|
|
|
Movie
Reviews
These movies try to be good, but something bogs them down. While not the worst movies out there, they certain don't have many merits to save them. The Girl Next Door (2004) (New!) Win A Date WIth Tad Hamilton! (2004) (New!) The Hours (2002) The Time Machine (2002) Planet of the Apes (2001) Hollow Man (2000) Red Planet (2000) (Movie Reviews Links Page) The Girl Next Door (2004) I'd like to think that I'm pretty open-minded when it comes to movies. A movie doesn't have to have the best plot or characters to be enjoyable. I've seen some poorly executed teen romance movies, but I think "The Girl Next Door" tops the list. But hey, what was I supposed to expect from Luke Greenfield, the director of that masterpiece of modern cinema "The Animal" (2001) with Rob Schneider? The premise is simple enough for the first part of the movie anyway. Matthew Kidman (Get it, Kid-man, it's a coming-of-age flick, eh? Eh? You'll get it later) played by Emile Hirsch, whom you may have seen in "The Emperor's Club" (2002), is Senior class president, but he is also a social wallflower. His goal is to get into Georgetown and someday become president. At the beginning of the movie, it seems he has a lot of potential to achieve that goal until Danielle (Played by Elisha Cuthbert of Fox's "24") moves in next door. After Danielle catches Matthew "accidentally" watching her undressing through his window, she decides to befriend him, as I'm sure all women would do in the same situation. Eventually, they begin to fall for each other as Danielle teaches Matthew how to pull off ridiculous teenage antics. All seems well until one of Matthew's friends calls to his attention that Danielle is actually a porn star. Yes. A porn star, ladies and gentlemen. This is only the first third of the movie. I won't ruin the rest for those who actually want to see it. I couldn't help asking myself while watching "The Girl Next Door" one simple question: "Why was this movie made?" I've had a week and a half to think, and I still can't fathom a reason behind it. Was there really a needfor a "teen boy falls for porn star" movie? In any case, my grievances against the movie are as such; a disjointed and overly long storyline, poorly written characters and an unrealistic yet predictable ending. I did, however, find some scant highlights. The acting of Timothy Olyphant as Danielle's agent Kelly was promising and turned out creating an interesting character among many other stagnant ones. Also, it was refreshing to see Elisha Cuthbert out of the role of "24"s plot-filling, melodrama-creating Kim Bauer. She actually isn't that bad an actress. I just hope for her sake that she did this movie because of contractual obligations to 20th Century Fox and not voluntarily. Other than that, there's really no reason to go see it unless you are either a big fan of one of its stars or you yourself have fallen in love with a porn star who lives next door and want to compare notes. The tagline for this movie is "Is the juice worth the squeeze?" My response: no. Win A Date With Tad Hamilton! (2004) Tad Hamilton (Josh Duhamel) is a "dreamy," "hunky," or whatever the kids are saying these days, Hollywood actor thatstars in ridiculous sappy romantic comedies. Topher Grace is also in this particular one and actually is the only saving grace (pun intended) for this picture to bank on. Rosalee Futch (Kate Bosworth), a Piggly Wiggly cashier living in West Virginia, signs up for a sweepstakes to win a trip to Los Angeles and a romantic evening with Mr. Hamilton. Little does she know when she wins that it's all part of a huge publicity stunt to get Tad a major part he wants. She goes to Hollywood, but when she returns, Tad follows her, hoping to "let some of that goodness rub off on him." All of this would be great, except her friend Pete (Grace) is in love with her. Can Pete win the heart of the fair Rosalee before Tad Hamilton steals her forever? Who cares? The main problem with this film is that it tries ridiculously hard to be a quirky, original romantic comedy, but ends up rehashing every unrequited love plotline in the book. There is not one original idea about love produced by Win a Date With Tad Hamilton! At least Topher Grace, who in my opinion is too good for this movie, attempts some new portrayal of the desperate in-the-background suitor. I felt for his character and his situation, regardless of the fact that Rosalee was so oblivious of Pete's feelings that she wouldn't have seen it if it punched her in the face. Here's some free advice, ladies: when a guy tells you to guard your carnal treasure, that's usually a sign that he wants you to guard it for him. Besides Topher, there were other small pleasures. Some highlights include Nathan Lane and Sean Hayes, Bob the Piggly Wiggly mascot, and Pete's dog. If you HAVE to see this movie, watch the scene where his dog's head pops up when Pete almost crashes at the end, and just try to tell me that's not what you will think it looks like. In the end, "Win a Date With Tad Hamilton!" has a few sparse comedic moments, but not enough to merit a full viewing. The Hours (2002) By: Senior "The Hours" Correspondent Jackson Brody To be fair, I could appreciate the top-notch
score, cinematography, lush production values, and the unshaven insanity
of Ed Harris. Other than that, I hated "The Hours" and almost wish
it was called "The Hour" so it would have wasted less of my time.
For those of you who don't know, the story follows three different women
in three different time periods all somehow being controlled by a man.
Because you know... when a man creates a home for a woman, treats her fantastically,
supports her and their children, and tries to do what's best for her...
he's still being CONTROLLING and SUPPRESSIVE.
The Time Machine (2002) "Gotta Get Forward in
Time: A Review of 'The Time Machine'"
Simon Wells, great-grandson of H.G. Wells, directs this second major film adaptation of the classic sci-fi novel of the same name. Guy Pearce plays Alexander Hartdegan, a man obsessed with time and, after the tragic death of his fiancée Emma, he is a man obsessed with changing the past. After going back and realizing that he can't change Emma's death, he decides that the future might hold the answer to the question "Why is the past immutable?" He goes to the year 2030 where he meets Vox (Orlando Jones), a computer that is the compendium of all human knowledge. However, he does not get his answer there. Through several cataclysmic events and (after a whole hour of movie time), he ends up in the year 802,701 AD. Here, the polarized society of the Eloi and the Morlocks is supposed to provide a social commentary on evolution. Not in this film though. "Forget Alexander's quest to change time," the movie yells, "We've got Samantha Mumba as an Eloi woman who befriends Alexander to worry about now." This movie suffers from problems. All the typical time-travel plotholes abound in this film. In addition, Simon Wells' explanation of the polarization of society in the year 802,701 AD is less powerful in the post-Cold War era. In George Pal's version, atomic bombs cause World War III leading to the devolution and polarization of society. In Simon Wells' version, the reason is less meaningful. The movie is full of homage after homage to George Pal's 1960 adaptation of "The Time Machine". I think it would have been better for Mr. Wells to rethink his great-grandfather's vision a little further instead. While the original novel works fine on its own, taking almost directly from George Pal does not help to set the movie apart. What sets it apart from the 1960 version is the minor changes in the plot and the special effects. In the end, the question about Alexander's quest is answered, but not much more is made of it afterwards. Changing the ending causes the film to fall flat. In the new version, the movie just peters out like a small, dying rat after the "villain" is killed. The resolution is confusing at best. In conclusion, Simon Wells would have done better in remaking another of his great grandfather's classics, such as "War of the Worlds" First
Draft Review of "The Time Machine" (2002):
"Planet of the Apes" (2001) Premise:
Comments
This reimagining of the classic film of the same name gets 2 Annoyed-Monkeys-Holding-Balls. This is because it was so blatantly flawed and confusing. The exposition of the plot was so-so. Despite some major plot-holes, mostly concerning the time-travel inconsistencies that plague any such film not done by theoretical physicists, it was still inconsistent. Michael Clark Duncan was superb, as usual however. Mark Wahlberg...well....he was. Yes, ladies and gents, Mark Wahlberg was, and that's good enough for me. The cast, overall, was well-rounded. By well-rounded, I mean poorly chosen and embarrassing to American cinema. I must give much credit to the chimpanzee in the movie. That one chimpanzee out-acted almost every actor in the cast. They were the only highlight in an otherwise abortion of a summer movie. Includes a career-ending cameo by the esteemed Charlton Heston. Favorite Lines
"Bow your heads!" - Attar leads Grace Before Meals (Thumbs up) - The Chimpanzee Random Guard: Have
you seen any humans?
Limbo the Slave Trader Ape (Paul Giamatti): Would you kids like some aspirin Hollow Man (2000) Premise:
SPOILER ALERT!>>Sebastian dies after a battle royale in some odd place<<SPOILER ALERT! Comments:
There was one part to this where I just threw up my hands and started laughing. When locked in a freezer, about to die, Dr. Linda Foster has the good sense to look around and fashion a crude electromagnet using wire and a bent bar to open the latch of the refrigerator door. Come on! Are you kidding me, movie? She fashions an electromagnet and opens the door? That's like having a keypad lock and fashioning a crude keycard which you then slip under the door and use the crude anti-gravity focusing device you fashioned as soon as you got in the freezer to float the keycard up to the pad and open the door! Sheesh! Oh, and another thing. I've been
taught that chemistry involved some sort of calculation, some sort of pre-meditation.
Before Sebastian and Matt play around with the invisibility serum formula
with that little 3D-rendered molecule on their laptops, don't you think
that maybe...
They should do some calculations first? They look like they're pulling valence electron shells out of their ass there They create this 3D molecule with seemingly no forethought whatsoever, and then get mad when the little alert "Unstable!" comes up on their screen. I would have been happy to lend them my 10th grade chemistry notes if they had only asked. If you want to rent a movie about invisibility, your money would be better spent on the original. Although I've never seen it, I figure there has to be SOME reason they did a remake of it. Favorite Lines:
Red Planet (2000) Premise:
Meanwhile, the rest of the crew lands far away from their pre-positioned base camp, and must find it using trigonometry and little flexi-displays. Not before their older friend Chantilas dies of spleen damage. Meanwhile, AMEE "wakes up" after being dumped elsewhere, and she's a bit rattled. She goes to find the crew. Meanwhile again, Carrie Ann Moss has gotten the ship up and running for the most part, but her orbit is degrading and her engines aren't working. She still has no communication with the ground team, and Lucille (the ship's computer) is giving her an attitude. Meanwhile yet again, the rest of the crew comes upon their habitat, but oh no, it's all chewed up by something or other. Then they run out of air, but find out that there is in fact air on Mars (Convenient Plot Twist Alert!). This is after, of course, one of the crewmembers pushes another off a cliff. This doesn't pan out much in the overall story though. It's just a plot point to increase the amount of dialogue Val Kilmer has. Well, AMEE goes berzerk, Tom Sizemore's rib is broken, they communicate with Commander Bowman, she leads them to an old Russian rock probe, they discover an oxygen-producing bug, only Val Kilmer is not dead after about an hour and a half, and the end you'll have to find out for yourself. Comments:
I had one minor problem with the plots of "Mission to Mars" and "Red Planet" though. These movies are the reason that NASA recieves less and less funding every year from the federal government. Congressmen and women go to these movies, see the immense disasters that occur RIGHT BEFORE THE CREW GETS TO MARS, and think "My god, how can we fund the death of Tom Sizemore?!" That's why NASA went from "$1 billion dollars for one rocket launch" to "Faster, better, cheaper" in like, 4 years. Why can't we have a movie where the characters get to Mars safely and get back without a hitch, just once! Is that too much to ask Hollywood? ::sigh:: I would also like to applaud the "character" of Lucille. She was the mongoose to Carrie-Ann Moss's snake...or something Favorite Lines:
Go back to the Movie Review Links Page
|
