Reviews

21 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Poseidon (2006)
4/10
mean spirited Poseidon loses the "adventure."
13 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
An epic letdown from Wolfgang Peterson. The original film was always good entertainment, but comparing the two versions makes the original look like Citizen Kane! It's like Wolfgang took everything that was good about the original and threw it away. Ronald Neame? Never realized what a great director he was (DeMille Jr!) until I saw this remake. Just compare the way he staged the big scenes, framed the action with a sense of scope, gave his actors real characters to play and used sets, lighting, music and pacing to really pull you into the "adventure." The original is always knocked for its "cardboard" characters and lame dialogue. But at least it had a "theme." It was about something. It was "if you want to survive then start climbing. don't sit around and wait for help to arrive. Religion won't save you, the government won't save you (don't forget this was Watergate era.) Only you and your own hard work will save you." It seemed like everything was shot too close. there was no scope or sense of epic-ness. was this to save money so they didn't have to build big sets? It felt like this film was edited with a hack saw that took away all suspense. All of a sudden a wave comes and it turns over. This modern ship didn't have any kind of warning system that would warn of a "wall of water 90 feet high"?? Did I blink and miss the scene where the wave shows up on the radar? Thank goodness there was an officer on the bridge who could "sense" the oncoming tidal wave. Gimme a break.

where was the Christmas tree? In the original you could feel that it was Christmas/New Years. Decorations, baby! In this remake they simply decide to follow Josh Lucas up some wreckage. No drama at all! what about all of Richard Dreyfuss' gay buddies? He did't even try to find them! The fx were very cheesy digital. I saw it in IMAX so maybe that's why. Was it my imagination, or did the first trailer have more of the ship turning over?Terrible action music! Didn't they learn anything from John Williams' moody original? But the thing that killed this for me was how mean spirited and gory it was. My 12 year old daughter kept turning away. I saw the original when I was 10 and one burned chef in the kitchen was really heartbreaking. But now people are bar b cued in flash fires or electrocuted in nightclubs with no feeling. when Lucas tells Dreyfus to deliberately drop the waiter in order to save himself, then Drefus kicks the poor guy to his death -- you could really feel the audience detach. Too cruel to be called "entertainment." Save your money. Or better yet, rent Beyond the Poseidon Adventure and watch it on fast forward and you'll get a sense of this loser.
33 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Night Watch (2004)
1/10
awful! a waste of $10
22 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Night Watch was one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Came off as a Russian film student's regurgitation of Star Wars, the Matrix, LOTR, David Lynch visuals, you name it. But what killed it was the relentless MTV video effects. Non stop to the point of insanity. And was that the longest plane crash in film history? And didn't the power plant blow up? Gag. And what happened to that Russian pop star who was yanked off stage to fight evil, or be evil, or... who cares. The fx were bad, the make up fx were bad (dig the fake nipples) and I'm just padding this review to get the minimum ten lines of text. there is really nothing to say but stay away. stay very, very far away.

Saveyour money.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I, Robot (2004)
3/10
Logan's Run for the new millennium
17 July 2004
My 13 year old nephew loved this, but I can't believe this cheese ball film is generating any kind of serious discussion from anyone over the age of 13, let alone some of the decent reviews it's been getting.

There's nothing worse than sci fi movies that make the future look cheesy. Blade Runner got it right, so did Proyas in The Crow and Dark City, but I, Fembot reminded me more of Arnold's Sixth Day or even the original Logan's Run. To make matters worse the CGI looked bad. Even the cars looked like cartoons, let alone the bad robots that never looked 3 dimensional. Did anyone have the feeling that we saw these Droid battles in Phantom Menace? And did anyone notice that Gangs of New York shot when the tough street kids were getting ready to fight the bots? And what was with Smith's hip hop gangsta strut?

But my biggest question is, since when do PG-13 movies have full nudity? OK, so it was his butt, but that shower scene wasn't a quick two second shot. And why didn't he have a steamy shower door like the chick did later in the film? I got the feeling that he worked out like a maniac for Ali and he wants to preserve his big pecs and buns before the roids wear off. But come on, that scene was the definition of the word gratuitous and doesn't belong in a PG-13 family summer film.

The trailer was cheesy and so's the movie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mystic River (2003)
a low point for all involved
20 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Wow. I have to agree with the others here who commented about how overrated this film is. I'm a huge Clint fan, both as an actor and especially as a director. In his own way he's an American auteur. Unfortunately Mystic River is one of his weakest movies ever.

**Spoilers**

Not only is it painfully slow, but it's painfully cliched. Events are telegraphed miles in advance. Some of the dialogue is awful. Tim Robbins (the best thing in this movie) going on about "I had to split my personality into somebody else so I could deal with the abuse" is a great example of bad dialogue. The wonderful Marcia Gay Harden plays her role like a bug-eyed looney from a 1930s Universal horror film. If the usually incredible Sean Penn cried one more time I would have puked. And this is one of those movies that so obviously sets up a killer that you know it can't be that character, and then in the last ten minutes the real killer is discovered. But I have one last complaint. Clint should stick to directing and give up composing. The music is treacle. The crescendo blast of music at the end when a gun is shot and the screen cuts to a bright sunny day was too much. He should stick with Lennie Niehaus.

This is similar in many ways to Blood Work and True Crime, where some of the acting is way over the top cliched, and some of the plot twists come either too late or out of left field. Clint is a wonderful director, but like Woody Allen he's been in a slump lately. Let's hope they both recover soon.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Short Walk to Daylight (1972 TV Movie)
another viewer with fond memories
20 October 2003
Like a few other comments here, I too saw this as a ten year old when it first aired as a TV movie of the week. I think it was right after the Poseidon Adventure came out and I was on my disaster movie kick. But I really loved this one. I remember being riveted to the TV, the hot, steamy subway at night and the dark, moody sets and effects. From what I remember there was an earthquake in Manhattan, and the implication was there wasn't much for them to escape to once they got out.

That's why I hated the longer version that was released a few years later. They explained it all away as a terrorist explosion or something. It was all padding, probably to fill a 2 hour slot (just like that awful Debra Lee Scott padding they added to Earthquake for its TV airing.)

I would also love to see this again. Or maybe not... maybe it would ruin the memories.

FYI: another fun TV movie from this era was Terror At 30,000 Feet, with William Shatner as 747 pilot and his demonic cargo.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Down with Down With Love
7 October 2003
Maybe it plays better on video, but Down With Love was one of the biggest cinematic disappointments in recent memory. As a big fan of the Day/Hudson films, and Zellweger and McGregor (one of the best actors on the planet), maybe my expectations were too high. Unfortunately this movie was so wrong on so many levels. The publicity raved about how this would be an accurate homage to the Day/Hudson movies, down to fake backdrops and rear screen projections. Visually they got it perfectly right. The sets and especially the costumes are incredible. Ditto the supporting players: Hyde Pearce does a pitch perfect Tony Randall, and Paulson does a great Paula Prentiss. Oh yeah, the titles are right on the money, too.

But that's it. Everything else is WRONG. The music in those movies was never this NON-STOP and annoying. Pillow Talk is a great example of how the score complemented the on screen action and humor. Maybe it was the Dolby, but this score got on my nerves after 5 minutes (note the scene at the beginning in the board room.)

Another huge problem is the script. Aside from being a mess story wise, the dialogue is flat out wrong. They went for cutesy wink wink explicit, when what made those Day/Hudson movies so great was the innuendo and double entendre. A clever, subtle spin on this would have made this film click. The story itself is a mess, with Zellweger coming off as a psycho stalker in the last act. The direction is also WAY off, with the movie at times feeling like a spoof rather than homage, as if the director hated those movies and wanted to make fun of them.

As for the leads, McGregor is OK, but he's way too lean to play Rock, the (ironically enough) uber male. But Zellweger is a disaster. Her goofy eye rolling and puckering for the camera is more Jerry Lewis than Doris Day. Doris rolled her eyes, but never so self consciously to the camera. And unlike her other wonderful performances, Zellweger is too whispy a screen presence here. Doris, even when playing meek, always had a very strong presence.

Sorry to be a downer, but Down With Love was a big disappointment. From the sound of it, the other 3 people in the audience I saw this with felt the same.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
bad bad bad
27 May 2003
Man, this movie STUNK! It's the worst big sequel since Star Trek V, or King Kong Lives. It's boring, the music is bad, the fx are cheesy, there's no story, the characters never shut up, there's nothing LESS exciting than a slow motion action sequence... and it all goes on WAY TOO LONG! Every action scene seems twice as long as it should be. The CGI looked as phony as the new Star Wars movies, where you can actually see the stars' faces superimposed over digital bodies. Then when the folks of Zion started gyrating and humping to techno music while Neo and his babe made out, I had to laugh. It was right out of the 10 Commandments orgy sequence. All the Zion stuff looked like Star Trek meets Waterworld, and all the gratuitous action stuff looked like a Jerry Bruckheimer movie, like the Bad Boys II trailer we saw before the film even started. And the story? What story? That's what made the first Matrix stand out - Neo's journey from hacker to hero. Here it's all about how cool the phony CGI looks while the characters pose in sunglasses. What a complete mess. The fact that it was so boring adds insult to injury. I'll skip Revolutions and watch the original again.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
over baked
29 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Man, this was one overrated movie. Found it hard to watch, and I have to include SPOILERS to say way. From the camera moves to the music to the acting, this thing was so O!V!E!R!D!O!N!E! I couldn't stand it. Jeff Bridges is one of my favorite actors, but here he's such an over the top loon that I had no sympathy for him. And I never bought that his discovery of the plot started when he saw a small part of a blueprint that's hidden under stuff on a kitchen table! He saw this for what, 4 seconds? And didn't it bug anybody that the bad guys showed up at such convenient times, as if they had ESP? Jeff reads microfilm about Tim in a library, and voila, Tim is at the library looking over Jeff's shoulder! Jeff reads Tim's old yearbook then falls asleep, and voila, he wakes up and Tim is there! Jeff's girlfriend is at some anonymous mall out in the middle of nowhere, spilling her guts to his answering machine about bad guy Tim, and voila, she turns around and Tim's wife is there! It's these logic problems and the over the top style that make this film unwatchable.
61 out of 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
get real - this reeks
24 November 2002
I can't believe some of these comments! They're more pretentious than this movie, if that's possible. I LOVED Boogie Nights. What a great movie. I ADMIRED Magnolia - a mess that almost clicked. But this? Talk about undeveloped female characters. They're either one dimensional whining jerks (his sisters) or non-existent (the wonderful Emily Watson.) Why did she fall for Sandler's character, other than because the writer wrote it that way? My girlfriend and I didn't buy it for a second. And for all these reviewers who are waxing poetic about what a wonderful change of pace, original movie this is -- how about the contrived ending? Gimme a break. This movie might have worked for me if Watson had a character -- who DIDN'T accept psycho Sandler in the end. Maybe if she helped him get the therapy he so desperately needed I could have walked out saying, "Wow - now THAT'S an original love story." I won't even get into the annoying, pretentious music and those pretty yet pretentious rainbow color things that kept fading in and out for no reason. This isn't a bomb because it's not Waterboy II, it's a bomb because it's a boring reek. Sandler was great, though.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lifeforce (1985)
8/10
underrated fun
21 November 2002
I don't understand some of the comments I've read about Lifeforce. How could anybody take this movie seriously? It was supposed to be an overblown, campy, fun homage to those great Hammer B movies and other low budget sci-fi. Maybe if they kept the original "Vampires From Outer Space" title people would have gone into this with the proper frame of mind. I know the first time I saw this I hated it, but then I rented the longer uncut British version, which was so over the top that it left no doubt that this was supposed to be FUN. If I remember correctly the longer version has a different flashback structure which helps the movie make sense and sets the proper tone. I think the pacing is fast, the music great and the acting deliberately campy. Some of the fx are dated, but tht only adds to the FUN. I still have no idea what the ending means, but who cares. The blood monster thing was cool!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dark City (1998)
9/10
ditto the kudos
3 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILER***

A thought for those who didn't "get" why this movie is so great: watch it again. I really liked it the first time I saw it, but LOVED it the second time. What a great, deep movie. Even Keifer's performance was much improved on second viewing. And I don't understand why people think the ending is a let down. Those final shots of him recapturing the love of his life have to be among the most romantic images ever put in a "sci-fi" movie. He creates Shell Beach, brings light to the world, and meets the woman he fell in love with who now suffers from the amnesia that he suffered with at the beginning. She stood up for him while his memories were gone, now he'll do the same for her. This is what true love is all about, and we know they'll get together. Plus the movie has a great SCORE. I only wish I saw this in a theater.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Below (2002)
1/10
walked out
14 October 2002
What a piece of crap! I was really looking forward to this. I'd read a few good things about it on various web sites, but they must have been plugs by the studio or crew. Also, I really enjoyed Pitch Black - very scary and well done - and figured this one would be Pitch Black on a submarine. WRONG! Awful dialogue, awful digital fx and Twohy's direction was more like bad film school than the effective, slick professionalism of Pitch Black. Below feels like a direct to video film that's been sitting around for years that somehow got a theatrical release. There are reasons why studios dump movies. But why dump them in theaters when Blockbuster needs boxes on their new release shelf? After I walked out (about half way through) I snuck into Swept Away. At least that one had pretty cinematography.
2 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Angel Heart (1987)
10/10
underrated classic!
8 December 2001
Have to agree with most of the comments here -- this is a GREAT movie! I can't believe it's so overlooked and forgotten. It's one of those films, like Sixth Sense, that plays differently (and just as strongly) the second time around. I saw it about ten years ago and loved it. Just watched the DVD and still loved it, but DeNiro's performance really stands out on second viewing! First time I didn't get his attitude. This time I saw the humor in his performance. Also really appreciated the PLOT on second viewing. Not confusing or intricate at all, but truly ingenious and evil - and something true to DeNiro's character. And Mickey Rourke is phenomenal. A truly great performance. You really feel for him at the end. Ditto the music and beautiful cinematography. Watch the DVD if you can. I don't remember the images or sound on the tape being this crisp and vivid.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Naomi Watts, Best Actress 2001
17 October 2001
Warning: Spoilers
What a great movie! How about Mulholland Drive and Memento for a double feature? Like Memento, this one really stayed with me. I wish Lynch would do a mainstream Hollywood horror movie, like a remake of the Exorcist. He would scare the living sh*t out of everybody!

The acting is incredible! Who is Naomi Watts, and will she be nominated for Best Actress this year? She deserves to win. This is one of the most incredible performances I've seen in years.

Thank you David for keeping film alive.

** SPOILERS **

I'm surprised so many people don't 'get' this movie! I hate to give it away, but the happy go lucky Nancy Drew first half is a dream, and the scary, sad second half is the reality. It's the tell tale heart, as told from the POV of somebody who went to Hollywood all starry eyed, and wound up like so many others: used, crushed and spit out by the seedy, selfish nightmare that is LA.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
peeyoosah!
25 June 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I have to agree with all the negative comments. What a huge disappointment. It felt like Lucas shot the very first draft of his script. Ewan, Liam and Samuel are GREAT actors, but they all stink in this. The editing stinks. The FX are very good, but never great. Sorry, but the pod race looks like a model pod hanging in front of blurry brown & tan CGI backgrounds, and the final battle never feels real: the sky is too blue, the grass is too green, and the bots are too clean. The film's biggest crime, though, is leaving Obi Wan on that spaceship with nothing to do, especially when you've got Ewan playing him. One big question: in the original 3 films, why didn't R2 know that Darth, aka Annakin, was his creator? Is it even hinted at? And why does the final saber fight take place in what looks like a huge death star? And is it true that an angry, disillusioned Jar Jar will turn to the dark side and call himself Boba Fett? That was a joke, not a spoiler.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pearl Harbor (2001)
1/10
what a load of crap!
7 June 2001
Warning: Spoilers
This confirms it. Hollywood is run by idiots. I can't believe they wasted so much money on such an awful story. Granted, this film did have it's emotional moments and I did get choked up a few times, but it was when the film focused on the real events and the real people caught up in it. It was never during the lame, blandly acted love triangle. Who approved this love triangle story? And three hours of it? Example & semi-SPOILER: the movie hit rock bottom right after the bombing, after we've witnessed an unbelievable - and true - horror story. Ben and Josh show up in the hospital - full of dying men - and Ben gets all cranky because his feelings were hurt. Are we really supposed to care about what happens to this flat love triangle after we've witnessed such real life carnage? And since everything is shot so picture perfect (aka antiseptic), these characters never become real. They look like models in a detergent commercial. Another low was the second half of the attack sequence, when the movie goes Star Wars and Ben and Josh become superhero flyboys ("Yee-haw! I got me one!") I won't even get into the shots that were ripped right out of Titanic. They even threw in the Queen Mary, and ruined the scene with some corn ball hijinx. I could go on, but life is too short.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
a million light years from Hitchcock
3 June 2001
What an overrated snooze! There is zero suspense, zero thrills and the ending is completely flat. Very good performances, and the countryside is beautiful. But that's it! I can't believe this is being compared to Hitchcock and that it won ANY awards! It felt like a lame remake of the Talented Mr. Ripley. Save your money and rent Plein Soleil (Purple Noon in the US - the original Mr. Ripley) or Diabolique if you want a good French thriller.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
cruel, overlong and overrated
20 May 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Warning: spoilers ahead. Despite great performances all around (save for Telly Savalas' giggling psycho), this is one overrated and overlong 'classic' action movie. I have a hard time when Hollywood tries to turn murderers and rapists -- all sentenced to death or life in prison -- into a bunch of lovable, misunderstood goofballs. I could buy it if one or two of them had been wrongfully accused, but eleven of them? Or rather six of them, since the other half of the 'dozen' aren't even developed into characters. I could also buy it if they redeem themselves or come to some personal revelation through their mission, but the finale of this film was so sadistic that it ruined everything that had been set up. Are we supposed to cheer when these so far unredeemed 'heroes' pour gasoline on a bunch of trapped Nazi officers' WIVES?? Why did the writers put women in this scene at all? Where's the redemption in psychos acting psychotic? This finale just puts them on the same level as the Nazis, but unfortunately this film isn't going for any kind of moral message. The screaming, trapped women getting doused in gasoline by a bunch of unredeemed murderers and rapists completely ruined what had been an OK action film.
31 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
misunderstood masterpiece??
29 May 2000
Well, maybe not masterpiece. But Starship Troopers is one of those great films that grows on you the more you see it.

Verhoeven has said his life was changed by witnessing the violence of WWII up close and personal. On the surface Starship Troopers is an homage to those gung-ho WWII (propaganda) movies, but Verhoeven shows what those movies NEVER showed: the horrifying, grisly reality of war. The casting emphasizes his point: he takes barbie and ken doll actors, sets them up for a fun adventure fighting bugs, then literally rips their arms and heads off! The only problem is the characters are still gung-ho barbie and ken dolls at the end, with some well placed smudges and bruises. Had they been burned out human wrecks I think people would have gotten what Verhoeven was going for. But maybe that would have been too much.

I also think this was misunderstood because the 'heroes' are, in a sense, the bad guys! A reporter makes a comment half way through the film that the bugs were harmless until humans invaded their territory. The opening TV news show even says that the conflict started when Mormons opened a mission on the bug planet (this is something I missed first time around.) But again, the relatively lame ending soft pedals this theme, so by the time Doogie Houser shows up wearing an SS trenchcoat, torturing the poor Brain Bug, people tend to laugh and dismiss the deeper meaning.

Starship Troopers also has some of the best FX ever! The bugs are flawless. Notice how the dead humans resemble squased bugs! The 'Alamo' sequence is breathtaking, especially on the big screen. Same with the big battle scene, with hundreds of orbiting troopships discharging hundreds of landing ships, while plasma blobs shoot up from the planet. We even follow one of the landing ships to the ground (while others get blasted with plasma), then watch the soldiers run out and over to a cliff, where huge Tanker(?) bugs literally fart out the plasma blobs that are destroying the orbiting troop ships. It's an mazing sequence. The music score is also great.

I know a lot of people who hated this film when it first came out. But I think it's because they took it at face value. This is a film that really comes together on second viewing. If only the ending weren't such a thematic cop out...
29 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gladiator (2000)
remake of Fall of the Roman Empire
7 May 2000
What nobody's noticed is that this is basically a remake of the 60s epic 'Fall of the Roman Empire', with Alec Guiness, Sophia Loren, Christopher Plummer and Stephen Boyd. While 'Gladiator' has great acting and a surprisingly involving story, not to mention amazing action scenes, the older film beats it in one very important area: producer Samuel Bronston rebuilt the Roman Forum in Spain, so the sets are real. 'Gladiator' is all digital and looks it. There's probably not one bit of natural light in the entire film. That's too bad, because otherwise it's very entertaining. As for 'Fall of the Roman Empire', it's pretty dated, but it's also one of the most visually stunning films ever made and has a GREAT Dimitri Tiomkin score. Try to see it letterboxed if you can.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
very underrated Lean
13 October 1999
Warning: Spoilers
This is a great, underrated 'movie' movie! Although the cinematography and Sarah Miles' performance usually (deservedly) get all the attention, both Robert Mitchum and Trevor Howard turn in excellent, subtle performances. Three scenes to note: Miles and Jones first encounter in the bar, when the lights fade up from black; Miles and Jones at dawn on the hillside - note the sound editing when Lean cuts back to Mitchum watching them, and their reflection in the window next to him (the sound effect is the generator from the British camp); and (semi-spoiler!) the final shots of Jones on the beach, with the setting sun reflected on the mirror in the lid of the ammunitions box. If the film is criticized for having a 'thin' plot, it's because much of this story is told visually. Too bad we can't see this in 70mm as it was intended to be seen! How about a revival???
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed