Change Your Image
Spectator_Consumer
Reviews
Season of the Witch (2011)
Bound to be a Cult Classic
This is one of the very worst acted films of all time. Nearly every line is laugh out loud hilarious. Everyone here reviewing this seems to be taking the movie seriously, but don't make that mistake. Instead, go for the unintentionally comedic b-movie crapfest this is--you won't be sorry. It's a cult classic for sure.
The plot is dumb and derivative genre nonsense. There's a witch I guess, some knights who have to go somewhere. There's plague, and every other trope the assuredly stoned writers could dredge up. I don't remember how the movie ends, and I own it and have watched it probably 5 times through, but it doesn't matter. This is a late night movie when you just want something to laugh at. Nick Cage at his very worst. My god it's good.
It's as if they tried to make Monty Python and the Holy Grail serious for some reason, failed terribly, and ended up with something just as silly as the original.
Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018)
No Better than Older Attempts at this Genre
Love the series, so I was willing to give the interactive movie a try. Granted, this idea was widely tried in the mid-90's and almost all failed miserably, but some were alright (Tex Murphy Games are the pinnacle of the format as far as I'm aware). So, I came to this experience hopeful. Sadly, Bandersnatch once more proved this isn't the way to enjoy movies.
The problems were myriad, and exactly as you would expect. Choices are silly, even from the start, like deciding which breakfast cereal you want, and which tape to listen to. Choosing disrupts the narrative and pulls you out of the fantasy world. Then, once you've made a choice, you have to wait a couple minutes to figure out if it was the correct one, because if it wasn't, you have to go back and choose again. Wrong choices then just come off as a waste of time, and you feel compelled to move the ponderous plot haltingly onward. The Black Mirror "meta" aspect where you, the Netflix viewer, makes contact with the main character seemed too cute and forced.
It might be interesting to have a real choose your own adventure movie, one where your choices actually mattered and storylines branched without dead-ending and having to go back and re-choose. The problem is, you'd need to film hundreds/thousands of versions, far too much work until we have some AI capable of building a new path on the fly.
If you've ever played/viewed an interactive movie before, take a pass on this one. If you've never had the experience, I suppose it's worth it, just to understand how uninteresting an interesting concept is in implementation.
Drumline (2002)
Well- Intentioned Affirmative Action That Ends Up Stereotyping
This movie isn't terrible, it just isn't anything except what you would expect.
The obvious, well-intentioned, idea that got this movie made was to presenting young black males as something other than gangbangers. I can't complain about the motivation, afterall, black males are ridiculously stereotyped by Hollywood and an attempt to correct this can't be faulted for the effort. So why then do I even make mention of this? My feeling is that the script and screenplay suffer because demographics and theme were paramount getting this movie made.
The story is your typical, rebel versus society story. The hero, Devon, has amazing talent but suffers from an enormous ego. His hubris might have been turned into an excellent drama, but sadly the character is nothing much more than a cut-and-paste protagonist. He has flaws, namely his problems with authority, that are only briefly addressed (his father abandoned him), but this is not a serious drama so we only learn about Devon's problems from the outside.
In order to make the band seem "cool" we find most of the training is like football-camp or basic training. Young musicians are belittled, degraded, physically over-worked.
There is a completely unnecessary, token white guy.
The most redeeming aspect, as many others have noted, is the excellent marching band sequences; from choreography to cinematography.
In the end, only a fair movie.
Scream (1996)
Brings Fun To The Teen Slasher
Every once in a while a movie breaks the mold and redefines a genre, Scream is one such movie.
This isn't going to teach you anything new about life, broaden your horizons, or appeal to those of you looking for such. The movie is titled, "Scream," and if you think you're getting something other than a teen slasher, you're mistaken. This movie doesn't save the planet, it's only there to entertain, which it does better than any other horror film you'll see. No, it isn't the most frightening movie ever made, just the most fun. If you want terrifying slasher, go with the original "Halloween."
Scream keeps all the tenets of the slasher genre: teens, serial killer on the loose, killer is unknown, killer has a unique look, and all the characters are stereotypes. On a deeper level, the genre is really about the dangers (really sin) of girls losing their virginity before marriage, where the slasher is a metaphor and symbolism abounds. But don't worry, Scream doesn't take itself seriously, it's postmodern fun. Scream stays true to the genre but is able to maintain a comedic element while all the time keeping you in suspense.
The cast is a St. Elmo's Fire of the 1990s, and all turn in solid performances. Matthew Lillard's character is particularly memorable and propelled him to many lesser films, but also the excellent indie film from 1998, "SLC Punk."
Please don't confuse this movie with Scream 2 or Scream 3, both with use the same casts, basically, and prove the first film really was catching lightning in a bottle. Scream 2 and 3 are bad films, sadly.
Overall, an important movie in the middle 90s. Big box office hit that contributed to a whole slew of lesser films and parodies. A great time, fun to watch, and expertly put together.
12 Monkeys (1995)
Is it Sci-Fi or Psychosis?
The central plot of the movie appears to be Sci-Fi, but, in the end, is it really?
Ostensibly, we learn, humanity is nearly wiped-out in 1996 due to a super virus, so humans from the future send someone (Bruce Willis) back to investigate to supposedly find a cure for use in the future. This narrative unfolds as one would expect if a person appeared claiming to be from the future; Willis is put in a psychiatric institution. This is where 12 Monkeys begins to distinguish itself from the typical time travel film.
Because we are following Bruce Willis'character both in the future and the past, the viewer can't say for sure whether Willis' character is actually from the future, or merely psychotic. The movie somehow is able to maintain the plausibility of both possibilities up until the very end. Sane or insane, time-traveler or nut-bucket is what the film plays with expertly.
Theories abound to explain one version or another. My personal view is that a) you're not supposed to know if it's real or fantasy, that IS the point, but that forced to pick b) I'd go with the Sci-Fi sanity explanation. I favor the explanation that both the doctors/wardens of the future and Willis are caught in a temporal paradox which plays itself over and over, much like the movie we get to see repeatedly every time we pop in the DVD. Events are bound to happen because Bruce Willis is unable to stop the virus outbreak.
Some feel that Willis himself enables or even is necessary for the virus to be unleashed in the first part. This theory holds that the red head that steals and unleashes the virus is partially inspired from Dr. Railly's first lecture in which Willia and his buddy from the future, "Jose," play a part in the Dr's presentation on the "Cassandra Complex" where someone knows the future but cannot change it. The red head feels the human race does deserve to die but is rebuffed/ignored by Dr. Railly, perhaps fueling his desire to disprove the Cassandra complex and deliver a world destruction he has foreseen. Theorists on this line also point to Dr. Railly's call to the Virus lab which causes the head scientist to give up security to the red headed guy, allowing him to steal the virus in the first place. The major problem with this theory is initial causation.
If Willis from the future is needed to create the virus dispersal event how did he ever end up a time traveler in the past to begin with? If he is needed for the virus outbreak, how could it ever have happened in the first instance if only the young Willis was at the airport the very first run through?
The better explanation, to my mind, is that if you assume the time-travel sanity POV, Willis must NOT be necessary for the virus outbreak at all, and that he once viewed the event without seeing himself involved, only to be sent back and become involved, creating the childhood memories for future paradox loops. By this theory, we're only watching one showing of the loop, where Willis is involved, but can't thwart the virus outbreak. The only major defect in this scenario is why would the people from the future send him back to begin with considering the final scene on the airplane where the woman from the future sits next to the red head and claims to be in insurance (indicating the people in power in the future desire the virus to get out...so why send Willis to investigate?)
None of the Sci-Fi explanations is without logical paradox, which leaves the more mundane psychosis explanation which, since it is based on logical/mental inconsistencies can explain everything by means of delusion. Sure some argue the bullet, the picture, the kid in barn etc, but, since we get the story through Willis we can't really trust any of it.
As you can see, this movie is complex and presents very interesting questions. Everything about the film shines as it uses the medium to create the two possible narratives simultaneously. This couldn't have been an easy movie to write, edit or direct, and yet all are superb.
Also one, has to point out Brad Pitt's role is perfectly acted. Pitt's performance is worth the price of admission or rental even had the movie been terrible. Not only excellent, but simply an amazing portrayal of an insane man. Pitt deserved an Oscar for best actor.
If you haven't had the chance to view this yet, make a point to.
Congo (1995)
Bad Acting, Silly Safari-Adventure, Good Time
Okay, so maybe this shouldn't have received a 10, it isn't Casablanca, or even an Indiana Jones caliber movie. But, I do like this movie quite a lot and feel more people should give it a chance.
I think Congo failed because of marketing, first and foremost. This got the summer blockbuster treatment, and unfortunately, generated an audience that didn't suit the film.
On the one level this film completely works as a children's adventure movie, and on the other appeals to film-buff looking for some good fun.
Let's get this out of the way. The acting is terrible. I mean really, really poor. There's a sign language-using monkey-suited midget with accompanying computerized voice synthesizer. And to top it all off there is Tim Curry.
When I think of Congo I think of one character, Herkermer Homolka, played by Tim Curry. Even with thousands of movies under my belt, I still can't be sure if Curry turned-in one of the very worst performances of all-time, or whether he was just hamming it up. Regardless of why, Herkermer Homolka is one of the most enjoyable Hollywood characters ever created. Is it the terrible accent? Is it the ridiculously, one dimensional stereotype of the shyster? I can't say. But I can tell you that the character has left me in tears laughing on more than one occasion.
I don't really remember a ton of the plot. They're trying to take the talking Gorilla back to Africa or something, and there's a diamond Volcano involved. You also have a ultra powerful mega-corporation paying for the adventure.
I should also note that this movie has a very entertaining performance turned in by Ernie Hudson as the pragmatic liaison between the civilized west and savage Africans (passing bribes and such).
Finally, one thing to watch out for, are the completely racist stereotypes of the Africans. They are portrayed as either corrupt, cowardly, superstitious, or all three. Watching this movie is much like watching an old Tarzan flick. If you, yourself, aren't racist I think you'll just sort of shake your head at the stupidity of it all and get a chuckle thinking about how angry the actors having to play the "savages" must have been.
So, this is a throw-back movie. It isn't good acting, the plot is contrived and silly, the entire narrative seems to use stereotyped caricatures, and there's a guy in a gorilla suit. You can see why some people hate this movie.
On the other hand, if you appreciate a good Hollywood safari-adventure flick, this one doesn't disappoint. In fact, it entertains.
Alone in the Dark (2005)
Tara Reid Can't Act, and This Movie Truly Sucks
This should be my kind of movie. Even if it sucked, it still should have been right up my alley; hell, I like "Congo," and "Allan Quatermaine" movies. I have a soft spot in my heart for silly alien/demon/adventure movies. Let's go over why I decided to watch this in the first place.
1. Horror/Sci-fi almost always intrigues me 2. I'm a big fan of archaeology, and this movie does involve a rare treasure. 3. Super-natural enemies with quality FX. 4. Christian Slater and Dorf I generally enjoy. 5. Tara Reid is hot.
So this movie had potential, at least in the cheese-horror section of the video store, but boy did it suck ass. The only redeeming aspects are Slater and Dorf, and not everyone finds them as entertaining as I do...I mean, let's face it, both are melodramatic. But now on to some of the many faults.
Tara Reid. Even though the movie as a whole is worse, Reid's performance is truly awful. We're not just talking bad, I'm talking about nominating Tara Reid for worst performance of the year. I don't know if she is capable of acting, but playing the museum curator is simply out of her league...completely. Watching her try to carry the roll of educated scientist wasn't much different than what you get watching the setup in bad porn. I mean this isn't just bad, it is laughably bad. Oh, and for those of you curious, she doesn't get naked, only down to a bra in a silly, totally unnecessary love scene.
Even with Reid's performance, perhaps the movie could have worked, but the plot is what dominates, and the plot seems written by a 10 year old. I hadn't realized this was a video game adaptation until AFTER watching the DVD, otherwise I would have appreciated the stupidity in real-time.
The storyline jumps back and forth from Slater's childhood at an orphanage where he gets flashbacks of something terrible that happened, he has amnesia, of course. In his adult life Slater was recruited by some Unit 713, a paranormal military force that apparently hunts evil or something. Slater had to leave because he was too rebellious, I guess, you never really know unless it was in one of those voice-overs I zoned out during. The movie starts with Slater hunting artifacts, obtaining his latest piece after some dealings with a "Chilean mercenary force specializing in selling rare antiquities." I may have the exact quote wrong, but you get the idea.
There is an evil doctor that wants to unleash some hellions on earth (no reason given), experiments on children, super demon/alien-human hybrids, "photonic" bullets (the demon things can't stand sunlight) and, of course, Slater and Dorf to try to save everyone.
Jesus, I can't even being to wade through the clichéd elements. The script badly needed reworking to narrow the focus and provide SOME depth. I mean, why is this evil scientist so damn evil? Oh right, humans are doomed and he is just trying to save the human race. I guess he's infected? How did that happen? Oh right he has one of the evil demon things in a cage and draws its blood to shoot into himself. How the hell did that happen? Why and where did he get the super slugs (oh yes, they use the old sci-fi stand by of parasitic aliens/demons which "fuse" with the spine of their host)Of course, Slater is, like Blade, half super-slug powered, but his slug "didn't fully fuse due to an electrical shock," thank god. Oh, and the people with these "fused" spines, have no idea they're half-alien/demon and act as good members of the community until some secret signal is given whence they turn killer zombies. Yeah we get zombies.
So lots of crap that could be entertaining, but none of it is.
Also, the ending is completely stupid as everything turns out to be not that big of a deal to fix in the first place...at least nothing a little dynamite can't handle.
Not the very worst thing you'll see, but a truly bad movie.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Better than the Original Movie
So, this is an alien invasion movie. If you don't have expectations of what this could bring, I don't know how helpful my review will be. On the flip-side, since you're considering this movie, I'll assume you've seen some of these. The genre really dates at least back to the days of "Them," which isn't about aliens at all, but giant ants, but the idea is the same.
The basic formula is malevolent creatures wreak havoc on earth. You can also make a good case for many other sub-genres essentially sharing the same formula. Whether it's disaster films, or a mutant virus in "Outbreak," the asteroid in "Deep Impact," Godzilla in those films, or even zombie movies, like "Dawn of the Dead," we're dealing with Good v. Evil, where humans are always wear the white hat. I would argue these movies should be distinguished from the entirely psychological dramas that rely on similar threats, as in "The Day the Earth Stood Still," "Failsafe," or "War Games," but where humanity doesn't actually deal with the disaster occurring.
Movies traditional to this genre, "The Puppet Masters," is another example, the disasters do occur, and movie then focuses on dealing with the consequences (inevitably humanity wins). In all these cases, as in War of the Worlds, the evil is not understandable, it isn't reasonable, you aren't expected to sympathize with the bad guys. Really these films are about two things.
1. How would humans react to potential annihilation or destruction. Basically the human element.
2. Special Effects. How convincing is the destruction, i.e., how suspenseful is the movie.
Assuming you've seen a few of these kinds of movies, call them dystopian, you know most are truly terrible, take Dolph Lundgren's, "I Come in Peace," (so poor it becomes a comedy) or the "Critters" sequels as examples. Most in this genre are simply so bad you're sorry to have sat through them. War of the Worlds is not one of these. Instead, it is a nearly flawlessly executed.
The film goes beyond the typical disaster epic, personalizing the destruction metaphorically with Tom Cruise's character's own family disaster--divorce and alienated children. Cruise does a fine job as the typically flawed hero, who creates all his own problems but is able to shine when real danger threatens. The role doesn't require much of Cruise, but his performance is certainly better than run of the mill.
The special effects are incredible. Simply the best FX yet to come out of Hollywood yet. Some have complained about the whether the alien craft are menacing enough, they were for me.
The psychological aspects presented by potential human extinction are well done, but limited due to Spielberg's choice of using Cruise's family as symbolic of the greater world. There are the mob scenes and mass hysteria, obligatory, but well executed.
Without giving away the ending, I would say the movie's only flaw is its ending. The pacing of the story changes too abruptly and the close of the film isn't all it could be. But the movie was/is a blockbuster with millions of dollars of investment at stake...the general public wants, and gets, its focus-group tested ending. Some of you will be disturbed by this, others of you will understand, and still more will enjoy it. I'm in the camp of those that understand the practicalities, so the ending doesn't dissuade me from giving a 10 out of 10 rating.
Simply the best alien invasion movie ever made.
Closer (2004)
In my Top 10 Films of All-Time
I can't find anything wrong about this film. Because I'm not a Julia Roberts fan and usually don't go for the romantic-drama genre, I waited until the DVD release to view the film; I shouldn't have. Closer is wonderfully acted, employs dialog that rings true, and ultimately is able to achieve a powerful narrative rivaled by few other films to date. A masterpiece that will be studied and revered for decades to come.
The picture, centrally, deals with the emotions inherent in the modern relationship: trust, betrayal, and vulnerability.
Closer probably isn't a good date film, nor even a "couples" film, it isn't bubbly. It is, however, the director Nichols' best work to date, which is saying something, remember he was responsible for The Graduate. This movie isn't as culturally significant as The Graduate, but I prefer it nonetheless, as it seems to reflect a more mature and honest view of human relations.
And then there is the acting. Clive Owen deserved best actor, Portman gives another outstanding performance, and Jude Law shows, once again, why he's the new Johnny Depp (probably will never get the acclaim he deserves, like Depp, or Pitt for that matter, due to Hollywood hunk-marketing). By the end of the film, none of the characters walks away unblemished, and yet you empathize and identify with all of their faults, as if you can imagine yourself making similar mistakes. Nichols was wise enough to depict the youthful quartet as naive, stupid, cruel, narcissistic and selfish. I suspect this movie hits too close to the bone for some.
I have to reiterate, this isn't a happy consumer-land film. This is serious cinema revealing the failings many of us are prone to make while young and searching. I'm glad Hollywood can still make a movie like this. Life isn't a beer commercial and not all of us want trite escapism all the time. Cinema, at its best as in Closer, is capable of achieving so much more. I appreciate a silly genre movie as well as the next person, but sometimes a person wants something with more substance, a film working on a different plane. A film like a good novel, teaching you a little more about yourself and your fellow man.
Finally, I have to note the superb, and somewhat risky reliance the filmmakers made using Damien Rice's unforgettable song "The Blower's Daughter" to set the tone for the film. The choice was shrewd giving the film a melancholy, but humane, quality of romance.
Dark Water (2005)
Excellent Genre Horror
From the very first shot you know this movie will be good stuff, and it doesn't disappoint. Through either old film stock, or, more likely, after effects, 1970s Seattle drips with authentic creepiness. This movie takes part in present day (2005) New York, but keeps the dreariness. As all the other reviewers keep pointing out, this film sticks to the basic Japanese-American horror genre that has popped up since The Ring became such a success.
1. Lots and lots of rain. 2. Lots and lots of gross tap water. 3. Lots of leaking water and flooding bathrooms. 4. Colors are nicely matched, i.e., blue/gray for outside, dark, low contrast for suspense scenes. 5. Scored well, builds suspense without attracting or distracting. 6. Strong maternal figure finds herself vulnerable, often isolated. 7. Child-ghost. 8. Disgusting hair. 9. Mystery of suicide and/or murder.
If you're into these films, you won't be disappointed, it's solid work. You'll note most professional reviewers gave this fairly high marks probably because it delivers what one would expect from this genre. See it.
Note, here are similar movies of the genre and my impressions, just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.
1. The Ring: best and most significant horror entry since the other genre redefining Scream 1 (not the same genre btw, also Scream 2, and 3 both were terrible). 2. The Grudge: Not as good as the Ring but very enjoyable and skillfully presented. 3. Ring Two: unsuccessful although it did keep the water, color and other genre elements...somehow never came together.
Hope this helps.