Change Your Image
adavis-6
Reviews
The Ring (2002)
Frustrating but good.
*Possible spoilers* What can one truly say about the Ring? On the one hand it was frustrating. The relationship between the Samara, Aiden and Rachel is not explained well. Why did Samara choose to speak to Aiden? Why was it important for Rachel to pull the remains of Aiden from the well? Why does Noah get whacked? After all, he helped solve the mystery. I would think he would be on the inner track with Samara. And why does Rachel make copies of the tape for distribution? There is no indication that she is compelled to do this. The whole thing is not explained well enough in my view. I understand that we want to leave some of this to our own interpretations but there is always the possibility that by leaving too much we become frustrated. This film comes very close to that line.
On the other hand it was disturbing. I have to admit that as I went to bed after watching it I had a far-fetched tiny little fear that my TV set might suddenly pop on. If it had, I guarantee that I would they probably would have found me in the morning with that same twisted look of fear on my face as the people in the film. It was disturbing enough for me that it was just a little bit harder to feel completely comfortable in the dark. The whole sequence where Samara comes out of the well and walks towards the `camera' is totally creepy by any interpretation. If the goal was to leave images in the mind that continue to creep you out for days after you saw the film, then the filmmakers succeeded in that respect. I think for that reason you can forget about the frustration and have a good time with this one.
Pi (1998)
Art for art's sake
Between the film techniques, the imagery, the soundtrack, the references to so many different theories and beliefs it would be difficult to try to either diagram the story, or squeeze it into a haiku. Pi is a difficult film to nail down so do not try. Do not try to analyze, do not try to pick apart, and do not question it. Just relax and let it flow over you. It is art simply film art for art's sake. Recognize it as such.
Phantasm (1979)
Always heard it was a classic- but turned out not to be
Just some quick thoughts on Phantasm, which I saw for the first time recently. It is extremely `dated' and low budget by today's standards. All it would hope to have in its favor is an extremely captivating concept (i.e. Rosemary's Baby, the Omen, the Exorcist). Instead, the plot, which starts of interesting enough, trails off until you are `fast forwarding' just to finish. The end is, in my opinion, a cop out. I left this one feeling ripped off. I had always heard about the phenomena that was Phantasm. I was hoping to count it among the `classic horror films' but it is just a poor film. Back in '79 it was probably entertaining, but is hokey and not classic material. This makes it a B-type film in out current age. My opinion- fun to laugh at but not if you want to be scared.
The Time Machine (2002)
Great Diversion- if you can get over a few things
This film is currently making its way around satellite and I recently saw it for the first time.
In general, the film was both enthralling and thought provoking. The plot, although somewhat predictable in some parts, also caused the viewer to contemplate the larger issues of space and time and whether or not it is possible to alter the events of time.
As for the story, you have to separate yourself from the book or the original film for a while and evaluate the movie as a single works. I believe when one does so; they will probably find a story worth telling. In order to enjoy this, one must also suspend reality.
There were several `very honorable mentions' in this movie. One was the holographic librarian (Vox) played by Orlando Jones, who sets my mind to smoking when he asks, `Do you know what it's like to remember everything?' The other was the Uber-Morlock (a sort of half David Bowie half alien from Signs) played by Jeremy Irons, who makes some very meaningful statements on the ethics of slaughtering people for food.
If you are a Sci-Fi nut, and if you can get over the fact that 1) this is not very close to the H.G. Wells book, 2) is not that close to the original film and 3) does not make very convincing explanations of how Alexander travels through time then this film is a great diversion.
Black Knight (2001)
Disappointing performance by Martin Lawrence
Finally got around to seeing this one on D-TV.
I believe most know the plot: man from South-Central LA is teleported to the days of Knights and becomes involved in a rebellion to oust the evil King and restore the good Queen.
In general, it was disappointing because the screenplay did not allow Martin Lawrence to be as funny as he normally is. It seemed forced and weighted down. Unlike other Lawrence films (i.e. Bad Boys, Blue Streak, Big Mama's House) we were not able to see the Martin that we all know and love (or hate). Instead of the impulsive, quick-witted Martin we expect, what we actually saw was Martin that struggled with a poor, predictable script that runs out of fuel in the first twenty minutes and leaves Martin to try to make something out of the remaining hour. As funny as he can be, he is no miracle worker.
All in all I give it a mediocre to low rating. The worst thing is that when I see that Martin Lawrence is going to be in a film I expect certain level of funniness from him. I was disappointed. I feel gypped out of one hour-twenty-minutes of my Saturday.
Shallow Hal (2001)
OK- but I felt short changed
I just saw this for the first time and have some very simple observations.
As entertainment it definitely held my interest: It was funny in parts; the characters were generally likeable; there was a logical flow; the pace of the movie was right. As a moral lesson though I felt short changed. When you finally get to see Rosemary you are left with the feeling that she is not ALL THAT BAD. Gwyneth Paltrow's head superimposed on an overweight body is not exactly the most horrific site on the planet.
Basically, I was able to watch it in one sitting, and not feel the need to fast forward. For that, I generally rate it an OK to good movie.
Signs (2002)
Deeper meaning
I hear many criticize Signs because of perceived flaws in the plot: the aliens would not have landed on a planet 7/10 water; why did Graham have no guns to protect his family; an advanced civilization would wear protective suits when they came to land etc.
I believe that in order to appreciate the film you have to back off the analysis of the technical aspects and give it some leeway for minor holes in the plot and see that the story really is about. It is an illustration of Divine Providence. Once the viewer sees this, he can appreciate the film for what it truly is. I found it to be a very poignant illustration of this sometime difficult to comprehend spiritual doctrine.
The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)
Rare Artistry
Nightmare Before Christmas was a ground-breaking movie for what it did in the way of animation, and for the bizarre plot line that had never been done before, nor will probably ever be done again. After all, who would have thought such a thing as a skeleton taking over Christmas?
I don't think a lot of people `got it'. It is difficult for some to just sit back and appreciate something for it's artistic value alone. So many look to be spoon fed 100% excitement during the entire hour an a half of any film before they like it.
In my humble opinion, almost ten years later the film holds up. I believe that its value is in the creativity of both the screenplay and the musical score. This is true art. Tim Burton and Danny Elfman were able to put something very rare together with this movie.