As I write this, we are halfway through Trump's Presidency (assuming it lasts exactly a "normal" single Presidential term, which might not be in our future). It's not just that almost every day's news is depressing. Much more importantly, we tend to forget what "normal" was & how even when the President & his Congress were from another Party, you generally felt reasonably safe, protected by the Constitution & a bipartisan tradition involving unspoken but widely accepted norms of behavior. Actually, this tradition had been under fierce attact starting between 1976 & the early 1980s, long before "West Wing" was even contemplated. Still, it is a reminder that a relatively long time ago & sadly, for a far too short time, we WERE "a great America."
Reviews
23 Reviews
Kirsten Dunst acting excellence if embarrassing
28 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
NEGLIGIBLE SPOILER AND ONLY THROUGH THE FIRST 2 MINUTES
I don't often get embarrassed; having gone to school in the early 1970's, I can only recall being embarrassed twice when seeing someone else have sex. This was one time, even though technically that's not what Ms. Dunst's character was doing. She was just listening to music, but it was one of the most erotic performances possible. What made it embarrassing to me was that both the character and the actress were about 15. How did David Warry-Smith, the Director, communicate with her? "Say, listen, Kirsten, ah, well, you presumably have never done this before, but just pretend your having the most incredible sexual experience of your life, no, not just your life but anyone else's life. I'm sure you'll do fine." And then walk back to his stool and try not to die of embarrassment. And how did she do such an incredible job? That's a question I don't think anyone should know the answer to.
I don't often get embarrassed; having gone to school in the early 1970's, I can only recall being embarrassed twice when seeing someone else have sex. This was one time, even though technically that's not what Ms. Dunst's character was doing. She was just listening to music, but it was one of the most erotic performances possible. What made it embarrassing to me was that both the character and the actress were about 15. How did David Warry-Smith, the Director, communicate with her? "Say, listen, Kirsten, ah, well, you presumably have never done this before, but just pretend your having the most incredible sexual experience of your life, no, not just your life but anyone else's life. I'm sure you'll do fine." And then walk back to his stool and try not to die of embarrassment. And how did she do such an incredible job? That's a question I don't think anyone should know the answer to.
Shattered Glass
(2003)
Quite believable, says this former investigative journalist
31 May 2005
As the subject line above says, I have to admit to an insider's point of view. I was an award-winning investigative reporter and editor working in newspapers, magazines, wire services, radio, and network-affiliate TV. I quit journalism in 1980 in large part because of the ever-increasing number of talent-challenged first-year "journalists" who wanted to be the next Woodward/Bernstein, and worse, the willingness of management (especially in local television news) to hire and even promote them. To be honest, however, I would have to add that the low pay, true even at places like The New Republic, was a major factor to an expectant father.
So I am sad to say that I completely buy the characterizations presented in this docudrama on Stephen Glass' time at that august magazine. The only thing that didn't ring true was that I never met anyone who had the time or inclination to be as considerate of his fellow journalists as Steve Glass apparently was. My wife pointed out that she never met one journalistic co-worker she would spend time with if she had the choice. I would admit that the nicest I knew were, at best, benign. I should add that I was NOT the nicest I knew. Even I didn't like me those days.
Getting back to the film, I can't speak to what actually motivated this particular person to fabricate 27 of 41 stories at a very major national magazine. The film suggests that he was too eager to please, and perhaps that is true. But that probably wasn't what motivated Jayson Blair (at the New York Times) or others who have recently been exposed as serial fabricators. Ambition unrestrained by ethics, unreasonable pressure to succeed due to premature promotions, other unknown and perhaps unknowable motivations... they probably figure into these sorts of disasters. But what is certainly true, and given very short shrift by the film, is the role journalistic management plays. To put a rather fine point to it, too many editors do not know how to, or perhaps just don't like to, do their jobs.
Too many times I see on national news programs statements treated as fact that somehow I can't believe were ever fact-checked. Just today I saw an episode of HBO's RealSports where an amazing statistic was mentioned: that a certain percentage (I believe about 4% but wasn't taking notes) of people who start playing poker as young kids go on to have gambling problems. I instantly asked myself: where did those statistics come from? Poker playing among the very young (pre-college-age) was probably a fairly rare thing before the past couple of years. How would they know today that 15 years ago such-and-such a percent would later have problems? If you understand statistics you would know that you can't find gambling addicts now, ask how many played poker as young kids, and extrapolate any useful estimate of future danger (100% of alcoholics once drank socially, but that doesn't mean 100% of social drinkers go on to become alcoholics). So did some editor at RealSports check this out? Why don't I believe someone did?
In writing this six-paragraph movie review, perhaps to be seen by no one, I checked things over time and again for accuracy. Oops: I misspelled Jayson Blair; fix it. Spelling errors no one cares about in this Internet-only story: check the entire piece in an external spell checker. In all I made almost two dozen changes. No one reading this will notice, or if they do, care. But that is what I do because I once was an editor.
It is this instinct for distrust of EVERYTHING anyone says or writes, including oneself and one's own work, that I believe is missing in far too many editors today. It is this shortcoming that allowed Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair et al to last so long before being exposed. It is a major weakness in journalism, and the lack of acknowledgement of this weakness is the only fault I found in this otherwise excellent film.
So I am sad to say that I completely buy the characterizations presented in this docudrama on Stephen Glass' time at that august magazine. The only thing that didn't ring true was that I never met anyone who had the time or inclination to be as considerate of his fellow journalists as Steve Glass apparently was. My wife pointed out that she never met one journalistic co-worker she would spend time with if she had the choice. I would admit that the nicest I knew were, at best, benign. I should add that I was NOT the nicest I knew. Even I didn't like me those days.
Getting back to the film, I can't speak to what actually motivated this particular person to fabricate 27 of 41 stories at a very major national magazine. The film suggests that he was too eager to please, and perhaps that is true. But that probably wasn't what motivated Jayson Blair (at the New York Times) or others who have recently been exposed as serial fabricators. Ambition unrestrained by ethics, unreasonable pressure to succeed due to premature promotions, other unknown and perhaps unknowable motivations... they probably figure into these sorts of disasters. But what is certainly true, and given very short shrift by the film, is the role journalistic management plays. To put a rather fine point to it, too many editors do not know how to, or perhaps just don't like to, do their jobs.
Too many times I see on national news programs statements treated as fact that somehow I can't believe were ever fact-checked. Just today I saw an episode of HBO's RealSports where an amazing statistic was mentioned: that a certain percentage (I believe about 4% but wasn't taking notes) of people who start playing poker as young kids go on to have gambling problems. I instantly asked myself: where did those statistics come from? Poker playing among the very young (pre-college-age) was probably a fairly rare thing before the past couple of years. How would they know today that 15 years ago such-and-such a percent would later have problems? If you understand statistics you would know that you can't find gambling addicts now, ask how many played poker as young kids, and extrapolate any useful estimate of future danger (100% of alcoholics once drank socially, but that doesn't mean 100% of social drinkers go on to become alcoholics). So did some editor at RealSports check this out? Why don't I believe someone did?
In writing this six-paragraph movie review, perhaps to be seen by no one, I checked things over time and again for accuracy. Oops: I misspelled Jayson Blair; fix it. Spelling errors no one cares about in this Internet-only story: check the entire piece in an external spell checker. In all I made almost two dozen changes. No one reading this will notice, or if they do, care. But that is what I do because I once was an editor.
It is this instinct for distrust of EVERYTHING anyone says or writes, including oneself and one's own work, that I believe is missing in far too many editors today. It is this shortcoming that allowed Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair et al to last so long before being exposed. It is a major weakness in journalism, and the lack of acknowledgement of this weakness is the only fault I found in this otherwise excellent film.
28 Days Later
(2002)
Excellent end-of-the-world scenario with a flawed ending
6 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Although the plot is very unoriginal, I especially liked this version of the story because of the leisurely pace that sets the mood without letting you get bored. The Director didn't mind relatively long sequences without dialog when it was called for; I'm not sure a Hollywood-made film (this one was made in the U.K. by a U.K. company) would have been willing to do this. Ever since Star Wars the reigning action-movie concept in Hollywood seems to be action every 7 minutes max.
I also liked the cinematography. There were great shots (extremely wide, taken from an unusual angle, etc.) that were unorthodox and in another film would have gotten in the way, but here they helped set the mood of a few people isolated in a huge city.
I imagine it would be an even better experience in the theater, where the larger format and viewer being in the dark would have enhanced the feeling of isolation.
**** SPOILER *** The one flaw is the ending, and unfortunately it is a bid problem. In the penultimate scene, the male protagonist (Jim) is shot in the stomach. Now, even in a modern big city, stomach wounds are very often fatal, and virtually always so without prompt surgery. Not only will the victim bleed to death, but even if the bleeding can somehow be stopped, peritonitis will almost always set in. Nevertheless, without anyone having more than a pharmacist's knowledge of medicine, with no surgical tools, and after a car ride where he would certainly have bled out, Jim survives. The last scene shows him hale and hearty, running over a meadow. I suppose there could be some explanation, but none was given, and it broke me out of my "willing suspension of disbelief."
Nevertheless, I give the film a "9". Definitely worth watching and re-watching.
I also liked the cinematography. There were great shots (extremely wide, taken from an unusual angle, etc.) that were unorthodox and in another film would have gotten in the way, but here they helped set the mood of a few people isolated in a huge city.
I imagine it would be an even better experience in the theater, where the larger format and viewer being in the dark would have enhanced the feeling of isolation.
**** SPOILER *** The one flaw is the ending, and unfortunately it is a bid problem. In the penultimate scene, the male protagonist (Jim) is shot in the stomach. Now, even in a modern big city, stomach wounds are very often fatal, and virtually always so without prompt surgery. Not only will the victim bleed to death, but even if the bleeding can somehow be stopped, peritonitis will almost always set in. Nevertheless, without anyone having more than a pharmacist's knowledge of medicine, with no surgical tools, and after a car ride where he would certainly have bled out, Jim survives. The last scene shows him hale and hearty, running over a meadow. I suppose there could be some explanation, but none was given, and it broke me out of my "willing suspension of disbelief."
Nevertheless, I give the film a "9". Definitely worth watching and re-watching.
Post Impact
(2004)
Truly awful; full of obvious holes
13 June 2004
Someday I'm going to learn not to waste my time on made-for-TV movies shown on the Sci-Fi Channel (on USA cable). Admittedly, the special effects on this one were above its normal 1950's B-movie level. Nevertheless, the plot is full of obvious holes that even a child would choke on (e.g., people being shot in all four limbs and still able to win a hand-to-hand fight against an expert fighter). The acting is wooden, the editing is abrupt and annoying, and much of the key dialogue is incomprehensible even with repeated playbacks on a good sound system using a digital feed.
This one isn't worth watching even if you are terminally bored. Read a good book. Heck, read a BAD book; you wouldn't have the intelligence to visit IMDb and own a book THAT bad...
This one isn't worth watching even if you are terminally bored. Read a good book. Heck, read a BAD book; you wouldn't have the intelligence to visit IMDb and own a book THAT bad...
Armageddon
(1998)
Exciting despite major flaws
14 December 2002
I have to admit a strong prejudice against science fiction films that are so scientifically inaccurate and unbelievable that they are embarrassing to those of us who actually like SF. (Note: Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's fantasy, which doesn't have to follow rules). If I were Joseph P. Allen, the NASA consultant, I would die of shame. If you can't spot most or all of the flaws, then you probably don't care.
Besides the above, most of the characters were so forgettable that when they died you couldn't remember what they looked like! Many of the scenes on the asteroid looked like what they were: indoor sets under harsh lighting. I could go on but you get the picture. Brainless mind pap.
I must admit that despite everything I still enjoyed watching it (!) because of the off-the-top performances and some (but definitely not all) of the special effects. Nevertheless, my judgement is that while adolescents may like Armageddon, the best film of this type is Deep Impact, released the same summer.
Besides the above, most of the characters were so forgettable that when they died you couldn't remember what they looked like! Many of the scenes on the asteroid looked like what they were: indoor sets under harsh lighting. I could go on but you get the picture. Brainless mind pap.
I must admit that despite everything I still enjoyed watching it (!) because of the off-the-top performances and some (but definitely not all) of the special effects. Nevertheless, my judgement is that while adolescents may like Armageddon, the best film of this type is Deep Impact, released the same summer.
Flawless thriller with humor
26 October 2002
The film combines a great script, perfect acting by a first-rate cast, suspense and humor. From the first moments to the great ending it rivets your attention. Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw lead a tremendous cast (read the list for yourself) who all give great performances.
A must-see "9".
A must-see "9".
RoboCop
(1987)
Possibly the best SciFi satire ever.
20 October 2002
This film could have been a simple action flick, but it avoids that completely by having an intelligent plot, interesting lead character, and incredibly on-target satire of late 1980s trends. Although very violent, I can't really say it is gratuitious since the violence always serves the plot. A must-see, I rate it at 9.
My Name Is Nobody
(1973)
Very funny film that also is a great parody of Westerns
26 September 2002
This film starts out funny and continues until almost the end, when it turns serious in a pleasant way. It works on both the level of comedy and also as a satire/parody of Westerns, especially of the "Spaghetti" kind (which it is itself). The English-dubbing is a bit bothersome until you stop noticing it, but the film is very stylistic of great Westerns, which is deliberate and itself quite funny.
Be wary of poor quality copies aired late at night, as (1) the film is tightly edited and won't support further editing common to late-night movie stations, and (2) the soundtrack has been very uneven and of poor quality every time I've seen the film (seven times before I stopped counting). Definitely worth it for people who like Westerns.
Be wary of poor quality copies aired late at night, as (1) the film is tightly edited and won't support further editing common to late-night movie stations, and (2) the soundtrack has been very uneven and of poor quality every time I've seen the film (seven times before I stopped counting). Definitely worth it for people who like Westerns.
Evolution
(2001)
Surprisingly funny throughout
22 September 2002
I saw this film on TV in the middle of a sleepless night, and found myself laughing out loud. The film manages to be funny by taking itself very seriously. Not nearly as good a satire as "Airplane," I'll admit, but still a great sendup of alien infection movies. The only problem I had was the casting of David Duchovny in the lead role; I felt he was trying much too hard to be funny, which is of course the fastest way not to be funny. Still, his forced performance does not do significant harm to the film.
For those who are interested in a more serious literary treatment of the same subject, read David Gerrold's "Chtorr" science fiction series.
For those who are interested in a more serious literary treatment of the same subject, read David Gerrold's "Chtorr" science fiction series.
Velocity Trap
(1999)
Barely watchable, completely predictable
22 September 2002
This film has a completely predictable plot, shallow characterization, poor acting, and a terrible ending. Suitable for watching late at night when you absolutely cannot fall asleep, after which you will learn there are worse fates than counting sparkles on the bedroom ceiling.
Chameleon II: Death Match
(1999 TV Movie)
The only reason to watch this is Bobbie Phillips
17 September 2002
This film has it all: bad acting, virtually no plot, and terrible editing. The only possible reason to see it other than boredom from having nothing else to do is to watch Bobbie Phillips, a truly beautiful woman. I sense she has more talent than could be utilized in this sub-par film.
Run
(1991)
Surprising-good chase film
24 July 2002
OK, it isn't Lawrence of Arabia, but this film is a fun chase movie that pits a college kid against the combined might of a small community crime figure and many of his paid-off local cops. The ways Patrick Dempsey, the hero, succeeds is a far cry from the super-competent methods of previous and more formulaic eras. There is just the right mixture of humor and suspense that makes one enjoy this film in spite of knowing that it isn't exactly high-brow entertainment.
Dark City
(1998)
Finally a movie as good as "Bladerunner" and "The Matrix"
19 June 2002
Others both within IMDB and in external reviews have done a better job than I ever could in commenting on this film. I would only add a few things I liked and didn't like, and something important I thought the film left out.
Positive: the incredible production design and art direction, which I thought reminiscent of Tim Burton's vision of Gotham City in the original "Batman"; the original concept similarly and virtually simultaneously addressed by "The Matrix;" and the understated acting that didn't get in the way (with one exception, noted below).
Negative: whoever was responsible (Director Alex Proyas, probably) for the acting mannerisms used by Kiefer Sutherland (an actor I liked in the excellent TV drama "24") obviously needs some time in solitary confinement so he can rethink his decision. Sutherland's character alone got in the way of the script and broke through my Willing Suspension of Disbelief; he was an over-the-top cross between our image of Dr. Mengele and the spectacled Nazi in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". I also thought the final duel between the hero and villain could have had 30-45 seconds cut out to better effect.
Summary: a combination of the film noir exhibited by "Bladerunner" and much of the plot of "The Matrix," I give it a 9. It would have earned a 10 from me had Sutherland's acting been less affected and obtrusive.
A Major Issue Not Addressed: The film was an effort to answer the question, "Do Memories Make The Person?" It left us with a different question most of us already believe we know the answer to, which is, slightly reworded, "Power Corrupts, but does Absolute Power Always Corrupt Absolutely?" Can a good person with good intentions surmount "The Dark Side" inherent within all of our ID's? Perhaps the end of "Dark City" could have been similar to the one in "Sphere" had it only appeared first.
Positive: the incredible production design and art direction, which I thought reminiscent of Tim Burton's vision of Gotham City in the original "Batman"; the original concept similarly and virtually simultaneously addressed by "The Matrix;" and the understated acting that didn't get in the way (with one exception, noted below).
Negative: whoever was responsible (Director Alex Proyas, probably) for the acting mannerisms used by Kiefer Sutherland (an actor I liked in the excellent TV drama "24") obviously needs some time in solitary confinement so he can rethink his decision. Sutherland's character alone got in the way of the script and broke through my Willing Suspension of Disbelief; he was an over-the-top cross between our image of Dr. Mengele and the spectacled Nazi in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". I also thought the final duel between the hero and villain could have had 30-45 seconds cut out to better effect.
Summary: a combination of the film noir exhibited by "Bladerunner" and much of the plot of "The Matrix," I give it a 9. It would have earned a 10 from me had Sutherland's acting been less affected and obtrusive.
A Major Issue Not Addressed: The film was an effort to answer the question, "Do Memories Make The Person?" It left us with a different question most of us already believe we know the answer to, which is, slightly reworded, "Power Corrupts, but does Absolute Power Always Corrupt Absolutely?" Can a good person with good intentions surmount "The Dark Side" inherent within all of our ID's? Perhaps the end of "Dark City" could have been similar to the one in "Sphere" had it only appeared first.
Deep Red
(1994 TV Movie)
Reasonably involving if a bit predictable
18 June 2002
The film takes a bit of time explaining its premise, which is good, as it makes it a bit of a mystery within a thriller. I found it moderately riveting (if that isn't an oxymoron), but the ending, while satisfying, was predictable.
L.A. Law: The Movie
(2002 TV Movie)
Suprisingly good "reunion movie"
12 May 2002
I don't expect a lot out of TV reunion movies. After all, their purpose is simply to get as many original cast members as possible together, and play upon the nostalgia of those who remember the original series fondly. They don't start with a good script; that is the last thing that is done.
However, in this case, the story was actually worth watching even if you had never seen the original series. The subplots also held my interest. My only complaint was the unsatisfactory ending. One subplot item ended in a way that left one feeling dislike for someone in the original series (if only as a recurring character), for no reason that I could tell. The actual ending seemed to me to be abrupt, almost as if at least one more scene had been written and filmed but then cut for time. Still it was worth the two hours.
However, in this case, the story was actually worth watching even if you had never seen the original series. The subplots also held my interest. My only complaint was the unsatisfactory ending. One subplot item ended in a way that left one feeling dislike for someone in the original series (if only as a recurring character), for no reason that I could tell. The actual ending seemed to me to be abrupt, almost as if at least one more scene had been written and filmed but then cut for time. Still it was worth the two hours.
Excellent film true to the book(s)
22 December 2001
I first read the book when I was 15, late in the year 1965. I was not a good selection to comment on it, since I wasn't a fan of fantasy and found most poetry put me to sleep, Still, I feel in love with the series, especially the rather lengthy ending in the final book's back, dealing what happened to the various people after the move ended.
Rather than go over every scene one-by-1, let me summarize by saying that every character, landscape, and everything was the way I had imagined it but better. Casting was impeccable, and it appeared an inspired choice for South New Zealand.
If the remaining two installments keep to the or better quality, this trilogy will rank up there with Titanic and T2. My only concern is that the rating could allow children in to watch what is both a violent, scary and philosophically complex movie.
I do hope that Movie 3 will include the information in "Return of the King" that tell movie-goers what happened to their favorite characters after the movie is finished, with the time fast-approaching for the departure for races and individuals to take a radically different (post-Ring) world to emerge.
Edward D. Isenberg 505-922-1072 age almost 51, read books at age 15
Rather than go over every scene one-by-1, let me summarize by saying that every character, landscape, and everything was the way I had imagined it but better. Casting was impeccable, and it appeared an inspired choice for South New Zealand.
If the remaining two installments keep to the or better quality, this trilogy will rank up there with Titanic and T2. My only concern is that the rating could allow children in to watch what is both a violent, scary and philosophically complex movie.
I do hope that Movie 3 will include the information in "Return of the King" that tell movie-goers what happened to their favorite characters after the movie is finished, with the time fast-approaching for the departure for races and individuals to take a radically different (post-Ring) world to emerge.
Edward D. Isenberg 505-922-1072 age almost 51, read books at age 15
Stiletto Dance
(2001 TV Movie)
A surprisingly interesting film with an unexpected ending.
30 June 2001
I've always had a secret appreciation for Eric Roberts films. I think he's an underrated actor, able to do a good job if the script lets him. I also compliment him on being able to pick films that combine his macho action style with intriguing plots and relatively thorough (for the genre) characterization. "Stiletto Dance" is a good example. The story seems at first very simple, but nothing is as it appears. The plot continues to evolve in more complicated ways, but never loses the viewer. There's a romantic sub-plot that makes sense instead of just being an excuse for nudity. The main characters are filled out with motivations and nuances that make them interesting to watch. The film has a basic question to it: "How far can... and should... a police officer go to stop a crime or capture a criminal?" In my opinion, the best thing about the film is that it raises this old question in a very different manner, and leads one to a different conclusion than might have been expected.
Deep Impact
(1998)
The best (and most accurate) of many "comet hits Earth movies"
17 April 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I actually think this movie is underrated and underappreciated. Usually the characters in a disaster film are either completely undeveloped or have "pseudo-personalities" which are stereotypes, such as in "Airport." In this film, the characters not only have fuller personalities but act in surprising ways that are still consistent with those personalities.
The way that the film portrays the actions of the U.S. government and the news media are to me some of the strongest points in the film. I could believe it all without any trouble.
The scenes in outer space were realistic and for the most part reasonably accurate science-wise. There were a few goofs:
MINOR SPOILERS NEXT PARAGRAPH The Orion nuclear rocket uses nuclear explosions, so it would look completely different. The penetration of the atmosphere of the smaller comet took a long time in the film; at roughly 15 miles per second it would have been over virtually instantly, and anyone who saw it would be blinded. I couldn't believe people would try to evacuate by car on a highway that skirts the Atlantic Ocean; wouldn't they go west? Finally, there would have been room for many people in other caverns such as Carlsbad, and provisions (literally and figuratively) could have been made for those remaining above-ground.
NO MORE SPOILERS As many have noted, Morgan Freeman not only made the best film President we've had in a long time, but seemed like someone you'd WANT as President if something like this situation ever arose. Inspired casting. I had more trouble with Leelee Sobiesky, who distracts me partly because she looks exactly like a younger Helen Hunt, but more so because of some of her actions in the film. The hardest part to swallow was two people even trying to find each other in the chaos towards the end, but that's what "willing suspension of disbelief" is for.
In short, I think the movie deserved a B. Since it was released shortly before Armageddon, one almost has to give it a second rating in comparison. In that case it definitely deserves a B+ for avoiding not just cliches but the "cowboy in space" attitude of Armageddon (which I found awful).
The way that the film portrays the actions of the U.S. government and the news media are to me some of the strongest points in the film. I could believe it all without any trouble.
The scenes in outer space were realistic and for the most part reasonably accurate science-wise. There were a few goofs:
MINOR SPOILERS NEXT PARAGRAPH The Orion nuclear rocket uses nuclear explosions, so it would look completely different. The penetration of the atmosphere of the smaller comet took a long time in the film; at roughly 15 miles per second it would have been over virtually instantly, and anyone who saw it would be blinded. I couldn't believe people would try to evacuate by car on a highway that skirts the Atlantic Ocean; wouldn't they go west? Finally, there would have been room for many people in other caverns such as Carlsbad, and provisions (literally and figuratively) could have been made for those remaining above-ground.
NO MORE SPOILERS As many have noted, Morgan Freeman not only made the best film President we've had in a long time, but seemed like someone you'd WANT as President if something like this situation ever arose. Inspired casting. I had more trouble with Leelee Sobiesky, who distracts me partly because she looks exactly like a younger Helen Hunt, but more so because of some of her actions in the film. The hardest part to swallow was two people even trying to find each other in the chaos towards the end, but that's what "willing suspension of disbelief" is for.
In short, I think the movie deserved a B. Since it was released shortly before Armageddon, one almost has to give it a second rating in comparison. In that case it definitely deserves a B+ for avoiding not just cliches but the "cowboy in space" attitude of Armageddon (which I found awful).
Along with Unforgiven, possibly the best western of all time
17 April 2001
This movie is too often thought of as a western comedy or perhaps a "buddy film". While it is both, it is so much more. It is the story of how the last of the 19th century individualists became hopelessly out of place as organized civilization spread through the United States. The outlaws turn away from bank robbing because they are now nearly impregnable. They are chased after by the "Super Posse" which is made up of individuals from many states, working together and aided by the very railroads the heroes are robbing. When they finally die, it is because even in Bolivia long-distance communication (I think it was telegraph in the movie) allowed the army to quickly get to the scene. The key moment in the movie is when they are told (not a direct quote), "Your time is through. The only thing now is to find the time and place of your dying."
My only complaint is that Director George Roy Hill took out a key scene after only a few weeks in the theaters. I was lucky enough to see it before it was cut and it made the movie even more powerful, even if it did, as Hill said, slow it down somewhat. The missing scene is found in the screenplay, which was published into a book.
My only complaint is that Director George Roy Hill took out a key scene after only a few weeks in the theaters. I was lucky enough to see it before it was cut and it made the movie even more powerful, even if it did, as Hill said, slow it down somewhat. The missing scene is found in the screenplay, which was published into a book.
Alien 3
(1992)
The sequel that should never have been made!
8 April 2001
This film is perhaps the worst "A" movie made in this genre. I say "A" movie to distinguish it from poorly done "B" movies where you don't expect much in the first place. It would have been bad just because the camera work showing the alien was so poor. But the real crime is that, by answering the question of what happened to the android and little girl Ripley saved in Alien 2, and given what happens to Ripley in this movie, you feel like your investment in the series and in the characters was a complete waste of time and emotion. Thus this movie not only ruined itself but the entire series!
Do NOT see this film!
Do NOT see this film!
The Thing
(1982)
A more faithful and suspense-filled version of the short story
8 April 2001
I never liked the first version of "The Thing." It didn't follow the short story (which a great many science fiction fans believe is the best SF short story ever written). The monster's makeup was awful, as was typical for a 1950's horror film, and the characterizations were stereotypical. The John Carpenter version fixes all of these problems. With the exception of the ending, it is very close to the original story. The special effects are excellent, and the characterizations (or at least the fear they exhibit) seemed realistic to me. The only flaw was the ending, which IMHO made no sense whatever. Happily, one can still enjoy the movie even with the ending. I've watched it several times and still find it a good flick.
Popeye
(1980)
Quite possibly the worst film of the modern era
8 April 2001
Let's put it this way: it is hard to critique a film when you can't understand a word the lead character says! Four of us saw this in a movie theatre and three of us walked out after 45 minutes and waited in the lobby (I have to be honest: the 4th person thought it was hysterical). I have never walked out of a movie before or since, but this one really was awful. They should pay people to see it rather than charge for tickets. No, on second thought, they couldn't pay people enough!
Tell Your Friends