Jolt Country

Terminator 3 (***): It's a better second sequel than Godfather III, I can tell you that. Very dumb, but with a sneaky sense of humor, and with no Eddie Furlong in sight, it was impossible for me not to like, no matter how hard I tried. Notable as a an example of an unfortunately disappearing brand of action movies where you can actually tell what's going on, instead of the director (not that I'm thinking specifically of Ridley Scott here) cheating by cutting film every ten frames, substituting wild movement for actual storytelling. For instance, the chase scene with the crane is one of the greatest chase scenes in history, and (other than the fact that it's happening), it all flows and makes sense, within its nonsensical context. It's no T2, but it ain't Alien 3.

The Cooler (*1/2): Part Casino, part Leaving Las Vegas, and part... I dunno, some dumbass movie which sucks, I've never seen so many actors do such a good job of acting, and still produce such a big steaming pile of waste-of-time. I think I will go ahead and blame the writer(s), who take their sweet time painting by numbers and stringing together so many implausible, and yet still uninteresting developments that by the end, not only do we not care about any of the characters, but we actively want to see them experience pain for being part of the process. Even the good guys.

Training Day (***1/2): The last half hour is an unfortunately thoughtless, hackneyed mess of ludicrosity, but it's not enough to drag down the overall rating less than three-and-a-half, because of two simple words: Denzel Fucking Washington. A brilliant, amazing performance in every respect, with a script which (up until the aforementioned denouement) crackles with wit and fire, and you just can't wait to see what that negro does and says next!! I watched it twice in two days, I was so taken by it.

Pitch Black (**): VitriolaX wanted me to watch this and love it. Well, at least I watched it. I liked Vin Diesel. I liked the concept of the aliens. But there are two major keys to doing an Aliens ripoff, neither of which the movie does particularly well. One, you have to have characters you care about. Other than Vin, and maybe the alcoholic guy, there are no likeable, identifiable characters. Two, you have to be able to believe the bad guys, and the bad guys in this movie are completely unbelievable, due largely to the fact that even in closeup, they're CGI, and not particularly convincing CGI either. "Uh oh, I hope Vin doesn't get eaten by that fake video game monster who is obviously not there." There's a little style, though, and Vin is cool, so there's the two stars.

Identity (***1/2): Knowing ahead of time that this was a "twist" movie, but not knowing what it was, I was of course on full alert. And at most ten minutes into it, any dumbass can tell you that Ray Liotta is the murderer. So then we, with our smug little expressions on our face, playing out the string of the next hour, wondering why we're wasting our time with such an obviously dumb movie. OOPS!! Except... OOPS!! Any movie that can act dumb, but then you find out actually isn't dumb, and it was you who were the dumb one the whole time, well, that's pretty impressive. Very smart, even when it's pretending it isn't. My main complaint is, one too many twists at the end. The main twist would have been just fine, thank you. And, really, it IS quite a chore getting through all the dumb stuff, when you don't realize that it's intentional. Very very clever. We likey.

If only to avoid a return to the endless Magnolia convo's, I will bite the bullet and respond to Pinback's movie reviews:

pinback wrote:Terminator 3 (***):

Agreed, it was OK but I didn't really dig the ending. I guess it does make the common point about time travel that you can't really change the future, but it was really unsatisfying.

pinback wrote:The Cooler (*1/2):

Never saw it, probably never will.

pinback wrote:Training Day (***1/2):

Excellent movie. You should also check out Man on Fire.

pinback wrote:Pitch Black (**):

I wasn't even remotely interested in this until I saw the trailer for the Chronicles of Riddick. Probably still won't see either of them.

pinback wrote:Identity (***1/2):

I may have to give this a try based on Pinback's glowing review.

How does "Man on Fire" relate to Training Day?

Is it checkers where TD is chess?

Also! Hey, I really miss that guy who posted in yellow all the time. What was his deal? Where did he go?

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:How does "Man on Fire" relate to Training Day?Is it checkers where TD is chess?

Checkers to chess could be an ok analogy. Even better analogy might be MoF is War to TD is chess. Man on Fire is a revenge/punishment type of movie but different from most because of some interesting twists and of course Denzel is phenomenal. Lots of violence and action and it keeps you going through the entire movie. In the end, you understand and are ok with the way things play out.

pinback wrote:Terminator 3 (***):

Agreed, it was OK but I didn't really dig the ending. I guess it does make the common point about time travel that you can't really change the future, but it was really unsatisfying.[/quote]

Actually, I thought the ending was the best part, or maybe the second or third best part after the crane scene and/or the Terminator brawl in the bathroom. Seeing John Connor finally come face to face with his fate was a cool moment, sez I.

Identity (***1/2): Knowing ahead of time that this was a "twist" movie, but not knowing what it was, I was of course on full alert. And at most ten minutes into it, any dumbass can tell you that Ray Liotta is the murderer. So then we, with our smug little expressions on our face, playing out the string of the next hour, wondering why we're wasting our time with such an obviously dumb movie. OOPS!! Except... OOPS!! Any movie that can act dumb, but then you find out actually isn't dumb, and it was you who were the dumb one the whole time, well, that's pretty impressive. Very smart, even when it's pretending it isn't. My main complaint is, one too many twists at the end. The main twist would have been just fine, thank you. And, really, it IS quite a chore getting through all the dumb stuff, when you don't realize that it's intentional. Very very clever. We likey.

Not horrible, but aside from the gimmick there really wasn't much too it.

Debaser wrote:Not horrible, but aside from the gimmick there really wasn't much too it.

Would you say the same thing about Usual Suspects?

"It's not as fun the second time," should not be a valid criticism of a movie. Don't let a gimmick shrowd your objective film criticisms. If it's a good gimmick, and the movie is acted/written well, then you can't say, "aside from the gimmick there wasn't much to it."

That's like ordering a cheeseburger and saying "aside from the ground beef and cheese, there wasn't much to it" and faulting the sandwich for it.

pinback wrote:If it's a good gimmick, and the movie is acted/written well, then you can't say, "aside from the gimmick there wasn't much to it."

If the movie was acted/written well then, aside from the gimmick we'd have a movie that was acted and written well, and I wouldn't have said that there wasn't much to it.

Well, then we're halfway there. The movie was acted well enough (though in no way were the performances especially fantastic), but aside from the gimmick the movie's plot and writing were passable at best. Were any of the characters especially interesting? Did the final bit of the ending not largely suck balls? Ignoring the meta-shenanigans and immersing in the A-plot, were the happenings even at all believable? Sans gimmick it was a mediocre-bordering-on-bad thriller and, yes I get that it being a mediocre-bordering-on-bad thriller was part of the gimmick; but that doesn't make it any less of a mediocre-bordering-on-bad thriller.

Yes it does. I subscribe to the Roger Ebert theory of movie critique, which is: Judge a movie in relation to its intent. If it was trying to be a GOOD thriller, and instead was a mediocre-bordering-on-bad thriller, then you count points off. I don't believe that to be the case here. I believe it intended to be just what it was.

pinback wrote:Yes it does. I subscribe to the Roger Ebert theory of movie critique, which is: Judge a movie in relation to its intent. If it was trying to be a GOOD thriller, and instead was a mediocre-bordering-on-bad thriller, then you count points off. I don't believe that to be the case here. I believe it intended to be just what it was.

A fair enough persepctive, especially coming from the man who gave us Annoyatron. Personally, however, when giving a review/opinion/whatever on something I consider two questions: "Was I moved/entertained/intrigued by it?" and "Do I think some theoretical everyman viewer would be moved/entertained/intrigued by it?". In this case the answers are "Not especially" and "Not especially".

Beware! Vaguely spoilerish bit below!














I should also point out that I ultimately found the Ultimate Personality Showdown premise to be a little silly, too. It might be based on some sort of actual psychology (though I doubt it since MPD is largely considered a load of bunk), but it certainly felt more like silly Hollywood psychology, akin to the script Donald Kauffman was trying to write in Adaptation.

Adaptation is an excellent analogy. Identity sucks intentionally for nearly the same amount of time Adaptation is excellent intentionally, and then at the point Identity decides to become intentionally intelligent, Adaptation becoming intentionally stupid.

In this way, Adaptation is superior in that it is intentionally stupid for less time than Identity.

However, Identity is superior in that when Adaptation was intentionally stupid, we'd already figured out the joke, and there was little else to hold our attention, whereas when Identity was stupid, at least it was still (for me, anyway) mildly entertaining and involving, as are the movies I believe it was satirizing. It wasn't a *GREAT* "10 people in the house who keep dying" movie, but, I mean, I never looked at my watch.

I guess that's what it comes down to. Were you at least MILDLY entertained by the stupid parts of Identity? I was, which is why I more easily forgive the stupidity, once I discovered that it was intentional. If I was yawning and bored during the buildup, then my review would be different.

pinback wrote:Were you at least MILDLY entertained by the stupid parts of Identity?

I didn't hate it, I guess. Well, okay, I started to hate it a little when the guy got run over by the car; but for the most part, I've sat through worse movies than the one Identity was pretending to be.

To run along the line of comparisons to Adaptation, the ending to Adaptation was a lot stupider than the beginning of Identity and, in that regard, I liked it more. I could laugh, or at least smirk knowingly at it because it was all so ridiculous and I knew it was all so ridiculous, whereas the thriller bits of Identity were just sort of there. In that regard, Identity might end up playing better for me a second time around, though I doubt we'll ever find out.

And, again, I adored Adaptation's gimmick, while I had somewhat mixed feelings towards Identity's.

I also adored Adaptation's gimmick, I just thought it drug it out too long. "Yah, we get it now. Rolf. Either move on, or end the movie."

pinback wrote:I also adored Adaptation's gimmick, I just thought it drug it out too long. "Yah, we get it now. Rolf. Either move on, or end the movie."

You're not the first person who's expressed that opinion to me. I'm of mixed feelings, I guess. I didn't think it dragged at all, but I think that may be because the movie ended up earning a lot of "subjective" points with me because I was just immediately in tune with the problems of the Charlie Kauffman character. So by the time the ending rolled around, I maybe wasn't in a position to judge it effectively. Definitely one of my favorite movies in recent years, though.

pinback wrote:Yes it does. I subscribe to the Roger Ebert theory of movie critique, which is:

I HUNGER!

What was Adaption's gimmick?

bruce wrote:

pinback wrote:Yes it does. I subscribe to the Roger Ebert theory of movie critique, which is:

I HUNGER!

Have you seen him lately?

He's thinner than the other guy, now.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:What was Adaption's gimmick?

I would recommend instead actually watching the movie. Very good and very, very clever.

pinback wrote:

bruce wrote:

pinback wrote:Yes it does. I subscribe to the Roger Ebert theory of movie critique, which is:

I HUNGER!

Have you seen him lately?

He's thinner than the other guy, now.

It only looked that way because the other guy had a giant brain tumor before corpsebloat took over.

Roeper, you idiot.