A Breakdown of IMDB's Top 250 Part 1

I'm in quite the spiteful mood right now, as watching the pretentious barf fest known as the Oscars can do that to a guy.

Upon exploring the IMDB's famous 'Top 250' list, I'm quite flabbergasted and annoyed at many of the choices, as well as their positions on the chart. 

I'm not going to explore 226-250, and apply my opinion, if applicable.The last 25 are constantly fluctuating, so I'll skip them. Vedeicts are as follows: + is deserving, X isn't, ~ is no opinion.So, off we go!

225- Star Trek - Haven't seen it. The source material bores me to tears. ~

224- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2- The last entry in a series that was never anything impressive. X

223- Fistful of Dollars- Haven't seen it. Not a big fan of westerns. ~

222- Ratatouile- One of Pixar's weakest, honestly. An animated film has to be really special for inclusion on this list, and this one doesn't cut it for me. X

221- IP Man- Haven't seen it. ~

220- Monster's Inc. - Again, not Pixar's strongest. X

219- The Diving Bell and the Butterfly- Haven't seen it. ~

218- The Perks of Being a Wallflower- Haven't seen it. ~

217- In the Name of the Father- Haven't seen it. ~

216- Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl- Can't stand this movie anymore. Just a simple popcorn flick that manages to make pirates boring. X 

215- The Truman Show- Good Movie, not necessarily a top pick for me, but I'm fine with this. +

214- Roman Holiday- Need to see it. ~

213- District 9- A good solid sci fi flick, great FX and an interesting story. +

212- Memories of Murder- Haven't seen it. ~

211- Stalker- Want to See it. ~

210- Internal Affairs- Haven't seen it. ~

209- Barry Lyndon- A downright beautiful film. Anything Kubrick deserves a spot, if not higher. + 

208- The Man who Shot Liberty Valance- Haven't seen it. ~

207- Sleuth- Haven't watched. ~

206- Rope- Not the biggest Hitchcock fan, but I liked this one. +

205- Stalag 17- All I know is that my Dad didn't like it, it tried too hard to be funny. Probably X

204- The Exorcist- Hate it. Not creepy or scary at all, only incredibly cheesy and lame. A big fat X.

203- The Wild Bunch- I think I should give it another shot, but I didn't like it too much. X

202- Anatomy of a Murder- I need to see this one. ~

201- Rocky- I should see this one sometime. ~

200- The Manchurian Candidate- I should probably see it. ~

Next 25 to come soon.

The Warriors

The Warriors

1979

Directed by Walter Hill

Oh boy, where to start with this one. This film, for those who don't know, is the quintessence of cult. It was highly controversial for the time it was released, and allegedly instigated fights and riots within theaters. Real gangs even went to see this movie, and some people supposedly got killed. Despite the tragedies that may have been involved, that is seriously a  good sign for a movie to be realistic, gritty, violent and action-packed, right?

Wrong.

Maybe people back in the 70's were just too high, stupid, or both. This film has got to be one of the lamest things I've ever had the displeasure of watching. The plot, while simple, is what first intrigued me. Basically, all these gangs around New York are summoned to a secret meeting to form a massive treaty and all together band against authority. But all goes awry when meeting leader Cyrus is shot during his highly inspirational speech by Luther, leader of 'The Rogues', and is killed. Who does it mistakenly get blamed on? Why, the little old Warriors from Coney Island. The Warriors are then forced to flee for their lives, escaping the cops, but also every other gang out for their blood., trying to escape back to their home turf.

Everything about this movie is an absolute travesty. The characters, the script, the music, the action, the characters, the art direction, and the characters. Don't expect a gang of tough brawlers to be in the spotlight, because the Warriors are the wimpiest, most feather-blown, pampered gang members I have ever beheld. They're obnoxious, prissy, immature, and barely worth rooting for.

Nice Outfits Guys.

Every gang in NY apparently has a costume theme, and boy are they horrific. First off, you have the eponymous Warriors, with their awesome, open red pleather vests, exposing their bare chests almost completely devoid of hair. Then, throughout the story you meet guys like this:

"Can you dig this?"

Little leaguers who just raided KISS' dressing room. Alternatively, you have the hellishly brutal and creatively named "Punks".

Straight out of 'Deliverance'.

Overall-wearing trailer trash on roller skates. And so it goes. All of these groups of inner city, underprivileged kids apparently had the time and resources to make matching outfits and even embroidered team logos. The whole movie is like a game of dress-up. But the worst insult is that our beloved brave Warriors are clearly intimidated by these guys.

"What's that smell?"
"I just crapped my pants."

In addition to these horrendously lame gangs, you also have characters like Mercy,  who is part of some horribly tacked-on romantic subplot, where some kind of history is implied, but never explained whatsoever.

The script is grotesquely juvenile, seemingly written by a bunch of boys just out of junior high. The script has no flow, and many lines just don't make any sense. Worse still,  the profanity, while almost poetic in movies like the 'The Big Lebowski' or 'Glengarry Glen Ross', seems horribly tacked-on, and doesn't give the film any added sort of gritty realism that it so desperately needs.

The music, while minor compared to the rest of the glaring flaws, still has to be noted. It just sounds like a typical minimalist John Carpenter soundtrack, played to awfully average perfection on a cheap electronic keyboard. 

The biggest flaw besides the obnoxiously stupid and terribly designed characters is the action, or lack thereof. Film critic Leonard Maltin, or his legion of college students who write his reviews for him, praises "The vibrant use of color" and "lightning paced action". First off, I'd like to note that Maltin and his interns have the attention span of a gnat, as evidenced by overuse of the phrase "over-long" or variations of it, to describe movies under 3 hours long. These are the same guys who once gave Ridley Scott's sci-fi masterpiece, "Blade Runner" a 1 and a half star rating.

For a film that brags of starting riots, this film has a lack of violence. Sure there's fighting here and there, but interspersed among hours of The Warriors running away like sissies. The scenes with fighting, which are few and far-between, are totally lacking in realism. Basically a bunch of hits that don't feel like they connect, don't have any good sound or foley effects to enhance them, and are goofily choreographed. I still don't know what "vibrant use of color" refers to, but it's definitely not blood.

I can applaud the Warriors for a few things though. I suppose it tried to be a bit different, fine. Secondly, if hack director Walter Hill hadn't directed this, HE would've directed "Alien", my favorite film of all time, instead of Ridley Scott. I shudder to think of the film that could've been. Lastly, the character of Luther, main antagonist and leader of The Rogues, is so comically overdone and psychotic  that he totally makes the movie worth watching.

Oscar-worthy.

Overall, the Warriors is a fine example of how to do everything wrong. A movie boasting of its violent action is very lacking in violent action. The characters are lame, goofily designed, obnoxious, and the protagonists are impossible to root for. And ultimately, the script is as amateurish as they come. Top all that off with the movie ending in a freeze frame on the beach, and you've got yourself one of the most bafflingly overrated films ever made. 

A staple film for the category of "So bad, it's good"...sort of.

My Rating- A Can-You-Diggity 3/10

So long boppers, until next time.

The Alien Franchise.

Thought I'd go for a mega doozy of a first review. What better than the Alien franchise? Okay, before people jump on me, this is everything after Aliens, excluding Prometheus.

First off, I want to commend Alien. Alien is genius filmmaking at is best, and I consider it to be the best film ever made. Aliens, meanwhile, is a very solid movie, but not quite up at Alien's level. While it is indeed a great movie, I think it did start the downwards spiral that the Alien name has been brought to. It cheapened the Xenomorphs by making them more like mere insects, and thanks to James Cameron's totally "inside the box" way of thinking, they had to have a queen. The queen was memorable for sure, but it completely ruined what could've become an awesome story arc featuring the Space Jockey from Alien.

Prometheus, also while not as good as Alien, I felt surpassed Aliens by a longshot. I don't care what you whiny nay-sayers say, Prometheus was awesome.

Anyway, onto the crappiness that is everything that followed.

Alien 3

1992

Directed by David Fincher

I can commend Alien 3 for a few unpredictable moments and some cool ideas. But after that there's close to nothing great about Alien 3. Where to start?

Alien 3 in a nutshell starts soon after where Aliens left off. Ripley(Weaver), Newt, Hicks(Biehn), and the android Bishop(Henrikson) are traveling through space while in deep hypersleep. But oh no, an alien somehow boarded their ship. The ship goes out of control and crash lands on Fiorina 161, a planet  used as a massive male-only prison complex. Ripley, the only survivor aboard is taken by prison officials to be detained and such. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to everyone, the Alien comes along. Long story short, the Alien infects a dog, imitating its traits, and kills everybody. Big surprise.

While Alien 3 as a standalone film could be considered decent, or least watchable, it is a steaming turd compared to the previous two. The story is alright, but the big flaws come from pacing, characters, and the visual effects. The film, trying to be more like the original Alien, tries to show the creature as little as possible. But in this film, it doesn't work quite as well. The film ends up being quite boring and dull, which is sad considering David Fincher was at the helm. The characters are all rather obnoxious, and  british for some reason. The genius of Alien's characters was their utter contempt for one another, but mixed well with good-natured ribbing. Alien's characters actually had a good amount of humor in them, meanwhile this humor is completely devoid in Alien 3. 

As for the effects, all I can say is good grief. Alien's effects were spectacular, and still hold up quite well. Aliens, of course still looks great. Alien 3 on the other hand, was a train wreck. Some shots were practical, but extremely limited to what they could show. But other shots were doing using CGI, which as most of you should gather, was quite...primitive. The creature stuck out like a sore thumb, and was completely distracting. Add this to the cheesy explosions of needless blood and gore, and Alien 3 completely misses the bar. 

My Rating- 4/10

Alien: Resurrection

1997

Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet

Alien 3 at least tried. 

Resurrection takes place years after Alien 3, and revolves around a cloned Ripley infused with Alien DNA aboard a scientific vessel. Soon, the vessel is boarded by space pirates or something. Meanwhile, the scientists have been breeding Aliens like crazy. Something goes horribly wrong as always. Soon, Ripley escapes the ship with the lovable mercenaries.

Another disappointing effort by an otherwise talented director, Resurrection throws all seriousness out into vacuum. What ensues is so goofy, stupid, and obnoxious, you'll be ripping your hair out by its bloody roots. The characters are the biggest flaw. Ripley is wooden as hell, the scientists and officers are caricaturish beyond reason, and the mercenaries/pirates are among the most obnoxious in cinema history. The mercs range from obnoxiously gruff(Wincott), to stupidly gorilla-like(Perlman), to just plain cartoonishly dumb(Pinon). Meanwhile, Ripley is just boring and rather arrogant, completely rounding out the horribly unlikeable cast, and android Calle(Ryder) is just useless.

The plot really doesn't make much sense. Why these pirates are just let on board is beyond me. Why Ripley is kept alive after the Alien specimens are extracted, I have no idea. Why Ripley is infused with Alien DNA still confuses me. 

The effects, while better than Alien 3, were still rather cheesy, and never used effective light and shadow to obscure anything.

Overall, it was crap.

My Rating- 1.5/10

AVP: Alien vs. Predator

2004

Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson

First off, let me say that I'm ashamed to have the same last name as this no-talent hack of a director. AVP took what little was left of the Alien name, and took an even bigger crap on it. AVP is a pointless cannon-fodder flick, that's all it really is.

Basically, AVP's plot is about wealthy corporate man Weyland, finding some kind of heat signal(?) underground in the arctic, and wants to investigate for whatever reason. He assembles and crack team of losers led by your token strong chick. They drill down to find a pyramid filled with Aliens for the sole purpose of game hunting for Predators. Long story short, everyone dies, except the token strong chick(I think I'm beginning to recognize a pattern here). 

AVP is an extremely formulaic piece of junk, and I regret watching it more than once, or once for that matter.

My Rating- 1/10

AVP: Requiem

20-Who cares.

Directed by some idiot

A teen soap opera...with aliens.

My Rating- -10/10(yeah, that's a negative ten)

Oh wait, AVP:R Should be off the chart.

Obligatory Intro Post.

Hey all, as many of you read from my personal art blog, I have a passion for film. It is my favorite hobby, whereas illustration, while I enjoy it immensely, is what I plan for my career.

Anywho, onto this blog. Basically, this blog is going to be the following tagline:

"Cynical Film Reviews from a Professional Cynic."

My film reviews may or may not go against popular opinion. On the chances they do, tough crap. Debate me if you feel so inclined.

Most of my reviews will be overwhelmingly scathing, but I may throw in a review of an actual good movie from time to time. They may be movies that are generally received badly, some that are rated fairly badly but not badly enough, but in many cases, I'll be lashing out at films that I consider to be in a range of overrated to astronomically overrated.

That's a wrap.