Movie Review

[sir archely]

Hey, title is self-explanatory.

Please, use your best judgement about spoilers, and use the spoiler text.

example: Malcor hasn't seen The Usual Suspects yet!

Inclusion of actors/actresses, genre, where it is (theater, rental, some obscure place), and whatever else you'd like would be nice.

[Anita Blake]

d'oh! i lost the last post i was going to put here. but the gist of it was: i used to write movie reviews for a small-town newspaper, and now i'm going to post some of them. shoulsn't be too much in the way of spoilers, since I generally tried to avoid publishing such things in the newspaper. the movies are kind of old, but i'd like to think my reviews are fun. this is one of my favorites, the movie i most love to hate

Deep Blue Sea starring several large pieces of human- shaped fish bait



A misguided film about a group of supposedly brilliant scientists who are searching for a cure for Alzheimer’s. They have decided to use shark brain juice in their efforts, but also decided that regular shark brains weren’t big enough. So they made sharks with bigger brains. And as one doctor tells us “as a side effect, the sharks got smarter”.

In the middle of the ocean, the hi-tech research station is understaffed and the sharks want their revenge.

With a premise like that, the movie doesn’t look promising. And it’s not. As the audience watches one character after another chumming the water, we find ourselves no longer caring. In fact, I found myself wishing they’d all just feed the sharks and get it over with.

With characters as unlikable as these, the wooden acting doesn’t help. Saffron Burrows stars as the dull-witted genius Dr. Susan McAlester, who is so devoted to her work that it isn’t until her sharks have done intense damage that she realizes that smart sharks might not have been such a good idea.

Our leading man is about as un-compelling as they come. Carter Blake (Thomas Jane) is the ex-con who wrestles with sharks, and has a limited vocabulary. His bulging muscles aren’t even very impressive.

The only character that I found wanting to survive the movie was Preacher, the cocky chef, played by L.L. Cool J. Of all the actors in the movie, the former rap star was the only one who seemed to realize that the movie shouldn’t take itself so seriously.

For this is not a serious movie, though it tries to be. The violence which should be scary is actually laughable. One scene seemed to me to be more of an anti-smoking ad, a rather gory anti- smoking ad, and it was funnier than it was scary.

Part of the lack of thrills comes from the timing of them. Every thrill is meticulously timed, in a completely predictable fashion. You can watch the film and count down to the ‘next big thrill’, and know whether it will be a fake out or a real shark attack. You can also predict who will be the next to go down the shark’s gullet.

Sadly, this movie should be fed to the fishes.

3 out of 10

[Anita Blake]

well, i've heard some interesting things lately about how the american gov't is abolishing the Class Action lawsuit. Which apparently means that ordinary people can no longer file lawsuits against large corporations. (at least, this is the way this was relayed along to me) The only reason this is relevant to the movie review thread in any way shape or form is because when this info was told to me, i was told "that means that stuff like the Erin Brokovich story won't be happening any more."

and thusly, I am posting my original review of the movie "Erin Brokovich" . Enjoy!

Erin Brockovich
Starring Julia Roberts and Albert Finney

Movies based on reality have a tendency to find themselves on television, unless of course, Julia Roberts is starring in one. Which is the case with Erin Brockovich.

Broke and with three small children to support, Erin Brockovich (Julia Roberts) pleads with her lawyer to give her a job. Ed Masry (Albert Finney) relents, with great reluctance, and from that point, many lives are changed.

When she sees medical records in a real estate file, Erin’s curiosity is peaked, and she tries to figure out why Pacific Gas and Electric has paid for the medical expenses of a family whose house it wishes to buy. When she discovers a major pollution cover-up that has caused the illnesses of hundreds of locals, she convinces Masry that a lawsuit is in order. This, of course, paves the way for the biggest single pay out in American lawsuit history.

It is a David vs. Goliath story, of course, where we cheer for the little woman with the trashy wardrobe and hope she annihilates her big corporate opponent. I feel like I have seen this before, perhaps as a movie of the week long ago. It sounds identical in plot to A Civil Action. The plot familiarity does not make the movie any less enjoyable, however.

The character of Brockovich is loud, abusive, and strangely sweet. Her wardrobe could never be called sweet, and she has the mouth of a trucker, but she genuinely cares about the people she is trying to help. Roberts conveys a great deal of inner conflict, a woman torn between the time she wants to spend with her family, and the time she needs to help people wronged by the system.

Now, I am not overly fond of Julia Roberts, but she is truly likeable in Erin Brockovich. Coarse and sexy, she puts in a great performance. Her character is so over the top in all that she does, yet Roberts manages to keep her (relatively) real throughout the film.

Albert Finney is wonderful as the hard-as-butter lawyer who is reluctant to take a simple real estate case and turn it into a major lawsuit against a huge corporation. He appears to be simultaneously a sleazy lawyer and a genuinely nice lawyer, bringing dimension and depth to the role.

The film is filled with surprising characters, seemingly self contradictory, which makes them real and honest, especially in a film based on true life. Brockovich is not portrayed as a saint, as would be expected in this genre, and her biker boyfriend/ nanny George (Aaron Eckhart) is a delightful character as well, surprising the viewer with his warm heart.

The major qualm I had with this film was the exceedingly bad camera/ editing work. There are very few films I have seen where a boom mike actually hangs into a shot for several seconds, wavering uncertainly as if to say ‘hi mom’, before slowly meandering away. Why that scene was not edited is beyond me. The film work is also of a quality that is less than normally expected on a big screen. However, this adds a certain grit to Erin’s cockroach ridden home, gives the locales a small scale, non-glitzy feel.

The only clue that this film is a big-budget Hollywood movie is Robert’s ten thousand watt smile and her outrageous wardrobe (which I’ve heard is more conservative that the real Ms. Brockovich’s). Funny and warm, this movie is enjoyable despite it’s familiarity, and allows the audience smile with Roberts all the way through. 8 out of 10.

[almost crimes]

example: Malcor hasn't seen The Usual Suspects yet!

[Malcor Sylverwood]

~sighs~ I don't expect I'll ever live that down...even after I have seen it. Well...if.

-Malcor "Spoiled unusual suspect" Sylverwood

[Malcor Sylverwood]

Directed by Ang Lee

Starring Eric Bana as Bruce Banner and Jennifer Connelly as Betty Ross

Well, let me start by saying I am definately not a Hulk fan. Never have been and probably never will be. So, I didn't have very high expectations of this flick...and it met those. ~shrugs~

It has some good moments and some eyerolling moments. But if you go in just looking for things to get smashed then you'll have a good time--probably.

The only real negative thing I have to say is about the look of the movie. The special effects and all are good, the hulk looks cool. But they do weird things like split and multiple screens, I guess to try to give it a little more of a look of a comic book. They shouldn't do this, it sucked. For me to truly like a movie, I have to be able to immerse myself in it, and every time they tried these 'cute' effects it pulled me right out again.

Still, in the end, its watchable. 6.0/10

-Malcor "Angry" Sylverwood

[Malcor Sylverwood]

Directed by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski

Starring Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus, Carrie-Anne Moss as Trinity, Keanu Reeves as Neo, and Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith

Well, this one I had high expectations for, even after hearing a lot of mixed to negative reviews. And it didn't live up to those expectations, falling entirely short of the mark set by The Matrix.

Why? Hmm...the story didn't seem nearly as compelling as in the first movie, I never found myself really caring about Zion...they never made me feel anything about that other than it was just the last human city. The church/party scene was their attempt, I think, but it didn't seem to work.

The special effects were good, but didn't seem to be anything grounbreaking. Mostly rehashes of what we'd seen in the Matrix (and its parodies). But the fight seems...the were missing something. Impact, I think. Pain. Gone are the cracking bones and such. It felt hollow, unimportant.

Still, I'm hoping some good comes from the 3rd movie.

Even though I was more disappointed with it, I still liked it better than the Hulk. 6.5/10

-Malcor "There is a spoon" Sylverwood

[sir archely]

Cannibal: The Musical is a delighful romp through a subject that lends itself so readily to musicals. Cannibalism.

What?

At the outset of the movie we are told that this movie came out around the same time as "Oklahoma!" and didn't do very well because of it. However, it's been restored and being played again now. This is crap, but if you've seen OK, you'll get a few more of the things in the movie. (weird ballet dream sequence anyone?) In actuality, it's a Trey Parker creation. Possibly with Matt Stone, who is also in the movie, but Trey Parker is listed in the credits for writing the thing, writing the music, directing, and producing the picture. This is before he did Baseketball or South Park. However, if you listen carefully, you can hear a cameo voice appearance by Cartman before it was Cartman. Also in this movie is Dian Bachar. Now, i don't watch South Park, and have only seen it a few times. Don't let South Park color your opinion of this movie before you've seen it.

It starts out with a horribly gory scene of a guy named Alfred Packer (Juan Schwartz (actually Trey Parker, but he's listed as Juan Schwartz for this role in the credits)) basically eating alive a few other people. Get past it. This is by far the worst scene in the movie. It is horribly fake, but it's not funny or anything, just weird. Let it go. It suddenly cuts to a lawyer, and the scene you saw was him trying to convince a court that Alfred Packer is guilty of Cannibalism. The movie takes off from there. It's set in "the old west" and the story is that of a group of miners trying to trek through the rocky mountains to Breckenridge to hit it rich mining gold. However, the guide is Alfred Packer, who isn't much of one. The encounter different people on the way, such as some trappers who aren't very friendly (but have "trappers" on the back of their fur outfits) some "indians" (i haven't figured out why exactly they did what they did with the indians...you'll see) and a cyclops. For those of you grossed out by eye goo, i won't lie to you...there isn't any.

The songs are surprisingly well done, and funny. The "Snowman Song" is quite possibly my favorite part of the movie. (...let's build a snowman, we could make it our best friend. We could name it Bob, or we could name it....Beowulf...) Also great is "Hang the Bastard" and the cowbell solo.

If you have a wacky sense of humor, you'll like this movie. Jokes are everywhere, some not so great, but there are a lot of good ones. Oh, one other thing to note is that it's a Troma movie. Well, at any rate, it's associated with Troma, i don't know how much they actually had to do with it since Parker did the writing, directing, and producing.

Anyway, see the damn movie. I'm tired of being the only one around here who gets the references.

[sir archely]

Well, i just watched this movie tonight. I'd never heard of it before, i don't expect many others have. My sister just randomly picked it off the shelf at the movie rental place.

Anyway, it was surprisingly good. The general comment i have is that it is very similar to The Royal Tannenbaums (sp?). Not the story, plot, anything. It just has the same weird feel to it. The same weirdly realistic feel. Like, things that happen are weird, but you get the feeling like it's weirdly accurate of something that might happen in the real world. It's not movie time, it's too weird to be a movie, it's weird enough to be real. If that makes sense.

The cast is pretty much out of your worst deja vu nightmare. It's full of people you've seen before, but you can't for the life of you figure out where. The major actor in it is Christopher Walken, who fits in extremely well in the realistic bizarrity. However, he doesn't show up until about halfway through the movie. The only other person who's more than mildly recognizable is Andy Dick, who has a minor role. Everyone else is, "hey, i know that person, where else have i seen them?" But it's well done i think, the cast really fits the movie.

The plot is MacBeth. Sorta. It's one of these modern takes on shakespeare. If you don't know the original MacBeth, no big deal, but it does make it fun to see the parallels. They sorta hit you in the face with it, ie, it's not subtle (the main characters name is McBeth, everybody calls him Mac). Either way, it's highly entertaining.

Try it out. It's a fun little movie.

[Anita Blake]

well, i was just thinking of movies I Hate, and Chicago came to mind, so i'll write a quick little review.


Chicago is a film adadaptation of a Braodway musical. Except, there isn't much "adapted for film" in it. It looks like a broadway musical, it sounds like a musical, in fact, there's not a whole lot in this movie that could not be found on a stage, albeit a very expensive and well-produced stage.

Renee Zellwegger stars as a young woman with dreams of being a big time lounge singer in the 30s. Of course, after killing the man she was having an affair with, this dream gets a little bit squashed, what with the being in jail and all. But no! no it doesn't! this is a musical, and anything is possible, including becoming a big star just for being a cutesy murdress. Zellwegger takes tips from her big-time lawyer, who dolls her up and makes her so loveable that no one could possibly convict her of murder. Oh, and there's a whole jealousy subplot involving catherine zeta-jones. Yippee!

Now between all this happening, (there's a lot of time, this isn't all that much of a plot) we get treated to an overabudnace of musical numbers, which makes sense, since this is after all a musical, but where Moulin Rouge tried to do something really different with a film-musical, which was to make all this breaking into song a part of the story, make it all flow into one coherent line, Chicago decides that since it is a stage musical, let's make it look that way. SO, instead of coherent musical numbers that flow gently into the story and maintain the style, what we get is musical numbers that look like they are done in a .. you guessed it, broadway musical. The lights go out, the costumes change, the back-up singers glow in thier respective lights, when the song ends, we return to real life. Sure the musical numbers are big and shiny and glittery, and occasionally even impressive, if you took them out, there is not enough movie to fill up half an hour. The music often propels the plot the tiniest bit, but ultimately , we're still left where we started.... watching renee zellewegger in jail. MAke no mistake, Zellewegger is a fine actress. It's just that her character is so annoying as to make that point moot. The character is ignorant, stupid, and selfish.... and the audienc eis supposed to feel sympathy for her? Not likely. Ditto for Richard Gere's character... sleazy lawyer, who's character doesn't really grow up to learn any better, and Zeta-Jones (while lovely) also plays a vapidly selfish, money-grubbing celebrity hound who cares only about herself.

This movie won an Oscar for Best Picture, an hardly surprising victory, since it was the movie that had all the hype and all the gloss, and none of the substance. In fact, it's not that bad. It's just not good enough to be declared the best movie of the year. Do yourself a favour and watch the movie that deserved to get the best picture nod... Adaptation.... a film adaptatin of a book that defies all conventional script-writing wisdom while following it to a T.

Chicago.... 3.5 out of 10

[LaughingTurtle]

Heh I actually went to see Chicago a few days ago at the "cheap $3" theater with a good friend and when I came out at the end, the best I could say to her was that a bunch of women dancing/singing around halfnaked can never be that bad, so it was worth the $3.

Though after the court scene, if I had been the one husband I would have shot Roxi after she admitted to making up the baby story. Argh, poor guy.

[King Albert]

Movies seen this summer and my rating of them:
-Finding Nemo - excellent movie! Pixar does it again - worth normal movie ticket price
-2 Slow 2 Ricey - I had super low expectations, just wanted a good laugh and I was not disappointed. Better then the first - worth matinee ticket or rental
-X Men 2 - Soo much better then the first one - worth normal movie ticket price
-Matrix:Reloaded - Enjoyable if you like lots of action and special effects - worth matinee ticket
-Terminator 3 - Low expectations, hopefully it can only be better then what I think it will turn out to be... - planning on seeing it soon after it comes out.

[Malcor Sylverwood]

This one is a little tough to review for me without giving away any spoilers...so if it seems short, clipped, or incomplete...thats because it is.

Anyway, let me talk about the series a little. Terminator is a CLASSIC movie, I like it a lot. But, T2 is one of the rare sequals that outshines the original.

Unfortunately, T3 can't keep up that momentum. Its just a little different. It doesn't take itself nearly as seriously, and lack the jaw dropping moments from T2.

But, it was still good and fun, and it makes it into my willingly rewatchable range. 7.0/10

BAH! Well, the first two movies left things open, it felt like they ended...this one...just left off. Damnit.

-Malcor "I'll be back" Sylverwood

[Anita Blake]

OK. Let's get this out of the way: this is the dumbest, most over-the-top movie you will probably see this summer. The plot is kind of nonexistent, and it is filled with lame stereotypes and cheesy dialogue.

and it's totally awesome.

It's hard to make a good tongue-in-cheek comedy action sex romp these days, and even harder to make a good sequel to said movie, but here we go, it's pretty darn good. IN a bad way. Or is that bad in a good way? Whatever. As long as there is totally over the top action, the is so ridiclous as to border on the laughably silly, that's never too serious, i mean there's almost no scene that isn't laugh out loud funny..... it almost seems like it shouldn't be, but then it goes ahead and gives the little wink and nod that says, "it's ok to laugh, we want you to laugh. it's ridiculous!" And it is ridiculous. Whether the Angels are analyzing bird poo down to the molecular content merely by touching it, dodging bullets matrix-style, riding mechanical bulls, or giggling liike little girls, there is nothing in this movie to be taken seriously. so don't take it seriously. go along for the ride and try not to notice all the soft-focus they had to use to make demi moore look young.

I don't know what the plot of this movie was. honestly., i just saw it an hour ago, and even while i was watching it, i was thinking "what the hell is this movie about?" something to do with the Federal Witness Protection PRogram. Yeah, like we cared. Cameron Diaz dances , Drew Barrymore acts tough , and Lucy Liu has some fine comedic moments with Matt Leblanc and John Cleese. Oh yeah, and Bernie Mac, apparently he's Bill Murray's brother . Whodda thunk it? ALl that's just the window dressing anyway. Watch the movie. Don't think about it. Juts laugh at the ridiculousnes of it.
*note, none of my spoilers are very spoilerific. read them. go on!
8 out of 10

[dark fuschia]

oooh I'm glad you likethe Charlies angel sequel. I LOVE the first one! One of the funnest movies ever too in my opinion

And I am glad T3 doesn't sound completely hopeless, although I can't help having high hopes. The first two are two of my all time favourites so it has alot to live upto. But I'll be happy just so long as they don't interfer too much with aspects of the first ones. (like, please, don't let it have anything like the mitochlorians in Star wars, or killing the young girl in aliens3. I can forgive sequels for anything except disturbing the stories of their superior predeccesor in cheap ways)