No! I don't wanna read them! I want my sanity! I'd rather watch Batman & Robin than read this drivel! Take me back!
19/09/2004
"A modern day warrior/Mean, mean stride/Today's Tom Sawyer/Mean, mean pride..." - Rush, Tom Sawyer
Ah, yes - the Rush. Who can forget them? They were one of the few bands that really pushed the boundaries of prog-rock, a true nerd's band. But what the fuck does this band of old-school prog-rockers have to with King Arthur, you may ask. Well, apparently the band's fame preceeds them, even by thousands of years! It seems that both Arthur and his trusty knights were big fans, since they keep shouting "Rush! Rush" throughout this entire fucking movie. Ok, I know, baaaad writing, yeah, well sue me - that was the funniest intro I could think of for this review. If you were in my state of mind you 'd be writing the same crap.
But let's get on with the review. What we have here is a typical "Swords And Sandals" Hollywood epic that is nonetheless actually well made and pretty much watchable. The gimmick of the movie is that it discards the popular legendary tale of King Arthur (you know, Excalibur set in stone, Lady of the Lake, etc.) and sticks with the historical facts. While one would be inclined to think that this would hamper the movie, it actually helps it. The movie is a "Bruckheimer Production", so of course we have the obligatory explosions, quick MTV-styled cutting, unexplainable and frustrating lack of blood and gore (no, wait, I can explain that; the movie's rated PG-13 so blood is a no-no, since kids are 99% of the audience's demographic), pompous dialogue, a Hans Zimmer cliched-as-hell-but-good "epic" score and a feel good ending. But what about the director I hear you ask. He is Antoine Fuqua, of Training Day fame. But while Training Day was a very good film that, among other things, showcased it's director's personal style, King Arthur could have been directed by any, and I mean ANY modern Hollywood hack - yes Michael Bay, we 're talking about you! It looks and feels like, say, The Rock. Or Bad Boys. But with swords. And horses - but I think Bad Boys had those too, among other things. Or not. Anyway, it's what I call "The James Bond scenario": the typical case where the producers of a movie (like the guys in charge of the James Bond movies) actually have more say in the "artistic process" than the actual directors (now tell me, when was the last time you like a Bond film for it's distinct directorial time? Never? Thought so.) But I digress; this movie was made to offer spectacular mayhem on an epic scale. And at that, it excels. The cinematography is gorgeous, and the whole films sticks with a damp, foggish, grey look that's actually pretty cool. The aforementioned music score by Zimmer is actually really good. The acting is ok in some cases, and pretty good in others (Clive Owen shines in the title role - also, Merlin, the leader of the Woads, as played by Stephen Dillane, rocks; and who can forget Stellan Skarsgard in his Swedish Death Metaller costume, complete with beard and 4 feet long hair, as the bad guy). One of the stars in this film in the role of eye-candy is Keira Knightley, so there's one more reason to watch the film if you are a male (or a lesbian, in which case why don't you drop me an email, preferably with luscious descriptions of past sexual encounters - ho ho fucking ho). The film never drags and has the right doses of humour here and there to remind us of it's producer. But that's not the only thing reminding us that this is a "Jerry Bruckheimer Production"; oh, no... that would be a little too subtle. Instead we get some snippets of embarrassingly bad and cliched dialogue, a "poignant" bird-flying-through-clouds shot, the requisite "message" about human values et. al, a kid-fatherly figure bonding with the fatherly figure of course dying moments later, standard shots of slow motion during a battle where apparently our heroes have all the time in the world to look distressed at one another while all hell around them breaks loose (I can imagine the enemy thinking to themselves "Whoa, he looks busy and troubled; I better not kill him!"), secondary characters dying very predictably and some of those oh-so-wonderful logical inconsistencies. There's one scene that really cracked me up; Arthur is alone right before the film's end battle, yet the castle's gates open and close by themselves at just the right moments; also he must have had some BIG-ASS smoke machine handy to create that "powerful image" of the King piercing through the smoke. Ah, you gotta love Jerry; his films may lack distinct directorial styles, but at least he makes sure to leave his personal stamp on every single one of his productions. Bravo, man.
Alright, so it isn't THAT well made. What the hell? Fun couple of hours. Nothing special though. 'Nuff said.
Completely, Utterly Useless Bit Of Celluloid Trivia: The cool looking guy playing Bishop Germanius is Ivano Marescotti, a little known Italian actor, who among other films, has starred in the Greek cult hit Brasileiro, playing an E.U. inspector. Kewl, huh? You actually read this part?
??/09/2004
OH MY GOD. WTF!? Remember those notorious Martini commercials with the gorgeous blonde chick walking away as her mini is blissfully torn to pieces? You do? I thought so. Well, I try to think what I would have replied if someone had told me back then that this same chick would one day be playing the role of Aileen Wuornos, the, pardon my french, butt-ugly prostitute who became a serial killer, in a biopic of her life. I would probably punch him in the face for insulting the god-like perfection that is Charlize Theron as well as overestimating her acting capabilities. Well, ladies & gentlemen that day has finally come. No, I ain't gonna punch anybody. What I mean is that I have been proven wrong and that Charlize Theron has indeed done that movie. And the result is, I'm happy to report, incredible.
Get this: what we have here is undoubtedly one of the greatest acting jobs ever committed to film. Theron gained weight for the role, and the movie's make up team had a field day on her face. The result is incredible, with her actually becoming Wuornos. Her movement, her way of talking, her mannerisms are the same. This is the woman people saw back in 1992 on their TV screens giving a judge a royal swearing. But the similarities are not only skin deep; Theron has truly delved deep into the character, bringing out what truly made this woman perform the horrendous acts she did. I must confess I never thought she could pull it off; but Charlize did, and she deserves every award and all the praise she has won. This is transcendental acting at it's finest.
Thankfully, the direction and plot of the film (both by Patty Jenkins) are up to par, allowing Theron's character to not only fully develop, but to also make bold statements about the '90's, homosexuals and women's abuse. The film stays focused throughout and never turns into an overly-sappy melodrama. Christina Ricci, in a supporting role, is every bit as good as Theron but her character is not as fully developed. The soundtrack is really cool, with classic 80's and 90's tunes (the man in charge of the soundtrack was none other than Steve Perry of Journey fame).
Well, if you haven't gotten it by now, I suggest you go watch this film! Now!
14/09/2004
Harry Potter and The Prizoner Of Azkaban
First of all, I'd like to apologize to my, ahem, constant readers for not updating this page in a long time. Also, a message for you (the constant reader): you are sick. That's right. Don't you have anything better to do than sit in front of your PC reading some idiot's website? Can't you just feel your life ticking away? Go out, have a drink, do something. Fuck, just go watch this fucking movie. Whatever.
OK, now that we got that out of the way we may proceed with the actual movie reviewing.
Am I the only one unaffected by this hole Potter-mania? Am I the last sane person left on Earth? Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against Harry Potter as a character; actually I find him kinda cool. It's the movies based on his character that I have a problem with. OK, so I haven't read the books. Yeah, I have managed a pretty much bearable existence for 20 years without Potter, I think I'll pass.
The first two films were neat in a that-was-a-fun-couple-of-hours sort of way. You know, films that you enjoyed but felt they could be so much more. They just didn't click with you. Well, I've got news for you brotherin'. This film is... no exception. It just so happens that it is better than the first two. That's not strange considering Chris Columbus (the hack behind such movie "gems" as Stepmom and Bicentennial Man), the director of the first two, got the shaft this time around. The new director is none other than Alfonso Cuaron. Yes, that Cuaron, the Mexican making art-house films (Y Tu Mama Tambien and the surprisingly good Great Expectations - not arthouse stuff, but pretty good nonetheless). An unusual choice for a children's fantasy film, but I applaud the producers for taking the chance.
The story of this film is the most complex of the Potter films. Because of the way the film is structured, if you haven't read the books, it is kinda hard to follow, especially the second half. But it's not Shakespeare either (something that the couple sitting next to me at my local multiplex obviously thought, since they spent the entire running time musing over such brainy subjects as "Hey, who's Potter? The kid with the glasses?" or "I don't get it. Is Sirius Black the bad guy or not?" They were, I guess, competing with the obligatory making-out couple whose slurpy kisses are sure to win the 2004 Annoyance Awards. And people wonder why I am a misanthrope). Anyway, the plot is nothing to write home about. It is more of an excuse to showcase Cuaron's admittedly impressive visual style and incredible photography. Let's just say that Hogwart's has never looked so gooood.... Lakes abound, green forests everywhere, it's a feast for the eyes. The colors are a little on the muted side compared to the other films, but I call that good, since the first two films were a little too-much in that department. They gave me headaches. Or not, but they were pretty intense. Their colors, that is. Eh, you get the point.
Where the film falls flat is in the acting of the protagonists: let's face it everyone (yes, even you, the pathetic fan with the Potter glasses on), Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) CAN'T FUCKING ACT. I mean, Radcliffe makes Paul fucking Walker (you remember him, the guy from the Fast and The Furious movies with the acting abilities of a brick; painful memory, I know) look like Sir Laurence fucking Olivier! The kid sucks, he sucks so much, I bet he could suck a tennis ball through a garden hose (get the movie reference? email me and win lot's of prizes, including the ever-popular FART IN A JAR). I mean, he's found ONE expression and, boy, does he stick to it throughout the entire running time of the film! The girl playing Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) isn't terribly good either, but thankfully she plays the role better than the crap-tastic Radcliffe. The comic relief kid (Rupert Grint) is fine I guess. I heard he made a film involving farts and space travel. No, seriously. But what about the supporting cast? It is a director's wet dream: Michael Gambon, Emma Thompson, David Thewlis, Timothy Spall, Alan Rickman and, ofcourse, the always incredible Gary Oldman ALL in one fucking film. You gotta love that (I know I did). Thewlis and Thompson are especially good.
So, should you go see the film? Well, it's got a couple of memorable scenes, and it kept my interest throughout... but it never got me truly excited. It simply stayed on that "meh" level. A pitty.
See it for yourelf, and then send me some hatemail (you know who you are, Potter fans! I spit at thee! I fart in your general direction! Your father smelled of elderberries!)
Gobsmackingly Useless Piece Of Celluloid Trivia: It seems that young Mr. Radcliffe is a music enthusiast. He received a bass guitar as a gift from Mr. Oldman on their first meeting, which he is now learning to play. I just hope his musical skills fare better than his acting, or else I'm gonna have to stock up on earplugs - MUHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Gee, I can be a real son of a bitch sometimes. BUT I LOVE IT.
11/07/2004
Spidey is back in this sequel to the blockbuster hit, Spider-man. And along with him he brings back all the things that made the original so enjoyable and frustrating at the same time. But let me explain myself:
In the first part of the film, Spiderman's alter ego, Peter Parker, has to face the hard facts of living the life of a superhero: he has no job, his studies have gone to hell, the woman he loves has found another guy, his best friend hates Spiderman for killing his father (the Green Goblin from the first film) and the the future doesn't look too promising. And if all these weren't enough, his spidey-powers seem to be failing him. What else is there to do, than quit? And quit he does, but then (as always in comic books) something bad happens. It seems that renowned scientist Dr. Otto Octavius has had an unfortunate accident during one of his experiments thus causing him to run rampant with two pairs of ultra-powerful gigantic robotic tentacles coming out of his back (don't worry, there's a semi-plausible explanation for all this and it does look better than it sounds). Who can stop him now? Hmm, that's a tough one... Seriously though, I can never blame a comic book movie for being predictable. Comic books are almost 99% predictable. What I expect from my comic book movie is plenty of eye-popping action, great effects, majestic score, good acting and dialogue. I know that sounds too much but that's just me. I'm an elitist bastard... Anyway, while the film has a nice story & acting (especially Tobey Maguire & Alfred Molina), breathtaking action sequences and very good CGI & score, I think the dialogue and the pacing needed work. What I mean is, I have no problem with character development in superhero films, as long as its done well (see the X-Men films for example). But with Spiderman 2, I found most of the dialogue between Peter Parker and M.J. heavily cliched, unconvincing (even by comic book standards) and their scenes together seemed very drawn out. Also the dialogue at the end was very corny. The pacing was way off in some parts of the movie too. This is strange, considering this film (as well as the first Spider-man) were directed by Sam Raimi, who's great with pacing and keeping things rolling in his films.
So in the end, while flawed, I still found this movie to be enjoyable but far from perfect as some reviewers say. See it and judge it for yourselves.
Dialogue from the film "Jeffk"-ed: (Mare Jaine): - Say soemth1ng!!11 (Sp@id@rman): - j00 si t3h n0t lov3 teh persan m3!!!1 1 si t3h sux0r!!11~~ LOLOLO
??/07/2004
The Punisher is a little-known comic book that has been treated to two movie adaptations. The first one was an atrocious b-movie starring none other than Dolph Lundgren. It's a film you wouldn't wanna touch with a ten foot pole. You know, an experience best forgotten, etc... Thankfully this new version starring Thomas Jane is much much better. Hey, I didn't say it's a good movie; it's simply a great way to spend a couple of hours! The story has been used in countless action films: There's our hero, an FBI agent who kills the crime lord's son, and the crime lord in return wipes out his entire family at a reunion. The hero somehow survives (even after being shot, burned and thrown to the sea) and starts planning his revenge! The crime lord is played by John Travolta! Yup, you read that right, Mr. Saturday Night Fever himself! And that's one of the pluses of the movie! I mean, few actors can chew scenery like Travolta can! Hell, he was the reason alone I sat and watched Battlefield Earth to the end. Anyway, there's plenty of action, the cinematography is gritty, the violence is plentiful and there's black humor injected here and there. Actually, the dialogue is very quotable, and there are a couple of one-liners that will crack you up! Another reason to watch this movie is the loveable Rebecca Romjin-Stamos (drooool).
If you like your action films down and dirty, go watch this one.
(Howard Saint) - You killed my son!
("Noooo", explosion heard in the background)
(Punisher) - Both of them.
06/07/2004
Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas
The "Universal" logo was on screen when the drugs began to take hold... wow, what a trip!!! Now this is a movie that's a bitch to write a review for... Terry Gilliam's latest creation is the most tripped-out moviegoing experience I have ever had. I mean, this is a film that is impossible to describe... Hunter S. Thompsons writings hit the screen with an incredible vitality, making the film unbearable for most people. For those few that can get its vibe however, its a rare treat. The experience is like having your brains smashed by a lemon slice wrapped around a golden brick - something like a celluloid version of the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. I really can't say more. Watch it.
??/06/2004
Forbrydelsens Element (The Element Of Crime)
Lars Von Trier never ceases to amaze me. Having watched only a couple of his Dogma films, and having gotten used to his "stripped-down" filmmaking style, "The Element Of Crime" was an incredible surprise. It is an exercise in style, with the story and narrative taking back seat to incredible photography, direction, editing and atmosphere. The use of sepia and lighting makes for a very moody film. The story is not important: in the near future, an ex-cop exiled in Cairo returns to a post-apocalyptic Europe to solve a string of murders using some very unorthodox methods. This provides a basis for Trier to create one of the most visually memorable films in a long time. Bleak and unforgiving, the film's atmosphere really gets you - and the incredible voice-over by the protagonist (Michael Elphick) helps. Yes, the narrative at times is convoluted, and a bit of the acting is a little on the stiff side, but in the end this a film that stays with you because of the impact of its images.
I recommend it - especially if you are in a dark mood.
19/06/2004
Whoa... I mean, whoa. I mean, this isn't supposed to happen, right? Remakes always suck ass, right? Any self respecting movie buff will tell you that. What they most probably won't tell you is that there are some cases where that rule doesn't apply (well, I consider myself a movie buff and I would tell you, but... anyway). And fortunately, that is the case with this new take on George Romero's cult-classic, Dawn of the Dead. That was one of the first non P.C. horror movies, originally bashed for its incredible amounts of violence and gore and disturbing concept, now elevated to cult status by millions of horror fans around the world. The story is simple and chilling at the same time: our heroine, Ana (played with finesse by the lovely Sarah Polley) wakes up one morning to find that most of the people in her town have turned into flesh-eating zombies. Or, the living dead, as many people insist on calling them. After being attacked by her 10-year old neighbor and her husband (who becomes "infected" in a particularly gruesome scene) she flees her house and finds shelter in the town's shopping mall along with a few other survivors. And that's where the fun begins. You see, the great thing with these kinds of movies (and with this type of existential horror in general) is that, in the end, we are not given an explanation for why things went awry. There are a couple of references to a "virus" in the film, but it all remains very sketchy. Is it a virus then? Or is it the apocalypse? We don't know and, frankly, we don't care, especially when there are more pressing matters at hand, such as, well, a horde of zombies trying to break their way in inside the fucking mall. What we do know, which adds to the creepiness of the film, is that this is a worldwide phenomenon, and that the entire human race is pretty much doomed. The direction by Zack Snyder is superb - and the guy is a first timer. The film is tightly paced and relentless in its suspense - the best edge-of-your-seat movie to come in a long time. As with the original, don't expect your run-of-the-mill buckets of ketchup-type violence here... the violence is truly shocking, and not fun at all. I mean, you 've got everything from good ol' chainsaw action (complete with flying limbs and heads), shotgun-on-the-head action and even zombie babies. Yup, you read that last part right, it might be twisted but I loved it (and I most probably need psychiatric help). There is humor used sparingly in the film, but of the blackest kind. And that's why it works so well. The dialogue is smart and, thankfully, we are spared of overly cheesy dramatic scenes and heavy cliches. Acting is fine throughout, especially Ving Rhames as Kenneth and Jake Weber as Michael. On the music department everything is cool, with a soundtrack that is cleverly used to tighten the suspense. And who can forget that incredible use of Richard Cheese's lounge cover of Disturbed's nu-metal anthem "Down With The Sickness"...
So, if you 're looking for a good horror movie, the kind they don't make anymore, I would strongly suggest you go see this film. But be careful, it's not for the easily disturbed or faint at heart, if you get my drift... Be sure to check out the original version as well.
P.S. The truth is, I make this film look like Shakespeare in the above review, which it most definitely isn't. I'm just psyched about it since I was very much in the mood for a good horror movie at the time and I feared the worst (the old remake rule, remember?) - thankfully I was proven wrong. Thank you, mr. Snyder.
18/06/2004
C'era una volta il West (Once Upon A Time In The West)
Arguably the best of the so-called "spaghetti" westerns and one of the greatest films of all time, Sergio Leone's "Once Upon A Time In The West" is truly an epic everyone should see. The film was cowritten by Dario Argento (the italian horror-meister of Suspiria fame), Bernardo Bertolucci (of Last Emperor fame) and, of course, Leone himself. The story follows a mysterious gunslinger, simply known as "Harmonica" (the late Charles Bronson in the best performance of his career), who joins forces with Cheyenne (the also late and always great Jason Robards), an outlaw, to protect a beautiful young widow (the incredibly stunning Claudia Cardinale) from an assassin and his gang who have a hidden agenda. The assasin is played by Henry Fonda, in an incredible performance. That Fonda was selected for the specific role is, in itsself, a masterstroke. But the film reaches perfection in almost every respect: the cinematography is beautiful, with incredible use of the widescreen format; the music, by Ennio Morricone, is a landmark of film scoring; the acting superb; the direction tight and elegant. The dialogue is cleverly written and very quotable. All these things come together to form a great experience, one that makes the term "western" seem, well, insufficient. See it for yourself. I think you 'll like it as much as I did.
P.S. I just have to insert a quote here:
Cheyenne: "Harmonica. A town... built around a railroad. You could make a fortune. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hey, more than that. Thousands of thousands."
Harmonica: "They call them 'millions'".
Cheyenne: "'Millions'. Hmm."
??/06/2004 (shit, I really don't remember - it's not because I didn't like the movie though; read the review)
All right, I admit it: I think Ben Stiller is a funny guy. I just love his antics, his straight faced comic deliveries, his screen presence; the guy just cracks me up every time he is on screen, be it in a good movie or a bad one. As for Owen Wilson, well, he is the guy who co-wrote Rushmore, one of my all-time favorite movies. And I think he's a great comedian, too. So it must come as no surprise to the constant reader (whoa) that I found Starsky & Hutch to be hilarious. The movie is directed by none other than Todd Phillips, the mind behind Road Trip (arguably the best of the so-called "American Pie" type movies). The man simply knows how to create comic situations and let his actors run wild. The supporting cast is filled with surprises, from Snoop Dogg to Will Ferrell. And it works great. The bad guy is played by Vince Vaughn, in an a great over-the-top performance that shows this guy can really do comedy. Of course, the 70's setting also allows for some 70's-licious tunes and adds to the fun factor. So, while being no masterpiece, I would have to say that this movie is a jolly-good way to spend a couple of hours, especially now, in the summer. Enjoy, and don't forget... they are the man!
P.S. Check out the scene towards the end where the originals Starsky and Hutch make a cameo appearance!
01/06/2004
After a four year hiatus, director Roland Emmerich is back with his new movie, The Day After Tommorow. The guy is incredible. He grew up on 50's and 60's creature features and disaster movies and this really shows. He is the mind behind Stargate, Independence Day, and Godzilla. Need I say more? The man loves what he does - he writes his own scripts and his films have that special feel, that i-really-care-for-this-film feel, even if, in the end, they turn out to be celluloid junk. You have to respect that. His latest opus, is a 70's disaster b-movie on steroids. Corny dialogue? Check. Absurd script? Check. Mediocre acting? Check. Eye-popping visuals? Check. The recipe is complete. And the result is one of 2004's best popcorn films. You just turn off your brain at the door and enjoy the carnage. The plot is simple: because of man's disastrous effect on the environment, the earth is faced with the coming of another ice age. In movie terms, it is an excuse for showing massive tidal waves wiping out downtown New York, hurricanes tearing down L.A. (and also taking out the infamous "HOLLYWOOD" sign - wow, now there's a subliminal message), and Dennis Quaid delivering ridiculous dialogue while making agonizingly funny faces. Some of the movie's mayhem stays with you however, since the special effects are top-notch and the direction thereof is perfect. Check out the New York tidal wave scene for example, now there's something I won't forget soon! There are funny moments thrown in, and curiously enough, they work most of the time. There's a great scene where a news report on TV shows hundreds of American citizens fleeing to Mexico to escape the coming maelstrom - how ironic is that?
So, should you go watch this film? Well, if you want a popcorn movie with "a message", well go see it. Even if you hate it, you 'll love the visuals.
25/05/2004
This is the perfect film to show to people who think "animation is for kids". I mean, I love animation - even the crappiest Disney film is able to bring a smile to my face. Unfortunately, my view is not shared by many. Thankfully this film will turn some heads and make some people rethink past opinions. It is one of the most imaginative films to come along in a long time. It is weird and beautiful, cynical and hopeful, all at the same time. There is almost no dialogue in the film - and what there is purely incidental and of no importance to the plot. Yet at no time do we feel intimidated or "lost" - the plot is there, but it is not the central point of the film. The characters feel as alive as can be, and the music is wonderful. I found some resemblance between this film and films like Jean-Pierre Jeunet's "City Of Lost Children" and Alex Proya's "Dark City". If you like your animation as quirky and imaginative as can be, then go watch this film.
23/05/2004
What a wonderful movie this is. It says so little and so much at the same time - and therein lies its beauty. Rarely can a movie so perfectly capture the anxiety and melancholy that seems to be a focal part of adolescence. This is one of those films that are much more than the sum of their parts. The direction, script, acting and music all come together to form the rarest of moviegoing experiences nowadays: a film that can touch you yet not make you feel manipulated through contrivances. We must give special credit to the screenwriter/director Sofia Coppolla, who, with her first film, proves that something special does run in her family. She worked hard to get this film done and the work shows on the screen. The cast is also excellent, especially James Woods and Kathleen Turner as the parents and ofcourse Kirsten Dunst, who plays one of the daughters. As usual, I will not give the plot away, but, it really wouldn't matter if I did - this is a film that relies not on plot but on dialogue, photography, music and feel. It leaves a great emotional impact and for that alone it should be applauded and cherished. Go see it.
A sure-footed 10/10. - Coming up Next: Lost In Translation Review, The Triplets Of Bellville Review.
Still trying to forget...
2 Fast, 2 Furious (The Fast And The Furious 2)
Unfortunately, I didn't have time to write this review, so I asked my friend JeffK to write it for me...
HELLO FAGORTS!!11 THIS SI TEH REVEIW OF TEH GRAETEST MOVIE EVAR, "TEH FAST AND TEH FURIUS PART 2 TOOO FAST TOOO FURIUS FOR FAGOTSSSS!!11" IN TEH FIRST MOVIE VIN DISAL PALAYED TEH CHICKEN WITH PAUL WALKER AND LOST! SO HE LEFT THE AZZ-KICKIN CAR TO TEH FAGGOTY PAUL WALkEr! SO IN TIHS MOVIE THERE IS ONLY PAUL WAKER!!1 AND TEHEERE ARE HOOT BABEZZZZ!1 LIKE EVA MENDEZ AND OTHER LATINOBABEZ! AND TEH BAD GUY SI TEH PALAYD BY TEH BAD GUYY FROM PICTH BLACK! TEH MOOVIE HAS EXPLOZIONS AND BOOOBIEZ AND SUPERCARS ADN TEH GRAETAST SOUNDTRACK EVAR, WITH HEP-HOP AND RNB!!1 IF YOUY DONT WATHC IT THEN YOU SI TEH SUCK!!1HAHAHAHAH
L337 COMPUTAR CONSULTANT forMAR HACX0R PEACEFUL FELOW JEFFK!1
Do you really need a score for this?
16/5/2004
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind
I had great expectations for this movie, since a) the script was written by none other than Charlie Kaufman, b) it was directed by Michel Gondry, a great music video director (Bjork, Massive Attack etc.) and c) I just love Jim Carrey in serious roles. Well, thankfully, the movie met and even exceeded my sky-high expectations. Everything, from the script to the music, acting, and direction makes for a wonderfully twisted and off-beat romantic comedy the likes of which we haven't seen for a while (and shouldn't expect to see in the near future, too). At the same time touching and cynical, this is a movie that is certain to divide audiences. Some, like me, will love it; others will hate it's complex structure and narrative. In other words, if you liked Adaptation, then this movie's for you. If not, well, Troy or some other "A-quality" blockbuster must be showing at the local multiplex. As for the plot, I won't say anything, it is best to walk into the theater with no prior knowledge of what the movie's about - trust me, you 'll enjoy it much more that way!
A solid 9/10.
7/5/2004
Now that's what I call true horror. Another movie from Stephen Sommers, the acclaimed director of such masterpieces as Deep Rising and the Mummy Returns. Well, he's back with a vengeance with Van Helsing. First off, this is NOT a horror film. It is marketed that way though, so let me tell you straight off that the only true shock you 'll get from this movie is the realization that people actually FINANCED it in the first place. But perhaps we are too harsh on poor old Stephen. He was only trying to pay homage to the classic 50's b/w B-movies that he grew up on. Well, guess what, Tarantino did the same thing with 70's Japanese movies in KILL BILL, but he did it with STYLE. On the other hand, Van Helsing makes Ed Wood's "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Schindler's List". Sommers just throws everything in the mix hoping that something will work - you got Dracula, Frankestein, the Wolf-Man and even Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde for crying out loud, all battling it out ! For a whopping 136 minutes we are subjected to a) the funniest "foreign accents" since Leslie Nielsen's Dracula: Dead And Loving It, b) incredibly bad CGI c) terrible acting, especially from Kate Beckinsale and d) totally mundane "action" scenes all along with a virtually non-existent script... oh, wait I forgot the typical tear-jerker scene in the end... such pathos, such depth! I had tears in my eyes... tears of joy, for I knew the ordeal was to end soon! What was Hugh Jackman thinking? Don't the X-MEN movies pay enough?
A crappy 1/10.