oecobius Reviews

Pacific Rim (2013)

Derivative schlock

[1/10 · 30 March 2014]

Pacific Rim is an exercise in unoriginality. By the end, I desperately hoped that the filmmakers had intended some cynical meta-theme about the poor state of Hollywood films today, but I gave up hope upon reading the pretentious boasts by Del Toro and his cronies who apparently took this boring popcorn flick dead seriously.

The plot is paper thin and not very interesting, mainly because the film is too scared to go anywhere remotely clever or deep with its characters, message or general story. Del Toro has said the message is meant to be the simple "we all should work together." Even though this statement is cheesy and borderline meaningless, it could theoretically work with enough wit & creativity. Instead, all the characters are annoying stereotypes, and the film's "message" is conveyed in the laziest way possible. Most of the so-called "character arcs" are basically "2 characters fight like whiny teens, eventually 1 of them does something helpful or useful, the other guy immediately pulls a 180 and decides they're friends."

I couldn't stand the 1-dimensional, boring characters. Even the central protagonist we spend the most time with never amounts to anything more than an annoyingly smug, whitebread hero whose "generic action hero" screaming voice will have you rolling your eyes throughout the 2nd half of the film. The female lead is so flat and bland that she constantly waffles between the extremes of an "impressive talented spunky chick" stereotype or an "unreliable weak woman" stereotype. Whatever the case, the filmmakers clearly thought audiences were too stupid to understand any characters who act like nuanced, 3-dimensional human beings. The lack of any worthwhile story, message or characters is a huge insult to the audience up-front.

Without a decent story or characters, what else is there? The special effects are widely praised, but every time the monsters or robots were on screen, I was acutely aware I was watching a special effect. The big CGI fights are trite and predictable with no distinct personality; they're the kind of thing Hollywood has done countless times before and will bore you to tears if you're older than 12. It feels as if the effects crew made a generic CGI effects showcase and the rest of the film was written around those hackneyed action scenes!

Even the soundtrack is typical & unoriginal. Most of the time you don't notice it there, but in the "dramatic" moments you might notice the incredibly cheesy and corny "scary" or "triumphant" cues, again completely bland and generic.

There are so many elements that serve NO purpose in this movie other than to be as derivative and unoriginal as possible. For instance, the pilots feel pain when their robot gets hit. Why? This adds nothing to the plot or message, but Evangelion did it so Pacific Rim needs to steal the idea. The computer voice is distractingly Glados from the Portal video games. Why? There's no clever reason or hidden meaning; it just adds to the vibe that this film is a patchwork of borrowed ideas for one meaningless mishmash. You could no doubt write a shot-by-shot analysis of all the influences and sources this flick rips off, and I'm sure that all the original sources this film steals from would be way more entertaining and worth your while than this bloated pastiche.

I won't even bother touching on the glaring plot holes and inconsistencies. The internet already has a LOT of material about the ludicrous flaws that pepper the film's already flimsy script. Personally I could forgive the countless illogical concepts surrounding the plot if it were a story worth telling, but Pacific Rim never even comes close.

If you want a film with any respect for its audience, skip Pacific Rim. This film seeks only to make easy cash by giving people the same things they've seen before, except without any cleverness or depth that might make them interesting.

The Player (1992)

Tedious and self-indulgent

[3/10 · 10 November 2013]

"The Player" is a film with a lot of technical effort and work on display, but the story is so weak, tiresome and meaningless that this film will disappoint anyone willing to look past the fluff. The opening shot of the film is the most entertaining part of the entire feature: a single long tracking shot featuring a variety of laughable Hollywood types going about their business. The film falls apart, however, when it expects us to actually care about these characters.

The Player is about an executive who is blackmailed by a mysterious rejected writer. This is a premise loaded with possibilities, but the protagonist bumbles through the weak plot as if determined to be as boring as possible. We aren't supposed to like him, but we don't actively dislike him either; we don't care at all what happens to him, and since the film's message is made clear within its first shot, there is no point to wasting 2 entire hours on this overrated film. The message is that Hollywood people are phony and hypocritical--hardly an inspired concept. And yet the film reiterates this tired, cheap idea over and over as if its audience is too stupid to grasp it the first time. This leads to a clichéd "clever" ending that might impress preteens but only serves to repeat the film's meager message for the umpteenth time.

I was hoping this film would move me or make me think, but The Player seems mostly comprised of filler. Even the romance subplot feels contrived and empty; the film presents Greta Scacchi's character as if she will have some depth and purpose, but she is a stereotypical vessel who, like most of the characters, ultimately acts as little more than a cheap plot device.

The film has many allusions to classic cinema, such as the motif of an abrupt zoom in on old film posters. This, however, is NEVER clever, subtle, or unexpected because the film hits you over the head with these allusions and overuses them relentlessly, as if Altman couldn't stop saying "See what I did there?? It's that thing some of you recognize!"

There is cute window dressing throughout the picture, but most frequently this film uses an unconventional or awkward shot just for the sake of being unusual. Many people have mindlessly praised this as brilliant and avant-garde, but there is no inspired meaning to the odd yet frankly drab cinematography. It does not make you think, it does not make you uncomfortable, it does not impart a message.

John Dies at the End (2012)

A sorry mess

[1/10 · 3 September 2013]

This flick starts out with an interesting premise about a mysterious drug that lends its users superpowers but seems to have a mind and will of its own. That plot is shafted about a third of the way into the film in favor of one gimmick after another, each more cliché and unfunny than the last.

Before the concept of the drug is even introduced, though, I was annoyed by the protagonists--two effete, whitebread nobodies trying too hard to be clever. I tried to ignore the obnoxious leads when the movie gave us a few intriguing and clever concepts, but it rapidly devolved into a dull, pandering non-story filled with incredibly lazy dick jokes. Overall, the movie feels like a modern follow-up to crap like "Dude, Where's My Car" and "Little Nicky".

The script forgets it has a plot and is a disjointed string of chapters connected only by the dislikable characters. If you just want to see some low-budget special effects and 2 or 3 heads exploding, this movie will make decent filler. If you want to be entertained or thrilled, skip it.

The film also introduces a chick who joins the two losers on their adventures, but her character is never developed, and she's just there for the pandering, rather sexist wish-fulfilment cliché of "boring pothead miraculously has a hot girlfriend." And speaking of clichés, all the minority characters die (even though the titular John survives).

Primer (2004)

Insulting drudgery

[1/10 · 3 September 2013]

"Primer" is often praised for its clever, convoluted plot that you'll have to watch several times to truly figure out. This is a myth, though, since if you pay close attention and ignore the film's many irrelevant details and scenes, the plot is a pretty simple tale of a guy going back in time, making a mistake, then going back in time again and fixing that mistake.

The film is hard to follow NOT because of any clever or deep writing, but instead because the editing is utterly terrible. The characters spout technical jargon for too long without serving the plot or theme, and a couple scenes are incomprehensible because of bad lighting, awkward cutting, poor staging, and lousy sound quality.

All the dialogue is dry and dull, NEVER giving us the slightest reason to care about any of the characters. Primer won't stir any emotions in you, it won't inspire your imagination, it won't make you reflect on life, & it won't even make you uncomfortable. Its storytelling style is woefully incompetent and would be better suited to instructional pamphlets.

For all its long-winded, muffled dialogue, I can't even find a statement or a message in this film. You might enjoy this film if you are a college kid trying too hard to have "different" tastes from others, but if you want an actually compelling or rewarding film experience, ignore all the hype and give Primer a miss.

Noroi (2005)

Competent but not scary

[4/10 · 13 August 2013]

"Noroi" is a suspenseful film that's meant to be more chilling than scary, and it has a very compelling string of concepts that drive the story. The filmmaking is quite well-executed, particularly in its portrayals of news events and in its occasional ominous, dilapidated sets.

This film, however, is NOT the "scariest film from Japan" and it will NOT give you nightmares unless you scare extremely easily. The plot is NOT complex and instead relates a few completely random bad events that result from the titular curse (caused by a very generic demon). That said, you may still enjoy the atmosphere for its slow buildup of various foreboding events and images.

The film portrays a documentary crew examining a series of mysterious, compelling events, and these are rather interesting in and of themselves--but the film ultimately connects only a few of them, and in a rather predictable way. For instance, the film never gives any interesting meaning to the pigeons or knots that always appear before disasters, and characters like the reclusive Mr. Osawa serve no purpose in the end. In addition, the film diminishes its scariest scenes by replaying them, sometimes multiple times and often in campy slow-motion. There is a general lack of subtlety to all the scares, as they are spelled out and presented in-your-face to eliminate all the possible thrill or excitement.

Many people praise the final scene for being unsettling, but I found it very predictable; if you've been using your brain during the film, there isn't anything else you'd expect. The biggest flaw however is that, even by the very end of the film, we have no reason to care about any of the characters. The documentary-filmmaker protagonist is a bland "blank slate" guy with no sympathetic or even interesting traits. There is slightly more personality to the actress Marika, but she is also very passive and only serves to be a victim.

This film has a few novel gimmicks that can entertain you, but its "story" is little more than a framing device for said gimmicks. As I said, though, the filmmaking is well done, so you can probably enjoy sitting through it unless you hate "found footage" flicks. If you're looking for a profound horror story that will make you think, though, this is far from it.

Zen Noir (2004)

Adequate

[5 August 2013]

"Zen Noir" is overall an enjoyable film with a decent storyline, but it has many amateurish elements that weaken the production significantly.

The story involves a nameless detective investigating a possible murder at a Buddhist temple, only to find his perspective on life challenged and transformed as he learns more about the situation. It's a simple concept that presents a pretty broad illustration of some Buddhist tenets, but the detective's character arc is engaging and strong enough to carry the story. I did not find the film's treatment of Buddhism too esoteric, as it concentrates mostly on the detective's perspective and growth.

The writing is mostly clever but has uneven parts. Despite the film's overall dedication to witty and unexpected dialogue, it includes moments like a sophomoric "laypeople are people who can get laid" joke. The comedic aspects in general feel very forced and weak, consisting of silly and predictable gags or very awkward slapstick. The director clearly didn't know how to make slapstick acting visually funny but insisted on trying a few times anyway, disrupting the film's otherwise thoughtful flow.

The detective and the monks are adequate actors, but the woman playing Jane proved very dull and tedious. It felt as if she was cast primarily to pad out the film by speaking very, very slowly as if she was bored with the script. The biggest problem with Jane is that we're supposed to care about her character, but she doesn't have any particular appeal or even interesting qualities.

The film is only 70 minutes, though, so if the concept of a hard-boiled detective investigating at a Buddhist temple sounds entertaining or amusing, you can probably get some enjoyment from Zen Noir. Honestly, if this film had been cut down to a mere 45 minutes, it would probably have contained all its necessary and most engaging elements.

The Ward (2010)

Waste of time

[1/10 · 26 May 2013]

"The Ward" is a tedious, pointless movie that would only impress a 13- year-old who wasn't picky and who scared very, very, very easily.

First of all, most of the actresses have very simple roles to play as mental patients, but none of them are remotely capable. They tend to broadly indicate to the audience that "I am imitating a cliché of a crazy person" instead of actually playing it natural or trying to be convincing or even interesting. It's a pain to watch unless you've only seen a few movies in your life and have very low expectations.

The attempts at scares are uniformly unimpressive and often hamfisted. If you at least want jump scares or fun thrills, you'll be very disappointed.

The movie's twist ending fails to reward the audience for sitting through this mess. The "twist" is an abysmal cliché that reminds me of stories my cousin wrote when he was 15 and trying too hard to be clever.

It's hard to believe John Carpenter directed this. Even the editing and pacing are disappointing. Stay far away from this sorry excuse for a film.

Halloween (1978)

A relic

[1/10 · 21 May 2013]

"Halloween" may be interesting as a historical piece, and it may even be entertaining if you scare extremely, extremely easily.

Otherwise, this film has nothing special to offer. The story never even tries to be thought-provoking or inspiring. The plot is paper-thin, as a murderer comes to town and kills 3 random teens for no reason. The film is very overt that there is absolutely no reason; the killer is nothing but a vehicle for overwrought "suspense."

There truly is a lack of suspense here. Most of the movie features the average main characters going about their boring lives and occasionally noticing Michael Myers appearing on a street corner, then disappearing. This could be an evocative and tantalizing effect, but each of Michael's "surprise" appearances are extremely predictable and usually accompanied by a melodramatic, campy musical cue.

The murder scenes are quaint, with no thrill or shock; at best they give a glimpse into '70s filmmaking style.

The worst aspect, though, was in most of the character interactions. Audiences want an exciting thriller from Halloween, but a ridiculous amount of the movie consists of bland, mildly annoying teenagers chatting mindlessly. I suppose this material is an attempt at realism, but when it contributes nothing to plot, meaning or character arcs, it's just an insulting waste of the audience's time.

As for good points, the film is competently executed (with no glaring faults but also no outstanding cinematography), and the character of Dr. Loomis had the potential to be interesting or entertaining. Unfortunately these aspects are nowhere near enough to complete the movie.

If you want to check out a real museum piece, take a look at Halloween. If you want a film that will excite and thrill you, or a film that will make you think, you'll be wise to look elsewhere.

The 'Burbs (1989)

Waste of time

[1/10 · 26 March 2013]

If you are very bored and just want a film to kill time, The 'Burbs might do the trick. If you want a film that will intrigue or inspire you, stay far from this one.

The film centers around three utterly unlikable suburbanites: Hanks as bland weenie Ray Peterson (could the filmmakers have picked a more generic white-bread name?), Ducommun as grating slob Art Weingartner, and Dern as a wacky over-the-top veteran Rumsfield. The film could have gone in any number of clever directions with these characters, but they are all very dull and 2-dimensional. Ducommun's character fails to ever be clever or amusing, instead just being obnoxious with no payoff--many viewers tend to mute or skip through the drivel featuring him. I hoped that Rumsfield would be quirky and interesting, but he's a very stereotypical and predictable character. Thankfully, Hanks turns in a passable performance, but Ray is such a dull "everyman" character that we never become invested or even interested in him.

The plot involves the protagonists becoming suspicious of their Eastern European neighbors, the Klopeks, and ultimately trying to prove that the Klopeks are psychotic murderers. Cheesy, predictable and slapstick hijinks ensue. The protagonists are too selfish and mean-spirited for us to like or care about them, and so there is no tension or suspense to draw you in. At the end, the movie looks as though it will feature a satisfying twist about the self-righteous, xenophobic main characters being proved wrong and having to own up to their mistake. Unfortunately, they are all proved right and vindicated in their small-minded, nasty outlooks.

The film starts out with plenty of promise but goes nowhere; its ending, however, makes it utterly irredeemable. It sends an unpleasant, stupid and destructive message that people who don't conform to the privileged white American's way are insane and criminal. If you pay any attention to this film at all (instead of just using it for background noise at a party or something), you will find it either nasty or pointless.

Being John Malkovich (1999)

Obnoxious and tedious film

[1/10 · 18 February 2013]

Obviously this film has a clever premise and a number of cute gimmicks along the way (like floor 7 & 1/2), but ultimately they seem to exist just to be in-your-face quirky and zany. They aren't developed in a thought-provoking way, they're simply gimmicks draped around a flimsy and trite social commentary.

All the same, this film could at least have been entertaining if it didn't expect you to endure its grating and drab characters. OK, I get it, the characters are all unlikable so that the movie can show how flawed our society is; that's a real cute concept but the characters need to at least be INTERESTING to be worthwhile and satisfying. In keeping with the film's premise, the characters are uniformly flat and gimmicky.

The film attempts heavily to be sophisticated and dark and thoughtful in terms of sex, but it's annoyingly adolescent and immature. The sexual tone seems like it was guided by kids who thought "talking dirty about private parts" was the coolest, most grown-up thing in the world. The film fails to accept sex as a natural part of life, instead reinforcing the common American view that the most simple and boring sexuality makes someone a special snowflake. Since the film takes itself so seriously on this subject, it wears thin fast.

All in all, only watch this film if you feel like you can ignore its obnoxious style and can glean some small entertainment value from the silly gimmicks. Don't watch it expecting anything legitimately thought- provoking, deep or meaningful.

Runaway Robots! Romie-O and Julie-8 (1979 TV Movie)

Quirky and charming film

[7/10 · 12 January 2013]

"Runaway Robots" is a very entertaining short film. It never takes itself too seriously, instead focusing on clever concepts and entertaining animation. The quality of the animation is very good (especially considering that it was made in 1979), with a lively squash- and-stretch style; the fluidity of the characters really comes into play with the cartoonishly-massive porcine executives, along with Gizmo, a shifty & devious scrap dealer. Julie-8 is animated with good delicacy and spunk, although Rome-0 tends to be less dynamic in his movement.

The pacing is fast, as is necessary for its short running time, but the film handles it well. Only a couple sequences felt distractingly rushed, but this isn't so much of a problem when the story overall is so lighthearted. Despite the Shakespeare reference in the title characters, you shouldn't expect anything particularly heavy or deep.

My main criticism is the fact that I found the robots' voices too heavily filtered, making some lines hard to catch. I saw the movie on an old VHS though, so the audio could be better on cleaner copies.

If a lighthearted, energetic short film from the '70s sounds interesting to you, "Runaway Robots" is worth checking out. It's too bad it's not available on DVD.

Monkeybone (2001)

Insulting and unfunny

[1/10 · 26 December 2012]

Even if you watch this flick in hope of a creative visual style alone, it's one ugly film. The color scheme of both reality and fantasy worlds in the film is full of bright, obnoxious, oversaturated colors. (The film even teases viewers with a minute or two of merciful black-and- white scenes.) You could count the legitimately creative character/background designs on one hand; most of the "surreal" scenes in the movie revolve around shuffling actors in lame, embarrassing costumes. This complements the complete lack of subtlety in the film's concepts and humor in general; the film relies heavily on its "jokes" but none of them provoked even the tiniest smirk in my audience. Apparently the filmmakers decided they needed to hit their viewers over the head with even the most elementary-school-level butt jokes.

The stop-motion animation is competent, but the direction of the human actors is constantly stilted and flat. I guess it's intended to be "cartoonish" but instead it comes across as amateurish and pandering, as if Selick and co. assumed audiences wouldn't recognize comedy unless everyone in the movie acted like spastic, one-dimensional clowns. There is no attempt to make any character relatable or likable; even the "mild-mannered nice guy" protagonist is a wormy, self-pitying loser from the get-go.

Lastly, the film is painfully sexist as well, with constant portrayal of woman as sex objects in a pathetic effort to add some adult appeal. Again, the film can't attract viewers with anything clever, original or meaningful but instead uses the most pandering and insulting methods possible. Only watch this mess if you're terribly easily-amused or possibly if you haven't aged 15 yet.

Mary and Max (2009)

Disappointing

[3/10 · 25 June 2011]

Mary & Max sets out to be a thought-provoking film that inspires with its originality, but it is ultimately an unsatisfying production. The opening scenes establish the film's nonlinearity and its willingness to be blunt and grim with its protagonists' struggles--once you notice these features, you grasp the film's entire hook. The movie constantly maintains this tone but never leads it to a payoff or a twist; I appreciate the filmmakers' decision to make something so unconventional, but the fact remains that these few original elements cannot support an entire 90-minute movie. The creative animation is definitely the best part.

The film is in large part a dark comedy, but all the comedic elements are tepidly clever at best but never truly funny. The quirky concepts have potential, but they are intended to be funny in & of themselves, never building to any new surprising result. Max's descriptions of his jobs, for instance, aren't poignant or charming, they're just "zany" with some angst thrown in. The film relies obnoxiously on scatological humor--even though this is usually deadpan, the sheer number of butt jokes gets old very fast.

Through the events in Mary's life, the movie sets up what could have been a moving message about accepting your own flaws, but the impact is spoiled when they hit you over the head with the message, via narration by both Damien and Max. Towards the end, Max's lengthy letter about being happy with yourself is so heavy-handed that it eliminates any possibility of thought-provoking subtlety. The very end of the film was also cheesily melodramatic and unsubtle. I didn't feel moved by the characters' suffering along the way, either, because we meet Mary as a lonely, bullied kid... and then the movie describes over and over how she's lonely & bullied, which has no impact on us because we understood that from early on. The same goes for Max being lonely and awkward.

There is obviously great effort behind the animation, with impressive, detailed sets, and the art style is engaging. The "Que Sera Sera" sequence in which Mary reaches the depths of depression is artistic and very nicely-done, but the film's successes in terms of visual presentation do not compensate for its story or hamfisted theme, which fall flat in the end. If you just want something out of the ordinary, you can enjoy Mary & Max, but if you expect true depth (not phony depth where the filmmakers comment "oh, loneliness sure is sad!") or richness of writing, you will come away disappointed.

Trick 'r Treat (2007)

completely weak

[1/10 · 26 January 2011]

I heard a lot of hype about this being the most creative and fun halloween movie in a long time, but the movie doesn't stand up to the hype one bit. There's nothing creative about it--the stories are predictable and uninteresting with zero depth, and the characters are all one-dimensional. There is no satisfaction for sitting through the film. The filmmakers realize there's absolutely no point to the stories and throw in some cheap tit shots as a last-ditch effort to keep their audience interested. People can say what they will about how this movie "captures the spirit of halloween", but that halloween-ish tone basically comes from the cheap, obvious "spooky" suspense-builders that the movie uses instead of interesting characterization or themes. If you want a clever or even interesting movie, you'll be disappointed in this thing.