Change Your Image
turtlewax
Reviews
District 9 (2009)
Egad!
I read the reviews. Came to this site and read the glowing comments, comparing the film to the likes of "Blade Runner," the original "Alien," John Carpenter's remake of "The Thing," among others. Said to myself "I gotta see this." Did.
Now I'm wondering: did I see the same film as those who sang its praises? Because what I saw was a REALLY BAD MOVIE, with virtually NO redeeming qualities.
OK, the special effects were all right, but the special effects are ALWAYS all right these days. And the 'documentary' feel initially drew me in, but then failed to deliver, the jerky, hand-held camera becoming tediously affected and ultimately, through overuse, genuinely annoying.
Was there a point to this film, other than to invite us to substitute an oppressed minority of our choosing for the prawns? Oh yes, because simple xenophobia wouldn't explain those chopper-borne snipers, we had to graft onto the 'plot,' late in the game, a SOULESS, EVIL CORPORATION.
And the less said about the wild west shoot-em-up at the end, the better -- but I'll say it anyway: "action" is almost always a cover for lack of content, and that was certainly true of "District 9." There was enough ordinance expended to have killed the entire film crew -- including Gaffers and the Best Boy -- at least twice.
If you see this piece of Deck and leave the theater as po'd as I and my companion were, don't blame me. You've been warned.
Paycheck (2003)
Turkey Alert!!!
The works of the late Phillip K. Dick have been adapted to the screen a number of times and (with the notable exception of "Blade Runner") the results have been generally unremarkable.
"Paycheck," however IS remarkable. Remarkably awful.
The plot concept, interesting enough, is terribly mishandled. Logic and suspense are both tossed aside in favor of dull predictability...and "action."
Ah, action! A word that has become synonymous with stunt driving and orange explosions...and brain-dead scripts. John Woo specializes in this sort of drivel.
Want a definition of "inert?" Try the "chemistry" (or total lack of same) between Affleck and Thurman. These two just phone it in, although given the lines they have to deliver, it's not entirely their fault.
The hackneyed fadeout reminded me of the signature ending to all episodes of "The Cisco Kid," the laughing "Oh, Cisco!" "Oh, Pancho!" between Duncan Renaldo and Leo Carrillo.
Dick's works deserve better, but at least his heirs are cleaning up.
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
One thumb up, one thumb down
*******NOTE: POSSIBLE SPOILERS*******
My partner and I usually agree on the films we've seen. Not on this one.
She loved it. Raved about every aspect of it. Called it "brilliant" (not a word she uses lightly). Said it might be the best film she's seen this year.
Oddly, she's not much of a QT fan. I am, and seeing "Kill Bill" was my idea.
I was ok with it, though not really LOVING it, up until the battle royal in the Japanese restaurant/night club. Then I almost dozed off; if I'd been there alone, I'd have got up and left. Boring Saturday-morning-cartoon kiddie stuff.
Yeah, the cinematography was good, and the music was arresting. But there was no "there" there, and I left the theatre feeling cheated.
Solaris (2002)
There's no "there" there...
***WARNING - POSSIBLE SPOILERS ENCLOSED***
I went with an open, hopeful mind, having read that this was "cerebral" sci-fi that dealt with Big Questions. Not!
First of all, it was overly derivative, e.g.: a) The "Third Expedition" segment of "The Martian Chronicles." b) The penultimate scene in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (the hotel room that was obviously the construct of an incomprehensible being). c) "The Monkey's Paw," a hundred-year-old short story that is a cautionary tale about being careful what you wish for. d) The "false memory" angle dealt with in "Blade Runner."
Being derivative isn't necessarily a sin, as long as you deliver...but this movie doesn't. Rheya's dawning awareness of who she "was," and what she really is, is the only mildly interesting angle to be found in this pointless, aimless plot.
And the whole question of Solaris itself is given incredibly short shrift. It's obviously a very odd "rogue" celestial body that's wandered into our solar system, and long enough ago for humans to have placed an elaborate observation structure in orbit, but we aren't told anything about it. It's just...there.
I'm not a big fan of George Clooney, but this disappointing film is hardly his fault - DeNiro or Edward Norton would have had trouble making the character interesting/believable.
No, the blame goes to writer/director Steven Soderbergh. It's hard to believe this is the same guy who wrote and directed "Sex, Lies and Videotape" back in 1989.
Blood Work (2002)
Clint goes "clunk"
Where to start? The writing's awful: plot has holes in it big enough to drive a truck thru, dialogue is totally "not natural."
The actors mail it in: granted, the script gives them bupkus to work with, but they don't even seem to try. They're just reading lines.
The characters are not believable: the Paul Rodriquez detective is downright cartoonish, and the "romantic interests," one current and another strongly hinted at, are notable for the complete absence of any chemistry whatsoever.
Eastwood produced and directed this thing, and he's a smart, experienced pro, so it's hard to figure how it ever got to the screen. I mean, this is the same guy that produced, directed and starred in "Unforgiven," probably the best Western I've ever seen.
God only knows where his head (or his critical judgement)was when THIS turkey was being hatched.
Signs (2002)
The "Signs" should say "Beware!"
I was prepared to like this film, to suspend my disbelief and have a good ol' time. None of these things happened.
With the exception of the scene-stealing little girl (Abigal Breslin) and some of the photography, there's nothing to like about this flick. It insinuates promises that it doesn't keep, and it's hard to care if any of the characters (except Breslin's) live or not. Gibson's limited range as an actor is on display for all to behold, although you have to concede that he wasn't given much to work with.
One of the most stunning missteps was writer/director Shyamalan's casting of himself as the local vet. He has absolutely no business being on that end of the camera, and this display of ego (can there be another explanation?) was simply breathtaking.
When I left the theater, I was looking for a "sign" that said "refunds."
The Score (2001)
Good stuff
It sure has the names: Brando, DeNiro, Edward Norton. This is sometimes a recipe for disaster, but The Score works on every level. The script doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence, the characters are interesting and (this almost goes without saying) well-acted, and the suspense is both real and realistic.
Viewers who insist on car chases and big orange explosions are going to be disappointed, but there are plenty of those flicks out there to keep them sated.
This film is for grown-ups, and it's good.
The Pawnbroker (1964)
An absolutely stunning film...
Although the supporting cast is uniformly excellent (Brock Peters especially so), they are really only believable props to what is, essentially, a one-man performance by Rod Steiger.
And what a performance it is! Steiger grabs your emotions, and maintains a hold long after the final credits roll. He sucks all the oxygen out of the room, and you're not able to draw a deep breath until it's over.
For some reason, this movie seems to have faded from public awareness, and isn't all that easy to find. I first saw it in 1965, and then again about 30 years later; it packed the same emotional wallop the second time around.
Both Steiger and director Sidney Lumet have done plenty of excellent work since The Pawnbroker, but this remains the highwater mark for both.
It is, unquestionably, one of the most powerful films ever made, and that's a might tough act to follow.
Meet the Parents (2000)
Turkey Alert!!!
This is, hands down, the worst movie Robert DeNiro has ever made. The characters were uniformly cartoonish and unbelievable, the situations utterly predictable, and the humor (what little there is of it!) embarrassingly forced and juvenile.
This is a movie that should have starred Pauly Shore and/or Adam Sandler. It's that bad!
Towards the end of his career, Richard Burton let it be known that for a million-dollar fee, he'd appear in any movie without even reviewing the script...and that's how we got abominations like "Exorcist II" and "The Klansman".
After suffering through "Meet The Parents", one has to wonder if DeNiro hasn't done something similar.
Traffic (2000)
Over-hyped and over-rated
This movie weaves several plot threads together, and one of those threads is so flawed that it negatively impacts the entire production.
I refer to the plot line involving the newly-named "Drug Czar" (Michael Douglas) and his dysfunctional little family, especially his druggie daughter. This entire segment is poorly conceived, badly written, and acted with indifference. It clashes with the rest of the film, which is actually quite engrossing and well done. Benecio Del Toro and Miguel Ferrer stand out, but lots of others do creditable jobs as well.
It's a shame. This movie could easily have been a real humdinger, but the blue-hued Washington sequences just flat didn't work.
Blazing Saddles (1974)
No sacred cows for Mel Brooks
I saw this movie when it was first released, and went back to see it again the next day - I'd missed quite a bit of it the first time around because I was laughing so much.
There hadn't been anything like it before, and there hasn't been one like it since. It is without question the funniest movie I've ever seen, and it still makes me laugh today.
If you're easily offended, or just prissy, stay away from Blazing Saddles, because NOTHING is sacred to Mel Brooks - not if he can get a laugh out of it.
This movie couldn't be made today, which says a lot about the uptight, hypersensitive times in which we now live. Thank God Brooks made it when he did!