Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Get Carter (2000)
10/10
this film is under-appreciated
21 June 2002
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING: POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS So many people hate this movie. They hate it because they hate Stallone. They hate it because they're such big fans of the original cult classic. They hate it because... they have no taste in movies. I've seen the original, and I respect the original, and I liked the original, but this is a very good remake, and a well done movie on its own.

As the previous review stated, Stallone's acting is top notch, and those people who only see him as he was in "Tango & Cash" and "Judge Dredd" need to remember that he was also in the "Rocky" series and "First Blood" which all required good acting. In this, he comes across as a character who is tough for a living, not because he necessarily is tough, but because he has to be, and underneath he is a real person with real human emotions. But a tough man in a tough underworld can't let others know he even has emotions, so it stays buried... and yet, we know he cares. An excellent performance by Stallone.

The supporting cast is just as good, with Michael Caine (who plays Carter in the original), Rachel Leigh Cook (who proves in this movie she's more than just another cute teen), Miranda Richardson who is as strong as ever, Mickey Rourke, (finally getting good material he can work with), and Alan Cumming, who (besides Stallone) stole the movie. Alan Cumming is incredible... (see "Titus" or "Anniversary Party" to see what I mean).

What really makes this movie to me though, is its style. The grainy look making it feel somehow more real and less like a movie. The use of light is amazing, and when added to by the quick jerky editing, creates an interesting and almost paranoid look, similar to the recently released "Insomnia" from director Christopher Nolan. (And, despite what most critics say, there ARE ways of doing jerky cuts and quick editing and still make a movie that isn't compared to a music video or a Superbowl commercial. It's all in the director. David Fincher was slammed by critics when "Se7en" first came out, and everyone said he was just another MTV guy making his break into Hollywood. Now critics everywhere respect him and hold him up as one of the most original and innovative new filmmakers... see?) I really hope that director Steven Kay doesn't have second thoughts about doing anything else just because fans of the original bashed this one all to pieces, because I'd like to see what else he'd do. Even the use of the camera, for instance: a shot of Stallone sitting in a car while everything is going wrong. Instead of inserting some kind of corny dialogue or, even worse, doing nothing and quickly cutting to another scene to keep a fast pace, the shot just literally turns upside down. Very easy, not much high tech wizardry needed or special effects to make a point come across, the director opts to just turn our perspective of the world upside down so we can identify with the character. Good stuff. Simple, but effective.

For those who have heard of the movie, but haven't had the guts to go see it because all you've heard is bad stuff... don't listen to THEM! This movie is very well done, I think even better than the original, because this 'version' decides right from the get-go that it's not going to be just another action movie where some guy goes around beating everybody up to get revenge. I don't even hold that it's and action movie at all, more like a suspense-drama with a faster heart-rate. It's about the search for truth and redemption, and the price all of those involved will pay while finding it.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Resident Evil (2002)
10/10
Horror fans, wait no more.
21 June 2002
From the opening title sequence to the apocalyptic ending, this film tears you away from your chair and pushes you headfirst deep into its murky depths. Being a film based on a video game, you'd expect a film with non-stop action and visual effects, but without in-depth characters or good writing. `Resident Evil' keeps its characters fresh and interesting, enough so you at least care what happens to them, and has more than enough original plot gimmicks to break out of the sci-fi/ horror genre, but still manages to deliver the action, special effects, and zombie gore that the fans of the game love.

I never played the games too much, but I know enough about them to know that this film takes its share of liberties. The characters are not the same ones out of the games, and those who want to get picky will notice that some of the notable creatures out of the games have been altered a little to drive the plot along. But the changes are so small in relation to the overall storyline, which is right on with the game.

The thing that saved the film, though, is the direction. Director Paul Anderson's mix of action and horror was perfect for `Resident Evil.' (His first big hit was 1995's `Mortal Kombat,' the first of the successful video game movies, and what I believe started the whole video game adaptation craze in the first place). He brings `Night of the Living Dead' to `The X-Files' and actually creates some genuine scares. The score by Marilyn Manson helps, along with the grinding heavy metal soundtrack, to create a feel that is dark and creepy one minute, pulse pounding and exciting the next. The sets are another thing that play a key role in this film. Just like any of the countless haunted house films out there, the environment is as much a character as the actors, and this film pulls it off nicely. It explains everything thoroughly, without over-explanations of every single thing that happens. This film won't puzzle you, but it doesn't insult your intelligence, either.

Overall, the film is excellent, especially considering the horror films from the past few years. It doesn't attempt to be more than it is, but what it is is quite enough. No over the top horror acting, no over-the-top horror violence, but just enough to please.

I recommend this film to fans of the game and to those who didn't know there was a game.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thirteen Days (2000)
10/10
"Powerful" doesn't even begin to describe it.
20 January 2001
"Thirteen Days" is a powerful and gripping movie. Actually, I'm not sure if 'powerful' is a strong enough word to describe it. I was immediately sucked in and, in fact, the only time reality came back to me during the entire movie was when my friend, who'd fallen asleep, suddenly jumped up wide awake at the roar of the jets... When the movie let out, everyone was yawning and stretching and in some way or another, complaining.

Not me, I was pumped up and ready to go talk about it to someone, I didn't care who, for hours and hours. Who cares if it was 'thirteen days long' or if Kevin Costner's accent was a little annoying? Admit it, the movie was about as good as movie's get. The acting was perfect (I believe Bruce Greenwood should at least get a Best Actor nomination, possibly Culp, too, for Supporting Actor), and the script... man, did somebody put some time into that script! Not only was it historically accurate (to the best of my knowledge anyway) but it was heart-warming and witty and was full of those "great lines" that people will memorize and repeat over and over for many years to come. My favorite part, however, is just a shot of Kevin Costner coming home. He gets out of his car, and instead of going inside his house, he turns and looks at his street, his neighborhood, his world... I hate saying more than I should, but if you've seen the movie you know what I'm talking about. The emotion that is shown in that scene... it gives me chills just thinking about it.

This film is intelligent, and beautiful, and 'powerful.' Believe me, if you see this movie, you'll not soon forget it...
63 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not the best, but worth a look.
20 January 2001
I love "The Crow," and there's not much in my mind that could be done in a sequel to top it. "Salvation," unlike "City of Angels," doesn't try to top the first one, or rip it off... The characters are solid, the performances are great, and the action is non-stop. But what singles this movie out is the story. It's a good story, not just another "Crow" movie. The direction of the film reminds me of the first, very dark, yet crisp (not gritty like the 2nd), and the trick camera angles mixed with the impressive special effects keep the supernatural elements alive as the very human story rolls along.

I work at a video store, and I see all kinds of movies that bypass theatres and come direct to video, and usually there's something about them that tells you why, even the good ones. This had the look and feel of something that, if released at the appropriate time, would have done well in the theatres. It wouldn't have been a smash hit, and it certainty wouldn't bring in as many people as the original did, but it deserves much better than this.

If you're fans of the franchise, I highly recommend that you see this. If you like the first one, but that's it, then expand your horizons a little and try to see this for what it is, and not what you thought it would be. It's a sequel to a GREAT movie, and it ends up being a pretty good movie on it's own...
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is incredible!
2 December 1999
Whoever says that movie is awful needs to sit down and watch it again, actually pay attention this time. Tim Robbins' performance was hilarious, and Howard was great. Stop comparing it to "Star Wars" and just give the movie a chance. People are too uptight about everything. It's supposed to be fun, so sit back and enjoy it for what it is. It's about a duck from outer space...I mean come on, it doesn't get any better than that.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed