nevsky41 Reviews

The Flash (I) (2023)

Ignore the negativity

[8/10 · 27 August 2023]

This is actually a fun movie, and I really can't understand where the overall negativity against this movie comes from, except from the general backlash against Ezra Miller, but that shouldn't change the fact that this is a fun ride. There is a LOT of fan service, but given the nature of the story, that should be expected, and the fan service is fun and serves its purpose... FOR THE MOST PART (sigh). The very last scene almost ruins the movie, and (at least for me) calls into question James Gunn's sanity and overall ability to guide the upcoming "Gunniverse" (sorrynotsorry, that's what I'm calling it) because he made an 11th hour change that equates to trolling the fans, not unlike how WandaVision trolled the fans with the real identity of Pietro in Wanda's creation.

So, while the final scene leaves a REALLY bitter taste in my mouth, all the fun of the rest of the movie proceeding shouldn't be penalized as a result.

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

Wow... this is really quite terrible.

[4/10 · 13 October 2019]

Literally the only redeeming factor of this movie is Jason Momoa, who would probably be the dream casting of Robert E. Howard himself, and actually shows potential as Conan. Everything else is... well, it's worse than an Asylum film. Yes, you read that right. Asylum movies are straight trash, but you know what to expect, and you know what you're getting into. This movie should be soooooo much better than it is, it's so disappointing. It's the wasted potential that makes this movie so bad. The story is too stupid, and the editing and pacing is just dreadful. This movie is afraid to slow down and just let moments breathe, so you feel absolutely exhausted by the end (if you can actually make it to the end, that is). I'd love to see Momoa get another opportunity to play Conan, but I do believe between this movie's failure and Momoa's success as Aquaman, we won't see him get a second go-around.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Miscatsing and awful performances sink a potentially fine adaptation

[5/10 · 3 January 2006]

I must say that I think this movie is definitely better than the worst HP movie (Chamber of Secrets), but overall still flops.

*** POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD *** I think this may be the best adapted HP movie, in that it doesn't feel haphazardly thrown together, like the last two seemed at times. The adaptation is actually done well, making the 750+ page novel into a workable 2.5 hour film, good enough for non-readers. But lets be honest, how many people who see the HP movies aren't familiar with the books? Some stupid changes from the book are: 1) The utterly pointless changing of the seats Harry, Hermione and the Weasleys have for the Quidditch World Cup. I fail to see any reason for this change, but I guess it's nitpicking. 2) The complete rewrite of the role in the plot played by Barty Crouch Jr. I understand the need to trim from the intricate plot, but this was a poor decision IMO. 3) The undercutting of the famous "veritiserum" chapter. Nothing explained, nothing settled. Also, Dunmbledore acting EXTREMELY out of character, not to mention the fact that the film doesn't even try to set up the struggle between Dumbledore and the Ministry which is a central theme in Order of the Phoenix. 4) This is just a personal irk, but the whole tongue flicking from Crouch Jr was extremely stupid and campy.

However, I feel the biggest flaw this film has is RAMPANT and FLAGRANT miscasting and poor performances. The number of poor casting decisions are numerous: Madam MAxime, Karkarov, Moody and Crouch Sr, all are poor casting decisions, because they neither act nor look like how Rowling describes them. Crouch Sr is almost a parody of Stan LAurel, a far cry from the character Rowling created.

Poor performances include the list above. Moody is the least worst of the bunch, but he still is fat and bald, two things Rowling's Moody was not. Also, the horrific performance of Wormtail continues to be offensive, as he is neither sniveling, or groveling enough, far too eager to help Violdemort, not at all seeming as though he is afraid of his actions results. IN the scene where Voldemort is reborn, the gusto with which Wormtail performs the dark ceremony is so far out of character, it's stomach-churning.

However, the absolute worst performance in the film is the travesty perpetrated by Michael Gambon. I was skeptical of his replacing the late Richard HArris (who seemed like Rowling created Dumbledore with him in mind) in PoA, but he didn't offend too much in that film. However, the performance here of a rattled, screaming, confused Dumbledore, ready to throw Crouch Jr to the Dementors is so far removed form the actual character that I could not stand it. Gambon is an amazing actor, but he is NOT the actor for this role. His performance is so offensive, I found myself wanting to scream during the film.

That said, Radcliffe, Grint and Watson do amazing jobs. And Dame Maggie Smith as always, is amazing.

Another problem I have with this film is the pace feels very frenzied, particularly when it comes to Voldemort. While I feel Ralph Fiennes in general did a fine job in his performance, he was nowhere near as cold or as bored as Rowling describes Voldemort. And the opening sequence, is beyond frenetic and if you blink, you'll miss it. Also, where were all the Death Eaters? I seem like I'm complaining a lot, but I did like this film overall, but it only barely manages to overcome it's flaws.

Saved by the Bell: The College Years (1993–1994)

So much potential, abandoned far too soon...

[21 March 2005]

My brother recently purchased the DVD set of SBTBTCY, and I've watched the entire series a couple of times. I've decided this series was given up on by NBC far too early.

I hadn't seen this show for about a decade, and watching it again, even though it's 12 years old now, I've decided it had way too much potential to have been canceled so quickly. I found myself belly-laughing more than once.

The pilot episode is probably the weakest one, but it didn't take long for the show to begin to click, and even though it had a bit of a cartoony feel to it at times, that was pretty par for the course in the early 90s for sitcoms. The middle episodes are by far the best written and produced, I think Zack & Kelly story was supposed to be a cliffhanger moment to start the second season off with, but instead, we got the "Wedding in Las Vegas" movie. At least we got some resolution.

I think NBC either had high expectations for this show or never felt serious about, considering they ran it against Full House, which was either a huge sign on confidence or a death sentence from the onset. Whatever the intention, they gave up on the show WAY too early, as it was actually much better written than Full House, I guess not enough fans followed it from Saturday morning like I did.

So "The College Years" didn't even really tell the story of their entire freshman year, and it's a shame. This show had so much potential that was left untapped, it's sad. I guess I'll just have to make do with the 18 episodes we do have.

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

Trite, badly mad movie infatuated with it's own pompous sense of self-righteousness

[1/10 · 30 October 2004]

This is a bad movie. DO NOT believe anyone who claims any of the following:

"The gore effects are so realistic!" "This movie has a powerful message!" "The music in this movie is so haunting, it's amazing!" "The acting is so excellent!"

This movie falls apart under the weight of its own pompousness. Filled with an annoyingly high sense of self-importance and self-righteousness, the entire movie plays out like some twisted morality play that takes itself far too seriously.

The acting is pretty terrible from start to finish, particularly the doomed film crew. (Yes, I know that Italian films are filmed without sound and dubbed in post. It doesn't matter. I've seen many Italian films using that method that featured excellent performances. There is not one performance in this movie that comes anywhere near acceptable, much less decent.) The performances are so bad, that I couldn't even be compelled to dislike the film crew. I just didn't care.

The music is annoying Phil Glass-type garbage, and it sounds like two pieces were written, and Deodato alternates between the two. Anyway, the same music is featured over and over again, with no variation, another element inspiring apathy. It's one thing to have a theme that plays throughout a film's score, but to use the same piece of music ad nauseum is another completely. The music becomes gratingly annoying by the end of the film, and when the movie ends, the end of that awful music is just one reason you are glad the movie is over.

Apparently, I'm the only person to ever see this movie and think the gore effects are incredibly unconvincing. The gore effects fooled me never for a second, nor did they even inspire me to suspend disbelief or become squeamish (like the eye-squishing from Kill Bill 2).

As for the animal slaughterings, I'm no member of PETA, but these are completely unnecessary. The muskrat killing is particularly hateful, purposely drawn out for no other reason than for shock purposes. Perhaps Deodato was sending a subliminal message about how watching this movie will make you suffer like this unlucky muskrat.

In the end, after watching this movie, the only reaction I experienced was that this movie was two hours of my life that I will never get back.

Legend of Dinosaurs and Monster Birds (1977)

Bizarre Kaiju

[3 October 2004]

I saw this back in the late 80s on the USA Network (when it was still in its weird, still-trying-to-find-an-identity-among-all-the-other-basic-cable-channels days) on an edition of the sorely missed "Commander USA's Groovy Movies." My dad taped this movie from that show (like he did with many Godzilla and Gamera movies on that ancient, crappy VCR we had in the 80s). I think he regretted it for some time afterwards, b/c my mom was not happy.

Basically, this is probably one of the most violent kaijus ever made, and even though I'm not easily shocked, I watched that ancient tape again the other day, and was surprised how violent this movie is, and how graphic the violence is. It's also fairly unoriginal, as it's merely one of many Godzilla knockoffs, made cheaply to make a quick buck.

Still, if you want to watch a cheap kaiju knockoff with shock violence, it's worth hunting down a copy. I don't know if I'd let kids watch this, even though I saw it when I was 6 or 7 years old, I don't know if I'd let a kid that young watch it.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

What was Brannagh on when he made this?

[2/10 · 5 June 2004]

I cannot begin to express how awful this movie is. The entire thing feels like a train gone out of control. Brannagh uses bizarre camera moves, slams on the gas for some scenes and floors the brake for others, making the movie feel very disjointed and very stop and go. Unnecessary usage of the fish-eye lens also shows up for no apparent reason at least once to my recollection.

Brannagh completely ignores the entire idea of exposition and just throws things at the audience and hopes we don't question them. Examples - Where did Victor get what had to be about 100 gallons of amniotic fluid? And how did he keep them viable while accumulating them? What was the point of lightning experiment? (It seems thrown out there for no real reason.) How does Victor get to the Creature's location of the mountaintop while keeping his hair perfectly coiffed? How did he climb that mountain in such a short amount of time? If he never intended to use it again, why did he move his equipment back to the house, and why have an elaborate pulley system already installed for it? How did he get another 100 gallons of amniotic fluid when he flips out and decides to resurrect Elizabeth? Since there was no real damage to Elizabeth's head, why did he stitch her face up? Also, not really a question, but the electric eels took me three viewings to understand what they were supposed to be; very poor explanation of a key plot element. Also, the climax with Elizabeth being reanimated, and subsequently igniting herself, is easily one of the dumbest scenes ever filmed.

Just a bad movie all around. The only thing that is watchable is the Creature's speech in the ice cave, but I can never sit through the movie to get to that point. DeNiro is completely wasted with a godawful script and director. Had Francis Ford Coppola directed this, maybe it could have been better executed, along the lines of his "Dracula" film, two years earlier. As it is, DeNiro's performance is the only saving grace to this mess, and really, after the ice cave speech, DeNiro's performance is boiled down to angry grumbles and bled of any semblance of the intellect he shows in the ice cave speech. A complete waste of America's greatest actor.

Also, though John Cleese's role is not intended to be humorous, he seems like he stepped right out of a Monty Python sketch. (The monkey's hand doesn't help.) Ian Holm is wasted as well, as is Tom Hulce, who seemed to think he was still playing Mozart.

Overall, an awful bit of drek that has a few flashes of quality provided by DeNiro, but the movie ultimately collapses under the weight of it's own stupidity and frantic, out-of-control-train pace.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Interesting, not necessarily moving, experience

[10 March 2004]

Let me get one thing clear before I start this review: I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school for 13 years, K-12. I am no stranger to the Bible, and the story of Jesus. I no longer consider myself Catholic, for various reasons that would be OT to discuss here. Anyway, that's where I'm coming from.

First things first--this is a violent movie. I had heard so much hype and discussion from various professional critics in opening day reviews that I was expecting this film to be perhaps the most violent, gruesome, sickening movie ever made. I should have known better. Maybe I'm desensitized to violence, but I wasn't all that shocked or offended by the violence. I won't deny that the scourging scene is not for the weak of heart, and the actual crucifixion is also intense for the squemish (and made unintentionally humorous by the addition of blood-spurting sound FX), but this film is not the wall-to-wall bloodfest that many critics have dubbed it.

I don't remember flinching once during the entire run of the film (except maybe at the maggot in Satan's nose), although I was afraid the person sitting next to me was going to pass out from hyperventilating, or worse, vomit on my shoes during the scourging scene. Maybe I'm heartless, maybe I'm desensitized. I don't know, but I felt the hype greatly overplayed the reality.

A few things annoyed me while watching this film; first, Satan. Used very effectively in the opening sequence, Satan quickly degenerates into the equivalent of a bad running joke after Jesus is arrested. Gibson inserts Satan (and a weird midget/baby/thing, once) into various sequences--I'm guessing--to inject a sense of menace. In truth, it's unnecessary, and comes off slightly melodramatic. Satan's final appearance (following Jesus's death) is also unintentionally humorous, and feels superfluous. Also, the demon children. What was the point?

There was but one scene in this film that evoked an emotional response from me. And in it, no blood is spilled, no flesh is ripped, no one suffers. The flashback of Jesus and his mother discussing the table Jesus is building, goofing off, and basically acting like a mother and her eccentric son. This one scene did what every violent act in the film failed to do: MAKE ME CARE ABOUT JESUS.

And therein lies the film's fatal flaw. Gibson banks the entire film on the presumption that the audience already cares about Jesus, and thus, does very little to make us care about him. In "Braveheart," the torture and execution of William Wallace worked b/c for the better part of 2.5 hours, Gibson made us care about the man and his motivations. Not the case here, except for a few flashbacks (most of which last about 30 seconds, none being anywhere near as effective as the Jesus/Mary/table scene), Gibson just assumes you know Jesus's story and already care about him. Nice in theory, but there's no assurance that it'll work out. If you don't know anything about Jesus (or don't care about him), this movie ain't gonna enlighten you or make you care.

Especially when Gibson dedicates about half the film's running time to bloodshed and violence, leaving a scant 25 seconds to the Resurrection.

All in all, an interesting, if completely unenlightening (and mostly unmoving) way to spend two hours at the movies. Also, it'll probably be the only time you'll ever go to the movies and not hear chitchat following the movie.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

Abysmal, overblown Hollywood tripe

[1/10 · 2 September 2003]

This quite possibly the worst movie Ron Howard has ever put his name on. I live action film based on Dr. Seuss's book would have been a good idea, if it had been executed better, and by a director more skilled at this type of movie.

Ron Howard is not an untalented director, but this is not his type of film. He is not gifted at this type of "whimsical fantasy," and it shows. His effort at making this film work is apparent, as the sets and makeup are all very impressive, and evocative of Seuss's original illustrations. Ultimately tho, for all his effort, Howard's attempts to make all the disjointed parts of this film work falls short.

The main flaws with this film lie in the script by Jeffery Price and Peter Seaman, and Jim Carey's misguided performance as the Grinch. By expanding upon the story of the Grinch, the screenwriters could have done a much better job. As it is, the fleshing out of the Grinch and Cindy Lou Who ends up coming off trite and forced. I'm guessing the intent was to create sympathy for the Grinch, but his new backstory is rather cliched and comes off as uninspired. The expansion of Cindy Lou Who's character is an admirable attempt to create a focal character at the other end of the spectrum from the Grinch, but by the end of the movie, despite the admirable attempt by Taylor Momsen, Cindy Lou Who has become a fairly annoying and irritating character.

However, the true failure of this film lies in the hands of Jim Carrey's dreadfully awful portrayal of the Grinch. Almost 180 degrees from the character's origins, the sullen, grumpy Grinch of the book and cartoon is replaced with a wise-cracking goofball who just happens to hate Christmas and the Whos. The transition does not work. Most of Carrey's scenes seem like they are meant to be funny, but end up being grating and unpleasant to watch. The Grinch is so annoying in this movie, I find myself completely untouched when he has his change of heart at the conclusion. Carrey's performance is irritatingly over-the-top, never letting down for a moment. This is not the Grinch I know, and as a result, it doesn't work for me. Carrey is definitely trying his best, but given the awful characterization of the Grinch he had been given, there's not much he could do to make the material rise above its own underachieving level.

Overall, the film is unpleasant and not entertaining. Watching it is more like an endurance trial than watching a movie. I would not recommend this to anyone, especially anyone who loves the book and classic cartoon.

My Rating (out of four stars): BOMB.

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

Fulfilled on premise!

[8/10 · 18 August 2003]

The whole point of this movie was to be able to see Freddy and Jason beat the ever-loving snot out of each other, and we got to see that. I was a bit disappointed that Kane Hodder wasn't playing Jason this time out, but hey, you can't have everything. I won't reveal any spoilers, but the ending wasn't quite what I was expecting. Not bad, just, a surprise.

Some people have said Jason is just a wimpy mamma's boy, well, I don't see it that way. I see him more as an unstoppable force of nature that you can only hide away for so long before he must be set free again. Freddy is a more sadistic character than Jason for me, because Jason just kills efficiently and brutally. Freddy is more psychological, but takes a really long time to kill people. Only the Puppet Master puppets and Pinhead take as long to kill people as Freddy. It may be more entertaining when Freddy kills a character, but Jason just does the deed, does it fast and moves on.

I recommend this to any Freddy or Jason fan, but don't expect them to settle their issues over a cup of tea!