Prophet1-2's Reviews

Grindhouse (2007)

9/10

22 April 2007

Flat out amazing awesome fun. Rodriguez and Tarantino capture all the craziness and quirks of the old Grindhouse cinema, and make something new of it. This isn't just some homage or paean, this is taking the tropes and clichés of the genre, and making it something palatable for modern audiences, while remaining true to the spirit of the old b-movies.

The trailers are some of the best moments in the movie, but the rest is full of amazingly ballsy action that staples your eyelids to the screen.

Planet Terror is non stop action and craziness from start to finish. Rodriguez goes for the jugular and never lets go of your throat the whole time. Its crazy, its unbelievable, its unrealistic - but its totally fun.

Death Proof was, to my mind, the stronger of the two. Its a slower build, sure, and full of Tarantino's patented dialogue, but the characters are more engaging, rather that just set pieces for the action, and the story is crazy enough to be scary. PT is gross, over the top, and balls-to-the-wall. Death Proof is slow, methodical, and deadly, much like the main character of Stuntman Mike. Its still plenty of fun, but it takes longer to get to the action, but WHAT action. Zoe Bell is outstanding, and the two big chase sequences at the end are among the best ever filmed.

I can't wait until the full length directors cut DVDs come out.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

8/10

Well done! Entertaining, and stays true to the book!

2 August 2005

I was kinda on the fence about this movie. I respect Johnny Depp and Tim Burton quite a bit, and was a HUGE Roald Dahl fan as a child (James and the Giant Peach and Fantastic Mr. Fox were my personal favs), but I wasn't a big fan of the Gene Wilder movie. Oh I liked it, but it was too...whimsical. I never felt Willy Wonka was a happy, jolly man who sings songs. I thought he was a bit creepy, and more than a little nuts.

So, imagine my surprise when someone crawls into my head and makes the Charlie movie I always wanted.

There are so many times I laughed in this movie, I can't count them. And for a children's movie, this one was blessedly free of fart jokes, and toilet humor - thank god, or I would have revoked my Johnny Depp Fan Club membership for making that movie.

This isn't a movie everyone is going to enjoy - there are some disturbing parts (not sick-disturbing, or overly scary-disturbing, but he IS a creepy man), and its not the way a lot of people apparently imagined Wonka to be. But the children are all PERFECTLY cast, and the best scenes from the book are all here, in very grim and very excellent detail.

The movie adds a few scenes, but these are well done and in keeping with the story they were trying to tell. Its not a "purist's" favorite thing, but they work.

Well worth seeing in the theater. This was the first Hollywood movie I saw in Imax, and I don't regret that one bit - this movie was GREAT on Imax, and gave the whole thing a "larger than life" feel that wound perfectly with the theme of the movie.

See it. Even if you don't like it, you should still feel it was worth your time. Its a lot of fun!

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

9/10

Great sequel, possibly one of the best ever!

30 June 2004

I have been thinking all day about this movie. I keep coming back across scenes and images that I thought were brilliant, and the more I think about it, the more I like this movie.

If you liked the first movie, you will LOVE this movie. Easily.

If you didn't like the first movie you MAY like this one. Many people who didn't like #1, have liked this movie. I won't say you will, but give it a chance.

Tobey MCGuire is more polished in this movie, and does a great job of playing up the angst and difficulty of balancing his super life from his private one.

James Franco proves with this movie why he is one of the best young actors today. His build as Harry from 1 to 2 is phenomenal.

JK Simmons has far too much fun playing JJJ, and once again steals every scene he is in as Jameson.

The real star of this movie is not Tobey, but Alfred Molina as Otto Octavius. He gives the role a depth and seriousness all the bowl cuts and bad euro accents the original comic book villain could never have. EVERY scene Molina is in is gold, and his villainous turn, while with a heavy dose of deus ex machina, even moreso than in the comic, is brilliant.

The fight scenes are FAR better than the original, and blew me away at every turn.

The first, to me, was more FUN. But Spiderman 2 is an out and out better film over all. I came out completely blown away, even with my high expectations.

Go see it. Now. You more than likely will not regret it.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Foolproof (2003)

5/10

[Review] Foolproof (SPOILERS for the 5 of you who wanted to see this)

3 October 2003

Warning: Spoilers

Friend got a free pass to the preview of Foolproof. Hadn't done much since Hurricane Juan blew through the city, so I thought "Hey, I know nothing about this movie, but it should be a good way to kill 90 minutes..." I was right...sort of.

This movie wasn't bad...it wasn't really good either, but "Hollow Man" it definately was NOT.

The premise is a little trite, but here it goes. Ryan Reynolds plays Kevin, a cutish little cubicle nebbish who in his spare time, plans, devises and pretends to hack banks, jewelry stores and the like with his two friends - Kristen Booth as the wired and angry Samantha, and Joris Jarsky as the nerdy, unkempt and slimy techie Rob. Let me impress upon you the seriousness of what they do. They stake out places (in the beginning of the movie, it is a jewelers), find out the security systems, layout of the place, habits of night guards, etc. Then, in Rob's garage, they recreate the scenario of breaking in to the last detail. They get mockups of the security systems, measure distances and essentially breaks into the place without actually doing it. They call their little group "Foolproof", and you know this because a) Kevin is an uptight, twitchy stickler for the rules who insists everything be followed to the last detail and b) they repeat the word every five seconds. Honestly, its like going to see "Batman" and having him say "I'm Batman" everytime he meets someone new...we get that the movie is called Foolproof, you don't need to beat us over the head with it.

My main problem in the first five minutes of the movie is that they do not give any screen time explaining how they got layout plans of the building, technical specs and blueprints of the building high security system, technical and chemical knoeledge enough to be able to recreate and then defeat these systems, or any real reason why a bunch of people would do this. They don't seem to be having a lot of fun, especially Kevin, and they don't explain where all this stuff comes from or where they get the money. Rob is an insurance adjuster, so his money isn't exactly rolling in.

That and they say the word "Foolproof" about twenty times...sigh.

Enter Leo Gillette, also known as Leo The Touch...a flawless (maybe foolproof?) theif who has stumbled upon their little group, stole the plans for the jewlers, and used them to perfection to steal the jewels these idiots were only pretending to steal. He then blackmails them into working for him on a new job, since their fingerprints are all over the plans. Leo is played quite admirably by David Suchet (Hercule Poirot in the series, and Geppetto in Roberto Bengini's Pinnochio), and he gets these losers to work on his job, and put their virtual talents to use. He also apparently starts to win over Rob, who is a loser who sees in Leo everything he wants, and Leo kind of takes him under his wing a bit.

I won't give away any of the ending; the actual sequence for the breakins and how they do it is rather well done for such a small Canadian picture, and the chemistry between the actors is, if not electric, at least beleivable. There are a few instances at the big suprise wrap up finish where they explain everything that I had to beat myself on the head saying "Stop thinking! Thinking is bad!", but suffice to say, while it may look good on screen, it is utterly unbeleivable...

The ending is rather satisfying, but in all, the premise and execution is rather lame and unbelievable, and while the actors do a good job with the roles they are given, I care absolutely nothing for any of them. I hope they fail, and Leo has them put in cement shoes.

Do not pay actual money to see this, unless REALLY bored and you have seen every other good movie in the theater (go see another one again, is my reccomendation), and I wouldn't even reccomend it as a renter. Wait until it hits the Movie Network, and watch it then...and only if you have nothing else to do.

6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

7/10

Back to basics

14 August 2003

Finally. A slasher movie that gets back to where slasher movies came from - and lo and behold, its a movie that stars the two greatest icons of horror movie killers going toe to toe.

This movie has everything you want in an installment of either of the two originals - Jason being his silent, menacing, unstoppable best, and Freddy being his sick, psychotic, creepy and blackly funny best. Also, there is copious amounts of blood, nasty violence and a few good breast shots, as well as the "you have sex and you die" cliche that Jason worked to a T.

If you liked the old movies, you will enjoy this. I jumped once or twice; something I have not done at a Freddy OR Jason movie in a long time. Its nice to see the movie get back to what made the originals the classics they were, in a way that will attract a new audience to discover what I have known all along - Freddy and Jason are the best there is at what they do, and what they do ain't pretty. I enjoyed this movie a LOT more than I thought I would, and while it is not the best horror movie ever made, it IS entertaining and enjoyable.

Give this movie a chance. It may surprise you.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Shipping News (2001)

4/10

Comments from The Maritimes - Good, but flawed.

28 December 2001

Warning: Spoilers

As a man with some very strong Newfoundland roots, let me comment on this movie.

First, I was not a BIG fan of the book. Proulx's writing style, while unique and engaging for athe first hundred pages, quickly becomes cloying and irritating in the last 200. While here characters were elegantly and ingeniously crafted (Billy Pretty, both in tyhe pages and on the screen by Newfie Gordon Pinsent being the best of the bunch), and here sparse descriptions of the Newfoundland landscape befitting the sparse and bare Western Shore (although there are some mighty fine towns along that same coast), here characterization of Newfoundlanders is very 'look-down-your-nose' - they are all rustic, and seem never to have seen any modern convieniences, and are second kin to the McCoys of the American Ozarks. When, in the movie, Quoyle confronts the Old Qouyle who has been cursing the house, we can almost hear the banjo from "Deliverance"; when they actually show Guy raping Agnes (a needless scene - we know he does it, the guy just told us. It serves no purpose...), I imagines the movies title to be "Deliverance II: The Newfoundland Connection"

This is the biggest problem I have; in the book, there is a line "Incest is a way of life in Newfoundland." and in the movie when Quoyle discovers his grandfather was 12 when he died, and Agnes says "You don't know Newfoundlanders." These strike me a the sort of thing Mainlanders have been saying about Newfoundlanders for years. The book was written, after all, by an American...

The movie itself is a good movie. Kevin Spacey (my favorite actor of all), turns in a good performance, not a great one, though he gets Quoyle just about spot on if you cut away all the parts about how fat Quoyle is and he is 10 times more insecure than Spacey portrays him, but maybe thats a problem of script. Dame Judi Dench gives a marvelous portrayal of Agnes, and the staff of the Gammy Bird one and all are spot on perfect in their roles. Dench, Scott Glenn as Jack Buggit, Pete Postlethwaite (one of the best character actors around) as Tert Card, and the Welsh guy as one of the best characters Nutbeem, and the best guy in the movie, maybe because he's from Newfoundland, Gordon Pinsent as Billy Pretty. Cate Blanchett is also remarkable as Petal.

I voted 8 out of 10 - good, not great. Lord of the Rings will take Best Picture and best Adapted Screenplay and Best Director, but Dench my get Best Actress, and Gordon Pinsent deserves a nod for Best Supporting Actor.

10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

10/10

A wonderful adaption of a wonderful book

26 November 2001

This adaption of J.K. Rowlings wonderful book Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone was easily one of the best book-to-movie adaptions I have ever seen. Chris Columbus masterfully was able to retain the feel and emotion of the book, as well as evoke the power and majesty the book wrought, while remaining fresh and exciting, not just a stale by-the-numbers account of what the book said.

The thing that always amazed me about the Harry Potter series was its ability to enchant young and old alike. It is a masterful work in that the plots and characters, while complex and compelling for the adult, remain reachable and invigorating for the child. On the reverse, while this is clearly a book written with children in mind, an adult does not come away feeling like one has read a "kids book". The same holds true for the movie. It is certainly much richer and imaginative than most of the tripe calling itself childrens movies today, but adults do not feel cheated.

I won't speak about specific scenes or character developments, although I guarantee those who read the book will see favorite scenes deleted - its still a 2 1/2 hour movie, but goodness, they couldn't fit EVERYTHING in there!

A wonderful movie I encourage everyone to see before the biggest movie of all time - the Lord of the Rings - comes out.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Trek: Enterprise (2001–2005)

Glad to see not as much nit-picking as I expected

1 October 2001

I expected a barrage of "But the Klingons don't look like ST:TOS Klingons! They look like ST:TNG Klingons!" or "The technology looks so much more sophisticated than TOS! How can an older ship look better than the original one???"

I loved this first episode. I thought it much more entertaining and engaging than the first episodes of the other three series (not including the Kirk ones - I wasn't even born!). "Farpoint" was so...boring! and the first epi. of DS9 was pretty corny.

The theme is not as inspiring as TNG, or as haunting as DS9 (one of the best themes ever for any show IMHO), but evokes nostalgia and I can imagine some small patriotism for Americans (very Springsteen/Bon Jovi/Mellancamp - who are all great American songwriters and patriots)

I'm so glad to see Bakula back, and I hope he has a long successful run, although his Sci-Fi typecasting is only going to get worse after doing a Trek show!

This was one of the most promising SF premieres I've ever seen. Most SF shows start very flat, but build up as they go along. X-Files/Buffy/all other trek shows had flat, but promising, openers. Enterprise has flash, good plot, good acting, and a very promising premise. This may go down as the best Trek show ever if the developmental curve of the others holds, since it starts so much stronger.

Glad to see they aren't pandering to the hardcore Trek fans, cause thats what killed Voyager, and almost killed DS9 before it hit its stride.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pearl Harbor (2001)

6/10

Deep Independance Titanic Armageddon Harbour hits theaters - Who cares?

30 May 2001

Do we really need a three hour exploration of a love triangle with a Pearl Harbour background? Thats what this movie is - do not be decieved by the trailers - this is not "Saving Pearl Harbour". It is the same as every single other big blockbuster. You basically have two seperate movies - one with a hackneyed, cliched, "I've seen this about a million times" love triangle between two young friends and the woman they love, and the other a kick-ass action sequence which accurately portrays the complete and utter surprise the Japanese caught the Americans in. The lines in the first hour and a half are SO CHEESY - but not GOOD cheese. I can't believe Ben Affleck did not crack up saying his lines, they are that bad. "I may be going to die, but thinking of you is what will keep me alive. I can't die - I've only just met you." That is the caliber of dialogue between Affleck and Beckinsdale.

I have to say, once the action heats up, and the planes start coming, the movie moves into what it should have been all along - get rid of the love story between the three main stars - concentrate on the horror and shock the attack inflicted on the American troops. The producers and directors got this right - Pearl Harbour was caught not just with their pants down, but off, hanging on the chair, and neatly folded. Problem is, you've been lulled to sleep by the horrible dialogue, cheesy acting and bad script, that the attack loses some of the punch it otherwise might have had. Thats not to say its not powerful, but the people behind Saving Private Ryan had it right - shock the hell out of the viewers FIRST, then insert great story (Bruckheimer would have to get a good story before he tries it, but its not in this cookie-cutter movie). Also, the bit with Cuba Gooding Jr.? Did that not seem horribly tacked on to you? Did it have ANYTHING to do with the rest of the movie, except to get another big name (not to mention black) star into the movie? I'm sure the story of his character - the first black man to win the Silver Star - is an interesting one, but its just kind of thrown in there, as a side show (I kept seeing "TOKEN BLACK MOMENT" flash across the screen for some reason - this story deserved more emphasis and care then the producers gave it here - I feel sorry for Cuba..)

In short, you've seen the movie before. But at least Titanic had the cool bad guy. Everyone in this movie is so whiny (Titanic also had Kate Winslet naked, but Beckinsdale expects us to believe she would make love with the man of her dreams with her UNDERWEAR ON...not terribly important, but another stupid moment in a stupidly conceived movie..). Its worth going on cheap night to see the action, and the final moments with the squadron of B-17s attacking Tokyo (a little known historical tidbit dealt with quite well, and an aviation feat quite spectacular), but it doesn't overcome the first hour.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Mission (1986)

10/10

Riveting, mezmerizing film of sweeping beauty and power

8 September 2000

This was the first "adult" movie I ever saw. I was 13, and I was utterly captivated and moved by this beautiful masterpiece.

I won't tell you the story - you can read that elsewhere. But it contains possibly one of the best displays of raw acting ability I've ever seen - Robert DeNiro (who else?)

His ability to portray essentially two different characters, yet maintain a sense of cohesion throughout is magnificent. I remain moved and enthralled by his change of heart in this film, and his ability to constantly, in every movie he has ever made, but this one especially, make you believe and care about him.

Jeremy Irons has a wonderfully subdued yet brilliant part as the missionary who brings DeNiro into the flock. His quiet faith and unwavering pacifism and belief that God's will be done is almost enough to make an unbeliever like me have faith.

Ennio Morricione (i believe that's how you spell it) constructs yet another memorable and fitting score to this movie. I love all his movie music, from the immortal intro to "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly", to this haunting and moving score, he is one of the true geniuses of movie conducters.

This is truely one of the most over-looked, under-rated brilliant movies of all time.

6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Cable Guy (1996)

8/10

Unlike most people, I really enjoyed "The Cable Guy"

18 August 2000

It's probably because I'm not much of a Jim Carrey fan. I hated "Ace Ventura", and "Liar, Liar" (I liked Dumb and Dumber, though).

I felt this move was the first to show Jim Carrey as more than a rubber-faced loon; he actually ACTED in this early movie, and showed us the range of ability that he would later display in such great movies as "The Truman Show", and "Man on the Moon".

Jim plays a lonely, slightly mentally maladjusted cable installer who latches onto poor Matthew Broderick (playing the unlucky loser he plays in so many of his movies.) Jim hooks recently-broken up Matthew up with free cable, and feels that justifies him wedging himself into every facet of his shmuck customers life, and acting like they are best friends. When Matthew finally gets up enough gumption to tell him to buzz off, Jim begins stalking Matthew and wins over most of his family and friends, making Matt look like a paranoid for despising him so much.

This movie has many memorable and enjoyable moments: Dining at a medieval buffet, with a duel between Jim and Matthew; Jim getting Matthew arrested, and his jail-house visit ("You're gonna get me killed!"), and of course, the hilarious karaoke party with Jim doing a great Jefferson Airplane impression on "Want Somebody To Love".

I enjoyed this movie thoroughly, and would recommend it to anyone looking for a dark comedy that delivers not only laughs, but a really dark edge. Jim Carrey is SO convincing in his psycho-stalker role. He's still more crazy and over-the-top than is really called for by the role, but he tones it down more than in other movies, and he was still hamstrung by audience and studio expectations of a "Jim Carrey" movie. If he did this movie now, it would be more creepy than funny.

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

2/10

This movie shows why space movies should never obey the laws of physics...

18 August 2000

I love movies. I am a HUGE Sci-fi fan (not just "matrix" and other quasi-SF, but books like "Dune", "Neuromancer" and the like.) But I HATED 2001. There were bits I liked, liked most of the interactions with HAL, and some of the imagery. But the whole HAL-kills-the-spacewalker scene was B-O-R-I-N-G. I laughed, it looked so bad.

OK, I know this movie was made 25 or more years ago, but it's still funny.

I feel this movie is overrated, over-analyzed and WAAAAY over-discussed. I even found the book garbage, but then I was never a big Arthur C. Clarke fan.

I would recommend "Event Horizon" to those looking for a "space-horror" that really makes you question what might be out there.

6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hollow Man (2000)

1/10

I can't tell you how bad this movie is! Well, maybe I can...

8 August 2000

This is, without a doubt, the WORST movie I have seen in a very long time. From the flat out bad plot, to the "horror movie stupidity" of the characters, this movie reeked, even worse, it had such promise...

I had high hopes for this movie originally - it could have been a great movie exploring what a real person would do if suddenly granted invisibility, and how it might slowly erode your morals since "Who's going to know?" The temptation would be great, and in the hands of Kevin Bacon, one of the most versitile actors in Hollywood, it would be a superb movie.

But "Hollow Man" disappoints. We never CARE about Sebastian, and he strikes us as the type of person who might off somebody who seriously got in the way of his progress ANYWAY. He is crass, cruel and egomaniacal, so his descent and fall is not a surprise; it's inevitable.

The plot is like a 22 minute "Twilight Zone" or "Tales From The Crypt" episode someone thought might be a good idea for a movie. No surprises, no twists, and so MANY slasher movie cliches it is sickening. You KNOW what will happen before it does. I hate it when a movie spends so much time (and money; the special effects are excellent, too bad they are wasted here) getting you to believe in the thin scientific premise surrounding the plot (which I have no problem with; they did a good job here, albiet briefly, and I'm prepared to suspend a little disbelief), and then ignore BASIC PHYSICS and totally and blatently destroy the disbelief they worked so hard to create...

Example - End of the movie. The insane invisible killer gets fried by Elisabeth Shue with an impromptu flamethrower. OK. Fine. THREE SECONDS LATER he is running after her full tilt. Apparently, invisibility grants super-healing. He is then hit FULL ON THE HEAD with a CROWBAR, and immediatly jumps up to attack our heroes while their backs are turned. Then, while all three main characters are each standing in THREE INCHES OF WATER he swings a crowbar into a high-voltage box, frying himself and turning himself semi-visible, while the others escape. Apparently, invisibility also hinders conductivity, otherwise all three would be dancing the electric boogaloo. Fast-forward - Sebastian is apparently unconcious. Heroes climbing to escape explosion (which should have fried them all, but thats just an action movie cliche as well: Flames licking at the heros feet while he climbs/runs/drives/jumps to safety.) Huge explosion. FROM THE WRECKAGE comes the semi-visible Sebastian?!?!?! Either he got caught in the explosion, and he should be dead, or he was on the elevator with them, and they would have seen him since he was SEMI-VISIBLE!!! ARGH!!!! I am prepared to suspend disbelief, but this is TOO MUCH!!! And he has the strength the tangle with the heroine after the MAJOR COOKING, CROWBAR TO THE HEAD AND THOUSANDS OF VOLTS OF ELECTRICITY!!!! Just ONE of these would be enough the make me say "now hold on,..." but ALL THREE!!! PLUS him crawling IMPOSSIBLY FROM THE TWISTED WRECKAGE OF THE ELEVATOR!!!

To make matters worse, Kevin Bacon and Elisabeth Shue are fine actors both. But to have this movie devolve into slasher movie stupidity is unconscionable. The cast acts well with what they are given, but this movie has NO redeeming qualities WHATSOEVER!

One of the top ten worst movies EVER. (except for the special effects, the SF guys should get an Oscar for this.)

9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Vampires (1998)

7/10

A slick, cool horror/comedy with some classic scenes

13 October 1999

I really liked this movie. It seems it's one of those that you either love or you hate. I found it an enjoyable hour and a half. James Woods is..well, James Woods; one of the most versitle, believable actors of our generation. No matter how ludicrous or phoney the movie, he always pulls his parts off with style, personality and believability. So it is with Jack Crow, the obsessed vampire hunter.

A warning - this is not a movie for the faint of heart. Like any John Carpenter movie, this one is filled with violence and blood. In the style of Pulp Fiction, however, the violence is often comical, and almost cheesily done. This is NOT a movie if you are looking for character development or redeeming values.

If you are in the mood for a movie where the lead actor (Woods) is at his best, where the action is quick and the style whimsical, yet not self-parodying, and where vampires do not "read poetry and wear velvet suits", but suck blood indiscriminatly and with cheesy style, get this movie. Get it now. I laughed and laughed, and had a wonderful time with this movie. Great party movie.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Prophet1-2

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed