I have to say that I thought this was a good movie..but that could be just because my expectations were set pretty low as a result of their *first* movie. But what I found is that the emotional story (particularly between Mulder and Scully) was satisfying and rich with development; the twists were sufficiently twisty without going overboard and keeping the viewer in a constant state of confusion for its own sake; the ambiguities (near the ending) were appropriate and not overboard; and the main problem to be solved was refreshingly down-to-Earth - as in not particularly paranormal (even if somewhat implausible) - because I'd long since grown tired of all the X-Files' fantastical mind-candy and stopped watching it. And yet even without being paranormal (as such), it was a quite stirring scenario..in the mainly disturbing way.
One caveat: my sister had complained that the movie didn't provide enough suspense in regard to what paranormal thing might happen next. Perhaps my having tired of the typical X-Files motif, combined with my very low expectations, allowed me to appreciate the movie for its *other* qualities, but Your Mileage May Vary.
The above being said, there *was* a plot-thread that seemed to comprise a paranormal theme. I say "seem to" because they left that determination rather...indeterminate, but if I had to guess I'd say that the viewer is supposed to assume that it was paranormal.
My only one gripe with the movie is that Father Joe didn't seem to be very believable, in *any* aspect or interpretation. He basically just looked cool..his facial features did go pretty well with the falling snow and ice scapes (which seem to be a common theme with the X-Files movies thus far). Speaking of Father Joe, though, one element of the movie I really did appreciate was its ballsy positioning regarding the Catholic priesthood. In the spirit of the X-Files, that too was of course neither all one way nor all the other, but I would venture to say that it was certainly a lot of both.
Overall rating: 4 stars. Not a must-see within the wider realm of movies, but should be worth your time at least if you were even somewhat of an X-Files fan.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
I Am Legend
This movie was very bad. The one aspect I did like about it is that it illustrated a world abandoned by humans (a city overgrown by weeds, etc.) and one man's plight to survive in it. I love that kind of theme. But that's one of my own personal quirks, so for you, my readers, this movie had no saving grace.
The movie was pretty monotonous.. it was the same settings, the same area, with no other characters (not even extras), over and over again day by day. That alone just leaves me with a very empty feeling - the feeling that I'd just watched a mostly abysmal movie. But of course, there *were* the zombies..
The zombies were supposed to be humans that had been converted by disease, but yet they were portrayed with a completely different cultural mentality.. they were just supposed to be *automagically* evil. Oh, and also super strong. Since when does disease make people superhuman? Oh, well. BTW, they also went through a lot of trouble to try to feast on the one human surviving in that area..you'd think a group that large would starve to death if that were their main source of food. But the main thing that bothered me about them wasn't even the lack of realism; it was that they tried to keep the zombies' portrayal at a totally superficial level...even though half the movie was about them. And they did try to get into somewhat sentimental areas with them, for example something involving them having a leader, but without providing any character development or elucidation at all. It was all just disconcerting.
But here's the stupidest part..
-----------------------------
***BEGIN SPOILER***
-----------------------------
The hero dies without reason. Firstly, the scenario that they made for him die in was *completely transparently* ad hoc/contrived/gratuitous/whathaveyou. I mean even *bad sci-fi* is better than this was, at least it's colorful. I'd never seen something so obviously pulled out of a writer's arse in a movie. And it's not EVEN just that -- add to it that even *within* the gratuitous scenario that had they set up for him to die in, his death was unreasonable. He could have *easily* done something differently in order to defy death, or rather, to not *jump into* it (there was enough room in the compartment)..AND they could have easily changed the scene so that he couldn't have done that, but yet they didn't. So they obviously just put no effort into it at all...probably just like the rest of the movie.
-----------------------------
***END SPOILER***
-----------------------------
The bottom line here is that I don't get how such a dismal writer/director was graced with the likes of Will Smith, and I'd recommend not wasting your time with this movie. Unless, of course, you're one of the millions of moviegoers who are apparently easily impressed..
The movie was pretty monotonous.. it was the same settings, the same area, with no other characters (not even extras), over and over again day by day. That alone just leaves me with a very empty feeling - the feeling that I'd just watched a mostly abysmal movie. But of course, there *were* the zombies..
The zombies were supposed to be humans that had been converted by disease, but yet they were portrayed with a completely different cultural mentality.. they were just supposed to be *automagically* evil. Oh, and also super strong. Since when does disease make people superhuman? Oh, well. BTW, they also went through a lot of trouble to try to feast on the one human surviving in that area..you'd think a group that large would starve to death if that were their main source of food. But the main thing that bothered me about them wasn't even the lack of realism; it was that they tried to keep the zombies' portrayal at a totally superficial level...even though half the movie was about them. And they did try to get into somewhat sentimental areas with them, for example something involving them having a leader, but without providing any character development or elucidation at all. It was all just disconcerting.
But here's the stupidest part..
-----------------------------
***BEGIN SPOILER***
-----------------------------
The hero dies without reason. Firstly, the scenario that they made for him die in was *completely transparently* ad hoc/contrived/gratuitous/whathaveyou. I mean even *bad sci-fi* is better than this was, at least it's colorful. I'd never seen something so obviously pulled out of a writer's arse in a movie. And it's not EVEN just that -- add to it that even *within* the gratuitous scenario that had they set up for him to die in, his death was unreasonable. He could have *easily* done something differently in order to defy death, or rather, to not *jump into* it (there was enough room in the compartment)..AND they could have easily changed the scene so that he couldn't have done that, but yet they didn't. So they obviously just put no effort into it at all...probably just like the rest of the movie.
-----------------------------
***END SPOILER***
-----------------------------
The bottom line here is that I don't get how such a dismal writer/director was graced with the likes of Will Smith, and I'd recommend not wasting your time with this movie. Unless, of course, you're one of the millions of moviegoers who are apparently easily impressed..
Signs
It was a long time ago, but here's what I remember:
Oh, my God! WHY would someone fill the first, oh I dunno, HOUR AND A HALF of a movie with *absolutely nothing*? I sat there the whole time virtually jaw-dropped at how boring the movie is. You know how at the beginning of a movie it might show, for example, a guy smoking a cigarette, and then you expect the action to start.. well, this was a lot of waiting. For this movie I think they didn't quite have enough action to fill half a full-length film.
I would've said that the *rest* of the movie was okay, except for the fact that any movie that paints aliens in a negative light is...how can I put this delicately...using the concept of "aliens" like a cheap whore. It's too important a matter to use just to stimulate our fears. To give our brothers (the Zeta Reticuli, et al) a bad name just for cheap thrills, or even to convey a philosophical concept, is just _not_ worth it. You hearing me, Hollywood writers?
Also, I think that Shyamalan's movies are characteristically rather thin in central idea. As in, good central idea, but perhaps it would have worked better as a bed-time story (for your daughter). But I did like the idea of this one..synchronicity. Something people are generally too afraid to explore. (The only other example I know of is Indigo.) So if people are willing to wait through the whoole movie just to see the ending, then I think that it's a good movie to be out there on the shelves. Thank You For Watching.
Although, on second thought, I still think that conveying an inspiring spiritual message by way of disparaging all non-Earthy beings in the universe in general (by virtue of the fact that *any* impressions we have now are necessarily first impressions) is still a little strangely clashing (or maybe a lot), and doesn't make me feel wholly enthusiastic about this movie. Perhaps then, it's just one for the archives.
Oh, my God! WHY would someone fill the first, oh I dunno, HOUR AND A HALF of a movie with *absolutely nothing*? I sat there the whole time virtually jaw-dropped at how boring the movie is. You know how at the beginning of a movie it might show, for example, a guy smoking a cigarette, and then you expect the action to start.. well, this was a lot of waiting. For this movie I think they didn't quite have enough action to fill half a full-length film.
I would've said that the *rest* of the movie was okay, except for the fact that any movie that paints aliens in a negative light is...how can I put this delicately...using the concept of "aliens" like a cheap whore. It's too important a matter to use just to stimulate our fears. To give our brothers (the Zeta Reticuli, et al) a bad name just for cheap thrills, or even to convey a philosophical concept, is just _not_ worth it. You hearing me, Hollywood writers?
Also, I think that Shyamalan's movies are characteristically rather thin in central idea. As in, good central idea, but perhaps it would have worked better as a bed-time story (for your daughter). But I did like the idea of this one..synchronicity. Something people are generally too afraid to explore. (The only other example I know of is Indigo.) So if people are willing to wait through the whoole movie just to see the ending, then I think that it's a good movie to be out there on the shelves. Thank You For Watching.
Although, on second thought, I still think that conveying an inspiring spiritual message by way of disparaging all non-Earthy beings in the universe in general (by virtue of the fact that *any* impressions we have now are necessarily first impressions) is still a little strangely clashing (or maybe a lot), and doesn't make me feel wholly enthusiastic about this movie. Perhaps then, it's just one for the archives.
Hancock
This movie was pretty good. My favorite part is the ending, which I won't give away here.
There was a couple of things I didn't like about this movie. One was Jason Bateman's character. He seemed like a rather nonchalant, downright sleazy guy, but not *acutely* sleazy, and having no other traits to speak of. Except for his wild ambitions to help the world. Strange huh? Also, he seemed impossible to surprise. I can't give it away but he found out something pretty damned important and mind-blowing about a subject one would normally be heavily emotionally invested in, and he basically just sat there being somewhat angry or stern but not particularly much of anything. I don't even know what anybody was aiming for there...the whole thing was just rather *weird* and he was like this grey hole of anticlimax. (No, not even a black hole.. just a grey hole.)
The other thing I didn't like was that Ray (Jason Bateman's character) convinced Hancock to "improve his image", by wearing special hero clothes and doing all these good-mannered things, etc., in order to improve his relations with the public. Which may seem cute and all, but it shouldn't have been effective. Hancock obviously had deep emotional issues to deal with, and Ray's idea was to superficially cure the symptoms, while Hancock fell for it (after denying any *real* therapy in prison). At least that's what actually *happened* in the movie, I don't know if that's what they intended for it to look like to the audience. And the superficial fix actually *worked* and made Hancock happy and stuff. So that aspect was like with one of those feel-good movies with the emotional depth of a mosquito, except that Bateman's character wasn't even itself all Bells and Holly. So that part of the movie was neither here nor there.
Overall, though, I think it was a good movie. Will Smith brought it to the table, as usual. And it seems there's always new twists to put on having superpowers.. this one was kind of funny.
There was a couple of things I didn't like about this movie. One was Jason Bateman's character. He seemed like a rather nonchalant, downright sleazy guy, but not *acutely* sleazy, and having no other traits to speak of. Except for his wild ambitions to help the world. Strange huh? Also, he seemed impossible to surprise. I can't give it away but he found out something pretty damned important and mind-blowing about a subject one would normally be heavily emotionally invested in, and he basically just sat there being somewhat angry or stern but not particularly much of anything. I don't even know what anybody was aiming for there...the whole thing was just rather *weird* and he was like this grey hole of anticlimax. (No, not even a black hole.. just a grey hole.)
The other thing I didn't like was that Ray (Jason Bateman's character) convinced Hancock to "improve his image", by wearing special hero clothes and doing all these good-mannered things, etc., in order to improve his relations with the public. Which may seem cute and all, but it shouldn't have been effective. Hancock obviously had deep emotional issues to deal with, and Ray's idea was to superficially cure the symptoms, while Hancock fell for it (after denying any *real* therapy in prison). At least that's what actually *happened* in the movie, I don't know if that's what they intended for it to look like to the audience. And the superficial fix actually *worked* and made Hancock happy and stuff. So that aspect was like with one of those feel-good movies with the emotional depth of a mosquito, except that Bateman's character wasn't even itself all Bells and Holly. So that part of the movie was neither here nor there.
Overall, though, I think it was a good movie. Will Smith brought it to the table, as usual. And it seems there's always new twists to put on having superpowers.. this one was kind of funny.
One Hour Photo
it was a while ago that I saw this movie, but here's what I remember:
This movie didn't have very much development and had no exciting or interesting moments at all. Unless you count the one scene that seemed like it was straight out of a horror movie. Now, including an uncharacteristic scene for the sake of conveying an important message is something I can understand. But not only was this scene uncharacteristic (and horrific), but its meaning wasn't even remotely clear or straightforward like the rest of the movie was. So that sort of makes it uncharacteristic on two levels, as well as obscene. But enough about specific scenes, what about the plot?
The basic development of this movie can be summarized, without trying to give it away too much, by the following metaphor: say you have two friends, Jack and Earnie. They're friends for many years, until one day Jack discovers somehow that Earnie is very lonely and likes him a little too much.. so Jack stops talking to him and they're no longer friends. ...The End.
In short, this was the worst movie I've ever seen Robin Williams play a part in. ..come to think of it, it was one of the worst movies I've seen, period.
Hell, there was a Roseanne episode that was *MUCH* better at conveying this theme than this movie was, because sitcoms don't have to be pretentious. (I'd tell you the episode name but I can't find it at this time.)
This movie didn't have very much development and had no exciting or interesting moments at all. Unless you count the one scene that seemed like it was straight out of a horror movie. Now, including an uncharacteristic scene for the sake of conveying an important message is something I can understand. But not only was this scene uncharacteristic (and horrific), but its meaning wasn't even remotely clear or straightforward like the rest of the movie was. So that sort of makes it uncharacteristic on two levels, as well as obscene. But enough about specific scenes, what about the plot?
The basic development of this movie can be summarized, without trying to give it away too much, by the following metaphor: say you have two friends, Jack and Earnie. They're friends for many years, until one day Jack discovers somehow that Earnie is very lonely and likes him a little too much.. so Jack stops talking to him and they're no longer friends. ...The End.
In short, this was the worst movie I've ever seen Robin Williams play a part in. ..come to think of it, it was one of the worst movies I've seen, period.
Hell, there was a Roseanne episode that was *MUCH* better at conveying this theme than this movie was, because sitcoms don't have to be pretentious. (I'd tell you the episode name but I can't find it at this time.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
