The Gnat: Fly on the Wall Reviews

Next

I went into this film expecting it to be so-so (really hadn't heard anything good about it), and I was pleasantly surprised by it. I watched it for Nicolas Cage, and he definitely was the best part of the film, but the whole story and idea for the main point of the story is good.

What works well in this film is how slightly absurd it the idea is. Cage plays the character in a normal Cage way (probably the only way he can) where he never seems extremely into what is going on just because of the way that his voice sounds. But it works fairly well for his character as he is someone who isn't supposed to stand out in the crowd, mainly because he doesn't want to stand out on a crowd.

I also like what they do at the end of the film, in that it isn't the typical happy ending that you look for in a film. It sets itself up to become a happy ending potentially, but it never takes the viewer to the point where the viewer knows that everything will end up being alright and that the guy will get the girl, the bad guys will be taken down, and everyone will sing happy songs while holding hands with each other across the earth. That sort of ending ticks me off, but this one, even though that type of ending is possible to have happen after the film, it doesn't happen during the film.

As for the acting in the film, it was fairly non-descript. None of the acting performances were all that good, nothing was terrible, but I felt that it was below average acting for Cage and Julianne Moore, and Jessica Biel does her typical acting job, which means a pretty poor job, but because her body is nice looking, no one seems to notice that she really can't act all that well.

Overall this is a film that doesn't have a ton of depth to it. It is a pretty fun film to watch, but nothing extremely memorable about it. I like the fact that the basic idea makes the storyline more interesting because certain events and time periods can be repeated, but with the depth that the idea could have had, it seems to miss out on it completely.

Overall Grade: B-
Story: B
Acting: C-
Audio/Visuals: C+

__________________
"As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away."
-From Identity

Corpse Bride

I saw this film after going to my cousin's wedding (saw the film for the third time). So I decided that while it was still fresh in my mind that I should review it. This is a film that I find very enjoyable in most every way.

The biggest thing about it is Tim Burton's amazing use of color in the film. That is one thing that I have generally noticed about his films, that his use of color or lack of color in this film at points, makes the film much more interesting to watch, and it really helps tell the story. So often in films they will have solid color and design in the film, but there won't be anything extremely deep about it, other then some level of eye candy, but Tim Burton does a masterful job of using the color in his story to fill in the details that don't need to be overtly stated.

Also the story is an entertaining one in this film. It isn't anything spectacular, but it is simple and to the point told in a very wonderful manner. One could want there to be more depth, but Burton has made this film to be mainly entertaining and not much profound about it, so a simple, entertaining story is a good thing. There is a little commentary on how people seem to be living boring lives that are more "dead" then alive, but people often won't catch onto to that fact, if they are an average film viewer.

The voice talent in this film is, also, very good. Johnny Depp and Helena Boham-Carter both do a good job with their characters voices, as well as the rest of the cast. I think that purely voice talent would be somewhat difficult to do, in that an actor doesn't get into the character as much. After viewing some of the DVD bonus features, it appears that the actors still do get into character some still.

Overall this is a very entertaining film. Burton does a good job making this film fun to watch both visually through his use of the animation and through the simple, entertaining story. It is a good pop corn film.

Overall Grade: B+
Story: C+
Acting: B
Audio/Visual: A

Charlie Wilson's War

I saw this after midnight on New Years Eve, so I guess very early New Years Day, and I was a little bit tipsy at the time, so this won't be a brilliant review. But don't worry, I was still sober enough that I do remember the film.

Overall this was a generally entertaining film. Philip Seymour Hoffman was definitely the high-light of this film as he did a great job in his role completely over shadowing the work of everyone else in the film. Because of this he might have made the other actors and actresses seem worse in their roles, as I didn't find any of the other actors and actresses to be anything more then solid, but his acting was amazing. Hanks and Robert's both did a decent job in the film, but being two important characters in the film I was disappointed by their job to some extent as I expected them to do a better job.

The story itself was fairly entertaining. It definitely tells a limited story of what was going on throughout that whole time and it acts at times if it is telling the whole story, but it does a good job showing the limited part of the story that it wants to. It gets across well the type of person that Charlie Wilson was, and does so in an entertaining manner.

Overall this is a film that does a good job of showing what it wants to show in a fairly entertaining manner. With the cast that it had, I feel like it should have been better, but it is by no means a terrible film. Seymour Hoffman by himself guarentees that this film is an entertaining film to watch.

Overall Grade: B
Acting: B+
Story: B
Audio/Visual: B

Thanks for the reviews

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Juno

I went into this filming hearing some mixed reviews about it (not from critics), but I was looking forward to it. And I must say that I wasn't really disappointed by it at all. Everything worked well together in the film to make very solid and entertaining show.

The best part of the film was the characters in the film. Most notably is Ellen Page with her very strong performance as Juno in the film. She doesn't quite pull off 16, but in light of the film, her pulling that off isn't extremely important. Michael Cera, Jason Batemen, and Jennifer Garner also all did extremely good jobs in the film. Garner's performance was only solid, but Cera and Batemen both did very good jobs in their roles really playing their characters extremely well. I also have mention J.K. Simmons for his job as Juno's father, and say that I enjoyed his character a lot in that film.

Batemen's character in the film probably was my favorite in that I can sympathize with it in many ways. I'm not nearly as far off what I want to do as he was (farther in terms of he was doing sort of what he wanted to do, something with music, but I'm not nearly as far along into my life as he was). But his character was good because while the other characters all seemed to improve as the film went along, Batemen's character never had that point where he had his moment of realization and became a better person, because in reality, not everyone makes that change.

One complaint about the film that I have to somewhat agree with is at the beginning of the film the dialog seems to be a little full of slang and tries to sound cooler then it needed to. I think that it is generally realistic, being from Minnesota I recognized a lot of it and have heard people use it, but in film a realistic film (especially in the area of dialog) generally has to be more toned down for the audience to accept it as realistic as compared to what it is really like in actual life. And the story itself, while nothing extremely new, wasn't bad at all, and it was a very good retelling of it.

Overall this is one of the best films released in 2007 that I have seen (probably the best, but I haven't seen No Country for Old Men, Atonement, Caution, Lust, or There Will be Blood and possibly some others that would rival it). It is an entertaining film that takes a look at a tabboo in society, and it does so with a very well written story.

Overall Grade: A-
Acting: A+
Story: A
Audio/Visual B+/A- (the sound was great as was the sound track, but there were a few cliche shots, notably at the end, that could have been done better)

Bender's Big Score

As a huge Futurama fan who is eagerly awaiting its return to television, I enjoyed this movie a lot. Now, it is no epic or anything great like that, but it is just a really fun and entertaining film.

What works well in the film is the sort of sarcasm in the humor that it uses to make a lot of its jokes. The ripping on the television executives was great, and the whole social commentary on the scammers was very funny as well. It was a good way to bring back the show.

It was also nice to see all the notable characters return. It was great to have Bender, Hermes, Fry, Dr. Zoidberg, Farnswerth, Leela, Amy, Scruffy, etc. all back. And that bodes well for the future that most of them should return (made easier by the fact that most of them are voiced by the same four people).

A very brief review, I know, but it is something that is entertaining for fans to the show to watch, and even people who haven't seen the show will be able to watch it and enjoy it just fine. There will be some references that they miss to previous episodes and past events, but it is self contained enough that it should be entertaining for most any viewer.

Overall Grade: B+
Acting: N/A
Story: B
Audio/Visual: B

Not a big Futurama fan but i will see Juno thanks

On the other hand, I like "Futurama". My daughter has been watching their "marathons" the last three weeks, so I think I've been exposed to every one of the episodes, although I must have missed seeing the classic "Star Trek" episode.

Yes, nebbit, if you don't pump it up too much (or maybe even if you do), I recommend checking out Juno, especially in a theatre. I'd be interested to hear how the dialogue "translated to the Land Down Under".

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

The Fountain

This was a film that I had been interested in seeing and I finally got around to seeing. Let me first say that this film is one of those films that the trailer greatly misrepresents the film (which probably hurt the film a lot). Also, if no one has done a film like was represented in the trailer, then I claim it.

I found this film to be interesting. Not the greatest one that I have seen, but not one of the worst either. I feel like the idea (the cyclical feel to it) had been done prior in other films, most notably 2001: Space Odyssey. The idea of life from death and a cyclical nature is interesting to delve into, but I felt like this film didn't add tons more to the story/idea then was already there. It was a solid rehash of the idea and probably effective in that it is more up-dated and therefore would be more interesting and better understood by a contemporary audience, but to most critics or people who understand 2001 and films with that idea, it wouldn't be anything new.

Another thing that dragged it down for me was Rachel Wiesz. I found her acting to be very poor in this film. And while Hugh Jackman gave a solid performance, her poor performance really helped balance out the acting to nothing more then average at best. And while the acting in this film isn't the most important thing, without some sort of solid acting, it tends to drag the movie out. I was interested in the film the whole time, but I couldn't help but keep on checking on how long the film had been going for simply because while it was mentally engaging, the entertainment level left something to be desired (which isn't a bad thing, but the trailer made it out to have more of an entertainment/solid story throughout the whole).

Another interesting thing that I found about this film is the difference in the religious feel throughout the various parts. The oldest part was set in a very Christian setting. The middle part was atheistic as well as it had some Mayan relgious explenations mixed in. And the newest (linearly speaking in time) was extremely Buddhist. So that was itneresting to see how they used the various religious themes and played it througout. It seems clear that the Buddhist themes win out in the film, since the story leads to there and actually all three of the story lines end up in a seemingly Buddhist mind set, but the fact that it did touch on those various different areas was interesting.

Another thing that I didn't know how I felt about it was the scoring of it. The score was solid, but it seemed to be a little bit strong at times, where something quieter would have allowed for a simple reflection and thought better then being pounded at by the music. It was a good score, but nothing so great that it could have been pulled back and then allowed the viewer to create the setting more on their own through their thoughts then being so directed by the music.

Overall this is a film that I am glad that I saw. I don't think it is one that I strongly want to see again. I wouldn't avoid it by any means, but it isn't a film that I feel the need to watch multiple times, or anything like that.

Overall Grade: B-
Story: B+
Acting: C+
Audio/Visual: B

Stardust

I'll preface this by saying that I'm a big Neil Gaiman fan and that this film (and Juno) would have made it to my top 100 list if I hadn't already been done with the arranging of it and most way through the posting of it before I saw either of the films.

The one thing that Neil Gaiman knows how to do extremely well is tell a story. In Stardust, he weaves a very entertaining and interesting story throughout the whole thing. And while the story in the movie isn't the same as the story in the book (Captain Shakespeare wasn't even a character in the book), Gaiman's originally story isn't ruined. It probably helped that Gaiman was so involved in the making of the film and the changes that were made to the story. Also, the dialog in the film is very good and entertaining. This bit is one of the best:
Visually this film is done very well. The amount of CGI used blends very seamlessly into the film making the fantasy world that is created a thing of beauty. And while it is a weird variety and combination of things in this story in the fantasy world, it doesn't just seem like a mishmash of things thrown together, but they all work together and look good together.

The acting was also surprisingly solid in this film. I knew that Claire Danes, Sienna Miller, Robert De Niro, and Michelle Pfeiffer would all do solid jobs, but not knowing much about Charlie Cox, I was a little worried about how well he would pull off the main character. But he did so with a very solid performance. While De Niro stole the show, Charlie Cox did a strong enough job that he wasn't ever lost, even when around De Niro's character.

Overall this is a film that is very entertaining. With a lot of films coming out in the fantasy genre, this one is definitely one of the better ones made.

Overall Grade: A
Story: A+
Acting: B
Audio/Visual: A

The Fearless Vampire Killers

One thing that I have noticed about Roman Polanski films is that he doesn't always use a ton of dialog. The first two films that I saw by him were this film and Repulsion and both are very willing to let the acting/directing speak for itself instead of making the characters talk. I find this interesting because film can be a primarily visual medium, but a lot of the time directors and screen writers feel the need to fill up the screen with dialog as much as with anything else.

I enjoyed this film a lot. I'm a big fan of vampire films, and this one is a brilliant parody on the whole genre. I haven't seen a ton of the classic vampire films, but I find it funny how I can correlate things from this film that parody things from current films. So it doesn't only parody what had happened already, but also what was/is going to happen with new vampire films.

Another key to this film is the weird acting in the film. Jack MacGowren does a great job as the professor, and Roman Polanski, himself, does a very good job as his assistant. There are other actors, notably Alfie Bass, who do extremely good jobs as well playing their weird roles. Then there is the beautiful Sharon Tate as well, whose acting performance is less notable, but didn't need to be all that great. But the acting performances of MacGowren and Polanski work extremely well together and they make a very good comedic duo in the film. And it has one of the best vampires ever in a film in the Count's son. Simply a brilliant character, and a very unique character for a vampire film.

Storywise this is what one would expect from a vampire parody in that it references a ton of vampire lore, and you have one (or more) groups of bumbling people trying to either take over all people or destroy all the vampires. And while it isn't anything exceedingly unique or brilliant, it is what should be expected and done well enough that it doesn't matter that it isn't that unique. It does pace the laughs out nicely, and the dialog that it uses is very witty. So the comedy is a good combination of action as well as the dialog, and it doesn't rely to much on either that it burns out its jokes too quickly.

Overall this is a very funny film and a well done film. It isn't a masterpeice by any means, but the studio's that are making the current terrible parody films might want to watch this film to figure out how to make a good parody instead of just making "Scary Movie 1,247".

Overall Grade: A-
Story: A
Acting: B+
Audio/Visual: B+

Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix

I found this film to be entertaining. I missed the quiditch a little bit, but the story was nicely focused and well done. The others often seemed to be much more kiddie, while this one wasn't always serious, it was done in a manner that was more enjoyable for the whole audience.

What I liked more about this movie then others is that the acting has notably improved as time has gone on, and the new characters in this film, notably Luna, were very good. Luna's role wasn't extremely difficult, but there was that odd feel about her which is in the books that she nailed perfectly. And then Rickman and Finnes did great jobs, and the actress who played Dolores Umbridge also did a solid job. Her role wasn't amazing, but it was entertainingly done, especially with how her character looked as compared to the coloration of the rest of the film.

Visually this film was also well done. There were a few points with the CGI where it felt rough, the giant looked more like a giant doll then anything else because the skin wasn't well textured, but with the amount of CGI that must have been done, it was very well done. Besides the CGI, there were some nice establisting shots, and the actual scenes were composed very nicely.

The story itself was also good. When the books are as long as they are it is difficult to still contain everything in the book into the film without the film becoming absurdly long. This volume of the Harry Potter movies was much better contained then most hitting on what needed to be hit on and not straying into scenes, such as quiditch, that didn't add a ton to the story. Those scenes may be entertaining, but for the purpose of the film aren't great to have in there.

Overall this is one of the better done Harry Potter movies. Visually it was solid and as the actors and actresses have gotten older their performances have improved notably.

Overall Grade: B+
Acting: B
Story: B+
Audio/Visual: B+

I love The Fearless Vampire Killers

Cloverfield

This was a film that I can understand why people hate it, and I can tell them why their hate is unfounded. This isn't a classical monster film by any means, but instead a well made re-imagining of the genre. And it also doesn't follow the conventions of Hollywood with how it is made.

While a handheld cam is much more likely to be seen as a technique now, there hasn't been a handheld cam used quite as effectively as this before. Even the originator of the handheld cam (or popularizer) in The Blair Witch Project wasn't able to pull it off as effectively as is done in this film. This film makes the audience a part of the film as the footage is made to see extremely realistic. There was only one real scene where it didn't seem like a movement of a camera that would be natural for a person with a handheld camera to make.

This however doesn't detract from what the film as a whole does.

What a lot of people dislike about this film is the fact that it isn't as sotry driven as most current films. This film is more about the emotion it creates in the audience as a separate emotion then any sort of empathy emotion created for the characters on the screen. It is meant to give the audience that same feeling of terror and confusion that the characters feel on the screen. They don't even do any explaining as to how the monster is stopped or where it came from in the film, because that isn't the point of the film. It is about the audience being caught in the emotion of confusion and terror that is going on. There is some empathy created for the characters because of the minimal story that there is, but that is secondary to the raw emotion.

Another thing about this film is the dialog. While Hud (the camera man) does have some odd one-liners that seem to some to be out of place, for the most part it is realistic dialog, which is what they were going for. I tend to think that most of Hud's dialog is fairly realistic as it seems like how he is dealing with what is going on is by talking and humor (albeit most likely unintentional humor), and it is a defensive mechanism for his character to stop feeling the terror of what is going on around them.

One final thing that this film does that works really well and was very interesting was it intercuts what was supposed to be already on the tape in the camera as points where Hud misses the point where he had stopped taping, after most likely having rewatched the footage that he had shot. That definitely added some depth to both Rob and Beth in the film knowing some history/back story on them.

Overall a very good film I thought. It was both entertaining and different for film. I can understand why people don't like it, but I think that they tend to miss the point of the film, or really can't see past the fact that they got motion sick.

Overall Grade: B+
Story: B
Acting: B
Audio/Visual: A

Dragon Wars (D-War)

I went into this film expecting a very cheesy B movie, and I was not let down. It had everything you would expect from a B movie, a cheesy plot, poor/cheesy acting, and poor/cheesy dialog, the one that thing that it didn't have was special effects that looked like they had been made on a $25 budget.

The special effects, mainly the dragons were very good. I was rather surprised by it, as that isn't typical for a B creature feature type of film. The scenes with the dragons and other monsters going through L.A. and fighting the military was very solid. Some of the other creatures looked B movie-esque, not that they weren't well done, but just the type of creatures one would expect to find. But there were some scenes with the dragons that were done very well visually, combining the live action with the CGI very well.

The other parts were just as would be/should be expected from a movie of this sorts. Craig Robinson did a very good job providing comedic relief and support to the main characters in the film. But the performances by the two main characters Ethan (played by Jason Behr) and Sarah (played by Amanda Brooks) were typical for this type of film, and uninspired. It didn't help that there was a very forced romance between them in which they never really seemed to click on screen. On a side note, Jason Behr reminded me, looks mainly, of Jim Carrey in The Number 23.

The story itself did't help out the film a ton either. It took a typical route of going to the past to explain the mythical reason for the dragons being around, and then repeated the mythical tale baseically for a second time to make up the same story as before. It could have been a decent tale, but bogged down by poor dialog and poor acting and poor directing. The main focus in making this movie was clearly on the visuals.

Overall this is a so-so popcorn film. It has its entertaining parts, mainly later in the film with the military fighting the dragon in L.A. and then the two dragons fighting. I really liked the style of dragon used and the fact that being a very serpentine dragon that they moved like snakes as compared to just being able to fly and zip around in a straight line. If you want a simple film just to see some destruction and be entertained by it, this film isn't that bad at doing so, otherwise no real depth to it and nothing really special about it.

Overall Grade: C+
Acting: D
Story: D
Audio/Visual: B

May give this one a miss Thanks Gnut

Balls of Fury

This film was put on while I was at a friends place, otherwise I generally wouldn't have chosen to see it. This is what it looks like, a stupid comedy. Even Christopher Walken can't redeem this film.

The acting in this film was so-so. Walken does a solid job in a really poor role, but after that no one does all that good a job, which is what I expected from this movie. George Lopez was basically unbearable to watch in this film, however. His character wasn't funny and mainly just grated on me.

The story itself isn't terrible, but is by no means good. It also could have been made a whole lot funnier then it was. Most of the jokes fell extremely flat, and the pacing of everything in this film was very uneven. Maybe if more of the jokes had hit instead of missed it would have been better pacing wise, but the stretches between jokes were extremely long.

The only good part about this film was Maggie Q, who, while her role wasn't huge, was very good to look at. A lousy reason for it to be a good part to the film, but that is about where you have to stretch to to have this film have a good part.

Other then that the only good part was the fact that they played Def Leppard several times. And even that couldn't save my overall impression of the film. This doesn't even count as a good popcorn film. I don't mind the fact that I saw it once, but I'll try and avoid it at all costs after now.

Overall Grade: D+
Acting: D+
Story: D-
Audio/Visual: C+ (Def Leppard saved the film from being lower)

I agree with that saw it over the Christmas break

Manic

I saw this films a little while ago, but I didn't have a chance to review it until now. This film reminds me in many ways of the film Igby Goes Down. It isn't the same extremely dark humor as in the way that Igby Goes Down is, but there are other similarities across the board.

My biggest knock on this film is how it ends. Up until the last ten minutes it was a very good film with a lot of depth in it, and while it was somewhat predictable to that point, it didn't have to be unpredictable as it did such a good job as character sketches. However, at the end the character sketch and action for the film becomes so predictable that is really hurt the film a lot.

The acting in this film was very solid though, which certainly helped the character sketches and development in the film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Don Cheadle, and Zooey Deschanel all do very goob jobs with their characters in the film. I would say even though Gordon-Levitt was the lead, Cheadle and Deschanel's characters were portrayed better and really had more of an impact in the film. Part of the reason for that is the Gordon-Levitt's character becomes predictable in the film.

Overall this isn't a terrible film, but from where it starts at, to where it ends up at, it is somewhat disappointing. It is a good character based film, which it needs to be with such a limited setting, but it fails a little bit in that aspect at the end of the film as the writer seems to not be able to come up with a good way to end it without it becoming predictable.

Overall Grade: B-
Story: C+
Acting: B+
Audio/Visual: B

The Comebacks

This is a film of epic proportions (hopefully most of you catch the joke that I put in there). It is a really a terrible film. The raunchy humor that they put in just falls flat all the time, and the slap stick is rarely funny. Not to say that it doesn't have a few points that I did laugh at, but it was mainly just painful to watch.

The story itself is as crudely done as Epic Movie or the Scary Movie's plots are done. The only good thing about the plot is that I did recognize a good number of the references in the film, and a few of them were pretty good. A lot of the references were done extremely poorly. There were several references to Dodgeball that were just painful to listen to, though.

The acting in this film was very subpar. Granted that is how I was expecting it to be, so it really didn't disappoint me. David Koechner is even extremely painful to watch in this film, and he generally can at least do an above average job in a comedy role. I would put his poor job more on the story then anything that he does though.

The one thing that this film does do though is have a few good cameo's. Dennis Rodman shows up for a few minutes of the film, and his part isn't that great, but it does set up David Koechner for one of his funnier parts, or at least one of the better parts in the film.

Overall this film doesn't even deserve to be mentioned as a popcorn film. It is basically just painful to watch, and I would recommend giving it a miss if you are thinking about watching it. The good jokes are too far apart to make this a film that is all that funny.

Overall Grade: D+
Acting: C-
Story: D-
Audio/Visual: C-