This movie has guts, plain and simple. Ordinarily, I would have been outraged at some of the decisions that were made in this film. To see certain X-Men characters killed was unthinkable when I entered the theater, and had these deaths not occurred in just the way they did, I probably would have hated this movie. But they killed unthinkable characters in simply mind-blowing ways and never looked back. I repeat: this movie has guts.
Unfortunately, Bryan Singer (who directed the previous two installments of the series) chose to walk away from The Last Stand to direct Superman Returns. The joke would be on him, however, as X-Men would out-earn Superman and also got more love from fans. In Singer’s absence, we have Brett Ratner, of Rush Hour fame, who could have ruined this film, but does a surprisingly good job.
The story is a little all over the place, throwing in shout outs to fanboy favorite mutants just for the sake of including fanboy favorite mutants. The inclusion of more mutants comes at the sacrifice of character and story depth, which the first two films were chock full of. While it’s neat to see mutants like Juggernaut, Beast and Angel, it’s a shame that the story was more or less as deep as the Saturday morning cartoon version from the 90s. An alleged cure for the mutant gene is found, causing the humans of the world to demand mutants all “cure” themselves and rejoin “normal society.”
There are some substantially silly-looking special effects and the series wraps itself up almost too neatly in the end. The best part about X-Men stories is that things are always left a little bit open. There are two “shockers” at the end (one before and one after the credits) that keep potential sequels on the board, but some course correction is never a bad thing.
The little things add up to be a minor nuisance, but the boldness of the film helps you forget about it. X-Men: The Last Stand is a good way to end the series without closing the book on the characters.
Johnny Depp fans, drug users, and existentialists alike have been raving about this movie ever since it came out. There was some serious buzz generated around it when I was in high school, and everyone seemed to imply that A) it is a must see movie and B) it will change your life.
It’s not, and it won’t. Unless of course you happen to be a Johnny Depp fan, a drug user or an existentialist.
Maybe it fell victim to nearly a decade’s worth of hype, but I was disappointed with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Johnny Depp really creates his character with vivid, almost disturbing, realism. His commitment to the character is the strong point of the film. The story has its moments of strengths, but grows tiresome at the end. Depp plays real-life “writer” Hunter S. Thompson as he wanders through the wastelands of America to cover some story for a newspaper or magazine (I don’t honestly recall which). To help cope with his assignment, he and his partner have a case full of narcotics, a veritable who’s who of psychoactive substances.
They shoot up, get high, wander around, and barely remember to cover their assignment. The film reaches a breaking point in which the two become so hopelessly strung out on drugs that they don’t remember what’s happened for some period of time, which is probably a good thing. The film shows how drugs distort and ultimately destroy one’s mind, and yet, while Depp’s character sobers up and seems like he’s getting off the horse, he’s reassigned and restocks his stash for another merry adventure in semi-unconsciousness. Roll credits. The End.
The film doesn’t try to validate the irresponsible abuse of drugs, but it also certainly doesn’t attempt to tell its audience to steer clear of them. It’s a semi-biographical movie about a quasi-remembered trip. The final half hour plods along with uncertainty as to whether Depp’s character is going to resolve this mess and whether there needed to be an additional 30 minutes to the story.
The movie doesn’t have a statement to make, it doesn’t stand for anything, and there’s not much plot progression outside of a couple of strung out junkies. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is simply there to be there, which it does quite well.
Director Jack Ferry seems to try his hardest to emulate some of today’s edgiest and most inventive directors- Darren Aronofsky, Danny Boyle, M. Night Shyamalan and Christopher Nolan. However, in trying to emulate these great minds of modern film, Ferry loses his sense of individuality, leaving the film to feel like a mish-mash of styles. It takes a lot of hard work to make dark humor, suspense, horror, science fiction and intellectualism mesh together in a standard length film, so it’s no surprise that Ferry comes up short of the Promised Land in his lofty attempt to do all this in a 20 minute short.
The film is a dark tale of what could happen if we could clone ourselves and transmit our memories to said clone shortly before we die, thereby sending our consciousness into another body. A young man discovers he is an experiment in such new procedures and struggles to deal with it. While the plot itself is fairly far-fetched, it’s pure sci-fi pulp at its heart. It may not be terribly original, but still a neat idea to expound upon.
The biggest problem comes from the lack of coherence between the many facets of such a procedure’s consequences. The only credence given to the medical ethics of it all comes in the form of flashbacks of an overbearing, doom-and-gloom priest warning us not to play God and tamper with the human soul. At film’s end, an overzealous doctor calls an associate and enthusiastically brags about this new procedure and how it can be beneficial to many, which makes it difficult to tell which side of the coin Ferry really stands for. Is he for or against cloning? In a short story, the reader (or in this case, viewer) needs to be able to understand the author’s intentions. Here, we don’t.
Also, some of the rapid-fire montage clips are very out of place for a story about cloning. Shots of surgery and open body cavities are needless shock tactics and do not belong. Cloning the man wouldn’t result in massive surgeries if all that is necessary is to transport memories through a wire to the brain. The use of these clips serves only to make viewers jump, confuse us and to get some adrenaline pumping. I found it to be a cheap tactic that took away from the story.
Other incongruities include his visions of the snarling doctor (Why would he look so mean if this was his pet project? Can his mind be read? If so, how and why?), the seeming Oedipus complex developed by the nurse who birthed his clone, and issues involving aging (If he was born and raised in the hospital, why doesn’t he have any new memories of his new childhood? If he was aged to the point where he attempted suicide, then the original mind would have countless years of blank memory space, so how would this affect the clone?). Not to mention the issues of funding, or the man’s mother’s whereabouts.
A good what-if film will leave you asking questions that are intriguing and possibly illuminating. In the case of A Reasonable Hypothesis, asking questions ultimately deconstructs the mystery and merely showcases its shortcomings. Jack Ferry was only a film student when making this film and, given time, he ought to be able to come up with his own directorial style and refine his ability to maintain focus and integrity throughout a film. This is the kind of weak, film student experiment that several accomplished filmmakers had to cut their teeth on early in their careers and get a good chuckle from watching it years later. Ferry may never hit it big, but he does show signs of potential.
The Lethal Weapon catchphrase “too old for this sh*t” is about as tired as Danny Glover and Mel Gibson look in this film. Riggs and Murtaugh are older- eleven years older than when they paired up in the first installment of this “buddy cop” franchise.
The film adds yet another supporting character with Chris Rock as the fiancé of Murtaugh’s daughter. Rene Russo returns in her role from 3 and is pregnant with Riggs' child. Joe Pesci is back and is, well, Joe Pesci.
The bad guys are Chinese, so we get to see old cops fight kung fu masters (and win!). A bit recycled and repetitive, Lethal Weapon 4 brings the series to a close in a fitting manner. It entertains, but one has to wonder if they really needed to make this one.
Detectives Riggs and Murtaugh have a habit of saying that they’re “too old for this sh*t.” By the end of Lethal Weapon 3, I’m starting to believe them. While it’s still entertaining, most of why this movie works comes from our familiarity with the characters and their quirks.
Joe Pesci returns as a supporting character and Rene Russo joins the party as a government agent. She’s a feisty one, so naturally there’s some sexual tension between her and Riggs. The plot isn’t so memorable, but it’s the further adventures of Riggs and Murtaugh. If you liked the first two, you’re bound to watch this one, right? That’s basically the filmmakers' hopes with Lethal Weapon 3, and they’re more or less right.
Isn’t it annoying when sequels try and go deeper than their predecessor and try tackling some kind of major issue while still providing a similar amount of punch and wit as the first? I think it is.
Fortunately, Lethal Weapon 2 doesn’t get too heavy handed in this common pitfall. The bad guys this time around are South African. This means nothing to the current generation but when this movie was made, South Africa was still operating under apartheid government. The bad guys are white and rather racist, which only makes sense if you are aware of history. Since Detective Murtaugh is black, some interesting point and counterpoint is played out subtly throughout the film which younger viewers won’t understand at all.
Fortunately, the filmmakers reduce this potentially heavy-handed race issue by injecting a new source of humor for the series- Joe Pesci. He plays an annoying little creep named Leo who Riggs and Murtaugh are assigned to protect. Of course, protecting Leo leads them into a larger foray against organized crime and drug lords.
Somewhat predictable, but still entertaining, Lethal Weapon 2 retains enough of the original’s magic to keep you entertained.
You’ll be hard pressed to find a “Buddy Cop” flick with as much pop and energy as Lethal Weapon. While several cop movies incorporated riveting balances between drama and humor, Lethal Weapon makes the formula work while sharing screen time between two completely different personalities.
In a way, it’s a fish-out-of-water scenario, except that the cops are on their home turf. Their biggest issue is how to trust and deal with each other. Instead of just being a “crazy cop,” Mel Gibson brings depth to his character (Detective Riggs), making us feel compassion for him and justifying some of his antics. On the flip side, Danny Glover (as Detective Murtaugh) presents us with an older man ready to slow down. He’s very believable and very practical.
The relationship and growth each brings to the other really makes the film more than a schlocky stunt-fest like its endless number successors and imitators. Speaking of stunts, the stunt work is nearly seamless and largely believable. The plot is a bit out there, but what should we expect from a cop drama/comedy?
It’s original and creative enough to be heralded as a model for the sub-genre, which has allowed it to enter the cultural consciousness as well. Rightfully hailed as a classic, Lethal Weapon is a ride worth taking.
It’s an improvement upon Scream 2, but this movie still doesn’t quite feel like it was necessary to begin with. Supposedly the Scream franchise was originally devised as a trilogy, which goes to show that thinking big isn’t always the best idea.
The best thing that 3 does is bring resolution to the series. Frankly, the first installment stands alone, with competent enough resolution and nothing left to be wondered. Scream 2 opened the book up again and left it hanging open in the midst of a weaker chapter. Scream 3 basically operates on the fact that the killer is lucky that Scream 2 didn’t end in Sidney Prescott’s death.
Scream 3 is written in a way that weaves in and out of the workings of the original. The killer in 3 is ultimately responsible for the events of the first film (I won’t explain how- see it yourself). However, no connection is established between the killer and any of the events of the sequel, essentially making Scream 2 even less important, save for the fact that a second wave of murders (Scream 2) helps the 'Stab' series of movies continue, resulting in the movie-inside-a-movie nature of 3.
While slightly better than the series’ middle chapter, Scream 3 overcomplicates not only itself, but the whole series, and leaves me wondering why we couldn’t just skip over 2 and make the Scream series a duology. (I realize the sequel vs. trilogy argument is why 2 had to occur, but my point is that they could have just been more creative about the whole thing)
This sequel to the 1996 hit misses the mark by its very own nature as a sequel. While the idea of offering a tongue-in-cheek roast of slasher sequels sounds like fun, the one thing Scream 2 can’t do is validate the existence of sequels. Scream took all the reasons critics of the genre use to explain why horror films are unnecessary but and showed us how entertaining they can be, in effect validating their existence based on the enjoyable nature of their weaknesses.
Exposing the fatal flaws in sequels is done here, but we don’t end up embracing them like we did in the first film. While boldly acknowledging that new characters in sequels are more or less imitations of or stand-ins for characters from the original, Scream 2 still doesn’t warm us up to this fact. It also doesn’t help that through the “established rules of sequels” we lose one of the series most endearing characters- Randy to movie geek. Another problem is that we don’t pick up any new characters that might come back in future installments, which some better sequels do.
Essentially, Wes Craven and his team had to create a mediocre sequel in order to poke fun at mediocre sequels. This time though, the joke is on them.
I had some difficulty rating this film, similar to what I experienced when rating the original Frankenstein. By today’s standards, this film looks hokey and absurd at times, making it hard to keep in mind that this film was groundbreaking and set the standards for the genre.
While it’s not the first zombie movie, Night is remembered and hailed as one of the corner pieces in the zombie sub-genre’s foundation. No actual reason is giving for the reanimation of the dead, leaving the audience caught just as much off guard and as curious as the characters on the screen. The story unfolds over the course of one night, and what a night it is! Several attempts are made by the main characters to escape the wave of undead trying to break down their doors.
Some pretty bold decisions were made during the course of this film, most notably having a black man as the hero. This may not seem bold now, but consider that this film was made in 1968. Supposedly, director George A. Romero claims the black actor simply had the best audition and he never thought of the race issue. Other bold decisions are focused on who dies, when and how. The graphic content of this film certainly pushed boundaries at the time, though is now tame by comparison.
Gritty, shocking, and even heartbreaking, Night of the Living Dead is rightly hailed as a cult classic and worth a look.
This movie has guts, plain and simple. Ordinarily, I would have been outraged at some of the decisions that were made in this film. To see certain X-Men characters killed was unthinkable when I entered the theater, and had these deaths not occurred in just the way they did, I probably would have hated this movie. But they killed unthinkable characters in simply mind-blowing ways and never looked back. I repeat: this movie has guts.
Johnny Depp fans, drug users, and existentialists alike have been raving about this movie ever since it came out. There was some serious buzz generated around it when I was in high school, and everyone seemed to imply that A) it is a must see movie and B) it will change your life.
The Lethal Weapon catchphrase “too old for this sh*t” is about as tired as Danny Glover and Mel Gibson look in this film. Riggs and Murtaugh are older- eleven years older than when they paired up in the first installment of this “buddy cop” franchise.
Detectives Riggs and Murtaugh have a habit of saying that they’re “too old for this sh*t.” By the end of Lethal Weapon 3, I’m starting to believe them. While it’s still entertaining, most of why this movie works comes from our familiarity with the characters and their quirks.
Isn’t it annoying when sequels try and go deeper than their predecessor and try tackling some kind of major issue while still providing a similar amount of punch and wit as the first? I think it is.
You’ll be hard pressed to find a “Buddy Cop” flick with as much pop and energy as Lethal Weapon. While several cop movies incorporated riveting balances between drama and humor, Lethal Weapon makes the formula work while sharing screen time between two completely different personalities.
It’s an improvement upon Scream 2, but this movie still doesn’t quite feel like it was necessary to begin with. Supposedly the Scream franchise was originally devised as a trilogy, which goes to show that thinking big isn’t always the best idea.
This sequel to the 1996 hit misses the mark by its very own nature as a sequel. While the idea of offering a tongue-in-cheek roast of slasher sequels sounds like fun, the one thing Scream 2 can’t do is validate the existence of sequels. Scream took all the reasons critics of the genre use to explain why horror films are unnecessary but and showed us how entertaining they can be, in effect validating their existence based on the enjoyable nature of their weaknesses.
I had some difficulty rating this film, similar to what I experienced when rating the original Frankenstein. By today’s standards, this film looks hokey and absurd at times, making it hard to keep in mind that this film was groundbreaking and set the standards for the genre.
