DirtyStarling Reviews

Dogs: Much Ado About Blue (2021) Season 2, Episode 1

It should be illegal to fill 50 minutes with this much padding.

[4/10 · 16 January 2024]

TL;DR - 4/10 - The story is buried under competently shot b-roll that says nothing. CONDENSE!

And now... padding.

Coming from someone who likes dogs and generally likes this type of show: this program should have been 10 minutes long. 15 minutes if they really, really wanted to draw out the feels. The editor didn't need to make a few cuts here and there, they needed to take a weed wacker to this. The entire episode is filled with more padding than a tactical bite suit.

There are two concurrent stories in this episode. The first is the retirement of Blue III, a canine mascot. The second is the dog's handler undergoing major surgery and retiring himself. They're both good, emotional pieces on paper. And yet, it doesn't really feel like the two plots intersect in any kind of significant way, and they really, EASILY could have if the editing had been tighter and the director had focused on telling a story instead of showing all the b-roll they captured. I mean, the b-roll looks fabulous, I can't fault the camerawork or the cinematography. Those guys were on the ball. No, my failure to get into this is all on the direction and editing. I cannot overemphasize how much drawing out every shot and showing every clip of b-roll with gentle music does not make something emotional. It makes me check my watch. A lot.

What WOULD have worked was a tighter script and a focus on how intertwined the life of the man getting surgery and the life of Blue III were. Show parallels between the life of the dog and the life of the man. Show how their lives were intertwined. Show that what happens to one affects the other and vice versa, and show the two of them facing retirement together. That's SO CLOSE to what they actually do, I found myself getting angry while watching it that they threw in all of their b-roll instead of using the best of the b-roll to tell a nice, tight, emotional story. It's aggravating, because I can see what they were going for, but it doesn't get there.

This is the first episode of this series I watched, (by accident, I thought it was playing episode 1, and it played episode 1 of season 2) and it will be the last. When I'm yelling "CUT THIS OUT" multiple times at what should be a feel-good emotional piece full of adorable animals, it doesn't exactly encourage me to seek out anything more the series has to offer.

Home (I) (2009)

The fact that it's an eco-documentary doesn't make it good.

[3/10 · 27 November 2022]

Education about humanity's impact on the environment is important. However, a documentary is not good simply because it has an eco-message. "Home" was an absolute trash garbage documentary.

The film immediately turned me off with its opening title, wherein all the brands of the PPR group merged to form the word "Home." If you aren't aware, PPR, or Pinault-Printemps-Redoute was a conglomerate of french luxury brands. It still exists today as Kering. The fact that the filmmakers sought funding for production costs and distribution isn't a problem on its own. Most documentaries do. The problem comes when the film is nearly 2 hours of relentless preaching about how awful humans are, how farming and industrialization are bad, and how only the richest 2% of the world's population control distribution of resources. It comes across as insufferably insincere and condescending for a conglomerate that includes jewelers and luxury leathers and was founded by a billionaire who made his start in the timber industry to then preach to everyone else about how raising feed to support animal farming is bad, how industrialization and mining are bad, and how awful poor people have it and how bad it is that rich people profit from this suffering. No, for real? Thank you businessmen of the 2% for explaining to us, the idiot masses, how awful the businessmen of the 2% are.

Perhaps I wouldn't have been so offended by the corporate sponsorship had the message of the film been more engaging or had it brought something new to the table. Unfortunately, the majority of this film's message can be boiled down to... pointing at things and saying they're bad. At no time does this film bring any new information to the table that hasn't been presented elsewhere better and more effectively. At no time does Glenn Close's passionless and cynical voiceover engage me to do anything but eject the disc and toss it across the room. The fact that the last ten or so minutes are focused on positive change for the future do not make up for the 110 or so minutes of unrelenting fatalism that led up to it. If I had to listen to Glenn Close utter the phrase "faster and faster" one more time, this DVD would have been recycled into a Frisbee. Of course, these are just the lines that were written for her. She's reading a script, so a lot of the blame for this lies not with Ms. Close, but with the writers and filmmakers who decided to present nothing but general facts about industrialization and ecological devastation around the globe and then pat themselves on their collective backs for putting in the barest minimum effort.

Speaking of barest minimum effort: the cinematography. Yes, the aerial shots are technically proficient and the footage is not shaky in the slightest. They invested in some quality equipment, but that's all it is: quality equipment. Every single shot in this documentary is a helicopter medium-wide to wide shot of its subject matter, and while the footage looks nice, I'd hardly call it "breathtaking" or "awe-inspiring." Yes, it is a financial achievement and a diplomacy achievement to be able to afford to fly around in a helicopter in all these locations, but that's all it is, for every shot in the film. It's just helicopter shots. Every single shot is a helicopter shot. About 20 minutes in, I no longer cared about anything the film had to offer. I can only look at wide angles of fields of crops so many times before I start to crave more visual variety.

OVERALL - The visuals of this film are nice, but become repetitive and boring after about 20 minutes. The film's message is pessimistic and cynical, which wouldn't be a problem, except that it's a two hour film and they bring nothing new or interesting to the table that hasn't been presented better or more effectively elsewhere. Pointing at a thing and saying "it's bad" is not engaging commentary. Finally, the corporate sponsorship combines with these two elements to make it seem like really insincere back patting and "spreading awareness" amongst the rich elite. I'm giving this film a 3/10 for at least having some nice visuals, even if they do get boring after a while. In no way, shape, or form do I recommend this film ever be watched by anyone. There are far better and more effective eco-documentaries out there.

Dune (2021)

Very Good Adaptation, But Still a Distillation of the Novel

[7/10 · 24 October 2021]

"Dune: Part One" was a respectable adaptation. The original novel is one of my favorite books, so nothing will ever measure up to the book in my eyes, but this adaptation was respectable. It streamlines the novel and distills it just enough to tell a coherent story that's still, essentially, the story from the novel, but the result of that distillation is that you lose a lot of good character development, political intrigue, and interesting world-building details.

Still better than Lynch's 80's version... though I will say of Lynch's 80's version... even though this new one is the better movie, his version is much more interesting visually and has a lot of neat ideas and weird stuff thrown in that make it kind of endearing. It's an incomprehensible mess at times and it makes massive changes to characters and events for... important David Lynch WTF reasons and also studio interference reasons... but it's still fun to watch because it's interesting visually.

My problem with the new version is that it distills the novel to the point where nothing really sticks with me... except the thopter design, because who doesn't love ships based on dragonflies? I LOVE the new thopter design.

Bottom line... this new one is a better movie and a better adaptation, but the 1980's version is going to stick with me more just because of its interesting visuals and weirdness. And the novel reigns supreme over both of them.

Alien Worlds (2020)

Ah, now eventually you do plan to have alien worlds in your documentary about alien worlds, right?

[6/10 · 4 December 2020]

6/10. Some neat visuals and interesting ideas sandwiched between padding that is borderline off-topic.

It's incredible just how far this documentary seems to miss the mark. Yes, there are about 2 - 3 minutes worth of fabulous effects shots and maybe 5 minutes worth of talk about how alien life might actually develop on alien worlds, but each episode is about 40 - 45 minutes long. What is this padded with?

How to film rhinocerous beetles having sex. Uh-huh. Interesting. Not why I'm here though.

Watch me go paragliding! Okay, really not why I'm here.

5 minutes talking in very general terms about how we discover exoplanets. Okay, at least related to alien planets.

4 minutes of a falconer training a falcon. What the... ARE YOU EVEN TRYING TO MAKE A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT SCIENTIFIC THEORY ON THE TYPES OF LIFE THAT MIGHT DEVELOP ON ALIEN WORLDS!!?? I mean, I like falcons and all, but again... and I cannot stress this enough... that's not why I'm here.

There's some neat stuff in here, so it's not a total wash, but the padding, oh my the padding. I mean, some of the padding is interesting, but it's so off premise, I have to wonder why they just didn't make a series of 4 - 10 minute mini documentaries called "Neat Things on Earth."

X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019)

I enjoyed it.

[8/10 · 12 June 2019]

Huh. It looks like a lot of people really didn't like this one. I went to see it anyway and I enjoyed it.

Is it perfect? No. But it was adequately satisfying. James McAvoy was great, Michael Fassbender was great, and I really enjoyed the moral dilemma and the fracturing of the family due to Charles and Jean's actions. I liked the focus on character driven story as opposed to city destroying spectacle this round.

Some criticisms: Mystique fell completely flat for me, but she is not the main focus of the story. Sophie Turner does very well as the vulnerable girl who doesn't understand her powers, but she doesn't quite nail the Black Swan persona of the Dark Phoenix. That said, her performance isn't terrible, it just doesn't have the punch you'd expect. The ending is also kind of meh and raises some logic questions (Although no more so than First Class and Apocalypse, which I also enjoyed).

Overall, I liked it. Could it have been stronger? Yes. But as presented it wasn't bad at all.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

Non-Fan Perspective: Enjoyable, Fun, Family Romp

[9/10 · 14 December 2016]

As a non-Harry Potter fan (Have not read the books, and have only seen a couple of the movies), I had no expectations for this film. I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was quite good. If you haven't seen it, think of it like "Doctor Who" with wizards (Complete with a wizard Tardis). It reminds me of some of the better episodes featuring the 11th Doctor. That is not a criticism, by the way, I genuinely enjoyed the film, and I am not saying it is a rip off of "Doctor Who," I am simply saying that it is most similar to some of the adventures of the 11th Doctor, with magic instead of time traveling space stuff.

Here were some of the highlights for me...

ACCESSIBILITY - I like that I didn't have to know a ton about the Harry Potter universe to understand what was going on. It doesn't exactly hand hold you, which is good, but you can at least follow the story and enjoy it without being super familiar with the universe. (There are a couple things that seem like plot holes unless you know the universe already, but they're not severe, and if you go with someone who knows the universe, they can explain them to you. Like... why, for example the wizards don't just murder all the humans and be done with them. In the lore of Harry Potter, it is apparently established that it screws up your soul and messes with you magically when you commit murder. Not explained in movie, so I figured I'd mention it here.)

CHARACTERS - All of the characters who are supposed to be likable are likable. The actors do a good job with the roles. It's always pleasant when you don't hate the protagonists and it's always pleasant when the characters develop and have arcs that follow logical emotional and motivational progression.

STORY - I like that this film has well-paced story progression with climaxes and slower character building scenes that effectively create the universe. I also like that the action set pieces/special effects serve the story rather than existing simply for their own sake. There are a few silly moments that challenge suspension of disbelief (the big ol' reset button at the end), but overall, it remains consistent with its own internal logic and, most importantly, it tells a story with a minimum of plot holes (once again, so long as you suspend your disbelief).

EFFECTS - They're good enough to tell the story.

CREATURES AND FANTASY WORLD - I genuinely liked all the creatures, and I was genuinely interested in the dynamics of the fantasy world they created. The 20's era wizard society and their interactions with the "real" world were interesting to see and engaging.

PROBLEMS - None that I care to nitpick on first viewing. The positives far outweigh the elements I thought were overly silly.

OVERALL - 9/10 - I highly recommend this film to general audiences. The logical story progression, the well-paced plot, the dynamics of the fantasy world, and the likable characters, coupled with the fact that you don't have to completely understand the Harry Potter universe to enjoy it, make for an effective and fun family adventure. It's not flawless, but it's still quite good.

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Actually Pretty Good

[29 July 2011]

Although this movie has far less comedy than you'd expect from a movie called "Cowboys and Aliens" it's actually pretty good.

The movie paces itself more like a western than an action or science fiction movie, and it's more character oriented than your standard action sci-fi film. The characters in the film are definitely taken from western archetypes (i.e. the mysterious stranger, the rich old man who owns the town, the spoiled brat son), but they're all well acted, and well rounded characters. They all come across as three dimensional people rather than cardboard cutouts which is a definite plus. None of the characters really annoyed me (who weren't supposed to annoy me).

The movie comes across as a good, standard, character driven western first, with aliens thrown in as the bad guys instead of a band of rustlers or miscreants.

The action scenes are very well done. The CG shows a bit on a few of the aliens, but not to the point where it prevented me from enjoying the film. Some viewers might be turned off by the more character driven story expecting a slam-bang action adventure blockbuster, but if you give it a chance it's not really a bad film. It's just more character driven than action driven. That's not to say there isn't action, and that's not to say the action scenes aren't well done, but they're just spread out more. I also like that I can follow the action scenes in this film without having to guess what the main characters are doing (unlike a few films I've seen where the editing is so choppy I can't tell what exactly the main character in the fight is doing).

The story is pretty straightforward, and I can't point out any major plot holes on the first viewing. People will either buy into the reason the aliens are in the old west, or they won't. People will either buy into the sci-fi elements of the script, or they won't. It really depends on how much you're willing to suspend your disbelief. If you just accept the reason the aliens are there, then you'll probably be able to get into the story. If you don't...well... then... you won't.

There are some very atmospheric scenes in the film, especially a very good sequence in an overturned river boat, but the film as a whole does rely a bit too much on jump scares with the aliens. It didn't really annoy me, but I noticed they used the trick a little much.

If something really hurts this movie it'll be the expectations of a viewing audience. I think people will go into this expecting a fun, silly blockbuster with plenty of humor and tons of CG action. It's actually a standard western with a more character driven story, a straightforward plot, some very good (but more spread out) action scenes, and aliens as the bad guys.

I'd recommend it if you are interested in a fairly standard (but good) character driven western and don't mind that the bad guys are aliens instead of people. If you want a goofier, more popcorn fun action flick with tons of humor and CG, I wouldn't recommend it because that's not what this movie is.

8/10 - Actually pretty good, depending on your expectations and how much you're willing to suspend your disbelief.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

A Definite Improvement

[7/10 · 10 July 2011]

Having seen the last film, "Revenge of the Fallen," I did not have high expectations for this movie. I also heard a lot of bad reviews of this film. But having seen it, I have to say the movie was actually pretty decent and I think it's a definite improvement from the last one. In fact it's probably the best of the three. That's not to say it doesn't have its problems, but I did actually find myself entertained by this film and I do appreciate that the filmmakers tried to make improvements based on everyone's complaints about the last film.

IMPROVEMENTS - Annoying characters are mostly dialed back and removed, and stereotypes are dialed back. That's not to say there aren't stereotypes, but the stereotypes this time around didn't totally offend or annoy me to the point where I couldn't enjoy the film. Skids and Mudflap are gone with no explanation (they needed to be removed from existence), the parents aren't in it as much, and John Turturro is far less annoying. The story makes more sense (at least for a popcorn fun blockbuster) and I'm able to understand what's going on without getting totally annoyed. There are no robot balls, and there is no close-up of John Turturro in his underpants (there is a close-up of Ken Jeong in his underpants, but it's played up for a shock humor joke which actually made me laugh for the big payoff so I can't complain. Others might find it offensive, though). Oh, and there is far less dog and robot humping all around.

OTHER POSITIVES - Obviously the action and special effects. Definite props to the animators, the cinematographers, the stunt coordinators, and the special effects guys because they did an amazing job. Again. Plus I'm actually able to tell which robots are fighting in this movie, which is good. The jokes are a bit funnier this time around (not all big laughs, and not all tasteful, but definitely more hits than the last movie). There is better (not great) but better character development and I didn't totally loathe anyone. The pacing, the editing, and the music were also all very good. The elements I enjoyed all contributed to the story and added to my enjoyment of the film. The villains are also much more threatening because they have a definite goal and you see more of the damage they can cause (although the foaming at the mouth was over the top).

NEGATIVES - There are a lot of unnecessary cameos and characters in the film who pop in and leave. For example, I'm not sure why John Malkovich is in this because he doesn't really do anything. He just comes in, acts weird, and leaves. They introduce him like he's an important character and then he's dismissed about halfway through. Kim Jeong will be annoying and offensive to some people, but he didn't annoy me so I really only mention this for the benefit of others. Bill O'Reilly and Buzz Aldrin make unnecessary and distracting cameos. And I love Leonard Nimoy, I think he had a good voice role in this film, and I love Star Trek and Spock, but the Spock love was totally distracting. They mention Spock a lot, show a scene from "Amok Time," make references to the Enterprise, and even have Leonard quote a famous "Wrath of Khan" line. It's really very distracting. There are a ton of distracting ad placements in the movie (which, you should really expect if you go to see any Michael Bay film because they pay for the effects). Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is a very sexualized, very stereotypical, very useless damsel in distress who may be offensive to some people (as one of only 2 major female characters in the movie). There are also still very noticeable plot and logic errors, despite the improvements, and some scenes that don't quite fit right.

But, in spite of my problems with it, it did entertain me and I did enjoy it. It's about on the same level as "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" or "Twister" and any problems I had are made up for by the improvements and positives.

7/10 - Some problems, but overall enjoyable popcorn fun. Recommended for people who just want to watch a robots and stuff blowing up movie without worrying too much about plot or characters.

3D

I don't like 3D anyway, but I saw this with a friend in 3D, and I do have to admit that the 3D was better than the last film I saw in 3D ("Tron Legacy"). It's not totally dark, and it didn't make me sick looking at it. However, the graphics popping out are still distracting, and I can't focus on some of the animation detail due to the blurring effect of some of the 3D graphics. If you go to see this I recommend 2D just to get the full details of the animations.

Vampires Suck (2010)

Worse than "Twilight"

[1/10 · 21 August 2010]

How in the hell do you mess up a parody of "Twilight"? The "Twilight" movies are so terrible that all you have to do to parody them successfully is slightly exaggerate the already annoying and ridiculous melodrama inherent in the series. I mean... for f***s sake! A random kid on YOUTUBE has done it successfully, and he's done it more successfully than this studio approved movie WITH NO BUDGET! But, surprise, surprise; the geniuses who brought us "Date Movie", "Epic Movie", "Meet the Spartans", and "Disaster Movie" have once again failed to grasp even the basic elements of comedy in this piece of s***. It's like they actively TRIED to write the movie so that it wouldn't be funny at all.

The... film... loosely follows the story of the first two "Twilight" movies. To their credit, it's clear that they actually sat through the movies and were attempting to parody some parts of the film. I recognized scenes from New Moon, like Bella being followed by a ghost of Edward on a motorcycle, and the "staring out the window" scene passing from month to month, but they failed to do anything that was actually funny with it. Rather than come up with some clever jokes, or funny stuff for Edward to say while he's chasing Bella on the motorcycle, he just keeps falling down. That's not funny. There was a joke with a guy in a wheelchair where he talks about how he can't feel anything from his waist down, and feels the need to emphasize that his genitals are down there. That's not funny. It WOULD'VE been funny if it was clever innuendo, but they have to beat you over the head with the joke.

There are three big problems with the humor of this movie.

The first is pratfalls. There are a ton of body injury jokes in this movie. And none of them work. Part of that it is because they use it too often, but the other part of that is that they don't do anything clever or interesting with the injury jokes. People are thrown into walls. People trip and fall. A guy gets thrown into a piano. But the actors don't do anything with it. There are no jokes written for the fall. They just expect us to laugh because someone fell down. It's not just funny because someone falls. You need character reaction, you need a set- up, you need a d*** joke!

The second problem is reference. This is the same problem the more recent episodes of "Family Guy" have. These guys throw in a reference to "Jersey Shore" here, a reference to Tiger Woods there, but there's no actual joke. Again, they just expect us to laugh because it's there. "Hey, I recognize 'Jersey Shore'! That's funny!" NO IT'S NOT! IT'S NOT FUNNY! YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE REFERENCE TO MAKE IT FUNNY! YOU CAN'T JUST SAY THE NAME OF A TV SHOW OR GIVE A POP CULTURE REFERENCE AND EXPECT US TO THINK IT'S FUNNY JUST BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE IT! YOU HAVE TO WRITE A JOKE TO GO WITH IT!!!

The third problem is juvenile humor. Does just hearing the word "penis" make anyone laugh over the age of 15? They have a lot of jokes in here I might have found funny when I was 10, but they're not funny to more mature people. Heck, even most of the kids in the audience weren't laughing at it, because they probably saw some of their classmates doing it better on Youtube!

OVERALL

This movie is terrible. When there are jokes, they don't work. Most of the "jokes" are just references or pratfalls, and when they actually find something that has the potential to be funny, they dwell on it so long that it just gets tedious. I saw this movie the same way I saw "New Moon": because it was a slow night at the drive-in where I work... and I gotta say, I'm glad I've never seen any of their films before, and I don't intend to watch another.

1/10 - I'm not recommending this to anyone. It's worse than "Twilight". At least the makers of "Twilight" put SOME effort into it to make it entertaining for the fans.

Inception (2010)

Very, Very Good (but not for everyone)

[10/10 · 29 July 2010]

"Inception" is an extremely well-crafted film, but it's one of those films that not everyone will like.

Personally, I really enjoyed it. The story was extremely well thought out. The characters were very good. All of the actors did great jobs with their roles. The imagery was very interesting and the special effects were incredible. It has a multi-layered plot which keeps your mind engaged the entire time you're watching it, and even after you leave the theater, but it wasn't to the point where I got fatigued with it.

I do disagree with some of the philosophy of dreaming in this film, but this movie is trying to express its own philosophy, not my beliefs, and just because I disagree with some of the philosophy, that doesn't make it a bad film. It's trying to tell its own story using its own philosophy, and I respect and enjoy that. I think it's a mistake to think that all movies should reflect your own philosophies, and if you want to see something that's going to reflect your beliefs to a T... you should make your own film, and not expect it from someone who doesn't view the world the same way as you. Seeing different philosophies and keeping an open mind are the only ways to grow as a person. If you don't expose yourself to new things, you don't really grow. You stagnate.

I've seen a lot of critics comparing this to "The Matrix" and "Paprika." I've seen both. This film is neither. While it shares common elements in some cases, it manages to tell its own unique story with those elements, and does a very good job of doing it. No film is going to be 100% new and fresh, and just because it shares common elements, like entering of the dreams of others, that doesn't make it bad. That's like saying "The Empire Strikes Back" is bad because it has space battles and it deals with good vs. evil, which have been explored in earlier works. You really need to take the film as a whole and not whine about how individual elements have been done elsewhere.

NOT FOR EVERYONE - While I really enjoy the film, I do admit it isn't for everyone. It has a complex multi-layered plot that requires you to be engaged the whole time to understand everything that's going on. This is not a "run pee" movie. If you aren't paying attention, you could miss something that'll be important later on. And at two and a half hours, I can understand how some people might start to fade out, or how they might not want to sit for that long. If you don't like thinking too much about the movie, this really isn't for you, because you need to stay engaged the whole time to get all the nuances of what's going on, and it does require some work on your end to get everything. The ending is also very open ended, which didn't bother me, but it did bother some people in the theater (one guy saying "f*** that!" on his way out).

So overall, it is very good, but I can see where some might get turned off by it. I really enjoyed it, and I can't think of anything that bothered me about it... which instantly propels it to a "10" in my book.

10/10 - Very, very good, especially if you like complex plots and thinking movies, but not for everyone.

Lost: The End: Part 1 (2010) Season 6, Episode 17

"The End": My Thoughts

[6/10 · 25 May 2010]

The manner in which a television series completes its final act is rarely satisfactory. Most shows don't make it to a final episode. Many end on cliffhangers or in the middle of their run preventing the creation of a final act. So when the creators of a series, especially an enduring series like "Lost", have the opportunity to give a series proper closure, it's an exciting time. Will the program go out in a blaze of glory or will the fire run out of fuel and fizzle quietly? A series finale is a glorious success when it satisfies the expectations of the audience, provides a sense of closure and nostalgia for the journey, and stays true to the series as a whole. I've seen lots of polarized reviews of "The End". Some people love it, calling it a brilliant closure. Some hate it, saying the series has failed miserably due to lazy writing. I'm going to take the middle road and say the ending was adequate. STAYING TRUE TO THE SERIES - "The End" is very true to "Lost" as a series. It provides great character drama with wonderful performances by most of the main cast. It has some great emotional scenes, a slew of twists and turns, a bit of violence, mystery, intrigue, and confusion. This episode is like any other episode of the series, which is a positive and a negative. It is entertaining, like any other episode, because it keeps you guessing what will happen next with characters you can relate to. And for a series that is "about the characters", it does stay true to its characters. All the actions are true to the story arcs of the people involved. CLOSURE AND NOSTALGIA - On the other side of this, the episode is frustrating, like any other episode, because it gives you enough to want to see what will happen next, but it doesn't really explain anything. So many times in this series, we've seen the explanation that is no explanation ("Across the Sea" for example); or we get an explanation that either raises 50 more questions or leads to a situation that leads to 50 more questions. Now this is all well and good for a normal episode, especially when you have several seasons to go, but to follow the same formula at the end, doesn't really give a total sense of closure to the series. The characters have closure, but the show doesn't because we are left with so many loose threads, so much unresolved material that it's impossible to be totally satisfied by seeing the characters, literally, at the end of their journey. But, back to a positive, as far as nostalgia goes I think they succeeded in giving us enough material to remind us of what a great journey it's been without giving us a clip show, which is always cause for kudos. AUDIENCE EXPECTATIONS - Ultimately though, any form of entertainment is about satisfying an audience. And in the case of "Lost", while it provides excellent nostalgia, character drama, and gives a sense of character closure, it doesn't really give a huge chunk of the audience what they really want... to know what the heck is going on! We know Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse have said that the show is about the characters. And they seem to have gotten caught up in that mentality during the last season. But the characters are really only as important as the story... as the journey they're thrust into. What would Kirk or Spock be without the Enterprise, without the missions, the stories, the fun, the adventure that came from following them on their 5-year mission and beyond? In the same vein... what would any of these characters be without the island? Without the mystery? Without the suspense? Without the polar bears? The best part of a mystery is seeing how it all comes together, and a lot of people wouldn't have tuned into the program without the mystery of the island. So you have a large chunk of your audience wanting to see how the mystery comes together, and the creators basically say the mystery is meaningless. The island is meaningless. None of it matters. If none of it matters, then why should we care about these characters? Yes, they're nice, well-rounded characters, but they'd be nothing without the island, without the journey they went on. It would've been nice to see this episode, and heck, the entire last season deal with the characters AND the mysteries. See how it all starts to come together, the island, the surroundings, all the themes, the character arcs, weaved into one and closing with a total sense of finality, satisfying the audience and the creators by ending the mysteries and the character arcs together. Instead we just get the characters. I guess they just gave up and tried to at least give the characters some closure because they didn't know how to close the story. Or maybe they were afraid we wouldn't accept their solution to the mystery and decided to leave it open-ended. I don't know. But it was disappointing to see huge elements of the show carelessly brushed aside in its final act. OVERALL - It's not bad. It succeeds where a lot of other shows fail in at least giving us character closure. But it doesn't deliver what a chunk of the audience really wanted. The marketing department of ABC gave us advertisements saying "The time for questions is over." I think the creators should have paid a little more attention to them, because they seemed to have a much clearer idea of what the audience really wanted than the makers of the show. 6/10 - It has its good moments, but it feels incomplete and shallow to an audience expecting something incredible. If you just want character closure, you'll love it. If you want more... well...

House (1977)

If ever a film needed MST3K...

[3/10 · 19 March 2010]

Where do I even start with this movie...

This is probably the goofiest film I've ever seen in my life. No... scratch that. This IS the goofiest film I've ever seen in my life.

I've heard "Hausu" is a cult horror classic in Japan. Fine. I admit, I can see where it would be a cult classic just because it is so strange. And if you really legitimately like it, that's fine. But I saw this with a bunch of students at a university screening. Out of about 15 people, 3 walked out, 2 feel asleep, and the rest were either struggling to make sense of the crazy stuff they were watching or riffing on it the entire time. And what really bothers me is that in the post-screening discussion... even though no one could accurately explain or make sense of what they just watched... even though half the audience was making fun of it the entire time... even though it was an absolute goofy mess, NOT ONE PERSON SAID IT WAS BAD.

Now, this may just be me, but I'm of the opinion that if you can't watch a movie without giving it the MST3K treatment, it's not a good movie. You may enjoy making fun of it... but that doesn't make it good. For example, "Future War" is terrible. But you can have fun watching the MST3K version because they make fun of how terrible it is. That doesn't make the movie good. It just means you can have fun making fun of it.

Now, if you legitimately like "Hausu," that's fine. But don't say it's a good movie if you thought it was a confusing mess, or if the only way you could sit through it was by riffing on it with your friends.

I can't go into everything that bothered me about the movie so I won't even try. Every scene is packed with WTF laugh inducing moments.

The plot... I think... is that this girl doesn't like her father's girlfriend and goes to her creepy aunt's house with her friends. The aunt is a vampire... or maybe she's a cat... no wait... maybe there is no aunt... no... wait... the cat is the aunt who sucks life out of people so she can inhabit a body... and somehow this results in a guy getting turned into bananas... oh and there's a watermelon salesman, who's a skeleton... who might be selling heads... or might be the aunt too... or the cat...

CRAP!!! Let me start over. Okay, so there's this girl who's mad at her Dad. So she goes to her aunt's with some friends. And they are picked off one by one... for some reason... because the house is alive... no... wait... the house is the aunt... who's waiting for her husband... who's dead... or maybe HE's the watermelon salesman... but the watermelons are really heads... or maybe it was just that one... or maybe there is no watermelon...

D***IT!!! I can't into any depth trying to explain the plot. These girls go to a house where they're picked off one by one in the most ridiculous ways imaginable. The girls are all annoying stereotypes who don't act like logical people.

You see, if I found a skeleton in a closet, I would think, "Hmm... maybe I should... GET THE F*** OUT OF HERE!!!" When the girls see it, they just buy the aunt's crappy explanation. Something about a doctor using the house as a hospital or something. NO!!! SKELETONS SHOULD NOT BE IN CLOSETS!!! LEAVE!!! YOUR FRIENDS SHOULD NOT DISAPPEAR MYSTERIOUSLY!!! LEAVE!!! The only one who's even remotely tolerable is Kung Fu... because she's the only one who actually tries to fight what's happening to them.

So, the characters are annoying and the plot makes no sense. Aside from that... there is no logical editing. There is no logical structure to what's happening. All of a sudden we cut to a really campy 70's humor montage of someone getting stuck in a bucket. All of a sudden, there's a bear eating noodles with his friends in the middle of the big climax. All of a sudden, someone is bananas. The music is weird. The action scenes are cut so that you can't tell what's going on. What does Kung Fu do? You can't tell. All you know is that she's apparently beating something up. The effects are weird. There are weird cartoon sequences. THIS MOVIE IS JUST WEIRD!!!

So why is it a "3" and not a "1"... I found some of the cartoon integration with the live action footage inventive. I like some of the editing, even though it is crazy. I did like some of the scenery and some of the imagery. I love the way the girls are done in by their stereotyped personality elements. And it is at least an interesting watch, even if it doesn't make any sense at all.

OVERALL - This movie is goofy. It's a confusing mess. And the parts that aren't stereotypical horror clichés are absolutely insane. But what really bothered me was that people weren't willing to say it was bad in public, EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID SO IN PRIVATE. Again, if you really do like it... I'm not attacking you. I can see why this is a cult classic. But I didn't like it, and I know other people didn't like it, and I'm writing my review based on that.

3/10 - It's a confusing mess with a few redeeming elements. Definitely recommend for MST3K Home Edition, or if you want to see something REALLY weird.

The International (I) (2009)

One Really Cool Scene Sandwiched by Dull.

[5/10 · 11 February 2010]

I got this movie for pretty cheap without knowing anything about it and I figured I'd take a chance and see if it was any good. It was... dull. Not really bad, just dull.

STORY STRUCTURE - Within the first 20 minutes you know the evil bank's entire plan. They reveal it right at the beginning. There is absolutely no mystery in this movie as to the bank's intentions. Basically, the bank has a plan, and they're killing people who become threats to that plan. Instead of creating an interesting mystery or a suspenseful drama with twists and turns or an evolving plot, they decide to make the story about this guy Salinger desperately trying to find someone to testify against the bank before they're killed. That could've been interesting, but the way it's handled, someone says they'll testify, then they die. After a while it gets to be repetitive. It adds no new information, and it doesn't produce any real suspense. Plus, half the deaths are off-screen. I didn't find this interesting enough to keep me into it for 2 hours. What could've fixed this was if each new person added a piece of the puzzle, or added a clue to the intentions of the bank, or if they added something to the story except being introduced and dying, but they don't. They're introduced, they say they'll help, then they die.

CHARACTERS - So, we have incredible dying witnesses, who are dull. Then we have Salinger, played by Clive Owen. He's your basic obsessed protagonist with a history against the bank. And he is the same way throughout the movie. No growth, no development, he's the same character right up to the end. Now you could argue that he grows at the end because he goes rogue, but... he acts just like he's been acting throughout the movie. He's already a rogue. This isn't new. His character doesn't develop at all. He's just your basic, dull protagonist with a history throughout. Then you have Whitman, played by Naomi Watts, who helps Salinger. She's an investigator also trying to bring down the bank. Her character is dull. She doesn't grow, and she's really just a glorified secondary character who gets top billing because she's played by a big actress. This character could've been played by anyone, had much less screen time, and the movie would be unaffected. She's not even present for the last act of the film, or... most of the major events in the film. She just helps Salinger, and has a family. That's it. Her character is not important. Or interesting. Then you have this old banker from Russia, and this assassin. They're kind of interesting, and the movie even sets up the assassin being a major character, and then something happens and he's gone without really adding anything except being an assassin in one scene. The banker is the only interesting character in the film and the only one with any real growth, but his contributions to Salinger ultimately add up to nothing. So the characters are pretty much dull, and unimportant.

POINTLESS STUFF - Pretty much everything that happens in this movie is pointless. Even at the end... there's no resolution. All the actions in the movie lead up to an ending in which nothing important changes. That's pretty much the theme of this movie. A plot thread starts, then it's ended pointlessly. A big chase occurs, which ends pointlessly. They spend SO MUCH TIME finding the bank's assassin, get in a major shootout, and it ends pointlessly. It's just one pointless sequence after another leading to a pointless ending in which nothing significant has changed. Making it dull.

SO WHY IS IT A 5? - The cinematography is good. Most of the acting is good. You could tell that the filmmaker had an artistic vision with the movie, and that behind the scenes they were actually trying. Plus nothing really makes me mad about it, it's just dull.

COOL SCENE - There's an incredible Guggenheim shootout scene in the middle of the movie which is really cool. I watched a special feature on it, and they actually built a scale Guggenheim set for this. This one scene is really cool and I really thought it was going to set up for some interesting plot developments later because of the context of the shootout. It doesn't, but this one scene is cool, which is why this movie is one really cool scene sandwiched by dull.

OVERALL - It's pretty dull, but if you get it you need to watch the Guggenheim shootout. Because that's really cool.

5/10 - The only thing I can think to recommend about this is the really cool scene in the middle.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

It's Decent

[7/10 · 30 December 2009]

Just to give a little background, I have only general knowledge of Sherlock Holmes. I've read one story, I've seen references to it on movies and TV programs. So I really just have general knowledge of the mythology. That said, I though the film was decent. It's not great, but it's certainly not bad. It's just a solid decent film.

Basically what they did is turn Sherlock Holmes into an Action/Adventure/Mystery Film. Purists of the stories might be a little turned off, but for the casual movie-goer, it's a good movie.

GOOD STUFF The story is engaging and keeps you just curious enough to see what will happen next. There's a lot going on with the main murder-mystery plot, and several good character driven sub-plots.

I think Robert Downey Jr. is excellent as Sherlock Holmes. I liked his portrayal of the character as an extremely intelligent social misfit who is respected by all, but has a general attitude of distaste for those around him (with a few exceptions). The rest of the acting is decent, and succeeds in getting you interested enough in the characters to see what will happen next.

I really liked the creative uses of deductive logic, not just to solve mysteries, but in fight scenes and everyday situations. In this adaptation, Holmes is able to use deductive reasoning in hand-to-hand combat to create the best scenario for disabling an opponent. I thought this was an interesting twist and a cool addition to the character. I loved the way the deductive logic scenes were shot, too. It shows a slow motion explanation of everything Holmes is planning to do so that you can see the logic behind the actions. He calculates every move in advance based on his opponent's weaknesses, then he calculates recovery time and psychological impact on his opponent. After this slow-motion explanation, you get to see the whole thing in real time, and it's really f***ing cool to watch the logical explanation, and the process behind the fight before seeing the scene in real-time.

The resolution to the mystery is satisfying, and it's exactly how you would want to see a Sherlock Holmes-style mystery unravel. I won't go into detail, I'll just say it's not ridiculous, and that it's based in logic and deductive reasoning.

NOT SO GOOD STUFF While I liked most of the performances in the film, I had a hard time seeing Jude Law as Watson. I don't think its anything the actor did wrong, I just think it was a casting misstep. When I think Watson, the first thing that comes to mind is not "ass-kicking bodyguard." I was able to overlook it for the most part, but in the back of my head I was just going, "That's not Watson." It just doesn't seem natural to me.

There was also an issue with me where the clues are not really given much screen time or attention. Part of the fun of a mystery is trying to solve it, and seeing how the pieces come together; but the way the film is edited, you really can't see the ending coming, and it's more just Holmes explaining rather than giving the audience actual clues to think about.

The ending also threw me a little with the final confrontation with the villain. I'll just say on this that it gets a little cliché, and someone survives something without a scratch that that person really shouldn't just walk off without at least a bruise. However, it's not NEARLY as ridiculous as Indy's magical fridge of wonders.

For the most part, the CG is cool, except for a few scenes at the end where you can tell it's not real. This is relatively minor, though.

OVERALL The film is decent. It's worth a look if you just want to see a good, solid film that isn't too heavy or too deep. It's a decent Hollywood action-adventure comedy.

7/10 - A few stumbling points, but overall decent. Recommend for casual movie-goers. Hardcore fans of the books and stories might get p*ssed.

2012 (I) (2009)

All Effects. No Substance.

[3/10 · 5 December 2009]

Really the only thing I can recommend about this film is the special effects, especially a spectacular sequence of the destruction of Los Angeles. That part of the film is a technical masterpiece (and it's what they showed in the trailer for good reason). The first half of this movie is watchable just because of the special effects. Once you get to the halfway point, the effects start to slip a little bit (I felt the ice and water effects weren't that good) and once the effects go, the film goes.

The story and characters are all bland clichés. You've got a several people trying to save their broken families and coming together or saving each other at the end, which has been done a billion times. You have the passionate scientist who cares about people against the dickish politician, which has been done a billion times. You have a bunch of landmarks getting destroyed, which looks cool, but it's been done a billion times. And you have arguments of humanity vs. survival which have been done a billion times, and much better than they're done here.

When there are no special effects, there are one of two possible things going on. The first is broken families trying to survive (yawn). And the second is politicians arguing. Because when I think cataclysmic destruction of the world... my first thought is C-SPAN, and all the excitement of... watching senators, scientists, and yes-men getting annoyed with each other, making veiled threats, passionate speeches about what the other guy is doing wrong, and yelling about principles and matters of procedure which no one else really cares about.

In all, I was really bored by this and the political BS just got on my nerves. It's really not an interesting movie. And I did start to nod off towards the end when it got REALLY stupid (they have the happy ending that defies all logic, just to have a happy ending).

I could go into more detail, but I really just thought it was boring, especially after the half- way mark when the special effects started to look a little shabbier.

3/10 - If you want to see some cool effects sequences, give it a look. Otherwise, it's just really dull.

Stargate Universe: Air: Part 3 (2009) Season 1, Episode 3

Part 3

[7/10 · 11 October 2009]

Part 3 of this episode is, in my opinion, much better than the first 2 (although it's not really a third part of a story as much as its its own self-contained story with continuing long-term story arcs.) WHAT WAS GOOD - The character development was much better this episode. Although it centers on Matthew Scott, there is good character development with Chloe, Dr. Rush, and Ronald Greer. Even the main cast who are not central to this episode have subtle character development, which I liked. One of my problems with parts 1 and 2 was the lack of character development and the lack of distinct central characters, but they seem to be fixing this and I'm glad they're giving us a chance to relate to these characters before sending them off on dangerous situations.

This episode also introduces a lot of interesting Stargate concepts, which allows this series to come into its own a little more and step out of BSG's shadow. The utilization of more original tech allows me to see this as more of its own series. There is also a good sense of wonder, desperation, and adventure with some interesting abstract concepts that could become continuing stories, that again help us to separate it from BSG.

The camera work is a lot steadier, and the whole story has the same good feeling I got in the first hour of part 1, which is that it is a show utilizing elements of BSG, but not copying.

WHAT I DIDN'T CARE FOR - Eli's humor, which I found to be a strength in the first parts, seems a little forced here. I'm also not really liking Matthew Scott as a character. I'm not sure why. I think it's because I'm still seeing him as Apollo from BSG now combined with the young military hero model so often found in Stargate. It's nothing the actor is doing wrong, I just don't see him as that interesting right now.

There is a music montage I didn't really care for in the episode, and some of the drama goes on a little too long (but not to the point where its intolerable). There are also a few little things that threw me off, but nothing major I really want to go into.

Overall though, this episode is good, and I would say its worth a look. The series still has its problems, and its obviously still trying to find its footing, but as they continue to develop, I think the writers and producers will adapt according to what works and what doesn't, and create a respectable series from it. The greatest strengths right now are the characters' situation, the tech, the exploration, and the characters themselves.

AS FAR AS CONTENT IS CONCERNED - Now, I don't want to spoil anything because I'm trying to get away from spoiler reviews, but if you hate religion you will hate this episode. I felt it was used more for character development than anything else, and it really didn't come across as preachy; but again, if you hate religion, you will not be able to enjoy this episode.

7/10 - It's good if you don't mind religious content (which I don't if its done well). You can see the series starting to come into its own.

Stargate Universe: Air: Part 1 (2009) Season 1, Episode 1

First Impressions (Part 2)

[5/10 · 7 October 2009]

Overall, I found Part 2 to be less enjoyable than Part 1.

In my comment on part 1 I stated that the show started to feel too much like a BSG clone after the sex scene. Unfortunately, that only got worse as I started watching part 2.

PART 2 IMPRESSIONS

CHARACTERS - Eli and Dr. Rush are still the most interesting characters, although their diminished role left me less interested. The other characters continued to do nothing for me in part 2, in fact, I just started to notice that they were either bland or similar to other characters. The crippled colonel who wants to get them home reminded me too much of a bad impersonation of Commander Adama with his raspy voice. The main Lieutenant started to remind me too much of Apollo (partially because of the sex scene in part 1). The medic girl, the psycho guy, and the other characters just didn't interest me. Chole actually started to get on my nerves a bit as the story progressed.

STORY AND ESTABLISHMENT - The parts where they were exploring the ship were kind of interesting. The ship seemed unique and original and I REALLY liked the shield effect with the oxygen being partially sucked into space. I thought the introduction of the floating orbs was interesting because it caught me off guard that they would be the new series MALC's. However, this is dragged down by two things. The first is the character development, which is so mild that I couldn't tell the main cast from the extras and guest stars without looking it up. The second is a ten minute attempt at an emotional scene. MAJOR SPOILER - A little over midway through, Chole's father sacrifices himself. For some reason. This elicits a lot of weeping and crying from Chloe, who attacks Dr. Rush. After this, there's more crying. And more pity party for Chloe as she laments her father. And more crying. Really it's about 5 minutes where you can run and pee. I just Fast Forwarded it until I saw Eli again, and I didn't miss a thing. The problem is that I am expected to care about a character we just met's death, and I don't. Because I just met him. And I'm supposed to care about Chloe's loss, but I don't. Because we were just introduced to her. Then to have a 5-10 minute pity scene about it was just... grueling to sit through. The end is also a little disappointing and anti-climactic as the team steps through the stargate... and cuts to black. So nothing here really interested me that much. It just seems like establishment with no real story. Even the life support thing just seems like they're establishing a problem to me.

HUMOR - Although there is some humor in Eli and his interaction with others and the environment, it's so sparse and subdued I only got a mild chuckle at most out of it at most. I felt one of the greatest strengths of both "Atlantis" and "SG-1" was the humor. With "Atlantis", even if the story was weak, the humor usually made up for it. In SG-1, O'Neill and Teal'c usually provided some comic relief, and most of the episodes felt fairly light-hearted. In its attempt to be more serious and more like BSG, I feel like "Universe" has rid itself of one of Stargate's greatest strengths, which is the light-hearted nature of the series'. Yes, we had heavy and deep moments, which I liked as long as they weren't too heavy-handed or emotionally stunted. But Stargate was always more of a fun show for me and I feel like this series, in trying too hard to be BSG, has lost its fun factor, and I'm just not as interested without it. Even without the fun factor, it wouldn't be so bad, except that the drama seems forced. Compare this to BSG's miniseries, where Rosalyn makes a very human, and gut-wrenching decision to leave ships behind to save themselves, and the drama just seems flat.

OVERALL - I liked Part 1 a little, but Part 2 did nothing for me. It didn't really stand out to me as bad, just not interesting. I gave this a rating of 5 because it just didn't do anything for me.

IMPRESSION AFTER 1 AND 2 - I wouldn't really recommend it at this point, but this is one of those series where I'd probably tune in a few more times down the road to see if it's gotten more interesting. There is potential here... but they need time to find their footing and stop leaning on BSG like a crutch.

5/10 - Not bad, not good. Just there. Ideally the series just needs time to find itself.

Stargate Universe: Air: Part 1 (2009) Season 1, Episode 1

First Impressions (Part 1)

[5/10 · 7 October 2009]

Let me start by saying that I think it's too early to be judging the series as a whole. We're only two episodes in, and we have no idea how the series will evolve with time. As a result, I've just decided to write down my impressions of the pilot episode ("Air" Parts 1 and 2.) Let me also say that I heard people calling this "Battlestar Galactica" and "Star Trek: Voyager" before the series even started.

Well, in my opinion, there is almost no resemblance to "Star Trek: Voyager" aside from basic plot. But OMG did they clone a LOT of BSG.

Overall, I found Part 1 to be somewhat enjoyable, whereas Part 2 was kind of boring.

PART 1 IMPRESSIONS...

THE FIRST 20 MINUTES - This is what really interested me in the episode. We're not sure what has happened, but people start flying through the Stargate and slamming into walls. Amid the chaos and confusion, we get some general exhibition, and it's sufficiently satisfying to draw me in. It actually seems like an original show at this point which is just using elements of BSG. I also enjoyed Eli's introduction during this portion of the program.

THE CHARACTERS - I found that I only really liked Eli, and Dr. Rush. Both of them are interesting and well-played by the actors. Eli is interesting because of his personality, back-story, and reactions to new situations. He is really the outsider looking in, and he provides some subdued comedy in the pilot. He does not come off as a clone of any other character. Dr. Rush is interesting because of his personality, and the way he is played. This character could've easily become a Gaius Baltar clone, but they succeed in giving his character a unique and interesting personality that doesn't come across as a copy of anyone else. As far as the rest of the characters go... I can't even remember their names (with the exception of Chloe, because her name is repeated like a bijillion times). None of them really do anything for me. And, this may be just me, but I couldn't really tell the other main actors from the extras and the secondary characters in the pilot. There are just so many people, and none of them are really developed. I wasn't sure who, besides Rush, Eli, and Chloe, I should actually focus on.

THE SEX SCENE AND BSG CLONING - The sex scene was gratuitous and comes out of NOWHERE. This was the point where I thought, "Ok. Now you're not just going for BSG style, you're ripping them off." I mean, you have a guy in a black undershirt having sex with a woman in a small room with shaky-cam. That's just Stargate's impression of BSG. As far as BSG cloning is concerned, a clone of an original series does not necessarily make the clone bad, depending on how they handle it. The problem comes when you just rip-off the original. I could ignore the shaky-cam, the dark-lit sets and the similar music, but at the sex scene, it just threw me out of the story and I just started noticing similarities between the two series. The space battles at the end did not have a "Stargate" feel to them. They do a shaky-cam zoom away from the Lucian Alliance ship as the ships fly out which reeks of BSG. Hopefully, they will lose the BSG crutch as time goes on, and form a new, original style all their own.

THE STORY - For the most part, the story was OK, but I didn't really find the situation for how they got to the Destiny convincing. Dr. Rush just didn't seem obsessed enough to risk the lives of everyone on the base to go to an unknown place. This could be just that I don't have a feel for his character yet, but it just didn't seem a good enough reason to get to the Destiny.

OVERALL - Part 1 was OK. I really liked the first 20 minutes, but I was thrown off by the sex scene, and couldn't really get back into it after that. I just kept finding similarities to BSG and I got distracted by the story. It wasn't really bad, it just didn't make me go "wow". It seems at this point like they're trying to use BSG as a template until they find their footing.

6/10 - Some good elements, but at this early stage, it did a little more copying than I would've liked, and it hasn't found its footing yet.

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002)

Not Everyone Will Like This...

[10/10 · 1 September 2009]

Not everyone will like this movie. You really have to be able to appreciate random, silly, ridiculous humor to watch this. If you don't like "in your face" silliness, you will not like this movie.

In some reviews on here I've mentioned that a film is silly and have given it a lower rating as a result. However, those films had unnecessary silliness whereas this film just embraces silliness, and it's really an experiment on how seriously ridiculous can someone make a comedy/parody film.

I love this movie. I've seen it over 20 times, and it never fails to make me laugh. The film is a parody of Hong Kong martial arts action films made using footage from an actual 70's Hong Kong film, which I think was called "Tiger and Crane Fists" in the English translation.

What Steve Oedekirk does in this film is take that footage, overdub it, and re-edit it adding in silly bits, original footage, and himself in the process.

The jokes in this film are often goofy and ridiculous. You have a kung-fu fighting cow, odd sight gags, and really weird voice-dubs. And I love every minute of it because it's so weird and random you can't help but be drawn in and laugh at it.

Some of the edits are kind of obvious, but the entire thing is just so silly that I really don't care. The humor in this is ridiculously funny, and I can't really think of anything bad to say about this.

I will say that not everyone will like this. You have to really love in your face random goofy humor to like this. I love this kind of humor, so I'm giving this a 10 because it was really perfect for my taste. Not everyone will like this. Not everyone will think it's as fun as I do. But if you're looking for a really funny film, and you want to see some random crazy stuff, I definitely recommend this film.

Oh, and this has the BEST fart joke I have ever seen in a film. If you haven't seen it, I won't spoil it, but I will say this is the most perfect fart joke I've ever seen in a film. This is going to sound stupid, but a fart really isn't funny in itself. You have to take into account the situation, circumstances, etc., and this movie does it perfectly. It is the perfect fart joke.

But enough from me. I highly recommend this for anyone who wants a random, silly comedy. It's a lot of fun, just don't watch it with someone who can't stand silly humor.

10/10 - Amazingly funny silly random comedy, but not for everyone.

Shorts (2009)

Not the best, but not terrible.

[5/10 · 1 September 2009]

You could do worse than to take your kids to see this film.

I'm rating this on the same level I rated "The Final Destination" and "GI JOE."

"The Final Destination" was a silly gimmicky horror film. "GI JOE" was a silly generic action film. "Shorts" is just a silly generic kids film, and when I say it's a kids film, I mean it's a KIDS film.

Children will either like it or they won't. It's got a lot of stuff in it that will probably keep an undiscerning 5-10 year old entertained for an hour and a half. However, anyone over a certain age will just go... "Hey, that's kind of ridiculous..."

The acting ranges from good to bad. The special effects are mostly obvious CG effects. The story is kind of lame, but it's a kids movie. Really everything in this film is just... OK. It's not a terrible film, but there's nothing that really makes it stand out either. The one thing I kind of liked was the story structure and editing style, but that's just about it.

I just think its a kids film that tries a little too hard to be "just for kids." It doesn't really respect the intelligence of the kids watching it, but if the kids aren't picky anyway, it's not really a problem.

I wouldn't really recommend it, but there's nothing wrong with it. If you just want to take your child to a movie, and this is the only thing playing, I'd say go for it. But its not something you absolutely have to see.

5/10 - Generic kids film, but it's not terrible.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

Meh

[5/10 · 1 September 2009]

This movie didn't really do anything for me. I didn't love it, I didn't hate it... I just really didn't care. However, this is one I saw from the trailers and knew it was going to be pretty dumb.

GI Joe is based on the cartoon series with Cobra, which is sort of silly in itself, so you've got silly source material (just like with Transformers). What happens in this film is that... they know the material is silly, and they just made it really generic and cheesy and really just embraced the silliness and said, "F*** it. Were just going to play."

The characters are about as 1 dimensional as you can get, the story is just a generic action movie story. The acting is OK at times and AWFUL at others. Likewise the special effects are really good in some scenes and in others they're just crap. The story is just an excuse to have more explosions and special effects, and the creators forced in as many references to the cartoon series as they could, disregarding whether or not it actually fits in the scene.

Overall, the film is just silly. There are some cool effects, some cool action sequences, but the whole thing is just meant to be silly fun. If you're just looking for a generic action film to sit down with some friends and watch while drinking a few beers, I'd recommend this. You could do worse. However, I would really only recommend this if you're just trying to have some fun and you don't really care what you watch.

5/10 - Some cool action, but not really anything special.

The Final Destination (2009)

Gimmicky Horror

[5/10 · 1 September 2009]

For me, a rating of 5 out of 10 means I didn't like the movie, but I didn't hate it either.

"The Final Destination" is a 3D horror thriller gimmick. Even though I saw this in 2D, there were many elements that were very obviously designed to be in 3D to take full advantage of the medium.

However, the film itself just isn't good.

The acting is terrible. The story is formulaic. There's nothing really interesting as far as the plot. No discussion of death. No new interesting concepts. Lots of fluff in the form of false kills. And the entire film from the opening credits to the closing credits is about the methods in which these people die.

What this movie is really about is killing young, attractive individuals in a manner which will compliment the 3D. Nothing else. It's just killing people using a Rube Goldberg device or a flying object in 3D.

Some of the special effects are good, and a few of the deaths are interesting, however, the film doesn't really do anything for me. It's just kind of there. I don't really hate it, but I don't really like it either. I also don't really care for 3D in general. I think it's a stupid way of getting you to pay a little extra, like IMAX (which is a bigger screen and some extra speakers. Yaay).

Overall, if you like the 3D gimmick; you're just looking for a movie to take a few friends to and have a little fun; and you don't really care about plot, characters, or story, you might have some fun. To anyone else, I wouldn't really recommend it. It's just a studio gimmick and can be easily ignored.

5/10 - Nothing special.

A Man Escaped (1956)

A Cinematic Masterpiece

[10/10 · 27 July 2009]

I'm going to start out by saying that this film will not appeal to everyone.

You have to be able to sit through long scenes, pay close attention to details, and be interested in the subject matter to like this film. If you're an English speaker, you also have to be able to sit through subtitles.

Personally, I feel that the film is a masterpiece. It is a great study of tension, character drama, and space. Its narrative structure is also very interesting and refreshingly different.

The story centers around a man named Fontaine who's been placed in a World War II prison by the Germans in France. The film chronicles his imprisonment, and his attempts to escape in great detail.

Bresson does an excellent job of giving the audience an idea of what it must have been like in such a prison camp, while providing an interesting "How to Guide" to escape from the prison. I didn't feel the film dragged at all, and every pause and every long scene is necessary to convey the tension and feelings associated with escaping from the prison.

If you're a film fanatic, this is a must see. If you're a film scholar, this is a must see. If you're a general audience member, I would recommend seeing it if you're looking to broaden your horizon in film or if you're looking for something new and interesting.

Like I said, this will not appeal to everyone, and if you just go to the film looking for explosions and excitement, this is probably not for you.

However, I do my ratings based on how much I enjoyed the film, so I'm giving it the highest rating. Nothing bothered me about this film, and it was a great watch.

10/10 - Highly recommend if you want to see an interesting study of character tension, situational tension, a classic film, or an interesting and different narrative. Avoid if you can't sit through or get bored by long, intellectual scenes.

Cold Souls (2009)

Interesting Concepts

[6/10 · 16 July 2009]

I was lucky enough to see an advance screening of this about two months ago, before it was sent to festivals.

I thought the film had some really interesting concepts with an intriguing and surrealistic story. However, there are several areas where it falls flat, and it just doesn't seem to reach its full potential.

WHAT I LIKED - The concept is very interesting, and the story is intriguing. Basically, you have a company which has found a way to separate the soul from the body and store it for you, allowing you to lead a guilt-free and soul-free life. I thought the idea of the soul as a tangible object was interesting and I found the films conception of this surrealistic idea intriguing.

• The first half of the movie is really good. This portion of the film plays very much like a dark comedy, and it works well. There is a lot of humor deriving from materialism and the trivialization of something which should go beyond the material world.

• The imagery is very good, and very surreal throughout the film.

WHAT WAS OFF FOR ME - The director doesn't seem to have a clear conception of what the soul represents or what it is. This becomes a problem for Paul Giamatti because we really don't see him behave all that much differently without his soul than he does with his soul. The movie really dances around what the soul might represent, but doesn't get there, leading to a little bit of fragmentation in the plot and a lot of logic questions.

• The actors don't seem to act any different when they don't have souls. Occasionally they do act different with other peoples' souls, but it makes you wonder what is really the big deal about losing the soul if you don't behave any differently. This may relate back to the unclear idea of the soul, but it is a drawback of the film.

• I hate it when movies just cut off without a final scene. The scene doesn't have to resolve anything. It can leave questions. But I really like films to have a final scene. This one just seems to cut off randomly. This is a personal pet peeve, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

Altogether, the film is good. If you're looking for some intellectual humor and some interesting concepts, this is a great film to watch. There are a bunch of things which were a little off-putting, but the film has lots of interesting concepts, surreal imagery, and ideas which make you think about the nature of yourself and the nature of humanity.

6/10. It's not perfect, but it has a lot of interesting concepts.

The Hangover (2009)

Very Good Comedy Film

[8/10 · 16 July 2009]

I recommend this film to people who won't be easily offended, and want to see a good comedy film in theaters or on DVD with a few friends.

This film is ridiculously funny with an interesting plot, memorable characters, and a fun story.

POSITIVES - The central characters are all excellent. They are not just walking punchlines (although Galifianakis comes close), they actually feel like real people.

• The humor is excellent. This isn't a "couple chuckles" movie. This is a "laugh out loud every couple minutes" movie.

• The narrative is excellent, making you wonder what the hell they did the night before and having you guess with the characters as to their actions (A favorite moment is when the chicken is walking around the room. All I could think while laughing was, "What the hell did they do with that chicken?"). At the end of most of the scenes there's also a fun surprise twist; something you didn't expect to see, and makes you laugh at the same time.

NEGATIVES - I'm really just nitpicking here, because the movie was really good. However, I didn't care for some of the shock humor. Shock humor is something like showing an old man's ass during a prostate exam (which they do in this movie). It wasn't used often, but it was irritating when they did it.

• Rob Wriggle and the lady playing the other police officer are very over-the-top, and don't really feel like real characters.

• Some story threads remain unresolved at the end. I would've liked to see what happened when the Uncle saw the car on the return, and I would've liked some closure on other story threads, but it didn't really impact my enjoyment of the film.

• Some of Zach Galifianakis' lines seemed forced, but even the forced lines are kind of funny, so I didn't mind that much.

OVERALL - The film is ridiculously funny, and if you watch it with a few friends who aren't easily offended, you will probably have a good time.

8/10 - Some flaws, but not enough to take away from the enjoyment of the film.