ebhp1 Reviews

Junebug (2005)

Over-hyped...

[6/10 · 1 January 2006]

The bad: The pacing in this film is ridiculously slow and the tension is non-existent. The plot is minimal at best, so be prepared for serious character introspective...about characters who aren't all that interesting to begin with. Each scene of a movie should propel the story toward the climax and force the characters to overcome obstacles and grow in their own arc. With rare exception, we see none of that in JUNEBUG.

The good: Amy Adams' performance as the nutcase pregnant sister.

This is the kind of art-house film that earns rave reviews by people who proclaim themselves to be smarter than everyone else. The reality is that it suffers on too many levels to qualify as a good movie let alone great.

Very disappointed.

ebhp

The Ringer (2005)

Terrible...not funny....and boring.

[3/10 · 21 December 2005]

Don't waste your time with this ridiculous farce of a movie. I'm a huge fan of "stupid" comedies without much purpose (Anchorman, Wedding Crashers, Kingpin, 40 Year Old Virgin, etc.), but this film is seriously one of the worst movies I've seen in ten years. Even worse, it's not funny. I think I counted 3 laughs for the entire movie.

Knoxville is a god when it comes to Jackass and I've enjoyed him in quite a few other small roles, but watching him play the lead as a "retard" is painful.

It's funny to read about all of the controversy between this movie and South Park, based on the allegation that Trey Parker and Matt Stone stole the idea for one of their episodes based on this movie. The writer of THE RINGER would have greatly benefited from watching the South Park episode before writing his script to learn how to make it funny. South Park was hysterical, THE RINGER was a waste of my time.

Enter at your own risk....

EBHP

One Bright Shining Moment (2005)

Mandatory viewing for every American

[10/10 · 19 November 2005]

Whether or not you agree with the political views of George McGovern or those espoused by the talented director of this film, Stephen Vittoria, this film should be mandatory viewing for all Americans. The old saying is true - in order to know our future we must know our past. This film shines a bright light on the life of George McGovern and his failed attempt to win the 1972 Presidential election.

Not necessarily a household name for today's generation, McGovern represented the idealism of American politics and it's fair to say we haven't seen anyone like him since.

McGovern's victory in the Democratic primary was nothing short of astonishing. A Senator from South Dakota running against 16 other candidates for the Democtratic nomination, he amazingly won and set off to battle against Nixon in the Presidential election. After a series of unfortunate events (the shooting of George Wallace) and self-described campaign errors, Nixon won in a landslide.

The film uses archival footage, interviews with political historians, influential political activities from the time period (e.g. Dick Gregory, Gloria Steinam, Warren Beatty, Gary Hart) and candid interviews with Senator McGovern. Blended with an excellent musical score, the film is not to be taken lightly.

With obvious parallels between Nixon and today's Bush Administration, it's hard not to get wrapped up in the idealism of "what if?", had McGovern won the election.

Senator McGovern is a spry 83 years old at the time of this review, with an intellect as sharp as ever. On the sad day when he passes, this film will serve as a tribute to his idealism and accomplishments during one of the blackest hours of American history.

Here's hoping the film will indeed be used as a teaching tool in high schools and colleges around the country.

ebhp

The Terminal (2004)

Simply terrible - how does this have a 7 out of 10 rating??!!

[3/10 · 13 March 2005]

There are too many faults to list here that would help justify my belief that this film is simply terrible, but if you're interested, just check out the various message boards which list them. Be careful, it's a big list.

The implausible plot turns in this movie would be expected if they were made by rank amateurs, but the writers/director/producers/stars of this film are simply too good for this. Spielberg directed this film? I find it hard to believe. I'm thinking it must be another person with the same name who conned the studio into letting him direct Tom Hanks.

The high rating on IMDb is no doubt due to two facts: 1) Any film with Hanks/Spielberg, regardless of the movie itself, will start at a 6 out of 10 and work it's way up from there. I personally admire both of these men and part of me feels the same way, but I couldn't step over the countless holes in this movie.

2) People who love this film are so desperate for an escape from their otherwise dreary lives that they will buy into every irrational plot development that unfolds. Hottie flight attendant (Catherine Zeta-Douglas) falling for a bumbling immigrant? Sure...it's so romantic! What a waste of time....

ebhp

Garden State (2004)

Great film, worthy of its high ranking.

[9/10 · 6 November 2004]

It's interesting when a film receives critical praise and adulation from the masses (thus propelling it into the top rankings on IMDb) and yet so many focus their efforts to argue the point. Is it good or is it bad?

This is naturally a subjective art, but in a year where supposed great quirky films such as I HEART HUCKABEES serve only to disappoint, a film like GARDEN STATE really blew me away. This should garner an Oscar for best original screenplay simply because of the originality of the story and the excellent dialogue. It reminded me of a young-person's version of SIDEWAYS, which is a huge compliment. The fact that I'm in my mid-30's should tell you, however, that you don't have to be young to enjoy it.

Each character was perfect (especially Natalie Portman and Peter Saarsgard) but I would agree the mannerisms and voice of Zach Braff reminded me of a strange cross between Ray Romano and Mark Ruffalo. That didn't take away from his performance, but it just made it a little strange.

Perhaps the greatest strength of this film is the humor and how it is conveyed to the audience. Rather than setting up obvious pratfalls and quickly cutting away to reinforce the joke, this movie isn't afraid to pause and linger on the funny elements. It worked incredibly well and at this point of 2004 I'd have to rate it the funniest film I've seen all year.

For those who haven't seen this, I highly recommend that you check it out.

9/10

ebhp

Stander (2003)

Really wanted to love this...only liked it.

[6/10 · 5 September 2004]

The biggest fault of this movie, surprisingly, is the slow pacing. I expected this to be a non-stop action/suspense film with twists and turns at every corner. What I experienced was instead a slowly paced, insightful drama about a man torn between what he was raised to do (uphold the law) and what he was inspired to do - stand up for the small man and fight the system.

I could have dealt with this change in reality and really grasped the vision of the writer and director, had it been done in 20-30 minutes less time. This is not to say I have a limited attention span or that I don't like to think while I watch films - on the contrary, I love the challenge. I suppose some of the limitations were based on this being a true story, in which case I applaud them for sticking to the truth. But, they could have cut the fluff and gotten to the meat of what really happened and I would have been greatly entertained.

Instead, I was constantly checking the time and wondering when it would be over.

Performances were stellar, especially Thomas Jane.

One fault of this film for Americans is the thick accent used throughout. It really made it difficult to understand what they were saying, so for those out there who are interested in seeing this, I suggest you wait for the DVD and watch it with subtitles on.

Overall, a good film, but I was really hoping it would be great.

6/10 rating.

ebhp

Van Helsing (2004)

Simply, amazingly...terrible.

[5/10 · 27 August 2004]

I really, really wanted to like this film. I love Stephen Sommers' earlier work and the relative simplicity of complicated films. He brings a fun, energetic approach as evidenced by the Mummy movies. That was a formula that really worked with good performances by all involved, with comedy and suspense at the right moments.

Van Helsing was unfortunately a big, cheesy bore with painful one-line dialogue born from the Schwarzenegger school of screenwriting. I gave it a 5/10 rating, but it only gets the 5 stars because of the amazing effects and cool creatures that have never been done before on film. Bravo to the visual effects team, but that's about it.

SPOILERS AHEAD

There were several plot holes in the film that I won't go into...plus the "rules" of the world created in the film were violated on several occasions. Example - in the very end Frankenstein is chained to the roof and one more lightning strike will set off the tragic chain of events. All that's preventing him from getting off the lightning rod is one chain-link around his ankle. But, he can't break the chain, despite being incredibly strong (as proven earlier in the film). Yes, this is perhaps a stupid example for those die-hard VH vans, but it violates Screenwriting 101. Set your rules and then live by them, otherwise the logic fails and the viewer doesn't believe in the tale.

Would I recommend seeing the film if you're looking for a visually entertaining movie with the surround-sound cranked up at home and you really like "tent pole" action films? Absolutely. Just don't set your hopes up for greatness and you should have a moderately enjoyable 2 hours. If, however, you don't cringe at a dozen or so ridiculous moments and wonder why the film took that path or the actor spoke those sophomoric words...I'll either be really surprised or I'll glady wish you a happy 13th birthday.

ebhp

Blade Runner (1982)

Overrated...

[5/10 · 7 August 2004]

Sorry, but this film is way overrated. Top 100 of all-time? I don't think so. Here's why:

SPOILERS AHEAD

1) Incredibly slow pacing...for an action/adventure type film, there is just way too much down time. I can only take so many minutes of watching a man (Deckard, played by Harrison Ford) drink himself into oblivion while staring at photographs. 2) Special effects that really date themselves (the original Star Wars came out several years before this and looks much better in today's light than this film). 3) I didn't fear the Replicants. I actually felt more sympathy for them than for alcoholic Deckard. 4) Poor set up with Deckard being convinced to come back to kill 4 of the replicants. Rather than a clear motivation, we're left to trust that Ford has no choice...simply because if he's not a cop he's a small (i.e. regular) person. Who cares! 5) I can't tell if the dialogue was really poor, or if the acting (especially Ford's) was sub-par. I think it might be both. 6) If the Replicants are due to expire any day now (since they have a 4-year lifespan), then why not sit back and just wait for them to die? The climatic scene with Deckard battling Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer), ends up with Batty actually saving Deckard from death. Batty then sits down and expires. THE END! That sound you just heard was all of the tension/suspense deflating from the balloon, rather than exploding with a loud pop! Lame. 7) As for all of the ridiculous suggestions that Deckard is in fact a replicant, why is it then that he gets tossed around like a rag doll whenever he's battling a replicant? Doesn't make sense, although this would have been a great twist to the movie if the Writer/Director had intended it rather than leaving it to the rabid fans to come up with the idea.

Sorry to be a wet blanket on what is considered by way too many people to be one of the best films ever made...but this film has far too many holes in it and slow pacing to qualify as a good film, let alone one of the best ever made. I give this a 5/10, but it only gets those 5 points because the film was definitely ahead of its time back in 1982. It was just poorly executed. I'd love to see a re-make of this with today's technology, but with a new script.

ebhp

I, Robot (2004)

Very good film...better than expected

[8/10 · 28 July 2004]

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It kept me guessing, entertained me with some amazing stunts/special effects, and had several twists along the way to keep it interesting up until the very end.

Was it perfect? No. But for a summer blockbuster with Will Smith, it was pretty darn close.

I could have done without the typical "renegade" cop who rebels from his stern police captain...oi vey this has been done so many times we almost don't notice it...but other than that no major complaints.

If you don't want to spend the $10 to see it in the theater, wait for the DVD and crank up the home theater system. You won't be disappointed.

ebhp

8/10

Spartan (2004)

This film is a joke...

[2/10 · 26 June 2004]

Okay, Mamet is a god and I'm not worthy to critique his work. But, that's the beauty of art. Everyone gets to offer their opinion.

If you like logical films with realistic dialogue, this film is not for you.

There are so many ridiculous set-ups in this film it was hard to watch through to the end. The dialogue was painful...truly painful. This coming from a man who wrote GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, one of the all-time best dialogue films ever created because the words came naturally, as though spoken by real people.

SPOILERS AHEAD...

In this film, we're meant to believe that the daughter of the President of the US (LAURA) is left to become a hooker because her daddy (the President) is too busy scoring whores on his own and his handlers wanted nothing more than to get rid of her (so he could win another term in the oval office). Just writing that gives me a headache, but I'll move on. Laura's mother (the First Lady) left her to be raised by a secret service agent. Why? We don't know. We just have to accept that this is realistic.

Val Kilmer plays a secret ops agent who apparently has credentials with the military and secret service alike. He's a walking god to anyone with a badge, but we don't know why. We just have to believe it. Val's performance is terrible, but I don't blame him. I blame the words on the page because they are simply awful.

Deux ex Machina is a term that describes when the gods influenced the outcome of a mythological story by simply using their powers to change the course of the events, without any rhyme or reason. It's a no-no when writing screenplays, and yet the god of screenwriters (David Mamet) uses them without hesitation and everyone turns a cheek and lets him get away with it. This is evidenced by the 7.2 rating this film currently has on IMDb, but I promise you this film is in the range of 2 or 3 out of 10. No more. The ridiculous premise, the unnatural dialogue and the deux ex machina in the very end with the Swedish film crew proves my point.

Save yourself the agony of watching this film and go watch CITY OF GOD or THE STATION AGENT. Two amazing films from the past year that deserve your time and energy, not this piece of crap.

Mr. Mamet, I admire you for the work you've done in the past. But for the love of god, step off of your high horse and ask someone with half a brain to read the script before you start your next film. If any writer trying desperately to crack into the business would submit something like SPARTAN, the story analyst wouldn't get past the first 5 pages. Your legend precedes you, but it's doing more harm than good.

ebhp

The Ladykillers (2004)

Pure agony...

[2/10 · 22 May 2004]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I have no doubt some people will enjoy this film. Simply put, however, it was terrible...one of the worst movies I think I've ever seen.

Tom Hanks's character was clever for the first few minutes. Then his constant banter starts to gets old...and then you just want to fast forward because you know what he's going to say before it comes out of his mouth, only it takes him 5 minutes to say anything so you start to glaze over and daydream about what to have for breakfast the next day.

Marlon Wayan's character provided the only glimpse of humor in the film, but even he starts to get old because you realize there's nothing original about him.

The old lady is just...boring. There's nothing really interesting about her. She's what you would expect a widowed, church-going, southern woman who owns a cat to be.

Bottom line: If any unknown screenwriter were to shop this script around town, there is no chance on earth this film would ever get made, let around read. Slow pacing, extended dialogue, stereotypical characters...it's really a case study in what a film should NOT be.

What boggles my mind is why the immensely talented Coen brothers would waste their time on this remake. They have to have a file cabinet full of new ideas of their own - why not take the chance and make one of those instead of wasting our time with this?

2/10

Gothika (2003)

Absolutely terrible...

[2/10 · 13 February 2004]

If you're reading this review to determine whether you should spend nearly two hours of your life watching this film, please take my word and skip it. Don't be tricked by the fact that the film's director created Amelie (with story-by credit as well). That is a brilliant film. This isn't.

If you've seen the film and think it's good, beauty is in the eye of the beholder but you're obviously blind. Here's why this is a terrible film.

SPOILERS AHEAD

1) Bad casting - Halle Berry married to Charles Dutton? Their kissing scene nearly made me puke. 2) Brilliant psychiatrist has a bizarre encounter on her way home one night and wakes up three days later accused of killing her husband. She's now possessed by a demon who it turns out is really just a girl who was raped/killed 4 years earlier (who happens to be the daughter of the top doctor working at the facility). 3) Through the ghost of this girl (who is able to cross between this world and the beyond and open jail cell doors, throw Halle around a jail, etc.), Halle discovers the truth about what really happened to her - she was possessed by the demon/girl who wanted to kill her husband for the crimes he committed against her. 4) The sheriff of the town is in cahoots with Halle's now dead husband and together they kidnapped 15 year old girls and raped them in a barn in the middle of nowhere. No reason why they did this, they just did it. 5) The sheriff of the town snuck into a solitary cell with Penelope Cruz to rape her - this after the head of the facility (Halle's husband) was killed. He reveals his tattoo to Halle but no one checks the cell and somehow he gets out. 6) The film ends with Penelope Cruz out of the insane asylum (not sure why she was ever really in there or what proof was given of her sanity once the riddle was solved). 7) Halle can now see the souls of missing kids.

I'm sorry, but I've actually just lost track of whatever it is I just wrote - it doesn't make any sense! I can't believe this movie got made. I simply can't.

Halle put in a terrible performance where screaming seemed to substitute for acting, the plot line suffered all of the ridiculousness outlined above plus about ten other glaring faults, and the filming used every cliche to try and "scare" us that I could see every moment coming around the bend.

Why am I taking the time to write a review about this? Because I hope the producer/writer/director will one day read this and feel the shame that they should for creating such crap!