Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Jeff Daniels stars as an arachnophobe doctor who moves into a small town, which is besieged by a deadly species of spiders.
Loved
Scary spiders.
Liked
Characters.
Thoughts
Much more fun than I expected.
Like most people, I'm naturally a little skeeved out by spiders, and the movie does a great job of playing off of that. They spring out at the screen, crawl all over body parts, and act creepy. The experience was further enhanced by making them venomous and prone to overpopulate. I'm surprised that no one's working on a 3D remake as we speak.
Director Frank Marshall had a great sense of timing. I was definitely on edge watching these evil little things sneak upon their unsuspecting victims, with the occasional (sometime hilarious) close calls.
It also helped that the movie was full of likable characters. Jeff Daniels was very believable in showing how the fear is truly paralyzing. (A friend of mine has a minor case of it.) So you end up really rooting for him and feeling his dread every time he's cornered with one of the creepy crawlers. The rest of the cast was well-fleshed out too. Instead of mindless mobs, there were definitely subplots with town folk coming from different points of view as the bodies pile up.
Knowing that this movie was made pre-CGI, it made the animal wrangling even more impressive. It felt like 90% of the spiders' screen time was from real live spiders, making the creep factor even more authentic. The rest of the time was skillful camera tricks and animatronics. Watching it two decades later, the special effects held up surprisingly well.
The movie wasn't perfect. It's got some of that 1980's movie sensibility about it. No cute animals got killed, you pretty much know who's going to survive the invasion, and occasionally characters do dumb horror movie things. The biggest culprit being the "spider expert" just carelessly wandering into the main boss's den without support. How the super spider invades the idyllic town was cheesy, and so was the, um, flaming spider. But overall, I don't think they're really flaws, because they add to the light-hearted and escapism tone of the movie.
I had a blast watching Arachnophobia, thanks to effective creepiness, solid characters, and occasional cheesy charm. It had a nice roller coaster feel, in which I was freaked out during the ride, but relaxed and smiling afterward.
Showing posts with label 1990. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1990. Show all posts
Back to the Future III
Viewed in
2009
Premise
In the conclusion to the trilogy, Marty goes back to 1885 to save Doc after the events from the second film.
Who should watch
Fans of the franchise.
Thoughts
A surprisingly strong rebound to complete the trilogy.
I liked this better than the second film, because it felt more like the first film. It was less reliant on special effects (to hide its dated-ness), and the 1880's America was believable (such as Doc's refrigerator). The time-travel stuff was simplified and easy to understand. As a stroke of genius, many themes come full circle, even though the loop closed in 1885, well before the other events occurred.
The Clint Eastwood jokes cracked me up, especially calling him a yellow-bellied coward. Also, Doc Brown's love subplot was adorable and actually did not distract from the main story.
My main complaint was that the arch-nemesis aspect was sorely lacking. While it was the same actor, the Buford character (Biff's relative) should have been a bigger influence on the storyline. It's just not the same without a Tennan lurking in every corner.
This excellent sequel somewhat alleviates the flaws of Part II, and completes one of the most re-watchable film trilogies in history.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
If you listen to the last part of the credits, you'll hear a premature version of the 'Forrest Gump' theme, obviously by the same composer.
2009
Premise
In the conclusion to the trilogy, Marty goes back to 1885 to save Doc after the events from the second film.
Who should watch
Fans of the franchise.
Thoughts
A surprisingly strong rebound to complete the trilogy.
I liked this better than the second film, because it felt more like the first film. It was less reliant on special effects (to hide its dated-ness), and the 1880's America was believable (such as Doc's refrigerator). The time-travel stuff was simplified and easy to understand. As a stroke of genius, many themes come full circle, even though the loop closed in 1885, well before the other events occurred.
The Clint Eastwood jokes cracked me up, especially calling him a yellow-bellied coward. Also, Doc Brown's love subplot was adorable and actually did not distract from the main story.
My main complaint was that the arch-nemesis aspect was sorely lacking. While it was the same actor, the Buford character (Biff's relative) should have been a bigger influence on the storyline. It's just not the same without a Tennan lurking in every corner.
This excellent sequel somewhat alleviates the flaws of Part II, and completes one of the most re-watchable film trilogies in history.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
If you listen to the last part of the credits, you'll hear a premature version of the 'Forrest Gump' theme, obviously by the same composer.
Bonfire of the Vanities
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Tom Hanks stars as a rich New Yorker caught in a political firestorm when he runs over a poor black kid.
Liked
The lyrical dialogue.
Hated
Director Brian De Palma's distracting camerawork, casting choice of Bruce Willis as the reporter.
Thoughts
Not as bad as I've been told.
There were at times that it was more fun to listen to than to watch, including great speeches and witty word choices. I thought the plot was pretty interesting, and the cultural, racial, class, ethics clashes fueling the media/political frenzy. It was fun in a pulpy way to watch these sleazy people crawling all over each other to obtain their glory.
The cast was quite interesting, with Morgan Freeman, F. Murray Abraham, Melanie Griffith, Kim Cattral, super-young Kirsten Dunst, (oh, that guy!) Richard Belzer, and Shia LaBeouf's dad from the Transformers movies. And Geraldo Rivera as a reporter.
I recall Tom Hanks getting all sorts of negative backlash for taking such a "despicable" role as the spoiled WASP. Watching it twenty years later, Hanks' character as a cheating husband/shrewd businessman was totally tame. Granted this was his first foray into drama, but his casting was not the main failure of this movie. I think the backlash was simply blown out of proportion.
There were many flaws, the main offense was director Brian De Palma's insistence on jamming his style down the audience's throats. The first scene was an impressive, though pointless, elaborate one-take shot of Bruce Willis attending his book debut party. After that, it was like a non-stop parade of trick shots with dolly's, cranes, extreme closeups, and whatnot. It was so distracting.
While I did not see a problem with Hanks attempting a flawed character role, I do think he was slightly miscast. His drama acting chops were not there yet. He would have been fantastic if they made this movie ten years later. Willis' casting, on the other hand, was incredibly poor. Never for a moment did I believe him as a down-and-out alcoholic sleazeball journalist.
I have not read the Tom Wolfe's novel, but it did not seem to translate well to film. I could tell by the monologues. Individually, they were poetic, vibrant speeches. However, each of those scenes put the movie's pace into a screeching halt. Such wonderful diatribes and rants work great in novel form, but not usually for a motion picture.
After reading Ebert's review, he also pointed out the novel's difficulty to translate to film. He pointed out the novel's sly sense of humor and portrayal of each character's internal struggles, and there was very little of that noticed by me when watching.
It was ambitious, and I appreciate the effort, but just not meant to be.
What I would change
Recast Bruce Willis with someone who looked more weary.
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Tom Hanks stars as a rich New Yorker caught in a political firestorm when he runs over a poor black kid.
Liked
The lyrical dialogue.
Hated
Director Brian De Palma's distracting camerawork, casting choice of Bruce Willis as the reporter.
Thoughts
Not as bad as I've been told.
There were at times that it was more fun to listen to than to watch, including great speeches and witty word choices. I thought the plot was pretty interesting, and the cultural, racial, class, ethics clashes fueling the media/political frenzy. It was fun in a pulpy way to watch these sleazy people crawling all over each other to obtain their glory.
The cast was quite interesting, with Morgan Freeman, F. Murray Abraham, Melanie Griffith, Kim Cattral, super-young Kirsten Dunst, (oh, that guy!) Richard Belzer, and Shia LaBeouf's dad from the Transformers movies. And Geraldo Rivera as a reporter.
I recall Tom Hanks getting all sorts of negative backlash for taking such a "despicable" role as the spoiled WASP. Watching it twenty years later, Hanks' character as a cheating husband/shrewd businessman was totally tame. Granted this was his first foray into drama, but his casting was not the main failure of this movie. I think the backlash was simply blown out of proportion.
There were many flaws, the main offense was director Brian De Palma's insistence on jamming his style down the audience's throats. The first scene was an impressive, though pointless, elaborate one-take shot of Bruce Willis attending his book debut party. After that, it was like a non-stop parade of trick shots with dolly's, cranes, extreme closeups, and whatnot. It was so distracting.
While I did not see a problem with Hanks attempting a flawed character role, I do think he was slightly miscast. His drama acting chops were not there yet. He would have been fantastic if they made this movie ten years later. Willis' casting, on the other hand, was incredibly poor. Never for a moment did I believe him as a down-and-out alcoholic sleazeball journalist.
I have not read the Tom Wolfe's novel, but it did not seem to translate well to film. I could tell by the monologues. Individually, they were poetic, vibrant speeches. However, each of those scenes put the movie's pace into a screeching halt. Such wonderful diatribes and rants work great in novel form, but not usually for a motion picture.
After reading Ebert's review, he also pointed out the novel's difficulty to translate to film. He pointed out the novel's sly sense of humor and portrayal of each character's internal struggles, and there was very little of that noticed by me when watching.
It was ambitious, and I appreciate the effort, but just not meant to be.
What I would change
Recast Bruce Willis with someone who looked more weary.
Die Harder
Viewed in
2003
Premise
A terrorist takes over an airport, and only John McClane can save the day.
Who should watch
'Die Hard' fans.
Thoughts
This was probably the weirdest and worst of the franchise. Having said that, it was still worth a watch.
The main reason to watch would be Willis being a badass and throwing funny one-liners. The cast had some recognizable faces, including Dennis Franz, John Leguizamo and Colm Meaney.
However, everything about it seemed forgettable. At the very least, you expect bad guys to be memorable, such as Alan Rickman, but I felt nothing. There was some well-done action and suspense, but they just did not stand out.
I admired the movie makers for trying not to make the same movie again, but it was 'eh'.
What I would change
If I could remember anything to change...
2003
Premise
A terrorist takes over an airport, and only John McClane can save the day.
Who should watch
'Die Hard' fans.
Thoughts
This was probably the weirdest and worst of the franchise. Having said that, it was still worth a watch.
The main reason to watch would be Willis being a badass and throwing funny one-liners. The cast had some recognizable faces, including Dennis Franz, John Leguizamo and Colm Meaney.
However, everything about it seemed forgettable. At the very least, you expect bad guys to be memorable, such as Alan Rickman, but I felt nothing. There was some well-done action and suspense, but they just did not stand out.
I admired the movie makers for trying not to make the same movie again, but it was 'eh'.
What I would change
If I could remember anything to change...
Edward Scissorhands
Viewed in
2001
Formats
DVD
Premise
Johnny Depp stars in Tim Burton's tale of an earnest young man who has scissors for hands.
Loved
Danny Elfman's score.
Thoughts
It's been a long time, but I recall it being haunting, quirky, charming, and a little bit edgy. First time collaboration of Burton, Depp and Elfman, whom I've dubbed "The Unholy Trinity".
What I would change
No idea.
2001
Formats
DVD
Premise
Johnny Depp stars in Tim Burton's tale of an earnest young man who has scissors for hands.
Loved
Danny Elfman's score.
Thoughts
It's been a long time, but I recall it being haunting, quirky, charming, and a little bit edgy. First time collaboration of Burton, Depp and Elfman, whom I've dubbed "The Unholy Trinity".
What I would change
No idea.
Flatliners
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon headline a group of medical students temporarily killing each other to experience near-death experiences.
Loved
The haunting visuals.
Liked
The premise.
Disliked
The convenient ending.
Thoughts
An interesting film full of spooky atmosphere.
I was intrigued by the exploration of playing with death, and its consequences. Director Joel Schumacher was the perfect director for this, as his specialty in grandiose and goth visuals accentuated the unknown. As the characters were haunted by their experimentation, Schumacher dialed up the set designs, lighting and cinematography to suspenseful effect.
The cast was pretty star-studded, highlighted by Kiefer Sutherland, playing the unbalanced student who started it all. The rest of the cast, including the radiant Roberts, were all solid as the rest of his cohorts.
While it was smarter than the average sci-fi, it could have done more. The characters were pretty thin, and their actions were more plot-driven. The message was pretty simple, despite the trippy visuals. Lastly, the ending was too nice and tidy for the edgy ideas the premise had brought forth.
It was enjoyable to watch, I just wished it gave me more to think about afterward.
What I would change
Made the consequences harsher.
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon headline a group of medical students temporarily killing each other to experience near-death experiences.
Loved
The haunting visuals.
Liked
The premise.
Disliked
The convenient ending.
Thoughts
An interesting film full of spooky atmosphere.
I was intrigued by the exploration of playing with death, and its consequences. Director Joel Schumacher was the perfect director for this, as his specialty in grandiose and goth visuals accentuated the unknown. As the characters were haunted by their experimentation, Schumacher dialed up the set designs, lighting and cinematography to suspenseful effect.
The cast was pretty star-studded, highlighted by Kiefer Sutherland, playing the unbalanced student who started it all. The rest of the cast, including the radiant Roberts, were all solid as the rest of his cohorts.
While it was smarter than the average sci-fi, it could have done more. The characters were pretty thin, and their actions were more plot-driven. The message was pretty simple, despite the trippy visuals. Lastly, the ending was too nice and tidy for the edgy ideas the premise had brought forth.
It was enjoyable to watch, I just wished it gave me more to think about afterward.
What I would change
Made the consequences harsher.
Goodfellas
Viewed in
1998, 2002
Formats
VHS, DVD
Premise
Ray Liotta, Robert De Niro, and Joe Pesci star in Martin Scorsese's mobster classic. Based on Nicholas Pileggi's novel.
Loved
The awesome acting.
Liked
The music.
Thoughts
It's been a while since I've seen it, but I recall loving the acting by everyone, especially the three leads. Each character was so special and it was full of memorable moments and dialogue. Scorsese's style was infused into the film, like the ridiculous one-take shot of Liotta walking through a nightclub, and interesting music choices.
What I would change
Nothing.
1998, 2002
Formats
VHS, DVD
Premise
Ray Liotta, Robert De Niro, and Joe Pesci star in Martin Scorsese's mobster classic. Based on Nicholas Pileggi's novel.
Loved
The awesome acting.
Liked
The music.
Thoughts
It's been a while since I've seen it, but I recall loving the acting by everyone, especially the three leads. Each character was so special and it was full of memorable moments and dialogue. Scorsese's style was infused into the film, like the ridiculous one-take shot of Liotta walking through a nightclub, and interesting music choices.
What I would change
Nothing.
Home Alone
Viewed in
1990, 1991, 1992, 1993
Premise
Cute little Macaulay Culkin defends his house from Christmas-time robbers.
Who should watch
Little kids.
Thoughts
While this movie had no redeeming value, the silly comedy and cartoony violence should keep kids entertained for a while. Watching John Candy's cameo made me sad that we lost a loveable screen presence.
What I would change
Nothing.
1990, 1991, 1992, 1993
Premise
Cute little Macaulay Culkin defends his house from Christmas-time robbers.
Who should watch
Little kids.
Thoughts
While this movie had no redeeming value, the silly comedy and cartoony violence should keep kids entertained for a while. Watching John Candy's cameo made me sad that we lost a loveable screen presence.
What I would change
Nothing.
The Hunt for Red October
Viewed in
1995, 2000
Formats
VHS, DVD
Premise
Sean Connery stars as a Cold War Soviet submarine captain to defies orders and heads towards the United States, while an American CIA agent, Alec Baldwin, tries to find out his intentions. Based on Tom Clancy's novel.
Thoughts
It's been forever, but I recall this was one of my favorite action dramas ever. It was actually very little on action, but big on character, plot and dialogue. The cool cast also included Tim Curry, Sam Neill, and James Earl Jones. I also enjoyed the subtle visual style, which let the scenes breath.
What I would change
Nothing.
1995, 2000
Formats
VHS, DVD
Premise
Sean Connery stars as a Cold War Soviet submarine captain to defies orders and heads towards the United States, while an American CIA agent, Alec Baldwin, tries to find out his intentions. Based on Tom Clancy's novel.
Thoughts
It's been forever, but I recall this was one of my favorite action dramas ever. It was actually very little on action, but big on character, plot and dialogue. The cool cast also included Tim Curry, Sam Neill, and James Earl Jones. I also enjoyed the subtle visual style, which let the scenes breath.
What I would change
Nothing.
Joe Versus the Volcano
Viewed in
1996, 2000
Formats
VHS, DVD
Premise
Tom Hanks stars as a man who realizes his imminent death, decides to jump into a live volcano, with the help of Meg Ryan.
Thoughts
My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I recall enjoying this light-hearted comedy a lot. The story was not much, but Hanks and Ryan (their first rom-com tag team) were very likable. Deep down, there could have been an interesting romantic theme, in which Ryan plays three different characters, who all three influence Hanks' character. Instead, I was fine with settling for a lot of silly, goofy scenes that worked in a campy way.
What I would change
No idea.
1996, 2000
Formats
VHS, DVD
Premise
Tom Hanks stars as a man who realizes his imminent death, decides to jump into a live volcano, with the help of Meg Ryan.
Thoughts
My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I recall enjoying this light-hearted comedy a lot. The story was not much, but Hanks and Ryan (their first rom-com tag team) were very likable. Deep down, there could have been an interesting romantic theme, in which Ryan plays three different characters, who all three influence Hanks' character. Instead, I was fine with settling for a lot of silly, goofy scenes that worked in a campy way.
What I would change
No idea.
Misery
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
James Caan plays a famous novelist who finds himself stuck in the house of a nurse, Kathy Bates, who happens to be his "number one fan". Based on the Stephen King book.
Loved
Bates and Caan, the escalating suspense.
Liked
Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen.
Thoughts
Good grief, was this intense.
Even though I knew plenty about the premise and the story itself, including key scenes, I was still on the edge of my seat, thanks to the great lead actors, and taught directing by Rob Reiner.
I will probably run out of adjectives to compliment Bates' scary, haunting performances. She was just bad news, regardless if she was over-the-top insane or creepy super-sweet. It's arguable that Annie Wilkes belongs in the Top Three pantheon of greatest psychos, along with Norman Bates and Sir Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter.
What doesn't get enough praise is James Caan. He's not just some stiff in a wheelchair being terrorized. He lent an equally powerful presence that makes you feel every painstaking attempt to escape this hell. Granted it's been a while since I've seen The Godfather, but this was probably his greatest film.
One thing I didn't expect was some really fun comic relief from Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen as the lovable sheriff and deputy. Their relationship was a cool contrast to what was happening in the main plot.
Reiner nailed the nail-biting sequences. The action was clear and the suspense was torturous (in a good way). I wanted to squirm with Caan as he literally attempted to crawl his way out of the house. And I cringed every time he injured himself. The cobbling scene was one of those that every film buff knows about, so I knew it was coming. But even with that preparation, the execution was so flawless that it was still amazing and enjoyable (from a horror standpoint).
If I had to nitpick, it would be that Bates' over-the-top moments felt a bit unrealistic in the current sensibilities about insanity. Her outbursts almost felt more "stage play" like.
Despite the test of time and endless hype, Misery held up extremely well thanks to timeless performances by Bates and Caan. In fact, it hardly felt outdated because it was clearly set in the 1980's so the lack of internet of cell phones (which would've severely negated this story) felt like a period piece.
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
James Caan plays a famous novelist who finds himself stuck in the house of a nurse, Kathy Bates, who happens to be his "number one fan". Based on the Stephen King book.
Loved
Bates and Caan, the escalating suspense.
Liked
Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen.
Thoughts
Good grief, was this intense.
Even though I knew plenty about the premise and the story itself, including key scenes, I was still on the edge of my seat, thanks to the great lead actors, and taught directing by Rob Reiner.
I will probably run out of adjectives to compliment Bates' scary, haunting performances. She was just bad news, regardless if she was over-the-top insane or creepy super-sweet. It's arguable that Annie Wilkes belongs in the Top Three pantheon of greatest psychos, along with Norman Bates and Sir Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter.
What doesn't get enough praise is James Caan. He's not just some stiff in a wheelchair being terrorized. He lent an equally powerful presence that makes you feel every painstaking attempt to escape this hell. Granted it's been a while since I've seen The Godfather, but this was probably his greatest film.
One thing I didn't expect was some really fun comic relief from Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen as the lovable sheriff and deputy. Their relationship was a cool contrast to what was happening in the main plot.
Reiner nailed the nail-biting sequences. The action was clear and the suspense was torturous (in a good way). I wanted to squirm with Caan as he literally attempted to crawl his way out of the house. And I cringed every time he injured himself. The cobbling scene was one of those that every film buff knows about, so I knew it was coming. But even with that preparation, the execution was so flawless that it was still amazing and enjoyable (from a horror standpoint).
If I had to nitpick, it would be that Bates' over-the-top moments felt a bit unrealistic in the current sensibilities about insanity. Her outbursts almost felt more "stage play" like.
Despite the test of time and endless hype, Misery held up extremely well thanks to timeless performances by Bates and Caan. In fact, it hardly felt outdated because it was clearly set in the 1980's so the lack of internet of cell phones (which would've severely negated this story) felt like a period piece.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Viewed in
1991 (x3), 1992 (x2), 2006
Premise
The first Ninja Turtles movie, with guys in rubber suits.
Who should watch
Fans of the cartoon. Someone in need of something unintentionally funny.
Thoughts
As a kid, I thought this movie was cool. Now it has totally dropped off the Cool scale and is high on the Unintentionally Funny scale. Every aspect, from the clothes to the dialogue to the music is so horribly outdated that it is almost a masterpiece.
The singular thing to marvel at is the animatronics from the Jim Henson Workshop. It is obviously not as good as 'Farscape', but it is still quite impressive. The rubber suits were charming like a 1970's Godzilla movie. Despite its bulk, the stuntmen were able to do quite a lot of action in those rubber suits.
What I would change
Nothing.
1991 (x3), 1992 (x2), 2006
Premise
The first Ninja Turtles movie, with guys in rubber suits.
Who should watch
Fans of the cartoon. Someone in need of something unintentionally funny.
Thoughts
As a kid, I thought this movie was cool. Now it has totally dropped off the Cool scale and is high on the Unintentionally Funny scale. Every aspect, from the clothes to the dialogue to the music is so horribly outdated that it is almost a masterpiece.
The singular thing to marvel at is the animatronics from the Jim Henson Workshop. It is obviously not as good as 'Farscape', but it is still quite impressive. The rubber suits were charming like a 1970's Godzilla movie. Despite its bulk, the stuntmen were able to do quite a lot of action in those rubber suits.
What I would change
Nothing.
Total Recall
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Arnold Schwarzenegger dreams that he was a secret agent on Mars. Turns out he was!
Liked
Special effects, the premise.
Thoughts
Better than I expected. Even with the hype from my friends.
For an action flick, the story was quite good. It was plausible and interesting, with secret agents, aliens, mutants, and mind fudging. Just do not try to think twice about the plot twists, and you will not notice the holes much.
The special effects were fantastic and hardly appeared dated (though might be the standard def DVD I was watching). Director Paul Verhoeven (Robocop) did a good job of mixing computer graphics, miniatures, old fashioned stunts, and prosthetic make up to achieve the desired visuals. The puppetry for some of the mutant characters were so well-made, I was shocked it was not done by Jim Henson's company. Also, I especially enjoyed the gasping for air sequences.
For those hunkering for R-rated stuff, you will get your share of it here. The body count felt like three-digits worth and there were plenty of onscreen head shots, exploding blood packets and window-diving stunts. In addition, there were three exposed boobs.
Even twenty years later, the art direction and depiction of the future was pretty good. Some of it even came true. The future technology was not entirely outdated nor hilariously inaccurate.
While the story was smarter than most action movies, it still had plenty of flaws. Besides the ignorable logic of secret agent double-crossings, I also had to set aside some science knowledge, such as what Mars' core consists of.
The writing was not fantastic either. Even though Arnold was excellent (arguably his best performance) and Sharon Stone was more than a pretty face, the rest of the cast and characters were pretty bland. Lastly, the dialogue still had that cheesy 1980's vibe of forcing cuss words into every line.
Of Arnold's action flicks, it was quite enjoyable, thanks to some cool twists, a lot of action and wonderful special effects. I just doubt I would like it if I thought twice about the details.
What I would change
Nothing.
2010
Premise
Arnold Schwarzenegger dreams that he was a secret agent on Mars. Turns out he was!
Liked
Special effects, the premise.
Thoughts
Better than I expected. Even with the hype from my friends.
For an action flick, the story was quite good. It was plausible and interesting, with secret agents, aliens, mutants, and mind fudging. Just do not try to think twice about the plot twists, and you will not notice the holes much.
The special effects were fantastic and hardly appeared dated (though might be the standard def DVD I was watching). Director Paul Verhoeven (Robocop) did a good job of mixing computer graphics, miniatures, old fashioned stunts, and prosthetic make up to achieve the desired visuals. The puppetry for some of the mutant characters were so well-made, I was shocked it was not done by Jim Henson's company. Also, I especially enjoyed the gasping for air sequences.
For those hunkering for R-rated stuff, you will get your share of it here. The body count felt like three-digits worth and there were plenty of onscreen head shots, exploding blood packets and window-diving stunts. In addition, there were three exposed boobs.
Even twenty years later, the art direction and depiction of the future was pretty good. Some of it even came true. The future technology was not entirely outdated nor hilariously inaccurate.
While the story was smarter than most action movies, it still had plenty of flaws. Besides the ignorable logic of secret agent double-crossings, I also had to set aside some science knowledge, such as what Mars' core consists of.
The writing was not fantastic either. Even though Arnold was excellent (arguably his best performance) and Sharon Stone was more than a pretty face, the rest of the cast and characters were pretty bland. Lastly, the dialogue still had that cheesy 1980's vibe of forcing cuss words into every line.
Of Arnold's action flicks, it was quite enjoyable, thanks to some cool twists, a lot of action and wonderful special effects. I just doubt I would like it if I thought twice about the details.
What I would change
Nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)