Change Your Image
conan4742
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Uneven, but good
This movie probably had the hardest job of any Star Wars film ever: making the viewers care about the turning point of the series. From the beginning this film carried the deep and heavy burden of the stigmata of all the prequels: bad dialogue, bad acting, and unsympathetic characters and plot. Now it had to suddenly make the dramatic events meaningful for the audience, but would be hindered because it involved characters nobody really cared about. Dealing with this problem would be the biggest obstacle of the production.
The result is a mixed bag. Lucas uses CGI to a far greater effect in this movie - gone are the days of Star Wars cartoons masquerading as movies. If anything, the special effects are often used to maximize the effect of the characters. However, certain sequences drag on for too long - such as the opening scene where Anakin and Obi Wan attempt to board a droid ship, and the scene where Obi Wan confronts Greivous, the general of the droid army. But overall, the movie is not just a string of eye candy and pointless CGI.
However, this movie does suffer from the usual prequel problems. Many of the emotional scenes fall flat from clunky dialogue and half-hearted acting, particularly on the part of Christiansen, who often fails to achieve the level of tortured conscience and intimidation the role requires. There is something naturally blunt and inarticulate in his performance in both Sith and Clones that comes off as unconvincing. And Lucas still has no idea how to write a love scene. I often wonder what his romantic life must have been like, because the scenes are often unbearable forced. I found myself wondering just exactly do Padme and Anakin see in each other.
However, Lucas's dramatic skill shows through in the scenes where there is no dialogue or action - for example, when Anakin and Padme both stare out at the cityscape, wondering about their future, and the scene in which the Jedi are finally betrayed. Neither of these scenes really engage the actors or the action - they're simply the result of good direction. These are some of my favorite scenes from the film.
But what this movie really rides on is the nostalgia one gets from the old Star Wars movies. The references to episodes 4-6 occur one after the other towards the end of the movie, and the viewer gets a pang of bliss when they see the naming of Luke and Leia, or the twin suns of Tatooine, or when they hear Luke's theme rise in the music. Seeing the pieces fit together at the end really makes this movie fun to watch.
Overall, a fun and entertaining movie. Made me want to watch the old Star Wars movies all over again. 7/10
Sin City (2005)
Strikingly Visionary
Sin City is probably one of the more unforgettable films of the year. In this movie are images of dark cityscapes, haunting countrysides, and brooding characters that will stick with you for long hours after you see the movie. Colors and shadows leap to life from the screen. Some, like the glow of green eyes, are sultry and ethereal, whereas others, such as the jaundiced hue of the Yellow Bastard, are horrifically vivid. At any moment scenes become black and white silhouettes, becoming absolute works of art that burn themselves into your memory. The characters and scenes are more like dreams than anything else.
However, although the style is probably the vanguard of the picture, there is substance underneath it.
I'll begin by saying that this movie is not for everyone. It is intensely violent and the plots is classic pulp fiction and noir on steroids. If you are a viewer who does not care for such content, then, by all means, avoid this movie.
Sin City, both the movie and city itself, is ugly. It is gritty, vicious, sleazy and ruthless. It is a rotting, cancerous hellhole of a place, a city without redemption. Yet there are heroes in this story, and they do have depth to them. But because they are heroes in such a place, they, too, must stoop to brutal violence.
All of the characters are men whose empty and hounded lives are validated by the love of a women. Marv is played brilliantly by Mickey Rourke, who perhaps was born for the role. A sad, simple-minded, beast-like thug, Marv is embraced in the arms of a goddess-like woman and given what may be his first night of acceptance and love. The next morning he finds her murdered in bed next to him, and, refusing to let go of the brief reprieve she gave him, wages war on the underground of Sin City to find her killer and uncovers a lot of dirty secrets in the process.
Dwight (Clive Owen) is a mysterious stranger about whom the viewer knows almost nothing but his intense devotions to Gail and the Old Town Girls, a mob-like confederation of prostitutes who police their own territories. When the abusive, drunk, and misogynist Jackie-Boy cruises into Old Town looking to lick his ego's wounds by beating up the first girl he finds, Dwight is ready to kill and willing to die as a result of the consequences.
Bruce Willis plays what may be the most heart-breaking of all the stories. He plays Hartigan, the one good and noble cop in a city of vipers, and so the entire world is immediately against him. Hartigan is the only cop in Sin City willing to take down Junior, the insane son of a hellishly corrupt Senator who gets his sexual kicks by torturing, raping, and then murdering young girls. Hartigan, unable to bear the thought of skinny little Nacy Callahan, age 11, torn to ribbons at the hands of a perverse monster, hunts down Junior and risks everything he has. In trying to do the right thing, he loses all his friends and allies and is brutalized by Sin City, but never, ever gives up.
Many people will deride Sin City because of its stylized direction, graphic violence, and outlandish characters. However, if you have the patience to get enveloped in the world of Sin City and maybe suspend you disbelief for just a moment, you'll find a rare gem of a film. I'll admit it starts out weak, and perhaps a little unexpectedly. But the movie picks up soon and shows you dreams you never even thought could exist.
I racconti di Canterbury (1972)
possibly the worst literary rendition ever
When you consider exactly who would ever consider sitting down and making Canterbury tales into a movie (and this should be a small number- a lot of the tales are too subtle to be represented in any form other than text), you would usually think that the maker of the movie would be trying to stay faithful to the stories in themes, plot, and characterization.
It is in this regard that Pasolini fails utterly miserably.
The tellers of the tales are completely left out. You do not know who's telling a tale. There is little to no segue between tales. Often times, you do not even realize that the tale is over. So, for the first part, you do not know who is telling a tale, or when, or even if a tale is even going on.
The few segues that occur consist of a grimy Chaucer sitting around lazily eventually being prodded into work by his waspish wife. Why this is included baffles anyone who knows anything about Chaucer, or even anyone at all.
The dubbing on the movie makes low budget martial arts films look like great pillars of art. At times characters shout for minutes on end for no discernible reason. Other characters are entirely unintelligible.
The most appalling thing, though, is the inclusion of graphic, graphic sex. I am uncertain what Pasolini was trying to say with this. Why he felt Chaucer was the best source to draw on for such obscenity is beyond me. Indeed, there are sex scenes in the tales. However, Pasolini often goes far, far over the limit. Many male characters seem to do nothing but masturbate whenever they are on screen. There is one sequence that is no tale that I recall which involved a man peeking through holes in doors watching other men have gay anal sex. This I do no recall from any part of Chaucer. Later, one of the homosexuals is burned alive while the apparent protagonist sells bagles to the crowd. Another instance is that the Pardoner's tale begins in a tavern, but Pasolini felt compelled to begin it in a brothel where hideous men force the whores there to have sex with them. Later, one of the men urinates on a dining table while people are trying to eat, and, yes, it is very graphic. It is actual urine.
The movie ends (?) with a scene in one tale where the devil farts and wildly defecates feces that turn into demons for possibly five minutes, over-the-top cartoon noises included.
If you're into Pasolini, for whatever reason, I guess you might like this movie. I've never seen any of his other work. However, as a fan and scholar of the Tales, this probably is the worst thing you could have possible done it. Basically, this was low-quality porn with bad lighting and horrific sound effects with a vague medieval background, claiming to be one of the greatest works in the English language. Whoever later murdered Pasolini deserves a medal. No, wait, scratch that, a dozen medals.
Saw (2004)
Se7en without the depth
I'll start right out and say that "Saw" is a fairly decent movie, depending on how high your toleration of utter brutality and viciousness is. If it's high, then it'll be decent until the end when you're kicked in the face with one hell of a plot twist.
"Saw" is one hell of an abrasive movie. It seems as though the creators intended to relentlessly torture the audience along with the characters in the movie by way of some of the most cruel inventions a human mind has ever come up with. This, surprisingly, is the heart and soul of the movie. It's a series of plot devices and twists meant to stun and shock the audience, and it will do that quite well.
The problem is that it is ALL this movie does. It's another in the tradition of Se7en, a gruesome movie with the intention to shock and enlighten you. However, Se7en started with its tone and purpose and THEN went to the polt twists, whereas Saw starts with the plot twists, tries to go to the depth, but fails. The characters are unsympathetic and shallow and, even though the film implies this, they lack any real sins that deserve the punishment they receive. The killings are random and pointless. Whereas the killing in Se7en had a twisted depth and meaning to them, the ones in Saw are simply twisted. We wind up with a bad guy we're supposed to respect due to his brilliance, but instead we hate him and spend the entire movie either in agony waiting to know what happens or waiting to see if he gets his comeuppance. His reasoning for what he does winds up being ridiculous and fragmented. It's a shock, but that's all.
This, and the movie is tainted by the goth/metal/S&M underground cult fetish. Every scene is given bleary, dead light and they try to make every other shot trendy by saying, "Hey, why don't we speed up the film and give it a metal headbanging soundtrack?" It seriously gets annoying very quickly and makes the rest of the movie seem trivial.
The acting is all right. Nothing special. There are several times when the audience screams out "Just SHOOT the guy!" but they never do, of course. The trail of clues Adam and Lawrence go through from their confined positions is interesting but, stretched over time, makes the audience impatient. Also, the difference between the past and the present is not indicated very well.
But if you can sit through all of this, you'll get one of the greatest shocking movie endings of the year.
Batman (1989)
doesn't live up to memory
For whatever reason, as I child remember Batman being the greatest movie- nay, the greatest artistic CREATION in possibly the history of humanity. However, I watched it again recently, and not only does it fall well short of such high standards, but standards for a decent movie at all.
Tim Burton's vision of Batman is fragmented, disjointed, and uninteresting. The title character remains virtually unexplored and we have little to no sympathy for him at all, making him the worst possible candidate for any kind of real hero. His romance seems bleak and distant, and we seem him more through the dopey, frenetic eyes of the media than anything. When the purpose of his war on crime is finally explained, we don't care about it at all, because, in truth, Batman is simply a co-star in this movie.
Jack Nicholson dominates the screen. I don't say he dominates the screen as the Joker, because it seems to me that all he's doing is playing himself. I've heard people claim his character is Oscar worthy (this is garbage), but I think the real reason people liked him so much is that he's the first real goofy on-screen villain in modern superhero movie history, and no one can seem to get over that. He seems to be drawn more from the 1960's TV show than from the comics, and his over-the-top, borderline silly actions are unexplained and, again, we don't care about them. All of this culminates in an awkwardly placed attack on the Gotham Fair, in which Joker releases parade balloons filled with poison on Gotham's citizens while arythimcally shuffling about to Prince. The reason why he's doing this is again unexplained. We assume it's just because he's crazy, but since when has that ever been interesting?
Tim Burton has turned Batman into his usual grotesque, introverted, and outcast-oriented movie. Dark settings, perverse stock characters, etcetera.
We've seen it before. Chances are, we'll see it again.
I grew up with Batman. I was addicted to the cartoon, reserving every weekday at 4:30 to see what the Dark Knight would do next. I went back to watch this movie after I heard they were making Batman Begins. I was disappointed with this movie, and decided to look into the classic Batman comics myself.
As someone who has been freshly intoduced to the intricacies of Gotham, I can tell you that this movie is not Batman. It lacks the tortured, fierce, and borderline inhuman drive that makes this man do what he does, and instead turns him and his world into another cheap, superficial, and frankly boring product of the 1980's. I think this is why people still love Batman- because it's 80's nostalgia. But we love 80's stuff for the most part because it's materialistic garbage. If you watch I Love the 80's, you'll find they routinely skip over most things of artistic integrity. They don't talk about the great movies- they talk about Flashdance. They talk about Dirty Dancing. And that's the category Batman falls into. Right in there along with Flashdance and Patrick Swayze.
Frankenstein (2004)
definitely worth seeing
If you stick to Kubrick's idea that tone is more important than plot or theme, Frankenstein is a great movie. It indulges itself in decadence and decay and manages to produce things that are both beautiful and profoundly disturbing.
There may be a few spoilers here.
The story follows two cops (Parker Posey and Adam Goldberg) hunting down a serial killer in New Orleans who dissects the corpses of those he kills and takes out various organs. As seen here, New Orleans is a tottering pile of rotting buildings and knick knacks, and one can definitely feel that the movie has gotten its bent from Se7en, particularly the scene in the Sloth murder house. Of course, the murders turn out to be more than they seem, and they become linked to a certain Doctor Victor Helios, who is, of course, the famed Frankenstein, who has survived the last two centuries by methods unknown. Dr. Helios is being hunted by a "man" named Deucalion, whom, as it is revealed through several impressively nightmarish flashbacks, is the original Frankenstein monster.
This is an interesting take on the monster. Here, he's no half-witted rag-tag pile of body parts, but is instead enigmatic, brooding, and intelligent. One of the most interesting scenes is when he tries to show Posey the truth of his origins. Deucalion is onto Helios's trail because he has discovered that Helios has not stopped his experimentations at all- rather, he has been perfecting them, and has produced numerous successful creations. Part of the fun of the movie is trying to guess who's "of God" and who isn't.
This story is actually two stories, and this can be troubling. On the one hand we have a detective story, but on the other hand we have an exploration of character with Helios and his wife, who is also a creation. Helios's hunt for perfection is essentially tearing her apart, and her wish for death becomes more and more evident as time goes on. But the two plots have almost nothing to do with one another, except perhaps thematically, and oftentimes the Helios plot takes away from the tension with the murder hunt.
It seems to be going somewhere, like they might intersect somewhere, but never does.
All in all, this movie is more about impressions than anything. Some scenes and performances stand out. For instance, there is a "birth" scene that may just match the original birthing scene from the first Frankenstein movie. Here the creation is covered in some sort of white fluid and looks exactly like a marble statue. It is a profoundly inhuman and disturbing effect, and as it awkwardly comes to life you can't help but be creeped out. Another good part about this movie is the performance by the killer (whom I won't reveal here), who manages to be deranged and childish at the same time. There's no real resolution to the movie, so don't expect one. Personally, I wish that we could be given a little more backstory to what exactly Frankenstein and his monster have been doing for the past 200 years, but I suppose they couldn't work that out in 2 hours. Eventually it tries to become a study about humanity and what it means to be really human, but I feel that it's better just to sit back and enjoy the macabre vision in front of you. 7/10
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)
Hilarious low brow movie- Steve Carell steals the show
Anchorman seems a lot like a bunch of sketch comedies thrown together, which makes sense because it's written by SNL alumni. As long as you're willing to forget this things are great. Will Ferrell and Stever Carell make the movie. Much of what they do is improv (as you see from the unchosen clips shown at the end of the movie), and they pull it off flawlessly. In fact, the parts that are clearly improv (the prank calls and the insults) are funnier than the rest of the movie. This movie is also full of great cameos, such as Jack Black (in a few seconds of footage dog lovers won't forget), Luke Wilson, Vince Vaughan, Ben Stiller, and, believe it or not, Tim Robbins. I highly reccommend this one.
King Arthur (2004)
Bad even if you don't know the story
If you know the story of King Arthur, you'll know that it's the quintessential medieval tragedy. If you know this and see this movie, it'll irk you constantly.
If you even know British history, this movie will irk you constantly.
And even if you don't know either of these things, the movie is still bad work altogether. My friend had no knowledge of either of these things and he suggested leaving faster than I did. Neither of us left, and we both regret the minutes of our lives we'll never get back.
The story begins with the film makers claiming that this movie is based on the true story of King Arthur and recent archaeological findings about him. It then launches into the backstory of how Lancelot, the knight everyone knows was totally fabricated, came to Britain from Samarita (?) after the Romans forced the skilled horsemen and their sons to become knights for the Roman legion. This then awkwardly cuts to Arthur and his knights saving a Roman bishop from the Woad, which are apparently Celts of some sort but the film makers apparently felt that naming them after their warpaint was a pretty sweet idea. Delivering the bishop safely is their release from their indentured servitude, but, hey, who wants a fifteen minute movie? So they have to do one more thing and then they can go home.
The knights themselves and Arthur, who should be the focal point of the story, are instead paper thin and uninteresting. They are essentially stock characters, and their determination to going to their distant home seriously violates the historical background many of them have in real life, such as Tristram, who here is delegated the role of the lovable, hawking dunce. The story then bumbles into some sort of sudden invasion of Saxons from the north, raping and killing. Stellan Skarsgård here has a fairly interesting role as the Saxon leader, although he does seem to have something like a Southern accent, which is pretty odd. Arthur rescues Guinevere, a Woad prisoner, from a stock character Roman ruler who is doing the work of God, and then they fall in love without any hesitation. Many things in the story, such as Excalibur, are trivialized and seem almost out of place in the scenes in which they're put.
In the end the point of the movie seems to be... well, it doesn't seem to have one. It's visually impressive, to some degree (certain effects are quite poor), but it's clumsily put together. The acting is poor in many places and if you know anything about King Arthur, you know that it's supposed to be a tragedy. I'd like to list all the historical and thematic problems with the story, but that would just be a waste of everyone's time. Just don't go see it. Go see Spiderman 2 again.
Troy (2004)
forgettable
I wouldn't expect much more from a summer movie. Troy starts out at a stumble, with bad dialect and clunky acting as it tries to move towards the battle scenes. In the first forty-five minutes, everyone seems to be in an off-day as far as acting goes. Sean Bean alone seems to know what he's doing, but perhaps that's because he had relatively short screen time at the start.
Things did get better as the movie went on, although it suffered from some odd directing choices (such as the slow zoom in on Priam as he sits on his throne; this shot ruined the intense feeling and came off as laughable) and a thoroughly bad soundtrack that sounds like it was done on a keyboard. Brad Pitt does alright as the edited Achilles, who is more redeemable to modern audiences than his childish and prideful predecessor (although his line about immortality upon landing on the beaches was difficult to swallow); Orlando Bloom doesn't have to do much more than stand around looking pretty and worried; Eric Bana is by far the most honorable and sympathetic of anyone in the movie, and he pulls it off admirably; Peter O'Toole does well even though he gets his fair share of bad lines; and Brian Cox does some serious scenery chewing here. He's more of a Disney villain than anything. But still there would be some difficult dialect that would make the audience either smirk or cringe.
Overall, the action scenes were the best part of the movie, especially the huge throwdown between Achilles and Hector, which was intense and well done.
I don't agree much with how they've mishandled the story, however, and tried to base it on the historical version of Troy (which no one knows). The removal of the gods I can understand, actually, since the characters themselves are interesting enough, but it's the misuse of the characters that gets to me. Numerous people, such as Ajax, Menelaus, Paris, and Priam either don't die when they should, or die when they shouldn't, and all for the wrong reasons. Achilles comes off as too sympathetic for my liking; even though he is supposed to be the image of valor and nobility, these traits don't overcome his childish, impetuous pride, which results in the deaths of thousands of troops.
But since this is just a mediocre movie, I'm alright with it. By next summer, no one will remember much about it, or care to. The characters will live on, as the movie predicts, but the movie itself will not.
Futurama (1999)
Clever from the start
Futurama is a show that hit the ground running. It's one of the most clever satires on TV, exaggerating the eccentricities of the present in the backdrop of the future. It also enjoys a very boldly outlined ensemble of characters: there's the slob-like, every-day man ignorant Fry; the alcoholic, whore-mongering, chainsmoking, and lovably evil robot Bender; the blunt, masculine, and pragmatic Leela; and the downtrodden, horrible inept and disgusting Zoidburg. It's also got some of the best writing on TV, from which is drawn such lines as:
Fry: Amy's getting way too serious on me! I come to work, there's Amy! I spend a few hours picking candy out of the candy machine, there's Amy! I wake up after sleeping with Amy, there's Amy! I'm not a one woman man, Leela!
Leela: (sighs) You'll be back to zero in no time.
It's a shame they took it off the air. Thank God for Adult Swim.