Change Your Image
mdenvee
Reviews
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
Kill Bill 2: Kill everything about this movie & its prequel.. PLZ
Yet another example of creative film making which had the potential to be fantastic but ended up miserable. Kill Bill Vol 2 (and Vol 1 for that matter) is an ponderous, pretentious, overlong, disappointing revenge drama which clearly and easily could have been saved via the normal efforts of a decent story or objective movie editor who was NOT Mr. Tarantino or influenced by him. I believe Tarantino, like Lucas, Stone, and many other notables, do their best work when they do not have too much control over the story and pacing. KB has many fine points- an original plot, great casting, music, great camera work. But, fails completely in the script, pacing, and yes the action sequences, which are vital to the creation of a good movie especially of this genre. The scripts were all too 'contrived', boring, irrelevant and unnatural for the characters reciting them- too brooding and overly philosophical, which was as distracting as it was annoying. And Tarantino seems to have this arrogant assumption that we enjoy his pretentious dialogues (and inner monologues) as much as he does. The character development was insufficient- primarily Uma's who is supposed to be such a deadly assassin yet there is little or no back story which validates this. It would have been invaluable to have included some earlier scenes with Uma as the warrior/assassin that she proves ONCE (and only once) in the ridiculous Crazy 88 fight sequence- but that is a sequence which is unconvincing because watching her slice up 88 stupid bodyguards is boring. So, instead of having one of the slowest-paced movies I have ever watched, simply speed things up a little (such as that painfully slow animated O-Ren sequence and in other areas) and add in some assassin background history on Uma. I enjoyed the fight scene of O-Rens personal bodyguard in Vol 1 and the all-too-short training scene in Vol 2 with the Kung Fu master, but that was not really showing Uma as this assassin, nor unbeatable swordmaster. In fact, probably my biggest pet peeve of the both KBs is the odd fact that neither film shows any real sword fighting or special combat scenes among the "master" assassins. There is plenty of "talk" throughout both films about sword fighting, etc, but ALL the scenes (except that long, repetitive, implausible fight scene with the 88s) involved quick sequences, usually in tight quarters. THINK ABOUT IT- all the people on her list were killed quickly and without any real martial arts!!! O-Ren, Elle, Green, and Bill all were killed by Kiddo (Uma) quickly and with hardly any sword play! Yes, there was a very brief sword fight with O-Ren... but with all the build-up of O- Ren's ability, I would have expected their sword fight to be 3x longer at least and more exciting- instead of spending 30 minutes watching Uma fighting 100s of stupid bodyguard ninjas, and all attacking her one at a time! This made no sense and for me, ruined the movie, since I would have expected all the villains on Uma's list to be killed in true martial arts combat scenes with SWORDS- since they spend both movies talking endlessly about Hattori Hanzo swords! In addition to O- Ren being killed easily with only a few swings of Uma's sword, Green is killed boringly inside her house (despite "talking" about scheduling a knife fight), Elle is killed inside a small cramp trailer house without even one swing of either of their Hanzo amazing swords- (yawn, yawn). All the fights were more of a street brawl or cat fight than a kung fu battle. Why not go outside for a real fight?? And Budd was killed by Elle (not even by Uma- again boring!). Bill, the ultimate villain and master, is killed in seconds by Uma with a cool, but all too quick heart explosion trick... after the audience sits through 2 long movies concluding with yet another excruciatingly slow pontificating, pedantic dialogue between them. In both films, there is nothing to support or exhibit how deadly and masterful a fighter Bill is supposed to be!! Geez. All in all, KB2 and KB1 are films which had great potential, but a misguided director and writers/editors who gave the audience ironically zero real kung fu or sword fight scenes among the 'main' characters and thus left us with never really seeing any impressive swordplay or hand to hand kung fu. Instead, we have an overlong, boring, unsatisfying film. A shame.
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
JEDI: Following a sad, predictable pattern of 3rd installments...
Before saying anything else- anyone who felt the prequels or recent Force Awakens films were even remotely watchable, please stop reading. You people are just unable to understand why ROTJ was so terrible (just as I am not able to understand astrophysics). In a nutshell, ROTJ has all the usual bad elements in a sequel and none of the good (aside from improved special effects). How anyone can mention this film in the same breath as the first two is beyond me or anyone who has any objectivity about this trilogy. The two biggest problems were the acting and story/script. The acting seems wooden and emotionless, Ford seems like he doesn't want to be there at all, Luke is monotone and boring, Leia looks and sounds worn out. I felt Lando and the Emperor did a good job (they seemed actually part of the movie). The script for everyone was repetitive, unoriginal, no comic relief or wit, and far less intelligent- and if fans can't see this, then as I said, they are simply unable to perceive/observe these details- not everyone can. Story line- poor. Half the film takes place rescuing Han, and while I enjoyed the segment concept, it was hugely overlong, and irrelevant to the main theme. The story and backdrops were also terribly unoriginal and repetitive. We spend half the movie on Tatooine (like the First film) and then half the movie in a very standard earth-like forest like Yavin (first film). The return of the same death star threat also, while not terrible, worsened the banality as did its demise by blowing it up similarly like the first film- yawn. Chronology was also hugely erroneous- In Empires, Lando & Chewie leave to go to Jabba's to rescue Han. Yet, Luke is somehow a virtual Jedi in a matter of days or weeks. I thought it takes years to become a Jedi- and who would have trained Luke since he returns to Yoda to "continue the training" after confronting Vader. This anachronism makes the audience feel like Lucas thinks we are stupid (maybe we are). Now, the biggest flaws of the film are the detail errors (from beginning to end): why did Jabba permit Leia to unfreeze Han when Jabba enjoyed him as a wall decoration? Why did Luke attempt to clumsily attack Jabba with a gun from the holster of a guard? Did he actually think he could single handed defeat all of Jabba's guards? How could Leia strangle Jabba with a chain? He's enormous and she's frail. With all of the forces of the Rebellion, why did they only rely on 4 of them to rescue Han from Jabba- risky, no? Why not send an army or have a larger force waiting outside once Luke and Lando infiltrate? And actually, why didn't Lando unfreeze Han since he was already under cover? Please. Why did they have a door closing panel on the 'inside' of the monster dungeon that Luke threw a rock at? Why would being "digested for 1000 years" be scary when you'd be dead in moments once swallowed? Why were the languages spoken at Jabba's so dumb sounding- "wonga wonga"? Why does C3PO have so much trouble speaking a common Jabba dialect? For an interpreter of 6 million languages, he sounds like he is stumbling for the words all the time he speaks another language. Why are the creatures at Jabba's so juvenile looking? Absolutely stupid and silly compared to the sinister creatures in Star Wars. Speaking of which, the Ewoks really were silly- perhaps if they were not such a huge part of the movie! So, watching little people wearing teddy bear costumes for over an hour speaking in the least convincing dumb-sounding Ewok language was hard to bear, and listening to C3PO storytelling put me to sleep. Seeing Yoda on death's bed in ROTJ yet seeing him spry and jumping around like a teenager in Empires just shows how bad the errors in the timeline are in this film- and he just happens to die exactly when Luke arrives? Then the story line of Luke actually thinking he could 'turn' Vader just by approaching him and asking is completely delusional. What did Luke think was going to happen? Even a jedi would have a bit of trouble escaping alive from the Emperor and Vader on the Death Star. So why risk it as the last living Jedi??? Not plausible. Then let's fast forward to watching a Super Star destroyer (5 miles long) have a single fighter hit it and make it veer into the Death Star? Really? That's like a seagull hitting an aircraft carrier and sinking it. STUPID. Also, if you look at the scale of the Super Star Destroyer and the surface of the Death Star that it impacts on, the Death Star looks like it's a million times the mass of the Super Star Destroyer- not likely. And since when was it so close to the Death Star??? Wasn't it much, much farther away staying out of the conflict? What is most pointless is the fact that Luke could have avoided going to the Death Star and avoided Vader killing the Emperor and just watch as the Death Star gets ultimately blown up, killing but the Emperor. Redundant. Lastly, just because the Emperor is killed off, what about the thousands of Imperial ships and Destroyers, millions of storm troopers, and I'm sure plenty of high powered corrupt Senate officials and other bureaucrats who would obviously take over control? This movie ironically had literally all the movie making resources at its disposal. That may also ironically be exactly why this movie sucked- Lucas had way too much influence in it and not reigned in by smarter producers and co-writers and directors. Lucas may have succumbed to the hype of his own cult status and started to believe his infallibility and just couldn't imagine ROTJ could possibly end up being anything but amazing. He was wrong.
Burn Notice (2007)
One of my favorites... however Season 7 burned me up!
In a nutshell, first 3 seasons were excellent, top drawer. Seasons 4-5 were touch and go.. some episodes poorly executed, others quite good. Season 6 was different, more like an action feature film, but the quality of script and directing was excellent and consistent with the earlier seasons (some eps are incredible). Season 7 keeps this review vote an 9/10 instead of 10/10. S7 was just sloppy, poorly written, very badly acted, zero chemistry between actors, generally boring, excessively dark, and just seemed like a 'bonus' series, unrelated to the original 1-6 Seasons. Just to be clear- I am a huge fan of the show, but I am not a zombie who can't admit to a very bad last season like many others fans applauding the series. The same downfall happened to Nip/Tuck in Season 6.. simply out of sync with the prior 5 seasons, but for Burn Notice it was more painful. This kind of phenomenon is also illustrated well in movie sagas like Star Wars, Superman, Godfather and Aliens. The first 2 films in those series were high quality, but the third installment was an insult, kind of like Season 7 of Burn Notice. For me, the show ended satisfactorily with Season 6... I can accept an unhappy ending that doesn't wrap things up too neatly and leaves fans to imagine how things finished. Sometimes the best conclusions to an action series drama is one that doesn't actually end!
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
KILL BILL Vol 1.. in fact kill both films.. please.
Yet another example of creative film making which had the potential to be fantastic but ended up miserable. Kill Bill Vol 1 (and Vol 2 for that matter) is an ponderous, pretentious, overlong, disappointing revenge drama which clearly and easily could have been saved via the normal efforts of a decent story or objective movie editor who was NOT Mr. Tarantino or influenced by him. I believe Tarantino, like Lucas and many other notables, do their best work when they do not have too much control over the story and pacing. KB has many fine points- an original plot, great casting, music, great camera work. But, fails completely in the script, pacing, and yes the action sequences, which are vital to the creation of a good movie especially of this genre. The scripts were all too 'contrived', boring, irrelevant and unnatural for the characters- too brooding and deeply philosophical, which was as distracting as it was annoying. And Tarantino seems to have this arrogant assumption that we love his pretentious dialogues (and inner monologues) as much as he does. The character development was insufficient- primarily Uma's who is supposed to be such a deadly assassin yet there is little or no back story which validates this. It would have been invaluable to have included some earlier scenes with Uma as the warrior/assassin she proves ONCE (and only once) in the ridiculous Crazy 88 fight sequence- but that is a sequence which is unconvincing because watching her slice up 88 stupid bodyguards is boring. So, instead of having one of the slowest-paced movies I have ever watched, simply speed things up a little (such as that painfully slow animated O-Ren sequence and in other areas) and add in some assassin background on Uma. I enjoyed the fight scene of O-Rens personal bodyguard in Vol 1 and the all-too-short training scene in Vol 2 with the Kung Fu master, but that was not really showing Uma as this assassin, nor unbeatable swordmaster. In fact, probably my biggest pet peeve of the both KBs is the odd fact that neither film shows any real sword fighting or special combat scenes among the "master" assassins. There is plenty of "talk" throughout both films about sword fighting, etc, but ALL the scenes (except that long, repetitive, implausible fight scene with the 88s) involved quick sequences, usually in tight quarters. THINK ABOUT IT- all the people on her list were killed quickly and without any real martial arts!!! O-Ren, Elle, Green, and Bill all were killed by Kiddo (Uma) quickly and with hardly any sword play! Yes, there was a very brief sword fight with O-Ren... but with all the build-up of O-Ren's ability, I would have expected their sword fight to be 3x longer at least and more exciting- instead of spending 30 minutes watching Uma fighting 100s of stupid bodyguard ninjas, and all attacking her one at a time! This made no sense and for me, ruined the movie, since I would have expected all the villains on Uma's list to be killed in true martial arts combat scenes with SWORDS- since they spend both movies talking endlessly about Hattori Hanzo swords! In addition to O-Ren being killed easily with only a few swings of Uma's sword, Green is killed boringly inside her house (despite "talking" about scheduling a knife fight), Elle is killed AGAIN inside a small cramp house without even one swing of either of their Hanzo amazing swords- yawn, yawn. All the fights were more of a street brawl or cat fight than a kung fu battle. Why not go outside for a real fight?? And Budd was killed by Elle (not even by Uma- again boring!). Bill, the ultimate villain, is killed in seconds by Uma with a cool, but all too quick heart explosion trick... after the audience sits through yet another excruciatingly slow pontificating dialogue between them. In both films, there is nothing to validate how deadly and masterful a fighter Bill is!! Geez. All in all, KB is a film which had great potential, but a misguided director and writers/editors who gave the audience no real kung fu or sword fight scenes among the main characters and thus left us with never really seeing any impressive swordplay or hand to hand kung fu. Instead, we have a boring, unsatisfying film. A shame.
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
A quality film w/ an obvious political agenda...TOO BAD
If you enjoyed Troy and Alexander, you will enjoy this movie as well. Plenty of action, convincing special effects, suspense and good music and excellent cinematography and scenery. The actors are on the whole good as well (some better than others) but nothing that would either ruin the film or make it exceptional (I did like the Muslim King the most though). I was disappointed in three regards. One, Liam Neeson was dead in the first quarter of the movie (sooner actually). Further, I really like his cohort of fighters which were all unfathomably killed in the forest. Two, the movie had tons of irritatingly implausible story lines, such as Bloom not accepting the Kingship and the princess for stupid reasons, and thereby permitting the rule under the vicious King and the loss of a girl he loves, and the ruination of the city- utterly implausible and unrealistic. Three, the entire film is an ANTI-Christian effort, beginning with the village priest decapitating Bloom's dead wife for religious reasons, to the non-stop cowardly, nauseating and hypocritical characterizations of the Jerusalem priest who single-handedly makes the Church look like the real villain of the movie ("convert to Islam, repent later"). There is a passive attempt to also include a more belligerent Muslim general, but on the whole the Muslims are portrayed as honorable and good, or at worst neutral in their campaign to take over the city. The new King and the templars are the antagonists throughout the movie, starting with the deliberate cruel murder of the sister of the Muslim King, and the futile unprovoked attack on the Muslims in the desert. The overall portrayal of the Templars and Christians is disgustingly political (Bloom: "the Christians butchered every Muslim behind these walls". Muslim King: "I am not those men"). While the film attempts to attach all the vicious cruelty to the new King, his general, and the single priest, the impact is obviously against Christians and pro-Muslim. It is a clear effort by the director and producers to make a historical film which spoke to the virtues of Islam and the cruelty of Christians, and very possibly a message regarding the post-9/11 war in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as a message against the US support of Israel in the middle East. To be honest, I did not observe these messages on my first viewing of the film (like most us who don't notice a lot of things at first). But on a 2nd and 3rd watching, it is obvious and a shame. Otherwise, the film could have been very good, an 8 score, but minus 4 for the absurd politics interwoven.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Lord of the most overrated...
Actually, correction- nearly the most overrated. The 3rd installment clearly holds that title due to its baffling best picture win. But Part 2 is just as awful. Coming from a sci-fi and fantasy fan, I take no pride in my distaste for this movie franchise. And Part 1 was at least "watchable". But Part 2 almost succeeded with me walking out of the theatre from boredom. I can state the positive aspects easily- the film has wonderful scenery and special effects. So, if that is the limit of your appreciation of films, then you will love the movie. But all that is left is disappointment and painful boredom. Let's begin with the bad acting- everyone overacts, looking too serious at the wrong times and to whimsical and emotional at equally wrong times. The movie and the director makes the assumption that the audience immediately empathizes with the characters in the movie, without proper build/development. It is quite presumptuous of the director to think that most people are as in love with these characters as he is and the loyal fans of the books. Next, there are way too many close-ups on the faces and eyes of everyone, showing every pimple and every gray hair... do we need this? This also goes double for the orks and bad guys- how disgusting do they have to be? Way overkill- the director tries too hard to exaggerate the grossness. These close-ups are made more painful from the slowness of the filming, which is 3x longer than normal movies- it is like each expression is in slow motion. Combine this with tortuously long dialogue- each character carries on forever it seems expressing thoughts that are "force-fit" into Shakespearean prose. This makes the film incredibly ponderous and worsens the overacting. Some further points of disgust for me is the time and focus on the hobbits and making them out to be such a vital part of the good guys winning- newsflash, they are all completely useless and trouble-making and it's annoying and humiliating to have them all play such important roles. Other things that bugged me bigtime is the fact that Gandolf exhibits little or no sorcery or magic in all 3 films! All he does is make speeches and talk in a deep voice and use his staff as a sword- what is so powerful about him? Yawn. Another stupid aspect is the ratio of bad guys to good guys during the battles- it's like 100 to 1. And the bad guys each look 10x bigger and stronger, yet are felled by a single arrow in the shoulder? Please. The worse thing of the 2nd and 3rd films is the introduction of the special effects Gollum creature, whose irritating raspy monologues occupies a large portion of both films- I felt incredibly stupid paying attention to this computer animated creature whine and eat fish. Finally, the whole trilogy is about a silly ring which is utterly ridiculous and especially difficult for the audience to believe as so important and earth shattering. And as others have pointed out, the ring (and hobbit) could have been easily flown via Gandolf's winged creatures to the fire pit in an hour and avoided all the battles and quests and pointlessness. To any who not seen the film- avoid this slow-moving yawn fest at all costs.
Alfie (2004)
The better "Alfie" version, hands down. A must-see movie.
I'm probably writing the only review which sees this newer version of Alfie as far, far better than the original. I know it will inflame many loyal fans of the Caine original, but I can easily say the Jude version is solidly better in every respect. But, I will admit that having seen the new version first, I can understand how some people may be biased in their opinion- typically the first version is better, and actually conditions your mind to unconsciously compare the new one with the old one. Nevertheless, it does not mean it should invalidate a review, provided that there is careful objectivity. I think most significant is the different type of film the Jude version is- a more engaging, heartfelt,'balanced' version with a both modern and vintage flare. The Caine version was way too cold, serious, dry, and somewhat humorless, and one could not relate to Caine's Alfie- he was a bit creepy and his womanizing behavior seemed more deliberate and emotionless, while Jude's Alfie is a more charming, sweet and in most ways innocent character who happens to indulge to excess seducing and ultimately manipulating women. But in the Jude Alfie, it's almost like a kid in a candy store who has a free pass to candy- Alfie's free pass is his charm and good looks which enables the Jude version to come across more convincing and lovable... as opposed to the Caine Alfie who is not especially handsome or charming and comes across as calculating and a true sexual compulsive. Don't get me wrong- I love Michael Caine and I am an old-movie buff and normally I prefer the original version of almost all films. But even great movies like The Maltese Falcon had a prior version before Humphrey Bogart which lacked the music, tempo, personality, humor, and emotional connection. Another 2nd and better version of other great movies are The Man Who Knew Too Much and Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Meet Joe Black. The originals are good in many ways, but lack the "total package" of a great movie, almost as if the first version were a rough draft. Anyway, getting back to the Jude Alfie...I really can't say enough about the impact the movie has on guys and girls in their 20s and 30s. It's a both bright and dark as well as moral movie without pontificating or preaching and it covers a myriad of aspects to relationships and many hard lessons and realities. Every character fits perfectly with the direction and writing of the film and seems real-life and just very engaging. Caine's Alfie seems like a psychological analysis of a sexually obsessed man who's bereft of emotion and the women he womanizes. His film is decent, but pales in comparison to other Caine films and frankly he is quite miscast for the role of Aflie. Jude Law is brilliant and one of the finest and most versatile (and under-used) actors I've ever seen (as he was in Talented Ripley). He literally becomes Alfie, a womanizer that you love but want to hate (but can't). And via his acting and his script, Jude makes you in many ways identify (and almost excuse) his character's behavior. The newer Alfie is written with a bluntness and brutal candor about the male and female gender and how we unconsciously see each other- this may come across as offensive to ultra liberals or feminists, but none of it is offensive or hurtful- it is just life's reality. The flow of the film is perfect and nicely edited and transitions seamlessly. The film has high points and low points, which the audience can relate to, and creates the effect of not making it a mono-toned film like the original Alfie, and this is what I meant by "balanced". For a film of this difficult subject matter to work right, it cannot be as somber, relentless and two-dimensional as Caine's version. A real expression of superb writing and direction in a film is when it can have both happy moments, funny moments, and immediately after have serious, even heartbreaking moments and ultimately teach a lesson which anyone can learn from. An example of the newer Alfie being a lighter film, but just as powerful and even more shocking is the discovery that he has a child which he had thought was aborted. This is likened to the Caine version where Alfie see's the actual aborted fetus remains and has an emotional breakdown. The new version is just as stunning (and actually more unexpected) and in my opinion more of a reality check of life's twists and turns and the lesson that our actions may have life long consequences. While I can appreciate the impact of the Caine sequence, it is basically 'over-dramatic' since the Jude version itself is just as or more effective and instead of horrifying the audience and unbalancing the film, it is both sad and happy when we learn Jude's Alfie has a son. This is just one example of the tone of the newer Alfie-- different, just as powerful, better acted, better written, better music, better scenery, better flow, more realistic, and far more enjoyable to watch. And most important, a film that literally all of us can identify with at some stages in out lives. Truly a great film. 10/10.
Valkyrie (2008)
Amazing film which Tom Cruise RUINED!
Well, to be honest he didn't ruin the movie, but Tom Cruise was horribly cast for this role and he and whoever selected him to have any part (let alone a main part) in this film is responsible for turning a 10 grade movie down to a 5 grade. Casting is everything. He seemed totally misplaced and wrong for the film. It's like choosing Cruise for Schindler's List instead of Liam Neason; he keeps it from being a serious historical movie. Cruise is great in many movies, but he has a strictly modern acting style and personality which is anachronistic in a WWII film like this and is distracting and incongruous. Everyone else (and I mean everyone) was beautifully cast for the film, skillfully selected, and most actors actually closely resembled the real people. Bravo. But Tom Cruise, while somewhat similar in face to the real Claus, just has zero 'command' or 'presence' in the film, especially for a leading role and a high rank of colonel. Plus he is too short, doesn't look German, and combine that with a kid-like face and teenage voice, and you just can't take this guy seriously for this role. And the grandchildren of the real Claus actually openly told Tom Cruise to turn down the role and told him to get out of Germany, because they felt he was a totally wrong selection for the role. To me, the right choice would have been Eric Bana (who did superbly in Munich and who has the height and face which closely resembles Claus) or James Marsden or many others who have more screen presence and who are less kid-like in appearance and voice. A real shame. Otherwise, a wonderfully directly and scripted movie and a cast of actors who are perfect!
The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)
Supreme Epic Film...one of the best
What can I say about the movie that has not been already said by those reviews which are honest and objective? First off, I am incredulous at the members who actually score this film a 1. That really speaks to their biases and bitterness, typically because the film is not a literal, precise translation of the novel. There are a lot of people who think this way, and it ridiculous and a sign of pseudo-intellectual pretense. Few movies with a budget, with Producer constraints, and especially with time constraints can faithfully adapt put a 1000 page novel. This is where a bit of director and screen writer license takes over. Some of the reviewers just don't understand that if a classic novel adaptation is not reasonably successful at the box office, they will cease to be financed and supported by movie studios. That said, the film is a wonderful work of art from top to bottom. The script is perfect- smart, philosophical, dark, witty, funny, romantic and not too meandering (like the novel tends to be at times). The actors are superb- perfectly cast and all extremely convincing. The music is excellent and well done for every scene. The scenery is amazing. The tempo of the movie is superb and keeps the audience riveted- a key ingredient in any movie. Combine all of this with some moral life lessons, this film is incredible, and one of the few movies that you can watch over and over. I have mentioned this film to people I know at my work, with friends, family and even people I barely know, and those who have seen it unanimously applaud it, without exception. This is why is really irks me to see many reviewers having the unmitigated selfishness and the unwarranted hatred of this film giving it a rating of 1. Even if one dislikes the film, it is not one which someone can actually "hate" enough to score it so low. It is however a film that people can score very high. There are many films I have seen that I did not like which some people score a 10- such as Lord of the Rings or Dark Knight. But that doesn't mean I score them a 1. At worst I'd give them 5's or 6's. This films is a work of art... definitely in the top 100 films of all time, maybe top 50.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011)
A snore fest... ZZzzzz
The movie deserves a 1 but out of my compassion to the die-hard HP fans, I'm giving it a 2. I'm not a huge fan of the series, but I love the genre. This last movie is like the last movie in LOTR- the first was infinitely better and had some depth and proper pacing. But like Pt2 and 3 of LOTR, this last Harry Potter was replete with slow sequences, and unconvincing acting by almost all the characters. There were so many scenes with Harry just staring into space (seemingly in deep thought). The whole film seemed to lack the quality.. seemed a bit hastily put together. Reminds me of Return of the Jedi versus Star Wars... the acting by Solo and Leia and even Luke was horrible and seemed disinterested in the 3rd movie. And the movie's battles in many ways reminded me 2nd and 3rd LOTR, and very much like X-men 3. One of my biggest problems was with Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldermort- sorry but I kept seeing a guy with a stupid mask on and he just didn't look authentic- it reminded me of the Darth Maul in Star Wars Ep 1. Like Darth Maul, he just looks like the writer was trying to create a character who looks as grotesque as possible, but neither scary or persuasive- just ugly and painful to look at- like a burn victim or someone who had a facial deformity. Actually he was the least scary and least interesting evil character- just like Darth Maul was. But the main problem I had with the movie was the tempo- so slow sometimes and too fast other times. I guarantee that unless you are a die hard Harry Potter fan (and I know this will be sacrilege to you) you will feel squirmy in your seat and want the movie to just hurry up and end in the 2nd half. A few more spells cast would have been great, instead of the usual fire shooting from the magic wand routine- snore.
Can't Buy Me Love (1987)
All-around best 80s teen comic drama movie
All the elements of a solid movie, and a 10/10 in genre. Must-see. Solid acting, great casting, thoughtful and witty script, very-well pacing, lots of different scene backdrops (not usually mentioned in reviews, but it helps immensely to maintain flow and interest), good music, moral message without being too righteous or hammy, and an overall uplifting feel. Basically, it is like a light-hearted Breakfast Club or Sixteen Candles- only differences are lesser-known actors and fewer serious scenes exchanged for more silly scenes. But by silly, I don't mean stupid or vulgar like today's teen movies. Movies deserve a lot credit when they take an audience from low to high to low and then back up to mid-high. When this is done well, it is a movie that most people can watch over and over, and most of us have or will be watching this film over and over. Also, the fact that there are so many people in the cast, it holds your interest- nerds, jocks, cheerleaders, parents, teachers, and a pain little brother.
X2 (2003)
strong 9 out of 10.. and the last great comic movie so far
To sum up, the movie improves on everything in the first, but did have some flaws keeping it from a perfect 10. 1, the focus being on Wolverine again is a bit repetitive- not terrible, but slightly tired. 2, Cyclops and Prof X have quite small roles due to the storyline- they are 2 of the best characters and their screen time is quite short- the 2 leaders of the X-men and they have limited screen time? 3, they re-used the 2 evil mutants (Magneto and Mystique). Their roles are great and I enjoyed their return, but the bad mutants needed a new one somewhere, even if the role was small or irrelevant. 4 and last, the death of Jean Grey (Marvel Girl) seemed a bit unconvincing- it did not seem like she had to sacrifice herself. Couldn't she have done what she did INSIDE the plane? I know they tried to make it like her demise in the comic book from the cosmic rays in space, but this was not as believable or needed- it seemed a bit 'convenient'. All in all, these are tiny flaws in a superb sequel- a rare better-than-the-first film. DO NOT SEE X-Men 3 though- horrible amateur action film that I equate to Superman 3 and 4. UPDATE: X-Men Origins and X-Men First Class are good additions to the series and worth seeing; both have their flaws which put them under X1 and X2, but nonetheless quality films.
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Like Lemmings running off a cliff...
This is how I interpret all the baffling high ratings this movie has gotten from viewers. I believe people will 'make themselves' see a special, wonderful, intellectual movie where there is none. They follow closely with other viewers (like lemmings running off a cliff en mass to their peril). This film reminds me of Citizen Kane- how people immediately assume that movie 'must' be the greatest movie of all time. Can any honest viewer actually watch Citizen Kane and compare it to Gone with the Wind or Casablanca or On the Waterfront or Ben Hur or The Big Country? Citizen Kane will put you to sleep- but people think it's 'supposed' to be artful, innovative, ingenious masterpiece. Apocalypse Now is the same scenario. Many people have heard amazing things about the film prior to watching and thus unconsciously force themselves to find genius and great acting and great script where there is quite the opposite. Other people watch it and see a truly weird, eccentric, failed effort at trying to make a artful, philosophical explanation of Vietnam- an overdone effort with the mantra being 'the weirder and more offbeat and melodramatic, the better'. Newsflash- that kind of movie- making is easy. Being weird and is easy- and it's a strategy to overwhelm the viewer with nonsense to such a degree that even the most objective, critical viewer will conclude 'such a weird, sick, pointless movie MUST be art.. must be genius.. must be a masterpiece. Here's a hint to the other viewers who found this to be the best movie of all time- it's easy to be strange and eerily unconventional. The true masterpieces are those movies which are simple and traditional, yet we walk away from them never forgetting, i.e. Schindlers List, The Godfather, Braveheart, North by Northwest, Rosemary's Baby, The Graduate, The Deer Hunter, etc. These are movies- classics with great acting, writing, and music, and frankly are endlessly watchable. I think any honest movie fan cannot really say they can watch a sleeper like Apocalypse more than once- it feels like a bad acid trip. Words to remember- extreme weirdness is not a recipe for a truly good movie or even a half decent one- but judging from the ridiculously high reviews, it does hypnotize its audience into thinking they are watching something worth watching. Oh well.
The Ice Pirates (1984)
One-of-a-kind "dark" sci-fi comedy MUST SEE
Anyone who does not rate this movie 8 or higher is not being objective. I give it a 10 for what the movie was designed to be- a dark sci-fi satire, emphasis on the dark. No, it doesn't compare to Gone with the Wind or Schindlers List, and it's not supposed to. It is a unique, rarely produced seriously dark edgy comic-drama. People who compare it to Spaceballs and others of that ilk are misguided- Ice Pirates is NOT a spoof movie or juvenile comedy. Yes, there are some clearly adolescent moments, but this movie is of that uncommonly found genre of dark satire like "Mystery Men". What sets this movie apart from silly comedies like Spaceballs and others is the variety of serious emotional moments, love scenes, death scenes and a generally elevated plot- finding a new source of water in the galaxy. Basically it is like making a movie based on Han Solo and Chewbacca and their adventures- serious but replete with comic, witty, edgy, and romantic moments. Star Wars would have been a completely serious film like 2001 if not for Han Solo, and would have suffered for it. When you watch Ice Pirates, you need a bit more of "suspension of disbelief". Unlike most other movies of ANY genre, Ice Pirates has a fast pace, endlessly interesting backdrops, and surprisingly few ridiculous aliens- compared to the numerous silly creatures in Stars Wars/Return of the Jedi. The movie is underrated, I think, primarily due to the campy nature of the comic moments- but then again that is Han Solo from top to bottom. And never a boring moment.
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Skip Private Ryan and watch Band of Brothers!!
After reading some of the 'immaculate' appraisals of this film, I am compelled to explain WHY this film sucks. Sadly, these days there is a declining number of people who can properly and objectively evaluate movies just as there are less and less movies worth evaluation. First, this movie DID NOT win Best Picture. Why? For a WWII epic from Spielberg with this Hollywood cast, unlimited budget, and the notoriety, it speaks volumes about the movie itself that it did not win. The movie had many aspects which merited praise. But far more of it deserved our disdain and disappointment. It is a shame that so few movie viewers can observe the following egregious flaws in a film trumpeted by most here as 'the best war film ever'. First, let me say that the film had only ONE redeeming quality- that of the battle scenes. Very impressive in every way. That's it. That's all. It's all downhill from here. The main failure of this film lies in the fact that it does NOT draw in the audience. There is NO cohesion of characters, zero empathy. I did not care at all about any of the soldiers. Why? Mainly because they were all well-known actors stupidly picked by Spielberg, and there were LOTS of them- just read the cast of actors. This is a huge distraction. I cannot feel the soldiers' pain and grief when they are ALL actors I've seen in movies and TV shows. What a STUPID, boneheaded, amateur mistake by Spielberg. Every scene in the movie has a another actor I know pretty well and whose personalities distract me. Further, all the actors seemed like they did not 'fit' in the 1940s era. They seemed too modern. Too anachronistic. They used too many curse words (which were not used in those days, at least to that degree) and were really 'cheesy'. They all seemed like actors, NOT real soldiers- AND cheesy BAD actors at that. After watching Band of Brothers, one can really identify with the characters, all the characters not just the 'band'. But in Ryan, there is literally ZERO compatibility with the actors. They didn't 'flow' together like fellow soldiers- all seemed to be out of place- hamming up the screen; too much for viewers to take in. Again, the fact that they are ALL well-known actors (and the cameos by Ted Danson and others made it really Hollywoodish and corny). Essentially, I just didn't care remotely about any of the actors- simple. Another annoyance were Hollywood 'touches' like the cheesy prayer the sniper man made every time he aimed for a shot or the annoying Jewish remarks actor/comedian Goldberg made throughout or Diesel's tough-guy mantra, or Tom Hanks' continuous confused 'look'. Spielberg also displayed a disproportionate amount of anti-German efforts. He made typical German soldiers (not the SS) out to be vicious monsters, a lot of which might be true, but the bias was very distracting in the movie. Seeing a freed German soldier return to kill Tom Hanks (the one who freed him) as well as the German who mercilessly and VERY slowly with a knife pierced the only Jewish solider's heart as he begged for mercy and cried...was a very excessive and blatant anti-German effort by Jewish Spielberg- upsetting mostly because it changed the tone of the movie in a very obvious way. Anyway, the entire movie needed more development and the characters (each of them) were severely miscast. It is an obvious Hollywood production which lacks authenticity NOT in the action and special effects, BUT in something far more important in ANY film---plot, script, good acting, and empathy. Private Ryan misses the boat. Strongly recommended is Band of Brothers. Instead of cheesy Tom Hanks acting in it, he directs and does a brilliant job. The series is addictive and priceless...and it makes Private Ryan look like a high school production- thank God the Oscars had the courage to deny it Best Picture. But not enough courage to deny Spielberg Best Director- they wouldn't dare do that. LOL. 'nuff said.