Change Your Image
ProjetErreur
"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not common." - John Locke
“As long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seeds of murder and pain cannot reap the joy of love.” - Pythagoras
"The unknown future rolls toward us. I face it for the first time with a sense of hope, because if a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life, maybe we can too." - Sarah Conner
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Joe's Apartment (1996)
MTV, stop releasing movies.
This film is undeniable proof that shorts, especially MTV created ones, cannot make a good film. "Joe's Apartment" runs out of ideas before the halfway point. The Character Joe rents out an apartment, occupied by acres of cockroaches, who sing and dance and give Joe unwanted company. OK, we get it already.
So how does a film revolving around annoying little roaches extend to 90 minutes? By adding in that predictable subplot involving the hard-to-get love interest for Joe of course, who the viewers automatically know will end up together by the end of the movie. Haven't we seen this predictable boy-gets-girl plot in countless other films? Well, not with singing and dancing roaches. I'll give it that.
Joe somewhat befriends the roaches, even they are annoying and give him grief. Consider a scene where Joe brings a date to his apartment. The roaches hide, and the date suspects nothing. Soon after, when things look as if they're going well for Joe, the roaches fall out of the chandelier and fall all over Joe's date. Soon after, roaches everywhere, terrifying the girl. Joe tells her it's OK, but what woman is going to listen to that? So what does Joe do? He may start off as mad, but he always forgives them. This angers me. These are vindictive, controlling, and annoying roaches who, if I was occupied with them, would drive me to a point to get my apartment exterminated. These roaches cause Joe nothing but grief, and torture, and they invade his privacy; yet the film is supposed to make us laugh.
When the film reaches its inevitable conclusion, I was so annoyed and disgusted by this time that I couldn't feel any of the euphoria the film was trying to feed its viewers. It didn't work.
The film was made my MTV studios and it looks like it should have been a made-for-TV film specifically for MTV. I have not seen the short on which this was based, but I assume it was funnier that this film - it would rely on the roaches singing and dancing routine(s), without the subplots that a full length film has to have to reach its 90 minutes, which just made the cockroaches grow annoying, crude, mean, and tiresome.
Seed of Chucky (2004)
The best 4th sequel to a killer doll movie yet...
"Seed of Chucky" isn't meant to scare you. Just like "Bride of Chucky," "Seed of Chucky" was written as a comedy, and it succeeds.
Why did they decide to turn Chucky into a comedian? Well, perhaps Writer Don Mancini knew how corny the premise was, so he thought the only logical way was to turn it into a comedy. He was smart. It's better to make a movie a comedy on purpose than for that movie to get its laughs unintentionally.
"Child's Play" worked as a horror movie because viewers didn't know for certain the doll was alive. Viewers were led to think that it was possible for Andy, the boy who was given Chucky for his birthday, to be committing the murders. Chucky, as a doll, doesn't utter his first word until halfway through "Child's Play," and when it happens, it shocks its viewers.
"Child's Play 2" and 3, although entertaining, didn't (and couldn't) produce the same shock value as the original. Why? Because viewers already knew Chucky was alive, which diminishes the whole point of the original. Chucky speaks in practically the opening scene of Part 2 and 3, which leaves viewers to think: "what am I supposed to be scared about?" In the original, we knew as much as the people who thought Andy was crazy for saying the doll was alive did. In Parts 2 and 3, we knew everyone but Andy was wrong from the start.
So Don Mancini went in a direction, and a smart one at that, by making Chucky for laughs. "Seed of Chucky" begins with Chucky's son Glen, who Tiffany gave birth to in the previous installment, working at a circus as a sideshow freak. When he sees a film is being made about his killer doll parents, he decides to pursue them.
When Glen gets to the movie set, he uses the famous voodoo chant to turn a replica Chucky and Tiffany doll to life. Now, the 3 dolls go on a killing spree.
Tiffany wants to transfer her soul into Jennifer Tilly's body (who plays herself and also provides the voice of Tiffany, and coincidentally provided the voice of Tiffany in the movie-within-the-movie about Chucky and Tiffany); Chucky wants to transfer his soul into Rapper Redman (playing himself also); and Tiffany plans on getting Jennifer Tilly pregnant with Redman's child, and upon accomplishing this, Glen will have somewhere to transfer his soul.
Without giving too much away, the film has some funny moments, including Chucky and Tiffany's argument about how they shouldn't kill so much around their child, Tiffany's "Rome wasn't built in one day" phone conversation, Tiffany calling Jennifer Tilly fat (who plays her) and a downright hilarious Britney Spears scene.
This film is great for what it tries to accomplish. It deserves credit. This is a 5th installment, which is certainly better than the 5th (and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and following)installments of "Halloween", "Friday the 13th," "Hellraiser," and "Nightmare on Elm Street." Brad Dourif's voice can not be bettered. He IS Chucky. His voice matches Chucky the doll's look so much, that, you actually believe the doll is talking.
Watch this movie for the laughs. It's hilarious. Trust me when I say this, This is the best 5th installment about a killer doll you will ever see.
Batman Begins (2005)
The best comic book movie since "Superman"
It's been eight years since the Batman franchise was left in inescapable ruins. Finally, the WB has brought Batman back to its roots - a dark, gritty, gloomy atmosphere. Although Tim Burton was known for his dark Batfilms, he relied on Gothic architecture and fantastic skylines. "Batman Begins" is dark in the sense that the city looks like it exists in the real world, overrun with crime and ramshackle buildings. Chris Nolan has not only revived the Batman franchise, but he will inspire future comic book movies to come.
Chris Nolan takes a new approach to not only a Batman film, but a superhero film in general. Instead of relying on supernatural imagery and special effects, this film focuses more on character development and a plot - something all of the previous Batman films lacked.
"Batman Begins" uses up the most villains than any other Batman film, but somehow Batman, or I should say Bruce Wayne, remains the main focus of the film. The main plot is the struggle Bruce Wayne has to face to become Batman, and the villains are all involved in minor subplots, whereas in previous Batfilms, the villains dominated the screen, even more than Batman himself.
Do not expect colorful, vibrant villains we've seen from previous Batfilms. Here, Director Chris Nolan aimed for a realistic approach, and succeeding in every way possible. When we watch "NYPD Blue" we don't expect whimsical and colorful villains, we expect normal people without harmonious outlandish costumes.
Watching the first hour of "Batman Begins" seems like an episode of "NYPD Blue" or "CSI." If someone who despised comic books and was unfamiliar with the Batman mythology were to watch "Batman Begins," s/he would never guess it was a comic book film until Batman makes his appearance during the second hour. That is how realistic this movie plays.
The cast is excellent in their roles. I had doubts about Michael Caine at first, being how he is such a well known star, but he plays his part of Alfred so well that one would forget he's Michael Caine and start believing him as Alfred right from his first lines of dialogue. Cillian Murphy is creepy and compelling as the loony psychiatrist Jonathan Crane, a man who you know is hiding something devious behind those eyes. Let us not forget Christian Bale, who is the second actor only to Michael Keaton to portray Bruce Wayne with sincerity, and he's more physically fit for the role, which helps.
The Cinematography is something we haven't seen in many superhero movies. Unlike the usual colorful superhero movies such as "Spider-man" and "Batman & Robin," this movie was filmed dark and artistic. It's as if the cinematographer thought he was making a sequel to "Lost in Translation." Trust me, it works. It's about time a serious Batman film was made.
Kudos, Chris Nolan and David Goyer, for not only reviving Batman, but for creating groundbreaking material which would improve superhero films to come. This is one comic book movie in which the actors, direction, and the screenplay take its source material seriously, which has not happened since Richard Donner's Superman.