CharlesVonFunhammer Reviews

Up (2009)

This movie is fairly weak, but okay

[4/10 · 30 May 2009]

I'm a big fan of pixar movies, I think finding nemo, ratatouille and Wall-E (though to be fair I didn't like Wall-e either the first time I saw it) are some of the best examples of narrative storytelling in the last 20 years. Simply put, the Pixar clan know how to tell stories.

That's why I was so surprised when I saw up. Now, maybe my expectations are too high, but I found it to be one of the weaker Pixar efforts. And here's a few reasons why.

1. It draws on associated emotion, not real emotion. Much of the sadness in the film (and this is a sad - not happy movie) isn't earned. It comes from referencing other films and our own associations - specifically at the beginning. The opening montage goes by so quickly, as a scrap book, that it falls upon cliché to create the emotion. Granted, for many people this will work, because to be honest, there's something affecting about seeing cartoons go through "serious" emotions. Yet, these scenes lack the depth of having our characters go through real actions and real feelings. Things happen, the characters don't do anything - they let things happen to them. (and example is that Russel's (spoiler) parents are divorced. This scene is handled in a clichéd and associated way. So and so's not my mom! Heard that one before...) If you enjoyed the opening montage, watch Mr. Holland's opus - that movie does this same thing better.

2. This movie isn't funny. All of the best jokes are used in the trailers/commercials. Much of the comedy is played too subtly (not subtle, but too subtle) and passed over too quickly. There's never a clear moment of what the movie is trying to make us feel at any given time - which brings me to

3. Tone. Is this a comedy, is it a melodrama? The movie doesn't really know what it is or is trying to say. It's inconsistencies constantly set up a new series of expectations which are never followed through on. It's serious...I'm thinking it's going to ... oh wait, a joke...wait...

4. The narrative. The movie takes about 2 acts to find itself as a movie. Carl meanders though the film trying to take his South America. He wants to put his house down, and every 2 minutes a new complication arrives. Then, in the third act, he battles the old and now evil (how old is this guy supposed to be if Carl is 78?) Charles Muntz. He comes to defend russel and dug, and the bird. He finds a purpose - the movie finds itself as a movie! Finally...but by then we've spent 2 acts trying to get into another story completely.

4A. there are a lot of clever storytelling devices, there is a good story here. It's a matter of the storytelling and dramatic devices the filmmakers use to elucidate that the story that are weak.

5. The characters. Between Carl and Russel (shout out to the Asian community) we have a weak set of characters. The most interesting character, Ellie, dies. Her passive husband is left - the into to him shows how awesome she is. What did she see in him anyway? what did he do? Russel is kind of an idiot spaz. why should I root for someone who's so incompetent?

If Pixar can animate characters with big heads and big eyes, everyone will think it's cute. Great date movies, great for kids, and hipsters. The overall storytelling I felt was pretty weak in UP. It felt like it was rushed off without knowing precisely where it was going - which is a joy to watch in the other pixar movies. Brad Bird and Andrew Stanton make you feel like you're in the hands of a master who is taking good care you - who is guiding you and surprising you, but never doing something you're not enjoying. Up is very muddled film-making. It's not horrible, but it's much weaker than the other films.

cheers.

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Made me want to see Die Hard 3 again

[3/10 · 27 June 2007]

This is not a good movie. I liked the previous die hard movies, 1 and 3. The second one, well, Bruce is right when he says it suffers from lack of claustrophobia - but then again so do 3 and 4. The trailer looked bad, I said no to it, then it got good reviews and I was persuaded to go to a midnight showing for fun. I was looking for some good action.

Like Die Hard 3, this movie is a sprawling action adventure movie spread out over many cities. Unlike the third movie, this takes place over two days. Like the third movie, this is a buddy cop movie, where the villain is a super-genius white dude with an exotic assassin woman as his lover/bodyguard. She of course gets killed brutally, and we the audience of men, cheer when a woman gets killed because, let's be honest, we're living out our male fantasies. We can't hit women anymore, not like the good old days, so we give them a kung fu kick or a sickle and that makes them enemy combatants, so it makes them fair game.

The third movie works better because it wasn't an accident that it was John Mcclane. Therefore, we have a reason for the movie, for him being in it. This movie could have easily been an action movie where the names have been changed to protect the innocent. Bruce Willis himself even said that were other scripts that could have been Die Hard movies that were made into other movies.

The third movie involves the audiences through it's riddles, silly, but be honest, you were trying to figure it out. Also, stealing money still made sense at that point. The third movie features bad guys that mis-direct the government in order to steal money - guess what happens here? What Americans are really afraid of, now, isn't terrorists stealing money. It's terrorists killing without demands. Killing just to kill. The movie has action, but no violence. No blood, not enough cursing. We never feel emotionally involved. We never feel scared. No good guys die, the stakes are never really raised. We've seen this movie before and before it was bloodier, and harder-core. This movie was made by geeks, not by cowboys.

The technology in the movie is too sleek, too futuristic, too unreal. There's an french assassin who has superhero abilities on par with the guy from the opening of casino royale (which ruins that sequence).

The film's dialectic is between the real and unreal - the digital and the analog. A fair point - a film that boasts no CGI (or minimal) is therefore about itself. Die Hard 4 is about why Die Hard 4 is awesome. Digital movies are bad, live-action movies are awesome. Die hard is a live-action movie. Therefore, Die hard is awesome.

There are some good set pieces here, and some cheesy speeches about what being a hero is all about. There are some good moments, action without violence, by which i mean blood. Justin Long is fine, Willis is beautiful as always. There's no plot, but I know you don't care about that. But seriously, the plot doesn't make sense, okay, okay, shut up, watch the movie, enjoy it, don't think about it. Right? Cheers

24 (2001–2010)

Don't worry, Jack Bauer is well rested

[1/10 · 31 January 2007]

This show only seems intense. In fact, the show, with commercial breaks is only about 40 minutes long (give or take). That means, that Jack Bauer gets gets 20 minutes of sleep per episode. Over the course of 24 episodes, he gets 8 hours of sleep. Why he's so frantic is beyond me. (No I don't actually believe the character is getting 8 hours of sleep. But you know someone's gonna go, "that's stupid").

Anyway. I know all y'all love the show, and that's great. I just have to disagree with most of you. I don't think this show is interesting, well written, or well acted. Every line is a cliché and every actor is acting so hard all the time. It's the most "acted" show I've ever seen, and not in a good way. It's not that these folks are bad actors, it's that they're acting in a format that requires them to be charactures and archetypes rather than people. Ultimately it's a show built on a novelty, and it's presented in a way that would any kid with ADD say "too much!" I need to go watch Tony Scott's Domino to calm down.

Peace

Firefly: Shindig (2002) Season 1, Episode 6

Favorite Episode

[22 February 2006]

It's hard, when pretty much every episode is my favorite one, because each one brings something completely new, funny, and awesome. Shindig is a great episode because it's upbeat and amusing, without getting dark or "series-plot" heavy. It really isn't about River's past, or Book's identity. It's a day in their lives. It shows us what they do on a day to day basis, more or less. Again, the effects are used wonderfully and not over done, the acting is as tight as it gets, and the humor...my god the humor. Nathan again proves his range as an actor having some of the funniest lines in the series while still being completely serious. It's a beautifully shot episode, and paced near perfectly. It's a great window into Whedon's universe and we really get a great deal of information about the "upper" culture (whereas we mostly got the "lower" before). As any Firefly fan I'm sure I could rant on for hours about my love of the series, but I figure 2 minutes is long enough.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

The Low Down on the Life Aquatic.

[9/10 · 19 December 2004]

Word. This review shall be written mostly for huge/obsessive Wes fans, as I am indeed one myself. This review's aim shall be to put an end to the disparity of reviews I've seen so far. People either love it or hate it, it seems.

Here we go. The good: The Life Aquatic seems much more openly funny than his previous films, all of which are hysterical, but with few deep belly laughs. This film has those laughs. It's got great performances and is is deeply confident in itself. The film is an adventure comedy, even if it's not too heavy on the adventure. It should be taken as an adventure comedy. It's not the dramatic piece that tennebaums was. It's really funny and has these moments in it that will make your heart skip with joy. The look of the film is great. Wes's mise-en-scene is better than anyone else working out there today. He seems conscious of his auteurism, and you'll definitely see the things that you've come to expect from wes films. That's part of what's great about his films is that you can walk in and tell it's a wes picture just from style.

The not so good: While it's a great film, it seems unfinished in some regards. This might be because the film was a bitch to shoot (from everything I've read) but it just doesn't seem completed. Shots cut in the middle of them, and there are continuity problems. I'm not ready to dismiss these as unintentional, but there's something about them that didn't work for me. It might have been trying to be documentary-esq like "the life aquatic with steve zissou" but it wasn't as executed as well as it could have been. Also, (and there may be a spoiler) I didn't really feel that Wes earned the death at the end. There's so much going on the film that we never really get to focus in on one thing, and therefore are not as emotionally invested as we could be. Yeah, I know that Wes's films see thing ironically, sad and funny. I just feel like if you're going to get that serious (and he's been working his way up to killing someone throughout, ie. Luke Wilson attempted suicide) you should do more to earn it. I think style clouds a little bit of the substance and there could have been more real emotion, which, while I know it's not what he's going for, could have elevated this film from 10 to 11.

I'm really going to have to see it again before I can really figure it out. There's so much going on that it might be hard to digest after having only seen it once.

The film is definitely worth seeing, for wes and non-wes fans alike. While I delight in every awkward pause, every offensive joke, every pan, tracking shot, zoom, and sad joke, I think other people will enjoy how wes plays with convention. Wes Anderson is reshaping the way movies are made and in 5 years all comedies will be like Wes comedies - it's happening already (I heart Huckabees, Garden State.) The man is a genius, and while this film stumbles and might not completely succeed, it rocks harder than anything you're going to see this holiday season.

Peace, mam, (sbl)

Shrek 2 (2004)

weak at best

[6/10 · 20 May 2004]

this movie is a waste of two acts. The first two thirds of the film start off without any clear direction or story of any kind. The films seems to be everwhere, neither funny nor serious. It slumps along to played out pop music, without really taking any direction or making any choices.

Now that i've vaugely repeated myself enough. The third act is really funny and works incredibly well. Shrek, at it's best is a tounge-in-cheek reference to the intersection of pop-culture and fairy tales. At it's worst, it's cliched and uninteresting. The picture finally picks up in 3rd act with quick with, fast paced (real) humor, and also a little bit of poppy-sugary-sweetness.

Ultimatley, the last act can and should never be able to redeem the rest of the movie, and it certainly doesn't here. So, take it for what it's worth. It'll probably be good for little kids.

peace.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

a B film

[6/10 · 14 May 2003]

It's a B movie. The first act is a C, the second act is a B-/B and the third act is a B+/A- (and only for story elements)

I'm tired so i'll make this short.

The story is there - the explanation scenes are not. They are poorly written, too long, and overblown. We go from ADD fight scenes to complex philosophical statements - which don't even seem to matter.

The action is there - good action, not breaking new ground like the original but some good stuff that's worth look. -- however, it seems forced at times. It seems like they were trying to hard to make another matrix movie - and didn't try hard enough to make a good movie first.

Some stuff goes on for too long. Some of the writing isn't great. Some scenes are campy and forced.

The ending is great it's cool - I did feel that a lot of it was contrived. With sequels you end up with a first movie - complete and original film - and the sequels are contrived (their existence contingent on the success of the first).

The first movie is about an A- for me, this one is about a B. There's good stuff in it, don't get wrong. But i don't think it's told as well as it could have been.

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Horr-ible

[6 April 2003]

And they're making a sequel? What? This is one of those movies that's really frustrating to watch. It's not scary. It's not interesting, it's not even funny. It's not even funny to make fun of! It's got this weird sort of "texas chainsaw massacre" wannabe sort of vibe to it, that just takes away so much. And the fact that we see the demon guys, makes it all the less scary. The scariest thing you'll ever see at a scary movie is the what you imagine in your own head. Showing us the villian, and high key lighting, do not a scary movie make. The plot wasn't interesting, and there were no redeeming qualities to this movie whatsoever. The chick didnt' even get naked. Man, what a baaaadd movie.

25th Hour (2002)

Very good.

[17 February 2003]

Very good. Great? no. I didn't think the double takes or repetition worked, and I think Brain Cox's voice over, to the montage of Monty's future ran on a little long. I would have liked that to end a little sooner.

Other than that it's really an excellent film. It's not afraid to set it's characters in a post 9-11 world, and it's not afraid to let the characters say what people are thinking. There's a lot of great dialog in the film, and the performances by, really everyone were really quite terrific. The film doesn't try to make Ed Norton seem like a hero, we know what he's done, and we know that he deserves punishment. There aren't really any surprises, yet the action and dialog are captivating. It's a very well directed movie, with a lot going on it in. It is complicated, and there aren't really any easy answers to any of the questions posed by the film.

I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys dialog/character driven pieces. It runs a little long, but I think it's worth it. It's not experimental in anyway, but it is not afraid of itself. It goes after a lot of issues, and I think does a very good job with them.

Beat the Devil (2002)

Wow, tony scott is horrible

[4/10 · 5 December 2002]

I have a growing appriciation for Ridley Scott's films, but a declining appriciation for brother Tony's. Top gun was cool, it was fun. But really his films have been on their way down since that endevour. Beat the devil is horrible. It's like ADD on Crack. Gary Oldman is just annoying, and plain bad. James Brown . . . well, godfather of soul or not, he signed up for an unfortunate production. The use of subtitles is really great. I know Tony's not a performance guy, but come on, at least make the actors speak clearly. The whole thing is very silly, very stupid, and very bad. The visuals did nothing to enhance what story there was. Clive Owen is cool. If you want to see a good BMW film, watch the one by the guy who made Amorres Perros -- Be honest, you can't spell/pronounce his name either. Ang Lee's was good, Woo's was okay, Ritchie's was nice, Scotts was terrible. Don't see it.

Little Giants (1994)

Who are we doing it for? the kids, that's right.

[21 November 2002]

If you don't like the little giants on some level, then you're a robot. I know robots, don't be that guy. The little giants is cute, it's fun, and it's funny. It's about the kids who "weren't good enough" to make the select team, and who form their own team. Plotwise, there is nothing new about the film, and really, you're not going to be impressed by the "art of cinema." But put yourself there. Tell a child he isn't good enough, I dare you. It's a good family story about triumph and about overcoming the obstacles life throws at us, even at a young age. These aren't college kids, or pros, they're not even teenagers. The story is warm, inviting, sweet, and funny. Enjoy this film. Watch it with your kids, watch it with people you love, and do it for the kids. Peace.

The Ring (2002)

Hot people save the day again.

[21 October 2002]

Firstly, don't you just love it when really attractive people save the day? Isn't it just wonderful?

Right, the movie was a mix of scream, the sixth sense, and final destination, and it wasn't really as original as those movies were, even if scream was terrible.

Really not a bad movie, not great either. I was laughing at some parts, and covering my eyes at others. When they actually show things, it was funny, and I was cheering for the main characters to die, maybe that was just me. It's just those little cheap scares that get me. I know they're coming too. Grow up, I know.

I just have a few questions. Might involve spoilers. 1.) where did this tape come from? Did it just appear magically, like other VHS cassettes? If the movie was shot 30 years in future would it have been a magic DVD? Was the girl at the bottom of well using FCP to put this all together? 2.) Why does she kill the people? For not passing on the message? Come on. Tell this girl to grow up. My brother doesn't give me a phone message, I don't jump out of a TV and eat his brains. Juvenille, really. 3.) Brian Cox is a wonderful actor, but seeing him kinda takes away from the film. What happened to no stars, only talent? He's just too famous. I kept thinking he was gonna teach me to use this . . . or this . . . or get caught in a Lie. 4.) What is this girl still trying to prove? The people who wronged her are dead. It's not like kids are being glad bagged and tossed into wells all the time. And why does she have to kill? So violent. I tell you, kids these days.

Right, the movie still is scary. I was scared at some points, visually it's nice to look at, stylistically many elements are used well to give you a better perception of the story. But when you look back at it, you're just like, wait, what? Whoever said frailty was bad was right, that movie bit, the sixth sense wasn't really a horror movie so I find it hard to critique in terms of the genre. And if you want to scream in the theater, be my guest. It's what the movie is there to do. If you want to laugh along like me at some parts, and cheer for the characters to be killed, that's cool too baby. I dug the hitch references, but there should have been nudity, come on.

I'd give it a B or B+, but only for that crazy ending. Otherwise B- or B. Anyway, peace out yo.

10 Things I Hate About You (1999)

Haha, no way.

[17 October 2002]

Hahaha. Wait, really? Oh . . . There's no way this is a movie. How the .. . I mean, really. Seriously. Who are these people? Have they seen other movies? Do they live in a void? Where do they get off? There that's about four lines. If i didn't have to fill a quota you would have gotten, just a "No."

The Wild Bunch (1969)

In an age of violence.

[16 October 2002]

Was the west ultra-violent, or did Sam Peckinpah only see it that way? The wild bunch is a highly formal movie with excessive violence. Peckinpah's original intent was to make a film that would "wake up" the a culture who grew up seeing the horror the vietnam war on TV. His fear that people were becoming desensitized to the violence that pervaded the late '60s. With the wild bunch, he attempted to break this growing trend.

Peckinpah's use of the action montage and slow motion violence are derivatives of the films by Kurosawa (and ultimately Eisenstein). He saw what Kurisawa and Penn (in Bonny and Clyde) and been doing, was well aware of it, and wanted to exceed it to drive his message home.

The violence, however, becomes too stylized, and too formal to be truly effective. Many who saw the film were shocked by the violence they saw portrayed, but many were also intrigued. For all of the exploding squibs, and slow motion shots of men falling off roofs, people saw how "cool" it could be. It would be somewhat like a contemporary audience seeing keanu reeves shoot up an office building at the end of the Matrix. Ultimately the loss of life, and horrible violence become secondary factors to the high stylization, and aesthetic qualities of the violence. Peckinpah's fascination with the body in motion, therefore, gets expressed to the audience and we're never really taken aback by what we see. The final battle scene is very fun to watch, it is energetic and exciting, but it is so far from any reality that the message of shocking violence can easily be lost.

Nonetheless, the wild bunch is a good western. I've never really liked westerns, but the stylized violence makes it all the more intriguing as an audience member. It's a fun movie to watch. The photography is really remarkable, and there is a certain lyrical quality to it, though it doesn't really compare to Ford's masterpieces. The performances are well done, and the effects are dead on. Watching the film one can see where modern screen violence came from, the late great Peckinpah.

If you like westerns and you like action films with screen violence that are really well photographed, check this one out. It does a lot of good things, and can be called the father of modern screen violence.

E.T. (1982)

The only things worth living for are innocence and magic

[10/10 · 13 October 2002]

E.T. is about innocence and it is about magic. It's about being Elliot. It's about being a child. It's about innocence. This isn't a realist film, this isnt' supposed to realistic at all. It's a fantasy of child who need someone in his life to connect with, to love. It's a wonderful film, it captures a sense of what could be, of a state that we all long for, where things are simple, where we can still dream.

There are some who pan the movie. There are some who hate steven spielberg films, and they'll give it a bad review. Well, let them have kubrick's baby. Let them take their copy of 2001 in one hand and Rashomon in the other, and as they understand the aesthetic of a great film as art, and just let them go. They don't what E.T. is about, they're too cynical and spiteful to enjoy something this pure.

E.T. is about dreaming, about a childlike sence of wonder. It's a beautiful film, and so many have embraced it because they can connect to it in some sense. I'm sorry that people don't get that, or are too cynical to even try to understand it. The rest of us can watch it become a timeless class, can show it to our kids, and even as we get older, may we still be inspired by innocence and magic.

Armageddon (1998)

Worst Movie Ever? I'll make the call.

[31 July 2002]

Yeah, worst movie ever. And, I've seen "They saved Hitler's Brain" and "Orgy of the Dead." I really don't want to say much, this film isn't worth the words. In fact, I'd like to make a correction, I used the word "film," I'd like to retract and relace it with the word MONSTROSITY. This is the worst example of horrible hollywood commercialism pop run amuck. It wasn't even funny, it thought it was serious. At least when Arnold kills people, its damn hilarious. Bad FX, Bad Writing, Bad Acting, Bad story, Worse Directing = Worst movie ever.

In short Michael Bay = Bad Jerry Suckheimer = Bad Armagreggon = (shudder)

Minority Report (2002)

Wonderful Movie

[10/10 · 21 June 2002]

Minority Report, simply put, is a wonderful movie. It combines the talents of Tom Cruise, and Steven Speilberg, both masters of their respective craft. Cruise's performance here is very solid. He is both physical and sentimental, not overselling anything, and keeping with his character. Although he plays the hero, and is hard not to like, he doesn't do anything stupid within the performance, and serves the story well.

Speilberg's direction, again, goes unmatched. I was in awe over the technical mastery of the film. His visuals are both breathtaking, and beautiful, but unlike some special effects thrillers, he doesn't overuse them. All of the effects, all of the action scenes work wonderfully with one another, and do a good job to serve the story.

One thing was that at times, I felt that the film became too interested in the chase, and not as interested in characters as I would have liked, but honestly, it's a very minor detail. Cruise's character was done well enough, and the supporting cast although not highly developed, was developed enough so as to support Cruise and the action.

My hat goes off to the production designer of the film, (as well as the visual effects design team, and conception artists), all of the set pieces were amazing. The filmmakers created a future world that though unreal, was highly believable. It was a lie that was easy to believe for the length of the film.

Minority report is fast, fun, and funny at times. It is dark, and obviously colored to reflect the nature of the society. The story is engrossing, the effects are wonderful, the performances are very good, and even the cheap scares are scary (unlike a lot of films).

Go see this movie, it's excellent. If you're a fan of the movies, then you're a fan of what could be. You'll soon be a fan of this film.

Tape (2001)

Taped and not so confused

[8/10 · 7 June 2002]

This movie is really good. It combines three excellent performances, from the three principles, Ethan, Bobby, and Uma. The direction really works well, in that, it seems almost that the film was not directed, as though it was spontainous. The whole film works, and it's short, but just the right length.

It's shot in digital hany-cam, which doesn't take away from it all. In fact, you feel like you're there, more so than had it been shot in 35 mm film. What you lose in quality of image, you make up for in sylistic interpretation, or something like that.

Anyway, if you like good performances, and stage-like films, check this one out. It's good.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Pure Star Wars -- for those who don't get it

[10/10 · 19 May 2002]

I'll save you the trouble, this is a star wars movie, and a damn good one. However, if you're not a star wars fan, it might not be for you. Its easy to give the film bad reviews, but I think that mostly stems from the fact that critics aren't star wars fans, and they are anti-digital technology.

People call the acting "wooden." Well, that's because the jedi knights are a wooden people, they don't really have the emotions that other people have, because they are in tune with everything. That's why its such a marked point when Anakin reacts to killing the tuscans, and that's why when we se e the characters later (who aren't jedi), they have personalities. Han is dynamic because he is a person, not a jedi. You think George Lucas, just forgot how to direct actors? Or do you think the actors forgot how to act? (not to mention its hard to act in a blue screen enviroment). Even Luke isn't a jedi until late in JEDI. Alec Guiness isn't exactly captain emotional, nor is Darth Vader . . . get it?

As far as the writing goes, well, these things have never been well written, so what do you expect? All Lucas is making is these "cereal-esq" type movies, you know the ones that weren't that good in the first place. It's not his fault that people have made star wars lore their life.

The plot . . . The plot here is great and I'll tell you why. The first three movies are so big in scale, that when you see a love story that isn't new or innovative, or artsy, well, its really there to serve the series. And in the context of star wars, it works. If you buy into the fact that this a fairy tale, they you'll like it. The plot is general, and advances the series. It is important to understand where these movies fit into the CONTEXT of the Series. Once all three are completed they will make much more sense. This is meant to be a 12 hour long movie, so if you were upset at the plot, deal with it, it's a scope thing, and it's a Star wars thing. The most brilliant part of the film is that it will hold the first trilogy together really well. There are themes and undercurrents that ride along like a wave throught these movies, but you have to look for them, because they are there.

The effects were amazing, and if you found fault with them well, tough. These are the best FX ever, are they not perfect, no, but they serve the plot. If you look for things that don't seem `real' (not that any of this is real), then you're looking too hard, and nit picking. You have to let yourself believe this, have some imagination, damn it. And don't be afraid of the future. Big FX means big scale. If every movie was small in scale with a little big of graphics, when you watched them all together like you're meant to, you'd be bored. The originals are boring in places, because the scope is intentionally diminished. The first three are big is scale, that's why all the effects.

People won't like this because they don't understand star wars. If you understand what goes on in this universe, and if you are a NERD, you'll die when you see this. It's filled with foreshadowing, it has references to later/earlier films, it has great action, and accurate portrayals of THIS universe. If you accept it, if you buy into the Star Wars universe, than you will love this movie. Its beautiful and entertaining, so don't feel bad when people slam it, star wars fans, its not they're fault they just don't get it.

Frailty (2001)

This movie should be called, Demons and why they suck

[4/10 · 13 April 2002]

Yeah, so don't see this, if you like good movies. Well scratch that, don't see if you like well written, well directed, interesting, movies. But you like like movies about demons, or mailer Daemons, this film is for you. The only draw back, is that it just isn't as funny as Resident Evil. Much of the dialog is trite, and the movie just isn't scary. They don't even use those "cheap scares" where the build up the music then something from off frame attacks someone. The ending can be guessed, not so easily, but if you guess the ending to the sixth sense (like me cause i'm awesome) then you won't be impressed. Also, it almost comes to the point where you don't want to guess the ending, because you just don't care. Its one of the movies where there's a build up, but no pay off, over and over again. The film staggers, and becomes repetitive. The writing is trite and if you can see past the one dimentional characters it falls apart. The plot isn't even psychologically scarry. All film analysis aside, it isn't even fun or filled with the cheap thrills. The suspense isn't really even suspenseful, and there's no double guessing at the end. Maybe its not terrible, but you're in the mood the for a bill paxton/matthew mccaunehey film, rent Nazi submariner's and why they suck, AKA, U-571.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

is this it?

[31 March 2002]

This movie was no where near as good as people made it out to be. Jay and Silent bob were much funnier in the other pictures, not this. It was like kevin smith was trying to have as many camios as he could to sell the film, but not funnily. Once you get over the oringinal premise, the comedy doesn't go anywhere, or develop, or get funny. It has some of those cool little parts like seeing mark hamill try to act, but if you don't get at the star wars references, you'd be better off to see something funny.

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

Almost, but not quite

[14 October 2001]

I walked into this film hoping, expecting it would really be something great, something that would make serious comments about a serious issue. The film opens with the death of the youngest lisbon sister, yet her death evokes no emotion, no pathos, no nothing. In fact, the same feeling is carried on throughout the film. We never really know, or see too much about the lisbon girls, especially the other sisters besides lux to feel any sort of emotion for their deaths. I'm a teenager, i understand that life is hard, but simply telling us isn't enough, as an audience we need to see it, but more than that, we need to believe it. Simply having some mediocrely performed/written about burning records or being locked at home isn't going to cut it. If you want to see a more believeable suicide see dead poets society. The film was slow paced, and didn't seem to make any general statement or reveal any grand truth. Granted, there was good use of symbolism, good writing during the narrations and semi-decent direction. Katleen turner turned out an excellent performance, as well as james woods. Josh hartnett was good, but his character, like those of the lisbons were just not delved into deeply enough. I guess I just wanted something more out of this film then I actually got, maybe that was just my unrealistic expectations, i don't know. That seems to be the way with all the coppolas, however, able to obscure the truth the film serves to reveal.

Orgy of the Dead (1965)

More Gold! is what this movie needed to be good.

[1/10 · 22 September 2001]

This movie sucked. It's the worst movie i've ever seen. Hell, even as far as soft-core pornos go it sucked. In a film where you can see the wrist watches of actors in mummy/warewolf costumes, and where the stings to the skeleton dances that dances with some topless chick, there needs to be something said. So i'll say it. Don't watch orgy of the dead. Most reviews that a posted have insightful insight into a film, this doesn't . .. why? You don't need it, stay home, walk your dog, fornicate, I don't care, but don't watch this movie! Rent Interview with the vampire, or bramstokers dracula, if you want to see vampire movies. OR rent beach babes from beyond, or sexecutioner or hollywood dreams 2 if you want to see a soft core porn. I guess if you really do want to see some soft core vampire porn, this will do. But it's horrible. For all those who have seen the film MORE GOLD! But don't see it, I don't even know how you even got to this page. Did someone recommend this to you? I'd kick that person's dog if I was you. So . . . I'm at the end now . . . what are you doing later?

Deliverance (1972)

This movie made me want to squeal like a pig. Squeal Ned, Squeal.

[22 August 2001]

NOTE: This review is probably not worth reading if you're acutally interested in honest insight into the movie. But it might be funny, but it might not be that either. The first time I saw this movie, I wanted to squeal like a pig. I'm sorry but the scene in which ned beaty gets ass raped is simply wrong in so many ways. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. I mean come on, who wants to see that? seriously? Anyway, dispite some flaws in early seventies cinematography, and at times slow pacing, this film still manages to hold some attention. This film is able to make a comment about the lifestyle of impoverished southern mountin folk, while still being able to capture burt reynolds in a tight plastic wetsuit. I don't really understand what all the hype is about really. The actors were able to portray somewhat realistic characters which made me less apethic than such river films as the river wild, and tom and huck. Let's be honest, this review itself is terrible, and merely a comment on the fact that this film did not interest me, and if your young and looking for a moive to rent, don't rent this one. Rent Jackie Chan's who am I? if only to repeat the phrase Who am I to your friends for hours on end.