Change Your Image
mesmorizedmind
Reviews
Halloween (1978)
Michael Myers is a pervert!
Spoilers herein.
I expected a lot from this film. I've known of the legend surrounding this movie for a long time. I was disappointed. For a low-budget film of 1978, the cinematography, sound effects, and suspense elements are pretty good. I imagine this movie was the first of it's kind, and very influential. However, classics don't get dated like this movie did. I may be over-exaggerating how dated this movie is. I think young viewers might still get frightened by this, and the movie is still watchable. The only thing about this movie that didn't get dated is the theme music. The theme music is excellent and definitely a keeper.
I found the movie boring. The real action doesn't start until halfway through the movie. There isn't much gore, and the casualty rate is at a minimum. The dialogue is too ordinary and rudimentary, and there isn't much of it. The suspense isn't bad, but predictable (I suppose it wouldn't be predictable when it was first released, but given all the imitations it spawned, there aren't any surprises). Michael Myers seems retarded. In one scene he is grunting and mumbling incoherently when going in for the kill. In another scene he has trouble breaking the closet doors. Ever heard of just opening it with your hands? The movie never explains why he killed his older sister, or why he is on a rampage now, fifteen years later.
Even though I don't think the movie is great, Michael Myers is still a nice villain. His cheap five dollar mask does wonders on him. He can look pretty scary just walking around the neighborhood with his butcher knife and his expressionless eyes.
I don't think the movie is bad, but it is not a classic. The only sense the movie is a classic is in the context of the time period when it was made. I'd recommend Halloween to young viewers, or people inexperienced with the horror genre.
Now to my theory about why Michael Myers is a pervert. When he was six, little Mikey had a defected form of the Oedipus Complex. Instead of lusting for his mother, he desired his sister. Sadly for him, an older boy was coveting her. His frustrations caused him to kill his sister. While in prison, he did nothing but jerk off. He was sex depraved. So the first thing he does when he escapes is to try to get some. Young Laurie comes by his house and Michael sees nothing but flowers and wedding bells. He must have her. So he stalks her to find out how he can impress her. Mikey can't get any because her friends are in the way. Watch the movie to see how this love affair turns out.
Human Nature (2001)
Nature Is Entertaining.
Spoilers herein.
I've been watching a lot of movies and this movie is kind of like a snack in between the really hard hitting movies. As that, it's really entertaining, at times insightful, and fun to watch. Some people may have gone into watching this expecting a straight comedy, and perhaps that is the reason they were disappointed. The movie is satiric, and only at certain times is the comedy blatant and obvious (some people call this gross-out humor). I found the idea of Arquette's character Lila having hair all over her body as a bit uncouth, but the filmmakers are trying to make a point about the superficialities that is part of being human.
Acknowledging the title, I expected a mock of what we humans hold dear as our essence, and I got just that. The movie should not be discredited because the philosophical aspect of nature versus nurture is on the light side. I think Human Nature has some good insights that everyone can walk away with. As humans in a civilized society, we have to conform to the norm and follow rules. We have to restrain our hormonal pressures for sex and the like. Isn't it argued by some that the sole purpose of life is to reproduce? That idea is a bit crude and cold, and most of us don't like to think of it like that.
We used to be in touch with nature when we were first born, but after being indoctrinated into societal culture and behavior, we lost our nature. This dehumanization of our essence is essentially what we hold to be human, as ironic as that is. Man is a rational animal as Aristotle said. Would we be rational if weren't taught to be? Are we at all times rational in this civilized society? Aren't people still fighting over trivial things? Are we any smarter now than we were two thousand years ago? Although not explicitly in the movie, these sorts of thoughts is what the movie is essentially bringing up.
One of the funniest scenes in the movie was when Puff (Rhys Ifans) is shown a slide of a naked woman on a projector and he instinctively lunges at the picture trying to 'get some.' I am reminded of a similar scene, with different ends, in Clockwork Orange. Nathan (Tim Robbins) has to shock him several times before he learns to contain his sexual urges. I found all of the scenes trying to teach Puff to be a sophisticated person hilarious, including the scene where he whispers to a manakin from a fake balcony watching a non-existent opera. Miranda Otto playing the assistant of Nathan, Gabrielle, was funny with her fake French accent and mannerisms.
Nathan's parents were equally funny teaching their adopted six-year old son Wayne table manners. At one point, Nathan says, "Mother please tell Wayne not to hit on my girlfriend." I liked when Puff's father goes berserk and ape-like when he sees the newspaper headlines saying "Kennedy Assassinated." I found it interesting to see Nathan sitting in what we assume is purgatory telling his story and asking if he is going to heaven or hell, or if he would have to tell his tale again. *SPOILER - The ending is hilarious when Puff gets together with Gabrielle after pretending to go back to nature. /*SPOILER
Overall, this is a good movie. Human Nature is funny, original, and has a message to give to the viewers. The film manages to pack all of this in 96 minutes, good for those of you with short attention spans. Forget Charlie Kaufman wrote the screenplay because that will create expectations too big for this movie to handle. This is a sleeper that everyone should check out.
Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)
I see Ghost Dogs...
Spoilers herein.
Ghost Dog is a good original movie. The film mixes several elements together well to tell an untold tale. The protagonist becomes a samurai and a retainer to a gang boss who saved his life. Some of the good points of the movie are the action scenes, as well as some of the dialogue. The soundtrack to the movie is nice. The Japanese maxims are sometimes good.
I liked the scene where Ghost Dog heads straight into the gangsters' lair and kills nearly everyone with two silencers. Another memorable scene (although I hear it's copied off of another movie) is when he shoots the main gangboss through the drain pipe. I liked when Ghost Dog was practicing with a sword on top of his balcony with a rap instrumental playing in the background.
The two funny scenes in the movie is when the gangbosses are sitting around, and one of them starts rapping, and the other starts making animal sounds when he is talking about names for Native American chiefs. The other funny scene is when the same gangboss that was rapping is also rapping to Flavor Flav right before he gets killed.
Now for the negative comments. Despite these quibbles, I still recommend this movie. The movie was too long (nearly two hours). The story is simple: Ghost Dog kills a mafia boss like his boss wants him to, and the mob wants to kill him now. Although the movie was interesting (as a whole), it was not always exciting.
I felt some of the scenes were repetitive. Many times in the movie, it seems like Ghost Dog is either riding or walking around in the streets looking melancholy and wise. Whenever he is driving, he is shown putting a cd into the cd player. Is this really necessary? Couldn't the movie have music without showing him putting it on (which they do in some scenes)? I'm actually making two statements in one here. First, the lack of any real action for long periods of time, and second, music at unnecessary times.
Another element that was repeated over and over were different Japanese maxims throughout the film. I understand that these maxims will help illuminate the mindset of a samurai, but I don't think the maxims themselves are at all times "profound." Too many of them interspersed in the film breaks the flow of action.
Three books were showcased in the film: Frankenstein, Rashomon, and Hagakure. I find it frustrating to keep showing a book, especially Rashomon, so many times in the movie when the audience is not likely to be familiar with the text. Yes I know Rashomon the movie was directed by Akira Kurosawa. I haven't seen it yet. However, I don't think a movie should rely on a crutch such as a book to be one of the guiding metaphors or symbols. Show us visually the messages from the book, don't give us vague allusions.
I think this movie was missing good characters with depth. When I imagine a samurai, I imagine someone who is fit, stealthy, and can physically move quickly. Forest Whitaker is not who I have in mind. However, given that they chose him, I think one good feature about him is his disproportionate eyes and the look on his face. This helps with the mystique surrounding a samurai.
When I say this film is lacking characters with depth, I mean the rest of the cast. The ice-cream vendor who speaks only French is unique enough, but necessary? Half of the movie Ghost Dog goes to talk to this man and eats ice-cream. What about the gang bosses? Louie seems like a coward, and the ending doesn't make sense given that Ghost Dog actually helped him get rid of the people who were going to kill him.
Although the dialogue was interesting when the mob bosses sit down, the dialogue itself nowhere reaches the levels that Quentin Terrantino or Francis Ford Coppola reaches in their films. The line where one of the gangsters says, "Fughett about it" reminded me of the same line in Donnie Brasco (this film actually makes a big deal about that line). Anyways, these gangsters seem very low-level if their entire mission is to kill Ghost Dog, after all Ghost Dog isn't really part of the gang. The other thing is Ghost Dog did what he was told, so it's not his fault if anything went wrong. The story seems thin, to me at least.
This seemed like a low-budget sleeper, and for that reason, the content that is contained is excellent. If the movie was a bit more polished, and took out some of the repetition, then this movie would be an instant classic. In it's current form, Ghost Dog is a good movie.
Blue Velvet (1986)
Blue what? Yeah. Avoid this film.
Spoilers herein.
The only two other Lynch films I saw before viewing this one were Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway. I had lots of expectations before watching this film because not only was it Lynch, but many people said this was their favorite Lynch film. Blue Velvet came out in 1986, Lost Highway in 1997, and Mulholland Drive in 2001. Viewing these films from a technical aspect, one would see the cinematography, sound, and content have progressed, or at least have been refined. Lynch is getting better at making movies because he has more experience as he gets older. Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive are not that far apart in terms of release date as is Lost Highway and Blue Velvet.
The point I'm trying to make here is that Blue Velvet is a novice effort by Lynch (although I can't say anything about Elephant Man or Eraserhead that preceded this film). This movie is pretty straight-forward compared to his other films. I didn't get much out of it, although I expected a lot from it.
The sense of horror, intensity, and atmosphere in Lynch films is not prevalent throughout this film. In fact few scenes are really that scary. Each time Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) goes up and down the stairs to Dorothy Vallens' (Isabella Rossellini) apartment, the stairway is dark and the proper foreboding sound effects are played. The creepiest scene in the film would have to be when Jeffrey walks into Dorothy's apartment and finds the dead men.
Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper) is not the truly evil human being some make him out to be. I can see where they get that idea. Jeffrey, in a conversation with Sandy Williams (Laura Dern), even asks how there could be such evil people in the world. I will concede that he is evil, but I don't think Frank is aware of it. Frankly (no pun intended), I think he is a plain villain who is violent and curses a lot. I don't see any shred of intelligence in him. Intelligent villains (or at least intelligent villains with mental defects) who are evil are really the stuff of true terror. Frank Booth came off as a thug/womanizer.
In the aforementioned conversation Jeffrey has with Sandy, Sandy talks about a dream she has. In this dream, the world is dark, and the robins which represent love will one day bring light back to this world. Until that time comes, there will be trouble in this world. There it is. That's it. That's the only thought-provoking idea in the entire movie.
Jeffrey is a hypocrite. He says how bad Frank is, but he makes love to Dorothy, a woman that is married with child. At the same time, he is cheating on Sandy. Why does Sandy forgive him so quickly? I don't think he should be the moral bearer of this story. Although he'll regret this later, Jeffrey physically hits Dorothy, an act he detested in Frank.
Jeffrey's character is not believable. I understand he likes mysteries, but he seems too eager to solve this one. Even when he sees how dangerous this is, he continues to pry into Dorothy's life. Where does he get this bravery from? In contrast to this, it takes him a while to speak up when the bad guys take him for a ride.
Blue Velvet is not one of the better Lynch films. I don't recommend it. Yes, the film contains disturbing scenes and is mostly dark, but the story is not great, even if it is coherent. Some people say this movie represents the dark side of America and Reagan's presidency in the 1980s, and other sorts of stuff like that. To this I say, if a movie is good, it will have a timeless quality to it that generations to come will be able to appreciate. As much as I wanted to like this film, it is not a classic, or even a good movie at that. Lynch is very good at style, without much actual substance. This movie doesn't have any unique style that sets it apart from other suspense/horror type films.
Lost Highway (1997)
Amazing. The Lost Highway to Hell.
Spoilers herein.
I love this film. I knew I would be in for an unforgettable ride that would not give up for a second. I got what I expected because my expectations were just right. Let me explain. I didn't know about David Lynch until I saw Mulholland Drive. Sure, I remember seeing the commercial for Lost Highway when it first came out, but I knew nothing about the film or who made it then. I loved everything about Mulholland Drive except for the incoherent story. Well, that is a big part of the movie, isn't it? It took me some time to get over that, and actually think about it (although I'm not close to being done). Anyways, having watched Mulholland Drive, and learning some information about Lynch afterwards gave me the right expectations for this film.
Lost Highway is not for everybody. I think film noir, surrealism, and dark movies are generally not for the mainstream casual movie audience. I think it is an acquired taste, and only certain people will like this movie. Of course, if you're an open-minded person, and can handle strong content, then you might appreciate this film. Most detractors don't like this film for the same reason they don't like other Lynch films like Mulholland Drive, mainly because the story doesn't reveal itself right away. Their main argument is that films like these put nonsensical elements together and pretend to be art, and that people just eat it up. I am glad that there are critical people like this around who question the artistic value of such films because it's good to be skeptical rather than accepting things right away. I'm not art expert, and I believe it's hard to be one because so many subjective elements make up art. Sure there are objective elements one can look at, but it still comes down to your personal views about it (somewhat like film reviews). Anyways, these disputes will never settle, and so there is no point in arguing one way or the other, it's more about how the film connects with you.
For me, entering the Lost Highway, I knew I would see bizarre things with wild twists and turns. I knew the movie would not be wrapped up with everything explained at the end. So one reason I watched this is mainly for the experience. So what can I say about the experience? Most of the movie was dark (literally and figuratively). Only few scenes contained daylight. The atmosphere was intense and never let up the entire movie. The background was droning with ominous sounds.
I think Bill Pullman who plays Fred did an excellent job of creating the mood. At the beginning, we see him smoking, his face distraught and lost. He gets a buzz at the intercom and the message says, "Dick Laurent is dead." At the end of the film, Fred leaves that message at his home before going on the wild police chase. Supposedly, Fred killed his wife, Dick Laurent, and Andy. One key line in the film is Fred saying, "I like to remember things my own way...Not necessarily the way they happened." One theory is that while he was being executed for the murders, Fred thinks back to what happened, mixing the real with the imagined (the Pete character).
One question that some wonder about is who taped Fred's house along with the murder of his wife, if indeed the Mystery Man is a part of Fred's conscience. To answer this question, one might refer to the Mystery Man saying, "You invited me. It is not my custom to go where where I am not invited." This doesn't necessarily answer the question if he's real or not, or if he really videotaped everything. One thing to remember is that the character is pervasive throughout the film. He's on the intercom at the beginning, at the party with Andy (and at the same time in Fred's house), with Dick Laurent when he calls Pete, at the cabin, and at Dick Laurent's shooting.
The imagery in this movie is unforgettable, from the love scene between Pete and Alice to the look on Fred's face as he rides away at the end. I still can remember the scene at the beginning when Fred is making love to Renee and the time shifts to slow motion. With exasperated pants and breathes from Fred we realize that he is disturbed and disgusted as something is eating away at his mind. The look on the Mystery Man's face is haunting with his big black dark eyes, his pallid aged face, and the look of a sinister being.
The soundtrack to Lost Highway is great with songs by Marilyn Manson, Rammstein, Smashing Pumpkins, Nine Inch Nails and others. Lynch packed the movie with great eery sounds throughout so that it's made to feel like a nightmare. Yes, some may feel the movie is a nightmare because it gets under your skin. It makes you uncomfortable. I think that's what makes it so great, to have the power to cause real reactions.
Lost Highway is one suspenseful horror that takes the viewer to the depths of the mind and reveals fears of the unknown. I loved this film, but I'm sure most mainstream viewers won't. This movie will appeal to the film noir audience and people with a love for the Absurd.
The Transporter (2002)
Transport this back into the trash can.
Spoilers Herein.
I didn't expect much from this movie before going into it since I read some of the comments about this movie. I did hear that it still had some style that made it stand out so I decided to check it out. The plot is paper thin. It's something about 400 Chinese in a container being imported from Asia. Our hero Frank Martin (good combination of two first names, not) gets involved in this matter when he breaks one of his own rules and opens a package (the heroine Lai Kwai) that he is delivering. This is very unprofessional of him seeing as how the first scene in the movie tries to establish him as someone who doesn't fool around and gets the job done. It's hard to believe he goes 'soft' since he isn't prone to killing people.
I don't have enough negative comments about the actress Qi Shu who played Lai Kwai. I think there are enough talented Chinese actresses around to have to resort to someone who doesn't speak English well. Then there is the French police officer who's accent makes it hard to comprehend him, although I probably shouldn't be complaining. Okay so you have British, French, and Chinese people all speaking English. How about some Americans?! Given that British people invented the language, I won't say anything about that.
This movie tried to combine too many things into one. Cool cars? I liked the BMW and Mercedes, but this should probably be left up to Bond. Martial arts? Jackie Chan is your man. Muscle fighting? Did I hear someone say Arnie? Espionage? How about Ethan Hunt? The combination of such disparate elements doesn't fare too well in this movie. I suppose you could say this is second-rate material of the above mentioned established actors/characters.
Frank Martin is an unbalanced character. He seems almost rigid and mechanical at times. He doesn't show much emotion but Lai Kwai takes to him right away. Does he have class? As I mentioned earlier, he's no Bond, but at times he can hold his own. His character reminds me of the bald character in Hitman (a game for PC). We don't learn much about his past except that he used to be a soldier.
The soundtrack, although not great, was not bad. I liked the mix of hip-hop, techno, and rock music throughout the film. The editing does not help complement the background music.
So what's the final verdict? The story sucks. The action is second-rate and needs lots of polishing. The acting is horrible by most of the actors. I would say since it's hard to come by really good action films, this would probably be an average action film better than some, but by no means good. I would recommend people to stay away from this, or at least view with caution.
Love & Basketball (2000)
Love & Basketball & a Satisfied Viewer
Spoilers herein:
This movie is good. I see no major flaws. The casting is eye-pleasing for both male and female viewers with Omar Epps and Sanaa Lathan. The story is pretty simple, and the title explains it all. I saw Monica (Sanaa Lathan) as perfect. She was fit, beautiful, and had a great respectable personality. The only flaw with her may have been her reaction to her mother just being a housewife. This isn't really a flaw, but it does show that she can be somewhat intolerant. With a female that likes to play basketball, you would expect her to be somewhat feminist, and she was, but not to a great degree. The things she vouched for, such as equality even though she was a woman, is something everybody should have.
Quincy (Omar Epps) was less perfect as a character. He went out with many shallow girls, perhaps because he was shallow too. A turning point in the movie was when Quincy finds out his father cheated on his mother. Monica tried to console him, but had to leave because of curfew. This leads Quincy to believe she cares more about following rules and basketball, than she does about love. I tried to imagine how I would feel from Quincy's point of view, and I came to the conclusion that I would think that she does not really care about me if she can't break a simple rule. Her excuse is that she wouldn't make him choose in a similar situation. Perhaps Quincy is making too much of this situation, or she really did make a mistake. Anyway, this leads Quincy and Monica to go their separate ways for a long time.
The denouement is the two childhood friends playing basketball. Monica is playing for his heart. I think Quincy's character is a jerk most of the time, and he doesn't deserve a sweet person like Monica because she was never unfaithful to him, even though they were broken up. The ending is a happy one that everybody should enjoy.
Overall, I liked this movie. Even though the story was simple, the execution of it compensated. Love & Basketball is a nice romantic movie to watch with somebody close to you.
Treasure Planet (2002)
Disney you've managed to put out another stinker!
This movie sucks really bad. Why? It's predictable even though I haven't read Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island, which I'm sure is quite good. The graphics in this movie are amazing, but would you expect less from the kings of animation? It's another case of style over substance. In this case though, it's not really style, but good art. Style usually means some unique signature way of portraying something, but since this movie is just like every other movie, there is no style.
The story is a no-brainer, and the characters are underdeveloped. Am I supposed to feel sorry for little Jimmy? He's a no good kid who skateboards in the air in forbidden areas and gets in trouble. His father supposedly left him, so that's why he's a rebel. What is his mother doing? It seems both he and his mother are both depressed most of the time. Is the astronomer supposed to be a unique character? Isn't he another stereotypical "scientific" old guy that tries to be funny? The names of the characters are so bland. A little blob creature that can morph into different things is called Morph. I'm astonished. What's with the big fat pirate character that likes Jim but tries to kill him? Their relationship is ambiguous at best.
Why is Jimmy's mother so young and gorgeous? She should be haggard. She's like practically the same age as him. The captain of the ship is a female. Disney is trying to be politically correct.
Okay so the characters are trying to get this treasure, but I ask why? The inn broke down and now Jim has to help fix it and set things right. Why doesn't he get a job working like a normal person instead of going on this adventure and risking his life? Why are all the characters money driven and greedy? Really, is the treasure going to give you everlasting happiness? The ending is sappy as always and everything works out for everybody. Jeez, I didn't see that coming. Awful awful waste of time, even if it is only 85 minutes.
Frida (2002)
Frida, who are you? I don't know you and I don't care.
Contains Spoilers I heard of this movie before I saw the Oscars, and I was going to watch it regardless because Selma Hayek was in it. I'm really a fan of her looks, and possibly acting. Anyway, from the Oscars I learned Frida Kahlo was an artist, but that was all I knew going into the movie. That's all I knew coming out too. I didn't get much out of it.
Frida is the daughter of a Mexican woman and a German Jew and apparently lives in a pretty upscale home, especially for Mexico. She gets injured in a trolley accident, but soon is able to recover. Now I could see that she was young, and had high prospects before the accident, and I might've had some sympathy for her if they played off of that accident. I don't really care about Frida by this time because she's rich, she's got nothing to whine about, and since she recovers from the accident, she's back in good shape.
She marries Diego Rivera even though she knows he has a wild tendency for cheating. He even says that it's in his nature. So why would she be surprised that he's cheating on her constantly? I think the decision to marry him was a mistake on her part, and yet I still don't care about her. Oh no, she has had to live a life of pain. She's an artist. Wow! Her husband is a Communist, and when they showed Trotsky, I thought it was going to get interesting, but it didn't. Frida has an affair with Trotsky to spite her husband.
Some stuff happens and her leg has to be amputated. Diego takes care of her the rest of her life. She finally gets her art shown in Mexico. This must've been a great achievement, but I was just not feeling it.
The cinematography in this movie was nice, but it's kind of a standard for any movie that wants recognition. The story? Well for two hours and some minutes, I didn't know where the story was taking me, and I wasn't particularly interested. Although, the only thing that did interest me was seeing some nice looking Mexican women naked. Aside from that, this movie was a waste of time.
Money Talks (1997)
This movie wanted money to talk, but money had to sit in the corner.
Contains Spoiler I heard this was a funny action movie from a friend. When I saw the commercial for it, I wanted to see it because Chris Tucker was in it. Then years passed by, and no one really talked about the movie. Well I finally decided to see it, and boy am I glad that I punched myself in the face afterwards. This movie is very stupid. You learn the story in the first five minutes, that is to say you would learn the story if there was one.
Chris Tucker is loud and obnoxious the entire movie. The funniest line in the movie was "PHAT - Pretty Hot and Tempting." Unfortunately, they showed this line in the commercials for the theatrical debut. This movie is not funny despite the amount of profanity used. I'm usually a big fan of profanity, but it just wasn't working here.
Basically the movie is one and a half hours of non-stop action. Here's something I don't get: Tucker was seen associated with the bad guy, and so he thought he was framed, but why doesn't he clear his name? How is chasing after the bad guy and risking your life for no reason going to clear your name? Why do all the cops shoot first and ask questions later? This is in no way a portrait of real life, and I didn't expect it to be, but the amount of exaggeration in this movie is appalling and insulting. There's a difference between a good action movie, and a bad action movie. Just because there's a lot of action doesn't make it a good action movie. The action wasn't even that good.
Tucker is a low-life hustler in this movie. How did he manage to be the "coolest" guy at the banquet? Why would the father of the bride actually believe he was someone else without looking at an ID or something? How could he possibly believe he was Italian? I suppose that could be funny if it wasn't outright stupid. Why does Tucker keep hustling? His home and his wife should've kept him straight, but I suppose it's because he was hustling that he has a wife and a good home. I shouldn't over analyze this tripe, after all it's just a comedy/action and it's not supposed to be taken seriously. It's best forgetting this movie was ever made.