaining how the control and manipulation of information sources can alter perception. How a even video sequence can be presented to have two or more totally different meanings. I wouldn't try to watch this documentary to get an accurate idea of what really happened as its fairly obvious that the producers of this documentary have a message they are trying to push. But ironically, the fact that this documentary is fairly obviously biased shows how clearly the medium can alter even a sophisticated viewers perception of reality. So go watch it but remember that what you are seeing almost certainly isn't reality.
Cast: Non-actors. They seemed pretty real.
Cinematography: Poor, but understandably so. Adds to the 'realism'.
Story/Plot: Good tension. I was interested all the way through.
Editing/Direction: Pretty good. Pace could have been a bit quicker but I wasn't ever really bored.
Overall Rating: 7/10
The Company (2003)
Beautiful Dancing. NOT A MOVIE!
About Me: Avid movie goer. See 2-3 films in theaters a week.
To begin with I love Robert Altman's style of direction and I think 'Gosford Park' was perhaps one of the best films I've ever seen in my life so far.
Reading the trivia section about this film I see that Altman turned down this film several times. I can see why. There simply is NO STORY. I think Altman does his best with what he was given but one simply cannot make an omelet if one has no eggs. This was a somewhat interesting view into the world of dance and has some excellent dance sequences but there are no characters, plot, conflict, message, or anything else that one expects to see in a movie. This was a sort of slightly fictionalized documentary but doesn't even work as a documentary because there isn't anything really that interesting being 'documented'. Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I had been told upfront that this really wasn't a movie and so perhaps if you read this and are armed with this review and have your expectations appropriately set you can just focus on the dance and not be constantly worrying about trying to find the story as I was. Better yet though I think you'd probably get more out of seeing some sort of well done live performance art.
Cast: Overall just OK, McDowell was really the only decent performance.
Cinematography: Magnificent. Captured the dance sequences extremely well.
Plot: Nonexistent.
Editing/Direction: Well done. Typical Altman brilliance.
Overall Rating: 4/10
Big Fish (2003)
Movies like this are why we go to the movies.
About Me: Avid movie goer. See 2-3 films in theaters a week.
This is truly one of the best pieces of story telling I've ever seen in a film. It delights in the magical qualities of the medium. The story it tells is the one of why we tell stories in the first place.
Cast: Overall Excellent, especially Ewan McGregor.
Cinematography: Truly imaginative and well done, a true pleasure to watch.
Plot: Interesting without being overly complex.
Editing/Direction: Well done. The movie has a good pace and presents the story well.
Overall Rating: 10/10
Prey for Rock & Roll (2003)
Rock and Roll is the devils music!
I've always thought of punk rock as the most pure variant of what 'rock and roll' really is. Anarchy, chaos, pure violent emotion. Basically we are going to say what we came here to say and f*ck you if you don't like it.
In this film we are treated to those who would dare to devote some or all of their lives to the creation and perpetuation of this form of musical expression. We see how life and all its harsh realities are synthesized into musical form. This film is not a simple 'band chasing a contract stereotypical Hollywood rubbish' though I think that is how its marketers are trying to falsely spin it. This film is about each character and how they influence and are influenced by the music they create. Punk rock isn't pretty, thoughtless or safe music and the characters depicted in the film aren't either. We see both the humor and the tragedy that makes that humor possible in each of the characters lives (and there is plenty of each). Also, the lifestyle of those who choose to 'pray' at the alter of rock and roll pay a price. I think the double almost triple meaning of the title of the film says it all. Perhaps one really must suffer for ones art.
Basically, everything about the film is extremely well done from writing to the cast, direction, music, costumes, etc... Its obvious that this was a work of love for all involved. That being said this film isn't for everyone and there is plenty for people to hate and fear. If you're one of those unfortunate few who sympathize with the title of this review then you have more problems than I can help you with because Gina Gershon is hot no matter who she is kissing!
Overall Rating 9/10
oh, and f*ck you!
The Medallion (2003)
Astonishingly Horrible!
Let me preface by saying that I really like Jackie Chan. Not all of his films are A+ material but all of them that I've seen before this one were at least watchable if for no other reason than the interesting stunt work. This one was REALLY PAINFULL to sit through it was soooo bad! I really feel embarrassed for Mr. Chan and just don't understand why he took part in this film. The story is beyond being cheesy, it is ludicrous. Which would be ok if that was what the film was going for like a lampoon or something but this is obviously not the case. The fight scenes are quite poor for any other film in this genre, for a 'Jackie Chan' film they are worse than a bad joke. I am honestly giving this film a rating of 1/10 not as some sort of 'statement' but because this truly reflects this films lack of quality.
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
I want to be a pirate!
This film has probably made its way to my personal 10 best of all time. It is light hearted and funny yet has a few moments that really make you think (like Jack's two line summery of what the real rules of life are). The acting, costumes, dialog, and special effects are all first rate. This is the sort of film that you will want to see again and again. Depp and his excellent portrayal of Cpt. Jack Sparrow pretty much makes the movie, though Rush's Captain Barbossa was simply amazing. This is simply one of those magical films where good actors, are combined with an excellent script and solid direction. This one has classic written all over it.
10/10
Charlie's Angels (2000)
Wow, What a ride!
This second installment, of what is hopefully promising to become a entire series of wonderful films, has it all: action, humor, an interesting story, and of course 'beautiful babes kicking butt'!
As for the action: not for one second did I believe any of the things done in this movie were possible...and not for one second did I care! The director McG (what kind of a name is that?) does an excellent job of interlacing the outrageous violence, humor, and story development. The scenes are if anything even more 'out there' than the previous film and you know what? It works wonderfully!
The three leads, Lucy liu, Drew Barrymore, and Cameron Diaz each fill there role perfectly and with more subtlety and confidence than in the original movie. The new Bosely, Bernie Mac, does an excellent job and the writer does an entertaining job of telling us how this new Bosely comes to inhabit the role previously played by Bill Murray. I for one hope they keep the 'Bosely Rotation' thing up as it will add an interesting bit of the unknown and hopefully keep each movie fresh.
In short this is a very well done action/comedy film that I would highly recommend.
final rating: 4/5