stuff2delete's Reviews

Lord of War (2005)

8/10

26 October 2005

The film tells the life story of Yuri Orlov, a Ukrainian immigrant who turns to gun smuggling, a job he's very good at, as it turns out. The story manages to portray him both as a ruthless merchant of death and a sympathetic underdog trying to work his way up in the world. Cage, playing the lead character, pulls this off pretty neatly, never letting the story degrade to a simple morality tale.

Apart from one or two moments of shaky dialogue, both script and acting performances are rock solid. Cinematography is nothing groundbreaking, but wonderfully playful and engaging.

Overall the film engaging, well-paced, craftily told. It's a film for people who like their story telling without the usual black-and-white, good-vs-evil scenario. It manages to bring humor and shwung to subject matter that is pretty gruesome, without ignoring its seriousness.

So that's an 8/10 easily, in my book.

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

The Polar Express (2004)

2/10

extremely long coca cola commercial

22 December 2004

You know that disgusting, gutwrenchingly sentimental xmas commercial by Coca Cola, the one with Santa and that big truck with all those lights. Loop that commercial for two hours and you got yourself "The Polar Express".

It's got no story, it isn't funny. Even the elves don't do anything remotely entertaining. Oh yeah, and the rendering isn't that great either. I got one word for whoever made this disgusting moralistic piece of crap: PIXAR. Even the mystical, surreal, kind of sinister part of the film really doesn't work. It seems so contrived. (If you hear an awkward sound right now, that's probably Roald Dahl turning in his grave)

Avoid at all cost: 2/10

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

Amazones (2004)

5/10

Not bad, but needs more of a plot.

22 December 2004

A movie about a couple of lower class mums turning to armed robbery for a source of income, might well make a good premise for either an interesting drama or a good comedy. This film tries to be both and strikes a pretty good balance, and yet is somehow found wanting in both senses. It has some funny moments, but it's not a great laugh, and the thin plot leaves little room for the really dramatic stuff.

The main weakness of this film is the fact that the plot kind of wanders about without actually going anywhere. I found myself sitting in the theater wondering where the hell the story was going, and then feeling a bit let down when the credits started rolling. It's not a movie I'd recommend seeing in the cinema. It's more the kind of thing you come across while zapping and then keep watching without regretting it later. 5/10

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

Super Size Me (2004)

7/10

unimaginative style, but still very powerful

30 September 2004

"Supersize me" is filmed pretty much like a conventional documentary, with a very businesslike point-by-point style of dealing with health issues related to fastfood. The ongoing experiment of eating nothing but McDonalds food is the recurring theme that binds whole thing together. But don't be fooled by it's conventional and predictable style, this is a powerful film. Halfway through I suddenly got very conscious of how I eat and what I eat, and I kinda felt guilty because I was eating while watching the movie (it was an apple for cryin out loud!).

There are going to be people who say that eating *only* fastfood is a no-brainer and that this is like labrats developing cancer because of a huge overdose of something. But those people should understand that there are marketing drones who will say anything to sell their fastfood, they'll even say it's healthy. This film unnerves these claims. Moreover, it quantifies the problem (albeit vaguely). We knew fastfood was not that healthy, but is it really that bad? Apparently, it is.

"Supersize me" has often been compared with Michael Moore's work, and some people feel it's better than Farenheit9/11. I don't. No good documentary is unbiased, anybody who tells you that is lying. Be it moderate or extreme, the film should reflect the makers opinion in the best possible way. This one is no exception, just ask a McDonalds spokesperson. Morgan tells his story with wit and honesty, but he is definitively biased, and he lacks Moore's ability to find the surreal and the absurd. The way in which he approaches the subject is not as imaginative and surprising. (think of "Bowling for Columbine" if you're a Bush fan and feel too strongly about f9/11).

7/10

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

Ellis in Glamourland (2004)

5/10

Niet eens echt slecht

27 September 2004

Or, in English: Not that bad really.

This film could well have been made by Hollywood, situated in New York or Los Angeles. But as it happened, it's Dutch and set in The Hague. Other than that, it's just a thirteen-a-dozen romantic comedy. Now traditionally the Dutch have always been monumentally bad at making films like these. They were either overly artistic (and thus boring) or the production quality was so bad it makes Ed Wood look like Steven Spielberg. But as I said, this one is not that bad really. A bit of My Fair Lady, a hint of Bridget Jones, throw in Joan Collins for good measure and voila, a nice little flick you can watch and then forget about. It's not exactly an advertisement for Dutch cinema (like Zusje, Van God Los, Phileine zegt Sorry) but you won't evacuate the theater in a blind panic either.

26 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Magnolia (1999)

7/10

Did I miss something?

27 September 2004

This film consists of several stories of people who's lives are loosely connected. They are all very compelling, well told, well acted, always original and a bit surreal at times. My only complaint is the lack of coherence I felt. The film starts by telling us that some things are just a coincidence, and more importantly, that some things aren't. But this idea that certain things are meant to be, doesn't really get through to the story. I was left wondering why they bothered with the intro, since all I saw was coincidences and the film did not make a strong effort to persuade me to think otherwise.

But having said that, this is a great film. It's engaging, enjoyable, funny. It's not as good as "The Station Agent" or "Lost in Translation" but I guess anybody who likes one of these films will enjoy the other two as well. 7/10

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

White Chicks (2004)

1/10

And you thought "Dodgeball" was bad....

13 September 2004

In short: All the characters are overdone caricatures, the storyline is non-existent, the plot is hopeless, the acting ranges from bad to average and in the end the film just isn't funny.

I could lament about why black men don't make very convincing white beauty queens or why the story is so utterly hopeless, but let's face it, that's not what films like these are for. The reason this movie is so bad, is that it really isn't funny unless you're a ten year old girl. I'm trying to remember any really good laughs I had, but I can't. There just weren't any. What I do remember is cleaning my glasses and rubbing my eyes a lot during this film, which is something I use as an excuse to myself for not having to look at the screen. Some of the scenes were excruciating. I pride myself on being able to watch bad movies to the very end, but I contemplated walking out on this flick several times, and spent the rest of the time wishing I had. Intermission came as a liberation. I never thought I'd say this , but even "Dodgeball, the movie" wasn't this bad. At least that film had *some* good laughs. I would have given it 2/10 if I could think of any redeeming features, but I couldn't. So it's 1/10.

17 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Girl Next Door (2004)

8/10

surprisingly good

6 September 2004

As far as the teen comedy genre goes, this is one of the best ones I've seen in a long time. Sure, there's the usual themes (boy meets girl, boy loses girl, losers vs football players, etc.) but somehow I didn't mind so much. There's enough of original stuff to keep the story interesting. Even the sexual references and nudity seemed more mature, more justifiable than one would normally expect. It's also a very funny movie, and in a surprisingly intelligent way. The best thing about it though, is the fact that the plot is not excruciatingly predictable. In fact I found it rather surprising.

I can see why some people are put off by the middle section of the film, or by some of the plot twists. But let's face it, if you're worried about the credibility of the plot of a teen comedy, then you're just not having any fun. This ain't The Maltese Falcon, this is light viewing. So view it lightly.

I'll give it 8/10, for reviving a genre I had already given up on.

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

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004)

2/10

Quality is inversely proportional to viewer IQ

30 August 2004

I was actually amazed by this film. Going into the theater, my expectations were on an all time low, yet somehow the intellectual challenge that is "Dodgeball the Movie" still manages to disappoint.

With movies of this genre, you expect bad acting, a barrage of cliches and stereotypes, and a lot of cheap slapstick humor. And that's OK. But nothing can adequately prepare you for the headache inducing performance of Ben Stiller. Even to his own rock bottom standards, his acting (if we're going to use that word) is truly dismal. In fact, all the bad things about this type of film, the cliches, the predictability, it all seems to be just a bit worse in this 13-a-dozen Hollywood celluloid disposal.

But of course the real test is this: Is it fun, does this movie entertain you? Sadly, the answer is no. The total amount of beer you would have to drink in order to make this movie enjoyable would kill all but the most experienced alcoholics. The characters just aren't funny, and most of the jokes are too simple, too predictable and too badly timed to work. Sure there's a couple of good laughs here and there, but don't hold your breath.

If you are contemplating seeing this film, then here's my advise to you: don't. Use the money to buy "There's something about Mary", "American Pie" or "Hey dude, where's my car" on DVD and invite a couple of friends over. The movie will be better and the beer will be cheaper.

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

Lost Souls (2000)

8/10

slow, but very good

22 August 2004

Warning: Spoilers

*** MIND THE SPOILERS ***

The biggest assets of this film are the solid acting performances and the amazing cinematography. It just oozes this dark, creepy atmosphere. So, no complaints in the visual department.

The plot has been widely criticized, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. Most people I talked to who didn't like it, automatically assumed that all the supernatural things that happen in this film, actually happen. A bold assumption, given the fact that we learn very early on that the main characters perception of reality isn't exactly trustworthy. And when we find out that most of the evil omens were brought about by a demonic sect that wants their dark messiah, it makes the Peter=Satan prophecy very much a self-fulfilling one. So, is Satan really coming or is this just a lot of superstition? In fact, the film tries very hard to keep both options open right to the end, and my only real complaint is that it didn't fully succeed. A few things remain unexplained by main character hallucination and the doings of a bunch of wacky satanists (mainly the silent tape and the crucifix falling over). This is bad because it forces the movie to acknowledge the supernatural. If it had been able to maintain deniability, it would have been brilliant.

I'm not a particular fan of the genre, so I can't say much about originality. It is a very slow paced film though, and most of the suspense has to come from the ongoing theme: Is he, or is he not the antichrist. People who automatically assume the latter, are very likely to be bored. But I didn't, and so I wasn't. So I think this film is very good. If not for the flaws I just mentioned, it could have been a classic screw-with-your-mind movie, like "The Usual Suspects", "The Others" or "ExistenZ". Mainly due to the cinematography, I'm giving it 8/10.

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

Twisted (I) (2004)

6/10

Not bad, shaky plot kinda spoils it

17 August 2004

This is one of those clear cut police vs serial killer films, and it starts out pretty promising. The lead character, played by Ashly Judd, is not an all-round hero, she has her problems. And when she is linked to the murders she's supposed to be investigating, that gives the story a nice twist. There is no steady buildup off suspense, but the occasional tense moments keep you on your toes, and more importantly, obfuscate the way the story is going. This film is very successful in leaving the audience a bit paranoid half way through.

But that's where the trouble starts. To induce paranoia, a couple of characters close to Judds are clearly nominated as probable badguy by subtle (and sometimes very unsubtle) clues you get as a viewer. So now the film becomes a simple whodunit, and as any smart moviegoer will tell you, a good whodunit depends heavily on a solid plot. This is where "twisted" fails spectacularly. In an attempt to make the plot as surprising as possible, they produced something truly incomprehensible. You would expect all the clues and all the different characters behaviour and preceding actions to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle into this great big logical sequence, but your left with just a badguy who did it for reasons passing understanding.

So, this movie is not big on suspense, although it is quite skillfully used. It doesn't work as an action film or as a psychological drama. Yet somehow it's not really bad. Cinematography is very good, acting is OK, not the best dialog Iv'e ever heard, but it's not really bad either. And although it's by no means a fast paced story, there's just a lot of little distractions to keep it interesting. It won't be to everyone's taste but I still give it 6/10.

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

The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

8/10

Very entertaining, but not great

6 August 2004

I'm a big fan of espionage films and I think The Bourne Identity is one of the best ever, so I really expected a lot from the sequel. This caused some slight disappointment. The Bourne Supremacy is not nearly as good as the first film.

The plot is pretty solid, that is, non of the characters does anything evidently stupid or illogical (a Cardinal Sin in any good spy movie, James Bond excluded). Yet it feels a bit sloppy. A few of the plot twists are just too convenient.

One good thing this film managed to retain from its predecessor is the low-key action scenes. No exploding buildings, matrix style kung-fu fights or when-in-doubt-pull-trigger-style shoot-outs. It's all more restrained, functional. It's tactics rather than overwhelming force.

The acting is pretty good too, especially Brian Cox and Julia Stiles in supporting roles. The shaky documentary style cinematography seems a little misplaced, but I didn't think it was irritating.

Regardless of its shortcomings, this film is still a must for those who like the genre. Fot others it's just a couple of hours good quality entertainment. I'm rating it 7/10. Wait, OK, 8/10.

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

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

1/10

When it's not boring, it's mostly dreadful

5 August 2004

This film wants to be a drama, a love story, sci-fi movie and action extravaganza all at the same time, and then just screws up everything.

The action scenes are not bad, but really not that different from the first movie.

As far as sci-fi goes, it's all fiction and no science. The whole idea of professor Octavius and his "great invention" is completely unconvincing and seem extremely far fetched, not unlike the plot twists. But then, it is a comic-book-movie.

But where this film really goes south is the drama/love story. It's an endless string of clichés, the characters are cardboard and the only thing truly dramatic is the quality of the dialog. Both the characters of Peter and of Mary Jane are so hopeless and indecisive that you end up hoping the bad guy kills them, just to get it over with. The pace is excruciatingly slow, so during the seemingly endless dialogs, ones eyelids tend to get very heavy.

Even the jokes in the movie don't work that well. It *tries* too hard to be funny, but it just isn't. The only exception is the scene in the elevator, that was hilarious.

If all of this isn't bad enough, the studios Morality Department also got hold of the script somewhere along the line. They injected a large dose of those wholesome "American Values", talking at lenght about American Heroes and rolemodels etc. Almost made me physically sick.

I still would have given it 3/10, but right now it's in the top 250. Even if you're not a harsh as I am about this film, then let's at least agree that in the history of cinema, surely we can find at least 250 films that are better than this one.

64 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

stuff2delete

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed