Change Your Image
UpRightApe
Reviews
NCIS: New Orleans: Father's Day (2016)
NCIS and NCIS: New Orleans - Goodbye to a great pair of series
Surprise! Starting with the "Father's Day" episode, Mark Harmon decided to wreck NCIS: New Orleans the same way he wrecked NCIS.
The episodes are now shot with hand-held video cams in green-screen cardboard sets. What a transparently cheap way to bail out of hard work.
It's too bad. Before Mark Harmon's negotiations for a golden parachute retirement. both shows seemed to demonstrate artistic integrity on the part of the executive producer.
Right. Cut costs on the sacrificial last seasons, stuff the retirement portfolio, and head for the American Dream. It's only a TV show, right? And the fans are only.... well, they're only fans, right? Hand-held video cams. Good grief. Enjoy the fruits of your creativity, Mark.
NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative Service: Decompressed (2016)
Hand held video-cams
Starting with "Decompressed," the episodes are being shot with hand held video-cams in cardboard sets.
Embarrassingly cheap production values. It's too bad that NCIS has sunk to the level of Battlestar Galactica and Stargate: Universe.
What are you thinking, Mark? Are you tired of working for a living? Did a marketeer from Radio Shack convince you that his company has a monopoly on the hi-tech gear you need to produce this program?
Or has NCIS reached the end of a "practical lifetime for a TV series" in your world view?
Whatever your rationale is, your abandonment of the series is obvious.
Goodbye, NCIS.
The Pink Panther (2006)
List of fatal errors.
When I set out to write this review, I had one of my usual litanies in mind. However, I quickly realized that I could never finish the review in time to escape the next Ice Age. So I decided to summarize the bad points of this movie in a list of huge understatements. Here is the list:
1. No Cato. The original role was merged into that of a sidekick for Clouseau. Not even close.
2. The portrayal of Dreyfus was a complete embarrassment for Kevin Kline. I felt sorry for the actor. There were no body tics or other signs of imminent insanity. Nor were there any pratfalls when Clouseau was not present, such as the pistol "cigarette lighter" bit.
3. Steve Martin. For some reason his comedic genius was absent. He had countless opportunities to make important editorial comments, but didn't for some reason that can only be attributed to an utter conviction that there was no saving this movie. For example:
"Wait. We need more random slapstick, like 'Does your dog bite?', or 'May I take your hat and coat?'"
"Clouseau spends too much time explaining his plans. Absurd humor when this is happening is essential."
"Why are there so many serious scenes?"
"These 'disguises' are totally inane."
4. Want to see the only honest attempt to rise to the standards of a halfway decent movie? Watch the last few minutes. The closing scene comes close to entertainment. Want to know why the rest of the movie wasn't like this? So do I.
Steps 5 through Infinity have been omitted for administrative reasons.
Stargate SG-1: The Scourge (2006)
Worst opening scenes in history of SG-1
When I first saw the opening scenes, I wondered if the episode was supposed to be some sort of satire or comedy.
I was wrong. The acting and writing really were that bad.
The show starts with the team walking down a hallway as they provide us with a hurried summary of events associated with the Ori. They sound as though they're reading from a teleprompter that's running too fast.
Shanks practically stutters as he flies through lines like "Be damn sure they're thinking up ways to keep spreading fear and destruction throughout this galaxy." Ugh. Sounded like an intro to a b-movie serial from the 40's.
Then, as the team heads up the ramp, Browder says "All right, let's move out. These ancient ruins aren't going to explore themselves." What the hell happened? Mallozzi and Mullie have much better writing credits than this for the various Stargate series. Is Girotti that bad at directing, or did the whole team just fall flat on its face for some reason? The only things I can imagine is that they all partied the night before, or they received news that they were out the door soon.
Either way, if they keep churning out this sort of brain-dead dialog and sloppy acting, this show is done for no matter what the studio's agenda is.
Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)
Poor remake of a loser
What is Jim Carrey thinking? Apparently sudden wealth conveys a notion of important talent, as though the two were somehow related. They're not. This is a bad, bad, movie - a second-rate exploitation of a previous bomb. If you laugh during or after seeing this embarrassingly unfunny, unoriginal copy, it's solely because you have an appreciation for irony directly proportional to the money you spend for worthless entertainment.
Yes, Jim, you're very rich. Yes, every movie you make earns millions of dollars. Here, boy! That's a good dog! Sit! Good boy !!!! Thanks for existing at the same time we do !!!!
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
Divide and conquer. Who's next?
What Moore's movie manages to demonstrate is how polarized and angry the politicians and demagogues of both sides of the conservative/liberal issue have made the citizens of this country. It's the oldest trick in the power-grabbing game: divide and conquer. Just take a look at some of the inflammatory comments in this board - spite, intolerance, personal assassination. Yes, Moore has done his own part in this territory - but so does everyone who condemns his/her neighbor for daring to have opposing opinions. In the meantime, there's a third neighbor, waiting....
Too bad Moore didn't try to identify that 3rd neighbor. We could all use some pointers on who's managed to divide us this way, even if we can't learn to live together.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
The Passion of Giordano Bruno
Wow. I haven't felt this much passion since the last movie about the passion of Jesus.
Well done, Mel! There's nothing like subtitles and artistic gore to add a touch of profundity to a story that is more than capable of standing on its own.
Here's an idea that will appeal to your creative genius: make a movie entitled "The Passion of Giordano Bruno."
Like Jesus, Bruno died for his beliefs. In 1600, the prevailing religious authorities burned him at the stake. The sentence was carried out after a number of offers of clemency, provded he recant his beliefs.
Unlike Galleo, who cowered under the threat of torture by the same authorities, Bruno held his ground. So, they burned him alive. Afterwards, the spin doctors set to work destroying all records of the trial and suggesting that he was killed not because of the content of his beliefs, but because he was "indolent" in the face of authority. What the heck, he had been excommunicated more than once because he had stubbornly maintained his convictions that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, and that the stars were actually suns that might have inhabited planetary systems of their own. If this sort of attitude doesn't justify the death sentence, what does?
"Passion," perhaps?
Whatever. You're the creative genius here, you think of something. Bear in mind that the historical spin doctors had an easy time re-writing Giorodano's beliefs, mainly because he hadn't taken the precaution of doing mass-market publications of his ideas. Galileo was relatively untouched by history because he published long before the religious censors decided he shouldn't.
Researching the truth will be the real challenge here. You'll have to overcome many personal biases in order to give Bruno the fair treatment that any martyr for beliefs deserves.
I dare you. Outdo "The Passion of The Christ", if you can.
Mean Girls (2004)
Saw it when it was Heathers
Low-budget "adaptation" of "Heathers", itself a "Beach Blanket Bingo" with delusions of grandeur.
I think I'm finally beginning to understand the pathology of such dismal retreads of bad films: wait a generation or two, rehash the script by removing half the verbs, cast the Latest Girlie-Girls, grease the hype machine, and enjoy the mall money which has been diverted from low-riding jeans to the pockets of "creative" producers.
I feel sorry for Lindsay Lohan. At a time in her life when teenaged feuds seem important for some vacuous reason, she's jumped right into the bottomless whirlpool of Hilary Duff's pointless movie career. May they both serve as "Mean Girl" martyrs of teenybopper trash cinema.
The Tribe (1999)
Fun but not original at all
Interesting knock-off of the classic "Star Trek" episode, "Miri". In "Miri", the adults were also exterminated via a mutated virus originally engineered to prolong life. "The Tribe" is just a modernized version, complete with punk makeup and road-warrior uniforms. It's not very original as far as science fiction plotlines go, but fun to watch in the way that "Miri" was.
Russkies (1987)
Saw it in 1966, when it was "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming"
Don't waste time watching this pathetic knock-off of a truly great movie. Watch "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming" instead. Imitation may be a form of flattery, but in the case of "Russkies" it's hardly sincere.
Quigley Down Under (1990)
Flawed plot
Excellent cinematography and acting, but fatally flawed by unbelievably stupid plot content. Example: the Aborigines are subjected to horrible mistreatment by the local bad guy. At the end, an entire army of Aborigines appears and manages to intimidate armed British troops into retreating. Where was this army when their people were being mistreated earlier in the movie? Another: Quigley lets the bad guys get the drop on him for no discernable reason (that's right, he lets them - by standing out in the open and talking during a firefight); but not to worry, the leader of the bad guys is one of those B-movie writer creations who hands Quigley a gun and talks until Quigley can shoot him. Too bad the qualities of this movie can't outweigh the utterly stupid script.