IDs_Ego Reviews

District 9 (2009)

Just because it's original sci-fi doesn't make it great.

[3/10 · 20 August 2009]

While 'District 9" is a very original take on the "visitors from another planet" idea, when you scrape off that veneer, you will just find another pile of processed pulp. To make it more "real", the movie employs a documentary style. While effective in creating that environment, it then drifts into a typical "Hollywood" plot structure, that being the standard "two mismatched guys on the run" story (Midnight Run, Fled). Is just that this time, they're literally from different worlds.

I didn't buy in. Too many implausibilities, starting with how the Big Bad Villain, a private weapons company, is the only group that has access to the aliens. C'mon, it would be some kind of international coalition, okay? The Big Message points (racism) would still come through. Instead, the movie gets weighted down with very clichéd plot devices such as the buddy chase, the McGuffin (the power source twenty years in the making), and even a moppet-like child prawn. There are plenty more, and it became annoying after a while – although the action was fun.

The fact that it's current rank as of August 20 is the same as Casablanca's is a farce. There's a saying: "You don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle". Fanboys who rank this movie so high are too often caught up in the sizzle, and barely notice that the steak is another piece of pulp cranked out by the Hollywood meat grinder.

I give a three: five stars for being engaging, but overall mediocre and annoyingly clichéd; minus two for the big disappointment that is.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

more Style than Substance

[2/10 · 14 January 2009]

I tend to bash the films I think very little of, that nonetheless have a huge popularity. This is one of them.

It's freaking #66 of IMDb's all-time as of this writing, but c'mon, what a meaningless, storyless piece of pap. The problem is, its style has less to do with drug abuse and more to do with an indulgent director's unique camera work. Sweeeeet. Cooooool. Like, Whoooooooooa. But have you ever actually heard that speed makes you hallucinate? No, because it doesn't. But it happens in this film, because, like, that's like, so wow.

The film was powerful, but was also completely soulless bunko. I never read the book, but I suspect half the point was contrasting the legal prescription drug addicts to the illegal substance street addicts. But this was not explored at all.

This film only showed finesse at showing human degradation. Frankly, that's the easy part. And this director definitely looked down his nose on his subjects. Using neato-keen camera techniques turns many filmgoers into fans, but if you notice the directorial style more than the story, the director is not doing his job, and in fact - in my biased opinion- sucks. This is one of those films.

Rambo (2008)

In many ways, the best of the bunch

[8/10 · 11 June 2008]

On a Hollywood level, I've enjoyed all of them. But of this foursome, you have 2&3 that were Good Cheezy Popcorn Action, and then you have 1&4 that have Soul and Spirit. I really admire Mr. Stallone for returning to the icon of Rambo the way he did. As an editor, to me, that dream sequence was perfect.

In this one, he shows us the basic brutality of war and military murder, and puts it under a brutal light. And John Rambo is not by choice a machine-gunning war monger; he, like most of us, just wants to be at peace.

Why isn't Mr. Stallone directing more films? Does he have to be in all of them, is that the deal? He really knows the craft. Anyway.

Some would say it is a gore-fest. Sure, as is "Saving Private Ryan". Face it, "Rambo"'s violent mess is a hell of a lot more true, I suspect, than a tank playing chicken with a helicopter gunship (First Blood 3).

If anything, it could have been longer. The mercenaries were well performed but inevitably one-dimensional.

This is a very different film from what you'd expect of the Rambo mythos, but if you like Rambo at all, you'll love it -- if you haven't seen it already.

-D

Where's Marlowe? (1998)

for fans of "The Office" and "Spinal Tap"

[8/10 · 16 October 2007]

It's an "8" for what it is, earning an extra point for being too original at the time. It's a mockumentary ala "Spinal Tap" and "Best in Show" which, frankly, are better, but this stands on its own. Following a second-rate private dick in LA, it jumps the "fourth wall", and incorporates the film crew, adding to the fun. One of the best things about it is its layers of droll that I suspect will not unfold until I see it again.

Having been weaned on Cristopher Guest's best (Tap, Waiting, Best, et al), and the TV hit "The Office", one thing this mockumentary has that it probably shouldn't have had... was a soundtrack. But, it was an ABC pilot order, and without any backup like a borrowed British TV success (The Office), that was unavoidable at the time. The soundtrack's not bad, but it does detract.

It's a fun attack on that line that separates Reality and the silly joke called life.

Crash (I) (2004)

Preposterous, full of itself, and just not that good

[2/10 · 11 February 2006]

This movie has some very powerful moments and good acting. I'm not denying this. But it had moments that were so poorly thought through, it made the movie simply suck as a whole. Sorry to use the high-falutin' term PREPOSTEROUS, but that's what it is. Unfortunately, it begins with the first scene, where two carjackers are talking about how they're being viewed as- well, crooks.

The double irony is not what I take issue with. What's incredibly stupid - so stupid that even punk-ass carjackers wouldn't do this -is that they hung out in a diner for an hour in the same neighborhood before committing a felony crime. Thus, collecting dozens of witnesses who'd be able to identify them. I'm no carjacker, but a tiny bit of common sense says you don't want to be noticed before committing a crime. But there it is, because it advances the "story". And Big Statement. Once you have something so incredibly stupid jammed into a script that purports to be "real" JUST to make your Big Point - folks, that's called hackwork.

Or how about one of the closing scenes, where the director stares at a burning car, then calls his wife on the cell phone? Gee, wasn't it as few hours earlier that his wife nearly got blown to bits in a explosive car wreck? So, does loving husband rush home? No. Guess it made a deeper scene this other way, the way it was shot. Oh, okay. Big Statement. C'MON!!

I mean

C'MON!!!

Too stupid to accept. And it was the preposterous moments like that spoiled the rest of the film. Otherwise, it would be "just okay" anyway. Because-

I live in LA, and what I saw in this movie was a view of Los Angeles sprung from a state-of-the-art laptop somewhere up in the multi-million-dollar homes of the Hollywood Hills, from a mind of an aloof armchair liberal. The writer had an agenda, rather than any sense of LA's reality and real vibe--and worse, the writer seemed to have no damn common sense whatsoever. Well-meaning try, but not a classic, not even all that good.

Industry folks can sometimes be too much like dogs licking their lowers. It's about LA, it purports itself to be deep and meaningful. Naturally, the Industry loves it, because they want to seem deep and meaningful, too. It's self-important hackwork tripe like this that gives LA its shallow reputation. While it has its moments and some good performances, it deserves to be buried in the discount bin, not lauded.

Disappointment.

King Kong (2005)

KING of overlong, indulgent monster disappointments

[2/10 · 3 January 2006]

To save your time: BORING BORING THE KING OF BORING! Now for the rant: BORING...except when those neat-o CGI-wrought effects sequences happened. But though they looked cool, they looked completely fake, which detracts.

Anyway, this was BY FAR the biggest disappointment of the year for me, and I SAW The Island. But this time I was expecting something that wasn't so God-forsaken and overly long, and it's purely the acclaimed PeterJ to blame, and he may yet take Oscars(TM) for this boring dullfest.

I mean it. I have never checked my watch or rolled my eyes as much as I did for this 3 hour of film. Part of this is due to the hype. Shows you how well the Hollywood machine is doing. (Just fine.) I typically rate films as they deserve, but if they have the hype and blind-sided enthusiasm of instant or undeserved glorification (like too many) I will notch it down a few points, typically two. This deserves three for it's indulgence such as: 1) trying to be novelistic, with I'm-film-but-I'm-literature references to Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", and such time-slurping expository stuff (let's skate over that) that drag the hour more so than progress story 2) even more lame analogies and references, like the writer-in-the-cage and Fay-Wray-on-another-film kinda malarkey, 3) The visionary fat-head genius-conniver-ultimately humbled Lord-of-the-Moov Director, played by Jack B for Peter J's carefully conducted, bogus humility. 4) Forget about continuity, skate to dawn... etc) There's plenty more. I rolled my eyes. Checked the the time. More than any other film. Even the worst ones.

Wondered when it would end. kept wondering.

Peter J, take a lesson from Seuss: The story need not be longer than it is to be a good story. (Or, if I were a Hollywood suck-up, "Can't wait to read your approved draft of the Lorax, Petey!!!")

Kong did not show up until the film was half over. A three hour film. I'm just still glad it's over.

It gets a two because it must be pulled down from that pedestal, like all new over-hyped films are. But on a good day, I'd give it a five, unless it were edited for... time. Then it might not suck for two more hours.

Thus, I would recommend kind IMDb viewers to just rent the DVD. The CGI stuff is the only thing that's worth it, every other theme ("Beautiful" "artistic endeavor" "how to make a good 100 minutes be a boring 180") must be saved for hardcore blindsided film dorks, and their girlfriends who will fall asleep to this indulgent, time-consuming, overwrought boring remake.

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985)

A typical sequel. (You know what that means., don't you?)

[6/10 · 1 October 2005]

If it's a typical sequel, it means it runs anywhere from a "disappointment" to "my damn goldfish could've made a better film". This sequel was not that bad, but undeniably a disappointment.

It fits that rare category that follows a SUCCESSFUL sequel that was even more popular than the original, and reinvented the story. "Alien" 1,2&3 fit the same pattern, except Alien 3 was a "goldfish" sequel.

I just read IMDb's Trivia about "Beyond Thunderdome", and discovered some backstory about how the "lost children" was a stand-alone idea, and then Max was attached to the concept. That was the biggest mistake of this film. It's never worked for me, trying to meld two essentially separate stories into one film. Not woven together, spot welded, and the joint is weak, very weak. When you come from a film thinking about the many ways you wished it was done differently, you don't have anything great. The "Lost Children" thing never worked, they should have kept the whole story focused on Bartertown. It could have been great.

And few chases will ever compare to Max 2 (the Road Warrior), but what I found lacking about the finale chase in Thunderdome was that - it was on a TRAIN. HUH???? Part of our hero Max's strength is his cunning behind the wheel of a mean V8. Or a damn semi. Crashing, ramming, shooting, outwitting, and crushing the opponent. But Mad Max is not a commuter, WHY A TRAIN? Both Alien and Mad Max were, in modern parlance "franchises" that were killed by a weak script. As a sci-fi fan, as an action fan, it's sad to see them whither and die, but there you go. At least Batman was resuscitated right proper.

War of the Worlds (2005)

If Spielberg could just stop being so Spielberg-y....

[4/10 · 17 July 2005]

He can do it, like in "Saving Private Ryan" - which I really liked- or a less epic, but really good "Catch Me if you Can". But while it was, in all, a good film, too many distracting elements hurt it for me. The little girl's lines were, at times, not what a precocious 10-year-old would say. Rather, they were what a precocious 45-year-old seasoned Hollywood scriptwriter would say, if they were a little girl. Strike one.

And Spielberg's set design indulgences (seriously flawed in Minority Report, in particular) also popped up like a bad zit. Example: When the first tripod emerged I saw a scissor-jack which was on the sidewalk to replace the letters on a movie marquee. A scissor-jack for THAT??? C'mon, that's what ladders and poles are for. However, you do see those very expensive machines aplenty on a Hollywood backlot. Example 2: a 250 Kg V-8 engine on the kitchen table. Its supposed to show Cruise's character is wrapped up in his tinkering, but THREE men can't get that up a flight of stairs, and he HAS A GARAGE on ground level, hello. Couldn't they at least present an engine you can CARRY UP THE STAIRS??? So it seems like Spielberg and his set designer haven't the common sense to leave the studio backlot and see the real world. Strike TWO.

The ending, where even the son who went running into firestorm of death shows up fine for the happy family reunion in Boston. Why not throw in a whelp of puppies and a litter of kittens? Too much? So that's Strike THREE. The ending killed it for a lot of people I know. Like chocolate syrup on a good steak.

So much was good about the film; Spielberg's depiction of group panic, Cruise sold me on the irresponsible father, and there was a menacing monster that was killing for sport before killing for their harvest. But there were too many other things that make me ask "WHY did you DO that???" There are pro's and con's about this film, and if you don't get into the details, like I do, you'll enjoy it. But dang it, I see so many places where it could have been better.

:-D

Traffic (2000)

Possibly the WORST film that is somewhere in the "best of''s

[1/10 · 1 June 2005]

I saw it again on TV, and everything I thought about this film the first time still stands.

It has great lines. It has powerful, moving scenes. But this is one of those films that was molested by a directorial technique. In this case, it was what we call color correcting or DI, Digital Intermediary. Sodenberg - whose many films I like - chose to make the narrative storyline have a color theme. Blue-ish for the drug-addled kid. Orange-reds for the Mexico stuff, and so on. Wow. Deep.

That technique, heisted from TV commercials, music videos, and hack college students, rarely suits a good feature film, and almost always looks lousy when employed for such a stretch. It usually distracts and detracts, and this film is just plain annoying. This top-250 indulgence - this highly vaunted film is no exception.

***Here are the scene spoilers***

This film sucks beyond DI because...

That "let's smuggle toys made completely of cocaine". This crappy film *pivoted* on that ridiculous premise. That was borrowed from a 007 film. When I go to a 007 film, I expect to be entertained. But this was a BIG STATEMENT Film, and it has nothing but BS and to back it. Or a poorly thought-out story. Bad story.

Oh, and there is Luis Guizman's character getting killed by being blown up in an car because of an assassin's bomb. And the cutaway is for show, and it features a 50-year-old couple ducking for cover from the explosion. But twenty seconds earlier, there is a huge shootout, maybe twenty-five bullets or more BLASTING out of half a dozen guns or so. And yet, THIS COUPLE, FIFTY FEET AWAY, WAS NOT DUCKING FOR COVER ALREADY???????? Instead, they are ducking for the big car bomb explosion. Makes for good visuals, sure. But while it had visual impact, this film is supposed to represent something real, and totally unreal moments just makes it suck MORE. Bad Story.

Bad (really, high-school level) story, directing, and editing.

It was not cohesive, it was stupidly directed and color-corrected, it was not a great cut, c'mon, must I go on? So much for Big Statements. Go watch another incoherent high-holy obfuscated mess, Crash.

Or go watch Enchanted, see if I care. But avoid, avoid, avoid this over-hyped tripe.

You either agree with me or you'll watch the film again.

The Third Man (1949)

Another classic I didn't like much.

[2/10 · 30 May 2005]

It's a noir classic, yes, but could anyone HEAR it? The audio is AWFUL! AWFUL! Again, the DIALOUGE IS BARELY HEARABLE. Maybe they cleaned it up for DVD, I don't know, I saw it on VHS. If you're in non-English country and saw it subtitled, you are far better off. It seems the Brits really didn't know how to do audio back then.

I am not a "real" film buff, I just know what I like, and this was a disappointment since I did have high expectations. And while this film was set in Vienna, the music soundtrack has flavors of traditional Greek music. It's fine music, but a noir film set in Vienna doesn't play well with that. AT ALL. And unfortunately, it seriously detracted from my immersion into the film. Instead, it kind of killed the feel of the film for me. But I could barely hear what anyone was saying, anyway, so there you go.

This film doesn't deserve to kicking around the top of any "great" movie list. There are a lot of good noir films that easily deserve to be placed far above this one. Yet, this is the one considered the classic.

Boogie Nights (1997)

Lousy, overlong, indulgent hack work.

[1/10 · 19 October 2004]

Unlike most reviewers here, I hated this movie, simply because the writer/director's bloated ego was in the way of an otherwise potentially interesting topic. Too many film fans equate 'EXTREME self-indulgence' to 'film GENIUS!', but I don't buy into that cult of personality. A film should be about its subject, not its director (unless it's a Woody Allen film, of course). *SPOILER* (which is just as well, save your time...) There is nothing brilliant about of showing you the foot-long porn-star's you-know-what in the last frame- that's actually called a tacky maneuver that SCREAMS film-school hackism.

The poseur flick has achieved 'great film' status based on its indulgence and pandering to the audience – which, first and foremost, is the writer/director. But the rest of the audience should look down on the surly, brutal nature of the porn biz, too. The flick had an aloof angle to the porn industry, looking down on each and every player it could bash. No matter, just love your writer/director. Love those four-minute steadicam segments, which are supposed to show the energy of the moment, but somehow had all the verve of an off switch. Love the story- no matter how dull it is- about the gee-whiz rise and sordid fall of a porn star. But look down on it, too, of course. While the subject has the potential to be fascinating – innocence, money, degradation, beauty- your worshipful writer/director somehow managed to make it all look, again, DULL. Partly because of its run time. Here is something your auteur hero DIDN'T try: Giving the characters dimension. Or soul. Anything AT ALL to give a hoot about, aside from Genius That Paul Is, of course. But I'm not buying. I don't buy into indulgent hacks with astounding hype.

Another overlong auteurist hack piece, with fifty times more hype than quality. I know some of you agree. The rest will see likely see this indulgent flick again. Not my problem.

Tommy (1975)

Wonderfully stupid!

[2/10 · 5 October 2004]

First, you should know the album to really -er- appreciate this film. The album is a classic, even though it is a patchwork of songs that The Who decided to turn into a concept album by gluing various themes together with mostly lesser tunes. But it has some great pieces, like "Amazing Journey", "Overture" "Welcome" and "Sparks" (all of which you won't hear on Classic Rock radio stations). So first know the album, and then see the movie, if you dare. You will be amazed – but certainly entertained.

Rather than apply the original music from the heartfelt album, the film reworks the tunes with tepid session musicianship and the neat-o synthesizer, so very innovative in 1975. Seeking to be high-minded about idolatry, religion, war, consumerism, pinball- y'know, all that big meaningful stuff- this flick heaps on laughably dopey symbolism by the barrelful. Seeing cameos from Eric Clapton and Elton John is interesting,simply to give you a window on the era. Tina Turner, however, as the twitchy Acid Queen dancing to... er, a mirror-hypodermic-iron-maiden is- well, one of the reasons this lunacy is simply a must-see. And no actress has ever gone more over-the-top than Ann Margaret, and God bless her and her bean slither for that.

It is so dated, so in-that-moment, so weird, so over-the-top, and so fearlessly awful it's great. The best of the 'worst rock and roll film ever' category, and that includes "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band", which could be considered its spawn. This is a must-see glam-a-licious wierdfest.

Day of the Dead (1985)

Not the best of the trilogy, but the best gore-fest

[28 September 2004]

Of the three (Night of/Dawn of/Day of) I say Dawn was the best. If you want some serious gore, however, this one wins, in full color. Like the first film, the following two followed small groups of greatly outnumbered survivors lurched upon by relentless, slow-moving zombies hungering for flesh. The group dynamic as it plays out while walled in by hostile forces is one of the primary themes of this classic horror series.

This segment took on the dynamic of Lord of the Flies underground. Thuggish military jarheads brandish guns and go more crazy as researchers and civilians try to find a way to stop the zombie tide, or simply scheme to live through the next day. While the film transcends the staples of horror, shock, and tense suspense, it reaches past what it can effectively deliver. Having three times as many lead characters than Dawn, it explores all of them, but as a result becomes unwieldy, unfocused, and ultimately unsatisfying. The over-the-top performance of Joe Polato as the megalomaniac military Captain was particularly distracting, especially since a soft emotional crumble rather than an avalanche of mania would have added much more texture to the film as a whole. But kudos go to several performers, especially Richard Liberty, who added substance to mostly shallow characterizations among all the excellent makeup, special effects, and pigs' guts.

Night Of is in many ways groundbreaking and a classic in its own unique way. But not my favorite. This one is not, either.

Dawn is my favorite of the three- it has grittiness, suspense, gore, wonderful cunning irony and wit, and most of all, soul. And isn't that every zombie needs? No wonder they keep coming.

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Best of the Three

[9/10 · 28 September 2004]

Haven't even seen the 2004 remake. If you see all 3 of George's, save the best- this one- for last.

While clearly low-budget, it deftly gives action, intensity, soul and a graspable sense of realness to the loss of the world as we know it. If you weren't around in 70's America, it also plucks that string with wonderful resonance. It has squib-happy gore, but should be considered the classic it is for every other reason. It it not a tired suspense horror flick, it's an insightful human story, with zombies pounding at the door. More than frightening- much more. This hits the mark, where "Day of" misses, as I describe in my review there.

If you are ANY kind of film-goer, this is a must-see.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

a brave new World of Fun

[8/10 · 18 September 2004]

Groundbreaking it is, you know that already. And visually beautiful- but Art Deco is my favorite style, period, anyway. This script will not change your life, and it doesn't want to. Look, just put words like "homage", "auteur", "genre" aside for two hours, please- this is just PURE BUTTERED POPCORN FUN, that's it's goal, it scores, it wins, and it looks fantastic to boot. The script is the first obvious target of natty film geeks. No, that's not gonna get an Oscar(TM), and it's not wanting to. (But it should take the Gold One home for Visual Effects.) No line made me wince, which is rare, and care was given to keep to dialog that fits the 1939 setting (although they called World War 1 "The Great War" up to that time). Without indulgence or hubris, and keeping to the serial-hero tradition, the well-paced story delivers as designed, giving moviegoers wonderful action, epic visuals, globe-trotting adventure and romance, peppered with a few good laughs right to the final frame. And as far as its look- WOW. Again, WOW.

as in WOW.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

The more Perfect film

[10/10 · 18 September 2004]

It's worth gushing about. The fact that Ahhnold is now the Governor of my California state simply adds facets to its viewing. It makes him look good, rather than the other way around. It adds laughs. T2 is, as you know, a great great film. Fans of this film have testosterone, smiles and admiration every time we talk about this film. When we think about this film - the "time out!!", the T1000's brilliant, silvery, relentless fearless tactics, Sarah's ice-blooded cause("Men like you..."), and that damn tow truck, that damn Liquid gas transport... ("Hasta la...) we have seen a film that has no scenes anywhere that suck. None. How many films can you say that about??

If you think the perfect film is one you can bring your girl to, you don't enjoy movies enough.

Heaven's Gate (1980)

A mediocre two hour film that goes three and a half.

[2/10 · 15 September 2004]

Thanks go to the great Vilmos Zsigmond for making this film look beautiful, but tear that away and you have a ridiculously long (3 hours 39 minutes) weak story with mostly one-dimensional characters. The long gaps between lines and each overwrought scene- be it a noisy town meeting or a gang rape- gives you plenty of time to think about how this could have been a two hour film, and you can spend the rest of the time finding other things wrong with it. While the actors are all pros, sometimes adding dimension to their roles, they are usually bored beyond even scene-chewing. Aesthetic pacing is one thing, but then when it occasionally gives you canned lines like the bad guy saying, 'I am the law' into the sepia mix, well, it's just fodder for MST3000. Even they'd get bored. If you see it, you'll be bored, too.

It's a typical Hollywoodization of an actual historical event- in other words, here, have another love triangle with a sweet prostitute, the sheriff, and a sorta bad guy. In an ultimately failed attempt to reinterpret the western, Camino instead grabs at all the standard 70's clichés: graphic violence that quickly becomes cartoonish, butt-naked ladies, jumpy volume shifts, and anti-heroes. Whee. Face it- when you think Old West, do you think... roller rink?

Not really surprising that it's such a legendary flop; it has such high aspirations to fall from. On its long, long, long way down, it looks great, indulgent, and expensive the whole way, and goes flop. You will thank the invention of the Fast Forward button.