Lance's Review Thread
 

A bunch of people are starting review threads so i thought I'd go along with the crowd.

List of Reviews

• King Arthur (Antoine Fuqua - 2004) - D+
• History of the World Part 1 (Mel Brooks -1981) - B+
• The Count of Monte Cristo (Kevin Reynolds - 2002) - B
• Once Upon a Time in Mexico (Robert Rodriguez - 2003) - C
• Life is Beautiful (Roberto Benigni - 1997) - A+
• Aliens (James Cameron - 1986) - A
• Adaptation (Spike Jonez - 2002) - A-
• 28 Days Later (Danny Boyle - 2002) - C-
• Pleasantville (Gary Ross - 1998) - A-
• Road to Perdition (Sam Mendes - 2002) - A
• The Ref (Ted Demme - 1994) - B
• Papillon (Franklin J. Schaffner - 1973) - A+
• Dick Tracy (Warren Beatty - 1990) - A-
• Akahige (Akira Kurosawa - 1965) - A+
• Sin City (Robert Rodriguez - 2005) - A+
• Closer (Mike Nichols - 2004) - A
• Starship Troopers (Paul Verhoeven - 1997) - B+
• Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith (George Lucas - 2005) - A-
• I'll Sleep When I'm Dead (Mike Hodges - 2003) - C+
• Batman Begins (Chris Nolan - 2005) - A
• The Life Aquatic (Wes Anderson - 2004) - B

King Arthur

Directed By: Antoine Fuqua

Written By: David Franzoni

Produced By: Jerry Bruckheimer

Cinematography: Slawomir Idziak

Starring: Clive Owen, Keira Knightely, Stellan Skarsgard and Ioan Gruffudd



This movie wasn't very good. Yeah, the battle scenes were well choreographed and all, but there was no way in hell they could save this crapfest. Clive Owen was completely wasted as the heroic Arthur. In fact, the entire cast was wasted on this film. There are some really talented actors here, but the roles they played just weren't that interesting. All of Arthur's Knights were either stereotypes or just flat-out indistinguishable from one another. And Franzoni's script was disgustingly bad. Before I had the misfortune of seeing the film, I never would have believed a man could go from writing frippin' Amistad to this crap.

What really pisses me off, though, is that Fuqua and his cronies are trying to pass this off as the "True Story" of King Arthur. That's a lie. Nobody knows who Arthur was and, in fact, the general consensus is he didn't exist at all. If only I could say that about this movie...

MY FINAL GRADE: D+

Nice reviews Lance... I'm not a huge Mel Brooks fan and have yet to see History of the World, but I agree that King Arthur was complete and absolute crap!

Thanks, I'm glad at least one person is reading these. :)

History of the World Part 1

Written, Directed, and Produced By: Mel Brooks

Score: Mel Brooks, Ronny Graham, and John Morris

Starring: Mel Brooks, Gregory Hines, and Madeline Kahn

Narraration: Orson Welles




Let me start by saying I am a bit biased, as I am a Mel Brooks worshipper. But I do believe that people other than Brooks fanatics will enjoy this film.

This is the man at his most genius. The bits are pretty much hit-or-miss (as with most Brooks films) but in this one there are a lot of hits. I'd say there are at least 5 or 6 laugh out loud moments. The brilliantly done Spanish Inquisition musical number is an instant classic. So is the hilarious Dom DeLuise Caesar bellowing "Treasure Bath!" My only beef with the flick is the slightly lengthy running time and the somewhat boring French Revolution segment. But I don't think those really detract from the overall quality of the film.

MY FINAL GRADE: B+

Thanks for the reviews Lance, I am a Brooks fan, love to see you review a few of my favourites, 'High Anxiety', and 'Young Fronkenstein' :D

Thanks, I will review more Brooks' films in the future. But for now...

The Count of Monte Cristo

Directed By: Kevin Reynolds

Screenplay By: Jay Wolpert

Produced By: Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum

Scored By: Robert Elhai and Ed Shearmur

Cinematography By: Andrew Dunn

Starring: Jim Caviezel, Guy Pearce, and Richard Harris


Dumas' novel has always been somewhat of a favorite of mine, so i had high hopes for this movie. Kudos to Jay Wolport for not butchering the story, I found myself falling in love with it all over again. The relationship between Abbe Faria and Dantes was exceptionally well done. And the acting worked, too. While not amazing by any stretch of the imagination, they all had some nice moments. Particularly the late Richard Harris; he stole every scene he was in. Guy Pearce was a little flat, though.

Overall, Reynolds did a good job on this movie. It is my favorite adaptation of the story (mostly because of Harris) but of course, it has its problems. There are plot holes, some wooden acting by a few of the supporting players, and the ending was a little anti-climatic. Nevertheless, this is a very good recreation of the greatest revenge story ever told and I enjoyed it very much.

MY FINAL GRADE: B

Another good review Lance... I skipped over your review of MDB, but that's only b/c I'm hoping to see it tomorrow and don't want to know anything beforehand :)

Thanks Lance........what was Guy Pearce like in this movie? he is one of my favourite Aussie actors. :D

Directed, Written, Produced, and Scored By: Robert Rodriguez

Cinematography By: *sigh* Robert Rodriguez

Starring: Antonio Banderas, Johnny Depp, Willem Dafoe, and Salma Hayek

______________________

I've heard very mixed reviews about this film. The majority of critics seemed to hate it, but the movie definitely gained a semi-cult following among the masses (mostly due to gushy Depp fans and the first two Mariachi movies). I don't share their ethusiasm.

I didn't think El Mariachi was that bad and I thought Desperado was pretty good too. But this one was way too cluttered and confusing to be enjoyable. Even with the few relatively exciting shoot-em-up sequences littered about this mess, it was obvious Rodriguez tried way too hard to make a balls to the walls thinking man's movie. It ended up, however, as an incoherent heap of **** with way too many annoying plot twists.

I didn't completely hate the movie, though. Johnny Depp certainly had his share of incredibly cool "Johnny Depp moments". And Willem Dafoe plays a pretty badass Mexican drug lord (for a Wisconsin boy). But the fact remains Banderas is only good in small doses and Robert Rodriguez is not a very talented director...or screenwriter... or cinematographer. Plus, Enrique Iglesias :sick:

MY FINAL GRADE: C-

Thanks for the review Lance, I didn't like it that much, especially Johnny's makeup, that blood was really fake.
http://www.dvdanswers.com/images/scr...xico_r2_05.jpg

Not to defend Once Upon A Time in Mexico - because it was an underachieving mess, or Rodriguez's career in general - as he has coasted for quite a while, BUT this "not talented" statement will have to be amended in a couple months when Frank Miller's SIN CITY hits the screens.
:yup:

http://www.lacosaonline.com/resource...ity4_thumb.jpg

Hopefully.

No hoping about it, I guarantee it.


official SIN CITY site

Perhaps, but with source material as awesome as Sin City, Rodriguez can be as untalented as he wants to be. The movie will still rock.

I'll be expecting a full refund from you if it turns out to be a stinker. ;)

Tell that to the hacks who fu*ked up Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell and Constantine.
:indifferent:

He's got a point, Lance.

Yeah, but Moore had nothing to do with the actual production of those films. Frank Miller personally helped Rodriguez with the script and direction of Sin City. So trust me, if Sin City turns out to be a great movie, it will not be because of Signor Roberto. It will be because of Frank Miller's contributions.

It is going to be great, and it's because of the way Rodriguez envisioned being able to bring SIN CITY to life exactly as to Frank's drawings. The success of the movie will definitely be co-due to Miller, but Frank had never come even close to directing anything before. If it wasn't for Robert's original vision on how to crack the nut, it never would have happened anyway.