Reviews

13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Ultraviolet (2006)
1/10
I'm almost at a loss for words...
14 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It's been a long, long time since I've seen a movie so bad, so mind-numbingly terrible, that I no longer have the mental capacity to form words to describe how awful it is. Ultraviolet just may be the worst movie I've ever seen. I will try to put my feelings for this movie into good use before I collapse into a gibbering mess. Here goes...

Ultraviolet rips off about every standard convention created by Hollywood science fiction movies (not to mention sci-fi novels) over the last fifteen years. There is not ONE original idea in this movie. Not a single, solitary unique idea. As I watched this turd, I was constantly reminded of other films like The 5th Element, The Matrix trilogy, Blade, Johnny Mnemonic, and (no surprise) Equilibrium, not to mention about a dozen other sci-fi/action movies.

It starts out with a voice-over by the normally charming Milla Jovovich, where she tries to explain the entire backstory of the movie in about five minutes. Unless you've read the comic book you're not going to find any clarification of the backstory, the universe, or the characters. Somehow the director (or the editor) thought the vague voice-over would make the rest of the movie make sense. It's too bad, because a coherent intro would have made this movie much more tolerable. As it is, all the beginning narrative does is cause a lot of ambivalence towards Milla's character in the long run. Toward the end, I really didn't care if she (or ANY of the characters, for that matter) lived or died.

Ultraviolet had a relatively small budget for a movie of this kind, so the director apparently decided to spend all the money on schlocky special effects instead of a decent plot or script. Do you remember that god-awful Britney Spears video where she rides a motorcycle around a futuristic city? You know, the one where she jumps off rooftops and dodges police cars? Well, save yourself some money and Google that video, because that's exactly what Ultraviolet looks like. My theory is that Kurt Wimmer bought stock footage of the Britney Spears video and then digitally inserted Milla's face.

There is no excuse in this day and age of enhanced CGI for any movie to look this bad, regardless of budget. And the fact that Wimmer decided to stick with primary colors only gives Ultraviolet a very cartoonish look. I think my brain may have been forced into some kind of permanent synesthesia after it was all over. All I can see now are bright, annoying colors everywhere I look. A lawsuit may be in order.

I like Milla Jovovich, and I think she is a very capable actress. That said, she lost a ton of respect from me for taking this role. Not only does it add to the growing list of "strong yet sensitive heroines" she has been steamrolled into playing, but her acting is so wooden throughout I thought I was watching a sentient, shapely tongue depressor try to act its way through a fourth-grade school play. At least the cinematographer had the common sense to show a lot of Milla's bare midriff. That's the only reason Ultraviolet is getting a rating of one star from me. Well, that and the fact that IMDb doesn't let you give zero stars...

Yet another sore point for me was the on-screen technology used throughout the movie. Not only is it incomprehensible (even for a sci-fi flick), there's no explanation as to where, how, or why any of this technology came to be. These are the kinds of ideas that twelve-year old Star Wars fanboys come up with when they are trying to write their first short story. There is no regard to physics or standard scientific principle. I understand that is a Science Fiction movie, but I will not allow myself any suspension of disbelief when a movie doesn't even take the time to justify why Milla can fly through an air-duct, UPSIDE DOWN, only to smash through the roof and land on her feet like some kind of trippy robo-cat.

Oh yeah, apparently the bad guys wear armor made out of fragile black-colored glass. That's real nifty, Mr. Wimmer. No wonder Milla can kick their butts.

Maybe the fight scenes could have made Ultraviolet better, but Wimmer decided to recycle the fighting style used in Equilibrium. I really hope that he's not going to make another movie using "Gun-kata" again; the first time was cool, the second time was stupid, and a third time will just be inexcusable. Worse yet, the fight scenes are nowhere near as classy as they were in Equilibrium. This may be due in part to the fact that obnoxious scenery and background colors make it hard to watch a blur of fists and feet going at it.

Throw in a nonsensical storyline and you've got yourself the worst sci-fi stinker to come around in a long time. At least AvP: Requiem had Aliens and Predators. Ultraviolet only has Milla Jovovich's belly button going for it.

Now please excuse me while I go puke Technicolor into the toilet.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Batman Begins (2005)
2/10
A ham-fisted attempt at morality, and a bad movie to boot
23 September 2007
I must be one of the only people in the U.S. that hates this movie. Not just dislikes, but HATES. That's right; I despise this flick. Let me explain why...

When I was in high school, Tim Burton's Batman came out in theaters. I remember it being one of the most enjoyable movie-going experiences of my life. Goofy bat-props aside, it was epic, colorful, and operatic. It was what any true comic book movie should aspire to. I still consider Burton's movie the best superhero movie ever made. Yep, you heard me right.

I will be the first to admit that went into Christopher Nolan's version with a biased opinion. How could Nolan, a director known for Hitchcock-like suspense movies, ever beat Burton's dark vision? After viewing Batman Begins, it turns out I was right to question everything I had heard about it. This movie sucks.

Nolan is best left to directing off-kilter thrillers. Given his unique directing style, I have to admit that I was excited to find out that he was going to be helming this one. Unfortunately, he shows none of the originality that seeps through in his other flicks like Memento and The Prestige. How can such a good director turn out uninspired, boring schlock like this? Batman Begins is so ham-fisted and pretentious that I felt like I had been forced into watching a Baptist tent revival for two hours. The characters love sermonizing about "good vs. evil" and "morality vs. immorality". Especially Katie Holmes and Michael Caine. Now, I am a big fan of Caine's work (I won't even comment on Holmes; how she got cast in this movie is beyond me), but turning Alfred into a nagging I-Told-You-So moralist is completely aggravating. David S. Goyer should be smacked for writing such pandering drivel.

I am a huge fan of Christian Bale. I have a ton of his movies in my collection. I had big hopes for his turn as the Caped Crusader. He is the only actor in this movie that even pretends to care about what is going on, despite his very wooden performance. Gary Oldman is one of my favorite thespians of all time, but he was a braindead zombie throughout the whole flick. Ditto for Holmes, Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy, Morgan Freeman, and Ken Watanabe. How could so many great actors sleepwalk through one production? It's all mindboggling.

The whole thing feels like a project that had a ton of energy at the beginning, but everyone involved slowly lost interest and just decided to finish it so they could collect their paychecks. Very Sad. This had such huge potential, and it turned out to be just another Hollywood cash cow.

There were some highlights for me, though. The final train showdown was really cool, as was the appearance a psychopathic Scarecrow on the streets of Gotham looking like one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Ultimately, Batman Begins is marred by poor scriptwork, poor direction, and even poorer acting. I am consistently amazed by reviews that herald it as "the movie of the year" or "the best superhero movie ever made". Uggh.

I'll stick to Zebraman, thank you very much. At least that has some creativity to it.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
MPD Psycho (2000)
7/10
Another example of Miike's talent as a storyteller
15 June 2007
Takashi Miike was given the daunting task of translating the MPD Psycho manga onto film, and no other Japanese director could have done it as successfully as he has.

Let me clarify my above statement: the MPD Psycho series is nowhere as good as Audition or Ichi The Killer, but given the material and the constrictions of Japanese television, Miike used his experience to craft a tense, psychological story that hits a nerve with me every time I watch it.

Miike has a knack for exploiting weaknesses in the scripts he's given, and MPD Psycho is no exception. The manga is dense with plots, subplots and characters, and I get the feeling that Miike recognized the fact that translation would be difficult, so he chose a schizophrenic approach to making the series. This approach works for any viewer (like me) that has enough patience to watch the entire series from beginning to end. Watching one episode will get you confused, but watching them all in chronological order is a satisfying experience that eventually unfolds a colorful and chaotic story.

Technically, the series - on first look - suffers from a low budget, but once again Miike exploits this as he has on several of his other films. Colors are saturated and sharply contrast with each other, light and shadow are over-accentuated, and it all give the feel of seeing the world through the eyes a synesthesia-suffering psychopath. The special effects are overdone (neon rain, urine-colored skies), but it all adds to the effect. It's like watching a serial killer music video from the early 1980s.

The plot is probably the hardest thing for people to get around. I had to watch the entire thing from beginning to end several times before I finally understood what the hell was going on; there are so many subplots and twists that the viewer becomes overwhelmed after the first ten minutes. In addition, Miike's use of flashbacks and juxtaposition, while adding to the schizophrenic feeling that underlines the series, makes it hard to follow the storyline without feeling slightly unbalanced at the end of each episode.

There are so many characters introduced by the end of the second episode that you start to lose track of who's who and why they're doing what they're doing. That's why it's a MUST to watch it all chronologically. Some of the characters don't have their motivation or importance in the story explained until way after their introduction. At points, some characters disappear entirely until they make another reappearance further down the line. It's all rather overwhelming but very rewarding- each character is entertaining and has some sort of story to tell. My favorite is police chief Sasayama (wonderfully played by Ren Osugi), who goes through so much crap to expose the truth that by the end of the series you've got to feel sorry for him.

All in all, MPD Psycho is certainly not one of Takashi Miike's best works, but it showcases his talent and showmanship more than any of his other projects. Watch it through its entirety and you won't be disappointed, especially if you're a Miike fan.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrifyingly Bad
21 April 2007
I've seen a lot of bad movies, particularly in the horror genre, but City Of The Living Dead just may be the worst horror movie ever made. How anyone can consider this the apex of Lucio Fulci's career is beyond me, but it just shows that one man's trash is another man's treasure.

For starters, this movie is sloppily edited (which seems to be a problem with most of Fulci's movies). Bad music cutoffs, random shots of scenery, and of course the ever-present horrible voice dubbing. I haven't checked if the same editor has worked on most of Fulci's films, but I'll bet it was the same guy making the same bad cuts over and over again. This is easily the sloppiest in Fulci's canon.

The special effects, while passable through most of the movie, are glaringly bad in some scenes, another Fulci trademark. Several closeup shots involve people's brains getting torn out of the back of their heads, which is pretty cool until you notice that the hand doing the brain grabbing is obviously the hand of some black dude. The only person of color in the movie appears at the beginning, and I'm pretty sure Fulci wasn't trying to imply that the guy was secretly the killer for the rest of the film. How Fulci could slip something like this up shows how amateur a director the guy was.

The plot is nonexistent. It has something to do with teleporting zombies rising from their graves and a priest (who hung himself early on in the movie) using telepathy to make people's eyes bleed and spew their guts out of their mouths. The editing is to blame for most of the nonsensical plot, but once again this is something that Fulci did for pretty much every movie he ever made in the horror genre. At least his earlier films made some attempt at a clean plot.

The ending makes no sense whatsoever. The good guys win for no apparent reason, or at least you think they win. But then the last scene throws your presumptions out the window and leaves you wondering what the hell just happened. I'm still trying to figure out what the point was.

Having seen most of his attempts at horror films, City Of The Living Dead is without a doubt Fulci's worst movie. Yes, it's even worse than The Beyond (another so-called classic) and Murder Rock. It's gore for gore's sake, but it can't even get that right.

If you really need to watch a Lucio Fulci movie, please try House By The Cemetery or Zombi. At least then you'll see the potential Fulci showed as a director. It's really too bad he had no visible talent in the profession. And by the way, if you're one of those people who insists that Fulci be classed with real Italian horror directors like Dario Argento, then you need to have your eyes poked out with a very sharp splinter.
15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A shallow movie for a gullible audience
18 February 2007
This may be the worst big-budget sci-fi movie I have ever seen. Ever. Worse than I, Robot, worse than Lost In Space. Yes, it's that bad. Just try to endure the "Cave Rave" scene through its entirety and you'll see what I mean.

When I first saw the original Matrix, I wondered how the Wachowski brothers could top themselves with the second movie in the series. Well, they didn't. It's like they decided to skip #2 and go directly to #3 when it came to upping the ante. This movie sucks. It sucks real bad, and I'm disappointed that I wasted two hours of my life watching this dreck.

For starters, the dialogue is horrible. It seems that the directors chose to mimic the original Star Trek t.v. show for cheesy speeches and boring conversations between characters. I don't think there is one line of redeemable dialogue in this flick; it makes all the actors sound like they didn't pass the fifth grade.

The special effects, while passable in some places, are simply horrible in others. The fight scene between Neo and the dozens of Agent Smiths looks like it was copied out of a cutscene from some video game made in 1998. And the exploding trucks after the chase scene looked just as bad. CGI technology has gotten to the point where these kinds of goofs are inexcusable. Heck, Jurassic Park looks better.

The action in the first Matrix was well-paced, while in Reloaded it seems like the directors wanted to showcase all the money they received from the studio by filling every action scene with as much CGI and exploding debris as possible. The chase scene on the freeway should have been fun and exciting, but it turned boring after about three minutes. Ditto for the Merovingian mansion fight.

I've heard many people say that Reloaded is the one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever made, and I am at a loss as to how they were fooled into believing this. Maybe it's the fact that Reloaded (and the rest of the series, for that matter) disguises its humble action/adventure origins in a cloak of grade school quasi-philosophy. Seriously, if you think that the Matrix series has some kind of deep, in-depth psychological meaning, then you need to go back to college and take some real philosophy courses. I do understand the point that the Wachowski bros. are trying to get across, but don't insult my intelligence by telling me that the Matrix is a serious discussion in subjective reality. It's not even close.

The only good part about this movie is Monica Belucci and her cleavage. It's too bad such a great actress got stuck in some of the worst scenes.

Calling this movie a science fiction classic belittles real classics such as Metropolis, Soylent Green, Blade Runner, and Akira. You're just comparing apples to oranges.

On a side note, I've only seen this movie on the DVD that came with the Matrix collector's edition (the one with the resin bust of Neo). I have to say the sound quality on this disc is horrible. All of the quieter parts are so muffled I have to turn up the volume just to hear any dialogue, only to have my eardrums ruptured once the music or explosions kick in. Strangely enough, this is only a problem on this particular disc; it doesn't happen with the other discs in the collection. Anybody else have this issue?
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
JFK (1991)
9/10
Stone's Masterpiece
26 November 2006
Controversies aside, this is one amazing piece of cinema. One of my top ten films, I have watched it dozens of times, and I always find something new to ponder over.

Visually and thematically, this is Stone's most ambitious movie, and we will probably never see its kind again: an epic story that forces the people that watch it to consider the possibilities of the director's argument. I have never met someone who has seen JFK and not had an opinion about it, one way or the other. The impact that this movie had before and after its release can still be seen today. Just Google "Oliver Stone JFK" and take a look at what various "experts" have to say about it!

My only true gripe with JFK is the way that Stone chose to display what he considers the evidence. He took all the theories, fed them through a spaghetti maker, and looped the pieces back together to try to make a visually stunning statement. The end result is indeed beautiful to look at, but it leaves those who don't know a thing about the JFK assassination feeling overwhelmed. For example, two characters in the film (played by Kevin Bacon and Donald Sutherland) were actually composites made up of different people at some point mired in the real Garrison investigation. In real life, there was no X (Sutherland), and there was no Willie O'Keefe (Bacon). Also, the movie is edited to a manic pace, leaving uninformed viewers confused at the landslide of theories that come tumbling their way. I feel that Stone did a great disservice to the true evidence by presenting the movie in such a way.

I am a firm believer that there was no magic bullet, Oswald was framed, and that there was a grand conspiracy to kill Kennedy. It seems to me that those who criticize the movie (especially some of the reviews I've seen on IMDb) have failed to grasp the facts of the case, and honestly, anyone who gets all their information about the JFK assassination from distorted and incomplete manuals such as the Warren Report or books such as Case Closed (by Gerald Posner, a obfuscating hack who has been proved wrong numerous times) will never understand the facts anyway. It's too bad that the movie does not show the theories in a more cohesive format.

That said, JFK is one of the most powerful movies ever made. Everything about it is intense, from the acting (especially Kevin Costner and Joe Pesci, who should've gotten an Academy award nomination for his portrayal of David Ferrie) to the editing, lighting, colors, and pacing. I can only hope that one day Oliver Stone decides to start making daring, controversial movies again!
3 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Heat (1995)
3/10
One of the most overrated movies in cinema history!
27 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
First off, I'll come right out and say that I've only ever seen two of Michael Mann's other movies: Collateral and The Last Of The Mohicans, both of which were entertaining but did not impress me overall. I'm no expert on his work, but he seems to have a knack for taking fairly talented actors and turning them into one-dimensional versions of themselves on screen.

Heat is a perfect example of that talent. We have a huge cast of famous actors, each one morphed into a character that ultimately offers no kind of sympathy with the viewer (at least this viewer). Mann tries so hard to give his characters some kind of emotional value that the actors end up looking like cardboard cutouts of every other role they have played in their illustrious careers.

Why does the director feel the need to delve into the lives of EACH AND EVERY CHARACTER in this flick? He easily added at least 45 minutes of time to a movie that is essentially of the action/crime genre, where character development is not necessarily as important as it would be in a romance or drama. Come on, dwelling on the fact that Natalie Portman's character had some parental issues, or that a minor player in the plot may in fact be a serial killer, or the fact that the getaway driver's wife is distraught over his death, is gratuitous at best. It only adds length to a film that already way too long to make it worth sitting through.

Which comes to my next gripe- this is the first crime movie I have EVER watched where I felt the need to fast-forward through certain scenes that I felt were dragged out too much, which was about 1/3 of the flick. It's really too bad, because Heat certainly had it's moments: the café scene between De Niro and Pacino was outstanding, as were the shoot-out and the final chase scene. If only Mann had concentrated on giving the rest of the movie the same level of intensity, I could have possibly found Heat to be one of my favorites of all time. The director should stick to what he knows best- action. Although I suppose you can't expect too much from the guy who helmed Miami Vice, one of the cheesiest t.v. shows ever made.

Mann should have looked at some other action/crime flicks, such as True Romance or Leon: The Professional to see how character development should really be done- colorful, well-balanced, and efficient. Although he did verify what I have always though about Robert De Niro; if you can make millions of dollars a movie just by hanging around on screen with your mouth open like a kid just off the short bus, then I guess there's hope for everybody to make a career out of acting.

3 out of 10 stars just for the good parts, 1 out of 10 stars for making me wish I had been doing something else for the 172 minutes it took me to finish this yawn-inducer.
16 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I Got The Point...
16 July 2006
There sure are a lot of people criticizing this movie for being so "obviously" right-leaning, but they are entirely missing the point, or they just didn't bother to watch the whole thing closely enough.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone skewer both sides of the political spectrum in the United States and world affairs, not just the left wingers. I think that's pretty apparent by the way the protagonists are portrayed. Overzealous, patriotically stone-aged, and violent are a few words that sum up the way that Team America handle any problem they encounter in the movie.

A lot of people have also complained that this movie is offensive. Well, duh? It's supposed to be. If you went to the theater to see this movie without knowing what to expect, then you have obviously never seen an episode of South Park or know about Parker & Stone's political and social leanings. You've got no one to blame but yourself. Team America is meant to be cheap, immature, puerile, politically incorrect, and sick. That's what makes it so great!

This movie is one of the best commentaries on America that I've seen for years, and the reason for that is because the creators were not willing to pull any punches, and it's all the more effective for it- although I have a feeling that they did not directly taunt the Bush administration for fear of reprisal. Can't say I blame them (maybe Parker's girlfriend works undercover for the CIA?).

Bottom line: this movie trashes ALL sides, not just one. If you can't see that, well, you're just letting YOUR biases shine through.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Like A Shotgun Blast To The Head
23 June 2006
I wasn't expecting too much when I first heard about this remake. After all, how many cruddy, unnecessary horror remakes have we had in the past few years? Too many. But when I found out that Alexandre Aja was at the helm, my gore-filled heart started beating a little faster. High Tension was great, so I figured he couldn't do any worse.

Now, having seen it, I can easily say that this is the best horror remake I have had the pleasure to watch. In fact, it will probably end up going down as one of the best horror films I've seen in the last six years (after Uzumaki, of course). In fact fact, I just may have to put this sick little puppy on my Top Twenty List.

Forget what the detractors say. Every minute of this movie, from start to finish, is edge-of-your-seat entertainment. It only gets better from the opening shot onwards. The camera-work is superb, and Aja obviously knows how to make the audience feel uncomfortable, even during the lighter moments (there aren't too many of those). He's even done some things with the camera that I've never seen before in ANY movie.

There are dozens of cringe-worthy scenes in this flick. If bucket fulls of gore are what you're looking for, look no further (I should add that I have only seen the unrated DVD release, so your viewing experience may be a little less bloody than mine was). The special effects are top notch, brought to you courtesy of Nicotero & Berger.

I've got few complaints- for one, sometimes the music was a little too "operatic/epic" for my taste, but overall, this is how horror movies should be done! I should also add that I'm a big Ted Levine fan, so seeing him do his thing made it all the better.

An excellent piece of work, and this movie may someday be considered a true classic in the horror genre. If you liked High Tension, you'll love this! Go out and rent this movie now- if you're a gorehound, or just a casual horror fan, you won't regret it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wolf Creek (2005)
6/10
Am I missing something?
14 April 2006
I just got done watching Wolf Creek, and I just have to say- what's all the hype about? Considering all the bad press this movie has gotten, I was expecting something akin to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. What I got was a slightly sadistic, slightly violent horror movie, with nothing to show for all the hype that it has received from various reviews.

I should mention that the version I saw (on DVD) was the unrated version. I never bothered to see this in the theater, so I'm just wondering what all the fuss was about? What exactly were the major differences between the R rated version and the unrated? There was no protracted torture and rape scene as was reported by several media outlets. It seems to me to be another example of the US media going bonkers over a foreign "exploitation" film that they can't fathom anybody having the balls to watch with an uninhibited point of view.

That being said, this really isn't a bad flick. You really care for each of the victims before the movie is finished, and the baddie is just plain creepy. The cinematography is shot in documentary style, and that definitely gives it a more realistic edge. Other than that, it's standard fare for gorehounds like myself.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Irreversible (2002)
7/10
Pure exploitation "entertainment"!
7 March 2006
It's been a long time since I've been creeped out by a movie, but Irreversible made my skin crawl. I sat in numb silence for about ten minutes after the movie was finished. As far as exploitation movies go, this one was possibly the most extreme I've ever seen.

That said, I was impressed with the way this flick made me feel completely uncomfortable throughout the entire running time. The sounds, music, and especially the camera-work gave it a very claustrophobic feel. If it weren't for the porno/head smash/anal rape scenes, I could almost consider this an art-house movie, but the level of predatory sex and violence that run throughout 'Irreversible' throw it directly into the same pot as 'I Spit On Your Grave' and 'Devil's Experiment'. The director obviously tried to make the subject matter less "mainstream" by using various techniques, but in the end it's just a showcase for aberrant human behavior.

By the way, I didn't watch this movie to be entertained; anybody who gets off on this kind of material obviously has mental problems. And to those of you who complain that this flick is misogynistic are missing the point. These types of movies are supposed to make us uncomfortable with our little lives, and 'Irreversible' does just that!

All in all, this is a very well done movie. If you're gonna watch exploitation movies, you might as well watch something that's going to make you think a little bit...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Serenity (2005)
8/10
A kick-butt sci-fi movie
12 February 2006
First off, I have to clarify that I am not a big fan of Joss Whedon's other projects. Both Buffy and Angel were probably two of the worst t.v. shows I had ever had the displeasure of watching, and I could never understand why those shows had such a huge cult following. So when a friend suggested that I borrow his copies of Firefly and Serenity, I had my doubts. I was expecting more teeny-pop-culture crap from this one.

But I gotta say that Serenity is probably one of the best sci-fi movies that I have seen in years. The t.v. series was great, but the movie took that universe to a whole new level. The f/x were outstanding, the acting was great, and the plot was intriguing. I hope that Mr. Whedon attempts to make two more; this flick was how the last three Star Wars movies should have been made! Very well done!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Is Miike going Hollywood?
12 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a huge Takashi Miike fan, and I love pretty much everything he's ever directed, but I was kinda let down by this movie. If you dig the current wave of J-horror films, you'll like this. It's the same as Ringu, Dark Water, and all those other movies. I kind of got the feeling that this is what Miike was aiming for, but I was still surprised at how restrained he was on this one. No hermaphrodites, sociopaths, or lady-boys in this flick! They probably wouldn't have fit into the plot, anyway... On the plus side, the acting and special effects were pretty good. It seems like he had a larger-than-normal budget on this one, and it shows. Considering that there was very little CGI in this movie, some of the scenes are impressive (the ghost floating on the ceiling takes the cake!). Leave it to Miike to make a commercial horror movie that's still better than 90% of the crap coming out of California these days.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed