Change Your Image
alexis_240
Reviews
The Unborn (2009)
Not much to like here except maybe the jump scares
David S. Goyer has proved, with the Blade and the two recent Batman movies to be a fine genre writer. His directorial efforts have not received much praise however. This latest effort is a horror movie that seems to serve as vehicle for some effective but totally forgettable jump scares.
The plot centers around a teenage girl, as if we don't get many teenage horror movies these days, called Casey Beldon (played by Odette Yustman). Casey has been having strange nightmares in all of which she encounters a child. She later learns that she had a twin brother who died in the womb. Naturally she suspects that her brother's spirit haunts her trying to get born. It also turns out that all this is connected to medical experiments carried out by the Nazis at Auschwitz and to the legend of the dybbuk, an evil spirit who refuses to leave the human world.
While the plot is decent enough, if we exclude the all too familiar Nazi thing, it is unfortunately not well executed. The film opens with one of Casey's dreams suddenly dropping us into the plot. The whole thing appears very rushed. A smoother, more take-your-time introduction to the main character would have contributed to a much better result.
Secondly the film suffers from an over-reliance on jump scares that can be effective (I could hear some people letting out gasps of terror) in the short term but do not really do much to make up for the film's lack of atmosphere. What we seem to get is dialog-story build up-jump scare. As Guillermo Del Torro very correctly pointed out in an interview, a horror film is never about the scares but the tension build up and atmospheric environment both of which stay with the viewer after the end.
The other characters are largely ineffective. Gary Oldman, who plays Rabbi Sendak, whom Casey asks for help, gives a quite unconvincing performance. His part is far too small to invoke any sympathy or care in the audience. The other two main cast members, Romy (played by Meagan Good) and Casey's boyfriend Mark Hardigan (played by Twilight's Cam Gigandet) are nothing more than your usual expendable sidekicks.
The film ends with the unimpressive and uninspired 'exorcism' of the dybbuk which then enters Mark's body eventually killing him before leaving for good (there are a couple of references, from my angle at least, to the exorcist in the movie). Mark then dies in his girlfriend's arms, how original, and we are finally released from this hasty and not well thought of non-Japanese inspired horror movie.
Juno (2007)
Funny, but there's nothing here that deserves an Oscar
This film, even though it's quite sweet and genuinely funny at times, is deeply flawed and its nomination for the best picture award was an insult to the academy. Juno is not really much more than a totally forgettable teenage movie about a too cool to be true 16 old girl (Juno, played by Ellen Page) who gets pregnant.
The problems are pretty evident from the very beginning. Once Juno learns she is pregnant she tells her apparently closest female friend. She then pointlessly carries a circular shaped rug and a chair in front of her boyfriend's (Bleeker, played by Michael Cera), and father of the child, house and sits on it waiting for him to come out. Couldn't she just stand and wait? The presence of the chair, rug and an annoying pipe which Juno inexplicably loves shoving in her mouth, do not make much sense. The film seems to suffer from an overwhelming desire to impress. Later on when Juno along with Leah (played by Olivia Thirlby) are looking at adoption adverts in the papers, they're both wearing dark shades (how they managed to read with those on is beyond me, given the fact that it was hardly sunny) and Juno has this damn pipe in her mouth again.
Other than this desire to impress, one of the sources of my negative attitude towards this movie is that it takes something as serious as teenage pregnancy and turns it into an about 92 minute farce. Not a single character seems to ask Juno why in God's name she found it so hard to buy those rubber things that answer to the name of condoms which could have spared her the misery of having a child at 16. In addition the character of Juno is very hateful, has no regard for others, and seems to be amazingly dumb. She wonders why everyone at school is staring at her, let me guess, could it be the bloated belly which indicates her pregnancy only at 16 years of age? Maybe it's that she's sitting in the award frame (when she and Leah are having lunch) surrounded by scraps of snack paper. It's this right-in-your-face stupidity that makes the film more annoying than it naturally is.
Secondly Juno suggests that Bleeker asks Katrina Devort (another female classmate) to the prom, if my memory doesn't fail me, and gets very mad at him when he does so. There's a nice stable person. She gets surprised to find herself pregnant after having unprotected sex (is this a joke?), gets mad at Bleeker when she was actually the one who initiated the sex act and then again has a fight with him when the only thing he did was take the advice she freely offered. On top of all that Juno is just not believable, hardly anybody talks the way she does and as I've already said, she's far too cool to be true. Personally I don't buy it. Maybe well written but unrealistic and it makes a mockery of teenage pregnancy.
And as if all the above was not enough, there is one particular sequence I find extremely offensive and ridiculous. This is when Juno is having her ultrasound along with her step mom (played by Allison Janney) and Leah. Brenda (the step mom) decides to verbally abuse the ultrasound technician because she dared to suggest that a teenage mother would provide a very poisonous environment for the baby to grow up in. In other words she spoke nothing but the truth and in return she got abused by a less educated woman who (the way I see it) is still struggling to accept her teenage stepdaughter's pregnancy. Juno on the other hand suggests that the adoptive parents could be psychos for all they know (yeah right, of all the possible scenarios this is the most likely). There doesn't seem to be much point in this scene other than it being a test of Allison Janney's speed of dialog. It's not a very good message to take home to kids either: it's alright to get pregnant as a teenager because you never know; you could make a good parent.
Jennifer Garner (Vanessa) and Jason Bateman (Mark) are the only characters that appear convincing. Vanessa wants a baby very badly whereas Mark is not sure and thinks there are still things he wants to do. Even though Mark is immature and chases nothing but adolescent fantasies (at 40) he admits it at least. Both Mark and Vanessa do look like a genuine couple having a conflict.
So in conclusion, Juno is an extremely annoying movie because of both the dialog and its unrealistically flippant portrayal of teenage pregnancy. Humor is nice but can't be used in dealing with pregnancy. Juno's condition can leave an indelible stain on her record, yet everyone keeps telling dumb jokes never giving it the seriousness it deserves. Juno again is hateful, selfish and totally unrealistic.
Juno is just another teenage movie pretty much like the garbage that was American pie, except it's not about sex but about pregnancy. It's nothing that will be remembered but still it delivers a few laughs. However it's more about 'growing up and the inevitable pregnancies along the way' than 'growing up and the bumps along the way.
Van Helsing (2004)
Nothing like a tribute to the good old days
An incredible amount of special effects, a silly and implausible plot and far too advanced for the time weapons, could I be talking about anything other than a Stephen Sommers' film? Probably not.
From the very beginning, with Victor Frankenstein yelling 'It's alive' taking us back to 1931 and to a young Colin Clive, Van Helsing is a tribute to the legendary Universal monster movies. Everybody's here: Frankenstein, the wolf man, the character of which despite its totally different look still reminds us of the renowned Lon Chaney Jr, Count Dracula in a very anti-Lugosi (or Chris Lee for that matter) look which if my memory doesn't fail me includes an ear ring! Finally there's the famous hunchback called Ygor (surely one of Lugosi's finest performances e.g. Son of Frankenstein, 1939)
Unfortunately this homage to horror classics will go by unnoticed by anybody too young or too ignorant to be familiar with monster movies, and he/she will therefore perceive this movie as another mindless action adventure. This is partly true in terms of the plot: Dracula's women giving birth to dead babies and him trying to bring them back to life using Frankenstein-like techniques. Parallel to this is the werewolf legend and the search for a lycanthropy cure. Both the plot and collection of monsters serve as an homage to movies like Frankenstein meets the wolf man (1943), House of Frankenstein (1944), and House of Dracula (1945). The count appears in the two houses, whereas the wolf man (Larry Talbot) is in all three seeking a cure or an effective way to kill himself.
This movie transforms Bram Stoker's Van Helsing into a monster hunter or exterminator whose assignment just happens to be Dracula and who suffers from nightmares that apparently are repressed memories of his previous existence. Anyway plot-wise it's no Pulitzer prize winner, I grant you that, but don't miss the point, It's a tribute to an era long gone. After viewing many Universal classic horror originals and sequels I couldn't help but like the film. Probably the greatest way to enjoy it is by first watching the original Dracula, Frankestein and Wolfman movies which will enable you to put the film into perspective or in an appropriate context within which to judge it.
To conclude Van Helsing is not (at least in my opinion) your mainstream action adventure, it's a well made fantasy ride that owes its plot and characters to a number of extremely influential horror classics.
4: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
Painfully dumb and cliché
When Kevin Smith spoofed scream in Jay and silent Bob strike back he was right to add the line "You guys are not even trying anymore" which is probably the case in this movie. It's just another superhero flick filled with overly familiar clichés that are effortlessly avoidable. It's all here, the couple doubting about whether they should bring up kids in this "superhero world" and eventually decide(Storm and Richards that is) to leave everything behind and naturally somebody overhears them and we get the "they don't care" kind of atmosphere while the movie subconsciously prepares us for the ending scene where they have a change of heart not because that's the right thing to do but because this is a childish superhero movie and kids must not be disappointed (in other words the happier the ending the more money the studio is going to make)
I had every intention of liking it but it's simply too lame a film to be liked. Since it starts with a wedding that gets interrupted it just has to end with the wedding's completion which makes the film even more predictable. The silver surfer on the other hand (well designed I'll give you that) protects Miss Alba because she reminds him of someone he used to love. How sad, I was reaching for the tissues when I heard that, the typical love interest that, for some incomprehensible reason every action flick has to have. Again this is the result of a lack of creative effort.
The ending is no better either. A stake is thrown at Richards and Storm, in a very altruistic manner (strange that only action movie characters are that altruistic) stands in front of him and gets stabbed herself, oh come on this is such a tear jerker since we all know she won't die (No Alba is too damn hot to get killed on screen). Her powers even prevent her from bleeding (not really, but realism has been given up in favor of a younger audience). The surfer heals her and utters the film's incredibly stupid punchline "You always have a choice" no s**t. Pretty much like what Paris Hilton said to Larry King "There are more important things in life than partying" again no s**t.
So Storm is fine and the team of 4 are back together and agree that they can't run away from their responsibilities. Remember the first Spiderman and how brilliantly it made this point? "With great power comes great responsibility", well this version of it is lamely written and terribly acted, just because you are a hottie Miss Alba it doesn't mean that you can get away with bad acting, go get some lessons.
And we now arrive at what I personally find the single stupidest sequence to ever appear in a major production. The wedding is taking place and the team receives a message about Venice...sinking into the Adriatic, that's a biggie remarks the thing. I got a good one how about earth about to crash into the f*****g moon? It's both stupid and biggie. Really what will they think of next? I know this is a comic book flick but that doesn't mean that we have to turn our brain off when we watch it.
Anyway they get on their super car which will take them to their nonsensical biggie and are greeted off with cheers. Goodbye fantastic 4, good riddance!
To sum up, this movie is extremely predictable, badly acted, clumsily written and cliché.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Very good but come on Mr. Raimi you can do better!
It is very painful to admit that the eagerly awaited Spiderman 3 is only satisfactory and not great as we expected.
The three villain scheme works against the film and provides us with two shallow villains. Sandman is tied to the murder of Peter's uncle (Ben) in an attempt to give him a bit more of a background. Venom on the other hand is totally unnecessary and barely gets enough screen time.
What mostly disappointed me is that a director as talented as Sam Raimi chose to use such clichés. First and best being MJ as the person who is once again in danger near the end of the film. That woman just can't keep out of trouble. This is now the third time she is captured and used as bait. The typical girl-in-trouble-man-to-the-rescue recipe has been done a billion times and does not add any originality to this flawed movie. MJ's presence seems out of place. Apparently sandman and venom managed to miraculously guess what girl Parker is interested in and where she lives! Why not have them take hostages and challenge Spiderman to come and save them? MJ could then see the whole thing on TV and rush to the scene. Just because Kirsten Dunst is your leading lady Mr. Raimi that doesn't mean she is the one who's life has to be threatened every time.
Another cliché we are all familiar with is the classic death scene where one friend "gets it" for the other friend and then says something while laying down which usually re-establishes their friendship and is then allowed to die in peace. I'd love to know how can people prolong death till they have said their take care of this, I love you or any phrases film characters have said before they died. Fine obviously Peter and Harry had to reconcile but this cliché could have been avoided. They could exchange their best friend lines during the battle in a brief moment not in the far too familiar way.
Finally I've heard that this installment might be the last (even though there are rumors of a possible 4th film), if this is true then this movie is even more flawed. Neither Peter nor MJ come even within a mile of a character peak. They were together at the end of the second film and they are together again when this one ends. They could have introduced a year or a month gap after which Peter proposes to MJ hence embarking on the next chapter of his life which is marriage. This could have been a good closure point but instead we get to see them back where they started.
Just like X Men 3, this movie is perfectly passable in terms of satisfying action sequences and excitement but this is simply not good enough considering how good the first two installments are.
7/10 pretty good but a worthy sequel or a proper closing chapter Spiderman 3 is, I'm sorry to say, not.
Re-Animator (1985)
What's to say? The film's cult status speaks for itself
Horror is quite a special genre. It can be loved by the audience and disliked by critics. George Romero was asked once why has he chosen to restrict his career to a genre not favored by critics. His answer was that he never saw himself as working in a genre other than horror.
Many typical slasher movies have been released where a bunch of teenagers "get it". Most of these films got mixed with the rest of the crowd of nonsense horror and forgotten. In 1985 along came re-animator a horror film so unique, bizarre and disturbing it just had to become a classic. From my point of view the brilliance of re-animator lies not in its over-the-top gore or its black humor but in the plot. Scientists have always been interested in prolonging life. Think about the pseudoscience called alchemy, (chemistry's predecessor) the main objective of an alchemist was inventing an elixir that prolonged life indefinitely. Re-animator is the impersonation of this idea. Conquering death has been in the minds of people since the dawn of time.
As far as the gore goes well, I see it as the disastrous consequences of playing God. While Dr Hill (I think that's his name) was alive he did not pursue Barbara due to society's norms and rules. Herbert West's so called re-agent brought back his ID (demand for gratification) not the ego (social conscience), thus turning him into a monster.
It is not very clear who the villain is in re-animator. Herbert West is simply an obsessed scientist who wishes to help humanity. All that is inhumane about his actions is the single premeditated murder of Dr Hill, who then becomes the actual villain.
William Friedkin, the director of the exorcist said that a film should inspire and provoke you, which is exactly what re-animator does through its disturbing nudity and gore and the quite big content of accurate science. Theoretically it would be possible to bring somebody back to life by restarting the body's chemical reactions.
10/10 for it's underlying sophistication, it's uniqueness and because it reminds us of something very simple: Death can only be prolonged to a certain degree, it can't be beaten or avoided.
Batman & Robin (1997)
I don't think it's Schumacher's fault
I'll refrain from making exaggerated comments and simply put down my angle on why this movie did not do well and is regarded as the worst entry in the Batman franchise.
To start with it's not Schumacher's fault, alright he was responsible for the much hated nipples I'll give you that, but he was just expected to deliver a lighter child like action blockbuster and he did it. Blame Warner Bros. I personally do not see anything too dark about Batman returns. What's wrong with everyone? Too dark this too dark that, nothing is too dark. It's just darker than the first. Warner Bros were unhappy with the result leading to Batman forever and the exclusion of the massively talented Tim Burton. The amount of artistic freedom he was given in Batman returns is obvious.
Batman is called the dark knight, he therefore fights dark villains he is not the only black dressed person in a colorful circus which is supposedly Gotham city (If Schumacher's Gotham was supposed to be a city ravaged by crime then I'm a priest). The much desired commercialism of the last two movies is evident. In Batman forever the bat mobile was obviously designed in order to make a toy that could sell. Why else would they have put a huge fin at the back that served no purpose other than preventing the car from entering a low tunnel?. The bat mobile in the first two is first of all practical and then come the rest. In batman and Robin commercialism has gone up to a whole new level. Attention is being paid to action sequences and not the story e.g. what about Robin? What does he do stay in the mansion all day long? Why not expand on his character a little bit? But no they had to make cars that could sell, they had to shoot incredible action sequences, which I admit I found quite impressive but not enough, any studio with a lot of money could have made them.
Nevertheless even though I do not agree with Batman returns being too dark, the creator of Batman, whose name I've forgotten, thought so too! Val Kilmer said that he'd tell him that he liked what he did. So it's quite complicated when it comes to who to put the blame on.
Anyway overall, I believe this movie failed because it was rushed into which is also evident in the shallow story and the unnecessary presence of Bruce Wayne's romantic interest, it's far too family friendly to be a movie about a dark night and finally the action sequences seem to have occupied Goldsman more than character development.
Rocky Balboa (2006)
"The last thing to age on someone is their heart"
A struggling actor who, as he said, "also writes", a low budget production and a great performance by Stallone were the ingredients that brought the first Rocky to the screen. Now the reason why I believe Stallone is so closely associated with Rocky is not just because he acted the character out so brilliantly but because he created him. There is much of sly in Rocky e.g. he said that he decided to add a pet shop to the first film in order to introduce the theme of pets seeking a new beginning, which is what he was trying to do with the movie. Plus there is a line in Rocky Balboa "I'd rather do something Ilove badly than feeling bad about not doing something that I love" which sly added to the script after his wife, so he says,begged him not to do another Rocky film. It kinda shows how much he loves the character and how much we adore Rocky.
People go on and on about the Rocky franchise being overstretched into 5 parts, calling the 5th one pitiful. I say you are wrong, I personally love every single Rocky sequel, obviously including this one, plus I can't see any pitifulness in the 5th Rocky. It's a film about father and son and about Rocky wanting to retire and take up Mickey's role as a fighting coach, in order to pass his talent on to the next generation.It's a fighter's life that we witness through the Rocky pictures, and the 5th one demonstrates the point Sly made in Balboa "Life is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much you can take" He's lost his money but not his courage, he gladly agrees to help Tommy Gunn train.
Rocky Balboa, as Sly himself said, speaks against the commonly held view of life ending at 50 and actors being made fun of for reprising roles they played when they were a lot younger e.g. Harrison Ford in the upcoming Indy film. It's about wanting to go out in style or have a last stand at something you were once great at, fighting in Rocky's case.
Except that, the first few nostalgia sequences echo Sly's own nostalgia of the character. He once said that hardly a day goes by that he does not miss playing Rocky. Another great personal addition to the film therefore.
Overall Balboa is great comeback for a character that will live not only in movie history but also in our hearts and our memories forever. So let us all bid a bond farewell to someone who would not have come back if it wasn't for Sly's "stuff in the basement".
Spellbound (1945)
A Hitchcock film that's aimed at sophisticated audiences
I have dismissed every criticism of this film concerning its theme of psychoanalysis. I am a big admirer of Freud, I believe in his work and the treatment he developed.
Critics of psychoanalysis plus the opposing theories (I am a psychology undergraduate) do nothing but speak against the concept and offer shallow explanations for the aspects, e.g. dreams, Freud tried to explain and treat. There is no such thing as implausibility or silliness in this film. It's simple, what Gregory Peck's character did was to unconsciously repress any memory he had of, the accident with his brother due to the guilt he felt. In Freud's terms his ego protected him by forcing this traumatic memory out of conscious awareness. No it's not just a theory, it can happen. How many times did we try to be funny when clearly the time was inappropriate? This is one of the defense mechanisms Freud worked hard on.
In this film Peck's guilt resurfaces when the real Dr. Edwards plunges to his death. Unable to deal with the emotional burden he decides to impersonate him in order to erase the incident he feels guilty of, at least from his own mind, which is also what Norman Bates decides to do in psycho though his trauma was powerful enough to create a split personality.
Here a more mature Hitchcock tells us that many answers can be found by looking in the depths of the human psyche, hence the length of the treatment.
The dream sequence is another great example of Freud's theory. All the pieces of the puzzle appear in symbolic form due to their In-acceptance by the patient (Peck in this case). Ingrid Bergman then as the analyst interprets the symbols and solves the riddle. The patient is then taken back to the time when the original trauma occurred, the day Peck's brother died, he deals with it in a more mature way and is then released from the torture.
I must say I did not see the plot twist coming and kind of expected Peck to be found guilty of murder. Another great mystery therefore.
There is no need to talk about the acting Peck and Bergman are great as usual.
Overall being a supporter of psychoanalysis I must say I love the movie due to the fact that it's so different of what Hitch normally did and because of the good demonstration of the kind of treatment psychoanalysis is.
I'd like to finish my review with a quote from the X files spoken by Fox Mulder ¨"A dream is an answer to a question we have not yet learned how to ask".
Event Horizon (1997)
Very good, but could have been great
If there is one thing a horror film should be that's disturbing. That's why Hellraiser was so successful 1) because it portrayed hell as something very close to humans and 2) because it used pain as something that many people could get pleasure from. Hence "Angels to some, demons to others". Event horizon does have it's share of disturbance but could have been a lot more.
Firstly it would not have hurt if the studio had spent some more money on the film, so that the introduction sequence where the crew saves some miners from a fire could have been shot. Paul Anderson said that he incorporated some material from that sequence into the film, and it is true e.g. Miller saving his friend when he opens the pressure door and gets released into space without a suit, but an additional introduction sequence would have been better.
Indeed many scenes were cut from the film in order to tighten the pace but don't you think they went too far? I read about the plot before having watched the actual film, and I logically expected to see a sequence where the event horizon disappears and then get something like "Seven years later". However we are just told what happened, and you immediately get the idea that this picture was made for a moderate budget. Also a scene was filmed where Dr Weirr (Sam Neil), gets briefed about the Event Horizon's reappearance and convinces the man in charge to let him go with the rescue team. Now why was that cut out? It's probably part of the big studios wisdom, or stupidity if you ask me, which is "Do not make the film too long". This particular sequence, I believe, is of primary importance and gives us a longer introduction. The release version, I am sorry to say, kinda drops us into a story it wants to get on with and finish ASAP. I was surprised when I first saw it, no way I expected it to be that fast.
Unfortunately there's more like the above. Extended visions of hell and an orgy between the Event Horizon's original crew were also eliminated. Why? Because they seemed to be too freaky. Maybe the studio was not actually aware that this is a)a horror film and b)about hell. What did they expect to see in it? Kids with dolls?. Hellraiser is very bloody, why didn't it get chopped up?
It's not that I don't like the film, god I've given it 9/10, but it's so painful seeing something that could have been a lot more, get turned into a just good horror movie when it could have gotten a Hellraiser like status.
9/10 for it's good story, the black hole idea,the good performances and it's perception of hell.
Finally, Mr Anderson I hope that it won't take you much longer to release the director's cut you promised us.
The Company of Wolves (1984)
Never before have I seen such deep a horror film!
What am I doing giving a horror film 10/10. I must be out of my mind. Well if you thought that, you couldn't be more wrong. Just watch the film if you haven't already done so. This is no ordinary horror film. In fact it's not a horror film, it's an allegory, it's the British "Seventh seal". The seventh seal is an allegory about man's search for the meaning of life and his continuous preoccupation with questions there is no way (at least from my angle) he can answer, the company of wolves is about realizing who you are, your sexuality, your desires and most importantly the transition from adolescence to adulthood or the "end of innocence".
Every bit of the movie is a symbol and to be precise, a Freudian symbol. The Freudian concept of unconscious motives is evident throughout the film. Rosaleen's large toys in the forest represent her innocence and a desire to remain that way, in other words the desire to regress back to the safe period of childhood, and not be an adult with urges.
Rosaleen's red cloak might seem like little red riding hood, and it is true it's taken from there but in this case it represents menstruation and not being a girl anymore but a woman. When the eggs hatch up on the birds nest, Rosalyn becomes acquainted for the first time with birth and the creation of life. The replacement of bird babies with human figurines is ingenious.
Finally the menacing wolves represent men and their domineering nature and predatory desire which Rosaleen will have to deal with now that she is a woman and a powerful creature herself. Therefore by fully developing into a sexual being she becomes a beast herself and that's what we are shown by her turning into a wolf.
All this is integrated brilliantly into the film ending with the wolves knocking down her toys thus ruining childhood. That's a thing of the past. Time passes inevitably as the clock shows us and it is time to change.
God bless Neil Jordan and Angela Carter for bringing this masterpiece to the big screen. If you haven't seen it I suggest you do so and even if you have watch it again! Just to remind yourselves what it was like making good movies. Remember "Never stray from the path!".
Jaws: The Revenge (1987)
"Jaws" was never meant for a sequel!
What could be more common than Hollywood making sequels to very successful movies? If it was successful and earned us money then a sequel must be made. In other words the aim is not so much to entertain as to make a quick buck! Jaws was simply not fit for a sequel. The shark dies in the first film. Bringing a new one along just to terrorize Amity once again is so stupid an idea that one wonders how did they come up with it, the weirdest part being that no resident of Amity seems to ask him/herself "why is it that great whites have a thing for our island?" Having Brody's wife assume that the shark came for them is so dumb, it actually insults our intelligence as an audience since we are supposed to buy that load of garbage.
The thing that struck me the most about the revenge is the final water sequence when they've killed the shark,(by driving a boat into it! Don't make me laugh) the horizon backdrop is obviously a painting. It's so obvious it physically hurts since even the water splashes against it! How are we supposed to not notice something that's literally thrown at our face. I'm sure most of you who've seen the film know exactly what I am talking about.
It seems that Universal has quite forgotten what constitutes a good sequel. Robert Shaw (Quint in the original Jaws) suggested that they make a movie about him on the Indian outpost in World War 2 (see his monologue in the first film) where a bunch of sharks ate many of his army buddies. This could have made a good sequel since it's unique and quite possible. But no! Universal had other plans. They'd rather show us a group of stupid kids trying to get away from a shark with Brody's son with them (of course, great whites never forget!)
In the revenge the studio has taken its overwhelming stupidity to the next level. A shark eats Helen Brody's son and then another shark hunts her and her second son in the Bahamas. As the poster says: This time it's personal. Indeed it is. The great white sent a message to his buddy in the Bahamas asking him to do some killing on his behalf and obviously he agrees. This friend of the great white is apparently some kind of X shark due to the fact that he is blessed with vocal cords that enable him to roar (maybe its mother mated with a lion) and has another extraordinary ability to stand on water. So he is an X super shark.
I can't believe I bought the damn DVD. But anyway it serves a completion purpose. I'd like to finish this article by making a film suggestion to Universal pictures and Hollywood. You seem to be so into making sequels and prequels e.g Saw3, The Texas chainsaw massacre:The beginning, why not make a 5th Jaws? "Jaws: The return of the great white", where the shark gets cloned by modern day technology and is then free to continue his hunt for the descendants of the Brody family. Sounds stupid? What do you care as long as it makes money we are all happy and we do't give a damn about quality.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)
Let's make the same film, but change the title!
Being a fan of the original film only added to the disappointment I received. It's only been a couple of minutes since I left the movie theater and felt obliged to put my view down.
It is maybe a tradition that since American filmmakers have lost the ability to make good horror films, they've decided to revisit old classics and remake them e.g. Grudge, Ring, The hills have eyes. "The Beginning" movies are a whole different tradition. After we have exhausted everything in terms of the sequels,we'll go back in time and retell the story from the beginning. However although a prequel is supposed to answer questions The Texas Chainsaw massacre the beginning only gets close to answering any. All we get to know about Leatherface (or Tom Hewitt if you will) is that he was dumped in a garbage can when he was a baby. Fine but what about his homicidal tendencies? How did he become what he is? Why does he like killing people and then dress in their skin? None of this is answered. You call this a prequel? I call it a carbon copied version of the cult original with a different title.
There is no account for the family members either. Why not explain each member separately? Tell the story of how the Hewitt family was formed, how did they raise Tom, Tom's days at school and his first acquaintance with death.
Furthermore the background is not the only area in which this film disappoints. All the graphical gore, the blood the chainsaw chopping is so unnecessary. How much blood was there in the original? Very little and yet it's scary as hell. Guts do not constitute a horror film. Being disgusted does not make one terrified. Did Hitchcock use blood in any oh his thrillers? No then what is it that makes them terrifying. It's the atmosphere and this film lacks it. A prequel is a kind of film that should on one hand be linked to the original film but also follow its own storyline. We have met Leatherface through the sequels, we know what he and his family do to travelers, what we don't know is "why" they do it, and this should have been the area to make the film around. A thriller based on the psychology of its characters would be far more interesting (from my angle always!) than this splatter and shallowly written pseudo prequel.
Finally, while the ending voice over played "...bizarre crimes in the annals of American history: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" a thought occurred to me that I am sure will occur in the minds of many fans "There is nothing like the original"
2/10 for making me like the original even more. Maybe in the future they'll make another one Texas Chainsaw Massacre: Resurrection.They don't even need a story just film a bunch of teenagers getting mutilated.
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
Don't be too harsh everyone!!!
I will not succumb to the temptation of reminding everyone once again how terrible the special effects are and how many times one can see the supporting wires. Instead I will focus on the few good aspects of the movie. Chris Reeve is once again great in being superman and Gene Hackman is an absolute joy to watch as the menacing Luthor with only one thing on his mind "Destroy superman". The references to the first two movies e.g.flying sequence with Lois Lane and the well known score remind us of why they were so successful.
I agree with the nonsensical space sequence but not so much with superman moving the moon. It's a comic book movie after all and in the first film he managed to get the earth out of orbit! You know the whole idea of a man flying and being invincible is quite impossible so why don't you pick on that too? In superman's world anything can happen.
However what is painful for me personally is Warner Bros not being bothered to refurbish superman 4 just like Lucas did with the original star wars trilogy(added better sound, new scenes e.g. Hayden Christensen at the end of the return of the Jedi). They could use modern technology and hide the visible wires and improve the flying sequences. I am sure it won't be expensive. Plus why not even restore the 45 minutes of deleted footage? Dick Donner did so in the first film and also later this year a new restored cut of superman 2 is coming out with all the deleted Donner footage. Why not patch up a low budget effort and restore superman's former glory?
For the performances of Reeve, Hackman and the rest of the common superman characters I chose to give this film 5 out of 10 and I hope that one day we will see it patched up.
Batman Forever (1995)
Forget quality, lets turn commercial!
Batman forever could be called a thrill ride but it's not even worthy of standing next to the first two movies. Batman and Batman returns gave us complex villains who had a reason for doing what they did e.g. the Joker a psychotic criminal being deformed after having fallen in acid takes his anger out on the city of Gotham. What does Harvey two face have against Gotham apart from his grudge with Batman? But of course, lets give the audience some action and they'll forget all about the plot hole.
Secondly Joel has been called a visual director but oh! brother what did Gotham city ever do to him to make him turn it into a wonderland? The colors added to the city are not at all atmospheric neither do they correspond to the Batman legacy. Gotham is supposed to be a city ravaged by crime that needs Batman. Where does a theme park look fit into all this?
The characters are not better of. In the first few minutes we are introduced to probably the horniest or most desperate kind of female character I've ever seen depicted on screen: Dr Chase Meridian. "Hot entrance" she says with a dropping jaw and Batman (no offense but the bat suit turns out to be too big for Val!)responds! How about that! Suddenly it's I am out to fight some bad guys but I'll look around for some dames too. Recall a similar scene from Batman returns: Catwoman saying something like the great Batman we meet at last?. Batman does not answer he simply walks away. He is a masked crusader without a love life.That's Bruce Wayne's area. It's amazing how one little line can spoil something so much.
The Robin character and the Riddler are equally badly and shallowly written. If the studio was aiming for a lighter Batman then I am all for it but for God's sake do not turn it into a popcorn trashy entertainment piece of junk.A good and deep story will always be appreciated a lot more than a bunch of colors cool cars and battles.
Finally I feel that I need to congratulate Joel for topping his bad Batman movie with an even worse one answering to the name of Batman and Robin. Critics thought that Batman forever was a fatal blow to the franchise but oh boy they had another thing coming!
Superman Returns (2006)
Welcome back Superman! We missed you!
The late Chris Reeve said in SupermanIV:The quest for peace "...see you in 20" and very ironically Superman did! Is there anything more a fan could want from a Superman movie? Brandon Routh bears a remarkable resemblance to Reeve and gives a wonderful performance as the man of steel against the well known to us Lex Luthor and the ever deadly to him Cryptonite. Everything we all loved is back, the great soundtrack, Superman's love interest (Lois Lane)plus we get to see his hometown and human mother once again. However, what really hooked me was the homage paid by Singer to Donner's work in the original Superman. From the opening credits to great lines as "I hope this hasn't put you off flying..." and even the ending sequence, all of these are there to tell us Superman is back to stay. In addition the late Marlon Brando footage also made it into the movie indicating how unforgettable he is and how directors can learn from each other. So if you haven't already watched it I suggest you do so as soon as possible and remember Superman "Will always be around".
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
An average final chapter
A mutant cure! A great way to end such a successful franchise as X MEN. However with Singer busy planing the return of the man of steel X MEN was left in a not so safe pair of hands. While watching it I felt like standing up and yelling "can't you just slow down!" X3 is so rushed, which does hook you, but it does not give the old characters time to neither exit in style nor say much, the most underwritten being Rogue. Her lines can be counted using one's fingers, such a shame. The other characters too, apart from Magneto and Wolverine, don't get much screen time whereas the new characters e.g. angel seem pointless. Why bother to introduce new faces when you haven't dealt properly with the already established ones?. The new characters could have worked if more time was devoted to them. Not just an hour and forty eight minutes. Other than that Mystique has been with Magneto for years and he abandons her just like that after in fact having saved him? This was probably done to save time!
As far as the action goes the film could not be more satisfactory but in terms of plot and depth it's not at all equal of the first two movies.
V for Vendetta (2005)
A very satisfactory comic book adaptation
When I was walking out of the theater I heard a viewer saying to his girlfriend "It's not like the comic book at all". This is so not true. I do admit that certain elements that had little to do with V have been omitted, but the gist and the essence of the graphic novel could not be livelier in the film. Very few written materials are filmable page by page. Alan Moore apparently was not pleased with the script and decided to distance himself from the movie. He could not have been more unfair. Natalie Portman's performance may have been called unconvincing but I disagree, she does portray the "imprisoned" ,according to V, Eve well and Hugo Weaving has done a good job of being the enigmatic V whose lines are so lyrical and cleverly written. Yes the ending has been changed but that works to the story's advantage, it shows the grandeur of V's influence and that he has truly freed the English. In summary V for Vendetta is a well written comic book movie which does honor the novel.
The Omen (2006)
Ridiculing a horror classic
Man oh man! when I first heard that the omen was to be remade the only thought that occurred to me was that of "why?" Well the director said that he wanted to "place the movie in a post 9/11 world". Okay so far, the film's introduction is quite well thought of. Sadly when it finishes we are forced to watch a terribly acted repetition of the original which gives us nothing more than better designed death scenes. Liev Schreider replaces Gregory Peck (don't know if I should laugh or cry) and gives an unconvincing and in many ways indifferent performance, (see mini monologue after he's told his wife's dead), the same goes for Julia Stiles but the point where I could not do anything but laugh was when Bugenhagen showed up. He is portrayed as an old fool with sticking up hair and odd body movements. Which logical person would trust someone like him? The rest of the cast are equally bad and not even half as scary as their predecessors, the director desired to have fun with the film, well in my vocab fun is not synonymous with ridicule.