greenie
Joined Dec 1999
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews26
greenie's rating
While the film begins interestingly enough with its premise and initial character development, it settles into mediocrity thereafter and provides decreasing interest with each scene.
The actors in this film plod their way through the story; this is not to say that a different cast would have done better, as the film's dialogue is so basic that even over-the-top performers would draw a yawn out of the audience. Rather, no role is a challenge, no character illiciting any degree of love or hate out of the viewer.
Where this film suffers the greatest is at the root of the plot. A twisted, murderous psychopath is one thing; one with mission and purpose is another. There lies the difference between a slasher flick (Friday the 13th, Halloween) and a psychological thriller (Seven, Silence of the Lambs). The Bone Collector instead lies somewhere between. The villain here is twisted, calculated and smart, yet for all his plotting and planning they have no effect whatsoever on his ultimate goal.
By the time the credits roll we care nothing one way or the other about any of the characters that died, regardless of whatever amount of plot development they received. We care only that the movie made little sense and over the course of 2 hours, took us nowhere.
The actors in this film plod their way through the story; this is not to say that a different cast would have done better, as the film's dialogue is so basic that even over-the-top performers would draw a yawn out of the audience. Rather, no role is a challenge, no character illiciting any degree of love or hate out of the viewer.
Where this film suffers the greatest is at the root of the plot. A twisted, murderous psychopath is one thing; one with mission and purpose is another. There lies the difference between a slasher flick (Friday the 13th, Halloween) and a psychological thriller (Seven, Silence of the Lambs). The Bone Collector instead lies somewhere between. The villain here is twisted, calculated and smart, yet for all his plotting and planning they have no effect whatsoever on his ultimate goal.
By the time the credits roll we care nothing one way or the other about any of the characters that died, regardless of whatever amount of plot development they received. We care only that the movie made little sense and over the course of 2 hours, took us nowhere.
[quick note -- According to director Kevin Smith on his View Askew website, later this year (2000) will see the release of a fully-loaded DVD with all the extra goodies DVD owners have to demand, especially for quality movies... the current DVD is entirely without extras (I don't count trailers as "extras")]
This is a brilliant movie for those of you that choose to look towards western, organized religions (regardless of the denomination) with a questioning glance. If you're not the one that can take "isms" lightly -- in this case sarcasm, symbolism, criticism, witicism -- then why bother watching?
But if you can watch a movie objectively and listen to the point of view it's taking, you'll be at the very least by Dogma's very original look at the Catholic church and what drives the followers of Catholicism (and for those of you out there that think Smith is a heathen, be aware that he is Catholic, goes to church every week pays his tithe on a weekly basis).
And if you were already fan of any of the original Jersey Trilogy (Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy), you'll be delighted by Dogma. It's as fresh and blunt (oh, a pun!) as Clerks, as biting and sterotype-smashing as Chasing Amy, while still building on the heroic qualities [smirk] of Jay and Silent Bob from Mallrats.
This is a brilliant movie for those of you that choose to look towards western, organized religions (regardless of the denomination) with a questioning glance. If you're not the one that can take "isms" lightly -- in this case sarcasm, symbolism, criticism, witicism -- then why bother watching?
But if you can watch a movie objectively and listen to the point of view it's taking, you'll be at the very least by Dogma's very original look at the Catholic church and what drives the followers of Catholicism (and for those of you out there that think Smith is a heathen, be aware that he is Catholic, goes to church every week pays his tithe on a weekly basis).
And if you were already fan of any of the original Jersey Trilogy (Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy), you'll be delighted by Dogma. It's as fresh and blunt (oh, a pun!) as Clerks, as biting and sterotype-smashing as Chasing Amy, while still building on the heroic qualities [smirk] of Jay and Silent Bob from Mallrats.
There's really not that needs to be said about this movie, except perhaps that it is little more than an unbelievably average attempt by all parties involved, from scriptwriters to actors to the film crew Stanley Tucci within a tight timeframe, and this was the only project on the shelf. But how any producer could look at If there's one good thing I can draw from this movie is the increase in respect I offer towards the Cohen brothers; even in their weakest attempts, the characters themselves remain interesting and unique due to a successful blend of writing, acting and directing.
Why Evan Dunsky was handed this film to both write and direct is beyond me. One must imagine that the producers had to use Dunsky's record and see "My Demon Lover" as his career highlight is beyond me.
My guess is that Dunsky is stuck filiming commercials for the collect-calling companies, as his only use for David Arquette is to count the angles at which he can capture his smirks. Still, credit does go to Dunsky for making a feature length piece that is easier to watch than those 30-second commercials.
The rest of the cast is utterly forgetful; no surprise, as their characters are bland and without the ability to utter anything that might deamnd out attention.
The movie's strongest points lie in what starts out as the plot for the film -- residential alarm and theft-detection salesmen -- and the small tributary tales that grow from it. Unfortunately, many of these branches are severed quickly (most simply dry up and disappear) while the heart of the plot meanders onward.
As this film originated as a play, ultimate judgment must fall on Dunsky. His screenplay adaptation is as snappy as a train-of-thought piece written while on Riddelin, his direction little more than a poorly-lit theatre production taken outside and put on film.
in this case, with the Dunsky behind both the typewriter and camera, it's easy enough to point the blame. Still, this movie did not fall victim to the channel flip... perhaps it was because I was too busy counting the 20-odd members of the Arquette family involved.
Why Evan Dunsky was handed this film to both write and direct is beyond me. One must imagine that the producers had to use Dunsky's record and see "My Demon Lover" as his career highlight is beyond me.
My guess is that Dunsky is stuck filiming commercials for the collect-calling companies, as his only use for David Arquette is to count the angles at which he can capture his smirks. Still, credit does go to Dunsky for making a feature length piece that is easier to watch than those 30-second commercials.
The rest of the cast is utterly forgetful; no surprise, as their characters are bland and without the ability to utter anything that might deamnd out attention.
The movie's strongest points lie in what starts out as the plot for the film -- residential alarm and theft-detection salesmen -- and the small tributary tales that grow from it. Unfortunately, many of these branches are severed quickly (most simply dry up and disappear) while the heart of the plot meanders onward.
As this film originated as a play, ultimate judgment must fall on Dunsky. His screenplay adaptation is as snappy as a train-of-thought piece written while on Riddelin, his direction little more than a poorly-lit theatre production taken outside and put on film.
in this case, with the Dunsky behind both the typewriter and camera, it's easy enough to point the blame. Still, this movie did not fall victim to the channel flip... perhaps it was because I was too busy counting the 20-odd members of the Arquette family involved.