Tubular_Bell's Reviews

Final Prayer (2013)

3/10

19 May 2014

I know I really haven't been a believer, and I never thought much of miracles, the supernatural, or whatever else. But I have nowhere else to run. Lord, you must help me! There is something wicked in this world, something evil, and it cannot possibly come from a human mind, it's too twisted to be human. It is something that is haunting me, and makes every horror movie be exactly, exactly the same thing. It even dares to call them "horror" movies, when the only horror is how they suck away all life from me, and whatever is left of cleverness in my head. It's true that once in a while a horror movie will go and try something different, but once it does, millions of other movies copy the formula with so much laziness and lack of imagination that we even forget there was once any shred of originality. And even still, these movies all spend only about 5 minutes developing plot and character, and the rest is merely trying to frighten us. You tell me, Lord, if that isn't a kind of evil that could only come from the depths of Hell.

This particular movie here even has the audacity to use imagery of your own church! Even though we all know how everything is going to end, it's still horrifying to see how the movie tries to scare us into thinking that there actually is something supernatural out in the world, and that if we don't have faith, then we'll end up like a victim in some bland horror movie, dying and screaming directly into the camera to remind the viewer that he'd better start praying and regretting his sins RIGHT NOW. Please, Lord, send a sign that you're still there and that you care for us! Make them make a movie where all the scary stuff turned out just to be a fake, or that the haunted person was just a nutcase; just some kind of movie in which skepticism is a virtue after all. Save me from this insanity, Lord, for now the only thing I can do to save myself is to write scathing reviews on IMDb!

9 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Stitch (II) (2013)

3/10

Only enjoyable if you mistake pretentiousness for originality

3 May 2014

Right from the first few minutes, I knew I was in trouble. This bomb may only be enjoyable if you get a kick out of cheap "artistic" imagery, or if you mistake pretentiousness for originality.

I don't even have anything against the low budget aspect. Low budget has given us excellent results in the past, and it usually has to do with the director having a firm idea of what he wants. This "Ajai" guy definitely hasn't: he alternated from cheap horror flick clichés to surrealistic collages, from gory make-up to Disney-ish superimposed images and corny effects and lighting. This COULD be promising if it went all out surreal on us, but no: this whole poorly written and acted ordeal is just an excuse to deliver a tired, hackneyed "coming-to-terms- with-tragedy" story that brings us nothing interesting or creative. It's silly and pointless, and I just can't fathom how anyone could bother making this film come into fruition. If only it were entertainingly bad as The Room, but no, not even that.

If you're curious, just watch the opening credits and then leave. That is the whole movie.

6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Monsters University (2013)

4/10

Just look at the title and move along. You've seen it all

26 June 2013

I don't even need to write spoilers in this review: the title IS the spoiler. Everything that you could expect from a college flick is here, only in lightweight, kid-friendly fashion. Everything that is utterly abominable and predictable about that kind of film is included here, which reveals that the writers are very good at following checklists.

Of course, everything is transplanted into the stupid concept of a monster world generating energy from kids screaming. Maybe I was wrong, but the idea of the first film was to show something fantastic and scary in this world as something boringly institutional in a fantasy world. Creepy as it is (not in the good sense, but in the "child molester" sense), at least there's an inch of creativity in that concept. In this prequel, the employees are turned into superstar heroes. That is, the only thing that's marginally interesting about the original movie is discarded here in the name of an utterly dull and irritating college flick. Honestly, you can't write something like that before killing off a good portion of your brain cells.

Of course there is forced pathos. Of course there's the awkward attempt at creating tension and emotion. After all, Pixar still has to please the sycophants. But make no mistake: if you have the lowest expectations about this movie just looking at the title and the premise, you'll just confirm it if you watch it. Now if you're really anxious because you're such a massive Pixar fan, you'll love it before you even see anything.

But do keep in mind that my opinion is a wee bit biased. After all, when the movie started, I was already trying to go into a self-induced coma because of the atrocious short the preceded the film, "The Blue Umbrella". Hey, did you see that Internet meme about things with faces? Let's rip-off that idea and make an "artistic" little film on that! The sycophants will be on their knees!

10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sinister (I) (2012)

3/10

This brings "run of the mill" to a new level.

22 October 2012

This movie is so by-the-numbers, it's painful to watch. And you know, I actually understand clichés, and I believe a good artists must primarily know how (and why) to follow rules, but this film is basically a checklist of rules and clichés followed by the letter. List all the horror film clichés you can remember off the top of your head, and they'll all be here.

I still can forgive that, though. It's okay to follow conventions when you actually have good material to deliver, and when the material is delivered skillfully. But this movie wastes every bit of potential it has. There are some fine ideas here; for some reason, I always found there was something creepy and unsettling about Super 8 films, and this movie has a tendency (a tendency!) to explore that -- both the imaginary possibilities, as well as the physical aspects (the grainy image, the sound of the projector, etc.). But at every opportunity, the interesting things are merrily exchanged for some of the most gratuitous and pointless jump scares, and some of the most obnoxiously loud scare chords. I honestly think it's time for movie directors to get a severe beating and learn to STOP USING SCARE CHORDS! Every scare chord you hear in your life is the director admitting he is TOO INCOMPETENT TO USE THE IMAGERY TO SCARE YOU. I mean, isn't cinema a visual art? Aren't the images supposed to creep you out? So why are the scare chords even there? Instead of sucking the audience into the movie, it kicks them out, it detracts from the feeling, it ruins the immersion; and the effect is gone just a few seconds later.

And this is a shame, because there is some good imagery here. The "found footage" films are well made, but they're spoiled by some bizarrely stupid and exploitative soundtrack music (was that REALLY necessary?). But there are some "le artistique" scenes here that are borderline hilarious -- definitely a director trying too hard there. Also, we have to deal with Ethan Hawke's obnoxious twitching and overacting, the unnecessary "comic relief" character (I could see the actor was being earnest in his delivery, but that character was stupid), and other "checklist" moments. And why, WHY, did they have to throw Boards of Canada in this? (okay, so as a fan of Boards of Canada, it was certainly thrilling to hear Gyroscope in a movie theatre, but come on! That was a very shallow choice)

I definitely can picture a GOOD version of this movie. And I get irritated with the reviews that say that "despite the clichés, the film is good". It's exactly that attitude that makes horror films so ridiculous: the rotten core of the horror industry is taken as a given, as an unavoidable fact. This is a shame. Instead of spending money in making those "artistique" effects, the director should have tried to thwart those clichés for a REAL shock.

13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Battle Royale (2000)

3/10

Like a live action anime. A very, very bad anime.

7 October 2012

A lesson learned: be VERY careful with Japanese films with English titles. No, "Battle Royale" is not a translated title: apparently the Japanese think that English titles are very clever.

Indeed, the film is the product of someone who thinks he's a lot, lot more clever than he actually is. Nothing about the film's premise, the plot, the character, is inspiring or interesting at all. This is the "bloodshed" equivalent of Avatar: you've seen it all before, yet you're supposed to take it at face value.

I can understand bloody action films when they're meant to entertain. Really, I do. I'm not offended by "dumb entertainment". The problem with Battle Royale is that it is the most shallow, most air-headed, most pretentious and dumb kind of "smart film" out there. You're supposed to take it as a serious social commentary, but there is no commentary at all. There's no real point to the movie. Yet, it's impossible to enjoy it as a "pointless fun" film, because it is simply not fun. It's made not to be fun. It is designed to be gritty, serious and terrifying. Worse: it feels like a live action anime, with a bombastic, over-the-top soundtrack, overly gory death scenes, annoying (and sometimes random) title cards and so on. It doesn't even feel like actual cinema. It's devoid of any artistic merit.

In other words, this is pure, unadulterated Mystery Science Theater 3000 material. If you like staging your own "RiffTrax" sessions, pick this one. Trust me: it's every bit as stupid as the premise makes it look like. But on the positive side, you'll probably give another thought about all the filmmakers you considered "hacks" in the past. If you thought Kill Bill was a pile of garbage, watch this one, and you'll probably enjoy that one a lot more.

0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Red Shoes (2005)

3/10

Gory, exaggerated hogwash thinly disguised as "psychological thriller"

9 September 2012

If you could imagine all of the Asian horror clichés thrown into a single film, then with every single aspect cranked up to 11 without any cleverness or reason, you'd get a pretty bad film. Make it a couple of notches worse and you'd almost get The Red Shoes. There is absolutely no cleverness, no wit, no intelligence behind this film. Everything is exaggerated and amplified to the point where nothing is tied together, and every opportunity for gratuitous gore and violence thrown under the excuse of "psychological thriller" is used. The film is so over-the-top that it could be passed off as an acid, mean-spirited satire of Asian horror with perhaps a few small changes.

The film manages something impressive: while it shows absolutely no restraint in terms of jump scares, gore shots and blood gushing, the film isn't really unpredictable, and the story as a whole follows every single rule in the book. Everything is there. It's even worse than Avatar in terms of following the conventions. And you can't even use the argument that "the visuals are pretty" here, because everything is so in-your-face, it's downright tragic: the monochromatic shots, the blurriness, the uncomfortable close-ups, the occasional Shaky-Cam, and so on and on. Just avoid this film. Even if you're genuinely scared by horror films, go pick something better.

2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Population 436 (2006 Video)

3/10

In which Fred Durst is the least of the problems

1 April 2012

Warning: Spoilers

I guess it's somewhere in the Constitution, but apparently there is a checklist of about a dozen overdone "thriller" clichés that EVERY "scary" film must include: tinkling dissonant music with scraping violins; a Hand grabbing the protagonist's shoulder from behind his back, which -- oh! it's just a friendly neighbour; silhouettes peering from within dark woods; the camera that seems like it's peering from within dark woods; you can fill in the rest. And of course, those clichés are all thrown in at inappropriate times, just to remind you that -- yes! you ARE watching a scary movie, and something BAD is about to happen. Just wait a few more minutes, okay? Stay with me. You won't be disappointed.

As for the rest, what can be said? There is no reason whatsoever why you should watch this movie, or why this movie should have been made in the first place. "Run of the mill" doesn't even begin to describe it. It plays along exactly like every other scary movie you've ever seen -- except for the good ones, that is. You may be intrigued by the main premise of the film: a town that has had the exact same population size for over a century. I, too, was interested on that plot line. But the blunt, plain truth is that the premise is the only good thing here. The actual execution of the premise is pitifully bad. In fact, it's so pitiful and lame that even calling it "bad" is giving it too much credit. Yes, it is that kind of film.

Oh, so it is a very low budget film. Oh, so it doesn't have any super celebrities (no, you don't need to remind me that Fred Durst is in it). Oh, so it doesn't have any great special effects. So what? If you're looking for the shoestring budget classics, go watch Romero's Dawn of the Dead. And if you've already seen it, go watch it again. If you've already seen it hundreds of times and are sick of it, go watch it again anyway: it will be better than watching Population 436. But if you're just really, really interested in the "peaceful little town with a dark secret" premise, well, try Hot Fuzz instead. Only watch this if you're interested in the boring, dull padding-out scenes which try too hard to convince you that there is Evil about to ensue and forget to try to make you care, or the cardboard-cutout supporting characters, or the "protagonist with a tragic backstory". The plot twists? You'll guess more than half of them just by watching the few opening scenes of the film, and the rest will make you pretty confused about just what the film is trying to achieve; at times it goes for a "psychological thriller" thing with a very menacing motivation, other times it switches straight into supernatural land, and then suddenly it goes all religious (or anti-religious, in the pettiest and most shallow way possible). If the intention was to combine all aspects into a single thing, the result is pretty ridiculous. It seems like the film is trying to please everyone at the same time: if you're into the supernatural, you'll find out something to like; if you hate it, though, hey! you'll ALSO find something to like! And so on.

As unassuming and low profile as it is, it's just painful to watch a film completely devoid of identity or skill. Watching it I almost wished it would have a few "scare your face off" scenes for diversity; not that I think films should actually try to scare (really, people get scared by movies? That's pretty much like falling in love with an inflatable doll), but, heck, it would just be good to see the film try SOMETHING for a change. In the entire movie, I can only recall ONE moment in which it did try something, which is the festival scene; but a scene like that should come as a thrill, not as a relief! And worse: if it did generate any thrill, they dissipated it very, very quickly.

I swear I wouldn't be so cynical if there was any actual effort in this film. I appreciate filmmakers who actually do try hard to create something interested. It doesn't even need to be NEW, but just worth watching. This film goes to show that, even when you have a pretty good idea, you still have to put effort in executing it, and stacking cliché on top of cliché sure doesn't qualify as "execution". Just skip this one.

Oh, and if you still really, REALLY want something scary to watch, go and watch some random half-assed Asian horror film with a long black haired female protagonist who looks like she weeps constantly. You'll at least get a few laughs out of it.

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Puss in Boots (2011)

4/10

The only good thing about it is that it features cats.

9 January 2012

Dreamworks apparently managed to produce the "Avatar" or animated films: an un-thrilling story with dead tropes played straight, relentlessly obvious from beginning to end, and exhausting pretty much every cat-related joke and pun humanly imaginable. The main differences from Avatar is that it's not long enough to induce coma and that it has lots and lots of voice acting done by non-voice-actors -- but that, for Dreamworks, is business as usual.

Actually, the movie is not 100% obvious and predictable, but everything that is not obvious is abhorrently stupid. For some reason, these people still think it's hot and hip to senselessly mix up fairy tales and nursery rhymes in ways that plainly make no sense. It's random humour without wit, or as Internet jargon has it, "lol random". So, for much of the movie, we are treated to this horrifying, pestilent talking egg. And what does Humpty Dumpty have to do with the story after all? Exactly nothing. Dreamworks thinks that is funny, but it's not. Not only it's already old, it wasn't even funny when the first Shrek movie did it.

The only thing I actually like about the film is that it features cats. Loads of them. If you go nuts with pictures of cute kittens, this film will be a party for your eyes. THAT it does well. And, truth be told, the main character is pretty strong, and even though the movie really tries hard to make him shallow and annoying, they couldn't do it.

The rest is failure after failure. If you have at least two braincells in your head, this movie is a great way to achieve time travel: you're always 30 minutes ahead of it. Of course, predictability per se it not bad, but when there is absolutely nothing else going on, there is just no motivation to keep on watching. I gave up halfway through, and I only didn't walk out because I was too bored even for walking. Come on, THIS is the studio that produced Kung Fu Panda? I can hardly believe it.

One last positive side of this film is that it sealed the fate that I'll never watch another 3D movie. This one was the first and the last -- at least until people learn to use 3D to favour the film instead of vice versa. As of today, 3D basically amounts to you giving an obscene amount of money to Hollywood so they can through garbage on your face every 2 minutes. 3D does not aid the look and the atmosphere of the film, it needs atrociously ridiculous angles and effects to make it evident, and the fast-paced action scenes are just impossible to follow. I ACTUALLY found the film more watchable without the (dirty and uncomfortable) glasses on -- 3D was so bad that seeing double actually looked beautiful in comparison.

12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Oldboy (2003)

3/10

Never such abysmal content has been presented with such brilliant style

11 January 2011

If you've watched a few films off the Saw franchise, you probably know what it is to watch a "torture porn" film with a completely ludicrous, ridiculous story, with a style ripped-off from awful MTV videos. Oldboy is exactly like that, with the difference that the style is actually brilliant and gorgeous beyond words. But what's the use of great cinematography, mood and beautiful imagery when its sole point is to deliver a story like this? I have NEVER seen a story so richly pointless, absurd and unrewarding. Yeah, I can deal with films that make "no sense", that have "no meaning" or things like that; sometimes that's what the director is going for. But the trouble here is that you, as a viewer, is supposed to RELATE to this story, to feel attached to it, as if it could be actually happening. You're intended to connect with the protagonist, or something like that, and that is simply unimaginable. The story is written with the sole purpose of being shocking and disturbing, and that's ALL there is to it. Trust me: the twists and surprises along the way will give you no reward whatsoever, it's just there to shock and disturb you. And if you want to be shocked and disturbed, why not go watch films that address TRULY shocking and disturbing things that are happening around the world, instead of a stupid "torture porn" fantasy of a filmmaker? Yeah, Oldboy is not "torture porn" in the same strict sense as Saw and Hostel, but in the end, that's pretty much what's going on. And actually, it is doubly so: not only the characters are being tortured, but so is the audience. Ignore the hype and leave this Asiatic garbage aside. No, the beautiful cinematography is NOT worth it.

12 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002)

3/10

Funny for people who have never watched "Airplane!"

8 January 2011

This one gets a 3 because it doesn't sink as low as Friedberg and Seltzer's rubbish; at least it keeps its nose above the swamp.

Anyway, what's the formula here? Redubbing an old kung fu film, superimposing the image of the lead actors in some scenes, and adding some crude CGI parts and other inanities. That is all. This COULD work, but it doesn't: the script is bland and adds pretty much nothing interesting to what you'd expect from a kung fu spoof, the CGI bits redefine "crude", and the jokes are... Look, ANY 15 year old kid could have written jokes funnier than these. The comedy in this film is unbelievable -- they are rarely tasteless, but most of them are utterly stupid, and stupid in a bad way. I see people here saying it's so stupid it's good, and it's actually genius and whatnot, but those are people who never watched "Airplane!"; if you watch that one, you'll realise that sometimes stupidity and genius walk hand in hand. But that is not the case here: this is just a writer thinking that the stupider, the better. There is a very clear difference in approach.

Once in a while you'll bump into a good joke; say, I actually laughed about every 15 minutes in average. Unfortunately, every good joke is either eventually spoiled as well, and they sink under the weight of everything else. And the redubbing? Eventually, all it does is get on your nerves: it's just a guy whining in falsetto, anyway.

I believe the extraordinarily low bits are the cow fight (spoofing "Matrix"? I know this was made in 2002, but come on!), the "Lion King" spoof (for real? Didn't the Simpsons do it way better about 8 years before??), all the bits with "Tonguey", the baby fight and many other smaller moments. Good bits include the dog with a SEVERE problem of audio/video synchronisation (a very clever target of spoofing), the flashbacks in which nothing is added to what has already been said (until it turns into a fart joke), the parody of the "dramatic zoom in" effect of Japanese films (it's slightly overdone but still works) and the nut salesman with a very loud voice ("THAT'S A LOT OF NUTS!!" That was unexpected and genuinely funny). But overall, I'd say skip this, it's not worthwhile. If you want an example of what GOOD film spoofing is, watch "Airplane!" and the "Naked Gun" films, and if you want a truly excellent comedy kung fu film, with creative storytelling, great CG effects and smart comedy, watch "Kung Fu Hustle"; skip this garbage and go straight for the real thing.

2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

5/10

The biggest problem is that it wasn't a movie at all

17 February 2010

Warning: Spoilers

Just look at what this show has become! Its fans' greatest expectation was the the film was NOT going to be absolutely awful, and they were rejoicing madly because it turned out to be NOT bad. This thing doesn't even have a proper title: it's "The Simpsons Movie". The story is irrelevant: it only matters that it's the Simpsons, and it's a "Movie". It's not a movie: it's a TV special that ended up in the theatres. And the packaging? Oh, it has Homer, and it has donuts. The poster had a donut. The advertising banners had donuts. The soundtrack CD casing was donut shaped. People, WHAT KIND OF AUDIENCE is this film aimed at?? If you go a few years to the past, just a few, you'll remember that the TV show was praised (and I mean praised as "critics raving and drooling and squirming on the ground with excitement") for being a biting, cruel satire of the American society, for having a lot of criticism towards American traditions. Now look at this: The Simpsons franchise has become everything it made fun of in the past. This "Movie" is the final nail in the coffin: it's an acknowledgment that the series has no value anymore. It means nothing, it represents nothing, it stands for nothing.

Yet, oh, not a single person of the crew will ever recognise that. For them, the Simspons is the PINNACLE of sarcasm and satire on TV. Pure hypocrisy. This "movie" is a blatant lie. And I don't say that as a "bitter fan". I am not a fan, and I'm not bitter. Actually, I get an odd form of pleasure from seeing this pathetic excuse for a "Simpsons Movie".

OK, anyway, the proper story. It doesn't suck? I disagree. For a project so big, humongous and hyped as this one, the story is every bit as by-the-numbers as you'd never expect.

If you want a practical example of how contrived, empty and artificial this script is, look no further than what happens to Lisa in here. Since this is "THE SIMPSONS MOVIE!!!" (seriously, how could that pass THAT off as a title??), every character needed a plot. We need to please EVERYONE, here! So how do we please Lisa fans? Have her play out something cute and adorable, of course. Yeah, but since Lisa fans represent about 0.5% of our viewers, and the film is aimed at people with the IQ level of an amoeba (See? It has DONUTS! Donuts are FUNNY!), we need to be awfully obvious and to the point with it. So what do we do? Let's create a shallow, empty, contrived character out of thin air to serve as her romantic interest. He won't be at all developed, he'll occupy about 5 minutes of screen time, and we'll make him Irish just to squeeze in a joke about Bono. Yes, that is EXACTLY how it plays out. And you wonder about the rest? Don't bother. It doesn't get much better than that.

Oh, and the film opens up making fun of US for paying for something we can watch for free on TV. Oh, yeah? Who the heck thinks I'm gonna buy THAT garbage as clever, witty self-referential and audience insulting humour? If anything, this is an insult to themselves; they're clutching at straws to be "edgy", and will pull off ANY cheap and stupid trick to keep that mask on. Example? During one of the "emotional" "high points" of the "movie", the screen fades to black with the caption "To be continued...". I started to feel, with a sense of dread, that the worst was about to happen. And the worst DID happen: it continued "Immediately". Seriously, I felt ashamed for paying to see THAT much dumbness and obviousness on the screen. Do we NEED that? Not only this is "The SIMPSONS MOVIE!!! THAT DOESN'T EVEN HAS A TITLE BECAUSE THE STORY DOESN'T MATTER!!!", but it plays cheap pranks on you! At least this "movie" was a cathartic experience. I felt justified in despising The Simpsons, as the pile of smugness, hypocrisy and complete lack of talent that it is. The makers of this thing surely have their egos inflated to the size of the planet right now. At least we know they're not inflated with hot air, but with FOX's budget.

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hostel (2005)

4/10

Well... at least it wasn't as bad as Saw

17 February 2010

Warning: Spoilers

But it was darn close! Where as Saw had a ridiculous, contrived and terribly flawed plot, Hostel has... nearly no plot at all. The story is weak, the writing is weak, the characters are weak, and the idea itself isn't THAT interesting to stand on its own feet.

First off, I do understand that Eli Roth tried to do something a little layered, by setting the whole first half of the film in what seems to be the COMPLETE opposite of a horror film, and trying to establish parallels between the two halves. Problem is, the first part is so shallow, so forced and so dumbly crafted that the only thing it produces is boredom and annoyance. The characters remain perfectly flat and bi-dimensional all the way through, so pretty much ALL of the desired effect is gone out of the window.

Second, the proper "horror" half of the film is nothing new. Really, folks, this one came AFTER Saw; there's no ground being broken here, with the torture and the graphic violence. At least it doesn't even pretend to say anything deep or thoughtful, so no worries in THAT department. But the whole thing just comes across as ridiculous and satisfying. If the intention was to keep away from "torture porn", the film actually handles it quite well for a while, but then we get a completely idiotic, LONG shot of the main character cutting out a girl's gouged out eyeball. It's like the film gave up all hopes of being gripping and disturbing, and went straight into "X-Treme Looney Tunes" territory once and for all. And what comes next is even worse. At least it gets sort of exciting towards the very end, but the aftertaste is horrible: the empty feeling of having wasted so much time in such fickle, fake pleasure.

At least you can draw parallels between the film's both halves and US, the audience; in one hand, it seems like the Hungarian red light district seems like a much more satisfying and life-enriching experience than this film; and on the other hand, we OURSELVES are the victims of cinematographic torture, except we are the ones paying for it.

At least I didn't pay for it.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Avatar (2009)

4/10

So much attention to detail! So little attention to everything else!

2 February 2010

And I thought "Shock and Awe" was a tactic used only in war! I'm amazed James Cameron is not doing MTV music videos, because that's exactly how Avatar plays out: a massive, carefully crafted, thunderous gargantuan tower of nothing. I really can't explain this film: I actually enjoy a film when its goal is pure and simple entertainment. I don't expect everything to be a revolutionary Godardesque "work of art": if a film is cliché, but enjoyable, then fine. But this thing isn't enjoyable at all: it's overlong, tiresome, cumbersome, heavy-handed, filled with attention to detail but also filled with contempt for the overall picture. There's nothing catchy, nothing endearing going on: it's just ham-fisted down your throat for more than two hours and a half. In terms of James Cameron, this is closer to Titanic than to Terminator II.

On the other hand, it's okay for a film to be long, heavy and unforgiving... provided it has something INTERESTING to say. Avatar has nothing: everything here has been done before, and better. Everything! Every little piece of the film, especially the plot, is recycled. So he created a whole new world? Who cares? Many have done that before! Go back to Tolkien if you want a classic example! There's nothing here worth to be seen, and if you want to have an "amazing" cinematic experience, it's better to see 10 films which are excellent on their own ground, rather than a single film that claims to be everything but falls short in every aspect -- except for the "Shock and Awe", of course.

3D? I'm glad I didn't see that in 3D; I'd rather leave it to more lighthearted, actually fun films, not this overblown pile of misery.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Saw III (2006)

3/10

The art of giving people what they want

22 July 2007

The first two movies were more than enough to surface what people REALLY expect from the movie: violence, plenty of it, and not much more than it aside from good dosages of cruelty and "morals" - as in, yes, it's justifiable and COOL to kill people who don't appreciate life, and miss the perverse irony (though I'd call it stupidity) that the person who wants to teach others to appreciate life does little to appreciate life, himself. Of course, intelligence is not exactly in the movie's plans, as many fans of the second movie were unable to understand what "over the rainbow" stood for, so we have to keep it simple and dumb. And that's what you get here.

Interestingly enough, this is the movie that pulls all stops in making the most mind-bendingly repetitive and inane sequences in the series, with a dozen edits per second and annoying background music, as well as bunches of flashbacks that don't really explain much, and are probably there to earn a few more minutes of running time. They really need it, because the plot can barely contribute with ANY entertainment value. The characters are rough caricatures trying to pass themselves off as real, tortured humans, and the story itself, well... the first two movies already displayed what kinds of tricks the writers are willing to pull off, and Saw 2 brings absolutely no surprises. You already expect the Super Plot Twist at the end, as well as the annoying "dark ambient" theme tune, and everything is there. At least, this time around, the unfolding of the events is a considerably more believable - keeping in mind that Saw looked like it had no respect for its viewers' intelligence, and Saw 2 was an open insult against reason. But when there isn't a "trap" scene going on, the pacing is awfully slow and constantly interrupted by senseless flashbacks (really, what IS the point of going back to the set up of the first movie? Just to counter the criticism of its contrived, impossible ending? Filling up the plot holes, are we...), leaving very little flow to the movie. It's a poorly hacked together horror piece of trash, but it improves somewhat on the second movie - which REALLY isn't saying much.

The torture scenes, though, are an unnecessary strain to sit through. Yes, they are very explicitly violent and gross, but if that's what you want, you're better off with George A. Romero. This stuff takes itself too seriously. It's "violence for a REASON", and yes, it's granted to convert many people to the Church of Jigsaw - if you doubt me, check out the forums at IMDb. But unless you're very, very curious, leave Saw 3 alone. Really.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Charlie and Lola (2005–2008)

9/10

Knocks you off your feet.

4 April 2007

For starters, Lola Sonner is one of the most realistic characters ever devised for a children's cartoon, and maybe even for TV shows in general. Based on an actual Danish girl who writer Lauren Child met on a train, she might feel eerily familiar for anyone who ever dealt with kids - and that's due to both small, simple acts such as "typing" a letter and then "reading" individual letters out loud as if they meant anything, and to her attitude and personality in general. As for Charlie, well, Mr. and Mrs. Sonner should thank all deities daily for having him, heh heh.

Now, onto the show itself. The two title characters form the very core of the show, Lola being the 4-year-old sister of 7-year-old Charlie. He narrates the stories, which are almost all built out of very banal, commonplace, "house held" topics. The trick lies on everything that surrounds the stories. The animation mixes childlike drawings with fancy montages of real pictures, and through any episode, you'll never know if, the next minute, you'll be watching a simple scene depicting children talking or a delightfully abstract montage mixing imagination with true visual symphonies. Charlie narrates the stories, though the narration only pops up once in a while. Most of the time, we're focused on the characters - which includes their neighbour Marv and his dog Sizzles, Lola's classmate and best friend Lotta, and Lola's imaginary friend, the cleverly named Soren Lorenson. They are all insanely realistic, special, likable and fun to watch, so the "banal" stories really do turn into something else entirely - a very rich, profound and gentle kind of entertainment and storytelling which is enlightening and constructive for people of all ages.

Another interesting aspect of the show is that the voices are done by actual children. The actors are different for each season, but the changes aren't really too noticeable. The British accents are extreme, and for fans of British accents (like me), that's a thrill and a half. And the music is exceptional - not only the eccentric, catchy theme tune by Tom Dyson and Søren Munk, but most incidental tunes, which sometimes form the backing of choreographies and "mini musicals" within the stories. Basically, everything works here. Let this be a recommendation for parents, kids, and everyone else. And if Lauren Child's books are available to you, get them too.

11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Duck and Cover (1952)

2/10

Even in retrospect it's hard to say what was behind this thing.

22 February 2007

Warning: Spoilers

That the "Duck and Cover" technique would be virtually useless in the event of a nuclear attack, I guess we all know. But the real question in this is whether the movie was a honest, genuine attempt at saving lives; a worthless but effective way of soothing down panic; or, more cynically speaking, a way of building fear of child-eating-commies in school children back then. We, in our modern 2000's in which we sit before Pentiums in comfortable chairs in air-conditioned rooms, can just chuckle and enjoy nine minutes of campy entertainment on YouTube or Google Video, but it makes you wonder how watching this must have been back then. This is a flashback from a dramatically different era, in which you'd expect a nice gentleman to cordially point you the way to a fallout shelter as if he was showing you the way to the movie theatre.

Of course, stranger aspects arise when you realise that the only black kid in the film is given focus when the narrator talks about "dangers that are around us all the time". Just noticing that and wondering whether it was an intentional, almost subliminal notice, or the nastiest goof one could make, is already worth the price of admission alone.

And if you are more interested in the scarier, more fatalistic aspect hidden behind the friendly cartoon turtle and the smiling kids training "Duck and Cover", check out the British "Protect and Survive" series from the 70's and its evil synthesizer jingle.

6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

10/10

One of the greatest comedies I've ever seen.

21 February 2007

And I don't mean this derogatorily, as you can gather from my rating. I mean this as in "really". It might be a simple "generation clash" with the 70's, considering the levels that the horror genre has achieved with hateful garbage like Saw III hitting our screens. The movie is downright preposterous and hilarious in a number of ways, from the way the hordes of grey zombies wander around the mall to the sound of cheesy muzak, right down to the plot, in which the protagonists settle themselves in a materialistic utopia while - possibly - the entire world is heading straight into complete chaos. The overly graphic scenes (which are NOT stuffed into the entire feature the way stuff like the aforementioned Saw III did) are more repulsive than scary, and the zombies, like was once mentioned in the movie, are us.

The word of the day here is absurdity, both in the execution of it with the special effects and bright glowing blood, and in the plot itself, which is pretty much believable. After all, if you're chasing for a depiction of a world catastrophe, you can get yourself ridiculously serious movies like The Day After Tomorrow, or you can get yourself the seriously ridiculous Dawn of the Dead, which is entertaining, funny and intense. If the movie seems obnoxious or dumb to you, well, you're in the right path.

Though, of course, you can't just chuckle along with the movie as a campy B (or C?) movie. If this was really as fluffy as it might seem, it wouldn't have become so influential, famous and powerful, having made on a very tight budget. Dawn of the Dead is an artistic masterpiece, simple as that. It's a classic, and a nice cold water bucket for those who wonder what is the real inspiration for the whole Resident Evil thing - Boo! Spooky? Well, this is as spooky as a PlayStation video-game, but much more delightful. Watch it today, don't wait until tomorrow.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Niagara Fools (1956)

9/10

By far, one of the most hysterical Woody episodes ever.

25 November 2006

Running gags have been a frequent feature in Woody Woodpecher shorts from this age, and this is the one that does it best. On this one, Woody visits the famous Niagara Falls, where he has the wicked idea of riding down the falls on a barrel, while the loyal Mountie tries to stop him. Of course, Woddy doesn't give up easily, and his constant attempts all end up with the Mountie going down the falls instead.

The idea itself might sound a bit generic, but the wacky twists added to the story make it stand out from the rest. In particular, the yellow coat tourists cheering every time the unlucky Mountie goes down the falls is worth the price of admission already. Other hilarious moments involve the Woody disguising the barrel as a woman, and the Mountie eventually mistaking an actual woman for a barrel; the unfortunate man being sent, mistakingly, to the North Pole, and hitchhiking his way back to the falls ("March!"); and an actual valve that dries up the falls completely. Woody fans cannot go without this one. A classic and a prime example of the wicked humour of Woody Woodpecker.

12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Citizen Kane (1941)

10/10

Don't bother with the naysayers.

25 November 2006

Most people who go around brandishing 1/10's for this movie are probably trying to stir a reaction, or are on a self-affirmation quest of sorts. Hey, if you watch this movie and don't enjoy it at all, do yourself a favour and don't try to rewrite history. Bashing the hell out of this movie is every bit as worthwhile as bashing Beethoven's 9th Symphony, or Da Vinci's Mona Lisa; no one cares. This IS one of the most significant, important, influential and striking movies ever made, and it has been relevant and innovative for more than 60 decades, and it's bound to be so for a long time. Get over it. Share your feelings if you wish but don't try to look smart. So there.

Those who haven't yet watched the movie NEED to watch it if they have an interest on cinema, on what it represents and what it has represented for all this time. The movie is an important piece to movie history just like "Rosebud" was important to Kane. The thing is, this movie isn't just a historical document. It's a powerful, gripping story that is still significant to this day. I'm not willing to tell the whole story here - many have done that before me. It's more worthwhile to advise you to watch the movie, instead. This isn't a story to hear - it's a story to WITNESS.

Movie buffs go crazy for this movie, and they have a right to do it. Citizen Kane's technical innovations and clever storytelling style really do play tricks with the viewer, and make an apparently simplistic (only on the surface!) story come alive. Of course, it's not a movie for everyone. One who's utterly unimpressed with the movie won't get any beating from ME. But even the most impatient ones should at least try to look through the surface. It's a rewarding movie, and deserves no less than 10 stars. Give the critics some credit on this one, for one.

5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Year My Parents Went on Vacation (2006)

9/10

Storytelling at its very best.

24 November 2006

The premise appears simple, but that's only on surface. Suddenly, the country is divided between the euphoria of the 1970 World Cup (in which Brazil was champion for the third time) and the anguish of the dictatorship. That could be good material for biting social critique, but the movie takes a radically different path. It follows the life of a kid, whose parents are leaving for "vacations". He's left at his grandfather's apartment, only to find out that he died hours before his arrival. Finding himself in the unnatural environment of a Jewish community, having no news about his parents and having to live with a grumpy old man, he finds comfort in football and everything that deals with it.

Fans of the hyperactivity and non-linearity of City Of God will have to expect a completely different style here. While there are flashes of comedy and quirkiness, the movie is very focused and delicately paced. There isn't a lot that can be told here, really, and I won't go on spoiling the story. Check it out for yourself, if only to witness the clashing contrast between two opposite realities in a way no history book could deliver.

33 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Saw (2004)

4/10

Suspend you disbelief for two hours and you *might* enjoy it.

18 November 2006

I hope, I really *hope* that I'm not overestimating you, as there seem to be thousands of people who are in absolute love with this movie, and didn't need to suspend their disbelief. Why? Because this movie has got unexpected twists, flashback sequences, in all, the basic ingredients to an "intellectual" thriller. But Saw is intellectual only on the very surface, because deep inside, it's a dumb, pretentious and hysterically unrealistic piece of fluff.

Yes, hysterically unrealistic. I'm honestly surprised that many people were ACTUALLY shocked and amazed at the "big" twist at the end, when it was, in fact, downright ridiculous. But well, unrealistic, 90% of the movies out there are too, to some extent. The main problem with Saw is that it was unrealistic AND pretentious. Director James Wan and writer Leigh Whanell were constantly trying to prove to the viewers, at every single instant, that their shallow school project of a thriller was, in fact, an Earth-shattering artistic masterpiece. Not only that, all the flashbacks and revelations were there not to give depth to the story and characters, but merely to shock the viewers. In short, the movie was a heck of a show-off.

The only redeeming factor is that I didn't feel as injured with it as I felt with its sequels, Saw II (which I've watched) and III (on which I don't intend to ever waste money on). And it only gets a 4 instead of a 1 is that, heck, if you're in the right mood, this might be one funny movie. Who knows, maybe in the future it will be valuable MST material. I personally think it already is.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Irreversible (2002)

10/10

How much does a movie depend on *how* it's told?

15 November 2006

Whoa, and I thought a creative story was essential in a good movie. Gaspar Noé arrives and proves me wrong, by building this heck of a movie around a simple story we've all heard many times before, in one way or another, but not in the way Irréversible tells us. The most important aspect of the movie is that the camera work that's like the point-of-view of a dizzy insect and the reversed storytelling are not there just to turn a movie into "arthouse" with simple gimmicks.

Noé puts the movie in a completely inside-out perspective, which is really what makes this movie stand out so much. It's not all about the murder scene or the rape scene: they definitely strike the viewer with full force, but are they REALLY all this movie has to offer? In my humble opinion, judging this movie by how graphic its two highly uncomfortable scenes are doesn't make sense. There's so much more behind it. Of course, there might be nothing, as some reviewers have implied by calling the movie "pointless". But just the fact that it has polarised opinions so heavily already shows that, maybe, just maybe, there *is* a point after all, and whatever it is, the movie hit the nail on the head.

Technically, the movie is also impressive. With basically no cuts at all (as far as the human eye can see), the movie sucks you into its own world. But the point isn't "realism", as you can see how the low-frequency noise was used to manipulate its viewers. The movie proudly proclaims how its there to turn you into its toy, so whether you shut off the movie in disgust or let yourself go depends on you, and no one else. But if you do let go, you ought to give Noé kudos for achieving such a direct, brutal effect by not "assembling" the movie out of little pieces, but putting the whole thing right there, before your eyes, so that if you reach out your hand, you might even touch it.

I'm highly impressed by the movie, so go ahead: call me an elitist, or a futile snob. Praise the movie, bash the movie, any day I'd rather hear you talk than read the opinions of those who quote the magnificent "philosophy" of John Kramer, from the Saw series, that "those who don't appreciate life don't deserve life". I tell you, no matter what your opinion is, Irréversible could be a powerful tool in smacking some sense into people like that. It's a necessary movie.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Saw II (2005)

2/10

Everything you expect from the movie is there. And NOTHING MORE.

22 October 2006

For beginners, the movie suffers from the Shyamalan syndrome: you KNOW there's going to be a twist at the end, and you KNOW the writers will do their best to make you go "WOW, I could never tell that was going to happen!". That's obvious right from the start. So, what's the point? Even if you don't know what the revelation will be, you know it WILL be there, and you know it will be in the exact same The Usual Suspects style - which was already done in the first movie. And what's worse: it looks EXACTLY like on the first movie. Exactly. Even without the less-than-subtle throwbacks to the first movie. The writers were willingly delivering "more of the same" to people who wanted it. And there were a lot of them, so who's to blame them? Still, though, the ending isn't the only thing in the movie that matters. The set-up of Saw II is nothing new. For starters, it's Cube - even with the exact number of people (edit: in fact, there's one more person in Saw II, but he dies such a jaw-droppingly contrived death that he isn't even worth mentioning) - but with an over-the-top back story and with idiotic, uninteresting characters. Through the whole movie, I was amazed to see that the characters KNEW what kind of "puzzles" they were to expect, and didn't try to out-trick the puzzles even once - and it was possible. The puzzles AND the characters were there merely to provide sick, gratuitous violence and those intense "psychological" sequences of people screaming and going nuts. And yes, their actions were calculated down to the millisecond to make the WHOLE plan work, with the maximum amount of violence possible. There's no depth to the story. There's not even any development in the relationship between characters. There's just blood, blood, death and people screaming. And I say, what's the need for a Cube rip-off that takes off its most interesting aspects and replaces it with shallowness aplenty? The Jigsaw back story, well, I could live without it. I don't know the need EITHER for a story about 90-year-old Christopher Walken lookalike with a brain tumour and more than sufficient money and time to build ultra-clever "games" which all work flawlessly due to the victims' stupidity and a few plot contrivances. With games and movies like that, I'm thankful we still have Chessmaster. Overall, I'll just stop calling the movie a rip-off of a dozen other movies because it actually looks more like a homage (check the mandatory verbal reference to Last House On The Left); a humble homage; a VERY, VERY humble homage, so it deserves an extra star.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pinky Dinky Doo (2005–2009)

9/10

Yep, you *definitely* don't see that kind of show everyday.

13 August 2006

That's a mighty fine 9 out of 10 over there, and if you need to know to what kind of shows I reserve the honour of a 10 out of 10, check out the Backyardigans. Not that the Backyardigans have a LOT more going on than Pinky does, and that's why they are just one star apart. And see, Pinky Dinky Doo is one heck of an original show, and I don't think I can really compare it to any other children's show. The Backyardigans are right-wing conservative and traditional compared to this show's hyperactive and reckless style of creativity and originality. Perhaps not innovation, but who needs that?

Pinky is a heck of a character. And I'm generally not too excited by the "main" characters of shows. When characters are designed to steal the spotlight, they always run the risk of becoming overbearing. Pinky doesn't. Pinky is not overbearing because she has no fear in being silly, ridiculous and downright outrageous with the stories she makes up in the "story" box, whenever her little brother Tyler faces some kind of problem. Usually she's the centre of the story, and just like Tyler, is faced with some kind of problem to solve. Some of them are rather normal-sounding, like a missing musical instrument or daddy not taking his special shirt to a reunion; others are just bizarre, like a sudden surge of silly hairdos all over the town, or people who have to wear food on their feet and eat shoes. This means that the episodes all follow a moderately strict formula, but believe me, that's only for the better - I'll explain later. Every story presents a new, big fancy word ("vanished", "exasperated", "xylophone", "voracious" and so on), which every time is introduced by a little trumpet fanfare by Pinky's adorable mascot, Mr. Guinea Pig, and the story's main problem is resolved as Pinky "thinks big", rather literally. As the story reaches its end, she, Tyler and Mr. Guinea Pig play a few games on a cheese sandwich... Wha? See, that's why the formula works: the show is quirky to the extreme, in almost every aspect. You hardly ever know in which weird direction the episode will turn, even if you already guess what'll be the next plot point. And it's not just the wildness of Pinky's stories, you know. The animation is done a bit in South Park style, in which most of the characters and scenery look like handmade drawings coloured with crayon, but with the jarring, hilarious inclusion of realistic photographs (the cat portraits next to the kids' beds alone are worth the price of admission already). When reasoning about what to do next, Pinky will often come up with absurd ideas that come to fruition in big thought balloons, and there are several other little quirks that easily become memorable if you really get into the show. Add to that the trumpet fanfare, the catchy-as-I-can't-believe-this-is-possible "Yessarooni Positooni" main tune, the jaunty Caribbean-style music (with a sitar!) and the "cheesy game show" sung vignettes before each cheese sandwich game and you have a kind of show you don't see everyday.

That is Pinky Dinky Doo, highly recommended to anyone with a sense of humour, as well as anyone with kids who want them to watch smart and fun entertainment: vocabulary, stimulus to the creativity, healthy humour and imagination never harmed anybody, and Pinky knows that. And, yes, believe them whey they sing that every story rocks. They do.

4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

2/10

A movie that's only an advertisement for another movie? No, thanks.

28 July 2006

Warning: Spoilers

Oh, goodness. I don't even think it's "spoiling the movie" to say that this movie serves the sole purpose of telling the audiences there's going to be a third movie. Heck, only the news that a second movie has been released already tells us that. The big thing about Hollywood now are the trilogies, anyway. A movie's success guarantees not a sequel, but the whole trilogy. And this pathetic excuse for a movie is essentially, like a person in another Internet forum said, a 150 minute long trailer for the next movie. Two and a half hours of wannabe-eccentric Jack Sparrow crossed over with incredibly awful Warner Brothers cartoon slapstick humour crossed over with "gross out" sea monsters crossed over with more people dying than in the entire "Titanic". And did I mention it's two and a half hours long? It felt like at least five hours, in the theatre.

I admit, I didn't see the first one, but at least now I'm well warned not to watch the first one. And by golly will I never want to watch the third one, not even if they paid me to - I don't sell my dignity that easily. As far as special effects showcases go, I'd rather watch "The Day After Tomorrow" instead, which is a much worse but actually (even if unintentionally) FUNNY movie. This movie isn't funny, even though it tried to be. It's just idiotic, and TWO AND A HALF HOURS LONG. They could have wrapped up the entire thing in 90 minutes, or so. Were they trying to do something "epic" with it or what? The Backyardigans, in the fabulous episode "Pirate Treasure", already sang about what you do with a scurvy pirate: "Make them walk the plank!". I just hope that can apply to scurvy movie producers, too. If not possible, I just wish someone would slap that Jerry Bruckheimer in the forehead for me, or throw all his bags of money in his head.

4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Tubular_Bell

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed