ImmortalCorruptor Reviews

Halloween (2007)

Disappointed old fan

[1/10 · 30 August 2007]

I think Rob Zombie missed the point on so many levels, so many times here.

I saw a sneak version, and the credits had him as the "writer and director". No credit to Carpenter. Shame, sir.

It also spent the first hour showing how Michael was the victim of terrible torture, and how everyone he killed didn't deserve to live. For some reason, his family in Illinois spoke like Texans...we get it Rob, you like Texas.

What Rob doesn't get is that films like TCM, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm St. and Friday the 13th were cool because they were examples of living urban legends. If you were a "bad" kid, the monsters would get you.

Rob has decided that the monster shouldn't be an urban legend, but a vigilante you should cheer for. Well, why not write a screenplay about that and not ruin a movie that didn't need to be remade? An hour or so into the movie, it gets into the "after the asylum" segment, finally. We're introduced to the babysitter, and have no reason whatsoever to care about her. At this point, the movie down-shifts from 30 mph to 10 mph without warning. Our hero Michael is supposed to be an immortal killing machine, an urban legend, punishing teens who do wrong, but instead looks like a member of Slipknot that got lost and wandered into the wrong music video.

Thanks Rob, for getting rid of that annoying "suspense" and "implied violence" and "shadowing" that the original was so full of.

We get it. Please go back to making movies about Texan killers with your trophy wife cast first. Hollywood, please get Michael Bay to do the remakes of Nightmare on Elm St, Friday the 13th, Evil Dead and Poltergeist so that old fans like me will know it's not worth wasting the time to watch...

I honestly wish I'd been getting a root canal instead of watching the Halloween remake. At least something constructive would have been done with my life.

The Grudge (2004)

no...no...no..no...

[1/10 · 19 November 2004]

One of the dumbest copycat movies ever. It tried very hard to combine the intellectual and stylistic elements of the great horror films of the last decade, as well as challenge the audience on an adventurous story line roller coaster, but it just failed. On every level. Sorry, but man this sucked. I don't want my money back, give me back my time and I'll be happy. If they'd spent all this time, money and effort into creating something a little bit new, a little bit different (and not such an obvious "The Ring" ripoff), and worked on a story that had content, without relying on confusing the audience of it's horrible script by poorly imitating "Pulp Fiction" by skipping back and forth between pages, we'd have had something pretty good.

Cabin Fever (2002)

Fun

[8/10 · 14 September 2003]

Interesting movie, it should be seen by Evil Dead fans for kicks. This is much funnier than it's made out to be.

Unlike most other horror films on the market today, this doesn't insult the intelligence of the audience. That's refreshing. The psychology involved is believable, as is almost all of the film.

The score and the gore make it worth the ticket price. It's also fun to guess which horror classics this takes nods at.

Not for the stupid or the easily disgusted. 8 of 10.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

wait for your friend to rent the video

[3/10 · 23 July 2003]

I've recently re-watched Terminator 1 and 2 and realized how great those movies were. Some may find flaws, but to someone who enjoys a decent thriller that doesn't insult the audience, they were gems.

Tonight, I saw part three. It made me realize how great it is that studios are letting bored twelve year olds with too much caffeine write the scripts for nearly every summer blockbuster in 2003, especially this one.

I'm honestly surprised that IMDB voters have allowed this to maintain a vote over 7 for so long. (It's okay...you can admit it. It sucked. If it weren't for Arnold, this would've been straight to cable.)

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Very Encouraging

[9/10 · 16 May 2003]

This is what sci-fi is supposed to be.

It is an epic action adventure, but more importantly, it addresses the intellectual viewer, raising existential questions that take years to answer (if possible).

While viewing this movie, I repeatedly got the chills. It was that exciting. There were about three scenes I personally felt could've been shorter, but other than that, I believe it to be nearly flawless.

While leaving the theater, I noticed half the audience engaged in dialogue that began there and would probably continue for days. The other half were scratching their heads because the film IS NOT JUST EYE CANDY.

I admit, I'm not happy with the standard level of entertainment we've been provided for a number of years now. Movies with "hype" turn out to be nothing more than a really good marketing campaign. It seems to me that PG-13 "bubble gum and MTV" audiences are the only audience studios care to please. It's even to the point now where studios call the movies "products" instead of films. Matrix Reloaded will make money like a product, but will eternally be a film. Hopefully, the studios will understand that if you'd make a better "product" we'd pay more attention.

Any intelligent person should at least give this a chance. If you don't agree with it, fine. If you don't like it, okay. But I guarantee it will give you something very interesting to talk about.

I give this 9 of 10.

Identity (2003)

This movie should be par.

[9/10 · 1 May 2003]

A few minutes after this film began, I remained interested. That's a good sign, since I'm easily angered by cliched story lines and formulas, especially in thrillers.

Throughout the film, there was always enough going on to keep my interest. By the end, I was satisfied and glad I watched it.

The performances were top notch. The story was the greatest part, and the directing remained above average.

This film isn't going to the top 100 ever of anyone's list, but should be considered a must see.

I believe this should be the standard at which all thrillers are set. It involves intelligence, suspense, the surprise ending and superior acting.

The only flaw, which is a common flaw for some reason, is this. In the age of technology and wonder, when Hollywood can create any special effect in the world, why can't they shoot a scene regarding central Florida without mountains in the background?

Phone Booth (2002)

This is actually worth a little credit

[8/10 · 1 May 2003]

I was worried that Joel Schumacher was going to continue his legacy of making trendy films without substance, but was wrong.

This movie, after a few minutes of informative crap, actually makes a great satire on a number of social issues. The only thing I felt bad was the use of flashy editing.

The writing was terrific. Both major and minor actors performed incredibly well.

If you can look past the short flaws, which do happen often in this, you'll see the story and acting are great, and will hopefully give you something to talk about a few hours after watching it.

Cradle 2 the Grave (2003)

what do you expect?

[5/10 · 6 March 2003]

You will get exactly what you see in the trailer for this. There are no pleasant surprises, no let downs. This is like the third episode of a tv show you like, the first two episodes being "Romeo Must Die" and "Exit Wounds". If you didn't like those movies, stay away. If you liked them, check it out.

In other words, nothing great or creative to report here. Same old stuff.

The Fast and the Furious (2001)

come on, people!

[2/10 · 6 March 2003]

This movie is nothing more than a rework of Point Break (remember, Reeves and Swayze)! I don't wanna hold your hand and walk you through it, just think about it. It's the exact same story with the exact same elements. Sure, they changed actors and names and the extreme sport they were involved in, but that's about it. Everything else is a near duplicate.

To me, this movie is not much more than a slap in the collective public's face by the studio.

Vin Diesel is obviously too good for this kind of movie. He must be using this kind of crud to show that he has box office draw, so that one day he can actually work on something good.

I don't know what's going on with Walker. I've seen more emotion in coffee tables.

This is a must see if you want to see Hollywood swallowing it's own tail.

Ghost Ship (2002)

let's confuse the audience

[3/10 · 28 December 2002]

If there were an award for misleading the audience by false trailers, then acknowledging the genre, then switching genre, then getting heavy handed, then changing genre...and etc...this would win.

I don't think anyone on board this boat knew what kind of movie they were making.

If you like to see ghosts freaking people out, this ain't the place.

If you like boat disasters, I think it's been done before and filmed better. You may have to look it up...har har.

If you like to watch films...go away now. This is a movie, and it is forgotten.

I feel bad for a very talented cast who ended up cast aways.

The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)

so much wasted

[2/10 · 26 December 2002]

Every now and then, a movie will make fun of the formula Hollywood action/comedy movie. You know, a short scene from a terrible movie inserted into another movie. For example, the commercial in 'Scrooged' for the Lee Majors movie, or 'Good Will Hunting 2' in 'Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back.' Well, this is the kind of movie they're making fun of.

It has good special effects. That's about the only good thing I can say. They're not great, but good. The rest of the movie was horrible and cliched. I laughed once, but that's because I started daydreaming and thought about something funny one of my friends said earlier that day.

Be sure to watch this to get rid of those annoying excess brain cells.

The Transporter (2002)

could have been awesome

[6/10 · 14 December 2002]

This had many things going for it, great cast, great camera work and great stuntwork. There were a lot of scenes that made me say, "Ooh, that was cool!" Sadly, there were just as many there made me say, well, I can't say that here. The first impression I got as the movie played out was that this was a big screen adaptation of the popular video game "Driver". But as the story played out, it became painfully obvious that it was just another effort to follow the Hollywood pattern. Good things: The actors fit pretty well, and many stunts have a Jackie Chan quality. Jason Stathom makes a great leading man. There are tons of current, hip camera shots and editing tricks to make this look cool. Bad things: The bad guy looks like a character from the Kids in the Hall (I thought immediately of the bad guy from Brain Candy when I saw him). The story seems to have been pieced together from a 14 year old who's already seen too many Bond films and played way too many video games. Also, during the fights, there are tons of "lame fighters". (These are the many guys trying to beat up the good guy, but while the good guy is whooping up on someone, the lame fighter stands completely still, even though he isn't hurt and has a clear shot at the good guy.) Blah, 6 of 10.

Peter Pan 2: Return to Never Land (2002)

I wish Disney were alive.

[3/10 · 18 August 2002]

This is a perfect example of why Walt Disney said very clearly "Don't let them make sequels to my movies." He didn't want Peter Pan 2, Snow White 2 and so on. The studio has made some great movies (Lion King, Little Mermaid), but has the creative well run dry? Aren't there thousands of wonderful fairy tales from around the world that could be done? This movie (short, like Tarzan and Jane short) felt more like an exploitation of a classic than a tribute to a timeless and charming film.

Insomnia (2002)

more than you'd expect

[9/10 · 3 August 2002]

When I saw the trailer for this, I thought I could figure out the spoilers and everything about the movie. Well, the thing is, it honestly takes about 2 hours of watching the movie to get to all the spoilers.

First things first, the bad thing about this film is the length. It's just a tad bit wee long. That's my only complaint. Honestly, I can't think of a single scene that should've been left out, but hey, I'm just an opinion and not a director.

Everything else in the movie is flawless. The story is better than anything your friends will tell you, the performances are profound (I honestly worried that Pacino would be too busy being Pacino to be an actor, man I'm glad I was way off), the directing was brilliant (thank the stars Nolan isn't a one hit wonder), and the score fit like a glove.

I could go on and on for 3 hours about all of the brilliance in this film, but it would only take you 2 hours to watch it. So go watch it yourself ya goon.

9 out of 10.

In the Bedroom (2001)

a good movie, but whoa...

[7/10 · 21 June 2002]

I'd heard of this from the Oscars, as well as other critical sources. I've heard it was an awesome movie that will go down in history. It was a great film, but whoa...we got a little carried away here.

This is a great movie. Not because of the story, nor the directing...the greatness is the result of the abilities of the actors. If this were cast with a lower caliber of actors, it would've been a blah film that wouldn't have had much mention.

But there were the actors. They tore it up for this. There was no over acting, no playing it down for "less is more". Everyone in this film is someone you can believe in, they're all people you've met and live with. At times it was painful to watch how real the characters were, because of their reactions to the story, but that's life, and this was a quiet film with honesty in mind. It never insults your intelligence. Not once.

My only beef with this was the timing. The directing was good. That's all I can say. The actors were directed perfectly, but the timing seemed a bit slow in some places. It felt as though sometimes a point was made and a mood was established...again...and again...and again...etc...

Besides the fact that the movie needed a shave, I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys a thriller with it's feet planted well in reality. But only for the abilities of the actors, nothing more.

Dragonfly (2002)

what?

[4/10 · 8 June 2002]

This would have made a GREAT 30 minute episode of something. I can't say what show, but it wasn't meant for the feature film format.

In keeping with his past few efforts, Costner was bad. There were one or two moments that showed his acting ability, but he didn't bring enough to this to keep it great.

I'm not sure if it was the story or the directing, but it was mostly an annoying bounce between 5-10 minutes of drama, then 5-10 minutes of "creepy stuff" for most of the film. Sadly, the "creepy stuff" didn't drop the proper clues to keep your interest.

I haven't a clue why people keep referring this to the "Sixth Sense." The only similarity is the twist ending. Apparantly, many people watching films can't see a film with a twist ending without saying, "Ooh, twist ending...Sixth Sense!" It seems they've never seen Hitchcock's "Psycho", or the hundreds of other good films that came out before 199? with a twist ending.

My evaluation comes to this:

If there's nothing else on t.v., give it a shot.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

No...noo.

[3/10 · 31 May 2002]

After seeing this, I wished Lucas would stop using the name "Star Wars" and call these something else.

The Star Wars movies (4-6)were brilliant for so many reasons. Episode 1 and 2, miss the magic and danger entirely.

Since the bad outweighs the good, I'll start with the good. Special effects. This is all about computer generated effects. It has a good number of terrific sequences due to the effects.

Ewan McGregor rocks again. His portrayal of Obi Wan is a total compliment.

Now, the bad. Grab a drink and take off your shoes.

CGI is either a movie's compliment or it's crutch. In this case, it was a wheelchair and a respirator. It kept the movie rolling and breathing. Some scenes felt to me like they were filler to get to the next special effects sequence. Not to mention, a couple of the effects were quite fake looking. And come on, if I really want two hours of computer effects, can I just play a video game and get it over with before going to a movie, where I'm supposed to be told a story? (I'm not bashing CGI entirely. Shrek, Monsters Inc., and Fellowship of the Ring come to mind as recent brilliant CGI.)

The acting was horrid. The cast is filled with talented actors and actresses, but they were directed wrong. Like Sam Jackson. A great actor that is, well, boring in this. And Hayden Christensen is a good actor, as proven in Life as a House. I hope this train wreck of a performance doesn't hurt his career as a serious actor.

The dialogue is another contributing factor to the flaw. In the old days, it seems to me anyway, Star Wars dialogue was short, simple, and sweet. Here, it drags along. Most of the conversations are presented in what felt like a neutral pitch. After a while, I didn't care too much what they were saying. Nothing ever seemed to come from it.

There were also some ridiculous moments where a great special effects/stunt show should've been avoided. A time consuming scene involved characters on a dangerous assembly line. Well, the thing that bugged me was, it was a conveyer belt. Two steps to the left or right, and you're off the belt, avoiding all of the big, curiously evil-looking machines on the line.

The timing was bad. Some things, many things, went on too long. Others, very few others, were too short. SPOILER ALERT, GO TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH TO AVOID A SPOILER. The scene where "Anny" grieves over his mother and goes crazy was way too short. I really woke up here, then actually became mad when it cut away. This is DARTH VADER we're talking about here. He becomes a guy who kills more of his commanders than any rebel ever dreamed of, and we can't see him go bezerk on faceless characters who barely resemble humans? Man, I wanted to see him frothing at the mouth, raving mad. Instead, I get to hear about it. I quote Homer, D'OH!

-------------------------------

Finally, the super-hyped Yoda fight. I actually guffawed when I saw "computer" Yoda acting like a gunslinger getting ready for a fight. With a little bread, I could've made a big cheese sammitch. Once again, there was a sequence where Yoda flipped about the room in a manner that made me ask, "How're those moves helping him win the fight? Oh wait, Lucas is showing off the CGI..."

(They showed a little clip of this on a TV commercial a little over a week after the movie was out. The stinger was, they used Spider-Man font and said..."If you only see one action hero this year...", then showed Yoda drawing his saber. What's that say about faith in this film when STAR WARS has to be compared to another movie in an ad?)

Okay, it's all off my chest. I gave this movie a four, based almost solely on Ewan McGregor and the special effects. If you have an extra two hours, and don't feel like watching paint dry, watch this.

Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)

really cool satire

[9/10 · 11 May 2002]

This movie is all about Mike Myers creating characters mocking the characters WE mocked watching old spy movies. If you've never had an interest in spy movies from the 60's, go away. If you've never had an interest in Mike Myers' sense of humor, go away. This movie is for people who WANT to have fun and be silly. People who don't like this movie think WAY too much and don't acknowledge that they exhibit behavior that's just plain...stupid.

Traffic (2000)

so close to perfect...yet

[4/10 · 1 May 2002]

I really loved so many things about this movie, but NOT everything. The directing was brilliant. The use of coloring gave a precise flavor that set the perfect atmosphere. The story was believable, informative, and quite a shock to anyone who doesn't understand the nature of how the drug industry operates (at least part of it) in parts of North America.

Del Toro is the true star of this film. (I'm not going to be a fair judge. I think the man is brilliant in almost everything he's done.) When he's on screen, the pace is perfect. He creates intensity. This is done by several other actors in the film as well. Yet these actors aren't given the credit. The credit goes, in my opinion, to the actors who ruined it.

My major mouthful of sour grapes came from the fact that this film was cast with some major actors. This movie was produced, written, and filmed to be a realistic depiction of life in a corrupted world that exists all around us. I understand that the studio wanted this to be seen by a wide audience. To get the audience=put in big names. Sadly, for me anyway, I would've felt the multi-layered stories more significant and honest if they weren't portrayed by actors I'd never taken too seriously.

If you can enjoy big famous celebrity actors working in a film that presents itself in an almost documentary style, then rock on. This is something you're going to love.

I believe, however, that the star power ruined this whole thing. No one in this movie should have been more famous than Del Toro. This would've made a gritty and thought-provoking piece of film that would set a standard for movies dealing with drugs.

The Mothman Prophecies (2002)

In some ways, wow...

[6/10 · 20 April 2002]

I went into this expecting neither gain nor loss. I just hoped I didn't waste 90 or so minutes. This greatmovie/almostfilm was a cool surprise.

I knew the initial story. It was one of those books that, if you really, really want to believe...then read this...kind of things. In my opinion, it was written much better than any episode of "In Search Of" from the 70's, but had the same message. Luckily, that's where the similarities between the story and movie stopped.

This movie was directed very cleverly. It was shot with an expert eye. The actors performed well above par. For something that looked like Hollywood hogwash in the previews, it turned out to be pretty decent.

Sure, it's not going to remembered as a classic, but it's very solid. I would like to add that it's one of Richard Gere's more professional performances.

This is absolutely something worth checking out on rental. But please, if you wish to enjoy it, make sure that you watch it in quiet company, in a dark and still setting.

Black Knight (2001)

could the title be any more relevant to Lawrence's career?

[2/10 · 20 April 2002]

You will absolutely know if you'll like this movie or not from the trailers.

There are no hidden treasures. I laughed twice in 90 minutes.

If you like new and innovative comedy, beware.

If you like Martin making funny faces and dancing, rock on, this is your movie.

Personally, I think this should have been made for cable.