That's a strange analogy. Are you saying it should've sucked more? I mean, what else can you do to a lollipop other than lick, suck or bite it? ;)

Anyways, good review, Gatsby. I've yet to watch Snowpiercer, but I have high expectations for it. I loved Mother and The Host, and I've heard nothing but stellar things about Memories of Murder, so Bong Joon-ho is clearly a very talented director. You're not the only one I've seen complain about the unbalanced ratio of action to character development, but I don't think that will bother me as much as it did you and seanc.

I knew someone would nitpick it eventually... I'm terrible at analogy and other fancy techniques that are similar. Deal with it. :D

Re: Gatz Flick Critique
 

It seems like you think Snowpiercer is a surface level movie and that is exactly how I feel about it as well. Unfortunately for me that makes it my least favorite movie of the year. I am glad you got some enjoyment out of it.

North (1994)

Starring: Elijah Wood, Bruce Willis, Jon Lovitz
Directed by: Rob Renier

http://i.imgur.com/0whytsA.jpg


I've heard a lot of word about the infamous North, and I finally got the chance to watch it. Out of all the buzz Roger Ebert's even more infamous review of the film really triggered me to watch it despite knowing what was ahead. Here's the famous line:

"I hated this movie.Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience insulting moment of it. Hated the thought that anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by believing anyone would find it funny."

So with half bafflement and half curiosity I started watching... boy I do admire Siskel and Ebert for not cursing out loud on their show. One of the reasons why I respect them.

Done correctly North would have been a decent adventure movie with enough enjoyment for the kids as well as adults. But not more than that because the story is for starters stupid. Its just... a kid searching for new parents after being ignored. No matter how well its executed it can not have a rich and exciting story. The only hope is the jokes and North played by Elijah Wood (the only good actor in the whole entire ear splitting eye gouging 87 minu- okay that's enough).

And it ruins its hope by making comedy itself a disgrace. The jokes are TERRIBLE. They either have no idea what they're trying to make a joke out of or even have a slight sense of being realistic and sometimes have adult content that made me cringe. The only part where I chuckled a bit is when Elijah Wood is having a panic attack, he looks so much like Frodo struggling with the One Ring. And that's not even supposed to be funny. The only way to make an excuse is to explain that this film is a surreal satire, but I'm not buying it.

While everything is focused on the horrible jokes everything else is un-focused especially the acting. Its soulless, its boring, bland, and tedious to watch... its LAZY. Is it because everyone thinks that the jokes are what make up 99.9 percent of the movie so good acting doesn't help at all and can be let loose? Acting is even more crucial in comedy, as actors are faced with all sorts of situations and funny plot twists where their wit and talent is truly needed for laughs. I could also kind of see in their eyes that the actors knew that the film is terrible and not worth making, so they want to get over it quickly. It becomes a synergy effect everyone becomes equally terrible.

This film was hell on earth. If actual hell is going to be like this I am scared to death. If it wasn't for the sake of writing the review I surely would have shut it off in the middle. EVERYTHING in this film sucks. And it isn't even one of those 'so-bad-they're-good' films. Its just BAD. F**king, disturbingly BAD. My vocabulary depends a bit on which film I'm reviewing. If I'm reviewing a masterpiece such as Casablanca I would use more sophisticated and smarter words to describe the greatness. North deserves only the word BAD. The plot is BAD, the acting is BAD, the jokes are BAD, the uselessly stupidly up-beat and frolicking atmosphere is BAD.

The End.

Re: Gatz Flick Critique
 

Nice review Gatsby. I'm surprised you made it all the way through. :p

You should try watching Druids starring Christopher Lambert. It was ranked #100 of IMDB's 100 worst films, but I'm not sure if it's gotten bumped off. Fortunately it actually is so bad that it's funny.

Re: Gatz Flick Critique
 

I love films like the one you mentioned... I'll check it out. :)

Re: Gatz Flick Critique
 

Well reviewed. Never saw this movie but I know of its reputation.

Re: Gatz Flick Critique
 

Never heard of North. I'm a little surprised to hear that it's so bad considering that Reiner is generally a pretty solid director. Your review piques my curiosity -- like can it really be as bad as you say? I'm tempted to watch this train wreck.

Oh, and enjoyable review, BTW. Sometimes it's more fun to read scathing reviews like this than raving reviews. Thanks for recovering from your self-inflected wounds long enough to type it up. :cool:

Re: Gatz Flick Critique
 

I actually remember liking North, but then I've not seen it since I was 7 years old. Perhaps I should keep it that way.

I was looking forward to Snowpiercer as I liked Bong Joon ho's Films ever since I saw Barking Dogs Never Bite, but this one didn't gel together for me. I hated the grotesque Tilda Swinton character. It felt like a chore to see it to the end.

I don't think I've ever heard of North before. It sounds like that's a good thing.

Thinking about it, I don't think my wounds are healed yet, my left ear still hurts a bit. :sick:

I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark for a commentary. That was my 6th time and it was still a fun ride. For comparison, I¡¯ve seen my favorite movie 5 times. Some films never get old; in fact some of them get younger, because their sense of up-beat adventure is missing in today¡¯s movies. This film is a prime example, a classic in every sense.

Raiders of the Lost Ark can be summarized as a big-scale 2 hours long Saturday morning movie serial. Is it a bad thing? Nope. The cheesy punches and kicks between the big bald guy and our hero Indy (Harrison Ford), exploding planes and facilities, action scenes, of course in a figurative sense; slapping Einstein and his lifetime work, is all a delight to ears and eyes.

But then a lot of Hollywood action movies are based on cartoons and comics and far-fetched theatrical plots. One question, is it music to your eyes and years? What about the characters? The plot¡¦

Speaking of the plot, let¡¯s take a look at the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark. It isn¡¯t much really. There¡¯s an ark. Indy has to find it. And Major Arnold Toht (Ronald Lacey) along with his group of hideous men is trying to get their hands on it too. That¡¯s all folks. All this is explained in one 5 minutes scene. It¡¯s boring, but only for the moment, also no pain equals no gain. To top it off the good acting and direction by pre-2000 Spielberg keep things tight and moderately exciting.

Afterwards it¡¯s all good fun. Nothing is explained much, other than maybe the forewarning about the ark having mysterious powers thou shall not be touched by man. Once the basic plot is set, Indy and his friends make up the rest of the story, whatever way they want to, even if it involves destroying several vehicles, destroying half of an ancient Egyptian temple, and bringing a gun to a swordfight (which is actually a good job for once). Yep, the fun stuff.

What I¡¯m trying to point out is, too much explanation can be the downfall of a film. This can be ironic, because the reason to have a script is to explain the whole idea behind the movie.

I¡¯m not against exposition based films, however, think if the film have enough rich characters, dramatic or humorous situations, and action to support the complicated plot? If it doesn¡¯t, the film becomes a mega budget science mumbo- jumbo documentary having the accuracy of flashy and loud money loan ads.

Raiders of the Lost Ark has the right idea. It¡¯s self-aware of being a pure popcorn movie, thus it never tries to complicate itself. Most of the mythology is left to the audience¡¯s imagination, and for every choice made by the characters there is a clear reason. The once Indy betraying Marion (Karren Allen) suddenly becoming a friend is because the Nazis burned down her bar and she can go no other place. Indy, within seconds, moves on to the famous truck chase scene because, well, the ark is one of the trucks. Clearest reason ever. All these build up to be a unforgettable 2 hour adventure holding up very well even amongst people who are considered to be too old for the movie (I¡¯m already starting to enter that age group, uh oh).

Adventure movies don¡¯t get any better than this.

Verdict:

Only 6 times? That's not nearly enough.



There, I fixed it for you.

I am very disappointed at the lack of replies.

Re: Gatz Flick Critique
 

Hey Gatsby, never knew you had a review thread! Awesome!

Looking through your list, I've actually only seen one (The Hobbit) and seen only parts of Indiana Jones. I hope you do more reviews though. I'll definitely be keeping up with it—and don't worry—your writing is fine! :up:

Hey, thanks FW, glad you discovered my hidden treasure ship. :up:

I do want to write more reviews, but they aren't really my thing. I just post reviews here once in a very while when I'm suddenly in the mood for it. In the first post of the thread I said I want to become a better reviewer, I still want to, but for now I'm focusing on basic writing skills.

Re: Gatz Flick Critique
 

Haven't gotten around to watching Snowpiercer, I might watch it after the draft tonight. Great reviews on other movies too, I really like the layout you are rolling with.

¡¯

You said "adventure movies don't get any better than this".

I completely agree.