Change Your Image
yak-yak
Reviews
Cold Souls (2009)
I loved it, well-balanced, classic Giamatti drama and humour
I gave the movie 9 and I stand behind that. The classic Giamatti drama, wit and humour are not lacking here and there are foreign-speaking parts which are blissfully uncluttered. The viewer has to be forgiving of practical details relating to the non-local scenes because getting bogged down in the reality of what would likely have really happened would make the movie darker than desired and be inconsistent with the unreal aspect of the plot. In essence, a little flexibility on the practical nature of things is rewarded with a rich experience. The only real downside is the undeveloped character played by Emily Watson. Even a few more good lines could have given us a full character. If her character was supposed to be an equal presence then the movie would get a lower grade, but as a supporting role it was good.
District 9 (2009)
Tense solid character-driven action/drama with forgivable faults. 8/10
As the summary suggests, this movie features a solid premise, very able acting, and a sensible script. The plot is fairly well thought through and each scene follows from the last. The director must have done a fabulous job because I really couldn't predict the events of the movie. It didn't lock itself into a hero-movie path.
The character-driven nature of this film is one of its best characteristics, and as a rare treat for an action movie I was able to emotionally invest in the fate of the lead characters. This extra quality offsets the typical action, and more than makes up for some of the slightly more clichéd elements within the show. Thankfully though, they did not follow any formula closely.
It *does* have some faults. There are moments when plot or scene logic doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny, and while the action is well-done, it does have a few of those "why doesn't he just..." moments. That won't matter to you though because you'll be so intrigued with having a cinematic experience that treats you like a thinking person that you won't even bother to think about HOW the logic is incomplete or how the action should have been done. The foibles are sufficiently minor and the movie keeps moving forward.
My biggest problem is with the camera work. The shaky camera effect was used in places I felt it unjustified. Certainly some of the film is believable with the hand-held quality but many parts make that really inappropriate and distracting.
This movie is intelligent, and I beg for a sequel. I want that sequel to be a continuation of the story, with the same high calibre acting, attention to script quality (that's so important), and not blown way out of proportion and made horrid like sequels normally are.
Thank you, everyone who contributed to District 9. This movie did not disappoint!
Knowing (2009)
Solid drama and acting. Nice effects. Standard cinematography and sets.
Overall rating 7/10. Acting is good though not exceptional. Lesser actors would have been a disaster since the material really forced the actors to wring the most out of what they were asked to say. Script is pretty standard material for a human drama, safe and uncreative. The plot elements were above average. No eye-rolling took place while viewing. This isn't a must-have or must-see but if you watch it you won't feel let down and it really is good for mixed company. The family drama is a bit tired but whatever, that's Hollywood for you. The action goes beyond the call in terms of CGI effort, and that was a real eye-opener. The cinematography is the same boring stuff you've seen everywhere. People driving, people talking, people hurrying about. Standard shots with standard timing by people who know how to do standard perfectly. The plot is what makes this a 7 rather than a 6.
The Spirit (2008)
No spoilers here: Artful like Sin City, more humorous, not too long
Simply, this has the artistic appearance of Sin City, the same sense of time period only not rigidly so, and amusing dialog which in some cases is intentionally comedic and at times a little hokey like a comic book. It has an overall satisfying and polished feel. I'm not a comic-book fan but I enjoy a good comic book movie. I would definitely see it again. It's also not too long. All major players deliver. I won't say anything about how it ends...just that you don't go to the movie for the ending. Enjoy it all the way through, because the worth of the movie is not in the plot but in the characters and writing. If you need a morals-based assessment, try movieguide dot org Most of all have a good time!
Shi mian mai fu (2004)
6/10 Same old lousy wire work and tiresome fighting antics. Low on visual splendor, except when there's too much of it.
I had high hopes for this movie. I saw Hero and loved it. I was expecting fantastically colored visuals, exceptional acts of acrobatic fighting, a *few* cheesy physics-defying stunts, and a plot worth caring about. Instead, I got a mediocre movie that tries really really really hard to fulfill Hollywood's rule of followup films: whatever people liked about the first film, give 'em three times as much in the second film.
I can suspend reality, I can easily accept an alternate reality as long as it's consistent. I can accept a world where people can become lighter than air and launch objects with impossible accuracy ('impossible' due to uncontrollable variations such as, say, air turbulence). But if they can't control the rotation of their body (whilst being lighter than air, recall) and land on the ground like an Olympic gold medalist, then they'd better not show up on my movie screen.
My biggest gripe about these sorts of films: stupid wire work. These directors can't seem to ever get it right. Hey, I've got no problem with people being able to stand on a tiny tree limb without falling, and leap from said tiny limb and fly through the air in a horizontal line, but if they rotate just a wee bit in the wrong direction, and land on the ground awkwardly as though they were, say, suspended from a wire, then the illusion is shattered, their hard work is worthless, and my head is slowly shaking back and forth. Bah!
The use of slow motion, while it can be effective, does not make a movie an Asian epic, nor does it move the movie along smartly. This movie used slow motion too often, most of the time to show us some camera effects for the sake of camera effects. No substance in that.
OK, enough of that. Onto the visuals. I found the colors washed out, except for a few scenes where they were very rich. I found some scenes were showing us scenery at the expense of momentum. Yeah, it's a nice place, move it along please.
Plot. The plot was fine. No complaints.
So overall, I have to say my experience in this movie was ho-hum. The two ladies in front of me thought I was objecting to the focus placed on human interaction, and wrote me off as a samurai wannabe until I remarked that the original version of Shall We Dance is worth their time. That just confused them...but I digress.
The movie is not a waste of time if you have something to do while you watch it, like knit a scarf, or if you are bored and there is no other movie to see, or if you just kinda want to dumb things down and watch some nice special effects, apart from the stupid wire work.
Good luck.
6/10
The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
7/10 Really interesting, but a bit slow without enough drama.
Generally I felt this was a really good movie, but for me it lacked a bit of drama and pizazz. It was remarkable to see Billy-Bob do so much with so little. I've never been so captivated with someone who doesn't say a word. His timing and expression was excellent, and his use of the cigarette seemed to me to add another dimension to the character, and it made for some great close-up visuals. I felt a bit bored sometimes, and wished that the camera work could have been made less ordinary for the non-close-up scenes. All of the actors did a terrific job, but some of the dialog was lacking in interest or pace. Anyway, I felt it was a worthwhile experience, but less film-noir than I had expected. 7/10
Waking Life (2001)
7/10 Amazing. Totally captivating. Maybe a bit pretentious. Very wordy and slow and deep.
This was truly an amazing work. I don't know if there was original camera work done and then animation on top of it, but the movement and expression of the body was so complete that it made me wonder, because I've never seen any animation capture people so completely. The plot, if it has one, was workable, but it's not really the kind of movie that needs a plot since it's just a man searching for understanding. The movie is very very wordy. It's all words. At some point I started to feel it was pretentious, but because it was such a movie to behold, I was happy to keep going. I even lost track of the time. My only real beef is that they do so much talking that seems so deeply theoretical that there is no effort made to make it easier to digest or summarize. That was probably intentional though; an effort to be 'uncompromizing' in its intellectual offerings to the viewer. The broad cast of characters offers so much to see and hear. Anyway, I loved it, but at some point I felt bored with the relentless talking and captivated with everything else. 7/10
Treed Murray (2001)
8/10 Hidden gem. Solid acting by leads, moves well, fair script.
This is really one of those hidden gems of a movie. The plot is so simple: An executive type gets trapped in a tree by a group of young hoods. It's all psychological stuff, virtually zero dollars spent on set design and such, because it's just a park. The acting by all of the main characters is quite solid, especially that of the group leader. A bit of excess drama at one point with scary people doing scary things, but it wasn't too overdone. They got the point across anyway.
This is really worth renting. It's not action-packed, but it's going to keep you watching until it's over.
8/10
Dummy (2002)
7/10 Interesting characters, some good laughs, worth a shot.
It may well be that nobody ever reads this, but here goes. Dummy is a mosaic of interesting characters, and only one flop, that was Fangora (Milla Jovovich). B grade acting school performance from that one. Anyway, all the other characters were intentionally overdone, and Stephen (Adrian Brody) was fascinating in his interaction with the dummy, not to mention funny. The movie doesn't take itself too seriously, which is good, because you shouldn't either.
As for plot, well, a directionless not-so-young man takes up ventriloquism, and that's not a very socially expansive thing to do. Works for me.
So I liked the movie, it was entertaining, apart from Fangora, and it's worth a look.
7/10
Cellular (2004)
6/10 Well-paced, formulaic, entertaining, some good acting.
Well, I liked this film pretty well, but it really did have a lot of formula. Right from the opening scene I knew that it was going to be a formula-driven work. However, I was impressed with the premise and I was very impressed with Kim Basinger's performance (ignoring the first 10 minutes that she's on-screen).
Acting: Good enough, though I really had hoped for better from William H. Macy. His performance seemed a little forced, but that might have been the material, so I'll give him the benefit of some doubt there. He's a fine actor, though he tends to stay with similar roles. Kim did a great job, worthy of note. The child didn't have much to do, and didn't do much with what he had. The husband is so forgettable I can't even comment, because I forgot his performance. The lead role generally did well, he didn't make mistakes and didn't seem to overact. The lawyer guy was about as funny as he was intended to be, for a stereotype. Jason Statham was notable in his role because he was professional and fairly understated. No grinding teeth, no jubilant brutality, just work work work. Good job Jason! Noah Emmerich did a great job.
Plot: Unique! I liked the plot, though the idea that some kid could tear around town in a stolen car and not get caught by somebody is a bit silly, or maybe it happens a lot in LA. Anyway, I didn't have a problem with the plot apart from the way the ending was treated, it was just treated with less care by the director than it should have been. Unrealistic human representations given all the stuff that happened.
Overall this is a fair movie, but some parts are just there to fill out the formula, and the ending is unrealistic.
I'd skip it if I were you, because there are so so so many better movies to watch, and you'll never get your 94 minutes back.
6/10
Man on Fire (2004)
7/10 Convincing acting, good script, well-paced, annoying cinematography.
I like Denzel Washington and Christopher Walken, and I was happy to see both doing a good job in this film. Everyone has their bad films, and neither of these gentleman can claim this as their 'bad one'.
Acting: Everyone did well in this film. Kudos to the little girl, she's a fantastic actor. (Too bad she's aware of that.) I've yet to see Christopher Walken in something really out of his style. Nevertheless, this was good, and he managed well enough with the material he was given. Denzel did what he always does, and that's good enough for now. Mickey Rourke did about what you'd expect as a slick lawyer. The supporting cast was exceptional. I was particularly impressed with the driver of the 'bad guys' car, and the guy from New Jersey.
Plot: Well, gee, I don't know. A non-Mexican man in Mexico City walking around in a business suit who is wanted by corrupt officials. Frankly, he stands out like a national monument, and I haven't the experience to say whether this is possible without quick death or not. I didn't see him wearing a bulletproof vest, and anyone can be victim of a good driveby. If a reporter can find him, then so can anyone else who wants to find him badly enough.
Script: No problems here. Even the one-liners were delivered with some sense of self-satire. It seemed pretty good.
Overall, I like the movie. There are better, but this one's good.
7/10
Shark Tale (2004)
5/10 The script could have been computer-generated.
This film was an expensive exercise in mediocrity. I laughed a bit, but not much.
Script: Did this movie actually have a human writer? I'm debating that. The script was so formula that it seemed it could have been written by a computer. Perhaps there are computers named "Rob Letterman" and "Damian Shannon" out there somewhere pumping out the next "Hippo Story".
Characters: Why did they animate this movie at all? Really, it could have been produced with humans on dry land and it would have been the same. The fact that they were aquatic beings gave nothing to the film because every character was made to appear and move as much like a human as possible. So what's the point? At least in Finding Nemo, they were actually fish that behaved like fish. Worse than this though was the inclusion of human culture, the same blunder as Star Wars Episode 1. Absurd.
Voices: Yep, they did a good job. Who cares.
5/10
Shall We Dance? (2004)
7/10 Very enjoyable, good acting minus JL, well-paced, few faults.
I liked this movie a lot. I laughed far more than I expected, and the movie was fairly faithful to my memory of the original. Note I say 'my memory' because I saw Shall We Dansu about three or four years ago and I loved it. (I recommended it to anyone who would listen. I still love it, and I recommend it to you. Back to my review.)
Acting: Jennifer Lopez Should not have been cast because her acting talent is wanting. I found it odd that someone who's been hassled so much lately has a problem acting cold. (I could rant a little but I won't.) Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon did a fine job and created a believable couple. Susan Sarandon pulled things together in my view. I liked the PI, he was very good. Gere's dancing office mate also did a fine job, but the believability of that character is the responsibility of the director. The actor did well with what he was given.
Plot: Someone else said that the original worked better in the framework of Japanese culture. I agree. This movie had to make some concessions to work in an American setting.
Directing: Hmm, pretty good I'd say, except for JL. Perhaps he did his best with what she had to offer, maybe they did 50 takes on her scenes, who knows. The pace of the movie was quite good, and that's important. These psudo-family dramas need to keep moving in order to keep me from falling asleep. This director kept things moving.
In summary, I really felt this had lots going for it. I am surprised to see that the viewer rating was bumped down to 5.8/10 (932 votes) as of my writing this review. It's better than that, if you can excuse a few minor things.
7/10
The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
9/10 Refreshing, smart, some tight dialog, shaky camera gets a bit old, but I loved this movie!
No spoilers here.
I've waited years for this movie. Finally, a picture that captures action in a more realistic way than we normally see. I ignore most action-genre donuts. (Fatty with an empty heart.)
I didn't see Bourne Identity, so I can't compare this with that.
Acting: Really good. Appropriate casting, nice to see Brian Cox and Franka Potente involved in this film. Yes, I threw that in just to feel worldly. I confess.
Plot: It's a fine plot, nothing really wrong, though I do question a few things that I won't mention here. Don't worry, it's small stuff.
Script: I liked the script. This movie gives you some fresh dialog in places where other movies give bloated, cheesy, wordy goo. I wish there was more original material, but that's ok.
Cinematography: The camera work was a bit of an issue for me. In some parts of the film it worked very well giving the viewer a sense of motion and speed and a feeling of loss of control, loss of spacial awareness. In other cases, it was obvious that the operator was shaking the camera like a baby's rattle. Hey, it worked for Blair Witch Project, mostly, and it works here, mostly.
Techy stuff: Ok, I somehow managed to ignore most of the high technology presented in the film, so they must have done a better job than most films. So, thumbs up for technical presentation I guess.
You know what I mean: a typical 'movie' computer makes about 20 unique noises per minute, processing, downloading, uploading, thinking, burping. Imagine sitting at the terminal for 8 hours hearing bleeps, bloops, swishes, dings, and blips. Now add that to all the other computers around you. Yeah, somehow most directors think we're stupid. Considering that many of us use computers daily, and those computers make no noise at all, it's surprising. Why can't they use a more realistic set of sounds, like a person saying "C'mon process my stupid request for crying out loud!" while the computer SILENTLY does its work. Or someone telling a stupid joke, or nervously tapping a pencil. Oh, and don't get me started about fancy red blinking ACCESS DENIED windows. Oh man. But I digress.
Overall, this is a refreshing intrigue/drama/action movie. If going to see an action film makes you feel dirty, rest assured, you will feel squeaky clean after this one.
9/10
The Stepford Wives (2004)
3/10 Awful! Bad editing, no continuity, and Broderick can't act.
I despise this movie. Most bad movies I simply dislike. Plot: Interesting concept, could have been fruitful, but wasn't. Script: There were two funny scenes, the rest was boring. For the record though, the audience (though not many in number) seemed to laugh a lot. Generally, the script was passable. Still, after the first half, every minute seemed like five to me. Acting: Broderick and Close really didn't do a good job. It was just sub-standard for a professional actor. Editing: I could actually see where they had cut some scenes together. You know, where a person is standing still and their image suddenly shifts sideways. Now, for the real kicker, the one thing that gets my blood hot. Continuity: This movie committed one of the unforgivable sins of the big screen: Mutually Exclusive Realities. Without providing spoilers, I'll say that the movie entertained one reality for the purpose of the body of the film, and changed that reality for the convenience of the end of the film. This was the cherry on the sundae. Oh my. It was so bad. 3/10
Foolproof (2003)
8/10 Good script, good acting, good plot, good soundtrack, intelligent caper.
I loved this movie.
Foolproof is a pretty intelligent caper film that rises above standard caper/action movies that you get from, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Acting: It was very good, but the acting from Ryan Reynolds was great. I found his delivery perfect for the role.
Script: The script was fairly intelligent but fell into a few standard-caper-script holes in a few spots. Overall the script maintained its character through the interpersonal banter, particularly with Reynolds.
Soundtrack: Excellent. Perhaps the greatest complement to an intelligent movie is a groovy soundtrack that helps keep the momentum of the film going. This soundtrack is groovy. Think Ocean's Eleven with George Clooney.
Plausibility: Well, here we have problems. Don't think this is realistic, just be thankful you don't have Arnie flying a Harrier jet. Hey, it's as plausible as Ocean's Eleven.
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie, and I would happily recommend it to almost anyone.
8/10
Shrek 2 (2004)
8/10 At least as good as Shrek 1.
Shrek 2 is at least as good as Shrek 1. There were plenty of laughs. I found that most of the humor was fresh with only a little bit of post-consumer material. The cast of characters was colorful. The script was well-refined. The animation was fantastic as you'd expect. There isn't much else to say really. It's a fine sequel, a truly fun trip. It's especially satisfying to see a good sequel in a world that uses the sequel as a low-effort money-maker. Well not this time. I'm definitely buying this when it's available. Enjoy! 8/10
13 Going on 30 (2004)
8/10 Simple, fun, unpretentious, does what it means to do.
I liked this movie. In fact, I liked it more than Troy and Mean Girls. That demands an explanation. Here goes... 13 Going On 30 is a simple movie. The dialog is so simple that it doesn't get in the way of the film. In fact, the dialog suits the picture to a tee, and allows the actors to step in and do their job. The acting is very good, and I'm really pleased with Ruffalo and Garner because they turned simple script into real entertainment. As for plot, well, it's also simple, and I didn't mind a bit. Again, that suited the genre. The soundtrack is a throwback to my younger days, so I liked the music. The cinematography is uninspired, as are the sets. The pace of the movie is fine, I wasn't bored at all. The movie intends to be light entertainment, knows it's simple, and doesn't pretend to be anything else. That's why it's a big hit to me. It successfully accomplished its goal. 8/10
Strictly Ballroom (1992)
7/10 It's great if you don't take it seriously.
This is a fun movie, but only if you don't take it seriously. Think about Best In Show and The Big Tease. Very corny, and lots of fun. The acting is comic and the characters are consistent. The casting is excellent with good talent for this sort of thing. The direction is fine, the music is appropriately up-beat.
You might also enjoy Shall We Dance for more ballroom dancing; it's Japanese with English subtitles. Very funny too. 7/10
Troy (2004)
7/10 Excellent acting, respectable dialog, terrific artistic presentation, bad direction, bad soundtrack, lacks momentum.
THE GOOD: The acting was as good as I would expect from anyone. The characters were presented in a consistent way. The script was good, definitely held a few nice touches and avoided a few auto-complete phrases. The action, generally, was done well.
THE BAD: The soundtrack was annoying. Bah. Tried to be 'epic'. It was botched. The directing... This movie has no momentum. Just when you start to care what's going on, just when something interesting is happening or is being said, something mundane and pointless follows and you're back to zero. There was way too much time spent looking at ordinary things happening, large groups of people moving around, or pan shots of scenery. We all know that ordinary things happen and that large groups of people must move around. Normally this would be ok, except that such things killed the momentum of the movie and wasted precious screen time.
SUMMARY: Generally I liked the movie for what it was, and I'm very very glad that the actors did a great job with a fair script; they saved the picture. 7/10
Mean Girls (2004)
7/10 Better than I'd expect from a teen movie. Good acting. Decent script. Few caricatures.
As a male in the 30-44 age group, my reaction to this was mixed; mostly I'm impressed, but I was often bored.
I have to give Mark Waters and Tina Fey credit. This movie was much better than I would expect from a teen movie. In fact, the only reason I saw it was because people (both professional reviewers and the common clay) gave the movie good grades.
The casting was about what you'd expect, nothing new there. The acting was very good, very polished. The script flowed ok and contained enough genuine humor to keep me in my seat, but often there were long stretches of watching people be mean and manipulative which got boring pretty quickly. Yes, we know they're mean and shallow, move it along please. Though, I didn't look at my watch, and that's a good sign.
A few of the characters were more caricatures or phony amplified versions of what real life has to offer, but in general I was very impressed with how believable the writing/directing team attempted to make the characters.
One thing I found creepy was how much effort was made to highlight Lindsay Lohan's cleavage. She's a terrific actor and doesn't need anyone meddling with her on-screen presence.
I liked this as much as Freaky Friday (2003). The movie is likable but I wouldn't go to see it a second time.
7/10
Hideaway (1995)
Oh dear this is bad. Formula. Bad acting from good actors.
Well, this is a very formulaic treatment of what could have been a good movie. Unfortunately, the good actors did a really rotten job of acting, and I'm sure the director is incompetent. With such classics as The Lawnmower Man and Virtuosity to his credit, Brett Leonard has managed no better than 5.3/10 on IMDB, yet he's been doing this for at least 15 years. So much for learning. What makes me bitter isn't that it's such a bad movie, it's that I'm too stubborn to turn it off. I hate giving bad ratings to a movie I didn't at least finish. Fair is fair. Oh good grief. This is just too stupid... Finally! Thank goodness it's over. Bah.
The Alamo (2004)
8.5/10 A fine movie. Great acting. Well-paced. Sub-par camera work.
Well, I must say, I liked this movie a lot. This movie had... energy, terrific acting from a cast that was believable, excellent visuals, solid writing, great directing, and on a bad note, mediocre camera work. I can't think of a single important scene that I would have changed. Now, I have no idea how well this movie aligns with history, but that's not even on my radar, so it wasn't an issue for me. I would recommend this movie to anyone. 8.5/10
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
8/10 New and improved! Contains only half the camp and all of the cinematic goodness of our regular Vol.1!
Kill Bill Vol. 2 is just as good as Vol. 1, nay, better! That's very good indeed. The style is different, less camp, more cinema. Sometimes it's a bit slow, but QT seems to always work it around to the film's advantage. The dialog is pretty good, it contains some great stuff and some fumbles. If you saw Vol. 1 and you were not put off by the violence, then you'll have little problem with Vol. 2. Obviously, those who cannot tolerate depictions of violence, some foul language, and some ick should spend their valuable cinematic minutes elsewhere. Enjoy! It's a quality piece of work. 8/10
Hellboy (2004)
B+ Good script, well-paced, overall very entertaining.
Hellboy is a well-balanced and very well-paced movie that avoids tiresome action movie content (mostly).
Script: Very efficient. The snappy-attitude lines are allowable because of Hellboy's partially juvenile personality.
Acting: I credit Pearlman for presenting a complete character without being gabby and coy. Well-done. Almost all of the other significant characters are equally well-presented by their respective actors, save for one. del Toro certainly dropped the ball in writing/directing that character (though I won't mention who so as not to give anything away). He messed up only one character, and I forgive him. Nobody's perfect.
Casting: Appropriate.
Pace/balance: The movie reminded me of X2 in this respect. It moved well, didn't get stalled anywhere, and both the action and drama were moderated with smooth transitions between each.
For comparison, Spiderman was good but overacted, X2 was good but with a few eye-rolling moments.
Overall, I found this movie provided high entertainment value. B+