zerodegreesk Reviews

Minority Report (2002)

What the???

[7/10 · 31 December 2002]

Poor, poor story. Sure it's contrived. It's science-fiction. But, this story doesn't even seem to follow the rules it creates for itself. Tom Cruise's dilemma is fabricated in a way that simply doesn't work. The climactic scene where the real bad-guy is revealed is pulled out of thin air through an opportune method that isn't even mentioned throughout the entire first 95% of the movie. The plot holes are ridiculous and unforgivable, at times. Then, the basic premise of the story, the idea of "How far will society go to protect itself?"... More crap about free-will and the idea of the power of one person over the majority and blah, blah, blah. And, why did they have to date the movie? Why "2054"? What's the point of that? It's going to suffer the same fate as every other science-fiction movie with a definite date attached to it. We should be traveling to Jupiter by now according to Hollywood. We're going to be replacing our eyes for the fun of it in 50 years? Yeah, it shouldn't be taken so seriously, but it's no more than a weak storyline/vehicle for more super-slick special effects. More empty and boring crap for the masses.

Jason X (2001)

Piece of C-R-A-P...

[1/10 · 10 October 2002]

I remember watching the Friday the 13th movies from the 80s. I remember the gore. I remember the graphic nature of the violence.

Where did that go? That's what the movies were all about. SEEING a person get his head cut off with a bone saw. SEEING a person's eye pop-out of the screen into your face. Etc.

Half of the gore in this movie wasn't even there. You just saw the other characters' reactions as something bad happened to one of the others. And, Jason hardly uses any unique methods of murder. Just a knife or a machete. One after the other. Blah, blah, blah.

Also, there's no nudity. What's up with that?!? Oh, I guess there's that two second shot towards the end that was probably thrown in as an after thought because they realized there was no nudity in the film up to that point. But, everything's blocked up to that point.

Jason's got no personality or character in this film either. You'd have to have watched the previous nine movies yourself to get anything like that. Jason started-out as a person out for revenge who could not be killed. Now, he's just this killing machine.

Boring. The movie's an insult to "fans" of the series.

Blackbeard's Ghost (1968)

As good as ever...

[10/10 · 9 October 2002]

This movie had great memories from when I saw it as a kid. Usually, the movie's never as good as it was, you know, when you see it again once you're older. This one is still great, though! The jokes and gags are, for the most part, routine and common, but I think Peter Ustinov made the movie. You just have to let go of everything and have fun with it.

The Contender (2000)

Horrific... Bad...

[1/10 · 26 September 2002]

This movie's about agendas, but what about the movie itself. How do you paint a beautiful picture about American politics? That's what it does. Gary Oldman represents all the bad parts while Joan Allen represents all the idealistic parts. In this Hollywood piece of crap, good triumphs over evil, even in Washington D.C. Does anyone believe that? Who produced this movie? The conservatives are made out to be these horrific, old monsters, while the liberals are all beautiful and righteous. Lucky for the liberals! But, I don't really care about Republicans and Democrats. Sam Elliot had the most important line in the movie: "We AREN'T any better than them!!!"

The Time Machine (2002)

no, no, no, no, no...

[2/10 · 26 July 2002]

Holy crap!... was this a horrible movie!!! I was looking forward to seeing this one, but... what, did they actually SEARCH for a horrible script to go along with horrible creature effects?!? Really, what was with the Morlocks? Guys running around in BAD monster masks? They couldn't do better than that? Then, there's this guy traveling through time and leaving his time machine unattended while he walks around talking to people from the future. Okay, New York City in 2030, and his time machine is perfectly safe just sitting in this alley in full view of the street. Then, the girl trying to tell him to go home, "Just go and take my brother with you!" "Why?" "I can't TELL you, it's too complicated. Just go!" Then, there's Jeremy Irons as this telekinetic, albino, super-human... wait, they just decided to BREED telekinesis? I see, the same way the main character just DECIDES to whip up a time machine so he can change the past. What's with all the things spinning around, and the time-ometer... very convenient that he put ten spaces so that he could go millions of years into the future... but the dumbass didn't leave ANY spaces to go BACK in time, further than 1 AD.

Yes, it's true: This story is so full of holes that it's better to just suspend your disbelief, no, suspend all rational train of thought, and enjoy the SFX. Oh, I forgot that those sucked, too. See the Pal original instead.

Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii (1972)

Worth the price of admission...

[10/10 · 26 July 2002]

This movie gets better each time I watch it. The performances are pretty good. The "Careful With That Axe, Eugene" cut is fantastic, with the lights being raised up to the climax and then dimming back out. Very effective. Even the interviews, which don't make the band look particularly well, are entertaining. They need to release this on DVD already, don't you think? I bought a VCD version of it, but the video quality is horrible. DVD please!!!

Jacob's Ladder (I) (1990)

A horrible nightmare

[10/10 · 24 June 2002]

That's the sense I get from watching this movie: like I'm caught in some horrible nightmare. You close your eyes, but you can still see the monsters. You can hear their voices, but cannot see any bodies. People you know with distorted features. Demonic images. This movie scares the crap out of me each time I watch it. Like The Exorcist, it doesn't seem to lose much of its impact with each viewing. Also, the plot is horribly easy to understand. I can't imagine why so many people have trouble figuring out what's going on. It's a linear movie that runs in real-time.

The Wizard of Gore (1970)

I haven't laughed so hard...

[5/10 · 4 June 2002]

I was all about gory, slasher movies in 5th and 6th grade. A friend got this movie and declared it the goriest movie he'd ever seen. I didn't get to see it then, but I just got it through a certain mail-order DVD club. This movie is hilarious! Everything about this movie is BAD, but in a GOOD way! The speeches Montag the Magnificent gives his audience about "being in a dream, but thinking you're awake and then waking up, but PERHAPS you just begin to dream instead!!!" WHOA!!! Montag's into some heavy sh@#!!! This movie really made me think! If you've seen Blood Feast and liked it, see this movie next. If you've seen this and haven't seen Blood Feast, then see that. Funny stuff...

The Others (2001)

Scary...

[10/10 · 18 May 2002]

I've read many of the comments on this movie and while they don't "spoil" the story completely, they do make too many references to other movies, one in particular, which could make the impact of this story less effective. I think The Others is unique. When you consider how predictable storylines are today, after seeing this one you'd have to give it some credit. I give it a lot of credit. And, this is on the story alone. The movie is beautiful. The use of lighting is fantastic. Pay attention to the scenes in the dark, especially when Kidman is carrying a candle while searching for the others. The candle could not possibly create the lighting you see. To me it's like a painter on a canvas with the light, but it's transparent and skillful, so you hardly notice it. It's difficult for me to explain. It's unapologetic and true to life, the story and the occurrences, which I find rare in film today, especially in the States. There are no judgements on what happens or what happened in the storyline. The ideas of morality and good and bad seem to be dead and buried once the movie ends. This makes the story even more chilling. There are no clear-cut endings or explanations. This is why I find it so good. It seems the majority of the viewing public want popular justice and easily understandable and predictable endings and plots. The references to this movie being like another movie, I think, are true because the stories are of a similar topic, but more importantly because they're both powerfully independent and true to themselves. You know when you see these films because they affect you profoundly and are difficult to shake off. You find yourself thinking about them for days and watching multiple times. Horror/Suspense is my favorite genre and I'd easily say I've seen every popular horror movie and many, many of the rarer sort in the genre. This one is great. 10 out of 10.

Thir13en Ghosts (2001)

Absolutely horrible...

[1/10 · 15 April 2002]

...with few, if any, redeeming factors. This was a "horror" movie for stupid people with extremely short attention spans. It lacks anything resembling originality, which is kinda excusable when you figure it's a remake of a movie from the 60s, but this is really never excusable. Yes, I agree with a review I just read here that said the ghosts lack any real scariness, but instead look like ghosts of WWF wrestlers. That's a perfect description and it's as lame as it sounds. The acting is horrible. The action is predictable. The special effects aren't even that good when compared to contemporary movies of the genre. It was a severe let-down. Will we ever have a good ghost movie?

Vendetta (1986)

It was GREAT back in the mid-eighties!!!

[8 April 2002]

This was on Showtime late night or something like that when I saw it as a ten or so year old. It was pure heaven. The exact film I was wanting to see at that age. A prison, a women's prison story, drug-dealing lesbians, murder and revenge. Aw YEAH!!!! Check this out for the SWEET shower scenes that I remember in the back of my mind. It was quite a few years back, so maybe it wasn't that good. But I loved it back then. The head lesbian gangster's great!

Panic Room (2002)

OK... but that's about it

[6/10 · 7 April 2002]

This was just an ordinary movie in the "suspense" or "thriller" category. It does nothing new or extremely creative with itself. The script was predictable and mostly boring. What kind of twist can they put in these movies that makes them interesting throughout or worth spending an hour and a half watching them? There's no statement about anything. All of David Fincher's movies had this, in my opinion. It's obvious in Fight Club. There are messages in the other three, too. This movie was just... like, who cares about these people, really? These three thieves with the all too familiar character traits, er, faults. The wife of the rich dude who lives in this monsterous apartment with just her daughter, who is the only one worth caring about in the entire movie. Then there's the filmmaking itself to consider. Personally, I can't stand to have "impossible" camera shots in every other scene. It seemed that David Fincher used them tastefully in his past films, but in this one... it's CGI hell. I very much looked forward to seeing this movie, but wish I had chosen to see Blade II instead. Wait, as one last note, the acting is GREAT in this movie, seriously. Dwight Yoakam can play one MEAN character, I liked seeing more of Jaret Jeto and Forrest Whitaker is amazing, as usual. Jodie Foster and her daughter (sorry I didn't catch her name before I started this) were fantastic figuring they only had one room to work with for the majority of the movie. I guess really the main problem was I expected more out of the story. David Fincher has picked great scripts in the past, but he should have left this for Tony Scott or Remy Harlin or whoever directed Arnold Schwartzeneggar's last movie.

Donnie Darko (2001)

wow...

[8/10 · 7 April 2002]

I watched this five days ago and the more and more I think about it the more and more I appreciate it. It's a got a part to it that resembles teen angst and makes me laugh to think I like it 'cause that's a while ago. But, as a whole, this movie touches multiple levels at the same time. It's not just Donnie, I mean it is, but it goes much deeper than this. All I'll say is that this is one of the best modern movies I've seen in a long time. In an age when a movie is based on how extreme it is, this manages to be effective on pure emotion. There's one gimick in it that rubs me the wrong way, but I'm sure once I see it a few more times, I'll understand why it was used. "11 out of 10" I'd give this movie if it was possible.

200 Motels (1971)

NO

[5/10 · 4 March 2002]

After years of trying, I recently began to enjoy The Mother's of Invention and Frank Zappa, so I figured it was time to give 200 Motels another shot. Once before I had tried watching it and couldn't finish it. It happened again. The tendency seems to be to say this is a good film and you just don't understand it, if you're a Zappa fan. Still, I don't think it's a very good film. It looks like it was edited by ten year olds. It gave me a headache to watch the first music scene. A little too smart for me, I suppose.

Queen of the Damned (2002)

Good Stuff!

[8/10 · 25 February 2002]

I went in expecting the worst. I came out really, really surprised by how much I liked it. Maybe the key was I was expecting horrible trash because the majority of reviews were soooooo critical. However, Stuart Townsend was so much better in the part of Lestat, in my opinion. This movie LOOKED fantastic. The style was great, especially the whole Kabinett des Doktor Caligari theme to the Lestat videos and stage show. It doesn't take itself too horribly serious, either, which should be apparent during the vampire battle during the Death Valley show. The only part that I thought took away from the film was the whole Talamasca bit. It just seemed to be in there to help explain so many things that couldn't more easily be crammed into an hour and forty minutes. So, it was kinda weak, but necessary for production's sake. That happens sometimes.

In all I give it an 8 out of 10. It was something I wanted to see again right after, which doesn't happen very often and for me tells me it was something good.

Also, if there wasn't so much baggage to be taken in with this movie, it would be considered much better. It kicked "John Carpenter's Vampires" weak ass! It was better than "Interview..." in total value, though the first obviously had a lot more money and production thrown at it. The story that was arranged for this movie was good, period. It may have butchered the books, but it's true to itself, and is at least, at the VERY least, as good as the "Blade" series that's out there.

Communion (1989)

Scary, but then funny, at the same time!!!

[7/10 · 20 February 2002]

You have to watch this movie for the pure enjoyment of witnessing Christopher Walken "do his thing"... The special effects are cheesy at times, and the wife and child are two of the worst characters and actors I've ever seen. Honestly, I thought many of the effects worked and the suspense was skillfully crafted, but the hypnosis scenes were where the movie began to go downhill. Still, hearing Walken describe the abduction and even utter the words "rectal probe" was worth the price of admission. Make a night of it by pairing this movie up with "Brainstorm" another classic Christopher Walken performance. 7 out of 10

Jurassic Park III (2001)

What the... ?!? (LOTS OF SPOILERS!!!)

[1/10 · 5 February 2002]

(LOTS OF SPOILERS...STOP READING!!! SKIP THE WHOLE REVIEW)

After the first ten minutes, I thought this one had potential, then it just turned into platter of crap. It's interesting in horror movies how at one second the characters are running this way and that way at full speed without a moment to catch their breaths, and then "phew! I think we lost the monster..." they have all this calm time to develop the plot. The monsters all stand along the sidelines, "Let's get them!!!" "No! We have to wait until they're READY!" It's ridiculous.

Now, the Raptors can TALK??? They're smarter than primates??? And they've reconstructed the "resonating chamber" of the raptors through a fossil??? And, they can communicate with the Raptors using this thing??? C'mon this is weak!

Then there's this kid who has managed to live alone on the island for eight weeks? 8 WEEKS?!? These guys with weapons and blah, blah, blah can't last five minutes, but this kid just lands there with nothing and... what the hell?

If I could award this with negative points, I would. Hey, I can: -10/10

The Beast Within (1982)

This was scary, or was it?

[6/10 · 5 February 2002]

It takes some effort to watch this while keeping in mind when the movie came out, in 1982. I suppose it would have scared me had I watched it when I was 9 years old, but not today. Every cliche in the book is used here. "No, no, you stay here, alone in the car in the middle of nowhere while I walk five miles back to the gas station for help." Yeah, this must be an old movie. The transformation scene seems more like humour than horror. It's about ten minutes too long. The ending of the movie is pretty disturbing, though, and has to be given some credit. 6 / 10

(SPOILER HERE SPOILER HERE SPOILER HERE SPOILER HERE SPOILER HERE)

The thing that had me laughing my ass off about the transformation scene is that everyone just stands there watching this guy's face and body mutate all over the place, screaming and spitting crap all over the place. I mean RIGHT next to him, just standing there "Oh MY! This is scary! Let's stick around and see what happens!" The same with the scene with the girl. He's yelling, "Get out of here! I may hurt you!" And he's throwing her around and screaming at her and frothing at the mouth. And she's FOLLOWING him around, "What's wrong Michael? Are you all right?" And, then there's the fact that this guy's killing people throughout the town and the stupid police can't put together the fact that this kid keeps showing-up covered in blood on the same night as the murders. Hey, it was 1982, so I'll give them a break.

(END OF SPOILER END OF REVIEW END OF SPOILER END OF REVIEW)

Beowulf (1999)

One of the greatest comedies of all time!!!

[29 January 2002]

If the filmmakers were only to say that it was MEANT to be funny, they would have a blockbuster on their hands. I laughed from beginning to end. Christopher Lambert looks like six-feet worth of unshapen modeling clay with the expressions to go along. How are we supposed to even begin to believe there would be a love interest between him and that lead, Lora Croft lookalike? The editing is creative in how you never really SEE the monster. The "special effects" raved about consist of some cheap filter used over a guy in a rubber suit. Grendel's mother is created from whatever was used to make the monster in Species, seven years ago. Then, there's this guy wearing a cape throughout the entire film. He's supposed to be after the king's daughter, but he's OBVIOUSLY so in love with Beowulf that it seems tragic. The Playboy Playmate getting kinda naked is a nice touch. It was obviously her first movie role. The parts where she's just naked and gettin' it on with the king are pretty much Playboy after dark, but the scenes where she's actually trying to act are ridiculous, and FUNNY. If you want a good laugh, see this movie!!! 10 out of 10

The Warriors (1979)

Maybe about fifteen years ago...

[17 January 2002]

I would have thought this was a great movie. This one hasn't aged very well, though, so I found it hard to pick-up twenty years later and get anything more than a laugh. It was interesting to see how many actors who became bigger later on were in this movie. It was also interesting to note that there was only one gun in the movie and that whenever it appeared it seemed to give off a cowardly air. If this movie was made today, it would just be a hail of bullets and dead bodies, which is a bit over done nowadays.

My favorite scene: "You see what you get?!? You see what you get when you mess with the ORPHANS?!?!?!!!!"

7 out of 10

American Pie 2 (2001)

Not very good once I thought about it.

[16 January 2002]

What I mean is that I laughed hard while I watched the movie, but once I started thinking about it afterwards, I found it was pretty lame. The worst part was the weak ending with the shots of them dancing and smiling at each other. That bothered the hell out of me.

Anyways, as I was saying, it wasn't until after it was over... It was very close to a scene for scene remake of the original. Each major event from the first film was mirrored in the second. I see this as lazy filmmaking, or even just greedy filmmaking in the sense that they were probably trying to keep the sequel as close as possible to the first for optimal cash flow.

As I write this I'm liking it less and less. Looks like they shouldn't have bothered with this one. Still, I laughed while I watched, so I have to give it a 6 out of 10. I'll never laugh at it again, though, which is something I can't say about the first.

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Better than most

[8/10 · 15 January 2002]

You have to be a little forgiving with the genre. If this movie had come out 15 years ago, it would have been a classic, but the ideas have been played-out. Still, this movie had some unique scenes and situations in it that I've never seen before.

If you're the type of person who sees every new horror movie that comes-out in the hopes that you'll see something really scary and original, this isn't it, but it's definitely worth an hour and a half.

Better than average horror. 7 out of 10.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Just think: Starship Troopers... See this wasn't that bad!

[5/10 · 4 January 2002]

It's hard for me to comment too badly on this movie. It's a fantasy movie. It's supposed to take you away into another world, away from your real crappy lives and entertain you. If you want literature, read the book. If you want 400+ pages of character development, read the book. There's the movie and the book. They serve the same purpose through different mediums; one's better equipped to grab you around the neck and shake you around for a few hours, while the other will gently caress and nourish your mind over the course of several days.

No movie based on a book, especially a book of this stature, will EVER live up to the expectations. "The Exorcist" or "The Godfather" or "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" are examples of near perfection, in my opinion, but I'm sure there are those that disagree.

Then, there's "Starship Troopers"

Just consider this last example. What a horrible piece of crap that movie was. It barely resembled the book past the title. And the movie was horrible to boot! Just imagine Casper Van Dien as Aragorn and Denise Richards as Arwen. Directed by Paul Verhoven.

I'm getting sick just from the thought of it. See how great this movie really was, or at least how bad it COULD have been. I appreciate it more already.

I've been exposed to the Lord of the Rings books and stories and cartoon incarnations as long as I can remember. I couldn't find many faults with this version, but after reading others' reviews, I could believe that if you weren't familiar with the stories that you might not have enjoyed it as much as I did.

In the near 180 minutes that this movie spanned, there could have been a little less pointless CGI and a little more about the history of those involved, for the sake of those not familiar with the story. In general, though, I'd have to say that the CGI didn't get in the way of the story half as much as it would have in some other director's hands.

The Entity (1982)

For once, more money!

[7/10 · 17 December 2001]

If the production value had been a little better, I think this could have been a classic. (Change the ending, too, sorry) No, I'm stretching it there, but as far as horror movies go, this STORY the IDEA is as good as they come. The script is kinda bad as well as some of the casting. Still the idea of an evil spirit attacking you at all hours of the day, when you're alone or with people, and there's nothing to stop it... that's scary. Another thing, this movie is dated 1981, while Poltergeist is dated 1982, so I'd say Poltergeist stole a whole lot from this movie, but I don't know anything but dates, maybe they were simultaneously written and directed by Spielberg on his spare time from ET. Who knows. I do know this was a good movie, and rate it along with Altered States in the "Good Idea, but needed better production" category. (7 out of 10)

Shrek (2001)

Really too much hype

[5/10 · 20 November 2001]

Sometimes, people get carried away with the hype... I think that is what happened here. There were some funny moments, but nothing that was just jaw-droppingly, side-splittingly hilarious and amazing. So, computer animation is getting spectacular, big deal! It's bound to happen. I'd rather see a kid with a Commadore 64 and a more original / clever script. There would most likely be a superior product.

Plus, what is with the "Scottish-accent" and Mike Meyers??? So, the rumour is, after the entire movie is done he thinks it would be better with a Scottish-accent??? In "So I Married an Axe-Murderer" and "Austin Powers" it was used effectively, but it's obvious he doesn't have such a grasp of the dialect to use it for an entire script.

Eventually, a computer is going to be able to produce something which looks identical to real life. Will that be a good thing? What will be amazing about that when you can film the real thing?

Call me a spoil-sport.

5 out of 10