Change Your Image
lynxspyder
Reviews
Pirates of Treasure Island (2006)
How did Lance Henriksen let himself into this mess?
Okay, considering his recent appearances in such classics as Pumpkin: Blood Feud, I suppose it's not surprising that Henriksen would also fall into one of the positively worst movies ever made. When I ordered this on On Demand, I had hoped to see an at least somewhat faithful retelling of Treasure Island. When I saw that it was a complete trashing of it, I should have turned off the television. But no, I suffered through the whole thing. What's worse, CPS may be called to the house because my kids watched it with me.
This movie actually would have been entertaining had the filmmakers turned it into soft core porn. They had all the right ingredients with the women pirates aboard the ship who all miraculously became expert swordsmen--er--sword wielders at the end of the train wreck.
And what's with the bugs? If they wanted to turn this into Treasure Mysterious Island, fine; they should've launched whole hog into it. Instead, the bugs are just there.
Horrible, awful, terrible. Bad enough possibly to be a good drinking movie with friends.
The Descent (2005)
Better than average
This is an uncharacteristically engaging horror flick, though the most interesting sequences have nothing to do with the carnivorous, mutant humanoids the adventurous women encounter in the depths of the cave they explore. The hazards the women face as spelunkers navigating the labyrinthine caverns are actually more engaging than the terror sequences involving the monsters.
Then there is the subplot of the apparent affair one friend had with another's husband. Like many other horror flicks, an story strand that could have made for an intriguing plot element is never developed, and apparently tidily resolved by one woman's death at the hands of another.
The film certainly serves up a fair share of scares, as was its intent, but the flaws hold it back from being the true classic it could have been, the mishandled subplot being one of those flaws. And the makers of this film would have you believe that creatures that have evolved to hunt and survive in darkness would lose all of their senses except for their hearing--finding prey by echo location. While the blindness is perfectly logical, any suspension of disbelief is shattered when one creature crawls over top of two women huddled in the dark and doesn't know they're there. Preposterous. I suppose a subterranean existence in a 52-degree habitat of darkness wrecked the creatures' sense of smell and touch. Another creature crouches with its hand planted on the head of another woman and doesn't realize it. Yes, the warm skull of a human can apparently be easily mistaken for a rock.
I enjoyed this film as being better than the average horror flick, but, honestly, that's really not saying much these days. If you like this sort of thing and can look past plot flaws and elements that just don't follow logic, this is a scary pulse-pounder.
Lady in the Water (2006)
Contrived and clumsy
The best stories create metaphor subtly and craftily. They lure you in with an engaging tale, forcing you to have a vested interest in the characters and the plot even as the metaphor is being crafted from the components within.
Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water" is the most contrived and egocentric work I think I've ever witnessed. Who would have the arrogance and audacity to cast himself in the role of the writer in his own film about story telling? Now we know. And not only does he play the storyteller here, but the movie reveals a prophesy that his story reaches someone who ultimately brings about great change in our world. Now THAT's arrogance.
That could all be forgiven if the story weren't so heavy handed and contrived at making its point. The elements are drawn with obtrusively broad strokes here. This is a manuscript written in black crayon--not the slender kind that you get in the 64-pack; oh, no, this is the big fat black crayon the kindergartners use.
Hawthorne's "Young Goodman Brown" used similarly obvious techniques in presenting its allegorical elements--a wife named "Faith," for example--but at least Hawthorne had a real point to make. The allegory actually stood for something. We could step away after having read it and ponder what it's saying.
The same cannot be said for "Lady in the Water." The only thing that flies here is the eagle.
If you can ignore such obviousness and contrivances, then some the characters are actually intriguing and enjoyable. Unfortunately, they just don't do enough here. Giamatti is wasted here. I genuinely liked Heep and was interested in his back story. Unfortunately, that occupies too tiny a space in a film that is preoccupied entirely with bludgeoning viewers with its moral.
I think if Shyamalan ever ceases being self-absorbed he may go back and make this the movie it should have been minus all of his ego and contrivances.
Scooby-Doo (2002)
Simply terrible
I actually wish I could give a film a rating in negative numbers, because that's what this one really deserves. As a fan of the original cartoon, which is an all-time classic, I find this movie inane and even offensive. It's a violation of the original that completely wrecks the character and sensibilities of the cartoon.
Unfortunately, since anything that makes a buck deserves a sequel, one is in the works.
Spider-Man (2002)
An accurate screen translation
Spider-Man is the best comic-book to movie adaptation yet. Forget about the original Batman movie. Compared to Spider-Man, it doesn't hold up. Raimi has faithfully brought the world's favorite wallcrawler to the big screen and offered a fine introduction to what should prove to be an excellent series of films. For once, Hollywood has offered up a superhero film with more story than action, and that's what makes this movie work and why it is a thoroughly faithful representation of the comic book. Marvel pioneered the idea of looking at superheroes as real people. It did a lot in the '70s to show the people behind the masks and to highlight the problems that being a superhero causes in their personal lives. Spider-Man was the best at showing this, and the movie has accurately represented that.
The only thing that detracts from the film at all is that the special effects are less than perfect. But given that you become so engrossed in the story, you hardly notice. Other movies rely too heavily on the special effects, so if there's the tiniest flaw, it makes the movie laughable. In Spider-Man, the special effects take a back seat to the characters and the story.
I applaud Spider-Man as the best superhero movie made to date.
Thir13en Ghosts (2001)
Yet another idiotic horror film by someone who doesn't know how to make a horror film
While anyone must admit that the original "13 Ghosts" was no masterpiece, it stands as a monumental achievement in filmmaking when compared to this reeking, plotless mess. Aside from a funny line here and there, this movie shows no discernible quality that makes it worth watching. Sure, the implausible, mechanical glass house with the allegedly Latin inscriptions on the walls is rather interesting to look at, but, unfortunately, glimpses of it are interrupted and marred by the silly film that keeps intruding.
Scenes of gratuitous gore actually become quite silly. Take, for instance, the scene in which one character (I won't say who) is sliced in half by a set of apparently razor-sharp doors. Folks, this is strictly adolescent fare at best. I can picture it now, a room full of 15-year-olds (my apologies at this point to intelligent 15-year-olds everywhere, for these filmmakers are below you) guffawing and saying things like, "Dude, wouldn't it be, like, totally cool if his head just, like, explodes, spewing brains and s*** everywhere?! That would be, like, so awesome. We should have one guy, like, get cut in half, you know."
I'm sorry, but my patience has really been worn thin by misplaced attempts at creating horror. Horror is not about seeing people cut in half by glass doors or about seeing mutilated corpses in bathtubs full of blood. It's about suspense, which this film, tragically, possesses little of. It's just one ugly scene of gratuitous gore, violence and/or nudity after another. It seems that Beck's idea was merely to throw graphic scenes at his audience in rapid-fire fashion in an effort to terrorize or sicken them, none of which he achieves. I found myself laughing at scenes that were supposed to be shocking. I laughed because I could not take them seriously. It was like watching a film made by juveniles for juveniles based on what they thought would be "awesome" or scary.
Simply put, this movie is just far too stupid to be scary or the least bit suspenseful. Even the opening scene is too overdone to be taken seriously, and it goes downhill from there.
I watched the original "13 Ghosts" when I was a child, and I remember thinking it was a really spooky movie. When it recently aired on TV, I sat up late and watched it, and, even though I didn't find it quite as scary as I remembered, I thoroughly enjoyed the campiness of it. The original film at least does offer some truly suspenseful scenes and actually possesses a plot that intrigues and engages the audience. When it was over, I thought to myself that it would be really neat if it were remade. Sadly, I have discovered, this is not true. With filmmakers like Beck running amok, old classics and pseudo-classics are best left alone.
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
Another animated film in the tradition of Toy Story that gets it right.
Monsters, Inc. is a delightful film about two employees, Sully and Mike, who work for the Monstropolis' power plant after which the film is titled. While the film isn't as knee-slappingly funny as others in genre (for example, I didn't think it showed as much humor as Toy Story), it is certainly full of elements that will please adults and children alike. Younger children will likely not quite understand the business of Monsters, Inc. and the nature of the jobs the monsters do. My 4-year-old, for example, didn't quite grasp the whole concept of what the company Monsters, Inc. was all about. She still enjoyed the animated characters and the slapstick humor, however.
One of the things that sets Monsters, Inc. apart from other such films is that its plot is a bit more involved than most. The twist at the end involving the company conspiracy (yes, the plot is that involved) is surprising even to adult viewers and part of the reason that adults will really like the film.
What really makes the film work, however, is not the plot and the humor, but the main characters themselves. You can't help but like Sully and thus have a vested interest in the events that affect him. John Goodman is the perfect voice for the giant, furry monster who, while being the company's leading scarer, is also the kindest and most selfless character. Billy Crystal is hilarious as Sully's sidekick, and Steve Buscemi appropriately voices the villain Boggs. I also couldn't help but like James Coburn as the company CEO and former mentor to Sully. It's interesting to me how the appearance of the animated Waternoose actually suggests Coburn without looking a thing like him (Waternoose, after all, is a multi-eyed, multi-legged, crablike creature). And Boo? What can you say about Boo? She does all of the things that one expects a tiny child to do, and it's no wonder that Sully is unable to resist her charms. You find yourself laughing at Boo just being a little girl.
Monsters, Inc. is the best films I've seen all year. It's one of the few films that I could sit back and just plain enjoy.