Tirdun Reviews

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Thank you, Mr. Burton

[8/10 · 18 July 2005]

_Charlie_ has always been one of my favorite kid's books, so walking into another movie version was a bit worrying. The original WW+CF movie with Gene Wilder was more of an "inspired by" version than a true rendition of the story. It sat alongside _Grinch_ as well-intentioned but not particularly well realized movie versions of kids books.

Charlie is true to its source, true to the heart and soul of the book, true to the ideas and fun in the story and manages above all else to be entertaining and interesting. Visually the movie is stunning. From the stark, almost black and white city and exterior of the factory to the technicolor interior of Mr. Wonka's world. The oompa-loompas were great, even more so because Burton had to compete with the original movie version that everyone remembers. Deppp as Wonka played perfectly: eccentric and spirited, fun and even a bit manipulative. His joy at his odd universe of creations is palpable. The humor, and there was a lot of it, varied from subtle to slapstick, rarely missing the mark. The special effects were restrained and effective rather than being overblown.

I had a few quibbles with the extended cast. While Charlie, his family and the crew of the factory were wonderful, the remaining children were a bit thin and felt like fodder for a slasher movie. Exceptions included Violet and her mother. My final gripe was that I couldn't understand the words to the songs, even though I enjoyed them.

In all, the movie was just a bit overlong. I thought the early pre-factory section could have been abbreviated. The movie really picks up once the tour starts and minus a few lagging parts, never slows down. I enjoyed it, the kids enjoyed it and we left the theater feeling we'd gotten more than our money's worth.

Fantastic Four (I) (2005)

F4 needs a pity point just to make 4 stars.

[4/10 · 11 July 2005]

I had hoped that Hulk and the last of the old Batman movies would have served as the gold standards for how NOT to make a superhero movie. So many high hopes horribly dashed. Curse Batman Begins and Spiderman for upping the ante if you will, but it seems that some directors and studios understand that a superhero movie should live up to both "superhero" and "movie". Sadly, F4 does neither.

The characters are as two dimensional as comic-book paper. They do things because the script writing team says they should. The script writers write these things because it sets up set pieces where things explode or the CGI machines get turned on or the *cough* plot is advanced. This all leads to big trailers and tie ins with toys and kids meals. On screen none of it feels realistic in the least.

Why was Spiderman good? Because we empathized with Peter. When he made decisions, we understood why. None of the characters in F4 are people you never care about any of them, so the action scenes carry no weight. There is no growth, no chemistry and groan-level humor is slathered on like whip cream in an attempt to cover it all up.

The villain is uninspired. You felt neither empathy nor fear, his plot to yadda-yadda was yawn and etc and who cares. The goofiest Batman TV show had better villain plots.

I would go on, but honestly if the writers couldn't be bothered, neither can I. If you want a good superhero team movie, I suggest you buy "Incredibles". The special features section of that DVD is a better superhero movie than all of F4.

Batman Begins (2005)

A new and much improved vision of Batman

[8/10 · 20 June 2005]

Batman Begins goes a long way in erasing (*shudder*) all those Batman sequels from my memories. It took making it a prequel, abandoning all established location and plots of the original set of movies and a shot of anti-TimBurton in the arm to make it work. And for me, it certainly worked.

There are some iffy bits, to be sure. Batman has always had a problem in terms of making a "normal" person super-heroic. He falls further and gets hit harder than should really be possible with a few bruises to show for it, no matter what kind of training he's had. The romantic parts are a little thin and sometimes jerky. Finally, the movie lifts some moments directly from other movies, including some recent comic book adaptations.

I also heard complaints from co-viewers that it took too long to get around to Batman being Batman, but I credit the movie with covering bases that most Batman products simply gloss over: where does his STUFF come from and why any of this high-tech wizardry is only available to him.

All that said, the movie is fun, exciting and fairly smart. It has a surprising amount of wit, especially from Alfred/Michael Cain. The fight scenes work well, the action scenes work well and you even get a good sense that the bad guy really has some sort of idea exactly what he's doing and why. The idea of Batman as a symbol is covered, and Batman even gets off a few good quips while battling his foes.

The Incredibles (2004)

Par for Pixar's fantastic course.

[9/10 · 30 November 2004]

Pixar does it again. I guess I'd suffered through so many "family" pictures in the last year or so that I had grown jaded on ever taking my kids to see anything worthwhile. For every bright light like Shrek and Toy Story there are a hundred Garfields and Wild Thornberry movies.

In the simplest terms, this was a fun movie to watch. The characters were realistic in the universe presented, the plot turns were often unexpected and exciting and there were several lines of the story that wove in and out. The 3 kids I had with me were enthralled, although I only glanced over once. I had a movie to watch too.

Aside from the neato moments of computer generated wizardry, I was rarely paying attention to the media used or the FX generated. I cared about the relationship between the parents. I recognized the rivalry between the kids and the bits of angst thrown in both from their daily lives and from trying to be "normal".

Thank you, Pixar.

Team America: World Police (2004)

South Park, the movie part 2

[8/10 · 18 October 2004]

Although I certainly though TA-WP was very funny (8/10), I suspect that it has a built in limitation to its audience, and that's South Park Fans. The humor generally ranged from low brow to lower brow, but the overall themes were funny despite the fart joke humor and something subtle and witty shines through. This might as well be the hallmarks of Trey and Matt since South Park is cut from the same cloth.

A perfect example is the theme song for the team when they blast off Thunderbird's style: "America, F*** YEAH!" You don't get much more low brow than a song that's got "F*** YEAH" as the repetitive chorus, but the humor is deeper. It casts a mirror on the American ego that is on display throughout the movie. It's also catchy and the whole theater was singing along.

The puppet aspect is also lampooned, from the opening shot of meta-puppetry to several "yeah, they're just puppets" moments. Some of these were weak, others were spot-on funny (watch for the "panthers" to attack the trapped heroes).

SO... if you like South Park and loved the first SP movie, than you've probably already watched this movie. If you're looking for a brutally funny low-brow pic, go see it. If neither of these sounds like fun then this movie will be torture. I was still laughing he next day.

Shrek 2 (2004)

90% awesome, 10% groan gags

[9/10 · 9 July 2004]

I missed this on opening weekend because I was out of town, but the wife and kids raved after seeing it and I loved the first, so off I went.

The bad news is that Far Far Away is a lengthy, often lame in-joke about LA and Pop Culture. IMHO: it could have been scrapped. Where Du Loc's barbs at Disney were sharp (and quickly over) in the first, the second movie goes on and on (and on...) about the LA lifestyle or something. Yeah, the Farbucks joke was funny, and some of the signs were worth a chuckle, but the red carpet gags and endless "LA is shallow" bit was boring. It just all went over the kids' heads, and it didn't sink the film.

OK, that out of the way, the rest of the movie was everything that it needed to be to live up to the first while continuing on with the tale. Puss in Boots wasn't as awesome to me as he was to everyone else, apparently, but different tastes and all that. The story was sweet without being sugary. The "villians" weren't the crazy "take-over-the-world" sort, they had motivations and character. The good guys were good, the action was fun and even Eddie Murphy (who's act has really started to wear thin for yours truly) was worth having along. The CGI is definitely a notch up, the jokes (outside of the above) were funny. I laughed quite a bit and I know there were bits in the background that I missed (especially in the Poison Apple Bar). You can see the effort that went in to making the world of Shrek more than just background for the plot.

9 out of 10. I'll be first in line for the DVD.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Everything I hoped for

[10/10 · 30 June 2004]

I had a lot of high expectations going into the midnight showing for Spiderman 2. First, living up to the first movie. Second, washing away the horrible taste of other recent superhero movies (Punnisher and Hulk to name 2). Third, being worth a midnight run on a weeknight.

Spiderman 2 takes off just after Spiderman left off and hits all the right notes. Follow up on all the first movies plot lines? Check. Tons of spider action? Check. Mega-badguy plus fightscenes? Check. Better CGI? Yeah, its still got some pixels around the edges sort of feeling, but I barely noticed it. Check.

In all, this was a better movie. You didn't have to sit through the "Peter is a geek" and character introduction parts. Everybody is already known to the audience, minus the necessary intro to Doc Ock. The "great responsibility" angst is turned up, giving Peter a lot more depth as he lives his dual life. The ever-hammy Jameson is a riot, with just a touch of humanity thrown in and yanked right back out. Even the minor characters that add a lot depth, especially the heavyset black guy in the Bugle and Aunt May.

Add some humor on the side, some great arc development and a preview of Spidey 3 and I barely noticed getting home at 3am.

Garfield: The Movie (2004)

Weak, predictable and unfunny

[2/10 · 23 June 2004]

IMDb says it restricts to 1000 words for comments, I'll sum Garfield up in 2:

Predictable and Tedious.

I don't care if the CGI works or not (it really doesn't) ScoobyDoo had ugly CGI, and although that movie is moderately watchable, Garfield was a train wreck of pathetic gags, weak pop culture digs and a plot that says "color by numbers" all over it. People whined about Murry's voice, I didn't love or hate it. But hey, I haven't read the Sunday comic strip in years, so here's the final word: My kids got restless in about 30 minutes. My kids will watch the same Pokemon episode 100 times without blinking, so 30 minutes into a 90 minute movie is just sad. 2/10

Finding Nemo (2003)

Beautiful and fun 9/10

[9/10 · 2 September 2003]

Yeah, I waited till the last minute to weigh in: everyone on earth has seen this already ;)

There are very few things not to like in Pixar's 4th movie. The undersea environment was spectacular. The fishy critters were all diverse and interesting and the humor was on par with the Toy Story line. Yeah, there was the whole Di$ney-parent curse where no main character can ever seem to have BOTH parents live to see credits, and I find the forced sympathy of a lost parent to be not only overused but a lame crutch for uncreative writers... but it really was fairly well played and I'll forgive it given the overwhelming number of good things that the movie offered.

The kids managed to sit through the whole thing (which is rare even for a Pixar movie) and laughed. I enjoyed every moment of it and rarely gave a second thought about it being animated except to admire the beauty of the scenes and to pick out occational Toy Story references. All the characters were interesting and well done.

I would have given the story a 10 but it fell just short of perfect in enough places for me to note. Several cliche-ish story twists, a bit of plot stumbling and a few scenes really sort of dragged on. Call it personal preferences or whatever, but hey: a 9 is a rare gem in this summer's wasteland of lackluster blockbusters.

Hulk (2003)

Slow, talky and visually annoying.

[4/10 · 23 June 2003]

Just to get it out of the way, the Hulk looked pretty good. All you whiners about how the CGI doesn't look good need to shut up and go learn to program CGI before you have any whine-credits to spend here. I suspended disbelief with no effort and was rooting the big dude on in every fight scene. Of which there weren't nearly enough. So, the positive thus taken care of, on to the rest:

I'm not sure what Lee was trying to DO here. This is the H-U-L-K. He has the simplest &#@&% backstory of almost ANY comic character! Scientist is hit by Gamma Bomb, turns into mindless mass of green rage when he gets mad.

See? I told you the backstory in 17 words. If you've NEVER known anything about the Hulk, you could read that and go into all sorts of cool stories about the tragic scientist with a temper problem.

Lee took a whole (surpressing rage) HOUR to get Banner to Hulk out. Threw in some confusing repressed memory psycho father mumbo jumbo (the trailer blew that nugget already) while jumping PAST the love story! WHAT?!? (rage suppression failing).

Aside from the overstuffed plot (talk talk talk talk talk talk talk!) and screwy flashbacks (GAAAAAA) and endless closesups of SCIENCE (woo, another TEST TUBE! Because it's SCIENCE dontchaknow!) there was the INFURIATING COMIC-PANEL SPLITSCREENS! It's like a picture-in-picture feature on your TV gone berserk. (rage building) The constant multi-angle shots and weird fades and scene-wipes, the annoying zooms and WHY ARE WE FOCUSING ON A TREE AGAIN?!? MOSS ON A TREE!?! ISN'T THIS MOVIE ABOUT THAT GREEN THING!?!? AAAAAAAH RAGE RAGE RAGE SMASH SMASH SMASH!!!!!

Red Dawn (1984)

Lost in what-if land

[2/10 · 23 January 2003]

I'd heard about Red Dawn (mythos of "most bullets ever" and such) and watched it on TBS or TNT or whatever. Hated it. Now, I enjoy a good what-if scenario as much as the next guy. I enjoy reading WWII books about "what if xxxx had died in 1943" or "what if the Germans had built a jet", but in order for any scenario like this to work, there has to be SOME semblance of possibiltiy. You can suspend disbelief only so far and believe me, this one stretches disbelief into whole new and ridiculous shapes, then it lights it on fire and dances around the ashes.

So, Russia invades middle-America through Mexico?!? What, were the radar and satellite guys asleep during the buildup and invasion? Do you know how many military bases there are in Texas? Do you know how much firepower sits at sea RIGHT NOW? Given the unlikely scenario of attacking the US from the middle, the entire US Atlantic and Pacific fleets are sitting like a hammer and anvil ready to pound this mythical Russian/South American army into dust! YEESH! Logic failing. Losing mind.

Ok, movies don't always have to make sense, I'll just sit back and watch a kill-the-alien or similar mess with a big smile and a beer without picking it apart. Howerver, what little ignore-the-facts rah-rah potential this movie has is swamped by the unbelievable premise, followed by the unbelievable storyline that the US military (and UK, and Canada, and etc) couldn't muster a worthy retaliation for years. Add to that the inept Russian troops, who can't seem to defend themselves in a scenario that they are trained to handle while a bunch of high-school kids rough it in the mountains with their complex weaponry and USA-USA-USA spirit. Drek. Pure Drek.

The whole thing boils down to a political cartoon against gun registration. If you note in the early stages where the Russian COL orders a subordinate to gather all the registration forms from the local hunting store, and the proceedes to confiscate said guns. Our "heroes" however, manage to scrounge up some guns'n'ammo and fight back! WOO! Boy if they ever pass those gun registration laws and Russia invades us we can't say we weren't warned! I'm not going to go all pro-NRA or anti-gun here, but the message in this movie is a load. 2/10 for a few watchable scenes.

Unbreakable (2000)

Great Fun, Great Movie, Go see.

[8/10 · 7 August 2001]

Let me start by saying I really enjoyed "Unbreakable" from start to finish and will be adding it to my DVD collection shortly. The movie was excellent, great twist at the end. That said, I have two gripes to air:

First, while the camera shots (as with Sixth Sense) were usually great, I would often find myself getting dizzy as the camera panned back and forth, back and forth or spun on axis around and around. This is at it's worst during the scene in the train at the beginning of the film, where the camera is shooting between two train seats and moves back and forth a dozen times. I understand it's supposed to be a kid watching between the seats, but I was on the verge of hunting for dramamine.

Second, Bruce Willis' character is just about as dumb as a bag of hammers in some areas. If someone asks you if you've ever been sick, and you never have, you should KNOW that. You wouldn't have any IDEA what being sick meant except with other people. You've never had a cold, never thrown up, etc etc. If it was pointed out to you, you should hear bells in your head. (minor spoiler) And if I ever managed bench press every weight in my home gym (plus a cut scene on the DVD shows him at the stadium pressing 500), I'd either know something was really going or somebody snuck something into my wheaties.

In all, the movie rocked. 8 out of 10, with me thinking about going back and voting a 9.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

Surprising and Hilarious

[9/10 · 7 August 2001]

I actually only watched OBWAT because the rental store gave my wife the wrong box (she wanted Pay it Forward), and was I ever happy about that. "Oh Brother" was funny, sweet, surprising and simply fun to watch.

The only rough spots were George Clooney's occational over-acting (yes, the character was supposed to be melodramatic, but it grated at times) and a few times where I thought the director was spoon-feeding the audience information.

These minor potholes did nothing to deter my amusement and surprise from the first scene to the last. The music was excellent (not only the theme song, but the entire score), the story was funny, the loose ties to the "Odyssey" were interesting, and I found myself rooting for the characters more than I have in a long time. A simple, effective movie that Hollywood should pay attention to. 9 out of 10.

The Emperor's New Groove (2000)

Not your standard Disney

[8/10 · 7 August 2001]

I've got to give Disney credit for ENG, it managed to have a lot of fun, tell a decent story and keep someone as jaded on kids films as I am watching.

After suffering through tons of "kiddie" films, it's nice to find a few that you let the kids watch without having to run to another room so you don't have to hear the endless drivel. ENG has humor on a number of levels, from slapstick for the kids to poking fun at cartoon logic and even a few jokes that made me laugh out loud. The moral won't leave you with a sugar coating on your tongue, the characters had some actual depth and while the art was very atypical for Disney, I enjoyed the look and feel of it. 8 out of 10.

Pitch Black (2000)

Not especially smart, but enjoyable

[20 March 2001]

OK, so Pitch Black starts with the "wake up in hypersleep" scenario that's really been done before. OK, overdone. Then there are the odd lapses in reality during the crash scene and later throughout the movie. Look past all of that, and hey, it wasn't half bad. Don't expect the next Citizen Kane and you've got an hour and a half of escapism, creepy monster movie fun. The F/X (especially during the eclipse) are good, the monsters are fairly cool and sometimes scary, Riddick (the anti-hero) was well played, and there isn't the typical ending.

Battlefield Earth (2000)

Bad. Really bad. Painfully bad.

[1/10 · 7 February 2001]

I don't think that I can add much to the piles and piles of reviews that likened this movie to piles and piles of something else. I saw it for free at the urging of a "friend" (he's borderline now) who assured me that, while it did suck, we could laugh at the stupidity. He owes me 2 hours of really intense fun now to cover for the hour I managed to stay with this movie. If someone tells you that battlefield earth was anything but worthless, mind-hurting suck, slap them. Then slap them once for me. Then slap them again. Repeat as necessary.

An American Werewolf in Paris (1997)

Worst I've seen in years.

[1/10 · 7 February 2001]

I had been a huge fan of the original "American werewolf in London" and, while I had no real hopes this would be as good as that one (which was just funny good, not really good), I had hoped to be entertained. I was not. Aside from some physics bending during a bungie jump scene, a really weak plot and some really stupid characters, the movie just went nowhere. I've watched training videos that were more fun to watch than this mess.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Great movie, few flaws.

[7/10 · 2 August 1999]

Although I loved the movie, it did fail me in several key areas: (1) Jar Jar. You know the contraversy. I don't care if he IS gay, he's annoying, unneeded, and generally just a waste of CGI. He serves as little more than (weak) comic relief and by the end I was hoping he'd die. (2) The fight scenes, although well done, were shot WAY too closely. I'd would have liked to have seen a little more of the action from a distance so I could see what was going on. (3) The miracles of Anakin. No spoilers, but he pulls a one in a million shot that could have been done different and more realistic.

Otherwise, the story was great, the scenes were on par with the other movies and the overall feel of the movie far outshone these problems.

The Waterboy (1998)

Ok, it's no "Ben Hur", but its funny!

[8/10 · 2 August 1999]

Waterboy lacks two things that are essential to most movies, plot and character development. The plot is the typical rags to riches rise of a small town football team thanks to a freak player. Disney usually makes these with an animal or girl as the unusual player, but in this case it's Adam Sandler. The character development is almost non-existent, with most of the "key" characters doing little more than keeping the "plot" moving along, and contributing to the funny scenes. Despite all this, it somehow manages to be laugh-out-loud funny for most of the movie. Once the slapstick element is introduced (and you've all seen the trailers, he gets mad, he tackles people) it is mercilessly applied over and over. The constant re-application of the humor somehow survives the rest of the movie, and through a few typical and unsurprising twists, we arrive at the end wanting to see it again.

The Return of the King (1980 TV Movie)

An attempt to finish Bashki's "Lord of the Rings" fails.

[1/10 · 2 August 1999]

For whatever reason, somebody decided to finish Ralph Bashki's "Lord of the Rings" movie. The movie itself was awful, not to mention incomplete. There was supposed to be a conclusion movie, which was never made. For good reason. The primary failure of this movie was that it (A) Assumed you hadn't seen the first movie and (B) Assumed you had. Confused? Go see the movie, then you'll really be confused. The movie retells the entire plot of the "Lord of the Rings" in the form of a very long and confusing song which fails to either fully bring you up to speed on the plot or entertain you very much. The characters are then thrown headlong into a poorly animated rendition of the last book of the story, through a blazing and mainly incomprehensible series of events which make no sense unless you've either read the actual book, or are psychic and can pull plot points out of the aether. Regardless, the movie fails in its attempt to complete the story, which isn't surprising considering the quality of the first movie. Read the book.

The Lord of the Rings (1978)

A poor attempt at animating a great work.

[1/10 · 2 August 1999]

Bashki should be congratulated for attempting to convert one of the great works of English fiction into a movie, and then slapped silly for this attempt. The animation was poor, the characters looked ridiculous, the music was overwhelmingly blaring, and the film was a ramshackle blitz through the first book and a half of Tolkien's masterpiece. I can still remember my sheer disappointment and loathing for the movie when I first saw it. Now I realize that any attempt to convert a book into a movie is bound to fail in many ways, simply because of the medium, but this movie, regardless of the source of the story, is just plain pathetic. Bashki is capable of much more.