Archive for January, 2003

Biker Boyz

A Film Review By Andrew Ross

Rating:Rated PG-13 for violence, sexuality and language. 
Starring:Kid Rock, Laurence Fishburne 
Directed by:Reggie Rock Bythewood 

Final Grade: 

WEBMASTERS NOTE: This review is one that the writers of Box Office Boredom argued and argued over who was going to watch Biker Boyz. Finally after much debate, the review was handed to an outside source, one of the people who lives with Jason, Andy Ross. Andy decided that the best way to express himself was not through writing an actual review, but instead construct it in poetry form for everyone’s reading pleasure. I apologize in advance if this review wastes your time.

Biker Boyz, a review in verse.

In the dark two said, “A script we shall write,
for a largely black cast on motorbikes
made of plastic. They’ll have cool helmets on.
I know, we’ll get Kid Rock to be a Don,
or a President or something like that.
Lawrence Fishburne too, though he’s old and fat.”
And So they wrote the script to Biker Boyz.
I cannot write about great pangs of joy
or pain from this movie. It was cheesy.
It made use of slang like “Off the heezy.”
It had Rufio on a 4-wheeler,
there was not a single damned drug dealer.
It was not either fast or furious,
But nonetheless, it kept me curious
I wondered where the racers got the green
to keep their bikes nice, new, shiny, and clean,
Why the characters were made flat and dull,
that I didn’t care about them at all.

So, in conclusion:

I could write about this tiring movie
for a very long time (not that I should)
So as an ex-girlfriend said about me:
The bad things by far outweigh all the good.

Final Destination 2

A Film Review By Michael Haley

Rating:R for strong violence and gore, a little nudity and some cussing.
Starring: A.J. Cook, Ali Larter, Michael Landes, James Kirk (not Captain Kirk, sorry folks), Keegan Connor Tracey.
Directed By:David R. Ellis

Final Grade:

I honestly don’t know what to make of Final Destination 2. On one hand, it’s pretty much the same template as the first movie with a few changes, such as a new cast to kill, and, well, I guess that’s the only big change. And more elaborate, gorier deaths, but you probably figured that was coming anyway thanks to the rule from Scream 2 that states “The death scenes are always much more elaborate.” The acting on the whole is pretty substandard, and the script at times dips into cheesiness. But on the other hand, I enjoyed it and although no real “deep” content exists in the film, it got me thinking about life and existence nevertheless. On a certain level it’s fun and on another it’s cheesy but another it’s terrifying…how should I approach this? Start chucking balls and hope that one of them hits.

It’s been a year since the flight of 180, the airplane that was meant to blow up in the first movie (and when its survivors started dying, so did the actors’ real life careers). Kim (A.J. Cook) is going off with her friends in a pretty cool looking SUV when she gets a premonition ala Devon Sawa’s a year earlier (and a very long premonition at that) where they all die along with others in a severe pile up on the interstate. She manages to save some of the people with her blathering (“There’s going to be an accident!!”) but not certain others. Than the film proceeds more or less like the first movie, where death and its precious design start picking off the survivors in a certain order, which at times makes sense and others does not.

Ya gotta admit, the plot is a pretty fascinating concept, and they proved that it could make a decent (not great, but decent) movie back in 2000. And here it isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s not only been done before, but done in pretty much the same fashion as well. The major exception is the gore factor of the death sequences. Now just about everyone who saw the first one will of course remember Amanda Detmer being smacked to holy hell by the bus, or Sean William Scott getting his head cut off near the train. Those were the most grisly deaths in the film, which used gore as necessary but didn’t overly rely on it…in fact, the sudden gore came just as that, sudden. Here, it’s sudden for awhile, but before long every death becomes a challenge to see if the previous can be outdone in grossness. One of the death scenes is so elaborate and crazy, involving computers, watches, the garbage disposal, a fire, and finally a fire escape, that his predicament and eventual death is amusing and not deathly serious as I would imagine it was intended (or maybe not, this is a Hollywood picture). However, most of the other deaths come from nowhere and are flat out cheap, such as someone who happens to walk out underneath a huge plate of glass, someone who gets killed by their airbag, and a convenient gas leak. The first movie at least built some suspense as to how and when someone would die—this time around, it looks like something else will happen and then “bam” someone’s dead.

That got me thinking…if death really was to go through all the trouble he does in his “design,” than why does he have such an ironic sense of humor? Wouldn’t it be easier just to give them all a stroke or something? Instead, he (or she or it for that matter) possesses the ability to sever gas lines, give premonitions to the main character just to toy with her, and so on…if he really wanted everyone who was supposed to have died dead, than give them all a heart attack at once. His “rift” would be fixed, and there wouldn’t a problem.

Of course, that begs the question of death, or fate as it’s sometimes called, and is it merely a for God. The first film alludes to this, the second doesn’t even bother trying, but I still thought about it during the movie. Is the controlling force of fate really the hand of God? It certainly appears so, as death has such elaborate designs and ways of killing people. But why does death only kill teenagers (with a few adults spread through both films to even it out)? Are the films alluding to the death of the young, brave and bold? Are they saying that you no matter who you are or what you’ve accomplished, that death will ultimately claim you in the end (not exactly a novel thought)? Is there an answer to death’s plans, or are all we hopeless at the hands of fate or God for that matter? Or, are the filmmakers saying, “This would be a really f*cked up way to kill her!!”? Although I know the latter is probably more correct, the prior issues raised directly by the first film and implicitly by the second give the film more weight, at least in my experience, than it deserves.

However, there is one standout scene in the sequel that is so well done that it’s scary (literally), and that is the opening premonition sequence where Kim “sees” the pile up that claims the lives of her and her friends. The shots of the interstate and its inhabitants are slow and labored, but manage to catch almost everyone on the interstate and set up the story with as few words as possible. The highway is normal looking and the day is brightly sunny…no ominous clouds, no thrilling music on the soundtrack, and some of the cast members are doing things like smoking pot that don’t exactly foreshadow mass tragedy. Yet even so, the atmosphere is thick with dread, a feat accomplished very well by the actors and crew (although the trailer helps a bit), and when the pile up does happen, the collisions and trauma was so well done that I didn’t shiver in the seat because of the “scariness” of it but the sheer tragedy on the screen…the sound f/x and images deliver hard, powerful moments in this first scenes, and is enough of a means by itself to make one question his own mortality and the ease at which he can die. The rest of the movie tends to try to shock us more and more with every death, but for me, the pile up stands out as the most effective of the film (not the grisliest, but most effective overall).

There are elements that I didn’t mention that are simply ridiculous (the number of things that blow up in this movie, and how easily and high they blow), the way that death’s design doesn’t always play by the rules established by the film, and the possible method to cheat death, whatever it may be, is downright ludicrous. Even so, I have to admit that I really enjoyed it. It doesn’t come anywhere near the brilliance of the original, which wasn’t brilliant but rather bright, but I’m recommending it anyhow. Lest you all be warned, the film definitely isn’t for the faint hearted or squeamish, and won’t initiate any discussion into discussion of life and mortality unless the viewer is already interested in such matters.

The Recruit

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Rating:Rated PG-13 for violence, sexuality and language.
Starring: Al Pacino and Collin Farrell
Directed by:Roger Donaldson

Final Grade:

I’ve never been asked to join the CIA. I probably never will. I guess that doesn’t bother me. After all I can’t really imagine myself being any good at it anyway. But the one thing I have learned after watching The Recruit is that in the CIA everything is a test. If everything is a test, the CIA can’t be that hard, in fact it sounds a lot like college, so maybe I could make it in the CIA after all. But instead of chasing a pointless pipe dream in this review, I’ll just get on with what I do know something about, that being movie reviews.

Box offices have been giving us an influx of low grade movies over the past month, mainly due to the fact that the beginning of the year is where they dump their not so successful movies on audiences, so the production companies can lose their money early on in the year, and have the rest of the year to make up for it. Luckily however, you can find a few good apples amongst the rotting ones, even in the bleak winter month of February.

The Recruit, the newest Al Pacino and Collin Farrell movie proves to be that one good apple in the bunch. The Recruit is the story of James Clayton (Collin Farrell), a young, handsome, cocky computer whiz who is at the top of his graduating class. (I have been told it’s hard to find such people at places other than ISU). Clayton is recruited by CIA recruiter Walter Burke (Al Pacino), who takes Clayton under his wing as he begins training him to be a CIA officer. Clayton quickly learns that in order to rise in rank at the CIA, you must realize that nothing you see is real, and that everything is a potential test. However, as Clayton works his way up through the ranks, he finds a love interest in another fellow recruit, a girl named Layla. But when Clayton is given a special assignment to find a CIA mole, Clayton must use everything he has learned to find the mole and figure out who is on his side.

The Recruit is one of the first movies that has ever given movie goers a close look at what the CIA is really like and the movie does a great job of it. (Once again, this is speculation since the CIA won’t recruit me) The movie drags in spots but over all is a more of a guilty pleasure, due to a series of twists and turns that keeps the viewer guessing up till the very end.

However, the thing that makes The Recruit a great movie is not a great plot or a shocking ending, it is the actors themselves that make the movie great. Pacino has a history of great movies, and The Godfather himself proves that he still has it in him after last years box office success, Insomnia and now The Recruit. Collin Farrell is quickly rising in the ranks as a Hollywood hero, and has the potential to be a great in a short period of time. He has all the characteristics of an upcoming star, young, handsome, cocky and a series of upcoming movie deals including a role in Daredevil which is due out in theaters in a few weeks. I know I am looking forward to seeing more of this rising star in the future. Farrell’s performance nicely compliments Pacino’s and the two of them together have a chemistry that is shown throughout the entire film.

It is unfortunate however that the rest of the film is lacking that chemistry. Like I stated earlier, the film lags in spots, and runs a little on the long side. I quickly learned that the movie is not supposed to be a thinking movie, in fact the more you think about it the less you enjoy it. But in the broad scheme of things, these are things that can be overlooked. The film, directed by Roger Donaldson (Species, Dante’s Peak, Thirteen Days), is a definite step forward for the director, and shows us that he does have a chance for a bright future.

Is The Recruit worth all your time and money? Sure why not. It’s not the most shocking thing in film history and will be a film that will be soon forgotten except for when it becomes the TNT movie of the week in couple of years. Never the less, The Recruit is a decent flick that is hidden amongst a slew of mediocre films in the box offices. Being hidden amongst movies like this I fear that The Recruit is going to be overlooked, which is unfortunate for a movie that deserves to at least be recognized. I guess that the successes of the film will be a test as well. All I can do is hope that it passes the test and the great acting this film provides gives the actors the credit they deserve.

The Hours

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Rating:Rated PG-13 for mature thematic elements, some disturbing images and brief language 
Starring: Nicole Kidman Julianne Moore and Merryl Streep 
Directed By:Stephen Daldry 

Final Grade: 

Over the years I have spent as an English major, if there is one thing that I have learned by reading a lot of literature. The power of words can have a great effect on people, and sometimes those words can be life changing. Now I can’t say I have ever found that one book that has changed my life, except for maybe Nick Hornby’s High Fidelity (yes children, it was a BOOK before it became a John Cusack film). But never the less some people have that life changing catharsis due to the films they watch and the books they read. In the story of The Hours we see this idea in action.

Critically acclaimed as one of the “Best Movies of the Year” and nominated for Seven Golden Globe AwardsThe Hours was what I had thought was going to be a real pleasure to watch. The Hours is the story of Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) a unique author who is slowly losing it, who’s words pervade throughout time and affects the lives of 2 different women in different time periods. In one scenario we Meet Laura Brown, a housewife who is planning a Birthday party for her husband while reading Woolf’s novel. Her life is broken and falling apart and she finds comfort in the novel. We see her slowly cracking up, just like the author of the novel she is reading. In the other scenario we meet Clarissa Vaughn (Merryl Streep) a woman who struggles with finding what makes her happy and pleasing author and friend, Richard Brown who is dying of the AIDS virus. Academy Award Winner Nicole Kidman, an actress who has taken the world by storm and making a name for herself as of late is just there in this film. I have heard many comments from critics on how stunning the almost unrecognizable Kidman is in this film, but despite the difference in her appearance, I really found nothing to brag about for her in this one. As for Merryl Streep’s character I found some actual depth in her character, but it is nothing that makes her stand out as a great individual in this one. In fact I was more disappointed by her in this one after seeing her do such a stunning performance in Adaptation.

The Hours was filled with symolism, symbolism and well more symbolism. In fact there is so much the average moviegoer isn’t going to pick up on most of it. I felt the film relied heavily on it. The problem withThe Hours is that it simply took HOURS to go anywhere. The story seemed to jump from time period to time period, and place to place quickly. But just because the scenes change quickly does not mean the plot changes as rapidly. The plot moves along slowly like a tugboat on the ocean, dragging the audience along. By the time the movie got started, I just didn’t care anymore, and by the time it had finished I cared even less. I just never could get into The Hours. Even after watching it twice (yes I gave it a second chance to see if I missed anything) I still felt the whole film was a bore. The acting is what pulled the film together. We have a great cast, and a lot of talent that shows up on the screen. It’s the people (If anything), not the film that made The Hours shine.

So is it worth the cash? I honestly don’t think so. From a critical standpoint, I felt the movie had a lot to say, and had good intentions, but for the average moviegoer it’s more of a bore. Definitely one of those films I would put in Jason’s Love it or Hate it Category. There is no in between on this one. So if you are in the middle ground, save some cash rent it maybe…but well just try and enjoy a different movie. As for me, I am going against the grain. So forget what the other critics are telling you, this film just takes way to many HOURS to do absolutely nothing…. 

Darkness Falls

A Film Review By Michael Haley

Rating:PG-13 for language and SCARINESS!!!!
Starring: Chaney Kley, Emma Caulfield, Lee Cormie.
Directed By:Jonathon Liebesman.

Final Grade:

Ima scared already. Ima scared that Hollywood won’t stop putting out ridiculous horror films, including but not limited to the recent films The Ring, FearDotCom, and They (to be fair, The Ring was a lot of fun). However, the makers of this film decided apparently that they would take the face of the creature of Feardotcom and none of the good visuals, the cops and stuff blueprint of Jeepers Creepers, and last but not least, RIP OFF NEARLY ALL OF THEY!! I mean of all the horror films to knock off, they picked They? And so begins my review…

The film stars several names you’ll never see again. Apparently Matilda Dickson was lynched in the town of Darkness Falls 150 some years ago, and has now come back in the form of the Tooth Fairy. Thing is, she’ll only come out when it’s dark (sound familiar?) and kills anybody who lays eyes upon her face, which I think is made out of children’s teeth or something. The film opens with the title character as a little boy, who witnesses the creature kill his mother and develops a life long fear of the dark. Twelve years later (and we’re told that twelve years has passed no less than five times throughout the film) the creature has come back for another little kid (who has a cute way of letting you know he’s a scared little boy who’s always in danger of being eaten by the Tooth Fairy), and the previous kid now has to kill the Tooth Fairy once and for all. If you read the previous sentence and didn’t laugh at its stupidity, than by all means, check out the film.

Where do I begin on this pile of crap…for one thing, the word “dumbass” is too high of a compliment to pay the characters of the film. For example, they constantly have to be in light or else the tooth fairy swoops down and kills them. So when they jump in the car, they have to look around for flashlights that of course don’t work (never mind the laws of physics, which don’t seem to apply here) and so forth. Why don’t they just turn on the dome light of their car? They could drive for miles and not have to worry about the tooth fairy at all. Or better yet, when they go in the dark why don’t they keep their eyes closed, if that apparently stops the tooth fairy as well? It didn’t matter, because I was kind of hoping the tooth fairy would win. I won’t say if she does or doesn’t; not like it really matters though.

But even with sub par intelligence, could this at least have been thrilling or even mildly fun? No, because I was constantly distracted by how blatantly cheap the scares were. The film starts off with some promise and some really disturbing imagery, and than descends into mediocrity faster than you can say “tooth fairy” in the mirror five times (and at only seventy-six minutes, that’s no exaggeration). All the cheap thrills are there…the cat jumping on the car, the open window that suggests the tooth fairy is coming in but it’s really a girl who wants to take the little boy to the dance, and so on. That’s not to mention the countless thefts from other, better horror films. The one in particular that irked me was a two second shot that was a flat out theft from the beginning of The Shining; not homage but theft, and Stanley Kubrick has to be spinning in his grave at the notion of one his cool shots being used in such a horrible film. The concept and set up of the film (little boy at the beginning that goes carazay baby) comes from They, and even the creature comes straight out of Feardotcom, which may not have been a great movie but theft is theft, regardless of the source.

Yeah, there are is some okay stuff like the creature, who may have not been an original creation but in the right light, puts an effective spin on The Grim Reaper (more theft!) that feels kinda cool. The lead actress was pretty cute (and almost makes the admission worth it). There are a few insignificant wide angle shots that don’t do anything for the film but make excellent use of scope. But I can’t recommend anything about it besides those trite points. On my initial viewing I was going to let it off with a C or C-, but as I was writing this review, I felt an intense disgust and hatred for the film, which doesn’t even try to do anything remotely different. If you know what you want and for some reason this is it go for it, otherwise, see something else.

?>