Gramp's thread in which movies will occasionally get reviewed

Sup. Title explains it all. Planning to do a review at least once a week, in no particular order really.


Currently Reviewed Movies
-----------------------------------------------------
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
The Dark Knight
Epic Movie
Mad Max: Fury Road
ATM
Psycho 1998
Ouija
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)


As the third chapter in the saga, there's a definite darker turn. The set design, colors, and even the scene transitions seemed to be dowsed in a bit of grey paint. Compared to the bright, joyful family romps that preceded it, this is a welcome change. The characters are beginning to grow up, mature, and with it the blessed relief of actually being able to act.

While this movie is dark it doesn't lose itself too far into it. It strikes a delicate balance of being serious while at the same time being fun and lighthearted. This is something that was sorely lacking the later movies, where instead they get much too focused on being CGI-fests. It's a bit sad, really.

I won't get too far into the plot, but it involves time travel. It's actually handeled rather well, with it being a closed loop and all. It does create a rather major plot hole, though. When you can FREAKING TIME TRAVEL, why would you not go back in time and just kill Voldemort before he's even a problem? Then again, that would mean losing out on nearly $6 billion dollars worth of sequels, and that's never any fun.

If I were to recommend a Harry Potter movie to start off with, it would most certainly be this one.


Selected Quote:
Hermione: Is that really what my hair looks like from the back?

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

Ho boy, what a doozy this one is. This is the movie that not only killed the franchise, but killed it hard enough to send it into reboot purgatory (3 reboots and counting).

Normally I would make snarky comments on, well, anything involving a terrible movie, but I've got nothing for this one. Just like Jaws IV, it fails so much that you can barely insult it. Cheap as hell special effects, nonsensical powers, moving the bloody moon, the list goes on.

I will go into the 'villain' of this movie, Nuclear Man. Were they high when they made him? A clone of Superman that 1) looks nothing like him and 2) has the powers of the sun. I get this is a comic book movie, but how does throwing a bit of Superman's DNA into the sun even come close to pulling that off? Even if that were to happen, why does he disobey the only rule to his power so often? Multiple times in the movie, Nuclear Man just strides into a building, where there is absolutely no sunlight, unheeded.

This movie is not only disrespectful to Superman, it's disrespectful to bad movies in general. It fails so hard it might as well set up a leper village on the outskirts of Cheeseville.

I do not recommend this movie, at all. You won't even have fun trying to insult it. Avoid at all costs.




Selected Quote:
Superman: You've broken all the laws of man, Luthor. Not it looks as though you've broken all the laws of nature, too. I can only assume you must have hidden a device of some kind on one of the missiles I hurled into the sun.

I rated Superman 4 the same tbh. It's one of only a couple that got the magical 0% from me.

__________________

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Where the Prisoner of Azkaban dipped the franchise's toes into dark waters, this movie drags it kicking and screaming.

As a followup to what many consider the best Harry Potter film, it had a lot to live up to. Unlike the first two books, and bits of the third, the Triwizard Tournament 3-act structure lends itself rather well to a movie adaptation. As opposed to just snatching up important events will-nilly and hoping people don't grow bored of them, there's more a sense of progression. It's rather admirable.

This is certainly the darkest chapter so far. Harry having to go through a death tournament, and ultimately contributing to the revival of his greatest enemy, Voldemort? Not to mention, Cedric Diggory's death marks the first death that has a real impact. Sure, we see Lily and James die like a bajillion times in flashbacks, whatever. But this is the first time in which a major character, a character in which there is significant investment into them, is killed. Hell, you even see people cry and stuff about it. Drastic turn.

That's not to say there aren't flaws with the film. For one thing, the whole convoluted plan in order to get Harry to that graveyard. Why not, I don't know, just Portkey one of his shirts or something? After all, Mad-Eye has shown enough wits to snatch ingredients from under Snape for nearly the entire year. Even a throwaway explanation would work.

But, honestly, that's just a nitpick. Expertly made and with no short of thrills, this is a sequel that exceeds expectations.



Selected Quote:
Hermione: Next time there's a ball pluck up the courage to ask me before someone else does! And not as a last resort!

The Dark Knight (Nolan, 2008)

This movie is like watching two movies mashed together. On one hand, you have the outstanding performance of Heath Ledger in his final role as the Joker, that is hands down the best supervillain portrayal to ever make the silver screen. There's also Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent, and he was cast perfectly as well.

But then we have Christian Bale as Batman. I like Christian Bale as much as the next guy, but the Batman he plays is a complete joke. Excuse me when I don't shake in my boots against a guy whose voice reaches legendary levels of ridiculous. A deep-seated growl of a voice is not scary, nor is his constant annoying duck face.

There's also the conflicting message this movie gives off. You have the Joker's nihilistic perspective, that everyone could be just like him given a push. It's dark, and a bit true. But then you have a convicted felon, one of a mobster's men, tossing a bomb detonator that could save his own skin out a window. Huh?

That's not to say the movie is not good. It is. Fantastic, even, when it gets it right. For example, the interrogation scene of the Joker brings out some fantastic acting from both Bale and Ledger. But for all the movie gets right, it gets so much wrong. The complete idiots that make up the Gotham Police force, and all their terrible one liners, the strange scenes with Batman driving the Batbike, not to mention the confused message.

It makes this a difficult movie to recommend to avid filmgoers. At the very least, you'll get a kick out of Ledger. But otherwise, there's not a whole lot to it.

Epic Movie (2007)

Should have been called Trailer Movie. Or Terrible Movie. Anything with a T. Watching this movie was a pain. Watching it multiple times to properly review it was torture. But I prevailed.

I'll start with the positives. They at least watched The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, as every set piece is there, more or less. The four main leads are also likable enough, despite not getting much chance to exercise their comedic talent.

The film opens up with four shallow parodies that you can completely skip because they're not important.

The film opens up with four twenty-somethings going to Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, with a surprisingly little amount of jokes made. Sure, there's the chocolate river being a sewer line for some reason, and Willy Wonka being an insane cannibal, but other then that, nothing. Absolutely no jokes involving Johnny Depp's acting performance, or anything at all involving the movie in question.

Actually, that's the recurring theme. Take the shell of what was really big within the last 3 or 4 years, usually what can be gleamed from the trailer they dozed through, and stuff in as many gross-out gags and references to date the movie as extremely as you can. When they aren't doing that, they either prolong jokes to the point of parody (by accident, what do you know), or MOTHER FLIPPING EXPLAIN THE JOKE.

Excuse my Français, but I will never understand this incessant need recent parody filmmakers have with this. For example, take the somewhat funny aging Harry Potter joke. You see that they're old, wasted, ok whatever. But then the line immediately following is, and I quote, "They are definitely too old to be doing this s***!"

Why is that necessary? We're not that stupid.

There's not much to say about the rest of the movie. It plays out like a bad, horrible dream that doesn't end until 80 godless minutes pass, in which case you're reduced to a seething mess on the floor.

Bottom line, it just isn't funny. None of the jokes really work, and it seemed like they weren't trying all that hard. Avoid at all costs.

Mad Max: Fury Road (Miller, 2015)

I've never heard of Mad Max before this, but boy did it sure make a fan out of me.

Imagine, if you will, an action scene that's all action. A movie that manages to keep the pace going, while at the same time not skipping out on needed characterization that doesn't require a love subplot. An action movie that transcends its inherent roots of not being taken too seriously, and inject in it cinematografic art.

Don't believe me? Well, watch this movie silly.

The movie primarily follows the chase of Imperator Furiosa, a general to Immortan Joe, who has stolen his treasured Five Wives to give them a chance at a better life. The titular Mad Max forcibly gets involved as well. Oh, and there's cars. Not to mention, explosions, heavy metal, landmines, grenade sticks, cults, guns, waterfalls, really cool cars, sand...

The visuals are absolutely fantastic. What's cooler then a bunch of post-apocalyptic weaponry and cars? Did I mention the cars? Because they're cool. There's a lot of very visual things going on, not unlike more artsy films like 2001: A Space Odyssey. It essentially tells you all you need to know just by showing you.



A rather fascinating thing about the cinematography is whenever someone dies. The camera zooms in rapidly on their face right before their death, so you see and feel their last moment. It's highly effective, and creates this sort of impact that I've never seen before.

The action is of course quite great. The movie essentially boils down to a near two hour sequence of chases through the desolate Australia. Let me just say, they did a dang fine job doing that without it getting exceedingly boring. Every single set piece does something new and different, and with the help of the fantastic visuals it never slows down.

But surprisingly, the characters were the best part of the movie. A particular standout would be Furiosa. I haven't seen such a good female character since Ripley from Aliens. She really manages to capture the feeling of a character who's been in practical slavery her entire life, hoping against hope to escape.

But it's not just the fact that she's cool, which she is. It's the fact that they also manage to show her not just as this sort of invincible god that a lot of female action heroes tend to be. She is human, and she does have faults. Like I said, it reminds me heavily of the way Ripley was done. She's not trying to be an action hero just for the sake of being badass. She's doing what needs to be done, because nobody else can do it.

The other standouts would include the titular Max, although he mostly serves as a sort of silent protector to the rest of the group, and Nux, a Warboy trying to get a badass death before cancer kills him.

Overall I would highly recommend this film. While its not for everyone, it's an amazing thrill-ride that is well worth your money's worth.

Side note: The 3D version of the film is a bit weird. It's not too bad, but it makes it quite hard to focus on the background elements. I would recommend 2D.



Selected Quote:

Nux: Oh what a day, what a lovely day!

Well damn, I thoroughly enjoyed that movie.

What would you rate Batman Begins and TDKR?

Haven't watched them in a while, but probably a and respectively.

I'm surprised you've not heard of the Mad Max films before. Fury Road takes all the best parts of the previous films and kicks them up a notch, but I do recommend at least giving The Road Warrior a try.

ATM (Brooks, 2012)

This is the stupidest horror movie I've ever seen in my bloody life.

Some movies have plot holes to make the premise work. But some movies are so terrible they don't even have enough plot to justify their existence. This is one of those cases.

Let me try to break it down. The movie follows three of the stupidest adults to ever grace cinema, who all decide to sit in an ATM booth while a killer outside lurks around and keeps them in there. The killer is always outside, roughly 100-150 feet away. The door to the ATM is unlocked at all times. Instead of, say, running out and scattering, therefore making it completely impossible for him to kill more then one of them, they decide to stay and freeze their butts off. For some reason.

There are in fact many sequences in which they have a very, very good chance to just run out and leave, but they don't take it. In fact, there's a part where David says he's going to run out to his car and get help, but then proceeds to stand there for about 20 seconds until the killer comes up to him from the side. Because the 'plot' demands it I guess.

There's even a sequence later on where they run out to save their friend while the killer is distracted trying to bust down a door in the back. Instead of, like I said, running away, they decide to go back inside again.

The movie then ends with

Honestly, if it weren't for the flaws in the premise, this would have been a decent movie. The acting is decent, the cinematography is good, everything is passable. If it weren't for the bloody premise. It's really frustrating, to see a movie come so close to being decent but fail so spectacularly.

Psycho (Van Sant, 1998)

What the hell were they thinking?

Where do I even begin? For one thing, this movie likes to pretend it's a remake of the original movie. But no, that's not quite right. A remake is something that attempts to do something new with an established source, in order to better fit with new audiences. This usually entails needed additions in order to strengthen the source material. A great example of this expansion of the source material to fit a new generation would be The Thing (1982) and The Fly (1986). Better special effects, deeper storytelling, and very accomplished translation from black/white to color.

This movie, however, is probably the worst attempt at 'remaking' a movie I've ever seen. It has the absolute audacity to shot for shot remake nearly the entire movie. So that's already pretty bad, but it attempts to justify its existence by 'modernizing' the entire movie. This basically means shooting in color, and changing currency and etc. around.

But by trying to modernize the formula, it only calls attention to the parts it doesn't change, that needed to be changed in order to work with this framework it's set up. What's the point of increasing the amount of money Marion Crane steals, if she's still going to drive a tacky 60's car anyway, with the same style of driving effects to it? This is the 90's. Driving effects have progressed much farther then this. If it's supposed to be a homage to the original, that's stupid.

It quite irks me that the movie is shot in color. That was the novelty of the original, being incredibly scary without the use of any color. By adding that, it removes some of the subtlety in the shot. It's as if it adds too much detail, removing the effective use of imagination.

Actually, I think that does the killing blow for me. The lack of subtlety. It's more like it's going through the motions of what made the original so good, and changing things willy-nilly, without actually understanding why it worked the way it did originally.

For example, let's list the problems with 'modernizing' a specific scene in the movie, the scene where Lila goes into the basement:



This movie is just a waste of time. The acting is horrible, the use of color is completely unneeded, and the cinematography is somehow complete crap despite being a near ripoff of the shots from the original. Whenever the movie tries to do something different, it fails miserably because it ruins the entire purpose of the scene. Just go watch the original, it's far and away better then this abomination.



Selected Quote:
Milton Arbogast: Oh, someone has seen her, all right. Someone always sees a girl with $400,000.

I enjoyed ATM and the Psycho remake, but I certainly don't consider them good movies.

I totally agree with you regarding Epic Movie...I thought I didn't like it because I'm not a fan of the genre that it's spoofing but you have documented for me that is just a bad movie. Also on board regarding the remake of Psycho...Vince Vaughn? Seriously?

Ouija (White, 2014)

(Forewarning: unmarked spoilers, but it's not like you can't predict them.)

Here I was, giving The Conjuring crap for being unoriginal.

The movie follows five morons who, after their friend Debbie strangles herself with some christmas lights, decide to communicate with her via a Ouija board. Naturally, it goes wrong and they accidentally awake a demon or some ****.

I mostly came off this movie disappointed. I've seen demon possession movies, countless times. For some reason, this has become the scariest thing ever to horror movie makers, so they continue to keep ripping each other off, trying to find another dumb way to start the demon possession/killings. But I believe this one takes the cake.

See, in the opening it shows Debbie looking through the planchette, getting possessed, and killing herself. Fair enough, but in later scenes it shows the group getting possessed completely randomly. One of them even gets possessed while flossing their teeth, for some reason. It doesn't establish any concrete rules, which makes it really difficult to get scared if it just does what it wants.

This is a very big problem. If it can just kill them whenever it wants, why doesn't it? Why does it immediately kill four of them very easily, but then decide to let the remaining few burn up her body? Why does it decide to kill the main character's sister slowly, instead of possessing her immediately and finishing the job really quickly? Why does Debbie randomly show up when Laine and DZ are struggling with the board?

These questions may sound like nitpicks, but really they're serious problems. If you can't even set up situations correctly, why should I even pay money to see your movie?

The one saving grace is that the acting is decent enough, and the themes it stole from Insidious are interesting. There's also a few jumpscares that, yes, made me jump. I suppose from a pure viewer's point of view, it accomplishes its job of being at least a little scary. Heck, a sequel on its way, so someone must have liked it.

But to me, I always felt that horror can be more then what its become. This overt reliance of jumpscares and cliches instead of unique ideas and actual horror is very disconcerting.

See it if you hate Ouija boards, but don't see it if you're expecting anything good.



Selected Quote:

Sarah Morris: Hey Liz, it's ok it's just a game.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (Russell, 1987)

In the month of honoring Wes Craven....I skirt around the bush with this one.

Dream Warriors is the second sequel to Wes Craven's horror classic, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and is considered pretty good by many.

Certainly, as a technical achievement this movie cannot be ignored. Its special effects are quite good, especially considering its relatively low budget ($4.5 million).

The cast is also quite likable, and most of them have distinctive personalities. Which, coming off of cash-in franchises like Friday the 13th, is a very welcome relief. A particular shoutout to Jennifer Rubin, who portrays the druggie girl Taryn.

As a sequel, tonally it is much more in line with what the original Nightmare established then, say, later sequels, or even Freddy's Revenge. Instead of dealing with homoerotic undertones, we're dealing with how dreams and reality intermix with each other.

But with all this sequel gets right, it also gets quite a bit wrong. For one thing, reintroducing Nancy as a counselor for the children. Don't get me wrong, I love Nancy. She's a great character, a strong girl who knows how to help herself. But her existence in this movie raises questions that still remain unanswered.

For one thing, what the heck happened at the end of the first Nightmare? It isn't even addressed in this film, simply glossed over as an unimportant detail, but it remains the most contested question of the series. If the final scene of Nightmare was a dream, what was the rest of the movie? How was it possible for her to survive if she encountered and was presumably trapped by Kruger? By not addressing this question, it just leaves it sort of in the air. Which is quite a shame, because answering this would help tie this movie more closely with its original, and, say, justify its existence.

Speaking of which, what's the deal with Freddy's origin story? It seems completely unneeded to explain he was, and I quote, 'the bastard son of 100 maniacs'. What does it matter if Freddy was conceived by rape? All that matters is his actions later in life, not how he was brought about. Secondly, how the hell is a dead nun walking around talking? I get this is in the same movie where a guy with finger knives haunts dreams, but it is still out of place.

On that note, the whole Freddy's remains subplot is riddled with stupid. First off, it was never mentioned anywhere in the first movie that Freddy's remains were hidden away, in particular in a way that would allow Nancy to even know about them. Secondly, his remains should have nothing to do with his actions now. As shown in Freddy's Revenge, cringe at it all you will, Freddy is perfectly capable of possessing people and using their bodies in the physical world. Why would he still be tied to a bunch of dead bones? He can do magic and ****, not to mention being able to absorb the souls of dead children.

Finally, why would, and I quote Nancy here, her father be 'the only person who would know'? As established in the first and this movie, Freddy's vigilantic murder was enacted by a group of parents furious that he got off so easily. Therefore, multiple parents would have to be involved in order to hide the remains of Freddy. It's not exactly something that can be hidden from other people. What, did he just scoop up his remains, dash off to his car, dump his bones in the trashyard, and somehow get away with it? No. No, what would be the most obvious conclusion would be at least 2 or 3 people finding somewhere to hide his remains.

A few more nitpicks still kind of needle me that I might as well talk about before I move on. First off, what was the point of the druggie hospital employee scene? Was it to establish that Taryn was a druggie? If so, that's kind of stupid because we already know that. Nothing ever comes from this scene, and this character never shows up again, so what's the point?

Also, why did Nancy wait so long to tell them that she knew what they were going to? It took like 3 separate meetings for her to get around to it. If it's because of Dr. Elizabeth's presence, she had an ample opportunity to talk to them after Rolan gets dragged off. She had left the room, and showed no obvious signs that she would be returning anytime soon. Seemed like the perfect opportunity.




ANYWAY, if you ignore the plot canyons, this movie is still quite enjoyable. The acting and special effects are quite nice, and there's plenty of good scenes in there (the whole tendon marionette scene - yuck).Elaborating on Krueger's already existing jokester qualities was a good call on the filmmakers part, as it displays the personality he's already had just a bit more. The soundtrack is also all right, the song Dream Warriors being the best thing ever created out of Elm Street by far.

I just feel like a lot more could have been done with the material, which, let me just say, is some really good material. For example, why not elaborate more on the teenage suicide disorder that the adults were clearly worried about? It would be nice to see some more juxtaposition between the kids who are obviously frightened because of Krueger, and the parents who are obviously frightened for their kids lives because they think they're depressed. We saw a bit of it with Mrs. Parker's reactions who, from what she could tell, Kristen's suicide attempt, but I felt this could have been this interesting subtle commentary that was left off the table. I'm not saying it should be, like, Heathers level, societal commentary, I just think making it more a focus would have been a good idea.

I gave a lot of thought on this movie, maybe a bit more then I expected. It is certainly a worthy sequel to the original Elm Street, bringing in a slew of new ideas to the table. But I feel like it still didn't do enough to step out of its shadow, instead more going towards the same sort of deal as the original with a new cast.

I recommend this movie if you liked the first one, and as a casual moviegoer. It's fairly decent quality, but I would say there's better horror films out there.




Selected Quote:

Nice to hear your thoughts on this, GG. Was this written before or after what was said in the shoutbox?

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

It was after I watched it and hated it, and when peeps were saying Dream Warriors was better then TCM.

Which it is.

I can see why you don't like it though. if you're bothered by plotholes and stuff like that, then horror in general and sequels in particular are often going to pose a problem in that regard.