So intense and well-made in every department. Horrific, funny, disturbing, engaging, scary...it's been in my mind since I saw it four days ago. I can't wait to see it again. I loved Blue Ruin but felt the ending wasn't as strong as the rest of the film. Green Room on the other hand is more consistently excellent from beginning to end. The cast is great, the cinematography is beautiful, the writing and directing are brilliant, the editing is fast-paced, the use of sound and music are effective, the art direction/set design is claustrophobic, the violence is realistic and shocking. The more I think about it, the more I realize how smart and subversive it is.
Reviews
49 Reviews
Graceland
(I) (2012)
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance
19 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
GRACELAND is a watchable, well-made crime thriller, but the similarities to Park Chan Wook's SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE were distracting.
Spoilers ahead: Both films feature a man who, after being fired by his boss, decides to kidnap his boss' daughter to help pay for his sick loved one's organ transplant. The kidnappings don't go according to plan (what kidnappings do?) and one of the two abducted schoolgirls dies. Both films also feature shady organ dealers and of course the revenge theme. There are enough changes in the story to make it interesting in its own right though.
End of Spoilers While SYMPATHY had stunning cinematography, GRACELAND was shot on hand-held DSLR video and it shows. It is what it is due to the low budget, but I think it's worth mentioning.
It felt a lot longer than it was, but held my attention nonetheless. The violence is sudden and raw and the always changing story is intriguing. The acting was okay, although watching the main character cry in almost every scene was tiring. There are a couple scenes of underage nudity that felt unnecessary and exploitative.
Overall it wasn't a waste of time. GRACELAND is passable, highly derivative entertainment, if you're in the mood for a bleak noir-ish crime thriller filled with repellent characters.
Spoilers ahead: Both films feature a man who, after being fired by his boss, decides to kidnap his boss' daughter to help pay for his sick loved one's organ transplant. The kidnappings don't go according to plan (what kidnappings do?) and one of the two abducted schoolgirls dies. Both films also feature shady organ dealers and of course the revenge theme. There are enough changes in the story to make it interesting in its own right though.
End of Spoilers While SYMPATHY had stunning cinematography, GRACELAND was shot on hand-held DSLR video and it shows. It is what it is due to the low budget, but I think it's worth mentioning.
It felt a lot longer than it was, but held my attention nonetheless. The violence is sudden and raw and the always changing story is intriguing. The acting was okay, although watching the main character cry in almost every scene was tiring. There are a couple scenes of underage nudity that felt unnecessary and exploitative.
Overall it wasn't a waste of time. GRACELAND is passable, highly derivative entertainment, if you're in the mood for a bleak noir-ish crime thriller filled with repellent characters.
The Other
(1972)
Terribly Acted Cult Classic
13 October 2013
The acting all around was over-the-top, theatrical, and unconvincing. The boys, the Russian lady, the mother, the fat kid, and the rat lady come to mind. Where was the director to reign their performances in? These kids obviously couldn't carry the film, and yet they have so much dialogue. It was cringeworthy and annoying.
I watched it with two other people. After 50 minutes, one of them asked if we could watch something else because of the acting and silly plot. We watched some more because I assured them it was an alleged classic and would surely get better. The second person, who has a high tolerance for Lifetime/Hallmark-type films, also said the acting was awful.
I decided I would finish it the next day by myself, but I ended up fast-forwarding through most of the repetitive scenes. To be fair, I didn't see the twist coming, nor did I expect that dark of an ending. So it gets a couple extra points for that.
I'm surprised at all of the rave reviews citing this as a masterpiece of subtlety (what) and one of the greatest horror films of all time (possibly from people that saw it at a very young age).
I watched it with two other people. After 50 minutes, one of them asked if we could watch something else because of the acting and silly plot. We watched some more because I assured them it was an alleged classic and would surely get better. The second person, who has a high tolerance for Lifetime/Hallmark-type films, also said the acting was awful.
I decided I would finish it the next day by myself, but I ended up fast-forwarding through most of the repetitive scenes. To be fair, I didn't see the twist coming, nor did I expect that dark of an ending. So it gets a couple extra points for that.
I'm surprised at all of the rave reviews citing this as a masterpiece of subtlety (what) and one of the greatest horror films of all time (possibly from people that saw it at a very young age).
The Hunger Games
(2012)
Battle Royale Lite
24 March 2012
Not comparing this to Battle Royale is impossible - the premise is too similar to be ignored. I'm extremely biased as well, considering Battle Royale is one of my all-time favorite films/books/graphic novels. So let's get this rant out of the way: The Hunger Games takes the concept of Battle Royale and waters it down to a product more accessible to a wider audience, specifically the younger crowd. My biggest problem with this is it loses the impact of Battle Royale - a frightening, beautiful, orgiastic display of shocking violence and social commentary. What makes it so twisted is that the contestants are all fellow students and friends, and we get to know many of the students, making their deaths more disturbing. In The Hunger Games, we follow two contestants and the rest are nameless, and with the exception of one young black girl, their deaths are meaningless (and mostly off-screen). The fact that the violence is so much more tame seems irresponsible - we don't see how horrific and terrifying it would be. The characters in The Hunger Games are black-and-white, good and evil with no grey areas, whereas the characters in Battle Royale feature heroes, antiheroes, complete monsters, and terrified teens. They're plunged into a situation and act like normal teens would, freaking out, committing suicide, going ax crazy, professing love, etc.
As a film, The Hunger Games is certainly not bad - it's a well-made, well-acted spectacle that is entertaining albeit predictable. It takes its time getting to the action, but when the contestants are finally released it's thrilling (there's also a particularly intense scene involving a wasp's nest). It's probably the best we can expect from what a predictable Hollywood remake of Battle Royale would look like - significantly toned down, with a gorgeous cast, and a soundtrack featuring Taylor Swift, Maroon 5, and a couple good indie bands (as opposed to Battle Royale's classical music). I also like that The Hunger Games focuses more on the media aspect of the game, which was mostly ignored in Battle Royale. It's much less melodramatic than Battle Royale as well. The bizarre costume designs are great too.
TL;DR - It all comes down to taste. If you prefer fantasy stories, don't like subtitles, and have no desire to see kids kill each other in over-the-top gory fashion, you'll like The Hunger Games. If you're a fan of horror, exploitation, or extreme Asian cinema, you'll like Battle Royale. I prefer the latter, but The Hunger Games could've been a lot worse.
As a film, The Hunger Games is certainly not bad - it's a well-made, well-acted spectacle that is entertaining albeit predictable. It takes its time getting to the action, but when the contestants are finally released it's thrilling (there's also a particularly intense scene involving a wasp's nest). It's probably the best we can expect from what a predictable Hollywood remake of Battle Royale would look like - significantly toned down, with a gorgeous cast, and a soundtrack featuring Taylor Swift, Maroon 5, and a couple good indie bands (as opposed to Battle Royale's classical music). I also like that The Hunger Games focuses more on the media aspect of the game, which was mostly ignored in Battle Royale. It's much less melodramatic than Battle Royale as well. The bizarre costume designs are great too.
TL;DR - It all comes down to taste. If you prefer fantasy stories, don't like subtitles, and have no desire to see kids kill each other in over-the-top gory fashion, you'll like The Hunger Games. If you're a fan of horror, exploitation, or extreme Asian cinema, you'll like Battle Royale. I prefer the latter, but The Hunger Games could've been a lot worse.
District 9
(2009)
An over-hyped, manipulative, and clichéd wasted opportunity
17 August 2009
Over-hyped, overrated, badly written, badly shot, badly acted, and badly directed. The writing is manipulative, clichéd, and relies on dues ex machina and coincidence. The first 20 minutes is "documentary" footage and interviews, which starts off interestingly with thought- provoking social commentary, even though the shaky camera-work is very annoying (it doesn't improve). What could've been a compelling and intelligent science fiction classic turns into a dumb, ridiculous, laughable action flick that has plenty of crowd-pleasing mayhem. Once the action starts and the MacGuffin is introduced the social commentary is thrown out the window and becomes generic and stereotypical. The action is done well, though. It's entertaining, gory, and satisfying. This is pure nerd-fantasy, with cool weapons, tough guy shouting, and a kickass robot suit. In an effort to obtain realism apparently, none of the actors are recognizable. This could've worked if they hadn't have been terrible (except for the lead). The characters are shallow and one-dimensional. The antihero is entirely unlikeable which makes for low suspense because you don't care if he lives or dies. The only sympathetic characters are (predictably) the aliens, who are more human than the humans. I was hoping they ended up destroying all humans. The story is somewhat unpredictable and original, so it deserves credit for that. But don't expect a masterpiece like the critics and fans are raving about.
Thirst
(2009)
Beautiful, tragic, twisted, absurd, and darkly comic
14 August 2009
If you love Chan-wook Park, you know what to expect. His films are brutal, poetic, tragic, and artistic, with splashes of very grim humor. THIRST is clearly Park's style, and I loved every second of it, from the cinematography (every shot is gorgeous and creative) to the story, which blends Shakespearean tragedy, murderous love, Gothic horror, and layered character drama. The characters are complex and there is plenty of moral ambiguity to go around. Even the most sociopathic character evokes sympathy. The direction is restrained and the performances are nuanced - like SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, there are too many subtleties to take in on the first viewing. Chan-wook Park is an intelligent, bold, consistently surprising filmmaker. It's unpredictable - scenes go from brutal and heart-wrenching to laugh-out-loud hilarious in an instant. This is closer to LADY VENGEANCE then SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE as far as being over-the-top and comical. But, like LADY VENGEANCE, it's incredibly rich, thought-provoking, and rewarding.
If you like beautifully told vampire stories (LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) or are a fan of Chan-wook Park, seeing THIRST should be obvious. Easily one of the best films of 2009.
If you like beautifully told vampire stories (LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) or are a fan of Chan-wook Park, seeing THIRST should be obvious. Easily one of the best films of 2009.
Orphan
(2009)
Remarkably well-acted, darkly humorous, and effectively disturbing
22 July 2009
Dark, edgy, twisted, effective, clever, intense, and blackly comic - one of the best "evil child" films I've seen. It's brilliantly cast - Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard are top-notch as usual, but what really stood out where the natural performances director Jaume Collet- Serra was able to get from the child actors. Usually child actors are painful to watch, but 12- year-old Isabelle Fuhrman gives a terrifying, chilling performance that is worthy of praise. Aryana Engineer in her screen debut as the deaf little sister Max is adorable and almost steals the show in every scene. The stylish cinematography, editing, and sound are fantastic as well.
I saw Orphan at a packed advance screening and the audience had a blast. Collet-Serra knows how to pull the strings and engage the audience, as they were screaming and laughing at all the right moments. There are plenty of fun and playful tension-relieving scenes, and several cathartic moments when the audience erupted into cheers. When the credits rolled the audience even applauded.
The second showing I went to was just as receptive - the audience went nuts. They were collectively screaming, cheering, yelling at the screen, cringing, applauding, and enthusiastically welcoming the comic relief. One guy commented afterwards: "I never get scared by movies but that was the scariest movie I've ever seen." Audience participation for both screenings I went to were very high.
The film improves upon second viewing, with the knowledge of the twist. I was able to focus more on details and clues, and the anticipation of my favorite scenes made for a much more rewarding experience. It's even more chilling and cathartic the second time around.
It's far from perfect though - there are way too many predictable jump/false scares, with the soundtrack blaring to try to startle the viewer. The last part of the movie becomes a slasher flick replete with clichés and a one-liner. There is a talky scene where Esther reveals herself to her adoptive mother that is totally unneeded, as well as a crucial line regarding Danny, the older son, which really should've been cut. It's also a bit long at 2 hours - for an exploitative "B" movie this is unusual, although time is devoted to character development. Esther is multi-dimensional and even sympathetic at times - I would love to see a prequel based on her character.
Orphan is definitely not for kids - aside from the "anti-adoption" angle, there is plenty of dangerous imitable behavior. The violence committed by and toward children is shocking, realistic, and brutal. This is a ballsy film that throws kids into horrific ordeals.
It may be a "B" movie, but it's a damn good one that knows its audience. The basic idea is nothing new (except for the unexpected twist), but you knew that from the trailer and synopsis. If you were still interested or if you're a horror fan that is able to look past some clichés and logical jumps in exchange for horrific chills, you'll have a fun time. The phenomenal child performances alone are enough to recommend Orphan.
I saw Orphan at a packed advance screening and the audience had a blast. Collet-Serra knows how to pull the strings and engage the audience, as they were screaming and laughing at all the right moments. There are plenty of fun and playful tension-relieving scenes, and several cathartic moments when the audience erupted into cheers. When the credits rolled the audience even applauded.
The second showing I went to was just as receptive - the audience went nuts. They were collectively screaming, cheering, yelling at the screen, cringing, applauding, and enthusiastically welcoming the comic relief. One guy commented afterwards: "I never get scared by movies but that was the scariest movie I've ever seen." Audience participation for both screenings I went to were very high.
The film improves upon second viewing, with the knowledge of the twist. I was able to focus more on details and clues, and the anticipation of my favorite scenes made for a much more rewarding experience. It's even more chilling and cathartic the second time around.
It's far from perfect though - there are way too many predictable jump/false scares, with the soundtrack blaring to try to startle the viewer. The last part of the movie becomes a slasher flick replete with clichés and a one-liner. There is a talky scene where Esther reveals herself to her adoptive mother that is totally unneeded, as well as a crucial line regarding Danny, the older son, which really should've been cut. It's also a bit long at 2 hours - for an exploitative "B" movie this is unusual, although time is devoted to character development. Esther is multi-dimensional and even sympathetic at times - I would love to see a prequel based on her character.
Orphan is definitely not for kids - aside from the "anti-adoption" angle, there is plenty of dangerous imitable behavior. The violence committed by and toward children is shocking, realistic, and brutal. This is a ballsy film that throws kids into horrific ordeals.
It may be a "B" movie, but it's a damn good one that knows its audience. The basic idea is nothing new (except for the unexpected twist), but you knew that from the trailer and synopsis. If you were still interested or if you're a horror fan that is able to look past some clichés and logical jumps in exchange for horrific chills, you'll have a fun time. The phenomenal child performances alone are enough to recommend Orphan.
Obnoxiously preachy
18 June 2008
I loved the first 3 seasons of Family Guy, but was turned off by the drastic drop in quality during Season 4 and beyond. Granted, there have been classic episodes since then, but for the most part the writing degenerated into immature jabs at conservatives, republicans, the right-wing, religion, and anything else the writers disagree with.
This episode is a good example of that. It's a string of tired stereotypes of the south, religion, and anything remotely right-wing. Now, I'm not against offensive humor, but I like my shows to be equal opportunity offenders, not biased and ignorant shows that beat you over the head with their opinions. I even find some humor aimed at Christians to be funny (see George Carlin). But the writing isn't funny anymore. All it does is reinforce clichéd stereotypes (9/11, really?) to try and further their left-wing, anti-religious agenda.
Try South Park for a more balanced, unbiased cartoon.
This episode is a good example of that. It's a string of tired stereotypes of the south, religion, and anything remotely right-wing. Now, I'm not against offensive humor, but I like my shows to be equal opportunity offenders, not biased and ignorant shows that beat you over the head with their opinions. I even find some humor aimed at Christians to be funny (see George Carlin). But the writing isn't funny anymore. All it does is reinforce clichéd stereotypes (9/11, really?) to try and further their left-wing, anti-religious agenda.
Try South Park for a more balanced, unbiased cartoon.
Shotgun Stories
(2007)
Interesting story; wasted potential
26 May 2008
I was so disappointed by this. The story has so much potential, but the execution is poor. The trailer is much more interesting. The music is fine, but out-of-place, it takes away from the tension. This could've been a tight, solid revenge thriller but it took too many breaks with pointless scenes. The acting was bad with the exception of Michael Shannon who never fails to impress. The dialogue is weak and the writing is clichéd. The characters and visuals are interesting, though. There were points where you could feel the rage and tension, but I'm mainly just so disappointed - it could've been fantastic in the hands of a talented director/writing team.
August Underground
(2001 Video)
A misunderstood masterpiece of modern horror
13 May 2008
Fred Vogel's August Underground is a misunderstood, underrated success in horror film-making that is unheard of in the mainstream. I hated it before I had ever even saw it, but the hype is well-deserved. It's the most grueling film I've ever sat through, and I had to take several breaks. There are times that you think you're watching a real "snuff" film, and the result is shocking and sickening.
It deserves praise for doing what I didn't expect - it portrays the serial killers as immature, ugly, obnoxious, despicable scum. This is the way they (and murder) should be portrayed, not the Hollywood route of glamorization (Hannibal Lecter, Patrick Bateman, Norman Bates, Travis Bickle, etc).
It deserves praise for doing what I didn't expect - it portrays the serial killers as immature, ugly, obnoxious, despicable scum. This is the way they (and murder) should be portrayed, not the Hollywood route of glamorization (Hannibal Lecter, Patrick Bateman, Norman Bates, Travis Bickle, etc).
Easy Rider
(1969)
An overrated, plot less, pretentious mess.
20 January 2008
How did Jack Nicholson and the writing get Oscar nods? He was totally unbelievable. It's a bunch of badly edited shots of driving across country on bikes set to music. I read that they made it up as they went along, and it shows. The actors wrote their characters as cool, tragic, rebels that have to turn down beautiful young women. Maybe if I had more experience with psychedelic drugs I could've appreciated it more but since I haven't it was just annoying, boring, pretentious, hateful, self-indulgent, dated and preachy. The ending is completely ludicrous. These drug abusing criminals are portrayed as heroes, while conservatives are portrayed as evil murderers. How AFI put this in their Top 100 is beyond me.
The good: Peter Fonda's jacket, Dennis Hopper, and I smiled twice.
The good: Peter Fonda's jacket, Dennis Hopper, and I smiled twice.
Hatchet
(2006)
Fast forward to the kills
18 December 2007
I was really looking forward to this due to the hype. Horror critics were praising this as the second coming, so I was pumped! Unfortunately, the film suffered from what Hostel went through, except ten times worse.
The dialogue, attempts at humor, acting, sound editing, and music - it's all awful. The whole thing reeks of clichés (the trapped in the "woods" has been done to death - pun intended) and stock characters (the funny-sounding Asian man, the bimbos, the American tourists, the tough girl, the cowardly racist black man), who happen to be totally uninteresting and unlikeable. Nothing happens for an excruciating forty-five minutes of "character development". It got to the point where I was just fast-forwarding the uninteresting, poorly-written "oh-no-what-do-we- do" filler to get to the kills, which are few and far between. It ends with a black screen in the middle of a scene that pauses for a few seconds, then the loud credits roll.
What's good about this? The gore is fantastic. Rarely do you see actors actually vomit. Is it worth a rental? For me, no - the gore is not worth sitting through 75 minutes of torture.
The dialogue, attempts at humor, acting, sound editing, and music - it's all awful. The whole thing reeks of clichés (the trapped in the "woods" has been done to death - pun intended) and stock characters (the funny-sounding Asian man, the bimbos, the American tourists, the tough girl, the cowardly racist black man), who happen to be totally uninteresting and unlikeable. Nothing happens for an excruciating forty-five minutes of "character development". It got to the point where I was just fast-forwarding the uninteresting, poorly-written "oh-no-what-do-we- do" filler to get to the kills, which are few and far between. It ends with a black screen in the middle of a scene that pauses for a few seconds, then the loud credits roll.
What's good about this? The gore is fantastic. Rarely do you see actors actually vomit. Is it worth a rental? For me, no - the gore is not worth sitting through 75 minutes of torture.
30 Days of Night
(2007)
Best partial beheading...ever!
24 October 2007
I'll start with
The bad:
-It starts off slow in what may have been an attempt to build atmosphere and character development, but it didn't really work for me. -The random kills scattered through the first half weren't great, either. I would've rather seen a single shot of the action instead of many jump cuts - it would've been much more disturbing and horrifying. -The token little (vampire) girl saying, "Wanna play with me?" was a failed attempt to be scary. It could've earned points for showing her get killed on screen. -The vampires' dialogue was cheesy.
The good:
-Easily the best decapitation I've ever seen in a film, horror or otherwise. The camera is right in there for the best possible shot, and the make-up effects are flawless and incredibly realistic. Up until this point the gore had been lacking, but this made it all worthwhile for a gore aficionado like myself. Really - it knocks DAY OF THE DEAD out of my previous top gore scene. -Like Slade's previous film, HARD CANDY, it was shot beautifully. Several shots reminded me of paintings - stylish, morbid paintings. -One particularly impressive overhead shot carries you over a street of the town as vampires slay their prey in splashes of blood against the snow. -The beautiful ending (I won't give it away). I wasn't expecting to be moved as much as I was.
30 DAYS OF NIGHT was definitely worth seeing. I'll probably buy it when it comes out on DVD. It's safe to say that this is the most well-made vampire movie I've seen (although I haven't seen many). I have a feeling that it'll be ranked up there with the heavyweight hard- hitting survival horror films one day, such as DAWN OF THE DEAD and THE THING.
The bad:
-It starts off slow in what may have been an attempt to build atmosphere and character development, but it didn't really work for me. -The random kills scattered through the first half weren't great, either. I would've rather seen a single shot of the action instead of many jump cuts - it would've been much more disturbing and horrifying. -The token little (vampire) girl saying, "Wanna play with me?" was a failed attempt to be scary. It could've earned points for showing her get killed on screen. -The vampires' dialogue was cheesy.
The good:
-Easily the best decapitation I've ever seen in a film, horror or otherwise. The camera is right in there for the best possible shot, and the make-up effects are flawless and incredibly realistic. Up until this point the gore had been lacking, but this made it all worthwhile for a gore aficionado like myself. Really - it knocks DAY OF THE DEAD out of my previous top gore scene. -Like Slade's previous film, HARD CANDY, it was shot beautifully. Several shots reminded me of paintings - stylish, morbid paintings. -One particularly impressive overhead shot carries you over a street of the town as vampires slay their prey in splashes of blood against the snow. -The beautiful ending (I won't give it away). I wasn't expecting to be moved as much as I was.
30 DAYS OF NIGHT was definitely worth seeing. I'll probably buy it when it comes out on DVD. It's safe to say that this is the most well-made vampire movie I've seen (although I haven't seen many). I have a feeling that it'll be ranked up there with the heavyweight hard- hitting survival horror films one day, such as DAWN OF THE DEAD and THE THING.
Death Sentence
(2007)
Destined for cult status
4 October 2007
This is by no means a "good" movie, but it's hilariously cheesy and has lots of over-the-top acting and ridiculousness. It's a lot of fun (albeit unintentionally) and Kevin Bacon makes for a pretty badass badass with his poorly-shaved head and leather jacket.
There are some cool scenes, too (the single take parking garage scene for instance). The chase scenes and shootouts were very well-done.
Wan's direction was very exciting and tense. It's stylishly shot and looks great.
I'd much rather watch this again than the lame Death Wish Jodie Foster ripoff. At least this is an homage to better influential films (Taxi Driver, Straw Dogs), and gives credit where credit is due.
You know what to expect if you've seen Saw - bad acting but lots of cheap thrills. If that sort of thing is your bag, you should at least rent this.
There are some cool scenes, too (the single take parking garage scene for instance). The chase scenes and shootouts were very well-done.
Wan's direction was very exciting and tense. It's stylishly shot and looks great.
I'd much rather watch this again than the lame Death Wish Jodie Foster ripoff. At least this is an homage to better influential films (Taxi Driver, Straw Dogs), and gives credit where credit is due.
You know what to expect if you've seen Saw - bad acting but lots of cheap thrills. If that sort of thing is your bag, you should at least rent this.
Blades of Glory
(2007)
Too late
31 August 2007
Blades of Glory would've been much funnier if I was still in junior high, or if it had come out before Anchorman, Napoleon Dynamite, Ricky Bobby, Zoolander, etc.
I'm a college sophomore. Anchorman is one of my favorite comedies, as well as Napoleon Dynamite. I also love Arrested Development and The Office. Ricky Bobby was a step down, but still has its hilarious moments.
Blades of Glory was awful. I laughed once or twice, but most of the jokes were just so annoying in that sense that they'd been used so many times and could've been written by, well, a junior high school student. It's like they tried to imitate what was funny about the earlier Will Ferrell movies but did so poorly. That style of humor had just become tired and overused by the time this came out and it was no longer amusing. It might be worth watching if you're with friends for a chuckle, but you'd probably be better off just talking to each other and laughing at each other...or watching Superbad.
I'm a college sophomore. Anchorman is one of my favorite comedies, as well as Napoleon Dynamite. I also love Arrested Development and The Office. Ricky Bobby was a step down, but still has its hilarious moments.
Blades of Glory was awful. I laughed once or twice, but most of the jokes were just so annoying in that sense that they'd been used so many times and could've been written by, well, a junior high school student. It's like they tried to imitate what was funny about the earlier Will Ferrell movies but did so poorly. That style of humor had just become tired and overused by the time this came out and it was no longer amusing. It might be worth watching if you're with friends for a chuckle, but you'd probably be better off just talking to each other and laughing at each other...or watching Superbad.
The Bourne Ultimatum
(2007)
Best camera-work since The Blair Witch Project
4 August 2007
I've tried, 3 times, to like these movies, but I just can't. One of the main reasons people love these movies is because Jason Bourne is a badass! And he doesn't take no for an answer! If you like Rambo/Arnold/Bond movies and don't care about story or plot holes or logistics, you'll probably love this movie (not that there's anything wrong with that). But it's so full of clichés and absurdity I couldn't help but cringe and fall asleep (literally, and I rarely fall asleep during movies, especially not action thrillers). The biggest groan from me came when Bourne looks at the blood on his hands and acts sad for all the people he's killed, in a pathetic, clichéd attempt at a three-dimensional character.
Why is it so hard to get a camera man that can keep the camera from shaking for more than 2 seconds? Even when Bourne is buying a newspaper, there are 20 cuts, zooms, and shakes!
The action and story takes suspension of disbelief to a whole new level. What a waste of time...The only reason it gets a star is for the scene where Bourne steals a cop car while the man who is after him distracts the police by shooting at him.
Why is it so hard to get a camera man that can keep the camera from shaking for more than 2 seconds? Even when Bourne is buying a newspaper, there are 20 cuts, zooms, and shakes!
The action and story takes suspension of disbelief to a whole new level. What a waste of time...The only reason it gets a star is for the scene where Bourne steals a cop car while the man who is after him distracts the police by shooting at him.
The Host
(2006)
Not your average monster movie!
24 July 2007
Much, much better. Great cinematography, great score, great acting (you may recognize one of the leads from Joint Security Area and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance), great directing, great story. Frightening, intense, beautiful and subversive with a twisted sense of humor. It's refreshing to see Americans taken down a notch for a change (although not in a mean-spirited way, the Koreans are made fun of as well, really, it's humans that are criticized, as there are good and bad represented on both sides). An interesting aspect is how it predicts how the citizens and government react to this situation of mass hysteria. In desperate events humans are useless and horrible, and heroic and courageous. It's very well thought out (the t-shirts worn by protesters of the captivity of an "infected" man is one of the examples). My only complaint is the CGI isn't always top-notch.
If you like well-made inspiring survival end-times type action horror science fiction dramas with social and political satire, or if you want to see something different and refreshing, you need to see this.
If you like well-made inspiring survival end-times type action horror science fiction dramas with social and political satire, or if you want to see something different and refreshing, you need to see this.
Closer
(I) (2004)
Love is war
13 July 2007
The first time I watched this, I didn't think it was amazing, but the second time I watched it, it blew me away. It's a deeply layered character study from the director of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (another excellent character study). It plays like a play, which makes sense, because it's based on a play.
The acting was amazing (although I'm surprised Jude Law and Julia Roberts weren't recognized...I'm glad Natalie Portman was, as she was probably the strongest actor, but Clive Owen I felt was the weakest, although he was convincing).
I can see why some people may not like it, as the plot consists of its main characters deceiving each other and selfishly destroying each other's lives. Some experience karma, others don't. It's very realistic and the emotions are high and raw. There are many reversals - every character experiences what the others experience at different points. The characters are very flawed, complex, self-contradictory, and very human. There are many themes - truth, betrayal, deception, guilt, love, forgiveness, the horrible things we do for love, the tremulous nature of love, etc.
The screenplay doesn't insult the viewer. The dialogue is fantastic - almost every line is a double entendre. It's a moving, funny, beautiful, heartbreaking experience, if you're willing to sit through the graphic sexual dialogue. It may take repeated viewings to capture every bit of dialogue, every emotion portrayed on screen, every subtle nuance, every reversal, every metaphor...I don't really have a good ending to this review, so just watch it.
The acting was amazing (although I'm surprised Jude Law and Julia Roberts weren't recognized...I'm glad Natalie Portman was, as she was probably the strongest actor, but Clive Owen I felt was the weakest, although he was convincing).
I can see why some people may not like it, as the plot consists of its main characters deceiving each other and selfishly destroying each other's lives. Some experience karma, others don't. It's very realistic and the emotions are high and raw. There are many reversals - every character experiences what the others experience at different points. The characters are very flawed, complex, self-contradictory, and very human. There are many themes - truth, betrayal, deception, guilt, love, forgiveness, the horrible things we do for love, the tremulous nature of love, etc.
The screenplay doesn't insult the viewer. The dialogue is fantastic - almost every line is a double entendre. It's a moving, funny, beautiful, heartbreaking experience, if you're willing to sit through the graphic sexual dialogue. It may take repeated viewings to capture every bit of dialogue, every emotion portrayed on screen, every subtle nuance, every reversal, every metaphor...I don't really have a good ending to this review, so just watch it.
Hostel: Part II
(2007)
Could've been so much better
5 June 2007
My original comment was much more in-depth and focused on all the aspects I was impressed with, was deleted (or maybe I just didn't submit it). So this one will be much shorter and to-the-point.
Like the first one, the hype and trailers got me excited. They promised an all-out torture flick, and were nothing like the movie, so naturally, I was disappointed. There's very little on screen torture or gore. I thought the first one was decent enough.
Pros:
-Roth takes us through the process of joining the Elite Hunting organization. We get to see all sorts of details that he has thought up, from workers going to hotel rooms and stuffing victims' belongings in garbage bags, to auctioning off "damaged goods" victims for a discount. The process is explored much more than the first. The first HOSTEL gave us a glimpse of the organization as we tried to escape..this one provides a much more detailed view of the inner workings of Eli's creation -Stuart is the most interesting and complex (albeit unbelievable) character, and his "macho" friend was good for a laugh at his expense at how pathetic he is -There is one disturbing scene involving the hanging upside down and scything of an innocent, adorable girl. While watching her cry and wail I questioned myself: "Why am I watching this? This is cruel and pointless."
Cons:
-The steps Elite Hunting takes in securing their victims was very unnecessarily complicated -The comedy (such as the Bubblegum Kids kicking around a severed head while playing soccer) completely ruined the dark mood -Paxton's short appearance and poor explanation -So many pointless, bizarre, unnecessary scenes that only exist to add running time to a pretty much non-existent story -The victim biting someone's nose off with ease, as if it was made of jello...wha?? How? -The teaser promised creativity and gore, just like the first one. The teaser says, "Americans have no creativity," as far as killing people goes, as if saying, "Our film, however, does!" But it really doesn't. If you want creative death scenes watch the SAW movies. If you want gore rent DEAD ALIVE or HIGH TENSION.
As always, the MPAA is a joke. The only way they could possibly have allowed close-up shots of a penis and testicles being sliced off and tossed to a dog is MONEY (the success of the first HOSTEL). Kudos for Roth for pushing the envelope, I guess...I have mixed feelings as to the whole series. I love horror films, and I know Eli is not the first to utilize this style of pointless torture, but detractors of "gorn" (gore-porn) have good points.
Eli has created an original, frightening concept that many people are fascinated by. He must be very proud. I think he alternately believes that he is creating something important and groundbreaking (a social commentary), and/or simply is just having a good time grossing people out.
Like the first one, the hype and trailers got me excited. They promised an all-out torture flick, and were nothing like the movie, so naturally, I was disappointed. There's very little on screen torture or gore. I thought the first one was decent enough.
Pros:
-Roth takes us through the process of joining the Elite Hunting organization. We get to see all sorts of details that he has thought up, from workers going to hotel rooms and stuffing victims' belongings in garbage bags, to auctioning off "damaged goods" victims for a discount. The process is explored much more than the first. The first HOSTEL gave us a glimpse of the organization as we tried to escape..this one provides a much more detailed view of the inner workings of Eli's creation -Stuart is the most interesting and complex (albeit unbelievable) character, and his "macho" friend was good for a laugh at his expense at how pathetic he is -There is one disturbing scene involving the hanging upside down and scything of an innocent, adorable girl. While watching her cry and wail I questioned myself: "Why am I watching this? This is cruel and pointless."
Cons:
-The steps Elite Hunting takes in securing their victims was very unnecessarily complicated -The comedy (such as the Bubblegum Kids kicking around a severed head while playing soccer) completely ruined the dark mood -Paxton's short appearance and poor explanation -So many pointless, bizarre, unnecessary scenes that only exist to add running time to a pretty much non-existent story -The victim biting someone's nose off with ease, as if it was made of jello...wha?? How? -The teaser promised creativity and gore, just like the first one. The teaser says, "Americans have no creativity," as far as killing people goes, as if saying, "Our film, however, does!" But it really doesn't. If you want creative death scenes watch the SAW movies. If you want gore rent DEAD ALIVE or HIGH TENSION.
As always, the MPAA is a joke. The only way they could possibly have allowed close-up shots of a penis and testicles being sliced off and tossed to a dog is MONEY (the success of the first HOSTEL). Kudos for Roth for pushing the envelope, I guess...I have mixed feelings as to the whole series. I love horror films, and I know Eli is not the first to utilize this style of pointless torture, but detractors of "gorn" (gore-porn) have good points.
Eli has created an original, frightening concept that many people are fascinated by. He must be very proud. I think he alternately believes that he is creating something important and groundbreaking (a social commentary), and/or simply is just having a good time grossing people out.
Scrubs
(2001–2010)
Pretty dang awful
31 May 2007
One of the most overrated series ever...So many jokes that are so painfully unfunny - characters looking at the camera, "funny" sound effects and audio cues to let you know when to laugh, visual gags, and to top it off - a lame, cheesy moral at the end of every episode that should make you cringe in disgust. Out of every episode I chuckle maybe once or twice. It's not worth sitting through the over-the-top humor. Just not for me.
I've tried to get into it, but I'll stick to reruns of The Office, Seinfeld, Arrested Development, and Da Ali G Show. It's truly shocking to see how much support this show has - it's as bad as Friends!
I've tried to get into it, but I'll stick to reruns of The Office, Seinfeld, Arrested Development, and Da Ali G Show. It's truly shocking to see how much support this show has - it's as bad as Friends!
Phone
(2002)
Depressing and creepy
28 April 2007
This is the kind of horror film that is based around a story and not just a string of scares. It's like What Lies Beneath, Stir of Echoes, and The Grudge combined, with traces of The Ring. The acting is very good, especially from the little girl. There's good build-up, dread, and atmosphere, as well as disturbing and creepy images. It's also got its soap opera elements - there is heartbreak, deceit, and tragedy. The cruelty of some of the characters' actions was truly depressing and it made me angry and sad.
With that said, it's derivative and had me rolling my eyes at times. The editing is confusing at times, too, and the pace is slow.
If you want something original, try something else. If you want to be scared or want to feel like crap, watch this movie.
With that said, it's derivative and had me rolling my eyes at times. The editing is confusing at times, too, and the pace is slow.
If you want something original, try something else. If you want to be scared or want to feel like crap, watch this movie.
The Hills Have Eyes 2
(2007)
The worst horror movie of 2007
22 April 2007
I was really excited about this sequel from the trailer and the fact that I own the first one, but this was a joke. Was it supposed to be funny? I'd say if they had gone with the self-aware B- movie trash style, it might've been saved (there were a few scenes that were Lloyd Kaufman-esquire, including a port-a-potty and a severed hand wave), but it took itself way too seriously. Did they expect anyone to actually care when any of the characters died? Did they expect any casual horror fan to actually be frightened by any of the predictable jump scenes? It was so painfully clichéd, melodramatic, poorly written, horribly acted...it was obviously just a cash-in - it didn't even pretend to try to present anything remotely original or genuine. They didn't try to create intelligent, relatable characters - each one is annoying and stupid.
And if you were expecting gore, I guess you won't be too disappointed...but everything felt forced and rushed. What a pathetic, weak attempt at a horror film.
There was ONE scene that's worth watching on youtube - a character getting pulled through a hole, breaking one of his legs behind his head. That's the only thing that interested me about this movie. The rest was just a standard, typical slasher with no story, a lame "to be continued" tacked on, inevitable "revenge" scenes, and stupid characters doing absolutely idiotic things that had the audience groaning in disgust.
What an embarrassment.
And if you were expecting gore, I guess you won't be too disappointed...but everything felt forced and rushed. What a pathetic, weak attempt at a horror film.
There was ONE scene that's worth watching on youtube - a character getting pulled through a hole, breaking one of his legs behind his head. That's the only thing that interested me about this movie. The rest was just a standard, typical slasher with no story, a lame "to be continued" tacked on, inevitable "revenge" scenes, and stupid characters doing absolutely idiotic things that had the audience groaning in disgust.
What an embarrassment.
Dead Silence
(2007)
Nightmare fuel with something creepy for everyone
17 March 2007
If you have nightmares easily, I suggest staying away from this film: it's pure nightmare fuel. If you have an active imagination, you could have trouble sleeping with the film's imagery burned into the back of your eyeballs.
The story's intriguing enough. There just aren't enough horror films these days about menacing old ventriloquist ladies that are buried with their creepy dolls, who have come back from the dead to seek vengeance on the families that put her in the grave, by tearing out their tongues. The atmosphere is heavy, the creepy music is provided by SAW'S Charlie Clouser, the colors are washed out, and the sets are surreal.
Many will dismiss it as a formulaic, clichéd horror film. The SAW creators, who are huge horror fans, have fun making their own version of the American horror film by throwing in plenty of classic tropes such as the wise-cracking detective (Donnie Wahlberg) and the crazy old lady that knows more than she should.
I was pleased that the film didn't shy away from gore: it wasn't gratuitous, but it did enhance the horror. Most ghost stories tend to be separate from the gore flicks (I'm a fan of both), but I always enjoy seeing them combined. Another aspect that was interesting was the "silence" mode that signaled the presence of evil.
It's got plenty of horror elements to provide scares: aged film, folk tales, singing children, antique furniture, voice recordings fading out, flickering lights, dead loved ones beckoning from beyond the grave, photographs of dead families, cackling old women, wide-eyed dolls, billowing curtains, plenty of thunder and lightning, open caskets, dank crawlspaces, and a pervading sense of evil throughout.
Critics won't dig it, but I've shown it to two groups of friends and the majority were terrified and claimed it to be one of the scariest movies they'd seen. If you're a fan of atmospheric horror that aims to creep you to the bone, you should be more than pleased.
The story's intriguing enough. There just aren't enough horror films these days about menacing old ventriloquist ladies that are buried with their creepy dolls, who have come back from the dead to seek vengeance on the families that put her in the grave, by tearing out their tongues. The atmosphere is heavy, the creepy music is provided by SAW'S Charlie Clouser, the colors are washed out, and the sets are surreal.
Many will dismiss it as a formulaic, clichéd horror film. The SAW creators, who are huge horror fans, have fun making their own version of the American horror film by throwing in plenty of classic tropes such as the wise-cracking detective (Donnie Wahlberg) and the crazy old lady that knows more than she should.
I was pleased that the film didn't shy away from gore: it wasn't gratuitous, but it did enhance the horror. Most ghost stories tend to be separate from the gore flicks (I'm a fan of both), but I always enjoy seeing them combined. Another aspect that was interesting was the "silence" mode that signaled the presence of evil.
It's got plenty of horror elements to provide scares: aged film, folk tales, singing children, antique furniture, voice recordings fading out, flickering lights, dead loved ones beckoning from beyond the grave, photographs of dead families, cackling old women, wide-eyed dolls, billowing curtains, plenty of thunder and lightning, open caskets, dank crawlspaces, and a pervading sense of evil throughout.
Critics won't dig it, but I've shown it to two groups of friends and the majority were terrified and claimed it to be one of the scariest movies they'd seen. If you're a fan of atmospheric horror that aims to creep you to the bone, you should be more than pleased.
Pulp Fiction
(1994)
The hilarious misadventures in the life of a pair of murderers!
31 January 2007
Describe Pulp Fiction in one word: impossible. Because it's impossible to describe it one word, so I'll use many: a complex, interwoven modern day fable with characters as colorful as an Alice in Wonderland rendition. This film, on the surface, appears to merely be an exploitation flick, mindless in its execution and gratuitous in its violence. On the contrary! The violence, while shocking, serves the purpose of jolting us out of our everyday life - it speaks to us, and ABOUT us, in ways that your average Hollywood popcorn movie can. We get to see the humour in murder. Injected with black as night humour, it tells the tale of a group of criminals "behind-the-scenes." We see their everyday conversations, fueled by intellect, wit, and poetry, debunking the stereotype that murderers are devoid of any real intelligence. Pulp Fiction is a film for the ages.
In all honesty, I gave this film a low score because it's ridiculously overrated. Personally, I can't stand hearing QT's pretentious dialogue and the "look-how-cool-I-am" style really grates on my nerves. It's pretty popular to like this movie, so maybe I just have to hate everything popular, but that's obviously not the case, so...I don't know what it is. Mass brainwashing and hysteria over this egotist that likes to write himself into cool parts in his films so he can suck women's toes?
In all honesty, I gave this film a low score because it's ridiculously overrated. Personally, I can't stand hearing QT's pretentious dialogue and the "look-how-cool-I-am" style really grates on my nerves. It's pretty popular to like this movie, so maybe I just have to hate everything popular, but that's obviously not the case, so...I don't know what it is. Mass brainwashing and hysteria over this egotist that likes to write himself into cool parts in his films so he can suck women's toes?
The Hitcher
(2007)
Entertaining and intense by-the-numbers thriller
20 January 2007
I was looking forward to this film after seeing the trailer. I saw it opening weekend for a $4 matinée fee, and loved every minute of it.
Of course, it's nothing new. If you've seen BREAKDOWN with Kurt Russell, JOYRIDE with Leelee Sobieski, or Stephen Spielberg's DUEL, you've seen this movie (although this one is more violent and shocking). It's fairly mindless action, and yet the characters and their situation are engaging and I found myself genuinely rooting against the bad guy and for the good guys. I was angry at Sean Bean and exasperated by the meddlesome, incompetent police (minus the cowboy-hat wearing sheriff that tries to save the lead female actress). The actors were convincing. The cinematography is at times beautiful and almost always stylish. I even jumped a few times at the parts where you're supposed to jump.
There are obvious plot holes that usually accompany tight little thrillers such as these and PANIC ROOM, WAIT UNTIL DARK, and MISERY, but the pacing is quick and doesn't give you much time to worry about them. What's important in these "survival thrillers" (not to be confused with survival horror such as DAWN OF THE DEAD and ALIEN) is that the story is thrilling and the characters are real enough for you to suspend disbelief and put yourself in their plight.
There's a sense of justice and morality throughout as our heroes desperately try to help others in danger of the sadistic, crazed hitchhiker. There are themes of self-sacrifice as well. The attitude taken towards the killer is the right one - they are sick and wrong, no matter how they may try to justify it. Unfortunately, impressionable young fans may misunderstand and find Sean Bean's character to be "badass". There are underlying themes - this could be described as a cautionary morality tale, and speculation can be drawn into Sean Bean's character as well - but for the most part it's a simple, exciting adventure that is an escape for the majority of viewers that don't find themselves in explosive high-speed pursuits on a daily basis.
The detractors will hate it because it's a remake starring attractive teens, has predictable scares and a predictable script, and is directed by a music video director, made obviously just to cash in on the remake trend and appeal to "the MTV generation of teeny boppers that are too uncultured to understand true cinema" and need scenes of flashy violence and editing. However, I couldn't disagree more. Directors have to start somewhere, and the experience in music videos is certainly an advantage to the visual style of this film (and others such as THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake, another under-appreciated and too often bashed horror film, mainly by fans of the original. These critiques are ignorant and lump audiences into simple categories, that are not factual. I don't know about you, but I love all sorts of movies, not just the "classics." For what it is, it's done well, as long as you leave your biases and expectations for another MEMENTO or SCHINDLER'S LIST at the door. There's nothing wrong with indulging in a professionally-made, action-packed thriller once in a while.
For the price I paid and the entertainment I got, it was well worth the hour and a half ride. I gave it a 6/10.
Rated R for some shocking scenes of violence and brutality, and language.
Of course, it's nothing new. If you've seen BREAKDOWN with Kurt Russell, JOYRIDE with Leelee Sobieski, or Stephen Spielberg's DUEL, you've seen this movie (although this one is more violent and shocking). It's fairly mindless action, and yet the characters and their situation are engaging and I found myself genuinely rooting against the bad guy and for the good guys. I was angry at Sean Bean and exasperated by the meddlesome, incompetent police (minus the cowboy-hat wearing sheriff that tries to save the lead female actress). The actors were convincing. The cinematography is at times beautiful and almost always stylish. I even jumped a few times at the parts where you're supposed to jump.
There are obvious plot holes that usually accompany tight little thrillers such as these and PANIC ROOM, WAIT UNTIL DARK, and MISERY, but the pacing is quick and doesn't give you much time to worry about them. What's important in these "survival thrillers" (not to be confused with survival horror such as DAWN OF THE DEAD and ALIEN) is that the story is thrilling and the characters are real enough for you to suspend disbelief and put yourself in their plight.
There's a sense of justice and morality throughout as our heroes desperately try to help others in danger of the sadistic, crazed hitchhiker. There are themes of self-sacrifice as well. The attitude taken towards the killer is the right one - they are sick and wrong, no matter how they may try to justify it. Unfortunately, impressionable young fans may misunderstand and find Sean Bean's character to be "badass". There are underlying themes - this could be described as a cautionary morality tale, and speculation can be drawn into Sean Bean's character as well - but for the most part it's a simple, exciting adventure that is an escape for the majority of viewers that don't find themselves in explosive high-speed pursuits on a daily basis.
The detractors will hate it because it's a remake starring attractive teens, has predictable scares and a predictable script, and is directed by a music video director, made obviously just to cash in on the remake trend and appeal to "the MTV generation of teeny boppers that are too uncultured to understand true cinema" and need scenes of flashy violence and editing. However, I couldn't disagree more. Directors have to start somewhere, and the experience in music videos is certainly an advantage to the visual style of this film (and others such as THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake, another under-appreciated and too often bashed horror film, mainly by fans of the original. These critiques are ignorant and lump audiences into simple categories, that are not factual. I don't know about you, but I love all sorts of movies, not just the "classics." For what it is, it's done well, as long as you leave your biases and expectations for another MEMENTO or SCHINDLER'S LIST at the door. There's nothing wrong with indulging in a professionally-made, action-packed thriller once in a while.
For the price I paid and the entertainment I got, it was well worth the hour and a half ride. I gave it a 6/10.
Rated R for some shocking scenes of violence and brutality, and language.
Tell Your Friends