Review: Flawless

By LaRae Meadows
Rating:

1 out of 5

Short version: Flawless doesn’t ask us to think outside the box, it just lights the box on fire with the audience inside, cruelly leaving us to burn in fiery, cinematic damnation.

High-heel shoes and Cigarette star in the diamond heist snoozer Flawless. Cigarette’s performance is smokin’ but it couldn’t save the movie from its ridiculously illogical and uneven script or from the likes of the other performances. Flawless? - there couldn’t be a worse name for this movie.

London Diamond Company owns the diamond trade all over the world. Rotund, greedy diamond executives keep the entire supply of diamonds in the vault in the basement. Laura Quinn (Demi Moore), assisted by her sidekicks Cigarette (Marlboro Light) and High-heel (Jimmy Choo), is a negotiation manager who gets passed over numerous times for a better job. After the last time she got passed up, Mr. Hobbs (Michael Caine), the night janitor, offers her the opportunity to stick it to the man by stealing a thermos full of diamonds. What Laura Quinn doesn’t know will hurt her.

To call the writing in Flawless atrocious would be like calling Bill Gates a man of comfortable wealth. The character Laura Quinn is the stupidest smart woman in the history of cinema. Smart enough to see hidden negotiating tactics waiting to be deployed but such a simpleton she couldn’t see the writing on the wall. I think I actually got a new wrinkle from crinkling my eyebrows at her bizarre behavior.

Review: Downloading Nancy

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

1 out of 5

Short version: A bleak and starkly shot film that left me feeling like I needed a shower after watching it.

Downloading Nancy premiered here at Sundance 2008 and is the story of Nancy (played by Maria Bello), a severely emotionally damaged woman married to and emotionally cold man (Rufus Sewell as Albert) who turns to the internet for companionship.

The film opens with Nancy discussing her thoughts on what happens after you die with another woman. At this point it sounds like she is optimistic about the afterlife while her friend is very negative and keeps bringing up counterpoints to make it sound like she could be somehow trapped in some way after death. As it turns out, the friend turns out to be a therapist who is trying to convince Nancy that death is not an escape or freedom.

Review: The Number 23

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

1.5 out of 5

Short version: This movie drives an already silly premise straight into the ground, primarily with a weak script and uneven direction.

I have been a big fan of Jim Carrey ever since the premiere of my all-time favorite TV show, In Living Color. I mean, what could be better than his Fire Marshal Bill skits? The original Ace Ventura and Dumb and Dumber are movies that I am proud to count among my all-time favorite comedies. Jim Carrey is one of the finest comedic actors I have seen on the big or small screen, but I really don't know what on earth could have interested him in The Number 23. Maybe I don't want to know... He's not going for comedy in this movie; he's going for a dramatic performance. That's understandable to some degree; he doesn't want to be pigeonholed into doing only physical comedy. He has certainly shown that he has some range; The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are two examples that come to mind. But the two aforementioned examples are good movies, and The Number 23 is not.

Joel Schumacher's movies have always been hit-or-miss for me. I really liked Falling Down, but Batman and Robin was a stinkbomb. Veronica Guerin was well-made (albeit morbid), but Phone Booth was underwhelming. His directing style in this movie is uneven; some parts are hokey and overblown, while others seem to be just right. Overall, the problem is that the weak script (written by Fernley Phillips) just doesn't give him much to work with. There is plenty of talent and technical competence on display here; it's just utilized in the wrong way.

Review: Weapons

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

1 out of 5

Short version: An interesting idea poorly executed.

(Image from Cinempire.com)

When I read the description for director/screenwriter Adam Bhala Lough's Weapons, I had a feeling it might not be up my alley but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway. In the end I should have passed on it, and many people I spoke to after the showing had the same, if not stronger opinions to the negative as well. It's never a good sign when people start leaving in droves before the Director Q&A session...

Review: Body Double

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

1 out of 5

Short version: Unlikable characters, pretentious writing and misguided direction make this movie a total mess from start to finish.

I have a confession to make. It's not easy, but I need to get this off my chest. Okay, here goes: Sometimes I miss the mid-80's. There, I've said it. Seriously, most (not all) of the music in the mid-80's was at least decent, if not exceptional. Gangsta rap was at least a few years away, and country music was only played on the country stations. And the movies... some real classics came out in the mid-80's. Splash, The Goonies, Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop, Back to the Future... the list goes on. So when I rented Body Double, I thought I was in for a good movie. After all, it was produced, directed and co-written by Brian DePalma. Aside from having an awesome first name (and spelled the right way), DePalma has been behind the camera on some of my favorite movies. If there is a better adaptation of a Stephen King horror movie than Carrie, I haven't seen it. A long time ago, Kevin Costner used to star in good movies, and The Untouchables ranks high on that list. And who wouldn't want to say hello to my little friend, Scarface? Okay, so maybe Scarface was a little over-the-top, but I enjoyed it. To me, it will always be a classic. So how did Body Double compare to those movies? Let's put it this way: After watching it, I was reminded that DePalma has also been involved in a number of genuine stinkbombs. To that list, I (not so) proudly add Body Double.

Review: The Cell

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

1 out of 5

Short version: This movie had some impressive imagery at times, but overall it was downright awful.

Eek! Please, mommy, make the bad movie stop!

Okay, now that my inner child has said what it wanted to say, let me start out by talking about the director of this cinematic train wreck, Tarsem Singh. According to IMDB, he hasn't had much of a feature film career since directing The Cell, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has seen it. I'm sure Singh did a great job with the commercials and music videos that defined his early career, but as a feature film director, he created a real mess. I must admit, the imagery in The Cell is very impressive, but that's only one of many components required for a movie to truly hit it out of the park. I have always found Jennifer Lopez underwhelming as an actress, but here she seems nearly comatose. Vince Vaughn did such a great job in Swingers, but you wouldn't know it by watching this movie. He's positively slumming it here. I was absolutely floored when I read that Roger Ebert thought this was one of the best movies of 2000. Did he see another movie called The Cell that I didn't hear about?

Review: Clerks II

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

1 out of 5

Short version: Clerks II can only possibly be enjoyed by hardcore fans of the original. It was like digging through a huge pile of cow dung to get to a very small pearl at the bottom.

Since I don't generally write objective reviews, here's what you need to know before you read this:

1. When the original Clerks first came out, I kind of enjoyed it in a looking-at-bugs-in-a-jar kind of way.
2. I was raised in New Jersey.
3. I am more than 10 years older than the main characters in the movie.

Got all that? Good. For the most part, Clerks II was excruciatingly vile. I almost got up and walked out more than once, but made myself stay seated because first, I can't write a review of a film I haven't seen all the way through, and also due to morbid curiosity of where it would end up.

Review: Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

1 out of 5

Short version: Oh my God, this movie actually made a profit?

Ok, so I'm late to the party reviewing Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. I certainly wasn't going to pay good money to see it, and I didn't even want it to soil my Netflix queue, but when I stumbled across it in upcoming movies on my satellite box, I figured I'd Tivo it for when I was particularly bored.

So where do I begin? Perhaps with a call to my lawyer so that I can sue for emotional damage incurred by having sat through the entire movie.

This wasn't just bad, it was B-A-D. Actually it was bad enough to cross over into the hallowed ground of Mystery Science Theater 3000. If you want to see this movie, buy a case of beer, invite a bunch of buddies over, send the wives out for the evening and let the exclamations of amazement begin.

Review: Ladder 49

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

1.5 out of 5

Short version: This movie took an intriguing idea and ran it straight into the ground with a weak script and lousy direction. The clichés are so pervasive that it's sometimes hard to believe this movie was meant to be taken seriously. The heroic efforts of our firefighters deserve a much better showcase than this crapfest.

After seeing this movie, I decided to go back and look at the filmography of Joaquin Phoenix. I wanted to pinpoint the last time I thought he played a role effectively in a movie. As it turned out, the movie was To Die For, released in 1995. Granted, I haven't seen every movie in which he has starred since 1995, but it seems to me that his best performances are smaller roles that have top-notch directors presiding over them. As his Hollywood star grows ever bigger and his roles increase in size, I don't find the quality of his performances growing with them. If anything, it's the opposite. After seeing The Village last year, I thought he had hit a new low, but sadly, his performance in Ladder 49 was even worse.

Even though John Travolta is featured prominently in most of the poster and TV ads for the movie, the vast majority of it focuses on Jack Morrison (played by Joaquin Phoenix). Set in present-day Baltimore, Maryland, the movie starts out with Jack trying to rescue a victim from a burning building, when the floor collapses under him and he falls into the building. The rest of the movie consists of flashbacks of Jack's life throughout the past 10 years, interspersed with some scenes in the present time where Jack's colleagues are trying to find him and get him out of the building. At first, I liked the idea of doing flashbacks because it could help the audience really learn who the characters are. The problem is that director Jay Russell does a lousy job of tying those scenes into the overall story. It seemed like most of the flashback scenes were meant to emphasize the bond between the firefighters rather than develop characters, but even those scenes weren't done very well. How many scenes do we need to see with the firefighters getting drunk in a pub or playing pranks on each other? Okay, they're bestest buddy pals; we get it. It's hard to believe this movie was written by Lewis Colick, the same guy who wrote the screenplay for the excellent October Sky.

Review: The Punisher

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

1.5 out of 5

Short version: Except for bad acting, a bad soundtrack, and a bad script, it's not that bad a movie.

The word on The Punisher was not good before the movie came out, and after it's release it only got worse. Forewarned is forearmed, so I passed on seeing it on the big screen. However... being a fan of comic books and the movies they inspire, combined with the fact that I had read a number of "Hey, it wasn't that bad." posts on various message boards, I decided to add it to my Netflix queue and give it a look.

Review: Hide and Seek

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

1.5 out of 5

Short version: A disappointing mess. The script and direction are sub-par, and you could open a fish market with all the red herrings in the story.

I don't think anyone can deny that Robert DeNiro is a very talented actor, but given the incredible missteps in his career over the past few years (Godsend, City by the Sea, The Score), it seems like his career is headed towards the same downward spiral as Harrison Ford's career. (Random Hearts, anyone?) The latest example is Hide and Seek. Robert DeNiro and Dakota Fanning do admirable acting jobs with the material they are given, but even they can't save the movie from a lousy script and terribly overblown direction. It is almost completely devoid of scares and suspense, unless you count the plethora of pedestrian "jump scares."

The credentials of the people behind the scenes don't exactly inspire confidence. Director John Polson is an Aussie actor whose biggest directing project prior to this one was Swimfan. Writer Ari Schlossberg is a relative newbie; his only previous writing credit on IMDB is a shared story credit for a movie called Lucky 13. And in both their cases, their inexperience sticks out like a sore thumb. Schlossberg's script is light on scares and suspense, with plot elements that fall mostly flat. I kept getting the impression that he wanted to write a script that would put him in the same league as M. Night Shyamalan, but he didn't even come close. Besides, after seeing The Village, I'm not sure if aspiring to be Shyamalan is such a good thing.

Far worse than Schlossberg's lousy script, however, is John Polson's terrible direction. Quite honestly, it has been a while since I saw a movie directed this badly. The story is full of red herrings, some of which can be attributed to the script, but many of them are courtesy of Polson's directing. More on that a little later...

Review: The Boondock Saints

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

1 out of 5

Short version: This movie took a half-baked idea and executed it so poorly that the end result is almost unwatchable. This is a cinematic disaster that should be avoided at all costs.

First, I should give you a little background. You may be wondering why I am reviewing a movie that was released in 1999. Well, what sparked my interest in it was the fact that there is another movie in theaters right now, called Overnight, about the rise and fall of Troy Duffy, the writer/director of The Boondock Saints. To make a long story short, Troy Duffy was a bartender in Boston who was plucked out of obscurity by being in the right place at the right time. His script for The Boondock Saints went into a bidding war and was ultimately picked up by Harvey Weinstein, the head of Miramax Studios. Duffy ended up with a sweetheart deal that landed him in the director's chair. With expectations so high, it was not surprising that Duffy failed to live up to the hype. He ended up alienating the studio as well as his own friends, and Miramax dropped their interest in the film. A small independent studio called Franchise ended up making the film for a fraction of the budget Miramax had offered. Slaughtered by critics, the film ended up on video without ever seeing a wide release in theaters.

Review: Alien vs Predator (AVP)

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

1.5 out of 5

Short version: A lame attempt to cash in on both franchises, but if you skip the first half of the movie, the second half provides some worthwhile action.

I finally had the chance to watch Aliens vs Predator (or as it's affectionately known: AVP) tonight at a drive-in if you can believe it. It was that or Princess Diaries 2 (which my wife and daughter selected) so I was quite happy with my viewing choice. Here's a tip: Show up about 30 minutes late and you'll really enjoy this movie. Seriously.

Of the two images to the right, the top one is what makes this movie work. The bottom image is what makes it painful. I don't think I'll spoil much by letting you know that most everyone in the photo will be dead by the end of the movie... and let me tell you, that can't happen fast enough. They drag the movie like a boat anchor, and once it's free of them and concentrates on the Aliens and the Predators it takes off pretty well.

Review: Exorcist IV (The Beginning)

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

1.5 out of 5

Short version: A major disappointment that relies more on jump scares than genuine scares. The script is sub-par, and Renny Harlin's direction is even worse. Don't waste your time or money on this crapfest.

When a movie studio doesn't show a particular movie to critics ahead of time, that's usually not a good sign. Sadly, such was the case with Exorcist: The Beginning. Given that fact, plus the fact that Renny Harlin was directing, I went into this movie with fairly low expectations. Incredibly, this movie did not even meet those.

This movie is a prequel to the original. The story is set in 1949, several years after World War II has ended. Father Merrin (played by Stellan Skarsgård), who would later be called upon to exorcise the demon from Regan MacNeil, is a troubled soul. The problem is, Father Merrin saw the Nazis do things during World War II that caused him to question his faith. Before you can say "Jack Daniel's," he has resigned from the priesthood and become a hard-drinking, tough-talking archaeologist. In a scene that looks blatantly ripped off from an Indiana Jones movie, a collector ends up hiring him to work with an archaeological team that has discovered an old church in Africa.

Review: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

1.5 out of 5

Short version: This might have made a good 3 minute skit, but there's not enough here to fill a movie that feels like it's 4 hours long.

You're probably familiar with the theory that with comedies, the funniest parts are usually in the trailer, not leaving much unseen when it comes to the film itself.

I'm here to tell you that Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy sadly, does not break that rule. Having recently seen the very funny Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, I really was hoping for the best here.

Review: Fahrenheit 9/11

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

1.5 out of 5

Short version: This movie has a few valid points to make, but the rest of it either falls flat or comes across as disingenuous. It should not be considered a documentary, given Michael Moore's strong anti-Bush leaning.

Well, after being so critical of the trailer for Fahrenheit 9/11, I finally went and saw the movie. I have to say, I've never felt so out of place in a movie theater since I saw Annie in 1982. Literally from the first frame, it was obvious that the audience (at least the Democratic part of it) was using this movie for cathartic purposes. Every time someone in the movie talked about leaving the Republican party to join the Democrats, cheers erupted from the audience. Being a lifelong Republican, I wisely chose to keep my mouth shut (for once).

I always figured Moore was Democrat-friendly, but I didn't realize the extent until I saw the movie. He didn't exactly go easy on the Democrats, but every Republican across the board was a bumbling idiot in this movie. Before I saw the movie, I remarked on this site that I thought it was laughable to lump this movie in with the McCain-Feingold law. Having seen the movie, I think I was wrong about that. This movie has very little objectivity to it. It could easily serve as a political tool for the Democrats. Oddly enough, John Kerry's name is never mentioned once during the entire movie. Even Clinton and Gore only pop up a few times, which kind of surprised me.

Review: Chicago

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

1.5 out of 5

Short version: A technically well made film that glorifies all that is rotten in the human spirit.

I finally saw Chicago on DVD.

In my opinion, the fact that this won a bunch of Academy Awards (including Best Picture) is the most effective indictment of Hollywood I can think of... but I digress.

If I hadn't been planning on reviewing this film, I would have turned it off about 15 minutes in. I was sitting there wondering who exactly I'm supposed to be rooting for... Roxie (Ren?e Zellweger)? That was the closest person I could come up with and she surely did not fit the bill. I mean at first, sure... wide-eyed newbie to the big city trying to make it in show biz (never heard that story before), shoots abusive guy who just wanted to get down her pants.

Ah, but then... her clueless husband taking the rap thinking she shot a burglar. As he sits there confessing, her mind wanders off to a musical stage version of what's happpening in front of her, with her as the star (of course). Nevermind that her husband is throwing himself on a grenade for her. He soon figures out she was sleeping with the guy and Roxie accuses him of being unfaithful.

She goes to jail and finds herself at the bottom of the totem pole. Hires famous lawyer (Richard Gere), gets famous in the papers, then treats Velma (Catherine Zeta-Jones) the same way she (Roxie) was treated, which was rotten, when the tables are turned.

Just a really likeable character.

Review: Dungeons and Dragons

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

1 out of 5

Short version: One of the most unintentionally funny movies I have ever seen, and one of the worst. Perfect for those who can truly appreciate terrible movies, a frustrating waste of time for everyone else.

Some things in life simply can't be explained rationally. To that list, I proudly add the fact that this hilariously bad adaptation of Dungeons and Dragons was ever made, let alone shown in theaters. At first, the idea of a D&D movie was a beacon of hope to all who had been ridiculed for participating in the allegedly popular role-playing game. After nearly a decade of struggling, first-time director Courtney Solomon had finally managed to acquire the rights to Dungeons and Dragons and convinced New Line Cinema to make his movie. This lavish $35 million production, shot in Prague and executive produced by Joel Silver of The Matrix and Lethal Weapon fame, was to be the long-awaited vindication for the dedicated and faithful devotees of D&D.

After the movie was released, the merciless critical drubbing and the ice-cold box office results made all those D&D devotees long for the good ol' days, before the movie was released. But make no mistake, this movie bears only one similarity to the actual role-playing game, and that's the title.

Review: Matrix Revolutions

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

1.5 out of 5

Short version: A disappointing finale to what started out as an amazing concept.

Following is a spoiler-free review.

Those of you hoping that Matrix Revolutions would make up for how poor Matrix Reloaded was had better curl up with a warm copy The Matrix DVD and just try to erase the two sequels from your brains.

Initially I was o?ne of the objective people who went to see Reloaded totally hyped and left the theater saying: "huh?". Well I'm here to tell you that "Reloaded" was WAY better than "Revolutions".

Since both films were shot at the same time it's not surprising that they both suffer from some of the same problems... o?ne of which being: The Wachowski brothers just don't know when to end a scene.

Take anything that is cool or exciting, keep it o?n the screen for 10 minutes (which is a LONG time) and you'll end up wishing the damned thing was over. I give you the car/freeway chase scene from Reloaded as an example, and there is more of the same unending SFX stuff in this film.

There were a couple of points during the film where I actually said "woah" out loud. But then it seemed like they wanted me to keep being amazed and it just wasn't going to happen.

There was o?ne scene in particular where I must have looked at my wristwatch three times within the span of five minutes. It was excruciating to watch and I wanted it it to be overwith.

Overall, I think they should have just left it at the first classic film and moved o?n to something completely different while their God-like reputations were still upon them.