?

Log in

news, reviews, and self-abuse's Journal
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in news, reviews, and self-abuse's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]
Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006
12:29 am
[deadthyme]
Final Fantasy- Advent Children (2006)
(voice) Acting: 2.5
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 3
Entertainment value: 3
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: A direct sequil to the Final Fantasy VII video game; 3 lesser clones ov Sephiroth (the main villian from the game) attempt to bring him back by finding their genocidal "mother". The sulky hero Cloud opposes them.
Comments: This is a very simplified explaination ov the plot- it's actually very complicated, and I would imagine incredibly hard to follow if you don't have at least some idea ov what happened in the game. I thought it was ok (much, much better than the first Final Fantasy movie ("Spirits Within") which was awful), but didn't have enough with the other main protaganists from the game. The fight scenes go on too long, and my main issue with most ov these game movies (and action movies in general) is that nobody ever gets hurt! People fight for seemingly hours, beating the crap out ov each other, guns blazing, motorcycles careening, etc., but no one is ever hurt. Very unrealistic. And annoying.
So, over complicated plot, kinda bad voice acting, ridiculous fight scenes that go on too long where nobody gets hurt, and not enough ov the cooler characters from the game- yeah, I guess it's not too good. But much better than the last one, so it seems better than it actually is.
Monday, April 24th, 2006
10:37 pm
[deadthyme]
Silent Hill (2006)
Acting: 3.5
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 4
Entertainment value: 3.5
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: A little girl named Sharon keeps sleepwalking, and having dreams about a town called "Silent Hill". Her mother locates the town (which is deserted and filled with scandal and controversy) and takes her there. After Sharon gets lost, her mother begins an unescapable descent into a nightmare.
Comments: This movie is based on the first "Silent Hill" video game (with some characters from the second one), which was about as close to participating in a virtual nightmare as you can get. The movie follows the game very closely (some scenes look like they came directly from game screen shots) until about halfway through, then kinda branches out on it's own (and becomes closer to "Hellraiser" territory). I kinda wish they had kept more ov the game plot to the end, with the doctor and all that stuff, but this was ok. I don't know how much people who haven't played the game will like the movie- it's definitely a style over substance thing (like a video game), with characters doing things that people would never do, but that happens in nightmares so it's ok in this movie's case. The atmosphere is so thick and creepy, and the imagery as well, I liked it a lot. Probably one ov the only video game movies I've ever seen that I actually can say I liked a lot.



Slither (2006)
Acting: 3.5
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 3
Entertainment value: 4
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: A small town man is infected by an alien insect and begins transforming into a monster; meanwhile his sapwn are turning the town into a bunch ov zombies.
Comments: I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. It makes me think quite a bit ov a lot ov those mid-80s splatterpunk gore/ comedies like "The Return of the Living Dead" and "Re-Animator", crossed with a bit ov "Society" and "Brain Damage". It's ahrd to mix horror and comedy- it fails more than it succeeds, but I think this one works. There are a lot ov horror movie tributes and homages, starting with "The Blob" and going right through several ov the above mentioned movies. Nathan Fillion has great comic timing, and I'll be watching his career- hopefully he'll get better and better parts. Michael Rooker ("Henry- Portrait of a Serial Killer", "Mallrats") does very well as well.
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006
6:46 pm
[deadthyme]
Stay Alive (2006)
Acting: 2.5
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 3
Entertainment value: 2.5
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: A new video game is imbibed with the essence ov Countess Bathory, who is trying to return to life by killing as many people as possible (and if you die in the game, you die the same way in real life).
Comments: This movie barely met the basic requirements for entertaining me for 85 minutes. I always say I'm not going to any more PG-13 horror movies, then for some reason I go see one every once in awhile. Nothing spectacular or paticularly interesting happens, but some people (tho not enough) get killed, so that counts for something.


V For Vendetta (2006)
Acting: 3.5
Plot: 3.5
Cinamatography: 3.5
Entertainment value: 3
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: A freedom fighter rescues a young woman from a fascistic government in a futuristic London, while trying to topple that same government through terroristic actions.
Comments: This is based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore, who's other comics that were made into movies (such as "The Swamp Thing" and "League of Extrordinary Gentlemen") were not done very well. This one is quite a bit better than those, however it's still not up to the level ov the book. A lot ov people seem to have a problem with making the main character a 'terrorist' (as in he blows stuff up and kills to make his points and try to topple the oppressive government), but to me it's really not that much different than something like "Star Wars" (except a lot more people were killed in that). Both movies ended with something big being blown up, but I guess the building in "V For Vendetta" hits a bit closer to home than the Death Star.
All the actors do well (though John hurt borders a bit on overacting), and tho it's just a little too talky in places, it keeps a decent balance for the most part.


The Hills Have Eyes (2006)
Acting: 3
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 3
Entertainment value: 3
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: An average all-American family on a cross country road trip runs afoul ov a gang ov mutated cannibalistic creeps in the desert.
Comments: I've had it with remakes. Everybody said this one would be different, because Wes Craven (who wrote/ directed the original) produced it, and Alexandre Aja (who did the bloody but mediocre "High Tension") directed it.
The original has never been a fav ov mine, so I wasn't as against this remake as I have been about some others, but it still wasn't very good. It definitely wsn't horrible,and could have been worse, but I want something spectacular, not tepid. There were so many missed chances for greatness, it's really a shame. It was an ok movie, but overall fairly forgettable.
Thursday, March 9th, 2006
9:05 am
[deadthyme]
news
Two bits ov news for Stephen King fans...
His short story 1408 about a paranormal phenomina debunker who spends a night in a haunted hotel room now has a director and a star. John Cusack is to play the debunker, and Mikael Hafstrom's set to direct.
In even more exciting news, Eli Roth (Hostel, Cabin Fever) is going to direct The Cell, which is my second fav Stephen King book ever...
8:59 am
[deadthyme]
Ultraviolet (2006)
Acting: 2
Plot: 2.5
Cinematography: 2.5
Entertainment value: 2.5
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: A new blood born disease that turns people into vampires has ravaged the Earth. The government has waged war on them.
Comments: This movie is dumb. Almost nothing that happens in it makes any sense. It also looks about as close to actually watching a video game as you can possibly get (if the main character had used a cheat code to be invunerable and have unlimited ammo). Somehow, instaed ov going straight to video, it went to theaters (probably because ov Milla Jovovich's participation. I like her, but this movie blows). Avoid it.
Tuesday, February 14th, 2006
6:16 am
[deadthyme]
Dungeons & Dragons- Wrath of the Dragon God (2006)
Acting: 3
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 2.5
Entertainment value: 3
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: Five heroes set out on a quest to sieze a magic orb from an undead wizard and defeat an evil dragon.
Comments: This movie didn't have near as much money or as many actors that I like in it as the first one (Dungeons & Dragons- 2000), but it was actually a little better (tho that's not saying much). It's main downfall is indeed lack ov money, and it shows. The actors are all decent (with only one returning from the first movie) and likeable, and the adventure is fairly entertaining- let's face it, I really wasn't expecting much at all (I believe what I said when I rented it was "There's no way this can be any good, but I'm gonna check it out anyway) so it was a lot better than I thought it would be. It's gone straight to video, but it's worth a rental if you like fantasy or D & D, because it's obviously done by people who care about the game. With a little more time and money, I think it could have been above average. As it is, it definitely could have been much worse.
2:44 am
[deadthyme]
Final Destination 3 (2006)
Acting: 2.5
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 3
Entertainment value: 3
Summary: After a girl has a premonition ov her coming death aboard a roller coaster at her high school's pre-graduation party, her and 6 classmates get off the ride before it crashes, killing everyone aboard. Death begins taking them in the order they were supposed die on the roller coaster in increasingly intricate ways.
Comments: Basically, if you liked the other two Final Destinations, you'll probably like this one. It adds the gimmick ov having the photographs taken ov the future victims show clues as to how they are going to die, but other than that it's more ov the same. The characters are ridiculously stereotypical and stupid, but that doesn't matter as much in a movie like this as long as they get chopped up or disemboweled or whatever before they become too annoying. I had read that this one wasn't going to be as gory, and more suspensful than the last two, but it seemed pretty gory to me (which is good). My fav death is the nail gun one, but they are (mostly) all pretty interesting, and it actually was a little suspensful in a couple ov places.
Nice to see they brought Tony Todd back in an uncredited cameo (well, his voice anyway).
Monday, January 16th, 2006
9:59 pm
[deadthyme]
Hostel (2006)
Acting: 3
Plot: 3.5
Cinematography: 3
Entertainment value: 4
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: 3 friends travel Europe looking for adventure and sex, and happen upon a hostel famed for it's loose women. This turns out to be true, however it also turns out to be a cover for something far more sinister...
Comments: The plot for this movie is very simple, but done well and it entertained me. It is very cartoonish in places- the story and gore (although some ov the gore is pretty realistic), which might put some people off, but it didn't bother me. It isn't as silly as director Eli Roth's other movie ("Cabin Fever"), and I liked it better. The first half ov it is almost like an '80s teen sex comedy- like "Porky's" or "American Pie" or something (but with even more nudity). Then it gets pretty violent and gory. Overall a pretty damn entertaining movie.
Sunday, January 15th, 2006
3:28 am
[deadthyme]
news
Tim Burton's new movie "Believe It Or Not!" will be a bioptic on Robert Ripley, the famous collector ov oddities. It's scripted by "Ed Wood"'s Larry Karaszewski and Scott Alexander, and will star Jim Carey!
Thursday, January 12th, 2006
3:16 am
[deadthyme]
King Kong VS. Godzilla
King Kong (2005)
Acting: 4
Plot: 2 1/2
Cinematography: 3 1/2
Entertainment value: 3
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: A rogue movie production crew journey to an undiscovered island, where they encounter many creatures thought to be extinct or nonexistant, most notably a giant gorilla the natives call Kong.
Comments: I really, really wanted to like this movie. But it just had so much stupid stuff, that it kept pulling me out ov the fantasy! I kept going "What the hell? That's just stupid!". Almost no person or animal acts in any way realistic (with the exception ov Kong himself)! Award winning director Peter Jackson has been bad about having stupid things happen in his movies so that the story can move forward to a predetermined arch on several occasions (most notably in "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"), but he does it the worst in this movie. And it's annoying that all these movie critics who'll go on and on about how stupid the characters act in a low budget horror movie will ignore the fact that every character in this movie acts even more stupid, because it's done by an academy award winnier and has academy award winning actors in it. That's the bad.
The good is Kong himself. He is awesome! All the acting is top notch in this. I've always considered Naomi Watts to be pretty boring, but she is very good in this. I've never liked Jack Black, but he wasn't too annoying in this either. Still, Kong is the stand out.
I bet most people won't be as annoyed as me at the large amount ov stupid stuff in this, but I just kan't help it.


Godzilla: Final Wars (2005)
Acting: 2
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 3
Entertainment value: 4
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: Godzilla has finally been defeated and put on ice for several years, when most ov the other monsters begin attacking cities around the world. A monster-fighting task force, comprised mostly ov superhuman 'mutants', is having trouble fighting them off when a friendly race ov aliens vanquishes them for humanity. All is not well, however, when the aliens turn out to be evil and again set the monsters on the world. Humanity's only hope is to thaw out Godzilla to fight off the other monsters.
Comments: This movie is like a cross between "Destroy All Monsters", "The Matrix", anime, and several other sci-fi movies. Tons ov kung fu, monster fu, wire fu, motorcycle fu, and most any other fu you can think ov. Almost constant action, with mutants vs. aliens, humans vs aliens, humans vs mutants, mutants vs monsters, monsters vs monsters, mutants vs mutants, etc. etc. It's almost like a live action anime in places. All the anime cliches are there- the special mutant, the American gruff general (it's always humorous to see Americans through the Japanese eyes), the little kid who befriends a monster, etc. Almost all the classic Godzilla monsters are in this (except for some reason Megalon, Mecha-Godzilla, and a couple others). I enjoyed it (tho I wanted a little more monster fighting, and a little less human, alien and mutant fighting).
Saturday, December 17th, 2005
10:12 pm
[deadthyme]
news
recent deaths...

Besides Richard Pryor, who you've all probably heard about;
Willaim Hootkins (who played Jek "Almost theere" Porkins, the overweight rebel pilot who died in the Battle Of Yavin at the end ov "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope", as well as Lt. Eckhardt in Tim Burton's "Batman" ('89), and many other horror and fantasy roles).
Moustapha Akkad, who produced all ov the "Halloween" movies (and many believe ended up being the reason a lot ov the later movies weren't too good). He was killed by suicide bombers in a triple hotel bombing in Jordan last month.
Tuesday, December 13th, 2005
6:03 am
[deadthyme]
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe 2005
Acting: 4
Plot: 3.5
Cinematography: 3
Entertainment value: 4
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: 4 children displaced by the war in England find a magical land where animals talk and mythical creatures are real, which is enslaved in an eternal winter by an evil witch.
Comments: I enjoyed this movie quite a bit- a lot more than I thought I would. This is mainly due to the fact that I bought the talking animals, and was carried away on the adventure. If you couldn't do this, it would be a terible movie and I imagine a lot ov people will hate it for that reason. The effects are decent but spotty- some stuff looks very good, but some are a littel shoddy. If you have an imagination it won't matter that much (none ov it is bad, just some a lot better than others).
The acting is very good, paticularly the 2 younger kids (the 2 older ones- a fairly uncharismatic boy who's supposed to be a great leader and a weepy eyed girl who doesn't have much to do- are the weakest parts ov the movie). This story was written by a Christian writer, partially as an aligory to Christ, however it's not overbearing or preachy in the least. Pretty good stuff.
Sunday, December 11th, 2005
9:15 pm
[deadthyme]
news
Henry ("Nightmare Before Christmas") Selick is directing an animated (hopefully stop motion) version ov Neil Gaiman's teen fantasy book "Coraline". Dakota Fanning voices the title character.
Sunday, November 27th, 2005
2:40 am
[deadthyme]
Harry Potter and the Goblet Of Fire (2005)
Acting: 3.5
Plot: 4
Cinematography: 4
Entertainment value: 4
Summary: In his 4th year at Hogwarts, Harry is mysteriously entered into the dangerous Tri-Wizard Tourniment, battles with his blossoming hormones, and finally encounters a resurrected Lord Voldemort in person.
Comments: The Harry Potter movies have been fairly hit and miss up to this point (more hit than miss, overall, but still), especially to those ov us who enjoy the books. I would say this one is definitely a hit, and probably my fav ov the lot so far. The special effects are finally 100% up to speed, as is the acting, and they did an incredible job ov trimming the fat from the book without leaving anything important out (there's really only 1 line that I really wish they'd left in- "I hate a Death Eater who lived", and the subsiquent explaination ov why). Hopefully the next one will be even better.
Sunday, November 6th, 2005
5:34 am
[deadthyme]
Saw II (2005)
Acting: 3.5
Plot: 4
Cinematography: 4
Entertainment value: 5
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: The Jigsaw killer reeturns with more death traps, this time setting his sites on a burned-out cop and a diverse group ov people with a hidden link.
Comments: I really liked this movie a lot. I saw the first one when it first came out, and liked it a lot as well. But this may be one ov those rare occasions where the sequel is better than the original. This one raises the stakes because now there are 8 people all thrown together and locked in a house (it's kind ov like The Real World, but much better, because there are death traps. I would watch The Real World if it had death traps) with a deadly gas being pumped in that will kill them in 2 hours if they don't find the antidote (and getting the antidote for each one means doing something disturbing and creepy). There is one part in this movie that gave me the creeps, and that is hard. I've been going to horror movies my whole life, and they never bother me, but Xavier's death trap messed with me a bit. And that's really the only complaint I have about it- we didn't get to see everyone's personalized traps. Just a few. Still, it's some good stuff. Definitely recommended.

Stay (2005)
Acting: 3.5
Plot: 3
Cinematography: (3.5
Entertainment value: 3
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: Strange things begin to occure when a psychiatrist takes on a haunted young man who claims he's going to kill himself at midnight in three days.
Comments: This movie held my interest while I was watching it, but after it was over, I realized it was all a bunch ov hogwash. It's o.k., but the big twist reveal/answer to the mystery to all the weird stuff going on is pretty anticlimatic, and the weirdness begins to get tiring before the end. I wanted it to be good, but unfortunately, I kan't really recommend it. Too bad.
Sunday, October 16th, 2005
2:08 am
[deadthyme]
Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)
Acting: 3
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 4
Entertainment value: 4
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: After a Christmas-themed short featuring the Penguins from "Madagascar", we discover that the cheese-loving inventor Wallace and his faithful sidekick (and dog) Gromit now run a pest control service. A gigantic rabbit begins to destroy the town's gardens, threatening to ruin their annual 'Giant Vegetable Growing Contest'.
Comments: I've liked all ov Wallace and Gromit's short adventures, and this one is just as good- pehaps even better. There is a definite attempt to create an old-style horror movie feel, with lots ov homages to classic horror movies (which is perfect since this was released right before Halloween- but it also makes the inclusion ov the Madagascar Penguin short, which is Christmas related and not very good, odd). The claymation is top-notch, better than the older Wallace and Gromit shorts or "Chicken Run", in my opinion. There is also quite a bit ov adult humor hiding just under the surface (an example: when Wallace has all his clothes torn off, he covers himself with a cheese box. A sign on the side (which is shown fast enough that a lot ov people will miss it) says "May contain nuts". there is a lot ov this sort ov thing throughout the movie).
Besides the usual collaborators, Ralph Fiennes and Helena Bonham Carter also do voices (which makes this her second claymation feature in as many months). Good stuff.

Undead (2003- released 2005 in the U.S.)
Acting: 3
Plot: 3
>i>Cinematography</i>: 3
Entertainment value: 3.5
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: After a meteor shower, zombies begin to overtake an Australian town. Then acid rain begins to fall. A giant, spiked wall appears around the town. And lastly, aliens show up and begin abducting people.
Comments: This movie is pretty clever and humorous, as well as fairly gorey (in an amateurish way). Kinda a long the lines ov "Evil Dead II" thematically (tho not near as skillfully done or good), I guess the movie it most makes me think ov is "Redneck Zombies". Pretty offbeat, but enjoyable and entertaining, with a 'twist' ending that's not as predictable as most twist endings I've seen.

Haute Tension (2003- released 2005 in the U.S. as High Tension)
Acting: 3
Plot: 3
>i>Cinematography</i>: 3
Entertainment value: 3
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: When Marie and Alex go on vacation to visit Alex's parents, a homicidal maniac breaks in the first night, murdering and stalking until Marie is embroiled in a cat-and-mouse situation.
Comments: I didn't like this too much- a lot ov stalking and running, a little blood and guts (tho still more than in most movies nowadays), and a pretty ridiculous 'twist' ending that has been overdone quite a bit (including in at least 2 big budget movies I can think ov). This was the uncut version, too. It's just a bit too long, and tho competently put together, is really nothing special. Average all around.
Tuesday, October 4th, 2005
8:30 am
[deadthyme]
Serenity (2005)
Acting: 3.5
Plot: 4
Cinematography: 3
Entertainment value: 5
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: The ragtag group of rebels and outlaws aboard the spaceship Serenity are pursued by a bounty hunter who is after a young psychic they've taken on as a passenger.
Comments: The above description doesn't do the complexity ov the plot much justice- it's very well put together, full ov humor, but also pretty dark in places. Most ov the characters aren't fleshed out that well, but that's mainly because there are so many we don't get to focus on most ov them very much- there's the rebelious, Han Solo type leader; the tough guy; the sensative woman; the goofy guy; etc. (and the bounty hunter pretty much channels Morpheus from "The Matrix" for most ov the movie).
Still, I quite enjoyed this movie- it's a lot ov fun, fairly unpredictable, and doesn't treat the audience with kid gloves (a lot ov people die).
I never got to watch the t.v. show this came from, but I've seen some ov writer/ director Joss Whedon's other creations, and he usually provides a fun ride. This one is no exception. I would recommend it to any sci-fi fan, and pretty much anyone who isn't bothered by sci-fi and space ships, etc. It's good.

The Corpse Bride (2005)
Acting: 3.5
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 5
Entertainment value: 5
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: A young man is just getting used to the idea ov his arranged marriage, when he accidently marries a corpse while practicing his vows. The corpse comes to life, happy to be married.
Comments: I liked this movie quite a bit. It's pretty damn predictable, and seems like it was a little rushed- like there's just a little more plot that should have been squeezed in, but it's still an entertaining and awesome looking film. Tim Burton's "Vincent" is probably my most favorite short film ever, and this isn't as good as that, but I still recommend it. The voice actors were obviously having a lot ov fun, and there is no squeemishness about the morbidity- the dead are most definitely dead, maggots and wounds on display (remember the waiting room in "Beetlejuice"? Yeah, it's kinda like that). I love stop-motion animation, and I love Tim Burton's movies, and this one didn't disappoint.
Tuesday, September 27th, 2005
2:04 am
[deadthyme]
Venom (2005)
Acting: 2.5
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 3
Entertainment value: 3
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: A redneck is infused with the evil ov hundreds ov twisted souls, and goes on a killing spree in the swamps ov Louisiana.
Comments: If I had realized who directed this before I had bought my ticket, I wouldn't have- it's the same guy who directed "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer", one ov the worst horror movies ever, as well as the direct-to-video Stallone 'thriller' "Eye See You", which was pretty lame as well. Fortunately, this movie is a little better than either ov those, so I can hope he is improving (in baby steps, but some improvement is better than none). This movie is average on every level- it wasn't horrible or a total waste, but definitely not worth the cost ov admission. There is a little blood and guts, but most deaths occur offscreen. There is actually a bit ov suspense in a couple ov places, but nothing too intense. Overall, pretty forgettable.

Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005)
Acting: 3
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 3
Entertainment value: 3
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: One member ov a group ov friends obsessed with a computer game based on the "Hellraiser" movies dies mysteriously, and the rest ov the group are invited to a Hellraiser party a few years later.
Comments: I, ov course, knew better than to expect this to be good. But it had Lance Henrikson in it, who I like a lot (despite his having been in some terrible movies). And truthfully, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be (tho that's not saying much). It wasn't scary, and the gore is pretty well contained to a couple ov scenes, but it kept my interest with a slight mystery and 'twist'. The story was not a Hellraiser story originally, and you can tell the Cenobites were added later. Still, tho I haven't seen them all, this one is definitely not the worst ov the Hellraiser sequels.
Tuesday, September 13th, 2005
7:15 pm
[deadthyme]
The Cave (2005)
Acting: 3
Plot: 2.5
Cinematography: 3.5
Entertainment value: 3
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: An extremely deep cave is found under the remains ov a church in Romania, and a group ov professional cave divers are brought in to escort some scientists and expplore the depths.
Comments: Cole Hauser (who plays the hero ov the story) has a very unique acting talent- somehow, he can be wooden and over act both at the exact same time. I think it's because he delivers his lines so sedately, yet he bugs his eyes out and has such intense facial expressions at the same time- it's entertaining to watch. More entertaining than the monsters, which aren't very interesting at all. Still, it's not a horrible movie- not a total waste ov time, but definietly nothing to get excited about.
I thought it would be a rip-off (more or less) ov "Pitch Black" (which Cole Hauser was also in), but it isn't, really. I guess the worst thing about it is that it's rated PG-13, so most ov the deaths happen off camera, or the camera is shaking around and you kan't really see what's happening. Other than that, the cinematography is surprisingly good- very elaborate and beautiful sets, decent special effects (tho the editing is bad- very choppy), it'll probably be at the dollar movie before too long- if you are interested in seeing it, I'd wait until then.

A Sound Of Thunder (2005)
Acting: 3
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 1
Entertainment value: 2
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: Time travel is used to amuse bored rich people, by taking them back to the Cretaceous period to hunt dinosaurs (tho extreme care is taked to not change history). When one ov the hunters accidently kills a butterfly, it creates time waves which alter the future drastically and disastrously every several hours.
Comments: This concept (originally written in the Ray Bradbury novel ov the same name) has been explored many times before (most amusingly in a Simpson's Halloween special), but I don't think it's ever looked so bad.
What is the deal with Peter Hyams? He's been making movies (genre movies even) since the 70's, but this look as bad as the worst Sci-Fi channel original movie I've ever seen! Not only are the effects and cinematography bad, the pacing is off, and the dialogue is pretty terrible as well. The acting is decent, but Edward Burns is a pretty bland actor, so he doesn't really pull off the 'hero' roll very well. Too bad- I really like the book, and was hoping this would be good.
I kan't believe there are several Acadamy Award winners in the cast.
Monday, August 29th, 2005
10:04 pm
[deadthyme]
The Brothers Grimm (2005)
Acting: 3.5
Plot: 3
Cinematography: 5
Entertainment value: 4
(ratings: 0 = absolutely terrible in every way; 1 = bad; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = above average; 5 = good; 6 = excellent; 7 = perfect! couldn't be better)
Summary: The infamous writers ov the old, popular (and mostly dark/ creepy) fairy tales have the story ov their earlier days (pre-fable writing) told. They are con-artists who set up bogus witchings and monsters, then take money from the various villages to rid them ov their afflictions. The French government steps in, and makes them take on an all-too-real supernatural force.
Comments: I enjoyed this movie. Terry Gilliam has always been hit-or-miss to me (more hit, generally), and his stories are usually a bit unfocused, but always very imaginative and interesting. This one is no exception.
I really like the bits ov real Grimm's Fairy Tales that make their way in (showing us the 'real' inspirations for the tales, as it may be), and the fantasy is excellent. The grimness is not played down, either- while most ov the movie is pure fantasy (and contains quite a bit ov humor), there is a bit ov unflinching gore in it, making sure that there is some 'dark' in this dark fantasy. Also amazingly, Heath Ledger provides a very good performance (he's usually so stiff and wooden, a log could be substituted in most ov his roles and it would be about the same), tho there is quite a bit ov overacting on several other players parts (tho in places it fits in with the film's overblown production).
It seems at times that short portions ov the movie have been cut out, like we missed something. And as I mentioned, it's a bit overblown/ overacted at times, however I found it pretty damn entertaining. There's enough witches, wolves, woodsman, enchantment, etc. for most any fantasy enthusiest. There also seems to be a bit ov jabbing at the French, all in good fun I'm sure. Uneven and unfocused, but still enjoyable.
[ << Previous 20 ]
About LiveJournal.com