Change Your Image
tacmovies
Reviews
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Very Good, Possibly Better Than Craven's.
Plot: The plot is nearly identical to the classic Nightmare, with a few slight differences on Krueger's origin. That having been said, one of my major gripes with the first one was the ending. Nancy's plan was to simply stop giving Freddy power by not continuing to think about him. This might have worked in a book, but not on the big screen, especially when the last second scare at the end of the that movie completely contradicted it. The ending of this movie worked much better, probably because they now have a better idea of where they want to go with the series.
That said, the plot is far from perfect. As I see it, the plot moved too fast. The original Nightmare gave us an unexpected, unexplainable scare and then waited a good long time to really try and scare us again. In that time we got to latch onto the characters and get to know them. This movie seems to think the audience will get bored if they don't keep having scares every five minutes or so. B Characters: As expressed in the plot department, this is a major weakness in this movie. We don't spend very long with any of the major characters before they are dispatched. As a result, I can't tell you anything about most of the people in this movie. We don't even get to spend long with Nancy, the survivor girl from the original, as we spend most of the movie over the shoulder of two other characters until they are dispatched.
That said, Jackie Earl Haley's Freddy is terrifying. I don't know if I'm ready to say that he's better than Robert Englund, but he's definitely the best part of this movie and is worth the price of admission on his own, both as dream demon Freddy and the living Freddy.
Lastly, special mention goes out to Clancy Brown. Good to see you in a movie again, Kurgan. Does anyone else remember the fact that he used the pseudonym of "Krueger" when he checked into the hotel in the original Highlander movie? It's hard to assign a letter grade to this category, as I want to give an A to Jackie Earl Haley and an F to the rest of the characters, so we'll compromise at a C.
Visuals: People who don't like CG are going to disagree with me, but I thought this movie looked amazing. One of my big complaints with the Nightmare franchise is that I never felt that it reached a boiling point, in that Freddy, being a dream demon, never really created a dream world that was all that more terrifying than the real world. The best dream world in the old continuity can probably be found in Freddy vs. Jason or Wes Craven's New Nightmare. This movie's dream world is a bit more dreamlike. The ground turns to liquid, mazes grow out of the ground from nowhere, the laws of physics be damned, and Krueger seems able to do anything his imagination can think of. Granted, it's almost all CG, and practical purists will no doubt cry that it looks fake. To me, this is a choice. You either decide to ride with this movie or you decide to reject it, but the choice is yours. A
Audio: There were enough points where I found myself fighting the urge to cover my ears when I expected to next scare to appear on screen, so I can't think of a better compliment than that. The score is creepy, the original Nightmare theme is reworked effectively, and the Everly Brothers' song "All I Have to do is Dream" makes a very appropriate feeling appearance. B
Overall: This is a very good movie. Is it better than the original? I really can't say right now, as I need to re-watch the original first, but from what I remember I think it gives the first one a run for its money. It does some things worse, but it also fixes some problems that I had with the original. Overall, I give it a B.
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, flixter, IMDb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Willow (1988)
Someone Give Warwick Davis More Work!
Story: This is the archetypal David and Goliath style story of a little man (literally) vs. the big bad. It's also the quest style of fantasy story. It has more than a few similarities to the Lord of the Rings, not to mention some parallels with the story of Moses from Bible, but it does it in it's own way. All around, aside from some startling badass decay, which we'll explore in the acting section, the only real complaint I have with the story is that the ending is not terribly self explanatory. Whenever I make someone watch this movie for the first time, they always turn to me and ask, "What just happened there?" and I do consider this a failure on the part of the movie. They could have explained it after the fact. B
Acting: Val Kilmer is my favorite actor, largely because of this movie, Tombstone, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Spartan, and At First Sight, and while he's really, really good in this movie, I don't understand why he and Joanne Whalley got higher billing that Warwick Davis. Warwick is in nearly every shot of this movie, he's the titular character, and he really was the meat the holds the movie together. I guess it was a marketing decision. Anyhow, Warwick is awesome in this movie and really needs to be given more to do than be a side character in every Star Wars, Harry Potter, or odd ball fantasy movie/miniseries that comes down the pipes. Don't believe me? Watch Ray. He's in it, he's a little man, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't impact the story practically at all. He gives a strong performance and it works.
Anyhow, back to Val. Madmartigan is probably the loudest, most animated character that Val has ever played, which is cool when you consider that he usually plays very thoughtful, understated characters (like his Ice Man character in Top Gun). He sort of plays this movie's version of Han Solo, the skeptic, smart mouthed fighter. His character does experience a certain level of badass decay as the movie approaches its climax, as he loses his smart mouth in favor of being the generic, noble warrior character. To a certain extent, this understandable, but I would like to have seen him retain more of his personality. That said, his sword fight with Pat Roach more than makes up for this.
Madmartigan may experience badass decay, but not nearly as badly as Sorsha, the character played by Joanne Whalley. She starts out tough as nails with a strong personality. She's got a sword that looks like pain harnessed in steel form, and she's here to kick your ass... until she falls in love with Val Kilmer. After this, she barely gets two lines in for the rest of the movie and also devolves into an idealized sort of warrior woman.
However, I think the real star of this movie is Jean Marsh. Queen Bavmorda is evil and powerful. She's knows magic spells to kill you in many painful ways and a enough of a lacking conscience to use it. When the Nostalgia Chick listed her top lady villains, I was quite disappointed to see that Bavmorda didn't make the list when the wicked witch of the west from the Wizard of Oz did (I realize that I'm about to utter blasphemy, but the witch didn't do anything in that movie except laugh in an over the top manner. Oh, and she used flowers to put people to sleep and employed an hour glass of doom, oh the horror!) Her acting is almost over the top, but not quite. She hits her note perfectly.
Lastly, they got the cutest, most expressive baby in the world to play Elora Danan. She smiles and laughs at all the right times. B
Visuals: This movie was really revolutionary at the time for raising the bar on visual effects with the whole process of morphing. The special effects hold up to this day and look better than a lot of digital effects you'll see on a Sci-Fi (or is it Sy Fy?) channel original. Also, may I say that Nockmaar castle is the most evil looking castle ever (sorry Orthanc and Barad-dur). I realize that sixty percent of it is a painting, but seriously I love the look of that castle. A
Sound: The music in this movie is beyond epic, although I know I heard the same music in an ad for Disney's the Three Musketeers, so I don't know who borrowed it from whom. Whatever, it works in this movie. The sound effects are awesome, they completely compliment what we're seeing on screen. A
Overall: This is one of my favorite movies from my childhood, not to mention my favorite NES game. I probably drove my parents crazy between the two of them. However, this is one of the few childhood memories that held up over the years. I definitely can't say the same for the Thundercats. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, flixter, IMDb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
A Serious Man (2009)
The Coens Do Job
Story: This is the story of Job, set in the 1970's as a bizarre sort of comedy. And, it's really funny. I'm not sure why, as I usually dislike movies where I'm supposed to look feel bad or embarrassed for a genuinely nice fellow like in Meet the Parents or What About Bob, but this one worked for me. Then again, the Coen Bros. Do lots of things that I would probably reject in the hands of some other director (see the epic fail in No Country For Old Men). B
Acting: There were lots of great actors, but I have to give a shout out to Simon Helberg who plays Wolowitz on my current favorite sit-com, the Big Bang Theory. I had no idea that he was in this movie until he appeared on screen, and I was like, "Hey, it's Wolowitz!" Michael Stuhbarg, Sari Lennick, and Richard Kind all do a great job, but I thought the star actor was Fred Melamed as Sy Ableman. He just plays the nicest, most compassionate douche that just slept with your wife and honestly thinks that you should move out of your own house for the good of your children. A
Visuals: This movie was very brown in color, or maybe more of a light tan. Whatever, that color was everywhere. It provided a hazy, should be depressing but oddly light hearted tone to the movie. Well, Mel Brooks always used yellow on the grounds that it was funny color, and it worked. B
Sound: The music fit the general era they were trying to establish, even if they say it was supposed to by 1967 but make reference to an album that didn't come out till the 70's. It was fairly quiet, understated movie. B
Overall: In many ways, this felt like a live action version of Charlie Brown, in that he never gets to kick the football. Ever. In some small way, I kept thinking of the cartoon Invader Zim while watching this, in that the humor comes through watching horrible things in an exaggerated manner. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, flixter, IMDb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Where the Wild Things Are (2009)
It's a great movie that I absolutely hated.
Story: Sometimes a movie comes along that I despise but I also recognize is a legitimately good movie. This is an example of that, so is Monster. This is the story of a little brat who throws major temper tantrums when things don't go exactly his way. When his mom ignores him while entertaining a male guest the kid acts the absolute spawn of hell and when his mother looses her temper with him, he runs away into an imaginary land where wild creatures live. I must compliment the writers for going beyond the book and mapping out a world that a child would imagine. A.
Acting: The acting was pretty good. The kid always made me believe that he was seeing these creatures and this world. The voices all fit the monsters perfectly and Catherine Keener did an excellent job as Max's mother.
Visuals: This movie looked awesome. The use of mostly practical effects with only minimal amounts of digital effects really assisted the overall product. As is standard with any story designed for kids, it contains a significant amount of traumatizing material, my favorites being when Carol rips off another monster's arm and it says, "Carol, that was my favorite arm!" leading them to replace it with a stick. The other being where Max hides in Judith's mouth from Carol. Tell me that isn't nightmare fuel! A
Sound: The music really fit this movie and so did the sound. Not much more to say. A
Overall: Understand that my hatred for this movie stems from my hatred for the kid in this movie. He needed a very good flogging. Did he ever get one? No! Why the mother apologizes to him for her loosing her temper with him. The kid gets away without punishment. Thank you, Hollywood, for encouraging parents to not discipline their children, for not teaching them to obey their authority figures, for letting them know that it's okay to throw temper tantrums, for telling them that mommy and daddy are in the wrong for trying to mold you into a valued member of our society, and I want to thank you adding to the general decay of our society as kids continue to grow up with no sense of discipline or work ethic.
For the record, as of this writing, I have no kids. Upon hearing my thoughts about this movie and my general thoughts on child raising, my sister has threatened to steal any children that I may ever have away from me so that they actually enjoy their childhood. A
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, flixter, IMDb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Last Rites of the Dead (2006)
For B Horror, this is really good!
Story: Quick synopsis since this is a lesser known movie: The dead in this world don't stay dead, they come back as zombies, but not zombies in the traditional sense that they are mindless corpses with only the drive to eat and a basic fight or flight response. These zombies retail all the intelligence and memories of the living. That said, they do eat raw meat. The can get by just eating raw ground chuck but they are stricken with headaches that only go away when they eat the still warm flesh of humans. The living aren't okay with this and zombies are treated as second class citizens who are usually fired from their jobs for being zombies and sometimes executed by humans who are afraid of them. This leads to an industry of cosmetic products designed to hide the fact that a person is a zombie.
So, it is in this world that we meet our main protagonist, Angie, who is killed by an abusive boyfriend. She then tries to go about her"life" as if nothing happened and tries to hide the fact that she's a zombie. It should come as no surprise that this turns into a metaphor for being different and encourages people to stop conforming and be themselves.
I was surprised that this was more serious than humorous, given the title, but it actually has some really strong themes and ideas presented. There are some laughs sprinkled throughout, but I don't think I'd call it a comedy. The first half of this movie was absolutely genius, but the second half faltered a little bit. I have to give it a B.
Acting: I have to give props to Gina Ramsden for playing a very effective girl next door sort of character. Christa McNamee plays an absolutely terrifying Commandant who leads death squads against zombies. Most of the rest of the cast does a pretty good job, and by pretty good I mean pretty good for a Hollywood movie. By B horror standards, they are phenomenal. B
Visuals: I watch a lot of bad horror movies and have a fairly strong stomach, but this one made me want to gag a few times. Granted, I think I was fighting a virus when I watched it, so it may have just been me instead of the movie. Anyhow, this is a gross movie. I wouldn't advise eating anything when you watch it. Also, the whole world looks dirty and depressingly gross. This was no doubt by design, so I have to give props. B
Sound: This was probably the weakest link in the chain. The sound was much better than some B horror movies, but there was almost constantly a hiss in the background that comes from poor sound equipment. The music also didn't leave a huge impression on me either. C
Overall: This may be one of the few B horror movies that I actually give a B to. It should have been shorter and losses steam in the second half, but it's still much, much better than the rest of the horror crap that's out there. I got my copy used from Blockbuster for about five bucks and I think it's worth paying up to twelve dollars for this movie (that includes shipping if you should decide to order it). If you're into indie horror, I have to believe you'll enjoy this movie. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, flixter, IMDb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Sherlock Holmes (2009)
Good Acting, Average Story
Acting: Robert Downey Jr. is awesome at any role, and I'm glad that he's finally getting the recognition he deserves. He does a great job of making Holmes quirky and borderline unlikeable at times, but he just has this innocent sort of charm that makes us like him. Jude Law plays a great Dr. Watson. I have to agree with Moviebob in saying that it is nice to see a Watson that isn't played dumb or flat so that Sherlock looks more interesting by comparison. Rachel McAdams... was hot! She's an excellent femme fatale-ish sort of gal and seriously, she should be more famous than she is. Between Mean Girls, the Notebook, Wedding Crashers, and her best role (in my opinion) Red Eye, she really should be a household name by now. In many ways the actors were the main attraction in this movie and the banter between Jude Law and Downey made this movie. A
Visuals: This movie had a great steam punk look to it and was generally a feast for the eyes. The fight scenes where Holmes would plot out each of his moves and the anticipated counter move was an item of beauty. Now, since I deleted my direction category in favor of a sound category, I'll attack the director here: This movie needed to be shorter. At least by ten minutes, probably closer to twenty minutes shorter. B
Sound: The music was quite epic and, again, there were no foleys that kicked me out of the movie. The general sound of steam being released fit the whole steam punk atmosphere. B
Story: Eh... I really don't like mystery movies or books as a genre. There are exceptions, but as a general rule they just don't pull me in. To the masses, they're good for maybe two viewings, once to try and figure it out as it plays out and another to check and make sure the writer didn't pull a fast one on the audience. The goal, I suppose, is to make the audience try to solve the mystery with Sherlock Holmes. But, all movies are to a certain extent a fantasy instead of reality, so logic goes out the window when the writer uses lots of supernatural elements or applied phlebotnium to drive the plot, making any real world speculations on our part a general waste of time. Hence, I never even try to solve the mystery and never get pulled in because of it.
All right, enough about the genre, how's this particular mystery? Well, it's okay. I cared more about the banter between characters than solving the mystery, so I thought they could have cut a lot of the clues and speculations segments and gotten the running time down some. It would have made me happier. The villain's overall plan was good, but I think that a suspense thriller approach of letting the audience know his plan but not Holmes would have kept me interested when I tuned out, but I prefer thrillers over mysteries any day. C
Overall: It's not a bad movie, and it seems to be fairly faithful to the Holmes mythology (even if he is a bit more physical than he ever was before... but I only read The Hound of the Baskervilles, so my knowledge of Holmes is limited to what my roommate, Robert, who read every Sherlock Holmes story ever, tells me) and ultimately it doesn't matter. This movie creates its own continuity and seems to stay consistent. I recommend this movie to fans of the players involved (Downey, Law, McAdams) and say that it's probably worth sending between five and eight dollars to see, but anymore than that might leave you feeling ripped off. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, flixter, IMDb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Changeling (2008)
Confessions of a JMS-aholic...
I'm going to break from my usual format for the purpose of reviewing this movie. From Captain Power to the Real Ghostbusters to Babylon 5 to his run on the comic book Spider-man, J. Michael Straczynski is not so much my favorite writer as he is my writing God. So, when I heard that a major motion picture, written by him, was being produced by originally Ron Howard, then Clint Eastwood and that A listers like John Malkovich and Angelina Jolie were going to be in it, not to mention Jeffrey Donovan, the star of Burn Notice, were going to be involved in it, I was excited and nervous beyond all hell. I'm not really a sports fan, but the feeling I had is the way I think a fan feels when they find out their home town team is playing for the World Series or the Superbowl. I was excited because JMS was finally going to break into Hollywood. I was nervous because, well what if it sucked? I mean, I loved JMS's work on TV shows, but while the Babylon 5's made for TV movies weren't bad, they were nowhere near as good as the show itself. I was worried that JMS might not be able to pull off a movie. Furthermore, a lot of hands end up touching movies before they get produced. I wanted to see my home town team win, not get humiliated. So, I was nervous.
Also, I was confused. The movie was called Changeling, which to me, the Star Trek nerd, is the alien species that Odo from Deep Space Nine. I couldn't believe for the life of me that all these A-listers signed on for a sci-fi movie, despite the fact that JMS had made his name writing sci-fi. Then I heard it was based on a true story. This confused me even further.
But, all my anxiousness didn't stop me from being a one man advertisement team for this movie. I bugged and threatened and bargained with all my friends to go see this one when it finally came out. In retrospect I think some of them might have decided to skip it because I was annoying them that badly.
Well, the movie came out... and it was amazingly good! I mean, I know I'm a JMS whore, but it really, really was awesomely good. The cast was awesome, the visuals were awesome, the music was awesome, everything about it was freaking awesome, and the writing was beautifully, magically awesome!
My only minor complaint with the movie is that JMS may have been too faithful to history and might have shortened the end by combining a few scenes. But, seriously, this is definitely my pick for best movie of 2008, and probably ranked number two or three of the decade, following Finding Neverland and (500) Days of Summer. A!!
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, flixter, IMDb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
They Live (1988)
Cheesy, but some of the best one liners ever!
Story: Aliens invade and a guy fights them with guns while spouting one liners. Seriously, what more do you want? Carpenter spends a lot of time jumping up and down on his soapbox, with the hidden messages on the money and the billboards being oh so subtle ("This is your god!"), but it's done in such a cheesy, over the top way that it becomes quite hilarious. There are a few moments of plot induced stupidity, mainly coming from the bum who turns out to be working with the aliens not noticing that Piper's face was on TV as being wanted when he takes Piper inside the alien base. C
Acting: Roddy Piper does an excellent job of playing a very understated character at the beginning of this movie. Then once he notices the aliens around him he starts spouting one liners in an over the top fashion. In many ways it felt like his character had split personalities. I also love the fact that the first offensive move he does in this movie is a good old fashioned clothesline from pro wrestling. Keith David is probably the star actor of this movie, unless you count the fight between him and Roddy which was probably the real star of this movie, just ask South Park (Cripple Fight!). C
Visuals: Okay, this movie looked awesome. The special effects are a bit dated, but they more or less hold up to this day. The differences between the real world and the world seen through the glasses are awesome. John Carpenter is and will always be one of my favorite directors and this one was pretty good, although his love for long shots cost the scene of the cops beating up people in the back alley. That scene needed some creative editing and rapid cuts to make the hits look like they were actually impacting the victims. B
Sound: Carpenter loves synthesizers, as shown by this movie, Prince of Darkness, and In the Mouth of Madness. In this one we get the blues as played through a synth, which makes for an eerie sound. No foleys kicked me out of the movie, so all around we're good. A
Overall: This is a really stupid movie and I love it. It has become a bit hard to find these days, and if you consider yourself a fan or Carpenter and/or Evil Dead 2, then this movie is worth hunting down. I'd be willing to pay up to fifteen dollars for a good copy or a buck or two for a used VHS copy somewhere. C
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, flixter, IMDb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
The Blind Side (2009)
It Made a Non-football Fan Care
I'm going to preface this review by saying that I did not want to see this movie. Why? Because I hate football and because I watched Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott write it off as cheap, overly sentimental Oscar bait. I ended up seeing this because my mother wanted to see it for her birthday and I planned on taking a nap it the theater.
Well, Mike and Tony, you were wrong. This movie was awesome. Freaking awesome. Again, I hate football and did not want to like this movie, but I loved it. So, I no longer record At the Movies. You two are heartbroken, I know.
Story: The story follows the true story of Michael Oher as he was adopted by Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw. He bonds with them and comes to see them as his own family. He gets his grades up, excels at playing football, and gets to go to college on a football scholarship. Then, the family gets put under a microscope by an investigator who wants to know why Sandra Bullock adopted Michael, suspecting that she did it so that her alma mater would have a powerhouse football player rather than out of a sense of charity. It is that last part that makes this movie so good, because we live in a cynical society where we want to know what the charitable are gaining by being charitable. It doesn't dodge that question.
The only possible complaint I have with the story is that, under the correct viewing, the story could come off a bit racist. It inadvertently asserts that white culture is superior to black culture. The generous white people save one poor black kid from the horrors of living in a black world. This could have been subverted some by having the ghetto not be uniformly black and the white world being so uniformly white. However, being a true story, maybe that's how it happened. In fact, it does sort of come up as a plot point when Michael writes in his journal about feeling isolated by being the only black kid in the school. So, I don't think the movie was trying to be racist, but I do think some people will be offended. B
Acting: Sandra Bullock's character came under fire by Scott and Phillips as a one dimensional idealized characterture that didn't grow throughout the story. They were particularly harsh on the line where Sandra said that Michael was changing her life, arguing that she showed no signs of that. I disagree. She was growing, but very subtly. Yes, she was headstrong and stubborn and changed very little, but she did grow, and if she hadn't been so persistent then this story never would have happened.
Quinton Aaron also fell under fire, saying that his portrayal of Michael Oher was reduced to reaction shots and that he became an ancillary character in his own movie. Again, wrong! Yes, Michael doesn't say much, but he said everything that he needed to say through those subtle looks. Quinton did a fabulous job.
Jae Head made this movie a lot of fun with his enthusiasm through playing SJ, Sandra Bullock's biological son who immediately bonds with Mike. Even the most jaded cynic will be smiling during SJ's scenes.
Lastly, I knew Tim McGraw was in this movie and I kept wondering which character he was playing. I was shocked, absolutely shocked to learn that he had been playing Sean Tuohy, Sandra Bullock's husband. He disappeared into the role utterly, totally and completely. I had no idea that it was him until the end credits rolled and then I kept wanting to see his character again to see if it really was him, but instead the movie ends with photos of the real life Michael Oher and Tuohy family. Props, Tim! You were able to match energy with Sandra Bullock and were awesome! Acting gets a big fat A! Visuals: This movie did a good job (perhaps too good considering the potentially offensive racial message it sent) of making Michael's world and the Tuohy family world seem completely different. One is soft and pretty, the other is dark and gritty. The football action drew me in, an accomplishment when you consider that I don't enjoy the sport. All around, the visuals get an A.
Sound: The soundtrack felt a bit southern, but it fit the movie and the mood they were trying to send. The foleys kept me believing that there really was a football game being played and didn't kick me out of the movie at any point. A
Overall: This movie is really good. It's uplifting and generally gives a feeling of hope for the future. I hope no gets too terribly offended by it, but by and large I think you should see it. A
Avatar (2009)
It's Soooo Beautiful!
Visuals: For years Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and all sorts of other sci-fi or fantasy movies have been trying to take us to another world. This one succeeded, and it was so beautiful. I swear that I had a religious experience in reaction to the visuals to this movie, probably akin to the feeling that many people had when they watched the original Star Wars for the first time in theaters. I don't tend to get teary eyed over physical beauty that often, but this world moved me to tears from the sheer beauty of it. It was like stepping inside an expressionistic painting. If you get a chance to see this in 3D, do it! If you get a chance to see it in the theater, do it! If you miss out on all that and watch your DVD in an old tube television, well... still watch it, although you might not have quite the same reaction as everyone else. The visuals get an A, and I somehow feel that an A isn't high enough to do this movie justice.
Sound: If the sound had failed, then the visuals would have too. Pandora sounded alive and organic. The creatures made sounds that matched the visuals and the music superbly added to the drama of what was going on. A
Acting: I tip my hat to every actor in this movie. The humans interacted with the CG characters in such an organic way that I really never questioned the fact that the humans were reacting to no one. Sam Worthington, mixing this with his roles in Terminator 4 and Clash of the Titans, may be establishing himself to be the next big action star since Jason Statham. Likewise, Zoe Saldana's career is on the rise as she just came off playing Uhura in the Star Trek reboot. And then there's Stephen Lang... good Lord, I do not want him angry with me under any circumstances ever. The man was ripped in this movie and looked like he could give Chuck Norris a run for his money. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a movie with Stephen Lang portraying a character very similar to his role as Col. Miles Quaritch, but as the movie's main protagonist instead of villain. The acting department gets an A!
Story: Normally, I tackle story first thing in my reviews. I saved it for last here, because I really loved this movie, but that doesn't mean that I'm blind to some issues with the storyline.
My initial review was too long for IMDb, to read my full review visit tacmovies.blogspot.com
Anyhow, this is the archetypal mole goes native story. There are some shocking similarities between it and the novel Call Me Joe, and it wouldn't be the first time that Cameron had been sued for plagiarism, as Harlan Ellison sued him over Terminator, but I still think that simultaneous creation is possible in this instance. Regardless, the story is pretty good, but it's definitely the weakest link in the chain. All of the characters played their parts in making this story function, but I definitely thought some parts were written a bit shallow, for instance (SPOILER WARNING):
1. The Na'vi never once thought that Jake was giving intel to the humans? I think tvtropes.com might call this "Plot Induced Stupidity," especially when you consider that they only let him stay there to gain intel on the humans. Slightly hypocritical, if you ask me. Since we're on the subject, Neytin turned on Jake and immediately never wanted to see him again before the humans attacked and her father died. This despite the fact that the Na'vi mate for life and the two just mated. After taming a red dragon-like creature, she welcomes him back with open arms.
Okay, this functionally works to progress the story, but I think a better progression would have been to have the two mate, Jake reveals his mole status and the rest of the Na'vi turn on Jake but Neytin, feeling that strong, irrational mating bond, stands by her man until her father dies, at which point she turns on him. Jake then tames a red dragon and symbolically regains the trust of the Na'vi but it takes a little longer for Neytin to forgive him. At least, that's how I would have done it.
2. The evil human corporation is willing to massacre innocent natives to make a quick buck. It's so one dimensional that it's painful. Not to say that it couldn't happen, but I wanted more, and I think the movie hinted at more. In fact, Worthington's character mentioned that the earth had been ruined somehow. If we as a race no longer had a home world and were dependent upon Unobtainium to survive, and the Na'vi were unwilling to negotiate giving us any Unobtainium for over six years (which the movie stated was the timetable the negotiations had gone), then I think stealing it wouldn't necessarily have been the right thing to do morally, but necessary for the survival of the human race. The story hints that this is what's going on behind the scenes, but never says it outright probably because we the audience would turn on Jake Sully if we knew that. In any case, I would have preferred that the storyline be less cut and dry. The soldiers just started shooting. They didn't try a covert mission to steal the Unobtainium first, and the money grubbing corporation didn't recognize the potential money to be made in harvesting the forest's telepathy/soul bank?
Again, I thought the writing was okay, but with some major problems. C
Overall: You should see this movie. It's awesome. Yes, the writing is a bit shallow at times, but it's still really good in spite of the writing. A
2012 (2009)
The Feel Good Comedy of the Year!
Story: The movie starts in 2009 Platt and Ejofor informing a president of these United States who is curiously not Barack Obama in this world (weird... but at least he's a messianic black man right? Between this and Deep Impact, Hollywood is definitely telling America that we should be thankful to get through the Obama presidency in one piece, because the message is clearly the if you have a black president the world will try to kill you... not the political world... THE EARTH ITSELF WILL TURN ON YOU!!! If you liked that joke, it was mine. If you thought it was racist and offense, then my roommate Joseph came up with it.) that the apocalypse is about to begin and that like Noah, we need to build an ark.
Speaking of Noah's, did anyone else notice that Jon Cusack's son was named Noah? What do you mean it's not symbolic? Although I can't come up with any reason why the digital television conversion didn't happen in this universe, as there are analog TV's without converter boxes functioning. Maybe there's some hidden symbolism there that I'm not getting.
Some complaints with the storyline (SPOILER ALERT): If the tectonic plates decided to shift and the continental US began to sink, then who thought that landing in Hawaii to refuel would be a good idea? I'm not an expert and even I recognize the stupidity of that idea. Then we get the laziest deus ex machina in the form of the plane crashing from lack of fuel conveniently in China because of the shifting poles.
(SPOILERS ALERT CONCLUDED, YOU MAY OPEN YOUR EYES NOW) All in all the story gets a B.
Acting: There really are some good performances here. Danny Glover does an awesome not Obamessiah president. Woody Harrelson surprised me by even being in this movie and doing crazy in a way that only Woody can do. I'm glad to see Oliver Platt in something big again, even if he is the "bad" guy (although if I had been in his shoes, I wouldn't have opened those doors either!) It's good to see John Billingsley on something other than Star Trek: Enterprise. Stephen McHattie was only on screen for a few scenes but completely stole those scenes. Oh, and the nuclear family plus the step dad aren't bad either. The acting department gets a solid A.
Direction: Roland Emmerich gets a lot of crap for his movies and I'm not sure why (except for Godzilla and to certain extent The Day After Tomorrow which I thought were lesser movies of his) but, as my friend Andrew pointed out in my original review of this movie, the fact that Emmerich keeps dealing with apocalyptic subject matter does technically make him an auteur. Overall, there are some scenes where the audience really has to suspend their disbelief, like when Jon Cusack outruns a volcanic eruption and catches up with a plane on foot, but they work from a suspense point of view. However, I do have to fault Emmerich for a few of the plane take off scenes feeling identical to the one that just preceded it in the scene before. Of course, the band Austrian Death Machine might say, "Of course they look and feel the same, because they all look BRUUUUUTAAAAAL!" B
Visuals: If you haven't watch the Escapist's Movie Bob's review of this movie, I recommend you do so. He assessed the visuals in this movie in a far superior way than I ever could, so I'm not even going to try. Suffice to say, the visuals get an A.
Overall: I laughed all the way through. . . and yes, I know this means that I should probably be seeking therapy. In my defense, everyone in my party was laughing too, so if there's something wrong with me, my friends have it too. This movie is close to A range, but really is more in the realm of B because of dumb things that drag it down, but regardless you should see this movie!
Repo Man (1984)
Strange Little Movie...
Story: The plot of this movie is somewhat difficult to describe and it's even more difficult to make sense out of it. What I can say confidently is that this is a dark, absurdist comedy about a punk kid who gets roped into being a repo man and his bizarre adventures along the way. This movie has a small cult following, so I'm preparing to get ripped apart when I say this, but some of the writing is brilliant, like Fox Harris as a mad scientist bragging about getting a lobotomy or Tracey Walter's bit ranting about how humans must have paradoxical origins in the future, but the rest is just plain terrible. This movie tries way too hard to be smart and hip and edgy. The end result is somewhere between self parody and pretentious bullshit. I know that I'm supposed to laugh at the ridiculousness of lines like, "Let's go do some crimes! Yeah, let's get sushi and not pay!" but instead I just groaned in embarrassment for the movie. So, yeah, the story gets a D, as in doggy.
Acting: There are some really good performances here, the best being Harry Dean Stanton as a very dry, crazed repo man who thinks he's the wisest man alive but doesn't really know anything. Emilio Estevez... I'm not sure what to say. He plays the worst kind of scum on the planet, and he does it well. So, if I was supposed to hate my main protagonist, then I guess he did a good job. If not, if he was supposed to a likable anti-hero, then he failed. Everything he did, everything he said, and just the look on his face made me want to hit him or hope someone in the movie (which, fortunately they do hit him, so wish granted). As already mentioned, Tracey Walter does a good job and Fox Harris makes a great mad scientist. C
Direction: Again, this is a hard one to call, and it's hard to decide whether I'm complaining about the story or the direction. The timeline just doesn't work in this movie. The big offender comes when Emilio gets ticked when Emilio gets ticked with Harry and gets out of his car in a rage. A completely unrelated scene follows. I'm not sure if said scene was supposed to take place five minutes later, a day later, a week later, or what. Emilio runs into Harry later, and they're fine with each other, as if they never had a fight. Later in the movie, I guess they remembered their little spat, and then they're fighting again. Now, maybe the script was written chronologically and then was pieced together in a different order in post, in which case this is the directors fault. Or maybe it was bad writing. I don't know. I didn't see the script. In any case, both categories suffered. D
Visuals: These were actually pretty good and some of the best laughs in the movie came from the sheer ridiculousness of the visuals. I liked the thing in Fox Harris' trunk and I liked the ending sequence. So, I guess I'll give this a B.
Overall: I ended this movie feeling very conflicted. The things that were good were great, the things that were bad were awful. It is a cult classic, so perhaps you should see it to see what all the fuss is about, but I can only really recommend this movie to those who like arty, surrealist style movies. It's kinda funny at times, but not a gut busting comedy, so I can't recommend it on those grounds. Basically, if you're not an art student and are able to watch it for less that five dollars, it might be worth your time, but only if you've seen all the other movies first. D
A History of Violence (2005)
Aragorn isn't bad with a gun!
Story: The story is probably the worst part of this movie. Without summarizing the plot and keeping spoilers to a minimum, if the cops in Indiana and the cops in Philadelphia were to compare notebooks, it would be very easy to identify the killer at the end of this movie. Also, Viggo manages to overcome the odds so many times that it wouldn't surprise me if he were to also win the next week's powerball after the end of the movie, and William Hurt's character even points this out when he has the infamous line to his mooks, "How do you f-ck that up?" Some of the characters are written to be supershallow, such as the two killers at the beginning of the movie and the high school bully. That said, there enough story to keep this movie afloat. I wouldn't have minded a little more, but it gets the job done... but, then again, this movie was nominated for an Oscar for best writing of an adapted screenplay in 2006, so what do I know? C
Acting: There are a lot of great actors in this movie, but I'm going to skip to the Sheriff who is played by the great Peter MacNeill. What? You don't know who Peter MacNeill is? Well, I'm not surprised. He played Hawk on Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future, probably my favorite TV show growing up, even if it only went one season. I want more work for Peter! Anyhow, Maria Bello was amazing(ly hot in that cheerleader outfit) in this movie, Ed Harris isn't on screen very long but leaves a major mark, William Hurt got an Oscar nomination and I support that one, and Ashton Holmes has some of the best facials in this movie I've ever seen. The scene where Maria Bello gets out the shotgun and Viggo runs home and bursts through the door was made by Ashton Holmes reaction as their son, sitting eating his cereal, confused beyond reason about what's going on. I loved that scene, and I think Ashton's reaction could make any scene in any movie funny.
Enough about the supporting characters: How does Viggo do? Well, that's a difficult question to answer. (SPOILER ALERT IS OFFICALLY SET TO FUSIA) I didn't find his portrayal of Tom Stall to be all that convincing, but I almost think they did that on purpose because he's not really Tom Stall. I believed him as the action hero, even in the most implausible circumstances (except when William Hurt shot at him at point blank range three times and somehow managed to miss... Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy, it's the only explanation!) and I believed him when he became Joey again. So, him playing Tom a little fake isn't necessarily a bad thing, and may have been a deliberate thing. (SPOILERS ALERT IS NOW LIFTEDED) All in all, the acting gets an A!
Direction: The first shot in this movie is almost two minutes long... and it's beautiful. The cinematography in this movie is beautiful. The editing is beautiful. It creates such a brooding mood and it completely sucks you into the movie. The action sequences are over very quickly, but they're good and powerful enough that they'll be the strongest memory that you have of this movie. I also love the way that this movie uses the way the characters have sex to show the differences in their personalities. Cronenberg is one of the best directors working today, and this is one of my favorite performances of his. A
Visuals: The line between direction and visuals is always a bit ambiguous, (I only break them up because Yahoo! movies makes me assign each one a letter grade and I can't give a grade with no explanation why it's there or it becomes meaningless) and it's even more difficult to define with Cronenberg because his strong visuals are so rooted in his style, so I'm using visuals to describe the special effects in this movie. Specifically, the blood. There's lots of it. It's disgusting and yet stylized in an oddly beautiful sort of way. I know the fight sequence with the coffee carafe was done using chroma keying and the results are spectacular. The bullet entry and exit wounds are some of the most realistic I've ever seen. Also, the contrast between the simple country house that the Stall's live in and the elegant mansion in Philadelphia really does an effective job of characterizing the inhabitants for us, but also make Philadelphia and Indiana seem like completely different worlds. The visuals also get an A.
Overall: I really liked this movie. It's not for everyone, particularly if excessive amounts of blood or on screen sex of any kind at all offend you. I can't see a broadcast television clean cut of this movie ever being made that doesn't completely neuter the effect of this movie. It needs the violence and the sex to work, so again, if you don't like those things then you shouldn't watch this movie, although if you are into expanding your point of view then I think maybe you should watch this one anyway because this movie makes a great case for why blood and sex should not be taken away from filmmakers on the grounds that it would negatively affect their art. To everyone else out there, see this movie! All around, I have to give this one a B. It would have been an A if the storyline had been stronger, but it's still a damn good movie. It's well worth your money.
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
It's a Fun Popcorn Movie
Story: There was a story? Oh, right, it's there. It holds the chase scenes and action sequences together. If you look at it wrong, it will crumble. I never saw the first one and didn't seem too terribly lost by it, suggesting that the narrative is not the most important thing here. It gets a D and we're moving on.
Acting: Paul Walker does pensive very well. Tyrese Gibson steals the show. Not much more to say here. C
Direction: The action sequences are lots of fun and really what this movie is about. It's a popcorn movie. Disengage your brain and have fun. C
Visuals: See direction. C
Overall: It's a fun dumb movie. Don't pay more than five dollars to see it, and I can't recommend buying it because it doesn't really stand up to subsequent viewings. Unless of course you're a Fast and (the?) Furious franchise fan and need this movie to complete your collection. C
16 Blocks (2006)
Average Cop Movie is Average
Story: The story is fairly archetypal within the police procedural genre: A beat down cop defends an innocent on the run from the polished but corrupt police establishment. There are many, many cop movies that share this premise, and most of them are written so much better. I'm going to get crucified when I say this but even Street Kings had a more inspired version of the same story, and LA Confidential has no fears of this movie ever catching up to it either. The archetype works, so this story isn't bad, but it just feels adequate and lifeless. C
Acting: Mos Def's character annoyed me so badly that I kept hoping his character would die in this movie, and the worst part is that I know he can do better, like he did in Be Kind Rewind. Bruce Willis does an effective job of playing an alcoholic cop, but nothing terribly memorable here. The real show stealer was David Morse as one of the most likable villains in the history of movies. He's doing a horrible thing, but he just seems like such a nice guy while doing it, and he'd probably even invite Willis over for supper after the dust settled, assuming he got his way. He's good... and he bumps the acting category up to C level.
Direction: The atmosphere is very depressing, which was probably by design for this story. There are lots of awkward pauses, lots of Willis giving confused looks and looks of disdain for his life instead of a reply to of character's dialog. Again, this is perfectly acceptable, but not exceptional. It's average, and average direction gets a C.
Visuals: This is probably the strongest part of this movie. The visuals make use of lots of shadow, which assist the atmosphere of depression. The Godfather has no worries of losing it's title of best use of shadows in a movie, but this is really this movie's strong point. B
Overall: This movie is okay. Average. If it's on TV and you've got nothing better to do, watch it. If your local library has it, rent it. I wouldn't pay anymore than about five dollars to watch this one. And you certainly don't need to be searching this one out unless you're a huge fan of some member of the cast or crew. C
10 Things I Hate About You (1999)
A Time Capsule of Stars
Story: When updating Shakespeare, a strong story is virtually guaranteed, and this one doesn't let us down. It remains true to The Taming of a Shrew but doesn't feel terribly locked into an era. It should still be enjoyable in 20 years. A
Acting: Everyone brings the goods. Ledger, Stiles, Gordon-Levitt, and Oleynik all give memorable performances. A
Direction: It's almost shot like live theater, in that the takes are long instead of the usual quick cuts that get associated with modern cinema, and it works, largely because the actors were strong enough to make it work. B
Visuals: Nothing terribly memorable here. The dialog was the star of the movie and the visuals weren't bad, but they also weren't awesome. C
Overall: This movie is a lot of fun and it captured many stars in their younger years. Julia Stiles and Joseph Gordon-Levitt have all gone on to make names for themselves, and this will be a testament to the fact that they've always been good. Heath Ledger fans should remember Heath as Joker and as Patrick Verona from this movie as I feel they are his best performances and they showcase his range as an actor, as Verona and Joker are so different that it takes a careful eye to notice that the same man portrayed them. You should see this movie and I give a B overall.
300 (2006)
This is CAKE TOWN!
Story: Not much to say. It's the classic story of the 300 Spartans, retold in the style of the Frank Miller graphic novel. It's perfectly adequate to showcase the awesome fights and visuals. Nothing earth shaking here, but it gets the job done. C
Acting: Gerard Butler is one of those truly great actors that disappears into a role to the point where you sometimes don't recognize that he's the same actor from movie to movie. He is great in this movie and deserves the lead role. David Wenham and Stephen McHattie are also really good in their roles. Overall, acting gets and A.
Direction: Zach Snyder is very quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. This one isn't as good as Watchmen but it's still very, very good. A friend of mine didn't like the movie, describing it as being "very, very gay." She was using gay to mean that it showcased lots of very pretty, muscular men acting as masculine as possible, not gay as in a generic insult from the 90's. Now, as a man who identifies himself as being a 2 on Kinsey's scale of sexuality, I don't see this as being a bad thing. Besides, there have been quite a few movies lately in which the only positive thing going for them would be lots of hot women in skimpy, skin tight outfits, so I see the pendulum swinging the other way as a positive. B
Visuals: What can I say about the visuals beyond that they're truly awesome? This movie has some of the best sword play I've ever seen. The switches from slow motion to regular speed create an epic effect of showcasing just how fast these guys are moving but also allowing us to see the details of their movement. A
Overall: This movie is lots of fun. It's not realistic at all and doesn't try to be. See it, unless you're a history major who would be offended at how historically inaccurate it is. B
1408 (2007)
This movie actually scared me a few times!
Story: This movie does a perfect build of creating anticipation in the mind of the audience, mainly through Jackson's constant warnings about room 1408. We're caught between saying, "Don't go in there, stupid!" and, "But I'd really like to know what's in there, since it's been built up so well!" Sometimes, Cusack's character comes across as a bit dense, but if he didn't then we wouldn't have a movie. B
Acting: John Cusack does a great job of portraying a man who has given up on his life and is simply living and writing for a paycheck. He then convincingly grows as a character without being cliché about it. Samuel L.Jackson is Samuel L. Jackson and awesome because of it. A
Direction: This creates an atmosphere of anticipation in an expert fashion. In terms of quantity, there are very few scares in this movie, but those work and work well because of that atmosphere. A
Visuals: If the visuals hadn't worked, the direction would have failed in this movie. I think the best scene visually would have to be the scene of Cusack in the (SLIGHT SPOILER... BUT IT WAS IN THE TRAILER) snow filled room attempting to communicate with his wife through his laptop. The image is distorted and hard to make out when his avatar starts talking without his prompting, telling his wife to come to room 1408. The shot of his possessed avatar looking back at him though the LCD screen with a slight smirk on his shadowy face is probably one of the most effective visuals I've seen. A
Overall: I've read far too few Stephen King stories, something that I'm trying to rectify, but the most recent movies based on his stories have been absolute gold, and this one is near the top of the mountain along with The Mist. You should see this movie. A
Bad Biology (2008)
Intriguing concept, deep metaphors, shocking imagery, but is it a watchable movie?
Story: The story follows Charlee Danielson (that's the allegedly actress' name, not the character's name, fyi) and Anthony Sneed, a guy and girl who are sexually enhanced at the biological level. The story follows their attempts to fit into society with their physical problems and their search for sexually compatible partners that don't die immediately after the experience.
I have to give Henelotter, who wrote and directed this movie, props for coming up with an intriguing story. The statements made through this movie about how sex is treated in society are fairly valid, and the humor is extremely morbid and over the top. This movie is in a similar vein to Teeth, but goes much, much further, which is also its dividing point. I know many people who couldn't sit through Teeth, and they don't have a chance with this movie. B
Acting: The acting isn't bad, as I've certainly seen much, much worse in the B-horror scene. It should be noted that this movie employs several porn actors and actresses, probably because of the sheer quantity of sex in this movie, and none of it is implied: We see everything. But, the two main players get the job done well. Props to both. B
Direction: I understand that Frank Henenlotter has a very close following and that his movies are typically strange, but this is the first movie of his that I've seen. I spent of the movie laughing at the sheer ridiculousness of what I was seeing, and I hope that's what I was supposed to be doing. If so, then he accomplished his job. Additionally, the movie made me feel damn uncomfortable watching it, and I would never, ever watch this with my mother. Again, he was probably going for shock value, and I can't fault him for that, but I do think it will be too much for most mainstream movie fans and probably even most casual horror fans. C
Visuals: I've seen pornographic movies with just about the same quantity of sex and nudity as can be found in this movie. There are nude males and nude females. And, (SPOILER ALERT) there's also a giant monster penis in this movie. It's stop animated. We get to see lots of it. Close ups, wide shots, point of view shots, all different views of of the giant penis monster. If you're not okay with that, then you shouldn't watch this movie. If you're okay with it or intrigued by it, then this movie is for you. (SPOILERS OVER, YOU MAY OPEN YOUR EYES) B
Overall: Based on the grades I'm giving each segment of this movie, you'd probably think that I liked it, right? Well, not really. It did what it set out to do, and I commend it for that. The sheer audacity of making a movie like this has earned this writer/director my respect, and even though I like the idea of this movie, when viewed. . . it's not what I'd really call enjoyable experience. I definitely like the concept better than the viewable product. So, should you watch it? Maybe. I saw it once. I doubt I'll ever watch it again. If you're at that weird cross section of wanting to see sexual liberation in movies, deep metaphors in movies, and lots and lots of gross out disgusting things in movies, then see it. If the concept intrigues you but you're concerned about how it plays out, I'd say watch it if you can find it for less than three dollars, or if they happened to be playing it at the horror movie convention that you're at, like I was when I saw it. C
La sindrome di Stendhal (1996)
An Italian Psychotraumatic Thriller
Story: Stendhal Syndrome is defined by good old wikipedia as being, "a psychosomatic illness that causes rapid heartbeat, dizziness, fainting, confusion and even hallucinations when an individual is exposed to art, usually when the art is particularly beautiful or a large amount of art is in a single place," and that's the very first thing that our main protagonist, played by Asia Argento, experiences in this movie.
(SPOILER HEAVY SYNOPSIS) She goes to an art museum and becomes overwhelmed by the art and forgets that she's a detective trying to track a rapist. This ends with the rapist finding her and doing to her what rapists do best. The rest of the movie is her playing cat and mouse with the rapist, as well as trying to psychologically deal with the combined trauma of being raped and her experience with Stendhal Syndrome. At no point is the audience convinced that Asia's character is sane, because immediately after succumbing to Stendhal Syndrome, prior to being raped, she forgets her name, job, and identity. We see her with the rapist, but we never see any other characters around. Because Asia's character has already shown a lack of sanity, we begin to wonder if there really is a rapist at all. (END SPOILERS) The storyline is crafted well enough and was decently original. I have to give this a B.
Acting: There were some very strong performances here, and unfortunately I can't quite deduce which actor played which character, so I will have to identify them by their occupations. I was particularly impressed by the art student, the sort of boyfriend, and, well, the rapist himself (if I ever run for political office, I know that quote will come back to haunt me!) and Asia Argento gave a great, if slightly disturbing performance considering that this movie was directed by her FATHER! I mean, she gets beaten up, bloodied, does horrible things, goes crazy, and gets raped not once but twice in a very graphic manner... and her father was behind the camera? Entertaining, but creepy! B
Direction: Dario Argento cast his daughter in this movie, the sick bastard! Besides that, the direction was pretty good overall. The audience felt disoriented with Asia's character and very much empathized with her along the way, even though they should be questioning her sanity throughout. B Visuals: This movie would not have worked without the art that was selected for the museum and Asia's home later in the movie. They all helped to create a surreal atmosphere. However, this was the first Italian movie to use CG... and it shows. The CG looks very bad and jarringly out of place when it appears. C
Overall: This is a decent little movie, even if it suggests deep rooted issues within the Argento family. It should have been shorter, but it's not in Transformers 2 territory of obscenely long. B
The Sandman (1995)
The Sandman, a movie that has nothing to do with the wrestler or the graphic novel of the same name!
Story: A dream demon named the Sandman is killing people in their sleep. It's not a bad concept, it worked for Freddy, so it could work here. There is something inherently scary about sleep, as you are vulnerable and not completely guaranteed to wake again in the morning. The overall narrative isn't bad. The writing, however, is beyond bad. I suspect that the writer came from a background in prose, as everything gets way over explained instead of relying on the visuals to tell the story. D
Acting: The acting is bad, but I think it could have been salvageable in the hands of a better writer/director/editor. I think the actors must be from live theater backgrounds, as they are way, way overacting. It's painful to watch, especially the Viet Nam veteran, the old lady that's obsessed with toys, and the walking 90's stereotype "cool" surfer-ish kid. Basically, all the actors should have been told to turn it down a few degrees and the script should have given them less monologues and more visual stuff to do to advance the story. D
Visuals: Well, the Sandman man looks like a giant Jawa from Star Wars mixed with one of the creatures in John Carpenter's The Fog. The main message is that it looks cheap, but passable as long as it stays in the shadows and the audience never gets a good look at him. Unfortunately, this is not the case as we get to see every glorious inch of him. The end result is not good. D
Direction: This director knows what a wide shot is. That's about it. He also doesn't seem to be aware that he can use takes that are less than ten minutes long. Again, movies are not live theater. The camera can get closer to the actor, and we don't have to hover on one angle for eternity. Also, the director and/or the editor should have trimmed each scene down to the point where the message was delivered and moved on. The direction is the big failure in this movie, because the script and the acting, while they weren't good, they could have been fixed by a competent director. F! F! F!!!
Overall: I can't really recommend this movie to anyone except for those who enjoy watching bad movies simply to poke fun at them. There was potential here, and I hope the writer/director learned the right lessons from his failing here, but skip this movie. If you see it for sale, run, don't walk. F
Sunshine Cleaning (2008)
Grizzly Humor Can Be Touching Humor Too!
Story: The storyline follows two sisters who start a business of cleaning up crime scenes, despite having no knowledge of the profession. This sounds like it should be the beginning of a farce or a very, very dark comedy. Sunshine Cleaning is neither... okay there is a significant amount of dark humor, but over all the movie is actually quite touching. It's mostly about not living up to the expectations that others have of you and finding your own way to happiness, even that path means cleaning up disgusting body parts along the way. This movie has a lot of heart to it but I also laughed my ass off, so props to the story department. My only complaint is that the story about the mother of Amy Adams and Emily Blunt's characters wasn't quite as subtle as everything else in this movie and I think that might have helped some. B
Acting: I wanted to see this movie because Amy Adams was in it. So, she sold me on it and completely delivered. Emily Blunt does a great of playing her sister, and she sports a very good American accent in this movie. Alan Arkin always brings the goods. Clifton Collins Jr. plays a very good, very subtle character, quite different from his very loud but equally good performance in Boondock Saints II. Absolutely no complaints from the acting department. A!
Direction: This is movie felt gritty without being too depressing. Like walking into the life or lives of people with the worst luck in the world, and yet they're so optimistic that you firmly believe that they're going to make it out okay. This doesn't really detract from the drama either. Some scenes felt a little heavy handed, but by and large Christine Jeffs got the job done. B
Visuals: This movie was very brown. People wore lots of brown, the buildings were brown, and sky and walls all seemed to be parked somewhere between tan and brown. Even Amy's hair seemed more brown than red, suggesting a filter on the camera. This was obviously deliberate, and I'm going to guess that the symbolism in using lots of earth tones was meant to make the movie seem normal, possibly even bland looking, in order to contrast the quirky, bizarre storyline. I have something of a celebrity crush on Amy Adams and very enjoyed her scenes with Steve Zahn because of it (and yes, I'm tossing this in the visuals category). B
Overall: I really liked this movie and I can't think of anyone who wouldn't, or perhaps that should be 'shouldn't,' because realistically speaking, there's bound to be someone who from the action movie crowd who thinks this is boring and too emotional, and there's bound to be some crusader for clean entertainment who objects to the subject matter, and to all them I say, "Screw you! Give the movie a chance, you'll enjoy it!" I think that you should see this movie. It's well worth at least fifteen bucks. B
Critters (1986)
Cute, cheesy fun!
Story: Cute little furry monsters from outer space are out to eat as many humans. Sounds like a winning combination to me! The movie is fairly light hearted, putting laughs over scares or logical progression. There were times when I saw the window wide open to do some very dark humor, and I was slightly disappointed that they didn't take those opportunities. The main family members do decay as the movie progresses, as I felt the sister and the father were stronger characters before the plot showed up, and I blame the plot for that. C
Acting: I was excited to see Billy Zane's name in the credits considering I'm a big fan of his work. Sadly, he has a somewhat small role as the 80's dumb boyfriend. At least he does it well. The star of this movie is the kid, played by Scott Grimes, who plays a very confident little crazy-prepared pyromaniac. Outside of the horror genre this kid would probably be seeing a psychiatrist on a regular basis, but it works here. Don Keith Opper annoyed me, which is probably a bad thing considering he's in all four of these movies and since I've started down this path I'll have to watch them all. Overall, the acting department gets a B.
Direction: This has the feel of a children's movie, a little cheesy but with a punch to it. The direction neither offended me nor impressed me, and I'm searching for things to say about it. That sounds like C level to me.
Visuals: The visuals still work to this day, which I consider to be a high compliment to an 80's special effects movie. The critters have a great combination of cute, yet menacing (I won't say scary, but slightly intimidating). The space ships look cool and the two bounty hunters are a visual highlight of this movie. A
Overall: Critters is a fun entry into the silly horror genre that I think most kids would be all over and most parents would enjoy with the proper mindset. It's fairly safe, its got some dry humping but no nudity or real sex, some blood but not obscene amounts, and I don't recall any major profanity being dropped. The only real setback for parents would be the need to explain to their children that it is not okay to make bombs in the barn, despite the fact that it worked out for the kid in this movie. B
The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day (2009)
More Fun with Guns and God!
Story: The story is very similar to the first movie. In fact, I'm going to say that this is the Evil Dead 2 of the series in that it borders on being a remake of the first movie with a higher budget, better special effects, larger cast, etc. This isn't a bad thing, we're not in Ghostbusters 2 territory. In many ways, they fixed some problems I had with the first movie, specifically the fact that (SEMI-SPOILER ALERT) the cops in the first movie weren't really penalized for assisting the Saints. Whether I agree with the morality of what they were doing or not, there needed to be a price for breaking the law and this time there was a price. The script doesn't really address the morality of what the Saints are doing. It's very much saying, "These are the good guys, like them or leave them." It's even more cut and dry than the first movie. In fact, the only character who questions the morality of the Saints is the Roman who, for the record, is the big bad in this movie. C
Acting: Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus are Connor and Murphy. The instant they appeared on camera, they were in character. I applaud. Billy Connolly is one the most versatile actors of our day and plays Il Duce completely different than Fido or Father Joseph Crissman or any of the other characters he's played in his extensive career, and he brings the goods this time too, adding an extra layer to the dark, quiet man of mystery that he played in the first movie. Clifton Collins Jr. has some of the funniest moments in this movie and they all work. Now... about Julie Benz... she's hot, which she was supposed to be, and she has great lines, but I didn't like her accent in this movie. I wish she would have done the lines normally, I think it would have been a stronger performance. I was glad to see David Della Rocco appear in a way that maintained the fact that (SPOILER... IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FIRST ONE YET, IN WHICH CASE I MUST ASK WHY YOU'RE READING THIS?) he's dead, and again his lines are some of the most quotable in the movie. B
Visuals: The visuals are a lot of fun in this movie. Some of the best parts are when we get to see how the Saints imagine one of their raids going down (in a smooth, Matrix style take down where their hairs never gets messed up) versus reality (it hits the fan). Gun aficionados will love the weaponry that gets brought to the table. Did I already mention that Julie Benz was hot? B
Direction: The mood remains fairly light hearted up until the end of the movie, like the first one. I have to say that if Troy Duffy really was the jerk that Overnight made him out to be, I really don't think that as many cast members from the first movie would have returned as they did, because this was never destined to be a huge payday. The only reason they could have possibly come back was because they had fun making the first one and wanted to meet up with those guys again. Now, Troy Duffy won't be completely vindicated in my eyes until he makes a different movie that's not a remake of the first Boondock Saints, which oddly may be the third in this series as the ending of this one teased "sequel" very hard. Hey, Army of Darkness was way different from Evil Deads 1 and 2, but Sam Raimi also made other movies in between those ones, so we'll see what happens. B
Overall: This movie isn't going to win any major awards. The critics have certainly hate it, the kindest review I've seen being A.O. Scott inventing a new category of "see it drunk." The story is the weakest link in this chain, but fans of the first movie will love this movie. I think you should watch it, but make sure to watch the first one before you see this one. And watch out for the return of the cat. B
The Last House on the Left (2009)
Straw Dogs meets Taken
I'm amazed at just how much they were able to get away with in the explicit department. It's not really a horror film, more of a revenge thriller. I also think that the movie failed to transfer guilt to the audience, which it was clearly trying to do in the early parts of this movie with the extreme chest close ups and nearly up-skirt shots of Sara Paxton. This should have created desires in the audience which would be met with a certain feeling of guilt during the sexual assault scenes. However, the villains were so evil and over the top that I don't think anyone felt enough empathy for these characters to think that they may have wished the assaults into existence. So, I guess I'm saying that if Iliadis wanted to make a movie that forces the audience to question the evil inside themselves, then the teases should have stayed in the movie, but since the movie turned around the idea of these villains being the worst kind of evil imaginable, the kind that need to be executed rather than arrested, then the audience should not empathize with them, making the teases inappropriate for the movie.
On the subject of super evil villains, you have to respect/fear movies that do such a good job of making the audience hate a character that when that villain meets an over the top, gruesome, painful demise, the audience cheers, as happened in the theater I was in. I hate to godwin here, but this is how you brainwash people into doing the Führer's bidding. This is effective film making that's kinda scary when you stop and think about it.
All around, this movie needed more Martha MacIsaac. She's just so cute!