Change Your Image
UselessRob
Reviews
Chicago (2002)
For the love of all things holy, just stop singing for a minute!!
WORTH IT FOR: Well, the cinema's seats were kind of comfy...
IMHO: Ok listen, I want to make it clear that I don't hate musicals. Sure, I don't love them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hate a movie just because it's a musical. I'd rather judge them on a musical by musical basis. For example, I quite liked Moulin Rouge and I thoroughly enjoyed South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, and they're both musicals. I did not, however, like Chicago much, for several reasons. Firstly I think there's a line between "ok so they sing a bit" musicals and "for the love of Jeff stop singing for a minute!" bionic musicals that should not be crossed. This thing tap dances on that line's grave. There are long stretches where they just don't stop singing. One song ends, 2 words are spoken, and before you know it the musics started up again. This might not matter if more than one or two of the songs were slightly catchy, toe tappin' tunes. But they aren't, and that's my second complaint. Maybe they are great tunes and the non-stop-edness of it made them all bleed together into one big thing? But I doubt it. Thirdly, somewhere along the way I've picked up the impression that most musicals have a comedic element. Some part of them that is funny. This thing tries to be funny in parts, but rarely succeeds. Sure there's the odd giggle, but there is not one big laugh. Forthly, what's wrong with Renee Zellweger's head? She spends the entire flick with a stupid pouty look on her face. It's as if she's busy sucking a toffee or has something stuck in her teeth she doesn't want you to see. On top of that she over-acts the whole thing as if she's in some cheap-ass school production. And that brings me to what annoyed me the most: This is a movie isn't it? Then why do they seem to have gone to so much trouble making it look like a stage production? If you're going to make a movie out of a stage show I would expect you to do something special. Something that can't be done on stage that requires it to be a film. But besides the quick cuts, instant costume changes and the lack of an interval, there's really not much in this that couldn't be done as good, if not better, on the stage. So what's the point of making it into a movie?? Sure, I understand that parts of the story are like Roxie's fantasies that everythings a show or whatever, but that's no excuse! That just means that this is completely the wrong choice to be made into a movie. When I'm sitting in a cinema washing down popcorn with enough salt on it to choke a zebra, with overpriced, watered down coke I expect to see something beyond what can be done on stage. What's worse is it feels like a stage show, yet when you heckle it doesn't put the actors off! So yelling "Gee nice tap dancing, buddy" doesn't have any effect! And before you start throwing things are your monitor in an attempt to injure me, let me tell you that I'm not the only one who felt like this. I checked without others who've seen it to see if there was something wrong with me. There is, but it's nothing to do with this movie. Now, I haven't seen the stage version of this (and I doubt I ever will now), but I would think that if you have, and you liked it, that you'd be even more disappointed with this. All that said, I didn't walk out, and it never seemed to drag on, so it can't be all bad. Maybe it's just not for me? Maybe I missed the ultra-interesting storyline because of all the endless singing? Maybe I should stick to watching more intellectual musicals like the aforementioned South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut? Who knows. If you dig endless show tunes and watching school plays you'll probably love this. But I didn't.
SCORE: 2 / 10
The Ring (2002)
Creepier than Joan Rivers!
WORTH IT FOR: The incentive it gives to go get a DVD player, just incase VHS tapes kill you.
IMHO: Despite what the title would have you believe there are neither Hobbits nor hemorrhoids in sight. And it's nothing to do with Christina Angulawhatever's new clip, altho I'm pretty sure you can see the ring in that... No, this is infact the heart warming tale of a video that kills you 7 days after you've watched it. I'm not sure if watching the same thing on DVD kills you, but I suppose it does. I guess it depends how close you sit to the screen, and how violent Blockbuster get when the copy of The Little Mermaid you rented is 7 days overdue. This is another horror movie involving creepy kiddies. It seems every flick that attempts to be scarey has to involve a creepy kid in someway. That doesn't make it bad tho, it is infact pretty good. The story is nice and original (it's a remake of a Japanese version which has spawned a sequel and prequel), and the cast, led by talented Aussie Naomi Watts, is great. But is it scarey? Well I was sitting in a puddle at the end, but that may have more to do with the size of the large Coke... After being told by people who had already seen this that I'd be having nightmares afterwards I packed a change of underwear and prepared for the worst, but it didn't come. Altho there are a few sudden frights (one made the girl behind me actually scream), and while you're watching it there is an undercurrent of "What's going to happen next??" kind of scarey-ness, after it had finished I looked back and thought "Well that wasn't really all that scarey". It didn't haunt me like The Sixth Sense or Bambi did. So I guess you have to decide for yourself whether its scarey enuff or not. That said, I'm never watching a video again. Infact I came straight home and took an axe to my VCR. Then I jumped on the pieces. Then I burned my shoes. But no, this isn't scarey. Either way this is a good flick and its fun to watch. Go see it. But don't sit in seat S17 in Cinema 6 of Village Crown til they've had a steam cleaning done...
IT'S A BIT LIKE: A horror movie involving creepy kiddies!
SCORE: 8 / 10
Crackerjack (2002)
Classic Mick Molloy.
WORTH IT FOR: If not for Mick Molloy's work, then for Judith Lucy. She brings her usual classy style of unbridled foul-mouthery to the role, and steals the show in parts.
IMHO: I'm not much of an autograph hunter, but I have collected 3. The first is Samuel L. Jackson's, the other 2 are in this movie: Tony Martin and Mick Molloy. Altho Martin only makes a cameo appearance, Molloy not only stars but co-wrote and co-produced this flick. I've been a fan of their for years now (apparently I was the only one laughing during the on-set urination in the first episode of the short lived The Mick Molloy Show), so I went in to this with high expectations. I'm happy to say I wasn't disappointed. With Mick doing a lot of the work on this thing there's plenty of his usual trademarks. Phrases like "blow it out your arse" and "these bowls are s***house" are all over the place, aswell as plenty of Winnie Blues being sucked down. It's also the sort of stupid, original story you'd expect from someone like him. This is like one of those cliqued, American, sporting comedies where they make a baseball team out of prisoners or something. But rather than trying to make a dull American sport like baseball or gridiron interesting, this movie focuses on a sport usually left to grey army: Lawn Bowls. But the main difference between this and other sporting type comedies is that this is actually very, very funny. What's even better is that even tho the subject of this movie is a young lout joining an old folks game, it's never insulting to the elderly, and it never gets sickeningly soppy or anything. It's just good laughs at genuine 1972 prices. Mick is great in the first real acting role I've ever seen him in, as is Judith Lucy and the rest of the cast, but then most of them have had a lot of practice... This is the best Australian comedy I've seen in a long time. Go see it and learn the joys of Lawn Bowls!
IT'S A BIT LIKE: Major League?
SCORE: 8 / 10
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
Is Star Trek dead?
WORTH IT FOR: I thought the space battles were pretty impressive. Seems for the first time in Star Trek they've realised space is 3D!
IMHO: I don't own a home-made Starfleet uniform or a pair of pointy, rubber ears. I don't speak Klingon or Vulcan (I'm Australian so I barley speak english). I don't obsess about the fact that the number of decks on the Enterprise keeps changing or how many hairs a Romulan should have on his chin. Simply put I am not a Star Trek lovin' nutbag. Infact Star Trek lovin' nutbags are in my top 3 all time greatest fears just above guys named "Susan". However, for the most part I do like Star Trek. Most of the movies have been good. Deep Space 9 was fantastic, and the new Enterprise series seems to be going well. And most of all I always liked The Next Generation. So when Picard's latest adventure finally got released in the cinemas here in Australia I went to see it on the first weekend. What I hadn't realised is how dead Star Trek must be. It seems the fans are bordering on extinction in these parts. On the Saturday night of the first weekend of release the cinema wasn't even half full. I can remember having to queue to get into Generations and First Contact. But when you think about it, it's understandable that Star Trek fans would be a dying breed. The previous movie, Insurrection was craptacular at best. And they've had to endure 7 years of Voyager, a series full of bad stories, bad writing, and bad actors which never managed to string 2 good episodes together. So I can understand why old fans aren't flocking to see the latest movie. Which is a shame. I was surprised at how good this movie is. Maybe I was just expecting something so bad that there was no way I couldn't be impressed? Or maybe I was just so happy to see Captain Baldy and his buddies out for another jaunt round the quadrant that I saw past all the faults? Whatever the reason, I still enjoyed it. But its far from the best.
(SOME SPOILERS AHEAD)
For starters the story isn't all that original. It's basically a double "evil twin" story, which were done to death back in Kirk's day. At least there's some originality behind Picard's tho. But doesn't Data already have an evil twin in Lore? He wasn't even mentioned. There also seems ot be some gaps in the story. Maybe they just decided to chop chunks out instead of further exploring them? This is also a pretty slow affair, at least in the first half. So for the less patient among you it may be hard to take. It's also just another Picard/Data story. It seems somewhere along the way someone decided they're the only 2 character worth writing about. I'm sure Riker used to do more than just his wierd wooden walk, as did the rest of the crew. They're all there, but they don't have much to do. But what annoyed me most is that they never seem to do anything in Star Trek without a safety net. There were echos of Spock's death when Data uploads his memory to his new found twin before heading off to die. Does this mean the next movie will be "Star Trek XI: The Search for Data"? It's so obvious they'll be able to bring him back if they need to. With all it's faults tho, I still enjoyed watching this, and I'm sure I'll still go and see the next one. But it seems Patrick Stewart, who carries all of the TNG movies, has said he wont do anymore. Which could be because he's realised that they're going downhill fast. So maybe it's time to stop making these movies, at least until someone comes along with a truly original idea. With no Picard who else will they concentrate on? I bet they've got William Shatner in a glass booth somewhere with a sign saying "Break Glass Incase Of Emergency". Maybe they should contentrate on Captain Riker's new ship and crew, or wait til Enterprise has finished it's run and give them a movie? As long as they don't bring that boring bunch of bad actors known as the Voyager crew back. If that happens, then it's obvious they're really out of ideas. Go see this one, it could be the last.
SCORE: 7 / 10