Reviews

Like most people who took the time to see this film, I am a fan of the 2 Predator movies and the first two Alien movies. They were all solid sci-fi action movies that entertained and sometimes scared. This project has the potential to be great. Sadly, it wasn't.

Last year's Freddy VS. Jason was a match-up movie that got it right: it stayed true to the mythology of both movies, found a solid reason for the battle, and offered up some great fight scenes. AVP does none of this. Writer/Director Paul W.S. Anderson plays dice with both franchises, changing everything from the Predator's signature infra-red vision to the incubation time of the Aliens. AVP's biggest weakness is the cast. The Predator movies had big name stars (Arnold Schwarzengger, Danny Glover) to carry them, while the Alien movies had great casts who made the experience seem shockingly real. AVP has a cast of no names led by Lance Henriksen. Lance is a good actor, and it's good to see him in the franchise, but even he can't save the film.

I expected much, much better from Paul Anderson. His directorial debut, Shopping, was a great movie and he has proven over the years that he can make both decent horror movies (Event Horizon, Resident Evil) and satisfying action movies (Soldier, Mortal Kombat). This movie is somewhere between action and horror, and neither one is done right. The scary moments aren't that scary and the action moments aren't that great. Don't even get me started on the ending. Anderson's direction isn't technically bad, but his writing is atrocious. If Anderson had been forced to collaborate with people who were more knowledgeable about both franchises, it would have been a much better movie. It isn't fair to place all of the blame on Anderson, however. Anderson does much better when he's allowed to make an R rated movie, but greedy Fox executives demanded a PG-13 film because more people can legally buy tickets to it. The irony of this: If these 13 year-olds haven't seen the R rated films that the franchise is based on, why would they see AVP? This film needed to be R. New Line understood that when they made FVJ. You can't make a violent film without violence.

AVP won't entertain fans of either franchise, because it contradicts established lore in both of them. Casual viewers will bored as well, by the bad acting, bad dialogue, and the silly ending (which I won't give away).

Final rating: 0 stars out of 5.

This is a major disappointment.

Yeah, so last night I saw Kill Bill, Volume 1 for the first time. I just don't know.

As far as mindless fun goes, Kill Bill is entertaining. It is fun to watch. And yet, I can't help but feel disappointed and cheated. This movie doesn't live up to the expectations set by Quentin Tarantino's past work. Nor does is it deserving of all the critical acclaim that it has garnered. As I write this, Kill Bill Volume 1 is #90 on the user-voted IMDB.com Top 250 Films list. Kill Bill is certainly not one of the best 250 films ever made.



Kill Bill is very lacking in plot, to the point where it's insulting. Uma Thurman's character, The Bride, awakes from a coma and then kills two people and escapes from hospital room despite having severely atrophied muscles. She gets to the parking lot, where she sits in a stolen car for an indeterminate but decidedly exorbinant amount of time. Then there's an idiotic scene where she tries to urge her atrophied toe muscles to move by yelling at them. In a "brilliant" directorial decision by Mr. Tarantino, the camera then zooms in on her feet. Somehow she doesn't get arrested in all this time that she's sitting there. I guess she must have killed the only guy who worked at that hospital, since apparently no one called the cops on her. Equally questionable is her ability to travel at will despite having no discernable source of income and no ID. I'm sorry, but without ID, you're not purchasing airline tickets in post-9/11 America.

One of the biggest faults of the movie is that it is hard to empathize with The Bride. Yeah, her entire wedding party was killed and she was in a coma for 4 years. Maybe she deserved it. In Hard To Kill, you feel for Steven Seagal. You learn more about the two members of Bill's Deadly Viper Assassination Squad that The Bride kills than you do about her. In that regard, you empathize more with them, especially Lucy Liu's character.

Perhaps the most badly done part of the movie is the soundtrack. It is just terrible. In some scenes, there is an obnoxious siren effect when The Bride encounters danger. Almost every standout scene in the movie has pretty bad music. The first scene with Daryl Hannah's character stands out in this regard as well.

It's hard to understand Tarantino's goals with Kill Bill. The movie unquestionably draws from 1970s kung fu movies and 1980s action movies. But it's hard to tell whether the movie is paying tribute or merely a parody. The acting and the dialogue are both pretty abyssmal, but not hilariously so. None of the actors ham it up; in fact, they're all quite wooden which I guess their equivalent of attempting serious acting. Keanu Reeves looks like Shakespeare in comparison. The use of old school gore effects is also questionable. If you watch a 1970s movie using the spraying blood effect that Tarantino (over)uses in KB, it seems silly and trite. But if you watch an old movie using the same effect, when that effect was state of the art and the film quality was much grainier, you're able to reasonably suspend disbelief. The best way to pay tribute to old kung fu movies would be make a new movie that draws from them but brings them into the 21st century. Tarantino fails to do this. The only thing Tarantino has updated is the direction. And his frenetic flashy direction is a definite lowpoint of the movie. It's quite apparent that this movie was a labor of love for Tarantino, but his cinematography is quite detrimental to the movie. It was obviously meant to be artistic, but it comes off as pretenious, banal, and sometimes laugh-out-loud funny. The movie plays like anime, and bad anime at that. Good anime develops a compelling in-depth plot involving complex relationships that justifies the excessive gore we are shown. The fact that anime is animated also makes ludicrous gore seem less funny. There's an inherent level of surreality in animation. Kill Bill lacks this.

As a whole, Kill Bill doesn't add up. The parts don't fit together well enough and something about the movie just feels disingenuous. As an action movie fan, I was let down. There is NOTHING about this movie that gives an edge over the movies it emulates. At best, Kill Bill stands on par with old school action movies, and I'm not convinced that it does that. There's a level of intensity present in a Rambo movie or an old Jackie Chan movie or a Lethal Weapon or a Schwarzenegger movie or even a good Seagal movie that just isn't there in Kill Bill.

Final Thoughts On Tarantino: Your first three films are classic. This is not. Stick with what you're good at.

Final Thoughts On Kill Bill: It's entertaining enough, but not better than what came before in any way, shape, or form. If you want a good post-coma revenge story, watch Hard To Kill. If you want copious violence, watch Commando or First Blood Part II. Those two movies are straightforward action romps devoid of the forced pretentions of Kill Bill. One good thing that Kill Bill does is that it doesn't intentionally pander to the popcorn crowd. Tarantino is definitely trying here, but he falls short.

Final Rating: 3.2 out 5 stars.

Slightly above average.

This movie is billed as a comedy, and it really isn't. It's a rather nasty look at the worst case scenario for divorce. You will not laugh while watching this movie. This is not a dark comedy, it's just a dark disturbing look at divorce. If you want to see a dark comedy directed by Danny DeVito, one that is actually good, see Death to Smoochy. Even Throw Momma From The Train is better than this tripe.

Final rating: 0 out of 5

Michael Moore's documentary showcases negative effects of guns without ever offering a real cause. Almost every time he DOES present a possible cause, he manages to undermine it. For example, gun ownership does not lead to gun violence. He demonstrates this by going to Canada, a country with a very sizeable gun-owning population and virtually no gun-related violence. After proving this point, Moore takes two survivors from Columbine with shrapnel from K-Mart bullets still lodged in their bodies to K-Mart world headquarters in order to ask for a refund and that K-Mart stop selling bullets. Tasteless, yes? And wait Michael, you just showed us that guns don't cause violence, didn't you? Gaps in logic exist throughout the film. Moore isn't really interested in exposing any real truth. He's anti-gun, and this movie is a masterful collection of anti-gun images. Watching this film is akin to the scene in Clockwork Orange where Alex is brainwashed into hating all violence.

The vast majority of the movie involves over-the-top anti-gun emotional appeals. He visits Columbine, he tells the depressing story of an elementary school student who shot another one in Flint, Michigan, and he badgers Charlton Heston.

There is also an insultingly bad animated sequence where American history is shown. Basically, it paints a picture of all white Americans as violent racists who use guns to oppress minorities.

Despite all its flaws, I still recommend Bowling for Columbine. It makes some compelling points, even if it is pure propaganda. And it IS pure propaganda. But so is the mainstream media. There are powerful lobbies everywhere. Moore is just another one. Moore half succeeds in his mission. He encouraged me to think for myself, to read more, and to do my own research rather relying on second-hand sources. But he didn't convert me to his way of thinking. Much like Ann Coulter, he is too far absorbed in ideology and ego to ever provide a completely satisfying viewpoint.

See this movie. There are far too many people out there who hate Moore just because they've heard about him or read about him somewhere. In order to truly form an opinion on him, see one of his movies or read one of his books. That being said, Canadian Bacon is the best film he ever made.

This movie is not a comic masterpiece. But it is good-natured PG fun and it delivers some very funny moments. I will never understand why this is on the IMDB bottom 100 instead of other comedies like War of the Roses, Teen Wolf Too or Dude, Where's My Car? all of which are far worse than The Stupids.

This is a movie which is just so silly, so incredibly over the top that it ends up being funny. Basically, it's a movie you can watch with your little sister, brother, niece or cousin and both of you will enjoy it. There's not much more I can say about this movie.

This movie has small roles featuring Mark Metcalf (the teacher/dad from those classic Twister Sister videos) and Christopher Lee (Saruman from LOTR) so right there, that's a reason to watch.

Ready to Rumble is a funny movie, but it's legacy was doomed from the beginning. The WCW movie project was greenlit at a time when WCW was the #1 game in town, but by the time the movie was finished, WCW was a very distant 2nd in the ratings to Vince McMahon's WWF. Thus the movie was based on a project that no one was watching. Secondly, it's a comedy based on wrestling that doesn't take a cynical or mean-spirited look at wrestling. So people who aren't fans of wrestling were unlikely to care about it. Consequently, a large percentage of people who bothered to see the movie went in expecting to hate it because wrestling, or more specifically WCW, "suck". To make things worse, one of the main stars is David Arquette, who ranks up there with Tom Green and Carrot Top in terms of total obnoxiousness.

But Ready To Rumble doesn't suck. Ultimately it's a cute story about two naive friends who refuse to believe that wrestling is fake and who refuse to let their wrestling hero Jimmy King fade in obscurity. There's plenty of laughs, a great cast that includes Martin Landau, Rose McGowan, Goldberg, Sting, and Oliver Stone, and a very entertaining title match at the end that should impress people who don't like wrestling. As far as movies that use wrestling as a plot device go, this is the best there is. It's certainly better than No Holds Barred, Body Slam, or any Hulk Hogan comedy vehicle.

This may not be a classic comedy in the world, but it's entertaining nonetheless. I would highly recommend that any WWF, oh sorry WWE fans that saw this when WCW was the enemy to watch it again. It is funny, darn it.

I give it 3.5 stars out of 5

Favorite scene: David Arquette's fantasy match in the convenience store.

Child's Play was billed as a horror movie, but it's hard to categorize it as such. Especially by 1980s standards. There's no brainless teenage cattle, no gratuitous nudity, and no ridiculously high body count. If anything, Child's Play runs like an episode of Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone. It's creepy, but ultimately not shocking. This is no coincidence. An episode of The Twilight Zone called Living Doll used a similar premise.

Child's Play is done very well, considering it's about a serial killer who uses voodoo magic to transfer his soul into a doll. The acting is way above average for a horror movie and the momentum builds nicely. The viewer is forced to wait quite awhile before they actually see Chucky kill anyone. If anyone has seen VH1's "I Love the 80s" then you've probably seen Dee Snider mock the movie: "It's a doll! Step on it! It's over!". If Chucky tried to go on a killing rampage, this would work. But he doesn't. He uses stealth and cunning to make up for the failings of his diminutive body. He reveals his true self only to young Andy, the boy who gets him as a birthday present. He kills all his hapless victims without much trouble. After all, who would suspect an innocent little doll could kill you when you're not looking?

Perhaps the biggest problem with Child's Play is that it was billed as an evil doll movie. Chucky was on all the posters and commercials, knife in hand. It would have worked much better as a suspense thriller, where you suspect that little Andy Barclay is the murderer.

Despite it's failings as a horror movie, Child's Play is still a great movie because it paints a dismal and accurate picture of the 80s: the frustration of single parenthood, the dark dangerous inner cities, and trying to get your kid that overpriced toy that they just *have* to have. Child's Play also came at a time when dolls were really popular: Teddy Ruxpin, Cabbage Patch Kids, My Buddy, and Kid Sister were all hot items. Little kids loved these things, but there's something inherently sinister about dolls. Those glassy eyes and perma-smiles seem insincere.

Overall, Child's Play is a movie that probably succeeded because it was in the right place at the right time. Nonetheless, it's worth at least a few viewings. Chucky is easily one of the top 3 horror movie villains of the 1980s along with Freddie Krueger and the Gremlins.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Modern filmmakers often try to create cinematic events which work on multiple levels. However, in order for a movie to be good, it must first succeed on a superficial level. This is where Matrix Reloaded failed. Reloaded, at its most profound, tried to engage the viewers in philosophical debate. But on the surface, Reloaded was nothing more than MTV style and sensibilities. Ultimately, Reloaded can be summed up in one word: Techno. Perhaps, that's slightly unfair, but it's less unfair than writing The Crow off as a goth movie. But enough about OTHER movies.

Terminator 3 is a movie that does work on that basic level. It's absolutely entertaining to watch. The action scenes are more thrilling than anything that Hollywood has offered up so far in 2003. The plot is decent too. Even without James Cameron, the T3 managed to make a decent movie. Cameron has described T3 as "great", so the movie is clearly not an affront to the first two movies. If you liked Arnold in T2, you'll like him in T3. The reprogrammed, slightly outdated T-101 is as good as ever. Nick Stahl gives a good performances as the paranoid disillusioned 20-something junkie John Connor. Claire Danes also does well as Kate Brewster, a veterinarian thrown into a situation that's out of her control. Kristanna Loken does as well as she can with the T-X role. T-X isn't anywhere near as ruthless as Robert Patrick's T-1000, but she's far more effective at keeping her targets in her sites.

Some people have said there's too much humor in T3. I disagree. Every action movie has its fair share of levity. The epic T2 had John Connor teaching the Terminator to say thinsg like "eat me, d***wad" as well explaining to him that he couldn't just kill people.

Another complaint is that the plot is too thin. I disagree wholeheartedly with this. Director Johnathan Mostow and the writers don't beat you over the head with the motivation of the characters, they leave some of that open to you. Not every movie is gonna hold your hand and walk you step by step through a detailed explanation of things. Some things you just need to accept, or interpret for yourself. After all, this IS science fiction/action. However, there is one mind boggling scene where the T-X inexplicably escapes from a magnetic field. This is the only major flaw with the movie.

Perhaps the one main drawback to T3 is that if you haven't seen the prequels, especially T2, then you may not understand some of the finer points of the movie. But if you haven't seen T2, you have no business watching any sci-fi/action movies anyway.

T3 has a great ending, but they inevitably leave it open for another sequel. I really hope there isn't a T4. No series has ever passed the 3 movie and remained great or even good.

T3 will never be as good as T2, but it's a valiant effort. I've tried not to talk too much about the plot; that's not the purpose of a review. If you want to know why the events in T2 didn't prevent Judgment Day, you'll have to go see T3 for yourself.I'm not here to ruin the movie. If you're a fan of Arnold, Terminator, or action movies, go see T3. It's a whole lot of fun and action from start to finish. And it fits seamlessly into the series progression.

Overall rating: 3.5 out of 4 stars

I remember when I first saw The Matrix. It was a good movie. Heck, it was a great movie. And at the time, no one else was really seeing it. Most people don't remember this, but The Matrix had a relatively unsuccessful box office run. Once it was released on DVD and VHS, it quickly gained a large following.

I had my doubts about Matrix II from the moment I heard the title: Matrix Reloaded. Metal fans will know why. In 1997, Metallica released a very uninspired album called Reload. So among my friends the comparison between Reload and Reloaded often came up. But it was only a joke. None of us really believed it. Unfortunately, the comparison was eerily apt.

The original Matrix took a premise of Total Recall meets Terminator 2: Judgment Day and made into something brilliant by introducing innovative special effects. Matrix Reloaded, on the other hand, is little more than a mish-mash of CGI effects and convoluted philosophy. As a student of philosophy, I found the film's speeches on hard determinism, fatalism, and free will to be simplistic and boring. The general public might find them confusing. The plot runs out of fuel by the end too. In the climax of the movie, Neo is being explained his role as the chosen one. The speaker starts off by saying "Some of this you'll understand, some of it you won't." However, the speech is *supposed* to explain crucial plot elements to the audience as well as help setup the third movie. When the scene ends, no one will fully understand what just happened. One of final scenes of the movie is incredibly bizarre. Neo saves his friends in a manner that needs to be seen to be believed. But if you want it explained, you'll have to wait for Matrix Revolutions.

Matrix Reloaded, to me, is a sci-fi/action movie. The sci-fi elements of the movie are somewhat flawed, but there's enough twists to keep things interesting. The movie flat out fails in the action department. There is absolutely no sense of suspense. Presumably, you've all seen the trailers. Neo fights hundreds of Agent Smiths at once and flies around like Superman. In fact, Neo has become very much like Superman: unstoppable and boring. In the first movie, Neo was an everyday guy who had to learn to deal with the reality that the world he knew was just an illusion. And he had to learn to fight back. In Reloaded, he doesn't even bleed. Plus, most of the fight scenes are CGI. Supposedly, Keanu Reeves got injured during the filming and that delayed the release of Reloaded. I don't see why. Reeves did little to no actual fighting.

Here's a few other problems with The Matrix:

1. (The former Agent) Smith's role is unclear. He's intent on killing Neo for no real reason. Perhaps a deeper purpose will be revealed in Revolutions.

2. Carrie Ann Moss looks NASTY in this movie. If you didn't know better, you'd think Trinity was a transsexual.

3. They included an inappropriate & pointless rave scene that panders to the burned out E-heads and potheads who became fans of the first movie.

4. The movie has too many characters for its own good. Some characters were blatantly thrown in so that they could be developed later in Revolutions.

5. In 138 minutes, surprisingly little happens. The movie raises more questions than it answers, and pretty much forces you to see Revolutions for any kind of satisfactory ending. A good movie should invite a sequel, but stand on its own. Reloaded fails to do this.

I tried to give this movie another chance, but I fell asleep during it during this second viewing. The only other movie I have ever fallen asleep during in a theater is the CGI crapfest Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

The Matrix was supposedly designed as a trilogy. It's hard to believe that The Wachowski Brothers had this snorefest in mind when they were shooting The Matrix. Heck, it's hard to believe that Reloaded had any script at all.

Final word: This movie is terrible, but don't let that stop you from seeing it. There's still a vacant hope that Matrix Revolutions will be good, and the 3rd installment won't make sense if you didn't see Reloaded. However, if you'd like to see a sci-fi/action movie that will actually entertain you, opt for X2: X-Men United or Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Final rating: 1.5 out of 4 stars