Cookie's Corner - Year 1

[cookie]

51 minutes ago, spaghetti! said:

Probably my paranoia plus your Seeing Her review lol

 

But in all seriously, if the film does well enough to have a sequel, it'll be FAR less complicated and exposition based. I think here I tried too hard to avoid leaving unanswered questions and tried to explain every detail. I figured the animated sequences might help a little, but even then it was a lot, haha. You could maybe argue that I wanted the audience to feel as overwhelmed and confused as Alex felt, but that's definitely not intentional on my part. 

 

I just think you tried a bit too much where it wasn't needed. Had the second half been as good as the first I could've honestly seen me giving it an A.

Edited September 20, 2017 by cookie

[Ezen Baklattan]

Just wondering, anything specific you think could have been cut?

[cookie]

22 minutes ago, spaghetti! said:

Just wondering, anything specific you think could have been cut?

It's more that I think the movie throws too much at you at one time but one in particular is that the movie seems to insinuate that Baklattan is Alex's real father (she evens asks her mom if Everett is really her father and her mom even apologizes to her), but then the mid-credit scene is pointing in the direction that Everett is Alex's father after all. Maybe it's one of the things you intended to be left a mystery but on top of everything else it felt like too much.

Edited September 20, 2017 by cookie

[Ezen Baklattan]

6 minutes ago, cookie said:

It's more that I think the movie throws too much at you at one time but one in particular is that the movie seems to insinuate that Baklattan is Alex's real father (she evens asks her mom if Everett is really her father and she says "no"), but then the mid-credit scene is pointing in the direction that Everett is Alex's father after all. Maybe it's one of the things you intended to be left a mystery but on top of everything else it felt like too much.

To be fair, it will be a pretty major plot point in the maybe sequel. Baklttan and Everett will both get pretty juicy roles in the next one.

[cookie]

Public Eye

 

I agree with @Alpha on this. It doesn't work with the perspective it's telling the story from, but I think the film's issues are deeper than that. The biggest problem is that we never really get to hear from the side of the protesters. In most of the movie they're just "the other" swarming and attacking Pete while he's out patrolling. Plus the movie goes really softball on condemning the police and instead puts most of it on Pete's racist partner as if events like Ferguson are just the result of "bad apples" and not of the fact that America's police system is woefully broken. I really don't want to accuse any of the people making this film of ulterior motives especially since the intent going in isn't a bad one but that really makes me tilt my head. The movie tries to make up for some of this by making Pete gay in a "see, look, he's a marginalized minority too!" but the movie does nothing with that fact, nor does it do all that much with the relationship he has with Ben. You could have switched Ben out for a woman and it'd make no difference.

 

It's not like there couldn't be stories told from the perspective of the police but this is just the wrong way to go about it. I really don't understand why Lee Daniels of all people made this movie this way.

 

C-

Edited September 21, 2017 by cookie

[Hiccup23]

The sharks smell blood and are coming for the kill

[cookie]

6 minutes ago, Hiccup23 said:

The sharks smell blood and are coming for the kill

What could I really say? It just felt woefully misguided. I don't think you meant any ill but I think the script should've been thought through a bit more.

[Hiccup23]

9 minutes ago, cookie said:

What could I really say? It just felt woefully misguided. I don't think you meant any ill but I think the script should've been thought through a bit more.

 

Your fine. I'm disappointed but not made at you haha

[cookie]

Flowers for Algernon

 

I really don't think a help center for special needs individuals would have the word "retarded" in its name. It's like GLAAD calling itself the F*g Alliance Against Defamation, it just doesn't seem right.

 

Weird flubs like that and some questionable science aside, this is a very well made drama. Tim Burton does a wonderful job visualizing both the development and later internal conflict of Charlie as he grows more intelligent but paradoxically more distant, helped by a performance from Jared Leto that should secure another Oscar nomination for him. Make no mistake, this is entirely Charlie's movie, and both the proceedings and the film's bittersweet outcome is told entirely from his perspective, which is a smart move. The film makes great use of its 138 minute running time and for a change never feels like it's outstaying its welcome, especially towards the end. To be honest, were it not for its random influxes of the previously stated derogatory word in situations where I don't find it fitting this would have been a straight A, but it's still one of the best movies of the year so far nonetheless.

 

A-

Edited September 21, 2017 by cookie

[cookie]

Dino-Riders

 

I give this movie credit for trying to liven up the mid-August dumping ground. There's definitely a lot of dino laser action to be had which is sure to make the kids happy but most adults will find the movie having little to offer outside of a brief nostalgia trip. Plus while the budget on the film does allow for more spectacle than some of MV Pictures' other work, it still feels a little bit lacking.

 

C+

 

 

Ninja

 

I guess nobody told the makers of this film that ninjas are from Japan, not China. Major blunder aside this movie is as generic as they come, and no, the slo-mo action does not look "fantastic" since the movie is so clearly made on a low budget. I was going to call this inoffensive, but the fact that we don't even understand why the two empires are fighting or which side we're even supposed to root for makes this all the more of a stinker.

 

D

 

 

The Space Pirates

 

You know what, I had fun with this one. It's been a while since we've had a good pirate movie and for a late August offering this is far better than anyone could have asked for. The only thing I found lacking is that there's no real third act, the movie just comes to an end and makes a joke out of the whole thing. Come on, I wanted a big, explosive climax, instead the movie just kinda ends on a shrug. The cast are clearly having fun and the budget while not the biggest in the world is enough to deliver some entertaining action sequences, so why halt when you had a good thing going?

 

B

Edited September 21, 2017 by cookie

[Xillix]

18 minutes ago, cookie said:

"A lot of dino laser action"

 

This is going to be the pull quote emblazoned across the front of every Blu-ray case.

[Xillix]

As to the "haven't had a good pirate movie in a while" thing though - The Curse of Monkey Island will have just come out less than two months earlier  

[cookie]

18 minutes ago, Xillix said:

As to the "haven't had a good pirate movie in a while" thing though - The Curse of Monkey Island will have just come out less than two months earlier  

Well now I feel stupid Sorry @Bastien

Edited September 21, 2017 by cookie

[Alpha]

1 hour ago, cookie said:

I really don't think a help center for special needs individuals would have the word "retarded" in its name. It's like GLAAD calling itself the F*g Alliance Against Defamation, it just doesn't seem right.

 

Yeah, I probably should've changed that. 

 

Thanks for the great review, though!

Edited September 21, 2017 by Alpha

[cookie]

Don't Go Outside

 

Probably the most honest movie title of the year. You shouldn't go outside to watch this crap.

 

It's a lame Evil Dead knockoff that can't even be bothered to have any gore effects or creative spooks that made Evil Dead work in the first place. The teenagers are all alternatingly stupid or so flat they'd become invisible if they turn around, the monsters are never given any explanation and it's a pointless 83 minutes amounting to nothing. Even for an early September release this is bad.

 

D-

 

 

No Surrender

 

"This is also in 3D and the 3D is used a lot in the games."

 

Yeah, and the movie is at least five years out of date as a result.

 

C-

 

 

Sea of Heroes

 

Zemeckis' presence elevates this from being a low-rent war movie, but it's still pretty thin with few identifiable characters or any development.

 

C

[cookie]

River Of Death

 

There is no reason for this movie to be 147 minutes long. Not one. And I thought I gave Poison and Wine a hard time for its length.

 

The plot is hopelessly generic, and yet manages to derail in a spectacular manner. Ghosts exist all of a sudden? The very least I could say about the film before that point is that it's fairly grounded (although the murder of 20+ college students disappearing into folklore is some whack shit) but it almost immediately turns into a morbid episode of Casper the Friendly Ghost. Why is John Landis even the director for this? Is it because he made An American Werewolf in London? You don't get a name like his for this nonsense.

 

D/D-

 

 

Seduction

 

Eli Roth is just an annoying director. A really annoying director. You're looking for a low-rent Quentin Tarantino? Is Robert Rodriguez too good for you? Eli Roth's your guy. All he knows is how to imitate other more successful horror directors, and he can rarely even do that right. All his characters are douchebags at best, grating assholes at worst. By the end you're just numb to his work.

 

And by the way movie sucks.

 

D

Edited September 21, 2017 by cookie

[cookie]

Back in business!

 

SWAT Kats: The Radical Squadron

 

It's a decent animated action movie with some good voice talent behind it but it honestly feels like it lacks a middle portion. The first and third acts take up so much of the movie that the movie kinda forgets to build the connective tissue in between. Not that it's enough to kill the movie, the brisk pace is sure to keep younger audiences engaged, but older audiences may be frustrated by the lack of character development. The film's lower budget doesn't work in its favor either since it's so action-heavy, and it becomes very noticeable where the makers of the film cut corners. If the film is successful enough to spawn a sequel the producers should look into upping the animation budget considerably.

 

C+

 

 

White Hurricane

 

Questionable age discrepancy in casting aside (you expect me to buy that 34-year old Chris Hemsworth is the son of 43-year old Christian Bale?) this is a pretty tense disaster drama. Its slow build in the first half aids in delivering one hell of a payoff in the second half, and the movie does the smart thing by also giving screentime to the wives back home along with the fishermen who meet a tragic end out in the storm. Bale and Hemsworth do well as the father-son duo - although as earlier stated given their age discrepancy it'd make more sense if they were brothers rather than father and son - but the stand-out here is honestly Jamie Foxx. Even with the dark places his character goes to, you completely understand and even empathize with his struggle along the way. I think Gold Crescent Pictures should really give him a push for Best Supporting Actor because this might honestly be his best turn since Django Unchained. Among the other movies I've given this grade to this is probably in the lower rank, mainly because it could've used a little bit more depth, but it's still by far the best film since Flowers for Algernon.

 

A-

Edited September 24, 2017 by cookie

[cookie]

The Provider

 

I made the Men in Black comparison with the opening to The SCP Foundation and it applies again here. Maybe I just have Men In Black on my mind for whatever reason.

 

I think the main problem with this movie is that it's too vague in more than a few areas where it really shouldn't be. For example, we never really find out how the Enclave works other than the movie basically telling you over and over that it's SUPER BAD YO. Then in the last third the movie suddenly introduces this order that apparently controls the Enclave and by that point you're just kind of left confused over the whole thing. They say they make the world a bad place in order to save it but again I'm not really sure what they do or how they work.

 

A lot of movies make the mistake in thinking that making everything vague somehow makes it deep, but the best films are upfront about how the world works and what motivations the characters are supposed to have (a character can have unclear or misdirecting motivations, but audiences have to be able to understand that that's a part of their character and it's up to either them or the other characters to untangle it). Depth comes from the movie having subtext, not from the viewer being forced to untangle a Rubik's Cube in order to understand the text.

 

Plotting mishaps aside, it's still a fairly well made film. Gugu Mbatha Raw is the standout as you'd expect, and I can easily see a Best Actress nomination for her even if the rest of the movie doesn't hold up to her level. It's beautifully shot too, perfectly visualizing a desolate New York with underground lairs that have some interesting visual flour to them. Honestly the first act of this movie was close to pitch perfect, but the confusing and muddled second and third acts drag the movie down quite a bit. Not enough to kill the experience, but enough to drag it down a few grades. Not great, but not bad either.

 

B

 

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by cookie

[cookie]

The Haunting in Wisconsin

 

I... just... what...

 

Man, I didn't think we'd get another movie as bad as Brandybrook, but by god this movie tried. There really doesn't seem to be any consistency in this. We find out from the opening that a girl was sacrificed in a satanist ritual many years ago. Does this have any bearing on the plot? Not really. You could have cut that scene out entirely since the spirit that haunts the house makes no reference to it later. Then shit starts to escalate quickly but without much rhyme or reason or any logical pattern behind it. First a black smoke kills two of the teenagers, then the gates of hell suddenly open and drag down another, then one of the female characters run into two possessed kids on the street and we never find out what the deal is with them.

 

Then there's the ending. What the fuck kind of ending is that? It sounds like everything that happened before was all just a dream but then the evil spirit appears and this guy Joseph commits suicide because the house apparently scared the piss out of him or something. He's not even the owner of the house, he's just one of the random teenagers brought in to party (in fact he's the kid that gets dragged to hell earlier in the movie).

 

Why is Sam Raimi's name attached to this? Why on Earth would he ever sign up for C-grade horror trash like this? Was it because he made The Evil Dead? Y'all know it was one of his first movies, right? Plus it was an insane gore-fest that gave it an identity of its own, and the sequels birthed a style that would become the defining aspect of his filmography. He's evolved way past this. Seeing him make a piece of shit horror movie that not only rips off so many better horror movies but doesn't even do anything all that creative with what it has is extremely disappointing, and he can't even make it add up on top of that.

 

Fuck this piece of shit.

 

F

Edited September 24, 2017 by cookie

[Ezen Baklattan]

I admit that The Provider was a lot more....experimental than I had initially set it out to be. I think it was ultimately the wrong approach to take with the movie.