Change Your Image
SpiderPants
Reviews
RoboCop (1987)
Symbolic Review of Robocop (Some Spoilers Within)
Released in 1987, Robocop, the movie, stands as the ultimate symbolic testament to Christianity. Unlike other movies of the decade like The Breakfast Club, St. Elmo's Fire, or Sixteen Candles, Robocop was not afraid to be religious, entertaining and packed with butt kicking action. Like other movies depicting Christ figures (i.e. The Terminator, Aliens and Superman III), Robocop was extremely poignant omitting no details of the life and times of Jesus Christ. The movie begins by introducing Officer Alex Murphy, a streetwise cop with a soft side. He is gunned down by an affiliation of drug pushing psychopaths. I was immediately reminded of the Romans and how they gunned down Jesus in that seemingly abandoned warehouse. After Murphy is considered dead, an organization called OCP combines the biological flesh of his body with steel, circuitry and a fistful of attitude. This was exactly like the resurrection. As Jesus did rise, so did Alex Murphy. Sure, back in Biblical times, they could only really rebuild Jesus with wood and cement, so it might take a stretch of the imagination to fully see the connection. Murphy, in the form of Robocop, is sent out onto the mean streets of Detroit. As he guns down criminal after criminal in a savage manner, I was reminded of the way Christ shot up Roman oppressors like lambs bent for slaughter. The end of the movie is where it gets really good. The drug pushing psychopaths that attacked Murphy, a.k.a. Proto-Jesus, are cornered by Murphy. They try to stop him with a giant magnet, somewhat similar to the way Satan caught Jesus in a tiger trap. Robocop gets free and in a series of dizzying action sequences, he blows the leader of the drug pushers away, until there's not even enough left of him to smear like Jelly on toast. Then, Robocop ascends to the Heavens in order to wage war on Lucifer's armies. This opened up for Robocop 2: Cyber-Revelations. Some have told me that they missed the symbolism that showed Robocop as a Christ figure. I don't see how that's even possible. Not even Terminator 2 had this many references to Biblical scripture and that movie starred Arnold Schwarzenegger, the `GOD' of action cinema.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Am I the only one who saw this movie? (SPOILERS BELOW)
When I went to see this movie, no one was in the theater. I was literally the only one there. After feeling depressed upon realizing I had no friends or life, I started becoming consumed with the film. Was I the only one confused by that so-called Quidditch match? I mean, what kind of ridiculous game is that anyway. If I had been playing that game, I would have simply cast some sort of death spell on the other team, and then laughed a lot, while Alan Rickman and I talked about Die Hard (a far superior film in every way.)
People keep comparing this movie to Lord of the Rings. I don't understand why. They're not even in the same genre. This was some sort of pseudo tragedy with Arthurian overtones. Wasn't it obvious that Weasley was a Young King Arthur struggling with the knowledge and power of Excalibur? Secondly, Lord of the Rings is an epic comedy like Woody Allen's Take the Money and Run. Who doesn't laugh when Arwen does her pagan dance of Voodoo love?
Another thing, people keep saying that scenes from Harry Potter are similar to those of the Phantom Menace. The Phantom Menace was horrible. Who cares if they borrowed scenes? If anything, they should have taken the scenes and not put them back, so as the Phantom Menace might be a better film. Would anyone really care if the stupid pod race wasn't in the movie? I surely wouldn't. For a satire on the contemporary human ethos of the Oedipus/Electra complex, Phantom Menace hardly lived up to expectations.
Back to Harry Potter - I heard that in other countries, the original title is Philosopher's Stone; this is because stupid Americans become frightened by words like Philosopher. I agree. Americans are stupid. The school system in the states is pathetic, and it's teaching crazy people to compare this movie to other movies that cannot even begin to relate.
The visuals weren't that impressive. Did anyone else notice that Harry Potter was being carried around by giant ropes? It was pretty obvious to me. And when that troll was in the school, was I the only one who noticed it was not a real troll? I'd think with the budget they must have had for this film, they could have hired a real troll. Also, the three headed dog was actually a two headed dog with a computer generated third head. It was clear that the so-called "third head" was poorly drawn by inferior computer designers. The best part of this movie would likely be the lesson I was taught at the end, which was that if a Wizard really likes you, you'll likely be able to cheat and steal points away from the evil looking blonde kid. It's a lesson we all have to learn in life, I'm happy to have learned it now.
Overall, I rate this movie a 10 out of 10, because it was bombastically beautiful.
Siu nin Wong Fei Hung chi: Tit ma lau (1993)
Misleading...
When I went to see this film, I had expected to see, well, an Iron Monkey. You can imagine, my imagination was brimming over at the utter expectation for a film with a plot that surrounded the epic tales of some sort of Iron corrugated monkey. I can't say for certain, but when I sat down and witnessed the atrocity of mundane action scenes which numbed away any feeling of a plot, I felt as though I had been robbed of my human decency. There have been some other movies with the word monkey in them, and they had nothing to do with monkeys. This is becoming an increasingly annoying tradition in Hollywood blockbusters and Foreign Films. There are of course some redeeming qualities, like the credits that closed the film, they were good. The visuals are abhorrently typical, something I could have witnessed while half-conscious without having missed a thing. The plot, there is no plot. I don't think it's so difficult to develop a plot; I don't understand why the writers of these scripts, if there are scripts, think that a ridiculous number of action scenes interrupted by boring dialogue makes for a good movie. The character development? Who are we kidding? In an action film of this caliber, the characters are more like paper cut outs, fashioned and molded to be of a specific make, lacking entirely any nuances of a real person. This whole film was a waste of my time, and it was a waste of my effort to keep my eyes open for the duration of the film. If they could just make a movie about a monkey with some sort of iron chasse capable of doing incredible things, it would have been more original and the monkey would probably have been a better actor than the idiots they gather for these martial arts films. I used to enjoy this genre. But now, it's become too commercial, and no one is chosen on the basis of any skill save their capability to kick really high. Would it be so much to ask for a film where Martial Arts action scenes are just the icing on the cake and not the majority of the movie? I guess it is...
Body Slam (1986)
A world of fun
Maybe it was the lack of sleep, or the fact that I was in a really great mood, but there was something about Body Slam that made me laugh almost non-stop. Of course, to say I laughed at any of the deliberate jokes in the film, would be a complete lie. I would not pretend that readers of this are complete idiots and such a farce would be believable to any of them. Whomever wrote this film is in dire need of some intelligence. But that utter lack of brains, that total undeniable inability to comprehend anything filled with wit or satire, made for one of the most laughable films I have ever witnessed in my life. I have gone on to be one of Dirk Benedict's biggest fans. He was perfect for this role. Anyone who thinks someone else should have played Harry is a complete fool, because only Mr. Benedict could get down the necessary nuances to be so implausibly stupid that we, as viewers, wonder if we're not becoming stupider as we watch the film.
Psycho (1998)
The Point is...
That even if this weren't a remake of Psycho, and I were simply watching this movie without knowledge of it being based on a far superior predecessor, I would not enjoy it. It's not suspenseful on any level. Vince Vaughn's performance is laughable; does anyone truly think he means any of his lines? I don't think much of him as an actor, but anyone with a brain could have pulled in a greater performance. Hitchcock's original is actually terrifying. Anyone witnessing it for the first time feels as though they're seeing something truly amazing. It's racked with suspense, Anthony Perkins' performance is incredible; he so carefully depicts all of the minor nuances of someone who is both boyishly charming and nervously wrought. Whenever I watch the original, I get a sense that there are so many levels to Norman's thinking. In the remake, it's painfully obvious that Vince Vaughn is not being remotely dimensional. In the end, I'm absolutely fatigued by remakes. Is there any real point to them? Does anyone believe these directors and producers aren't just trying to bank in on something that was formerly successful? There are thousands of bad movies; those are the films, which are in dire need of being remade. Leave the good movies alone. The new ones are never improvements. It proves without a doubt that Hollywood doesn't have an ounce of originality, since it seems incapable of creating something new.
Shakma (1990)
What the...?
I want to meet the guy who was sitting alone in his underwear on one lonely night, while playing a board game by himself and wishing his parrot could say more than "hello", when he suddenly conceived the idea for this idiotic monstrosity of a film. Who in the world would ever think a menacing villain would be a baboon? They also managed to kill the two main characters.
****SPOILER****
Luckily, Roddy McDowall gets to be wonderfully massacred, so he won't have to be stuck in the movie any longer.
I think the makers of this movie should be shoved into a small room with the baboon from this film. If they're lucky, they'll be killed in a very gruesome manner.
:D
Hannibal (2001)
In Comparison, All Movies are good...
I have witnessed some atrocities of cinema. In the past couple of years, it seems producers and directors are bent on making films that drive me closer and closer to insanity. Hannibal was not an exception. I wasn't expecting much, when I went in to see the movie. The book was ridiculous, and the saying, "The Book is always better than the movie" did not assure me at all that this movie would be anything but trash. But what I came to see was a movie that made all other bad movies seem better in comparison.
Usually, when I see a terrible movie, I find myself more amused than anything else. Sadly though, I could not even laugh at the sad excuse for a film that Hannibal is. The movie was filmed with promise, I guess. It had Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, and Gary Oldman. And for directing, there was Ridley Scott. There have been movies with significantly less talent that have been tremendously better. There was so much I would have cut from this film that I doubt anything would have remained. It was pathetic. The storyline was so ludicrous that it seemed like a complete idiot had written it. What's worse is that the book was even crazier, and there were some scenes that were too extreme to be included, which is sad in the case of a movie where
***SPOILER AHEAD***
Ray Liotta's brain was being cooked in pieces. That scene more than any other made me want to cry, because it tarnished its predecessor to such a monumental level. Silence of the Lambs was one of my favorite films of all time. But Hannibal was a two hour plus joke. This movie should only be watched, if people want to learn how not to write a good movie.
Hobgoblins (1988)
B-Movies Unite
Hobgoblins more than any other film proves to me that there is a heaven. Because only in a strange, dark, illusionary world such as hell could a mind twisted enough create a movie such as this. And if there is a hell, there must be a heaven, right? Well, that's my philosophy. I love this film, and it was made famous by Myster Theater Three Thousand. And the reason I love this film is because it is so ludicrous and terrible that I can't help but laugh and enjoy myself while watching it. There's nothing wrong with the truly bad film that makes for a good time.
Watch Hobgoblins. You'll enjoy it if you have any sort of sense of humor. And afterwards, look under the couch, there won't be any goblins down there, but it's just funny to look anyway. I mean, what if there is one down there even though you know there isn't one down there? What if? WHAT IF?!? WHAT IF?!?!?!?!?!?!
Memento (2000)
Incredible.
Few movies, in the last year, have really captured my imagination. With the constant stream of typical, boring movies with nothing but eye candy and a plot so loose and full of holes it's degrading to believe that any real thought went into them (and not just a series of cliches thrown together to make a movie), that I was so ecstatic when Memento was released.
This has been by far my favorite film of recent years. Everything is skillfully arranged. The narration adds a comedic and sometimes sad resonance to the film. The acting was great. Guy Pierce, formally in L.A. Confidential, was so believable and secure in his role as Leonard, that it was hard to imagine he was not experiencing his problematic inability to produce new memories. The movie is filmed in reverse. And of course, that means, the beginning is really the ending. But Memento is so wonderfully written, that even this does not really give away what is going to happen. And it is not this alone that makes Memento such a wonderful movie. The ride through Leonard's life in the past few days is so fun and full of interesting events, that there was never a moment that dragged or left the viewer with any sense that things weren't going somewhere. It is such an entertaining film that though it is a movie full of surprises, knowing them and watching it again does not hinder its ability to absolutely capture its viewer's attention.
Memento is a great film that should be viewed by everyone. It has writing and direction that is well beyond that of any other movie out right now. When this is released on video, I'll be one of the first people to buy it.
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)
Do people still fall for this stuff?
I never understood where the concept for creating movies from video games ever originated from, or why people think there's any chance those movies will be any good. It's shameful that it is even done. There is not an ounce of credibility in a movie that is made from a game. Tomb Raider was probably one of the worst of them all. With constant corporate sponsorship finding its way all over this movie, I'm surprised the film wasn't just a ninety minute Pepsi commercial. As a matter of fact, I don't remember a single normal preview for this movie when it was first coming out. There were only product advertisements. And of course, Lara Croft just happened to use those products. I was extremely disappointed when I found that Angelina Jolie was doing this movie. She had done terrible films before, for example, Gone In Sixty Seconds, but this was sinking to a whole new low. She used to be an actress I could respect. But now, it's difficult to keep from laughing when I hear her name. And the one thing this movie could have had going for it, the special effects, were also a total let down. The scenes looked ridiculous, and I wondered if they were intentionally amusing, or maybe the director realized his career was gone when he was doing video game inspired movies and he just didn't care anymore. Either way, this whole movie felt like a big joke.
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Great Movie.
I wasn't sure what to expect when I sat down to watch this film. No one I knew had seen the film yet, in fact, few people at all even knew about it. After seeing what a great movie it really is, I'm disappointed that not as many people have experienced it. And for me, it was an experience. Not in a very long time have I been so engrossed in every scene that took place in a movie. It deals so closely with the pain and sickness of the characters that every thing that happens to them seems to in some way effect the viewer.
By no means is this a light film. Aronofsky's direction is masterful. There is a mixture of disturbing imagery, and the scenes themselves, filmed in a fast, jumpy manner give the illusion of raciness that those characters must be partaking in. It's a movie about addiction in its rawest form, and this movie does not pull any punches with the imagery and story.
It's not the most original concept. Movies about drugs and drug addiction have been around for ages, but never before has a movie been so well done and honest on the subject. The acting is incredible. Ellen Burstyn as the mother gives a frightful performance. It is an incredible thing when an actor gets so involved within his or her role that while watching it, you feel for that character and no longer believe it's just an actor doing their part. Jared Leto and Jennifer Connely deliver fine performances. Surprisingly enough, Marlon Wayans shows he can act (I admit I was worried when I was told that he was in this film, I was sure he would undermine the movie.) Everything about this movie is good. Right up until the end, I enjoyed every moment of it. In its genre of movies, it is unquestionably my favorite.
~Christopher
The Mad Doctor Hump (1969)
EXCITING FILM MAKING
I love this film, and I strongly recommend it to anyone interested in a movie going experience that they will not soon forget. Since I've seen this film, I make it a conscious effort to yell in the streets, "Call me the Mad Doctor Hump!" Go see it! You don't want to miss out.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
I wonder...
This could have been a truly great piece of work, but unfortunately, after much thought, I feel like it just can't be done. The movie is based on a short story, but there are obvious parallels to the story of Pinochio. A toy is created, and then that toy is granted consciousness. The toy, in the movie, is a Robot played by Haley Joel-Osment; it's meant as a substitute child for people wanting children of their own but cannot. In this case however, the two people were already parents, but their son was sick and comatosed. After awhile, their true son is returned to them, and this creates obvious conflicts. The Robot boy is made to leave, and then he goes out in search of becoming a real boy, so that he will become accepted. This is the major cause for problems that occur at the end of the movie. This movie isn't a real fairy tale. We're told to believe all of the things that happen in this movie, as if they are possible. And for the most part, we have no trouble doing that. The superb acting of Osment lets us believe that he is a robot trying to conquer the gap between human and machine. But as it seems apparent, the last thirty minutes come off as a completely other movie in itself. The events that transpire in the end are ludicrous, and they left me bored and wishing the credits would come rolling up, even though I knew it wouldn't happen. The happy ending that Spielberg tries for left me annoyed. It would appear that the real problem in this movie that tries to live up to a fairytale, is that there is no reasonable way to make a robot into a real boy. He will never genuinely love, because he was only programmed. I am hoping that there will be a director's cut to this movie. I think with some editing, it could be a far superior film to what is being watched now. Everything was well done. The acting, directing, and the special effects were all wonderful and beautiful. There were just plot holes that left the movie having to go in a ridiculous direction. And if Spielberg could peruse himself into avoiding the happy ending, there could be a much better ending that wouldn't bore me and roll my eyes.
~Christopher
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Burton's Been on Insanity Pills
What has happened to Tim Burton? He used to be one of my favorite directors. His unique style and flavor were evident in all of his films. He brought a type of originality to film making that was very enjoyable. But in recent years, he's been slipping. And in Planet of the Apes, he seems to have slipped even more. More than ever, his style and creativity are gone. Even in his poorer films, anyone watching could see clearly that it was a Burton film. But after seeing Planet of the Apes, I was tempted to check the credits to make absolutely sure that he had anything to do with the making of this movie. It was terrible. And anyone who has enjoyed this movie has done so for the worst of reasons, namely the visuals, i.e. the ape make-up. These same people defend this new movie by saying that it was not supposed to be a true remake of the original, but I say, so what? If you're going to do a movie that's already been done, at least make an attempt to do something better than the original. Maybe the first movie didn't have supreme special effects, but it is a classic because it was a well written and well directed movie, which this new movie is not. Visuals aren't enough to make a great movie. If all I cared about was realistic looking apes, I'd go to a zoo.
~Christopher