kbumbulis's Reviews

Net Games (2003)

12 May 2006

Warning: Spoilers

You know when you're in the right mood and you catch a bad movie and have a great time? I was lucky enough to catch this movie at just such a time.

This movie has logical flaws up the wazoo. There are so many ludicrous things to keep your mind active.

Litte things like: The woman is completely bonkers, yet seems to live in a real nice house, has a fancy computer setup with 3 monitors but appears to have no job. She takes pictures of things she couldn't photograph. And apparently is a technical wizard. And the movie never bothers to explain anything.

Howell's beautiful wife goes through some great emotional journey. One minute she's leaving her husband, the next minute she's screwing him and turning vigilante.

And so few films give us 'chick fights to the death.' Fantastic.

As others have pointed out, the movie is spawning with red herrings. Pretty much every woman except Howell's wife is a blonde so everyone is a suspect. SEMI BIG SPOILER- Of course the movie cleverly keeps the killers face hidden until the finale so when the reveal happens... the viewer can revel in the surprise that they still don't know who the heck she is! That's some fine directing! Even at the closing credits, there was an additional moment of pure cheese that had me giggling.

This movie is not good by any stretch of the imagination. It makes no sense. Logic flaws left and right. Inexplicable characters and character choices. But if you can laugh at this stuff, you just might have a good time.

6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

In the Bedroom (2001)

6/10

Fantastic Pain

22 January 2002

I sat through this film with my girlfriend who'd been talking about it for weeks. I'd heard wonderful things about the acting and little else. Now I know why.

Let me say the actors were all wonderful. As opposed to most movies, I actually felt I was watching real people. The performances were very believable. And for me, that alone was the salvation of the film.

I don't know the actual length of the film but I can tell you it was long and it felt it.

Part of this is due to the subject matter. If your idea of a good film is watching people suffer for 2 hours, THIS IS YOUR FILM. The movie is a well done character study of misery and grief. Even my girlfriend who loves a good cry found the movie to laborious and depressing. I'll say again; the film is a FANTASTIC, WELL ACTED exercise in the details of misery. For some, this may make it a great film. And in many respects this probably qualifies it as a fantastic film. But, perhaps as I'm getting older, I find less need or desire to focus on the hardships of life. And when I actually venture into a theater to watch a film; I want to escape. This movie makes you ponder grief. And frankly, who needs a movie to do that?

If you want to judge a film entirely on the merits of cinematography, acting, maturity and meeting its goals; this film deserves a much higher rating then I gave it. (I gave it a 6) Matter of fact, part of me feels guilty for the low score I gave it.

On the other hand, while technically it was a well made film, I was glad when it was over and don't feel better having seen it. (Other then appreciating that a film actually portrayed real characters) The subject matter was too depressing. The pacing was too slow. I released a sigh of relief when it ended.

4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Vanilla Sky (2001)

7/10

Save it for rental

19 December 2001

Warning: Spoilers

This is one of those movies that I wanted to like it more then I did. Yet, I can't help but be disappointed.

Let me start by saying that I don't understand anyone who praises Tom Cruise's performance. Though there have been instances where Tom Cruise has occasional done well in a film, for the most part, he is an inconsistant actor who comes up short more often then not. If he was considered so cute by the ladies in his youth, he would never be making movies today. Throughout this film, I laughed at the choices he made as an actor. His character has this unconvincing, self-deprecating laugh that annoyed me because it sounded so contrived. And when in doubt as to how to act in a scene, he seemed to default to this unconvincing smile. Furthermore, I can't buy into the entire relationship between he and Penelope Cruz because it stretches credibility that she saw any charm in him. (between all of the other fantastic things that happen which I CAN accept, that women were supposed to be seduced by him, is too far too stretch. And I understand that he was supposed to be a rich, self-obsessed womanizer - but most womanizer's have a charming side that seduces their 'victims.' I think the only reason we're supposed to believe that he was a womanizer is because they (1) its Tom Cruise and (2) the script says so.) I saw the movie with a number of other people and not one person commented positively on his performance.

The saving grace of the film is the idea of the movie. (Which I won't go into detail and spoil it) A friend of mine who saw it thought the movie was 'the biggest piece of trash put out this year' until the ending. He thought it saved the movie. But, any movie that bores and annoys an audience until the finale, isn't put together properly. I think the movie would have been better served if more clues had been given to the audience for them to mull over until the ending. (Though its possible on a second viewing, there may be more clues there, I can't imagine having the patience to sit through it again.)

**Possible Spoiler Clue** And though we both enjoyed the idea of the film, it was far from original having been done in other movies, most obviously, Total Recall.

My biggest regret is not seeing the original, "Abre Los Ojos" first. I'm not sure now whether to see it.

I can see where the movie has potential for disagreement. I only recommend that anyone who wants to see the film, save your $9 and rent it on video with a bunch of friends.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Advice from a Caterpillar (1999)

3/10

A Sleeper Miss

10 May 2001

Warning: Spoilers

My girlfriend has the habit of going to Blockbuster and choosing movies no-one has ever heard anything about. Admittedly, at times, it has led to some fun discoveries. Often times, the best that can be said is they definitely run an hour and a half.

She brought home "Advice From A Caterpillar." She was excited because the box said it was funny. Lucky for us, the propaganda on the boxes never lie.

This movie was an exercise in patience. This is one of those movies where, unless you are a pretentious and shallow person who likes watching movies about yourself, you will hate every character in the movie. Until the introduction of the one nice character. Which the lead annoying pretentious character will fall in love with and act in such a way that, in the real world, would drive anyone away.

MILD SPOILERS FROM HERE ON

So a bunch of emotionally vapid, stuck-up, pretentious artists swear off love and find success in their careers. Then, they meet a nice, intelligent, emotionally mature and loving character (an almost perfect guy). We then watch the woman, the annoyingly pretentious artist (in her 30's?) freak out as she falls in love. So she tries to flee from the nice, intelligent, emotionally mature man and stay with the married man with whom she's been having great but empty sex. She is rude to the man and does everything in her power to drive him away. In the real world, she would have been quite successful. I certainly wanted to flee from her and I wasn't even in a relationship with her!

Although its nice that the man 'fought for his love', I never wanted her to have him. (Nor did my girlfriend) She didn't deserve him. And, why I wonder, did the director think that the 'almost perfect guy' should be punished by having to win a relationship with her? When the artist was asking the 'almost perfect guy' to leave, we were screaming for him to leave too. There's a problem with a movie when the heroine of the film is so annoying, childish and stupid that you want her to fail.

Beyond that, let me say that Andy Dick made me laugh a few times even though his character was also pretentious to the point of annoyance. Regarding the other characters, they were well acted, morally bankrupt and annoying characters.

It is a comedy and I can say I did laugh a few times in the film. Unfortunately, not much laughing happened until the last 10 minutes or so. But by the time I had those laughs, I had been praying for the movie to end for far too long. I needed to get these vapid characters out of my life.

If you want to watch people you hate struggle with a love for people they don't deserve, then this is the movie for you.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

An American Werewolf in Paris (1997)

3/10

Good Bench Mark for Bad Films

16 April 2001

Wow. I had to post more to counter the few positive reviews for this movie on the site.

I'm always amazed by some of the reviewers on IMDB. No matter the quality of the film in question, there are people who rave about it and those who despise it. The difficult part is knowing the mindset of the individual reviewer.

An American Werewolf in London is trash. I checked the other reviews of one of the posters who liked the movie to see what else he liked. He called Roadhouse (Patrick Swayze as a philosopher/Bouncer) a "must-see." Knowing that this person thought "Roadhouse" was a must-see helps to put his positive review of American Werewolf In London in perspective.

Start with the acting. I was surprised to learn that these actors had established careers (My co-worker insists this is a good cast). The 3 male leads are so BAD it hurt. Granted this could be the fault of the script. Julie Delpy was okay; meaning she didn't hurt my head.

When will filmmakers learn that 95% of all CGI looks horrible? The CGI in this film is about as convincing as the snake in Anaconda. Cartoon is an understatement. If you are frightened by computer graphics chasing humans then this is the movie for you! There was a reviewer who thought the effects in this film surpassed the first. I don't see how an obvious contrived computer graphic can be called better. Let's call it more 'modern.' It just shows that having access to modern equipment does not mean you'll have better effects.

While there are certain themes/ideas that are borrowed from the first film, I would not call it a sequel. To call it a sequel would imply there was a connection between the characters and events in the two films. Its more like a rip-off of the first film (with a dash of the movie Blade) directed by a hack. There are a hodge-podge of ideas all thrown into a blender before any of them develop into anything good.

Finally, I should say that I sometimes watch bad movies for fun. This movie is not bad in a good way. At least not watching it alone. Its not inept enough be charming. Its just boring. The story was trite. The effects were obvious. The acting was bad. (again, this may be largely the fault of the script)

If you agree that ROADHOUSE is a "must-see" film, then you may enjoy this movie. Otherwise, steer clear!

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Titan A.E. (2000)

8/10

Story doesn't matter - What a journey!

19 December 2000

After reading a number of negative reviews of this film, I went ahead and bought the DVD. I had read that, although the movie was mediocre, it was the kind of film that's great for showing off your DVD player.

I am thrilled to own this movie.

True enough, the story is cliched. Yet I didn't think about it for a second while I watched the film unfold. I was completely caught up in everything I saw on the screen. If it was a slow scene, I just gazed at the beautiful eye candy. And during the incredibly inventive action scenes, I was surprised to find myself at the edge of my seat.

There are some who say that the mix of 3d and traditional 2d animation didn't work. I couldn't disagree more. There are times when the two styles were a glaring contrast. Yet, as the movie progressed, the two became as one to my eyes. I have no problem calling this a revolutionary step forward in animation.

I loved A Bug's Life and Toy Story. But this trip, in my eyes blew those films away.

Finally, though I wouldn't consider this film 'adult' by any means, the slighter darker tone made it much more accessible as an adult viewer. Every year I sigh when I see a preview for another assembly line Disney film. (Hey, let's dumb down the gothic horror 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' and give him cute sidekicks!) The look of Disney films hasn't changed in years. (If anything, they look more simple) This film, as cliched as the story was, was visually inspired.

The original Fantasia needed no story. It was an appreciation of music and animation. Let this be the new Fantasia. If you want to experience breathtaking and beautiful animation, I couldn't recommend this any more.

112 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bats (1999)

2/10

Bad, but not funny bad

17 October 2000

I rented this movie (on DVD) with my girlfriend hoping for either a fun ride or a good laugh. Unfortunately, I don't think we got either.

I think the opening sequence was okay and then it was downhill from then on. The movie was poorly written, acted and executed. Unfortunately, I don't think it was done poorly enough to be laughably funny. By reading others comments, you can see what's wrong with the movie. I don't need to repeat.

I can, however, recommend listening to the commentary track on the DVD featuring the director and Lou Diamond Phillips. This was funny! Where to begin? While we see a young couple making out, Lou comments about the perks of acting. Though I've often marveled at actors getting paid to kiss beautiful people, it comes across creepy to hear the director and Lead actor talking about it in this context. Creepier then anything in the movie. They also talk about how the director gave the actors the freedom to explore their characters. For instance, the director allowed Lou to smoke a cigar and had the actress dye her hair a different color. If you watch the movie, you realize they're not kidding, this counts as character development! Also, you learn that several of the actors playing the victims in the film are played by locals. Unfortunately, these locals, in their brief screen appearances, outshine the leads.

Hearing these two gush about the film, the special effects and the 'rich' story is the funniest thing on the DVD. Either Lou finally does some acting on this track or he really believes this movie is great. And that is funny!

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Amityville Horror (1979)

3/10

Did this show in theaters?

17 October 2000

I have been revisiting some old movies from my childhood to see how they hold up. Horror movies are interesting because so many of the films that were scary back then are not anymore. I rented this film with my girlfriend promising her an old cult horror movie.

It turns out I didn't remember the movie at all. I'm not even sure I'd seen it. I think the film just resonated in my memories because people spoke about it and so many sequels were made. If I had remembered it, I would have never rented it again.

The film has the look of a low budget made-for-tv-movie. My girlfriend and I were reading the DVD box trying to figure out if this was ever shown in a theater.

The film was surprisingly funny. Special effects of 'the horror' seemed to have been made by hanging red lightbulbs out a window. The acting consisted of two emotional states; talking in a normal voice or dramatic yelling. Every character had to yell at some point in the movie, even if it seemed inappropriate. One character would make a loud and convincing point only to beaten down by the overacting (in other words, the other character yelled more)of another. It was very funny.

It was never truly scary. I can't say I was entirely bored. I was kept interested the entire time because I kept thinking the next scene would be the one that made this movie famous. Also, we laughed quite a bit. That famous scene never came. Just more laughs.

The only positive thing I credit to this film is that it may be the first film to use what have now become cliched haunted house conventions; bleeding walls, muck in the plumbing, etc. In reality, I am only speculating about this. Perhaps this was cliched even then? Yet, it's the only way I can figure that this movie had any popularity and spawned sequels.

If you rent it, do so to see a film artifact that has not aged well. Also, rent it with a bunch of friends to laugh. But if you want to rent a horror classic and hope to be scared, rent the Shining or the Exorcist.

4 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

kbumbulis

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed