Reviews

OK, it's fairly common knowledge that John Carpenter hadn't intended to make a series of nothing but movies about Mike Myers. So the fact this had abslutely nothing to do with the first two movies isn't a relevant criticism; it wasn't SUPPOSED to. In fact, this was orginally supposed to be the second, but Carpentar was pressured into making a direct sequal to the first Halloween.

OK, having said that... this movie is still utter crap. The story goes absolutely nowhere. The "evil plan" makes no sense. And for all the work the alleged "hero" goes through to stop it he might as well not even bothered. There is absolutely no suspense in any of this.

The premise could have worked, maybe, but it honestly just looks like Carpenter hurriedly threw this together based on that idea without bothering to develop anything.

...since it had a complete absense of werewolves in it, I don't think it actually qualifies as a werewolf movie. Not only do you not see any in the entire course of the movie, the word "werewolf" isn't even metioned. The entire movie seemed to me like they were playing Taboo, and you had to suggest werewolves without showing or saying anything that directly describes or displays them. Anyway...

Half the movie is montages of scenes cut from the same movie. During the main character's "transformation" scene (which looks more like someone having a heart attack than transforming into a werewolf) they constantly cut to the moon over Manhattan (it's ALWAYS the full moon in this movie, despite the fact it supposedly takes place over more than a week) and a earler shot of him in sunglasses and a beret (ooh! scary...). There's almost no continuous action, ever... it never goes more than 5 minutes without one of these montages.

It is somewhat original though, will give you that. It avoids most of the overused cliches in werewolf movies. The trouble is that after removing those, nothing was put in their place. It's like removing stains from clothes by cutting the fabric the stains are on completely off. Sure, now there's no stains, but it's full of holes now... that's what this movie is.

A lot better than the first actually. You know, if TEC actually did exist, they'd have to be guarding Hitler around the clock I'm sure, he'd be a pretty popular target for rogue time travelers. No wonder he was so paranoid... By the way I find it amusing that although Hitler was very obviously portrayed, all the characters never mention him by name, ever. Remnids me of that Justice League episode...

Anyway, for some odd reason time travel is actually more dangerous than it was in the first movie, with risks to cellualar stability and all, although only one person dies as a result of this. I can olny imagine this was supposed to make the time jumps more dramatic having that risk, but really seems kind of pointless to me.

Is unique in that the main antagonist is someone who wants to change history for the better rahter than just get short term gains from it like in the first. However how that philosophy ties into preventing the existance of every TEC agent is beyond me... all that seems more tying into avenging his wife's death than his orginal mission.

As the villain tries to prevent the existance of Chan, you see a pretty big logical flaw in his initial target... Now I suppose the chinese guy you see in 1881 Texas is more logically Chan's ancestor than Jason Anderson, who actually is. However, the only reason he knew to go back there is the genealogical database that named the time and place AND NAME of the ancestor, and I serouisly doubt one would think that chinese guy was someone named ANDERSON. If he though it was, he's an idiot, and if he didn't, than he killed somoene just for the heck of it, which kind of contradicts his altruistic intent of changing histroy for the better.

Another logical flaw is his jump to the dance hall in 1988... I seriously doubt the genealgical database specifically pointed out specifically when and where Chan's parents would be dancing... logically it would make more sense to attack them at their wedding, or their home, or something of that nature. It must be a very detailed database to point out their attendance at that dance... I don't know, maybe that's where they met or something, but seems a rather personal fact to be put into a database that's just supposed to be describing ancestry of TEC agents. Though watching Chan's reaction to seeing his parents dancing to 80's music is solid gold, still can;t stop laughing at that. That almost ranks up there with catching your parents having sex, it really weirds you out to see your parents that way.

The final fight just seems silly... I think Jason Scott Lee forgot he wasn't playing Bruce Lee for a few minutes. Hope he doesn't get typecast because of that movie.

Overall a fairly decent ride, movie does flow well.

Seriously, I have no idea why Tarentino is thought of as a good director, none of his movies show any evidence to support his reputation from what I've seen. As for this specific one...

What a mess (and not just talking about the excessive pointless violence). The scenes are played with next to no logical order or coherence. Most of the action shots, as well choreagraphed as they are, have such sloppy camera work you practically get motion sickness. The plot, such as it is, makes abosolutely no sense (well, The Bride is out for revenge, obviously, but why she was attacked in the first place was never explained). The anime sequence was actually pretty well done, but was followed up with a long drawn out transition to the next sequence... which is what most of the movie felt like, incoherent, drawn out scenes with periods of rediculously violent sloppy action sequences to wake you up. Maybe Volume 2 will redeem this first half, but I'm not holding my breath.

If you're interesdted in the actual history of Pearl Harbor and/or want to see a better paced, more watchable film, see "Tora, Tora, Tora" instead. Almost 100% historically accurate, shows both sides of the story, doesn't get bogged down with inane sublots. The only thing "Pearl Harbor" tops it on is special effects, though it does have fairly decent effects for 1970.

An amazing concept, however the originality of the concept (showing events in reverse chronological order) also makes it somewhat difficult to pick up on the first time around. This movie makes a lot more sense on the second viewing, as you'll pick up on a lot of details you'll miss first time around. See it twice at least.

The cinematography in this is excellent. However, even an excellent painting wears thin if there's nothing to do but stare at it. This was perhaps Clooney's best role, but that's not saying much. He's still terrible, just slightly less so than usual. The soundtrack is an utter headache... when it doesn't grate on your ears it puts you asleep. The so-called "comedy" bits are way too subtle to get any entertainment out of it. The plot makes no sense if you're not familiar with the Odyssey... and if you are, it just strikes you as a rediculous substitution.

In its defense, any moment on the screen is good to look at... but the movie has no movement to it. The action is slow, the comedy isn't funny, and the drama isn't dramatic. Whatever this film was trying to be, it failed at being so.

I really can't stand musicals 95% of the time. But this was still enjoyable. The musical numbers flow well with the story, and vice-versa, so it doesn't feel like the movie is coming to a grinding halt for the sake of a song, which is the main thing about musicals that bothers me most of the time.

Excellent performances on the musical side, you can tell the actors and actresses had a lot of fun making this. But Richard Gere is severely stiff on the musical side, though does a good enough job acting.

Queen Latifah's musical number really had a great Jazz-era feel to it, and is my opinion the best of all of the musical scenes.

I give this 8 out of 10.

Better than I thought it would be. A lot more subdued than say, Austin Powers, but still kept up a decent comic pace.

One major plothole, though. Pardon an American's understanding of the line of succession, but if Queen Elizabeth the Second abdicated, wouldn't the throne then go to Prince Charles? I was of the belief that if a monarch abdicates, they only give up their position on the throne, not their entire line's right to it. You'd pretty much have to pull a King Ralph scenario before the entire house of Windsor has no heirs to the throne and have to find a French claimant.

Anyway, John Malkovich does a good job at looking both mildly annoyed and amused at English's antics. Maybe it isn't acting... it pretty much sums up my feeling toward the film, both slightly annoyed and amused.

Not the greatest comedy ever by any means, but it has its moments. Quite a few good laughs in this. I give it a 5 out of 10.

If you like "Making of" documentaries and movies about making movies, you'll love this. If that kind of thing doesn't interest you, you'd probably want to skip it.

This movie takes some getting used to. If you pay really close atrention to the first two acts, the third will make a lot more sense... as you see the movie turn in on itself you see all of Kaufman's script ideas, good, bad, and indifferent, thrown onto the screen.

This is a real love/hate movie, either you'll instantly love it, or instantly hate it. If you liked "Being John Malkovich," you'd probably enjoy this too.

I loved it. Though I had to see it a second time to really "get it," as it were. It makes a lot more sense the second time, kind of like seeing "Sixth Sense" the second time where you pick up on all the clues that lead to the suprise ending.

And to those who mock the ending as cheap, well, you're missing the point, it's SUPPOSED TO BE that way, that's the whole joke. You'll hear Kaufman mock the very elements he ended up having to use in the first two acts.

Well Ace Ventura and The Mask proved he can do over-the-top comedic roles, and The Truman Show proved he can do dramatic roles. This movie proved he can do both quite well. This was an excellent portrayal of Andy Kaufman, Jim Carrey is fully believable in this. If the Academy actually paid any attention to comedies (well, this is more a drama, but being about a comedian, it does have its comedic moments) Jim Carrey likely would have received an Oscar for this. He did get a Golden Globe at least, though.

Basically the majority of this movie consists of Owen Wilson running from people who can't seem to hit somebody with automatic weapons at alomost point-blank range. That's about it. Utterly moronic, really.

The so-called "action" scenes Wilson's character survives either due to doing something utterly impossible or because the enemies are utter morons (worse than Wilson's character, not that his character possesses any great intelligence).

I'm seriously surprised this movie cost fifty million dollars. Who knows what they spent it on...

The entire premise of the movie makes no sense. The villain only needs two days to complete his so-called plan, yet he's worried about the lawyer having the boat seized... even if she could get a court order to have it seized immediately, the villain could just pull the boat out into international waters and nobody could seize it until it pulled into port.

Action scenes I guess are exciting, despite the fact the make no sense whatsoever. I love the scene where they're being fired on by people who can somehow manage to hit the windows but not the people inside nor anything vital to keepinbg the car running. Apparently the same marksmen who were in "Behind Enemy Lines."

Even if you're just hoping to see Cindy Crawford naked, forget it. One time she is it's so badly lit you can't see anything. And likely it's just a body double anyway.

On the plus side, is so stupid it's funny to watch. Almost every scene here is good for a laugh, except for the ones that are actually supposed to be funny.

Not only is Val Kilmer the worst actor that ever played Batman, but this is one of his worst roles in any movie he's ever been in. I swear, only in "Island of Dr. Moreau" is he any worse. He seems like he's half asleep in this movie.

They pretty much threw out anything that made the Tim Burton Batman movies worth watching. It's the silliness of a cartoon without any of its redeeming features.

Only thing that makes this movie worth watching (and why I have it a 2, instead of a 1) is Jim Carrey. Jim Carrey is a constant over-the-top living cartoon, but as the Riddler, that works. Quite entertaining to see. He utters his best line in any movie role he ever had here, "Was that over the top? I can never tell." If that's not a perfect summanry of Jim Carrey's entire acting career, I don't know what is.