Change Your Image
Arsenic Drone
Reviews
Lucky Number Slevin (2006)
The Usual Suspects minus balls, plus Guy Ritchie, equals...
Well, it equals a bit of a letdown. I like The Usual Suspects. It had style, it didn't hold back, and I didn't see the ending coming. By the end of this movie, the majority of the plot twist has been telegraphed halfway through, and what remains is a husk of The Usual Suspects. Its main flaw is that it breaks the old storytelling rule about showing rather than telling.
Not only that, it tries to do too many things. It has a love story. It has self-consciously clever dialogue. It throws in Guy Ritchie-style cinematography, which works, and some random Guy Ritchie over-the-topness, which doesn't. This all has the effect of neutering the movie and forcing it to pull its punches, because it can't do all of these things and still be a powerful mind-twister.
Lucky Number Slevin is not horrible, though. Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, and Ben Kingsley do good work with their odd characters. Lucy Liu unfortunately has a lot of that clever dialogue, but her character is nearly surreal enough to be interesting. Josh Hartnett alternates between convincingly natural and unpolished fake. The soundtrack by J Ralph improves the feel of the whole thing, and the visual style fits with the flow.
I'd recommend that if you watch this, you use your favorite method of turning your brain off, or at least down a bit, beforehand. Then it has a fighting chance to blow you away like it wants to.
Avatar (2009)
Entertaining, but won't hold up over time
Avatar tells the story of a man who is paralyzed from the waist down, and through controlling an alien body with his mind, gets more and more absorbed into the alien culture, their respect for the world around them, and their fight against encroachment by humans.
For someone who typically dislikes movies which try to walk the line between mindless blockbuster and subtle storytelling, Avatar exceeds expectations. There was a ridiculous amount of hype for a movie which appeared to have graphics which were nothing new, and a silly story. Well, the graphics are better than expected. The story is not told in an especially compelling way, due to the blockbuster style where everything is just as it seems and the plot flows in a straight line. However, the world of Pandora is quite immersive, especially in 3D, so the graphics make this movie. While the effects, especially of alien characters and animals, still do not quite look like they were filmed, the trees and rocks are very convincing. The 3D interfaces that the humans use for their computers are slick, the ships look real, and the mystical glowing alien plants and insects are cool.
The live-action 3D is very engaging for now, although a little glitchy. Most likely we will look back on this movie in the future and wince, after the technique is improved. For example, sometimes the side of an actor's face has a strong highlight as seen by one camera, but not by the other, which produces a disorienting effect when one of the viewer's eyes sees the highlight but not the other.
As for the story and message, it is a rather standard one of not messing with nature and the indigenous people, which honestly distracts from the expected brainless blockbuster action, romance, and coming of age story. Many of the serious things in this movie were done better in Mononoke-hime. The parts where it is a blockbuster work well enough despite somewhat uninspired action, and it probably would have been better if it had stayed fun and dumb. All in all, worth watching, but by a slim margin.
Public Enemies (2009)
Not actually bad, but not good.
This film is a disappointment. Johnny Depp is rather good as the bank robber John Dillinger, and Christian Bale is not bad as Melvin Purvis, the agent chasing him. However, put simply, it feels rushed. The cinematography is ineffective and spastic, and the editing fails to make the story interesting. Perhaps these things needed more time given to them. It's actually boring, which is not what's expected of a gangster film. Without that attention to detail, it ends up simplistic but busy, a bad combination.
The director of photography also did LA Confidential, so it's difficult to blame him for the uninteresting look of the movie. There are two chase scenes which echo each other, one through an orchard during the day and one through the woods at night, which were done well. Most of the action scenes are just bullets spraying everywhere while people run around, with only rare attention paid to constructing a coherent sequence of events. The camera is far too jerky, far too often. Michael Mann is probably to blame for all of this, as the director.
Weak story, uninteresting flow, and visuals without enough punch add up to make this one a waste of time.
Drugstore Cowboy (1989)
Stiff acting and boring directing sink this one
Matt Dillon seems to have improved as an actor over the course of his career. In this film about pharmaceutical drug use, Dillon has the majority of lines and is also the narrator. His performance is disarmingly wooden, and is a constant reminder that he is really an actor reciting his lines, rather than the character he is playing.
In Drugstore Cowboy, Dillon and his wife (played well enough by Kelly Lynch) rob drugstores with a younger couple (James LeGros and Heather Graham, who was actually not bad). The film is basically a story about how that lifestyle is not so simple. The story and the cinematography are both fine - plenty of gloomy shots when things aren't going well, and some beautiful shots of Oregon. However, the directing and editing seem to be off in a hard-to-quantify way. It's not particularly fast or slow, and not all that long at 100 minutes, but the pacing fails to pull the viewer in. The story is not overpowering, so it needs a directorial style which dwells on the atmosphere and feel, which it doesn't get. At times it starts to veer off nicely towards the somewhat surreal (for example, the "hex" scene). Most of the time though, it's very representational, simply presenting the facts, and that more slowly than it could.
As a side note, William S Burroughs was apparently not meant to be an actor, and the way in which his character exists only to make a point is frustratingly blatant. I think this appearance only diminishes him.
Immortel (ad vitam) (2004)
Nonsensical, shallow, and lame
I guess people must have paid to see this movie. I hope they were already fans of the comics, otherwise they were probably very disappointed. I only realized halfway through it that it must be based on comics, which was confirmed in the credits.
It's very hard to figure out what's going on in this movie, but not because it's a suspenseful thriller or anything. It actually moves quite slowly, and little actually happens. However, there is a constant barrage of dialogue which quite clearly needs a lot more background information for the viewer to be able to make any sense of it. There are Egyptian gods, bright red hammerhead shark people, penguins in the city, aliens (maybe? maybe mutated humans?), and a whole bunch of awful cyberpunk things. People constantly reference things which the viewer doesn't know about, and are never explained. Basically the god Horus descends into New York City out of a pyramid in the sky in the future, and can only stay for a few days. He befriends/inhabits a criminal named Nikopol, and looks for an eventually blue-haired girl named Jill. The cops want to arrest Nikopol and stop Horus, and a fat senator is after Nikopol for very vague reasons. Assuming all this makes sense, beyond that, pretty much only minor details here and there make sense.
The movie's technically pretty lame, too. The acting is either wooden or overdone, although Linda Hardy as Jill is pretty good. Thomas Kretschmann as Nikopol is especially annoying. Also, most of the characters and almost all of the sets are CGI. The creatures tend to be pretty cool. The sets are generally passable to good, with some nice effects here and there, although they're not very convincing. That's fine. What's not fine is that the human/humanoid characters are very unconvincing. Most of them look like they're from smoother versions of cut-scenes in a video game from 1999 (not what you'd want in a movie). What's worse, they're mixed with human actors, which makes the contrast especially obvious. On the other hand, the actors do a good job of interacting credibly with things that aren't there.
Anyway, don't waste your time unless you're curious about whether they're still making terrible movies. And watch out for the badly recited poetry.
Bad Santa (2003)
Mostly just sad
Bad Santa seemed like it would be a stream of hilarious vulgarity and profanity, and there is one truly great scene that involves multiple kicks to the nuts. If you can find a clip of that, just watch it and consider skipping the rest of the movie.
Instead of constant laughs, Bad Santa is a very sobering story, which is not so great when you're already sober and expecting a comedy. It's a tale of a guy (Billy Bob Thornton as a mall Santa who's never sober) who has had a life with almost no happiness, and who treats people like garbage. He's got so little care for life that he treats a slow-witted ingenuous fat kid like trash too, taking advantage of the kid and insulting him with a barrage of curses at every turn, while the kid stares back smiling faintly. At least Thornton seems to feel slightly bad about it, but only slightly, and generally he gets over it fast. Poor kid.
Once in a while I like to see a movie that makes life seem utterly not worth living, but it's unnerving for it to be mixed with occasional comedy (John Ritter is very funny, and the kid delivers some good lines very well). It's not really black comedy either, since the funny parts are mostly just silly, while the morbid parts are not funny. Not only that, but there are stretches that are actually not very interesting at all. While they get you in the mood of Thornton's drunken stupor, that's not necessarily a good thing.
Major SPOILERS - the style of the ending
The ending does not seem to fit with the tragic tone of the rest of the movie. It seems like the ending should come about one scene earlier, with Santa dead on the walkway. However, comedies generally do not end that way, which leaves the creators in a bad situation. I think I would have enjoyed the movie more without the happy ending, but that's just personal preference; it wouldn't be great either way. Perhaps it was simply an attempt to go against the typical expectations of movie plots, but if so, it mostly just cheapens the movie.
Overall, Bad Santa is too much of a mix of conflicting emotional styles to really strike any of them just right. It ends up being a sad story of how a fat kid was betrayed repeatedly by an alcoholic mall Santa, with a nonsequitur ending.
Panic Room (2002)
Passable thriller
Panic Room is basically a collection of small plot twists and plot devices that occasionally gets you on the edge of your seat, but never forms a cohesive whole. Sure, there's a plot, and it more or less makes sense, but it does not have a very enjoyable flow. Even the most mindless movie has a progression, and Panic Room's progression is unengaging, despite some nice individual scenes and cool tricks. Panic Room isn't even mindless, so it has no excuse. The ending is also very weak.
There are even a few scenes that are downright boring. I don't mean slow parts, those are fine and help provide contrast with the thrilling parts, I mean uninteresting parts. Having those is bad. Having Forest Whitaker seems to be good, though. His part has some weaknesses, but he plays it very well.
If you're a thriller fan and you've watched the best ones, and you need something new, Panic Room is OK, but otherwise, skip it in favor of something better.
Soylent Green (1973)
Excellent atmosphere film with a suspenseful plot.
Soylent Green has two flaws: one, the future looks like an exaggerated version of the 1970s; and two, most people know the ending before seeing it.
However, it overcomes both of these problems. While fashion was apparently supposed to get stuck in 70s mode, and video games transcended Soylent Green's 2022 by the time the 1980s ended, the film conveys its main theme, overpopulation, very well. Food is scarce, and global warming has taken hold, giving most of the settings a dry, dusty look. What really works is how nostalgia for the "way it used to be" is portrayed. The film takes its time to get this right, and you can almost feel the intense anticipation and wonder when characters get to try real food instead of the dry food chips (Soylent green, red, and yellow) that make up their daily diet.
The plot remains suspenseful even though the plot twist is well known. Charlton Heston does an acceptable job as Detective Thorn, who is investigating the murder of a rich man. As he digs deeper, the feeling that some people want him to stop snooping becomes more and more palpable, and by the end of the film I found my heart racing, without all that much action. Still, the main draw is the great way the bleak atmosphere is contrasted with fleeting moments of bliss.
Bruce Almighty (2003)
Great concept, poor execution
How can you mess up a comedy about an ordinary man (Jim Carrey as a somewhat self-centered reporter) being given the powers of God? I suppose a better question is how to do it right, and on that subject the creators of Bruce Almighty missed the mark.
This film takes an idea that almost everyone has wondered about in some form, in one of those "what if?" daydreams, and gives it a specific incarnation. The viewer is treated to some very well-done effects, like Bruce parting traffic, instantly coating everything in sight with Post-it notes, and driving girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) wild. Don't forget the scene that makes the movie worth watching: Bruce forcing his competitor, anchorman Evan Baxter (Steven Carell from The Daily Show) to ramble and babble like a lunatic while on the air.
However, the plot comes up kind of short. It gets somewhat fragmented with all of the funny physical comedy, and then when it tries to hit on an emotional level (and a somewhat sappy, unoriginal one at that), there hasn't been enough buildup. In particular, Grace and her relationship with Bruce aren't given enough exposition to expect the viewer to naturally care about them, so some things come out forced. For the most part though, this is forgivable, since the film is really a comedy with a spiritual message, which it does get across.
The real problem is the soundtrack. The orchestral score is distracting and too demonstrative. It's reminiscent of cartoons or pure slapstick comedies: too many musical sound effects. It's almost surprising that there's no trombone going "bwa bwa bwaaah" when something bad happens to Bruce. On the other hand, the film isn't actually for small children like the score would suggest, since there is a fair amount of cursing and mature material (for example, Bruce driving Grace wild). Perhaps it might have been better served going with an R rating, exploring the idea more thoroughly, and tossing out the cheesy sound effects. Since the creators didn't make that movie, we don't know. In any case, the one they did make is passable, but does not live up to the high standard set by the concept it's based on.
'A' gai wak (1983)
Somewhat disappointing
I had heard that this was the best movie with the "Three Brothers" (Jackie Chan, Yuen Biao, and Sammo Hung), so I was looking forward to seeing it. There were some great stunts, especially the bicycle chase sequence, but all in all I was disappointed. Somehow the manic energy seemed to be missing from the fight scenes... they were plenty energetic, but they sort of lacked the cleverness we expect from the Three Brothers. The plot was also especially poor, not in that it wasn't enthralling (it wasn't and it's not expected to be), but that it got in the way of understanding the movie. In retrospect, it's possible that what I thought was one character was actually two, which is not a good sign for the clarity of the plot. It's also often difficult to figure out why a character is doing a certain thing, like betraying someone with apparently no motive. The plot isn't even expected to be easy to follow, but in this case it was nearly impossible to follow, which is bad. Overall, worth seeing eventually if you like the Three Brothers, but I would rate Wheels on Meals much higher.
The Patriot (1998)
Poorly made film
In this film Steven Seagal rides around in prairies and visits a secret underground lab to save the world from a viral weapon created by the government. However, the world isn't Earth, because it'd never happen in such a ridiculous way on Earth. For example, at one point the good guys want to distribute a helpful substance to the population. So do they package it in bags and hand it out, or have people come to a station to pick some up? No, they sprinkle it across the town from a helicopter. Good idea!
There's almost no subtlety in this film, even when it's really called for. No plot twist comes off as inventive or even interesting, and many outcomes are very easily guessed. There was one moment of anticipation that turned out opposite from how you'd expect, but even that was just sort of cheesy. Character development is pretty much limited to identifying which stereotype a person falls into (disgruntled idealist, concerned doctor, wise native, etc), so that without plot or characters, action is left as the selling point of the film. The action's almost non-existant, and very sporadic. It more or less consists of Seagal occasionally needing to distract a person, grab their gun, and knock them unconscious. And finally, the film's dramatic scenes are poorly done, as they're either really standard and not very forceful at all, or they're done in a strange way that minimizes their effect (for example a potentially thought-provoking scene at the end that's just sort of done in a sappy way). Poorly made.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Truly deserves its high rating.
Shawshank is an absolutely amazing film. Its concept is not especially compelling; you might even call it plain, but oh, the execution! Certainly this is how to make a movie.
I saw Shawshank in the cinema, which is always good, but not necessary for a film where the plot and filmatic skill are what draw you in. When I left, I noticed that everyone was sniffling. The film is so beautiful that even the tough people cried. I don't mean that it's a tearjerker either, it doesn't make you cry out of sadness or pull cheap stunts to get the tears flowing. Well, perhaps sadness has something to do with it, but it's a deeper kind of sadness, one that's got tears of joy in it too, not "how could they kill the dog?" sadness. And while it makes people cry, they're glad they saw it. It's not even my kind of movie, but there's no way I can give it less than a 10.
Notice that this movie is loved by all kinds of viewers. From the people who aren't so articulate to the movie snobs, this film hits home on a level that none other I know of does.
Nothing But Trouble (1991)
I am horribly sorry I ever saw this movie.
I watched this movie on TV at least five years ago, probably more. What a mistake. I still remember how terrible it made me feel.
Recently I remembered seeing a movie that made me feel like crap for the rest of the day, so I looked around for it. I couldn't even remember who was in it quite right (I looked through almost all of Steve Martin's movies before finding he wasn't in it - I was thinking of Chevy Chase's character), but I knew John Candy had some kind of really screwed up role. In fact, he had two, one of whom was a revolting, odd woman who Chevy Chase is condemned to marry. I looked through a bunch of Candy's movies and... aha! Here it is. Now I can tell you not to see this movie, assuming you don't enjoy feelings of intense misery.
The actual details of the plot are hazy in my memory, and really they aren't important in what I have to tell you. A quick summary will do. Basically Chevy Chase and Demi Moore get arrested by Dan Aykroyd (who's a cop and a judge and a bunch of other things, I think) in the middle of nowhere, and they're taken to Hell on Earth. Aykroyd makes them stay in his demented house, which is designed to make being alive as unenjoyable as possible, just like this movie. He tries to absorb them into his family, and basically makes it so they don't have a normal waking moment where their surroundings let them be themselves. Chase and Moore pretty much spend the movie trying to escape, roaming through what looks like either a wasteland or a house from a surrealist film (except that it's set in rural America), being beaten down the whole time.
Perhaps it started when I saw this movie, perhaps not, but the thought of being trapped in a place with no contact with the outside world, and only a few unbearable people to live with, really scares me now. After watching this movie I had a braindead feeling. Maybe you know what I am talking about. If you watch the movie you will learn. It's a sort of fuzzy, unhappy feeling, where your mind just goes blank and the world seems like a terrible place to live. It felt kind of like the time I had a bad case of the flu, when I could only barely tell what was going on, and my hands felt prickly for hours. Except that the flu gave me something to measure sickly feelings against, and this movie only serves to numb my mind once again every time I recall it.
Not only would I not recommend seeing this movie, I would advise that you don't see it. Please avoid having an awful memory planted in your brain.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
It's an influential movie, but it's got its flaws.
2001: A Space Odyssey is worth seeing, because you'll understand references and be able to make conversation about it. However, you might not enjoy watching it. There were a few things I really liked about it, but I wouldn't say that I had a good time watching the film.
That's not to say that I particularly regret spending the time (it is a bit lengthy) to watch it. Afterwards it is interesting to mull over some of the themes, and develop your own take on it. I won't be so pompous as to try to feed you my interpretation of the meaning, because there are too many ways you could explain each thing. However, as vague as the metaphors are, I feel that Kubrick beats the viewer over the head with them. The phallic object(s), the question of whether or not man is special, "man's first instinct," and so on: I don't know about everyone else, but I felt like Kubrick tried a bit too hard to make his themes clear. I didn't know anything about the film beforehand, so I wasn't primed to come in and analyze everything. However, when the message and substance are so blatant (even if you can't be sure quite what they are), you are forced to self-consciously think about the movie while watching it. "Ugh, I've been watching birth imagery for the last five minutes," you think, and it detracts from the experience. Even if you realize you might be wrong.
The themes are certainly interesting questions, interesting things to think about. And I'm not saying that they're presented in a shock-value sort of way. Without dialogue, action, and dynamic camera work, though, when the artistic parts come up and come on so strong, it's just overkill. The ending sequence is particularly guilty of this. Everything is metaphor, and Kubrick chose some rather mundane ways to represent the grandiose, almost as if he thinks no one will have any clue what's going on otherwise. "Oh, come on, a bathtub?" you may find yourself griping.
As for the claims that the movie is boring, they may go a bit too far, but there is some validity to them. Certainly some scenes are most effective when they're stretched out longer than you'd expect. At least for me, Kubrick stretched them out far longer than was necessary. Given the flavor of the film, long sit-back-and-enjoy-the-beauty scenes seem out of place while you're trying to discover out what's going on, and they end long after you've taken it all in.
In all, if you enjoy your thought-provoking experiences coming in story form, you'll be disappointed. If you like to change how you view the world slowly, and don't take well to things that try to blow your mind, you'll be disappointed. If you're not interested in an experiment in film pace, you'll be disappointed. If you'd rather have fun watching a movie, and do the deep thinking later, you'll be disappointed. See the movie I suppose, but there will be many things that will make you want to roll your eyes.