Reviews

18 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Man of Steel (2013)
1/10
One of the stupidest movies ever made.
15 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This review is going to be full of spoilers because I am going to mention various gaping plot inconsistencies and outright idiocies in this dog of a film.

Sure, it looks great and the special effects are generally well done. But some people need their movies to at least make some sense.

Let's start with a really basic one: the planet Krypton is going to be destroyed, and no one can be saved except one baby, presumably because they don't have any spacecraft.

Oh but wait, they do have spacecraft. In fact, they have so much spare technology they use it to send criminals into space... so that they will survive and provide enemies for Superman later in the movie.

Jor-El steals the Codex, which apparently contains the DNA of the Kryptonian race. Somehow, there are no backup copies. Oh but what about the actual Kryptonians who are running around destroying things... surely they each have their own DNA? Apparently not, somehow. And how about that baby-making machine in the scout ship: what was it supposed to use if there's only one Codex?

Clark just happens to hear about some top secret ice digging, and somehow knows to go there. How? And Lois Lane is somehow given a tour of the dig and a free place to stay even though she had to sue to be allowed there at all.

Clark discovers the spacecraft and somehow knows how to pilot it and land it somewhere. But then it never gets used again, for example to help fight the invaders later on. Doesn't it have the same kind of engine that's needed to destroy them? And it actually can fly rather than needing to be dropped via an airplane, as Clark's baby spacecraft is at the end of the film. But somehow no one thinks of this.

When Clark is taken to General Zod's ship, he loses his powers because he supposedly needs the gasses in earth's atmosphere to gain and retain his powers. Yet he's shown repeatedly operating in the vacuum of space. If he needed Earth's atmosphere to retain his powers, he should lose them in space.

In numerous fight scenes, massive damage is caused to probably inhabited buildings, which must have resulted in massive loss of life. Why wouldn't Clark/Superman immediately lure his enemies far away from the city, fight over the ocean, in the mountains, etc? In one scene he deliberately throws an enemy through a bunch of buildings, apparently not caring who gets hurt.

At the end, when the world engine is working, Superman flies into its gravity beam where his powers shouldn't exist because the conditions it's creating are like those of Krypton. But after being unable to do anything, he somehow just decides he's going to do it, and then instantly destroys the machine. Because if you really really decide, then you can do anything.

General Zod's ship will be flipped back into the Phantom Zone if its drive field comes in contact with another drive field of the same type, as found in Clark's baby spacecraft. But wait, don't all their small spacecraft use the same engine? Why don't they cause the same problem?

At the end, Superman and General Zod have an extended fight and appear to be equally matched, but when Zod threatens a prototypical family of Father, Mother and Child with his heat vision (and which he somehow doesn't manage to hurt although all he'd have to do is move his eyes slightly), Superman easily kills him, although he was completely unable to damage him until then. Again, just deciding to do something makes it happen.

These are just some of the really obvious major problems, how about some minor but equally stupid ones?

  • Perry White, Jenny and Steve are walking away from General Zor's ship when Perry says "where's Jenny?" Oh, she's suddenly stuck under rubble that apparently no one noticed falling, and she hasn't bothered to scream or make any sound at all. They struggle to free her, when suddenly the beam stops and they say "He saved us!", even though they didn't know anything about Superman trying to save them, nor that the destruction wouldn't resume, or in fact anything about what was going on.


  • Martha Kent is violently flung 20 feet or more. But apparently she's completely unhurt even though she's elderly and even a simple fall should have been damaging.


  • When Superman and Zor are fighting, they fly a great distance and end up falling through the ceiling of something that looks like Grand Central Station. After a few seconds, Lois Lane suddenly appears out of nowhere, because she should be in that scene.


  • In a 'heartwarming' scene at the end, Jonathan Kent sees young Clark playing with a cape and gets all misty eyed. Wait, how did he associate a kid playing with a cape with anything at all? Why would a cape signify something to him? It wouldn't.


This is a movie that didn't bother to make any sense, and the fact that people accept all the illogic, plot holes and dumbness of it really depresses me. Special effects shouldn't be enough to make a movie popular. The story and the logic of the story should count for at least as much and more.
1,838 out of 3,315 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Bandit (1996)
1/10
You probably have to be Turkish to appreciate this melodramatic long-winded nonsense
15 January 2011
This is a movie which clearly takes itself very seriously. Unfortunately, non-Turkish viewers will be left wondering what the point was.

It's long, slow, mawkish, melodramatic, clichéd, hackneyed and silly at turns.

The main character is apparently some noble mountain bandit, who is perhaps a well-known figure in Turkish mythology, but for someone not familiar with the back story, he's not particularly compelling.

The secondary character who becomes his sort of adopted son, is a blow-hard, foolish, boring drug-dealing low-level would-be gangster.

None of the relationships are the slightest bit compelling, and the Bandit's behavior is odd but not particularly interesting.

The ending does contain some fireworks (literally), but the foolishness of the plot, the shallowness of the characters, the poor special effects (red paint instead of even slightly believable blood), and the long-winded slowness of the movie make it barely watchable and completely unnecessary.

Perhaps some insights into the Turkish psyche can be obtained by watching this stinker. After all, they seem to think it's a great movie so something about it must move them.

But if you're looking for artistic cinema, or even a bit of entertainment, look elsewhere.
52 out of 151 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Great film-making, excessive violence
8 January 2007
Pan's Labyrinth is a beautifully made film.

The story lines are well crafted, subplots are expertly woven together, emotions are evoked without it seeming heavy-handed.

The acting is excellent all around, and the film looks gorgeous.

If only there was less gratuitous violence and bloodshed.

After the first scene of cruelty and gore, we get the idea. But Del Toro doesn't stop there. He keeps showing is more and more of the same.

For me, that changed my rating from a 9 or 10 down to a 6.

Without so much violence, this could have been one of favorite movies of all time. With it, I doubt I'll watch it again.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Fountain (2006)
9/10
Poetic and beautiful
27 November 2006
The Fountain is one of those all too rare films: big budget poetry.

Here we have beautiful photography, luscious scenes, top quality acting, all in service of an Idea.

The Fountain is pandering to no one. It isn't trying to be a Hollywood tearjerker, but it may make you cry. It isn't trying to be an adventure film, but it has its share of swashbuckling. It isn't a space odyssey, but it is psychedelic when it wants to be.

If you go in expecting a traditional narrative, you may be disappointed. But if you are looking for poetry and ideas, great performances and beautiful imagery, The Fountain is for you.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
District B13 (2004)
9/10
The Perfect Action Movie
12 June 2006
This film takes everything that has been learned in the last 100 years about how to make an action movie and distills it into a perfect 85 minutes.

The stars are true athletes, including David Belle, the co-founder of the sport of Parkour. He has spent 18 years perfecting his skills, which means that most of the spectacular stunts are real, not done with special effects.

The plot is action-movie perfect as well: A criminal kingpin, a damsel in distress, an honest cop, a noble criminal, corrupt officials, double crosses, nearly superhuman enemies. And at stake: honor, truth and the lives of millions.

There are hardly any extraneous elements, few scenes that don't make sense, no characters that do something really stupid when they should have known better. Every loose end is wrapped up in a very satisfying way. And there's even meaningful social commentary. All (though I said it before) in 85 minutes.

Why do other action movies drag on for two or even three hours and have long slow spots? Why do other action movies have plot holes big enough to walk through? Why do some of them lack drama, get silly and end up feeling like a waste of time? Why can't they all be as taut and tightly written as this one?

Because it's hard. It's hard to reach this level of perfection. It's hard to make a movie in which every scene counts. It's hard to get the plot, the acting, the action and the emotions right.

It's so hard it took 100 years. But here it is. Don't miss it.
142 out of 170 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Brick (2005)
2/10
It just doesn't work
15 May 2006
When I heard that Brick was a "film noir set in a high school", that sounded good. Had I known what it really was, I'd have saved my time and money.

Brick tries so hard to be a film noir of the 30s that it puts the slang of the 30s into the mouths of current-day high school kids. This is fun for a few moments, but quickly becomes silly. High school kids don't call each other "shamus" or go "on the lam", etc. If it was set in a 30s high school, that could work. But having period dialog in a current-day movie is just strange, not interesting.

Then there's the length. Film noir tended to be short: 90 minutes... not 2 hours! If you're trying to copy film noir, how about copying the length so that it doesn't become boring? This film could easily have been cut down by at least 30 minutes and wouldn't have dragged so much.

The production values were also spotty. In an overly-long final scene, the sky is so bright that the character is washed out completely.

But the real problem is that this film doesn't know what it really wants to be. Is it taking place in a high school or not? The characters don't interact at all like high school kids. They interact as if they're playing a grade-b film noir and are adult cops and robbers. The high school setting is a backdrop that isn't really used at all. None of the activities or dynamics of a high school appear anywhere in the film. Instead, we get scenes where the Vice Principal (whom they call the VP) calls the protagonist into his office as if he were a police commander talking to a renegade officer. It just doesn't work. The gimmick gets old quickly, and we're left with nothing else.

This would have made a good novelty short, but it fails as feature film.
64 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shopgirl (2005)
3/10
Preachy, trite and full of stereotypes
3 April 2006
I expected a lot more from Steve Martin.

What we get is a film that tries to make some very trite points about love, and doesn't do anything that interesting in getting there.

The only saving grace is Claire Danes, who manages to imbue a shallowly-written character with beauty and humanity.

We have a sensitive, shy aspiring artist who isn't doing much with her life, a cynical rich man and an insensitive young man as the main characters. Sound stereotypical enough yet? Minor characters include a scheming blonde slut and a rock star who listens to yoga tapes. Ho hum.

There are also glaring plot holes, the biggest of which is the sudden and completely unexplained success of the young character who, so far as we can see, has wasted a year doing basically nothing on tour with a band.

I respect the fact that this movie is trying to say something sincere about love, but sincerity does not make a good film.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Lame 8 1/2 Homage
27 February 2006
This is yet another homage to Fellini's classic "8 1/2".

When Woody Allen did it in "Stardust Memories", it was cute and funny.

When Steve Coogan does it in "A Cock and Bull Story", it's tired, boring and pointless.

Haven't we seen enough self-referential movies about making movies yet? Haven't we seen enough conceited actors and disorganized sets? Why is this supposed to be interesting or funny? It's neither.

If you know and love Steve Coogan, perhaps you'd find it funny or engaging, but unless you are a true fan, I doubt you will be impressed. It's another movie where nothing really happens, but unlike Seinfeld, it's not a cute and funny nothing... it's an annoying and tedious nothing.

Don't waste your time or money . Fellini does it so much better in 8 1/2 and Woody's homage outclasses and out laughs this one by miles.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
King Kong (2005)
1/10
1 1/2 hours too long
24 December 2005
It's twice as long as the original.

What does that extra time buy you?

  • More back story and character development. In fact, too much back story and attempted character development! - lots and lots of extra computer graphic fight scenes and rampages (and a couple of over-the-top "touching moments").


  • A completely unnecessary and non-working subplot involving sailors on the ship.


  • A new twist on the ape - girl relationship, which is sort of interesting but not particularly believable.


The problems with all this are:

  • The acting is really really bad. Jack Black needs to stick to comedy. He's rarely believable in this role. The other actors don't do much better. Only the girl and the ape do a good job.


  • The dialog is unwittingly humorous. My semi-packed audience laughed out loud during several moments which were obviously supposed to be serious and poignant.


  • The plotting is full of holes. At one point, two sailors have a quiet, relaxed philosophical conversation about a book one of them is reading -- while the boat is possibly sinking! It's hard to take the movie seriously when it's trying so hard and being so silly.


What Jackson has done is to re-make a nearly-B picture into a much longer, much bigger budget seriously-B picture.

Unless you love CGI, save your money (and your time)!
15 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Unbelievable characters, unbelievable plot
11 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I liked the first film of this trilogy, but this second one is making me wonder whether it will be worthwhile to watch the third.

Its obvious that Kieslowski is trying somehow to speak of the eternal issues, love, death, wealth, poverty, loyalty, betrayal... unfortunately it just doesn't work.

(Spoiler warning: don't read further if you don't want to know anything about what happens in this film)

We have here an impotant husband in love with a beautiful wife, who says she needs him desperately but divorces him and frames him for arson.

The despondent husband becomes a homeless street dweller, trying to get some money for food by playing a homemade comb and waxpaper kazoo.

He randomly meets someone who helps him get back to Poland, at which point, through a set of very unlikely circumstances he quickly becomes super-rich.

Then he stages his own death to get his wife back, and when she has proved she really does love him, he frames her for the murder (also in a very unbelievable way).

In the end, it appears that they'll be together again as soon as she can escape from jail, which, given the unlikely circumstances of the rest of the movie, seems a foregone conclusion.

Does any of this make sense or mean anything? Perhaps to some, but not to me. If this had been a Hollywood movie, made using a commercial esthetic, it would have been lambasted by critics for its silly plot and nonsensical characterizations. Instead, it's an "art" film, and somehow this makes all the silliness seem profound.

Don't be fooled. This movie just doesn't work.
61 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sideways (2004)
1/10
Bad wine in a carton
8 November 2004
What do you look for in a movie?

  • Interesting and sympathetic characters? - Unusual and amusing situations? - Plausible scenarios? - An engaging plot?


If so, look elsewhere. What we have in this sour film is:

  • Annoying characters, none of whom are likable. - Uncomfortable situations. - Unlikely scenarios. - An unengaging plot.


This is the story of a depressed, snobbish, easily annoyed, divorced failed writer and his expansive, macho, immature actor best friend. Uh... right.

They decide to go away together for the entire week before the actor's marriage, coming back just in time for the rehearsal dinner. Um hm.

The depressed character acts annoyed and depressed, but somehow they're going to have a great time. The macho actor knows nothing about wine but is happy to go on endless vineyard tours and tastings with his (NOT gay) wine snob buddy. Are we lost yet?

Okay, it gets worse. This depressed sadsack loser has a beautiful waitress in love with him in Solvang. Solvang, you know, that town near Santa Barbara which is a tourist attraction for no particular reason, with fake windmills and nothing much else there. Solvang, apparently, is the center of Wine Country. Or maybe the budget of this film was so low they couldn't afford to take the crew to Napa and had to shoot closer to LA?

Why is she in love with him? Why would she even tolerate someone as annoying as he is? Probably because it's in the script.

Why are these two guys who obviously don't like each other at all best friends? Oh, the script again.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it. This is a non-funny attempt at comedy that succeeds in producing a few chuckles but is much better at forcing a wince.

Sitting through this stinker was like drinking a glass of vinegar. Don't waste your time.
54 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Like a feature-length 10 minute skit
4 June 2004
This movie has the sensibility of a campy transvestite skit, extended to feature length.

It's funny at first, but after seeing the same gags repeated over and over again it quickly loses its charm.

About 1/4 the audience walked out on the showing I saw, and I have to admit that I sat through the entire thing just to be able to say I saw all of it, in case someone wanted to argue that "it got better towards the end".

Well, it didn't get better towards the end. It just got more painful to watch.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cremaster 3 (2002)
2/10
Barney's a master of self-promotion
26 May 2003
I just saw Cremaster 3 on a big screen (Castro Theater in San Francisco).

First the good:

  • It looks great. The cinematography is beautiful.


  • There are some interesting and unusual scenes and images.


Now the bad:

  • The movie is a bunch of scenes which act as if they're going to add up to something but really don't add up to anything.


  • There's a lot of "product placement". In Hollywood movies, product placement means that the characters drink Coke or subliminally (or even overtly) advertise some product. In Barney's case, this means that the characters use or play with white plastic sculptures which are what Barney sells for lots of cash. Just think: you could buy one of these things that might have been used in the movie for only $50,000.00.


  • There is a long sequence in the Guggenheim museum in which Barney showcases his rock climbing skills. Great. He's so buff. Isn't it amazing? Talented AND buff. Sorry, that rock climbing was just a show-off. It added nothing to the film otherwise. Much has been made of how Barney was a football player, and he seems to feel obligated to keep proving that he's a jock. The novelty of it all... a jock artist! Oh my.


  • In the same Guggenheim sequence he has two punk bands playing at once with punks dancing, while sculptor Richard Serra throws liquid vaseline at some steel plates, with some of it running down a channel that goes down the inside of the spiral walkway. The main point of this seemed to be "look how cool I am. I have punk bands and big deal sculptors here with me!"


If you want to see some strange scenes and don't mind spending 3 hours at it, go ahead. If you expect art or something of significance, you will either be sorely disappointed or perhaps you'll be snowed like the most critics and will believe you saw just that.
16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
given the budget, a Fantastic achievement
6 May 2002
This film had a budget of either $1 or $2 million (depending on who you believe).

To make any feature-length film for that much money, let alone one with any special effects at all, is quite an achievement.

From the looks of it, a bunch of the money went into Ben Grimm as the Thing. He looks just like the comic, and his lips and teeth move realistically.

Doctor Doom also looks very much like the comics version, and his articulated armored fingers clink ominously.

The final sequence with the Human Torch is animated and looks quite good.

True, there are many cheezy moments in the film, and many sequences which look cheap. The acting is solid B movie fare (though in their defense, I'm sure the film was shot in a very short time).

There are the usual holes in the plot, but all in all, it's not unwatchable, and for $2 million it's pretty amazing.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The One (2001)
8/10
Great action, lots of fun... better than The Matrix!
19 November 2001
The One is an alternate-universe sci-fi film that's full of action and humor. (In one scene, we know it's an alternate universe because President Bush is shown on TV announcing universal health care!)

The plot actually makes sense (unlike the Matrix's twisted illogicalisms), and Jet Li plays both a bad guy and a good guy, both of whom are amazing fighters who have obtained super-human powers -- one on purpose, the other accidentally.

The fight scenes are amazing, especially scenes where the two Jet Li's fight each other, each using a different style of martial arts.

I don't want to go on for too long with this review other than to say that I thought this movie was fantastic, and I am NOT easy to please.

Go see it!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Illogical and sloppy
25 December 1999
The World is Not Enough has its good parts and its bad parts. Unfortunately, the good are few and the bad are many.

Let's start with the good. The opening title sequence is visually beautiful, with liquid ripple effects, girls, seamless blends of 3d animation and people.

Brosnan also gives it a good try, although he has little to work with. French B-movie queen Sophie Marceau does quite a good job. And you get to see Desmond Llewelyn in his final role as Q.

But the film is sloppy and doesn't add up at all.

The opening boat chase scene, for example, has Bond acting so reckless that it's a miracle dozens of innocent bystanders aren't killed. Bond might take risks, but he isn't stupid, and wouldn't do things that would be almost certain to kill bystanders, unless he was saving the world and had to sacrifice a few. But in this chase, he's just trying to catch a suspect. Illogical.

Then there's a ski chase scene, supposedly taking place on a pristine mountain in the middle of nowhere, but in a great many shots, you can see that people have been skiing all over the slopes, and the treads of grooming machines are visible everywhere. Sloppy.

Then there's the lack of bothering to check fundamental facts. Denise Richards, in a stunningly bad and completely non-believable turn as nuclear physicist Dr. Christmas Jones, keeps handling plutonium, keeping it in her backpack, and says that weapons-grade plutonium is safe, but tritium is dangerous.

In fact, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject knows, tritium is relatively safe and the tiniest particle of plutonium is basically guaranteed to kill. Carrying around six kilograms of plutonium for a few minutes is also guaranteed to bring death from radiation sickness within a few hours.

Yes, there's action, but the film is a sloppy piece of work, constructed by people who appear to be just doing their job, with no passion and little creativity.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
a pointless film
4 August 1999
This film tries to be significant, but in the end is merely a pointless melodrama which uses a typical cop-out ending commonly employed by writers who are unable to come up with anything better.

Don't bother.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hurlyburly (1998)
6/10
Miserable Hollywood guys have no clue: Only a girl is wise.
26 December 1998
The message of this film seems to be that all men are pitiful and women sometimes can be wise. At least some girls can.

Buddha-like runaway Donna (Anna Paquin) explains things to drug-addicted, over-intellectualizing Eddie (Sean Penn), while Mickey (Kevin Spacey) and Artie (Garry Shandling) crack jokes, often at the expense of violent, confused Phil (Chazz Palminteri).

In Donna, we see Anna Paquin, whom we first met only five years ago as a little girl in "The Piano", as a sex object. Not only is she very sexy, she also acts very well indeed.

Sean Penn's Eddie, on the other hand, is a basket case. This is vaguely amusing at first, but his histrionics quickly become wearing. Three minutes of his weeping and frowning would have been more effective than the thirty or so which we are subjected to.

Kevin Spacey gives an amusing and understated performance, which is not so very memorable, but Chazz Palminteri's Phil has few really likable qualities.

Meg Ryan is pleasant in a small role as a druggie slut, and Garry Shandling, in another fairly small role, is as amusing as ever. Robin Wright has a few good scenes as Darlene, the love-interest.

In the end, however, the film seems rather empty and strangely unaffecting. It tries to push many emotional buttons, but somehow fails to do so. It also appears to be trying to have a message, but it wasn't communicated very well, unless it is the message at the beginning of this review.

If you are a real fan of any of these actors, go see the film. Otherwise, don't bother. In the end, this is one film without a real plot and without a real point.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed