Change Your Image
Jonnyok98ub
Reviews
Van Helsing (2004)
Typical Garbage with Too Much CG
I never thought I would say this, but this is perhaps one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time; it is actually worse in many respects than New York Minute. The major problem with Van Helsing is that in some ways is in the expectations, which are mainly due to the over-advertising we've been bombarded by since the Super Bowl. This is one of those May releases that everyone gets excited for, and every time you turn on the TV you either catch an ad for it, or one of its immensely attractive stars sitting comfortably on Jay Leno's couch, discussing how amazing an experience it was to make this movie. I wish that experience had translated over to the audience I was sitting with.
Van Helsing fails because there is really no reason to watch it. The whole movie is an excuse to do CG, and every place that you could possibly conceive of having a CG image, Van Helsing gives you two. This film seems like what watching a really high strung individuals daydreams would be like: nothing is static, nothing is developed, everything is constantly in motion, and by the end, you just feel sick to your stomach. The main plot, and I will try not to simplify it too much, is as follows: Gabriel Van Helsing works for a secret agency in Rome that kills monsters. He has to travel to Transylvania to help save a family from Purgatory. Action ensues, attractive people share screen time, there are tons and tons of CG effects, convenient plot twists occur, and the movie ends. In between these `plot points', we are treated to average action augmented with an incredible amount of average CG. I felt like I was watching a movie on the Sci-Fi channel about crocodiles that kill babies or something, because the effects are so below average they become honestly distracting. If there was a plot, and I'm pretty sure there wasn't one, I was so distracted by the bad CG and lack of real environments that I just completely missed it.
The acting is average, although a little bit more hammy and fun than I had expected. For a movie that looks this dark and has this much action, trying to recreate The Mummy was not a wise idea. What made The Mummy work was the actors really being interested in playing these characters out, as well as the characters themselves being funny and interesting. The characters in Van Helsing are flat, uninteresting, and seem to be going through the movie on `bad action film' rails. There are some ups, downs, but mostly this ride just makes you feel sick.
In all honesty, I can't even enjoy this film as a campy throwback to an older era, where films were actually made on soundstages and sets had to be constructed. The physical reality of movie making used to inhibit the imagination of these wild directors, in that their visions had to be tempered to what was possible. This would result in excellent compromises between reality and fantasy, and would also force filmmakers to focus on characters as opposed to scenery. Nowadays, with computers, most filmmakers are not limited in their imaginations, and it all pours out onto the screen like so much vomit into an airplane toilet. After awhile, I just don't care about `cool' or `being impressed', and this film was trying to do both with CG. If you want to make a good movie, focus on the characters and the story. If those are strong, CG can really help, and not be such a distraction.
3 out of 10
New York Minute (2004)
Standard Direct to Video Fair on the Big Screen
Review of New York Minute:
I'll be the first to admit that I don't think I was a great choice to review this film. I have absolutely no concept as to what has made these twins, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, so popular in our current culture. For my tastes, they're a pair of pretty hot girls who happen to look like each other. I can't really judge their acting talents other than the fact that they've played exactly the same roles in everything they've done after Full House. I don't think their acting really makes a difference though.
My major problem with this movie isn't that I don't get who it's aimed at, it is that making the big leap from direct-to-video to the big screen should require a bit more discipline and originality than this movie chooses to explore. New York Minute is the story of (GASP!) a pair of twins, each of whom is very different. Jane Ryan (Ashley Olsen) is a very pretentious, anal retentive Republican, who insists on playing mother for her sister and her father. Roxy Ryan (Mary-Kate Olsen) is the typical rebellious type: she's a drummer who skips school to hang out with friends and go to video shoots. She drives like a crazy women, and generally makes her sister's life a living hell. This juxtaposition between them can only lead to conflict, and indeed, on the trip into New York City from Long Island, they both get booted off the train after making a fool of themselves arguing back and forth. Mayhem ensues.
The plot really isn't an issue to me. Everyone knows going in that this is going to be a vehicle for the two twins to act ridiculous, dumb, ultra cool, and in the end, come together after being separated. This is the same fare they've been passing out on videos for years. The problem with this movie is that they are growing up, and behaving more like young adults their own age. I don't think, however, that 18 year old girls really like this stuff, as it is pretty juvenile in both its sense of humor and its drama. It's like watching Full House for 90 minutes, but switching occasionally over to MTV. At some points it's wholesome and fun, and other times the girls look and behave rather slutty. I don't know if this is appropriate for all the little girls I saw in the theater during the test screening. They are nine and ten years old, and they idolize these twins, but this movie is a little too adult for that idolatry. Some of the basic subplots consist of kidnapping, copying pirated DVDs and music, and breaking into a hotel room. The girls have also come full fledged in accepting their sexuality, and a scene with the two of them in the hotel room, set to No Doubt's `Hey Baby', and shot in slow motion might interest us men, but I don't think it's the right message for the younger audience. Not to say that they can't grow up, but if they want to act their age, they need to make a movie with appropriate themes for an audience who can relate to them.
Without something different to work with, this movie is just a mess. In giving the audience nothing more than another `Olsen Twin' movie, they haven't really done anything that people haven't seen 20 times before. I know that this movie couldn't have been good to me, but at leas it could have been marginally more creative then what they've been producing all these years. At least they didn't try and set the single father up with anyone.
The supporting cast is worthless. Andy Richter and Eugene Levy go through the motions, and for my money, neither of they `boys' is very cute. The ending is a disaster, and even at 90 minutes, the film feels like it goes on for about 20 minutes too long.
All in all, this film is a train wreck, only salvaged by their quirky performances and the occasionally soft-core pornographic moment for the 16-35 year old males. There is no reason to see this, as there are certainly better movies out for kids right now.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Worst Movie Ever
Like the oh so popular Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons, will comment on this movie= Worst Movie Ever! Please, PLEASE don't read any of the positive reviews and think that there is anything worth while in this movie. There has been no greater tragedy in American History then this abomination of a film that Super Producer Jerry Bruckheimer and MTV lackey Michael Bay brought us. The Rock, Top Gun and Armeggedon, all of which Mr. Bruckheimer was responsible for are fun, flashy films that have neat characters and very little plot. Good guys are put through tough times, they win, everyone is happy! Yay!
Now lets take a look at Pearl Harbor. This movie breaks up like this: A sleazy 90 minute love triangle which has no value, and makes Titanic look like Shakespeare in Love. Next, we have a fairly inaccurate account of the Pearl Harbor bombing, fresh with some fiction thrown in to make our leads look heroic. The bombing sequence is very neatly shown on film, but its not a fun experience to watch tons of American men get slaughtered by the "Evil Japanese". (In reality, Admiral Yamamoto had sent word of the attack thirty minutes prior to the Japanese planes arrival over the base. The film never touches on the fact that the Japanese Samurai Code, which was still strictly enforced, does not allow you to attack a "sleeping foe", instead, it makes you at least wake them up and get their sword before you can fight them. It would have been a nice touch to try and paint both sides as human, as many of the Japanese Pilots later felt that they had dishonered their empire by killing sleeping sailors). Then, after we are forced to watch people being blown up (and its not like Thin Red Line or Saving Private Ryan, all its in the film for is to accentuate Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett's hero status), the third act of the film begins. We are now treated to a lead up of the April 19th Tokyo Raid by James Doolittle. We are forced to stay an hour too long in the movie as the heroes valiantly bomb Tokyo (which in reality did nothing for the war effort) and then fight it out over China. Then, just when you think you can leave, Kate Beckinsale gives a narration telling us that after the Doolittle Raid, we had struck fear into the Japanese and we would go on to win the war from that point. Last time I checked my history books, after Doolittle's raid, they sent their entire Carrier Fleet at us towards Midway, and we destroyed their Navy their! Plus, all those men who fought on Pelilieu and Okinawa and Burma and Gaudal, nope, they did nothing Mr. Bay and Bruckheimer. Its almost as if they realized that no one would understand what they had just seen, so they had to make sure we thought it was important.
This film is truly terrible, in the fact that it fails at making a love story seem okay, it fails to shed any importance on Pearl Harbor, and it fails to even conclude itself well. I felt sick to my stomach knowing that this would be what teenagers and younger people have to learn about World War II from, and that undoubtedly, this film will be a money making juggernaut. Rent Tora! Tora! Tora!, Midway, and a Thin Red Line if you want to see some modern films on the Pacific. Or you can check out a little film called From Here to Eternity. Either way, don't see this film!
PLEASE!
Coyote Ugly (2000)
A Wonderful Kind of Awful
This is a terrible film. The acting is horrific, the script obviously hammered out in a few hours, and the piece-meal editing of a Bruckheimer film so easily recognizable that for a minute, you think Nick Cage will bust out onto the screen. But, for all its problems, this movie is entertaining in a way. It has a dumb plot, but everything is frantic and fun. The girls are gorgeous, and the Bar is nuts. It really makes you wish that this bar was right down the street from you. You'll hate this movie, but you might walk out smiling if you give it a chance.
Scary Movie (2000)
Not Worth The Money
It is absolutely amazing that this film was able to sneak past the censors in its current form. The humor is laughable, but wears thin about ten minutes into the film. The performances are average at best, and unless you really enjoy low brow humor, this movie will leave you disappointed.
The Patriot (2000)
Too Broad, Too Cliche
This is one of those films that you feel you have to see. For those of you with discriminating taste in film, I'm letting you in on a secret: You don't have to see this.
This is a film for a mass audience appeal, not for those of us who want our history and action served to us with a touch of humility and a dash of realism. This film attempts to capture the feel of two superb films: Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan. While both were brilliant, and at times understated, this film is never allowed to be either. Robert Rodat's script is average fair, borrowing heavily from Ryan, Braveheart and Last of the Mohicans. This script is not terrible, but it is not a stroke of genius. It lacks depth but is full of breadth, trying to do too much in just under three hours.
Still, this movie could have faired better under the supervision of a better director. Roland Emmerich, who in MHO has not made a good film since Stargate, bungles any of the chance Gibson or Ledger, or even Jason Issacs might have to make this film a classic. He paces the film poorly, does not allow his characters to become anything more than catalysts for special effects, and leaves the audience wondering if the Brittish were truly that evil.
If you liked U-571 instead of Das Boot, then this might be the film for you. But if you are looking for a classic, go see Gladiator, wait for August 29th for Braveheart on DVD, or purchase Last of the Mohicans. In those films, I promise you will not be disappointed.