Change Your Image
Cliffotchka!
Reviews
Chromo46 (2018)
A good exercise in filmmaking, but not worth an average person's time
A good exercise in filmmaking, but not worth an average person's time. The anti-DNA company message is strangely biased. SPOILERS: a woman is jailed for killing her would-be because her DNA was found at the scene and her mother previously submitted her own sample to the eponymous genetics firm.It's intelligent and emotionally jarring in that justice is not served, but it tries to place the blame on DNA and DNA companies.
Living Will... (2010)
Certainly doesn't suck
Simple premise: the ghost of a guy's best friend interfere's with his love life. I rarely laughed out loud, but I certainly never cringed. Ryan Dunn's beard plays a very nice poor man's version of Zach Galifianakis beard. The film knows it is silly, and it pokes fun at itself. The humor here is not quite my taste, but still I could not fault it. I am not too sure though about the initial premise leading to the best friend's death. Is constipation something that even happens to young men? Could a young man even from constipation? So the initial setup seems to have a small fault. Yes, it's absurd and silly, but the medical condition seemed a bit too plausible to be humorous. Perhaps if the death and funeral scenes weren't so farcical.
Copley: An American Fairytale (2008)
It wasn't god-awful
Overall, it was a quality production given the budget. But I must say that if you reuse shots, I'd call that filler. If you've seen The Sixth Sense or The Others, the ultimate plot twist is no surprise. It was about 30 minutes into it(almost half-way through) that I realized that this film did not seem to be going anywhere (kinda like the miniseries Shogun) as the scenes really seemed to be stalling the action and the music was often overly dramatic. So, I was really hoping that a good twist was coming. I was let down.
Maybe I'm being thick, but I think the film fails to explain a few things. For example, what happened to the killer? In one scene, the old lady says she isn't selling; and in the next she's apparently decided to sell. What changed her mind? If the killer had control of the estate after the death of the old couple, why did he allow the sale to proceed if he really did not want to sell? So, what was the killer's M.O. after all? Real estate is probably just too complicated to be included or explained in such relatively simple and short feature films.
Gasoline Rainbows (2000)
Something seriously wrong in the execution of this film
Something seriously went wrong in the execution of this film. The film is composed of a lot of episodic instances of friends hanging out whose sum total doesn't really add up to an engaging narrative. There really isn't a narrative here. This is just a reflective film, I guess. The probably may be that this is the director's first film which he also wrote. It's apparently the first feature screenplay he ever wrote and he also then directed it. He failed to transfer his vision from his head onto film. There are certain weaknesses in the low-budget production's attempts to show things beyond it's budget, such as a car crash in the woods, but beyond such pithy critiques, I just didn't find the film in any way entertaining.
The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)
Best Eddie Murphy Movie I Think I've Ever Seen
I hate Eddie Murphy. Generally, I don't find him very amusing. But in this sci-fi/comedy gem of a film, the writing beautifully walks that thin line between slapstick and droll B-grade mafia comedy. This film should be remembered with other sci-fi/comedy greats like "Spaceballs." What's nice is that the quality of the sfx put into it was better than many serious sci-fi films and series (e.g., the "Taken" miniseries).
Murphy was perfectly cast as the cool hero. He did so well in the role, this film deserves a really flamboyant silly as hell sequel with a better more adventurous plot.
This film totally makes up for the earlier Murphy stinker "I Spy" which was so bad it has made me hate Eddie Murphy all over again.
Taken (2002)
Worst Sci-Fi production since Plan 9
Let me preface my comments by saying I am a huge science fiction fan and Spielberg buff. I love sentimental stories. I loved A.I. and Sonnenberg's Solaris remake.
I've only seen the first 4 parts, but I'm not sure I'll watch the rest. I think 90% of their budget was wasted on the opening scene of episode 1 which is a series of CG shots of an American WWII bombing mission taking fire from the Germans. These shots are so good they blow Pearl Harbor away.
I'm not sure how this show ever got made. The writing is absolutely horrible. Some of the situations are intriguing and human characters are just barely interesting to hold ones attention, but the dialog that is very spotty.
There are many bad lines that stick out. Characters get introduced, killed off and serve no real purpose to the overall story arc.
Almost every single scene begins with a title to tell us where and when the action is taking place. Often this puts the scene in its proper historical context and there are references to many real historical events (e.g., Apollo 13, Cuban Missile Crisis, etc). However, the writer (or someone) in all their meticulous date keeping completely blew it in episode 4. In that episode which takes place in 1970, we are told that some half-human/half-alien kids are born in 1958 or 1959 which would make them 10 to 12 years old. In the very next scene, we are told that when one of them was 16, he started causing a lot of trouble to the locals. Obviously, the writer meant 1948/1949. What a major goof!
In my opinion, the little girl narrator is perhaps the only original part of this show, but it's also the most off-putting. As someone who has seen all 156 episodes of the Twilight Zone, and therefore keen to listening to the sage wisdom of the middle-aged white male, the little girl makes me want to plug my ears and go "blah, blah, blah... I'm not listening to you... what do you know about life?"
The Exorcist (1973)
A horror film?
This film miscategorized in the horror genre. The Exorcist (1973) is primarily about redemption, much like Return of the Jedi (1983) (ROTJ deals with a son's forgiveness for the sins of the father, whilst The Exorcist deals with a son forgiving himself.) However, unlike ROTJ, this film is a beautiful work of cinematography and acting, albeit it suffers from a plodding storyline filmed with seemingly irrelevant characters and misused special effects. The theme of Psychology is nicely reinforced with the near-subliminal superimposed demonic faces and imagery. Otherwise, the levitation, telekinesis and airborne bodily fluids, are absolutely unnecessary. It ends with much catharsis by generating more questions than it sets out to resolve, which can often be a wonderful springboard for discussion and analysis.
I watched this film alone in the dark at 11pm last night and did not receive so much as a shiver from it. I will concede that my sleep was disturbed by it later, though. This film cannot be the scariest of all time however, because of the existence of Seven and The Ring (or Ringu). Hell, even the almost B-movie, The Gift, had more shock value.
This is a fairly good film, critically, but I fail to see why it should hold up as a popular form of viewing entertainment.
Manna from Heaven (2002)
Lamest Film of the Millenium
I don't understand how I was able to sit through such an amazingly amateurish film. What a bunch of lucky bastards to be able to work with an all-star cast, and yet provide them with such a poorly written script. Only Frank Gorshin came close to portraying a belivable character with the lines written for him -- that's Frank, baby! As for the others, I was shocked that noone was allowed to improvise anything. Perhaps everything was done in one take? That would explain it since the budget could not have been more than $50K.
The family that made the film seemed to have suffered from a lack of constructive criticism during production (much like what George Lucas may have expirienced with his latest trilogy). Noone had the guts to tell them that the film, in a word, sucked.
There were a few shots in the film, however, where there really was some cinematography (in the church for instance). The worst shot however involved a woman using a garden rake to rake what appears to be snow. Which is another thing! It's Spring in Buffalo. There's still some snow on the ground, and they try to show this by blatantly placing clumps of "snow" directly on the steps of a building -- the one place where there would NOT be any snow where snow-shovelling is an artform.
AVOID THIS FILM AT ALL COSTS. It is nothing like the enjoyable independent films: My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Clerks, etc... These little gems had something called a great script.
Atanarjuat (2001)
A very interesting must see Cultural Film
I recommend this to anyone who is curious about native Alaskan and Canadian ways life. The film is a production miracle! I found it difficult to understand on first viewing, but was very worthwhile once you get through it. My only critique is the editing. The takes and cuts could have been easily trimmed up all around to make the running time (pun intended!) under 2 hrs. The film could have also used a narrator at least at the beginning to help the accomodate the audience a bit.
Lyubimaya zhenshchina mekhanika Gavrilova (1982)
Ever been dumped?
For those ever dumped by a lover, fiancee, boyfriend or girlfriend this movie is recommended viewing. It shows that life goes on. The film is also full of wonderful little snippets of Soviet culture in the Ukrainian city of Odessa.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Truly "scary as Hell" ?
I thought the film was a smart way to make a movie with no budget. The editing was good. The subjective storytelling was good. If I had been in the characters' place, I'm pretty sure I'd be freaking out too. However, I seem to fall into the camp which claims the film isn't scary.
What could be called scary about the film, though? Aren't there definite moments meant to create fear in the viewer?
From short clips used in trailers of what looked to be people running in the dark of night, I inferred that they were being chased by an unseen monster. To my dismay, in the film the characters are the ones trying to do the chasing -- tracking down the source of some unexplainable sound. Any running in the dark in film fails to be frightening for this reason.
There are also some scary anecdotes, stone piles, stick figures, sounds in the darkness that the characters could certainly hear better than I could, a stick bundle encasing bloodied clothing and flesh, and finally a deserted old house. I'll admit that the bloody piece of flesh perhaps raised a hair or too, but wasn't close to giving me the kind of shivers I got from the film Seven -- which I use as my personal standard of a scary film. I was prepared not to be able to sleep the night I saw TBWP as I wasn't able to when I saw Seven.
The house is the only element that seems to tie back to the beginning stories which could be used to stir up more fear, for it was in the basement of a house in the woods where some children in the 1940's were killed in a particular manner, not by any witch, but by a man who admitted to it.
My final reaction was that it was unrealistic and somewhat comedic.