Silent Hill (2006)

Silent Hill

2006

Starring: Radha Mitchell, Sean Bean, Deborah Kara Unger, Laurie Holden, Kim Coates

Directed By: Christophe Gans

I heard a lot of good things about this movie and decided to give it a chance. First off, let me say that I'm of above average intelligence and consider myself very knowledgable when it comes to films and filmmaking. Second, let me say that I've never once played any Silent Hill video game, which this movie was based on.

Silent Hill is very confusing if you haven't played the games, so I did my own research (which I'll get to later) after watching this movie. I'll do my best to sum up what it's about without giving away any spoilers.

When Sharon starts having bad dreams about a place called Silent Hill, her parents start to freak. Her mother, Rose (Radha Mitchell), decides (against her husband's better wishes) to take their adopted daughter to Silent Hill to try and figure out why her daughter is creeping them the Hell out. On the way to Silent Hill West Virginia, the two are pulled over by a female motorcycle cop who looks like she was trying desperately to be in Terminator 2. Anyway, they crash and when Rose comes to, her daughter is missing, thus she begins the descent into Silent Hill to find her with the cop in tow. The Silent Hill they see is completely atmospheric and rains grey ash constantly.

Now, after realizing that his wife took his daughter on a road trip to Hell, Christopher (Sean Bean) sets off after them. Now, once he gets there a detective goes with him to Silent Hill to look for his family. However, the Silent Hill that he goes to is abandoned, but looks fairly normal. After searching and coming up with nothing, he's escorted out of the town and told not to come back. Meanwhile, Rose and her cop buddy search all of Silent Hill to find Sharon and find out what the fuck is going on.

To be honest, after watching the movie, I had no clue what the fuck was going on or happened and I felt that the characters didn't either. So, I did my own research. Apparently, there are three different dimensions that they are all in once they get to Silent Hill. Ok, not that hard to explain, right? So... WHY THE FUCK COULDN'T THE FILMMAKERS HAVE TAKEN TEN SECONDS TO EXPLAIN THIS? Instead, they leave you with a shitty ending to a movie that just falls flat. Oh, did I mention that the movie is just over two hours long? It is. By the time they start explaining stuff, you just want to see people die. I had to research this and find out what the fuck is going on in the games to understand what I had just watched. However, as good a job as they did making Silent Hill creepy, they could have done just as good a job explaining stuff, but it seems they made this film just for the kids who geek out to the Silent Hill games. It's sad really, because this film had the potential to be a good horror movie. It started out ok, but the more you get into it, the more confusing it gets, and the less the filmmakers explain.

As far as the acting goes, it's really good. However I doubt that anyone really understood the script or what was happening. The script however is flat. Completely devoid of any personality or emotion and it's very monotone. It's like watching Larry King for two fucking hours. The dialogue is good and isn't cheesy, but that's because they got decent actors to be in it. Sean Bean really stands out as the father here, and the rest of the cast is good, but you can tell the script didn't make sense to them. It's like they all got hired to act out a physics manual.

The script: horrible. In fact, it's so convoluted and bland that I was begging for someone to die or actually do something stupid that would cause death. If they had trimmed down about fifteen minutes and actually had the damn thing make sense and took the time to explain what's happening instead of watching the mother walk all over a grey town covered in ashes, it might have been worth watching.

The editing and special fx are about all I can say nice things about besides the acting. They are ok at best and nice to watch, but the script is so terrible that you wished you were watching something else. In Silent Hill, the script hurts the good points so bad that it's almost enough to make you want to decapitate yourself. I can't believe Roger Avary wrote this garbage. Now I know why he just got a "story by" credit on Pulp Fiction.

The directing was actually shitty. Coming from the guy who directed The Brotherhood of the Wolf, I would expect more. In fact, I would expect more from a third grader who has actually played the Silent Hill games. I guess we'll see him directing the next direct-to-DVD Look Who's Talking or Stewart Little movie.

When it's all said and done, Silent Hill is like going to the fridge and seeing an ice-cold refreshing 2-liter of Pepsi, pouring yourself a tall glass, and then finding out that your Pepsi is flatter than fucking roadkill.

Rating:

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Snakes on a Plane

2006

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Julianna Margulies, Kenan Thompson, Rachel Blanchard, Elsa Pataky

Directed By: David Ellis

You know, had I directed this movie personally, I would have done one thing differently: I would have done a little bit better at setting up the deaths. Some of the deaths in this film just seemed put in there for "filler" time and just to show more snakes. Not that death in a movie called Snakes on a Plane is a bad thing, but I like justified deaths or deaths with reason. Some people got it while they slept and it just felt forced on the audience. With that said, on to the review.....

You may say: "But did you like the movie?" Hell yes I did. I loved it, but that's not to say it didn't have it's flaws. The best thing about this movie is that it doesn't take itself serious even when it's trying to be serious; thus issuing it a stamp of Roger Corman approval and giving it that B-Movie Drive In flair it deserves. With the title alone, this movie suggests the filmmakers had balls the size of watermelons. I mean, the title Snakes on a Plane is to the point and is just what it is.... Snakes on a Plane. The good thing is, it delivers the goods. A lot can be said in a movie's title, so imagine if you will some other movies that could have used the same imagination of the Snakes on a Plane titling:

Innerspace- "Dennis Quaid in Martin Short's ass"

Big Top Pee Wee- "Pee Wee pitches a tent" (I couldn't resist that one)

Brokeback Mountain- "Gay Cowboys on a ranch"

Napoleon Dynamite- "Retard with tater tots"

Star Wars- "Stormtroopers on a Starcruiser"

.... and the list goes on and on.

With that said, I'm trying to make a point here. I've read so much negative hype on this movie that I can't understand it. The movie is called Snakes on a Plane and people are expecting fucking Jaws or The Exorcist. The thing is, Snakes on a Plane does it's job and that's put motherfucking snakes on a motherfucking plane and then they give you a cool ride for an hour and a half. They don't expect you to see the movie and expect a year later to see Sam Jackson accept an Oscar for best actor. They expect you to go see the movie, eat your fucking popcorn, and have a good time. It's that simple. Sorry, but critics really piss me off, and what REALLY pisses me off are people who enjoy movies like Napoleon Dynamite and Brokebutt Mountain but then won't even give Snakes a chance and blast it without seeing it. See it and then decide. Only then do you have a right to blast it.

Now, on to the actual movie. Besides the obvious, Snakes on a Plane is about a guy in Hawaii that witnesses an Asian crime lord bash some guys head in with a baseball bat. This guy, Eddie Kim, is above the law and Samuel L. Jackson is just the man to take him down. After securing the witness and convincing him to fly to Los Angeles to testify, they board the plane. In order to get himself clear and make sure there are no witnesses, Eddie Kim hires a guy to fill the plane with over 500 poisonous snakes to ensure there is no way in Hell that anyone survives. The only thing he didn't count on was that Sam Jackson was on the flight. I guess Eddie Kim didn't get to see Pulp Fiction, because Jackson gets medievil on some snake ass.

The script (which I read about a year or more ago) is very simple but somewhat character driven. Most of the cast is disposable, but then again, the movie centers around Sam Jackson's character, Neville Flynn. The script does have it's cheesey lines of dialogue and cliche' elements, but that's what makes the movie fun. You know Sam Jackson is going to whip ass from moment one and so you don't invest too much in anything else.

The direction is decent, but not bad. David Ellis' previous films leave much to be desired (Homeward Bound 2), but he does a good job here and I'd personally like to see him really sink his teeth into a good horror script. I'd say that his average direction on an over-the-top script meshes well, but overall could have been done a little better. Had I directed, I would have focused more on the characters and when someone died, it would have had more an emotional impact on the audience.

The acting is ok, but nothing to write home to mom about. Like I said above, the movie centers around Sam Jackson's character, so he's the focus (other than the snakes). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average at best. There's a really cool moment at the end in the cockpit between Kenan Thompson and Sam Jackson, but other than that, the acting could have been a lot better from everyone else.

Now, on to the snakes, which are the showpiece in the movie. The mixture of real snakes with CGI blends fairly well, and there was really only one little shot where I could tell it was computer animated. The snakes all move and react realistically, which makes for some intense moments on screen. The special fx and makeup are really done well for the budget and like I said, other than one little shot, it all came off nicely.

All in all, don't take the movie serious and you'll have a blast. If you expect the next big horror flick, you're in for a disappointment. If you go in with an open mind and expect a fun time, you'll really enjoy yourself and have a blast. Also, one final note, don't listen to critics... if you think you want to see something, go see it. If not, then don't. It's that simple. Just don't believe all the negative hype because you might just miss out on something good.

Overall, I recommend this movie and think that most people will enjoy it if they just don't take it too seriously. It's good fun and meant to be enjoyed as it stands. It's not Oscar worthy, but it's also better than any trendy horror film out today, so I'll leave everyone with that.

Rating:

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Pulp Fiction

1994

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Eric Stoltz, Tim Roth, Harvey Keitel, Bruce Willis, Ving Rhames

Directed By: Quentin Tarantino

It's about time I get around to reviewing Pulp Fiction for several reasons. Number one, it's probably in my top three favorite films ever made, and number two, I owe it to this film to give it a great review.

If you haven't seen Pulp Fiction, you should be shot in the face. The reason I say this is because either you love this movie or hate it. In fact, I've only met like two people in my life who didn't like this movie. Their reasoning: "It was too violent and had too much bad language." To that, I say FUCK YOU because you wouldn't know a good film if it fucked you in your face.

Pulp Fiction is essentially a story revolving around two hitmen (Travolta & Jackson), their boss (Ving Rhames) and his wife (Uma Thurman), and a middle-aged and over the hill boxer (Bruce Willis). However, the film is told completely out of order and for a reason: SO YOU DON'T GET TO KNOW ALL THE CHARACTERS UNTIL THE VERY END. Some people who have liked it have even complained that it being out of order and synchronization left them confused. Only a complete moron would be confused at Pulp Fiction. In fact, the way that each little portion of the film unfolds is nothing short of genious and filmmakers since have done nothing but rip Tarantino off for his punchy and witty dialogue and his ecclectic manner of filmmaking. In fact, I've seen more knock-off Tarantino films than I have seen actual Tarantino films. This goes to show you that one man CAN make a difference in filmmaking.

I can't even begin to explain this film because if I do, I will ruin the experience for those who haven't seen it. Yes, I said experience because that's what this film is. It's an experience in filmmaking that you just have to see and experience for yourself. There's not a lot of action and it's basically a two and a half hour dialogue driven movie, but that's the beauty of it. It's so long that when something happens, it's so rewarding because you care about each and every character on screen. You even care about the horrible and disgusting people because they are so well defined and acted. I mean, the story essentially focuses on two hit men and every time they are onscreen, you stare in disbelief at what they are saying or how they believe about a certain thing. It's sheer genious.

There is nothing bad I can say about Pulp Fiction. Nothing at all. When I first saw the movie, I had seen the movie poster and couldn't believe all of the famous people it had in it. So, when it finally came out on video, I rented it and sat for 2 1/2 hours in my room in disbelief. I couldn't believe that someone could make a movie so fucking good that I would want to spend another 2 1/2 hours watching it again. In fact, in the two days I rented it, I watched it almost five times. That's something I can't say about any other movie I've seen. I was so in love with each and every character that it was like a good book that you read over and over because you feel as if you know the characters so well. Now each time I watch it, it's like a family reunion where I get to visit old friends and family. Even when I watch it now I still pick up on things I haven't seen before. You know, the little things you don't catch unless you repeatedly watch something. Now I can say I've seen this movie probably around 100 times and I'm damn proud of that fact.

The directing from Tarantino is superb. In fact, it's probably one of the best (if not the best) directed films ever made. I mean, come on, this is the movie that brought John Travolta back to a career. He had become nothing and his role as Vincent Vega made him something again. This film also propelled people like Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman into the top level of the acting community. The direction couldn't have been any better.

The script is even better than the directing, which is only enhanced by the ensemble cast of characters chosen to bring them to life. Tarantino's dialogue and story is nothing short of brilliance and the sheer originality of Pulp Fiction makes it all that much better. A friend of Tarantino's, Roger Avary, gave him some ideas for a few of the characters (which gives him a "story by" credit), but other than that, Tarantino reigns supreme on this film. He's not afraid to offend you and then make you laugh all within a five second span, which makes me think that Tarantino has the biggest set of balls in filmmaking.

The editing and special fx (what little fx there are) are top-notch. The film is edited in such a manner that by the end of the film, you understand everything and by the last frame before the credits, you feel like you understand each and every character. I give credit to the script for this, but only a great editor could have understood how to cut a movie like this and not distract from the story. There's no fancy bullet-time or speed clips, no fancy dissolves or smash cuts... it's all cut in a traditional way that it feels classic.

With all that said, I have to mention the music. Pulp Fiction has such an odd but great soundtrack that everything feels so perfectly aligned. With every musical note or song that you hear, there is a reasoning for it, and everything feels like it was hand-picked by God himself to be in this movie to make it perfect. If you took one song out, the movie would suffer. It's so good that the soundtrack and film go hand in hand, and I can't rave enough about how well every musical piece is placed. It's almost like having the perfect soundtrack to life.

All in all, I HIGHLY recommend Pulp Fiction. Sure it's full of profanity, violence, and will make you shake your head in disbelief, but isn't that what makes films good? I mean, if it can't touch you in any way, it's an empty and shallow film. Here, Pulp Fiction will touch you in such a way that you will feel sad when it's over, feel happy when someone gets what they deserve, and feel pitty for those you shouldn't. Pulp Fiction will forever go down in my book as one of the best films ever made.

Rating:

Waterworld (1995)

Waterworld

1995

Starring: Kevin Costner, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Dennis Hopper, Jack Black, Michael Jeter, Tina Majorino

Directed By: Kevin Reynolds

Well, it's been a while since my last review and I decided to catch back up with the Readers Choice Review that my loyal readers voted upon. You guys spoke and Waterworld was the winner, or loser in this case. Without further ado, on to the review....

This movie opens up with The Mariner (Kevin Costner) floating his little boat around and drinking his own urine. Why would he do such a thing? Because the polar ice caps have melted and flooded the earth and he can't exactly drink salt water. However, urine contains salt, so the filmmakers decided to have some sort of filtration system rigged up to his boat. Yeah, like Costner's really that smart. It only gets worse from here and this is how the movie opens.

With the world covered in water, everyone in this film has hopes of one day finding dry land. The only problem is that this film takes place in the future and basically all technology has been wiped out, so any chance of using technology is null and void. However, once The Mariner comes across a woman and small girl, he finds a map tatooed on the back of the small girl which could lead to dry land.

Kevin Costner's acting in this film is kind of mysterious. At one moment you think he just might be some heroic figure of importance, but then through a series of events it turns out he's just some fucked up mutant with gills and no real importance at all. It's kind of like buying a new car and finding a secret compartment only to open it and realize that the compartment is a fuse box. Not that a fuse box is bad, because it's vital to running a car, but here the fuse box (Kevin Costner) has a short circuit and the film seems to fall upon his weakened shoulders.

One of the more redeeming qualities Waterworld has is Dennis Hopper. Ok, you can put Dennis Hopper in a freaking ballerina outfit and have him take a dump for an hour and a half and it would be entertaining. So, for the sake of Dennis Hopper, this film is worth watching ONCE just for him. He plays the villainous Deacon, and to be honest, I was rooting for him to kill Costner the whole damn movie. Another redeeming quality of Waterworld would be the small (and I mean small) role of Jack Black, who plays a pilot. It's such a small role that if you blink you'll miss him, but since Jack Black is in it with Dennis Hopper, that's really all I can say that's good about Waterworld. Oh yeah, did I mention Hopper wears an eyepatch?

With that said, Waterworld is an absolute mess of a movie. With one of the most expensive budgets ever (and it didn't even make all the money back), you would think that they would have hired someone to polish the bad script and get someone better than Costner to star. This movie tries to be Mad Max at times and at other times it tries to get the audience to take it serious. We can't because Costner sucks in anything he does and the script is horrible. There isn't one memorable line of dialogue in the whole movie and if there was anything worth quoting, my guess is that it came from Dennis Hopper.

The special fx (for their time) are decent at best, but are cheap compared to today's standards. That's sad considering how much money they spent on them. My guess is that someone who was in charge of special fx was a HUGE coke addict and 70 percent of the budget went up their nose. 20 percent went to Kevin Costner and the final 10 percent went for the actual movie. While blowing (no pun intended) the budget through the roof, Waterworld was the center of critic's angst as it failed to produce a movie that was of the quality that the filmmakers promised. In fact, other than Jack Black and Dennis Hopper, it was a bad movie. It was so bad that Costner didn't work again for a year. Considering that at that time he was doing two to four movies a year, Waterworld cut him down for a bit.

The directing in the movie is horrible and all the actors seem to be held at knife-point to deliver bad dialogue. The editing is all over the place and the film is actually about 30 minutes too long. This is sad because the actual premise of Waterworld isn't a bad one, in fact it's actually kind of original, but it falls flat the moment we see Costner drink his own piss. Unfortunately that's about three minutes into the movie. Any movie that starts out with a man drinking his own piss cannot get any better. In fact, drinking my own piss might have been more enjoyable than sitting through Waterworld.

Full of bad dialogue, bad editing and direction, mediocre special fx, and Kevin Costner, steer clear of Waterworld like you would the Bermuda Triangle. This is a bad movie and though it's like a car wreck in that you can't turn away, it's better not to have looked at it in the first place. Had Kevin Costner been replaced by someone who could act, the script been polished by someone who could write in something besides crayon, and the editor cut about 30 minutes out of it, Waterworld might actually be worth watching. Since none of that happened, we get a movie about a mutant Costner looking for land in a world of piss drinking waterdogs.

Rating: