Cosmic_Cre Reviews

The Wedding Date (2005)

Passionless love story that happens way too fast to be believable

[2/10 · 20 April 2009]

My main reasons for not liking this movie other than it's messy and convoluted plot (American women raised in England with English parents but no accents) and the quickie, unrealistic romance, was the sorely lacking background information and character development of the two leads.

I mean, the movie actually starts with Kat(Debra Messing) sending male escort, Nick(Dermot Mulroney) his plane ticket via bike messenger. We don't know anything about Kat as a person. Why would a beautiful looking woman like Kat be desperate enough to hire a $6000 escort just to make her ex-boyfriend jealous? Why not ask a male friend or co-worker and just pay for the plane ticket? If the movie started out this way, at least the audience sees that A)her and the guy have somewhat of a history and a connection and B)we can see inside her head a little. Also, her low self-esteem and neurotic nature was really annoying. Sometimes a neurotic character is really funny and kinda cute, i.e. Diane Keaton, but Kat was just sad and pathetic. Why in God's name would Nick all of a sudden find her attractive when she was barely tolerable on a social level? And about Nick... we should have seen some sort of back story as to why he wants to leave the escort business. This would have given his character a little more depth and humanized him. The whole time, I really couldn't look past the fact that he was just an escort and 95% of he and Kat's time together was almost exclusively about their business arrangement.

I think the key to a great romantic movie is not just the characters falling for each other, but we as the audience have to fall in love with them too. I barely knew these two, so why would I automatically believe in their "love at first sight" moment? By the end of the movie, I couldn't have cared less and that's really bad movie making.

Lady in the Water (2006)

An interesting premise that became a God awful movie.

[2/10 · 20 April 2009]

How people can think this unforgivable mess of a movie is the be all and end all of cinematic excellence is beyond me. I won't stoop so low as to insult anyone for liking it. I may question their taste in movies though.

Just so my review doesn't get lumped into a lot of the reviews on here, let me go on record by saying that...

A)I'm not an M. Night Shamalayan hater. B)I wasn't expecting "the twist". C)The plot didn't "go over my head". D)I wasn't expecting a horror film. E)I don't had ADD. F)I don't hate nor fear originality. G)I didn't let the critics sway my decision. H)Fill in any other silly conspiracy theory for anyone not liking it here.

Now, with that said, these were my problems with the movie and I'm going to explain this as calmly and respectfully as I possibly can...

For a movie that is suppose to be a fantasy film, it was incredibly bland and not very fantastic at all. A film like this is suppose to give the viewer a sense of wonder, amazement and the anticipation of what's going to happen next. All this did was literally bore me to sleep and that has never happen to me before.

A naked woman swimming in a pool at an apartment complex says her name is Story and she's a "narf" from The Blue World here to inspire a writer to write the book that will inspire a future president that will basically bring about world peace. Oh and there's a huge grass-wolf creature called a "scrunt" after her and a giant eagle she has to catch to get back to her world after she's done. Ummm... okay, that's all fine and good, but what truly bothers me is how the residences just automatically go along with this requiring no proof whatsoever.

No one thinks she's possibly insane, on drugs or even does something as logical as calling the police. They just agree to help her, no questions asked. I know there has to be some suspension of disbelief here, but not so much that reason is completely abandoned. There has to be some kind of grounding in reality to make the fantasy aspects stand out. This is where the film loses me and fails to get me back because there's no recognizable human behavior to be found here.

The pretentiousness and overall silliness is just too much to overlook and forgive. The whole film felt completely improvised, like M. Night pulled a bunch of stray ideas out of a hat, then strung them together without regard for logic, even internal logic. It had one bizarre, outlandish moment after another. As if the self-indulgent casting of himself as the gifted author who will inspire a future president wasn't bad enough, consider the scenes in which Story sits in a shower while all the other tenants stare at her as they try to find hidden messages in a crossword puzzle, where the little boy gets clues for helping her somehow by reading the sides of cereal boxes and of course, the blatantly obvious stab at his critics by turning one of them into scrunt chow. All of this is just beneath the dignity of a respectable filmmaker. With all that going on, how exactly are we suppose to take this movie as seriously as it takes itself?

With that said, the movie wasn't a total disaster. I can admit that, yes, the premise was original, the score and the cinematography were beautiful and the actors, despite the horrendous dialog they were stuck with, gave it their all, but that in and of itself wasn't enough to consider this mess remotely "inspirational", "brilliant", or "life-altering". Originality without any sense of real direction is just a huge waste of time, energy, talent and celluloid for all involved.

Oh Yeah! Cartoons (1998–2002)

A great forum for up and coming cartoons so... GET A GRIP!!

[6 April 2005]

I've always enjoyed this show and it shouldn't be compared to the "What a Cartoon" show, especially since they do the exact same thing. They give animators a chance to showcase their ideas for new cartoon shows and if successful, they get turned into a permanent series, i.e. "The Fairly Oddparents"(my absolute favorite) and "Chalk Zone". I know that some of the ideas are not very good, but some of them are actually really funny. It's stupid to look at the show as a whole, especially since it wasn't made to be, so for all those who are so irate about this show, please get a grip! It's great for what it is and that's to be a platform for up and coming writers and animators to share their ideas with an audience.

I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978)

A Definite Must See For Any Beatles Fan!{Spoilers!!}

[8/10 · 25 March 2004]

I have always been a massive Beatles fan for as long as I could remember, but I have to admit that after seeing this film, my love for them went to an even higher level.

Let me explain... now, I'm what you would call a late generation fan. I wasn't even THOUGHT of in 1964 because at the time, my mom was only 10 and my father was 12. So, with that said, I don't know anything personally about Beatlemania or what this performance meant to the nation at that time or what it was like just being a teenager during this time. That is, until I watched this movie. Watching this film and the antics of these characters is possibly the closest I will ever come to experiencing first hand what Beatlemania was like. It was like I was an unofficial member of this group of kids as they are trying desperately to get tickets to see the Beatles live on the Ed Sullivan show, all this starting by them trying to sneak into the Beatles' hotel.

I loved that Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale made a wonderful dynamic by NOT making all the characters involved Beatles fans which made the film that much more believable. Let's face it... as popular as the band was then(and now), they did have a great number of detractors and they were brilliantly represented in this movie by Susan Kendall Newman as politically driven, Janis who feels the Beatles are nothing but meaningless drivel and Bobby Di Cicco as macho greaser, Tony who thinks they just suck, period. Their presence was a great contrast to the rest of the cast, especially Wendie Jo Sperber as the sweet, cherubic Rosie, the most fanatical of the bunch that at one point of the film, she literally throws herself from a moving car just so she can get to a phone booth to win Beatles tickets on a radio call-in contest. The rest of the cast is rounded out by Nancy Allen as Pam, a bride-to-be roped into this adventure against her will and ends up having fortunate luck of accidentally ending up in the Beatles' hotel suite; Theresa Saldana as Grace, the career minded, future reporter who wants exclusive pictures of the band and will do anything(literally) to get them; Marc McClure as Larry, who has a crush on Grace and is willing to do anything to help her achieve her goal and Eddie Deezen as Richard who is Rosie's equally fanatical partner in crime as they reek havoc throughout the hotel.

Another thing I thought was a great direction taken by Zemeckis and Gale was to use Beatle sound-a-likes, not look-a-likes and to have the guys' faces hidden. This decision was terrific for this reason: the casting director could have auditioned actors until the cows came home and NONE of them would have been good enough to play the Fab Four. None. Thank goodness Robert and Bob realized that the power just in the Beatles' voices and music was enough not only to be the soundtrack of the film, but allowed we the audience to imagine the real Beatles instead of insulting us by making us accept four actors that would have most definitely paled in comparison to the real thing. I feel that even attempting this would have seriously cheapened the film and wouldn't have given it the impact that it has. It almost has the feel of it being a sort of time capsule and most certainly shows us the difference between hearing about what happened from someone else and being there. The film made me feel like the latter, like I was actually there.

So, long story short, the movie is a must-see for any Beatles fan. It'll make you relive the energy and excitement of Beatlemania or if you're like me, who was not around during this time, will show you first hand exactly what it was like.

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)

Did You BW2 Supporters See The Same Movie I Did?!

[2/10 · 14 October 2001]

If so, I have just one question...

What mind-altering drug were you all under the influence of when you were watching this cinematic piece of trash? Okay, I admit that was a cheap shot, but you deserved it. Now, if you liked this movie(though I can't imagine why you would), that's one thing, but deducing that those of us who didn't care for it are just unintelligent and there's no way possible that such a "thought provoking" and "imaginative" film wouldn't be able to register in our feeble little brains... well, that is the straw that broke the camel's back! Where do you get off?!

I read so many comments saying, "Don't compare this to the first Blair Witch!" Why not?! In case you haven't noticed, if it wasn't for the first Blair Witch, there would BE no BW2. There is going to be some kind of comparison to the first one whether it's intentional or not, so just get over it.

As for my review of the 'film', first of all, I DID see what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish and I thought it was a very bold attempt on their part, BUT we have to face facts here. The execution of it was absolutely HORRIBLE and ended up with very disasterous results! A film with no visible plot, loose ends that never got tied up(could someone please tell me the significance of showing Jeff in the mental hospital if it didn't help to push the plot along), no concept of foreshadowing, unnecessary use of gore and nudity, characters I couldn't sympathize with in the least, and the worst acting I've ever seen! The scenes that needed to be shorter, dragged on for miles and the scenes that needed more meat on their bones, ended abruptly before we could get any useful information from them. The movie left me with so many unanswered questions it's not even funny!

I'm all for innovative filmmaking, but for me to call BW2 that, it would have to had accomplished what it originally set out to do and unfortunately, it didn't.