Change Your Image
releasethebats76
Reviews
Spellbound (2002)
grumble.....
After seeing Spellbound, I just don't know what to say or think. I'm sure this was supposed to come off as light-hearted fun and a nice little portrayal of the 'little smart kids' but I saw this as just another slap-in-the-face of their already difficult lives.
I don't think the director has much regard for his subjects at all. I'm sure I'm misreading many of his quirks and attempts at humor, but mostly they come off as very negative social commentary, not unlike humor one would find in The Simpsons or This Is Spinal Tap. For example, interviewing the manager of the local Hooters about town pride in the spelling bee and showing 'Congradulations' on the marquee. Is this a joke??? How about Angela's father working for this old racist couple? I actually choked on my lunch listening to him refer to Mexicans as "they're not all bums and tramps, there's some good ones mixed up in'em." Was that a compliment? A joke??? Or perhaps we are supposed to just pay no mind, as the director goes out of his way to cut in shots of the confused elderly wife knitting.
And there's poor Ted. Oh poor, unfortunate, white-trash Ted who appears to be the rebirth of Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade. I say this because we are led to believe through the director's imagery that he is. I mean, right off the bat, there is a drive-by shot of a run down, back-road house with garbage all over the yard. I'm guessing this is to represent where he comes from and his lifestyle. Come on, director, who's side are you on??? Moving onto April, the shy, studious, awkward little girl. This is the one I really felt bad for. It's evident she was very shy in front of the camera, but it didn't seem like the director cared. He just played off it. Maybe just capturing the reality of being a shy, awkward teen with no friends with close-ups of fidgeting hands, her bumbling on a swing nervously, etc. What was really upsetting was the description she gave of her parents being like Archie and Edith Bunker "because Archie's always getting mad at Edith for being dumb." It doesn't seem like she meant it to sound that way, but all the while we see merciless shots of her mother being just that- annoying laugh, whiny voice and blatant flightiness as she goes thru a dictionary with a big question mark over her head. Well, the director might as well have superimposed one! And of course the interview shot in the living room with grumpy dad and the dog licking her feet, as they discuss their disappointment of April forgoing a social life for studying.
Harry Altman is the point where I really started to hate this. It's obvious he was the ham in this particular sandwich, but to the point where it was just painful. Kids will be kids, but this kid is plain uncomfortable to watch. The director doesn't seem to like Harry very much either as he just lets him carry on in awkward silliness. There are ways for his personality to come out without making us want to ring his neck.
The second half was cleverly done, but for me it is useless as I was just so offended by the introduction to these characters. As this movie was/is rated so highly, it appears I am the one mistaken, but I just think this served no good to its subject or its target audience. If anything, it would seem to me to make them more self-conscious and uncomfortable.
Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star (2003)
oi...
Let me just say this is the most idiotic idea for a movie since Wes Craven's New Nightmare..... I'm so fed up with this ridiculous 'retro-generation' garbage I could puke. I got 15 minutes into this and knew I was going to hate this. This is just a dumb story with a ton of dippy, forced, throwback cameos for twenty/thirty-somethings to say 'wow! I know him/her!'... So, 15 minutes into this, I checked IMDb for a cast list, and lo and behold, there were most of the child actors I grew up watching. Then I saw that the king of all morons, Adam Sandler produced it. This movie is nothing but a tribute to all the teenies nowadays paying tribute to all the pop culture icons that they wish they were around to enjoy, but with all the dumb humor of the current times.
like wow, the 80s were cool! let's pretend Gimme a Break is on and wear a fake Ebay Rainbow Brite shirt while pretending to eat Fruit Roll-ups. Later we can play Centipede on our Playstation while listening to and pretending to enjoy Duran Duran on our DVD player that's ALSO a cd player! And And And tomorrow, we're gonna rent a ton of John Hughes movies and watch some Nick-at-Nite......
Hitched (2001)
Not the best exponent of modern filmmaking....
This is quite an interesting little piece of film.... Never cared much for Sheryl Lee, though I'm a major Twin Peaks/Lynch fan. Nice concept for a film I must say! Very interesting storyline and being part feminist, I enjoyed most of it. But, does anyone else think this film is is too much of an homage to the director's favorites? Dunno, perhaps I'm nuts, but there are several tributes to other films, such as 'North By Northwest' in that there is a character named Cary Grant and the female lead (whose name is Eve) is almost trying to seduce him.... and the film 'Big Lebowski' where Hall says 'this agression will not stand' along with the mock porno vid.... Not to mention one of Hall's girlfriends' name is Sheryl.... just thoughts.........
Shaft (2000)
The Shaft......
Well, of all the African American actors out there I was delighted to see Samuel L. Jackson cast in the lead of this 'remake.' He's got all the cool and attitude that Richard Roundtree's Shaft had. Unfortunately, this cool and attitude is only found in his other films and not this one. Shaft 2000 is a decent film if you've never seen the original. It's just too serious. The originals were perfect for their time and place and the best thing about them was the fact that the films never took themselves too serious. Why do we like the Shaft movies/TV series? 1- John Shaft is a vigilante fighting to break down the stereotypes given to Blacks in poverty stricken neighborhoods. 2- He's arrogant, confident and proud of who he is and can hold his own with the police and the mob. 3- He's a lover and every woman wants to jump in bed with him (especially white girls) and he knows exactly how to handle it. 4- The movies are effective in their portrayal of 'ghettos' and just how bad areas can get, thus the ability to relate to the struggle.
and on and on....
I believe Shaft 2000 didn't fulfill any of these aspects. Granted, these are different times, but I think more could have been done with this character considering the Shaft image. I was hoping for more of Pulp Fiction, Last Kiss Goodnight and Die Hard With a Vengeance rolled into one. Instead we got an angry cop with a chip on his shoulder coming off as more of a villain. Also, Richard Roundtree was unnecessary and just thrown in for the retro-generation. He must have just done this for nostalgic purposes. With a better script, this could have been wonderful, because both Jackson and Roundtree are fantastic.
**Hopefully I've not made too many generalizations in this or offended anyone racially.**
Caddyshack II (1988)
what? are you kidding?
i am in a vast minority here. i also didn't much care for the original caddyshack, aside from the chase/murray duo scene and select rodney jokes. okay, break it down: rodney vs. jackie- both jewish and have similar humor. rodney's a bigger name and more distinct. jackie has an incidental and more observational approach to his jokes and is more 'up yours' in this sequel. jackie's attitude toward everything is memorable and in a way, inspirational! his quick lines and over-confidence left me wishing i could express myself in such a way. rodney was good, but there wasn't enough of him, and he was more 'in your face' and dismissive. jackie, in a rare film appearance, makes a perfect sub for rodney (come on, a gun shaped hair dryer?!?!) really, look at the little things!
stack vs. knight- both play snobby yuppies very well. ted knight, despite his wonderful tv/film career, kinda shows his age. but, he does pull off the snobbish demands of the part and we want to see him fall. ted looks kinda weak and is pretty annoying, playing his anger and frustration too slapstick, while stack is more incidentally snide and vengeful; you really hate him and enjoy see him constantly fail. stack wins with me.
murray vs. aykroyd- well, both had great, vintage SNL-like scenes with the ever-present and enjoyable chevy chase (ty webb). i did like the murray/chase one better. murray plays his great, annoying, chatty character with obvious improv skill and is loveable- yet annoying. and the exact same can be said for aykroyd. both get annoying after a while, but it's a tie.
i really loved part 2 over the first. they are 2 totally different mooded films. part one is more drug/bathroom/sex humor with a cast full of great names. part 2 uses golf as a backdrop for a 'stick-it-to-the-rich' type of comedy that makes one feel better about being working class. 80s script? yes. a bit far-fetched? yes, but wasn't the first? an insult to the sport of golf? yes, it's a movie. thin story? yes, it's a comedy with actual humor- not 'dances with wolves'!! besides- part 2 has a much better soundtrack!! PLEASE- DON'T EXPECT THIS TO BE A SEQUEL TO PART ONE!! IT IS 98% ITS OWN MOVIE AND SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THE NAME 'CADDYSHACK' IN IT. that said, i am a big fan of caddyshack 2 and it is a great exponent of 80s fluff entertainment with quality humor. VIVA JACKIE MASON!!! to all the reducers- lighten up! it's a great comedy of its own. randy quaid was wonderful, jonathan silverman was wonderful, heck, everyone was!! all this chatting and now i feel like watching it! i think i will
The Sixth Sense (1999)
.....
Warning- this won't be the most intelligent review. Sixth Sense is about as cliche a thriller as can ever be- disturbed kid, hated by others, draws violent pictures in school and has touch with the supernatural. I really don't understand the hype on this one. Couple of quality scary images, but basically just a bunch of psycho-drama. This should have been titled 'The Shining II- Danny moves to Philly and gets therapy just to learn he and the therapist are dead.' Semi-interesting film, though Mr. M. Night is rather overrated.....
A Thief in the Night (1972)
True message, yet too radical for the non-believer
This was shown to me in my church youth group as a kid, along with its 3 sequels. These films always stuck in my mind and had been looking intensely for them until a couple years ago, while in college, I found them in a small Christian bookstore for rent. It was interesting to see them again after so long, but being older and more knowledged (so I'd like to think!) I found this to be a bit on the radical side. To me, a media arts/film studies major and devout Christian, I find it sad that nothing much has changed in the world of Christian filmmaking, other than better effects. The 'end-times' films such as this and 'Left Behind' and 'Apocalypse' and their respective sequels seem to lack the single most important element- appeal to the non-believer. As a passionate Christian, I watch these films as if I were a non-believer and find them to be poorly written, too cheesy, badly written, judgemental and preachy and understand why the average non-believer would laugh and/or tune out. Plainly put, SCARE TACTICS DON'T WORK! I am thankful there are folks out there trying to get the message out, and I praise the 'Thief in the Night' quadrilogy for starting the trend, but hopefully we, as Christians, can find a better and less fear-driven way of leading people to what is the most important decision of their lives and helping to give a small taste of the true joy of Christian life. 'Thief' is good for believers as re-inforcement, and was a semi-effective film for its time, which makes it all worth its while, but it is not up to today's junkfood tv standards and may actually have quite an opposite effect on the average non-believer or teenager. Hey- for all you film geeks, and this makes me chuckle every time i see it, listen to the score, which was later used in Monty Python and the Holy Grail!! Intentional?? But seriously, probably the best Christian film out currently is 'Tribulation.' As a frustrated movie lover/film studier/Christian, I recommend it!
Toys (1992)
'Toys' is a great statement.....
I really don't think most know much about how good filmmaking this is. If anything, this is a light-hearted, yet serious, sarcastic poke at the act of war. It's lightly funny with a strong dose of 'fantasyville u.s.a.,' but more focused on the real world and the ideals of war-minded governments and those with a war-minded mentality. I have a signed photo of Robin Williams from a scene of this film; he addressed it 'make love, not war' and that is what this film is trying to say. Please, do human-kind a favor and just criticize a film like this for what it says, not for the 'laughs' you expect or other mindless drivel. Perhaps this is a modern fairy tale. This is not a vehicle for anyone. Yes, it's silly and childish at times, but only to set the blithe, 'childlike' point-of-view of the film and to amplify the the 'governmental' desire to attack on 'provocation' when in reality, there is probably none. Basically, this is entails a man's obsession with war and the paranoia that it induces, and what ultimately overcomes is a joking, playful, and somewhat sarcastic sense of humor. It's comically frightening, in the way 'Dr. Strangelove' is, in it's loose, flippantly accepting madness. Please, think more before judging this wonderful film and what it's trying to say. Please, do not go into this one expecting wall to wall humor. This has some definite comedic moments, but don't lose sight of the fact that their 'land' is metaphoric and whatever 'silliness' is perceived is for artistic reasons and to amplify the childlike mood of the film and how innocence can be easily influenced or destroyed. Please don't look at this film as a comedy or some sort of light entertainment. Try and look into your heart and find it's statements, not it's 'idiocies' in which ways too many try to write it off. It's more important nowadays than ever!
Pleasantville (1998)
not too sure........
Very cleverly done, but way too cliche and annoying. Nice to see Don Knotts!! But you can see his TV co-star John Ritter in a better, funnier and more thought provoking social commentary movie 'Stay Tuned' which has 'Pleasantville's' original concept. 'Pleasantville' has some very cool ideals and images and a great cast, but is too 'modern retro' for my tastes. For my tastes, I'll take the obviously intentionally idiotic, typically short-lived TV show 'Hi Honey, I'm Home'.........
In the Light of the Moon (2000)
the most infamous 'psycho' is turning in his, as yet, undug grave...
I try to see everything Steve Railsback does, ever since the ridiculously underrated and characteristically screwed-by-Hollywood
'Stunt Man' where he gives award deserving praise. Of course, none could forget his disturbingly accurate performance as Manson 4 years prior either. Ed Gein is absolutely no exception. Railsback's uncanny attention to detail is spooky to sa the least. The slightly crooked smile, the exact baseball cap and flannel, the incidental tone in speaking of his actions, all chill viewers like myself who are familiar with Gein's character and history. Unfortunately, the film takes a more factual approach to 'the events that occurred' rather than attempting to get into Gein's head or even taking license to extrapolate any certain event that may have happened or even expansion of things that did. For a man who literally inspired a genre of films, this guy prints like a weird guy who killed a couple of townfolks. The audience has to figure out for themselves that a bowl he is using is that of a human skull, as the oblivious to Gein would not know. All we are given is his mother fixation and the forced morality. Nowhere is there ever sufficiently discussed his motives for the graves he dug, the reasons for skinning his victims, etc... There is just no insight to feel for or understand Ed or his victims. This is a low budget film with a low budget script and insultingly lack of research and/or detail. Detail implies research and detail makes a film. This is an insult to storytelling and I'd suggest reading about Ed Gein before seeing this 'film' or if you wish to see something, see 'Deranged,'a documentary on Ed Gein. In short, Railsback is fantastic, as usual, but could not save this abysmal piece of wasted film.
The Lawnmower Man (1992)
okay, people....
i'm kinda weary of the stephen king references to fuel the dislikes of this film, not to mention those who thought this was a lame attempt at horror. THIS IS A SCIENCE FICTION FILM!!! this is stephen king by character names and simple, skeleton basis only!! i have seldom ever seen better character development/evolution better handled in a film. this is a true credit to the world of science fiction. we have a disgruntled, anti-war, but corporately suppressed, scientist with a vision for bettering the world who regrets what he creates due to the direction he was forced to take. we have a slow, simple-minded underdog who gets ridiculed and taken advantage of who is used as a lab rat and eventually becomes what could easily be an Anti-Christ figure- a hero turned anti-hero. this, to me, is drama and then some. the slow pace of this is intentional as every frame of every scene is imperative to the development or eventual development of a key character. this has all the intensity and thought that '2001-a space odyssey' ever had, not to demean kubrick by any means. his film was visionary, yet practical and a well recognized piece of true thought. this is how i view 'the lawnmower man.' one really needs to look at this as a study in character interaction and development, rather than just basic horror or an insult to stephen king. to those who appreciate a good story with interesting twists that is over all intelligently told, yet intentionally disturbingly concluded, this is for you. for those looking for a book on film or a horror flik for a date, avoid it, because you probably won't understand what this film is trying to get across. along with the obvious 'frankenstein' like story, it could also be like Einstein and his eventual leading to the atomic bomb.
in short, please see this film if you have any interest in a well told story with intelligent thought and especially if you love sci-fi. avoid it if you're in the mood for horror if you recognize the title as being stephen king. >
Caddyshack II (1988)
what? are you kidding?
i am in a vast minority here. i also didn't much care for the original caddyshack, aside from the chase/murray duo scene and select rodney jokes. okay, break it down: rodney vs. jackie- both jewish and have similar humor. rodney's a bigger name and more distinct. jackie has an incidental and more observational approach to his jokes and is more 'up yours' in this sequel. jackie's attitude toward everything is memorable and in a way, inspirational! his quick lines and over-confidence left me wishing i could express myself in such a way. rodney was good, but there wasn't enough of him, and he was more 'in your face' and dismissive. jackie, in a rare film appearance, makes a perfect sub for rodney (come on, a gun shaped hair dryer?!?!) really, look at the little things!
stack vs. knight- both play snobby yuppies very well. ted knight, despite his wonderful tv/film career, kinda shows his age. but, he does pull off the snobbish demands of the part and we want to see him fall. ted looks kinda weak and is pretty annoying, playing his anger and frustration too slapstick, while stack is more incidentally snide and vengeful; you really hate him and enjoy see him constantly fail. stack wins with me.
murray vs. aykroyd- well, both had great, vintage SNL-like scenes with the ever-present and enjoyable chevy chase (ty webb). i did like the murray/chase one better. murray plays his great, annoying, chatty character with obvious improv skill and is loveable- yet annoying. and the exact same can be said for aykroyd. both get annoying after a while, but it's a tie.
i really loved part 2 over the first. they are 2 totally different mooded films. part one is more drug/bathroom/sex humor with a cast full of great names. part 2 uses golf as a backdrop for a 'stick-it-to-the-rich' type of comedy that makes one feel better about being working class. 80s script? yes. a bit far-fetched? yes, but wasn't the first? an insult to the sport of golf? yes, it's a movie. thin story? yes, it's a comedy with actual humor- not 'dances with wolves'!! besides- part 2 has a much better soundtrack!! PLEASE- DON'T EXPECT THIS TO BE A SEQUEL TO PART ONE!! IT IS 98% ITS OWN MOVIE AND SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THE NAME 'CADDYSHACK' IN IT. that said, i am a big fan of caddyshack 2 and it is a great exponent of 80s fluff entertainment with quality humor. VIVA JACKIE MASON!!! to all the reducers- lighten up! it's a great comedy of its own. randy quaid was wonderful, jonathan silverman was wonderful, heck, everyone was!! all this chatting and now i feel like watching it! i think i will
Tainted (1998)
THIS IS THE ONE....
yes, i love indie films. yes, i respect anyone who has the guts and drive to make a film. and yes, i love my hometown of metro detroit. but after seeing 'tainted,' i'm ashamed that this is one of few films representative of my fair hometown. not only are we tortured endlessly with weak and horribly acted dialog (not even bad enough to be funny) and inside jokes, we have to wait the duration of a baseball game to see some actual gore or even a small piece of what might be an actual story. this was obviously made for the filmmakers' friends and selected 'inside' folks who may or may not recognise the 'cool' places around town they 'filmed.' the folks at Troma must have been conned into distributing this nonsensical bore as not a single soul (not friends with the director) would get past the first 15 minutes without crying with embarrassment felt for everyone involved. the 'positive' reviews given for this are undoubtedly from those with vested interests in this idiocy that even 'Mystery Science Theatre 3000' would adamantly reject. no story, no production value, no interest whatsoever and very little gore equals one of the least interesting 'films' ever made. budget $35,000?? it all went toward pizza for the cast and crew for a job miserably done. some words to get used to- 'let's get another take' as for me and all the others about to rent this 'film' graciously given to all video stores who would accept for free publicity- don't let the name 'Troma' mislead you, and please take a stand against drastically careless filmmaking and just ignore the box when you see it in your local store. or, for the new filmmaker, rent it and use it as a 'what not to do' guide or a really good self-esteem boost that this nonsense ever got picked up by the beloved Troma. YOU ARE WARNED!
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
incomplete...
Finally got around to seeing this, as i believe mr. soderberg is one of our time's great auteurs. i must say that this substantially lacks key elements to be considered a great film- a mild, in-your-face satire is more like it. yes, there are cool stars looking and sounding cool as usual with a good number of heart-throbs and soderberg regulars, but aside from all the quick one-liners and humorously photographed gags, there really isn't one character developed enough to feel anything for. true, we want to see them pull this heist off, but the 'pulling off' seemed way too quick and easy (aside from my generous suspension of disbelief) for this comically imbalanced crew. Also, they seemed to just walk away with all that money with little to no conflict and we are left to believe that all will be forgotten. in other words, we want more. we hardly see julia roberts' character and would like her and her relationship with garcia's character developed more and perhaps a more personal quarrel between garcia and clooney. as for garcia's character, as tough as we're told he is, we hardly see it and he's not enough of a slimeball to make us want to see him fall. clooney's character is only really effective if you're still influenced by his 'jack foley' in 'out of sight. bottom line, too many unbelievable characters for such a quickly devised and implemented scheme with very little resolution. though there are some quality gags and well directed action sequences, we want more, a lot more. i don't feel anything is given away in this review since the whole mood of the film suggests outcome.