This movie is so all over the place I couldn't figure out if it was a melodrama or a very dry comedic satire of one. The plotting is ridiculous, no one behaved or reacts like any human on the planet ever has to anything and the acting ranges from amateur to insane. I swear costar Miriam Hopkins is so incredibly over the top, bug-eyed manic it's like watching a blonde, coked-up Scarlet O'Hara. It's like she's in a completely different movie from David and the rest of the cast. A fascinatingly accidental comic performance. Davis starts out good, but soon resorts to a bad Bette Davis impersonation. A truly bizarre movie. If it didn't move at such a predictable snails pace it would be fascinatingly entertaining. As it is it's fascinating like a train wreck.
Reviews
227 Reviews
The Mirror Crack'd
(1980)
Would've made a better TV movie
6 December 2023
This is a perfectly ok Agatha Christie movie adaptation, but there's absolutely nothing special about it unless you're a huge Elizabeth Taylor fan.
I can understand why the pricers would want to branch out with Christie's other most popular character after the success of Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile, which both featured Hercule Poirot. But why did they choose this particular novel to adapt? Taking place in a 1950s English village it lacks the exotic cinematic grandeur and dramatic tension of the previous films. And Marple isn't even positioned as the main detective! Very, very odd choices.
They really needed to find a Marple story with more cinematic possibilities. That said, the film is ok if you think of it as a TV episode.
I can understand why the pricers would want to branch out with Christie's other most popular character after the success of Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile, which both featured Hercule Poirot. But why did they choose this particular novel to adapt? Taking place in a 1950s English village it lacks the exotic cinematic grandeur and dramatic tension of the previous films. And Marple isn't even positioned as the main detective! Very, very odd choices.
They really needed to find a Marple story with more cinematic possibilities. That said, the film is ok if you think of it as a TV episode.
Reynolds Wrap Needs a Co-Producer Credit!
31 January 2023
I loved this show as a kid and am thrilled that's it's finally available (via an all region disc set from Australia). There weren't really a lot of sci Fi tv shows between star trek and star wars, so anything hinting at sci-fi or fantasy was a hit with me. Of the American shows, TFJ had the wildest imagination and most action. But it is amazing how little money they spent on episodic tv back in the 70s (hilariously so at times). The set design in the episode An Act of Love utilizes more crinkled-up aluminum foil than I've ever seen in one place! 1000's of rolls of it I'd guess. And it looks like they hired an entire kindergarten to glue it to massive amounts of styrofoam and cardboard. That said, the story is pretty good, as most of the 10 stories were. The show runners aimed for high camp spectacle but often had to settle for kiddie school pageant sets and effects.
But most shows back then didn't even try (or tried too hard, like Space 1999). I love that this one gripped that plastic whiffleball bat it was given and swung for the cheap seats!
But most shows back then didn't even try (or tried too hard, like Space 1999). I love that this one gripped that plastic whiffleball bat it was given and swung for the cheap seats!
Death on the Nile
(2022)
Enjoyed it, but could have easily been SO much better
5 April 2022
The 2022 version of Death on the Nile is a good mystery movie, but not a really good one. The look of the film is lush; the clues to Poirot's background are interesting; Branagh is a fine Poirot; and the rest of the cast, though criminally underutilized, does well. But it has a few basic-even simple-- problems that hold it back. Some are small and obvious. Others are larger but should have also been obvious. And most of them are common to modern movies.
1) The use of swooping CG that defies physics. The CG environments in the film are gorgeous, but they are wasted. Every time I see an establishing shot in a non-fantasy film that swoops in at a ridiculous speed from a ludicrous height all I can think of is "video game." If a shot is used that couldn't have been physically achieved via handheld, track, crane, copter or drone camera then we're drawn out of the reality of the film's world. NOT doing that is an easy thing to do but modern filmmakers can't seem to stop doing it.
2) Gal Gadot was either miscast of misused. Her character is not supposed to be likeable. She's supposed to be a charming but selfish and vindictive witch-at least enough so to make us believe that pretty much everyone in the movie has a motive to kill her. But Gadot is too likeable and too nice. Either she couldn't pull off the part or the filmmakers couldn't bring themselves to change her image.
3) The suspects don't interact. One of the joys of the original film was the witty and revealing conversations and interactions between the characters who are on this Nile boat trip. In this version it is as though the passengers are all avoiding each other. They rarely talk to each other except in meaningless ways. The only meaningful conversations are with Poirot. So for the first half of the movie you have all these characters standing around looking suspicious and each has one other character they talk to. Their homogeneity makes it hard to keep track of them as we go because they don't get enough opportunity to show us who they are through their actions, reactions and interaction. We're just told who they are. ( I mean, for instance, it's not really clear who Russel Brand is to anyone else until the film is practically over. He's just that mopey guy) Thus they are boring. Only in the second half, when Poirot conducts his interviews, does the dialog become meaningful. But by then do we care about any of them?
4) "Action" scenes are imposed on the story when they aren't needed, don't fit the characters or are just plain dumb. Why would Poirot be an expert snake fighter with lightning reflexes? And do we really want to see the cerebral, elderly detective dodging bullets? And why do people see a sandstorm coming and walk right into it when they could have easily avoided it? And etc.
5) And one last nit to pick-like most modern big budget films these days, this new Nile has a problem getting to the damn point. Every scene in a movie like this should make some point, and it has to be CLEAR so that the audience has the pleasure of thinking they can piece the mystery together. This movie has so much gunk in it that's just there because someone thought it would be cool. And cool shots and sequences are great-IF they mean something. The recent mystery Knives Out is a good example of this-it was crazy BUT everything was clear and everything fit.
To sum up. I enjoyed watching the 2022 Death on the Nile. But I couldn't keep from comparing it to the 1978 original and finding it coming up short. Which was my same reaction to Branagh's remake of Murder on the Orient Express.
1) The use of swooping CG that defies physics. The CG environments in the film are gorgeous, but they are wasted. Every time I see an establishing shot in a non-fantasy film that swoops in at a ridiculous speed from a ludicrous height all I can think of is "video game." If a shot is used that couldn't have been physically achieved via handheld, track, crane, copter or drone camera then we're drawn out of the reality of the film's world. NOT doing that is an easy thing to do but modern filmmakers can't seem to stop doing it.
2) Gal Gadot was either miscast of misused. Her character is not supposed to be likeable. She's supposed to be a charming but selfish and vindictive witch-at least enough so to make us believe that pretty much everyone in the movie has a motive to kill her. But Gadot is too likeable and too nice. Either she couldn't pull off the part or the filmmakers couldn't bring themselves to change her image.
3) The suspects don't interact. One of the joys of the original film was the witty and revealing conversations and interactions between the characters who are on this Nile boat trip. In this version it is as though the passengers are all avoiding each other. They rarely talk to each other except in meaningless ways. The only meaningful conversations are with Poirot. So for the first half of the movie you have all these characters standing around looking suspicious and each has one other character they talk to. Their homogeneity makes it hard to keep track of them as we go because they don't get enough opportunity to show us who they are through their actions, reactions and interaction. We're just told who they are. ( I mean, for instance, it's not really clear who Russel Brand is to anyone else until the film is practically over. He's just that mopey guy) Thus they are boring. Only in the second half, when Poirot conducts his interviews, does the dialog become meaningful. But by then do we care about any of them?
4) "Action" scenes are imposed on the story when they aren't needed, don't fit the characters or are just plain dumb. Why would Poirot be an expert snake fighter with lightning reflexes? And do we really want to see the cerebral, elderly detective dodging bullets? And why do people see a sandstorm coming and walk right into it when they could have easily avoided it? And etc.
5) And one last nit to pick-like most modern big budget films these days, this new Nile has a problem getting to the damn point. Every scene in a movie like this should make some point, and it has to be CLEAR so that the audience has the pleasure of thinking they can piece the mystery together. This movie has so much gunk in it that's just there because someone thought it would be cool. And cool shots and sequences are great-IF they mean something. The recent mystery Knives Out is a good example of this-it was crazy BUT everything was clear and everything fit.
To sum up. I enjoyed watching the 2022 Death on the Nile. But I couldn't keep from comparing it to the 1978 original and finding it coming up short. Which was my same reaction to Branagh's remake of Murder on the Orient Express.
Xanadu
(1980)
Could Have Been Much Better...But Would That Be a Good Thing?
5 November 2021
Let's be honest, Xanadu is remembered for two things: 1) A very good, very popular song score and 2) it is otherwise painfully, memorably horrible.
For me, its not the ultra-cheesy special effects or the ridiculously corny story-- the effects have a definite kids-show charm and musicals have traditionally had plots that wouldn't cut muster without the singing and dancing.
No, it's the acting. Gene Kelly, most famous for being a legendary film dancer, was the only one in the film actually giving a real acting performance. Olivia wasn't bad--she was about halfway to being a decent actor at this point (though I'm not sure she really progressed much further, choosing to focus on her great singing career instead). But everyone else--good god. They're all so stiff and leaden they all sound like they're reading the dialog for the very first time. It's like a bad high school play. Maybe the cliched, corny dialog could have been played up as a satire on cliche, corny dialog and that would have saved it. But as it is, it's just cliche and corny with no saving graces.
I think if at least SOME attention had been paid to the acting, Xanadu could have avoided at least SOME of the Worst Movies of 1980 lists.
BUT, if it hadn't been so bad, would people even remember it now? It is famous --even loved--for its horrendousness. And the fun music.
For me, its not the ultra-cheesy special effects or the ridiculously corny story-- the effects have a definite kids-show charm and musicals have traditionally had plots that wouldn't cut muster without the singing and dancing.
No, it's the acting. Gene Kelly, most famous for being a legendary film dancer, was the only one in the film actually giving a real acting performance. Olivia wasn't bad--she was about halfway to being a decent actor at this point (though I'm not sure she really progressed much further, choosing to focus on her great singing career instead). But everyone else--good god. They're all so stiff and leaden they all sound like they're reading the dialog for the very first time. It's like a bad high school play. Maybe the cliched, corny dialog could have been played up as a satire on cliche, corny dialog and that would have saved it. But as it is, it's just cliche and corny with no saving graces.
I think if at least SOME attention had been paid to the acting, Xanadu could have avoided at least SOME of the Worst Movies of 1980 lists.
BUT, if it hadn't been so bad, would people even remember it now? It is famous --even loved--for its horrendousness. And the fun music.
Goin' Coconuts
(1978)
What Happened here?
21 March 2021
I saw this movie when I was a kid and just watched it again for nostalgia's sake. My reaction on both occasions was to think "What happened here?"
They couldn't have come up with a lazier, lamer vehicle for these kids if they'd tried. I mean, it was a theatrical feature film featuring a talented duo with a hit tv show ant hit records. And it's like they put almost no money--or, more importantly, zero effort--into the movie. It's not even as good as a TV movie from back in the day--the two part Brady Bunch Hawaiian episode was better quality. Howard Morris has directed good films before this, but Coconuts seems to have not been directed at all. SO many endless long shots, bad sound--like they just set up a camera in one spot and told the actors to do the best they could with no retakes. Kenneth Mars tries desperately to be funny--SO desperately. Donny and Marie are pleasant and natural, but they're so relaxed they seem to think that they're just doing a rehearsal. There's a happy, "Yeah, whatever...when's lunch?" attitude which could have been funny if played up on purpose. But I think they really just had no idea what was going on. This doesn't seem like it was directed by someone who doesn't know how to direct a movie, but by someone who has never even SEEN a movie before. The cheezy disney movies of the day like Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo put this film to shame. How could so many talented people produce something so LAME?
Ps-- I recently read that Donny and Marie passed up on roles in Grease in order to do this movie--Marie would have been Sandy and Donny cameoed as an angel. They supposedly chose this project because it was more "family friendly," which is kind of strange seeing as how it has murders and racial "humor."
Ps-- I recently read that Donny and Marie passed up on roles in Grease in order to do this movie--Marie would have been Sandy and Donny cameoed as an angel. They supposedly chose this project because it was more "family friendly," which is kind of strange seeing as how it has murders and racial "humor."
Kung Fu Yoga
(2017)
Where are the Mirimax scissors?
17 August 2018
Kung Fu Yoga has a little if fun stuff in it. But it also suffers from a great deal of dull and/or extraneous filler (who thought watching camels race until they foam at the mouth was entertaining?). Almost half an hour goes by before there's any action at all and half the movie has passed before there's any of Chan's classic comedy fight choreography.
This film could have used some good old 90s miramax-styke editing. Hack away 15 minutes of boredom and you'd have a classic.
Quirky comedy ruined by lame, lazy conclusion
11 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I had high hopes for this movie. For most of its running time it was an original, subtle, quirky story with believable characters.
But (SPOILER) 4/5ths of the way through it enters Tarantino land. In other words, the gentle quirkiness is traded for gratuitous violence. And that's not even the bakery. The bad part is that its a lazy, derivative, stupid violent ending. It's like when young filmmakers can't figure out how to end a film they automatically resort to blowing everything up or big shootouts. It is lazy and boring.
Hinterland
(2013–2016)
Gets Old Quickly
19 January 2018
The first two episodes of this series (a single feature-length film as I watched it on Netflix) was very stylish and quite involving. I was impressed. The second story in the series however was overly complex and difficult follow. By the third story it had turned into a moody, well photographed Welsh version of Murder She Wrote. The story had the exact same rhythms as the first two stories and the suspect characters were never developed in an interesting way-- they were just cardboard cutouts waiting for the main character to tag them as the solution to the big-secret mystery. It's kind of sad quickly to show the evolved into just a repetitive collection of its own cliches. It would have been better as a cereal with one mystery to be solved over the whole 12 episode series.
The Frighteners
(1996)
First Half is Classic & Inventive. Second is Overstuffed and Confused
18 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I just rewatched the Frighteners years after having seen it in the theaters. I remember being disappointed when I left the theater way back in the day. But I thought I'd give it another chance. I enjoyed the first hour immensely and figured that has misjudged the movie all these years. Then the second half kicks in and the whole thing devolves into a mess of too many characters, too many ideas (there is such a thing in a story), and too much frantic, teen-minded violence. Part of the problem is the change from strictly spooky stuff to the more "serial killer" tropes. It turned on a dime from a clever twist on "GhostBusters" to "let's joke about slicing people up." The tonal shit was jarring for me.
Another part of the problem was the performance of character actor Jeffery Combs. Don't get me wrong--he is GREAT in the film, like a uber-creepy, coked up Tony Perkins. It is such a vivid characterization, so bizarrely powerful, that it throws everything off--he's just too crazy, intense and interesting to be the plot device his character is. He deserved his own movie. As it was in this one, though, the point where his character takes center stage also marks the point where the film starts to collapse under its own weight (especially considering he is neither the hero or the real villain).
Anyway, the set up of the Frighteners was SO good. It's too bad the punchline was such an overwrought mess.
Anyway, the set up of the Frighteners was SO good. It's too bad the punchline was such an overwrought mess.
The Saint
(2017 TV Movie)
Cheap, Lazy Adaptation with Charmless lead
28 August 2017
I've been a fan of The Saint for a long time. And it's no wonder at all that this new version didn't get picked up as a series. It plays more like one of those made-in-Eastern-Europe Steven Seagal quickies than even a decent TV-movie. So many MST3K-worthy technical errors and illogicalities (car tires that keep squealing after the car has stopped, for instance. As well as people knowing things they couldn't possibly know). Also, the filmmakers couldn't decide whether they were doing The Saint or Mission Impossible. The classic Saint never had more than one helper--usually a cabbie or some other unskilled person. His wit and abilities alone got him through, and that was the appeal. In this version, he has a whole team of very capable helpers and it makes him seem unnecessary to his own adventure (I mean, seriously, in this version his female "helper" is super-skilled in technology and can kick major ass even thought she's only 5 feet tall--so we need Simon why?). But, to be honest, this new film could have overcome most of those shortcomings if the actor playing Simon Templar, one Adam Rayner, displayed even an ounce of charisma. OR, better yet, they should have eliminated Adam Rayner entirely and switched the genders. Eliza Dusku has 100 times the charisma and wit of Rayner--and is a much better actor to boot-- and would have made an awesome Simone Templar (her presence is why I gave the film 3 stars instead of 1). If they had done THAT, the show might have been able to at least mitigate the idiotic, clichéd storyline, cheap production values, bad supporting cast and overall aura of crappiness.
Plot/story is fine, CGI, subtle racism hold it back
6 March 2017
One of the few people that actually kind of liked Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal skull. I thought the basic story was good not any more ridiculous than any of the other ones. Settings characters and acting were all good.
If they had just resisted the urge to use so much CGI and hadn't produced so much totally unbelievable action, it would've been another classic of its kind. Not only is the CG are used to make the characters do things to hurt physically impossible, it is also not very good CGI with a fake green screen kind of look that I haven't seen for 30 years.
They should've just stayed totally practical use the old time effects.
Secondarily I was struck by the total lack of any actors of color. No black people Asian Indians no arabs. Nothing but white folk. None except "natives."
Might've been cool back in 1981 but now that just makes the film stick out. Any number of supporting characters could've been something other than white. I have to say that on the second viewing this kind of stuck in my craw.
If they had just resisted the urge to use so much CGI and hadn't produced so much totally unbelievable action, it would've been another classic of its kind. Not only is the CG are used to make the characters do things to hurt physically impossible, it is also not very good CGI with a fake green screen kind of look that I haven't seen for 30 years.
They should've just stayed totally practical use the old time effects.
Secondarily I was struck by the total lack of any actors of color. No black people Asian Indians no arabs. Nothing but white folk. None except "natives."
Might've been cool back in 1981 but now that just makes the film stick out. Any number of supporting characters could've been something other than white. I have to say that on the second viewing this kind of stuck in my craw.
The Dark Wind
(1991)
Good Adaptation. (and Visible Boom Mics are NOT Filmmaker's fault)
21 September 2015
I like "The Dark Wind." Though it didn't follow the novel to the last detail, it did follow it much more than the subsequent "Mystery" TV movies did. And this one definitely has the flavor of the Hillerman novels. It's not a blockbuster. In fact THIS probably should have been a TV movie as well. While they cherry-picked some details from other novels, the details of Navajo life and behavior that Hillerman describes in his novels are there. Some people didn't like that Leaphorn was inserted in the story though he wasn't in the original novel. I didn't mind that at all--they were intending to make more of these and the most popular stories have both characters. And the handling of Leaphorn is SO MUCH better here than in those Mystery TV-movies (in which they made Leaphorn Chee's "City Guy" foil.)
There is one thing I want to clear up though--the "boom mic mistakes: so many folks mention. The boom mic that intrudes in to several shots in the home video version (which is the only version we have, unfortunately)is NOT A MISTAKE BY THE DIRECTOR OR THE CINEMATOGRAPHER. It is an error in the transfer of the film to the home video format.
Many 1.85:1 widescreen films shot in the 80s and 90s were really shot at 1.33:1, non-anamorphic. The "widescreen" effect was then achieved by masking off the top and bottom of the image. Sometimes the studios did this on the print itself, but sometimes they would leave it to the projectionist in the theater--if he/she projected it so that each side reached the edge of the screen and centered the imaged vertically, the "masking" was achieved simply because the top and bottom of the image was bleeding off the screen. I know that was done because back in the day I saw several films where the projectionist did not center the image vertically and all kinds of stuff the audience was never meant to see would be visible--boom mics, lights, rigging, and etc. I have specific memories of seeing this in "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie" and Richard Pryor's "Busting Loose." So, if the folks who released "The Dark Wind" to home video back in the day had given a crap, they'd have either 1) masked the film to 1.85:1 or cropped it in on ALL sides for a proper old-type TV 1.33:1 ratio.
Anyway, if you have a widescreen TV (and wide is the norm now) all you have to do is blow up the image so that the right and left sides of the image go all the way to the edge and the tops and bottoms get cut off(on my Samsung it's the "Zoom 1" setting). THEN you'll see the image as it was meant to be framed, with no boom mics in sight. AND, I might add, the landscapes and other scenes will look much more impressive as well, as it emphasizes the wide horizons.
There is one thing I want to clear up though--the "boom mic mistakes: so many folks mention. The boom mic that intrudes in to several shots in the home video version (which is the only version we have, unfortunately)is NOT A MISTAKE BY THE DIRECTOR OR THE CINEMATOGRAPHER. It is an error in the transfer of the film to the home video format.
Many 1.85:1 widescreen films shot in the 80s and 90s were really shot at 1.33:1, non-anamorphic. The "widescreen" effect was then achieved by masking off the top and bottom of the image. Sometimes the studios did this on the print itself, but sometimes they would leave it to the projectionist in the theater--if he/she projected it so that each side reached the edge of the screen and centered the imaged vertically, the "masking" was achieved simply because the top and bottom of the image was bleeding off the screen. I know that was done because back in the day I saw several films where the projectionist did not center the image vertically and all kinds of stuff the audience was never meant to see would be visible--boom mics, lights, rigging, and etc. I have specific memories of seeing this in "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie" and Richard Pryor's "Busting Loose." So, if the folks who released "The Dark Wind" to home video back in the day had given a crap, they'd have either 1) masked the film to 1.85:1 or cropped it in on ALL sides for a proper old-type TV 1.33:1 ratio.
Anyway, if you have a widescreen TV (and wide is the norm now) all you have to do is blow up the image so that the right and left sides of the image go all the way to the edge and the tops and bottoms get cut off(on my Samsung it's the "Zoom 1" setting). THEN you'll see the image as it was meant to be framed, with no boom mics in sight. AND, I might add, the landscapes and other scenes will look much more impressive as well, as it emphasizes the wide horizons.
Wonder Woman
(2011 TV Movie)
half and half
10 August 2015
They got the look right. They got the action right. I like the actress. I like the costumes. The rest? Dang, how weird! Plot and dialog no better than the 1970s show--really, really bad. And a real fascist slant to the whom thing. And wonder woman seems to change size pretty drastically throughout. Sometime she looks very amazon tall and imposing, other times not. And her voice sometimes drifts into SoCal valley-speak tones. Anyway...the look of the actress and costume and how she looked kicking add worked. But that's about it. The whole thing seemed kind of ill thought out and a bit rushed. This was from a major producer known mainly for his writing?
Four-Hour Prequel Exactly the Same Style as Original
3 August 2015
I enjoyed this slightly more than I did the movie. HOWEVER, you won't really get it unless you've seen the movie first--not only because you won't get the "prequel-ness" of it all, but you'll also have no idea why people in their 40s and 50s are playing folks in their teens and twenties.
From the fast paced preview I saw on YouTube, I was expecting the series to be more quickly paced and relentlessly foul (in a funny way) than the movie. But it's really pretty much exactly the same style as the original movie. In fact you could edit all 8 episodes of the series together and make one 4 hour film that would actually be more cohesive than the the original movie. And if not for the fact that the cast (who were all too old for their parts in 2001) are all 15 years older, you'd think this was made in 2002. And whether you think that's good or bad news depends on your love of the original film
From the fast paced preview I saw on YouTube, I was expecting the series to be more quickly paced and relentlessly foul (in a funny way) than the movie. But it's really pretty much exactly the same style as the original movie. In fact you could edit all 8 episodes of the series together and make one 4 hour film that would actually be more cohesive than the the original movie. And if not for the fact that the cast (who were all too old for their parts in 2001) are all 15 years older, you'd think this was made in 2002. And whether you think that's good or bad news depends on your love of the original film
Not a Big Enough Story for Theaters
28 March 2015
I think that the main reason X-Files 2 failed at the box office but has gone on to have a relatively successful life on home video is that it was just not a "big" enough story for a big, pop-culture based theatrical film. I remember going to the theater and thinking, that's all there is to it? But now that I've watched it again, after watching a bunch of the series episodes on Netflix (including the finale) I can see that it is an excellent coda to the series and that it should have played on television in the first place. The main drama in this movie is not in the visual sci-fi/horror element--which is what theatrical films excel at.
The main drama in XF3 arises from the relationship between Muldar and Scully, which is the kind of intimate, small stuff that television can excel in (especially when it has 9 years to develop the relationship in the first place). It is interesting to see how the two characters have changed. (and, it is worth noting that while Anderson is till three times the actor Duchovny is, he holds his own in this one, instead of being outacted to a distracting degree as in the first theatrical effort).
Secondary are the themes of faith and belief that were the bread and butter of the series (they weren't deep, but they were there).
If the movie had been from a foreign director or an indie, and had not been tied to an iconic pop culture phenomenon, it is ironic that it probably would have been more successful at the box office (partly because much less money would have been spent making it, partly because of lowered expectation).
So, I challenge anyone who is a fan of the old series, and who may not have enjoyed XF2 when it first came out, refresh yourself on the series on Netflix or DVD and then watch this movie again, but just think of it as an extended episode. I think you'll find you really enjoy it. It won't blow your mind, but you will enjoy it.
The main drama in XF3 arises from the relationship between Muldar and Scully, which is the kind of intimate, small stuff that television can excel in (especially when it has 9 years to develop the relationship in the first place). It is interesting to see how the two characters have changed. (and, it is worth noting that while Anderson is till three times the actor Duchovny is, he holds his own in this one, instead of being outacted to a distracting degree as in the first theatrical effort).
Secondary are the themes of faith and belief that were the bread and butter of the series (they weren't deep, but they were there).
If the movie had been from a foreign director or an indie, and had not been tied to an iconic pop culture phenomenon, it is ironic that it probably would have been more successful at the box office (partly because much less money would have been spent making it, partly because of lowered expectation).
So, I challenge anyone who is a fan of the old series, and who may not have enjoyed XF2 when it first came out, refresh yourself on the series on Netflix or DVD and then watch this movie again, but just think of it as an extended episode. I think you'll find you really enjoy it. It won't blow your mind, but you will enjoy it.
The X Files
(1998)
Not as Good on the Big Screen
3 March 2015
The X-Files movie (or, as it is now called "X-Files: Fight the Future") was a disappointment to me when I saw it in the theatres back in the day, and I had the same reaction watching it on Blu-Ray just today.
It's an OK movie, but it suffers in comparison with the best of the TV episodes. The story isn't as interesting, crazy or scary as many in the series, the pace of the story is much slower (whole film should have been at least 15 minutes shorter), and the banter between the main characters is not as sharp.
And since ALL of this is also true of the later "I Want to Believe" feature film--except even more so-- then the only conclusion I can come to is that Chris Carter should stick to TV. At least as far as X-Files goes. A genius at TV, he just doesn't seem to get what works in movies.
I hope they revive the series with Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny in the leads. It would actually make more sense for experienced FBI agents to be in their mid 40s to early 50s, in my opinion. (of course, it helps that Duchovny is still quire handsome and Anderson has gotten even hotter in her mid years). If they do it as a limited series,like House of Cards or American Horror Story, I think it could be a big hit.
It's an OK movie, but it suffers in comparison with the best of the TV episodes. The story isn't as interesting, crazy or scary as many in the series, the pace of the story is much slower (whole film should have been at least 15 minutes shorter), and the banter between the main characters is not as sharp.
And since ALL of this is also true of the later "I Want to Believe" feature film--except even more so-- then the only conclusion I can come to is that Chris Carter should stick to TV. At least as far as X-Files goes. A genius at TV, he just doesn't seem to get what works in movies.
I hope they revive the series with Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny in the leads. It would actually make more sense for experienced FBI agents to be in their mid 40s to early 50s, in my opinion. (of course, it helps that Duchovny is still quire handsome and Anderson has gotten even hotter in her mid years). If they do it as a limited series,like House of Cards or American Horror Story, I think it could be a big hit.
Electrick Children
(2012)
Great Idea for a Movie
13 January 2015
This is an amazing job for a first feature film by a writer-director who was still in film school. A fine effort by a talented amateur with very little money on hand.
But, seriously, it's not a particularly good film overall. It starts strong--the scenes in the religious country home all ring true. I think that's because this is the part that the writer-director was actually familiar with in real life. Once Racheal gets to Vegas, however, the movie falls apart into random, loosely connected scenes that feature what seems to be very, very poorly improvised dialog. The poor actors just seem to be at a loss as to what they are supposed to be saying or doing. And the effect isn't "natural," it's just the opposite. You are totally aware that these are actors trying to think of what to say and do, not real people who just don't know what to say. Like a bad home movie or a the plot part of a porno. Incongruities abound as Racheal, who was so sheltered that she had never heard pop music, talked on a cell phone, and didn't even know what a tape recorder was all the sudden starts tossing around terms she would never have heard before like "rock and roll" and "cell phone." And the revelatory scene (can't tell you what it is)is implausible beyond belief. It, and many other parts of the Vegas section, was an interesting idea that the filmmaker apparently just didn't have time to work out in a way that worked.
The acting was pretty good, when dialog was scripted. Billy Zane as the religious nut dad was smooth and professional, but seemed way too nice and reasonable to be the relative heavy of the piece; a hint of darkness in dad would have made the whole movie a bit better. The woman who played the mom was very good too, in a limited role.
The guy who played Racheal's newly found boy friend was easily the most accomplished young performer in the movie, even handling his part in the pointless, rambling Vegas scenes as though he actually knew what was going on (I don't think anyone else did).
But I have to say that, when they were given written dialog, the other young performers were for the most part very appealing. The girl who played Racheal was quite charming. She drifted from sheltered religious cult girl to valley girl without warning, but she was very expressive and had a good presence.
But overall, what we have is a very good 20 minute short film about a girl in an isolated Mormon cult who discovers rock and roll. And that is followed by over an hour of what seems like a first draft of a story that the filmmaker hoped would come together as they went along.
And who knows? If she had been afforded the time and resources of even a low budget Hollywood film, maybe she could have brought it together at that. There is obvious talent there!
But, seriously, it's not a particularly good film overall. It starts strong--the scenes in the religious country home all ring true. I think that's because this is the part that the writer-director was actually familiar with in real life. Once Racheal gets to Vegas, however, the movie falls apart into random, loosely connected scenes that feature what seems to be very, very poorly improvised dialog. The poor actors just seem to be at a loss as to what they are supposed to be saying or doing. And the effect isn't "natural," it's just the opposite. You are totally aware that these are actors trying to think of what to say and do, not real people who just don't know what to say. Like a bad home movie or a the plot part of a porno. Incongruities abound as Racheal, who was so sheltered that she had never heard pop music, talked on a cell phone, and didn't even know what a tape recorder was all the sudden starts tossing around terms she would never have heard before like "rock and roll" and "cell phone." And the revelatory scene (can't tell you what it is)is implausible beyond belief. It, and many other parts of the Vegas section, was an interesting idea that the filmmaker apparently just didn't have time to work out in a way that worked.
The acting was pretty good, when dialog was scripted. Billy Zane as the religious nut dad was smooth and professional, but seemed way too nice and reasonable to be the relative heavy of the piece; a hint of darkness in dad would have made the whole movie a bit better. The woman who played the mom was very good too, in a limited role.
The guy who played Racheal's newly found boy friend was easily the most accomplished young performer in the movie, even handling his part in the pointless, rambling Vegas scenes as though he actually knew what was going on (I don't think anyone else did).
But I have to say that, when they were given written dialog, the other young performers were for the most part very appealing. The girl who played Racheal was quite charming. She drifted from sheltered religious cult girl to valley girl without warning, but she was very expressive and had a good presence.
But overall, what we have is a very good 20 minute short film about a girl in an isolated Mormon cult who discovers rock and roll. And that is followed by over an hour of what seems like a first draft of a story that the filmmaker hoped would come together as they went along.
And who knows? If she had been afforded the time and resources of even a low budget Hollywood film, maybe she could have brought it together at that. There is obvious talent there!
Outlander
(2014– )
Tedious, Ponderous, Clichéd, Pretty Series
2 October 2014
"Pretty" is the only positive comment I can think of after having just suffered through the first episode. The Scottish backdrop is gorgeous and the performers are predictably attractive. The plot is an incredibly cliché mix of young adult fantasy and harlequin romance. Now that combo could have worked, but unfortunately that possibility was killed by the poor pacing of the story. The...pace ... is ... GLACIAL. So slow. The first dull hour I watched only had enough story for twenty minutes of film at best. What's even more annoying is that much of the outrageous padding is due to the almost constant narration that stretches out every non-dialog scene. Its tedious and redundant, adding to nothing but the running time. The entire first episode could have easily been edited down to 20 minutes. Zzxxxxxxxxx zzzzzzzzzz
The Happy House
(2013)
charming performances don't quite save it
29 May 2014
D.W. Young's "The Happy House" is a mixed bag. The actors and performances are quite charming and several notches above those found in most super-low budget HD features like this (the female lead is especially effective). It is also well shot and the sound is good.
The story starts as a variation on Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" with some "Tucker and Dale vs Evil" overtones. However, Young's screenplay is all set up and no follow through and degenerates from quirky to sub-par dull about ¾ of the way through. IMDb shows that Young's previous films and videos have been shorts, and the construction of this story bears that out—there's only about 45 minutes of story crammed into this hour and a half.
It's not mentioned on IMDb, but I'd bet that the majority of Young's experience is in live theatre and not film. I say this because he obviously has a talent for working with actors and getting the best out of them—this is an area where low budget films are usually at their weakest, but it is HH's greatest strength. Young also seems uncomfortable with film editing, which makes much of the movie seem like an adapted stage play. He prefers very long, static shots, as though the camera was set up at the edge of a stage and just left to run while the actors stand or sit in one spot and talk. While this does often show off the skills of the actors-- who interact in these dialog-heavy sequences with a rhythm and naturalness that rarely rings false— it doesn't allow the protracted scenes to be edited for pace and is undeniably boring from a visual standpoint. And when young does employ standard editing—over the shoulder shots or povs—they are clumsily handled, as if he didn't really want to insert them, but felt he had no choice. Also, when locations shift between sequences, the screen simply fades to black and then back up again, like a curtain falling and rising. However this technique seems less like a stylistic choice and more like an "I'm doing it this way because I don't know another way to get from here to there."
Anyway, I don't want to sound like I'm ragging on the film. Young does many, many things right. As I said before, he gets very good performances out of his actors (and we all know that horrible acting is usually a low budget film's major weakness).
This movie was just a third of a screenplay and one professional editor away from being a classic indie comedy-horror flick along the lines of Ti West's "The Innkeepers." I look forward to more from all the folks involved in "The Happy House."
The story starts as a variation on Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" with some "Tucker and Dale vs Evil" overtones. However, Young's screenplay is all set up and no follow through and degenerates from quirky to sub-par dull about ¾ of the way through. IMDb shows that Young's previous films and videos have been shorts, and the construction of this story bears that out—there's only about 45 minutes of story crammed into this hour and a half.
It's not mentioned on IMDb, but I'd bet that the majority of Young's experience is in live theatre and not film. I say this because he obviously has a talent for working with actors and getting the best out of them—this is an area where low budget films are usually at their weakest, but it is HH's greatest strength. Young also seems uncomfortable with film editing, which makes much of the movie seem like an adapted stage play. He prefers very long, static shots, as though the camera was set up at the edge of a stage and just left to run while the actors stand or sit in one spot and talk. While this does often show off the skills of the actors-- who interact in these dialog-heavy sequences with a rhythm and naturalness that rarely rings false— it doesn't allow the protracted scenes to be edited for pace and is undeniably boring from a visual standpoint. And when young does employ standard editing—over the shoulder shots or povs—they are clumsily handled, as if he didn't really want to insert them, but felt he had no choice. Also, when locations shift between sequences, the screen simply fades to black and then back up again, like a curtain falling and rising. However this technique seems less like a stylistic choice and more like an "I'm doing it this way because I don't know another way to get from here to there."
Anyway, I don't want to sound like I'm ragging on the film. Young does many, many things right. As I said before, he gets very good performances out of his actors (and we all know that horrible acting is usually a low budget film's major weakness).
This movie was just a third of a screenplay and one professional editor away from being a classic indie comedy-horror flick along the lines of Ti West's "The Innkeepers." I look forward to more from all the folks involved in "The Happy House."
Parker
(2013)
Good action, 20 minutes too long
30 December 2013
This would have been a much better action-crime drama if it had been 20 minutes shorter. No crime action flick needs to top an hour and forty minutes. This one had loooooong stretches of nothing going on. And I don't mean just "not action." I mean, there were sequences full of cars pulling into driveways, people prepping for future events in uninteresting ways, repetitive dialog--just wasted storytelling time, etc. Stuff that should've been left on the cutting room floor. Did Hackford not use an editor?
Also, why did they waste Jennifer Lopez in the female lead? The way they used her, that part could've been played by any competent Hollywood actress who was good looking and the right age. Lopez was natural in the part, and very good looking, of course. But she was given practically nothing to do. Come on! If you're going to cast J Lo, make her character interesting. And bring her in earlier! And while you're at it give her some personality other than being attractive. They should have either hired a lesser actress and made the part much smaller, or written a decent part for Lopez and beefed her part up. As it is, I kept asking myself-- why is Jennifer Lopez in this at all?
Bad screenplay and weak editing.
Also, why did they waste Jennifer Lopez in the female lead? The way they used her, that part could've been played by any competent Hollywood actress who was good looking and the right age. Lopez was natural in the part, and very good looking, of course. But she was given practically nothing to do. Come on! If you're going to cast J Lo, make her character interesting. And bring her in earlier! And while you're at it give her some personality other than being attractive. They should have either hired a lesser actress and made the part much smaller, or written a decent part for Lopez and beefed her part up. As it is, I kept asking myself-- why is Jennifer Lopez in this at all?
Bad screenplay and weak editing.
This Is the End
(2013)
Good Concept, Some Good Jokes, But Not Really a Movie.
24 June 2013
This is the End plays less like a real movie and more like the longest video ever featured on Funny or Die. Imagine if Bill Murray and Dan Ackroyd had played themselves in Ghostbusters, add in a TON of dick jokes, toss in the inspired Danny McBride, remove virtually all plot, reduce the maturity and intellectual levels of the all-male thirty-something cast to that of 15 year old virgins--and you've got this movie.
There are a lot of good ideas here, but this is strictly first draft stuff. Rogan and company should have worked with a REAL screenwriter who could give the movie a real story and help to flesh the characters out a bit (I mean, are we really to believe that not ONE of these successful GROWN UP male comic actors has a wife or girlfriend? That THEIR ONLY relationships are with each other, like they are all 15?). This is the rare occasion when at least SOME studio intervention would have helped, as Rogan is apparently too inexperienced a story teller to know what to keep and what to toss.
The middle sags especially, with one disconnected, overlong improvisation after another doing little more than filling time. Only Danny McBride really excels at this type of thing, and he's kind of the "Richard Pryor in Silver Streak" element in this--not really the star, but easily the most memorable player).
The offhand comments by Rogan and Craig Robinson are funny, but are better used to complement actual dialog, not replace it. And the over-reliance on this kind of dick-joke mumblecore is what almost kills the movie.
But if you're a huge fan of even half of these guys, the movie is worth it. I watched many a bad flick back in the old days just because it starred John Belushi, Chevy Chase, Cheech and Chong or one of the Monty Python gang. But this should have really gone the direct-to-video fans only route.
There are a lot of good ideas here, but this is strictly first draft stuff. Rogan and company should have worked with a REAL screenwriter who could give the movie a real story and help to flesh the characters out a bit (I mean, are we really to believe that not ONE of these successful GROWN UP male comic actors has a wife or girlfriend? That THEIR ONLY relationships are with each other, like they are all 15?). This is the rare occasion when at least SOME studio intervention would have helped, as Rogan is apparently too inexperienced a story teller to know what to keep and what to toss.
The middle sags especially, with one disconnected, overlong improvisation after another doing little more than filling time. Only Danny McBride really excels at this type of thing, and he's kind of the "Richard Pryor in Silver Streak" element in this--not really the star, but easily the most memorable player).
The offhand comments by Rogan and Craig Robinson are funny, but are better used to complement actual dialog, not replace it. And the over-reliance on this kind of dick-joke mumblecore is what almost kills the movie.
But if you're a huge fan of even half of these guys, the movie is worth it. I watched many a bad flick back in the old days just because it starred John Belushi, Chevy Chase, Cheech and Chong or one of the Monty Python gang. But this should have really gone the direct-to-video fans only route.
Hexed
(1993)
I saw them shooting this one in Fort Worth.
15 March 2013
I was working in downtown Fort Worth when they were filming this. I was working in a nearby office building and we could see them shooting part at the end when Gross sees Hexina's eyes in his rear view mirror, but it's really just a poster on a city bus, and then he wrecks the car (well, they were shooting the car/bus part--I assume the close ups were shot separately). They did that all day. They were still out there the next day. I was just working temp, so I took off to check out the shoot (don't worry, I didn't claim the hours). I watched them filming the ending scene, after the bus incident that wrecked the car. They wrecked the car a couple of more times, but it didn't look wrecked enough for the director, Spencer, so he had some guys smack it with a bat (I think it was a bat, maybe a hammer?). Then they filmed the last scene where the dude jumps out of the wrecked car and attacks Arye Gross. Over and over again. The actor was improving it each time, egged on by the director. Then the camera, which was on a crane, craned up to the big billboard. Once Spencer got what he wanted (or close to it, I guess) he put his hands up in the air and the crew cheered. At the time I didn't know it was the last scene of the movie. Perhaps they filmed the movie in sequence and that shot wrapped it. I remember that director Spencer seemed to be a naturally funny guy; he was kind of performing for the crew and small crowd, I think. It was a fun intro into how movies were actually made. I saw the movie during it's kind of limited theatrical release and was a bit disappointed. (maybe I saw a preview). I remember thinking at the time that watching the director make the movie was funnier than the actual movie was. But I just re-watched it and liked it a lot better. I read that the studio downgraded this movie from a major production budget and schedule to very low budget just a month before they shot it, so it's really pretty amazing Spencer got it done at all. Probably would have been really great if he'd been able to do it as planned.
Is there anyone else out there who saw the shoot in FTW, or perhaps acted in the film or was an extra? What are your memories?
Is there anyone else out there who saw the shoot in FTW, or perhaps acted in the film or was an extra? What are your memories?
Chinese Zodiac
(2012)
Classic late-Chan, today!
7 February 2013
This is a classic late-period style Jackie Chan Chinese action-adventure. Not quite as good as the Operation Condor/Armour of God movies it's supposed to be a sequel to (nor as good as Supercop/Police Story films) but every bit as good as The Accidental Spy, Who Am I?, and The Myth. And I thought all of those were quite enjoyable.
This movie shares all the great features and all of the flaws of Chan's self produced and/or directed films. They have a great sense of humor and the stunt/action sequences are quite inventive. But they are also quite cartoony--the acting is VERY broad--and there's quite a bit in it that defies any common sense. But who really cares, right? This is Chan unfiltered.
The only REAL flaw to the film is the clumsy way Chan keeps inserting his moral messages. He has characters tell us what's right and wrong in very stilted dialog instead of creating situations that demonstrate his points. (not to mention that a few of his morals seem to have been government imposed--"we are not to interfere with the social structure in any way" a protest leader incongruously says as Chan nods wisely and says "That's right!") But I think this will make a fine home video release for the US audience, once they edit out some of the more China-centric chit chat, re-dub the dialog (or at least all the English, which is horribly spoken by the international cast) and replace a couple of oddly inappropriate pop tunes).
I'll be buying it for my JC collection!
This movie shares all the great features and all of the flaws of Chan's self produced and/or directed films. They have a great sense of humor and the stunt/action sequences are quite inventive. But they are also quite cartoony--the acting is VERY broad--and there's quite a bit in it that defies any common sense. But who really cares, right? This is Chan unfiltered.
The only REAL flaw to the film is the clumsy way Chan keeps inserting his moral messages. He has characters tell us what's right and wrong in very stilted dialog instead of creating situations that demonstrate his points. (not to mention that a few of his morals seem to have been government imposed--"we are not to interfere with the social structure in any way" a protest leader incongruously says as Chan nods wisely and says "That's right!") But I think this will make a fine home video release for the US audience, once they edit out some of the more China-centric chit chat, re-dub the dialog (or at least all the English, which is horribly spoken by the international cast) and replace a couple of oddly inappropriate pop tunes).
I'll be buying it for my JC collection!
The Innkeepers
(2011)
Great setup, lame payoff
8 October 2012
"The Innkeepers" has a great, if overlong, set up. The characters are engaging and are well played by very talented actors--especially Sarah Paxton. The film is almost a comedy, but there is also a well-constructed sense of suspense. Unfortunately, both the affection that the filmmaker Ti West is able to make us feel for the characters and the slow-boil suspense that he builds are wasted on an extremely pedestrian climax. I won't spoil it for you, but let's just say that no one can blame the obviously clever Mr.West of getting "too clever" with his film's conclusion. I can't help but say that if West had come up with a better ending "The Innkeepers" would have been a classic. As it is, though, you can have fun with this movie if you go into the attitude that the journey is more important than the destination (it's not really more important, but that's the attitude you'll have to have not to feel ripped off).
Tell Your Friends