mrmikemaxfield Reviews

Troy (2004)

zzzz...zz...zzz...BOORRRRRRING!!!

[26 May 2004]

Seriously, am I the only person who is bored already with this script? And STILL another version of the same crap will be out this summer with, "King Arthur." Hey, that might be good, just the same way as "Troy," by definition, IS good. My problem isn't in the regular way of saying, "oh, I didn't like it." My issue is that I'm just bored already with the same basic EPIC-storyline, in an extremely VAST setting, with some gigantic, humongous, battle-scene. (and there's always a wizard in these friggin' movies!!) Anyway, this "Troy" crap is just the same. There's a semi-huge "teaser" battle at the beginning, followed by tons-and-tons of dramatic characters interacting, (again, usually involving a wizard...) with way too many looooooong epic shots of the "setting-up" for the big war that is eventually going to take place. In this case, we see about 74 different pans and sweeps of the ships coming to Troy. Anyway, blah, blah, blah... there is tons of love story crap, and tons of Brad Pitt's butt. Then there is the giant battle-scene, which of course is cool and everything, but I'm just done with this deal already. And you know what else? These epic-war, before-there-were-guns, movies, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS are 3 hours long!!! Why do they need to be 3 hours long? Trim it down people! That's right editor's, use the friggin' "trim-tool!" I don't mean I don't like certain scenes or anything. You can keep every single scene in Troy, in the final product. I just think if we didn't have to see 87 angles of the ships coming in, or sit on everybody's eye's really long, while zooming in super slowly... then the movie might only be a hefty 2 hours, instead of 3 grueling hours.

Honestly, I probably still wouldn't have loved it, even if it was only 2 hours. I don't really know why exactly. I just know I'm completely done with wizards, swords, and thousands of people running directly into each other with shields and axes. ...MOVING ON!!!!

Old School (2003)

drop-dead-hilarious MOMENTS, but overall very mediocre...

[14 March 2003]

after "Road Trip," i was positive that Todd Phillips new movie "Old School," would be fantastic. and maybe because i expected perfection, it just couldn't quite live up to my own personal hype. so for that reason, i do want to see it again... however, in my first outing, i felt that although it has GREAT, GREAT scenes, including a fantastic cameo by craig kilborn, overall it felt like your average stupid comedy, with jokes that are not very realistic, and kind of dumbwitted. and the problem i had with that, is that after "Road Trip," i expected more than an average, dumbwitted movie. allow me to explain: in the movie "Road Trip," you have what i call, realistic-comedy. what that means, is that everything in that movie COULD conceivably have happened. and therefore you feel like you are going through this awesome, fun, and hilarious adventure with these kids who have to go on a road trip. and this is exactly what was wrong with "Old School." many of the jokes were slap-stickish, and definately couldn't happen in reality, and therefore the movie automatically tells you to suspend your logic at the front door. i expected, and WANTED a realistic type of comedy, but it was slapstick-ish, with more hits than misses. although you will have a couple belly laughs. it was alright. but due to it not being what it should and could have been, i give it a 2 out of 4. (on the comedy scale.)

Any Given Sunday (1999)

Beautiful, beautiful movie... a little long, but fantastic!

[12 March 2003]

ok ok ok... so it was almost 3 hours long. and yes, some of it gets redundant. and yes, i know it was one GIANT music video. but you know what??? it was AWESOME! i had to comment on this movie myself, because too many people did not appreciate it. everyone knocks it for stupid reasons, yet no one seems to acknowledge the intensity of this movie. i mean, no matter what someone thinks of this film, even those who hated it, should still have been able to say one thing about it: it is intense. maybe you find yourself not caring too much about the characters, but i don't know if Stone was necessarily going for that anyway. i think he wanted you to FEEL what it would be like, to be in that situation, at that particular moment, as that particular character... for instance, you can FEEL the pain "Cap Rooney" feels when he is laying out on the field in extreme pain, in the opening of the movie... you can FEEL what it would be like for "Willie Beamen" to come off the bench as a third string QB and suddenly be the leader of the team... and it's through the editing, the music, and the cinematography that all of this comes so alive. overall, if you ever wanted to know what it would FEEL like to play in the NFL, watch this movie. i LOVED it... a beautiful film. nice work mr. stone.

Breakdown (I) (1997)

FLAWLESS filmmaking...

[12 March 2003]

after seeing this movie in the theater back in '97, i liked it SO much, that i took my friend to see it. he had no interest initially, but after he saw it, he agreed that it was great. about 2 weeks later, i dragged my reluctant girlfriend to see it, (mainly because i wanted a reason to see it again) and low and behold, she also loved it. over time, i forced friends to see this film, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them agreed afterwards that it was very very good. i personally hold it a little higher than "very good" though, and call it flawless.

anyway, here we are 6 years later, and i have yet to find another movie, that constitutes the word "FLAWLESS." when i say "flawless," i mean in every aspect of moviemaking, it is just that. the writing, the directing, the cinematography, the performances... all FLAWLESS in their execution. it is intense and powerful. and much kudos goes out to the acting. i mean, first of all J.T. Walsh is fantastic as the main bad guy, "Red Barr." but honestly, Kurt Russell is amazing as, "Jeffrey Taylor." in his acting, you can actually feel what he is feeling. from confusion, to bewilderment, to panic, to anger, and to an awesome feeling of revenge at the end... he is awesome. i give this movie 4 stars. it did not get the recognition it deserved, and that is why i am posting this comment....on a side note, let's see what director, "Jonathan Mostow" can do with Terminator 3. so far the trailer for it looks HORRIBLE!!!!!

Escape from L.A. (1996)

a new word: SNAKE-TASTIC!!!!

[12 March 2003]

this movie is fan-friggin-tastic!!! yet everyone in the world disliked it, and forced the movie industry to call it, "a bomb." do you even realize how much that sucks? this movie is so great. snake plissken is one of the COOLEST characters in film. he's one of those bad-ass guys, who can't lose. the movie is done in much more of a "comic-book" way than the first was. in fact, the first one is in more of a serious tone, whereas "L.A." is like reading a "Punisher" comic book. which this may be why a lot of people disliked this one. and now, we probably won't ever see an "Escape From Cleveland" or "Miami" or "Earth" or Escape From ANYTHING, because the industry called it a bomb, and therefore production companies wouldn't want to put money into another Snake installment. yet we are forced to see sequels to crap, like "Legally Blonde 2" or "Airbud: Golden Receiver." i mean come on, what is going on in this world o' film!!!!! (well actually, "Legally Blonde" wasn't all that bad, i just couldn't think of another bad movie that we are being forced to see a sequel to... hahaha) the point is: I WANT ANOTHER SNAKE PLISSKEN MOVIE!!!!!

Demon Slayer (2004 Video)

Brilliant, great stuff... for what it is.

[10/10 · 16 January 2003]

For what it is, (a 'B' movie, distributed by the infamous Roger Corman) "Demon Slayer," was actually really good.

seriously, if you can get passed the template of cheesiness, and "read between the lines," so to speak, you can find a story, with actual levels of character development. in other words, it seemed like the director did the best he could with what he was given. and the acting was surprisingly great. especially the lead male roles. nice stuff!

and i have to say, especially when compared to other Corman movies, the sound design was deeply immersing, and correct me if i'm wrong, but i think it was actually in 5.1... very good stuff, it made it feel bigger than it is!!!!