Zoopansick Reviews

Ratatouille (2007)

Vastly overrated: Poor characterization, unfunny, and boring

[4/10 · 10 March 2008]

Spoilers...

First it isn't funny, for adults or kids. I especially think kids would be bored watching this movie, it has a mundane setting and characters. I think it tries too hard to try and put adult humor in the film (and not succeeding) at the expense of leaving out stuff for kids. I would have been more forgiving if it was goofier and aimed at a younger audience, but as it stands. I can't help thinking how bored I was now as an adult watching it and how much more I would have been bored if I was watching it 15-20 years ago.

The characters in the movie lack distinct personalities, especially the supporting cast. There is a scene in the movie where Collete is showing Linguini around the kitchen and tells him a little about all the other cooks. Beyond the 1 or 2 line oddly dark description of these characters there is nothing in the rest of the movie that makes them distinct. They are just the guys in the background and effectively are scenery instead of amusing or funny little characters. Much the same can be said about the rats who are just cartoon clichés who have very little to do.

The aforementioned Collete is a totally unbelievable character who is just there to be the love interest. When she first converses with Linguini she kind of blows her lid and almost stabs him with butcher knives while delivering some out of place speech about how she is the only woman in the kitchen. Then like a day or 2 later Linguini out of no where confesses his love to her and she kisses him right back. How did that happen? Is there any build up or reason for either character to love the other. I'm especially mystified as to why Collete's character, given her personality would be attracted to the dim witted Linguini. If this weren't an animated movie this particular relationship would be critically torn to shreds. But because it's animated, check that computer animated it isn't given a second thought. This is the definition of HORRIBLE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. This is poor writing that operates only on the clichéd level that states there needs to be a smart independent female love interest for the generic often dumb male lead.

However I wouldn't say this is the worst bit of characterization in the film. That award falls to Gousteau. The deceased yet omnipresent chef whose message of "Everyone can cook" not only inspires Patton Oswalts' rat character but also provides "the meaning" or message of the film. Too bad that Gousteau's death totally undermines the entire point of the movie(!!!) Gousteau is established early in the movie as a jovial chef who loved to cook and firmly believed that "everyone can cook" and to be great you have to take chances and be creative. So one day the obligatory villain food critic comes to his restaurant with the intention of writing a bad review (since it is clear he is a snob and hates the notion that "anyone can do it"). Gousteau then DIES because the review was so bad and his restaurant goes from a 5 star to a 4 star. WHAT!?! That is totally contrary to the message of the film...which is provided by GOUSTEAU HIMSELF! Gousteau should be the LAST character in the movie to be negatively effected by a bad review. He shouldn't care if his restaurant is only 4 stars; throughout the entire film his philosophy of cooking and good natured message of "anyone can do it" is hammered home. On an interpritive level his death completely undermines the message of the film. His death suggests that it actually does matter what other people think of you and not everyone can cook. Furthermore it suggests that Gousteau himself doesn't even believe that and his motivations aren't just cooking because he loves it. Of course over the rest of the movie the complete opposite is said and shown through the development of the plot.

The result is that Gousteau's death is merely a plot contrivance which has 2 purposes. First (of course) to set up the plot with Linguini going to the restaurant and second to introduce the critic as a villain. Oh, but then at the end the critic is so moved by the food that he gives the restaurant a great review. Once again a character is betrayed by Gousteau's death at the beginning of the film. Early in the movie it was established that the critic was determined to give the restaurant a bad review based upon the sole reason that he hated what Gousteau was preaching. Now all of the sudden he is affected by the actual quality of the food and is going to give the restaurant a good review? I guess no one has ever made great food that reminded him of his childhood before if that was all it took to make his character to an abrupt 180. Whatever. I can't say I didn't see that one coming, and like I said before it isn't the worst butchering of a character in this movie.

So basically Ratatouille is a bunch of unfunny, bland, lethally hypocritical characters cooking and talking about cooking in a restaurant in France. Oh and it's boring. But because it's computer animated it gets not only a pass but is lauded for being great. IF any of these elements were in a live action movie they would be criticized. The plot which betrays severely several of the characters (Collete romance, the villainous critic's motives, and of course Gousteau dying), the predictable outcome in all regards, the lack of jokes for kids or adults are all forgiven/forgotten. If you do decide to watch it try to look at it with a critical eye and try to look beyond the impressive computer animation.

My Neighbor Totoro (1988)

I dare your five-year old not to be bored

[3/10 · 21 May 2006]

This is supposedly one of the "Great Movies" according to Roger Ebert...My tone in the previous sentence should suffice for my review, but I feel like more needs to be said. My Neighbor Totoro isn't offensive, obnoxious, disturbing, annoying, or irritating in any way. And as Ebert continually points out in his review, it doesn't fall in line with a lot of clichés that are prevalent in American cartoons in terms of characterization or plot-line. This may all be true; but it doesn't make up for it's fatal flaw...it's boring. It's really really, boring. There is hardly any plot other then these 2 girls hanging around their house out in the country side. The title character makes his first appearance 30 minutes in, and only a couple of times after that. He doesn't do much either. In his debut scene he sleeps and yawns...how appropriate. Later he does some other stuff but it's not too exciting and perhaps only mildly so compared to the doldrum of the girls lives. I wasn't "enchanted", the world didn't seem that magical to me, and with the lack of any compelling plot I couldn't help but once again become baffled by the godly praise for this movie. The animation is OK but don't see why Miyazaki's work is considered to be THAT much better then everyone else's. Perhaps you have to be an anime aficionado to understand why. Perhaps you have to be an anime aficionado to love this movie. I can think of no other reason why. Granted, I'm 23 and cartoons don't hold the same appeal as they did 15 years ago. But that being said, I can't see myself even sitting through this 15 years ago. And as an adult, it doesn't seem to hold much value. There is no plot, the writing is forgettable, and I don't find it's artistic value to be any higher then that of any other anime. Bottom line, if you are an anime fan, you aren't even reading this because you own My Neighboro Totoro on DVD and are probably waiting for the special edition. However, if you are checking up on one of the "Great Movies" or if you a parent and want to show your kid something, I can't recommend it to you on either level.

Sullivan's Travels (1941)

Sullivan's Travels is funny, that's a laugh!

[3/10 · 28 April 2006]

If the message of this film can truly be summed up when McCrea's character says "There's a lot to be said for making people laugh." Then I can't say much for 'Sullivan's Travels'. I can see why someone might think this is a great movie. It attempts to mix comedy with social commentary. While attempting to make a comedy with some sense of purpose or message is a noble and bolder undertaking then most comedies (especially screwball comedies of the 30s/40s) were willing to attempt. That doesn't mean it automatically gets an 'A', on effort alone. The fact is that this "comedy" doesn't even attempt to be a comedy for the last half of the movie and instead veers sharply into melodramatic commentary on the inequities of depression age America, and the misguided way in which the upper-class views the lower. Oh and it also points out how ultimately Hollywood is a friend to the every man and provides a great social service, kind of like Clooney's Oscar speech. Anyway the point is that all of the comedy in this movie is confined to the first half and the second is an overwrought drama, which beats its message home. If this was truly a great comedy it would have integrated the two halves instead of lumping them one on after the other. Making a highly comedic satire that seamlessly blends comedy and drama while maintaining an interesting plot and effectively conveying the message can be done. 'Dr. Strangelove', or perhaps more to the point 'Network' and 'The Player' accomplish this task much more successfully then 'Sullivan's Travels' does.

In any event I fail to see how AFI could rank this has the 39th funniest movie of all time. Was it the part where Veronica Lake pushes McCrea into the pool, and then she falls in, and the butler walks up and...well you know the rest. That bit has been done before… but only like a million times before, and sometimes it's a lake or pond instead of a swimming pool, and I've seen it done with a puddle of mud and a bath tub too, but I digress. Or okay, how about the part where McCrea gets in the car with the kid and it goes tearing down the street out of control with the van chasing after them. Hmmm, well OK how about the "witty dialogue", which for the period didn't come nearly as fast or furious as it does in other pictures. Now granted you may find the dialogue funny, and I can't say that you don't; maybe you honestly do. Maybe you were put in a maniacal uncontrollable fit of laughter, like some of those prisoners were watching Pluto chase his tale around; who knows? But what you can't tell me is that there are any jokes in the last 30 minutes of the film. And it is impossible for me to understand how a movie that half consists of routine slapstick in its first act, and doesn't even attempt comedy in its final act is the 39th funniest movie of all time. Oh wait, I know, it's a freaking "classic" first off, and not only that but one that champions the film industry itself. Give me a break. Oh by the way, the little joke I made in the first two lines of this review, is funnier then anything in 'Sullivan's Travels'. So at least if seeing the movie has lead you to read these reviews; you got to see at least one good joke. If you're looking for a classic screwball comedy (And after watching this I wouldn't even classify it as such, but that's what I heard going in.) go rent Arsenic and Old Lace or Bringing up Baby or something that isn't Sullivan's Travels.

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)

Ho-Ho Ho-rrible

[2/10 · 9 December 2005]

This movie is one of the worst comedies I have seen in a long time, oh and yes I did catch Comedy Central's airing of "Armed and Dangerous" last month. The movie suffers from not having much of a plot and a non-existent screenplay. Instead it goes along from unfunny slapstick gag to unfunny slapstick gag. I usually like Jamie Lee Curtis, but she is so spastic and over the top that I was embarrassed to watch. There are no believable characters in the movie, or really anyone to root for. I didn't like either of the two leads, nor was I on the side of the obsessed neighbors. Dan Akryod was in this movie, but you wouldn't know it, his character might as well have been played by some other actor because none of his comedic talents were used (though it is arguable whether he's had any left since the 80s). The pace of the movie is fairly uneven, with slap stick bit following slap stick bit until the daughter finally comes home. You would think the movie would end there, but instead it drags on for another twenty minutes, incorporating a supposedly "touching moment" which feels way out of place in this movie and an unfunny side plot with a strange old man. Oh yeah and there is a burglar who gets arrested, and then released so he can come into the party...where he tries to steal some stuff. Yeah, I thought something was missing, good thing they put that in right at the end. Bottom line is this movie sucks, there is a lot of yelling and people falling down and very little dialog or laughs. But guess what, there are a ton of movies about Christmas, and pretty much all of them are better then this. Go rent National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, or Scrooged, or A Christmas Story, or The Santa Clause, or Muppet's Christmas, or Miracle on 34th Street, or It's A Wonderful Life, or anything else you can think of. Or better yet go to the store by like a bottle of Stoli and then go out in the back yard with like 2 of your friends and a camcorder and try to make a movie about Christmas, I bet it will be a lot more fun then sitting through Christmas with the Kranks.

Walk the Line (2005)

He sounds like Johhny Cash...so what.

[5/10 · 20 November 2005]

OK let me start this review off saying that the performances by the two leads were excellent, and they got the sound of the music down, which was wasn't easy to do considering they did all of their own singing. However, once I got over that fact (and it didn't take me that long since there is lots of singing in the movie) I wasn't too impressed. The plot in my opinion is pretty boring, especially considering the run time of nearly 2 and a half hours. It basically follows the standard rock star story of break out success followed by dysfunction at home, womanizing, and of course booze and drugs. How will this one end? Will Cash sober up and get the girl just in time for the happy Hollywood ending? I'm not gonna say, you'll just have to see it for yourself. *wink* Whether this movie portrays the life and times of Johnny Cash accurately I can't say, since I'm not really a fan of his. And in fact I will probably never be able to say, because "Walk the Line" doesn't make me interested enough to find out. I'd recommend this movie for fans of Johhny Cash (obviously) and for people interested in that genre of music in general. "Walk the Line" is full of singing and I imagine if this style of music was my cup of tea I'd be giving this movie a better rating but as stands a 5-6 is the best I can do. What more can I say, I realize the actors are delivering on their end, but the story and really the title character himself give me little reason to care. All and all another critically overrated movie with a recycled plot and a tedious run time.

Kwaidan (1964)

Disappointing

[5/10 · 20 August 2005]

This was kind of a letdown for me after hearing a lot of good things about the movie. I was really impressed by the look of the movie and am interested in the subject matter, but it really left me wanting more. The first and last stories were in my opinion the worst. They were very simple and were not as visually interesting as the other two. "The Black Hair" and "In A Tea Cup" were fairly straightforward stories of ghostly revenge and in my opinion the movie would have been better served to drop them and elaborate on the middle two. The second story (The Lady in the Snow) frustrated me with its ending. The ending bugged me because the man's wife (the lady in the snow) gets all upset and leaves the man threatening to take revenge on him if he does anything to harm their children. I found personally, that him telling his wife the story was much less of a crime then her leaving her own children and then taking the morally superior air that he better be good to them. I really didn't understand her character at all. First she is like some sort of evil ghost then she turns into the perfect wife then all of the sudden she just leaves. What was her motivation for marrying him in the first place? And what was the big deal about him telling the story, especially since it was to her? "He broke his promise"...well so what, why does that matter? She did a lot worse by leaving her happy life and abandoning her children. Very weak. The other story Hoichii the Earless is the best, but maybe only by comparison. One final note about all the stories, is that none of them are scary, I would suspect even audiences in the mid 60s could sit through this no problem. Overall it is worth seeing if you are interested in the subject matter, or want to see something fairly unique. However be warned, it is kind of slow, and is not scary (as it is labeled as horror on this site). I guess I'm glad I saw it once, but I don't think I'll ever have reason to go back to it again.

Logan's Run (1976)

Run from Logan's Run

[3/10 · 26 July 2005]

Oh man does this suck! I can't believe that this movie came out a year before Star Wars. It's inferior in so many ways it would be pointless to list them all. Except I will say that the special effects are atrocious. I won't bother going into all of the gory details but I would like to point out two scenes that deserve special attention. The first is the part with the robot in the ice cave. How there is a frozen cave with ice sculptured animals on top of the underground city outside of a futuristic D.C., I don't know. What I do know is that it and the robot who lives there make for one of the dumbest nonsensical scenes in the history of Sci-Fi. Why it was even in there, besides providing an opportunity for the chick to get naked, I don't know. I dare anyone not to laugh at the robot when they see it; I wonder how many takes it took the actors to get through it themselves. The other scene that I especially disliked was the part with the old man. As if the movie wasn't boring enough the makers of this film decided to have a scene where two people ask an old man a bunch of questions he doesn't know the answer to. He mumbles, talks about his cats, and then says I don't know. Wow what a great character! It's just stupid, they could have written in any character but they decided to put in a boring old man. It's movies like this that make people hate sci-fi. Thank god Star Wars came along the following year and revolutionized action/sci-fi movies. I'd hate to be living in a future with Logan's Run as the model for science fiction movies, then I don't think I'D want to live past 30.

Fantastic Four (I) (2005)

I give it a Fantastic 4...out of 10

[3/10 · 10 July 2005]

What a waste of 10 bucks. I didn't expect much from this movie and it did not disappoint. I was at least hoping for some cool fight scenes with all the powers if nothing else. Well guess what there wasn't really any fighting, except for the 5-10 minute thing at the end, which was fairly anti-climactic (in my opinion). In an age where it seems almost every other movie is based on a comic book this one is pretty weak. Especially compared to the vastly superior Batman Begins that came out this summer. In that movie there was an actual plot and the characters were much more defined. Here the characters were all 2D and there wasn't really a plot at all. I didn't buy 1)How they all became celebrity heroes after saving a few guys from a problem which was largely the Thing's doing. What was he doing on the bridge anyway? The writing wasn't really that good and while this movie wasn't painful to sit through, and was fairly short, it managed to be even more transparent then Jessica Alba. I guess the Special Effects were OK, but now adays when ever movie has special effects they don't seem as special as they did, say a decade ago when T2 and Jurrassic Park came out. If you want to see a comic book movie see Batman or rent one of the Spiderman or X-Men movies. If you want to see a boring pointless movie with almost no action go see Fantastic Four.

The Bride with White Hair II (1993)

Disappointing

[4/10 · 14 April 2005]

This was a real let down for me. The original Bride with White Hair is a great kung fu fantasy film but this one was pretty weak. I didn't care at all for the new characters who unfortunately dominated the screen time and the story wasn't well developed. While the first film was tragic and involving this one was tedious (as I merely counted the time to the end when the ill-fated lovers would actually meet). The action was poor in this one as well. The fights were not choreographed very well and there really wasn't much kung-fu at all. Just a few weak sword fights between the highly dis-likable Lui and one of Lin's henchwomen. Lin herself mainly uses a sort of telekinesis to throw people into walls and sometimes her hair, a far cry from the impressive showing with the whip and kung-fu she displayed in the previous film. I still gave this movie a 4 because at least it was fast pace and I did want to see what was going to happen at the end, though I (as most anyone who watched the first one) predicted it would go down the way it did and after seeing it I found it anti-climactic and wished they had either made a proper sequel or just left the story alone. I really recommend the first one but as for the sequel only fans of the genre and those who really want to see Lin as the bride one more time need apply.

The Sword of Doom (1966)

I felt like I should have liked it more

[5/10 · 6 April 2005]

This is one of those movies that I felt I didn't enjoy as much as I should have, especially since I like Samurai movies. The real problem for me, and possibly others, wasn't in the acting or action (even though there isn't as much as some people may have you believe) but in the story and specifically the many unresolved plot points. I have read that this was supposed to be the first part of a series but a sequel never got made. I wish the filmmakers would have either condensed the story to fight one film or made a sequel. As it stands now the movie is unfufilling. The subplot of the girl (Omatsu I think) who lost her grandfather was given a lot of attention and looked finally to be tying into the main story at the end. But since it ended without any resolution it becomes increasingly frustrating that her subplot wasted so much screen time so as the main story couldn't finish. Even more frustrating is the fact that there was never a showdown between Utsuki and Ryunosuke. Some movies don't have resolutions I understand that, but the fact that the buildup to the fight took center stage here hurts the ending (in my opinion). Furthermore the knowledge that there was a planned sequel leads me to believe that Ryunosuke didn't die which dilutes the impact of the maddening climax. This maybe the rare case of a movie that is actually hurt by not having a sequel! Go figure that we live in a world where crap like Deuce Bigalow gets a sequel and an interesting stories like The Sword of Doom don't fully get to tell theirs. This criticism aside, the movie was really well made. The cinematography was particularly excellent and the fight at the end especially was well shot. It's definitely worth seeing if you are a fan of the genre, otherwise I can't say I'd recommend it.

You Got Served (2004)

It shouldn't be rated this low

[3/10 · 25 March 2005]

OK before I start to "defend" this movie, let me first state that I didn't like it and gave it a 3. However, I think it's truly ridiculous for people to say this is the worst movie ever. It isn't even close. Seriously try to sit through Manos sans MST3K or any of those, there is no way you will say this is worse. This movie has much more polish then those and at least as talented dancers, whereas those movies have no one remotely talented at anything in them. Furthermore this movie is easily forgettable as a product of current MTV culture. It just washes over me and leaves no impression, I didn't care about the movie or anyone in it, but it didn't leave me with a lasting replusion. It's not the kind of movie like Beyond the Valley of the Dolls that makes me dread seeing it again or something like Troll 2 that is a disaster on all levels. Rather this movie is just one of those things, like "From Justin to Kelly" that comes along and people decide to pile on and bash (because it is semi-popular). Rating this movie as #11 worst of all time is a disservice to truly god-awful movies like Leonard Part 6 or Theodore Rex.

Hard Boiled Killers (1980)

Not HardBoiled

[2/10 · 1 February 2005]

People are reviewing this movie as if it was the John Woo masterpiece "Hardboiled". It is NOT. The cover art is misleading and so is the back. This movie is as some have pointed out a boring no action light hearted 80s HK cop film. There is almost no action and I don't think there are 2 guns in the movie let alone in his hands at one time. The movie HardBoiled that most people are referring to with the hospital gun battle, etc. is awesome. This movie is far from it and video stores should be ashamed as displaying this movie for anything other then it is. My friend rented it thinking it would be hardboiled, it of course wasn't, even though the clerk at the store assured him it was and said he had rented it before. IGNORE the high rating on this site ppl are reviewing the wrong movie. This one sucks bad, avoid at all costs.

The Sentinel (1977)

Very Uneven

[3/10 · 22 September 2004]

**SOME MINOR SPOILERS BELOW** I don't think the Sentinel is a very good movie, which is too bad because he had a great cast and is a film in a genre I'm interested in (religious thriller). However, there are just too many characters for its own good and the movie shifts its focus too many times. For example the movie starts out (and should stay firmly focused, IMHO) following Miss Parker. It has her buying the apartment with weird tenants and even a bizarre flashback of her father (which really goes nowhere and seems to be there for purely shock value). At about 1/3 of the way in "scary" stuff starts happening, but that just consists of someone moving around in the apartment above her. So a private investigator is hired by her boyfriend to look into things. He ends up dead and the police come in to investigate. The officers who are played by Eli Wallach and Christopher Walken suspect foulplay. However, though the story follows them for awhile they simply fade out and are not seen from again (which begs the question, why even put these 2 characters in the movie?) The movie then follows the boyfriend as he investigates the history of the priest character and finally some of the mystery gets unravelled. Ultimately everything winds up at the building, but it is never adequately explained "why" Miss Parker is chosen instead of just some other random person, from the best I could tell it doesn't matter. The climax itself is more grotesque then scary and there really aren't that many scary moments at all in the entire film. The Sentinel could have been better if it did away with the subplots with the cop and maybe toned down the role of the boyfriend and just focused on the lead. It is afterall only an hour and a half, and when you think about it there really wasn't that many scenes of scary stuff at the building, some weird stuff, yes, but not scary. If you are interested in religious thrillers see Rosemary's Baby, The Omen, or the Exorcist they are all better movies and contain a much more interesting story.

Zoopansick

Batman Returns (1992)

Ehhh it was OK

[5/10 · 16 September 2004]

I find it hilarious that some people call this (and I'm not joking here) "a 10" and "the best movie ever made". Please. Now while that may not be the majority of people, it still seems pretty silly to me how one could think that. I guess if you really like Tim Burton you might say something like that, but he has made better movies. Anyway I digress.

I saw this on TV today for the first time in about 10 years and remembered how disappointed I was when it came out. I'll grant Burton an eye for the visuals, and would agree that his Batman movies have the best looking Gotham City and have the best Batman (Keaton). However, in this second installment things went a downhill for me. First of all Batman himself is given a back seat and instead we are forced to deal with Devito's Penguin. Once again the most gullible citizens ever are lead to believe that this clearly insane or at least odd and disturbing character would make a good mayor, kind of like they were tricked into believe The Joker was an "okay guy" in the first one. Also the needlessly dark touchs like the Penguins plan to kill all the first born sons of Gotham don't work for me. Also some of the stuff comes off as just tacky like the little penguins with rockets attached to their backs or the henchmen dressed up as clowns (didn't we already have a clown in the first one?). The ending is pretty anti-climactic as well and overall it isn't all that entertaining. I think that I actually got more enjoyment out of Batman Forever then I did out of this one (though I think this movie is technically better made).

In conclusion this movie isn't the worst movie ever, and has some good moments and an excellent visual style that really resonates the world of Batman. However, some stupid plot points and needlessly dark/bizarre elements keep me from really liking it. If you are a fan of Tim Burton's work you will probably find something you like here. Even a Batman fan can find some good stuff as well. But just because there were worse Batman (and comic book movies in general) made after this doesn't necessarily make this a good let alone great movie. If you really like Batman read the comics books.

Zoopansick

Nashville (1975)

Overlong with bad music

[5/10 · 15 September 2004]

I found this movie to be very tedious and at times unbearable because of the music. I think Altman did a good job of evoking a setting and some of the characters stories were interesting, but he could have done all that with a 1/2 of the mind numbing musical performances in the movie. Most of the singers aren't that good at all, and perhaps the best is the song "it don't worry me" which is performed at the very very end of the movie. The lack of a plot didn't help matters either, but I was willing to let that slide as a cohesive story was not really what Altman was driving at. However, at about the 1 and a half hour mark I was starting to get impatient and by the 2 hour mark I was hitting fast forward whenever someone was singing. I can understand why Altman is seen as a radical director and how his move to realism was very influential to other directors, but that still doesn't make this a fun movie to watch. If you are a fan of country music you are much more inclined to like this movie (I however am not and would advise anyone looking to see an example of Altman's film-making to look elsewhere). If this movie was shorter and had less music I would have enjoyed it much more then I did. Watch only if you are in the mood for it.

Zoopansick

The Cell (2000)

Well it was weird

[3/10 · 13 September 2004]

This is the type of movie that strikes me as being not very good but because of it's bizarre visuals will get some high praise from people on IMDb. Really there isn't much of a story here. The FBI is looking for a missing woman who was kidnapped by a deranged killer but is forced to "go inside the killer's head" and find out her whereabouts. Once inside his head Lopez basically wanders around the weird visual landscape and asks the various versions of the Killer where the girl is. She finds out that the serial killer was abused as a child (surprise!) and eventually, with the help of Vince Vaughn discovers the location of the girl. There really isn't much dialogue of note here, and the writing plays a back seat to the sets and costumes. In an illogical move Lopez invites the killer into her mind so she can help the "boy" trapped inside. It seems rather unnecessary as 1)nothing is real inside that world as they state several times 2)why not just put the man to death on the outside and cease all his brain activity? after all it would be a lot easier since he is stuck in a coma. 3)who cares?

I didn't really give a rip about any of the characters as they are merely set pieces in this bizarre fantasy. Some people have touted how disturbing some of the images are here, and I guess from a technical perspective it is well done, but really if you find enjoyment in disturbing images then what does that say about yourself? It's not like there is any real insight given about serial killers here by going into his mind. We learn that his father is in a major way to blame for his actions, but guess what, hundreds of studies have already shown that parental abuse can lead to criminal behavior.

In the end I wasn't very entertained with this movie, I didn't think there was much story and none of the characters were particularly interesting as they really were just 2d images in the background. The look of the film was intriguing to me at first, but after awhile it started to wear thin on me as it was all style and little substance. I think this movie would have worked better as a short film and could have done away with the entire kidnapped girl aspect of the movie. If you find disturbing entertaining then by all means rent this movie, but if are looking for something more then surrealist paintings brought to life then look elsewhere.

Zoopansick

The Bank Dick (1940)

A Great Comedy

[7/10 · 20 August 2004]

This is one of the few comedies from back in the day that is still funny today. Sure aspects of the movie are dated, like the way Fields daughter and her boyfriend talk to each other or the scene with the black man, but overall it remains fresh. The Fields character himself holds up well because he is an anti-hero and clearly has no morals. He doesn't like his family, hates kids, is a drunk, he's always trying to do what will get him ahead, and an obnoxious liar. This would create a despicable character if it wasn't for the fact that he is hilarious. The plot for this movie is ridiculous but it really moves along and I don't think it would be as good if it was more plausible. The chase scene at the end is actually more exciting to me then many chase scenes in modern movies, because it looks (and probably was) real dangerous to shoot, and they didn't have all the special effects guys and stuntmen that are all over movies today. Anyway I recently sat down and rented this movie along with another classic comedy "The Lady Eve". I found that movie to be dull and not very funny at all, and proved to me how different comedic tastes were back in the 40s. After that one I put off this movie thinking it would be just as unfunny, but I was wrong, this movie is great and I recommend it highly. My favorite part comes at the beginning when he smacks his kid in the head, then she throws a bottle at him and he walks out the door. You think he is leaving until he starts to come back in holding a huge potted plant which he is about to throw. Unfortunately he is stopped from throwing it by his older daughter and her boyfriend, but it was still hilarious. It was a perfect way to start the movie as it set the tone for what kind of character he was, and after watching the rest of it, you know that if they didnt show up he would have launched that pot at his like 8 year old daughter. Classic.

Zoopansick

Wolfen (1981)

Thriller with no thrills

[3/10 · 19 August 2004]

I would first like to state that this is probably the least populous I have ever seen New York City in a movie, ever and found it completely unbelievable. If New York was populated as it should be I highly doubt that a pack of Wolves err excuse me Wolfen would be able to live in New York. I found this movie to be boring and have limited thrills and a lot of unnecesary scenes. The entire character of the female psychologist was irrelevant to the plot and seemed to be there just so that Finney would have someone to mumble lines to (oh and have sex with, in another totally worthless scene that went no where, but is probably the only sex scene in film to be shown in "wolfen vision"). When the "mystery" if you want to call it that finally gets revealed all we are left with is a very anti-climactic ending and a heavy handed message about learning to share the world with animals. Just because the movie has a "good" message doesn't make the movie good. As a horror movie it's slow with little tension, lots of pointless scenes and dialogue, a totally unlikeable protagonist. I guess after writing this review I'm surprised I gave this movie a "4", I'm thinking I might need to change it to a "3". Go check out American Werewolf in London, or the Howling or even the original Wolfman before watching this. BTW did anyone think the scene with a naked Edward James Olmos acting like a wolf(en) down by the docks was necessary?



Zoopansick

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

It was good for a bad movie.

[4/10 · 16 August 2004]

This is one of those movies that gets worse the more that I think about it, so the trick is not to think about it. I gave it a 5/10 because while it kept me entertained (for the most part) there was some really stupid stuff in it; and I was laughing (along with the audience) at stuff we weren't supposed to be laughing at. I don't think anyone kept a straight face when the lady uses the Aliens head as a shield (!) or the explanation of how the Predators brought civilization to the world. One could go on for days about the inaccuracies and pure ludicrousness of such a premise, but it would be largely a waste of time (in one regard though I think the movie is asking for it since this historical premise is integral to the "plot", well what there is of a plot).

I can't believe how many "10s" this movie got either. People on this site are so easy to please, if they like it, it most likely gets a 10 and if they don't it gets a "1". This movie is nothing special and a far cry from Alien, Aliens, and the first Predator. The original Alien is such an original film and a touchstone for the Sci-Fi genre, in a way its kind of pathetic to see it come to this. On the other hand I liked AVP (as the cool people call it) better then the disappoint Alien3, the totally unnecessary Resurrection, and the largely forgettable Predator 2 (except I remember the Sega game cause it was really really hard). As mindless entertainment its fairly decent and this will be good for drunk college kids to see. With its anemically short run-time and now standard action and CGI it will largely be a forgotten film and to be rented much less frequently then Alien 1 and 2. If you are fans of the series I'd recommend seeing it, but with low expectations. If you think for a second this will be as good as Aliens then you are sorely mistaken.

Zoopansick

L'Atalante (1934)

Steamboat Willy is better

[2/10 · 13 August 2004]

This movie sucks. I have no clue as to why it's cited on all of these top 100 lists and is revered by so many. The story is really simple, the characters are for the most part totally unlikeable (I guess Juliette is OK, and i felt sorry for her), especially the husband who has pretty much given his wife a crappy life on a barge. And abandons her in Paris because she was amused by this street entertainer who was kind of flirting with her. Eventually Jean's oafish first mate goes back to find her (for if it was up to Jean she would just be left there) and brings her back. She stupidly embraces Jean and the movie ends. I didn't buy it. There isn't much notable dialogue or scripting, but if you like accordion music and a horribly obnoxious baboon of a sailor then you are in for one hell of a treat! It made 87 minutes seem like 8700 minutes to tell you the truth. There have been good French movies made, there have been good 1930s movies made, there have been good movies made period, but this isn't one of them. If you watch this movie with it's simple story, annoying characters, loud and intrusive accordion music, and believe for one second that the "romance" between Juliette and Jean is "beatiful" then you my friend are very easy to please. I have no clue as to why this is a classic, I read one comment that compared this movies "greatness" and "influence" to Citizen Kane...give me a break. There are a thousand movies better then this, and in fact if are dying to see a old movie about characters on a ship, go to Disneyland and at one of the buildings on Main Street they show "Steamboat Willie" every day, I guarantee it will be a more rewarding experience. Besides Splash Mountain is off the hook!

Zoopansick

Collateral (2004)

Good, but got a little off track at the end

[7/10 · 12 August 2004]

(spoilers herein) I just saw Collateral tonight and thought it was pretty good. I especially liked Tom Cruise doing what he does best (being cool). I thought the story was pretty interesting, even though I kind of guessed what case the witnesses were from and where the film was headed. There is also some good black humor mixed in with the killings that keep things really entertaining. There were definitely some moments that seemed a "little too convenient" like the people in the "elevator" or the very fact that Jada Pinkett Smith and Tom Cruise use the same cab right after each other. Still those are only minor problems. My biggest problem and the thing that kept me from giving this movie a higher rating (gave it a 7, which translates to like ***/**** on my scale), was in fact the ending. Things just got too outlandish for me here. First of all max crashes the cab doing like 80 and Vincent is virtually unharmed (even without his setabelt on) and is able to get up like 30 seconds after the crash and book it down the street. Then when he gets into the office building where his final target is, he stupidly wastes time turning off the buildings power, which IN FACT gives his victim an unnecessary edge. At this point it became obvious how things were going to turn out and that the movie didn't really have the balls to follow through with what it set up in the first hour and a half. I wish they would have had the guts to keep things going as they did earlier and work within the limits for the characters set up. Before the final shoot out Cruise warns Foxx that "this is what I do for a living" which if it were true the scared cabby would be dead instead of the professional killer who up until that point should excellent marksmenship. What Cruis should have said is "this is what happens at the end of 99% of all movies"...the bad guy dies and the good guy gets the girl. Still as an overall experience I found the movie to be entertaining with strong performances all around and having an engaging story.

Zoopansick

The Lady Eve (1941)

Why is this a classic?

[5/10 · 11 August 2004]

I have heard a lot about this movie from various critics and in books, and after seeing it I'm not too impressed. To me it just seemed like a routine studio romantic comedy from the 30s or 40s. It didn't have a unique storyline or great ending. Even the "famous scene" was just Fonda lying on the floor looking stupid while Stanwyck tricks him into loving her. In fact I can barely remember the context of her speech let alone any funny/memorable lines from it (and i just watched the movie). Now I realize that modern taste in comedy is a lot different from what was considered funny back then; but movies like "Bringing up Baby" most of the Marx Bros. films and Abbott and Costello are all funnier to me then this. Fonda is especially bland and unfunny (oh wait, he's always bland and unfunny) in his role as the overly stupid wealthy bachelor. He trips over stuff but has no funny lines and is vanilla as per usual. Stanwyck is much better, and keeps things lively on her end. Also to the films credit the pace is quick and things move along. The movie wasn't horrible or anything like that, but I don't see why this particular movie became as famous as it did in front of any of the hundreds and hundreds of other studio releases from the same time period. If your video store still caries old vhs tapes why don't you try out this experiment...Rent The Lady Eve, and then rent like 3 other old comedies from the late 30s and early 40s. Then ask yourself, does this movie standout from the others; and if so why? If you answer "yes", come back here and explain it to me, I'd love to know why.



Zoopansick

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)

Not that funny

[5/10 · 7 August 2004]

I think this film is highly overrated on this site. Unlike the Lavendar Hill Mob or even Ladykillers this one isn't very humorous. Alec Guiness is in much less of the movie then I expected (especially since he is like 8 different characters). Several reviews found him to be "hilarious", but he is hardly that. I guess a few of the characters were funny, like the General but are hardly given enough screen time to do anything. There are lots of scenes with the main character courting one of the two ladies with absolutely nothing humorous going on. This isn't an awful film, and I kind of liked the story, but it could have been a lot better. They should have just done away with the pointless and unfunny romance scenes and lengethend the murders and given Guiness more screen time. If you want to see a funny Alec Guiness movie, I recommend the Lavendar Hill Mob.



Zoopansick

King Arthur (2004)

Kind of boring and unrealistic

[4/10 · 16 July 2004]

There are really 2 main problems with the movie; 1 it doesn't live up to the historical accuracy that it claims, and 2 it's kind of boring. Now for the first offence, I think that the historical inaccuracies in this movie are no more egregious then in most films that attempt to depict the past. The problem is that this movie blatantly makes an assertion of validity. In the trailers it says "This is the true story", and then there is that ridiculous little paragraph at the beginning of the movie. Now I majored in history in college and while this period is certainly not my area of expertise, I know that the statement "Historians agree" is an inherent contradiction. Because the movie goes out of it's way to try and tell the audience that this is the truth that is why there are so many people bashing the inaccuracies (and rightly so). Now if the movie made no such claim then I think that all of this talk about were the costumes correct and how Hadrians Wall actually looked would be kind of nitpicky. But as far as I'm concerned this movie got what it asked for. I'll leave the rest of the historical inaccuracy bashing up to my fellow IMDBers (that's what we're called now) save for this little question...How common do you think the name Lancelot was in Sarmatia?

Now the saving grace for a movie that is obviously fabricated and has little basis in actual fact is that it's entertaining. And that the sacrifices for accuracy were made to make an exciting picture. However, that's not the case here. There are roughly 3 fight scenes in the movie. The first one is the equivalent of an action scene from a TV show (which is bad), the second is pretty much people just getting shot with arrows and falling in the water (over and over), and the third is an actual battle scene which is kind of lackluster after seeing battles in movies like Braveheart or Gladiator. The rest of the movie follows a fairly uninteresting story in which Arthur has to go up north to rescue some Roman guy and bring him back. There is a love scene which is neither sexy nor makes much sense between the characters. Then there is rampant use of the word "freedom" and a lot of speeches containing that word. I guess all of those speeches were intended to remind people of the much better movie Braveheart. I could go into the inaccuracies of "knights" (which technically didn't exist) going around and expousing fairly modern ideas of equality and freedom to the peasants but that's beside the point.

The point really is that "King Arthur" has little to do with the legend other then them stealing the names of some of the characters and putting them on totally different characters and is just a bland actioner. Now this movie isn't as bad as some people say (it's not a '1') but it's not that good either (I gave it like a 4-5). If you want to see a movie about King Arthur rent Excalibur or read Mallory's rendition. It's not historically accurate at all, but the story is much more interesting and entertaining. They should have just made a newer Excalibur instead of this.

Zoopansick

Welcome to Mooseport (2004)

Like watching paint dry

[3/10 · 2 July 2004]

The fact is that this "comedy" (if you are bold enough to call it that) wasn't obnoxious or offensive or anything like that. No, its fatal flaw was that it was boring and unfunny. In fact there weren't ANY jokes for me to laugh at or to roll my eyes at. There were none at all. Scene after scene went by and the story just kept loafing along. Ray Romano is about the most boring comedian ever to star in the movie. And while he doesn't provoke a strong negative reaction like a Pauly Shore or even the hated Carrot Top he is equally unfunny. Why this script ever got passed any Hollywood executive is beyond me. I'm glad this movie lost 16 million at the boxoffice, maybe it will prevent any more Romano vehicles from getting the green light.

Zoopansick