Spacetree Reviews

Sex Drive (2008)

Pretty Hilarious

[7/10 · 30 September 2008]

I saw Sex Drive at a sneak preview presented by my university. It's a seemingly typical teen sex comedy in the vein of Superbad meets Road Trip. Zuckerman plays Ian, a young virgin with no luck with the ladies, a crush on his childhood friend Felicia (Crew), a jerk of an older brother (Marsden), and is best friends with an Austin Powers-esquire Casanova by the name of Lance (Duke). On the internet, he poses as a football player while courting a mysterious girl online. When the girl invites him to go "all the way", he steals his brother's GTO and heads to Knoxville with Felicia and Lance. Ian's character has the usual nerdy teen virgin-in-a-movie problems: falls for the wrong girls, takes few risks, gets caught in embarrassing sexual situations. On the road trip, they run into a series of hilarious, awkward, and weird situations. And on the way, they discover that sex isn't the most important thing, and that true love can be found in both odd and familiar places.

It's not exactly stunningly original, but it's still a hilarious film. The three leads do a pretty good job, Lance being a particularly funny character. Marsden and Green steal the show in all the scenes they're in, and all of the characters in the film are interesting, even if most of them are stock characters. The script is also well-connected, with most of the characters being connected to the larger plot, and combines wit, ribaldry, and straight adult humor well. Every gag sequence gets big laughs, and the comedy never slows down or dies out. The internet cut-aways are especially hilarious supplements.

It's refreshing to see a genuinely adult comedy not coming from the Apatow crew or McKay and Ferrell. Although it lacks star leads and filmmakers and will probably drop under the radar, I definitely recommend Sex Drive to anyone looking for a big laughs.

Digimon: The Movie (2000)

It's not terrible?

[22 January 2008]

I begin this review with a question because this movie is an oddity. I'll get to that in a second. First off, let me say that I have never seen any of the Japanese versions of the films, so I can't compare them and I won't try. That leads me to the second point I would like to make: if you didn't know, this film is actually three separate Japanese films edited into one American version.

That's what makes this film odd. All the faults lie with the editing, dubbing, scripting... basically all the American added elements (surprise surprise, right?). The animation in the film(s) is great: I'm not sure who did the art direction, but it's drastically different from the series' animation, which I always found stiff and repetitive (which, again, might be the result of American editing). The animation in the movies is smooth, dynamic, stylish, and very action packed. It can be compared to the animation in FLCL or the animation in select episodes of Naruto (such as the showdown between Naruto and Sasuke). Everything sort of flows. The character models are a bit more distorted, and it uses darker/cooler color shadings. The overall effect is very good and entertaining.

Unfortunately, the superb action and animation direction is moot when put beside the HORRIBLE dubbing. Saban, like 4Kids is wont to do, chose to drastically alter the original script and writing. Often, side-comments will be added to the dialog for no real reason except, possibly, to cram more dialog into a scene. The jokes are often flat, and distract from the main plot instead of adding to it. If you want a good example of this, watch any of the One Piece episodes translated by 4Kids (i.e. the ones with the crappy rap song opening). It's awful. Thank God Funimation took that show over, but I digress.

Speaking of plot, it's bad. Let me clarify: the plot for the first two sequences (Greymon vs. Parrotmon and the first digidestined vs. Diaboromon/Infermon) is actually good, mainly because it's simple. As stand alone movies, the plot would be fine. However, when combined together with the third sequence/film (featuring the digidestined from season 2 vs. a new digimon named Endigomon), it's bad. Real bad. The connections between each movie are tenuous at best, and terribly explained.

And don't get me started on the third movie. The third movie, in which everything is "explained" and the plot comes together has been edited to hell. There is no continuity, and everything is pretty nonsensical. If you can get any enjoyment from this segment of the film, congratulations. I was just confused, because the scenes have been chopped up and thrown together again. There is no logical flow of action from scene to scene.

So, if I was to make a one word value assessment of this film, it would be "bad". Not terrible. It has some redeeming qualities. I would say it's better than, say, the Yu-Gi-Oh movie.

Norbit (2007)

God awful

[5/10 · 12 June 2007]

It's surprising that a movie with so much comedic talent could make me laugh so little. Or maybe it isn't and I'm overestimating Eddie Murphy. In any case, this movie made me laugh about three times: all of them from Eddie Griffin's and Katt Williams's lines. And this was at the END of the movie during the church scene. It took the entire movie to get to the humor. The rest is just badly constructed plot and fat jokes. But the worst part? Rasputia's catch-phrase. Why would she have a catch-phrase? It's like giving Jar Jar Binks a catchphrase; nobody's gonna quote cinema's greatest reject, and nobody's gonna quote this. Don't waste your time with this mess.

The Protector (2005)

Spectacular Action, subpar plot and character development

[6/10 · 18 March 2007]

In truth, you should probably see this movie just for the action. Because it's really that cool. Every fight scene is as visceral as it is stylish, even the scenes where he's just smashing thugs. And the one on one fight scenes (even with the big guys that just threw things and the lady) are simply awesome. It's hands down some of the best fights I've seen in a while.

But unfortunately, that's where the movie ends. What little plot it has is pretty much the exposition at the beginning, and after that there is practically no plot development. Stuff happens, Cam fights, goons run back to the Dragon Lady, Cam yells for his elephant (kinda like that episode of the Simpsons where Bart wins an elephant in a radio contest). Hell, they never even fully explain what the Dragon Boss Lady steals the elephant for, only vaguely referring to "the power of the kings" that she wants. The history surrounding the Protector is interesting, but that's sparsely covered. The only real character connection is between Cam and the elephants. The fat buddy cop? I don't even remember his name. He was just there. The girl? Well, other than being a convenient (and hot) plot device, she was just there. And I guess the Dragon Lady was an OK villain, but other than that, the characters had no substance. The only reason you could connect to Cam was because he kicked ass and liked animals.

All in all, look for the great action, try to ignore the flaws and the lax plot and character development.

Ben 10 (2005–2008)

The evilest road trip EVER.

[4/10 · 4 June 2006]

Is it just me, or do villains pop out everywhere Ben and his family travel to? Arizona? Lightning aliens! Old folks home? More evil aliens! New Orleans? Necromancers! Suburbs? Evil geek! Circus? Evil clowns! Well, clowns are always evil. But in any case, it seems that bad guys either follow Ben around, or show up conveniently when he shows up. And most of the time the bad guys aren't in anyway affiliated with the main alien enemies trying to get the Omnitrix back. It's the same most episodes. Bad guys with unexplained superpowers show up, Ben fights them. WITH HIS 10 YEAR OLD COUSIN AND GRANDFATHER. You'd think a person with 10 varied superpowers could handle this with out putting elderly and young family members in mortal peril. But I guess not. It's the villain-of-the-week formula, people. It's unoriginal and (in this case) jagged in plot structure.

What this show desperately needs is some plot cohesion. The action is pretty good, Ben (as a character) has a lot of potential. The back story involving his grandfather is interesting. The main alien antagonist is a good villain. But all of this is hampered by writing that never stays on one subject. Coming of age story? That could work. Coming of age story one episode... PSYCHO FISHERMEN NEXT EPISODE! Not so much. If this show could give reasons for the various super-powered fiends (and not just HAY LOOK AT DEEZ BAD GUYZ!!!1), then at least I could get into it. But how can you when each episode is completely random and pointless? They've managed to do this with other shows. There's a reason the good guys fight and a reason behind the bad guys. The Teen Titans live in a world of super-powered beings. That's why the bad guys are super-powered. In Ben 10, Ben just seems to go with the flow. Travel on summer vacation? Bad guys on the way? Sure, why not. There's no motivation, no logic, no reason.

This show could be SOO much better if the writers, I don't now, picked up a book? Watched The Godfather? I understand a Saturday morning cartoon can only do so much, but it just seems like the writers are lazy.

Tom Goes to the Mayor (2004–2006)

I don't understand this show.

[2/10 · 3 June 2006]

I've heard from a lot of people that this show is hilarious. But every time I watch it, it's not funny. Sure, there's some chuckles here and there, but for the most part it's slow, boring, and too weird and silly for my tastes. And I like some crazy stuff (like most of the stuff on Adult Swim), too. So am I missing the point of this show? Is it too high brow for me? Is it too funny to be good? Is it too good to be funny? Is it meant to be weird, but not funny? Is it not meant to be "ha-ha" funny, but satire? I don't know, but I do know that it's not funny when I watch, not funny afterward, and not funny before. So if I'm missing the point of this show, sorry. But it's just not humorous at all. Every time I watch it, I just end up asking myself "What the hell is wrong with this show?"

The Exhibitionist Files (2002 Video)

Zzzz...

[15 April 2006]

Let's get things straight people: no one watches Skin-e-max at 1:00 am for the critically acclaimed movies. Well, maybe they do. But not often.

Most of the time its for the softcore porn. And why do we watch softcore porn? Because we can't access real porn at the moment. It's a substitute. Therefore, the more explicit the content of one of these late night skin flicks is, the better it is. The closer it gets to hardcore while staying within the censorship laws, the better.

Based on these criterion, "The Exhibitionist Files" is just boring. There's a lot of nekkidness, but not a lot of nookie. And since one does not watch these films for one's intellectual stimulation, this is a bad movie. Skip it. Watch one of those "Bikini" so-and-so films. Those are MUCH more stimulating, heh heh...

Smallville (2001–2017)

So many mixed feelings...

[2 March 2006]

So, what can I say about Smallville? Firstly, it's an original premise, I'll give it that. It is genuinely cool to see how Superman was when he was a teenage, and for the most part his character development is rather intriguing. The superpowers and other special effects are well done most of the time, and the fight scenes are modest (they could be more involved and lengthy, however). The other characters work as good foils for Clark, and Lex Luther himself has become a highly complex character (even if a good deal of it is non-canonical and rather contradictory). From the get go, Smallville had potential both as an interesting action/fantasy series and a drama.

But what afflicts Smallville is what afflicts most shows of this type: haphazard, episodic writing. In it's good moments, Smallville can pull off some good story arcs and plot lines that evolve the characters so that they become beings that you can actually relate to and feel for and create plot twists and turns that keep the viewer interested. However, when it's bad, it simply puts all the strides the series made into shadow. The show is now in its fifth season, and now the character developments and plot directions made in previous seasons have been seriously damaged and all but erased. For example, Lionel Luther (Lex's father and a newly created character) served as the chief villain for seasons one through three- when they didn't resort to the "villain of the week" formula (which got old, FAST). In the fourth season, Luther was in the process of changing his ways, trying to stop his son from taking the same path as he (which, of course, will fail). However, in the fifth, he reverts back into one of the main antagonists. Huh? Did I miss something? Smallville is constantly plagued with writing that either goes nowhere, doesn't know where it's going, or exploit some fad (one episode is created around Lana Lang kissing another girl with absolutely no other noteworthy plot subjects and another is used to sap popularity from Chinese wuxia films). The series builds story arcs up only to knock them down with some half-assed plot device (such as "make Clark evil" or "Put Lana in mortal danger"). While attempts to create mystery and suspense are present, they rarely succeed.

Most of the story lines make vague allusions to the comics, but most are non-canonical. While this is excusable in a television show such as this, sometimes the writers take too many liberties with canon.

In general, Smallville has a lot of potential, and sometimes it meets this potential. But the capricious and wandering writing really hurts it.

Lord of War (2005)

Not Perfect, but still pretty good.

[8/10 · 4 February 2006]

While Lord of War isn't the perfect movie, it's still gets it's powerful political message across. Lord of War is the story of Yuri Orlov, a Ukrainian immigrant from Brooklyn who works in his family's failing restaurant. Unsatisfied with his slot it life (which he describes no better than Soviet-controlled Ukraine), Yuri witnesses an attempted assassination on a Russian mafia boss and changes his profession to arms-dealer, first starting locally then widening to every war zone on the planet between the mid 80s and 2000- during which he spirals into a haze of lies, drugs, pain, and guilt. While I didn't find Cage's performance particularly spectacular, it was enough to bring such a well written character to life. The other characters, while not especially developed, act as good foils to Orlov. I especially like Andre Baptiste, dictator of Liberia based on real-life Liberian dictator Charles Taylor.

Simply put, Lord of War has a clear message that it pushes at nearly every point in the movie when it's not developing the tragedy of Cage's character. If you dislike movies that harp on a single point on multiple levels, then this isn't for you. More so, if you don't agree with the point (which many won't, since it implicates the United States and several other superpowers in Yuri's wrongdoings), you won't like this movie. However, most students of history and politics will appreciate how the movie connects the last days of the Soviet Union and the continuing conflicts in parts of Africa with it's tirade against arms-dealing ( most of which is true, especially in Africa) even if they disagree with the moral. It's as much as an objective analysis as it is a cautionary tale.

The cinematography and direction is stylish and flashy, and can be compared with Michael Bay in someways. For some it might be a turn-off, but I say if you can do something outlandish with a camera and still have a good movie, do it. It never hurts to have a bit of flash, especially in a movie which has the potential to be quite visually dull.

The only negative criticisms I can find with the film are that, in some parts, a bit of plot development is needed, and that it has a tendency to generalize the issue of Africa. Sure, the continent has had it's share of corruption and violence, but not every coup or revolution in Africa has been bloody and not every government is corrupt. The movie redeems itself by making Yuri the true villain and by making a division between good, evil, and desperation in West Africa.

All in all, a powerful, highly enjoyable movie.

Codename: Kids Next Door (2002–2008)

An original, highly entertaining cartoon for all animation lovers.

[17 January 2006]

Young or old, if you enjoy cartoons and animation, then you'll enjoy Kids Next Door. The show's concept is relatively simple: a secret agency composed of ten year-olds fights evil adults; the result is a imaginative world that is both inspired by several genres and movies and creates a distinct universe. The comedy is wide-ranging in the ages it appeals to, the action is entertaining despite the show not being the pinnacle of animation, and the plots are original while paying homage to it's sources: many of the episodes are homages with a KND spin that works extremely well. The characters that make up this rich universes might seem like stereotypes at first, but they grow into completely three-dimensional beings that can be both fun and poignant.

Hands down, KND is one of the best original shows on Cartoon Network, keeping with the explosion of comic creativity in the channel that is leagues ahead of most other kid-oriented channels (Nick and Disney come to mind).

Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (2003–2020)

Nothing but sap.

[16 January 2006]

First off, I want to say that I respect the fact that EM:HE is charitable. Sure, most of the time what it does is very representable when compared to other reality TV abortions. But, let's not forget what this show is: Reality TV. What it aims to be is entertainment, not inspiration: that's just a side-effect. EM does what every reality show does, it looks to find the most emotional moments and milk the crap out of them. For some shows they exploit anger; for this show they exploit happiness. The result is one hour of pure corny sap- the equivalent of watching Titanic 8 times in a row. It's phony, it's protracted, and it has a tendency to be annoying. If you can stand watching this show because you believe it to be inspirational, then more power to you. To me, it's melodramatic and hokey. It's just another reality TV show, people. It's just trying to get ratings. Don't take it for more than it is.

Neon Genesis Evangelion: The End of Evangelion (1997)

Meh.

[5/10 · 8 October 2005]

I have so many mixed feelings about this film. First off, I'll say that before watching this movie, I had only seen a few scattered episodes of the series. So, other than base recognition of the characters and plot, I really didn't have much knowledge of NGE lore. So, I realize that I might not be the expert on pretentious mecha animes. But, let's start this off slowly: The Plot. The plot was actually great. It flowed smoothly at first, and even if you hadn't seen the show, it was enjoyable to watch. If there was anything against it, it seemed a bit rushed. And now I know why. The best part of the movie was the first 30 minutes. From there it went down hill. I mean, man. What happened? In exchange for plot, the rest of the movie degenerated into overly complex, aimless philosophical blathering. Stuff happened, people talked, and Shinji screamed 50 times. Oh, and there were metaphors of Christianity. Then it ended just as abruptly as it degenerated into madness.

And what was with the scene that showed people in the movie theater after the long section of convoluted flashbacks and a pointless montage? Ugh, I almost cut the movie off at that point. It had done a complete 360 from the beginning.

Now, I can appreciate what was trying to be done with this film. It was trying to be artistic while simultaneously wrapping up the series. But Christ almighty, you can't sacrifice substance for artistic value: the two things go together. This movie had so much potential, and fizzled out so badly.

Pretentious, sluggish, and aimless. A fantastic disappointment.

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (1995)

Monumental!

[10/10 · 6 October 2005]

This movie is everything you've ever wanted out of a Power Ranger movie. Everything was done so professionally: it was a movie that literally glittered like gold. Every facet from the show was here, but all of it was given a new coat of paint. The uniforms were jazzed up, the zords were upgraded, the fights were bigger, the stakes higher, the plot bigger, the villain was badder, the emotions ran higher, hell, even the command center was even improved. Everything that you loved from the show was here, and everything that you loathed was gone: it was Power Rangers the way it ways always meant to be. SPECTACULAR.

WATCH IT. LOVE IT. REVEL IN THE FANSERVICE.

Even if you've never watched Power Rangers, it's still a pretty good adventure flick.

The Wedding Date (2005)

Bland and forgettable bullplop.

[3/10 · 17 September 2005]

In The Wedding Date, Debra Messing plays... a woman. And this woman wants to make her ex-boy friend jealous by bringing the perfect guy to the her sister's wedding in which her ex will be the best man. The catch is that the perfect man is a male escort.

If this all sounds vague and lacking in description, it's because that's exactly what the movie is. It has an original premise that it does absolutely nothing with. Everything in this movie is a pale facade of substance.

The first facade are the characters. There are no characters in The Wedding Date. Instead, there are cardboard cut-outs of the characters of nearly every other romantic comedy. These cardboard cut-outs move using an intricate system of levers and ropes. The result is that you get an hour and thirty minutes of mind-numbingly boring performances. Debra Messing is completely in her element; meaning that she's performing a walk-on as Grace. Nothing original in her performance whatsoever. The "perfect man" is a horrifically crappy actor, and as he spouts out romantic philosophy, you fall asleep. The only interesting character in this movie is the cousin, who is, unsurprisingly, the only funny character.

The second facade is comedy. This movie has approximately 2 scenes where you might giggle. Maybe even guffaw. But that's about it.

The third facade is plot. Basically, in The Wedding Date, stuff just happens, and then it ends just as abruptly. The only semblance of character development is for Messing's character, and even that's half-assed. Then, right in the middle, they throw in a totally unrelated and unprompted plot twist. Why the ex was made to fall in love with the sister I have no idea. However, I do know one thing. It did nothing to save this dying storyline. However, to the credit of the writers, everything was resolved quickly and illogically so you didn't have to suffer through a slow resolution.

A waste of time. I could stand if the movie was just cliché like half of the other movies in Hollywood. But this movie was just badly made. Did the director and writers just fall asleep one-fourth of the way through making this movie?

Alexander (2004)

I really don't have any complaints about this movie

[8/10 · 29 August 2005]

Well, that's not true. I thought that the battle scene (at least the first one) was unnecessarily stretched out. It's seemed overly majestic while lacking any real dynamics. Stuff just started happening, then it kind of ended. The second battle scene was much more organized and flowing, but in general it's not the epic battles you see this movie for. It's the nigh impeccable drama and acting. Nothing seemed to stale in the plot, and everything was near enthralling. Nothing nor anyone seemed superfluous. The actors fit the dynamics of the characters perfectly, and....

Well, almost perfectly. I'm not saying that Farrell didn't play the part well, in fact I think he played it very well. It's just that in some parts it seemed that he overacted the role. Now, this is my personal view only, but I expected a king that wasn't so... whiny. Sure, emotional scenes were done well, but in scenes that seemed to require more majesty, he seemed to start chewing scenery. First he ate a bush, then a tree, and for good show a spear or two. He was a strong lead, I just expected less from him sometimes.

Other that, great movie.

Oh, and anyone who makes a deal out of the "homosexuality issue" is a moron.

Paparazzi (2004)

It's not really as bad as you think

[5/10 · 29 August 2005]

First, I've heard people say that this movie is nothing but self-serving, egotistical Hollywood garbage. And they actually wouldn't be too far of the mark. But, really, can you blame them? Nobody likes paparazzi. How could you? They make a living off the embarrassment and humiliation of others. Their entire occupation is created by being nothing more than high school-esquire gossip-hounds. They are the dredges of society, supplying the bored masses with opium in the form of celebrity pain, and every one in Hollywood has to deal with them. They're like mosquitoes. Can you really blame those crazy folks in Tinseltown if they get annoyed by them? Well, I can't. But it still doesn't help the fact that this movie is magnificently sub-par. It's a fun, improbable B-Movie to watch with a bag of popcorn. The antagonists are all so wonderfully horrible, and you'll love the fact that they all get their's in the end (even if their punishment happens in some legal netherworld where the law is powerfully inept). It also helps that Tom Sizemore is as much of an uncouth ghoul in life as he is in the movie.

The rest of the plot is equally as unrealistic, and the leads aren't really all that powerful. But the B-movie revenge craziness makes up for it. This is not a movie to be taken seriously. At all. So don't watch it like it's supposed to.

Cursed (2005)

Silly camp, not actually meant to be good... I hope.

[5/10 · 15 August 2005]

This movie... what can I say? It certainly wasn't good, and it wasn't bad... most of the time. It was just under the line of O.K., while just above sub-par. And normally, this would be enough to be bad. But in this film, it wasn't. It was a fun romp through absurdity, that, if you're a horror movie fan, you would despise. This movie isn't scary in the least, the plot is nonsensical, and there is no suspenseful scenes. Anybody who seemed superfluous at the beginning was guaranteed to die sometime in the film. But if you aren't a fan of the genre (which I am not), then it's a fun Friday night movie to watch with a group of friends and ridicule it as if it we're MST3K. If it was meant to be serious, then I apologize to Wes Craven. Because then it would've been horrible. But if it wasn't, then enjoy it for what it is.

The only complaint I have against the movie is the werewolf costume that looks like it was created in some guys basement and the ending. The special effects (while not spectacular) would have been efficient enough to use throughout the film. The guy in the suit could have been left out.

As for the ending, it seems like Craven just made it as stupid as possible, and stretched it out for 20+ minutes. It would've worked for 10 minutes, but not a half hour.

The Cookout (2004)

No, please Hollywood, pander to us more. We don't find it insulting.

[1/10 · 18 June 2005]

First, I'd like to start of by saying I'm black. So I took especial dislike to this film along with the regular dislike due to the absolute horridness of this movie. I can imagine the conversation at the studios regarding this mess of a movie...

Exec 1: Hey, I've got a great idea for a movie. Exec 2: Shoot Exec 1: Well, it's going to aimed at the black community. So it'll make money without us having to spend money. Exec 2: Or use creativity! Exec 1: Exactly. We use the Black movie formula. Number one, find a topic that the black "community" can relate to. You, know, something that's solely afrocentric. Like "da hood", or rap, or dancing, or how "da sistas" play games with men, or basketballs, or like... a cookout! Number 2, stuff a bunch a race relation jokes in it and pass it off as comedy. Number 3, get one good actor, a rapper, and a white person (you know, so the race relation jokes seem at least semi-relevant), then get a bunch of no name actors. And number 4, put some type of easily grasp high concept, like family or community. And wa la! You've got a movie that'll make money without the makers putting anything (and I mean anything) into it! Exec 2: It's gold!

Unfunny, uninspiring, unoriginal, and insulting to your intelligence whether you're black, white, Asian, native American, Arabic, south Asian, Hispanic or pacific islander, but especially if your black. This is what Hollywood thinks black people want. Mindless entertainment that panders to their race. And frankly, it makes me angry. The story was uneven, the jokes failed to illicit even a chuckle, the acting is bad, and the "high concept" was lost in the swirling mass of awful that was this movie.

A complete and utter waste of time.

Surviving Christmas (2004)

Another horrible Affleck movie

[2/10 · 18 June 2005]

What's up with Ben Affleck? I mean, he can't seem to make a good movie lately if his life depended on it. First Gigli, now this crapfest. Now, I've never been a huge Affleck fan, but it's sad to see him spit out 2 huge crapfests in such a short time. It's not like he's a bad actor. He just can't seem to be in good movies. Surviving Christmas is a perfect example. Affleck didn't do a bad job in the movie by any means, it's just that this movie was horribly written. It was one illogical, unfunny schtick after another. All the "characters" except for Affleck's were paper thin cut-outs from every other movie in any genre. And can't call it a comedy. Comedies are funny. This wasn't funny. It was nothing but crude humor and lame slapstick lump in one odoriferous pile. The plot? What plot? You can't even call this claptrap of mismatched events a plot.

All in all, this movie insulted your intelligence as a movie goer. While it wasn't agonizing to sit through, it damn well wasn't a good time.

Spy Kids 3: Game Over (2003)

Mr. Rodriguez, what happened?

[2/10 · 9 May 2005]

I just don't understand. The first Spy Kids was fresh, original, imaginative and entertaining in almost every way. It was a great family and kid film, that (as cliché as it sounds) people of all ages could enjoy. Rob Rod really showed his range as a director. The child actors were charming, and the adult actors looked like they were having a good time making the film.

And then there's this. Could a series really sour that fast? Heck, even SK 2, chock full of haphazard special effects and a hokey dance scene was better that this steaming pile.

To put it simply, a good franchise was turned into a glitchy-vehicle for digital filming and 3D. The special effects were mediocre at best, the spark and charm of the first had been completely sucked out, and what was left a movie chock full of celebrity guest stars (who either chewed scenery with the ferocity of a lion like Stallone or were merely there like Banderas) with stuff flying of the screen at you (meaning that if you didn't see it in 3D, your left with television caliber special effects and Stallone eating a lounge chair).

The kids were just as charming (well, Vega and Gugino were. The rest of them just stood around), so at least some quality from the first was still there.

The plot was, well, pretty bad. I wasn't expecting The Godfather here, it's designed for kids. But, man, this was just annoying. Again, it was just a vehicle for the 3D gimmick; the plot leaped from A to H randomly and threw in Z for funsies: logic was effectively nonexistent. However, as haphazard as the plot was, the ending was truly horrendous. It was like RR just got bored with the movie and threw in robots and cameos at the end for kicks. All with sub-par CGI.

After seeing at this film, I have a distinct feeling that the studio took away funding for the project and Rob Rod took over the whole production. But what I don't understand is the lapse in storytelling and quality. Obviously RR can effectively create good films flying solo: Look at Sin City and El Mariachi. So what happened? This was just one huge let down.

Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)

Don't even entertain the thought of seeing the non-MST3K version of this.

[1/10 · 25 April 2005]

After reading all the negative hoopla surrounding the "worst film ever", I decided to rent "Manos: Hands of Fate" to see if it was really as bad as everyone says it is.

And they were right. This film is absolutely atrocious. Bad films usually have a habit of having one aspect of film-making that's done horribly while all the other aspects are sub-par. Manos did everything horribly and made sure they drove the point across.

But if any one aspect was more horrendous than the others in Manos, it would definitely be the cinematography/editing (if you could even call it that after "Manos's" creators butchered it). Hack-job isn't the word to describe it. "Rape and torture"-job is the word for the filming and editing. There are moments in the film where the camera would be firmly planted at some obscure place (such as the back of someone's head or not even at the actors speaking) or switch abruptly to some badly-framed object. Editing was equally horrendous, as transitions would either be completely black screens or annoying white flashes, and actors/objects/animals in the last frame would change position or pop in at the next frame.

Scenes in "Manos" have an odd habit of having no relevance whatsoever. One re-occurring scene in particular (a viscous five-minute lip-locking session involving 2 twenty-somethings and a bottle of cough syrup...err I mean whiskey) served no purpose whatsoever except to add more characters to a story which already had too many characters with 4 mains. Add to this ten minutes of driving through non-descriptive fields with soft jazz (bad jazz at that) in background, another five minutes of women in translucent nightgowns wrestling, three minutes of one of the women groping and nuzzling the Husband, 2 minutes of Torgo (the huge-kneed, mysteriously twitching servant to the "Master") nuzzling a sleeping women, and some more scenes where the characters stand in absolute silence waiting for the next cue, and you've got a movie with at least 50 minutes of filler.

Writing is well... nonexistent. The writer seemed to take cliché lines, then copy and past them on every other line. Seriously, a good 60% of the film's dialogue is one corny phrase repeated after another.

And there is no plot. To say that the plot is cliché is incorrect; the plot cannot be cliché because the plot does not exist. In place of even a poorly scripted plot, there is a assortment of random events, each more logically absurd than the next. Plot-lines also have a tendency to pop-out of nowhere and leave just as quickly (which is surprising, given that a five year old could comprehend the basic premise of such a simple story). The characters that make up this jumble are less than cardboard cut-outs (To be cardboard cut-outs is a phrase that suggests that characters are cliché and fit into a nice niche completely lacking originality or complexity); No characters exist. People are merely there quoting atrocious writing (acting isn't even the proper word; more than once I caught the wife attempting with every fiber of her being not to look directly into the camera). The only exception to this is the misshapen, Parkinson's Disease-afflicted Torgo, which comfortably plops into the monstrous-servant roll (I mean, come on, they might have well given him a humpback and put him in a castle with a mad scientist).

The sound in "Manos" is terrible at best. The background music sounds like the creators took the tracks they play at supermarkets and mixed it with every other horrid B-Movie of the 1950s-60s. Sound effects and dialogue had to dubbed in later as the camera the creators filmed with could not record sound, and as a result almost every piece of noise or sound in the film is about a second and a half late.

So, in short, if you decide to take the plunge, at least do it with the MST3K crew by your side and laughing all the way (even then you might not make it to the end of "Manos", I didn't).

Technically, in everyway, this is the Worst Movie Ever. Are there or have there been worse? Probably. Have any of them made it to distribution in theaters? Probably not. And yet, there have been movies I've seen that I've disliked much more than this. Don't see "Manos" looking for... well anything. You won't find it. Just expect to laugh until your gut hurts or your mind melts from the sheer crappiness.

Titanic (1997)

The most overrated film ever

[3/10 · 12 April 2005]

I don't get it. What was spectacular about Titanic? Sure, the special effects were nice for the time, but groundbreaking? Not in my book. The characters were... well likable. Not lovable, nor classic, but likable. The plot? Cookie-cutter. Poor boy meets rich girl, poor boy falls instantly in love with rich girl, rich girl does the same, poor boy dies (Seriously, were you not expecting someone to die. You knew the boat was going to sink). Throw in a historical tragedy, and Wam! Insta-plot. And it gets 11 Oscars. What happened? I mean, Titanic certainly wasn't a make-up Oscar for Cameron for T2.

Titanic is one of those films where they intentionally stuff as many things to tug on the heartstrings as possible without actually being engaging or interesting. Pearl Harbor did the EXACT same formula, yet critics panned it.

It's OK, yet not sensational in anyway.

After the Sunset (2004)

lol Homoeroticism

[6/10 · 11 April 2005]

If you rented or bought After the Sunset for the hard-boiled action, riveting suspense, steamy sex scenes, and gratuitous violence of a crime drama... then you might want to see another film. There's none of it in After the Sunset (not even the steamy sex scenes: the scenes the movie does have are less revealing than late night softcore on cinemax). If you were looking for a fun caper that doesn't take itself too seriously, then this is it. Sure, the heists are cool (if few in number), but it's the chemistry between the characters that's the base of the film. Hayek and Brosnan make a sexy new-age Bonnie and Clyde, however the chemistry between Harrelson and Brosnan steals (No pun intended) the show, as their constant game of cat and mouse devolves into a friendly (dare I say... homo-erotic) rivalry. Don Cheadle's character Henri Moore (with the little thing over the E), the supposed "villian" of the film, is nowhere near being the next Darth Vader; yet he is still interesting to watch as he spouts lines so bombastic that they make drugs, prostitution, weapons smuggling, and warmongering sound good. So, in summary, if you didn't go to the theatre to see After the Sunset, don't worry, you made the right choice. However, if your at your neighborhood video store, it's not a bad film to pick up.

Van Helsing (2004)

Cheese Incarnate, gone bad

[4/10 · 11 April 2005]

Cheese Incarnate, "gone bad" describes Van Helsing to a tee. It's loud, it's full of explosions and cartoonish special effects, silly lines (especially from The Brides of Dracula), goofy humor, and Saturday morning villains. And this would be fine. Sommers did the exact same things with both of The Mummy films, and I was pleased as peach about it. Unfortunately that's not what Sommers did with Van Helsing. Sommers attempted to make a movie that was dark along with action-packed. And unfortunately, to make something dark it has to have two things: atmosphere to match and drama. I wasn't feeling the atmosphere, and the drama pushed the film past camp into irritation. To put it simply, the film was overacted in its attempt to be dark. There was one scene in particular where Dracula was having an argument (or conversation; I really couldn't tell the implied mood of the scene) with his wives, and I had no idea what was going on. There wasn't a point to the conversation, as it merely hopped from one subject to another, and it didn't help move the plot along at all. The scene was overacted in some vague attempt to stick feelings in a film otherwise devoid of it, and several other scenes mimicked this same type of structure (especially at the end). There was theme in there about not reading a book by it's cover (or something to that effect: it wasn't really hashed out until the last 30 minutes of the film), but by the end your just fed up with the overdrive into hokey mock-drama that you really don't care. If Van Helsing could have kept the pace and feeling it had in the first battle with Mr. Hyde, then it would've been fine. It didn't. Van Helsing reached to high, and never even got within arm length of it's goals.

Anger Management (2003)

You'll be Angry you wasted 90+ minutes on this

[1/10 · 9 April 2005]

I suppose Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson decided that they would just have fun with a movie. That this time, they wouldn't take the time to put a conceivable plot, interesting characters, or even mediocre comedy in a movie.

Oh, wait, they've done movies like that before.

Anger Management truly made made angry, just for the mere fact that the writers, after cramming the movie full of nonsensical scenes and plot twists that were (for a lack of a better word) stupid, decided to tie it all together with the old stand by, the Deus ex Machina. Surprise, surprise, it was all a scheme cleverly concocted by Sandler's girlfriend, a court judge, and a respected psychologist.

It's insulting enough to the audience that the plot was this god-awful, but I would've been able to stand it if they hadn't filled the movie slapstick humor and running gay jokes (or if Sandler hadn't gone with his standard "nice-idiot" routine perfected in Waterboy, Little Nicky, and Mr. Deeds and actually made a likable character). For a production with this much star-power behind it, I was sorely disappointed with the results.