rugb Reviews

Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget (2023)

Terrible effort. Why?

[6/10 · 1 January 2024]

Apparently this film's creators didn't bring back certain key actors from the original film for fear of controversial pasts and "old" sounding voices. If that's true, and despite whether it would've hurt or not, they worried about the wrong thing. The creators should've been more concerned with the subpar writing and directing that makes this film unwatchable a 2nd time and keeps it out of my Aardman collection.

I give the animation and cinematography at least a 9 out of 10. Visually, it meets expectation. I give the story concept and voice acting at least a 7. It's sort of a typical tale of a teen rebelling against parent wishes, but at least told in a worthwhile way, and stays consistent with the action and characters to the end. The replacement voice actors do a decent job, imo. They're not as good and sometimes go through the motions (even the return actors), but they sound similar enough and don't botch it.

From those angles, this wouldn't be a bad sequel. However, everything else is well below standard for Aardman. It lacks wit, heart, originality and personality. Most jokes are straightforward, flat, overtly juvenile and overdone at times. Some of the music, additional voices and sounds do not flow. They sound cheaply done and formulaic.

It's as if the film's creators had no sense of what made people like the original film or any of the Wallace & Gromit catalogue. As if they expected to have an entirely new, unaware audience to depend on. One that didn't need to see the first film and is made up of easily-impressed 10 year-olds or moms whose film appreciation runs entirely through a kid-only, G-rated filter. There's nothing wrong with G-rated, but this effort abandoned every adult fan with a sense of humor, who appreciates subtlety and creativity - the way Aardman used to "craft" a film.

I literally only laughed at one brief scene. I rewound it a couple times because it was reminiscent of the original film. The scene involves Rocky suggesting a rescue plan that lacks plan, then Bunty and Mac give him grief over it. Mac makes a hilarious analogy which is made even funnier by her Scottish brogue.

I also thought "Reginald" was a redeeming character and played reasonably well by Peter Serafinowicz. But that was it. Nothing else stood out about this film other than how much it didn't stand out. Like someone else noted, I wanted to like this. I knew 20 minutes into that it was not going to be "great" but I watched to the end with hopes that it would at least finish "good." However, it is only just "okay" on a good day. To me, if you're going to make this effort 23 years later, why not make a proper effort?

I'm also baffled by how many reviewers "understand" why Gibson wasn't recalled. He had a degree of detractors even when he did the original film. He's still a viable and good actor today, and has been churning out films the past 3-4 years, including six in 2022. Most are rubbish, but he had a few good films and spectacular performances in the past decade.

The Professor and the Madman (2019)

Proof is in the User Reviews

[10/10 · 21 June 2022]

This is an outstanding film - plain and simple. I gave it a 10 mostly for it's scope, acting, qualitative value and completeness of the story. It's not flawless, but it's close, for me. I used to be an avid movie-goer who avoids theaters now for the lack of such films. Though it's not perfect, on my harshest day I could not go less than a 9.5 if that were available. So, what in the world did critics expect when they watched this film and treated like a b-budget movie with campy acting and a low grade script?

The "normal" people reviews here clarify the details so I will say no more about that. Instead, I take this moment to question the professional critics and take my conspiracy theory hat for a stroll.

Many film-goers have taken a disliking to critics for years. Nothing new. But there has been a slow corruption (an agenda, if you will) that I've suspected for years, and this film pretty much seals the deal for me. The likes of Leonard Maltin and the old newspaper reviewers clearly had generational and attitudinal biases toward certain cultures. Then the duo acts like Siskel and Ebert created theater and gimmicks out of disingenuous antagonism and debate. After the advent of the Internet came IMDB, Amazon and other online review sites, followed by techie bias and algorithm hijacks that warped the raw data. (If you could see the entire history of Top rated films, you'd know what I mean.) It didn't take long for academia and media worlds to align with that.

So, when I see "professional" critics make the comments they do today, I have to wonder what agenda they're pushing. I've long-questioned some of the media reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes. I wonder what qualifies them to give such biased reviews that seem to highlight their grasp for snarky lines more than their grasp of the purpose and fundamentals of film and story.

Do yourself a favor - ignore the so-called "critic" clowns and watch this film for what it is - a slice of reality and real history, embellished for entertainment. But use common sense and self-honesty in your expectations. Don't expect dramas to make you laugh or comedies to be action-packed. If these "critics" truly believe their reviews, that is likely their only possible excuse - ignorance.

Radical Jack (2000 Video)

In the year 2000...

[2/10 · 19 August 2019]

If not for RiffTrax, I'd never attempt to see a film like this. Their commentary truly gets one through it, but also repeatedly reminds me that trusting my instincts on films has always been a good idea.

To put it perspective this is a year AFTER The Matrix and the same year as Gladiator and Snatch. The worst film I intentionally saw in 2000 was Charlie's Angels. I rated that a 5 for the same reason someone here rated this a 7. As vapid as Charlie's Angels and its storyline was, at least it had big name actors and hot actresses, and actual ACTION.

My goodness, in the year 2000 this film could not have picked a worse bunch of lead actors for bad guys. BRC was bad enough yet he was quite decent and appealing compared to most of the remaining cast. It was like they wanted to make sure the star looked good by picking worse-acting bad guys and a completely unimaginative film location. Wow!

The production quality, filming style, acting, directing and story content were all at the level of a late 80s, early 90s made-for-TV movie - but in the year 2000! I gave it a 2 because it did have a couple decent actors and the storyline was at least mildly plausible and stayed on track. I've seen worse films. Like, maybe 5 or 6. :-/

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)

Wrong Direction

[6/10 · 25 June 2018]

Never Go Back, indeed. I'm reviewing this long after seeing it in the theater and I haven't seen it since despite its availability on Netflix, Hulu, Prime. The disappointment I felt then is still palpable today, especially after recently re-watching the first film.

There is little difference between the first and second films in terms of production level, casting, story line, etc. Yet it's the collective of many small differences and attention to detail that makes one film great and the other a dud. I gave this one a 6 because it satisfies fundamental aspects of an action film, and those who rated the sequel higher than 6 or liked it, consistently to gravitated to that point. However, the first film more than satisfies all that too, but then outshines the sequel in every other way, making it a complete film in my opinion. This sequel falls flat in all those other aspects.

I think this film suffers very specifically from two problems - its comparison to the first film and its director. McQuarrie, who directed the first, is known more for his writing resume and has limited directing time, yet seems to understand the concept of satisfying action film fans while maintaining the continuity of a good overall film. Despite his short director resume, he has been consistent in action films.

In contrast, Zwick, who directed the sequel, has an Oscar-sprinkled director resume, but is known for drama epics. It seems clear to me that there was a shortsighted agenda by producers to change the direction of the feel, politics, rhetoric or something, but it was a bad idea. Jason Bourne, which came out the same year, had the same problem even though is had the same director as previous sequels. That's why I think it is an agenda thing from the producers.

Sequels tend to not be as good as the first, but usually because producers shamefully try to maximize capitalization on the success of the first film by skimping on big details like the director, the script and top actors in the followup film. However, Zwick and Greengrass wouldn't be cheap, plus top actors are still there and production levels alone keep the budgets high. Yet the first films in Reacher and Bourne still stand out so much more. Why? Attention to detail. Like a band's first album - they simply seemed to be trying to nail the small details in addition to the big ones.

Producers of Reacher and Bourne either don't understand why the first films were good, or don't care. I lean toward the latter. They only want your money and their agenda pushed. They don't care about longevity. Dollars can be found in the next fad.

Many reviewers have pointed out some of these flaws with the second film that were not in the first, or not as bad. Forced dialogue, implausible action scenes, all the good scenes in the trailer, hokey drama, flat/weak characters, cliche settings, and so on. I'll add these to it:

The opening sequence was the only part of the sequel that seemed like the first film. I think that was strategic. If some people knew better, they'd never had gone in the first place. Next, Cruise didn't seem interested the entire film. He appeared to be going though the motions in many scenes, while he seemed to relish in the character of the first film. Smulders should've been a perfect fit for her role, yet her performance wasn't half as good as Rosamund Pike in the first film. Outside of Cruise and Smulders, there were no other memorable performances or characters. The first film had dozens of well-thought out and well-performed characters. Every actor was fitting and at least up to par in the first Reacher. I think its worst performance was the local detective, and he at least did okay. No other secondary role in the sequel reached his level. There was NOBODY like Jenkins, Courtney, Herzog or Duvall in the 2nd film and these were big names playing secondary roles in the first Reacher. But even the next level roles like the supposed gunman, the thugs at the bar and the victims on the river were well-played and fitting compared to just about everyone in the sequel. Even the brief scene by the auto store manager in the first film was better performed and more memorable than the roles of the entire sequel.

Finally, the action scenes in both films can be criticized as unrealistic, and the final fight scene in the first film was one of the few things I didn't like in that one. But at least everything in the first film was plausible compared to the sequel. As one reviewer noted, the sequel stepped back into the cliches of the 90s for much of the action scenes. Maybe Zwick didn't know any better and they rushed through the details believing or hoping it would pass, just like the recent Jason Bourne film. It's as if they believe most people are dumb enough to believe some very stupid things (like remotely accessing CCTV cameras). Maybe people are that naive or simply that eager for ANY entertainment, but the IMDB ratings at least slightly show otherwise. If the direction of Reacher continues this way, I won't even consider going to the next one. I'd need some significant reassurances.

New York Doll (2005)

Truly Inspirational

[10/10 · 21 August 2011]

This film brought me to tears. I did not expect the story I encountered. I found it by accident on the Documentary Channel. Based on a few minor familiarities, I should have been more aware of this story. Yet I knew little of the New York Dolls, their music and the intricate vein of Arthur "Killer" Kane's life that resulted in this film.

I'm a fan of The Smiths and was always aware of Morrissey's connection to the Dolls as their UK fan club president. A few of my favorite late-70s/early-80s bands often credited the Dolls as a major influence. Yet I never took the time to seek out their music, despite music-collecting being one of my favorite hobbies. I also recall Buster Poindexter and David Johansen's role in the movie "Scrooged." I don't emotionally invest in pop culture or worship celebrity so that was all the knowledge I had of these characters. However, I'm a useless-facts junkie, usually observant of the obscure and gravitate a little toward the counter-culture. So I should have known something about this.

To add to the circle of tangential connections, I'm also Mormon. Yet I never knew of Kane's conversion nor was I aware of this story until now. I'm embarrassed I know so little about something I'm connected with both through my favorite music and my religion. Nevertheless, I'm extremely grateful to have stumbled upon this film and for the efforts made by the filmmaker to make it happen. I think Morrissey was a conduit in the hands of God, whether he believes it or not, to help fulfill a 30-year wish of a tortured man.

Obviously, Morrissey was one of their biggest fans, but fame causes many to lose sight of reality. Even when successful people give back, it sometimes seems feigned via contrived charities and photo ops. That's how I always perceived Bob Geldof and his so-called charities. So it was no surprise to me that he gave one the most jaded, back-handed commentaries on Kane throughout the film. Given the bad experiences some people have in religion and the misguided perception a lot of people have of Mormons, I'd say it was rather magnanimous of Morrissey and others to go through with everything and continually praise Kane as a musician, as a person in general and for his choice in personal beliefs.

It was the final scenes and Kane's overall persona that really struck a chord (pun intended) and inspired me. I was a little turned off by Johansen's mockery of the Mormon faith. It didn't help to watch the many perpetual myths and misinformation of Mormons go unchallenged in that same scene, as always. (e.g. myth - Mormons have never been asked to abstain from caffeine. It's not the crux of abstention from coffee.) However, Johansen redeemed himself in the end with his kind comments about Kane. It was also nice to hear Johansen's homage to Mormons via the song at the end, "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief." (An absolutely moving song if you ever get a chance to hear it sung a cappella.) Through it all, Kane remained humble, stalwart, confident and composed. If you ever wanted to truly understand the tenets or mindsets of Mormons, and not the misguided crap you get everywhere else, Kane's post-conversion life is great example. His personality is the epitome of Mormon beliefs and a Christ-like person. He never shirked responsibility to his church nor his fellow man. He never blamed, spoke ill or got too down on himself despite a lack of wealth, defeated life and old grudges. Kane had little, yet gave everything he had to bring about a lifelong dream of a reunion and to mend broken relationships. He simultaneously lived in both worlds (his past glory and present faith), as if everything culminated with purpose. All the wheels and cogs aligned perfectly to make it happen, even if only for a brief moment in time. Yet, consider how little was required to potentially ignore or destroy such a beautiful story. It only needed one person in the mix to say, "No. I can't be bothered." Not only did the reunion happen, but it was uncharacteristically triumphant and successful. I don't think it was a coincidence. It seemed to happen just long enough to simply allow it to happen; to merely edify the prayer of a faithful man who sacrificed pride for a love of God and was rewarded quite simply and directly for his effort.

Meanwhile, Kane never regressed into his old lifestyle or felt regretful about it. He could have easily caved, especially considering his health. However, he was steadfast to the end, doing his duty, seeking a kind of content happiness that can't be explained or found in a worldly vice. Ironically, a former alcoholic, rock-n-roll legend and mid-life convert to the Mormon faith is a better example than I – a lifelong Mormon. However, you'll find the most diligent and faithful ones are the late converts, not the ones born into it, because those who find it later don't take it for granted. Arthur "Killer" Kane has inspired me to try harder, to have bit more faith – especially in others, and to be a better person.

Dinner for Schmucks (2010)

Get over yourselves...

[8/10 · 17 January 2011]

Do the math. Almost everyone who rated it 1-2 stars is a non-American (or self-absorbed film critic) who saw one of the originals that apparently spawned this film and they treat this one like a villain because of it. Yet, most Americans or those who didn't see the original give it at least 4-5 stars even if they didn't like it. Among the more moderate dislikes I also notice a couple common biases. Many dislike the grouchy girlfriend and several more dislike the stupidity of Carell's character. Sounds to me like many nay-sayers bring their own baggage to their bias, to one extreme or the other. What were you expecting? The film is "Dinner for Schmuks" not "Dinner for Sophisticates and Sycophants." The latter were the antagonists of the film. The plot was Rudd's character realizing that, standing up to them, and befriending a social misfit. The concept and players are not all that different from Napoleon Dynamite; another film people trashed without "getting it" yet appreciated more with each viewing. I saw one reviewer say they disliked this film at first and liked it more with each viewing. That's not typical for even a lot of popular films. Most films grow tiresome over time.

Bias is natural, but in this case it's largely unfair and unwarranted. On one hand, the pseudo-intellects think this film is dumbed down because they saw a similar film with a more artistic take. Boo-hoo! So give that film 10 stars and be reasonable with a 5, 6, or 7 for this one. I think it borrowed a little from The Party; a late-60s comedy about a dinner party. Should I hate the French or Indian films as ripoffs of that film since it pre-dated them? And of all the truly awful films out there, this is at the bottom? What is your scale? It's just my method, but I consider major criteria for films such as acting, script, music, etc. I may knock a star for every aspect that fails, or maybe a full star for 2-3 minor flaws. My bias plays into it too, but I try to grade on film merits without my bias taking the whole rating. There's a reason there are 10 stars to choose; it's not a black and white, like or dislike, thumbs-up or thumbs down rating scale. Do 1-star raters suggest this film fails at every element of film making? To me, 4-star means it is worse than half of the films ever made, since 5-6 should mean an "average" film. 1-star says to me it fails at every aspect of film making and gets a star merely because it's a film - it made production. I've rated very few films below 5 or 6. Most are average or better. If it's that bad, I hope I know better than to see it. Just food for thought.

Meanwhile, the other extreme of dislikes seems to have expected a more straight-forward, raunchy comedy like Dumb and Dumber or Austin Powers (I like those btw; not knocking them) or something less silly like a typical rom-com. Instead, it was something in between: a basic comedy with an absurd premise and a very moderate amount of adult humor. It requires a bit more analyzing than most comedies, a bit of an unexpected gut check, and an open mind about the intentions of the film. Was it any more unrealistic than Ferris Bueller? More silly than the original Pink Panthers? More absurd than any Will Ferrell comedy? Check those ratings and rethink your perspective.

Among today's films this is easily above average and definitely worth seeing. It certainly warrants a better IMDb rating than it has received so far. It's not amazing, but what in the world were the nay-sayers expecting? Script, premise and originality are the weakest aspects, yet they are adequate. At times the script is even quite clever. Acting is at least average if not better. Story and plot are good. The music is very good. Cinematography is even great for a comedy, especially in the scenes with the mice dioramas. And for those knocking the expectations of the cast: there are 4-5 notable film comedians in the cast. David Williams is the most authentic comedian and most Americans wouldn't even know who he is. He and Steve Carell fulfilled my expectations. Rudd is hardly a legit comedic actor as he has done as many non-comedies and often plays a straight-man. And Galifinakis and Clement have limited roles. Where is the comedic let-down? Take the film for what it is. It's about the relationship between Rudd's and Carell's characters, and what Rudd's character learns and appreciates in the process. Comedy is literally a secondary genre. I agree that it was advertised poorly.

Finally, I was surprised how much human element is in the film. Very touching at times. (Reminds me of John Hughes films how you can be laughing one moment, brought to deep introspection a moment later, then laughing soon again.) Admittedly, the film goes flat at times, but only for brief periods and it ends reasonably well. I didn't like the Darla character. She detracted from the story and the annoying grouchy aspect of the girlfriend came directly from that. Plus the girlfriend was a mediocre actress and her character may have been improved by reworking the involvement of the Darla character. Nevertheless, if you watch it with an open mind and reserve the expectations a bit, I think most will be pleasantly surprised. In fact, I was apprehensions about seeing it, and never saw it in theatres. I reluctantly rented it when there was nothing else to rent and was glad I did.

I Trust You to Kill Me (2006)

Provocative and enjoyable...and I wasn't a fan prior

[13 July 2008]

I think the best part of this rockumentary is that I generally didn't like Kiefer or his past work, and I was not aware of this band. Yet, I found this to be the most honest and altruistic documentary I've seen. The music turned out to be very passionate and high quality for live performances. It's also in a genre that fits my tastes and doesn't bend to the will of trends and conformity. And with that said, there was a groove or theme of that nature throughout the film that gave it almost a plot; Kiefer coming to terms with his life through the role he plays with this band, and their will to succeed their own way. For a seemingly pointless rockumentary, it was straightforward and even gripping to me. Extremely well-edited.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

There is a plot AND deeper meaning...

[10/10 · 31 July 2005]

You just don't get it. And that's not a slam or an insult because even many who like it keep saying the plot is thin and the film has no meaning. The proof is that anyone who bothers to watch it more than once will say they like it more and it makes more sense each time they watch it. Why is that? I thought this film was nothing but site gags and one-liners? Wouldn't that cause the film to get old real quick? Ask yourself why this has become a cult-classic. It's not difficult to see why.

To say this movie is not complicated is an understatement. So why is the premise and meaning is still lost on so many people? Because of their expectations and preconceived notions. It's not typical or formulaic or "what you'd expect." And that's what makes it so great to those of us who get it. Let all that go and appreciate Napoleon for who he is and what he wants out of life. Put yourself in his shoes or Uncle Rico's or Deb's or Pedro's. Change your perspective before you watch next time.

From the very first scene on the bus to Napoleon's various dialogues (or lack of) with Pedro and Deb, this film subtly approaches some amazing character development. Uncle Rico is a realistic character and superbly played by no one I knew prior. Consider that in light of the fact this was a B-budget effort and first major attempt for Hess until Fox got a hold of it. With a nearly-no-name cast and a very dry script, the simplicity of this film holds more water than it should.

That says it all in comparison to the gaudy amounts of money spent on drippy dramas and over-the-top action films that continue to disappoint. Sure, those film's plots are discernible and easy to follow - and that's what's wrong. You're being fed what you want to eat. We're giving Hollywood credit for taking the easy way out because we are to lazy to think or focus during a film. It's easier to spend a lot of money when you have it and draw in box office numbers by fooling people with big name actors and explosive plots. It's more challenging to get a mostly unknown cast, write a story about seemingly nothing, and make one of the most unlikely adored films.

There is a plot and a meaning. It begins with his line on the bus, transcends through meeting Pedro and Deb, poignantly highlighted at the Prom (the shot behind the three of them during Forever Young), blatantly obvious in Pedro's speech, and wraps up perfectly in the final scene. It's so easy...

The Man with One Red Shoe (1985)

Good enough and underrated!

[8/10 · 25 November 2002]

By any standard, Red Shoe should be an 80s classic comedy. Based on the scores of mindless comedy from that era, this film is above-average. The problem with the negative reviews is the people who write them. Babyboomers will always love Hanks more for his yuppie dramas because drama and their generation is all they care about. Generation "Y" will never like Hanks' 80s comedies because there wasn't anyone putting their tool in a pie or falling down every other scene. The evidence is in the reviews that find the zipper scene the only funny scene. I found it funny too, but THAT is as typical or predictable as any comedy gag out there. That is barely humor, and only as a site gag, not due to its wit.

This wasn't the greatest film and the comedy was dry. But Hanks never had a challenging role anyway until maybe Big or A League of Their Own. The concept in Red Shoe was fresh, the plot was clever, and if one pays attention...the dialogue and many scenes can be very funny. Sorry if you have to think a little, but sometimes the wit is what makes content and humor intrinsic. So it's a remake...big deal. It transfered well to an American platform, especially considering the actual conflict discovered between our own CIA and FBI. And if you didn't "get it" then the twist worked or you weren't paying attention to the first 5 minutes. Watch it again!

When people don't find movies like this funny, it reminds me of people who don't get Far Side comics or Monty Python. Because YOU don't get it or it's not straight forward, doesn't mean it's not funny. Keep your beer in the fridge and pay attention to ALL the scenes (not just when people slip on banana peels), then maybe it'll be worth the precious 90 minutes you "wasted" on it.

I beg anyone to validate how Turner & Hooch, Dragnet, Money Pit, Joe vs the Volcano, or Volunteers are as good. Please don't quote box office numbers because that just as easily points out how well masses are fooled by marketing groups.

Freejack (1992)

"Worst...movie...ever!"

[3/10 · 1 July 2002]

This movie is like a low budget film from the early 80's, but features a couple big-name actors and actresses and was made in the 90's. Estevez has always been a mediocre actor, but Mick Jagger absolutely cannot act. It is difficult to believe Anthony Hopkins and Rene Russo were in something this bad. I'm glad I was in Australia in 1992 and missed this one when it came to theatres. Awful script and dialogue, especially between Estevez and Jagger.