Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[A Tasty Burgerr]

If you've seen 12 Monkeys could you review it? Thanks

 

[Palooza]

12 Monkeys is FTW

 

[dell71]

:jimshake:

You should stay away from SciFi reviews.... damn, and I agree with all your other reviews too.

To be honest, I generally dislike most Zombie movies and I hated that one.

The shift at the end of the movie was needed IMO. The movie was built up to that point. Man's last obsticle was himself.... and his beliefs. And he wasn't a monster either, lol, a little deformed, but I don't think they ever went the alien route. If it's in space, people will always think it's a rip of Aliens... kinda sad.



No way he outperformed Murphy in Sunshine... no way. But I will agree Evans did well too. Only bad acting in that movie was the asian dude - the cook/mathematician. And Murphy's performance in 28 Days Later may be the best I've ever seen in a SciFi movie - he brought the intensity.

Meh...they receive a distress signal from another ship, decide to go help, go aboard said ship, don't find much but accidentally bring a creature (or "man" in this case) onto their own ship, creature ("man") tries to kill the whole crew. Sounds like Alien to me.

But I will give you credit, very nice explanation for the shift...but he was more than "a little deformed."

If you've seen 12 Monkeys could you review it? Thanks

I've seen it and already reviewed it (on that other site)...scroll down to my next post.

 

[dell71]

12 Monkeys
1996. Rated R, 130 minutes.
Director: Terry Gilliam. Starring Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt, Madeline Stowe, Jon Seda.
James Cole (Willis) believes he is a time-traveler sent back from the future by his captors to investigate "the Army of the 12 Monkeys." This "army" apparently loosed a virus upon the Earth. This virus is believed to have killed 5 billion people and driven the survivors to live beneath the planet's surface. The movie opens with a quote that is actually a prediction that this whole virus thing would go down in 1997. It's attributed to a "diagnosed schizophrenic." This is key because the question of Cole's sanity is really the central theme of the movie. A brief soliloquy by a patient in the mental institution Cole is thrown into when he arrives in the year 1990 explaining his own mental condition gives us a possible explanation of what's actually going on. Of course, the alternative is that Cole is perfectly sane but indeed living in an insane reality. To his credit, director Terry Gilliam doesn't discount either possibility giving viewers something to debate. Willis gives a frantic, even fragile performance befitting the role. Stowe is solid as usual but Brad Pitt lights up the screen during the intervals in which he appears. Overall, it's an excellent, if a bit quirky, piece of science fiction. MY SCORE: 9/10

 

[Palooza]

I watched American Pie on VHS at work the other day.

Classic.

 

[dell71]

how bout american pie 1? sry if you already reviewed it but i didnt see it

It's hilarious...but its been several years since I've seen it and even then it was before I started writing reviews. I'd have to watch it again to do a proper review. I'll keep it in mind, just not sure when I'll get to it.

 

[dell71]

Dillinger
1945. Not Rated, 70 minutes.
Director: Max Nosseck. Starring Lawrence Tierney, Edmund Lowe, Anne Jeffreys, Eduardo Ciannelli.
The rise and fall of real-life bank-robber John Dillinger. At only 70 minutes, it sets a fairly frenetic pace. Still, we get to see John grow into the leader of his bank robbing gang by becoming increasingly ambitious and ruthless. It’s an entertaining crime story that would’ve benefited from some fleshing out. The acting is solid and the action comes fast but the characters are almost universally flat. We see some character development with John but it’s a predictable arc. The opportunity for a great female character is missed by not further exploring Helen’s (Jeffreys) feelings and motivations for her ultimate act more deeply. However, given the era it was made it’s par for the course that the bad guy is thoroughly bad and his girl is a little underwritten even though she plays a major role in how things turn out. SCORE: 6.5/10

Dillinger
1973. Rated R, 109 minutes.
Director: John Milius. Starring Warren Oates, Ben Johnson, Michelle Phillips, Harry Dean Stanton.
The rise and fall of real-life bank-robber John Dillinger. This isn’t a remake of the 1945 film of the same name but a re-telling of the same legend. Both films, it should be noted, play fast and loose with the facts. At least this version has sense enough to include Melvin Purvis, the G-Man that was always hot on Dillinger’s heels. Both he and Dillinger are presented as tough-talking and ruthless. It just so happens they work on opposite sides of the law. Though this version is roughly 40 minutes longer than its predecessor it manages to pale in comparison in terms of character development. Everyone in the movie remains exactly as they were the first time they appear on screen. New characters also keep getting introduced until the whole thing just feels like role-call. Sadly, even John is unchanged. He’s already well entrenched as a major crime figure when the movie starts. The lone possible exception to this is John’s girl, Billie (Phillips). However, her change of heart is butchered and rendered unbelievable. By the way, her change comes early in the movie and it’s from fearing him to loving him in an instant, so I’m not ruining anything. That said, this is by far the more intense of the two films. Many of the gang’s bank robberies end in large-scale, graphically shown shootouts and car-chases that are still fantastic to watch. There’s blood splattering everywhere, pedestrians get run over by getaway cars and just all around expertly created mayhem. SCORE: 7/10

Public Enemies
2009. Rated R, 140 minutes.
Director: Michael Mann.
Starring Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Billy Crudup.

Plot: FBI man Melvin Purvis (Bale) hunts America’s most wanted man, bank robber John Dillinger (Depp). Based on a true story.

The Good: The movie does a nice job juxtaposing Purvis’ determined pursuit with Dillinger’s arrogance. Depp really pulls off the smugness of a man who really believes he’ll stay one step ahead of the authorities, even as their bullets whiz by his head. It becomes a riveting cat and mouse. While Depp is very good, Jason Clarke who plays his sidekick Red Hamilton is excellent, stealing scene after scene with subtle wisdom and strength. It’s the type of performance that may go unnoticed but gives Dillinger and the movie as a whole a backbone. True to his reputation, director Michael Mann films some of the most exciting shootouts in the business. Aside from the visuals during these scenes, the sound mixing is superior and adds to the feeling of danger. That might sound a bit technical but when you hear that each weapon makes a different sound and hear bullets ripping apart a tree as someone hides on the other side it brings you to the edge of your seat.

The Bad: Melvin Purvis has proven to be problematic. Russell Crowe’s Richie Roberts from American Gangster or even Al Pacino’s Vincent Hanna from Michael Mann’s own Heat should’ve been the template followed. Those guys were very well developed human beings that were driven and flawed. We could relate to them. Bale’s Purvis is just a stiff “good guy.” We get what he’s trying to do and even why but he’s not real enough to draw us into his side of story. This is especially apparent because Dillinger is so dynamic a personality and dominates the movie. Finally, in between those gorgeous shootouts the movie didn’t look as good as it should have. Portions of it, especially early in the film suffer from the camera being too close to its actors. It may have been done, in order to give certain characters a big reveal a scene or two after they actually appear but it just feels like shoddy cinematography.

The Ugly: Goobers. Yup, a piece of one of the chocolate covered peanuts I was eating when down the wrong pipe and induced a coughing fit that caused me to flee the theater for the nearest water fountain and miss a couple minutes in the middle. I think the lady next to me was both mortified that I might be dying and relieved that I managed not to cough on her.

Recommendation: This is definitely one for fans of gangster flicks and crime dramas in general. Its an exciting two and a half hours that Depp carries quite well. But while it is very enjoyable and likely to be one of the better films of the summer, it’s flaws are enough to keep it from being great.

The Opposite View: Lou Lumenick, New York Post

What the Internet Says: 7.7/10 on imdb.com (7/20/09), 65% on rottentomatoes.com, 70/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10



BTW, Ugly #2: Stephen Dorff, who once seemed to have a promising career is a glorified extra. It took me half the movie to be sure that it was, in fact, him I was seeing.

 

[Buzzman]

damn man, I really want Public Enemies to be great but it seems its just a good movie.

 

[Palooza]

It's what Stephen Dorff deserves after movies like feardotcom, Dell.

 

[Ralnakor]

I honestly felt like Public Enemies ran a bit long for my liking. It just felt like there were points where it dragged. I definitely agree with the 7.5, I just think it was closer to the negative side of the score than the positive. Depp was incredible, and the shootouts were great, but the stuff in between felt somewhat slow and tedious at times. Case in point was Purvis' intro where it felt like it could have been cut in length by a bit and still accomplished what it did.

I dunno, I thought it was a good movie, but by no means a great movie.

 

[dell71]

It's what Stephen Dorff deserves after movies like feardotcom, Dell.

lol, I haven't seen that one yet.

I honestly felt like Public Enemies ran a bit long for my liking. It just felt like there were points where it dragged. I definitely agree with the 7.5, I just think it was closer to the negative side of the score than the positive. Depp was incredible, and the shootouts were great, but the stuff in between felt somewhat slow and tedious at times. Case in point was Purvis' intro where it felt like it could have been cut in length by a bit and still accomplished what it did.

I dunno, I thought it was a good movie, but by no means a great movie.

Fair.

BTW, as you might be able to tell from the above reviews I also recommend the 1973 version. It's also flawed but a pretty good movie. The violence has actually held up pretty good.

 

[NAHSTE]

Watching Milk right now Dell. You ever get around to that one? It's my second time watching it, I think it's great.

 

[Ralnakor]

Watching Milk right now Dell. You ever get around to that one? It's my second time watching it, I think it's great.

He has, not sure if it was just before his move, but I know for a fact he's done the review and I'm on the lazy side to go check the early pages in the thread to see if it was just after his move.

 

[Palooza]

Watching Milk right now Dell. You ever get around to that one? It's my second time watching it, I think it's great.

Milk is a great movie. They had a free showing last semester at my school since that's where he graduated from, but I haven't seen it since. I should watch it again sometime soon.

 

[Senser81]

Dell, I was forced to watch some psycho kids movie called "The Golden Compass". I thought it was terrible, but on the DVD cover it says Roger Ebert gave the movie 4 stars. Have you seen this movie?

 

[dell71]

Watching Milk right now Dell. You ever get around to that one? It's my second time watching it, I think it's great.

Yes, earlier in this thread:

Milk

One of these days, I'll get around to archiving all of the reviews on page 1.

Dell, I was forced to watch some psycho kids movie called "The Golden Compass". I thought it was terrible, but on the DVD cover it says Roger Ebert gave the movie 4 stars. Have you seen this movie?

I have. I'm actually a big fan of Ebert but every now & again, he makes me scratch my head & wonder if we watched the same movie. This was one of those cases. It seems I liked it slightly better than you but yeah, it still sucked.

My review...

The Golden Compass
2007. Rated PG-13, 113 minutes.
Director: Chris Weitz. Starring Dakota Blue Richards, Nicole Kidman, Sam Elliot, Eva Green.
Our pre-teen heroin Lyra (Richards) gains possession of the Golden Compass which is a key weapon in the war against the Great Magisterium. It is a movie that is obviously trying to become a multi-part epic. It tells its story in an interesting manner and has solid special fx but isn’t terribly original. It seems more like a re-imagining of Lord of the Rings with bits of Star Wars sprinkled in while being only half as good as either. The one truly original aspect is also at the heart of the controversy surrounding it. The controversy is the perception this is an Atheist movie. In the world of TGC each person’s soul actually lives on the outside of their body in the form of an animal. However, instead of calling it a soul, it’s called a demon. That’s problem #1. Some of the more powerful soldiers in this war is a race of women known as The Witches. That’s problem #2. The Great Magisterium everyone’s fighting against is said to be a tyrant that controls everything and the people against it are fighting for their own free will. That’s problem #3. It’s very easy to see the Great Magisterium as God or at least as an equivalent to religion. So the movie can come off more Satanic, Atheist or anti-religious. To be fair, I’m not familiar with the source material so I’m not sure if this is intentional. It could be or they could be setting up their version of the whole light side/dark side thing from Star Wars. In any event, I don’t think most kids will pick up on that subtext unless they hear adults interpreting it that way. Most kids will likely think it’s a pretty good but not great fantasy flick with some cool special fx. BTW, this movie won an Oscar for its visual effects. I didn't think they were anywhere near as good as Transformers or 300 but I didn't have a vote, either. Anyway, a few astute youngsters will notice that the main polar bear is voiced by Magneto from the X-Men (Sir Ian McKellen). For me it was too derivative of other, better fantasy flicks. Religious, or anti-religious interpretations aside, it just fell short. SCORE: 5/10

 

[Senser81]

Thanks for the review. I thought it was pointlessly violent. Lots of 'epic' battle scenes, all of them having no meaning whatsoever. Then the movie just ends. No resolutions, no finales...the girl stops talking about having another epic battle, and then the credits roll.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Thanks for the review. I thought it was pointlessly violent. Lots of 'epic' battle scenes, all of them having no meaning whatsoever. Then the movie just ends. No resolutions, no finales...the girl stops talking about having another epic battle, and then the credits roll.

Another in line of films that are trying to ride the coat tails of the first Narnia flick (second Narnia flick included in this group that includes Golden Compass).

 

[Senser81]

Another in line of films that are trying to ride the coat tails of the first Narnia flick (second Narnia flick included in this group that includes Golden Compass).

Yeah, the second Narnia film was totally devoid of anything interesting. Just a lot of weird things beating each other up. Why?

 

[Buzzman]

Ever seen Stardust. It was surprisingly excellent