Change Your Image
Glen-5
Reviews
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
See the heart and soul of the Repulican party
A good story, but not very well filmed or acted, in my opinion. The acting was amateurish, the cuts were disjointed, and the ending seemed abrupt.
At any rate, it gives you good insight into the kind of people behind the Republican party in America today (e.g. Taylor, his corporate and politically corrupt cronies, and their evil political machine).
Mr. Smith on the other hand, is much more representative of the people and ideals of the Democratic party. A giving person who cares about people and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and not corporate or other narrow minded interests who utilize dishonesty and playing on humanity's worst instincts, like fear and hatred, to win elections.
It also is currently applicable to the filibuster debate in the Senate. This movie shows how political appointees (in this case Senators - back in the day), are NOT always good for people or the country as a whole. Jeff Smith was chosen to be (although he balked) a surefire yes-man, and his senior counterpart was a corrupt tool of the corporate controlled political machine of Taylor.
Today George W. Bush wants to appoint a few judges who have clear track records of supporting certain greedy, polluting, irresponsible, corporations over everyday average Americans, or who place their religious beliefs and views over the Constitution and it's protection of every American's rights, liberties, and freedoms.
Hence the necessity, in such extreme cases, of using the filibuster. While not as dramatic as Mr. Smith's filibuster, is certainly as useful for the common good of every American, to prevent the worst of the worst and the most extreme of the extreme, legislation or political appointees, from being foisted upon us.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
The book is FAR superior.
Sadly this movie does not do any justice what-so-ever to the laugh-out-loud comedy of the book.
I don't know what it is, but the humor of the written word of Hitchhiker's Guide simply does not translate well to movie format.
While I laughed my butt off reading the book, I barely cracked a smile watching this movie.
I have also listened to the unabridged audio book version of Hitchhiker's, and found it nearly as funny as reading it, so it is definitely something in the movie translation of it.
At any rate, if you have not read the book, do NOT judge it by this movie. Read it. And if you haven't read the book or seen the movie. Skip the movie and go straight for the book. It's really quite hilarious.
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
Powerful!!!
This documentary movie covers ALL the bases.
It's sad, funny, moving, suspenseful, enlightening, and very very frightening when you realize that this guy *IS* our president.
That ANYONE can support this man (Bush), speaks volumes about what kind of person they are. In short, in my view, they have to either be ignorant or evil. There is no other alternative.
Well... fortunately for the ignorant among us, they have people like Mr. Moore to de-ignorize them (as certain presidents ignorant of the english language might say).
Although I suppose they'd say it more like "Um... ah... eh... this... uh film... w w will will... uh... d.. de.. uh... de-ignorize people... about me and my presidency"
Seven minutes folks. Seven minutes looking like a deer caught in the headlights. THIS is your commander in chief.
But hey, at least he likes to say 'Jesus'. What more can you want???
Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972)
Bleh!
This movie was okay but severely marred by unbelievable human behavior and concepts. Rating 4/10
As a science fiction fan, I can easily suspend disbelief about various scientific concepts (ie: intelligently evolved apes travel back in time and conceive a child(chimp), force-field doors, etc...) However, when various common sense concepts and human behavior are flawed it usually ruins the movie for me. Just a 'few' examples from this film:
*spoilers*
* Concept: How did apes change so drastically in such a short period of time, to become bigger and more intelligent in a mere 20 years? This is not even alluded to in any way. Had they made reference to or alluded to Bio-engineering, or the virus having killed all cats and dogs causing this, perhaps I would have found it acceptable, however they did not explain this even in the slightest. Mere selective breeding would not permit such rapid change in 20 years. Since we already have some understanding of evolution, such rapid development should have been explained (if only in a single sentence). Note: since we have no understanding of backward time-travel, it does not need to be explained.
* Human Behavior: Why, knowing what Corneilus and Zira told them about the future, would mankind and human government permit the keeping of apes as pets and eventual slaves, while increasing their intelligence and capabilities? I could see if this happened a hundred or more years down the road, but 20 years after the intelligent apes arrive from the future and tell how apes rule the planet and subjagate humans, mankind is purposely making apes more intelligent and capable. It's absurd.
* Concept/Behavior: With such an oppressive and militaristic 1984'esque government, how are they so easily overrun by apes, which seem to have their every move watched except for their collection of an arsenal of weapons. In a similar vein, how is it that such a society has a system in which apes take simple notes of paper to businesses to retrieve things for their owners (including a firearm and amunition?)
A science fiction film does not need to explain every single concept, but for those things which are not explained they need to make some degree of sense to our understanding of the way things work and human beings behave.
Jack Frost (1998)
Average Flick
Overall this movie is slightly below average: 4/10
Extra Points:
* Adorable/Sweet Kid... +1
* Uplifting story with a good message... +1
* Several crude references to Snowman's (Jack Frost's) "balls"... -1
Total Movie Score = 5/10 stars
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Totally Unmoving.
I rate this movie 6 out of 10.
This is hardly the greatest movie of all time as others have written here. I'd be hard pressed to call it one of the greats. Of course, there is much subjectivity in any of these types of judgments. My opinion is partly based on the fact that I am seeing this movie for the first time now in 2002. Had I been born (and old enough) to appreciate this movie during it's 1962 release, I suspect I would have rated it higher back then. I'm sure things that were breakthroughs and outstanding back in the 1962 release of this film would have improved my opinion of it had I seen it then. On the same token, I suspect movies that I've seen in recent years which I've given one rating now, may change slightly (maybe even significantly) over the years.
Perhaps I did get off on the wrong foot with this movie in the beginning. I did not find it very artistic, moving, or stirring to have the interminably long period of black screen with the soundtrack playing at the beginning of this film (on DVD). Then the very first scene set me off with a negative impression. In this scene we see T.E. Lawrence riding his motor bike down the road at a VERY high rate of speed WITHOUT his hair being blown back, or blown about in the slightest bit, other than from the up and down motion of whatever he was sitting on when they filmed this scene. Surely one could say that he is wearing some pretty strong hair spray, gel, grease, whatever, but nothing could be so strong as to have his hair not move at all while traveling so fast on a motorbike.
Okay so those are fairly minor flaws of which there aren't many in this film. The main reason I didn't rate this movie higher was because this movie (the story) didn't really move me in any way. It didn't elicit any strong emotions in me one way or another whether it be sadness, happiness, fear, intrigue, wonder, nostalgia, anything. There was hardly even a sense of adventure (to me). In some ways it was dryer than watching an old PBS documentary.
I also found the storyline somewhat disjointed, and the ending very dull and incomplete. So dull, ordinary, and incomplete that it was unexpected. If not for the words 'The End', I would not have thought the film was over. Although I must say that I was sort of glad that it was.
Anyhow, I suppose certain people rate their movies primarily on the artistic value of how well the film was made. I take that into consideration, but my ratings have a lot to do with how good the story is and how the movie makes me feel. A great story poorly made will get low marks. A boring story, nicely made will get mediocre marks from me. This movie fits the latter. I did not come away from this movie with a sense of "Wow, that was fantastic", but more of a sense of "Eh, that was okay".
If not for the fine acting and cinematography, I would have given this movie 4/10. Because this movie does have merit in it's style and acting, and the breakthroughs made for its 1962 release I decided to give it 6/10.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Great Movie, Better Book
This is a fantastic movie based on an even better book (well the first book in a trilogy). I can see how those who have not read the books might not appreciate the characters, the world of Middle-Earth, or the epic adventure that they are on, as much as those who have read (and loved) The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I have watched this film about half a dozen times now, and I love it more each time, however the first time I saw it, I was a bit disappointed. Not so much because of the parts of the book that were left out or abbreviated, but mostly because even though the movie was three hours long, I did not get nearly the sense of adventure that I felt when reading the books. The books obviously go into more detail about the characters and locations, and although these things are translated onto the screen, by the mere fact that it takes longer to read a description and visualize it than it does to see it for a few seconds on the screen, I got the sense of the movie being rushed. Watching the movie a few more times, one can begin to appreciate it for the movie that it is apart from the books. Although I must stress that a reading of the books will provide a better understanding and appreciation of the characters, world, and adventure of this movie.
Left Behind (2000)
A flat average movie.
This movie was okay. I did not get the feeling that I was being indoctrinated with Christian propaganda. Like many movies, this movie has its merits as a half-way decent dramatization of a fictional book. And lets face it, until when or if the events described in the Bible's book of Revelation come to pass, it is just fiction.
That being said, this movie was average. Good for a one time viewing. It did not make me laugh. It did not make me cry. It didn't really elicit any strong emotions in me at all. Still, it was moderately entertaining; with mystery, intrigue, paranormal activity, and a surprise twist ending.
The Indian in the Cupboard (1995)
A beautiful movie, a wonderful actor.
The Indian in the Cupboard is a delightful movie. The sweet and adorable Omri (played by Hal Scardino) is great to go along with on this fascinating adventure. The character Omri is a perfect portrayal of a sensitive and thoughtful 9 year old boy. This movie is most enjoyable in that aspect, above and beyond the story of the strange abilities of the cupboard.