Hotmail
|
|
|
|
|
All reviews by user Date  Helpful Rating 0 out of 0 users found this helpful  Great Sci-Fi For ThinkersPosted: 9/27/2009A review of Surrogates by Catre-vant-treze Jungle_Raider's review is right: Surrogates is a movie that makes you think - something of a rarity in today's Hollyweird, unfortunately.
It lays itself open for charges of being "derivative" in that it echoes elements of other films, most prominently The Matrix, Wall-E and I, Robot. Yet "Surrogates" manages to be fully its own story, by taking the lines of thinking in those films a significant step farther.
It scores, big time, as a pointed allusion to our current addiction to the Internet (which makes me a bit of a hypocrite, yeahyeah): Not only has society turned itself into a mass of immobile, overweight blobs as a direct result of the 'Net's advent, but it labors under the delusion that the 'Net can be rendered harmless in context of privacy and security.
What's needed, of course, is a whole reboot of individualist ethics, written into law - as a restraint on government, industry and would-be criminals alike. Too bad the film couldn't have projected that idea, but it's perhaps beyond the scope of an actioner. I'll take "thought-provoking" and be happy with that. Kudos to Willis, Pike and all involved for turning out some excellent speculative fiction. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful  Idiot-Plot Unworthy of its Hired TalentThrillers with arctic settings are my catnip, which means I had high hopes for "Whiteout," but it crashed the promise of its early scenes by devolving quickly and relentlessly into some really impressive stupidity - so much so that you have to wonder how Beckinsale and Skerritt got themselves involved with this crapola.
So lemme see... Carrie Stetko (Beckinsale) is a Federal Marshall investigating a brutal murder; the prime suspect invites her to meet him at a remote, deserted Russian science station at the head of a major storm. So she's walking around this ominously-silent station shouting "Hello? Are you therrrre?" just like a doomed camp kid in one of those drive-in slasher flicks, and the good Marshall...doesn't seem to have a gun? Maybe she'll defend herself with stern rebukes and harsh language.
'Might as well have. An axe-murderer shows up and chases her into the blizzard; the arcs of his axe-swings are inches from her head, but she's kinda busy, dutifully latching her carabiner to the safety lines. To be safe. While an axe-slinging killer closes in. Not to fear, the axe murderer is also busy complying with Safety Regulations so it's all good. Arrrgghh.
This silliness continues throughout. She's chased all over the place by bloodthirsty killers, but the gun she shows us early on was apparently just a gumdrop dispenser, 'cause it never appears again.
What was supposed to be the climax is like a scene from a High School play, I do not exaggerate. The tension created up to that point just flits away in the breeze while Stetko and her antagonist sit down for some light chit-chat. The only thing missing is for one of them to go make some coffee, and the dialogue - which is intended to be gut-wrenching emotional - is yawningly bland.
Save your money and rent "John Carpenter's The Thing" or "The Ice Harvest" or even the wretched "Fargo." Better yet, go read Lovecraft's "In the Mountains of Madness." Who made this mess? Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful Surprisingly Good Flick,Dumb SoundtrackPosted: 6/27/2009A review of Star Trek by Catre-vant-treze I dreaded this film when it was announced because I'd assumed it would make a travesty of the series - since the remaing producers of ST seem to despise sci-fi in general. But aside from one flaw it was a surprise in terms of both casting and action, and the story, though pretty much episodic rather than epic, was actually not too shabby.
The new actors were matched to the original characters about as closely as could have been done (though someone fell flat on his face designing Chekov's hair...?!?) More than a few of the action sequences in this film were truly edge-of-your-seat material, particularly the huge spider monster on that ice world. But we could've done without that painful "OOOHHHBAAAAAHHHMAAAAAAHHH..." choir thing mixed into the swelling orchestral score just as Scot ejects the core and the Enterprise breaks free of the black hole's grip. Can't we escape the sewer of politics *anywhere*? Am I missing some heavy symbolism here - like what, specifically, is that retro-fascist breaking us free from? The heavy burden of freedom, I suppose. *sigh* I expect some tech-savvy fanboy editors will fix that junk with a good audio cut & paste in a web-based alternative once this gets out of the theaters. As it is now, the sound for that scene is virtually retchworthy.
The only other criticism I'd make is that the production design on the Enterprise itself, particularly the bridge, which was a little heavy on the shiny "beauty salon" look, and both far too slick and too technologically advanced to have come before the bridge seen in the original series. They couldn't have gone with that primitive original look, obviously, but they would have done better to tone it down a little so it could *plausibly* have been a bridge that predates the original series.
All told though, a worthwhile addition to the ST film catalog and an admirable job by the cast and director of pulling off a convincing backstory for the original characters' careers. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful  Torture PornV - Josef Mengele as HeroI'm neither religious nor squeamish on violence - when it's a minor detail in service of a meaningful story. I'm also a big fan of white-knuckle scary stories, of high-intensity suspense, even the gothic ghost story if it's got a nice logical twist to it. But...
To call the producers, production designers and writers of the "Saw" series sick would be an insult to the mentally ill. Insanity and psychosis are conditions generally beyond the control of the patient - generally they are not *chosen.*
No, to have spent years sitting in production meetings hammering out screenplays, storyboards, makeup, props, visual effects and the like, to imagine and produce a butcher shop of inhuman atrocities - as *entertainment* - is not "sick."
It's just fully-cognizant, freely-chosen evil.
There are only two salient questions here: A.) What does this accomplish, and B.) What would motivate a clutch of Hollywood "artists" to expand so extensively upon the work of their apparent hero, Josef Mengele?
Freely-chosen evil accomplishes only what impotent evil is ever capable of accomplishing: destruction. In this case it's aesthetic destruction, a polluting of culture with a militant degradation of humanity expanded to the level of textbook-definition pornography. Torture porn. Ain't that peachy?
What motivates the creeps who dreamed this stuff up will perhaps have to remain a secret locked in that space between their ears. Is it hatred of Western Civilization? A self-loathing so deep that it spawns a hatred of the entire human species?
Not knowing, not caring.
The only response civilized human beings should dish out to this rotten franchise is a boycott, leaving it lay there as stinking cinematic roadkill, or as a kind of exhibit in a cultural zoo - a loathsome example of the great "achievement" that lies at the ugly dead end of evil and irrationalism.
Bravo, boys. Sieg Heil, eh?
Yeek. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful Torture Porn Lite - Just For FunI left this film shaking my head in disgust at the corrupt and ethically-bankrupt sewer that Hollywood has become. I knew I was going to a violent action film, I knew it was about assassins - but did not pay to have my face rubbed in corpses of little old ladies impaled on meat hooks and used as firing range targets; in geysers of blood, brains and gore spurting in extreme close-up and slo-mo from the craniums of Morgan Freeman, Angelina Jolie, and 48 for 50 minor others, then repeated in reverse.
Hollywood is sick. It is so devoid of able writers that it serves up buckets of gratuitous, graphic gore and human atrocities to nauseate Josef Mengele, so as to fill that gaping void where a coherent story and, more importantly, a civilized code of ethics ought to be.
In yet another of Hollywood's weird adolescent cries for help, this film too is packed with gratuitous, Beavis & Butthead-caliber profanty between every fourth or fifth word of dialog. Or maybe these "writers" assume the audience is just as juvenile as they?
On the plus side, there were some excellent action sequences and enjoyable spectacle - the train derailment sequence and the car chases managed to be original.
Unfortunately, along with the wall-to-wall human butchery and pottymouth dialog, the story never rose above sloppy. The intrigue of a "secret order" was quickly abandoned as a mere detail of setting; the "Loom of Fate" apparently ran itself, since no explanation was given as to who or what set it in motion; the actors almost to a one were mere foils for extravagant and, again, atrocious visuals.
I won't even bother to go into the contemptible "Sling Blade" ethic of "Murder is A-OK if you have a good reason." Suffice it to stand as a stark reminder of where Hollywood's proctological worldview has taken it.
Bottom line: "Wanted" is a film that left me feeling in equal parts annoyance, disappointment, and an overpowering desire to go home and wash. Was this review helpful? Sign In 1 out of 2 users found this helpful  Why the Critics Hate BoS...Posted: 1/8/2008A review of National Treasure: Book of Secrets by SKLIGHBN I went to see this on a lark over Christmas vacation and enjoyed it thoroughly. No, not in the sense of enjoying Braveheart, The Great Global Warming Swindle, The Pianist or Chocolat, rather, enjoyable in the sense of Serenity or the Bourne trilogy or Da Vinci Code, or maybe just an afternoon at Six Flags: Extremely well-done thrill-ride matinee filmmaking. In other words, great entertainment.
When I heard shortly thereafter that the hard-left critics had panned it violently, my Political Bias detector went off the charts. Sure enough, National Treasure II is unacceptable - to them - because the main character is a hero rather than a depraved anti-hero, and (horror of horrors,) the main character is patriotic. We absolutely cannot have that, can we?
You know, I for one have had it up to my hairy eyebrows with the Hollywood proctological worldview and its endless stream of depravity-studies masquerading as high art. From the box office receipts it would appear others have too.
It ain't Shakespeare, but National Treasure: Book of Secrets is both money and time well spent. Ignore the vestigial commies and enjoy it. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful Flawed, But Well Above AveragePosted: 10/4/2007A review of 3:10 to Yuma by SKLIGHBN Yes, there are a number of easily-correctible flaws in this film, but a story drawn from a theme of moral principles plus some world-class acting save it from mediocrity.
Fires were generally put out before sundown and even the smoke concealed in daylight (by building it under a leafy tree,) not at night and certainly not while being pursued by both outlaws and Apaches. That was the worst, in that it was the most noticeable. Evans' implausible dexterity with a prosthetic limb was obscured by well-staged action; the poor choice of using a stomach shot for a character that had to recover was more of a stretch, but mitigated somewhat by Fonda's portrayal of the character as tough-as-nails. The gauntlet-run to the train strayed into "Bruce Lee (or Azumi) wipes out hundreds single-handedly" territory, but again the action carried the scene.
The real value of the film was that it came down to something almost unheard-of in today's Hollywood: a genuine moral choice that drives the plot. A secondary theme of the outlaw's moral transformation - as a result of that choice's influence - enriched the film further.
The film would have been strengthened (rather easily) by correction of some of the obvious flaws, but it was a gratifying thematic reinforcement of the virtue of integrity and therefore time well spent. I would recommend it even for people who don't ordinarily care for westerns. In Hollywood's cinematic sewer - where mindless retread mayhem and torture-porn are standard fare - "3:10 To Yuma" takes on the patina of buried treasure. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful The F4 franchise is effectively deadPosted: 6/17/2007A review of Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer by SKLIGHBN I went into this as a childhood fan of F4 and a major post-Satriani fan of Surfy... and by midway I was thoroughly disgusted.
The Silver Surfer is a character ripe for the...silver screen, but in F4 II he's little more than a nifty prop. His total number of lines is around 12 and he does little more than make a few brief cameos before he self-destructs.
The rest of this film is an absolute mess, a combination of: tired and mind-numbingly boring infighting among the Four; an endless stream of cheap one-liners that are astonishing in their stupidity even by one-liner standards; a couple of unintentionally-comedic leftwing political potshots; several maddening contradictions of aspects of the Four's Was this review helpful? Sign In 9 out of 12 users found this helpful CRUISE BLOWS HIS CRITICS TO SMITHEREENS!Posted: 5/8/2006A review of Mission: Impossible III by SKLIGHBN I have heard and read the dishing people have done on this movie and on Cruise himself and it appears they re related - and dead wrong on both counts. The kind of hate that has been spewed in his direction because of his beliefs - which I do not agree with yet respect all the same - can only be described as bigotry.
So to review the actual movie as opposed to Cruise s beliefs which are irrelevant in any case, I went into this expecting light entertainment and I was flat-out blown out of my chair. It s been a long, long time since I ve had this kind of start-to-finish adrenaline rush from a movie, and it s been even longer since I had to fight the urge to go directly from the exit straight back to the box office for second helping. I only docked it a star on minor complaints, a derivative resuscitation scene too similar to Cameron s Abyss and a couple of suspension-of-disbelief elements. The story itself had a satisfying twist and the action was indescribably intense. That intensity is relentless - like the cinematic version of a Frank Marino guitar jam, and if you ve ever heard Frank play then you know EXACTLY what I mean. When I left the theater I felt like going base-jumping or something. I don t base-jump, BTW. It s a buzz I haven t felt from a movie in years.
From the cynical pre-reviews I had been led to expect a maudlin soap-opera mimicking Cruise s real-life romance. Instead there is an oblique nod to that romance via a masterfully-done parallel in Hunt s marriage, which adds a perfect balance of romantic depth and a sense of authenticity that is palpable. Yet it s not overplayed and does not bog down the film s breakneck pace in the slightest. I d venture to say that MI-III is among the best work of Cruise s career.
This is a mandatory repeat, and that s a rare thing for me. Bravo, Mr. Cruise! You have not just made fools of your critics, you ve made what will be remembered as one of the truly great modern action films. Was this review helpful? Sign In 6 out of 9 users found this helpful  Joss Whedon's Finest WorkI too am writing this sight-unseen but I'll be first in line tomorrow. Whedon's brilliance in the Vampire Slayer series carried over to the short-lived and criminally-cancelled "Firefly" from which "Serenity" is derived, but in a completely different vein, if you'll excuse the cheesy pun...
Nathan Fillion is superbly cast as the captain of a Firefly-class cargo ship that's carrying a crew of people with complex past lives. The principle characters fought on the losing side in a war against a collectivist-socialist-fascist regime called the Alliance; they're now interstellar traders, and since the Alliance is unethical at root, "illegal" trading, smuggling, etc., become ethical action - a brilliant libertarian-flavored juxtaposition as the story's theme.
The TV series was some of the best Sci-Fi ever filmed - which means the motion picture "Serenity" is an easy bet for a great couple hours of meaty, inspiring storytelling. Let's hope it's also sufficient to reactivate a few dozen new seasons of "Firefly." Was this review helpful? Sign In 7 out of 12 users found this helpful Mixed BagPosted: 5/3/2005A review of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by SKLIGHBN I have mixed feelings about this adaptation. I read the book in first edition hardcover back in the '70s, then all of the sequels; eventually the BBC TV series made it to American television - low-budget but well done and perfectly cast. It's therefore impossible to imagine what this might seem like for someone who's never heard of Douglas Adams, so I can only give a personal impression.
I didn't care for the casting of any of the principle characters - Arthur, Ford, and Trillian were surprisingly bland - though Zaphod was good. I hated the visual style of Marvin from the first images that appeared on the 'Net and I still do. He's way too cute in a Spielbergian sort of throwaway-get-the-kiddies-giggling cute. The BBC version has got me biased on that, but my mental image on my first read also had him taller, thinner, and more glum-looking. The BBC series actually did a much better job of fleshing out Arthur and Ford, but the constraints of time may be a factor.
The Humma Kavula story branch of course wasn't in Adam's book, but it actually enhanced rather than detracted from the story. Where they really hit the home run in this was in the Vogons, and in the general scope of the special effects made possible by CGI. Slartibartfast's grand tour of the "factory floor" was awesome.
And they just nailed the Vogons perfectly. The facial expressiveness was unexpected and a perfect marriage of the officious British bureaucrat and the flabby, lethargic and utterly offensive American Democrat-Socialist DMV-Postal type we've all been subjected to at one time or another.
I doubt anybody could bring H2G2 to the screen to the satisfaction of all, so on balance I'd give it a thumbs-up. But the books will always be vastly superior. Was this review helpful? Sign In 6 out of 12 users found this helpful Please - Not Again.Posted: 4/15/2005A review of The Amityville Horror by SKLIGHBN I know this isn't going to get lots of "helpful" votes but I really don't care. I flat-out refuse to see this insufferable pap. Why? Because of the militant lunacy not only of doing a remake of an original film that was only mildly entertaining to begin with, but of doing a remake of a story that has been exposed as a full-blown hoax from top to bottom, and having the audacity to call it "A True Story." It just makes me want to retch - and not because I smell the stench of demons.
Read this from the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, then decide for yourself if you want to give this junk ten bucks of your hard-earned cash:
http:(slash-slash)www.csicop.org(slash) si(slash)2003-01(slash)amityville.html Was this review helpful? Sign In 14 out of 20 users found this helpful Amazing But Definitely Not For EveryoneBecause this is based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller, an artist with whom I've been fairly familiar, and since I'd heard this would be a faithful adaptation of the original work, I knew his typically dark, violent vision would be front & center here.
The violence and gore are definitely over-the-top and the propensity of characters to torture others nonchalantly is sometimes hard to stomach both ethically and visually, but the fact that it's shot almost entirely in highly stylized, inklike black and white blunts the violence even as it's happening and serves as a constant reminder that what you're watching is a movie fantasy, not real life. Those who are still incapable of making that distinction, need to stay away from this film rather than invoking The Wrath Of God or any other quasi-religious-revealed-only-to-me puritan outrage. Movie. Not real life. Capische?
"Sin City" is actually pretty tame compared to what is standard fare in Japanese manga and anime - at the same time it must be considered a breakthrough achievement in cinematic art. Look for dozens of worthless Miller-copycat flicks in the near future...
I'd been concerned that Quentin Tarentino's involvement would mess this up - the memory of the horribly-written mess "Kill Bill" still fresh in mind - but ironically, my thought as I watched "Sin City" was that "This is what 'Kill Bill' was TRYING to be." Too bad Tarentino didn't let Miller direct "Kill Bill" - it might have worked...
My primary criticism is that the triple plotline is only loosely tied and never forms a cohesive whole. There's a silver lining in that though, since it introduces enough complexity of structure to make you want to see it again, which I plan on doing today. 'Can't wait!
Finally: if you're clueless enough to take kids to this movie despite the R rating and copious reviews, you're far too clueless even to be raising kids. Repeat after me:
"S-e-l-f r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y." Capische? Was this review helpful? Sign In 12 out of 22 users found this helpful Anti-Business and Self-Consciously CuteI went to this despite the orientation to kids because I love the future in general and robotics in particular - also brilliantly-done CGI - but I can't see anyone older than their early teens enjoying this for any other reason.
The CGI is excellent and frequently spectacular; the production design is a wacky and incredibly detailed world of ingenious Rube Goldberg contraptions.
On the minus side of the board, the story is another hackneyed retread of the standard "EvilGreedyBusinessman Out to Destroy the LittleGuy" plot line, and the film is so chock-full of throwaway references to classic movies, contemporary culture and random puns that there's hardly any room for a plot.
The residual, retro-Marxian caricatures in this film are unintentionally funny and prompt one to wonder who the writers were directing their preaching at. I sat there at times amazed at what seems increasingly like a kind of collective neurosis (pun if you want one,) among cloistered leftists apparently oblivious to the geopolitical events of roughly sixteen years ago. I suppose one could attribute it to the resurgence of the popularity of drugs among the Hollywood elite, but no matter. The in-your-face political overtones are of course utterly lost on the kids and comedic to adults. The underlying theme itself - that innovation and talent will triumph if set in motion by individual volition - is worthwhile, if shallowly presented.
The avalanche of self-consciously cute side jokes ranging from Darth Vader to the Wizard of Oz to Gene Kelly's "Singin' In The Rain" are ladled on so thickly that what starts out as clever soon becomes annoying.
Aside from that, the kids seem to love it and the visuals are, as I've said, frequently amazing. I'd call it a toss-up. The big screen enhances the impact of the CGI, but the story will leave you wishing you'd waited for the DVD rental. Was this review helpful? Sign In 1 out of 20 users found this helpful Saw It Months AgoPosted: 11/12/2004A review of The Polar Express by SKLIGHBN I won't be going to "The Polar Express" - because months ago I saw the Reader's Digest Condensed Version.
I got the plot, most of the character development, the action, the climax, the denouement.
Pirated version, you ask? No.
I saw the extended trailer.
When are these motion picture industry fools going to clue into the fact that people do not want to see an entire movie on fast-forward, in the "coming attractions" segment preceding a different movie they've gone to see?
'Saves us lots of money though.
Good flick. I'll see the full version when it hits television. Was this review helpful? Sign In 1-15 of 15 Per Page |
||
