clay-8 Reviews

Final Destination 2 (2003)

***1/2 out of ****

[13 February 2003]

"Final Destination 2" doesn't merely rehash the idea from the first film, it adds intriguing new ideas to it. The first film was very dark in tone and had subtle humor, which made it more of a chore to watch, but this film cranks up the laughs, possible to help us digest the more gruesome deaths.

Speaking of the death scenes, this movie goes all out, cranking up the violence with some of the most unpredictably clever deaths I've ever seen in a movie. The violence is disturbingly effective. "Final Destination 2" is definitely worth seeing, much better than the first film.

Daredevil (2003)

*** out of ****

[13 February 2003]

Without its sparkling humor, "Daredevil" would be an overly dark and depressing movie. It's not hard to believe the film was originally rated R, since the violence in it is very high. Given that I severely dislike Ben Affleck, I actually thought he gave a good performance, not as Daredevil himself, but as Matt Murdock. His scenes with Jennifer Garner are definitely worth watching, more so than the scenes with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst in Spider-man.

In this movie, the director doesn't bore us with romantic scenes that go nowhere ala Spider-man. The look of the movie is also appealing and the visual effects, although sometimes distracting, are pretty good.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

**** out of ****

[9/10 · 6 January 2002]

Next to "The Mummy Returns", "Harry Potter" is the second best film of the year. It's 2 1/2 hour running length didn't hinder my enjoyed in the slightest. This is a wonderfully imaginative film, which is scary in the just right places, but not too scary. It knows its limits, and that's what makes the film work.

Jurassic Park III (2001)

***1/2 out of ****

[8/10 · 29 July 2001]

"Jurassic Park 3" could have been more. It raises more questions than it has answers for, such as: why did InGen create certain dinosaurs but not document them; or why doesn't the American Embassy help the Kirby's find their son; or how do the characters get so close to the island without getting in trouble with the Costa Rican government? The answer is simple - If they were answered, there would be no movie. This picture is as simple as they come, and considering it's so much fun, it makes up for its shortcomings.

JP3 is much more visually imaginative than "The Lost World: Jurassic Park". Its action scenes are more involving and pleasing. I'm not going to say the special effects are improved, because, in my opinion, they're on the exact same level as the first two, including one scene (special effect) straight out of 1998's "Godzilla, but the movie does make better use of them, including a fantastic scene of a pteranodon carrying a boy across canyons. I still can't tell if the boy was CG or the real actor in front of a green screen. Also, another imaginative scene involves the boy jumping from one rocky pillar to another. I imagined this stuff while reading the first "Jurassic Park", but never saw anything close to it until now. "JP3" is what "JP2" - and in some respects, "JP1" - should have been.

I also have to comment on the fantastic cinematography. It's the best in the series. If only it had elaborated on the many questions it asked itself, such as InGen's experiments with the dinos. I mean, why bring it up anyhow? Maybe to set up for the next installment?

Planet of the Apes (2001)

*** out of ****

[7/10 · 26 July 2001]

I just got back from screening Planet of the Apes at the theater I work at. What I was most afraid of was whether or not the movie had SDDS sound. It does, thank god. I am a fan of Tim Burton's. He makes great movies. When I heard about this movie, I thought, although a bad idea, that it might be an interesting movie. I'm not too familiar with the original "Apes" movies, so I can't compare, but this movie does have a surprise ending similar to the original's, minus the surprise.

I noticed the movie was written by William Broyle's Jr., as well a two other guys. I got worried after that considering he wrote the horrible "Castaway". I can't really give him credit for making this movie bearable, though. Burton and his crew pretty much deserves the credit for that. This movie's plot is riddled with cliches from a General who was outcasted getting revenge only to die to an old Ape guy dying RIGHT AFTER telling Thade (Roth) what WE need to know. It's as if the writers were afraid their slightly unique version was too unique and was becoming unrecognizable.

SPOILER WARNING:

I thought some of the ideas in the movie were intriguing and scary. Not so much the idea that apes COULD become the leaders of a planet due to time travel and evolution from experimental monkeys, but that they DID. I felt the whole play on equality was too preachy and phony, however. Planet of the Apes is far from being the best movie of the summer - that title still belongs to The Mummy Returns - but it's a decent movie, although it lacked any humor whatsoever.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

***1/2 out of ****

[8/10 · 28 June 2001]

After seeing this movie at one o'clock in the morning, I was asking myself why I didn't fall asleep. I knew the answer immediately after: because I really liked this movie. Not so much because of the actors or the plot, but because this movie is packed full of imagination seen pretty much in all of Spielberg's films.

I also found myself taken in by the sometimes annoying Haley Joel Osment's performance. Of course, throughout the film, I was comparing it to Bicentinial Man. I liked that movie alot as well, mainly for the same reasons. A.I. is imaginative, eerie, and yes, long. It's not an action movie, but Spielberg knows how to deliver amazing and effective effects. I was touched by the last half of the movie most of all. I won't give anything away, but it's surprisingly powerful and tear-jerking. I didn't cry, but I almost did.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

** out of ****

[5/10 · 15 June 2001]

"The Mummy Returns" is an example of a movie that delivers the goods of what the trailer hypes. "Tomb Raider" is not. This film was a complete bore that seems to do what the magical triangle can muster: manipulate time. The movie seems to stand still while at the same time move ahead. I can tell there was a lot of footage cut from the movie because the movie has so many holes. The characters are empty and the action scenes are so badly edited, I can't enjoy it because I'm trying to figure out what's going on.

The Mummy Returns (2001)

***1/2 out of ****

[9/10 · 9 May 2001]

I was skeptical of The Mummy Returns, thinking the trailers were just showing us the good stuff which would come too few and far between like Driven, but this film delivers outstanding action. It never gets boring, such as its predecessor The Mummy. That film tended to drag and the mummy isn't shown until a quarter into the movie. But this film keeps the action moving and doesn't abandon its characters. Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz generate great chemistry and the screenplay develops them so well. I love the way they connect with their son, Alex. They care for him and play that convincingly, therefor, we care.

Some critics say the film is boring because it has TOO MUCH action. I disagree. That's what makes this film great, plus it has an interesting plot. The mummy is resurrected by the reincarnation of his former love, An-nack-su-namun, to battle the Scorpion King, whose 5000 years of slumber is about to end, in order to take control of his army, Anubis warriors. The main characters have to stop the mummy and kill the Scorpion King in order to send the army back to the sand from wence they came and also save their son who wears the Bracelet of Anubis which the mummy needs to guide him the Am Sheer, the resting place of the scorpion king.

I got that from the first viewing and I didn't know what this movie was about. With all its characters and complicated plot, one would think this movie would turn into a mess right before our very eyes, but it doesn't. The plot was rich enough to carry on for two and a half hours. This movie is way better than the first, even though some of the action scenes are dangerously similar to the ones seen in the first movie.

Driven (2001)

** out of ****

[5/10 · 24 April 2001]

I was expecting a lot from this movie, and got what seemed like an epic undeserving of epic status. The movie felt horrifically long and extremely boring as hell. The characters are annoying and completely unrealistic, the movie lacks any surprise or logic, and my interest was lost almost a quarter into the movie.

For one, I wanted the crashes the trailer showcases, but you have to sit and wait almost half-way into this character piece in order to see any, and when they happen, they seem phony thanks to these Playstation 2 graphics they call special effects. Only one crash made my draw drop, but it comes near the end, way too long to wait.

I like Renny Harlin and I like Sylvester Stallone, so I'm not entirely sure what went wrong, but the only thing I wanted to learn from this movie is how to edit so I can chop off 40 minutes. Not to mention that the ending was too happy, where everybody got along and were happy. Way too sappy for a "hard-core" movie like this.

Cast Away (2000)

** out of ****

[5/10 · 27 January 2001]

This movie was all hype. It's virtually plotless, leaving not a single surprise, which would have been the movie's only saving grace, and therefore, bored the hell out of me.

It doesn't help much if the movie's main, and for a good while "only", character is a complete bore. I didn't care about him at all and after a while, got sick and tired. The movie runs out of ideas before it even begins. Zemekis tried to do something new, I suppose, but wound up failing miserably to tell any sort of story. There's no interest whatsoever. A movie that should never have been made.

Dracula 2000 (2000)

**1/2 out of ****

[6/10 · 1 January 2001]

I was expecting alot from Dracula 2000, but was let down, tremendously. With such a title, you would expect to be shocked and amazed; the title promises alot. This film borrows SO MUCH from other vampire movies, there's almost nothing original in this film.

There are also alot of predictable moments and Dracula himself is such a boring character who appears to be trapped in the '80s. He doesn't have a single interesting or original line in the movie. My favorite, though, had to be, "YOu have no idea the depths of my vengeance," although i've heard it so many times. The writer didn't spend enough time on the characters at all. They seemed content on introducing as many characters as they could without thinking of the consequences.

Dracula 2000 promises alot, but delivers few.

Charlie's Angels (2000)

***1/2 out of ****

[8/10 · 5 November 2000]

This movie, surprisingly enough, is WAY more enjoyable than this year's earlier action film, Mission:Impossible 2. Although Charlie's Angels is unoriginal - mainly copying from Mission: Impossible and M:I 2 - it doesn't make the same mistake the latter film did: It's actually funny.

CA is actually fun to watch and the stunts are pretty spectacular, not to mention that the characters are actually interesting, unlike the characters in M:I 2. I hope this film does better. It deserves it.

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)

**1/2 out of ****

[1 November 2000]

In the end, I was surprised by this movie. Of course, BWP was scary as hell, although a bit vague in its approach. BW2 is even more so. In the end, it was a bit gratifying to learn the secret, but getting there was a pain.

The hallucinations are too much and very annoying at times. The plot is too simple and the execution and pacing is sloppy. My favorite character may have well been Kim, the goth chick. She's the most interesting to me and I actually cared what happened to her. Other than that, there's not much to like. The film is too vague and avoiding for its own good. It doesn't want to face the evil it created and just winds up going around it. SPOILER ALERT The film is just so predictable, and at times, too obvious. For example: the bridge that's the "only" way in or out. We all know, without having to see the trailer, that the bridge will collapse. And the dog alarm, the real dogs show up. The guy goes to get a gun, and presto, the dogs are gone. I knew they would be. This film breaks no new ground, and is not at all scary. Stick with the first.

Bedazzled (2000)

*** out of ****

[7/10 · 22 October 2000]

Hurley makes this movie work. She is excellent as the Devil. I found myself smiling every time she was naughty. It's extremely amusing. Other than that, I found the movie to be funny and self-aware, especially when it comes to Elliot (Fraser) making his wishes. He notices them going wrong and tries to avoid making the same mistake.

I also liked how the Devil turns out to be a good guy...uh, girl and doesn't intentionally turn his wishes into bad moves. I was, however, surprised to see the movie turn Hurley into a good guy. Striking move. I was quite surprised by the movie and its naughtiness and touching appeal. A three-dimensional comedy.

The Exorcist (1973)

**1/2 out of ****

[20 October 2000]

Am I the only one who sees that this film is empty? I'm 18, sure, but I know a good movie with a story when I see one, and this isn't one. Maybe it's because of the added scenes, but there are so many plotholes that I lost interest.

Of course, I wasn't one of the people laughing at everything like other teenagers (I saw many adults laughing more than the kids). The film lacks intelligible pacing and and continuity - at one point, Reagan is stabbing herself in her privates with a cross, later, she seems okay and cleaned up. She's in no pain?

And what exactly is possessing her? Is it the Devil or is it some crazy Latin priest? The movie makes absolutely no sense and I was ready to fall asleep. Some scenes were scary, but without a structured story and intelligible story, I got lost and bored pretty fast. By the way, what in the hell is that little dragon toy thing. I know it has something to do with the possession, but of course I don't know what it has to do with the possession. That's the problem.

Urban Legends: Final Cut (2000)

*** out of ****

[7/10 · 24 September 2000]

Many reviewers have failed to mention that this time, the killer does not seem to have a weapon of choice. He just uses whatever's around. I liked Urban Legends because John Ottman, the director, seems to take the material more seriously. For instance, the scene where the killer sneaks up behind the German-French whatever cinematographer, we're wondering how that's possible for the guy not to notice, but then Amy looks at a video tape and we see how. IT's brilliant.

Ottman and the screenwriters don't really expect us to believe what we've seen before, so they actually make most of these attacks believable and surprisingly unexpected. Of course, the only flaw in the film is the killer's identity. The motive was there, but I pretty much knew it was them from watching the trailer to the movie. Too bad I was right.

The good things about this film are definitely the performances. Jennifer Morrison is surprisingly likeable as Amy Mayfield and definitely a strong and interesting character. At the end, i was expecting a switcharoo with one of the characters' actual identity, but he turns out to be who he says he is. And the last scene in the movie is absolutely brilliant.

The script is above par, the performances are good, but the costume for the killer is off. I felt like the killer would be saying to his victims, "slow down, i can't breathe in this thing." It seems so restricting of movement, and the killer seems so detached from the movie considering he wasn't involved in the opening attack. And the deaths aren't too interesting either.

All in all, UL2 is just as fun as UL, but is actually more clever and has many more plot twists than its predecessor, and the heroine is actually stronger than Natalie Simon, the hero from the first. SHe was too winy, but not Amy. This is above average, and I may see it again.

Bless the Child (2000)

**1/2 out of ****

[6/10 · 30 August 2000]

I came extremely close to giving this movie 3 stars, but the ending ruined it. It's just too simple. The ending wasn't much deserved and I wish it had a more deserving and less predictable finish. Why does Hollywood think that killing one person - the villain - can make everything better? The good things about the movie are its characters and its story. I was expecting to absolutely hate this movie, but wound up liking it. It has bizarre and surprisingly creepy images, including some fantastic special effects. I also wasn't expecting such believable effects. It's a decent movie, but Kim Basinger's over-acting sometimes hurts the film.

Hollow Man (2000)

***1/2 out of ****. Spectacular movie-making

[4 August 2000]

I DEFINITELY enjoyed this movie. It's got not only the most spectacular special effects, but some dazzling action sequences. Verhoeven knows how to make movies. This movie was definitely scary and thrilling and I was honestly on the edge of my seat, surprisingly. Right up there with "Starship Troopers." I'm glad Mr. Verhoeven knows how to be risque without jeopardizing the film in whole.

X-Men (2000)

***1/2 out of ****

[2 August 2000]

Much better than that Mission: Impossible 2. This movie is definitely THE summer movie. It has a fantastic - not to mention "sterile" - look to it. It's fantastic on the eyes and really has a comic book feel to it. Also, the action is actually fun and exhilarating, and not just annoying and phony, hence M:I 2. A very clever movie where the dialogue isn't actually that annoying. I left the theater feeling GREAT. This is, by far, Brian Singer's best movie.

Nutty Professor II: The Klumps (2000)

*** out of ****

[28 July 2000]

Even though the title is annoying, I thought "The Klumps" was better than the first. Sure, its jokes are somewhat disgusting, but it's still surprisingly touching. The plot is interesting and you can't help but fall for the Klump family.

What Lies Beneath (2000)

*** out of ****

[7/10 · 22 July 2000]

I was actually surprised at how scary this movie turned out to be. The first half of the movie was a bit cliche and predictable, not to mention SLOW, but some of the scares were totally unexpected. I also liked Zemekis' style with the camera works, having the cameras moving through solid matter like doors and cars and floors.

The special effects in this movie, unlike "The Haunting", were used to tell the story in a way, and weren't the least bit distracting, but rather effective.

P.S. The "neighbor" was just too guilty.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

**1/2 out of ****

[24 May 2000]

When I first heard about this movie, I thought: "this movie is going to suck." Then I saw the preview and thought: "This shouldn't be too bad." Now I've seen it and... PREDICTABLE. I was predicting every single thing that was going to happen. I don't want to give anything away, but I'm pretty sure you'll guess it ten minutes before it happens.

The first M:I was smarter and didn't rely on shooting someone every five seconds. It was more of a "spy movie". This is a brainless action film that makes you forget about spies instantly. I was expecting more originality and a cut-down on the cliches since it took so long to make this movie. It seemed longer sitting through it.

Final Destination (2000)

*** out of ****

[7/10 · 18 March 2000]

It seems Mr. Wong's venture into film is off to a good start. "Final Destination" is a creepy, atmospheric, and surprisingly scary film. I actually felt sorry for the characters, even if they weren't developed enough, because their dilemma is engaging. I almost felt that any of the characters could die. The film made me think. Definitely much better than "Disturbing Behavior" and "Carrie 2".

Scream 3 (2000)

*** out of ****

[7/10 · 4 February 2000]

"Scream 3" leaves a bad aftertaste of a big-budgeted, dumbed-down version of "Scream". It flashes its money on the screen. I was surprised at how elaborate, and somewhat boring, this movie was. It definitely felt like it was written by somebody else.

I guess since this is the LAST, it decided to go all-out, doing things the other two films didn't want to even think about: Explosions, CG-effects, and the constant investigation of strange noises that occur every five minutes. The film doesn't take itself seriously enough and almost seemed like one big joke. Sidney wasn't a very focused character this time around, and I didn't get the whole emotional thing going.

But I liked it. Sidney's first encounter with the killer is both clever and exciting. It's probably the best sequence in the movie, but I grew tiresome of seeing the killer pop out when he wasn't welcomed by the characters or the audience for that matter. There are also annoying and unnecessary dream sequences Sidney has about her mother. The whole back-story was a nice touch and I loved learning the truth about EVERYTHING.

"Scream 3" may be the worst of the series, but it is still fun.

Supernova (I) (2000)

**1/2 out of ****

[16 January 2000]

"Supernova" is a big, loud, confused film. It's a shame that it wasn't as good as it could've been. Although the look of the film was truly colorful and the special-effects were pretty good, I couldn't figure out what the movie wanted to be about.

There were plenty of imcomprehensible fight sequences that were made incredibly annoying due to handheld cameras. Why did the film have to create ONE bad guy to be the embodiment of whatever evil encompasses the film. That's a cheap way out. The movie is just cheap, but it's not incredibly terrible.