http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182921/
this film was not so great on the acting, dialogue, or plot fronts, but what do you expect, it is an american ninja movie. you might as well complain about the lack of plot and acting in a porno. people do not watch porn for the awesome acting and provokative plots, nor do they watch american ninja movies for anything other than AWESOME NINJA ACTION.
i am going to be honest with you. "ninja" is not that great of a movie. two stars, maybe. however, i am giving it an extra plus one star and an honorable mention because of the uncompromising ferocity with which they followed--nay, attacked--the way of the american ninja movie:
- white guy in ninja school
- "asian" bad guy who was kicked out of ninja school
- key dialogue spoken in japanese-with-mandatory-english subtitles
- ninja school's teacher killed by bad guy
- japanese heroine who needs to be saved from the bad guy
i could go on, but you know what kind of movie i am talking about here. they even scored a scene where the hero carries the heroine in his arms while she looks up at him adoringly. it was very john wayne, and i nearly cried. well. my eyes were watery because i have allergies, but there was some emotion there. probably.
2010-03-11
2010-02-28
2010-02-21
avatar
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/
let me say right off that i did not see avatar, nor am i going to. so stop asking me to write a review of it. i read the screenplay a few years ago and found it to be a standard-issue underdog action flick with extra syrupy feel-goodness slathered on top. the most positive thing i have heard about it was that it was fun to look at, like a tropical fish tank. i cannot imagine being entertained by a tropical fish tank for three hours. the fish tank clocks in at five minutes, tops. you could make it six minutes by adding a big turtle, or a bunch of small ones.
there is a lot i could say about the length of movies, but it really all boils down to that if i am going to see it in the theater, it has to be short enough that my bladder does not explode. i like to stay hydrated, i do not like to stumble around in the dark and miss five minutes in the middle of the show. sure, i could miss less if i chose not to wash my hands, but that would be disgusting. ditto for the idea about peeing on the plants in the lobby instead of going all the way to the restroom. and the idea about using a catheter. using an empty water bottle is right out. anyway, the point is that avatar is too long.
let me say right off that i did not see avatar, nor am i going to. so stop asking me to write a review of it. i read the screenplay a few years ago and found it to be a standard-issue underdog action flick with extra syrupy feel-goodness slathered on top. the most positive thing i have heard about it was that it was fun to look at, like a tropical fish tank. i cannot imagine being entertained by a tropical fish tank for three hours. the fish tank clocks in at five minutes, tops. you could make it six minutes by adding a big turtle, or a bunch of small ones.
there is a lot i could say about the length of movies, but it really all boils down to that if i am going to see it in the theater, it has to be short enough that my bladder does not explode. i like to stay hydrated, i do not like to stumble around in the dark and miss five minutes in the middle of the show. sure, i could miss less if i chose not to wash my hands, but that would be disgusting. ditto for the idea about peeing on the plants in the lobby instead of going all the way to the restroom. and the idea about using a catheter. using an empty water bottle is right out. anyway, the point is that avatar is too long.
timecrimes
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480669/
it is hard to explain why i liked this one without giving away critical details, so i will just summarize by saying that this is a well-constructed time-travel movie. i really really want to say additional things about it, but i feel certain that if i did, i would be force to travel back in time to undo that decision.
i can do that, you know. travel back in time. because i am the great and powerful schmolli.
it is hard to explain why i liked this one without giving away critical details, so i will just summarize by saying that this is a well-constructed time-travel movie. i really really want to say additional things about it, but i feel certain that if i did, i would be force to travel back in time to undo that decision.
i can do that, you know. travel back in time. because i am the great and powerful schmolli.
2010-01-23
the big hit; also, vampires
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120609/
is it supposed to be a comedy? an action film? a spoof? hell if i know. it felt like they were trying to be humorous, but none of the material was funny. they had guns and explosions, but the action was totally lame. the main character was so pathetic that i could not figure out how anyone could possibly like him. i mean, sure, it was mark wahlberg, but really.
enough about this crappy movie, i want to talk about something much more important: vampires.
there so many different versions of vampires. wikipedia even has a page full of vampire matrices to help decode the different versions. i never used to worry about vampires, until i read that page. there are so many different kinds, many with completely different vulnerabilities. i knew vampires were hard to kill already, but it has become painfully clear to me that i have been underestimating the difficulty in thinking i merely had to dodge razor sharp claws and teeth long enough to drive a stake into their hearts or kick them through a window and into daylight. no, now i know that there will be a phase to the operation where you have to figure out what *kind* of vampire you are dealing with, and only then can you put a plan into action for destroying the unholy beasts.
speaking of vampires, avoid "vampire$" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120877/) the movie. the book was awesome, though. in fact, read anything by john steakley.
is it supposed to be a comedy? an action film? a spoof? hell if i know. it felt like they were trying to be humorous, but none of the material was funny. they had guns and explosions, but the action was totally lame. the main character was so pathetic that i could not figure out how anyone could possibly like him. i mean, sure, it was mark wahlberg, but really.
enough about this crappy movie, i want to talk about something much more important: vampires.
there so many different versions of vampires. wikipedia even has a page full of vampire matrices to help decode the different versions. i never used to worry about vampires, until i read that page. there are so many different kinds, many with completely different vulnerabilities. i knew vampires were hard to kill already, but it has become painfully clear to me that i have been underestimating the difficulty in thinking i merely had to dodge razor sharp claws and teeth long enough to drive a stake into their hearts or kick them through a window and into daylight. no, now i know that there will be a phase to the operation where you have to figure out what *kind* of vampire you are dealing with, and only then can you put a plan into action for destroying the unholy beasts.
speaking of vampires, avoid "vampire$" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120877/) the movie. the book was awesome, though. in fact, read anything by john steakley.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)