Change Your Image
superbu1
Reviews
Standard Time (2002)
Cartoonish, Hallmark movie-of-the-week feel
This movie is somewhat entertaining, but the plot, dialog, acting, and cinematography all have this very cheesy Hallmark Channel quality to it. The whole thing feels kind of dumbed down. I was very surprised to find this was a theatrical feature, because it really looks and feels like a TV movie.
Another problem with the film is that a high percentage of the dialog is dubbed, and not dubbed very well. It does tend to take one out of the movie.
The star of the picture, Isabel Rose, co-wrote the film with its director, presumably to show off her singing talents. I wish I could say her acting talents were the equal of her singing. They're not. She's a fair actress, not awful, but much of the time I found no real emotion or sense of spontaneity in her lines. I never get the sense people are having an actual conversation in the film. Everything SOUNDS like dialog. For example, when a character, kisses her for the first time, she doesn't seem flustered at all -- merely spouts out a line of canned dialog.
Again, it's a somewhat entertaining film, and I probably wouldn't shut the TV off if there was nothing else on, but the whole thing does have an amateur, simplistic feel to it.
Secuestro express (2004)
Vile piece of vile garbage
This awful piece of trash is merely an excuse to once again show horrific violence on screen and have the criminals go unpunished. I'm so tired of filmmakers who portray this sort of thing under the guise of "art." Despite a few interesting plot twists and some fine acting, this is not art... it's moral depravity.
Worse, it's depravity with that clichéd, flash-bang editing and photography that we've now seen in a MILLION movies. That's always a dead giveaway... if there were anything interesting to film, the director wouldn't have to keep moving the camera.
This Tarantino wannabe needs to retire, quickly.
Patterson-Gimlin Film (1967)
Footage cannot be proved or disproven
Contrary to the previous post, there is actually quite a lot of circumstantial evidence that this film was hoaxed, though no actual proof.
The most damning evidence is the timeline -- 16mm footage allegedly shot in California on a Friday afternoon, then developed at a lab and back in Yakima for viewing by that Sunday evening?! According to researcher Greg Long, there were only a handful of labs that processed 16mm film for the public at that time. And survivor Bob Gimlin can't "remember" how they got the film back to Yakima or where they had it developed. It seems nearly impossible...
So Patterson was likely lying about WHEN the film was shot. Why? I can't answer that, but it's odd that it happened to be pouring rain when Patterson made his first phone call to other Bigfoot investigators to come out and look at the site, rain that ruined the footprints (human and otherwise). All that remained were plaster casts and film that Patterson took of the footprints prior to the rain -- so, basically, no one could see anything in the sand that he didn't WANT them to see. Did Patterson film it sometime earlier, then just wait for it to rain, to blur evidence of a hoax?
And while there do seem to be discrepancies in the story of Bob Heironimus (the man who claims he was wearing the Bigfoot costume), at least one detail gives me pause: he claims Patterson's still-living widow Patricia watched him try on the "Bigfoot" costume back in 1967. I find it hard to believe that he would implicate her with an accusation like that if it were unfounded. And, as far as I know, Mrs. Patterson has never filed a lawsuit against him for slander, nor has Bob Gimlin.
However, the film has never been definitively debunked, nor definitively proved. The only way to prove or disprove it would be to catch a live sasquatch and compare it to the film subject... unless Gimlin or Patterson's widow were to fess up.
Show Me (2004)
Fine acting, but....
Excellent acting all around and some good dialog can't quite save this film from some ridiculous, implausible plot twists.
****SPOILER WARNING**** Basic question: If a strange girl cut you on the cheek with a switchblade and robbed you, would you go--ON YOUR OWN--to her house the next day to confront her about it, ignore her boyfriend glaring at you with an axe in his hand and saying "Who the f**k are you," and then push past the boyfriend, turning your back on him? ****END OF SPOILER**** I mean, there does come a point where characters have to behave in a SOMEWHAT plausible manner, and this scene just flat out ruined the film for me.
But I was impressed with the VERY fine acting from the entire cast (comprised of only five actors).
The Shining (1980)
Self-conscious and in some ways cliched
There is much to recommend in Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining." Unfortunately, beautiful cinematography, clever editing and some good performances are subverted by a few awful cinematic horror cliches. A cobweb-covered dining table surrounded by skeletons? How many movies had we previously seen that in? I can name at least one -- 1972's "The Night Strangler." There must be many more. Was this supposed to be some sort of a joke on Kubrick's part? He didn't even add his own twist to it.
And how many times does he repeat the identical shot of blood pouring from the elevator? At least three times do we see this. Did he really think it would continue to unnerve on its third replay (especially when we'd already seen the same shot months before in the trailer)? "Whoo, look at this -- gallons of BLOOD coming out of the elevator! Isn't that scary? Here, let's play it again. See? Whoo! One more time for the road!"
Puzzling choices for a director as brilliant as Kubrick.
And there is so much intentional humor in Jack Nicholson's performance that I don't find him frightening at all.
Pitch Black (2000)
Bad dialogue and acting, but good special effects!
My neighbor told me "Pitch Black" had been well reviewed, so we were both looking forward to it. Within half an hour of the start of the film, after we'd both started snickering at the trite dialogue, unnecessarily flashy cinematography and editing, and mediocre to below average acting, he admitted he must have been thinking of a different film. "Pitch Black" feels like it was written by talented 18 year-old boys. While the plot is fairly complex, the characters are one-dimensional and cliched. Their motivations are sometimes incomprehensible, often engaging in the most irrational behavior simply to further a plot point.
For example, when the villain of the piece is bound and gagged, he seems to be capable of talking people into coming within arm's reach of him -- people who are then surprised when he attacks them. Ding-dong!
And when two characters suddenly crawl out of their safe circle of fire and out into the dark, where they are attacked by the wild creatures that are chasing them -- why on EARTH would they do such a thing when they know their only safety is the light? And the motivation for their doing so is SO WEAK as to seem contrived. If you are surrounded by thousands of creatures nipping at your heels, and your only safety is the torches held by the rest of your group, there is NOTHING that would make you leave that group for even one second. The stupidity of it all took me right out of the movie.
The dialogue was... well, it WANTED to be clever. But you could FEEL it trying to be so.
There was also a definite lack of originality in some of the dialogue -- "the 'company' wants us to do so and so" seems to be lifted straight out of "Alien." The tied up villain telling the female captain of the ship to "come closer... closer..." seems to be stolen from Hannibal's line to Clarece in "Silence of the Lambs." The half-in-shadow lighting of the villain's bald head in the same scene, combined with his monotone mumblings, takes me right back to "Apocalypse Now." Maybe this was supposed to be a "tribute" to these films. My advice the filmmakers is to make their work good enough so other filmmakers will want to pay tribute to THEM.
The one saving grace -- although it doesn't quite save the picture -- is the special effects, which really are well done. The pterodactyl-like creatures are quite well executed and genuinely creepy, and they were the sole reason I did get somewhat involved toward the end of the picture.
Had it not been for them, I would have given the picture 2 stars instead of the 4 I gave it.
Terms of Endearment (1983)
Don't let the drama fool you -- one of the funniest movies ever made!
How could anyone not love this movie? The acting is marvelous, the writing is brilliant -- sharp, witty and so carefully textured. It walks such a skilled, fine line between comedy and tragedy. The characters are unforgettable. I can't count how many times I've seen this movie, but I'm sure it's been at least fifteen. Some people are puzzled when I refer to "Terms of Endearment" as a comedy. While it technically is a drama because of its "sad" ending, almost everything leading up to that ending is deliriously funny. From that snotty cashier at the grocery store to MacLaine's fiasco of a date with Jack Nicholson -- so much hilarity, so much LIFE. And it's much funnier than some of James Brooks' other films ("Broadcast News" and "As Good As It Gets"). But then the drama comes out of nowhere, catching you off guard, giving it all the more impact. I highly recommend this one.