eddy_currents Reviews

Fireproof (2008)

Painfully bad acting, utterly predictable

[2/10 · 4 June 2009]

One professional actor and a bunch of extras. Simple and predictable plot. If it wasn't for the heavy Christian theme no one would watch this. Then again, I watched it with two Christian couples and they thought it was dumb too. Maybe all the people who rated this a 10 are relatives of the enormous cast.

The main character goes from being an unbelievably selfish jerk to an equally unbelievable saint after reading a magical book. One is left to assume it was the hand of God -- the ultimate Deus ex Machina. Along the way he commits acts of devotion like destroying a perfectly good computer to prove he is not addicted to pornography. His wife by this time is planning to divorce him, but the fact he smashes a valuable household asset doesn't bother her in the least. Plus his wife is movie-star hot, so he must be looking at gay porn. That is one powerful book to force him straight.

We watched some of the extras and it basically tells you this was a low budget movie. Some movies shine in spite of being low budget. This one steams. It proves people are willing to swallow anything if it jibes with their beliefs.

The Wicker Man (2006)

Boring nonsensical snuff film

[1/10 · 1 February 2007]

The beginning was disjointed and nonsensical and it didn't get much better. All through the supposed plot I was shaking my head at how stupid our hero was. It was supposed to be a suspenseful thriller but I saw every supposed plot twist coming. The ending was a surprise only because I didn't believe they would let the movie end with such an empty thud. I had to fast forward through it. Nothing changes, no character grows, there's no moral or impact on the viewer, it's just an "here's an idea, the end" story. The worst movie I have ever seen. At least a mindless slasher movie has a monster and shocking gore to give your spine a tingle. This movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

I rented the DVD (free coupon, thank God) with the "shocking alternate ending". A complete lie -- the new ending was identical to the old ending, with a final scene cut out. This scene was a dull cliché but at least it had two pretty girls in it and so was more interesting than the rest of the movie.

The Perfect Score (2004)

Predictable but okay anyway

[6/10 · 19 August 2004]

Nothing memorable here but not bad for light entertainment. The characters are two dimensional and I was able to predict much of the plot, but I got a few chuckles. Matthew Lillard was the only name here I recognized and he was the low point. His character changed in midstream.

I was hoping it would be a good family-ish movie, and it was except for some profanity at the beginning. Why? oh why? can't movie studios provide an edited sound track for families? They do it for TV.

If not for the profanity it would make a decent family movie. The ending was predictable and hard to believe, and a mite too neat and syrupy.

I, Robot (2004)

Better than I thought

[8/10 · 15 August 2004]

From reading reviews I imagined an average action flick, but this one is a little better than average. The plot is logical and well sewn up, and the climactic scenes were particularly satisfying. Will Smith is fun to watch as usual, and Moynahan fills her role well. You end up rooting for the robot too.

This role is familiar ground for Smith, and uses the standard movie coincidence (his brilliant scientist partner in USR just happens to be female and attractive and sympathetic to his cause) to create a love interest. It ends on an enigmatic note, which I like. For me, the enigmatic ending was the best part of Chronicles of Riddick.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Brilliant but ultimately irrelevant

[10/10 · 2 July 2004]

Some of Moore's finest work here, in that he lets the images and interviewees tell the story, and skillfully edits the result. The message is powerful and impossible to ignore.

However, it won't matter. Moore is probably hoping to influence the coming election, but:

First, the election is several months away and Americans have notoriously short attention spans. Plus they shut out things they don't want to hear, which is of course how Bush managed to win Florida in the first place;

Second, the people who really need to see this film, the Bush supporters, won't. Or if they do, they nit pick and dismiss the whole thing.

Just look at the voting and the user comments. I have never seen such polarity. The votes are either tens or ones. The comments from the people who hated the film are from people who had already decided they were going to hate it.

For example, a Republican friend of mine has vowed never to see a Moore film because he doesn't want to give "that guy" any money. He won't open his mind for a minute to let a new idea creep in.

Another example -- in my town, only one theater out of a dozen is showing this movie. It was pulled from another one. What do they fear? This theater is doing great business showing this film, and people were laughing, crying, and cheering throughout.

Yes Moore is making a lot of money from this. Yes it is an opinion piece. Yes he may be off on a fact or two. Who cares? There are more than enough facts here to bury Bush if anyone wants to listen.

The truly frightening part is, this was all public information. Moore just brought it out. Why is anyone shocked about it now? Why is Bush still a popular president?

Answer: the media reports what we and the government wants to hear. Fox is a Republican mouthpiece. CNN is better, but not much.

PS: this film is not against America, or the troops in Iraq. They are doing a terrific job in a terrible situation. The whole point of the film is, why are they there in the first place? Not the Bush rhetoric... the real reason.

Matchstick Men (2003)

Dumb, slow, and predictable

[5/10 · 2 July 2004]

There were some funny parts, and the acting especially from Cage was terrific, but overall the movie was boring and predictable. The action is soooo slow that you have lots of time to ponder what is going to happen. That's a bad thing. I had most of the ending figured out halfway through the movie. The ending was no surprise. In fact, it was a letdown because I was hoping for more.

The dialog was good, but the plot was weak. The director and scriptwriter should have taken the time to plug some major plot holes. Why didn't the master con artist smell the big con around him? I did. Why would he trust strangers with everything of importance to him? Why did he do everything they expected him to do? His daughter said it was her first time gig -- so why was she so good at it?

The movie ended with a whimper. I was expecting some kind of twist, or maybe some kind of retribution, but instead we got a weak scene with a kind of moral message wrapped in it.

Paycheck (2003)

Been there, done that, but this time with major plot flaws

[5/10 · 30 June 2004]

So this guy has bits of his memory erased (see Johnny Mnemonic, Total Recall) and has to put his missing memories together to save his life (see Memento, Total Recall) and there is a love interest who helps him (see a dozen other action flicks including Total Recall).

It's an average action flick for all that. Ben Affleck is great. Like everyone else I really like him as an actor even though he still hasn't found a really good movie to star in.

Now, I can accept some initial hanky panky to create a story, so long as the rest of the plot flows smoothly.

First, he is supposed to be a wunderkind genius engineer, but he is also a big muscular guy who fights and thinks like a secret agent. I know a lot of engineers, and I don't know any who fit that bill.

I can overlook that. As an engineer, I would like to think that kind of thing is possible.

However, there are two things that kept smacking me in the face that I really couldn't accept:

***spoilers ahead***

(1) these little items that he stuck in a paper envelope and somehow managed not to lose through all his running and hiding and getting shot at (bonus: the envelope didn't even get frayed) were a stretch. Okay, so he could see the future, but come on.

An FBI agent who is supposed to be clever yet he lights up under a smoke detector? A paperclip jammed into a complicated electrical circuit that instead of frying the works, only does exactly what he needs it to do? A quarter that does the same thing? These things would only work if he could also make the future happen!

(2) now, follow me through this one: (a) he sees the future and knows he has to destroy the machine because it's bad; (b) he inserts a bug into the works so no one else can use the machine; (c) he sends himself a bunch of stuff to remind himself he has to go back to remove the bug and destroy the machine.

Question: why didn't he just make the bug destroy the machine in the first place???

Oh right -- because then there would be no movie.

Bleah.

Troy (2004)

Better than the original

[9/10 · 17 May 2004]

Homer's Illiad is a timeless epic adventure, but let's face it, it would never survive as a modern book. The characters make many long winded speeches, there are long stretches of nothing happening, and the gods are constantly (and I mean CONSTANTLY) interfering. It's incredible that the book has survived 3000 years and it's a fascinating snapshot of ancient history, but as a story, it's hard to get into.

This adaptation takes many liberties that enhance the story. Timeframes are necessarily compressed (how do you keep up the tension during a 10 year siege?) and there are a couple of love interests introduced to keep the ladies interested. (The girls are easy on the eyes for the men too.) Hector has been changed to be much more noble (pun intended), and the constant interference from deities is gone (and that's a good thing, although perhaps they went a little too far).

However, the essence of the characters and the tragedy are intact. Achilles is portrayed as a murderous thug seeking glory and missing in purpose, and the Trojans as the honorable heroes doomed to defeat. The theme and underlying feeling of Homer's story is also intact, but with incredible visuals. It's too bad the story centers on vast expanses of boring sand, but the armies and their battles fill the screen to bursting. It was also fascinating to watch ancient fighting styles. The screenplay shows us a precursor to the Roman way of fighting that created an empire.

Overall an excellent movie. Pitt's performance was the standout here. He had just the right mix of arrogance and sadness, and the moves, to be Achilles. Put this with his performance in Snatch and we see a truly good actor, not just another Hollywood hunk.

Bound (1996)

Well, well, well

[8/10 · 4 December 2003]

Well written, well acted, well directed. No wonder The Brothers got the green light for The Matrix after this. The plot is intricate, reasonably fresh, and airtight (although I thought the cops would probably have been called again) -- just like The Matrix. The direction is excellent, although some of the low angles and dark corners were too film-school-ish for my taste. No wonder Joe Pantoliano has been "rediscovered" and is everywhere now. I wonder why we haven't seen more of Gina and Jennifer too.

Behind Enemy Lines (2001)

Average film, flawed plot, good attempted premise

[6/10 · 2 November 2003]

Other than some outstanding visuals, especially the missile chase scene, this film is nothing special.

Hackman plays his stock "leader" character but does it well as always. Wilson was an unfortunate miscast. In this film he just doesn't have the intensity to suit the role.

The plot itself has a few holes -- it's hard to believe the army chasing the downed pilot had such a hard time finding him, especially initially, when they knew exactly where he was. They had vehicles and he was on foot. They knew the territory and he did not. Why didn't they get tracking dogs? Or a helicopter? Or simply fan out and then surround him?

Instead the villains are dumbed down to make things simpler for our hero. They are also two dimensional and totally uninteresting. Making the villains intelligent, and the hero just a bit more so, would have created a lot more suspense. Instead it's a simple chase film with mostly predictable action.

I watched the DVD extras and saw some potential. They tried to bring to light some of the horrors of the war, and its attempted genocide. There was a brief scene involving the leader of the muslim resistance, but in the theatrical release this was cut short and it wasn't clear who he was or what they were fighting for. There was a brief scene with a mass grave, which was unfortunately cut down to appease the censors.

This film had an opportunity to enlighten people on just how despicable this war was, but instead the message was mostly lost because of the editing.

Another thing bothered me. There were a number of scenes with a "foreign" admiral with a French accent. He and his crew thwart our American general repeatedly until he takes matters into his own hands. I'm spoiling nothing here, because you see this coming from the beginning and from the previews.

At the end, American military might arrives and saves the day. Rah rah!

In reality (as opposed to Hollywood History) the peacekeeping effort was led by the UN with soldiers from many countries. Why couldn't they show cooperation among the countries instead of taking another opportunity to moon the French?

School of Rock (2003)

Best family comedy since Mrs. Doubtfire

[10/10 · 11 October 2003]

This is the most fun I have had at a movie all year. I wasn't alone -- everyone was laughing throughout and a few even applauded at the end. If you are willing to suspend belief long enough to allow that Black's character might be desperate enough to try something like this, and then pull it off (for a while at least), then the rest of the plot is even plausible.

It's fresh and funny and easy to follow. My eight year old loved it. Other than a few mild curses and adult situations, there isn't much objectionable for families.

Black did a good job as the lovable loser, and although he looked out of place at times, I can't imagine anyone else in that role. But it's the kids who steal the show. They were all good actors and made believable musicians and they get some of the best lines. My son was even inspired to practice piano when we got home.

There are strong messages about teamwork (the film was careful to show all kids filling their roles) and working toward your dreams, and that it's good sometimes just to have fun. The kids were occasionally encouraged towards precociousness but they never got truly rebellious.

Highly recommended for young and old.

The Hunted (2003)

Great performances and gorgeous scenery but little impact

[6/10 · 30 September 2003]

Great performances from two of the best actors in Hollywood can't save a film that should have been better than it is. There is a strong message here somewhere, but the film fails to bring it out.

The opening scene is impressive, and following that, the scenes in the Canadian wilderness are gorgeous. The subtitles tell us we are in British Columbia in Canada, but we already know this because it's covered in snow. Strangely, when we take a helicopter ride merely a few hundred miles south to Oregon, it's summer there. (rolls eyes)

The knife fight scenes look realistic and deadly, and the training and tracking scenes show much attention to detail. These show originality.

However, the plot itself doesn't feel all that original. It's more like a combination of First Blood and The Fugitive.

The pace is slow and careful, and it builds well to the climax. Unfortunately the climax lacks impact, because we don't understand the characters. There are lots of introspective moments, but we don't know what the characters are thinking or feeling. Del Toro's character is the worst here, because he doesn't say much and shows little expression. This robs the ending of its impact.

There is a fine line between letting the audience figure things out for themselves and leaving them confused. Here, we are left to assume too much.

It's a good film, but it could have been a great film.

The Jungle Book 2 (2003)

Another dumb and dull Disney debacle

[4/10 · 23 September 2003]

This movie lost me within the first fifteen minutes. First we see Shanti (the girl lead) in a shirt that bared her midriff, and we listen to her girl power attitude. Britney Spears in the jungle? No, an attempt to interest the girls in a boy's coming-of-age story, and maybe market some Shanti dolls.

Following that was a musical number that came out of nowhere and stopped the story (such as it was) dead. I thought Disney wasn't going to do that anymore. Actually the whole movie was filled with rehashes of the old songs mixed in with boring new ones. An obvious attempt to sell a new soundtrack. The old songs were better.

All the old characters came out, with voices sounding incredibly close to the originals. Most were just pointless cameos, unfortunately. There wasn't enough screen time to share with the new human characters.

They added one new and annoying vulture for comic relief, which was odd because the four original vultures were back and they were much funnier. (An attempt to sell a new vulture doll?)

The plot was utterly predictable, because it was a retread of so many other movies, including the first Jungle Book.

Shere Khan was supposed to be menacing, but behind that deliciously evil voice he was toothless. He didn't even kill prey that walked into his paws. Mowgli runs away from him several times, and instead of mowing him down, the most feared beast in the jungle just plods along him. Hmmm... can a tiger outrun a boy? Of course. They just couldn't think of any other way to draw out the action.

SPOILER: the ending was right out of Lion King, with a twist: somehow the bad guy survives his fall. Sort of. Instead of him dying, he gets to starve to death in a flaming pit underneath a fallen stone statue. We don't have to see that, though. On to the next scene.

This one really got me: SPOILER: Mowgli disobeys his foster father and leaves the village, then Shanti disobeys her father and blindly follows Mowgli, because even though she was terrified of the jungle she couldn't wait for help, and the whole village goes traipsing through the jungle looking for them.

When they find them, and they do find them because everyone can find everyone else in this jungle, do they punish them? Not at all. Not even a cross word is spoken. The father says it was all his fault for not paying enough attention to Mowgli. Do parents like that exist? Sure they do. They are the ones with the spoiled and uncontrollable brats that scream for candy in the checkout aisle.

My eight-year-old laughed a lot. I was bored stupid. Rent it and leave it for the kids to watch, and find something more interesting to do.

Spy Kids 3: Game Over (2003)

Oooo my eyes hurt... what was this about anyway?

[5/10 · 9 August 2003]

For some stupid reason, the makers of this movie decided to use the "old way" of creating a 3D effect -- red and green glasses. The "new way" (which isn't all that new) uses polarized filters, which allows all the colors to get through to both eyes. This is what they use at IMAX films and amusement parks, and the 3D effect is amazing, even frightening sometimes. So, since the 3D part is such a big deal in this movie -- heck, it's in the title -- why didn't they use the "good" 3D method?

I suppose the polarized glasses are more expensive? Given the fact they were guaranteed to make money with this sequel, they should have spent the extra money for decent glasses. About fifteen minutes into the 3D portion of the movie my eyes were sore. Another person I talked to had the same problem.

But! Even worse than the physical pain we had to endure, the colored glasses give you a movie with muddy colors and fuzzy 3D effects.

Since the plot and characters took a backseat to the 3D effects, this was a serious flaw. Just like in the old 3D movies that ruined the genre decades ago, there is something flying out at you at every opportunity, and it gets tiring in a hurry. Especially since the 3D effect didn't work... because of the crappy glasses.

Plot? Not really. Mostly they fumble around in a video game, doing meaningless things. I suppose a video game tie-in is imminent?

Grandpa comes along and flits in and out of the picture, and pulls our heroes out of trouble several times. Our heroes don't need to worry, Grandpa is there. Deus ex machina, anyone?

The whole thing culminates in a grand and unbelievable battle, which I won't spoil for you in case you do want to see this. Suffice to say, puny humans toppling skyscaper-sized monsters with karate kicks doesn't work for me.

Characters? Funny, I don't remember any. That's probably because they were cardboard cutouts with mediocre acting from the kids and overacting from the adults. Surprisingly, Stallone did a good job as the villain and made the only interesting character. Go figure.

The whole cast from previous movies returns for cameos. Banderas has the only memorable scene in the movie.

It's too bad. The first movie was terrific because it showed there is a market for good non-animated family films, and it was an entertaining fantasy. The second was good too, for the same reasons. This one is a muddy-colored plot-challenged eyesore.

My kid enjoyed it though, even if he was rubbing at his eyes at the end like me. There were some nice messages about the importance of family and people in wheelchairs. So I gave it a middling rating overall.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

Extra ordinary movie

[6/10 · 25 July 2003]

Snazzy special effects and extra stunning sets dress up an ordinary action movie.

The biggest problem is in the direction. There is no subtlety, no hinting so the audience can figure things out for themselves. The plot is bland and uninspired, and predictable, and the director should have caught that. There is an attempt to mislead the audience as to the identity of the spy, but it is never really in doubt, because they so obviously to mislead us.

The action is good in some spots, but often ruined by poor editing. Most of the fight scenes were individual close-up takes spliced together in a thoroughly jarring manner. Again, the director should have caught that.

I liked the idea of using characters from classical literature, even though they took some liberties as to their abilities. I'm now interested in reading some of their stories. Of course, they had to put in a token American for the American audience, and they had to make him young and hunky for the girls in the audience.

The action is good and the effects are quite good, but nothing new. The invisible effects are nice but pale in comparison to those in Hollow Man.

The poor direction also shows in the many continuity issues. The story suddenly cuts to catching one major character without showing how they got there. Was there a linking scene that got cut out? When they are on the ship, the water around them isn't moving, yet when the scene cuts away, the ship is moving like a rocket through the water. When Mr. Hyde is underwater, no bubbles come from his mouth as he grunts. When they are standing in snow, no one gets snowflakes on their hair or shoulders. The invisible guy has to be naked to be invisible, yet he can walk through snow for miles in bare feet without getting hypothermia.

Most comic book adaptations try to keep the atmosphere of the comic while still making it seem "plausible". This one is not. Too bad, it held a lot of promise. In the hands of a director good with comic book adaptations (Raimi? Singer?) it could have been great.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Perfect! Disney makes a good one at last

[10/10 · 12 July 2003]

Finally Disney makes a movie that is better quality than a Saturday morning cartoon. That's not counting Pixar's efforts, because they were an acquisition and is still run as a separate company. This one is lacking the usual Disney over-hype and commercialization too, probably because Pirate baby toys don't work. And it's the first Disney movie in years I didn't know what to expect -- the rest were spoiled by all the toys and books coming out a week before release.

This is a terrific movie, the best film of the year so far. Original story, solid plot, solid action, amazing effects that fit, great dialogue.

Depp's pirate makes the movie. He is one of those few actors who can play any role (or maybe one of the few who get the chance to try). Rush plays an excellent villain, and gets some of the best lines. Bloom and his love interest play more stock adventure characters.

It's not for the younger set. It's dark, violent in spots, and a lot of people get skewered, including "good" guys. My 8 year old loved it but he was scared in several scenes, and he doesn't scare easily. It ends with a good message and warm feelings though.

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

For people who like movies that don't make sense

[2/10 · 12 July 2003]

The opening scene makes no sense. Ok, I thought, maybe it's a dream, or fantasy, or hallucination, or something. That's okay if it fits in later. But it's never explained, nothing like it happens again, and something that comes out of it becomes a key prop in the movie. The opening scene simply doesn't belong.

Then we find out our hero is a shy loser prone to psychotic episodes. That's okay too, maybe we will see him come out of his shell. But then a pretty, well-adjusted blonde who works with one of his bitchy sisters finds him attractive enough to ignore his anti-social tendencies and follow him around.

Aha! This is what I've been doing wrong all these years! It's the pathetic nerds who break things and always wear the same clothes that get all the pretty girls!

Oh yeah, he wears the same suit all the time. She doesn't mind getting intimate with him in spite of this, even when he spends two days in it in a tropical locale. Maybe she doesn't mind his body odor. Apparently she doesn't mind anything else repulsive about him.

Then in several key scenes throught the movie, this jarring soundtrack plays. It's loud enough to obscure the dialogue. And it goes on, and on.

Then I figured it out: some shy loser film student put this together to see his fantasy on screen, and suckered Sandler into starring in it, as his "breakout role".

Our hero never really grows or changes. The lesson seems to be, if you are pathetic but occasionally violent you can still get a pretty girl.

I have seen artsy movies done far better than this. If you like movies that don't make sense, knock yourself out.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Overall excellent, a worthy sequel

[10/10 · 15 May 2003]

Totally absorbing 2+ hours. Some scenes had the audience cheering. I heard a few oohs and aahs and lots of chuckles.

This one builds on the original's story and effects. Absorbing story for those who like cerebral sci-fi, with riveting action and a new high for digital effects.

The story is turning out to be even more clever than in the first movie. The events of the previous movie were not forgotten, including Neo's new superpowers, and his status in the "real" world. I wondered how they could create conflict in the Matrix now that Neo is a God there. They found ways! Most of the action is still in the Matrix.

Some of the exposition went on too long, but there was a lot of story to relate. Fortunately they told most of it in snappy dialogue, and bracketed it between action sequences that will leave you breathless.

They brought back Hugo Weaving in a believable way, and gave his character a twist. I'm glad, since his character and performance was a highlight for me in the first movie, and in this one. There are interesting new villains too.

Some of the fight sequences went on too long. Some places started to feel like a Jackie Chan movie. They are exciting though, and always fit the scene and serve a purpose. They used less wire work, which I appreciated. Wire work has been everywhere since Crouching Tiger and it's really getting overdone.

The ending was delightfully ambiguous. Did Neo do that, or was he trying to do something else and the other party interefered?

A worthy sequel. I'm now even more interested in how this story is going to end.

X2 (2003)

So much here for everyone, with an ending for X fans

[10/10 · 8 May 2003]

There is so much happening in this movie, I can't believe it turned out to be as good as it is. The script and dialogue are clever, and perfect. The effects are eye-popping. The pacing is intense but not frenetic. It's easy to follow, and there many little side jokes and nice little touches that keep you chuckling.

Like in the first movie, this one starts with a premise that is far-fetched, but then the rest of it all "makes sense". Everything that happens falls out of the characters' motivations and their abilities. The characters are real people behind the masks, and fallible despite some fantastic abilities.

The biggest problem is the same that was in the first movie: there are so many characters, and too little time to develop them. We see a bit more of Mystique (no, no, I mean her character), and Magneto is again played to perfection by McKellan. Nightcrawler has an incredible opening, but then sits in the background. Storm only gets a few good scenes, and we still know almost nothing about her. Cyclops again gets short shrift, becoming a background presence despite being probably the most powerful of the X-Men and technically their leader. Hopefully in the next installment they do more with him (Marsden keeps getting knocked for a wooden performance, but he did the best with what he had).

The next problem is more for those of us with young children: should we take them, or not? This movie is much darker and more violent than the first. Wolverine is ferocious at times, and actually kills some bad guys (what are claws for?).

And there is the third problem: a couple of times, Wolverine goes from gruff but likeable, to a berserk killing machine, and then back to likeable. Not likely. At least, not that fast.

The ending has a couple good twists. The new villain in the making isn't a great surprise, but it's still a twist and again it "makes sense" given what we have seen about him. The mysterious ending will make sense to fans who follow the X-Men stories (I do, a little), and sets up the entry of yet another character in the next movie.

Daredevil (2003)

Good, but damn! it could be so much better

[7/10 · 18 February 2003]

X-Men and Spiderman were great movies on several levels. Action, entertainment, character development (although Cyclops got short shrift, they should have left in his deleted scenes that you can see on the DVD). And they are good comic book adaptations. The best part of the Batman movies was the atmosphere, the movies themselves were only okay.

Daredevil is entertaining but fails to live up to its potential. It has the atmosphere of Batman, the action of X-Men, and the character development of Spiderman -- but only for one character. The villains barely get any screen time and come across as two dimensional (no joke intended).

Farrell uses intensity to make up for what little screen time he has, and Duncan is big and fearsome (good choice for Kingpin). However, they really needed some backstory and motivation.

The token female / love interest stumbled a bit. The love scenes were clever, but when she had to fight she was sometimes equal to Daredevil, then not, depending on whether she had to be a strong modern woman or a damsel in distress. Combining both into one character didn't work.

The action plot was linear and a little boring, but the main conflict was internal to Daredevil, and that was done well.

There were some excellent points that made up for the flaws. They spent some time on the buddy scenes with Murdock's law partner, and they were terrific. Affleck did a good job with the character, showing his inner strength and his inner turmoil. I really liked the way they depicted Daredevil's "radar" and how he fought. Having a blind hero was a nice change, and they showed his strengths (scent, sound) and his weaknesses (loud noises, needing sound for his radar to work). There were little touches showing the life of a blind man, such as having to fold his bills in specific ways before putting them in his wallet. The ending with the reporter was also a refreshing anti-cliche.

In this era of long movies I have no idea why they didn't add another 10 or 20 minutes. Marvel is a gold mine right now, the producers had to know they would make it back. This movie would have been so much better if we could have spent more time with the characters.

The Ring (2002)

Better than average ghost story

[7/10 · 21 October 2002]

It starts off silly, like the writers were fishing for ideas for another teen scream flick and decided on using a video tape that kills people, instead of a psycho that kills people, or a web site that kills people, or a car that kills people, etc. It does get better though, and the whole video tape thing makes sense later on.

There are a couple of things that didn't make sense, like how the girl in the opening scene died of fright yet looked like she was just unearthed from a tomb. The coroner said she had died of a heart attack -- people don't look like that after a heart attack. Obviously they just decided they needed some scary makeup so they stuck it in.

I heard this is a remake of a Japanese film. The original probably relied more on story than effects and so was probably better.

But after a clumsy beginning the movie pulls you in. It turns out to be an intelligent creepshow instead of the teen slasher flick that it starts out becoming. It ends with an original twist that extends the movie considerably and ties together all the loose ends. You need to review the movie in your head, but you will see that it really did come together.

Definitely worth seeing if you like a good scare. But the beginning should be redone to fit the rest of the movie, and they should remove the superfluous and distracting makeup effects.

The Tuxedo (2002)

Worth a few laughs

[6/10 · 18 October 2002]

If you accept the ridiculous premise that this tuxedo could do all the things in the movie (eh why not, it's a fantasy movie), and an aggressive-driving nice-guy cab driver could be plucked off the street and hired to drive a superspy around without first getting extensive training and security clearance (umm, sure), and a pretty female lab rat suddenly becomes a seasoned superspy (this happens a lot in spy movies), then the rest of the movie makes sense.

Chan plays the same character he always plays, which is fine. His action sequences are fun to watch as always, although definitely not his best (see Rush Hour and of course Rumble in the Bronx). The villain is 2 dimensional and doesn't receive much screen time. Love-Hewitt shines in a comedic role, but I found her constant insubordination unbelievable and annoying. That was no fault of hers, she did a great job with the lines she got.

I really liked the tongue-in-cheek comment on bottled water in the title scene. Chan's send-up of James Brown was really well done, although the scene that followed where the pair tried to get information from the bad guys was pretty silly. Kinda ruined it.

Worth a few laughs. If you like Chan or spy movie spoofs, see it in a cheap theatre or rent it.

The Transporter (2002)

Great action flick, smarter than most

[8/10 · 14 October 2002]

A great action flick that doesn't go over the top with the fight scenes, like so many do lately, or use a cliche'd ending. It looks like there is a little wire work but it's not obvious (like the six kicks in the air stuff). The chase scenes are good but tiring (why does EVERY action flick have to have a chase in it?), and Statham's character is interesting and fun to watch. They added tracers to all the bullets, which added to the visuals of the shooting scenes.

The amicable relationship he has with the French inspector is a nice touch. It added comic relief without getting silly.

*** SPOILER *** I really appreciated the fact that the movie avoided a cliche' twist ending, like the love interest betrayal or buddy betrayal. I was expecting it, but it didn't happen. Also, the love scene seemed a little contrived at first, but then I realized she seduced him to get him to follow her later. So that made sense. *** SPOILER OFF ***

My only real quibble is one of the fight scenes went on a little too long and after a while it didn't make sense. It reminded me of Hong Kong kung fu movies where they have to slip a fight scene into the movie at every opportunity. Statham had to rush to save the good guys and beat the bad guys, but he decided to beat people up and leave them alive instead of finding a gun and shooting them. Oh well.

Bulworth (1998)

Best political satire yet

[9/10 · 12 September 2002]

All the flaws with the democratic process Beatty brings out in this film are true. Most Americans won't like to hear them, because they prefer to remain blissfully ignorant about such things, but they should be aware of these. Why do you think nothing really changes? Why do only millionaires become top level politicians? Why does the president always have to be over 6 feet tall and have a full head of hair? How the hell did Dubya get in the White House? Oh sorry that was my own question, not from the film...

Sure there are some flaws. Him rapping so well is hard to believe for a stodgy old senator, but he's drunk on lack of sleep right? People do amazing things when they are hypnotized. And of course the ending was predictable. But the message and the performances shine.

The reason it wasn't more popular is it was a smart political satire with a rap soundtrack. Rappers don't want to see political satire, and older folks who would appreciate the satire don't want to hear rap. If you can get beyond that, the film is definitely worth seeing.

Donnie Darko (2001)

So what was the point?

[8 September 2002]

I watched the movie, some parts twice, went over all the deleted scenes with commentary which filled in a lot of blanks. I figured out the time travel and deus ex machina thing (which was actually set up in a deleted scene).

But my final analysis was: so what? The bunny saves him, a bunch of stuff happens, and then he goes back in time to die. All the bad things he exposed or tried to prevent in the middle of the movie will still happen.

Some people are saying he sacrificed himself to save the world. I have NO IDEA how you would get that from the events as depicted in the film. Maybe from the director's commentary, which I didn't listen to, or just someone's hopeful interpretation.

Anyway, the acting was good, except maybe from the parents who seemed disinterested (I know they were supposed to be, but not that much). The direction was good, pacing was good, mood was very good. Suspense was great, it definitely draws you toward the conclusion. So everything was great until the ending.

I enjoyed going back over the movie to piece together the clues, but after all that, I still feel like I missed something. If I have to make up my own ending I might as well make up the whole story too, and save my 5 bucks.