dass-istnumberwang Reviews

Hail, Caesar! (2016)

Mediocre/10

[5/10 · 8 February 2016]

I've called the Coen bros. my favourite directors in the past, so in spite of some poor marketing I was enthusiastic going into this movie. That didn't really last. It's got its moments, sure, and there's nothing wrong with it on the technical, artistic or acting end of things, but... the plot is just... uncommitted? I said shortly after seeing it that I felt like it couldn't decide between having a main plot and being an ensemble comedy, so it winds up not really committing to either. It's got a main plot, but the film seemingly only remembers to address it every 20 minutes or so. There are also a few subplots, but few of them ever go anywhere. And then there's the padding. So. Much. Padding. It's inexcusable.

Oh, and it was sure nice of them to include Jonah Hill in all the marketing when he's only in the film for two minutes.

Monster a Go-Go (1965)

A shame I can't give it a zero

[1/10 · 17 January 2016]

This is, without question, the worst film I have ever seen. It's not even enjoyable in the cheesy B&W B-horror sense that most MST3k fodder is. Like, I despised Spring Breakers. Kairo was so boring it angered me. But I still gave those films two stars because *at least they aren't Monster a-Go Go*. This film is just completely worthless on every conceivable level. And then it has the worst "oh crap, we ran out of money" ending in the history of filmmaking. Just... do not watch. Do not even watch ironically. If you must watch, watch the MST3k episode. The only other film I would call anywhere near this worthless is Manos: The Hands of Fate, but at least that one seemed *finished*.

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

This movie is stupid and amazing

[9/10 · 13 February 2015]

Imagine if Quentin Tarantino directed a James Bond movie. This is basically the result of that. Like, you wanna see a good dumb action movie? This is a fantastic dumb action movie. Certainly had me grinning like an idiot. Maybe not for the entire thing, but certainly for a large majority of it. Anyway, despite how spectacularly absurd the whole thing is, there's actually some pretty good writing and acting in here. Colin Firth and Samuel L. Jackson in particular deliver some outstanding performances. Lot of people might take issue with how over-the-top violent it can get, so if you're sensitive to that sort of thing maybe pass on this, but personally it didn't get to me that much. There's a scene later on in the movie that nearly killed me with laughter over just how ludicrous it was.

Boyhood (I) (2014)

Minority opinion time!

[4/10 · 15 January 2015]

This movie is yet another reminder that I may not be doing the best job at being a snobby film student. Honestly? I couldn't even finish watching it. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen by any means, but it's just so... boring. And honestly, there really isn't a harder kind of film to criticize than the kind that bores you. If you like a film, you can talk about how great the performances, the direction, the writing and such are. If you hate a film, you can talk about how incompetent it is, or what it does that annoy you. If a film is hilariously bad, you can talk about the ways it's bad and why they're funny. But if it's boring, what do you say about it? Ethan Hawke's good, so it has that going for it, but besides that, you don't exactly get excited at the opportunity to tell the world, spreading the word for all to hear, loudly proclaiming "meh." I don't think there's a story worth telling, it doesn't hold my attention very well, I don't really care what happens to anyone in this movie, it's not engaging, it's not exciting, all I can really do is go in circles with variations of "I do not find the events of this move particularly interesting."

Frankly, if there is any emotional response it gets out of me, it's slight annoyance at the fact that the reason I find it so boring is both deliberate and the reason so many others love it. It's an average kid with an average life. Lot of people call it an introspective look at childhood and growing up and blah-dy-bloo. Fine if you do, but it really isn't something I care for.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Pretty good, pretty good

[9/10 · 20 November 2014]

(Warning: also contains spoilers for Gone Girl, Nightcrawler and season 4 of Game of Thrones)

This is the third movie in a row I've seen where the antagonist (or at least an unsympathetic protagonist) wins. That's rapidly climbing up the list of my least favourite tropes in fiction, but I can look past it here. My stepfather's theory is that I have a strong sense of justice that it offends, but I think a more accurate reason is that it's just hard to pull off a satisfying conclusion where that happens. The previous two (Gone Girl and Nightcrawler) are movies I have made no secret that I hate, in spite of their critical acclaim. I would compare those characters to Joffrey from Game of Thrones. They're made out to be so awful in every respect that seeing them die (or at least arrested) would be the most satisfying thing that the movies could've done. But, unlike Joffrey, you don't get that satisfaction, and when you don't, the movie ends with you angry for it. I'm a film student, and I would jump at the chance to write a paper on the importance of satisfying endings. I can forgive a lot of things in a movie, but an ending that you want to boo is not one of them.

With that said, I think this movie deserves credit for not having that happen. Like I said, it's hard to pull off a satisfying conclusion where an unlikeable character comes out on top. This movie does it. And other than that, it's well written, well directed, well acted, has a few great lines in it, it's an all-around solid movie. I'd compare it to a more serious Fargo (another great movie), so I wasn't too surprised to find out this is also a Coen bros. movie.

If I had one gripe with it, it's that the main character dies off-screen and ostensibly not at the hands of the antagonist. Not sure I agree with that creative decision, but it may be faithful to the novel it's adapted from.

Nightcrawler (2014)

Twice in a row. Unbelievable.

[3/10 · 2 November 2014]

This is the first movie I've seen since Gone Girl. And, much like Gone Girl, I went in with high expectations only to be shocked that people actually like the movie. Also like Gone Girl, this is primarily due to the ending which, again like Gone Girl, has a character that the entire movie spends establishing as an unlikeable piece of **** winning. Now, with Gone Girl, I was also critical because said character won for stupid reasons. Here? There weren't any stupid reasons about it, but the ending was... the movie sorta just stopped. No major developments, not much happening in the aftermath of the climax, it just ends. It was the kind of ending that makes you think "did they just run out of script?" rather than anything positive. You can't do that! The ending is the note you're sending your audience home on! The impression the ending leaves is gonna be their impression of the movie!

And you know what the worst thing is? THIS CHARACTER IS THE PROTAGONIST. I AM UPSET THAT THE PROTAGONIST WON. The entire second and third act, I wanted nothing more than for him to get his comeuppance, and that never happens. And it's not because he does immoral things, that's beside the point, I'm actually quite fond of the villain protagonist trope, but no matter what your protagonist needs to be likable, and if not he needs to get what's coming to him! Otherwise, you fail at storytelling! And besides that, the acting is "meh," the dialogue is "meh" and while I will say it was shot really well, that's not enough to save a movie. In conclusion, dammit, Hollywood, stop pissing me off with your endings.

Gone Girl (2014)

Seems like I have a minority opinion here...

[4/10 · 17 October 2014]

You know, I was ready to give this movie a good review. It was going along, I was enjoying things, but then they had to go and ruin it. This movie has one of the worst endings I have ever seen in my entire life. While it might not top Monster A-Go Go (and nothing ever will), as a fan of MST3k, this is not a statement I make lightly. I mean, I don't like endings where the antagonist wins to begin with, but it takes more than that for an ending to genuinely anger me. This movie has the antagonist win for unbelievably stupid reasons. I mean, she tries to frame her husband for murder, which would get him put on death row, when someone else gives her shelter she murders him, but only after she uses him to get pregnant so she can guilt her husband into getting back together. She is unapologetic about all of it, and at the end, THEY GET BACK TOGETHER. And it's not even like Ben Affleck's character is just oblivious, he knows everything, right down to the fact that the kid isn't his! But he lets her get away with it because... I dunno, because she makes great gnocchi! Better answer than the movie will give you! Considering she admitted to murdering Neil Patrick Harris in front of him, Ben's character comes off as being literally too stupid to live! And you know what the worst bit of it? The ending draaaaaaaaaaaaaags. It's not just stupid, it takes time to drive in just how stupid it is.

You know, I can forgive a movie, or a TV series or whatever for a lot of things, and this movie certainly had flaws to begin with (Ben's sister is the only likable character, the news anchor is such an over-the-top caricature of feminists that I'd almost call it sexist, the police charge someone with murdering someone they can't even prove is dead, etc.), but if there's one thing I think is unforgivable, it's an ending that leaves you angry.

Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

Little underwhelming

[6/10 · 27 August 2014]

I watched this movie recently because 1) I've been meaning to check out some other John Carpenter movies since I saw The Thing, and 2) a video-making-guy I like (Spoony) said it was his favourite movie of all time. And... well, to be frank, I can't quite understand why. I mean, it's *alright*, but I wouldn't exactly call it great. First off, good stuff: effects have aged pretty well for a movie from 1986, the action is pretty good, it's well-directed, it has one of the best intros I've ever seen and Kurt Russell is *amazing* in this movie, I'd almost recommend it for his performance alone. But there is one major problem with it; the pacing. This movie goes way too fast. Large portions of the dialogue just feel like hasty exposition to explain why the action is happening, there's basically no development for any of the characters, on that note Jack Burton and Egg Shen feel like the only two characters that have any personality set up at all, and the story is so thin it almost feels like the first two acts are a Double Dragon adaptation. A better Double Dragon adaptation than the *actual* Double Dragon adaptation, mind you. All that said, if you like John Carpenter, Kurt Russell or martial arts movies I'd say watch it, but other than that you're not missing much by passing.

Neighbors (I) (2014)

I didn't like it

[3/10 · 10 May 2014]

Honestly, when I first saw the trailer for this, my immediate reaction was "my god, this looks terrible." But then I saw it getting pretty good reviews from critics *and* viewers, which convinced me to see it. Might be the next Animal House, I thought. It wasn't. It's a lot of low- effort comedy executed unspectacularly. I mean, maybe everyone else started finding run-of- the-mill dick jokes funny while I wasn't looking, but the most I got out of it was a chuckles maybe every 10 or so minutes. And it's not like I have a problem with crass humour, I like South Park (and other Seth Rogan movies, for that matter), this just wasn't funny.

Spring Breakers (2012)

Hated it

[2/10 · 26 November 2013]

I'm sure there's a lot of detractors who would call it "sexist" or "exploitative" or whatever, but that's not what's important. What's important is that this movie is BORING. Sure, it's well produced, but what does that matter when you have a two hour movie with maybe three scenes worth mentioning? And going back to that controversial stuff, there's been some debate as to whether it's female empowerment or sexist exploitation. I've heard it argued both ways. In fact, I watched this in a film class I'm taking, consensus seemed to be that it was some sort of commentary on how the kind of life you see in music videos makes for a nice fantasy, but isn't all it's cracked up to be. While I can say there's some merit to that theory, as it certainly feels like a two hour long music video (and I say that as a bad thing), frankly, I have a bit of a tendency to take things at face value. I would honestly say the writer/director (whom I can't remember the name of) just decided to make the movie sleazy and exploitative as a substitute for actually having anything interesting going on. And since it made more than 4 times its budget at the box office, apparently it worked! I guess there's a market for two hours of horny women in bikinis doing drugs and committing crimes! As a gay male, it's clearly one I'm not in.

In conclusion, would not recommend.