Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Hancock (2008)
6/10
Signing off on "Hancock"
6 July 2008
Some movies are simply poor ideas put into practice and thus become movies we come to regard as "bad". Others are good ideas that are presented to the viewer and are often well-received. Then there's Peter Berg's "Hancock", the story of a boozing, loutish, seemingly un-superhero that falls somewhere in between the aforementioned categories.

Will Smith plays John Hancock, a superhuman with enhanced abilities in strength, invulnerability, and flight, who, though he tries to save Los Angeles from all sorts of crime, usually ends up costing the city millions of dollars in damages and endangering many people through his alcohol-induced carelessness. When the city's officials decide they have had enough, they issue a warrant for Hancock's arrest. At the behest of Ray (Jason Bateman), a publicist who has been saved by the "hero", Hancock enters a county jail to serve his time and prove that the city actually needs him. With Ray regularly consulting him on his public appearance and the city's crime rate rising at an astonishing 30 percent over a two week time span, Hancock emerges from jail by request of the captain of the LAPD to once again the city safe.

With these pieces set into place with plenty of humor sprinkled throughout the movie, I was convinced that critics were simply being stuck up in their reviews - true to form, many critics poorly rate movies they deem to be below them. However, the plot actually takes a turn for the worse in trying to trace the path of Hancock's origin and also build his romance with Ray's wife Mary, played by Charlize Theron. While the first half of the film had been very much enjoyable, the last half hour or so drags, with the comedy running sparse and the storyline running thin. In the end, "Hancock" is less likable due to it's poor execution in the second half, and I found myself in the same situation as many critics - disappointed.

And thus, I return to my initial point; "Hancock" is not bad idea for a film - in fact, it has the potential to work as a great action comedy - but it falls short of the expectations many would hold for it by falling somewhere in between "good" and "bad".
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
6/10
A Web of Deceit
5 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
In a movie series, one comes to expect the sequels to be a cleaner, slicker, more refined, and generally better versions of the original. Several series have done this, for example the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Others have not, such as the Batman series of the 1990s, which was only brilliantly saved by Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins.

Unfortunately, Spiderman 3 follows the formula of the latter series, completely veering off-course into a direction no one, possibly not even director Sam Raimi, could have seen. Riding high on the success of the first two films, I had very high expectations for this film, but was thoroughly let down.

For all its flaws, Spiderman 3 begins with flying colors. In the first act, we rejoin Peter Parker, once again played by Tobey Maguire, with a level-headed sense of well being and general happiness. His performance in college has improved, as has his relationship with Mary Jane Watson, played by Kirsten Dunst. However, his bond with his best friend, Harry Osbourne, as portrayed by James Franco, has become strained in light of the events of the previous film, spurring on Harry's transformation into the "New Goblin". Still, Spidey finds time to be honored in a parade for saving New York's inhabitants from certain destruction on a daily basis, such as falling cranes that try and obliterate a now blonde Bryce Dallas Howard, who plays Gwen Stacey, Parker's classmate and could-be girlfriend.

With this much to work with, Spiderman 3 seemed to be headed in the proper direction, and even found time to introduce the Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), a do-good evil-doer whose crimes are motivated by his crippled daughter, and the Symbiote alien, which latches on to Peter, giving him a new dark suit and an even darker personality that is bubbling at the surface. Peter also finds personal enemies with the annoying and oh-so-arrogant Eddie Brock, played by Topher Grace, better known as Foreman from "That 70s Show". Even with a double dose of villains making the plot somewhat cramped, Spiderman 3 still seemed to have it right. The first hour had me eager to see what would happen next as each plot line developed.

But then something strange happens. Spiderman 3 takes a break from it's normal direction and ventures into an exposition of Raimi's comedy, giving Peter Parker new motivation with the effects of the Symbiote, and turning him into a parody of John Travolta circa Saturday Night Fever. Peter wears his hair in a pseudo-emo-locke fashion (which really more resembles Hitler's styling) and seems as though he's been using his Aunt May's eyeliner. He dances awkwardly as he walks down the street, pointing at young, attractive hard bodies in an obscene manner, and embarrasses Mary Jane at her new job by demonstrating his new skills with Gwen Stacey. This discomfited bridge section teeters on tongue-in-cheek humor, but makes the viewer laugh at its complete stupidity and utter misuse of time. For almost 45 minutes, the movie plays on peculiar humor, rather than the one-liners we've seen in the first two movies, which were also few and far between. The viewer is left reeling and puzzled from this turn, even when intermittent with CGI-filled action sequences, which fluctuate between excellence at many points, and sheer Hollywood garbage at several.

The film does not pick up again until after this phase, when Peter decides to remove the Symbiote, coincidentally transforming Brock into Venom, who was given not nearly enough screen time. The film ends on a down note, with both Venom and the New Goblin being vanquished, and we last see Peter gently rocking with Mary Jane to smooth Jazz. By this point, I could not comprehend how the quality of the story had waned so severely, and I was thoroughly disappointed.

Personally, I grew up on the Spiderman cartoons of the 1990s, and was hoping that this film would keep faithful to not only those cartoons, but Raimi's vision and (of course), the comics. We didn't need to see Peter being a self-absorbed pervert from the Symbiote's effects, but should have seen him gradually break down his relationships with those around him in a real way, through truly evil abuse and anger. As far as villains go, we could have done without the Sandman (though I did enjoy his portions of the films), and I felt this movie should have focused expressly on Venom, who was given a meager 25 minutes of screen time, rather than the 2 hours he deserved, and Harry Osbourne. In the previous films, we saw individual focuses on the Green Goblin and Doc Ock, in the first and second films respectively; why didn't Raimi do this for Venom, a fan favorite who is well known as Spiderman's archnemesis. Topher Grace could have possibly been the worst choice for Eddie Brock, who was meant to be an over muscular prick who antagonizes on and bullies Peter. Also, the plot involving the New Goblin felt half-developed and half-assed, as we see him put out of commission due to amnesia within the first half-hour.

Generally, I was extremely disappointed with this movie, which lacked the heart, charisma, and personal stories of its glorious predecessors. Director Raimi is at his worst, as he ventures into expository stupidity with this film, and deviates from the style we fell in love with in the original two films. I would not recommend this film to anyone who enjoyed the first two and expects to encounter a similar formula. The story lines start off strong then run thin, and eventually, stupid. We aren't given what we expected, and though at many times this is a good thing, this movie pales in comparison to the other 2; this is an extremely vapid and dissatisfying way to begin the summer's influx of blockbusters.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pulse (I) (2006)
6/10
strange...but not that bad (minor spoiler)
26 May 2006
I had just went to see a pre-screening of pulse last night, and I must say that it was not all that bad compared to recent horror films. The main problem with pulse is that in trying to be original it borrows from other films. I understand that this is an American version of a film from Japan. The film just reminded me of too many other films for me really to appreciate it. Once again this was a pre-screening and I am 100% sure that parts of the version I have seen will be changed. The other problem with pulse is that it is very hard to follow at times, and you are left to interpret the movie in your own way. The deaths are also very cheesy, and not really that creative. I am a huge horror fan and I was really interested to see this film because of the trailer that I very much enjoyed. The movie gets a boost in points for breaking away from the normal horror films we have been seeing as of late. Another thing that I had to pick at was the mediocre acting of the main star Kristen Bell. She just did not give a great performance...the rest of the cast with the exception of Ziagler give somewhat good performances. To continue on the scares were another part that bothered me..once again we see a pg13 movie relying on loud noises and crashes to make the audience jump...but on a brighter side there are a few scenes (the laundry room scene, and the car attack scene towards the end) that were actually pretty scary. One last thing the ending is not all that great, it is one of those things that you either love or hate...the audience at our screening mainly hated it, I will assume it will be changed come the release date. Overall "Pulse" is a decent horror film which is a step above the horror movies that I have seen as of late, just do not be surprised if you are left scratching your head after this film is over.
145 out of 237 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
keeps you guessing
12 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
If you like movies that make you think you will enjoy this film. Josh Hartnett stars as "Slevin" a guy who is down on his luck and gets mistaken for someone else, or does he...from the moment that the mob bosses get a hold of Slevin the movie turns into one big guessing game. If you are like me you will find yourself thinking and trying to figure out what exactly is going on, but you probably will never understand until all is explained in the brilliant climax ending of the film. I honestly can say that when you walk out of the theater you can say to whomever it is that you went to see this movie with that it was truly a great movie. Now I was lucky enough to have seen this at a screening back in December, and the entire theater started to applaud at the conclusion of the film. If you like mysteries definitely check this one out...and just by the slim chance that the reviews are mixed or not that great I will at least tell you from an avid movie lover to give this a chance and you will not regret it
232 out of 386 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed