Change Your Image
cmivie
Reviews
Basic Instinct 2 (2006)
This movie should have never been made.
I was thinking the same thing many of you were when I learned that this movie was being made (and then eventually debuted in 2006). Why make a sequel to Basic Instict? Still, even wondering "why" this movie was made, I knew that I would eventually sit down and watch it. The original was nothing great, but at the time of its' release (1992) Basic Instinct turned our heads because it was a film that Sharon Stone sold (cause of her good looks, the fact that the role of Catherine Trammell was one that she "made", her uncrossing of her legs, and some wild sex scenes). Seriously. You mention Basic Instinct and the first thing out of people's mouths is talking about Stone's character. In a nutshell, she made that movie. I am not saying that Verhooven did not do a good job directing it, or that Douglas was a slouch. But we all know damn well that Stone was the star of Basic Instinct. I am saying this simply because I think that is why this sequel was greenlit. But, 14 years removed from the first one, there are some painful realizations here. First is the fact that Stone is not the star she was back in the early to mid ninties. Second is the fact that (in this day and age) nothing seems to be "controversial" anymore when it regards the subject of sex. I mean, back in 1992, Stone uncrossing her legs made major waves. You do that now and it barely even registers on the newsline. Even as painful as these two realizations are, I am willing to bet that had this sequel been made, say in 1995, then Stone could have sold it by herself. But in 2006, and after watching Basic Instinct 2, I think we can all agree that this movie should never have been made.
Now, the film does start off with a promising beginning, in which Stone's character, Catherine Trammell, is speeding down the streets of London with some guy who is all doped up on some sort of drug. I say promising cause she is driving at 110 MPH while she is helping the guy get her off while she drives. Now, I am sorry, but I found this to be "hot", and I was once again reminded why Stone (as Trammell) made me have "happy, happy thoughts" when she played her in Basic Instinct. Even at the age of 47 or 48, Stone looks good. I don't care if she has had plastic surgery. Stone is freaking hot at her age. But after this scene is done, the movie becomes a mess.
As was done in the first film, BI2 asks us the same question, "Is Catherine Trammell a murderer?". Now, the element that is added to BI2 with this question is that we learn Trammell has a "Risk Addiction". In fact, we are to believe that she thrives on it. From the opening sequence (speeding car while masturbating) we see evidence that supports this theory. But, the movie loses this element once Trammell starts to try and manipulate her therapist (who is about as bland an actor as I have seen). Don't get me wrong. When Stone plays Trammell as the manipulator, it works. Thing is, in Basic Instinct, you could never quite figure out if Trammell really was a killer. Heck, to this day, there are people who still believe that she was the killer in Basic Instinct. But in BI2, it is so easy to see through her. You know darn well that she is not killing anybody. Manipulating things? Oh yes, she does do that. Killer? Nope. Now, had the movie focused more on the "risk addiction" theme, I think we could have had a better, more interesting story. But what BI2 tried to become is Basic Instinct all over again....just 14 years later. And that just does not suffice.
The twists and turns in BI2 seems to be thrown together, without any explanation as to why they are happening. And the sex scenes? Well, nothing really to write about here cause you saw it all in the first film (minus the orgy). Douglas and Tripplehorn did the "doggy style" scene that we saw in BI2....only the one in BI is better and had more tension in it. No ice pick stabbing while having sex. In fact, there really isn't a lot of sex in BI2. So, nothing to write about as far as the sex scenes go.
Overall, the movie should not have been made. Having said that, I still think Stone did as good a job in BI2. I did not feel that she "forced" any of her lines, especially the ones in which she is manipulating people. She knows how to play Trammell, and this turned out to be the lone bright spot of BI2.
The Fog (2005)
"Low Tide"
I'm sure many have been happy with the new "resurgence" of horror films in the past couple of years. I'll admit, I do like a good scary movie. But I have noticed that here lately, a lot of horror films have just flat out sucked. And, it seems that the horror remakes have really, and I do mean REALLY, sucked big time. Dawn of the Dead is one of the exceptions, and I was hoping that The Fog (remake of the 1980 John Carpenter cult classic) would join Dawn as a good remake. About the only thing good about this new Fog film is the ultra-hot Selma Blair playing Stevie Wayne. Hearing Selma talk like a phone sex girl turned me on, but it wasn't enough to help this weak remake. How many women can say the words "low tide" and make it sound so damn sexy? Not many can, but Selma did it. Still, it wasn't enough. She could not save this train wreck of a film. Hell, not even Superman (Smallville's Tom Welling) could save this movie. Well, I think Welling just wanted to make some extra dough and signed on. Plus, I'm sure he wanted to get next to Selma after hearing her say "low tide". I know I would have signed on for that reason...lol.
Anyways, this movie takes you back to when horror films were just plain dumb. If you can remember the eighties, then you remember all the dumb horror flicks that came out. Nowadays, studios want to make horror films PG-13, so they can make a buck. Well, when you do that, you get weak crap like The Fog, Boogeyman, Ring Two (alothough Ring One was very good), and When a Stranger Calls. Now, you can make a good PG-13 horror movie, as long as there is a solid script. The Fog does not have that, nor is it all that scary. There are a few moments that can get you to jump, but a horror film is supposed to scare you. The Fog doesn't do it at all.
So. What's the movie all about? Well, I will say this without giving out spoilers. The movie tries to tell us why this actual "fog" is happening, and why it is killing people. Basically, the "fog" is ticked off at Antonio Bay, and it wants revenge. Seem silly? Well, it is, but for me to tell you more would ruin it for those who have not seen it. To be honest, the people in Antonia Bay (present day) are taking the blame for what the towns ancestors did years earlier. That is all I will say about the story. Trust me, once it all develops, you'll still be scratching your head wondering why in God's name this script got approval. It is a basic script, and an easy one to follow. Yet, it has many, many holes in it that are never explained.
In any case, watch it to hear Selma Blair's sexy voice. Trust me. Her "low tide" comment will get you turned on. If you are a guy, suggest this movie (over porn), cause Selma can get ya going. Otherwise, try not to figure this movie out. It is obvious that anybody involved with the making of this film never could figure it out either.
Underworld (2003)
Excess bullets=Cool!!
Why is it that most action movies these days have to have a scene in which thousands upon thousands of bullets are flying all over the place, and yet maybe one person actually gets shot? I guess action films are trying to get a high rating for "coolness". In the opening scene of Underworld, we are treated to a shootout between the Lycans (Werewolves) and the Vampires who are at war with one another. This shootout takes place in a subway station, with many, many helpless humans around. And guess what? Only one human actually gets shot. The other 100 or so people actually dodge or dive out of the way. And it ain't like the Lycans or Vampires are using six shooters either. These are full-auto guns, and as a result a gazillion bullets fly. Now, the shootout does look good, but the logic with it is just heinous. But then again, this is an action movie, so we should just enjoy shootout. But, I actually thought to myself, "Hey! No wonder one side can't get rid of the other. They can't shoot a damn gun!". But, and I have to state this so here is a MINOR SPOILER ALERT......when Selene (Kate Beckinsale), who is a Deathdealer for the Vampires tracks down a Lycan in the sewer shortly after the subway shootout, she nails the guy with three or four shots. In the Subway, she couldn't hit a damn thing (except for the walls and columns). I just had to point that out.
In any case, aside from Underworld being a bit illogical at times, this is actually a good film from an entertainment point of view. Beckinsale does a good job playing her role. I was concerned that she couldn't pull it off, but trust me. She is Selene, and she looks good at being a bad-ass. Scott Speedman is......well........I just don't know what to think of him. I see a lot of potential in him, and he does a good job playing Michael. Michael Sheen as Lucian is great. I wish he would have had more screen time, but at least we get to know why Lucian hates the Vampires.
Shane Brolly? He is the guy playing Kraven, who is the worst character in this film simply because I am convinced that Shane Brolly is one of the most horrible actors I have ever seen. I mean, Jean-Claude Van Damme could teach this guy a thing or two about acting. Brolly looks so much like Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails) that I thought he was gonna break down and start singing "Closer" at any moment. I realize a film like Underworld won't give you Oscar type performances, but this guy should never have been given the part of Kraven. Hell. Trent Reznor could have done a better job.
Overall, Underworld is good for what it is. It entertained me, and has me looking forward to the sequel. It has its' holes and can also leave you confused at some points in the film, but the story does fill the holes (or it tries to). Get past the subway shootout and you should enjoy the rest of the movie.
Emmet Otter's Jug-Band Christmas (1977)
A show that should be on TV during Christmas
It's hard for me to imagine that I was four years old when Emmet Otter's Jug-Band Christmas debuted. I can vividly remember watching it for the first time, as I was hooked from the moment Emmet and Ma sing "Aint' no hole in the washtub". So, to my pleasant surprise, I was at Target the other day, and saw that Emmet Otter was on DVD. For $12.99, it was well worth the price. So, I popped into my DVD player, and my wife and I sat back and enjoyed it. Heck, I felt like that little boy who watched it for the first time so many years ago.
To be honest here, I think Emmet Otter's Jug-Band Christmas doesn't get the respect and appreciation it deserves. It should be one of those shows that is played during the Christmas holidays (Like A Charlie Brown Christmas, or How the Grinch stole Christmas, etc.). EOJBC is in every way a classic like those shows. Sad reality is that most folks I know have never heard of Emmet Otter. HBO used to play this at every Christmas, but they stopped doing it year's ago. Why they did, I have no clue, but I know that it was played on other TV channels for a few years, and then it was gone. Thank goodness it found life on DVD.
I think what impresses me the most about this show is that, for its' time (1977), EOJBC was a stroke of creative genius. Yeah, sometimes you see the strings that are controlling the movements of the muppets, but for the most part, you marvel at the vision Jim Henson had in creating the towns of Watervlle and Frog Hollow. And the songs are a real treat. You'll find yourself humming "Bar-B-Q". It is a catchy song.
Torque (2004)
Hot babes, cool bikes can't save this piece of crap!
I can honestly envision how this movie came into existence. Some big movie exec had a relative that wanted to break into the movie business. So, to appease the family, said big time movie exec pitched this combo.
"I have an idea. Let's take street bikes, throw in some hot babes and good looking young studs, throw in a biker gang that resembles the Hell's Angles (only more politically correct), throw in some cool, unrealistic stunts and..........oh........did I mention tons of hot babes? Mix it all together and we have a movie we can call Torque", says the big time movie exec.
"What about a script?", asks one of the board members.
"Who cares! This movie isn't trying to be an Oscar contender. We will make a nice chunk all the young teenagers out there will think this movie is dope, man!", responds the big time exec.
"BRILLIANT!!!!". Everyone shares a Guiness and life is good.
If the above part sounds stupid, well....it should. Then again, that is about the only way a film like this gets made. Torque is bad, and not bad enough to even be called "BAD!" in a good way. I realize that this kind of movie is not meant to be taken seriously, and that we should enjoy it for what it is. But Torque is just a dumb movie.
I won't waste my time talking about the plot of Torque. To do so would require about 10 posts. It's a basic premise that you see in all films that Torque is like.
As for the script, well my five year old nephew could write better dialog than this. The only things missing where some "Dude!" and "Whoa!".
Actors? Why Ice Cube and Jamie Pressley decided to do this movie, I'll never know. Jamie is better than this, and so is Cube. Martin Henderson needs to stay away from crap like this if he wants to build a career. As for Matt Schulze, well if Michelle Rodriguez is typecast, then this guy is this for male roles. Every movie he plays some bad guy, bad ass. Don't get me wrong, he is good at it. But in Torque, he can't do much cause the film is PG-13.
Stunts. Well, you can do most of these in a Tony Hawk game, so figure out just how dumb and stupid these stunts come off on the screen. And this leads me to the end of Torque, which has the dumbest, most unrealistic chase/fight scene I have ever seen. I thought the final stunt in XXX:State of the Union was bad. Torque's finale is ten times worse. You have to watch it to understand just how dumb it is.
Hot babes, cool bikes can't save this piece of crap. I realize that the studio wanted to make some money, and it is painfully obvious that Torque did not cost much to make. I can see sequels for this movie on direct to DVD circuit. Hey, maybe Van Damme can make Torque 2 playing a French guy who wants to get his family back (his movies seem to always have that theme.)
Hide and Seek (2005)
Creepy little kids.
You know what I don't get? Why is it that creepy little boys or girls seem to always get away with anything? Look, when I see a creepy little kid, I will say that that kid is a creepy little bastard! I call it like I see it. I realize that most kids in the world are not disturbed, but some are, and should you ever come across one, then please save humanity and do all us humans a favor by making sure that said creepy little kid is locked away for life. I realize that creepy little kids have been a staple for horror films, but to suggest that they should never be thought of as criminals is insane. Hollywood loves to portray kids as angels. Like I said, most are, but I think Hollywood needs a reality check.
This leads me to Hide and Seek, a movie that is mediocre even with powerful actors like DeNiro, Fanning and Shue. For some reason, Bobby makes more mediocre films nowadays then he does quality. I realize you have to pay the bills, but come on. DeNiro is one of the best actors ever, and his movie choices lately (Godsend, which is horrible)have sucked. DeNiro should have looked at the script and then decided to burn it after reading the first 3 pages. Either that or he should have demanded a love scene with Elisabeth Shue for extra compensation. Fanning parents saw the $$$$ there little girl would earn, and signed her up real quick. Well, that is my theory, cause she is way better than this garbage.
Fanning plays the "creepy little kid", and DeNiro plays her psychiatrist dad. Mom kills herself in the beginning of the movie, or at least that is what it looks like. Darling daughter becomes depressed and creepy, and daddy decides to move from the city to the country for a new start. Turns out the move is a bad idea, cause (excluding Shue's character) all the residents of this small town that we meet are creepy too. And why is it that small town folk are always creepy? Big cities have there fair share of freaks as well, but for some reason, this movie (along with many others) wants you to believe that small town folks are crazy as hell. Anyways, this movie goes from okay to flat out ridiculous in no time at all, and once the big "surprise" comes at the climax of the film, you feel as if you have seen this movie somewhere before. That is due to the fact that Hide and Seek turns into a rehash of many other films. Sad thing is the fact that Hide and Seek wants to be different........but it isn't.
I'll give Fanning credit. She does play her role well, and it was because of her that I watched this whole thing. This is a dark role for her, and she seems to eat it up. She does have a bright future ahead of her, but she needs to avoid crap like this.
Derailed (2005)
A movie about Choices.
When I see a movie, I often try to find the "message" that the film is trying to convey. It could be political, religious, or a movie can just be a "popcorn" flick (only wanting to entertain). When I went to see Derailed this past weekend, I honestly felt that the "message" would be about not committing adultery. Alas, I am confused. Why? Well, for starters, this movie is really not about "adultery". True. It does have adultery as a theme for it, but Derailed really isn't about it. You wanna see a movie about adultery, then watch Indecent Proposal. Wait a second, that was about Prostitution. Never mind. Anyway, Derailed is a movie that is all about one thing........choices. Confused? Read on.
The film is told through the eyes of Charles (Clive Owen). Now, ol' Charles is married, has a child, has a mortgage, etc. Sounds familiar right. Well, Charles is also bored with his marriage. Now, how any man could be bored with being married to a girl that is hot like Mellisa George is beyond me. Yet, Charles is bored with her, and she is bored with him. The only thing keeping them together is there daughter, who is very sick (serious case of diabetes). Charles is basically at a crossroads in his life (even though he doesn't realize it yet). He is a bored man who is yearning for some sort of spark. Well, he gets it in the form of Lucinda (Jennifer Anniston). How Charles meets her is really sort of a story you would read in the Penthouse Forums. Charles is on the train and he doesn't have a ticket, nor does he have the money for a ticket. Lucinda offers to pay for his ticket, which is how these two meet. Now, they don't run off and have sex like you would read in a Penthouse forum, but they do start to converse with one another. Next thing you know, ol' Charlie can't stop thinking about Lucidna, which leads us to the "choices" I was referring to. Charlie has to decide if he really wants this. Well, you know the story. He wants it, she wants it....... and then they get robbed in a shady hotel room just before Charlie can actually do the deed. I'm sure Charlie never thought that before he actually did commit adultery that he would be a victim of robbery, or else he would have told Lucinda to have a quickie with him on the train. Instead, he (and she) decide to go to a poorly run motel, because nobody would think anything bad happens at those places. Charles' life just went from bad to worse.
The rest of the movie is the "thriller" part, were the robber (LaRoache) wants money from Charlie. Yes, LaRoache is a French bad guy (played brilliantly by Vincent Cassell), and I guess LaRoache is ticked off at America cause we wanted to take the French out of French Fries and change it to American fries. LaRaoche has Charlies by the gonads because Charlie doesn't want his wife to know he came this close to doing it with Jennifer Anniston. How would you like to be the guy who came this close to having sex with Jennifer Anniston, only you didn't seal the deal. Not a very good reputation to have. Anyways, the film takes many twists, and is pretty good at doing it. Clive Owen does a good job playing the tortured soul that is Charlie. You can actually feel the anguish this guy has throughout the film, and while you want the guy to overcome all his obstacles, you also feel that he does get what he deserves. I mean, he was about to cheat on his wife (which is not a good thing, and Charlie knows it).
Derailed is something different for adults out there, who want to escape having to watch family films during this holiday season (nothing wrong with family films, but there are a ton of them out there). I really think this movie is more about the choices that we can make in our lives when things are not going like we want. Charlie exemplifies this, and Lucinda provides the temptation that almost does him in. Moral of the story here? Don't cheat on your spouse, or beware the angry Frenchman that will come and cause you more agony.
Monster-in-Law (2005)
Could have been a real gem.
I had my reservations about this film, mostly due to the fact that I was worried that every funny moment appearing in the film was already shown in the previews. To my delight, that worry was put to rest, cause there are many funny moments from the movie. Now, that doesn't mean this film is grade "A" quality, cause it is far from it.
The good? Well, let's start with Miss Fonda, making her first film appearance in 15 years. She does a wonderful job in her role as the overbearing mother, whose life is all about her successful career as a Barbara Walters clone, and she happens to an overbearing mother to her only son. I have read where some critics wonder why Jane would choose to do this movie as her big comeback role. I don't think Fonda was/is concerned about making a comeback. To me, she seems to enjoy playing this role, and (while not always hitting on all cylinders), her and Lopez do have there moments. The best thing Fonda does here is the that she just commands your attention when she is on screen. In a way, that is a good thing, because you will enjoy her. Yet, in another way, she seems to be bigger than J-Lo, who has top billing.
Another good thing about MIL is Wanda Sykes. Now, I will warn you that sometimes it seems that Wanda is just thrown into scenes because she really IS funny, and this does take away from some of the film. But, there are those scenes where Sykes is a breath of fresh air for the film. Yes, she has the good one liners, but it is also the facial expressions she makes that will make you laugh as well. Plus, Sykes and Fonda seem to enjoy bantering with one another, and that was a good call by the director.
The bad? Vartan. He has the same dumb, goofy smile on during the whole film. Someone could call the guy a prick, and all he would do is use that goofy smile of his and say "thank you". I realize the film isn't about him, but at least he could have had more depth to him. Plus, he and Lopez just do not connect at all.
For J-Lo, this may very well be her weakest performance yet. It seems that she realized that Fonda was ten times better than her, so she sat back and let Miss Jane run the show. J-Lo is supposed to be the headliner, yet she doesn't fill that role. She does have her moments in the film, but they are few. I just expect a headliner to act the part, and for me, Lopez didn't.
Overall, it was a film that was funny, yet it could have been a real gem had Lopez been on her game. I do think comedy is the way for her to go as far as movies go, cause she has shown promise in this genre. But this movie is Jane Fonda's baby, and her and Sykes saved it from being a disaster. A good sign to me was the fact that the audience seemed to enjoy it, and with little competition in the dating/comedy genre, MIL should be able to do pretty good at the box office. Too bad it has to deal with Star Wars: ROTS during its' run. In any case, it is worth the price of admission.
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
QT's best since Pulp Fiction!
I know that it is rare to have a sequel that is absolutely better than the first film. Many feel that Spider-Man 2 is better than the first. The same goes for The Empire Strikes Back being better than Star Wars, and Godfather 2 being better than The Godfather. And the reason why these films are viewed as superior efforts over their original counterparts is simple............these sequels have their own identity. They have their own story to tell. And that is exactly what makes Kill Bill Volume 2 better than Volume 1. True. It does continue from Volume 1. True, the theme for both movies is the same......revenge! But Volume 2 is not in any way shape or form like Volume 1. It possesses more depth than the first film had. And the dialog in volume 2 is the best I have seen in a film since Fargo (and that is saying a lot.). But what really sets this film above Volume 1 is due to one person............David Carradine as Bill.
I loved how you never saw Bill's face in the first movie. This strategy only built up the anticipation for when you do finally see him.....which doesn't take long once Volume 2 begins. But how we first see Bill is where the tone of this film is set. He is calmly playing his windpipe, and once he turns to look at The Bride, he commands your attention from here on out. What really struck from his first five or so minutes on screen was how Carradine displays sadness, happiness, and anger all wrapped in one. We know that Bill is gonna kill her, but the way Carradine portrays it, you suddenly find yourself wondering if he really will. You also get the feeling that Bill does not want to kill her, yet he knows that he has to because (in his eyes) she betrayed him. I loved the final lines they shared at the church, where she asks him how she looks. He touches her and looks at her like he is a proud father, and tells her she looks like she is ready. That is powerful, and what is really great is how these two lines come up near the end of the film. Truly masterful.
Uma is solid as The Bride, and she shows why she is one of the best actresses in Hollywood today. She never gets the credit she deserves, and my hope is that these two films will give her that credit. Before these films came out, I had my doubts as to if she could pull off a performance like this. I'm glad to say that she proved me wrong. She is The Bride, and I don't think anyone else could have played her better.
My only gripe with this film comes down to some believability issues. I won't go into any details, but you'll know what I am talking about. Still, these are minor gripes that do not take away from the movies "greatness".
All in all, this is QT's best work since Pulp Fiction. I only hope he doesn't take another six years to make another film.
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Another remake, but at least Dawn isn't all that bad.
Hollywood is suffering from a new disease...........remakeitis! So far in 2004, we have seen remakes of Flight of the Phoenix, Stepford Wives, Walking Tall and Dawn of the Dead. And their are more to come in 2005, which tells me that ideas are scarce in Hollywood. I'm not dogging remakes. But with the increase we have seen just in the last few years, I really am starting to worry that studios are abandoning "original" ideas. In any case, when I heard that Dawn was going to be remade, my first thought was that it really couldn't be any worse than the original. I know the original Dawn has a cult-like following, but in all honesty that film is not very good.
So..........what about the 2004 version? Well, let me say this. The remake is good, when you compare it to the original. But, I do have several problems with this film. I'll get to those in a second. Let me address the positives.
First of all, this film does not follow the original in every detail. Most remakes don't, but for Dawn this was actually the best choice. Dawn is all about one thing...........survival. We have a group of people that are simply trying to survive. I like the fact that the group becomes a family of sorts, realizing that they need one another to survive. I also liked how Ving Rhames was the only true bad-ass in the film. He is a cop, so it is to be expected. But Rhames (as he usually does) plays this part so well that you love it when he starts to accumulate a high body count of zombies. I liked the diversity of characters. A salesman, a nurse, a gay organ player for a church, a playboy, a jerk security guard...........as that diversity meshes really well in this film. I also liked how in the midst of all the chaos, the characters get to know one another, meaning we get to know who they are. A lot of time, films like Dawn look past this aspect. I'm glad the director didn't do that. And then their is the segment that had me rolling..........and for you Disturbed fans out their, you know what I am talking about. Using Disturbed's "The Sickness", they had some guy singing the song in a Frank Sinatra style that just was so funny, I had to play the over again. It is pure genius to use this song in the film, but to do it in this way was just so damn funny.
Now, the bad stuff. I guess their is a handbook out their entitled "What to do when Zombies attack". And in that book, the author must have stated that the first place to seek shelter is..........The Mall! And wouldn't you know, the zombies must have known this (or maybe the author turned into a zombie and told all his zombie buddies that survivors will flock to the mall) cause right before our group of survivors can get into the mall, the zombies show up. Okay, I can live with this. But I refuse to accept that mall security guards will be packing heat. In Dawn, the security guys are packing, which was a terrible thing to have in the film. Then, this movie wasted Mekhi Phiefer's talents. If you watch ER, then you know this guy is one hell of an actor. Here, he is wasted. Lastly, this film is not a horror movie. It is an action film with zombies. Their really isn't anything scary about this film. The zombies look great, meaning they look hideous and scary. But the film is not a horror film.
Overall, Dawn is good for what it is, and it is actually a remake that is better than the original. Having Rhames as the lead character was a great call, cause anybody else in that role just wouldn't work. I think Ving is one of the most under-appreciated actors today. But I also have to mention Jake Weber, mostly because I hope this film will give him more exposure. The guy is a great talent, and he plays his part so well that you really feel for him in the end. Those two made this movie for me.
Blade: Trinity (2004)
Expected better. (Minor Spoilers)
When I saw the first Blade film back in 1998, my first thought was that Snipes had found a role that I felt he was "born to play". Blade is a role that only Snipes could play, and thankfully, he did portray Blade for three films. The success of Blade made us want more, and it would be four years until we got Blade 2 (2002). I think the time it took to make the second paid off because that film gave us something different. I actually like the second film, mostly because Snipes seems to be enjoying playing Blade, and because I liked the acting in it (like Pearlman and Kristofferson). So, you can imagine my expectations for the third film.
Before I talk about the bad things about Blade:Trinity, allow me to talk about the good things. The action in Trinity is good, but it isn't anything that will knock your socks off. The chase scene in the beginning is solid, and this is really the only time Snipes seems to be enjoying himself in this movie (more on that in a bit). Still, the action is good, so that is not a letdown. Parker Posey and Dominic Purcell could have done more and should have done more. Posey works with what she has, but I just felt that she should have been given more screen time. Same goes for Purcell, who plays Dracula (Drake). This guy does his job well, but he is not used enough (the first time he and Blade meet is good). Drake and Danica needed to be developed more to make them better heels in this film. A good action film needs a very convincing bad guy. Drake is the ultimate bad guy vampire, and he needed more time to show that. Danika is conniving and she wants to destroy Blade, so for the most part, her character does try to fill the bad guy role. Had Drake been better established, then I have a feeling the film would've been a whole lot better.
Now, the bad. It seems that Reynolds is being blasted for his role in this film. I don't think his character needed to be left out of it, but it did seem a little too much with his potty mouth humor and his sarcasm. Yes, he added a new twist with being the funny sidekick, but his character does not mesh well with Blade at all. Reynolds should have been funny, but I think Goyer gave him too many one-liners to use in the film. Some are good and funny, but there are just as many worthless cracks in here that drag the script down. I did like Reynolds in this film. He pulled it off, and I can see him doing action films in his future. The guy showed he can act and he can do an action film, which I admit I was tentative about. I just think Goyer wrote his character wrong. As for Biel, I will say this. Yes, she is hot and yes she does look good kicking ass. But this role did not suit her at all, and I found her character to be the weakest in the whole movie. She is Whistler's daughter, born out of wedlock. Okay.........so she finds daddy and decides she wants to fight the good fight. Okay..........and? Basically, all you can gather from her is that she has a lot of aggression and decides to join up with daddy to kick some ass. Nice.....but shouldn't there have been more to her? I've yet to see what makes Biel such a hot commodity in Hollywood. I have yet to be impressed by her so far. Hot? Hell yes she is! But that is about it. Now to Snipes. It seemed to me that Wesley did not enjoy doing this film. Honestly, his delivery of his lines is not convincing at all, and it seems that he just wanted to get this third film done so he could do other projects that were more important to him. I don't think that Reynolds or Biel brought him down. Snipes just is not into being Blade in this one. Look at Blade's 1 and 2, and you'll see that Snipes is enjoying playing Blade. And Goyer? Well, if this guy wants to continue to direct movies, then he will need to improve. The fact he wrote and directed this film means that he has to take much of the blame for its' faults. Someone mentioned that Trinity seems like one, long music video, and I happen to agree with that. The main thing about Trinity that makes it boring is the lack of the story and the flow of what is there. I honestly think the action and all the slo-mo scenes are trying to make up for the lack of story, but it doesn't work.
I feel that a film that you know will be the final piece of a trilogy needs to be special. Revolutions did not do a good job of wrapping up the The Matrix trilogy, and now Blade: Trinity has failed the Blade franchise. I really did expect better, and felt that the franchise went out with a whimper.
Godsend (2004)
Not a good movie.
I always try to find something in a film that is good. It may be a performance, or special effects, or something else along those lines. Yet, in Godsend, I could find nothing...........NOTHING...........that was any good. But wait! De Niro and Kinnear are in it, so they had to bring something to this film, right? The answer is a resounding NO!
The idea behind the film is good. Parents lose there only son to a freak car accident, and now must cope with life without him. Add to this that they have had problems getting pregnant in the first place, and they felt having there son was a "blessing" for them. Then, out of the blue and also during the grieving period for the parents (and before there son is buried), a doctor shows up and presents the parents with an option........Cloning. Great idea for a film, but the story behind it had so many holes in it that you never really can get into the film.
First of all, let's take a look at how unrealistic this story is. Okay, if a doctor comes up to me before I bury my dead son with this crazy idea of cloning my kid to give him back to me, then I am gonna punch his lights out. So, what do the writers decide to do here? (Spoiler!)They right in some lame story of how the doctor has only a limited amount of time to do the procedure. Not only that, but the family has to leave everything..........and I do mean everything.........behind and start all over. What kind of crap is that? Not only that but nobody else in the hospital (which is called GODSEND) knows the "truth" about what the doctor and the parents are doing. Only the three of them know it. That is just stupid.
I think the film could've been good had it dealt with the moral issues and focused more in depth on the parents grieving for the loss of there son. We see them as being greedy, when we needed to sympathize with them and there situation. As for the child, well you can't help but to want the kid to die because he is a "Damien" clone........meaning he is an evil little bastard!
As for the ending, well it is the worst ending to a film I have seen. I'll just say that and be done with it.
AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)
What did you expect?
Even after I had read the negative reviews about this film, I still went with a buddy of mine to check it out. He and I are big Predator fans (yes, even Predator 2 is a movie I like), and I also enjoy the Alien series (Aliens being my favorite). So, as a fan, I really wasn't bothered by the PG-13 rating, but I found it odd that FOX was willing to sacrifice product over profitability. But, with AVP, FOX has managed to put out three box office successes (the other two being I, Robot and The Day After Tomorrow). So, I guess the gamble has paid off.
(SPOILERS AHEAD)!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, so now to the movie. Well, you all know the plot, so i will skip that much a hit some other things. First is the cast. Besides our lead heroine, we get to know them very little. In a way this is good because we all paid to see the Aliens battle the Predators. I'll hit the latter part in a second. As for the cast, you really do not care about them. Heck even when the two guys are talking about getting home to there kids, you know they are gonna die. So, the dialogue between the two seems rather pointless. Then, there is our lead heroine (Sanaa Lathan) and the pyramid expert Sebastian. Sebastian is a know-it-all and he is the one who figures out the backstory of the Predators and Aliens. The backstory is neat, but it really could have used more thought to it to make it seem more logical. In any case, the Predators come back to Earth every hundred years and hunt the Aliens, and the Humans are used as hosts to breed the Aliens. Which is why the satellites found the temple in the arctic. Yep, the Predators set it up because they needed our team of expert scientists and such as hosts for there hunt. Sound silly? Well, it is, but I was willing to look past all that. In any case, the cast is expendable and as a result.........they die.
Now, on to the fight scenes. There is very little action between the Predators and Aliens, but what little we get looks very good. This alone saved the movie for me. My only beef here is that two of the Predators die very quickly once they get into the temple, leaving the one main Predator to do battle with all the Aliens. Lucky for him, our lead star is willing to team up with him to fight the beasts. Look, we wanted the Aliens fighting the Predators, and I feel that killing two Predators off like they did was just too damn silly. In any case, the effects and such are very good and should salvage some of the movie for you.
As for the Aliens? I felt they looked good (what little we do see because they mostly come out in the dark), and they have no alterations to them (at least they didn't try to put that stupid Alien from Resurrection in the film). The Aliens we get are what we saw in Aliens. Now, the tail is used quite often, and it looks good too when it is used. As for the queen? Okay, she has been locked down by the Predators and is awakened by one of our cast members stepping on a floor piece. Yes, it does look like Frankenstein's monster when she awakens as the electric current flows through her body. Here is my problem with this. She finally figures out how to get loose, as she sacrifices her young and there acid breaks the chains! Okay, me thinks if she is this smart that she would have figured this out many, many years ago. But, for the sake of the film, she just now figures it out and she gets loose. Obviously, she has her big scene in the final battle with the Predator and our wonder woman. Was it just me, or did anyone else think of Jurassic Park when the Queen Alien is chasing the woman? I laughed my ass off at that.
The Predators look good. I like how Anderson used there camouflage, especially when one Predator jumps from one side to the other during a battle with the humans in the temple. I liked the new throwing star (I guess that is what you would call it) the Predators had. There really wasn't anything cheesy about them.
Overall, the film is what it is. I have read that Anderson was unhappy with it because he didn't get to make the film he wanted to. If that is the case, then I hope once the DVD is out that FOX will release his cut of the film (which was R-rated). I don't think the film is as horrible as some have called it. It is a "popcorn flick" and to take it seriously is the wrong approach. If you like Sci-Fi and action, then this film will give you that.
Boyz n the Hood (1991)
One of the most important films ever made.
I watched this movie the other night because I had not watched it in a long time. It was on TBS a few weeks ago, but I never like to watch films like this that are edited. So, I rented it and watched it.
Here's the deal. I remember watching this movie as a 18 year old. Seeing it from an 18 year old's perspective, this was one of the most intense movies I had ever seen. After watching it the other night, I would say that it is not the most intense film I have seen, but it is one of the most important films to have ever been made.
First, it was the first film of its' kind to reveal to the world what was going on in South Central and other places like it. For someone like me, a kid who grew up in a loving home with both parents in a suburban town, this movie was and still is an eye-opener. The "shock factor" the film had when it was released in 1991 is not their anymore, simply because the world now knows what is going on in places like SC. But at the time, the film broke the wall down to a world that needed to see what was going on. For that, you have to give John Singleton props.
What I like most about the film is the fact that Singleton does not hold back. The reality that is "the hood" is presented without any attempt to sugarcoat it. And that is the way it needed to be. Some of Singleton's views expressed in the film are debatable, and I found myself not always agreeing with some of these views. Nevertheless, I would not have had Singleton change a thing about the movie. I'm sure their are people who are like Furious, Doughboy, and Tre and share the views each character had.
When you watch the film now, try and remember that things were different in 1991. Appreciate the film for what it meant to audiences back then. Still, the message Singleton wanted to express still stands true today. At the end, you see the words "Increase The Peace". To me, Singleton wanted the world to know what was going on in places like South Central, and he wanted people to come together and stop the unneccassary violence. If only it were that simple.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
A film that everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, should see!
First of all, let me state that I am a christian. I want to get that out before I start my review of this film. So, here goes.
Well, Mel Gibson has done it. He went against the flow, against liberal minded Hollywood and made a box-office smash by re-telling the story of Jesus. And he did it by telling it the way it was meant to be told. Hollywood takes certain liberties when telling a story from the bible (like Noah's Ark) and to be fair and honest, Gibson takes some of these liberties as well (as in the presence of Satan). I know that theologians, or some of them, have a problem with Satan being in the film. My response to that is that I feel it is totally asanine to think that Satan wasn't their tormenting Jesus during his final hours. The guy is evil ya know, and you can bet that he was their trying to convince Jesus that he did not need to die for mankind's sins.
Now, as for it being anti-semetic. I didn't get the impression that "The Passion" was directed to make everyone hate the Jews. The Jews wanted Jesus to be crucified because they belived him to be a blasphemer. Yet, they needed the Romans to carry this out because they themselves could not do it. The Romans are the ones who beat Jesus to a pulp, who ridicule him as they beat him. If anything, the movie makes you hate or dispise the soldiers who do this to Jesus. Yet, their are Jews in the movies who do believe Jesus is the Messiah, and you see the pain they go through watching Jesus suffer for them. If anyone gets the feeling that this film is anti-semetic, then that person (or persons) either has some sort of agenda or is very narrow-minded.
So, how was the film? It definitely leaves you speechless after it ends. My wife and I went about 10-15 minutes before we talked about it. My mother asked me how good it was, and I could not answer her back. This is one film that you have to see and give your own opinion. So, now let me try to put down how I felt about it.
It is an epic film that is wonderfully directed and the acting is very good. The score for the film is passionate and powerful and the cinematography is excellent. This film probably won't get any Oscar nominations, but it should. Their are two performances worth mentioning. First, is Jim Caviezel as Jesus. He is wonderful at bringing out the love of Christ as well as his determination at fulfilling his duty. Second, is the guy who plays Pilate. I have always envisioned Pilate as a man who, though powerful, was fragile. In "The Passion" Pilate is displayed as such.
Now, about the violence. While this is a great story, this movie makes it more realistic than any other. You will see a side to this story you never have, and that is when Jesus is beaten by the Roman soldiers. It is violent to say the least, but that is how it should be. Their is no way to sugar coat this (even though in all Passion plays you never see it because, well, because they are done in Church). Mel wants you to see and know the suffering Christ went through, and he does not hold back. But, he also shows you the suffering that the followers went through, most notably Magdelene and Mary (his mother). I like this touch, because it brings realism to the story. The Jews who don't believe are satisfied that Jesus is being punished, the Jews who do believe suffer to seeing Jesus go through this ordeal, and Jesus suffers but knows he is doing the will of the Father. That is as realistic as you can get.
Overall, this is a film everyone should see, and I do mean everyone. If it leaves you with questions, then I suggest seeking out someone who knows theology (preferably a minister or evangelist) to help you understand. I'm guessing that is what Mel intended. He wanted folks to seek more information. Not just unsaved, but also saved people.
In Hell (2003)
A good film.
If you are a Van Damme fan, then you will like this movie. While the story is territory he has covered before (Death Warrant), their are also other elements that In Hell has make it a good film. First, Van Damme is not a fighter, he is an engineer who is working a job in Russia. His wife is homesick and she misses her husband. Well, hubby decides to take a few days off from work to spend time with the wife but a terrible act occurs that changes everything. His wife is raped and murdered. However, when justice fails him, Van Damme's character decides to take matters into his own hands by blowing the guy away right in the courthouse. He gets sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Yeah, this movie does not have the action in it that most other VAN Damme movies have, but I don't think that is what director Lam and JC had in mind. This movie is about a man who loses everything: his wife, his job, his sanity. Then, he is placed "In Hell" which is the prison. There, he has to decide whether or not he wants to be a victim or fight to stay alive.
This movie is not typical for JC. His character is not arrogant, or cocky, or a chick magnet. He is a simple man and I applaud Van Damme for doing something different. He doesn't rely on his martial arts to sell the movie. He is not a bad ass. He is a guy trying to survive.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
The best trilogy ever made.
When I first learned that the LOTR trilogy was going to be made, I was very excited. I had waited a long time for it. But, then I heard that a guy named Peter Jackson was directing and I became worried. I thought that New Line made a mistake in hiring Jackson because he was only known for horror films and he had never had a hit film. Well, I was wrong. Peter Jackson has given us the best trilogy ever made. Yes, LOTR is better than Star Wars (episodes 4,5 &6).
So, is ROTK better than Two Towers? No. Is it better than Fellowship? No. However, I am sure that many feel that ROTK is the best of all three and I really couldn't argue with that. But to me, Fellowship is the best, but Two Towers and ROTK are very a very close second and third.
ROTK has an epic battle scene that you must see to believe. It is so amazing that I will gurantee you that ROTK will win an oscar for special effects. The acting is once again solid, and Sean Astin does need to receive an Oscar nod for his performance in ROTK. I won't put anything in here to spoil it for anyone. Just go see this movie and enjoy the three plus hours.
Hulk (2003)
A very good film that many people will not like.
If you see the Hulk on the premise of just seeing the trailer that was run during the Super Bowl, then you will go to see this film already with a bad taste in your mouth and you will probably not like Ang Lee's version. Let me clear one thing up; the CGI Hulk looks good and does not resemble the Hulk from the Super Bowl trailer. With this in mind let me hit the positives and negatives of this film.
On the positive side, and overall, Hulk is a good film. Ang Lee does a good job of creating his vision of the big green guy. Lee focuses on Bruce Banner the man more than he does Bruce Banner as the Hulk. I actually like this concept but I know most people won't (I'll get to this in my negative thoughts). The effects are very good, but Lee does not rely on them to drive his film. He uses the story, which is a pretty basic concept. Bruce's dad was a mad scientist type who worked for the military and tried his experiments on his own son. Bruce is a messed up adult who has issues and this is where Eric Bana (who plays Bruce) shines. He is hurting and you sympathize with that. Lee uses the actors very well, and all do a good job. I also liked Lee's use of adding storyboards in his film (it makes it feel like a comic book). As for the Hulk himself, he looks very good. He is not shown as just some brainless monster who wants to smash any and everything. He is Bruce's rage, but he is also a beast who hurts inside as much as Bruce does and this is shown in Hulk's expressions (a great scene is when Hulk meets Bruce's dad). The film is more of an emotional roller coater ride than it is action packed, but their is still some good ol Hulk smashing in the film as well.
Now for the negatives. Lee is not Michael Bay, and he is not trying to be. He set out to make a movie based solely on a personal story than having the Hulk run around and destroy stuff all through the film. This is not a bad idea, but one of Lee's faults was choosing to have Hulk in the film for 20-30 minutes, and for die-hard Hulk fans that simply won't do. Second, Lee drags the movie to almost two and a half hours. The ending of the film was less than stellar, if not a little confusing.
Overall, this is a very good film that many people will not like simply because their is not enough Hulk and not enough action.
The Hunted (2003)
Not worth the money
You would think that a movie that has Tommy Lee Jones and Benicio del Toro as its' stars and William Freidkin as the director would be off the charts and worth the money. Well, this film was definitely not worth the money I paid to see it. TLJ looked and acted as if he was tired of doing the same role over and over again, and BDL looked uncomfortable in his role as an assassin gone insane. I will admit that I did like the fighting scenes between the two. And I really do believe that this could have been a real good movie if Freidkin would have done more character depth, added a little sexual tension between Jones and Connie Neilson, and not have the unbelievable stunts this movie had. Could have been better.
Speed (1994)
Still kicks butt
I remember seeing Speed the weekend it opened in the summer of 94'. My friend talked me into seeing the film (I just could not buy Keanu Reeves as an action hero), and so there I was in the theatre thinking that Speed would be an average film at best. From the moment the elevator dropped, I was hooked. Speed is one of the best action films to have ever been made, and even if you see it or have seen it 10, 20, 50, or 100 times it still grabs you and takes you on the ride of your life. Maybe there were a couple of things that were far fetched ideas (like the bus jumping the gap in the freeway), but overall this movie will thrill you and entertain you from start to finish. 8 out of 10.
The Majestic (2001)
A good-feelin film!
The Shawshank Redemption is the best movie that I have ever seen! So, I did not watch The Majestic in the hopes that it would be better then Shawshank, because there is no way that Frank Darabont can top his best work. The Green mile was good, and The Majestic is good. Jim Carrey does a great job in this film. Sometimes I felt that he was overacting a bit too much, but overall he does a great job. Martin Landau should have received a best supporting actor nod for his role in this film. This guy is good! In my opinion, he got overlooked for the oscars. I have heard people complain about how the people in the town were portrayed. In the fifties, it was polite to say hello, going to the movies was the thing to do, and people treated others with kindness. It's good to see films can still make you feel good, cause this film did for me. Jim Carrey is on his way to becoming a top-notch actor. A truly, good feeling film that is for everyone. 8 out of 10.
Jeepers Creepers (2001)
Could've Been
Well, I really had high hopes for this movie. And for the first 30 minutes, I was into this movie. However, after the first 30 minutes the film just seemed like it wanted to hurry up and finish. The film does have a few scary moments, and it had the potential of being a true great horror film. But, it just really got stupid towards the end (I did not like the ending). I hear that there will be a sequel. If so, I hope that the director can explain some things that JC1 did not. This movie could have been really good!