neurotic71 Reviews

The French Connection (1971)

Nothing to see here... Move along.

[22 December 2003]

Naturalism is a stylistic choice just like any other. It works when it makes you think, or perhaps shows you something unexpected. That's why it doesn't work in this film. Is anyone surprised to find out that detective work is often cold, tiresome, and dull? Was anyone in 1971? I doubt it. While reading all the reviews praising this film for being "gritty" and "real", I couldn't help but wonder why that qualified as praise. I could make a very "real" film about people stuck in traffic, filing paperwork, or building a house but all of those things would be just as boring as watching Gene Hackman stand in the cold, sit in his car, or follow a Frenchman for nearly three hours. Just because it is policework doesn't make the reality of it any more interesting.

It seems to me that a film like this has two choices. Either be entertaining, or have something to say. This film did neither. And it easily could have. Think of the implications of what happens in this movie. A subway train is crashed (how's that for realism!), a few policemen are killed, a woman is shot by a sniper, several car crashes occur (with the assumption of injury), untold resources are spent and ultimately (as with all drug busts) not so much as a dent is made in either the supply or demand of illegal drugs. In that scenario Popeye Doyle is actually the bad guy. That would have been interesting. That makes a statement. Instead the entire story is watching some alcoholic deadbeat follow a bunch of Frenchmen around until the film abruptly ends with little or no conclusion. Whatever.

Totally overrated.

The Final Conflict (1981)

Kind of a bummer

[20 May 2002]

I loved the Omen movies as a kid. Couldn't get enough of them. But The Final Conflict falls a little short. There are two reasons for this. First is that in the original two movies the Antichrist is surrounded by legions of birds, dogs, nannies, stepmothers, etc. that always protect him. This gives a really creepy edge to the proceedings as it feels like the devil's minions are everywhere. In this film we see them gather for a while (how silly that a nurse would wear her uniform to a satanic gathering by the way)but there doesn't seem to be that many of them. This episode concentrates too much on Damien and one evil figure isn't nearly as scary as a whole host of evil - even if he is supposed to be the Antichrist. Second is the ending which everyone has talked about. The thing that gets me is that Damien spouts Bible verses throughout the movie, the seven priests are constantly spewing verse, and neither side has figured out yet that christ wasn't supposed to come back as a baby. It's pretty boring stuff for sure, but you'd think one of these guys would have read the Bible. Remember that whole "coming back with eyes of fire and double edged sword, blah, blah, blah" thing. It's pretty clear that's no baby. So the big surprise at the end when everyone realizes that christ didn't come back as a baby isn't much of a surprise at all. And if he didn't return as a baby why is he hiding while the Antichrist gets some baby killing done? It's all so goofy. I don't care if it matches up with the Bible, but it might as well match up with itself. How could nobody have known? Too dumb to get into. Still a slightly scary flick overall and worth seeing if you're into the other two.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Better than the frightfully average book

[7 January 2002]

This may be the only movie I've ever seen that I thought was better than the book. The book is far too long, never suspenseful, emotionless, tedious, and at times nonsensical. The movie went a long way to correcting major errors in structure and narrative. The movie emphasizes the important things (Gandalf and the Balrog - hardly a footnote in the massive girth of the book) and deemphasizes or excises completely the tedious and worthless parts of the book (Tom Bombadil and the endless and boring trek through the forest, the constant singing by characters of all races, etc.) Unfortunately the movie can't give the story a decent ending or a climax which most narratives have, but otherwise it is a fantastic take on the original. I think I'd rather be beaten with a stick than be forced to read the books again, but I'm excited to see the next movie and see how Jackson fixes Tolkien's awful storytelling device of separating the story into two completely unrelated books. Jackson deserves all the credit in the world for making this hulking mass of crud a viable, and even enjoyable movie.

Star Trek: Voyager (1995–2001)

Dull as paste

[27 July 2001]

The problem with the show was that it was just plain boring. Look at the characters. Captain Janeway is ice cold and preachy, Chakotay is cold and aloof, Tuvok is cold because he's a vulcan, Seven is cold because she's a Borg, the klingon character is cold... Do I need to continue? The only characters with any true personality, and not some base affectation derived from rank or race, are Neelix who is unbelievably annoying (is this where Lucas got the idea for Jar Jar) and the doctor who is a hologram. When your holograms have more personality than your characters your show is doomed. Throw in the lame premise (Gee, I wonder if they'll find a way home this week? Oh, wait. They can't or the show would be over.) and you have a real stinker. Of course they concentrated almost exclusively on Seven for the last few years. She may be ice cold as far as personality goes but she's the only one whose character changed at all. What happened to character arc? Ugh. I could go on but why waste my time?

My Fragile Heart (2000 TV Movie)

Don't waste your time

[13 July 2001]

It is consistently frustrating in the mystery genre that one has to watch all the way to the end before realizing they are wasting their time. It is particularly frustrating in films like this one that do a decent job of building suspense and getting you ready for the big pay off at the end when the end is a complete non-event. I don't want to give it away so all I can say is that a surprise ending isn't really a surprise when the murderer has never been mentioned in the film at all until the last two minutes. Who cares? All the suspense is wasted. All the human drama lost. It's a cheap way to end a mystery and it happens all too often. Frustrating. Ok, rant over.

The Monkey King (2001– )

Abominable trash

[30 May 2001]

Surprisingly and shockingly awful. There are a lot of significant events, but no story. Constant stickfights that all look the same, aren't very exciting, and all the good guys win far too easily so no tension is created, do not make a movie action packed. Constant scenes of giant whirlpools or people flying do not make a movie magical when the scenes are poorly done and completely unmotivated by character. Watching two people kiss and express their love for one another does not make a movie romantic unless the two characters have some chemistry and interaction. The problem isn't that this movie is cheesy and formulaic. The problem is that the cheesy formula is unbelievably poorly executed. The characters are never developed, the special effects (especially the tiger) are often second rate, the story is not only derivative of every fantasy movie ever but derivative of itself (two separate villages that have had their children kidnapped by bad people), at least don't repeat your own ideas in the same movie. Dialogue is awful and cardboard, and the acting is pretty much lousy. This is everything the typical, paint-by-numbers approach to movie making yields. This movie is so bad it's insulting to it's audience. Horrible. Save yourselves and don't go near this worthless mess of a mini-series.

Schindler's List (1993)

Most expensive reenactment ever

[18 April 2001]

To me "Schindler's List" is more of a reenactment than a movie. A movie has something new to offer - some fresh insight to bring to the discussion. "Schindler's List" doesn't. I knew going in that the holocaust was one of the most horrific and disgusting chapters in the history of the world. The movie only served to reinforce what I already knew. None of the characters were developed. We saw Jews suffering, but we didn't know them as characters. Their plight seemed just as distant as reading about it in a history book. The stories weren't personal. The drama was just melodrama. The choice to colorize one extra that never speaks was ham handed at best. A real director could have brought focus to her without colorizing and taking the audience out of the movie. The movie amounts to little more than just endless scene after endless scene of atrocities connected by the thinnest shred of actual plotline. Did it change my attitude about anything? No. Did it reveal anything about the holocaust that I didn't already know? No. It's a lot of money to spend and a lot of awards to receive for a film whose ultimate message seems to be "The holocaust was really bad." Well no kidding. Even TV movies like "Haven" do a better job of making the holocaust real in an emotional way than "Schindler's List." In "Haven" you know the characters. You laugh with them. You cry with them. Then when you understand what they have been through the impact is massive. "Schindler's List" never engages on a personal level. It is a reenactment and nothing more.

Twister (I) (1996)

The most fun dung heap ever made

[5 April 2001]

Every single plot line, every bit of dialogue, and all the acting in Twister are horrible. Clearly it was written so that your average five year old could follow every second. This movie is stupid in ways that most movies haven't even thought of. I've seen it at least fifteen times. I'm hooked. I can't explain it. You watch the movie and it's just like being caught in those tornado blown fields. I get a rush of adrenaline and a thrill at the power of nature every single time. This is the ultimate guilty pleasure movie. At least once a minute it elicits groans from anyone watching it, but you just can't turn away.

Traffic (2000)

Excellent but not timeless

[16 January 2001]

I am truly surprised by the negative reviews on this page. I thought the film was excellently crafted, intelligently put together, and Soderbergh got wonderful performances from everyone involved. I am equally surprised by the comments that the story lacked plot. Of course it did. It was about drug traffic, not any individual plot or storyline. It was about the world we are all living in - right here, today, 2001. It was a snapshot of the time and as such it was remarkably well done. If one reads the other comments on this page they will find comments praising the film for it's anti-drug war stance, other's praising it for it's anti-drug stance, still others hating it for either position. That's the magic of this film. Everyone thinks it's biased but there is no consensus on which direction it is biased towards. That takes craftsmanship, and storytelling, and everything else this film's detractors are slamming it for lacking. The proof is in the results. The only negative I see in the film is that in five years it will be completely irrelevant. Great movies are timeless, this is a very good movie that captures it's time. Well worth the price of admission.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

The Most Overrated Film of All Time

[30 August 2000]

While SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is certainly a good film, and a major technical achievement, it is little more than that. After the stunning first twenty minutes the movie begins to falter. The storyline seems to be based in asking the question 'What is the value of one life?' The characters struggle with risking all of their own lives to save just one. Is duty and honor important enough to die for? What if Ryan turns out to be a complete degenerate? It is a pretty heady, and ultimately unanswerable question. Yet with the modern bits tacked on the beginning and end of the film, Spielberg answers the question for us. This is pure schmaltz made to get one last tug on the heart strings. It cheapens the film. When Hanks admits to being a schoolteacher back home it is the worst kind of melodrama. When the soldier does his bit in the church about missing his mother we somehow know he'll be dead in ten minutes. When they release the German soldier we somehow know we'll see him again. How many cliches and obvious plot devices can one throw into a 'realistic' movie? How about the celebrity cameos that feed a director's ego,but serve only to distract the audience from the film (Hey! Isn't that Ted Danson?) For the most part it is completely overblown, gratuitous melodrama. It isn't even the best war movie ever made, much less the best movie ever. It's worth the three hours, but not much more.

Miracle on the 17th Green (1999 TV Movie)

Misguided values

[7 April 2000]

I found this movie to be completely objectionable. Throughout the movie Ulrich's character is portrayed as being selfish and self absorbed. I never felt that. Here is a man who is pursuing his lifelong dream of being a professional golfer and nobody in is family is the least bit supportive. They are angry when he makes the tour. When he calls to say he has won $15,000 that the family desperately needs at his very first tournament his wife is furious because he isn't listening to her story about fixing the roof. Well, one person is seeing their lifelong dream realized, the other has just successfully followed the directions from a Time/Life instructional manual. Whose story should take precedence? I don't know what the opposite of misogyny is - but this movie qualifies. There is nothing shameful about following your dreams. If the roles had been reversed he would have been an awful man for not supporting her. The male of the species cannot win in TV movie of the week land. I will never watch another one.

The Stand (1994)

A good nap wasted

[4 April 2000]

This film is six hours long. Six hours! Think about what one could accomplish in six hours. Or you could watch this drivel that leads on to the ultimate battle between good and whoops! Nothing happens. Six hours of build up for the ultimate anti-climax I have personally ever seen. I never read the book, but if after thirteen hundred pages it ends the same way I'm surprised people didn't lynch Stephen King. Do not be tricked into seeing this film by some die-hard King fanatic as I was. If you have more than six functional brain cells you will feel terribly duped.

The Real Charlotte (1990– )

Four hours of your life you will never get back

[14 March 2000]

One would think that in four hours a film could tell something vaguely like a story. One would be wrong. 'The Real Charlotte' meanders about, never capturing the viewers interest, until it finally, mercifully ends leaving you wondering why you should care. They never truly develop any characters, there is never any dramatic tension, honestly nothing happens of consequence in the entire film. Being a nice looking period piece is not enough and the world of cinema will be better off when film makers finally accept that fact.

A Masculine Ending (1992 TV Movie)

The mystery is who paid for this?

[3/10 · 22 December 1999]

Considering the time, effort, and expense of shooting a film in two countries one would think someone involved would have read the script. The entire situation is impossible. Without giving anything away it is difficult to comment. But a girl commits suicide, and is found while the main character is on holiday in Paris. The murdered man is killed on the main character's first night in Paris. Later we learn that this is in response to the girl's suicide. Yet if we have watched the movie, we realize that the body of the suicide victim had not been discovered yet. There was no motive for the crime! This is just one of many logical blunders in this poor excuse for a murder mystery. How do people who have obviously been savvy enough to make the money it takes to finance a project like this not have the common sense to notice the product they are paying for is impossibly bad? I will always be flabbergasted.

Screen One: Filipina Dreamgirls (1991) Season 3, Episode 3

What if Harry met Sally and she were a mail order bride?

[2/10 · 8 December 1999]

This film is almost painfully unpleasant to watch. Imagine a dramatic representation of hard luck losers who have to buy themselves wives. The subject matter is hopelessly thin, a fact which the movie tries to cover up with ridiculous comic elements. Unfortunately this only serves to highlight how truly grotesque what these people are doing is, yet the film never passes such judgment. The end is a small couple by couple review in their own words just like the end of When Harry Met Sally, but unlike WHMS this movie lacks anything that could be misconstrued for charm.