Change Your Image
NickMichalak
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Jinn (2014)
A horribly lackluster, under developed movie that doesn't deserve your money.
This potentially intriguing movie ruined my whole day for a vast number of reasons. I had come across the trailer for this, and being a fan of atmospheric supernatural thrillers, it looked appealing. Thus, I planned a whole day around going out to see this film theatrically in its limited release. Sadly, it failed on so many levels that I literally stopped caring about it halfway through, which made for a horrendously difficult sit for the next 50 minutes.
"Jinn" apparently has its mythology based on Middle Eastern folklore, but provides the most bare minimum exposition to get any of its ideas across. Thus, concepts and characters are poorly defined. It has concepts that are mentioned in relation to man, jinn, and angels - yet introduces nothing regarding angels anywhere in its narrative. As it goes along, you get the idea that Ray Park's character could potentially be an angel from the abilities he demonstrates, but nope, that potentially interesting idea never comes to be. The Jinn themselves are not well explained in the supposed mythology this film is attempting to setup and utilize. This film ultimately fails to flesh out or develop anything on a compelling level. The characters are not explored, leaving them as very two dimensional people despite having some potentially good quality talents here like William Atherton. It was at the point, nestled in the second act, where characters typically are fleshed out and given more depth and focus that I realized this film had no intention of caring at all about its characters. Everyone is given a shallow setup with no further development beyond that, and instead, the film throws a lot of flashy imagery and effects to use its sleek appearance mask its shortcomings.
"Jinn" also heavily lacks in excitement until well passed the point where I stopped giving a damn about it. The talents of Ray Park are grossly wasted here with a very tame and very brief martial arts showing, and a super slow motion fight scene that amounts to one of the most boring sequences of the film. The filmmakers also surely had no intention of building up legitimate scares or suspense. Jump scares are all it has to offer in that regard, and as I said, the action fails to excite at all. It also features some suped up concept car that the director clearly put far more effort and energy into integrating into this film than he did anything else.
I honestly stopped giving a damn about halfway through the film because the makers of this film never bothered to give me anything worth giving a damn about. You have to establish, develop, and build up your characters primarily, and that's exactly what this film never takes the time to do. Thus, it's exactly why I lost all interest in this, and felt embarrassed walking out of the theatre at the end of it. Also, despite the Jinn being a threat to the entire whole of humanity, the scope of this film is extremely narrow, and feels a lot like a forgettable late 1990's direct-to-video movie. It just lacks ambition, originality, intelligence, and scope to make it succeed on any creative level at all.
"Jinn" does have a very moody look to it with good quality cinematography, and the CGI effects work is quite high grade. However, good visuals and some nice effects cannot make-up for a lackluster script and lazy storytelling. The acting isn't poor, but it fails to compel an audience's interest. Do not bother paying to see this movie. There is a vast catalog of far superior works in this genre to watch and enjoy thoroughly than this such as The Prophecy, Constantine, Solomon Kane, or any episode of Supernatural. Don't waste your time, and don't encourage a sequel to a well below average movie like this because its end credits literally are asking you to do so.
The Shining (1980)
Incoherent, lifeless, hack film-making. Horrible storytelling.
How this film gained such high praise and notoriety completely escapes me. I have seen hundreds of films, and this is easily the most incoherent, bland, and lifeless piece of work I can recall seeing (especailly by such a renowned filmmaker). And yes, I hated "2001: A Space Odyssey" as well. Long, drawn-out, boring, lifeless film packed full of irrelevant imagery and symbolism that amounts to a filmmaker who doesn't know how to tell an intelligent story with solid characters and emotions. That is the same exact problem here.
First off, Shelley DuVall added nothing of value to the film. She was blah from beginning to end. No endearing qualities whatsoever. The whole film was a failed experiment thinking that random creepy, irrelevant images coupled with an incoherent story progression devoid of any character arcs would be successful. Kubrick had no sense of scene transitions. He shows no ability to allow one scene to flow into another, to give it fluidity or convey that he has an overall, consistent vision. The inconsistency over what aspect ratio he intended for it is further proof that he had no concrete vision, in my honest opinion. A solid, competent, talented director knows what they want, and are very confident in their visions. They have a very clear idea of how they want things viewed by every audience, everywhere. That's why directors and DPs hate it when their films are put into the pan-and-scan format. Kubrick also fails to have his DP shoot or light 98% of the scenes intriguingly. Watching this, it was like watching an old TV-movie - dull, uninspired, and lifeless. Yeah, the steadi-cams and dolly shots are all impressive, but sometimes, scenes seem to exist just to show off the cool camera moves they can do. Scenes which contribute absolutely nothing to the overall film, in any aspect. Being a filmmaker myself, I am of the belief that every scene should have a purpose to either the plot or characters of the film. Anything else is a waste. And beyond those steadi-cam and dolly shots, it's essentially bland for nearly the entire film. Almost zero interesting angles, and amateurish editing skills. Yawn inducing cinema.
Good story progression would show Jack Torrance starting out as a well adjusted, happy family man that gradually descends into complete psychosis and homicidal mania. Instead, Kubrick shows him as already a man dissatisfied with his life, marriage, son, and career. Then, Kubrick just flashes a title card on the screen saying 'One Month Later,' and Jack is already deteriorated towards the verge of madness. That's shoddy storytelling, and a hack's idea of executing a character arc. No cause is given to why he becomes a homicidal maniac. There's also no correlation between all the surreal, nightmarish imagery. It's completely random, and doesn't evolve into revealing a story behind its origins. All this surrealism is just an excuse for it to be labeled 'horror' as it doesn't serve an underlying purpose as to why anything is happening amongst the characters. They don't confront, deal, or resolve the reasons or purpose behind it all. It's just there to make the film bizarre.
Now, I don't mind methodically paced films as long as there's a purpose to it all. Any talented editor could make this a much more effective film by chopping a good 35 minutes or more out of it. Horror films require momentum to equal good pacing, and good pacing is necessary for solid tension. Still, even if there was tension and good pacing, fact is, really, there are no endearing characters in this film for me to build any sympathy for. I don't care what happens to them because they're one dimensional, emotionless, weak-willed people. How this family could even co-exist for five minutes is beyond me, let alone how they survived a more than three hour drive up to the hotel in the first place.
This film is almost complete trash because it shows the filmmakers have no intelligence or coherence for the movie they were attempting to make. There are enormously better conceived and executed films from this time that proved far more effective. If you want isolation and paranoia, check out "John Carpenter's The Thing." If you want surrealism, go rent Don Coscarelli's original "Phantasm."
He-Man and the Masters of the Universe (2002)
Damn, I wish I still had the classic toys!
I used to have a LARGE assortment of He-Man action figures. I even had Castle Greyskull! My dad made me give them away (along with my G.I. Joe's) to some charity of what not. I still hate him for that. Seeing that the series was coming back on Cartoon Network made me remember my childhood television favorites. I still have a few episodes of the original series on video tape, and I even have the He-Man & She-Ra Christmas Special (SPOILER WARNING: ***where Skeletor actually saves the day***). Anyway, the animation is truly superior (in most parts) the original series (I never saw any of the other He-Man series), and the plots are much more involved. I only have a few gripes. One, the transformation sequence for He-Man was a LOT better in the original series. It had more flash, I miss the heavy echo of He-Man's voice, and the music cue was just about as dramatic as a cartoon gets. Don't get me wrong, Joseph LoDuca is great as I LOVE the music for "THE EVIL DEAD" trilogy along with what he's done on the "HERCULES" & "XENA" T.V. series. Also, I think the design for Orko is a bit overdone. I mean, the hat's too big, he doesn't need a feather, and the belt kind of makes his shroud look like a dress.
I love the fact that they've explored more of the origins here. Why Skeletor has a skull for a face, where He-Man's powers come from, and so on. Good to see King Randor as a more physical character (as seen in the Pilot episode), and I like that even the background characters have gotten more forefront time. It seems as if they've got a good production team for this show, and I'm so happy with Cartoon Network with "JUSTICE LEAGUE" & "TRANSFORMERS: ARMADA" (even if it is the least of the TF series). Now, all we need is a NEW "THUNDERCATS" series (or, at least, re-runs of the old series).
Also, I'm glad with what they've done with the toyline. I haven't bought any of them yet, but it's great that they've re-issued some of the original action figures in a collector's set. It's truly a remarkable idea. Also, the new toys look fantasic! It's all a Grade-A job in all aspects of this revival. Even the live-action "MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE" film was released on DVD with Director's commentary the same year. It's the complete & total package. He-Man & the Masters of the Universe are back in all their glory! I hope it lives on for quite some time.
-NJM
Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI (1986)
The Best F13 Sequel to Date!
In my honest opinion, this is the best sequel to date. Tommy is the best in this one because he's not some weakling geek like in the past two films. This one has a great storyline, some good death scenes, and some cool special effects for Jason's return from the dead. C.J. Graham plays one of the best Jasons and is right up there with Kane Hodder (parts 7-9). Plus the songs from Alice Cooper makes this a great one overall! Although the death scenes may not as elaborate as those in some others, this one is a good one overall, and it's good at the end to show that he's still 'alive' so-to-speak. Long live 'the Man Behind the Mask' (Jason & the song).