grimdodger Reviews

Firefly (2002–2003)

Space Cowboys.. Really..

[1 August 2005]

Second time I hear, watch, and fall in love, and then I enter comment to a series that was eventually canceled by Fox (first was Futurama).. Surely Fox, the biggest and greatest and most pompous production company on Earth, know creators, writers and actors need them for work, so why care about the audience? -This awful truth was resurfaced by Matt Groening when he was asked if he was angry that Fox canceled Futurama, and I am just trying to live with it-

OK, Firefly is a ship, named Serenity, have an old captain who was hero of a war that he lost, a tough lady who fought with him, her husband the mad pilot, henchman with the care and sensitivity of an oak, and a young but awfully brilliant and cute mechanic.. They have some passengers on board who are a little weird: a priest with James Earl Jones voice and a foggy past, a brilliant aristocrat doctor who left it all behind to save his darling sister from mad scientist of the Alliance, and of course his mad sister. And what do you think they would do in a galaxy that was ruled by those who won the war? They smuggle...

Firefly answers the question "what if South won the US Civil War and right after that they were given tons of spaceships?".. It's a space western, that's for sure.. To be exact: a great mix of western, George Orwell's 1984 and some action packed episodes of Star Trek:TNG. And when a man like Joss Whedon mixes them it just gets tastier. Cast is perfect: Fillion becomes a great unbalanced captain, Adam Baldwin (my favorite) is a perfect fit as well, Alan Tudyk brings the fun and not to forget: there are plenty of beautiful ladies (Summer Glau is great with that "wamp" look that phases in and out) Ron Glass being a perfect clergyman. All stories are well written and quite entertaining, just like the characters. The Chinese implementation was certainly interesting..

Sadly, Firefly was canceled, which seems to be the tradition down at the Fox for shows that started on and after 90's, but the exception being is that this time they thrashed a beautiful series after 15 episodes, 3 never aired! Surely they are making a movie of it, which kinda makes us feel better, but on the other hand every episode had the deepness of a movie..

To summarize: anyone who don't despise new and more realistic-pessimistic future (more like "adventures of Han Solo" at a galaxy not that far) then Firefly is just perfect, and since complete series are being sold on one pack with a very reasonable price (over 10 hours of fun) anyone who apply the requirements must not hesitate to buy it, and watch it. A+

The Time Machine (2002)

Many plot holes and unanswered questions but not that bad.

[6/10 · 7 July 2005]

Time Machine, well I think there is no need to explain what the movie is about.. It is that classic struggle of a man whose mind is beyond his time and that mind sets off when his one and only love is killed, so he builds a time machine (made of wood) to save her but apparently time is seriously related to fate.. Then he says "let's test if it goes forward" and travels to our distant future and when audience learns that we are stupid enough to dig moon with explosives he knocks himself unconscious, gets into his time vehicle and sets it to full throttle.. Surely, the faaaaar future (say like, 800000 years) is in ruins.. But can there be a future for him there? OK, story is a little suspicious.. I admit that I haven't read the book but since the book is a classic, the story was taken apart and manipulated into many other forms so that now when author's grandson tries to make his grandpa's story into a motion picture he is accused of using a banal story.. Ironic.

What I really enjoyed in the beginning was the laboratory of our mad scientist.. It was filled with interesting stuff and proves that art department did a lot of work. There is a nice reference to Einstein and so on.. Then comes the scene where he travels to future and that scene was beautiful, a glory for CGI, totally professional. Just that scene worths the entire effect of the movie.. OK, enough about the spoilers..

Guy Pearce is not bad as usual.. He looks good in a suit. Samantha Mumba as well, but she looks in that torn apart dress.. Jeremy Irons is of course always great but his downfall was the little screen time given to him.. I think Orlando Jones was really interesting as the holographic interface 'Vox', making him the best in the movie. Also Mark Addy's last scene was great..

Overall, movie loses most from having a overused storyline and confusing the audience.. What were those things? How could they know what happened to Earth and speak English after 800000, or how Vox could still stand (even though his future scenes were really really nice).. Not to mention there are tons of inconsistencies with time travel (compared to what we learned from sci-fi and Harry Potter), and cast was not mindblowingly great.. But these aren't unique for this movie; there are tons of other movies who have stupid stories and impossibly good endings.. And when they are subtracted movie mixes different eras pretty nicely, and one enjoys if the movie is watched without great expectations (or 'high')

Considering that I still have some good memories about the movie (I watched it twice: 1-when it was out, 2-five minutes ago) and the great effort made by art and CGI departments the movie deserves at least 6 stars, since Guy Pearce looks slick in suit I make it 6.5/10

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

Departs from the book, but still pretty fine

[10/10 · 29 April 2005]

I just watched the movie, and honestly I was feeling bad because obviously I missed all those previews and test screenings but everyone else had seen them, and made different comments about how bad the movie was. And why? Because the content was totally different from the book..

When there is an adaptation at hand, not just a book but a comic, a song, a TV series, or the Holy Bible, there has to be some changes. Change is inevitable. And whenever there is a change, there will be people stating their initial reactions about the change: it sucks.. This is not an emotion, but a programmed reaction to any kind of change.

For Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy, I always wondered how it can be fitted into a 1.5 hour movie without losing the structure. It never occurred as the meaning of life popped into the mind of Fenchurch. there had to be something trimmed.

Karey Kirkpatrick? Who the hell he was? I guess that was my reaction when I first heard of the production. A little jealous obviously, which made me think "Oh, he will blow it up" And as the release date approached, I started hearing more comments on how the movie was totally different then the radio series, the book, the BBC TV series, the comics, the towel..

And finally, when the movie started with a quote from the middle of the book, I didn't feel mad. I liked it. And throughout the movie it was a nice mix of the story that readers of the book knew already. Furthermore, it was an appropriate way to tell the story of Arthur Dent to those who didn't read the books.

Casting was great. Freeman makes a good Dent, he is not on the spotlight unfortunately. Mos Def is promising; he had some eeriness of Ford Prefect, but not entirely. He was funny in most occasions. Rockwell rocked as Zaphod, Deschanel was cute but nothing more was available to express her talent, Bill Nighy was beyond words as Slartibartfast; what a render! And last but not least Alan Rickman's voice fitted perfectly, damn we love that guy don't we? And did you notice John Malkovich? I didn't. Perhaps because we don't see him in the movies anymore. Sad.

Imagery was great. Concepts, designs, planets, and of course the Earth-2 scenes were beautiful. The thing with the dolphins in the beginning was sweet.

Story was.. well you know it's good. Changes were kind of disturbing but still bearable. Humma Kavula thing was obviously added by Adams himself, the love story between Arthur and Trillian was brain scratching but on the other hand didn't we always felt bad for Arthur losing Tricia to Zaphod? Here, he gets his revenge. So, another hurray. Actually story was cut, after the escape of Arthur's brain, to a happy ending. It was sweet, but I would like to see the restaurant at the end of the universe too.

To sum up: I think movie was funny. Even though many of Adams' cunning jokes were "polished" one cannot argue with that since movie goers don't have the dominating percentage of high IQ. I believe movie was conducted nicely to introduce a great novel to those who wouldn't read it in a million years. I enjoyed it, and I seriously don't believe that Douglas Adams had something else in his mind when he wrote the HHGG: make people enjoy. It was a hard project to complete, but they did not ruin it, and that's why it deserves a high rating.

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

Disapoints...

[21 October 2004]

**There might be minor spoilers**

I am not kind of a guy who easily dislikes a movie.. I mean, I really enjoy watching movies like Independence Day or Armageddon, or Bad Boys 2.. These movies are claimed to be very bad, down the drain, full of s*** but I enjoy them so hell with them. Maybe they are not the greatest movies ever, but they fulfill their duty: they entertain..

But AvP.. On one side, we have the Alien... One of the most legendary sci-fi plus horror plus thriller movies ever, maybe the best.. Followed by good sequels (yes I liked A4 also). On the other corner there is Predator which starred in two not great but still good movies... Also what was nice about these creatures is that they were mysterious.. No one knew a thing about them.. And ending of Predator 2 was a shock when we suddenly saw the changing theme..

AvP has a lot of these two, which destroys the desire to be shocked.. First of all, the whole basis of the movie can be easily scrapped: Predators coming to Earth, making people worship themselves, build special pyramids and every x thousand years come to earth to hunt? That's Ridiculous!

Ah come on Anderson, nowadays all we have is earth earth earth, hero hero hero, kung fu kung fu kung fu, fantasy fantasy fantasy, comic book adaptations, horror movies that use same color for ghosts and creatures and always remake of a Japanese movie.. They might be good or bad, thats not my point.. My point is: Who watched a decent, enjoyable, good space movie in these last 1-2 years? I can't just remember one that pops out in my mind.. Attack of the Clones is good but not that much of space action, Star Trek Nemesis was not as good as expected but because of being a fan, I respect it.. I don't know.. I can't say any..

OK, here is my scenario: You want a close date? Its 2016, and one of the first space marine ships who are roaming the solar system find an unidentified ship, which is first proof of existence of alien life.. They think its deserted or safe, and board it, but the ship is a "a lot more realistic" Predator ship and they also have another kind on board: Aliens..

But what we had was tons of different races of Predators, some fancy but disrespected, stupid aliens, and I couldn't decide should I laugh or cry during last 15 minutes.. I was wondering if those two would share a nice, wet French kiss?

This is one of the few movies I will not defend, it was bad. Maybe the only good thing about the movie was Lance Henriksen but he was not treated well enough.. 3/10

Super Size Me (2004)

Moore's style of documentary Reloaded

[12 October 2004]

Super Size Me is not a movie actually. It's a documentary, and they rarely belong to big screen. But still, it is created and compiled smartly, so if audience just forgets about the "magic of cinema" and aims to understand the point, try to read between the lines, it will be a lot more successful.

Movie takes a healthy man and makes him eat McDonalds for a month. Now this disturbed me first of all. OK, McDonalds is the leader of fast food, it was the one that was sued, it is the one that everybody knows about... But USA has quite a few fast food chains, is it ethical to blame only one restaurant? After all, the movie only brings some proof to what we already know. Come on. No one needs a nutrition table to understand that all these fast food stuff is dangerous. People are not stupid! OK, some are, but not the majority! Even people who post stupid things to IMDb forums (those we reply like machine gun but they never show up, they mostly swear anyone who likes that movie and then run away)

On the other hand, I am a student in USA for a few months and I have no place to eat some healthy food. Fast food is everywhere! Somebody had to bring this up, and this is serious.

But of course he is taking aim at one of the greatest, most beloved companies in the world, so the war was already lost.

As I said, the Moore style was deep into it: real life, real names, real companies, there is a bad guy (Ronald McDonald), and in the end we do dislike it.

Any fast food lover should watch the movie at least once for education, not entertainment. But here is a small real story I heard from a friend:

"After watching the movie I was leaving cinema. Two black teenagers were behind me and as we left saloon one said "I'm hungry", and the other replied "There is a KFC over there" and they did go to KFC.."

A-, for being realistic, but not objective. Enjoying, interesting, attention grabbing.

Green Screen Show (2004–2005)

Whose Line meets blue box technology..

[7 October 2004]

At last the pilot for Drew Carey's new show was aired. It was not bad, but I say the enthusiasm of Whose Line was missing. It was worse than a usual Whose Line episode (except the graphics), and also being an audience in the studio is worse than watching it on TV. (I watched it on TV by the way)

Participants looked a little isolated from Drew Carey.. OK, Drew Carey is good and he arranges it all but both in Whose Line and here he does 20% of the performance. It really disturbed me to see him on the spotlight and the actual performers being pushed back, sitting on a bench.

Also the departure of Ryan Stiles (apparently from more-time-with-family syndrome) and Wayne Brady (he is a star now) makes the Whose Line audience sad... But of course we have Colin (he is not only bald, but also has white hair!). This time there are 6 performers. Including Carey this is too much for a 30-minute show. Without the ads show is approximately 22-23 minutes and that means 3-3.5 minutes of screen time for each...

Animation on the pilot was really really sweet... The detail on Zeppelin was astonishing, and the horse ride was funny not only because of the performers but also those small details added by the animators (especially when Drew Carey said a 'nasty word') Also the sound effects should not be forgotten..

One more thing: the names on the ending credits are countless. Each sketch is done by 10-15 people. How much does this cost? And how long can this continue? Hopefully for a long time, but still its very risky business.

A brave show just begun, and will hopefully improve and continue to entertain in the Whose Line style but this time with more flavor! With some fine-tuning it can make into the 'do not miss' list.

Liar Liar (1997)

Carrey at best!

[1 October 2004]

Liar Liar is a movie where son of a very dishonest and liar lawyer wishes some honesty for his father when his father misses his birthday party. And his wish magically becomes true. But it is not spells and magic we see in the movie, it is pure comedy!

One can say Carrey was great in Ace Ventura movies, or in Mask, or in Dumb and Dumber. I do agree that they are also good comedies that amuses the audience but in this one Carrey is not playing a uber maniac character like Ace Ventura, or a super natural freak with green face, or an idiot. The character he portrays is not unique, but I am sure there are plenty of such lawyers... Now I don't mean all lawyers are like this but in some cases you really admit that guy should be hell of a liar to sort that one out!

I don't say that the movie is "completely" great... I mean, when you say comedy nobody wishes to watch the beginning or scenes about Max or his mother but Carrey. Beating himself in the bathroom, or his failing attempts to lie, and that scene in the meeting room... Oh my god!

Liar Liar is a movie where one can watch the real talent of Carrey, as nowadays he mostly prefers "simpler" characters (His try in Bruce Almighty was not as good as this) Strongly recommended. Trust me.

Futurama (1999– )

Can be watched till the end of time..

[30 September 2004]

Futurama is the second series by Matt Groening. Now when I was watching The Simpsons one idea was that why we can't see this guy more, why he is only behind a widely known TV series while poking some other people. But with Futurama I say he is (OK, was) unleashed.

Futurama deals with moron pizza delivery boy Fry being accidentally frozen and wake up 1000 years after into a whole new world. Strangely this is not the story of the Fry's adaptation, because he is not. He is still the same stupid guy back in 20th century.. Maybe a little improvement but that's all.. Then we meet Leela, who is the only cyclops alien in the whole galaxy (as far as she knows), orphan, different from others. Last but not least the main cast includes Bending Unit Bender which is a robot. Nice thing about him is that the general idea of a robot is that they are always serving and helping and supporting, but Bender does not. He lies, cheats, steals...

Then the supporting cast has the cute and horny Chinese (or Japanese?) Amy, Fry's great^20 nephew professor Farnsworth with crazy inventions but an unstable mind, doctor Zoidberg that mastered on human medical but not a human itself, Jamaican manager who is a qualified limbo master and denying machine...

I like Futurama because it creates an unexpected, yet tempting future and combines it with cunning references and a strange comedy style. It's range of poking is 'wider'..

Futurama can turn any depressed mood to a happy mood if just the watcher accepts the fact that show does not require a deep concentration for the whole concept, but likes to catch it slowly by using trivial extras and nicely planted sci-fi references.

This show was one of the best. Ever. It's a pity that it was canceled an I pity the fool who canceled it. Such things should continue till the end of time.. Thanks to the makers of DVD, they partially do.

Futurama is mandatory for all sci-fi and comedy lovers, and highly recommended for everyone else.

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Best slap someone can get to its face for awakening..

[10/10 · 19 August 2004]

I am no American, nor historian, nor interested in politics.. But I can confess that my ideas about the largest and most popular nation in this world were quite optimistic and sympathetic till Bush administration (but of course it is not my duty to comment about president of a country which I am no member of it,this is just my humble opinion) . Why? Because his actions are the reason for this movie, which reveals "awful truth" and confused everyone like me (the majority part) whether not to support USA or hate it. Moore definitely knows what to say and how to say it, how to make his audience accept and understand. Bowling for Columbine is one big and strong slap to the face of Americans who are sleeping, and whether one can thank to him for awaking because otherwise that one could be too late, or swear at him for waking one up from a beautiful dream. Furthermore it is a great "behind the scenes" documentary for non-Americans who only knew the good story.

Still Moore did a one big mistake by calling his high priority audience (Americans, of course) "pussies". The cartoon segment in the middle was hilarious for me but then I thought "Wow if I was American I would be really offended". Also the film starts great, continues great but ending hangs in the air. No went in sight. Charlton Heston interview (well, attempt to it) was long, disturbing and unnecessary. Also blaming Dick Clark for the incident of mom not monitoring son, son getting unprotected gun of uncle, son going to school shoot a white girl was totally absurd. OK, the situation of that woman was mentionable but blaming the guy who lend his name for a restaurant was not.

The bad thing for this movie is that it started the idea that Moore is against Americans -his native. This was totally childish and product of an idea that pops out for a second. How can Moore be un-American, the guy is pointing out bad things going in a country and citizens of that country respond saying "What the f*** are you saying you stupid fat liar!" Well, "some" citizens that prefer dream world. And those "some citizens" made non-US people around the world automatically stand against United States, those few "lost souls" made others to support Moore much more seriously. I mean, one say "Yeah Mooore is coool and I think he is telling the truth", but now that say "The guy is right, Americans are stealing and attacking and killing and murdering and..! Shame'em all!", another totally wrong point of view. Because of this "totally wrong point of view" Bowling of Columbine turned Cannes, last proper major movie award ceremony, to a political platform. Ruined it all. Well I don't care whether Cannes sink in the ocean but still it became a transmitter for people who understand Moore completely wrong.

Moore is not against America, he is for America, but he is just pointing out a few adjustments.. A few? Means a few thousand.. Just like all other countries around the world, they also need a few, don't worry.

To conclude, Bowling for Columbine is really remarkable, totally successful, extremely teaching and reminding, poking, and honest. It might be too strong for Americans and have a few "cons" yet it is not wrong nor lying. This is the awful truth, the choice not to accept is up to the audience.. But I wish people could choose more wisely..

9.5/10

Hulk (2003)

Seriously underrated.

[26 June 2004]

The Hulk, well almost everybody knows about this giant green. But one should understand that comic book adaptations to cinema industry will turn the book into a single 40 page script which follows:

a)who is he? b)what he does? c)what in the name of God happened to him so that he became an extraordinary being? d)and let's choose a story/villain from the series and add s***load of CG.

So from this point of view, Hulk is a perfect comic book adaptation.So I won't review the book but the movie which has a very little relation with the comic.

So to really understand the value of the movie one should look deep inside.

Hulk is no hero. Actually he is a pain in the butt. He is a disaster, a genetic accident, son of a mad scientist and green. So he is not around to save the day, and he actually never saves it, except the thing with those mutant dogs, but that doesn't count as they are not the villain.

But we pity Bruce and accept him as a hero. Well he is supernatural. He is in pain, lost his family, working on a errornous project, then an accident and when he loses his tamper he suddenly requires new clothes yada yada..But on the other hand the Army is trying to capture him, as well as his own father.

When we check the cast: Eric Bana, great guy, loved him, in some scenes he really makes you feel his own situation. Jennifer Connely, well pretty lady but she didn't do much in the movie. Nick Nolte? What a surprize but this guy was awesome, best in the movie, he was perfect.Sam Elliott, great selection and also does well.Rest of the cast is also fine.

FX&CGI: Not even a question! ILM baby! It is a sin to insult effects in this movie, and I mean it. Nothing more to say, perfect.

But, the story. Well, I think this disturbs a little. Till the middle, fine. We see Hulk is being set free, fine. But like a dog he sniffs the location of the girl, well a little confusing. Then bad guys capture to drill him, as expected. Then he runs and we see some good action, fine. But after that, it all gets mixed up. The last fight between father and son was a total confusion. Why? Well it is a good ending but when you are filled with action and emotion it ends with the "Neo" stile.Not bad but confusing.

What we have? Fine cast, great effects and at least a better adaptation then other comic books -Spider Man? Get off my ship!- with some fancy transitions between scenes and also great music (did I mention that?); Which makes one spend some good time in the cinema. What else can be done, I ask all the time and I cannot find an answer. This movie is not "maximum extreme" but it gives the best that it can give, which is unfortunately not a "Top 250" performance, but also not a "worst movie ever!" or "This sucks!" performance. This is a movie that should be remembered as "fine" and "7.5/10"

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

Not a disaster but still dissapoints

[24 April 2004]

I always loved reading Crichton. It makes me feel out of this world. I remember once I read half of his "Airframe" in my bed, and then closed the book, shut the lights, go to sleep. But I couldn't do it, I felt uncomfortable and woke up, and finished the book. As in this case, I've read "The Lost World" before watching Jurassic Park, or at least watching properly (when it was released I couldn't even compute how many fingers I have)

Everybody knows that Spielberg did not accepted doing sequels for his movies. And for me, when I heard he decided to shoot JP 2, I was a little shocked, and asked myself what happened so he was forced to accept. But in "Making of Lost World" featurette he confesses that he wanted to make a sequel for JP. Now, this movie is not totally disaster, but it also lacks something to be a sequel of JP, and an adaptation of novel.

First of all, the advantage of Lost World was that it was based on Ian Malcolm, that mysterious chaotic mathematician. Malcolm is a unique character and I believe that Crichton worked a lot on him, as he is not normal. Alan Grant is normal, Ellie Sattler is also acceptable. John Hammond is a mirror to today's rich people who own enterprises that they know nothing about (but he was portrayed differently in the movie, as I also cannot imagine legendary Richard Attenborough acting a grumpy, disgusting millionaire). In JP, only one main character is removed (Ed Regis, parks public relations blah blah) and Donald Gennaro (lawyer) was changed a lot. Still it was loyal to the novel. But Lost World loses two amazing characters: Jack Thorne and Richard Levine. Thorne is an old physicist who is now producing field equipment, and Eddie Carr is his assistant, and this retired teacher was like completing the circle. Also, Richard Levine is a paleontologist, who is the absolute opponent of Ian Malcolm. Also story involves a smaller cast; as Levis Dodgson (guy who hired Nedry in first movie) and two from his side try to snatch eggs from nests of creatures, as Malcolm, Thorne, Levine, Harding, Carr, and students of Levine; Arby and Kelly aim to use the island to prove their theory about observing behaviors of prehistoric... Well I am digressing. Malcolm is completely destroyed. He is not that grinning smarty with cool glasses and dark nature, but more looks like John McClane of the "Die Hard" series. I only felt existence of Malcolm and Jeff Goldblum when he said "Well, your are not doing the same mistakes, you are doing new ones..". In the other scenes he is just another guy.

Bottom line: It is completely a new plot. Nephew of Hammond? A new and bizarre Park? All those gadgets and vehicles? Humiliated Hummers? I like Daivd Koepp's work but he really deserves being "the Unlucky Bastard" for this movie.

Next, even though action, atmosphere, characters (well a little bit), dinosaurs and effects are really impressive, the story cannot "hold" you. I mean JP was like a theme park ride, that you could not get bored of. But for The Lost World, sometimes you feel that you are getting bored. Well, if it was not a sequel of a great movie this would be acceptable. Or should it be the other way, as nowadays sequels mostly s**k.

But I should underline, effects are superb. Winston and Lantieri are masters of this business. Also sounds are astonishing. Music is classic John Williams. Cast is cool; Jeff Goldblum, Julianne Moore, Pete Postlethwaite, Vince Vaughn and Peter Stormare even though none of them used their real capacity. And I am not even mentioning that it contains one of the greatest plot holes ever (disappearance of the crew of "The Venture")

This movie will only amuse dinomaniacs and effect lovers, but a viewer with standard potential will not accept that this is a Spielberg flick. Not bad, but it had to be a lot better.

My Note: 6.5/10

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

A salute, but it depends.

[8 March 2004]

***SPOILER ALERT***

Short and brief I will be. For a long time "The Next Generation" Enterprise crew gave us a great pleasure. And for anyone who at least watched 5 or 10 episodes, and know a little about the relationship between characters, this movie is precious. Even a Trek lover (not a Trekkie or a Trek fan) will definitely receive strong feelings from this movie. Well, I did. Because no moment is waste in this movie. Another thrilling Enterprise adventure to go where no one did, and to do what no one didn't. But this time, with different ending. This movie is kind of a salute to those years and those people who served us a great entertainment. And hell of an ending to the legendary crew of Enterprise. I hope one day we will see them again on screen. Together, sailing for new adventures. Also made me remember Patrick Stewart's mind-blowing talent, once again.

If you never liked Star Trek and watched this movie like a standard science fiction: Then it is 7/10

If you like, love, worship Star Trek (any of them apply): 9/10