Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store


March 17, 2009
8MM (1999)
Should I see it?
Sure - with caution.



The face of the underground pornography business is shown in this disturbing film. Nicholas Cage is private investigator Tom Welles who gets caught up in the terrible world of porn when he is tasked to investigate if a snuff film is authentic or not. This film will stick with you and probably not in a good way. I recommend it because it shows evil for what it is without dressing it up (until the unfortunate Hollywood ending.) This one comes with a strong caution for content.

I’ll say it again; the ending is a complete disappointment. The serious topic is handled rather well with only a couple of over written scenes. The ending is pure Hollywood and feels tacked on to brings things to a comfortable close. You can skip the last fifteen minutes.


Related Reviews:
Nicholas Cage movies
World Trade Center (2006)
Ghost Rider (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Independent Critics
Reel.com




Labels: , , , , ,



Share






January 28, 2009
The Village (2004)
Should I see it?
No.


Short Review:
Answering the question "How can he do worse than the ending for Signs?"




I’m a dunce. That’s why I like films to have a clear point by the time they wrap up. I’m silly that way.

Stories are arguments. The first act of a story is the "question", wherein the central issue put before the characters and audience is posed. The second act is the various attempts to solve the riddle unleashed in the first act. The third and final act is the answer to the main question of the story. This is the whole point of the three-act structure. Ask – Debate – Answer.

In The Village, M. Night Shamalamadingdong lets rip a cornucopia of symbols and mysteries. Each seems to move toward some grand truth. The film is a string of events that lead us to some interesting places but ends taking us nowhere. Its as if he had a thousand cool ideas, but had no idea what they meant.

It is vital for a story to have a point of view – to take a stand on the issue it presses. This film doesn’t make its stake even slightly. With all of the conflicting subplots, symbols and statements, we end up with a story that is as murky and fun as the lining my toddler son makes for his diapers. Either Shamalamadingdong is for organized religion or he’s against it. Either he is arguing for the goodness of mankind, or he is arguing against it. Either civilization is needed or it is not. Read other reviews of this film. Find me one that is not confused on what is being said with this film. It’s not clever or fair to leave people guessing in this fashion. It’s okay to leave em’ guessing on some plot point or final reveal – but it’s never okay to have large questions surrounding the whole thesis of your piece. That’s just bad storytelling.

Again, it is the result of the third act not carrying its weight. The answers to the questions must make some sense. Perhaps he didn’t know what he was asking. I don’t know. The problem is, no one else does either.


Related Reviews:
M. Night Shyamalan movies
Lady in the Water (2006)
Signs (2002)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Decent Films Guide
PopMatters

Labels: , , ,



Share






September 9, 2008
Signs (2002)
Should I see it?
Yes.


Short Review:
A quiet and inspired film. It is like The 6th Sense but with more annoying children.

Signs

For the most part, this is a good film. It is a study in how to patiently unfold a story and its characters. It is certainly refreshing to see a movie where the filmmaker knows that solid scenes don’t need to be rushed. M. Night Shamalamadingdong handles most of the film with a delicate hand and gently presents the horror of the alien invasion without becoming overbearing (until the end of the film.)

I have great appreciated the sound design. It would have been easy to make the aliens growling, violent creatures. M. Night Snuffleupagus’ genius in this film was making them so silent. Quiet horror is unsettling horror. Have you have wakened from a dead sleep thinking you’ve heard something in your house? Have you ever thought someone had broken in? This film plays on that terrified listening we fall into when we try to discern if there is a menace that we cannot see.

The ending of the film is weak, it's Michael Jackson in competitive arm wrestling weak. It wraps up too nicely and too conveniently. The ending wouldn't have lost anything if M. Night Shyma-something-or-another, stopped the action, stepped into the shot and simply said "and everyone lives happily ever after". I understand the point M. Night Sha-Na-Na was attempting to make, I just feel he could have done it less forcefully.

Overall, good film. If you haven’t seen it yet, do. Well worth the rental price.


Related Reviews:
Mel Gibson movies
Chicken Run (2000)
Million Dollar Hotel (2000)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Popmatters
3 Black Chicks Review Flicks


Labels: , , , , ,



Share






August 18, 2008
Ladder 49 (2004)
Should I see it?
No.


Short Review:
The cool thing about casting John Travolta is that it sets the bar low enough so no one else in the production need to bother trying.

Ladder 49

You know you’ve really made it in Hollywood when you can stop acting and no one complains. Travolta has been too busy for the past ten years to take the time to get into character. Once again, we are treated to his “Guy In Charge” role. You know this guy from The General’s Daughter, Swordfish, Basic, Broken Arrow among others. Producers pay this guy millions to show up, wear collars that emphasis the thickness of his neck and prattle his lines with a emotional vocabulary usually reserved for comic books.

This movie is so predictable it doesn’t even count as a paint-by-numbers plot. The math involved in painting by numbers is too intelligent for this melodramatic stew. I loathe movies like this. They are so unoriginal I get headaches trying to citing all of the other films this movie pulls from. There are some very talented people involved here – including Travolta (the reason I complain about his acting is because he’s shown he can do far better and doesn’t seem to be trying,) and they are all wasted on this heap.

Now that I have done enough snarling to cement the idea I didn’t like this film, I should point out some of the brighter points. This movie does show blue-collar people as real humans with lives. This is worth noting since Hollywood goofballs usually are in a rush to slam middle class folk as mouth-breathing dimwits. This film respects its characters and does not mock their “normal” lives. The filmmakers understand that while firefighters will never be rich or famous, they are vital to their communities. They deserve the same admiration we reserve for the military or police. The filmmakers also took great care to try to show the life of a firefighter. While it was clumsily handled in many areas, I liked the fact they made the effort.

In closing I can’t recommend this all too common movie. There is hardly anything new here in regards to the plot. Many people who can watch films without a critical eye (and I am often jealous of that ability,) will enjoy this flick. This movie is not worth the rental – if you see it on cable, check it out if you’re bored. Worst case scenario, you can make a drinking game out of it. Take a shot every time you see John Travolta looking at his watch, waiting for his scene to end so he can cash his fat paycheck.


Related Reviews:
John Travolta films
Get Shorty (1995)
Be Cool (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:

Zertinet Reviews
Silver Screen Reviews



Labels: , , ,



Share






February 18, 2008
We Own the Night (2007)
Should I see it?
No.

Short Review: I wish they owned a better story.

This film opens with one of the more gratuitous sex scenes in recent memory. Joaquin Phoenix and Eva Mendes grope on a couch immediately following the opening credits. One expects that with such vivid content being thrust (pun intended) at the audience in the beginning of a film there will be context to follow. Nope. No such context is provided. The two actors are asked by director James Gray to suffer the indignity and embarrassment of a sex scene for nothing other than to satisfy his bad film making impulses. Any time you see a sex scene in a film, it may seem like its fun and exciting. Now, of course, some actors will claim this is the case. If you've ever seen one of these things being shot, its a miserable thing, in particular for many actors. You have to lay there with another person who you may or may not know all that well and if you know them you may or may not even like them all that much. The actors then have to portray two people making "the beast with two backs" while taking direction, reshooting moves and waiting for lighting to get corrected. All of this while being half naked as the crew look on, bored, waiting to get a chance to sneak out for a smoke. When I see a sex scene like the one that opens this movie, its offensive when it is so clearly unneeded not only because the audience is asked to sit and watch but also because the cast and crew had to endure creating it. Perhaps Ms. Mendez and Mr. Phoenix wouldn't complain about having to do the scene but the audience should.

This whole movie is one long bad choice. The story follows Bobby (Phoenix) a successful nightclub owner who gets involved with drug dealers. Bobby's has a secret, his brother (Mark Wahlberg) and father (Robert Duvall) are both cops who are hunting down the aforementioned drug dealers. Following the shooting of his brother, Bobby turns on the dealers and works with the cops. People get shot, there's plenty of yelling and double crossing - all leading to the inevitable big shoot out at the end. Yawn. There is nothing about this story that is compelling, fresh or worthy of an audience's time. The script, also by Gray, is a tone deaf ramble written by someone who not only doesn't understand how to manage dialog but also scene progression. Combined with his timid directing style, this piece whimpers through its nearly two-hour run time.

There is a single sequence which works well in this film and that is a car chase scene. I thought it was well handled and shot. This sequence sticks out however since it is the solitary item of good film making in this whole production. The talents of the cast, all of whom are top-notch, are completely wasted on the listless dialog they're forced to spew. Any personal sacrifices made by anyone in the making of this film are wasted and those who were talked into financing the film should have put their money elsewhere.

I get many complaints that I'm too harsh on movies I don't like. Maybe I can be at times. But a poorly made film that is intended to be serious, like this one wants to be, are wasteful things. They gobble up resources and the efforts of the cast and crew who more often than not are asked to put in long hours and hard work to get a film like this made. Bad movies also consume time from the audience that could have otherwise been spent doing something worthwhile. How would you like it if I were to stop you on the street and tell you a long story only to find out I didn't have a point, I just stopped you to ramble - this is what bad movies do to us each time we sit through them. They put our lives on hold and give us nothing back for the investment. Life is short and bad movies make our precious time here just that less enjoyable. This is why I loathe bad movies and attack them. They are offensive.


Related Reviews:
Joaquin Phoenix movies
The Village (2004)
Walk the Line (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Critical Critics
eFilmCritic.com



Labels: , , , , , , , ,



Share