Change Your Image
kayins
Reviews
A History of Violence (2005)
One of the Worst Movies of the Year
For the life of me I can't understand what people see in this film. I saw it at the Toronto Film Festival. The movie is plagued with bad acting, bad dialogue, miscasting, and a cliché plot. I've read comments that the movie is introspective. But I failed to see an introspective moment on screen.
****SPOILERS***** The sex scene between Viggo and Maria on the stairs was realistic, but the sixty-nine sex scene, supposedly to show how into each other they were, didn't work. While it's a great position between partners, it looks ridiculous when trying to show intimacy. Especially when they acted like they were snacking on each other.
Maria Bello- Cast as a small town attorney. Miscast maybe. Her look speaks to big city lawyer but not small town.
Viggo- At least Maria tried to act. Viggo looked like someone was feeding him his lines from behind the camera. I really love his wooden acting when he tries to tell Maria that he thought he buried Joey a long time ago. It looked like he was going to laugh at one point. Plus it's hard to take a middle-aged man named "Joey" seriously.
Direction-Viggo's limping scene as he tries to race home to save his family. Crazy. Viggo snapping a flunkie's neck on his way out of his criminal brother's office. HI-larious. Or even the choice to have all the mob guys wear black like a vampire convention.
I could maybe forgive those scenes (or not) but I couldn't stand the obvious metaphor with the weak bully who preyed on Viggo's son. The bully was really a wimp at heart and Viggo's son was just waiting for his burst of motivation to take on the bully and his flunkie in the spirit of his father's heroism. Haven't seen that before.
But the worst was, no not Ed Harris hamming it up as Mr. Fogarty, but Viggo's daughter. She had to be one of the most grating child actors ever cast. She was horrible.
In summary, from the moment Viggo's family crowded around the little girl because she had a nightmare and all were there to console her (in Cronenberg's hackneyed attempt to show Tom Stall's initially perfect existence) to the end when Tom/Joey/Michael Myers comes home to find his family tensely sitting at the dinner table and little girl Sarah pulls out a plate to show daddy Tom/Joey/Jason X is still part of the family, the movie was a complete package of one terribly directed cliché after another.
Darkness Falls (2003)
Good Horror Flick
I noticed that this movie received bad reviews which is typical of horror flicks. I also noticed that people on this message board have been slamming the movie. I'm a horror buff and I pretty much can tell when a movie sucks and when its decent. This movie definitely will give you your scares worth. Reasons why:
1) Monster effects were done expertly. The tooth fairy appeared ghastly and frightening.
2) The editing was done so that there was definitely a sense of suspense throughout the entire movie and creepiness to the tooth fairy's movements.
3) The score was done well to amplify the sense of urgency and creepiness.
4) The surround sound definitely gave the feeling that tooth fairy was everywhere.
All good stuff. Basically, the director gave you an easy back story and a couple of characters to center the story then he edited the movie down to an all out rompfest. Is this move going to be Carrie or the Shining or even a character play off device like John Carpenter's The Thing. Nope, the movie isn't trying to take itself that seriously. It's not even trying to personify man's inner demons into a horrofic monster. It's straight scares and action. Are you going to care about the characters? No. It's not that kind of movie. It's a body count movie where you get your jollies from seeing people get taken out in frightening ways while trying to run for their lives. Your not supposed to remotely care about anyone aside from the heroes and heroine of the piece. But the good thing, is that the body count is not done in the traditional crappy Freddy or Jason type movies. Also the director or writers never break cannon. There are no unexplained deaths or occurrences (spoiler- maybe barring a certain car and tree incident which could be explained- spoiler). They forshadow the creatures demise early on so you know how to beat it and they stick to the rules of the game. Also you don't get that skeptical let me go investigate where that strange noise is coming from too often. Once the characters realize that there is a monster in their midst, they get to fighting and running.
The acting was fine for this type of movie. No academy award winning stuff because hey, it wasn't that type of movie. For instance, most mediocre horror movies throw in a forced romance between the hero and heroine with unexplained kissing or making before death sequences. Not in this case. You get the romantic relationship down pat without forcing the issue.
I guess I'm saying that I respect the director for the choices he mad in paring down this film to the bare essentials. And to top it off, the bare essentials were done well. "The Ring" this isn't, but I had fun and that's all I was looking for.
Unfaithful (2002)
Unfathomable
In short, if you like bad movies or movies that receive undue critical acclaim, then this one is for you. The problem in the movie does not stem from bad acting, but from bad directing and a horrible screenplay. The entire script is contrived and the director does not know how to have his character's interact so it appears that they have chemistry. Also, whoever cast Dewey from Malcolm in the Middle as the young boy should be shot.
****Spoilers****
Problem #1: How corny and romance-novelish is it for the protagonist and her soon to be lover to be blown together literally by a freak wind storm.
Problem #2: How formulaic is it for the forbidden lover to be a handsome french guy, schooled in the art of seduction. See any lame romance novel you've ever read that wasn't set in Texas. The guy's name should have been Jacque Cliche.
Problem #4: Um, I believe the screenwriter's message was sometimes people have affairs without anything being wrong with their relationships. I believe this is why the protagonist has an affair although we don't see anything quite wrong with her home life. Keeping this in mind, I think the screenwriter should not tackle stories about the human condition until he or she realizes that people have motivation's for everything they do, whether they realize it or not. To think people are inherently whimsical is not a mature assessment of the human condition. That being said, it is up to the screenwriter to show the movie watchers what the protagonist's motivation was whether the protagonist realizes it or not. This didn't happen.
Problem #5: The dialogue was bad.
Problem #6: I was prepared for all these sex scenes that were supposed to be really powerful. They could have been if there was sufficient chemistry to believe that the Diane Lang's character was actually having passionate sex with the french guy. I've seen more chemistry in a Cinemax soft porn. Just because she's doing her own nudity and protesting in cliche dialogue that she doesn't want to have sex, although she obviously does, does not make chemistry. We should feel that Diane Lange wants to get with Jacque Cliche for other reasons than a french accent, good looks, and a rugged/well-read poet/renaissance man thing going for him because that's been done to death.
****Spoilers****
There was other obvious plot problems but I won't go into them. So if you don't mind all the stuff I mentioned, this film's a winner.
1 out of 10.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Better than Episode one, but still not Star Wars
I'm not sure why Star Wars fans give praise to either episode I or II. I've watched IV, V, and VI a hundred times and episodes I and II do not even scratch the surface of the level of action, acting, suspense, storyline, and drama evoked by the originals. I understand people perceive things differently, but I just wonder, what was it about the originals that Star Wars fans liked, that made them huge fans? Is it just the fact that people carry light sabers, or that when blasters are fired they make a certain sound that is unique to Star Wars movies? Or maybe because they were movies that used the word "Force." If that's the reason, then Episode II delivers. But if you're looking for anything that resembles the level of artistry that went into the Original Trilogy than Episode II ain't it. It's hokey, badly plotted, it seems to poke fun at its own campy premise, and the last 20 minutes of action are not enough to redeem the film. Some of the problems I specifically have:
****SPOILERS******
1) I didn't originally like the fact that Boba and Jango Fett were going to be a father and son team when I heard it. Watching it on film seemed really hokey. They're supposed to be merciless bounty hunters yet Jango carries his son around with him everywhere he goes. OK, I'll buy this, but what's with the sinister cliche laugh coming from a 10 year-old boy. It seemed goofy. And the writers seemed to be setting up a premise that Boba Fett wants to avenge his father's death at the hands of the Jedi. But the original triology painted him to be a paid mercernary, not a man on a vendetta, and he barely had any contact with Jedi. Seems like a sensely reason to weave him into the storyline.
2) Perfect example of bad directing and acting. Padwe's thrown from a ship, lay hurting in the sand. A clone soldier comes up to her and says are you all right. Suddenly, her grimace is gone and she's like I'm fine. Is this make-believe acting or is this a homage to those old A-team episodes where the car would flip over fifty times and the guys would come stumbling out merely coughing. Sheesh.
3) I heard from previous movie goers that the movie was worth seeing Yoda fight. So I patiently waited. But no, at first they have to set up the showdown between Yoda and Count Dooku as a bad western. Count Dooku says. "Well it seems we have to settle this with, light sabers." Did a fanboy write this line, sheesh. Then Yoda throws open his robe, like he's about to throw down. Come on now. Just take this a little seriously please. Would it seem so hard to have Yoda act a little more in character and kick ass? What's up with the Kung Fu stance he gets into. Then he goes jumping around the screen like Mighty Mouse, you could barely see him. It looked hilarious actually not like look how magnificently Yoda's fighting. Yoda was a reverant character and they reduced him to a Dragon Ball Z warrior in two minutes, the CGI was so bad.
Those are some of my big concerns, that's not to mention the horrid love scenes or the overall horrible dialogue, the fact that Padwe's skin tight outfit was ripped perectly around her abs although the CGI creature only scratched her back, or the fact that she was supposed to be in disguise but her clothes were very regal. I actually thought the movie started out decent, and I liked the detective story, but the movie got swallowed up by its own campiness. The fight scene between Obi Wan and Jango Fett was good. The fight scene between Obi Wan and Count Dooku started out descent until they were fighting so close you couldn't see anything. And I even liked the initial battle of the Force between Count Dooku and Yoda. But overall, the Star Wars prequels are nothing but bad impersonations of the Originals.
Blade II (2002)
Great, if you like mindless action.
Blade had a lot of wonderful action sequences. The special effects and the creature effects were pretty spectacular except for in a couple of scenes. However, this is where the movie ends. There's no real story line (very cliche) and the acting in this movie is an exception rather than the norm. You have no reason to empathize with Blade or the characters in the movie. You don't get to look into the psyche of the main character as you did with the original Blade. Stephen Norrington (director of the Original Blade) painted a picture of a scarred and tragic hero battling the forces of evil in order to heal the ache in his soul for how life wronged him. Blade II throws that out of the water and is a cheap thrill ride of non-stop action and horrific effects. While I found the action and creatures of the movie particularly pleasing with its graphic nature, I felt the sequel lost some of its maturity from the first film and is a disservice to the franchise. I appreciate it when directors treat comic book heroes as if they are real, with respect, and drama interlaced with action. I think this is one of the elements that made X-Men so successful. But I also think it's an element that made Unbreakable and the Original Blade not as successful as they could of been. In this case, the film makers erred on the side of making money. So if you're coming to see a movie with great non-stop action and horror then you've come to the right movie. But if you're looking for an intelligent script that pulls you into the world of the lead character, stick with the Original Blade.
Event Horizon (1997)
Truly Terrifying
I'm not sure why so many people dislike this movie. When I saw it in the movie theater, I was truly scared. I've been watching Horror movies for a long time and I only got scared off of Hellraiser II, Evil Dead, Milo, and Jacob's Ladder (personal demon things were too creepy). But this movie wasn't scary in visual effect. But more so tone and atmosphere. The moview was rich in atmosphere of the unknown and terror. The gore parts were fine.
I don't mind a good gore flick, but ****MINOR SPOILERS- listening to the the screams of the previous crew, the flashes of chaos, and the setting of the ship, were truly frightening. Made it seem that there really was some sort of doorway to hell. Not too mention the airlock scene was truly horrific******-MINOR SPOILERS
Anyway, a lot of people didn't like the movie because the ending left them hanging. No closure and people seem to need that. I think that has to do with the lack of interest in the film. I for one cherish the unpredictable and this film delivers with a great atmosphere. I recommend 9/10.