Change Your Image
azjazz
Reviews
Castle: Clear & Present Danger (2014)
Jumped the Pool Shark
This episode was without a doubt the worst Castle episode I've seen. The plot wasn't even close to believable. I lost interest pretty early on.
This season of Castle has been very disappointing so far. The plots stretch credibility ... too much. It's looking like Castle may have "Jumped the Shark." (See "Happy Days")
It seems like the writers are running out of novel material. Postponing Castle and Beckett's marriage was a mistake as well. How long do the writers think the fans will hold on for? Is the new "mystery" of Castle's disappearance supposed to be a "hook"? I know I'm losing interest in this show very quickly. If the plots don't get back to the previous quality in the next episode or two, they are going to lose me.
With this terrible episode, there will be a marker where we may later say, "Castle Jumped the Pool Shark".
Gran Torino (2008)
An absolutely terrible movie ... Not up to Eastwood's (or anyone else's) standards
I have enjoyed every Clint Eastwood movie I have seen, until now.
There were numerous problems that I had with this film:
1) The plot and scenes were so predictable, it wasn't even entertaining. 2) The acting in this film was absolutely horrid - including Clint's. The lines and acting were so strained throughout the entire movie, I was never able to get into any of the characters. Not even for a second. 3) The movie's message could have been transmitted more effectively with 90% less of the non-stop racial slurs and insults that Clint made throughout the movie. He's a bigot. I got that after the first 20 seconds he looked at his neighbor's home at the beginning of the movie. I didn't need to keep hearing it rammed down my ears every other minute of the movie ... I wasn't going to forget that he's a bigot. 4) Regardless of the situations that supposedly brought Clint closer to his neighbors, it was totally laughable that anybody from the Hmong family would spend a minute with somebody who spouted such vile about them constantly in their presence. It is inconceivable to me that the daughter would bond any sort of friendship with anybody as insanely bigoted as Clint's character. Even if she was helped by Clint, that gratitude would have evaporated within minutes of hearing all the racial slurs made against her, her family, and her people. 6) Is there a dimension less than 1? If so, I would assign that dimension to the depth of every character in the movie. 7) Heck, I was insulted by Clint's character, and I'm not even Asian. After a certain point, I started fast-forwarding through the movie to get past each of his embarrassing tirades. They weren't character development, and they certainly didn't add anything to the movie after the first 10 minutes. 8) Even Clint's constant growling throughout the movie got tiresome. In his earlier films, he didn't have to sound tough all the time. You just knew he was.
If I hadn't watched this at home, I would have walked out. I did watch it to the end however, just to see how the main plot line conflict was resolved. (I won't say how it happens, in case you still want to waste your time on this film)
Even the conflict resolution was unbelievable. About 20 minutes prior to that resolution, it was mentioned exactly why that supposed resolution wouldn't have worked.
Normally, I would have given a film of this caliber about a 4, because Clint's acting would have raised the bar a little. Instead, this gets a solid '1' from me because Clint's acting actually was as bad as everybody else, and I expected better from him.
Sigh.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
A shame ... (may contain spoilers)
My opinions: Spider-man 1 was flawed, but still decent. It had a number of rough spots where the acting was shallow, the script was weak, and the special effects were too cartoonish. However, the plot-line held together, and the movie was a fun ride.
Spider-man 2 surpassed the original in many ways - The characters were better defined, the humor flowed well, the pacing was good, and the acting was better overall. In addition, the special effects were more believable without being overdone. Marvel & Raimi learned from the first movie, and came up with an excellent sequel.
Now, on to Spider-man 3 ...
An odd thought crept into my mind about 20 minutes into the movie. Usually, I'm so engrossed in a movie, I just enjoy the ride and don't try too think hard about the quality of the production until after the movie is over.
During the first of many slow points, the thought that hit me was: "Don't worry ... It will get better." Sadly, I was mistaken.
Where the second Spider-man movie built upon the first, the third in the series was unfocused and added nothing to the other two.
The acting was arguably the worst of the three. This time, I can't even blame it on the actors being fed a bad script. The scenes that were supposed to be dramatic or romantic turned out to contain some of the funniest parts of the movie. The scenes that were intended to be humorous ended up being stupid or embarrassing, and not a single person laughed in the theater.
The pacing of the movie was poor - though not as bad as some other Marvel movies.
Again (as usual), Marvel attempted to bring too many characters & plot lines into a single movie. Let's see ... what plot lines did we get in this movie? Harry Osborn. The Green Goblin. The Sandman. Gwen Stacy. Uncle Ben. Eddie Brock. The symbiote. And, of course, personal issues with Mary Jane.
One thing that I thought that Marvel finally learned in the second Spider-man movie was to keep the plot lines simple and characters to a minimum. In that movie, it was basically just Doc Ock and some token appearances by Harry Osborn. (And, of course, personal issues with Mary Jane.) One major plot line with the rest of the subplots neatly weaving in.
Whatever Marvel learned in the second movie in this regard was forgotten by Spider-Man 3. Almost all of the plots mentioned were struggling to be the main plot line. Instead of weaving together, they tended to stand alone.
Regarding the special effects, they were obviously where the money went in this production. Spider-man 3 reportedly cost a quarter of a billion dollars to produce. That money brought forth a lot of flashy special effects that were way too congested during the fight scenes to be able to really appreciate what was going on. I can't imagine what they would look like on a small TV screen when they were so hard to follow on the big screen. The fight scenes had so much high-speed dodging of chunks of concrete/building parts/glass/etc, that the scenes lost credibility due to the special effects. I've always felt that special effects should add believability to a scene, and not draw attention to the fact that special effects are even being used. Spider-man 3 failed in this regard.
In my opinion, the best special effects were when the Sandman was the sole character on the screen. Those scenes were very believable.
Probably the most telling feature about the final quality of Spider-Man 3 was not what occurred on the screen, however. It was what occurred in the theater: People were walking out in the middle of the movie, and not returning. I would estimate that about 20% of the audience had left prior to the end of the show. There were many points during the movie that I was tempted to leave as well.
But, I kept thinking: "Don't worry ... It will get better."
'Nuff said.
Fantastic Four (2005)
Rough around the edges
I just came back from the show. I give it a 6 out of 10.
First, I'm glad that Marvel was finally able to get the F4 on the big screen as a major motion picture. The F4 comic was a favorite of mine years ago, and I was eagerly waiting for the official release.
Well, the movie was OK, but it could have been so much better. It was obvious to me that a lot of the problems came from the director's seat and the scripting.
The acting never "gelled" for me for any of the actors. This was due to a fair number of poor lines being handed to the actors, but the majority is due to bad direction. Many scenes could have made it if they were redone. Tim Story just didn't have enough experience as a director to know when a shot scene was ready for use.
Scene continuity and pacing was a constant problem in this film. Again, I blame the director.
Jessica Alba did about the best job of all the actors, but even she had some scenes where I lost her character. Michael Chiklis also did an admirable job in a lot of spots as the Thing.
The special effects were OK, but nothing to write home (or to IMDb) about.
They did do a really good job making the Thing look realistic, however.
Another positive thing that Marvel did on this movie was to avoid the all too common "Let's introduce half of all the characters that ever appeared in the comic" ploy to appease the fans. The right amount of characters were introduced in the movie without adding more confusion.
Things I wish were done differently:
(1) I wish that Bryan Singer didall of the Marvel movies. The X-Men series is probably the hardest plot line to pull off successfully, but it has been the best comic-to-big screen series I have seen yet. He could probably have changed some of Marvel's recent "clunkers" (this movie falls into this category) into hits.
(2) Less time spent on Johnny being a bratty thrill-seeker.
(3) Continuity. There were scenes where the F4 were supposed to be in a secure, isolated observation area, and the next thing you know - poof! - they're out in public. Also, almost every scene where Victor Von Doom reappeared in seemed awkward in the transition. Lots of other continuity problems as well.
(4) Make the F4 seem more like a team. Johnny's character seemed to constantly throw this off. And while past friendships and romances were brought out in the film, they didn't seem to be very solid relationships.
Oh, well. If they do a F4-2, maybe they'll get the kinks out.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)
Amazing!
I just looked at the votes that people have already cast for this movie on imdb.com, and I am amazed at how many gave this movie a 10! There must be some hard-core Will Ferrell fans out there.
Let me state first that I'm not familiar with Will Ferrell, but I am assuming that he is one of a long line of Saturday Night Live comedians trying to make it in the movie world. I'm not sure if Ron Burgundy is a character from SNL that was brought to the big screen, but it certainly has that flavor to it.
Well, many of the reasons that I totally detested this movie fall in line with many of the reasons that I stopped watching SNL decades ago. The characters in "Anchorman" (and SNL) have been dumbed down to such a low level that they are annoying and straining for laughs constantly. The majority of the attempted humor in this movie was derived from characters acting just plain stupid in normal situations. That can be used effectively if it isn't overdone in a movie, but it just never ends in this movie.
A few positive things about this movie: There really wasn't much of the "potty" humor that seems to be required in just about every Hollywood comedy these days. Also, Christina Applegate does a decent job as a more talented reporter, and actually is much funnier than most of the characters when she plays it "straight" against the stupidity of the other characters. This is actually a totally opposite character from her days as Kelly Bundy on "Married ... with Children", she she does it quite well. Also, she seems to be becoming even more attractive as time passes by - she looks quite stunning in many of the shots. A final positive note: The theater was almost entirely empty on the opening weekend Friday night.
If I went to this movie by myself (which really wouldn't have happened), I would have walked out within the first 20 minutes. Since I was with a friend (her suggested movie, of course), I roughed it.
I will state that judging by the votes already on imdb, many people do seem to like this type of humor. So, if you think that the previews of this movie were hilarious, you will probably enjoy the movie - the previews capture the soul of the movie pretty well, without showing you all the things you would think are "funny stuff".
However, if you aren't sure whether you will like this movie based upon what you see in the previews, you should stay away - this movie gets very tiring and predictable fast.
My rating: 1 (... Only because '0' wasn't an option)
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Exceeded my expectations!
First off, let me mention that I was very disappointed with the first Spider-Man movie. I had high expectations with S-M1 ... the trailers for that movie looked awesome, and were very engaging. I couldn't wait for the arrival of S-M1! When I saw the film (on the first day of the release, of course!) I was pretty unhappy. My main complaints were echoed by others:
(1) The plot, pacing and character development of Spider-Man 1 was too congested. They were trying to introduce too many characters and plot-lines to comfortably fit in a 2 hour movie. The switching between scenes / plot-lines was pretty chaotic.
(2) The special effects were substandard for a movie of this size. Marvel's take on this was effectively: "It's a movie based on a comic book. We want the movie to have a comic book look." Oh, come on! How gullible do you think we are? The movie ran short on funds, plain and simple.
(3) Some of the lines by the characters were *so* bad that it was laughable in serious moments. The script on one of the love scenes between Mary Jane and Spider-Man was so bad, I'm surprised that they ever got a usable scene - the actors must have busted a gut laughing through it on almost every take.
(4) The acting fell short in a number of spots, where I lost the "magic" of watching a movie - I wasn't into the characters, and remembered I was just watching actors on the screen.
That said, I gave S-M1 a low rating.
Now ... on to S-M2!
On the outset, I'll just say that each of the complaints mentioned above were addressed. Apparently, Sam Raimi and Marvel paid attention to the problems in the first movie and learned from their mistakes.
I'll address the same issues in the same order for S-M2:
(1) Plot, pacing, and character development: Excellent! There was only one or two spots where I was thinking "OK, let's move on." (One noticable problem: The elevator scene. You'll know what I'm talking about if/when you see the movie) The overall plot was more cohesive than in S-M1, giving enough time for characters to develop properly. Even if you've never read the comic book, you had enough information on each character to understand their motivations. 9/10
(2) Special effects: Incredibly better than in the first movie, but not quite "real" 100% of the time yet. Some of the scenes where Spider-Man is swinging amongst the buildings still had an artificial feel to them. It wasn't bad enough to draw your attention to it, though. 9/10
(3) Scripting: Very few bad lines for the actors. Most of the conversations had a "normal conversation" feel to them. There were a few scenes where a character would get a little long-winded (Think Aunt May here) to drive home a particular point. 8/10
(4) Acting: Dead-on. I never lost the "magic" on this one. All the actors did an excellent job, and nobdy went "over-the-top". 10/10
Overall rating: 9/10
azjazz
Signs (2002)
M. Night Shyamalan's Sign should read "Do Not Enter"
I've seen "The Sixth Sense", "Unbreakable", and now "Signs". I would rate "The Sixth Sense" an 8, "Unbreakable" a 5, and "Signs" a 2. I am beginning to think that we have already seen the best that Mr. Shyamalan has to offer.
*** SPOILERS BELOW ***
Artistic Impressions: It's hard to figure out what this movie was trying to be. Was it a new look at an alien invasion movie? Nope. It seemed like a remake of "War of the Worlds". Was it a horror movie? Nah. It never seemed to relate to the viewer enough to get the viewer truly scared. A character exploration? Possibly, although the only character really being explored was Mel Gibson's. I never felt like I cared enough about his character to really want to see any more depth. Best that I can figure is that the movie is just trying to be another "revenue enhancer" for Touchstone Pictures.
Pacing: The story was slow (as was true in M. Night Shyamalan's other movies). There was enough going on in the movie to keep me involved, but only barely. There were a few times that I looked at my watch to see how much of the movie was left (not a good sign). However, the few "scary moments" were well placed and gave me a little jump, even when I knew what was going on. The first couple of alien sightings were very well done.
Acting: The acting was mostly decent, although the children (as usual in Hollywood) were totally unrealistic. Mel's acting was good, but the character he was handed to play never really grabbed me.
Special Effects: Very good. Everything was cohesive visually and audibly. There wasn't any time that I caught myself thinking, "Cool special effects!". (This is a *very* good sign). I firmly believe that special effects, when done correctly, shouldn't draw attention to themselves. Special effects should make a story more believable, not become the story.
Strengths: Not much that I can think of here that I haven't mentioned already.
Weaknesses: Poor plot cohesion. "Signs" is a story about a potential alien invasion. Why are the aliens invading? We never find out. Why didn't the aliens use their advanced technology to invade us? A weak quote from a goofy dime-store book about aliens solved that problem. One thing about that book, though - it was always right about what the aliens would do. Funny how that happens in movies, hmmm ;-)? Why did the aliens leave after just a few days? We never truly found out, although I would expect that they would have blasted the crap out of our planet if we had "beaten" them as easily as we did in the movie.
Summary: Although the character development is decent, the main plotline was very weak. Don't go unless you feel that you really have to.
Spider-Man (2002)
Decent, but could have been better
While this was an enjoyable film, it didn't quite meet up to my expectations (which were pretty high - the trailers for the movie were excellent!)
I had three main complaints:
(1) The movie would have benefited by adding an additional 15-25 minutes of final footage and a little more time on the editing floor. I felt that the director/Marvel tried to fit way too much plot & character development into a 2 hour film. The end result was a congested film that didn't flow smoothly. There were also odd plot "jumps" that could have been eliminated.
(2) The love scenes could have been more polished and had less "comic book" script lines. It was clear that the actors struggled with many of the love scene lines.
(3) Marvel/Sony should have spent a little more on the Green Goblin / Spider-man special effects. A lot of the action scenes looked obviously computer-generated. Today's technology could have provided a more realistic result. The claims about how the director "wanted" that look are purely ridiculous and just a cover-up for where they just didn't want to spend the money. (How did his webbing work in the movie? They weren't really clear on that ...)
These points aside, I think Marvel/Sony did an great job otherwise. The film was fun to watch, and I really enjoyed seeing one of my favorite comic-book heroes come to life. Toby McGuire did an excellent job as Peter Parker, and many of the other characters were believable as well. The plotline of how he got his powers in the movie had a more realistic ring to it than the comic line of a "radioactive" spider bite.
I look forward to a sequel that is better than the first movie...
azjazz
Dark Angel: Pilot (2000)
Messin' with a great thing
What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.
Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.
The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!
azjazz
Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000)
Bored in 60 Seconds
One of the worst movies I have paid good money for in recent history (If you ignore Star Wars I, for which I had very low expectations). The acting was spotty at best, although Nicolas Cage tried to uphold his part. The plot line was standard Hollywood pablum, with absolutely no surprises and characters that were no thicker than their "slim-jims". Even the chase scenes were poor - predictable and too much visual noise to easily follow what was going on. Angelina Jolie, who has received a lot of positive press lately, was barely able to hold on to her character. Considering the cast, this had the potential to be an excellent movie.
As it stands, Gone in 60 Seconds may well describe how long this movie lasts in the theaters.