lajospn Reviews

Nope (2022)

First half great, second half weak

[5/10 · 22 October 2023]

This movie is the perfect example of an idea that only lasts halfway through the movie. Luckily, that first half is truly great. Belongs with classics of the past. The impending doom, the dread, the mystery, the rising tension: all perfectly executed up until and through the first direct contact with the alien life form. The visuals are striking as well. The one truly baffling issue with the first half is that the movie completely wastes Keith David by getting him killed off after uttering like two words. Why? Why not give the man at least a decent amount of time to develop a relationship with his son before killing him off??? Incomprehensible.

Anyhow, after the first attack is over is when I thought that "Okay, now is the time to get the hell out of there and call the cops/military/Men-in-black." I mean, that's what ALL sane person would do. But apparently, they didn't want to do it, because the movie would be over. So our heroes decide to stick around to take a PICTURE of the creature in order to get ... RICH???!!! I mean, that's so dumb, I can't even begin. Since it's so dumb, the second half completely loses all tension and interest. It's just dumb people doing dumb things.

Watch the movie for the first half and lower your expectations for the second half.

Doom: Annihilation (2019)

Gets much better in the second half

[10/10 · 4 February 2022]

Alright, I hear you. Yes, the movie looks cheap and none of the actors are from the top drawer. I liked the original video games so I kept watching the movie, which is admittedly pretty crappy in the first half. But then, somehow, against itself, it improves. A lot. Seriously, even the main character, the female marine, becomes, somehow, bad ass by the end. I know. That sounds impossible, but it happens.

Here's my recommendation: take it for what it is, basically a fan flick. Grab your popcorn, or beer, kick back and just enjoy the ride. Nothing earth shattering, but for a Doom movie, it's actually quite OK (again, you must slog through the first half though).

Oh, and I did enjoy the fact that at least in this adaptation, they didn't shy away from the original plot of Doom. Not giving away any spoilers, as it's now a 30-year-old game, but the baddies are really from hell this time around!

Night Moves (1975)

The best neo-Noir of the 70s

[10/10 · 7 May 2020]

Yes, it's a bold claim, but it's true. It's by far the best neo-Noir to come out in the 70s. But how about Chinatown? I said neo-Noir, didn't I? Like in all good Noirs, the protagonist is a private eye, honorable and headstrong, but here they added the beautiful twist that he's simply unable to grasp the depth of corruption he's facing until it's too late. Private eyes of the past were deeply cynical and they were often proven right. Here, our hero is also cynical (at least, he *thinks* he is!), but at every turn he's shocked at how depraved and outright corrupt people turn out to be. It's a 40s Sam Spade in the disillusioned 70s. He's simply always one step behind events, not because he's stupid, but because he'd simply never dream of the kind of things people would commit for money.

It's a one man show: Gene Hackman steals the show and he's in every single scene! Those who think he's a great actor (and I *do* think he's among the greatest), will have a field day watching this movie.

Gloria (1980)

"No kids or animals" (Hollywood saying)

[3/10 · 22 November 2019]

There's a reason Hollywood hates to work with kids or animals: they can rarely act. In this case, the kid, the main driver of the plot and the motivation for our heroine to get involved, sucks so hard that he could suck a golf ball through a garden hose. He ruins every single scene he's in. Every. Single. Scene. He's so annoying, that it's a real effort to sit through the movie.

I think Cassavetes painted himself into a corner: he wanted a moll (played by the wonderful Gena Rowlands, his wife) to take on the mob and he wanted a noble motive for that to happen (maternal instincts). Problem is, that meant taking care of a kid for the entire running time of your movie. With the right child actor, it could have worked (see Leon, the Professional). But not here. It's cringe worthy to see the kid try to follow the director's instructions (and fail, spectacularly).

On the plus side, when the kid is not involved (or is pushed to the background), you get some good scenes (these are quite rare). Also, 80s New York is amazing looking: no extras here, only regular New Yorkers. You could almost touch the grime that's covering everything.

Oh my, oh my, what could have been ...

Manchester by the Sea (2016)

Why on earth do people think this film is AWESOME?!

[3/10 · 11 July 2019]

Let's start with the obvious, Casey Affleck is the king of mumblecore and unsurpassed when it comes to an Average Joe crumbling under the weight of a tragedy (unfortunately, the 'tragedy' sucks, but more about that later). Michelle Williams is amazing, as always, and you even believe her as a working class mother (she played Marilyn Monroe once, FYI). The great Kyle Chandler is totally wasted in a tiny role that could have been played by anybody (literally, anybody).

What brings down this movie is the story and, above all, the character of the son played by Lucas Hedges. I mean, think about it: his dad just died, and this dolt is just smirking/grinning through the proceedings (no, really, watch the movie again and you'll notice he's literally smiling like an idiot half the time). He's bedding two girls (who don't know about each other ... what a prince!), has a band, and in general skates through life. WTF? I felt zero sympathy for his plight because he didn't seem to *have* a plight. Like he couldn't care less. Honestly, the movie would have been 100% better if it was the son who got hit by a dumpster truck and we could see Kyle Chandler dealing with the loss (just imagine!)

The other terrible plot point is the 'tragedy' of Casey Affleck killing his kids accidentally (because he was drunk). Why? Why couldn't their marriage just deteriorate because of his drinking and financial troubles? Wouldn't it have been a more grown up movie? Killing kids is a cheap, easy high to get tears. Like smoking crack. It's so heavy-handed that you're pulled out of the movie: it doesn't feel real. It feels like a plot device (which it is).

A terrific cast, wasted.

I Do... Until I Don't (2017)

Tedious and practically unwatchable (except for Lake Bell)

[1/10 · 4 September 2017]

Look, I loved Lake Bell's previous movie "In a world ...", it was the perfect romantic comedy, off-beat, funny, and with a heart. In fact, I'm probably in love with Lake Bell because I thought she was the best thing in it: she has this natural vulnerability about her that manifests itself in minor gestures and in those big, expressive eyes. I'm just saying this because, if anything, I'm prejudiced for her, not against her.

Anyways, I *wanted* to love this movie, but it's a piece of crap. The insular, middle class environment is literally suffocating. The characters are hateful and empty, without a single redeeming feature (again, except for Lake Bell's Alice).

Let's dive in, shall we?

Ed Helms can be extremely funny (see The Office), but here, he's just depressing. First, he runs the family business (selling blinds!) into the ground. Not because he gambled away the money (you wish!), but through sheer incompetence. And the sad thing is, he doesn't even seem to mind: he seems as upset about it as you'd be about a clogged toilet (well, probably less). He's bland as sop, has no passions or hobbies, probably stares at drying paint for fun. Which begs the question: why would I care if he wanted a child? I would suggest a vasectomy instead, just to save future generations from his pathetic gene line. Problem is, we, the audience immediately question why on earth would a hot and classy girl, like Lake Bell, settle for this guy? Because he reliably flushes the toilet? Honestly, I was baffled. To top this off, there's zero (and I mean ZERO), chemistry between him and Lake Bell. (And I've probably never seen a less exciting invitation for sex in my life. "Meet me in the toilet. In 5." It would be tough for Brad Pitt to pull this off, let alone Ed Helms.)

Paul Reiser and Mary Steenburgen's couple was the worst. There's nothing less appealing then people well into their 50s who still haven't found anything in their life to be passionate (or, at least, excited) about. They have money, apparently, but do nothing with it. Theirs is a meaningless existence, where conversation (when not hateful) is as shallow as a puddle. I doubt they'd ever read a book, listen to music, or do anything outside their comfort zone. And because they are so desperately banal (yet, at the same time, judgmental), nobody cares if their marriage survives or not. I would have been thrilled if the lady fell in love with the pool boy, burnt down the house for insurance money, and told her stupid husband where to get off. At least then, something would have happened.

And, my Gosh, haven't we had enough cheap hippie jokes already? Who thinks making fun of hippies is original, or fresh? Those guys died out in the 60s, all we have left are some dumb hipsters, and even they are too lame to make fun of anymore. In other words, the hippie couple induced the highest levels of indifference in me: Amber Heard is hot, sure, but she doesn't flash her boobs, so no dice. The black dude seems well-adjusted, happily idling away his days, doing sod-all on daddy's money (and he's sleeping with Amber Heard, so he's got that going for him). Why exactly should I care what happens to them? (And no, they are not even into drugs, despite being sooo hippie: at least that would have given the proceedings a little zest).

The 'marriage is dead' plot is artificial, forced, and utterly predictable, which is not a good thing for a movie. I mean, seriously, would anybody in their right mind think for a second that Paul Reiser's character will suddenly say "Screw this, I'm moving to Albania to herd goats!" Exactly nobody. We know the score: marriage is NOT dead, damn it, people, don't you understand?! (For humanitarian reasons I will say nothing about the BBC documentary lady.)

OK, so what about Lake Bell's Alice? Well, as I mentioned before, she's good (great, in fact), but she's stuck in a terrible movie (of her own making, I know, but still). I think she needs to take more risks next time, blow up the living room, burn things down, let blood cruise through the veins of characters so that they make rush decisions, terrible mistakes, and decide to call it quits, if necessary. In other words, she needs to step up her game, because we're witnessing an Oscar caliber actress wasting her talents on insipid fare, best shown on the Lifetime channel for bored housewives. In Vero Beach.

The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016)

Better than the previous one

[10/10 · 23 April 2016]

I don't know why people complain about this one. I went in expecting a fantasy romp with beautiful but evil queens ... and that's exactly what I got! In spades! The other thing that stood out is that the actors are all top shelf. For guys like me, seeing *three* of the most gorgeous actresses appear together (Emily Blunt, Charlize Theron, Jessica Chastain) in a movie is a feast for the eyes. And they all can act! The supporting cast is great (bunch of awesome British guys) as well. The dialog is light- hearted and the love story believable. On top of all this, the story is pretty linear and makes sense. (In a fairy tale-way, of course, but what do you expect?) Most surprisingly, I did feel emotionally attached to the characters. Each had clear motivations and I felt for their plight. Lovers get separated then reunited, a mother loses a child and something snaps inside her, an evil queen wants revenge and power.

Overall, I can only recommend this movie. You won't get bored for a second and might even get emotional by the end.

The Road (I) (2009)

A Man and His Daughter

[1/10 · 18 January 2011]

What, you say? It was his son? No way. I mean, I thought that too for the first 20 minutes or so, but then I realized that I'm the victim of a practical joke and somebody must have doctored the script, replacing "daughter" with "son" everywhere, without changing the rest of it. Then, it all made sense: a whining crybaby who calls her (yes, her) old man "papa", needs to be tucked in every night, and goes for a hug any chance she gets: a tragic young person in desperate need of a sex change operation. (I bet she's afraid of dolphins as well.) Really, I invite you to re-watch the move assuming that Viggo is traveling with her daughter. The movie will get better by at least two stars. At least. It really does help that central casting sent an androgynous looking kid with anime-sized eyes. Maybe, and I'm thinking outside the box here, Viggo really wanted a son and so he started calling his daughter "son". So, you see, it's like Sixth Sense: when you re- watch the movie, you suddenly realize that it's only Viggo who's calling the little brat "son", everybody else refers to her in a neutral way! Very clever subplot.

Otherwise, the movie is a big bore.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

My Gosh, was Jodie Foster weak in this one ...

[10/10 · 25 September 2010]

I saw it recently again, and I'm surprised how weak her acting skills were at the time. I'm not even sure why they picked her: I remembered her as somewhat mousy, but boy, does she look like a secretary. Not only that, on repeated viewings, it's obvious her character was written much smarter than she is: out of the blue, she suddenly burps out something very clever, but you can tell by her delivery and the look in her eyes that she just would have been able to come up with that on her own. Very weird.

Another thing that occurred to me this time, how come the nurses in the asylum are so, I don't know, sympathetic to Lecter? At the very beginning, we're told that he gruesomely and cold-heartedly maimed a nurse (presumably female) while she was trying to give him an EKG. Granted, he always 'justifies' his killings (most of them patients of him, often revolting, like his cell mate), but still. I could never treat a man maiming someone who was trying to help him with anything except extreme contempt and caution. The nurses, they seemed OK with him.

Still immensely watchable, but I see a lot more faults now than I remembered.

Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010)

Who's evil after all?

[5/10 · 16 September 2010]

OK, at this point, we must ask ourselves: does destroying a high-tech, fully-staffed, peaceful underground facility of immense proportions further the cause of survival of the human race or not? I mean, it seems like in this post-apocalyptic world the only organization retaining any semblance of civilization is the Umbrella Corporation. The series is entering a phase where four ragged survivors in Mad Max clothes are The Only Hope (never mind that they can barely feed themselves let alone fix a super-computer system) while a bio-tech company working on, you know, the cure that could save them all is the Ultimate Evil. Who do they think will fix all this if they keep breaking all the beakers?

Star Trek (2009)

Predictable, Silly, Popcorn Flick. And cheap too ..

[1/10 · 10 May 2009]

First, a disclaimer: I'm not a Trekkie. By a long shot. I couldn't give a hoot about how the movie fits in with the Star Trek "canon". Honestly, I couldn't care less. I watched it with an open mind, looking for entertainment. What I got instead was a bunch of frat boys and bimbos playing movie night, together with squirm inducing dialog, forced attempts at humor, and pandering to the Comic Book Guy fans (who got all the inside references about star fleet regulations, I'm sure). And yes, the plot was a mess.

Just a quick list:

• Kid Kirk driving the old car into the canyon, jumping out just in time to grab onto the edge of the abyss. What the ...?

• Lots of scenes were clearly shot inside some chemical plant. (Several stories high building with winding pipes running all over the place, etc.) I didn't know that space ships looked so much like your local sewage processing plant.

• 6 billion people (OK, Vulcans) die, yet everybody acts as if it were "no biggie" (or maybe they were just that bad as actors? Who knows?) The unimaginable just happened and you were half expecting the crew to high- five each other by the end. Honestly, the guards at Auschwitz must have shown more understanding for a tragedy of such epic proportions.

• Contriving to have each original character utter his/her "catchphrase" was so obviously forced that it was literally embarrassing to watch. I felt sorry for the actors. (Some people actually half-clapped when the old chestnuts were let slip. What the ...?)

• I know it's a stupid Star Trek tradition, but I found it "illogical" (thank you, Mr. Spock), if not outright idiotic that it was always the highest echelons of the command structure that went on suicidal commando style missions. (It happened at least three times. At least.) There is a reason why armies no longer have their generals leading the charge: they are harder to replace than infantry (ensigns, red shirts, etc.) Mild complaint, but it got pretty annoying given how everybody was supposed to be so "intelligent".

• I found quite amusing the movie's sophomoric implication that Kirk's getting in a fight every minute or two is the surest implication that he'll make a good captain. It follows that Mike Tyson would make the best captain of the Enterprise. Ever. (You have a problem with that!?) Also, it was nice touch to have Spock and Kirk go mano o mano for the captainship (and becoming friends). Maybe the authors watched Fight Club one time too many?

Funny thing is, with all the fawning, this is just another Star Trek movie (translation: campy melodrama with predictable plot).

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

Powerhouse performance by Campbell ruined by silly pot

[7/10 · 2 November 2008]

This could have been the movie that transcends its premise to become the defining statement on the purposelessness of fame and fortune. Could have been. But for some reason, the writer/director thought otherwise. I am simply lost for words at the colossal waste of opportunity. Campbell oozes the old Elvis. His mannerisms, to the smallest details are real and believable, and thus, devastating. The dialog, when it has nothing to do with the mummy subplot, is stellar. But, it is turgid, laughable, and cringe-worthy when it comes to the stupid horror plot.

The transition into and out of the horror plot is so jarring, as if inserted from another movie. Just one illustration (from the many): when his friend dies, Elvis gets up on his feet (with some effort), and salutes "Mr. President!". It must be seen to be believed. Then, almost in the same breath, we're thrown back, from our catharsis, into the middle of a C-grade horror movie with a silly mummy in a cheap costume.

Why, oh, why did they have to make this into a horror movie? How someone who could write dialog that is so gripping and true about old age and fleeting success include such a stupid, pointless, meaningless, BS horror subplot?

Bruce Campbell's performance is Oscar worthy, but because of the plot (or I should say, half of the plot) nobody's going to see this movie for what it could have been if taken seriously by its director.

Waste, what a waste!

The Pink Panther (2006)

Walked out on it

[1/10 · 18 February 2006]

There are several reasons why I couldn't endure it anymore. First, I got fed up with the extremely forced slapstick comedy. Second, the dumbness of inspector Clouseau was beyond any stretch of belief. And it was not funny dumb like Patrick from SpongeBob, but rather the offensive dumb that makes you want the guy suffer for his dumbness. Third, CGI effects. Yes, you heard me. This clunker thought that bad CGI will improve the awful slapstick routine. Well, it didn't. And finally, I got the impression that the movie was just another really bad knock off of the Naked Gun movie without any originality. Argh, the 10 lines minimum!!! Well then, Jean Reno was wasted and looked embarrassed through most of his scenes. Things blew up without a reason and a lot of people got really hurt because of the actions of our hero.

Walk the Line (2005)

Phoenix *is* Cash

[10/10 · 24 November 2005]

Without Joaquin Phoenix the movie would be nothing. With him it's everything. He's in every scene and it makes the movie. Don't believe the hype, it's *not* Reese Whiterspoon, not at all. She's just her usual self, that's it. It's Phoenix, that takes this movie from its standard biopic level to emotional heights. Laugh and cry. It's about a rock/country star's life so don't be surprised to see down waves but what's interesting is the up-beats, the heart of the man in black. Being obsessed by a woman, throwing away everything for a lifestyle, was it worth it? Well, I think it was. No matter how much a low-life you are if you can take a guitar and start singing a song that will take your breath away.

Doom (2005)

More or less what you expect

[8/10 · 21 October 2005]

OK, I'm biased. I played with the computer games Doom I, II and III. I sat in the cinema with low expectations for a hi-fi video game experience. And that's more or less what this movie is about. The marines are tough, the weapons are cool, the monsters are nasty, the girl is pretty, and the music is metal. What else a doom fan needs? Well, better special effects. Really. The monsters are few and far between, and they are *lame*. I got more scared of the PC versions of the very same monsters. On the flipside, the movie correctly captures the UAC feeling. A monopolostic corporation doing whatever it feels doing on the remote planet mars. The UAC facility looked real and atmospheric. The story, well, it is pretty standard and predictable. But! I liked the marines and I could even sympathize with the Rock ('Sarge') in the end. All in all it is a must see for Doom fans and it is mildly amusing (though bit gory at points) for lay men.

xXx: State of the Union (2005)

Better than expected

[7/10 · 21 May 2005]

I went in to watch this after reading how terribly brainless and low brow everybody said it was. Well, I got what I expected but strangely that wasn't that bad after all. Yes, the action is cartoonish, the one-liners are cheesy but I already switched to James Bond mode so it didn't bother me the least. In fact, compared to some James Bond movies the plot does make a little sense. I don't say that it's L.A. Confidental, but way better than Die Another Day, for example. As for Ice Cube: I think he was cool. I don't know why everybody complains about he not being able to act. What's there to act? He's a Navy Seal. He likes to act tough and cool. It looks ridiculous? Sure, but it's at least entertaining. I don't mind the women being bombshells, cars being beautiful, explosions over that top, I mean what's wrong with these in a James Bond style movie? The ending is bit of a let down, but the rest is worth the buck.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

For (dumb) Kids Only

[1/10 · 20 May 2005]

I saw the Empire Strikes Back when I was a kid. I liked it. I saw it again when I was a teenager. I still liked it. Just to make sure that I was correct I watched it again before going to see the pre-quels. I was still amazed by the story, the characters, everything. Now, let's talk about TroS. It was empty, devoid of any emotion, full of ridiculous pieces of dialogue, unbelievable situations, unbelievable characters, fights without suspense, meaningless space battles. The movie tried to cling on to 'themes' from Star Wars like R2-D2, 3-CPO, Wookies, etc. But why? The first time the droids were funny, the sixth time they are not even annoying, they are just pointless reminders of the glory days. I couldn't care less what happened to them. The scene where R2 saves the heroes by remotely controlling an elevator: where did I see something like this? The main problem with repeating scenes from previous SW movies is that the audience already knows the scene so it's not original anymore. Worse still the audience already knows the outcome too, there goes suspense. So what's left is a mechanic execution of a trite re-enactment.

CGI makes repetition easy. Once you create a very detailed model of a huge starship it costs next to nothing to replicate that starship on the screen. The computer happily renders another instance. Problem is, we already know that repetition is easy to do with computers. "How many starship are there in this battle? Fifty !? Let's add another hundred, no wait, *two* hundred to make it more awesome." Why should I be amazed that some technician typed in a large number into a pop-up dialog window? And I had the feeling that in every single scene somebody boosted the numbers without constraint, beyond reason. Buildings were not just large, they were GIGANTIC. Literally, miles high buildings were the standard, not the exception. But all this left me unimpressed because I know that the height of the building is just another parameter for the computer and it's a trivial thing to render a building that is larger than mount Everest.

Overall, the movie is in the same league with the other two pre-quels. A really bad movie with a lot of over-blown CGI. Good with popcorn.

Silver Streak (1976)

First and Worst

[3/10 · 8 April 2005]

I watched this movie because so many people said that this was the 'definitive' Pryor-Wilder movie. What were those guys thinking?! For starters, Richard Pryor doesn't show up in the first *hour* of the movie. Then he turns out to be a lame side-kick of Wilder who sticks along (and risks his life several times) for no apparent reason. Actually, most of the things Pryor does in this movie doesn't make sense at all.

The biggest problem is, of course, that the movie is not funny. It is dated, sluggish, and boring. There are about five minutes that are reminiscent of good comedy. The rest is corny and/or cheesy. I kept asking myself while people got killed (and a LOT of people gets killed): how's this supposed to be funny? Watch 'Stir Crazy' instead if you want to see the duo in their prime.

Sin City (2005)

Gory Emptiness

[2/10 · 4 April 2005]

I went in the cinema expecting something novel. I got the standard fare instead. Tough talking gangsters? Whores with guns? Extreme violence? The movie should have a big 'Recycled' stamp all over it. Basin City is Gotham City, but to a T. Nothing new here. The character of the concrete tough guy Marv (played nicely by Mickey Rourke, I must admit) was nothing new: he reminded me of the 'overtaker' in William Gibson's novel "Idoru". In the novel the 'overtaker' is a big guy, full of scars, torturing criminals to death in order to get their money, but his heart (who would guess?) is made of gold. Oh yeah, and he wields a hatchet sometimes. Bruce Willis plays Bruce Willis as Hallenbeck. Oh, wait a minute, that was his name in the Last Boy Scout! Here he's called Hartigan. The differences are imperceptible. Since Tarantino is involved we have the obligatory Katana wielding Samurai whore. Luckily she doesn't talk too much (maybe she's a deaf-mute?). The difference from Kill Bill is that now she's using not one, wait for it!, but TWO full-size Katana at the same time! (And of course she likes to throw shuriken. Although if both hands are full how can she throw a shuriken? Maybe she spits them out? Who knows?) Comic book feel means that people like to jump off from great heights for great visual effect. (Really, how many times did one character or another fell ten-storeys or so just for fun? I stopped counting.)

After realizing that there's not going to be anything new in this movie I tried to enjoy it for its own sake. Boy, was it difficult. The dialog is bad, bad, and worse. I don't care if this is because it's supposed to be a comic book. So what? If they use a retarded 10-year-old to write the script and the result is incomprehensible, is it an excuse that he's retarded? What is this, special Olympics? GET SOMEBODY WHO CAN WRITE BEFORE DOING A MOVIE! Comic book fans can have (enjoy?) the original 'corny but brilliant' conversations. They can have the plot too. It commits the biggest crime a story can do: it's boring. By the time the movie got back to Hallenbeck's story the second time I wished it'd been over already. Really, there was nothing to keep my attention story-wise. Absolutely nothing. Here is the pattern: bad guys show up, good guy's sure to die, I'm sure he won't die, yawn, he manages, yawn, to escape (uninterestingly), yawn, bad guys die horrible deaths. Back to square 1: bad guys show up, ...

Maybe it's the comic book tradition but bad guys always shoot at the body while the good guys, cleverly, shoot at the head.

One more thing: maybe if they cast Rutger Hauer as Hartigan and Benicio Del Toro (without the stupid makeup) as Dwight the movie could have been better. (These two could turn the corniest of dialogs into something interesting.)

Ah, I almost forgot. The violence part: take it away and nothing remains but emptiness.