Change Your Image
madnessx69
Reviews
Rashômon (1950)
Over half a century old and still an amazing film.
Although the concept from Rashomon has been used over and over again in modern films and TV programs, there is no denying that its still an entertaining idea to this day, nevermind it was 54 years ago. Considering how long ago it was and what kinda budget they had to work with it's surprising how good it really is. Sure, some of the acting's a bit over the top and the movie lacks the proper sound effects (I wonder when samurai films began including the swooshes and clangs along with the swordfights) but nonetheless the story is still powerful and transcends time and race.
This is the 1st Kurosawa flick I've seen but plan on seeing the "Seven Samurai" next.
I recommend this movie to anyone with an appreciation for film. If you're looking for an action movie with crazy special effects and kick-ass fight scenes look somewhere else, this one's all concept...
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
This baby celebrates it 10 year anniversary, catch it.
Ok, I'll admit it. I wasn't the biggest Coen's brothers' fan. Sure, O Brother was pretty visually pleasing and the Big Lebowski had a few laughs, but overall I never saw what the big HOOPLA was about (see the movie, you'll get that.) That was until I saw Hudsucker!! My god, what a brilliant movie!! It reminded me of Terry Gilliams "Brazil", only not so bleak, but with the same hyper-reality, the extreme caricatures, and all very engaging. The opening scene with Hudsucker hopping out the window is awesome!! What an opener. What I really enjoyed though was the theme of "circles" through the entire flick, and not just the obvious Hoola-hoop and so on but the subtle nods like the huge clock, the "merry-go-round" line, the karma speech, the halo, and Paul Newmans "Sure sure kid, you've re-invented the wheel" who was also great. Also, Jennifer Jason Leigh really showed her acting chops and it's a wonder she's vanished into obscurity. This is one of those oddities that really need more recognition and I'm making it my one-man mission to spread the word; WATCH HUDSUCKER PROXY TODAY!!! The best Coens bros movie EVER!!! !!!
The Rundown (2003)
Rundown tailor-made for it's cast
This is a great debut for the Rock as it gives us a general understanding of the range of Dwaynes capabilities. Sure he's no Brando or Deniro but he's definitly got more charisma than the goofs he's replacing, mainly Ahnold, Stallone and Van Damme, all of who were terribly annoying to listen to, but the Rock has enough charisma for us to care about him. He's got enough star power to make it work.
Also, Walken chews up the scenery in this badboy and the tooth fairy scene is pure Walken gold. Sean William Scott is just a bad enough actor to make Rock look good, well, better. It's only shortcoming's was in, sometimes, plausability; I understand we're expected to suspend disbelief to make him larger than life, but when 2 guys fall straight down a mountain, smashing into tress and rocks, for hundreds and hundreds of meters, something's gonna break, or sprain of get injured!! These 2 walk away from all life threatening injurys like they're cartoons or something. But still, it doesn't leave you the time to worry about that. Overall, one of the better action-comedys I've seen in a while.
Comic Book: The Movie (2004)
Insultingly bad
I was about 20 minutes into this thing when I realized there was no going up for this movie, that the poor production and shotty acting wasn't just something they were trying, that this mockumentary was really just this bad. I actually felt dumber watching it. You literally have Mark Hammil running around the comic con as Mark Hammil, but calling himself Don, what, like he's acting?? Then, whenever they'd improv something in to move the, I can't believe I'm calling it this but, "plot" along, it was so forced and awkward, I mean the acting, anything else was drivel. I'm not even sure what he was trying to say. what, Hollywood doesn't have the passion for films that we had as kids?? Uh, yah, what planet have you been on?? I mean, if they did something more with it, I dunno, made it meaningful or something, but no. He was just concerned with giving us detail after detail of this fictional comic character, who we don't even care for cuz he's made up by Mark Hammil!!
Mark, stick to the voice work and leave the "movie making" to your fighter jet co-star, he's making 20 mil a flick, you're just making an ass atta yourself....
Willard (2003)
Bring a Pillow
This movie drudged along at a snails pace. Aside from Crispins creepy performance, this movie doesn't really offer anything that could qualify it as "must see"! Or even scary. The movie's just there. Not enough is tried with the rats. It's unclear why willard is so repressed. Yes, his father commited suicide. Yes his mom's sick. But that can't be it!! He seems so deeply disturbed just for the sake of being disturbed. Maybe if they had shown Willards fathers suicide scene in, like, a flashback or whatever, then it might have added a bit to his character. But no. We're just left to assume. Which isn't always bad in movies. Less is more. But I think this director took that a little too seriously. He hardly gives us anything!!
Also, we don't really care for anyone, Willard included. For example, he shows up late everyday to work, and his boss gives him a hard time about it. Whoopee!!! I think it's reasonable for any boss to get peeved if someone is continuously late without a good excuse. And were never given a reason as to why he's late everyday. He says his mom is sick, but we see that he pays more attention to his rats than his mom. So, why is he late?? We don't know. We just know that he gets a lot of repressed anger whenever his boss yells at him about it. Does the yelling make him come in earlier?? No!! It just makes him go slash his bosses tires. Hmmm, how reasonable.
The movie borderlines on parody. I'm usually a fan of cheezy, tongue-in-cheek, campy movies, but this one hardly seems like it's doing it on purpose. It's too serious at times and too self-aware to be campy.
The only positive things are Crispin's performance and some of the visually dynamic shots, aside from that it's a complete waste of time.
4 out of 10.
Feardotcom (2002)
So much wasted potential (small spoilers)
A movie with a premise like Feardotcom's has tons of potential. Hell, watch the Ring if you don't believe me. A haunted website that kills it's `visitors' 48 hours after they watch it.
In the Ring it's a video, and one week later you die. Of course the Ring was based on Ringu, a Japanese film from way back in 1998, which is still a great movie and not really in need of a remake, other than marketing it for American wide release (duh!!)
Anyways, the remake is actually awesome, one of last years (2002) best movies, and genuinely creepy. And that's because of the material they're working with. Horror movies work best when dealing with the unknown or things we don't `see'. Blair Witch worked cause we never saw the `witch'. Exorcist worked because it dealt with the devil and exorcisms, things in reality we know nil-nothing about. While we `know' about the Internet, there's still a great deal we don't know about it, and you add in a `ghost story' and it could work.
The reason it doesn't work, unlike the Ring, is because it's far too concerned with showing us things that will `freak us out', like torture scenes or death scenes, but it doesn't really tackle the spaces between the spirit world and the technological world the way that the ring does.
Also, the bad acting/directing don't help. I tried watching this movie twice and both times I found myself nodding off or just being plain bored with it. That's not the type of reaction you want for a film like this.
Daredevil (2003)
Back to basics action (Beware Spoilers)
I watched this 2 days ago, and was attempting to decide how much I liked the movie. I knew I liked it, but I wasn't sure why or to what extent. As it turns out, I REALLY like this movie. Why?? Because it's taking action movies back to what they're supposed to be. Violent!! In recent years, action movies, at least the big blockbuster types, have watered down the violence, and resorted to merely leaving people with cuts and bruises or unconscious rather than killing them. Charlie's Angels is a good example of this type of movie, where anyone who gets killed is in some sorta huge explosion or it's implied off screen. Don't get me wrong, I don't wanna see violence for the sake of seeing violence. But lets use the other superhero movies of late as an example; X-Men. great movie, but all these super-powered mutants fighting and blowing stuff up and nobodies' killed?? If only the real world were that forgiving. Spiderman. Same sorta deal. All the bad guys are held up in webbing and no one gets seriously hurt. (There are exceptions, but stay with me.)
In DD, we start out with him chasing down a rapist who gets sliced in half. Bullseye kills an old lady who annoys him with a peanut. People get stabbed, shot and thrown out 3 story windows. This is what action movies have lacked lately, things need to be at stake and lost. Innocent people need to die in order for a real sense of peril to be established. If we know that all the bad people will die or be arrested and the good people will live, there's nothing to root for, you just need to wait it out.
DD is comparable to Burtons Batman movie, still my favourite comic book flick. It's dark, violent and suprisingly emotional. Ben Affleck (who I dreaded seeing as DD by the way) is suprisingly good in this movie, maybe because he's hidden half the time by either the mask or shades, and he doesn't over do any of the parts. Collin Farrel is high energy and beautifully volatile. And rest assured that MCD can pull off Kingpin, he's intimidating and the whole "Bronx" line fit his character perfectly.
My only complaint is that on rare occasions, this movie does delve into the "silly" or kiddish realm, but I guess it's to be expected considering the content.
Overall, I give this movie a 7.5 out 10.
Very Bad Things (1998)
Very Bad reviews
People who say this movie sucked missed the point. Scratch that. People who say this movie sucked, don't have any sense of humour. Yes, it's a dark comedy. Yes, it makes you wanna kill yourself at the end of it, but does that make it bad??? Requiem for a Dream makes you feel like crap at the end of it but does that mean it sucks?? I loved Requiem for the fact of it's dark, macabre ending. That it leaves you with a dire sense of desperation at the end, as does this movie, only in a more "comedic" way.
Other reviews say it sucked cause everyone died?!?! What the??? Why does that suck?? 1st off, not everyone dies. Some live to WISH they died, but everyone dies in, lets say, Reservoir dogs and that movie is BRILLIANT!!
I think what most people's problem with this movie was that it made them uncomfortable. If you dislike movies that make you stir in your seat, not cause it blows, but because the content is subversive, then stay away. If you like dark comedies, with an all-star ensemble and tense, gruesome yet strangely funny scenes, then watch this. You will not be let down.
The only comment I will say is the yelling and screaming scenes got to be a bit much at times, but it's excusable considering what's happening to these people, as the movie plays it totally straight faced.
8.5 out of 10
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)
A very charming movie that alot of people misunderstood
I've read alot people reviews here and on TV, newspapers, where ever. And one consistincy in all the reviewers complaints has been that the movie never decides whether the assassin story is true or not. First off, a movie is allowed to remain ambiguous; Not all the answers need to be provided/spelled out. However, although it's true to an extent, the movie drops continuous hints for the audience. In my opinion, it's all in his mind. Why?? George Clooneys character is never seen by anyone but Barris. Clooneys character knows things about Barris that no one could know, unless of course they were in his mind. Anyways, it's a theory and it holds more water than half of the other ones I've heard.....
The Time Machine (2002)
Good popcorn flick
This movie was entertaining. It had a very good pace, and Guy Pearce really is a good actor. He's able to develop nuances, quirks and even a unique voice to each of his characters! It's a rental. I'd put it at the level of a REALLY good TV movie.
Don't hold your expectations too high and you'll really enjoy this film.
Kalifornia (1993)
Brad Pitt is better dark.....
This movie was on my "To see" list for a while. It has some excellent performances from Juliette Lewis and Brad Pitt. Pitt seems to prove over and over that he is better when he plays the darker character i.e. Tyler Durden, Geoffrey Goines, from 12 monkeys, and Early Grayce in this movie. He is so convincing and disgusting that sometimes you forget your watching pretty boy Brad Pitt. I now have a new found respect for Juliette Lewis as an actress because of this movie. The story isn't the best ever but entertaining enough to keep you interested, and there are enough cool lines, i.e. "When you first meet people you only notice the differences. After a while you start to notice similarities. I guess that's how all friendships start." 8/10
Event Horizon (1997)
Educated horror
This film really had some worthwhile stuff in it. Lawrence Fishburne apparently likes films that deal with time and space. Although the overall revelation of the film was a bit far-fetched, for a sci-fi horror film (meaning they can cross the line of unbelievability), it was pretty interesting. The whole thing of how the ship worked was educating. Overall, a film worth watching.