One Movie A Day Review Thread

The original is superb IMO. Shame you saw this one first, as the power of the ending will have lost some of its impact when/if you see it.

I agree with honeykid on the quality of the first film. I never saw (and probably never will) the remake.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

DAY 98: December 9th, 2008.

Pearl Habor



Dropping the love story might have made this stinker more enjoyable. Pearl Harbor gets knocked for it's historical inaccuracies, poor acting, Hollywood style story and bland love plot between the characters. This is all true. But I must say that the attack itself is very well done, so the film is not a total mess.

In watching the film it feels like the filmmakers are exploiting the history of these men, not paying tribute to them. The run time is far too long and could have easily been done with 30 minutes cut from the film, which would include all the stuff no one cares about. Tell the story of the men who died that day, not some kid who liked a nurse.

Pearl Harbor suffers from an incredibly weak script and the vision behind the camera is known for not caring about story. Instead paying more attention on two things, one was done well, which was expected and the other ended horribly. Of course the attack was well done and should have been considering. The love story was boring, not needed and seemed like a slap in the face of the people who fought in the war.

We wanted to see the events of that day, not wait for 2 hours then see it for 20 minutes and wait for another 30 to see someone die. Pearl Harbor is a stinker of a film and should only be watched for the attack scenes.

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

Suspect's Reviews

I remember seeing this in theaters when it first came out. Of course I was very disappointed, not only with the film, but two rows behind me there was this girl who literally cried her eyes out for the last half of the film. I almost turned around and said,"you do know this was directed by Michael Bay, right?".

That is a shame you saw the awful Wicker Man remake, starring the acting by-pass that is Nicolas Cage. I remember seeing the original way back on a double bill with Don't Look Now and me and my friend were wrecks when we left the cinema. The whole film has such a feeling of dread working up to that terrible climax. Everything about it is so atmospheric, the weird characters and the way they unsettle the sergeant but all in this wonderful island village where life should be slow and ordinary. Great film!

DAY 99: December 10th, 2008.

Battle Royale II




Wow, what a total and utter disaster of a sequel this one turned out to be. After an interesting storming of the beach sequence, the film loses itself in politics and uninteresting characters that just keep talking or die because their partner died. Whoever thought up that lame addition to the game should be shot.

Battle Royale is a favourite of mine, it was so much fun to watch and I knew the sequel couldn't match it. I had hoped that the sequel would at least be entertaining to watch, how can you screw up a bunch of kids killing each other? Well, they found a way.

The film tries to be smart and have deeper meaning and themes. Epic fail. First of all, your target audience does not want this. I don't know what the writer's were thinking with this one. Two, the film doesn't make any sense. You send a bunch of people to kill this guy on an island, when it would be easier to just bomb it. Hey, let' attach collars to these guys, and team them up. When one dies, his partner dies. Wow, what a great way to kill almost everyone in the first interesting sequence.

I liked Shuya in the first one, couldn't give two craps about him here. Nor anyone else for that matter. The first film had two bad-ass characters, this one had nothing.

If you loved/liked/are interested in the first one. Skip this horrid sequel.

Totally agree with you on BR2, it was absolutely terrible. Avoid at all costs!

DAY 100: December 11th, 2008.

Mr. Brooks



This film has a recipe for disaster. Dane Cook co-starring in a role that does not call for comedy, Kevin Costner in the lead not playing a cowboy/baseball player/fish and the cliched schizophrenic serial killer and Demi Moore as the cop hot on his tail. I did not expect to enjoy the film as much as I did. Surprise, surprise this film is decent.

Mr. Brooks has it all, a loving wife, daughter in college and he just won an award for Man Of The Year. Everything seems to be good in his life, except the fact that he has a deep a dark secret, he loves to kill people. Trying to shake this disturbing side of him away, he is forced to kill more people or be blackmailed by a young photographer who saw his last kill.

Is it weird that Dane Cook's best performance is still pretty bad? He isn't anything special here and is really forgettable, but he is bearable. That is something I can't say for his comedic roles. Moore does nothing special either, her character has her own sub-plot that we don't ever really get much info on or really care about. Costner is the shining star here. I really enjoyed him in this role (one of which he says was suppose to be a trilogy, I wonder if there will be more). William Hurt is Marshall, who is the one encouraging Brooks to kill people. Oh yeah, only Brooks can see him too. This makes for interesting scenes in which he flat out speaks to him yet the other person in the car at the time doesn't see it. Of course this is all happening in his head, but it takes some getting use to.

Mr. Brooks is a cool and intellectual character who almost gets to the level of Hannibal Lecter. Almost. The lengths he will go in order to protect his daughter are frightening.

The film is well written and helmed by a competent director he doesn't get all flashy and knows how to tell the story, which is the most important thing.

DAY 101: December 12th, 2008.

Masters Of The Universe



Cheesy sci/fi adventure that was great when I was a kid, and to some extent still holds up to this day. This film is not great by any means, I think we can all agree on that. It never tried to be, being faithful to the source material? I wasn't too familiar with He-man, but I knew enough to know that this film took a different approach. Also, no matter how many times I watch this film, Courtney Cox will always annoy me.

Seeing Frank Langella, play Skeletor is hilarious. Dolph Lundgren as He-Man himself is gold. Sure his performance is horrible, but that is half the fun of it. Courtney Cox on the other hand is horrible in this film. Entertainment value when she is on screen in at zero. I still cringe every time she steals the key to give it to her dead mother, then screams when she finds out she has been duped.

The script is pretty bad, with laughable dialogue and characters who go missing during the battle sequences, I guess that lies on the directors shoulders. The director's other films are two 3-D movies that no one has seen, so I guess this was his big claim to fame.

I find this film to be a guilty pleasure. I know it's bad, I know I shouldn't enjoy myself when I watch it, but I do find a source of entertainment from it. That and it screams 80's.

DAY 102: December 13th, 2008.

The Punisher



A revamp of The Punisher, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I have a few Punisher comics, they are pretty bad-ass, something the original film did not have. This one tries to bring in new fans to the series, it failed when it cast John Travolta as the lead villain. I'm not saying Travolta can't play bad, Broken Arrow and Face/Off are pretty decent villain roles, but here he is so mis-cast. Will Patton seems really out of place here as well. His character never comes off as dangerous as he should be.

Then we have Thomas Jane in the lead role. The character's story is kind of tragic, his whole family is killed and he is left for dead. Jane does an alright job of conveying the emotions needed to bring some kind of depth to the character, but after these scenes he becomes a wooden plank for the rest of the film. Sure, he's lost everything in his life and has nothing left to live for, but why should we be interested then if he isn't. He isn't looking for revenge, even though this is a revenge film, he's looking for punishment. As far as revenge films go, this one is on the better side of things, with the scale reading I Spit On Your Grave on the worst side and Kill Bill on the best.

The supporting cast features Ben Foster, whom I've always liked and Rebbeca Romijn. Neither really do much for the film.

The action sequences are shot well, I could tell what was going on. I only wish the film had a bit more. The final action sequence isn't epic enough and Travolta's demise is too silly. Even for a film based on a comic book. The silliest part is the Johnny Cash wannabe scene, in which he plays a song for him, then tries to kill him.

The final result is a mixed bag. The film isn't horrible, but not memorable either. It's just blah.

Great review there, bruv! I really liked this piece of work from Miiike too. It would definitely agree with you in saying it's his most mature piece yet. The set up is great and there is a surprisinging amount of restraint for the first half of the film. The way he slowing built the story from an exercise in Japanese masculine dilemma into a full out disgusting horror was skillful. You got to give him credit. But there are some pretty nasty bits in it though.

I heavily agree with you on BR2 , but then again - everyone agrees on that.

__________________

DAY 103: December 14th, 2008.

Carried Away



I first saw this film when I was young and I did anything and everything I could to see boobies. We had PPV, but the colours were all gone, it was like watching an x-ray. Well, this film was one a couple times and I would always watch it because it had the taboo topic of a teacher and a young female who did it all the time. I didn't care about the story, I wanted to see naked people.

Flash forward to today and I catch this one again. Old memories come flying to my head right away. Would it still hold up today (obviously not with the internet at my side) and would I actually pay attention to the story this time?

Dennis Hopper is Joesph Svenden, a middle school teacher who lives on a farm with his dying mother. Nothing exciting ever happens in his life until a young girl introduces herself and is in his class, they have a troublesome affair that brings excitement, passion and disturbing results.

Well, I did pay attention this time, this character driven film has its moments, but tends to drag in places that will bore a lot of viewers. Amy Irving is the young female and she seduces Hopper into the sexual ways of her so called innocent life. Hopper does a good job here, he braves full frontal nudity as well.

It's not a film to watch more then once, unless you're a big Hopper fan. The story is there and is interesting, but it never really draws you in. The film depends on you connecting with it's characters for it to have any effect.

It was nice to see this film again more then decade later.

DAY 104: December 15th, 2008.

Quantum of Solace



This is the first immediate sequel to any Bond film, so it plays out differently. Here we start just after Casino Royale finishes. Bond questions Mr. White and discovers a secret organization known as Quantum, who have people everywhere. Bond must now go after Dominic Greene, another pawn in Quantum's schemes and this time Bond is fueled by revenge.

With every other Bond film, they were able to stand alone since they did not need to rely on the previous installments for someone to know what is going on. This time is different. QoS is the first direct sequel to any Bond film and this does both good and bad for the end results.

As I said before Craig is an excellent Bond, one of my favourites. He adds a new layer to a character who was getting boring with the same old same old. This time we see a more dangerous Bond, some might complain that he is starting to resemble Bourne more then Bond, but I don't really mind it too much. Casino Royale showed us where they wanted to take the series and QoS continues down that road, only it stumbles a bit.

For one, the action sequences. They are all good and fun, but poorly thrown together. I got a sense of this from the trailers and my thoughts were confirmed with seeing the opening sequence and rooftop chase. I would of liked a better set-up here, throwing us directly into the action is a mis-step. But, at the same time the action sequences screamed classic Bond, which is what was missing from Royale. Here we have the car chases, plane chases and boat chases. Everything seemed like they were updating the older films and it was neat. If they were better edited and directed then I would have enjoyed them more, instead I found myself desperately trying to follow what was going on.

The villain wasn't anything special. Mathieu Amalric does a good job with what he is given, but the character is boring, not evil enough and not once did I think this guy was dangerous. I find him to be like a little boy with too much power. Mr. White would have been a better villain, but it seems they are saving that for another time. Olga Kurylenko is beautiful and she looks like she can handle herself, but I wasn't too impressed here. I enjoyed Eva Green a lot more and wanted her back here. Not saying Kurylenko does a bad job, she just isn't that interesting to me.

Most of these problems aren't we the actors, but the script. It is muddled with problems in the plot and sometimes is hard to follow. There were a few unnecessary parts and characters, Mathis and Felix Leiter randomly show up and don't do anything of interest. I was disappointed and it seems the series may need a new writer or two to bring fresh and more importantly clear ideas for the next installment.

In the end this is a decent flick, it serves as a bridge to what I hope and think will be a better film down the road. It's basically the second half of Casino Royale as well. If you enjoyed Royale, you will like this one, but you won't be enthusiastic about it. I sure wasn't.

DAY 105: December 16th, 2008.

Apocalypse Now Redux



The Redux version of Apocalypse Now is just way too long. There I said it.

The hellish road to get this film made is not a secret. The film turned out to be a success and people described it as the most honest depiction of war put to film. My views on the film are different, because the only version I have seen is the Redux one. I apparently have a knack for watching the lesser version of supposedly great films. Redux is a good film, hurt by those added scenes, or some I'm told. I can say this though, what was cut for the original film should have remained on the cutting room floor. We get it, the French were there, did we really need to spend all that time with them.

Just when I found myself getting interested in the film it began to bore me, again I'm mainly talking about the French Plantation scene. This added nothing to the overall arc of the film and just stalled the viewer getting to the final climax. Suffice to say I'll place my money on saying this, Apocalypse Now is a better film if it were left alone.

It's a flawed film that inches on greatness. Memorable characters with real life problems? Awesome, I'm there. A cast that work well together and embody the characters? Even better. The film is epic and sits near the top of the important films of our history. Redux doesn't ruin a classic film, it just makes it boring.

Coppola is far from a favourite director of mine. I find his films overly long and tedious. He is talented, no doubt about that and deserves his place, but to me he should have left Apocalypse alone and not George Lucas it up. Pretentious or not, you decide.

I would still love to see the original though.

DAY 106: December 17th, 2008.

Lost Boys 2: The Tribe



he Emerson siblings move to Luna Beach after a car crash kills their parents. They get mixed with the wrong crowds, the vampire crowds.

First of all, let me say that if this film did not have the title Lost Boys, it wouldn't be hated upon as much. Well, it seems they went for the name brand and tried to cash grab an old horror flick that was actually good. With Lost Boys: The Tribe, we get two new characters to follow, a brother and sister. The brother is the kid from American Pie Band Camp and the sister is the girl from random TV shows, most notably The O.C.

The vampires are all new, but the lead one resembles Kiefer Sutherland, probably because they are related. Wow, nice ones guys. The only returning person is Feldman, who is annoying here, unlike the first one where I really enjoyed his character. Maybe its because the guy is actually an adult now, but it just doesn't jive with me anymore. That and he sounds like he has Dark Knight Syndrome.

From the start we are shown that this film won't be anything like the first one. The comedy is gone, it could still be there but it's just not funny, I couldn't tell. Let's not forget that the first one was an entertaining film that kids could watch, this one is catered to adults. The blood and violence is more obscene that I thought it would be. Decapitation, blood and guts pouring everywhere, this is not a Lost Boys film. There is also some nudity, again, these things do not make a Lost Boys film to me, simple name fame in my opinion.

The acting is pretty horrid, what else would you expect from a straight to DVD release. The lead vampire had the same expression throughout and he never changed. The brother and sister I never bought were related. The characters just go through the motions, not interesting to watch.

The story is boring and never went anywhere. The kids get there, go to party and he must 'save' her. Only she never felt like she was ever in any real danger. The vampires never seem threatening and it seems like the filmmakers decided to ignore everything from the first. All of a sudden they all die differently, and apparently garlic can kill them now? I thought it didn't work in the first one. All the writers needed to do was actually watch the first one. There, research is done, but no.

So if you like Vampire movies, give it a try. I mean, like a die hard vampire lover. Don't expect anything from the first one, it has almost no ties to it, aside from the one Frog brother and a weak cameo at the very end.

They don't have the Dossier edition of Apocalypse Now in Canada, Suspect?

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

They do, my dad got the Redux one a while back and that's where I watched it. Haven't bothered to pick up the Dossier edition though.

Yeah, always start with the original version. I liked the Redux, but agree it is too long and is better in its original form. That whole French Plantation scene was unnecessary.

When I'm done this thread, if I finish, I will re-post my top 100 movies list.

It has already changed drastically.