Change Your Image
VenomX
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Watch it for the CGI, and nothing more.
I don't know what to think about Emmerich, I'm aware of all the negative press he gets and some I think isn't really deserved. I haven't seen Stargate in a decade and can't accurately comment on it, I like ID4 for what it was, Godzilla was wasted potential and I have yet to see the Patriot. The biggest fall that Emmerich had is that his films are VERY impressive from a CGI and action scene standpoint, but suffer horribly in character and plot development. In fact, ID4 turned out so good in my eyes because it had plenty of good CGI and action to make up for the terrible plot. Godzilla failed because all the good stuff was at the beginning while the character and plot carried the last three-quarters of the flick. Now, after so many years out of the Hollywood limelight, Emmerich returns sans-Dean Devlin for another stab at the multi-million dollar summer project. This time, he decides to tread on even more dangerous waters with a global warming flick that is sure to agitate many a scientist. Surprisingly though, the film manages to keep the crap to a minimum.
Day After Tomorrow is a global warming themed-flick that doesn't shy from bringing that issue to the front. There are countless scenes where characters will rant and rave over thermal currents, ice storms and whatnot and how "we weren't quick enough". Personally, I never believed in global warming, but I did try to keep personal feelings away from judging this film. On the other hand, there was plenty of attempts to turn a real-life debate into multi-gazillion dollar CGI-fest, (which were quite nice, might I add). Marvel at Los Angeles getting torn apart by tornadoes or New York getting hit by a massive flood. Watch the world freeze over and storms pound at the survivors. In fact, you'll have so much fun watching this that it more than makes up for the terrible character and plot development. Yes, a patented Emmerich trademark returns in full-force with more forced "crisis's" involving love and/or family interjected into odd moments. Watch a man walk across a sixth of the nation to locate his son or a love triangle that completely keels over and dies by the half-way point. Sadly, this is the entire last half of the film with poor CGI wolves being the only real action scene worth mentioning during that half. The underutilization of characters is a big problem, as there were literally dozens of characters added at various points that received little or no development and when they would die or "contribute" you felt no emotion.
But for what it is, I was glad to see a couple good CGI scenes right away but I do wish they were more spaced out so I didn't have to pace through poor dialogue and underdeveloped or underutilized characters.
6.0/10
Summerslam (2000)
One of the top 5 PPVs of 2000.
Too Cool vs. Right to Censor - 6-Man Tag Team - **
I loved the 2000 version of Too Cool back when it was Sexay, Scotty & Rikishi dancing to crazy techno music during Royal Rumbles. It was so entertaining to watch and so fresh for it's time, shame Rikishi's heel turn in October 2000 killed the group. Right to Censor was an even better idea, sure it was a rip on the PTC but my God was it so well executed. They came out and "censored" and had great heel heat...like Too Cool it was fresh and original. Anyways, enough gloating, onto the match. Both teams worked the crowd very well with Goodfather getting heat for assaulting the ho's while the crowd popping hard during the "buttslams" spot, (no idea what that move is called, so I'll refer to it as that). It was below average in terms of work rate, but the gimmick is where the two teams excelled at.
Road Dogg vs. X-Pac *3/4
DX really faded away in 2000, didn't it? To make matters worse, this tag team break-up was the last hurrah that DX ever had, (aside from their brief renewal at a November 2000 SmackDown and perhaps that brief tease at a return in 2002). This match wasn't really any good from a technical standpoint. The crowd has only mildly into this and the only point they really gave a damn at what was occurring in the ring was giving bad heat in the form of "X-Pac sucks!".
Eddie Guerrero & Chyna vs. Val Venis & Trish Stratus - IC Title - *1/4
I never liked Chyna, having her win the IC strap did not help my perception of this match. Fairly uneventful, though the chemistry between Eddie & Chyna worked during this period of time. The plain white trunk wearing-phase of Val Venis was a really watered-down concept while mixed-tag matches rarely raise above the **1/2 mark.
King vs. Tazz - 1/2*
I wanted the WWF to push Tazz during this time, why did they put him in this feud with King that accomplished nothing? Oh well, at least his commentary on SmackDown nowadays is top-notch. I really don't like these "commentator" matches because it always leaves one guy on the mike and it just doesn't sound right to listen to just the PBP guy. The match was pretty lame and didn't do much for either men and certainly did not get Tazz even remotely over, (getting pummelled by the commentating team rarely does...anything).
Shane McMahon vs. Steve Blackman - Hardcore Title - ***
After witnessing four consecutive sub-** matches, I was thinking that maybe this PPV wasn't such a good idea. The along comes this major bump-fest featuring the daredevil Shane. His fall from the 50-foot mark onto a wooden elevation is one hell of a spot. Like any hardcore match, it's all about the bumps and spots and less about the work rate and both men have shown to be able to accomplish that with Blackman carrying non-wrestler Shane to a good match.
Chris Benoit vs. Chris Jericho - 2 out of 3 Falls Match - ***3/4
I expected great things from this match and boy did I get it. Benoit and Jericho are such good workers that they put on one great match. The first fall is all reversals and attempted submission holds, all of which are paced very well. The rest of the match is like this, with men trading spots back and forth resulting in an great match to their fantastic series. Jericho's top rope hurricanrama being the highlight for me.
Dudley Boyz vs. Hardy Boyz vs. Edge & Christian - TLC - *****
Mark this down folks, this is the best match of 2000 and you should buy the DVD/VHS simply for this one match alone. This is a massive spot-fest with insane bumps all around. We have people falling through four stacked-up tables, Lita getting speared hitting her head on a ladder and many "my God that killed him!"-style falls to the outside. When I saw their initial match at WM16, I saw great things in this style of match and by God did this TLC match show it. I really don't want to get into too much detail on the bumps or spots because they are so damn good to watch for the first time.
The Kat vs. Terri - Thong Stickface Match - DUD
Did the WWF really think an encore of the train wreck from WrestleMania 16 would be a suitable match to have after a classic TLC match? Let's just let this mess be forgotten and move on.
Undertaker vs. Kane - *1/2
I have to admit, Undertaker and Kane had great chemistry as both allies and heels during their heyday. This match isn't really much of a match, due to Undertaker spending much of the time trying to remove Kane's mask. So, I'll just be a little lenient with the score.
Kurt Angle vs. The Rock vs. Triple H - WWF Championship - ***1/2
This was a great storyline at the time: Kurt Angle subtly wooing away Stephanie McMahon from her husband Triple H. It was the sheer nature of the Angle character, a mildly nerdy self-absorbed Olympic hero and Triple H the jealous husband that, when combined, made for great chemistry. This match should have been Angle/HHH with the focus on Stephanie, because by this time the angle was fresh. The match didn't happen until Unforgiven the following month, but anyways...
Match starts off with Angle getting on the mike and trashing Trips, Trips comes out and the two brawl. Nasty spot here where Triple H goes for the Pedigree on the table, but it breaks under the weight of Triple H and Angle giving the latter a legitimate concussion. Triple H and Rock work while trainers attend to Angle, who later joins the match. Rock really felt like the odd man out, the focus being entirely on Triple H and Angle for much of the match. Still, the three managed to work to make a great main event for a great PPV.
Best Match: Dudley Boyz vs. Hardy Boyz vs. Edge & Christian - *****
Worst Match: The Kat vs. Terri - DUD
Score: 7.5/10
The first half of the PPV is filler, the middle is pure gold and the main-event is a great ending to a solid PPV. The filler isn't all that bad with the only real offence being the Stinkface match. If anything, watch this PPV solely for the TLC match, which is one of the best matches the WWF has put on in the last 5 years. Simply put: if any PPV has a strong MOTY contender, it is worth watching for that alone.
WWE Bad Blood (2003)
Well, at least they lived up to the first word in the title. *SPOILERS*
*SPOILERS*
Bad Blood was an PPV experiment the WWE conducted back a year ago, not only was it the first PPV to feature only half the roster but it was the replacement for the King of the Ring tournament. I was sad to see the idea go, but it's not like it didn't have it's share of crap with Billy Gunn & Mabel winning the damn thing in the last decade. With the new Bad Blood, RAW would host this PPV event and all the superstars employed to that show would fill the card. The result is a mixture to say the least, while there are good PPV-style matches on the card (Ric Flair/Shawn Michaels) there was filler (Dudleyz vs. Nowinski/Mack) as well. This was going to be a problem with the start as you can get half the card filled with PPV-calibre matches, but then have to fill the rest in with filler.
Dudley Boyz (Bubba & D-Von Dudley) vs. Christopher Nowinski & Rodney Mack
Typical curtain jerker filler, with the most advanced move being a spinebuster. It's a shame that they didn't move more into D-Vons teased heel turn because it could have worked out storyline wise, (though the idea of giving singles pushes to them as a result causes me to think otherwise now). Rodney Mack I never really liked, primarily due to his lack of personality which impacts the heat he gets, Nowinski works well and considering his Tough Enough background he can improve.
Rating: *1/2
Test vs. Scott Steiner - Winner gets Stacy Kiebler
I pretty much railed on Steiner for most of last year, and with good reason as the guy botches the very first move he does in this match. After slipping on the apron while performing a double axe handle, the match progresses very uneventfully. The storyline featuring these two I will admit gave them something worthwhile to do, problem was it was all they could do and the feud lasted six months. Thankfully, this match occurred earlier in the feud which meant much of the psychology was still present. Test played a very good heel and was able to maintain his heat, shame the match wasn't any better.
Rating: **
Christian vs. Booker T - Intercontinental Title
You'd think the best way to send a crowd home happy is to have the hometown hero go home with the gold, didn't happen. Instead of what should have been, we get a DQ ending that results in really nothing. The match itself was average with Booker, for some reason, being unable to work the crowd as much as he should. But he still pulled off some good spots such as a rollup off the turnbuckle and a nice missile dropkick. Christian as well works and plays a great heel and the heat he can pull off is seen as the crowd chants "Christian Sucks!" after he leaves.
Rating: **1/2
On a side note here to the WWE bookers: please, please do not put Mae Young on TV anymore. She was WrestleCrap three years prior and has been since and needs to be kept off to prevent any more mental scarring. I always had my theories that the only reason Vince hired Bischoff was to humiliate him on TV to get revenge...after watching this one segment, I now have reason to believe it.
Kane & RVD vs. La Resistance - World Tag Team Title
It was a pretty good match, though it felt a little short for what it was aiming for and that was putting La Resistance over. The two worked a good match and Rene being a complete natural considering his age (19). To be honest: looking back, RVD & Kane did make a good tag team in terms of chemistry (try to catch the subtle drug overtones in their promos). Also their ring styles (RVD's agility with Kane's power) seem to blend together well. Nothing really special to point out here, but it ended well and achieved the desired effect with La Resistance winning the Tag Titles.
Rating: **1/2
Chris Jericho vs. Goldberg
The interesting thing with Goldberg is this: the WWE immediately pushes him into a main-event feud with Rock, which ends shortly after Backlash 2003 when Rock goes back to Hollywood. This leaves a gaping hole in Goldberg's booking as he now has nowhere to go, Triple H was too busy working a feud with Kevin Nash at the time (which continued into this PPV). So after missing Judgment Day, Goldberg gets put into a midcard feud with Jericho and the result being this match. While not a bad match by any rate, you could tell that the Goldberg hype was beginning to show weakness here.
The build-up had a legitimate background to it: Jericho really did resent Goldberg back in their WCW days and pretty much every word he said regarding their relationship then is a shoot. He did blame Goldberg for his lack of a push, he blamed him for killing any chances for reaching the top and other resentments he had.
Jericho sells for Goldberg, puts him over and does the job...nothing really else to note folks. Well, except for the Tigger guy heckling Goldberg in the front row that actually caused Goldberg to go over and yell at him. Besides a guard rail bump where Goldberg speared through the thing, watching a Winnie the Pooh character get yelled was the best part.
Rating: **
Ric Flair vs. Shawn Michaels
On paper it looks excellent, in execution you can tell this match should have happened ten years ago, (yes, Flair wasn't with the WWE back in '93, but let's just pretend). Both men did not look on top of their game, taking into consideration their prime years are behind them, (though both can perform better than other men their age). Some spots looked a little sloppy, both men looked a little tired but it was the best match on the card so I can give them that. The dirty ending didn't really work out, quite frankly this match could have been so much better if built up properly and executed at a better time.
Rating: ***
Triple H vs. Kevin Nash - World Heavyweight Championship
The last HIAC match took place in No Mercy 2002 and showed that it was possible for a great HIAC to occur even if it doesn't make it up to the roof. This match was the conclusion for a pretty lacklustre feud between Nash and Triple H, adding a HIAC was an attempt to salvage it and while it didn't do quite that, it made the feud a little better. I guess the one reason why HIAC's have been so successful in the past are due to the illusion of bump-taking, ever since the days of the original Bad Blood with Taker/HBK people expected spots, bumps and psychology to go along with the cell. Neither Triple H and especially Nash have the illusion of bump taking, meaning that potential is gone. Like I said before though, having a good brawl like the No Mercy HIAC can make up for it.
This one had some good bumps, only problem is that Foley, the guest referee, took them, (such as being knocked off the apron into the cage wall). The brawling was there and better than I expected, which included a hammer to the skull and a 2x4 wrapped with barbed wire. The reason why Lesnar/Taker's HIAC at No Mercy 2002 was a better executed brawl was the psychology, like seeing Taker's hand cast get repeatedly pounded with a steel chair, (is sends a chill down my spine when I see it). It's all about execution, and it just didn't click right between these two.
Rating: **3/4
Best Match: Ric Flair vs. Shawn Michaels: ***
Worst Match: Dudleyz vs. Christopher Nowinski & Rodney Mack: *1/2
Overall PPV Rating: 4.5/10
Bad Blood was a below average PPV and certainly not what the WWE would have wanted when they started experimenting with the idea of brand exclusive PPVs. A big problem I had was with the length, this PPV is a full half hour shorter than the norm 3 hours. That can be attributed to the bookers only putting seven matches instead of the norm eight on the card. Thankfully, a spectacular Vengeance showed that brand PPVs could work a month later and earlier this month RAW put on Backlash 2004, an excellent PPV.
WWE Vengeance (2003)
Underrated, the SmackDown PPVs are.
When it comes to PPVs, SmackDown lacks the name power but in terms of workrate it excels above RAW. The cards are rarely impressive, but the effort is noticeable. Vengeance is the first SmackDown-exclusive PPV and after a sub-par RAW-exclusive Bad Blood this one had some big shoes to fill and make up for. Thankfully, the PPV itself is not only an improvement over Bad Blood but is one of the best PPVs of the year.
Chris Benoit vs. Eddie Guerrero - ****
Was I looking forward to this match when it was announced, back when this happened both were upper-midcarders looking up. Thankfully, within eight months they were both champions and rightfully so. This was a great match, filled with great technical spots (submission holds and the like). Combined with great acrobatic action such as torpedo dives and Eddie's constant "screwjob" attempts to win which are pretty hilarious to watch, this match is a sight to watch. The ending I didn't like and is the only real bad part, it would have been nice seeing a clean finish to complement the hard work of these to, (though if Eddie did the screwjob, it would work because he is so good at making them look good).
Billy Gunn vs. Jamie Noble **
Problem with PPVs is that there is the "Crap, we still have 10 minutes left in the show! Quick, get the list of lower midcarders and we'll book like the wind!' type of match. The stipulation was that if Noble won, Billy's "girlfriend" Torrie Wilson would sleep with him...and that lead to a segment involving fourplay that is better left forgotten. I never understood why Billy Gunn has been around as long as he has, ever since DX broke up he's been in severe limbo. But I'm not going to rant about that, onto the match!
Being a lower-midcard match, expectations were not high but the match managed to be a little better than it had any right to be. Billy Gunn was pretty stiff at times with his spots, matching the emotion that his character was supposed to be exerting. There were some good spots here, Noble's top rope DDT being the highlight. Basically it was an above average match by two of the most unlikely participants of all.
APA Invitational
Not being reviewed as it is more of a segment than a match, good for cheap laughs and some good spots. Having the Easter Bunny and Doink in the segment resulting in some priceless moments, (not going to spoil anything). This is filler, but some damn good filler.
World's Greatest Tag Team vs. Billy Kidman & Rey Mysterio - ****1/2
Holy, this is the best match of the entire show and an easy Match of the Year contender. We get amazing spots like Kidman's top rope SSP to the outside, Mysterio's running leaping Hurricanrama with Kidman assisting and a massive Electric Chair for the finish. I can't say enough, all four men in this match showed massive work skills and WGTT showed their huge potential in this classic of a match.
Stephanie McMahon vs. Sable *
Isn't it interesting that after a classic of a match we decide to keep the crowd happy with...this? Well, it's a match involving Stephanie McMahon and Sable so there isn't much to say other than it lived up to whatever remote expectations I had.
Undertaker vs. John Cena ***
Back-and-forth really, not much to this match as both men carried each other and put forth an average match. It's nice to see the bookers trying to rub some of Taker's success onto Cena, this match and later the one against Angle would showcase his true potential as a wrestler.
Vince McMahon vs. Zach Gowen **1/2
Yes, the match looked really terrible on paper but it was surprisingly acceptable. I'm going to try to review this like I would any other match but be a little more accepting as it is impossible for Gowen to operate on a level of any other wrestler. This match is very infamous for the big bladejob Vince did in which he was literally gushing blood near the mid-point. The biggest problem Gowen has is that he just isn't very convincing as a wrestler, mostly due to his paper-thin physique. Nothing against him personally but I think there wasn't much the bookers could do with him other than work his condition over to get sympathy from the crowd. Even that dried up and six month after this match ended, he was released by the WWE. It had some good spots, like Gowen's Asai Moonsault but in the end it wasn't much to write home about.
Brock Lesnar vs. Kurt Angle vs. Big Show - ***1/2
Lesnar and Angle carried this match, Show did little but the focus was thankfully on these two. Lesnar and Angle do have great chemistry together and can put forth ***+ matches with ease. Great spots like Angle's Release German Suplex and Angle/Lesnar's double chokeslam to Big Show. Plus, having Kurt get over and win the title was a great finish and a nice moment in the timeline of this feud.
Score 8.0/10
This is the second best PPV of 2003, after WrestleMania XIX. Great matches from a card that looked unimpressive on paper but more than made up for it with execution.
Royal Rumble (2004)
The Rumble match saves it. *SPOILERS*
*SPOILERS*
The Royal Rumble has always been be a personal favourite of mine when it comes to WWE PPVs. Not so much for the card but the Rumble match itself. It is just an incredibly ingenious and suspenseful idea that results in some of the most entertaining moments of the year. While we do get some dud/predictable Rumbles, every once in a while we get an excellent one that remains the single memory of the event itself. The 1992 Rumble is still the best one; due to Flair, the work rate and the commentary work by Heenan and Monsoon. This Rumble gives that one a run for it's money though.
The card for the Rumble PPV has traditionally been pretty weak, mostly due to the immense time the Rumble itself takes. This one was no exception with matches being duds, disappointments or booked with the "let's wrap this up as fast as we can to make more time for the Rumble" line of thinking.
Dudley Boyz vs. Batista/Ric Flair was a 1/2* match, with little build-up and a poor finish.
The Cruiserweight match with Jamie Noble/Rey Mysterio was something you can see for free on SmackDown, it was a ** match at best.
Eddie Guerrero vs. Chavo Guerrero was the best non-Rumble match on the card, with the two providing a better-than-expected work rate with a *** performance.
Brock Lesnar vs. Hardcore Holly for the WWE Championship had zero expectations from me, I mean this is a Championship match and they couldn't get someone better to face Brock for the title. The match lived up to those low expectations and gave a *1/2 performance.
Shawn Michaels vs. Triple H was rushed, these two can work so damn well together recently with SummerSlam 2002 and the 12/29/2003 episode of RAW coming quickly to mind. The match was again shortened to make room for the Rumble, so we got a **1/2 performance from this match.
The 2004 Rumble is one of the best Rumble matches I have ever seen with countless mark-out moments and a fantastic ending by the booking crew. Hearing Undertaker's 'Gong' during the match was an instant mark-out moment for me while seeing Benoit win it all is what I paid to see. This match gets a ***** from me, in terms of it being a Rumble.
So, what does the Royal Rumble 2004 get overall? I think a 7.0/10 is in order as the card was weak but the Rumble was classic and since that has always been the focal point of the show, I think that tips the scales in favour of the show.
Bad Boys II (2003)
A surpringly good action flick with some flaws
I have never been a big fan of Michael Bay, personally I have a love/hate relationship with his works. Bad Boys was pretty good, The Rock I didn't like, Armageddon was watch-able and Pearl Harbour bored me to disinterest. It wasn't until I witnessed McG's disaster films that I began to pity Bay a bit, at least he puts forth the effort to make entertaining summer films.
I haven't seen the original Bad Boys in years now, but I still recall what great chemistry Smith and Lawrence had on the screen. Smith has improved a lot in terms of acting ability since 1995 while Lawrence has had some modest success. Bad Boys 2 succeeds, stumbles and fails at some parts of the film. The first half of the film succeeds, the causeway chase is seriously on my Top 10 car chase list. I always found stunt drivers and pyrotechnics is so much better at creating tension than watching a CGI figure jump on cars. It stumbles around the end because the film just feels like it was stretched a half-hour too long, with too many breaks between action scenes with plot (which has never been a Bay strength). By the end, the film feels exhausted and like it ran out of ideas or scenes to create.
This is a part that I'm going to write a separate paragraph for due to the attention it's getting. I'm sure you've heard about the "bad taste" humour this film has. There is a line that exists between dark humour and poor taste, this line is in different places for different people and with some there is no line. In my case, I felt a little disgusted when Smith was reaching into a dead body for drugs but felt really nothing when Smith & Lawrence were "interrogating" the latter's date with a gun. Like I said, the line is usually there and your tastes will guide you in finding that line.
Otherwise, the film is standard Bay stuff: big action, large explosions, non-existant plot and star power. In Bad Boys 2 an equilibrium is discovered that makes it all worthwhile.
6.5/10
Royal Rumble (2003)
Contains both the best and worst of 2003
This is an interesting PPV as it contains what I consider to be both the best and worst of the year. In one corner we have the Angle/Benoit match that was so good the entire arena gave it a standing ovation. This is my personal MOTY for 2003, a technical classic up there with all the other greats. We also have the Jericho/HBK feud start to build with Jericho eliminating HBK from the Rumble via cheating, this would climax with a 5-star match at WrestleMania two months later after it simmered a bit. Finally we also have the Rumble match, the first one after the brand extension, which actually made it more interesting as we saw RAW talent "compete" against SmackDown talent in a quasi-brand war.
On the bad side of things, we got a Steiner/HHH match which is great for getting yourself to sleep just by counting the botched moves instead of sheep. Then we have the Torrie Wilson/Dawn Marie match which, thankfully, ended their feud over Torrie's "dead" father Al Wilson but we had to go through this dud of a match.
Then we have the one curtain-jerker match with Big Show/Brock Lesnar and a midcard match with Dudley Boyz/Lance Storm & William Regal to round everything out, resulting in a PPV that is stangely balanced between good and bad.
Gigli (2003)
A sin against mankind
Before I start this review, let me say that when it comes to the whole "Bennifer" story I remain neutral. I never cared about Hollywood romances and never will, so I approached this movie with no bias against or for them. I was aware of all the extremely negative press this film had been receiving, so I saw this little title out of curiosity. Like all other potential Razzie candidates, I try to keep an open-mind when watching these films. For example, I'm one of the few that enjoyed Little Nicky quite a bit and still think the Razzies were off their rocker nominating this over real crap like Dungeons and Dragons. Upon renting the DVD from the store, popping it into the player and hitting 'Play', a whole new world of pain erupted.
Gigli is not as bad as the critics have been saying, it's much worse and cannot be describe with any word in the English language relating to "bad"
This has got to be one of the most painfully paced, poorly scripted and horrendously acted films that have ever met the camera lens. I still cannot get it through my head that a studio spent 85 MILLION on this one project alone, what the hell did they spend the budget on when the film mostly took place in Gigli's apartment? Oh, of course...the addition of new respected Oscar-winning actors to the project, (more on that later). First off, let me just say that Martin Brest has got to stop pretending he's Quentin Tarantino because he just cannot compare to a man who has Pulp Fiction under his belt. Tarantino creates characters that we can respect and relate to...Brest creates a mentally-challenged character who is a cheap shot to anyone with the affliction. Tarantino writes excellent scripts that contain careful detail and develop characters to their full potential...Brest creates a scene where Lopez talks about her reproductive organ and includes the line "It's turkey time. Come on, gobble gobble.". I just feel dirty for typing that line alone when I could have used that memory to write something intelligent.
The acting is nothing more than a waste, and when it is used it is horribly executed. Lopez needs to read the script and understand who her character is. She cannot go from design-to-design changing from a sensitive figure to a serious fighter failing at every turn. Ben Affleck needs to break out, I see some degree of potential in him...yes, you heard me...and needs to find what he's good at and work at that. As for the rest of the cast, I want to ask a serious question: how did Christopher Walken and Al Pacino end up in this film when they have an incredible amount of talent still left in their tank? Why does Walken and Pacino arrive in one scene, give a horribly written personal monologue which no one has any right to care about, then disappear from the film never to be heard from again? Speaking of horrible monologues...did I mention they are horrible? I seriously simply lost interest five words into them, they are that poorly conceived and executed.
I need a separate paragraph for this one: the music in here is so abysmally composed one must listen to it to gain it's full impact. If you're willing to sacrifice your hearing you must give it a listen. It is in essence one poorly-composed piece of music that plays during "emotional and sensitive" moments that sounds like it loops every five seconds. It haunts this film and just when you think you are rid of it...it arrives to assault your precious eardrums.
You know, I think this is the best, (or worst?) decade for bad films...taking a look at the last 3-4 years of Razzies and you can see why those guys are going to have a field day for the next six years or so.
1.0/10
Wild Wild West (1999)
The poster boy for Hollywood marketing gone wrong.
Every summer Hollywood studios release their big 100+ million dollar movies with 50M marketing budgets attached. Pretty soon we are subjected to fast food tie-ins, massive billboards along freeways, magazine covers, TV specials and basically anything else that the studio can think of to convince us to watch their film. To be honest, I always thought of their marketing as an insurance policy by the studio as opposed to building hype for a big project. When a film costs 170M you want to make damn well sure the bills get paid and the studio doesn't deny you future projects, (plus, the studio wants to make sure they make a good profit off of the film). It's a sad fact in Hollywood when films only get made for that one goal: to make money and to do whatever it takes to make sure that gets done.
Wild Wild West is a big-budget movie that a degree of hype that was only overshadowed by Phantom Menace during it's summer of release, basically that means that besides a Star Wars film it was the most hyped film of that summer. I recall seeing trailers for this film in front of TPM and quite frankly I didn't think much of it. That's to say I wasn't intrigued into seeing it nor did I refer to it as a "flop in the making" when I would talk about it in future conversations. Naturally, when the film faded out of memory of the press and whimpered out of the box office only to be quietly released on video, I had to see this one to see what went wrong.
One of the oldest arguments I've heard is that "summer films are supposed to be unrealistic and are supposed to be fake", this argument should only be used in certain cases. It should only be used when small nitpicks are made such as me saying "in scene 124 I noticed a small discrepancy in the backgrounds used for shot #121", but when a 80 foot tall steam-powered tarantula walks across the desert shooting fireballs in local towns...then the argument gains meaning. This movie tries hard to re-create the Wild West, considering the amount of effort they went into making costumes, sets and showing little details to re-create the atmosphere, (such as showing the construction of the Capitol building). Ironically, it seems the filmmakers at the same time figured that they shouldn't follow history and are basically free to do whatever they want, so "unleash the tarantulas and the henchmen with armour-played scalps" the producers probably said the first day of filming.
Wild Wild West tries, it really does, it has the star power of Will Smith and the acting abilities of Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh. It has the CGI which I must say looks impressive for what it does, it has the action, it has the atmosphere executed rather well like I've stated before. What went wrong?
The script was terrible and no attention was paid to keeping anything believable or intact with poor pacing dragging everything down. Will Smith's style of humour and acting does not belong in a film about the wild west, nor does Kevin Kline's abilities deserve to be wasted trying to be a foil to Will Smith's acting or a prostitute, don't even get me started on Branagh's accent which borderlines on stereotypical and just plain annoying. The film tries to institute gadgets into the plot as well, none of which are particular clever and most are just trying to look "good" in a 19th century setting, (such as using a man's head for photographic evidence, sounds marginally clever but just looks ridiculous in practise. Then there are the scenes intended for comedy, such as the lynching scene where Will Smith tries to explain his actions and the word "redneck" which just plain falls flat as it tries to use out-dated 19th century stereotypes for comedic purposes, (such as using examples of drumming in Africa and Smith's alleged "roots" there).
It's not a horrible film, and I'm still a little hesitant it won Worst Picture and is now in the ranks of Battlefield Earth & Showgirls in badness according to the Razzies. It's more of an overly ambitious summer film that tries too hard and as a result all of it's flaws are brought into a larger focus. It really isn't as bad as watching Travolta play a Klingon rip-off or watching Elizabeth Berkley trying to act.
4.0/10
Elf (2003)
Will Ferrell shows tremendous potential in this paint-by-numbers Christmas movie
When I first saw the Elf trailers, my initial reaction was "oh great, this looks pretty bad". Judging from the low quality of the trailers and the fact it was opening up on the same weekend Matrix Revolutions was opening I had little faith in this film. But after watching it actually take out the titan it shared a weekend with and continue to stay near the top combined with the positive reviews and excellent word-of-mouth I decided to see what made Elf so special.
Well, what I can basically say about Elf is that it takes almost every single Christmas movie cliche and throws it together to make a two hour movie. We have the "disgruntled man who needs to be shown Christmas spirit", "Santa is unable to deliver presents so main character must help him", plus with a sappy ending that reeks of positive spirit. But what I believe prevented this from turning into another I'll Be Home for Christmas is that Will Ferrell shows so much potential as a comedian and as an actor and his performance did save this film.
Of course, many of the good jokes were spoiled in the trailers which I personally hate when it comes to any comedy so that did impact my perception of Elf's humour a lot. But what I was seen for the first time was very humourous and the way that Ferrell brings the Buddy the Elf character to life is amazing. All he needs is one consistantly good film and his career will take off, I guarentee that. I'm saying that because I only see potential in Ferrell, Old School was too short and the jokes were badly paced while this one just feels like another Christmas movie. Considering the immense success of Elf however, I can honestly say we will be seeing that one film very soon as demand for Ferrell goes up. The choice to make James Caan the father of Buddy was a pure genius move since Caan still has the ability to make his character seem rough around the edges, (though his "good ending" was a little forced). A lot of Ferrell's scenes clicked and many of his jokes did indeed hit and that is what I feel makes Ferrell so gifted.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Elf is a basic Christmas movie with little surprises but Ferrell's performance truely shows his potential.
6.5/10
Scary Movie 3 (2003)
A vast improvement over the first two.
Let me admit something before I start this review: I hated the first two Scary Movie films. To me, they took a wonderful concept of spoofing horror films, a huge goldmine of clichés and devices to mock, and diluted it with really low and pathetic sex jokes that had no place in the genre. So with the announcement of Scary Movie 3, I was the first to throw the idea of interest in the film and pursue more entertaining options, like watching paint dry. But as time went on I noticed big changes happening with the film such as the Wayans were fired and all of their ideas taken out, (which I feel was the reason for the wasted potential) and brought in David Zucker, a director with experience in great spoof films. Then came the PG-13 rating which was the hook that brought me in, to me it seemed like a guarantee that the sex jokes were gone.
Let me say this: Scary Movie 3 is infinitely times better than the first two and I killed myself with laughter throughout the 90 minutes. The two scenes in particular were the janitor typing the teleprompter and the "alien videos", (yes, even I do laugh at some sex jokes, but not ones that involve gym teachers). I loved seeing actually actors who had experience in the genre take the center stage; Charlie Sheen & Leslie Nielson were huge additions to the movie and their comic abilities shone throughout their performances. Leslie Nielson bumbled his way through a film, as he character was to do, and he succeeded well but I just wish there was more of him. There is plenty of slapstick humour, such as the boy who keeps getting hurt with sledgehammers and cars throughout the film in a cartoon-like fashion. I don't want to spoil most of the jokes in SM3 as part of the experience is laughing at them for the first time.
There are still two flaws with SM3 that I felt will dog the series if Dimension Films decides to go with Scary Movie 4, (which I know they will). First is the pacing, now I know that Scary Movie isn't exactly a plot heavy movie but good pacing is still standard for any film and SM3 fails there. Basically all that happened was they moved from one "famous" scene to another, had their joke(s) happen then move onto the next one with no cohesion between them. The second is the milking of the series and unless they tap into the cheesy '80s horror films, (which is the goldmine I mentioned earlier) they are going to run out of good horror films to mock. The result is using Matrix and 8-Mile as spoof material, they're not spoofing them for being horror films but for being "popular" which contradicts the title "Scary Movie".
Scary Movie 3 is the best of the series and the funniest comedy this year, but unless changes are made and flaws addressed we could see this series dig itself into a hole.
7/10
Hulk (2003)
Hulk hurt by studio, Hulk mad!
The Hulk was both a giant on the screen and in the media, hyped up beyond belief during the 2-3 weeks prior to release. One could not escape from The Hulk's fury. Now, granted I was excited about Hulk but I preferred to let my own expectations guide myself into the theatre and not some magazine cover so I didn't let the hype get to me. I enjoyed watching the teaser and year prior and the Superbowl ad
but that was about it, (I like to get a small taste to get my mind going). But I felt the hype went overboard, granted it wasn't as bad as Godzilla's was, (then again, Godzilla was much worse that Hulk was) but it does suffer from the same problem: hype killed the monster.
Hulk suffers from two problems: pacing and style of direction with both mutating and causing mayhem much like the Hulk does. I have nothing against Ang Lee and respect him as a director but his style just doesn't work with this film. The multiple screen view, (where there are multiple frames on the screen each showing the same scene at different angles) works for shows like 24 but not on the big screen. The comic book drawings and designs are not need and just look ridiculous, (Bruce Banner turning into a cartoon when hit by gamma rays? Come on!). As for the pacing problems, I think there needed to be a good blend of action and plot without cramming it all into one section. The 90-minute plot at the beginning is a real drag for what Universal expected to be a summer film, while the 45 minutes of action at the end was rewarding but too short
then there's the ending which really came out of nowhere. Basically what I am trying to say is that this was supposed to be a summer film, judging from what the studio hyped yet it clearly was not that.
But Hulk is not all bad; I walked out of the theatre feeling my money was well spent. The CGI was mighty impressive, (regardless of what anyone thinks) and really showed the green guy well. The acting was up to par while the action was mind-blowing, (I still like seeing Hulk smashing up those tanks in the desert, doesn't get old). But the pacing again was the real problem as I felt the action should have been more present with the plot doing it's job of holding the film together while not being an artificial brace.
So, why did Hulk turn back into a disappointing summer movie after being an unstoppable monster? Hulk is such a great concept; it has the character development and the action to make a great film. Hype and a flawed direction ruined its chances to become the next X-Men and provide another franchise to the superhero genre. Even though Hulk was riddled with flaws it provided an entertaining two hours, which I felt, were well spent.
6.5/10
Royal Rumble (2000)
One of the best WWE PPVs of the year.
This is a fantastic PPV and the sole reason why I bought it on video was because of the classic matches and memories the event has...well excluding Mae Young, I'm still trying to purge that from memory.
First thing the PPV has is the debut of Tazz, which to this day sends a chill down my spine, only if all debuts were like this. The matches themselves ranged from average to classic. The street fight between HHH & Cactus Jack without a shadow of a doubt is great stuff, both men worked damn hard in that match and it shows (the Pedigree onto the thumbtacks still makes me wince). The table match between the Hardy Boyz & the Dudley Boyz is also wonderful to watch, being one of the first table matches I would say this send the benchmark. As for the other matches they are quite good, nothing classic, but still not bad (of course, with a 60+ minute Royal Rumble things have to be chopped up a bit to make time, so the matches are a little short).
As for the Royal Rumble itself, there were better. This was a fairly predictable Rumble with Kane, Big Show or Rock being the serious contenders (hell, this was a storyline where these three were in a feud over who was going to win, this made for a weak Rumble).
A real waste of time in the show was the Swimsuit Contest, I never liked these because I figured why do something like this when you can have another match in it's place which holds some meaning to the storylines? Of course, the reason I'm so resentful about watching it we got to see Mae Young do a stripping act.ugh, thank God the censors put a giant electronic Censored sign on the screen.
8/10
Great PPV and worthy of a purchase, the Street Fight and the Table Match gives this PPV a high score. Just be warned that once the Swimsuit Contest starts, hit fast-forward.
Scream 2 (1997)
Feels rushed, lacks real innovation *SPOILERS*
*SPOILER WARNING*
The main rule I have when it comes to sequels is this: do not release them too early or it'll feel rushed and do not release them too late or my interest in the franchise will decline. Scream 2 breaks the former rule, released a year after the original, it's goal is to spoof horror movies by having a killer imitate them in his killings. In the sequel, it's goal is to have the killer imitate horror movie sequels. Sound confusing? It is.
One thing that most horror movie sequels have in common is that they all drag us through the same path that the original did, and end up being really weak. Add that to the already rushed nature of this film and we have ourselves a film that pales in comparison to the original. The part that these films always contained that entertained me is the entire "who is the killer?" feeling, I actually found it much more present in this one than the original, but in the end, it all falls apart.
The killers in the end are revealed to be two very underdeveloped characters, which destroyed the ending for me.As soon as the killer took off his mask, my initial thought was "Who is that?", then "OK, I think I know who they are, what was their motives?". Turns out that character's motive was that his accomplice would pay his tuition if he dressed up as a Ghostface and killed people, (on a lighter note, wouldn't if have been a little easier just to rob a convenience store? Less blood involved). His accomplice turned out to be an annoying reporter-type character that was using that disguise to "get closer" to the university and get revenge against Sydney (very underdeveloped motive here).
On a positive note, this film does build up the suspense quite well and the whole "Whodunit?" theme is very much present (I started pointing fingers to several characters throughout the film). We do get more gore than present in the original and a general sense that the writers were serious about the whole "sequel" thing in the beginning of the film.
A little disappointing, definitely suffers from all the flaws that sequels do have. Not as groundbreaking as the first one was, still a decent watch though.
5.5/10
Freddy Got Fingered (2001)
Just plain terrible, don't even bother.
I watched Freddy Got Fingered knowing full-well of all the horrible reviews and backlash this movie suffered, and it is all deserved. Freddy has got to be the most horribly written and directed movie I've seen since Battlefield Earth. To add furthur insult to an already doomed movie is a horrible acting job done by Tom Green, whose soul comedic approach is to make an ass of himself whenever the opportunity arises. Why must Tom Green always wander into a scene, doing something stupid and making an excuse as to why he is doing it? Then repeat that lame excuse over-and-over again?
Tom Green reminds me of that guy in class that did dumb things to get attention, and people laughed, which made him believe he was popular, he continued to do it, not realizing that people were laughing AT him. But that's just my opinion.
OK, the plot goes like this, Gord Brody (Tom Green) in an aspiring cartoonist who gets rejected by a cartoon company for his lame ideas, he returns home, lives with his parents and does a bunch of stuff. That's it. Everything. The fact that I summed up the whole plot in less than two sentences speaks for itself.
The biggest fault that FGF has is the fact that it tries to shock more than it tries to be funny, many times it had me wondering why 20th Century Fox gave Tom Green a budget to begin with. Jacking a horse is not funny, swinging a newborn baby by the umbilical cord with blood splattering around is just sick, if you enjoy this, then please go out and rent Dumb & Dumber and watch that, that is "shock/bathroom" humour done properly. Not subtle, but not over-the-top, combine that with some talented comedians and a good premise, then you have a great film.
I am being really harsh with this movie, so I will even everything out by listing some things I did like about it. The shower scene with Green in a scuba suit looking for "lost treasure" was amusing, as was the animated Zebras in America sketch at the end. The "daddy would you like some sausage?" scene could have been decent as well, if not for it being shown 234,213 times in the previews. Other times, this movie failed to please or amuse. The acting hurt most of all, Rip Torn is the only one whose performance was just as painful as the star, just seeing him show his bare behind while drunk and saying to Green "**** me!" will set back his career at least a decade. I just wanted to reach through the screen and smack Torn upside the head for saying "Yes" to this project.
Horrible, barely funny in any respect, if that was Tom Green's purpose, then he succeeded, but that does not equal a likeable movie. The fact that there are Hollywood executives marketing THIS crap to my demographic, thinking we like it, is something I take great offense to. Tom Green did waste 15 million of 20th Century Fox's money and 90 minutes of my time, hopefully we both learned from this disaster. First Battlefield Earth and now this, the Razzies are going to have a fun time when they hand out "Worst Movie of the Decade" award in 8 years.
0.5/10
Royal Canadian Air Farce (1993)
Absolutely hilarious, a Canadian classic
Royal Canadian Air Farce is a low-budget sketch show that runs on CBC in Canada. The show only has four actors in it, and they do a variety of comedy. Everything from political, social or pop culture satire, they put on a very well performed show.
One thing though: You have to be Canadian to get a lot of the humour. The majority of sketches feature impersonations of Canadian politicians and others simply feature Canadian current events or humour.
This show features one of the best characters I've ever seen on TV: Mike from Canmore. The way he would just pop-out of nowhere, and his appearance would stick him out right away, and then say his famous line "I'm Mike...from Canmore". Moments like that cannot be copied by anything else. Another classic sketch is the Chicken Cannon, where the cast would fire assorted foodstuffs (and on their New Year's Eve special, rubber chickens) out of an air-powered cannon and hit a cardboard cutout of someone who was in the news (like Bill Clinton during their '98 New Years Special).
One of the greatest comedy shows ever created, but you'll only think that way if you understand Canada. Though, ever since John Morgan retired, the show hasn't been the same (I miss Mike from Canmore...). Satire was always one of Canada's gifts, and this show uses it to it's full potential.
9.5/10
Mr. Deeds (2002)
Not very much effort put into this film
After Little Nicky flopped last year, I felt that a good thing had happened. I believed that the result would be that Sandler would go back to the drawing board and improve on his movies, shame I was only half right.
Sandler did go back to the drawing board, but only to write down some old jokes we've heard before and to place them in a new movie. Basically, everything we saw in earlier Sandler films is present: cameos by Rob Schneider, Steve Buscemi and others, crude slapstick humour and blatant product placement (more on that later). But that's it, Sandler was obviously very careful as to not create another Little Nicky and just stuck to his original formula that was already proven successful. Which I found really disappointing, as there were few "laugh out loud" moments, heck, all the good jokes were already shown multiple times in the trailers. The only real joke that's worth mentioning would be the Emelio, Deeds' butler, who provides most of the comedy that this film contains. Adam Sandler himself plays his same-old, same-old role: a nice guy who is thrust into a situation that changes his world, we've seen that done before in all his past movies.
As for the product placement that was mentioned earlier, it gets really blatant at several points in the film. Like how after leaving Deeds' hometown, they make a pit stop at a Wendy's and proceed to mention how good the food was throughout the film, there's also that infamous burning box of Special K in the burning apartment that Deeds goes for a rescue. I hate product placement badly, if I wanted to watch a bunch of ads, I would've stayed home and watched TV, instead of paying good money just to watch Deeds talk about how good Frosties are.
Basically, this film isn't Sandler's worst, but it is pretty low on his list of previous works. See this one in one of the dollar theatres or just rent it, I don't recommend paying full price for it.
5.5/10
Batman & Robin (1997)
Was this movie cursed?
After watching Batman & Robin for the first time in years, I'm a little disturbed as to how bad this movie was. It was like Schumacher took the corniness of Adam West's Batman, and then tried to make it an integral part of the Batman theme. The only problem was that in the case of West's version, nobody took it seriously; it was more of a spoof of Batman that was around just for a cheap laugh. I really don't know what possibly went wrong in production that could create a movie this terrible.
The biggest problem, and one that repeats along with every single unneeded one-liner is the acting. I have tremendous respect for Arnold Schwarzenegger and still feel he is the best action hero Hollywood ever produced, but in this movie he performs as badly as he did in his early films. The best part of Arnie's action movies were his one-liners, they were only said at certain moments in the films at the right time, which made them OK to enjoy and laugh at. To have him yell out puns about his villain gimmick kills that little enjoyment. Other actors that nearly saw their careers, which they spent years building up, are Clooney & Thurman. George Clooney makes a horrible Batman and Thurman's even worse as Poison Ivy. Other actors that didn't really have much of a career before this disaster were O'Donnell & Silverstone; Robin spends way too much time whining and complaining while Alicia Silverstone couldn't act if her very existence depended on it.
The direction is also just as wretched; highways towering over high-rise buildings, neon lights being blasted onto every single skyscraper in town, observatories being held on statues, folks, I can only stretch my imagination so far, OK? Gotham must have one hell of an electric bill to keep those neon lights going all night long. The action scenes are just as cheesy; Freeze driving his vehicle onto the arm of a statue and jumping off the end back onto the freeway? Come on, plus the fight scenes are akin to what I would expect from Looney Tunes (characters throwing people 20-feet into the air?).
Other glaring errors only point towards this movie's soul purpose to bring more merchandising dollars to the studio. Like when Batman, Robin & Batgirl race to the observatory in a Bat-glider, Bat-hovercraft and a Bat-cycle (I made those names up based on what I saw), I honestly thought the only reason they introduced those vehicles was to license some more toys to sell.
Surely B&R did something good, right? They did develop Alfred a little better (I always felt he was the most underrated of all the Bat films) and show his relationship to Bruce Wayne, albeit very poorly. I guess it's the thought that counts and the fact that they chose to include that little development was welcome.
Burton had a good idea with the first two Batmans; nice, dark, gothic, with strong characters and well-developed villains. Batman Forever hovered above the level that B&R resides on by providing some decent acting and the fact that Burton was on the crew (as producer). This movie tramples on all that, and was clearly produced to just cash in on the Batman name. This movie should serve as a powerful lesson of what can happen when franchises go bad.
3/10
Family Guy (1999)
Quite possibly one of the most hilarious animated series ever
When I saw the first episode of Family Guy, I was literally rolling on the floor in laughter after the Kool-Aid man scene from that episode. I then spent the next week trying desperately not to burst into laughter again. Family Guy does something that few cartoons do, it doesn't necessarily focus on plot or character development every episode, instead it tries it's hardest to make the viewer burst into laughter harder than ever before. Never before has a cartoon tried this before. The gags are so subtle that you will literally never see them coming, and went they do arrive, they burst into the scene and leave you breathless from laughter (the flashback scenes this show did were classics). The humour is much more adult, but not to Beavis & Butt-Head or South Park levels, it's just enough to appeal to older viewers. I am so angry that FOX didn't see the true potential that this show displayed week-after-week, they instead pushed it around and cancelled it repeatedly.
Godzilla (1998)
The hype killed this monster
Godzilla looked so promising in the trailers and previews that I saw in early '98. Everything just looked so nice, the special effects were great, it had so much potential. Then the hype began, almost a year before this movie began, the studios began to put the hype machine in motion. Pushing advertising to new levels never seen before, multi-million dollar deals were signed up with big corporations like Taco Bell and the merchandising was pumped to ridiculous Star Wars-level proportions. What Columbia Pictures failed to realize was that this was like opening Pandora's Box, they didn't know what they were dealing with and and consequences. It all came crashing down on them.
I'll start off with the things I did like about Godzilla. I'm really glad they used the classic trademark "Godzilla" roar, without changing it too much. The opening attack on New York was easily the closest they ever got to the true original Godzilla theme. I also like the green text they used to show the location of the current scene, reminded me of the Alien movies. The box art for the video was also nicely done, maybe it's because I'm just a sucker for shiny holographic things.
OK, now the bad things
I honestly don't know why Emmerich thought that Matthew Broderick would be a good main actor for this film, now I'm not saying that Broderick is a bad actor or anything, but he just isn't that strong of an actor to hold this movie together. The supporting cast is even worse, I'm guessing that Emmerich & Devlin held a raffle at a "low-key actors that noone really cares about" convention, because that's the only excuse I can think of for hiring a no-name actress and a Simpsons voice actor (I love the Simpsons by the way).
This movie is just too slow, I expected to see Godzilla smash buildings, stomp innocent people and torch the military with his flame breath, like the original 1954 Godzilla did. In here he just walked around buildings, ran away from the military and any damage he did to life or property was an accident. At one point, Mayor Ebert says to the military "You guys did more damage than that damn monster did!", he speaks the truth, the military just blindly opened fire on Godzilla, always missing him and destroying private property without care (how can you miss a target that big?).
The pointless scenes dragged the movie down even furthur, suppling this movie with an endless supply of plot holes; how can Godzilla fit in a subway tunnel if he towers over high-rise buildings? If he can catch up to an Apache helicopter, then why not a New York taxicab? Why do the military think he is "hiding in a building", is that even physically possible? The scene that featured the baby Gozillas has got to be the most blatant ripoff of the veliciraptors from Jurassic Park I've ever seen, you guys have GODZILLA for cryin' out loud, why do you need to rip off another successful movie?
This could have been a fun summer movie, filled with flaws, but you could still watch it, have fun, then forget it. The hype that the studio only highlighted and enlarged the flaws that the movie had, making it a doomed failure. This should remain as a symbol to studios; if you create a bad movie, and expect to shove it down our throats to get our cash, we will resist and destroy the movie. OK, so I was a little aggressive in that last sentence, but you get the point.
5.5/10
Batman Forever (1995)
This one could have been better
When the first Batman came out, it was met with a huge marketing push and a large amount of hype, and succeeded because it was a good movie. It had the wise direction of Tim Burton, the nice acting by Keaton & Nicholson and stood out as a great comic-to-movie translation. Three years later, Batman Returns came out, and suffered a mixed reception from audiences. Burton decide to take a film noir approach with that one, which made it a very dark film that was much more violent and disturbing than the first (which is one reason I didn't really like it). So, after three more years, Warner Bros. decided that that approach wasn't a good idea, so they went for a lighter, more comedic atmosphere. They demoted Burton to producer and brought in Joel Schumacher as director, that's where the problems began.
I remember when this film came out in the summer of '95, I was only ten years old, but this movie was the first ever title were the "I can't wait" feeling came over me. I was really excited about this movie, the hype got to me, despite the fact I didn't watch the first one until four years later (will be explained later). I did watch Returns, but didn't really like it. One of the reasons I was excited for this title was Jim Carrey, back then he was my favorite actor, I loved his comedies and knew this one would be good with him in it. Finally, after seeing it in theatres, I was amazed at how good it was, I loved the atmosphere, the actors, villains, pretty much everything.
I saw the first Batman in the summer of '99, after renting it; I didn't really know what to think of it. I didn't think it was as good as people said, but wasn't a bad watch. I also witnessed the series falling apart after Batman & Robin, which I had indifferent feelings about (I didn't hate it, but didn't like it).
Flash-forward several years later.
So one night a few months ago I decided to pop Forever back in and take a watch, since there was nothing really else to do at that points. Now, I haven't seen this movie in at least 3-4 years, so I was a little curious about it as well. After watching it, I was stunned. That movie was incredibly weak, the acting spotty and the direction misguided. I must have matured greatly in those last seven years, because I saw it with a new opinion. The problems I had
The plot was a mess, the original script, which I read, was a lot better; the final one used in the film was riddled (sorry about the pun) with plot holes and dumb action-movie one-liners ("Chicks dig the car"). The action scenes themselves were ridiculous (Batmobile driving up walls? Come on.), plus the bright neon lights and insane architecture (a giant neon blender for Riddler's lair?) got distracting after a while.
The acting was mixed; Val Kilmer made a great Bruce Wayne and a terrible Batman (his voice was too wooden); Chris O'Donnell was too old and acted too immature to play a likeable Robin; Tommy Lee Jones was great as Two-Face, but I wish he was a little more secluded and not a Joker rip-off; Jim Carrey was hilarious as The Riddler, but a little too predominant in the script; while Nicole Kidman was just OK as Chase Meridian.
I believe Schumacher went for the 1960's Batman campiness when making this movie, as well as making it more of an action flick than a dark, character-driven title, like the comics were. Overall, a decent flick, rent it once, watch it, forget about it.
6.5/10
Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)
Good comedy, weak script, great jokes
Austin Powers started off as a small James Bond-spoofing title back in 1997. Since then, it has grown into a giant marketing juggernaut that has held a firm grip on summer comedies since it's debut. The original had a small budget, but excelled in its script, which was filled with visual gags and memorable quotes, as well as the predominant Bond spoofs it contained. The sequel came out two years later, and received a moderately mixed reception. Some were disappointed with it, as they saw the recycling of old gags and the introduction of more bathroom humour. I, on the other hand, saw it as a worthy sequel that wasn't as good as the original, but could still hold it's own. Now, we have another sequel that allows the Austin Powers series to become a trilogy, a large honour in franchises.
The plot goes like this: Dr. Evil has hatched a plan where he will recruit the evil villain Goldmember from 1975, he will kidnap Austin Powers' father in the present and hide him in the 70's, meanwhile, he begins a plan to pull a asteroid into Earth with a tractor beam. Austin must now team up with his former girlfriend Foxxy Cleopatra to save his father and defeat the evil Dr. Evil.
Before you see Goldmember, keep in mind that this movie is a lot sillier and crazier than the previous ones. Unlike the first two, this one tends to keep its plot a little contained and focus completely on its jokes and gags, many of which are hilarious. Some scenes are recycled again, but have been turned around so they appear more original (like the "objects that looks suggestive on the radar screen'). The celebrity cameos that were used are really hysterical (I'm not going to spoil anything for you, it's much more funny if you don't expect it) and the spoofing in here was nicely done (a little more subtle this time around). The jokes are what drive this movie, the plot is meaningless as time goes on, and that's one problem. In the first two, a decent plot was used to back the movie up, in this one; it's a little absent. One reason for this is the fact that the editing job is a little poor, so as a result, you really can't tell what is going on sometimes (I had to watch it a second time to understand it).
See this one for the humour, just leave your brain at the door and enjoy, that's wait this movie is aiming for. Not as good as the original, about on par with the second one. To be honest, they should end this series now, Goldmember showed a few signs of franchise fatigue as the movie went on, creating a fourth one would just be milking the series.
7/10
Predator (1987)
A nice, solid action movie
*small SPOILERS*
Predator is about a group of commandos sent in to the South American rain forest looking for survivors of a downed US government plane. After landing, then are stalked and killed one-by-one by an invisible alien hunter.
From the get-go, Predator borrows various elements from "futuristic commando" movies, the partnership between the soldier, the teamwork, and the unity they gain when they are hunted. However, about an hour into this film, it all soon revolves around Arnold. Now, I'm not saying that that's a bad thing; chances are that this movie would have been ignored had it not been for the muscle-bound hero. Back when this movie first came out, Arnold was the action hero, and nobody could top him. Not Van Damme, not Willis, nobody could match his wit and cool demeanor like he could. After the Predator kills his entire unit, Arnold must now fend for himself and outwit the alien hunter.
If you're expecting a violent-fest like this movie portrays, then you'll be somewhat pleased, as you'll witness a guy getting his gut burst open with a pulse laser and another guy getting his spine and skull ripped out from the Predator. None of this detracts from the experience, as survival soon depends on the fittest. Predator features some of the most original things I've seen in a film yet, such as the whole "thermal vision" thing, which I feel is one of the creepiest weapons the Predator has. The invisible shield thing I too felt was a nice touch, but since you can always "see" the blur of the shield, it makes it somewhat noticeable (not so when the Predator is jumping through trees).
Overall, a fine action movie with all the elements it needs to thrive on. This movie could have developed into a very profitable franchise like Alien and Die Hard did. But after one average and disappointing sequel, this series went down hard. A shame, since it showed so much potential.
7.5/10
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Succeeds in so many areas...
T2 is one of those rare masterpieces that attempts to do a genre like no one has done before. T2 does not only action, but drama, suspense and sci-fi as well. Going for a lighter, less mature atmosphere, James Cameron turned this movie into a giant action success that rivals all else. One of the things that T2 does that few have accomplished: using visual effects to your advantage. The T-1000 is easily the most marvellous thing you'll even see on the screen, not once do the amazing visual effects distract from the experience. The action scenes in here are just as impressive, from the fight in the mall hallway to the freeway chase scene, there is not an ounce of action missing from any of those scenes. And when cars aren't chasing each other or guns blazing, there is some serious plot development that makes you think, about nuclear war and of the future, which is in our hands. The acting excels, nobody, and I mean nobody could play a Terminator robot like Arnold does; nobody could portray the serious, on-the-edge Sarah Connor like Linda Hamilton does. Robert Patrick probably wouldn't be your first choice for a villain, but in here, he shows his intimidating side by providing us with a dark look at the future of assassin robots. The music is absolutely amazing, the main theme just sends a chill down my spine whenever I hear it, an amazing achievement.
It is rare when you get a sequel that is just as good as, if not better than the original. T2 fits the latter category.
10/10