junglepants Reviews

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

highly enjoyable

[14 January 2003]

The movie was enjoyable to watch. The music coalesced well with the visuals. I thought the visuals maybe tried too hard to be stylish, as much as Sofia Coppola would like to think she doesn't go over the top. Compared to say, Michael Bay, she doesn't, but the movie's style sometimes gets in the way of the story. In the grand scheme of things though, it just made the 1970s seem really cool; then again, that isn't all that difficult to accomplish.

I'm not sure whether or not this was Coppola's intention (I'm going to guess not), but the themes of the film came off as really heavy-handed and melodramatic. Since the film came from the book, and I'm guessing the director didn't want to p*** off the writer, this was probably unintentional, even though it would flow well with the self-important, hazy visual design.

What the movie does do a great job of is going out of its way to romanticize the 1970s, suburban life, and especially the Lisbon girls, who are turned into dreamy, angelic fairies, which may be a justification for the slightly excessive, unnecessary stylization (Ooh, a dream-like atmosphere, how clever!) of visual design. That is to say, there is a high likelihood that teenage boys viewing this movie could very well develop a dangerous crush on Kirsten Dunst. The acting was quite good...the talent seemed to follow Coppola's vision perfectly, whether or not this is a good thing...I'd say, mostly good. I'd recommend it. Because my opinion is so important and all.

Two Girls and a Guy (1997)

should not have been made

[1/10 · 1 July 2002]

This movie is really awful. It was clearly meant to be a stage play, but the script was probably so bad that no Broadway producer wanted to pick it up, so it was sold to a movie director or studio or whatnot. Robert Downey Jr.'s performance is the only redeeming quality here. I can't believe how easy it is for crap like this to be produced.

The Evil Dead (1981)

sorry for the repetition, it needs to be more than 4 lines

[30 June 2002]

Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is? Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is? Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is? Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is? Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is? Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is? Can someone explain to me what 'fake shemp' is?

The Tao of Steve (2000)

Ok, needs some work

[21 June 2002]

This is a somewhat endearing indie flick, but it suffers from an amateurish script and inexperienced directing. For a movie that has the potential to be pretty funny, it takes itself far too seriously. The protagonist's 'stoner wittiness' becomes pretty monotonous and annoying preachy. If the movie concentrated less on being hip and ironic, and more on the characters, the film would be better.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Kind of cool I guess, but very poorly done

[3/10 · 21 June 2002]

I was aware that this movie, along with the Freddy Krueger character, became a massive horror movie franchise. I grew up in the 80s during the era of ubiquitous Freddy dolls and posters, conscious of the fact that he was in this movie and a lot of people seemed to like it, but I had never seen any of the Nightmare movies until recently.

I simply don't understand why this is supposed to be a good movie; I found it barely watchable, and largely laughable. The special effects, even given that the production team did not have the ability to use CG effects at the time, are terrible. It is completely obvious how every single effect was done when they pop up in the movie. Furthermore, many of the scenes contain nonsense character actions that seem to exist only to show off more crappy effects (e.g., when Freddy says, "Watch this," and chops off his prosthetic fingers).

The movie starts off very suddenly, with absolutely no character development. I found it difficult to care about or sympathize with people I don't know anything about, who can't act, with ketchup squirting out of them. I just didn't get it.

The Freddy Krueger character is far too clownish and rubbery to be scary (I've read that it gets even worse in the sequels). The annoying cheesy synthesizer music is far too present in the film, drowning out most of what could have been genuine scares.

The performances in the movie are some of the worst I've ever seen. Johnny Depp, unsurprisingly, turns in one of the less ridiculous ones, but given that this movie has almost no redeeming qualities, he has almost no lines. Heather Langenkamp is a boring, vapid heroine who clearly just can't act. She displays an extremely narrow range of emotions, from tired, to asleep, to sort of tired and angry, to somewhat scared. Speaking of which, she seems alarmingly unconcerned when Freddy Krueger materializes out of nowhere and tries to stab her. Maybe she's just tired.

I will acknowledge that this movie seems to be more creative with the story line and visuals than those that were coming out around that time, and it's more gritty and original than a lot of the slick, boring crap that Hollywood churns out today. Other than that, this movie really isn't anything all that special. It's not scary, it's extremely fake, and the script and performances are terrible.

The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)

Entertaining, but extremely dated

[21 June 2002]

This is a good example of a movie that does not quite hold up after 50 years. It's interesting to watch as a kind of classical Hollywood cliche; however, the outlandish performances turned in by Kirk Douglas and Lana Turner don't really work for a modern audience. Much of the movie comes off as ridiculous, and it quite frequently becomes difficult to stifle laughter during some scenes that were not meant to be funny.

The movie, when viewed in the context of the period during which it was made, is an entertaining foray into the film industry, but it does little to dismiss the popular opinion that people that make movies about Hollywood are simply not creative enough to come up with ideas that aren't completely based on their own lives. As a result, the story becomes tedious at times, and the characters are flat, though overall the movie is still pretty watchable.

The Song of Bernadette (1943)

Crying from boredom

[1/10 · 21 June 2002]

This movie is an insipidly boring piece of uninspired religious propaganda. While the film somehow made sense during 1940s wartime, it makes no sense now. The story is insanely corny, and serves only as a vehicle for blindingly obvious, trite moral parables. I had to struggle to keep from falling asleep during this one.

Casablanca (1942)

Just plain good

[21 June 2002]

This movie is just flat out good. It still holds up after 60 years, and for excellent reason. The performances, though more over-the-top than what we are used to today, are spot on. The story is simple but effectively moving, and the movie is entertaining from beginning to end. The musical score is magical.

Casablanca is simply a fine example of classical Hollywood cinema. I watched it with a degree of skepticism, not expecting the movie to live up to its hype, but I was pleasantly surprised when if far exceeded my expectations. The story is interesting and the script is well-written. All of the characters are strongly crafted, and the acting is superb. I give this movie the 10 it deserves.

Fight Club (1999)

Fight Club is mediocre, at best

[14 May 2002]

I can't comprehend why people think this movie deserves to be critically acclaimed.

David Fincher's masturbatory use of unnecessary, high-tech, cheesy CG/camera effects and poor, way-too-blue lighting rule out cinematography as a virtue.

The characters are one-dimensional and inordinately cynical; I think he was trying to make the characters hip, but they come off as ridiculous caricatures, amalgamated from various disillusioned 15-year-olds' journals. As a result, said misfit teenagers (I am a teenager by the way), or immature adults that act like such teenagers, are the only people that have any possibility of identifying with these characters.

The dialogue is painfully cheesy and contrived, the Dust Brothers' electronica soundtrack comes off as an out-of-place post-modern marketing scheme, and the story is absolutely absurd.

Nothing is special about the movie. The movie does not "challenge the minds of movie-goers." It erases them. Yes, it's entertaining, but for the love of God, stop drooling over this movie. I can't figure out why anyone likes it; the only reason I can think of is the inherent homoeroticism. If you're into that sort of thing.