Change Your Image
LordElfstone
Reviews
Batoru rowaiaru II: Chinkonka (2003)
more of the same plus plenty of brand-new boredom
To be honest, my memory of the original movie is quite foggy. It seems that I liked it quite a bit, though. It had an original premise and a solid plot, I think. As solid as it goes with this type of overdrawn action. You don't necessarily need story or plot for these movies, but if you try and fail, the end result is that much worse.
I remembered enough to notice that the first part of BR2 was almost a carbon copy of the original movie's introduction. Like many movies this one tries to work terrorism as the threat of this day and age into its own history. You can either see this as a valiant effort or a cheap trick to score a few bonus points in terms of depth. To me, it appears as a little of both. However, if you choose the former, the movie's stance seems to be pro-terrorism, seeing how the "good guy" of the previous movie is the leader of the terrorism group...that's kind of odd. Well, maybe this is supposed to say, it's not all black and white.
However, none of that really matters, because of two reasons: Firstly, any kind of depth is destroyed by going overboard with the sentiment in a painfully dragging middle-to-late-act part full of requiems, as promised by the subtitle. Secondly, the original motivation doesn't make sense. Making sure that most of your child mercenaries will eventually have their necklace explode when the other half of the team is killed is upping the ante in favor of the action...but a lousy battle plan if you want the job get done. If the movie ever suggested this were just a twisted game on the adults' behalf...but it doesn't. You could argue that it's an analogy for the lack of sense of war in general. Sounds like a flimsy excuse.
Something else which doesn't help: The new hero's bad acting in every other scene. I was afraid his pupils might roll upwards and around facing the inside, as much as he was stressing them in the "tense" scenes. Funny enough, the actor playing the original's hero, Shuya, also plays Light Yagami in the Death Note movies. I remember him over-acting there. If only I could remember the first movie, if it was the same there. He shows restraint in this one, though.
As it stands, this film is entirely too long for making that little sense. The good parts mainly consist of recycling the old ideas (and I couldn't even tell how many, since I don't remember much of the first movie, as mentioned).
When a Stranger Calls (1979)
hey, did you know...the middle part drags!
Yeah, that's news. I guess everyone can agree on that. It is painfully obvious that the introduction was a separate short before it was decided to turn it into a full feature. While the beginning and the end are somewhat tense, I never got behind this supposed classic from the onset. Nothing seemed realistic to me. (spoilers, for details) Like, turning the lights off when you are scared and waiting that long to finally "check the children". Sure, she was not supposed to wake them, but I doubt her screaming on the phone had less potential disturbing their sleep. It seemed artificially drawing tension. Plus, back in the day of no cell phones, when a creep kept calling you, at least you knew he wasn't in front of your doorstep. That said, I found it completely illogical that the guy was calling from inside the kids' bedroom...
Then, the middle part...it doesn't service your scary movie if you show how pathetic the killer is. In fact, I thought there was a twist coming and it was the detective, who did it, having this guy picked as the fall guy he blackmailed or threatened to play the caller. I think I would have liked that more, no matter how contrived it would be. This part was an obvious extension of the short and felt like it each passing minute.
When we go back to Jill, this is probably the most interesting act of the movie. The scenes in the restaurant are effective. Coming full circle is kind of poetic. The ending was predictable, but played out nicely, at least. Out of the "Holy Trinity" of creepy-strangers-calling-movies, the other two being Halloween and Black Christmas, I still prefer the latter (incidentally, the oldest one of them).
Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
interesting idea limited by typical movie conventions
I pretty much agree with the review that is currently voted as the best one. The movie toys with the familiar concept of taking revenge...the audience both wants to see the Clyde succeed, but feels uneasy at the same time, knowing that revenge has never served anyone. Then, when it becomes apparent, that this may go too far, that should be enough to sustain interest and a love/hate relationship with Clyde. After all, the movie doesn't play too serious and allows for humor, which should be displaced in this kind of situation, quite clearly marking it as entertainment as opposed to a thoughtful piece of work. By that point you probably no longer care and half-root for him to succeed, just to see how over-the-top this can still get. He already seems to put the Joker to shame...causing mayhem *while* being in prison. But the last act ruins all this excitement and the all-too-popular by-the-numbers final resolution act with an unimaginative twist runs the whole thing into the (familiar) ground. Still, the first part is nicely done, creating hope for something unusual and the rest plays out better in your own head, I guess.
The Number 23 (2007)
this was S&M movie-watching par excellence...
Not just because of that theme in the movie. Which was one of the lame excuses for something reminiscent of plot. No.
I watched this, knowing I would not like it. I HATE numerology. Whenever someone starts going off about patterns with numbers I feel the urge to slap them. My own brain starts hurting out of empathy. And fully aware this is a movie just about that topic, I couldn't resist the urge to watch it and maybe get a good laugh. But it wasn't funny. Just exactly the dumb sort of "Isn't this totally scary and yet amazingly cool?! I can turn any crap into 23!" dialog I was afraid of. As soon as the son started to chime in, I knew this movie is a turd, no matter what happens. But I hardly ever stop watching a movie I started. I sat through it. I enjoy the pain.
The movie pretends to mock numerology under the disguise of showing how obsession can end badly. But it rides that wave as much as it's supposed to crush it. I don't see that message. I only see characters raving about a stupid number with little plot to justify.
Top that off with the usual "surprises" - trying to put another twist to throw you off, that makes no sense, and you almost believe it due to the quality of the narration up to there - and you get one hollow piece of movie-making. That just happens to be centered around the topic I despise. If only it did not try to be serious and rather had been some hilarious movie with actors I don't give a damn about. But I was starting to like Carrey...while it's not his fault, he is trying. It's not even good for watching with a bunch of friends and mst3k the hell out of it.
My expectations were low enough for someone to trip on them, but this movie managed to live up to be one of the worst I've ever seen.
Open Water 2: Adrift (2006)
inferior sequel
First, a few words on the original: Open Water was a difficult film, one that would not appeal to everyone, because it was realistic and as a consequence not a lot surprising things could happen. And it was shot on lower budget than this one, obviously. I rated Open Water 7/10, because I couldn't bring myself to give it an 8. But I very much liked it.
Yet, Open Water 2 is in no way better than the original. The premise is based on real events. While you probably can't know what has gone down in the water, I can in no way imagine it is that contrived. OK, you need stuff like that if you want to create the impression that something is happening...but most of it is utterly silly. Open Water didn't have anything you wouldn't believe, it felt natural. OW2 feels like the creators needed to tack on some subplots that make no sense. Which probably it has to, as it is a sequel. You can't do the same thing again. While the reactions are mostly credible, the causes are far-fetched and backed up with very unconvincing reasoning. Not to mention the situation is set up in a typical you-can-see-it-coming fashion.
If you watch OW2 simply as a "what if...?", not paying attention to making some sense of it all, you might enjoy it. They did the best to stuff the plot with "possible" events, as unlikely they may seem. If you account for the panic factor, it could turn out this way. That's why the movie is not a complete failure in my book. As a sequel in the same vein than the predecessor, though...I don't think so.
Rating: 5/10
V for Vendetta (2005)
most overrated movie I have seen
I didn't have the highest expectations for this movie, but I am surprised that it's worse than I would have imagined. It seems this movie can't decide whether it wants to have a message or just a mockery of that same message. I'm not familiar with the graphic novel this is based on, which means I can't tell if it's originally serious or humorous in tone. The movie, however, is neither serious nor funny, while trying to be both. Take the protagonist and the cop...the jokes don't work and often aren't appropriate. There is no acting for V to speak of, since he is more or less only voiced and the cop (Stephen Rea) is awfully wooden which makes about 90% of the - minimalistic - dialog pain to sit through. Many other characters are overdrawn in comparison - OK, it's based on a comic, but anyway - which doesn't work (for me).
The message comes across as pretentious, because the real issues are once again comically overdrawn - which is OK, since it's a graphic novel adaptation - but then again, there is completely serious stuff and both in one movie seems like trying to please everyone. There's a lot of dragging which probably only bothers you if you are not in love with this story...which I wasn't, needless to say.
Not to mention there are some plot holes and things that just don't make any sense, not even in a fictional world. One bigger fighting scene is - with good reason, of course - a Matrix homage, but a poor one. This did nothing for me, at all.
I'd have to say the movie is average, possibly falling below average if keeping in mind that I personally was tempted to turn it off more than once. Certainly not worth any awards in my book. I'm all for films that provoke thought. I don't need flashy action sequences in a comic adaptation. However, if everything fails to come together in a tight package, I'd rather go with brainless fighting and gore. This movie might have been quite entertaining with more action. The way it stands this is one of the biggest bores I had (while not honestly "bad"). All the more reason to waste another 15 minutes to write this review...yeah, what can I say. It needs to be said. 5/10
Explanation to some of the criticism:
***SPOILERS***
I can't think of a single joke that worked...starting with the awful V alliteration entrance of V...I guess that is a fan favorite and taken straight from the graphic novel. It felt out of place, he never did it again, which makes me all the more certain it was an egg for fans. All the remarks of the cop character fell flat. He was just plain boring.
The sample of the movie's present day population probably were supposed to serve the message, but it was one of the most pointless things in my opinion. The little girl was shot, then she was shown among the crowd in the end. Was it just a story that never happened? Or is the girl dead but still one of "us"? I bet they would like us to discuss this, but what of it...I doubt it's worth the time spent.
The twist makes no sense...who were the people that entered Evey's cell? Puppets? Whatever. One of the worst twists I've ever seen.
What about the allusions that Gordon is V? Pointless. It's stuff like that which makes a movie "pretentious" in my book. Prime example.
Finally, the last and longest fighting sequence...Wachowski brothers spoofing themselves (or the director trying to be clever?). Haha, funny. No. This is supposed to be a little serious, right? But it kills a potentially good conclusion with the - extremely tired by now - isn't-this-a-cool-effect fighting scene, with not even that hot choreography, above that. Everything that follows, I don't know, my brain already turned off.
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
most overrated movie I've seen in years
I'm usually not far away with my personal grade from the IMDb rankings, but this time I must object. This movie got everything wrong that I could possibly imagine except camera work and special effects, including plenty of gore like you should expect.
LOADS OF SPOILERS ARE FOLLOWING... BEWARE!
The characters are a bunch of every type in the book. You got the black cop leading the pack with matching lines. You got a jerk who introduces himself as one and stays one till he dies as a zombie (with a smile on the heroine's face, of course) and a more ruthless jerk (being an armed security guy) who does a complete character flip-flop for no obvious reason - if you don't count the fascination about the sudden topic of the hour: TRUST You got a romance without a chance (another twist you can see coming from a mile away) between a nurse-turned-heroine and a TV-salesman keeping the cool head among them and a baby being born from a zombie in a situation that's both stupid and a rip-off from several movies at once.
Most of the scares - or non-scares - are obvious. This could vary if you didn't watch many horror movies. The movie takes away the scare-factor by mocking various other flicks and itself. But this is not supposed to be a parody, is it? You can even guess quite a few dialog lines, mostly involving CJ who is nice as soon as he notices that there's another one who can play the I'm-a-dick part, therefore he creates comic relief instead. This movie is more action than horror, after all. The last part turns into a shoot-out and barbecue. By now nothing could scare you, anyway. The chainsaw reduces the survivors to our chosen few. The ending is surprising, as usual.
END OF SPOILERS
It's a bad movie that just looks good. It started well and got worse from there. I liked the idea with the other guy on the roof of the gun shop. In these moments the movie was actually funny without being silly and delivering cheap laughs through predictable dialog. I rate it 3/10, just because I've never done this before.
Phone Booth (2002)
strengths and weaknesses alike ***spoilers***
I read a lot about the plot holes and I have to admit, there are many of them in such a short movie. I can't believe that one guy with no visible weapon is surrounded by police forces like this. With half a dozen snipers on the roofs, cops with shields and two or three dozen at gunpoint. Yes, that's stupid. Given the obvious evidence of a sniper on the other end of the line, that's even more so.
But try to forget about this for a while and you will have fun and you will laugh a lot (I did) cause the psycho shooter played (well, sort of) by Kiefer Sutherland has a load of good lines. He is really funny while commenting the sometimes pathetic attempts of his victim. The dialogue is the main strength of this movie. Those who are complaining about the length should keep in mind that the story is based on a short film. And tell me how to keep tension in a phone booth for any longer than they did?
The outcome is not very intelligent I might say, but it at least works well enough. This is an unusual situation we're facing here. It's not easy to make a good movie in a phone booth with a super-plot hole-proof plot. You can always say that they tried to keep it low budget as possible by filming in and around a single phone booth and in less than two weeks. That's what it is about, yes. I don't mind it. Joel Schumacher delivered a very bad Batman, but you forget about Flatliners, Falling Down and Lost Boys. Those are far from being bad.
This movie is a good example of sacrificing a well-rounded plot for the sake of dialogue and to that extent it works perfectly well for me.
8/10
Nowhere Man (1995)
over too soon (spoilers included in 2nd part!)
Yes, this was one of the very few shows I tried to watch every episode of. I missed one or two, though. Tom Veil's search for truth was a perfect mystery. Some episodes were somehow creepy, the mysterious force behind the scenes appeared to be alien or supernatural...and then again, it did not. Nothing was clear until the very end, which was a rashed-up conclusion. But it makes sense and here's why (some of you mentioned parts, but not the whole picture):
***SPOILER*** Tom Veil is not a real person. His whole identity is faked and was brainwashed into his mind. Some of you speculated who he had been before the brainwash. My simple answer is: he has never been someone from the start. Remember that episode in which people were manufactured in a company? I think that's the origin of Tom Veil. He has been produced. They can produce adults, never mess with childhood. After this they gave him an identity, set up some conspiracies and simply tested their object. How intelligent can a clone get? How much of an identification can he achieve? Is he able to develop feelings or a conscience apart from what has been brainwashed? I think that's the solution. I'm pretty sure the picture would have become larger if there had been another season, but after all it makes sense as it is. And since we will never see more than this we should accept Gemini to be the truth of Veil's existence. Meaning the agenda was a setup, sort of a treasure hunt. And I can't help but like this solution. It matches the overall mood of the series.