Change Your Image
Agrenish
Reviews
Poker Superstars II (2005)
Entertaining Junk Food For The Poker Mind
Whenever you have the top names of poker in a room together, you'll more often than not, enjoy watching it.
However, this is not poker in any traditional sense. The blinds are so high throughout this program that it has turned Texas Holdem mostly into a preflop game. In the dramatic sense, all-in preflops on television are cute to watch but in reality have turned the game into more of a game of black jack than a game of poker with very little emphasis into the psychological battles the players have with each other.
This contains little, if any, real poker knowledge. It's more of a made-for-television series to rake in some additional money from crazed poker fans than anything, but to their credit, it's still somewhat entertaining and I cannot deny the fact that I still want to know who wins at the end of each episode. Just don't think you'll learn much by watching someone go all-in under the gun with an A-T with five players to follow.
The structure of the tournament also alters the way each player handles each game. While each player wants to win, sometimes their goal becomes instead to just make fourth place and as such, much of the tension is lost once a player reaches his goal and relaxes, knowing that they no longer *must* compete to win. While not a bad thing necessarily, if you're watching to learn, ask yourself how often you'll be in a position where fourth place out of sixth would be good enough.
Bring It On (2000)
Entertaining Drivel
This is not a great movie by any means. This is "You Got Served" but with acting and some sort of a coherent plot. There are things wrong with this movie, yes, but not for a second does it take itself seriously so neither did I. I file this one under G for Guilty Pleasures.
I enjoyed watching the cheer leading squads doing their thing and different styles at work, conventional Vs mainstream Vs hip-hop and the love story was stupid but a bit sugary-sweet. Kirsten Dunst does a good job acting but she was more impressive watching her... um, stretch her acting talents to that of a ditzy blonde cheer lead... oh, sorry I was distracted by Eliza Dushku. I had forgotten how pretty she is and almost wrote something stupid.
Many of the jokes fall flat as did the fact that the cheer leading squad may be better than the football team fell into the "interesting to know but I don't really care" category. Their first choreographer was not funny and a bit annoying and the whole ending is preposterous, of course, but all in all, when I need something mindless and stupid without action in it, this is what I turn to most of the time.
6.5/10
Chariots of Fire (1981)
Dreadfully Dull
I think this is a good movie, but I can't tell. I was too bored to care. I came into the movie with semi-high expectations since I had gone on a blitz of watching Best Picture winners that I hadn't seen before (Patton, The Last Emperor, Kramer Vs Kramer and The Apartment) I was truly disappointed by this and wonder why it got the thumbs up over "Reds".
Part of the problem is that the directing seems to be impassioned by the material it is presenting and there is an over emphasis on slow motion photography and echoed voices to be used as dramatic effect. In addition, I didn't really care about many, or a bit more accurately, any of the characters since they were all already pampered ivy-league kids.
The only guy I liked was Ian Holms character, the trainer of the Jewish athlete. He seemed to have his feet on the ground with a solid head on his shoulders. Also, I think they used religion to get on the good side of the public due to the fact that it oozes out of every pore of this movie's soggy skin. I'm not against religion in movies, but I think the purpose of the scriptwriter was not wholesome.
And just to make matters a bit worse, the movie insults my intelligence by repeating dialogue the characters have already said (used as narrative during a climatic or in order to "remind" me of the motivation of character. The only time this method of usage of past material used as a narrative to "remind" the audience is acceptable are mystery movies where the plot may become so convoluted you miss details along the way. This just seemed trite and lazy.
The last detail that bothered me was the use of electronic music as the film's score. I know that little ditty they play is famous but I don't think that it was appropriate due to the time the movie took place. Because of this, I was constantly reminded that the movie was made in the eighties when there was a blitz of such music out (think of 80's rock) but the fact that this movie took place in the 1920's I was constantly dragged out of the time (even though the costumes were well done). If the electric guitar hadn't been invented yet, why would you use a synthesizer?
Anyways, watch it if you want but I don't suggest it. The Academy just gave a conservative movie a title it didn't earn because "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" was too much fun and "Reds" was too controversial. Even "On Golden Pond" was better than this dribble. Think back to when "A Beautiful Mind" beat out "The Fellowship Of The Rings" or when "The English Patient" beat "Fargo".
This is a boring and thankfully forgotten movie. It's the type of movie you would dread to watch if you were forced to sit through it in school.
5 out of 10
Heat (1995)
Almost Great
For those of you that have scene it, this is for you. For those that have not, read a different review, you won't know what I'm talking about.
The main problem most people had with this caps-n-robbers, cat-n-mouse movie was the length. Nearing three hours I understood what they were talking about. This movie drags on unnecessarily at points and you wonder when the action is going to commence.
I thought about that, it's the action that drives the movie, the plot that justifies it. What about this movie is so unnecessary? It came to me. The families, the friends and the outside influences served nothing more than to get a better glimpse of the lives of these people. You know, I appreciated those scenes, but now I wish they were part of a different movie.
I stuffed the movie into my computer and edited out all the scenes with Pachino's wife, everything with DeNiro's girlfriend and kept only what was necessary of Kilmer's girl. Then I burnt the movie onto a DVD disc and re-watched it...
And it was amazing. The suspense never lets up, were constantly either thrown into a high-pressure situation or inside the interesting setups for whichever job their working on next. This gave a little more validity to the all-too-short restaurant scene between Pachino and DeNiro.
All in all, if this was edited down to a simpler cop-n-robbers movie it might be one of the most successful ever. Since we're bogged down with Pachino's wife and the young Portman, DeNiro's girlfriend the main focus loses some of the edge that makes it so sharp.
On a side note, watching this again made me wish that Pachino still acted around people lower than his caliber (because he doesn't) and that DeNiro would pick better scripts to work on. I also wish Val Kilmer was still around great projects and Jon Voight would receive the attentions he's deserved his entire career.
So fast-forward through the family scenes and just watch the main plot and I'll bet you life it more.
As is, I give the movie an 8/10. With my editing, at least a nine, most likely a ten.
Lyckantropen (2002)
Taught Little Domestic Thriller
I originally bought this due to the fact that I am a fan of the Norwegian band Ulver. Their appearance here as score writers makes sense in several ways. First: for a movie that was as low budget as this one, they were affordable. Second: They're one the few bands I know of that have come out of the Norwegian black metal community as sincere musical artists. Third: (just for fun) Ulver means Wolf in English as Lycantropen in a sense means werewolf, to those who did not know.
The movie follows a small family in Norway that go through a family crisis. I don't much want to say more because to do so would be to explain the whole short.
Throughout, the three actors all do well, the little girl is both adorable and wonderful to watch as an actress. The subtly add a wonderful tension to the film not experienced in the vast majority of full-length thrillers while the music add a quiet ambiance that enhances this mood. Careful attention was obviously spent on color themes and set placements because nothing looks like it was placed there accidentally. The Cinematography is beautiful throughout the film and the lighting is very effective. For a small budget it seemed that the production values were very high.
The only flaw that I found would be the end. This is due to the disruption of the subtly. I could understand it for a full-length going for a sudden shock; however for a short film my belief would be that going the full course in one manner would better serve the film and the audience.
All in all this is worth seeking out. I have watched this many times without my enjoyment levels developing any drastic shifts. I'm going to watch to see what Steve Ericsson, the Swedish director, does in the future after viewing his promising debut. Recommended to all.
9.5/10
Troy (2004)
Revolutionary Action Epic Drama Can't Keep The Timer Ticking
Boy, when I first saw the previews for this movie I was excited to see it. It looked like a winner with the grand sweeping epic camera movements and the Lord Of The Rings-like battles and armor and swords going on... only in Greece! And I've always liked ancient Greece and Greek mythology and I still enjoy watching "Clash Of The Titans" for all its 80's cheesiness.
But there was something wrong with this movie, many things in fact. First off, and most glaring to me, is that I could see the special effects and the make-up. Were they on a tight schedule? Was there something overlooked? I don't know... but early in the film when we're being given a close-up of Brian Cox's face, I could see where the wig's fake forehead ended and where Cox's forehead began. Blood squirts that weren't only non-realistic, they were the same. I've watched many movies in my life, so maybe I'm more prone to catch these mistakes, but then again, I didn't even try. And apparently neither did they.
Anyway, that's nitpicky stuff; let us talk about the actors. The main character (Pitt) is neither good nor bad, the bad guy (Cox) is mostly bad, the good guy (Bana) is really good, his brother's (Bloom) a punk, brat lustmord who doesn't deserve any of what he gets, but for some reason I felt like I was always being swayed to care about him. The bad guy's brother (Gleeson) is a bit boarish but I felt for him.
Interestingly enough, acting-wise I thought Gleeson was the best. In his time on the screen, (which was less-than deserved, I might add) he showed more sides to one man than I saw of any of the other characters. I especially liked short moment when this strong king, leader of thousands was reduced to a shivering, fragile and vulnerable man. Most of them were flat, two star characters that couldn't get past the screenwriter's flat representation of them.
Pitt tries his best to shed that southern Californian look and act like a killing machine that seeks immortality for the same stupid reasons we people today try to seek fame... but fails, not by much though. O'Toole, who I was most pleased to see in this project failed me more than anyone else. If this was his imitation of a talking carcass, I would have been more pleased. He looked confused and out of place with this hammy dialogue. Cox and Bloom were equally horrible, Bloom perhaps the worst of the lot. Bana however was quite good, as well as Rose Byrne who I liked quite well. Diane Kruger was pretty and all, but then again, she didn't really have to act very much so tell will tell if she has any talent behind her flesh.
The one thing I did like was the fact that I didn't know who to root for. Both side had these terrible flaws that truly represented war in life. Both sides saying they're right when both sides are clearly wrong. There are likable characters on both sides and either despicable or dishonorable on both sides. Every time I was on the verge to root for one I went, "Oh yeah, but that guy is there and he's doing something I don't like". I wish they had concentrated on that aspect of the film rather than trying to outdo LOTR on the massive size of the armies.
CGI: Cheap ways to convince the masses that we still have the ability to conj our up enough people to remake Ben-Hur.
Another annoying aspect of this mediocre film is how shiny everything is. The very fact the O'Toole's character is alive at what, eighty, back in 2000 BC or so? Ridicules. One hundred years ago is was rare to see someone at eighty, never mind back when they didn't have medicines for illnesses, aspirin for headaches or anything better than a hot poker to close gushing wounds, unless these Greeks had help from the gods.
Which brings me up to another question... where we the Gods? Bring out Zeus and Aries, Hermes and Hephaestus (who built Achilles armor specifically for the siege of Troy, by the way) and Apollo and Poseidon and Hera and all the other wonderful Greek gods and goddesses? Don't talk about the river of Styx; show it to me! Obviously they didn't make this movie to be realistic; otherwise they would have gone with dirty fingernails, rotten teeth, mud, grime, gore and hair on the women's legs. Excalibur did most of these things well.
In the end, can I suggest that you watch this film?
Sure. As long as you leave you brain at home. This is sort of like an emerald, shiny looking, pretty to look at and a semi good feel about it, yet it's easily flawed, too fragile to drop and in the end, just a rock. In other words, this is just an action movie hiding behind the skin of an epic drama. This has about as much drama as the last time you saw a bomb's timer wind down to three seconds whilst someone was disarming it.
Find yourself a real epic. Braveheart, Excalibur, any of the LOTR's and Lawrence of Arabia come to mind.
5/10
+: Decent to very good fight scenes, some clever camera moves here and there, good acting by Bean, Gleeson, Byrne and Bana. An extra point for the Hector/Ajax fight, that had me going for a while.
-: Bad acting by Cox, Bloom, O'Toole and Burrows (Pitt is in-between), no appearances by the Greek Gods, everything is too shiny, bad special effects and makeup, CGI overuse and countless other flaws too numerous to mention on one single scrap review by a hack writer.
~*~*~ ~*~*~
Interesting note...
There are three actors in Braveheart in this movie: Brian Cox, Brandon Gleeson & James Cosmo. All of them die.
Additionally, there are two actors from LOTR: Sean Bean & Orlando Bloom. Both live.
The Ladykillers (2004)
The Perfect Score: Coen Style
*** The Perfect Score: Coen Style ***
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
I went to see the teen movie The Perfect Score about a month before seeing this movie, and to be quite honest; there wasn't much of a difference.
Both movies focused around a group that are unknown to each other and come together to pull a difficult heist, one for SAT answers, the other for adult themes, money. Both have one Asian, one Black guy and one-dimensional characters that give us nothing more than a bland comedy that vainly tries to be more than it is. The only notable difference is that there are not any girls in the Ladykiller's gang (unless you count Mountain Girl) and that the IMDB uses will give this better rating because the name Coen is attached to it.
It seems, however, that our good indie friends the Coen Brothers have found themselves in a bit of a rut. Either that or the success of O' Brother has flattened their taste a bit. Either way, Ladykillers is, at least to me, the worst movie they have put to screen yet. I say this with a great deal of despair since I own each release they have put out since their original Blood Simple.
Tom Hanks is over-the-top as The Professor, a Latin reading, Edgar Allan Poe reciting, charming double-talking sociopath who rents a room from a church going black Mississippi lady who has a basement that just happens to be the ideal place to stage a casino robbery. Normally I enjoy over-the-top, hammy villain performances such as Al Pachino's Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy and Anthony Hopkins in the two post-Silence Of The Lambs movies, Red Dragon and Hannibal. Hanks was different somehow, in that, although charming, he didn't exude the right flavor to entice my morbid curiosity towards hammy villains. In the realm of double-talkers though, George Clooney was much, much better in O' Brother.
With character names like The Professor, The General, Garth Pancake, Mountain Girl and Lump, you know these guys aren't going to be the most fleshed out of characters. In fact, I would say that this movie has the worst stereotypes of any Coen Brothers movie. They've had stereotypical characters before, but have always put a unique spin on either the character or how they are used in this movie.
Other problems: the casting was weak. Marlon Waynes is not up to the Coen's stage-like script format, slurs too many words, cusses too harshly and in general cannot act past a stupid hardheaded scoundrel thug-wannabe potsmoking scumbag. His best performance of the movie was after he was shot and face didn't flicker when he died; I was impressed that he could do it. J.K. Simmons as Garth Pancake was also an annoyance. His weak bowels leaked towards the silly fart humor that I didn't expect nor want to see out of a Coen Brothers film. His testimonies towards his condition were laughable in a bad way. Jon Polito would have done a better job with the role and I hope he was unavailable to do the film so I could extend some credibility. The General, played by Tzi Ma and Lump, played by Ryan Hurst are one star characters. Who knows if they could of acted better if they weren't delegated to cheap one-liners without any true explanation as to why they're there. Both are capable with the comedy timing, but both grew thin and wearisome by the end.
The church scenes were useless. The gospel music will entice any fan of the said genre, however, for the sake of the movie it was nothing more than filler material. It didn't drive the plot, set the mood or a standard. The only plot device it held was that it showed Irma leaving the church early so she could set-up tea for her church friends and accidentally soil a near-perfect casino robbery. But we didn't need a five minute gospel hymn to show us that. Ten to fifteen seconds would have been sufficient. It is possible that the Coans are trying to cash in on some more potential soundtrack money after the unexpected success of the O' Brother soundtrack. Where that movie was cute and clever with it's usage of music, this is blowing towards the direction of a prettily shot documentary of the Mississippi black church community.
I miss the Coen regulars. Francis and the aforementioned Jon hasn't been around since The Man Who Wasn't There, Steve Buscemi and John Goodman haven't been seen since The Big Lebowski, if I'm not mistaken and John Turturro since O' Brother. With the chemistry these people must have from working together, or at least, around each other for so long, it makes it seem that this new bunch lacks the necessary developed work relationship to make scenes work as well as they did in the past.
One thing, though, is people's complaints about the language of this movie, and then compares it to The Big Lebowski. Does anyone not remember Walter's relationship with Donny? This is not the first foul-mouthed Coen Brothers movie and we'll probably get another one down the line. Who cares and why? No one called this family material.
All in all, even though, unlike Cruel Intentions and The Hudsucker Proxy, which are also Coen Brothers Lite, this ultimately fails. I hope next time they decide to take a little more time in-between movies and give us something a little more worth while to watch. It's a good thing we still have the original to watch, those of us that are willing to watch something nearly fifty years old at the time of this writing.
I suppose it's time to wish for the good old days of Miller's Crossing and Raising Arizona. 5/10
~Joe