Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Resident Evil (2002)
how can such a fast-paced movie be so boring?
15 March 2002
maybe I shouldn't rip into this film so much, as I did see it at a free sneak preview. and I'm not really a gamer, only playing the "resident evil" games a bit, and mostly watching the game being played and picking it up at various points throughout. but I'm a huge fan of zombie/splatter/gore/horror films, and so therefore I can honestly say that if you're debating about seeing this film, my advice would be to skip it (or see it at a matinee, definitely not worth $8) and wait to rent it on video.

the strongest aspects of the best zombie films- "evil dead", "dead alive', "cemetery man"- as that they are irreverant and refuse to take themselves seriously. but paul anderson in "resident evil" takes himself much too seriously, which eventually ruins any promise the film might have had. I'm just wondering why I was bored throughout the flick. during the mansion scenes, the introductory office scenes, making the way to the Red Queen- sure there was the occasional scare and fright, but it wasn't until they shut the computer off that I thought "is it finally going to get interesting?"

perhaps I was just waiting and was expectant too much for the zombies. and they didn't disappoint. in fact, the special & visual fx of "resident evil" were quite good and was definitely a highlight to the film. as was the use of audio in providing the suspense and building tension. (although the score created by Marco Beltrami and Marilyn Mansion is garbage and unnecessary.) however, the acting was just putird. milla jovovich just CAN'T act. she's best when she just sits there and looks pretty w/o opening her mouth- as in 'dazed and confused' and 'fifth element'. sure she's a hottie, and it's quite obvious the paul anderson tried to come up with any reason to show off her body as necessary, but that's jsut sticking to the tired horror film cliche of showing the primary female in various stages of undress. nothing new there. and what's up with the complete obnoxiousness of michelle rodriguez's character. she delivered every one of her lines compeletely flat and her attempts at humor were ridiculousness. it got to

the point where I despised her character, didn't care that she was infected, and in fact felt pretty good when her character was offed. michelle sure has tumbled swiftly from her promising debut in "girlfight". you couldn't have done a more poor job casting for the two primary female roles. they definitely don't measure up to angelina jolie in "tomb raider", which although wasn't that great of a film, it is much better and more fun and doesn't take itself as seriously as "resident evil." the other cast members are incidental for the most part, though it did kind of bug me that the most gruesome deaths were saved for the characters of color. whats up with that?

and the plot kind of bugged me- I understand the computer's intent on killing everybody off once the toxin escaped, but the computer was also aware that the dead would eventually become reanimated, yet took no steps to take care of that eventual side effect, such as torching the Hive or something similar. it did have a failsafe programmed in, thus providing the countdown of our heroes having to escape from the Hive, but it was- in my opinion- too much time allowed with the possibility of escape of the toxin too high. and I didn't quite understand the rationale behind the crack team going into the Hive- the reason given was to find out why the Queen went homicidal and to take apart the mainframe, but ti seemed far too dangerous and unnecessary for me. then again, when you work for the shady Umbrella Corporation, I guess you jsut don't ask questions and blindly follow orders. even when they lead to disastorous results, as can be seen at the end of the flick.

anyways, its not as if this film is horrible or incredibly bad. I just found it boring. even Romero's epic plodding "dawn of the dead" I found more interesting than this flick- perhaps because it made me think and it stimulated my mind, whereas "resident evil" didn't. regardless, if you like loud/ fast/ zombie/ splatter films with half-naked babes and plenty of blood, then "resident evil" is the film for you!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
an interesting contribution to the Coen's ouvre
31 October 2001
I found this to be a pretty interesting film by the Coens'. I was well aware of the ability to do noir, as evidenced by 'Blood Simple', as well as many-layered, dialogue-driven narratives as in 'Miller's Crossing.' But what I found intriging about this movie was that it was about inconsequence. Billy Bob Thornton's character, Ed Crane, is similar to William H. Macy's in 'Fargo.' Both have unsatisfying positions in lowly lives. Both had received their jobs by "marrying" into them- Ed at the Barber Shop, and William's at the car dealership. The difference is, whereas the kidnapping plot is sought out in "Fargo", the blackmailing plot falls into Ed's lap by sheer choice (luck? fate?)

Ed's just a guy who wants to improve his lot in life- nothing too different then you or me. His wife's affair simply gives him the opportunity to do so. He didn't mind the infidelity, it is after all " a free country." But, of course, if she was faithful, there would be no noirish plot to pursue, correct? Quiet ambition drives Ed. After the dry-cleaning attempt goes sour, he sets his sights of Scarlett Johansenn's (who is quite remarkable) character's piano playing ability, in hopes of becoming her manager and "making enough to get by."

Thornton's "Ed Crane" really is the man who wasn't there. He sits- nearly brooding- quietly, observing life laconically. I actually found this movie quite sad. In the end, the only one who cares about his story is a men's magazine. And that's another big difference from 'Fargo" in which the pregnant Frances McDormand curls up with her husband, and you feel as if everything is just right in the world. That feeling is definitely lacking from "The Man Who Wasn't There."

Some viewers in the theater I saw it at said it was "the funniest movie they've seen all year." Sadly, I think they're missing it. Most of the humor is typical Coen's deadpan, but it is mostly generated from a tone of unease and tension. It's clever, but you waon't be slapping your knees like in "Raising Arizona" or "The Big Lewboski."

Instead, you'll just be intrigued by the wonderful story that the Coens- who have become quite the master of their craft- have weaved in this beautifully textured, perfectly cast, and incredibly nuanced film.
102 out of 120 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cast Away (2000)
hank's best role...
25 December 2000
...since 'Bachelor Party.' no, actually I'm in agreement with pretty much everyone else. this was an enjoyable movie. not only was I glad that a movie was made around this subject, but also for the fact that audiences are into it. there are a few intense scenes, especially the airplane crashing into the ocean and Chuck trying to retrieve Wilson while pulling his raft in the middle of the ocean. along with "the Perfect Storm", I appreciate the moments in which the main characters' attempt the seemingly fool-hardy task of defeating the ocean. in "cast away" Chuck ultimately succeeds, while Clooney & crew failed. the lack of a musical score on the island and only focusing on wild sounds was a clever trick by Zemeckis. I was a bit disappointed that huge gaps in Chcuk's stay on the island occurred, but this wasn't Robinson Crusoe. both Hanks & Hunt are sickenly appealing, but Hanks has the ability to make the viewer identify with his character. I constantly found myself asking how I would be able to survive in this situation, and I very much doubt I'd survive as long as Chuck did. anyways, this movie is a much better collaboration between Zemeckis & hanks than "forrest gump" which stunk to high heaven.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed