Share TheProjectionist's profile
 
Facebook Twitter
 
 
TheProjectionist
 
 
 
TheProjectionist's stats
 
  • Review count
    7
  • Helpfulness votes
    57
  • First review
    September 26, 2012
  • Last review
    March 4, 2013
  • Featured reviews
    0
  • Average rating
    2.4
 
  • Review comment count
    1
  • Helpfulness votes
    2
  • First review comment
    March 4, 2013
  • Last review comment
    March 4, 2013
  • Featured review comments
    0
 
Questions
  • Question count
    0
  • Helpfulness votes
    0
  • First question
    None
  • Last question
    None
  • Featured questions
    0
 
Answers
  • Answer count
    0
  • Helpfulness votes
    0
  • First answer
    None
  • Last answer
    None
  • Featured answers
    0
  • Best answers
    0
 
 
TheProjectionist's Reviews
 
Customer Rating
5 out of 5
5
Michael Hanake at his best
on March 4, 2013
Posted by: TheProjectionist
from Delaware
I had the privilege of watching this film for the first time with an introductory film course, and in retrospect, I can see why the professor showed this movie to start our course. Caché is by far one of the most chilling movies I have ever seen, and while some viewers may be turned off by it's slow pacing and seemingly complex plot points, one cannot deny the film it's beautiful cinematography and absolutely creepy imagery.
When thinking of how to title this review, the only suitable title that came to mind was "Michael Hanake at his best," because this movie truly shows how Hanake is a near master of the medium of film.
The only true downside to this film is that it may take at least one or two extra viewings to grasp every nuance of the plot (which can admittedly upset some viewers). I simply ask that you have patience with this movie, because if you do, you will find yourself in the grip of a masterful director.
What's great about it: The cinematography and imagery are astounding.
What's not so great: Slow pacing, which can be a turn-off for some viewers.
I would recommend this to a friend!
+2points
2of 2voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
2 out of 5
2
Disappointing
on February 8, 2013
Posted by: TheProjectionist
from Delaware
Act of Valor is almost one of those films that is near impossible to review, simple because to say anything negative about the cast, crew, or movie in general is to say that you automatically hate all of the Armed Forces and therefore hate America by default. I say "almost", because there have been numerous negative reviews of this film, and of course every single one has been given the typical, "you-must-hate-America-so-shut-your-mouth" treatment. I see no reason why my review will be given any less of a response.
There is a reason why Navy SEALs aren't typically employed as actors. Allow me to applaud the constant sacrifices of those to serve in our Armed Forces and I am certain that Navy SEALs are great at many things, but sadly, acting isn't one of them, and this is the greatest downfall of this movie. One could claim that asking for a good performance from this cast is asking too much, because the film is about the action, not the acting capabilities of the cast. I would agree with that argument only to a certain extent, in that we only care about the action if we care about those who are at stake, and there is never a moment in this film where we get to know any member of the cast past their one-dimensional roles.
Outside their fighting abilities, these characters are never developed on any personal level. We are given little to no back story, their personality traits are bland, and the dialogue is beyond dull. If the audience had only been given a reason to care about these men, we could have gotten invested in their plight and genuinely cared about their struggle, because the action and cinematography alone almost carry this film! There were several moments in this movie that I prayed we would get just one good performance or two because the action sequences are some of the best I've seen this decade, but that's all for nothing if you can't give us a reason to cheer for our protagonists.
I really wanted to like this film, and in the hands of better screenwriters and directors (as well as actors), this could have been good. Sadly, we're given a clichéd plot and sub-par acting that simply leaves us wanting more.
What's great about it: Well shot action scenes and decent cinematography
What's not so great: Stereotypical plot with stilted acting
No, I would not recommend this to a friend.
+1point
2of 3voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
1 out of 5
1
Shameless
on December 19, 2012
Posted by: TheProjectionist
from Delaware
Few films in life not only insult your intelligence but also your memories and love of Christmas as a child. This is sadly one of those films. "A Christmas Story 2" is quite possibly one of the most insulting pieces of cinema I have ever seen, regardless of whether or not the first film in the series is a timeless classic.
This movie also seems to take pleasure in the fact that it is simply cashing in on the name of the original 1983 film. There is no attempt here to actually tell a coherent or even memorable tale about the trials and worries children go through during the Christmas season. Instead, we're treated to scene after scene of terrible slapstick humor and terrible performances. *On a side note, I know Daniel Stern (Home Alone, City Slickers) hasn't had much work in recent years, but even he should know better than to star in this.*
Any fan of the original "A Christmas Story" would be advised to avoid this film at all costs. A shameless and tasteless marketing ploy, "A Christmas Story 2" will only leave you wondering why you're not watching the original film again.
What's great about it: Um... The DVD box can be used as a coaster?
What's not so great: A Ruined Childhood
No, I would not recommend this to a friend.
+5points
9of 13voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
1 out of 5
1
Shameless
on December 19, 2012
Posted by: TheProjectionist
from Delaware
Few films in life not only insult your intelligence but also your memories and love of Christmas as a child. This is sadly one of those films. "A Christmas Story 2" is quite possibly one of the most insulting pieces of cinema I have ever seen, regardless of whether or not the first film in the series is a timeless classic.
This movie also seems to take pleasure in the fact that it is simply cashing in on the name of the original 1983 film. There is no attempt here to actually tell a coherent or even memorable tale about the trials and worries children go through during the Christmas season. Instead, we're treated to scene after scene of terrible slapstick humor and terrible performances. *On a side note, I know Daniel Stern (Home Alone, City Slickers) hasn't had much work in recent years, but even he should know better than to star in this.*
Any fan of the original "A Christmas Story" would be advised to avoid this film at all costs. A shameless and tasteless marketing ploy, "A Christmas Story 2" will only leave you wondering why you're not watching the original film again.
What's great about it: Um... it makes you want to watch the first film again?
What's not so great: A Ruined Childhood
No, I would not recommend this to a friend.
+4points
7of 10voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
2 out of 5
2
Despite great action, an underwhelming film.
on December 3, 2012
Posted by: TheProjectionist
from Delaware
Act of Valor is almost one of those films that is near impossible to review, simple because to say anything negative about the cast, crew, or movie in general is to say that you automatically hate all of the Armed Forces and therefore hate America by default. I say "almost", because there have been numerous negative reviews of this film, and of course every single one has been given the typical, "you-must-hate-America-so-shut-your-mouth" treatment. I see no reason why my review will be given any less of a response.
There is a reason why Navy SEALs aren't typically employed as actors. Allow me to applaud the constant sacrifices of those to serve in our Armed Forces and I am certain that Navy SEALs are great at many things, but sadly, acting isn't one of them, and this is the greatest downfall of this movie. One could claim that asking for a good performance from this cast is asking too much, because the film is about the action, not the acting capabilities of the cast. I would agree with that argument only to a certain extent, in that we only care about the action if we care about those who are at stake, and there is never a moment in this film where we get to know any member of the cast past their one-dimensional roles.
Outside their fighting abilities, these characters are never developed on any personal level. We are given little to no back story, their personality traits are bland, and the dialogue is beyond dull. If the audience had only been given a reason to care about these men, we could have gotten invested in their plight and genuinely cared about their struggle, because the action and cinematography alone almost carry this film! There were several moments in this movie that I prayed we would get just one good performance or two because the action sequences are some of the best I've seen this decade, but that's all for nothing if you can't give us a reason to cheer for our protagonists.
I really wanted to like this film, and in the hands of better screenwriters and directors (as well as actors), this could have been good. Sadly, we're given a clichéd plot and sub-par acting that simply leaves us wanting more.
What's great about it: Well shot action scenes and decent cinematography
What's not so great: Stereotypical plot with stilted acting
No, I would not recommend this to a friend.
+5points
5of 5voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
1 out of 5
1
Simply disappointing
on October 26, 2012
Posted by: TheProjectionist
from Delaware
Too often in cinema in recent history, audiences use terms like "cheese" and "popcorn flick" to describe a poor attempt at a disappointing action movie. It can be said that "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" is a simple popcorn flick not to be taken seriously and just to be enjoyed. If that is the case, than this is the blandest, stale popcorn I've ever tried, and no amount of salt, butter, or reheating can salvage it.
Sadly, the 3rd installment in The Mummy series falls flat in nearly every area where the rest of the series tends to work. Nearly every moment of this film screams of bad pacing, poor acting, and terrible writing, and to those who would say that good writing is missing the point, I would simply say this; How many 3rd grade boys did the studio employ to have dialogue like "the Yak yakked" written into their screenplay?
Despite being a fan of the first film in this series, I can only say that I was hugely disappointed in this movie. For those who say that this is simply stupid fun, I would say that there is a place for that in cinema, but even stupid fun can be written well and acted well. For those of you thinking about checking out this movie, please trust me when I say that the third time is not the charm.
What's great about it: Decent special effects and score
What's not so great: Writing, pacing, and acting
No, I would not recommend this to a friend.
+5points
5of 5voted this as helpful.
 
Customer Rating
5 out of 5
5
A horror fan's delight!
on September 26, 2012
Posted by: TheProjectionist
from Delaware
Sometimes a film comes along with an idea so obvious, yet so genius, that we the audience have to ask ourselves, "how did know one think of this before?" Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon are able to craft quite possibly one of the most beautifully meta-horror films to ever be released, and any fan of the horror genre will simply be in awe of the scope of this movie. Sometimes a genre of film needs to step back, take a look at itself and just laugh, and this is exactly what Cabin in the Woods does for the audience. It bears mentioning that there are a few plot holes towards the end of this film, yet the screenplay as a whole is solid enough to forgive these mistakes. A must-see for any self-proclaimed horror fan!
What's great about it: Deliciously "Meta" with amazing creature design!
What's not so great: Several plot holes, but they are forgivable.
I would recommend this to a friend!
+19points
27of 35voted this as helpful.
 
TheProjectionist's Review Comments
 
Overall2 out of 52 out of 5
Not a thriller
By CactiGal from East Bay, CA
I bought this expecting to see a psychological thriller - but that is not what this movie is. My daughter, who likes thrillers as much as I do, found this painful and almost fell asleep. It is not a bad character study of people under stress, but the slow pacing, lack of suspenseful moments and unresolved issues at the end definately left me wondering what I had just done with the last two hours. If you are looking for a thriller, don't be misled by other reviews and spend your time with another movie instead.
Customer Avatar
TheProjectionist
Delaware
Wrong Expectations
March 4, 2013
So you are judging the film based on your pre-existing expectations, not the merits of the film itself. Yes, the film is not a thriller, but that by no stress of the imagination means that it is a bad film. While Caché is tedious and purposeful with it's pace, it is certainly a masterful work through the medium of film, and perhaps if you have simply taken the time to look past your expectations, you could have seen this. I highly suggest you watch the film again without your misconceptions.
+2points
2of 2voted this comment as helpful.
 
TheProjectionist's Questions
 
TheProjectionist has not submitted any questions.
 
TheProjectionist's Answers
 
TheProjectionist has not submitted any answers.