imajestr Reviews

The Wolfman (2010)

Very Fun, Gory Modern "B Movie" Horror

[8/10 · 21 November 2023]

I confess I have never seen the original, but as this is meant to be a modern reimagining, I think it's fair to judge on its own merits. I thought it started rather cheesy, but as it went on, I found the cheese to be part of the charm--it is essentially a modern B horror movie, and it is loads of fun.

Every actor is giving it their all, and there are some huge names here that really nail it. The special effects are slightly dated here and there, but no worse than anything you'd see in a Marvel movie from the same era.

I could absolutely see this becoming a spooky season regular watch for me and my wife, like Sleepy Hollow. If that's your jam, it's definitely worth a watch!

Hell House LLC II: The Abaddon Hotel (2018)

Hard to believe how awful it is

[1/10 · 12 September 2020]

I'll keep this short. The first movie was at least somewhat naturalistic, fairly well acted, took its time with the creep factor, and let the tension build toward the inevitable climax even while working with a nonexistent budget.

This sequel is so much worse on every level. The acting is consistently horrible, the dialog stinted and full of unnecessary exposition (how many times do we need to be told that the hotel is drawing people there because it is evil?), and the scares are cheap and cliche. I have no idea what went wrong here, but even the original actors who show up sound like kids struggling their way through a high school play. Basically, the hotel is now super powered, and we know what is going to happen to everyone who enters. They often meet their fates within minutes of entering, and it is always accompanied by the same lame freeze frames and close ups that are meant to be chilling but come off as heavy handed and tiresome.

Bottom line: if you liked the first movie, do yourself a favor and skip this one. All charm is gone. It. Is. Dog crap.

It Comes at Night (2017)

Titles (And Marketing) Matter

[8/10 · 7 July 2019]

Let me start off by saying this movie doesn't deserve the hate it has received from audience members. Let me also say that the title and marketing were a massive mistake, and I don't blame audience members for being ticked off. The movie promised by the title and trailers is not the movie presented.

Once you get past these issues, the story itself is quite good. The main characters are believable, and while the premise isn't wholly unique, the film presents a world that is frighteningly realistic occupied by characters worth rooting for. In essence, this is a post apocalyptic film about a plague that has wiped out the civilized world. Our main characters live in a cabin in the woods, getting by. Then another couple with a young child arrives, and things get morally complicated. Who do you trust in that situation? What do you do to protect your family?

We watch the characters struggle with these questions, and the stakes are always as high as can be. There's some ambiguity to the events in the film that make it rewatchable, and the ending is as sad as it is shocking. This one has stayed with me since I saw it in theaters.

Await Further Instructions (2018)

Well Acted; Poorly Written

[3/10 · 27 June 2019]

This movie is a mess. If you have half a brain, you'll figure out the allegory within the first twenty minutes. And that allegory is...(drum roll)...

Television is evil.

That's it. That's the movie in a nutshell. Everything else, including the plot, is only present to service the allegory.

Oh, sure, there's some other crap thrown in. Motifs about abusive fathers. The dangers of submitting to authority. Xenophobia and racism are in there for good measure. But these things are more happenstance than substantial. They're there because there needed to be SOMETHING there, and why not throw in some half-baked sociopolitical commentary?

I'm still scratching my head over the decision to make television the film's focal point. This movie came out in 2018, yet its message is to stop worshiping TV. Maybe the writer thought it would be too complicated to make all the phones and computers in the house display evil text messages. Or maybe the script was sitting on someone's desk for a decade, and no one felt like updating it for the contemporary era. IDK.

There are other problems. Most of the characters are dumb as dirt and more gullible than anyone you've ever met. The only halfway intelligent characters have little agency as events unfold, making for a frustrating viewing experience.

Most of the problems stem from the movie's inability to move beyond its message. Allegories must, at some point, transcend their metaphors and do something literal with the plot they've built. This movie doesn't do that. The force messing with this family makes no sense. What was the point of everything that happened before the ending? Why put this family through all of this? We don't know, and nobody involved with the film seems to know or care. The events happen because the writer wants them to. That's all.

The one positive thing about the whole venture is that the acting is strong throughout. The actors do a great job with what they're given, and I'd like to see all of them in better films. It would be a shame for their careers to suffer for this mess.

As for the writer, he should do some soul searching.

Under the Skin (I) (2013)

Completely lacks the humanity of the novel

[5/10 · 15 December 2018]

It would be impossible for me to review this movie on its own merits simply because I read the novel first. I would like to appraise the film as a standalone, but I simply can't. That said, I am not a huge fan of the novel. It had its flaws, but was, over all, a solid sci-fi drama that did not hold back for the sake of pretension and coyness. The novel does not hide who the character really is or why she abducts men. It is not overly artsy simply for the sake of beautiful language.

The movie, on the other hand, is the complete opposite. It is cold, distant, and almost inexplicable. Who are the men on the motorcycles? Why exactly is the main character abducting these people, and what brings on her change of heart? We are left to guess. For some people this will be a satisfying experience. Personally, I found it to be a complete bastardization of the source material, which takes its time developing the themes of living in an alien body and treating human beings like cattle. There are some truly disturbing moments in both iterations of the story, but the novel brings us closer to the main character's thoughts and lets us experience her journey. In the case of the film, we can only make inferences about why the character acts certain ways, but we aren't allowed to empathize with her. We don't understand her reasoning. We only see her actions.

Don't get me wrong. It's gorgeous to look at. It has some incredible visuals. It is atmospheric, for sure, but what is the point of atmosphere if you aren't telling a story with any soul? Soul is what the book is all about. Soul is what the movie lacks.

The Predator (2018)

A big, dumb, ugly, somewhat fun addition to a franchise that deserves better

[6/10 · 17 September 2018]

I'll keep this short. If you go into this movie with extremely low expectations looking for little more than some predator-themed violence, you will come away feeling at least somewhat satisfied. If, however, you are hoping for a movie that breathes new life into an underestimated franchise that has huge potential, you'll no doubt come away bitter and disappointed.

In brief, the strengths:

-A lot of laughs keep the movie from taking itself too seriously -A decent amount of action keeps the movie entertaining if you come for the alien violence and nothing more -There's a slight deepening of the Predator lore, so the movie at least tries to show us something we haven't seen before -A cast of strong actors, for the most part, keeps the movie afloat -Because of the humor and action, it is, if nothing else, fun at times

The weaknesses:

-This movie is dumb. I mean DUMB. -A lot of the humor comes off as forced and trying too hard -This movie is one ugly MFer. No, really, it's bursting with absolutely terrible CGI, especially in the final act. For reference, it's on par with the original Thor's final battle -Not enough action with the original Predator creature; too much reliance on a bad CGI rendering of something new for the sake of being new -Odd pacing hampers what could have been an otherwise strong movie, despite the other flaws; scenes are rushed, the action muddy, the stakes unclear; it barrels forward without much interest in setting up suspense or thrills--just one muddy action sequence after another with jokes in between -Did I mention this movie is dumb? It is really, really dumb -The stupidity is multiplied by an unnecessary, out-of-left-field final sequel-bait scene that should have been left on the cutting room floor

The House of the Devil (2009)

Trite, Predictable, and So Very, Very Boring

[1/10 · 23 August 2015]

I've been seeing a lot of use reviews that say this movie is for "true fans" of the horror genre, and that it has an "unrelenting" sense of suspense. I like unique projects, and that was enough to draw me in.

But what those reviewers didn't mention is that this movie is painfully slow, and that there is actually very little suspense, especially if you're a fan of the genre. The first 40 minutes are so tedious and pointless that by the time the "suspenseful" elements were introduced, the film had frustrated me beyond the point of caring. There's very little character development, so everyone feels like a cardboard cutout. The main character is driven by one goal: To pay for her new house, and this plot point gets about 30 minutes of attention for some reason.

The other cardinal sin this movie falls guilty of is telegraphing all of its moves. Because there is so little going on, it becomes terribly obvious what is going to happen once that slow-moving ball finally does get rolling. That works against the suspense, creating instead a sense of impatience, which is not remotely the same thing.

So, if you have never seen a horror movie before, maybe you will find this suspenseful. But I think this movie should have gone through some heavy editing--where someone who understands the importance of conflict and tension reviewed the script--because in its current state, it will bore any intelligent moviegoer to tears.

American Horror Story (2011– )

A Soap Opera that Happens to Have Ghosts

[4/10 · 8 January 2012]

I started watching this show, probably like a lot of people, after reading some rave reviews and hearing a lot of good word of mouth. The first few cheesy minutes of the series should have been a sign, but my curiosity pulled me in. With tired "scares" and endlessly unbelievable characters reminiscent of a made-for-TV Stephen King script, this show is, as the title of this review suggests, merely a soap opera with some ghosts thrown in.

Like any soap opera, much of the writing crosses the line from suspension of disbelief to "Well that's convenient," all the way to "Give me a ****ing break." Without spoiling anything, I will simply say that the writers make themselves visible too often, and by that I mean, rather than being a show about real characters dealing with horror and grief, the show becomes about what ridiculous attempt at a "twist" the writers can dream up next for our two-dimensional, unlikeable cast.

Worst of all, none of it is particularly believable. The characters continuously play against what might be called common-sense, or even human nature, and the show spins evermore into the territory of the ridiculous. It stops being fun as the show continues to compound the notion that these characters are merely plot devices for a plot that isn't terribly interesting.

And none of this even broaches the subject of how such a haunted house could contain such boring ghosts. The only reason to watch this show is to figure out the "logic" behind this ghost-house: Who are these ghosts? Why are they trapped here? Yet the novelty wears off as soon as you realize you could replace the ghosts in the basement with ex lovers at the door and you'd just as soon have a typical daytime soap opera.

So if you're a soap opera fan, or a fan of such series as Nip/Tuck, you might enjoy this convoluted quest down a tired and hackneyed rabbit hole. But if you're looking for genuine scares, genuine moments with genuine characters, or even relatively interesting story-telling, you'd be better off looking elsewhere.

Don't be tempted by what little intrigue there is in the first few episodes. The mystery wears itself out long before the halfway mark.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

Both a Triumph and a Failure in Some Ways...

[8/10 · 26 November 2010]

This is not a film propelled by its plot. Plot, specifically, is its central weakness.

Probably its greatest strength is the cinematography. Its a visually gorgeous film in every way possible. The house elves look better than they ever have, the weird inky trails the Death Eaters leave as they fly is even better looking than in any previous film.

And, of course, the characters, as should be, are the focus. It is hard to write an entirely fair critique having read the books, but the characters continue to reveal their complexities and their weaknesses. All around, they continue to gain depth.

But, to delve into this film's weaker point, one must look at it as a standalone film, which is what it tries to be, and succeeds on some levels, but fails on others.

Unfortunately, it very much feels like the first half of a story. There is no resolution, which is not problematic in itself, except for the fact that a good deal of the film feels stalled in the woods. This is by far the slowest of the films, and the least spectacular in the literal sense of the word. The magic is not gone, nor is the humor, which, honestly, is handled very well considering the dark overtones. However, we spend a good deal of the film hanging out, aimlessly, in the woods.

Aimlessness is exactly the problem, and its a frustration that is supposed to be shared between the characters and the audience, but it wavers quite dangerously over a line called "tedium." And some of the film does begin to feel tedious, as if we're only stuck in certain scenes because that's what has to happen on screen in order to get to the next thing. I noticed a certain relief in my theater when something funny happened, as if everyone was thinking, "Alright, something finally happened." Like they were a little too eager to laugh, and needed something, anything, to keep their attention on the screen.

Of course, this seems nitpicky, but considering that the story here is meant to garner interest, and to increase the tension, and that it gets a little tiresome before the end credits roll, something is clearly not working as it should.

Yet, considering that this is practically spot-on with the first half of the book, it's hard not to have sympathy for the production team. Whatever problems the book had, so too does the movie have, and for fans that is going to seem great, but the movie still does not move in an entirely satisfactory way.

This is to be fairly expected, and for someone unfamiliar with the story, I imagine it must leave one waiting tensely for the next installment.

Splice (2009)

Why This Movie Fails

[4/10 · 17 November 2010]

It fails right from the get-go. Not that splicing human genes with animal genes isn't interesting, but the whole thing feels very stagy. By that, I mean it feels contrived and artificial. The character motivations are practically nonexistent, so from the start it feels like the writer is trying to force the entire plot.

Why do Elsa and Clive want to splice human genes with animal genes? Well, just for the hell of it. They're getting shut down, anyway, so why not? Wow, what a way to take all dramatic tension right out of a plot.

Since there's no real tension behind their actions, there's no real tension in the plot. From the beginning you're just thinking, boy I hope these people get killed immediately.

The rest of the movie is pretty standard stuff. It moves back and forth from one character or the other being completely unlikeable, to the other character being even more unlikeable, until you're really just praying for somebody to get stabbed in the face already so something might actually happen.

The writers tried to use sexual tension with a mutant as a selling point, but it's not working. Nothing drives this plot, and the whole time I was watching it I was groaning inside because, rather than find some way to propel the plot forward, the characters just worry about being "caught." Well, if I'm rooting against them, I could care less if they're caught. In fact, I wish they would be.

So, this movie is essentially about watching an angry couple fight over their mutant baby. Without giving anything away, I have to say the third act is absolute rubbish. Since the first hour and twenty minutes had absolutely no momentum, the writers flip a switch and turn it into Jeepers Creepers without the scare factor. And the final scene is reminiscent of a sci fi channel, low budget cheese fest that "sums things up" for us: Nobody learned anything, and we might try to force a sequel out of this turd; Gosh, humans are jerks! Sound appealing? It shouldn't. It's not.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Stereotypes, Sex Jokes, Sex Jokes, Over the Top Slapstick Humor, and Sex Jokes

[3/10 · 25 June 2009]

If you're a smart movie goer and want something with big explosions and a good amount of tension to turn your brain off to, see Terminator Salvation, because this one isn't redeeming enough to spend 8 dollars on. Terminator sucked in its own right, but at least it had one interesting character. Let me explain.

Michael Bay takes a lot of flack from so-called "haters" these days, and with good reason. You either love or hate the first Transformers movie, right? Well, I didn't love or hate it. I thought it was good for an escapist action flick. It had decent enough characters and a plot that you could follow, even if you didn't think some of the humor worked or thought that Megan Fox was just there as eye candy. Well, the same can be said of Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, except for the fact that almost nothing works in this film like it does in the first.

Megan Fox is exploited more, there's more sex humor that's supposed to make us giggle, there are annoying robots that fist bump and act like offensive black stereotypes from ten years ago as if a KKK member wrote the script, there are robots that act and sound like gremlins, there are pointless characters that are there only to shout out terrible one liners, there are random explosions (see: aircraft carrier exploding for ten minutes in unconvincing CGI) there are even giant testicles on one of the Transformers and these are described as "the enemy scrotum." That's a direct quote. It's mildly funny in an immature, tongue in cheek kind of way, but it makes a mockery of the Transformers franchise, and that's how most of the film comes off.

We spend the majority of the film following Shia Labeouf and the US military around while they search for, guess what, another mysterious source of power that the Decepticons want. But let's face it, if you want to see this movie, you're not seeing it for plot, you're seeing it for the explosions, basically the eye candy. I can understand that, but the problem is that 75% of the movie is flat-out annoying.

The slapstick humor is too over the top and a lot of the jokes are out of place. There's even a scene in which Shia's mom eats a pot browny and tackles a college student playing frisbee. The point? There isn't one. It's one of the things that hampers this film throughout and it all stems from an incredibly sloppy script. The tone is disjointed and it often can't figure out if it's supposed to be an intense action movie or a fratboy's film made for his twelve year old brother who still thinks fart jokes are hilarious. (There are at least two obvious fart jokes, probably more).

The robots look good in most scenes, but the effects are strangely not up to par with the first film at times. It seemed sometimes like the effects team had a hard time keeping the framerate right during the big robot fighting scenes. It's not a big problem, because it's gorgeous for the most part, but there are really only two glorious fight scenes and they're very far apart in this two and a half hour film that could have been cut in half if the writers knew what they were doing.

This is definitely one of those films that you either love or hate, and it's all going to bank on whether or not you can sit through the annoying over-the-top humor to get to the effects. Syd Field described movies like this as "characters running from special effects" so that the effects become the plot and character loses out. He's right on, but the biggest problem here is, as I've already said, the annoying humor and the sometimes cutesy cartoonish robots that don't really have any place tonally or plot-wise. I guess the humor is supposed to somehow hold the film together, but it doesn't even come close.

The script needed an overhaul, but it obviously never got one, and it all feels very thrown together and unpolished for the sake of cash. My advise is, if you LOVED the first movie, rent this one, because there's not enough here to redeem the flaws. The only robots from the first movie are Optimus Prime (who barely has any screen time) and Bumblebee (who spends most of his time in the background as a car), so you can't even rely on an expansion of those characters.

The only other positive thing I have to say about this film is we really get to see how much of a serious threat the Decepticons are. The good guys are always outnumbered, and the Autobots are essentially absent, which is strange since it's supposed to be a war of robots vs. robots, not humans vs. Decepticons. But it does make the war seem desperate, even if it makes the Autobots seem relatively useless without Optimus around to ninja-slash his way through anyone in his way.

3/10. Again, rent this one or see it in a dollar theater when you can. There are better turn- your-brain-off movies out there right now with their own flaws that you don't have to put up with for two and a half painful hours.

Out of the Wild: The Alaska Experiment (2009– )

A Miserable Camping Trip - Skip This One

[3/10 · 5 May 2009]

I hate to say it, because I was looking forward to this show, but it makes for really bad television. The basic premise is intriguing enough on paper: Send a group of nine every day people into Alaska to make a trek across the harsh landscape with nothing but their wits, a camera crew, and some shelters with very little supplies placed strategically along the way. The only problem is that the result is, well, incredibly boring.

Nothing happens. The group members can essentially quit the show when they've had enough and can't go on, and this turns the show into a knock-off of the infamous reality show, Survivor. It stops being about survival in the wild, and starts being about who is going to quit next. Most of the "tasks" they take part in to survive involve gathering wood, hunting and failing terribly, lighting fires, and complaining about the cold. Most of the drama centers around how miserable and frustrated they are, but most of it comes from the narrator because there's very little action taking place on screen.

The end result is basically a show that chronicles a miserable camping trip that nobody wants to be on, and it's about as exciting. If you're a reality junkie, you might want to check out an episode, but there's really no reason to watch more, as the people on the show are not very interesting and you'll probably find yourself feeling rather apathetic by the end of the first episode you watch.

The Missing (I) (2003)

Same old formula

[5/10 · 9 August 2008]

I had no expectations when I rented this last week, but I was still let down.

The setup is simple enough. A woman who's chosen to live a rugged life ends up with a stolen daughter and a dead boyfriend. At the same time, the father she never had returns wanting something along the lines of redemption for leaving her. Well, he just happens to be an expert tracker and knows more about the thieves than the police. They start out, 9 or 10 year old girl in tow, on a simple quest to meet up with the police who are tracking the thieves in, surprise, the wrong direction. Cate's character, of course, doesn't want anything to do with Jones, our returned father figure, at least at first, and if you can't see the ending coming a mile away, this very well might be the first movie you've ever seen.

My only real problem with the movie is how incredibly ordinary it is. There's nothing spectacular about the directing, there's nothing that stands out about the score, and the characters, while acted well, fall on the bland side. Tommy Lee Jones plays Tommy Lee Jones as a Native American Indian, dry wisdom and old timey Indian folk lessons included. Cate, while an excellent actress, plays another ordinary character who's only role in the film is to provide a conflict between father and daughter that is so familiar it might as well have just been left out of the script.

The ending is cheesy and obvious, and the "bad guy" is never really raised above "bad guy" status, though he's given some interesting properties.

There was a lot they could have done with this one, but the themes they might have touched on were left in the trunk, while driving the car was the overused formula we've seen a thousand times from Hollywood.

Lars and the Real Girl (2007)

Ryan Gosling proves his greatness

[8/10 · 20 April 2008]

I couldn't help but think of Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man when I was watching Gosling play Lars. This is a beautiful performance, and this movie deserves a great deal of attention, if not for the unique plot, then for Gosling's portrayal of the severely confused, but lovable Lars. The performance is perfect -- right down the way he blinks.

If you're thinking about renting this movie, don't expect a comedy exactly. It's more of a drama about loneliness and fear of being hurt than anything, though it's undeniably charming throughout. Lars comes off as a very lovable character, though he's obviously delusional and scared sh!tless of getting close to people. Every moment of the film feels sincere, and I wouldn't doubt that some people might get emotional at times while watching. It's a very touching film, but again, don't expect a comedy.

I truly do recommend this one for anyone that likes a sincere drama with great performances from the whole cast.

Juno (2007)

Overrated

[4/10 · 20 April 2008]

From Ellen Page overacting one moment to the next, to each indie song every time there's a scene change, to the pretentious dialogue, this movie's tries so hard to be special and charming that it comes off as a sham. None of it feels genuine. It's as if someone who's seen a countless amount of so-called "indie" flicks said to herself, "That looks easy, I can write pretentious dialogue all day!" I don't really understand the hype, but nothing I can say will make people realize how overrated this film is. Even my girlfriend was raving about it when she saw it, but I was antsy and bored when she made me watch it recently. It gets mildly interesting about twenty minutes before the end, but other than that it's like watching some corporate Hollywood executive's attempt at making an "indie" film. If you don't mind watching annoying girls banter on for an hour and a half, then rent this one, but if you're looking for a real comedy or drama that doesn't annoy, I'd skip it.

I don't really understand why Ellen Page got so much attention. Her excited stutter-speak becomes so tedious by the end I wanted to reach through the screen and smack her. You can predict how she's going to deliver lines by the end in an attempt to make them sound natural, but it gets highly annoying. Not to mention her character is not likable at all.

The music is another issue. Why every "indie" film needs to discuss bands at length like it adds something to the plot, I will never understand. Not to mention this whole movie is more like a music video for The Moldy Peaches.

Maybe I'm not in touch with my feminine side or something, but I just don't get what all the rave is about.

Slipstream (2007)

Bizarre, Challenging and Experimental

[6/10 · 15 April 2008]

Slipstream is a film written, directed and financed by Anthony Hopkins. If you've seen the previews you will know this looks to be a bizarre film, but I assure you, it's far more bizarre than the trailers make it seem. It's not for everyone, and any viewer has to have a great deal of patience to watch it. Don't expect your typical movie here, and that includes the traditional concept of a plot: Rising action, climax, falling action/conclusion. The movie twists from place to place and never gives much in the way of answers. Towards the very beginning a man runs out of his car and screams, "We've lost the plot!" In a way, that's exactly what this movie is about, but it's never exactly clear what happens in terms of character, or even what the plot is exactly.

Like a Lynch film without his signature twist where the "real world" is suddenly revealed, this film barrels onward into an incredibly strange experiment in film. If you're not into experimental films, or films that give questions and absolutely no answers, DO NOT SEE IT, YOU WILL NOT ENJOY IT. Even if you're into art films or films like David Lynch's, there's no guarantee that you'll like it, but I suggest you give it a rent. If you invest some time in it, I think the randomness starts to take form and meaning, but you have to be patient enough to invest that required time.

Again, to reiterate, if you're not into experimental films, skip this one. To those that are: Rent it, but watch it with an open mind.

Fracture (2007)

Mediocre plot saved by great acting

[6/10 · 25 February 2008]

I was expecting a little more action and a little more suspense from this one. The trailers I saw seemed to imply a sadistic main character that truly enjoyed destroying the life of Gosling's character. The movie, however, ends up to be a battle of wits through courtroom procedure. The bulk of the film followed Gosling's character and his struggle to choose between justice and vanity/wealth while trying to win his last court case before moving to a new firm. With the new firm looming overhead, can he concentrate on the case at hand and put a psycho where he belongs, or will he eventually choose the vanity of the new firm and work for bigwigs suing bigwigs? This is the moral center of the film, and it ends up being the focus for a long time. Hopkin's character remains in the background for most of the movie, and even the final "confrontation," if you want to call it that, is not all that suspenseful or intense.

Overall, don't expect what the trailer's imply the movie is going to be, it's not all that intense, nor is it a very dark film. It's more a character film, and thankfully for the makers, Gosling and Hopkins are a couple of the best actors out there. Without them, I think this movie would have been a total dud, but they knew how to make the best out of what might have been relatively flimsy characters.

Six stars because the acting was great so the characters were well played, but the directing was nothing more than standard and the plot fell relatively flat by the end.

Mr. Brooks (2007)

Has flaws, but overall very entertaining

[6/10 · 25 February 2008]

It took a good fifteen to twenty minutes for me to actually start liking this film, but once I got to that point I was able to forgive its flaws and go along for the remainder of the ride. I wasn't let down in the end.

At first I was turned off by the hokeyness, for lack of a better word, of the setup. A serial killer with an imaginary friend who tells him to kill people. We've seen it before. The characters aren't all that interesting at first, and Dane Cook's presence and position within the plot seems completely unjustified and unrealistic. Still, if you can get over these problems, you find that there's something deeper at the heart of the film. There are some very moving and disturbing moments, especially between Brooks and his alter ego, and the characters eventually take interesting shape.

There are some things that still don't sit well with me-- the subplot with Demi Moore's character and the recently escaped serial killer that's vowed to get her, for example, is cringe-worthy. At times it seems like the writers just pulled this out of thin air to add a little more action to the story, but it never seems to fit right within it. Overall, though, Costner pulls off a deeply disturbed man that becomes mesmerizing in his bizarreness. This is where the strength of the movie lies-- in the tormented head of the main character, and luckily for the shoddy parts of the film, that character is interesting enough to make it enjoyable.

Six out of ten because of the sometimes "hokey" writing, and for Dane Cook's ridiculous character.

I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With (2006)

Another case of misleading advertising

[6/10 · 25 February 2008]

I enjoyed this film for the most part, but there are a lot of problematic things I'd like to point out.

First, let's say what's good about the film. It's clever, and the characters are well rounded and quite honestly, the main character is entertaining in his own awkward way. The love interest aspect of the movie actually ends up taking a backseat to this man's somewhat depressing life, but the film never stops being a little charming. The problem, though, is that it's been advertised as a romantic comedy. It's not.

Mostly it's a sitcom in the form of a full length feature. Anyone familiar with the formula of Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm will recognize the setup of many jokes and situations throughout the film (Jeff Garlin is a producer and character on CYE, so this shouldn't come as a surprise that they're very similar. Even down to the soundtrack.) My girlfriend and I picked this one up after seeing the trailer and thought it would be a funny romantic comedy. But, as I've already said, the relationship aspect to the film is only a side note. Sara Silverman's character gets maybe a total of fifteen minutes on screen, and is not anything like the trailer portrays. To make a long story short, my girlfriend fell asleep a long while before the movie ended, and I, while I thought it had it's funny moments and made a decent "indie" film about the life of a depressed overweight man, was a bit disappointed that there wasn't a stronger romantic aspect to it since that's what I was expecting. The movie in its entirety seems like Jeff Garlin's attempt to emulate the style and comedy of Curb Your Enthusiasm with a slightly more true-to-life tone. I could see this main character becoming a character in a sitcom, and part of me wonders if this wasn't some type of offshoot of a project that was originally intended to be a sitcom, or something that Garlin hoped would be well received enough for someone to give him his own show.

Six out of ten because of its charm and several funny moments, but seriously disappointed with the misleading advertising.

P.S. I Love You (2007)

The Chickiest Chick Flick I've Ever Seen.

[3/10 · 15 January 2008]

As a guy, I can say parts of this movie were just painful to sit through. Don't be turned off by that first sentence thinking this is going to be a biased review, there's reason why it was painful and it's not just because I'm a guy.

There were some entertaining points, but as a whole, it was far too sentimental to feel genuine. Just about every other scene is a flashback to the dead husband where all the girls in the audience are supposed to let out a sympathetic, "Awwww," but if you're a movie buff that can tell when a movie is just overdoing it, those scenes become incredibly tedious. Some of them seem to go on forever, and all they do is show something we already know: She misses her husband.

Well DUH! We get it, already, let's move on with the story. The problem is that half the story is that one fact. The main character misses her husband. Each letter brings about a similar flashback which is again tedious if you're looking for something to actually happen in terms of plot, or some further realization about the characters. The flashbacks don't reveal anything of significance- When they met isn't really that important by the last fifteen minutes of the movie.

The whole time I felt like I was watching a movie made specifically to get sentimental feelings from the audience, but it kept harping on the same points so that those points got in the way of the story and slowed things down to a dull shuffle. Most "chick flicks" have some redeeming qualities for men dragged along by their girlfriends-- A sense of humor that they can laugh along with or a plot that includes a decent male character that has a role other than to bring jealousy out of the female audience. While this movie has a sense of humor, it's far too "cute" to be redeeming for the typical male population. The plot is centered around women, and I think it's safe to say that the movie is aimed only at women.

At two hours and six minutes, the thing just drags by the end. I found myself studying my watch a good half an hour before it was over.

So in summary, if you're a guy and you're girlfriend wants to take you to this, you'll probably be trying not to let out snide remarks the whole time, so tell her she should bring her girlfriends to see it instead, as you'll just ruin it. And girls, if you're looking for a sad movie that has a decent sense of "cutesy" humor, go with your girlfriends, but please, spare your man the trouble of trying to sit through it.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

Should have gone straight to video

[6/10 · 26 December 2007]

The dialogue was some of the worst writing I've had to sit through in a while. None of the characters are likable or realistic. There isn't even really a protagonist. This movie's the culmination of two fanboy minds intent on making a mindless gorefest by intermingling two franchises that became garbage about 20 years ago.

There's no tension throughout the movie because none of the characters matter. We're introduced to some characters that would fit perfectly well in a made for TV slasher flick, and these somehow become the characters we're forced to follow. I say "forced" because I did not want to see any more of these characters when they were first introduced. And it seemed like every time a new character was introduced that character died thirty seconds later.

And since a great deal of the deaths are in the R rated trailer, I already knew who was going to die and when. In fact, the trailers show the overall plot in about a minute and a half anyway. They even show a plane dropping a nuke. Why film companies like to spoil movie plots before people even see them is beyond me, and it certainly ruins the movie going experience when you know one of the main plot points before it happens.

The main monsters, the Predator and the Predalien, are the only two things the movie has going for it, but they still aren't enough. They get a decent amount of screen time, but the climax feels strikingly absent by the time the credits roll.

The best way to describe the movie in its entirety is to say that it feels like an hour and a half of filler. By the end you're still waiting for the plot to get going, but it just never does. Aliens descend on town, Predator descends on aliens, a bunch of people die. And all of the main characters feel like side characters. What makes a good monster movie is having someone to root for, but that someone is entirely absent in this movie. For some reason the writers decided it best to make the human's dramatic side plot about a high school boy who likes a slutty blonde girl who, surprise, even has a big bully boyfriend who likes to beat up the nice boy with the crush. But none of it is convincing in the least. I found myself stifling laughter throughout the movie.

If you want a newer, more enjoyable monster movie, watch something like The Descent or maybe go see The Mist, but don't waste your time or money sitting through this new disgrace to the Alien and Predator franchises. It really seems like it should have been made for a sci fi channel release.

Dreams (1990)

Disappointingly Pretentious

[6/10 · 20 December 2007]

Don't get me wrong, I love movies that make you think, and I tend not to like the typical Hollywood over-budgeted garbage that's spewed out year after year after year. I've heard this movie praised over and over again, and being a newcomer to Kurosawa's film making, I was looking forward to a strange adventure into this man's mind. Unfortunately, what I found was a segment or two that was great in concept, sometimes beautifully filmed, but overall, surprisingly pretentious and poorly executed.

There are segments that seem to drag on forever without dialogue and others that spew what seems to be propaganda from the mouths of the actors. Personally, I don't mind films with slow pacing, and the segments that dragged, to me, were the more enjoyable than the ones full of propaganda. I'll clarify what I mean by "propaganda." It seems to me that the writing is far too overt. Yes, there are deep and important messages being told to us, but they're not subtle in the least. I felt like I was watching a couple of plays written at the high school level. Most of the characters stand still on screen while they talk, seemingly, directly to the audience about whatever moral or ethical dilemma the segment is addressing.

Still, if you like odd movies and some experimental film making, you should at least give this a rent. Unfortunately, I bought it and am unsatisfied with my purchase, but had I rented it for a couple dollars I would not have felt cheated. It's something to watch once, but the dialogue is painfully unnatural at times and ruins some great concepts with poor writing. It's not a classic, but it's not a complete failure in every aspect either.

30 Days of Night (2007)

What 300 was to action this is to horror

[6/10 · 29 October 2007]

To understand my analogy you have to understand first what 300 was to action movies. It was beautiful to look at if relatively comic bookish, full of action, some powerful moments, but overall a relatively nonexistent storyline and minimal character development. 30 Days of Night is much the same animal.

The directing is nice. There are some great shots, some really intense sequences, and minimal cheesy horror clichés. The whole film has a bit of an overproduced feel, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's very much like 300 or Sin City in that respect. It feels and looks very much like an action/horror comic book.

I went into the movie without any real expectations and when I came out I didn't exactly feel let down, but I didn't feel like I had just watched something very great either. The most I could give an honest inquirer would be a big shrug. It was kind of a mix between 300 and Dawn of the Dead, 300 because of the overproduced comic-book atmosphere and the lack of a moving plot, and Dawn of the Dead because of the dark content and the gore.

I can't help but feel like something is missing from this movie to make it really great, and I now believe that quality is realism. It all felt a bit like a long Spawn cartoon or something of the like. It was fun to watch and it looked nice, but it just didn't resonate. Perhaps that was the lack of character development, but to be fair, there are some really cool moments in the movie and I do recommend seeing it in theaters if you can so you can judge for yourself.

If you like horror movies, check this one out, maybe you'll feel like they got it exactly right.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

A Let Down.

[3/10 · 4 May 2007]

There are some things that work really well, like the goofy comedy that's also present in the other movies. The movie starts off nicely with a great looking action sequence that implies how great the rest of it could be. The special effects are fantastic. Unfortunately, the movie is so convoluted that anything like a coherent plot is lost, as well as any significant character development further than Harry, Mary Jane or Peter himself.

Peter's "transformation" into a darker self when he dons the dark suit is laughable. You're not sure whether you're watching a comedy, a drama, or a purposefully ridiculous B movie. Peter's actions are so over the top that you just want to laugh at the script rather than WITH it.

The main villains get only a short amount of screen time, and by the "big" ending you're just wondering when Dawson's Creek is going to end and when Spiderman 3 will begin. 90% of the film consists of Peter Parker walking around, crying, and making a fool of himself in various over-the-top ways. Perhaps I went in with too many expectations, such as the possibility of an atmosphere to the film that would fit with what was happening.

As a fan of the old cartoon, and a real fan of Venom, I was incredibly let down by the amount of time spent on his character, as well as the fact that Topher Grace is essentially Eric from That 70's Show, and I don't mean that it's the same actor. He's the same scrawny, sarcastic joker that he always plays, which, if you're familiar with the comic or the cartoon, Eddie Brock was NOT. Even if you've never heard of Venom or aren't a big fan, the villain has a total of about fifteen minutes on screen and isn't very exciting, nor is anything about him explained. He's simply suddenly THERE, as if thrown into the movie only to get butts in the seats. So feels the entire movie. It all seems like filler, even as the end credits start.

There was a point about halfway through the movie that I simply gave up trying to justify the movie, and realized that it was just plain bad. They tried to do too much, and by having so many villains, weren't able to make a single one very deep. And the whole "inner conflict" theme is a joke. Literally. Peter's "dark side" is more comedy than anything else.

I recommend waiting for this to come out on video and giving it a rent if you're really that much of a fan. Overall, it's a big let down considering the expectations and hype surrounding it.

Doom (2005)

Looking for substance? Look elsewhere.

[3/10 · 22 January 2007]

As a casual gamer, I have played the Doom games a bit and I am familiar with the story. Essentially, the games deal with a portal to hell on another planet, bad things come through, blood, guts, gore, and scary times ensue. The movie does not follow this same path, yet for some reason still bares the same name as the games. It should probably be called something like, "Alien genetic mutation movie, with a lot of clichés and bad writing." The characters are cliché and unbelievable from the beginning. We have the inexperienced rookie who is practically crapping his pants before his first mission, so everybody teases him. But don't you think a marine would look older than 17, and maybe, you know, be trained to deal with stress even before the mission starts? We have the jerk who instantly wants to have sex with every woman he sees, is terribly ugly, and of course messes with the other marines just for his own amusement. We even get to see him taking a crap! Great, I know! And what's this? A black guy that wants to have sex with the female lead right off the bat?! Oh, and he also has a good heart underneath it all?! Wow! I've never seen anything like this! The Rock just runs around swearing at people and looking mad for the majority of the film. I'm pretty sure 95% of his lines involved the F word. Maybe the writers thought swearing implies intensity, but it fails, as The Rock's character comes off as terribly two dimensional and fake.

Karl Urban plays the only decent character in the movie, but he's not exactly deep either. I'll hand it to him though, he did a good job with what he was given.

The entire movie is a B action/horror. It's all very cheesy and not atmospheric at all. If you're looking for something scary, look somewhere else. There's a bit of gore, but nothing special. The occasional head getting ripped off, etc, but the first 40 minutes of the movie is the marines walking around being "startled" by loud things such as pipes falling from the ceiling. These false starts are a poor attempt at building tension, when all they do is waste time and get old very quick.

I've seen both the theatrical release and the uncut version, and both are equivalent. There's nothing special in the uncut version, other than a naked woman, but if that's what you're after then maybe you're at the wrong kind of video store.

This movie could have actually been something worth watching, but the writers butchered what substance could have been included. There's even a fistfight in which two obvious wrestling moves are used. It's just bad, people. If you really want a good horror movie worth watching, with believable characters and dialogue, rent 28 Days Later or something similar. Don't waste your time with this movie, unless you're deliberately looking for something to make fun of, as they make it pretty easy to rip this one apart.

The only sequence that was actually well done was the first-person scene, but this lasted a whole five minutes. That scene was like a diamond in a pile of dog feces, to tell you the truth, but it was literally like watching a scene from a first-person shooter. If you don't like first-person shooters you'll probably find the scene unnecessary and a little oddly placed, as the same effect could have been used a thousand times to build up suspense during certain other scenes.

The special effects are pretty good as well, and I really enjoyed the fact that the monsters were not CGI, but puppets. The monsters looked really good for the most part, but it doesn't matter since the rest of the movie is practically unbearable.

Anyway, I'm giving the film three out of ten stars only because the effects were nice and the first person scene was pretty well done. Otherwise it wouldn't even deserve one star.