Change Your Image
Python504
Reviews
Demolition Man (1993)
Demolition Man (1993)
For most of the 90s, Slyvestor Stallone's career was pretty much on free fall. After both "Rocky V" and "Rambo III" proved unsuccessful to both critics and audiences in '90, Stallone struggled to come up with another blockbuster, making carp like "Judge Dredd" and "Daylight" in the process. 1993 proved to be a semi-return to form thanks to small successes like Renny Harlin's "Cliffhanger" and "Demolition Man," an entertaining if completely forgettable action flick.
Co-starring Wesley Snipes (who was becoming a big box office draw thanks to hits like "White Boys Can't Jump) and from producer Joel Silver, the film first starts off in a crime-laden 1997, where dedicated police officer John Spartan (Stallone) has just captured criminal Simon Phoenix (Snipes). Unfortunately, Spartan kills thirty hostages in the process, causing both of them to be convicted and rehabilitated via cryogenic freezing. Flash forward to the year 2032, where Phoenix has been freed and escapes to wreck havoc on a crime free "San Angeles." With no other options, the impotent police force (including Sandra Bullock and Benjamin Bratt) unfreezes Spartan to apprehend the wild Phoenix.
There's no doubt "Demolition Man" is filled with problems: the direction by Marco Brambilla (who was pretty much never seen or heard from after this) is workmanlike and pedestrian along with the numerous action scenes, the film's attempt at social commentary fails in the form of over-preachy monologues by the always loudmouth Dennis Leary, many subplots are left unresolved (including one involving Spartan's daughter which goes absolutely nowhere), and some hardcore film fans might cringe with the sight of small piece of comic relief played by none other than Rob Scheinder.
That being said, the film does make up for its flaws, thanks to strong performances by Stallone and Snipe (both clearly seem to be enjoying themselves), a fun screenplay co-written by "Heathers" scribe Daniel Walters is loaded with cute little gags and quirks, and there's enough entertainment value to make up for most of the films faults.
Overall, the film is a harmless piece of fun. This early 90s action flick comes recommended.
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
Live Free of Die Hard (2007)
John McClane is back!
You'd think that after all these years, and after tragedies like 9/11, we'd be disinterested in movie like Die Hard. Fortunately, I'm wrong.
With that being said, this Summer seems more and more like the 90's more and more. McClane is back in theaters, the Simpsons are becoming big news again, Transformers hits the screen (I know it's more of an 80's thing), plus The Smashing Pumpkins, the kings of 90's alternative rock, are releasing their first album in seven years. It's a Summer of nostalgia, which probably makes it more interesting than previous years. Now back to Die Hard.
Now, McClane is back once again. His job is to take a Computer hacker (Justing Long), to D.C. Turns out, he unknowingly helped a Terrorist group (led by Timothy Olyphant), which plots to bring down all internet and government systems. It's up to McClane (who else?) to bring them down. Things grow much worse for him once they kidnap McClane's daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead).
Now what makes the movie great is that it rarely tries to attach itself to the other movies. No one from the previous movies returns, just McClane. This helps the movie become its own and not some sequel.
Now the plot isn't nearly as good as the original, but I guess it fits well with the computer-driven society we live in. The lead villain, played by Timothy Olyphant, is neither well-written, interesting, or threatening as Alan Rickman or the other villains. But he carries the role well enough not to be a dull. The lead henchman, played by Maggie Q, is pretty much the stereotype of current films, the hot Asian chick who nows karate. Nicely, she dies half-way through to be much of a hassle (plus the whole idea she and Olyphant are lovers is just a stupid clique).
Another flaw is the role of the daughter. While she plays such a minor part in the film up to the kidnapping, her being thrust into the third act seems a little gimmicky (director Len Wisemen, though, is able to work with it well enough to not make it a problem).
McClane, however, is damn perfect. Bruce Willis returns to the role like he never left it. It's nice to see that even in his 50s, he can kick some major ass once again.
Despite some (minor) flaws, the film is a no-holds-par action flick that is able to be above standard action films of today.
Recommended.
Shrek the Third (2007)
Shrek 3 (2007)
I hate growing up, as this means all the movies and shows I used to love as kid now seem just crappy. Shrek is one of those.
Now don't get me wrong, while Shrek does seem too immature for me now, it's still a funny and clever movie by any means. Same mostly goes for Shrek 2. Shrek 3 however is a different story.
The story revolves around Shrek and Fiona taking over as King and Queenas Fiona's dad is sick. Shrek hopes he gets well soon, as he hates the duties of being King. Sadly, the king croaks and Shrek is heir. Refusing, he, donkey, and Puss n'Boots go out to find the next to the throne, nerd Artie (who looks like Corey Feldman to me). Meanwhile, Prince Charming has gathered a groups of evil Fairy Tale villains to take the throne. Not only that, but Shrek has to worry about fatherhood after Fiona tells him, she's pregnant.
Now the plot is neither inspired or well-written as the previous. The whole Shrek-daddy connection is a waste (couldn't they wait for a sequel to flesh it out). Not to mention the whole villain's subplot is not as funny as the others (Lord Farquaad where are you).
The jokes also seem to suffer. What made Shrek and Shrek 2 funny was it was able to bounce both kid and adult humor enough to be enjoyable for everyone. Sadly, the kid jokes come to often and the adult is too little. The whole Artie being such as nerd, even Dungeon & Dragons kids pick on him is just not funny. While the this made kids laugh out lot, Shrek having his ass scratched is pretty pathetic (I've never like butt jokes anyway).
Despite these (many) flats, the movie still makes the grade as enjoyable for the family, yet never reaches the level of the others.
But what difference does this make, even though the third is clearly the weakest, it's not the last. They're still going to make Shrek 4 and 5, a Christman special, and a spin-off (about Puss n'Boot, which has a some promise). The lack of quality well continue to drop and they'll just be more kid and fart jokes.
Hopefully I'm wrong.
Clerks (1994)
Clerks (1994)
When one looks at Clerks, it's pretty easy to realize that it's a bit overrated. It's not to say it is a bad movie, but considering how much respect and a cult it has created in its wake, it seems a bit too much. The film was a major hit in the '94 Sundance. I guess people were captivated that a man who worked in a convenience store was able a movie greater than most people make in the entire career.
Now don't a Shakeperean story here. It tells the story of Dante Hicks (Brain O'Halloran), your everyday clerk whose brought in on his day off. Throughout the day, he and his best friend/worst enemy/co-worker Randal Graves (Jeff Anderson) several obstacles in a greatly monotonous job. This includes screwed up customers, girlfriends, and stoners Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob (Director/Writer Kevin Smith).
What probably got to audience the most was the film's no-hold bars, raunchy dialog that threatened it with NC-17 rating. Kevin Smith holds no qualms in creating some of most sexual-explicit situations in film history. Many times it feels forced and over the top, usually putting me in an uncomfortable place.
That being said though, Smith is able to write some amazing characters. In most days, studios and filmmakers try to usually to cram the films characters down our throats so by the end of the day, we're suppose to feel for them. Smith doesn't do that. He just lets the characters play out, putting them situations that relate to the audience. These situations include be stuck in a dead-end job, yet never having the courage to leave and start a real-life. Smith makes us feel whatever we want to feel for the characters, which they're usually soon in the positive light.
The film's looks is also something to be admired. Usually, independent films pride themselves for their artistic vision. The opposite could be said for Clerks. The movie is so artistically challenged it gives it a grainy, poor look that puts the audience in a world unlike most others.
While not nearly worth the years of hype, Clerks remains a wonderful and nicely done comedic-farce.
Batman & Robin (1997)
Batman & Robin (1997)
With a movie that has been given such negatives, I'm going to try my best to find positives.
The film has duo Batman (George Clooney) and Robin (Chris O'Donnell) fight villains Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman).
Now on to find the films positive. Um...well...I...The action scenes. With a 125,000,000 dollar, this film does come with some attractive sets and action sequences (Not counting the stupid sound effects in some of them). Lets see what else I can find. Um...um(this is harder than you think)...well...the score! The film was praised for its soundtrack (one has to hear the catchy tune by the Smashing Pumpkins). The cast also performs nicely (except for Silverstone and Thurman).
Some may call me insane for liking the film this much, but it was a childhood favorite, so it holds a special place in my heart.
Batman Returns (1992)
Batman Returns (1992)
Tim Burton's 'Batman Returns' (1992) caused much controversy from parents over its dark tone. Can one stay that Burton went a little over-broad in trying to create a darker version of Batman. Yes.
The film is about Batman (Michael Keaton) must battle the Penguin (Danny DeVito), Catwoman (Michelle Phieffer), and businessman Max Shreck (Christopher Walken).
I don't understand it. How can Tim Burton make two Batman movies that destroy Bob Kane's vision, yet fans love them, while the hate Shumachur's vision, which was true to Kane's (Not counting B&R, of course).
Now when one first sees the film, they'll think it story with a nice social commentary on the world we love. This commentary is quite nice, like how people like Penguin, who just want respect and love, are treated like freaks, while people like Max Shreck, who are heartless and cold individuals, are respected by everyone.
But by the end of the day, Superhero films are meant to entertain, with nice action sequences, along with nice human subplots. Batman Returns fails miserably at doing that simply task.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Could 'Pearl Harbor' (2001) be my least favorite movie of all time. Possibly. Michael Bay weaves what could be the worse piece of trash of all time.
One might ask why I loath this movie so much. Let's take a look. The story is ridiculous. Ben Affleck and Josh Harnett are nothing but unlikeable idiots (played poorly by both actors), and makes people wonder what Kate Beckinsale (who is also poor in this movie) see in them. Michael Bay lack of detail in dramatic scenes is obvious, and makes one wonder why is he a such A-List director. Characters are poorly written and acted by every (who look like they're all doing it for the money only). It also makes the events of Pearl Harbor a small sub-plot to a god-awful sub-plot for a love triangle you can see in any other movie.
To add to those, the film is riddled with Historical inaccuracies. Not to mention to ask why in gods name is Dan Aykroyd doing in this type of film. I'm going to end this review on this note, 'avoid at all cost!!!!!!!!!!!!!'
Trail of the Pink Panther (1982)
Trail of the Pink Panther (1983)
'Trail of the Pink Panther' (1982) has gathered much talk about its lead star Peter Sellers, who died two years before the film was released. One might ask how is this possible. Simple, director Blake Edwards took footage from previous Pink Panther films along with new footage to make a story. One will also ask the question whether these deleted scenes can really last for 90 minutes, and they'll be right.
The film follows the story of when the famed diamond 'The Pink Panther' is stolen once again. Inspector Clouseau (Peter Sellers) is again called to solve the case, and at the same time driving Dreyfus (Herbert Lom) insane. But Clouseau plane goes missing. The film then shows a reporter (Joanna Lumley) talking to people who knew him best.
The first half which Sellers is in excels (even though one can easily tell that all his scenes are just deleted scenes), but once he's gone, every goes downhill. Joanna Lumley is god-awful, giving an annoying French accent. It also seems a bit pathetic to recycle old clips from previous films. However, David Niven and Herbert Lom help the film a bit.
While the film has many problems (actaully many), it's a good piece of Comedy, and also a nice tribute to the late great Peter Sellers.
Yellowbeard (1983)
Yellowbeard
When 'Yellowbeard' was first released to the public in 1983, it was greatly attacked the film. From what the critics where saying about this film, one would think this was the worse film in creation. Nothing couldn't be farther from the truth, it's actually pretty enjoyable. The movie has probably aged pretty well from being a hated flop to a cult classic.
The movies plot is pretty simple. It tell the story of the most-feared pirate in history Yellowbeard (Graham Chapman, 'Monty Python') is taken out of prison after 20 years (for tax evasion). Before he escapes, he is told by his wife (Madeline Kahn, 'Blazing Saddles') that he is the father of a boy named Dan. He also learns that the only map in existence to his sought after treasure is tattooed to Dan's head. There they, along with others, embark on a quest to find the treasure.
The movie has a wonderful cast, along with a witty (yet non hilarious) screenplay make this an enjoyable pirate adventure.
(Note: while 'PG', this movie contains much nudity, and a ship-load of raping jokes.)
Mallrats (1995)
Mallrats (1995)
'Mallrats' (1995) was Kevin Smith's ('Clerks' [1994]) second feature and first Hollywood movie. Before this, his idea of a big budget film was $30,000 movie with the help of friends and local actors. The budget for this movie was now $6,000,000 and had a much larger crew and professional actors. The film was released in October of 1995 and met with both critical and box office failure, only boxing 2,000,000. The movie, however found success on home video and has since become a cult classic.
The film's main problem is that Kevin Smith, famous for making movies different from the mainstream comedies, tries to hard to make a normal comedy. He rich dialog is wasted on un-lovable characters with a weak plot.
Superman Returns (2006)
Superman Returns (2006)
I've always had a problem with Superman. He seems like just a simple character, I mean he invulnerable to anything except kryptonite. I don't mean to be rude but the storyline could have been easily made by a five-year old. Even his suit seems so cheesy.
Now I saw 'Superman Returns'on opening day with high hopes. Before this I saw the trailer a few months back and thought it was a horrible movie. But through into internet buzz a started to get into the movie and was really getting excited about the project. Very soon before, I saw that Roger Ebert had given the movie a dismal ** out of **** rating. I tried not to get turned off by this and in the end wasn't affected by the review. When saw the beginning of the movie, I had high hopes when I heard the narration by the late Marlon Brando and a brilliant opening sequence honoring the original movie.
The things started to go downhill as the story plot goes downhill. The plot is very simple
'Superman returns after a five year absence and once again battles the evil Lex Luthor.'
Luthor (Kevin Spacey), after being freed from prison, steals crystals with the ability to grow land, but destroy land also, there he uses it to sell and become the richest man on earth.
Now Lex Luthor isn't exactly the greatest villain of all time. A definition of a good super villain to me is one who has the abilities to fight the protagonist in a glorious battle. Lex Luthor is, however, a bald, middle-aged man, which is ,ofcourse, far from the definition.
Now a problem a had with the film is the overall film is that it was all so predictable. I mean, none of the characters never seem in real danger as we all know that Superman is going the save them in the end. Even when watching the movie in the beginning, I knew that the movie will end with Lex Luthor failing, and Superman winning in the end.
Now another plot-point in the movie I hated was the overall showing that Lois Lane and Superman has a son, because:
a.) This is only really stressed in two scenes, but neglected in most of the film.
b.) Ruins the argument between Jason Lee and Jeremy London in 'Mallrats' (1995).
Acting: The acting was way off in this film. I thought it was stupid to cast an unknown as Superman. It worked with the original but that was because Christopher Reeves was perfect (and was a hero in real life). Routh is poor as hell. Bosworth is god-awful as Lois Lane and lacks chemistry with everybody she's with. Specey can't hold a candle to Gene Hackman.
Another problem is the special effects, even though it helps the (awful) plot, doesn't help but feel out place in film (I enjoy when the visual effects blends easily with the movie).
Besides from the acting, another saving grace is the trailer from the awesome 'Spider-Man 3' that comes with the movie.
Overall: My main problem is this, Bryan Singer tries to hard to recreate Donner's vision of Superman, instead of creating his own vision (like he did with X-Men). Dismal Failure.