Willzo's Reviews

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

8/10

21 May 2005

Warning: Spoilers

We've got a real, worthy prequel to the Star Wars trilogy on our hands now. You're welcome to banish all memory of episodes I & II from your mind; THIS is the movie we Star Wars fans have all been waiting twenty years to see. THIS is the movie that began unspooling in our heads the moment Lucas announced plans for a prequel trilogy back in '96. And it delivers.

Now, it is, tragically, impossible to overlook the fact that Hayden Christensen still sucks. It's been said, but it remains as true as ever: he lacks the gravitas to step into Darth Vader's suit. Too bad. And while we're finding fault, yes, George Lucas still has utterly no concept of how to write dialogue, particularly romantic exchanges (the one such moment in this picture borders on the laughable, unfortunately). But these are tertiary points: we of the Star Wars camp are in this to watch the republic collapse, and to watch Anakin fall, and these events get all the dramatic grandeur that they deserve. The circumstances of Anakin's transformation are by turns poignant and shockingly horrific, as they should be, and in particular the scenes which depict Palpatine slowly, mercilessly preying upon Anakin's weaknesses, the "seduction scenes" if you will, are among the strongest in the entire Star Wars saga.

It's very good, and I intend to see it again. I expect, actually, to love it maybe as much as I love the original trilogy within a few years. It could happen. Final word: I recommended episodes I & II with great trepidation, insisting that their content was so largely caught up in weird interior political nuance that only the purest-of-heart Star Wars fan would derive enjoyment from them; Episode III I have to imagine could be stumbled upon by a casual fan of the original trilogy and be very warmly received. That's about the strongest praise Lucas could hope to get, at this point.

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

The Fly (1986)

next-level stuff going on here

26 April 1999

I saw this movie for the first time a few days ago, and I took away two thoughts. 1. This is just about the most depressing film ever made. 2. This is not really a horror picture, or a sci-fi picture. Those elements are present, but the story itself is really an existentialist drama. The most fascinating moments, to me, involve Brundle's metamorphosis, and his total disability to figure out who he is, to make any sense of his continually changing identity. It really makes you think while you're being grossed out. You don't get a lot of that anymore.

35 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Frighteners (1996)

3/10

Jackson's most disappointing work

18 February 1999

I cannot stress the extent to which I was shocked that this film was the work of Peter Jackson, who gave us before such ridiculously funny films as Dead Alive and Meet the Feebles, and also Heavenly Creatures, which is one of the most innovative and powerful movies I have ever seen. The Frighteners was, to quote a friend of mine, extraordinary only in its mediocrity; a film totally bereft of Jackson's usual spark and wicked sense of humor.

Though I have faith that he will redeem himself somewhere down the line, I find it difficult to let him slide so easily with this film: in all of its many facets it is unentertaining and uninvolving, and gives him a bad name.

19 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Object of My Affection (1998)

6/10

with only a few small changes....

25 January 1999

I don't generally subscribe to the whole philosophy of wishing a movie had changed something. Often, it is difficult to watch a good film that is marred by a critical flaw in casting, direction, dialogue or character development, but I tend to just take the flaws in stride. If they made the film worse, then it is a worse film. It seems futile to wish something had been changed, because that is not an analysis of the film at all, rather it is just a fantasy.

But "The Object of My Affection" made me re-think this philosophy completely, because if it weren't for a few FATAL scenes, this movie would have been utterly brilliant. I feel it could even have set the standard for films of its kind: films that really study the blurry boundaries between friendly love and sexual/romantic love. As it stands, the film is little more than fair.

Space does not allow me to rant and spew bile to the degree that I would like, so I will provide only one example of what I mean. It is, in fact, the most particular example I have on the matter. I have seen the movie 3 times now, and I continue to be moved almost to tears by the near-end scene at the wedding, where Nina breaks down in front of George and tells him that she can no longer live a lie. And, then, I physically gag at the flash-forward scene that follows, indicating that, five years in the future, everything has worked out, and all are happy. That shameless cop-out destroyed everything that the film had going for it.

I am directly addressing this to the filmmakers: YOU SEEMED TO HAVE A TREMENDOUS GRASP ON THE MULTIFARIOUS NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS. YOU SEEMED TO BE GIVING US A VERY POWERFUL STORY THAT ILLUSTRATED HOW COMPLICATED IT CAN BE TO SHARE YOUR LIFE WITH SOMEONE ELSE, NO MATTER HOW. AND TO STICK A FAIRY-TALE ENDING ON THIS STORY MAKES THE WHOLE THING SEEM LIKE A JOKE.

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Godzilla (I) (1998)

1/10

yes, it really was as bad as all that.

21 January 1999

This movie is so unspeakably atrocious that I actually screamed "it's over!" as the closing credits began to roll, and rushed out of the theater with my arms flailing wildly. You might even say they had gone "akimbo."

Anyway, I do regard Godzilla as the ultimate example of story and characters shamefully subjugated to money-making devices, such as explosions, big shiny weapons, and giant piles of fish. To all those that mock the likes of me for "expecting Shakespeare," I say this: clearly I was not expecting high art. The title alone should suggest, even to the most unsophisticated moviegoer, that one is in for two and a half hours of lizard warfare. Most of the time, I enjoy movies like that, escapist movies, simply because I find it fun to get caught up in the action. But isn't it a bad sign when, in the case of movies like Godzilla, you CAN'T get caught up in the action, because you are completely distracted by the flaws in the plot, the endless lifting of material from other films, the truly despicable "heroes" and the fact that the monster is BORING?!

As if that weren't enough -- this is where the film jumps from "bad" to "indefensible" -- does everyone remember Mayor Ebert and his little nerd sidekick Gene? Well, that stupid act of bitter self-conscious critic-bashing is a good example of just how childish as filmmakers can behave. Siskel and Ebert gave a negative review to "Independence Day," so that bit was a little act of passive-aggressive revenge on the part of the filmmakers. By virtue of that act alone, the makers of this film have hereby been disqualified from the "artist" category forever. Amen.

"Godzilla" is the worst film of 1998, and the worst film I have ever seen.

6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Leprechaun (1992)

2/10

Not much happens in this movie.

21 January 1999

I LOVE bad horror movies. On the whole, the whole genre of unspeakably bad horror films is typically funnier that movies that try to be funny, such as "You've Got Mail."

But this movie is so bad, so shamefully poorly constructed, that I was not laughing. I was just bored. The whole time.

Well, not the WHOLE time. At the end, when the leprechaun climbs up out of the well with his face peeling off and screams, for the last time, "I want me go...aah....ohh," I was laughing. And it was kind of funny when he summons his bag of coins from Jennifer Aniston's hand, and you can see the string guiding it over to him. Those are good moments. That's why I gave this film a 2 instead of a 1.

Any film that is so bad that it doesn't even get unintentional-laugh points (except for two), has got to have an overwhelming amount of flaws. And this movie does. So everything works out.

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

Willzo

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed