Change Your Image
SnobbyDude
Reviews
Cloverfield (2008)
Cloverfield Lost Connection? That's really what is driving the hype.
I believe the hype of this movie is being driven by some of the LOST mania. In an interview with JJ Abrams, before the premiere of the movie, he said there are a few LOST connections in there. That's all you really need to do to make anything a success - just say there is a lost connection. You don't even need to have a good product.
"Eyes Wide Shut" was a movie produced by the late, great Stanley Kubrick. Like Abrams, he had a cult following and everyone went to see his movies based on the reputation he had in Hollywood of being a genius. Stanley Kubrick's last movie was terrible and if it was put out there by anyone else it would have been a huge flop. Because of the Kubrick name and the hype associated with it, EWS was much more of a success than it should have been.
Similarly, Cloverfield isn't a good movie. There is really no plot, no character development, no ground breaking cinematography, no fine acting moments. The special effects were decent, but not really any better or worse than any other Hollywood flick out there. It's the first movie I've ever reviewed where I don't have to worry about spoilers because there is no plot to spoil. Everyone knows it's a film where you see a monster destroying a city and not much else.
Another thing that adds to the frustration of watching Cloverfield is that the camera is so shaky it will make you physically ill. Everyone I was with got sick in the theater. I can recall at least three times where the motion sickness got so intense I had to close my eyes until the nausea passed. Then I would open my eyes and the nausea would set in again and I'd have to close my eyes again. Even though my eyes were closed for what seemed like a large portion of the movie, it didn't really make any difference because nothing happened to advance the plot because there wasn't one.
If you really need a lost fix this badly, just spend the night re-watching a season of lost. You'll find some hints and clues you haven't seen before and you won't make yourself physically ill from motion sickness in the process.
Ultraviolet (2006)
I've never seen anything quite like this
I liked this movie a lot more than I thought I would. I wasn't sure what I wanted to see until I walked right up to the ticket booth and really only picked this movie for 3 reasons. Milla Jovovich is very beautiful, I like action movies, and the time it was playing suited my schedule.
I was expecting the movie to be bad because action movies with a female protagonist always are. Hollywood must think Americans aren't into action-chick movies like this and don't want spend the money/time/effort into making these movies as good as they can be. Within the first 5 minutes, I was completely engrossed and shocked by how good it was.
This movie was a pleasant surprise because someone did sweat the details for a change. The fight scenes were very well choreographed. The special effects and stunts were unique. The plot was unique. The acting was great. The film was the right length and the pacing was perfect. The setting was futuristic and funky looking. I've never seen a movie quite like this one and, in this day and age, it's very rare, unfortunately, to see a movie that isn't just like every other one out there.
Milla Jovovich is amazing. She is beautiful and she somehow manages to come across as being feminine AND tough at the same time. It's a delicate balance and something hardly any actress can pull off.
So why not a ten then? The film moves very fast and if you blink you may miss something which can make a scene confusing. After I left the theater, we discussed the plot and "compared notes" to help each other fill in the grey areas. If a little more time was spent dropping easy to follow clues, it would make things easier to follow for the average American. I think half of the people giving this film a bad review are doing so because they couldn't understand and make sense of a lot of what they watching.
Top Gear (2002)
Finally Top Gear has come to America....or has it?
The Discovery Channel now has Tog Gear on. When I first found out, I was very excited, until I actually saw an episode. Instead of what they get in the UK, we get identical footage of the tests, but they decided to re-shoot the commentary in the studio for an American audience. I am very upset over this and feel like the USA is getting short-changed. There is no way the presenters can work up the same amount of enthusiasm (to their credit, they try pretty hard) after watching recycled video footage that they already presented to a UK live audience once before.
On the plus side, they do help us out with sub-titles that convert GBP to USD, but I don't see why this couldn't have been done without re-shooting the entire show. I'm glad it is on and this is better than nothing, but why the brass behind getting us this show thought it necessary to reenact live segments is beyond me
Gigli (2003)
bad movie but not the worst
This is a bad movie, but it is not, by any means, the worst movie ever made, despite what people are claiming. So, if it isn't so bad, why did almost 70% of people give it a one? Rating this movie wasn't about evaluating Gigli. It was all about making a statement. Many people were sick of hearing and reading about Ben & Jen on the news, on tabloid covers, in the newspapers, etc. Those that were tired of the couple saw to it that the movie would fail. Those that wanted it to fail should be very happy because their wish came true. To call Gigli a bomb is an understatement.
Is it the worst movie in the world? I don't think so. This movie has some big name actors that did their best to try and make it work. The plot was OK too. So what went wrong?
The real downfall of the movie was the dialog. This can be overcome when movies are exceptional in other areas. Titanic and the Matrix sequels had terrible dialog and a weak story, but they were both commercial success because they had good special effects. Gigli's problem is that it isn't exceptional in other areas, so there is nothing in the film to offset the terrible dialog.
Bad dialog is a real problem in movies. Every good movie has to suspend your disbelief so you forget you are watching a movie and you get engrossed. If the dialog is bad, then they need to get you into the movie with special effects, plot, groundbreaking cinematography, etc.
Meet the Fockers (2004)
Nothing happened in this movie
Meet the Parents was about funny events happening and Meet the Fockers was about funny things being said. If Meet the Fockers had a better script with a variety of different jokes, this wouldn't be much of a problem. I enjoyed the first 1/2 hour and was bored during the rest of the movie. I wanted some funny events to transpire, but nothing did. I was hungry for new, different material, but there was none to be found.
Maybe I'm alone in feeling this way, but I have a lot more respect for comedians that can make people laugh without relying the sex jokes. I'm OK with a few sex jokes. When 99% of the jokes are sex jokes, it just shows a lack of imagination.
Entrapment (1999)
You won't remember much about the movie other than Catherine Zeta-Jones in the laser scene
I remember how, after seeing this movie, everyone in my office was talking about Catherine Zeta-Jones and how she was, arguably, the most beautiful woman in the world. The women in the office went to go see it after hearing all the fuss, many going just to confirm that "she isn't all that." In a way, it's a bit of a shame because it's a decent heist movie with a good plot and pretty good acting. Sean Connery was, as always, excellent in his role and the cinematography. It all gets overshadowed by the Catherine Zeta-Jones laser scene that guys will be thinking about for days (Years?).
Does any of this make the movie any less entertaining to watch? Probably not.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
The most disappointing movie I've ever seen
Notice how I didn't say the worst movie? This is the most disappointing movie I've ever seen because I expected so much more and felt very let down. It isn't, however, the worst film I've seen, but it's pretty close.
My last review got deleted by mistake, so I'm just going to give you a quick list of things that are wrong with the movie:
-Poorly choreographed fight scenes.
-The worst dialog I've ever seen in a film.
-Poor acting across the board.
-It's pretentious and uninvolving.
-No plot.
-Lots of characters are introduced that serve no purpose.
-The characters all appear to be invincible, so fighting them is pointless, yet they are all always fighting.
-There are many recycled gimmicks like bullet time, which was interesting the first time I saw it, but now it's very boring and it's overused shows a lack of imagination.
-CGI is overused and not very convincing.
-There is no chemistry between any of the characters, particularly the ones that are supposed to be in love.
-None of the characters respond in ways that are appropriate, given the situations they face.
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
Weird, but good weird
I find myself in the same situation I was in when I was reviewing Hulk. It's a different movie, but both have one thing in common:
The creators of the films both wanted to create something unique and different.
I admire film makers that don't recycle the same ideas over and over again. Unfortunately, taking risks means that the mass-market appeal maybe less than if the film maker decides to play it safe, not take any chances and serve more of the same. Remember, the most popular flavor of ice cream is vanilla and the most popular car is the achingly boring Toyota Camry. Is it any surprise that Hollywood gives us the same thing over and over and never tries to give America anything unique to entertain us?
I really liked the movie and gave it an 8 out of 10, but I also think it may not be right for everyone.
I do, however, guarantee that you haven't seen anything like this before.
Fahrenhype 9/11 (2004)
Exposes most of the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11
This film was pretty good, but how come it only refutes some of the lies in Moore's bogus documentary? There are 59 lies in the Moore movie. Was there not enough time to address all 59? This is well done, but a bit short. I think there are many more things that could have been brought up to make a case against Moore.
This isn't really the movie's fault, but it is too late. The damage is done. I have met people from Europe that hate America and DON'T KNOW that Fahrenheit 9/11 is full of lies. We needed this movie a while ago, we needed it in theaters and we needed it to be more thorough. There is a lot more that could be said against more that is unsaid. This is why I gave it a 9 instead of the full ten points. It would have been better with another 20 minutes of quotes from Moore to hit the final nails in his coffin. The guy has said so many things here and overseas that show what a piece of work he is, but I guess this could have blurred the focus of the movie a bit.
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
I wish the creators of this movie had a physics class
I wish the creators of this movie had a physics class. I can only suspend my disbelief so far. I need some aspects of movies to be grounded in reality. If the characters are going to defy laws of gravity, momentum, etc., and these characters aren't super heros, then I can't "buy it".
Also, what's the deal with these 3 girls being unarmed? Isn't having an action movie with no guns like having a football game with no football? I have a feeling that some political correctness may have made it's way into the film and it makes it even more annoying. I don't care how much training a person has. If you show up at a gun fight with no weapons, you are finished, no matter how good your training is.
This movie reminded me of everything that was wrong with the Matrix sequels:
* Over use of bullet time. The first time it was used, it was interesting. Now it's boring. Think of something new, Hollywood.
* Poorly choreographed fight scenes. The karate moves look really bad. An old Bruce Lee movie shows how it should be done.
* There is an overuse of CGI. Because it doesn't always look real, it's distracting and prevents you from getting engrossed in the movie.
* Action scenes that have no purpose. The movie feels like a long fight scene and it seems like the "plot" only exists to set up more fight scenes.
*Bad dialog! The matrix sequels have the worst dialog in the history of movies, but the characters in this movie don't have anything interesting to say either.
The Punisher (2004)
If you keep complaining that sci-fi/comic movies are unrealistic...
Before I get started on my review, I just want to get this out of the way:
If you keep complaining that sci-fi/comic movies are unrealistic, then you really shouldn't go to see these types of movies. There are so many people that just don't get it and I find myself getting very frustrated. These movies are supposed to be unrealistic and it's up to the audience to sit back, relax, open up their imaginations and suspend disbelief for a while. If you can't do that, then this is the genre isn't for you. When people open a comic book, they want to escape from reality (in a good way) and let the imagination run wild. These movies are not supposed to be grounded in reality.
I go to the movies to be entertained. That's what I pay for. All of these new comic book movies find different ways to ring my bell.
X-men challenged my mind by exploring social issues & society. Daredevil was gritty, and had the brilliant rader concept. Hulk was a thinking man's action movie, with lots of character development. Spiderman was a feel-good hero movie that felt a little superman-esque.
Punisher is a different take on these comic book movies. They skipped the sugar-coated nature of spiderman and went straight for an R rating. This is not for the kiddies. I can't really recall seeing a more violent movie. The action does serve a purpose, however, so it isn't like the horrid Matrix sequels where people are fighting for no reason.
There are some of the best one liners I've ever heard. Some of the dialog doesn't work, but we are only talking about one minutes worth in an entire movie.
SPOILER--------------------------------------
Despite one or two lines that didn't work, a lot of material did work:
-The fact that your typical, predictable hollywood romance scenes weren't inappropriately inserted is great! This is a grim movie, and sappy love scenes don't belong here. When I heard Castle say "I'm not what your looking for", I was so happy.
-No sermons are here. There are some hints here and there about morality and a lot of ideas are introduced that are thought provoking, but no answer is crammed down your throat. If anyone has seen American History X, they'll know what I mean. You are weighing all these different ideas in your head in AMX and then all of a sudden you are slammed with that "hate is baggage line". I can make up my own mind and we did that on our ride home.
-Yeah, there is violence, but has it ever been filmed this way before? After each fight scene, I was saying, "wow, I never saw a move like that before!" Who ever saw someone kill someone with a paper slicer? A lot of action movies get boring because we've seen it all before...same moves, same way of killing people.
-Interesting villains Like the russian and the guitar player from memphis.
-Lack of CGI. I like CGI, unless it is taken too far like the cartoon like matrix reloaded. Some people, however, complain on and on about how fake things look, ect. If there was CGI here, I didn't notice.
End of my spoiler section-----------------------------------------
I was entertained despite the movie's flaws. Some people have different criteria when it comes to judging movies. They look at a film and see a few flaws and knock off points because of these imperfections. For me, the most important thing is that I enjoy the movie and am entertained. I had a good time watching this one and even went back a second time to see it and I liked it just as much on my second viewing.
American Beauty (1999)
Ouch! Someone has an ax to grind
I'd hate for a foreigner to see this movie and say "so, that's what suburban families are like in the USA"
I think someone really has it in for Americans. A completely inaccurate picture is painted of what is supposed to be a typical American family. I feel like it's a bit of a cheap shot and wouldn't be surprised at all if a foreigner (obviously jealous of our standard of living) was responsible for this film. Every character in this movie is a despicable sociopath with no morals whatsoever. I've never met a family like this and am glad.
I felt like I was at an impasse when rating this movie because it is so detached from reality and is a bit forceful in the "America is bad" message. On the other hand, it is very well-acted and filmed. I gave it an 8 for being such a well-made film, knocking a few points off for issues mentioned above.
The Sopranos (1999)
Best TV show ever
This is the best TV show I have ever seen, by a long shot. I guess that shows the dismal state of television, in general. What sets it apart from any other series is the realism of it all. It isn't like HBOs other shows like the silly sex in the city (women with no jobs making 600K in an NYC with no diversity) that are phonier than a 3 dollar bill. It's as good as it was when the series started, I think, but it may feel like it's losing its steam because we are, as the audience, getting somewhat jaded. I mean, how many different ways are there to "whack" someone? Sooner or later we're going to get that "been there, seen that" mentality. I have a feeling that the episodes are going to start looking more and more similar. I hope it doesn't happen, but I fear it might.
The Mind of the Married Man (2001)
A male version of sex and the city-and just as unwatchable
This is basically a male sex and the city. I said, in my review of sex and the city, that I didn't like the it and wouldn't if the roles were reversed. No fan of this show can really criticize sex and the city since it's basically the same animal. If you do, I don't think you are being intellectually honest and such a position would be hypocritical. This is the type of show that makes me want to apologize for being male. I'd really hate to think that women who stumble across this show think that all men are like these clowns. They are remarkably immature when it comes to relationships and it's sad to see so many people writing that they can relate to these losers. When women say they can relate to Sex and the City and men say they can relate to this equally crappy series, it makes me worry about what is becoming of our society. You can't fault HBO for trying to make a male copy of sex and the city, hoping that it too would be successful. This is an ok show if you like this sort of thing. I don't and am glad it was cancelled.
Sex and the City (1998)
Women can relate to this? Please tell me you're all kidding.
What scares me the most about this show is that women say that they can relate to it. Women have conversations like what we see in this show? The sit down at breakfast and talk about how small their boyfriend's penis is? I think if women can relate to this trash then men are in trouble and naive. All I see is a show starring some hideous woman that is a howard stern look-alike and her 3 friends that all have nothing in common with each other except sleeping around. Every episode is the same. They find some annoying loser, sleep with him, dump him, and then they tell their friends what a loser he was and how he was no good in the sack. All the men are losers and the women are supposed to be independent despite not being able to survive one second without getting involved with the next loser they find. I'm not being tough on the show because I'm male. When roles are reversed, I get just as annoyed and bored. HBO tried a male sex and the city called "mind of the married man" and it was every bit as lame as this one. I also think Maxim is a dumb magazine and I didn't care for "The Man Show" on comedy central. HBO can do better than this. I know because they have with some of their other shows.
Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde (2003)
Am I psychic or what?
I wrote this about the first legally blonde movie a while back:
"I hear they are making a sequel to this, which is a huge mistake. The joke is going to wear thin-there is only enough humor in this concept, I think, for one movie. I doubt the second one will be any good, especially since this one seems to have been "good by accident", if there is such a thing."
I was right on the money when I wrote those comments about the then soon-to-be-released Legally Blonde 2. The joke has worn thin and Reese's character just isn't funny anymore. The script's attempt at humor doesn't work. I can't even believe a project like this even got off the ground. Someone actually thought gay dogs and cheerleading in the senate is funny? The movie made decent money, so I guess the joke's on us.
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
I'm torn over this one
This is one of those movies that you really want to like. It's unbelievably well-made and succeeds on many levels:
-It looks great.
-It sounds great.
-It is well acted.
-It has great special effects.
-It has a great plot.
-It has good action scenes.
Despite all of these good points, something just didn't work for me. The pacing was off and I found it too long. I think it would be a much better movie if it were 1/2 an hour shorter. I found myself checking my watch several times-not a good thing.
The length of the movie offset most of the good points for me and I gave the movie a 6/10. It was really hard for me to submit the vote. I could tell that someone really labored over this movie and tried to sweat the details. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how hard film makers work on their craft if it fails to deliver the goods, right?
Spider-Man (2002)
Good, but not perfect
This was a great movie. I remember seeing it a couple of times in theaters and telling everyone to go see it. The story is great-I thought the twist in the beginning was great where Peter Parker learns that ignoring his responsibility (with great power comes great responsibility) causes grief in his personal life. I hear that this is similar to what happened to him in the comics as well, but I wouldn't know, having never read the comic. I also loved the action scenes. I understand that a lot of CGI was used, but I have no idea where it was used. It's all transparent to me, so I think they did a pretty convincing job. I'm glad that the action was fast and they didn't recycle that slow-motion action that was first seen in the matrix. Watching someone leap in the air, have the camera stop, and pan is now a trick that has outstayed its welcome. Fast action conveys a sense of urgency and excitement and is suits this movie.
There are a few strikes against this movie. One thing I wasn't crazy about was the sugar-coated feel of it. There are a number of scenes that feel like they were tweaked to lure in the teenaged girls. I found myself cringing at some scenes that were a little cheesy and I didn't feel that happening in some of the other, more recent superhero movies. It doesn't reach the heights of cheesyness that Titanic does, but I would have liked a more serious spiderman. It doesn't have to be as serious as the Hulk or Daredevil, but maybe something in between would feel right. I would also like a more interesting villain, with a real motive for his behavior. The costume was a little silly too...I just wasn't afraid of him. A good villain should instill fear in your heart. Maybe these issue will be addressed in Spiderman 2.
I'd give this movie a 10 and subtract a point for some of the dialog and the power-ranger outfit of the goblin.
The Wild Angels (1966)
Even for bikers, this is painful
I used to ride a motorcycle, so no one can really say I'm one of those people that doesn't get it. I get "it". "It" is about the feeling you get on a motorcycle, going fast or slow, and it's something that the 4-wheeled public can not and will not ever understand. That said, this is still a bad movie, even for someone that likes riding. It is poorly written, poorly acted and is completely pointless.
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
An OK movie with an OK story
My "One line Summary" says it all. It's based on a true story, but the problem is that the true story isn't interesting enough to make a movie out of. I found myself checking my watch in this one. There are some moments that are charming, and I think the casting was good. Leonardo DiCaprio did a good job and I thought Tom Hanks was also pretty good. I do, however, think something is wrong when someone asks you how you liked a movie and all you can think of saying is "well, it's cool that all that stuff really happened". There are a lot of interesting stories that make for great movies. Goodfellas is a great example.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
Better than T2, almost as great as the first Terminator.
I'm going to try to do my best to make it sound like I'm not on Arnold's payroll. This was quite a remarkable movie. I liked it better then T2 because I thought the dialog was better in some places. T2 has in inkling of cheesyness in some of the dialog, but nothing that reaches the heights of cheesyness we had to endure with Cameron's Titanic. I also though it had more solid acting, for the most part. Kudos to Arnold for being able to whip himself into shape for this role! Does this man ever age? One thing I wondered about is why they never explained why this cyborg was female. Also, isn't it a step backwards from the robot we saw in the last movie? I thought the liquid metal guy was much more scary. Despite these niggles, it's still a great flick.
Legally Blonde (2001)
This is should be a bad movie, but it isn't
When I saw the trailers for this movie, I couldn't believe that Hollywood would have rolled the dice and made a movie like this one. I figured it had to be a horrible movie. I was surprised to see to doing well in the theaters and even more surprised to hear people telling me that they liked it.
I finally went to go see a movie that I dismissed as just another chick flick. I actually liked it and was surprised to find myself enjoying it. The jokes all worked and the story was decent. The only part that had me cringing were some nail salon scenes.
I hear they are making a sequel to this which is a huge mistake. The joke is going to wear thin-there is only enough humor in this concept, I think, for one movie. I doubt the second one will be any good, especially since this one seems to have been "good by accident", if there is such a thing.
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
It MUST be great? I MUST be missing something, right?
It MUST be great? I MUST be missing something, right? These are questions that you start asking yourself after seeing this movie. All of Kubrick's other movies were great, so watching this movie is a bit of a shock to your system. For a while, I was in denial mode, thinking it HAD to be good and I just didn't get it. I saw it a few more times on cable and reality set in. This is an awful movie. What a terrible way to end a legacy. It's sort of like the sequel that you wish was never made.
X2 (2003)
Almost perfect!
This movie is really exciting and action packed. The first movie laid all the groundwork down and this one picks up from there. Since we all have seen the first x-men movie, and, for the most part, know and understand what these movies are about, things can and do start with a bang. I don't know how they filmed the beginning but it is one of the best action sequences I have ever seen. There is a philosophical message here, but the movie leaves a lot of it open to interpretation and it's a better film for that reason. You don't sit there and feel like you are watching a sermon like you do in Matrix Reloaded. So why is the film, as my summary says, almost perfect and not a perfect 10? I rated the film a 9 because Famke Janssen looked a little too old (or maybe James Marsden looks too young?), and I thought there were one or two lines of weak dialog. Also, we are going to always be bothered by the "why didn't he freeze the water?" question at the end. I feel like I'm being picky raising these issues because they are very minor niggles. It's a pretty solid movie overall and I'm eagerly awaiting the 3rd part of the series.
X-Men (2000)
Good movie, but could have been better
I give this movie an 8. I give it credit for being the first movie to get the public into comic book movies again. What about Batman? Batman was followed up by a string of such lousy sequels, I think it the whole franchise eventually annoyed people and it wound up hurting the genre rather than helping it. X-men made these movies fun again.
I think it was a good movie, but it was a little bit too short and I still wish they didn't have a generation gap between characters that isn't supposed to exist. The whole concept of having a machine that makes mutants was a little silly too.
The good points of this movie far outweigh the bad and there is a lot of great acting. Hugh Jackman was born to play Wolverine. I am looking forward to seeing more of these movies in the future and will be one of the first people in line for the 3rd x-men movie.