Reviews

Noble effort to make a movie with a questionably helpful message. I did enjoy the movie somewhat, but a few nagging things kept distracting me from really liking the movie. I will attempt to elaborate:

1) Aryan High. This did not look like a public school...more like a junior private college for jocks, models and cheer-leaders. I recommend the next time Hollywood makes a high-school movie with a contemporary setting, they actually GO IN one. The kids in this school did not look, OR ACT like kids in any contemporary public school I've ever seen. The plot may have been more successful in a 1950's setting. Promiscuity is not a major concern in today's public high-schools. And they weren't in the 80's, which is when I went. Either you were having sex or wanting to or thinking about it. No one was decried for having done it, or talking about it, or, for that matter bragging about it. Even girls. Granted, the girls were more discreet. On the contrary though, in today's schools you might just get more cred by claiming to be a virgin...especially if attractive like the main protagonist in this story.

2) Somewhat related to the last topic...if making a high-school movie...make it with kids that at least look like they're in high school. It's ironic and hypocritical that a minor plot-point in this movie is a student that's 21 years old and sleeps with a teacher, when ALL the students look like they're in their early 20's. It's about time the ticket-buying public make an issue out of this. I think it's humorous when watching noir movies today like "Grease" and the actors all look as old as the teachers. I guess today's movie-makers aren't worried about the future "snicker-factor" that might hinder a potential classic, otherwise they'd put more thought into it. I understand the pool of young acting talent is limited...but they are out there. Bust your butt and find 'em. It'll pay off in the long run...and you may just find the next hot star. Oh, and your movie budget might just be more palatable.

3) They hypocritical Christian. If you're going to portray a hypocritical Christian, why not go and meet one? Make the character realistic and believable. I know they're a caricature, but the girl in this movie was portrayed WAY over the top. Really. It kept me from rating this movie higher. I mean, if I was to make a movie with a German, I WOULDN'T give him a swastika arm band and a Hitler mustache...too cliché. Put a little effort into make your characters at least a little realistic.

I know, I know...this is an exceptionally harsh review. I did like the movie and felt bad I couldn't enjoy it more. I thought the message, being comfortable in your own skin, was positive...but done way better with movies like "Napoleon Dynamite". A little thought could've made this movie a much more enjoyable experience.

Definitely not a 9 out of 10, or a top 250 movie. I have an idea, let's fabricate a semi-comprehensible plot which is grounded so feebly in reality that it's meaning can be subject to anyone's interpretation. Therefore critics will refuse to pan it out of fear of being perceived as idiots, the public will refuse to criticize it out of fear of being perceived as shallow, and everyone else will wonder what they've missed. Oh, and to top the cupcake with a cherry, we'll deliver an ending which offers no resolution. It can't fail! The concept of reality vs. fantasy was definitely better delivered in The Matrix...and this movie is not its equal or even a strong competitor. The concept of dream invaders was dealt with much more enjoyably in Dreamscape (1984), and was much easier to comprehend. This movie was more of an enigma burrito wrapped in a layer of fantasy tortilla, topped with sour-cream special effects, and hyped by popular salsa. Get it? Only the most hippest and most intelligent can understand my allegorical comparison!

On our way out of the theater, we were all trying to recall a movie that might have been worse. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? The first Hulk movie? Sex And The City? Bring It On - In It To Win It? Jaws 3 In 3D? I would watch them all again before wasting any more time on this true pile of waste. Right now I am resisting the urge to suppress my violated recollection of this movie so I can warn the viewing public...and I can honestly say you would be better off getting a ticket for ANY OTHER random movie than this one. I do not make that statement lightly. I have been a Sarah Polley fan since "Go", an Adrien Brody fan since "The Pianist", AND a Vincenzo Natali fan since "Cube", but stock in all their future cinematic endeavors will now be called into question because this movie was SO distasteful. "Why?" you ask? There are so many reason, I really don't know where to begin. First of all, I'm extremely disappointed because the movie touts itself as a Sci-Fi thriller. There is very little science-fiction, and the movie was hardly scary. All nine people seated in the movie theater (which should have been my first hint this movie sucked) winced more as a matter of the unpleasant sexual activities on the screen than any cinematic suspense. Seriously. Imagine Jurassic Park where the zoo-keepers have sex with the dinosaurs, and you have an idea of the major plot elements of this movie. And that's just the beginning, but I really have to end my testimony there because the movie was just that unpleasant. Save your money and go see anything...or see nothing. Either one is a better choice than wasting your time and money on this movie.

OK, I get it. Greed, especially for demonized oil will ruin your soul. But there were pretty big plot holes that didn't make this movie the top 250 gem for me that a lot of you other voters made it. The movie depicted the main character's slide into insanity without really explaining it. Was it his adopted son's handicap? Was it truly his greed and ambition? Was it his success? Was it his tortured past? These are questions left unanswered for me and honestly one's I will not spend too much time trying to figure out. I could understand the turmoil the son experienced after his injury, but just couldn't relate to it's effect on the father. I did enjoy the starkness with which the movie was depicted, no overbearing soundtrack trying to tug on my heart strings, just an increasingly crazy character that increasingly left me puzzled.

Oh, and Hollywood LOVES to portray the crazy Christian preacher with his ignorant followers, but they STILL don't understand that the most twisted church leaders have enticing charisma, not creepy personalities and sermons. The character portrayed in this movie reminded me more of Malachi from Children of the Corn, definitely an overplayed character...not believable at all. Don't get me wrong, there are preachers out there like that, but NOT with followings that comprise a whole town. Large followings are led astray by likable, relatable personalities, not creepy ones. Creepy characters just creep those around them out...they don't get them to dance in church and drink poisoned kool-aid by the dozens.

Daniel Plainview is being compared with Hannibal Lecter...by the mentally handicapped. Don't get me wrong...Mr. Plainview is plainly crazy. But evil? No way. My vote for the most recent, willy-inducing character goes to Anton Chigurh of No Country For Old Men. And may everyone that dared place him on the level of this true baddie be tracked down and eliminated with his bolt pistol like the mindless herd they are.

Yeah, this movie has everything an Oscar voter will love...a crazy Christian over-acting preacher, soul-devouring oil, and commercial hype ... basically everything that the road to hell should consist of. This movie is being compared to true Hollywood classics such as The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre. There are far better movies to see this Oscar season...personally, my vote goes to Juno. For those considering checking this movie out for the morality play aspect, do yourself a favor and stick with the classics like The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre. You'll be better off for it.

SPOILERS: Saw the movie and have to say that it was a very pleasant surprise. Not only was it faithful to the concept of the first two movies, but like T2, builds on its foundation and brings new ideas. I particularly liked the concept of fate...John Conner, knowing his fate, yet denying it; the inevitable takeover by Skynet, etc. It also managed to bring in new and exciting action and special effects, as well as building onto the plot and surprising me by taking it in unexpected directions. All these factors make the movie very entertaining, and worth the price, especially for Terminator/Schwarzeneggar fans.

Another tidbit that I've been pondering since seeing the movie, is the evolutionary psychology behind all 3 films. The first one came out during the cold war, in which the Soviet Union and the United States were in the middle of a Mexican standoff with a combined nuclear arsenal capable of wiping out human civilization hundreds of times over. The first movie was created within those times, and the message was one in which the human spirit can prevail, in spite of the potential armageddon, and can seek to change a probable future. The second movie, created at the end of the cold war in which detente and diplomacy had achieved a bloodless end to the potential nuclear confrontation that had been hanging over the world for the past two generations, had a different message: one in which man is in complete control of his destiny, and if he is willing to take the risks and make the sacrifices, anything is possible. Now we come to the 3rd movie, and the current world is much different. No longer do we face a potential standoff between nuclear states, but the specter of international terrorists, and the possibility of a nuclear, chemical or biological attack by these ruthless groups, especially in a post 9-11 world, I think has brought back the fear of armageddon again, albeit from a different direction, and I believe this last installment of the Terminator series, reflects that fear. We fear something catastrophic is around the corner, something terrible and unavoidable feels bound to happen, and it is now just a matter of time, so prepare for it. The enemy is not within a single mainframe at one specific location, it is all around us, and unable to be removed. I believe that is the underlying pervasive psychology behind this movie, and as an honest reflection of the times, brings another element of pleasant surprise, and another reason to not miss this movie.

Be forewarned...Spoilers Ahead: As a big fan of the comic book, I definitely enjoyed the movie, but had some small bones to pick and thankfully, IMDB provides the skeletal material.

Firstly, the movie, although good, is over-hyped. As of 7 May 02, the movie has a rating of 8.4, which is comparable to much better movies, such as The Matrix. Perhaps this could be indicative of the excitement of a well-done newly released movie and will level out to a more realistic, better-deserved rating as time goes by. However, this particular phenomenon sort of concerns me because it hints at the possibility that movie ratings may be, for whatever reason, over-hyped in the short term after an initial release. My main worry is that Hollywood has somehow figured out how to initially stack the deck, deceiving loyal IMDB participants, such as myself. I will definitely be more guarded about the IMDB rating of movies after initial releases, and this may mean I will have to wait a movie out after a couple of weeks and then see how the ratings fare.

My other thoughts about the movie, although trivial, add up to a small degree of disappointment, and, in my opinion, detracted from the overall enjoyability. For one, if the movie had spent an equal amount of time depicting Peter Parker's scientific ingenuity as they had showing his eye for design (such as when drawing up plans for his costume), the audience would have had no problem believing that he could create web shooters, such as he did for the comic book. I thought the spinerettes inside his wrists interesting and was thankful the writers opted for his wrists over the spider's preternatural ability to shoot silk out it's rear.

Another point of contention was the look of the green goblin. It seemed in the comic book that the goblin's mask was of a more rubber material, and definitely not the rigid, molded plastic depicted in the film. The look of the goblin from the comic was much more menacing, and those of you who may doubt it only have to view Maximum Overdrive and tell me that the truck with the green goblin's face, taken directly from the comic, does not send chills up your spine.

Additionally, in the comic book, Peter Parker cleverly taunted his enemies while in battle, making it easy for fights to take a much more serious tone when Spider Man's wit would be replaced by less witty diatribe.

It's been years since reading spider-man comic books, but one of the more heartening plot twists from early on in the comic was Peter Parker's love interest with the daughter of a police captain...I think her name was Gwen. And I believe the green goblin tried to kill her in the comic by throwing her off of a bridge, similar to the plot line from the movie. However, unlike the movie, Gwen died while Spider-Man tried to rescue her. A female friend by the name of Mary Jane Watson tried to console him through his loss and Peter Parker ended up falling in love with her. Now I don't know if they could have included those much sadder plot twists for the movie, but as a fan of the comic book, these scenarios resulted in more deeply endearing the characters to me. If I remember correctly, another interesting plot development was when Gwen's father, the police captain, was also killed (I think much earlier than Gwen's demise) while Spidey battled Dr. Octopus. Is Hollywood afraid such loss would negatively impact ticket sales? They should look at Marvel's sales within said plot lines and I think they'd see that the tragic loss resulted in a more loyal fan base. If anyone doubts it, look what the death of Obi Wan did for the fans of Star Wars. One of the more saddening, but poignant points to the comic book series was how many of Peter Parker's closest friends and acquaintances, would die off. Uncle Ben, the police captain, and Gwen, among others.

Lastly, even though casting was for the most part dead-on, the choice of JK Simmons to play JJ Jameson left much to be desired. And I say that as a fan of Law & Order and his recurring role as the psychologist. Of course I'm arm-chair quaterbacking here, but I feel that there could have been a better choice, although I thought JK Simmons did exceptionally well.

Please don't let my comments prevent you from seeing the movie. Even though I believe an 8.4 rating is much too high for it, it is still a well-done, enjoyable movie, more along the lines of a 7 out of 10 rating. It was for the most part faithful to the plot lines of the comic book, and therefore, captivating and interesting.