Ralph Wiggum's Movie Ratings - Rotten Tomatoes

Movie Ratings and Reviews


The 74% fresh seems awfully generous for this movie. The plot is muddled and unconvincing. The characters are largely under developed. I did not care if any of them died. As an Alien fan, I found this to be a very poor prequel. Or perhaps better described as a swing and a miss. The film looks good in certain scenes. That's about all the good I can say about it. The action/momentum of Aliens is missing, as is the sweet tension of Alien. If you are an Alien fan, this film is largely skip-able. It adds nothing creative or interesting to the canon. Its so bad that I'm surprised it wasn't 3D.

The Da Vinci Code

Well, it comes as no real surprise to me that this film sucks. But what did surprise me was the sheer volume the sucking achieved.




I can't be the only one who found his 'expertise" to be hilarious.



You see these four pictures? Well, then you've pretty much seen the [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=484176#"]movie[/url]. It's frighteningly dull and oddly predictable. I almost walked out. Somehow, they managed to make a mediocre book and turn it into a piece of crap film! Is anyone learning anything here?

Hanks looks confused throughout the film. This also highlights how weak Langdon's character is in the books as well. Brown is a crappy writer. By the time you get to the end of the film, you start hoping these secret groups will commit mass suicide to make the film end quicker. The characters are weird sketches almost devoid of physical presence. And while there is a back story to the "Sophie" character, it is such an absurd and bullshi t premise that you want to vomit with the level of stupidity.

I will recommend this film to no man (or woman). I recommend avoiding renting it as well.


JSA: Joint Security Area (Gongdong gyeongbi guyeok JSA)

I have to admit, I had no idea what to expect when I rented [b]JSA - Joint Security Area.[/b]







In fact, judging from the title I thought I was getting some sort of bad Chuck Norris [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8330265#"]action film[/url]. Luckily, it had nothing to do with Chuck.

[b]JSA[/b] is both a failure and a success. I felt as a "mystery" it didn't work that well. It's set up like one, but I am not sure it was necessary. And I think the back story should have been reflected more to show the reasons for this conflict between a divided nation. I think perhaps this would have been less of an issue if I was raised Korean? Anyway, it's successes are more in the characters and interactions. The acting is good as well (with the exception of the female lead, I can't put my fiinger on it but something wasn't quite right). As usual, [b]Chan Wook Park [/b]has some beautifully shot scenes. The [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8330265#"]film[/url] does succeed to some degree in showing the humanity in an inhumane situation.

In a land of generic (and amazingly predictable) [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8330265#"]Hollywood films[/url], it's no wonder that the most interesting stuff is being filmed in other countries. [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8330265#"]Hollywood[/url] needs to get away from this aesthetic of "Formula".

I'm giving this one a [b]C+. [/b]And a C+ film from him is more like an [b]A. [/b]Relative to Ultraviolet and Serenity.


Star Trek
Star Trek(2009)

A really forgettable experience. While the movie starts strongly, it sadly begins to collapse on a sequence of implausible plot twists that are unbelievable even for a science fiction movie.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix


I've held my tongue long enough about this crap film series. The books are mediocre reading, and the films have been white washed low grade entertainment. Sadly they are fodder for children who should be watching better films and reading better books. Lol, they are attracted to it like a bug zapper in the backyard. See this light? It represents the Harry Potter franchise.


Ok, so that aside, I've watched every one of these films. I think only one of them was semi ok, and that was the Azkaban or however you spell that nonsense. I can't believe anyone would watch this empty wank fest and say "Wow! That was good!". Seriously. You have to be high on cough syrup and cocaine. At the same time.

Talking about the plot is ludicrous. It's the same plot stretched out over the last ten films, or however many there's been. Seems like 200. Harry Potter is the victim (in SO many ways lol), Hermioine (sp) says "That's so unfair" about some injustice or other and Ron plays the stoic friend. "I'll be there for you!" (imagine the Friends theme song).

But it gets worse. There's an absurd subplot about "subversion" and the use of media to sway people's opinions. And the bizarro lame "romance/relationships plots. Sirius Black is my God father, and he's also dead! Everyone keeps dying! I can't roll my eyes enough. And Dumbledore, (the apparently gay dumbledore -this lends NOTHING to the story btw) who magically appears JUST when something needs fixed. Oh and apparently the kids are thinking about hooking up, but this is COMPLETELY whitewashed over. Hogwarts? More like "Illicit magic sex den". The film constantly alludes to things with no real pay off. Ron and Hermione are sorta getting into each other? Or something? And Harry Potter has to choose between a crazy blond chick and a hot Asian love interest.

I wish I could remove every reference to and about Harry Potter from my mind.

And what kind of student/school allows a complete sadist to run amok? And the movie/book doesn't have the balls to kill her off, she appears as "alive" at the end.

I realize this post is disjointed but I hated so many things about this movie that I can't get them typed fast enough.


De zaak Alzheimer (The Memory of a Killer)

Rotten Tomatoes has [b]The Memory of a Killer[/b] as released in 2005, though I believe it was released in 2003. It was originally titled [b]De[/b] [b]Zaak Alzheimer[/b].


This film was a pleasure to watch. I haven't been captivated by a film like this (and as surprised) since [b]Sexy Beast. [/b]The feel of the film is akin to [b]The Professional[/b]. If you enjoy smart thrillers, with characters that don't make you want to barf with their stupidity, you will enjoy this film.

I love being surprised, I rented this on a whim based upon some reviews I had read and was captivated from beginning to end. If I had ANY complaint was that it probably should be trimmed be about 20 minutes. I simply think it can be done without lessening the quality of the movie or story.

As usual, I won't post plot or spoilers. Suffice it to say the film is about a hit man, and some of the complex dimensions he can find himself in. The film elicits multiple emotions, and it manages to make you enjoy the main character, while still finding him to be ruthless and calculated.

I can easily recommend this one. Great rental. [b]B+[/b] (It would get an [b]A,[/b] but the running time backed the grade down slightly).

Sympathy for Lady Vengeance

Visually [b]Chan Wook Park [/b]is probably the best director since [b]Stanley Kubrick. [/b]I'm not discounting his writing by any means. It just struck me watching this film that almost EVERY frame is a still photo. An impressionistic tableau. This is where he is closest to Kubrick. Though, now, upon reflection, the strength of the screenplay's are pretty similar as well.








I think it's good that he is putting his "revenge" theme to bed. This last one borrowed a little bit plot wise from the first one. Which I didn't have TOO much of a problem with, but I think it's time to move on. You can only have so many tragic kidnappings. If I had to put them in an order, or define the films, I would list them in this fashion.

[b]Oldboy [/b]- Shockingly impacting. A mental roller coaster.
[b]Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance - [/b]The saddest of the films. Tragedy heaped upon tragedy.
[b]Sympathy For Lady Vengeance - [/b]Brutally beautiful. Almost a fable.

A side note: [b]JSA[/b] is very underrated. I think it's the least liked of his films, yet like [b]Rabbit Proof Fence[/b], or the [b]Quiet American[/b], very poignant. It's not part of the "Revenge Trilogy" but deserves mention.

As is often the case, I won't discuss the plot in this post. However, in the thread I will with spoiler tags.

As usual, his characters are Shakespearean in their breadth. Park has the amazing ability to introduce minor characters and make you care about them as much as the main cast. There is also a dark humor. It's hard writing reviews without spoilers. His side characters are so well written that you almost feel a film could be made about each one of them.

It's funny, while watching it, the last twenty minutes or so, I started thinking, "he's stretched it too far"...and then the ending which is almost tear inducing.

A word to the wise. This film, perhaps even more-so then the last two, is incredibly shocking. I had to avert my eyes more than once.


(The only reason I give it the minus is that I am a fan and just wished he would have perhaps developed the plot away from the kidnapping aspect, a mild complaint

Lucky Number Slevin

This is a case where I should have realized that the critics in general have the sense of small rodents. Actually, that's an insult to rodents. How about, have the sense and taste of a retarded tupperware container? That's probably is a little more accurate. It's no wonder they don't have the courage to post in here.





I've concluded that most reviewers shouldn't be allowed to foist their reviews upon the general public. Clearly they are too tasteless and ill educated to even process a [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=510662#"]film[/url], let alone decide it's worth. 50% on the tomatometer? I could go on.

The film is easily one of the best of 2006. Smart, entertaining, well written, its style is along the lines of [b]Seven, and The Usual Suspects.[/b]

Even dumber are the comparison's to [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=510662#"]Tarantino[/url]. How lazy. The film is hardly Tarantino like. Unless of course, your idea of "Tarantino like" is having Bruce Willis in a [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=510662#"]movie[/url]. Idiots.

Anyway, I found the film thoroughly entertaining. I liked Morgan Freeman playing more than a little dark. The film is shot well. Some really strange color collages..

I'm giving it a solid [b]B. [/b]Easily worth a rental. Wish I would have went to see it.

The Departed
The Departed(2006)

It's hard NOT to get excited when a [b]Scorsese[/b] [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=512145#"]film[/url] gets released. American cinema has deteriorated to the point where a kind of mediocre film like [b]The Departed[/b] gets rave reviews???? Please. It is barely a [b]C [/b]grade. And I am being generous. For Shame. 92% on the tomatometer? You must be joking.






Sorry folks, but this film just isn't very good. It's better than [b]Gangs of New York[/b], if that's any consolation.

The real problem is the story and execution. There is very little tension throughout the entire film. Some of the characters seemed underwritten (Nicholson) and some BADLY written (The psychiatrist chick). I can be more specific in other posts, but I will remain spoiler free for this first post.

The film is easily 40 minutes too long. The story is not compelling enough to sustain the length of the film. I was getting that "yawning @ss numbing feeling. The same feeling I had watching GONY.

Before you accuse me of being jaded, I assure you, I am a huge fan of Nicholson and Scorsese.

In the end, the film grinds to a sort of inevitable conclusion, leaving me to ponder..why do I just feel like I wasted my time?


I'm giving it the D+ simply because there's a few interesting moments in the film. It's mainly Jack looking goofy, and two dudes that are essentially miscast looking nervous.

V for Vendetta

Firstly, let me apologize in advance for starting another thread about this film. However I feared being buried in fan-boy goofiness in the other thread on the board. It's not really multiple thread worthy.






Let me begin by saying..I will make no references or comparisons to the Matrix. There are plenty of things that could be said, but instead, I will focus on this film alone.

Comic book movies. Is there any genre which is worse? Honestly, I am hard pressed to find any other "type" of genre which features such a plethora boring to terrible films. Yes, nobody seems to be learning anything. Doesn't anyone realize what would be really cool is for the audience NOT to feel like they are watching a fragmented half thought out pieced/stitched together mess?

[b][u]V For Vendetta [/u][/b]is neither terrible or good. It suffers the worst of fates, which is to be generally dull and predictable. Yes, there is slow motion fighting, yes there is the "is he dead?" moment. Followed up by the impossible fight scene which only occurs in movies. These fight scenes become so implausible as to make them laughable. And what it seems these directors don't realize is that they have the effect of lessening the films impact.

I can go on and on.

*The ending. The studio and I would imagine the filmmakers pretty much gave away the ending of the film in the commercials and trailers. So it's completely anti-climatic. You know it's coming so the journey seems kind of pointless.

*Natalie Portman. I think it's the beginning of the end for her. She is proving to be a fairly terrible actress. Perhaps she suffers from believing she is brilliant so is therefore unable to realize that she's kinda been sucking lately? Was there an absence of English women to hire? Apparently, so they got a fake one.

*Pontification. In a VERY roundabout way, the writers denounce political and religious and social views (norms) just to quickly insert their own. This film is so filled with obvious social jabs that it throws you out of the movie. Like the child who questions God and wears black for a while. The adults generally tend to just smile and let them frolic about for a bit, knowing it's a phase. Apparently, the writers of this film are in a VERY long phase. The film is a VERY thinly veiled (as in not there) attack on pretty much everything.

*Literary usage/references. I do give them credit for using them. However, the end does not justify the means. And spouting long strings of words beginning with the same letter just starts to get tiring. Trademark? Or worn out dictionary?

This next point I have to spoiler.

[SPOILER]I was fairly annoyed with the ease with which the villain was dispatched. It was anti-climatic and sort of dull[/SPOILER]

Visually the film was pretty much what you were expecting. Towards the last 25 minutes I started tapping the fast forward button. Why sit through Natalie Portman's bad accent and events which you know are going to happen? I feel bad for the folks who sat through this in the theatre.

[b]D [/b]for the effort. That's about it. I don't think its worth even renting.

Good Night, And Good Luck

Maybe I shouldn't have watched this on a hot summer day after eating pizza?




Clearly I am at odds with the critical consensus. 95%:fresh:.. Can't argue with that great of a number. And perhaps this is part of the problem. I was anticipating being simply "Blown Away"...and it just didn't happen. And as I mentioned earlier..I had eaten a hefty meal and it was kind of humid. I felt myself starting to drift towards the end. Perhaps this would have been better on cold winters morn.

There were several aspects that I found..bizzare? At times, it seemed the film wanted to veer into Noir..(Do any of you guys remember when I argued that Far From Heaven was noirish and I pretty much got attacked by the resident speds?) Anyway..the film doesn't make that mistake..it just skates close to the edge.

It also occurred to me, that if I was a director I would never cast stars or big names. It's just too distracting. If the film is dull you start wondering things like "Is Robert Downy on smack in this scene?" And while I applaud Clooney for making this film which is clearly not overtly mainstream..Did he really need to be in it? It was just ..one step too far. Sure, he co-wrote it, so what.

Anymore, in this surreal world we live in, with propaganda produced (and sometimes blatantly acknowledged) by every company and government entity..it's hard not to feel a little jaded. I am sure Clooney and company meant this as a contemporary message film, I just wasn't feeling it.

[b]B?[/b] Let's just say I can see giving it a [b]B[/b] for ambition and being an edgier film. On the other hand..I will probably post it in the boring film thread. I guess if I were VERY blunt I would give it a [b]C[/b] for the snooze factor.

My Super Ex-Girlfriend

Ok so the film is not REALLY a :fresh: . For me that would indicate that there was something REALLY amazing that you just had to see. Some worth, as it were.

However, as a date film, this will easily score you some points and not have you crawling out of your skin.




I believe the film is meant as light [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=9013309#"]entertainment[/url]. Though, I couldn't help but think of a friend of mine. She has a bit of a feminist bent, and I thought while watching the film, "man, she would just HATE what this plot implies."

But let's not overthink it. There's some funny bits, and the women in the theatre with me seemed to really enjoy some of the setting and situations. The humor is generally cheap and meant for adults. You could do worse. Actually, I would say if you were chosing between this and seeing Clerks II, go see Clerks II. It was hilarious. But if you are a dude you won't suffer for having seen My Super Ex Girlfriend.

[b]C+[/b] (I wouldn't watch it again but it was ok once) - Now THAT should be a rating of some kind

Clerks II
Clerks II(2006)

Ok, I got to see this today. I won't waste time starting another thread and just post a review in here.

I loved it. Funny, touching, just a touch nostalgic, if you go see any movie in the theatre's this weekend I would make this your top pick.




It was a pretty bold risk to make this movie. And certainly Kevin Smith didn't need to make it. It also highlights that Kevin Smith is both [b][u]underrated AND underappreciated. [/u][/b]He managed to make a funny sequel which I didn't think was possible.

I will also tell you the best part..I was actually LAUGHING OUT LOUD in the theatre. Sure, you can see some of the jokes coming a mile away, but I marvelled that he somehow managed to piece together a plot that echoed the previous film, and expanded upon the characters relationships and inner dynamics. Plus adding a new character (who was hilarious) Elias (Trevor Fehrman) who fits in so well that he would have easily been in the first clerks.

You want ALOT of good laughs? Go see this one. [b]B+[/b]

Lady in the Water

Well, I should probably start out by saying, if you were one of the people that hated The Village this is certainly not going to be your cup of tea.

I think what I always enjoy about M. Night is that he does take risks. And heck, I am not always a fan of his. I really did not like [b]Signs[/b]. I think the common man's mistake is that people feel his [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=497669#"]films[/url] are simply about a "twist". I dismiss these points of view. More often than not, I find them in error.
M. Night is a progressive writer who clearly enjoys film. Which after seeing the [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=497669#"]movie[/url], and listening to a lengthy interview with him on [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=497669#"]satellite radio[/url], I think I know what went wrong with [b]Lady In The Water.[/b]

Like a cake that was taken out of the oven to early, or chicken that wasn't left on the grill long enough, the story/script/plot was just not ready. In the interview that I heard, he stated that they had started production well before the script was finished. Which to me indicates, that the captain wasn't quite sure where he was steering the ship. Sometimes this works and you end up at a tropical island. Other times, you sail for hours (weeks) and perhaps find a hunk of land that's not fit for man or beast. I think he tried to play his cards with this one but got beat by the dealer.

I believe what worked for him in his other films was his nice use of subtext, which was absent from this film. It's not for lack of trying. I felt the [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=497669#"]acting[/url] was good. If you don't have respect for [b]Paul Giamatti[/b] now you should after watching this. He carries the film. The guy is a brilliant actor, and this movie might be worth watching simply to watch him make something of the kind of goofy plot he is forced to carry. He does pull it off, but perhaps it's too much for one mans shoulders. [b]Bryce Howard [/b]is an ok actress but really doesn't bring much life to such a pivotal role. I feel however that her character was kind of underwritten. The rest of the cast consists of the residence of the apartment building, and they are far more entertaining than the movie plot, which is kind of strange.

This is one of those films where they basically STATE the plot and SUBTEXT...which robs the film of any inner beauty.

Visually the film is fairly par. Nowhere near as good as The Village was. I also felt the imagery was pretty much identical to the 'bad guys' characters in the Village.

I didn't hate the film, but I wasn't swept away like I was with some of his earlier work.

I can't recommend it. I am sadly giving it a [b]C-. [/b](and that is for his ambition and ideals, which I admire). I can't give it a :rotten: but I won't go :fresh: either. If you are fan, you will see it anyway.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Like the recently released other "big summer release" (or retard spectacle) [b]Superman Returns[/b] Pirates is all style and zero substance. Summer popcorn flick? I call it "[b]idiot fiesta[/b]". (And I am looking at the writer and director here - they are directly to blame.)





Given the volume of what is going on "on screen" you will be amazed at just how profoundly dull the film is. I thought [b][font=Verdana]Superman Returns[/font][/b] was going to be the boringest (not really a word but it should be) action film of the summer but apparently I was wrong!

I enjoyed the first Pirates. It had just enough wit and adventure to make it watch able. And while I don't find myself re -watching it (a bad sign) I still liked it. It was above par. That leads us to this fiasco.

How do you take a successful film and steer it straight into the ground? Well I think you start with not really having ANY sort of plot Then you make the mistake of trying to carbon copy the previous movie (haven't any of you learned from [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8927322#"]George Lucas's[/url] stupidity and lack of vision? - The best is when Lucas describes this as "poetry") the plot is straight from a videogame. It's "Legend of Zelda" and "Super Mario Bros" in film form. In case you don't get that reference, in both cases, the princess gets imprisoned, adventure ensues. Sure it's an old formula, so why not keep going back to the well? Idiots. Instead of an evil wizard or monkey we have the East India Trading Company. (Or was it a turtle lizard in Mario? - I can't remember).

Anyway, it's apparent the plot is just a reason to set sail. And while I don't really have a problem with this, it would help if there was SOME/ANY reason to care what happens to any of the people on screen.

And what's with dragging old characters back into the film? This is another Lucas "classic" mistake. I won't reveal more because it involves spoilers. I'm not sure it matters either way.

This film takes two and a half hours to do what could have been done easily in an hour, hour and a half tops.

What is with these shi t films that just drag on and on?

I'm giving it a [b][font=Verdana]C [/font][/b]for the first forty five minutes then it gets an [b][font=Verdana]F.[/font][/b]

Superman Returns

Neither really :rotten: nor :fresh: the [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=493300#"]movie[/url] falls somewhere in the middle. How long will it be before RT creates a "middle" icon? Do I have a better chance of seeing a Yeti?






Despite a pretty spectacular first sequence, and some above average [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=493300#"]acting[/url], for some reason I left the theatre going "eh". So what when wrong? The [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=493300#"]film[/url] is a little short on plot. The big plot is Superman returning. The second plot involving "continent creation" is a bit...bleh....And I feel the film missed some bigger opportunities with Superman. I always enjoyed the idea that he made himself weaker to fit in with society. The symbolism of the glasses. And while the film tries to make a statement about the potential of humanity, by the time it gets there my butt is hurting and I'm squirming wishing it would end. I have more to say but it involves spoilers.

I guess I'm giving it a [b]C+.[/b] (I am sentimental about this franchise).


I rented and watched [b]Munich[/b] today. And unlike "the cream of the crop" on the [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=482642#"]film's[/url] main page I found it surprisingly watchable. In fact, I might even add thought provoking. (Why am I not surprised?)





This is the Spielberg I love. No moronic [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=482642#"]kids[/url], no pandering to the lowest common denominator, just good film making.

Instead of making the film a simple documentation of revenge, Spielberg weaves the events leading up to the assassinations throughout the film. And in the end, I can't be the only one who feels he had concluded correctly.

The acting is good to outstanding. And hat's off to Steve S. for making me feel like it was 1973. I kept flashing back to [b]The French Connection. [/b]

I have read some of the complaint's about the film, and I can see where some mind's might have wished this was more of a "[url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=482642#"]thriller[/url]". But it's so much more than a [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=482642#"]political thriller[/url] "exercise". The film rather directly addresses the madness of political violence. And all of the inherent flaws.

Could it have been a little tighter? And perhaps a little edgier from a "traditional" film experience? Perhaps. But I think that would have been altering the subject. In other words, (let me dumb it down for you), if he had made the film more of a political thriller, it would have eclipsed the much larger observation of the psychology of conflict.

Easily a solid [b]B+.[/b] Rent it if you haven't seen it already.


I have only myself to blame for renting this [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8640383#"]film[/url]. I thought (suspected? Hoped?) that it might be that rare combo of bad/good = entertaining/interesting. It was not. [b]Izo.[/b]





The film is [color=darkred]Da Vinci Code[/color] dull. Almost shockingly so. You will find yourself fast forwarding within the first half an hour. There is the hint of something good there, but it never comes together. And by the end you are exhausted and the worse for wear. There are a few interesting images, and kind of an interesting plot idea. But it's all for naught. This has that Star Wars/LOTR dull quality where there is scene after scene of people getting hacked with swords. You start rolling your eyes after a while.

[b]D - [/b]The only reason it's getting a D is for a few interesting images during the film. Otherwise it's an [b]F.[/b]

Team America: World Police

77% on the tomatometer? You have got to be kidding me. I am not certain if this is the result of ignorance or stupidity. Both? The film is barely watchable.





I thought this movie was bad from top to bottom. The only redeeming quality is the amount of work put into the puppets and sets. And it's not even worth watching for that. I am a South Park fan and love these guy's work. But holy crap is this unfunny. Wait, there was one part that made me laugh. When they open the doors and let the cat's in that were supposed to be panthers. That was actually funny. But it's not worth watching the film for. I feel sorry for you if you went to the theatre to see this.


The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe

was worried about [b]TLTWATW[/b]. For several reasons. In the end, I breathed a sigh of relief after watching it. They managed to not completely eff it up.






Let's get a few things straight. I read these books over 20 years ago. In that same time frame I also read Tolkien and LOTS of science fiction. By far, [b]C.S. Lewis [/b]was my favorite writer of this genre. Tolkien was/is boring and after a while, you realize that The Hardy Boys were ALWAYS going to solve the case. So that got dull as well. A word on Tolkien. The best part of his books was the madness of Gollum. I remember being thrilled by that part of the trilogy. But it was downhill after that. And the [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=478060#"]movies[/url] pretty much are as dull as the source material. But I didn't come here to talk about Tolkien. I only bring him up as a comparison point. C.S. Lewis (I feel) was a better craftsman.

A word on the title. I can't stand the way this [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=478060#"]movie[/url] was titled. The beauty of the original book was the emphasis on [b]The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe[/b]. NOT [color=red]NARNIA[/color], in giant [color=red]red[/color] letters. I would like to see the person fired who's idea that was. The entire idea of the stories was this escape portal. The mystery. (and a metaphor for greater mysteries or grand ones) NOT the emphasis on [color=red]NARNIA [/color][color=black]itself. Narnia was an idea a journey, not a destination. It's funny but when I would watch the [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=478060#"]trailer[/url] this aspect is what would scare me the most, because I suspected that anyone that stupid would surely not be capable of actually making the film any good.[/color]

In addition, I can't be the only one who was nauseous at the idea of Disney making this film. However, I will give them credit, their custom stamp of blandness was not applied to this film.

Does the film have weaknesses? Not TOO many. It has the one thing I can't stand (and which sinks LOTR) are long shots of people walking. It's really dull cinema. Yes, I get the majestic sweep. Watch while I press the fast forward button. LOTR chokes to death on these moments.

I also feel Liam Neeson is not quite the right voice for Aslan. His voice was intrusive for some reason. I kept expecting him to start babbling nonsense about Midi Chlorians or some other Star Wars crap.

I think that this might have been better as two films instead of one. They do a pretty good job of keeping it tight, but I did feel myself itching to start fast forwarding towards the end, which isn't a good thing.

A note on the Beavers. You know, I read more than one review which complained about the Beavers (too cute, too much (reviewer too dumb)) but I am not certain what their real issue was. If anything, Ray Winstone did a great job. Oddly enough in this surreal world they were almost a stamp of normalicy. I go back to my original theory that most reviewers are too dumb to hold the job.

I'm giving this a [b]B+++[/b]

And quite frankly, you should perhaps read the book before watching the movie.

Colossus: The Forbin Project

I can't believe I somehow missed this [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=477614#"]movie[/url]. As a pre-cable [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=477614#"]Sci Fi[/url] fan I thought I had scene all of the wierd "[b]Silent Running[/b]" type of films. I think if you liked [b]Logan's Run or Westworld[/b] and [b]Silent Running[/b] you will enjoy [b]Colossus: The Forbin Project[/b]







The list of [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=477614#"]film's[/url] and [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=477614#"]filmmakers[/url] that this film must have had an effect on is pretty incredible. [b]Star Wars / THX1138/Close Encounters/Tron/WarGames/Spielberg/Lucas/John Williams/Battlestar Galactica/And countless modern sci-fi books.[/b]

The most interesting aspect of the film (for me) is that you are sold the material by the actors reactions. Very similar to Sexy Beast, which achieved creating a sense of menace without really much happening in the very beginning. This film is well acted and definitely worth a rental.

This film deserves a better DVD release. [b]B.[/b]

Kung Fu Hustle

Hmmm..So I've read the review page. I must be missing something. Or I am completely in the minority. I found [b]Kung Fu Hustle[/b] to be pretty much humorless.






I had been looking forward to this [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8388464#"]film[/url]. I can't believe how unfunny I found it. It also suffered from "Kung Fu Drag". Which is what I call absurdistly long fight scenes that are incredibly dull because they go on and on. These scenes are usually loved by the director. I think they blow. The plot is there, but not very compelling. It's clearly just a framework for a few slapstick scenes.

Perhaps it's a language barrier? I think even the one subtitle joke was wrong. (The one in the beginning about killing women - Ha ha ha Can't you see how funny it is?) :rolleyes: .

Some of the fight scenes are good. But in this digital age..who cares?

I must be in the minority. Because both tomatometers have it in the 80's. Maybe it's just not my bag.


Land of the Dead

hate to say it, but I was fairly let-down by [b]Land of the Dead[/b]. At 74% on the tomatometer, I think some folks were being WAAAAAAAAY generous.






Let me start out by saying George is from the same town as me. And he is a hometown [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8363891#"]hero[/url]. On top of that, you have to respect a guy who creates and defines an entire genre of [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8363891#"]film[/url]. He is a living legend. He's also an entertaining guy. You should watch the extras of him. He is clearly a live wire. Heck, I would love to run into the guy and shake his hand. It just hasn't happened. Yet.

I watched the [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8363891#"]directors[/url] cut. There are worse films out there. (Serenity). But I did find myself wishing this one was better. The film never really establishes any sort of tension or excitement. And let's face it, GR is a victim of his own success. The guy basically spawned a million clones which owe their existence to him. [b][url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8363891#"]House[/url] of the Dead, Resident Evil, 28 Days, Shawn of the Dead[/b] (which he himself admits to loving). It's hard not to be the jaded viewer. I think the only way to be unique in this genre anymore is to have a really good story. This film tries to be a little different with making the zombies gaining a little intelligence. But it just doesn't go far enough. And by the end, I found myself more than a little bored.

I'm giving it a [b]C-.[/b] And I am being generous.

Happy Accidents

I just got done watching [b]Happy Accidents. [/b]This 2001 film was written and directed by [b]Brad Anderson.[/b]




In my quest to watch all of Brad Anderson's work leading up to [b]The Machinist[/b] this is my second after watching [b]Next Stop Wonderland.[/b] Not surprisingly, I disagree with the tomatometer. [b]Happy Accidents[/b] was a much better film than [b]Next Stop Wonderland. [/b]Again proving that most critics are tasteless idiots. I find most critics couldnt' find their own @ss with both hands and a flashlight.

Since [b]Happy Accidents [/b]does unfold with information I will not reveal too much about the plot. Though I will say that there does seem to be a pattern to the material that Mr Anderson (you have to say it like agent smith) seems attracted to.

The [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8308530#"]film[/url] is enjoyable to watch, almost illiciting (inadvertently) a [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8308530#"]woody allen[/url] vibe. I'm not quite certain if this was intentional or not. It's filmed in NY but it might as well have been filmed in Columbus Ohio. (Note to writers, characters are more important than locations). There are a few minor plotholes, and the film wisely keeps you guessing through some crucial moments. I also enjoyed the sorta rambling almost nonsensical responses that just had enough logic to be befuddling.

I'm giving it a [b]B. [/b]I don't know if I would watch it repeatedly but I would certainly watch it at least once.

PS. The [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8308530#"]acting[/url] is good, the shots are ok, the [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?p=8308530#"]music[/url] at times for some reason annoyed me. I think there was supposed to be whimsy or something, but I wasn't feelin it.

Cinderella Man

If you have not rented or seen [b]Cinderella Man [/b]then you must do so post-haste. I was shocked by the experience of watching this [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=453625#"]film[/url]. Solid from beginning to end, the film never loses it's place in time not it's empathy for almost all of it's characters. Even the (almost) evil [b]Max Baer.[/b] I wanted to kick myself for having passed on this one at the theatre. The trailers were so sweet I wanted to vomit.

The film is far more brutal, showing the VERY dark side of one of our older sports. I was shocked at how low key [b]Russell Crowe [/b]was in the film. I expected him to overact and tug at my bleeding heart. Instead he plays the role in a very well measured tempo. I enjoyed not having that overwhelming feeling of "Pay Attention! You Are Watching a Period Piece!".

[b]Paul Giamatti [/b]is at his measured best here. Sometimes I think he used in films for the wrong reasons. This is not one of those films.

I don't always like [b]Ron Howard[/b], but I feel he hit all the right beats and measures. Incredible boxing footage set into a time frame of seemingly endless desperation.


Downfall (Der Untergang)

just got done watching [b]Downfall,[/b] which I rented last evening. I found it to be a very engrossing [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=463376#"]film[/url].


I have to say I thought it was one of the best film's I've seen in the last six months. The film actually somehow manages to make you feel sorry for Hitler and the German people. A magician/shaman/madman feeding a deluded mass. The film is well shot, and I did at times get that "in the bunker vibe"..Which is a credit to the director. And I like that the film doesn't mince words about the concept of innocence. Even the most innocent characters have blood on their hands. I think even the little boys father did some killing in WWI. I think I will give this film an [b]A.[/b]

More directors and studio's need to learn about "story" and "plot" and "execution". This guy is clearly on the right track.




The Constant Gardener

Once again, [b]Fernando Meirelles [/b]([url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=467490#"]City of God[/url] - A must see) turns his unblinking eye on the poor. It almost caused me to flinch at certain times. This is not a bad thing, simply just how cutting his vision is. The [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=467490#"]film[/url] loses a little steam in the third (fourth?) act. Then finishes strong.


Rachel Weisz give a great performance. I actually think she steals the movie. She is able to make you believe she "is the character".



Watching the suffering of thousands (millions) of people is hard at times when you watch this film. But [b]Fernando[/b] never makes the mistake of painting the African's as fools... He clearly understands they are victims.

While this film is not as aggresive as [b]City of God[/b] it still has all of the positive trademark's of FM's directorial style.

Easily one of the best of 2005. I'm giving it a [b]B+[/b]

[b]*[/b]To explain my grade. This is basically an "A" film. However, I feel Fiennes is a bit typecast. He seems to always be the same guy. And I think the film loses a bit of momentum towards the end.


Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance

So I just got done watching [b]Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance. [/b]I haven't finished watching the whole [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=469260#"]directors[/url] commentary so I am fresh from one and a half viewings.






This is only my second [b]Chan Wook Park[/b] film. The only other one I have seen is [b]Oldboy[/b] (which I loved). This [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=469260#"]film[/url] again has an almost surreal mesh of beauty and violence. I'm sure the director would hate that analysis. So let it be said I am simpifying a much more complex piece of art just for brevity.

As usual when I write a review I will be sure not to spoiler, so some of what I say will be kinda vague.

I enjoyed [b]Sympathy[/b], though not as much as I enjoyed [b]Oldboy[/b]. But let's be fair, Oldboy is kind of a hard act to follow. And SFMV came out before Oldboy. I just happened to watch them out of order. [b]Sympathy for Lady Vengeance[/b] is the third one in this trilogy of [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=469260#"]films[/url]. I will order that one next.

Again, Park's characters and direction is almost always spot on. I am not Korean but don't feel a sense of "foriegn". In fact, I would say he always lingers on the human aspect of each of the characters which allows them to translate into any culture or language. He has a strong visual asthetic. Imagine Tarrantino with a sense of taste and balance.

I have more conclusions about this film, But I can't say too many without spoilering. Easily worth a rental. I'm giving this one a [b]B.[/b]


[b]Serenity[/b] is useless. If you are a sci-fi fan you might be tempted to rent this. Let me put your mind at rest. It is a giant piece of crap. Mediocre story, Fiona Apple as a super hero (Ha ha ha ha), cliche piled upon cliche. Vomitville.


This spaceship apparently has a beestinger for an @sshole.

The writer is a hack. The [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=468630#"]film[/url] goes so far as to have "flesh eaters (zombies)" as bad guys. Apparently these flesh eaters pause long enough to build and fly space ships. F ucking hell is it stupid.


Fiona Apple says.."Bring me my piano slave!"


The "Han Solo" character.

This [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=468630#"]movie[/url] looks like the retarded bastard cousin of [b]Battle Beyond The Stars. [/b]And Serenity makes this look like art.



DOes anyone else remember the boob ship?


Do yourself a favor and rent this instead.

Serenity - Should have been a lame [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=468630#"]TV show[/url] for Buffy geeks. - [b]F[/b]

Some movies are so bad they are good. This is not one of those cases. Here is a movie thats so bad it's good.




So far I've posted two movies that weren't very good yet were actually somehow better than [b]Serenity[/b].

Fun little side note, The Last Starfighter was one of the first films to have a fully digital spaceship. Pretty cool huh?

Broken Flowers

Firstly, I am as big of a fan of Bill Murray as anyone. But watching him lay on a couch staring blankly while his life spins off around him is one of the dumbest ideas I have watched in quite some time. I have read some of the positive reviews on the review page. And the only word I can come up with is "deluded".

You might want to stop here if you are a fan of the film. It's all downhill from this point on.

[b]The story/plot[/b] - Just awful. A contrived mess about "a child from the past" searching for his Dad...So what's the logical thing to do? hmmm..let me see..How about just turning up at what are essentially now strangers doorsteps? "Remember me? I used to have sex with you!" Jesus it's awful.

[b]Music - [/b]actually the music was the best part of the film. It's supposed to provide the 'backdrop' for his myopic and generally dumb journey. It works..the film does not.

[b]Tone[/b] - Flat characters that offer little reason to care about them in the slightest set against long boring shots of airports and drives through the countryside..Searching for the mother of his son..The son who apparently is traveling to see him but won't find him because he's not there. Ugh. The tone is of useless disjointednesss.

[b]Execution[/b] - This film clearly got greenlighted in a bad meeting that involved the sentence "think Lost In Translation set in rural Pennsylvania!"....This film pretends to be a dry observational comedy. Notice the word "pretends". It offers no insight and zero comedy.

Not even worth renting [b]F.[/b]


I had seen [b]Oldboy[/b] mentioned in several threads in CD and since I recently signed up with a mail order DVD system I made it number three on my list. I had the pleasure of watching it this evening.




It's far too easy to talk about how visually striking the [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=465739#"]film[/url] is. What I found far more interesting was the Shakespearean nature of the plot. I can't tell if it's intentional or not. Though its also probably that there are elements of Korean storytelling that I might be missing. As an American it's not like I am taught Korean fables. But I digress.

The film is somehow gothic/romantic in nature. Which is surprising for a film that is known for its violence. Perhaps there is a more subtle natural mix at play. Nice writing.

Anyway, if you haven't seen it, I give it the Ralph Wiggum Stamp of Approval. You will at times perhaps wonder where the story is going. Be patient. The [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=465739#"]movie[/url] pays off in the end. I'm gonna give it a [b]A.[/b]

Lord of War
Lord of War(2005)

I remember the vibe on the street about [b]Lord of War[/b] to be not so good when this film was released. And quite frankly, I am not a fan of Nick Cage and his "jerking around winking" shtick. So I passed on this one. Fast Forward to today.

I rented [b]Lord of War[/b] and was pleasantly surprised at how captivating it was to watch. As someone who enjoys (loathes) international politics, to see a film blatantly pointing out the backdoor dealings was refreshing.




I think if anything, what is REALLY scary about this [url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=466023#"]movie[/url] is how close to the truth it skirts. And while the film gets close to testing my patience in length, I was pretty much interested in it from beginning to end. (I could probably tighten it up by ten or fifteen minutes and you would never know the difference).

I'm gonna give this one a [b]B.[/b] It's easily worth a rental.

Grizzly Man
Grizzly Man(2005)

I enjoyed Grizzly Man...But couldnt help but feel this overwhelming sense of tragedy at the end. I understand both sides of the argument in regards to the criticism of Treadwell himself. I think you should watch this film. Clearly if it comes down to seeing Hostel in the theatre and seeing Grizzly Man head straight to Blockbuster. It's probably not fair to compare them. Anyway...Enjoy!

King Kong
King Kong(2005)

:rotten: This movie is terrible. An incredibly wasted opportunity. Peter Jackson defines the expression "self indulgent wankery". This film could have been brilliant. It starts out quite well then suddenly turns dumb as soon as they get to Moridor. Wait..wrong bad film. I enjoyed Heavenly Creatures many years ago. But I don't think Peter Jackson has been interesting since. [b][size=4]F[/size][/b]

The Machinist

I just sat in a dark room and watched [b]The Machinist. [/b]Released in 2004, I wish I had seen this film in the theatre. Simply put, the film is brilliant. Visually stunning, clearly a homage to Hitchcock. [b]Xavi Gimenez [/b]has a bright career in front of him if he turns out to not be one hit wonder. Xavi was the director of photography. This film is worth watching just for the imagery alone. I was not familiar with director [b]Brad Anderson [/b]before this but I will rent the stuff he has done in the past.

This is one of those films where everything comes together. If I had to make comparisons I would say, [b]Vertigo, Jacob's Ladder, Psycho. [/b]I am keeping this review spoiler free so forgive me for being vague. The soundtrack is brilliant as well. [b]Roque Banos [/b]was the composer. The combination of screenplay, direction, cinematography, and soundtrack, form this almost perfect organism.

I can't say enough about the actors. The fact that most of these people don't have oscars for this movie points out just how retarded that particular system is.




I really enjoyed this mini series. If you have only seen Traffic you are doing yourself a disservice. The acting for the most part is really good. And the writing is outstanding. The story moves along nicely. I watched the whole thing in one evening and one morning and couldn't wait to see how it ended. The best part is I signed it out of my local library for free. Do yourself favor.