ericjg623 Reviews

Game of Thrones (2011–2019)

Get your barf bags, folks!

[2/10 · 28 December 2016]

This is "Lord of the Rings" meets "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Great production values married to a total gross-fest.

Let's see (obligatory spoiler alert, of course) though there's not much to spoil since I'm writing this now for a show that's been on six years. Anyway, let's start. Brother and sister having sex while the latter is married to the king, passing off their offspring as his. Human babies being offered up to strange zombie-like creatures by a father who marries his own daughters. A torture scene involving rats, various body parts cut off, rape scenes, castration scenes, this is basically Saw movie levels of entertainment. I'll give some credit for the first season for at least being original, as well as aforementioned high quality production values, but after that (I watched season 2 as well on DVD, then looked up the rest via summaries on the Internet), and the basic theme doesn't change, really. It's basically what new kinds of shock scenes can they through at us without anything ever being resolved. Good characters are killed (won't spoil it by saying which ones) and the rest basically scheme and backstab each other. Think of the worst types of office politics only played with swords and various other medieval weapons.

Bleah! You feel like you want to wash out your brains with soap after coming into contact with this mess! 4 toilet bowls/barf bags up!

Interstellar (2014)

Oh Gawd, this was awful!

[2/10 · 10 October 2015]

This movie made me wish I was both deaf and blind. Blind, so I wouldn't have to see it, and deaf so that I wouldn't have to hear the soundtrack, which was like having nails pounded into your skull with a hammer. I will now have to plug my headphones into my iPhone and play a few Motley Crue songs just to get the sludge out of my brain. This gets 2 out of 10 only because some of the acting (and overacting) was good, so the actors get some credit here. Lots of boo-hooey scenes of astronauts crying over this and that, the soundtrack being relentlessly over-dramatic and so was everything else. This is the sort of film where you could take all the characters and blow them up with an atom bomb, and you would find yourself cheering at the end. Honestly, two hours of Beavis and Butt-Head reruns would be a vast improvement over this movie.

Gravity (2013)

Great visuals, okay plot

[7/10 · 28 February 2014]

Gravity

I just watched this on my computer. It was, in fact, my first ever downloaded movie from the Internet. I guess this is now the wave of the future, what with Blockbuster being out of business, though I will still miss going to the video store and browsing through thousands of movie selections, often not having a clue in advance as to what movie I was going to rent.

Anyway, on to the movie. Visually, it's great, and probably its best feature by far. The effects are so good you don't even notice they're effects, it looks like they actually shot this movie in real outer space.

As for the rest? The best I can say is the story is competent. For those who don't know, it's about two people stranded in space after debris from several exploded satellites has taken out their space shuttle (didn't the filmmakers know the Shuttle is now retired?). They are literally marooned with just their space suits for protection. The question then is: can they get to a nearby space station (in this case, Chinese) in order to find a capsule that can take them safely back to Earth?

The plot makes some technical errors, but you can mostly ignore those and just enjoy the drama and the great visuals. There's no need to spoil the plot, since there isn't much of one. Either they get back to Earth or they don't. Sandra Bullock does, I think, a pretty decent job, although she really doesn't come across as a real astronaut but more like a Damsel in Distress set in space. Although she's competent enough when she has to be, she's much too emotional most of the time to look like someone who's gone through the rigorous training and psychological screening given to real astronauts. And Clooney isn't really acting at all, he's just playing himself (wise cracking, obviously thinks he's God's gift to all women, etc.) only he's doing it in a space suit.

This has been nominated for 10 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Will it win? Should it win? On the first, I doubt it, since space/Sci-Fi movies almost never win Best Picture. Stanley Kubrick's 2001 didn't (and it's much better than this film) nor did any of the Star Wars flicks. Should it win? Probably not. The amazingly lifelike visuals (again, they really look like they're in space, but then, so did most of 2001 and that was filmed in 1968) simply can't make up for a pedestrian plot.

7/10 mainly for the amazing visual effects.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Worst Bond movie EVER!

[2/10 · 3 February 2014]

I saw this in the theatre a few years ago when it came out, and the funny thing was, I couldn't remember a thing about it. So, when it was on cable TV a couple nights ago, I decided to watch it again to see if it was any good.

It wasn't. Indeed, I found out why I couldn't remember anything about it the first time, because there was nothing worth remembering about it the second time, either.

It's a given that most James Bond movies have plots that range from over-the-top to the downright preposterous, but nonetheless the plots are at least understandable. But "Quantum of Solace" has no plot at all, at least none that I could discern. It's just a bunch of action and fight scenes and car chases strung together with no central story to make you care about any of them. But beyond that, what was lacking in this movie was any sense of fun or style, two things that could usually redeem even the worst of previous Bond efforts. Bond is grim throughout, and one gets the sense that neither he nor "M" (Judi Dench) particularly like or trust each other.

The whole point of the Bond series was that it was pure, escapist fantasy. It presented a world in which you got to drive fast cars, travel to exotic locales, and have sex with gorgeous women. The whole thing was about glamour and style, and reality be damned! But apparently the current trend is to have Bond movies strive more for gritty realism. Well, I guess they got the "Grit" part right, but in the process tossed out all the fun and charm. In short, this movie fails as even good entertainment. Indeed, you would be much better served watching the silly Vin Diesel effort "xXx", with Diesel playing the wise-cracking, tattooed anti-Bond and Samuel L Jackson having ten times as much fun as Judi Dench in the role of his "Boot to ass" boss.

The Breakfast Club (1985)

One big cliché made up of lots of little clichés

[1/10 · 2 May 2013]

I just watched this on AMC. At first I was gonna give it 6/10, then later revised that down to 3/10 and by the end of the movie I was at rock bottom - 1/10.

Why does this movie suck so badly? Not because it wasn't well made, or badly acted, but rather because the the story itself is just so awful. What we have here are a bunch of smaller clichés that add it to some very big clichés. All the principal characters are clichés, and so are all of the premises of this film. You have five high school kids who are all stock high school characters - the jock, the brain, the popular pretty girl, the long haired greaser "Tough guy" and, finally, the misfit. They are all stuck in detention for a day, under the supervision of the 6th cliché, the (I think) assistant principal, the perfect personification of (from the teenagers' POV) mindless adult authority. He might as well wear a swastika armband, so one dimensional is his character.

Now, I suppose a conceit of this movie is the five kids aren't really clichés at all, but actual, real individuals who are forced into their roles by the neverending forces of social conformity (which is in itself yet another cliché), except, of course, they aren't. The jock really IS a jock, the brain a nerd, the popular girl popular, and so forth. None of them emerge as a true three dimensional character, at best they display a bit of two dimensions before reverting back to their one dimensional selves. And the principal doesn't even get that privilege, his character is a one dimensional authoritarian goon and is never allowed to rise above that basic stereotype.

Speaking of adults, virtually every last one of them comes off badly, indeed, very badly. They, as described by the kids, are little more than beasts who demand perfection from their offspring and show an almost total lack of love or even affection. This is one of the movie's biggest clichés, the notion of teenagers as being wise beyond their years while their parents are essentially abusers, if not physically then certainly emotionally. Portraying all adults as rotten is not only completely unrealistic, it also feeds into the worst sort of egotism on the part of the presumed teenage audience for a movie such as this.

Okay, so the kids (and their principal) are all a bunch of clichés. That's bad enough, but this film has other flaws as well. One, the misfit character, played by Ally Sheedy, seems to have no basis in reality at all. And nothing about the movie explains why she is who she is. Further, how clichéd (spoiler alert) is it that she ends up with the jock, this, after getting a makeover courtesy of the popular girl? Wouldn't it have been less of a cliché for her to end up with the brain? Also, her character would have been a lot more believable had she been genuinely unattractive, say, 30 lbs overweight, acne, and hair that was greasy looking because she never washed it. Instead, it was like - 5 minutes with a mascara brush and a little work on the hair and, Ta Da! she's beautiful! And a completely different person, too! Still, hers was probably the most likable character of the bunch, and she probably should have ended up with the nerd. By that standard, by FAR the most detestable character was the greaser. The tough guy with a heart of gold is an old staple in American entertainment, such notables include The Fonz and Vinnie Barbarino. But this guy has more like the heart of a sewer rat. That he is rude and defiant of authority is to be expected of this type of character, but his verbal attacks on the others, especially Molly Ringwald's character, border on verbal rape, so cruel and sadistic are his attacks on her. He was the one character whom you wanted to see the principal beat into a bloody pulp, unfortunately, that didn't happen. His is the worst cliché of them all, the sort of person, because he is a self-proclaimed "Rebel" and non-conformist, is transformed from being a complete A__hole into the conscience of sorts for this film. It is his character, perhaps more than all the others combined, who ruined this movie for me. Cruelty and sadism have their place in the movies (think "Apocalypse Now") but they absolutely don't belong in what is supposed to be a light teenage comedy.

And that's about it. When I first saw this back in the 1980's (on HBO, probably) I didn't think this movie was particularly good or back. But having now seen it just a couple hours ago, I think it truly sucks.

1/10

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

"American Pie" was better

[3/10 · 24 February 2013]

There is supposed to be some deep, maybe even profound, message to this movie, but, for me at any rate, I sure couldn't find it. Indeed, my recollection of this film, which I've only seen once, on Pay-Per-View shortly after it came out, was that this was basically really high class porno made by an extremely skilled director. As such, the best (and maybe only) way to enjoy this movie is to fast forward through all the parts that don't contain naked ladies.

The problem is, "Kubrick" and "Emotional richness and complexity" are two expressions that just don't go together. Think about how many of his characters, from Strangelove to this present movie, that you really cared about. The only one that comes to my mind is the unfortunate fat kid who cracks under pressure in the boot camp part of "Full Metal Jacket". And that's the problem with this film. We just don't care about these characters AT ALL. At best, this is a stylistic exercise, a slick production that is utterly devoid of real human heart.

In that sense, "American Pie", which came out the same year, does a much better job of exploring the sometimes embarrassing and often hilarious things that occur when men and women (or, in this case, boys and girls) tap dance around the issues of love, romance, and sex. Unlike "Eyes Wide Shut", we see real human beings in real human situations with real human emotions. We can relate to them, and laugh along with them as they deal with the various foibles that come with human relationships. In contrast, the characters from this movie might as well be cyborgs for all the warmth they bring to the screen.

Che: Part Two (2008)

Poetic Justice: "Che" bombed, "Braveheart" won Best Picture Oscar

[2/10 · 23 February 2013]

Apparently this movie (well, both of them, actually) completely bombed at the box office. Outside of a few ex-hippies and leftie grad students at Berkeley, no one saw this movie. And, in the time since, it has disappeared from the public scene. The fact that this movie has only 52 comments on this site (The Phantom Menace has nearly 4,000) shows what little effect it has had on the public consciousness.

In contrast, there's another movie about a GENUINE Freedom Fighter that did much better. I'm talking, of course, about "Braveheart". That movie became an international blockbuster, earned an Oscar for Best Picture, and his still beloved by millions of fans to this day. William Wallace was everything Che wasn't, a genuine patriot fighting against a foreign tyrant who oppressed and abused the people against their will. Che was a faux revolutionary who, after helping turn one country (Cuba) into a totalitarian dictatorship, then went abroad and tried to use force to impose his evil ideology on the people of other countries, who, to their credit, wanted none of it.

In sum, Wallace was the Real Deal, and is still an inspiration to true freedom lovers to this day. Che was just another Marxist turd, a megalomaniac with a Messiah complex, a guy whose image appears on the T-shirts of assorted self-proclaimed "Hipsters" and pseudo-intellectuals who think Cuba is great because they have government run health care but, rather than move there and enjoy the fruits of the great People's Workers' Paradise, sit here at home and write angry screeds about the very country (America) that, quite unlike Castro's Cuba, gives them the freedom of speech to do so.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Weird, sadistic, no redeeming value, really

[3/10 · 21 February 2013]

The trick to these comic book superhero movies is not to take the source material too seriously. That's what made the original Batman from the 1980's, with Jack Nickolson as the Joker, work so well; everything about that movie, including all the main characters, was over the top, and rightfully so. We are, after all, talking about a man who goes out and fights crime while dressed up as a bat. How seriously, really, are we supposed to take such a notion? But this movie (among its various other flaws) takes itself WAY too seriously. It's supposed to be some deep, even epic, tale of, well, something. But, hey, if I want that, I could read Homer. Or Shakespeare. Or watch "The Godfather". Stories that truly are epic, in no small part because they feature real human characters, not ones that came out of a cartoon book.

That said, I can only review so much of this movie because, quite honestly, I don't remember all that much from it. Nothing about it truly stood out in my mind, other than that the general theme seemed to be to inflict upon the audience several scenes of considerable cruelty and sadism. And, unlike in other movies where these qualities played a significant role (Silence of the Lambs, Apocalypse Now), here these elements seem to exist solely for shock value, not because they actually add anything to our deeper understanding of the story.

Which brings us to the character of the Joker. Let me be blunt - Nickolson's Joker was at least ten times better than this one. Both are completely unbelievable, but Jack's Joker was at least interesting, even fun. He was a pleasure to watch in much the same way that a good James Bond villain is. But there is nothing pleasurable at all about Heath Ledger's Joker. First off, he is so psychotic that he couldn't function anywhere outside of an insane asylum; he kills off his own henchmen, burns their stolen money before their very eyes, yet this psycho somehow enlists a small army of loyal followers without giving them any reason to be loyal at all, and yet, despite being a complete walking mental meltdown, he manages to put in motion any number of very detailed terrorist plots that would require the exact opposite mindset, namely, one of cold and calculating rationality. In short, as a movie villain, he simply fails. Not only is he not credible at all, his sole contribution to the story is to add the aforementioned cruelty and sadism, making this not only a stupid and unbelievable movie, but a thoroughly depressing one as well. I mean, seriously. If you want to see movie characters who have a dark, twisted, and sadistic streak and yet come off as credible on the screen, one need look no further than such persons as Tommy from "Goodfellas" or Luca Brasi from "The Godfather". But the Joker from this film is just a void. Encountering his character was like stepping on a dog turd. The experience is wholly unpleasant and disgusting, but thankfully you forget about it pretty soon.

3/10

Octopussy (1983)

A convoluted mess

[5/10 · 31 December 2004]

I'll give this movie its due - it does have great stunts and exotic locations. A good chunk of this film takes place in India, which usually doesn't get much play in Hollywood productions, so that was nice to see. But, aside from that, this thing was a real mess (I was going to say "train wreck", but that would be too obvious a pun given the big chase/fight scene that takes place on a train in Germany) in that it's almost impossible to figure out what's going on. The main plot, such as it is, involves a renegade Russian general intent on provoking a war with the West using a stolen nuclear bomb. But this only occurs near the end, the rest of the time it's about the smuggling and counterfeiting of rare Russian jewelry, most notably Faberge eggs, all of which has something to do with financing the nuclear bomb plot, but I was never able to figure out how the two were really connected. True, the plots in Bond movies usually aren't the main reason you see them, but they should at least be relatively straightforward and easy to follow, so as not to get in the way of the rest of the film.

In all honesty, Moore should have hung it up before even making this film. He had already established his own legacy in the role, and could have quit on a high note with For Your Eyes Only. This film was even sillier than Moonraker, and much less enjoyable to boot. I would even say it's worse than A View To A Kill, which was also ridiculously over the top, but which was at least saved by Christopher Walken, who made a delightfully evil, psychotic villain. In this case, the villains (the general, and one of the smugglers, Kamal Khan) just didn't measure up. It's the latter who gets most of the screen time, and while he certainly is colorful, he just never seemed menacing enough.

But what really hurts this movie is the overall incoherence. The film just moves from place to place (London auction house, India, Germany) and gives us lots of great stunts and action scenes, but none of these ever add up to a complete movie. It's really as if they just came up with a couple hours worth of chases and fights and put together the plot as an afterthought. Perhaps the only good part was the developing romance between Bond and Octopussy, who is probably the best Bond Woman (as opposed to "girl") of the Roger Moore series, but that alone couldn't save this film. It's not a complete disaster (no Bond film ever is, though a few of the Brosnan ones have come close) but it wasn't exactly the best vehicle for Moore to use in the closing years of his Bond career.

5/10 (And that's due almost exclusively to the terrific stunts and locations)

Team America: World Police (2004)

Team America ROCKS !!

[8/10 · 31 October 2004]

This movie isn't the least bit subtle - it steals (or pays homage to) the Thunderbirds TV show from the 60's. The characters are all puppets, and, just like the Thunderbirds, they've formed a team that solves problems worldwide using really cool planes, subs, and other devices. Unlike the Thunderbirds, however, they don't rescue people in distress, but rather fight against global terrorism. They may be a little too gung ho in how they go about it (it seems that whenever they pop up, everything around them, from the Eiffel Tower to the Pyramids, gets blown up) but their intentions are good, and in the end they can be counted on to save the day.

Of course, this movie is brought to us by the same crew responsible for "South Park", so there's plenty of lowbrow humor and scenes designed to offend the overly sensitive. There's puppet sex, and a long dissertation on why it's better to be a dick than an a**hole, but the real joy of this film is watching puppets of sanctimonious Hollywood celebs getting their comeuppance. Honestly, these people already have more fame, adulation, and money than most regular folks could ever conceive of, do they have to then troll for additional brownie points by flaunting their political activism (especially when, most of the time, their understanding of the issues involved is about as deep as a mud puddle). Needless to say, these big shots come in for a nice dose of humiliation courtesy of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. And that's really what it's all about. Just as with "South Park", tons of sacred cows get slaughtered in this movie, and the whole thing adds up to a rollicking good time.

8/10

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

Awful!

[3/10 · 13 October 2004]

OK, the visuals were great, but then again, with CGI technology what it is today, that's no longer much of a bragging point. The rest was purely awful. This movie is nothing if not an endless series of clichés ripped off from just about every disaster movie ever made, from "The Poseidon Adventure" to "Earthquake" and "Twister". The only thing missing were the dinosaurs from the Jurassic Park films, but I guess they would have frozen to death in the new "Ice Age". At least with "Independence Day" the Producer/Director Roland Emmerich never tried to insult the audience's intelligence by presenting that film as anything other than big budget summertime brain candy.

3/10

Old School (2003)

Not funny

[3/10 · 24 July 2004]

Some things you just can't recreate, no matter how hard you try. Woodstock, for instance. In this case, it's "Animal House". They can rip off (or pay homage to) the original all they want, but they just can't recapture the spirit. Animal House worked because it was fresh and new, but this movie, made 25 years (and countless other college/party animal movies) later, just reeks of staleness and recycled ideas. In addition to swiping the central plot from "Animal House" (uptight Dean resorts to dirty tricks to drive wild fraternity off campus), it also borrows shamelessly from "Revenge of the Nerds", "Back to School", and a ton of other movies, such that there's barely a single scene that isn't borrowed in some form from an earlier movie. Take, for example, Will Ferrell shooting himself with a tranquilizer dart, which is similar to a scene where he is shot in the butt with a tranquilizer by a monkey in "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back". It was, to put it bluntly, a lot funnier the first time around. And that applies to pretty much the entire movie. Most of it isn't very funny, and even the parts that are were funnier before, elsewhere.

3/10

Catch-22 (1970)

A nice try, but can't CATCH the essence of the book

[4 June 2004]

This tale would have been perfect for adaptation as an HBO mini-series, i.e., a format where they could have really fleshed out the characters and, more importantly, all the little details that made the book an instant classic. Giving credit where due, this is probably as best as could be managed given the time constraints of filming a conventional movie. But so much was missed, and in this book especially, it's all the little details that really make it work. For one, there's a slew of minor characters like Big Chief White Halfoat and Lt. Scheitzkopf <sp?> that really make it shine. That, and all the hilarious side plot developments, such as the trial of Clevinger (court martialed for, among other charges, being a dope and "listening to classical music") and the way the commanding general changes from the pugnacious, bombastic Dreedle ("take that man outside and shoot him!") to the punctilious General Peckem, who doesn't care if his bombers actually hit the enemy so long as they make a "good bomb pattern", to the final absurdity of General Scheitzkopf, whose rapid promotion is due to his sole military talent, marching his men around in parades. All these characters and the wealth of details that make their story come to life (the chaplain and his insecurities, Col. Cathcart, whose talent for bullying his men is exceeded only by his desire to kiss up to his superiors, and so forth) really deserve a full telling, the sort that would require a minimum of 8 to 12 hours of screen time, and no filmmaker, regardless of how talented, could have packed it into the space of just a couple hours.

7/10

Lost in Translation (2003)

Most boring movie EVER!

[1/10 · 17 March 2004]

What's there to say? This is a movie in which nothing happens. And it happens to a bunch of utterly uninteresting nobodies. Bill Murray is supposedly engaged in "understated" acting. Mostly he looks like a man either bored to death, or in one weeklong Valium trance. His counterpart, Scarlet Johansson, is lost in some sort of existential fog. Maybe these are the kind of people who relate to this movie, and thus find some sort of deep, meaningful message in it. I don't.

The whole premise is these two are in Japan for a week, he to shoot ads for a local liquor company, she to basically do nothing while her husband, a famous photographer, also shoots ads. They're both stuck in the same plush hotel, so they hook up. Sort of. Mostly, to the extent they do anything at all, they commiserate. She's unhappy with her marriage. He can't even muster up that much energy. He drinks a lot (making him, at least, a good pitchman for his product). Together they, um, well, do stuff. I guess. About the only thing memorable was where they hung out with some Japanese party animals, one of whom does a (bad) Karaoke rendition of a Sex Pistols song. Oh, the hell with it, merely trying to describe what this movie is about is such a dull process it's putting ME to sleep. Better simply to describe what's wrong with it, which is to say, just about everything.

First off, Bill Murray doesn't even remotely resemble what he's supposed to be, a washed up action movie star reduced to doing commercials in Japan. Instead, he comes across as some middle class nobody, a salesman perhaps, forced to spend a week abroad on business. Which brings up another complaint. This film comes off as if these two actually live in Japan, and are finding it difficult to adjust. Which would have made far more sense, but a week? Anyone can put up with being in a foreign country for a week! But most important, there's absolutely no dramatic tension at all. The closest they come to doing anything scandalous is when they share a couple tepid kisses at the very end. And she, wandering around in her philosophical haze, could have come up with something more dramatic than visiting a Buddhist temple a couple times. How about a suicide attempt? A big fight with her husband when he's sucking up to the hot, blonde starlet (who I mistook for Cameron Diaz, turns out she's played by Anna Faris, of "Scary Movie" fame)? Something, anything!

Oh well. This movie plays like "American Beauty", if you took that film and sucked it dry of everything funny, weird or erotic. That film, while somewhat pretentious, was at least interesting. In contrast, one gets the sense that this film wants to be pretentious too, but it simply lacks the energy.

1/10

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

Under-rated

[29 December 2003]

This is, for me at any rate, the movie in which Moore finally came into his own as James Bond. He had the good sense to know he could never replace Sean Connery in the hearts of Bond fans, so he opted to simply give the role his own twist, a lighter touch, a character that seems to know the role he's playing is as much comic strip super-hero as real life person. And yet, he was nowhere near giving us the almost buffoonish level of silliness that we got in his later films. There are genuinely serious moments, such as when he stares down assassin Scaramanga and disavows him of his delusions of being on the same moral plane as himself, and of his claims of being a "gentleman", a distinction that only a Brit can fully appreciate.

Of course, there's plenty of silliness as well, it wouldn't be a proper Roger Moore film without it. Sheriff Pepper is back, and while some might object to that, I think, in addition to the humor, he serves an actual point in being the butt of so many jokes in both films. The sheriff comes off as your typical redneck, and the fact that he's consistently outwitted by both blacks and Asians is a subtle way of taking a poke at racism. But the real star here is Christopher Lee, easily the best Bond villain since Goldfinger. This man was born to play evil, and it's hardly a surprise that he's still going strong, with major roles in both the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars prequel series. He has the two things any great Bond villain must possess, a cold and menacing demeanor allied to a certain charm and elegance. A perfect example of this being, as he's being given a dressing down from his "employer", a wealthy Asian tycoon, he slowly assembles his pistol and then, at the critical moment, lets the man know exactly who's truly the person in command.

Roger Moore will possibly be the most "controversial" Bond actor, in large part because he inherited the role directly from Sean Connery (George Lazenby, who only played the role once, doesn't really count) and thus had the highest expectations placed on him. And some of his films, most notably the last two, are little more than jokes, examples of wretched excess at its worst. But this is one for which he need make no apologies.

7/10

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)

What did you expect?

[6/10 · 1 November 2003]

Honestly, for all the people whining about how they watched this movie and now want that two hours of your life back, what were you thinking when you bought your ticket? That you would get Scorsese? Shakespeare? This is a CHARLIE'S ANGELS movie, for Heaven's sakes! If anything, McG and crew erred in trying to inject a bit of substance into the story, when what made the first CA great was precisely the lack of any serious content. The plot was ridiculous, the villains' motives nonsensical, but who cared? The girls looked great, the fights and stunts were killer, and the whole enterprise was a glorious celebration of style over substance. In fact, what made it stand out was it had the guts and confidence to be itself and make no apologies, nor any concession to standard movie ‘conventions' like insisting on plot and character development.

This movie, to the extent it sticks with this approach, succeeds, especially with scenes like the nightclub hot dance number and the high school reunion. Here the girls just radiate pure fun and sex appeal. But then the movie has to go and complicate things with stuff like explaining the origins of the Thin Man and his weird hair fetish and how one of the Angels is essentially running from her past, which includes a psychotic murderer of an ex-boyfriend. Giving credit where due, this is handled with humor, as we find out that ‘Dylan' was originally Helen Zaas, which naturally makes her the ‘butt' of an endless series of bad jokes. And, speaking of butts, Cameron Diaz seems to have hers featured prominently in nearly every scene, much to the delight of male fans. But, ultimately, this movie has a darker, grittier edge than the first, and suffers accordingly for it.

The simple fact is, this franchise (should it continue beyond these first two films) has the potential to be a 21st century version of the Bond series. The whole point of the Bond films, for the most part, was also style over substance. Bond, as a secret agent, was completely unbelievable (as if a true spy would openly announce his real name in public places on a regular basis), but it didn't matter. The man had style and flair, he oozed sex appeal, and when called upon, could kick ass and also use a mind-boggling array of high tech devices to complete his assignment. And these movies have their three heroines doing exactly the same thing. The potential for a continuing hit franchise is definitely there, the principals (Drew, Cameron, Lucy, and McG) clearly have very good interpersonal chemistry), but they need to remember this is about providing non-stop feast for the eyes, shut your brain off bubblegum entertainment. Nothing less and nothing more.

6/10

Beavis and Butt-Head Do America (1996)

Delightfully Dumb

[7/10 · 16 September 2003]

TV's Dumbnamic Duo make the jump to the Big Screen as they travel the country in their endless (and fruitless) efforts to 'score'. Spurred on by an offer from a drunken tough guy to "do" his wife for $10,000, they head to Vegas, then are sent back across the country when they run into her and she offers them even more money to take care of some business back in Washington, DC. This, in essence, is the plot, not that it matters much, since the point is simply an excuse to have the boys travel across the country via plane, bus and car (trunk) doing outrageous gags, wreaking havoc, and, in general, acting like the complete idiots they are.

Anyone who's watched the TV show knows the basic concept here, and the movie sticks to it faithfully. Beavis and Butthead are the ultimate caricatures of the MTV generation, a pair of oversexed, undereducated underachieving losers with absolutely zero redeeming qualities. It's not much of a stretch to call this movie a cartoon version of "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" inasmuch as it's about two utter buffoons who wreck everything in sight and make utter asses of themselves, all for the audience's amusement. It even includes a scene in which Beavis starts hallucinating after eating some Psychedelic plants, at first he freaks out, then he starts grinning when he realizes it's just like watching a rock video. This last was actually pretty gutsy, given Hollywood's fears of being perceived as glamorizing drug use, and especially so since it involved a high school kid.

In the end, this is really just an extended version of the hit TV show. With the exception of the drug scene, the creators didn't push the envelope the way the "South Park" movie did, at least in terms of swearing. The only part that true fans will miss is that, since the whole movie is kicked off when the boys realize their precious TV has been stolen, we never get to see them doing their trademark ripping on bad rock videos. Aside from that, all the rest of the stuff we loved from the show is there, the irreverence, the crudity, and best of all, the stupidity that is so stupid it often rises`to the level of genius!

7/10

Monty Python's and Now for Something Completely Different (1971)

And now for something that sucks!

[12 September 2003]

The guy from Chicago had it right. This movie is pretty lame. I just watched it from start to end, and found maybe 10 percent of it funny at best. Perhaps it's just me, but much of the Monty Python style of humor just doesn't seem to age well. I felt pretty much the same way about "The Meaning of Life" and said so there as well. In fact, I found most of this movie so boring I can't even muster the energy to write a nice, scathing review, because about the only thing memorable about it were the shots of good looking girls dressed in short skirts. Other than that, yawn.

Sorority Boys (2002)

Has its moments .....

[6/10 · 12 June 2003]

Probably the cheapest laugh in all of comedy is putting a guy in drag, hell, they were probably doing it in ancient Egypt to get Pharoah to bust a gut when nothing else worked. And in this case they've got not one but three, the first two of which are barely passable as girls and the third looking like the spitting image of the big redhead that Arnold disguises himself as in "Total Recall".

The whole plot is based on three members of Kappa Omicron Kappa (not exactly a subtly acronym) getting kicked out of their fraternity after they were set up and accused of stealing the alumni party funds. They need to sneak back in their old house to recover a videotape that will prove their innocence. Their first scheme is to dress up as girls and get in during a party, but they quickly get ejected by the "dog catcher" whose job it is to get rid of ugly girls. While still in drag, they are invited to pledge the ultra-feminist Delta Omicron Gamma sorority (another non-subtle joke) and, since they've no food, money or lodging, they accept. The rest of the movie is about their awkward attempts to keep up their ruse and fit in with a bunch of sorority girls, all the while scheming to get back that tape. Naturally, much of the laughs come as the "girls" are forced to adjust to their new roles and dealing with stuff like leg shaving and walking (badly) in heels, although in the process these formerly crude horndogs learn to start appreciating women as more than just object to either lust after (if they're hot) or make fun of (if they're not).

Fortunately, they don't get too heavy on the feminist "message" stuff, at least not enough to get in the way of the humor. And there's a fun little love twist in which one of the boys starts falling for the sorority president, Leah. Her character's a bit of a modern movie cliche, like Julia Stiles in "10 Things I Hate About You" she's supposed to be this bitchy, angry, ugly man hating feminist but is simply too good natured and good looking to really fool anyone. Of course, the twist is, as a boy (in her Women's Studies class) she hates him, but as a girl, she starts to develop feelings for "her". Naturally, once she learns the truth she's initially outraged, but seeing as this is a simple comedy and not something like "Chasing Amy", she quickly relents and all ends well. This is by no means a great comedy, it's definitely a "rent, don't buy" kind of movie, but considering I had no real expectations other that to get about 90 minutes of shut-off-your-brain entertainment, I must say it wasn't bad.

6/10

Jackass: The Movie (2002)

Lives up to its title

[8 April 2003]

Call it Truth in Advertising. Nobody who sees this movie can claim they weren't forewarned as to the content. This is humor reduced to its most crude and basic level as a gang of complete jackasses resort to a series of stunts, gags, and practical jokes that accept no bounds when it comes to bad taste in pursuit of a laugh. A typical scene is one where two of the Jackasses find new ways to play with bottle rockets. One, wearing only a thong, inserts the stick end into his rear (this distinction being worth pointing out inasmuch as, with this crew, it's entirely conceivable for them to insert it to fire in the opposite direction) and lights the fuse while the other stands waiting nearby, the rocket tied to his, uh, member with some dental floss. Needless to say, you won't see stuff like this on PBS, and if your tastes in humor run more toward Woody Allen or Garrison Keillor, you might want to give this movie a pass.

As for the rest of us, it's really a question of how high your threshold for watching humiliating, disgusting, or painful behavior happens to be. My own reaction was mixed. Some of it was too much, most notably the Yellow Snow Cone and the Hardware Store Toilet scenes, the latter was so gross that the cameraman started barfing (all dutifully recorded on film, of course). Others, like the Riot Gun Ammo and Paper Cut scenes, seemed to `celebrate' the ability to withstand pain as opposed to actually being funny. Some struck me as just dumb, including most of the Japan footage. Still, there was plenty of good stuff, my favorites being the Golf Course Air Horn, the Alligator in the House, and Tropical Pole Vaulting. Some stuff, like Waking up Dad at 1 AM with a barrel of exploding firecrackers, then doing a repeat a few hours later in his van as he's about to leave for work, succeeds by virtue, not of cleverness but sheer, mindless audacity and others, like a five second shot concerning a Jackass, a mini-trampoline and a ceiling fan, work because they're completely unexpected. It must also be noted that the DVD offers up real value, both in the form of deleted scenes, many of which are better than the ones that were left in, and in the two accompanying commentary tracks featuring the filmmakers and the Jackasses themselves. The bottom line is this movie is all about reveling in pure mayhem and wretched excess, so don't look for any Oscar worthy acting or direction, since the only awards these guys are likely to qualify for are the Darwin Awards.

Rating

Judged by `normal' movie standards: 6/10

Judged purely on its own terms 9/10

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

As good as the first one!

[24 February 2003]

And that's saying a LOT, seeing as how I rated that a 10+/10. And I normally have little interest in the whole "Sword & Sorcery" genre, so my high praise means even more than usual. They were wise to film all three LOTR movies at the same time, for it means the 2nd follows the style of the first seamlessly. These are truly labors of love, every aspect of these films are crafted with exquisite care, it is obvious that all the people involved, from the producers, actors and directors on down wanted to spare no effort to pay full homage to Tolkien's classic works. There are virtually no flaws, and to point out what tiny ones exist would come off as churlish, so I simply won't bother. The acting is uniformly solid, and that's no small praise considering there are well over a DOZEN major characters here. And, just as with the first, the sheer amount of detail, the vastness of the story, is almost overwhelming, these clearly are movies that can be seen many times because there's so much to be absorbed. It's a shame this (like its predecessor) will probably be snubbed for Best Picture Oscar because it's obvious to anyone other than a complete dullard that these are landmark films whose appeal will long outlast the other Oscar contenders

10+/10

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1978)

Bad timimg

[10 February 2003]

First off, I really like it that IMDb has rearranged the "100 Worst" category so that it now consists of more `mainstream' movies as opposed to the old list that was cluttered with junk movies no one had ever heard of. As a result we can all celebrate some of the classic "bad" movies of all time, which of course brings us to "Sgt Pepper"

I was in the perfect target demographic for this film when it was released, which is to say, a teenager too young to have ever appreciated the impact of the original Beatles album. And of course it starred two acts who were immensely popular at the time, Peter Frampton and the Bee Gees. In retrospect one can easily look back and ask, "What were they THINKING???" when they assembled this, but from a marketing perspective it was actually a pretty shrewd move. For the filmmakers, that is. In contrast, Frampton and the Bee Gees saw their careers smash into a brick wall from which neither ever really recovered.

Is this movie really as bad as its reputation? Actually, no, at least that's my recollection some two decades later, but let's face it – the concept was just plain horrible and so was the timing. Actually, it probably would have been possible to make a fairly decent homage to the Beatles (which I'll charitably assume was the original motive) but the end result simply looked far more like an exploitation, a case of two acts that were very hot at the time milking one of rock's most revered albums for the sake of making even more money. And that was something that was not about to be forgiven, hence the fact that this film's been on everyone's s**t list ever since. The plot, of course, is lame, but the musical adaptations were actually not bad, the soundtrack was one of the biggest selling albums at the time and Aerosmith's version of `Come Together' quite honestly kicked ass! But the hard truth is this movie will always be remembered less for whatever merits it happens to possess but rather by outraged critics and Beatles fans for having had the gall to use a great album and turn it into a silly bubblegum movie for the sake of earning its stars a ton of money.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Technically brilliant, otherwise OK

[10/10 · 5 February 2003]

As a Star Wars fan, I've often wondered why the latest two Star Wars films have taken quite a beating, and I think part of the reason is this: thanks to the fact that we saw Episodes IV thru VI first, we already know how the story ends, and so much of the suspense is lost, leaving fans with much more energy to expend on their complaints. I mean, let's be honest, the acting and dialog in the Star Wars series has always been more a matter of competence than brilliance, it was the wonderful imagination and groundbreaking visual effects that made them great.

That said, my feelings about the new films are thus: The Phantom Menace is definitely underrated, sure Jar Jar is annoying and Lucas was a fool to throw in those references to the Midicloridians sp? and Annakin's `virgin' birth, but these can be easily overlooked (as Lucas himself seems to have done, since nowhere in this film are they mentioned). Phantom Menace has the same epic quality that made the other three great - sweeping vistas, beautiful scenery, and a plot that takes its time developing; after all, there's a lot of background to establish. And when I saw this in the theater, I was most pleased, figuring it would finally shut up all the critics who hated TPM. But, truth be told, after buying it on DVD, my enthusiasm has waned. Giving credit where due, the effects are still outstanding and so are the action scenes, but the `epic' quality is lacking. Lucas seems much too eager to show off his technical skills, and too much effort was put into developing great action sequences at the expense of basic plot and character development. For example, it is crucial for the plot for Annakin and Padme to fall in love, but in this movie they just don't have any chemistry. Put aside the problem of the fact that he ages over a decade while she barely ages at all, I can willingly suspend some belief here, but their basic characters just don't gell. She is dignified and wise beyond her years, and would surely see that Annakin, despite his talents and good intentions, is seriously unbalanced. To be fair, I don't think it's either actor's fault, in fact, the `clunky' dialog between them struck me as refreshingly realistic, the way real first time lovers speak, awkward and tongue-tied as opposed to the usual slick Hollywood product of highly paid professional writers, but no amount of acting or writing can save a romance that seems as forced and unrealistic as this one does.

As for the rest, the pairing of Annakin and Obi Wan is quite good; the former clearly respects his mentor but also resents his often-domineering manner and it's fairly obvious that there will be a violent falling out between these two in Episode III. There are a number of memorable scenes, including the one on the water planet where we first meet Boba Fett and his father, a beautifully filmed space dogfight in an asteroid belt, and of course the climactic final battle scene. No question but that Lucas has not lost his touch for SFX laden action scenes, although I personally found the fight between Yoda and Count Dooku to have been a bit silly, like watching an attack hamster on speed. The problem is Lucas seems to have lost sight of the larger story. While Annakin and Padme are frolicking on Naboo and Obi Wan is chasing after a mysterious assassin, in the background the Republic is faced with division as thousands of star systems threaten to secede. Why? Who knows, Lucas is far too busy on scenes like the one in which Annakin and Padme have to fight off a bunch of bug people to explore this seemingly vital matter more fully. And the Clone Army, we are shown in much detail how they are made, but not why, which is surely the more important issue. In short, the problem with this movie is the story simply takes a back seat to the action, and what we get is a highly competent piece of entertainment, but an effort that doesn't quite measure up to the standard of being a truly epic film like the others in the series.

Z Cars (1962–1978)

ZZZZZzzzzzzzz cars

[2 February 2003]

As an American who spent part of his childhood in England in the early 70's, I distinctly remember this show being a real snoozer, especially when compared to the much better American cop shows of the time (Hawaii Five O, Ironsides, etc.) For whatever reason, Brits just have never been much good at making crime and crime fighting interesting, whether on TV or the big screen, after all, I recently rented the DVD "Lock, Stock, & Two Smoking Barrels" and it sucked, mostly a lame rip-off of the far superior "Pulp Fiction". Maybe the problem is that we Americans just have much better criminals, more ruthless, greedy, and inventive and, as a result, American cops have to be much better as well to catch them, it sounds goofy but it's about the only theory I can think of that makes sense .......

Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls (1995)

A guilty pleasure

[6/10 · 26 January 2003]

By no means is this a great comedy, but it does at least have the guts to accept no concessions to good taste in pursuit of a laugh. You get the impression the studio simply let Jim Carrey out of his cage and told him to do pretty much whatever he wanted with his Ace Ventura character. He is basically about 90% of what makes this movie work, with the remaining 10% split about equally between Ian McNeice as the guide/interpreter and the monkey, who makes a surprisingly good `sidekick' for Ace.

This is, quite simply, a case of Carrey playing yet another utterly manic, yet basically loveable, goofball character, and you either go for it or you don't. Those who like their comedy built on subtlety, wit, and sophistication will pretty much hate this movie, the rest of us just go along for the ride, watching Carrey mug for the camera with unrestrained abandon. A lot of the comic material is iffy, and without Carrey, this movie would have been a real stinker, but thanks to him we get a number of scenes that are simply priceless; whether he's hiding out in a Buddhist monastery sitting in "meditation" with a gloriously goofy grin on his face while bugs flutter around his head, driving through the jungle at insane speeds while singing the `Chitty Chitty Bang Bang' song, prancing about the posh headquarters building in front of assorted dignitaries making a complete ass out of himself or going berserk when he finds out the sacred animal he's been hired to find is a bat, the ONE creature he absolutely fears and loathes. Let's face it, when it comes to doing outrageous physical comedy (especially involving over the top facial expressions and body gestures) and, in general, behaving like a complete lunatic, Carrey is in a class by himself, and he turns what would otherwise be a lame piece of junk into what could be described as a great `bad' movie, a true guilty pleasure.

6/10

PS The DVD version, while conveniently offering up both the full and wide screen versions, contains a pretty paltry collection of "extra" features, meaning people who enjoy stuff like audio commentaries and deleted scenes will definitely be disappointed.