Change Your Image
saturdaynightbeaver
Reviews
Diary of a Mad Black Woman (2005)
The story didn't overcome the poor production.
Nothing seemed to match in this film. I found myself in the realistic world of a successful couple and then suddenly a madcap, lame version of the ghetto. I found a female lead that was charming and smart, then suddenly she shows no social savvy or wit at all.
Continuity is important to a film experience and I was constantly reminded I was watching a film in this one. Sets didn't match, worlds didn't match , and the logic of characters didn't match in the slightest.
Two good examples: A woman finds her man with another woman with the inference that he is cheating. She goes home to find her closet and things packed up with a whole new wardrobe to replace it. And she thinks that this is her husband's way of giving a gift to her? No one with any amount of street smarts would believe that all their packed belongings bodes well.
The other is simply a character low on money shooting a hole in a the ceiling for no good reason other than getting someone's attention in a moment of banality. I'm guessing Mr. Perry was looking for a laugh, but simply shooting a gun isn't funny. And no transvestite grandma in any walk of life would ever do that.
King Kong (2005)
Blah with a side of ugh
What a mess. Just messy.
Peter Jackson has found a way to make a classic story longer than necessary, more complicated without proper motivation, and just plain bland.
Three T-Rex's really? A overly elaborate attack from non-existent insects? Wasn't the original fascination in a place where giant species and pre-historics could still roam in a modern world? Why ruin a good thing. I mean, I'm all for covering a good song... but he "Britney Spearsed" this one.
Do yourself a favor, watch paint dry. The story is more intriguing and the motivation is much more believable: I'm really pulling for the paint... I know it's a humid day but I can tell it wants really wants to be dry... JACKPOT! And that only took less than a half hour for that to unfold.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Delusional.
This is not a movie deserving of an Academy Award sweep. I remember watching it on opening night and seeing the audience confused about when to leave. Fanboys with staffs and fake beards got up a good twenty minutes before the final roll and then quickly sat down realizing that "hey, it ain't done." Well, it should have been. I think that if you win an award for something, it needs to be great at whichever aspect throughout. The movie won for editing... but it wasn't edited well throughout. The direction wasn't anything to hoist high either. I didn't find the acting dynamic in any way... and if I see one more helicopter sweep of the mountains as our heroes run, oh never mind. Oh, and the giant arachnid was nice, but some of the other special effects, ugh.
Nonetheless, the series was impressive because the time it was turned around in. But I don't think they needed to sacrifice quality for getting 'em out three Christmas' in a row. Some of the special effects in the final lava sequence looked like "Land of the Lost" for Chrissakes.
So for those of you who want to argue that they deserved awards because of the daunting task of turning around such films, forget it. They could have taken their time like Harry Potter and done fine. I don't even like Harry Potter, but I don't see flaws. I don't see repetition. The acting is more impressive. So why award them when they didn't even live up to their best potential? I look forward to the fan boys saying my comments weren't helpful. That's why I gave it one star. If fan boys are going to bully the vote to put these movies in the upper echelon of films (which is ridiculous); I reserve the right to underscore them to help future generations know that the fans are delusional and overzealous.
Superman Returns (2006)
Should have restarted the franchise...
Because this is a sequel, continuity to the original series is a big problem. It seems in five years time, Lois lost ten years of age and fifteen years of spunk. In fact, there is nothing in the least bit in common between her and Margot Kidder. So why a sequel?
Why not do a film with Superman in progress that isn't reliant on the 80's story lines?
This is a toughie, just too many things that are just a little off. One of the action sequences is amongst the best you can find but its in the first half. The love triangle of Clark-Lois-Supe is mucked up by another character. Instead of ending with a bang (like a fight for instance, or action sequence), it ends with a comatose character awaking. How anti-climatic.
I just wished that the filmmakers would have gone more traditional. Superman doesn't need a whole new storyline in effect since the original 80's series could be improved upon. The 80's films are nice for nostalgic purposes but very dated and cheesy. This Superman with a little of that charm would have gone a long way. Long winded, artistic, a little too self important are some of the phrases that come to mind.
Believe you me, I am one for artistic films. I think Batman Begins had the proper balance between brooding hero and playboy alter ego. It was more artsy than the first series but remained viable. But Superman is different. He was always more optimistic. He never went truly dark because he wasn't born in a vendetta. This movie hardly touches that side and adopts the darker style of this age. It's a shame, all the parts seemed there.
A reinvention of the series would've been great, but they tried to reinterpret it with a bunch of new nonsense.
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Would have received very little attention if there were no homosexual elements.
When hearing that Ang Lee was helming a movie about cowboys falling in love, I initially thought that he had the potential to beat his own masterpiece, The Ice Storm. What an incredible set up: a notoriously closed-minded part of society to outsiders combined with a less tolerant era and two men living lies with wives. But he somehow blows it.
Aside from the cinematographic style and some of the acting (Williams role actually has the most gusto to it), this movie is flat. It is a Romeo and Juliet scenario in that the lovers are forbidden to love. We know how old that plot is. But that plot can be still intriguing, thrilling... And unfortunately this version goes no further than just the plot. We just follow Romeo and Juliet around until one has to go.
Sounds like a bad "chick flick" and, in a sense, it is. I was expecting the development and growth that were committed in just one day of storyline for the Ice Storm characters and was left with two stiffs that never grow in thirty years of storyline. What happened to Ang? Why would the gay community be so excited about this over past gay cinema that was much better? Doesn't this go underneath expectations when (if all the fat was cut off) this could very well been a short? So why did it get all the awards attention?
One could argue that Ang was trying to give us the longing that this relationship had over a long period of time, thus the length. I'll buy it but it didn't effect the way I saw the characters. Why didn't other films that handled men dealing with both impulses to sleep with both man and woman get this much attention? Weren't the characters in Six Degrees of Separation far more interesting? What about Hedwig and the Angry Inch? Water Drops on Burning Rocks? All About My Mother?
Watch some Pedro Almodovar from Spain. He is a smart director who is brave enough to make films about gay culture that actually tests us, thrills us, gives us something other than easy tragedy. I guess the point I am trying to make is that if you were "wowed" by this movie then you will explode upon watching any of the above films, because Brokeback falls short.
Any Given Sunday (1999)
Poor interpretation of a great sport.
There is a reason the NFL refused to be a part of this pile. When Oliver Stone steps up after a film like Natural Born Killers and states that he is doing an expose on something, I was sure to expect a return to the grand Wall Street era. But Stone, as the ADD child that he can be at times, throws as much unrealistic crap in this piece as he does real.
I don't know if he was trying to keep our attention or not, but why would you need to? It's about football! For every look into a decision with possible fatal consequences, or every power tug-of-war between inept owner and overwhelmed coach, or every player tirade, there IS something so utterly ridiculous to ruin the realism achieved.
A QB puking on the field of player in front of a National audience? An eyeball getting knocked out totally? A player chain sawing a car in half? All these are big dumb MTV style steps away from what could be greatness.
Football deserves a harsh critical film about what happens to players and those surrounding the game, not self indulgent crap.
La vita è bella (1997)
Left me with a sick feeling...
Unfortunately it wasn't the sick feeling that came from the tragedy of the Holocaust but the mockery Roberto made of it. SPOILER ALERT!! I will not be considerate of you who have not seen the film so read no further if you don't want to know what happens.
The movie at best was Ace Ventura meets the Nazis. The reason why? Because the whole world around the spastic lead character seems normal while he does absolutely insane actions. Yet his actions, which would have him killed within a minute of being in the camps, don't get him killed until the very end when he could have actually avoided it. It saddens me to have such soulful performances of the Holocaust victims and such realistic settings wasted on such terrible mess of a lead character. Don't get me wrong, I think one is allowed to bring humor to such tragic times, but the juxtaposition of the realism and silliness was too much here. Tragedy with humor deserves restraint.
For those who want to know more about the Holocaust, I would recommend the Pianist or the Maus books or go to Dachau, but don't see this.
Hearts of Fire (1987)
What?
I don't know how this movie was funded and let alone released on any medium. No, wait, I do, two words: Bob Dylan. This movie is awful and yet my friends and I can't stop watching it. First off, it stars a nobody (Fiona) who does not carry herself at all well. For her sake, I will blame her performance on lack of experience. Then there is the editing... lets just say that brevity was not a strong point. An example, about a minute and a half of Fiona yelling "screw you" back and forth to her boss. Doesn't one or two "screw you"s say enough - get on with it.
But neither of these items are half as bad as the script which makes no sense. Early on Billy Parker (Dylan) is asked why he is in town and answers with telling a story about how his parents met, then he says why he is in town. Or this piece of dialogue:
Dylan: When was the last time you wrote a song?
Everett: 2 years.
Dylan: And the last time you toured?
Everett: A year and a half.
(Pause)
Dylan: Got any Johnny Cash albums?
Everett: A few.
Dylan and Everett: (Uncontrollable laughter)
What? Huh? So many bad lines so little writing space.
And despite all this I enjoyed watching this film. It's like that wrecked car on the road, you've seen it before but have to watch it through. I must say I enjoyed watching Dylan, listening to the poor 80's music, Timmy Cappello on drums, and the various mullets (Rupert's was inspiring). Also, I enjoyed the worst (and funniest) punch in film history so much, that I replay it at least three times each time I watch the film.