Change Your Image
Promontorium
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Navy Secrets (1939)
I guess I'm the only one
I really enjoyed this movie. A female Naval Intelligence Officer is undercover hunting a spy ring. In the meantime she ends up falling for another Naval Intelligence Officer on the same case. They each think the other is a spy, but they get along so well they keep trying to help each other, for better and worse until they learn they were on the same side in the end.
I actually really liked the dynamic playing of the romance and spycraft. You can't tell whether one person is faking it for the job, or is genuinely interested. Both romance and spycraft are games of back and forth. Then there's some flareups where you can guess one is genuinely hurt or genuinely intrigued and they start going against their own mission.
The best example is about 18 minutes in they are at a bar and each is flirting with the other. Until Carol directly asks Steve if he's married. He plays it serious, and then says "I'm not married." as a surprise, then "Would it matter if I was?" And there you can see she's insulted. They were just playing but he took it too far. "Personally or otherwise?" is her reply. Great line, she's simultaneously distancing herself while entertaining the idea of them being together. But she's hurt. So much that she's about to leave. LEAVE, her job would be tanked, her entire mission would fail if she leaves him at that point. So is she baiting him? Or is she genuinely hurt? How could either help her job. He now has to square things away. "Steve I wish I could decide if you were a sly Don Juan or just an awkward bumbling saltwater hick." He replies "I'll be anything you like."
Fay Wray is the star and headline, she plays a strong independent woman who ends up saving the dude in distress after he's tied up and about to be murdered. After she took out the guy trying to kill her of course. In 1939. And they'll tell you Captain Marvel was the first "strong woman" film in history. Disliking this movie means you're a misogynist.
Other reviewers are butthurt about the budget. I think the fact that it was low-budget and made for TV made it more real and gritty. It didn't have that b.s. Hollywood sheen old films usually have. It was just real people in real places talking about real life, which as an observer over 80 years later is just delightful. Yes the spies were German. It was 1939, who the hell else would they be?
Freakonomics (2010)
Entertaining but light on details
This isn't really a documentary. A few of the chapters from the book are presented in this film. The way the issues are presented usually involve first Levitt and Dubner speaking about the issue interspersed with various imagery and animation. Some archival footage is used. Particularly when the topic addresses famous historical events. Each segment will also have actors re-enacting events or acting out original scenes to present the topic visually. There are also other experts or people who call themselves experts (like an "expert" in baby names) talking about the issue. Finally there is some footage of actual people either discussing personal experiences, or in the case of the high school students, the students themselves living their lives. Although even this seems staged at points.
It seems they used a lot of flashy graphics and various forms of presentation to cover up the fact that this film is ultimately Levitt, Dubner and the narrator just talking generally about the issues covered in the book. I'm a fan of the podcast so if this film had just been them talking and nothing else I'd still have liked it. But there is a sense of lacking an opportunity in creating something new on film. All the colorful imagery doesn't bring anything new to the table.
The film doesn't cover the entire book. I haven't read it in years but one of the more important topics to me was about the drug dealers which wasn't in the film.
What I found really lacking, beyond the visual or the missing chapters, is that they didn't really go into detail with anything. They vaguely reference statistics, but hardly show any. They make off handed comments about important concepts that they don't spend any time on. Two of the most important themes of the entire work, causation vs. causality, and the power of incentive are hardly discussed beyond the immediate topic. For example while they note in the film that people often mistake correlation with causation, and that finding cause is very difficult, they don't spend a second actually explaining why cause is difficult to ascertain (except that it isn't immediately apparent). Day one of a social science course is going to identify the difficulty or impossibility of defining cause. Levitt and Dubner do not mention that while statistics and economics in the scope of numbers is natural science, their application in Freakonomics is social science, and all the stats in the world won't necessarily prove cause in social science.
The Pacifier (2005)
Remake of Uncle Buck
This is a remake of Uncle Buck. No one seems to get that mostly because of the back story which encompasses all of the first five minutes and last two minutes of the film. Everything in the middle is sometimes scene for scene a remake of Uncle Buck, particularly when he goes to the school to meet the principal because the kids are having problems in school. There's even a very subtle connection they expanded in this film as the vice principal in Uncle Buck was a Navy vet and in this film the principal is the Navy vet. The only thing they switched is that in both films the vice principal was an antagonist but in this film (because Diesel's character is also Navy, the vet becomes a love interest). Ultimately the rowdy older sister who hated him the most becomes the one who loves him the most and they're all best of friends by the time the parents return.
Nu jing cha (1973)
I guess I saw a better cut
From reading about the edits, and people's complaints, I think I've seen a much better cut.
Certainly the physical quality is that of a 70s low budget Hong Kong film, but that's understandable.
The story I watched made perfect sense. It had a logical ending, and overall I enjoyed it. I suppose if you're watching this purely for Jackie Chan, you will be disappointed. And I agree it is dishonest retro marketing to label it a Jackie movie. I saw a copy of Cannon Ball Run in Hong Kong that had Jackie Chan on the cover and said "Starring Jackie Chan" obviously Hong Kong loves their boy, get used to it.
Purely as a film I though it had decent action, a good story and I enjoyed the overall tone. I've seen a lot (probably not even half) of Chan's films, I think this did more to showcase his skills than everything he's done in America from Rush Hour on. He does some serious stunts here, he hit hard, he's quick. He even gets to fight the final showdown with the protagonist.
There are some problems. 1. Apparently the original name was Police Woman, there is a female cop protagonist, but she's given a supporting role, only appearing at the very beginning, and towards the end. 2. The dubbing is bad, the voice acting is very good, but the dialog is often off timed, which is a minor annoyance, the dubbing audio quality is as bad as it can get without being inaudible. 3. Some scenes are choppy, but there is one big screwed up edit that comes in right before the climax, it's so bad you have to pretend you didn't see it or nothing makes sense. 4. It might be a casualty of aspect crossovers, but many of the scenes seem to have the camera off to the side, missing the action. As with the editing and dubbing, your experience may vary based on which cut you have.
I enjoyed this simple city story about a taxi driver crossing paths with a street gang, I enjoyed that the "good citizens" and friends backed him up (going against the cliché' 'go it alone' story) I enjoyed the action, with Charlie Chin and Qiu Yuen as the unstoppable good guys, and the antagonists led by Jackie Chan actually being able to fight.
My votes are usually similar to the IMDb score, altogether, I think if everyone saw the copy I did this film would be rated much higher, at least a 6, I give it a 7/10 because I can overlook the dubbing issues and scratchy film quality which certainly didn't exist when it premiered.
Mad Dog and Glory (1993)
Surprising and beautiful
I love the 3 main actors in this movie. Not one of them plays their type-casted styles here.
Bill Murray is a deep yet fierce mafia type. He runs a tight racket and has no fear of the law. This is exceedingly out of character for a man who has an entire career of comedy. Even his stand-up in the film is more of an homage to his dark character than an allusion to his comic ability. He does it so well I believe him. Bill Murray actually scares me in this film.
Robert De Niro plays a unique role as a cop who ISN'T the hardest thing on the street. My brain almost exploded from the first scene on. He is so lonely and so innocent. He's just a guy living in a sheltered life. That is until Murray takes a shine to him. This is probably the only character De Niro has ever played that I could identify with. I don't fear life the same way he does, but the way he notices all the smallest details, to the point of photographing them.
I think this says it all:
Frank (Murray): That's life huh? F***ing Wayne, give him a hand, he takes the whole arm huh? Come on Wayne, bring her down.
Wayne (De Niro): I love her.
Frank: You love her? I OWN HER!
Uma Thurman plays a very lost and paranoid woman. Her first few scenes in this film she won't stop shaking. I can hardly believe it's her except she's so damn hot. Her spirit alone makes her lovable. As if there will be a day when she can put on a nice dress and walk on the beach with you.
I love this movie. It is reserved to the point of realistic. The supporting actors are deep and become story drivers in their own right, especially David Caruso who plays De Niro's cop friend "No guts, no glory right?" and Mike Starr who plays the world's only non-stereotypical goon "I get paid either way."
I think my ultimate appeal is that it gets the anti-hero, anti-journey concept right where so many bad independent films go wrong. It portrays real people with problems who aren't heroes, but will fight as a last resort. It does in a few seconds with a long stare what whole movies do with drawn out musical sequences and angry albeit meaningless conflicts.
1408 (2007)
Best scary movie in the 21st Century
I can only give my opinion, as movies touch people differently. I can tell you, I am someone who has not been scared by movies since the 80's. Not 80's movies Per-Se, simply the decade itself. By the time the 90's came I was 8 years old, and no longer scared of anything fictional, until 1408.
I have read several Steven King books, and literally dozens (if not all) of his published short stories. 1408 the story was boring, and really short. Dude gets a talking to, walks into room (once he could get it open, different in the movie) some pictures move, some words appear and he's out. That was it. I love Steven King but 1408 the story was crap. I say this so you don't decide to stay away from the movie because of the story.
This movie blew my mind. It is so much more deep than I could imagine a scary movie could be. It sucked me in from minute one and I was literally on the edge of my seat the whole movie. It scared the crap out of me, and yet the few moments of peace he gets once in the room (like seeing his daughter)(not a spoiler its in the damn previews) made me feel so overwhelmed with emotion that I sometimes just begged for some more basic thrills to come. It pushes and pushes, and just when you think it's selling you short, it tricks you, and scares even more. Hands down the best scary movie/thriller/whatever in the 21st Century. If you have any dignity and you like scary movies, or thrillers, or even plot for that matter, you have to watch this masterpiece to the very end.
Creepshow 3 (2006)
Hands down; The Final Sign of Rental Apocalypse
Russ Malcolm (previous commenter)is 100% right. Usually a "yes" click to a "Do you agree with this comment?" is enough. This time, the truth must be reiterated, for the love of God. I too rented this "eye-gougingly" bad movie from a "Redbox". This movie represents the end of rentals. There's no other way to put it. The only choice now is to get movies from the internet. If this is the best a physical rental location can do, then I give "Blockbuster" and "Hollywood Video" and every other physical rental place 2 years MAX before they go the way of "Tower Records."
The first "skit" was so bad, that intelligent commentary would be an insult to intelligence. I'll put it this way; Girl gets hit with red ball, dad gives her cancer, crazy guy turns her into a bunny, cause that's what she gets for not liking cancer. There. Now try to enjoy the life I may have spared you from having to live "Post-viewing" it's too late for me. But if I can just spare one person from watching this, I will be remembered as a hero.
The Champagne Gang (2006)
Pornless porn
Somewhere in the first 5 seconds of this horrible movie I realized that it didn't even have the budget to have some edge to it. I don't know how in God's name this was cycled into my local "Redbox" except maybe because it was shot entirely in San Diego. There is no redeeming quality to it whatsoever. I suppose I was supposed to be feeling allured by the cinematographer's choice to always center the camera on the "T" or the "A", but somehow it's like watching "The View" with the same approach.
It's as if the director desperately wanted to give depth to the girls, but the cameras and everything else in the entire universe just wanted to turn them into objects. The closing shot of the movie was a close up on the butts of each of the girls, yet the dialog suggested something out of a feminist handbook.
I think the biggest slap in the face to this worthless waste of 30 minutes of my life ( out of self preservation I had fast forwarded through most of it) is that after hearing throughout the entire movie, that these girls were the real deal, and they did these crimes in San Diego, and it's """"""based on a true story""""" that the true story was in fact about 4 MEN IN CANADA!!!! The setting and the fact they were hot girls were the ONLY two selling points, and you find out that neither EVER occurred.
I could forgive everything else if it weren't boring, but it was, if there was intrigue or character development, or motive, or acting, or even a steady camera. There was nothing. I have made better movies with my brother in my backyard when I was 14.