Change Your Image
Tom-91
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Twilight Zone: The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street (1960)
Should be required watching
The most dangerous of attitudes is "it can't happen here". Rod Serling demonstrated this with exceptional eloquence in this 30 minute teleplay. Not only can paranoia and prejudice poison the soul but it can destroy a neighborhood, a city, or a nation. There will always be those using misinformation and stoking those thoughts of prejudice and ego to destroy a society from within. We must be ever on guard over ourselves to make sure we don't give in to these worst aspects of our natures because when that happens, our society is truly in danger. This episode is a critical lesson that should be required viewing for all people.
Star Trek Beyond (2016)
A positive step forward and a new direction
While the previous two Star Trek films have had their moments, I have been a bit underwhelmed with them, overall. I really need to tip my cap to Doug Jung and Simon Pegg for steering things into a new direction.
The gripes about "Trek" have been that old Trek is too many discussions and new Trek is too much action ... these gripes aren't without merit at times, but this time I think they found a happy medium by doing something that has not really happened in the first two films, and was a trademark of the best parts of the original series - focusing on character interaction. Without going into too much, the middle part of the film sees the crew split up into groups where they are forced to interact, and the overall effect is good. In between the more philosophical opening and closing are some excellent action scenes. It is really a strong example of a well planned out, well rounded film for this genre. While revealed a bit of a ham-handed manner, there is even a really nice plot twist in the plot that gives a nice (albeit, not too subtle) message about the need to change if we want to see a better society.
The visuals are excellent, with particular praise for the Yorktown station which looks like something M.C. Escher would have come up with after several nights of hard drinking. It might be the single best visual in any "Trek" film or TV episode.
This easily ranks as the best "Trek" film since "First Contact" ... but in certain ways, it might even be the best since "Wrath of Khan" for getting back to exploring the characters we have come to love.
Stargate SG-1: Prodigy (2001)
A bit of a guilty pleasure
If this makes sense: "Prodigy" is not one of the better episodes of this great series, but it is one of my favorites.
Cadet Hailey may very well have not been written realistically as an air force cadet with a bit of an independent streak (though I think people expecting military personnel to be conformist robots are being equally unrealistic) ... but is she any less realistic than:
1. A PhD in astrophysics, who also logged several hours in combat during the Gulf War, being led by:
2. A colonel who is recruited back to a project after admitting that he disobeyed orders in contravention of the use of nuclear weapons.
Given this, the cadet is far closer to being the most realistic person in the show. I argue that her character is not too bad a fit.
The point of this episode:
1. The cool idea of the world's biggest secret being revealed to someone ... the Stargate project is regarded as the biggest secret in the world, and it is a cool plot point when someone who is outside (like the audience), gets let in on it. Part of the enjoyment of the episode is sharing the experience of a new character experiencing the gate for the first time.
2. There is also the idea that all people have moments of great decision, and often times, especially someone with gifts, needs that moment of inspiration to keep going. It is a special moment in a person's life when they are inspired to go one way instead of another. For most people, it isn't as dramatic as is shown here, but then again, it is a work of fiction; things do get magnified, but that doesn't make it wholly bad.
I mean, in the end ... who wouldn't want Sam Carter as their mentor?
Mass Appeal (1984)
A great commentary on Christian values
I first saw this film when I was a freshman in religion class at a Catholic High School, and the question posed to us: which of the three primary characters behaved the most Christian? It provoked a great deal of discussion even for relatively young students: staying in a comfort zone is not an excuse for failing to defend the persecuted.
The film revolves around a popular parish priest in an upscale American community, a monsignor who is political and defends the status quo, and a young deacon who is questioning the morals of men of faith who seem to live in their personal bubbles. It is perhaps a simplistic, predictable film, and the characters are somewhat stock and two-dimensional, but I think it is rare to see men of faith shown as being so human and yet realistic at the same time. Rather than contriving titanic challenges of faith that often come up in Hollywood films, this film centers on a very down to Earth problem that is easy to accept.
Suffice to say, it was my first Jack Lemmon film, and I made it a point to not make it my last.
Cloverfield (2008)
An interesting approach
**Spoilers, of course, below**
While I would be the first to admit that a great many points in this film were hardly original, I have to say that I have never seen them all used in such a way.
Certainly, if you were looking for the standard Godzilla or King Kong fare, you were disappointed. This film isn't about monsters. It was simply made a lot more interesting by including one. This film could have been made about an earthquake, a nuclear attack; just about any disaster, and most of it could have been done with little change. The points wasn't the monster, the point was what it would be like if you had to be on the run for your survival.
I would guess that this is something relatively new for Americans and Western Europeans to contemplate. Unless you've been in a major earthquake or some such, running for your life on this scale is not something we have ever had to do. Certainly not in an urban setting. In many parts of the world, running from an army, militia, or some such is sadly a part of regular life. That is my take on the film: putting you in a nearly non-stop run-for-your-life scenario in a very real setting (and a very unreal cause).
The first person perspective was great, and extremely important. Too many times, films "take you there", but you aren't there. A lot of people were reminded of "Blair Witch" but I was more reminded of "Private Ryan". This use of hand held video forces the audience to leave the safety of the theater and enter the world of disaster. Has it been done before? Sure. But it has really not been done in this kind of a film before.
In closing, I have to wonder what people were thinking when they claim this somehow reminiscent of 9-11. I didn't see it. Were buildings knocked over? Yes. Were there people running for their life? Yes. But, that is standard in any disaster film. Have we reached the point that filming on any disaster film can't take place in any urban setting because "that's too much like 9-11." I hope not!
Alien (1979)
An exemplar to future film makers
If I were teaching a film class, and I wanted to put together a list of films that highlighted how to make a great film in various genres ..... this would be the one representing horror. After 28 years, as far as horror movies go, I feel only John Carpenter's "The Thing" has even approached the elegance of this Gothic masterpiece.
When a scientist uses the word "elegant", they usually mean in the most complimentary way possible that something is as complete and as simple as possible. That's what I mean here: while no detail appears to be overlooked, no attempt at adding "more" was made. True, this followed from the "Star Wars" look of the "lived in" future .... but there is a noirish grittiness that was not seen before in science fiction (and would be taken maybe even more extreme when Scott did "Blade Runner" a few years later. This film drips with darkness and despair in much the same way that the early scenes of the original "Dracula" did. As a fan of "Star Trek" which showed the world of tomorrow as hopeful, this was the anti-"Star Trek": we're all screwed, you can't trust anyone, and the universe does have real monsters out there.
Another amazing thing to me is that after all this time, it is not dated. Sure, there are little things that will key you into its late 1970s origins, but they are for the most part small and easy to overlook.
This is one of the few films that I will watch about twice a year, and yet I never really get sick of it. Only in recent years have I finally gotten the nerve to watch it alone at night with the lights out. For people who have never seen this, and are not used to horror: get warmed up first. If you call yourself a horror fan, you are not a fan until you have seen this film.
Logan's Run (1976)
Not without problems ....
This is another pre-'Star Wars' film of the 1970s that gave it the ol' college try on effects .... though unlike other films, this one actually did accomplish quite a bit. The production design was superior, though it is hard to not look at actors on wires .... with the wires so clearly visible and not clap your hand over your eyes. While the miniature buildings were really nice, there were too many obvious clues that this was a miniature, and not really what you were supposed to be seeing.
This film does come across as a bit dated, though at the time, it was deeply important. For younger folks: the late 1960s and 70s was the time when the baby boomers were starting to exercise their political muscle, and there was great controversy about this young generation "taking over", and there were many films about the youth of America taking over. Drugs and sex and a lot of other taboo topics were also coming into mainstream. Fast forward on this trend for a few hundred years ...... and the director attempted to show this could be an outcome: all the pleasure you could want without any responsibility ..... until you reach 30. Logan's Run shows the obvious weakness of this extension ..... a homogeneous hive-like society is no closer to a real society than a beehive is. This is the reason behind one of the great criticisms of the film: why only white people? Answer: it is another weakness of the society ..... they are completely homogeneous, and freed from thought which differences might trigger.
The one main weakness I see in this film is the scene with Box. I know it was there because otherwise there is no action between the escape and Washington, but still ..... this entire scene could have been removed (unless of course they were looking for one more reason for Jenny Aguter to remove her clothes).
There was no real problem with the acting ..... though I think this film is ripe to be re- examined, not only with better effects when needed, but perhaps with a better overall concept of emphasizing the emptiness of a society run like this one.
King Kong (1976)
My very first movie .......
This is the very first film my father ever took me to see ..... along with "Star Wars" a few years later, it is very vivid in my mind.
Of the three versions of 'Kong', I think it is clearly the worst, but I don't think it is as bad as people make it out to be. The effects are the weakness of the film. While it was much simpler to film stationary space ships in front of blue screen, this film proved just how impossible it was to make something organic too believable without relying on miniatures that, while pretty good, were still miniatures.
Aside from the acting of Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange, which were pretty good, I thought that the concept of moving the action to the modern day was pretty good ... and at the same time made a statement about the times of the mid-1970s.
In the era of disco and drugs, a loss of faith in leaders and an "anything goes" attitude, this film seemed to show a chink in that armor. Having recently seen this film again (along with the Peter Jackson version), I was taken that in the end Prescot wanted to pull her away (just like Driscol in the Jackson version), but in the end, when she is heart broken over Kong's death, Driscol goes to her and comforts her. Prescot consciously does not, as she is surrounded by cameras and the fame she so desperately wanted. I took this as a demonstration of the old saying "never ask for what you want, because you might just get it." In an era where everyone was out for their fifteen minutes, this film showed (albeit in a sci-fi kind of way) the tragedy that can befall that quest.
I would not rank it among the greatest action or fantasy films of all time ..... but I think it is an iconic 1970s film ..... when Hollywood thought they could go back to their past and make anything automatically better than before ..... but really couldn't.
The Abyss (1989)
Two films -- one a masterpiece
There are two definitive versions of this film: the theatrical release which was an outstanding work of science fiction. The Director's Cut is transcendent of being "science fiction" in any traditional sense. It is simply breathtaking in its scope and commentary on the human condition as the Cold War still raged (though who would know that it would soon be over).
The key addition to the Director's Cut is what I would term "The Deluge" or the "Day the Earth Stood Still" ending. Brigman, thought to be dead is brought aboard a wondrous alien spacecraft, the likes of which have never been seen in film, and without words are shown the evils of humanity, just as the aliens threaten to destroy the planet with giant water waves. This is interspersed with TV interviews of Americans who are afraid of the escalation of war, but seem very powerless to stop it (a very common feeling in the Cold War era of the 70s and 80s). But, in seeing Brigman's final message to his wife, the aliens' judgment is stayed .... it is done with a great deal of drama without getting melodramatic, and with very little dialog. How this scene was permitted to be dropped from the theatrical release is mind boggling. This scene IS the film.
The other scene ... the one that was not cut from the theatrical release (Lindsay's drowning) easily ranks among the great scenes in film history. I'm not sure how far fetched it was .... I could see professional divers scoffing and saying "ludicrous". This is a great example of where the supporting cast is so critical to making something so unbelievable look so believable. James Cameron uses quick cuts among the crew to get very fast reactions of sadness, despair, concern that visually makes the reactions look believable instead of acted or forced. They are overshadowed by Ed Harris' hysterical rant, but they help provide the grounding that keeps the scene believable.
The acting and writing are great, though several one liners are handed around to the various characters, Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio give truly beautiful performances ... two people in love who really don't know how to balance everything, and end up walking away from each other until they are forced back together (in some ways, their characters' relationship was very indicative of the 1970s-1980s era as the divorce rate went up and people were finding it difficult to juggle marriage and career) .... it was a wholly believable relationship being portrayed. I have enjoyed Ed Harris in several films, and performances like this show why he is among the greatest working actors to never receive an Oscar .....
Any fan of great story telling, compelling drama, or truly good applied science fiction must see the director's cut of this film. It is easily James Cameron's best work, with great works such as Terminator, Terminator 2, Aliens, and even his Titanic standing in the shadow of this work. The theatrical version would rank somewhere in the middle of his work.
The X Files: The Unnatural (1999)
On my Top 10
While Scully and Mulder make only brief appearances, this episode is one of my all-time favorites from the series; and is truly an homage to the passion for baseball that so many have had over the years.
For a series that forces the viewer to suspend so much disbelief, this episode is unique in that it requires the viewer to suspend belief even within the universe created for the show, with an almost Pinocchio-like ending for a great character. In lesser hands, the ending would make the audience roll its collective eyes. Instead, it is quite moving.
Jesse L. Martin and Frederic Lane deserve most of the credit for creating two characters whom you are really drawn to care about: an alien who couldn't leave Earth after falling in love with the game of baseball, and a lawman who protects him from a sadly racist world in 1947. Long time fans will be gratified to see Brian Thompson's Alien Bounty Hunter finally get to speak a little bit more than usual. M. Emmet Walsh does what he does best: taking what could have been a minor narrative role, and making it yet another in a line of memorable characters that fans can embrace.
Tremendous kudos go to writer/director David Duchovny. I thought it an especially nice historic parallel to have the evil Alien Bounty Hunter dressed as and leading a group of Klansmen; even a non-fan of the show would instantly realize this man was evil to the point of supporting enslavement at all costs. The dialog walks the line of being genuine and syrupy at times, but is genuine enough that the actors were able to keep their characters believable.
I think too many episodes like this would have turned the show a bit sappy, but one episode makes for a beautiful and unique tribute in a series that contained many beautiful and unique stories. Any fan of baseball would love this episode.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Very good--Very disturbing
I have been a fan for the most part of Steven Spielberg's work. I enjoyed the 1953 "War of the Worlds". I have read Wells' novella several times. I like sci-fi and horror, and have never really been bothered by sci-fi gore and fright.
Having said that, I think Spielberg's take on "War of the Worlds" is quite good (yes, fans of the picayune have repeated about the camcorder). I am impressed by the cinematography (Janusz Kaminsky again doing a great job). In fact, in certain regards, it is much more true to Welles' novella than the 1953 film was (down to the design of the alien machines as tripods, and the focus on a small group of people as the world comes to an end while watching your species get savagely wiped off the face of existence....and all are powerless to stop it). The 1953 film focused a lot more on the military's lack of success (mimiced to a certain extent in "Independence Day". Save for one scene, this is not a factor in this film.
Welles' original novel dealt with the forecasting of mechanized 20th century war, and how destructive it would be. I don't think this film makes quite the same statement about 21st century warfare, though it is intereting that Spielberg chose to ramp up his film a full two years in advance of its original release date...Orson Wells did his radio play as World War II was preparing to kick off, and the 1953 film was in the wake of Korea as the Red Scare swung into full swing. In a sense, we are there again, and I suspect that Steven Spielberg is taking advantage of the national mood to make a film that ten years ago would have lacked the resonance.
I think of any film that Steven Spielberg has ever directed, this film has far more in common with "Saving Private Ryan" than "E.T." or "Raiders of the Lost Ark". I found the imagery to be incredibly disturbing at times. I don't mean to make this sound negative....just a comment from someone very much not used to feeling that way in a film. I felt very tense while watching it, and hours afterwords still had some difficulty clearing my head of what I saw.
I was not crazy about some of the acting, and felt that there were some technical holes that developed in the plot. If you are the type that watches sci-fi for the technical aspects, you may be dragged out of the theater after yelling at the screen too many times. This is not that kind of sci-fi film.
I was amused by a comment claiming that the alien machines resembled those from previous sci-fi films. Considering that many of those films turned to H.G. Welles for inspiration, and that this is where Spielberg returned for his inspiration, this is not a time to be criticising Steven Spielberg.
After watching "Saving Private Ryan", I felt empty because I was left at the end with an "incomplete" feeling. I decided later that perhaps the film was not supposed to have a clean ending where there is a tidy message and lecture on what it all means, except that war is chaos...confusion...obliteration...insanity: a human experience that leaves you empty. This film left me with that same feeling.
I strongly urge parents to see this film before allowing younger children to watch it...this is not your average PG-13 film.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
A Step Forward
Looking back on the other major super hero franchises (Superman, Batman, X-Men), I think in each case the franchise took a step backward in the sequel...that was certainly not the case here.....a good film was followed by a great film.
In my opinion, the greatest thing about the film is the nearly top-to-bottom- casting. Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, and James Franco are just perfect for their roles. The chemistry is dead on. Even the supporting players do exactly what they need to do for their characters.
<Possible Spoilers>
The only problem I had in the whole film was with Alfred Molina's portrayal of Dr. Octopus. When we first meet him, he is perfect for the role...a very loving down-to-Earth person. As he transitioned into the villain, I found myself simply not believing the performance....I'm really not sure if this is a problem with how he chose to approach the role or how it was written, but it was the one thing I didn't like. Once he becomes the villain, everything was pretty good.
Overall....even Dr. Octopus...I found the characters of this two-dimensional comic book world far more three-dimensional than most films I have seen. Even if you are not a die hard comic book fan, this is a film that might give you some respect for the genre.
A Beautiful Mind (2001)
Brilliance on Brilliance
<Potential spoilers>
While this film has all of the elements of a great film (Russell Crowe's best work...far superior to his role in "Gladiator, which was also a great role), and some hauntingly beautiful music, I think what impressed me most was how Ron Howard chose to portray the genius of John Nash.
Most of what I have read about geniuses, whether they be in art, music, math, or science, is that they possess the ability to see patterns where others cannot see them. Throughout the film, John can be seen looking at a glass or strings of numbers, and then we see some of them highlighted to show that John sees these patterns, where no one else sees them. I found it a simple yet unique way to show how this complex thought process works. In a sense, we get to see through the eyes of a genius.
If you are intrigued as to how the mind operates, and you are looking for a film that does not have two-dimensional characters, this has to be a film on your short list of "instant classics". It is a beautifully crafted piece of art.
The Mummy (1999)
Good, not great
Though the special effects were quite good, the plot was quite marginal (even for a film that wasn't believable in the first place).
One television critic described Brendan Fraser as the next Harrison Ford. Aside from the fact that this film and Raiders of the Lost Ark took place in Egypt, there is little comparison of the characters. Ford played an intelligent character while Fraser plays an almost juvenile one.
The kids will probably love this movie, though I found that there were probably a few parts unsuitable for your average 10 year old.
Quiz Show (1994)
Great film!
Most ethical decisions, unlike most of those seen in film, are not life and death, though they are important....that is the beauty of this impressively acted and written film. Most people probably consider this film boring because the action is quite cerebral.....it deals with motivations, human weakness, the problem of living in the shadow of greatness, as well as the beginnings of the "staging" of what the public wants (WASP vs. Jew), instead of what is right, that continues to this day in the media.
I am not a fan of Robert Redford, and like very few of his films because they are usually politically motivated. However, this film was great, and highly underrated. This was one of Ralph Fiennes first films after "Schindler's List".....he has played two very different characters...one that never realizes his immorality, one that does.....they were both great performances by a gifted actor.