Blogs

TGWTG's Community Blogs.

Home
Categories
Tags
Bloggers
Search
Login

Username Password
Remember me

Subscribe to feed Viewing entries tagged sploich

Sploich Reviews Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008)

Posted by Sploich on Saturday, 19 May 2012 in Film Review

Alex (Ben Stiller), Marty (Chris Rock), Melman (David Schwimmer) and Gloria (Jada Pinkett Smith) are leaving Madagascar, but their trip ends short with them crashing in a reserve in Africa. There, Alex is reunited with his parents (Bernie Mac and Sherri Shepherd) and the rest find themselves fitting in with their kind a little too well.

This movie takes a step in the right direction. Having introduced the characters in the first film, this sequel brings a stronger, more personal story and a much slower and tighter pace. Each of the characters gets a decent amount of time to themselves, although admittedly Gloria once again has the least amount of time and does not get her own story. Everything feels a lot more refined as the characters have more to do and more other characters to interact with. This movie even has its own villain, voiced by Alec Baldwin, and he's great as he always is when he plays the villain. They even found a way to bring humans into the mix that was funny and made sense.

I would argue though that these exact things that make it better than the first also bring with them their own problems. It does feel early on as if there are just too many story lines forming. There's around six or seven stories all introduced in the first half of the film and it's a little exhausting at first. As the movie goes on though, the stories begin to slowly melt into one another and create some great character moments. There are a lot of things I was expecting to not work, such as Melman's sudden infatuation with Gloria, that ultimately work out really well.

There are a lot of laugh-out-loud moments as well as some hearty chuckles and best of all there are a lot less groan-worthy jokes this time around. In the first there were a lot of jokes pandering to the younger audience but here there is far less of that. All of the side characters, like Julian (Sacha Baron Cohen) and the penguins are not only funnier here but they work into the plot a lot better. The whole movie has the same feeling to it that Toy Story 3 did having come off Toy Story and Toy Story 2. It's much more mature but still fun and entertaining.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Madagascar (2005)

Posted by Sploich on Friday, 18 May 2012 in Film Review

Alex the Lion (Ben Stiller), Marty the Zebra (Chris Rock), Melman the Giraffe (David Schwimmer) and Gloria the Hippopotamus (Jada Pinkett Smith) live in the New York Central Zoo, but Marty wants to live in the wild. He gets his chance when the four of them find themselves lost on a jungle island called Madagascar. They then have to befriend a tribe of lemurs and avoid both the natural predators and the predators inside themselves.

When I think of DreamWorks, my mind usually wanders to their movies that I don't particularly like. Shrek. Shark Tale of course. But I always seem to forget that they actually do make movies I really enjoy as well. Maybe it's because they're always outshone by Pixar but I tend to forget movies like Madagascar exist. But watching this again I remember now how much I enjoyed it the first time I saw it. There's not a whole lot to it and it feels like it was written by freshman writers, but it's an entertaining movie with some really great characters.

I really love Ben Stiller in this movie. He's not a very good voice actor but he brings a charm to the movie that works really well. David Schwimmer is great as the neurotic giraffe and Chris Rock, well, he's Chris Rock, and I'm okay with this. Sacha Baron Cohen plays King Julian of the lemurs and has some of the best moments of the film. The accent he uses amuses me to no end and I just like how he seems to be completely unaware of his surroundings and yet competent enough to prove himself as self-proclaimed King of the Lemurs.

The animation is probably the film's biggest downfall. That's not to say it's terrible. I do like the art style but it's pretty obvious they were going for simplicity and the actual animation is a little sophomoric. They're able to hide it with a lot of fast movement but when things slow down you can kind of see it isn't perfectly smooth. But maybe that's what they were going for, to go along with the art style. If that's the case, then it just didn't work for me. It's still not nearly enough to keep me from watching the film again, and I recommend you give it a try as well.

...

2 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Battleship (2012)

Posted by Sploich on Friday, 18 May 2012 in Film Review

Battleship is pretty much exactly what I was expecting. I could just see the writers shrugging when handed the premise and saying, "We got nothin'." It was a complete waste of two hours of my day sitting through this mess of boring CG propaganda.

The movie centers on Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy who encounters an alien invasion on what was to be his last day before they kicked him out of service. He ends up having to lead his ship as captain in a war against the invaders.

I'm going to just skip over the fact that this movie has absolutely no reason to exist. It's just a marketing ploy and I don't have a problem with those as long as they're done well. I'm more concerned with everything else that was pointless about the film. For instance: The aliens. Why are there aliens in this movie? Why couldn't you just make a period war film involving warring battleships on the high seas? I mean, okay, I know the actual reason there are aliens in this movie. Two weeks ago we got aliens in The Avengers. We're getting Men in Black III next weekend. Cowboys & Aliens. District 9. Transformers. I get it. But they just feel shoehorned into this for the sake of having them and that makes it lame and pointless.

The second useless thing is Liam Neeson. Don't get me wrong, I love Liam Neeson. I figured he'd be the saving grace in seeing this but he only gets about five minutes of screen time. They only got him so they could sell the movie with his name, but I don't think Liam Neeson has ever met that level of stardom, even now. They literally could have hired anybody else and it would have worked just as well. And Neeson acts like he just wants his check so he can go home. They actually forced in a scene of him yelling at somebody over the phone just so they could have a scene of him yelling at somebody. It's really pathetic to watch. The acting in general was fine though, but nobody ever really had any scenes in which to prove their acting skills so it's not worth going into. Oh, except for this one big black guy who lost his legs. I think he was an actual veteran they got just so they could use that character in the movie. Yeah, he was a pretty terrible actor.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews The Rugrats Movie (1998)

Posted by Sploich on Thursday, 17 May 2012 in Film Review

I'm reluctant to say whether I was ever a fan of Rugrats on Nickelodeon. Honestly I remember spending more of my childhood on The Disney Afternoon or on Cartoon Network. I guess I was a fan to some extent though because I do remember seeing this movie in theaters, and this is pretty much the first time I've seen it since then. And while I have a really hard time bringing myself to call this a "good" movie, it's definitely a very cute film that has a lot of heart behind it.

As his new baby brother is brought into the world, toddler Tommy (E.G. Daily) and his friends Chuckie (Christine Cavanaugh), Phil and Lil (both Kath Soucie) are not too happy with the addition. But after an accident sends them flying into the woods, they must put their other problems aside and find their way home.

I do have to say that there is a lot of stuff about this movie I don't like. It is an incredibly juvenile film, which is to be expected with the humor from the show. But I don't remember ever liking those jokes on the show either. While I like the idea of the kids having a hard time pronouncing words, it's constant and gets really annoying. Even the Smurfs and their incessant insertion of their own names in place of verbs and pronouns isn't quite as grading to listen to. There's plenty of talking about bodily functions and for that matter body parts that are sure to make the kids giggle but that's just never been my style of humor. There's always been another side to the humor that's a little more subtle that I've always appreciated, even when I was younger (I've, uh, never had many friends) and that's present here. There's also a few jokes that went completely over my head when I was little and most of them work for me now. There are a lot of really good laughs but there are also moments when I just sat there groaning at how much they were pandering to their demographic. And I guess that's fine but I'm nowhere near that demographic.

I have never liked Klasky-Csupo animation style. I've always found it to be just grotesque to look at. Even with a much bigger budget here, they weren't able to shake that, and there's a lot of little animation things that I really didn't like. Some of the character's movements are way over-animated, making it look very unnatural and being generally unnecessary. Speaking of unnecessary, this movie is a musical. Yeah, that wasn't necessary at all. And the songs are really awful too. There's a point about halfway through the movie where they stop writing their own (awful) songs and start doing renditions of established songs. I began to pine for the simpler days of them writing their own material. I can't even say this idea could have worked because the way the babies talk would have made it impossible to make the film a musical worth listening to.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

Posted by Sploich on Thursday, 17 May 2012 in Film Review

After what seems to be a meteor shower off the coasts of every major city in the world, the military is called in to treat it as a military attack from another planet. We spend a majority of the film following a specific group of soldiers as they traverse L.A. in search of a way out or a way to stop the invasion.

I can't begin to describe to you how worthless this movie is. I'm even having a hard time coming up with anything to say about it because nothing interesting happens in this movie. It is note-for-note exactly what you expect from the moment it begins to the moment it ends. It's actually kind of insulting in that way. What I mean is, this movie pulls the same exact stuff that just about every other wartime film pulls, especially with forcing emotion to the extent that it's so obvious that you don't feel anything. When they show a character with a child or whose wife is about to have a child, you know they're going to bite it. But I'm getting to this point where I actually sort of feel offended by that, like the writers are forcing the child in there just so that they can lose their father. What a horrible thing to do to that child you just invented! And to the soldier's wife for that matter, who now has to raise the kid on her own because you, the writer, specifically wrote that kid in there to stir up emotion when they kill off daddy.

And no, I don't feel like I'm spoiling anything. And if I am, I don't really care. There isn't a single character in this movie that I felt I needed to invest any sort of emotion into. I never cared whether any of them got killed off, but then again I could tell from a mile away which ones were going to make it in the end. I think the only person in the movie I was a little surprised about their fate was Michelle Rodriguez, and if you know her track record in movies then that definitely was a spoiler. Sorry, I don't care. Even the aliens in this are incredibly uninteresting. Actually their more confusing than anything because they spend several minutes trying to figure out how to kill them, ultimately with no purpose because we find out in later action scenes that their vulnerable to bullets and being blown up. Who knew?

I'm even having a hard time finding anything to praise on the technical side of this film. The effects are pretty basic for wide release sci-fi films these days, but everything else is extremely subpar. I have no idea whose idea it was to film this movie like a documentary and yet stick to a basic Hollywood movie structure but it was a terrible idea. It makes it impossible to see a lot of the action and just feels out of place. The dialogue is unbearable at times with the same speeches we've heard a thousand times, only written worse than normal with absolutely no passion to them. They got several good actors but none of them give the kind of performances they would in something with a better screenplay. It feels like all of them are there just to collect their paychecks, and frankly I can't really blame them.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews The Dictator (2012)

Posted by Sploich on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 in Film Review

Sacha Baron Cohen is back, this time as Admiral General Aladeen, ruler and dictator of the African Republic of Wadiya. After being threatened by the rest of the world to stop oppressing his people, Aladeen travels to the United States to speak to the United Nations. But he is forced into a life of American mediocrity when his right-hand man Tamir (Ben Kingsley) attempts to murder and replace him. Aladeen now has to rise back to power and stop his beloved country from becoming a democracy.

I think Cohen is a very talented comedian. He does a great job in every movie I've ever seen him in, no matter how bad the movie itself is. But he's one of those people who is only able to deliver other people's lines well. His own material, for the most part from what I've seen, just doesn't work and is not funny. It especially doesn't work in a standard comedy format like this. The reason Borat worked was because it was a mockumentary. The jokes work most of the time because the people are reacting to real situations, and when it is staged they kept to the same film style and at least faked it well. Here it's just lazy, unfunny improv wrapped around a very thin plot.

This movie wants so desperately to offend, but because of how desperate it is being, and because we've already seen this done a million times (by Cohen himself even), it just doesn't work. It backfires and feels as desperate as it is, like they weren't trying as hard to make funny jokes but just say offensive things. There are several moments where lines come out of nowhere, without anybody's lips moving. It's incredibly obvious when they just dubbed in a quick joke, none of which ever work. There's a reel of lines and scenes they didn't go with that play during the credits and none of them are any funnier than the material they actually used, leading me to believe they just didn't come up with very good material. And it's kind of hard to come up with material when its on the spot like that, which is one of the reasons I'm slowly coming to really hate improv artists.

I can't think of anything about this movie that works, really. I think Anna Faris, who played Zoey, a woman Aladeen befriends in New York, is just as good as she ever is. That isn't to say she got any good jokes though. I like Faris, but she has nothing here. Nobody does. Chris Parnell shows up in this as a news anchor and I like him too but his scenes in this movie are just worthless. In fact, there are a number of scenes in the movie that have absolutely no reason to exist and jokes that just go nowhere. I do recall, early on, chuckling at a couple of things. I can't for the life of me remember what they were now, but I do remember it happened. After that though, I just couldn't wait to get out of the theater. The only reason I don't hate it is because it doesn't deserve my hate.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Underworld: Awakening (2012)

Posted by Sploich on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 in Film Review

A lot has happened between Underworld: Evolution and Underworld: Awakening. The humans have discovered the vampires, the lycans and their war and have decided to put a stop to it. Twelve years after the purging, Selene (Kate Beckinsale) awakens in a laboratory and set out to find Michael. But on her journey she encounters a little girl (India Eisley) who may be the key to finding what she's looking for.

This is a huge leap forward for this series and admittedly a tiny step backwards. First of all, the production quality far exceeds that of the previous three with much nicer cinematography (possibly necessary for the 3D, which I have not seen) and a lot more graphic violence than ever before. We're back to the crazy, over-the-top gun blazing and unabashed blood-gushing that this series does best, but the story is also a lot more engaging than it has been. The stakes are much higher now (no pun intended, vampires and all), not only because the humans have actually won the war against non-humans but because Selene is no looking for what's left of what she could call a family. There's also a group of lycans working on a serum that would be able to turn them into super-werewolves, able to absorb silver and be virtually impenetrable.

I had a lot of fun watching the first three movies, but this one really blew me away. It is action from start to finish and it only stops to let you breathe for a moment and then dunks you back into the excitement. Because so many things change so drastically between films, it takes a moment just to take it all in. But the film never gives the characters that moment like most other films would. It's nice to have that moment in those other movies but it would probably feel out of place and unrealistic here. These characters are running for their lives and they really never stop running. There are twists and turns all throughout this movie with characters dying when you least expect it and several unexpected surprises. I also thought it had some really great sound work, with plenty of metal crashing into other metal and walls, lots of roaring from the lycans and all sorts of other sounds that made it even more epic.

The only real downfall this movie has, and the only reason I don't give it the 10/10 that I wish I could, is the dialogue. I can honestly see this dialogue completely killing the film for anybody who doesn't already love these films. Almost every single line is exposition, a lot of which we don't even need, and they talk a lot. Sometimes it can be really campy and almost sort of work in a funny way, but other times it's just annoying and repetitive. I really wish they'd focused a little bit more on this because the rest of the film is so entertaining that it sucks that there aren't a lot of memorable quotes or anything. At the very least the movie should follow the "show-don't-tell" method that the other films sort of followed.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009)

Posted by Sploich on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 in Film Review

Centuries before the events of the first two Underworld films, lycan (werewolf) Lucian (Michael Sheen) was in love with Sonja (Rhona Mitra), the daughter of the ruler of the vampires, Viktor (Bill Nighy). Their unity brought with it the rise of the enslaved lycans, leading to the war that we've all become well acquainted with in the present story.

Going back and telling this story is a little confusing to me. From a marketing standpoint, I find it odd that they would make an Underworld film without Kate Beckinsale. From a storytelling perspective, I don't see the point in it existing at all. We already saw this story in flashbacks and it was impactful at the time. Drawing it out and telling every little detail gets kind of boring as it goes on. It takes a lot of emotion out of a story like this when we already know exactly how it ends. It's also a pretty generic story they went with, hitting beat-for-beat everything you're expecting.

That being said, the emotion does work when you think of the film as its own thing. It's a tragic love story in somewhat of the vain of Romeo and Juliet, only it's with vampires and werewolves and that makes it so much more awesome. The chemistry between Lucian and Sonja works, but the chemistry between the two of them and Viktor is even better. I love seeing Nighy get a bigger role in one of these films because he seems to love making them. Viktor is way over the top in the best way possible, yelling and screaming and being a generally fierce antagonist. If you loved him in the first movie like I did then you'll really love seeing him throughout this whole film.

I wish I could say the action was as good as in the first two films. While it is, from a gore perspective, it's all shot way too close and it's hard to tell what's going on half the time. There's even a fight near the end of the film that takes place during a lightning storm and the flashing lights mixed with the close up shots make it pretty much impossible to see anything. They also use some effects more than once and that sort of cheapens them a bit. It's all still on a much lower budget than it wants to be but it does an okay job making up for it. They just could have done a better job staging everything and getting the camera in the right place.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews The Devil Inside (2012)

Posted by Sploich on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 in Film Review

Twenty years after her mother murdered several members of the cloth during her own exorcism, Isabella Rossi (Fernanda Andrade) decides to bring a film crew (namely one camera man, Michael (Ionut Grama)) to Italy and see if she can perform another exorcism on her mother. She inducts the help of Fathers Rawlings (Simon Quarterman) and Keane (Evan Helmuth) who work outside the Catholic church's endorsement.

I don't really understand this film. It sells itself as being legitimate, even going as far as to give a website right before the credits for "more information." But then it goes on to show all the people who worked on the film, including the actors. I understand trying to engage the audience through the illusion of realism but even if I do take it as a real thing, I still don't understand the point of it. The filmmakers seem to have a very negative view of the Catholic church, but considering the subject matter I don't really understand their motivation. If this were actual footage then it would make sense but I know it's a screenplay they're working from so there motives don't really work.

Two or three exorcisms are performed, but they are relatively brief and really show off how low the budget was for the film. I wouldn't say the rest of the film is boring exactly, but it's definitely forgettable. I like the twist the film takes after they perform the exorcism on Isabella's mother Maria (Suzan Crowley), but then the movie stops early and doesn't give us much reason to care about what happened. If they had spent less time preparing us for the mediocre exorcism of the mother and focused more on what happens after, this could have been a very interesting and possibly even memorable film. As is though, it's just a standard, dull horror flick that's only worth checking out if you literally have nothing better to do.

Final Verdict:

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Zombieland (2009)

Posted by Sploich on Monday, 14 May 2012 in Film Review

It's a zombie apocalypse and while some are, well, dead, the rest are surviving the only way they know how: Taking in the pure joy of slaughtering the walking dead. Known only by their native cities, Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) are on a journey across California on their way to anywhere that isn't full of zombies.

I feel like I've made this point plenty of times before but I am not a fan of zombies. I feel like the exist solely for the purpose of making gory horror films. Apparently the makers of Zombieland feel that way too and have fully embraced the concept. And I guess in a way that works but it's still not enough to get me to care. There are some elements to the film that I really like but that feel like they would have worked better in something that took itself a little more seriously. Columbus has a set of rules for survival and one of the main ones is to "enjoy the little things." That's a good rule to have that situation, but when they're having just as much fun fighting off zombies as they are doing anything else, the rule sort of becomes pointless.

Most of the fun of the movie comes from the killing of zombies, which again I just don't care for myself. To me, zombies are no better than storm troopers. They're just mindless, soulless, nameless targets and I have no investment in their killing. That being said, when you can at least make the kills entertaining in a way other than just slaughtering them, it can work. And in the third act of this movie it does work. It takes place in an amusement park and they're killing the zombies while riding the rides. That works. I just wish it hadn't taken until the end to have it work. For the rest of the movie it's just not all that funny or exciting to me.

And on that note, there is a major difference, especially in a film like this, between killing off zombies and murdering living people. If somebody gets eaten by a zombie that's fine, but when a living person is killed in some way by another living person, and it's played up for laughs, I just find that to be mean-spirited. This is done only a couple times in the film and it feels really awkward, like we're supposed to be laughing at a human being being scraped across the pavement. The second time it happens it could have worked much better if there was some sort of emotion put into the scene, but it's just like "Oh, you killed a living person. That kinda sucks." It's not funny just because it happened, you have to back it up and keep the scene going too.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Scary Movie (2000)

Posted by Sploich on Sunday, 13 May 2012 in Film Review

Scary Movie has to be the single greatest idea in the history of cinema. Let's take a movie that was a self-aware comedy and make a self-aware comedy referencing it! Genius! Yeah, I don't know what brought this film to fruition but it sort of hurts my "there are no bad ideas" philosophy.

The movie is a parody of Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, The Matrix for some reason and a bunch of other movies from the year or two before it came out. Anna Faris plays Cindy Campbell, a teenager whose friends start getting killed off by the Ghost Face killer from Scream. It's basically the exact plot of Scream, beat for beat, with a few jokes thrown in here and there.

I do find it kind of funny that Faris' performance in this is actually more entertaining than Neve Campbell's (gah, I just got the reference in Faris' character's name) in the Scream series. She's the highlight of the film because her comedy is the most subtle, with her constant screaming at every little plot twist and how she runs like a complete idiot. She's the only strong comedian among a bunch of generally annoying people acting out a very lazy and mostly unfunny screenplay. It's bad enough that the movie feels like they took the script from Scream and just altered it a little bit, but they even go as far as to flat-out say that it's the same dialogue as in Scream at one point. It's a terrifying look into the future of the franchise, with two of the writers going off to do Date Movie and the ungodly Meet the Spartans (they even sold Date Movie as being "from two of the writers of Scary Movie").

Most of the humor is forced and extremely juvenile. One character's entire gag is that he just gets high throughout the whole movie and another's is that he may or may not be gay. Some of the jokes work well at first but by the fifth time they shove them in your face it just gets old. If you thought it was odd that I said Faris' part as being "the most subtle" of the film when I described it earlier, trust me, I was being serious. There's nobody in the movie that stands out to me as just being completely and utterly annoying like, say, Matthew Lillard was in Scream, but there's just this overall feeling that the movie was scrictly made for the fun of it. And I'm okay with that but I'm a film critic and I have to say that what they came up with is only fun for them.

...

1 Comment Continue reading

Top 5 Movies from 10 Years Ago That Need Reboots

Posted by Sploich on Sunday, 13 May 2012 in Top # Lists

I've heard a lot of people complaining about remakes these days, and this year especially with the reboot of Spider-Man. Personally, The Amazing Spider-Man is one of my most anticipated movies of this summer. My philosophy is that there's no such thing as a bad idea, only a bad movie. And maybe it will be a bad movie, but that's no reason to bash it for existing. Just don't give it money!

But I digress. With the new Spider-Man movie coming out, and having just watched and reviewed Scream 4, I've started to wonder what other recent movies could actually work with a slight update. So here's a list of the top five movies from around ten years ago that could use remakes, reboots or at least some resurfacing.

5. Atlantis: The Lost Empire

Fun Fact: This was a Joss Whedon project. Maybe that's why I don't like it, but I see the potential. With Disney trying bigger action movies like John Carter (okay, bad example), it'd be interesting to see them do a live-action remake of this film. But this time around maybe the villain's goal could be a little more understandable and less generic and mindless. You could still have some of the same characters in there, but it'd be nice to see what else they could come up with. Just make it a really cool family-friendly action-adventure with big special effects and a little bit more heart behind it.

...

3 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Scream 4 (2011)

Posted by Sploich on Saturday, 12 May 2012 in Film Review

Years after the Woodsboro murders have finally ceased, Sidney (Neve Campbell) has decided to come home for a book signing. But her return also brings the return of the Ghost Face killer, and it's up to Sidney, Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) and now-Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) to protect Sidney's family.

So we're back with a fourth installment to the Scream "trilogy," and it doesn't seem to know what to call itself. Sequel? Reboot? Remake? It can't keep its story straight. Whatever the case, we're back to constant name-dropping and references to other horror franchises. I get that it's the point of the movies, but just referencing movies doesn't make you witty or insightful. It makes you look like a pretentious film snob. Luckily the movie makes up for it by adapting to the new decade rather well, with plenty more blood, a higher body count and a story that's actually really disturbing.

Of course I hate spoilers, so it's going to be hard for me to explain exactly why, but the ending of this film is far darker than the first three films. It's the first in the series where the psychotic killer actually seems legitimately psychotic and not like an actor overdoing it. But that also feeds into the biggest problem of the film where it doesn't know if it wants to be overly campy or realistic.There's a scene where a character gets a kill that would immediately kill a real person, but they drag it out for laughs. The joke actually works really well, but then they follow it up shortly after with somebody being stabbed and somebody explaining how "it's not fast like in the movies." Well, you clearly pointed out that this is a movie. So which is it? Make up your mind!

Really, if it wasn't for the ending this movie would feel almost identical to the originals. The kills are just a bunch of stabs like in the first two and I'm never given a reason to care about most of the deaths. But the ending pulls out some big guns and brings out a lot of bizarre psychological drama that was missing in the first films due to bad acting and shoddy writing. Not that this is lacking in both of those qualities, but it works better than it used to. I'd suggest Scream 4 to anybody who saw the original films. If you didn't like the originals, then this is a movie that you might enjoy or you might not, but either way it's interesting to see it. If you did like the originals then of course you're going to like this one because it's the same exact thing, just newer.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Scream 3 (2000)

Posted by Sploich on Saturday, 12 May 2012 in Film Review

While working on Stab 3, the Ghost Face killer rises again, seeking out Sidney (Neve Campbell) once again. With the help of Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) and Officer Dewey (David Arquette), she has to stop the murders again and solve the true mystery of her mother's death.

This is still the same basic crap from the first two, but there is a bit of a twist to it. Being the third in the series, and possibly the last when it was made, they seemed to have a better sense of humor about themselves this time around. Instead of constantly reminding you of better movies you could be watching, it actually makes fun of its own franchise. It's more apparent than ever that We Anderson isn't out to make a good movie as much as he is out to make a fun movie. This time we get a lot more than just stabbing. There are several kills that at the very least mix things up a bit, so by that account alone it's better than the first two.

But while it is funnier than the previous films and a little bit more interesting with its kills, it's also got a lot of drawn-out and boring moments to it. Where the first movie has some pretty classic moments in it and the second has at least some artistic stuff that I did appreciate, this is more of a film that I enjoy while watching it but completely forget about after having done so. Even right now I'm just grasping at memories of the film I just watched, trying to string together a coherent opinion on it.

The story is a lot more involved and a bit deeper than the previous films, but the way things end up in the end is pointless and stupid. It sort of feels like they came up with the rules for a horror film (which they again feel the need to spell out for the audience) and just lazily put together a story to meet the demands. It's not that it's not interesting to follow but it certainly isn't shocking or even memorable. I ultimately doesn't mean anything and doesn't really change much of anything about the series, other than a motive or two.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Scream 2 (1997)

Posted by Sploich on Saturday, 12 May 2012 in Film Review

I really don't have a lot to say about this one so I'm going to be very brief. I guess I need to explain the plot, of which there is none. After the release of a movie based on the events that took place in the first Scream, Sidney (Neve Campbell) is having to deal with a copycat murderer on her college campus. She also has to deal with Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) getting in her way and the newly released from death row Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber).

This movie is beyond lazy. It straight up tells you that it's going to be a worse movie than the first, and as far as quality goes that's definitely true. This movie pulls the number one thing you cannot pull in a horror film which is to be utterly boring and slow-paced. There are very few kills and they are spaced out quite a bit. The people who get killed have even less emotion behind them than in the first movie so I never really care when any of them get it. Some people are only on screen long enough to explain why they exist in the movie before being killed and not fulfilling that existence.

And again, my biggest problem with the first was that these movies do not know whether they want to be legitimate horror films or if they want to just make fun of horror films. At least in this one you have a lot less talk about movies, especially in the third act. There is a little bit more subtlety in some of the referencing and there's actually one scene that I genuinely liked, but mostly it's just a boring guy stabbing a couple people just like the first.

That's really the biggest problem. I feel like the main point of the Scream movies is actually to take those clichés and tropes that it's mentioning and make a better movie. It's smug and it's pretentious, and what's worse is that it fails on every level. It feeds into its own clichés and becomes what it is making fun of. If that's the purpose then it's not something I want to see and if it's not the purpose then they are failing. It's basically a series of movies that tell you to go watch better movies.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Underworld: Evolution (2006)

Posted by Sploich on Friday, 11 May 2012 in Film Review

Selene (Kate Beckinsale) and Michael (Scott Speedman) are back, this time with a much bigger foe to defeat. The war has amped up with the awakening of Marcus (Tony Curran), the first vampire. He is on a mission to wake his brother William (Brian Steele), the first lycan, and it's up to our two heroes to stop him.

With this sequel comes a much bigger budget, allowing for much more action, a lot more lycans and even a better story. I was pretty scared when I saw the opening completely retcon the entire first film, with the war now having started over 750 years ago with the first of each species. But the way it plays it far more than makes up for it. We get a lot more character development for Selene this time around and learn a little bit more about her past. The mythos feels a lot more established this time around and that helps to make things a little more interesting.

Marcus is a much more formidable foe than Viktor in the last film. Being the first of the vampires, he has a bat-like look to him when he transforms. It's a really nice makeup job that creates an original looking character. There's also a lot more drama that comes along, with Selene and Michael getting deeper into their own relationship. It's like the exact opposite of Romeo and Juliet because they're both immortal. I think what I like most about these films, and this one especially, is that despite being incredibly blatant and over-the-top for most things, there are little character elements and moments that are very subtle and at times can be very emotional.

That being said, the one big problem I have with this movie is how blatant it is about some things. There are a lot of flashbacks, which are explained through "blood memories" and I can buy that, but it's used for exposition into the previous film for a lot of the first act of the film. I never really feel like that's a good way to introduce newcomers to a franchise. They should have watched the first one, especially in a story that continues immediately from the last like this one, and even if you really are desperate for newcomers then why can't you be more subtle about it? Have characters mention little things or even just look at a photograph or something. Audiences can pick up on that sort of thing really well. Plenty of people do it every week watching television.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Underworld (2003)

Posted by Sploich on Friday, 11 May 2012 in Film Review

In a war between vampires and lycans (werewolves), Selene (Kate Beckinsale) has always fought on the side of her vampire brethren. But after meeting Michael (Scott Speedman), a human who has recently been bitten by a werewolf, she begins to wonder which side she really wants to fight for.

I've avoided these movies for a very long time now because they just haven't looked all that interesting to me. I love vampires and I especially love werewolves but the trailers for these movies have always made them look incredibly bland and straight-to-video-ish. But now that I've actually watched the first, I have to say I was rather entertained. This is by no means a well-produced film of course. The effects are really terrible and the action scenes balance between boring and ridiulous, but the story is actually kind of interesting. It's pretty generic when you get to the base of it (heck, it's practically Avatar in more than one way), but the element of vampires, werewolves, and the possibility of them combining in some genetic way is incredibly cool. The way that plays out is kind of a letdown as far as visuals go but the journey there is more enjoyable than I expected.

I do have to admit that about half of the enjoyment (if not a bit more) comes from the terrible production of the film. It bounces in and out of the "so bad it's good" territory with punches missing by a mile and some completely ludicrous moments in the action that I couldn't help but laugh at how awesome they were. It took a while to get to those moments though as I found the first half of the film to be kind of boring. There are a couple moments here and there that were bizarrely hilarious, and I do like how the story developed in hindsight, but for the most part I just didn't find myself caring about any of the characters until about halfway through. They all went from being boring and generic to being interesting and, in some cases, even pretty emotional by the end.

Underworld feels like an Asylum movie with a slightly bigger budget and a group of people who actually care about what they're doing. I didn't realize there were several recognizable names involved until the credits began to roll, mostly because the acting was about what you'd expect once you see the production quality of the film. It's still not really something I'd recommend you go out and hunt down immediately but if a friend asks you if you've ever seen it, and you haven't, let your friend show it to you. It'll be fun whether you genuinely enjoy it or riff it the whole time.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Dark Shadows (2012)

Posted by Sploich on Friday, 11 May 2012 in Film Review

In the late 1700s, wealthy businessman Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp) is turned into a vampire and his family cursed by a witch (Eva Green) until Barnabas learns to love her. He is buried and then unearthed in 1972 and must adjust to life in the new century while rebuilding his family name.

I don't feel like I'm in a minority when I say that I've never seen the original Dark Shadows soap opera upon which this movie is based. Apparently I am in somewhat of a minority in saying that I'd never even heard of it before this film was announced. And it would seem the people marketing this film knew about people like me because they sold it as being somewhat different than what it actually is. They've been selling it as a "Saving the Club" kind of movie when it's really more about Barnabas and his wanting to rid himself and his family of their curse. In this sense it's much better story-wise than the trailers let on, but it's also very unbalanced and a little tiring near the end.

For the most part, the movie rolls along pretty fluidly. The beginning feels a little rushed, just to get backstory out of the way, but then it keeps a steady pace. Around the beginning of the third act it suddenly takes a very dark turn and then another dark turn and rushes into the climax, only to have the climax be very confusing and rushed. From what I can only assume, it seems that they were trying to fit a lot of plot lines from the show into the film all at once. There are a couple moments that are probably more amusing to people who watched the show, and from what I could gather they were kind of amusing to me as well, but it felt like if they wanted to throw these things into the movie they could have been handled better. It feels like the movie had its fun with its own stuff, but then realized it was an adaptation and decided to throw all of that stuff in too without having it mix well with the rest.

The Collins family is made up of Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer), Roger (Jonny Lee Miller), Carolyn (Chloë Grace Moretz), David (Gulliver McGrath), the live-in psychiatrist Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter) and groundskeeper Willie Loomis (Jackie Earle Haley). The movie doesn't spend a whole lot of time with any of them, spending most of its time on the relationship between Barnabas and Angelique (the witch). But we are given enough time with the family to care about them and at least stay interested in them being in the story, which is more than I can say for the main love interest, Victoria Winters (Bella Heathcote). Barnabas has two love interests in film, one who dies in the backstory without giving us any reason to care about her other than the fact that Barnabas cares about her, and Victoria who has pretty much the exact same treatment. I find it funny how, being set in the 70s, the film makes several references to the women's rights movement and yet the love interest has absolutely no personality of her own. She is given her own backstory but it's really not all that interesting. It's also just shoved in as a way to show why she and Barnabas belong together.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Scream (1996)

Posted by Sploich on Thursday, 10 May 2012 in Film Review

Even if you've never seen a slasher in your life, you know the formula. They're so overplayed that just about anybody could make one, and it's usually the first type of movie a filmmaker sets out to make. Enter director Wes Craven, who made his name creating one of the most prominent horror franchises of all time with A Nightmare on Elm Street. In the 90s he got the bright idea to make a pseudo-parody of the slasher genre, but in making Scream he ended up just making a slasher that is so lazy that it tells you how bad it's going to be.

I don't really know how to explain the plot of this movie because there really isn't a plot to it. A killer comes in and starts killing a bunch of kids. It stars Neve Campbell, Skeet Ulrich, Rose McGowan, Matthew Lillard, Jamie Kennedy, Courtney Cox and David Arquette. The catch is that it is a completely self-aware film, with characters constantly referring to other movies and how cliché everything is in horror films. But the movie itself does a lot of these clichés. And I get that this is sort of the point, but why would you set out to make a bad movie? For nostalgia? Watch the old movie. Rerelease it. If you make a movie that is intentionally bad, you can't possibly have a movie that is more than "bad."

If the movie actually tried to break more rules than it does then it might have been more interesting. Instead they opt to only break some of the rules and keep others in tact, making it so you don't know which ones are going to be broken and which ones aren't. Okay, that could work, but then you throw in the other cliché where every actor is awful. I don't know if this was intentional but it doesn't feel like it. It feels like the actors really are just bad and it makes guessing who the killer is incredibly easy. Well, that and the fact that they basically explain it right out to you. They never make it hard to figure out what's going on and seem to ignore a lot of rules of slashers. For instance, at one point a character labels himself a suspect. But because the scene is filmed in a way that doesn't make him suspicious at all, you know it can't be him now. That and they don't really give you a whole lot of options on who it could be.

But maybe solving the mystery isn't really the point. Maybe it's all about the endgame and how things play out once you've had the big reveal. Once you get to this point, once the killer has revealed himself, the movie just stops caring. It explains straight up to you that it is lazy and that it's taking the lazy way out. Ultimately there is no purpose to this film and it rubs this in your face at the end.It's just Wes Craven's smugness on screen for two hours (yeah, why did this have to be two hours again?). We get it, you like horror films. We don't need you gloating about your knowledge of them on screen. And really I wouldn't even have a problem with that if he had actually made a good horror film.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Batman & Robin (1997)

Posted by Sploich on Wednesday, 09 May 2012 in Film Review

Batman comes back for a quadrilogy, this time played by George Clooney as he battles Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman). But as these new threats arise, so does one at home as Bruce Wayne's butler Alfred (Michael Gough) becomes ill. It's up to the Caped Crusader, Robin (Chris O'Donnell) and Alfred's niece Barbara (Alicia Silverstone) to stop the villains and try to find a cure for their friend.

Let's get one thing straight right off the bat: This is not a good movie. This is one of those rare reviews that reminds you to always be aware of the fact that I do not review movies based on their quality but on my own person enjoyment. And I really enjoy watching this movie. It takes itself much less seriously than Batman Forever and it actually helps to make it more entertaining. Nobody involved in this project seems to care at all. They all look like they're just having a fun time making a Batman movie and they don't care if it turns out to be crap. Clooney especially keeps a grin on his face through the entire thing as if they're holding his paycheck right of screen. He never acts for a single moment as if he took the job for any other reason than the fact that he couldn't turn down playing Batman. That being said, I for one thing he should have been playing Batman from the start, but that's beside the point.

The point is that this movie has a very bad script made incredibly entertaining by bad direction, bad production and very bad acting. Schwarzenegger tries way too hard and yet doesn't seem to be trying at all, which is both confusing and hilarious. Thurman really hams it up and has fun with her role, but she's the worst thing about the film for those very reasons. All of her dialogue is over the top, clichéd lines that feel like they're more out of a really bad stage show than a movie where subtlety is key. But nothing about this movie is subtle and that's one of the reasons it's so fun to watch.

But as awful as most of the movie is, I honestly have to say that this is the only Batman movie of its series that actually has some really emotional moments with Bruce Wayne. He and Alfred have a couple of scenes together that build on their relationship in a way that none of the other films ever touched upon and I'd be lying if I didn't admit that it works really well. It's the only of the films to actually give Bruce more than just a vague brooding past. It allows him to be human and more than just the other half of Batman.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Batman Forever (1995)

Posted by Sploich on Tuesday, 08 May 2012 in Film Review

Batman (Val Kilmer returns, again, this time to fight Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones and Riddler (Jim Carrey). They've come up with a plan to steal the thoughts of everyone in Gotham and to find out who the man is behind the bat cowl. But this isn't the only problem for Bruce Wayne has taken in Dick Grayson (Chris O'Donnell), a boy who lost his parents in a horrible accident, and his identities begin to clash.

This movie takes a huge turn from Batman Returns, going for a much campier, lighter feeling akin to the Batman television series from the 1960s. In fact, it feels exactly like a modernized version of that. Even Kilmer's performance as Batman is almost identical to Adam West. But where that show was intentionally goofy and able to pull it off really well, this movie is only intentionally goofy half of the time. The other half is spend brooding and trying to develop a serious psychological story but ultimately being able to come up with nothing. It is pure agony having to sit through any point in this film where the villains are not on screen, hamming it up big time. But it's even worse when they are on screen.

Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones have never been this annoying. I like both of these actors, and you can tell they're having fun with this project, but their fun is my pain. They are not funny and their characters are very poorly written. Their plan is incredibly convoluted and the way it plays out makes absolutely no sense. It all feels so contrived. The heroes never seem to be in danger and every death is met with apathy. There is absolutely no emotion when Dick Grayson's parents die, partly because the scene is done so poorly and partly because Chris O'Donnell is such a terrible actor. The way the villains are dealt with in the end completely contradicts the entire point of both Batman and Robin as characters.

This is also an incredibly ugly film. About half of the movie is filmed at an angle and all of it is filmed at awkward distances. Every action scene is filmed too close, making it impossible to see what's going on, and the staging of every scene in the film is completely lacking of professionalism. It feels like a Batman movie made by a student filmmaker who doesn't understand a thing about Batman.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Batman Returns (1992)

Posted by Sploich on Monday, 07 May 2012 in Film Review

Batman (Michael Keaton) returns indeed, and just in time too because a new threat has surfaced. A malformed man known as Penguin (Danny DeVito) has risen from the sewers of Gotham and has plans to take over the city to avenge the way it has treated him. With this also comes Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer), better known as Catwoman, as she becomes another road block in both Batman and Bruce Wayne's lives.

It's funny how pretty much all of the things I said I didn't like about the first Batman movie are the things that I loved about the second. This time around the villains are unapologetically the main focus of the film, but it works because the characters are actually defined with their own backstories and motivations. Penguin was abandoned as a child and wants revenge. Catwoman is less straightforward but her problem is that she's gone insane. That's actually probably my biggest complaint about the film, that the way Selina Kyle becomes Catwoman doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. But the way it plays out from then on, watching her slip more and more into madness and never understanding what her own goals are, works really well into the Batman mythos.

Danny DeVito gives possibly the best performance of his life in this movie, with the help of Stan Winston's amazing makeup for the character. Just like the story, it's gritty and slightly disturbing to watch, but Penguin is also the biggest comic relief of the film and has some great lines. He's a much more interesting take on a Batman villain than Joker was. It's also a much bigger change than from the comics but it works very well.

As I said, the story is much darker this time around, but that's because it's a lot more emotional and has much more character development. The first felt like a big budget action movie while this feels like a big budget action character piece. The endgame is also much more important the story, with Penguin plotting the whole time. The stakes feel a lot higher than they did throughout the first film and it's not just a villain moping about a superhero spoiling all his plans. Penguin actually does a much better job at getting things done and manipulating the people. And most importantly, Batman feels important to the story. Batman, Penguin and Catwoman all have similar traits that play off each other throughout the film and help you sympathize with all of them. It plays the psychological angle in a subtle and deep way.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Batman (1989)

Posted by Sploich on Monday, 07 May 2012 in Film Review

This movie means a lot to me. Batman is actually the movie that got me interested in film, way back in 2003. It's the first movie where upon watching it my jaw dropped and I had to find out who had directed it. Upon watching it again now and setting aside nostalgia, I really can't say that it's as great as I once though. Or, for that matter, that it's even a good movie at all.

The story introduces Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) and his alter ego Batman as he tries to stop the Joker (Jack Nicholson) from causing chaos in Gotham City. Along the way he becomes entranced by photographer Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger) who also meets the eye of Joker. The two battle through the city as it celebrates its 200th anniversary.

Now, there are two major problems I have with the film and one of them is the way they use the title character, Batman. Batman gets very little screen time with most of the film focusing on Bruce Wayne, and that's not just normal for a Batman story but its essential. This movie tries to find a balance between the psychological side of Batman and the fact that the reputation of Batman has been altered through time to focus much more on his rogue's gallery. The problem with this is that we see Joker way more than we should or need to and it takes away from Batman being the title character. The worst offense though is the fact that Batman is on an all-out killing spree throughout this movie. He's just knocking off thugs left and right, despite the fact that one of the most important things about Batman as a character is that he does not kill. Okay, so maybe they decided to come up with their own Batman for the movie? Well that's fine I guess, but I really don't like what they did. He comes off as cold-hearted and apathetic. He's out for revenge rather than vengeance, and that just doesn't work for me.

Joker is done better, although they do the same thing with him that they do with Batman. You only see him in his "makeup" very little while most of the time it's just Jack Nicholson's mug on screen. They found a way to keep both character's faces uncovered for as much of the runtime as possible, something that was obviously in their contracts and something that many people have since done when it comes to masks in films. It's a very annoying practice, especially when you want to see the character you came to see instead of the actor portraying him. Nicholson does a good job with what he's given though and I do like their version of Joker. He's much more laid back than most but he's still obviously psychotic and crazy. It just feels a little forced and I don't feel like we needed the backstory so much.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Sploich Reviews Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Posted by Sploich on Sunday, 06 May 2012 in Film Review

We all know the story of Alice in Wonderland, but this isn't that story. This is the story of what happened many years after that. When doing a sequel to such an established work, it would really work better if it kept the same tone and got its facts straight. And even if this movie was more faithful to the original stories, it's still far too boring to matter.

Alice (Mia Wasikowska) has stumbled back into Underland many years later, but things are not as she remembers. In fact, she doesn't remember having been there before at all. Despite this, the citizens of Underland need her to come to her senses and help them defeat the wicket Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and bring the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) back to power.

I am a huge fan of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but what I love the most about the books is that they intentionally make no sense. The whole point of them was that there was no point, that they were strictly for entertainment. Sadly over time people have forgotten this and feel they need to make sense of everything. And even that can work sometimes if given the proper script and the proper director. But this movie, as I stated, is not the original story. It's a sequel to those stories, and as such it should keep things more accurate to the book. But what they do is they have Alice forget things and remember them wrong, allowing them to do whatever they want because they can just use the excuse that Alice remembered it wrong in the stories. And even that I can almost accept, but the movie takes itself far too seriously. Everything is so moody and serious and it just is not right for Wonderland (and as I pointed out a moment ago, they even changed the name of the place, using that same excuse).

I never thought director Tim Burton was right for this story. I have never understood why people thought that was a good idea because his stories aren't crazy and all over the place. They're confined and sensible, even when they're being dark and silly. I will admit that the visuals are pretty nice, but they're not up to Burton's standards. It doesn't look like a Tim Burton film and it certainly doesn't feel like one. It feels as though there was a ton of meddling from the producers trying to make it as acceptable to mainstream audiences as possible while ending up making it bland and lifeless. Even the credits feel far too much like everything else out there, and completely different from who Burton normally does his films. It's a lot like Planet of the Apes in that way, how it just feels like he either didn't care or he wasn't allowed to care.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

The Champ (1931)

Posted by Sploich on Saturday, 04 February 2012 in Film Review

It's been a few years since he lost the big championship fight, but The Champ (Wallace Beery) and his son Dink (Jackie Cooper) are doing their best to struggle through life. But when Dink's mother discovers the two of them pretty much slumming it, she tries to reason with The Champ and give Dink a better home. And while he protests at first, The Champ starts to realize that his problems with alcohol and gambling could be good enough reason to give up his boy to a good home.

Not including the Superman movies of course, this is my first encounter with little Jackie Cooper, and he has to be the greatest child actor I've ever seen. He's incredibly charming but he's also able to nail the more emotional scenes perfectly. And he has plenty of those to show off his talents here. It's made even better when he has a talent like Beery to play off. The father/son relationship between the two is great to watch, with Dink standing by his father even when he's at his lowest and his father trying his hardest to be a good father.

While it did sort of bother me while watching it, the message of the son always going back to his dead-beat dad who isn't taking well enough care of him, the message of family is much stronger and ultimately overrules any possibly questionable morality or judgement from the characters. On a technical side, however, I can fault the movie in that it used a lot of really lame tricks like speeding up the film during some scenes, making for awkward action like during a boxing match and a horse race. I mean, these were normal practices for the time but I never really understood it. It just makes things look weird and unnatural and really takes you out of the movie for a bit. The boxing match at the end is especially harmed by this in that it takes away a lot of the tension in the action. That being said though, the ending is still really great, with things turning out about the way you would expect them to, in a good way.

The Champ is a movie with a dime-a-dozen story that's made exponentially better by the two leads, Beery and Cooper. Their interactions are what make the movie, and they're both worth the price of admission, as it were.

...

4 Comments Continue reading

Viva Villa! (1934)

Posted by Sploich on Saturday, 04 February 2012 in Film Review

Viva Villa! is the semi-fictional biopic of Pancho Villa (Wallace Beery), the man who led the people of Mexico to victory during the Mexican Revolution of the late 19th century. It's an interesting tale of a bandit, led down this path by his oppressive government, turning a new leaf toward peace in the name of freedom for the people. What is really is though is a love letter to a murderer, and I'm not exactly sure how I feel about that.

Pancho is portrayed in the film as a lovable bandit. He steals from people, raises hell and kills anybody who gets in his way, but it's all played up like a Disney film with cheerful music and patriotic themes. It's a little uncomfortable to watch and think that Mexico would be perfectly fine with them being portrayed as having followed such a terrible person in such a light manner. But once you strip away the Realist mindset, I have to admit that Beery's portrayal of Pancho is kind of charming. They make him seem like a really lovable guy who only wanted what was best for his people, but that he just had really rough ways of going about getting that peace. They only sort of go into the morality of what he's doing and spend most of the time glorifying him as a hero no matter how he led his armies.

I can understand this kind of movie being made, and it is a fun movie to watch, but it's almost like if they were to make a musical based on the life of Andrew Jackson (oh wait, that did happen). I understand that it was a revolution and as such it sort of necessarily had to get bloody in order to fight against the resisting military force in charge, but they make a point in the film that what Pancho is doing is wrong while at the same time trying to get the audience to root for him while he does it. The messages just feel a little mixed and awkward to me.

But again, the movie is enjoyable for Beery's performance alone. In his private life, they portray Pancho as a caring man who really does care for his friends, and these scenes are where the film really shines. He's kind to his men, kinder to his friends, and really admires the leader of the revolution, Francisco Madero (Henry B. Walthall). After Madero's assassination (it's not really a spoiler if it happened in real life), you understand and feel Pancho's pain and loss, and it does make sense that he would do what he ends up doing. As a character, Pancho is thoroughly entertaining to watch. As a person in real life, well, I'd have to read up more on him to understand who we're truly dealing with.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

The Treasure of the Sierre Madre (1948)

Posted by Sploich on Friday, 03 February 2012 in Film Review

Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart), Howard (Walter Huston) and Curtin (Tim Holt) are three down-and-out men looking for a profit when they decide to go looking for gold. The three of them set out into the mountains of Mexico to find their fortunes, but along the way they have to deal with bandits, tag-alongs, wild beasts and worst of all: Their own greed.

I don't believe I've actually seen a whole lot of Humphrey Bogart films in my time but this is certainly a change of pace from something like Casablanca. Dobbs is a corrupt, weak, devious man who is most easily tempted by the harsh wilderness and high stakes at hand while panning for gold. He gives a performance that I would call "outstanding" if he wasn't up against two actors who I'd give the same label to. Huston sadly passed only a short while after making this film, but it was a great mark to be made so late in his life. And Holt is great as the much more level headed of the two younger miners. I thought it was great watching Dobbs and Curtin go at each other, with Dobbs constantly worrying about his share of the loot and Curtin being more sensible and trusting of the others. Meanwhile Howard is just an old man out for some fun, not caring if he gets even an ounce of gold in the end.

It's interesting getting into the minds of three very different people and how they handle their situation. At first I was wondering if it would just end up with all three of the characters fighting over their shares, with a message about how greed is bad. But the message is more about how greed can take ahold of somebody and push them to limits that others would never dare to go. Dodd starts to really break down as the story goes along, and it's nice to see Curtin along with him contrasting this rather than giving in to it himself. Add to this some rather intense moments with the bandits and some decent gunplay and you have a pretty solid flick.

The Treasure of the Sierre Madre is easily one of the best movies I have ever seen. It's a must for just about anyone, although I can't imagine any woman I know sitting through it. It's worth a watch if only for Bogart's performance, or to finally hear how that "We don't need no stinking badges" line actually plays out in the movie. The payoff for that line is so much better than I was expecting.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

49th Parallel (1941)

Posted by Sploich on Friday, 03 February 2012 in Film Review

It begins with a mission: A group of six Nazi soldiers land on the shores of Nova Scotia as scouts before bringing in the whole army to attack over the Canadian/American border. But Canada spots the submarine and takes it out, leaving the six soldiers to continue on alone. We follow the group as they head down to the border through a series of different settings, all unwelcome to the Nazi intruders and all ready and rearing to stop the force from the Third Reich.

The story leads us along with the German soldiers as they encounter all sorts of people living in Canada, free from oppression and proud of that fact. As they go along, still trying to succeed in their mission, each of them is lost along the way one-by-one, in one way or another. Ultimately, the message is not only one of empowerment to the people fighting against the Nazi regime. It also shows the drastic differences between our ways of thinking, the differences between Socialism and Democracy, and explains in a very profound way exactly why the German way of doing things at the time was ultimately going to fail. The movie is a really fascinating bit of propaganda, and an effective one at that.

I think the most interesting thing about it is that it doesn't hold back at all. There are some really brutal, uncomfortable scenes in this movie, ever building your hatred for the monstrous antagonists at hand. What's really great is that it doesn't just blindly say "Nazis bad, Canadians good," it really does explain not only how much better the Western way of life is but how much better life was in Germany before things turned sour. In other words, it doesn't portray Germans as the enemies; it portrays bullies as the enemies, or "gangsters" as they call them throughout the movie.

This was emphasized to great effect in a portion where the troops fall into a commune made up of German immigrants living under a Democratic system. The Nazis are confused by ideas such as people choosing their own jobs and spending their own money. Specifically within this section, there are two contrasting speeches back-to-back in which the Nazi leader Bernsdorff (Richard George) tries to recruit the commune to help him and they return with an enthusiastic "Yeah, that's not gonna happen."

...

0 Comments Continue reading

Johnny Belinda (1948)

Posted by Sploich on Friday, 03 February 2012 in Film Review

Dr. Robert Richardson (Lew Ayres) has just recently taken over for a doctor in a small town in Nova Scotia when he meets a young deaf woman named Belinda (Jane Wyman). He bring it upon himself to teach her how to communicate with people, but when the girl is one night attacked by a man and later turns out to be pregnant, the townsfolk begin to think the doctor is taking advantage of the handicapped girl.

Jane Wyman is fantastic in this movie. She plays Belinda as an intelligent young woman whose only problem is that she can't hear. She never has a single line in the entire film but she's still able to bring forth a ton of emotions. You can tell that things are harder for her but she's a strong enough character to push through, even after really terrible things start happening to her. I like that even before the doctor begins teaching her, her father has developed his own way for her to as least get chores done around the farm. They do a great job developing the relationship between Belinda and her father, although something happens later in the film that undermines that a bit.

Stephen McNally plays Locky McCormick, the man who attacks Belinda, and while he's not exactly a developed villain, he serves his purpose extremely well. From the moment this guy first showed up on screen I began despising him. He's such a sleazy, evil jerk, and the things he does in this movie are just despicable. Unfortunately the payoff in the end isn't as satisfying as I was hoping, but there is a payoff that could have been made better. The thing is, there's one thing he does that it is absolutely inexcusable, but I feel like he just sort of got away with it in the end and it's still bugging me.

If you've seen Johnny Belinda, I'd be curious to know what you think of this, but near the end of the movie I started thinking that I really want to see this remade by somebody like the Coen Brothers. I know it's not exactly their normal type of film but there are a lot of things about it that I'd love to see them do in their own way. This movie itself though is really great and I highly recommend it.

...

0 Comments Continue reading

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

Posted by Sploich on Thursday, 02 February 2012 in Film Review

Two years after a messy divorce, Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn) finds herself marrying the newly wealthy and famous George Kittredge (John Howard). But as the wedding is about to go off, her old husband C.K. Dexter Haven (Cary Grant) brings in reporters Macaulay "Mike" Connor (Jimmy Stewart) and Elizabeth Imbrie (Ruth Hussey) to write on the new couple's private life as a way to get himself back into Tracy's life. What's more is that Tracy finds herself that night being more friendly than she should with Mike.

Katharine Hepburn is just incredible in this film. Tracy is a very confused character who doesn't quite understand what she wants out of life. She thinks she should be treated like a goddess but she's not entirely sure she deserves it, and she seems to feel that settling with George is going to be what she needs in order to figure things out. It's great watching her interact with all three of these men who all love her but for completely different reasons, and watching them interact with her for that matter. Really, the acting all around is great, but it is Hepburn's movie and she shines brighter than the rest with her brilliant performance.

But the performances would mean nothing without the great screenplay Donald Ogden Stewart. The dialogue is quick and witty, formulating each character through every word. The love square, or whatever you want to call it, makes for a highly amusing premise and the payoff is charmingly unique.

The Philadelphia Story is great fun with a great cast, a great script and, well, it's just all around great. If you get the chance to see this one, take that chance.

...

1 Comment Continue reading

Sploich Predicts the 84th Academy Award Winners

Posted by Sploich on Friday, 27 January 2012 in Movies

Hey there, Sploich here with my final Oscar predictions for the 84th Academy Awards. I got a 56% accuracy rating on my nomination predictions so I'm hoping to get even better with my winner predictions. The thing is, this year is a bit tricky. My head and my heart are telling me several different things based on the other award ceremonies this year (not including the Golden Globes because, as I've stated before, they mean nothing) as well as the way the Academy typically votes. I'm just going to tell you now that my predictions might be a little controversial. But what do I care? They're my predictions. If I'm wrong then I'm the only one to blame. BUT ENOUGH RAMBLING! ON WITH THE PREDICTIONS!

BEST SCORE
What I Think Will Win: The Artist
What I Want To Win: The Artist*

How can the silent film NOT win Best Score? There were some really great scores this year but when it comes to memorable...War Horse wins. But if memorable scores were the ones that won this award then the score from the first Pirates of the Caribbean would have been nominated. Like it should have been. But yeah, The Artist, hands down.

BEST SONG
What I Think Will Win: "Man or Muppet" from The Muppets
What I Want To Win: "Real in Rio" from Rio

This category is very strange this year. I literally have a 50/50 chance of getting it right (hey, there's a movie that got snubbed at the Oscars this year: 50/50). I figure they'll go with the Muppet's song because, well, it's the Muppets. That and it's written by that guy from that show on HBO or Showtime or whatever that I've never watched. I'd love to see "Real in Rio" win but I'm pretty confident the Muppets will take it, and I'm perfectly okay with that.

BEST SOUND
What I Think Will Win: Hugo
What I Want To Win: Hugo*

BEST SOUND EDITING
What I Think Will Win: Hugo
What I Want To Win: Hugo*

Hugo may not have struck me the way it struck other critics, but you'd find it difficult to find a soul who doesn't praise the film for its technicals. It even got some of the most cynical, dismissive critics to admit that the 3D was great (though admittedly, I didn't see it in 3D myself, yet). Both of these could go to War Horse, or maybe even The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but I'm siding with the most marketable answer and saying Hugo takes both.

BEST FILM EDITING
What I Think Will Win: The Descendants
What I Want To Win: The Descendants

Film Editing is always an interesting category. Well, not on the surface for most people I guess, but it's one that I personally am always interested in. It really could be any of the five nominees, but I'm saying The Descendants because it just seems like more the type of film the Academy would pick. You can have your fancy gimmicks like with Hugo and The Artist, and they work great for those movies, but I like to think the thing the film editors look for is subtlety, and The Descendants is graceful, to say the least.

BEST MAKEUP
What I Think Will Win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
What I Want To Win: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2*

Did you ever realize that not a single Harry Potter film has ever won an Oscar? This is the last chance for them to give one to The Boy Who Lived and this is the perfect category to do it in. It's up against two movies that were not only not very strong with critics but movies that didn't do a whole lot with their makeup. HP, on the other hand, was tasked with creating a battlefield of sorcery, and the makeup works wonders for that goal.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
What I Think Will Win: The Artist
What I Want To Win: The Artist*

This one is really tough this time around because all five nominees have an equal shot at the Title. I might be taking a bit of a risk with this one because usually this category goes to a lesser known film like Jane Eyre or W.E. I can't imagine they would give a Roland Emmerich film an Oscar these days but they have done it before. And then there's Hugo, which could take it I guess. I dunno, I'm sticking with The Artist, for no reason other than that I just can't choose between the five.

BEST ART DIRECTION
What I Think Will Win: The Artist
What I Want To Win: The Artist*

Once again, the silent film is sort of the obvious winner just on the basis of it being a silent film. The art direction is what makes The Artist such a lovable film, and the Academy is more than likely going to award it for this.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
What I Think Will Win: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
What I Want To Win: Real Steel*

Alright, I'm being pretty bias here. You have no idea how excited I was to see Real Steel nominated in this category. I loved the hell out of that movie and totally didn't expect it to get such a lousy welcome. I know Rise is easily the most technologically advanced film in the group, with some of the most astonishing CG I have ever seen in a movie, but for my personal pick I've just got to go with the one I didn't expect to show up. Now if only my favorite movie of the year, Captain America: The First Avenger, had been nominated for anything...

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
What I Think Will Win: Hugo
What I Want To Win: The Artist

I really don't know about this one. War Horse has some beautiful cinematography, but Terrence Malick is one of those guys who could easily steal this one away. I think Hugo wins if only for that opening shot and the allegedly (again haven't seen the effect) masterful 3D work. I'd definitely like to see The Artist take it though, considering, again, that cinematography is sort of one of the major benefactors to a silent film.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
What I Think Will Win: The Descendants
What I Want To Win: The Descendants

Easily the front-runner due to its sheerly masterful pacing, humor and grace. I'm sad to see The Ides of March only got nominated in this one category, but if it belongs anywhere at the Oscars this is where it belongs. Seeing as it is the only nomination for the movie, however, it probably doesn't have a chance. I'm honestly not even sure how Hugo got in here, but that could be my own feelings on the film poking through. Meanwhile I really did not like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy but I totally understand what it's doing in this category. I just disagree. But none of that really matters because this is going to be a very easy win for The Descendants.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
What I Think Will Win: Midnight in Paris
What I Want To Win: Midnight in Paris*

I wonder if Woody Allen is going to show up this year. Anyway, this is probably the category with the most surprises, with only two of the nominees having even been on my radar for the category. It's nice to see A Separation on here as I've heard very good things about it and I'm looking forward to seeing it. But Margin Call? Really? I've heard nothing but BAD things about that movie. And then there's Bridesmaids. Ugh. If you're one of the handful of people who have been following my reviews then you know I do not like Bridesmaids. Nay, I loathe and despise it and refuse to even call it a film. Why people think this is funny, why they would think it's good writing, I will never know. Anyway, Midnight in Paris wins this one easy. I need to get off of this category before I burst a blood vessel.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
What I Think Will Win: Octavia Spencer for The Help
What I Want To Win: Bérénice Bejo for The Artist*

And I get right into another category featuring Bridesmaids. Joy. Actually I'm not at all upset with Melissa McCarthy being nominated. Well, okay a little bit, but I do really like her even if I couldn't stand her character in that movie. She's one of those actresses who should have gotten a bigger name for herself a long time ago but just didn't have the chance until now. This one is a hard race between Chastain, Bejo and Spencer, but I'm going with Octavia mainly because of her Globe win. I know that goes against everything I say about the Globes but honestly I just don't know what to think of the acting categories this year.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
What I Think Will Win: Christopher Plummer for Beginners
What I Want To Win: Nick Nolte for Warrior*

All I've been hearing for months is how easily Christopher Plummer is going to win this award, so I figure that's probably the best person to go with. I'm sure I'll regret it if Branagh takes it, but then I'll shrug it off since Branagh totally deserves it. I don't have a review up for Warrior for technical reasons (I will eventually) but Nick Nolte gave the performance of a lifetime in that movie and I'd love to see him win. But really? Jonah Hill? I mean, he was good, but Oscar-worthy? I don't know...

BEST ACTRESS
What I Think Will Win: Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn
What I Want To Win: Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn*

I have to admit that this is a somewhat bias opinion. I feel like I'm the only person who really just didn't see a lot of acting from Viola Davis in The Help. Don't get me wrong, she's a great actress who deserves plenty of Oscars, but for that movie specifically I just do not see it. She's barely in the movie enough to even call her a lead actress and when she is on screen she's just looking kind of mopey. Michelle Williams on the other hand was considered a casting catastrophe, but what she did with the role was magnificent. She embodied Marilyn Monroe in a way that is so unique and graceful that I really want to believe the Academy won't overlook her the way they did Frank Langella when he did the same in Frost/Nixon.

BEST ACTOR
What I Think Will Win: George Clooney for The Descendants
What I Want To Win: Jean Dujardin for The Artist*

Clooney really gave two of his best performances in 2011: One in front of the camera in The Descendants and one behind the camera making The Ides of March. And since this is the only one that he got nominated for, this is the one he's going to win for. Honestly, it could be any of the five nominees, but The Descendants is just the right movie in just the right year to win Clooney the Oscar for a second time. As for my pick though? It's tough but for now I'm going with Dujardin because I just really loved him in The Artist.

BEST DIRECTION
What I Think Will Win: The Descendants
What I Want To Win: The Descendants

I really truly honestly and thoroughly can't stand that they would nominate Terrence Malick, one of the most pretentious, laziest, hacky-est directors working today, who isn't Lars von Trier or freaking Baz Luhrmann, for Best Director. But I digress. This year it's being considered a race between The Artist and The Descendants for the big awards, and I just think The Descendants is more the kind of film the Academy chooses. That's not to say either of them is better than the other. In fact, I gave both of them a 9/10 on my site. But The Descendants is a much more down-to-earth, less gimmicky film. Gimmick has never won a movie the big ones, and that's why The Descendants is the only movie in this category that makes sense for the win. But hey, what do I know? They might want to give it to Scorsese again, even though he only won six years ago.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
What I Think Will Win: Rango
What I Want To Win: Rango

Puss in Boots really got 5% of the vote? Really? Anyway, Rango gets it unless one of the lesser known films, A Cat in Paris and Chico & Rita, make some sort of surprise win. They don't look like they will though, so I'm saying Rango takes it. And why shouldn't it? It's a beautifully artistic, hysterical western that treats kids like adults and allows adults to be kids again. And really, what more do you need than that?

BEST PICTURE
What I Think Will Win: The Descendants
What I Want To Win: Midnight in Paris

And thus we come to the grand finale, with my most controversial pick of all. As I stated before, I just don't see The Artist getting the win. Send-ups like that don't win. It's actually kind of funny that we have a silent film, making homage to the history of film, Hugo, making homage to the history of filmmaking and War Horse, which feels like it should have come out in the '90s, both nominated for Best Picture alongside Midnight in Paris which is about how much B.S. nostalgia is. The Descendants is the strongest film in the running that seems like something the Academy would give the big award to, and it deserves it. Really, about half of the movies on the list deserve it in my mind. If you see my reviews on my site, I gave the other half a meh-to-awful rating, and the only two I absolutely loved were Midnight in Paris and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. The reason I choose Midnight in Paris as my personal hopeful is because it's a highly enjoyable film with a powerful message that everyone needs to receive, especially today. It's my second-favorite movie of 2011 and I'm just glad to see it nominated. But as for winning, it's between The Artist and The Descendants and I think The Descendants is just stronger among Academy voters.

Welp, that's all there is. I may make a post-Awards blog to express my feelings on the results and tell you how completely wrong my guesses probably were. Or maybe I'll be back to gloat. Oh how I wait for the day on which I can actually gloat about getting these predictions right. Curse me and my taking chances with my predictions. Oh well, it's fun all the same. If you'd like to see a full list of the nominees as well as a few predictions I didn't state on here, go to my site at Spoich.com. And while you're there, you can check out my reviews, watch me eat a cupcake (you'll understand when you see it) and follow me on Twitter @Sploich and @SploichCom and Facebook!

* - Indicates a personal pick in a category where I haven't reviewed every nominee, so my pick is subject to change.

2 Comments Continue reading

Pony Talk - The Mare in the Moon / The Elements

Posted by Sploich on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 in Uncategorized

9 Comments Continue reading

Blogs

Partners: