Change Your Image
martinmcdonough
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Chiller Theater (1963)
Great local show that had devoted following
This show was so popular, it kept Saturday Night Live (when it first premiered with John Belushi, Dan Akroyd, Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Jane Curtin, etc. Etc. Etc.) off the air in the Pittsburgh area until NBC forced the station to move Chiller Theater's time slot after SNL It stayed strong until NBC forced another move to 2:00 am after forcing a terrible late night show into Chiller's 1:00 am slot. Never forgotten, always a favorite and still popular to this day. So much so that now, with streaming channels and multiple cable outlets, the show is back for a limited 8-episode run, starting 9/9/23. Here's hoping it stays.
Bridgerton (2020)
What the...?
For the love of all that is holy, this was absolute garbage. A dumpster fire of the first order. The diction was pure drivel. The plot was flimsy at best. Predictable doesn't begin to describe how formulaic this series was. The garishness of the period dress was laughable. The "romantic" scenes were something that could have come from a 1980's high school movie like "Porky's". And, please... don't EVEN get me started about the actress who played the Queen. She had more wigs than Rip Taylor (who would have been a better Queen than the actress they had). And this Lady Danbury - she looked like she raided Prince's closet and was ready to go clubbing. The only (and The Rock means ONLY) bright spot was Jonathan Bailey, who could maybe pass for a young Hugh Jackman. Otherwise... It was bad. Poor. Waste of time. Do yourself a favor and AVOID this at all costs.
Downsizing (2017)
Not very good, sorry to say
Usually Matt Damon doesn't appear in a flat out bad movie. He's kind of like Jeff Bridges in that way. If it's not very good, at least it's still watchable just because of HIM being in it.
Well, this movie is bad. Sorry.
It started out with a really neat premise. And it was sort of comical in a "is this supposed to be funny?" kind of way. But after Kristin Wiig backs out after the fact and Matt is left alone in his micronized world, well... the movie tries to shift focus from a sort-of comedy / satire film into....
.... and there you have it. It doesn't know what it wants to be, and by that time the movie is half over. Once it moved from sarcastic comedy to one of haves / have nots (the drug party from the upstairs neighbor and the Vietnamese activist housekeeper), going into the slums, etc etc etc. it became unwatchable. And, at that point, I turned it off. I didn't care anymore. It dragged, plodded and crawled along to that point and I just couldn't take it anymore.
I didn't see the ending because I didn't care. I didn't read the ending online because I didn't care. And I doubt I'll revisit it because, well, I don't care. And that's a shame. Matt usually makes / stars in better films than this.
Impractical Jokers: The Movie (2020)
Just as funny as the show - only better!
If you like the show - and even if you don't - this movie will NOT disappoint. The challenges are absolutely hysterical as well as the individual "challenges" that each joker has to pull off.
* SPOILER ALERT *
The absolute best individual challenge - hands down - was Joe as Bat Boy all grown up, pretending to have been lost in a cave for 30 years.
There were moments of absolute hilarity where the entire audience couldn't stop laughing - when Joe gets up from an interview and starts shooting hoops / when Q avoids a drug bust when on the side of the road / Murr getting back into the dingy (with Joe's help) / and Sal in a room with a tiger. Unbelievable!
I also thought Casey Jost as Paula's flippant manager (season five sucked!) was a great drop in that only fans of the show will get. It's funny outright, but fans get the joke more so.
Good movie. Great time. Laughs all around.
The Silence (2019)
Not a very good film
I watched this movie because I saw that Stanley Tucci was in it and, much like Jeff Bridges, he really doesn't appear in too many bad films and even those, for the most part, are watchable if not memorable.
This movie, however, was a mess. And not in a good way.
Not sure where to begin, so I'll start with the Vespas. Their existence defies any pretext of reality. No species could have survived for millions of years (as it was said in the movie) with no food supply. Evolutionary hypothesis be damned. Unless they were cannibalistic (which they are not) they would have died out a long, long, long time ago. I know the opening credits show industrial waste, pollution, nuclear explosions and such to possibly give an explanation as to their mutations and existence, but the fact of the matter is that those phenomenon are only developments since the industrial revolution, which doesn't provide enough time to mutate these creatures.
The family and backstory is typical. Mom, dad, kids, grandparent, and a dog, and all the typical trappings that come with their respective ages. Then the Vespas are released and everything goes haywire.
But I have to come back to the fact that the time involved doesn't add up. That's the biggest issue for me. The Vespas are released and almost INSTANTLY four states' population succumbs and are semi-quarantined - within 24-48 hours. Think about that for a minute. Four states (PA,NY,NJ and MA) is a HUGE area. Unless there were about a BILLION of these creatures trapped in that cave, it just can't happen that fast. And the fact that a cult pops up in that same time frame that (1) has figured out to be quiet (2) needs "fertile" girls to perpetuate the cult and (3) has coordinated itself to have membership that blindly follows their leader to kidnap and murder - all within 48 hours - just doesn't add up.
Then there's other issues - the "compound" that is guarded by the lady but has an unlocked storm drain big enough to crawl through and grant access to the property; the wood chipper that attracts - and kills - the Vespas but that info seems to never be shared with anyone; the predictable deaths of Uncle Glenn and the heroic grandmother (Dante's Peak, anyone?); the seeming willingness to accept the situation and trek north to the cold rather than devise and implement a widespread solution (woodchippers, anyone?)....
It's just bad. Stanley Tucci couldn't save this movie. Stanley Kubrick couldn't save this movie. And without good writing, no one could have saved this movie. Too many holes, too short a timeframe to jam everything in and just lazy writing.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
Timeless. Ageless. Classic.
What can be said that hasn't already been said? The dark humor is still as funny and satirical today as it was in 1964. The madness of Nuclear War and politics is on full frontal display. The whole "gap" and "race" ideas (missile gap, mine shaft gap - arms race, space race, "peace" race) are played up to their irreverent best. Military intelligence versus common sense.
The part that I found the most indicative of military thinking / strategy that was just as prevalent then as it is now was when Dr. Strangelove is speaking of how survivors would have to go below - where there would be alot of time and little to do - and he describes the "repopulation" efforts that must take place, and the Soviet embassador pipes up with "You have an astonishingly good idea, Herr Doctor."
And then, of course, realizing his newfound need for prodigious virility, Dr. Strangelove stands and exclaims his iconic line. Great movie. Watch it a few times to catch all the subtleties that you, no doubt, missed here and there.
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
Not sure what the point was...
I'm not sure what the point of this movie was. Usually, a "first" super hero movie gives us the hero's backstory, the origin of their powers, how they grapple with these new found powers, some sort of personal tragedy (that ultimately leads them to becoming a hero instead of a villain), and a focus point for the resolution of their conflicting issues in the form of whatever shape or form the villain takes. After that, it's sequel after endless sequel.
I get it.
What I don't get is the purpose of THIS movie. There already IS a Spider-Man. He's Peter Parker, photographer for the Daily Bugle, and so on and so forth. We all know about his Aunt, Uncle, the radioactive spider, J. Jonah, M.J. and the cadre of bad dudes he eventually takes on (and down). So, with that in mind, I wasn't sure if this was supposed to be (1) yet another re-imagining of the story for a newer, hip audience, (2) an introduction of several new characters, or (3) an intense marketing ploy to get young viewers interested in the printed version of these heroes? Why else would each character have it's own "Issue #1" cover shown during the movie as well as their own brief backstory / origin explanation?
It has to be one of those explanations because in every stand-alone movie or comic book, the super hero fights the bad guy typically by himself / herself without the aid of other super heroes (Avengers and other super groups notwithstanding). Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, et al always fought the Green Goblin, Lex Luthor and the Joker (among others) by themselves. But in this movie, five (or was it six) Spider-Men/Women were needed to take Kingpin down? Not likely.
Also, this movie had alot going on and went nowhere. The start of the movie was tedious, plodding and slow. And, most importantly, the formula was incredibly predictable. If there were any jokes, they fell flat and were unremarkable, sans the obligatory Stan Lee cameo as the comic shop owner.
Once the action started, it was kind of pointless and repetitive. And I kept coming back to the central question I had while watching the movie, as they kept introducing version after version of Spider-Men: do these comic characters already exist somewhere else and this movie is just a ploy to expose them to a wider audience?
So, the questions are: Are we being exposed to the NEW Spider-Man? Are we being exposed new, multiple Spider-Men? Why were there no new villains (and making Dr. Octopus a woman is NOT making a new villain, by the way). All of that (and more) brings me back to the central idea of this review - I'm not sure what the point of this movie was.
Chappaquiddick (2017)
Not sure what to make of it - and maybe that's the point
I think it fair to say that most people in this country have heard of the Kennedy's. With that, they probably also know of the assassinations of JFK and RFK. And, more than likely, they also know that Ted's presidential aspirations, whatever they may have been, were quashed with this incident.
That said, I think this movie did a very good job at (1) presenting the facts as they are known and testified to - more or less, and (2) presenting how Ted's "handlers" tried to portray him as a hapless victim of circumstance.
Early on, the film touches on certain aspects of Ted's personality and tries to make the point throughout that he would have been much happier and comfortable being an anonymous playboy rather than being funneled into public service. It also drives home the point of Ted's political inexperience whenever he tries to take control over his own destiny. Later, the viewer almost feels sad for Ted in so much as he realizes, time and again, that he is not in control of his own destiny and his future is being shaped by suited men in a room at the direction of his dying father. And the despair comes in when it is understood that this realization has come at the price of a girl, dying, at the bottom of a river, trapped in an overturned car.
The question then becomes, for those of us old enough to know better and old enough to know what Ted became later in life, why did he participate in the changing of the narrative and why didn't he show backbone to stand up and take full responsibility and do the right thing? The right thing would have been to resign his seat, but the lust for political power proved to be too much for him to resist. He would have been a much more respectable figure had he humbled himself, but the powerbrokers wouldn't allow it.
The final scene, of just the old eyes under a gray furrowed brow, tells quite a bit, actually. With the sounds of a political rally echoing all around, one can't help that, just for a second, Ted realized he had become one of them and was no longer who he was.
With that, the viewer is left with the question - should he be vilified for his actions and lack of moral character, or pitied for those exact same reasons?
Darkest Hour (2017)
Good window to view a brief time in history
I was excited to see a movie made about Sir Winston Churchill. I was hoping that it wouldn't "marble-ize" him as a hero (which he was) and gloss over his periodically abrasive personality. This movie did a pretty good job of capturing his persona, and Gary Oldman (who is a chameleon) deserved the awards and accolades he received for his performance.
The depiction of Neville Chamberlain was masterful as well. It's one thing to find an actor who looks somewhat like the character, but Ronald Pickup looked and acted so much like him, it was creepy.
Several scenes were masterful - such as the War Cabinet's attempts to maneuver Churchill into acquiescing to an Italian peace envoy. Another was the total feeling of isolation and despair that Gary Oldman projected after being rebuffed over the phone by FDR. And Mendelsohn as King George contemplating potential rule "in abstentia" showed the start realities of total defeat they were facing.
Was it a good movie? Yes. Was it award worthy? Yes. The only thing I would have to critique about the movie is that it is geared more for people who don't know the story of Churchill, the Nazi blitz, Dunkirk, or only know the generalities of World War II. It's a good starting point for those individuals, but for students of the genre, it won't add anything new to your repertoire.
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Surprisingly entertaining
I have to admit that I went into seeing this movie with not the highest of expectations. I'd heard alot about the movie - both good and bad - and wanted to wait for the dust to settle so I could see it in a non-crowded theater so my opinion wouldn't be swayed by audience reactions.
It's not that bad. In fact, it's very entertaining.
I think the problem with the negative reviews stem from the fact that Star Wars has become an industry unto itself and that, somehow, the original trilogy has been elevated to the level of Citizen Kane or The Godfather. Remember, the original trilogy (episodes 4-6) - when originally released two score ago - were enjoyable movies but were not and will never be compared to Shakespeare and the cast wasn't plucked from The Mercury Theater Players. But they were just good, fun, enjoyable movies.
Which is exactly what Solo is.
Seeing that no one can be what Harrison Ford was as Han Solo, I wanted to give Alden Ehrenreich a chance to play the part because if I hadn't then there's no point in seeing the movie. After the opening "car chase" as it were, especially the fake thermal detonator bit, I was sold on him. He had enough smarmy-ness to be funny and believable, but he didn't go too far to be annoying - which was perfect.
I liked how he talked his way into Woody Harrelson's smuggling crew to get his first gig, and the attempted heist of the train car was pretty entertaining as well. You get an idea of how Han learns his negotiating skills when they make the bargain with Dryden Vos, and Donald Glover was spot on as a young Lando. And, yes, the answer to the question of how Han wins the Falcon from Lando is answered.
The only part of the movie I didn't understand was how could Darth Maul have been Vos's boss? The timeline didn't seem to fit from when a young Obi-Wan ginsu'd him in the first prequel. However, a friend of mine who knows all things Star Wars advised that it was possible based on the Disney cartoon series. Okay, that's fine for those that follow the minutiae of this galaxy, but for the casual observer (i.e. the movies) it didn't make sense.
Is it a good movie? Yes. Sure it its. Is it worth watching? Absolutely. Is it a fun and entertaining ride? Yes. That's really all you can - and should - ask for from a Star Wars movie. If you're a fanboy looking for perfection, go rent Citizen Kane.
Names on the Cup (2017)
Great documentary about the hardest trophy in all of sports to win
This documentary is a rare and welcome entry into the world of sports documentaries. Most of the time, sports documentaries get overloaded with stats, unfair comparisons to players of different eras, and shine a favorable light on one, or maybe two, franchises.
This one is different.
This one is a must see, simply because it delves into the human side of the gauntlet hockey players run to earn the trophy at the end. It examines the toll it takes on the men who get there - both the winners and losers. It makes the audience feel the joy of winning it all and the pain, the absolute heartbreak suffered by those who fell short, especially for those that never earned a second chance.
The history of the actual cup is almost secondary (who donated it, when it became what it is today, and so on). This is the story of the men who earned the right to have their names engraved on the cup, what it took to get there, and why it is so important.
Bryan Trottier said that he wished everyone who played could have that feeling, just once, of lifting it over their heads. Then, after a second, he followed up by saying that it's better this way that not everyone gets to do it because that's what makes it so special.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Disappointing
I've seen this movie a few times, all in the hope that multiple viewings may unearth some hidden gem I missed the first time or two. Sadly, none were to be found.
I have to say that I was initially discouraged with the choice of villain for this installment. I do not follow Batman lore (canon?) so I had no idea who "Bane" was or why I should care. After watching this movie, I couldn't get over the thought that Bane was a mediocre criminal at best, who was only successful because the screenwriters made him that way. He didn't come off as menacing, intimidating or, well, crazy enough to make me think that he was some formidable opponent for Batman. Maybe I was spoiled after seeing the maniacal genius in Ledger's Joker, but Bane came off as very pedestrian.
The scenes with Hathaway were unnecessarily long and drawn out. And so were the scenes of Batman/Wayne in the pit. This movie could have been better served by having been cut down by a good hour to get some pacing going because it never really took off. The bomb chasing / tracking sequence was interesting as was getting the police force trapped underground. The football sequence was neat, too, as there was a comic-book like feel to watching the field fall away right behind a streaking player's trail. And the ending sequence (batplane on autopilot with the nuke) was a bit formulaic but entertaining. But there was just... too... much... space... in between these parts to keep the movie from lagging.
Overall, it would have been much better served to have had (1) a universally known villain (the Riddler, maybe) and (2) much better pacing.
Cars 3 (2017)
Forgettable entry and, hopefully, the last.
The trailers for this movie would lead you to believe that the Pixar staff wanted to transpose a "Rocky III" type comeback onto their landscape with McQueen being the next Balboa. I get it. It's a formula that can work and usually does in the hands of skilled movie-makers.
Not in this case, however.
The first Cars was story driven, had a decent theme that played throughout, and had heart. The second was a mess. This one showed flashes of potential but ultimately was just uninspired. I get the "new generation" of racers pushing the old out of the spotlight. I get the whole "going back to your roots" angle that was used here and finding Doc Hudson's old trainer, track, and support crew. And I get the whole "rematch and redemption" thing as well. All of those elements ring of Rocky III. Incidentally, the Demolition Derby was kind of akin to Rocky fighting Thunderlips (a.k.a. Hulk Hogan) as well, and was the most entertaining part of the film, but I digress.
Don't get me wrong, as there were some good elements. For instance, there was alot less of Larry the Mater Guy in this one. And the artwork was spectacular. The smugness of the new cars was played up pretty good. But there was no need to bring back Chick Hicks, sans Michael Keaton, as a talk show antagonist. Nor was it necessary to "re-skin" McQueen with several new paint jobs - a clear merchandising move. And it would've helped the audience and the story if McQueen had told Smokey (or vice versa) how Doc Hudson died. Could have used whatever reason given as motivation for making it back to the winners' circle, but it never materialized.
The final race and ending was a total disappointment. McQueen basically admits defeat by letting his trainer (???) finish the race for him and, ultimately, win? Really? This isn't tag-team wrestling here, Pixar. It was a bad move to end the movie this way and, if it is the last entry in the franchise, a very disappointing way to end the series.
Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
I hesitated to give this four stars
This entry into the Star Wars franchise was an utter dud and will, sorry to say, be ranked as the worst movie in the saga. And rightfully so. After the last movie, this one was set up with so much potential to be great and it failed. Period.
It started out showing that potential, however. The initial combat sequence was entertaining, especially the "I'll wait on hold for Hux" banter by Dameron. And when Luke takes the Light Sabre, tosses it over his shoulder and tells Rey to get lost was great. Then after that... I don't know what happened. The entire time Rey keeps trying to get Luke to come back reminds me of a kid who keeps asking his mom or dad for something by repeatedly saying "please" over and over. It got to the point I was waiting for Rey to pull a Patrick Swayze and repeatedly sing "I'm Henry the Eighth, I am!" like he did to Whoopi Goldberg in "Ghost."
Also, since when does the evil galactic First Order decide to wait out an enemy until their supplies (fuel) run out? This isn't the US Army Civil War siege of Petersburg. All they had to do was just... speed up. Or jump ahead. Or surround them on all sides. Your forces outnumber the rebels by, what? 100-1? And that's the other thing... when Finn and Rose are going to be executed, why all this "on the count of three!" melodramatics? Just do it, already. I'm getting a little tired of this formulaic approach already. And killing off the supposed ultimate evil leader that is / was Snoke in such an unspectacular fashion just accentuates how underwhelming this movie is.
The final scene was akin to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. After Kylo has all weapons fixed on Luke, everyone opens fire. and then Luke walks out of the smoldering rubble and dusts off his shoulder, I was half expecting him to say "'tis but a scratch!"
The only thing that could have saved this movie would have been Rey accepting the offer when Kylo asks her to join him. Now THAT would have been a twist no one saw coming and set up for a fantastic finish. But it didn't happen and this movie leaves you wondering why it was even made because nothing was added or gained by it. If MST3K was still around, they would have a field day with this dreck.
Haunted Hollywood (1986)
Great late night spooky movies show from the late 80's!
Carradine's opening: "They're coming...they're coming back--There's no escape! The horrors from Hollywood's past have returned. Forgotten skeletons from long-locked closets and dusty film vaults... Delightful tales of the macabre... unsettling visions ...Ghost of Hollywood's past walk once again! It's not a dream...it's not a nightmare...It's HAUNTED HOLLYWOOD!"
I remember coming home late on Saturday nights, turning on this show and just drifting off to the old black-and-white classic spooky movies. They weren't scary by any stretch but they were just fun to watch. I miss this kind of stuff!
Plan 9 (2015)
Pointless dreck that is actually WORSE than the original; pitiful
When I heard that Plan 9 From Outer Space was being remade, I was actually kind of excited to see it. Not because I thought it would upgrade the original, but because the original was so bad - without trying to be - it was fun to watch. I think that's why this remake falls so flat. The original was so bad it was good. This one is just plain bad.
Spoilers ahead, so read at your own risk.
Now, I have to admit that I watched the movie from about the 20 minute mark to the end on 2x speed because it turned into another mind- numbing zombie chase movie.
First off, you never see the aliens like you did in the original. The only "alien" you see is just a glowing orb or something in a school. There's no jump-suited aliens discussing the plan and no flying saucers.
Second, there's no day/night and then day/night transitions of the police (or anybody) driving down a road. Nor is there any stock footage and the same shots shown over and over just for the sake of scene transition.
Third, there's no recitation of the iconic "stupid! STUPID! STUPID!" line. That HAS to be in there somewhere.
Basically, This remake can't make up its mind if it wants to be another chapter or take-off of "Night of the Living Dead" or a cross between WWZ and Thundarr the Barbarian. They removed too many of the elements that made the original what it was - a cheap, bad sci- fi zombie alien movie - and just left the mindless zombies to run amuck.
Now, to be fair, the original Plan 9 wasn't exactly Othello revisited, so one shouldn't expect this remake to transform it into something that it's not. But I was expecting something that would be mildly watchable either (a) because of improvements or (b) because of its campyness. Unfortunately, it provided neither.
The original had a "make a movie on a shoestring budget" feel and look to it. This remake lacks even that.
Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)
Suspending disbelief doesn't help this movie
Whenever a sci-fi movie about aliens coming from other planets is made, the audience is expected to suspend a certain amount of believability for storytelling sake. The film makers know this as well, but there's a finite amount of realism the audience is willing to part with in order to be entertained.
The makers of this movie ask the audience to suspend too much and are unapologetic about it.
First, 20 years ago a technologically superior alien race was defeated by a computer virus uploaded by a PowerBook. Okay, sure. There's always a back door / secret entrance somewhere that the heroes find and exploit. I get it. But here we are 20 years later and it doesn't appear that this technologically advanced alien race apparently has done anything to upgrade their technology. Why? Who knows. We don't speak their language so we just have to go with it.
Second, President Lone Star... excuse me, President Whitmore has been haunted by flashbacks and telepathic interference for the last 20 years... but instead of trying to learn from his experiences and episodes, he's been kept medicated / isolated for most of the time?
Third, there's the whole Dr. Okun getting out of bed after a 20 year coma as if he just took a 20 minute nap? And can someone explain WHY they felt the need to make him gay? Talk about pandering. It had nothing to do with the story or plot.
I could go on about the whole pretty-boy / cute-girl "the world will stop around us so we can spew ridiculously unimportant banter just so everyone can see how good looking we are" interruptions, but most movies these days that are filled with pyro-porn and loud explosions have to break the monotony somehow.
Oh yeah, the plot. There is one? Well, if you consider rehashing the "kill the queen and the soldiers will quit" mantra a plot, then... Also, since Randy Quaid had to die heroically in the first one, then you had to know someone was going to try it again in this one. I won't say who, but I'll only say it is tried again.
There was ONE part of this movie that I though showed potential. When Jeff Goldblum's team visits the downed craft wreckage in Africa, they could have really taken that part in a creative direction. But instead, it was abandoned. Well, they were chased out. But all movies like this one eventually become a "we're being chased" movie, so...
Finally, the ending of the movie screamed "SEQUEL." As for me, I screamed "I want my money back!" Don't waste your time with this movie. The effects were good, but special effects do not a good Saturday afternoon popcorn movie make.
Cobb (1994)
As much truth in this movie about Cobb as there was in 2001's Pearl Harbor
A movie like this one just goes to show that if anyone involved in making this movie had bothered to do a shred of research into the life of Cobb, they would have quickly realized that Al Stump fabricated the vast majority of what has become the unfortunate long held beliefs about Cobb. It's too bad that no one looked any further than his book and just ran with it as Gospel.
Al Stump has been largely discredited due to these fabrications, false statements, forgeries and sensationalizing events in Cobb's life to cast him in an unflattering light. This movie hones in on them and magnifies them.
To start with the small stuff, Cobb was not, as commonly believed, a dirty player - and this is according to men he played against. He was tough, rough, and an agitator, but he never "sharpened his spikes" as legend (and the film) attest. Nor did he pistol-whip blacks for no reason. Nor was he a raging racist (he said that blacks should be allowed to play ball wholeheartedly).
If you want to know the true Ty Cobb, the one that Al Stump threw into the dustbin in favor of his fabrication, read "A Terrible Beauty" by Charles Leerhsen. HE did some actual research. It's a shame that people as bright as Ron Shelton (director) and Ken Burns (Baseball mini-series) never took the time to investigate any of Stump's wild accusations.
Manchester by the Sea (2016)
That's two hours of my life I'll never get back
I'd love to give this "film" a ZERO, but I can't. So, with that, an over-rated ONE will have to suffice. I've only walked out on one movie before in my life: the Chuck Norris stinker "Firewalker" I was heavily tempted to one other time: the original "Blair Witch" fiasco. This movie - boring and pointless from start to finish - ALMOST had me walk out. The fact that I paid to witness this BOMB is what kept me in the theater in the vain hope that there would be some sort of payoff.
I want my money back.
I watched this whole movie hoping for something - ANYTHING - exciting to happen. There is no climax to the story as it just drones on and on and on until it (mercifully) ends. Maybe the relief you feel that the flick is finally over is intended to be the climax...?
How did Michelle Williams get nominated for Best Supporting Actress for about 5 minutes of screen time? She has almost no dialogue (which isn't bad work if you can get it).
Playing the part of a severely depressed person, Casey Affleck does it well - but the role couldn't have been all that challenging. Heck, Ben Stein (Mr. Excitement) could have done just as well.
The bottom line is that this was a very, very poor film with no plot, no point, and it plods along until it just... ends. If you want something to do on a Friday or Saturday night with your date, go to dinner and then take a stroll in the park or see a live band somewhere. This dreck is not worth your time. I wish Roger Ebert were still alive - he may have been the only critic to have the guts to pan this movie and save countless thousands of people from losing two hours of their lives they'll never get back.
Gravity (2013)
Ridiculous
*** There are spoilers in this review so I'm letting you know ahead of time. Thank you. ***
From the moment this movie started, I had my doubts.
First of all, anyone with any rudimentary knowledge of how NASA operates knows that there is no way in the pit of Hades Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) would be allowed to zip around in an MMU like he did. Second, no trained astronaut would do such a thing to begin with. The dramatic SILENCE of space wasn't dramatic at all, and when Ryan Stone's (Sandra Bullock) tether line was broken - in the first 10 minutes of the film - there was no drama to it because you knew she had to be rescued somehow, or there would be no film.
After the debris strike takes out the shuttle, the dead astronauts inside looked more like drowning victims from a bad "Jaws" movie than humans suddenly and violently exposed to the harsh vacuum of space.
As the movie dragged on, Ryan's backstory begins to emerge. NASA typically examines their astronaut candidates with a fine toothed comb - both physically and mentally. Again, there is no way NASA would send someone into space who is dealing with the issues she is dealing with (or, in her case, NOT dealing with them).
The ending of the film (the splashdown) had me a bit puzzled. Was she landing in her beloved lake or was this an homage to the beginning splashdown in the 1968 Charlton Heston classic "Planet of the Apes?" I wanted to yell "You maniacs! You stole two hours of my life! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!"
Cinematography and effects awards were deserved as the special effects were first rate. Set design should have won as well for the accuracy of the space stations and capsules. I'd like to say it's a good "popcorn" Saturday afternoon movie, but that would be pushing it.
Gettysburg (1993)
Pretty good but just a few gripes...
I liked the movie very much, as it was quite accurate in so far as the attitudes, tactics, and atmosphere are concerned. The battle scenes are very well choreographed, but (1) there needed to be more visible "blood" - I'm not a big fan of violence for violence sake, but this was the bloodiest battle in the Civil War, and nary a bit of it is seen in Pickett's Charge. Also, (2) it got "preachy" in spots. Most soldiers were fighting because that's what they were told to do and they felt they were defending their "country" rather than fighting for a higher, moralistic idea. Finally (3) the musical score just didn't fit in some spots (tried to be too dramatic) and was unconvincing in others (the repeated "Dixie" melody for instance). Berenger, Sheen, Daniels, Lang and Elliott were all marvelous in their respective roles, but Richard Jordan stood out head and shoulders above them all. Very good film, but it had the potential to be perfect and missed.
In the Name of the Father (1993)
Absolutely dreadful.
Many reviews say that words cannot accurately describe this movie, and they would be correct. I, however, will give it a try. I first saw this movie some 20+ years ago and I found it to be a long, plodding, go- nowhere film where the outcome was predictable from the start and unraveled so formulaic it could have spewed from the powerbook of the laziest Hollywood hack. It was over-acted at numerous times, some of the conversations were simply not believable (did George Lucas write some of this dialogue?) and there were too many unnecessary close-ups for dramatic effect. Having not read the book (as I was unaware at the time I first viewed it that there was one) and no knowledge of the individuals or events that would comprise the film, the filmmakers needed to do a better job of having viewers care about the characters, their struggles, and their fates. Instead, I found the film to be preachy (can't stress that enough), one-sided and ultimately boorish.
Fast forward 20 years.
Recently, I had the opportunity to view this film again and thought that maybe 20 years of maturity on my part would let me see this film through a different lens and possibly appreciate (at the very least) the intention of the filmmakers. This time was, indeed, different. I was in my house and in control of the remote. After 20 minutes, I just couldn't take it anymore. Daniel Day Lewis and company - you all owe me 2 hours and 20 minutes of my life and I want it back.
Project: ALF (1996)
Terrible and an unfitting end for the series
I'm not entirely sure what the point of this movie really was, and I suspect that the writes of this movie felt the same way. In the beginning of the movie, either ALF would be killed or allowed to live, presumably, indefinitely on the Air Force base. In the end, he's allowed to live. OK, great. But the whole progression of doctors who befall untimely ends (that were supposed to be funny, but not on this planet), the whole kidnapping thing, and the whole wanna-be "we have to catch the alien or my career is ruined" angle just didn't work. Period. It was slow, plodding, uninteresting, and boils down to a simple question: do you really want to see what happened to ALF? If your answer is yes, then you'll waste 90 of the 91 minutes this movie ran for. If not, you'll have 90 minutes of your life that those of us who watched this dreck will never get back. Some other reviews state that ALF was funny and everyone else was just scenery... well, ALF wasn't even funny and the story unfolds so formulaic that it could have spewed from the powerbook of the laziest Hollywood hack. Don't waste your time.
Chernobyl Diaries (2012)
Just one thing surprised me about this movie...
... and that is that it wasn't nominated for multiple Razzies. What a waste of 86 minutes of my life. It had SO much potential and then turned into yet another "chase" movie. Disappointing. The premise, set up and the excursion into Prypyat is very convincing and not entire inconceivable. But once there, the plot denigrates to a point where the movie could just as well have been shot at "an abandoned summer camp by the lake that is said to be haunted." Instead of the van's distributor cables being cut, they are "gnawed" through. Gee, didn't see that one coming. And then when one or two individuals are left behind the main group of characters... yeah, you guessed it. They're done for. And then the ending... let me put it this way: You've seen too much! Absolutely dreadful. I want my 86 minutes back!
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (2013)
Very enjoyable movie that spoofs Vegas magic!
Let me begin this review by stating one thing: This was a very funny movie!
The cast - Steve Carell (Burt Wonderstone) plays a schmaltzy, self centered, egotistical Vegas magician perfectly. You can't help but believe that his off-stage demeanor is how some of these performers actually behave. Steve Buscemi (Anton Marvelton) plays the sidekick role as you would also believe - the non-threatening lovable yang to Carrell's ying. Jim Carrey (Steve Gray) portrays the "x-generation radical street magician" Criss Angel Jesus-complex type absolutely perfectly. Alan Arkin (Rance Holloway) as the retired magician who was an inspiration to the next generation of "true magicians" is a scene-stealing wonder. Olivia Wilde (Jane) is perfect in her role as an aspiring magician willing to work with Burt on his way back to prominence. James Gandolfini (Doug Munny) is perfect and what you would expect a casino owner to be.
This movie works on many levels. It's paced perfectly and doesn't lag at any point. It isn't loaded with CGI explosions, car chases, or raunchy sexual innuendo. It doesn't need to be. What it is, however, is a good, funny, story driven comedy that evokes laughter when you realize just how absurd "magic" has become and how it has been rebranded. When Carell calls Carrey's version of "magic" as "what you do out there is Monkey Porn!" he is absolutely right! Magicians are masters of illusion and sleight-of-hand. The "Steve Gray - Brain Rapists" need to go to the circus and be a part of the geek / side show attractions. This movie pokes fun at both - the "Vegas schmaltz" and the "street magic" and succeeds. It also goes to show just how far we've taken the idea of "magic" and what "magicians" should be.
The movie is fun, funny, and a bit predictable at times, but the predictable moments are still pulled off for a few laughs, such as when Burt and Anton are "testing" their knock-out vapor. This film should have done better and should have received better reviews than some have given it. But in a world when movies loaded with CGI and Pyro-porn are what sells, a movie of this type gets largely overlooked.