Change Your Image
vegansXe
Reviews
Gawi (2000)
Not good.
The following are some of the most blaring problems with this movie: 1) Clichés abound. Seriously, awful "twists" are everywhere.
2) The narrative jumps around in time, which would be fine if done well, but it's not.
3) Lame characters that don't develop so much as either remain utterly static, or drastically change for no good reason.
4) Big one: HORRIBLE ACTING. Over the top from nearly every person.
The following are some of the best points from the movie: 1) The lead is damn good looking.
As I see it, there are only two kinds of people who would be into this movie: a) People who can sit through 90 minutes of tripe simply because the lead is attractive.
b) People who often think to themselves, "I like Hollywood dreck rife with clichés and overacting, but if only I could watch it in Korean..." There's a lot of good Korean cinema out there, so why waste your time with garbage?
Saw III (2006)
Mind numbingly boring
Lord. I have nothing against violence, so that's not why I hated this movie. The problem with Saw III is the fact that once you get past the violence, it's a boring film with next to no originality. The characters are worthless, so why care when they die? The "atmosphere" is non-existent, unless you count dim lighting as atmosphere. There is nothing frightening about the movie, no interesting plot, no character development or empathy. This leaves two things violence, and boredom, and to be honest, violence with nothing to make it interesting is boring in of itself, which means this movie really has one element: Boredom.
Rokugatsu no hebi (2002)
Not like Lynch
It seems like every other review of this movie has mentioned David Lynch, but I have to disagree with that comparison. A Snake of June makes sense, and it has a plot that is followable. There are only two scenes that are truly bizarre, and they aren't meant to be taken as actual occurrences, as a David Lynch film would do. Rather, these scenes are (without ruining anything) odd delusions by one of the main characters meant to represent his mind set, etc. It sounds pretentious, but it works fairly well, and in the end, there is a definite chain of events, completely discernible from the occasional off putting weirdness. Is the movie highly symbolic? Yes, but unlike some movies that wallow in symbolism, this one has a real storyline, and doesn't get so bogged down in trying to seem "deep and arty" that it forgets to be a movie. Rather, the artiness is present to further explain what's going on for the characters. In short, I recommend the movie, and it's not like David Lynch (who I hate). Good acting, beautifully shot, and perhaps best of all, an interesting plot.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)
Boring and cliché
Someone else said that the only good thing in the movie was Ermey, and they're dead on. I knew the movie would be a disappointment after about fifteen minutes of purely unimaginative opening, and I'm speaking as a horror fan when I say that the rest of the movie followed suit. This movie was a good example of the current trend in horror movies to substitute gore for actually atmosphere, and jolts for actually fear. There was not one moment in the movie when I felt anything for the characters (good or bad), nor was there any time I felt anything resembling anxiety or horror. I actually almost fell asleep in the middle out of boredom, because honestly, after that much violence, who cares anymore. Essentially, the film is a failure for anyone hoping for a good horror movie, or really, a good movie on any level. R. Lee Ermey deserves credit for delivering another good performance, but it doesn't save Texas chainsaw by a long shot. If you're going to see it, see it on video and save some money.
Vanilla Sky (2001)
OK, I get it.
It's as though the screenwriter found the term Deus Ex Machina in a film-making for dummies book and decided that 2 hours and 20 minutes of "Oh, it was a dream" scenes was a good idea. I seem to be one of only a few people who found the ending predictable, trite, and most of all, irritatingly unresolved. Forgive me if I want something that does more than negate the last two hours of the film, or at least something more than just another waking up from a dream to get out of the fact that everything happening in the movie is ridiculous. Why this movie is bad:
1) 80% of it, we find out in a predictable ending, is a dream.
2) I hate David Lynch, that's not really related, but in all fairness, if he had directed the movie, I would have just avoided it, and been better off.
3) The acting ranges from bad (Cruz, Diaz, and largely Cruise), to mediocre. I like Jason Lee, but there's no way he could salvage this.
4) The incredibly boring stretches between anything happening. It's like a Steven King novel in it's lack of events at times.
5) The ending (as previously mentioned) negates the majority of the movie, is a cop out, and is just plain stupid. A good twist can be fantastic, a bad one, as is the case, can make me actually write a review out of pure spite.
In summation, don't watch it, or if you already have, tell other's not to.
Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)
Waste of good potential
I didn't expect much going in to this movie, since this series follows the standard every sequel is worse than the last archetype. However, after a silly beginning (the first 15 minutes or so contains some of the worst dialog I've ever heard) the movie gradually got better, even getting to the point of me liking it. It's not like the other hellraiser movies at all, more of a weird look at one man's decent into madness, but I liked the way it was going, until the end. I won't spoil anything, but it's horrible. In fact, it's awful three times over. Also, how many "Oh, it was just a dream" sequences did they fit into this movie?