Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
The word 'cheat' comes to mind
21 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
About the only thing I can think of in the movie's favor is the occasional local color... pretty obvious it was shot on location in NY.

Otherwise, this is one of those movies you watch and by the end are mad at, simply because you have invested yourself in a story and characters that are (spoiler!) not even 'real'.

Yup, its one of those 'it was all in her mind' endings where pivotal elements are suddenly revealed to be hallucinations, dreams, coincidence, etc. and it is clear that the director, writers, producers are happy to provide a giant insult to the audience instead of providing a coherent and satisfying closing act. Pretty pathetic, especially in a film that bills itself as 'Based on a true story'. In other words, they cheat their way out of creating a complete film.

Pretty much a tease all the way through, then...
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sin City (2005)
2/10
Enter the mind of a 12 year-old virgin
8 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Anyone who thinks the dumb, recycled, repetitive story lines of this movie represent an 'homage' to some kind of golden era of crime fiction, clearly hasn't read the real deal... These stories are the one-dimensional fantasies of a prepubescent weakling who was ignored by all the pretty girls growing up, and it's unintentionally hilarious and disturbing to watch.

Every one of the plot points follow the same tired path - a ridiculously indestructible tough guy has to protect or avenge a girl - and it is tiresome to watch. It's all familiar, and everyone is exactly what they seem: the hooker with a heart of gold, is literally called 'Goldie'; the good cop is altruistic, even to his last breath, and the bad cop is bad even in death.... etc, etc, etc.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hard Easy (2006)
2/10
Waste of time
25 December 2011
Just a lazy worthless pile... this movie is so inept everyone - including the catering crew - should be banned from ever making a flick again.

I lost track at the redundancies -- If you deleted all the scenes in which one person is trying to convince another person about agreeing to the heist, you'd have a film 45 minutes shorter. Same with the characterizations -- yeah, the guys are hard up for money. Got that the first five times it was mentioned.

Anyway, anyone who is interested in writing a screenplay should definitely watch this - any doubts about your lack of ability will vanish.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The writer and director think you're an idiot
7 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
There are so many insults to intelligence in this movie, you could probably write a book about them. I was willing to go along for the ride until it simply became unbearable.

Take for example this episode:

There's a murder / fire at a notorious meth lab in a bad part of town, and the ONLY piece of physical evidence the cops seize upon is the small bit of broken tail lamp from a car which is found a half block away. The crime lab identifies this apparently immediately, and obviously the detective in charge just knows that it is the key to the entire case.

Then there's the idea that a missing button somehow exonerates the wife - exactly how is not explained. Same with the idiocy of the arrest in the first place: the cops don't know about the blood on her jacket until afterward; they don't have her fingerprints to match with the murder weapon unless she's already been arrested and printed, right? Is the fact that she's simply uncertified leaving the garage enough to arrest her? No, of course not. Because she also exchanged 'words' with the victim earlier in the day. Well, obviously, lets arrest her now.

Good grief. It just goes on and on. What are these know-nothings doing writing and directing a crime movie? And also, who are these IMDb commenters that find this a 'thrilling' movie? Ugh.
18 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
To Live and Die in L.A. Drinking Game
8 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
See if you can identify the time-worn detective-movie clichés as they appear, and then drink up.

A few of my favorites:

Yes, his partner is really just about ready to retire, and then has the misfortune to get shot.

Aviator sunglasses!

"He killed my partner!" (This is apparently the motivation for everything, and yes, this is really said at a pivotal moment, exclamation point included.)

The intractable 'by the book' boss of the protagonist - in this case, he is literally by the book, quoting police procedures.

Stripclub scene!

"I'm getting too old for this." This is actually said, in all sincerity. Amazing.

Foiling an Arab terrorist that has, YES!, dynamite strapped around his chest. (Not necessarily a cop cliché, but wow, what a Naked Gun type of beginning)

Sunglasses worn inside buildings!

Strungout cop going 'rogue' on the system.

That's right, tell that Judge where he can put that Due Process crap.

Bad guy driving cool black car.

Finally scoring the big 'bust' and somehow not arranging for police back-up. Ooops
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inconsequential
30 September 2011
Okay, we get it. This is an ironic treatment of the classic hardboiled detective story. Ten minutes into this self-indulgent heap we're still covering the 'feeding the cat' scene which is disposable to the plot and apparently only serves to characterize the lead. An economical director would have advanced the story in some manner AND managed to infuse character qualities into his lead, but not here. We can only do one thing at a time - over and over.

And so we've got to sit through repetitive scenes that tell us the same thing in slightly different ways, as if we're kids and didn't understand it the first time.

(What's the definition of a bore? Someone who won't come to the point. What's the definition of an even bigger bore? Someone who keeps talking after they've made their point. Guess which one Altman is?)

The topless 'groovy chicks' next door for instance. How does this develop or change over time? It doesn't. So it illustrates the point that this detective is from a different era. Okay got it. Now what? Oh here we go again, he's interacting with the groovy chicks, and look(!) he's still wearing that dark suit and tie. Yeah, I got the point the first dozen times you stopped the whole film to make this or a similar statement.

Here's my question. So what? If the anachronistic detective illuminated the modern age, sure, that would be a story worth telling. This instead is a very timid, lightweight film. It seems like a 'project'.

If you want to read a review that goes to heroic lengths to justify a mess, checkout Ebert's review, which illustrates why he rates crap movies like the Star Wars prequels so highly.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jackie Brown (1997)
6/10
A solid 'Meh...'
22 July 2010
Talk about a bloated film...

By my reckoning, if all of the scenes in Jackie Brown that consist entirely of the following were cut, the film would be one hour shorter:

A scene where someone is walking while allegedly cool 70's music plays in the background.

A scene where someone is driving while allegedly cool 70's music plays in the background.

A scene where someone is sitting while allegedly cool 70's music plays in the background.

Etc, etc, etc.

Aside from the film student style 'character studies', which largely consist of the above and make a person think that they too could make it big in Hollywood if this is what passes for a story, the movie is otherwise fairly blah... Simply put, not much actually happens.

Jackie starts as a hot chick with moxie and ends as a hot chick with moxie.

Bail Bondsman, Cherry starts as a guy smitten with Jackie and ends as a guy smitten with Jackie. (And oh, we know this because on meeting her for the first time, allegedly cool 70's music plays in the background as she walks towards him, and the audience wonders why a late-middle-aged white guy suddenly hears Motown - after all, the scene is shot from his perspective... or perhaps we're to believe Jackie just carries that soundtrack around with her...?)

Bad guy Ordell starts as a untrustable thug and ends as a untrustable thug.

Etc, etc, etc.

I'd wager that if this had been QT's first film, it would have been his only film.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed