42 posts tagged “three thumbs”
And the oddness of the film extends beyond the way the film rewrites history. It is pervasive throughout the film starting in the opening credits. In the opening credits Tarantino uses a number of fonts for the names of actors and they aren't all in a similar font family and there doesn't really seem to be a reason for it. Now noticing that the fonts on the opening titles change might be a small thing but it isn't an accident. Things like that don't just happen. So someone, probably Tarantino himself, decided, "let's use a different font here" and I don't really know why. Then later on when the Nazis are gathering there are a couple times where names of historically well known Nazis are put on the screen looking like the names were written in chalk or something. Why? Who knows. There is also no real reason for why we even need to know the names of these people. Like I said, it is just odd.
The acting is fine. The actors who had multiple languages to speak did a good job. I have to hand it to Tarantino: I like the women he casts. I'm less sure of their roles in the films or even why their characters exist, but they sure are purdy...I didn't have any issues with the job any of the women or the men did in the film eexcept for the appearance of Mike Meyers in one scene. That he's in makeup doesn't help. It is clear that it is him beneath the makeup and so I just kept waiting for him to start using a funny voice from Austin Powers or something. Samuel L. Jackson also does a voiceover in the film and it is equally distracting. His voice is so distinctive and he's strongly associated with Tarantino so I kept waiting for him to start cursing and using racial epithets. Of course perhaps both of these say more about me than Tarantino. Perhaps I'm just on some level wanting him to do the same things he did in the past.
This desire or expectation of Tarantino to do the things he has done over and over again also comes up early on in the film when the main bad guy is talking to a French peasant. I kept waiting for one of them to echo the Bruce WIllis and Ving Rhames scene in Pulp Fiction and "go medieval" on someone's ass. There is a character introduced in this scene and then we jump forward in time a few years and are immediately told that this actress is supposed to be the same person. But then later in the film we are shown a flashback to when that character was introduced. Ummm.... why did we need that? You told us from the start that this was the same person so that flashback didn't clarify anything. We saw the acress' reaction so we know what she was supposed to be feeling.
This isn't to say that the film is bad. It is just odd.
three thumbs up
Motherfuckin' odd
What is he trying to do?
I got no idea
This is one of those movies that I always saw in the video store but never got around to seeing. From the cover I was expecting something something like Basket Case or The Unborn but this is really much more sedate and thoughtful. Yes, it is about a killer baby but it isn't a gore film and it focuses on the parents and their reactions and guilt over giving birth to this mutant killer baby.
Coming out in 1974, the film is also kind of an interesting insight into what it was like to deliver a baby then. It features the fathers in the waiting room while the mother is doped up and the doctor pulls the baby out with forceps. According to the commentary track the guy playing the part of the doctor delivering the baby was an actual obstetrician so the scene is probably fairly accurate -- except of course for the killer baby. Also really interesting is the fact that not only is the father smoking but he walks around the hospital smoking the whole time (except for in the delivery room) and no one cares. To top it off, while in the waiting room, the father is smoking and chewing gum at the same time! Wow, that's a real man.
Also interesting is the way the parents deal with the moment when the baby is due. Now, I don't have any kids and I was an only child so I don't even have a memory of my mom pregnant with a sibling. However, the parent's casual attitude towards going into labor is really amazing. Once the mother says the baby is coming they casually pack, change clothes, wake up the older son, drop the son off at the neighbor's house and then go to the hospital. I've never seen the depiction of going to the hospital depicted as so casual.
Like I said, the film isn't really a gore or shocker film. You don't really see the killer baby or much of the bodies. Most of the film is, as I said, really about the parents feeling guilt over the baby and conflicted feelings: should they disown and allow the baby to be killed or should they try to love it and protect it because it doesn't know any better. It is refreshing to see a film about a killer monster whose parents are crazy but act at least a little bit like real people. Touched upon in the film is also the cause of the baby's mutation. There's some talk about pollution, fertility drugs and other toxic things. And there's also some discussion by the parents about whether or not they wanted to abort the baby before it was born. So not only is it about a killer baby but it is also a meditation on modern life in the 1970s!
three thumbs up
the killer baby
might need to get some braces
for that overbite
I'm sure it doesn't take a genius to realize this but Catwoman is a terrible movie. It isn't really even so bad it is funny. It is just a terrible example of incompetent filmmaking.
Why is it so horrible? Well first off the storyline is insulting. Just because Catwoman is a woman does it mean that the story has to involve her working for some particularly woman-oriented business? Apparently. Berry's character works for a cosmetics company. Why? Because she's a girl and girls like cosmetics apparently... Of course the company isn't just any company but it is an evil cosmetics company! And the villain isn't just some evil person who does bad thing. No she is an aging model who is terrified as losing her looks.
There is also the matter that there's no real reason for Catwoman to be involved. The evil cosmetics company is alleged to be making some horrible body-altering cosmetics but we don't get an army of zombies or anything like that. We just get the hint of it. We do get Catwoman framed for murder and that's really why Catwoman is involved.
There is also the story of Catwoman's reason for existance. Rather than just having Berry's character decide to put on a costume, she gets possessed by some cat spirit or something. Heaven forbid that the character do something on her own...
There is also the fact that in the comics Catwoman is a morally grey character. She is a thief but she has a code and is involved with Batman. Because of this they feel some desire to make her a thief but it turns out she's just possessed by the cat sprit or something and then her thievery isn't ever really important to the film and is forgotten about once she gets framed for murder.
Yes Berry is hot but once she gets possessed she cuts off her hair and call me crazy but her new haircut is ugly.
three thumbs down
Crazy Catwoman
Why do you exist at all?
No one really knows...
I'm guessing that the people who saw this movie said, "Dude, we can make our own Night of the Living Dead!" While another one of them said, "No, dude, let's make a movie about the Manson Family!" So they decided to make both and neither.
The movie has some pretty cool parts like the whole trippy devil worship stuff and the fact that a kid is basically the one responsible for the whole thing. There's also some crappy things like the fact that they also apparently kill some animals on screen for shock value.
The story starts off with some naked Satanists out in the woods killing a chicken. A local yokel sees them and runs off. It isn't entirely clear what happens to here. Was she raped? Was she just traumatized by the Satanisity? Regardless, the next morning the Satanists roll into town only to find out that it is basically dead. There's something about building a dam but it isn't entirely clear if the dam is going to help the town or if it will flood it out. Any way, there's just a baker/cook who keeps making stuff for apparently the only other people in town who is the local yokel girl, her dad, and a young boy who calls the old guy Grandpa. So is the local girl his mom? Is she his sister? If so where are the parents? Is the baker woman the mom? Who knows?
Anyway, the Satanists take over the abandoned hotel. The grandfather goes to yell at them and they slip him some LSD. In revenge, the kid slips the meat of a rabid dog meat into their food. They eat it and turn rabid but they are more like zombies. After that, it spreads like a zombie movie.
It isn't a bad movie. But it isn't really a good one either. The most entertaining stuff is the Satan worship but that kind of ends once they turn rabid. I'm not sure what the message is, or if there is one. If the film was just about the Satan worshipers killing people, then it would be clear who the bad guys were. If someone besides the little kid made them rabid zombies then it would be clear. As it is, as much as I hate kids and blame them for everything, I don't think that is the message they intended.
three thumbs up
A kid's fault again
Satan was an acid-head
is a real good line
So I thought this was going to be a documentary about how Tom Cruise is really a Nazi and how he has killed millions of people. Boy was I wrong...
Like a lot of films "based on a true story" it is difficult for me to judge this film because I find myself being conflicted between the actual storyline and the direction. I kept saying to myself, "Why don't they just shoot Hitler instead of this elaborate plot?!?" but it isn't really fair to judge the film because it is, more or less, what really happened. That being said, they should have just shot Hitler.
On the other hand, the way the film is put together is competent if nothing surprising. The main characters are heroic, you know they are going to fail, and at the end there is text underneath the characters telling us what happened to them. The only real drama doesn't come from what is going to happen because, of course, we know they failed. Instead if comes from the audience not knowing the specifics of the plot and wondering what will go wrong and how it is they will fail. At that it does a decent job but it kind of tries a bit too hard to show us "if only this had been different" or "if only that person hadn't done this they could have done it."
I wrote earlier that "of course" the plot failed and that's one of the problems with it is that at a couple points the film treats up like we are dumb. For example, at one point someone puts on Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" and it isn't enough that it is playing -- no, the camera has to zoom in on the record and show us the label so that we know the name of the song. Then later, the film goes so far as to have Hitler himself tell us what a "Valkyrie" is just in case we are too dumb to know what one is.
The other thing that stood out for me is that the Nazis had a million different uniforms. It seems like every soldier has their own uniform. Did they really need to have that many? Maybe if they had saved a little money the Nazis could have built a few more tanks or something.
three thumbs up
Tom Cruises along
I am so very punny
What stylish Nazis
Of all the Transporter films this is certainly one of the top three. I'll be honest, I've seen the other two and I don't remember anything about them.
This film is very odd. It is a lot like a mid-80s Van Dam film: it has some action but the plot is empty and there's not much to make it really memorable. There is some action and there are some cool fights. The storyline is thin as anything -- the Transporter has to transport something and there's a woman -- but no one is watching it because of the plot.
It is worse than Deathrace and way way way worse than Crank. It isn't horrible though.
three thumbs up
Statham kicks some ass
There's a pretty girl in it
What more do you want?
In the beginning, she isn't a woman at all but a young girl. I had totally forgotten that. There's probably a good 20 minutes at the beginning of the film where she is a girl and then she turns into a full grown woman. Sil, as the woman is known, is also a lot more cunning than I remembered.
I'm sure part of my distorted memory is because of Natasha Henstridge and her boobs. Her turning into a monster is pretty much all I really remembered. Henstridge is pretty good and does a pretty good job of playing Sil as she learns and begins to come to grips with what she is.
A lot of the film is spent on the people who are chasing her who I had almost totally forgotten about. One element in particular is kind of odd. ForestWhitaker plays a guy who is said to be an empath but basically is psychic and can tell things about people and can lead them to Sil. Why they included this paranormal aspect I'm not entirely sure. It is an extra element that isn't really all that needed.
Species is pretty good but it is really crying out for a remake rather than the endless direct to video sequels it is getting. There is a lot of potential here but the pace is just kind of off and the specifics of the plot aren't quite what it seems like they should be. In some ways if plays out like a detective story with the team trying to find Sil and prevent her from mating. The film needs more action and it really needs better computer generated effects. There aren't many scenes with cgi in them but the ones that do have it stick out like a sore thumb.
three thumbs up
I would mate with her
as long as I lived through it
and no space babies
Basically, Will Smith is Superman who drinks and has a bad attitude. He is drunk all the time. He curses. He tries to stop crimes but usually ends up causing more damage than he prevents.
All that is good. That bit is entertaining. Then Smith's character meets Jason Bateman's character who tries to straighten him out and make him respectable and it goes lame. Then someone else with powers shows up and it gets really lame and conventional. Had the film ended with Hancock rejecting respectability and basically saying, "I'm all powerful. If I wanna be drunk all the time I'm going to" it would have been much more interesting.
There are some interesting part, however. His backstory isn't entirely filled out. We are given hints as to why he exists but it isn't spelled out for us which is kind of a good departure from most superhero origin films. There also isn't really a strong central villain either. There is a bad guy but he is more a mechanism for moving the plot forward rather than the whole point of the story as in nearly every other superhero film. This is also kind of nice to see. It is good to see a superhero story which isn't all about triumphing over evil.
three thumbs up
it's hard to hate him
should have gotten a real ass.
Busey is Hancock
One of the things that I've hated about a lot of other superhero films and the pre-Bale Batman films was the multiple villains. Starting with Batman Returns it seemed like every superhero movie had to have multiple villains in it. Even Spider-Man 3 had Venom and Sandman for no real reason. While having Ra's al Ghul and the Scarecrow in Batman Begins worked fairly well I was worried when I saw pictures of Two-Face. I didn't think having the Joker and Two-Face in the same film was needed. I was really surprised when not only they but the Scarecrow appears and the film actually works. I liked it better than Batman Begins.
The reason why it works is that a) the Scarcrow is barely in it and b) the Joker is tied directly into Two-Face. The two of them just don't happen to show up. There is a reason why both Two-Face and the Joker are in this. In fact, there's a pretty good reason why all this stuff had to be in it. Now, as I said, some of it could have been done differently and more quickly, but it all had its reason to be there.
The storyline is the best part of the film. The direction, on the other hand, isn't all that great. I've seen Memento and Batman Begins and I've never been impressed with his actual direction. He is a good writer. he might get good performances from the actors. When it comes to cinematography and camera shots, however, he is wholly uninteresting. He has no visual flair. If a director with some real style and energy had been behind the camera this really would have been over the top. As it is the film is just better than average. The death of Heath Ledger casts a shadow over the film and he might be award worthy. It isn't worthy of any non-technical awards though.
three thumbs up
Better than Begins
It ain't no Iron Man, though
Nor is it The Hulk.
In the movie the villains have been replaced with a league of assassins who have almost superhuman abilities. They have been around for a thousand years and kill people in order to guide the fate of the world.
Both films feature a man who is in a dead end job and one day finds out that his absentee father was the best killer in the world and has just been killed. He is then indoctrinated into the world behind the world.
Both the film and the comic feature some over the top murders and action scenes. However, they work better in the comic book because while the police don't know about the supervillains, the know enough to not ask questions and the villains can kill with impunity. In the film, however, they are secretive and the police are theoretically after them but they act as if they are above the law and there's never anything more than a newspaper headline to indicate that their over the top highly public murders have garnered any attention from the police.
There's also the fact that in the comic book the lead characters were drawn to look like Eminem and Halle Berry. In the film they are played by James McAvoy and Angelina Jolie. As good a job as Jolie does, I can't help but be distracted by the difference and disappointed that they had to get a white woman to play a role created for a black woman. McAvoy also kind of irritated me but I'm not sure why. It wasn't a big deal in his situation but it did come up from time to time.
As a stand alone film, I guess it was good. However, it could have been much more. It starts off very Fight Club-esque and it seems as if there will be some attempt to make a comment on the inanity of corporate life and the "waning of affect" that Frederic Jameson says is occurring. There is even a mention of an Ikea table -- which oddly isn't a table at all but rather a cheesy laminate counter top island.
After that interesting beginning, however, it quickly turns into Jumper. Full of special effects -- which to be fair were a million times better and more exciting than Jumper -- but basically being yet another story about daddy issues and fulfilling a destiny. Substitute Jamie Bell's mentor/teacher role in Jumper with Jolie in this and Samuel L. Jackson's older wiser potential mastermind who is one step ahead with Morgan Freeman's character and you've basically got the same film.
It is that notion that the main character is "fulfilling his destiny" that is perhaps most tiresome in this day. I wonder why it is that in a country where we worship the rugged individualist who can pull himself up by the bootstraps we have so many stories about the man who is born to a destiny and heir to become powerful because of his parents. Of course, to be fair the original story was written by a Scott and not an American so to ask why he wouldn't subscribe to American mythologies isn't fair.
The end is fairly close to the comic book and has an entertaining gun fight and is also surprisingly final. Had they tacked on a fairy tale ending it would have been much worse.
three thumbs up
the ending saves it
and Jolie is pretty good
different from the source
