In a nutshell, John Krasinski's feature film directorial debut provided ninety minutes of suspenseful fun. However, the plot holes detracted from its overall effectiveness. Had a few extra minutes been invested into the writing and/or the filming to remove the plot holes, the movie would have been much more effective!
Reviews
18 Reviews
Oz the Great and Powerful
(2013)
Stay away! Stay far away!
10 March 2013
I could write a VERY extensive review panning the film, but it might be best to keep my review short and to the point.
The trailers were what made me want to see the film. The film was beautiful, almost as visually stunning as "The Wizard of Oz" must have been when audiences first saw it in 1939! However, there was nothing about it spectacular enough to detract attention from the convoluted storyline, the terrible script, and the over-the-top (read "hammy") acting . . . on EVERYONE'S part, not just James Franco's (though, in the actors' defense, it might be fair to acknowledge they were directed to go "over the top" in their performances).
This is advice for those who DO NOT have to see it on the big screen - wait for the film to be released to Netflix and Redbox so you can rent it for much less than the price of a ticket. And, if you DO rent it, get people to chip in on the cost so you don't have to pay all of the rental fee.
The trailers were what made me want to see the film. The film was beautiful, almost as visually stunning as "The Wizard of Oz" must have been when audiences first saw it in 1939! However, there was nothing about it spectacular enough to detract attention from the convoluted storyline, the terrible script, and the over-the-top (read "hammy") acting . . . on EVERYONE'S part, not just James Franco's (though, in the actors' defense, it might be fair to acknowledge they were directed to go "over the top" in their performances).
This is advice for those who DO NOT have to see it on the big screen - wait for the film to be released to Netflix and Redbox so you can rent it for much less than the price of a ticket. And, if you DO rent it, get people to chip in on the cost so you don't have to pay all of the rental fee.
Dinner for Schmucks
(2010)
A waste of Paul Rudd's and Jay Roach's respective talents and a waste of celluloid!
26 July 2011
Thank goodness I waited for this film to be released on DVD and didn't spend any money to see it in the theater. Though I'm not a great admirer of Steve Carell's work, I watched this film because of Paul Rudd (of whom I first became aware in "The Object of My Affection", released in 1998). Only because of Paul Rudd did I watch this film to its end. Unfortunately, I wasted two hours of my life. Though the premise held some promise, the end result was VERY disappointing, one significant reason for which is that the viewer has to ENDURE (that's the correct word) the unfathomable and, by extension, UNFUNNY mess Barry (Steve Carell) creates for Tim (Paul Rudd) before getting to the actual dinner, which itself has little going for it beyond what occurs between Barry and Therman (Zach Galifianakis). Director Jay Roach was obviously not up to snuff when he directed this mess and Writers David Guion and Michael Handelman did very poorly in their adaptation of "The Dinner Game".
Knight and Day
(2010)
This one just did not work!
24 June 2011
You know you're not enjoying this film when you find yourself cleaning your bathroom floor rather than continuing to watch it. All of the elements are there (the action, the special effects, the humor, the romance, etc.), but, overall, the film falls just short of being truly enjoyable. Despite the presence of all of the necessary elements, what the film does not have is "magic", that extra something that allows a person to let himself go and just have a good time. It's obvious Diaz and Cruise like working together (remember "Vanilla Sky"?), but, throughout the film, there's an underlying "vibe" (for want of a better word) in Diaz's and Cruise's work that communicates something akin to discomfort, as if they were also aware how weak the film is and had regretted their decisions to be in it.
Shrek Forever After
(2010)
This one was definitely better than the . . .
24 June 2011
. . . third installment, but "Shrek 2" definitely remains the best of the four. At least, they took their time with "Shrek Forever After" to devise a pleasant twist on the tale of "Rumpelstiltskin" and incorporate that story into Shrek's and Fiona's. They didn't make very good use of Donkey this time around, however, which was unfortunate. Overall, it was good, as compared to the less than satisfying "Shrek 3", which suffered in large part from the creators rushing to capitalize on the masterful "Shrek 2" (which remains the best of the four). At least, the creators were able to end the story with a good one!
Fred Claus
(2007)
The faces of tall actors superimposed on the bodies of little people?
25 November 2007
Is it me or is there something very wrong with the filmmakers of "Fred Claus" superimposing the faces of taller actors (John Michael Higgins at 5'11" and Ludicrous at 5'7") onto the bodies of shorter actors (maybe children's bodies) instead of using actual actors of shorter stature? I MIGHT have understood (note the word "MIGHT") had they done this for the extras, but to superimpose the faces of taller actors rather than hire actual actors of diminutive size to portray featured roles as elves, such as Danny Woodburn (of "Death To Smoochy") and Tony Cox (of "Bad Santa"), smacks of the worst sort of discrimination, similar to when filmmakers of the 40s and 50s using make-up on white actors to play Native Americans and Hispanics in Westerns. I'll admit this Christmas film could have been much better, especially with such actors as Paul Giamatti, Kevin Spacey, and Rachel Weisz, but I'm not as vehement in my dislike as others who have posted their opinions. Throughout the movie, though, I couldn't shake the feeling of disgust at the aforementioned discriminatory casting. If someone can explain this, I'd love to "hear" it.
Lady in the Water
(2006)
Not as bad as "Signs" and "The Village", BUT . . .
29 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
. . . it's just too overworked and convoluted for its own good. For starters, the exposition is weak. While the rest of the film clears things up a bit, one is left with a few questions. I'm not asking for simple stories told simplistically, just stories with cohesive structures, solid expositions, and satisfactorily executed resolutions.
As with "Signs" and "The Village", It just seems Shyamalan was more interested in making a point than providing a good and well-structured story, which (in the end) would have made his point all the more poignant. As with his prior films, including "The Sixth Sense", he makes good use of suspense and provides a couple of good scary moments. However, his techniques for suspense are now too easily recognizable and are less effective than they were, especially in "The Sixth Sense". He is running the risk of becoming predictable.
Finally, will someone please tell him to stop featuring himself in his films. Were he a talented actor, that'd be one thing. This is another technique of his that's becoming predictable. Given the size of his role in this film, it borders on laughable. Had his films since "The Sixth Sense" been better, one might forgive his outsized ego. He needs to keep it in check and focus more on providing better entertainment. At $10 a head, audiences deserve better.
As with "Signs" and "The Village", It just seems Shyamalan was more interested in making a point than providing a good and well-structured story, which (in the end) would have made his point all the more poignant. As with his prior films, including "The Sixth Sense", he makes good use of suspense and provides a couple of good scary moments. However, his techniques for suspense are now too easily recognizable and are less effective than they were, especially in "The Sixth Sense". He is running the risk of becoming predictable.
Finally, will someone please tell him to stop featuring himself in his films. Were he a talented actor, that'd be one thing. This is another technique of his that's becoming predictable. Given the size of his role in this film, it borders on laughable. Had his films since "The Sixth Sense" been better, one might forgive his outsized ego. He needs to keep it in check and focus more on providing better entertainment. At $10 a head, audiences deserve better.
Poseidon
(2006)
Somewhat of an insult to the original . . .
15 May 2006
Given the following the original film has, not to mention the daring originality of the premise and Ronald Neame's final result, it seems to me Wolfgang Petersen should have put a little more effort into this remake. We all know he can make great and effective films - Das Boot, The Perfect Storm - but this one came off as if he relied on the special effects to carry this film. True, we can't expect each film to be an Oscar contender. However, is is too much to ask for a good script, more-than-scant character development, and a solid story? And I'm almost embarrassed for Kurt Russell and Richard Dreyfuss, who are such competent actors! Come on, Wolfgang, you are capable of better than this!!!
Mystic River
(2003)
WHAT A REPREHENSIBLE, UNCONSCIONABLE WASTE OF CELLULOID (contains spoilers)
7 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Let me get this straight - Dave (Tim Robbins) is kidnapped and abused as a child and suffers the shame and horror of his abuse as well as he can in his adult life until he comes across a pedophile having sex with a child in a car. In a fit of rage, he kills the pedophile but is reluctant to admit what he's done (even to his wife). Tragically, that same evening, Jimmy's (Sean Penn) daughter Katie is killed by two kids who "just wanted to scare her." And Sean (Kevin Bacon), the diligent detective, has to piece this mess together.
Because of Dave's reluctance to admit what he did to the pedophile and his "odd behavior", his wife jumps to the conclusion that he's the one who killed Katie, her only evidence being that she died the same night Dave came home with blood on his clothes and a mangled hand. Worse yet, she goes to Jimmy and informs her of her suspicions, whereupon he jumps to the conclusion she might be right and, in turn, kills Dave to exact vengeance for his daughter's death.
Only when confronted by Jimmy does Dave FINALLY admit his encounter with the pedophile. Of course, in Jimmy's eyes, it's too little, too late, and he doesn't believe Dave anyway and forces him - at knife- and gunpoint - to admit what he did to Katie. Under such pressure, Dave falsely admits he killed Katie, whereupon Jimmy kills him.
Didn't anyone bother to keep in mind that Dave arrived at his home with a CUT on his chest, not a bullet wound (as indicated by the evidence in the car when Sean first investigates the murder scene)? And why was Jimmy so gung ho to kill his friend Dave - someone who attended his daughter's wake for goodness' sake - using only Dave's wife's suspicions as evidence? Further, where does Annabeth's (Laura Linney) "MacBeth" twist come into play? Is her character so heartless that she can literally justify her husband's murder of the wrong man? Is she so self-centered and uncompassionate as to rationalize an innocent man's murder and let his mother and son live out their lives despondent over his unexplained death? Talk about poor character development.
FINALLY, are we really supposed to believe Jimmy sincerely regrets his murdering the wrong man when he seems to have no problem with being allowed to get away with it by Sean, the detective? If Sean were willing to let Jimmy get away with it, why doesn't Whitey Powers (Laurence Fishburne) help bring about the proper justice by arresting Jimmy because Sean wasn't willing to arrest his childhood friend? I can't believe this movie garnered the praise and awards it did. Each and every person who helped create this mess should list it as a black mark on his/her resume! Especially Clint Eastwood - though I was never a major fan of his, my admiration of him and his work went up with UNFORGIVEN, the heart and soul of which were undeniable. Upon viewing this mess, it's dropped back down a few degrees.
Because of Dave's reluctance to admit what he did to the pedophile and his "odd behavior", his wife jumps to the conclusion that he's the one who killed Katie, her only evidence being that she died the same night Dave came home with blood on his clothes and a mangled hand. Worse yet, she goes to Jimmy and informs her of her suspicions, whereupon he jumps to the conclusion she might be right and, in turn, kills Dave to exact vengeance for his daughter's death.
Only when confronted by Jimmy does Dave FINALLY admit his encounter with the pedophile. Of course, in Jimmy's eyes, it's too little, too late, and he doesn't believe Dave anyway and forces him - at knife- and gunpoint - to admit what he did to Katie. Under such pressure, Dave falsely admits he killed Katie, whereupon Jimmy kills him.
Didn't anyone bother to keep in mind that Dave arrived at his home with a CUT on his chest, not a bullet wound (as indicated by the evidence in the car when Sean first investigates the murder scene)? And why was Jimmy so gung ho to kill his friend Dave - someone who attended his daughter's wake for goodness' sake - using only Dave's wife's suspicions as evidence? Further, where does Annabeth's (Laura Linney) "MacBeth" twist come into play? Is her character so heartless that she can literally justify her husband's murder of the wrong man? Is she so self-centered and uncompassionate as to rationalize an innocent man's murder and let his mother and son live out their lives despondent over his unexplained death? Talk about poor character development.
FINALLY, are we really supposed to believe Jimmy sincerely regrets his murdering the wrong man when he seems to have no problem with being allowed to get away with it by Sean, the detective? If Sean were willing to let Jimmy get away with it, why doesn't Whitey Powers (Laurence Fishburne) help bring about the proper justice by arresting Jimmy because Sean wasn't willing to arrest his childhood friend? I can't believe this movie garnered the praise and awards it did. Each and every person who helped create this mess should list it as a black mark on his/her resume! Especially Clint Eastwood - though I was never a major fan of his, my admiration of him and his work went up with UNFORGIVEN, the heart and soul of which were undeniable. Upon viewing this mess, it's dropped back down a few degrees.
The Forgotten
(2004)
THE PREMISE WAS A STRETCH; THE STORYLINE WAS FLAWED
24 September 2004
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING - SPOILERS!
My one-line summary says it all!
Another disappointing aspect of the film was that it didn't take long to figure out that an alien force was involved. When the film finally gets to where the "mystery" is explained, it ends up being anti-climactic. Even the alien was boring (not the actor, the character).
Julianne Moore and Dominic West did what they could with what they had. And to waste the talents of such competent actors as Gary Sinise and Alfre Woodard in such nothing supporting roles - CRIMINAL. By film's end, one is thankful he only paid the matinée price.
My one-line summary says it all!
Another disappointing aspect of the film was that it didn't take long to figure out that an alien force was involved. When the film finally gets to where the "mystery" is explained, it ends up being anti-climactic. Even the alien was boring (not the actor, the character).
Julianne Moore and Dominic West did what they could with what they had. And to waste the talents of such competent actors as Gary Sinise and Alfre Woodard in such nothing supporting roles - CRIMINAL. By film's end, one is thankful he only paid the matinée price.
Alien vs. Predator
(2004)
THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT, THE WORSE THIS FILM GETS!!!
16 August 2004
While I did experience a few fun moments while watching this film, I must say that - overall - this film was poorly made if for no other reason than because elements of the story seemed to disregard basic elements of the first two Alien films (1979 and 1986)(we'll pretend Alien III and IV just don't exist).
First, why did the Aliens not take as long to gestate in their human hosts in this film as they did in the prior Alien films? Second, are we really supposed to believe that the Queen Alien (or anything for that matter) could have been kept "on ice" for such a long time and did not suffer any ill effects (e.g., atrophied muscles)?
Third, why did the Predators even go back to Earth? According to the story told by Sebastian (Raoul Bova), the three Predators nuked everything when they were overtaken by the horde of Aliens. If everything was nuked, how did the pyramid survive? How did the Queen Alien survive? HOW DID ANYTHING SURVIVE? There would have been nothing for the Predators to go back and fight. Or did the three defeated Predators have a special bomb that only annihilated everything above ground?
FOURTH - and this little development was just asinine - how was an Alien implanted in the final Predator? Anyone who paid attention to ANY of the films knows the birth of an Alien is a three-step process - Facehugger lays an egg in the host, the egg gestates for a time, the Alien erupts from the host's chest cavity. No Facehugger attacked the final Predator to lay an egg inside him. And anyone who tries to argue that the Queen Alien infected the final Predator during their final battle is just deluding him/herself. Why the filmmakers skipped such a key factor in the creation of the Predator/Alien hybrid is beyond me. Yes, it's obvious they set the stage for a sequel, but COME ON! They could have put a bit more thought into it, don't you think?
Then there's the timeline regarding Bishop's existence. Was his death in this film explained in any way that would help us believe that a android made in his image would exist 175 years later (the time frame for "ALIENS")?
When flaws like those listed above become apparent and it seems the filmmakers (writer[s], director[s], continuity staff, etc.) disregarded the fundamentals of good storytelling, it's hard for someone to keep his/her belief in abeyance and just "enjoy the film". Movie-going is becoming too expensive for the audience to tolerate such shoddy filmmaking.
Someone needs to take Paul W. S. Anderson aside and tell him that special effects don't make the film. A bad film is a bad film and special effects just distract the audience for a time; they don't cover up such obvious flaws very well. On the other hand, in a well-made film, special effects are just icing on the cake. Unfortunately, no matter how many bad films Anderson makes, as long as they make money for the studios, they'll let him make as many bad films as he wants. WHAT A SHAME!!!
First, why did the Aliens not take as long to gestate in their human hosts in this film as they did in the prior Alien films? Second, are we really supposed to believe that the Queen Alien (or anything for that matter) could have been kept "on ice" for such a long time and did not suffer any ill effects (e.g., atrophied muscles)?
Third, why did the Predators even go back to Earth? According to the story told by Sebastian (Raoul Bova), the three Predators nuked everything when they were overtaken by the horde of Aliens. If everything was nuked, how did the pyramid survive? How did the Queen Alien survive? HOW DID ANYTHING SURVIVE? There would have been nothing for the Predators to go back and fight. Or did the three defeated Predators have a special bomb that only annihilated everything above ground?
FOURTH - and this little development was just asinine - how was an Alien implanted in the final Predator? Anyone who paid attention to ANY of the films knows the birth of an Alien is a three-step process - Facehugger lays an egg in the host, the egg gestates for a time, the Alien erupts from the host's chest cavity. No Facehugger attacked the final Predator to lay an egg inside him. And anyone who tries to argue that the Queen Alien infected the final Predator during their final battle is just deluding him/herself. Why the filmmakers skipped such a key factor in the creation of the Predator/Alien hybrid is beyond me. Yes, it's obvious they set the stage for a sequel, but COME ON! They could have put a bit more thought into it, don't you think?
Then there's the timeline regarding Bishop's existence. Was his death in this film explained in any way that would help us believe that a android made in his image would exist 175 years later (the time frame for "ALIENS")?
When flaws like those listed above become apparent and it seems the filmmakers (writer[s], director[s], continuity staff, etc.) disregarded the fundamentals of good storytelling, it's hard for someone to keep his/her belief in abeyance and just "enjoy the film". Movie-going is becoming too expensive for the audience to tolerate such shoddy filmmaking.
Someone needs to take Paul W. S. Anderson aside and tell him that special effects don't make the film. A bad film is a bad film and special effects just distract the audience for a time; they don't cover up such obvious flaws very well. On the other hand, in a well-made film, special effects are just icing on the cake. Unfortunately, no matter how many bad films Anderson makes, as long as they make money for the studios, they'll let him make as many bad films as he wants. WHAT A SHAME!!!
Alien vs. Predator
(2004)
FLIMSY PREMISE, ILLOGICAL ENDING, BUT WITH FUN MOMENTS
13 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
(WARNING: MIGHT CONTAINS SPOILERS)
My one-line summary says it all!
I'm sorry, but the premise of this film is just too weak. Also, while it had some fun moments, the filmmakers seeemd to disregard significant precedents set by the first two "ALIEN" films (1979 and 1986) and "PREDATOR" (1987). This is most notable at the end, when the infant Alien bursts from the Predator's chest without its egg having been implanted by a Facehugger beforehand. In case someone wants to argue the Predator was infected by the Queen Alien, how could this have happened? Why this important step in the gestation process of an Alien was skipped defies credibility. However, it definitely set the stage (so to speak) for a sequel.
As for the premise, are we really supposed to believe that a pyramid lay beneath the Earth's surface for such a long time and was not discovered for so many years? Given the ritual of three Predators flying to Earth every 100 years to battle such a multidue of Aliens, are we also supposed to believe that only THREE Predators successfully battled so many Aliens until they were finally defeated (their prowess at such battles notwithstanding)?
Why didn't the filmmakers keep things simple? It would have been so much more credible had the Predators simply flown to a planet already inhabited by Aliens. Another solid premise would have been that the Predator species declares war on the Alien species and attacks their planet. I realize this film was based on a comic book series, but come on, people, couldn't the filmmakers have put just a little extra thought into the storyline? Had someone devised a solid premise, even the humans wouldn't have been necessary. The film could have featured just the Aliens and Predators and been damned entertaining.
Oh, well!
Despite thrilling special effects and good battle sequences, at the end of it all, this film really isn't worthy of being grouped with its aforementioned predecessors.
My one-line summary says it all!
I'm sorry, but the premise of this film is just too weak. Also, while it had some fun moments, the filmmakers seeemd to disregard significant precedents set by the first two "ALIEN" films (1979 and 1986) and "PREDATOR" (1987). This is most notable at the end, when the infant Alien bursts from the Predator's chest without its egg having been implanted by a Facehugger beforehand. In case someone wants to argue the Predator was infected by the Queen Alien, how could this have happened? Why this important step in the gestation process of an Alien was skipped defies credibility. However, it definitely set the stage (so to speak) for a sequel.
As for the premise, are we really supposed to believe that a pyramid lay beneath the Earth's surface for such a long time and was not discovered for so many years? Given the ritual of three Predators flying to Earth every 100 years to battle such a multidue of Aliens, are we also supposed to believe that only THREE Predators successfully battled so many Aliens until they were finally defeated (their prowess at such battles notwithstanding)?
Why didn't the filmmakers keep things simple? It would have been so much more credible had the Predators simply flown to a planet already inhabited by Aliens. Another solid premise would have been that the Predator species declares war on the Alien species and attacks their planet. I realize this film was based on a comic book series, but come on, people, couldn't the filmmakers have put just a little extra thought into the storyline? Had someone devised a solid premise, even the humans wouldn't have been necessary. The film could have featured just the Aliens and Predators and been damned entertaining.
Oh, well!
Despite thrilling special effects and good battle sequences, at the end of it all, this film really isn't worthy of being grouped with its aforementioned predecessors.
The Village
(2004)
IT'S OFFICIAL, FOLKS! "THE SIXTH SENSE" WAS A FLUKE!
8 August 2004
Though not nearly as much of a disappointment as SIGNS, THE VILLAGE is M. Night Shyamalan's third disappointment in a row, beginning with UNBREAKABLE.
Whereas UNBREAKABLE was just boring, and the plotline of SIGNS had so many holes in it as to make it almost laughable, THE VILLAGE (just like SIGNS) starts off strong, but ends very weakly. So as not to spoil the movie for those who intend to see it no matter what, the completely illogical encounter between Bryce Howard's and Charlie Hofheimer's characters robs the film's "message" of whatever strength it might have possessed, a strength that might have been quite forceful had Shyamalan not written himself into a corner and threw in a slap-dash ending.
In horror/suspense films, there is a fine line between believability and idiocy. Shyamalan walked this line expertly with THE SIXTH SENSE but floundered pathetically with SIGNS. This latest venture only proves that THE SIXTH SENSE was a fluke - its expertly constructed suspense an anomaly in Shyamalan's repertoire - and that Shyamalan needs to take refresher courses on how to tell a believable story that is cohesive and does not rely on slap-dash endings to get the film to end in a ticket sales-friendly time frame.
Mr. Shyamalan's message came through loud and clear. However, for such a message to be couched in a stretch of a premise (and it is a bit of a stretch) with such an unsatisfactory ending is shameful. Admission to a movie is much too high for one to leave the theatre two or three hours later unentertained and, in some cases (depending on the type of film), unfulfilled.
Whereas UNBREAKABLE was just boring, and the plotline of SIGNS had so many holes in it as to make it almost laughable, THE VILLAGE (just like SIGNS) starts off strong, but ends very weakly. So as not to spoil the movie for those who intend to see it no matter what, the completely illogical encounter between Bryce Howard's and Charlie Hofheimer's characters robs the film's "message" of whatever strength it might have possessed, a strength that might have been quite forceful had Shyamalan not written himself into a corner and threw in a slap-dash ending.
In horror/suspense films, there is a fine line between believability and idiocy. Shyamalan walked this line expertly with THE SIXTH SENSE but floundered pathetically with SIGNS. This latest venture only proves that THE SIXTH SENSE was a fluke - its expertly constructed suspense an anomaly in Shyamalan's repertoire - and that Shyamalan needs to take refresher courses on how to tell a believable story that is cohesive and does not rely on slap-dash endings to get the film to end in a ticket sales-friendly time frame.
Mr. Shyamalan's message came through loud and clear. However, for such a message to be couched in a stretch of a premise (and it is a bit of a stretch) with such an unsatisfactory ending is shameful. Admission to a movie is much too high for one to leave the theatre two or three hours later unentertained and, in some cases (depending on the type of film), unfulfilled.
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever
(2002)
BANDERAS IS BOX OFFICE POISON
1 October 2002
You'd think that after a whole bunch of flops, Hollywood would stop giving Antonio Banderas leading roles. What will it take for the powers that be to realize the man CANNOT carry a film. Any film he was in that had moderate to great boxoffice success, he was NOT the leading man, except for "The Mask Of Zorro".
MIAMI RHAPSODY - FLOP
ASSASSINS - FLOP
NEVER TALK TO STRANGERS - FLOP
DESPERADO - FLOP
TWO MUCH - FLOP
THE 13TH WARRIOR - MEGA-FLOP (when you consider it was a Michael Crichton story)
PLAY IT TO THE BONE - FLOP (even Woody Harrelson couldn't save this one)
THE BODY - FLOP (did anyone even go see this or was it a straight-to-video release?)
ORIGINAL SIN - HUGE FLOP (when you consider that Angelina Jolie's then-recent Oscar win should've brought the film more attention than it got)
FEMME FATALE - MEGA-FLOP
Some might argue "Evita" and the two "Spy Kids" movies were hits and they'd be right. You have to remember though that Madonna was the draw for Evita and he was not the lead in "Spy Kids" - the kids and the special effects were.
Now it's "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" that's the latest flop in his list of work. This guy must've sold his soul to the devil to have been employed for so long in an industry that does not tolerate poor box office performance.
HOLLYWOOD - GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD - SEX SYMBOL OR NO SEX SYMBOL, ANTONIO BANDERAS IS BOX OFFICE POISON!!!!!!!!!
MIAMI RHAPSODY - FLOP
ASSASSINS - FLOP
NEVER TALK TO STRANGERS - FLOP
DESPERADO - FLOP
TWO MUCH - FLOP
THE 13TH WARRIOR - MEGA-FLOP (when you consider it was a Michael Crichton story)
PLAY IT TO THE BONE - FLOP (even Woody Harrelson couldn't save this one)
THE BODY - FLOP (did anyone even go see this or was it a straight-to-video release?)
ORIGINAL SIN - HUGE FLOP (when you consider that Angelina Jolie's then-recent Oscar win should've brought the film more attention than it got)
FEMME FATALE - MEGA-FLOP
Some might argue "Evita" and the two "Spy Kids" movies were hits and they'd be right. You have to remember though that Madonna was the draw for Evita and he was not the lead in "Spy Kids" - the kids and the special effects were.
Now it's "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" that's the latest flop in his list of work. This guy must've sold his soul to the devil to have been employed for so long in an industry that does not tolerate poor box office performance.
HOLLYWOOD - GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD - SEX SYMBOL OR NO SEX SYMBOL, ANTONIO BANDERAS IS BOX OFFICE POISON!!!!!!!!!
Signs
(2002)
What a shame! And so much promise, too!
14 August 2002
Picture it - you're driving along at a pretty nice clip. It's a route you've traveled before and it won't be long before you get to where you're going. Suddenly, you round a bend and you have to hit the brakes because of a sudden traffic jam. You then inch along; it takes you 20 minutes to drive one mile. Frustrated, you exclaim to yourself, "There better be a dead body at the end of all of this to explain this mess!"
After more tedious moments, you pull forward and the few cars in front of you then drive on at their former brisk pace. You finally see that the only thing that held you up for so long was someone getting a traffic ticket. BIG FREAKIN' DEAL!
To all who would like to see SIGNS, apply this scenario to watching the movie. For the first hour, the film glides along at a pretty nice clip. The suspense turned up a few degrees by M. Night Shyamalan, there is a sufficient number of heart-in-your-throat moments that ALMOST put THE SIXTH SENSE to shame. Wow, M. Night really outdid himself with this one.
Then, it all stops. The suspense peters out and the film begins to drag. What gives?
Before you know it, the film is over, its ending reminiscent of other films where the writer (in this case, M. Night Shyamalan) wrote himself into a corner and couldn't find a satisfactory way out. It seemed as if his only option was to wrap the story up as quickly as possible with unexplained (or under explained) developments (the aliens' sudden departure) and tidy resolutions to profound storylines (questions of faith and religion by Graham Hess - the protagonist played by Mel Gibson).
The payoff we waited an hour and a half for doesn't come. Out of courtesy to those who haven't seen the film, I won't describe the final big scene. Suffice it to say that what should have been quite effective ends being quite anti-climactic. Once it's over, you end up shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Now what?" (Even the way the final big scene is played out comes across as formulaic and hackneyed.)
All that suspense, all that great storytelling laid to waste by a lazy, cop-out ending. I'd like to give M. Night the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe I missed something. I doubt it, though.
This film ranks alongside UNBREAKABLE as another disappointing creation from M. Night. With two disappointments like these two under his belt, it's beginning to look as if THE SIXTH SENSE and its superb quality were just flukes. Let's hope his follow-up film lives up to the standards he set for himself with THE SIXTH SENSE.
On a scale of 1 to 10, give this one a 4.
After more tedious moments, you pull forward and the few cars in front of you then drive on at their former brisk pace. You finally see that the only thing that held you up for so long was someone getting a traffic ticket. BIG FREAKIN' DEAL!
To all who would like to see SIGNS, apply this scenario to watching the movie. For the first hour, the film glides along at a pretty nice clip. The suspense turned up a few degrees by M. Night Shyamalan, there is a sufficient number of heart-in-your-throat moments that ALMOST put THE SIXTH SENSE to shame. Wow, M. Night really outdid himself with this one.
Then, it all stops. The suspense peters out and the film begins to drag. What gives?
Before you know it, the film is over, its ending reminiscent of other films where the writer (in this case, M. Night Shyamalan) wrote himself into a corner and couldn't find a satisfactory way out. It seemed as if his only option was to wrap the story up as quickly as possible with unexplained (or under explained) developments (the aliens' sudden departure) and tidy resolutions to profound storylines (questions of faith and religion by Graham Hess - the protagonist played by Mel Gibson).
The payoff we waited an hour and a half for doesn't come. Out of courtesy to those who haven't seen the film, I won't describe the final big scene. Suffice it to say that what should have been quite effective ends being quite anti-climactic. Once it's over, you end up shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Now what?" (Even the way the final big scene is played out comes across as formulaic and hackneyed.)
All that suspense, all that great storytelling laid to waste by a lazy, cop-out ending. I'd like to give M. Night the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe I missed something. I doubt it, though.
This film ranks alongside UNBREAKABLE as another disappointing creation from M. Night. With two disappointments like these two under his belt, it's beginning to look as if THE SIXTH SENSE and its superb quality were just flukes. Let's hope his follow-up film lives up to the standards he set for himself with THE SIXTH SENSE.
On a scale of 1 to 10, give this one a 4.
Crossroads
(I) (2002)
Popular Singer Does Not Equal Capable Actor
28 June 2002
Lord in Heaven, why does Britney Spears have a career?
Her music is bad enough, not to mention that when she "performs" them in concert, she's lip-synching. Or are we really supposed to believe that she can dance her aerobic routines AND sing without losing her breath? Don't think so!
This was proven by her appearance on "Saturday Night Live". She performed one dance song (as outlined above), then sang a ballad for which she did not dance. This allowed her to sing without a tape back-up, unfortunately, and showed up her complete lack of singing talent. Even her back-up singers (who were singing louder than back-up singers usually sing to help Britney through the song) couldn't hide that fact. If there's any justice in the world, she'll wear out her welcome fast and just disappear. Then she'll be nothing more than the answer to a trivia question on JEOPARDY!
Her music is bad enough, not to mention that when she "performs" them in concert, she's lip-synching. Or are we really supposed to believe that she can dance her aerobic routines AND sing without losing her breath? Don't think so!
This was proven by her appearance on "Saturday Night Live". She performed one dance song (as outlined above), then sang a ballad for which she did not dance. This allowed her to sing without a tape back-up, unfortunately, and showed up her complete lack of singing talent. Even her back-up singers (who were singing louder than back-up singers usually sing to help Britney through the song) couldn't hide that fact. If there's any justice in the world, she'll wear out her welcome fast and just disappear. Then she'll be nothing more than the answer to a trivia question on JEOPARDY!
Wild Wild West
(1999)
Who's responsible for this mess?
28 June 2002
So much potential and ALL of it wasted!
We have:
1) A good director, Barry Sonnenfeld, with two great comedies to his name ("The Addams Family" and "Addams Family Values");
2) An Oscar-winning actor, Kevin Kline, well-known for his comedic work ("A Fish Called Wanda", "Soapdish") as well as dramatic ("Sophie's Choice", "The Ice Storm");
3) Another Oscar nominee, Kenneth Branagh ("Hamlet", "Henry V"), famous for directing, as well as writing and acting
AND THIS IS THE BEST THEY COULD DO !?!?!?! What gives?
First and foremost, it should be noted that just because Will Smith is popular, that doesn't mean he's good. There's something about him when he acts that makes him appear as more of a "ham" than an actor, a scene-stealer who's insecure with being the star of a film so he overacts to conceal (albeit unsuccessfully) the limitations of his acting abilities.
And for Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh to play second fiddle to HIM? Absolutely criminal. What's next? Jack Nicholson playing a supporting role to Pauly Shore?
Then there's the storyline - are we really supposed to believe that James West (as played by Smith, a black man) is a hero of the Civil War? Of course, the casting of Smith serves primarily as a set-up for all the racial humor (which gets old fast). Logically, though, it's an asinine premise, a fact which audiences obviously picked up on given the tepid reaction to Smith's so-called "star power" in this weak take-off on a really good television series.
Who's responsible for this mess? Maybe it's the fault of all the writers (a total of 6) for writing it, or Sonnenfeld's mess for directing it, or Jon Peters' (and Sonnenfeld's) mess for producing it, or Warner Bros.' mess for distributing it? Whose ever it is, it should just be shelved and forgotten as an embarrassing mistake.
We have:
1) A good director, Barry Sonnenfeld, with two great comedies to his name ("The Addams Family" and "Addams Family Values");
2) An Oscar-winning actor, Kevin Kline, well-known for his comedic work ("A Fish Called Wanda", "Soapdish") as well as dramatic ("Sophie's Choice", "The Ice Storm");
3) Another Oscar nominee, Kenneth Branagh ("Hamlet", "Henry V"), famous for directing, as well as writing and acting
AND THIS IS THE BEST THEY COULD DO !?!?!?! What gives?
First and foremost, it should be noted that just because Will Smith is popular, that doesn't mean he's good. There's something about him when he acts that makes him appear as more of a "ham" than an actor, a scene-stealer who's insecure with being the star of a film so he overacts to conceal (albeit unsuccessfully) the limitations of his acting abilities.
And for Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh to play second fiddle to HIM? Absolutely criminal. What's next? Jack Nicholson playing a supporting role to Pauly Shore?
Then there's the storyline - are we really supposed to believe that James West (as played by Smith, a black man) is a hero of the Civil War? Of course, the casting of Smith serves primarily as a set-up for all the racial humor (which gets old fast). Logically, though, it's an asinine premise, a fact which audiences obviously picked up on given the tepid reaction to Smith's so-called "star power" in this weak take-off on a really good television series.
Who's responsible for this mess? Maybe it's the fault of all the writers (a total of 6) for writing it, or Sonnenfeld's mess for directing it, or Jon Peters' (and Sonnenfeld's) mess for producing it, or Warner Bros.' mess for distributing it? Whose ever it is, it should just be shelved and forgotten as an embarrassing mistake.
Spaced Invaders
(1990)
Very fun take-off on alien movies!
31 May 2000
Zany and fun -- that's all this movie is about! Don't think about trying to read too much into it. If you do, you'll be sorely disappointed. It's just a farcical take-off on monster movies and contains some real good slapstick moments. No violence, no sex, no foul language -- safe for the kids and fun for the adults!!
Tell Your Friends