Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Dell's Classics Presents:

Once Upon a Time in the West
AKA C'era una volta il West
Directed by Sergio Leone.
1969. Rated R, 165 minutes.
Cast:
Charles Bronson
Henry Fonda
Claudia Cardinale
Jason Robards
Frank Wolff
Gabriele Ferzetti
​

Director Sergio Leone gives us another man with no name. This time that man is played by Charles Bronson instead of Clint Eastwood. “The Man” as he’s listed in the credits, shows up in town to settle a score with the local bad guy played excellently by the normally heroic Henry Fonda. Fonda's Frank is truly one of great film villains. Oh, there’s also the little matter of Frank’s gang gunning down what they believe is the entire McBain family only to find out the wife of the family’s patriarch, who they believed to be single, has gotten into town just in time to bury the bodies left behind. She is played by Claudia Cardinale, stunning both in her portrayal and her look. There is a specific reason the family was killed but to say why would be giving things away. It’s not as fun-loving or over-the-top as the Eastwood trilogy but it’s no less masterful in its execution. It’s figuratively dark, literally dusty and as we find out early, indiscriminately violent. It does drag a tad in places. That partly stems from how serious it takes itself and partly from Leone’s style which typically leans toward creating epics. That said we get what is arguably the greatest Western ever made and it came out at a time when the genre as a whole didn’t have much life left.

MY SCORE: 10/10​

 

[dell71]

Run Fatboy Run
Directed by David Schwimmer.
2007. Rated PG-13, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Simon Pegg
Thandie Newton
Hank Azaria
Dylan Morgan
Harish Patel
India de Beaufort
Matthew Fenton​

Plot: Dennis (Pegg) leaves Libby (Newton) pregnant and alone at the altar. Five years later, he decides to run the London Marathon in hopes of proving to her, and himself, that he is a changed man capable of commitment.

The Good: The whole thing is a funny riff on Rocky and the hundreds (thousands?) of underdog movies that have copied it. The dialogue is sharp and the over-the-top stuff is spaced nicely. Therefore, it never feels like an unending string of pratfalls like lots of other so-called comedies. Simon Pegg proves once again to have impeccable comic timing. Drawing laughter seems to effortless for him. Even the constantly efforting Hank Azaria appears more at ease, giving one of his better performances. As the far-too-caring landlord, Harish Patel is also outstanding. Thandie Newton never goes for laughs but provides the movie with a solid foundation. She’s just stable enough to keep the chaos around her from spiraling completely out of control.

The Bad: Like the films it pokes fun at, it settles for the clichéd ending, complete with a debilitating injury for our hero to overcome. It also lacks a strong villain. While Hank Azaria’s character is funny, he’s not really the terrible guy the movie wants us to believe he is. That is, unless an American wanting to move his soon-to-be wife from London to Chicago is inherently evil.

The Ugly: The blister Dennis gets on the bottom of his foot.

Recommendation: When you’re looking for a comedy that’s a little different but still very funny, this is a solid choice. While it does spoof other movies, it does so subtly and is actually clever instead of pretending to be like some others.

The Opposite View: Wesley Morris, Boston Globe

What the Internet Says: 6.8/10 on imdb.com (4/26/10), 48% on rottentomatoes.com, 48/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10​

 

[Fox1994]

I think (this idea occurred to me like three days ago), that when you review certain movies besides horror films you should give special ratings.

Like, comedies. There are a lot of great witty comedies. There's a decent amount of medium-intelligence comedies. And there's a lot of moronic movies based around stupidity.

So, you could have a "Dumb Comedy" score.

And for action movies too, y'know?

 

[dell71]

Before moving on to the sequel, Click here for "Twilight"

The Twilight Saga:
New Moon
Directed by Chris Weitz.
2009. Rated PG-13, 130 minutes.
Cast:
Kristen Stewart
Robert Pattinson
Taylor Lautner
Billy Burke
Ashley Greene
Anna Kendrick
Michael Welch
Michael Sheen
Peter Facinelli
Rachelle Lefevre
Dakota Fanning​

Plot: Vampire Edward (Pattinson) decides the best, safest thing for Bella (Stewart) is for him and the rest of the Cullen to skip town. To get over her pain, Bella starts spending more time with Jacob (Lautner). Not only does Jacob pine for her like Edward, but he has a secret of his own.

The Good: It knows what its fans want. Therefore, we get a constant barrage of teen melodrama, including Bella lashing out at anyone who dares disagree with her. And since teenaged girls make up the core audience, we get lots of Jacob without a shirt. Yep, I need to hit the gym, but I digress. The action scenes, when we get them, are actually well done. Jacob and his buddies instantaneously wolfing out is spectacular. In fact, the whole movie looks great. It has a more polished look, with better special fx than the original.

The Bad: The tagline for this movie should’ve been “Now, with more emo!” Watching Bella sit around, literally for months, being totally depressed is…uh…depressing. Then, Edward and Jacob aren’t exactly rays of sunshine, either. All three are blatantly suicidal. It all amounts to beating us over the head with the saga’s main message: pre-marital sex is evil. As a dad of young girls, I appreciate the sentiment. However, here sex is a merciless villain punishing any who even think of it. No wonder Bella seems like she’s always thirty seconds from downing a bottle of sleeping pills and slitting her wrists. All that stuff aside, the dialogue is trite, predictable and delivered clunkily by the cast. The decisions these people make are consistently idiotic. Finally, the way the movie ends is an all-out insult to our collective intelligence. Given all we know about Bella, it is incomprehensible how this qualifies as some sort of cliff-hanger (see Spoiler, if you care...er...dare).

The Ugly: The wimpy regular guy who likes Bella, trying to watch a bloody action flick.

Recommendation: This is simple. If you’re a fan of the original and/or the books the movies are based on, have at it. If not, skip it.

The Opposite View: Sara Vilkomerson, New York Observer

What the Internet Says: 4.6/10 on imdb.com (4/27/10), 27% on rottentomatoes.com, 44/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 4/10​

I normally wouldn’t do this, but this irks me to no end:

 

The movie ends with Bella pleading, yet again, for Edward to transform her into a vampire so they can be together forever. He agrees, but only on the condition that she marry him first. She gets this look on her face that says “Like, dude, I’m all for becoming a vampire to be with you for an eternity but marriage? That’s too big a commitment.” Then, the credits roll. Am I missing something?

 

[dell71]

I think (this idea occurred to me like three days ago), that when you review certain movies besides horror films you should give special ratings.

Like, comedies. There are a lot of great witty comedies. There's a decent amount of medium-intelligence comedies. And there's a lot of moronic movies based around stupidity.

So, you could have a "Dumb Comedy" score.

And for action movies too, y'know?

Nice...maybe. We'll see.

I would love your review of Despicable Me

Still waiting to see that one.

 

[dell71]

Cirque du Freak:
The Vampire's Assistant
Directed by Paul Weitz.
2009. Rated PG-13, 109 minutes.
Cast:
Chris Massoglia
John C. Reilly
Josh Hutcherson
Michael Cerveris
Ray Stevenson
Salma Hayek
Jessica Carlson
Ken Watanabe
Patrick Fugit​

Plot: In order to save his best friend’s life, Darren (Massoglia) sacrifices himself by becoming a “half-vampire”. He also finds himself in the middle of a war between the vampires and the “vampinese.”

The Good: It adds some interesting new twists to vampire lore (like “super spit”). While doing so, it also forcefully removes some other traditional traits. For instance, there’s no transforming into bats for these guys. Then again, do any vampires anymore? Anyhoo, this makes it fairly original and intriguing. There are also lots of interesting characters with quirky abilities.

The Bad: The tone is difficult to gauge. My first instinct is to say it’s a comedy, played straight. However, other than the fact it looks like John C. Reilly is struggling mightily to not act goofy, it isn’t funny. That would mean it’s a serious vampire flick. The problem is it’s too cheesy to engage us on a deeper level or offer up vampirism as a metaphor for anything relevant to viewers.

The Ugly: What happens to Madame Truska (Hayek) when she gets aroused.

Recommendation: Overall, it’s an interesting watch that’s sporadically entertaining. It’s uneven tone make it a bit of a frustrating watch and give it the fell of a Disney Channel made-for-TV movie with a few four letter words sprinkled in.

The Opposite View: Marc Savlov, Austin Chronicle

What the Internet Says: 6.2/10 on imdb.com (4/27/10), 37% on rottentomatoes.com, 43/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5/10​

 

[dell71]

And to finish off my string of vampire flicks...

Thirst
AKA Bakjwi
Directed by Chan-Wook Park.
2009. Rated R, 133 minutes.
Cast:
Kung-ho Song
Ok-bin Kim
Hae-sook Kim
Ha-kyun Shin
In-hwan Park
Dal-su Oh
Young-chang Song​

Plot: Sang-hyun (Kang-ho Song) is a priest who volunteers for a medical experiment in hopes of helping to find a cure for the fatal Emmanuel Virus. The experiment fails and infects him with the disease. An emergency blood transfusion saves his life but transforms him into a vampire. Inspired by Emile Zola's novel "Therese Raquin."


The Good: Director Chan-Wook Park's gifts for telling twisted tales is on full display, here. The film never rushes, letting the story and the characters develop. As it becomes creepier and more incredible it slides in a the story of a love forbidden in more ways than one. As the object of our priest’s desire Tae-ju, Ok-bin Kim is simply fantastic and steals every scene starting with the first time we meet her. The script calls for her to go from a stereotypically meek Asian housewife, albeit one not particularly in love with her husband, to domineering and bloodthirsty. She is perfect every step of the way and really adds “umph” to the bittersweet ending. Finally, the movie is beautifully shot. Like the best of Park, it’s almost like looking at a series of elegant still shots occasionally splattered with magnificent gushes of blood.

The Bad: Where did this vampiric blood come from? The priest wonders the same, aloud, once or twice but that’s all we get. The simple fact of his infection implies there are more vampires out there but we never see any. Showing us one, or more, could’ve set up an intriguing battle of good and evil, further tormenting our reluctant bloodsucker. The movie’s meticulous storytelling draws us into a fantastic world and works hard to ensure our suspension of belief. The problem is we’re snapped back to reality by some shoddy cgi whenever our vampires are shown performing great feats from a distance. It’s more than a bit jarring, especially considering there are shots of the priest jumping from a building with the camera really close to him that work much better.

The Ugly: How’s the old lady supposed to get home? See it and you’ll understand the question.

Recommendation: It’s a wonderfully twisted entry into the vampire canon. Chan-Wook Park delivers another masterpiece of the macabre (he directed the acclaimed "Trilogy of Vengeance"). Though there is plenty of disturbing imagery and somewhat masochistic sex, both help tell the story and don’t feel gratuitous. This makes it a decidedly adult venture into the world of the undead. That means while it is a love story involving vampires, don’t bother if you’re in the Twilight target audience. If you do, bring your reading glasses unless you’re fluent in Korean.

The Opposite View: Derek Elley, Variety

What the Internet Says: 7.3/10 on imdb.com (4/27/10), 82% on rottentomatoes.com, 73/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 9/10​

 

[dell71]

That's all for tonight, fellas.

 

[Fox1994]

Cool. Looking nice.

 

[Maynard]

run fatboy run.....lol. That movie was great

 

[Champ]

I love dell.

 

[Fox1994]

Read your new moon review. Still haven't seen any of the movies or read any of the books. Quite proud of myself for that... And I read the spoiler. FUNNY.

Frankly though, I don't understand any of the TEAM JACOB, TEAM EDWARD shit. Do any of the fangirls read the books? EDWARD WINS. THEY GET MARRIED. (I'd spoiler this, but you're all 18-34 year old males, so this movie isn't targeted at you, and thereby you don't give one shit, let alone two.)

 

[Palooza]

Watch The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, plz

 

[dell71]

Watch The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, plz

Soon enough

 

[dell71]

Hot Tub Time Machine
Directed by Steve Pink.
2010. Rated R, 92 minutes.
Cast:
John Cusack
Clark Duke
Craig Robinson
Rob Corddry
Sebastian Stan
Lyndsy Fonseca
Crispin Glover
Chevy Chase
Lizzy Caplan
Collette Wolfe​

Plot: Four down-on-their-luck friends decide to spend a weekend at the resort they used to hang out at during their glory days. After a wild night in their suite’s hot tub, they wake up in 1986.

The Good: It’s better than it has any right to be. Sure, it’s juvenile and crass but it does both so well. Watching our heroes try to replicate what happened the first time they lived through ’86 is fun. The running gag involving Crispin Glover is priceless. Most of the references to the 1980s work well. The dynamic between Lou (Corddry) and the rest of the group really carries the movie effectively.

The Bad: I did say it was juvenile and crass. However, its worse crimes are being predictable and rushing its ending. We know what’s going to happen, thanks in large part to one of the bigger storylines being a rip-off of Back to the Future, but it doesn’t work up to it. Instead, it meanders along with the various situations that have popped up and then suddenly and haphazardly sticks in, pardon the pun, a key component in shaping the outcome.

The Ugly: What’s the deal with the drunk guy in the bear suit?

Recommendation: It’s strictly a guy thing. ‘Nuff said.

The Opposite View: Mark Keizer, Boxoffice Magazine

What the Internet Says: 7.4/10 on imdb.com (4/29/10), 63% on rottentomatoes.com, 63/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6.5/10​

 

[dell71]

2012
Directed by Roland Emmerich.
2009. Rated PG-13, 158 minutes.
Cast:
John Cusack
Amanda Peet
Chiwetel Ejiofor
Thandie Newton
Oliver Platt
Danny Glover
Woody Harrelson
Liam James
Morgan Lily
Zlatko Buric​

Plot: A geologist discovers an increase in solar activity that will lead to the end of the world as we know it, socio-political Darwinism ensues. Oh, and dying – lots of dying.

The Good: Forget about Avatar, this might be the most beautiful movie of 2009. The end of the world is a truly spectacular sight. There are skyscrapers crashing into one another as they fall, multi-tier freeways collapsing, entire cities and their suburbs coming apart at the seams as the earth separates beneath them. Likewise for areas surrounding suddenly activated, fireball hurling volcanoes. And if you’re anywhere near any coast, or out to sea, you have to contend with super tsunamis. For the most part, it looks eerily realistic. Since another depiction of hell breaking loose is never more than a few minutes away, it’s lengthy runtime doesn’t feel so bad.

The Bad: This might also be the most disgusting, pointless and stupidest movie of the 2009. It’s disgusting in the sense that it is purely pornographic in regards to death. We literally watch people die by the thousands for two plus hours and are certain that the death toll is in the billions. The problem is we become so desensitized it’s hard to muster up any empathy for our main characters no matter what their situation. Of course, this is why there are kids in the movie. Filmmakers believe we automatically feel for the kids in tough situations. To a degree, they’re correct. However, here it’s not enough. Here, we feel like that one guy in other disaster movies that can only say to everyone “We’re all gonna die!” Besides that, none of the characters in this movie are worthy of our affection, anyway. It’s pointless because of three things. First, everything just kinda stops all of a sudden. Sorry, I don’t think that’s really a spoiler. Second, when the credits roll, we’re left with an overwhelming feeling of “Now what?” There’s no hopeful answer to that question even though the movie wants us to somehow remain optimistic. Third, much lip service, including the movie’s own advertising, is paid to the ancient Mayan prophecy of the world ending on December 21, 2012. However, the movie chucks that out the window and renders the Mayan notion coincidental, at best. Finally, it’s stupid for a variety of reasons. Most of them we’ve already seen play out in other disaster movies so I won’t go into it, here.

The Ugly: : How many government and military officials had to be left behind for Oliver Platt’s character to become acting President? He’s a head scientist of some department or another.

Recommendation: Armageddon, The Day After Tomorrow, Deep Impact, Independence Day, etc. If you liked these movies, this is for you. If you’re into big special fx, this is for you, too. As for the rest of you, move along nothing to see here.

The Opposite View: Dan Kois, Washington Post

What the Internet Says: 6.0/10 on imdb.com (4/30/10), 39% on rottentomatoes.com, 49/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 3.5/10​

 

[dell71]

Fantastic Mr. Fox
Directed by Wes Anderson.
2009. Rated PG, 87 minutes.
Cast:
George Clooney
Meryl Streep
Jason Schwartzman
Bill Murray
Wallace Wolodarksy
Eric Chase Anderson
Michael Gambon
Willem Dafoe
Robin Hurlstone
​

Plot: After years of keeping his promise to his wife to go straight, Mr. Fox (Clooney) scratches his itch to steal chickens again, along with whatever else he can get his paws on.

The Good: It’s a horse…er…fox of a different color. Director Wes Anderson brings the same dry sense of humor he does to his live-action movies. This includes not necessarily spelling everything out for the audience. It just feels more sophisticated than most American animated fare. The dynamic between Mr. Fox, his Ash (Schwartzman) and his nephew Kristofferson (Eric Chase Anderson) is brilliant. Watching them, and the rest of their companions trying to outfox the humans is also very fun. With his trademarked and somehow lovable smugness, George Clooney handles it all perfectly. With all the heists going on, and with him in charge of the shenanigans, it’s almost like an animated version of his character in the Ocean’s movies. And yes, I chuckled nearly every time I heard the word “cuss.” It is used to replace actual profanity and comes off as quite clever.

The Bad: It might be a little too cool for the room. The early parts of the movie might be a tad slow for some and its humor may go over the heads of kids watching. Don’t worry, it never does anything most of would find objectionable but it’s not the sort of comedy kids are accustomed to. The same goes for the stop-motion animation. Though it does have a certain charm, it's just not as smooth and fluid as what they're used to. Meryl Streep was also a bit of a disappointment. For such a brilliant actress, she seems to be a rather bland voice talent.

The Ugly: What happens to Mr. Fox’s tail.

Recommendation: I definitely say see this movie, particularly if you’re looking for something you wouldn’t mind sitting through with the kids. Since there’s no bathroom humor, they may not be rolling on the floor laughing but you’ll all be engaged. It’s possibly the most unique animated American feature since Wall-E.

The Opposite View: Matthew Sorrento, Film Threat

What the Internet Says: 8.0/10 on imdb.com (4/30/10), 93% on rottentomatoes.com, 83/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 8/10​

 

[dell71]

bruno
Directed by Larry Charles.
2009. Rated R, 82 minutes.
Cast:
Sacha Baron Cohen
Gustaf Hammarsten
Clifford Bonaglale
Josh Meyers
Richard Bey
Paula Abdul
Ron Paul​

Plot: Sacha Baron Cohen poses as a brüno, an Austrian TV host trying to make it big in America.

The Good: There is certainly no shortage of courage, here. Any and everything goes. At its best, it exposes prejudices, most often in the form of institutionalized homophobia. To this end, some of the best and most intriguing scenes in the movie involve our hero visiting “gay converters.” These are members of the clergy who try to convert gays into being straight, thus, saving their souls. These scenes give us the opportunity for comedy and debate. There is also one brilliant scene which shows how far some parents are willing to go to get their children into showbiz.

The Bad: Any and everything goes. At its worse, it cheapens its own cause by going out of its way to be offensive and force the issue. Borat, also starring Cohen, did similar things but it was usually a gentler prodding. Here, Cohen is too often in full-on attack mode. For instance, when you suddenly show up naked outside a straight man’s tent in the middle of the night, it’s not exposing some grand hatred when he rebuffs your advances and happens to visibly upset about you badgering him. The same goes for his show pilot that was ran for a test audience. No one’s a bad person because they don’t want to watch a show that mainly features your penis flopping about in various stages of undress with the camera at point-blank range. These type of stunts render large portions of the movie pointless.

The Ugly: When he refers to Tom Cruise as “The Führer.”

Recommendation: Fans of Borat should definitely have a look. This uses similar tactics to entrap unsuspecting celebs and regular folks, alike. Though “regular” is clearly relative as it includes members of the clergy, swingers and stage-moms. There are some really funny moments. They’re just spaced further apart than in Borat. This just means that it’s too often, too clever by half.

The Opposite View: Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

What the Internet Says: 6.4/10 on imdb.com (5/3/10), 67% on rottentomatoes.com, 54/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5.5/10​

 

[dell71]

Flash of Genius
Directed by Marc Abraham.
2008. Rated PG, 120 minutes.
Cast:
Greg Kinnear
Lauren Graham
Dermot Mulroney
Jake Abel
Tim Kellcher
Bill Smitrovich
Alan Alda​

Plot: Dr. Robert Kearns (Kinnear) invents intermittent windshield wipers then spends much of life trying to get Ford into court for ripping him off. Based on a true story.

The Good: Star Greg Kinnear has a way of easily fitting into roles. His work here exemplifies this. He doesn’t use big operatic moments to convey power. He’s subtle, yet still elicits empathy. It’s a performance that really carries the movie. He, and the script really drive home his passion and infects us with it. Our hero is more of a man scorned, hell-bent on giving “big auto” its comeuppance and we shamelessly root for him.

The Bad: This is what some would call a “professional” movie. It doesn’t do anything wrong while obstacles and disappointments pop up at appropriate times to advance the plot. However, since it never really dives into the other issues surrounding his pursuit of justice and recognition it doesn’t really engage us. This becomes most apparent about halfway through when it treads similar waters to A Beautiful Mind. Where that movie was ambitious about trying to get us to understand a man, this one is merely content to give us the facts, as factual as a movie can be.

The Ugly: Bob’s impromptu bus trip to D.C.

Recommendation: While it’s not among the great biopics, its certainly a solid effort. It’s especially interesting given that all the controversy surrounds something everyone who drives uses, but few give a second thought to. See it for Kinnear and maybe for a bit of a history lesson, as well.

The Opposite View: Rex Reed, New York Observer

What the Internet Says: 6.9/10 on imdb.com (5/7/10), 58% on rottentomatoes.com, 57/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7/10​

 

[dell71]

The Mother
Directed by Roger Michell.
2003. Rated R, 112 minutes.
Cast:
Anne Reid
Daniel Craig
Cathryn Bradshaw
Steven Mackintosh
Peter Vaughan
Ann Wilson-Jones
Danira Govich​

After her husband passes away, May (Reid) has an affair her daughter’s lover Darren, played by a pre-007 Daniel Craig. By the way, Darren is actually married to another woman altogether. It’s an interesting drama that wisely uses an older woman that’s not extremely, rich, powerful or glamorous giving it an air of realness. She’s also not a trailer-park caricature which keeps it from becoming a Jerry Springer inspired comedy. If you’re looking for a drama that’s a little bit but not overly melodramatic, and can handle James Bond getting it on with grandma, give it a shot. Warning: the ending is a bit of a downer. Warning #2: This is absolutely, positively a chick flick. Finally, the biggest warning of all, don't watch it with your mother or grandmother. The queasiness factor will likely be amped to the max, if you did. Still, it’s nothing like most of the American movies aimed at the fairer sex.

MY SCORE: 7/10​