T
thracian dawg
Guest
A wise man! I'd even reduce it to a couple of sentences.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
H
honeykid
Guest
Well done, TUS. Good reviews.
P
princecheck13
Guest
This film was made, marketing and watched because of one thing and one thing only, Pamela Anderson. This was her naked sci/fi Hollywood film, the opening of the movie shows her stripping, showing her breasts and getting hit with water. Ooooh, so sexy. This was probably the one scene many kids watched over and over. The film itself is regarded as one of those, it's so bad it's good. I can totally see that and once I got pass Anderson's wooden acting, I actually enjoyed myself. Guilty as charged.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 59: June 28th, 2010
Rocky
Meet the "Italian Stallion".
Rocky is a small time nobody who just wants the chance to prove his guts once, just once. This chance comes to fruition when Rocky gets the opportunity to fight the heavy weight champion.
The first Rocky is without a doubt the best film of the series, although that doesn't mean it's my favourite. The story of a guy who wants to opportunity to prove to himself he can do something like this has given others inspiration, no doubt. The films that have come after this one have gone down the road of campy and gimmicky.
Sly was a nobody at the time, his previous film credit was a porno film. He wrote and starred in this film and for some reason he was really good in it. What happened since then? He fell into the the action star persona. His roles since then haven't required much from him, acting wise, but now that he is older he seems to realize this. Better late than never, although I wouldn't wish that the films he was in to be gone. I got to have my Tango & Cash.
This film has that o-so memorable scene of Rocky running up the Philly stairs with the song "Gonna Fly Now" playing in the background. It's always hard to have a scene in your film that will be remembered years, decades later. This is that scene and one reason why the film itself is good.
He tries to impress the girl of his affections. She is shy and doesn't speak much in the film, he is dumb and admits this. Perfect match? Their relationship is an awkward one, specifically because of the lack of confidence in the Adrian character. This is one problem that glares for me, her performance in this film doesn't do it for me.
In the end, the film is about a guy who is given that one chance to prove what he's got and he gives it his all. It's something that many people want to happen to them and they associate themselves with that character, Rocky.
I'm not going to go into a debate as to which film deserved the Best Picture award that year, this or Taxi Driver. Both films are character driven stories that go in the opposite directions. I think that people needed the uplifting story at the time and Rocky had that.
[rating]4[/rating]
Rocky
Meet the "Italian Stallion".
Rocky is a small time nobody who just wants the chance to prove his guts once, just once. This chance comes to fruition when Rocky gets the opportunity to fight the heavy weight champion.
The first Rocky is without a doubt the best film of the series, although that doesn't mean it's my favourite. The story of a guy who wants to opportunity to prove to himself he can do something like this has given others inspiration, no doubt. The films that have come after this one have gone down the road of campy and gimmicky.
Sly was a nobody at the time, his previous film credit was a porno film. He wrote and starred in this film and for some reason he was really good in it. What happened since then? He fell into the the action star persona. His roles since then haven't required much from him, acting wise, but now that he is older he seems to realize this. Better late than never, although I wouldn't wish that the films he was in to be gone. I got to have my Tango & Cash.
This film has that o-so memorable scene of Rocky running up the Philly stairs with the song "Gonna Fly Now" playing in the background. It's always hard to have a scene in your film that will be remembered years, decades later. This is that scene and one reason why the film itself is good.
He tries to impress the girl of his affections. She is shy and doesn't speak much in the film, he is dumb and admits this. Perfect match? Their relationship is an awkward one, specifically because of the lack of confidence in the Adrian character. This is one problem that glares for me, her performance in this film doesn't do it for me.
In the end, the film is about a guy who is given that one chance to prove what he's got and he gives it his all. It's something that many people want to happen to them and they associate themselves with that character, Rocky.
I'm not going to go into a debate as to which film deserved the Best Picture award that year, this or Taxi Driver. Both films are character driven stories that go in the opposite directions. I think that people needed the uplifting story at the time and Rocky had that.
[rating]4[/rating]
I
Iroquois
Guest
Now I'm reminded of the fan theory I read online a while back about how Bender actually comes from a good background with nice parents but pretends to be from an abusive household as an act of rebellion.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Ha, I think I need to get one or two more films out of the way before I get to what I really want to watch.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 60: June 29th, 2010
Rocky II
Yo, Adrian! I DID IT!
It's those words and that closing scene alone that make me like this entry. The sequel to the successful Rocky is a bit hit and miss, much like the punches thrown in the ring. How do you follow a box office smash that took home Best Picture? While the sequel doesn't live up to the expectations, it does still hold some of that weight the first one had. The emotions are there, but the start of the campy decline is also here.
Rocky gets a rematch in this film and has to struggle supporting his family as well. The story of Rocky didn't need to continue, but it does, many times. Stallone wrote the script again and this time took the directing chair too. He went on to direct 3 other films in this series as well. Kudos to the man, he managed to make Rocky the success it is today.
The fight sequence in this film is more heightened than the last, all to make it more entertaining. It looses it's visceral and emotional weight that it desperately needed. You know Rocky is going to win, he can't lose twice in two films.
Those that expect another Rocky triumph might be a tad disappointed. The film is good enough for a recommendation though, it manages to continue the story well enough and give more insight into the character that is Rocky Balboa. He might look dumb and act dumb, but he has heart and that is what is needed to win over an audience.
[rating]3[/rating]
Rocky II
Yo, Adrian! I DID IT!
It's those words and that closing scene alone that make me like this entry. The sequel to the successful Rocky is a bit hit and miss, much like the punches thrown in the ring. How do you follow a box office smash that took home Best Picture? While the sequel doesn't live up to the expectations, it does still hold some of that weight the first one had. The emotions are there, but the start of the campy decline is also here.
Rocky gets a rematch in this film and has to struggle supporting his family as well. The story of Rocky didn't need to continue, but it does, many times. Stallone wrote the script again and this time took the directing chair too. He went on to direct 3 other films in this series as well. Kudos to the man, he managed to make Rocky the success it is today.
The fight sequence in this film is more heightened than the last, all to make it more entertaining. It looses it's visceral and emotional weight that it desperately needed. You know Rocky is going to win, he can't lose twice in two films.
Those that expect another Rocky triumph might be a tad disappointed. The film is good enough for a recommendation though, it manages to continue the story well enough and give more insight into the character that is Rocky Balboa. He might look dumb and act dumb, but he has heart and that is what is needed to win over an audience.
[rating]3[/rating]
B
Brodinski
Guest
I'd forgotten all about Kung Fu Hustle. Put it on my list of movies to watch when I read Ebert's review, but just kinda lost sight of it. Will rent it this weekend!
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Interesting, that would make me ask the question: Where are his parents at the end?
If he came from a good family, surely they would know he had detention and pick him up right?
If he came from a good family, surely they would know he had detention and pick him up right?
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Ryder was a complete and utter bore. She made me want to poke my eyes out. I really hated her in this one. It might be the fact that I don't really like her as an actress, but out of all her roles this one is really one of my least favourites.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Let me know what you think of it.
I
Iroquois
Guest
Salleeeeeeeeeee! Saaaaaaaalleeeeeeee!
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 41: June 10th, 2010
Carriers
Carriers Is A Good Epidemic Film.
An unknown virus eliminates the better half of the country/world. It is highly contagious and if you have it, you're already dead. Four people, two brothers and two females travel across the countryside to find a place to settle, away from this horror. Along the way they come across moral dilemmas and even though they have a strict set of rules, end up breaking a few.
Those rules I spoke of are pretty simple. 1. Avoid populated areas at all costs. 2. If you come in contact with other people, assume they have it. 3. The virus can survive on surfaces up to 24 hours. Never touch something that is not disinfected. 4. The sick are already dead and they cannot be saved.
So it is safe to assume that in order to have an entertaining film and some high tension conflict, some of these characters need to break those rules. The so called leader of the group is Chris Pine, who plays Brian. He's the one who made up the rules and will kick you out of the car as soon as you become infected. He has no problem leaving people stranded and left to die in order to further his own survival. His brother Danny, played by Lou Taylor Pucci is a little more compassionate for others. He's not as tough. Bobby is Brian's girlfriend, played by Piper Perabo. She doesn't have too much to do in the film except play that girlfriend type. Finally we come to another underwritten character Kate, played by Emily VanCamp. Her thing is checking to see if pay phones still work so she can call her family, even though they are most likely dead.
As stated before, the two females in this film are underused and underwritten. They seem like background characters to add the missing feminine aspect of the film. Chris Pine is great as the older brother, his no nonsense and cocky attitude are also qualities seen in the recent Star Trek film. The most emotional character that I think people are going to be able to relate to is not even one of our four. Instead it's a minor character that we are introduced to early on, Frank, played by Christopher Meloni of Oz and Law & Order fame. He has the unfortunate task of looking after his infected daughter. He meets our leads and they take his car, striking a deal to bring him along to a hospital for a cure he thinks exists. A very heartfelt and depressing scene involves his daughter needing to go to the washroom. He asks her to be a big girl and go herself, so he can stay with the car, fearing they will abandon him and his daughter. Christopher Meloni is an underused actor who needs more work people.
The film never explains the virus or how global it really is. I'm assuming it's the entire world and not just the country. The unexplained events on how or why it happened leaves it all up to the viewer to decide. All that is known is that the virus is highly contagious and if you get it, you'll be dead soon. The characters make usual stops here and there for sleep and gas, at every stop they encounter some kind of problem. It becomes a bit predictable, but it never ceases to keep you interested. I found the film to be quite thrilling at times.
The thing that Carriers does well is leave you with questions to ask yourself. What would you do in this situation. Would you leave your loved ones to die because you don't want to get infected, or would you try to help them and work around this obstacle? The film shows those two choices put into action. Carriers is not a horror film, even though people seem to think so, nor is it an action filled thriller. There are some intense scenes, but to me it mostly played out like a drama. It is only 89 or so minutes, so it goes by fairly quickly, even though some people have been complaining about it's sluggish start. I think the setting of being in a desert added to the desolate and slow feel at times. In the end, Carriers is a good epidemic film. Not a lot happens in it, but the story and my personal thoughts on what I would do in this situation are enough for me to recommend it.
[rating]3[/rating]
Carriers
Carriers Is A Good Epidemic Film.
An unknown virus eliminates the better half of the country/world. It is highly contagious and if you have it, you're already dead. Four people, two brothers and two females travel across the countryside to find a place to settle, away from this horror. Along the way they come across moral dilemmas and even though they have a strict set of rules, end up breaking a few.
Those rules I spoke of are pretty simple. 1. Avoid populated areas at all costs. 2. If you come in contact with other people, assume they have it. 3. The virus can survive on surfaces up to 24 hours. Never touch something that is not disinfected. 4. The sick are already dead and they cannot be saved.
So it is safe to assume that in order to have an entertaining film and some high tension conflict, some of these characters need to break those rules. The so called leader of the group is Chris Pine, who plays Brian. He's the one who made up the rules and will kick you out of the car as soon as you become infected. He has no problem leaving people stranded and left to die in order to further his own survival. His brother Danny, played by Lou Taylor Pucci is a little more compassionate for others. He's not as tough. Bobby is Brian's girlfriend, played by Piper Perabo. She doesn't have too much to do in the film except play that girlfriend type. Finally we come to another underwritten character Kate, played by Emily VanCamp. Her thing is checking to see if pay phones still work so she can call her family, even though they are most likely dead.
As stated before, the two females in this film are underused and underwritten. They seem like background characters to add the missing feminine aspect of the film. Chris Pine is great as the older brother, his no nonsense and cocky attitude are also qualities seen in the recent Star Trek film. The most emotional character that I think people are going to be able to relate to is not even one of our four. Instead it's a minor character that we are introduced to early on, Frank, played by Christopher Meloni of Oz and Law & Order fame. He has the unfortunate task of looking after his infected daughter. He meets our leads and they take his car, striking a deal to bring him along to a hospital for a cure he thinks exists. A very heartfelt and depressing scene involves his daughter needing to go to the washroom. He asks her to be a big girl and go herself, so he can stay with the car, fearing they will abandon him and his daughter. Christopher Meloni is an underused actor who needs more work people.
The film never explains the virus or how global it really is. I'm assuming it's the entire world and not just the country. The unexplained events on how or why it happened leaves it all up to the viewer to decide. All that is known is that the virus is highly contagious and if you get it, you'll be dead soon. The characters make usual stops here and there for sleep and gas, at every stop they encounter some kind of problem. It becomes a bit predictable, but it never ceases to keep you interested. I found the film to be quite thrilling at times.
The thing that Carriers does well is leave you with questions to ask yourself. What would you do in this situation. Would you leave your loved ones to die because you don't want to get infected, or would you try to help them and work around this obstacle? The film shows those two choices put into action. Carriers is not a horror film, even though people seem to think so, nor is it an action filled thriller. There are some intense scenes, but to me it mostly played out like a drama. It is only 89 or so minutes, so it goes by fairly quickly, even though some people have been complaining about it's sluggish start. I think the setting of being in a desert added to the desolate and slow feel at times. In the end, Carriers is a good epidemic film. Not a lot happens in it, but the story and my personal thoughts on what I would do in this situation are enough for me to recommend it.
[rating]3[/rating]
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 17: May 17th, 2010
Angels and Demons
It Was Better Than The Da Vinci Code
Robert Langdon is back in the sequel that is based on the first book. This time Langdon is brought on to a case in the Vatican, there has been a murder. Langdon must help solve a bunch of riddles and clues to make sure a terrorist plot does not ensue.
The Da Vinci code was met with unsatisfied reactions. Hank's hair was a big thing in the media and it overtook the film, since he was such a deadpan character in the first one. He fares a little better here, but it's still kind of ho-hum. The better book of the two is also the better film of the two. Angels and Demons has many problems and I almost forgot I even watched it today, which isn't a good sign. But it is tighter, has a better narrative and feels more suspenseful.
There are tons of stuff missing from the film, as expected. The plot revolves around the capture four cardinals, Langdon must find them all and save them before they are executed every hour. The Illuminati are behind it, who have hired an assassin to kill each one using one of the four elements, earth, water, fire, air. Each one has the word branded into their skin. The clues in this one seem to flow a little better than Da Vinci and gone are the stupid CGI lettering techniques.
The cast is weaker though, Ewan McGregor is a bore. Ayelet Zurer has no chemistry with Langdon and is weaker than Tautou. Stellan Skarsg
Angels and Demons
It Was Better Than The Da Vinci Code
Robert Langdon is back in the sequel that is based on the first book. This time Langdon is brought on to a case in the Vatican, there has been a murder. Langdon must help solve a bunch of riddles and clues to make sure a terrorist plot does not ensue.
The Da Vinci code was met with unsatisfied reactions. Hank's hair was a big thing in the media and it overtook the film, since he was such a deadpan character in the first one. He fares a little better here, but it's still kind of ho-hum. The better book of the two is also the better film of the two. Angels and Demons has many problems and I almost forgot I even watched it today, which isn't a good sign. But it is tighter, has a better narrative and feels more suspenseful.
There are tons of stuff missing from the film, as expected. The plot revolves around the capture four cardinals, Langdon must find them all and save them before they are executed every hour. The Illuminati are behind it, who have hired an assassin to kill each one using one of the four elements, earth, water, fire, air. Each one has the word branded into their skin. The clues in this one seem to flow a little better than Da Vinci and gone are the stupid CGI lettering techniques.
The cast is weaker though, Ewan McGregor is a bore. Ayelet Zurer has no chemistry with Langdon and is weaker than Tautou. Stellan Skarsg
I
Iroquois
Guest
Yeah, why not? Fan theories are always interesting at worst.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 27: May 27th, 2010
From Paris With Love
A Fun Way To Spend 90 Minutes.
Let me start this by saying, Shut your brain off as soon as the film starts.
A young spy who wants to get bigger and better jobs is partnered with an American hot head with a foul mouth and a love for violence. The mission is to stop some terrorists.
To say I was expecting crap would be an understatement. Travolta's goofy look, a tired clich
From Paris With Love
A Fun Way To Spend 90 Minutes.
Let me start this by saying, Shut your brain off as soon as the film starts.
A young spy who wants to get bigger and better jobs is partnered with an American hot head with a foul mouth and a love for violence. The mission is to stop some terrorists.
To say I was expecting crap would be an understatement. Travolta's goofy look, a tired clich
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 12: May 12th, 2010
17 Again
Matthew Perry Doesn't Belong Here.
A guy's life doesn't turn out the way he wanted it to and wishes he was 17 again. He gets his wish, well, sort of. Instead of going back in time to when he was 17, he turns 17 in the present. Also, Zac Efron will grow up to look like Matthew Perry.
How many times have we seen this? Both Big and 13 going on 30 did it, only in reverse. It's exactly like countless other films in which our main character switches back to their younger self with no explanation. Magic? Who knows. Why should you see it then? I don't know, it's got teen heartthrob Zac Efron. Is that good enough? I didn't think so.
As soon as the film tells you the conflict, you know the resolution. The question is do we care about how we get there, or about the characters we are about to spend the next hour and a half with. Matthew Perry in my mind was really miscast here, he doesn't feel like he belongs. The material isn't his style, Zac Efron on the other hand fits perfectly. I'm not saying the kid is a bad actor, I actually enjoyed him in this, but he fits this target demographic and style of writing.
17 Again is what you'd expect. Obvious plot details about the father learning more about his kids when he sees them from a different light. He tries to still be their father when he's a kid himself. He falls back in love with his wife, who is currently divorcing him. No one knows about him except his best friend. Who is one of the biggest geeks of all time. Thomas Lennon from Reno 911 and countless character roles in comedy films really has the best parts. How he gets his girl in the end is interesting and funny, even if it's unrealistic.
The kids are nothing special and Leslie Mann could have done a bit more with her role, but then again how much material is there for her? How many times have we seen the wife character be written sloppy, sidetracked and never cared about? Countless times, this is one of them. She has more screen time then I expected, but it doesn't amount to anything.
The film is enjoyable on a small scale, I didn't hate it by any means. I just found it to be forgettable and that it never tried hard enough to be a standout film. It felt like the director was satisfied in knowing that his main star vehicle would get the film noticed, regardless of the quality. It's too adequate with its place in the world. Recommended for people who dig this type of film.
[rating]2.5[/rating]
17 Again
Matthew Perry Doesn't Belong Here.
A guy's life doesn't turn out the way he wanted it to and wishes he was 17 again. He gets his wish, well, sort of. Instead of going back in time to when he was 17, he turns 17 in the present. Also, Zac Efron will grow up to look like Matthew Perry.
How many times have we seen this? Both Big and 13 going on 30 did it, only in reverse. It's exactly like countless other films in which our main character switches back to their younger self with no explanation. Magic? Who knows. Why should you see it then? I don't know, it's got teen heartthrob Zac Efron. Is that good enough? I didn't think so.
As soon as the film tells you the conflict, you know the resolution. The question is do we care about how we get there, or about the characters we are about to spend the next hour and a half with. Matthew Perry in my mind was really miscast here, he doesn't feel like he belongs. The material isn't his style, Zac Efron on the other hand fits perfectly. I'm not saying the kid is a bad actor, I actually enjoyed him in this, but he fits this target demographic and style of writing.
17 Again is what you'd expect. Obvious plot details about the father learning more about his kids when he sees them from a different light. He tries to still be their father when he's a kid himself. He falls back in love with his wife, who is currently divorcing him. No one knows about him except his best friend. Who is one of the biggest geeks of all time. Thomas Lennon from Reno 911 and countless character roles in comedy films really has the best parts. How he gets his girl in the end is interesting and funny, even if it's unrealistic.
The kids are nothing special and Leslie Mann could have done a bit more with her role, but then again how much material is there for her? How many times have we seen the wife character be written sloppy, sidetracked and never cared about? Countless times, this is one of them. She has more screen time then I expected, but it doesn't amount to anything.
The film is enjoyable on a small scale, I didn't hate it by any means. I just found it to be forgettable and that it never tried hard enough to be a standout film. It felt like the director was satisfied in knowing that his main star vehicle would get the film noticed, regardless of the quality. It's too adequate with its place in the world. Recommended for people who dig this type of film.
[rating]2.5[/rating]
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Day 49: June 18th, 2010
Saboteur
Underrated Hitchcock.
After watching Shadow of a Doubt, I decided to give this film another try. It's still an odd one to me, it's not as memorable as his other films are, nor is it mentioned as one of his better films. Yet, I find that it should be. It has it's fair share of problems, but I really enjoyed it and think it is underrated. I guess when you have a resume as full and influential as Hitchcock, his other films that just seem to be good and not brilliant are left aside.
As a thriller, I feel it fails to really get me on the edge of my seat or engaged with the lead character who is running around the States. The climax of the film feels like a missed opportunity to really amp up the tension. The sound design is almost non existent. You can hear their dialogue and a bit of the environment around them, but the important things are missing, the stitches ripping apart from the sleeve, the need of music to amp of the tension, all missing. Intentional no doubt, yet it lacks the emotional punch one would want from such a scene. Then it ends abruptly leaving you empty inside.
The film doesn't feel like it should feel either, they are almost globe trotting from place to place, yet it feels more confined. The script itself is very average and seems to go about the more obtuse ways to get the plot moving. Yet, looking back at it all, I was still entertained and found that there are memorable scenes that pop into my head. I tend to like the film more in hindsight than I did while I was watching it.
The performances are there, but nothing amazing. Everyone plays their parts to scripted words on the page. The relationship between the two leads is weak and needed more work. The one stand out is Otto Kruger, who has that rich, ego, evil persona down pat.
In the end, I wanted more from this one. I understand it's one of Hitchcock's least exciting films, but I did have a good time watching it. I can recommend it, just not enthusiastically. Again, he has too many 'classics' to choose from. If you want to go the road less traveled, this one is for you.
[rating]3[/rating]
Saboteur
Underrated Hitchcock.
After watching Shadow of a Doubt, I decided to give this film another try. It's still an odd one to me, it's not as memorable as his other films are, nor is it mentioned as one of his better films. Yet, I find that it should be. It has it's fair share of problems, but I really enjoyed it and think it is underrated. I guess when you have a resume as full and influential as Hitchcock, his other films that just seem to be good and not brilliant are left aside.
As a thriller, I feel it fails to really get me on the edge of my seat or engaged with the lead character who is running around the States. The climax of the film feels like a missed opportunity to really amp up the tension. The sound design is almost non existent. You can hear their dialogue and a bit of the environment around them, but the important things are missing, the stitches ripping apart from the sleeve, the need of music to amp of the tension, all missing. Intentional no doubt, yet it lacks the emotional punch one would want from such a scene. Then it ends abruptly leaving you empty inside.
The film doesn't feel like it should feel either, they are almost globe trotting from place to place, yet it feels more confined. The script itself is very average and seems to go about the more obtuse ways to get the plot moving. Yet, looking back at it all, I was still entertained and found that there are memorable scenes that pop into my head. I tend to like the film more in hindsight than I did while I was watching it.
The performances are there, but nothing amazing. Everyone plays their parts to scripted words on the page. The relationship between the two leads is weak and needed more work. The one stand out is Otto Kruger, who has that rich, ego, evil persona down pat.
In the end, I wanted more from this one. I understand it's one of Hitchcock's least exciting films, but I did have a good time watching it. I can recommend it, just not enthusiastically. Again, he has too many 'classics' to choose from. If you want to go the road less traveled, this one is for you.
[rating]3[/rating]
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
Have tomorrow off to post a week and a bit worth of reviews.
Need to catch up.
Need to catch up.
T
TheUsualSuspect
Guest
I will give you negative rep.