Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Star Trek (2009)
3/10
The plot makes no sense whatsoever. (SPOILER ALERT)
11 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not going to hit this from a scientific perspective. That would be too easy and would just invite others to castigate me for not "suspending disbelief" during a fun summer sci-fi. No, this movie sucks on a very base level. The first, and most disturbing part of the movie is the villain, Nero, who I think is the worst villain Hollywood has given us, and Hollywood once gave us Arnold as Ice Man. Nero is awful because his motivation makes no sense whatsoever.

As the story goes, Nero is furious at Spock, and by extension his whole race of Vulcans, because Spock did not get to Romulus' star in time to save it from super nova, which destroyed his planet and all those he loved and cared for. In the process both he and Spock are sucked into a black hole and spit out the other side well in the past, except at different times, Nero 25 years before Spock. In waiting 25 years for Spock to come through the black hole as he had, Nero and his crew seethe with rage and plot their revenge against Spock and his evil race of Vulcans.

But why? Did Spock create the super nova? No. That was explained as a natural disaster. Did Spock try to save his planet? Yes. In fact, he had every reason to believe that he was going to die in the process. After failing to stave off the super nova, he was sucked into a black hole, which is assumed to destroy anything entering it (after all, black holes literally crush atoms to the point of not existing). Personally I think that makes Spock a hero to the Romulans! Having a vendetta against Spock and the Vulcans would be like tracking down and killing the family of a fire fighter who died in your house while he tried to save your wife and kids. That makes no sense. None. Last, Nero is now in the past, no? Why doesn't he just go about saving his planet from destruction? He's got the "red matter" to do it.

The other thing that ticked me off was the silly string of "accidents" that put a gang of 22 year-olds in command of the Federation's flagship. Do they not have even a single 40 year-old who has actually been in space before? It's even worse than that if you think about it. Before the ship takes off Kirk is about to be booted out of Starfleet—but now he's put in charge?

I'm willing to suspend disbelief in sci-fi movie, but there's a difference between suspending disbelief and watching a movie like I'm a 3-year old. 3 stars out of 10.
395 out of 646 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Caddyshack (1980)
Who the hell decided this was funny?
6 April 2003
I feel as though I wasted 90 minutes of my life, but for some weird reason I am behooved to waste more by writing about how disappointed I was by this. Therapy I guess. Anyway, here goes: Adam Sandler says this is his favorite movie of all time. I can see why. Painfully shallow, he who gave us Waterboy and Big Daddy has picked the movie that was without the most overrated of the 1980s. What in the hell is funny about this? I think it's some sort of weird social phenomenon whereby it's got a reputation of being funny, so everyone feels as if they don't like it there's something wrong with them. So then they go and say they like it. And if anyone can explain to me why either this or Blues Brothers is funny, please email me. But I don't get it. I've heard of suspension of disbelief, but this is nuts. In closing, I would like to ask the astute reader to read the positive comments for this movie and judge for themselves the level of intellect of their authors. If these people do not seem like the crowd you normally hang out with on a weeknight you might want to try "Spinal Tap" or "The Big Lebowski" instead.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Armageddon (1998)
1/10
On par with "Manos, the Hands of Fate"
25 September 2001
I would much rather be an astute moviegoer who can't enjoy Michael Bay/ Jerry Bruckheimer blockbusters than be an ignorant rube who passes over the work of Kubrick, Chaplin, and the Coen Brothers in the video store for this sort of crap.

People say over and over, ‘Hey it's just entertainment. Turn off your brain and enjoy.' I can GUARANTEE these people that I enjoy `2001: a space odyssey' or `Nights of Cabiria' or `Rear Window' multiple, MULTIPLE times more than you liked `Armageddon'. These films are more enjoyable because it is a simple fact that it is enjoyable to see something you haven't seen before, to see something that involves the viewer in the story, to have your brain engaged. `Armageddon' is so predictable and so trite as to be repulsive to anyone who has seen a blockbuster film before. It's exactly the same stuff as you've seen time and again and you know precisely what will happen next. No amount of explosions can change that.

I will not mince words or hide behind platitudes. If you like this movie, you've either lived in a cave your entire life or you have incredibly horrible taste in films. You deserve our pity.

0 stars out of ****. BOMB
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Subtle is the operative word here
13 July 2001
I am 23 years old. I have never seen 2001: a space odyssey in the theater. I was not there in the 1960's to experience that time and place. Nevertheless, this film stands out to me as the greatest film ever made.

After I first saw it, I did not get it. So like every other supposedly `great' films I didn't understand after the first time (Andrei Rublev and Vertigo also come to mind), I RESERVED JUDGEMENT because I knew that people who were more intelligent than myself had found real meaning in it. I did not dismiss it as so many others who have chimed in with their pedestrian comments here. After the second time, it made a whole lot more sense. Over time, it has become my favorite.

I will not attempt to explain what is going on with the monoliths and the embryo in outer space and whatnot. I have a very definite idea about what they mean, but I sorely regret having gone to the Internet to read about the meaning of this film rather than discovering it for myself. That's the whole fun! It's sitting back in your chair as this film fully engrosses you and as you catch one of the very subtle queues you say to yourself, `Stanley, you magnificent b**tard!' But I will give you one hint: like all other Kubricks, 2001 is about what makes us human. Look at the evolutionary changes in humanity throughout the film and what has precipitated them- that is why Kubrick made it.

Even so, after seeing it over and over and loving it more and more, I held the view, as so many have espoused here, that 2001 is too slow. Like every other criticism I have ever had of a Kubrick film, I was wrong. Indeed, the pacing is one of the qualities that makes it great. The complaint that the sequences could be done in less time is true, but that's not how real time moves. This is a film about evolution. It is not fast. Space walks are not completed in 20 seconds. Kubrick intention in these scenes is twofold: one a realistic expression of what it is like to be an astronaut. Two, to present the idea that we are like fish out of water in space; that inorganic life is better suited for the vast expanses of space.

It has been said that the dialogue is boring. It's meant to be that way! Kubrick's saying something about the dehumanizing effect of culture and technology. (Geez, I promised I would not discuss the film, but some of the criticism really irks me.) Indeed, Stanley's work is not accessible to most of the public because it is subtle. If mass audiences are to be given any sort of message in a film, it almost needs to be Spielberg style. They need to be hit over the head with it.

It is not necessary to see 2001 on the big screen in order to appreciate it. I never have and it is my absolute favorite. I will grant that it should probably be much better, but that should not stop you from watching it. Just make sure to get the widescreen version. (BTW, the new remastered Kubrick Collection DVD is great.)

2001 is a wonderful film that stands on its own two legs. It does not need to be explained by the book or any other source. All you need to know about 2001 is right there on the screen in front of you.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Circus (1928)
Really, really funny
2 July 2001
For me, the first half of The Circus is as good as any Chaplin I've seen. I don't think I've ever laughed so hard as when The Tramp is getting chased by the cops around the circus sideshow. Highly recommended viewing for anyone who likes comedies. The DVD is of very high quality for its age.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Black and white or color
12 June 2001
I almost always refuse to tell people what Kubrick's movies are 'about' because that's the whole fun of them. However, after reading a whole lot of comments on this board, and what I believe to be a lot of false criticisms, I'll chime in with a clue. Pay attention to references to and use of color. I believe that unlocking this mystery largely answers the 'about' question and therefore makes it a much more enjoyable film.

One criticism that I think is objectively wrong is the notion that it is "too long". Bull pucky. There is so much to pay attention to that there is no way I could keep up with the plot and underlying symbolism at the same time. Kubrick never wasted a second of film, and EWS is no exception.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed