Change Your Image
mrniceguy106
Reviews
Catwoman (2004)
what was Halle Berry and Warner Bros. thinking?!
I know, I know, almost NO ONE liked this movie. It's completely understandable why.
I can get over the fact that this is not the Catwoman we know and love from the Batman series (Selina Kyle) this is a new entity. Patience has superhuman abilities, cat-like reflexes, blah, blah, blah, where as Selina is more or less a human being. But this movie just sucks. There's no way around it.
First, there's the costume. The initial "night out" where Patience wears the full leather suit with just the little mask over her eyes, THAT would have been fine. But then she puts on the ridiculous outfit she wears throughout the rest of the movie. High heels that would give anyone wearing them for more than ten minutes blisters the size of pancakes, basically a leather bra that any adversary could open by cutting the tiny string holding it together in the middle, and to top it all off a huge, pointed-ears helmet thing that is just plain lame. Whoever was in charge of costumes should be publically shot. Anyone who took it upon themselves to fight crime would never wear anything like that, it's just nonsense. Not to mention the fact that they never show her fashioning this hideous thing. She just sort of shows up in it.
Second is the directing. Pitof should be shot along with the costume designer. Every shot flies by your face before you can see what's going on, and the performances from very capable actors and actresses fell flat -- the job of the director is to coax good performances from his/her actors. I'm wondering if Pitof was even present for filming. An intern could have done a better job with the direction.
Third are the fight scenes. I didn't go into this film expecting much, but at the very least I expected decent fight scenes, especially considering all the hype about how the used capoiera and all that. I don't think Halle Berry did a single fight scene herself. Everything was CGI, a fact that left me disappointed after Spider Man as well. I want to see the actor WORK for their millions of dollars, is that so much to ask? Disappointing fight scenes.
Fourth, the script. Was there a script? Was there a screenwriter? If so, he/she should be shot as well. We know it's a movie about a catwoman, but does she really need to say "purrrfect"? Come on now. And then asking a question and before the guy can answer grabbing his tongue and saying "cat got your tongue?" Please!
I urge you, do not see this movie. If you do, you will be severely disappointed by some tried and true actors. Why is it that whenever an actress wins an Oscar she has to go on and do a HORRIBLE action movie?!
The only thing that was slightly interesting was the whole "Catwoman Legacy" about past women who have inherited the helm and gone on the fight crime, save the world, etc. A nice touch, but the movie is as a whole unwatchable and I really hope Halle does something a little better in her next film.
Urban Legends: Final Cut (2000)
A Pleasant Surprise
I was bored one day and was in the mood for a cheesie cut-em-up slasher flick, so I rented Urban Legend: Final Cut. I was pleasantly surprised to discover how well it was done. The movie centers around a film school and a cut throat (pardon the pun) competition for a prestigious award ("The Hitchcock"). One film student decides to make her film about a serial killer who bases his victims on Urban Legends, just like the plot of the first movie. Eventually, an actual serial killer starts cutting down student after student, and the young film maker (Amy) is not sure what to do. That's the basic plot, without giving anything away, though I'm sure other comments have told every plot detail without a care for the people reading them who don't want the end ruined. Suffice it to say, it's an unexpected ending.
What I liked most about this movie was that it didn't try to be a sequel in the classical sense. It used a similar theme, but did not incorporate any characters from the original Urban Legend, except for the Pam Grier fan of a security guard Reese. Having a small link between the two films, but not making it a huge theme was a wise decision. Most likely, none of the actors wanted to return for another installment and truthfully, a traditional sequel would have fallen even flatter than the first one since there were not really any decent urban legends left to use. Another good quality is that it blurred the line between reality and fantasy, in true Hitchcock tradition. Most likely, the writer and director were huge fans of Mr. Hitchcock and wanted to follow in his footsteps, even to the point of using the theme of his old television show for the end credits. Even though they failed to capture the power that a Hitchcock film does, few films have ever come close to developing a Hitchcockian feel successfully. But I digress... The final good point I'll mention is the use of murders that look like accidents, which keep the police out of play. Usually a simple 911 call would put a stop to any slashing that occurs in traditional horror films, and the whole "it happened on a stormy night so no cops were available" thing is just lame and unimaginative.
The film's weaknesses, on the other hand, were also evident. (Slight spoilers ahead...) The use of a minor character for real killer, while heightening the unpredictability of the film, usually just annoys the seasoned movie buff as in this case. The killer's motives were an interesting and unexpected idea, but somewhat confusing and out of context for the movie. Also, the whole "kidney removal in the bathtub of ice" sequence was stupid and just plain gross. Finally the use of twins in the horror genre usually fails to keep a plot engrossing and gave the film a soap opera feel. Bad choice.
All in all, however, I think the movie was well executed and certainly worth a look-see. The final cameo of Rebecca Gayheart was a nice touch, and the use of tiny details that seem like filler at the time but come back to alter the course of the movie was a good idea. Usually I can pick out the ones I know will be coming back into the plot, but one detail in particular I did not notice. I decent flick, though it won't win any awards, but surely worth a rent.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
brilliantly brought to life, but . . .
I must say that this work of cinema is nothing short of brilliance, but I also must say I am somewhat . . . disappointed. Though the movie does beautifully bring to life the characters, places and story of Tolkien, I cannot say that I am 100% satisfied with it. I feel, as a whole, the film is much, much darker than the books themselves. Honestly, what film has ever been made that is better than the book? It's simply not possible -- the image in ours minds will never transpose to the screen, I don't care how far technology has brought us. I feel director Jackson's vision of the books is not completely what Tolkien envisioned. The first novel, however perilous, was not as dark as the film came to be. There is a very gradual build in the books, and truly all three should be read as one novel. I feel the film jumps too quickly into the thrills and fights and narrow escapes. About one third of the first book of the trilogy is, (to some), painfully descriptive and slow to action, but I feel that was Tolkien's intention to make all the coming action all the more exciting when the reader gets there. Jackson jumps too quickly into it, I feel.
On the other hand, I DO agree with some of Jackson's choices. I completely agree with his choice to make Arwen (Liv Tyler) a larger player in the activities -- in the books she mostly remains in the background. Also, touching on Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Arwen's love story was also a good choice. But, most of all, I DON'T agree with Jackson's vision of Lothlorien. In the film, it was a dark place, however good it is supposed to be, and Galadriel seems too distant and even malicious in the film. In the book, Lorien was much brighter and happier, and Galadriel was wiser and more of a character. Though Cate Blanchett plays her beautifully, I feel her character is too, for lack of a better word, creepy. The same goes for Rivendell -- there is not enough happiness in either place. As an audience member in the movie theater, I don't feel like there are many things in Middle Earth worth saving! All in all, I feel the movie is darker than what Tolkien saw.
In closing, I would say I am content, as it is a beautiful piece of cinema, but not satisfied with the film, with my knowledge of the books.
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
amazing, original work of film, though very depressing
I just watched this film last night, and I've never let a movie get to me like this in quite some time. First off, I have to say that I am a huge fan of Bjork and her beautiful music, so this opinion may be a little biased. In fact, as I was about halfway through the movie, I realized that if it hadn't been for Bjork's starring role, I conceivably might never have given it a second glance; it's an "arsty" film, the rest of the cast is relatively new to me (save David Morse), and the film in general is one I would likely avoid due to it's depressing plot. However, I should also mention I wrote off Schindler's List for years for the same reasons before actually seeing it, and that's a big deal movie. Anyway, I still love this movie, though it is one I will most likely never see again, due to it's sad storyline. The plot follows Selma (Bjork), a single mother and Czech immigrant who is rapidly losing her eyesight due to a heridtary disease. She lives in poverty with her son, who is also afflicted with the same disease, but his sight can still be saved. Selma saves every last penny for an expensive operation that can save her son's sight, but she tells everyone she is sending it all to her father back home in Europe. She hides the money in a tin in her home. WARNING: SPOILER'S AHEAD! IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE STOP READING NOW!!!!!!!! Soon, we meet Selma's landlord of sorts Bill (David Morse), a local police man who has a wife who can't seem to stop spending money he doesn't have. Faced with the IRS taking his home, he pleads with Selma to borrow the money. She refuses him outright and he apologizes. Soon, he gets desperate and takes advantage of Selma's blindness to see where she hides her money. The next day as Selma goes to her tin to but the day's money in the tine, she discovers it is gone. She goes to Bill to inquire about her son, but she soon discovers that Bill has in fact stolen her money. Bill pleads with Selma to kill him, (he has been contemplating suicide throughout the movie) and she can have her money. Unfortunately, Bill's wife walks in on them and Bills tells her to run and get the police. Selma fights to get the money from Bill, but in the fight Bill's gun goes off and shoots Bill in the side. Selma, knowing what faces her, takes the gun and shoots Bill as he begs her to do. Soon, she finds herself on the run and ends up getting caught and put on trail. As the evidence mounts against her, with witness after witness, Selma eventually takes the stand. This is one of the saddest moments of the film. The prosecutor askes her: "Why did you shoot him" and she answers "Because he asked me to." You can see in her face that she knows what is going to happen to her, and that her words, whether she lies or tells the truth, will condemn her. As she is sentenced to death by hanging, she is taken off to solitary confinement until the time of her death. Her friends manage to get her a stay of execution, but when she talks with her new attorney who feels the evidence that she was saving her money for the operation may aquit her, she discovers that the amount the lawyer agreed to for payment is the exact amount she had saved for the operation. She fights heatedly with her friend Kathy (Catherine Deneuve) over saving her son or living and Selma refuses to live so that her son may see his grandchildren. As her last day reaches her, she finds herself in despair and can't walk. Her guard, and recent friend, helps her to the execution room where the noose awaits. Kathy goes up to her through the guards and yells that her son will see his grandchildren, and Selma finds it easier to stand. She faces her death with a song. The most original part of this film is that it is a musical of sorts. Whenever it gets too rough, Selma goes to a place of song and dance to make it through. The most haunting of numbers happens right after she kills Bill, where we see Gene (her son) riding his bike singing "you just did what you had to do". This song has been in my head since I saw the movie, and I can't shake this feeling of sadness about the story, and it's unjust ending. Rarely can a film do this to me, cause long lasting emotional fallout. I'm sure I'll get over it soon enough, but it surely speaks as to how the film moved me. Another amazing part about the film is Bjork's performance. For a woman whose acting experience is minimal, her acting is some of the best I've seen from even the best, Academy Award Winning actors of our time. The fact that she shares little to no interest in acting again is imaginable. After doing a film like that as your only experience, who would want to put themselves through that again??? She needs a good comedy to show her that not all acting takes as much of a bite out of your soul. I can imagine that the part of Selma had her depressed for months after the film wrapped. I know I would feel the same. I sincerely hope she reconsiders her position in the world of film. She has an amazing talent. And in closing, I sincerely hope that whoever reads this will consider going out and buying some of Bjork's music for themselves -- it has been described as an "acquired taste" (which I agree with) but it's well worth acquiring.
Lola rennt (1998)
DO NOT MISS THIS MOVIE!!!
Well, one of my close friends said that she saw this in theaters on a whim with her mother. She said it was pretty good, no real indication of what it really is! I saw it walking through the new release section at my local video store and remembered what she said. Now, if you see this DO NOT LET THE SUBTITLES SCARE YOU! Believe me, I've seen the english dubbing -- not a pretty sight! The full german witht he subtitles is WAY better. Anyway, I've never seen a movie as unique as this one. I love this movie and everyone should see it! Lola, played (I can't find a word that can do her performance justice,) by Franka Potente needs to find 100,000 marks in 20 mins or her love with surely die at the hands of his mobster boss. The movie has three different versions of the same basic plot, but the smallest loss or gain of seconds on the part of Lola and how fast she runs can change many things about the rest of the story. I love this movie and I can't babble on enough about how much I love it!
Plutonium Baby (1987)
by far the worst movie I've ever seen
I thought Halloween 3 was bad! Then I saw Plutonium baby. First of all, the tagline just doesn't work. He'll tell his mommy? HE HAS NO MOMMY TO TELL!! Secondly, the baby isn't even a baby - he's about eleven years old. The stupid teenagers that enter the scene serve the proper horror movie purpose - they're complete idiots. The cinematography is laughable. The kids are seemingly lost in the middle of the woods, but if you look carefully you can see a car go by them in the background. Are you kidding me? "We're lost!" "Vvvrrroooom." "What was that?" Absolutely terrible. Next, the pathetic storyline drags on for hours - literally. Just when you think the nauseating plot has finally finshed, it flashes forward ten years to start the - (I'm running out of fitting words) - grotesquely stupid story all over again with the "baby" as a grown-up. There's a dull sex scene that's probably the longest scene in the whole movie - next in line for longest is the aerobics scene, that's right, there's an aerobics scene. That's about all you need to know, except the worst script line I've ever heard: "don't mind the nuclear warning sign, put your beer in there anyway." The fact that whoever wrote this film actually thought they'd make a profit from it is the best part - it's just too much!! It's beyond those bad movies that are fun to laugh at, like Bloodfeast for example. No it's just plain bad. Not funny in a "this is supposed to scare us?" sort of way, but bad in a "they should use this video for torture" sort of way. Avoid this movie like you would avoid the Black Plague.
Love and Death on Long Island (1997)
beautifully tragic movie
I was horrified to find this movie in the comedy section of my video store. Comedy!!! Unfathomable. Anyway, this movie stirred me. It had so many underlying plots: the old modernizing to the new, finding beauty in an unexpected place, seeking out that beauty, etc. If you don't want the movie spoiled, stop reading. Giles De'Ath, aka John Hurt, (who plays his role astonishingly well,) discovers the beautiful Ronnie Bostock when he slips into the wrong movie in the "cinema". Anyway, he sees Ronnie strike a pose in the movie that is a pose from a famous piece of art. He soon travels to Long Island to seek out the boy with which he has a slightly obsessive preoccupation. Jason Priestly plays his part perfectly, as the devestatingly handsome Ronnie. When Giles confesses his love for Ronnie, Jason strikes a perfectly engaging pose - he just looks at Giles, and the camera catches that look. The look lasts for a few seconds, but I, for one, was entranced by his big blue eyes. I rewound it several times to catch that stare again and again. It is one of the most brilliant shows of direction I've ever seen. You must see his expression - it made me melt. Anyway, Ronnie turns Giles down, despite the plutonic love he's developed for Giles. Giles is devestated, but I'll leave the rest for you to find out. I won't spoil the VERY end. Just see this movie - it is worth every minute.