http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034032/
like crank, but with marilyn manson soundtrack.
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.
2010-01-02
shinobi: heart under blade
the netflix summary compared this movie to romeo and juliet, which caused me to immediately expect it to suck. happily, this film differed quite a bit from that drek. the characters were not completely unlikable, they did not go on and on and on and on about how madly in love they were with each other, there was absolutely no singing until the credits, and for the most part, everybody who died did so relatively quickly and quietly, even the characters who had to deliver monologues before punching out. best of all, unlike shakespeare's tripe, just about everybody was a ninja! yeah! ninjas make every movie better.
however, one thing that they did have in common with romeo and juliet is that the two ninja clans had the age-old grudge match thing going on. i never understand inter-generational grudges. people should be smart enough to understand that once the origins of the grudge has been lost in time, it is time to give it up. i know that people do not really work that way, but...i want to believe. unicorns and santa claus have been taken from me already, so the idea that humans can overcome their baser natures is really all i have left now.
superior ninja action motivated by a reasonable plot and acting earns this film a solid four (throwing) stars.
however, one thing that they did have in common with romeo and juliet is that the two ninja clans had the age-old grudge match thing going on. i never understand inter-generational grudges. people should be smart enough to understand that once the origins of the grudge has been lost in time, it is time to give it up. i know that people do not really work that way, but...i want to believe. unicorns and santa claus have been taken from me already, so the idea that humans can overcome their baser natures is really all i have left now.
superior ninja action motivated by a reasonable plot and acting earns this film a solid four (throwing) stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)