BSchin2188's Reviews

Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

6/10

11 September 2004

I remember when Renny Harlin was a pretty decent director. Of course, that was only for one film, Die Hard 2. Since then, his movies have gone down the hole, fast and hard.

The first two-thirds of this movie was really pretty good. Decent suspense, good acting (especially by Skarsgard, most impressive). But once you find out who's been possessed, the movie is about as serious as "Monty Pyton's Flying Circus". The Monty Python crew probably could have done better, now that I think about it.

This movie had the potential to be something better, but Renny Harlin and the blood-hungry producers ruined it all. A horror movie doesn't need blood to be scary. Want proof? Watch the original Exorcist.

4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

28 Days Later (2002)

1/10

How NOT to make a horror film...

22 March 2004

Warning: Spoilers

Many people say that Danny Boyle is a gifted film maker. I will say that his directing in this movie is pretty good, and there were some good ideas. But all in all, I think that this movie would be better used as a torture method on prisoners of war.

SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT

The best thing about this movie was the beginning. The massive virus outbreak being started by environmental activists? Pure genius. A great touch of irony here. Some other things that I liked were the freaky zombies, and the all around good acting.

Now, for what I didn't like. This may take a bit...

My biggest complaint was the music. During a horror movie, when the scary stuff starts to fly and the action runs high, it's typical that you play scary music. Now, I'm all for breaking the norms in movies for something good, but playing classical/opera music during the horror scenes was a terrible idea. I am convinced that someone forgot to take their medication when the musical score was being selected. Not only did the director choose opera music for zombie food-fests, but it wasn't even scary opera music. Something cool and creepy like Bach's Tocatta and Fugue, D minor would have worked. But Boyle chose to go with nice, happy classical music, thus negating any and all potential terror to be had.

Next, the military men being type-casted once again as sex-craved maniacs. Sure, they disguised this stereotype with "the need for procreation", but the military is already seen as sex-crazed, horny people with guns. My friends and myself all saw this turn a long way coming, and I could literally hear people in the theatre audience complaining. One woman behind me said to her boyfriend "What? More horny, evil army guys? I thought that this film was going to be something original!". So much for her wishes, huh?

And Jim, for an average guy with no mentioned military training, was pretty good at taking out those army people. He never missed a shot, out-foxed them all, and would put a 6-man Delta Force to shame. Hand this guy a contract and send him to airborne school! A naturally born special forces op, what are the odds?

Well, my list of gripes is getting pretty long, so I will cut to the chase. There was no need for the poor musical selection, I saw the "big plot twist" coming shortly after the opening credits wrapped, and an entire military force missing one guy that just grabbed a gun and started shooting. Save your time, and watch "Night of the Living Dead" instead. Now, that's a zombie movie!

6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

3/10

Better than some, worse than many.

23 January 2004

The only reason that this Bond film beats out "The Man with the Golden Gun" is because it doesn't get boring. And it also beats "Die Another Day", because everything was terrible about that Bond movie. Other than that, this is one of the lowest entries in the series.

I have several reasons why I dislike this Bond film, my primary reason being the bad guy. Johnathan Pryce does the best with what he has, he would have made an excellent Bond villan if it weren't for his motivation; being the world's biggest and richest mass-media mogul. I fondly look back on the old Bond films where the bad guys wanted to take over the world. Now, the bad guys only want to broadcast the world being taken over...

Neither of the Bond girls impressed me terribly, Hatcher's acting was stale, and Michelle Yeoh was the exact opposite of all other Bond girls (with the exception of Jinx, whom I dislike even more). Most Bond girls are simply women, connected to the plot, who need help getting out of a bad situation. But apparently the new producers had to break tradition and start making the Bond girls tough in themselves.

All in all, the only saving aspect of this movie was the opening action sequence, where Bond hijacks a nuclear missle, beating the bad guys around the whole way.

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

Thelma & Louise (1991)

1/10

Ridley Scott Sucks!

29 December 2003

Warning: Spoilers

The only thing that Ridley Scott ever did that was any good was "Alien". Everything else he had directed was terrible, but this movie in particular is his definitive worst.

Replace "Thelma and Louise" with two guys, say "Frank and Bill", and you would have the most sexist movie on the planet. But since it's two women, they get away with all the male-bashing you can take.

*Spoiler Alert*

When Geena Davis picked up Brad Pitt, I knew that he was going to rob her blind the morning after. I guess she was too stupid and guy-struck to realize this, though. I damn near jumped out of my seat and cheered when her and her equally-idiotic friend drove off the cliff. Two less idiots in the world makes a happy ending for me! Now why not cut out the first seven-eighths of the movie out, just show us the suicide run, and you'd have a pretty good movie. Hell, if might just win best picture. Of course, then the movie would have to be named "The Death of Two Morons".

53 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Point Blank (1967)

10/10

They got the character right, but not the book...

1 September 2003

Point Blank, remade as "Payback" with Mel Gibson, both based on "The Hunter" by Richard Stark, A.K.A. Donald Westlake. This movie has many positive sides and several negative sides.

The biggest positive side is that they did a good job adapting the character of Parker (Walker in the movie). Lee Marvin is tough, mean and never hesitant to use violence, just like Parker in the book. It towers over "Payback" in this aspect, in which Mel Gibson plays a teddy bear that happens to shoot a few people. Marvin was the perfect choice for the part. The action is lean and tight, with a great fight scene in the back of a hippy bar.

The drawbacks are mostly that this didn't follow the book very well. The basic idea of the book is there, but Walker's mysterious helper is a new addition. Stegman is a different (and less effective) character, as is the method that Walker/Parker deals with him. The ending makes little sense to me either, but I may just be missing something.

As a movie fan, I give this 8 out of ten. As a Richard Stark and Parker fan, it ranks about a 6.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dreamcatcher (2003)

Hollywood actually follows a book!!!

29 August 2003

Warning: Spoilers

May be some spoilers here, ladies and gents, not too sure myself what would spoil this one for you or not...

When I first saw this, it suddenly hit me that the first half of the film was dead on with the book. "Holy Crap!" I said, "Hollywood's actually realized that Stephen King's storylines are better than anything their screenwriters could come up with!" I spent the next few hours enthralled by this epiphany...

Near the end it strayed quite a bit, but I'd still say it was 90% accurate to the book. A lot complain that they skipped some parts of the novel (I was upset that they left out the "Pennywise Lives" graffiti from the novel), but unless you wanted a five hour movie, this is about as good as you're going to get. King translates best into mini-series because his books are so long, I think this was the best theatrical release of his work yet.

The acting is all round great, with the four main characters being the main attraction, outdoing Morgan Freeman even. It was nice to see Jason Lee do some serious acting, because I hate his comedies and I knew he could do better. Thomas Jane (soon to be the Punisher from Marvel comics) was good as a suicidal psychic, Tim Olyphant played an alcoholic pretty damn well, and Damien Lewis was just amazing. Jumping back and forth from Jonesy to Mr. Gray was just terrific (and for those who don't know, the british accent is his real voice, he's not American).

The ending is my only complaint. A bit abrupt and completely forgetting that this was once based on a book, though the special effects were pretty decent (this coming from someone who despises computer animation with all his heart). All in all, I give this one 8/10 stars, mostly because it followed the book so well. If only Hollywood could do a faithful adaption of Richard Stark and James Patterson, we'd see some damn fine movies!

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Payback (I) (1999)

9/10

Did somebody forget to read the book?

23 August 2003

I'm sure that we're all aware that Hollywood never follows a book, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop complaining. But first, the positive sides to this film.

The action scenes are good, and it has a good sense of humor.

And now the bad. This might take a while...

FOLLOW THE BOOK. That's pretty much my biggest qualm here. When I saw this, I enjoyed it. Then I read the book, and decided that it was much, much better than this. In the book by Richard Stark, the main character doesn't crack jokes. He only robs people, beats people down and shoots even more people. And believe it or not, these books are very, VERY well written, with good plot lines. The action scenes are amongst the best written. If you had no Richard Stark, you would have no Elmore Leonard and no Quentin Tarantino

Apparently what happened here is that the director, Brian Helgeland, was actually going to follow the book. Then he got Mel Gibson on as the lead, and it all went downhill from there. It's not that I don't like Mel, I love the Lethal Weapon series, he just screwed this movie up too much. Gibson, it seems, is too worried about his hollywood image as a cream puff tough guy. So instead of actually portraying the character of the book, Gibson decides to have a romantic interlude and crack jokes. So much for making film noir, huh?

I think that Hollywood should give the Richard Stark series another chance on the silver screen. A word of advice: Don't let Mel Gibson anywhere near the project.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

I, the Jury (1982)

3/10

Not bad, but it's not Mike Hammer

23 August 2003

Everywhere I look, people say that this is the best Mike Hammer film to date, and I can't help but ask "why?" It just isn't very Mike Hammer. If perhaps it was just a ripoff of the pulp classic "I, the Jury" with Armand Assante, I would have enjoyed it. As a movie, it's pretty good considering it was pure 1980's action. But as Mike Hammer, it's weak.

The biggest differences between true Mike Hammer and this movie is Armand Assante's portrayal. He does a fine acting job, but Hammer is MEAN and always angry. In this, Assante is either manic depressive or smirking at the bad guys that he just beat. Mike Hammer gets into fist fights. Armand just pushes some people down stairs, doesn't throw punches. At least they got the ending right, although Armand Assante was still way too melancholy.

I can say several positive things about this movie. The scene when Assante does a full assault on the criminal's compound with an M-16 is well directed, a good solid action scene (no way connected with the book). Velda and Assante's love interests were both more interesting to watch than the rest of the movie.

In closing, I would like to say that Hollywood still has the chance to make a good, solid film based on Mike Hammer. Two tips: FOLLOW THE BOOK. Regardless of which book you use, follow it. Spillane wrote better than 90% of Hollywood anyways. And second, get someone who can be a mean and downright angry Mike Hammer, not depressed. I think Michael Madsen would fit the job well, he has the right look and the right voice.

15 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Along Came a Spider (2001)

2/10

Lousy movie, to say the least.

5 August 2003

Warning: Spoilers

Okay, I'm going to review this one in two manners. The first, as a movie. The second, in contrast with the book.

As a movie, this film has little to offer in way of originality or plot. Two children are kidnapped, and Detective Alex Cross is called in to investigate. Basic story that's been done a dozen times. The action scenes are about all that this movie is really worth (although the direction is god-awful. Of course, it was directed by Lee Tamahori, so what more should I expect?), and Morgan Freeman's performance is outstanding as always. I would love to see Alex Cross done in film again, but I have one stipulation to ask: FOLLOW THE BOOK!!! For once in your life, Hollywood, just use the book as a script. These books sell like crazy, and there's a reason. They're written by an amazing novelist, not some hack screenwriter who thinks he can do better.

SPOILERS FROM HERE ON DOWN!!!

For those of you who have not read the book or seen the movie, you may want to stop reading this right now. GARY SONEJI LIVES IN THE BOOK! Not only does he live, but he comes back in number 4, which is one of the best novels in the series. I guess the producers weren't planning on making any more of these books into movies, because they would have to skip "Cat and Mouse". Once Cross killed Soneji in the movie, I just about walked out of the movie right then and there. I mean, really, it's not that hard to not shoot the bad guy, and keep him around for the next Alex Cross movie. I hope that James Patterson quits selling the movie rights to his books, because the film industry does nothing but trash them.

8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Solaris (2002)

1/10

Solaris: Definition of Boring

28 June 2003

God, this movie was awful. I'm been more entertained at a funeral. The only relatively cool thing was the music. When this first started, it seemed like this might be a decent murder mystery set in space; NOPE. no dice there. It ended up being two hours of time I could have spent sleeping. My dreams are more coherent than this. Why do people waste time and film just to show Clooney's butt, and a dozen close ups of that ugly chick he was with in the movie? Ugh...

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

Gladiator (2000)

1/10

Hollywood hits an all time low!

28 June 2003

Since when are action movies supposed to be boring? Because boring defines about 90% of this movie, and even the action scenes weren't that great. Ridley Scott has only directed one good movie: Alien. Everything else he has done can eat it.

It was a cool concept, but it could have been done much better; cut out half of the talking (the source of the boredom), use STEADY camera work during the action scenes, and don't rip off Hamlet in the end. Of course, then you would need a new scriptwriter, a new director. After all those changes, you would probably have a decent movie.

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

Dumb and Dumber (1994)

1/10

Stupidity on Film

28 June 2003

There is no way that I would give this movie two thumbs up; more likely two middle fingers. Why does Hollywood keep marketing this crap as comedy? If I ever open my own video store, this and the American Pie series will be banned from the shelves. I'll probably even put up a sign: "If you're looking for Dumb and Dumber, get out of my store. I don't want your business". I have seen funnier stuff in horror films.

29 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hulk (2003)

3/10

Not bad, but not great either

21 June 2003

Why, oh lord why, did Ang Lee get to direct this? Even Wes Craven would have been better. If Ang Lee had spent more money on CGI instead of all those stupid, creative camera cuts, then maybe the Hulk would have looked halfway real. Better yet, get a real actor to play the Hulk. I know that the Hulk is supposed to be as big as a house, but camera tricks and blue screen effects could have taken care of that.

Computer animation was a real detriment to the movie. The Hulk looked like a cartoon, and the dogs were even worse (although the fight scene where he beats the dogs down was really cool). If you wanted a computer animated Hulk, why not just make this an entirely computer animated movie? At least then everything around the Hulk would have looked equally crappy.

Since when was the Absorbing Man Bruce Banner's father? I don't mind if they don't follow the comic books, but Crusher Creel was the Absorbing Man, and that made more sense. At least then they could have a cool enemy for any Hulk sequels. I pray every hour that they never use the Leader bad guy. Just think of how terrible his CGI would look.

Aside from god-awful direction and lousy special effects, the movie has a good plot, good action scenes and really good acting. I'd really like to give this movie a grade of B+ for all the good parts, but they simply weren't enough to make up for the terrible camera cuts. So this gets a B- instead. For the sequel, get a real director.

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

Shaft (1971)

Great, classic '70's movie!

21 June 2003

Richard Roundtree plays John Shaft, the private detective from New York hired by a mob boss to find his daughter. Roundtree's performance is what makes the movie what it is. He's engaging, funny and tough, everything that Shaft was in the books.

This movie is very much a sign of the times, but still holds today. The 1970's look at life, drugs, sex, and New York in general stands out.

I'm probably the only person who will say this, but I really don't care for the title song. Good music, but the lyrics just don't cut it for me.

One of the best films to come from the era, starting the blaxploitation craze, but never getting beaten by the others (Dolemite, Black Belt Jones, Sweet Sweetback, etc). The new 2000 Shaft brought a new character, but Richard Roundtree showed up for a cameo. I think now they need to do one more Shaft, with Samuel L. Jackson and Roundtree working together. Can you dig it?

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

American Idol (2002– )

Who cares???

20 June 2003

I have an idea! Let's waste an hour or our week nights watching a bunch of teenagers try to out-sing each other? Wait, how about not? This appeals to me about as much as dental surgery. One thing I will admit, these people have some talent in their singing, but it still doesn't interest me enough to waste an hour of my life watching it. Let's see these kids try to beat Aretha Franklin or Don Henely. I submit that they cannot.

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

Stealing Harvard (2002)

1/10

Tom Green Sucks

20 June 2003

Who ever decided to give Tom Green his own show, plus several movies, needs to be deported. That pretty much goes for all of Tom Green's fans as well.

This movie tells the tale of a man who decides to steal a bunch of money in order to put his niece through college. This has the potential to actually be a funny movie, but then the producers decided to cast TOM GREEN, and the movie is essentially just a longer version of his show.

At least I learned something from all of this; Even if a cool actor (Jason Lee) is cast in something, it only requires a lousy actor like Tom Green to mess it up. Avoid this movie like you run from your mother in law.

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

Vanilla Sky (2001)

1/10

Garbage, utter garbage

20 June 2003

Warning: Spoilers

Why do people like this movie? I've only met one person besides me who thinks that this sucks. I dramatic movie is supposed to have characters that you care about, and I thought everyone in this movie got exactly what was coming to them.

SPOILER ALERT

Tom Cruise is essentially in jail (he should actually be imprisoned for EYES WIDE SHUT). Cameron Diaz bumped herself off. Penelope Cruz was quite possibly the worst actor in this movie. The only character I liked, Kurt Russell, didn't even turn out to be real. And the whole "this is nothing but a dream" ending has been done to death. Hollywood can't even be original any more.

5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Too much CGI

20 June 2003

This was pretty good, about equal to the sequel. The only real problem was that it was way too much CGI. Computer animation isn't to the point where it looks spectacular, just like real life. It will be a long time before it does. The Wachowski brothers decided not to care, and filmed a large fight scene with 90% CGI. The result, a STUPID, god awful fight scene. I'm referring here to the "Neo vs. 100 Agent Smiths" part. At first, it was really, really cool. REAL people actually fighting, good choreography and lots of martial arts. That impresses me. Computer animation doesn't. When Neo starts flying around, he looks like a cartoon. When he starts running on a pole in a circle, kicking all the agents, he looks like a cartoon. If they could have done this with REAL people, it would have looked 100% better, and been 100% more impressive.

Of course, whenever I voice this opinion, everyone says I have budget envy. At this point, I'd like to point out that "Enter the Dragon" didn't cost nearly this much to make, and it is three times better then this will ever dream of being. Besides, low budget movies are the best anyways.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Office Space (1999)

1/10

Not funny, not funny, not funny

20 June 2003

Every time I hear someone say that they think this movie is just hilarious, I always ask myself "Why? What am I not getting?" I mean, the only scene that was remotely funny was when everyone was beating down the fax machine, and even that was passable.

I even saw this a second time, trying to see if I was just missing the jokes, but I realized something; the fans are probably just missing a good sense of humor.

Don't waste your time with this one. You would be better off watching an old re-run of... Well, just about anything else.

15 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Urban Legend (1998)

Not scary at all

20 June 2003

Back in the day, the best horror films were Hitchcock movies, like "Psycho" and "Frenzy". Even after Hitchcock, "The Exorcist" was frightening, and Brian DePalma made scary stuff like "Dressed to Kill". Now, we've hit the bottom of the barrel.

If a bunch of people being hacked up is scary to you, then this movie (and about 100 other wastes of film) should be right up your alley. The only thing that was remotely scary in this movie was the acting.

And just for the record, any movie that microwaves a poor, helpless dog should be banned. Kill all the people you want in these slasher flicks, you can even hack up cats/birds/hamsters/manatees you want, but leave dogs alone.

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

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

1/10

Kubrick's Final Krap

20 June 2003

Don't get me wrong, I like Kubrick. Clockwork Orange is one of the best movies ever made, Full Metal Jacket is awesome, the Shining is great too. Unfortunately, this is about as bad as 2001: A Space Odyssey.

When this came out, I was relatively excited. I thought that Kubrick was going to pull out all the stops in his last film, that it was going to top everything else he ever did. I was very, very disappointed.

The only way I can really see this movie is an excuse to film a bunch of naked people. And since nudity never advances any plot points or gives us deep insight into a character's soul, filming 200 naked people seems pointless (unless you just wanted to catch a porn movie starring Tom Cruise, because that's all this is). If this sounds like the perfect way to spend a few hours, watch it. I'll just check Dr. Stangelove out again.

17 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Romy and Michele's High School Reunion (1997)

Terrible!

20 June 2003

Want to see a better movie then this one? Go to the imdb homepage, and search for titles beginning with "The". You'll have a pretty good list to start with.

Why do I hate this movie? If it's supposed to be a comedy, it wasn't funny. If it's supposed to be dramatic, the acting sucked. Not sure what other categories this would fall under, except maybe "Worst Film of 1997", for which it certainly wins the title.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Goodfellas (1990)

1/10

Too Long

20 June 2003

Warning: Spoilers

Great acting, good action scenes, but about 30 minutes too long. "Goodfellas" is basically synonymous with "Casino", and "The Godfather 1, 2, or 3", because they're all the same movie. A bunch of mob guys running around, killing people, and they're all longer than they need to be.

The best thing that can be said about this is that Joe Pesci dies. He's got to be the most annoying actor. The same goes for "Casino" (Goodfellas 2 as far as I'm concerned, they have so many actors in common).

Scorsese should stick to movies like Taxi Driver.

22 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Doctor Who (1996 TV Movie)

10/10

I liked it!

15 June 2003

A fun, action filled return for Doctor Who. I think this should have made the big screen. Paul McGann gives a teriffic performance as Doctor Who, one that seems to draw energy from the Tom Baker regeneration, and emotion from Peter Davison's Doctor. A lot of people think that the motorcycle chase was cheesy, and the kiss un-like the Doctor, but I think that it fit well. Hopefully Doctor Who will return again!

14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

American Pie 2 (2001)

1/10

Hollywood keeps getting worse

14 June 2003

A lot of people will argue over sequels, trying to decide which is better. In this case, they're equal. They are both worthless wastes of time and money.

We come back to the same group of morons we watched in the first movie, only to see that graduating High School has somehow made them stupider. I mean, glueing your hand to your dick is unfunny enough, but managing to wander outside, naked in this condition? Come on. I can't believe Hollywood has the nerve to put this in theaters. I also can't believe how many people find this garbage funny.

Other acts of idiocy include breaking into a house, and mistaking urine for champagne. And everyone wonders why this country seems to be falling apart.

6 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

BSchin2188

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed