Reviews

This fourth "True Detective" season increasingly became a chore to watch with this final episode proving such effort was mostly in vain.

Unsympathetic characters collided in an underwhelming finale that spelled out the not-so-amazing secret of show's underlying mystery (except for the series' signature oddball piece) same as it was spoon fed to the Alaskan state investigators at the end.

The show's a slog overall, unfortunately, with the upside being the birth of a new drinking game -- every time Jodie Foster screams, "Navarrao!" woof down a shot. Maybe a gallon of Absolute will improve the series.

Pathetic. So terrible it doesn't even warrant an in-depth review.

Brings to mind horrible television of the '70s and '80s. This garbage would'e been right at home back then.

Ewan brought his A game and the locations are awesome but that's about it. The crazy lady chasing Ewan needs to finish a few more acting classes. And the kid playing Princess Leia is, um, the worst..but, to be fair, the horrid script might have made her worse.

'Star Wars' fans shouldn't watch this stuff. Calling it 'fan fiction' isn't fair because there's LOTS of fan fiction written lightyears better.

Another spectacular Disney failure on multiple levels.

Thought "Unbreakable" was glacially slow? "Glass" is slower. Painfully slower.

Good performances throughout but the writing is pedestrian (at best). Like a sophomore-on-the-verge-of-flunking-out-of-Emerson puke draft, never polished.

The "twist ending" wasn't much of a twist but you'd think it was earth shattering what with the dramatic music and editing. Very well-crafted pomp and circumstance for a nothing burger.

M. Night's twists are now, officially, one half-step away from his ultimate twist ending -- that will laughably reveal you paid $9 to endure his latest steaming pile.

Not to be overly negative here, so the BEST thing that can be said about "Glass" is at least the wind (literally, as in "The Happening") isn't revealed to be the bad guy of this slickly produced turd.

M. Night struck gold with "The Sixth Sense" but two decades later it's been nothing but pyrite ever since. Yuck.

Wow. Just, wow.

So you thought the prequels were rubbish? And it couldn't possibly get worse than "The Force Awakens," right?

Surprise!

At the 30-minute mark: You gotta be effing kidding me. The 60-min mark: What the hell am I watching? 120-min mark: This is the dumbest thing ever committed to film. Final shot: The world is totally insane.

Luke's return suddenly seems jaw-droppingly stunning and breathtaking and for nearly five seconds maybe even wondrous but ends up a cruel ruse, a cheap letdown. Like the rest of the film.

DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE. Please. It amounts to self harm. It's tone deaf, lazy and devoid imagination. You don't want to see this movie.

Final Score: Lucas = 2 wins, 3 losses and 1 tie ("New Hope" and Empire" big wins, prequels big losses and "Jedi" is fine until the teddy bears waddle in...)

Disney = 0 wins, three losses (Eps VII and VIII losses that verge on comedic, "Rogue One" a legit loss.)

"Star Wars" RIP.

"Dark Knight Rises" is a relentless, conceptually terrifying, soul-crushing but ultimately vindicating and hopeful social commentary.

In operatic terms, "Avengers" would be Mozart's "Magic Flute" while "DKR" is Wagner's "Das Rheingold" turned up to 11.

One doesn't exactly sit watching idly. Seems more like Christopher Nolan beats the spit out of you with "DKR." Even those familiar with the various comic book source materials will find themselves surprised, pleasantly.

There's also an edgy "anything can happen" vibe rare in genre films. The sequence of events provides an incredible smokescreen of misdirection that keeps one guessing but also FEARING what might occur.

"Can Nolan go there?" you might ask as the plot unfolds and you're assuming what's next. He does. Amazingly, he finds ways.

Just as amazing is Nolan's track record with this incredible cinematic hat trick trilogy. "Batman Begins" was a compelling, clever film that didn't disappoint and even improved upon the legendary source material. "Dark Knight" upped the ante and even commented upon the war on terror. Now, with "DKR," Nolan not only swings for the fences but doesn't whiff, as is traditional with every other threequel. Far from it.

The "DKR" villains aren't the brilliantly flip Heath Ledger, they're something else entirely -- totally menacing, self-righteously delusional and murderously uncompromising. Ledger's Joker embodied chaos, while Bane and the League Of Shadows represented the dead-end false promises of far-left demagogues preaching class warfare, and, of course, "fairness." Sound familiar?

Experiencing "DKR" is nothing if not overwhelming, in a thought-provoking and resonating manner. The shiny veneer of certain political promises and assertions might peel away even further while Hans Zimmer's music buzzes in your head during the days following.

I'd label Nolan a genius...but, he really can't take credit for this motion picture. "He didn't do it himself." Other disenfranchised people are entitled to the praise. Right, Bane?

Wow, what a loud headache. And at premium ticket prices!

Short Version: "Avatar" is a screeching, day-glo mess.

Long Version: Where the heck to start??

The animated light-blue cat people and their cluttered, color-coordinated environment just doesn't work. Looks like a crazy expensive X-Box game. And nothing, but nothing, is more boring than watching someone else play a video game.

The 3-D effects work best when they're subtle. Otherwise boring, static shots of people standing in the foreground or technical displays look really wild with a depth of field. But all the hugemongous "money shots" actually appear pretty flat! The floating islands and all the sweeping establishing shots look like 2-D! Might be why so much of the action was framed in medium shots -- worked better for the 3-D (but at the cost of understanding what the heck was occurring).

Then there's the script. Or lack of script. The cherry atop the middling CGI and so-so 3-D is a completely unoriginal story derived from (but in no way limited to) the following source material:

"Pocahontas;" "A Princess Of Mars;" "Aliens;" "The Matrix;" "Dances With Wolves;" "Star Gate;" "True Lies;" "The Matrix Revolutions;" "Return Of The Jedi;" "Revenge Of The Sith"

There isn't an original idea in the entire film. You've seen it all before, and done mostly better, in other films. Cameron even swiped from himself, extensively!

I think we're supposed to oooh and aaah at Cameron's "grand visualization" of a "totally alien" civilization and ecosystem. We're supposed to marvel at the power of Cameron's imagination? Unfortunately, I saw more plagiarism than imagination at work. Plus all the warmed-over concepts are hung upon the framework of an amazingly lazy, formulaic plot.

Give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves, right? Well, CGI film technology makes for pretty a good noose. George Lucas fell into the same trap -- thanks to CGI he ended up doing everything he was always accused of doing. Now so has Cameron.

"Avatar" is not "next-level" cinema by any means. Creatively it's many steps backwards. Except for the exhibitors...they're able to charge an extra $5 or so per person. Cha-ching.

The fine line between comedy and tragedy is on display in this picture. This is a truly vile film. Comedy? Not even close. The message of this film is that everybody's a lying cheat and will never learn from their mistakes. A truly tragic pronouncement.

Maybe the language barrier affected this adaptation of its French source material. The cultural insulation films receive by way of subtitles might have made this sad mess hysterical. Find a print in which the actors speak Mandarin with English subtitles and let me know whether it's zany, OK? Never knew an alleged comedy could be so depressing.

Nope, Andy Kaufman never died...because he conspired to make this incredible dud of a biopic to bore the heck out of audiences. That's the only possible reason the movie's so terrible.

Alas, unlike his stand-up routine, Andy didn't save the show at the very last second by making the audience question reality.

Read about Kaufman's antics in the available biographies. Watch his clips on Youtube. Avoid this film. That is, unless you want to gawk Jim Carey in Kaufman drag needlessly recreating Andy's gags for no particular reason.

This film amounts to a ton of missed opportunities heaped upon a clueless screenplay and director. Plus a star who's self-indulgent nonsense is cringe-inducing.

Why watch Jim Carey doing Kaufman's bits? Eliminate the middle man. Nothing to see here, people. Move along.

Back in the fall of '86 this epic seemed like the death rattle of genre films.

Yeah, kicking this one's like fish in barrel. Where don't you start? Story, dialogue, direction, lighting all terrible. Barely professional.

But how did the Academy snub Sonny Bono? Portraying a sub-sitcom-level swinger named "Peter Dickinson"(heh-heh, heh-heh) in a D-level horror movie? He wore a bathrobe, for god's sake. Should've at least received that lifetime achievement award thingy.

Poor June Lockhart. Broke my heart she was reduced to appearing in such a trainwreck. But check out the rest of the cast (trippy).

Oh, and don't watch this movie. Just don't.

"Brotherhood of the Wolf" (aka "Le Pacte des loups") is easily one of the 10 best motion pictures ever produced. Lovers of complex, compelling cinema are seriously missing out if they've not experienced such a truly amazing film.

The elements comprising this unique period piece are each honed to perfection: The plot is mesmerizing, the direction stunning, the editing flawless, the acting brilliant, the music wonderful and the costumes are amazing. As a whole these elements created an unparalleled historical drama that fused several cinematic genres and historical facts like few films ever attempted let alone accomplished.

Discussing the film further jeopardizes your experience. You don't want to know much of anything before watching. Suffice to say during a three-year period of the 1760s a wolf-like creature murdered 100 people in a mountainous region of France.

Yes, it's subtitled in English. Just put down the large Budweiser and adjust your bifocals. More than worth the effort.

Haven't yet seen the film? Quit wasting time. Find a copy. And tell your friends. (You can thank me later...)

Pasty-&-old Steve Martin dishes up a non-story about a pasty-&-old guy who uses Claire Danes for sex, which occurs between the pasty-&-old guy's narration, which is needed sorely because otherwise stuff like character motivations and WTF's happening in general does not compute.

Capice? This one's a serious head-scratcher. No deep meaning, let alone a plot level. No redemptive arcs. No nothing, not even a hackneyed cliché. Ultimately pointless. In fact, the most pointless non-Ed Wood movie ever produced.

Hey Steve -- what happened?? Your movie career never really took off, now it ends with a whimper! Should've retired after "Bowfinger" and quit with something that didn't suck under your belt. Breakin' my heart, man.

No slump in sight for writer/director Christopher Nolan. He's now four for four, following up the solid efforts of "Following," "Memento" and "Batman Begins" with the equally fantastic "The Prestige." When's the last time a writer or director managed four consecutive films under their belt that were each fiercely distinctive and creatively successful? Nolan added further insult to the incompetent and lazy of Hollywood by actually improving upon the source novel. The eye-rolling one experienced while reading Christopher Priest's prose became gasps while watching Nolan's skilled adaptation. Nolan not only "fixed" Priest's novel, but turned it up to 11, conceptually. Good direction and especially good writing are invisible -- people expect a competent job. Only the truly great and truly terrible stick out. Nolan's accomplished something truly great on both levels. Superb actors (especially one bit of stunt-casting comes as a wonderful surprise; usually these types of cameos detract from a picture but Nolan's steady hand delivered), lush production design and careful attention to the thematic bedrock make for a contemporary classic. The only shortcoming, which is minor, might be the show's abrupt cutting around during the first act, which could seem a bit confusing. The unique layered non-linear continuity (diary-within-diary-within-story, etc) works flawlessly when Nolan's taking his time. Keep the film's curious first image in mind while the narrative untangles and keep your mind open when things turn toward steampunk. And you fanboys who were miffed because Nolan "wasted time" on this feature between Batman blockbusters should rejoice. The guy has more than enough juice for the Dark Knight.

Michael Allred's comic book stories, particularly his work on Madman, usually are a great deal of fun. "Astroesque," Allred's no-budget indy film, is the opposite of fun.

Worst acting ever coupled with truly horrible dialog makes for a brutal cinematic experience. Pretty certain Allred understands WTF's going on, but he's the only one. Daring you to watch the entire mess isn't enough...defying you to watch the entire mess is more on target.

"Astroesque" is some kind of movie tie-in to Allred's "Red Rocket 7" comic book, which, ironically, is mostly unreadable. So if your "Astroesque" experience isn't terrible enough definitely track down the over-sized comics and continue the fun.

Felt sorry for Allred, who was totally out of his depth attempting a film. Also felt sorry for myself, what an incredible waste of my time and money. Please buy my VHS copy, which is available right now on eBay. Hurry up.

"Grindhouse" is a self-indulgent mess. Definitely a cool idea, but unfortunately the execution is spectacularly boring. The film didn't live up to the crazy notions the concept evoked, just like the original exploitation source material never lived up to sleazy movie posters or radio spots. Daydreaming about what a film like "Grindhouse" might be like is more fun and productive plus way less tedious than sitting through the actual show.

For at least a few minutes Rodriquez's "Planet Terror" segment seems as if it might be a fun spin around the block. Unfortunately the story becomes quickly mired in an over-complicated plot at the expense of what should be straight-forward camp. Plus Rodriguez loses sight of the show's concept and embraces state-of-the-art film-making instead of genre schlock. Uneven results become tedious, much like the overly pained expressions of Rose McGowan's hatchet face. (Why didn't Rodriquez replace her head with the machine gun? Not only would there have been less scowling, but her performance could've improved greatly.) Plus there isn't a single sympathetic character in the entire mess. Oh well.

On the positive side, some of the hospital scenes decently parody the exploitation genre...but at the same time also detract from the show as a whole by bringing attention to those majority of scenes that fall flat. Nice seeing Michael Biehn, though.

Tarantino's "Death Proof" rocks whenever Kurt Russell's on screen. Unfortunately, they must've only had him for three or four days because most of the screen time's eaten up by two trios of in-your-face stupid chicks who won't shut the hell up. You think Kevin Smith dialog is interminable and inane? Hey Tarantino -- typing page after page of expository dialog for EVERY character in the same Witty Coolspeak makes EVERY character sound the same. Specifically, EVERY character sounds as if the writer's desperately attempting to impress his daddy/the audience. Daddy and the audience are bored stiff, not impressed. During an advanced screening of about 50 people, one viewer screamed "Shut up already!" during the talk talk talky restaurant sequence. Received the biggest laugh of the show.

Again, on the positive side, Kurt Russell rocks. But he's too peripheral to the yattering yentas swerving their hollow heads, yo. Tarantino obviously comprehends the concept of a faux '70s exploitation homage more than does Rodriguez, plus some of the car stunts toward the end create what amounts to the scant dramatic tension in the entire film. "Death Proof" probably falls less flat than "Planet Terror" but is instantly tedious and paper thin.

All but one of the fake trailers are nothing special, much better stuff's clogging YouTube. Peppering cast members as different characters in segments was fun, but WTF did they pull the missing reel gag twice? Oof. Symbolic of the destructive self-indulgence at work?

At least they nailed the music, especially during Tarantino's segment. The "Death Proof" title sequence is the showstopper, complete with sloppy title swap and incredible POV. Plus those fake emulsion scrapes, jump frames, classic theater notices and '70s studio logos made everyone smile. But even those touches, wonderful as they were, just couldn't save a film more than three hours long.

Yes, this assessment is heresy to the Rodriguez & Tarantino Faithful. But the idea for "Grindhouse" was infinitely more interesting and powerful than the film Rodriquez and Tarantino delivered. And boy did I want to like this film. R&T just wouldn't let me.

How many WTF moments have you experienced with your teevee? One of mine occurred on a Sunday morning the spring of '92, accidentally intercepted a "Ren & Stimpy" episode. My other WTF moment was well after midnight ten years earlier, sneaked some cable behind my parents' backs and caught one of Night Flight's "J-Men Forever" broadcasts. My prank phone calls never were the same, baby.

"J-Men" is the trippy '70s drug comedy supreme. Prior to "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" and "MST3K," decades before Spike dubbed Japanese game shows, the Firesign Theatre guys went berserk with a pile of Republic serials. The result inexplicably works far better than it should, hilarity ensues and you don't even need to be stoned.

Especially amazing is the legendary MGK's performance as The Bug. WARNING: You'll begin talking like him after your second viewing.

The movie's now available on DVD, so toss your ratty VHS copies in the trash. Invite delinquent friends, have a "J-Men" party. Just remember to dial *67 before you begin the prank calls. Lots of WTFs to go around.

"Out Of Darkness" amounts to a vacuous "X-Files" rip-off on par with those cringe-inducing DIY "Star Trek" episodes springing up online like so much crabgrass. Another instance of somebody with a camera and zero originality. In this case, there's no discernible talent, either.

Dying to be pretentious, this mess fails to reach any level of competence. More inept than amateurish, the show's not even "fun" terrible but instead simply unwatchable. Basic flaw is the show doesn't make sense, except maybe to the auteur writer/director. Other flaws include, well, everything else.

Definitely recommend watching "Out Of Darkeness," but not for positive reasons. See how much you can stomach before giving up completely. And mourn for the local Cleveland film-making community.

Yeah, yeah, Kubrick's a genius. Or was he? Did he ever innovate anything? Barely if at all. But the guy sure did his homework, which set him light years apart from reliable studio hacks...so compared to a Joel Schumacher, er, maybe Kubrick was a genius. But what the heck's up with his swansong? "Eyes Wide Shut" opened promisingly enough. Medium shot of Nicole Kidman's butt, touchdown. Never considered her a decent actress, never considered her attractive, but always considered her creepy, too bony and not feminine enough. Wowzers, though, what a backyard. If only Kubrick kept the camera rolling on Kidman's spectacular pooper. Oh well.

What Kubrick did film was a mystery. Figuratively speaking. As in, "T'hell's the film ABOUT?" Short answer: It's about three freakin' hours, man. Three freakin' hours.

Conceptually? Fidelity or betrayal or something vague delivered like a melting glacier. Although, coming from the calculating director who upstaged Scatman Carrothers with a can of Calumet baking power in "The Shining," was there something more going on? Did Kubrick intend "Eyes Wide Shut" to be a farce? Tom Cruise and Kidman were their spectacular lightweight selves, emotions ranged from A to B. Stuck out like sore thumbs amidst naturalistic, talented performers. Was that the joke?? Perhaps looking for farce is reaching too far for subtext. But why the heck else would Kubrick cast movie stars in the leads instead of actors?? Don't know about you, but I'm tired of posing questions regarding "Eyes Wide Shut." Art's art and fun's fun but comes a point when something impenetrable becomes a bore. Self-indulgent bore, to boot.

Yes, only Kubrick could make "Eyes Wide Shot." But then, only Kubrick could make sex boring. And I mean boring. Aside from one genuinely creepy scene full of dramatic tension in a costume shop after hours, rest of the film's an unsatisfying snoozebomb.

And the ending? My interpretation (on the basic plot level) differed completely from that of two other people. So three different people viewing at the same time came up with three completely different reasons for the final scene. Testament to a fantastic filmmaker who challenges the imagination? Not as much as a ludicrous narrative that had no place to go logically. Big difference.

Don't get me wrong, Kubrick kicked some out of the park. "Clockwork," "Barry Lyndon" and "2001" showed what he could do on his best day. Unfortunately "Eyes" wasn't one of those days.

What could make this movie worse? Answer: Nothing! "Superman Returns" is, dollar for dollar, the most expensive turkey ever produced. Not a single compelling moment, but plenty of pretension. Shameful treatment of an American icon.

First, let's be intellectually honest here...the movie's a REMAKE. Forget the nonsense about "Returns" being a vague sequel to the first two Superman features. Definitely forget any notion the film's even remotely original. Practically beat for beat and character for character, Singer simply re-shot Donner's 1978 film. Even had the gall to reuse more than a few lines from Donner's effort (we're supposed to cheer hysterically while creative bankruptcy masquerades as homage), AND Singer gave himself a "story" credit! Worst of all, the precious few "new" ideas introduced amounted to motivations and situations wildly out of character for Superman and Lois Lane. Most amazingly, although nearly seven decades of Superman source material exists in the form of comic books, everything in the film's culled from Donner with any trace of the comics absent conspicuously.

Secondly, the show's incredibly miscast...with the exception of Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, who's pretty much wasted anyway. Brandon Routh managed to sound like Christopher Reeve a few times. Hoo. Hah. So why does he and Lois look like 19-year-old trick-or-treaters? Bug-eyed Frank Langela's supposed to be Perry White? Even the Daily Planet extras look like, well, blow-dried extras. Level of acting never rises above a teevee movie, disbelief is never suspended. What's the point?

Thirdly, beyond being a lazy remake, it's simply a bad film. No sympathetic characters means no dramatic tension. Even the big plane crash showcase is boring! Makes one appreciate tight editing as well as tight writing.

The proof? Simple -- Donner's film's significantly flawed. Flying backward in time?! A terrible, unsatisfying ending invalidated the narrative...plus Hackman's Luthor's too flip and lots of scenes needed significant trimming. And those ancient special effects didn't age well. Yet, warts and all, Donner's film STILL manages to be compelling, even romantic. "Superman Returns" inspires snores and eye rolls.

"Superman Returns" is super shameful on every conceivable level. Find a copy of Tom DeHaven's novel, "It's Superman!", instead of watching this film. Read an imaginative person's compelling interpretation of such an icon.

"Never get out of the car. Mertz got out of the car. Then he got out of the car business..."

Did you like "Apocalypse Now" ? Then you should love "Porklips Now," probably the greatest no-budget amateur film (the indy hadn't yet been invented) of the '80s. Spot-on parody fantastically directed with truly bizarre performances. Skewers its target in less than 30 minutes with the best Brando impression of all time.

Why the heck isn't this available on DVD (along with director Ernie Fosselius' "Hardware Wars") ? And why didn't Fosselius end up directing feature comedies ?? Your mission is to find this film. And you're not borrowing my raggedy VHS copy.

Absolutely breathtaking nonsense. Couldn't tell whether the writing was inept or idiotic, but knew a bunch of pampered liberal hypocrites were preaching at me. More coincidences than Charles freakin' Dickens could shove into 90 minutes. Script's something a second-semester Emmerson College drop-out would burn in shame. Secretly. Deserved a special Oscar for White Guilt...but just found out it actually won the "best picture" award?! Whatever credibility the Academic (sic) Awards had left's been used up. And then some.

Don't know what was more offensive -- the presumptuous tone, the preachy attitude or the filmmaker's arrogance. As Haggis basks in the golf-clap applause of his fellows, the rest of us know well this emperor isn't wearing a stitch of clothing.

I could go on and on. Truly terrible.