faube Reviews

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Bad, bad, bad, bad script

[5 November 2003]

Let me put it this way.

If you spend 20 million on visual effects, they might not look as good as if you spend 50 million.

If you allocate 5 million dollars to each of your main actors, you might not end up with the same acting quality as if you give them 15 million each.

But it is INCOMPREHENSIBLE that a major motion picture has a script that is this bad. It's not as though you can cut costs with an average script. While we're writing one, might as well write a good one.

For those who haven't seen the film (good for you), here is a summary, in

*spoiler* form.

• Choice. - Love. - Love. - Die. - Believe. - Machines. - Love. - Neo.

The dialog is possibly the worst I have ever seen. The ending leaves all our questions unsatisfied, and the way action sequences are just inserted within the story is just sad.

Other than that, mildly entertaining. Made me appreciate 'Reloaded' a bit more. ("The second wasn't THAT bad")

Windigo (1994)

Apocalypse Now 2 : Winding up on the Windigo

[10 September 2002]

I saw just a part of this movie and it hit me how much the "going up the river" part reminded me of Apocalypse Now: a small group of people in a small boat, going into a hostile backcountry to meet a renegade, a man who rejected his superior's orders to live in a place where he is the law and nothing is like anywhere else. And the narrator slowly but surely builds up his portrait of this character which he will finally meet. I did not see the end, but I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that the narrator kills Eddy in his chambers as a moose is ritually slaughtered outside.

Apart from that, it was okay, but not good enough to make me watch it entirely.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

At least they had some explosions

[2/10 · 27 May 2001]

Please, do not go and see this movie. It's bad. Well, not all bad. That part where the Japanese attack is kind of entertaining.

But that stupid love story! Those clichés! Those stupid American heroic phrases!

I don't care about those 2 pilots and the girl. I want to know what's going on in the Pentagon, in the White House, in the Japanese army headquarters. 13 Days was an excellent movie because you knew what was going on. Pearl Harbor was an awful movie because stuff just happened.

And those American pilots must be pretty good, because they get chased by 3 Japanese planes each for about 15 minutes and don't get hit once, but when THEY're following the Japanese those planes get shot down in five seconds tops.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

Great movie

[15 December 2000]

No, it's not the movie of the year. But it is a very captivating story, and the fight scenes are definitely the best I've ever seen. Whereas I am used to Hollywoodian (i guess) fight scenes where the camera angle changes 3 times per second, keeping you from really seeing anything, I was delighted to see pretty good shots of both fighters at the same time actually throwing and blocking attacks. The choreographies were remarkable.

Only 2 negative points: 1- the characters (a peaceful warrior who just wants to rest, a strong female warrior who represses her emotions, an evil witch, an aristocrat with an adventure-loving alter ego, a poor gentle boy who has to act tough to survive) are kind of stereotypical, or at least you've all seen them before in medieval litterature. It doesn't really make the story predictable, but the writers still could have surprised us a bit.

2- Some characters who know the secrets of Wudan, well they can fly (or float or whatever). This is interesting to see for a while, but then about halfway through when you realize they just keep on flying, you just aren't impressed anymore, and it gets a little bit annoying, and you get some weird Sailor Moon impressions... Solid 8/10

Unbreakable (2000)

On one hand, the actors and the directing sucked. On the other, so did the script.

[1/10 · 9 December 2000]

***spoiler alert*** I've seen worse movies. Or let's say I've seen one worse movie. But I didn't detest it as much as I hated 'Unbreakable'. The director puts so much time and effort in these 'Kubrick' long shots, with cameras twirling and all, that the viewer just has to feel sorry for the actors. Or at least for Jackson, since Willis seems to be lost in some kind of a drug-induced world. By the way, what's with the stupidest superhero ever ("350 pounds? let's add some more.") and the feeblest supervillain ever ("I've had 54 fractures") clashing in a survival of the least fit? Not that I was so much anxious to see the wild ending twist, but let's just say that the writer managed to make this boring, slow-developing film into one that has no point at all. On an unrelated note, say your 10-year-old gets a gun, and aims it at you, do you picture your wife saying "aw, come on, don't do that", and yourself threatening to move away forever if your child does shoot you? "But he's unbreakable, you idiot" Oh OK. You know a movie is more about style than substance when a camera is showing us two people seen through the space between two train seats. One at a time. Panning from one to the other. For about 6 minutes. All in one shot. And they're talking about this guy who runs 40 yards in 4.2 seconds. Believe it or not, we actually end up seeing this guy. For 2 seconds. Yippee. I was also surprised how fast Bruce went from a stupid security guard to an all-powerful Jesus/Superman type who saves the widow and the orphans, while managing to draw a little tear from his oh-so-cute son's eye. Was Night trying to do a movie about emotions? or superheroes? or both? That sensible-giant thing is getting on my nerves.

Don't see this movie. It blows. Real bad. For a long time. "Don't you see the connection? we're both vulnerable to water!" ouch!

The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle (2000)

Who the hell is Piper Picabo?

[5 July 2000]

OK, a lot of the jokes were lame, but this movie came really close to capturing the animated absurdity of the cartoon, with alexander, Russo and de Niro all fitting extremely well with their characters. But that Karen Sympathy character, while being child-friendly and also very attractive, comes out of nowhere and is on the screen all the time. I really didn't see the need for the character, except the "be yourself" moral at the end, and she didn't impress me with her acting. (Although i guess it's hard to imagine cartoons around you all the time). I feel that the producers were trying to make the movie appealing to small children with this character, but I believe it made the movie way too childish for the adult audience, and I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more if it weren't for the pretty little girl trapped in a woman's body.