Change Your Image
Archduke-1
Reviews
Highlander II: The Quickening (1991)
McCloud from Outer Space
All true Highlander fans will simply not acknowledge the existence of Highlander 2, wih good reason: Planet Zeist.
if you were to see part 2 and not the Original, it would be ok, cuz it would make sense in its own way. H1 and H2 are effectively unrelated films. But Highlander was quite an original story. H2, unfortunately, is a bit goofy and out of sync. Quite laughable in its own way.
If you want a good laugh, check it out. It's high cheese. If you're a Highlander purist, it DOESN'T EXIST. The intention was probably good, trying to show the aftermath of McCloud's mistakes after winning the original "tournament", but the premise is ruined by Planet Zeist, and Michael Ironside is just rehashing the Kurgen. He's a bit funnier in the villain role, but it doesn't save the movie from being silly
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
It's everything I could ever hate about Cinema
I'm probably alone on this view, but I hated Dancer with a passion. It was predictable, a bit pretentious and just goes to show that good cinema isn't allowed to be fun by any stretch of the imagination.
I mean, when Bjork and her cop friend start talking in the first ten minutes, I KNEW where it would all lead up to. Basically the conversation, in a nut shell:
Bjork: I'm saving up thousands of dollars for my son's eye operation. It's hidden in the kitchen
cop: I wish my wife wouldn't spend so much money....I'm so broke...
All I could do was scream at how obvious the set up was. Two hours later, it all plays out as predicted, a crime everyone likes to slap on the "big budget" films.
Maybe I'm just too mainstream, but I see no entertainment value, no value in its morality. I felt nothing but irritation at the cast trying to lead the story to its obvious conclusion. The ending was sooo schmaltzy it puts Bruckheimer to shame. Pearl Harbor gets slammed for being so over the top, but Dancer is just as guilty. Bjork's character has to be stubborn about the blindness just so the movie can meander it's way up to the most melodramatic death scene I ever shook my head at.
Most people will read this and be unable to comprehend my reaction, Just as I cannot comprehend how others could find this film to be so moving. I am by no means advocating that the film needs a car chase or anything. Adding cliches is not the solution, a problem that makes many mainstream films mediocre.
The problem with Indy filmakers like Von Trier is that they HAVE to be sooo "anti-Hollywood", to follow the notion that they have to "keep it real". a notion which is absurd at best, and unhealthy at worst. Certain people seem to think that good cinema must involve:
1) Family strife. No real antagonists, just plain old everyday broken home atmospheres, cuz that's "keepin it real". I'm not asking for a goofy villain type, but I don't want to pay ten bucks to see cynical single parents struggling with their oblivious kids.
2) At least one addict, wether it be money, drugs, sex. Addicts make good performances, I guess, cuz they're not fun.
3) At least one person dies a gritty death, because, well....can't have any fun...
4) No fun allowed, no witty banter, no hope for the characters. If there's any hope for the characters to be happy, it's just too Hollywood.
A lot people can't understand my opinion, but there it is. "Dancer in the Dark" is just no fun at all, and I cannot relate to any of it. You can rave about its originality, its acting, the script, how it's so "real", so anti-Hollywood. But what's the point? I get up every morning and I have to work with people who are just as pathetic as these characters. Nobody has any sort of magnificence to them. No humanity. I have to put up with these people. Why would I pay to see a film about characters who are just as pathetic? Who's going to remember it in twenty years?? Can you quote lines from it?? Is it in ANY way significant to the evolution of film and entertainment?
No, coffeehouse patrons of America, I must shatter what I consider to be a heinous myth. Films are primarily an escapist medium. Audiences want to forget about life for two hours, not be reminded. The good guy doesn't HAVE to win, but there should at least be A good guy type. You might scoff at that. If it were not the case, why was Dancer vitually ignored in theatres while Gladiator gets the big treatment? Why did Gladiator get the Oscar wins? Cuz "Dancer", in all seriousness, blows.
The Stupids (1996)
Ugh....
Well, the movie is aptly named.
I know it's supposed to be silly dumb comedy with the Stupids, but I'm afraid their antics and stupidity were just kind of annoying. Some things worked and were a bit amusing, most of it just made ya want to blow your brains out.
There were two genuinely funny moments in the film:
1) The Grandpa song. Very cute and amusing. Tom Arnold's high point.
2) Christopher Lee's cameo as evil Sender. He was so subtle and graceful in his "evil" mode I laughed more in his five minutes than through the rest of the film.
The rest of it was an exercise in irritation. But I'm not gonna just rip this film into shreds. I'll end the review on a good note.
Christopher Lee is damn funny.
End of the World (1977)
"Shiver"......
Definitely too dull for words. Christopher Lee cannot save this from easily becoming a bottom 100 worst film.
The ending defies logic and just leaves ya a bit stunned. So slow throughout, it picks up in the last ten minutes (I'm generous to say THAT)
It makes me wonder: What was the point of this film?
Ugh. The rest of the cast is forgettable. The opening sequence is basically the exciting moment of the movie. It goes pretty much downhill from there as two people try to investigate what turns out to be the end of the world.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
The great Classics of our time.....
Ok, so I was reading some complaint reviews, and all I can say is that there are some people just don't get it yet.
Not to knock the negative opinions, but you have to understand what an accomplishment PJ did with this adaptation. He not only created a massive spectacle of Good vs Evil, he created a trilogy SIMOULTANEOUSLY!! Filming all three movies at once is a massive undertaking, but he did it very smoothly.
I would highly suggest reading the books. A lot of the complaints involve details that are in the books. Gandalf is saved by the bird at Isengard but not in Moria because it IS PART OF THE STORY. The books are not perfect by any stretch. Many critics today say Tolkien could never get LotR published in this day without a LOT of editing. PJ took the story and smoothed out a lot of unecessary details, impractical details. He expanded on other details only hinted at in the books (the Arwen/Aragorn romance). He took liberties, but it works.
It works because everyone involved in the trilogy treated Tolkien's work with as much respect as they could. The intricate details in just costuming and props shows that it was a labor of love. That's a big reason why I admire these films. The cast and crew put a lot of sincere effort into the project.
FotR is almost perfect on every level. Special effects and cliches do not carry the story. PJ sets a new standard for films and storytelling. He proved that not all megabudget films are just mediocre cashcows. More importantly, he gave Fantasy films a level of respect they haven't had in a while, a genre that can be taken seriously.
Some say they were bored watching this. I wonder how anyone could be uninterested with this kind of storytelling. It is epic, yet personal. I mean, let's set aside for a moment all the elves, fairies and fantasy detail for a moment. FotR has a lot of Heart to it, great music in the soundtrack, an intense struggle that most of us can relate to (everyone has their own "ring" to bear). The serious moments are balanced with light hearted ones. The chemistry of the cast is magical. The Wizards duel is not the typical cheap lightning flashes of the old Roger Corman style. It is a confrontation between two incredible legends in cinema. You can almost see the Parallels with Tolkien's view of life, biblical themes, etc. It all works.
Another important element of this film that makes it a milestone in cinema is that it's wonderfully QUOTABLE. I doubt you will find any film by Von Trier, Sophia Coppola, etc that will stand the test of time. Most regular movies will be hard pressed to have this kind of longevity.
LotR is like an Independant film with a super budget, and like a franchise film with an actual engaging story with good characters.. It has the best of both worlds. I don't critique it as some kind of Fantasy geek. I critique it as a guy who Loves movies that give me a thrill and take my breath away.
To be perfectly Frank, I think I can conclude with a clear conscience that ANYONE who goes to see FotR and walks away without emotion, without being engrossed to some degree in the story simply does not like movies, period. I don't mean to sound arrogant, because No movie is perfect. Each of us gets something different from a viewing. But come on, if you feel nothing at all at the end credits, then no movie can ever satisfy. These are the kind of films Hollywood SHOULD be making.
Dreamcatcher (2003)
Not bad, adaptations are always a challenge
I have to say I liked it despite the deviations from the book. The cast is solid, the aliens intriguing. People should stop nitpicking the little details and enjoy. The CGI was decent, and anyone who can't understand why a toothpick could be important someone like Beaver's character doesn't fully understand that humans are full of quirks. The characters were well done. The only things I would change in the story:
1) More Dudditz. Walberg was excellent and very absorbed in the role.
2) Don't know if Morgan Freeman fits the bill as Curtis. I always pictured Lee Ermey as perfect for the role.
3) maybe just a bit more backstory on the friends. The five were fun to watch and drove this story. They are the best element.
Overall, some things could've been better, but you get that with any adaptation. I enjoyed it
7 out of 10
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
Best Summer movie next to "Pirates..."
I'm not going to argue character, continuity, story, blah-deeblah. All I can say is that I personally loved this movie. The fact that 73 year old Connery can still beat the crap out of people onscreen is a big plus. This movie, ultimately, is what movies are supposed to be. Big popcorn fun. It has heroes, villains, interesting characters, fast action, big cliffhangers, etc. I especially liked how the quirky characters became a team to fight evil, and they had me rooting for them all through the big climactic showdown
Yeah, you can say "Dancer in the Dark" will have more depth with better acting, but I'd rather eat my own foot than spend 10 bucks to watch a self-absorbed scandinavian go blind for 2 hours. LXG kicks ass.
House of the Dead (2003)
Not so bad, But "Jar-Jar" factor needs toned down
Okay, The best way to enjoy HotD is to get in touch with your inner ten year old child. If you can't enjoy Cheesy B flicks like that, then don't go.
If you're the kind who quotes the "Romero Bible", don't go. Zombies aren't limited by rules, only the limits of your imagination.
As corny as you might find that, it may be the best way to enjoy this very flawed movie. HotD is, at best, a Roger Corman/Sci-Fi channel type of film. Bad cheese, but I've seen worse.
Best reason to watch: Jurgen Prochnow and Ellie Cornell. They have the most dignified characters, the most common sense, and the best lines. They also have the best death scenes (If you're into that kind of critiquing) Kira, Will and Ona really try, but the script fails them and the other cast members
The music wasn't so bad, and the action scenes kicked butt. I can tolerate the arcade stuff added in. It's not that annoying if you simply accept this as an Arcade action flick and not a horror film. I wanted to see the gang kick zombie butt, and I got my money's worth.
Worst elements: The script dialogue. Ellie and Jurgen get the best lines. Otherwise, there is not an ounce of wit or clever banter.
Rudy is the worst Hero since Stephen Dorff's cop from "Fear Dot Com" and Jared Leto's Paul from "Urban Legends". Casper and Kirk SHOULD have been the main characters since they at least TRIED to save everybody, while Rudy just stares at his current girlfriend getting ripped to shreds.
Sloppy editing. Stupid teen antics.
BIGGEST mistake in the whole film is to have Rudy open the movie with the lines "If they hadn't come, they'd still be alive". This has killed any suspense of seeing who survives in the end!
I don't think it's a terrible film, despite my comments. It's a Cheesy B flick, nothing more. But I do HOPE that Uwe Boll and Mark Altman LEARN from these flaws. A sequal is in the planning stages, which may be better than the first if they write and shoot a more clever script