Change Your Image
gomi2
Reviews
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)
144 Minutes of Robots Flipping and Jumping While LaBeouf Screams the Names of the Characters
This movie is so bad that I finished it as a challenge to my patience and to see how many times I would blurt expletives while doing so. I really wish that were a joke.
I'm not going to point out the plot holes, or tell you about how disappointed I am with the excellent supporting talent who should be ashamed for signing on to this movie, or make fun of Rose Huntintwatley orwhateverhernameis for looking like she has a bad Botox job and the fact that she can't act. To tell you everything that is wrong with this movie would be like writing a novel.
Just rest assured that this is yet more mindless drivel from Michael Bay and his cronies. If you liked either of the first 2 live action Bayformers movies, or if you liked Armageddon, or Avatar, or 300, or Sin City, or The Dark Knight, or any other number of appallingly bad movies that make stupid people think they're watching something interesting, fun, or original... then you'll LOVE this movie... but I pray you are never put in charge of children in your life.
You might say, "Well, what do you expect from a film based on children's toys?" My response to that question? SHUT YOUR STUPID FACE! I could say the same thing about Toy Story (based on talking toys), or Lord of the Rings (based on a fantasy novel), or The Road to Perdition (based on a comic book). People need to stop making excuses for bad movies like this, because the truth is, you can have a a movie based on toys and still have deep and likable characters (Toy Story), you can have a mind-blowing CGI experience and still have palpable human Drama (LotR trilogy), and you can have your guns and violence and still have a compelling story worthy of hearing (Road to Perdition).
When people pay their heard earned money to see this kind of garbage that insults your intelligence, caters to the lowest common denominator, and does nothing to stimulate thought, people like Bay will keep producing garbage. Don't be afraid to discriminate with what movies you spend your hard-earned money on. Don't rate something above average and the say "it was pretty good." Demand more for your time and money, and you'll get more, but only if people stop allowing crap like this to set the standard!
300 (2006)
When you lack substance, drama, good acting, and historical accuracy, rely on copious amounts of style.
I realize that grading this movie poorly will net my review a "not useful" rating by its' fans. It's sad that this will happen.
In 480 BCE, King Xerxes marched his massive Persian army through Asia Minor and into Europe. His highly mobile, wealthy, battle hardened force was a threat to all of Europe. In an effort to stave the Persian war machine long enough to rally full military support, King Leonidas took 300 of Sparta's finest warriors and several hundred other Greek soldiers, on a mission to defend the only viable pass through which King Xerxes' forces could adequately launch an attack on the Greek empire. While the Spartans were completely wiped out save for one messenger, their efforts were not in vain, as despite the overwhelming odds they managed to hold back the Persians for several days allowing precious time for their Greeks to properly strategize and mobilize. The result of their sacrifice allowed the Greeks to win a key naval victory, which pushed the Persian army back into Asia Minor and subsequently ended the Greco-Persian War. The most fascinating aspect of this story being that it actually happened. It is a tale of heroism and resolve to be handed down for as many more generations as it has been told, but the basics points of this inspiring story are all that this movie manages to capture. As is to be expected, especially since this screenplay was inspired by a comic that took many liberties in its re-telling of the story, the cultural and historical inaccuracies were abundant, but I won't bore you with a history lesson.
300 starts with the telling of King Leonidas' youth, his rite of passage into the Spartan Elite, and a few footnotes about the Spartan culture (some of which are historically accurate). All this is hurried through in a very hum-drum yet over-the-top way, and lacking all interesting details, in a way that an annoyed parent might reluctantly respond to a child's question that they would rather not answer. However beyond that, the movie spends little time developing character or story, and pretty much jumps into conflict as soon as possible by killing King Xerxes' herald and entourage, as if the Director knows that the audience is full of chest-thumping aggro males and their reluctant significant others. It is evident from the start that 300 tells the tale with a magnificent visual style that is bound to be copied in many movies to come. Though distinctly artificial and computer-enhanced, the unique use of lighting is both surreal and evocative, and is well at home in a movie as visually mesmerizing as this. However, the movie's redeeming values end there. As if attempting to buck the tired trend of Bullet-Time camera effects and start a new trend outright, the movie uses various film speeds in an attempt to add emphasis to its' scenes Example: A female oracle divines the future in a fluid dance punctuated by camera zooms, quick angle changes, and of course - close up shots of her bare breast (in a way that proves "I'm a movie designed for 15-27yo straight males")- that jump from normal to slow motion in an effort to winnow a certain depth that was never there to begin with. The use of this cinematography could have added artistic and visual value, however, the movie relies so heavily on this and the aforementioned lighting, and they are so frequently used, that they do little more than cheapen and dilute the movie overall. The action sequences are full of severed body parts, arterial spray, wince-inducing wounds, and of course, the previously mentioned camera work which, once again becomes tiresome after seeing it used for the entire movie. Despite the amount of gore in these combat sequences, and the movie has plenty of them, there was not a stain of blood on any piece of clothing, nor did it stick to surfaces, dot the ground, or even pool beneath the fallen. It simply vanished off screen or through the ground, as the CGI animator did not bother to apply those decals beyond their flight through the air, streaming from body parts, or on the tip of a weapon. Beyond that, any convincing blood was absent until the aftermath, when a mixture of corn syrup, glycerin, and red dye could conveniently be sprayed on the set. This only served to remind you that you are watching a comic book. The dialogue was exaggerated to the point where the characters seemed to realize that a camera was present, and thus they over-dramatized every syllable, in an attempt to make every line something to be quoted for posterity for centuries afterward. Most of the dialogue seemed to be either screamed or hushed in a poor attempt to pull emotion from the audience - every hard consonant in every scream was punctuated and emphasized in a way only a character in a bad action movie could speak, while every hushed verse was melodramatically spoken as if it were a eulogy. The dialogue was mundane, lacked creative grammar, and was designed to be easily digested and mindlessly regurgitated back by people as they exit the theatre, as opposed to being intelligent and demanding of any deep appreciation.
In essence, 300 is just another Braveheart/Troy/Gladiator/Black Hawk Down gore fest that caters to guys who can only associate anything resembling drama to violent macho bravado tripe that is associated through warfare and the dismemberment of a fallen comrade... except Braveheart was actually good. Like a Dean Devlin film (Independence Day, Godzilla [1998], The Patriot, Flyboys), 300 may be entertaining, but that's really it's only redeeming value, and people looking for something with substance, longevity, and artistic merit are better off looking somewhere else. Side note: It's truly a shame that (American) cinema has bizarrely simultaneously stagnated, and moved in a direction, where most (not all) action movies can no longer be taken seriously, or be produced with artistic endurance or any award-worthy value.
Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust (2000)
A fine piece of Fantasy/Sci-Fi work and a must see for anyone who can appreciate great animation.
In the distant future, supernatural forces have emerged to become everyday occurrences in mankind's world, and all too frequently they collide with it. Enter, D - A soft-spoken freelance tracker, half-vampire half-human, who makes a living as one of the most feared monster-hunters and Vampire slayers in the world. Though greatly feared by both monster and human alike, his reputation earns him the attention of a rich nobleman, who decides to hire D's services to bring back his beloved and beautiful daughter, Charlotte. In a fantastic display of his unholy power and influence, the powerful and charismatic Vampire Count known as Meier Link has taken Charlotte from her very bedroom, back to his castle to be his bride. However, the plot thickens intensely as the Marcus Brothers (a highly and diversely skilled band of monster slayers), the powerful supernatural creatures of Barbaroi, and an ancient evil force all try to impede D's progress, suggesting that far more is at stake than a young girl's mortality. Before long, D realizes that the abduction is not what it seems, nor is little else. A sinister and world-shaking plot begins to loom over D's seemingly-direct task.
As D goes about his hunt, his journey takes him through fantastic landscapes, crossing fascinating creatures, meeting interesting friends and foes, and ultimately reveals a sliver of his own mysterious past. From beautiful ancient ruins to the most incredible Baroque castles, from savage lands ruled by monsters to pleasant villages at the edge of humanity's reach, Bloodlust is an adventure that will leave most Fantasy/Sci-Fi fans hungry for more. The action is nothing short of dynamic and sharp, separated with moments of genuine pathos and depth, this story is well-told with fine voice acting (great English dubbing) and some of the most fluid animation ever seen. This is not so much a movie as it is "moving art" (a concept that few studios 'remember'). Granted this is in a heavy Fantasy setting, it is so well done that even those who detest such fiction, should be able to appreciate this on at least one level - wonderful animation with an interesting story.
If this movie has a failing, it is that it had to end, and that there is no official word of another in the franchise.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Of course this movie is going to look incredible when we were fed crap for so many years.
The syndrome works like this - If you are given nothing but McDonalds food for two weeks, and then one day you are taken to TGI Fridays, the food at Fridays is naturally going to seem far better than it really is. Episodes 1 & 2 were bad. So bad in fact, that we (as an audience) were willing and ready to latch on to anything that was remotely better. Then came 3. Ep 3 is NOT a great movie, but it sure as hell is going to seem like it in the wake of Ep 1 & 2.
A young and powerful hero is corrupted by an evil politician to do his bidding, thus ensuring the end of a galactic democracy, and an Imperial military build up. While the remaining protagonists in the movie rush to defeat a diversionary threat, the scheme of a would-be emperor is hatched, leaving most of the protagonists dead or in hiding, and leaving the galaxy to tremble beneath the heel of a fascist Patriarchy.
While Ep 3 opens with a wonderful space battle high above a planet. It closes with an over-the-top but interesting duel between 2 Jedi superpowers. Yet, everything in between was predictable and without real merit. Naturally, the computer FX were outstanding, but that's no longer enough anymore! Computer FX are so affordable, that even TV series can now afford ones that go far to wow an audience. Sorry Lucas, but your flashy whizzbang FX don't make up for a bad plot, terrible acting, predictable story, boring characters, and lack of intrigue. The entire experience seems rushed and force fed. The audience has the conclusion of the story thrust in our faces in such a manner you could almost hear Lucas saying, "See! See, people! I can still entertain you. I promise! Just look at all the crap I threw in this movie! LOOK AT IT!!" This movie tries so hard to bridge the gap between Ep 3 and 4, that it misses the mark almost completely by allowing very little room for other possibilities. In fact, the last several minutes of the movie alone felt like nothing more than a cheesy gimmick to show Vader for the first time in his black suit - the death of his wife was absurd, the voice acting of Vader was terrible, the characters at the end of the movie had little more to do than wander off set.
Ep's 4, 5, and 6 leave so much for your imagination to run wild with. So much is put into the background that the very universe felt alive and rife with possibilities: Remember seeing the IG88 Droid in the Cloud City incinerator? Remember wondering what the building was, and what significance the building had, that Luke met Vader's specter in on Dagoba? Remember Han making the comment about a bounty hunter at Ord Mantell "changing his mind?" Remember wondering what remains the frozen bones came from in the Wampa's lair, especially since Hoth supposedly had "no indigenous life?" Remember wondering what happened to the other bounty hunters who were tracking down Han and Leia? These are the nuances in the background that went so very far to make Ep's 4-6 so interesting and lifelike. They were missing from Ep's 1 & 2, and Ep 3 was certainly no exception. All we had to deal with were the principal characters, hordes of faceless cannon-fodder, and of course the people who you obviously knew were one day going to reappear (thus robbing your imagination) - Chewbacca, Boba Fett, Tarkin, etc.
Watching this movie seems like a good idea, until, you try to watch it again. Go ahead. Watch it a second time. Reflect on your thoughts. Wait until the next day, but then ask yourself, "was it really that good?" I'm willing to bet that your score will go down a point or two.
Superman Returns (2006)
Uninspired, boring, and drawn-out.
This movie is so boring that even writing about it is making me sleepy. Go ahead, vote my review as "un-helpful." I don't care. I'm going to bed. Poor acting by all except James Marsden (surprisingly enough), Parker Posey, and Brandon Routh. Spacey was acceptable, but did nothing more than reprise his role as slightly more mellowed-out Buddy Ackerman in Swimming With Sharks (a great movie, by the way). The plot was paper thin and uninspired. Lex Luthor's scheme was very lame and spartan coming from the world's "greatest criminal mind." The movie was plagued with family drama that seems to be supporting adultery. The sub plots went nowhere except were used as a simple device to leave the movie open to a sequel.
Eraserhead (1977)
Perhaps the most discomforting and bizarre movie I have seen.
Eraserhead thrusts you into a bleak setting where the only element of anything 'natural' is how unsettling your reactions are to the soul-crushing the environment is. In an industrial backdrop full of constantly grinding machines, harsh and contrasting light, rusted metal and rotten wood, blackened buildings, and victims of grotesque afflictions of the body, you find Henry and his girlfriend Mary. After discovering Mary is pregnant with his unexpected child, Henry tries to cope with his predicament, her melodrama, Mary's overbearing parents, his lust for his neighbor, his unwanted child, and an all-around miserable existence. Their existence is complicated when prenatal tests force Mary to question if the child is 'even really human.' As Henry and Mary try to force themselves to love the child, their world spirals into oblivion as prophetic and twisted nightmares, strife between them, and a demanding infant take their toll. Eventually, it appears that Henry's only source of salvation comes from the terrible and loathsome acts he dreams and fantasizes about... or are they dreams? Ultimately, Henry's despair consumes him, and he begins to think and do the unspeakable... or does he?
I gladly give this movie a 10, despite how discomforted and uneasy it made me feel, as no other movie I have seen has ever been able to wrench such a reaction out of me. A perfect movie, even if for all the wrong reasons.
Scary Movie 4 (2006)
90 Minutes of pop-culture references... none of them funny.
Had 2 children not relied on me for transportation home from the movie I would have walked out after the first 10 minutes. Strangely enough they hated it. What's more surprising is that I shared the opinions of two teen boys who are engrossed in Rap Music, Pro (sic) Wrestling, MTV, and movies featuring breasts, blood, and explosions. This movie should have been right up their alley.
Scary movie 4 recycles the same jokes from the first 3 "Scary" movies, but disguises it in a shiny new wrapper by using a new set of overrated pop-culture references. Instead of poking fun at the aspects of pop-culture that truly deserve it (ie: tabloid magazines, irresponsible pregnant pop-divas, ridiculous celebrity monikers like 'P-Diddy,' contracting the names of Hollywood couples like 'Brangelina and Tomkat,' predictable bad-movie plots, brainless celebrity sluts, and drugged-up sports stars) they simply took anything that was popular and tried to make fun of it. In fact their desperation to latch onto anything that COULD be made fun of, no matter how much the humor failed, was so strong that it left the writers looking ignorant and out of touch with what satire truly is. The movie's plot is thin, accidental, and written as nothing more than an excuse to tie War of the Worlds, Saw (I & II), The Village, and The Grudge together in such a loose fashion, that one would have gotten more from it had they watched it backwards. In trying so hard, it generates a largely predictable and detestable plot that is little more than re-enacted footage from movies that you're probably already too familiar with, using sub-par actors, generic FX, cheap visual gags, and bad puns. However, I will give the studio kudos for recreating those scenes with splendid accuracy.
If you enjoy watching movies you have already seen, except poorly modified in completely low-brow attempts to make you laugh, then run out right now and see this.
Otherwise, if you have a brain, you'd find more entertainment value from having a bus run over your head. I may have never laughed during this movie, but I did halfway smile, TWICE! I think that's the highest compliment that this movie can get.
I expected more from the man who brought us such comic classics as Kentucky Fried Movie and Police Squad.
For shame, Mr. Zucker. Running low on cash, are we?
King Kong (2005)
The most epic insult to your intelligence Hollywood can offer.
Only minor spoilers contained herein.
I disliked this movie because of it's complete inability to suspend disbelief. My feelings had nothing to do with Dinosaurs, giant monkeys, or prehistoric arthropods. Instead, my contempt for this movie comes from how Peter Jackson can't be bothered to do anything new with a movie, and had to use the same formula as Lord of the Rings. In his pursuit to make a movie that is "larger than life" he creates a King Kong movie that is completely removed from anything anyone's life has ever seen. This may be wonderful for those who watch movies to see nothing but a fantasy world, but for people who want to believe in the fantasy and be drawn in to it, this one is insulting.
Examples: King Kong 'ice skates' on the surface of a small lake, and according to this movie, ice is strong enough to hold a 25 foot tall gorilla that weighs probably several tens of tons... even when he jumps on it.
King Kong grabs a small support beam on the wing of a biplane, and uses it to swing the plane around and hurtle it even faster into an oncoming plane. Nevermind that the support was made to hold up a wooden wing (most biplane fuselage's were made of wood and canvas) and therefore would have simply snapped off.
Lets not forget huge errors in simple human behavior. Of course, this movie also obeys the flawed Hollywood dogma of, "A person can't get in trouble when they are alone, but only in large groups of people." That's right, travel alone for hours through the most savage land on Earth, and you're relatively safe, but as soon as there are more than 2 of you, predators, beasts, monsters, and the like are all over you.
You have a large group of men, most of whom dies very graphically in all kinds of horrifying ways. Yet no one stops to point out that losing 12 men, and risking everyone else, is not worth the life of one nobody actress.
I could write pages of such inconsistencies, but I won't spoil the movie (much more) or bore you.
Granted, some of these flaws translate from the original movie and there may not have been much of a choice but to include them, but that still leaves me asking, "What made the original so good?"
Go to be entertained if you must. Just don't expect anything "smart" or "believable" from it.
Æon Flux (2005)
The deal-breaker is: How much do you expect?
I just got back from seeing the movie. A person could write almost 2 reviews for this movie. One designed for those who have seen Peter Chung's shorts and series, and one designed for those who know nothing about it.
For those who have seen the original animation: There is good news and bad. The good news being that this movie takes after the animation very little. I for one feel that the style, environment, and dialogue captured in the animated series is one best left for a medium that is more malleable than Hollywood. I refuse to believe that an animated Aeon Flux would have ever translated well with Peter Chung's vision 100% intact, and thankfully, this movie does not really make an attempt. To do so would have been campy, over-the-top, and completely disassociated fluff. Sure, there are select scenes that you can equate between the movie and animation, character names are familiar, and even some of the technology, but for the most part this is a decent example of a film that was inspired by the work of Peter Chung's animation, and NOT a film based directly from it. In short, the best way to approach this movie is with the state of mind that it is an above-average sci-fi movie with characters that simply coincidentally share names with those in Peter Chung's work. The bad news being that this movie takes after the animation very little. If you are the kind of person who is very much into Peter Chung's work, as I am, then this movie may disappoint in some areas. Charlize Theron, while playing the role capably, is missing some of the socio-philosophical demeanor that trademarks the original Aeon. The plot itself, while entertaining, is nothing that leaves you scratching your head and wondering "What the hell" as the series did.
For those who have never seen the original animation: Aeon Flux is a very stylish, action packed sci-fi movie with plenty of flash and glamour. The "technology" of the movie is rather unbelievable in some parts. However it's good to see a movie that takes risks by creating a world where, much as life 400years in the future will probably be, is unrecognizable to anything we presently associate with. Yet the world created in Aeon Flux is sometimes unbalanced. One moment you are gazing at bizarre biotechnology and inconceivable communications devices, and the next you are staring down the barrel of a very conventional gun. The characters themselves are interesting and, for the most part, well acted. The dialogue seems a little surreal at times, but again, this can be dismissed by the idea that our minds cannot possibly grasp this world 400 years in the future. Or perhaps I'm making excuses for the movie? Regardless, no matter how strange the events, dialogue, or scenery is, it seems to fit together well as a bundle. Suspension of disbelief is done fairly well in this movie even if you have to help it along at points. The plot has enough intrigue and twists to keep you guessing who the "bad guys" really are, while at the same time, you are left asking yourself if there are any "good guys" at all. In that regard, the duality and uncertainty of people, their agendas, and their goals reminds me very much of the original animation. The action sequences themselves are nice, and while there is complicated martial arts action, it never really seems as showboating - it's all very effective and rarely superfluous.
Overall, I'd give it a very conservative 6.5, which for those of you who know me, is a decent score as I am a fairly harsh critic. It's a movie I'd see again, but not want to pay full price for the second time through.
Finding Neverland (2004)
Is this movie good, or do you simply want it to be good? My non-review.
You will like this movie if you are one of the thousands (if not millions) of people who think Depp is more talented than he really is, or have jumped on the Depp-Bandwagon and praise him just because you have a cousin/Ex-lover/Artsy sibling (hopefully not all in the same person), who either studies theatre or considers themselves to be a movie-buff who proclaims that Depp can do no wrong because he's an "avatar" of modern Tres-Chic/Pop-Art-house cinema.
You will like this movie if you have no opinion of your own, rely on people to tell you which movies are award-worthy, and then blindly agree under the guise that you are informed and more sophisticated than you really are despite not having had enjoyed the movie at all.
You will like this movie if, despite that the crown jewel of your movie collection consists of every volume of "Girls Gone Wild" and the directors cut of every Terminator movie, you simply want to look smart and sensitive in hopes that it will get you laid by the girl who convinced you to see it hopes to culture your pathetic, beer-swilling, frat-boy ass.
You will like this movie if you are a literature snob, and can point out every inconsistency in this story, in a feeble attempt to validate your obsession with literature that no one really gives a damn about except for elitists like yourself who own 5 cats and 3 different tea sets, or people who are so hopelessly lost in quasi-fantasy, fairy tale drivel, who lived with their grandmother until they were 32.
You will like this movie if you are simply the kind of person who forces themselves to watch pseudo-artsy dramas just so they can carry on a conversation in a coffee house about how sophisticated they think their own tastes in movies is, while denouncing anything with any redeeming entertainment value, even if it was a very well-done and thought-out action movie.
Watch this movie by yourself, without hearing anything about it, and without reading anything on it. Then go home and write down your thoughts.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I have my opinion, but that does not mean it applies to everyone. Yet I can't deny that this movie just seems to try way to hard to be an Oscar winner.
PS: If you're grossly offended at anything I said, then I suggest you relax, and stop giving me reason to believe I was right about the demographics of people who enjoy this movie.
Blade: Trinity (2004)
I have seen more appealing crap in public toilets.
As if the first 2 were not bad enough some Hollywood idiot found it necessary to release another one. Probably to give the vacant, all-consuming-and-never-questioning public a reason to ignorantly claim that Wesley Snipes is good actor, and to prove that the dialog in the Blade movies is just as silly as he looks, as well as to prove that sequels can be just as (if not worse) than the original. With every Blade movie, they need to raise the bar with the antagonist, so expect Blade to fight Jesus Christ in the next movie. I can't believe I allowed a friend to convince me to see Blade 2 and 3. You think I would have learned after the first one.
I could slam this movie all day. I could point out how predictable this movie is. I could describe plot holes large enough to launch a Space Shuttle mission through. I could insult fans of the series until my throat is raw and bloody. Yet, I'll spare you and simply conclude with: If you want to see a good movie, do yourself a favor, and don't subject yourself to this. If you feel the need to watch it, please don't expect anything more than a bad action movie. Such movies may be entertaining to others, and that's fine, but it does not change the fact that these movies are NOT art, and should NEVER be considered as such.
The Grudge (2004)
A nice story with poor resolution
What I appreciate the most about the movie is that it's traditional Japanese concept of "taints" and "curses" is well done - when something is so foul and dark that it leaves a permanent stain on the world we live in, and is inescapable by those who are unlucky enough to encounter it. Beyond that, this movie does a nice job of using the basic elements of what the human psyche fears: The dark, things that go "bump" in the night, and a relentless, inescapable terror. The movie has a brand of terror both intimate and seldom used in American cinema, which propels some of the more intense parts. These moments are further enhanced by the use of natural vocal sounds that, in the context of the movie, are very intimidating. However, this picture left enough unanswered questions to leave you disappointed. Open-ended movies do not bother me, in fact I enjoy them, but there are some incongruities in the story that simply do not add up. They are more plot-device oriented as opposed simply to my personal preferrences. I am convinced that such things were simply lost in translation or cut from the movie, as the rest of the movie is done well enough, that I have a hard time believing they were not taken into consideration. A decent movie overall, but I was hoping for just a little more.