dylanhydes Reviews

Take Shelter (2011)

So Bad It Will Make You Angry

[1/10 · 17 December 2017]

This movie fails. Utterly and completely. Even those reviews that praise the movie concede it is "slow" and "challenging." They are right. This movie is so slow, but you keep watching it because you keep waiting for an answer to the key question, "Is the main character crazy or prophetic?" In the end, you will feel cheated.

120 minutes of the movie lead you down the path of believing the main character is crazy. These are the key events of the first two hours of this movie: the main character's life unravels piece-by-piece until he is broke, he has no job, his child's needed surgery cannot occur, his best friend hates him, and his wife is contemplating leaving him. Meanwhile, his family and friends try in vain to help. If this kind of human misery and suffering is something you enjoy watching, have at it, but also know it's been done a lot better a lot of times.

The ultimate betrayal in this movie is that the only thing that keeps you watching is finding the answer to the question of whether the main character's dreams are insane delusions or a premonition. If he was crazy, the movie could have ended with the main character repairing his life and getting the help he needs, but then within the last 30 seconds of the film, the script reveals he was actually right all along, but then just ends. Wha-wha-what? If the story takes the premonition route, it has some obligation to explain what exactly this premonition is of? Why he is the only one seeing it? Does he and his family survive? Why premonitions of the storm include such silly things as furniture floating? A decent script would have paid the viewers some amount of respect and attempted to tell the viewers SOMETHING. No. The moment we learn that he actually did predict a storm, the screen goes black. No questions are answered. No story is told.

And if I see one more review telling me how beautiful this movie has been shot, I may just have to pour lemon juice into my eyes. Yes, the movie looked good, but how does that make up for a missing plot? Or glacial pacing? It doesn't.

I did not plan on writing this review. I wanted to go to bed after this 121-minute waste of time ended, but the final scene (i.e., revealing snippet of long-awaited answer and then goes black) made me so viscerally angry that I had to say something.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Nostalgic Payoff and Little More: The 5 Problems w/ The Force Awakens

[6/10 · 21 December 2015]

Episode VII is a very average, 2015ish type of movie. If it was taken to a lost tribe of humans who had never seen any prior Star Wars films, I am fairly confident it would be ranked alongside other contemporary movies that are short on story and long on action scenes--e.g., Transformers, Iron Man 2, and Pacific Rim.

The movie certainly had some good aspects. I thought the casting of Daisy Ridley (Rey) and John Boyega (Finn) was very good. There were a few moments where the dialogue had me laughing out loud. The technical effects (sound, music, cinematography) were very good. JJ ("Jar Jar") Abrams could have attempted to cheese it up with a bunch of terrible CGI (like Episodes 1, 2, and 3), but fought that temptation (other than with Snoke).

There were, however, some major problems.

First, the movie felt like it could have been directed by Michael Bay (of Armageddon fame). The movie's plot seemed to exist only as a way of getting the actors to another 20-minute fight/chase sequence. It seemed the plot could easily be boiled down to: bad guy wants good guy; chase ensues; good guy gets caught; good guy escapes; bad guy looks for and finds good guy again; another chase ensues; repeat.

Second, there really was not much of a plot. What little plot I could find was astonishingly similar to Episode IV: droid on barren, dessert planet with a hidden secret being sought after by the bad guys. Droid finds good-hearted local kid who unknowingly has strong, unknown powers of the force. Kid and droid meet, and then make friends to take on fight against the bad guy who is a Jedi who betrayed his family by turning to the dark side. This Jedi serves a dark mysterious overlord in a manufactured planet/space station that has incredible powers for destruction. However, this planet, despite its incredible technology and penchant for war, has made itself easily destructible, by allowing it to be blown up by having a single spot, if shot enough times (especially with help from a fat, bearded white guy). Stop me if any of this sounds familiar. I appreciate Abrams' attempt to pay homage to the original series (something he did very well in Star Trek), but I think he went well beyond paying homage. As one reviewer very poignantly stated, this is not a sequel; it is a remake.

Third, while I appreciated the efforts to bring back Hans and Leia, man, are they old. In fact, they were too old to do an effective job. Leia's plastic surgery made her unable to show expression (a problem most evident when Hans died), and almost unable to enunciate her words. Hans at time seemed sharp, but other times seemed confused. The only one who looked young enough to do a good job was Mark Hamill and he didn't have a line. He's not getting any younger. What are we saving him for?

Fourth, the plot is full of holes. I started listing them on here, but then found an article that lists 40 plot holes. IMDb wouldn't let me put a link in, but Google "40 Unforgivable Plot Holes in Star Wars: The Force Awakens." The article doesn't even mention how a person could enter a planet's atmosphere at light speed, and then have time to "pull up" before landing safely. One reviewer who LOVED the movie wrote, "Just don't think too much, and have a great time." I'm sorry, but if I have to stop thinking to enjoy a movie, I'm not going to be able to enjoy said movie.

And Fifth (and probably what bothered me the most), the movie was filled with a bunch of sequences that were so improbable that it rendered the story unbelievable. People would crash land onto giant planets and the Death Star II in just the right places. Main characters seemed to teleport around the screen in order to get done everything the script told them they had to be done. And the Death Star II, despite it's massive size, helpfully put all control mechanisms (shield system, weapons system, docking station, and apparently the self- destruction mechanism) in the same spot.

This is definitely required watching for most Americans, but it's hard to find any objective measure by which someone can call this anything more than decent.

Poltergeist (2015)

Good Movie, But Only If Not Compared to Original

[6/10 · 24 May 2015]

The original Poltergeist is one of the greatest movies ever made. Watching this movie reminded me of why the original was so great, and accordingly, why this one falters.

What made the original Poltergeist work more than any other factor was the character development. JoBeth Williams was amazing. When Carol Anne went missing and they communicated with her from the beyond, you could palpably feel the mother's devastation and loss. The connection between the mother and the scientist in the first one was very touching. Craig T. Nelson's range of emotions (apprehension, then terror, then anger, then love) was a real journey. The result was a family that seemed to love each other tremendously and a family the viewer really cared for.

The remake lacks any of that. The characters are pretty one-dimensional. Conversations between characters are not used to make us learn or care about the actors, but instead just to move the story along.

The initial Poltergeist also had a handful of really amazing scenes that still stand out 30 years after first viewing it. I am thinking about the swimming pool scene with the bobbing-up corpses. Or how about all the coffins shooting up through the kitchen floor? Or the chairs in the kitchen stacking themselves up or Carol-Anne floating across the floor wearing a football helmet (when the Freelings still thought it was just silly fun).

Other than perhaps the scene showing the little girl deep in the closet, there aren't any scenes that I expect to remember in a few days. Worse, the film took some of these classic scenes and redid them in a much less interesting way (e.g., stacking comic books, hand coming up from garage floor). Even the recycled jokes (e.g., caught piano moving 7 feet in 10 hours) aren't done as well.

The one improvement in this remake is that it didn't send the family back in the house after it being declared "clean" for one last night's sleep while the father worked late. That always bugged me about the original.

I don't want to be hard on this movie. When compared to the original, it is fairly lousy, but as a stand-alone horror movie, it's enjoyable. You just gotta wonder why it was remade. I figure if a movie is going to be remade (especially a classic), it is because the people making it have a pretty different direction to take it. I was very surprised at just how similar this movie was to the original, and how few improvements were made.

Grace (III) (2009)

The 9 Problems with this Movie - Still Scary as Hell

[7/10 · 25 August 2010]

This is a difficult movie to review because it's such a mixed bag of really good and really bad. First and foremost, the movie really disturbed me and that takes so serious doing so big thumbs up for that. The movie is also very well shot.

My problems are with the abysmal writing. The movie never had a clear direction. Some really interesting plot lines never went anywhere and others were never explained. Here are just some of the problems with this movie (spoilers ahead): 1. Is the baby dead or alive? The movie indicates its normal when it is born, but then it appears to be decomposing (flies like it, temperature is too cold, skin dissolving in bath water). If it is dead, why isn't it really dead (i.e, room temperature as opposed to 93.3 degrees). Also, as a parent, you would notice when your child is that cold. It would be obvious to the touch. This mother blamed it on a broken thermometer.

2. In addition to never knowing what the baby is, we never know why it is the way it is. The movie hints at lots of things like the mother's meatless prenatal diet, the animal violence she watches on TV, or the trauma prior to birth, but we never get any type of answer.

3. We see way too little of the baby. I get that it's a tough subject to shoot, especially with this plot, but Christ, that's what the movie is about. I want to see this thing.

4. The best parts of this movie are the scenes with the baby. As a parent with two small children I found this horrifying. But the movie abandons the baby as it spends the last 30 minutes in this short film in its crib. There were plenty of scenes where it easily could have done something cool that fit with the plot. For example, at the end where the grandmother is dying with a hemorrhaging aorta while holding the baby, how about having the baby drink the blood instead of just sitting there.

5. The lack of baby actually doing crazy stuff in this movie made me suspect that the twist at the end was that the baby was completely normal and it was the mother who was trying to get the kid to drink blood. The plot was so unclear that I found myself constantly wondering such things.

6. The characters behave in ways that is just out of character. Notably, the mother is an animal loving vegan, but she watches some channel on TV that is constantly showing real life killings of animals. She explains that its like watching a horror movie for vegans, but its not believable. Also, the baby is several weeks old before the obsessed grandmother goes over for a visit. I know grandmothers (who aren't obsessed) and they don't wait! 7. I never understood the relationship between the mother and the mid-wife. The movie seemed to assume we had watched a prequel with these two.

8. Why was Patricia buying an RV? It fit at the end, but she had no way of knowing she'd be running off with a kidnapped monster child.

9. The ending is just silly. Was it trying to be funny at the end? If it was, it failed and it didn't fit with the rest of the movie. And it was completely unrealistic. A baby drinks a lot. A human body can't even reproduce a cup of blood a day. And if you were going to give a baby your own blood, why not just put in an IV and bottle feed it. Why would you let it bite the end of your breast? Despite the many and gaping plot holes/deficiencies, I do have to recommend this movie because it really scared me.

The Ugly Truth (2009)

A Predictable, Unbelievable Failure

[1/10 · 28 July 2009]

I watched this turd last night and it totally sucks. Here are the reasons why: 1. I like raunch and I like heartfelt romantic comedies but not both. A movie can pull at our heartstrings as it shows two people falling in love or it can joke about swalling cum but it can't do both. This movie tries to be filthy, funny and touching all at once and it fails.

2. I am tired of seeing hot chicks in movies who have no social skills or ability to get men's attention (ala Miss Congeniality). Most of the hot women I know in my life excel socially and none have had a hard time getting men.

3. Romantic comedies are usually predictable (probably their greatest downfall) and this one is more predictable than most. It doesn't help that the hot doctor's character is never developed. He is a completely 1-dimensional character. We never really care if she gets him and we care even less when they break up.

Bad Lieutenant (1992)

Sex, Drugs, and Violence was Never so Boring

[1/10 · 1 December 2006]

Wow am I ever going to raise hell with the coworker who recommended this turd. What an awful movie. This movie is terrible for so many reasons. First, it violates a personal rule of mine. For me to like a movie, there has to be at least one character that I think is a decent human being. This movie did not have that. Second, this movie is not believable. The amount of drugs and alcohol that Harvey Keitel drinks, smokes, snorts, and injects is unreal. Third, this movie is slooooooow. There is hardly any dialogue in the movie. Much of the dialogue is inaudible. Fourth, there is almost no plot or story. Characters just enter and leave the film with no explanation of who they are or how they relate to the main character. Things just happen without rhyme or reason. The movie really only has one character and we never learn anything about him except that he is addicted to everything.

Usually a movie that contains gratuitous sex, heavy drug use, or graphic violence is entertaining at some level. This movie manages to have all three and be boring. Incredible!

Duel (1971 TV Movie)

Chase Scenes That Reach Incredible Speeds Near 65 MPH!!!!!

[3/10 · 2 May 2005]

I got suckered into watching this movie on a lazy Saturday afternoon. It is a pretty cool, yet simple premise for a movie, but goes nowhere. Here are the things that make this movie not worth watching:

(1) There are no likable characters in the movie. I never like movies when there is not a single character to root for. The main character was a whining wimp I was hoping would get run off the road for good.

(2) It wasn't exciting nor realistic. Are we supposed to get excited about chase scenes that reach upwards of 65 miles an hour?

(3) Not only was Mr. Mann unwilling to break the 70mph threshold to save his life, he also was unable to drive in a straight line. It was frustrating to see a semi truck easily take corners while this guy was running off both sides of the road while going the same speed.

(4) This movie is a series of chase scenes that are too long, phony, and repetitive.

(5) The movie description I read led me to believe that Mr. Mann would strike back in some way. He never really does until sort of in the last 60 seconds of the movie. This is pretty much a one sided a**kicking.

Elephant (2003)

Van Sant Has Proved That School Shootings Can Be Boring!

[1/10 · 7 April 2005]

I find it outrageous to find so many raving reviews of this awful, awful movie. It is being commended for not trying to explain why these school shootings take place. First, I don't understand why that is a good thing and second, yes it does try to explain why this happens in a very heavy handed fashion. The boys are picked on in school (spit wad scene), they play violent video games, and watch old Nazi reels. I'd say a few motives have been established and therefore this violence is not random as Ebert seems to think.

The movie is also being praised as wonderful because it shows the typical day of high school students. But it is not at all typical. There is almost no dialogue in this movie. That is not typical. And from this movie you would think that high school students spent 90% of their day walking alone. I would venture to guess that more than 1/2 of this movie is watching somebody walk. There is one scene where a girl enters a gymnasium and I immediately thought to myself, "My God, they are not going to film her shuffling across this entire gymnasium in silence are they." Yes, they did.

Lastly, not only does this movie lack any valuable social commentary, it also lacks any sense of entertainment value. Before this movie I didn't think that a school shooting could be boring. It can. The acting is atrocious and from the little dialogue there is you can tell they just turned the camera's on and asked the kids to start talking about something. The conversations seem forced and artificial. And much of the dialogue cannot even be heard.

This movie is so boring, at only 81 minutes it felt like four hours.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Disgusting Trash

[1/10 · 9 March 2001]

Easily the worst movie I saw of 2000. I didn't think John Woo could make a worse movie than Broken Arrow, but was I wrong. I am just not one of those people that believe that you can create a good movie by choreagraphing a couple of elaborate fight scenes and then writing a some dialogue inbetween them.

As amazing as it may seem, this movie is boring. I can't get into the fight scenes because they are just too unbelievable. They don't push the bounds of physics, they destroy the bounds of believability.

There is not a part of this movie that is redeeming in any way. Things don't make sense, the characters are only developed so far as to become the most stereotypical hero/damsel/villian possible, and its an insult to the senses.

I cannot stand John Woo or his approach to movie making. Somebody please stop this man before he strikes again.

Sneakers (1992)

How do I join?

[10/10 · 9 March 2001]

I resent another IMDB user's assumption that anyone who likes this movie has got to have an IQ of 2. What exactly does that mean? I am an intelligent moviegoer and I loved Sneakers. And I know others who are much more intelligent than me and some who I would even guess are certifiable geniuses who also loved this movie.

This movie is captivating. As other people have written, Sneakers can be watched over and over again. Its a suspense thriller that doesn't try to blind you with so many special effects that you lose sight of the fact that less than five minutes was used to create and edit the script (ie. Mission Impossible 2).

This is a fun movie for anybody who is a team player. Its very entertaining to see how each member of Redford's team brings an essential element to the task at hand. There are a couple of scenes where some things are far fetched, but nothing outside the rhelm of possibility. There is nothing that makes you groan in disgust, as if say you were watching any scene in a John Woo film. For a movie like this to work it has to be believable, and this is believable.

Sneakers is original in its ideas and the characters are very likable. Even the villian possesses qualities that make you like him. Each character is developed enough so that by the end of the movie you want to be a part of the team. Its just that much fun to watch. 10/10

State and Main (2000)

Atrocious, Awful, Boring, and Nauseating

[1/10 · 26 February 2001]

I am reading these comments and I can't figure it out. How can this many people watch such a horrible movie and like it? I am convinced that the only people that are actually adding comments are people who are either related to David Mamet (screenwriter/director) or diehard fans of his.

For me, this movie could not end soon enough. The cast included a long list of B-level stars, but good actors nonetheless. I am personally a big fan of Alec Baldwin, David Paymer, and Charles Durning. But no amount of big names could make up for a horrible script, very poor direction, and the worst cinematic score I have ever heard.

Critiquing a movie like this is so hard because there is so much wrong with it. And I had no intention of writing one until I read all of these rave reviews.

I will start with what bothered me the most. The music. Not only was it boring and unpleasant to the ears, it was constant. It began with opening credits and didn't end until the rolling credits.

Next, I don't know much about David Mamet. He had many talented actors to work with, but did not allow them to shine. Instead he turned them into one of his infamous Mamet-bots. They are so busy trying to be cute that they lose any amount of interest that may have made them successful in the first place (ie. Philip Seymour Hoffman).

There are so few moments in the movie that are funny. The jokes that other people have referred to as clever because they go throughout the movie just don't work. The big finale of BAZOOMS.COM being worked into the movie was so predictable that it lost any sense of wit.

Chemistry between characters was also missing. Another important element of movies that this one lacks. The most obvious example is the supposed love interest between Hoffman and Pattie LuPone. I never saw it or felt it. And who told LuPone that it if she cocked her head and smiled in every seen it would funny. Its not. Even the very likable LuPone manages to get under the viewer's skin.

There are so many subplots that no single story gets the attention to fully form. Which is probably a good thing since not a single story was ever interesting enough to grab my attention.

From watching this movie this is what I have concluded about David Mamet. After some successful and entertaining movies he is now in a bubble. He thinks that every idea he has deserves its own movie. Someone should stop being Mamet's yes-man and let him know how it is. All of his ideas aren't funny. In fact, most of them are not. Mamet appears to have undergone the same change that George Lucas has gone through. They hit middle age and have lost their edge.

This movie is boring, not witty, and a complete waste of time. I rarely leave a movie with nothing good to say, but this one of them. This is not "artsy" or "insightful". Its boring and dull and reflects the thoughts of man out of ideas and insight.