"Bad Lieutenant" is the kind of film that plays well at festivals but would be divided amongst moviegoers. It is not a film that you just watch anytime you want. It does not have that rewatchability factor. It is decent enough, where I can see the influence that it had on the "dirty/crooked cop" subgenre. Sadly, that is the best compliment I could give the film.
Harvey Keitel's performance is solid in the beginning but during the second half, it appears as if he is sleepwalking through most of it. It was kind of a disappointment, considering the intensity of the character in earlier scenes. I just expected him to continue that throughout the duration of the film.
"Lieutenant" can be viewed as a character study but sadly, the character is not all that interesting. Well none of them are really.
The runtime is short(surprisingly clocking in at 96 minutes) so it does not feel like a chore to get through. I guess I just expected more from a controversial film, that was rated NC-17. It really did not feel any different from normal R-rated fare.
Surprisingly good horror sequel to a mediocre film
I always say that I am going to write a short review but I end up rambling on anyway. I really do not care if a horror movie is scary or not. I know that does not make a whole lot sense, since we know that horror movies main objective is to scare you. As long as it is entertaining and interesting, that is all that matters to me. With that being said, "The Conjuring 2" is one of the better mainstream horror sequels in recent years and it really did keep me engaged.
James Wan's direction is very good. He successfully makes this a supernatural moody horror flick. Even though there are cheap jump scares that you can see from a mile away, the malevolent forces were way more interesting and threatening, than in the first film.
The screenplay by Chad & Carey Hayes, James Wan and David Johnson wisely puts more focus on the family this time, instead of Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga's characters. They play more of a supporting role and it works, following a different path than most horror flicks these days.
The cast does an adequate job with what they are given. The supporting cast includes Madison Wolfe, Frances O'Connor, Lauren Esposito, Benjamin Haigh and Patrick McAuley.
I remember not being too impressed by the first "Conjuring" film. Matter of fact, it was my last date movie. As for this one, this makes a pretty good date flick.
The cinematography by Don Burgess is the best thing about this movie. It is probably the best cinematography that I have seen in mainstream horror film since 2014's "The Purge: Anarchy." This is a well shot film and he totally plays up the "boogeyman lurking around the corner" fear.
Go see "The Conjuring 2." It is probably going to be one of the best mainstream horror movies I will see this year. I kind of hate I liked this movie so much because that means I might not like part 3. Part 3 is coming. Box office receipts will prove that.
I am trying to process everything I seen in "The Nice Guys." I think I am supposed to like it. At least that is what the critics have told me. However, I just cannot get into it. I am very "meh" about the whole film.
I just did not find the movie that interesting. Shane Black and Anthony Bagarozzi's screenplay is just not filled with any compelling characters. I did not hate them. I just feel like they are not characters that I would want to see in multiple films.
Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling have fun with their roles and you can tell in every scene that they are in together. They play off of each other very well. However, they are not Riggs and Murtaugh. They are more like the Sam's Choice version of them. Angourie Rice, Matt Bomer, Keith David, Margaret Qualley and Kim Basinger rounds out the cast.
If you are a fan of Shane Black's work, then you should check out "The Nice Guys." This is starting to become a trend where, for every two movies I see, the third I will not be impressed with. Sadly, "Nice Guys" was this week's recipient.
Alright picture this. A nice secluded lodge, located out in the middle of nowhere. It's peaceful, not too shabby and has all the makings of the perfect getaway for newlyweds. It is quiet and picturesque in the day time but by night something fiendish lurks in the woods surrounding the lodge. What could it be? Only time will tell for the young couples that take a stay at this resort that has it's own secret "history." This is the basis for the 1982 horror film "Honeymoon Horror." Though it's a forgotten gem, it managed to find a video release in the early eighties. I guarantee if you were to mention this movie to anybody whether young or old, they would probably have no idea about what you're talking about. I guess that's the beauty of this picture.
Well let's get to the basic plot of the movie. Without ruining anything, this film tells the story of three anxious newlyweds that go to this nice resort for couples for a little relaxation and rest. Soon one by one, each couple is being killed off by an unknown killer that lurks somewhere in the dark. Could it be somebody from another person's past?? Only time will tell in this bed and breakfast of horrors.
Now don't get me wrong. This movie is not without it's flaws. The major flaw in this movie is the acting. My oh my, the acting was terrible in this. It is as if nobody really understand their characters motivations and the delivery of the lines were very poor. The script left a lot to be desired. Other flaws in this picture is the bad editing(the murder scenes look so poorly constructed together as if they didn't know which angle to keep in the film) and the direction, while not totally bad but it left a lot to be desired.
Now onto the positives about this movie. You may ask me why I rated this movie a 7. Let's be honest, this is not a brilliant movie. I would say despite all of it's flaws, the film really makes up for them on the count of the tone, mood and the way the night scenes were filmed, giving you a real sense that you were actually out in the forest unseen to the forces of nature. I guess I'm recommending this film on what it could have been, not the way it actually turned out.
However I will say that this film would have been much stronger, if it had been released in the late eighties under a different director. I also thought it was pretty effective that the killer was never revealed until the end. I guess what I'm saying is "Honeymoon Horror" is a movie that has his heart in it's right place but was just badly executed. However I still say you should check this one out.
The Party of all parties is about to get a little "demonized"
"Night of the Demons," the 1988 low-budget cult classic horror flick has everything you want in it: nudity, gore and funny dialogue. The plot is so basic that even a two year old could understand it. While a good movie, it still has it's flaws that cannot be easily overlooked. The problem does not lie within the story because if you actually look at it, the story was simple yet creative and effective but it lies with the performances of the actors.
First off, lets talk about the plot. The plot is basic, as I have already stated. It centers on a group of teens, that throw a party at an abandoned funeral parlor on Halloween(go figure) which is hosted by their freakishly weird classmate Angela. During a séance, weird things began to happen which opens the portal to, you guessed it, demons being unleashed. It is not long until the demons take possession of the teenagers, causing havoc for the rest of the movie.
Don't get me wrong. "Night of the Demons" isn't a bad flick, for it's heart is in the right place. However it sorely lacked in the acting department. The performances were so terrible that it wasn't even good for horror movie standards. The lead actress' performance was so bad, that it just seemed the casting director just randomly picked her off the street and said "you're going to be in horror movie, we need as many people as we can get." The film's strength however lies within it's wild frenetic cinematography(Evil Dead anyone) and gory F/X. If this film's cinematography had not of been that great and the effects would've been less than stellar, this film would've got a less than stellar review from me.
"Night of the Demons" is a good image of reminding us of the good old fashioned days of horror, back when everything was so simple and directors actually still had a lot of creativity, but is sorely brought down because of it's bad acting. Still it's a good film but the acting is what keeps it from being raised from "barely" average 80's horror flick.
A loving story about a boy and his obsession with "adult" entertainment
"Cyber Seduction: His Secret Life" is the type of Lifetime picture that premieres every once or two weeks dealing with the same matter about kids getting involved in adult activities and or partaking in adult materials. Obviously, given the title, the film is no different. This movie tells the tale of a successful high school sophomore that develops a deep, unhealthy obsession to internet porn. While this film has it's heart in the right place it is, at times, unintentionally laughable, so laughable that you would think it would have made for a good Saturday Night Live parody.
As stated, this is not a bad film it's just that it feels uneven in some scenes. For example, when Justin Petersen's(played by Jeremy "Peter Pan" Sumpter)mother is talking to his father asking him if he fantasizes about other women, he replies back "Honey you fulfill all my fantasies and not just the sexual ones." Now when the writers wrote that line did they think that people would actually take that line of dialogue seriously? It is as if they couldn't think of nothing else to write so they decided to add that line in the script to further enhance the boy's growing problem with porn addiction.
Another major flaw in this movie is that, the characters often did stupid things where you just wanted to yell at the TV, "Are you really that stupid?" Tell me how all of a sudden the school slut/popular girl, who happens to be a senior, would take interest in a shy, quiet goody goody sophomore. Also, would a person be that obsessed with porn that they would watch it, on their palm pilot while at a swim meet around hundreds of people? It just doesn't make any sense. I know in movies, you suppose to suspend disbelief but are they expecting us to buy this stuff?? Above all "Cyber Seduction" message is intended to be strong but it falls by on the wayside. Though not a bad film, whenever you need a good laugh be sure to check this one out.
The movie that shows what Michael Bay was destined to be: a great action director
What do you get when you mix stolen drugs, too wise-cracking savvy cops and high octane action together? You get "Bad Boys," the 1995 sleeper hit directed by a then unknown commercial director Michael Bay and staring two television stars named Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. "Bad Boys" is perhaps the epitome of the 90's with all it's stylishness and flashy colors that is guaranteed a rare treat for action fans.
In every scene, it is evident that Martin Lawrence and Will Smith has chemistry and it is not hard to believe that some of their lines were improvised through the filming of this production.
However most praises definitely go to the then, unknown Michael Bay who got his start in directing commercials and music videos. Every explosion and camera angle was a grave representation of what would become Michael Bay's trademark in his later films: directing visually stunning movies that make even the little guys look heroic and intimidating figures of royalty.
If you haven't seen "Bad Boys" by now, you'll be doing a grave injustice to the world by not seeing it. If it hasn't already become a cult classic it will surely be one in the near future.
There comes a time when a movie is released and after you watch it you'll say to yourself "I'm glad I watched it." "Assault on Precint 13," the loose remake to the 1976 John Carpenter film of the same name is exactly this type of movie. The direction was solid, the performances were decent to above average. There are times throughout this film where the cinematography is very good, thus enhancing the effect of certain scenes.
Perhaps the two things that really save this movie is Laurence Fishburne's great performance and the plot of the film. I think it's interesting how an action movie is set in one particular place especially in a police precinct of all places. Fishburne's subtle, yet powerful performance make this movie more than just another action flick: it makes it an action flick with style.
Check this one out whenever it comes on television or rent it if you can. You won't be disappointed.
"Silent Hill" is just another entry in the video game to movie craze that has been really sweeping our nation in the last 12 years. Directed by Christophe Gans, the guy that brought us the 2001 film "Brotherhood of the Wolf," "Silent Hill" tells the story of one woman's journey to find her little girl in the strange and eerie town of Silent Hill.
What really makes this film terrible was the lack of suspense it created, IMO. This has to be the first horror movie ever that I felt never built up to the tension nor even created scenes that would make the audience jump. One thing I will say is that the set direction is very good in this film because it truly looks like a realistically deserted ghost town. The main parts that made the movie lack was it'a less than average acting and it's less than sub par script.
Maybe the reason why I didn't like the film was because I had never played the video game. All in all "Silent Hill" was another attempt at cashing in on the video game craze that was started with "Super Mario Brothers" some 13 or 14 years ago.
"Collateral Damage" is the type of film that bears so many similarities to a particular world event that you would have to wonder where the line of realism and unrealism begins. Planned to be released after the unknowingly September 11th attacks, this movie does a good job of displaying one person's struggle for justice and revenge over a lost loved one.
In this film, Arnold Schwarzenegger shows great character development. He is not the Terminator, predator hunter, nor Conan the Barbarian. He's just a regular guy with regular problems and this what makes his role truly authentic. For a while I shyed away from this movie because I thought it would be another Arnold post "Batman and Robin" movie but it was more than that. Here was a story about a man who wanted revenge for his dead wife and child that he would travel as far as to Columbia to make sure somebody pay severely for this act of terrorism.
In a way, it is not surprising that this movie flopped at the box-office. Maybe the world wasn't ready for this movie even though this film was pushed back a couple of months after 9/11. So much stuff was going on at that time including the recent death of famed R&B singer Aaliyah and the world's bout with anthrax. In my opinion, "Collateral Damage" is probably the quintessential movie to show the rage and anger people felt during the dark gloomy day known as September 11, 2001.
"Last Action Hero" the film that was Arnold's first real flop makes up for what money it lost at the box-office with a fresh, inventive plot and great performances. Looking back at this movie, I'm surprised that this was one of the box-office bombs for Summer 1993 and the year of 1993 in general.
Everything was believable about this film. The acting was very convincing and the whole movie within a movie theme really works well for this film. The plot alone is what makes the film stand all by itself in an elite field of movies that contain a lot of shoot 'em ups and blow 'em ups. I still wonder why this film flopped. Maybe it wasn't the right summer to release it or people just didn't get it. Though it is far from being another "Terminator 2"(which is probably what people expected and wanted it to be) it is a good social commentary about the action movies that are made and the people that watch them.
I will say one thing about the movie. However, the only bad thing about this movie is that it kind of lags behind during the second half of the movie and doesn't seem nearly as interesting as the first half. Other than that it's a well-thought out entertaining film. One day, if it hasn't already have, it will become a cult classic.
"Eraserhead" is stupid, but not the kind of good stupidity that we expect from these films
"Eraserhead" the 1977 cult film directed by world-renown film artist David Lynch has only one thing going for itself: stupidity. Yes I said it, this was a very stupid unfulfilling film. Let's break down the film as a whole to find out what went wrong.
The Acting-The acting was terrible, which consisted of characters that were forgettable and not likable. I think a frying pan has more character development than the actors in the schoclk of a film.
The Script-The script was painfully awful and felt that it was written by someone that had just finished elementary school. The dialogue was not convincing and the pace was waaaaay to slow. The script should have been proofread a hundred times over.
The Plot-Maybe I didn't understand the film, but the plot made know sense. The whole time I was watching the movie I thought to myself, WTF! This is a true travesty of a film.
It is hard to see how this film became a cult classic. It was boring, dull and pointless with no redeeming qualities. So far, this film goes down as the worst film I've seen this year.
Back in 1977, horror master Wes Craven released upon the film world a low budget horror experience called "The Hills Have Eyes" which helped revolutionized the horror genre. After the film's release, Wes Craven's career had become a hit or miss directing crappy films(Scream 3) to highly influential genre pics(A Nightmare on Elm Street). 29 years later, what many consider to be Wes Craven's finest moment in his film career is brought back to life with the 2006 remake called "The Hills Have Eyes" of the same name.
This movie is brought to you by none other than Alexandre Aja who directed the shockingly gruesome gore fest "High Tension" last year. The same as "High Tension" Aja is a master when it comes to splatter, gore and truly capturing tension on screen.
I have not seen the original "hills" so I cannot compare it to this one. While this is not the best horror movie or movie in general in the whole wide world, it is fairly entertaining. The plot might be a little ludicrous but what it lacks in a simple, contrived plot it surely makes up through it's direction and cinematography. Aja is truly a master of this genre and when he starts creating thrills, he doesn't let up.
Many people might complain that this film was too heavily edited and has to many quick cuts but I feel that this works to this film's advantage because it truly emphasizes the tension that I think Aja was going for.
I recommend anybody to see this movie. I don't normally see horror movies a lot in the theaters and this will probably be one of the better horror movies released this year.
After years of anticipation, "Freddy vs. Jason" lives up to the expectation
Pictured this. Camp Crystal Lake. Towards the end of a bloody battle the infamous killer Jason Voorhies he is suddenly pulled down to hell by a bunch of demons. It is sunrise. Only thing that is left is his mask. The camera slowly pans down as we see....
BAM!! Freddy Krueger's hand pops up and takes Jason masks down to Hell with him.
Now, that's some scary stuff. Maybe some of you understood what I just said and some of you didn't. If you didn't understand what I just said, you will see what I'm talking about when you watch a one of the Friday the 13th films "with a final Friday" Anyway, due to this surprise and clever ending to what was suppose to be the "final, final Friday" it was obvious that New Line Cinema was going to pair these two titans of horror(Freddy and Jason) in their own epic film. After years of speculation and many different drafts of the script, I must say that it was worth the wait..."Freddy vs. Jason" was a rock 'em, sock 'em good time.
For one, the writers stayed true to the Freddy and Jason mythology. I liked how they didn't just make up some mumbo jumbo bullsh*t just to try to fit it into the story. They tied the Freddy and Jason mythology together so well, that the team up was brought together in the most respectable manner, thus doing justice to both of the franchises.
When I heard that Ronny Yu was directing this, I thought that he would not do a good job(since he directed the awful "Bride of Chucky") but he did a great job directing this long awaited team up. It is obvious that he wanted to make a larger than life movie and it came out well since Freddy and Jason was larger than life stars.
As usual, Robert Englund gives a fantastic performance as Freddy and he still shows that while Freddy is an evil, sadistic child killer he is still charismatic in every way.
One thing that I didn't like about this movie, is that the director tried to make Jason out to be the good guy when in all entirety, Freddy and Jason are evil to the fullest. This is a medium to major flaw on their part. It's no biggie but I felt that it wasn't the best direction to go.
In conclusion, Freddy vs. Jason was worth the wait. I know a lot of people bash this movie but it's a very solid horror film and I would go as far as to say that it's one of the better horror films of the 2000's.
"The Wayans Bros." was such a funny show that it used to have me rolling on the floor. Part of the reason why it was a good show is that everybody on the show had good chemistry. Who could forget John Witherspoon cast as "Pops." He was perfectly cast in that role. The strength of "The Wayans Bros." was not because they were another "black" show on television but was because they were not afraid to take comedy to new heights in order to get their laughs.
During the earlier seasons of "The Wayans Bros." you can tell that the show's strengths was along the heels of "WB" because they were becoming a famous network around this time. I ask myself, "why can't more shows be like this?" Anyway, "The Wayans Bros." will have you rolling on the floor with Shawn, Marlon and Pops antics throughout it.
They should've turned this show into a live action movie
"Sonic the Hedgehog" based on the popular Sega Genesis video game was widely popular enough that somebody came up with the idea to turn it into a television series. Whoever did this, I must say, was a good idea and really captured the spirit of the "Sonic" video games.
"Sonic the Hedgehog" was basically about the continuing adventures of everybody's favorite, fastest hedgehog who always tries to stop Dr. Robotnik's dastardly plans. Like someone said in another comment, Jaleel White, best known to the world as "Steve Urkel" was the perfect choice to voice the feisty hedgehog because everything I envisioned Sonic to be, it came out through the voice mannerisms of White.
I remember everyday at 3:30 p.m. I would catch this show on UPN in Summer 1995. Too bad they haven't made a live action movie out of Sonic yet.
If anyone is wondering whether or not this television show does justice to the video game, then you don't have to worry. The television show only makes you like the video games more.
"California Dreams" was more than a good television show. It was in fact my favorite TNBC television show during the time it was on air. California Dreams basically focused on a group of teenagers with a rock band that also dealt with serious issues in their life.
This show, had some of the most memorable songs written for a television show. I use to love to sing the show's theme song as soon as it came on. "California Dreams" was just a good, fun, clean-cut show. When I think about it, this show is nothing but a "revenge of the 90's" type show because it debuted in the early nineties during the time of all the various rock and roll forms arosed.
If one wants to see, good classic TNBC television(before what it has evolved into now) then you should try watching "California Dreams."
"Martin" was the show that everybody I knew looked forward to on Thursday nights back in the early nineties. Forget what was coming on NBC and CBS, we knew that "Martin could supply the goods for us.
"Martin" basically focused on a radio DJ and the comic misadventures he has with his friends. If you already guessed, hilarity ensues from all this. It's real hard to think of anything I didn't like about the show because the show was that good. Everybody on the show, I felt, had very good chemistry with each other and the writing was very strong also. Since "Martin" was popular among many audiences, most notably African-American, I'm surprised this series is not on DVD yet.
Like the same with my one sentence review, "Martin" was on the air back when the Fox channel was still a good network. Now, in my opinion, Fox shows crappy television shows now. We need more shows like "Martin" on that channel.
Whenever an old episode of "Martin" is on the air, try watching it. I guarantee you won't be disappointed.
Like it or not, "Family Matters" has placed a positive staple on American Television and has created some unforgettable moments that will be talked about from now until eternity. Part of the reason why "Family Matters" was a good show is not because of the topics that it covered during it's lengthy run on prime-time television but because it also was a perfect contrast to another popular African-American show known as "The Cosby Show." Even though the Cosby's were about a upper class African-American family, family matters was about a regular, average family who had average jobs and average lives.
"Family Matters" debuted at a good time in American Television. During this time, "The Cosby Show" was the king of all television and when that show ultimately ended, "Family Matters" began to pick up where "The Cosby Show" left off: that is presenting a good wholesome show that the whole family can watch.
Another part of the reason why this show was a big success, probably have already been mentioned, was because of Steve Urkel, the nerdy next door neighbor that always drove the Winslows' angry. I will go as far as to say that without the Urkel character, this show wouldn't had been as successful as it was.
In regards, "Family Matters" is a very good show. It's good to catch this show on syndication now so I could remember the good times of television.
"No Escape," the 1994 action film that is directed by Martin Campbell is an achievement in film-making. With "No Escape," Campbell takes us to a prison of the future that no one would want to go: a deadly island prison where the only way out is through death.
The reason why I think "No Escape" works is not because of it's brilliant acting nor because of it's chemistry between it's actors, it's in fact because of the film's great concept which allows the viewer to envision in their mind a place so grimy that anyone would try their best to not get sent to that prison.
Before I watched "No Escape" or even thought about watching this film, I had bought the video game but use to have difficulty playing the game, so this is what enhanced my interest in watching the movie. This movie is a marvel of a gem; it's a shame that most people haven't heard about it.
Back in 1995, I was told about a little movie that featured horror tales from an African-American perspective. People told me that "Tales from the Hood" was a funny, laugh-out-loud film. I believed them. It wasn't until the end of this eerie movie that my decision had changed, along with my life.
"Tales from the Hood," the 1995 gangsta horror flick moved quietly into theaters without anyone noticing. It had made it's way on home video in December 1995(yay, in time for Christmas) and little did I know what I was getting myself into. Yes the film did start off funny, cuz it was rather amusing to see three bumbling gangsters go and collect drugs from a funeral home(how odd) but little did I know that this movie would forever change my life after that brief introduction to the movie.
As with any horror anthology or anthology in general, this film had a series of stories that had an impact on me. The first story was the scariest of all which featured a black politician that is killed by three white racist cops, which he ultimately comes back from the dead and gets his "revenge." The second story is a new twist on the "my stepfather is a monster" type stories and it features a young boy that is abused by his stepfather and through a change of events, he gets even with him in his own, quirky little way.
The third tale features a white racist politician that receives warnings to move out of his house(because his house was built over an old slave plantation).
The fourth and final tale is probably the most important one. It speaks on "black on black violence" in the African American community and while studying other people's comments about this film, I heard that it draws similarities from "A Clockwork Orange." Even though I said "Tales from the Hood" is the scariest movie I've seen it was still rather quite boring. It is as if the film slows down in between the middle and doesn't know whether it's trying to take itself seriously or play the audience up for a few laughs.
I think the main reason why I thought this film was scary was not because of the whole film, in general, but for the first tale, that about police brutality against blacks. I didn't really fully notice the underlying themes, but that was some scary stuff when Martin Morehouse came back from his grave.
"Tales from the Hood" has forever changed my life. Even though people will disagree with me and say that this film is not scary, this is the only true film that ever actually scared me and I seen this when I was eleven. Next week will be the 10 year anniversary(Dec. 26, 1995) since I seen this film and sometimes, and I have never watched the film all the way through since.
Now, I never did watch the television show "Aeon Flux" when it came on MTV in the mid-nineties, nor do I have an understanding of what the plot of the show is about. So, to try and compare the movie to the television series would not be fair. One thing I can do is judge it as a movie and an action movie on it's on. So does "Aeon Flux" pass with flying colors? Nope, it ultimately fails on each level.
What was not wrong about this film? Hardly anything can come to my mind as to try to answer this question. The plot was terrible, the acting was a joke and it is sad to see a so called "Oscar Winner" in this roadkill of a movie. You would think after Charlize Theron played in "The Devil's Advocate," that she would've been wise enough to choose her projects. It is obvious that with "Aeon Flux" Theron did it solely for the money, not for passion or because she was drawn to the story.
The script, I think, was the biggest problem with the movie. Even though the acting is terrible(it's an action movie, so the acting shouldn't always be perfect) but you could see that the script was lacking in character development and dialogue. I don't buy this crap about most screenwriters spending months and months working on a script. It appears that the writers of this movie wrote this awful script in a couple of days and thus, it made it to the big screen.
The direction was pretty bad and it is obvious that the director focused more on making Charlize Theron look good on screen than to actually focus on the characters and what they mean to each other.
Now as an action movie, this fails quite bad. For one, the action scenes were not great and did not leave a good feeling for me inside.
In the end "Aeon Flux" comes off as your standard sci-fi action film that tries to draw it's viewers in because of the attractiveness of it's lead female star.
Living proof that you should not always believe the hype
"Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" the December 2001 blockbuster directed by now famed Peter Jackson may have been a hit critically and commercially but this film is very very very far from what I call a good film.
For three years, I ad voided seeing this movie. Mostly everybody I knew or encountered had nothing but positive things to say about this film. So in January 2005, I finally decided to give this movie a chance. My assumptions were right; I ended up not liking the movie.
There are many problems with this movie. For one, the acting. The acting was pretty terrible in this film. Most of the actors and actresses in this film looked like they just rehearsed their lines one time in the mirror before they began shooting this monster(and I don't mean in a good way) of a film. Lord of the Rings did not really have any characters I felt sorry for nor cared about. Can somebody please explain to me why the heck Sir Ian McKellan got an Oscar nomination for this schlok of a film? How he got nominated still puzzles me to this day.
Now I know I will be crucified for saying this but I don't care. The plot, when I think about it, wasn't all that great. Basically from what I gather about this plot is that it is about a young hobbit that embarks on an epic quest to destroy a ring. Wow, how interesting is that(sarcastic)! I think another reason why I didn't like this movie is because it's a fantasy film and I hate fantasy movies. So it was quite obvious that I wasn't going to like "LOTR" Now, I haven't seen the last two films but I still want to see them, so I can complete the trilogy. Who knows, I might actually like them. All in all, "LOTR:TFOTR" gets two thumbs down, way down.
Man, oh man, oh man. "Wild Things," the 1998 film that turned Neve Campbell and Denise Richards into sex symbols was a very influential film that inspired a generation in the late 90's. 6 years later, we received the very late and unnecessary sequel "Wild Things 2." Now, in 2005 we get the third entry in the Wild Things film series called "Wild Things: Diamonds in the Rough." One question came to mind after I finished watching this crap-fest: "what were they thinking?" This movie is the same as the second one. Basically all they just did was recycle the plot from "Wild Things 2(which was recycled from "Wild Things")" and had cast different people in the same roles. The two lead female vixens were not convincing at all. From the moment the movie started you knew what was going to happen: spoiled little rich girl hates "trailer trash girl," trailer trash girl actually is friends with spoiled little rich girl and they both come up with a way to get millions of dollars. We saw this with the last two "Wild Things" movies except the first, original movie was done with more style.
A word to the producers: please stop making these straight to home video sequels. You're f*cking up the rotation.
"Speed 2: Cruise Control" is a great example why you shouldn't make a sequel to a popular film
Throughout my entire life, I've always been optimistic about sequels because there are some that are really well. I remember when this movie opened in June 1997 thinking "why did they make a sequel to a great action film?" For years, I had shyed away from seeing this movie(mainly because I wasn't interested) and now, 8 years later I finally decided to watch it. My one line summary of "Speed 2" basically summarizes everything I want to say. That is, this film is a great example as to why MOST sequels should not be greenlit. "Speed 2: Cruise Control" has everything you love to hate about a movie or a sequel in general: bad acting, paper thin plot and a terrible script. Jason Patric(in place of the more charismatic Keanu Reeves) is the hero this time around and does not live up to what an action hero should be. Sandra Bullock, this time around does not come off as cute or charming but rather annoying in this bland sequel.
If I had to really think, I would probably say Willem Dafoe is the only good thing about this movie but even he is terrible as the film's main villain itself. I think the main problem with "Speed 2" is that it severely lacked the charisma the first "Speed" had. Overall, I hope the producers learned their lesson with this one. By the way, who's "genius" idea(sarcastically) was it to rate this film "PG-13?" In the end "Speed 2: Cruise Control" was a lame attempt at cashing in on the success of the first film but ultimately fails in doing this.