Change Your Image
ModKuraika
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Secret of NIMH (1982)
Mystifying
The Secret of NIMH was a pleasant surprise for me. Don Bluth is neither here or there in my eyes. He's made good films, such as this one and The Land Before Time, but has also made some terrible ones, (e.g. The Pebble and the Penguin, A Troll in Central Park) but luckily his first film seems to be his best. The Secret of NIMH is an adaptation of the children's book "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH" and follows the mouse Mrs. Brisby (named changed in the adaptation to avoid copyright dispute with Frisbee, the flying disc) visiting Mr. Ages about the subject of her youngest son Timothy's sickness, which Mr. Ages deduces as pneumonia. A simple scene, before the title had appeared we had seen what we are to assume is a mice or rat of some sort with magical abilities, shown as he writes entries into a book, and thinking aloud before looking into an amulet. This scene did well to draw me in, with its design, its great lighting, and the character's very distinct voice acting in the span of just a short prologue.
The plot starts simple, but builds in a linear motion, at no time will you question what is going on or be left in the dark. The conflict plays a huge part in the adventure, we are not given a premise and then put through a series of random, unneeded events (e.g. Spirited Away). Mrs. Brisby is a little sensitive but overall a strong-willed heroine, in my opinion its something films tend to lack today, I would prefer more female protagonists like this.
The film has its darker moments, but stays true to a balance, a middle-ground that All Dogs Go To Heaven lacked. Characters such as The Great Owl and Nicodemus add a weight in terms of how serious the film takes itself, and how this is much more than your run-of-the-mill children's entertainment. The adaptation adds an element of mystic to the story and certain plot points which the original book never had, but it works well in execution, it doesn't overstep its boundaries and retains a sense of mystery and wonder.
The Secret of NIMH looks good, feels right, and treats itself as an epic tale, executing a perfect balance on everything in the film except on three minor points.
1. Jeremy's character felt too forced for comic relief, and his character becomes useless after helping Mrs. Brisby to The Great Owl's lair and the Rosebush.
2. Jenner was a wasted opportunity for far more character development, and it would have been more interesting to see the consequences of him actually obtaining the stone.
3. The ending feels rushed, like it tries its best to tie every loose end and have Mrs. Brisby explain the fate of the rats and Timmy's health to finish off the movie in a certain frame of time.
However, aside from its flaws, The Secret of NIMH is one of a kind, but because of them, it fails from reaching perfection, and just misses.
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Psychologically thrilling until you've fallen from your chair.
The Silence of the Lambs is a film directed by Jonathan Demme, adapted from the Thomas Harris novel of the same name. It currently stands (at the time of this review) as my favorite film of all time.
The plot follows FBI agent in-training Clarice Starling, who is called in by Jack Crawford to get some inside collective information on the mind of a murderer by imprisoned, former psychiatrist Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. Starling uses Hannibal's intellect to help track down the serial killer dubbed "Buffalo Bill".
Starling is ambitious and keen, albeit somewhat naive. Lecter (my favorite film villain of all time) is intellectual, courteous, and classy. The more he and Starling interact, the more he learns about her, and affects her mind, all the while helping her figure out the identity of Buffalo Bill.
Howard Shore delivers a chilling score that blends quite nicely with the theme and tone of the performances and pacing, similar to his great score in The Fly (1986).
The film offers a brutally realistic aspect of the mindset of particular murderers. It's frightening, and Anthony Hopkins and Ted Lavine's performances in particular add a huge weight to the presentation.
My favorite scene in the film is when Starling tells Lecter the story about the ranch and her lamb, explaining the title of the movie. As the scene progresses, the camera switches back and forth between the two, getting closer to Lecter's grim complexion every time it switched back to him. The scene represents Lecter's slow but deep integration into Starling's mind as he reads her further as she continues to talk.
The climax is exciting and throws you for a complete loop. At the end of it all you just feel almost out of breath with widened eyes, no explosion required. Lecter can be antagonizing when he wants to be, vague, teasing, and observational. He does so much with such a limited amount of space, and is like a ghost when he escapes his confinement at last.
The Silence of the Lambs is a character study, and a great one at that.
Star Wars (1977)
"You must learn the ways of the Force."
Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope was a landmark in the realm of sci-fi fantasy, special effects, and cinematic quality. I will not deny that I am a loving fan of the Original Trilogy. However, this film seems to be put on too big a pedestal, and people tend to ignore the pacing and sometimes rushed tone to it all. A good example of reference is Family Guy's Blue Harvest, a feature length special in which Family Guy spoofs the entirety of Episode IV. Haven't you ever noticed the truth in some of its particular jokes?
"You don't believe in the Force, do you?" - Chris Griffin/Luke Skywalker
"Oh you mean that thing you just found out about like three hours ago and are now judging me for not believing in it?" - Peter Griffin/Han Solo
Huh. He has a point. I understand that Star Wars is space opera, and some grounds are allowed for a more exciting pacing and a little over- the-top dialogue, but in recent years its begun to stick out to me. Obi- Wan Kenobi in the Original Trilogy to me was memorable, but not very integrated as well as he could have been. His and Luke's relationship is only geared towards vaguely knowing one another and Luke's aunt and uncle's deaths convinces him to tag along with this questionable man.
This allows for Obi-Wan to introduce Luke to a new world he would have never been able to see for himself before. Though it seems a bit unrealistic when you think about it, but this IS space opera, so arguing realism is pointless anyway. The point I'm making is that I know too little about Obi-Wan and he has such little an impact on me as a character that his "death" at the hands of Darth Vader leaves me shrugging.
Anyone who knows me in terms of my taste in film and literature, knows I am a fan of dystopian fiction is presented correctly. For all the backlash the Prequel Trilogy receives I quite enjoy the dark elements in Revenge of the Sith.
The special effects are state of the art, but that's mostly what people refer to in terms of film quality. Star Wars in and of itself is a living homage to films of the past, regarding different times and genres in the same way that Indiana Jones was influenced by the B-movies and action serials of the black and white days. Cinemassacre's review of the franchise explains it in greater detail.
The score by John Williams is fantastic. I don't know one person (fan or not) who wouldn't recognize certain scores from the film, such as the track played when Luke is staring at the twin suns. The universe is vast and interesting, and the tone works (although a little too fast at times). Star Wars is a great example of cinema, but greatest film of all time? Eh... not really. Especially compared to Empire Strikes Back.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A questionable drama of tediousness and hibernation.
I am a bit late at checking out this film. I had been interested in Stanley Kubrick's works after The Shining and A Clockwork Orange. I find myself wondering what the plot is meant to be in 2001: A Space Odyssey. For the majority of this film I was bored. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Roland Emmerich fanatic.
Nevertheless, this film suffers from what I feel is an overabundance of visual medium. Stanley Kubrick was an artist, and brought a style to his film-making I quite enjoyed in the films mentioned beforehand. Say what you want about Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but it has a focus, it knew exactly what it wanted to be. With this film, I stand confused at it's conclusion.
A story of evolution intrigued me, the introduction tickled my fancy. The monolith of course had me confused, as intended by Kubrick, and I can see the impact such a mysterious object could be towards the film. Though, there is no speculation upon what the monolith is by what could be called the protagonists, and no real pay off for what you are initially curious about, and yet only see three times in the film.
The film's most interesting aspect were the scenes with HAL 9000 progressively malfunctioning, losing it's "mind" and turning against the obsolete beings in it's sense of superiority. So then you may believe that the film is meant to be of the horror genre. Then that's dismissed when HAL is put out of commission and Bowman is swallowed by a separate monolith which takes him through an initially interesting and spectacular but easily tiring phenomena. He finds himself aging in different points of view, and ends up old man on his death bed, before the monolith appears once again, turning him into a fetus-like form encased in a orb of light, looking over Earth. Alright, I get the symbolism, but what's the point?
I just feel that the film would have worked more as a slow building thriller, with HAL 9000 as the main antagonist. Instead we have this overbearing, ideological dribble. After about the 5th time I saw a work of machinery take much longer than need be to function, seemingly only to drag out every tiring scene just a little more aggravatingly longer.
In conclusion, wasted potential. A form of art that grows stale in overabundance. If any praise is to be given, it is to the special effects, which I will give credit where credit is due. The special effects are definitely ahead of their time. Other than that, well...nothing, really.
Tron: Legacy (2010)
Superior to the original in more ways than one.
Now let's get one thing out of the way. I quite like the original Tron, I just personally think this sequel is better. I'm a big fan of dystopia, and I loved the look of Tron: Legacy with it's darker tone, look, and style in comparison with the original which had a bleak feel as well, but had some cheer to it. Tron was so well-crafted at such a low budget that its nice to see a sequel (NOT a remake) made with a much higher budget and opportunities to shine.
It was great seeing Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner reprise their respective roles as Kevin Flynn/Clu and Alan Bradley/Tron. It was a great idea to keep Steven Lisberger around as Producer, and the little references to the first film make it feel whole.
It's really the style of this film that's state of the art but overall I felt the story was solid as well, and had more of a focus and intention, whereas the first film was kinda here and there at times. Daft Punk was definitely the right decision for music in a unique situation like this.
The characters work a lot more, in Tron I really couldn't tell who was meant to be the main protagonist, Flynn or Tron (the title itself adds more confusion). Clu and was definitely a more developed and more interesting villain then the MCP or Sark, and makes you feel almost sympathetic. The costume and prop design are updated for our time, the CG used for the Grid is no Pandora, but works perfectly for what it needs to be.
In conclusion, the story is solid (at least in my opinion), the special effects are state of the art, the characters are fine, the acting works, and the philosophy behind the plot really intrigued me. It didn't feel like a popcorn flick. I'd watch this movie any day, as a great sequel, and a solid film. After all, it's Tron, it's not trying to be Cyberten Kane.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Underrated. Such a pity.
Beautiful. The greatest of the traditionally animated Disney films in my opinion. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is the boldest Disney has ever gotten. This film gets dark, and touches upon some very serious themes a children's film, Rated G at that. Prejudice, manipulation, lust, religion, damnation, corruption, ignorance, but also faith, determination, strength of heart and acceptance. ...Damn.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is of course an adaptation of the novel of the same name (in the US, in France known as Notre-Dame de Paris ["Our Lady of Paris"]). What's surprising about this film is how such an adult novel was re-imagined for a mass audience, particularly geared towards children. It does it's work flawlessly. For one, to agree with the late Gene Siskel, introducing Quasimodo to said audience and softening his features so he is clearly disfigured but not frightening must has been a tough task for the artists. The end result is admirable.
Second, following the source material albeit censoring it for younger viewers yes, but also keeping it solid and enjoyable to adults as well. Children will sympathize with Quasimodo's abuse and will root for him to be accepted by society just as they have while watching.
Thirdly and fourthly, making Notre Dame as believable as the stunning architecture is in actuality as well as not having songs in the film just for the sake of having them (e.g. The Princess and the Frog). Hellfire and God Help The Outcasts are both nothing less than spectacular. The details on the church are fantastic, and the songs touch upon the themes mentioned before, and only strengthen the conflict and drama, particularly the dark soliloquy by Claude Frollo (the main antagonist), Hellfire. This gives Frollo a great depth to his presentation, written well, and voiced by the late and wonderful Tony Jay.
Finally, having a great cast that leave their marks on each of their individual roles, not to mention having an absolutely memorable and triumphant score that adds to the already heavy weight that even Atlas would struggle with.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame has great characters, an intimidating and frightfully realistic villain and themes to add to it. The story is dark, but still throws something playful at you to keep it from feeling dismal, and keep its key demographic interested.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a representation of the struggle and controversy between religion and the hypocritical interpretation of good an evil in an execution enjoyable to adults and children alike even if they do not understand the entire spectacle. Others say Spirited Away, I say The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a masterpiece.
Halloween (1978)
A true testament to the genre.
Halloween is quite simply, a masterpiece in the realm of horror, right up there with Psycho. As Siskel and Ebert said years ago, Halloween doesn't hate women, and it loves filmmaking.
Halloween starts off with a young boy named Michael Myers who murders his older sister and is sent to a mental institution. When he is an adult, he escapes, much to the extreme dismay of Dr. Samuel Loomis, his doctor, who believes Michael to be pure evil. Michael returns to Haddonfield, Illinois, his former residence, and stalks Laurie Strode on Halloween.
First off, the greatest trait this film has to offer is total suspense and angst. Instead of turning it into a bloodbath (most horror films nowadays), we see Michael follow Laurie and frighten her more prominently over time, it puts us in the protagonist's shoes. We think something will happen, but it doesn't. One of my favorite scenes in the film is when a kid is running and is immediately halted by Michael, scaring the kid off, the music cues at precisely the right moment. As the movie progresses, Laurie's friends are slaughtered silently and discretely, more creative and chilling than just "stab, stab, cut, blood, blood". When the final confrontation ensues, every time you think Myers is down, he's up and at you again. The ending will have you on the edge of your seat.
The film is well-made at a low budget, the music is frightful, the acting is top-notch. Halloween is horror movie magic. You will believe in the Boogeyman. And I don't mean the terrible 1980 film, either.
The Boogey Man (1980)
Excruciating
Dismal tone, terrible effects (for that time), cheesy acting. One of the worst films I have ever witnessed and never wish to view again. Seems like the film was made on a pocket change budget, I will give the director credit for trying, but this is a gigantic failure of epic proportions. Not scary, nor intimidating, nor intriguing, nor artistic in any sense of the terms. I urge everyone to steer clear away from this garbage. I wanted to stop the film as soon as I saw the stabbing (which looked like he was stabbing a pillow) scene but my tenacity to always watch from start to finish overcame me. I regret doing so.
The movie depicts a little girl cutting her brother free from his binds after their mother's lover tied him up. The boy then murders the man in front of a mirror, and the mirror is haunted by the man he killed. Loving this so far, eh? Over time a shard of the mirror causes weird phenomenon among those it is closest around, ending with their impossible and cheesy demises. In the end, they run it under a faucet after a priest has blessed it, turning it into holy water, and apparently ridding the curse from the shard or some other such nonsense.
But wait... Earlier in the film, a boy had stepped on an alternative piece of the mirror and it got stuck on his shoe, and at the end of the film, it lets up. As they walk away into the bleak conclusion, the other piece unconvincingly glows red. Dun dun dun, I guess.
This movie is terrible, I hated everything about it, the premise, the acting, the effects, the ending, everything. It saves itself from a 1/10 only because... while it is dreadful, it is original.
Disaster Movie (2008)
I'd rather read Stephanie Meyer.
If anyone on this planet found this movie funny, may Chuck Norris have mercy on thy soul. One of the worst movies I have seen in my life, I never wish to view it again. I'll give it credit though, the film is certainly what it claims to be in the title.
Initially from the title, I thought the movie would parody movies like Godzilla, or The Day After Tomorrow, Twister, etc. Instead it was a dismal, dull, unfunny, shameful excuse for a form of entertainment. It's like they found every single pop culture reference they could get their hands on that year and just blended it together into a feature-length slew of terribly pointless "jokes".
I could name a list of things I'd rather do than watch this movie but you'd be here all day reading it.
Dragonball Evolution (2009)
Even worse than anticipated?
Dragonball Evolution... Where do I begin? First off, I am a huge Dragon Ball fan, I own all the episodes for the original series, Z, and GT, seen them in both English and Japanese, viewed every movie, special, and OVA. Now that I've probably diminished my online reputation by that statement, let's talk about this terrible film.
First off, when I heard that a film adaptation of my favorite anime/manga was going to be live-action, I had low expectations, the only way DB (especially Z) could be pulled off is a completely CG feature. And then... came the casting, much more displeased. Nothing more Dragon Ball-esquire than Goku going to high school, eh? Of course we do have the optimists, actually believing in some way that this film could be good. And then, the trailer. Oh, that trailer. When Ki looks like airbending, we have a problem. Seven mystics created the Dragonballs, eh? Oh, not the Nameks? Alright. Bulma using dual guns, with only one blue bang. Tomb Raider joke, anyone? Capsules now use Cybertronian technology apparently, and of course, the most epic line Goku could say, something we absolutely know Son Goku himself would say, "I'm not ready for this".
Then came the movie, which astounded me. I had such low expectations for the film, it really surprised me when the film was worse than I had initially expected it would be. If not succeeding as an adaptation, I thought it would have at least served as a mindless action flick, and even at that it fails. The acting is horrid, the script is flimsy, the screenplay is corny, the effects look 8-10 years old, the music is easily forgettable, and the climax is so short and unsatisfying that you might need to watch Street Fighter and Super Mario Bros. to get the bad taste out of your mouth. I had hoped for little things, like the Kamehameha being at least somewhat cool, fail. Piccolo being interesting to watch, fail. Well, they probably at least make the Oozaru and Shenron look epic! ...Oh. Are you serious? Hulk is bigger than the Oozaru! Shenron is... speechless... and brown... and small... and with rejuvenating red breath... Big Red product placement, maybe? But the worst part of the film was Yamcha, no contest. What is he doing there? Where's Krillin, for one? And I cannot believe the film hints at a sequel, oh its there, people. Dragonball 2: Reborn. Excited? Exhilirated? I'm looking forward to having my childhood sodomized with a rusty spear. I hope other Dragon Ball fans out there are too.
Watchmen (2009)
Superb.
First off, during my first viewing of Watchmen, I hadn't read the graphic novel beforehand. A big mistake on my part, but I thought the film was great anyway. I watched it twice more and my opinion hadn't changed, even after both the mix of overwhelmingly positive feedback and the negative backlash. I know a lot of people complaining about how "boring" the movie was, and how much they couldn't get the infamous blue penis out of their mind. Their opinions didn't phase me, they had no appreciation for true cinema. I mean, these are the same brainless automatons that gave praise to X-Men Origins: Wolverine and 2012. One day, whilst spending time with my girlfriend at the mall, I stopped at Borders to check out some novels, comics, and manga. There I saw it, amusingly enough, adjacent to V for Vandetta (another comic that had a film adaptation I really enjoyed). I bought the graphic novel and was amazed how thoroughly the movie adapted the comic (for the most part).
The casting is extraordinary, its like the characters stepped out from the comic, into live-action. Major kudos goes to Billy Crudup's performance as Dr. Manhattan (of course named after The Manhattan Project which gave birth to the A-BOMB), and Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. Silk Spectre II could honestly be played by numerous actresses, she isn't very deep, I was glad that she was a little more cheerful for the film, whereas in the comic all she did was complain. Patrick Wilson was great as Nite Owl II, not much to say besides that, and Matthew Goode gave a surprisingly solid performance as Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) despite his (lack of) physique.
Of course the movie had to take out certain elements, but to be honest, some of those elements weren't necessary for the film (i.e. The Tales of the Black Freighter, the "alien"). The only major disappointment to me was the exclusion of Hollis Mason's murder by the Knot-Tops. I also wish Veidt had more screen time than he did. Though I understand why certain things were cut to meet demand. But wait! There was a solution to that issue anyway, after I read the graphic novel, I bought The Ultimate Cut on DVD. I was astonished by all the things they included that were missing the first time around. I mean, the original cut was about 2 hours, 42 minutes. The Ultimate Cut however, is about 3 hours, 35 minutes. The Tales of the Black Freighter subplot, the Knot-Tops, Hollis Mason's end, and overall a lot of extended scenes helped the overall impact, and The Ultimate Cut is the true film in my opinion. Watchmen is the "Citizen Kane" of comic book films, in competition with The Dark Knight and V for Vandetta before it. This is also competing with my choice for favorite movie of all time.