atomicblue's Reviews

Partners (2012–2013)

8/10

Like most comedies, it takes a little time to gel. Sadly it didn't get a chance to.

24 February 2017

The first couple of episodes of Partners feel a little too manic, like the show is trying too hard to recapture the glory of Will & Grace (both shows share the same creators and a relatively similar premise). Comedy series tend to take a little time to find the right tone and have their cast really develop chemistry with each other, however, and Partners is no different. By the mid-point of the season the cast seem to bounce off of each other effortlessly and the show starts to find its feet as a lighter, more good-natured, modern take on Will & Grace with some genuinely enjoyable episodes. Unfortunately, this was after the show had already been cancelled.

That being said, the show is definitely worth a watch if you can find it and want something light and sweet. The best episodes are generally among the unaired ones ("Pretty Funny" is a pretty funny highlight). David Krumholtz and Michael Urie serve as excellent foils for one another, Sophia Bush is utterly adorable and Brandon Routh manages to mine a lot of humour out of being hunky yet totally naive.

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

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

Why put off until tomorrow what you can destroy today?

26 May 2004

`At the core of any disaster movie' there always has to be something factual, something real for the audience to grab onto,' director Roland Emmerich has said of The Day After Tomorrow (M15+, 123 minutes). These are ironic words when spoken by the man who was also at the helm of Independence Day and Godzilla. Then again, they weren't exactly disaster movies - although they did contain Emmerich's flair for destruction, which surfaces again here. And while there are some references to factual, real-world events in Tomorrow, they never become anything more than superficial. The Kyoto Accord, which I do not pretend to be greatly knowledgeable about, is mentioned in the first few minutes. More significantly, some discussion takes place on the topic of global warming - climatologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) believes that this global phenomenon could trigger a sudden shift in climates, and nobody in the White House is interested in listening to him. Of course, from watching the trailers, we already know that Jack will be more accurate in his predictions of a pending Ice Age than he realises, as massive hailstones rain down in Tokyo, snow falls in New Delhi, countless tornadoes rip through downtown Los Angeles, Scotland freezes over, and finally - in one of the most visually stunning disaster sequences ever to grace the cinemas - a tremendous tidal wave hits Manhattan.

This is where the entertainment is, in the action sequences that are imbued with a rather chilling realism (no pun intended), including a few other stunners that arent given away in the trailers and wont be given away by me, either. Of course, a film filled with nothing but disaster sequences would be rather shallow, so the latter half of the film turns to some more personal stories, as Jack heads North towards Manhattan to rescue his slightly estranged son Sam (Donnie Darko's Jake Gyllenhaal, bringing a subtly comedic tone to the proceedings), trapped with a few students inside a public library. While the second half of the film subsequently fails to deliver the same thrills as the first half, it does uphold the suspense well enough. Emmerich's films have often benefited from the use not of action stars (Vin Diesel, anyone?) but of actual actors who take the fairly basic characters and breathe a little life into them. Tomorrow benefits from this, even if we've come to expect better things than this of Quaid, Gyllenhaal and two-time Emmy award-winner Sela Ward (as Jack's wife Lucy, who remains in the hospital at which she works, struggling to save patients).

Granted, these little human dramas, which reminded me somewhat of Deep Impact (a similarly themed movie with a slightly larger, more accomplished emphasis on the human drama), aren't the reason any layperson would go to see the film, nor are they the film's strength. The overly shallow political themes don't help the film either - despite being refreshingly less patriotic than Independence Day was, the support-your-fellow-man-and-protect-the-environment messages come off as overly condescending, particularly when addressed by the US Vice President at film's end. In spite of these misfires, the grandiose level of destruction on display is Emmerich's finest, at times even achieving a sort of eerie beauty. Films whose greatest strengths lie in their special effects are flooding the market to saturation point by now, but this one stands above most of them, which makes it worth the price of admission, even if it's not a film I'd make plans to see again.

Grade: B-

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

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

The Matrix, Repetitions...

22 December 2003

Don't worry, you don't need to brace yourselves - much - I'm not about to slag this off as a bad movie. I'm certainly not about to declare it as anything great or remotely special, but the first thing that begs to be said about this flick is that it is not bad, just stale. The first entry into the series was a quality film, despite some flaws. The two extensions to the series in 2003 were just that: extensions. Flicks. Slightly sub-standard action fare mixed with slightly above-standard special effects.

I enjoyed Revolutions more than Reloaded, most probably because I had already been exposed to the considerable problems that weighed down the last movie. That is, the pretentious philosophising, special effects that crossed the line between grandiose and downright excess, and obsessively slick atmosphere. The fact that these flaws were just as prevalent again may have been worth taking points off for, but I was really quite resigned to it.

Points were lost instead for new problems that dragged the series down further - although I suspect these were issues that started with Reloaded that I was too crushed to notice. For one, the film's actors display a frustrating reluctance to imbue their characters with any significant emotion. There are some emotive moments - rare as they may be, but the characters are generally rather sullen and cold. More time is spent with the characters describing their feelings, when it should be enough for them to show it, and wanting the characters to show some feelings, given their extreme situations, shouldn't be considered expecting too much. This is the fault of the writers, who will no doubt be forgiven for it anyway seeing as people are still so blinded by the fact that they have created ONE particularly interesting movie. It is also the fault of the actors, who vary in the degree to which they offend on these grounds - Carrie-Anne Moss again shows that she deserves better work than this, while Laurence Fishburne's performance is almost completely pointless. Reeves falls in between, although it must be said that he is capable of much more than this, as films like The Gift can attest.

There are highlights - Merovingian is again priceless, although Persephone is reduced to background here, which is disappointing given her seductive turn in Reloaded. There are some spectacular moments, too, particularly during the 45-minute assault on the city of Zion. Unfortunately, the length of the sometimes-spectacular action sequences reduces them to hackneyed exercises in special effects.

The biggest problem, however, for one of the most ridiculously hyped films of all time, is that there is far too much going on here - too many characters and too many loose ends to be wrapped up. The Wachowski Brothers fail to manage the film's time, with several characters, such as Niobe and Link, failing to develop, while many of the action sequences, as in the last film, are given far too much time.

What destroys the credibility of the film, however, is the realisation that everything was better off left unanswered, with the first movie delivering a visual feast and a suitably cryptic ending. The second and third instalments coming nowhere near the ingénue of the original's special effects, and fail to measure up to even the flimsy story that the first film offered. The issue then that defeats Revolutions - which settles for the oft-treaded standard big-budget action-flick - is the fact that the it would have been better off never being made.

Grade: C

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

How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003)

How to have a laugh for 90 minutes.

18 September 2003

Warning: Spoilers

(NOTE: This review contains some spoilers of sorts - but if you've seen more than a few romantic comedies in the past, you probably know how this one's going to shape up anyway. Nonetheless, you have been warned!)

First off, for those who read the summary line of this review, I'm well aware that the film actually ran for closer to 120 minutes. However, if it's laughs you're after, the last quarter of the film barely registers. That's not to say this is a bad film. Quite the opposite, actually, but it is weighed down by a couple of flaws inherent to the genre.

I'm getting ahead of myself. Anyway, the concept behind the movie has Kate Hudson's Andie Anderson, a burgeoning magazine columnist, looking for an article to escalate her to something more than a "How to..." girl. At a nearby advertising company, Matthew McConaughey's Ben Barry is searching for a way to prove that he knows women enough to be fit to handle projects geared towards that half of the market. Andie comes up with the notion of writing an article on how to lose a guy in 10 days, Ben places a bet that he can make a girl fall in love with him in - you guessed it - 10 days, the two are paired up by a couple of scheming mutual friends, and so the scene is set. Andie and Ben's relationship develops rather unusually, with each of them unaware of the other's hidden agendas.

This is a fun concept for a romantic comedy, and it works quite well as Andie sets about naming Ben's penis, refurbishing his home, interrupting his get-togethers with friends and generally turning his life upside down. This might have been annoying, but Hudson is a smart actress and she infuses Andie with an unrelenting energy that is equal parts wicked and charming. Quite simply, Hudson not only steals the show, she carries it, and many of her scenes are downright, rolling-in-the-aisles hilarious. McConaughey handles his role nicely as well, and the two leads keep the energy flowing (which helps, given that most of the supporting cast are rather forgettable) without pushing the jokes so far as to become unbelievable. It's definitely worth noting that this is just about the funniest romantic comedy to emerge in several years, largely because it doesn't overstep its bounds and become silly.

Sounds good, no? It really is - until the expected change sets in and Andie and Ben develop real feelings for one another (surprise surprise). It's an overly familiar development, but it doesn't entirely tarnish the film, even if the last 25 minutes descend into mushiness. In a lot of ways, this movie is a nice throwback to vintage romantic comedies of yesteryear, and despite the fact that it fails to step outside the boundaries the genre has been largely confined by for over a decade, most people will still get more than a bit of enjoyment out of it.

Grade: B

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

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

3/10

Hype kills, though I didn't have huge expectations to begin with.

18 September 2003

Warning: Spoilers

SPOILERS AHEAD

I keep asking myself if making my email address available is a good idea. I can just imagine a number of Matrix-junkies reading this and seeing red, then clicking on my email address with shaking fingers and preparing to unleash a barrage of insults. This is the Internet after all, a realm as far away from real life as possible, where movies like 'Fight Club', 'The Matrix' and the Lord of the Rings trilogy are hallowed, and anyone who dares question them had better prepare themselves.

In the real world, however, Reloaded has being playing to somewhat mixed reviews. Some people appreciate the more-of-the-same offerings of this much hyped sequel. Others have been disappointed by what they consider to be another victim of the cash-cow syndrome, a movie that is all style, and no substance. I tend towards the latter, though I wouldn't even say the style of the movie was that great.

So, what's the plot of the movie? Does it even matter? The writing is really more of an afterthought, a flaw that the first movie was guilty of to a lesser extent. The first movie, however, was worth watching for the mind-blowing special effects. This time around, the special effects are much less impressive, not because they're poorly done, but because they're much too abundant. The movie trudges forward in a visually synthetic sludge, a problem which movies like House on Haunted Hill and The Mummy Returns also suffered from, and this cheapens the experience somewhat. In fact, there are several points where one can easily spot the computer-generated Keanu Reeves that has been placed in there. I know this is meant to be escapism, but moments like this cause the movie to dip out of the escapist mode and become altogether fake.

The fight scenes feel equally pointless. While recent offerings like Charlie's Angels 2 and T3 offered fight scenes that advanced the plot, or at least provided good variety, countless scenes in Reloaded feel like they were thrown in, and held in, for good measure. "Held in?", I hear you ask. Well, the fight scenes are horribly overlong. This again tarnished what could have been impressive, such as the (infamous) battle between Neo and 10 Agent Smiths... no, 30... no, 60... this seems to be going on much too long... no, 100... it's getting dark outside... 150... how long must this keep going? The director's apparent obsession with slow-motion moments also grows tiresome, and soon any tension the action could have had is lost completely.

Sci-fi and video game clichès are equally rampant here, particularly in the city of Zion, where most of the action takes place. The predilection for 'coolness' also comes through, with the main characters spending an insane amount of time speaking coldly while dressed in black Versace leathers and dark sunglasses. Question: if the Matrix was supposed to represent everyone's idealised version of themselves, why does everyone who enters it dress the same? This is not a stab at conformity, it's actually a case of it. Neo, Trinity and Morpheus look indistinguishable from just about any other superheroes out there, and the glasses really hurt, too. Without being able to see the eyes of the characters half the time, any connection or empathy that could have been established with the characters is obliterated.

And the story? Like I said, it's almost pointless to discuss it. Like the first movie, nobody was going to watch this for the story, though what's there is almost insultingly bad. Reloaded becomes an exercise in trite narrative conventions, with terms like "The One" and "ending the war" thrown around. The scenes are dull and new characters receive little or no development. The hints at the inevitability of fate (through flashforwards of Trinity's death) are contradicted when Neo saves her, presumably because the writers couldn't bear not to have her in part three. There's a Rave scene which serves no apparent purpose. There's also a cliffhanger, which left me feeling somewhat gypped.

More notable, however, is the marketing. A video game launch to coincide with the movie. Posters. Memorabilia. Prospects of a trilogy, which should make for a nice DVD box-set. Radio and TV ads, billboards and even TV spots advertising other trailers for the movie, to be shown before certain feature films. Indeed, the advertising of Reloaded was A-grade material. And the movie? Well, you've probably got a rough idea by now.

Grade: C-

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

Adaptation. (2002)

10/10

A mesmerising, utterly original cinematic masterpiece.

19 August 2003

I pride myself on being a pretty touch critic when it comes to movies. Really. It takes a lot for me to deem a movie as being really good... but I quite honestly could not fault this fascinating little slice of modern cinema. Quite simply, everything from the performances and cinematography to the writing and directing was executed perfectly.

However, explaining the concepts of the film to someone who hasn't seen it is quite a task. Nicolas Cage plays Charlie Kaufman (who wrote the movie), and also plays Charlie's fictitious younger brother, Ronald, an aspiring filmmaker with plenty of ambition but an unfortunately naïve outlook. Meanwhile, Charlie is trying to work out how to adapt Susan Orlean's novel, "The Orchid Thief", to the big screen, and the result is the film unfolding before our very eyes.

Essentially, this is a movie about how the movie itself came to pass, mixed with some amusing self-reflection from Charlie Kaufman and an interesting tale of a misogynistic author's (Meryl Streep is both vulnerable and dangerous as Susan) affair with an orchid thief. Nicolas Cage pulls of the rare feat of delivering a truly outstanding comic performance by playing two roles at once. Chris Cooper is perhaps even better as thief John Laroche, who lacks material possessions but is nonetheless truly content with his lifestyle - serving as a reminder of the human need to feel passionately about something in our lives. If it all sounds a bit confusing, it is, but I assure you - Adaptation is an oft-overlooked piece of cinematic genius: intelligent, daring and as close to the perfect movie as we're likely to get.

Grade: A+

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

The Matrix (1999)

7/10

A visually breathtaking, interesting but ultimately flawed film.

4 June 2003

Put it down to the fact that the Internet is ruled by thinking-type computer nerds or the fact that many people are willing to accept the merits of a movie based on its face value, but I really didn't believe that The Matrix was quite worthy of being ranked as the #33 best movie of all time. Granted, it was very good, but there were essentially a couple of glaring weaknesses I perceived that made the movie, for me, a very good sci-fi futuristic romp, and not a truly great one. Aside from that, I don't see how a movie like this could rank above certain other explorations of perception and the fragile nature of reality. To name a few (released either before or after this movie), you have the likes of Vanilla Sky, eXistenZ and Dark City. Granted, these movies all approached similar themes in a slightly different way, and none of them were terribly similar to The Matrix in terms of their presentation, but such films offer a much richer platter of food for thought.

I don't think I need to go into depth as to what The Matrix is about: Neo is 'The One' (a staple term in sci-fi and fantasy flicks), a person who is seemingly capable of defeating the collective computer-induced hallucination known as The Matrix, a program which is apparently responsible for giving most humans an illusion of a life - one which is nothing more than a flexible computer program.

It's a relatively original concept, but unfortunately it doesn't get the exploration it deserves here. For the most part, the meditations on the nature of the life we take for granted as real are reduced to being a vehicle for the special effects, when it would have been much better had it been the other way around.

Speaking of special effects, however, it's worth noting that those in The Matrix are still to this day the best you're likely to see. Creative, stylistic and used to great effect without being in complete excess, this is a movie that is meant to be experienced in the cinemas. Or, since the movie was released several years ago, via a nice home theatre/surround sound setting.

This movie comes highly recommended (sorry if it sounded like I was completely panning it earlier). Just remember that while the movie raises some interesting questions and offers a true feast for the eyes, there's not really enough going on beneath the surface to satisfy the more demanding movie-goers.

Grade: B+

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

Vanilla Sky (2001)

9/10

Mysterious, fascinating study of identity and its meaning

2 June 2003

It's a shame this movie was released at the time that it was. If it had been at any time other than just on the heels of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman's highly public split, there might not have been such a huge holocaust against two of the three main stars of the movie.

Essentially, this is a dream-like version of The Matrix. The same themes - that of reality and its fragility, identity and the power of perception - are covered, but they are given far more than the superficial treatment that The Wachowski Brothers gave them in The Matrix.

Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a person whose life seems to have spiraled downhill since a car accident involving his lover, Julie (given a bit of an edge by Cameron Diaz). It's difficult to sum up the plot of the movie, and what I've just said sounds overly simplistic, but watching the movie yourself will give you a chance to really follow things.

As the movie descends into a more and more dream-like state, it becomes increasingly apparent that David's world - which is actually a sort of induced dream in itself - has been affected by his own perceptions, subconscious fears and feelings.

While the plot is occasionally difficult to follow, Cameron Crowe has delivered a highly original movie that stresses the control of our own subconscious over how we take in the world. The dream sequences are particularly interesting to watch, and the movie definitely requires a second viewing to take everything in.

Try it. I think you might like it, presuming you don't dislike Tom Cruise.

Grade: B+

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

Spice World (1997)

Guilty pleasure... big time.

2 June 2003

Never have the words "this is one for fans of <insert name>" been more appropriate than with this movie. It doesn't really take a lot to sum it up, as there is next to no plot, but be it known: Spice Girls fans will adore this movie. Those who are fairly tolerant of the Spicies, without being avid fans, will find it amusing. Everyone else will cringe at a slackly made filmic cash cow that was devised just to pump more money out of Spice Girls fans back when the girls were in their heyday.

That said, this film will definitely go down as a part of pop-culture history. The Spice Girls were the epitome of mid-1990s 'girl group' phenomena, and this movie sums them up nicely: catchy, bratty, fun and simple. The movie has a lot of cameos, plenty of in-jokes and some funky musical numbers as the girls prepare for their first live gig, but it was never going to win any Brit awards.

So there you have it. Watch the movie at your own risk.

Grade: C+

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

Nurse Betty (2000)

10/10

A graceful, wonderfully conceived black comedy.

25 December 2002

It's hard to figure out the roles some actors choose. Most of the actors in this movie have landed a mix of roles both brilliant and bland in the past, and since this movie as well. Take Morgan Freeman, for example. He excels as the quirky, strangely gentle criminal Charlie in Nurse Betty, but his roles in the past have often been a fairly uniform federal officer (which made a waitress's comment about Charlie not looking like a police officer amusing on more than one level).

Chris Rock has experienced the same. While rather stereotyped in movies such as Down to Earth, his role as Charlie's son, Wesley, is blessed with some brilliant lines and reveals a surprising talent.

After all this, however, Renee Zellweger stands leagues above all others in this film. The actress who was left with little to do in a certain disaster of a flick with Jim Carrey (you know which one I mean) is pure sunshine as the good-natured waitress, Betty Sizemore. As the witness to her husband's grisly murder by the hands of Charlie and Wesley, Betty is driven into a post-traumatic delusion in which she believes that the characters from her favourite TV soap are real. Leaving her bewildered friends behind, Betty travels from Kansas to L.A., all the while being chased by the two criminals, one of whom becomes somewhat infatuated with Betty in the process.

It's an unusual concept, and one which works wonderfully in practice. Like Rock, Zellweger gets some hilarious lines as she unrelentingly follows her dreams, and what we get in the end is a twisted (but nonetheless astute) observation of the leaps of faith that bring us forward in our lives. All the while, Zellweger is charming, occasionally moving and completely watchable, and I'm left wondering how an actress of such obvious talent could have also been in Me, Myself & Irene.

Oh damn, I said it.

Grade: A

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

Mulholland Drive (2001)

10/10

Dizzying, scintillating, confusing but compulsive.

25 December 2002

Ever had a movie you didn't entirely get, but couldn't break away from, no matter how hard you tried? And you found yourself watching it over and over again, trying to fully understand it but always landing just that tiniest bit short of seeing the entire picture? If you have, there's a good chance it's Mulholland Drive, and your perspective on whether that's a good thing or not really depends on what qualities you appreciate in your movies.

For me, it's definitely a good thing, even if it frustrates from time to time. David Lynch, who is reknowned for creating dizzyingly complex, seductive pieces of film, doesn't disappoint here, as aspiring actresses (Naomi Watts as the sweet, rather naive Betty Elms), quirky relatives (Maya Bond as Aunt Ruth), curious directors, mysterious neighbours and one captivating, seductive amnesiac (Laura Elena Harring as Rita) are swept together in a complex, rich tapestry that paints a very dark picture of the film industry.

Lynch does love to play with the mind, too. Every single time things seem to be coming together and making sense, an unforseen twist leaves the viewer scratching their head again. Not a bad scratching, mind you, but part of why I'm not saying more of what the film was about is because I still don't fully grasp it. I know I'm getting closer, but for me, as for many of you who have seen this filmic enigma, Mulholland Drive will always remain a mystery. It's a film which seduces the viewer into uncertainty, and one which I will forever watch, and be left pondering.

Grade: A-

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

Red Dragon (2002)

An intelligent, poignant, cleverly composed thriller.

1 November 2002

Being a part of the same series, it is inevitable that people will compare this film to Silence of the Lambs, the first piece of this series that was released. Hannibal underwent the same treatment, and didn't fare too well for it.

Red Dragon, on the other hand, not only lives up to Silence of the Lambs, but outdoes it in some departments and even threatens to dethrone it as the best installment in the series. Like both of the past movies, it is the quality of the acting that is Red Dragon's greatest asset. This time, it is the film's main villain who shines. Ralph Fiennes, as Francis Dolarhyde, eclipses every role he has taken in his career with a performance that is darkly acerbic, powerful and evocative. Emily Watson is on the same level, her performance as the blind Reba McClane is one of the most beautiful, nuanced things I have ever seen. Fellow critics take note, these are two actors who deserve, at the very least, an Oscar nomination.

Naturally, these two actors are backed up by an excellent cast all around, with Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal with lip-smacking relish. Philip Seymour Hoffman is great as the weaselling journalist Freddy Lounds, and Harvey Keitel, Mary-Louise Parker and Edward Norton fare great as well, though their roles don't offer quite as much scope for emotion as some of the others. And really, while everything went well here, it is by far the scenes between Watson and Fiennes which are the most breathtaking. Throw in some brilliant plot twists (the final confrontation between Francis Norton's Will Graham is a stunner) and and a small dose of wry humour (Hopkins and Norton get some great lines), and you've got one of the best suspense thrillers in a long time.

Grade: A

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

Mad About Mambo (2000)

Enjoyable but not terribly memorable.

1 November 2002

This was one of the less publicised dance-based films that surfaced in the past few years. And it's quite a shame that it didn't get more publicity, as it was one of the better ones. While the likes of Centre Stage has pretensions of grandeur, and Bootmen is a mild emotional letdown, Mad About Mambo offers an uncomplicated, fairly convincing love story, set against the beautiful backdrop of Ireland, and blended with some tasteful scenes of dance.

In fact, it is Danny and Lucy's dance sequences that charm the most. Unlike numerous other movies that have tried to make things appear as glitzy and glamorous as possible (Centre Stage again), these moments are a stripped down, purely romantic affair. Note that when they dance in the middle of the stadium, lights are dimmed and we barely see anything aside from these two characters. The only problem I had with the main love story is that while convincing, it develops too quickly. The writers could have easily added a little more in the early parts of Danny and Lucy's relationship without boring the audiences, as the film is quite short.

William Ash fares well as Danny, but Keri Russell's feisty female lead, Lucy, is probably the biggest highlight of the film. That, and the one of Danny's friends who aspires to run his own fashion house.

Recommended for dance junkies and anyone who enjoys a light-hearted romantic comedy, but be warned that while it's quite charming, there isn't really a key point to the film that will hold it in your memory for long afterwards.

Grade: B

17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Scary Movie 2 (2001)

1/10

When they said "No sequel", couldn't they have been honest with us?

7 October 2002

I don't know how I ended up watching this. Let's just say I have a friend who really doesn't know how to do video nights.

Basically, what we're faced with here are the same problems as in Scary Movie. Silly spoofs that don't even raise an occasional smile. Gross-out humour that covers the likes of supernatural sex, physical deformity and auto-fellatio. What earns this movie a lower grade than the last is the fact that they're repeating all the same mistakes a second time.

Let me put it this way. Glitter was better than this. Scary Movie 2 makes Crossroads looks like American Beauty by comparison. Maybe the film's production consultants weren't consulted. Maybe the writers were running low on dramatic irony.

Whatever. Let's just pray that we don't wind up with a Scary Movie 3.

Grade: F

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

Scary Movie (2000)

2/10

A spoof this bad... that IS scary.

7 October 2002

It's obviously going to be tough for a movie like this to appeal to me: I maintain that this film is better tailored for American audiences. But seriously, this is really awful. A terrible excuse for a movie.

If you're looking for a horror spoof, go with Psycho Beach Party or Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday The 13th instead. Both of them are much funnier and don't have the distasteful nasty streak that was present here. The likes of Billy's orgasm scene and Cindy flashing her [somewhat deformed] breasts are some of the many moments in which this Scary movie crossed the fine line between the wearisome and the unwatchable.

I could keep going. I could move onto the quality of the acting, the pathetic writing, the failed spoofs (turning The Matrix into Riverdance... what were they thinking?), but I just want this review to end. I'm going to stop here.

Now let us never speak of Scary Movie again. EVER.

Grade: D-

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

atomicblue

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed