perfectisolation Reviews

To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)

Horrible. why such a high rating? Friedkin, you suck.

[2/10 · 16 August 2004]

The writing, direction, and editing are horrific. I've never said that before about any other movie. Lines like "i like the rain." "oh yeah? Groovy." Within 3 minutes of the movie starting, the senior partner goes "I am too old for this." Of course, he is days away from retiring, and within the next 2 minutes (after his partner warned that he should come with him to this place, he gets killed. there is no character development whatsoever. the only reason we are given that the bad guy's lawyer turns him in is that "he was beginning to order me around like i was one of his mules". are you kidding me? no f@#king lawyer would ever ruin his future (practice or life) and so casually decide to do it while having breakfast with an secret service person.

this movie is so unrealistic and so stupid. we have no idea how any of these guys get there tips, how they end up meeting people. how did they end up at a quadraplegic artist's loft who happens to tell him that the bad guy's studio is somewhere downtown near a garage with a Chinese sign on it. Cut to agent walking up to garage sign with Chinese character on it. LA is enormous!!!!! how the hell did he find it? especially since we track the agent walking up to it and you can see that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to casually see it.

how come the bad guy knows when one of his contacts is being watched by the two agents, but yet doesn't even know who they are when they go into business with him. how come the head agent happens to be sleeping with the stripper/prostitute who is the only person in town who magically always gets the information? oh gawd i am getting an ulcer from the utter mediocrity that this movie is.

argh, it only gets worse. the direction is so bad. what the hell happened to friedkin? was he really a two trick pony? he throws in scenes that are completely unnecessary. why does dafoe need to be naked (gonads protected by a grocery paper bag) throwing money into a fire with a strategically placed naked lady in the background? Why does the guy talk non stop about BASE jumping (especially when it doesn't fit into his character whatsoever). Was it new and friedkin wanted to be hip? how the hell did the guys know to stop on the bridge and find the guys below?

Best direction point: Why would the prison murder attempt be done in broad daylight and so obviously that the mark escapes? I mean shoot, Turturro is able to get away from FOUR big black dudes. Couldn't freidkin be more inventive in shooting the scene? he view of the attempt is two guys with enormous 'fros walking menacingly, scowling straight at him. they they jump on top of him, and still cant stab him. a high school kid could think of a better way to come up with an attempt. and, 90% of the way in, all of a sudden there are titles on the bottom of the screen, declaring the day and time. how odd is that? there hasn't been ANY in the ENTIRE movie. So why now?

Look, every movie can have holes shot through it, but these aren't holes, they just don't make sense and are the result of horrible, horrible writing and directing. this movie isn't a sci fi movie, it isn't asking you to suspend disbelief. It just makes no sense that a guy gets killed even though his place is under surveillance and then a cop car comes up to his house, turns off his headlights while still up the block, pulls into the driveway, and then RUNS into the house and discovers the dead body. Why? it is 4am so the guy's secretary didn't find him dead (shoot, the agents watching him are still asleep CUZ it's dark outside) and the guys used a silencer to kill him. Who called it in? why the the cop show up? turn off his lights before he pulled up to the house? Why did he run in?

In fact, what the hell does this have to do LA? This movie could have been placed in a "town" of 10,000 people. why live and die in LA?

I have *NEVER* vented like this. But I have never been tormented by such crap that is supposed to be an 'A' movie.

The Pink Panther Strikes Again (1976)

Brilliancy for Panther fans!

[10/10 · 14 July 2004]

the second or third sequel (does that make it the 3rd or 4th film?) in the Panther series, it may be the test. Over the movies, most people come to love Inspector Dreyfus, the head of the Seurat, the french police, and the seemingly is the only man in the world who knows that Clouseau is a fool and not brilliant.

But cameos no more my friends! Dreyfus is now mortal enemy number one, and plays the bad guy role to perfection in this movie. However, one needs to watch the other movies first to get a clue and an appreciation for the non-Clouseau characters.

Within the first 15 minutes are some of the best comedy scenes ever! :

1. Clouseau at Dreyfus' looney bin (giving a how! to a patient wearing an Indian chief hat and getting something in return)

2. Clouseau's reverse cpr but gay sex to old women (in and out, in and out, pervert! Dirty old men!)

3. Parallel to stairs to room everyone is in. steps on lady's foot, destroy armor. Fights with butler. And that's before the integration scene. Killer stuff!

4. The gay bar scene (hey back in 60's drag shows were not acceptable fun nights out. Only gay men, women went. Only)

murderous. I was dying, rolling on the sofa.

Genius people, genius!

The Big Blue (1988)

Very Devise Movie (look at other reviews!), I'm on the brilliant side

[10/10 · 10 July 2004]

yada yada...beautiful cinematography..yada yada... Jean Reno, Luc Besson....yada yada.

all reviews are mostly the same so i wont repeat them.

what i will say it that it will be an amazing DVD rental if and only if: you will watch it in the dark with no distractions.

if you will watch it with lights on, while reading a book, surfing the internet, talking to your spouse/girlfriend/kids, this movie (especially extended cut) will be HORRIBLE so stay away.

Besson creates a visual world in this movie and the slow pace necessitates the viewers full attention. that way one becomes lost in the grandeur of the movie and cinematography. If the lights are on while you watch, you cannot be lost in that world. if you aren't focused on the movie but reading People magazine, it seems slow, you miss out on dialogue and slowly you could care less because you don't know what is going on and there are no scenes where there is story exposition.

let;s put it this way, drop any in on any scene of die hard (without ever having scene it before) any one gets the gist of the movie pretty quickly. ditto for pretty woman. people dislike this movie because they don't really turn off the lights, sit quietly, and just watch the movie. as a background movie it is torture.

great movie to watch byoneself on a Saturday night.

8.5

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)

absolutely one of worst high budget films ever made

[1/10 · 6 June 2004]

Absolutely one of the worst high budget films ever made. starting the absolutely insipid opening of all the angels managing to catch up to a falling helicopter (which flew off a flat bed truck they were driving) start it in mid air, and fl to safety three feet before crashing. Then it moves such a stupid and grotesque scene - cameron diaz moving furniture in her new house listening to mc hammer. of course when the other girls come in the room, the camera zooms in on their faces independently all happy tooo....all start danicng together. for no reason than to have the scene.

then, the introduction of the new bosely, we meet bernie mac who quickly questions what a stun gun is and proceeds to stun himself to near unconsciousness all in under 10 seconds. he overacts even more than billy crystal. so so so so so so so so so bad is the acting in this movie.

so bad, such unoriginal direction, music, any and everything.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

Eh, OK for most, a few (5+) years behind curve stylistically

[2/10 · 29 May 2004]

Has a few funny scenes, but like other reviews point out, it sometimes seems that the movie was made around these and that the movie as a whole is very disjointed. Was it written poorly? Did they over edit story points? Did some scenes just not workout well on film and have to be cut and hurt the movie? I cannot tell you, maybe it will be on a commentary track. But I thought it was....eh, an indie derivative of the indie/personal movie revolution of the 90's.

Shoot, it took Tarantino 30 years to remake Lady Snowblood and Sergio Leone, and those were foreign movies/directors. Hess has managed to cut that down to 8 years and Wes Anderson, Todd Solondz (Welcome to Dollhouse, Happiness), David O Russell (Spanking Monkey), Alexander Payne (Election, Citizen Ruth) and others were already Americans. I feel that this movie fit right into that wave of small or indie movies that were made in the late 90's (hey, I said "or" because, though it is stylistically different, "dazed and Confused" was not an independent, it was a studio movie that cost about $18mill BEFORE advertising) with its deadpanning. Hess shoots just like those movies, uses slow dialogue, pulled back shots, everything, well, they were his film school. So for everyday folks this may seem like something new and fresh, but not for me.

I would have liked this much more if it was 18 and not 27...I can't help it, it's typical human nature...it's a passe' style for me. been there, done that. Anyone can paint a cubist, dadist, impressionist painting nowadays...Does any really care if they do? no. been there, done that. Does kids really care about boy bands nowadays? no, we are in that cycle of, been there done that.

Sorry, but there are people like me who upon seeing Troy said, eh, been there, done that just a few years ago with Lord of the Rings. Elistist? no, we just have good visual memories and crave something different and new.

I have seen the movie though, so at least i can now say that I've been there, done that. Next!

Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004 Video)

Bad. Look at good reviews. All have only reviewd this movie.

[1/10 · 7 May 2004]

I hate seeing this. the producers or actors of this movie create fake accounts to vote and to write positive reviews. come on, 7 people gave it a ten?

does this actually compare to an oscar winner? a cult movie? the godfather? apocalypse now? Citizen Kane? please.

look at the reviews... the negative reviews ALL have other reviews to the names of the reviewers. I saw ONE positive reviewer who had rviewed any other movie.

this is a bad movie, it is not even campy, it is just bad. do not believe the positive reviews...they're plants...don't believe me? well go ahead and check.

Derrida (2002)

Hmmm, are producers fixing the score?

[1/10 · 7 May 2004]

The reviews are pretty bad.

The positive reviews are all written by people who have NEVER

reviewed any other movie (that is never ever a good sign) yet it has a high score? It's called creating fake accounts in order to not lose face when shopping around for financing.

I gotta believe that someone is jucing the scores. 25% of voters gave it a 9 or higher. Those are scores that are better or equal to the best movies ever created by man. ~ 62% gave it a 7 or higher which would put it near the top 250 "best" movies on imdb. yet of reviews there only 10% positive on the commentary board. please. it was bad

when i saw it in the theater 2 years ago, it is bad now.

Volcano (1997)

I would rather sit through "Gigli" than this tripe

[1/10 · 23 December 2003]

Like, oh my god! this is sooo awful!

Ugh. What a terrible vehicle tailor-made for the post-fugitive Jones. Shots of him in charge of whole troops of officers, barking orders. Shots of him seeing a kid at the last second wander towards the lava, shots of him outrunning the demolitions/explosions going off to get to the kid, shots of people searching for them fearing that they are dead, shots of people all covered in ashe, not even mulling around, but just standing there (these are emergency-type folks), shots of the friends pulling up in a car to their exact spot all clean and with the family dog. The immediate cutting to a news anchor proclaiming that the volcano has immediately and miracously gone dead (according to satellite shots), just after they managed to redirect the lava flow to the sewers (well, LA "River"). The so so so lame music that tries to be so moving that it exacerbates it's own ridiculouness by being placed in a "B" disaster movie (as in, it belongs in something in "Glory", not in this).

Soo, soooo, soooo bad. The director is simply terrible. Yes the script is bad, shoot, the concept is weak, but almost no disaster script is ever good. The fact is that the director had no originality, had no idea what he was doing, and did it for the cash. Don't beleive me? Let me give you a little lesson. Hate it or not, Hollywood executives know what they are doing. They may be a little conservative and sometimes not give people a chance, but when they do, they learn from their mistakes. This guy has not been given anything since then. some TV movies (which is what he did before...) LA Story is tepid directing (only Steve Martin, and the SCRIPT are any good), and the Bodyguard, well, actually his directing there is much much better...but the movie only did well because of whitney and the soundtrack, and everyone in the biz knew that).

The script, urgh. Anne Heche's career died, not just because of her stupid high profile publicity seeking hijinks (i hope all other clients of Heche's managers and publicist fired them for their ineptitude) but because she is not really a good actress, and not really a liable woman. Jones, well Jones is simply a character actor, who over acts. Nothing more. It's fine when he has small parts - Fugitive, The Client, Space Cowboys. As a lead, god, he greats on you and everyone - comeone, US Marshalls everyone? As two face in Batman Forever? Rules of Engagement, Natural Born Killers? Over actors Anonymous need to step in here.

Ugh, I actually bothered to rent Gigli to see how bad it was. it wasn't it was simply boring to a point that i couldn't care about the story and started emailing. But it wasn't "bad" (and that gobble gobble line, you have to watch how she says it, not a memorable line, but i wouldn't have have it was an insipid line if it wasn't so talked about in the media (it's about cunnilingus))

later.

The Hebrew Hammer (2003)

1/2 great beacause of the great gimmick, 2nd half lame because of the gimmick

[7/10 · 18 December 2003]

Jew or not (for purposes of getting the in-jokes), the first half is all hilarious gimmick and a great one at that. We've all wanted to see a bad-ass orthodox jew who talks jive. Why not? The concept is hilarious, and the skits they set up for a while are too because they all juztapose blaxpoitation for jewxpoitation. But there are only so many jokes to be had about stereotypes. the second half runs totally flat. They should have used less obvious jokes in the first half, saved some for the second, and written a more interesting plot through out the entire length of the film. I gave it a 7 (deserves a 5) because of the strong strong start.

BTW, what the hell is wring with so many reviewers out there? Some of the reviews of this movie are ridiculous: best holiday movie, insanely hilarious, best i have ever seen. I mean, this is the '00's... we (especially imdbers) are supposed to be much more sophisticated than people in the '60 and '70's when it comes to films. it is not any of the aforementioned claims, who are writing these things?

Top Secret! (1984)

Classic Parody but too specific for the masses to overcome lack of plot

[10/10 · 16 December 2003]

The reviews here are hot and cold. People love it, or find fault with the weak plot structure (doesn't even exist to the critics, hell to the directors according to the DVD commentary).

I understand the people who don't like it. But you have to understand, Airplane is not a parody, it is a comedy. Yes, it makes fun of Airport '77, but that is not enough to warrant the term "parody".

Top Secret parodies many specific scenes from many different WWII movies but what I believe makes it the equal of 'Galaxy Quest' is that it parodies the 2nd unit shots, the cliches. There is a shot of a german waving his arms telling a convoy to move forward, the shot zooms out and they are going in circles. the guy crawling on his stomach runs into a pair of boots and looks up to see..a pair of boots. OK, a lot of people have seen the Great Escape and Steve McQueen jumping the fence on his motorcycle, but how many made the connection when Val Kilmer does it?

This is basically the WWII galaxy quest, instead of fans of sci fi shows and their filler / typical cliches that are obvious to people WHO CONSTANTLY WATCH THESE THINGS, this movie is for the WWII buffs.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Overrated

[1/10 · 11 June 2003]

The movie isnt that good folks. It isn't. The STORY (over the three volumes as purists want to say, it is all one story just published as three volumes]) is good, and the movie looks fantastic and looks what one imagines in the mind as the reader reads, but it doesnt make a good movie.

The movie stinks. Just like Episode 1 stinks. But "everybody" loved it when it came out except 1000 people in the world. I was one. Believe me, in a few years, you wont think this is such a great movie. only if one watches all 3 LOTR movies does one think it s good. by themselves, they stink.

The Visitors (1993)

Brilliant, funny movie, if you speak/understand french well, a medium slapstick comedy if you read subtitles

[10/10 · 4 June 2003]

I just finished watching the movie, and it was hilarious. I was laughing outloud at many many points. However, as my title indicated, it was the original french track that made me laugh. As is always the case for biliguals, one cant help but listen to the track and read the subtitles at the same time. Unfortunately, the subtitles do not do justice to the movie.

There are just too many semantic jokes that play off names and locations that could not be translated and make sense. That is why in so many reviews there seems to be a sharp contrast in views of whether or not this was a joke-a-minute movie.

The hollywood remake is awful, in fact,it never really made any sense and and the jokes were far and few in between. This one makes much more sense, and the meeting of people and their descendants makes for many more laughs.

The other factor is the acting and casting. This is just the nature of subtitled movies - one very rarely gets the fantastic acting and language ability of actors when reading the watcher is reading a yellow line, especially in comedy. Those who listen to the movie in its original french thikn the acting was fantastic, the voice casting (something i think is terribly important in acting [say, could Ashton Kutcher play Maximus from Gladiator, no, a high pitched voice could not do it]) is brilliant, but reading a crummy translation (and it was crummy) wont do the film justice.

8/10 for francophiles 6/10 for subtitle readers

Snowball Express (1972)

Tough call for adults, great for kids

[8/10 · 5 March 2003]

Yes, most movies in the 70's are very forgettable. In fact down right awful and dated (especially in contrast to many 30s 40s and 50s movies - and I was born in 76!). Snowball express may be one of them, a dated movie, if you are between 16-35 watching this by yourself, sober.

If you have kids though, 5-15, they will find this great. Its humurous, outlandish, and campy. Cant give many details, I havent seen in in 6-9 years, but i thouroughly enjoyed it (not including the nostalgia) when I last saw it.

Stranger Than Paradise (1984)

Boring, Over-rated, crummy dialogue. Usually a line I keep for commercial junk. What did I miss?!?

[4/10 · 5 February 2003]

I thought Ghost Dog was ok / interesting so I put Jarmusch's name in my Tivo. Before I had seen that though, I saw a 'history of independent film' doc on IFC and it made Jarmusch seem like an underground god, so I was excited to see that my Tivo saved this for me.

Argh. With total honesty (check out my reviews) I believe that the Matrix had better dialogue, better direction (camera placement but most importantly telling non professional actors what to do b/c they havent a clue), better storyline, better everything. The matrix is a better art house movie (I saw Ghost in the Shell on bootleg in france 6 months after it came out in Nippon so I dont want to here it) than stranger than paradise.

It does NOT examine any characters. John Lurie is sleazy. w/in the first 1minute you meet him. Do we learn why? nooooo. do we learn anything? no. f**king half the movie is silence. and since its not used well (the silence) it means that it is poor film making, not just 'student'.

I cant go into it. It is just a lame movie. I gave it a four. I dare someone to give a review outlining POINT BY POINT, or SCENE BY SCENE why this deserve to get higher than a four.

Summer Catch (2001)

I usually review art films, but somehow my Tivo recommended this

[7/10 · 22 December 2002]

So, I tend to review, let alone view, art-house flicks, I wasn't offended in anyway by this movie. It is completely neutral. It has nothing really going for it (Ms. Biel is very attractive) but more importantly it doesnt have anything going against it. It doesnt really have any cliched jokes, it just doesnt have any god jokes. That is pretty much the zeitgeist of the movie. It serves it purpose - commerciality. Cost $5-10 million dollars and exists solely to catch teenagers with nothing to do on a friday night so they are at the movie theaters and who couldnt get into the better film showing. Harmless.

I am typically harsh when I review, and definitely point out large and minor flaws. They dont exist here. Boredom doesnt make for a bad movie though as some others review seem to think. This moview doesnt fail, doesnt burn, doesnt crash. I gave it a neutral 6.

Cabin Boy (1994)

Underrated, ahead of its time (Dumb and Dumber, Jackass, even Fight Club etc)

[5/10 · 12 November 2002]

When I first saw this, I didn't particularly dislike, let alone vehemently dislike it like so many others did. I thought it was humorous.

I have been thinking about Cabin Boy ( I last saw it some months ago), and in a way, Chris Elliotts brand of humour was ahead of its time. As I write this, I had the idea that this is the exact reason why the Farrelly's cast him in Something About Mary. Look at the humour that has come out the last 10 years. Much of it is about idiots. Idiots doing the stupidest things, saying the stupidest things, and reveling in it. And my generation (bitter end of Gen X, very beginning of Y) grew up being stupid. What I mean is that my friends and I joke around, but by being stupid for our own amusement. We lower ourselves. WHy so many 24+ year olds love Jackass is because so many of us were like that in late 90's early 00's..

And Elliot was one of the first. Handsome Boy modeling school (Get a Life)? Gotta love it. Spewey(also Get a Life)? This isn't high comedy. It is about an un-innocent moron. No one has any love for this guy. He is a loser. How many comedies were before this about unlikable losers? The Jerk was an innocent. Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello? Always innocents.

One of Elliot's problems is that he's a bad actor. But he was onto something. Come one, it not that bad!

Black Narcissus (1947)

Beautiful Movie, worth a DVD rental

[9/10 · 12 November 2002]

Kudos to Criterion for a beautiful DVD transfer. Highly recommended to people who enjoy watching great artistic design.

It still has old school theater-esq dialogue and blocking (which I dislike tremendously) but the other positves out weigh it in the end. I surprised myself in renting the DVD, but I was quite taken back by what I saw.

Diary of a Sex Addict (2001 Video)

The writers/producers are fixing the votes!

[1/10 · 10 November 2002]

Ok, I wrote a scathing review b/c the movie is awful. As I was waiting another review (for Derrida) of mine to pop up, i decided to check out old reviews of this awful movie. Look at all the positive reviews. They ALL, I say ALL, come from contributors have have not rated any other movie other than this one. Crimminy! and wait till you to the "rosebud" [sic] review.

Checkout the other movies rosebud reviewed and had glowing recommendations for. Oh, shoot!, they happen to be for the only other movies by the two writers and director. Holy Window-Wipers Batman.

Joe, Tony, you suck as writers, and tony, you couldn't direct out of a bad script. No jobs for you!

ALWAYS CHECK POSITIVE REVIEWS FOR A LOW RATED MOVIE!

Nashville (1975)

Hated first time, understood and respected after listening to Altman's DVD commentary

[10/10 · 10 November 2002]

As an entertainment movie, Nashville is quite bad. I rented the DVD (PS, I was born one year after it came out and I just saw it) and was so bored I was going to give it a 3.

Then I threw on Altman commentary and rewatched the movie. And I began seeing it as in the same vein as Warhol's art. That there isn't supposed to be a narrative. There is no story. It is just a capture of mood at the time. The mona Lisa tells s nothing about her contempories. But this just captures an attitude.

Lot easier said than done. Not for everybody though.

Derrida (2002)

Terrible disappointment - no disscussion of deconstruction what so ever

[1/10 · 9 November 2002]

Just got back from the Nuart (word up LA!) where I saw Derrida. For fairness, I must disclose that my entire family is french, I speak fluently, but I have lived here since i was 6, and everybody considers me an american. So onto the review.

What a crummy flic. The movie follows the life of Jacques Derrida, the father of Deconstructionist philosophy. Well, in good documentaries, you get to see all sides of an issue, in fact usually you have an issue presented. In The Trials of Henry Kissinger (caught that at Nuart 2 weeks ago) they have Al Haig being cut to Chris Hitchens cut to Kissinger cut to the Chilean ambassador. Now obviously, the filmaker is going to try to make you lean one way in your decicion, but you still get to make a decision, you feel that you've been informed on all sides and get to choose an appropriate belief in some idea that the movie is about.

Not so here. For a movie about a philospher, no other philospher is interviewed at all. Critics? Do they exist? If you dont know Deconstruction before you go in, you wont know a thing about it when you leave.

The director wasted Derrida's time and her backer's money. The footage seems to have been taken over many many years (I write this November 8, 2002, and Derrida is seen hearing reports of the Rwanda massacres - I believe those were in 1994) is so raw as to be terrible. I think that the director/producers thought that they could stick a camera on this guy and edit it to a documentary. There is no research whatsoever. There are no critics of deconstruction (there are many many out there). The questions she (the director) asks are pitful and stupid and what I expect a student would ask, when put on the spot.

The only interesting question (and it put derrida on the spot) was asked by some random voice offscreen (which philospher would derrida like to have had as his mom).

I had many problems with the 'comedy' of this picture. People laughed a lot, at times and things I thought wern't funny at all but the editor/director framed to be. The director's accent is so bad that derrida couldn't understand whether she was asking about l'amour or l'amort. Reading that, you can see how he would be confused and would keep asking her which one. but the english subtitles say "love and death" over and over, so people dont get his confusion. seems trivial, but they kept doing this. and people kept laughing when

The absolute worst parts of the movie are random shots with voiceovers reading from derrida's work. they are horrendous. what happened to the director's producers? How could they let her put these in? example: one of them is a zoomed in view (on dv) of hebrew tombs. but you can only see a few letters at a time and the camera shifts like crazy up and down, tombstone to tombstone. it is so distracting you have to close your eyes to focus on the v/o (which are very difficult to understand in the first place - very very very VERY difficult). This happens over and over with these voice overs. The director had to fill a lot of time. I mean, there are long shots of a fax machine, shot up close. of derrida's cat (no idea why).

And I dont want to hear how this was about him and not deconstruction. you learn nothing about the guy. He's secretive? than ask other people. doing some flippin' research.

i voted and gave it a 3

Pretty When You Cry (2001)

Sad attempt at erotic indie

[2/10 · 6 November 2002]

I got roped into seeing this at a screening on 2nd Avenue. Boy did it stink. Bear in mind i saw this a year ago, and just came across the name, so i am now writing the review and voted.

Seems the writer(s) laid down the best ideas of many movies. Pulp fiction time shifting, 9.5 weeks erotiscim, etc etc. And then tried to put together a movie. But it doesn't work. Sorry I cant remember all the films they ripped off... but i wrote it down on the cards for the producers. But it was a laundry list. And very blatantly ripped off, not 'homaged' to.

Diary of a Sex Addict (2001 Video)

This guy will never ever ever direct another movie

[1/10 · 6 November 2002]

I fell asleep on my couch at 7:35pm last night watching Larry Sanders (I usually DirecTivo it, but not last night). Woke up at 3am (invesment banker on the west coast), and was fascinated to see this on HBO2. I was shocked on how poor this 'movie' was. Seriously. shocked. So shocked that I had to write a commentary on iMDB. This is really really bad. the writing is boring, but the directing and editing are simply below those of a freshman at a film school.

Yes it is shot video. Mind you, that is shot on VIDEO, not DIGITAL VIDEO. It does look like a soap opera. The clips from skateboard videos have a more 'film' feel to them then this horror.

I wanted to describe the poor directing but i honestly cant remember anything. The shots and blocking are stupid. yes, i chose the word 'stupid'. not unconventional, not daring, not bold, not boring, just stupid. I know people reviewing this review will say "well give me an example". I cant. It was 3am. but trust me, I know you will watch it anyway, you will be drawn by the horrible reviews.

Vanilla Sky (2001)

Its 'mind-bending','confusing' reputation is overrated, and stated by movie and book neophytes

[5/10 · 10 July 2002]

I waited until the DVD came out. It was alright. Don't understand the enormous reputation is amassed as being tricky, and how people were having discussions about what really happened. They explain it in the end. Flat out. Mid way, after the accident after he emerges, Cruz stays with his friend, he cant get over it, he'd rather die, and he decides to go into cryogenic dream sleep, but the computer system controlling his cryogenic dreams f**ks up, and the second half of the movie is a convoluted nightmare. What the hell is so confusing when you are done seeing the movie? Who are these people confused? Stoners? Simpletons? I then listened to the DVD commentary. Crowe says it plays straight. the second half was a dream, he wakes up in the end 150 years in the future. It is another actress's voice that tells him to open his eyes. Some random nurse awakening him.

Yes offense meant. This is not at all in league of Usual Suspects, or anything. I am not trashing it, but it has no meaning. Its just a story that doesnt explain itself until the end. It doesn't discuss the merits / drawbacks of lucid dreaming vs living in reality. That would be a 'deep movie'. Think Blade Runner - what happens to someone who falls in love with something he is supposed to kill on site, what happens to someone when they realize they are not what they thought they were, etc etc.

It's a 5-7 star movie, anyone voting higher needs to see more movies.