Seth Rogan is a good comedic actor, but the story is just too awful to like in any form. Perhaps in 2009, a narcistic police officer wannabe who abuses his position as head security at a mall and obsessed with shooting people would be good as a central character for a comedy. Not only is the lead character obnoxious and abusive, but he is also a hypocrite when he was going to let his friend get away with robbing stores in the mall. Somehow the movie redeems the lead character when he shoots a flasher. Seriously? It would have sufficient if he would have tackled the flasher but he had to shoot him instead. The story could have been ok if he would have only been obnoxious in an annoying way, not in an abusive way and if they would have focused on how much he sacrifices to make sure his mother is not alone, but the story seems to relish in including as many offensively absurd gags as possible, such as when in the flasher chase scene, the lead character punches the Aziz Ansari character, apparently only because he comes from the Middle East.And by the way, this movie came out in April of the same year as Paul Blart. I don't see how anyone can even consider a criticism of a "rip off" as having any validity. Some comparison is natural, but due to the timing, I don't see how anyone would actually think this is a ripoff of Paul Blart.
Reviews
28 Reviews
Creepy
(2016)
Disappointing...
10 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I decided to watch this movie based on a 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes... I should have known better based on lower viewer reviews.
Teruyuki Kagawa did an excellent job playing a very creepy character. That's really the only highlight of the film. The plot/script holes are what killed it for me.
It probably would have been easy to fix the plot/script holes. The way Takakura treats Saki during questioning is rather pathetic. He's supposed to be a professional criminal psychologist and he doesn't even know how to behave with someone with psychological scars? Or perhaps he was supposed to play an incompetent criminal psychologist as illustrated by how he was stabbed by the suspect in the earlier sequence... but then the entire police force allowed him to try to handle the hostage situation himself if he was so incompetent?
*** SPOILERS ***
But more flawed is when police chief Tanimoto and Takakura go to Nishino's house. Even knowing the likelihood Nishino is a killer, they go without requesting backup. And they separate once they get to the house with Takakura going to his house first. There's no reason for Tanimoto to go into Nishino's house by himself, but what was Takakura doing anyway? After discovering his wife was not at home, why did it take so long to get over to Nishino's house. Was he trapped in some sort of time warp? Did he have to take a dump?
These flaws could have been easily explained away which would have made the story a bit more tolerable. For example, a backup could have been on its way. It would have required a different sequence, allowing Nishino to make a getaway before the backup arriving. For example, upon arriving at the house, the wife could have screamed so both would have entered Nishino's house. They could have been separated at the house and Tanimoto could have fallen into the pit and presumably killed in similar fashion as the movie. Then the next scene, perhaps after Takakura discovers Tanimoto's body hears his wife scream from outside with Nishino, Takakura's wife, and Mio escaping in a van... Takakura follows in the police car. After they drive off, then the backup arrives only to find no car, so all that happened prior to the backup arriving would happen over two minutes (movie time)... and then upon entering the house, police find the dead Tanimoto. Eventually, Takakura catches up to Nishino where the scene takes place where Takakura seems to get the wife to abandon Nishino... The wife screaming at the house and then leading Takakura on a chase would have shown more of Nishino's brilliance. Of course, this would be a much faster pace than in the movie to allow for the backup to arrive at the scene in a reasonable timeframe and not affect the plot and this is not necessarily Kurosawa's methodic style, but while people doing stupid things in movies might be explained by the characters being stupid, for a police chief not to even consider calling for backup is beyond stupidity, so it's more of he deserve what he got... and when you no longer care about the characters in the movie, it's no longer entertainment to me.
Teruyuki Kagawa did an excellent job playing a very creepy character. That's really the only highlight of the film. The plot/script holes are what killed it for me.
It probably would have been easy to fix the plot/script holes. The way Takakura treats Saki during questioning is rather pathetic. He's supposed to be a professional criminal psychologist and he doesn't even know how to behave with someone with psychological scars? Or perhaps he was supposed to play an incompetent criminal psychologist as illustrated by how he was stabbed by the suspect in the earlier sequence... but then the entire police force allowed him to try to handle the hostage situation himself if he was so incompetent?
*** SPOILERS ***
But more flawed is when police chief Tanimoto and Takakura go to Nishino's house. Even knowing the likelihood Nishino is a killer, they go without requesting backup. And they separate once they get to the house with Takakura going to his house first. There's no reason for Tanimoto to go into Nishino's house by himself, but what was Takakura doing anyway? After discovering his wife was not at home, why did it take so long to get over to Nishino's house. Was he trapped in some sort of time warp? Did he have to take a dump?
These flaws could have been easily explained away which would have made the story a bit more tolerable. For example, a backup could have been on its way. It would have required a different sequence, allowing Nishino to make a getaway before the backup arriving. For example, upon arriving at the house, the wife could have screamed so both would have entered Nishino's house. They could have been separated at the house and Tanimoto could have fallen into the pit and presumably killed in similar fashion as the movie. Then the next scene, perhaps after Takakura discovers Tanimoto's body hears his wife scream from outside with Nishino, Takakura's wife, and Mio escaping in a van... Takakura follows in the police car. After they drive off, then the backup arrives only to find no car, so all that happened prior to the backup arriving would happen over two minutes (movie time)... and then upon entering the house, police find the dead Tanimoto. Eventually, Takakura catches up to Nishino where the scene takes place where Takakura seems to get the wife to abandon Nishino... The wife screaming at the house and then leading Takakura on a chase would have shown more of Nishino's brilliance. Of course, this would be a much faster pace than in the movie to allow for the backup to arrive at the scene in a reasonable timeframe and not affect the plot and this is not necessarily Kurosawa's methodic style, but while people doing stupid things in movies might be explained by the characters being stupid, for a police chief not to even consider calling for backup is beyond stupidity, so it's more of he deserve what he got... and when you no longer care about the characters in the movie, it's no longer entertainment to me.
"Safety lights are for dudes"
11 December 2017
Seriously, there's almost a 2 point difference in the average rating of this movie between men and women... The demographic which gave this movie the worst rating are males < 18 years old. Many negative reviews say the movie was sexist. That all the male characters in the movie were either idiots or jerks. Well, duh.
And as if there were some other movie where there weren't any positive women characters in the move, they would also rate that movie a 1 star... Riiight.
But enough of the negative reviews and maybe it's just because I'm in love with Kate McKinnon, but this movie was entertaining! There were enough witty lines and a decent enough story line to make this movie enjoyable.
If you want to enjoy this movie, then it helps to have an open mind. If you already want to judge it because you're not into an all female cast, feel free to hate it.
And as if there were some other movie where there weren't any positive women characters in the move, they would also rate that movie a 1 star... Riiight.
But enough of the negative reviews and maybe it's just because I'm in love with Kate McKinnon, but this movie was entertaining! There were enough witty lines and a decent enough story line to make this movie enjoyable.
If you want to enjoy this movie, then it helps to have an open mind. If you already want to judge it because you're not into an all female cast, feel free to hate it.
To Each His Own
(2017)
Favorite movie
10 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This is now my favorite movie of all-time. It's a story about a disgruntled, depressed office worker Takashi Aoyama who is so fed up with work and how he is treated, he wonders if life is worth living. He's about to fall in front of a passing train when he is miraculously saved by a guy, Yamamoto, who claims to be a schoolmate from grade school. They hang out together and Yamamoto helps Aoyama get a new perspective in life. Things start getting better for Aoyama and he's even doing better at work. Then Aoyama finds out that Yamamoto is not who he claims to be and that he is a guy who 3 years earlier had committed suicide. Things also take a turn for the worse at work and Aoyama is back where he started, wondering if life is worth living. Usually, I feel like you have to care for the characters to enjoy a movie and Aoyama is not the most sympathetic of characters, but both Asuka Kudo (Aoyama) and especially Sota Fukushi (Yamamoto) played their roles well. I had not necessarily been overly impressed with Fukushi's roles in the past (such as the J-drama Kyou wa Kaisha Yasumimasu) but he played his role perfectly here. (My other favorite movie is The Dog Problem with Giovanni Ribisi, in a way, a bit similar in theme.)
Life
(I) (2017)
Not for you if...
10 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is not for you if you're the type to yell at the TV (or movie screen) if you think someone on the TV is doing something stupid... Based on the written reviews, it seems there's lots of people out there like that. There are a lot of similarities in plot to Alien so it's natural comparisons will be drawn. I'll focus on the differences.
First, there's no comparison to the performance of Sigourney Weaver. However, as for the rest of the crew, many people complained about the character development in Life. While it's been a while since I've seen Alien, I can't say that I really recall a lot of character development in the rest of the crew in Alien. In fact, I thought there was decent character development in Life to build some connection with each of the characters.
Secondly, the story in Life is set in present day, not in some future where there's a crew making interplanetary space travel.Thus, it makes the story a bit more real. And since the story was set on the International Space Station, the filming of the crew moving around in zero gravity in the space station were excellent.
And finally, the alien itself. In Life, there is no artist like H.R. Giger to create what the alien looks like, so again, no comparison. Many were criticizing how the alien create looked like as if we have any way of knowing what an alien life form like that would really look like. Wouldn't all those reviewers be pretty embarrassed if we some day find out that the interpretation of what an alien life form would look like in Life is spot on.
So considering the above, the movie Life is mediocre compared to Alien, but that's what the IMDb rating shows anyway. Having said that, the ending was quite disappointing. First, cinematography-wise, the capsule landing in the ocean looked like it was filmed using cinematography techniques from the 1950s or 1960s. Then, the ending itself was quite a disappointment and rather predictable. An ending like that is quite a cop out. If they did a hundred variations to the ending, the actual ending is probably in the bottom 5. It's as if they had two days left to write the ending to the movie and film it.
First, there's no comparison to the performance of Sigourney Weaver. However, as for the rest of the crew, many people complained about the character development in Life. While it's been a while since I've seen Alien, I can't say that I really recall a lot of character development in the rest of the crew in Alien. In fact, I thought there was decent character development in Life to build some connection with each of the characters.
Secondly, the story in Life is set in present day, not in some future where there's a crew making interplanetary space travel.Thus, it makes the story a bit more real. And since the story was set on the International Space Station, the filming of the crew moving around in zero gravity in the space station were excellent.
And finally, the alien itself. In Life, there is no artist like H.R. Giger to create what the alien looks like, so again, no comparison. Many were criticizing how the alien create looked like as if we have any way of knowing what an alien life form like that would really look like. Wouldn't all those reviewers be pretty embarrassed if we some day find out that the interpretation of what an alien life form would look like in Life is spot on.
So considering the above, the movie Life is mediocre compared to Alien, but that's what the IMDb rating shows anyway. Having said that, the ending was quite disappointing. First, cinematography-wise, the capsule landing in the ocean looked like it was filmed using cinematography techniques from the 1950s or 1960s. Then, the ending itself was quite a disappointment and rather predictable. An ending like that is quite a cop out. If they did a hundred variations to the ending, the actual ending is probably in the bottom 5. It's as if they had two days left to write the ending to the movie and film it.
The Heat
(I) (2013)
Solid comedy
4 May 2016
While Melissa McCarthy was good, Sandra Bullock played her straight- laced agent role to perfection. McCarthy plays a street-wise cop who's crude and nobody likes. Bullock plays a straight-laced perfectionist who nobody likes. Generally speaking, I feel like for a movie to succeed, you have to have characters that you like. I suppose McCarthy was sort of likable in a Trump sort of way, but I could better appreciate Bullock's character who was more like the lonely geek/nerd growing up who didn't have friends, so she thought the way to succeed is to work hard and be the best agent she could be. Even thought not a thought-provoking story, there was a message in the film that people are important and Bullock learns that while teaming with McCarthy. Overall, a very enjoyable film which makes me appreciate Sandra Bullock even more.
Restitution
(I) (2011)
For me, this was an interesting enough crime drama
5 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
When I tried to see why some people had a lower opinion of the movie than me, some of the reviews complained that the plot made no sense, but I saw fewer plot holes in this movie than I did with Hard Candy, another movie I just saw recently.
I'll get into my review first and then cover some comments about other reviewers' complaints.
From a story point of view, I thought it was an interesting enough twist. Acting was OK. OK, I'll have to agree with one of the reviewers that perhaps Tom Arnold did shine the best with his typical Tom Arnold type of character (annoying but somehow likable). To me, I would say the biggest complaint I had about the movie is that it had a Made for TV feel to it. Part of it was the script where it was a partial comedy with Tom's character, but a type of crime thriller, too. However, what gave it most the Made for TV feel was the directing/camera handling. I also just saw the movie Colombiana recently, and it's day and night difference between the two movies how to give a movie the "big screen" feel. With this type of directing, it's not surprising that the actors were able to do more than just a passable job.
*** SPOILERS BELOW ***
To comment on some of the reviews which said that the movie did not make sense, one reviewer complained about the doctor being brutalized in broad daylight. If the viewer had been paying attention, the two thugs were simply "escorting" the doctor, most likely to a boat where they can dump him in the middle of the river. They didn't start roughing him up until they got toward the end of the pier where there was no one else around. Perhaps to give the story line the benefit of the doubt, this is when they needed to "convince" the doctor to get into the boat. However, since Alex came along, they decided to just shoot the doctor right there. Actually, this makes sense since if their objective is to kill the doctor, it would be a lot dumber to not finish the job just because someone caught on to what you were doing.
Now, the scene itself was a bit odd because Alex was shooting and it wasn't clear if he was just shooting, not really aiming at them, because he didn't know what else to do... Or in case he was aiming at them, then he didn't seem to care whether he accidentally hit the doctor or not.
So this scene could have been better planned, and there were others as well, but to me, it didn't detract from the enjoyment of the movie since I already was in the opinion that this had a Made for TV feel to it.
Another reviewer complained that when Alex appeared, people started dying...? I am assuming this is what he meant and not when Brian first appeared. If he meant Brian, then that is one of the reasons they pinpointed the murders on Brian. But if the viewer meant Alex, technically speaking, Alex did not start killing people until the end. It was Tom's character who killed the first guys after Alex's arrival.
For the reviewer who complained about the role of an insurance fraud investigator... All we know is that Brian was hired to videotape these people. Perhaps in a real fraud investigation, there are different people who have different roles, one of which is the person who does the videotaping. But anyway, as we find out anyway, he was not hired to do real insurance fraud investigation. This was a down-on-his-luck kind of guy who was taking any job he could get... so he was told to videotape under the pretense of fraud insurance. Since we find out it was not fraud insurance, then there doesn't need to be any connection to reality to what a real fraud investigator does... How is Brian supposed to know?
Anyway, so I enjoyed the twist in the movie, and while definitely not one of the better movies out there, I thought it was worthwhile watching on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
I'll get into my review first and then cover some comments about other reviewers' complaints.
From a story point of view, I thought it was an interesting enough twist. Acting was OK. OK, I'll have to agree with one of the reviewers that perhaps Tom Arnold did shine the best with his typical Tom Arnold type of character (annoying but somehow likable). To me, I would say the biggest complaint I had about the movie is that it had a Made for TV feel to it. Part of it was the script where it was a partial comedy with Tom's character, but a type of crime thriller, too. However, what gave it most the Made for TV feel was the directing/camera handling. I also just saw the movie Colombiana recently, and it's day and night difference between the two movies how to give a movie the "big screen" feel. With this type of directing, it's not surprising that the actors were able to do more than just a passable job.
*** SPOILERS BELOW ***
To comment on some of the reviews which said that the movie did not make sense, one reviewer complained about the doctor being brutalized in broad daylight. If the viewer had been paying attention, the two thugs were simply "escorting" the doctor, most likely to a boat where they can dump him in the middle of the river. They didn't start roughing him up until they got toward the end of the pier where there was no one else around. Perhaps to give the story line the benefit of the doubt, this is when they needed to "convince" the doctor to get into the boat. However, since Alex came along, they decided to just shoot the doctor right there. Actually, this makes sense since if their objective is to kill the doctor, it would be a lot dumber to not finish the job just because someone caught on to what you were doing.
Now, the scene itself was a bit odd because Alex was shooting and it wasn't clear if he was just shooting, not really aiming at them, because he didn't know what else to do... Or in case he was aiming at them, then he didn't seem to care whether he accidentally hit the doctor or not.
So this scene could have been better planned, and there were others as well, but to me, it didn't detract from the enjoyment of the movie since I already was in the opinion that this had a Made for TV feel to it.
Another reviewer complained that when Alex appeared, people started dying...? I am assuming this is what he meant and not when Brian first appeared. If he meant Brian, then that is one of the reasons they pinpointed the murders on Brian. But if the viewer meant Alex, technically speaking, Alex did not start killing people until the end. It was Tom's character who killed the first guys after Alex's arrival.
For the reviewer who complained about the role of an insurance fraud investigator... All we know is that Brian was hired to videotape these people. Perhaps in a real fraud investigation, there are different people who have different roles, one of which is the person who does the videotaping. But anyway, as we find out anyway, he was not hired to do real insurance fraud investigation. This was a down-on-his-luck kind of guy who was taking any job he could get... so he was told to videotape under the pretense of fraud insurance. Since we find out it was not fraud insurance, then there doesn't need to be any connection to reality to what a real fraud investigator does... How is Brian supposed to know?
Anyway, so I enjoyed the twist in the movie, and while definitely not one of the better movies out there, I thought it was worthwhile watching on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Pi
(1998)
Interesting...
24 June 2012
if you like something different. I finally made it through this movie on my 3rd or so attempt.
I feel like I am generous giving this film a 6, mainly based on effort. It is unique in a lot of ways. I guess since it is an indie (and produced on such a low budget), this allows the director to take chances. Being unique and innovative is good, but if it doesn't help in communicating to the audience, then it fails. The gritty black and white imagery, the quick cutting of shots, the shakiness of the camera in some parts add to the movie in some parts, but get rather tiring and repetitive after a while. Also, I'm a firm believer that you have to root for the protagonist to have an enjoyable movie, and there was basically nothing to make me root for him. It should be possible to build a paranoid character who people can empathize with, but this was not the case with Pi.
So kudos to the director for taking chances... But that doesn't mean it was an enjoyable movie.
Based on the way the movie was filmed, it can be considered timeless (ie, not set in any specific time period). I found the computer set up a bit overdone, but perhaps if it was supposed to be in the 70s or so, I can understand. I found the line about computers gaining consciousness before shutting down a bit much. I've wondered what mathematicians felt about this movie. I suppose positively since there are not many movies where the protagonist is a mathematician.
I feel like I am generous giving this film a 6, mainly based on effort. It is unique in a lot of ways. I guess since it is an indie (and produced on such a low budget), this allows the director to take chances. Being unique and innovative is good, but if it doesn't help in communicating to the audience, then it fails. The gritty black and white imagery, the quick cutting of shots, the shakiness of the camera in some parts add to the movie in some parts, but get rather tiring and repetitive after a while. Also, I'm a firm believer that you have to root for the protagonist to have an enjoyable movie, and there was basically nothing to make me root for him. It should be possible to build a paranoid character who people can empathize with, but this was not the case with Pi.
So kudos to the director for taking chances... But that doesn't mean it was an enjoyable movie.
Based on the way the movie was filmed, it can be considered timeless (ie, not set in any specific time period). I found the computer set up a bit overdone, but perhaps if it was supposed to be in the 70s or so, I can understand. I found the line about computers gaining consciousness before shutting down a bit much. I've wondered what mathematicians felt about this movie. I suppose positively since there are not many movies where the protagonist is a mathematician.
The Skeptic
(2009)
This movie is the exact reason why I don't want to live in a big, old house by myself...
1 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Like some others have already stated, this movie has some places that will make you jump... and this movie is a nice change-of-pace over those other type of horror movies which are more just blood and guts. From this perspective, this movie reminds me of "The Others".
I thought it had a nice story about closure of a relationship between a man and his mother. Most complaints seem to be about the ending, but I have no complaints about the ending. True, the ending is up for interpretation whether his mother wanted closure with her son or if he only imagined it. Being the optimist I am, I choose to think that the former represents the ending.
Some people also complain there doesn't seem to be closure with his wife and son, but considering (1) his wife's complaint about him was that was is too unemotional and (2) she felt the reason for his behavior had something to do with his mother, to me, again being the optimist, there is full closure as well. With what he experienced, he should be able to be more open-minded, more emotional, and more of the type of husband and father that his wife wants him to be.
With the slew of mediocre movies I had been watching recently, this movie was a pleasant surprise. (Currently I rate this as a 7 but I may have to raise it to an 8.)
I thought it had a nice story about closure of a relationship between a man and his mother. Most complaints seem to be about the ending, but I have no complaints about the ending. True, the ending is up for interpretation whether his mother wanted closure with her son or if he only imagined it. Being the optimist I am, I choose to think that the former represents the ending.
Some people also complain there doesn't seem to be closure with his wife and son, but considering (1) his wife's complaint about him was that was is too unemotional and (2) she felt the reason for his behavior had something to do with his mother, to me, again being the optimist, there is full closure as well. With what he experienced, he should be able to be more open-minded, more emotional, and more of the type of husband and father that his wife wants him to be.
With the slew of mediocre movies I had been watching recently, this movie was a pleasant surprise. (Currently I rate this as a 7 but I may have to raise it to an 8.)
Big Stan
(2007)
Better than average Rob Schneider movie...
30 April 2012
If you think about a typical Rob Schneider movie, this might not be too different than what you might expect. However, there are 3 things which really stand out in this film to make it an above average (Rob Schneider) movie:
1. David Carradine. It was great to see him and he played his role well. 2. The fight scenes in this movie were actually pretty good. 3. Rob Schneider obviously did some bulking up for his role.
The story was decent, the script was above average, all the supporting characters did a good job as well. Overall, it was an entertaining movie, keeping in mind that the bulk of the movie takes place in a prison, so you get a lot of prison humor.
1. David Carradine. It was great to see him and he played his role well. 2. The fight scenes in this movie were actually pretty good. 3. Rob Schneider obviously did some bulking up for his role.
The story was decent, the script was above average, all the supporting characters did a good job as well. Overall, it was an entertaining movie, keeping in mind that the bulk of the movie takes place in a prison, so you get a lot of prison humor.
The Descent
(2005)
A disappointment...
27 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This had the potential to be a good movie, one which can drop the stereotypes of women in many horror movies and turn them into real protagonists. They don't have to be perfect. In fact, the characters were developed pretty well. So have you ever watched a movie and you're thinking this is a pretty good movie, and then the ending can make it or break it? In this case, the ending broke it. I'm not talking about the ending ending, but I'm referring to near the end of the movie where Sarah decides to become the judge, jury, and executioner of Juno. True, she didn't actually kill Juno, but she basically was giving her a death sentence. She didn't know all the facts, she had only one side of the story, and yet that was good enough for her to decide the fate for Juno. OK, so perhaps she wasn't killing Juno because of Beth... Perhaps she was killing Juno because she was having an affair with her husband. That gives the right to kill someone? Anyway, I personally think it would have been a better movie if the movie would have shown how they used their courage and ingenuity to get out of the cave... But in the end, this turns into a typical slasher movie where they get killed one by one.
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?
(2004)
You don't have to believe everything in the movie to get benefit out of the movie...
24 February 2012
If there's two points people should get out of the movie, it is:
1. We train our brain the way we think.
2. If we have a negative (pessimistic) attitude about something, we won't change.
I think #1 is very important in understanding why we get upset so easily sometimes. It has virtually nothing about what happened, but more about how we've trained ourselves to react and behave based on certain stimulus. That is why two different people can have completely different reactions to the same stimulus. If you get upset very easily, even at loved ones, and if you do nothing to try to correct the behavior, it basically gets worse and worse over time.
Related to #2, if we don't open our minds and accept the fact that the way we've been thinking is wrong, we won't change. That is why people rarely change. In order for them to change, they need to accept the fact that the way they behaved previously was wrong.
It is not surprising how certain people have reacted to this movie. I hope that they have their own ways to find happiness. I am sure that they do, but this movie is a step in the right direction if you want to be happy all of the time. If you don't believe you can be happy all of the time, see #2.
1. We train our brain the way we think.
2. If we have a negative (pessimistic) attitude about something, we won't change.
I think #1 is very important in understanding why we get upset so easily sometimes. It has virtually nothing about what happened, but more about how we've trained ourselves to react and behave based on certain stimulus. That is why two different people can have completely different reactions to the same stimulus. If you get upset very easily, even at loved ones, and if you do nothing to try to correct the behavior, it basically gets worse and worse over time.
Related to #2, if we don't open our minds and accept the fact that the way we've been thinking is wrong, we won't change. That is why people rarely change. In order for them to change, they need to accept the fact that the way they behaved previously was wrong.
It is not surprising how certain people have reacted to this movie. I hope that they have their own ways to find happiness. I am sure that they do, but this movie is a step in the right direction if you want to be happy all of the time. If you don't believe you can be happy all of the time, see #2.
The Virgin Suicides
(1999)
Disappointing...
20 February 2012
Like many others, I was wondering what the meaning of the movie was. However, unlike others, the more I found out, the less I liked the movie. I think most people dismiss the idea that the meaning of the movie is to criticize draconian-style parents, but if that's not the point, then what is the point. Unfortunately, the movie made that a rather ambiguous point.
What lead to my disappointment were the Sparknotes on the book. URLs are not allowed in reviews, You can find it pretty easily and start reading from the character analysis.
First, while I thought the intro of Trip in the movie was great, it seems that there is much more to Trip than the movie reveals. While it showed Trip smoking weed in the movie, Sparknotes refer to his "burgeoning drug trade". Perhaps it was Coppola's desire to make Trip into a likable character, but I don't know why based on what happens in the movie.
Second, the following page in Sparknotes refers to all the symbolism in the movie, such as Lux's bra on the crucible which Peter takes and the long bath Cecilia takes prior to putting on a dirty ill-fitting wedding dress to her party... What...? Did I miss these points in the movie?
So then I wonder what else I missed. What seems to have happened is that since it is impractical to fit an entire book into a movie, they did the next best thing (being sarcastic here) which was to take the Cliff Notes version and make that into a movie.
Although Sparknotes may reflect one person's view, I can at least better understand perhaps what the author was trying to say better through Sparknotes than I did from watching the movie. Since the original author was male, and the narration of the story was from one of the boys' point of view, perhaps the movie was about how the girls seemed inaccessible to them. The movie partially got that point across, but only partially. Or perhaps the movie was about the mundane and hypocritical life in suburbia and that for Lux, Trip was her escape, and even for Trip, Lux was her escape... I was also wondering about the title of the book since we know Lux was not a virgin... However, what also seems to be missing from the movie is the fact that it is a line from a song from Lux's favorite band... Whooops, somehow that was left out of the movie, too, wasn't it?
In a way, it would be nice if someone else would do an adaptation of the book... but I imagine that is unlikely.
Anyway, despite my disappointment, I felt the movie was worthwhile with a 6/10 rating. I thought there were strong performances by Josh Hartnett and Kirsten Dunst, and a good supporting performance by James Woods. Based on what I read about the character of Mr. Lisbon, he played the role well.
What lead to my disappointment were the Sparknotes on the book. URLs are not allowed in reviews, You can find it pretty easily and start reading from the character analysis.
First, while I thought the intro of Trip in the movie was great, it seems that there is much more to Trip than the movie reveals. While it showed Trip smoking weed in the movie, Sparknotes refer to his "burgeoning drug trade". Perhaps it was Coppola's desire to make Trip into a likable character, but I don't know why based on what happens in the movie.
Second, the following page in Sparknotes refers to all the symbolism in the movie, such as Lux's bra on the crucible which Peter takes and the long bath Cecilia takes prior to putting on a dirty ill-fitting wedding dress to her party... What...? Did I miss these points in the movie?
So then I wonder what else I missed. What seems to have happened is that since it is impractical to fit an entire book into a movie, they did the next best thing (being sarcastic here) which was to take the Cliff Notes version and make that into a movie.
Although Sparknotes may reflect one person's view, I can at least better understand perhaps what the author was trying to say better through Sparknotes than I did from watching the movie. Since the original author was male, and the narration of the story was from one of the boys' point of view, perhaps the movie was about how the girls seemed inaccessible to them. The movie partially got that point across, but only partially. Or perhaps the movie was about the mundane and hypocritical life in suburbia and that for Lux, Trip was her escape, and even for Trip, Lux was her escape... I was also wondering about the title of the book since we know Lux was not a virgin... However, what also seems to be missing from the movie is the fact that it is a line from a song from Lux's favorite band... Whooops, somehow that was left out of the movie, too, wasn't it?
In a way, it would be nice if someone else would do an adaptation of the book... but I imagine that is unlikely.
Anyway, despite my disappointment, I felt the movie was worthwhile with a 6/10 rating. I thought there were strong performances by Josh Hartnett and Kirsten Dunst, and a good supporting performance by James Woods. Based on what I read about the character of Mr. Lisbon, he played the role well.
Love & Other Drugs
(2010)
A wide view of opinions on this film..
18 February 2012
Looking over the comments, it's almost as if it's a love it or hate it relationship with this movie. The hate it part typically centers around there's nothing special about this movie. While there was no love interest in the book from which the movie is based, the book is based on the true story as told by Jamie Reidy. Therefore, for me, it was interesting to have a retrospective view of the hey day of the 90's, especially how companies including pharmaceuticals were doing every they could to increase their bottom-line (well, and still do in fact). The love interest part was also touching. Anne Hathaway did a admirable job portraying someone with stage 1 Parkinson's Disease. The clips from the "other" convention were priceless as well to reflect what people with Parkinson's Disease have to go through. I don't know this for a fact, but I felt that some people with Parkinson's Disease were used as extras as other people listening to the speeches. I think Hathaway's portrayal of Parkinson's Disease is as significant, if not more, than Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of autism... (Not that it was necessarily that accurate, but Hoffman received a lot of praise for his portrayal.) Anyway, I thought this movie provided a truly touching story between two people who face their own challenges in the world and realize what is really important in life.
Battle Los Angeles
(2011)
Another movie I'm surprised at the relatively low rating on IMDb...
20 January 2012
This was an action, sci-fi flick and I found it very entertaining and very intense from beginning to end. Since it was an action flick, there was not a lot of time for character development, but I actually did feel it did a decent job in the limited time: Staff Sgt Nantz, previously led his own squad into combat and he was the only survivor so the other troops in his current assignment doubt his leadership, the new Lt. Martinez who is green behind the ears, Cpl Jason Lockett who has the biggest grudge against Staff Sgt Nantz because his brother was one of the troops killed in Sgt Nantz original squad. Yes, perhaps it would have been nice to have had more character development but considering the movie was already almost 2 hours long, I think a longer movie would have lost the interest of those wanting to watch an action movie. Regarding the complaints of "no plot", I thought the plot was sufficient for an action movie: an advanced alien race attacks Earth to get take over Earth's natural resources, and the original mission of this squad was to extract some civilians before the air force levels the ground occupied by the aliens... Some complained about the choppiness of the shooting. I could imagine the choppiness being overwhelming watching this in the theater, but I watched the movie on a 42" flat screen TV, so I thought the level of choppiness was appropriate. Included in the movie were some sappy scenes and tired army movie clichés, but hey, it's a war movie! To me, this was an action-packed, motivational movie that says Go Marines! Oorah!
The Last Ronin
(2010)
Excellent movie in exploring the psyche of the Japanese samurai
29 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The movie centers around two ronin (masterless samurai) 16 years after the they participated in the revenge of their former master. All their comrades who participated in the revenge were put to death, but the two survived to fulfill specific purposes. Terasaka Kichiemon's purpose was to bear witness to what happened during the attack. Seno Magozaemon's purpose is less clear, but as the story unfolds 16 years after the revenge, his purpose is made clear through the help of some flashbacks. It helps to know the story behind "47 Ronin" and it also helps to understand who the girl is, but sufficient information is provided in due time. The movie is beautifully written, shot, and acted. There are very few fight scenes, so this is more of a story about the relationship between happiness/love and honor/duty/obligation for a samurai. I'm not sure what is meant about the ambiguity in one of the other comments. It's clear that Seno Magozaemon cares deeply about the girl. In the version I saw, they did not show the subtitle of what he mouthed to her at the end, but it was basically "Oshiwase ni" ("Be happy").
The Dog Problem
(2006)
One of the best movies period...
21 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This film is so underrated. Yes, it helps if you love cute dogs, but I would have rated this as a fairly entertaining comedy until the end. No, not the very end, but the last scene with Don Cheadle. Don asks Giovanni why he gave the dog away. Now Giovanni's character was one who probably his entire life was so messed up, neurotic, self-consumed but probably most importantly self-destructive... and finally, he sees clearly what matters the most. And the answer is not himself. Brilliant. Giovanni Ribisi, Don Cheadle, Lynn Collins, Mena Suvari, and even Scott Caan do a good job in this film. I feel a bit sorry for Giovanni and Scott as they probably don't get the recognition I feel they deserved in this effort. (Scott wrote and directed it.)
School of Life
(2005 TV Movie)
Pleasantly good movie
18 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The average rating of 6.5 would have been what I would have guessed my review would be assuming it would be a decent movie. After watching the movie, I obviously felt differently. There are some areas which could have been improved... In some cases, some acting. The story (fate of Mr. D) was rather predictable. However, there were truly touching parts of the movie which makes the movie special. When you look at the reviews, you can see that the people who bothered to write a review all felt similarly about how they enjoyed the movie. In my case, I'm not a big Ryan Reynolds fan. I wasn't looking forward to some cool, smart-aleck character who all the students like, but he did a good job. In addition, I was impressed with Andrew Robb. Anyway, this movie is definitely worth a watch.
Samurai Rebellion
(1967)
Great movie!
18 September 2011
Many people familiar with Japanese culture know how important it is to respect your elders and superiors. Thus, it's not surprising how Sasahara lived most of his live. The impressive part of this movie is that it goes beyond those traditional Japanese values and shows that respect for family and the ones you love should be considered more important than the respect demanded by those outside of your family. While this type of behavior may not have been typical, this is what makes it such a compelling story. It should be noted that the chamberlain commented on Sasahara's change in behavior and even showed respect for it. The movie contained good action scenes but was actually dominated by dialog... and still riveting.
The Commissioner
(1998)
Slow moving intriguing movie
12 June 2011
There are some interesting twists in the movie, so there was a lot of thought put into the plot. Unfortunately, the execution did not live up to the potential provided by the plot. Actually, the plot of the movie is just as pertinent today as it was 10+ years ago of corporations with ties to politicians being able to be above the law. However, the script, the dialog, the pace, and the acting all left a little to be desired. Even the performance of the distinguished John Hurt seemed average at best. This seemed more along the quality of a made-for-TV movie. The redeeming value of the movie was that it has the theme that one must do things for the right reason, but it was rather painful process to get there.
(Untitled)
(2009)
Could not get into this movie...
12 June 2011
I just could not get into this movie. I think to get into a movie, you have to care about the characters, and I can't say that I was able to get into the whiny artist type. I could empathize with how hard it may be for a struggling artist, but someone who says he'll kill themselves in 3 years if he doesn't make it doesn't bring about a lot of empathy. Obviously, he doesn't have to be a role model, but wouldn't it have been a better movie to have a struggling artist who still has some redeeming values instead one who takes a childish view on life? As he is, I don't see this as someone who'd be an interesting subject for a movie. So while there's presumably some revelation/redemption in the movie but not enough to overcome the lack of interest in the main character.
While I respect Russ Meyer's campiness style
2 May 2010
...I think I would have to blame the script more for my lack of interest in this movie. It seems it was intended as a parody of how conservatives view Hollywood. I saw at least one review refer this to the Reefer Madness of the 70s. The difference though is that Reefer Madness was intended to be a serious movie. In this case, even as a parody, to the group who would have such a view about Hollywood, it actually reinforces those views. Perhaps a much better parody would be to include those type of people who have such views in the movie to actually show how those people are being hypocritical or wrong about their views. As the movie stands, you have no empathy for the characters who all turn out to be selfish (well, at least, I am hoping that most people out there have little empathy for the characters)... In my view, for a movie to be successful, you have to have empathy with the protagonist(s). The campiness stylishness is great (if you enjoy that type of thing), but to me, the story and characters provided little interest.
English as a Second Language
(2005)
I'm surprised this movie has not gotten better ratings
17 May 2008
Perhaps it's because many people are not into a story about an illegal immigrant and the fact that he was easily overtaken by greed or that Lola's promiscuity led to an abortion... There were a lot of other complex topics in this movie including a dysfunctional family and dishonesty in relationships, but the movie combined the various topics well. And while this movie shows the downside of people, it also shows redemption is possible when you open your heart and eyes to the truth. Very well scripted and acted. Definitely not a movie for people were looking for a car chase scene or martians coming from outer space, but if you're looking for a good drama, this is a good choice.
Ultraviolet
(2006)
OK, some parts of the film were ridiculous
15 July 2007
Like how she can be surrounded by armed men and live through it... by ducking the bullets no less... but if you think about it, Arnold Schwarzenegger always gets out of situations where he is surrounded. They just made it a bit more obvious in this movie. But ignoring those parts and ignoring that some of the special effects felt like they were from a music video, I didn't feel the movie was as bad as some people make it out to be--other effects were rather good and some of the fight scenes were pretty good. And in a corny way, you could feel for Violet wanting to protect the child (yes, except for the one time when she abandoned him). Considering more than 30 minutes was cut from the director's version, it seemed like the director meant it to be more of a thought-provoking movie, but seemed like the studio wanted to cut out the thinking part and just have an "action" movie. Anyway, I was still entertained.
John Tucker Must Die
(2006)
I recorded this as a brainless comedy to watch and was pleasantly surprised...
15 July 2007
I thought would be a typical teen comedy containing more gratuitous sex scenes and that the story and script would not contain much resembling thought, so this movie turned out better than I thought it was going to be. Yes, the characters were rather stereotypical and yes, the acting could have been better, but one does not expect Oscar-worthy performances of the likes of Road to Perdition or Million Dollar Baby when watching a teen comedy... I thought the story had enough of an interesting storyline (everything they tried seemed to make him more popular when they were trying to do the opposite) and that the moral of the movie was good (that in the end, even in the case to "get even", deception is wrong). Some people seemed unhappy with the ending. I am not sure what other kind of ending people would have preferred seeing. Perhaps they would rather have seen this as a teen horror flick where everyone gets killed in the end...?
Tell Your Friends