acinemafan Reviews

Cobweb (2023)

A movie that's really two films in one

[7/10 · 24 October 2023]

Cobweb is a good horror movie, using the word in singular, when it's actually two movies. The two halves have very different tones (the first being eerie suspense, and the second outright horror).

The movie is worth watching at this point, because you're not investing time and money in a movie theater. But the way the script is laid out, it is a bit odd how the movie plays itself out from the first part to the second part.

Semi spoiler below:

A question I have, which really wasn't answered, was, why did parents behaved the way they did. For, if they'd behave differently, the second half of the movie would not have occurred. (Their behavior provoked their son's action.).

Smile (V) (2022)

Too long PLUS an insult to mental health

[3/10 · 12 October 2023]

The latter part of title is the most important, in my opinion, because it was offensive how the protagonist's loved ones treated her during her break downs (a little creative writing was all that was needed to have them help her, rather than be insensitive, or outright reject her). If this movie had been made just ten year ago, I could understand this treatmeant of mental health for the sake of horror. But, this movie is from 2022.

In above to the complaint, the movie did not need to be as long as it was to tell the story. Oh, and it was a weak 'monster'. (No real follow through, attempt to fully explain the entity.)

Black Adam (2022)

Painfully bad

[2/10 · 27 December 2022]

Dwayne Johnson has a lot of charisma, as exemplified in movies like "The Jungle Cruise," and the "Jumanji" movies (he has a great sense of humor). His weakness appears to be dramatic acting (no a scowl is not considered acting).

Now, Johnson's shortcomings may have been due to the director not directing him, because the rest of the film is bad, as well. It looks like it looks like it was made for the WB network, where you find those superhero shows in which everything is beautiful - including the cast.

A man whose been resurrected after a thousand years, appears to be adjusting quite well. Wow. The quote between Hawkman and Tech-Adam that is shared by this very site is cringe worthy.

Halloween Ends (2022)

An abrupt shift

[2/10 · 1 November 2022]

It really looks like the writers, Paul Brad Logan, Chris Bernier, Danny McBride, and David Gordon Green, realized they only 25 page script (equalling a 25 min. Movie) to tell the end of their story of Michael Myers.

So, what did they do? Those writers created a brand new character, and essentially made the story about him. Thus, while there are critics who are complementing this twist, it is fairly transparent that this change was made to make the film feature length.

It's sad, but, ironically, just as McBride and Green said audiences should ignore EVERY sequel, including "Halloween II," because their first outing picked up after the original, audiences should ignore their third film. (The studio would probably like to this, because then they can make more Halloween films!).

The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)

A good movie, but may disappoint many

[7/10 · 10 February 2018]

"The Cloverfield Paradox" was a good movie. It's well-acted, with a good story. The one issue, which may cause many to be very disappointed in it, is that the 'Cloverfield' connection is but a wisp of the movie, so it won't satisfy one's appetite for that mythology. However, if one doesn't like this movie for that reason, which is fair, "10 Cloverfield Lane" had to also disappoint greatly, with what appeared to be a separate story that had the 'Cloverfield' mythology attached to the end.

But, because the plot has very little to do with the mythology, it is understandable to dislike this movie. As for entertainment, it is suspenseful and well done.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

Great movie -- but best for under 25 crowd

[9/10 · 10 July 2017]

"Spider-Man: Homecoming" is a very good movie, mixing a John Hughes-style teen film and a superhero flick – which may actually be a problem for anyone over 25 year old. This movie feels like it was deftly taken right off the comic book pages, like no other superhero film before it, seeing a truly juvenile, but well meaning, teen, who now has super powers, try to be a hero.

However, just as it is unlikely someone over 25 (being generous with that high of an age) will read a superhero comic, it's unlikely an adult would really enjoy a teen, coming-of-age comedy, like "Sixteen Candles", for example.

I am well aware of how odd this review may read, highly complimenting "Spider-Man: Homecoming" (it is an excellent movie), but also suggesting it may not be as enjoyable for those over 25, than those under that age. This film is simply going to play much better for the younger crowd.

Alien: Covenant (2017)

A very good movie worth seeing in theaters

[9/10 · 21 May 2017]

"Alien: Covenant" is a good movie, and worth seeing in the theater. I saw this with a friend, whose first reaction was a disappointment, because he didn't see it as a horror, which is what he anticipated -- in no small part, I'm sure, because of the TV ads, which harken back to the original Alien. However, after talking about the movie, and my sharing my only three criticisms, he gave the film a B- (I give it a B, though, few movies will get an A for me).

Ridley Scott had quite a task in front of him with "Alien: Covenant." First, he was coming off the mass disappointment in "Prometheus," and the high expectation of meeting the high water mark of the original "Alien." The bar was high, and the cliff to fall off was a sheer one, and very slippery, with another disappointment being potentially catastrophic. While not a perfect movie (few are), "Alien: Covenant" is very good, with a well written characters, a good story, and effective suspense. Be forewarned, though, there is important dialogue that may be difficult to hear.

La La Land (2016)

Ruined by the ending

[3/10 · 15 May 2017]

Without giving anything away, there is a stark tonal shift at the close of the movie, and this is a major problem. People likely watched/will want to watch this movie for it's romantic, nostalgic nod to Hollywood. That's the way "La La Land" was advertised. And the majority of the film follows what was promoted -- except the ending. And that ruins the movie.

Upon doing some reading after seeing the movie, the director was trying to be complex with the ending, and, perhaps because of his youth and inexperience as a filmmaker, it looks like he was trying to be too clever.

"La La Land" was a repeat viewing movie -- until the ending. And now, I just want to forget about this movie, and am glad it didn't win Best Picture.

Split (IX) (2016)

dissatisfied

[3/10 · 27 April 2017]

Sadly, the big weakness of this movie is James McAvoy. He's a good actor, but this movie tested -- and went beyond his skills. He looks like he's performing in "Split" -- even looking like he's in an acting class, projecting different personalities. It may be an odd comparison at first glance, but his many scenes can be compared to Brando in "Apocalypse Now," with the focus directly on him and how he emotes. And McAvoy just comes up short. For me, he just didn't hold my interest.

And then there's the loose end of the one heroine. Very odd back story pertaining to her, that has no closure. Quite dissatisfying. Now, one may argue that her story is realistic, but that realism is incongruent with the main story. It's a side story that just doesn't fit.

Disappointed.

With all that being said, if you find McAvoy fun/intriguing to watch, you may love the movie. It relies almost completely on his performance.

!!BIG SPOILER!! As the story played out, and knowing that twists are Shyamalan are his signature move, I thought we'd see that the villain was a certain character's son from a previous Shyamalan film. But that was not the case.

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

Very good movie

[8/10 · 16 June 2016]

I don't understand why "X-Men: Apocalypse" received poor ratings. I found the movie to be very good. If you are a fan of the X-Men and/or enjoyed "Captain America: Civil War", you will likely enjoy this film.

Instead of offering my own review, I am going to respond to the "top critics" from Rottentomatoes.com:

"It's basically a closing chapter to a feeble trilogy that started out pretty well and then ran out of gas... Oscar Isaac wasted in the role of an invulnerable ancient supervillain who becomes vulnerable just in time for the final showdown." Andrew O'Hehir (Salon.com) Clearly this critic is biased against the comic, for he refers to it as a "feeble trilogy". And if he paid attention (and didn't look forward to his scathing review), he would've seen that Apocalypse was not vulnerable, but a "back door" access was made to begin defeating him via Jean Grey in his mind (something that wasn't possible earlier in the film).

"Mutants galore infest "X-Men: Apocalypse," but the pile-on quickly becomes wearying....but the storyline, such as it is, would have benefited from major pruning." Peter Rainer (ChristianScienceMonitor) A pile-on of mutants? There are possible three additional mutants added, with only one being introduced for the first time (Nightcrawler). Inclusion shouldn't be an issue, it's time taken for backstories that become clutter. And, "pruning"? This is a very simple story, only the characters are given a little more dimension beyond simple cartoon characters.

And my response to Rainer, applies to Peter Travers of Rolling Stone magazine, as well ("Enough already. Singer throws so much mutant at us that nothing sticks. I was almost rooting for Trump to impose a quota.") Jean Grey, Cyclops, Mystique, Quicksilver, and Nightcrawler, with the last one being the only new character (though, he did appear previously). Mr. Travers, the movie is not called, "X-Man," and per your complaint, like O'Hehir from Salon.com, it appears you don't like this comic series.

Well, I could go on, but, you get the point. The story is good -- and not convoluted. The acting is good. And, of course, the directing is good. If you liked the other "X-Men" movies, you like this one. And, personally, I found this one better than "Days of Future Past", which was a bit convoluted for my taste.

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Wanted to see this... Only to discover a "B" movie with a big budget

[3/10 · 5 August 2014]

First, don't blow up if you disagree with this review, but I was rather disappointed in "Guardians of the Galaxy". Like, I would guess everyone of you, I was very much looking forward to see this movie.

However, within mere minutes, this film felt like a "B" movie with an "A" level budget (search all of the "B" Sci-Fi and Fantasy films that were released in the 70's and 80's!). The only difference was the money that was clearly put into this movie (the dialog, while many, I'm sure, had a good laugh, was cheesy to me, with pop culture reference jokes that just don't belong in a Fantasy film!).

During the course of the movie, I kept being reminded of the "Star Wars" films -- and not the latter three! Yes, much of the film seemed to borrow from "A Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Cones". But, worse, over and over, I was getting deja vu of... wait for it... "Flash Gordon"! Yes, a great, but very much "B" movie, from the 80's, that, thanks to the recent hit, "Ted", made a return to our pop culture radar. The final battle, didn't make me chuckle, but groan with it's similarity to the final battle in "Flash Gordon." If you loved this movie, great. Everyone has their own tastes. I'm just warning those who haven't viewed "Guardians of the Galaxy", and are considering going to see it because of all the money it's made. Wait until it comes out on DVD.

Godzilla (2014)

Sincere review: Skip this movie. It is so derivative.

[20 May 2014]

WARNING: SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW There isn't an original bone in this film's body. It takes far too long for anything to happen. And Aaron Taylor-Johnson lacks any charisma (the guy's expression is frozen in stoicism, always on the edge of tears!).

On the bright side, we know what happened to the monster in "Cloverfield!" (Yes, the other monsters look like that creature.) I do think the director, Gareth Edwards, did his earnest best, but it's as if he made the movie directly from a 'Big Budget Suspense 1.01' movie manual. I lost count of the number of scenes and elements in this film that were copied from others (e.g. all the adults looking in one direction, and a child turning back to look behind them, just as a character may be killed by a monster, Godzilla saves him -- see: Jurassic Park climax!).

Speaking of Jurassic Park, the beginning of this film felt like the screen writer found pages from the screen play and used them! So, save your money (I wasted mine), and skip this movie. There are more movies coming this summer that (hopefully) will be worth your dollars.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

More of a TV pilot than a movie

[1/10 · 28 December 2012]

"The Amazing Spider-Man" is just plain bad. It plays more like a TV series pilot episode than a major motion picture. For example, there is no subtlety in any of the scenes, whether it's Flash being a bully or Peter discovering his powers.

Also, Peter getting bitten and discovering those abilities happened very quickly, just as one would see in a TV series pilot episode, where the story and characters are established rather quickly.

I really felt like I was watching a TV show on MTV rather than a movie. And, one doesn't have to look far to see how it's supposed to be done. "Spider-Man" is available for all to see.

The Innkeepers (2011)

Decent movie for it's budget

[7/10 · 7 October 2012]

Spoiler Alert: For a film whose budget was apparently so small that it's not listed on a website that supplies such information, this is a good and effective film (the obvious makeup done on the ghosts draws a grin).

For a simple ghost story, I recommend this movie. I can provide the chills if you just try and sit back and enjoy.

When compared with the plethora of other horror movies that have come out recently, the presentation of a very simple ghost story here worked for me. Is "The Innkeepers" a masterpiece? Far from it, when considering the budget, it's worthwhile to watch. Just be prepared for the slow pacing.

The Tree of Life (2011)

Awful movie

[1/10 · 14 July 2012]

This movie is awful. Why? It's nothing more than a collections of images. Millions of people could do what Malick did in this film, as opposed to making a cohesive narrative. Shoot this, have an actor say that. Too easy. Abstract? It's obscurity is just plain easy to do.

What if one shot here and one line there was different in the movie? It wouldn't make a difference. Malick could've easily reached into a bowl and randomly selected the order of all the scenes. And that's why this movie is awful. YOU could make this movie.

A cohesive storyline take real talent because, when well done, you are drawn into the story and emotionally invested in the characters. Both of which are accomplished with deft writing, directing, and great performances.

I rest my case with the simple statement that a film of this ilk can be seen in most film schools, where you can find those abstract art-house, student films.

I Want Your Money (2010)

Republican financially screwed up our county and now they're complaining!

[1/10 · 23 May 2011]

Under Clinton, our debt clock was covered with an American flag, and under Bush, that very same clock had to be removed in order to replace it with one that had more zeroes. Enough said.

Those who love this movie simply want their existing opinion reaffirmed by those on the screen.

Oh, and the 'Tea Party'. It's a joke. It started as a protest of a Democrat in the White House (with racist signs sprinkled in the crowd). The press talked about the deficit and this lunatic fringe started complaining about that, pointing it's finger at the Democrat in the White House.

But, oops, the members then learned the deficit falls squarely on the shoulders of President Bush -- a Republican! What's an angry person to do?! Putting on the appearance of distancing yourself from the GOP, while still being very much Republican! Too funny.

Law Abiding Citizen (2009)

This movie is Schizophrenic -- Stay Away

[1/10 · 22 February 2010]

Warning: This Review contains Spoiler information.

This movie is schizophrenic. The movie starts with Foxx being painted the villain, with his focus on moving up the career ladder, even at the price of justice being served, and Butler as the victim of a crime, desperately seeking justice for a horrific act committed against his family. BUT, Foxx's attorney isn't punished for what he did, a punishment the script and director seem to want us to see exacted against him. It doesn't happen. It's as if we're supposed to be glad that he defeats Butler. That's why this film is schizophrenic. This film is just so dissatisfying I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Boring with some effective moments. A short film stretched to feature length.

[3/10 · 29 December 2009]

"Paranormal Activity" reminds me of too many Saturday Night Live skits that were made into movies. Great ideas stretched to make 90 minutes. The first 30 minutes or so (and it's only 86 minutes long) are very boring. It drags. There are some really good and effective moments that can send a chill down your spine, but they are separated by scenes that seem to be pure filler to make this a movie and not a short film.

Also Micah is obnoxious! Yes, he's insensitive to Katie's concerns and just a huge jerk. Whether he was written that way or the fault falls on the director's shoulders, since Oren Peli did both, it's his fault. For me, Micah's obnoxiousness was a distraction.

SEMI SPOILER ALERT (No details but hinting at how the movie ends) Finally, there was no payoff in the ending. A real letdown. I have to wonder if Peli watched "The Entity" before writing this script. Same concept but a much better film.

Superman Returns (2006)

A chick flick disguised as a superhero film

[2/10 · 30 June 2006]

This movie was boring. There, I've said it. Now you can get angry with me. There were several great action scenes in "Superman Returns" but they were strung together by a sappy and slow storyline. This movie is soft -- and on more than one level. Did anyone else wonder why there seemed to be a retro-look for the movie. When I write, retro, I mean it looked like it the set and costume designs were straight from the 1940s (e.g. Lois Lane was not dressed as a woman in the late twentieth to twenty-first century). Why was this? But the softness of which I write comes into play with the way Lois appears in the film. Director Bryan Singer seemed to choose the soft focus lenses that were used on actresses back in the 1940s. Check out a film from that period and you'll know what I mean. But the word, "soft", can also be applied to the storyline with it's heavy focus on the romance between the intrepid reporter and the "man of steel". Too much tenderness for a superhero film. If you enjoyed it, great, but for the rest of you who are expecting an "X-Men"/"Spiderman"/"Batman" type of film, save a bundle and rent the original "Superman" directed by Richard Donner. Much better than this sad return.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

It's a Movie

[28 February 2004]

First, enjoy the movie, folks, but remember, it's just a movie -- not the gospel. For those who believe the movie is the gospel, Mr. Gibson said he was also influenced by "The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich," a 19th Century nun. He has also described the presense of evil in a very creative manner, meaning it is of his own creation. Second, Gibson has flat out refused to comment on his father, a known anti-semite, and says he loves him dearly and nothing will come between them. Mel's father was interviewed just two weeks ago and his words were shocking (Howard Stern has replayed the interviewed a couple time already on his radio show). Some questions: Why are all of the Romans portrayed by caucasions while the Jews are played by middle eastern looking men? Why is Pontius Pilate shown more conflicted and reticent than the gospels portray him? And why is it necessary to be sooo bloody and have the torture go on for that long? Remember, in film, realism is captured in regular speed while slow-motion is used as a tool to dramatize (Mr. Gibson said he strived for realism).

Phone Booth (2002)

An awful Film

[1/10 · 13 July 2003]

Warning: The following contains spoilers: Skip this movie if you haven't seen it already. Why didn't the plot follow up on the sniper's ability to prevent the phone call from being tapped? Was he an electronics expert -- should that have tied into why he was angry with Stu? Who was this sniper, anyways? Are we supposed to accept that flimsy vigilante reasoning for why he chose Stu? Shouldn't it be obvious to us that the pizza delivery guy had been murdered before the standoff began (the sniper had no conversation with anyone other than Stu during that hour). The script went nowhere with no development of who this sniper was even though he was the antagonist in the film. Worst of all, that was the most dissatisfying ending I have ever seen. Talk about anti-climatic. It seems Larry Cohen and Joel Schumacher just wanted to torture audiences for an hour and twenty minutes.

Phone Booth (2002)

Simply an awful film

[1/10 · 11 July 2003]

Phone Booth' was awful. Let's just get that out of the way immediately. This review contains many spoilers, but to spare those of you from losing 80 minutes of your life, I will share as follows: When the sniper shared that he had wired his phone call so that it couldn't be traced and he's bugged the booth, why didn't the plot follow up on that? The sniper appeared to know a lot about electronics. What was the deal with that? The plot explained nothing. The pizza delivery guy's throat was not slashed as the police were heading to the sniper so it should be apparent that he'd been murdered before the hostage taking had started. (Kiefer Sutherland's character's attention was uninterrupted during the standoff). It would be obvious that the pizza delivery guy didn't slash his own throat by the angle of the blade. These two observations can't be overlooked during a time when people are conscious of `CSI", which is topping the tv ratings. Who was this sniper? Why was he taking this guy hostage? The plot did not evolve to reveal any information about him. He explained that he'd been watching Collin Farrell, but why did he choose him? A legitimate reason was shared only to be trashed within minutes of the captivity. I'm refering, of course, to him being an out of work actor, which he claimed in the initial minutes. It seems that Joel Schumacher, who honored us with `Batman Forever' and Batman and Robin,' wanted to try and experiment. He wanted to make a film in ten days -- forget the gaping plot holes. The plot of this film seemed to be, let's taunt and torture someone for an hour and that will be entertaining. There wasn't even a decent resolution at the conclusion of this piece of crap. The sniper walks away, only to say he'll be watching to be sure Farrell stays honest -- WHY?