aeon_nephesh Reviews

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

eh.. worth the dollar theatre price.

[5/10 · 11 July 2004]

*** POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

after all the rancor and trailers earlier this year, i figured i'd just wait until "the day after tomorrow" hit my area second-run theatre to go see it. being the skeptic of "global warming" that i am, i would never fork over full price to see something touting global warming as the sole cause of a geological cataclysm so powerful it would cause a total climate shift. unless of course it featured something remotely plausible; like a severe nuclear winter.

one of the numerous criticisms/complaints about this production is the way in which it features steaming heaps of leftist propaganda so hokey, it could've been written by bono himself. true, the attitudes portrayed here are stereotypical per their characters' archetypes, and we must resign ourselves early in the story to these stereotypes. also true that several "controversial" scenes do exist; if i can describe one such scene without spoiling it excessively: at one point we see American evacuees (called "refugees" in the story) flooding into Mexico whilst Mexican officials and authorities blockade gates and refuse entrance. a number of fellow patrons shook their heads at this scene, and i found myself thinking, "typical". i daresay this was not the desired effect of the filmmakers, as they were clearly trying to get us to think, "but they're just trying to escape a bad situation!". this concept recurs more towards the end of the film, and the educated viewer is likely only to bristle at the attempt, and discard it from consideration as mindless propaganda. you see, i live in arizona, very near the Mexican border. we accept Mexican "refugees", who are "simply trying to escape a bad situation" on an hourly basis. so when i saw that scene, i didn't have one of those "now i'm in the other pair of shoes and it feels funny in the bad way" reactions. rather, i had the "of course. my country takes them and my country's government even considered giving amnesty to all of them. of course they should refuse us, as that's why their people came here in the first place."

my point is that the film's message is completely lost in its (un?)intentionally offensive and dare i say, slanderous, assault on American leadership, law, and culture. of course, we hear terms arise such as "western civilization". the problem occurs in the entire northern hemisphere, yet there is little to no mention of europeans. whilst "western civilization" is uttered, we see absolutely no adverse phenomenon in -south- America. in the beginning of the film, we see a few seconds of a hail storm in japan, and then we leave japan and hear nothing of it ever again. the extent of the European depiction is limited to three scientists trapped in the united kingdom. nothing more. also omitted from the "global disaster" are china, the entire middle east, all of africa, micronesia, and oddly enough we see absolutely nothing in canada, supposedly hit the hardest by this curiously karmic cataclysm. with so many politics tossed about the dialogue so freely, and with so many major world players completely absent from the consequences of the storms, one cannot help but feel an unmitigated sense of antiamericanism.

personally, i brushed it off as intestinal gas and enjoyed the scene where sam slams the door on the wild wolf. not since "conan the barbarian" have i seen a character so not willing to succumb to the innate cuteness of an uppity animal. bravo, sam.

2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)

2 retarded 2 unoriginal 4 me

[1/10 · 18 June 2003]

instead of commenting on every last stupid little note, i'll get right to the point:

when some friends and i were watched previews and trailers before "matrix reloaded" started, the trailer for this waste of stock came on. i kid you not, every other person in the entirely packed theater winced and you could hear whispers of "how stupid!", "not again...", "oh god.", "what, the first one didn't make enough ignorant teenagers think they could fly?" and "yeah right.". i would've killed to catch all the comments on tape.

Willard (2003)

wow, this must've fallen through the mpaa's cracks.

[10/10 · 14 March 2003]

amazing. the mpaa, which normally does all it can to ruin a decent horror movie, must be loosening its unrealistic expectations of entertaining people without some whole-hearted swearing and violence. i thought this day would never come.

"willard" isn't going to entertain the branch of people that go to movies to find the meaning of life much, or the branch of people that need lots of explosions and shiny things. it's for those of us who like seeing dementia at its boiling point, without resorting to overblown, hackeneyed old junk. the subtleties are what i like the most; like the scene in the store, where willard's trying to find the best rat exterminator; and the smooth pans across the cess-scape that is willard's house, and so on. you go to a movie like this to be entertained; and it does entertain, unless you're one of those elitist-snob types that thinks all good horror stopped with [insert obscure european director of choice here].

crispin glover's acting was amazing. then again, it's crispin glover... he's probably weird enough not to really act. willard the character is sort of like the goth-nerd version of george mcfly from "back to the future". that alone was well worth it. the small cast in "willard" included r lee ermey, as a nasty boss, mr. martin. he's another brilliant actor who usually doesn't have to act.

now, i know there are plenty of you willard-haters out there.. but what do you want? it's a story about a guy who constantly gets crapped on, who forms a weird relationship with rats and uses them to exact revenge on people. it's not going to enlighten us on the unanswered questions of the cosmos. honestly, i'm sick to death of people giving negative reviews of any entertainment media because it'll make their nihilist livejournal friends think they're smart.

just go see it, and at least appreciate the part where willard says, "i hate everyone but you."

Hawaii (1966)

christians: don't take it personally.

[10/10 · 3 February 2003]

i lived in hawaii for two years, and as a part of my standard elementary school curriculum, hawaiian history as taught by actual kapunas was always interesting. i didn't see "hawaii" until about ten years after living there. based on everything i was told while i was there, "hawaii" accurately describes the decimation of islands' tribal system by the onslaught of forced christianity.

if you're "offended as a christian" at this movie, you might want to question the virtues of selling or otherwise pushing a mythology on a society that's already had one for ages. the story of "hawaii" was never intended to be "anti-christian", or "politically correct" anymore than "jay and silent bob" was meant to be politically correct. not to be too glib, but one of the main points, especially with the character hale, is that people should have better priorities about themselves, such as mastering and resolving their own lives, sooner than worrying over, or assuming responsiblity for other people's dogmatic inclinations. this particular point has been made in countless stories since the beginning, but people always miss it because they're too busy doing their best to take the statements as personal attacks, whether against their religions, their lifestyles, or even in these inane days, the color of their socks.

if you're secure in your beliefs as a christian, you should have no reason to be offended as a christian at this or any other story. yes, this story states point blank that christian missionaries did their best to destroy hawaii's native beliefs, traditions, et cetera; and yes, it happened. it's also an accurate history-based depiction of events neither any of you nor i are held responsible. there's nothing that demands a christian viewer needs to have any particular "identity" with hale, or any other figure like him. if you were catholic, would you automatically identify with tomas de torquemada while watching "the pit and the pendulum"? the purpose of these characters is not only to recount history, but also to teach people what not to do, how not to do it, and to some extent, who not to be.

if, as christians, you should come away from this story with only one thought, it should be, "wow, that was unfortunate. i hope something like that doesn't happen again."

eXistenZ (1999)

just... awful. incredibly awful. and boring.

[1/10 · 5 August 2002]

if you think this money/time-waster had anything unique or original about it, you'd probably think "showgirls" was "deeply thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating".

you should never make a claim you can't actually back up; people were left disappointed by this monstrosity of a movie not because they didn't see any over-the-top CGI or any super-human effects. they were left disappointed because the characters sucked, despite an honest effort from jude law, and the story itself wasn't remotely original or new or dimensional. you couldn't care what happened to anyone, and the total lack of a plot was by no means a "big brainiac massive attack" on your ability to discern a story from sutured-together messes of skeletal ideas for a story. by the end, you're left wishing you'd rented something far more intelligent; something like, say, disney's "bubble boy".

this movie blew, and it blew hard. in fact, it blew so hard, it makes "moulin rouge" look good.

Bubble Boy (2001)

finally, a children's movie with truth in it!

[10/10 · 17 February 2002]

people claim that all this movie does is "bash" things, but rather i think it makes fun of people who are 100% true to their negatively connotated stereotypes. if you were offended by anything in this movie, you're most likely offended at something in yourself.

we need more productions which spare no feelings when making a commentary on the TRUE nature of life on this planet today. i think that was one of this movie's main points: it's useless and stupid to try to keep people from reality. the side points are numerous, from the insinuation that women are more likely to go for men with jobs than not, to noting the frequent practice by christians to default every other religion as evil, as well as the idea that people get sick of them doing it.

ultimately, if you plan on keeping your child or yourself in a bubble as long as possible, you might as well watch "tribulation" or some other piece of crap designed to promote resentment of the truth of humankind.

remember: it wouldn't be a stereotype if it wasn't true.

Dispatches: Beneath the Veil (2001) Season 15, Episode 5

"i was actually disturbed.."

[10/10 · 10 January 2002]

technically, shah's work on this documentary was excellent. the information was delivered in a truly haunting method, as if the information itself wasn't horrific enough.

as far as the effect her documentary had on me, i don't suppose i could say anything that different from what has already been said... but when i watched this, i felt i'd understood why my father volunteered for vietnam when he was seventeen years old; why he and other americans felt justified, felt that they were only trying to help.. shah's "beneath the veil" definitely sets her apart from pseudojournalists trying to bank off of sensationalism without playing headgames or guilt trips.

Herd (1999)

holy crap!

[10/10 · 10 January 2002]

everything in this movie is hilarious, witty, and terrifying. i don't know which image is more unnerving: the jehova's witnesses with helmets or the plastic pig dressed like a gay cowboy, or the scene of dorman and the alien during "the morning after".

i have never seen any student film quite like this one, where the direction is so "well, i'm here. look at me or don't," yet still so brutal. i don't want to spoil the ending, but if you've seen it, you'll know what i mean. mike mitchell is a freaking genius, i can't wait to see more from him. H.E.R.D makes the kind of sense that's pretty much inexplicable in terms of verbosity... you really just have to see it.

American Psycho (2000)

uhh... what was the point, again?

[3/10 · 10 January 2002]

the only reason i gave this movie a 3 was for the scene where christian runs around bloody, naked, carrying a chainsaw. well, that and the axe murders and the book full of bizzare drawings. that was cool, i guess.

as far as a storyline, there was none. i watched an interview with the director on the dvd release, and all i really heard her say was "blah blah blah men behaving badly in the 80s blah blah", which sounded like, "i have a severe case of penis envy and the only way i can solve it is by making a really crappy film which makes all men out to be broken pigs, using the trend towards wealth as an excuse!"

i really hate it when otherwise decent subject matter with real potential just gets crammed into an hour and a half of nonsensical "commentary" on junk people stopped caring about ten years ago.

The Others (2001)

finally, a horror movie with a story.

[10/10 · 29 August 2001]

i used to love elaborate horror movies when i was little; films with really deep, cerebral perspectives on what the word "scary" could mean. if anyone remembers such movies as "lord of the phantasm" and first two "hellraiser" films, you'll know what i mean. i'm sick to death of these stupid teen films ("scream", "i know what you did last summer", "the faculty") which are just cranked out one after another with absolutely no substance or story, as to satisfy the legions of lackwitted HI I HAVE ADD! dimwits. "the others" is a work of art.

*****spoiler*****

it's hard to say what i liked best about this movie; everything was great. the imagery was familliar, but not at all "comfortable", and the time period was morbid enough without help. the effect of the book of the dead, on me at least, manifested in a deep "agh crap!" feeling in my stomach. i've had an aversion to photographs of people anyway, but just the thoughts of living in such a place during that time and then finding an artifact created deliberately to devise an afterlife... *shudder*.

i once lived in a house where many of the same phenomena occurred... and the people who say this movie is slow and boring seem as if they just can't "get it", perhaps due to a lack of similar experience. the subtle changes in atmosphere in the house, the sounds, the frantic search for the curtains; all these built up to an ambience that must have spooked, if not terrified, some of the more intellectual audiences. towards the end, when we learn that the living have been haunting the dead, i was forced to wonder if nature could actually be as such... i was definitely creeped out and very awake for hours after.

unfortunately for me, my experience was dampened by a crowd of rude yard-apes in the back row who insisted on shouting, walking around, and loudly cackling throughout the whole movie. i had to fight the urge to turn around and flood the dark with loud obscenities several times, and once complained to a security guard who had to come in and sit near the teenagers to keep things down. i almost never attend movies in theatres, expressly because of rude children and the laws against throwing them over the sides of the seating area. i'd recommend seeing this movie at a late show during the week, primarily a monday, tuesday, or wednesday. you definitely don't want distractions and disturbances for this one.

as a footnote, i was reading other reviews, and i couldn't help but notice how so many people (predominately male, from the looks of it) initially said this movie was boring and slow... is anyone else reminded of max headroom? you can't condense a good story into ninety minutes of brainless chases, screaming, shooting, stabbing, or the like. i once saw "terminatory 2" on tv, condensed to just an hour. it was absolutely horrid. good storytelling takes time and good characters take time to develop. it's good to see i'm not the only person fed up with gangly teenaged actresses running around with their arms flailing and braless tops flying everywhere in productions that amount to little better than tommy hilfiger ads.

Mimic 2 (2001 Video)

i hated it. i absolutely hated it.

[1/10 · 24 August 2001]

ugh god, i was so annoyed by everything in this movie, all i can say is simply don't waste money on it. watch it for its incredible annoyance capacity, but don't actually pay for it.

there's nothing special about anything in this movie. the plot is dull and trite, the acting is horrible, the sound effects are frequently poorly timed and delivered, and the imagery isn't the least bit provoking. there's no message used in this movie at all; but it's a sequel to a movie which really didn't need one or leave much room to cause one, so what can be expected?

****** spoiler *******

the characters in this movie are so annoying, you wish they'd all die. i was especially happy to see remi get stabbed in the abdomen by one of the roaches. i swear, i've never seen a character so self-obsessed and ..broken by day to day life, as well as repulsively interested in arthropods. the satisfaction of seeing her betrayed by her gross interest was quickly dashed, as she winds up nursed back to health by the said roach, which seems to have chosen her for a mate. i won't even begin to list all the things just plain stupid about that.

the slashing end to the movie would have been fine; but it's too unbelievable an action coming from remi. i could see her easily castrating klaski, but never hurting one of her precious insect friends.

beyond that, i don't really remember much from the movie. that's how dull it is. i'm thinking of complaining to hollywood video so i can get a free rental of something worthwhile. i recommend you do the same if you should rent this. trust me, the staff will "understand".