Change Your Image
Dantès
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Juyuso seubgyuksageun (1999)
Brainless, charmless, pointless
I've been on the IMDb since 2001 and have written very few reviews, but this movie was so bad that I feel compelled to warn everyone I can. I can honestly say that this movie has no redeeming features and is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
You've already seen the plot outline, but it doesn't give tell you enough.
You've got 4 thugs who rob a gas station, then decide to stay and work there all night, presumably to make some money. Of course, given their violent carefree tendencies, they would logically just go rob some other business. Instead, they stay and willingly work a crappy service sector job that most people don't want.
Their staying there is mostly a vehicle to provide encounters with obnoxious customers, à la Clerks, but any comedic value in these is squandered.
The biggest flaw would be the characters. The protagonists are just violent and obnoxious thugs with no charisma whatsoever. The growing group of hostages consists of one-dimensional whimpering crybabies, which wears thin very fast. There isn't a single likable person among the whole cast.
After 45 minutes of pointless slapstick with nary a funny occurrence, the film takes a wild stab at character development, showing why these thugs are the way they are. But it's all very shallow and perfunctory.
The technical aspects of the film are also severely wanting. The camera-work is rough and jarring, the editing is mess and the lighting (or lack of it) is a disaster.
The "comedy" is repetitive and unfunny, the cast is totally unlikeable and the whole movie is an aimless mess. I watched the whole thing in hopes that it would improve. It doesn't. In the end, it's just a lame and boring disaster. There are many good Korean films. Go rent a different one.
S21, la machine de mort khmère rouge (2003)
Could have been so much more
This film had so much potential, but just didn't get it done.
The first, really glaring problem is the opening that has a very incomplete and poorly-explained history of how the Khmer Rouge came to power. I found it confusing, and I know the history. They make the mistake of assuming people already know what happened there.
S21 has such a horrifying history, a place where humanity reached its nadir, but the film really just scratches the surface.
One angle that goes almost completely unexplored is the loss/lack of humanity on both sides. The destruction of the prisoners is well-covered, but the guards are given a mostly one-dimensional role, and their own situation is barely considered, aside from overly long reenactments of how they would conduct themselves toward the prisoners.
Vann Nath, one of the few survivors of S21, talks to the guards who are pretty close-mouthed and unwilling/unable to defend themselves. One should remember that they were largely 12 or 13 year-olds, selected at that age because they could be easily manipulated and indoctrinated, or they did what they did because they feared for their own lives. Seeing a survivor talk to the guards is very interesting, but they also needed someone neutral, as Vann has no patience for their explanations. Vann laments the loss of humanity of the prisoners, but does not consider that it existed on both sides.
Many of the things the guards did would be so anathema to human nature, be so morally repugnant, that I don't think (or like to believe) that most people would do them unless they fear for their lives, or could not really grasp what they were doing.
Granted, many Khmer Rouge knew exactly what was going on, and they condoned torture and murder. If one ever goes to S21 and sees the mug shots on the wall, with men, women, children, even infants looking back at you with heartbreaking fear and hopelessness, you cannot help but hate those who killed them. But, if this film also looked at those who did it and why, it would have been much more effective.
On the whole, it's a very disappointing experience. There's so much to talk about, and more horror than you can really wrap your mind around, but the film doesn't help you appreciate this.
Four Rooms (1995)
Typical self-aggrandizing Tarantino
As though Mr. Bean wasn't tiresome enough, this film puts Tim Roth into a role with the same sort of inane physical comedy, and it is painful to watch. All his foppish affectations are utterly unfunny, but at least it helps keep the movie consistent.
The only bright spot is the third segment, directed by Robert Rodriguez, so if you stay awake that long, check it out. Antonio Banderas is surprisingly good, and the whole segment has a great way of piling on the complications to create a chaotic ending.
The fourth segment will make you puke, watching Tarantino thinking he can act. the worst thing about that is that he's also the director, so he gives himself plenty of screen time. Notice during his monologue to Tim Roth, the camera never once leaves his face! Obviously, he's got rather a high opinion of his execrable acting abilities. Lucky for him he's a director, otherwise he'd never appear on film. Oh, how I wish it were so.
Then there's the plot. Stolen from a Hitchcock story which was stolen from a Roald Dahl story. They do acknowledge the Hitchcock thing, but it's merely a not-so-clever ploy to try and disguise the fact that he didn't even come up with a story, but used some previously reheated leftovers from 30 years ago. There are no twists whatsoever on the Hitchcock theme that Tarantino describes. So, bad enough you have to endure his "acting," but you don't even get a good tale out of it.
So all in all, a terrible film. Fast forward to the third story, and you can safely skip the rest.
Murder on the Orient Express (1974)
Too bad no one killed Albert Finney
I found this movie very painful to watch, and had to do so in small increments. Good thing it wasn't in the theatre, or I would've had to leave. Well, may be that wouldn't have been so bad.
Albert Finney turns in one of the most execrable screen performances that it's ever been my misfortune to see. His accent is ludicrous and every second he's onscreen speaking seems like an hour.
I haven't read the book, so it may not be the movie's fault, but the "clues" are so pathetically tenuous as to make the whole case hang by a thread. The discovery of the victim's real identity is based on such circumstancial evidence that it's laughable they even take it seriously.
It also has the distinction of arguably the worst cop-out ending ever, so expect to be dissatisfied. Of course, given the whole movie up to that point, you probably won't have high expectations anyway.
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
I guess the Razzie winners and Oscar winners got mixed up
WHAT WAS THIS FILM EVEN DOING AT THE Oscars?!?
If ever there was a film that didn't deserve any accolades, this is it. Possibly the most trite, predictable script to come out of the Hollywood cookie-cutter this year, and Hollywood once again displays its vapidity and lauds it. Ridiculous.
Maybe even worse than the Best Picture travesty, was the Best Actress Oscar for Gwyneth Paltrow. I didn't think that the criteria for Best Actress was smiling demurely and showing off your breasts a lot. Sadly enough, that's what it appears to have become. Cate Blanchett deserved the Oscar so much more, as least to anyone to half a brain. However, you don't see her chest in the movie, so no Oscar. Disgusting.
Tom Stoppard must have had a serious off day when he wrote this. I can't believe this is the same guy who wrote "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead". I only hope that it was a joke, or maybe he lost a bet. Depressing.
Worst movie of the year? Maybe not, but definitely a contender, and by far the most overrated movie of the decade.
Chasing Amy (1997)
Same old, same old, except worse.
Logic, Smith-style (which is to say totally illogical and idiotic)
Well, let's see... my best friend is someone I've known for nineteen years, so it appears that I'm way overdue to have a homosexual relationship with him. Is Kevin Smith naive, ignorant, or just plain stupid? Probably all three, but more of the latter. I'm not homosexual, which is okay by me, because if I was, I would probably be in jail for beating up Kevin Smith. His treatment of the mentality of homosexuality is so ignorant and basic, it almost seems malicious. Perhaps he has something against homosexuals, which is why he has decided to make them appear so simple and confused. However, I ascribe to Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
Once again, Smith has patronized us all with another trite script that sounds laboriously rehearsed, and the only different thing is ignorant topicality. And trust me, it ain't enough to make it worth seeing.
The Matrix (1999)
How many movies can we cram into one?
At several points during the film, I found myself thinking, "hey, this isn't so bad", but then I realized that I was getting suckered by the special effects and martial arts scenes.
This movie is pretty average, with potential to be great, had it not ripped off of every other sci-fi movie there is. It's a great way to entertain yourself, trying to find all the other movies within the movie. For example, the idea of human resistance to the machines? Thank you 'Terminator'. There are also shades of Star Wars, Fire in the Sky, Dark City, Hackers... The list goes on and on.
Keanu Reeves gives a typically wooden performance, but it's really just an action movie, so it's excusable. Laurence Fishburne excels in a sadly cliched role as Morpheus, who is essentially Yoda on Pentium.
Basically, it's a matter of how you choose to take it. If it's just gratuitous special effects, and comic book-like plotlines, then it's very well done. However, in terms of originality, there is something sorely lacking. This is not a cerebral flick, so don't analyze too much or you'll hate it.
The Doom Generation (1995)
Sex. Mayhem. Boredom. Pathetic rebellion.
This is one of the most monumentally pointless movies I've ever seen. Many have said that this is a dark look at youth, or that it is a daring indie film, and similar diagnoses. However, it's really just a movie for all the Beavis and Butthead fans out there, for whom plenty of sex and a bit of gunplay makes a film.
The utter trashiness of this movie is found in the whole 666 gag. Whenever the protagonists purchase something at a store, the bill totals $6.66. That basically sums up this movie's ambition to be daring and rebellious, but exposes how pathetic these attempts are.
Everyone who has branded this movie as dark and daring probably just read the tagline.
Maybe that's what makes this movie so 'daring.' I suppose that, in a way, making a pathetically bad film is daring, especially when you put your name on it.
Simply put, watching this movie is a painful experience. Hopefully it will claim it's rightful place on the bottom 100 before long. However, maybe that's too good for it.
Broken Arrow (1996)
Phenomenally bad
I imagine that Travolta really stole three nuclear bombs and used one to blow some enormous holes in the plot. This is possibly the most ludicrous, badly written, unbelievable and totally predictable piece of crap that is currently masquerading as a movie. As soon as you hear "You're going on a test run with two live nuclear weapons", you can turn it off. It usually irks me when people can't suspend their disbelief for a movie, but there are limits. Of course, they never explain why the pilots are going on a routine test flight with two nukes, as that would require some scriptwriting ability , and it is clear that that was more conspicuously missing than the two nukes were.
Good Will Hunting (1997)
Over-hyped Banal Trash
What is it about this movie that people like so much? It is just a two-hour cliche, and a stiflingly boring one at that. It is essentially just a badly done and more obnoxious version of Little Man Tate or Searching for Bobby Fischer. However, the thoroughly average Matt Damon takes the part of the astounding misunderstood genius to a new level. Why? Because, get this: he's... older! Wow! What a twist! That makes it totally different!
The only bright spot of this movie is Robin Williams who was cast in the sadly stagnant role of the person who just wants to help our little genius, just as Jodie Foster did in Little Man Tate, or Laurence Fishburne in Searching for Bobby Fischer. Then, we have Stellan Skarsgard in the role that Dianne Wiest and Ben Kinglsey played in the aforementioned films: the academic who is vilified for their attempts to help the genius realize his squandered potential.
The only difference that this movie has from the other two I've mentioned is that the misunderstood genius is more independent and gives the establishment a lot of grief. Yeah, Will! Damn the man! Steal an idea! Take Little Man Tate, make him 10 years older and pretend it's a whole new movie!
Number 28 in the top 250? What is the world coming to?