Change Your Image
Caliber345
Reviews
30 Days of Night (2007)
Fresh take on vampires, but everything in between is stale
I work for a movie theatre and had to screen the print prior to public viewing for technical concerns. I enjoy vampire lore and films, though I've learned to go into movies expecting nothing. 30 Days of Night didn't deliver entirely what I was expecting, but I know this: too many people that work for studios come here and hype these movies. Yes, opinions vary greatly, and I am usually on here defending everyone's right to like what they choose, but the first comment is just not accurate. First, the vampires are the stars of the show. Their appearance, mannerisms, and language are well done. I enjoyed the different take on them, though watching it I knew they were vampires; nothing radical was done to usher the next century of the thirsty undead in. Kudos.
But that is about all that is new here. Other than the cinematography (which I enjoyed; lots of gray reinforced the isolated and hopeless feeling the survivors are meant to endure), the acting (Josh Hartnett is faithfully forgettable as usual), casting, and plot are invisible. Several subplots are hinted at for each character, but one quick line is all we get, and then one quick line later in the film resolves it. Picking out who is going to die and when is easy. Small moments that most movies hint at to foreshadow later events are like floodlights in a closet here. Whenever you see something apparently random, you'll know where it's going right away. Nothing new is added beyond what we expect; 30 days of night in a town that vampires have come to ravage. Which, if you are paying $9.50 to see, then you should be fine. The bottom line is I did like the film. Seeing free movies makes me ask myself, "Would I have been satisfied paying $9.50 to see that?" In this case, yes, I would. But the overzealous hype-machine in the first review is just not what you are going to get with this film.
If you like vampires, and gore (it does get bloody), then you will like this film. If you just want something that won't make you think but will give you a visual thrill, you'll be fine. If you're looking for something deeper in the plot, or tons of epic action sequences, then carefully reconsider before laying down your greenbacks at the Box Office.
Again, to each their own. We all like different things (I can't count how many blogs I've defended The Matrix in, lol). Yet the level of skill in the first review is surely that of a professional critic, and goes a bit too far in stating what this movie really is.
War (2007)
Go watch The One again, instead.
As an action fan that is seriously fiending for a good action movie amidst the barren landscape of Hollywood garbage, I was excited to see this film. The One is an outstanding action film that pairs Statham and Li, and I was hoping for the same level of integrity for this film. Sadly, I was disappointed. IMO this movie was just mediocre all-around. In a movie titled WAR, starring Jason Statham and Jet Li, one would expect non-stop, quality action sequences. Instead I watched Jet Li kill a few people and Jason Statham kill a few people, and then they barely fought for a minute at the end. The plot wasn't engaging, the dialogue was predictable, the obligatory action-movie-car-chase was a yawn, and only a few violent deaths in the movie delivered any type of break from the rest of the lackluster action. Jason Statham is poised to become the next action star if he so chooses, as The Rock has gone the Disney route, and John Cena has not yet stepped into a mainstream studio's film. For us action fans, this is a depressing and uncertain time. Will we be vindicated? Not with films like WAR...
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Not all fans are "true" ones
Wow. Well, I've been a Spidey fan since I was about three years old. I even still have photos of me in my Spidey t-shirt. Obviously I loved Spiderman 1 & 2, and for the very reason that the people here who gave it low marks did. Spiderman was the first comic to really give an average joe the ability to have superpowers; just about every superhero/heroine before him were wealthy adventurers who did it for no other reason than they were bored. Yes, some had the whole truth, justice, and morality thing, and some only wanted revenge, but it wasn't anything dramatic. So that's what makes the Spiderman mythos so engaging; he has to juggle school, work, bills, taking care of his aunt, a social life, and enduring the hardships of unrequited love WHILE STILL using his amazing powers to do good in the world. And not only is his obligation to himself and the good of the world, but to honor his deceased uncle who taught him the very thing that sums up his dilemma; with great power comes great responsibility. So if you found this movie boring, over-dramatic, etc., well obviously you didn't understand the source material to begin with. Sure, it is no fault of your own, but do not criticize something that you truly do not understand. The filmmakers made concessions to keep both hardcore Spidey fans happy, but to also attract and not confuse the casual moviegoer who might not know Spidey lore, and they delivered, in the eyes of THIS TRUE fan, on both fronts.
Redline (2007)
Friday must be Garbage Day in Hollywood
So it has come to this. Fast, expensive cars that only the upper 1% will ever drive. The girls that pose next to them in gearhead magazines. Second-tier and no-name actors. Cheap promotional appearances by people from niche culture.
This is the garbage that Hollywood has to offer. Don't get me wrong; I love the mindless action flick with hot chicks as much as the next guy. But please, will the collective Braintrust that greenlights this stuff please stop, count to ten, breathe, have a hearty "Woooooosaaaaaah", then rewind twentyfive years and recall what made movies enjoyable once upon a time? Then actually MAKE some movies like that again?
I have nothing against poker, but the entire pop-culture explosion it has enjoyed over the past five years is ridiculous. Everyone and their mother thinks their Maverick now (not that half of them even will get that reference). Some executive said, "Hey, what demographic do you want to leach $9.50 out of?" "I know, sir. The 18-35 market." "Ok, let's give them poker, girls, and fast cars." "Brilliant idea, sir." The result? A film that I've seen a hundred times late at night on Spike TV, and more often than not, starring Dolph Lundgren.
Now don't misunderstand me;I am not a film snob. Over-the-top artsy flicks like The English Patient don't float my boat, but generic films that should not have even been made straight to DVD bother the hell out of me too. Only adolescent gearheads will have their engines revved by this, and I imagine the ones in the higher end of their IQ range will see this for what it is: a junkyard.
Ghost Rider (2007)
Correction
I'd really just like to point out something from a prior User Comment. dee.reid referred to Spiderman as a mutant in the first sentence of his comment. A mutant is someone who is *born* with special abilities that are beyond that of any normal human. Spidey received his powers in an accident during a science demonstration, after being bit by a spider that was irradiated. He was not born with them.
As for Ghost Rider, the concensus holds true. Its not a film that should be taken for more than it is. Cool special fx, a good score, and genuinely funny moments (I loved what Ghost Rider did to the cops when he emerged from the water after jumping from the bridge. Never expected it!) left me satisfied. Im a superhero fan through and through, and I understand that studios have to please both die-hard fans and casual moviegoers. This film hits that mark. The only real sore point for me was Blackheart's dialogue, but I'll live.
Also, watch the "GARAGE" sign after he busts out of jail. Everyone I know that saw the film missed a little subliminal message thrown in.