?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

As in cheese, baby. Why didn't anyone warn me that this movie would be two hours of my life that I couldn't get back? We hadn't yet spent Father's Day time with David's dad, so we went to see the movie with him this afternoon. Erm, it looked pretty, but I think my cat could probably write a better script if she had opposable thumbs and a serious dose of caffeine.

Riddick is one of the last of a race called the Furians? Please. If someone asked the viewing audience "How many of you thought: 'The Fast and the Furians'?" I am fairly certain that everyone's hand would go up. That wasn't CGI: those monoliths were carved from pure Wisconsin cheddar, propped up by dialogue like "It's been a long time since I smelled beautiful," as Riddick (Vin Diesel) sniffs Dame Vaako (Thandie Newton), and "It's an animal thing," after Riddick stares down a bad CGI creature that somewhat resembles a puma with spiky scales. This, by the way, takes place on a planet by the name of Crematoria. *eye roll*

Chronicles of Riddick? More like Chronicles of Ridiculous.

So far, unless Spider-Man 2 turns out to be worthwhile, Shrek 2 is looking like the best movie of the summer.

Come on, Serenity (2005). Come on, X-Men 3 (2006).

Tags:

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
mumpish
Jun. 28th, 2004 06:35 am (UTC)
Bah, someone needs to teach you to appreciate summer blockbusters. The film is *supposed* to be big, dumb and fun.

I submit that, objectively, it is no dumber than any Star Wars installment except, possibly, Episode V.

I will entertain charges that it's derivative; having a dark lord in black clothes, cape, and helmet is not exactly new territory. But if you can buy Vader strangling someone from across a conference table (now that's a way to play gatekeeper at a meeting) then a dark lord ripping people's souls from their bodies should be no problem. In fact, I'd suggest that Vader would have been infinitely more terrifying to our fragile psyches back in 1977 if he'd been able to do the same. I'd suspect the only reason he didn't is Lucas couldn't figure out how to do it with matte paintings :)
pointedview
Jun. 28th, 2004 09:05 am (UTC)
I like summer blockbusters; I don't expect Shakespeare from them. However, dialogue so hackneyed and trite as to make the audience lose IQ points isn't excusable, in my mind. CGI does not make up for a disjointed script. Heck, with the way some of the fight scenes were filmed, you could tell they hadn't room in the budget for proper choreography, so they just tried to make it up with jerky camera angles.

I thought some of the Star Wars movies were crummy as well, particularly the recent ones. However, at least in the older ones, the characters were sort of cuddly and lovable, and didn't take a back seat to the special effects.

Gracious, Vader ripping out someone's soul. I . . . wonder. Even if Lucas had been able to do that, I rather wonder if he wouldn't have left that sort of thing to the Emperor, leaving Vader a little more room for redemption at the end.
pointedview
Jun. 28th, 2004 10:08 am (UTC)
Addendum
For what it's worth, I think Vin Diesel has potential in the Gruff and Growly Actors Department, and I mean that as a compliment. Given the right vehicle, I could see him doing a star turn and moving into Bruce Willis action hero territory. Or, in another direction, he could get additional credibility in something gritty like Boogie Nights, which garnered acclaim for Mark Wahlberg.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Twin Peaks: Snoqualmie
pointedview
pointedview

Latest Month

January 2019
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

About Me:

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes