corkskrue Reviews

Observe and Report (2009)

Not what I expected, but good nonetheless

[8/10 · 17 October 2009]

Most of the people that didn't like this movie didn't like it because they were expecting something else. A "Superbad" version of "Paul Blart" is basically what most people expected and, sure, starring Seth Rogen that's a reasonable expectation. However, "Observe and Report" is not the the rated-R Paul Blart. This is a (more or less) funny version of "Taxi Driver." Now, after reading that, if you stopped for a second and then let out a slow "Oh...", you probably already know what I'm talking about and therefore probably already know if this movie is for you or not. However, if you thought of the only-a-few-years-old movie that starred Queen Latifah and Jimmy Fallon when I said "Taxi Driver", you should probably go ahead and avoid ever watching this movie. Seriously. Go away.

Still here? OK, good. Well, since you're obviously one of the elite people that actually enjoy good movies, I'll continue. "Observe and Report" has numerous scenes that are so offensive and ridiculous that you are forced to laugh-out-loud. This is a movie in which when something happens, you can either laugh or get sick. How you respond is up to you and if you don't laugh at least a few times, you will leave the movie very depressed. But if you somehow laugh at everything, you're probably more demented than the film's "hero".

Halloween (2007)

A realistic review of Zombie's "Halloween"

[7/10 · 1 September 2007]

The bottom line: I liked it quite a bit, but it does have its flaws.

Now so that you know where I'm coming from, I have enjoyed the original "Halloween" and most of its sequels for the last ten years or so. More recently, I have also enjoyed Rob Zombie's films, so naturally I was excited at the thought of Zombie remaking "Halloween." However, I really wanted to go in with an open mind and view Zombie's movie for the film it is.

The first half of the movie is almost entirely different from the original - and I really loved that. Not because Carpenter's was bad at all, but I loved seeing an original, fresh take on it. I wish this had continued throughout the movie, but the second half is almost identical to the original film, just not as well paced. As if Zombie took his time doing a great job with the back story for the first half, but then had to rush through the rest of the movie. I was also sad to see Malcolm McDowell's performance was lacking in my opinion. In the first half, he does a terrific job with the new material, but in the later half he tries to be Donald Pleasence and just feels awkward in the role.

And truly, that's all I can find to complain about. The rest of the movie was quite good. The violence is necessarily brutal, unrelenting, and realistic, and this gives much more impact to the death scenes (more so than a single knife stab can accomplish). There's not much suspense, but the it's truly terrifying watching Michael wound his victims and then continue to torture and toy with them before killing them, like a kid pulling the wings off of a fly.

The Hobbit (1977 TV Movie)

Pretty good, but remember that it's intended for family viewing

[7/10 · 28 December 2006]

Like I said, the film is obviously focused on family viewing, leaning more towards kids, so remember that if you plan on watching it. As per keeping with the book, the movie does fairly, and it does a great job of setting up the viewer for "The Lord of The Rings."

Really, I haven only one major complaint about this film: the music. Every few minutes, a minstrel will play a few lines of song, serving as the movie's narrator until Bilbo takes over near the end. Not that I have anything against minstrels (they're very lovely people), but the music and cheesy vocals really do not flow with the film. Honestly, the movie would probably be twice as good without them.

Other than that, it's pretty good and worthy of renting (or buying cheap). Enjoy!

The Lord of the Rings (1978)

Visually, very interesting, but not a great film overall

[6/10 · 28 December 2006]

For those who do not already know, this film is a (mostly) animated version of "The Fellowship of The Ring" and "The Two Towers." A second film installment to cover "The Return of The King" was intended, but never created, due to lack of funding or loss in interest or something along those lines.

From solely a visual standpoint, this film is amazing to look at. The blending of live action with animation is really quite impressive. The rotoscoped animation adds a great amount of depth to the characters simply through their motions, simple slights of hand that would have otherwise been left out by the average animators. The ring wraiths are particularly creepy, both in animations and live action. Also, the voice acting is great.

While watching the movie, I kept getting the impression that in order to enjoy this, the makers of the film intended for the audience to be be somewhat stoned. There are a number of scenes where the background is just a swirling mass of lights and colors, and there are a few times when there is what I assume to be fog/mist passing in the front of the screen that it is obviously smoke from a cigarette/joint/incense/something. Just something I happened to notice.

Watching this, naturally after seeing Peter Jackson's films, it's obvious to see that Jackson has also watched this film. Several scenes, particularly from the "Fellowship of The Ring" portion of the film, are almost shot-to-shot the same between the two films. I noticed this the most in: Bilbo's birthday party, the road to and inside the White Pony, and Frodo's race to Rivendale from Weathertop. Much of what Jackson kept in and edited out of the movie from the book was influenced heavily by this film.

Sadly, however, that's where most of the positives end in this film. There are a few (not many, just a few) points that REALLY detract from the overall movie: Sam looks (and acts) as if he has downs syndrome; Aragorn looks like an Indian; Gimli is just as tall as Legolas, Legolas's eyes make him look like an Aryan Asian; and Boromir is apparently a viking. Oh, and due to some of the movie's higher-ups thinking "Sauroman" and "Sauron" sound too similar, Sauroman's name is SOMETIMES shortened to "Auroman." Really though, those are the only problems I have with the movie, however they are so prominent in the film that it's hard to overlook them.

(Note: Although it is not by the same people and has a very different look and feel, if you are interested there are animated versions of both "The Hobbit" and "The Return of The King," but they have a much more family friendly feel than this film does.)

In Cold Blood (1996)

Good... Could've been great though

[7/10 · 5 November 2006]

After reading the book, I happened across this DVD at Wal-Mart for 3 bucks and thought, sure, what the hell... I got the DVD and watched it last night. When I started watching it, I checked the run time and it was about 90 minutes. I thought, OK cool... It seemed to run rather slowly, knowing the story and how much of it there was. By the time I got to the actual killings, I was like, "how much time does this have left?" Checked. "One minute?! What the hell?!" I felt incredibly cheated, thinking that the movie only progressed through a third of the overall story.

But then, I happily noticed that the DVD's scene selection menu included a part 1 AND a part 2. I still had another hour and a half to go! I then sat very happily and enjoyed the second half of the movie, even more so than the first.

I admit that I have not seen the 1967 original film (despite my sincerest desire to), I have however read the novel and felt that this was a fairly descent film, for a two-part TV miniseries, that is. I think the casting of the role of Perry was completely wrong and a few minor inconsistencies jumped out at me, but still very well done. The first half drags on a bit, while the second half is much more gripping. I think they should have proportioned the movie more like Capote did his book: 1/3 before the murders, 1/3 after, and 1/3 after the killers are arrested. Instead, the film makes it more 1/2 before the murders, 1/4 after, and 1/4 after the killers are arrested. Again, this makes the second half more exciting, but at the same time, less compelling while making the first half drag on and on...

Now I look back and realize I have just made the same mistake about making things drag on and on, so I will shut the hell up. Go watch the movie and make up your own damn mind!

Nick Houston

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

worst in the series, but still worth watching

[6/10 · 1 July 2006]

I grew up watching Star Wars and have loved it for 20 years, much like most other fans of the series. When Episode I first came out in theaters, I loved it. I mean, NEW Star Wars! I watched it twice in theaters and then repeatedly when I first got it on video.

Then I moved on and stopped watching it for a couple years until I began to introduce my girlfriend to the Star Wars Galaxy, just months before the release of Episode III. I decided to start her at the beginning, with Episode I. As we began watching it, I hung my head in horror as I realized how bad a movie it really was, at least in comparison to the other Star Wars films. I looked at her (about the time Jar Jar Binks was introduced) and said, "I promise, they get better than this..." She later agreed that the movies got continually better as we progressed through the series and she ended up really liking it.

Although I'm not going to spend any time on saying WHY this movie is the worst in the series, I will just say that it IS the worst movie in the series. But on the plus side, it is still Star Wars and has some great back story and battle sequences. Watch it if you want to get into Star Wars, but please, take it with a grain of salt.