Bigbang Reviews

Hot Tub Time Machine (2010)

A good premise wasted.

[3/10 · 12 July 2010]

Positives:

1) A few good laughs scattered about. Maybe four or five. Most of the time I groaned and rolled my eyes instead of laughed.

2) Solid premise. I enjoy the 80s, particularly the music. Home Sweet Home by Motley Crue is still a great song.

3) Boobs.

Negatives:

1) The characters yell and argue like maniacs the entire movie. It's grating and headache-inducing.

2) They're also buffoons and morons, but that's how guys are portrayed in comedies. I got bored of that a long time ago but it seems people still find the dumb-guy shtick funny. I'm tired of it. Apatow and his clan covered it nicely, now we're beating a dead horse.

3) They wasted the premise. Instead of exploring the unique cultural aspects of the 80s and deriving comedy from that, it amounted to nothing more than a backdrop. The focus was these idiots arguing about god knows what and beating you over the head with running jokes of the guys trying not to alter the future by having significant things change in the past. Tedious and a wasted opportunity.

4) Way too much F-word. I like cursing. I curse. But this movie had more cursing than an outlaw-biker gang meeting. I found it very distracting.

5) Wow. Shlt, urine, puke, semen, ...did I miss any? They got 'em all covered. So funny omg! Haven't seen that type of comedy before! Wait a minute, I don't think anybody farted in this movie. Maybe I missed it. I feel kind of ripped off here.

6) Under explored female characters. The best part was the relationship between Cusack and some past girlfriend but I could barely follow what the hell they were talking about. Also, John Cusack needs to smile more. His entire career it's like he's in a perpetual state of anxiousness and cynicism. Even if he does crack a half-smile it looks to be forcefully dredged up from the bowels of his miserable soul.

7) The bald guy character, I don't even know his name. All he does is yell and argue with everyone like a lunatic. Jesus, calm down already.

That's about it. It's good to have a movie that goes for over-the-top comedy, to let yourself go and enjoy the absurd situations and characters, but this movie lacks any humanity to connect to. It's a bunch of obnoxious morons who don't exist of Earth yelling and fighting. Something like Knocked Up, for example, has a sharp perceptive wit and mixes in a humanity to keep it grounded ,so when they do strike at uncomfortable truths or situations, instead of cringing, you laugh. In Hot Tub Time Machine, you just groan and half-smile like John Cusack.

Sex and the City (2008)

Girlzillas. Stay away from these monsters

[3/10 · 7 February 2010]

In this movie, we have narcissistic girls running around obsessed with material items and their own happiness. A mans only purpose in life is to cater to the happiness of these women, but I shouldn't say "women" because these are little girls. Spoiled little princesses who think the world revolves around them and their every emotional whim. These girls offer absolutely nothing in their relationships with men.

Notice how long it took Carrie Bradshaw to engage in just a morsel of self-reflection. Ya know, that maybe having a pompous bridezilla wedding was a major turn-off to Mr. Big? He wanted to marry HER, because he loved HER, the wedding is just a fun formality. To Carrie, the wedding is everything. She was not marrying Mr. Big, she was marrying herself, because that's all these entitled princesses care about. The guy is just another accessory like one of their overpriced Louis Vuitton handbags.

The guys in the movie? Forget it. Cynthia Nixon's husband is...wow, the guy appears to be mentally challenged. I mean literally. As per Hollywood usual there wasn't an ounce of masculinity in this guy. Kristin Davis' husband is another non-entity. A guy with no edge, very little masculinity and just another servant to his wife's needs. Society's agenda to feminize and de-masculate men continues.

Mr. Big isn't too bad, but believe me, the guy is a fool. Carrie is a very successful woman, why is he buying her all this stuff? Is he purchasing her love? Spoiling these brats does not make them love you more. He decides to marry her because she was complaining she didn't have any "legal rights" as a couple living together. In other words Mr. Big, if we split up, I can legally rake you over the coals and rob you blind in divorce court, where men have no rights. And what does he say? "Okay let's get married." Lol. Big mistake Big!

Oh and of course there were a few fabulous gay characters as well. Is anyone else tired of the flamboyant gay queens who are into fashion and are girl's best friends? It can't just be me. I'm sick of it already. The only real guy was Samantha's boyfriend who didn't seem wimpy, but apparently was getting bored of banging her or something. Not surprised. And when she wanted to leave him, he was like "okay, that's cool". He didn't seem too bothered by it, which is not surprising. Why stay with an emotional and intellectual black hole like Samantha who offers nothing expect that she happens to have a vaj.

I know these people are meant to be caricatures and it's a parody of rich women in NYC... but is it? I think this is the feminist, gay Hollywood fantasy. This movie is what we are left with after decades of feminism. Entitled, selfish princesses, and wimpy guys with no masculinity because we've beaten it out of them. A mans only purpose is to serve women. Eff that. Don't get me wrong there are still good women out there, but you won't find them in this movie.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Another male icon destroyed by feminism

[2/10 · 7 February 2010]

Ugh, they've ruined Bond. A perfect example of our anti-male times. Sean Connery's Bond was cool, sophisticated, and smooth with the ladies, but the most important part is he was completely unapologetic about it. No groveling and apologizing for being a man. He was a "womanizer"...so? He loved women, enjoyed being with them, and they loved him back. What's the problem? He treated them kindly but didn't take any crap from them.

They began pecking away at Bond when Pierce Brosnan stepped in. I liked Pierce as Bond, but As soon as I heard M say "I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur", I knew we were in trouble. They had to knock him down a few notches because we can't have a confident, guilt-free man walking around like that.

Now with Daniel Craig, we no longer have a man anyone can look up to. He's just another charmless, humorless movie thug. All Bond's qualities have been stripped from him by the feminist tyrants and their pussywhipped male enablers. Bond was ours and that bothered them. Now there's one less male icon guys can admire, and we let it happen.

The Hangover (2009)

Hey another "guys are complete morons" movie. That's new.

[3/10 · 16 August 2009]

I don't find the "dumb guy" shtick funny anymore. If I want to see guys portrayed like complete buffoons all I have to do is watch television commercials and sitcoms all day. It's getting old and played out, especially because the Apatow clan and similar movies have covered this ground over and over the past few years. This movie just threw a bunch of random crap at the screen to see if it would stick and people would laugh. I guess they did, look at the high IMDb rating. I know that happens with new movies and the rating will go down over time, but come on.

How many times have we seen the "get so wasted in Vegas and wake up married the next day, not remembering how it happened" thing? Even the recent What Happens in Vegas with Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher was a lot better than this, which proves I'm not some anal-retentive humorless guy who forgot how to laugh or can't enjoy stupid movies. The clichés in Hangover are endless and the humor predictable.

The ridiculous plot holes don't help. There's nothing wrong with absurd moments in comedies that aren't believable to get some laughs, but come on. Personally I need some connection to reality to get a laugh. A tiger in the hotel room? And then the guy walking in the room to hand the tiger a steak, instead of just throwing it in room and quickly leaving. Totally predictable. Although it was good to see the Mike Tyson cameo, they totally wasted it with more random nonsense. It doesn't help that he's a terrible actor.

Heather Graham, who I used to love, continues to throw her career in the effin garbage. Although her mere presence helped at least. Well seeing that this move got high marks from a lot of people, we'll be stuck with this BS for awhile. No one is forcing me to see them, true, but even in decent movies there's always at least one "dumb guy" character. I'm tired of it. I can't watch one more dumb guy. Enough already.

Funny Games (2007)

You might hate it or love it but everyone should give this a chance

[8/10 · 2 April 2009]

One way to get the most out of Funny Games is to have your expectations open before watching it. It's not a standard horror film aiming to fulfill your needs as a viewer. It's about horror films and us, the audience who gets pleasure from suffering as entertainment. It shows what real horror might look like in an awful situation, and how it psychologically debilitates and paralyzes the people involved.

Although this is almost identical and I liked this remake, I prefer the 1997 Austrian original version. It was one of the most disturbing and effective films I've ever seen. Here the acting is good especially from one of the best actresses out there Naomi Watts, but somehow the original works better. Maybe it was Arno Frisch, who played the main bad guy in the original, an absolutely ice cold character. Arno played it so well, there was a threatening menace underneath the polite and clean-cut exterior. Michael Pitt in this U.S. Version doesn't quite have that, but even so I still think he does well.

One possible flaw that I agree with others is the family seemed too passive. In the beginning the two bad guys are armed with only a golf club. Naomi Watt's, who is in amazing shape at 40, looked like she might have done something more to get out of it. However, an argument can be made that the family reacted realistically because they were portrayed as rich, docile people who listened to classical music and went boating. People who are not violent and erroneously think everyone, even these two sick guys, have a better nature they can appeal to by simply saying "why don't you just leave us alone and go?" They've been sheltered from people who are simply evil and lack empathy and just don't give a sh*t. Their comfortable existence has been shattered and they don't know how to react. We're so used to Hollywood b.s. where everyone is a hero and fights back and we all cheer and go home. Yeah that's entertaining too but we've seen that a million times already. Maybe some people would be paralyzed out of fear like this family. Either way, I was willing to put their passiveness aside because everything else in the film was done so well.

The original right now has a rating of 7.7 at IMDb and many glowing reviews, yet this U.S version is a lot lower at 6.4 and many b*tching and moaning 1 star reviews. Not to sound condescending, but maybe people who watch subtitled non-English films are more accepting of weird, offbeat films that don't follow conventional Hollywood style dialogue, plot and presentation, and they're more open to this movies style of direction, like the very long takes of people just sitting there in misery. I'm not stupid enough to say one has to like this film, I get annoyed at some indie type films and their quirkiness myself, but some of the 1 star reviewers sound like a bunch of crybabies.

Funny Games slaps you in the face and taunts you and it rarely gives in to what you need as a viewer, and that may be frustrating at times but at least it's something different.

Eulogy (2004)

Truly awful

[3/10 · 21 March 2009]

I live in a weird world where someone can give this movie 10 stars. IMDb has failed. Right now it has a 6.6 - that is a failure of the rating system. I gave it a chance because of that rating and it has a good cast. But everything is bad. The dialogue, the acting, the over-the-top scenes, the directing. Everything. It's like a bad sitcom. It has that annoying bubbly music playing in the background to remind us it's a comedy. Everyone is a caricature, nobody is a real person. The dialogue is stuff no one would ever say in real life, that why it isn't funny. Things are funny when they strike at truths that you can relate to. This movie fails at that. It's just a bunch of stupid people saying stupid things. I gave it 3 stars because I had a few chuckles and Zooey is sweet but that's it.

The Brave One (2007)

Jodie Foster protecting the city against white males.

[3/10 · 5 March 2009]

All the white guys in this movie are criminals, bad cops, and jerks. Mostly everyone who isn't a white guy is wonderful. They even take a swipe at Donald Trump for some odd reason. Terence Howard and his partner are the only detectives in New York city. Terence even gives press conferences, and detectives talking to the press only happens in the movies.

There's a police interview with a young white kid where he's giving a sketch of Jodie Foster. It's supposed to be humorous, but it's just another excuse to denigrate a white person. I can't believe experienced filmmakers - writers, directors, boom operators - would allow this bad scene to remain in the movie.

Even the criminals are stereotypes. All criminals wear wife beaters. The ending is absolutely ridiculous beyond all words.

Little Fish (2005)

hated the dialogue

[5/10 · 3 March 2009]

Another indie movie where the dialogue stinks. Nobody speaks in clear, understandable sentences. Everything is vague, ambiguous and one-word. So your task in every scene is to figure out what the hell is going on. It's like a job. Instead of being entertained you're working. Indie movies think this dialogue is realistic, but it isn't. This isn't how people talk. People speak clearly and make sure you understand what they're talking about. I know people are miserable but wow these people are just hopeless. I didn't even like Cate in this and I usually love her.

I'm also tired of movies about drug addicts. It's so 80s and early 90s. Don't get me wrong...

All the Real Girls (2003)

A cruel and depressing movie

[4/10 · 2 March 2009]

*spoilers* Another movie where a guy who has mistreated woman in the past learns some tough, hard lessons. It's not a movie where a woman learns any lessons about how to treat guys, because those movies are rarely made. Women don't have to learn any lessons, unless it's to help the fulfillment of their own lives. Women are angels. They never mistreat men, are never manipulative, cruel, or cold, and if they are, the guy "deserved" it.

Zooey finally finds a guy who she loves, trusts, cares about, enjoys being with and just staring at, and then on a whim cheats on him at a weekend party. Out of nowhere, and it totally seemed out of place for her character and their relationship. She was a virgin too. You would think she would have wanted to lose her virginity with Paul Schneider, which I think she didn't unless I missed something. I don't know why guys are being fooled by this movie. Zooey's cruel treatment of Paul after she cheated on him was awful. The only guys watching the movie who would be okay with that are the ones with male guilt complex and think guys deserve to be treated badly.

Then there's the usual scene where Paul and Zooey are having sex and Zooey has an uninterested and bored look on her face, as if she's just having sex to get it over with and quickly satisfy him. She gets nothing out of it. How many times have we seen this? How's about something different, like showing a guy with a bored look on his face. That happens in real life. A lot. But movies pretend it doesn't.

I don't know why people are calling this movie realistic. Did you hear the dialogue? It was very "indie". A little off. Conservations were weird and didn't make too much sense. A lot of it sounded ad-libbed, which is great but it didn't sound like the way people actually talk. Then there was a scene in a bowling alley. They are standing in a lane and Paul starts dancing while Zooey is facing away from him. Sooo indie.

I gave the movie a 5 because I like Paul Schneider and as many guys I love Zooey Deschanel. They were both pretty good along with the other actors, but like I said their dialogue was painful at times. I needed someone to just say something normal for once, or to just lighten up. I know poor, rural towns can be depressing, but this is agony.

Notes on a Scandal (2006)

double standard

[7/10 · 25 February 2009]

If we replace Cate Blanchett's character with a man, people would be talking about this movie a lot differently. Due to the massive double standard in our world currently, Cate's character can come off as slightly sympathetic at times, or at least maybe we can empathize with her. She fools around with the young 15 year old school boy because she is dissatisfied with her marriage to an older man, she's a woman, she has to explore her sexual needs, she needs to fulfill her desires, it's her feminine right! That's the argument, it's weak, but at least an argument is being made.

But if it's a guy attracted to a 15 year old girl? Forget it. There's no argument. He's an animal, a predator, a sicko, a pervert, he should be castrated. They're never even remotely sympathetic. Even if the girl leads him on. I'm not saying either case is OK, I'm just pointing out the huge double standard.

Otherwise the movie is pretty good.

The Dark Knight (2008)

I hated this trash

[5/10 · 7 February 2009]

Glad to see I'm not the only one who didn't like The Dark Knight. I can step back and objectively say it was a "good" movie on some levels, the performances, over-the-top entertainment, etc. But the bottom line is I hated it. Loud, obnoxious, pointless, and soulless. Who are these awful people? Heath Ledger immersed himself into the role of the Joker, and it was impressive. He's fascinating to watch. But what is the point of his character? At least Jack Nicholson was humorous in the role, Heath's joker is just a train wreck psychopath with absolutely no redeeming value. I don't get the point. Why do we find these despicable characters entertaining, are we that desperate?

I was disappointed in Christian Bale too. He is one of the best actors working today, but this time he was kind of flat. I thought he was better in Batman Begins. This entire movie is just so over-the-top: explosions (wow an explosion, that's new), the cool looking but ridiculous motor-cycle, the millionth chase scene, repulsive characters like Two-Face, and on and on. We've seen it all so movie makers have to go to extreme lengths to entertain us jaded moviegoers, and this loud, obnoxious trash is the result. We really are getting desperate.

I usually agree with IMDb more or less, the ratings are usually reliable. But right now this is #5, come on could we please settle down on the hyperbole with this movie? I'm not hating it on purpose because of the hype, I liked Iron Man and that got hyped, I liked the Wrestler and that got hyped. But this nightmare of a movie needs a backlash.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

worthless story but great film-making

[8/10 · 27 March 2008]

A psychopath killing innocent people with an air gun is not deep or brilliant. Watching a defenseless old man being shot point blank in the head for no reason is not symbolic of some deeper meaning. It's a sick reflection of the Coen Brothers personal and mental problems. And enjoying this movie is the same thing as being fascinated by a car wreck and all the people laying on the street bleeding. This movie is nothing but a slasher film like Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street. Tommy Lee Jones character tried to throw some philosophy in there but it didn't amount to much. It's a chase film involving a bag full of money big deal.

But I gave this movie 8 stars for a few reasons. The Coen brothers are experts at creating tension and suspense. My eyes were glued to the screen the entire film. They let each scene breath. Most movies force everything down your throat with quick edits and dialouge as if the filmmakers are afraid that everyone has a short attention span. The Coen Brothers trust that the audience has brains and patience, and they're right.

But in order for these long scenes to work you need great actors and this movie had them. Josh Brolin was born to play this role and does a great job considering his character had little dialouge. Javier Bardem deserved the Oscar. I forgot I was watching an actor and believed he truly was a psychopath. His screen presence was overwhelming and I hung on to his every word and mannerism, wondering what he was going to do next. I think what the audience is waiting for, or hoping for in his character, is the slightest glimpse of humanity, compassion, or morality. Right before he was possibly about to kill someone, we wanted at least the slightest morsel of good to come out. That's what made it suspenseful.

However, even with the excellent direction of the Coens, and the great acting, I never want to see this movie again. Innocent, kind, defenseless old men brutally killed with a device used to kill cows is not entertaining a second time. It's not deep. It's not brilliant.

Murderous Intent (2006)

torture test

[2/10 · 15 September 2007]

Yet another weird psychological thriller added to the collection. Nobody talks in clear sentences. Everything the characters say is cryptic and vague and spooky. Nobody can just answer a damn question straightforward. "Did you kill so and so?" Answer: "Did you know back in 1209 the Pope did this and that and the other thing in the Vatican?" Can't anyone in movies act or speak normally?

Pure torture. I'm tired of these movies with "shocking" twists that we have to wait for at the end. We're still feeling the effects of the Sixth Sense 10 years later. The Sixth Sense is done let's move on. Toni Collette is prominently featured on the DVD box as if she's the main character. Of course another blatant lie as she's barely in the movie. She's a good actress but she couldn't save this because she wasn't in it enough. The two boys in the clichéd boarding school in a clichéd rainy foggy English countryside are clichéd gay I assume. I'm not sure what their attraction was to each other because as I said, nobody acts like a normal human being or says a normal human sentence so we have to guess what these two weirdos are about. Nobody notices that the one boy is a raving psychopath who dissects animals. This doesn't bother anyone at the school. Why? How could the people who made this movie let that happen? Nobody on the set mentioned how unrealistic that is? The story that I barely paid any attention to moved at a glacial pace.

Here's my advice to people who make movies. Make a normal movie about normal people saying normal things. People like those movies. Here's some examples: Sideways. Beyond Sunset. Adaptation. Even the 40 Year Old Virgin is better than this. There aren't too many examples because most people suck at making movies. Enough with the overly weird cryptic spooky creepy crap.

In Her Shoes (2005)

Very good chick flick

[8/10 · 7 June 2007]

What brings this chick flick over the top is Cameron Diaz. It's a great performance by her and she carries the movie. I didn't expect that. The only other time I remember her being almost this good was in "Being John Malkovich" and of course "Something About Mary". She is a good actress but she does pick bad roles sometimes, that's her flaw.

The movie itself is way better than I ever expected it to be. Most chick flicks let me down with sappiness but "In Her Shoes" rises way above any of that. The director Curtis Hanson lets each scene breath and doesn't rush things. Characters get a chance to express themselves through nice dialogue and subtle conversations. We really get to know these people. Shirley Mcclaine as the grandmother of the two sisters brings warmth and intelligence to every scene she's in. There are some funny moments but mostly this is a drama. There are some very touching scenes, especially with Diaz and an old man in a nursing home who she befriends.

There a a few flaws here and there, like there are one too many plot coincidences, and the over-the-top portrayal of the mother-in-law, but nothing bad enough to make a difference. Toni Collette and all the other actors also do great jobs. I'm a guy and I'm a little addicted to this movie, I've seen it a few times. Weird. Congratulations to Cameron Diaz on a great performance.

Lady in the Water (2006)

Random nonsense doesn't equal brilliant

[2/10 · 18 February 2007]

Awful movie. Can't believe it has a 6.1 rating. I began to understand what Mr. Night was trying to say as the movie progressed. Why the "Lady in the Water" herself was named "story". About the expectations of storytelling and how every story has been told and how one can tell a new story, or something. Why the actors were walking around confused and doing random nonsense. Even though it started to make sense to me, I still didn't care. Somebody needs to reel M. Night in. He's gone insane.

Hey Mr. Night, back to Earth fella. Earth to Mr. Night. Helllo? I appreciate him trying to do something different. Great. But that doesn't give you the right to have atrocious acting, including Paul Giamatti, who is ALWAYS good. M. Night even ruined him which I though was impossible. There were an Asian mother and daughter who were awful and annoying. Just because you're trying to do something different doesn't give you free license to write terrible stupid dialogue. Different doesn't mean it's okay to have bad special effects. Boring and slow pacing doesn't equal inventive. Different doesn't mean you can have the characters walking around aimlessly doing and saying random nonsense. Hey I can make a movie like that too, is everyone going to call me brilliant? Well it must have worked because some people actually liked this movie. Great for them. But I think M. Night was just trying to be too clever by 3/4 and I saw right through it. Not fooled. Nice try.

Jarhead (2005)

The Gulf War: A Comedy

[4/10 · 28 January 2007]

This can't be how Marines act or we would have lost every war. This is how sheltered Hollywood people like Sam Mendes see our military though; like over-the-top obnoxious clowns who can barely string three words together or shoot a gun. Also I wouldn't be surprised if Mendes or the original writer of this book were gay, because way too many scenes had these guys dancing around naked and pretending to screw each other. Never have I've seen guys act this way. Not even gay guys. But this is how Hollywood feminine men like to see guys act. The most awful example is when Jake Gyllenhaal is dancing around like a fool wearing nothing but a Santa hat.

The music in the background was way out of place. How can I take a movie seriously when they start playing C&C Music Factory's "Everybody Sweat"? I felt like I was watching an MTV reality show.

There were some good moments in Jarhead, and some decent acting here and there, but as soon as it started to get good, the movie would break into comedy again. Just trying too hard to be funny or absurd. The superior Full Metal Jacket, which Jarhead tried to be like, took the natural absurdity and humor embedded in war and let it speak for itself. This movie instead forces it on you. It really is in an insult to everyone involved to turn war, death and destruction into a comedy unless it's done right. Gyllenhaal's problem with his unfaithful girlfriend was also not handled correctly. This was the seed that caused him to begin to lose his sanity. However the transformation is not well done or convincing. Actually the whole movie is just a mish-mash of points trying to be made that are never really made. It's just one big mess.

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

The Keira Knightley Show

[8/10 · 13 December 2006]

Keira Knightley carries this movie with an outstanding performance as Elizabeth Bennet. A great accomplishment considering her very young age and the historical weight of this role; she doesn't flinch. She shows range and maturity way beyond her years and has a great future as I consider her one of the best actresses working today. Hopefully she doesn't get involved with the Hollywood partying nonsense (Lindsay Lohan etc.) and continues to take challenging roles.

It took me at least 20 minutes or so to get used to this movie, there was a lot of giggling going on by the girls in the beginning that was a little off putting and it was hard to follow what was going on as I had no exposure to Pride and Prejudice in any form beforehand. So much of Austen's novel was crammed into 2 hours that for noobs like me it may be hard to decipher the nuances of who's marrying who and why. Actually, when I watched this a second time I enjoyed it a lot more.

After seeing this I watched some of the 6 hour miniseries but I like this version better. The acting and dialogue here was more natural and the cinematography was superior. Not to say the mini isn't good, it's just very different. I prefer this version.

All the other actors involved are excellent, including Rosamund Pike as Jane Bennet, Donald Sutherland as the father, and Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy, although his performance while very good may have been a tad bit understated.

Director Joe Wright should be commended for generating considerable tension from what is really a simple story, **spoilers ahead** even though you know that Elizabeth and Darcy are going to eventually get together. And when they do, it such a relief!

In closing I have to mention again how great Keira Knightley is in this movie, and I can't believe others would call her performance "awful". That's just silly come on. She steals every scene she's in, and she's in every scene!

The Break-Up (2006)

Decent drama ruined by stupid comedy

[4/10 · 3 December 2006]

The dramatic bits in this movie I thought were much better than the loud obnoxious comedy. This should have been a drama with some comedy sprinkled in, it would have worked much better. Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston were clearly up to the task because their acting was pretty good during the dramatic parts, if a little over the top.

Every other character in "The Break-Up" was an obnoxious clown. Why does everyone have to yell or talk too loud? Yelling your lines doesn't equal funny. The male characters were borderline retarded as usual. The females were basically non-existent besides Aniston. The only character who acted like a normal human being was the one guy of course Aniston didn't seem to like romantically. Figures.

The A Capella group was one of the most awful, tortuous things I ever seen or heard. Vince Vaughn can be funny, but mostly when he calms down for two seconds, which doesn't happen too often. Why did these two like each other in the first place? They had zero chemistry or anything in common. The only time they were happy is in photographs at the beginning of the movie. That's all we have to go on to establish their relationship. Otherwise the entire movie these two despise each other. So the whole premise of the movie makes no sense. There's no tension since they hate each other anyway, who cares if they get back together.

Very few people in the movie business knows how to write dialog. Every director and screenwriter should be required to watch the movie "Before Sunset" with Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. You want to hear great dialog? That's it. I saw that movie recently and basically most movies now seem worthless and stupid in comparison, including this one.

V for Vendetta (2005)

Terrorism is good

[4/10 · 20 November 2006]

*definite spoilers*

I rented "V" because its rating is above an 8 here at IMDb, and these ratings are usually reliable. Not this time. This movie was unbearable at times. The politics were awful. I really needed Hugo Weaving to take off that mask, I wanted to see a human being. Instead we're looking at a psycho clown terrorist for 2 hours, and it's hard to understand what he's saying because his voice is muffled. Although I appreciated some of the fancy English dialogue he spouts off. Natalie Portman was good, but there's always been a soft spot in my heart for her ever since her great performance in "The Professional" when she was a cute little girl. She's the only saving grace of this movie, she brings some humanity to the otherwise cold, dark, bleak proceedings.

So his plan is to blow up the English Parliament, and he does. And everyone is happy. Why? Will a new government be formed now? Of who? People, that's who. And those people will run for office, and need a new building to house government proceedings. And these people will then be known as the "nasty government". And then everyone will start to hate them to, and then blow up their building. Blowing up buildings is not the answer, but the filmmakers appear to be sympathetic to this "idea". They appear to support terrorism.

America and the United Kingdom are not perfect obviously. But they have created the best form of government in the history of civilization, where the people vote and elect who we want to govern us. Fascism is not right around the corner, as much as Hollywood seems to want it to be. Collectively we're too advanced for that. No one is going to let it happen. George Bush? Please, he isn't smart enough for that. And even if he is, guess what, he's gone in a year. In America, we elect our government officials, if we elect a fascist, then i guess that's what the people wanted. If we elect a socialist...etc.

More insulting, the one book in the world most associated with terrorism, is the Koran, yet the filmmakers also seem to like that book. What a joke. And people think this movie is profound? Grow up. It's an insult. Make a movie about real terrorists, not Shakespearean English gentleman who sip tea if they weren't wearing a mask.

So, while interesting and entertaining at times, and Natalie Portman's lovely presence, "V's" politics make it an insult to anyone who understands what Democracy is.

Sin City (2005)

could have been great, RUINED with ridiculous violence.

[6/10 · 3 April 2005]

I'm at the point where brutal and repulsive violence for the sake of entertainment doesn't work for me. Sin City is the most original looking movie I've ever seen, and I enjoyed the faithful translation of Frank Miller's stark and beautiful artwork. The old-time film noirish dialog was well done and a pleasure to listen to. Mostly the actors did a great job in their roles, especially Mickey Rourke, and I enjoyed his story the most compared to the other 2 or 3 in the movie. It's disappointing that Sin City could have been a spectacular film achievement but was ruined for me because of the ridiculous violence. I'm not usually squeamish or a pansy , and I realize that the violence is in the graphic novels, but seeing it on the big screen is different. I think it's a cop out. It's easy to emotionally affect the audience with increasingly inventive human physical suffering, but making something entertaining through dialog, character and story is hard. Violence as entertainment is lazy. I realize that it's over the top and cartoonish, and that it obviously doesn't bother many others as we can see from the reviews here. Still, why is chopping someones arms and legs off and then letting a dog eat at the wounds entertaining? How is slicing the front of someones neck so they become a human pez dispenser entertaining? While they're still alive and talking? Yes it's funny but it's also repulsive and stupid. How is ripping someones grotesque yellow genitals off interesting to watch? Do you feel good after you leave the theater? Well, it ain't for me, which is the reason I haven't seen any of the Kill Bill's yet, and probably never will. I'm tired of the moronic brain-dead violence, call me when you develop some real talent and don't need to resort to that to entertain an audience. I only gave it a 6 out of 10.

Otherwise, Sin City is definitely worth seeing. It's a stunning work of film-making art.

Open Water (2003)

BIG disappointment.

[5/10 · 1 January 2005]

It's crucial for a movie like Open Water to have exceptional acting and dialogue. It's lacked these two things so for me it failed. Here is this couple who find themselves suddenly stranded alone in the vast ocean with nothing but scuba gear and sharks, so you would think they'd be very freaked out about this. Instead they act as if they're lost in their pool in their backyard. There no sense of urgency in them. There's very little frantic discussion about what could've possibly happened to their tour boat. They even make jokes and quips after being in the water for hours! It's so ridiculous that the movie is basically worthless. The acting is one note. The line delivery is flat. The dialouge is empty. There's no emotion or tension. It's a shame because I liked the idea of this movie and the initial set-up showed promise. The couple had some problems in their relationship so I thought this would be worked out in some type of dramatic fashion in the water, that we would get some deep insight into these characters, but instead they basically had one lame argument.

Given the rave reviews by many critics I was very disappointed by Open Water.

Paycheck (2003)

direct deposit

[3/10 · 23 July 2004]

Ok Mr. Woo we get the slow motion bird flying thing. What's with that? Is that your staple? It's in all his movies. Here it had nothing to do with the movie except that John Woo wanted to make sure everyone knew they were watching a John Woo movie. Once upon a time Woo's style of direction, especially action sequences, was unique, but now it's tired. Woo is more concerned with slow motion birds and 1980s action sequences than bringing out the best in his actors. The quote-unquote acting was laughably bad. Particularly Ben Affleck, who is picking all the wrong roles. Ben, you're not an action star. You were good in Good Will Hunting and Chasing Amy, those are the type of movies you belong in, where you play regular guys. The larger-than-life action star thing isn't working for you, although your bank account says otherwise. Uma Thurman's character, if you can use the word character, was barely human. Just a piece of cardboard with skin on it. And Aaron Eckhart I've been disappointed in for years. Here's a guy who was absolutely brilliant in In The Company of Men (1997 I think), and he's never remotely matched that shocking performance. Since then he's been reduced to chubby side characters. Aaron, fire your agent.

When, O when, will the sheeple tire of these mindless, brain cell-less, useless, action movies. When. I guess never, and soon I'm moving to Mars and starting my own production company.

Friday (1995)

come on, it's not THAT funny

[5/10 · 17 May 2004]

The basic idea of two guys sitting on their porch all day watching the neighborhood go by is good, but the actors need to be really talented to make it funny or interesting. Ice Cube plays the straight man to Chris Tucker but for me both of them weren't funny. At times they would just kind of sit there and look around and at each other with nothing to say. Blank stares. Ice Cube had his shining moment in Boyz in the Hood but let's face it, I'm about as good an actor as he is. Chris Tucker is mildly entertaining in a few scenes, but most of the time just annoying. Sometimes the characters sit around and have conversations that go nowhere and make absolutely no sense.

Now, obviously I'm in the minority. Many people thought this was funny.

I thought it could have been great, but only with a scriptwriter who knows how to write a funny line. But I didn't think Scary Movie was funny either so maybe, MAYBE, it's just me. It's obvious you have to be high to enjoy Friday. I'll try that next time.

Adaptation. (2002)

Great if you're in the mood for something different

[9/10 · 30 September 2003]

Adaptation, like 99% of all movies, has it's flaws and drawbacks. But I judge a movie relative to the other crap out there and in that sense I thought it was great. It may have come up short in a few areas but Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman tried real hard to come up with something new, different and fresh here, and I admire that. At least they tried. They weren't afraid to take creative risks, and that's more than I can say for the mass market pulp churned out of Hollywood on a weekly basis.

Nicholas Cage was wildly entertaining as Charlie and Donald Kaufman and I actually enjoyed his painful, existential meanderings about life and the creative process. Some critics mentioned how this movie presented a "scathing indictment" (an overused phrase) of the Hollywood movie industry, but I tend to disagree with that. It's almost as if Spike Jonze and Kaufman are apologizing for Hollywood and it's cliched scripts, plots and stories, not criticizing it. How? Well, Nicholas Cage plays a character trying to do the seemingly impossible, create a story simply about flowers; with no cliches, no guns, car chases, wild character arcs, and other false melodrama. And it drove him to near insanity, to the depths of despair, to create something different people haven't seen before. In other words, it's not easy to create something original, and if Cage portrayed someone who had an easy time of it, than that would been your scathing indictment.

Also, I'm probably one of the few to admit it, but I actually found myself agreeing with the screenwriter "guru" Robert McKee while he was giving his speech on stage about how "nothing happens in the world? are you out of your f**king mind?" His character did not come off like a cliched moron, he made good points. Another thing I'd like to admit, I liked the last third of the movie, but not simply because it was clever that Donald Kaufman took over the script. Because it was exciting, and it contained all the cliches Charlie and the rest of us annoyed moviegoers are always complaining about. What does that mean, that I'm one of the stupid gullible masses who likes my entertainment spoonfed to me? Probably not. It's not the cliches that suck, it's how they're presented. How good the actors are, and how to present your cliche in an original way. Haha. Because lets face it, all of life is a damn cliche. Adaptation was fantastic, and now officially one of my all time favorite movies. It's a shame this didn't do better at the box office. How criminal.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

decent follow-up

[24 May 2003]

Following up the first Matrix, which came out of nowhere and blew many people away with original visual effects, was an almost impossible task. The many rip offs of the slow motion special effects seen in commercials and other movies (Charlies Angels etc.) made it even more difficult for the Wachowski brothers. They had to go all out and try to match that same outrageuos intensity of the first movie with "Reloaded", and I think they succeeded. A few action scenes were spectacular.

But of course they ran into the usual problem with sequels, they forget about everything else; the dialogue, the characters, and a coherent flow. "Reloaded" taken by itself is a great action film definitely worth seeing, but compared to the first it's a disappointment. Nothing new, I'll be saying the same thing about Terminator 3 soon.