nalders Reviews

Delta Farce (2007)

Half of the Blue Collar Comedy Tour Presents: Stripes 2: The War on Humor

[1/10 · 26 January 2008]

This is an unfunny version of Stripes. In fact, it's almost as though they took the script for "Stripes", replaced Bill Murray with Larry the Cable Guy, Russia with Mexico, and cut out most of the humor and wit. It has a bare handful of almost-mildly-amusing moments, and I only laughed because I was drunk. Mostly, though, it's just dumb. Really, really dumb. And not "funny" dumb. Just... dumb.

And what a waste of Marisol Nichols. That woman is as hot as this movie is bad.

Don't pay money to see this. Wait until it's on TV some night, when there's nothing else to watch. Even then, you might want to consider just going to bed early.

ATF (1999 TV Movie)

Sub-par, even for a Lifetime-esqueTV movie.

[2/10 · 22 February 2007]

Low budget, technically inaccurate TV movie of uneven tone and imperfect plotting. The stereotypes are overplayed, and it's difficult to tell whether the "Psalm-shouting, gun crazy militiamen" or the "Ruthless, ambitious yet inept FBI director" is the real villain. Frankly, I think it's the director. Of the movie, that is.

Amy Brenneman is attractive as usual, though this is hardly a noteworthy performance for her.

Political bias would be fairly hefty, anti-gun and with the feminist overtones one expects from Lifetime-style movies. Naturally, the woman are the heroes and the men are bumbling idiots. I say "would be" because it's overshadowed by the personal problems of the characters in what is supposed to be the movie's real "drama".

All in all, I'm rather glad this little catastrophe has disappeared, save for late night playings on minor cable channels. You've already wasted more time than it's worth by reading this review. Don't compound your error by actually watching the movie.

Grendel (2007 TV Movie)

Perhaps the Worst Movie I've Ever Seen.

[1/10 · 13 January 2007]

99.999% pure crap. And the other .001% was a brief moment where I thought the blond chick was going to disrobe. Nope.

The dialogue was legendarily bad. The action sucked, and there was no sex (the afore mentioned blond chick is modestly dressed, alas, the whole movie). The CGI had the dubious honor of being the worst I've ever seen on film, and the anachronisms were numerous and glaring. Acting was mediocre even from Ben Cross and Marina Sirtis, the only 'names' in this movie. And Marina Sirtis looked really, really bad.

I've seen high school plays more capably produced. This is the kind of movie that MST3K thrived on. Heads should roll at Sci-Fi for allowing this steaming pile on the air.

Futurama: Jurassic Bark (2002) Season 5, Episode 2

Harshing my buzz, man.

[10 January 2007]

I don't want to rate this episode. I just want to say that the ending really bummed me out. I don't think that was necessary. I mean, how messed up is that; the dog lives out it's life and dies waiting for Fry, who could have resurrected him but says, "Nah, never mind." WTF, man? It's supposed to be a COMEDY! What happened to light hearted cartoons and crap like that? What happened to the loony toon philosophy, where it was all about making you laugh? Cartoons aren't supposed to be serious or dramatic... except maybe Anime, which I don't claim to understand. I like some of it, but that stuff gets pretty weird, and I suspect that any verbal depth is lost in translation. Futurama, anyway, sure as hell isn't supposed to be dramatic.

Post Impact (2004)

Decent TV Movie

[7/10 · 4 January 2007]

This movie really doesn't deserve the bashing it's received. Granted, it's a TV movie. Talent and production value are correspondingly lower than a better-funded Hollywood project, but they did very well with what was available.

Dean Cain plays his usual character; slightly bland, but generally likable. Bettina Zimmermann and Joanna Taylor are both very hot, and turn in decent performances, to boot. Special effects are nothing special, but better than most TV movies and some Hollywood films. I thought the premise was interesting, too, although they didn't have time to explore it the way a mini-series might have. Still, I think they did a fine job of addressing the major points.

There was an acceptable level of action. It could have been better, but then again that is usually the case.

The pacing was actually excellent on this, never bogging down. It takes enough time to do the scene, but doesn't linger (except for a brief 'villain's exposition' scene that seems overdone, mainly because he's rambling pointlessly. I could have done without that.)

All in all, a solid film.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Worse than I expected... and I had low expectations.

[3/10 · 2 January 2007]

I came in knowing it would be a lesser movie than its predecessors, but I was unprepared for the unadulterated travesty that it turned out to be.

T3 invalidated the end of T2, and threw away the whole idea of "No fate but what we make". It also had a radically different tone from the first two. Where they were dark and intense, albeit leavened with some humor, this installment was self-satirical and rife with gags and misquoted one liners.

The acting was nothing to write home about. Arnold was a better actor when they didn't let him speak much. Nick Stahl made of John Connor a whiny idiot who I, personally, wouldn't follow in traffic, much less a war. Kristanna Loken was attractive but brought no life to the role. And poor Claire Danes suffered through perhaps the worst miscasting I've ever seen. Her character HAD no character to speak of.

I'm troubled by rumors that a fourth movie is in the works. I have this to say in response:

LET IT DIE, YOU JACKALS! THE FRANCHISE HAS SUFFERED ENOUGH! IT'S WRITHING IN AGONY ON THE FLOOR, BEGGING FOR DEATH! HAVE MERCY!

I give this steaming pile of movie a 3 out of 10, and so high a rating only because Kristanna Loken is hot.

Starship Troopers (1997)

"Battle Cry!", in space.

[8/10 · 10 December 2006]

It's all about what you want. If you have fond memories of pondering the depths of Robert A. Heinlein's book, you're probably going to hate this movie. It keeps a few details and a VERY general plot line (more of a story concept, really) from the novel. The rest bears much more resemblance to Leon Uris' "Battle Cry!", a gung-ho, patriotically themed WWII story about a squad of U.S. Marines in the pacific theater of the war.

Whatever satire existed in the original novel (frankly, I found it little deeper than the movie), it exists here in a funny but ham-fisted way. If you can laugh at humor that the director smacks you upside the head with... so be it. I've found the manner in which this "satire" is presented as entertaining as the satire itself.

In addition to the Battle Cry elements, there is a "teen movie" element, with your sappy romances and petty jealousies... which I tolerate for the sake of viewing Denise Richards in her heyday, young and hot, unblemished by the hand of Charlie Sheen...

But, I digress.

It's a perfectly viable movie for some pretty mindless action. Verhoeven is not a "realistic combat" kind of director. Another reviewer describes the soldiers as having the "Tactical acumen of sheep armed with assault rifles", which is not only pithy but very apt. Napoleonic tactics, really; you're standard massed infantry charge with a dose of light artillery and some naval bombardment. Very un-Napoleonic, however, is the lack of cavalry or anything like it. Despite this being an "advanced" future with space travel, etc., no armored support is used. There are no aircraft, rotary-winged or otherwise, providing close ground support. There is a single appearance of aircraft that bomb a herd of these "bugs" with something like napalm... and then leave. In the novel (the only aspect of the novel I really approve of), Heinlein describes each soldier as a self-contained, self-mobile unit, able to fight with a modicum of effectiveness even singly or in small numbers.

And don't be fooled by the rating, Denise Richards remains clothed. Dina Meyers has a brief scene of nudity. I advise against watching this movie on television to to VERY heavy editing. Really, what's the point? On DVD, though, it's a fun little gore-fest action-flick with some decent eye-candy.

Brick (2005)

Freaking awesome. This should be a career-maker.

[10/10 · 5 September 2006]

It's been years since I've seen a good thriller. Not 'decent'. Good. Excellent, even. I don't think I've EVER seen a good modern noir. Well, now I have.

The acting is excellent. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a compelling, sympathetic, extraordinarily well-drawn protagonist in his neo-Sam Spade, hardboiled teenage detective role. The supporting cast is just as good, and I look forward to seeing their names come up again. The dialogue is spectacular. Very quick, very intelligent, it creates a patois all its own. Some may find it hard to pick up; I found it contextual and self-explanatory. Or, not infrequently, explained as part of the unfolding story. Gordon-Levitt's character, in fact all of the characters, talk and act like professional intelligence operatives, albeit with a mixed dose of 30's detective/postmodern millenial. Gordon Levitt's 'Brendan' asks his friend, 'The Brain' to 'run operations' for him. Kids don't talk like that, don't think that way. Although I like the effect, and it works for the movie.

Everything in this movie works, even as you say, "Kids just don't have the capability". Maybe they don't, today. And in ten years? The information is there, even if the education system that should sustain it slips away. I could see kids becoming this professional in the right environment, the right elements working on them. But, whatever.

Echoes of Maltese Falcon, shades of Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest (which inspired Yojimbo which inspired Leone's A Fistful of Dollars, ad infinitum). Wit and pacing reminiscent of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (too funny to be true noir, or I would have mentioned it above). All set in an L.A high school. Oh yeah. It's Freaking Awesome.

Ultraviolet (2006)

Watching this movie has doubtless killed valuable brain cells.

[1/10 · 5 September 2006]

It's not quite the worst movie I've ever seen; there are much worse. However, if you separate movies in categories organized by budget, I could truthfully say this is the worst movie I've ever seen in its class. There is no coherent plot to speak of, and the acting is just... bad. This is one of two movies that focus in an entirely unwholesome fashion on this particular kid (Cameron Bright). Is this kid supposed to matter to me? He doesn't. In fact, by about fifteen minutes into the movie, the only things I cared about were:

A. Staying awake so as not to get rolled like a drunk by other movie patrons. B. Catching a glimpse of Milla Jovovich either naked or in a sexy pose.

I succeeded in objective A only. Milla did nothing particularly attractive or revealing. Worse, the color scheme and CGI did much to prevent me from seeing details of anything. I seriously believe that they airbrushed Milla's face, because half the time I couldn't even make out facial features; she just looked like a white, vaguely Milla-shaped blur. Now I wish I'd had the presence of mind to walk out of the theater; I could have beaten rush hour traffic on the way home.

The Sentinel (2006)

Bland.

[3/10 · 5 September 2006]

Michael Douglas and Eva Longoria were badly miscast in this, although in the latter case I can give her the benefit of the doubt. The problem could as easily been with the script. Kiefer Sutherland plays second fiddle to Douglas, basically channeling Jack Bauer from an alternate universe. Kim Basinger is... no longer suited to this kind of role. I formed that opinion watching "Cellular", and solidified it here. I nearly gagged when I thought that she and Michael Douglas were going to have 'old people sex' in some graphic form. This marks the only time I have EVER checked the back of a DVD box, seen "PG-13" and said "Thank God!" As to the fundamentals, everything is bland and ambiguous. Acting from the rest of the cast is adequate. Dialogue is unimpressive.

Technical accuracy suffers badly. For instance, it is said in the movie that Secret Service Agents are "trained to draw and unsafety their weapons in one movement". This is a load of crap. Secret Service Agents typically use Sig-Sauer automatics (I believe the firearm in question is a P-239). No Sig model I know of features an actual "safety" button. Instead, there is a de-cocking lever that drops the hammer forward without firing a round, thereby switching from single-action (hammer back, about a 2 pound trigger pull) to double-action (hammer forward, about a 10 pound trigger pull). At any time the weapon, if loaded, may be fired by depressing the trigger. This is very basic, and would have been obvious if anyone involved with the script had bothered to look at the gun they were describing. I can't help but wonder what actual Agents think of this film. Are they disgusted, amused, indifferent? Or are they immensely pleased with a successfully waged disinformation campaign designed to radically misinform the populace of their capabilities and procedures? Hmm...

Finally, it is never adequately explained WHY the former soviet republic of Whateveristan (I don't remember the name because they made it up) wanted to assassinate the president. The Berlin Wall came down 15 years ago. The KGB is defunct, and its successor agency is vainly trying to control the Russian Mafia fiefdom that part of the world has become. Even on the off chance that there was a sleeper in the Secret Service, he probably would have quietly forgotten his orders when the government that issued them went belly-up, and reactivation at that point really can't be assumed. It's sad when they can't even conjure up a plot that's pertinent to world events.

Decent action and some name recognition can't save this big-budget B-movie. If you want to see a similarly themed movie (Secret Service, presidential assassination attempt), watch "In the Line of Fire". It's a lot better.

Poseidon (2006)

After I write this review, I'm going to try to forget all about this movie.

[1/10 · 5 September 2006]

Because it's so bad, it's not even worth hating. I'm not going to waste more time on this than necessary. The acting ranged from marginal to bad. The special effects are typical CGI, which no longer is terribly impressive, save as a barometer for how much money has been dumped into a film. Plot development is non-existent; merely a series of physical barriers for the characters to surpass. There is no character development. The technical errors are legion.

Most damningly, a "rogue wave" capsizes this huge luxury liner in the middle of the ocean. This is impossible, because even a huge oceanic disturbance would only cause a large swell in mid-ocean. The wave does not crest and break until it gets to land. Only a serious storm (i.e, a hurricane) can produce such a wave, and even so the size of this wave stretches believability. This, however, is a moot point because there is no storm. There is no scientifically sound reason for this wave to exist. If there were random waves hundreds of feet tall in mid-ocean, capable of capsizing a cruise ship, deep-water ocean travel would never have become possible in ancient times. Thusly, this movie's basic premise is impossible.

I can't even articulate my disgust at the gross ignorance it must have taken to create this film. Are they even trying, anymore?

Miami Vice (2006)

Visually innovative and realistic... too bad it was supposed to be Miami Vice.

[8/10 · 17 August 2006]

The best thing about this movie is the fascinating visual style. Dark, gritty, not at all like the flashy 80's TV series it's based on. This movie has the character names and general story in common with the series, but the feel of the thing is radically different. The acting is adequate, and while I normally dislike Colin Farrell, the problem here is more with the dialogue he has to work with. Several of his lines made me cringe (Isabelle: "How fast does your boat go?" Crockett: "It goes very fast." No emphasis or anything. Unintentionally hilarious). The romance with Isabelle (Gong Li) seems forced and cold. Also, several plot lines are not followed through to conclusion, such as the FBI leak. Perhaps this is intentional ambiguity, but it makes for poor storytelling.

The whole style of the movie clashes badly with the iconic features of the series that they reintroduce. I think this movie tries to do too many things at once; to recreate Miami Vice, and to make a hardcore, realistic, visually innovative crime drama. I think this would have been better accomplished in two movies, because these elements hamper each other. It was like seeing Crockett and Tubbs in their Ferraris and fast boats shown on an episode of COPS.

Taken as a stand alone crime drama, though, it's not bad. The realism is taken a step farther than this genre has before (as much as possible while still trying to maintain ties to the old Miami Vice). The gunplay is exceptionally real; the chatter of automatic weapons is unfiltered. That is how they sound on camera.

The ending gun battle is as realistic as I've ever seen on screen. More than Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, where the lighting is good and the special effects are dazzling. This is COPS real. Lighting is bad. Everything is loud. Nobody's pulling any Matrix-type crap, or making impossible shots (Farrell in prone position puts two bullets in a guy's head underneath a car, which isn't impossible but is exceptional shooting under the circumstances). Everyone's shooting for a purpose, with comparable accuracy. Tactics are done well. The battle is prefaced with a countersniping maneuver, and one of the bad guys has the vaunted Barrett Light .50, which makes its debut earlier. You never see one of these in action; I'd buy this movie just for that. Officers leapfrog from cover to cover under suppressing fire and Jamie Foxx's character, stuck behind enemy lines with an autoloading Benelli, tries do as much damage as possible while staying mobile at the same time. This scene makes the movie, for me. I give the gun battle a ten, the rest of the movie a six, which averages out to the eight that I decided on. Miami Vice has its problems, but there are enough things I like about it to make space on my shelf, when that day comes.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

I got what I wanted from it, but all the hot lesbian action in the world couldn't make me care about the story.

[3/10 · 10 August 2006]

Surrealism isn't my thing. I need a coherent narrative to enjoy a movie, and Mulholland Dr. does not have that. What it does have, is a few short, probably superfluous, yet nevertheless highly enjoyable, lesbian scenes involving Naomi Watts.

Not to denigrate David Lynch's talents as a director. I'm sure he's a brilliant filmmaker and all that, I just really don't care. If this is the kind of movie you enjoy, surrealism and symbolism and vivid imagery and muttering "What the f**k?" every couple of minutes, then yeah, it's a good movie (symbolism or no, the dialogue made me cringe. Maybe that's intentional; like I said, I don't care).

If you only have an interest in this because of the 'adult content', as they say, there are probably more effective ways to get what you want, unless you really... REALLY... like Naomi Watts.

It strikes me as odd, however, that Lynch specifically requested that the DVD not be divided into chapters as almost all movies on DVD are. The reason given, that people would be more likely to watch the movie in one sitting, makes a certain amount of sense. Consider, however, that through his action, Lynch attempts to 'force' the viewer to view the movie within certain time constraints by making it inconvenient to do otherwise. Restricting the entire film to one chapter also makes the film more prone to become inoperative. Older rental movies with visible scratches frequently screw up in my DVD player, and I usually bypass this by skipping to the next chapter and rewinding. What Lynch has done has made this either vastly more difficult, or impossible.

I think that's rude, and I also think it violates a kind of gray area, where the director's perception leaves off and the viewer's perception takes over. By even TRYING to dictate the manner in which the film is watched, Lynch assumes a sort of authority I don't think he's entitled to.

But hey, what do I know? I'm not one of these 'surrealism' people. I'm just a guy with a headache from watching Mulholland Dr. I give this choreographed insanity 3 stars out of 10... all of them for Naomi Watts.

Running Scared (2006)

On the DVD box, it says this movie "Makes Kill Bill look like Sesame Street". Heh. Not even close.

[4/10 · 5 August 2006]

Although in terms of quality this might make 'Sesame Street' look like 'Kill Bill'. I think giving this movie a 4 is almost too generous, but in its favor it's very violent and has a lot of fascinating imagery that transcends the director's skill (and the dialogue). Paul Walker should never have been cast here. Not only does he simply lack the skill, he doesn't fit the character's profile. Walker struck the mortal blow to this film... although it surely would have bled to death through poor direction. The action is rather frenetic, considering that the story line plods interminably. The pedophilia subplot could have given this film an edgy and risqué feel, but it had no tie to the story, nor any real meaning.

The supporting cast is good, however. Vera Farmiga is attractive, although her character could have used more development... but then, they all could. Chazz Palminteri has a relatively minor role, basically just a name and a face, although it helps credibility a little bit.

Of course, there's the kid from Ultra-Violet, a movie which ranks among the worst I've ever seen. Part of the reason for that ranking is its bizarre obsession with this same kid; this makes two movies in which a strange and slightly disturbing focus on this particular child is somehow supposed to replace any coherent plot or storyline. Nothing against the kid, it's just weird. He does all right... actually deserves credit for keeping his s**t together through a dark, gory film with VERY adult elements. It's like plopping a kid into the middle of 'Sin City'. It just isn't done. He should have been years older. Watching this movie, I would think periodically, "Man, this kid would be so screwed up after seeing this." Really. This one kid, probably ten or so, steals a gun, shoots his stepfather, runs away, pulls a gun on a pimp who's about to cut up a prostitute (and almost dies), gets kidnapped by the friendly neighborhood pedophiles (and almost dies), is rescued, witnesses half a dozen gunfights, including a finale at a hockey rink where almost everyone dies, the kid actually shoots someone (and almost dies), and finally runs into the same pimp, who pulls the same gun on him. Guess what. The kid almost dies.

As an aside, the comparison to 'Sin City' is for content reasons only; Sin City is an excellent film, superior to this cinematic turd in every respect. Also, I don't want to give the impression that I'm upset about the content for its own sake. The level of violence and 'adult themes', as the censors say, is the only reason this movie gets a 4. It's crap, but mildly entertaining.

This errors, mistakes, and general stupidities in this movie are legion, but these are the ones that called out to me:

1. In the beginning shootout, everybody racks their shotguns a bunch of times. I hate that. Yes, it sounds cool. Racking a shotgun scares the s**t out of any right-thinking individual who's on the wrong end of the gun. So if you have to do it, do it once. Really though, what kind of morons barge into a crack den with shotguns... and THEN chamber a shell. That's a second too late, and that second will get you dead.

2. On the subject of shotguns... no twelve gauge (or any gauge) ever made will knock a man into a ten-foot backward somersault. At any range, with any load, no matter how small the guy is. IT CANNOT HAPPEN. It puts me in mind of a scene at the end of 'The Quick and the Dead', where Sharon Stone's character shoots Gene Hackman in the forehead with a .44 pistol round at about fifty feet, causing him to flip over backward like a rag doll thrown by an angry child. I don't care if the action is supposed to be 'over the top', as so many people have described this movie. These kinds of mistakes are unprofessional, and the movie (and particularly the director) are not good enough for such errors to be forgivable.

Red Dawn (1984)

Fascinating premise, but a lot of flaws. And yes, it is propaganda.

[6/10 · 31 July 2006]

This movie has sufficient problems that, to save space, I am forced to categorize and list them.

Premise Flaws:

1. The dissolution of NATO,communist takeover of Central America, and Revolution in Mexico are all wildly improbable... yet in the spirit of alternate history and 'what if?', acceptable. What I don't accept is the element of 'surprise'; these events would necessitate a high level of alertness and mobilization in the American military, law enforcement, and populace. There would be no 'charter planes' brimming with Spetznaz commandos and Cuban soldiery, nor 'insurgents' infiltrating through the Mexican border.

2. Any use of nuclear weapons by the Soviets would have elicited a nuclear response amounting to total annihilation. Hence a fun Cold War acronym: MAD- Mutually Assured Destruction. Nukes are never tactical, even when they're intended to be, because their effects are strategic.

3. Powers Boothe's character mentions that the Soviets reinforced with '60 divisions; three full armies' or something like that. That's something between several hundred thousand and half a million men, depending on whatever Soviet TO&E was at the time. Moving that many men and all their equipment from Russia to North America would take the world's largest merchant fleet (which Russia never had) several trips under ideal circumstances (with U.S naval capability, ideal would NOT be the word). It could not be done by airlift, under any circumstances, not even granting an improbable Soviet air superiority or the cost of maintaining that superiority. Even if, by some miracle, it happened, it would take the same miracle again to supply those soldiers. Impossible.

4. I do believe that foreign invasion of U.S soil would spark guerrilla action, probably stronger and more professional than portrayed in this movie. I also believe that the first generation of guerrillas would have a very high mortality rate. The learning curve for partisans is steep and unforgiving. The kids in this movie make too many mistakes too quickly, and trust too much. After they made the first leap, from escape and evade to active partisan, they would have been dead in days. Really, half a dozen teenagers just can't attack an armored column with Kalashnikovs and RPGs and expect to survive.

Tactical flaws and mistakes:

1. Commandos would have difficulty holding mountain passes, considering that local military and law enforcement would react faster than reinforcement could come. I doubt that they would expend their energy sacking a mountain town, when they should be positioning themselves to take control of certain highways and railways at specific junctions or highly defensible locations.

2. If Soviets did want to take control of a town, instead of simply destroying it, they would not come in guns blazing. They would probably converge on local law enforcement, civil government, key utilities, and key escape routes. They're trying to PRESERVE the town, and its inhabitants, so that both can be of use to them.

3. The action in this film is very Hollywood, with lots of hip-shooting and pyrotechnics. What it really comes down to is this; kids can't fight. Maybe rural kids can shoot, maybe they could hit a deer at 400 yds with Daddy's .30-06, but they're facing professional soldiers steeped in a military doctrine that half the world's armies follow, and hardened by years of guerrilla war, revolution and counterrevolution. The outcome was never in doubt.

Red Dawn is still an entertaining 'what if?' movie, full of moderate acting from the promising young stars of two decades ago. John Milius' directing is adequate for the level of movie he was making, and I think it's says something that a basically B-movie like Red Dawn can spark such heated discussion twenty years later in a radically different political climate. Whatever one thinks of his politics, it can't be denied that this movie made a splash.

The Hunted (2003)

Not only bad, but inaccurate and unrealistic.

[1/10 · 29 July 2006]

This movie is a serious contender for 'worst movie ever', similar in theme but not in quality the the first 'Rambo' movie. The acting is spotty; del Toro's killer with the dead-fish eyes is excellent, as far as expression and body language go. Tommy Lee Jones' character is a half-baked reprisal of his role in Fugitive, but he largely phones in his performance... plus, he looks old and tired. Completely incapable, in other words, of the feats of endurance and agility required by his encounters with del Toro's character. The plot is fairly predictable, but the cinematography is good.

The devil, as ever, is in the details. The one thing that stuck out to me most clearly as radically moronic was Jones' knife-fighting tutorial. He instructs his soldiers to kill an enemy using multiple knife strikes all over an enemy's body: Two strikes to the throat, a disemboweling move, a two-handed 'power-stroke' or 'power assist' down the sternum, and finish by stabbing the groin and throat. I read in the trivia section that a survivalist/tracker named Tom Brown served as technical adviser, and that a Phillipine knife-fighting style called Sayoc Kali formed the basis for the movie's action.

I don't know squat about Sayoc Kali or Tom Brown, but I do know that when you kill a man with a blade, you do it as quick as you can, without wasting motion. Two strikes for the throat is excessive; one fluid slash needs to suffice, or from the front, a stab or lunge. Slashing is a wide lateral motion that is easier to block using opposing lateral motions. Disemboweling fails to silence the target, aside from the difficulty and awkwardness of the strike. A 'power-stroke' along the sternum is utterly senseless; it's BONE. If you want to hit the heart, go up under the sternum. Better, silence and incapacitate your target by penetrating the right lung through the last two ribs in the target's back. Finally, Jones' instructs two last strikes to groin and throat. The groin is low and a difficult target, especially against an enemy facing sideways in 'bladed' stance. You have to cut an artery for this strike to be quickly fatal or incapacitating. The final stab to the throat is the only sensible move, but the doctrine would already have had you slash the throat... twice. What's the point?

Excuse my extensive diatribe; I am by no means an expert on close quarters battle, but even a layman like myself can see the flaws here. The movie is rife with them.

The Conversation (1974)

Unworthy of its subject matter.

[3/10 · 26 July 2006]

'The Conversation' alludes to and dances around the issue which should be central to the film; Security vs. Privacy, both in the government and the corporate arena. The true focus of the film is the character study of a 'wiretapper', his reclusive personal life, and his growing obsession with an assignment he fears may lead to a murder.

Honestly, I don't care for Coppola's direction in this film. It's slow and frequently incoherent, with elements that don't fit or are just incorrect. One example of this is the ending scene, where the director artificially shifts the emphasis in the recording that is central to the film. You hear this recording half a dozen times, so it is easy to tell that the emphasis has changed, not been 'revealed'. Another glitch is when the camera that Hackman supposedly 'misses' while searching his apartment pans back and forth. Firstly, a tiny hidden camera wouldn't have been in color or in high resolution, not in 1974. Second, it wouldn't pan. Panning is motion, and motion draws the human eye, which is the LAST thing you want with a hidden surveillance cam. The whole movie is full of poor tradecraft like that, even for the period.

If you are a fan of Coppola, more power to you; my post isn't about him, one way or another. Nor is it about Hackman's performance which, despite the film's overall mediocrity, is superb. My complaint is that this could have been a great film. It could have been earth-shaking. It could have had consequences lasting beyond the Nixon administration and Watergate, changing how the privacy issues of today are viewed... but now it is dated and largely forgotten.