TwIsTeD ReViEwS... from the Mind of Sawman3

→ in
Tools    





A PHD in Whiskey and Stonerology
Thanks man

My review of Little Shop of Horrors (1986) should be up tomorrow, and I must confess it takes the cake for my favorite movie at the moment. It's brilliant in so many ways. Is that more up your alley?



A PHD in Whiskey and Stonerology
I need to see Battle Royale. To be honest I'm not sure how you'll react to Suicide Club... to me it definitely seems like a love/hate kind of thing.



A PHD in Whiskey and Stonerology
A quick note before I start in here: Could someone please change the thread name to "TwIsTeD ReViEwS... from the Mind of Sawman3". I've tried to change it myself but... no go.

Anyway....

TwIsTeD ReViEw #3:
Hamlet 2

Review composed by Sawman3.

Hamlet 2. A film that promised comedy heaven, and certainly appeared as though it could deliver just that, with perhaps a dollop of genuinely good acting smack dab on top. Going into the theater to see this film, I was near rigid with anticipation. Woe was I when I realized, perhaps twenty minutes in, that Hamlet 2 was neither comedy heaven nor a healthy helping of good acting. In fact, I realized, Hamlet 2 is one of the most disappointing films of 2008 so far.

But before we really get going, allow me to backtrack a little and give those of you who aren't familiar with the film some basic background. Hamlet 2 is directed by Andrew Fleming, director of such films as Nancy Drew, and was written by Andrew Fleming in conjunction with the proud (rightly) co-writer of Team America: World Police and South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, Pam Brady. Brady is also the writer of myriad South Park episodes and uncredited producer of Team America: World Police. If the choice for director/co-writer does not inspire great enthusiasm, than the writer certainly should. Steve Coogan plays the lead role of a failed actor-cum-high-school-drama teacher. Coogan has a number of respectable roles under his belt, having acted in, among other things, Tropic Thunder, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Hot Fuzz.


Steve Coogan


So after reading the preceding paragraph, you're probably thinking that this reviewer must be off his rocker: nothing possibly could have gone wrong with this movie. Well, prepare to have your socks knocked off, Mr. Jump-to-Conclusions.

Hamlet 2's biggest mistake lies in trying to draw out a variety of jokes and punchlines that are either: A) Visible from miles away, or B) Unsuited to anything except children's daytime television. For example, a little past the midway point of the film Coogan slams his hand in a door and then jumps around like a fool before having his hand removed and slumping against the door in agony. The sequence is too long, and the gag wasn't funny to begin with.

Then, of course, there's the story itself. Which is pretty good. But it sure doesn't look it here. The writing was absolutely butchered by Coogan and the two terrible actors that played the roles of Coogan's two most devoted students. Coogan over-acts when he should be subtle, and then proceeds to be subtle when he should act absurd. Picture Jim Carrey at his worst (A.K.A. rock-bottom), and you'll get the idea. This results in the story feeling bland at best and at worst apathetic.


Coogan has nothing to grin about.


I will grant Hamlet 2 this: it has some truly hilarious moments. In one scene, Coogan explains (with a stupid grin on his face as per usual throughout Hamlet 2): "Just because they're Latinos it doesn't make them gang-bangers, got it?" Such off-beat un-politically correct humor is exactly what Hamlet 2 needed to be great, and it needed it in large quantities (good acting would also have been a plus). Instead we get a few brilliant moments interspersed with childish humor and moronic and repetitive body-acting.

There's not much to say. Hamlet 2 has all the promise of Christ at the moment of his birth and offers all the fulfillment of diet soda. Don't waste your time on it. If you do, it's not a film that you will remember longer than it takes you to ridicule it in front of friends.

Rating:


or 2.5/10




is thouroughly embarrassed of this old username.
Audition is an amazing movie, the only scary movie in the world. Suicide Club is pretty good but, Noriko's Dinner Table (it's companion film) is far far better (actually the best movie).



A PHD in Whiskey and Stonerology
TwIsTeD ReViEw #4:
Army of Darkness

Review composed by Sawman3.

Well, I don't think I'll have very much background to explaining to do here: if you haven't seen Army of Darkness you've probably at least heard of it. It would be hard not to.

Army of Darkness stars the badass cult icon Bruce Campbell, best known for his roles in The Evil Dead (1981) and The Evil Dead II (1987), and was directed by Sam Raimi.


The King himself.

That's enough background, it's really all you need. Oh, the film was released in the United States in 1993.

So, with that aside, I can proceed to the meat of the review. Army of Darkness starts off at a furious pace and never really lets up, and there is a sometimes-uncomfortable feeling of being rushed throughout. We learn, in about five minutes, that our hero has been sucked backwards in time by an evil portal generated by the malicious forces he encountered in The Evil Dead II. He has since been captured by patrolling knights who believe him to be an enemy and, after being stripped of his signature shotgun and chainsaw, driven with other captured prisoners back to the castle proper.

There follows one of the best scenes in cult history, but I won't spoil it here. In fact, the rest of the movie, despite its frantic pace and almost ridiculously shallow premise, is full of classic-ness... in terms of both dialogue and action alike. I mean, what isn't cool about Bruce Campbell pulling himself out of a book bound in human flesh that's actually a disguised black hole?


Oh yes.

I will take the time to point out a few major flaws, however. First off, we barely get to see Campbell make use of his trusty chainsaw at all over the course of the movie. Instead he has an (admittedly pretty cool) super-strong metal hand that he builds in a medieval smithy. Second, during some of the potentially hilarious scenes there are occasional completely out of place noises when Bruce gets hit. Such as maybe a bike horn blowing when his nose gets socked by a skeleton. Finally, and this is a personal thing, there isn't nearly enough gore... well, there is at one point, but otherwise there isn't. Of course this is largely due to the fact that Bruce is taking on an army of skeletons, but some grin-inspiring decapitations of humans by skeletons I don't believe would be out of line.

I really don't have much more to say about this little gem. Don't watch it expecting anything deep, or anything scary, and be prepared for some excessive stupidity, but overall Army of Darkness is a cult masterpiece that really should not be missed. In fact, I may have to go watch it again right now, so before I go, "Give me some sugar, baby!"

Rating:


or 9.0/10






I've heard mixed things about Hamlet 2, biggest shame was how little you know Steve Coogan from though! He's created one of the best comedy characters of all time in Alan Partridge.
__________________




A PHD in Whiskey and Stonerology
People keep telling me to watch that show, I'll have to get around to it. I have to say I'm pretty turned off from Mr. Coogan based on what I've seen of him before, however.



Oh trust me, Alan Partridge really is nothing like anything he's like in those films. He completely embodies the role.



Your reviews are great, but I cant stomache gratuitous violence. I cant even watch Hostel or any of the Saw movies. I wouldnt even watch Se7en. So if this one makes hostel look banal, def not my cup of tea!

Ok. That's not true. I cant stomache the slasher/gore type gratuitous violence. All other gratuitous violence I can deal with.

I'm gonna give 'em both a pass. Keep the reviews coming though!
__________________
something witty goes here......



A PHD in Whiskey and Stonerology
TwIsTeD ReViEw #5:
The Big Lebowski

Review composed by Sawman3.

Shocking as it may be, I'd never seen this movie until several days ago, when I had the opportunity and realized that it was probably something I should see, given what I'd heard about it and also given my admiration of the Coen brothers as filmmakers. Well, I feel it needs saying that The Big Lebowski (1998) was quite a bit different than I expected it to be. And although I thoroughly enjoyed the movie throughout its first 3/4, the ending fourth left me feeling more than a little unfulfilled. The saving grace of the ending was the little speech directly before the credits... without it I would most likely have given The Big Lebowski a 7, rather than an 8, out of 10.

I do realize that I've just given away my overall rating for the film, but I have a sneaking suspicion that most of you scrolled to the end if before you read the beginning--that is, if you even plan on reading the rest of the review at all

A little background is, as per usual, in order here. The Big Lebowski is another effort by the acclaimed Coen brothers, written by both Joel and Ethan and directed almost exclusively by the former. The lead role of "The Dude" (A.K.A. Jeff Lebowski) is played by Jeff Bridges, the prolific son of Lloyd Bridges, with a near perfect air of bummery, if "bummery" is a word. An air, one might note, that has been since copied by a great number of characters, including one of the cavemen in the ever-present Geico commercials of recent years. The film also features a deeply satisfying and genuinely hilarious performance by John Goodman as The Dude's bowling buddy and close friend Walter Sobchak.


The Coen brothers.

The Big Lebowski opens with two thugs, a blond, long haired caucasian and a "chinaman", bursting into the residence of Jeff Lebowski, who precede to dunk him repeatedly in his toilet while demanding to know the location of a presumably large sum of money. After The Dude, remarkably calmly, fishes his sunglasses from the drink and informs them that they have the wrong Jeff Lebowski, the Asian thug proceeds to piss on The Dude's rug while the other condemns him for being an *******. Then they both storm from the place, leaving The Dude sitting, soaked, against his toilet and surveying his ruined rug.

After The Dude allows Walter to convince him to approach the other Jeff Lebowski, a wealthy official with a sex-addicted wife (named Bunny) who "owes money all over town", in order to gain reimbursement for his rug, the film really takes flight. We follow The Dude and Walter in their frenetic (often hilariously funny) quest to both do right (find Bunny, find a large sum of cash) and, perhaps, get a little something for themselves on the side, as they become involved with porn directors, gangsters, and pissed off Malibu sheriffs, to name a few.

The momentum continues to build, with the occasional lull, until The Big Lebowski just.... well, it just stops. There's really no other way to describe it. What was up until the 3/4 point a brilliant, hilarious character study and story suddenly becomes a mix of dull cliches and one ridiculous and almost embarrassing fight sequence (with a group of German nihilists, no less, with swords. Note also that the fight takes place in a public parking lot outside a reasonably busy bowling area, in front of a car that appears to have been burning for quite some time. And yet... no hint of intervention from the law or otherwise).


Jesus is coming for you.

In addition, I can't say that The Big Lebowski offers any genuine depth beyond its basic screw this, life goes on so "let's go bowling" philosophy. Thus, its replay value suffers as well. The biggest success of this film are the characters themselves, each with a unique personality and each, dare I say, perfectly cast. If you can manage to get beyond the annoying and disappointing ending and just focus on the exuberant humor and sense of fun on display throughout the rest of the flick, you'll come away feeling pretty satisfied. And in the end, that's all that really matters.

Rating:


or 8.0/10



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Good review, and I don't even rate it as highly as you do. Now I'll admit to you that this doesn't especially address your concerns about what you see as the film falling apart near the ending, but I will say that a burning car in Los Angeles isn't exactly BIG news anymore. The riots were in 1992 and Lebowski came out and I believe is set in '98, so no biggie, man! Another thing which might make it seem better on repeat viewings is to notice all the tweakings of several other film noirs set in L.A.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



My review of Little Shop of Horrors (1986) should be up tomorrow, and I must confess it takes the cake for my favorite movie at the moment. It's brilliant in so many ways. Is that more up your alley?
Tomorrow would have been September 1st. Your next review was on the 3rd, and . . . IIIIIII doooooon't seeeeeeee iiiiiiit!!!

You were finally going to talk about a movie that I've seen, too. What gives, dude!?!



You're a Genius all the time
The riots were in 1992 and Lebowski came out and I believe is set in '98, so no biggie, man!
Mark, if you really believe The Big Lebowski was set in 1998, then I'd like to politely suggest that you need to see it again. I only mention it because sometimes there's a man... I won't say a hero, because what's a hero? But sometimes, there's a man. And I'm talking about the Dude here. Sometimes... there's a man, well... he's the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that's the Dude. Yep, sometimes there's a man. Sometimes... there's a man. Well, I lost my train of thought here.