My Recent Reviews
vatterott has written 4 reviews.
ALIENS
Aliens, the 1986 sequel to 1979âs Alien does what The Dark Knight did to its successor. The core experience remains relevant, but the rest moves into slightly new and exciting territory. The horror is still there, but...
[+] Read Full Review
Aliens, the 1986 sequel to 1979âs Alien does what The Dark Knight did to its successor. The core experience remains relevant, but the rest moves into slightly new and exciting territory. The horror is still there, but...
[+] Read Full Review
ALIENS
Aliens, the 1986 sequel to 1979âs Alien does what The Dark Knight did to its successor. The core experience remains relevant, but the rest moves into slightly new and exciting territory. The horror is still there, but it is more of an addition than the point. Most of the movieâs thrills are from the action sequences, which consist of Aliens coming out of ventilation shafts, breaking doors, smashing the floor open, and even approaching an elevator wanting to say âHold that door!â Much of the movie is held together by action and a seemingly perpetual intensity (once you reach the stowaway, which is about halfway in). It is accompanied by a slightly intricate plot, which keeps the movie going forward all 137 minutes.
Aliens starts with Ellen Ripleyâs ship drifting in space. It is then recovered by another ship, and she (as well as her cat Jones) is found alive. She awakens in an orbiting hospital above Earth, where she is told that she was in hibernation for 57 years. Ripley then learns that there is a colony on LV-426, where she and her crew first discovered the Aliens. Earth has lost contact with the colony, which results in a unit of hotshot Colonial Marines (which includes Private âGame over!â Hudson and the ever tough Vasquez) being sent to investigate. Carter Burke, who works for Weyland-Yutani (Ripleyâs employer) is also going. He and Lt. Gorman convince Ripley to come as a consultant. When they reach LV-426, the colony is found empty, except for one resourceful little girl known as Newt.
For the amount of time setting up the plot, the movie does surprisingly well. At almost two hours and twenty minutes, the pre-LV-426 section is less than half an hour, while the rest is guns, aliens, explosions, and more aliens. It is surprising how well this holds, since the action sequences could have easily been like a playlist on repeat. What keeps these from getting old is the acting and special effects. The animatronics would still be impressive today, while the computer generated onesâ¦To some degree. There is a scene where I do find it hard to tell where a loader is real or not, a goal that is rarely achieved today. On the acting hand, Sigourney Weaverâs Ellen Ripley is a caring, conflicted, and ultimately awesome heroine. Whenever she is in a scene (which is pretty much every scene) she takes command in such a way that the other actors almost have to tap her on the shoulder saying âWhen is it my turn?â The screenplay does compensate, allowing the other roles to shine, no matter how simplistic they are. The writers created some great lines, such as Ripleyâs memorable âGet away from her, you **** and the already mentioned âGame over man! Game over!â
The few flaws that appear in Aliens do not make much of a ripple, but are easy to find if you look. The first is minor acting and voice work. The time when it is bad is in slower parts, which arenât as crucial to the movie as the action is. Sometimes the marinesâ hotshotness seems like too much, or the military commanding is getting soft. Thankfully this doesnât happen often. A more passive screw-up is a slightly predictable air. Thinking time is usually needed for such a trait, but there is not much of that. These flaws are easily covered, since the rest of the movie is so cool.
Aliens achieves a lot of great things, among them are classic lines, great special effects, and a steadily growing intensity that disappears but comes back hard. Itâs not as iconic as Alien, but does justice while entertaining. The scares are not as plentiful as the first, yet the overall âcharmâ is. Aliens does a great job continuing the story arc. It does what a sequel should do and more, resulting in a great thrill ride.
4.5/5
Aliens, the 1986 sequel to 1979âs Alien does what The Dark Knight did to its successor. The core experience remains relevant, but the rest moves into slightly new and exciting territory. The horror is still there, but it is more of an addition than the point. Most of the movieâs thrills are from the action sequences, which consist of Aliens coming out of ventilation shafts, breaking doors, smashing the floor open, and even approaching an elevator wanting to say âHold that door!â Much of the movie is held together by action and a seemingly perpetual intensity (once you reach the stowaway, which is about halfway in). It is accompanied by a slightly intricate plot, which keeps the movie going forward all 137 minutes.
Aliens starts with Ellen Ripleyâs ship drifting in space. It is then recovered by another ship, and she (as well as her cat Jones) is found alive. She awakens in an orbiting hospital above Earth, where she is told that she was in hibernation for 57 years. Ripley then learns that there is a colony on LV-426, where she and her crew first discovered the Aliens. Earth has lost contact with the colony, which results in a unit of hotshot Colonial Marines (which includes Private âGame over!â Hudson and the ever tough Vasquez) being sent to investigate. Carter Burke, who works for Weyland-Yutani (Ripleyâs employer) is also going. He and Lt. Gorman convince Ripley to come as a consultant. When they reach LV-426, the colony is found empty, except for one resourceful little girl known as Newt.
For the amount of time setting up the plot, the movie does surprisingly well. At almost two hours and twenty minutes, the pre-LV-426 section is less than half an hour, while the rest is guns, aliens, explosions, and more aliens. It is surprising how well this holds, since the action sequences could have easily been like a playlist on repeat. What keeps these from getting old is the acting and special effects. The animatronics would still be impressive today, while the computer generated onesâ¦To some degree. There is a scene where I do find it hard to tell where a loader is real or not, a goal that is rarely achieved today. On the acting hand, Sigourney Weaverâs Ellen Ripley is a caring, conflicted, and ultimately awesome heroine. Whenever she is in a scene (which is pretty much every scene) she takes command in such a way that the other actors almost have to tap her on the shoulder saying âWhen is it my turn?â The screenplay does compensate, allowing the other roles to shine, no matter how simplistic they are. The writers created some great lines, such as Ripleyâs memorable âGet away from her, you **** and the already mentioned âGame over man! Game over!â
The few flaws that appear in Aliens do not make much of a ripple, but are easy to find if you look. The first is minor acting and voice work. The time when it is bad is in slower parts, which arenât as crucial to the movie as the action is. Sometimes the marinesâ hotshotness seems like too much, or the military commanding is getting soft. Thankfully this doesnât happen often. A more passive screw-up is a slightly predictable air. Thinking time is usually needed for such a trait, but there is not much of that. These flaws are easily covered, since the rest of the movie is so cool.
Aliens achieves a lot of great things, among them are classic lines, great special effects, and a steadily growing intensity that disappears but comes back hard. Itâs not as iconic as Alien, but does justice while entertaining. The scares are not as plentiful as the first, yet the overall âcharmâ is. Aliens does a great job continuing the story arc. It does what a sequel should do and more, resulting in a great thrill ride.
4.5/5
Posted aug 20, 2008 11:13 am pt
The Dark Knight From the moment the movie starts, The Dark Knight is no mere superhero movie. It is much more than capes and spandex, but at the same time it remains what the title implies: the story of Batman. Batman is almost not a superhero. He...
[+] Read Full Review
[+] Read Full Review
The Dark Knight From the moment the movie starts, The Dark Knight is no mere superhero movie. It is much more than capes and spandex, but at the same time it remains what the title implies: the story of Batman. Batman is almost not a superhero. He is a man, a man with morals that is, who can be hurt. He conflicts with himself, his loved ones, and most importantly, the mask. His conflicts do not start from within himself. They stem from the antics of one man, a man as human as Batman: The Joker. The Dark Knightâs story begins with The Joker committing robbery. In the process, he kills his accomplices to get all of the money. That night, Batman stops a meeting of various criminals with the âassistanceâ of Batman impersonators. Batman and Lt. Jim Gordon meet in the vault of the robbed bank, and converse on letting Harvey Dent, the new district attorney, in on their possible mob ending plan. The mob meets and contemplates the loss some of their funds, which was stolen by the Joker. The Joker enters and proposes a plan to the mob: to kill Batman. The Dark Knight is like a dreamcatcher. It is complex, and relies greatly on the outside ring to hold it together. In this sense, the outside ring is Gotham. Two very long strings are woven in first: Batman and The Joker. Their battle is the main focus of the movie, and thus each character is a branch from those two, except Harvey Dent. He is the third main string, holding the dreamcatcher along with the rest of the strings, but a branch to some degree. When an intricate dreamcatcher is done right, it is a beautiful thing. This is the case with The Dark Knight. A huge cast of characters, a Peter Jacksonesque running time (2 hours and 32 minutes), great twists, a detailed plot, and one of the best villainous performances results in the greatest superhero movie ever. Heath Ledgerâs final and greatest performance is truly a sight to behold. The Jokerâs madness and creepiness reaches such a level, as well perfection, that at times it is funny. Every little motion is a reflection of his character: the licking of his lips, the straightening of his hair before attempting to kill Rachel Dawes, and his echoing laugh. He treats suffering like itâs a circus to enjoy; he spreads his hands as if saying âWhat? Thatâs all?â when the blowing up of a building doesnât happen right away. He laughs as if being tickled when he is getting the crap beaten out of him. The creepiest, cruelest, and most terrifying aspect of his character is the lack of conscience he has. The Joker gets excited before he slices a manâs face in half. It is a terrible character to see, yet it is one of the greatest performances to watch. The fact that he is just a man, like Batman, is even worse. The Joker will become the highest bar to reach for villains. Alongside this horrendous character is fantastic music. Churning violin music assists in the most intense scenes of the summer: A knife in a victimâs mouth as The Joker explains his scars, and the horrifying realization that he enjoys watching the world suffer. When Batman soars, swelling music gets the heart pumping, even though the visual scene would get you going on its own. The Joker is not the only dark character. Bruce Wayne has lost his relationship with Rachel Dawes, and Harvey Dent is now courting her. Bruce is now realizing that he can not be the only symbol for Gotham. Its people start to turn on him, and from that he begins to doubt himself. He cannot decide whether or not to go on, but he is not the only one incubating those thoughts. The police force is has less faith in it than it should, and thus Harvey Dent becomes a rising hero. In this complex tale, each character conflicts with their most treasured beliefs. Does a killer deserve the same pain as his victim? Who should stand up, when no one will stand behind you? These questions and their answers work so well and entertain so easily that a constant state of moving forward is brought on. Over the entire course of the movie, the pace is always more than just âinterestingâ, and at its height, itâs like Bourne with a dose of Red Bull. Plot, action, and pace go together so well that at times it is difficult to distinguish which is which. The Dark Knight becomes a crime thriller, a portrait of a city in crisis, but in the end, it is good versus evil. The Dark Knight has its heroes, its villains, and its heroes who live long enough to see themselves become the villains. Gotham is always in need of a hero. This hero is Batman, the Dark Knight, the Caped Crusader, or Bruce Wayne to his friends. The Dark Knight is Batmanâs story, it his tale. Never has the world seen Batman in such a light. It is new, cunning, and perpetually entertaining. It is a movie filled to the brim. It is a great acting performance, a gloomy tale, a record breaker, a fantastic score, but above all, it is one thing: The Dark Knight is a masterpiece.
Posted jul 20, 2008 10:12 am pt
Wow. Pixar has made another masterpiece. The animation is beautiful. Photorealism in animation has never been so good looking! This is like the MGS 4 of movies. Absolutely gorgeous. The muisc works perfectly, too. The opening flyover of the galaxy...
[+] Read Full Review
[+] Read Full Review
Wow. Pixar has made another masterpiece. The animation is beautiful. Photorealism in animation has never been so good looking! This is like the MGS 4 of movies. Absolutely gorgeous. The muisc works perfectly, too. The opening flyover of the galaxy is partnered by a slightly depressing tune, once they reach Earth. Two 2001: A Space Odyssey songs are put in, as well as some references. The voices from the robots were done by the same man who did R2D2. He is so good. The expressions from their voices as well as body language easily conveys what is meant. The plot is still a little soft, but a few political messages are thrown in. They have to do with trash, obesity, and screens everywhere. This is the best movie I have seen this year (by far), and Pixar's best to date. Robots have never been so beautiful. WaaAALL EE!
Sorry for being short.
Sorry for being short.
Posted jun 27, 2008 10:23 am pt
CLOVERFIELD
By: Tom Vatterott On July 2nd, 2007, a trailer with only a release date debuted. It showed partygoers viewing an explosion, and the statue of liberty's head rolling in a street at the bottom of someone's apartment...
[+] Read Full Review
By: Tom Vatterott On July 2nd, 2007, a trailer with only a release date debuted. It showed partygoers viewing an explosion, and the statue of liberty's head rolling in a street at the bottom of someone's apartment...
[+] Read Full Review
CLOVERFIELD
By: Tom Vatterott On July 2nd, 2007, a trailer with only a release date debuted. It showed partygoers viewing an explosion, and the statue of liberty's head rolling in a street at the bottom of someone's apartment building. That was the start of the 1-18-08 (now known as Cloverfield) craziness. The title wasn't known until the second trailer, which was shown before Beowulf. Ever since, crazy ideas, fake trailers, and basically one big question ruled the 'net. As soon as I saw the first trailer, back in July, I was hooked. The movie begins with a government declaration of the footage being genuine. Some friends are having a going away party for Rob, who's taken a job in Japan. Beth, Marlena, Lily, Jason (his brother), and Hud, the cameraman of sorts, are some of his closest friends. The party is going fine until an earthquake, accompanied by a large roar, disturbs the event. From the rooftop, an explosion is viewed. The partygoers get down to street level to run away, and the Statue of Liberty's head crashes down the street. After that, it's a search and rescue mission for Beth. It's more complicated than that, but the details would take away from the experience. Cloverfield can be called many different things. Among them, there's "Good", "Awesome!" "B+" and "Totally radically awesomely dinomax!" (?). I would have to say I agree.
Centering on a monster attack on New York City, from the perspective of a camcorder, Cloverfield did what it was made for. Answer the big question, "What is that!?" make some new ones, and be really cool. It's pretty amazing that all of this is in a respectable 84 minutes.
Cloverfield's concept is really what makes it so good. With monster movies like King Kong , the camera will show you the creature plenty of times. They can do that; someone with a camcorder isn't going to run up to a 30-story creature causing millions of dollars of destruction. As a result of the camcorder concept, you see so little. It never really bothered me, except for the occasional drop or sprint. The acting is enough to get by, it's not Oscar worthy, nor is it something to complain about. Standard emotions are displayed throughout, with an occasional moment of great acting. In terms of special effects, Cloverfield does really well. Of course they are distinctly computer generated, but sometimes the effects are used so subtly they are hardly noticeable. The tone and colors match the mood of despair. The monster does look really cool (yes, you actually get to see it clearly), along with the destruction and mayhem it causes.
Great sound effects also make an appearance, not only when the monster approaches (the Inver Grove theater literally shook), but just in general. A building collapsing, the wind passing through broken windows, and even camcorder sounds (they aren't used so much that it gets annoying). This is definitely a movie made to be seen on the silver screen, or at least a fairly large TV and some handy surround sound that is cranked up a bit. On various movie websites, Cloverfield is put under the horror subgenre. I can see where they are coming from, but this isn't scary. At heart, it's a mysterious monster film from the perspective of a few 20-somethings. Nearly everything clicks, and it's a lot of fun to watch. 4 out of 5 stars.
By: Tom Vatterott On July 2nd, 2007, a trailer with only a release date debuted. It showed partygoers viewing an explosion, and the statue of liberty's head rolling in a street at the bottom of someone's apartment building. That was the start of the 1-18-08 (now known as Cloverfield) craziness. The title wasn't known until the second trailer, which was shown before Beowulf. Ever since, crazy ideas, fake trailers, and basically one big question ruled the 'net. As soon as I saw the first trailer, back in July, I was hooked. The movie begins with a government declaration of the footage being genuine. Some friends are having a going away party for Rob, who's taken a job in Japan. Beth, Marlena, Lily, Jason (his brother), and Hud, the cameraman of sorts, are some of his closest friends. The party is going fine until an earthquake, accompanied by a large roar, disturbs the event. From the rooftop, an explosion is viewed. The partygoers get down to street level to run away, and the Statue of Liberty's head crashes down the street. After that, it's a search and rescue mission for Beth. It's more complicated than that, but the details would take away from the experience. Cloverfield can be called many different things. Among them, there's "Good", "Awesome!" "B+" and "Totally radically awesomely dinomax!" (?). I would have to say I agree.
Centering on a monster attack on New York City, from the perspective of a camcorder, Cloverfield did what it was made for. Answer the big question, "What is that!?" make some new ones, and be really cool. It's pretty amazing that all of this is in a respectable 84 minutes.
Cloverfield's concept is really what makes it so good. With monster movies like King Kong , the camera will show you the creature plenty of times. They can do that; someone with a camcorder isn't going to run up to a 30-story creature causing millions of dollars of destruction. As a result of the camcorder concept, you see so little. It never really bothered me, except for the occasional drop or sprint. The acting is enough to get by, it's not Oscar worthy, nor is it something to complain about. Standard emotions are displayed throughout, with an occasional moment of great acting. In terms of special effects, Cloverfield does really well. Of course they are distinctly computer generated, but sometimes the effects are used so subtly they are hardly noticeable. The tone and colors match the mood of despair. The monster does look really cool (yes, you actually get to see it clearly), along with the destruction and mayhem it causes.
Great sound effects also make an appearance, not only when the monster approaches (the Inver Grove theater literally shook), but just in general. A building collapsing, the wind passing through broken windows, and even camcorder sounds (they aren't used so much that it gets annoying). This is definitely a movie made to be seen on the silver screen, or at least a fairly large TV and some handy surround sound that is cranked up a bit. On various movie websites, Cloverfield is put under the horror subgenre. I can see where they are coming from, but this isn't scary. At heart, it's a mysterious monster film from the perspective of a few 20-somethings. Nearly everything clicks, and it's a lot of fun to watch. 4 out of 5 stars.
Posted jan 20, 2008 6:33 am pt

