Archive
Movie Review: Fargo (1996)
Summary:
A car dealer is in deep debt, and his wealthy father-in-law refuses to help him out. Since his father-in-law’s one caveat regarding money is that he will never leave his daughter or grandson in trouble, the car dealer decides to get some men to kidnap his wife, and they will then split the ransom. The plan, naturally, goes horribly awry.
Review:
I think this may be one of the more stupid critically acclaimed movies I’ve ever seen.
Let’s start with the plot. Why is this man in massive debt? Neither myself nor the person I was watching the movie with could quite figure that out. It’s key to me as far as relating to the character to know how exactly he got into this debt to start with. Similarly, why doesn’t the father-in-law consider getting his son-in-law out of debt taking care of the family? It appears that the car dealer is in trouble, and you would think that the father-in-law would want to keep the man his daughter loves safe if for no other reason than to protect her heart. Then there’s the fact that this is quite possibly the most predictable plot I’ve ever seen. One of the kidnappers is crazy? Who’da thunk it?! *rolls eyes*
Moving on to the acting, it was terrible. I’ve seen more facial expression and body language from stone statues than I saw on William H. Macy, who plays the car dealer. The only way I can possibly comprehend Frances McDormand winning an Oscar for her performance is if she naturally has a bubbly, interesting personality, because it can’t be that challenging to play a character as boring as the pregnant police chief. Then there’s the universally horrible midwest accents. I’m friends with a woman who was born and raised in Michigan, and she does not sound like that. She has a slight lilt to her o’s and a’s that is actually cute and attractive, not horribly mangled words such as what these actors purport midwesterners sound like.
It wasn’t until I looked up Fargo to find a movie poster that I discovered it’s supposed to be a “dark comedy.” Oh, I laughed at parts of it alright, but not due to any comedic value. You just have to laugh at a movie that’s this bad.
I don’t recommend anyone to see this movie, but it’s not excruciatingly painful to watch if you find yourself stuck in a room with it, which is the only thing saving it from a one star rating.
2 out of 5 stars
Source: Netflix
Movie Review: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Summary:
Elizabeth wakes up one morning to discover her boyfriend, Jeffrey, being distant and acting odd. She nearly immediately intuitively senses that this man is not Jeffrey. The only people to believe her are her boss, Matt, and an author and his wife. Together the four of them struggle against the nearly invisible alien invasion of a type of plant that morphs human bodies in with their own personalities, thereby replacing the humans.
Review:
This is a remake of the 1956 movie of the same name. I was told you don’t need to watch the 1956 version first, but now I’m not so sure. A lot of the story just didn’t make any sense, and I’m wondering if those are plot points that were better addressed in the 1956 version. For instance, what makes someone at risk to become an alien hybrid? We know that the aliens came into Elizabeth’s household on a flower, yet her boyfriend morphs overnight whereas she does not. Why? Similarly, a process is started by the aliens and at some point it becomes dangerous for that person to sleep, for when they sleep, the metamorphosis completes. Why isn’t everyone transforming in their sleep? At what point is it dangerous to sleep? Why does sleep complete the metamorphosis? For that matter, why do the aliens duplicate the humans’ dna in a pod? Why don’t they just invade the body and combine dna that way? Why does the person’s body disappear when the pod is complete? Why have they come to earth? And for the love of god, why do they make that horrible screeching noise? I’m pretty sure plants don’t generally make noise. Obviously, this movie left me with a lot of questions and not many answers, and that’s something I don’t tolerate well from my scifi movies. If you’re going to do scifi, do it well. Build a world that is not our own but still makes sense! It ruins the experience for me if I’m continually yanked out of that world by my brain going, “Wait…..what?!”
On the other hand, the special effects are really good for the 1970s. The opening with the alien life wafting around space is impressive and reminded me of cgi. The pods are simultaneously realistic-looking and grotesque. Whatever noise they recorded for the aliens screeching is truly spine-chilling.
Two items of note. The first is that you get to see Jeff Goldblum of Jurassic Park in another brainy, geek role, which is fun. Also, there’s some brief nudity, which is always fun in a movie when it’s not in the context of awkward, obviously not really happening sex.
If you like scifi you won’t regret watching this movie. Just be sure to have something to do while you watch it–like knitting, or a game of Clue–to keep your mind off of the glaring plot holes and unanswered questions.
2 out of 5 stars
Source: Netflix
Movie Review: Phantasm (1979)
Summary:
After Mike’s parents and a family friend die, he starts to suspect something sinister is going on at the Morningside funeral home. After seeing cloaked dwarves and a flying sphere of death, he manages to convince his brother Jody that not all is right. The two set out to defeat The Tall Man before any more townspeople die.
Review:
It’s rare for a movie to be simultaneously funny and scary, but Phantasm pulls it off well. The Tall Man is incredibly spooky. His mere appearance makes you jump. Yet the dialogue provides comic relief. An example is early in the movie, Mike thinks he’s heard something sinister in the woods. Jody respond, “Ah, it was probably just a gopher in heat.”
The spooky elements are actually creative. Very few horror tropes are utilized. Some of the scenes reminded me of The Shining, with the eerie, waiting, quiet. The audience and the character knows something is afoot, yet there is nothing right then that is actually wrong. It gives delicious chills down the spine.
What really tips this over into awesomeland, is the character Reggie–an ice cream truck driver. For almost the entire movie, he wears his ice cream man uniform complete with a giant black bow tie, yet he manages to be badass. He jams on the guitar with the teenagers and fights a good fight. He’s such a creative character, going beyond the immediate perception of an ice cream man. I wish there were more characters like him in horror movies.
If you enjoy old-school horror with a touch of comedy, or just want to see some creative scares, I recommend Phantasm.
4 out of 5 stars
Source: Netflix
Movie Review: World’s Greatest Dad (2009)
Summary:
Lance knows he’s a good writer with a voice that deserves to be heard, but somehow it gets lost in the shuffle of his everyday life as a divorced high school English teacher and dad to his teenage son. His son is a jerk and a bit of a pervert, but Lance’s love for him helps him get through the day. When he comes home to find his son dead from erotic asphyxiation, his world is turned upside down.
Review:
This movie is a wonderful study of multiple, well-rounded, three-dimensional characters. From Lance to his hoarding neighbor to his art teacher, shallow, childish, love interest and everyone in-between, this movie is chock full of characters who are believable as real people. You want to study them more in-depth. You want to know what makes them tick.
Lance is such a likeable guy. He’s sweet, loves old horror movies, strives to write the best he can. All he wants out of life is to be recognized, not just on the level of his writing, but in his life over-all. He desperately wants to be noticed and loved. Parents will appreciate that whatever it is that makes Lance’s son such a jerk, it is never portrayed as Lance’s fault.
Beyond the wonderful characters, the movie makes a great commentary on what makes a book publishable. It points out the hypocrisy of popularity surrounding a controversy and the general sheep-like quality of the masses. This combined with the character studies makes it well worth the watch.
I recommend it to those who enjoy character-driven movies with a wry sense of humor.
4 out of 5 stars
Source: Netflix
Movie Review: The King of Kong (2007)
Summary:
The world of competitive gaming (and by world, we mostly mean the US) has been a tight-knit bunch of people since the 1980s. Everyone acknowledges the awesomeness that is the head referee and current high-score in Donkey Kong and perfect score in PacMan holder Billy Mitchell. All that changes when a determined rival shows up in the form of Steve Wiebe, a middle school science teacher. Is Steve actually better than Billy? Is the competitive gaming institute corrupt? Is Billy as good as he says he is? Should videotaped gaming sessions count? All these questions and more are addressed in this documentary.
Review:
This is hands-down the most amusing and engrossing documentary I’ve ever seen. Maybe it’s the fact that I’ve actually played Donkey Kong, so I sort of understand what’s going on when the guys play. Maybe it’s that I’ve known uber-nerds like this my whole life. You know the type–awkward, greasy, yet positive of his own awesomeness. I think it’s mostly that it’s a portrayal of a group of people united by what they love to do as opposed to who or what they are that makes this such a watchable documentary though.
Still, though, the documentary could have gone horribly awry if it weren’t for the skill of the filmmakers. They manage to tell the story in a way that lets us laugh at them, but not in a cruel way. They let us see that these guys know they’re a bit odd to more mainstream Americans, but they don’t care. That makes it totally cool for us to be amused at how seriously they take it all.
However, the documentary does more than show us a subculture and let us be amused. You can see your own group reflected in this one. We all have the devious person, the person who just wants power, the person who just wants recognition, the henchman, etc… It’s fun to see these realistic group dynamics on screen surrounding an issue as non-controversial as Donkey Kong.
I highly recommend The King of Kong to anyone who loves documentaries, mockumentaries like Modern Family, or videogames.
5 out of 5 stars
Source: Netflix
Movie Review: Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Summary:
The Cold War between Russia and the US is going along swimmingly until a US General goes off his rocker, convinced that commie fluids are secretly infiltrating Americans’ fluids. He issues the Wing 9 order, designed as a fail-safe in case the President is incapacitated, thereby sending the US and Russia flying toward a nuclear holocaust.
Review:
One of my first questions when watching this film was if they’d made it black and white intentionally. Apparently, in the 1960s, making a film black and white was the equivalent of the modern day mockumentary. Dr. Strangelove takes a tongue in cheek look at the Cold War’s nuclear stand-off. To a certain extent, this works. Everyone in the movie thinks they’re doing what’s best for their country when in reality they’re about to destroy the entire world as we know it.
The film sets out to be funny, and parts of it are. The stand-off between the general who’s lost his mind and his British subcommander are witty. On the other hand, the whole character of Dr. Strangelove read as ridiculous and over-acted to me. Thankfully, the presence of Dr. Strangelove is wonderfully off-set by the acting abilities of George C. Scott who perfectly plays the all-American military man. Overall, the movie is funny, but not hilarious.
The special effects are good but not stunning for the decade. Most of the film doesn’t need any special effects though, so this is barely noticeable.
If you’ve got 94 minutes to spare and enjoy dark humor, give Dr. Strangelove a chance. You won’t be disappointed. Plus you’ll get to check out the snazzy argyle underwear worn by a general’s secretary.
3 out of 5 stars
Source: Netflix
Movie Review: District 9 (2009) South Africa
Summary:
In this alternate history, 20 years ago an alien spaceship came to a stop over South Africa. It appears that they broke down over Earth. They appeared sickly and malnourished, so the South African government set up a shanty town for them just outside of Johannesburg. Now tensions are increasing between the South Africans and the aliens who they call Prawns. The government hires a corporation called Multi-National United to come in and forcibly move them 25 kilometers from Johannesburg. The leader of the project soon discovers the Prawns aren’t exactly what the media has laid them out to be……and neither is Multi-National United.
Review:
I knew as I was watching it that I was going to really like this mockumentary. Having an alien landing that is neither hostile nor a diplomatic mission from a more advanced species is really creative, as is having the humans hem and haw over what exactly to do with the aliens. The aliens wind up in no-man’s land, stuck due to red tape and a general lack of consensus.
I also enjoyed that the movie doesn’t establish certain groups as all evil or all good. There are individuals within the South Africans, the Prawns, and the MNU who are good or evil, just as it actually is in real life. The main characters are complex, trying to do their best when facing tough decisions.
Now, as for the movie elements, the special effects are amazing. I kept forgetting that the Prawns were CGI and not actors. The Prawns’ weapons are exactly what you want out of a scifi film–based on real world weapons, but decidedly more awesome.
There were a few pieces of loose plot that bothered me. A non-spoiler example is the fact that the Prawns and the humans understand each other, and it’s not explained how that came about or how difficult it might be. It almost seems as if just anyone can understand the Prawns’ clicking. Another example is it’s never explained if there are female Prawns or if they are hermaphrodites or what.
A lot of people say that this is about race relations. I disagree. While it’s easy to draw out comparisons, I don’t think that’s the main issue in the film. I think District 9 is more about how groups of people affiliated by nationality interact, and how people do the best they can given the circumstances.
I highly recommend District 9 to scifi and non-scifi lovers alike.
4 out of 5 stars
Source: Redbox
Movie Review: Moon (2009)
Summary:
In the near future, a corporation has figured out how to harvest energy from the sun via a station on the the moon. Sam Bell accepted a 3 year post as the sole human being in the station. His only company is Gerty, a computer who is faceless save an emoticon that expresses the emotions behind his statements. It starts to look like three years may have been too long of a stint for Sam. Is he going crazy or is there something more sinister at work?
Review:
This movie largely consists of just one actor performing–Sam Rockwell, who plays Sam Bell. This is not an easy task to pull off while maintaining audience interest, and he does a wonderful job. Kevin Spacey, who voices Gerty, strikes just the right combination of mechanical and human sounding vocalizations. He does a splendid job being creepy.
The concept of a future where one corporation provides most of the energy used by the planet is a great scifi concept to base a film on. The technology and sociology necessary for this to occur are both believable enough that not too much effort is needed to suspend disbelief. On the other hand, the movie never really explains how exactly the energy is harvested. This struck me as a moderately important plot element to be missing.
The special effects were surprisingly good for a low budget film such as this. In fact, I kept forgetting that it wasn’t a big blockbuster release.
I can’t say too much more without ruining the movie for you. I will tell you that at first I thought it was just average, but then I couldn’t stop thinking about it for days after watching it. Particularly when I saw a bus with an emoticon on it that looked just like Gerty’s. I love it when a movie affects you in a sneak attack way, and I highly recommend Moon if you enjoy scifi or thought provoking films.
4 out of 5 stars
Source: Redbox
Movie Review: Matilda (1996)
Summary:
Matilda has the unfortunate luck of being a smart kid born to not only stupid, but annoying and neglectful, parents. They leave her alone for extended periods of time at a young age, time she fills by reading books from the public library. When she’s six and a half, her father finally sends her to a private school with a bully of a principal. However, her sweet teacher tells her she’s special, and Matilda’s mind stretches to be even more powerful than she ever thought it could.
Review:
This movie sounds serious, but it’s actually quite funny. Danny DeVito directs and acts–both as the narrator and Matilda’s father. Rhea Perlman, known like DeVito for comedic roles, plays Matilda’s mother. Matilda’s telekinetic abilities are played mainly for laughs, and she tends to use them in a child-like manner.
Matilda’s parents aren’t mean to their daughter on purpose; they just don’t understand her. They think it’s fun to watch terrible game shows on tv and are offended when she says she’d rather read Moby Dick. Matilda doesn’t hate them, but she also knows she doesn’t belong.
The message of the movie really is that family is what you make of it, not what you’re born into. Matilda could have dumbed herself down to fit in with her family, but she doesn’t. Her parents could have insisted that she belongs with them, but they don’t. Sometimes people are born into the right family; sometimes they’re not, and there’s nothing wrong with fixing that.
If you want some giggles and a heartwarming message that doesn’t have a love interest for once, give Matilda a shot.
If you found this review helpful, please consider tipping me on ko-fi, checking out my digital items available in my ko-fi shop, buying one of my publications, or using one of my referral/coupon codes. Thank you for your support!
4 out of 5 stars
Source: Netflix
Movie Review: Evil Dead 2 Dead by Dawn (1987) (series, #2)
Summary:
Ash either inexplicably completely forgot about the first evil dead incident or is having some sort of alternate version of his life presented. Either way, he returns to the same cabin from Evil Dead with his girlfriend, oblivious of any evil occurrences. Within about 5 minutes, he plays the tape that raises the demons. It immediately possesses his girlfriend. The professor’s daughter and some hillbillies stop by, adding to the possible body count. Can they survive until dawn?
Review:
I kind of love the fact that this is a sequel that isn’t so much a sequel as a reimagining of the first Evil Dead. What if Ash arrived with just one other person? What if the main problem wasn’t being infected by wood but instead a possessed dismembered hand running around?
Evil Dead 2 doesn’t mess around. It gets right to the gore, and it does so completely tongue-in-cheek. As opposed to the early tree porn in Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2 has chainsaw dismemberment within the first 10 minutes.
However, don’t get me wrong. This movie is a delicious combination of horror and humor, mainly due to Ash’s dismembered hand. It becomes possessed and the man chops it off with a chainsaw, and then it becomes a nemesis throughout the movie. A nemesis he partly fights with the chainsaw he tied to his arm to replace said hand. Yeah, that’s right. You get a chainsaw for a limb in this movie. Really truly badass! The humor also is derived from the hillbilly couple who show up with the professor’s daughter and her boyfriend, as well as great sight gags. The movie knows it’s B horror, and it thrives on it.
For once I can say, this is a sequel that is just as worth watching as the original.
5 out of 5 stars
Source: Netflix
Previous Movies in Series:
The Evil Dead (1981), review
Support my work with a tip or browse my shop for curated book club guides, how to guides, cross-stitch patterns, and more!
This work by Amanda Nevius is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Opinions of a Wolf 