Suspect's Reviews

→ in
Tools    





28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Mission Impossible III (J.J. Abrams)




"Abrams Goes Heavy On The Action And Lite On The Spy"


Ethan Hunt has finally settled down with his soon to be married girlfriend. When he is told that his former trainee is in trouble he decides to go on a rescue mission to help save her. Unfortunately she dies during the rescue and Hunt is on the "hunt" for the man responsible for her death, which leads him into a tangled web of deceit and a dangerous weapon known as the RABBITS FOOT.

J.J. Abrams is the creative mind behind such hits as Alias and Lost. Both of which have a massive cult following. Now Abrams takes his stab at the big screen with the third installment in the spy franchise Mission:Impossible. Abrams take on the franchise is leaps and bounds over what Woo offered, but falls short of De Palma's original. Abrams goes heavy on the action and lite on the spy.

Some may think that Woo destroyed the series, I don't think this is true, but nevertheless, Abrams is trying to revive it by kicking it into overdrive. While watching MI:III, I kept asking myself, is this suppose to be a spy flick? Every single movie in this series differs from the other, even if Abrams does take notes from both. Mission Impossible is a good way to start the summer blockbuster movies, but one would of expecting a little bit more from it's hype.

First of all, it does have a lot of action. This is a perfect example for edge of your seat entertainment. The action never lets up, and it's actually enjoyable to watch. The bridge scene was impressive, but you can tell right away that the entire scene plays like an episode out of Alias. For some reason Abrams always must have the transportation vehicle get attacked for the person inside of it. Can we get another way of getting this person Abrams?

Cruise manages to keep his cool in this movie, I was surprised that he didn't start killing people in the name of Scientology. With the help of the supporting actors, the cast makes MI:III somewhat believable, but what's with the lack of Hoffman? Abrams, you have a good actor in your back pocket, he gives you a great performance, as usual in Hoffman's case, but you use him for 15 to 20 minutes. The film also under uses Fishburn and Pegg, who is the comedic relief.

What's the Rabbits foot? We're never told, or seem to care either. PLot twists, yes, but why? The film would have made more sense if it just stuck with it's basic course, does every film need to throw in a twist to shock the viewer? A bomb inserted in the head? Even if it was written before Alias, we see used in Alias before, so we basically know what's going to happen.

Abrams does showcase some talent, and he can only improve. With more concentration on his characters then he can surly become one of the heavy hitters in Hollywood. Abrams has a keen eye for action and pulls out all the stops here. MI:III is a good start for action movies, it sets the bar for others to follow. If you're able to leave your brain at the door and sit through some bad dialogue, such as Humpty Dumpty Sat On A Wall...then enjoy a great action movie.

7/10
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
The Da Vinci Code (Ron Howard)




"It's One Of Those Read The Book & Skip The Movie"

The Da Vinci Code, based on the massively popular book by the same name, sees Robert Langdon sent to a murder scene to investigate certain symbols left by the victim. What Langdon figures out though, could destroy Christianity and his life.

The Da Vinci Code is a cultural phenomenon, which almost everyone has read. So it's no surprise that they want to get a movie out there for the people who are too lazy to read the books, but here it's an obvious case of cashing in on the money that the book has earned. Much like Passion Of The Christ, you can tell that the filmmakers hope that it's controversy is the key to it's success. It's a shame to say that it's one of those read the book and skip the movie.

I've read the book, been to it's locations and believe in Jesus Christ, so I really enjoyed the book. With Ron Howard giving us the motion picture, my hopes that the film making a good translation to screen were still up in the air. After finally seeing the film, I've come to realize that the book is indeed better then the movie. The main reason behind this would be because the film itself felt rushed. It felt like it was still trying to cash in on the book's success, it just so happens that it leaves the viewer wondering what all the fuss is about. If they haven't read the book that is.

Da Vinci is the weakest film out of the Hanks and Howard collaboration. Hanks still doesn't seem to fit the title character of Langdon. No, it's not the hair, it's just that when I'm watching the film I see TOM HANKS, not Robert Langdon. Hanks aside, everyone else seems to fit their roles perfectly. I enjoyed Reno as the french police officer Fache and adored Tautou as Sophie Neveu. Ian McKellen does a good job as well, although I thought he was more comical then his character should be. Molina is barely used in the film, but out of everyone, it's Paul Bettany who shines here. Bettany showed his acting chops in Gangster No. 1, here he steals the screen. Unlike Hanks, Bettany becomes his character sends chills down some spines.

The film is true to the book, but I could of sworn I remember a lot more stuff happening in the book then what was showed in the film. Granted, you can't transfer everything from page to screen, but it seems like they didn't really care for the material. The most important and entertaining part of the book seems to fly by here. I was also very turned off by the scenes that showed Langdon looking at certain things that weren't there. Hologram like images that play out in his mind and to the viewer, but are invisible to everyone else.

The score was impressive, it's one of the few highlights in the film. The book itself was a page turner and never seemed to slow down, the film doesn't slow down either, but with a 2 1/2 hour running time it does hit you in your seats. National Treasure I said felt like a Da Vinci Code ripoff, but Treasure was the better film of the two. It was more adventurous then Code, which to me, even with it's beautiful locations, seemed confined.

Howard is a good director, and if he actually took the time to make a good film here he could have had a success, unfortunately his rushed attempt to get the film in theatres shows. As does the acting, which is quite embarrassing at some points. The controversy surrounding the film should die down when people realize that the film isn't that great, as should it's box office intake. Code is an okay film, that if the people behind it too kmore time, could have been great and a huge success. If they do decide to make Angels and Demons, I'll go to see it, as it was the better book and should make the better movie.

6/10



Thanks for your reviews I have seen MI:111 and felt the same about the story, haven't seen D V Code yet.
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Fun With Dick & Jane (Dean Parisot)



"The Movie Just Doesn't Click With The Funny Bone"


Shortly after getting promoted, Dick loses his job. It's too bad that he told his wife, Jane, to quit her job as well. Now the money is gone and the house if up in foreclosure. Dick, turns to a life of crime to pay the bills, with his wife Jane by his side.

I've been a fan of Jim Carrey since I was a kid, he was my idol. I would imitate everything he did. From his catch phrases such as "Spank Me" to dressing up as the Mask for Halloween. Jim Carrey is just a great comedic actor and he is always the first person to go to when you want a wacky off the wall character. In Dick & Jane, Carrey is limited by his usual crazy self, as he must play a family man. Carrey does get a couple of laughs, but the movie as a whole just doesn't click with the funny bone.

Carrey and Leoni work well as a comedic duo. They play off each other as husband and wife quite good. I could see another film for the two in the future. One of the comedic highlights featuring the two is when Dick is trying to rob a bunch of different stores throughout the city, but fails at each attempt. Jane thinks that he's just joking and seems to be having a fun time with his failure. The rest of the film finds it's laughs in what Carrey brings to the table, but one man can only bring so much and here it isn't enough.

I haven't seen the original, so I can't make a comparison between the two, but it would seem that it's not only the chemistry that's needed to make the film work, but the events that happen as well. The events here make you crack a smile or two, but not a gut holding burst of laughter.

Dean Parisot film Galaxy Quest was quite funny and I enjoyed it very much so. The cast had perfect chemistry with each other in it and the story itself was interesting. Everything seemed to fall in place there and Parisot had a success on his hands. Dick & Jane is the opposite. With the except of the husband and wife chemistry, nothing else really works here. Baldwin adds nothing to film and Richard Jenkins of the Farrelly Brother's films is drunk for a good chunk of the film.

Is there a moral of the story at the end? Yes, but it's presented is clouds of grey. Dick and Jane never get caught with their illegal activities, so the message is lost by the time the credits roll by. I found myself just sitting there more often then laughing. I wanted to laugh, I wanted to enjoy myself, but ultimately couldn't bring myself to. On a bright side, with other comedy remakes, such as Bewitched and the Honeymooners, Dick & Jane is the best of the bunch.

5.5/10



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Shooting Gallery (Keoni Waxman)





"Poolhall Junkies, this is not"


A pool hustler becomes a member of a pack of hustlers. He rises to the top, but soon finds himself the monkey in the middle of a match between his boss and a crooked cop.

Freddie Prinze Jr. seems to have a string of bad films lately, with such titles like Scooby Doo, Summer Catch and Scooby Doo 2. But one only has to look at his film credits to see that he hasn't been in a really good movie at all. His career ranges from teen slasher flicks to a poor excuse for a video game adaption. It seems with Shooting Gallery Freddie is trying to show that he's serious now, and that he's left his Scooby Doo image behind. Well, Freddie, I got a message for ya, keep dreaming'

When I first came across Shooting Gallery, Poolhall Junkies rip-off is what came to my mind, but for the sake of an argument, I gave it a chance. After watching it, I still came to the conclusion that it's a poolhall junkies ripoff and a poorly executed one too. The main character here tries to act as if he's cool and slick, but with Freddi Prinze Jr. as your main catch, he's comes off and nothing more then a pretty face who thinks he can shoot some pool. In the final stages of the film, I wanted to cut my ears off I couldn't stand his "broken nose" accent. Ving Rhames makes an appearance. All he does is walk around and chew on alligator feet. He actually does nothing in the film, until the climax when he shoots some pool and a gun.

In the film "Rounders" Norton has an ace tattooed on his arm, he says that he has an ace up his sleeve, it worked. In "Shooting Gallery" they get 8 balls tattooed on their arm, with Rhames on his bald head. It shows that their part of a gang...but it doesn't work. Rhames outfit is comical, you should see it to believe it. The plot is poorly written, and one of those, he was hustling everyone from the start type gigs, completely clichéd.

The pool shooting is quite good, not better then what is showcased in "Poolhall Junkies" but good nonetheless. Freddie actually shoots some pool here, nice to see that, but it's obvious that the trick shots are done by someone else. I liked the whole switching of the shooting sides that Freddie does near the end though, I thought that was a neat addition. "Poolhall Junkies" has Walken and "Shooting Gallery" has Macfadyen. Macfadyen is definitely the highlight here as the drunk, druggie, poolhall hustler. He brings some enthusiasm to an otherwise dead cast. It was nice to see some life pumped into this dead film, but it doesn't last long.

The poolhall lingo consists of what the director has heard and made up. Which is obvious when you listen to other lines such as "If I'm Lyin...I'm Dyin." Some characters names, if you'd like to hear are Paulie the Pawn and Cue Ball Carl. What's with the random words appearing on the screen? Poolhall lingo? Purpose to the script? It was distracting and adds nothing to the experience except confusion and dread.

Skip "Shooting Gallery" unless you want a headache from poor acting and a clichéd plot. "Poolhall Junkies" this is not. Unless you're a massive fan of pool, check out something else.

4/10



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Rushmore (Wes Anderson)




"Murray Shines In This Overrated Piece Of Cinema"

Max Fischer attends Rushmore, a private school. His grades aren't the best, but he's the king of extracurricular activities. He's put on academic probation and falls in love with a teacher, Miss Cross. Although, he's not the only with an eye for Miss Cross. Herman Blume, a wealthy industrialist also finds his heart to be stolen from the teacher. Now Max finds himself in a love triangle he can't seem to get out of.

Wes Anderson's films are usually quirky, funny and brilliantly written. Bottle Rocket and The Royal Tenenbaums manage to fall under all three categories. Life Aquatic also managed to have these elements, but not to the same level as the previous two. Rushmore, unfortunately only offers us one good thing out of the three, it's script.

Rushmore is a great film, on paper. It gives you the sense of a smart film, it's just too bad that the brains behind it is all bark and no bite. Anderson and Wilson are great writers, when they are together they can pull some pretty neat rabbits out of hats. Rushmore gets a lot of praise which has me scratching my head. Do people really like slow, boring, and a main character that you simply want to beat the crap out of? Maybe everyone liked Bill Murray so much that they just had to rave about the film, because it's Murray who shines in this overrated piece of cinema.

Jason Schwartzman plays his character very well, but his character is so dull and will make your eyes roll more then once. We are suppose to like the main character, but with Rushmore, I found my self begging for something interesting to happen. I was hoping that Max would suddenly stop being an uninteresting character, and someone that I can enjoy on the screen. Alas, this never happens. Bill Murray on the other hand, single handily saves this film from disaster. He is so wonderful in this film and this role belongs near the top as one of his best. All the characters, with the exception of MAX, are interesting. If Schwartzman's character only had one tenth of the charm that Murray pulls off, maybe I could have liked the film a bit more.

The film soundtrack is quite good. It helps bring it's depressing mood up a little bit. Anderson always seems to have good music littered throughout his films and Rushmore is a good example. From Cat Stevens to The Rolling Stones, you'll probably end up liking the soundtrack more then the film.

Ultimately I can't give this film a recommendation, but I can give it a 7. It may be a contradiction, but the film is well made. Everything flows well with it, the characters, the music, the directing and most of all it's script. But when you have such a talented cast and director, you'd expect to enjoy the film a lot more. Skip Rushmore and check out The Royal Tenenbaums, because it's simply immensely superior to this.

7/10



Welcome to the human race...
Nice work. I agree about Max in Rushmore. Annoying bespectacled farka who nobody likes.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Unleashed (Louis Leterrier)




"Not The Typical Jet Li Fare"

Danny loses his mother at a young age, and his then raised as a dog to serve only his master. His master is a ruthless, bloodhound who uses Danny to do his dirty work. When Danny escapes his master, he's taken in by a blind piano player. After trying to start a new life, his old master finds him and tries to bring him back to serve him. Now Dany must fight his way out of his old life so he can be able to live a normal life...

If you look at Jet Li's American film career you'll get such stinkers as The One, Cradle to the Grave, and Romeo Must Die. So once I heard another Jet Li film was near, I wondered if it was going to star another rap artist. Instead, the film that is Danny The Dog, or Unleashed, for it's American audience, is a film about family and wanting to belong. I was pleasantly surprised by this film and it's martial arts was pleasing to the eye. Dany the Dog is not the typical Jet Li fare. It does have it's fair share of fight sequences, but you'll be getting a story with that as well.

What makes the film different from Li's others? Well, there are numerous things, for instance, the supporting cast. With such good actors such as Bob Hoskins and Morgan Freeman, it was nice to see some real actors being apart of Jet Li's films. Hoskins is deliciously evil as Danny's master and Freeman is charming as the blind piano player.

Now, there isn't so much as a great story, but there is a story. A kid loses his mother, become a fighting slave to the man who killed his mother, then he gets his revenge. It's written by Luc Besson, who adds some flavour to the script. Whereas any other Jet Li film would have DMX bringing down the house.

The martial art sequences really showcase Li's talent. Even though the film does do it's one bad guy at a time formula, Li and the editing make it look smoother. Louis Leterrier does a good job a making the sequences suspenseful, even if we know who's going to come out on top. The violent factor is high here, as in one scene where there are fighter in a squared arena, with walls covered in barbed wire and random weapons thrown in. Quite savage, yet entertaining at the same time. Check it out, if you're ready for some tight fight sequences and a good performance from Hoskins.

7/10



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Basket Case (Frank Henenlotter)



"Cult Classic Or Piece Of Trash?"

A young man travels to New York City with his deformed Siamese brother in a basket. Their plan is to seek revenge on the doctors that separated them. But things don't go according to plan.

This is an odd film, the premise alone will have one scratching their heads. In order to like this film, you'll need to like trash/crap/horrible/lower then B horror movies. This is all that plus more. One only has to look at the directors other films to understand what they went for with this flick.

I can see how this film has a cult following, it has that appeal, but it just didn't work for me. It went from being a good film at being bad, to a bad film at being bad. Was the scene of the main character running around New York naked really necessary? Don't get me started on the fact that the deformed brother has sex with a dead female.

The clay-mation is funny to look at in by todays terms. Some old school lovers will get a kick out of it. The film had a budget, and you can tell. The audio is off in places and the acting is horrid. The ending was bizarre, but actually worked. Which has me scratching my head why there is not one, but two...count them two sequels. You know you're in trouble when the director says "Basketcase 3 what were we thinking?"

I can't recommend this film to anyone, even horror fans. It is geared towards a specific audience. If you can sit through trashy crap horror movies and love the idea of a deformed brother in a basket, then be my guest. OTHERWISE, avoid at all costs. I have yet to see the sequels, and most likely will not ever see them. Don't worry I'm not losing any sleep over it.

3/10



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Carnivore (Joseph Kurtz &Kenneth Mader)




" I Would Rather Be Beaten In The Face With A Blunt Object Repeatedly, Then Think About This Film"

A government experiment goes horribly wrong when their animal test subject escapes and goes on a killing rampage within the house it was stored in. It just so happens that a group of teenagers show up in the house with beer and sex on the mind. The beast decides to eat them one by one...until there is nothing left.

I saw this title in the bin for five dollars, normally if I were to get a crappy flick for five dollars I wouldn't care. Although, here we have Carnivore, and I think I should not only get my five dollars back, but a dollar for every god for shaken minute that I had to sit through this piece of garbage. Having the 85 dollars won't make me any happier, or even make me forget Carnivore...but it's the least the makers of this film could do.

Some titles that have made me want to put a bullet through my head include: Rollerball, Envy, Belly, Introducing Janet, Son of Mask, SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 and anything from Uwe Boll. But I would gladly watch those films over this any day. I know there are those of you out there that can't believe this, won't believe this, but it's true. This film is that bad and it warrants the TURD AWARD, for WORST FILM EVER!!!!

The audio is so horribly bad, it fades in and out throughout the entire running time. I had the volume up full and still had a hard time hearing things. This accompanied by the total darkness the film is covered in makes this a treat for the eyes and the ears. I know that there are films with low budgets, but this is lower then student film quality. There are many crappy B horror films out there that I don't like all too much, Basketcase being a prime example, but I respect it on some level. I can't bring myself to like anything in this film. The one and only part in this film, other then the useless nudity that accompanies these horny filmmakers, is one death scene. It was horrible, but horrible is a step up from what this movie offers.

Should I even mention the acting? It is obvious to anyone that in a film like Carnivore you'll be served some laughable people on the screen. Alas, Carnivore manages to give us something completely horrendous then you wish to watch a film with Carrot Top and Paulie Shore as a comedic duo. That's right I went there. The script, if there was ever one, is inane. A secret government organization is in the basement of a house, and the entire government experiment consists of one or two scientists. I can't remember how many there were and I don't want to. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Carnivore, which is basically a fur ball with legs, drinks beer. At least it didn't end up having sex with anything....poor Basketcase.

Finally, Carnivore makes a film like Campfire Tales look like The Godfather. Everything you can possibly think of is wrong with this film. Did they even try? Well it doesn't appear so here and please god, if anyone has the unfortunate task of watching this film, let them die quickly.

0/10



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Kicking & Screaming (Jesse Dylan)





"I Was Kicking & Screaming For This Film To Be Over"

Phil was never good at sports, his dad never really gave him a chance. Now that he is older and has his own son, his dad is doing the same thing to Phil's son as he did with Phil. Now Phil is the coach of the worst team in the league and tries to have fun with the game, but loses his sense of mind when he became addicted to coffee and winning.

Will Ferrell should stay away from kid friendly comedies (Bewitched, Elf). It just doesn't suit his comedic talent at all. 2005 was a horrible year for Ferrel, banking in crap like Bewitched and Screaming, as well as the only funny once cameo in Wedding Crashers. Kicking & Screaming tries to be something it's not, which is THE BIG GREEN. I was kicking and screaming for this film to be over.

The kids are nowhere as funny, cute, or good at anyone from the Big Green. I mean, who would you rather have, two Italian kids, or the red head from The Sandlot and Alfalfa. I honestly couldn't tell if this film was an ad for coffee or soccer. The parents should have had more screen time as it could have possibly helped the film with it's comedic moments.

Ferrell learns his life lesson at the end of the film, as is expected, and I guess it's a good one for kids to learn, but it's told in a strange way. They basically tell the kids to do the exact opposite of what Phil has told them, but for kids at a Young age, how are they going to know the opposite? Duvall seems really old here and looks like he would kill over any minute. He unfortunately didn't bring much to the table. It seemed like he tried to hard to be like Ken Titus.

Will Ferrell (Will the word, not the name) learn from his mistakes and step away from family friendly films and gear towards funny movies such as Oldschool and dare I say the mediocre Anchorman. Do yourself a favour and watch the Big Green instead, it's much funnier, and more friendly for the kids. Put please, stay away from this...and while were on the subject of soccer films to stay away from, put Home Team up there to.

2/10



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (Tommy Lee Jones)




"A Good Directorial Debut From Two Face Himself"


Three Burials tells the story of a man who accidentally kills another. When Pete discovers that his friend has been killed, he takes matters into his own hands as he intends to keep the promise of burying Estrada in his homeland. Pete takes Norton, the murderer, hostage and they take a long journey to bury Estrada, along the way learning life lessons.

Jones can join the list of actors who want to break their mold and become directors. When I first heard about this film, I had no idea how to pronounce it, know after seeing it, I have a better idea at how to pronounce it, but still not one hundred percent. Here, Jones actually makes a good film with beautiful cinematography, good characters, great acting, and an interesting story.

Pepper throughout the entire film gets the crap beaten out of him. This was his journey through hell. He gets the crap kicked out of him, hit the face with a gun and a tea pot, hot coffee poured on him, bitten by a snake, dragged by a horse through water, among many more things. Pepper doesn't really show much emotion, until the final scene. He mostly plays a guy hurt, until the prays for forgiveness. Jones, plays the on the verge of going crazy ranch guy Pete. Jones is definitely the highlight of the film, making it his own in every sense of the word, from acting to directing. The supporting cast deliver what is expected to help get the film along. Although, I felt that January Jones was completely useless in this film. JJ, as I like to call her, was only there for eye candy. Some may argue that she is there to show that Pepper had everything, but abused it. That message may be there, but it's buried under so much that it is lost half way through the film. I also ask myself that if you eliminate a character from a film and nothing really changes, then they have no purpose. Well, if you eliminate JJ from the film, nothing changes other then it's running time.

The film is beautiful, ranging from deserted plains to high mountains, you get the sense of a journey that goes on forever. The cinematography is one of Burials highlights. Straight from the opening shot we get a sense of what we will be viewing. Although, the camera movement was awkward in the opening, specifically when the film had to pan down to the oncoming vehicle. It seemed to jerky and off with the rest of the film for me.

Three Burials ends abruptly and leaves the viewer with questions that they have to answer themselves. If you re one who likes everything to be answered, you may want to miss this film as we are never told if the boarder patrol catches up with our two characters, or even why the one character lied to Jones. The film is told in four parts, the first two chapters, which are the "first two burials" set up for the rest of the film. The rising action of the film is known as the "journey". At this point that you are either grabbed by the film, or wanting to leave. The final act is the "third burial", which is actually the real burial of Estrada and the most emotional part of the entire film.

For a first time effort, I applaud Jones. Burials was far more then what I expected it to be. I am interested in what Jones has to offer after this film though, to see if he's a one trick pony or not. Untiul then, Three Burials is an excellent film to watch, and a good directorial debut from two face himself.

8/10



Welcome to the human race...
Well when you pay $5 for a movie in a bargain bin, do you really think you're getting something decent?

Not really.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Originally Posted by Iroquois
Well when you pay $5 for a movie in a bargain bin, do you really think you're getting something decent?

Not really.


Hey man, I also picked up Caddyshack and Suicide Kings.