ca_dale Reviews

Death to Smoochy (2002)

I wanted to like it but

[5/10 · 16 December 2007]

When Death to Smoochy (DTS) came out I'd heard nothing but bad things about it from film critics and never paid it much attention. But after stumbling upon it on the IMDb several years later, and reading numerous rave reviews about it, I decided to take a risk and give DTS a shot anyway.

For those who have spoken highly of the film's concept, acting, look, or uniqueness, I agree with you on those points. DTS throws out most of the conventional comedy mold and attempts to do something different and off the wall. The cast is also a great ensemble, including Edward Norton, Robin Williams, Catherine Keener, and Danny DeVitto among others.

The problem for me was the delivery of the humor just didn't work. DTS relies too much on the uniqueness of itself to generate laughs. A theoretically good concept can't make up for the lack of substance of the greater product. The movie just drags on and on for nearly two hours, despite barely having enough humorous material to fill half that time. The only scene that I really found memorable was Robin Williams's rant about a certain phallic shaped cookie.

Maybe I'm overlooking some deep inner meaning or something, but for me this film just didn't work and while some will no doubt like it for being different, it's a tough sell.

The Black Dahlia (2006)

A disjointed mess of a film

[5/10 · 16 December 2007]

The Black Dahlia (TBD) is a tribute of sorts to the film noir flicks prevalent during its 1940's setting. Visually the film is quite stunning. De Palma and crew have done an excellent job creating the look of the period. This combined with creative camera work helps shape numerous memorable and inviting images. The jazzy musical score is also a great complement to the frequently dark, unsettling visuals.

But all of this glitz is overshadowed by the fact that TBD lacks any sort of discernible plot or character development. It starts feeling extremely rushed right out of the gate, cutting from scene to scene at break-neck speed, with only a few quick snippets of voice over from Bleichert (Josh Harnett) to try and guide us through the overload of seemingly random content. The direction and pacing is never really clear or coherent. My guess is that Brian De Palma had an ambitious idea here, but just couldn't seem to make it click within the film's running time and tried to compensate by cramming in as much content as possible at the expense of appropriate pacing.

The rest of the cast brings little to the mix. Aaron Eckhart plays Hartnett's partner, Lee Blanchard. The twosome shares a home with a female acquaintance of Lee's named Kay Lake (Scarlett Johansson), whom both have a competing attraction to. The film attempts to utilize this love triangle dynamic as a parallel to the murder, with Lee becoming obsessed with the Dahlia case and turning abusive and unstable. The problem is that we are not given enough insight into either of these characters to care about them. We are just sort of expected to accept that they are troubled without being told why. Aside from looks Scarlett Johansson has no endearing quality in this film either. Her delivery comes across as unenthusiastic and underwhelming. Like Eckart, her character is one dimensional and fails to leave a lasting impression on us.

Once the Black Dahlia murder comes into play, the film switches gears and just sort of coasts along through the mid section, not really sure of what to do with itself. The murder investigation takes a back seat to the incoherent assortment of domestic problems between Bleichert, Lee, and Kay. After a series of interrogations and meeting which don't seem to lead anywhere, Bleichert abruptly pieces bits of the mystery together and rushes from local to local to pursue his suspects. I was continually left scratching my head over what he'd figured out and how he'd gotten there. And while the film tries to give us a conclusion to the chase, it again brings us no closer to interpreting the assortment of events leading up to it in any sort of coherent way. The film ends rather anti-climatically as well, but by that time I was just glad to be done with it.

Going Overboard (1989)

Painful to watch

[2/10 · 12 December 2007]

Basically this film revolves around a wannabe comic (Sandler) trying to catch his big break as a stand up on a cruise ship. But his efforts are hampered by the obnoxious jerk currently providing the laughs, terrorists working for General Noriega, some Australian bimbo, evil flashbacks of his mother, and a whole lot of other bizarre happenings. How can this be bad?

Adam Sandler is a great comedian and he would eventually hit his stride with films like Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore, but what we have here is a disjointed mess of potentially good gags and characters ruined by horrible acting and an even worse script. Sandler trademarks such as the numerous flat characters which contribute many of the best lines in his latter films and the silly dream sequences and non-sequesters abound, but they just don't mesh together in any sort of funny or cohesive way.

Going Overboard was Adam Sandler's first foray into feature length film and an absolutely dismal attempt at that. This movie is so mind numbingly bad its not even funny because of it, its just plain sad to deal with and even die hard Sandler fans will struggle to last the full run time. What a waste.

Freddy Got Fingered (2001)

Wow

[8/10 · 24 July 2007]

Like most people I'd heard that Freddy Got Fingered was a horrible film. And like many people I was also under the impression that FGF was another painfully cliché contrived piece of Hollywood. I was dead wrong on the second point.

I'm a believer in the theory that if a film reaches a certain level of "badness" that, that "badness" somehow translates into "goodness". FGF is not so much a film as it is an experience into the twisted mind of Tom Green. It's disgusting, bizarre, and absolutely HILARIOUS! This film actually had me laughing to the point of tears multiple times and that's a feat not often accomplished.

The basic plot of FGF goes something like this, Gord (Tom Green) is an aspiring cartoonist who goes to Hollywood to try and sell his drawings. Without success he moves back in with his parents and younger brother Freddy. His short tempered father (Rip Torn) demands that he stop goofing off and get a real job. The ongoing feud between the two results in a string of outlandish pranks and revenges.

FGF is relentless in throwing every kind of bizarre nonsensical situation at you that it can possibly muster. From "getting inside the animals" to "searching for sunken treasure" from "cheese helmets" to "Zebras in America" nothing is predictable and nothing is sacred. The source of most of the humour comes from Tom Green's bizarre Jekyll and Hyde act. One minute Gord is a normal almost bland young man the next he's some kind of insane ADHD driven six year old on crack. That may sound like an exaggeration but give the film 15 minutes and I assure you you'll be converted.

Is it perfect? No. The film doesn't always hit the mark and some of the situations are just plain gross without a funny quality to them, but the product as a whole is so unique from anything else and contains so many priceless gags and one liners, that its faults can easily be overlooked. If you hated the Tom Green Show this will only strength your opinion, but if you're open to the outlandish ignore the critics and take Freddy for a spin. Being really drunk or stoned also helps.

Lean on Me (1989)

Despite a shaky script, Morgan Freeman gives a terrific performance in an intense, challenging role

[7/10 · 24 July 2007]

Lean on Me is based around the experiences of Joe Clark (Morgan Freeman), who becomes the principal of a destitute New Jersey high school plagued with violence, drugs, and abysmal academic performance. Clark is given the daunting task of bringing student's test scores up to the minimum acceptable level within one school year or the school will be taken over by the state.

Clark is fiercely strict and demanding towards both his students and teachers. This makes him the target of countless parents, board members, civil servants, and other teachers determined to bring him and his radical new style down. Despite outside resistance Clark becomes a pillar of hope for numerous students inspired by his harsh but ultimately uplifting demands for disciple, self betterment, and loyalty to their school and educational achievement.

What sets Lean on Me apart from numerous other sentimental inspirational flicks is the unconventional style of Clark and Morgan Freeman's masterful portrayal of him. Yes this is the drill sergeant of miracle workers if ever there was one. From tone to mannerisms Joe Clark is given a distinctive ambiance, Morgan Freemen IS the dominating force behind this entire film.

And this is where the film stumbles somewhat. None of the supporting characters are given enough development to really set them apart as individuals. The closest we get is with a bright young girl trying her best to succeed at school despite numerous domestic problems at home. She is won over by Clark almost immediately coming to view him as a mentor/father figure. The problem is that her subplot like the others becomes neglected in the latter half of the film and is never given enough meaningful resolution to make the final scenes believable. Its like going from point A to point C while ignoring B.

I also question the wisdom in using an imaginary plot point (the supposed school take over) and exaggerating the level of the student's academic improvement. It cheapens the genuine accomplishments of the school and clashes with the hard-edged momentum of Joe Clark. The story is worthy in of itself and didn't benefit from being exaggerated for dramatics.

Lean on Me clearly could have been much more than what it is. But faults aside I would still highly recommend it to see Freeman's Oscar worthy performance.

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Unique enough to be watched and enjoyed on its own merit

[7/10 · 24 July 2007]

Dawn of the Dead follows the same basic plot as George Romero's 1978 original. The dead are coming back to life to prey on the living. Amid the chaos a small miss-matched group of survivors escape to a shopping mall and use the building as a last line of defense against the swarms of zombies closing in on them. However, beyond this basic back bone the two films are markedly different in how they play out.

This new film puts the emphasis on gore and action to drive its momentum. Contrast this with the original which stressed suspense much more effectively. The cast is also much larger than that of the original and as you'd imagine this gives considerably more fodder for elaborate death scenes. Unfortunately character development has been sacrificed considerably with only a few spouting enough personality for us to care much about them. Gone as well is the original's often scathing social commentary into consumerism and societal apathy. The new film also manages to be surprisingly humorous at times. The bit where Andy is shooting zombies from the rooftop who resemble celebrities is priceless.

So is the remake as good as the original? No, but it offers enough new elements to merit its existence unlike the bulk of shallow ill-conceived remakes we've had to deal with lately. Give it shot.

Bound (1996)

Love, deception, betrayal, and blackmail, woven to together in an always tense, always unpredictable tapestry

[8/10 · 15 January 2007]

Bound revolves around the plot of two women; Violet (Jennifer Tilly), and Corky (Gina Gershon), to con a local mobster; Caesar (Joe Pantoliano), out of a huge stash of stolen money. Violet is Caesar's long time mistress, Corky is a recently released ex-con, doing renovation work in the apartment next to theirs. Violet is distraught by the dark life she has been thrust into and seeking a way out begins a secret relationship with Corky. After learning that Caesar is holding nearly two million dollars in transit to his bosses, the two devise an elaborate plan to steal it, pin the theft on Caesar, and escape clean with the cash.

And this is where the film really takes off. We are treated to a barrage of events intent on upsetting the plan. From an apartment shoot-out to a surprise visit from the cops, the film is relentless in drawing you in and grasping your attention.

Acting is top notch. Pantoliano's portrayal of Caesar after he realizes that his money is gone is just brilliant. His progression from panicked and irrational, to plotting and methodical as he tries to make sense of what has happened and plan his next move comes across perfectly. It's gradual and realistic, something you have to see for yourself to truly appreciate. Tilly also gives an excellent performance as Violet. Underneath Violet's seemingly fragile and comforting exterior she is cunning, mysterious, and complex. Her subtle manipulation of Caesar's emotions throughout the second half of the film is so convincing, you would almost start to believe her yourself if you didn't know better. Gershon generally does a good job as Corky; I just wish she'd been given more screen time in the second half of the film to further develop the character. Once the plan is in action she just sort of disappears for the last third. Numerous secondary characters add to the mix, the most endearing of which has to be Johnnie (Christopher Meloni) the brash and obnoxious son of Caesar's boss.

One of the other great appeals of the film is the Wackowski brothers' terrific camera work (the same guys who would go on to do the Matrix films). Their intense zooms and frequent use of slow motion add greatly to the suspense and tension as events play out.

All said and done Bound offers a great combination of suspense, characters, and aesthetic. If you want an engaging thriller with lots of twists and turns, for my money you can't do much better. A word of caution though, Bound contains some extremely graphic moments. One scene in particular involving a man being beaten and tortured in a bathroom is especially brutal. Make sure you have a strong stomach.

You've been warned!

Pet Sematary (1989)

Saved by the interesting concept

[6/10 · 14 January 2007]

I first stumbled upon this film around Halloween, a few years back. Although obviously not one of the stronger adaptations of a Stephen King novel, I was generally impressed with it. PS's theme of resurrecting dead pets and having them turn on their former owners is pretty cool, "sometimes dead is better" indeed.

PS falters at times but what it does well it does with considerable effectiveness. The idea of an innocent child being resurrected as a sadistic killer, lurking in the shadows, is very creepy and unsettling. The filmmakers use this device to full effect to shock and unnerve the viewer. The lead up to the confrontation between Gage and Jud in the 2nd half of the film is especially tense. But by far the scariest part of the film is Rachel's childhood flash back of her sister. It made my hair stand on end.

Unfortunately the acting and script leave a lot to be desired. The dialogue keeps coming across as forced and unnatural, as though the actors were reading off queue cards (or more likely word for word from the novel). The progression from one scene to the next is also a bit uneven and disjointed at times.

Another problem is that PS often throws in tense, creepy, music just before something is about to happen to a character, ruining a lot of potential suspense. In particular the inappropriate overuse of tense music makes it so blatantly obvious what is going to happen to Gage at the mid point of the film that you almost have to hold back laughter when it hits, so to speak.

Despite PS's weak acting, the plot is intriguing enough to hold your attention, and it should provide enough tense moments to satisfy horror fans. Just don't expect anything spectacular and you'll have a fun time watching it.

Leprechaun 6: Back 2 Tha Hood (2003 Video)

Tries to blend horror with comedy only to fail miserably at both

[3/10 · 13 January 2007]

One day I stumbled upon this film in a video clearance bin for $1.11. I'd heard about the long running "Leprechaun" series of horror/comedies and how they were pretty funny despite (or because) of their low budgets, but had never seen any of them. Well needless to say curiosity got the better of me and I decided to give it a shot. Not the smartest call.

LB2TH's fatal flaw is painfully obvious from the get go. The Leprechaun isn't the least bit intimidating and his continuous string of one-liners fall flat as a fart. All he does is wonder around, crack a lame joke, get shot a few times by thugs, wonder some more, and crack another lame joke. Wash, rinse, and repeat. The dead serious reactions of the assailed group towards their nemesis, as though it were some grotesque beast (some lost trick-or-treater would be a more accurate description), still can't hide the fact that the Leprechaun is lame and stupid. After 45 minutes the whole thing just gets painfully tedious.

This is a shame given that the situations presented in LB2TH's script (smoking weed, getting pushed in a fridge, giving a fat chick a massage) are solid enough for it to work as a passable horror/comedy. The problem is that the awful delivery sucks all the life out of these situations. One thing I cannot forgive them for though, is putting in the running gag of guys saying "What up my Ninja?" Ninja? Ninja?! Bloody NINJA?! Someone needs a serious *** kicking for writing such tripe.

Along Came Polly (2004)

No too bad, just nothing unique or exceptional about it.

[5/10 · 10 November 2006]

Along Came Polly is a comedy featuring Ben Stiller and Jennifer Aniston, as two former high school classmates, who begin a new romance after a chance meeting years later.

There are several scenes that I got a good laugh out of, like the overflowing toilet bit and the basketball …er how shall I say, "mishap". Hank Azaria was also pretty funny as the Francophone scuba diver (too bad he gets such limited screen time). Oh yes, and the accident prone ferret is also a cute recurring joke.

But overall the film misses more that it hits. It never really settles on much of a direction until the predictable conclusion. It just meanders from one location to the next, with an occasional sight gag thrown in for good measure (only 2 or 3 of which are really that funny). Ben and Jen's characters have no believable chemistry. Philip Seymor Hoffman's former child actor character is annoying and feels forced (look at me I'm trying to be wacky and unconventional, give me some attention already!). The subplot of some wealthy thrill seeker trying to get approved for insurance, or whatever, is just pointless and really adds nothing to the main plot or provides any laughs.

We also have Stiller playing essentially the same role he's been playing for the bulk of his career, a naïve guy who gets more than he bargained for after starting a new relationship. ACP offers us nothing that Stiller and crew haven't done before and to better effect in films like "Flirting with Disaster", "There's Something About Mary", and "Meet the Parents".

All said and done you have another average, flavor of the month comedy, among a sea of countless others like it. Worth catching on TBS if you want something light to kill 90 minutes, otherwise I wouldn't bother.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

A love-hate relationship

[7/10 · 14 October 2006]

After watching Eyes Wide Shut (EWS) I found myself extremely divided over how to properly evaluate it.

Let me start by looking at what I consider EWS's strong points.

Aesthetically EWS is a stunning film. Kubrick's signature tracking shots and creative use of colour and imagery make for many memorable scenes. Lots of symbolism is employed, such as the sexually charged paintings, and of course the wide assortment of masks and costumes. The soundtrack is also perfectly suited to the atmosphere of each scene. The use of a slow but rising piano beat is particularly effective at conveying the mystery and uncertainty that Tom's Cruise's character finds himself in and I found myself replaying it in my head for a long time after my first viewing.

Now for the not so good.

My biggest gripe with EWS is its often painfully slow pacing. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, EWS has very little actual dialogue, instead relying largely on imagery to guide you through the journey. The problem is that what dialogue there is is not very interesting or relevant. Why does Tom Cruise's character have to repeat every bloody thing that others tell him? This combined with the at times agonizingly slow delivery of the lines frustrated the **** out of me. I can understand what Kubrick was going for (a dreamlike surreal atmosphere) but he fails to sell it clearly and convincingly enough, and the end result is tediousness rather than suspense.

Honestly this is a real love hate relationship for me. EWS does grow on you a bit with repeated viewings; still a lot of people will likely be turned off by the pacing. The film is still better than a lot of what's out there, and is definitely worth a look for fans of Kubrick's other work. Overall though, I felt it was one of his weaker efforts.

Scary Movie (2000)

In the mood for some crude, low brow humour? Look no further.

[6/10 · 23 September 2006]

Scary Movie lampoons the teen horror flicks, prevalent in the late 90's; especially Wes Craven's Scream (1996) and follows the same basic plot and characters as that film (high school kids picked off one by one by a masked slasher). SM also pokes fun at I Know What You Did Last Summer, The Blair Witch Project, and the Sixth Sense among others.

Seeing as SM is a parody of other films you may be wondering if you should watch those movies first. I wouldn't say its essential (I hadn't seen Scream before), though an appreciation for the satirized material definitely adds to the humour. For instance the scene where the killer is casually washing the school floor in the background is a reference that viewers will only pick up on if they've actually seen Scream.

I'll be the first to admit that SM is stupid, cheap, and cheesy… but hey, hear me out! It accomplishes exactly what it sets out to be, a funny, irrelevant stab (no pun intended) at popular culture. Lighten up, don't go in expecting something epic, and enjoy SM for what it is.

Thanksgiving Family Reunion (2003 TV Movie)

This turkey is rancid

[1/10 · 10 August 2006]

I almost never give movies a 1/10; even really bad films usually have some small redeeming qualities. Unfortunately Thanksgiving Family Reunion is so mind-numbing bad it isn't even worth seeing for a cheap laugh.

Horribly delivered, unfunny, often embarrassing jokes, terrible acting, completely forgettable characters, and no plot or direction what so ever. A completely pointless waste of time from start to finish.

Remember when National Lampoon made good films like "Animal House" and "Vacation"? Where did it go so horribly wrong?

1/10 all the way.

Airplane II: The Sequel (1982)

OK in of itself, but why bother?

[5/10 · 5 June 2006]

Airplane II is the sequel to the hugely popular 1980 film Airplane. Airplane stood out in no small part because of it's (at the time) unique visual gag driven humour consisting of lots of cleverly placed objects combined with witty one-liners.

Airplane II is a passable film on its own, but sadly it can't hold a candle to its vastly superior predecessor. The sequel stumbles largely because it fails to bring anything new to the mix; it simply rehashes everything from the first film on a weaker level. The whole movie just reeks of laziness, nothing but a poor attempt to cash in on the success and popularity of the original.

My advice, stick with the original. If you like the visual gag style comedy of Airplane, try "Top Secret (1984)" or better yet "The Naked Gun (1988)".

Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland (1989)

"Kiddy" and "Kid Appropriate" are two very different things.

[8/10 · 5 June 2006]

In reference to my review's my tag line, this is by no means a movie for "kids only". Looking back at Little Nemo as an adult, I'm surprised at how well it still holds up in my eyes. The writer's did a good job in making Little Nemo suitable for younger viewers, but without dumbing down the plot, dialogue, or artistic creativity of the film. There's no reason why a kids film can't be smart and original, and it really irks me when writers use a young target audience as an excuse to give us a second rate script.

Little Nemo is certainly unique if nothing else. The story follows a young, imaginative boy named Nemo as he travels through the mystical Slumberland. Nemo meets and befriends numerous people throughout Slumberland eventually earning the high esteem of the land's royal family. Unfortunately things go horribly wrong after Nemo's curiosity inadvertently leads him to unleash a virtual Pandora's Box, which threatens to destroy the kingdom. Can Nemo redeem himself and save his new friends?

The lead characters are very well developed, thanks in no small part to the great voice actors. They convey a genuine and convincing level of human emotion. Little Nemo has a very surreal atmosphere to it, which work perfectly at conveying the dreamy atmosphere of Slumberland. There are also some surprisingly dark and moody moments. Don't get me wrong, this isn't scary by any means, far from it, but the colors are very effective in conveying the tense emotion and gloomy atmosphere of these scenes. Likewise the more upbeat moments are also very well executed, with a bright vibrant array of reds, blues, yellows, etc. Really top-notch animation, that still holds up very well even by today's standards.

I would definitely recommend Little Nemo if you're looking for a quality children's film, that parents will likely enjoy as well.

The Amityville Horror (1979)

What was the point of even making this film?

[3/10 · 31 March 2006]

I recently decided to rent the Amityville Horror hoping for some classic horror viewing. Despite reading mixed reviews about the film I was hopeful that I could look beyond a few flaws and still appreciate what The Amityville Horror had to offer. If only.

Two hours later I was left not only wanting a refund, but more importantly an explanation of what I'd just seen. The Amityville Horror can be summed up in two words "zero plot". The film throws numerous characters, subplots, and strange happenings at us, yet never once makes any effort to piece them together in any sort of coherent way. No, this isn't one of those films like Donnie Darko or 12 Monkeys where multiple viewings and a bit of self assessment are needed to put the pieces together, this film plain and simple doesn't make any sense and no amount of viewing will change that..

The main characters are never meaningfully developed and the supporting characters have little or no relevance. I came away without feeling anything for anyone. What is the point of the suspicious police chief for instance, George's recent religious conversion, the mysterious disappearance of the wedding money, George's business troubles, etc? Why even mention these things if you're not going to use them to advance the plot or develop the characters? It's as if the film makers were given a checklist of all the supposed occurrences at the house and then proceeded to randomly cram as many of them as possible into the film for the sole purpose of eating up time. The Simpsons Halloween episode, which parodies The Amityville Horror, is scarier and more interesting than the actual film. Know why? Because it focuses on and develops the paranormal events, instead of wasting time on a bunch of pointless subplots which have no relevance to anything and contribute nothing to the story. Why doesn't the house continue to say "get out" and harass the inhabitants instead of saying it once than abandoning a potentially great concept? And let's not forget the infamous "pig in the window scene" or should I say blip in the window. For all the time put into hyping "Jodie" this is the closest thing we get to a payoff. Is it real, a hallucination? Your guess is as good as mine. What I do know is that the thing occurs so briefly and obscurely I couldn't even tell what it was. It wasn't until I did some research on the real Amityville events (in a vain attempt to make sense of this mess) that I heard about it.

The pacing of the film is horrendously slow. Not to say that slow pacing is always a bad thing, it can be a very effective way of building suspense before the big horror payoff. The problem with The Amityville Horror as I've stated is that there is absolutely, "No Payoff". For 2 hours I waited patiently for something, anything, to happen but nothing did. The only things in this film of any interest were the bleeding walls (more weird than anything else), the voice saying "get out", and the babysitter getting locked in the closest. Nothing was really scary and I found myself struggling against boredom the majority of the time. Case in point The Amityville Horror = Boring not Suspenseful.

As for the acting, it is cheesy, unnatural, and completely unconvincing. It ranges from James Brolin's boring lifeless portrayal of George Lutz (perhaps he realized he was in a stinker?), Rod Steiger's ridiculous over acting, and worst of all Helen Shaver's mind numbingly bad performance as the psychic girlfriend of George's business partner. Granted the script's dialogue is pretty lame to begin with, but nonetheless terrible acting.

In my opinion the only redeeming thing about The Amityville Horror is that the camera work is actually quite good. The film is very effective at capturing the menacing image of the house against the calm fall environment of Amityville (probably why the image of the house became so infamous to begin with). The film also makes uses of a wide variety of interesting and creative camera angles. Unfortunately a few nice visuals here and there can't carry the rest of this mess.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I just can't for the life of me understand how anyone could honestly like this film. Why The Amityville Horror isn't lost and forgotten to time like so many other crappy horror flicks, we may never know. Forgot this stinker and stick to films like The Shining, Alien, and The Evil Dead if you want a good horror movie.