Lots of fabulous style...little substance. The acting in this film is very good. The cinematography and sets and costumes are fabulous. But the most important aspects...such as writing and plot, are pitiful. A cliched and boring tale that we've all heard and seen countless times before. At times pure style and a familiar tale can be simply fun. But in the case of Moulin Rouge, the use of modern music and lines out of context make it nauseating. Seeing Ewan spout out U2's Pride "In the name of love..." to Nicole Kidman was sickening. Obviously many people disagree with me, which is fine. But for my tastes, this film was vulgar filth. I apparently need to write more for this to take up ten lines so...that should about do it.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Entertaining - but predictable and average overall
2 February 2004
First, the good parts. The film is entertaining with some good pirate action sequences and Johnny Depp does a fabulous job. For a Hollywood pirate action film it isn't too shabby at all.
But...that being said there is very little extraordinary about it. Instead it is simply average. The skeleton crew is not very menacing at all - so why did they have to be skeletons? The movie would have worked better with another 'plot' without the curse and just focusing on actual human pirates.
The plot is predictable and full of holes. The film could've ended LONG before it did. Most all the roles were cardboard cut outs. There is the handsome hero that is willing to stick his neck out for the girl especially because he isn't encumbered by any societal status. There is the rich suitor that is stuck up and walks so straight and narrowly that he is more robotic than human and thus obviously not the man for the heroine. And finally the heroine that despite living in the past is somehow endowed with all sorts of concepts of the independent modern woman.
But...that being said there is very little extraordinary about it. Instead it is simply average. The skeleton crew is not very menacing at all - so why did they have to be skeletons? The movie would have worked better with another 'plot' without the curse and just focusing on actual human pirates.
The plot is predictable and full of holes. The film could've ended LONG before it did. Most all the roles were cardboard cut outs. There is the handsome hero that is willing to stick his neck out for the girl especially because he isn't encumbered by any societal status. There is the rich suitor that is stuck up and walks so straight and narrowly that he is more robotic than human and thus obviously not the man for the heroine. And finally the heroine that despite living in the past is somehow endowed with all sorts of concepts of the independent modern woman.
The Eye
(2002)
Disappointing
29 June 2003
I had heard from various sources including reviews on Aintitcoolnews.com that this was a great horror film to see. Instead I found it rather average overall. The visuals in the film are stupendous and possibly the best point of the film. The plot is about a blind woman who receives a cornea transplant and begins to see dead people and shadowy figures who escourt the dead away (presumably to the afterlife). After many scenes that seem to drag on a bit a 'twist' comes in when the woman discovers that the woman who the eye once belonged to had similar visions. She then goes with her doctor (of course this has to be the requisite cookie cutter love interest)to discover who this woman was and how to deal or stop the ghostly visions. There are a few 'jump' moments but nothing terribly scary. As with a similar film I was hugely disappointed with, Ringu, The Eye has a plot that sounded really interesting but then went nowhere that hasn't been visited or explored before. The two films really are much alike and I was disappointed in each after all the hype I had heard.
Thesis
(1996)
Decent suspensful horror film
29 June 2003
As far as horror or suspense films go I found this one to be quite good. The film is about a student doing her media thesis project on violence in film and TV. Looking for tapes of real extreme violence not allowed on TV she comes upon a video depicting the brutal beating and murder of a student who had disappeared two years prior. The film has an interesting mix of showing brief horrific scenes of violence combined with moments where the violence is merely heard as we the audience watch the character's reactions or see complete darkness. As such the film maintains its creepiness. The lead actress plays the role well, but the underlying theme or themes of the film do not go far. Basically it seems to be a comment on the publics consumption of horror and violence and the morbid desire in us all to look upon death. The end of the film is somewhat heavy-handed in displaying this theme but it actually does work alright. Just don't expect the film to go into any exploration of this desire within humans beyond a brief dream sequence. While the film was suspensful the identity of the killers responsible for the video was not difficult to predict - but I don't believe the point of the movie was to keep you guessing who may be responsible but to focus on how the characters are simultaneously repulsed and attracted to the horrific. A film well worth watching, this is one of the better horror movies I've seen for awhile.
Painted Fire
(2002)
For the artist, the fire dictates all.
7 May 2003
Chi-hwa-seong (Painted Fire) recounts the life of Korean painter Jang Seong-ub amidst the changing political landscape of late 19th century Korea.
However, the themes of this film center around the process of artistic creation through the fire of desire of the artist and the expectations and demands of their audience and society.
Jang seong-ub is played masterfully as a complex character who changes from the innocent excitement of youth to a hardened alcoholic tortured soul. This characterization mirrors the young eager artist that finds it more and more difficult to invoke the spirit of artistic creation within himself without letting the creative fire out via drink, erections, and desire.
Although this character development proceeds overall gradually through the film, the emotional complexity of Jang is still played in a constantly oscillating manner building to the films' finale. Interestingly, the montage of the film parallels this constantly changing and seemingly wild emotion or fire of the artist as scenes seamlessly transition from one time and location to another without any conventional 'cues' to the audience that such a scene change will occur. For example, many scenes would change seemingly in mid conversation picking up at another point and location.
The visual scenery of the film is presented beautifully and also oscillates from stark (and perhaps bleak) black and white scenery to more colorful and alive environments that again parallel the paintings of Jang either in simple black ink on white paper or with color added. Rainbows of color enter the film at points as the artist observes nature and especially women that then become reflected in his paintings.
The theme of an artist's individual desire to create versus the expectations and demands of society arises in the film through various points including class distinction, the domination of government over the artist, the accepted norms of the artistic elite, and the base desires of the common masses. Instead of creating his own completely original works, Jang finds himself mostly recreating masterpieces of other artists throughout East Asia. The question thus arises if recreation itself deserves artistic merit.
I wish that I was more familiar with the political events of the period to firmly grasp how they tied into the story - but beyond any comparison to the current role of Korean government in artistic expression and/or censorship I cannot comment.
Overall an extremely well acted film and the cinematography is often breathtaking. A great film to see and then ponder over.
However, the themes of this film center around the process of artistic creation through the fire of desire of the artist and the expectations and demands of their audience and society.
Jang seong-ub is played masterfully as a complex character who changes from the innocent excitement of youth to a hardened alcoholic tortured soul. This characterization mirrors the young eager artist that finds it more and more difficult to invoke the spirit of artistic creation within himself without letting the creative fire out via drink, erections, and desire.
Although this character development proceeds overall gradually through the film, the emotional complexity of Jang is still played in a constantly oscillating manner building to the films' finale. Interestingly, the montage of the film parallels this constantly changing and seemingly wild emotion or fire of the artist as scenes seamlessly transition from one time and location to another without any conventional 'cues' to the audience that such a scene change will occur. For example, many scenes would change seemingly in mid conversation picking up at another point and location.
The visual scenery of the film is presented beautifully and also oscillates from stark (and perhaps bleak) black and white scenery to more colorful and alive environments that again parallel the paintings of Jang either in simple black ink on white paper or with color added. Rainbows of color enter the film at points as the artist observes nature and especially women that then become reflected in his paintings.
The theme of an artist's individual desire to create versus the expectations and demands of society arises in the film through various points including class distinction, the domination of government over the artist, the accepted norms of the artistic elite, and the base desires of the common masses. Instead of creating his own completely original works, Jang finds himself mostly recreating masterpieces of other artists throughout East Asia. The question thus arises if recreation itself deserves artistic merit.
I wish that I was more familiar with the political events of the period to firmly grasp how they tied into the story - but beyond any comparison to the current role of Korean government in artistic expression and/or censorship I cannot comment.
Overall an extremely well acted film and the cinematography is often breathtaking. A great film to see and then ponder over.
X2
(2003)
Superior to first installment and possibly best recent 'comic'-based film
4 May 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I have never read an X-Men comic nor did I know much of anything about the themes of the series until the first film debuted. I knew some of the characters from playing a Genesis game but beyond that - nothing. I had high hopes for the first film due to the direction by Singer, but after seeing it I felt that it was fairly well-constructed but nothing was incredibly notable about it to set it apart from most other action films.
This second film is a vast improvement in that it took the few things that did really resonate with me in the first film (interesting characters and interesting theme of humanity's fear of the different or unknown). In the first film the foundations of the characters and the 'what if' themes of X-Men (eg What if there were humans who evolved with these abilities alongside we the normal humans...) were present; in the second film they are deeply explored.
Basically not to give any drastic spoilers, the plot centers around the frightening power that the mutants posses over those that do not share their unique abilities and the question these mutants must invariably ask themselves...what responsibility do I have in wielding this power. That question is then complicated by the basic human nature to fear and despise the Other and the ordinary humans reaction to the Mutants power. We find that the 'ordinary' humans are perhaps more frightening then the mutants.
Despite a large dramatis personae the film focuses remarkably well on the key players...and each actor shines in their respective scenes. The performances by actors such as Patrick Stewart and by Sir Ian McKellen are probably expected to shine brightly - but notably all the other actors (and respective characters). Halle Berry and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos were given a good deal more of quality material to work with as compared to the first film and those were the most gratifying character improvement to me. The new characters were also well portrayed (especially my favorite Nightcrawler). Like the first film, a good deal of development was given to the popular Wolverine and again Jackman's performance was golden!
The only complaint I can make about this film given its target genre is that the characters of General Stryker and his 'assistant' were not as deep as I may have liked.
At the end of the film I was left wondering what exactly the consequences of the plot would be both for many of the characters, especially Prof X <<SLIGHT SPOILER>>(how will he deal with the frightening things he was made to do) and Cyclops (does he blame himself in any way for what happened?) These issues make the inevitable next installment of X-Men even more anticipated for me.
This second film is a vast improvement in that it took the few things that did really resonate with me in the first film (interesting characters and interesting theme of humanity's fear of the different or unknown). In the first film the foundations of the characters and the 'what if' themes of X-Men (eg What if there were humans who evolved with these abilities alongside we the normal humans...) were present; in the second film they are deeply explored.
Basically not to give any drastic spoilers, the plot centers around the frightening power that the mutants posses over those that do not share their unique abilities and the question these mutants must invariably ask themselves...what responsibility do I have in wielding this power. That question is then complicated by the basic human nature to fear and despise the Other and the ordinary humans reaction to the Mutants power. We find that the 'ordinary' humans are perhaps more frightening then the mutants.
Despite a large dramatis personae the film focuses remarkably well on the key players...and each actor shines in their respective scenes. The performances by actors such as Patrick Stewart and by Sir Ian McKellen are probably expected to shine brightly - but notably all the other actors (and respective characters). Halle Berry and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos were given a good deal more of quality material to work with as compared to the first film and those were the most gratifying character improvement to me. The new characters were also well portrayed (especially my favorite Nightcrawler). Like the first film, a good deal of development was given to the popular Wolverine and again Jackman's performance was golden!
The only complaint I can make about this film given its target genre is that the characters of General Stryker and his 'assistant' were not as deep as I may have liked.
At the end of the film I was left wondering what exactly the consequences of the plot would be both for many of the characters, especially Prof X <<SLIGHT SPOILER>>(how will he deal with the frightening things he was made to do) and Cyclops (does he blame himself in any way for what happened?) These issues make the inevitable next installment of X-Men even more anticipated for me.
Austin Powers in Goldmember
(2002)
Tired and distinctly unfunny
7 August 2002
Some reviewers on the Internet have said that the opening scene of Goldmember is absolutely hilarious and likely the best part of the movie. From then on, they said, the film's jokes hit home less and less.
The audience was silent through the opening scene of Goldmember when I saw it. They remained silent for the rest of the film. Those reviewers on the Internet were partially correct. The film did go downhill from the start, but the start was terribly unfunny itself. I liked the first film and the second was mediocre. What is good about the third one, Goldmember? The new female role is played well unlike the previous film. Verne Troyer gives a strong performance...well that's about it. The actor playing Austin's dad is great, but he's given nothing. As other reviewers have said, it was a mistake to make him exactly like Austin (just older). The humor has sunk to lower levels than before with NO intelligence to it. Sometimes films can make that work (Naked Gun and the like). Not this one. They reuse jokes from previous Austin Powers. That would be fine if they were still funny. They aren't anymore. It's now like a Saturday Night Live skit that needs to die. I could say more about this abysmal wreck of a film, including it's ridiculous ending, but it isn't worth giving a point by point critique.
The audience was silent through the opening scene of Goldmember when I saw it. They remained silent for the rest of the film. Those reviewers on the Internet were partially correct. The film did go downhill from the start, but the start was terribly unfunny itself. I liked the first film and the second was mediocre. What is good about the third one, Goldmember? The new female role is played well unlike the previous film. Verne Troyer gives a strong performance...well that's about it. The actor playing Austin's dad is great, but he's given nothing. As other reviewers have said, it was a mistake to make him exactly like Austin (just older). The humor has sunk to lower levels than before with NO intelligence to it. Sometimes films can make that work (Naked Gun and the like). Not this one. They reuse jokes from previous Austin Powers. That would be fine if they were still funny. They aren't anymore. It's now like a Saturday Night Live skit that needs to die. I could say more about this abysmal wreck of a film, including it's ridiculous ending, but it isn't worth giving a point by point critique.
Signs
(2002)
About faith, the film decides to focus on aliens.
7 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Several reviewers are correct in that this is a film about the personal struggles within a family and specifically the struggle of one man (Gibson) with faith. Gibson's character, once a reverend, has lost his faith following the seemingly pointless and horrid death of his wife in an accident. The plot of the movie is mainly the renewal of Gibson's faith as he discovers his wife's death is not a random and pointless accident, but has a designed purpose behind it. The events that cause this renewal in the character's faith is an alien invasion. Frankly I found the film to be lousy - and not because of the film's focus per se. I did not expect a slam 'em bang 'em flick as Independence Day nor did I expect amazing special effects. Neither of those elements make any film good alone. I did expect a deep story about Gibson's character's faith. As noted above, the idea was there, but it was executed rather badly. Most of the film centers around these signs of the alien invasion - but they are useless to the story other than driving Gibson towards the ultimate rediscovery of his faith in divine purpose. The film therefore is simply a bunch of scenes that are driving to the rather short and unsatisfying ending. Because the ending is so important to the film and you realize that the alien stuff is just backdrop to the whole story, you sit in the theater just waiting for the film to end. It could easily have been a half hour episode of the Twilight Zone rather than the 2 hours (or near) that it is. The backstory of Gibson's loss of faith take up about 15 minutes of screen time if that. The rest of the film is taken up with 'tense' sequences dealing with the characters trying to figure out if the aliens are out there and what they're up to. But we the audience already knows the point of the film has nothing to do with aliens, so who cares? In additon, the tense scenes aren't scary or that tense either. The cinematography of the film was good. Mel Gibson and the actors playing his family did all do a good job with what they had - but very little they had actually added to the theme of faith in the movie. Other scenes and actors gave weak performances. Particularly I remember a scene where the 'uncle' is speaking to an army officer where I wondered why the scene was even taking place (oh yeah, to establish the whole baseball bat thing!) I'm rolling my eyes.
POSSIBLE SPOILER I don't want to reveal too much, but the whole baseball bat idea of 'swing it' was a rather weak way leading to reinspiring faith. It almost seems like Gibson's character is stretching to give meaning to his wife's words so that he can get through the disaster that is at hand at the film's end. Perhaps that is the point, but if it is, nothing more is said or implied to give the film any true meaning.
I liked the Sixth Sense. Unbreakable was okay. This film could have been good if it would have stuck to its main theme of rediscovery of faith. The focus of this film is instead misplaced around the aliens And thereby many theater-goers are understandably surprised when the end FINALLY comes to learn it's supposed to be all about faith. No matter what you go to this film for (faith or aliens) you should be disappointed.
POSSIBLE SPOILER I don't want to reveal too much, but the whole baseball bat idea of 'swing it' was a rather weak way leading to reinspiring faith. It almost seems like Gibson's character is stretching to give meaning to his wife's words so that he can get through the disaster that is at hand at the film's end. Perhaps that is the point, but if it is, nothing more is said or implied to give the film any true meaning.
I liked the Sixth Sense. Unbreakable was okay. This film could have been good if it would have stuck to its main theme of rediscovery of faith. The focus of this film is instead misplaced around the aliens And thereby many theater-goers are understandably surprised when the end FINALLY comes to learn it's supposed to be all about faith. No matter what you go to this film for (faith or aliens) you should be disappointed.
Tell Your Friends