Change Your Image
SolarFlux
Reviews
Minority Report (2002)
Spielberg Bounces Back
Minority report is a great sci fi film. Its dark, serious, and aesthetically pleasing, well at the same time presenting a solid plot and well developed characters, a combination that has been absent in most hollywood slock over the past few years of celluloid tinkering - or as I like to call them, the mediocre years. Even Spielberg's A.I. suffered from being too long, drawn out, and childlike....but he has more then redeemed himself through Minority Report. The CG isn't overblown, but instead serves a purpose. The camera work is inventive. The action sequences are refreshing. The acting is above par. Throw this movie into the Steven Spielberg masterpiece pile.
8/10
Spider-Man (2002)
Friendly neighborhood spiderman review
This is one of the best comic book adaptations to hit the cinema ever! Although it doesn't remain "true" to the book in many respects, the only ones who will care are comic book nerds who don't know how to enjoy themselves (don't take offense, I have a few). The directing was exceptional, in the sense that raimi and his team of wizards (no pun intended) brought that bad boy webslinger to life. He looked like some kind of crime fighting-gymnist, and it was very cool. Decent performances all around, far from oscar worthy, but suitable for a film BASED ON A COMIC. Dafoe in full on goblin mode might have been a little too hammy, even if it was supposed to be, but all around the cast tried, and kirsten dunst is now #1 on my top five list of hottest actresses. Oh kirsten...maybe one day....
another positive thing about Spiderman 2002, they didn't sully the movie with a handful of nu-metal bands on the soundtrack, well, there are some on the soundtrack, butt fortunatley all you hear through the whole movie is the score, they save those "marketing bands" until the end credits. At least I guess they did, I didn't stick around.
and finally, the ending strays a little bit away from your standard superhero movie. It was surprisingly refreshing.
7.5/10
Panic Room (2002)
good film, slightly sub-fincher
If you go into Panic Room knowing that its a david fincher film, you probably won't enjoy it as much as someone who is completely oblivious to finchers filmography. I expected great things from the man who gave us Se7en and Fight Club. Panic Room is a good thriller, butt not a great one. Jodie Foster acts as well as...jodie foster. Leto, Whitaker, and Yoakam are equally impressive. The camera work is great. I'm not entirely sure how fincher pulled off some of the shots...probably with some of the techniques he pioneered in fight club, good editing, and a great crew. My one complaint, why did he have the camera fly into the flashlight? Sure, it looked awsome, butt it wasn't really relevant to anything. Also, it starts off a little slow, butt that can be expected in movies of this genre, its almost an essential. In the end though, this film entertains, and even scares you a little. Theres also some comedic moments. Plus, the titles are just plain cool...almost as cool as fight club's titles...almost.
7/10
K-PAX (2001)
Pretty Good
You may be hard pressed to find someone who can't enjoy this movie. There's a little something for everyone. I personally enjoyed all protes explanations of travel and his home. The material is delivered in such a way that no one can be 100% sure if Spacey is playing a psychotic, a guy from an alien planet, or a guy from k-pax inhabiting the body of a traumatized and repressed man...... although the movie ultimatley leans towards him being an "ill" person, I really want to believe hes an alien. If your a dreamer you might think likewise. On an interesting side note, the last line in the movie is pretty much the same theory I have concerning the universe. Its nice to hear someone else agree that the universe expands and collapses on itself for an infinite amount of time. Never thought about the "everything being the same" before, though. That alone had me thinking.
The Time Machine (2002)
Expectations fufilled
If you examine commercial previews for The Time Machine, You'll find pretty much the whole movie compressed into short, 60 second ads. Theres no depth. Butt i wasn't anticipating any. I went to go see the cool pseudo-time lapse sequences and the fictional future, 800,000 years from now. And hey, it was pretty nifty when the moon got torn. Inevitably the movie suffers from some easily identifiable flaws. 1.)Its predictable nature.2.) The early dialogue sounds like something out of a bad off-broadway play. I know its supposed to be the turn of the century, butt come on! Folks back then weren't THAT hokey. Or were they? Perhaps well never know without our very own time machines.3.)The grunt-morlocks just plain sucked. And gosh were they ugly. I fail too see how 800,000 years of evolution can somehow mean de-evolution. They try to explain that they are the result of "careful breeding," butt I refuse to believe that any amount of "careful breeding" can result in dog-faced men. All the energy that went into character creation was apparently diverted towards the uber-morlock. Uber is right.4.) Finally, the score isn't all that great. I could do without the chantings of native people whome you don't see chant and the typical Thumpedy, dumpedy-dump at key action moments. This is just a minor quibble, as 99% of movie scores are par or sub-par. Still, I'd recommend that you go see The Time Machine on the great, big, wide screen. Despite its shortcomings, its worth seeing for the time lapse-photography, Uber-morlock, and because it clocks in waaaayyyyyy under 3 hours. ;) Just make sure you know what your getting into.
6/10
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Much Better Books.
I'm not claiming that this movie isn't great because it doesnt live up or accurately depict the series of the books. I'm claiming its not great because it simply isn't great. To me, it's a pretty average film. Something for the kids, maybe, if you can find a kid that can sit still for 3 hours. The combination of over-used plot devices, under-developed and painfully similar looking characters (the two other hobbits besides frodo and the chubby one looked like twins, as did the two humans, ryder and the other one, with the same hair-cut and facial hair), and tedius nature of the film makes this one for video rental. Theres simply nothing amazing going on here, and the movie came off as rather tripe. No clever dialogue. No charm. No depth at all. This film simply takes itself too seriously. Although it's a much better fantasy film that the horrible, recently released Dungeons & Dragons, It in no way deserves to be the number one movie on imdb. In my opinion it doesn't even belong in the top 250. Theres something unsatisfying about fantasy films in the 21st century and I think I know what it is. Instead of focusing on character development and clever writing, too many film makers are using computer models and animation to deliver a story, thinking that the visuals will be enough to carry the movie. We can see the same mentality in star wars, episode one. The original trilogy contained 3 fantastic films, but the phantom menace, quite bluntly, sucked donkey. Jar jar was a completely useless computer generated character that they made just because they could. He had no relevance to the movie! Star Wars episode 5 a new hope, however, didnt have the kind of budget to make a useless movie with useless characters like its successor did. It had to rely on a good story, appealing actors, and enjoyable, but not over-blown action sequences. It seems like LOTR and many sci-fi/fantasy movies coming out these days just have pointless cgi characters and sequences, with awful stories and awful actor-characters thrown in at the last minute so theres an excuse for all the computer generated stuff to appear in the first place, and that my friends, is truly sad. This movie would be much better if it were made 20 or 30 years ago.
Ghost World (2001)
disappointing butt worthwhile
This movie, like most movies, is slightly mismarketed. I was expecting a clever comedy with bits of anti-social attitude and social-deconstruction. Well the first 20 minutes are very funny, the comedic pace begins to slow down dramatically after that, and the whole movie adopts a serious tone, ultimatley becoming a film about, sigh, relationships. Butt its far from a boring and tedius study of people and their, sigh, relationships. Rather, its a quasi-fascinating view of people who fall slightly left of the in-crowd, and how they interact with each other. I couldn't fight the feeling, however, that people who constantly criticize the "normals" are themselves no better, simply because they believe they are better. Butt thats life, and what are you gonna do about it.
anyway, the story focuses on the friction between enid, a young, anti-trendy, high school graduate, and seymour, a beaten down, accepting, record collector. There's also a little going on between enid and her high school best friend, who happens to be more social and willing to participate/give into the adult world, and therefore is growing apart from enid.
theres a few underlying themes that people can take away from this movie, too. One of them seems to be racism and prejiduce. There's racist slurs throughout the movie (all done in non-offensive, comical ways) and the whole sub-message of the movie seems to be that regression would be nice. That there was racism and fighting and slavery back in the olden-days, butt at least the american culture wasn't zombi-fied watered down, and repressed. That the blues and other forms of great music existed simply because people had something to sing about. anyway, the ending is a bit ambiguous, butt i think thats the direction the movie wants to go. The beginning being structured, hostile, and exciting - the pace of the movie gradually slowing down - and the end being muddled and confusing. I take it as symbolism, meaning that the movie mirrors the pace of society from the early 20th century to the late. half way through the movie enid even becomes a punk rocker from 1977, people reject her individuality and regression, and i bet most viewers will reject the symbolism that I see.
Of course I could be wrong, and making most of this up - over-analyzing a coming of age film, butt i like to think not ;). It makes the movie better! 7/10.
America's Sweethearts (2001)
Dont Sweat sweathearts
I didn't have high expectations for America's Sweethearts. It just looked like the next Romantic Comedy coming out of Hollywood. Sure, Julia Roberts is charming and John Cusack is a decent Comedic Actor. But theres something about Catherine Zeta thats just annoying. I have never seen her in a any role that didn't require here to be diabolical and cruel. Maybe its just typecasting. Maybe its good casting. Cast Aside though, This movie does do some things different, but not by much. Its part of the current hollywood trend of making movies that are about making movies. In this new genre theres the good (Cecil B. Demented, State and Main), The bad (The Muse, witch is actually about screenwriting) and the Ugly (You know who you are). America's Sweethearts falls somewhere in between good and bad. These movies seem to be outlets for big stars to lament over the difficulties of being an actor (witch actually makes them sort of escapist fantasy) and most of the time it doesn't work. Because, like this movie tries to say - who cares? Doesn't anyone have their own life anymore? Why focus on celebrities. Theres a couple good scenes, like the ones with C.W. But for the most part the comedic sketches don't work, leaving the movie to be saved by its romantic half, witch it does fairly well. What happened to Billy Crystal? I understand he co-wrote it, but he didn't write himself one good line. Because one of its only comedic devices is the fact that zetas new spanish boyfriend (hank azaria) can't pronounce english correctly, I can't recommend this movie. It does have some good ideas though, about the phony-ness of hollywood. 5/10
Freddy Got Fingered (2001)
The Tom Green Movie! (no, its not about the mormon named Tom Green with 5 wives)
Tom Green is actually very funny and does funny things. Despite what everyone says, there isn't really too much offensive material in this movie. It might be offensive in the context or our ignorant American society. Its like all those people who said that fight club was too violent when only one person died in that movie. Gutting a deer and wearing its hide? Geez, that sounds like standard human practice for about the last 10,000 years. Of course, if you a person who is obligated, by law to protest any film or music with even the most remote, questionable material (such as a politician-public servant or leading member of an organized religion) often times without even veiwing the material in question, then by all means, hate away! Its your job after all. But if you can understand that a joke is just a joke and movies like Freddy Got Fingered are just joke movies that don't advocate anything, merely wishing to entertain, then you should be alright and enjoy this film. But beware, if you are offended, you might just be a moron, because thats probably how Tom Green wants you to feel, and thats what he expects, besides that you laugh of course.7/10
Snatch (2000)
The most entertaining film possibly ever.
Snatch is what every good entertaining movie should be. It has a nicely constructed plot, good characters and great writing. There is also good camera work, witch makes the movie visually interesting, and an excellent, fitting soundtrack that enriches the experience. Theres bankable and noticable "serious" actors that did suprisingly well in their stints as comedians. Dennis Farina, Benecio Del Tero, and especially bradd pitt are standouts, alongside less recognizable british actors like Jason Statham, who are still very good. Theres no message embeded within the film, no deep philisophical meaning to extract, but thats not what this film is about. Its about entertaining, and it entertains well. It even eclipses its directors previous film lock stock, complementing it well. That movie being in warm colors, and this one in cools. Ultra cool. 8/10
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Much Better Books.
I'm not claiming that this movie isn't great because it doesnt live up or accurately depict the series of the books. I'm claiming its not great because it simply isn't great. To me, it's a pretty average film. Something for the kids, maybe, if you can find a kid that can sit still for 3 hours. The combination of over-used plot devices, under-developed and painfully similar looking characters (the two other hobbits besides frodo and the chubby one looked like twins, as did the two humans, ryder and the other one, with the same hair-cut and facial hair), and tedius nature of the film makes this one for video rental. Theres simply nothing amazing going on here, and the movie came off as rather tripe. No clever dialogue. No charm. No depth at all. This film simply takes itself too seriously. Although it's a much better fantasy film that the horrible, recently released Dungeons & Dragons, It in no way deserves to be the number one movie on imdb. In my opinion it doesn't even belong in the top 250. Theres something unsatisfying about fantasy films in the 21st century and I think I know what it is. Instead of focusing on character development and clever writing, too many film makers are using computer models and animation to deliver a story, thinking that the visuals will be enough to carry the movie. We can see the same mentality in star wars, episode one. The original trilogy contained 3 fantastic films, but the phantom menace, quite bluntly, sucked donkey. Jar jar was a completely useless computer generated character that they made just because they could. He had no relevance to the movie! Star Wars episode 5 a new hope, however, didnt have the kind of budget to make a useless movie with useless characters like its successor did. It had to rely on a good story, appealing actors, and enjoyable, but not over-blown action sequences. It seems like LOTR and many sci-fi/fantasy movies coming out these days just have pointless cgi characters and sequences, with awful stories and awful actor-characters thrown in at the last minute so theres an excuse for all the computer generated stuff to appear in the first place, and that my friends, is truly sad. This movie would be much better if it were made 20 or 30 years ago.