friggyhoppinpot Reviews

The Invasion (I) (2007)

Why are so many reviewers giving this an R rating?

[6/10 · 19 August 2007]

I saw Invasion this afternoon, and I think I was the only one in the theater. It's not a bad movie, yet it's not a good one either. It has it's moments, yet you can clearly tell there were plenty of re-shoots and rewrites, but it was a fair movie.

Now I'm not sure if indeed this was originally an R rated movie, moments in the movie looked as if that's where it was headed, yet it is PG-13. So why is every review I read or see about it says it's R rated?? even IMDb first had a PG-13 rating then it was suddenly switched to R for language? I don't understand this it makes no sense.. does anyone have any ideas??

Rings (2005 Video)

Outstanding!! Makes Ring 2 more intense

[10/10 · 30 August 2005]

I am very confused, I do not understand why the studio didn't release this with the film? Okay I understand that to start the film out with a 16 minuet opening like this would have been boring in the theater, it would have dragged the opening on a bit, but that's what editing is for! they could have re-edited this opening, cut it down to maybe 8-10mins. When I first saw Ring 2 in the theater I was unclear about the opening, "why was he so desperate for this girl to see the tape?" why this? why that? and I wasn't alone. It didn't hurt Ring 2 but it could have opened it with a more awe inspiring or knock over the head start then there was. You watch Rings and then watch Ring 2, it makes the opening a lot more intense!! and you feel more for the girl and the guy, your in there with them both. Without Rings your not. I am very glade they did include Rings on the Ring 2 DVD, just wish they could have inserted it along with the film. I also heard they did show this opening in a few limited theaters before Ring 2, so if they do that why couldn't they have inserted it into the film? Well before you watch Ring 2 on DVD make sure you first watch Rings!!!

The Jacket (2005)

Very very disappointing...

[9 March 2005]

Indepent films (most of them) is what film-making is all about especially guerrilla independent film-making. So I was very anxious to see this film, an intense psychological thriller that included time travel. I thought this was going to be along the same lines as "Jacobs Ladder" or even "The Butterfly Effect" or "12 Monkeys" Then when I saw it I barley made it through the film. It was so disappointing, I almost got up and left a few times, but I stayed just praying and hoping sometime soon it'll get better and it never did. I heard the director in an interview complaining about how the film was wrongfully advertised as a psychological intense thriller and now I know why the studio advertised like that. Because no one would go see it otherwise!

First off the film explains absolute nothing at all. The doctor straps the main character in a jacket and stuffs him in a morgue drawer for no apparent reason, then all of a sudden he is transported into the future again for no apparent reason, sometimes it seems like the doctor know about it or is doing an experiment, but then he doesn't. Why did the doctor put him in the door in the first place? How and why is he time traveling. None of these questions are explained to the audience. the first few flashbacks you feel some intensity or as if "here we go" but that dies very quickly as nothing is explained by them, the first couple of times he is in the drawer your in their with him as he starts to panic and freak out but again that dies quickly and the little sound effects they use with the eye movements were annoying. The film was very slow moving and annoying. The director tries to misguide the audience or tries to make certain scenes intense and do some twists and turns but it fails. With so many questions and holes that go unanswered and unfilled I don't recommend this film. Hopefully they'll release a directors cut on DVD which explains more and has more detail, until then don't bother and don't be fooled into it seeing it by the trailers. If you want to see a great psychological thriller that yes also includes time travel, rent "Donnie Darko", "Butterfly Effect", "12 Monkeys" or "Jacobs Ladder" **out of five

Ray (I) (2004)

!!TRUE Film-making!!

[1 December 2004]

Review: We keep hearing how CG effects are taking over the business, where actors will be obsolete in the near future, replaced by life like animated characters. I've heard many people disagree with this "how can you be touched or feel for a animated object on the screen, you can't get the true human emotion or connection" Although Disney and Pixar has perfected and is still perfecting the CG effects down to the T and granted they sometimes do appear life like and it's enjoyable to watch BUT then comes a film that opens the audiences eyes and mind back up to the good old days of cinema. Where we don't have all these video game type CG effects anyone remember Star Wars: Episode 2? even Lucas admitted it looked like an X-box game. This film is the definition of "true" cinematic film-making. This is one of those films! From the very opening shot with the classic "What'd I say" and close ups of drums starting to roll we are catapulted into the story of Ray Charles. Taylor Hackford did an excellent job in telling his story that defiantly keeps you entertained and glued to the screen. Although there are some scenes that could have been trimmed to lessen the running time a bit it still captures you into the mind of Ray. Jamie Foxx is electric on the screen as Ray, from the opening bus stop scene your blown away by his performance and his transformation into the legendary singer is amazing. I don't usually agree or put much faith into other reviews when you hear "Oscar worthy performance" "or a must see" "best picture of the year" every film seems to have that for their tagline, this time I have to agree. Jamie Foxx's performance is powerful and moving so is the film itself. Although you probably want to leave the kids home for this one, there are some mature elements of drug use and sexuality and the running time well make your kids go insane for your attention but don't let that stop you from missing it! I guarantee after you exit the theater you will be moved, inspired and motivated to go out and buy every album of Ray Charles and see it again and again!! *****out of 5

Hero (2002)

can't people just fight normally anymore in films??

[3 September 2004]

Yes this was a visually stuning film, the photography is excellent it's too bad that's all it is a visually stunning film. This film just felt very reaptive and very predictable, everything that was about to happen I guess it from the start. And one thing that is starting to irritate me, is can't people just fight normally anymore in films?? this Matrix Crouching Tiger Bullet Time effects is OLD, think of something else please. If this was supposed to be a true story, then show them fight as they really would, I don't think they really fought like this and the stupid arrow thing was retarded. I fell asleep to this film, i just didn't like it.

Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

Only one thing to say...

[3 September 2004]

WHY?

Why do we need to see this? it's very bloody and just nonsense. This is a perfect example of how a production company just cares about one simple thing $$MONEY$$ now when I first heard about this film, I was surprised that the director/writer that was first involved did not in vision this film as a gore fest, instead in vision more of a intense psychological thriller, of course the "big wigs" thought differently "how can we make a profit if there isn't any gore and gruesome images? no one will see it" which is wrong. Take AVP for example, yes even though it had it's problems, it was more of an intense film rather then a gore fest orgy and it exceeded it's production value. It's scary anyways when you don't see all the blood or violence because it leads to the imagination, as the example of Se7en... even though there was some disturbing images in the film, we never saw the gory details of the killings, it was left to your imagination which makes it more intense and scary. I was disappointed by this film because of the following. Too bad the production company don't see or understand this, all they think is more violence, gore, sex language the more money they make nd what's the point to this film anyways, why do we need this??

Walking Tall (2004)

"based LOOSELY on a true story"

[5 April 2004]

When The Rock announced he was heading to acting I was one out of hundred people that shook their head and went "arhg why?, how many of these guys do we have to continue to bare and watch on the big screen?" but I have been actually very surprised by The Rock's acting abilities and even though I kind of gringe and hate to say it, I've become a fan. Unlike most muscle bound actors especially one who came from TV wrestling his acting is not the best I've seen but it's pretty descent. The Scorpion King sucked as a movie but his acting was alright, The Rundown was awesome! the blend of action/comedy/drama was blended well together and I enjoyed it, I'm personally very glade he stopped his trademark eyebrow thing he was known for. When I first saw the laughable trailers for Walking Tall I was just that, laughing through it, very cheesy, it was a seen it, done it kind of thing. I remember seeing the '73 original with Joe Don Baker and unlike the original this remake had absolutely no real plot, and at only 83-85mins. how can it? is an 1hr and 20min. even considered a movie? the original ran about 2hrs+ which told a more in depth story about this small town and Buford Pusser who after becoming police chief removes the corruption in his town in Tennessee. In this so called "Inspired by true events" version this film takes place in Washington and characters and events have been added and removed, they should have added in the opening title card "based LOOSELY on true events" I was stunned when I saw it took 3 screen writers to write this film? anyone with a elementary based education could have written this, there was nothing there! no real plot, absolutely no character development, you feel nothing for these people, it was like you paid 8-10 bucks to sit down in front of a big screen for an hour and watch Cops or any other so called program on Fox. This film was just done very poorly and with all these remakes that have and are coming out with allot more plot and detail, I was very disappointed that the producers did not take the time to check into who these people where, what the town was like before and after Buford Pusser left and returned home, just the fact as I said before they changed the location from Leapwood, Tennessee to a small town in Washington should tell you something. Even the bad guy was shot in the head by Buford in the true story and this never happens in the new version. It was just a ripped and snipped version of what happened I guess, which is totally disappointing and a rip-off to those who know the story and spent money to see this re-telling. I heard comments about relating this to bad films such as Gigli, now see there is a difference between a film like that and a film like this, first Gigli was just a very none stop annoying flat out painfully awful film, it was just bad, based on ridiculously written fictional characters and subplots (if any) that ran way over it's 2hr. running limit and was dead the minuet the first title faded on the screen. Walking Tall on the other hand is a film that had allot of potential, these where true people in a true town with a true story to tell about this man who was brave and strong enough to WALK TALL and run against the corrupt legal system there and of course the whorehouse/casino friend/owner with a big stick. If you go not knowing this was based on a true story, then it's just a fun ride on a Saturday night with friends or a date, (which she will like because "OMG HE HAS HIS SHIRT OFF!") Walking Tall is watchable and a tolerable movie. Knowing the story etc. it was a rip-off. As for The Rock's acting it was descent, not as well done as in The Rundown but I enjoyed his acting, he carries a sense of emotion, smarts and sincerity to his characters, you can tell he puts time and effort into his acting. I do think again if they would have spent more time and detail with the story, plot and character development then it would have reflected on his acting and don't give the excuse that the young people of today don't have enough patience for a longer movie, I think we all saw that LOTR epic proved that wrong. Hopefully The Rock's next adventure in acting and movie will be more enjoyable and impressive and maybe when Walking Tall is released on DVD the producers will see fit to include a directors cut or some extra scenes to high lite more of the story and people involved. ** 1/2 out of 5 (for movie) *** (for The Rock's acting)

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Much MUCH better then Reloaded!

[13 November 2003]

We all had high expectations for Reloaded and to many of us it was a disappointment. Reloaded did what Back To The Future Part II did for BTTF part III, Which seemed as a giant 2hr. previews to the 3rd installment, in able to have a trilogy they threw in a pointless sequel. It's not that I didn't like Reloaded, I actually did, I thought it was enjoyable and really it wasn't pointless it was a good film but it lacked something that the original and Revolutions had mainly you felt for the characters, in Reloaded you didn't care who lived and died, they where just there and there was no real sense of danger or suspense, just action flying explosions and stunts, that got a little tiring to watch. Revolutions had a "story" to it and you felt for all the characters even Agent Smith you felt for, which is a big factor for me at least to truly enjoy a film. Hugo Weaving did such a wonderful acting job as Agent Smith, his expressions and dry humor made him very enjoyable to watch. (SOME SPOILERS) The ending was predictable as you basically knew what Neo has to do in order to establish peace between the Human and Robot race, I did think it was creative how he must become him in order to destroy him and save mankind and robot kind and the finale confrontation between Neo and Smith was very well done, unlike the battle in the park between Neo and Agent Smith's which got tiring after awhile this ultimate match was one on one and great! Another thing I enjoyed about Revolutions is that the use of the Bullet time affect was toned down allot, I personally think they over did it in Reloaded, Yes I get it they can use a slow motion effect and alter The Matrix code by it, by why show it over and over and over and over and yes over again during the action scenes? In Revolutions you already understood that and I guess the directors got that point that the audience does not need another lesson of bullet time, so this time around they mostly used Bullet time in a normal time lapse which I thought was great and actually more entertaining then the slow-mo which yes I do understand the concept and why they filmed it like that and they did use a few times but not all the time. I can go on and on about The Matrix and it's influence on film culture and the meanings and so fourth of different aspects of The Matrix series but I'll bore you and I'm sure you've read enough so I'll end now. All in all Revolutions was a great film not as good as the original but better then Reloaded, you felt for the characters and it had a great storyline, you felt the directors just got Reloaded out of the way to do Revolutions, you saw they put heart into the finale installment of "The Matrix"

I give Revolutions ***out of 4 The Matrix ****out of 4 Reloaded **out of 4