Showing 1 - 10 of 10 Reviews
Posted on 6/19/07 06:58 PM
What an awful pile of crap this movie turned out to be. It's a damn shame, because this movie could have been a good, fun superhero flick if someone had bothered to revise the script. Apparently they were too busy with effects to worry about the storyline, characters, cohesion, or anything other than Nicolas Cage running around with his head in flames.
In the beginning, Johnny Blaze sells his soul to the devil to save his daddy from cancer. Well, daddy bites it in a motorcycle accident the next day, and now Johnny knows that one day the devil will come calling for him. The initial setup isn't bad, but boy oh boy, it doesn't take long to get there.
We zoom ahead to Johnny as a thirty-something, or so it would seem. There is no character in him, just a hollow man. I don't know if that was intentional or just Nicolas Cage not giving a wet cabbage fart about the role. Probably both. There are times when you can tell that Cage isn't even trying. He's a stunt man who knows that he can get away with any crazy stunt because the devil wont let him die. He meets his former flame and they somehow hit it off again in a stupid, ridiculous sequence involving a silly stunt with crappy CGI and Johnny racing away down the highway after her. She has no reason at all to want him back. He's an idiot and a hotshot, so why would she even want him? The writer doesn't seem to care. There is no chemistry at all between these two.
Then the devil comes calling and turns Johnny into the Ghost Rider because Lucifer's little emo prick kid is causing trouble with a few of his emo/goth buddies. Seriously, there was nothing scary about these guys. Blackheart, the devil's son, wore way too much eye makeup and looked like he should be cutting himself while crying in a corner instead of trying to claim a contract for a thousand souls. Gimme a break. Satan gets thousands of souls every day in this world. The rest of his band look no better. Who ever designed these "bad guys" should never work in Hollywood again. Blackheart messily devours every piece of scenery he can find. Seriously, he couldn't have hammed it any more if he had been porking Ms. Piggy while covered in hog's blood. It's unbearable to watch.
So Johnny has to set out and, of course, fight Blackheart's elemental buddies in lame fights that last about thirty seconds on average. In the meantime, we have useless, nonsensical filler like the cops inexplicably coming after Johnny because they found his charred motorcycle license plate...among the wreckage of a bunch of overturned, charred-up cars. Yeah, makes perfect sense. There are also lazy, hackneyed continuity issues, such as Sam Eliot saying that the demons can't enter holy ground, such as a church...yet we see them do that very thing.T here's the loveless love story, and Johnny runs into Sam Eliot, a former Ghost Rider, who seems to be the only one in this movie that gave a crap about it. His performance is easily the best, but it can't carry the rest of the film.
There are a handful of good parts where Johnny is running around as the flaming Ghost Rider, but not nearly enough to save this horrible flick. If they'd bothered to revise the script after some drunken, washed-up writer crapped out a first draft, it might have been better, but everyone involved in the making of this film was either phenomenally stupid or phenomenally lazy.
Posted on 7/22/06 09:38 AM
I really loathe movie critics sometimes. They get so wrapped up in things that they can't just sit back and watch a movie. Then again, maybe it was M. Night's (admittedly overboard) depiction of a snooty movie critic in his movie that pissed them off. Granted, the abhorrent studio suits did to this what they did with The Village: Put out a ton of "THIS IS SCARY!!" previews for a movie that was not meant to be a suspense/thriller. I really hate the studio suits.
Anyway, I enjoyed this film. It was not without faults, but by the end, I was enthralled. The key to this is to go in with the idea that it isn't a creepfest, it isn't a thriller, it's a fairy tale, a bedtime story, a piece of whimsy. Go into it as such and you'll have a good time as the kid in you comes out to play. Apparently most of the critics have lost that little piece of themselves.
Posted on 3/26/06 11:42 PM
Domino is a movie that had potential. Sadly, said potential was never realized. Director Tony Scott screwed it up with some frantic editing and overly adjusted color/contrast. It's a real shame, because this had the potential to be a decent film, but it's never allowed to accumulate any depth or substance.
First off, the camerawork and editing in this film are terrible. I don't think there was any single take that lasted longer than three seconds, and very few that lasted more than two. The camera is always moving and cutting so fast that it's difficult to tell what's going on, even in slower scenes. It's like the editor had a colossal case of ADHD and Tony Scott exploited it for all it was worth.
The color and contrast adjustments only exacerbate the problem. The colors are far too adjusted and the contrast is jacked way up to give it a "gritty" look, but it just comes off looking nasty and utterly artificial. I actually felt some relief when there was a scene with somewhat normal-looking color. The documentary on the disc showed some unadjusted footage, and the difference is astonishing. It looks so much better when it looks real, and seeing as how it's based on real people, perhaps it should have been more realistic in the visual style.
Add both of those factors and you get a movie that is almost painful to watch. It also never gets you involved because it's so focused on the snappy cutting that we can't really feel for anyone in it. I remember several scenes that were utterly SCREAMING for a longer take so the viewer could get the full impact, but Tony Scott, being the utter imbecile he is, would have none of it.
If this movie had been made with a really crappy script with crappy actors, it wouldn't be so bad, but this film actually had potential. The cast wasn't too shabby. Mickey Rourke is a great actor and does wonderfully here. Kiera Knightley pulls off the bad girl well enough, but doesn't stand out with it. It also has Christopher Walken, which is great for any film. The script goes a bit beyond the usual actioneer formula and gives us a little freshness. The real tragedy is that Tony Scott screwed it up so much. I'd love to see this movie re-edited by someone with a shred of intelligence.
Posted on 2/02/06 10:56 AM
Batman Begins is doubtlessly the best in the franchise. My second choice would be the original. It had the Burton touch, but he didn't go nuts with it. Jack Nicholson was great as the lunatic Joker. However, Batman Returns was crap.
First off, Burton poured it on WAY too thick. The first was dark and mostly colorless, but the second goes overboard in the style, and it really doesn't feel like the first one. Someone should tell Burton that overstylizing is okay for some films, but just makes others feel fake and lifeless. Batman Returns is a prime example.
Second, the script was atrocious. Again, there was no feeling of continuity, between this and the first, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. The dialogue is lousy and the story is unbelievable and way too comic booky. I'm all for maintaining the stories and characters from the comics, but a direct screen translation usually doesn't work. The "love" story between Keaton and Pfeiffer is pretty bad. You just can't buy it. Some of the lines are beyond bad and just stink up the joint. The Penguin tries pulling some kind of political hostile takeover of Gotham's governorship, but honestly, who the hell would support The Penguin? Danny DeVito growls all his lines and is uglier than sin. His plot to wipe out all the firstborn in Gotham is also lame and completely outlandish. Catwoman really doesn't do anything besides blow up a building with aerosol cans in a microwave, try to team up with The Penguin, and fight Batman. She's a pointless and ineffective villain.
The action scenes aren't nearly as good as the original. Batman dukes it out with The Penguin's overstuffed goons, then watches The Penguin get away. Huh? Where's the fancy gadgets to bring him down from that lame helicopter umbrella? Batman and Catwoman slapfight a little, but there's not much being done. Mostly it's just lame muddling without a point.
The acting is bad as well. Keaton was okay in the first, but he just didn't seem to care in the second, which is understandable since there is far less to Bruce Wayne in this one than the first. Silverstone seems to like the catsuit, but overplays her part. DeVito pours it on way too thick, growling and snarling his way through the movie. It's like Burton didn't bother directing the actors because he was too busy filling the movie with too much visual crap.
This movie was inept. The script was crap, the acting was lousy, and the directing was overbearing in some areas and nonexistant in others. This movie wasn't artsy or poignant, just bad. I can't fathom why so many actually love this film. It's just another crappy cash-in sequel in the same category as Men in Black II, Ghostbusters II, and others.
Posted on 12/28/05 12:39 PM
The Ringer looks like an edgy, offensive-as-hell comedy in the previews, but it seems that the Farrellys lost their spine and balls somewhere along the way. It's just not offensive enough, but still manages to be funny.
Johnny Knoxville is here doing what he does best: Beating the hell out of himself and acting like a retard. Actual emoting is pretty far beyond his capabilities, so this isn't a bad role for him. What's surprising is that several of the actors really are 'tards and manage to turn decent performances while sounding smarter than Knoxville. Not that doing such is an impressive feat, even for a mongoloid. It's good to see Brian Cox doing comedy again, but he's underused. Sure, he's funny when he's on the screen, but he just isn't given enough to do. Give that guy another role like the one he had in Super Troopers.
There is some "edgy" comedy here, such as jokes about retards whacking off and swearing, but most of it is passed up for heartwarming, non-offensiveness. Maybe they figured they'd get roasted and lose distribution if it was too offensive, but come on Farrellys, grow a pair! If you're trying to do another "raunchy" comedy, then you might as well go all the way with it. At least make it rated R and show us some boobies.
Still, this movie manages to work for the most part. It's not supposed to be believable, but we get enough for some laughs, which is what this movie is supposed to do. Knoxville's usual slapstick masochism comes into play. He slips on floors, racks his nuts several times, and gets slapped around. It manages to be amusing.
This movie is worth a matinee ticket, but the next time someone wants to make a movie about retards, they can do one that really will offend people. The Farrellys were too scared to piss anyone off (other than tightasses that don't like rude humor) and sucked a lot of potential out of it.
Posted on 4/02/05 03:23 PM
I'm glad that my sister works at the local movie theater, because she got me into The Grudge for free. Thank God I didn't have to pay to see this pathetic tripe. There was very little scariness, just a few cheap jumps, next to no story, paper-thin characters, and a meandering, inept pacing.
The story is basically thus: Walk into house, get spooked, die. Rinse and repeat as necessary. That's it. The story sort of follows Sarah Michelle Gellar as she sort of tries to figure out what's going on. I say sort of because it follows her for a bit, then jumps back for no real reason, then jumps ahead again and follows her some more, then goes back to show some more. It's a meandering mess that is fairly difficult to follow, but even if you can follow it...it's still a meandering mess. At least in The Ring, we follow Naomi Watts around and get the pieces as she finds them, but here, it's just a big splatter mucous that the audience has to mop up and try to assemble into something coherent. The whole thing is the barest of a framework to allow for a lot of killing.
The characters are pointless and exist for no other reason than to get killed. By the end of the film, nobody gives a wet cabbage fart if SMG gets killed off or if she lives. The mindless writers never gave us a reason to care about anyone. The acting is passable for the most part, although why anyone would hire Bill Pullman is beyond me. That guy couldn't act his way out of a bloated corpse, which is pretty close to his appearance these days.
The worst part about this movie is that it just wasn't scary at all. There were some scenes where I almost laughed. I knew that they were supposed to freak you out, but they fell completely flat. The ghost isn't creepy. It just looks like a pasty crack addict that can't stop belching. You'd think that people would get sick of people constantly dying after entering the house, but no, the movie beats the rotting horse mercilessly, splattering the audience with it's decaying entrails. The Exorcist was scary. The Omen was scary. Even The Ring had it's moments. But this is just awful. Without getting spooked, there's no reason to watch it. Most of the time, we just see people wandering around the "creepy" house, waiting to be whacked. Whatever happened to building up real tension and suspense? Oh, that's right, it takes too much effort for today's lazy hack directors and writers. Screw Hollywood.
In short, don't see this film. It's a cinematic singularity, sucking away the minds of the audience and giving nothing back. One has to wonder why this even came out. If kids these days get scared by this festering crap, then they're total pussies.
Posted on 3/06/05 05:19 PM
Cursed had some potential to be a pretty cool werewolf flick, but fell as flat as Christina Ricci's ever-expanding forehead. Seriously, it just seems to grow larger and larger throughout the flick. You'd swear she was from Metaluna.
The story is fairly thin. Ricci and her brother both get scratched/bitten by a werewolf trying to save a girl from a car wreck, then try to come to grips with the changes they're going through while trying to find the head werewolf that infected them. It could've been more, but wasn't. We get the usual "whodunnit" feel while wading through some unimaginitive high school and workplace stereotypes. Then there's the psychic gypsy who can tell that someone's a werewolf by looking at them, but we see her twice and then she's gone. Her only purpose is to instill a sense of foreboding at the beginning, then keep the plot moving around the middle.
The makeup effects were pretty darn good, but they were passed up far too many times for some really crappy CGI work. The werewolf hopping around looked really bad. The werewolf doggie looked even worse. Why is it that Hollywood is so reliant upon lousy CGI these days when puppet/makeup effects can still do the same thing and look so much better? Probably because they're a bunch of lazy assholes out to make a quick buck.
Wes Craven does a decent job directing the movie, but he can't save a mediocre script. He does toss in a few little horror references, like the usual Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger) cameo. The plot is made up mostly of contrivances, and by the end, you only feel mildly entertained. There was a cheap jump or two, a few laughs, but not much else. This would have been better as an R. At least they could have given us more splatter.
Speaking of cheap jumps, why is it that Hollywood thinks cheap jumps are all we need? What a load of steaming mucous. Whatever happened to building real tension and maintaining it throughout the film? No, that would take too much work, and the stuffed suits are gearing this crap toward the lowest common denominator, so lasting tension just isn't "scary" enough. Toss in a bunch of cheap scares and call it good. I really hate Hollywood. Craven tries, but he can't keep it up. The source material just didn't have it.
All in all, this flick was fairly mediocre. It brings little (if anything) new to the table, just the usual schlock we've all seen a hundred times over. It hardly passes as decent entertainment. If you want to watch a decent werewolf flick, go watch "The Howling" and leave this one to the dogs.
Posted on 2/02/05 08:47 PM
I?m sure that many of us have seen the original Planet of the Apes. You know, the one with Charlton Heston? It was a pretty good movie. The new version has almost nothing in common with it, which also happens to be it?s biggest saving grace. It?s a particularly nasty piece of crap in the pile of crap from the collective puckered anus of Hollywood.
This truly horrendous excuse for a movie starts out about fifty years in the future. A space station is training monkeys to fly spacecraft. A chimp flies into a magnetic storm and the ?hero?, Leo Davidson (Mark Wahlburg) goes after him. Leo finds himself transported to another planet, upon which he crash-lands. It?s a planet ruled by apes with humans as slaves. Leo teams up with Ari, a ?human rights? female ape and eventually leads them all to freedom.
Sound like a good movie? It might have been, but the screenwriter was a preachy, imbecilic nimrod. This movie will ram its 'moral" message into every major orifice on your body, leaving you feeling cheap and violated, like Jeffery Dahmner?s prom date. That in and of itself isn?t so bad, but do we really want a self-righteous lesson on why religious people are stupid when we go to a movie like this? Do we really want to know about why Republicans are so evil and Democrats are so wise and noble in a movie like this? This movie is a prime example of why Hollywood should leave the politics for movies about politics. It?s just another example among many that Hollywood is full of self-satisfied yuppies. If I had wanted my senses overwhelmed with such dookie, I would have dunked my head into a construction site porto-potty.
The acting is so-so. Mark Wahlburg once again makes humanity wonder why he gets paid for this kind of thing. Maybe they should cast him as a fencepost in his next movie. Tim Roth plays the evil General Thade, but his character consists of a fascist cardboard cutout and little more. He spends the movie growling all of his lines. I can?t really blame him, it seemed to be about the only thing to do with such a worthless role. Estella Warren (the ?romantic interest?) may be very easy on the eyes, but her acting (when the screenplay decides that she needs to) is flatter than a pancake in a garbage compactor. The other assorted actors seem lost as well.
The screenwriter for this movie should be strung up by his hairy beanbag for such an insult to humanity. The dialogue is clunkier than my poorly maintained VW bug, the plot is thinner than Kate Moss, and the character development is as non-existent as Jimmy Hoffa. The ending (which was probably where the writer?s acid trip climaxed) has to be the absolute worst I have ever seen. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever, I kid you not. In the original, the apes thought humans were inferior because humans were mute and stupid. Humans speak and are intelligent in this version, so why do the apes think that humans are inferior? We sure don?t know, and I?m sure the screenwriter doesn?t either. The biggest problem is that the whole movie thinks it?s such a great piece of art, when really it?s just a reeking wad of stringy mucous shot from a projector onto the screen.
The fact that Tim Burton agreed to work on this project makes me wonder if he (and everyone else involved in this train wreck) is illiterate. Surely any sane person who can read wouldn?t have come anywhere near the script for fear that touching it would corrupt their immortal soul. Burton does an okay job of directing, but while it?s obvious that this is a Tim Burton movie, much of his style is missing. Danny Elfman does the score (as he does for almost all Tim Burton movies), but it?s not his typical fare either. It?s like everyone working on the movie didn?t care too much about it. All they wanted out of it was a paycheck.
The action scenes are pretty clichéd, uninspired and predictable. You?d think that with apes fighting each other, they could get some really sweet fight scenes into the movie. Nope. All they do is jump around and pound on things. This is about the only natural ape behavior they bothered to add, and it?s also the most unwelcome. Come on, they had chimps mating with orangutans! With that kind of factual vacuousness, you?d think they could have given us some better fights.
About the only scene this movie has in common with the original is where the hero kisses the female monkey. That?s the one scene we could have done without! I guess they figured that the rest of the movie sucked so bad that a little more couldn?t hurt. It did.
The ONLY good thing about the movie is the cosmetics. It seems like the make-up guy was the only one that really cared about the movie. Even so, some of the apes come off looking like Whos from Whoville in The Grinch. The slave-driving, petty excuse for comic relief orangutan bore a disturbing resemblance to the Grinch himself.
The one thing that really pissed me off was that the critics gave it rave reviews. If we didn?t already know it, this is proof that the critics don?t give two farts in a windstorm about good writing, acting, and directing. As long as the movie has what they consider to be a ?good message?, then it?s a good movie. The critics should step out of their ivory tower and actually watch the movie instead of going into a state of euphoria whenever the characters on screen say something about a major political issue.
Don?t ever see this movie. If you want to watch The Planet of the Apes, watch the original. At least it had a lot of what this movie lacks, like character development, plot, etc. I would rather be eaten alive by cannibals than watch this awful movie again. It?s not the kind of movie you can make fun of, either. Oh no, it?s too self-righteous and wrapped up in it?s ?message? to care about anything else, much less make-fun-of value. Just avoid this movie like you?d avoid a leper. A particularly gooey leper.
Posted on 2/02/05 08:41 PM
It seems that more and more often, Hollywood drops truly awful movies into our laps. It?s the kind of movie that makes you lose faith in humanity. Such a movie would be Dungeons & Dragons.
Do not see this movie. Do not think of it. Don?t even look at it if the local rental place is unfortunate enough to have it on display. To do so would be to seriously compromise the salvation of your immortal soul. I?m not kidding, this movie is really that bad.
This monstrosity was directed and partially written by a guy name Courtney Solomon. Never heard of him? Nobody has. The guy had zero experience in film. He didn?t even go to any film school. As an obvious result, the movie stinks like a week-old skunk smashed on the highway.
This train wreck stars Jeremy Irons as the evil wizard Profion, who is racing a pair of bumbling thieves (Justin Whalin and Marlon Wayans) and a female apprentice wizard (Zoe McLellan) to recover a staff that will let them control dragons. Profion wants the staff to control the dragons so he can overthrow the reigning empress. The other group wants it so the empress can control the dragons and save the kingdom. Yep, it?s that lame.
The acting in this movie sucks. No, I mean, it REALLY sucks! The piss-brained director even squeezed a crappy performance out of Jeremy Irons! We almost expect lousy performances from the other no-names, and this movie provides a shining example on why Wayans should stick to crude comedy. At least you don?t have to be a good actor to make it funny. It looks as if the actors are either regurgitating their lines while they wallow in their shame for being in such a disaster, or they?re hamming it up with the selfless hope that their over-the-top performance will distract the viewers from the true crappiness of the film.
The characters are nothing but clichés. There?s the inevitable romantic interest, the bumbling thieves (and the inevitably annoying sidekick), the bad guy and his henchman, and so on and so forth. Actual character development is as absent as the food at any buffet after Michael Moore goes storming through.
The plot (when they remember to have one) is predictable and contrived, and often makes little or no sense. Profion?s evil henchman has a bald head and oddly blue lips, like he?s a white supremicist that ate too many Otter Pops. Why? Who knows? Just more ?interesting? crap that got tossed into to a big, steaming pot of crap.
This movie is filled with gaping plot holes that make the craters that were once Saddam?s palaces look like skin pores. It seemed the writers cared a lot less than we do, and that?s really saying something. The movie is rife with cheap and shameless imitations as well. There?s the agonizingly obvious Indiana Jones ripoff, where the hero has to go through the obligatory gauntlet to retrieve the obligatory mystic relic. There?s an elf village in the trees that reeks of the ewok village from Return of the Jedi.
Even the stinking ending didn?t make any sense. It was fitting, though. The whole movie didn?t make any sense. The fact that anyone would ever make, or even be involved in the making of this movie doesn?t make sense either.
There was only one surprise in this movie. At least it was a welcome one. In a confrontation with the bad guy, he kills Wayans, the endlessly annoying sidekick. I?m guessing that this was supposed to be a sad scene, but no one in the theater cared. I heard several people laughing! Maybe if Solomon decided to create characters we like instead of clichéd cardboard cutouts, we would actually feel bad. The climax is supposed to be gripping and suspenseful, but by that time I was so depressed by the depths to which the movie had sunk that I didn?t care what happened. Even the special effects were mediocre.
I heard someone say that this movie almost set the fantasy genre back twenty years. I disagree. It nearly destroyed the fantasy genre for twenty years to come. I don?t know what New Line Cinema was thinking when they decided to make this one. Maybe they figured that they could get people to waste their time and money if they put some cool special effects in it. Screw you, New Line, you greedy bastards.
Never see this movie. Don?t watch it even if someone pays you to watch it. It?s not even the kind of movie that you can rip on with your friends. It?s not bad in a funny sort of way, it?s bad in a completely depressing and demoralizing way. It?s a tribute to everything that is wrong with Hollywood these days.
Posted on 2/02/05 08:31 PM
Tarantino has let his ego get the better of him, and it really shows in his latest and far from greatest movie, Kill Bill. When the credits come up, a line reads ?Quentin Tarantino?s fourth movie,? as if ol? QT were saying, ?Hey everybody! Look at this! I made another movie, in case you didn?t already know that! Aren?t I special?? From then on, you feel like he's sitting right next to you, elbowing you in the ribs the whole time and pointing out all the cool stuff on the screen. To make matters worse, Tarantino wrote and directed this ego project from the deepest depths of hell.
The movie starts out when Bill and his assassins from the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad (No, I?m not kidding. That?s their real name) mow down everyone at Uma Thurman?s wedding, then put a bullet in her head. She wakes up in the hospital four years later and vows revenge, then goes after the members of the squad. Yep, that?s the story.
The movie jumps around like a hyperactive kid on his post-Halloween sugar buzz. Chronologically, the movie starts at the end, then goes to an earlier point, then another earlier point, then some more backstory, then forward again, and so on. It?s not exactly confusing, but it sure is annoying.
Tarantino has sunk to the level of trying to lick the boots of the critics. He throws in a lot of artsy fartsy touches that don?t look artsy, just fartsy. When Uma Thurman tells Lucy Lui?s (Codename cottonmouth, an assassin of the Vipers) backstory, they show it with some cheap Japanese animation. Why? To appeal to socially inept Anime fanboys? Probably just more gleeful fanboy masturbation by Tarantino himself.
I also don?t understand why the big (And I mean big) fight scene toward the end shifted to black and white, then back to color at the end. Did Tarantino do that so the blood would be gray and the MPAA would actually let him release it, or was it another flacid attempt to be poignant?
This movie is bloodier than John Wayne Gacy?s basement. The gore shoots out of people like water from the fountain at the Billagio in Vegas. Usually, that would float my boat, but not this time. Tarantino wanted it to be comical, I suppose. The red stuff sprays, but it?s a misty spray. There?s no density or body to it, just a weak collection of thin jets. Monty Python and the Holy Grail did a better job on the gore effects.
Tarantino wanted this movie to be a tribute to the corny Kung Fu flicks of the seventies. Well, you got your wish QT, because this movie is pretty freaking corny. The aforementioned fight scene pitting Uma against Lucy?s ?Crazy 88? mini-army was pretty cool, but the damper on it was that it was quite unbelievable. These guys surround her, then practically take turns fighting. In reality (Which is something this movie could have used), they would have been all over her like Clinton on a plus-sized intern. Not to mention that her sword has no problem hacking straight through thick bone and other steel swords. Right. I don?t care how sharp it is, Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn?t have swung it hard enough to do that.
The dialogue stinks like a lumberjack's jockstrap after a 14 hour shift. Tarantino probably hasn?t had too many real conversations, because he can?t write them to save his life. It?s not witty, but it is something that rhymes with witty. The worst part is that everyone delivers their dialogue in either a "This is God's own material I'm acting out!" tone or a "Oh yeah, I am SO badass" style, and it comes off as really bad. The story is shallower than the genepool in the backwoods of Lousiana. It?s a paper facade so Tarantino can get to the hacking and slashing.
I went to the theater to see a cool movie. What I got was a steamy, corny log straight from Quentin Tarantino?s pretentious bunghole. Somebody needs to tell him that there?s a good reason that corny Kung Fu flicks have a limited audience, but even those are often better than this vile tripe. Campiness is better left to movies that want to be campy, not some ego project that tries to be poignant at the same time. I can?t believe it took QT six years to come up with this crap. Forget about Kill Bill. It would be a better use of money to Kill Tarantino before he vomits on the screen again.