Change Your Image
thefuzmixman
Reviews
Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters (2007)
a movie completely dedicated to fanatics.
ATHF:Movie for Theaters is an outlandish and random look into the creation of the aqua teen hunger force. It's a movie geared towards fans of the show and almost all of it's humor is dependent upon understanding the characters, their dialog and how they have developed throughout the seasons. ATHF:CMFT actually pays so much respect and relies so heavily on the episodes that spawned it, it may be the most fan-driven creation ever.
When i first thought about how they could create a plot for a movie based on the ATHF TV show, i couldn't imagine it. How could they actually write a script from all of those random episodes? Indeed, it apparently is possible.
The entire plot, (yes there is actually a plot) somehow manages to take the most nonsensical stories ever written for TV and strings them together to make sense of everything that has happened in the show. If that is a confusing prospect, you will just have to see it to understand. What's more confusing then that is that they actually succeed in doing so.
ATHF:CMFT definitely has it's gut-busting moments. Some scenes were so funny i was actually crying and out of breath from laughing furiously. In true nature of and spirit of the show, lines are so surprising that just the shock makes you laugh. I can't even explain why, but the end was unbelievably funny. That said, It's not a constant 85 minute laugh-out-loud hysterical event like I had expected and in that way it does disappoint. There are some scenes that just aren't very funny and the humor fluctuates throughout.It has a very distinct taste of the latest season's humor which some love and some hate. Regardless, the overall mood of the movie is still fun and there are a large number of characters from the best episodes. Mc PeePants, Ignokt and Err, Emery and Oglethorp -- they are all here. There are even a couple of cameos from the lesser known characters which may take some of the more hardcore fanatics to notice.
ATHF: Colon Movie for Theaters is something any true fan needs to see to understand. It's magic and drive lies within understanding the series and unless you are quite familiar with just about every episode and have paid attention to the lesser details (for instance, the ending credit scenes) you will not get the humor and the spirit of this movie. Some say it's just an extended episode, but i would say it's a bit deeper. It's the inner workings of what makes Aqua Teen Hunger Force what is.
Random Nonsense that makes just enough sense to allow your brain to comprehend it and laugh. It a huge contradiction in terms and that's why it's so funny.
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
succeeded in telling a story like no other
Fanboys/girls and Critics unite! X3 has so changed so much about the X-men universe that entire essays could be written. But should they? I view this movie in two ways- as a big action fan and as a fan of the X-Men comics and cartoon series that i watched so long ago. (i remember all the action figures I had!) As an amalgam of the two, X3: The Last Stand is an outstanding action movie that captures the heart and sole of the comic book-- it just so happens that it's story telling isn't accurately retold, rather a manifest of one person's interpretation. Obviously this leads to disputes. Many of which I've read about myself. Now, I do not pretend to know the entire history of each individual x-men character, nor do i remember much of the Pheonix saga anymore.
However I do know that regarding the 40+ years that the X-Men comics have existed, including it's multitude of spin off series-- It's just not possible to make all the hardcore fans happy. How could one take so many stories and put together something that could satisfy each individual fan? To have the X-universe come to a final stand in only three short movies and accurately reproduce what the comics presented just doesn't seem feasible. Perhaps one should say fine then. Don't include something if it's only a half-way attempt. Honestly, i view little in this film as half-effort. It's more of a daring attempt to satisfy many fans and movie-goers alike in combination with the first two films. What X3 got right is capturing the underlying meaning that echoes through the comic books. Mutants aren't much different from the ordinary. Ordinary people can go bad. Something snaps, thoughts are altered and judgment fails. The conflict between Good vs. Evil is a classic tale that takes it's morals from real life and I truly believe Jean Grey was the link in the chain. Her character bridges our reality to the surreality that is the fantasy world of the X-Men. X3 realized and harnessed the power of fantasy like no other before it. Ratner understood how much potential a world where mutant abilities can exist had and put together a display of something amazing-- A mutant with mental powers so great, the destruction of anything is possible.
X3 satisfies the fantasy aspect of the comic books and that should be what the main goal is. Had the X-Men comics not existed this movie would have monumental status in imagination (not to mention imagery) alone. But that isn't the case. The X-Men movies tell the an alternative story to what has already been four decades in development. To have pegged the personalities and sociality between each member of the team is a hard task to achieve. How many x- titles are in existence? Hundreds possibly Thousands? Look at what's already been accomplished in the series prior to X3. They've gotten the basics right so far, including popular love triangles and well-known grudges between characters. They have shown each main characters strength and weaknesses, even have gone as far to showcase mutant abilities with amazing accuracy. X3 does not deviate from this already set standard. Instead it backs the previous titles to showcase an even further character development. A good example of this is towards the end during the final showdown between Wolverine and Jean Grey. Logan is strong. He's been beaten and battered all his life, still living to tell about countless fights that would have resulted in certain death, even for most mutants. As he walks towards her, Pheonix is virtually ripping at his flesh. Using his healing factor he demonstrates his will to stay alive regardless of anything and his from-the-pages undying love for Jean. That was just--wow.
Speaking of Jean Grey and we realize she's not actually supposed to be involved with Wolvie, rather with her husband Scott. In X3 they a do kill him off in a very unnerving way. I didn't like that scene initially but it did further the understanding of how dark Jean's alternative personality really is, so actually his death had a purpose. How evil would one have to be to kill the person you love? The sultry scene between Logan and Jean in the X-mansion was so clever. Ratner again displayed his vision of mutants well. Using her mental powers to remove Logan's belt buckle in a fit of passion. Genius. Speaking of geniuses How about Dr. Hank Mcyoy? An intellectual with words, the agility of an acrobat, the brute force of a beast. I believe they couldn't have portrayed a better version.
Regardless of it's hit and misses, X3 will go down in my opinion as one of the best comic-to-movie translations of the decade. It's story telling, albeit wrong, still makes for a very compelling movie with excellent characters leading up to show downs so big, it raises the bar for all comic-book movies to come. It does have it's shortcomings but on the average the good heavily outweighs the bad so it is my opinion that Brett Ratner and all who were involved succeeded in telling a story like no other.
8/10
American Dad! (2005)
Dimmer switches.. Dimmer switches everywhere!
American dad is a show that i would consider to be rather out there. It's in-your-face political incorrectness is at first shocking, even after watching 4 seasons of Family Guy. But, as I've watched episode after episode, I have to say that the shock value gives way to some outlandish and often hilarious scenes and American dad has cemented itself as a completely new show with continuous potential to be close to, or as good as it's cousin.
First, we have Stan, a CIA agent hell bent on keeping America safe at all costs. His shallow attitude and generally psychotic nature are the highlight of the show, albeit it takes some time to get used to his character. Not many people would pull a gun on their own daughter because of a disagreement and that may sound like it goes over the line, but his character plays it out so childishly that it works. Deep down inside he's a gentle creature but is down right adamant on letting the world know that he is "not a lady". He's reactions to normal things that happen in life are often explosive, and his tie to the CIA makes for some very ridiculous(yet hilarious) decisions.
Next, we have my second favorite character, Rodger. Rodger is an alien whom which Stan saved from Area 51. Problem is he's an alien and must stay hidden from the public. He's sarcastic and cold towards the family for keeping him locked up in the house and his sarcasm comes in a nasal, flamboyant voice that is just hilarious to hear.
Steve is Stan's son and is the opposite of what Stan is today. He's nerdy, scrawny, and enjoys playing a good RPG over a game of baseball. Steve is smart but his lack of physical prowess often brings out his lack of confidence, all though sometimes his father's influence does come out. He's a smart kid and occasionally summons up enough courage to do some interesting things such as organizing "bum fights" so he can profit from it to buy himself a new gaming system.
Hayley is Steve's sister. They tend to bicker back and forth like siblings often do, but Hayley is also much older so it's expected. Stan's relationship with Hayley is interesting. Hayley's political and economic views as a conservative really lend way to some serious clashes between the two. Hayley is just as outspoken as her father, but she's really the only one in the family who seems somewhat normal and Stan has a problem understanding her.
Francine, Stan's wife, is just a bit misunderstood. At times she seems normal, but she's very different from everyone else. Now older, she's still trying to shake her days of partying which have made her a bit unstable. she longs to be more then just a housewife and her parent skills aren't so great still, regardless of her stability she has a good heart. None of Stan's antics seem to phase her in the long run and she accepts that he's who he is because she genuinely loves him.
Klaus, is the family's pet- a gold fish who lives in small fish bowl with the brain of a German man. He's attracted to Francine and this comes out in a slur of German accented, occasionally vulgar, cat-calls. Even though he's just a fish, he frequently goes wherever the family goes- sometimes being carried in his fishbowl, other times scooting along in a thermos top. Usually he's there for one-liners, most of which are pretty funny.
Thats the summary of the characters. One can easily see parallels to between American Dad and Family guy, but no two characters are really all that alike, rather it's parts of the characters traits that we see familiar, not their whole. For instance, in Family Guy, Brian likes Peter's wife Lois. While it's clear to her, no one else really knows about it. Well except Stewie who is just interested in making fun of him more then anything else. Klaus on the other hand, is very vocal about his affections for Francine. His comments come out of the blue and usually the whole family is right there as he proudly states them. Yes, Stan blurts and has a tendency to be stupid like Peter, but that same comparison can be made to Homer Simpson and Peter is still very different from Homer.
One season in and another just starting, American Dad shows promise. While still number 2 to Family guy in my opinion, I still hold it in high regard. It's similar enough to understand, but different enough to be a completely different show. You just won't see a talking fish that asks Lois to straddle his fishbowl, or Peter use his connections to have the CIA erase Lois' memory because he forgot her anniversary.
You won't see that stuff happen because give the back-story that Family guy already has, it can't really and that's what makes American Dad unique.
Pulse (2006)
4 out 10? close...
Silly concept, but interesting execution. A lot of eye-candy and few "jump" scenes make up the bulk of it. If you want to go into a movie that is "visually" compelling while leaving your brain at the entrance, this is a decent, even so far as to say interesting shocker. The cast are attractive, yet not very well known actors. The filming quality is stylish, with some pretty effects- some used before, others unique to this film. However, the entire plot concept relies solely on the viewer's gullibility, and that's where I think Pulse made it's biggest mistake. The plot is just a little ham-fisted and is hard to swallow for anyone who isn't completely open-minded. Not to mention that a few completely pointless scares creates what begins as a shallow film.
Acting in some places is a bit cheesy but in scenes that rely on realism to come through, i believe that it does. The cast achieves just enough balance to even out the good acting and the bad and there is one stand out performance that actually unnerved me. No it wasn't Christina Millian. She wasn't that bad.
Pulse is definitely a movie which is pushed along by it's effects and while not ground breaking, the style comes across as interesting. One thing i did like is how they tied the title of the movie to the film. A bit subtle, but catchable. If you're into horror that tries harder to immerse you via mood and visual direction rather the putting together a believable plot, then Pulse is right up your alley. For any real critics, expect to tear it apart from the ground up, but for those of us in the middle, it averages to decent depending on whether we want to suspend our dis-beliefs, oh and COMPLETELY forget that we ever watched, "The Ring".
5/10
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)
expected better
Tonight I watched the fast and the furious: Tokyo Drift.The drifting is fun to watch, but a campy plot and too much development time makes attempting to deepen an already shallow storyline seem much too overbearing. The acting, while not terrible is nothing great and the character's personalities are forced and way over the top. While this isn't a big surprise to anyone who has watched the other movies in series, the lack of well known cast members made it more apparent then usual. Plus, there is almost no police intervention in this one. even as a car drifts into a massive crowd of people and seconds later explodes, causing chaos.
Apparently in Tokyo, the police don't mess with street racers because they can't catch them. Seriously, that's how it's explained.
On the plus side of things, plenty of eye-candy can be found everywhere, and I'm not just talking about the cars. Japanese women are all portrayed as beautiful and stylish import girls, and their tiny vinyl skirts are just about as shiny as the finish on the cars. One thing must be said though. Japanese men are no where near as pretty as their women here. I'm sure some will disagree, but wow. Someone get those boys a mirror.
Overall, it's not a dreadful film as there are some high points particularly during some racing stunts, but it's odd how young everyone is. Appparently the lead character isn't even out of high school. Right from the introduction the film generalizes what audience this movie geared towards. What makes this even dumber is how what they are doing is illegal. Bunch of kids disobeying the law and the cops could care less.
It's rather mediocre for the most part and the only thing compelling me to recommend it for would be the racing, but i feel that there isn't even enough of that to balance this movie out.
Pretty disappointing.
Psycho (1998)
Master Bates and other stupid things...
..make this carbon copy of the original terrible. It's already been stated over and over, but i can't help but feel the need to add my own two cents for some closure. I can't see how someone can really think to re-shoot a movie from the 1960's scene for scene. The original movie, while being a classic, is clearly with it's visual quips that could have been easily fixed with today's technology. Take for instance the opening of the first scene. The aerial camera panning from outside the hotel window in one fluid manner into the room. In the original, it's cut a few times, to try and emulate that effect, but with technology available back then, I don't think it could have been done. The new film updates the effect. Good start. Unfortunately, other then Normon's masturbation scene, not much else has changed. Even Marian seems to be wearing retro styled outfits which don't mesh with the times AND Normon still invites her up for "sandwiches and milk". Sandwiches and milk? How about Subway and a Pepsi.
With old movies comes a forgiveness. I watch a black and white film and see it at as a movie done from a different era. The feel and dynamic of everything is drastically different from modern film making and most of what it visual fails to deliver is attainable in the overall aura of the story. the original Psycho is no exception to that rule of forgiveness. Maybe the shower scene silhouette effect was a turning point in film making for the year in which it was developed, but by 2005's standards it just doesn't cut the mustard. It's things like this that should have been changed but haven't. Of course, i'm just talking aesthetics but these visual elements keep the new version feeling dated still. Afterall, it was made about 4 decades ago. If you're not going to change the dialog, the style of acting, or the story, How about a technology update at least?
Catwoman (2004)
just... never.
I really had a hard time sitting through this one. Watching a movie when knowing its going to be terrible becomes much harder to do when the evidence is spitting corny dialog and scratching away at you from a leather-clad dominatrix costume. Trust me, it IS as bad as people have made it out to be. The plot is ridiculously too simple, the cgi takes over every single action scene, there are no twists, there is nothing to look forward to throughout the whole movie with the exception of wondering what "special" power the skin cream has given Sharon Stone. Then we come to discover she has skin, and this is quoted from the movie, "like living marble". Of course she doesn't go fantastic four and turn into a she-thing or anything like that. Not really sure if that would have helped though it might have been more entertaining.
This movie offers nothing worthy of writing more then a paragraph or two about. Nothing works out the way it was supposed to come across and the CGI hurts more then it helps with it killing any possible realism this movie could have envisioned. In closing, I have a couple of "nevers" I'd like to express.
Never entrust an entire movie to CGI. Never entrust an entire plot to Hollywood. Never entrust Halle over Michelle.
Trauma (2004)
confusion leads to more confusion
Well, after watching "Trauma" with a family member we both had mixed feelings. I thought the plot while disturbing, was interesting and the acting was pretty solid. I really loved the twist with Charlotte and the bits and pieces of Ben fighting with the reality were done well considering the movie's budget. Really, "Trauma" only had one major fault, but this lead to the downfall of it's already confusing storyline and also what brought so many people to love it or hate it.
I just can't see much of a reason for the character of Lauren Paris to be so intertwined with Ben's trip in and out of reality. This idea is interesting, but unfortunately leaves far too many holes in the plot. Why does Ben see Lauren's real killer in his apartment? Why is Ben seen on camera visiting Lauren's crime scene? Other then Lisa working with Lauren, why is her murder even mentioned? This brings me to think that the writers of this film wanted us to be confused initially, but also wanted to resolve our confusion. However, the singer's involvement in the main character's life is never clearly explained, so the confusion stays until the credits roll and the movie stops. Had this ending made just a little more sense, i would have given Trauma a solid seven as a psychological thriller. Otherwise, a six for a pretty confusing film which didn't really need to be. I suppose this is a film that is solely up to one's own interpretation.
Rubber Johnny (2005)
what a mind....
I love music and visual synchronization. Some may compare this to cheesy Hollywood movie horror films, but also keep in mind that not every person finds the "shock" video/audio effect cheesy. I love it.
Rubber Johnny is not an amazing piece, but certainly accomplishes it's goal of being a very elaborate 6 minute blitz of style. One almost grows a fear of Johnny in the beginning. Not only is he extremely grotesque, but his vocalizations almost sound inhuman. With his enormous bulbous head leaning over the back of his wheelchair and his insanely disturbing babble fits, Johnny makes a hell of an impression right off the bat. Once the actual music portion of the video begins, the score intertwines with johnny's sick mind and together they mutate into one of the most fast-paced music/video progressions i've ever seen, and quite frankly, it initial impact is hard. Still, the distortion effect wears off eventually and you begin to wonder what else Cunningham will throw at you. About 10 seconds before the end of the video you are hit with some deranged visuals of Johnny, and i think those last seconds redeem the short to be worthy of what it is.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
just an action flick really.....
In all, this movie was better then i expected, because what i expected wasn't really much as i hadn't heard anything about it. I can say that i did not care for the plot, actually there was hardly a plot worth discussing, but i still enjoyed the movie. Why? I liked the assembly of Odd combination characters and the cgi. This alone is what drove my brain to sit through 2 hours of a meaningless plot. That alone permit me to forgive Nemo's ship for sailing the tiny canals of Venice, Car chases and rocket launchers during the late 1800s. Tom Sawyer? What? This movie is not for people who read the novels. I laugh at everyone who was "suprised" Hollywood screwed up another adapted concept. Did you people not watch X-men? It's a visual movie. From the staggeringly awesome, razor-thin Nautilus to those large man-beasts duking it out in the alleys of Venice, it was just enjoyable to watch. Dare my brain do more.
Open Water (2003)
in the middle it just splintered into a million unrecoverable pieces.
I watched this a couple days ago. I would say that this movie was actually interesting in the beginning. It had the look and feel of a documentary as apposed to a big budget film, which I perceived as the director's intention rather then a lack of resources. While i didn't get an in depth of who is who, I do think that the two main actors played a convincing couple. I wasn't quite concerned about them, but i was still interested in knowing what was going to happen to them apart from the obvious.
The movie fell apart for me right around the first argument that the couple had. It might be just be me, But Susan basically threw a fit and played the blame game. Very selfish and quite tacky in my own opinion. She had no right to start pointing fingers in such a terrible situation, especially when she had no objections with Daniel to begin with. I do credit the actress though, as she developed the persona of her character quite well making her immature reaction believable, but regardless, i think this scene started the movie's first big fallout. Maybe Open Water would have been more interesting if Susan had been shark food.
There was nothing more to develop after that. The arguments they had while realistic in nature, were totally out of place. It then began to dawn on me that this might be the struggling conflict of the movie. After all, other then nip at two and give a decent scare, what more could the sharks do only halfway into the movie? I just starting hating it then. There was nothing left for the plot and certainly nothing left for me. I spent a good 45 minutes watching what looked like a unique and promising film develop into absolutely nothing.
This movie was like reluctantly trying a new food dish and to your surprise, actually liking how it tastes. Then about half way though your meal you get another surprise and discover it's been poisoned.
My rating? 3/10
Ying xiong (2002)
a confrontation between the good of one and the good of many....
If i had to give this movie a one word rating i would label it gripping. At times i felt that it did propel forward at a less then desirable pace, however this made what some might call a bit of exaggeration, seem more artistically refined. Definitely one great film with an excellent story so I understand why it's rated as high as it is here, (which i will admit was one of the larger contributing factors to me seeking out this film).
What i found particularly strange about this movie is that i really didn't care how it ended. I put that much trust in the goal of the main character. Ironically, at the beginning of the movie i found myself doubting its high rating because of some rather iffy dialogue and exaggerated fighting, but then i came to realize that the power of some lines were probably lost during translation so i couldn't fault the movie for that and the fighting is still acceptable. So as the story progresses it becomes so engrossing, that i stopped asking questions and picking it apart. I just wanted to truly understand the vision of "Hero" in it's entirety.
I will not try to pretend to understand the culture of ancient china or any of the symbolism in this movie, but i will say this. The director seemed to use colour to express certain theatrical emotions and I believe this idea was implemented most excellently. One particular scene that comes to mind is the fight with the King and Broken Sword during a flashback. As he approaches the kings palace,both him and snow are dressed in pale green garb and so are many silk drapes that decorate the area. This, plus the fact that the many soldiers that surround them are wearing dark colours allow for the effect to be well, quite effective. Just one example, but there still remain quite a few scenes like this, easily making Hero a very visually emotional accomplishment.
There are some things i didn't like about the movie. I wasn't simply astonished from the fight scenes like i would've liked to have been. I didn't like this "floating" fight style very much in Crouching Tiger and i don't really like it that much in this film, either. For some reason even though they really try to make you see it as graceful, blending so many mini angles to achieve a sense of motion does the exact opposite for me and i see the scenes in pieces and it bugs me. using wires i believe can and has been done better, but that's just one trade off i can deal with.
I noticed i didn't go into detail about the story but thats because many reviews here already have and i believe your should just watch the movie to determine whether or not you like it. I, personally think Hero is a great movie with a story that will draw you in, pick you up, and leaving you feeling emotions right along with the characters. I would recommend this to anyone interested in a movie with heart and a passion for honor, coupled with some good visual effects.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Interesting idea but much too sloppy to enjoy.
This movie could have been very enjoyable and exciting to watch, but it's stale dialogue and linear arrangement leave you wanting so much more. It's definitely not an above average film and to say anything else is like saying that AVP was worth the decade of waiting.
The cast was sort of an odd mix, but had the acting been better i think it could have worked out. The director did achieve a fairly convincing clean-cut Jude Law as a fighter pilot who spoke his part well, but i also agree that the script failed to create a true "hero". Gwyneth Paltrow did a surprisingly horrid job of acting as both Law's love interest Polly, and as an actress herself. The first 15 minutes of the movie had me hating her involvement in the film. I was pleasantly surprised to see Giovanni Ribisi as I've always liked him as an actor, but couldn't they have given him so more screen time? And how about Angelina Jolie? Previews lead you to believe that she has a dominant role in this movie, but she doesn't appear until about half way through the film.
So as I've been reading these reviews, i have come to know that like i suspected, this entire movie was shot in front of a green screen. In theory (and in other movies) this has its obvious pros, but while some of the scenes looked beautiful as 3d animation, generally the actors didn't seem to mesh well with it, leaving a very dissatisfying visual separation, which made me step back with a frown from time to time to... well, time.
In conclusion, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow started out with good intentions, but rarely did more then make me frown at it's noticeably fake visuals and raise an eyebrow at it's rather dumb ending.