I'll be honest: usually I have an automatic hate for remakes - especially films which were good to begin with. Why bother, you know? That is just a big ego trip on the part of the filmmaker who thinks he can do better. Is this one better than the original? No. Is it worse? No, not really. The best way I can describe this if I had to choose only one word would be "unnecessary". Sure there was some stronger scenes than the original, but somehow the comedic spark which made the original so appealing was lacking here. They tried, but not hard enough. This wasn't as bad as some of the haters are making this one out to be, but it really didn't do anything better or worse than the original one. All things considered, I enjoyed it for what it was. I was able to blank out the original in my memory and just watch this one and let it happen. Would I watch it again? Oh, maybe. Not tomorrow, but yeah. I guess I'd watch it again.
Reviews
28 Reviews
Three on a Meathook
(1972)
Oddly engaging yet boring, too..
18 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Weird.
First, this is obviously an attempt to grab on the "son-mother" "Psychoesque" dynamic - but on a serious budget. A seriously limited one. I give high points for above the standard for the genre writing and overall story structure then am forced to downgrade it all because the acting of several key characters was so gawdalmighty bad the whole secret was telegraphed in the first third of the film.
Running only 77 minutes and feeling as if it ran MUCH longer, actually (enough of the guitar music and the golden fields, okay??) we get well-written and uncharacteristically introspective speeches coming from characters which could have been played by better actors. It tried so hard to be deep, perhaps profound, but no. Bad acting. That snarled the whole business up more than anything else. This film also holds the record as having the worst, the most horrible audio blooper in the history of talkie films IMO. It goes like this: There's a sequence in the first third or so ... let's just say "the morning after..." where Dad and Son are having a conversation. Outside on a farm. Opening and closing doors and gates with all sorts of normal country life activity, yet their conversation sounds as if it had been recorded in the Grand Canyon. Damn distracting, especially the closeups where you could really see the dialog dubbed and that which was filmed were nowhere near in synch.
Now, what did come out particularly nasty were the kills. Coupled with the gritty, cheap (16mm?) stock they were using, and the real location shooting (really nice house BTW.I liked it), the whole work carried almost the appearance of an early snuff film with a raw documentary feel to the cinematography.
The music score was utterly bizarre. Ranging from some bizarre tweetling like the dying gasp of an ancient Farfisa organ to wildly inappropriate jamming in places best kept quiet, it alternated between excellent and "PLEASE STFU!!" There was also an extended bar scene with a not-too-bad late 60s style Strawberry Alarm Clock/Doors-ish mod psych group which - mostly for padding purposes - got rather a lot of screen time.
I FFWD just a little bit, to get the two of them across that damn golden field and get on with the story.
Not utterly unwatchable, but don't expect even bush-grade acting chops here. 61/100
First, this is obviously an attempt to grab on the "son-mother" "Psychoesque" dynamic - but on a serious budget. A seriously limited one. I give high points for above the standard for the genre writing and overall story structure then am forced to downgrade it all because the acting of several key characters was so gawdalmighty bad the whole secret was telegraphed in the first third of the film.
Running only 77 minutes and feeling as if it ran MUCH longer, actually (enough of the guitar music and the golden fields, okay??) we get well-written and uncharacteristically introspective speeches coming from characters which could have been played by better actors. It tried so hard to be deep, perhaps profound, but no. Bad acting. That snarled the whole business up more than anything else. This film also holds the record as having the worst, the most horrible audio blooper in the history of talkie films IMO. It goes like this: There's a sequence in the first third or so ... let's just say "the morning after..." where Dad and Son are having a conversation. Outside on a farm. Opening and closing doors and gates with all sorts of normal country life activity, yet their conversation sounds as if it had been recorded in the Grand Canyon. Damn distracting, especially the closeups where you could really see the dialog dubbed and that which was filmed were nowhere near in synch.
Now, what did come out particularly nasty were the kills. Coupled with the gritty, cheap (16mm?) stock they were using, and the real location shooting (really nice house BTW.I liked it), the whole work carried almost the appearance of an early snuff film with a raw documentary feel to the cinematography.
The music score was utterly bizarre. Ranging from some bizarre tweetling like the dying gasp of an ancient Farfisa organ to wildly inappropriate jamming in places best kept quiet, it alternated between excellent and "PLEASE STFU!!" There was also an extended bar scene with a not-too-bad late 60s style Strawberry Alarm Clock/Doors-ish mod psych group which - mostly for padding purposes - got rather a lot of screen time.
I FFWD just a little bit, to get the two of them across that damn golden field and get on with the story.
Not utterly unwatchable, but don't expect even bush-grade acting chops here. 61/100
The Hike
(I) (2011)
Surprisingly well-made for the genre
10 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I have a friend who, like myself, is an avid horror fan. Any subgenre, any style, any language, any budget. The main difference is that my pal actually BUYS every DVD of these films. He has literally thousands of titles in his collection most of which I have never heard of. Such is the case of THE HIKE.
I'm writing this only minutes after I watched the film-indeed I was logging on to IMDb even as the final credits were still rolling. I found it to be an interesting, disturbing and sometimes quite brutal tale, full of twists and turns that simply won't let you go till the final shocking moment.
One element of the film which really got my attention was the incredible camera work (and the editing.... lingering on certain shots.... just that *moment* longer... whoa!) yeah. I actually found myself involuntarily invoking Hitchcock in my mind as certain scenes played out during the first third of the film. These scenes are particularly harrowing because we the viewer are being shown almost continuous and subtle clues that Something Isn't Right Out Here, yet the poor girls are clueless - not because they are stupid but because they are utterly unsuspecting that anything is amiss. One such scene is one where the gals are seen at a good distance from the camera, crossing a wide dry gulch. They are distant enough for their chatter to be indistinct. The camera slowly changes depth of focus, bringing the sounds with it, until we are very close to the camera indeed, where we vaguely see the outline of a young woman lying on the forest floor where she gasps and chokes her life away, all the while the lead gals frolic in the background...
Yeah, I enjoyed it. All the elements that make a film "good" to me hit it just right - especially the plotting, direction and camera work.
I give it a 73/100
I'm writing this only minutes after I watched the film-indeed I was logging on to IMDb even as the final credits were still rolling. I found it to be an interesting, disturbing and sometimes quite brutal tale, full of twists and turns that simply won't let you go till the final shocking moment.
One element of the film which really got my attention was the incredible camera work (and the editing.... lingering on certain shots.... just that *moment* longer... whoa!) yeah. I actually found myself involuntarily invoking Hitchcock in my mind as certain scenes played out during the first third of the film. These scenes are particularly harrowing because we the viewer are being shown almost continuous and subtle clues that Something Isn't Right Out Here, yet the poor girls are clueless - not because they are stupid but because they are utterly unsuspecting that anything is amiss. One such scene is one where the gals are seen at a good distance from the camera, crossing a wide dry gulch. They are distant enough for their chatter to be indistinct. The camera slowly changes depth of focus, bringing the sounds with it, until we are very close to the camera indeed, where we vaguely see the outline of a young woman lying on the forest floor where she gasps and chokes her life away, all the while the lead gals frolic in the background...
Yeah, I enjoyed it. All the elements that make a film "good" to me hit it just right - especially the plotting, direction and camera work.
I give it a 73/100
Puppet Master
(1989 Video)
Weak, but interesting nonetheless
22 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
(I almost always click the SPOILER box although this comment contains no spoilers)
In the days before the internet (or at least the days before I had a computer) I was a major movie-renting fiend. I worked nights so didn't have much of a social life. Because I didn't have access to the great IMDb, I had to go by the VHS/DVD (I still have both machines haha) box art and cover descriptions. As a result of this blind movie renting, I got to see a lot of what turned out to be some really REALLY crappy horror films. As the numbers of these bad films I'd seen went up, I finally began to realize my biggest disappointment always occurred with FULL MOON productions. After seeing maybe 6 or 8 FM abortions, I stopped renting them. No matter what the box art or synopses told me, if I saw it was produced by FM, it was back on the shelf with blinding speed. Because of this, I managed to not watch PUPPETMASTER until just today. Odd that this one was the only FM film I actually enjoyed - to a point.
I said I enjoyed it to a point. Yes. It was well directed and for the most part well-acted except where the people and the puppets were interacting. I'll tell you, if I saw a foot-tall puppet (even without with hooks and knives where its hands should be) walking across a floor towards me, I'd be *FREAKING* not just breathing a little hard. So, yeah, acting was a bit weak at times when it should have been more convincing.
I must say, for a fairly low-budget effort, the puppet stop-motion effects were astounding and even the obvious optical compositing (usually the weakest part of a cheaply-made film) were done quite well. I liked the location. That large hotel/mansion or whatever it was had a lot of character in and of itself but I feel as if it was underused. I liked the fact that the cast were all adults and not a gaggle of barely-legal teens recruited from a first year college acting class. I also enjoyed the music/score a lot even if it was a shameless rip-off of HELLBOUND - HELLRAISER II (at least the opening and closing credits).
The story itself seemed to lack a serious sense of forward momentum... kind of wandering from one set piece to another with no real feeling of urgency especially in the last 20 minutes or so when things should have been pretty hysterical.
In spite of my seemingly negative comments about this movie, I did actually like it. At least I was able to watch it all the way to the end without FFW or just plain giving up as I did with many of the other FM films I've rented. For a horror movie, it was fair. For a FM production, it was fantastic and for that reason alone, I find myself able to recommend it.
57/100.
In the days before the internet (or at least the days before I had a computer) I was a major movie-renting fiend. I worked nights so didn't have much of a social life. Because I didn't have access to the great IMDb, I had to go by the VHS/DVD (I still have both machines haha) box art and cover descriptions. As a result of this blind movie renting, I got to see a lot of what turned out to be some really REALLY crappy horror films. As the numbers of these bad films I'd seen went up, I finally began to realize my biggest disappointment always occurred with FULL MOON productions. After seeing maybe 6 or 8 FM abortions, I stopped renting them. No matter what the box art or synopses told me, if I saw it was produced by FM, it was back on the shelf with blinding speed. Because of this, I managed to not watch PUPPETMASTER until just today. Odd that this one was the only FM film I actually enjoyed - to a point.
I said I enjoyed it to a point. Yes. It was well directed and for the most part well-acted except where the people and the puppets were interacting. I'll tell you, if I saw a foot-tall puppet (even without with hooks and knives where its hands should be) walking across a floor towards me, I'd be *FREAKING* not just breathing a little hard. So, yeah, acting was a bit weak at times when it should have been more convincing.
I must say, for a fairly low-budget effort, the puppet stop-motion effects were astounding and even the obvious optical compositing (usually the weakest part of a cheaply-made film) were done quite well. I liked the location. That large hotel/mansion or whatever it was had a lot of character in and of itself but I feel as if it was underused. I liked the fact that the cast were all adults and not a gaggle of barely-legal teens recruited from a first year college acting class. I also enjoyed the music/score a lot even if it was a shameless rip-off of HELLBOUND - HELLRAISER II (at least the opening and closing credits).
The story itself seemed to lack a serious sense of forward momentum... kind of wandering from one set piece to another with no real feeling of urgency especially in the last 20 minutes or so when things should have been pretty hysterical.
In spite of my seemingly negative comments about this movie, I did actually like it. At least I was able to watch it all the way to the end without FFW or just plain giving up as I did with many of the other FM films I've rented. For a horror movie, it was fair. For a FM production, it was fantastic and for that reason alone, I find myself able to recommend it.
57/100.
Star Quest: The Odyssey
(2009)
Wholly crap!
17 June 2011
I'm not even going to dignify this film with a "1". This is one of the few times when I wish the IMDb page was equipped with negative numbers. I've inflicted some pretty bad films on myself over the years and most of these have been bad horror films. For some reason, I'm more forgiving of a bad horror film than I am a bad sci-fi. I love the genre too much to sit thru a bad sci-fi but OH MY GOD did I ever choose a stinker this time!! This steaming pile even made the worse "made for SyFy Channel" productions look GOOD!
There's not too much good can be said about Star Quest other than the DVD box has nice cover art. I think that's where whatever budget the makers of this drek had at their disposal put it all because it certainly didn't go into the making of the film. There was no acting, no story, no directing, no motivation, no momentum, no humor (oh they tried a couple of times...), no drama, no excitement, no heart, no quality, no guts... so basically there's no reason to watch this... none at all.
I'll almost give some semi-points for the CGI views of the ship and space although even Babylon 5 - using 15 year less advanced computers and software - got smoother motion from their computer models. I won't grant that (semi)point because everything else was just so damn bad.
The set decoration looked like cast-off store displays from a department store - for EVERYTHING. Although the "Odyssey" looked to be a starship about the size of Illinois, the sets themselves were so damn cramped it looked as if the "actors" had to avoid running into the camera every time they moved... and there were only 6 or 7 people aboard the ^%$^$ thing! Oh and speaking of the people: We had the "Uhuru"-ish communications officer (who couldn't act), the "Sulu"-ish navigator (who couldn't act), the ship's doctor who looked as if she'd just started college (at least she didn't have a Southern accent but still couldn't act!), the ship's engineer (named "Troy"... ahem! who, not too surprisingly, had a Scottish accent, but also couldn't act), some idiotic cross between a Klingon and a Borg - two of them, actually - both of whom seemed to be covered in old computer parts and cellphone carcasses as some sort of "cybernetic modifications" and modifications or not, neither of *these* guys could act! Finally, our High School Football Hero playing the great Captain. Do I need to say that he couldn't act, either? Honestly, though, I would have been willing to overlook the crappy SFX, crappy set design, crappy dialog, crappy story, etc. if there had actually have been any decent acting but alas, there was none of that to be found here. The entire production tanked. BAD.
In the closing credits there was actually an on screen "thanks" to Gene Roddenberry who should, in all rights, rise from the grave just to strangle everyone associated with this abomination for even mentioning his name.
Do I recommend it? NO. Not even for a laugh.
10/100
There's not too much good can be said about Star Quest other than the DVD box has nice cover art. I think that's where whatever budget the makers of this drek had at their disposal put it all because it certainly didn't go into the making of the film. There was no acting, no story, no directing, no motivation, no momentum, no humor (oh they tried a couple of times...), no drama, no excitement, no heart, no quality, no guts... so basically there's no reason to watch this... none at all.
I'll almost give some semi-points for the CGI views of the ship and space although even Babylon 5 - using 15 year less advanced computers and software - got smoother motion from their computer models. I won't grant that (semi)point because everything else was just so damn bad.
The set decoration looked like cast-off store displays from a department store - for EVERYTHING. Although the "Odyssey" looked to be a starship about the size of Illinois, the sets themselves were so damn cramped it looked as if the "actors" had to avoid running into the camera every time they moved... and there were only 6 or 7 people aboard the ^%$^$ thing! Oh and speaking of the people: We had the "Uhuru"-ish communications officer (who couldn't act), the "Sulu"-ish navigator (who couldn't act), the ship's doctor who looked as if she'd just started college (at least she didn't have a Southern accent but still couldn't act!), the ship's engineer (named "Troy"... ahem! who, not too surprisingly, had a Scottish accent, but also couldn't act), some idiotic cross between a Klingon and a Borg - two of them, actually - both of whom seemed to be covered in old computer parts and cellphone carcasses as some sort of "cybernetic modifications" and modifications or not, neither of *these* guys could act! Finally, our High School Football Hero playing the great Captain. Do I need to say that he couldn't act, either? Honestly, though, I would have been willing to overlook the crappy SFX, crappy set design, crappy dialog, crappy story, etc. if there had actually have been any decent acting but alas, there was none of that to be found here. The entire production tanked. BAD.
In the closing credits there was actually an on screen "thanks" to Gene Roddenberry who should, in all rights, rise from the grave just to strangle everyone associated with this abomination for even mentioning his name.
Do I recommend it? NO. Not even for a laugh.
10/100
Thor
(2011)
Just another CGI demo reel... "ohhh shiny!!"
27 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this film with absolutely no foreknowledge of what it was about other than the viking god of thunder. What I got was something I could have sworn was directed by Michael Bey in the lack of quality storytelling, character development or acting. There was a great deal of CGI and very little else. The only thing which nearly held the film together was a halfway decent story written (at least in part) by J. Michael Straczynski (BABYLON 5) but his writing was ruined by poor directing, poor character development and poor acting. Yep, just another CGI demo reel like 99% of everything else that has been shat out of Hollywood.
Zombiechrist
(2010)
Rotten on every level
25 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Good grief! I don't even know where to start on this. ZOMBIECHRIST has to be one of... no, strike the "one of" - this was the absolute worse movie I have ever seen and believe me when I say I've seen a lot of poor efforts over the years. There was no continuity, no logical flow of time, no reason for what occurred in the film to occur. The camera work was jerky and utterly amateurish, the acting (pardon me I should have written "acting" because there really wasn't any) was cringe-worthy at best. It looked as if not a single person in the cast had ever been in front of a camera before. There was a great deal of way whacked-out parallels drawn between early stories of Christianity and those of Rome, Greece and Paganism which didn't make any sense whatsoever (unless you might be under the influence of some controlled substance far stronger than alcohol.) I will give Bill Zebub (yeah, that's the credited name - whatta laugh) points for getting a great deal of fairly attractive women to be naked for pretty much the entire film - even if they all did look like (a) hookers or (b) exotic dancers. All these women had some sort of tattoos on them. Not little cute ones, either. These were huge honking things which covered fairly substantial portions of their anatomy. And speaking of anatomy, the wholly gratuitous nudity was... more like a biology lesson than a movie with unnecessarily long and lingering shots of their breasts or crotches for no better reason than the cameraman *could* film this stuff. This was almost, but not quite, pornographic in detail... this film is definitely very close to X rated for that fact alone. Now, I'm not against seeing a pretty girl naked but I was actually bored after a very short time with seeing yet another naked girl run through the woods or writhe around on the floor while some truly lame CGI (or something) fire (or something) swirled around them. Which brings me to the Zombiechrist character it(him?)self. Feh! Stupid. Poorly done at best. From the looks of it, Zebub took a medical school skeleton, covered it in dirty newspaper and red paint and operated it with one hand while working the camera with the other.
Finally - the music. The film was heavily padded with quite a number of death metal tracks played in their entirety while the camera showed someone running through the forest (as often as not, naked). These sequences did not a darn thing to move the story forward - mainly because there really wasn't a story TO move forward. (Even so, I clicked the "spoiler" box more or less as a joke). For all intents and purposes, the film looked like an over-long death metal video made by a couple of crack heads with a few bucks and a camera.
Recommended? No, unless you've never seen a naked woman before.
Scary? NO
Quotable lines? NONE
Anything to redeem this piece of scut from the bottom 10,000 worse films ever made? Yes, if only to show in a film school class as a prime example of how not to make a movie. Otherwise, NO
I rate it 6/100.
Finally - the music. The film was heavily padded with quite a number of death metal tracks played in their entirety while the camera showed someone running through the forest (as often as not, naked). These sequences did not a darn thing to move the story forward - mainly because there really wasn't a story TO move forward. (Even so, I clicked the "spoiler" box more or less as a joke). For all intents and purposes, the film looked like an over-long death metal video made by a couple of crack heads with a few bucks and a camera.
Recommended? No, unless you've never seen a naked woman before.
Scary? NO
Quotable lines? NONE
Anything to redeem this piece of scut from the bottom 10,000 worse films ever made? Yes, if only to show in a film school class as a prime example of how not to make a movie. Otherwise, NO
I rate it 6/100.
Not as bad as one might be led to believe...
15 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
...by reading the reviews here.
No, UTLL is not a *great* episode but it certainly isn't as insulting or demeaning as some reviews on the web have stated. Even being of Irish descent myself, I found the episode lightweight and rather funny in most parts.
My biggest problem with this installment was a scientific plot hole: If the Mariposans were such accomplished cloning scientists, they would have known - even 300 years ago! - about replicative fading and preserved tissue samples from the ORIGINAL settlers from which they could have cloned their entire population. Also, if they (the originals) had had a few children and took samples from them as well, they would have had a larger genetic "library" to work with. Of course, had this issue been addressed, the entire third act of the show would have fallen apart so I guess I see why it was written the way it was.
My other gripe about this episode was how bleedin' long it took the Enterprise conference to realize the Bringloidis were the perfect solution to the Mariposan's problem. It seems as if clear thinking by the crew is an on again, off again kind of thing...
Anyway, UTLL was an entertaining and undemanding offering in the STTNG world and certainly not deserving of the harsh treatment some have given it.
My score 73/100.
No, UTLL is not a *great* episode but it certainly isn't as insulting or demeaning as some reviews on the web have stated. Even being of Irish descent myself, I found the episode lightweight and rather funny in most parts.
My biggest problem with this installment was a scientific plot hole: If the Mariposans were such accomplished cloning scientists, they would have known - even 300 years ago! - about replicative fading and preserved tissue samples from the ORIGINAL settlers from which they could have cloned their entire population. Also, if they (the originals) had had a few children and took samples from them as well, they would have had a larger genetic "library" to work with. Of course, had this issue been addressed, the entire third act of the show would have fallen apart so I guess I see why it was written the way it was.
My other gripe about this episode was how bleedin' long it took the Enterprise conference to realize the Bringloidis were the perfect solution to the Mariposan's problem. It seems as if clear thinking by the crew is an on again, off again kind of thing...
Anyway, UTLL was an entertaining and undemanding offering in the STTNG world and certainly not deserving of the harsh treatment some have given it.
My score 73/100.
Greetings
(2007)
Odd little low budget effort
20 November 2010
What an unusual film. Just ran across it on a free movie site at the recommendation of a friend. I'm usually not one for the mega-low budget indy film but this one was sufficiently compelling to keep me at least moderately interested. Although I was tempted to hit the FF button once or twice, I didn't. The film takes kind of a long time getting started and although doesn't have a lot of gore or other major CGI or wirework stunts (It takes place completely within a small apartment) there is a neat and increasingly menacing atmosphere built by the filmmaker. Like I said, an odd little film but I liked it.
My big complaint with this film is the very poorly-recorded dialog. The cast were speaking fairly fast and naturally and it being a British film, with a distinct British accent. To this American, the muddled dialog track made it impossible for me to make out about 30% of what was said.
Meh. Not terrible not incredible. Not bad. I don't regret the 71 minutes I spent on it. 45/100
My big complaint with this film is the very poorly-recorded dialog. The cast were speaking fairly fast and naturally and it being a British film, with a distinct British accent. To this American, the muddled dialog track made it impossible for me to make out about 30% of what was said.
Meh. Not terrible not incredible. Not bad. I don't regret the 71 minutes I spent on it. 45/100
Jumper
(2008)
Still Bourne
12 October 2010
I meant my title as somewhat of a sarcastic pun. I've only seen one other piece of work which Doug Liman has done - specifically THE BOURNE IDENTITY. That wasn't too bad, story wise, and casting was well-done too. Now, when the trailers came out for JUMPER on TV, I thought to myself, "Hey! They made one of my favorite books into a... awww HELL! Hayden Christensen is in it! Oh, well. It could have been good..." Well, I finally decided to bite the bullet and rent it. I was right. HC was just as awful in JUMPER as he was in the Star Wars abortions I saw him in. That dude really cannot act. As a result, JUMPER was an even weaker film than the ham-handed directing, jarring editing, preposterously close closeup shots and overall poor handling made it. Even with all of that said, I didn't totally hate it. I mean, I didn't turn it off before it was over, but it certainly isn't a film I'll be renting again. I'll admit that it has been close to 10 years since I read the book so many of the plot details are fuzzy but I DO recall there not being some sort of modern day hi-tech Knights chasing the Jumpers around. That (to me, at least) was a poorly-designed plot tool to add jeopardy to the story.
Besides Hayden's wooden non-acting, I was also less than impressed with poor Rachel Bilson's acting. I don't know if it was Liman's fault or not, but all of her actions (and REactions) were, at best, unconvincing and at worst, positively cringe-worthy. I haven't seen her in anything else so I don't know if she's as bad an actor as Hayden is or if it was just cruddy directing... No, now that I think a bit more on it, I blame Liman because I don't recall Samuel T Jackson ever disappointing me in any other role I've seen him play but his chops were pretty lame here. The over-used cliché, "He was pretty much phoning in his part" is applicable here but his stunts looked good. That idiotic hair color, though! Who came up with that? It sure didn't help me believe his role. Out of all of the primary roles, I think Jamie Bell carried his Griffin character best of all.
Really, I guess what I liked most about the film was the location sequences. Jumping to places like Tokyo and Rome along with several other cities gave the film an almost James Bond-ish feel to it - well, not *really* but you know what I mean, I think... just a cosmopolitan, open feel to the work.
Not nearly as terrible as, say, a Michael Bay film (TRANSFORMERS *LEAPS* to mind here) and not nearly as good as the (weak, but enjoyable) Indiana Jones Crystal Skull outing, JUMPER is a film which I don't totally regret having spent a couple of bucks rental and 90-odd minutes on but I guarantee I would have been a lot more upset had I opened my wallet at the theater for this one.
I give it 44/100.
Besides Hayden's wooden non-acting, I was also less than impressed with poor Rachel Bilson's acting. I don't know if it was Liman's fault or not, but all of her actions (and REactions) were, at best, unconvincing and at worst, positively cringe-worthy. I haven't seen her in anything else so I don't know if she's as bad an actor as Hayden is or if it was just cruddy directing... No, now that I think a bit more on it, I blame Liman because I don't recall Samuel T Jackson ever disappointing me in any other role I've seen him play but his chops were pretty lame here. The over-used cliché, "He was pretty much phoning in his part" is applicable here but his stunts looked good. That idiotic hair color, though! Who came up with that? It sure didn't help me believe his role. Out of all of the primary roles, I think Jamie Bell carried his Griffin character best of all.
Really, I guess what I liked most about the film was the location sequences. Jumping to places like Tokyo and Rome along with several other cities gave the film an almost James Bond-ish feel to it - well, not *really* but you know what I mean, I think... just a cosmopolitan, open feel to the work.
Not nearly as terrible as, say, a Michael Bay film (TRANSFORMERS *LEAPS* to mind here) and not nearly as good as the (weak, but enjoyable) Indiana Jones Crystal Skull outing, JUMPER is a film which I don't totally regret having spent a couple of bucks rental and 90-odd minutes on but I guarantee I would have been a lot more upset had I opened my wallet at the theater for this one.
I give it 44/100.
The Expendables
(2010)
Just what I expected
23 September 2010
And I enjoyed it for what it was. Almost any film good ole Sly Stallone is in is gonna be a beat-em-up, blow-em-up, shoot-em-up festival of bad-assness. Add in all the other action-adventure badasses of the last 25 or so years and just multiply the "beat, shoot and blow" factor. There wasn't anything that needed any overly serious thought in this film; just let it happen! Was it a *great* film? No. Was it a seriously horrible film? NO!! It was exactly what Stallone and the rest of the guys involved wanted it to be: a rousing, exciting and fun blow-out with a lot of familiar faces. Even now-Cali Governor Schwarzenegger makes a small appearance (not news, I know). My favorite a$$-kick sequence was the basketball court. My favorite exchange was "What happened to you?" "I got my a$$ kicked!"
78/100 on the ablebravo scorecard.
78/100 on the ablebravo scorecard.
Transformers
(2007)
At least it was better than Armageddon...
19 September 2010
...But that's really not saying much. It is, after all, a Michael Bay product.
OK. I finally got around to watching it. I'm not at all a fan of Michael Bay movies but this one was somewhat better than that gag-inducing Armageddon. Actually, the only reason I decided to watch it at all was because I saw that Shia LeBeouf was in it and I liked his work in Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. Anyway, let's see:
PLUSES:
Shia's work was good in this one
Decent story
(really not necessary to mention this) Great CGI work
Good sound design
MINUSES:
That (or THOSE; it was never really clear)stupid cutesy mini-bots with the Ewok-like vocalizations
Mediocre character development
Unbelievably crappy, bad, cringeworthy dialog - especially the Transformers themselves ("looks like a cool place to KICK IT??" PUH-LEEEZ!!!)
less than impressive acting by several principles most notably Jon Voight and Megen Fox (yeah, she was damn hot but that's not enough)
Some shots - especially a lot of the important CGI action scenes were shot SO CLOSE to the camera I couldn't tell WTF was going on
Michael Bay and his thrice-damned, now severely over used shaky-cam
bad... well I should really say bland and unimpressive score - with one instance of blatant and shameless THEFT of the menacing "bum bum bum bumbump" drum cadence from TERMINATOR (as if we wouldn't notice??)
earsplittingly crappy closing credits noise... uhh I mean "music"
Too long of a run time. Just too too much explosions, crashes, buildings collapsing (all lovingly filmed too close with the aforementioned shaky-cam), etc.
I will say this: I never watched the original cartoon. I never saw the 80s vintage movie. I never owned or played with a Hasbro Xformer toy. This was my very first full exposure to the franchise (probably my last, too, as I was sufficiently unimpressed with this one to feel compelled to watch the sequel).
Oh... I also have to ask: How the hell does a 30 foot-tall, 50 thousand pound bipedal robot turn into a 16 foot long 3000 pound CAR? And if these things could transform, why choose the inefficient shape of a biped if they could convert instead into helicopters or jets carrying similar armament? Why do robots gasp and grunt like WWF wrestlers when they take a blow or fall down????? Are in-line skates the best mode of transportation when chasing an adversary who has taken the shape of a tractor-trailer?
Stupid. Stupid and mindless but more or less entertaining in that turn-your-brain-COMPLETELY-off-and-just-let-it-happen way. I'm very glad I didn't drop $10 to see this in the theater; my computer monitor was sufficient. And one viewing was sufficient, too. This one gets a 55/100 on the ablebravo scorecard.
OK. I finally got around to watching it. I'm not at all a fan of Michael Bay movies but this one was somewhat better than that gag-inducing Armageddon. Actually, the only reason I decided to watch it at all was because I saw that Shia LeBeouf was in it and I liked his work in Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. Anyway, let's see:
PLUSES:
Shia's work was good in this one
Decent story
(really not necessary to mention this) Great CGI work
Good sound design
MINUSES:
That (or THOSE; it was never really clear)stupid cutesy mini-bots with the Ewok-like vocalizations
Mediocre character development
Unbelievably crappy, bad, cringeworthy dialog - especially the Transformers themselves ("looks like a cool place to KICK IT??" PUH-LEEEZ!!!)
less than impressive acting by several principles most notably Jon Voight and Megen Fox (yeah, she was damn hot but that's not enough)
Some shots - especially a lot of the important CGI action scenes were shot SO CLOSE to the camera I couldn't tell WTF was going on
Michael Bay and his thrice-damned, now severely over used shaky-cam
bad... well I should really say bland and unimpressive score - with one instance of blatant and shameless THEFT of the menacing "bum bum bum bumbump" drum cadence from TERMINATOR (as if we wouldn't notice??)
earsplittingly crappy closing credits noise... uhh I mean "music"
Too long of a run time. Just too too much explosions, crashes, buildings collapsing (all lovingly filmed too close with the aforementioned shaky-cam), etc.
I will say this: I never watched the original cartoon. I never saw the 80s vintage movie. I never owned or played with a Hasbro Xformer toy. This was my very first full exposure to the franchise (probably my last, too, as I was sufficiently unimpressed with this one to feel compelled to watch the sequel).
Oh... I also have to ask: How the hell does a 30 foot-tall, 50 thousand pound bipedal robot turn into a 16 foot long 3000 pound CAR? And if these things could transform, why choose the inefficient shape of a biped if they could convert instead into helicopters or jets carrying similar armament? Why do robots gasp and grunt like WWF wrestlers when they take a blow or fall down????? Are in-line skates the best mode of transportation when chasing an adversary who has taken the shape of a tractor-trailer?
Stupid. Stupid and mindless but more or less entertaining in that turn-your-brain-COMPLETELY-off-and-just-let-it-happen way. I'm very glad I didn't drop $10 to see this in the theater; my computer monitor was sufficient. And one viewing was sufficient, too. This one gets a 55/100 on the ablebravo scorecard.
Much to my surprise...
17 September 2010
...and despite everything I had read about this film, I LIKED IT! I really did. I tried so hard to NOT like it but when it was all over and done with, I felt as if I had watched an Indiana Jones film.
When I finished the thrice-damned Star Wars prequel, I felt I had to re-watch the original trilogy again to make sure I didn't completely hate the entire series. I didn't feel that way after watching this one. I did ask myself, "Had I never seen any of the IJ films until now, would they have been dorky? Would they have seemed ridiculous or ludicrous?" Maybe. Probably, in fact. But I was a younger man back then and not nearly as critical and analytical about films in general. But after watching this last IJ film, I didn't feel let down. Sure, ALL the IJ films have a cartoon-y, "oh come ON!" feel to them, but its all done so good-naturedly (is that a real word?) and with such likable characters that one tends to LET them be cartoon-y and to overlook that "oh, come ON" factor.
I allowed myself to be swayed by the amazing number of really bad reviews written about this latest (and after all the good I said about this film, hopefully the last) and chose to skip seeing it on the big screen. I know I would have been happier had I spent ten bucks on this one rather than the ten bucks I spent seeing AVATAR in the theater and that's a fact!
I don't use the "10" rating because it basically isn't fair or accurate. Crystal skull isn't quite a 6 or a 7 so I give it a 66/100 grade. (anything below a 30 is garbage; my scale isn't like grading test papers in school.)
When I finished the thrice-damned Star Wars prequel, I felt I had to re-watch the original trilogy again to make sure I didn't completely hate the entire series. I didn't feel that way after watching this one. I did ask myself, "Had I never seen any of the IJ films until now, would they have been dorky? Would they have seemed ridiculous or ludicrous?" Maybe. Probably, in fact. But I was a younger man back then and not nearly as critical and analytical about films in general. But after watching this last IJ film, I didn't feel let down. Sure, ALL the IJ films have a cartoon-y, "oh come ON!" feel to them, but its all done so good-naturedly (is that a real word?) and with such likable characters that one tends to LET them be cartoon-y and to overlook that "oh, come ON" factor.
I allowed myself to be swayed by the amazing number of really bad reviews written about this latest (and after all the good I said about this film, hopefully the last) and chose to skip seeing it on the big screen. I know I would have been happier had I spent ten bucks on this one rather than the ten bucks I spent seeing AVATAR in the theater and that's a fact!
I don't use the "10" rating because it basically isn't fair or accurate. Crystal skull isn't quite a 6 or a 7 so I give it a 66/100 grade. (anything below a 30 is garbage; my scale isn't like grading test papers in school.)
Babylon 5: Thirdspace
(1998 TV Movie)
More than a little forgettable. Feh.
2 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Well, somehow, I missed this B5 film the first time 'round. I think I may have been in the middle of a move to a new state. I finally had a chance to watch this today and I must say I was... ahem... disappointed. The very first thing I saw appear on the screen was "TNT PRESENTS". I should have taken this as a warning but no, I thought to myself: "Well, its a B5 product; can't be *too* bad, no?" Ten minutes into the film, I began to smell something. I thought one of the cats missed the litterbox or maybe the roast I took out of the freezer for dinner had gone bad but it turned out to be the stench of the TNT suits all over this abomination.
Everything about this film was so un-B5. Yes, JMS was credited with the script/screenplay but I have to wonder how many TNT hands were laid on the paper after poor JMS turned it in. Everything was just a little... off. It looked like some sort of fan-fiction story using (nearly) the entire great cast of the show itself as well as the production and SFX crew. More smoke... more explosions, more fights, more ships, more everything except ... ummm, well... QUALITY! This is one B5 film which can be skipped by everyone except the completest. I'm a huge fan of the series. The other MfTV B5 films are fair to decent, but this one was like the semi-Lovecraftian beasties in the "artifact": best left alone.
(I know I said there were spoilers but really, there weren't. Better safe than sorry.)
Everything about this film was so un-B5. Yes, JMS was credited with the script/screenplay but I have to wonder how many TNT hands were laid on the paper after poor JMS turned it in. Everything was just a little... off. It looked like some sort of fan-fiction story using (nearly) the entire great cast of the show itself as well as the production and SFX crew. More smoke... more explosions, more fights, more ships, more everything except ... ummm, well... QUALITY! This is one B5 film which can be skipped by everyone except the completest. I'm a huge fan of the series. The other MfTV B5 films are fair to decent, but this one was like the semi-Lovecraftian beasties in the "artifact": best left alone.
(I know I said there were spoilers but really, there weren't. Better safe than sorry.)
Demonwarp
(1988)
Not at all bad for an obscure B film
15 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I'm pretty much a fan of any horror/sci fi film - especially older ones which were made before the Sci Fi (oops that's SYFY now) channel seems to have gotten the monopoly on astonishingly poor B films. Anyway Demonwarp is one such film which somehow managed to slip past me completely. I'd never seen or even heard of it until just last night when I ran across a mention of it on another website. I found it online and watched it today.
I liked it. It certainly wasn't even close to "great" but I liked it anyway. The story itself was rather original although wonky pacing and poor editing ruined what could have been a better film overall. The acting was nothing to cheer about either but all the girls were - shall we say - easy on the eyes? Yes. The gratuitous tit shots didn't hurt but even in the absence of them, they were still cute. The film's direction was also more than a little clunky and the fight/conflict scenes were poorly handled at best. Sound design was interesting and the musical score was pretty good.
THE SHINING this wasn't but it was far superior to anything I've seen on SyFy channel in the last 10 years. At least I watched this one to the end.
I liked it. It certainly wasn't even close to "great" but I liked it anyway. The story itself was rather original although wonky pacing and poor editing ruined what could have been a better film overall. The acting was nothing to cheer about either but all the girls were - shall we say - easy on the eyes? Yes. The gratuitous tit shots didn't hurt but even in the absence of them, they were still cute. The film's direction was also more than a little clunky and the fight/conflict scenes were poorly handled at best. Sound design was interesting and the musical score was pretty good.
THE SHINING this wasn't but it was far superior to anything I've seen on SyFy channel in the last 10 years. At least I watched this one to the end.
Good Morning, Vietnam
(1987)
Great, yet not so great
20 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Let me say first that I own the DVD so that says a lot about the film. I don't buy movies indiscriminately just because I recognize the title. This is a fine piece of entertainment and Robin Williams was probably never better in his role' as Adrian Croenaur. The casting is uniformly excellent with kudos going to the sadly departed Bruno Kirby as Lt. Steven Hauk and J.K. Walsh as Sgt. Maj. Dickerson.
I've worked for many years in radio and the one issue which grates on me personally was how incredibly sloppily the actual scenes of Williams were handled while he was doing his broadcasts. I suppose Barry Levinson didn't think that it would matter to accurately depict a radio control room (or hoped no one would notice - but I did). Like: at no point in the film were the level meters indicating the sounds heard on the soundtrack. Yeah, they were moving, but not in synch with the sounds supposedly playing through the control board! There was one scene with a clear close-up of a tape recorder which was NOT running, yet the meters were merrily bouncing as if it was playing. Come ON, Barry!
All that said, I am willing and able to look past that to see a great film with a great script and a great story. Do I recommend it? Sure!
I've worked for many years in radio and the one issue which grates on me personally was how incredibly sloppily the actual scenes of Williams were handled while he was doing his broadcasts. I suppose Barry Levinson didn't think that it would matter to accurately depict a radio control room (or hoped no one would notice - but I did). Like: at no point in the film were the level meters indicating the sounds heard on the soundtrack. Yeah, they were moving, but not in synch with the sounds supposedly playing through the control board! There was one scene with a clear close-up of a tape recorder which was NOT running, yet the meters were merrily bouncing as if it was playing. Come ON, Barry!
All that said, I am willing and able to look past that to see a great film with a great script and a great story. Do I recommend it? Sure!
Brutal
(2007 Video)
Wasn't really bad; wasn't really great
23 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Just finished watching the (TV edited) version of this so-so film on Chiller. I must admit, I'd never even heard of it before I saw it on the listings this morning. It was, after all a direct-to-video release - which might be why many of the reviews here in IMDb were less than complimentary.
Really, though: it wasn't THAT bad. I had a little trouble accepting Jeff Combs as a sheriff. He looked...odd with a mustache and a cowboy hat but that's just me, I guess. He did an acceptable job in the role'.
I didn't like the exposing of the bad guy pretty much at the very beginning of the film. That was kind of stupid for the writer/director to do that. I think it would have been a little better had we the viewers been given the chance to puzzle out his identity while the characters were.
Although the acting certainly wasn't Oscar-winning by any means, I've sure seen worse than what was in this little piece of work.
All in all, it was OK. Not rotten, not "HOLY S**T!! this was great!" An acceptable diversion - but I don't think I'd watch it again...well, maybe if someone handed me the uncut DVD even though I suspect the only difference would be some T&A which wasn't strictly necessary to the story line.
Really, though: it wasn't THAT bad. I had a little trouble accepting Jeff Combs as a sheriff. He looked...odd with a mustache and a cowboy hat but that's just me, I guess. He did an acceptable job in the role'.
I didn't like the exposing of the bad guy pretty much at the very beginning of the film. That was kind of stupid for the writer/director to do that. I think it would have been a little better had we the viewers been given the chance to puzzle out his identity while the characters were.
Although the acting certainly wasn't Oscar-winning by any means, I've sure seen worse than what was in this little piece of work.
All in all, it was OK. Not rotten, not "HOLY S**T!! this was great!" An acceptable diversion - but I don't think I'd watch it again...well, maybe if someone handed me the uncut DVD even though I suspect the only difference would be some T&A which wasn't strictly necessary to the story line.
Weak-ish. Could have been much better.
21 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
First off, I will admit I have not read the book. If I had, I'm afraid this film would probably have gotten even lower than the 3 stars which I (grudgingly) grant it.
My overall impression of the film was that it had a very "rushed" feel to it- like the filmmakers were trying to pop it out for a holiday deadline instead of taking the time to carefully craft a film instead of slamming it together with a mallet and glue...
Truth be told, GoF had the same feel as the last horrible Star Wars film in that it rested on a lot of CGI and hoped that the wobbly acting, unbelievably clunky script and muddy time-flow would be covered up by the SFX. OK, Radcliffe and the others are growing up IRL as well as in the films, but there was just something wonky about the whole thing. Everyone's acting was just a bit plastic. They all lacked the sparkle that made the first 2 Potter films so fun to watch. Also, like I mentioned a moment ago, the time flow was stilted and confusing-I guess that's what happens when even an experienced screenwriter tries to cram the contents of a 700 page book into a film even if that film is over 150 minutes long.
Casting was *almost* OK, but Michael Gambon as the New Dumbledore was awful. He had NONE of the charm and wisdom that Richard Harris gave the character; he struck me as a half-senile wino trying to dry out. He was my least favorite part of GoF.
Frankly, I can't put blame on a single person for why this film wasn't as good as it could have been. I'm not sure if it was Newell's direction, the editing or the screenplay-probably all three. I did miss the deft direction of Chris Columbus. I was also going to say the filmmakers should have used the same screenwriter as they did on the first HP until I went back and checked; they DID use the same guy! Well, the book was pretty darn long-so was the movie, for that matter but it all came out as more of a mediocre, clunky SFX loaded demo reel with familiar faces in it than it did a powerful, character-driven film like the first two HP efforts were.
Hardcore fans of the first 2 films (as I actually am) will probably agree: not the worst, but certainly not the best. Hardcore fans of the book (from what I've heard) will probably be quite disappointed.
Let's hope ORDER will be better and let's hope Chris Colombus makes a return to the HP world.
All in all, GoF didn't suck, but it could have been a lot better.
PS: I clicked the "spoiler" box just in case I went too far, but I don't think I did.
My overall impression of the film was that it had a very "rushed" feel to it- like the filmmakers were trying to pop it out for a holiday deadline instead of taking the time to carefully craft a film instead of slamming it together with a mallet and glue...
Truth be told, GoF had the same feel as the last horrible Star Wars film in that it rested on a lot of CGI and hoped that the wobbly acting, unbelievably clunky script and muddy time-flow would be covered up by the SFX. OK, Radcliffe and the others are growing up IRL as well as in the films, but there was just something wonky about the whole thing. Everyone's acting was just a bit plastic. They all lacked the sparkle that made the first 2 Potter films so fun to watch. Also, like I mentioned a moment ago, the time flow was stilted and confusing-I guess that's what happens when even an experienced screenwriter tries to cram the contents of a 700 page book into a film even if that film is over 150 minutes long.
Casting was *almost* OK, but Michael Gambon as the New Dumbledore was awful. He had NONE of the charm and wisdom that Richard Harris gave the character; he struck me as a half-senile wino trying to dry out. He was my least favorite part of GoF.
Frankly, I can't put blame on a single person for why this film wasn't as good as it could have been. I'm not sure if it was Newell's direction, the editing or the screenplay-probably all three. I did miss the deft direction of Chris Columbus. I was also going to say the filmmakers should have used the same screenwriter as they did on the first HP until I went back and checked; they DID use the same guy! Well, the book was pretty darn long-so was the movie, for that matter but it all came out as more of a mediocre, clunky SFX loaded demo reel with familiar faces in it than it did a powerful, character-driven film like the first two HP efforts were.
Hardcore fans of the first 2 films (as I actually am) will probably agree: not the worst, but certainly not the best. Hardcore fans of the book (from what I've heard) will probably be quite disappointed.
Let's hope ORDER will be better and let's hope Chris Colombus makes a return to the HP world.
All in all, GoF didn't suck, but it could have been a lot better.
PS: I clicked the "spoiler" box just in case I went too far, but I don't think I did.
Ultraviolet
(2006)
Ultravomit
22 September 2006
Well, I honestly didn't think it could be done. Really. I didn't think it would be possible to out-do Ewe Boll in horribleness of film-making, but it has been done here.
I have never been so assaulted by bad editing, bad acting, bad scoring, bad writing and BAD CGI/green-screen and live "acting" compositing than I went through with this abomination. Character development? None. I've seen rolling paper with more depth than any of the cardboard cutouts in this film.
I really can't tell you what the film got right because there was nothing even remotely "right" about this film. I didn't bother clicking the "spoiler" box because that would imply that there was a plot to spoil. The soundtrack was an irritating cross between semi-symphonic and techno which would suddenly stop so someone could spout some sort of random and preposterous line or Milla could either "dramatically" remove or put on her shades.
And what was with the biohazard symbol... everywhere?? OK guys! I GET it! There's a disease around. There's no need to drive the point through our heads like a railway spike! I mean jeez...the DVD box, the building, hell, even Violet's gun flash (regular bullet shooting guns, mind you, in this super futuristic world "we might not understand") came out as biohazard shapes! The whole film was just Violet getting surrounded by 80 black clad guys with the universe's worst aim and Violet mowing them all down with her super-duper machine pistols which she could dispense out of her wrist... or something. If they weren't using regular bullet-shooting guns, they were using swords...SWORDS! in this wonderfully hi-tech world.
Violet's hair and clothes would change color randomly from time to time for no better reason than to get the 13 year old video game-addicted boys this film was obviously aimed DIRECTLY at to say to their buddies "That's sooo coooool!"
I kept looking at the clock saying to myself "How long has this been on? It has to be over soon," only to discover that another painful five minutes had passed.
The suckage this film demonstrated was astonishing. I think maybe Wimmer and Boll should co-direct their next project and the suck created by the two of them together would create a black hole that they would both disappear into thereby sparing us anything even as remotely bad as this film was.
minus 5 stars. NOT recommended, even for a laugh. MST3K would have passed this dog up. I tried to put another movie in my DVD player but the player bit my hand. I guess it was afraid I was going to put Ultraviolet back in.
Not a chance.
I have never been so assaulted by bad editing, bad acting, bad scoring, bad writing and BAD CGI/green-screen and live "acting" compositing than I went through with this abomination. Character development? None. I've seen rolling paper with more depth than any of the cardboard cutouts in this film.
I really can't tell you what the film got right because there was nothing even remotely "right" about this film. I didn't bother clicking the "spoiler" box because that would imply that there was a plot to spoil. The soundtrack was an irritating cross between semi-symphonic and techno which would suddenly stop so someone could spout some sort of random and preposterous line or Milla could either "dramatically" remove or put on her shades.
And what was with the biohazard symbol... everywhere?? OK guys! I GET it! There's a disease around. There's no need to drive the point through our heads like a railway spike! I mean jeez...the DVD box, the building, hell, even Violet's gun flash (regular bullet shooting guns, mind you, in this super futuristic world "we might not understand") came out as biohazard shapes! The whole film was just Violet getting surrounded by 80 black clad guys with the universe's worst aim and Violet mowing them all down with her super-duper machine pistols which she could dispense out of her wrist... or something. If they weren't using regular bullet-shooting guns, they were using swords...SWORDS! in this wonderfully hi-tech world.
Violet's hair and clothes would change color randomly from time to time for no better reason than to get the 13 year old video game-addicted boys this film was obviously aimed DIRECTLY at to say to their buddies "That's sooo coooool!"
I kept looking at the clock saying to myself "How long has this been on? It has to be over soon," only to discover that another painful five minutes had passed.
The suckage this film demonstrated was astonishing. I think maybe Wimmer and Boll should co-direct their next project and the suck created by the two of them together would create a black hole that they would both disappear into thereby sparing us anything even as remotely bad as this film was.
minus 5 stars. NOT recommended, even for a laugh. MST3K would have passed this dog up. I tried to put another movie in my DVD player but the player bit my hand. I guess it was afraid I was going to put Ultraviolet back in.
Not a chance.
The Colours of Infinity
(1995 TV Movie)
Mind bending
2 March 2006
This is a fantastic yet completely understandable documentary which discusses in detail the phenomenon of Fractal geometry. Sir Arthur Clarke does an excellent job of never talking down to his audience, yet imparts a great deal of detail in an enjoyable fashion. Interviews with other mathematicians including Prof. Mandelbrot himself adds to the intellectual appeal of this great (and not nearly long enough, IMO) production. The Fractal graphics are utterly breathtaking, and are aided by a perfectly composed musical score by none other than Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame. The Fractal animations alone stand up to repeated viewings for no other reason than they are spectacularly beautiful. Totally recommended! Ten stars out of ten!
National Treasure
(2004)
I Really Tried To Not Like It...
27 October 2005
...But darn it, I did! Generally, if I see Jerry Bruckheimker or Nick Cage's name on a film, I know I won't like it because I have never been much of a fan of either men's work, but this was a really fun film. The tag line of "the Indiana Jones of the new millennium" might be a bit strong, though. Nick Cage is hardly Harrison Ford, but this was a great action/adventure/whodunit/heist/treasure hunt film. The only thing I had a bit of a problem with was some irritating camera work from time to time in the first 20 or so minutes of the film. Trevor Rabin (ex from The Buggles and Yes) did a great job on the film's music. An added positive element was the shooting on real historical locations in Washington DC, New York and Philly. For once, the CGI used in the film didn't LOOK like CGI and that in itself was very refreshing! All in all, I would recommend this film to just about anyone who enjoyed the Raiders series-but don't expect to see another Raiders of the Lost Ark. This is definitely a film with a feel and personality of its own. When my wife and kids come home this afternoon, I'm going to watch it again with them!
Pet Sematary
(1989)
Could have been SO much better
22 October 2005
As a horror movie fan, I must say that this one just didn't do it for me. Pet Sematary is my single favorite King book with The Shining and Carrie being numbers 2 and 3 respectively, both of which were made into real winners of films, but this one is a steaming pile. The direction was almost as bad as a Ewe Boll film, and it may as well have had a bunch of store mannequin as actors with the exception of Fred Gwynne as Jud Crandall-the ONLY redeeming part of this film. Preposterously stilted dialog (written by King himself!) delivered in a totally unbelievable and stilted way by the worst cast in film history, directed by Mary Lambert who must have been using a baseball bat on the "actors" makes this a really painful experience. If you have read the book, STEER CLEAR of this film- you'll probably curse King, Lambert and yourself for being led by the nose into this real bomb. I have an idea. Let Lambert and Boll work together on a new film. At least it will give us something to write about here in the IMDb comment boards. Actually, I have another idea. This film should be shown to film making students in a class titled "DON'T DO IT THIS WAY!" Utter Garbage. If King were dead, he'd probably rise up just to burn this drek.
The Frighteners
(1996)
ROCK ON, Mr Jackson!
5 June 2005
There have been enough synopses on the plot of this film so I won't go there but I feel compelled to comment on Peter's directional ability and overall film-making skill. This guy could make an Oscar winner with an 8MM camera and a cassette recorder! Jackson, Selkirk and Walsh have outdone the "best" that Hollywood could possibly put out, even if they did have to lame down a story that probably could have been as intense as Brain Dead as far as in-your-face jolts! The SFX, though a bit dated-looking are perfect for the film, and the casting director should have gotten an Oscar for a really great ensemble. The chemistry between all the characters was utterly believable- and very special mention should go to Jeff Combs (The Re-animator series, Castle Freak, Necronomicon, From Beyond...as well as 2 characters in ST-DS9- Weyoun and the Ferengi Brunt...AND in ST Enterprise as the Andorian Shrel) for the funniest FBI agent in film history. Just as in Brain Dead, there are points where Jackson seems to be trying to make you laugh and puke at the same time, but even with the iron hand of American exec. producer Zemeckis (Back To The Future, Contact) holding Jackson's truly demented creativity down to a Hollywood trash heap level, Jackson's sheer genius still shines thru the dreck. The script alone was enough to make this one of the best films of the 90s... and maybe one of the best horror films of all time. (George Lucas, are you reading this??) Another thing I really liked was the casting of mature actors, not a bunch of brain dead teens (pun intended) that seem to populate 99.99999% of all the other so-called horror films that are being churned out of the Hollywood fertilizer factory these days. I love horror films even though I am usually bitterly disappointed in those I see. The Frighteners is a really refreshing change and I fervently hope that Jackson and his wonderful creative group have not abandoned the Horror genre. This is a must-have for any horror (or Peter Jackson) fan's permanent collection.
Oh, I didn't mention Michael J Fox in the lead....NO ONE ELSE could have done this role' with as much flair, charm or energy as good ole Mike.
Funniest sequence in the whole film was the restaurant scene- that alone is worth the DVD's price!
C'moon Mr Jackson... Give us another one but leave Hollywood out of it and do it in New Zealand! We're all waiting!
May WingNut films live forever!
Oh, I didn't mention Michael J Fox in the lead....NO ONE ELSE could have done this role' with as much flair, charm or energy as good ole Mike.
Funniest sequence in the whole film was the restaurant scene- that alone is worth the DVD's price!
C'moon Mr Jackson... Give us another one but leave Hollywood out of it and do it in New Zealand! We're all waiting!
May WingNut films live forever!
lame..lamer...lamest!
30 May 2005
OK I went to see EP1-LAME. I controlled my skepticism and went out to see EP2- LAMER! And I just today saw EP3. LAMEST of the whole SW world! Geez, You'd think that after 5 films and almost 30 years, Lucas would have had a good story to tell, but alas, that wasn't the case. Ep1 and Ep2 had plenty of room to start drawing threads together enough to have made Ep3 a truly awesome film, but instead, Lucas chose to end the entire SW universe not with a spectacular wave of great acting, deep heartfelt emotion, and great story telling, but instead with an embarrassing and really smelly fart. A one-hundred and forty minute fart at that.
I won't even begin to start going into too much detail but there are some things that simply must be addressed here. ONE- THE ACTING. I have never in all my life seen more dead delivery of dialog (such as it was...more on that in a sec) issuing forth from a group of so called actors mouths. Everyone's performance was so wooden it was attracting termites. Even Ewan McGregor was awful to watch. The only almost passable acting job was probably Ian McDiarmid as Chancellor Palpatine and that was still a long one.
As to the script, 3 gifted 12 year olds could have written more believable dialog. And no, George, 100 million dollars of blinding hi-resolution CGI will not buoy a crappy script up. Go to a theater and watch this abortion and you'll see what I mean.
The story was muddled, the sounds were clear but boring... every spacecraft or aircraft sounded like a motorcycle... the CGI even got tiring.
George, can I have my five dollars back?
I won't even begin to start going into too much detail but there are some things that simply must be addressed here. ONE- THE ACTING. I have never in all my life seen more dead delivery of dialog (such as it was...more on that in a sec) issuing forth from a group of so called actors mouths. Everyone's performance was so wooden it was attracting termites. Even Ewan McGregor was awful to watch. The only almost passable acting job was probably Ian McDiarmid as Chancellor Palpatine and that was still a long one.
As to the script, 3 gifted 12 year olds could have written more believable dialog. And no, George, 100 million dollars of blinding hi-resolution CGI will not buoy a crappy script up. Go to a theater and watch this abortion and you'll see what I mean.
The story was muddled, the sounds were clear but boring... every spacecraft or aircraft sounded like a motorcycle... the CGI even got tiring.
George, can I have my five dollars back?
Thir13en Ghosts
(2001)
an almost great remake
28 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Interesting film, this 13 Ghosts. Finally watched it for the first time tonight. Actually bought it on recommendation from a non-horror fan. I'll have to think about this for a while, even watch it again in a couple of days, but my first impression was "Damn! He came SO close!". He being Steve Beck... but I suppose in all fairness I should say they all came so close. There is obviously a great deal of work that went into this film but there was, to me, an intangible element which was lacking in the atmosphere of the film. There are some truly creepy scenes in this movie as well as some really outright jump-enough-to-spill-your-popcorn jolts, but they are oddly diluted by the transparency of the sets.
Ah, the sets... lets talk about them for a minute... the entire visual conception was the best part of this film. The Conceptual Artist did a splendid job of creating a really bizarre environment that had a peculiar air of timelessness-especially in that museum-like setting. And most striking to me as I sit reflecting on the film here at the PC was the bizarre feeling of technological superimposition in any visual of the workings of the doors and panels. The visual clash of those almost medieval gears mounted to thick, hi-tech looking glass panels constantly jolted me in the sense that it was visually unclear how old the house actually was. Very odd.
As to the rest... make up was spectacular, cinematography uniformly excellent. Here though, I must comment on the sudden losses of forward momentum the film's pacing seems to go through. I was actually tempted to fast scan a couple of scenes, but I didn't.
Ummm acting was sub par given the calibre of its main parts (Tony Shaloob, F. Murray Abraham.), but I attribute that to weakness of overall script. I gotta give Rah Diggah big points for playing the nanny and a great comic relief... I won't even touch Embeth Davidtz's performance. She shoulda played one of the ghosts! The dialog was weak all the way thru the film, but there was an unfortunate feeling, to me at least, that in the last third or so of the film, the story line itself seems to have taken on an air of having been thrown together.
Weak dialog, erratic pacing and lame musical scoring detract strongly from what could have been a far better film. At least they kept the story "twist" that made the original film so cool.
Oh, and I want a pair of those glasses.
Ah, the sets... lets talk about them for a minute... the entire visual conception was the best part of this film. The Conceptual Artist did a splendid job of creating a really bizarre environment that had a peculiar air of timelessness-especially in that museum-like setting. And most striking to me as I sit reflecting on the film here at the PC was the bizarre feeling of technological superimposition in any visual of the workings of the doors and panels. The visual clash of those almost medieval gears mounted to thick, hi-tech looking glass panels constantly jolted me in the sense that it was visually unclear how old the house actually was. Very odd.
As to the rest... make up was spectacular, cinematography uniformly excellent. Here though, I must comment on the sudden losses of forward momentum the film's pacing seems to go through. I was actually tempted to fast scan a couple of scenes, but I didn't.
Ummm acting was sub par given the calibre of its main parts (Tony Shaloob, F. Murray Abraham.), but I attribute that to weakness of overall script. I gotta give Rah Diggah big points for playing the nanny and a great comic relief... I won't even touch Embeth Davidtz's performance. She shoulda played one of the ghosts! The dialog was weak all the way thru the film, but there was an unfortunate feeling, to me at least, that in the last third or so of the film, the story line itself seems to have taken on an air of having been thrown together.
Weak dialog, erratic pacing and lame musical scoring detract strongly from what could have been a far better film. At least they kept the story "twist" that made the original film so cool.
Oh, and I want a pair of those glasses.
Tell Your Friends