![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More movie reviews
Okay, so I finished "Terminator 2," and my opinion still holds: meh. The plot is a little too loose, and not especially plausible (in terms of internal coherence, I'm talking: after all, you have to be willing to suspend your disbelief a little bit in order to swallow the idea of two unstoppable robots going back in time in order to alter the future).
I agree with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
shenlo that Kyle in the first movie is a total wiener. However, that in itself doesn't actually make the second movie better or even good. Both movies aren't bad. The kid in the second movie needs a lot of acting help, and it is the director's fault that he doesn't come off convincingly. The fact that every third sentence comes out as a prepubescent voice-breaking shriek doesn't help in the slightest. Diason (I don't remember if that's how his name is spelled), the scientist who supposedly comes up with the AI that will eventually turn against humanity, is another major plot hole. Think about it: a crazy woman comes into his home, shoots him, threatens his family, but after a five-minute explanation he's suddenly all about helping and cooperating? Along the lines of "Dear God, what have I done?" I don't buy it. At the very least he should have been conflicted about helping the crazed lunatics to destroy the lab.
In conclusion: meh. It was a fun movie, but I certainly wouldn't see it again. I watched "Terminator 3" several years ago when it came out, and now it makes sense to me as almost a parody of the second movie. The end was weird, too, as I recall. More of a "Buh?" reaction than anything else.
I moved on to "Red Dragon" after that. I would have watched "Hannibal" first, but it had been rented by someone else. Talk about your star-studded casts. I was surprised to see Ed Norton at the beginning, and then I totally expected him to die after he revealed his suspicions to Lecter, but the resourceful boy fought back and turned out to be the star of the movie. It was very odd to see Norton *not* playing a sociopath. I've only ever seen him in "Primal Fear" and in "Fight Club," and so his good guy act was a little tough to buy into. He just looks a little off, poor boy, and I kept expecting him to turn around and go blow up a building or something.
"Red Dragon" held my interest far more that "T2," which isn't a feat in and of itself. However, I couldn't help but notice the GLARING plot holes. So the serial killer they're trying to catch is corresponding with Lecter. So far so good, I can buy that. What I don't buy is how he does it. See, he asks Lecter to respond through the personals in a tabloid, using a code derived from one of the books in his cell. There are several problems with this:
1- How the hell does this guy know what books Lecter owns?
2- Lecter is kept in isolation and is allowed one phone call every so often with his lawyer. How on earth can he get in touch with a tabloid in order to place a personal ad?
3- Where the hell did Lecter get the money to place a personal ad?
Then Lecter supposedly figures out our hero's home address. We see him doing this on screen. However, he only manages to obtain the name of the town and the state, and this is his ONLY phone call. How did he get the rest of the information? Lecter is many things, but psychic isn't one of them.
Anyway, there were any number of small inconsistencies throughout the movie, but that one was the really glaring error, and it bugged me for the rest of the film. However, the conclusion was pretty satisfactory in terms of resolution and all the rest. So, not a bad film all around. I'm glad I didn't pay to see it in theatres, but I'm not sorry I watched it. Next on my list is "Hannibal," which I'm led to understand is not as good.
I'm halfway through "Supersize Me" as well, so I'll be giving my thoughts on that movie when I'm done. I have free tickets from work to go see "The Da Vinci Code" tomorrow, which otherwise I would never watch. I picked up the book yesterday, because I hate reading the book after I've seen the movie, and so it'll be interesting to see what all the fuss is about. The movie thus far has been panned by critics, so I'm going in with very low expectations. I shall let you know how it went.
I've been reading a lot lately as well, although lately I've slowed down to a book every two and a half days, what with the line dancing and the movie watching and all the weddings I've attended. I may work up the energy to write about all the fun new fiction I've been reading. I've managed to misplace two of the brand-new books I recently got from Chapters, which is very annoying as I wanted to read them. One is "Search the Dark" by Charles Todd, one of my numerous author-obsessions (definitely a recommended read for murder-mystery fans out there, especially those of you fond of stories set in the 1920s) and the other is "The Scar" by China Mieville, which I'm supposed to read before the next Nebula Book Club meeting at the beginning of June.
They have to be somewhere in my apartment. The question is: where? Presumably the same place that "The Silver Dragon" disappeared to. I've been looking for that book for months. It's a three-room apartment. How hard can it be to find one book? Bah.
I agree with
shenlo that Kyle in the first movie is a total wiener. However, that in itself doesn't actually make the second movie better or even good. Both movies aren't bad. The kid in the second movie needs a lot of acting help, and it is the director's fault that he doesn't come off convincingly. The fact that every third sentence comes out as a prepubescent voice-breaking shriek doesn't help in the slightest. Diason (I don't remember if that's how his name is spelled), the scientist who supposedly comes up with the AI that will eventually turn against humanity, is another major plot hole. Think about it: a crazy woman comes into his home, shoots him, threatens his family, but after a five-minute explanation he's suddenly all about helping and cooperating? Along the lines of "Dear God, what have I done?" I don't buy it. At the very least he should have been conflicted about helping the crazed lunatics to destroy the lab. In conclusion: meh. It was a fun movie, but I certainly wouldn't see it again. I watched "Terminator 3" several years ago when it came out, and now it makes sense to me as almost a parody of the second movie. The end was weird, too, as I recall. More of a "Buh?" reaction than anything else.
I moved on to "Red Dragon" after that. I would have watched "Hannibal" first, but it had been rented by someone else. Talk about your star-studded casts. I was surprised to see Ed Norton at the beginning, and then I totally expected him to die after he revealed his suspicions to Lecter, but the resourceful boy fought back and turned out to be the star of the movie. It was very odd to see Norton *not* playing a sociopath. I've only ever seen him in "Primal Fear" and in "Fight Club," and so his good guy act was a little tough to buy into. He just looks a little off, poor boy, and I kept expecting him to turn around and go blow up a building or something.
"Red Dragon" held my interest far more that "T2," which isn't a feat in and of itself. However, I couldn't help but notice the GLARING plot holes. So the serial killer they're trying to catch is corresponding with Lecter. So far so good, I can buy that. What I don't buy is how he does it. See, he asks Lecter to respond through the personals in a tabloid, using a code derived from one of the books in his cell. There are several problems with this:
1- How the hell does this guy know what books Lecter owns?
2- Lecter is kept in isolation and is allowed one phone call every so often with his lawyer. How on earth can he get in touch with a tabloid in order to place a personal ad?
3- Where the hell did Lecter get the money to place a personal ad?
Then Lecter supposedly figures out our hero's home address. We see him doing this on screen. However, he only manages to obtain the name of the town and the state, and this is his ONLY phone call. How did he get the rest of the information? Lecter is many things, but psychic isn't one of them.
Anyway, there were any number of small inconsistencies throughout the movie, but that one was the really glaring error, and it bugged me for the rest of the film. However, the conclusion was pretty satisfactory in terms of resolution and all the rest. So, not a bad film all around. I'm glad I didn't pay to see it in theatres, but I'm not sorry I watched it. Next on my list is "Hannibal," which I'm led to understand is not as good.
I'm halfway through "Supersize Me" as well, so I'll be giving my thoughts on that movie when I'm done. I have free tickets from work to go see "The Da Vinci Code" tomorrow, which otherwise I would never watch. I picked up the book yesterday, because I hate reading the book after I've seen the movie, and so it'll be interesting to see what all the fuss is about. The movie thus far has been panned by critics, so I'm going in with very low expectations. I shall let you know how it went.
I've been reading a lot lately as well, although lately I've slowed down to a book every two and a half days, what with the line dancing and the movie watching and all the weddings I've attended. I may work up the energy to write about all the fun new fiction I've been reading. I've managed to misplace two of the brand-new books I recently got from Chapters, which is very annoying as I wanted to read them. One is "Search the Dark" by Charles Todd, one of my numerous author-obsessions (definitely a recommended read for murder-mystery fans out there, especially those of you fond of stories set in the 1920s) and the other is "The Scar" by China Mieville, which I'm supposed to read before the next Nebula Book Club meeting at the beginning of June.
They have to be somewhere in my apartment. The question is: where? Presumably the same place that "The Silver Dragon" disappeared to. I've been looking for that book for months. It's a three-room apartment. How hard can it be to find one book? Bah.
no subject
Hannibal, on the other hand, is probably better on film-- I remember the book being really draggy. I was NOT happy with the way the book ended but I've never seen the movie because I didn't want to see a particular scene.
PS...