Change Your Image
Kurt-15
Reviews
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
Puzzling appeal
A boring, anachronistic film about unlikeable people, undeveloped characters and lacking a clear plot.
This film does not create empathy for its title character, instead it encourages its audience to laugh at him. Laugh at his inability to communicate to friends or family. Laugh at his horrible sense of fashion, and laugh at the sad reality of growing up in the Midwest.
While countless other films glorified the lovable loser, this film goes in another direction by exaggerating the character flaws in a character whose only strong skill is to perfectly alienate all those around him, in a cowardly, passive aggressive manner.
This film does have, without a doubt, excellent photography, great pacing and scene composition, although it is a uncomfortable film to watch.
This film does pay homage to many great 80's era teen flicks, and those references are charming, the film lacks the charm of that era. I found the throwback costume and style of the supporting cast distracting, Heder's character annoying and the film as interesting as a hospital waiting room.
National Treasure (2004)
Hollywood Crap
This is a cliché driven standard action fare. It has boring, uninteresting characters, a contrived plot and big explosions. It features an impressive cast of characters and a very weak script.
If you want to see this movie and truly enjoy it, please visit a hypnotist who can make you forget that you ever saw any 007, Indiana Jones or Arnold movie. Then you can enjoy the clichés and boardroom committee driven writing style that permeates through this derivative Hollywood freak-show.
This movie is ironic in that everything about this film is a copy - even the movie poster reminds us of "Tomb Raider", yet Hollywood wants us to believe that movie thieves are people who download illegal copies from the Internet - the thieves are really are people who push this crap on unsuspecting consumers.
While you're at it, enjoy a Vin Diesel film. He's never been in a crappy action movie clone.
Michael Moore Hates America (2004)
Reactionary Crap
Once again the reactionary right, instead of challenging the assertions of their detractors plot character assassination. Case in point: MM hates America.
"Hates America" is the buzzword for the reactionary right for anyone who disagrees with or criticizes Bush. This is in response to the way that liberals would accuse Kenneth Star, Newt Gingrich or Bill O'Reilly of hating America when they criticized Clinton.
This film is a simple exercise in stupidity. Rather than deconstructing Moore's conclusions of Saudi duplicity or Bush's incompetence, the filmmaker here tries to make Moore look bad by using Moore's own guerrilla film-making style against him.
Does it work? WHO CARES. For the radical right to care about truth is crazy, when there is someone to smear.
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
By the numbers video game adaption
This movie follows a very straight line. There are a series of setups, quick character development, and then, bang bang bang. The film follows a true video game formula, with ever increasing difficulty facing the heroes .
The film has great atmosphere, great sound and great special effects, but unfortunately, it does not make up for the lack of plot devices.
Unlike movies derived from comic books or heavily influenced by them, this film has absolutely no plot devices, it is by the numbers. Kill a bad creature, then kill a hundred of them, and then face a worse creature. Move to next board, where you face a hundred of the worse creatures, and then get introduced to another character, who meets the next level in depravity.
This film lacks all intelligence - you can take a thirty minute bathroom break and not miss anything, except for violence and gore. Very similar to watching a hardcore gamer play through a video game.
If you think this review is too cynical, whatever. Watch "Aliens" to see how a film can be a horror/action flick, and still have meaningful character development, have subplots and other interesting twists.
Do you want to see a REAL horror flick? Check out "Darkness", 2002. Want to see an ENTERTAINING zombie flick? Check out "Sean of the Dead", 2003. Want to see an INTELLIGENT action flick, featuring Milla Jovivich? Go no further than the "Fifth Element", 1998.
The Black Hole (1979)
Upon seeing the film for the first time since childhood, it sucks!
As a child, in the sci-fi starved late 70's and early 80's, the prospect of a big screen space movie was fantastic. So, just being in space was enough for the 7 year old version of myself to give this film two thumbs up.
Today, as I pop in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back or Alien, I am still pulled in, all of these films hold up nicely. These films all had minor flaws, but all are watchable as an adult.
The Black Hole plays like a boardroom of idiots rewrote a relatively spartan script about a mad scientist. Much of the film was totally unnecessary - like the "shooting gallery" bit, the "meteorite" bit, and the "evil robots standing in a row getting shot at" bit, and were clearly added in. Why? Because boardroom mentality says you can't have sci-fi without laser wielding fights. The boardroom wants "cute" robots, just like Star Wars, and the boardroom thought that getting pulled into a blackhole wasn't dramatic enough, so they did some group think and came up with a bright red "meteor shower" that is described by the cast in the same way you would talk about a thunder storm.
This film is absolutely worthless. I can't believe I actually liked it as a child. The acting is horrible, the robots are very lame, the special effects suck, and basic facts about space are completely lost here (like everything freezing and snow starts falling when a compartment is exposed to space). Just remember, this film came about 10 years after 2001, two years after Star Wars, one year after Star Trek, and came out the same year as Alien.
I don't remember seeing any strings holding up the Enterprise, the Odyssey or Luke's X-Wing. Even Battlestar:Galatica looks better and that was made for tv on a shoestring.
The film plays like a bad episode of Lost in Space, with a 2001 ripoff ending. Every aspect of the film is extremely poor, viewed against contemporary films. After watching this film, I am very embarrassed to admit that I owned a "Black Hole" lunchbox as a kid.
The Gospel According to Philip K. Dick (2001)
Informative, but not that good
If I weren't already a PKD fan, and have read more than a dozen of his novels, this docuflick would do absolutely nothing for me.
There is only about six or seven different interviewees, with scant biographical information. Cut scenes between interviews are overly long, and an annoying techno soundtrack makes archival audio from PKD inaudible.
While it was certainly informative, it could have been edited better, and could have been more broad.
This is something that diehard PKD fans will enjoy, but don't expect the kind of documentary quality that "Roger and Me" and "Sense of Life" convey. For all its flaws, still worth a look.
You Got Served (2004)
21st Century Stereotype Exploitation Film
Absolute Rubbish. Sorry, but this film is offensively bad. It plays to stereotypes created in film almost a hundred years ago, where African Americans were relegated to three roles:
1. Comic Relief 2. Domestic Help
and you guessed it:
3. Crazy Dancers
This film should have been a documentary about actual performers, in their element, but draws plot elements from such fine motion pictures like "Electric Boogaloo".
If you feel compelled to throw $10 away to see a movie this weekend, come to my house, we'll watch "Empire Strikes Back" and give me the money.
Star Trek: Generations (1994)
Like watching a double length episode
Although it is nice to see Patrick Stewart and Malcolm McDowell, even their monumental skill can't save this movie.
The problem was that the writing crew was engaged both in writing this and the final episode of Star Trek The Next Generation at the same time. And something had to give. Unfortunately, it was this movie. This film's plot is nothing more than a contrivance to fill up the 90 minutes with what Paramount wanted on the screen. They wanted a new set for the films, therefore this film destroys the TV Enterprise-D. They wanted Shatner and Stewart to share screen time, so a "time rift" was created. They wanted Data's character to grow, so they give him an emotion chip. And, finally, they wanted us to be engaged in the story, so they put everyone's lives at risk.
Whereas the final episode of Next Generation was an excellent, engaging story with a character driven plot, and could have been a good movie, "Generations" is formulaic and would have been better as a decent episode.
All in all, a beautiful waste of time. Beautiful because no matter how contrived the story is, Stewart and McDowell make it believable. A waste of time, however, because the film goes nowhere and does nothing.
There is only one decent film featuring the Next Generation cast, and that is "First Contact". If you want to see a film worthy of the Next Generation TV show, watch that film, and ignore all others.
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Absolutely great!
This film is so much fun! There are so many different, sometimes subtle, sometimes obscure, but always unique places this film brings us. Just like you heard, this film is an homage to the best revenge themed films ever made. Outside of the sublime screenplay - just looking at the settings is a trip down memory lane.
Of course, movie critics never had the patience for Tarantino. Apparently, the entire country has contracted ADD or something and the idea of a 3 1/2 hour movie is frightening to them. Well, if you like short movies, I am sure that "Gigli II" will be out soon.
My biggest complaint of this film is directed solely at the soulless minions of evil running the MPAA and Miramax. WTF? When can an "R" rated movie just be for adults and contain whatever the director wanted? Why does some censorship squad get final say over someone else's artistic vision? And why are films that have no sexual content whatsoever being picked apart? Why? Because some stupid impressionable idiot somewhere might emulate what they see on the screen? Because some sheriff in Hayseed Alabama might get offended?
The rating system needs to go. If you like a director, producer, actor or screenplay, go see that movie. If you get offended, leave. There are plenty of PG and PG-13 films that completely inappropriate for young children, and some R rated films that children should see - but because some censorship Nazi believes his value system is more important than yours, too bad. Of course, why would the studios complain? They can sell the original mangled copy, and then pimp the "Director's Cut". Which is what the theatrical release should have been anyway - that's what you pay the director for.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
One of the worst films ever made
This film is quite simply a device for Sean Connery to feel young again.
All of the major action sequences (which are strung together like a kindergarten decorating exercise) are strongly derivative of Connery's old movies. The sets are hokey - the acting is weak, the story is just too messed up.
This is like going out in public with a complete idiot who gets drunk and starts making loud noises in a quiet place - it was embarrassing to leave the theater in case anyone noticed I was watched this atrocious POS.
Batman: Dead End (2003)
Better than 50% of "Batman" films
Let's face it.
The Batman films AB (After Burton) were just plain horrible. The "pepsi girl"'s commercials on "Bravo" sum it up: HOLLYWOOD CRAP!
This short, however, gives us the down and dirty Batman we want - not that hokie 60's crap rolled up with 90's toy fetish and money worship.
This is the most entertaining 8 minutes of film I have ever seen.
Impostor (2001)
Good.. but not great...
Philip K. Dick has written some of the most compelling short stories to ever be expanded into features. Total Recall and Minority Report are two prime examples. In both films, the screenplays start with the nexus of Dick's short story, and expand it into a full feature. Plot elements, characters and other elements from Dick's body of work were liberally applied to both films to flesh them out.
Unfortunately in this film, none of that happened. For the most part, the film stayed very close to the short story. Since it was a short story, there is no character development. There are no subplots.
Which is why Imposter could be a great short film. Unfortunately, it is a boring feature, lacking the brilliant direction that Dick's work requires (think Verhoeven, Scott & Speilberg - they made Dick's shorts into great cinema). It has everything Dick put into 20 pages, stretched into 90 minutes of "brilliant boredom". With only a single character to worry about, a single plot twist and easy to follow plot development, the film loses the cerebral nature of Dick's quirky fiction.
Enjoy it once (that's all its good for!)
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Again, an intellectually stimulating action masterpiece.
After the brilliance of the first film, it seemed impossible that a sequel could match. Matrix Reloaded simply put, takes Dorothy's Hole and stretches quite a bit deeper, expanding the philosophy of simulation vs. reality, and compounded the messiah myth of the first film, all at the same time bending those rules and still provided enough material to leave you guessing for days.
It is true that much of these films have been done before, indeed, Zion is very similar to a sietch out of Dune and Neo's messiah characteristics are not dissimilar from Maud'dib, and other messiah characters in more mundane science-fiction. But what separates Matrix from these other films and works, including the greats like Philip K Dick is the overwhelming style and amazing timing and editing style that is ubiqitious throughout these films. This film's beats and cues are as tight as any top DJ.
The only complaints about the film is the ambiguity left at the end of the film, but these complaints are petty given that the 3rd installment is only months away. Yes, its a cliffhanger. But yes, there is a lot of story, character development and serious kung fu.
Enjoy the best film of the summer.
Johnny Mnemonic (1995)
Underappreciated fun - Misunderstood art
Unfortunately, some viewers would like to review this film with statements like "This crap made me gag big time. ", and make long complaints about how difficult this film is to understand or view.
For the remainder of the audience who even knows who William Gibson is, don't miss this film. This is a wonderful adaptation of his short story, and conveys the atmosphere that exists across his novels.
For those of you who don't know who he is, he is the man who coined the term "Cyberspace", and is responsible for creating the cyber-punk genre of science fiction novels. His works are dark and moody, often featuring anti-heroes and megalithic corporations. His type of writing is an extension of the work of Philip K Dick and followed by Neal Stephenson.
To be honest, I don't even understand how someone could not follow this movie. The plot and premise are clearly spelled out by the actors during the action, the three distinct subplots all terminate together, and the film has a clear denounement. This isn't some obscure black and white european film that hasn't been properly translated, nor is it some existential film without much dialog, but rather an excellent adaptation of a short story.
The only downer is the fact that the CGI is a bit dated - and Ice T is just too over the top.
In summary, if you are looking for a true to life original cyberpunk film, this is it. As much fun as the Matrix is, it is still deriative of works like this.
Red Dawn (1984)
Forget the politics! This is teenage rebellion at its best!
There is no sense in trying to analyze the geo-political subtleties. This is movie is a fun, escapist what-if scenario, with strong performers, really challenging the entire coming-of-age genre.
Of course, in reality, only ultra-right wing crazies could believe a premise like this - like Oliver North - and a film like this, at the time it came out, could be branded propaganda for neo-fascist Olive North style policies.
Of course, some of the most fun 1980's films were no more than pumped up pro-military pro-war anti-commie propaganda pieces - like Top Gun, Iron Eagle, etc. Conversely, the best movies of the 1980's were anti-war war films, like Platoon and Full Metal Jacket.
But, somewhere in between is a film that makes some points about the human condition, doesn't harp too long on self aggrandizing notions about right and wrong, and picks you up into a good action film - with a unique perspective.
But all that aside, just turn off the analytical side of the brain, and enjoy watching our young heroes fight tremendous odds and save the day.
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
The first even numbered Trek film to Suck!
Yes, its true, Paramount finally delivered the first even numbered trek film to suck.
I am confident that many Trek's later day fans will appreciate its by the numbers suspense, heavy foreshadowing and use of throw away two dimensional characters, but to anyone really interesting in a good sci-fi movie, please stay home.
The film's anti-hero antagonist is very simple, and despite the heavy handed script writing, is not a true nemesis of protagonist, nor his mirror. His motivation, explained away by the same heavy handed script, is never actually explored, definately not in the way that Ricardo Montablan or Malcolm McDowell were able to convey.
Neither suspense nor characters were built over the course of this 117 minute schlockfest. The climax was anti-climatic and the denounement was so rushed that several key elements were omitted.
Of course, many film goers who go to see a big sci-fi movie often go just to see a big sci-fi movie - that said, this film's much-touted space battles and special effects lacked the veracity of the previous trek installments. Even though Baird did give this film the look of a film, unlike Frake's televisionesque "Insurrection", he did little to convey the same type of tension and suspense that has been successfully executed not only in previous Trek installments like "Undiscovered Country" and "Wrath of Khan" but across a whole spectrum of action movies.
Without strong characters or special effects, this film's true nature really becomes clear. Like much of the Trek family over recent years, this film shows itself to be nothing more than recycled leftovers. The two intertwining major plot threads borrowed very heavily, and quite visibly, from "Undiscovered Country" and "First Contact", the subplot was lifted from "Wrath of Khan" and the denounement was "Search For Spock". The big bad space battle was much better executed in earlier films as well.
If it is absolutely necessary that you see a science fiction film on the big screen this holiday season, try to catch Donnie Darko. Otherwise, you're stuck with this half baked contrapation of a money pit.
The only good thing I have to say about this movie is might be the motivator to finally can Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, the wondertwins who have turned Star Trek from cultural institution to revenue stream, based on cheap tricks and scantily clad bra models.
Blade II (2002)
By the numbers sequel with few surprises and big plotholes
Where "Blade" successfully pulled the viewer into a very sensual vampire underworld, and maintained that suspension when the film took a super-supernatural turn, "Blade II" alienates & insults the viewer with too many Hollywood cliches. The film's "surprise" is too much like the original, combined with the hokey antics of the "Towelly" episode of South Park.
Tim Burton turned a few city blocks into Gotham City for "Batman", Del Toro struggles with constructing an ethos for the film with the entire city of Prague at his disposal. Del Toro attempted to "scare" the audience, but the attempts are laughable, at best. The elements, apparently designed to scare, are cliche Hollywood slasher.
Worse yet, is the hokey "team" that partners with Blade. For the purposes of this review, let's call them "Fox Force Five". The team members looked more like potential action figures than believable flesh & blood characters. For that matter, all the characters in this film remain static. The first film introduced the viewer to the seedy underworld of vampires, this film is like a documentary of it. All the scenes of vampire culture are shot from a distinct, third person pov. This further disconnects the viewer.
The "love story" angle is poorly underdeveloped here, especially viewed in comparison with the first film's Oedipal overtures. Blade's love interest is underdeveloped, and while the actress is stunning, the character falls flat.
The highlight of the film, of course, is the creation of the "Vampire Nation". In the first film, vampires existed, and helped operate things from behind the scenes. In this film, the over the top protrayal of them is just too much - vampires have corporate offices now.
Of course, action is the name of the game - but with all the nonsense heeped onto this weak story, there's not much room for it. The first film's groundbreaking martial arts - backed up by excellent physical acting by Snipes, are sadly mediocre in this film. The set design for these fights are standard fare - the catwalk, the church, the underground tunnel, etc.
In all, a dissappointing sequel that has little of the energy, style, or sensibilities of the first film.
Blade (1998)
BAM! Nonstop energy, impressive photography, brilliant film!
To be fair, I am posting this review AFTER my review of the sequel. Why? The sequel sucks for very specific reasons, plot elements and devices present in this film are sorely missed in the sequel.
This film exists solidly on the "serious" side of vampire flicks - "Dracula", "Shadow of the Vampire" and "Interview with a Vampire" - not the campy cheesy schlock of "John Carpenter's Vampires". Why? It makes vampires seem very real, as opposed to the pure shlock of evil undead coming "to get you" - ala "Evil Dead 2" (without the satire).
The film starts with a dramatic introduction to the world of the vampires, from a very personal angle. The energy is built in the intro, and carried to the hilt by superb physical acting by Snipes, with outstanding action sequences that are unequalled in Western cinema. The main characters are very strong, very distinct, and very realistic. Even though all of them could of been torn from a comic book, this film's photography and sound editing put you right there in the middle of it all. Unique set design and shooting locations also give this film an eerie "every city" feel - beating "The Matrix" to the punch by as much as a year.
Stephen Dorff shines as a villian, and is so good at being bad you'd think he was the protaganist (there are many other reasons to see that as well). While some critics can't get past the gratitious violence and well, gallons of blood, open minded viewers may see the bigger message in this film. Tucked neatly into the subplots are a good protrayal of a gen-x class struggle, led by Dorff's character.
This film's greatest strength is the plot. Make no mistake: this is not average 80 IQ plot here. This is pure neoclassicalism. If you don't see it, you're missing the point of this film. The sequel has no plot - the lead character is just moving through a series of action sequences to get "the bad guy". In this film, Blade struggles with personal identity, family, love and love lost - and a plot development that is a real double whammy.
I really can't say enough good things about this film. The costumes and set design set the scene; the indulgences of wealth and power. The photography immerses the viewer combined with a perfect soundtrack and choreography. Fantastic casting and unbelievable direction make this film a winner.
If you like pure slasher fare, this film will entertain - but if you want some serious backstory, plot & character development added to your violence (like "The Matrix") look no further - and skip the pedestrian sequel.
Inbred Rednecks (1998)
Funny gem of a film
Often more like a grouping of gags and setups, this little gem pays off in the end. Not to miss the social commentary on the subtleties of southern law enforcement, either. This line is fodder. As is this line. My review of this film is only two lines long. It is, after all, a short film.
Red Planet (2000)
A fantastic suspense thriller (not sci-fi)
It is so easy for people to find excuses not to think. Case in point: people who see this movie, all the way through, and think it is a sci-fi film. Obviously, they weren't paying attention. Just as the original "Alien" was not sci-fi; it was horror and "Aliens" was not sci-fi; it was action, "Red Planet" is not sci-fi; its a suspense thriller.
This movie, when viewed as a suspense thriller - which is what it is, after all, is great. Sci-Fi is merely a subplot here.
The photography was brilliant, and conveyed the vast emptiness of an alien desert beautifully. Acting was great, and the direction and timing was perfect - a great suspense thriller.
It is just disturbing to me to see so many people call this sci-fi. "Independence Day" is sci-fi. This is not. If the action took place in a forest, and they were being hunted by a bear, trying to reach a helicopter, no one would call it a nature film. It would be called a suspense film. Seeing a space ship and technology and yelling "sci-fi" is a poor excuse for thinking.
In any case, nothing presented in this film is science fiction. Spaceships that travel to Mars in 6 months are not science fiction. A spacestation is not science fiction. Advanced robotics are not science fiction. This is all real science. Transporters and warp drive, they are science fiction. Death Stars and Lightsabers, they too are science fiction. Films like "Star Wars" and Star Trek require an active suspension of disbelief. There is no need for that here. Everything presented in this film is possible with today's technology. Was "Deep Impact" a science-fiction film? No. It was a disaster film, in the same vein as "Towering Inferno" or "Earthquake".
SO STOP CALLING IT SCIENCE FICTION AND WATCH THE FILM FOR WHAT IT IS A SUSPENSE THRILLER!!!!!!
I just would really wish that people would stop making unqualified remarks. It is so easy to rip apart something you don't understand instead of taking the time to actually delve into the subject matter and give it fair analysis. That said, if you want to see a good suspense thriller, this is it. If you want to watch a good sci-fi movie, check out anything written by Asimov or Bradbury.