shaquanda36 Reviews

After Earth (2013)

Decent, light-weight sci-fi

[7/10 · 7 June 2013]

The critics have been unnecessarily harsh in blasting this film. It is not the disaster that many people are labeling it. It is at least mediocre and perhaps even decent.

After Earth's story is simple--in the future, a military general and his aspiring military son crash land on a no-longer-inhabitable Earth and the son must retrieve the distress beacon from the separated tail of the ship. The screenplay is wise in not over-complicating the simple story, but I would have appreciated just a little bit more character and world development.

M. Night Shyamalan's direction is right for this movie. He is more deliberate than typical sci-fi fare, but it works for this movie since it is such a simple, linear plot. The tone is somber, but given the gravity of the situation, I would expect nothing else. I found his choice to make all of the actors speak in a made up "future" accent a little off-putting at first, but I quickly got over it. I also thought the prologue was a little clunky and perfunctory, and I would have liked a more satisfying resolution.

The visual effects were convincing and effective enough. They did not break new ground, but they blended well with the on-location scenery. I felt thoroughly immersed in the world. Moreover, I enjoyed the design of the architecture on Nova Prime, and I found myself wanting to learn more about their culture.

Much has been made of Jaden Smith's performance. I thought it was serviceable for the role--he needed to be physical, afraid, angry, and resolved, and he was effective in each of those elements of performance. Sure, he does not show the charisma that his father has shown in previous roles, but this role did not require charisma. It is also worth noting that he father showed very little charisma in this film as well, which indicates that it may not be Jaden that is lacking, but that the script and direction took charisma off the table.

All in all, this movie was decent enough escapism for a short, simple, sci-fi flick. It might have been more successful as an early March or October release when there is less competition and people have lower expectations. If the trailers made you interested in seeing it, then go ahead and check it out.

The Happening (2008)

Engrossing but imperfect

[9/10 · 14 June 2008]

The reviews for this film have been embarrassingly bad, just as they were for "Lady in the Water" and "The Village." For my money, they were deserved for "Lady" but completely off the mark here.

Despite what detractors are saying, the leads turned out some solid performances and Shaymalan shows an interesting blend of restraint and gratuitousness. He demonstrates that he can create and maintain tension while revealing the disturbing visuals that he avoided so carefully in Signs and he crafts an environmental disaster movie that required no flashy special effects.

Thematically, this continued Shaymalan's common theme that nobody is an island - everyone is connected to the world around them. This was also Shaymalan's most overtly topical film, unless you believe "The Village" was about the post 9/11 Bush administration.

There were, of course, some mis-steps, especially the overuse of wind as a potential threat.

Overall, this is worth a look if you are a Shyamalan fan. If you did not like "Signs" or "The Village," then this is not for you.

Rocky V (1990)

Imperfect, but overly maligned

[7/10 · 12 April 2008]

Here is a movie that has taken a lot of heat. Looking back on it after having watched the new final film in the series, Rocky Balboa, I believe some of the extreme negativity came from two places - the fatigue that comes from watching a fifth installment in a movie series, and the belief that this would be the last movie in the series.

As the final film in the series, this movie was a disappointment - Rocky is a boxer, and he never steps into the ring. Also, it is a stylistic departure from the film that immediately preceded - V looks and feels much more like Rocky I than Rocky IV, which may have been jarring to some.

Rocky V works better as a fifth installment rather than as the final film. We can overlook the fact that there is no training montage and that Rocky does not step into the ring. We can accept the stylistic departure from Rocky IV because Balboa continues in the vein of Rocky V. We can get past the unrealistic plot point of Rocky losing all of his fortune, because we see he finds a way to get by in Rocky Balboa.

There are still some things that are simply bad in Rocky V that Rocky Balboa does not make acceptable, namely the fight at the end. Rocky V does not build naturally to a fight - this is a movie that is ultimately about overcoming hardship and the complexities of family life. The fight did nothing to conclude that story - it seemed contractually obligated. It is also strange that his son magically ages several years during the few months that Rocky is in Russia.

Still, it is an acceptable installment in the series, if not an acceptable ending. Stallone gives a better performance than he did in III or IV, and it develops the father-son element of the greater story quite nicely.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Dreadful spectacle

[4/10 · 26 June 2007]

I am horrified that a "film" like this can gross as much money as it has. I am horrified that the IMDb users have rated it so high.

What was good about this movie? The effects, both auditory and visual.

What was bad? Everything else. Countless plots and A-list actors all fighting each other for screen time, while the audience is left with a seriously convoluted "plot," no connection to the characters, and an almost 3 hour movie which could have been an hour and a half. Half of the film was exposition for unnecessary side-plots, and the other half was effects sequences that were so over-the-top that they became tedious.

Un-entertaining and hard to follow. A far cry from the comparably simple and superior first installment.

Chicks 101 (2004)

Very problematic, but a valiant first effort

[3/10 · 4 December 2006]

I saw this movie in it's pre-DVD release attempt to make its money back.

First, let me say that this is NOT a good movie. Second, let me say that it is not a wasted effort - the first-time-filmmaker Lovinder Gill's screenplay had a couple of nice ideas and messages throughout, but they were hidden amongst lots of clutter.

Now then, down to the nitty-gritty.

-Film was uneven in every way. Stylistically, it didn't know what it wanted to be. It started with kind of a spare theatrical quality that I kind of liked, then it went with an over-the-top style that didn't work for me, and finally it resolved itself by trying to be a quiet romantic realistic thing. I just didn't know how I was supposed to respond at any given moment.

-Cliched and repetitive. In order to win over the feminist, our hero learned one quote from another, more famous feminist, and said it over and over again. I got the feeling that that was the only feminist quote that the filmmakers knew, so they just used it a lot.

-Not particularly funny. That's all I have on that.

-Performances were hit-or miss. The three main leads were generally pretty good, but there was a lot of bad stuff going on in the supporting cast.

-I suppose the general message was nice, and there were some specific moments that were effective such as Louis' 60/40 speech and some of his "advice" to the guys in the class.

All in all, I would say that this film was a great project for Mr. Gill to see what works and what doesn't - I hope he learned a lot. But as a film, it's just not very good. Sorry. I know this will offend all of the friends of the filmmakers that gave this a "10."

Sin City (2005)

Problems with narrative structure mar beautiful surface

[8/10 · 4 April 2005]

Sin City is truly revolutionary. It is a stylistic masterpiece. The visuals are amazing in their blend of film noir, comic book styling, and use of color. This is the first time a comic has TRULY been brought to the screen.

Unfortunately the narrative structure allowed this otherwise flawless movie to falter.

The Sin City graphic novels are a collection of separate stories which occasionally loosely relate all in the place of Basin City. Each of the major characters of the film (Marv, Hartigan, and Dwight) have their own Sin City novel to stretch their arms in. Each is a story unto itself with its own beginning, middle, and end.

Sin City the movie contains three of these individual novels under one heading "Sin City." The film's director, Robert Rodriguez, opted not to do the film in an episodic fashion...or did he? This is where the film falters. He could have chose to do three individual episodes, each beginning with its own individual title: Marv, Dwight, Hartigan. But Rodriguez chose not to, instead he wanted to film a single, cohesive whole. This could have worked. But it was haphazard. Instead of having the stories weave together, he left the Marv and Dwight stories as episodes, split the Hartigan story in half to bookend the episodes, and did something with Josh Hartnet to bookend the bookends. The trouble with this is that the audience starts to search for meanings and connections as soon as Hartigan reappears. And the dots did not connect - just opened more questions.

I left the theater blown away by the visuals, but wondering if there was meant to be a greater story. I thought it might be the Roarke family...but the Dwight story had nothing to do with that. I thought it might be the prostitution community...but the Hartigan story did not deal with that.

In the end, it felt like a movie that should have been episodic but had delusions of cohesion. Were the visuals not so amazing and the adaptation so reverent, I would give this a 5/10. But all things considered I give it an 8/10.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

despite some questions, an amazing film

[9/10 · 23 February 2005]

I should preface with my background - I am a Protestant Christian of the liberal variety - i.e. I am appalled by the religious "right." With that out of the way, let me first say that this film was, from a production standpoint, amazing. Acting, cinematography, makeup, unity of artistic vision - all are amazing.

From my background as a Christian, I was moved by the severity of the depiction of Christ's suffering. Never before has it been so graphic, and never before has it been so powerful. If you are a Christian, this film will likely bring you to tears. For that reason, this movie is completely successful.

That was my emotion/spiritual response. But I also had an intellectual response. And my brain had some questions at the end. The big question being one that has been made much of - why was the Roman leadership portrayed in such a positive and complex light, and yet Caiaphus and the majority of the Jewish leadership was portrayed as single-minded evil people. I wondered about that. I wondered why Mel Gibson had not included Caiaphus' line of doubt from the Gospel of John.

Also in question was one of the last shots of the movie - the devil was in it and I think it was supposed to be a shot of Hell, but I wasn't sure. Eh. It didn't work for me.

But overall impression - this is a moving film for Christians. Non-Christians would probably not respond in the same way.

Unbreakable (2000)

Great film, but....

[8/10 · 15 February 2005]

As an unwavering fan of Mr. M. Night Shayamalan, I must say this was good. But to clarify my perspective, I did not see this when it first came out. I rented it after having seen The Sixth Sense, Signs, and The Village. Being a fan of those three, I knew this would not disappoint.

This film has all of the prerequisites of an M. Night film....slow, brooding atmosphere, dialogue instead of action, heaps of character development, and a twist of some kind. Ultimately, this film works. It works well. We feel for the characters, want to know what will happen next, and are intrigued by the premise. All of the actors meet my expectations - there is no weak link in the acting. Shayamalan tends to pull good performances out of everyone.

That being said, I think there are two minor problems with this movie. First, the movie has a boldly slow pace, but that works for the film. What bothered me a little bit is there was about a 30 minute period of time in the movie where very little happened - in the "action" or in the characters. It seemed a repetitious - "am I really unbreakable or not? Is this guy yanking my chain or what?" This problem is minor, but with weaker actors, my attention would not have been held.

The other minor problem is how the "twist" was carried out. There is a potentially massive revelation, but it gets written off by two sentences on the screen. The climax becomes an afterthought. There is no falling action. I liked the twist, but I thought it was written off.

All in all, this is a good movie - much better than your average Hollywood entertainment. I recommend it if you like to think about movies.

Cradle Will Rock (1999)

clever, underrated and under viewed

[9/10 · 14 February 2005]

This is the only movie that I have seen which SUCCESSFULLY threads together so many plots into one cohesive whole. The scope of this film is immense and yet it manages to be personal and moving.

Each performance in "Cradle" hits right on the mark, despite much being made about Susan Sarandon's lack of performance or Emily Watson's lack of singing ability. Forgive my tangent, but her lack of singing ability is the point. Need we recall Orson Welles ranting, "She's terrible, why did we cast her?" Particularly notable are Bill Murray and Hank Azaria.

As a director, Tim Robbins has done some marvelous work here, adding a certain theatricality which adds to the theme of the film. It feels like a live performance, particularly in a scene backstage where the camera meanders around the theatre picking up bits of conversation as it goes in a remarkably staged scene that must have taken hours to rehearse just to get the timing. The juxtapositions of high society's artistic discussions with rehearsals of "Cradle Will Rock," and the performance of "Cradle" with the demolition of the Rivera piece are stunning.

And then of course there is the social commentary. Tim Robbins is clearly left-leaning (but so am I), but the movie is relatively fairly balanced. Ironically, it is the unions, not the government, which keep "cradle" from being performed in its original venue.

The reason I rate this a "9" instead of a "10" is because of the film's accessibility. To a person unfamiliar with art or the depression or the red scare, this movie would not have much meaning. But if you meet the viewing criteria, this is one of the best.

Sideways (2004)

a fulfilling cinematic experience

[9/10 · 11 February 2005]

Upon seeing the trailer for this film, I thought to myself, "self - I might rent that when in comes out on DVD. Maybe." Frankly, it looked like it was probably pretty good, but how good could a middle-aged road trip wine tasting movie really be? But then came the critical acclaim and I realized that there must be more than what is on the surface. Indeed, such is the case.

This is one of the few movies of the last couple years which has taken me (effectively) through all of the major emotions such as happiness, sadness, surprise, amusement, concern, etc. The connection I felt to these characters - all four of them - was impressive. What is even more impressive is that I could get this connection without being able to relate to the characters in any way - I'm in my mid-20s, not a wine drinker, not familiar with California, not divorced, etc. Still, I was able to connect in a way that I often do not connect with movies.

My rating for this is a 9 and not a 10 only because there were a couple of moments that did not work 100% and there were a few directorial choices that I felt pulled me out of the narrative, but these small things do not keep this from being an amazing film. I recommend it to anyone. 9/10

Peter Pan (2003)

The best Peter Pan to date, unfortunately at the wrong time.

[9/10 · 20 July 2004]

Up front I will say it: this is the best Peter Pan adaptation yet, and in what follows I will tell you why. Despite the film's quality, it failed at the box office, and for good reason. Insight into that shall be revealed as well. Such sage wisdom ye shall not find in other reviews. Read on.

The main thing that sets this adaptation apart from previous attempts is sexual tension. Yes, sexual tension. If you've read other reviews, no doubt it has been mentioned. Many people seem to take offense at said tension. Such people seem to forget what it was like to be in the age bracket of 12 - 14. The makers of this film don't dance around the fact that Wendy has just met the boy of her dreams, and he is ready to whisk her off to fantasy land. Much is made of the fact that they meet in the bedroom and play father and mother to the lost boys. The relationship of these two pre-teens is as complex as any two adults in any other movies. And the young actors handle the relationship with grace and authenticity.

The production itself is beautiful, albeit stylized. The filmmakers do not mask that neverland is a fantasy world, and it stays that from beginning to end. Every frame in this movie is beautiful. There are some moments that are literally breathtaking.

Ultimately what makes this film excellent is that it tells a story. And this story is centered on Wendy, and the boy of her dreams: Peter Pan. Except he cannot be the man of her dreams, and that is truly tragic. Captain Hook is the opposite: a man who cannot be young. A man who is "old, alone, and done-for" according to Pan. We end up exploring Wendy's psyche throughout the film, and it is almost perfectly achieved.

But why did this film fail at the box office? Competetion. Who can possibly defeat Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, two bigger and much more commercial adaptations of fantasy books? This film deserves to be a classic and is one of the best fantasy movies to date. All should see it, young and old. It is rich, beautiful, and exciting.

9/10

The Stepford Wives (2004)

Some laughs, but not invested enough to care

[5/10 · 22 June 2004]

***SPOILERS perhaps?***

Right off the bat I suppose I should say that I have NOT seen the original film and therefore only had expectations that were developed via the trailers. It is my style to begin reviews with the good stuff and then move on from there, so here we go:

The Good Stuff. The acting. Overall, I thought the acting was quite good. Nicole Kidman as (almost) always was fabulous. Her reaction to getting fired was very good. There are only a few actors who can handle a steady shot on their face for so long. She's great. The rest of the characters are pretty memorable, probably Glenn Close in particular. The concept of the movie was good, although it is based on a previously made movie that was based on a book, so it's not terribly original. I did laugh out loud more than once, particulary at the book club scene. Nothing says "I love Jesus" like yarn. True dat. But beyond the cast and the occasional laugh, there is not much.

The Bad Stuff. Okay, call me crazy, but for me I don't care much for a movie if I don't care much for, or at least understand, the characters. In the case of this movie, I was not invested in our two main characters one bit. We see them together in only one scene before they head to Stepford, and Nicole's character was comotose. We don't discover that their marriage is on the rocks until half-way through the movie, and their relationship is the impetus for the movie! Basically I was given no reason to care about the two main characters. At all. I cared more about the supporting gay characters because we actually saw their relationship and how it worked. And it only took about 30 seconds of screen time. By the time I knew what the main characters' relationship was like, I did not care. My other problem with the movie was plot holes. I know that the movie is not meant to be based in reality. It's a fantasy. BUT there was so little explanation about how the women got turned into robots. It seemed like they put them into new bodies or something, but then the end wouldnt make sense if that was the case. I dunno, the specifics seemed sloppy.

The Summary. I laughed a couple of times, and was impressed with Nicole and Glenn. I did not care about the characters and there was some big plot holes. Basically, it was like watching the trailer stretched out to 90 minutes. Neither the characters nor the plot were any further fleshed out. Anyhoo. 5/10.

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

Great concept, so-so execution

[7/10 · 2 June 2004]

*maybe some spoilers ahead?*

Being a huge fan of Bruce Campbell and camp comedy/horror, I knew that this movie would be right up my alley as soon as I started hearing about it. Being from Arkansas, there was really no way for me to see it until it came to DVD, and as that time as come, here I am writing a review.

I have not read the short story, but I knew the gist of the movie going into it - a nursing home Elvis and a his buddy "JFK" take on a mummy who's sucking souls from their fellow retirees. Seriously - what an amazing concept, especially with the addition of the fabulous Bruce Campbell and the always great Ossie Davis. The acting from these two fellows is wonderful in this film - in fact, I would say this is Bruce Campbell's best. He manages to give this character subtelty and depth which I had not expected at all. Ossie Davis is quite good as well, but I had expected that.

There are some classic scenes in this film as well, the best one is Elvis taking on the scarab. It's funny and suspenseful. There's also a great scene involving a woman in an iron lung - no dialogue, it's just funny.

Unfortunately, this film is beset with a terribly slow pace. Most of the film has Elvis lying in bed talking to himself, and the stuff about the mummy is almost secondary to the story of how Elvis got to be in the retirement home. With some speedier editing, or perhaps with a re-write, we could have learned all of this about Elvis without having to just watch him in bed. Even with the slow pace, the film was barely an hour and a half. Perhaps that was the reason for the slow pace - to fill the hour and a half.

In the end, the film never answers many questions. Was the Bruce Campbell character really Elvis? Was JFK really JFK? Why was the mummy dressed as trailer trash? Perhaps these are questions that do not need answering, but answering these questions could have filled up the time that was instead replaced with a snail-slow pace.

All in all, despite my complaints, this is defininetely worth watching. The two main characters are wonderful, and there are some funny scenes. And despite its problems, it's still a great story. I suppose that I give it a 7/10.

Titus (1999)

A "timeless" retelling

[9/10 · 14 January 2004]

Titus. Where to begin? Oh yes, at the beginning. William Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus early in his career. VERY early in his career, and such is apparent. On stage, this script as a play must be awful. Character motivations are not explained, there are holes in the action, a character leaves the country and then comes back, seemingly only to set up the climax. There is little explanation of action, and it is less poetic than some of his masterworks (Midsummer, Hamlet, Lear). And yet, Julie Taymor, renowned for her fantastical vision of The Lion King on Broadway, chose this, possibly Shakespeare's most problematic play, to be her introduction to film.

This adaptation is wonderful. Why? Because it fills all the holes of the initial play. She adds scenes without dialogue, she makes the setting timeless and symbolic, and removes it from the realm of reality, wherein the play never worked to begin with. She tranforms a difficult play about revenge into much, much more. It is now a feast for the eyes, a commentary on revenge, power, theatre, film, and villiany.

To be fair, I am not giving Shakespeare enough credit. The play he wrote has many marvelous aspects, mainly the Aaron - possibly Shakespeare's greatest villian. He is unrelenting. And in the film, he is wonderfully acted. Titus is a good character too, and Anthony Hopkins acts him well enough.

It would be easy for a Shakespeare purist to say "eww, what was that," but I would call this retelling a gem. It is moody, gritty, passionate, clever, awe-inspiring, and true to the theme of the original script. It has only added to Shakespeare's words. Is it perfect? No. It does make you stretch yourself, the ending is a head-scratcher, but this will be my favorite Shakespeare adaptation for a long time to come. 9/10

A Mighty Wind (2003)

Funny, but missing something

[7/10 · 4 December 2003]

I suppose it is unfair to review a movie merely by comparing it to other movies, but this movie's unflagging adherence to formula makes it impossible not to.

First things first: on its own, this movie is great. The characters are funny, the improvisational acting is great, and there were some memorable characters. I chuckled consistently throughout the movie, although I never guffawed. My one-word summary of A Mighty Wind: pleasant.

Let us now compare it to its recent forefather, a movie with an almost identical cast, plot, and style: Best in Show. All elements are the same in both of these movies except one, and that is the element of competition. Mighty Wind was merely a reunion. Sure there was some of the competitive spirit going on at the end, but there was not the fight-to-the-finish feel that made Best in Show so funny. Even Waiting for Guffman had the "we're competing with ourselves" feel to it, and the mystery surrounding the ellusive Guffman character. Mighty Wind lacked competition, it lacked mystery. It felt like "Best in Show Lite." Sort of like going to a family reunion.

I also must say that while I applaud the creativity of Eugene Levy in creating his character, the movie dragged most of the time he was present. Except for his final concert performance and his giving her of the rose. That was some great stuff.

Despite my complaints, I did quite like this movie. Fred Willard was perfect, Catherine O'Hara was amazing, and the crossdressing - that was priceless. Overall, I give it a 7/10.

Death to Smoochy (2002)

Truly Delightful

[9/10 · 19 January 2003]

Pay no attention to the heathens who disliked "Death to Smoochy," it is charming, dark, and absurdly funny. Will this movie change the world? No. Was it intended to? No. It is a refreshingly original comedy that is entertaining and multi-faceted. The all-star cast (Williams, Norton, Keener, Devito) seem to be having the time of their lives. Personally, I could not stop smiling throughout it all, it was a truly delightful movie experience. Don't listen to the people that hated it, they obviously don't know a fun movie when they see one.

The Man in the Iron Mask (I) (1998)

Are we in France, England, or what?

[6/10 · 17 December 2002]

Several things about this movie were very good. The costumes, the choreography, and especially the amazing cast of actors that were brought together. Unfortunately, one thing about this production brought all of it crashing to the floor. (No, I'm not going to say it was Leo, he's one of the best young actors in the business.) It was the accents. The accents would not have bothered me if the director had decided on one. But having the lead characters all sound like they're from different parts of the world - that's bizarre and jarring. I could have accepted American accents in old France, and Leo and Malkavich had very pronounced modern American accents, if everybody had an American accent. But then, you had Jeremy Irons and Gabriel Byrne in there sounding British, and to top it all off, you had good ol' Gerard who not only has a French accent, but sounds as though English does not come naturally to him at all. This poor conglomeration of accents only served to remind me that I was watching a Hollywood movie. It is unfortunate, but I could not bring myself to like the movie as a result. Which is too bad. The other elements seemed pretty good, although I have no idea why nobody got shot at the end. Sorry, was I supposed to get something there that just didn't make sense?

Anyway, probably a good movie, but the mixed voices were really grating on my nerves. I just couldn't adjust to it.

Cannibal! The Musical (1993)

Uneven, painful, fairly funny

[6/10 · 17 December 2002]

This is clearly a low budget movie made by inexperienced movie makers. The pace is uneven, the sound was bad, the actors were (let's face it) the buddies of Trey, not actors at all, and especially not singers. Of course, all of these flaws are part of the charm of the movie. They give it personality and it oozes with the joy of the filmmaker. It is kind of funny, some of the songs are okay, but because of the singers, they are really tough to sit through. Were this movie made with better equipment, better actors, and a bigger budget, it would be easier to sit through and would appeal to a bigger audience, but would lose its low-budget Troma charm. I give this movie a 6/10 because it is, at times, quite funny and highly original, but I can't help but be turned away by the painful singers and actors and the uneven pace. See it if you're a Trey Parker, Matt Stone, or Troma fan.

The Last Unicorn (1982)

Good until they start singing...

[9/10 · 17 December 2002]

This was my favorite animated movie when I was a kid, and I recently watched it again, and it's still good with one exception...they turn it into a musical in the last 15 minutes. How bizarre is that? The Last Unicorn creates a wonderful fantasy world with fun characters, good suspense, and occasionally good animation. There is an all-star cast of voices (Allan Arkin, Angela Lansbury, Mia Farrow, Jeff Bridges, Christopher Lee), a captivating story, and plenty of fantastical creatures. The first two thirds of the movie are brilliant. But then, towards the end, it takes an awkward turn in story telling, and goes from a fairly gripping fantasy movie, to a childish animated musical. This is bothersome to no end because it completely destroys the atmosphere, the venue, and the mood. But other than the crazy shift in genre, it's quite a good animated flick. They're making a live-action version of it with Christopher Lee, Mia Farrow, and Angela Lansbury that's supposed to come out in 2004 that I'm really excited about. Maybe they won't sing.

National Lampoon's Animal House (1978)

meh.

[6/10 · 14 December 2002]

Maybe it's the curse of too much hype, but this movie did not live up to everything I had heard about it. I rented it last night because I felt un-American having not seen it yet, and now having seen it, I still feel un-American. What is it about this movie that makes it so extraordinary? Indeed it was perhaps the first of a very popular line of bad teen comedies, but that should not make people feel like they have to like it.

That being said, I must say that it was not an entirely bad movie. I laughed now and then, I sensed a certain bond with the characters on screen in front of me, but I never felt like I was watching something all that special. It was a movie about stereotypes, and it was only when the characters did something that surprised me that I laughed. Needless to say, I did not find a drunk John Belushi breaking bottles on his head to be that funny. There is no out-of-this world acting, scripting, or directing.

The low-down - see it because everyone expects you to, but don't expect an epic. Expect a mediocre comedy.

Final Destination (2000)

Much potential wasted on gore

[3/10 · 2 December 2002]

Here is a movie whose premise was one that denoted suspense. But in the finished product, there was little suspense and a whole lot of graphic death. I went to this movie hoping to come out of it frightened that death was after me, but I came out of it with the fear that a sequel would be made, and according to this website, one is. Final Destination comes across as an aspiring slasher film with one thing missing: a slasher. This should be a movie about being hunted by an invisible force, and as such, there should be suspense. It should be frightening - I should want to yell out to the characters, "look out, you're about to die!" Instead it became a movie about a director who wondered, how gory can I make this next death?

Very Bad Things (1998)

Very Bad Movie

[1/10 · 2 December 2002]

Dark comedy, when done effectively, will make us laugh and then feel bad for it. This movie merely made me feel bad to be alive, and worse, to have spent money watching it. The premise was promising - a few bachelors accidently kill a prostitute at their bachelor party, and then cover their tracks. Okay - a bearable, possibly funny, plot summary. But she's not the only one that dies - nearly everybody does! And they do so is grizzly, unfortunate ways that made me want to cry. How is this movie funny? People die and everybody yells at each other. Where's the humor? Who wrote the script for this movie? You need to be shot.

Don't rent this movie, whatever you do. It is not funny, it is not good, it will make you feel icky. I'll give it a 2 out of 10 because it was acted and filmed well enough, but I'm not sure it deserves the 2.

Braindead (1992)

100% successful in its intentions

[10/10 · 2 December 2002]

This movie sought out to be the bloodiest (and probably funniest) zombie movie of all time. It succeeded in that. It also succeeded in being a hilarious, twisted, over-the-top coming of age story.

Right from the start, it is clear that this movie does not take itself seriously. The characters are goofy, there are stereotypes galore, and it falls to nearly every cliche of B-rated zombie flicks. Except it's clear from the level of visual effects that this movie did not have a tiny budget. I highly recommend this movie. It was written and directed by Peter Jackson (yes, the director of the amazing Lord of the Rings), and it is obvious that he knows this genre and is skilled at making his audience laugh and vomit at the same time. PS - Do not waste your time watching the R-rated version of this film. Watch the Unrated version. It is longer, bloodier, and frankly, it is better.