Change Your Image
deac0n_fr0st
...i've lived for for many years...
... i plan to live for some more years...
...one day i'll die.
The End.
Reviews
Superbad (2007)
As confused as it is boring
You know what we really hate? It's when movies show all their funny parts before you ever show up to the theater. Nothing makes us feel more like we've wasted our money than showing up for nearly two hours and laughing, almost solely, at those things we laughed at for free. This is the plight of Superbad, which relies on vulgar terminology in outrageous situations to generate laughs.
So what is Superbad? Is it a teen comedy? You wouldn't know it by all the dead time in the theater where none is laughing. The movie drags in several parts, and for me got to the point it was almost unbearable to keep watching. I truly wanted to get up and leave, but I sacrificed another hour and stayed through the whole thing. Had I decided to count the number of times I laughed out loud that didn't include things I saw in the previews, I may have been able to count them on Captain Hook's two hands.
So if it's not a teen comedy, is it a high school, American Pie-ish comedy? Like a raunchy comedy? American Pie shouldn't be downgraded to the level of Superbad. American Pie was smart, truly funny, and bad as it may be, delivered a message. Superbad, on the other hand, has no message. There is no rhyme or reason to the antics that befall the three lovable losers. The friendship scenes seem forced. The relational scenes are so far over the top and outside of reason you just hope and pray teenagers aren't as felony stupid in real life as they are in this movie. So far as raunch goes, it begins and ends with dirty words, that truly have an "in the closet" homosexual feel to them when you consider the wide use of the 'D' word for penis. You're almost waiting for one of the boys to admit they like men more than women.
So, it isn't raunchy, there's no nudity here guys if that's why you're wanting to check it out, and it doesn't have enough laughs to qualify as a comedy, so what is it? It's a very poor attempt at a raunchy high school teen comedy. Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg have missed the mark completely in this attempt. What we have a junior high script with elementary comedy and an unrealistic view of high school hotties and nerds. You can't even use words like parody, idiomatic, or satirical to describe what they've done here.
All in all, it's an unfunny movie with a few funny because of the language scenes thrown into the mix. The test of a comedy is that you could remove vile language and the movie is still funny. If you remove the vile language from this movie, it's an hour and 54 minutes of silence pictures. Do yourself a favor and wait for the DVD rental.
Night at the Museum (2006)
Asleep at the Museum
You know, the book isn't half bad. It's really quite engaging with all of the historical figures present. Unfortunately, the movie was not ale to deliver the same fanfare of events the book has to offer. It falls victim to the same problem with The Di Vinci Code. Too much story to tell with not enough time to tell it. We are rushed through nights one and two, so we can get to night three and see what we all knew was coming to begin with. Trust me, if you're over the age of 20, you'll solve it before it even starts. What we are left with is plot hole after plot hole of how the story is moving from one point to the next. I found myself constantly wondering, "How did we get here? How did he know that?" Ben Stiller is Ben Stiller. There is nothing remotely different about this part, other than he's probably dialed down a bit in his role as a father who, aside from not being able to hold down a regular job, has very abbreviated visitation rights with his son. Robin Williams is different, though. He's really not that funny. As the waxed image of Teddy Roosevelt, he is cornucopia of wise statements, however his talents are most wholly wasted. It's obvious he wasn't given much room to help "create" the script, which is sad. Dick Van Dyke is just really nice to see again, though he throws you for a bit of a loop. As the former night watchmen who is training Stiller, he does have a very fatherly presence when on screen.
All in all, the kids will like seeing the T-Rex play fetch like a dog, and the camera work really creates a lot of eye candy. The movie drags a bit at the beginning to set up the story, but takes off pretty well after he starts his first night. It should be a good addition to your children's DVD library one day, but it's certainly not worth $7-$10 at the theatre, unless you get to see the IMAX version.
Superman Returns (2006)
Superman has indeed returned
Just to get the negative out of the way, there were some slow parts that could have been cut. Blah, blah, blah, artistic differences, etc, etc, etc.
OH. MY. GAWD.
Talk about a rousing return! Folks, you are in for a treat. Bryan Singer has brought that special touch of humanizing the unknown from the X-Men films to Superman Returns. NEVER has Superman been so real, so vulnerable, and at the same time so incredibly awesome. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you won't get up from your seat because you'll immediately want to watch it again.
First, props on the opening title sequence. Singer does a great job of tying the old series into the new from beginning to end. You'll instantly be transported back to the 70s when you were a kid sitting in the theatre watching the opening title sequence. Make no mistake, my friend. This is a Superman movie. The sights and sounds are all so familiar that nostalgia grabs you and won't let go for the next 2 and a 1/2 hours.
Next, the acting. I thought Spacey was a great cast for Luthor, and boy was I right. He has just enough star power, enjoyability, and acting talent to not only fill Gene Hackman's shoes, but to do for the role what Jack Nicholson did for the Joker in Batman. He makes Lex his own, and you love him for it. The hands down best call in the history of casting is Parker Posey as Kitty. She literally steals scenes with dead pan humor, lines from the past, and just grabs your attention as "What will she do/say now?" every time she is on the screen. And, yes, everything you have heard about Brandon Routh is 100% true. Not only does he do a great job in the role, he made the role who Christopher Reeve was, and there are flashes where you forget that isn't Reeve on the screen. Definitely a great tribute to an actor who will forever be remembered by those who saw the original as Superman. Kate Moss did an OK job as Lois, but audiences tend to agree they need some more strength from her character. A fantastic actress, she's no Margot Kidder. She has the stubborn thing down, but sounds more whiny when she does it, and defers to her fiancé to solve her problems instead of ripping the editor in chief herself. I know she can do a better job, she just didn't do it here. It was great to see Cyclops from X-Men playing a role here as Lois' fiancé. Carey Elwes would have also been a great choice for the role.
The plot. Oh my goodness the plot. Without giving anything away in the terms of spoilers, let me just say this is the deepest plot of any superhero movie I have ever seen. There are at least two subplots going on here, which is different than having two different story lines going on at once like Singer did in X-Men. Just to fast forward through it all, our story takes place as though S3 and S4 never existed (which they shouldn't have). Superman has been gone for 5 years to see if his planet actually survived when astronomers find what they think might be Krypton. Superman returns just as he showed up the first time on the farm. After getting his old job back at the Daily Planet, tragedies begin taking place, and it's business as usual for Superman, who finds out Lois has new love interest and a son, as well as winning a PUlitzer Prize for her article, "Why the world doesn't need Superman" which is why you hear her say in the trailer that the world doesn't need a savior. Meanwhile, Lex is plotting and scheming Superman's demise as well as his own world domination plans. It all culminates off the coast of the US on a yacht and a surprise Lex has in store for the man of steel. Once again we pit the brains of a super villain against the strength of a superhero.
Visually, this film is so good I can't even begin to describe it. The use of dark and light tones, the storms at sea, the clouds in the sky, sunsets... *gasp*. It's all so beautifully exhausting you just want to sit and watch. With something like 1,400 visual effects shots, you will be surprised how little you look at and go "hmmm....". While Titanic didn't hide its visual effects very well, it is the one movie that comes close to the wizardry and mastery of film-making we see here in Singer's vision of Superman Returns.
Just to wrap up, this movie should so make $1billion dollars. If Titanic can do it, Superman Returns should definitely be able to duplicate that. I am not one much for repeat viewings of films, but this is one I will see at least 3-5 more times (cuz i still gotta see it in IMAX *grin*). The story just pulls you in and doesn't let go, all while Singer is reproducing a Y2K version of our childhood hero. The film is dedicated to Mr. and Mrs. Reeve, as one would expect, and I'll tell you right now, if Christopher were alive today he would have tears of joy in his eyes to tell us all that Superman has indeed returned...
Nacho Libre (2006)
Not so Dynamite...
OK, so we have a Jared Hess script. Awesome. He's a great writer, and I truly believe that. We have Jared directing. Awesome. He did fantastic things with a limited budget on Napolean Dynamite, and even though he had an expanded budget here, he didn't go nuts with it. Good, solid directing. We have... Jack Black playing a friar? OK, well he's funny and stuff, so this could still be entertaining... right? Yeah, it's entertaining, but do not expect the same magic we got from Napolean. Not to detract anything from Black, who is in top form, but the film would have done better without him. He's funny, he's lovable, and he tells a nun she might look like a floozie. What's not to love? There just isn't the depth to the character needed to make his performance anything other than "good". The jokes are all old, the scenes are mostly unbelievable because let's face it... Jack Black as a friar? There is no "suspension of disbelief" here, it just doesn't work. Now, Jack Black as a wrestler? Fantastic.
You will find parts funny and entertaining, but most of the funny stuff was included in the trailer. His song to the nun is wonderful, his facial expressions should be trademarked, but $8 to see this is just too much. Wait for the DVD and go rent it. You may love this movie, I found it forgettable. Cute, but forgettable.
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)
Better than 1 and 2
It's easy to beat 2, so that isn't saying much. However, in my mind it is even better than the first. Neither necessarily has a great storyline, though number 1 had the most likely one. However, where the first one failed, Tokyo Drift delivers.
People don't go see movies like this for substance and content. They go to see cars race. Autophiles and racers go to see the tricked out cars and hear the names of their suppliers being used on the big screen. The first installment in this series used a lot a jargon unknown to non to non-racers, and to those who were in the know, the movie was a joke. Tokyo Drift gets away from all the pretenses and delivers what the truth is: few people use Nitrous Oxide, and racers drive because they love it, money or none, just to see who is the best.
The cars are great. It was wonderful too see the makes and models you are used to seeing out there, instead of all these tricked out high priced rice racers. The best cars to race aren't necessarily the most expensive. The racing was more about skill than power, and that's the truth. First off the line means jack if you don't know your wheels. The racing scenes are top notch. Gone are the shaky camera angles and digitally enhanced shots of cars flying by at 140mph with nitrous in full bore. Instead, we get cool shots using cell phones, and up close angles of vehicles gliding across pavement and narrowly missing the camera. The action shots are wonderful, and many are real shots, not computer digitized as referenced by the end credits begging us not to go out and attempt these stunts that were performed on closed roads by professional drivers. We're not talking your standard danger tag, we're talking full size text on it's own screen. These drifters are for real, and that just enhances the feel for the film.
Finally, and parents will love this, it is relatively clean. I don't think i heard a single f-bomb in the whole movie. I'm not saying that there is no cussing, but that it is so moderate and background oriented, that you can watch the movie and not even remember hearing it. There are about 5 or 6 kissing scenes, and only one contains a semi-main character. The worst content you will see here is skimpy outfits.
This is just a fun, fun movie. It's not going to win any awards, but it has definitely set itself up to top the original in box office gross and will no doubt surpass 2 fast 2 furious. Don't be afraid to take the 13+ kidding to see this, though under 8-10 may be pushing it, unless they really understand cars and racing.
Freddy vs Ghostbusters (2004)
Interesting, though unoriginal concept
I gave a 6 because while the production values and acting were terrible, they did a heck of a job on the special effects.
The lighting was terrible. It's obvious the filmmakers know absolutely nothing about light sources. They didn't even use a good filter for the final piece. It looks more like a badly shot soap opera.
The dialogue was horrible. It's almost as if they didn't even try to do much other than steal thunder from the movies the film is based on. In the end it was all I could do to keep from hitting fast forward.
They get marks for scenes and good cuts. This is a difficult thing to do in film-making. Bad cuts confuse the audience as to why we are where we are. They did a god job in the editing phase of piecing the movie together.
The sounds and effects were an excellent blend of their own scenes, and then mixing in the respective soundtracks from the other movies. It's a nice touch adding in a remade, more punkish version of the Ghostbuster's Theme song.
The biggest plus in this is Freddy. They did an excellent job in putting Freddy back to what we remember. Green and Red striped sweater, knives for fingers on his right hand, and that fedora. Great job, gentlemen. Your Freddy was convincing, and had a great voice for the role.
Overall this is a waste of 30 minutes. Watch the opening. It's hard, because of the terrible "dream" lighting, but it is a good opening. Watch the title sequence. Again, great job. I'm watching a parody, show me what is familiar before you make your jokes. Next see the first ghost catching scene. For amateurs, this was pretty good. Then watch the entire closing sequence as they go after Freddy. The dialogue still sucks, but hearing Freddy recite the nursery rhyme was very well played. In all it will take you about 10-15 minutes to see the highlights. When you're done, zip back tot heir website and download another flick. Independent artists like this need to be supported. That's how they become people like Kevin Smith...
Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)
Fun with Jim and Tea'
This is a great "fluff flick". So outrageously unbelievable that you cease any and all thoughts of realism. Too many of us can identify with Carey's character, Dick Harper, who is faced with the sudden demise of his company and must find work elsewhere. The ensuing story is one that might not make you laugh. Indeed, if you have never actually experienced what Dick goes through as a husband, or what Jane goes through as a wife for that matter, you might not catch all the inside jokes that really set up some of the laugh out loud moments. But, I digress and move on to the review.
I gave it 9 out of 10, and here is the scoring breakdown.
Minus 2: After Dick loses his job they spend a little too much time on the downward spiral. It does contain some gold nuggets of humor but let's not kid each other. We're here to see Dick and Jane turn to a life of crime and the hilarity that follows the obvious amateurs. I would have liked to have seen more capers. At a 90min runtime I think there was definite room for growth.
Minus 1: No real believability here. I always mark off for this when the story is so outrageous that it defies even the suspension of disbelief. It's funny, but it just doesn't have enough seriousness to it make you fall in love with the characters or boo the villain. I like audience participation, but the only thing you participate in this is laughing at Jim Carey.
Minus 1: As previously mentioned, the running time is only 90 minutes, which means that there are many things left untouched, which means lots of questions are left unanswered. We call these "plot holes" and there are far too many to not count off for them.
Plus 1: Cameron Diaz? Are you serious? Considerate it our Christmas miracle that Diaz backed out and opened the door for Leoni, who is the far superior actress. The overrated Diaz would definitely have tried to steal some scenes, and Leoni does an excellent job of just being her character and not trying to do too much. That's not her (Leoni) style, and Diaz is just horrible at it.
Plus 1: The pop culture involved here is well placed and really adds to the feel of the time frame of the movie. It "feels" like today's market conditions. You almost think the director and actors are reading your mind as to what innuendo should go here, and what inside joke should go there.
Plus 1: The movie, as a whole, is one of Carey's better films. Many long-time Carey fans will disagree, but there has long been an outcry for him to take his comic genius and repackage it in a not so "in your face" manner. Ther is a time and place for Carey's trademark brand of humor, and he gets kudos here for realizing when to use it in this film and when to settle down. This is not an Ace Ventura-like film and should win him some fans to replace the posers who decide to call him a sellout because he is growing as an actor instead continuing to be completely over the top.
Bonus (no point awarded): There are only two things I can remember so far as product placement goes, and that is Mercedes and BMW. That means they did a good job of being subtle, which is something Hollywood is not exactly known for. Feel free to open your eyes during this movie without being bombarded by ad after ad after ad...
Daredevil (2003)
Believable? Not even for a comic book...
The glaring weakness in this movie is the unexplained acrobatic sequences that have more of a "crouching tiger, hidden dragon" feel than a blind man with radar. it explains very well how DD becomes this hero, of sorts anyway, but it fails to show any real training that would allow him the superhuman feats of strength, acrobatics, and healing power. The acting is marginal at best, and the main reason for seeing this film if you are a lady is Afflec, and if you're a guy it's Garner. I never read the comics for this particular series, so you may tell me to just shove my commentary if you like, but this film is set back in the leaps and bounds made by other 'comic-turned-film' offerings in the past couple of years. Save your money for video when you can get up and use the pause button...
Die Another Day (2002)
Fun, but let's get back to the good stuff...
The new Bond is fun, no doubt. People like the chases, explosions, etc. The problem is that a spy's best weapon is his stealth. This Bond has none. It's nice to fall into a prickly situation, and there were some wonderful ideas in this one that catch you off guard, but you can't just blow things up for 120 minutes. You have to have a plot, and some sort of sub plot. Now, from what I understand, the last time we had an episode with Felix was Licensed to Kill. Felix is one of my favorite 'sort of recurring' roles. Did he die in Licensed to Kill? I didn't see it because Dalton was one of the worst ever and I just could not stomach another flick with him in it. Whoever does the next Bond film needs to watch every one of the old Roger Moore/Sean Connery flicks and come up with a happy medium. Spy Game, an excellent movie, survived without a lot of explosions, so I am sure you can tone down James a bit. Give us a solid villain, and another Bond girl like Miranda Frost. She was such a great addition, but was totally wasted. Expound on a character like that instead that fake Jinx. Terrible, is the only thing I can say about Berry in this movie. Lost and out of place. I do not go see Bond films for who the heroine is going to be, I go to see who the next Bond girl is and what twists the plot takes to eventually put her in bed with him. That is what James Bond is all about... Stealth, brains, and women. Not exactly in that order, though : )