Change Your Image
gustafsoncarl
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Carl the Critic: The Shawshank Redemption
OH MY GOD!!! Such an amazing film! It's nice to know that Stephen King can do more than stories about Evil Spirits killing things. This film is perhaps on of the greatest films ever made! It is a movie about truth, justice, bravery, and prison rape (what more can one ask for!) Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman make a perfect match for this film, and despite one or two moments of slow tension between Robbins and everyone else in the film, it is very deep, powerful,thought provoking, jaw dropping, eyes widening, and spine chilling from beginning to end.
The only thing I don't understand is "WHERE ARE THE WOMEN!?" This film is 99.9999999...9999% men and only 0.0000000...0001% women (at the very beginning having sex) but that is seriously the only complaint one can make about this film, other than the fact that it is long and depressing.
The ending is down right perfect, and I had found myself in awe when I saw Andy (Tim Robbins) crawl through a 500 yard sewage pipe only to come out the other side a free man. What makes me curious about the film is why haven't people noticed that he was carving a hole behind the posters? He had changed them occasionally, there must have been some time when someone walked by and noticed a hole in the wall.
The film's realism sucks you in like a vacuum cleaner to the point where you feel like you are a prisoner in Shawshank just chilling with Freeman and the gang of prisoner who bet on which prisoner is gonna cry first.
Citizen Kane (1941)
Carl the Critic: Citizen Kane
I am not a big fan of Citizen Kane, it's just one of those films like The Dark Knight, where everyone says it's the greatest film ever and then you go see it with high expectations only to be disappointed. But is Citizen Kane a terrible film? Well that will all depend on what you are looking for in a film. If you are looking for a movie that makes you feel good, has a good story, and likable characters than Citizen Kane is not your movie. The movie is a Film Noir with elements of both realism and formalism that make the story dull and confusing. It is very depressing and hard to get into, and Kane, the character is a total a**h***.
However for those of you who are studying film making, you need to watch this movie. Citizen Kane is what is known as a text-book film, it is long and boring but every shot in the film is perfect and these are all techniques that every inspiring film maker should watch and study. Films schools will make you watch this film anyway so why not get a head start right now. Meanwhile I'll just sit here and wait until you are done.
(2 hours and 30 minutes later)
Finished!? See what I mean about the story. It's dreadful, depressing, and it makes me want to kill Charles Kane... Again.
But what makes this film very disappointing for me is the ending. Although well photographed it tells you that all along Kane's last words "Rosebud," was in reference to his sled... Are you kidding me! I had to sit here for two and a half hours watching this only to learn that the guy was talking about his freak-en' sled!
Oh well, I guess I can't complain too much, it is Citizen Kane after all, the movie that made Billy Wilder movies awesome by creating a new genre of film.
Willard (2003)
Carl the Critic
I might not be a big fan of remakes but "Willard" is definitely one of my favorite horror remakes I've ever seen. The style is different from the original, in that it mixes Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" and "Birds" (if "Birds" was actually called "Rats") but also if these movies were directed by Tim Burton. The movie is very well directed and the build up the ending is quite good. Crispen Glover is Willard essentially, the fact that he did not get an Oscar nomination for this film is quite disappointing, but he is also very weird like in every movie he has been in.
But the film's metaphors and motif's are very well presented, and the way the film was essentially everything a good remake should be, a film that is more about be true to the original story but is not exactly the same, and in fact adds on to the original.
The film is not perfect, in fact the film is not without its faults, and minor plot holes and if you do not like horror films or rats this is not the film to see.
But it is a film that is very artistic and if you are looking for a great HORROR movie remake than this is the film to see.
RocknRolla (2008)
Carl the Critic: RocknRolla
Great movie! Unusual title! leave it to the British film makers to make amazing movies with strange titles. "The Full Monty," "James Bond: Octopussy," and of course "RocknRolla." What is a 'RocknRolla'? I'm not entirely sure if the film really explained it clear enough but you know this is a Guy Ritchie film, where it doesn't matter as long as the film looks good. The Formalist style of film making is clearly seen in this film with the hard core action and violence, and a scene where someone finds a creative use for a pencil (by stabbing it in someone's neck) but it is not as violent as I had hoped it to be, and since this is formalism style of film making the violence and action had to look cool as opposed to being real, which is probably why when Johnny Quid stabbed the guy in the neck like twelve times with a pencil there was no blood or markings, but really I was too busy going "what the hell?" to notice.
The film's story was a little bit clearer than Ritchie's next film ("Sherlock Holmes") but there is no development of the story or plot but of the characters themselves. I think that is essentially where the main story of the film is suppose to come from, and even if it didn't work for me, I still found the characters engaging and fantastic. The dialog (as always) is very witty and well executed. The lines and come backs from one actor to the next was natural and emotional, making them engaging and interesting.
Like the film that follows "Sherlock Holmes" this film has a talented cast of well known actors as well as some promising new comers. The actors were the main reason that the film was successful for me in making me totally engaged with the film, and that I would say if you want to watch an action film with great characters, photography, editing, and a grade A British Film maker, than RocknRolla is the film for you.
Sherlock Holmes (2009)
Carl the Critic: Sherlock Holmes
Guy Ritchie is the British equivalent of Stephen Spielberg here in the US. He has great talent, he works with big named actors and the movies he makes are usually successful because everyone knows who he is. But unlike Spielberg, Ritchie is a film maker that is know as a formalist, where the film is all about "does everything look good?", rather than the realistic style of film making where one would ask "could this actually happen?"
"Sherlock Holmes" is a perfect example of this, because you don't care if the story good, (if there really was one, it just seemed too labyrinth like, and any where you turn could get you lost or going in circles.) But a movie doesn't need a story to be good, it just needs to look good (which this film does), sound good (which this film does thanks to both the sound and music departments), and have very strong and likable actors (which this film does for the most part.)But the majority of the film was about Robert Downey Jr. kicking some hardcore butt, giant explosions, very well executed sense of humor and the overall mood of the film matched perfectly with the setting (and vice versa.)
Was this film like the original Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Doyle? You bet your sweet lippy it's not. Of course it is nothing like the original Sherlock Holmes, because Holmes was just an English detective, as opposed to the film where he was an English detective and at the same time an Irish Cage fighter.But that is not important! Mr. Ritchie just took Sir. Arthur's classic character and made him his own.
There were a few times where I was confused, the "story" that the film was trying to tell got a little too detailed, and I felt that scenes where Holmes shows how he was going to beat up the other guy in slow motion step-by-step before he really beat the guy up was repetitive and pointless. But besides for that, I really enjoyed the film, and Guy Ritchie has some extraordinary talent as a film maker. I just hope he doesn't screw up the sequel to this, and Mr. Ritchie I am still waiting for the release of the sequel to "Rock and Rolla."
The Hangover (2009)
Carl the Critic: The Hangover
Ah Todd Philips. Oh I remember when you were just beginning in the business. You've made such timeless classics as "Road Trip," "Starsky and Hutch," and of course "Old School." But now you have a new title, a new story, and cast of new comers who work well together on the big screen. The acting and dialogue is very clever, and the stories twist was the best twisted ending of the year. I particularly enjoyed how the drug ruffian and roof were tied in together to make the twist in the end even more spectacular than anyone could hope for.
The films swearing could have been toned down a tad, and the film does drag on some scenes but then when you least expect it BOOM! out of no where there's a tiger in the bathroom. I also feel that the film's realistic style gives it a greater sense of humor (because things are funnier if they seem like they are really happening.)
Keep it up, make more great films, and you are awesome!
Dr. Giggles (1992)
Carl the Critic: Dr. Giggles
Maybe it's because of the needles, maybe it's because of the masks and gloves they wear, maybe it's because I grew up in a family of doctors, but I find that doctors can be quite scary. I guess that was what triggered my interest in this film to start with. Never before have I ever seen or heard of a horror-comedy film whose main villain is an insane doctor who wants to preform open heart surgery on a girl so that he can finish where his father had started. It's unusual for two reasons, for one it is hard to make that subject both scary and funny at the same time, and two,it's humor comes mainly from his insanity (usually horror-comedies get their humor from the theme of family values.)
It is not what you expect it to be at all, looking at the cover, it looks like your average crappy B-movie, but it is actually filled with clever dialogue, decent acting (with a few exceptions), and a very well done job on the presentation of the film (with it's direction, photography, and editing.)
The only problem I had was the ending. Although the dialogue was still very clever and witty, the return of Dr. Rendell Jr. after being burned to a crisp was long, predictable, and disappointing. That was my biggest issue with the film, but really if you do not like horror film with a dark (and sometimes perverse)sense of humor, I strongly advise for you to watch a film where you don't need to hide under your pillow every 10-15 minutes.
Pinocchio's Revenge (1996)
Carl the Critic: Pinocchio's Revenge
This is a film is an example of a story with all the elements of a good horror film, but because of the subject matter cannot be taken seriously. Pinocchio is a character that is tossed around from decade to decade as a cute and lovable character that he is truly not. Since the film has the true Pinocchio character, it is hard to imagine that the Disney character from the 40's is the same thing. There's that and the fact that the film tries to hard to be a psychological thriller using every cliché camera technique, motif, and story that's been around since the dawn of the psychological thriller.
I would honestly only recommend this movie if you are an aspiring horror film maker who wants to know the elements of a great horror story, but the film's presentation (by it's direction, editing, and acting)kill the potential of being an okay horror film. If you are such a person, you just buy/rent/wait for it to appear on T.V., and get a pen and a piece a paper, a friend who is also an aspiring film maker, and the two of you watch and discuss the film together (and save about $40,000 a year going to a film school.)
But honestly you can be saving even more money/ and time by just skipping this film all together and just going to Hollywood and pray to God you get in.
Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988)
Carl the Critic: Killer Klowns From Outer Space
You can't really expect too much from B-movies, but as far as B movies go you can't get much worse than this piece of poop! There is absolutely nothing engaging about the film, the characters are all stupid, and speak as if they were improvising very poorly, the direction went no where, and the acting was just terrible to say the very least. Nothing, not even the film "Buttcrack" could make me enjoy this film. I am a big horror freak, I know a great horror film when I see one, but this film was as good as expired milk. Not even, milk can sometimes be good before it expires this film was bad even when it first came out. The way to kill the six foot monsters (who look like a mixture between a normal clown and Freddy Kruger)is the only note worthy part that completes the circle of poor script writing because the only way to kill them is to SHOOT THEM IN THE NOSE. Talk about stupid, and when you do shoot them in the nose they do a 1950s style of dying, in which they spin about a billion degrees before they explode into pieces.
Anyone with a fear of clowns might find this film frightening,but I think instead what it does is eliminates the fear of clowns, and make you think how can anyone be afraid of these things? They are nothing with out their evil popcorn, cotton candy cocoon guns, space ship, boxing gloves that for some reason knock off someone's head, shadow puppets that eat people, and a bunch of other stupid weapons of mass destruction that make the film more laughable than scary.
If you are given a choice between watch this movie, or see "Buttcrack," I'd pick "Buttcrack" however if you're like me you won't understand unless you see the film for yourself, but if you do bring a friend and together you both can make fun of how lame the film is.
Buttcrack (1998)
Carl the Critic: Buttcrack
Okay. The title of the film is called "Buttcrack," and it is about a dead guy whose butt crack turns people into zombies. DO I HAVE TO SAY WHY THE FILM WAS BAD!!! I only saw the movie because as a film critic it is what keeps my family fed and brings bread (and money) to the table. What baffles me was that this film was actually made! The actors were obviously working at a movie theater hoping to make their big break from the first (but after this film, also their last) film. Besides the God-awful title, the dialogue was not clever and sounds as if the script was written by a mentally challenged monkey who can write (but shouldn't) in English. But this film goes under the third worse film of all time in my book, following "Songs from the Second Floor," and "Killer Klowns from Outer Space."
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Carl the Critic: Kill Bill Vol. 1
As far back as I can remember, Quentin Tarantino's movies have always failed to impress me. He is a formalist film maker, with action moves that seem to defy the laws of Physics, Probability, and the US Constitution. However I was really surprised when I saw Kill Bill Vol. 1, because it was the first time that I began to gain some respect for Tarantino. Never before have I ever enjoyed Uma Thurman in a role where she kicked so much ass before. Lucy Liu was good too, but to me it didn't make sense that she would be speaking English to a room full of people who speak Japanese. From beginning to end the film was action packed, serious, and at the same time very funny and well photographed.
Don't get me wrong, I still have trouble watching Quentin Tarantino's movies, and even this one still defied the laws of physics, probability, and U.S. Constitution, but that last one doesn't really apply because the film primarily takes place in Japan, and also the film is so well done that even I as a Film Critic found it very hard not to enjoy myself. But what gets me is why doesn't Quentin Tarantino make more films like this?
The Dark Knight (2008)
Carl the Critic: The Dark Knight
Every where I go people always say how great the Dark Knight was, how its was such a great movie, how the film should deserve an Oscar for Best Picture! I say NO IT DOES NOT!
gasp "What!? you don't like the dark knight?" you may be asking me.
"No," I would reply, "as a movie I did not think that it was a good movie at all, and I know no one will say this but I feel that this film was a horrible story, and the photography of the film was not that impressive."
"But," you may reply "Heath Ledger was the best Joker ever!"
"True," I would reply, "Heath Ledger was indeed the best Joker ever, and he did deserve that Oscar for Best Actor, but he was one actor that made the movie enjoyable for me, the rest of the film was not all that impressive. Two Face should have been saved for the sequel instead of this film because it just made the film longer instead of dragging on for ever making my butt hurt in the theater."
However I must confess that the score for the film was still good, even though it was the same thing as the FIRST film, and that it is not really the worse Batman ever made. That title was given to "Batman and Robin," but what I'm saying is that people should not be so conformist when it comes to films such as this, people need to watch the film for more than Heath Ledger, because every time I ask people what made it good 100% of the people say Heath Ledger. He was the best Joker, but this was not the best Batman, in fact I'm thinking the film should be retitled "The Joker," because his role was much more significant than Batman (who still talked as if he had been smoking tobacco out of a bazooka for the past 10 years.)
Braindead (1992)
Carl the Critic: Dead Alive
Peter Jackson is arguably one of the greatest film maker in the world, having directed the Lord of the Rings trilogy, King Kong and The Lovely Bones, but I personally found these films to be long and/or hard to understand. It is nice to see that some time in his life, Peter Jackson directed a film that was short, and simple. The story is the same basic romantic comedic formula geek falls in love with girl, and geek wants to be in a relationship but for some reason has to overcome obstacles to be with the girl. In this case, Peter Jackson uses this formula for a zombie horror film and tried something different which is always great to see in a movie.
The film however does have it's faults. The acting to say the least was not at all great, I think Lionel was hard to like, and every time his face came on the screen he looked as if he had just wet his pants. In addition there were so many characters, and one after the other kept coming and coming and it was hard to keep track of them. What was even more frustrating was how the zombies kept coming back after being killed multiple times. And it's never fully explained why the mother at the very end turns into a giant 50 foot monster while the other zombies stay the same height, but are just a little bit faster.
It is not a film for the squeamish. It is a film for a horror movie freak with a sick unquenchable thirst for blood and carnage. Although a Horror Freak such as myself can sit through the film and watch as Lionel takes a lawn mower and slaughters an entire zombie party. The gore and special effects are corny for me, but completely grotesque for the people who I had forced to watch the film with me.
I enjoyed this movie because it is a horror film with great cinematography, editing, special effects, and story. If you enjoy horror films then go for it, but if you are not skip it and when the zombies come, and have a zombie baby that is very creepy and troublesome you'll have no idea how to handle the situation.