8/4/2006

2006 Movie Reviews

Filed under: — site admin @ 4:22 am


18 FINGERS OF DEATH! (2006)
I definitely understand the bad reviews. This movie has me half-smiling at several points, but I didn’t laugh once. The budget was very low and the directing was poor. The spoofing had its moments, but was pretty weak. Most of the acting was atrocious, save for the impersonations of Stephen Segal and Antonio Banderas (Lamas), and Pat Morita just being himself. I was bored for at least 50 minutes of it. I recommend that you not waste your time (or money) here. Although I wasnt a fan of Kung Pow, I thought it was far better than 18 Fingers.

ACCEPTED (2006)
You saw this movie in the previews…if you liked what you saw in the previews, save yourself the time; download the trailer and watch it again. Overall, this movie was just alright, and was exactly what it appears to be: another crappy teen party comedy in the style of the recent National Lampoon’s flicks. I expected a little more from the the more popular actors here…no dice.

BLOOD DIAMOND (2006)
It’s all been said about this one. DiCaprio, who I don’t mind and sometimes like, played a major role in the destruction of this movie. His character and the movement of the story were blatantly contrived. There was a good plot in the background, and a silly political /public awareness theme played the majority of the foreground. Thanks to people so highly recommending this crap, I was thoroughly disappointed. The African story and mild gore was much more interesting than DiCaprio and his character’s goals, same with the development of the Kalashnikov -toting children. If this movie totally opened your eyes and impacted your view of international relations between rich capitalists and impoverished 3rd-world laborers, then you may consider yourself the media-controlled consumerist sponge that these writers /directors themselves reprimand you for being. If you want a well done “where was America and the rest of world” African story, then watch Hotel Rwanda again.

CIVIC DUTY (2006)
For an average movie, this was pretty good: decent build up, okay acting, believable and somewhat true to life characters (annoyingly so), and a twisty ending was necessary (since they build up by not telling you what you want to know until the end). SPOILER: It is my opinion that generally only good movies or horrible movies leave you hanging on the ending. So, I felt this one had to go one of two ways. 1) Kills the guy; turns out he was just a student. 2) Doesn’t kill him, cops let him go, he kills a lot of people. But, they found an unhappy medium because it was UNCLEAR whether or not the news report he saw was real (I venture to guess the intention is that he has lost it mentally, and he sees what he wants to see -fulfilling his paranoia). However, the fact, that what he surmised is very plausible, makes me wish they did a whole different ending, or simply made what he saw conclusive. Not Great; worth the watch.

CREEPSHOW 3 (2006)
On my rating scale this is a Zero out of Four stars…and almost everyone gets the first complimentary star for some kind of effort. I was a fan of the first two classics, but this had nothing to do with them, didn’t flow well, the mini-stories had no plot -it was simply build up or “action", if you can call it that, and no resolution. The Characters were despicable, having no depth or likability. Sure, I knew a third movie coming out without any noise about its arrival would suck horribly, but the cool cover art along with the Creepshow name duped me. Booo, Hiss!

DAWN (2006)
Yes, it is NOT FOR EVERYONE. Although not a great movie, I really enjoyed this. Coming from a guy who likes low budget horror films, this was somewhat of a gem. The story was original enough. The b&w filming gave it a more natural feel. The father did a decent job acting (for a non-actor) and the girl who played Dawn did an Excellent job! The rest of the acting was pretty poor, except for a couple of the other children and police characters. Despite the low quality, I’m glad to have had the chance to see this one.

FAST FOOD NATION (2006)
Here is a movie with way too much potential in directing, acting, socio-political propaganda and character development. On top of that it took a documentary style book and made a dramatic narrative about social critique of the fast food industry and American corporation from the deep perspective of every day characters. Is it any wonder it fell short of its goal? …I was hoping for “Thank You For Smoking", “Super-Size Me", or another great Linklater film. That said, there were some surprisingly well done aspects to this film despite the inability to drive a specific point to fruition or fulfill the audience in some way to change our lives. It was too stream of political-consciousness for me, hitting on patriot act, fascist corporation dystopia, consumer and employee tracking, imminent domain, animal treatment, illegal immigration, and fast fecal food; all great topics which need a little more attention than a mention.

THE GRUDGE 2 (2006)
Worse “scary” scenes and Better “scary” scenes than the first one. Minus points on using some techniques from “The Ring” (which I thought was a better movie). Plot line was revealed, but it still doesn’t make much sense. I fear there will be a third one.

THE GUARDIAN (2006)
This was very good movie, but not great simply because it relied so much on the formulaic success of the military romances which came before it. It began to set itself apart from the formula about half way through the movie, and most successfully because of the setting of man versus himself, versus the the great beast that is the sea. (Perhaps like The Old Man and the Sea, but about a Fisher of Men, not a Fisherman). Kutcher proved through this movie that he could maintain a serious role, although he already proved his ability to act in The Butterfly Effect. Costner has proven his ability to still play a believable roll, which although he is unable to let you forget he is Kevin Costner, he does play a roll befitting of an action hero whose years have passed. Great character interaction and development; and it was a good overall film. Go Navy and Coastguard! Hoorah!

THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND (2006)
Oh boy! So, everyone says this movie is too gory or unnecessarily graphically violent. However, those familiar with the atrocities of this Uganda dictator have said it was gory, but not in the right way. Not enough atrocities shown of the many, but a very few scenes of one or two people being tortured or shot execution style. HOWEVER, Forest Whitaker was phenomenal! If he did win anything at the last awards show, he deserves it. This is a man who moved from a B movie star (Ghost Dawg -3/4) to an A movie thug (Panic Room -2/4) to an Independent movie star (this movie) which may be his ticket to A movie stardom. Whitaker’s performance and role compatibility 5/4 if it were possible. The movie itself 3/4. It lacked full reference to the situation of mass killings and war, the protagonist (young Scottish doctor) was unbelievable to some point, and difficult to relate to. Some side characters got used and dismissed pretty randomly. Worth seeing, but meant for “film” appreciationists and critics, probably not so much for mainstream “movie goers".

LITTLE MAN (2006)
I expected this movie to suck worse than it did, but it made me laugh enough to mildly enjoy it. Be warned that Wayans Bros flicks are a little raunchy in humor. One thing that bugged me is inconsistent proportions of the little dude (head and body sizes). The plot was highly predictable. It used a stupid gimmick, but it was funny and better than I expected it to be.

THE MESSENGERS (2006)
I had a hard time giving this movie 2/4 stars. I enjoyed it, it was complete as a story, and it had many interesting parts. However, nothing was original in this movie (every plot direction, character, and horrific scene seemed to have been stolen from at least one other movie), and several times I wondered why the camera footage seemingly went “home movie view". At other times it was like they pulled a graphic sequence out of their ….etc. Still, it resembled a good episode of Tales from the Crypt or something (without being slightly comical). Furthermore, it was just as I expected it to be, if not a little better.

NIGHTMARE MAN (2006)
This is not a “film to die for". It was poorly shot and grainy, sub-par acting and overacting, poor makeup, mediocre SFX, weak dialogue, unoriginality, cheesiness, and it spreads itself thin by mixing sub-genres of slasher, psych-thriller and supernatural horror. HOWEVER, I ENJOYED IT because it was laughable, simple, and made valid attempts at several points, despite my low expectations. It had an interesting start, was funny and sexy and gave the gore when it tried to do so. Plus, it kept me mildly entertained. When the plot looked predictable in one of two ways, it went both ways. The movie isn’t as cool as the DVD cover, but it was worth a watch for the avid horror viewer.

ONCE (2006)
The unfolding story of “once” is an ordinary encounter with love that unfolds in a mild symphony of desperation and creative expression. The musical talent, relationship development, acting, and tone are wonderfully meshed. The lyrics add another layer of depth beyond the dialogue. The characters are rich, unique, and real. This is a must-see for those who love music, independent film, or are tired of formulaic romance.

THE QUEEN (2006)
The only positives about this movie include good acting and bringing the function of media, PR, and public perception to light. None of this is new. The movie didn’t have much to say. All that it showed is that the English are as media fed and driven as the U.S. (public perceptions of public figures and celebrities are based on how material is presented to them by the media). And in response, this is encouraged by the crap public relations people feed to those figures about how to act to be liked. A vicious and stupid cycle, which the movie did not delve into, nor was it deep about anything. The movie was uneventful, with good acting.

THE ROAD TO GUANTANAMO (2006)
Documentaries are supposed to start discussion, to bring truth to light, or to piss off a selection of viewers. So, I guess this was well done. It is clear three men were held unjustly (if we really are bringing justice to the world, then we ought to bring our inalienable rights as well) for two years or more without charges and with nothing more than circumstantial evidence. The portrayal of the military sounds congruent enough with the U.S. troops I know. No offense intended, but grunts follow orders; theirs is not to question why, theirs is but to do or die. Rationalization comes easy when the commanding officer informs his troops that the imprisoned men were found collaborating with terrorists (vague, somewhat accurate, and entirely misleading information). Coercion and torture will get you plenty of false confessions, if that’s what pleases the higher-ups. I guess its better 750 untried men be imprisoned for years under harsh conditions, than miss the opportunity to create or find a fall-guy to back the “success” of the war on terror. We’re probably lucky these men were raised meek Muslims. If the same mistake happened to me, they would have bred a man for revenge. I’m afraid we’re going to create more actual terrorists than we catch. (And thanks to the patriot act, these same violations can be legally made against U.S. citizens) “You’ve bled with Wallace, now bleed with me. FREEDOM!”

SHERRYBABY (2006)
Powerful! But not easy. Touching, heart wrenching and sad. Based on a true story. I thought the acting, writing, and directing were great. The story was very simple, and you may or may not relate to the characters’ experiences. However, I thought it was an excellent movie, but difficult to enjoy based on the subject matter. This is one that I could see people loving or hating.

THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED (2006)
This one was good, but aimed at the independent film industry from the independents, not user friendly enough for the everyday movie watcher. I hoped for a little more information than revealing who the MPAA is, more about why they’re the devil would have been helpful (though Moore-esque).

UNITED 93 (2006)
I gave 2 stars to World Trade Center, Flight 93, and United 93. Flight and United aren’t documentaries and they aren’t movies. They are dramatizations based on limited knowledge. I’m not too sure why they were made. But, if you want something with a story, that is patriotic in a sense, and not faking like its real, Ladder 49 was very successful. I gave it 3 stars. At least with movies that are trying to win points with the subject matter, movies like Schindler’s list tried to be cinematic, movies like Hotel Rwanda tried to carry a message, Pianist had a story, The Last King of Scotland had great acting. These flight movies were, dare I say it, “exploitation for emotional masturbation.” I feel violated by taking them seriously because I know I’m being processed and fed by the film industries for financial gain, at the expense of exploiting real tragedy. At least when watching the news in September 2001, the feeling of awe and violation was real, and actually a violation of our sense of invulnerability, freedom, and conception of being “the good guys.”

I thought Flight 93 was better. I saw it first, and it deals more with the people on the flight, allowing the viewer to relate and care when these lives are needlessly taken. United 93 was probably directed more accurately, but dealt more with explaining the confusion involved in the dealings on the end of air traffic controllers. Both aim to grip emotions, and both were successful. But, they are not must-see movies. MY BEEF: These movies are almost entirely speculative. I wonder how much money went to helping families and to what dollar amount people profited off the deaths of innocents. Some producer(s) saw the value in making a “gripping, must-see” movie that dramatizes tragedy, where anyone who is opposed to the film should be shunned (like Schindler’s List, or Passion of the Christ). That aside, Because they are neither fiction or documentaries, I believe it is right to question the motives of their creation. Dramatizations are not necessary when facts about intolerable acts are enough to evoke emotion. Do we really need laugh tracks, applause signs, and dramatizations to tell us how to think, act, and feel?


ZACH GALIFIANAKIS: LIVE (2006)
Hilarious guy, but I was not too thrilled about this performance. Some great parts included anything he did while sitting at the piano and the Seth character. Some of the improvisation was pretty weak though, such as bugging the N3tfl|x guy for several minutes –his audience harassment could have been better. The reviewers seem to love or hate Zach or his routine. This is the first I’ve seen of him, and I can already tell he is highly talented, fun to watch, has great timing and creativity, but this act wasn’t to the level he appears to be capable of performing. I hope to see more!