Change Your Image
culbeda
Reviews
The Spiderwick Chronicles (2008)
Horror movie for kids masquerading as a book series adaptation
Other than the names of the characters and the house, this bore almost no resemblance to the books. Compressing 5 books totaling almost 600 (sparse) pages into 95 minutes IS a challenge, but this "adaptation" sucked the soul from the series and turned it into a mini-horror movie for kids.
If you have young kids, skip the movie and read the books. They're a quick read and offer so much more entertainment, imagination and wonder than this movie did.
Things you'll find in the books that you won't find here: Characters that aren't complete jerks, mystery, a sense of adventure, more existing creatures and far more interesting challenges.
Scooby-Doo! And the Samurai Sword (2008)
Pretty and action packed but seriously (and often needlessly) flawed
The Good:
* My son (4 years old) liked it (hence 5 stars) * It was visually well done * It has ninjas, samurai, sword fighting, etc * It doesn't have Scrappy Doo (that HAS to be worth 3 stars alone!) * Frank Welker does a good job as Fred and Scooby Doo. Nobody can replace Don Messick as Scooby, but Don does about as well as anyone could.
The Bad:
* The music in this movie is, somehow, WORSE than the incredibly bad chase songs that they introduced in the 2nd season the original series. (Prime example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nd37AkFsVI) * The plot is all over the place, but that's almost in keeping with the original series * Joe Sichta (writer/producer) is apparently infatuated with technology that he felt the need to have it DOMINATE a story about a Samurai legend. In case you think that I'm exaggerating, he has Velma build an EMP generator powered by a bicycle to defeat a band of ninja robots. 'Nuf said! * Daphne is now a martial arts master (wha' wha' what!?) * Casey Kasem sounds to old and tired that he is barely recognizable. Only when you hear that trademark Shaggy laugh does he remind you of the good old days.
The skinny:
Overall, it's action-packed enough for young kids to enjoy. The kids will enjoy it but it doesn't have the spirit of the original series that the adult Scooby fans are hoping for.
You're Welcome America: A Final Night With George W. Bush (2009)
A pathetic attempt to cash in on a once funny bit
Let me start by saying that the commercial that the commercial that Will Ferrell did for ACT before the 2004 election was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. ("Oh, I didn't see you there. I was just mending my fences" while he's hammering on a fence with the back of a pick axe).
This atrocity, was one of the least humorous things I've ever seen. Bush is the easiest comedy fodder on the planet. (And since we live in a world with Sarah Palin, that's saying something.) But Ferrell can't seem to capitalize well on this. The commercial for this bit with the segment of the trees was funnier than anything in this mess.
Now, in fairness to the show, I gave up watching it after about an hour. So maybe it finished strong. But I couldn't wait any longer for it to finally go somewhere.
I gave this 3 stars only because it exposed some of the tragically humorous things about Bush and Cheney to a wider audience. If I were to base this entirely on humor, it would have gotten a 1 or a 2.
Burn After Reading (2008)
Well acted, poorly paced, often predictable
It's a typical Coen brothers film involving a cast of disturbed characters that are borderline caricatures, odd-ball pacing, partial resolution and no small amount of smugness. But unlike "No Country for Old Men" or "Fargo", this film isn't particularly clever. It is also, unfortunately, about as funny for "No Country", but not intentionally. As usual, the characters are well casted and acted, but they're not nearly as interesting as those in the aforementioned films.
I'm sure that I will be criticized for "not getting the humor", but I DO understand what the film was going for. I just wasn't particularly impressed with the end result. Die-hard Coen fans will no doubt love this flick. But if you're someone who thinks that the quality of their work has been mixed over the years, save your money. This just isn't one of their better films and it certainly wasn't worth the $30 or the 1.5 hours I wasted to see it.
The Dark Knight (2008)
If Heath's Joker doesn't creep you out, you need to be locked up
After going into this moving hearing a great deal of hype , I had my doubts. I thought that much of the praise heaped on Ledger's performance was probably undue. (I have never particularly cared much for Heath's work in the past, although I have yet to see Brokeback.) But I was STUNNED by the quality of his performance in this film. He was genuinely dark and disturbing. His voice, his mannerisms and his intensity all served to make this Joker one of the most memorable roles of this decade. In short, he was truly outstanding!
It's a good thing he was outstanding. Because while the writing was interesting and attempted to deal with the true nature of humanity, with typical comic book caricaturisation, most the other performances were not particularly strong. Christian Bale and Maggie Gyllenhaal appeared a bit flat and better suited to the previous generation of Batman movies than this one. They just weren't on the same level. Aaron Eckhart was decent and Gary Oldman was good, although the part is a little dull for him.
And, as with all these movies, there were little details that were unnecessary and unrealistic. The most glaring was two-face's condition. It was just an appalling bad idea. Ib the plus side, however, most of the physics weren't particularly cartoonish, for which I am very grateful!
Overall, I thought it was an excellent comic book film and I would recommend it to any adult who can deal with a bit of violence. What shortcomings the film has are overshadowed by a brilliant performance by Ledger that it makes this film a must see.
Hercules (1997)
Worst music of any Disney movie
The rest of the movie was passable but the music made my wife and I both shudder because it was so awful.
If you're looking for a movie you can watch with your kids, look elsewhere.
Since I need 10 lines of text I'll go on to point out that: * Danny DeVito should NEVER be allowed to sing again * the lyrics are just plain pathetic and generic * James Woods is the only likable character and he's the antagonist * my son didn't even like it
Basically, any sane adult will want to pull their hair out if they're forced to watch this all the way through.
I am having trouble washing the stink of that movie off of me, it was that bad.
V for Vendetta (2005)
Near perfection - Far better than The Matrix
This movie is, imho, one of the best movies of the last 2 decades. This is the finest thing the W. Brothers have done to date. It is an absolute and utter shame that The Matrix will probably go down in history as their definitive work.
This movie has depth, sophistication, quality acting and dark but wonderful cinematography. It also has a very poignant political and social message that is the very heart of the tale. It is a perspective changing / reinforcing theme wrapped in stylized, visual splendor.
And for those who found that description less than appealing... rest assured that there is plenty of killing and explosions to keep you interested.
P.S. The only reason I haven't given it a 10 is because some of the violence at the end was needlessly graphic and incongruous with the rest of the film. It was presumably added to appeal to the LCD contingent of the audience.
Ice Age (2002)
Yawn...
While graphically amazing, the story never held my interest and I found the humor lacking. It had style but VERY little substance with a forced morality lesson in tow.
I really don't understand why everyone was so jazzed about this movie. Maybe they were voting based on how well their kids liked it. As an adult, I was personally rather bored.
I only gave it a 5 because of the technical wizardy of the CG.
Well, since I'm forced to put in at least 10 lines, I'll also say that Ray Romano is talentless and continues to play the same character no matter what he does. He's even worse than Kevin Costner and Nicolas Cage.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Mostly faithful, but falls short
On the plus side, the movie is generally true to the spirit of the book, if not every aspect. I read the book and felt that it was pretty hard to go wrong following the book religiously (pun intended). It also has some interesting visual effects to draw the viewer in. These effects could be considered a benefit or a hindrance, depending on your point of view, but I didn't feel that they distracted from the movie and they had to do SOMETHING to help the viewer work through Langdon's thought process without any narration.
Now, all this being said, why only a 6, even though it is based on a book that I highly enjoyed? Well, the problems lies with the casting and direction. I had my concerns from the moment I heard that Hanks was cast as Langdon, and I was STILL disappointed! His performance comes off as wooden and unemotional. To a lesser degree, the same can be said for Tautou. This surprised and greatly disappointed me as I am a big fan of Audrey's. Even more distressing was the utter lack of chemistry between them.
I find it hard to believe that Hanks and Tautou weren't up to the task, so I can only assume that their on-screen failings were in the direction & production of the film. Oddly enough, many of the other characters were well played. Teabing, Silas, Fache, etc. were all well portrayed.
The other disappointment in this movie was that it missed on some key elements. They completely ignored Robert Langdon's sense of sleep deprivation and, more importantly, they left out any hint of romance between the protagonists.
I was also annoyed at changes to the dialog that seemed to be intended to soften the blow of the message of the book. But I was even more dismayed at the horribly dumbed-down ending in the form of a complete scene rewrite with new dialog.
Given the budget, director and caliber of actors on this project, it should have been MUCH better. I would still recommend seeing it, but I certainly wouldn't go in with too high of expectation.
I only hope I get the opportunity to meet Ron Howard and ask him what the hell he was thinking.
Serenity (2005)
Wow! Just Wow!
I don't think I've given 10 to anything since Big Fish or Amelie and NEVER to an action film before.
This movie was so well done. Gripping plot-line, some of the best pacing I've ever seen in any movie and great acting. It was humorous, exciting and dramatic but without ever letting one of those aspects dominate and derail the story.
Admittedly, I'm a fan of Firefly, although I was never really a fan of Buffy or Angel. As a fan of firely, I had TREMENDOUS expectations for this film and like many have said before me, this movie EXCEEDED my expectations.
I will definitely see it again and probably very soon.
The Terminal (2004)
Someone called this a "winner"? I call it a "wince-r"
This movie had an average rating of 7.1 when my wife rented it and MY GOD I don't see why. The idea was cute, but the execution was HORRIBLE.
This movie is formulaic Hollywood tripe at best. Worse yet, it missed so many opportunities. The relationship was uninteresting and anti-climatic. The ending was uninteresting and anti-climatic. Everything was so far over the top so that it was impossible to suspsend one's disbelief.
It as if someone created the concept and as obstacles (read REALITY) threatened the integrity of the story, they chose to simply ignore reality or logic.
Who is this movie for? 50-year old women who love a sappy romance story. Being neither 50 nor a woman, I thought it was a boring and pointless.
A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)
Horrible adaptation of a mediocre book series...
As should be obvious from the title, I'm not big fan of the books. While the writing style is quaint, I find the storyline is repetitive and infantile. I know they're children's books, but so are the Harry Potter series, and I enjoyed those immensely.
The movie is a cobbled together pile of crap that completely rewrites the story to the point where it bears little resemblance to the books. The events that ARE in the book are told out of order and completely twisted until it no longer the same story at all.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, given the puerile storyline in the books, but it certainly is no better. In fact, I'd have to say actually a bit worse.
The characters are fairly true and relatively well cast, as was uncle Monty. Jim Carey, who I actually like, looked the part but tried to steal the show. (What a "supreese", as the count is fond of saying in his attempts to be pretentious.)
Water's Edge (2003)
Eh... At least ONE of them could act!
The movie had some potential, but it was saddled with HORRIBLE acting, directing and producing. Seriously, the woman who played Rae gave one of the worst performances I've seen in quite some time. I found myself squirming in my seat, I was so embarrassed for her.
Unfortunately for her, the direction wasn't helping her. People should see this if only to see how bad her first real talking scene is. Film students should also watch this to see how NOT to film a flashback.
The writing and direction were also lacking in depth and detail. Some of the dialog was uninspired, to put it politely.
The only actor who delivered was Nathan Fillion as Robert (the lead). People should definitely see him in his proper role on the TV show Firefly, available on DVD.
Hellboy (2004)
Needed to take a shower to get the stink of this movie off of me!
What is wrong with the moviegoing population today!? I can understand people under 25 or so giving this a 6, but when people above thirty average over 6.7... I'm sorry that's just wrong.
The story is idiotic, as with so many of these superhero comicbook movies, the action defies all the laws of physics. (People don't fly through the air for 15 seconds parallel to the ground without gravity having any affect.)
I thought this movie would be a cult classic or at least have some of the style of movies like Blade. I was sorely disappointed.
Oh, and could the girl who played Elizabeth have been any worse if she tried!?!?
Almost as bad as Van Helsing!
Van Helsing (2004)
5/10 is WAY too generous.
"What, exactly, was wrong with the movie?" I hear you ask...
Well, I'll tell you:
* Plot - Horrid! How could Jackman read this script and think to himself... "Oh yeah, I've GOT to be a part of that!"
* Action - Ludicrous. Ex. They light a windmill up with torches and it HAPPENS to be filled with bottle of alcohol so it can explode into a fiery inferno in less than a minute. Even the humans seem to have super human abilities. Scenes drag on for ages and are poorly cut as to make the editing obvious. Almost as bad as the last Matrix movie, but not quite.
* Acting - n/a.
* Special effects - Inconceivable. Frankenstein's monster doesn't need glowing bits of electricity to look fierce or cool. He's a monster, not a futuristic sci-fi concoction. Now put him back the way he should be before I hurt someone!
I just want those 2 hours back! I don't even care about the money. I thought it would take awhile before I found a movie that was WORSE than Underworld, but... "Mission Accomplished!"
Underworld (2003)
Yes, I'd like one stylized vampire movie, hold the style...
They took an interesting concept and completely drained the life out of it. I'd like to see this movie done WELL at some point, but that will never happen.
Oh, and anyone claiming this movie had 'style' is delusional. Was it dark? Yes. Did they wear stylish costumes? Again, yes. Did they look cool doing ANYTHING in this movie? Decidedly not!
Overall, an interesting statement on moral relativism packaged as a sub-par comic bookish vampire flick. The acting was flat. The direction was flat. Soundtrack was weak. Characters lacked any on-screen charisma except for Lucian. Even the foley work left much to be desired.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
See it so that movies like it will continue to be made.
This is, arguably, the best movie out now and it's 10th behind tripe like a Scooby Doo sequel, a 75 minute remake of a decent movie that doesn't live up to the original, sappy teen romance stories, etc...
The poor showing of such an excellent movie further highlights what's wrong with movie industry and the American viewership at large. People would rather go see a few explosions, fist fights or scantily clad teens than something that is truly thought-provoking and engaging.
How can people see an 8.7 (current avg) rating on IMDB and not say "Hey, I should see that?" Do Jesus, Moses, Ganeesh, Buddah and Elvis have to come out and give it a thumbs up before people will go so this?
People refuse to believe there is a biological/evolutionary link between humans and apes. Based on box-office numbers, I'm inclined to agree. Chimps are smarter than most movie-goers.
C
P.S. I know this sounds harsh, but when Scooby Doo 2 makes 3.5 times on its opening weekend what this movie made on its opening weekend and has less than half the rating, it just makes me sad.
The Boondock Saints (1999)
Wow!
Although the graphic violence and an EXTREMELY liberal use of the "f-word" might turn some viewers off, this film is extraordinary.
It's a shame that so many people have missed this movie, as it is a true work of art. It's stylized without being gimmicky. It has clever dialog and an engaging storyline. It is disturbing and liberating all at the same time.
This movie was so good that I watched it twice in two days because I had to show it to friends after watching it by myself the first time around.
In short, this movie is for anyone with the constitution. (And by modern standards, the violence isn't even that extreme.)
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
A better casted, less interesting version of "Swimming with Sharks"
I honestly found the film a bit tiresome with it's artsy direction, trite philosophical musings and, frankly, annoying subject matter.
This film appears abuses the moviegoer in much the same way as "Swimming with Sharks" but without much of a payoff. If you enjoying delighting in the suffering of others, you'll probably love this flick. If you're expecting a life lesson or stellar performances from high caliber stars, you'll probably be disappointed.
The only reason I gave it a 5 was that Pacino and Jack Lemmon WERE good in the film. Most of the other characters were rather uninteresting. Including one of my favorite actors, Kevin Spacey.
This just makes me want to go watch The Usual Suspects again.
American Wedding (2003)
If you liked the first one... you'll like this one...
Same childish comedy as the first one. (I skipped on the 2nd.) I went with friends who are fans of the franchise and they loved it. While I generally prefer drier, more sophisitcated humor, I did find parts of this movie to be quite funny. Eugene Levy & Fred Willard are are so subtle in their delivery that they add a bit of comic substance to the flick.
As many have (and will) point out, the gay bar scene was very entertaining. Some of the other formulaic crap, however, felt like it belonged in "Threes Company: To Hot for TV". Yawn.
If you're on the fence, wait until it's out on video. If you're a fan of this kind of humor (Am. Pie, Van Wilder, etc.)... go nuts.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Self-important, over-hyped, fast-paced and boring
Absolutely no spoilers ---
First off, you'll probably find that it's worth seeing, but go in with resonable expectations...
The action sequences are generally pretty well done, but the CG were overly noticable in parts. It lacked the engaging plot of the first Matrix and tried to compensate with 15 minute fight sequences that leaving you wondering "Why?".
The first Matrix was able to make its characters engaging without attempting to dwell too much on backstory, loved ones, etc... This film spends far too long on romance, back story, rhetoric and redundant dialogue. Far too much is spelled out in some areas and then the film attempts to far too mystical in other respects. It does neither especially well.
In many ways, this film represents what it wrong with the Hollywood movie machine. The flim is all about "more more more" in every respect other than the plot and the pacing. The film is far too disjointed to be considered "great" and the fight scenes too long and tiring to be considered on-par with the original.
I felt it diminished the original work, rather than enhancing it. But it certainly wasn't as bad as Godfather III or Highlander II.
Bulletproof Monk (2003)
Mostly Decent, Somewhat Funny, with VERY Laughable Plot Elements
Being a lover of Kung Fu, I can easily get deal with the esoteric Kung Fu elements of the movie that some can't seem to accept. While this element was present in this film, there were far less plausible devices (pun for those that have seen it) in this film that left me shaking my head.
Oddly enough, it wasn't the acting that left me shaking my head, as I have with so many movies in the genre. Nor was it the fighting. It was the slightly science fiction bent the film took 2/3 of the way into the picture that left me laughing out loud, and not in a good way.
Other than that, it was entertaining, if not slightly predictable. Plenty of subtle humor. Chow Yun-Fat is, as we know from Crouching Tiger, a very talented actor, capable of conveying mood with little or no dialogue.
Even Scott Sean William, aka the man with 3 first names, was decent in his role. This may have been the most startling thing about the film after it's bizarre plot.
Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001)
In a word: Perfect
You actually come out of this movie feeling better than you did when you went in. It's light-heartedly amusing, sincerely touching, and intricately woven. And best of all... you don't have to check your brain at the door to enjoy it!
DC
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
Why, exactly, was I supposed to be impressed with this movie?
First off, I went into the movie a little skeptical, yet hopeful that I would be pleasantly surprised. Unfortunately, the best I can say for it is that it had a few clever scenes.
But for the most part, I found it to be predictable, slowly paced and the writing was... well, smug is the only word that seems to fit. It strives to be clever for the sake of being clever and the audience pays for it by having to sit through for little to no payoff.
Sorry, I thought it was an ok film, but nowhere NEAR worthy of the hype it has received.