Change Your Image
tywaters3000
Reviews
Things to Do (2006)
things to do
Lets put it this way. I actually get this movie. I get what the writer/directer was trying to do. I understand that the dialog was meant to be dry and emotionless. I understand that the plot was supposed to be non-climactic and stale. That was what the writer/director was going for. A very very very dry humor/comedy. With all that understanding, I still think the movie sucked. It seemed like the writer/director was trying to recreate Napolean Dynamite with this movie. It had all of the same features. Even the main character behaved similar to Napolean. But Napolean Dynamite was actually funny. Its script worked. This movie is not. It has no purpose. Well, let me rephrase that. Its only purpose is to rip off Napolean Dynamite and try to capture that look and feel. Too bad it didn't work.
Superman Returns (2006)
It took $250 million to make this????
At the end of Superman Returns, the audience in the movie theater that I watched it in, stood up and applauded. I don't know if it was because they thought they had just seen a masterpiece, or because the movie was finally over.
Let me just say it plainly, this movie is boring, unnecessarily long, and the plot sucks! Before going to see the movie, I read reviews about it from several sites like Rottentomatoes.com. It actually had more good reviews then bad ones. After seeing the movie, I am now completely convinced that a lot of the high profile movie critics in the country receive some kind of kick back ($$$) from the movie studios to give movies like this a good review. Especially, crap like Superman Returns.
Let me see, where should I begin. The action sequence at the beginning of the movie, with the airliner, was pretty cool. But the director (Bryan Singer) cheapens the moment by having the leading lady (Kate Bosworth), tossed around the plane like a rag doll. Why, I have to ask why. He would have gotten the same affect with her strapped to her seat. That scene was not even about her, it was about Superman and displaying one of Superman's many amazing skills. But no, Singer had to have Lois getting slammed around the fusel lodge, only to come away with zero injuries, and zero bruises.
Now of course I know this is a fantasy movie with a fantasy character. But that doesn't mean that you can't throw in SOME reality. I mean, this was Singer's big chance to put his own stamp on the Superman mythology. The directors of Spider, Batman, and even James Bond (coming soon) have done it, and done it successfully. Instead, Singer chooses to imitate the previous Superman movies. But he doesn't even get that right.
I heard that the movie cost $250 million to make. Where did the $250 million go? It wasn't on the special effects. Other then the before mentioned airliner scene, the rest of the movie's special effects were not that impressive. For $250 million, I expected to see WAY more action sequences. I expected to see Superman's home Krypton, and I expected to see more explosions. I mean, c'mon, this is the summer blockbuster season, isn't it? But no, instead we get plenty of scenes of Superman flying. That's it. Him flying. And the funny thing is, it looked fake!! I know most of it was CGI, but the close up scenes looked fake. I could almost see the green screen. For $250 million, it should have been better.
Then we have the plot. Lex Luthor's big plan is to create his own continent. What? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. In the comics, Lex Luthor was an evil genius (like almost all comic book bad guys). He doesn't display any of that geniusness in this movie. Instead of harnessing the power of the crystals to create some new kind of weapon or to find out what makes Superman super, he would rather create new real-estate. So he can sell "ocean front property". This was the best that Singer and the writers could come up with? For $250 million? Last but not least, we have the pace of the movie. The movie drags. Aside from the airliner scene, the rest of the movie moves at a very slow pace. The movie had no reason to be 2 and 1/2 hours. Why did we have to see the Superman-peepingTom scene? Why did we have to see the Superman running and jumpin through the cornfield (ala Spiderman)scene? Those scenes were unnecessary and they were drawing out.
My recommendation to anyone who is thinking of going to the theater to watch this movie is, don't waist your time.
Breaking Dawn (2004)
what is a movie
These days, writers, directors and producers are relying more and more on the "surprise" ending. The old art of bringing a movie to closure, taking all of the information we have learned through out the movie and bringing it to a nice complete ending, has been lost. Now what we have is a movie that, no matter how complex, detailed, or frivolous, can be wrapped up in 5 minutes. It was all in his/her head. That explanation is the director's safety net. If all else fails, or if the writing wasn't that good, or if we ran out of money to complete the movie, we can always say "it was all in his/her head" and end the movie that way. The audience will buy it because, well, none of us are psychologists, and none of us are suffering from schizophrenia (not that we know about) so we take the story and believe it. After all, the mind is a powerful thing. Some movies have pulled it off. But those movies are the reason why we are getting more and more of these crap endings. Every director/writer now thinks they can pull it off because, well, Fight Club did it and it made a lot of money. So we get movies like The Machinist, Secret Window, Identity, and this movie (just to name a few).
Control (2004)
the movie went nowhere
I agree with most of the comments on this movie, the opening scene was definitely the best part of the movie. After that movie goes downhill. The real problem with this movie is that it's not believable. I'll explain. *********Spoilers ahead**********spoilers ahead************* First of all, why would a state government allow a death row homicidal murderer to participate in this experiment? There are plenty of anger management patients out there that have not killed several people. Second, why would they trust the patient to take the pills himself? Especially a convicted murderer. Wouldn't they make sure the medicine was injected into the patient or something? And third, why would they put the reformed murderer back on the streets IN OR NEAR THE TOWN HE COMMITTED HIS CRIMES IN!? That doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't they treat it similar to a witness protection program and put the guy somewhere in the middle of nowhere Kansas? I see why this movie never made it to the screens. The critics would have destroyed it and it probably would have made under $1,000
Employee of the Month (2004)
Awww Maaaaaaaaan!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this Wild Things part two?!!!...you have to be kidding me. I have to admit, I actually liked this movie up until the last 10 minutes of it. Having just lost my job, I could relate to Dillon's character (David) and the way he behaves towards the end of the movie. I mean, come on! Who doesn't want to pistol whip their boss! The entire movie was believable as we watched David experience the "perfect bad day" as Jack puts it. Even the bank robbery was very nicely done. Then, as you wait with anticipation for the movie to deliver the perfect ending, well, that's when the entire movie falls apart. I mean, it starts putting out one absurd twist after another. As the twists unfold your eyes stay glued to the screen like watching a graphic car accident occur over and over and over. Even as the credits go up the movie continues to destroy any shred of decency that it may have had, and any idea in your mind that this was actually a good movie. In the end, all you want to do is silently take the movie out of the DVD player, get in your car, go back to Blockbuster and return the movie.