Reviews

I was lucky enough to happen upon this movie one night on television. I was immediately captivated by it and was never tempted to click off to another channel. It is as good as the 1957 American original, and in some ways particular to Russia, better. The acting is first rate, at times deliberate and at other times quite emotional. As with its predecessor the jurors bring their own lives into the jury room, giving a western viewer an open look at Russia and Russians. Paralleling the American film, which featured a young Hispanic as the accused, here the accused is a young Chechen.

I heartily recommend "12" to all who can locate it. I have given it nine stars out of ten. Spoken in Russian, of course, the subtitles in the version I saw were well up to the task.

"Unlocked" is a tight, fast paced spy thriller of high quality. It keeps viewers on their toes with its rapid, precise action, of both the mental and physical kinds. There are some very frank moments revealing terrorist . . . And anti-terrorist . . . Thinking and motivations. There is also insight into the truly crazy beliefs of some terrorists and the depths of their rabid mania. And there is a smattering of really funny turns of events mixed in with the high tension plot. If you pay attention you may recognize little homages to great films of the past. One thing, I don't like Toni Collette much at all but here she is exceptional and adds a lot to the movie. This is a movie that does not draw you in, it pulls you in.

The Iceman is a big disappointment. The real life story material was rich and just waiting to be mined, but the writer and director weren't up to the task. It should have been easy. Instead we get a series of separate scenes strung together. Here's an example. Out of nowhere Stephen Dorff appears as Richard Kuklinski's imprisoned brother. Kuklinski visits him in prison. Since we don't know anything about him the dialog in this scene has to explain who he is and why he's in prison ("You killed a little girl!"). Then Dorff rants and raves and screams and pleads. When Kuklinski walks out that's the last that's seen of him. *Why is that scene even in this movie?* It does nothing to carry the story along. I watched "The Iceman" partly because of Winona Ryder, but all they gave her to do was, "You're the wife. React like one."

2005's "The Hunt for the BTK Killer" is the polar opposite of this bad movie. It is a much better film, with well developed characters and some real insight into the mind of a serial killer. I had seen it before this one, and this one doesn't come anywhere close to measuring up. Watch that one, not this one.

Rupture is a tiresome message movie - - people are a virus that is killing the earth - - dressed up as a science fiction mystery. The two brief instances of special effects use 30-year-old morphing software to make faces. That's it.

The story is as tired as the message. Kidnap, escape, crawling around in the overhead air ducts, as ho-hum as it gets. Noomi Rapace is her usual brave self. Peter Stormare is his usual inane self with that weird accent garbling much of the dialog he tries to say.

People are tortured by exposing them to their worst fears. Snakes, drowning, falling and in Rapace's case spiders. In fact the movie opens with her seeing a spider and screaming. "1984" did it long ago and much better.

So if you want to waste your time being told how naughty you are, you evil human being, in a movie that is entirely predictable, go ahead. Oh, and as for the bad guys, there is no explanation of who they are or where they came from.

"I very like this movie" is an homage to an excellent movie which has utterly disappeared: The Amateur (1981) starring John Savage, Christopher Plummer and Marthe Keller. It also takes place mostly in Russia, like The Amateur which contains the line, "I very like your hat." But there the similarities end, as one is a Cold War thriller and this is pure high-end science fiction.

I do like this movie A LOT. I've rated it 9 stars. The story is much better than most alien invasion movies. It is, in fact, highly creative and fueled by a lively imagination. There are fine actors in every role. There is great tension and it has some wicked surprises. The special effects are at times startling and always flawless. One final thought: it respects Russia and Russians in ways our modern western media never, ever recognize.

This spiritless sci-fi flick is, at only an hour-and-a-half, too long. The Kate Mara character is a skilled, highly trained "cleaner" sent in to resolve matters that have gotten out of hand, as this has. But her tactics are amateurish at best and incredibly stupid at worst, whether driving a chase car or using a rifle in the woods. Morgan is yet another in an endless stream of movies that are made without an expert advisor on combat tactics. "She has a gun, what's to know about that?" There was no need to be told that this was a first-time director.

It's sad when such amateurism wastes the talents of a first rate cast of good actors.

There are two fine groups of actors in this film. One is Milla Jovovic and Desmond Harrington, and the other is a large cast of little known actors who deliver great performances. If the makers had stuck to those two groups this could have been a great movie. Instead, unfortunately, they threw in a smattering of well known faces who are completely incongruous. They even cast Dustin Hoffman, who was a disaster.

It is frustrating to think how good this movie really was, or would have been, if they had left out the "sure-thing stars" and stayed with the many excellent unknowns. There are always plenty of them available. It would have been genius to make such a strong film with a couple of stars and many fine actors whose careers had yet to blossom.

The battles are simply spectacular. Milla Jovovic's inspiring combat leadership is wonderful, and probably pretty accurate. Joan of Arc did, after all, lead French troops to triumphant victories that were thought to be impossible.

Without the dead weight and expense of all that miscasting, I do not doubt that this would have been a much more successful movie.

I asked myself over and over, is this movie a parody of good movies? Is it owned by the same people who own RED? (Yes it is.) Scene after scene mimics and actually copies RED. Even the music does, too.

The writing is absurdly childish. Good actors are force to deliver the most clichéd lines I have heard in a film for years. Years. And what was that guy from the insurance company television commercials doing in it? His commercials were all I could think of whenever he was on screen.

So was John Wick meant to be a take-off on far better films? Was it made to target a specific audience of half-brain-dead young males? And why, oh why, were these professional killers using Glocks? Glocks are for cops and other amateurs. No serious professional would ever consider using them.

John Wick was a disappointing puzzlement to me. I gave it a 3 for the effort.

This is a standard hybrid comedy-action movie + kids' movie. But where they got the kids who are in it is beyond me. My guess is that they cut the "kid budget" by hiring boys and girls who were hanging around outside the studio. Or maybe they went to a LEGO store and in a loud voice shouted, "Who wants to be in a movie?"

There are a lot of kids in it who couldn't act their way out of kindergarten, with ONE EXCEPTION: Alina Foley, daughter of Dave Foley (of Kids In The Hall fame). She was adorable, she did a fine job and she showed a lot of promise.

I was surprised to see Jackie Chan using stunt doubles in this 2010 film, when he did all his own stunts in the much more demanding and rigorous movie "The Foreigner" seven years later.

Allison Scagliotti and Louise Griffiths stand out to make this unusual film a pleasure to watch. Much of the rest of the cast seems, strangely, to have been chosen because they are look-alikes for more famous faces. Weird. The acting ranges from just fine to outstanding (Scagliotti) but with a measure of lesser talent sprinkled around.

There is a lot of rapid dialog written in the hip vernacular of teenagers. There is also a good deal of humor throughout. The high school club Virgin Action Group which promotes chastity, for instance, bears the suggestive acronym V. A. G. And some of the girls volunteer to become Chastity Leaders In Training, or C. L. I. T.s. There are comic touches everywhere, from the very light pressure used whenever a throat is slashed to Allison Scagliotti being captured by the big dumb gardener who only wants to lick her feet and tongue her toes.

The credits say it's a Weirdsville Production and that is so appropriate for this weird but enjoyable movie. I'm giving it a rating of 8 out of 10.

Boggle was part of a very early interactive TV experiment. It featured real in-studio contestants who played a professionally run game. What was special was that in some of the commercial breaks, instead of commercials, people at home could call in and play using their telephone key pads. $2 per call. They awarded very nice prizes to winners and on Fridays all the winners of the week were called by the studio to play a Grand Prize Game. I won many prizes and a pair of Grand Prize Games, week-long all-expense-paid vacations for two, one to a resort in Jamaica and the other in Vermont.

There were three other Family Channel game shows with the same call-in format: Trivial Pursuit, Shuffle and Jumble. All four were daytime shows. They were all hosted by Wink Martindale who was the same smooth professional he always was in his earlier game shows.

In all the serial killer films that have been made, why it took a TV movie to define the genre is beyond me. But THIS IS THE ONE!

Serial killer movies hold a strange, special fascination for me which I don't really understand. There's something about these purely evil people. And the best portrayal of a serial killer is right here. Gregg Henry as the BTK killer, a real-life serial killer who got away with his gruesome crimes for over three decades.

Gregg Henry is an actor who stands entirely on his own. There's nobody else like him. Even when he plays nice, straight characters he still seems a little weird. When he plays weird, he plays it to the hilt. I never liked him because of this, until I watched this TV movie. Wow. In fact, I didn't even realize it was him playing the BTK Killer until more than half-way through the movie! That's how completely he disappeared into his character.

And Gregg Henry is such a calm, ordinary citizen on the surface that I can understand how he succeeded in his murderous obsession for so many, many years. He shot way up in my panoply of great actors.

This movie is unenjoyable. Everyone is unpleasant, most of them to the extreme. One character even kills a little dog by chasing it and running it down with a lawnmower. People smash things for spite all through the movie. There is spousal abuse (of the husband) and loads of violence toward women. Even the sex scenes (which contain no nudity) are hostile. And of course the viewer is supposed to take it all as hilarious. So who killed Mona? You'll figure that out about half-way through, and you'll be right.

There is good reason why this movie made back less than half of its budget. Word-of-mouth must have been swift and widespread NOT to go see it.

Ava is easily the cheesiest movie in years. Half ridiculous, slow, boring family soap opera, half pointless action sequences. No attention to detail. Alcoholic Ava goes to a bar and orders a double scotch. (Sound of ice in glass) Bartender asks do you want it on the rocks? (More sound of ice in glass) Sure. Good, cause you got it on the rocks. He hands her the glass and there is no ice in it.

Jessica Chastain is on robotic mail-it-in mode. John Malkovich brings not an ounce of gravitas to his role. Some unknown 90 pound skin-and-bones actress is a vicious killer? Right.

Finally we reach the denouement, the fight to the death in Ava's hotel room. But the fire alarm goes off (for reasons unknown) and the combatants both get up and walk out of the hotel. Gripping.

Parker's permanent woman Claire (Claire Carroll) is described in the books as being of surpassing beauty, a true world class beauty with a gorgeous, statuesque build. She would have been way out of Parker's league, except that she was involved in an earlier heist with him and was falling for him anyway when she found herself in mortal peril and he gallantly saved her life. Not many actresses could have played the part fittingly, but it is impossible to believe skinny, plain-faced Emma Booth as Claire. Sometimes miscasting really damages a film, and this is just such a case.

Knives Out is an aggressively underlit movie throughout, from the first scene to the last. It doesn't take long for that to become annoying. Even the outdoor scenes are dark and dreary. It drags on for 2 hours 10 minutes, laborious and slow. The director may have been trying to add portent to the long pauses, but the result is just a lot of long pauses.

There are characters that are featured in many scenes without adding anything to the dialog or action. They're just there, getting face time for no discernible reason. I finally fell asleep sometime during the second hour. The people I was with told me there was one funny play on words late in the second hour, but I missed it.

I can't recommend this movie, and unless you're a diehard Daniel Craig fan, which I am not, there is little to to enjoy.

It's slow, the dialog is often mumbled, there is simulated sex but no nudity and the talent of the two stars, Colin Firth and Emily Blunt is wasted. They say their lines well, but you or I could have written the lines. There's nothing to them. Even the moments (rare) of revelation about the characters are dreary and dull. The great character actor M. Emmet Walsh is listed prominently in the cast, but he appears for only 1 minute in a dark room at the very beginning of this boring movie.

This is a shockingly badly made movie! There are dozens of continuity errors, glaring ones, throughout. Could it be that nobody cared, not the director, not the editor, not even the continuity person (if there was one)?

Of the many instances here is just one example: Bridget Fonda goes out on a date. As she leaves with the man she is wearing a dress and her hair is styled a certain way. When they are eating in the restaurant she is wearing a radically different dress of a different style and color and her hair is completely redone.

Other such errors abound in profusion. I wonder how such a stellar cast of great actors, real stars, could be assembled and then such a careless effort put in by the filmmakers. It defeats the film. Great actors sound like they are just saying lines. Even Stanley Tucci looks like he is just making faces when he tries to put spirit or emotion into his dialogue. I expected this to be a good movie, and to like it a lot. Instead it took an effort to watch it to the oh-too-predictable end, which was itself very rushed and riddled with plot holes.

I like this movie a lot, and enjoyed watching it on VHS years ago. Now I have forgotten most of it except the part when they're on the job and actually committing the burglary. It takes a while and one of them goes into the kitchen to get a drink of water. What happens next knocked me right out of my seat! HILARIOUS!

Mumford is a 1999 movie, one of my favorites, which features a lead character named Mumford who has moved to a town named Mumford. The writing is superb with diverse, interesting story lines intertwined seamlessly and playing well off each other. There are action scenes of high drama, erotic scenes of high fantasy, many characters to love and empathize with and a couple to despise.

There's a big, frisky, happy dog. But the dog is not named Mumford, he's named Ainge (after a superb American athlete who was so good he was drafted by, and played in, both the National Basketball Association AND Major League Baseball, an almost unheard of feat. Even Michael Jordan failed at baseball when he switched from basketball.)

It's a great movie, very enjoyable, because it is so well written. Also it features more than 15, yes 15, actors who certainly qualify as "stars" in anybody's book. I think it must have been the intriguing story line and excellent writing which attracted so many fine actors. I recommend it most highly.

This movie is a crime caper, an old-guys buddy picture and a romantic love story all wrapped up in one happy package. Peter Falk and Charles Durning play the crooks and Wendy Hughes, at the very peak of her astonishing beauty, plays the accidental love interest. What a trio!

The caper itself is a lot of fun. Tom Courtney as the upper-crust store manager, caught up by his own greed, is perfect, and so are all the supporting cast members. There are twists and turns, of course but in the end love wins out, all to the accompaniment of a score that I find myself humming long after I've watched Happy New Year. Which I do every couple of years. It's a gem.

I really looked forward to seeing this movie, and when I did I couldn't wait for it to end so I could go home. There's an awful lot of wasted time, lots and lots of pointless (time filling?) scenes. For instance, there's a completely inexplicable segment with a young blonde woman played by Elisabeth Moss. She mumbles on about her childhood, but to no definable purpose.

Somewhere in the middle there is an editing explosion of some sort. Lightning rapid-fire cuts and high speed pans in non-action sequences. It was as if they turned loose a kid just out of editing school and told him to have fun. Very odd and, of course, unwatchable.

Danny Glover and Tom Waits suddenly appear as partners in crime although Robert Redford had been a solo bank robber before, and then he resumed pulling jobs alone again after their disappearance.

And since when were the '80s all dirty and crumby? I remember them as being normal, regular, full of sunshine and light. There are always dirty people around living in dirty houses, yes. But the pervasive atmosphere of this movie is just depressing.

I do not recommend seeing this movie in a theater. Watch it later when you can use your fast-forward button. You will, a lot.

I finally watched "Legend" in the hope that it might equal "The Krays" (1990) which is a very fine film. Unfortunately it falls far short of that lofty goal. Tom Hardy is excellent in his dual role which is, of course, a marvel of modern film technology. Both Krays appearing in the same scene, both facing the camera, played by one actor in seamless perfection is technically impressive.

However, the story telling is a.) uneven, b.) incredibly slow and boring at times, and c.) not nearly as insightful as "the Krays" and lacking the visceral impact of that powerful movie. Just reciting a series of historical facts and asking your lead actor to put some emotion in them, doesn't add up to good movie making. A lot of talent was wasted in the process, especially Tara Fitzgerald and Taron Egerton who were reduced to wallpaper roles. Emily Browning's impressive efforts in portraying poor love struck Frances are above par but they pale in comparison with those of Kate Hardie who played that role in the 1990 version.

I would have rated this movie higher than the 4 I gave it, if it were not for the odd stretches of prolonged dull scenes of, well, nothing. The 1990 original is much better on many levels.