Comments -

All rudewordsmith's Comments

Showing items 1 - 10 of 258
1 2 3 4 >  >>  

10 Brilliant Foreign Sci-Fi Films (Article) - 6/1/2010 9:49:26 PM

I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk when I say this, but Hollywood makes amazingly watered-down, neutered science fiction films. They remove the intelligence from them for the sake of sheer spectacle -- Blade Runner not withstanding. Americans, in general, seem to view Sci-Fi as some shameful genre, befitting of children and dullards. 

Foreign Science Fiction is the only respectable sort, if one actually takes the foundations of science fiction into account. In America, we hear "science fiction" and we instantly assume it has to be about space, or war on some distant planet. It gets very, very stale.

As such, I'm a fan of this list. For the most part. Battle Royal doesn't really belong on the list, unless I missed the science fiction elements. It's been a while since I saw it last, so it's very possible. Glad Metropolis got it's much deserved love. Can't wait to see the original edit once it hits DVD later this year.

Sad to see that Children of Men didn't make the cut, but I guess something made it null-and-void.

AVATAR Hits 3rd All-Time (Article) - 1/7/2010 7:18:29 PM

 I can understand if James Cameron wants to do another massively CGI dependent flick that incorporates this 3D schtick, but what purpose does 3D have in a modestly budgeted drama? What, exactly, would it add? 

It's still a stupid gimmick, though I'll admit it's gotten very polished since last it failed to revolutionize cinema. Still, it's an unnecessary tech altogether. 

AVATAR has $16 Mil Monday (Article) - 12/25/2009 9:37:36 AM

For people sticking up for James Cameron's behavior during this autograph debacle: If you don't want to take the time to sign autographs, don't be a filmmaker in Hollywood. And to say he was in the right because this alleged fan was just trying to make money off of Cameron's autograph? Boo friggin' hoo. Cameron's secured ten lifetime's worth of money off of all of us. Who cares if some dweeb gets 50 bucks for a poster. That's just a molecule in the drop of water in James Cameron's ocean.

James Cameron is a purveyor of cheap parlor tricks, and Avatar is so wildly mediocre. How can so many people not see this? It's fine to like the movie. Hell, it's great that there are people who love it. But to act as though the film is any sort of miracle? It smacks of Twilight and its legion of fans, which shows the sort of blind hypocrisy that is acceptable amongst geeks.

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus: Mania Review (Article) - 12/24/2009 8:28:32 PM

 A good review, but is it really necessary to "warn" audiences that a dead actor is going to appear dead at some point in the film? Any one that ignorant to the inevitable outcome of life vs. the everlasting nature of film as a medium should be shot into space, never to be heard from again.

AVATAR Movie Review (Article) - 12/18/2009 11:46:01 PM

 I just got back from seeing it, myself. I have to give credit to Cameron for making a film in 3D that doesn't try to constantly remind me that I am watching such a film (you know that gimmicky shit I'm talking about. Where something has to pop out of the screen and fly through the air, etc...)


This review is pretty accurate. The design and the cinematography are top notch, which makes the fact that the script is so plain all the more painful. For a filmmaker with a reputation such as Cameron's, he really should have been able to make a script as impressive as its presentation. But the dialogue is awful, the characters far from three dimensional, and the plot is so very tired.

"Avatar" isn't the revolution, but it certainly is the first of many shots to be fired that will herald such a thing. Of this I am certain.

NEW MOON Breaks Midnight Record (Article) - 11/23/2009 9:23:38 PM

 Let me start by saying: I have no love/interest/remote interest in or for Twilight. That said...

Reading some of these posts, I'm taken back to grade school. It's just silly to criticize tweens and their interest in sappy, crummy vampire movies when simultaneously harping on about how great and legitimate super hero movies are. Both genres are childish, so leave that out of the bickering. We all like what we like, the interests of others be damned.

Now, that having been said, we should all be upset. We have the right to be. But not because Tween Dracula is threatening to some day take in more money than Batman (there's still more Twilight on the way, and not one positive word about another Batman flick), but because the movie -- subject matter/fans aside -- is just not even remotely good. I've seen Syfy Original Movies about Pterodactyls (starring Coolio, I might add) that had better production value.

I guess what I'm saying is this... Enough debasing the flicks based on its subject matter/source material. Caring about super heros is every bit as goofy. Just knock it for the right reason: As a motion picture, it only qualifies as it was captured on camera. In every other aspect, it (they) failed.

Zombie Remakes THE BLOB (Article) - 8/29/2009 2:16:50 PM

 Zombie can make film look good, but his writing is awful. His films aren't nearly as bad as Uwe Boll's movies, but... Shit, I guess it goes like this: If I'm going to watch a movie and it sucks, it had better suck so stupendously as to strike me stupid. That, in itself, is entertaining. But if a movie has good production value (which Zombie's do, save for House of 1,000 Corpses) and a decent premise with some interesting angles behind it to explore... but then meanders in any which direction, some where between good and bad... that's when I dislike a movie.

Zombie has some neat ideas, but he should use his growing portfolio to rope in some one who can take his ideas and make a script that has some sort of clear intention. Ignore all the hillbillies, constant casting of his wife, and other such gripes. The fundamental problem is that he knows how to direct, but he has tunnel vision with his own stories and can't see what does/doesn't work. And if he does, he doesn't seem to care enough to fix the problems because the visual aspect might be cool when all is said and done.

I'd like to see him try his hand at directing some one else's work, because I'm convinced the guy has some good work in him. But, for right now, he should step away from the word processor and let his ideas stew before he pumps out such lackluster stuff. 

Now, having said that, I have not heard good word #1 about H2 -- even from die-hard horror hounds. H1 left me with a bad taste in my mouth, not because it was too extreme, but because it just wasn't very interesting. The brutality was something to behold, but at some point a horror movie should do something to, ya know, provoke some kind of horror in the audience. I'll give Zombie credit for wanting to add a new dimension to Myers and his reasons for killing (even though I'm not a fan of explaining his exploits through abuse and a shitty upbringing when compared to an innocent little kid just snapping and never knowing why), but there comes a time when if he'd wanted to tell that story he could have done so with an original character. But that's just one man's opinion.

5 Reasons Why GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra Will Suck (Article) - 8/5/2009 8:31:08 AM

 Hanso, in bringing up the cartoon (those of us who have) we are merely pointing out something: This shit was born silly (even the comics were cheesy at times), grew up silly, and who cares if it stays silly? Not every movie based on a comic or cartoon needs to be "re-imagined" into some brooding, mature dramafest. That's just an attempt for adult geeks to justify their fondness for something from their childhood so they don't feel like the nerds people take them for.

There's nothing wrong with loving cheesy shit from one's childhood. But to demand that every beloved property be "matured" up so one doesn't feel guilty for still liking it? That's silly in its own right.

Will the movie be silly, over-the-top, and stupid? All signs point to yes. But the property, itself, has been all three for several decades. So where's the problem? A serious, straight-faced G. I. Joe would be, in my opinion, less fun and more far removed from the G.I. Joe most of us grew up with. Plus, it wouldn't be G.I. Joe.

As for the Transformers vs. G.I. Joe comparisons... Look, so long as this film isn't filled with fart jokes and unnecessary testicle sight gags... Well, Hell, it'll already deserve the pass Transformers didn't get.

5 Reasons Why GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra Will Suck (Article) - 8/5/2009 5:36:28 AM

 So let me get this straight... There are still people out there that maintain that the G.I. JOE cartoon was serious, non-schlocky poetry that will be disgraced by an equally silly live action film?

I still recall an episode here Lady Jay, on her high tech hang glider (not at all silly, stupid or illogical during an all out attack by people carrying laser guns or flying one-man helicopter death machines), shot some Viper out of the sky and quipped: "See you later, Dingus".

I'm no fan of Sommers, personally, but the trailer makes it seem like the film takes itself more seriously than the cartoon ever did. And that isn't exactly me praising it, but... c'mon!

The flick won't knock G.I. Joe down a peg or two. It won't rape any one's childhood. If anything, geeks need to admit that their childhoods were raped all along. It just feels different this time because some one finally had the grace to lubricate first. 

WOLVERINE 2 Confirmed (Article) - 5/6/2009 7:59:09 AM

I agree with Hanso. The flick was barely -- in fact, I would say not at all -- passable as a "fun comic movie". It was one dumb fight scene connected to the next dumb fight scene by an explosion or the faintest bit of character building.

I say this not as a fanboy. I'm indifferent towards the character, as a matter of fact. It was just a jumbled mess of third-tier characters performing third-rate activities. 

The problem is people are confusing "fun" and "stupid", and they have been for a long time. Iron Man is an example of a fun comic movie -- or even just of a fun movie regardless of genre. Wolverine was an hour and a half of stupid for stupid's sake.


Date Joined: March 20, 2007