chasman99 Reviews

Hot Fuzz (2007)

What a disappointment

[7/10 · 18 September 2007]

I absolutely loved Shaun of the Dead and when I saw this movie was coming out I was just crazy to see it. Finally the DVD arrives in the mail and I sat with eager anticipation for another nearly 2 hours or dry wit and humor from the boys.

The premise itself is a little far fetched and does lend itself for an over the top comedy just like Shaun did. The problem is that Shaun was perfectly set up with the zombie portion to require gore and over the top blood splatter. In this movie, there are so many scenes of people getting things blown up, smashed to a pulp or cracked open that the blood becomes a second supporting actor. While that makes sense with zombies, it sure doesn't fit with a small town group of old cronies.

Now the ending is fantastic with massive amounts of bullets being fired, but it does drag on a bit long and the gags are a little too obvious to score as big surprises. Simon Pegg was good, but he was so serious it was hard to squeeze humor out of his character. If you want Shaun of the Dead humor, please, just pop Shaun of the Dead into the DVD player and forget this one. It'll disappoint for sure.

The Da Vinci Load (II) (2006 Video)

Decent production and humor

[8/10 · 16 July 2007]

Not a lot to be said about the movie, you know what you are getting into. I have to say it was entertaining having read the "Code" book and seen that movie. The parody was pulled off really well and some of the writing was pretty decent. All in all, a pretty entertaining movie for an adult feature. Better than almost everything else I have seen in recent years. I'd recommend it.

The sex scenes were fairly straight forward. The only group action was all women, at the end of the movie. I found it a little odd that the "prioress" and some of the members were not included in the movie up until this final scene, but that is hardly something you can be too picky about.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Review of the movie...not the subject

[7/10 · 16 November 2006]

And now for something completely new…a review about the movie instead of the conflict it created.

First off, I did read the book. I found the casting a bit questionable but as is generally the case, minutia gets lost the further in your memory it is. I read the book quite some time ago, so the glaring mistakes were missed to some degree.

I watched the movie with my wife and she had never read the book. It was enjoyable for both of us.

The good: The topic in and of itself keeps you thinking throughout, if not on the actual action in the movie, on your own religious musings. The casting was pretty darn good actually. Sadly all the supporting characters were overshadowed by the one mistake Howard made in putting Hanks in the lead. It was just too difficult to get past for anyone who had a preconceived notion of who Langdon should have been (Ralph Fiennes or Hugh Laurie for me…) The pace of the movie was good, and I did not feel that it dragged at all.

The bad: There were too many times you could poke a hole in the material. Again, this is not a critique of the content but a comment based on your ability to find holes independently of the subject matter. I also didn't feel the final few scenes tied things together very well. There was too much intellectual blather and you didn't feel a major emotional attachment between Sophie and her grandmother. That needed to be developed or you still felt "can she trust these people?" at the end of the movie.

I think the twists and turns were faithfully reproduced, but it did not wrap up nicely. For perfect wrap up see "The Usual Suspects". I wanted something along those lines…where after the finale I was glad to see how it came together, somewhat surprised and very happy for the come-uppance of the antagonists.

All in all I think this was a good depiction of the book, given the limited time you have to do so. I look forward to Angels and Demons more as I think the story is tighter, at least until the finale, which I imagine, will be laughable at the theater.

If you liked the book, go see the movie. If you did not read the book, but it intrigues you, go see the movie. If you are consumed with the conflicts in subject matter and the inconsistencies with the details in art, placement and historical fact…either don't go, or keep it to yourself. I wish to watch in blissful ignorance thanks

Parenthood (1989)

Forever relevant

[8/10 · 28 April 2006]

I recall seeing this when it was released in '89. I found it funny but was only a Junior in high school at the time. Much of the humor and pain/struggle was lost on me. I rediscovered this on TV yesterday and just could not turn it off.

Having been married for a while and having kids of my own really brings this picture into focus. It is an amazing rendition of various families and how they are existing and treating their children. I identified so completely with Steve Martin's character that is was a bit scary.

I can see this film lasting the test of time very well. You can watch it as an outsider and enjoy the chaos or find yourself in one of the characters and enjoy the irony. Another Ron Howard masterpiece.

The Stalker 3 (2003 Video)

For what it is

[6/10 · 14 December 2005]

For anyone who has searched late cable and seen many of these movies you can review this within it's context. This is better than average soft core and the plot is actually realistic. Sure the acting is poor (they wouldn't be in movies like this otherwise) but the women are beautiful and naked. To the person who accidentally rented it, I can imagine how disappointed you were, but hey try to parlay that into something, if you get my drift.

All in all better than most late night cheese-fests and with a plot that does not border on the completely insane.

To summarize the women you have the bad girl - natural breasts and decent looking enough. But seriously, are you sleeping with her when your wives look like these two?

The lesbian lover - very cute and very sexy. But also, not in the film much.

Wife number one is a good looking woman, from the neck down. She's the DAs wife and just looks like she's using too much makeup.

The plastic surgeons wife is gorgeous, and if you can get past the strange nose is someone you would definitely hang on to if she was nude in your bed.

Blade Runner (1982)

o for 2

[6/10 · 21 March 2005]

I remember watching this some 7 years ago and thinking "what's the big deal?" It has been touted as an instant classic and one of those movies guys love universally. After feeling Luke warm about the viewing I decided in my infinite wisdom to give the movie another chance. I must have been wrong, since this is one of the most highly thought of movies of sci-fi times.

I was not wrong.

I can skip the fact that special effects have come much further than any person could have imagined. Even the people who constructed these fabulous worlds of the "future" would have no idea. In fact I miss movies with the character time and development that the older movies have. Blade Runner delivers---some---on this point. Decker is a largely human guy and you identify with him. What you don't know is what dirt they have on him to make him take on this task, but hey, let's let that go. Then there is the "love" he feels for the replicant. Does anyone actually believe this? When did the emotional ties get built so convincingly that you believe they are in love? Add to that Edward James Olmos. A weird oragami foldin', bow tie wearing, useless dude. He knows everything that is going on, yet never does much other than allude to that fact.

Skipping that and on to the vision of the future. Flying cars. OK fine. Paging Mr. Jetson! Maybe in 1982 everyone thought that 2019 was a real long way away. There are just too many non futuristic things to make the idea fluent. Levelor blinds, busted up stucco and drywall in the houses. Heck, everything but the cars and guns was just as it is today. If we can develop alternate fuel sources and make a car fly, why couldn't the human race improve on anything else? What gets at the heart of this criticism is that the movie is just downright boring. The first replicant he shoots dies rather normally, much like a human. But what the heck is up with Pris? What's with the flailing death? She was not a robot after all. The best interaction is with Decker and Roy. More human and intimate than anything else in the movie. I give Rutger Hauer props for his performance. Harrison Ford was OK. May I missed some seriously important info before I sat down to take this all in, but I doubt it. I just don't see how this movie is so good. 6 out of 10.

The Rainmaker (1997)

A sad interpretation of the book

[5/10 · 4 March 2005]

I am so tired of the movies made from books that eliminate important facts and change items to appease the viewer. First things first, the monologue begins the movie detailing some of what they found unworthy to shoot on film. Missing in this is how Rudy lost his job to the boys at Tinley Britt, but I guess that little bit of conflict was unnecessary huh? We start the movie when Rudy gets his job with Bruiser and that is about half way through the book. Left out again is Rudy's best friend, Booker, and the stress he is feeling over his lost love and his eviction and bankruptcy. The bankruptcy is mentioned in passing but that is it.

This is forgivable until we get to the trial. What is left out: Involvement from his professors, the section U discovery with his new found lawyer friends, and a large part of conflict between Kipler and Drummond. Danny Glover is OK, but a more energetic and younger actor would have fared better I think. If you read the book, nothing goes wrong for young Rudy and the judge is so partial it is scary, but we missed major points of the movie without that conflict building and the total embarrassment of the big shot lawyer by the judge and new attorney.

Danny Devito was AWESOME as Deck, and he had the ticks and mannerisms down pat. Damon was decent but not real dynamic.

If you have not read the book, this is not a bad movie I suppose, but I can divorce myself from the inconsistencies enough to realize that the courtroom drama was not all that compelling either. Considering how good the first three book to movie conversions went, this was a chance at redemption after the Chamber. Not a very good movie, and more support for reading a novel over seeing things interpreted on film.

Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (2004)

What the?

[8/10 · 22 February 2005]

I rented this with major anticipation. Sadly this was a mix of two things, outright hilarity or sheer boredom. I was looking forward to the humor Kumar's character would bring especially being a Van Wilder fan. The humor was limited to the raccoon scene in the car, the singing of "Hold On" and Neil Patrick Harris. Bingo, done, that's it.

There is the distinct chance that smoking up myself would have helped, but if that is what you are looking for you'd find more humor with Half Baked, Supere Troopers, Club Dread and a slew of other movies in that genre.

Not terribly happy, but glad I only rented it instead of spending too much on pay per view or previously viewed DVD.

**************** Update: and this may help others who didn't like it at first either. I found myself wanting to see this again and now I find it utterly hilarious. Some of the smaller bits of humor slid past me and I don't think I gave it enough credit.

Kal Penn is a comic genius. I cna't wait to see the next H&K movie.

The Butterfly Effect (2004)

Overall not bad, but with one major flaw

[7/10 · 22 December 2004]

I can skip past all of the problems with multiple black outs and attempts to "fix" things in his past, but this movie makes one major flaw...it's ending. It is not a flaw that a director or special effects supervisor made so much as a critical error in conceptual set up for this type of movie. In effect you are expecting a strange twist of fate and some tense situations in this movie. It's not Gone with the Wind and it isn't a comedy so the standards should reflect the type of movie it is.

Here is the worst part...the ending is so terribly depressing you can't stand to imagine you'd ever watch it more than once. I understand that by dying all is well with the rest of his friends and family but you don't actually value the relief he must be experiencing by murdering himself.

That being said the twists and turns in the movie are pretty good. The acting was better than expected, but the worst part was the changes in Ashton's character. His quick switch to be so wantonly violent when he becomes the "frat boy" is a little odd. When Lenny murders Tommy, it is unnecessary. Why not just realize that you talked Tommy out of killing the dog and not give Lenny the murder weapon. Again, faults aside, I think it was better than I expected and would recommend it as a rental for a tense evening of movie watching.

American History X (1998)

Provoking, violent and not sugar coated

[10/10 · 11 August 2004]

To those who say the movie is poorly done, maybe you should sit down and watch the movie again. Edward Norton is an amazingly imposing figure. During the scene where he gets arrested that so many people allude to, he raises his hands and turns around, tattoos showing and a smile so evil you want to puke. He has zero remorse.

How he got to be this way is somewhat inconsequential but his father's death and political views on being passed over for a job are the root of that problem. His control lover the household, and his younger brother is amazing.

Once in prison he realizes that everything is not as he was lead to believe. The white supremacists that he meets are completely different than what he expects. Norton has actually bought into the true image and cause of white supremacy. When he finds out that is not at the heart of the movement he changes forever. Having a black friend in the slammer and being raped didn't exactly help him to love his "white brothers"

Upon release he feverishly begins the efforts to change the fortunes of his family for good. The ending is sad, but it gives the movie something most do not have in Hollywood, realism. not everyone forgets.

A fabulous movie, and one that is not for the weak of stomach. violent, racial, angry and profane. But well done.

One last note: many people make comments about the dinner table scene with Elliott Gould. To me this is a fantastic scene where the one person you know you are supposed to disagree with (Norton) says some things that actually make sense. Watch the movie and be enlightened, you won't forget it.

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

Take movies for what they are worth...

[7/10 · 5 May 2004]

To read reviews of movies one must separate the two different styles. The first being people who dissect each aspect of a movie, from production, to cast, to lighting to just about anything to find fault in a film. And to compare one film with another previous film an actor/producer/director did is really useless. Then there are the others, whose only goal is to help you decide if the movie was entertaining or not.

Intolerable Cruelty was good movie. Was it great? Heck no, but most films nowadays are not great. The concept was basic enough, divorce attorney gets taken by a gold digger, and it had the potential to do it in a very cliché way. That was not the case with this film.

George Clooney was fantastic. I find myself enjoying all of his movies and realizing he's actually a pretty good actor. Much the same as I had to get over the `he's just a pretty boy' feeling about Tom Cruise. His character is so self-absorbed that even people around him don't notice much. He wins without effort, he has all the money he desires and is so bored he tears down his house, buys cars and has dental work done just to make life exciting. He needs a challenge outside the ordinary, an ability to completely destroy someone. Enter CZJ.

Catherine Zeta Jones was basically herself, window dressing in tight clothes. She isn't stretched too greatly for acting, but she doesn't need to be. She's a mean conniving woman who wants to get things done the easy way. She accomplishes this initially until Clooney gets her ex off the hook. She's lost, until her desires turn to Clooney and destroying him. Their infatuation with one another is sort of like one predator valuing the others ability to devour prey. Clooney is far more convincing in his `smitten' attitude, but the job is done nonetheless.

The story was very quirky and the side players were excellent. Wheezy Joe was a strange yet enjoyable diversion, mostly because his very ailment would make it impossible to do his job, yet they don't out and out say that. You are allowed to decide these things fro yourself. Billy Bob Thornton was fantastic, ever so briefly.

What happens is that you get a very odd twist on a stale storyline and yes, a decidedly obvious ending. But along the way I found myself declaring, `This movie is really strange' but liking it just the same. Is it great? No. But movies rarely are

Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (2004)

Only for the kids

[6/10 · 30 March 2004]

I recall going to see the Brady Bunch movie, longing to relive my days as a young kid. It worked, and was so hilarious I was waiting for the second one to come out for sure.

With Scooby Doo things are different. I have kids and wasn't all that pleased with the first one. As time moves along and I watch SD1, it is tolerable and campy enough that it reminds me of my days watching the cartoon.

SD2 fails miserably for me however.

The negatives are: Daphne: Sarah Michelle Gellar couldn't act her way out of a paper bag, and Daphne has been ruined. Sure she was the "hot chick" and internet jokes have always pitted her and Fred together, but in the show she was also intelligent and a believable mystery solver. In the movie, we don't know if she's a pin up doll or wanna be scholar who gets lucky from time to time. I also never knew she was Jackie Chan!

Fred: Sorry Freddie Prinz, you can't act either (see paper bag reference to Daphne). Like Daphne Fred is lost. Again, he was the ascot wearing good looking fella, but remember this was the 70s. So to make him more modern and hip is just wrong. The whole be yourself theme is just plain goofy, and he and SMG have ZERO chemistry.

Overall story was not true to the cartoon. Underneath the ghosts and chases was a totally horrific "be yourself" message. If I wanted that I'd rent a John Hughes movie. For Scooby Doo, I want goofy chases and gaffes, and lots of food consumption.

The good:

Matthew Lillard, again. He IS Shaggy, and shockingly has a real place in Hollywood as a decent character actor in films. He's rarely going to steal a scene but he always seems to pull off his characters exactly as he should.

Peter Boyle was fabulous, the monsters were totally cool and Seth Green was excellent. You never quite knew if you could trust him, and that is a credit to how he played his character.

All in all, it was not true to the Scooby Doo feel and theme, so it was disappointing. One note though. I have a 6 year old and a 3 year old. They both really enjoyed the movie. The ghosts can be scary for some kids who aren't very aware of what is fake and what is real. I'm lucky in that regard. They got a real kick out of the movie and yes, the fart jokes.

For the kids, I say , yes. Go see it. If you are looking to relive some old time fun, watch cartoon network or something.

The final thing that makes this movie livable, is no Scrappy Doo. He had his place and we poked fun, but thank you for not bringing him back!

Wrong Turn (I) (2003)

Ugh, Ick and Snore

[5/10 · 29 December 2003]

First off, nobobdy takes a wrong turn! Second, you don't feel like these kids amde any major errors. People are always doing something wrong before they get hacked. Treat a local badly (sorry didn't happen), have pre marital sex (OK there was a little of that). But mostly it was a throwback to old horror. It was simple, but didn't spend enough time with the mountain men. Focused too much on the now budding relationship of the lead characters for my taste. And could Ms. Dushku please play a role where she doesn't have to be the bad ass chick? Soften up a bit dear.

Boat Trip (2002)

Delivers on what it should

[7/10 · 29 December 2003]

This isn't a movie to watch if you are looking for drama, ,major character strife and dvelopment or huge bucket loads of romance. It delivers on precisely what it should, humor. I expected absolutely nothing but horrific performances from some of the actors, not the least of which was Horatio Sands. Amazingly I thought he did great work. A lot of half naked (and fully naked) women for a gay cruise, but I suppose that was to make sure even the most skeptical of men liked the movie. Roger Moore was hialrious. Cuba Gooding Jr was fantasitic as always. The humor was childish and base, but that is what I was looking for the night I watched this gem. All in all, a good mindless romp, and I think a better depiction of gay men in general. They were the most normal people in the movie. No emotional trauma, no slew of queens to fill you imagination with stereotypes. Some rather every day people who just happened to be gay. Excellent balance, and props to the producer/director/writers for accomplshing this. Base humor without insulting the majority of it's own characters.

bravo!

Piglet's Big Movie (2003)

Emotional

[8/10 · 23 May 2003]

Let's face it, this is Disney and this is about the most insignificant little guy of the bunch. Any review looking at this movie as anything short of entertainment for kids is missing the point. But I digress...I have taken my kids (3 and 6) to see a few kids movies in the theatre. This is the first time they both sat still and totally silent through the whole movie. For me (and most any other parent) that in and of itself makes this movie fabulous. There were laughs, but mostly this was a very good movie to make people and kids realize value and worth. A nice theme and a great ending. As always Disney manages to end with a great deal of the realization of friends and family being important. I recommend anyone with kids seeing this movie. It isn't the most stimulating of all movies (i.e. Shrek, Monsters, Inc) but it's for the kids, not the adults.

xXx (2002)

Base Action thrills

[7/10 · 24 January 2003]

If you want substance...of any kind...rent something else. Even Bond flicks have some conflict. The plot between Vin and the rest of the group is weak. I was all over the idea that an X gamer, no fear guy would make a great secret agent. Here's the problem. Ever watch the X games? Those guys don't look like Vin Diesel. Picture Vin on a BMX doing tricks.

OK, now stop laughing.

Don't get me wrong, the movie has what you expect it to. Lot's of explosions and some good dialogue. Vin does need to work on his comedic timing as his one liners are usually flat. His tone of voice changes so little you don't get the full effect of the humor.

As for the stunts there were a few issues. They were set up as great and conceivably they could be. The Avalanche shoot was a great idea, but it wasn't believeable enough. I don't expect to believe it but I expect to be convinced it doesn't matter that it couldn't happen. When the snow is 2 feet from Vin and he just started? Well, that doesn't work. Had the avalanche closed in on him ever so slowly there would have been more suspense.

There were two majorly glaring weaknesses. 1) Am I supposed to believe that Vin cares about anyone? Let alone people he just met? A little character development would have been good here (maybe a friend stuck in jail while he serves God and Country) and 2) the death rocket that gets launched. My son has made more threatening looking things with his tinker toys!

All in all, if you want explosions, it ain't bad. It tries to be Bond...suave, subtle and confident. But it needs to be hard core, edgey and full of obvious attitude. This needs an R rating. The real X game and thrill junkies are "R" people themselves. Don't downgrade them for the sake of the folks out there with no adrenal glands. Make a mad rush movie about mad people with balls the size of Cleveland. That would work better. And hide the plot and character weaknesses.

Murder by Numbers (2002)

Interesting by lacks inspiration

[6/10 · 13 December 2002]

In watching this movie I was ready for a classic mind bender. Intelligence meets street smarts. In touting the movie one gets the feeling that there is a series of murders all done up in a fashion to confuse and boggle modern thought and forensics. Not so. The boys get bored, read up on crime scene investigation and get caught because our street wise cop just doesn't like things so simple.

Don't get me wrong, this is a decent movie and worth a rental but it's not the dramatic rip through your brains that say, "The Usual Suspects" is. I finished watching the movie and thought it was good. But good was not a positive thing. Anyone in Hoolywood can make a movie that is good, I want great, inspiring and emotional.

I never felt like the kids were winning in the struggle. I never doubted they'd get caught.

Lastly, I was disappointed in Sandra Bullock. Again, not her fault as she played it off as she was supposed to. Did I buy any romance or love, not really. Did I see her defense mechanism was sex and not care? you bet. She was so obviously cold you didn't buy it when she all of a sudden felt better and new how to fix things. It wasn't very well developed in that regard. She can play tough women but she has done it with a sense of vulnerability before (see the Net, a good mix of tough and vulnerable). She just seemed too determined to be tough because she was playing a cop.

Overall, a decent movie, worth my time and odd enough to be interesting. Ultimately, not a great movie, because it fails to make enough twists and turns and fails to pit the immense intelligence of the young men against the qualified street smarts of the cops. It was good enough, but could have been more.

40 Days and 40 Nights (2002)

Not too bad

[6/10 · 11 October 2002]

When I rented this movie I expected a childish excuse for massive quantity of T&A with some humorous points within. What I found was a little different. Sure it isn't the most perfect movie ever put together but the story does take an interesting angle with the concept. The fact that his coworkers and friends make a mokery of the situation is downright hilarious. It is indicative of the massive lashing out he should expect from every man in the world. Why the hell would he do this to himself. The panic attack angle was a bit much but outside of the stupidity of the "vow" you actually have embedded a decent enough love story with a women who is good looking without being so over the top "bimbo" that you can understand the drive to keep her in his life.

All around not a bad movie, some slow spots but others are down right hilarious. Go in expecting nothing, and get a decent way to relax and be entertained for 90 minutes.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Updated Indiana Jones

[8/10 · 15 November 2001]

Folks, let's keep this movie in our hearts as exactly what it is...a female rendering of Indiana Jones. The plot does not intend to be perfect or solid. It is a duplication of a video game, and to that end achieves it's goal. Some of the action or "tasks" are a little far fetched but that is to be expected. Angelina Jolie is perfect in this role. All of the villains in this movie have the conflict we have come to expect from action movies. Purely evil, but sly...weak and money hungry, and internally conflicted.

Sadly the worst performance in the movie is by Voight. He is totally unbelievable as her father. His performance was without emotion or interest.

As a final note the shameful prosthetic breasts Angelina was wearing were insulting. We all know she is endowed well enough anyway and that embellishment on the character was unnecessary. She looked out of proportion in some scenes and a natural badass would have been just fine by me.

Bound (1996)

Outstanding, two movies in one

[10/10 · 5 November 2001]

This movie was brilliant. There were two distinct and separate phases of the movie, the love affair and the mob sequences. They are intertwined but totally unique in their own way. Joe P was fantastic and deserves awards for his performance. And the two women burn with a passion that is downright amazing. Their sex scene is one of the steamiest scenes ever recorded on film.