#adamwatchesmovies | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

adamwatchesmovies · 3 years

Text

American Wedding (2003)

American Wedding was obviously made because some accountant looked at the number and calculated that it'd make a bunch of cash -and it shows.

As the film begins, Jim (Jason Biggs) is proposing to Michelle (Alyson Hannigan). Familiar faces congregate as the big day nears which means a slew of jokes about the future in-laws and that old “will we able to pull off this wedding?” plot blended with what you’ve come to expect from the American Pie franchise - gross-out and sex jokes.

Even die-hard fans will be disappointed by this second sequel. Oz, one of the founding members of the series, is completely absent. They don’t even explain his absence with a throwaway line! He's just one of a number of characters who are sidelined in favor of the "faces" of the franchise: Jim and Stiffler. The future groom I understand but Stiffler? You have a hard enough time imagining him receiving an invitation to the wedding, much less playing an important part in it. Due to popularity, however, here is again, again. Whereas the characters you'd expect to be prominently featured are given little to do. Michelle, for instance; she's off-screen for much of the film. Almost like she had better things to do, or read the script and realized like it was rubbish.

There are some laughs to be found here. Most are also contrived and sandwiched between embarrassing moments. There is no way anyone would be unable to think of a way to avoid eating dog shit or confuse an old lady for a young attractive woman, even in the dark. Sean William Scott tries his best but he's no Rumpelstiltskin. You want him to go away so we can focus on the story. Unfortunately, it's wafer-thin. There have been entire movies made out of the “Meeting the future in-laws idea” (See Meet the Parents) but director Jesse Dylan isn't interested in this, instead focussing on lame gross-out scenarios and second-hand embarrassment gags.

The same jokes found in the first two films are back again and stale as a desert this time. The characters you were endeared to have been replaced with cardboard cutouts of themselves. It's nothing BUT missed opportunities.

Will you laugh during American Wedding? yeah, a few times. Is it a worthy successor to the series? Not at all. It’s a blatant cash grab with no vision or moments of genuine inspiration. The humor is mostly miss, the characters you’ve come to love are wasted and even something as simple as the romance and the gross-out humor are badly done. It's a sloppy, lame teenage comedy. (Unrated Full-screen version on DVD, September 28, 2014)

2 notes · View notes

adam-watches-movies · 7 years

Note

There's a music critic on YouTube that I follow called "theneedledrop." One of the things that I like about him is that he's constantly introducing me to music I'd otherwise never hear of. I enjoyed going through your reviews. I think they're well-written, warm, and often funny but I'd like to see you cover some films that are more underground - quality stuff that's accessible (preferably on Netflix.) Other than that, I think your blog is great - please keep it up.

Firstly, thank you for the compliments. As for finding quality stuff on Netflix, there are a couple of things I could do to help. I should clarify first that I rarely, if ever, watch films on Netflix. I don’t even have an account myself. When I watch films, I go to the theater, rent them from the video store franchise I used to work at or pull them directly from my extensive collection. With that said, I do have easy access to an account and could check what is “new to Netflix” and see if there’s anything on there that I’ve previously written a review for (whether it’s been posted yet or not) that I could bring to people’s attention. (In theory, I could even watch said films, should I find the time between all of the franchises I have to catch up on). It should also be noted that I live in Canada and our Netflix lineup will vary from other countries’. I’ll see what I can do and again, thanks for the feedback.

#movie reviews #film reviews #movies #films #reviews #netflix #video rental stores #adamwatchesmovies

2 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

Beetlejuice (1988)

Beetlejuice is dark and funny, it’s got characters memorable characters and dialogue, a distinct visual style and once seen, cannot be forgotten. This is director Tim Burton at his very best.

After accidentally driving off a bridge, Barbara (Geena Davis) and Adam (Alec Baldwin) return to Earth as ghosts. To the couple's horror, their home is soon sold and being remodeled by a trendy New York family, mother and “artist” Delia (Catherine O’Hara), laid-back father Charles (Jeffrey Jones), and brooding goth Lydia (Winona Ryder). To help them get rid of these intruders, Barbara and Adam call upon Betelgeuse (pronounced Beetle-Juice and played by Michael Keaton).

It begins with a genius premise. Why do ghosts haunt buildings and always try to scare the living out of there? because they’ve spent their lives trying to get the place perfect and now that they’re dead, a new group of people have moved in and are messing everything up. Beetlejuice takes this idea to an even loonier level. The ghosts in question have no idea what they’re doing. The afterlife is full of contradicting, complicated rules that make no sense. You're frustrated for them, as the people now living in their home are ridiculous and annoying - though admittedly charming in their quirkiness. I got a kick out of Mom, a clueless artist who pumps out those annoying abstract pieces that tread that fine line between brilliant and pretentious trash. Everyone'll latch onto Lydia, the one person who has any sense in her head. She'd be your favorite were it not for Betelgeuse. Michael Keaton steals every scene he's in. He steals the whole movie despite not being in it for that long. As the main character, he'd have been grating. The movie would drive you up the wall. As a supporting role, he’s perfect.

The more you see of Beetlejuice, the more excited you get. It’s filled with so much imagination! There are dozens of crazy characters, all completely different from each other and they live in a world that’s part Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, part Nightmare Before Christmas and all madness.

The look is fresh and the jokes delightfully dark. The top-notch special effects would unsettle, they'd make your stomach churn if you weren't gearing up for a laugh. We're talking about stop-motion creatures and objects, which admittedly can look dated at times, but also give the picture extra charm. It doesn't get much more otherworldly than what you see here.

Accompanying the visuals is an awesome score by Danny Elfman. It's so good you might even be tempted to catch some episode of the spinoff animated series just to get more. My advice? Don't. The Beetlejuice cartoon had little of the charm of this near-masterpiece in its 4-season cluster of bad puns.

The only place Beetlejuice could perhaps use some improvement is in its ending, which is a bit rushed. That’s a small gripe. The movie looks terrific. It’s unique, filled with memorable moments, characters and features a performance by Michael Keaton that will make you forget all about Batman. It's a film that stands out. (On DVD, October 13, 2014)

15 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

Das Boot (1981)

It sounds like a niche category but there are a number of submarine film and Das Boot is the best. The film puts you right into the middle of a battlefield you know little about and have never experienced before, not like this.

During World War II, the German submarine U-96 and its crew of veterans and newcomers set out to patrol the North Atlantic waters, sinking Ally ships while attempting to survive the counterattacks.

What I found most striking about the film - besides its Nazi protagonists - is the claustrophobia felt during it. The U-96 has no windows and the crew largely toll away in these tiny spaces which feel completely separated from the rest of mankind. Their entire world has been stripped of color, of light, of space, and danger is all around them. It doesn't get much more frightening or intense than in the scenes when the crew has to stand perfectly still - as any sound they make is amplified by the water around them and will give away their position. Blindly, the destroyers above drop bombs. The radar operator tries to piece together where all of the rumblings outside are coming from. It's so tense and so genuine you become afraid to break the silence when you see the crew holding their breath.

Before Das Boot, important details of this film would've never dawned on me. When the voyage begins everyone is served fresh fruit, fresh bread and the cooks produce feasts. As time passes, the prime stuff is gone and they have to worry about mold growing on what’s left - the stuff they weren't too eager to have in the first place. Meanwhile, the crew is operating the sub non-stop. While one crew member sleeps in the bed, his “night time” replacement is working and when his shift is over, he takes his turn on the cot. These constant, monotonous shifts are only interrupted by life-threatening danger. The longer it lasts, the more everyone's sanity is put to the test.

We should talk about the film's perspective. We are talking about Nazis here, the bad guys of WWII. Das Boot presents them simply as people, men doing their job who are capable of compassion and who had normal lives before the war. When they see people dying - even on the battlefield - it shakes them. In the middle of battle, they're frightened. War is not glorified. If anything, it's presented as generally boring, very technical and then suddenly overwhelmingly terrifying. In a scene, the crew - tired, dirty, and exhausted - are hailed as heroes by an optimistic Axis officer who regales them with an empty speech about how glorious it must be to serve the Führer. After seeing what the crew has been through, you understand exactly how foolish it is to think there's any virtue in combat.

The cinematography greatly helps the experience. You're so entrenched in the visuals and the characters you'll find yourself hunched over as if it's you being squeezed by the screen's edges. My only real criticism is the running time. This film lasts 149 minutes, and certain scenes are deliberately slow to make you understand what the crew's situation is really like. This means you have to plan out when you're going to sit down with it - 10:00 at night after a long day? probably not the right time. Don't worry, the picture's worth planning your evening around.

Das Boot is a great film, It's fully immersive, exciting, thought-provoking, expertly crafted and unafraid to make the right choices instead of the easy ones. Aside from all of the technical and story-telling elements, it's admirable for the way it makes you feel. Director and screenplay writer Wolfgang Petersen has crafted a unique work and you'll want to experience it the right way, so clear your afternoon of any plans, turn off your cellphone, grab yourself a large soda, a bucket of popcorn and check out Das Boot. (Original German with English subtitles, on DVD, October 10, 2014)

11 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

Love Story (1970)

Oh, I can already feel you cringing. “A movie called Love Story?! How cheesy can you get?” Yes, the title is as subtle as a cannonball through your window. Yes, you've seen this story done before and since too. Ultimately, however, it's the execution that matters.

Told in flashback, Oliver Barrett IV (Ryan O'Neal) is the heir to his family fortune; a jock who falls for a quick-witted, working-class musical student. The film follows their developing relationship through the richer and poorer stages.

What elevates this film past your typical "romance that survives despite the odds" are the details. Our two lead are attractive, but they’re not on a surreal-level. They’re sort of plain-looking, just like you and I (well, maybe just you). You don't instantly foam at the mouth when you see them. This makes you pay attention to what they do and say. You notice the chemistry between the leads. Everything which follows feels so natural. The attraction is immediate Oliver and Jenny is immediate. You feel it. As they spend time together, you get more of their individual personalities and see how they fit together. They have their own in-jokes, a lot of scenes full of witty banter and you fall in love with them both as individuals and as a couple.

The picture is built upon a strong base. Yes, you have seen this story before. It’s the rich guy, the poor girl, the disapproving parents, the conflict between the two lovers who come from different background and all that. It's familiar, sure. Have you seen it done this well before? Originality is a bonus. It's not essential. A good film ultimately stands on its own, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. Besides, there are numerous plot points you won't be able to predict.

If there’s anything to criticize, it’s the editing. During the first half of the film, several scenes end quite abruptly before a radical tonal shift. Your mileage on the film's tagline, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry” may vary as well. If those are the only criticisms I could give to Love Story, that’s quite a feat. The performances are strong, reinforcing the idea that what's important in any romance is the actors, their chemistry and talent, not just good looks. The characters - as individuals and as a couple - are likable, the story tender and despite my initial cynicism, I was swept up in it. This love story intelligently portrays its drama. It was a box office smash upon initial release but I don't often hear people talk about Love Story. It's an opportunity. This film is just waiting to be discovered and for you to fall for it. Love Story more than earns its title. (On DVD, October 26, 2014)

#love story #love story movie review #love story film review #love story review #movies #films #reviews #movie reviews #film reviews #Arthur hiller #Ali macgraw #Ryan o'neal #1970 movies #1970 films #adamwatchesmovies #4.5 star movies #4.5 star movie reviews

7 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

An American Werewolf in London (1981)

October is the month of the year where you get a craving for horror films. You want to see the best of the best. All of a sudden you come to the niche category that is “werewolf movies”. Which one do I watch? Without a doubt, An American Werewolf in London is the king.

Americans David (David Naughton) and Jack (Griffin Dunne) are backpacking in the U.K. when they are attacked by a werewolf. Jack is killed and David thrown into a coma. When he wakes up, you know what’s going to happen; the title says it all.

Something about werewolf stories naturally lends them well to comedy. Maybe that’s why An American Werewolf in London is so successful. There are many laughs in this picture and they never feel out of place. Whether it's a sly little wink at the audience (like the entire soundtrack being composed of songs that have the word “moon” in the title) or a bloodbath inside a movie theater, there are just enough smiles to make you forget you're about to be scared... until it's too late.

Speaking of the scares, this movie’s scary werewolf moments are strengthened by unbelievable special effects. I have no idea how they pulled off the film's money shot.- the first full transformation. It's a moment so good it's worth watching the whole picture for it alone.

What happens when there's no werewolf on-screen? Don’t tell me we only get a couple of scenes with the beast or - even worse - they pull one of those lame tricks where it’s a full moon every night or something like that! That’s where writer/director John Landis pulls one clever move after another. He comes up with such a great twist on the werewolf curse thing I’m surprised no one's even attempted to rip it off. There is a great variety of horrific scenarios and moments, ensuring none of what you see is ever repetitive or stale.

Now let's get to the characters. There are no stupid teenagers or idiotic authority figures that deny the presence of a werewolf despite damning evidence here. Everyone is likable, meaning you care what happens to them when they're in peril. I particularly enjoyed the moments of friendship between David and Jack. These guys are sassing each other non-stop. You can tell that it’s because they’ve been through all sorts of crazy adventures (none like this one though). I also found myself invested in the love plot between David and the girl who takes a liking to him, Alex (Jenny Agutter). They have a sweet, genuine romance. Now you're cheering for more than just the killings to stop; you want the two to have a happy ending! Is it even possible with all these scary werewolf moments? Well, the best ever use of Creedence Clearwater Revival's 'Bad Moon Rising' give us hope.

The script is smart and inventive, the jokes consistently funny and utilized to balance the scares well. An American Werewolf in London is probably best known for its awesome special effects and terrific transformation sequences, but that’s just one of the many things which make it great. This is what horror fans dream of, the kind of picture that'll help you convert your significant other or friends who just "don't like to be scared". I can’t think of anything about it I didn’t like and, more importantly, feel excited just thinking about sharing it. An American Werewolf in London is a must-see. (On DVD, October 17, 2014)

#an American werewolf in london #an American werewolf in London review #movies #films #reviews #werewolves #movie reviews #film reviews #horror movies #John landis #David naughton #Jenny agutter #griffin dunne #John woodvine #1981 movies #1981 films #5 star movies #5 star movie reviews #adamwatchesmovies

6 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

Battleship (2012)

There are moments when Battleship is dumb fun. The rest of the time, it features dull human characters and highlights its poorly-written script. It'll have you wishing you were watching Michael Bay's brand CGI-bloated films instead of this knockoff.

Based on the board game by Hasbro, hotshot naval lieutenant Alex (Taylor Kitsch) is thrust in the middle of an alien invasion when extraterrestrial ships crash in the middle of a navy training exercise. Trapped behind a forcefield, the three ships' crew, along with a group of scattered civilians nearby (which include Brooklyn Decker as Alex's girlfriend, Sam) must stop the invaders before they call for reinforcements.

Surprisingly, the parts where Battleship resembles its namesake is where the movie works best. It's silly but there's something amusing about the humans blindly shooting at coordinates (B-4!) hoping to hit the alien ships. Responding in kind, the invaders attack not with lasers or missiles but with giant explosive pegs. Just like in the game. Ridiculous, but awesome. Perfectly at home with their enormous killer yoyos which speed through streets and trash everything in their path with their tail. When Battleship is being as dumb and as flashy as you'd expect it to be, you can have fun with it, and at its expense.

The real problem stems from the astoundingly poor writing. Significant time is dedicated to sexy, but boring Brooklyn Decker running around with a double amputee U.S. Army veteran Mick Canales (Gregory D. Gadson). The less of them we get, the better. Not helping are the aliens they face who, when outside of their ships look ridiculous.

I have to take a moment to talk about these aliens. These are some of the dumbest, most backward-assed would-be conquerors. Why do their ships sail on the water? They don't look like an aquatic civilization, so it's lucky their ships happen to be able to navigate on the ocean. Next is their persistent ADHD. These aliens, are somehow able to assess which objects, people and ships are threats to their mission... sometimes. If you’re shooting at them, they peg you as a threat. If you stop shooting, they ignore you. It's obvious they didn't stand a chance from the get-go, as their vehicles are so poorly designed they're unable to aim at anything unless it is directly in front of them. The alien battleships literally have to spin around to shoot at something. And these were their scouts?

Because of the film’s insistence on including real-world naval officers as often as possible, it features a number of poor performances. Because this is clearly a generic alien invasion movie with the Battleship theme tacked on, the action is often focussed on the wrong characters. Because the characters aren’t particularly compelling, and the villains unoriginal, the movie's not interesting. It lasts over two hours and offers nothing, save for some special effects. Even for a movie based on a board game, Battleship is bad. (On DVD, October 10, 2014)

5 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

Inuyasha the Movie: Affections Touching Across Time (2004)

Unless you’re a fan of the Inuyasha TV show, there nothing in Inuyasha the Movie: Affections Touching Across Time for you. Even for fans of the series, there’s nothing about this 100-minute movie that’s any better than watching a 5-episode story arc.

Kagome (Moneca Stori) is a normal 16-year-old who falls into her family's well. The plunge transports her back in time to feudal Japan where she finds a half-demon named Inuyasha (Richard Ian Cox), the two go on a search for the shards of the Shikon Jewel, which empower any demon who possesses them and when reassembled, has the ability to turn Inuyasha into a full demon. Having fallen for him, Kagome hopes to convince him, instead to become fully human. On their quest, Kagome and Inuyasha are joined by a cursed lecherous monk named Miroku (Kirby Morrow) and a female demon hunter Sango (Kelly Sheridan).

Our heroes now face a powerful new enemy, the insect-affiliated Menomaru (Vincent Gale), who seeks to use the power of Inuyasha’s sword, the Tetseiga, in order to rule the world.

The obvious love and dramatic plots which receive minimal development in order to string the audience along, the overabundance of comic relief characters are flaws found in the TV series and are therefore "not this film's fault". The problem with Inuyasha the Movie is the same you can expect from any number of movies based on television series from Japan: the film has no consequences or bearings on the story whatsoever. The personalities of the characters are not developed further and they don't learn anything new or experience injuries that will haunt them later, no one gets killed, no new ground is broken at all. You could be a huge fan of the Inuyasha show, never even hear about this movie and not notice.

The plot is exactly like the plot of the television show. We are introduced to a bad guy and, surprise, surprise, it’s a demon. This time, however, he’s not after the shards of the Shikon jewel but after ultimate power! What is he going to do after he kills every living thing on Earth? Nobody knows because he never speaks or dreams of anything else. Menomaru is a bland, one-dimensional villain. He has two sexy female sidekicks but they don’t really have personalities either, just colourful powers to distract Sango and Miroku while Inuyasha and Kagome save the day. Instead of showing Inuyasha’s half-brother Sesshomaru and making teenage girls SQUEE pointlessly, how about pushing something, ANYTHING, further?

The dialogue in the film is frustrating and repetitive. It’s typical in Japanese television to have characters spell out what is happening, but is it necessary to have it in the English dub as well? I can tell that Inuyasha is passing out because his eyes are glazing over and he is starting to lose his balance. I don’t need him to tell me. As for the story itself, it alternates between nutty and cliché-ridden. There is a part where some of Inuyasha’s teammates get mind controlled by one of Menomaru’s minions. What do you bet the thing that breaks the spell is either friendship or love? Give me a break. I also really don’t think the people who wrote the film understand how time travel works. As Menomaru's power grows, he begins draining power from the future, which plunges Japan in a perpetual winter. Wouldn’t that create all kinds of weird time paradoxes?

On a technical level, the movie isn’t particularly impressive either. The animation is about as good as the TV show, with a scene of badly integrated CGI thrown in to show us how awesome Menomaru’s powers are. You’ve got all of the typical anime action movie tropes on display. This, combined with the abundant exposition makes it easy to follow.

Affections Touching Across Time isn’t terrible, but it’s completely inconsequential. It’s only for die-hard fans of the television series that just can’t get enough of it, even when it gets repetitive. If you do see it, stick around for a post-credit scene. (English dub on DVD, September 17, 2014)

6 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

The Princess Diaries (2001)

And now for a grown man to review a turn of the millennium film where Anne Hathaway finds out she’s actually a princess. It’s Disney’s Princess Diaries.

Mia (Anne Hathaway) is a regular, schlumpy teenager. She has bad hair, a retainer, goofy glasses, few friends, and a weird artist of a mother (Caroline Goodall). She pines after the hottest guy in class (Erik von Detten) and frequently finds herself in embarrassing situations. A few weeks away from her sixteenth birthday, she receives word that her absentee grandmother (Julie Andrews) is coming to visit. Upon her arrival, she informs Mia that she is the princess of Genovia.

This premise is a dream-come-true if you’re a prepubescent girl and hackneyed for everyone else. Apparently, Mia didn’t even go to her father’s funeral when he died a few months ago, otherwise, she would've realized who she was. Or maybe she didn't want to, as he was the ultimate deadbeat dad. Dude lived in a castle and never invited her over, citing it would spoil her. As for Grandma, she's made no efforts to contact her granddaughter until absolutely necessary.

Mia’s character isn’t particularly interesting because she’s bland in an effort to make her more relatable to the audience. She isn’t actually ugly because that would require her to get plastic surgery (Something that’s expensive) in order to become the beautiful swan that she will be in the end. She just needs a good makeover and BAM! Total hottie. She’s clumsy (to the point of barely functional as she accidentally sets a man on fire at one point), shy, not particularly interested or good at sports and has no discernable hobbies except for pining after the cutest guy in school. It’s basically the female protagonist from every bad romantic comedy shrunk down to high-school size. The rest of the characters are similarly cliché. Grandma is stern but grows soft as she spends more time with her granddaughter. Who knew that to turn a crotchety older lady into a sweet grandmother, all you needed to do was ride in a junker of a car for an afternoon and chomp on some hot dogs? Mia’s mom is an artist that loves to do quirky, eccentric paintings that may or may not embarrass her daughter... if she ever wandered outside of the house. Mia’s best friend Lily (Heather Matarazzo) is primarily in the movie to give a few words of advice and have a scene where Mia’s princess life interferes with their friendship. Not much else really. It’s all stuff you’ve seen before, many, many times.

I am not the intended audience for the film. That only goes so far. Even someone who is not into martial arts action films can see a film featuring Jackie Chan to recognize the fantastic stunt work. You don't have to be a musician to appreciate the songs in a musical. You can understand the appeal of Princess Diaries, but there’s nothing about it that stands out. It’s just a junior version of a better movie. Which one? Take your pic! There are countless films and television shows with a premise so similar to this film’s that you can see pretty much every plot point coming.

A major issue with the film that I had was Mia’s attitude towards the whole princess thing. Seriously? You get news from your Grandmother that you can leave high school and go live in a castle, wear real jewelry and one day inherit the power to rule a country and you say you’re not interested? Come on!

Princess Diaries does have a few charming moments, mostly due to the cast. Particularly strong are Anne Hathaway (in her screen debut) and Julie Andrews. It’s harmless and mostly tolerable for adults, but there’s nothing to this and the idea of paying to see the film in theaters or to buy it on DVD is scandalous. Had it not been for the star power, it would fade into obscurity. Princess Diaries is just kind of bland in the end. (On DVD, September 24, 2014)

4 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

Leprechaun In the Hood (2000)

After enduring Leprechaun 4: In Space I knew I had nothing left to fear. There was no way the rest of the series could be as atrocious as that sci-fi abortion. I was right. Does that mean that Leprechaun 5 a.k.a. Leprechaun In the Hood is good? Not at all but it is a step up for the franchise.

As is par for the course by this point, this film has nothing to do with any of the previous chapters. When three aspiring young rap artists: "Postmaster P." (Anthony Montgomery), "Stray Bullet" (Rashaan Nall) and "Butch" (Red Grant) find themselves hard on cash on the eve of a big rap competition, they decide to burglarize the house of rich pimp Mack Daddy O’Nassas (Ice-T). In the process, they awaken the Leprechaun (Warwick Davis) and steal his magical flute. Armed with fly zombie women, vaguely established powers and a penchant for marijuana, the spawn of hell begins a killing spree that can only end when his treasure is given back to him.

At first, I was amused. While we're dealing with rappers, pimps and the same stereotypes as always, I can’t remember the last time I saw what is essentially an all-black cast in a horror movie. While I wouldn’t shine a spotlight on anyone's acting skills the performances are more than sufficient (and that extends to some of the supporting cast like Ice-T) considering this is Leprechaun 5. There may have actually been some mild amount of ambition when the project began!

This is nevertheless a shoddy creation. The editing and camera work is terrible. Large chunks of dialogue are obviously dubbed, probably due to lackluster first takes which were never reshot. This would explain the footage from previous scenes used to try and smooth over transitions and dialogue exchanged between actors I'm not convinced were actually in the same room at the time. Even these numerous editing tricks barely make the story coherent.

I hate how there’s absolutely no consistency in the series. The Leprechaun’s powers change every single time and when someone doesn’t explain to us the rules, every plot point feels like it comes out of nowhere. When the Leprechaun boasted that he was going to send his army of fly zombie ladies to help get his magic flute back... I assumed that he meant like half-insect, half-human decaying corpses. Something like the monster from #4. Turns out he meant “fly” as in “hot” and “zombie” means “possessed via magic”. Whatever.

This film’s conclusion makes no sense. Scenes cut off to imply one thing, and then the opposite happens. People discover very specific facts or objects (including 4-leaf clovers, which are supposed to be really rare) willy-nilly so the plot can keep moving. I couldn’t believe how they decided to end this movie. What were they thinking? That it would be funny?

Committing my thoughts to paper really makes me question things. And to think, there's more coming? What am I doing with my life? Let’s conclude by saying that on top of the weak special effects, we’ve got a lot of happening with no rhyme or reason, bad writing, groan-inducing singing/rapping, awkward jokes that are aimed at an audience that doesn’t exist and some bad writing. Yes, I'm including this criticism twice. I’m talking overall story, and the dialogue, particularly the rhymes delivered by the Leprechaun, which are horrendous. Even the rap numbers usually just feature 2-3 lines simply repeated over and over, as if the ones we got were so good that it would excuse no subsequent material.

The best thing I can say about Leprechaun In The Hood is that it isn’t the worst to date. It’s a gimmicky horror comedy with a crappy gimmick and even ironically, I can’t imagine anyone truly having a good time with it. (Letterboxed version on DVD, June 24, 2015)

3 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

You Kill Me (2007)

You Kill Me is a solid dark comedy with a terrific premise. You can tell the big name stars agreed to partake in it because they loved the script.

Ben Kingsley plays Frank, a hitman for Buffalo's Polish Mafia. I bet you didn’t even know they were a thing. Part of this might be due to their hitman, who is a hopeless drunk. After Frank botches an important hit, his uncle (Philip Baker Hall) sends him to San Francisco to sober up. He begins attending AA meetings and while getting his life in order, pays the bills by working at a funeral home.

For a movie about an assassin who wants to sober up so he can resume murdering people, You Kill Me actually has quite a few moments of genuine sweetness. At work, Frank meets Laurel (Téa Leoni) and the actors have such terrific chemistry you really want them to get together. What could have easily been the dullest part of the film, the romance, becomes one of its strongest suits. You're invested in them but wary of what'll come next. The odds are stacked high against them because of Frank’s drinking alone.

The criminal elements are also well done. It’s a spot-on blend of humor with a couple of thrills here and there. This counterweights the story of a man trying to overcome his addiction the funeral home subplot well. There’s very little - if anything - that doesn’t work.

You Kill Me is an unexpected treat. As it begins, you have no idea where it'll go and this makes you eager to see what comes next. The mix of genres and various plot threads makes the pace quick so you're never overwhelmed or bored. You wonder why you should want him to get back into the killing game until you hear Frank's arguments for professionalism and dark as it may be, you're convinced. It's funny and sweet, even maybe inspiring in a way? It’s the kind of movie you can impress your friends with by bringing it to your group movie night. I guarantee this little gem flew right under everyone one of their radars. (On DVD, October 9, 2014)

2 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

The Tortured (2010)

The Tortured deserves some credit. As far as torture horror goes, it’s more ambitious than your usual entry. It doesn't pan out in the end but at least there was an attempt.

Craig (Jesse Metcalfe) and Elise (Erika Christensen) were a loving couple, the proud parents of 6-year-old Benjamin until their son was kidnapped. When police found the boy, he had already been tortured to death by a demented lunatic (Bill Moseley). When the sentence handed out to the killer isn’t serious enough in their eyes, the two take justice in their own hands.

This revenge scenario is a good one, a thought we've all entertained at least once. In this scenario, would we cheer for the mourning parents or could our sympathy eventually turn towards the one being punished? You may find the answer not as easy as initially believed. For this, The Tortured deserves some marks.

The problems are the ham-fisted characters and convoluted developments. It’s not enough for Bill Moseley to be a child killer; he's the ultimate child killer. He keeps taxidermy animals in his basement, plays creepy music in his house, has a mass grave in his backyard, tortures small animals, keeps creepy pets, and decorates his home with weird images of sinister clowns. He wears a tiara, puts on makeup and yells at himself. The only thing he isn't is a rapist - so thank goodness for some restraint, right? Benjamin, on the other hand, is just the sweetest, nicest boy you’ve ever seen. The kid is six years old and the last words he says to his mother is “Love you, mommy. Why do you have to go to work?”. It’s a cheap gimmick to get the audience to sympathize with the parents - as if we didn't already.

The characters are the least of this picture's issues. This story is ridiculous. Craig and Elise's plan to kidnap the killer was flimsy, to say the least. There's no way, NO WAY it should work. From there, it feels like a bad soap opera. For starters, Elise has no idea what the killer looks like. She’s never seen the man or heard what his voice sounds like so when he develops amnesia, she's unsure they've even captured the correct person. Give me a break.

The Tortured winds up making no sense and the moments of forced sentimentality cheapen it. Even gore hounds are unlikely to enjoy this collaboration between director Robert Lieberman and writer Marek Posival. There are unsettling implications but the execution is bad. I'd endure at least one cigarette burn to the chest to see what happens to these people 6 months after these events happen and the police begin asking questions. Obviously, it never dawned on the production team.

The Tortured could've worked. The badly written story and nonsensical moments destroy all of its potential and believability. The lame turns will make you feel icky even before the conclusion, which downright sucks. It’s unfair to compare The Tortured with the much bigger budget Prisoners but in a world where both exist, there's no reason to see this film. (On DVD, October 7, 2014)

2 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

Good Deeds (2012)

Tyler Perry’s Good Deeds is somewhere down the middle, the kind of drama that'll occupy your time as long as you have nothing else to do.

Wesley Deeds (Tyler Perry, who also writes and directs), has been raised to be a gentleman from day one and has no wild side whatsoever. He's prim and proper to the point of being bland. He is engaged to Natalie (Gabrielle Union), but it feels like a business decision than true love. When Wesley meets Lindsey (Thandie Newton), a poor janitor who's suddenly found herself without a home and barely manages to take care of her daughter, she injects a much-needed fire in his life. But will their friendship turn into an affair that'll tear their lives apart? Will Wesley’s evil brother, Walter, use this connection as a way to wrench the company he wants away from his brother? It would be kind of Shakespearean if it wasn’t so overblown.

Thandie Newton is pretty good in her dramatic scenes and it feels like Tyler Perry has given himself a role that is up to the task. He’s not great at emoting, but neither is the character of Wesley Deeds. There’s something inherently likable about a Cinderella type of story where a lady who’s got nothing gets brought out of the gutter and of one where a guy that’s unhappy with his life finds a way to love it. These central elements carry you through the film.

Despite an underlying appeal, Good Deeds is overgrown with problems; the biggest being its persistent blandness. Your heart will break a bit when the world dumps buckets of dirty cat litter over Lindsey's head (not literally) but much of her problems are her own fault. Her car is towed because she left it in a reserved parking spot. When her money gets stolen, you wonder why she didn't just keep it in a bank account instead of on her person. Wesley offers to help her and she turns him down. You figure she's probably suspicious because he’s a rich guy and she’s an attractive woman (you can tell even though she’s majorly dressed down in this film), but you feel like slapping her in the face and telling her that beggars can’t be choosers! At the very least take those leftover slices of pizza with you, come on!

I meant it when I said this was Shakespearean-like but not good. Everyone talks in such a prim and proper ways you expect them to slowly transition to old English. You’ve got the younger brother who is the mother’s favorite and the older, irresponsible one who cannot contain his rage while he schemes on the side. Walter Deeds (Brian J. White) is downright cartoonish. He's always angry and jealous. That's it. Faring a bit better is mother Deeds (Phylicia Rashad). At least she has the semblance of a character arc. With how dull and desperately wholesome Wesley is, you roll your eyes.

And yet, it never goes all the way. You assume Wesley's fiancée doesn't love him because she repeatedly complains about how boring he is. Surely she's only marrying him for money or power... but no. I was genuinely shocked when we see Wesley and Natalie have a heart-to-heart conversation and establish that they actually, truly love each other. I know the opposite would've been a cliché, but it would've injected some life into the film.

Good Deeds ultimately isn’t much of anything. This film lays it on thick but it’s still not as bad as you think. Actually, it could stand to be worse. That would make it more interesting. If you’re a fan of Tyler Perry's films and plays, it'll be right up your alley, but otherwise, it’s just forgettable. (On DVD, September 26, 2014)

#Good Deeds #GoodDeeds #movies #films #reviews #movie reviews #film reviews #Tyler Perry #Thandie newton #Brian J. white #Rebecca romijn #jamie kennedy #Phylicia rashad #Gabrielle union #2012 movies #2012 films #2.5 star movies #2.5 star movie reviews #adamwatchesmovies

2 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

Lord of the Flies (1963)

The 1963 adaptation of Lord of the Flies is a triumph unlike any other. There are technical flaws in it; obvious voiceovers and portions of the film where characters are clearly dubbed, at points, it's clear the non-actors are waiting for their cues and the performances can be rocky... during the beginning of the story. What'll blow your mind is that the bad acting actually works in the film’s favor. Hear me out.

Set during WWII, a plane of schoolchildren crashes near an uninhabited island somewhere in the ocean. The adults on board are killed. Once the sun rises, the surviving kids organize. Ralph (James Aubrey, who can’t be more than 10) is appointed the leader and prepares them for the "inevitable rescue". It doesn’t take long for this improvised civilization to collapse, an action that is prompted by the children’s fear of “the beast”, a monster that supposedly comes out at night when everything is dark.

Bad acting usually spells doom for a film. Here, it enhances everything. When the children have to "pretend" to be scared of being on their own, it's as though director Peter Brook has to poke them with sticks so they know when to utter their dialogue. I suspected (until I gave up and found no proof to support my theory) the film was shot in chronological order, which would explain why, as the story progresses and the makeshift civilization crumbles, the performances become so good. It's possible the young performers (many of which never acted again) became more comfortable with their roles and the real-life island this adaptation of William Golding's novel was shot on. More probable is the frightening idea that once allowed to do as they pleased and embrace the wilderness, they became comfortable. When you see them dancing around the fire, covered in warpaint and chanting improvised songs about violence, it isn’t only believable, it’s terrifying. Gone are the cute faces directed to say how scared they are. Instead, you expect their eyes to glow with a demonic shine. I doubt even their parents would've recognized them.

Every second feels like a documentary, rather than a classic book acted out. Shots are often eerily still while a young boy makes his way silently through the strange foliage, or so quiet they raise shivers down your spine. The film is shot in black-and-white, and it helps make it feel authentic. It isn’t a big-budget adaptation of a classic book, and it doesn’t feel like it’s trying to be either. The jungle isn't some green paradise, but a place from which there is no escape. You can't see where the children's faces begin and where the leaves end. As their clothes become tattered, they become one with it.

It never feels as though Peter Brook ever had a tight grip on the film's reigns, which helps the picture's realism. As the boys become enamored with the idea of hunting and lose interest in rescue, they begin tearing off their clothes and painting their faces, arms, and chests. In a big-budget production, professional makeup artists would've made the children look extra savage by making their faces look like skulls or drawing complex designs to make them look intimidating. Far more unsettling is the knowledge these boys did this to themselves. The crude marks become more frightening than any purposely scary design could ever be. These primal designs aren’t mere fictions but something present inside them, and perhaps us.

This interpretation of Lord of the Flies doesn’t owe its success merely to the source material. To see it is to live it. You're left shaken not because it contains gore, rape or any complicated ideas, but because it contains a single truth we've tried to bury but still beats deep within. At first, you'll have doubts about Lord of the Flies, but once unleashed, it reveals itself a masterpiece that gets better the more you think about it. (On DVD, September 5, 2014)

#lord of the flies #lord of the flies movie review #movies #films #reviews #movie reviews #film reviews #lord of the flies review #peter brook #william golding #james aubrey #1963 movies #1963 films #5 star movies #5 star movie reviews #adamwatchesmovies

8 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 5 years

Text

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Many aren’t going to like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. In fact, you might even hate it. Even if you do, you have to admit that it’s like nothing else, and a very memorable film.

Set in 1971, this story about Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp) and his lawyer/partner in crime Dr. Gonzo (Benicio Del Toro) doesn’t really have a plot. Officially, they're traveling to Las Vegas to cover the Mint 400 motorcycle race, but by indulging in copious amounts of drugs along the way, the assignment turns into a string of drug-fuelled episodes with only brief moments of lucidity.

Fear and Loathing is more experience than actual narrative. Here, you watch without any idea of where anything is going, just like the characters involved. You are treated to bizarre sights that make no sense and you struggle to understand what they meant. Since most come and go without warning or explanation, you conclude that they didn’t mean anything. It’s as if you've been slipped some mind-altering substance yourself; The repetitive, aimless story will make you zone in and out. Like you, Duke and Gonzo lapse in and out of consciousness, living for the moment without any idea of what is going to happen tomorrow, or right now. When you manage to make sense of what's going on, it's due to a random moment of hilarity or a development that’s simply too extreme to ignore. In a way, the film transcends the screen.

If that all sounds a little bit too artsy, consider seeing the film for Johnny Depp, incredible in the lead role. Some credit goes to screenplay writers Terry Gilliam (who also directs, of course), Tony Grisoni, Alex Cox and Tod Davies, who adapted the book by the Hunter S. Thompson, but Depp takes what could have been a disastrous role and turns it into one memorable delivery after another. His mannerisms and drug-fuelled remarks, from the very first bit of dialogue all the way to the end, make this a picture you can’t forget. The film’s scatterbrained narrative means every time you watch it, you’ll catch something new. One of these adventures would be a great icebreaker at a party. All of them, crammed in a weekend like this is overwhelming. You don’t know whether to laugh or scream.

Another standout element is the visuals. Fear and Loathing features a great variety of special effects. No two scenes are alike, and some of the sights delivered are so weird they permanently imprint themselves in your mind.

It’s the kind of movie you don’t know if you’re going to like unless you give it a shot. Even if you’re not a fan of non-linear stories, it's sheer originality demands to be seen. If the aimless, sometimes boring plot isn't doing it for you, consider how similar your experience of watching the film is to the characters in it. Look beyond what you traditionally associate with something you like, consider how it makes you feel. I’m not sure what you call the experience that is watching Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and there's a reason there's nothing else quite like it out there but any serious fan of film should see it at least once. (On DVD, July 25, 2014)

19 notes · View notes

adamwatchesmovies · 4 years

Text

Darwin’s Nightmare (2004)

Darwin’s Nightmare is illuminating but can also come off as absent-minded or misleading. The film will leave you with a lot of mixed feelings, but it’s definitely worth checking out and once its message sinks it, makes a strong impact.

From the title, you'd expect the film to be focussed on the Nile Perch, a species of fish introduced into Lake Victoria (Africa's second largest lake) in the 1960’s. The species ravaged the ecosystem and is now exported by the tons worldwide. Director Hubert Sauper also brings attention to the people of Angola, who live in appalling conditions.

I learned a lot watching Darwin's Nightmare. It’s one thing to hear about the poverty of Africa but this is a whole other thing. The economy is so bad teachers have been laid off and many children are left to their own devices. Many melt the foam used to package fish filets to make glue which they sniff to get high. Meanwhile, fishermen cheat on their wives with the prostitutes who frequent the lake's shores and contract AIDS. They pass it on to their spouses and, once they die from the disease, the women are left with little options but to become prostitutes themselves, repeating the cycle. Meanwhile, there's abundant food right there but none of it is staying inside the country and the people are starving.

Lake Victoria is a truly unique situation. Most of the time, an invasive species is hated by the locals but the Nile Perch has been embraced and turned into a huge industry. While at first the fishes, the AIDS epidemic, the civil wars, and the starvation seem to be haphazardly thrown in to be the most dramatic documentary possible, everything is connected, confirming that the planet's problems are everyone's problems. I was shocked to hear that many of the people would love to see a war break out because it would mean well-paying, government jobs. How desperate do you have to be to wish for war?

What severely hinders the movie is the lack of focus. Is the documentary about this fish species thriving in Lake Victoria? about the arms dealing happening right under everyone's nose? about the lives of a people whose lack of education and money has created a living hell? about the prostitutes who are both the victims and the proliferators of HIV? about a corrupt government turning away from its starving citizens? It’s all of those and none at the same time. It feels like the film began as a documentary about the Nile Perch, but once on location the director kept getting distracted by other subjects and decided that he wanted this new footage to be the focus of the film instead. You understand why so many subjects are being brought forth but perhaps this should've been a miniseries instead of a 107-minute film. We’re told that the Nile Perch was introduced as an experiment in the 1960’s but never by whom or what the experiment was about.

Darwin’s Nightmare is flawed but very much worth seeing. It brings forward many different topics and the lack of focus can be frustrating. Give it time and you'll see how they're all connected. It's an eye-opening and thought-provoking documentary. (On DVD, September 14, 2014)

#darwin's nightmare #darwin's nightmare movie review #darwin's nightmare film review #movies #films #reviews #movie reviews #film reviews #documentaries #4 star movies #4 star movie reviews #adamwatchesmovies

2 notes · View notes