Change Your Image
joekay
Reviews
The Office (2005)
It's funny but it also drives me nuts at times
Okay, so "The Office" is pretty hilarious, no doubt. But about every two or three episodes I want to punch through the TV screen to slug the character Michael Scott, the narcissistic and borderline mentally retarded boss. And that's one of the things that gets me to give it an 8 out of 10 instead of 9 or 10. The character is at times so extremely over the top, that it just makes the whole setup unbelievable. Who in their right mind would let a guy like that be a manager in any organization? Or perhaps it is actually reflective of real world corporate settings (in which I have never worked), and if that is the case I'm really scared about investing in the stock market. Steve Carrell basically ends up playing a guy whose actions only serve to advance the plot, and in and of the character himself he doesn't add much comedy otherwise.
Dreamgirls (2006)
Utterly Delightful!
The best way for me to explain this film is to draw an almost inevitable comparison to "Chicago"; both are big-screen adaptation of acclaimed Broadway musicals, both feature the luminous and dark dichotomy of show business, and both were written for screen by Bill Condon (who also directed "Dreamgirls"). While the strength of "Chicago" was its wit and clever songs, "Dreamgirls" hits you squarely in the chest with its unrelenting power and energy that is quite hard to match.
What I also found to be different was that while some musicals use music merely as a mode of communication with the audience (no doubt, some do this quite well), the music is actually the main character of "Dreamgirls." All of the characters are bound by their love of music, as each seek innovation, profit, and liberation of their soul through it. I think those who love music in the same way would not only find it entertaining, but also be held captivated by its power and the emotion that jumps out from each note.
Among the generally great acting performances all around, Jennifer Hudson gives a performance that is truly heart-pounding as well as heartbreaking. There is a stretch of about 12 minutes of music in the middle of the movie that has not only left me but the entire theater audience breathless, and we could not help but offer an earnest round of clapping at the end of the scene. And while I don't believe that an actor should win an acting award just for great singing, I think Hudson gave a performance in both singing and acting that I can't imagine she will ever be able to match through the rest of her career.
"Dreamgirls" is a delightful and wonderfully entertaining movie that restores faith in kindness, dignity and the power of music. I heartily give it a 10!
House M.D. (2004)
Showing the Art of Medicine
A cardiologist once told me that medicine is not science; rather, it's ART based on science. Having been in the field for a few years, I completely agree with that statement, and "House" is the best TV medical drama that shows the artful aspect of medicine. A skillfully crafted detective show mixed with ferocious sense of humor, the show features a team of expert physicians who investigate cases that "no one else can solve" in every episode. Surely you get your share of extremely rare and absurd diseases, but what I truly appreciate is how they end up diagnosing rather well-known and even common illnesses (herpes encephalitis, for example) that is obscured by bizarre characters and circumstances. Dr. Gregory House, the leader of the diagnostic medicine team and armed with intellectual brilliance and an obsessive personality, uses often unorthodox and irreverent approach to treatment (as evidenced by his favorite saying, "Everybody lies") that has a knack of piercing through to what is truly behind the diseases. It isn't the vast database of scientific knowledge that leads to saving the patients, but rather the unmatched artistry of investigative medicine that delivers. Fascinating in so many aspects, "House" is the best medical--and detective--show to come along in quite a while.
Batman Begins (2005)
Better in Every Aspect
"Batman Begins" is a story that is completely separate from the first four Batman movies--which, toward it's latest installments, nosedived into the abyss of Hollywood big budget folly. It not only provides the origin of Bruce Wayne's transformation into the legend of Batman, and it does so with such guarded care and attention that one can easily appreciate upon viewing.
But it is more than just a separate movie franchise, but an improved one in every aspect of film-making. Actors are better--Christian Bale is wonderful as both a billionaire "Prince of Gotham" and a crime fighter that strikes fear in the hearts of many. Throw in Michael Caine's rendition, a great performance, as Alfred and--oh why not--Morgan Freeman as a man akin to "Q" in the 007 franchise, and you've got quite an ensemble of polished performers.
It isn't just the acting itself that is a great improvement, but the construct of the characters themselves. Bruce Wayne, as it turns out, is a lot more complicated and vulnerable man than any of the other screen renditions would suggest. I've read some reviewers say that the movie lacks a great villain, perhaps longing for Jack Nicholson's "Joker", but I disagree. The villains in "Batman Begins" are not reduced to simple maniacal monsters nor cartoonish fools (nor Arnold Schwarzenegger--yikes!). Their motivations may be irrational and downright sociopathic, but one is at least presented with a reason for their criminal intent.
And perhaps that is the best part of this version of Batman films: the superb direction by Christopher Nolan. Rightly biding his time and making the full use of the 140 minutes of runtime, Nolan paces the "Batman Begins" with a superior understanding of how great cinemas engage the audience. We are not racking our brains just to catch up to the plot--a technique actually often employed by movie makers when they don't want us to realize the holes in the plot--and we're not bored to submission. The progress is just right, and when the action turns on, it drives us full force in a thrilling joyride.
Better acting, better script, better characters and better directing. Minus the absurd silliness of the last couple of Batman flicks, and you've got the best of the bunch, by far. I've always enjoyed Tim Burton's original work, but this is an improvement by leaps and bounds.
But then again, could you really do any worse than "Batman and Robin"?
Shi mian mai fu (2004)
I guess I don't get visual art....
"House of Flying Daggers" is a movie that's as pretty as its female lead, but that's just not enough for me to call it a great movie. The plot was fine (not much originality, however, and it did feel a bit overextended), the actors were good, but the fights were a bit lacking compared to the other recent Chinese imports, like "Crouching Tiger" and "Hero" (I did appreciate the director's choice not to overdose on wires as he did in "Hero", but I did miss some of it).
Whenever one of these movies come in, I naturally have to evaluate it against the aforementioned "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", which I rate 10 out of 10. The only thing "Daggers" has on its side in comparison is the presence of beautiful and wonderful scenery (and rapidly changing weather); everything else is just...nice. 7/10
Meet the Fockers (2004)
More characters, more fun
"Meet the Parents" was a movie that was pretty funny in both idiosyncratic and predictable ways: the series of blooper-reel situations can be pretty amusing, yet the resolution in the end is pretty predictable altogether.
"Meet the Fockers" is not so much different, except we now have even more quirky characters that are not just playing one-dimensional villain types. It doesn't have as many outrageous situations, but nevertheless I was constantly engaged in seeing what happens to the characters throughout the entire movie (not a usual feat in cinema nowadays). In fact, it was pretty interesting to delve deeper into each personality, all without having to sit through constant humiliation that was laid upon Greg Focker as in the former flick. The sequel is a slight upgrade to the original, and overall a nice silly fun with good laughs.
Ocean's Twelve (2004)
Twelve is definitely NOT the new Eleven
First of all, let me make it clear that I really liked Ocean's Eleven. I liked the cleverness of the script, most of the characters involved (even Julia Roberts), and the crafty workmanship of the movie that left me with "aha" and "wow" at the end.
So having said that, I really didn't like Ocean's Twelve at all. I got tired about half an hour into it, and I would have fallen asleep had I been sitting on my couch instead of a theater seat in the last 30 minutes. The plot was way too convoluted and unfocused that even after all of the explanation (quite a lengthy one at that), I was still confused. When later I thought about it more and got around to understanding it, I couldn't help but question why certain things had to be done in a certain way, and no answer I could come up with was good. That's when I became angry for paying $8 to watch the damn movie.
Some movies you can predict the twist in the middle of it and still enjoy (as many movies do this). Some movies you have no idea what's going on, and still have no clue far afterwards but nevertheless enjoy (see Mulhallond Drive). This is a movie that does none of that, and in the end I really didn't care whether Ocean's Twelve became Ocean's Zero (and remember, I like these characters). And what I couldn't stand throughout the movie is the smugness that saturates the writing and direction, as if the cast was constantly reminding itself and letting the audience know that they are cool. It's like hearing an inside joke that you have no idea what it means, and then when you are let in on it, it's not really funny at all.
Closer (2004)
And so it is...
Those four words that begins the title song of Closer ("And so it is") just about sum up the movie. Characters are finicky, agitating, agitated and each so flawed in his or her own way, and most conflicts end with abrupt, cut-and-dry decisions that still leaves everyone, including the decision maker, in curious confusion. As the players fall in and out of love (whatever "love" means, they themselves don't seem to know), we are able to sympathize and criticize at the same time. And it is all together acted out brilliantly, with what is by far the best ensemble performance of the year. Natalie Portman's Alice is the character of most intrigue, going from a full range of being lovable and detestable. The movie feels more like a play (as it was adapted from a stage production), and that has its definite merits. Closer doesn't pretend to provide the most realistic portrayal of love and betrayal, but rather a case-study of certain defined characters in their pain drudgery through sexual avarice.
Finding Neverland (2004)
Good movie, convincing performances, not much beyond that...
Frankly I don't agree with all the critical buzz with the film. It is well written, well acted movie that's good, but I didn't sense so much feel of a GREAT movie. I guess one thing we can admire is the versatility of Johnny Depp in his various roles, from playing a farcical pirate captain to a reserved playwright with a subtle sense of humor. It's becoming more and more convincing that Depp will go down in the future as one of Hollywood's most treasured performers, but it is not so with Finding Neverland. It's a good, solid movie all around, but I just can't be convinced it belongs at the top echelon of movies I've seen this year.
The Incredibles (2004)
Clearly among the best movies this year
Creative geniuses at Pixar must have nightmares year after year, trying to find ways to trump their own work that are not only box office smashes but also the darlings of critics' circles. So after their enormous success in Finding Nemo (which I personally didn't think outdid its predecessors but most others seemed to think so), they come out with The Incredibles, a grand masterpiece of a movie from start to finish. It is a perfect complement to the wave of superhero movies we have coming out in the last few years, validating the goodness of the virtuous heroes and also poking fun at them (the whole bit about the costumes and what could go wrong with them was absolutely hilarious). It is one of the best of the year and clearly the best animated movie of the year.
A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)
Carrey does a wonderful job
While I have never been a fan of Jim Carrey doing over-the-top silly characters on the big screen, that type of performance was what was asked of Count Olaf, and Carrey delivered it masterfully. He was convincing as to be eccentric and humorous while being deceitful and evil at the same time.
As for the rest of the performers, the kids (even the chomping baby) were quite good in their roles, portraying the stark contrast to the ridiculously and sadly inept adults who seem to be blind to common sense. What was disappointing, though, was the overall scale of the movie; in the end, I was left with that sour feeling of "That's it? That's all there is?", which is also a subtle tribute to how interesting the movie was. Well, it was good while it lasted.
Spanglish (2004)
Two hour movie that's one hour too long
Spanglish starts off in a charming James L. Brooks type of way, with funny moments both conspicuous and subtle. But about half way through the flick, the focus starts being lost and suffers from the syndrome of too many characters having too many problems, even compared to earlier Brooks movies such as As Good As It Gets (which I loved). Certain characters, like that of Leoni and her mother, are much too polarized to even resemble sane people, a critical weak point that does not ever allow the audience to sympathize with them, especially the "monster" mom. This isn't just a subpar Brooks work, it's a subpar movie in general.
Before Sunset (2004)
Trumps its predecessor
Before Sunset outdoes its predecessor, Before Sunrise (a good film in its own right), because we are faced with the same characters in a more dramatic setting in their lives. The idealized and rather immature notion of romance is gone, but parts of it is sought after by both Celine and Jesse, who face the all-too-familiar stage of loneliness and boredom in the mundane aspects of their days. Powerful and heartbreaking, their conversations reach so much deeper than simply a declaration of love, but also encompasses confession and understanding of pain and loss. It is a great movie through and through, right from the beginning to the end (especially the magnificent ending). If you haven't seen Before Sunrise yet, I recommend seeing it before you see this one.
joe k.
Mean Girls (2004)
Lindsay Lohan and writing make it happen
"Mean Girls" isn't a spectacular film, but there are enough good qualities that make it a rather pleasing film for its entirety; something that so many teen movies fail to accomplish ("10 Things I Hate About You" being a prime example). Those positive qualities can be boiled down to two things: good writing and the star performance of Lindsay Lohan.
Tina Fey's writing can be brutally mean and funny at the same time, as displayed weekly in her "Saturday Night Live" fake news segment. That same bite shows itself in the screenplay, which isn't drenched in a messy goo of teen flick cliches that make watching (or just listening to) them an unbearable experience. It has a right amount of balance between being a teen flick, parodying a teen flick, and transcending a teen flick. It doesn't go for ignorant cheap laughs and blunt attacks on the genre like "Not Another Teen Movie," nor does it try to be a teen movie version of a higher-level work like "Cruel Intentions." It pleases the palates of a diverse audience, and it accomplishes it quite nicely.
Then there's Lohan, a star in the making. She was completely believable as the character that the movie portrayed her to be; she pulled off being a sweetheart and a mean girl, and did so beautifully. She has a real charm to her that make you care for what happens to Cady Heron (her character), something many actresses can't quite pull off in the teen genre. Maybe it's because she's relatively a fresh face, but the potential is obvious. I haven't seen a teen actress that can make you care about her more since Natalie Portman.
"Mean Girls" is a film predicated on its well-balanced writing and performances. It juggles slapstick and subtle humor, dramatics and comedics, and lightheartedness and significant learning in a wonderful way. Throw in Lohan and quite good performances from the supporting cast (especially from "The Plastics"), and you got the best teen film that's come out in the last few years. 8/10
Highlander (1986)
Great premise, bad execution
"Highlander" has a premise that holds a great potential. The battle of the immortals, the "Prize" they fight for, and nice catch phrase to boot -- "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!"
Unfortunately the movie turns into a goofy work after the first hour or so, almost a parody of its own story. It is as if the second hour deconstructs the mystery and fantasy of the first hour with some forgettable fighting scenes and infusion of conventionality with labelling a character as the absolute evil to be defeated -- Wouldn't it be much more interesting if none of them were really "bad" but still have to eventually kill one another?
But the least forgivable were the truly absurd sequences that kept jumping out, straight out of the left field. Like the flashback to the colonial days when MacLeod is a drunken participant in a duel, and of course, he can't be killed by being shot. That was supposed to be a funny one-minute bit, I guess, but I wasn't laughing. Instead, I kept asking myself why things like this were necessary and, quite bluntly, "What the hell was THAT?"
The answer to both turned out to be an apathetic shrug and the conclusion that this was a movie that started out great and then turned into a goofy mess. I give it 5/10.
joe k.
The American President (1995)
American Presidency 101
"The American President" can stand alone for its cinematic charms, with sharp script and strong performances, and also for its ability to connect to a typical moviegoer. This is one movie I can remember that really brings the daily goings-on in the White House seem like daily grind rather than grand drama where huge decisions are made and enormous events occur all the time--granted whatever is decided and happens in the White House is indeed huge and enormous, but the film doesn't inflate it to some elitist/exclusive point of view.
And while the movie can be enjoyed purely for its cinematic value, what I do appreciate about this film is that it does make good, valid points about American politics and the presidency of the United States. President Andrew Sheppard (played by Michael Douglas) engages in several conversations and even arguments about what it means to be in his position and how that affects the way he serves his constituents, the American public. His last speech rings true; besides his views that favor obviously to the left of the political spectrum, he makes honest comments about how politicians win elections and how that affects their ability to do their job.
I consider this movie to be a basic cinematic course in understanding the American Presidency and political elements that invariably surround it. It may come off as a left-wing, liberally biased film, but it makes no confusion about the fact that whether they are Democrats or Republicans, politicians have their flaws and unscrupulous methods of keeping their position of power, including the President himself. It is one of my favorite movies, and I give it a 10/10.
joe k.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
A Perfect Ten
About half an hour removed from seeing "Return of the King" movie for the first time, I am quite convinced of it being "a ten," but also of its place in cinematic history: one of the greatest adventure film of all time, right up there with Empire Strikes Back, which I often declare as my favorite movie of all time.
It is a wonderful adaptation of Tolkien's tale: all three were pretty good at this, but "Return of the King" stands out. Battles are more spectacular, tensions are going through the roof, and even acting performances were quite sublime; it's a quality not many look for or expect out of fantasy action films, but one that highly improves them nevertheless.
The movie hits at all levels: action, suspense, mystery, joy and sadness among many emotions that it resonates. We laugh and (some of us) cry with the characters. We love the good and disparage the evil. The battles not only entertain us but also enhance these human elements of the tale, and that is something that's done quite rarely.
Three and a half hours flew by, and I was left quite mesmerized. And then wanting to see the deleted scenes that will eventually be added to the upcoming extended version. But first of all, I will go and see it again on big screen.
The Big Hit (1998)
More befitting title would add the letter "S" somewhere in there...
This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Ranks right up there with "Spawn" and "Lost World: Jurassic Park 2". How is it possible to like a movie that not only has utterly unoriginal plot line and predictable characters, but also simply obnoxious people playing them? I wanted to slap every single one of them after watching this movie, and then punish myself for watching it in the first place. You know, I've forgotten about this crap because I saw it when it first came out, but the memory of my brain shouting at me for the 90-minute torture still lingers on.
joe k.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
It's not just romance that's bad in this film
First of all, it's not entirely because of the lovey-dovey stuff that I do not like this movie. Nevermind the fact that Portman and Christensen have as much chemistry as Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaghey in "Contact": pretty much non-existent. The literally laughable scenes of "romance," which is defined as "cheesy sappy one-liners exchanged at an utterly inopportunate timing" in "George Lucas' Dictionary of Directing," is not the main reason for this movie being particularly bad, but it did make it particularly awful. Think of it as the proverbial "cherry on top" -- not on top of a metaphorical heap of ice cream in this case, but more like a metaphorical heap of cinematic manure. I just thought it was boring. BOOOOORING.... Not exciting, unless you measure how exciting a film is according to how much visual effects your eyes are assaulted with. At some point in time, George Lucas that was directing films died and was replaced by one who directs special effects. The rest of the movie feels like it was totally abandoned by the director (and the actors as well at times). A ten year old can write a script with more clever and exciting lines. Sam Jackson jumps into battle and utters: "This party's over!" Riiiiight.... Christensen mumbles through his confession of love, crying and bitching about "the kiss you should never have given" and exclamating, "I'm in agony!" Well, SO ARE WE! Portman confesses her love later on with her "truly, madly, deeply" crud. Haven't seen a more awkward couple since Freddie Prinze Jr. and Julia Stiles in "Down To You." So in neglecting everything that is not related to CG action scenes (and I hope it was neglect, because if that was truly the product of Lucas direction, then he has officially lost his cinematic mojo), Lucas has sacrificed the entire movie. Since the rest of the movie was incredibly insipid, that meant that the battles had to save the film. Sad to report, that did not happen. What a boring movie. Even the usually decent storytelling wasn't there. Lucas seems to have lost it. I think it's a combination of not having directed anything for nearly two decades before Episode I and the utter arrogance that he has come to possess over the years while he was making gazillion dollars off of the first trilogy. I was actually glad to be assured that Episode II will not be the highest grossing movie this year. Lucas needs some spanking from some movie-goers with decent taste. This is worse that Episode I -- there, I said it! And I've said this after I saw Episode I and I'll say it again: I wish this movie was never made. If I ever run into Mr Lucas, I know what to say: "Those movies that you should never have made...they haunt me in my dreams. I'm in agony!"
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Ingenious
The first Matrix movie was, in a lot of sense, pretty conventional. I know it spurred much-imitated style and effects that are not only implemented in other movies that followed but also parodied in comedies. But consider the other elements: premise isn't so revolutionary (as Roger Ebert points out in his 1999 review, the concept is very similar to that of Dark City and Strange Days), storyline follows the quest-of-the-Christ-figure archetype that's been around throughout history, and the climax comes down to the conventional bout between the hero and his nemesis. Fun, but ordinary nevertheless. The Matrix Reloaded takes leaps and bounds in its ingenuity. Action is fiercer and more entertaining (from the thrills of the freeway chase to the sheer fun of watching Neo beat up on 200 copies of Agent Smith with a steel pole), plot thickens in truly revolutionary ways that leaves you both enlightened and dumbfounded, and the climax of the movie isn't some tired old fight sequence but a philosophical discussion and discovery of what the One truly is (or is it really true?). In the end, the movie leaves more questions than it answers, and that is precisely what the part two of a trilogy is supposed to do. It hits at all facets and levels, and turns the Matrix triology, which seemed to be a more or less conventional trilogy, into a truly novel story of a scale grander than you could have imagined after seeing on the first Matrix. This is the best "part two" flick in a trilogy since Empire Strikes Back.
The Patriot (2000)
One of the WORST films EVER
This goes right down to the cellar along with "Jurassic Park: The Lost World", "Armageddon", and "AI: Artificial Intelligence". I'm not even going into the historical inaccuracies, bias, etc.; I'll leave that up to historians and those who think they qualify. This is just a BAD movie. BAD BAD BAD BAD!
It's a horrendous mixture of unnecessary and ineffective violence (e.g. a soldier getting decapitated by a cannon ball), totally predictable and overdone plot (e.g. a man who tries to leave behind his warlike past is reluctantly brought back to the battlefield; never heard that one before), and worst of all, a gross insult to average moviegoer's intelligence.
It's as if Mel Gibson tried to make another "Braveheart" but let Jerry Bruckheimer and his band of cheesy overdramatic film makers add stuff to it. I mean, that scene where the main female character (I do not apologize for forgetting her name, since it hardly mattered what her name was or even WHO she was in the movie anyway) gives that lousy, cheesy speech in a townhall assembly is simply awful. It ranks right up there with a similar speech on a Chicago L train in "On the Line" with Joey Fatone and Lance Bass of N*Sync (another bad movie).
And to those who get some kind of patriotic high by watching this film: before you go shoot a British guy, watch the movie again, and please realize how awful it is. There are better movies out there that will give you that patriotic feelin'.
joe k.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Ingenious
The first Matrix movie was, in a lot of sense, pretty conventional. I know it spurred much-imitated style and effects that are not only implemented in other movies that followed but also parodied in comedies. But consider the other elements: premise isn't so revolutionary (as Roger Ebert points out in his 1999 review, the concept is very similar to that of Dark City and Strange Days), storyline follows the quest-of-the-Christ-figure archetype that's been around throughout history, and the climax comes down to the conventional bout between the hero and his nemesis. Fun, but ordinary nevertheless. The Matrix Reloaded takes leaps and bounds in its ingenuity. Action is fiercer and more entertaining (from the thrills of the freeway chase to the sheer fun of watching Neo beat up on 200 copies of Agent Smith with a steel pole), plot thickens in truly revolutionary ways that leaves you both enlightened and dumbfounded, and the climax of the movie isn't some tired old fight sequence but a philosophical discussion and discovery of what the One truly is (or is it really true?). In the end, the movie leaves more questions than it answers, and that is precisely what the part two of a trilogy is supposed to do. It hits at all facets and levels, and turns the Matrix triology, which seemed to be a more or less conventional trilogy, into a truly novel story of a scale grander than you could have imagined after seeing on the first Matrix. This is the best "part two" flick in a trilogy since Empire Strikes Back.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
It's not just romance that's bad in this film
First of all, it's not entirely because of the lovey-dovey stuff that I do not like this movie. Nevermind the fact that Portman and Christensen have as much chemistry as Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaghey in "Contact": pretty much non-existent. The literally laughable scenes of "romance," which is defined as "cheesy sappy one-liners exchanged at an utterly inopportunate timing" in "George Lucas' Dictionary of Directing," is not the main reason for this movie being particularly bad, but it did make it particularly awful. Think of it as the proverbial "cherry on top" -- not on top of a metaphorical heap of ice cream in this case, but more like a metaphorical heap of cinematic manure. I just thought it was boring. BOOOOORING.... Not exciting, unless you measure how exciting a film is according to how much visual effects your eyes are assaulted with. At some point in time, George Lucas that was directing films died and was replaced by one who directs special effects. The rest of the movie feels like it was totally abandoned by the director (and the actors as well at times). A ten year old can write a script with more clever and exciting lines. Sam Jackson jumps into battle and utters: "This party's over!" Riiiiight.... Christensen mumbles through his confession of love, crying and bitching about "the kiss you should never have given" and exclamating, "I'm in agony!" Well, SO ARE WE! Portman confesses her love later on with her "truly, madly, deeply" crud. Haven't seen a more awkward couple since Freddie Prinze Jr. and Julia Stiles in "Down To You." So in neglecting everything that is not related to CG action scenes (and I hope it was neglect, because if that was truly the product of Lucas direction, then he has officially lost his cinematic mojo), Lucas has sacrificed the entire movie. Since the rest of the movie was incredibly insipid, that meant that the battles had to save the film. Sad to report, that did not happen. What a boring movie. Even the usually decent storytelling wasn't there. Lucas seems to have lost it. I think it's a combination of not having directed anything for nearly two decades before Episode I and the utter arrogance that he has come to possess over the years while he was making gazillion dollars off of the first trilogy. I was actually glad to be assured that Episode II will not be the highest grossing movie this year. Lucas needs some spanking from some movie-goers with decent taste. This is worse that Episode I -- there, I said it! And I've said this after I saw Episode I and I'll say it again: I wish this movie was never made. If I ever run into Mr Lucas, I know what to say: "Those movies that you should never have made...they haunt me in my dreams. I'm in agony!"
Armageddon (1998)
Oh please...
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It has every bit of cheesiness, including the infamous "animal cracker scene," shots of little kids running across the field at sunset (I guess that's who those people are risking their lives for, yes), the father-daughter touchy-feely crud, and just an awful depiction of patriotism much like Mel Gibson's The Patriot, another awful movie. The worst thing about the movie is that it managed to make every character extremely annoying and obnoxious, maybe with the exception of Willis and Tyler. If everyone except Willis died on the mission, I would've been happy; unfortunately, it worked in the opposite way.
And one more thing: I couldn't keep a straight face throughout the movie (a mixture of disbelieving laughter and frowns) since they started talking about drilling a hole into the asteroid. Right. Then just watching them actually do the drilling, in space, on an asteroid traveling really fast towards the earth is a priceless bit of comedy; unfortunately, the movie was not meant to be a comedy. The idea is as absurd as Silvester Stallone playing an arm wrestling big rig driver.
I really hate this movie. On a scale of one to ten, I give it a zero. And to my friends who dragged me to see this movie (and actually liked it), I'll get you for that some day. Maybe I'll force them to watch the Stallone arm wrestling movie.
Over the Top (1987)
Smashing good time -- making fun of it
"Over the Top" is one movie that can brighten up my friends' and my day after a tough day. It is a hilariously stupid movie filled with awkward character interactions and a script that could stink up the perfume shops in Nordstrom's (well, they smell bad enough anyway to me). We actually rent the movie and just make fun of it all the way to the ending credits, when the sheer cheese is capped by its own theme song, for goodness' sake! (It's titled "Over the Top." Surprise surprise.) Watching Sly groan and moan during his arm wrestling matches always brings smile to my face (well, it's a sneer, rather). The kid is the most annoying element of the movie. Oh yeah, and don't forget all of the supporting cast, including the REAL arm wrestling champion trucker guy (the bald guy who happened to be the best actor in the movie after all). You can't comprehend half of what Stallone says at first viewing, and one of the most hilarious part was when he was ranting and raving to a couple of goons driving away after an unsuccessful kidnapping attempt of Sly's son at a truck stop -- you just have to see it to understand what I'm saying here. Well, I guess that's just about everything I can say about this movie. It was a totally unimaginably dumb movie based on custody battle and arm wrestling (proved to be a deadly combination), and as long as you like making fun of movies and have a sense of humor, then go out and rent this movie! But please, do so with caution.