Henry J Sosenite's Reviews

Kung Fu Zombie (1981)

5/10

16 December 2008

Like other reviewers said, Kung Fu Zombie lives up to its title, but other than the character of the vampire, it doesn't go beyond expectations. A rating of a 5 is usually used in the case of a boring and mediocre film, but Kung Fu Zombie is not. It goes insanely back and forth from being a genuinely bizarre (and entertaining) zombie story and kung fu movie, to a pathetic attempt at film-making. The production of the dubbed version is way below kung-fu-film average, with numerous jumps in the plot (which is so ridiculous it's almost dull), hopeless attempts at vaudeville-style humor, and problems in pacing which sometimes makes it hard to sit through. Many of the attempts at humor fail completely, and most of the laughs will come from what is meant to be scary or strange. At the same time, though, Kung Fu Zombie has that insanity and originality that makes it a "good bad film". For example, a drawing on the outside of a jail shoots lasers out of its eyes at a zombie- because, of course, zombies can't enter jails.

The fighting in Kung Fu Zombie is surprisingly good. Billy Chong is a terrible actor, but a great athlete. The editing throughout the film is confusing and convoluted enough to ruin several scenes, and although it's noticeable in fight scenes, it somehow doesn't manage to ruin them.

It's hard to pin down an audience for Kung Fu Zombie. It might not be best for kung fu fanatics; those who prefer the serious type of kung fu film will abhor it. Probably many of its viewers are people looking for a fun zombie movie (The mainstream 70's zombie flicks had little or no influence on Kung Fu Zombie- 100% Hong Kong horror), or those who are amused by the title- these are the people who are most likely to enjoy it.

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan (2007)

2/10

I pity myself for thinking this would be a good movie.

23 July 2008

I'm really amazed that this got an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a nomination for best foreign film at the Oscars. The 7.3 rating on IMDb... that's not so much of a surprise, seeing the way IMDb users have been voting recently. I just can't get into a film in which the actual facts about its main character have clearly been distorted, and not at all in a way to make the movie artistic, but rather to make it melodramatic and less boring. Which, it turns out, actually makes it very boring for anyone who was expecting to see a serious and credible interpretation of the life of Genghis Khan. The far-fetched and over-dramatized Mongol often echoes the likes of 300, a film that couldn't be happier to be ridiculously inaccurate; but unlike 300, Mongol takes itself seriously. It's stoic seriousness, mixed with the obvious inaccuracies, is what makes it truly the most boring film I've seen this year; possibly the most action or biopic movie I've EVER seen. The characters were pathetically written. Honestly, I doubt Genghis Khan was as boring and passive as shown in this film. Which is funny to me, because if there's anything that I'd think should be changed for the sake of theatricality, it's making a boring person into an interesting person. The romance between Khan and Borte is similarly boring, simple, and stupid. Also, without giving anything away, Mongol contains the single stupidest scene I have seen in a LONG time- where there should be a good 20 minutes of plot development, the film just skips forward without any explanation. It looked like something out of a Saturday Night Live skit that parodies epic action movies with horrible pacing. (Did I mention how seriously Mongol takes itself?) Meanwhile, it drags like no film I've ever seen before. Even now, I could swear it was three hours long. About 45 minutes into it, I checked the time, being pretty certain that it was almost finished. Besides some pretty scenery and quality acting from Asano (naturally), Mongol is honestly just a disaster. It completely failed to entertain me or enlighten me in anyway. I would never give this film a second chance. And not to sound racist or patriotic or whatever, but give me a trashy and mindless American epic over Mongol any day. At least then I know what I'm getting, unlike with Mongol, where the reviews and ratings led me to believe it was actually something worth seeing.

The saddest thing about how much I hated Mongol is that I have friends who I know, without a doubt, would simply love it.

2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Dark Knight (2008)

5/10

The Dark Knight never gets past being a "comic book movie"... A disappointment.

22 July 2008

Warning: Spoilers

Being a huge fan of Batman Begins (10/10!) I was as excited as any movie lover for The Dark Knight. And when the hype built up to a historic point, I was PSYCHED, man! I couldn't wait! So now, afterwards, I wonder what went wrong. I wonder if I've just seen too many superhero and action movies and I've been desensitized by them, or if I'm just insane (or stupid) for being a 20-year-old who didn't adore The Dark Knight.

From the beginning, something struck me as being a little off. The character of Batman/Bruce Wayne was not the same. He lacked the inner turmoil and the depth that we saw in the first movie. Not only this, but the film itself seemed to lack depth. None of the major themes of the movie came up until about an hour into it. I also could not ignore the sickening camera movements and use of music... Two characters would be having a relatively calm and simple conversation, and the camera would circle around them and fly every which way. Meanwhile, the music score sounds like it was misplaced, and it should be accompanying a fight scene. I think this complaint is just an example of what I found generally sickening about the Dark Knight. It takes all the techniques deemed effective in a modern action/suspense movie, and it piles them on to the point of exhaustion. I'm not just talking about the technical aspects of the film. It just fails to overstep the bounds of its genre. It's chock full of suspenseful (but old) little tricks and plot devices- dead characters suddenly appearing alive, events that have the sole purpose of giving the viewer a jolt (like the body smashing into the window), ridiculously high-tech equipment, villains who are complete geniuses with explosives and who force the main character to choose between two people he loves. I could go on if I thought a little bit harder.

The gaudy style is a lesser tragedy than how dumbed down this movie is, though. In Batman Begins (Some might say it's unfair to compare the two movies... Well, I say it's not. This is a sequel to Batman Begins) there is plenty more to digest than what meets the eye. The viewer is treated to an amazing transformation of a man, thanks to the conquering of his greatest fears. The message was crystal clear, and it was amazingly thoughtful for a comic book movie. The Dark Knight, unfortunately, doesn't get very far past its identity as a comic book movie, giving us the usual "moral dilemma", "right and wrong", "Am I going too far?" stuff that I honestly don't find that interesting, because, how many of us have to decide on a daily basis whether or not it's right to kill some one who has killed? It sure hasn't happened to me lately. We all face fear, and that's why Batman Begins is so engaging. It has appeal as something other- something MORE- than a comic book movie. The Dark Knight does not.

And now for the little things that I couldn't figure out how to put smoothly in a paragraph. There were definitely problems with the plot. Certain elements of the story seemed to disappear, or weren't resolved properly. Take, for instance, the phony Batmans. What happened to them? No one knows. I don't remember any resolution for that. Also, the whole subplot with the mob annoyed me, in general. It seemed as if it shouldn't have existed; or at least, its role in this film was much too big. The only point it seemed to have was as something for Harvey Dent to attack to show how powerful he was. Why does the Joker come up to them and make a proposition with them? They turn it down, and ultimately, nothing comes out of the whole thing. Also, the scene where Batman crashes his motorcycle in order to avoid killing the Joker, and then when he saves him from falling- that was PATHETIC. The standard superhero schlock of letting the bad guy go- in this case, one of the most convincingly evil and sadistic bad guys EVER. This movie could've had so much more kick if he had just manned up and killed him. How awesome would that have been? But no, of course it has to abide by the freaking superhero code. Sad.

Oh, but wait, there were good things about this movie! I did give it a 6 out of 10, you know. After all the negative things I've typed, it seems like I would have to type just as much positive stuff to justify my rating. But no, I can do so in just two sentences (one is a fragment, actually). 1: I was entertained. 2: The Joker. As far as 1 is concerned: despite all the things about this film that bugged me and made me think ill of it, it still got to whatever part of my brain it is that makes me enjoy stuff. Like I said, I AM 20 years old, and I'm also male, and certain things are just highly enjoyable to me and most people of my age and I can't really say why. Well, the Dark Knight is overflowing with those things. There's people falling off buildings, people getting thrown off fire escapes, senseless betrayal, trickery (The hostages! awesome), truck chases, Morgan Freeman, and obviously, explosions. The list goes on. Yes, these things were entertaining and enjoyable, but they don't redeem the bad qualities of the film at all. They just make it watchable- perhaps even rewatchable. As far as 2 is concerned: Heath Ledger deserves an Oscar nomination. It helps that his character was written to PERFECTION, of course, but Heath was really something else. The voice, the tongue thing, the walk- everything about the Joker just oozed chaos and anarchy. If I see this movie again, I'll probably space off whenever he's not on screen.

4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Starship Troopers (1997)

10/10

a near perfect satire... not to mention action and violence and fun for everyone!

9 January 2008

Full of tongue-in-cheek clichés, dark humor, and ridiculous action, Starship Troopers is a sassy and bold film, and one that's often misunderstood. To some people, it's pure garbage, but anyone who can see it for what I perceive it as- pure satire- will love it.

Starship Troopers is loosely based off a Robert Heinlein novel. I haven't read the novel, but the way I see it, the makers of Starship Troopers completely changed the entire tone of the book, adding loads of sarcasm and references to fascism.

The driving force behind Starship Troopers seems to be a fascist ideal; the main character, Johnny Rico, feels pressured to join the military by the government's giving special treatment to people who enlist (such as the privilege to vote) and society and the media's glorification of military life. His parents are strongly against it, but he enlists; after all, as he puts it, he doesn't need his parents when the Federation (a governing body that seems to control the entire planet) can take care of his every need. After the obligatory but always fun boot camp scene, the rest is pure action as the Earth goes to war with a deceptively intelligent race of bugs from the other side of the universe.

If you don't "get" the fascist references and the very sarcastic and satirical humor, Starship Troopers will seem like across as the worst film ever made. It definitely comes across as a bad film sometimes, but it's all purposefully done in mockery of old sci-fi shows (there's definitely some pokes at Star Trek), and in particular, war films. Starship Troopers contains many a stirring speech about patriotism that could've been lifted right out of a John Wayne film. The acting- virtually all of it, every performance- is up to 50's standards, and thus perfect for the film. While there are a lot of serious situations, a lot of the situations are still comic, in a way... it's hard to describe.

Besides all the fascist mumbo jumbo, Starship Troopers gives the viewer a good time, which is what really matters. The action scenes and computer graphics are incredible, good enough for an Oscar nomination, and I'm sure it would have won the Oscar if it had been more of an "Academy-type" movie because I don't think better computer graphics had been achieved up to the time Starship Troopers came out. The film has a good story, but especially a good way of telling the story: one of its unique features is three or four short propaganda films for the Federation. They're not only hilarious and entertaining, but they're an extremely clever way of filling in background information and moving the story along.

A few years ago, it seemed like there was a lot of badmouthing about Starship Troopers, how unbelievably awful it was and stuff like that. Now I guess more people get it; I'd say that it's considered a classic by the public. Some people aren't fans of sarcasm or jaw-dropping action, and those people probably can't stand this film. But I can't understand how anyone can dislike sarcasm or action, so I can't understand how anyone could not love Starship Troopers.

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ravenous (1999)

9/10

yes, it's about cannibalism!

30 December 2007

Indeed, there are several scenes in Ravenous in which people kill and eat each other (although they usually cook the meat first). If some one really wanted to see a movie about cannibals, they would probably enjoy it, but not necessarily. I can guarantee, though, that some one who finds cannibalism actually revolting and not worth mentioning would HATE this movie.

Ravenous presents a tale revolving around an Indian myth in which eating the blood of another man can bring forth supernatural strength. Cannibalism is likened to a drug; despite it's potential healing powers, it is actually addictive!

It's not just about cannibalism, but cannibalism is most of the fun. Ravenous has a cast of lower-A and upper-B-list actors, including Guy Pearce, Jeffrey Jones, Robert Carlyle, and David Arquette- and all are at the top of their games (however high that may be). It's a finely scripted and finely directed piece of work. The music especially stands out, composed by film veteran Michael Nyman and rock/pop veteran Damon Albarn; the score is unconventional and original, and perfect for this film. For some people, it may be the most memorable thing about it.

To some people, it might just seem silly and sloppy. The film is split into two parts, which is uncommon and can bother a viewer without them really knowing what's bothering them. Ravenous certainly does have an unusual plot, and the fact that it features people eating one another because of an Indian myth probably doesn't help its stature. But to me, it's a splendid film. It's outrageous, violent, and hilarious, but it's also professional: a patient and stylish adventure.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Crash (I) (2004)

3/10

not much here is really of any use to anyone.

2 June 2007

I heard so many great things about Crash. It was one of the best reviewed of the year. actually, I hadn't heard anything bad about it at all. Everyone I talked to loved it. This turned out to be a big mistake on "everyone's" part. (I hadn't dug deep enough yet to realize that were plenty of people out there besides "everyone" who didn't like it. but that's besides the point of my introduction.)

I think the main problem I had with Crash was that it just wasn't believable, at all. A serious dramatic movie isn't worth crap if it isn't believable. If people really acted like they do in this film, LA would be in a state of war. I know there was the whole Rodney King thing in LA, but that got a LOT of attention. The events in Crash depict racism on a scale ridiculously close to that of the Rodney King incident. I'm never convinced at any point in the film that the events depicted really could happen. In fact, I was just in Los Angeles, and people of various ethnicities seemed to get along with each other just fine. sure, there's racism out there, but Crash is about as accurate on racism as Rambo is on war.

All the dialogue is pretty horrible, too. Totally unconvincing. I couldn't imagine a single character being an actual person in real life. Crash had too many of those oh-so-dramatic scenes where every line is something flowery and deep, and if you actually heard some one say it in real life you would laugh your head off. (Examples- the scene with the gun with blanks, and with Don Cheadle and his mom.) Some scenes were actually moving, like the car wreck, as hard to believe as it was. but these scenes were overshadowed by all the bad scenes.

In the first half of the movie, almost every character was portrayed as a stereotype. I think this was done on purpose... I don't know if the point of that was for them to overcome the stereotypes. Even if they do overcome them, you have an ugly, offensive, and extremely weak first half of the movie.

I didn't like the pretentious and over-used idea of having all the stories interweave. It's been done a lot, but it's never been done this bad. In other movies, the fact that there are coincidences is used to make a point of some sort, but not in Crash. I think this is the main weakness of Crash. they went to all this trouble to put a bunch of chance meetings into this film, and what did it mean that these insane coincidences happened? Nothing. The end.

There's a lot to like under the surface of Crash... sure, lots of characters overcoming their inner demons, and fun stuff like that. but almost nothing on the surface to like. And actually, I didn't really feel as if Crash had anything to say. (One of the impressions I had gotten from other people before I had seen it was that it had a lot to say.) What was the point? Did it really show us anything we don't already know? Was it trying to show us how harmful racism is? Wow, racism is harmful... Who knew. This film certainly didn't change any of my views. Honestly, I can't believe it has "changed people's lives"- give me a break. In order for it to change your life, I think you would have to knowingly be a racist before you saw it, and seeing it made you change your ways.

Despite all of these problems I had with Crash, I did find some good qualities in it. The music was good. I like Mark Isham. I had high hopes when the movie first started, because the credits had me mesmerized. The music really enhanced certain scenes of the film, too. And, I'll admit that a couple of scenes were moving, although perhaps not genuinely. There was even some pretty strong acting. Ludicrous and Don Cheadle were brilliant. Unfortunately, Crash was still a huge pile of crap. (hah, that's fun to say.) I'd find any John Woo movie to be more believable.

21 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fall Guy (1982)

7/10

From frenzied action to comedy--A change of style that worked for Fukasaku

2 June 2007

Kinji Fukasaku is much better known for his violent and daring films such as Battle Royale and the Yakuza Papers, which is possibly why the cover of this movie boasted "A comedy from the director of Battle Royale". it was a tough tag-line to resist when I saw it on the rack at the video store.

I think the cover should have said something along the lines of "a romantic comedy", or maybe just "romance", because it was much more a romance film than a comedy. Sadly, it's one of those movies that starts out pretty damn funny, but loses its edge. the first half is full of slapstick humor, but I guess they forgot to put it in there in the second half or something.

It began with a hilarious sequence of a samurai movie being filmed. From there, we follow one of its actors, seeing his pretentious and ignorant attitude. The next day he visits his friend Yasu, the movie's fall guy, and tells him that he got one of his on-and-off girlfriends pregnant. He begs Yasu to pretend it's his kid. Yasu and the girl get married and build a surprisingly stable relationship, and everything seems find, but another chance to be a "fall guy" comes up and Yasu is faced with a tough decision.

Some of the scenes between Yasu and Konatsu are kind of cheesy, but there's some good sad moments in there. This includes the best "tearing apart a room" scene I've seen. Yasu's behavior definitely goes a little overboard, but it's more funny than lame.

I'd recommend this to anyone who "gets" Japanese humor. if you can't stand it, this is the last movie you want to see. I found it a little tedious myself, but only because it was inconsistent.

8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Henry J Sosenite

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed