Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[nflman2033]

Black Dynamite
2009. Rated R, 90 minutes.
Director: Scott Sanders.
Starring Michael Jai White, Salli Richardson, Kevin Chapman, Tommy Davidson.

Plot: When he finds out that his brother's been murdered, Black Dynamite (White) set out to find the jive turkey responsible and make him pay. Can you dig it?

The Good: It painstakingly recreates the look and feel of a real blaxploitation flick. This includes lots of the flubs the genre is known for. The funniest of these being the editing "mistakes" is which something causes star Michael Jai White to seemingly come out of character for a moment, often talking or gesturing directly to the audience before an abrupt cut. It works everytime. Speaking of White, he gets double kudos here. I've never been a big fan of his actual acting but he gives what's easily the best performance of his career, he's simply note-perfect. He's also co-writer of the screenplay. I didn't know he had it in him. As a welcome addition, blaxploitation isn't the only targe. Seventies standard and one of my all time faves, Enter the Dragon also gets a healthy skewering. Overall, a large number of movies are referenced here but don't overwhelm the film like they do in the Scary Movie, Date Movie, etc franchise. Instead, they're nicely incorporated into the movie as part of its own narrative which even manages to get in some apt social commentary.

The Bad: A couple of gags are overused. In particular, the one where someone instantly starts crying when speaking about a loved one who's "in trouble" gets old fast. The first time or two Kym Whitley does it, its funny. The next thirty times when everyone else in the movie does it, its tedious. Also, there's too much Tommy Davidson for my taste. Somehow, in a movie purposely overdone to spoof genre full of movies known for being over the top, he still overdoes. I'd have much rather seen he and Arsenio Hall, who has a bit part, switch roles.

The Ugly: The very brief appearance of Abraham Lincoln...yes Abraham Lincoln...is a symbolic stroke of satiric genius.

Recommendation: Here's the part where you question my judgment. If you know me, you might know that I count I'm Gonna Git You Sucka among the very best spoofs ever made. Made by the Wayans family way back when they were actually funny, its a brilliant send-up of the blaxploitation genre. I feel very comfortable saying BD is at least as good and far better than the other popular movie of its kind, Undercover Brother. I'm sure the fact that I've seen and enjoyed dozens of blaxploitation flicks and watched Enter the Dragon dozens of times has something to do with it. Enjoying spoofs requires knowledge of the source material to use as a reference point and the ability to see the ridiculousness in that material. For this movie I have a huge point of reference and there's no denying the genre's ridiculousness. Knowing this, if you watch it and tell me its the dumbest thing you ever laid eyes on I'll understand. I'll just be thinking the opposite.

The Opposite View: A.O. Scott, New York Times

What the Internet Says: 7.7/10 on imdb.com (11/20/09), 84% on rottentomatoes.com, 65/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 10/10

oh I am so going to have to see this, also gotta always give out some I'm Gonna Git You Sucka rep.

 

[dell71]

Blood Mania
1970. Rated R, 88 minutes.
Director: Robert Vincent O'Neill.
Starring Peter Carpenter, Maria De Aragon, Vicki Peters, Leslie Simms.
In order to speed up getting her inheritance Victoria (De Aragon) enlists the aid of her sick father's physician to put the old man out of his misery. It's billed as a horror flick but is hardly anything of the sort. Not too mention the startling lack of blood for a movie named Blood Mania. However, it is a pre-cursor to the infamously bad and lurid "skinemax" movies of the 80s and 90s. The script is terrible, there's loads of gratuitous nudity and the acting is so-so, at best. Despite this, save for a few random scenes, it never quite gets into "so bad its awesome" territory as the vast majority of it is too dull and predictable. Its only worth viewing, and/or re-viewing, if you're fond of the bods on display and don't mind a little, make that a lot of sleaze. Otherwise, skip it and don't think twice about it.
MY SCORE: 2.5/10

 

[dell71]

Aliens in the Attic
2009. Rated PG, 86 minutes.
Director: John Schultz.
Starring Carter Jenkins, Austin Robert Butler, Ashley Tisdale, Ashley Boettcher.

Plot: A group of tiny aliens land outside of the Pearson's summer vacation home while the family tries to get a little "r & r." The family's depressed nerd in residence, Tom (Jenkins) traps them in the attic. Them trying to escape and take over the world ensues.

The Good: The battle scenes between the aliens and all the kids in the house are exciting. They are the crux of the movie and are well done. The movie also gets good mileage out of the inherent humor in keeping the adults out of the picture for as long as possible. The game controllers that actually control people and the fight scenes they produce are a nice touch, mostly because they involve Doris Roberts (the mom in Everybody Loves Raymond) in Matrix-style combat.

The Bad: The story between the action lacks. It's either Ashley Tisdale (Bethany) spouting off inane and way too possessive drivel about her boyfriend or something to set up the movie's heavy-handed message. Overall, its too derivative of other, better movies. All of this renders it an okay watch but largely forgettable.

The Ugly: The anti-gravity grenade. Cool.

Recommendation: Its a cute and silly version of warfare mixed with the type of silly hijinks and shenanigans to make it a perfectly average kiddie flick. Its not terrible, but once the credits roll, you'll chuckle a time or two reminiscing about the Doris Roberts' fight scene then forget all about it.

The Opposite View: Annette Basile, Film Ink (Australia)

What the Internet Says: 5.0/10 on imdb.com (11/28/09), 29% on rottentomatoes.com, 42/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

 

[Tailback U]

I never read film reviews nor do I ever appreciate them because I know that most film critics simply don't share my perspective, are usually biased, or have some underlying motive behind their reviews.

So just wanted to thank you for this thread again, Dell, as it is my go-to whenever I am planning a movie night. I usually have NetFlix opened up in another tab as I browse through this thread. Hell, I've even looked this thread up on my iphone while at Hollywood Video.

So thank you and please keep up the good work!

Also, if you're interested and get the time, it would be cool to see your "Top 10 Pixar Movies" list.

One more thing, how many movies do you usually watch a week? I consider myself a pretty big film buff but there's no way I even come close to watching/owning as many movies as you. I need to step my game up.

 

[dell71]

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three
1974. Rated R, 104 minutes.
Director: Joseph Sargent.
Starring Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo.
A crew of bad guys hijack a New York City subway train. Here, we have an interesting standoff between said bad guys, who have a train full of passengers as hostages and police who are mostly not within sight of their location. However, what they and we know is that the bad guys seem to have backed themselves into a corner and we both wonder how they plan of getting out. When we find out its a wonderfully sadistic escape plan. Walter Matthau is excellent as the crusty old cop who's been stuck behind a Transit Authority desk for awhile and is pressed into action by the day's events. Through him and the writing we get a real sense of confusion about the whole situation as he and his colleagues try to figure things out. The ending makes brilliant use of its red herring that I won't spoil. Two other things stand out about the movie. The first thing is on purpose. Being made in the mid 1970s, there were still some jobs that women were doing for the first time and likewise blacks were just starting to rise to positions of authority in noticeable numbers. This makes light of both but doesn't really dwell on either. The second thing is inadvertant. It helped provide the template for Quentin Tarantino's classic debut Reservoir Dogs. Our four bad guys refer to one another as Mr. Blue, Mr. Green, Mr. Grey and Mr. Brown. All in all, its a very good cop procedural that's aged extremely well, mostly because the bad guys position themselves in a place where even new milennium technology couldn't change the dynamics of the situation.
MY SCORE: 8/10

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3
2009. Rated R, 106 minutes.
Director: Tony Scott.
Starring Denzel Washington, John Travolta, John Turturro, James Gandolfini.

Plot: A crew of bad guys hijack a New York City subway train.

The Good: Travolta is in full double-fisted ham mode and its actually fun watching him stomp his way through the movie. Denzel gives a more subdued performance than his norm and it works very well juxtaposed with Travolta's explosiveness. The two play off each other nicely without actually being in the same place for the vast majority of the movie. A few of the changes made from the original work very nicely and effectively throw people who've seen the original off its scent.

The Bad: Way too many people are way too involved only to play out whims of the screenwriter (Brian Helgeland). For instance, the mayor of New York is rushed off to headquarters solely so the movie can reference and insult the city's real mayor and he has a sidekick we hear from way too often. Even Walter Matthau's character from the original is split in two with Denzel getting the name and handling the Transit Authority duties while John Turturro is the police officer. And the movie makes a point of shoe-horning modern technology, namely the internet, into the story then does absolutely nothing with it. Absolutely nothing changes if its not there.

The Ugly: Once again, a brotha gets killed over a white girl.

Recommendation: In my opinion, this movie has been the victim of some misdirected hatred. By virtue of it being a remake, three things seemed to have happened. First, the original was suddenly elevated to classic status. It was definitely very good, better than this but not an all timer. Second, an overly harsh eye was cast on it for having the audacity to remake said classic. Finally, it was way overhyped. Its certainly flawed and, like I mentioned, not as good as the original but it isn't the disgrace to cinema its made out to be. Its biggest sin might be the fact that its merely okay.

The Opposite View: Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald

What the Internet Says: 6.5/10 on imdb.com (11/28/09), 52% on rottentomatoes.com, 55/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6/10

 

[Fox1994]

You're deep and very analytical. I can apprecaite that.

 

[dell71]

I never read film reviews nor do I ever appreciate them because I know that most film critics simply don't share my perspective, are usually biased, or have some underlying motive behind their reviews.

So just wanted to thank you for this thread again, Dell, as it is my go-to whenever I am planning a movie night. I usually have NetFlix opened up in another tab as I browse through this thread. Hell, I've even looked this thread up on my iphone while at Hollywood Video.

So thank you and please keep up the good work!

Also, if you're interested and get the time, it would be cool to see your "Top 10 Pixar Movies" list.

One more thing, how many movies do you usually watch a week? I consider myself a pretty big film buff but there's no way I even come close to watching/owning as many movies as you. I need to step my game up.

Big time thanx! Glad to see that you trust me enough to help you with your viewing choices. I really couldn't ask for anything more.

As far as my top 10 pixar...hmmm...I'm already putting together a list of my favorite animated features. Maybe I'll get that in there as a subset.

I own over 600 dvds (believe it or not, there's about 2-3 dozen or so of those I haven't seen, yet), if you haven't already you can click the link in my sig to see all my junk. On a weekly basis, I figure I watch between 4 & 7 movies a week, averaging slightly over 5. That's at the expense of watching regular tv which I don't do much of (except for sports). Unfortunately, I can't post the reviews quite as fast which is why there might be 3 new reviews one day then none for a few days.

You're deep and very analytical. I can apprecaite that.

Thanx, I try. Sometimes its hard when a movie is supposed to be dumb. Knowing "good" dumb from "bad" dumb AKA why G.I. Joe is at least watchable but the Transformers sequel isn't, is the key.

 

[dell71]

The Inglorious Bastards AKA Quel maledetto treno blindato
1978. Rated R, 99 minutes.
Director: Enzo G. Castellari.
Starring Bo Svenson, Fred Williamson, Peter Hooten, Michael Pergolani.
In Europe during World War II, an enemy attack inadvertantly leads to the escape of a crew of U.S. military convicts on their way to be court martialed. Said criminals try to get to neutral Switzerland but somehow wind up in France doing a mission for the same Army that wants to court martial them. Its the type of movie where the basic construct of the story is actually pretty good but the execution isn't quite right. To make it a bit frustrating, occasionally something awesome will happen and then it'll become dull for a while until the next awesome thing happens. Part of the problem is they try to overdevelop the characters and create some sort of legendary rougue gallery. In doing this too much time is spent on these guys jawing at one another and the dialogue in these scenes isn't good enough to keep it interesting all the way through. Whenever the action picks up, its at its best. When the love story gets crammed in towards the end, its at its worse. In tone and style, what essentially have here is a bad spaghetti western version of The Dirty Dozen (especially apt since it is an Italian production). Even the tagline for the movie is "Whatever the Dirty Dozen did, they do it dirtier!" That said, it's enjoyable in the same manner as watching a train wreck. Things like 70s porn-staches and long hair on WWII soldiers, one guy dying twice during the same battle scene and the ever-so-cool Fred Williamson make it so bad it's awesome!
MY SCORE: -10/10

Inglourious Basterds
2009. Rated R, 153 minutes.
Director: Quentin Tarantino.
Starring Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Diane Kruger.

Plot: A group of hand-picked Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds" work from behind enemy lines to hunt and kill Nazis duing World War II. Meanwhile, a Nazi hero becomes infatuated with a young French theater owner and pulls out all the stops to impress her. Inspired by 1978's The Inglorious Bastards.

The Good: As with most Tarantino fare, the story-telling is the draw, not necessarily the story he's telling. That actual story isn't one that if you only read the synopsis of would make you say that's definitely going to be a great movie. In fact, given that perhaps the most studied war of all time is highly fictionalized and romanticized to the nth degree, it has the potential to turn out really poorly. However, the skill with which the tale is told keeps you locked in. It manages to do this through dialogue that vacilates between tongue-in-cheek banter and tension raising diatribes seamlessley. We also get intense spy games and wonderfully over the top action sequences. Acting wise, there are strong performances all around but its the work of Christoph Waltz as Nazi Col. Hans Landa that really stands out. He has an ominous presence and easily conveys his characters twisted sense of humor. He makes Col. Landa arguably one of the decades best movie villains.

The Bad: Self-indulgence is a problem that continues to plague QT. In the 1990s, the pop-culture small-talk that made the dialogue in his movies sizzle was fresh, especially since it was all about recent and very popular movies. Since then, it seems hundreds of movies have used that same technique and its no longer cutting edge. Perhaps sensing this, and in keeping with this movie's setting we get lots of talk about classic, foreign and/or forgotten movies. The effect is we feel like QT shoe-horned it just to show off his knowledge of film history (though I'll admit the reference to King Kong is brilliant). Simply put, people who aren't Tarantino fans will write it off as more of the same overrated clap-trap. The other problem is that "The Basterds" don't get enough time of their own. We don't get to know any of them, other than Lt. Raine (Pitt). For the most part, they're introduced, a couple get a spotlight moment but that's really it. The opportunity for some great characters, particularly "The Bear Jew" is missed.

The Ugly: Lt. Raine trying to speak Italian.

Recommendation: Its an unusual entry into the war movie genre. It combines vengeance, espionage and a good deal of talking to create a thoroughly entertaining movie. Of course, it is Tarantino so it may be too crass, self-indulgent and just plain long for some folks. Others might be turned off by the blatant disregard of the facts in favor of the director's trademark stylized mayhem. As I heard an older lady remark to her husband while leaving the theater, "I usually like World War II stuff but that's not what that was about." Works for me. Oh, subtitleophobes beware, along with the English we get lots of French, German and a dash of Italian.

The Opposite View: Stephen Silver, The Trend

What the Internet Says: 8.5/10 on imdb.com (11/29/09), 88% on rottentomatoes.com, 69/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 9/10

 

[Buzzman]

^
Nice, one of my favorite movies of all time.

 

[Fox1994]

Cool. Can't wait to finally see that. Haha.

 

[JayDizzle]

The Ugly: Lt. Raine trying to speak Italian.

One of the best parts of the film.

You should get paid for these Dell.

 

[wingsfan77]

just got done watching 'Up' pretty funny movie but it was SO depressing....the dogs were absolutely hysterical though

 

[trojan49er]

Im with you on wishing the Basterds got more screen time, I wouldve liked to have seen more character development. There were definitely some quality characters that never get fleshed out...thats my one gripe for an otherwise awesome movie. Went to see it with the gf and we were both laughing hysterically during the opera house scene while everyone else in the theater was in utter shock... it was pretty awesome

 

[dave]

I own over 600 dvds (believe it or not, there's about 2-3 dozen or so of those I haven't seen, yet), if you haven't already you can click the link in my sig to see all my junk.

I'm probably around 400 dvds and blu-rays ... but like TaillbackU/Omar/BleedSCRed - I take your word for it on movies.

 

[dell71]

Dr. Dolittle: Million Dollar Mutts
2009. Rated PG, 90 minutes.
Director: Alex Zamm.
Starring Kyla Pratt, Teagan Moss, Jason Bryden, Norm Macdonald.
The fifth installment of what's become a prolific straight to DVD franchise (2 major theater releases and three for home video). Maya Dolittle (Pratt), daughter of Eddie Murphy's title character who's once again explained as away on some animal saving adventure, decides to go to Hollywood at the request of a Paris Hilton-esque heiress named Tiffany Monaco (Moss) to see if she can help the celebutante's poodle. Of course, she becomes enamored with the glamour and glitz, opting to stay there and live the high life instead of coming home and going to vet school, much to her mom's chagrin. It offers up the usual: wise-cracking from Lucky (Norm Macdonald), cuteness from Pratt and a very PETA-friendly story. There are a few solidly funny moments and all of it will make your grandma remark how precious it is. The kids will eat it up, you'll chuckle a few times and roll your eyes a few others, particularly at the shoddy cgi and all-around dated, cornball fx. It's not necessarily good or bad, harmless is more like it. Since I have two daughters who are huge fans of the franchise and I think I've become a bit smitten with Ms. Pratt (who's 23 in real life, so there) I'll keep watching them as long as they crank them out.
MY SCORE: 5/10


Mmmm...hm...

 

[Buzzman]

She may be 23 but if she looks 13, your still a perv.

 

[dave]

 

[dell71]

She may be 23 but if she looks 13, your still a perv.

not denying...just noting that I'm a legal perv.

ha!

 

[dell71]

El Mariachi
1992. Rated R, 81 minutes.
Director: Robert Rodriguez.
Starring Carlos Gallard, Consuelo Gomez, Jaime de Hoyos, Peter Marquardt.
A poor, traveling musician is mistaken by rival bad guys for a drug dealer who not only just escaped from prison but is very busy settling the score with them. Shootouts ensue. Director Robert Rodriguez's debut has become a cult classic of sorts. That's more a testament to his skills as a story-teller than anything else. The acting is substandard and its nonexistant budget is evident, throughout. Reportedly, the whole thing was filmed for about $7,000. Yet, the plot is imaginative as is the action. And there's plenty of action. The movie also has its tongue firmly in cheek as there are lots of little jokes thrown in that make it more of a dark comedy. This has become a trademark of the director. It's sequel, the bigger budgeted (with the aid of his then new buddy, Quentin Tarantino) Desperado is a more fully realized and glossier project with better production values and a much better cast (Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek, Steve Buscemi, Cheech Marin and QT himself among others, not to mention the addition of Johnny Depp for the franchise's third film). However, the charm here is hard to deny as Rodriguez proves more than up to the task of captivating his audience even when handicapped by extremely limited funds.
MY SCORE: 7.5/10

 

[Fox1994]

^I haven't seen all of any of those, but I have seen the scene in Once Upon a Time in Mexico wherein Johnny Depp kills the chef because the pork was too good. That shit was classic. Next thing I saw he was wandering around missing his eyes... Might have to check those out.