Change Your Image
jmh2350
Reviews
Avatar (2009)
Brilliant in 3-D
Avatar is an excellent movie by any standard, but in 3-D it truly stands as the new gold standard in fantasy and/or sci-fi entertainment. Multiple elements make this a great movie: good story line with moral depth, interesting characters that we can care about (and the real brilliance here, of course, is that the avatar characters are as interesting, if not more so, than the "real life" characters), fabulous rich cinematography, seamless CG and special effects, and of course venturing into a brilliantly colored, multi-dimensional and mesmerizing world we've never seen before. In a packed theater, the end of this film came with enthusiastic applause from almost everyone in attendance -- interestingly, the last time I experienced a really identical experience was Titanic. Go figure! What more can be asked of a movie? Only the future will answer this question.
Knight Rider: Knight Rider (2008)
Why sequels suck more than they succeed
Where to begin? This T.V. show is a failure at all levels. First, it is a prime example of why the writers' strike was over-hyped -- they could have stayed out on strike as far as the drivel-ridden and, frankly, pathetically simple-minded dialog in this script is concerned. The acting? 'Tis to laugh, otherwise the sobbing over poor acting would be endless -- why veteran actor Bruce Davison lent his talent to this is to ponder one's navel. Special effects? Ha-ha (again, so as not to cry). The action...the suspense????? You already know the answer if you have read this far. So, forget all the hype about the car -- this show will (or at least should) go belly up faster than a dime store gold fish.
Comanche Moon (2008)
Quality Television Returns
Unlike the superficial and dumbed down Terminator T.V. special that aired on Fox the same night, Comanche Moon is a return to excellence in T.V. production and writing. This prequel to the original Lonesome Dove mini-series is as brilliant to watch and, in some ways more vibrant than the original -- and it moves more quickly. Now, devotees of the original might not at first "buy" Steve Zahn and Karl Urban as the young Gus and Woodrow (respectively), but the quality of the writing and production bear watching further, and before long we are in love with the characters, because their personalities retain the same qualities originally personified by Duvall and Jones. Unfortunately, in the first episode of this new series we do not get to see much of the Joshua Deets character, originally portrayed by Danny Glover, but one scene of the young Deets comforting a victim of a Comanche rape was exquisite. The addition of some rich new characters boosted this drama remarkably, most notably Rachel Griffiths as the outrageously pompous and scandalous wife of the Captain of the Texas Rangers; Val Kilmer as the Texas Rangers Captain who knows his outrageous wife all too well and is himself a bit off the beam while nonetheless heroic; and Sal Lopez as a thoroughly detestable Mexican bandito gang leader (with Jake Busey as a toady). Unless you do not like westerns whatsoever and unequivocally, there is nothing that should keep you from watching this finely written, acted and lavishly filmed production -- and a tip o' the hat to CBS for bringing this to us.
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008)
Sarah and John have left the house
This overly-hyped (via massive FOX adverts) show is a prime example of why at least some of the Hollywood writers should remain on strike. The writing has, simply put, dumbed down the Terminator movies (1 & 2) -- and that is considerable, given that the T 1 & 2 movies weren't exactly brain trusts to begin with (although they were well scripted, and enjoyable). This program begins with (surprise! not...) Sarah and her precious boy-future-world savior discovered by (whoa! not...) a terminator. O.K., let's say you buy the hokey beginning -- then why in the world would you buy this: Sarah leaves her fiancé, and unlike most lovers who get unceremoniously dumped, he goes to the police (not to report Sarah as missing, but just to whine!)?? Then, to further challenge credulity, just as the jilted idiot is reporting this to the local yokel law enforcement flunky, who should magically appear but an F.B.I. agent!! Well, Sarah and son split for parts unknown, and in less than 5 minutes both the F.B.I and the predatory terminator locate them -- astounding? no -- pathetically unbelievable, yes. And, to make even this terribly scripted scenario reek even more, it turns out that there is a "good" cyborg planted at the new school John is enrolled in, in the new town of course that he and his mom secretly moved to. I really need not go on, but yet another ridiculous moment occurs when the protective good borg ushers Sarah and John into a bank in L.A., where the borg has a safe deposit box, and proceeds to use a gun to hold the bank up simply to enter the safe deposit vault where she could have opened her boxes (yes, it turns out there are more than 1 box) without disturbance and without arousing suspicion -- needless to say, however, that such a sane scenario would not provide for the excitement of the LAPD, the F.B.I. (who of course have a direct live camera feed from the bank via the LAPD, just like real life...not!) and the ever-menacing terminator converging on the bank. Don't even ask how the F.B.I. agent and the terminator could have possibly followed the trio to L.A. -- after all, they found them before after a secret move, without believability! At least the original T1-2 flicks either showed or rationally explained exactly how the terminator was able to locate Sarah and/or her son John, sometimes even without success, but such smart little touches are completely absent in this program. Further, do we really need an F.B.I. agent also tracking them, or does this more closely resemble cliché-ridden standard T.V.???
Land of the Blind (2006)
Artistically flawed, stylistically jumbled
This movie is a real mess...where to begin describing how? Well, first is the country it is (or is not -- no way to know!) set in; stock footage as background is shown from third world countries, middle-eastern countries, and a jumble of others, but when the characters appear, they are: NONE OF THE ABOVE. And worse, most of them as part of the government, would not all fit together cohesively in the capacities in which they are portrayed inside a country ruled by a maniacal dictator, as in this film, in today's world. And make no mistake, the movie takes place in today's world, based on most references throughout the film -- so, elements just don't fit. And the characters...all supposedly natives of this implausible land -- well, some have British accents, some do not...go figure. And, of course, there are segments and characters that are not fully developed, and scenes not adequately explained. Worst of all is the fact that this movie cannot make up its mind whether to be exaggerated black comedy, biting satire, or serious compelling drama...bits of each are all stirred together to make mostly a mess. One small example: the exterior design of the dictator's palace looks to be middle eastern, while the dictator himself is not, nor does he resemble his father, a western European-possibly-Mussolini type.
Judging from some of the scripted language and overall message of the film about what type of leader replaces the leader he deposes, I believe that the true and witty vision in the mind of the writer became lost when he, as director, tried to put it on screen.
The Lady from Shanghai (1947)
A brief additional comment on this film...
Having read the other comments on this film, I have only to add an emphasis (in contradiction, however, to those who found the film lacking in craftiness or slow): the dialogue in this movie is brilliant! It is crisp, witty, and mind-numbingly fast! Compare the dialogue in this film with most modern films, and the newer ones pathetically fall flat. This, and the beautiful, smart cinematography make this movie one of the best of all film noir. Please note: considering that Welles made "Touch of Evil", another film noir masterpiece, no film buff should exclude "The Lady From Shanghai" from his/her definitely movie library.
Assault on Precinct 13 (2005)
Good Actors, Inept Direction
How can so many good actors have put themselves in the hands of an inept director? The performances by Hawke, Fishburne, Leguizamo, et al are worthy (though Gabriel Byrne becomes quite dull and uninteresting). BUT, all of the plot twists in this are much too predictable, which makes true suspense evaporate very quickly. Also, some flaws in staging and set elements are unforgivable. The suspense quickly blows away, much like the all-night snow that doesn't seem to accumulate more than 1 inch or so on hard road surfaces. The end is anticlimactic, dreary and boring. Sorry, but John Carpenter should have personally prevented this remake.
Fighting Caravans (1931)
Witty and action packed ancient oater
let's weigh the merits of this film: (1) a strikingly handsome (and tall), youthful Gary Cooper -- this is the opportunity to see a giant screen legend when he was a vibrant young newcomer! This alone merits seeing this movie. (2) The dialogue is witty, pithy and fun -- in fact, give me the screenwriter from 1931 over most of today's movies!. (3) There is a lot of fast-paced and exciting western action (and the stuntwork is just plain fun to watch). Yes, this was relatively early movie making, and in some ways it shows, but that also provides tremendous enjoyment for the film buff. Watch it with a light heart, but with reverence for the old films, and I think you can't help but enjoy it.
Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)
Good action times in Mexico
Is the action over the top in this movie? You bet, and it is done on purpose and makes this movie a terrific thrill ride. Much better than the earlier "Desperado", as this never languishes and has a more twisted and interesting plot, not to mention more twisted and interesting characters. Slick, fast, furious fun. And for deeper meanings beneath the glossy slam-bang action, well you can find them if you are so inclined... so the movie works well on different levels. The 6 of 10 overall rating currently on IMDB is either seriously flawed, or many viewers just don't get it, although the most recent comments mostly seem positive.
Big Fish (2003)
Big, SLUGGISH, Impaired Fish
A summary which is meant to be the precise opposite of this film: short and painless.
The movie is a monolithic bore (yawn, yawn, triple yawn...) Mostly because of this, somewhat due to phony-sounding southern accents along with excessive narration and lethargic editing, the lead actors are neither engaging nor believable. Some nifty set decorations (but oh the drudgery one has to sit through between eye-popping scenes), and a great turn by Danny DeVito, and not much else. Snooze at home and skip this overwrought slug of a flick.
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
Charlie's Goofballs
Probably the worst big-budget piece of cinematic garbage of 2003. And that's a compliment, because usually there is something that can be salvaged from garbage, but not in this case. Nothing, and I mean nothing, works in this movie, and nothing (again, NOTHING) is smart about this movie. It is more highly contrived than most "action" flicks, the action looks almost entirely fake (which of course it is, but it should not make the audience so acutely and painfully aware of it!), the dialogue is somewhere between stupid and idiotic, and the humor is, shall we say, as funny as the old proverbial screen door in a submarine. Directorially, it is pieced together like a series of very overstylized and mismatched music videos. The Angels are neither appealing nor particularly bright beyond an I.Q. level of, let's generously estimate, 70! Pathetic is another word that comes to mind. Skip it if you have any self-esteem or self-worth as a fan of good movies.
The Recruit (2003)
Snoozerama
It must've seemed like a great marketing idea at the time -- team veteran Al Pacino for the older generation with Colin Farrell for the younger adult crowd, mix in some C.I.A. espionage and wham! A thriller. Well, it just doesn't come out as well as it could/should have. It begins smartly, taking us swiftly into a hidden C.I.A. training world we haven't seen before. Of course Pacino is good -- but he brings no new dimension to his role as a veteran C.I.A. operative and trainer. Colin Farrell is, sadly, flat as a pancake portraying Pacino's hand-picked C.I.A. recruit. This is perhaps because the writing is so muddled as to try to mix Farrell's profound little-boy type of search for who his father really was (a dead spy) with having us believe Farrell is also the most ruthlessy smart, Type-A gung-ho recruit in his class. And the writing (plot plausibility, dialogue, and character development) goes downhill from there. For example: NO! NO!! There is no brute and physical beating and torture allowed in training, and if you believe there is then you believe much-too-much in movie fiction. And No! young trainees CANNOT quickly become adept and expert administrators of lie-detector testing! Add the fact that editing keeps the movie pacing slower than it should be, and no real plot surprises, you have the additional result of no suspense! This movie fails to excite, engage, charm, or otherwise draw the viewer in, and that's okay because this is a very forgettable film that we won't remember years from now (unless it is included in a long list of Pacino films when he gets his special lifetime achievement award at the Oscars).
Comes a Horseman (1978)
Bad Movie Title, Excellent Movie
The title is kind of dumb for this movie that is very good. Dumb title, because it's not about a horseman coming -- it's about 3 cattle ranchers in Montana (though at least some filming was done in Northern Arizona). Jason Robards is the heavy, as the rancher who owns the most and wants to regain control of the other 2 ranches, which his family once owned. One of the other ranches is owned by Jane Fonda, who gained control of it when her father, a cousin of Jason Robards, died, and whose only help running it is an old cowhand played by the late Richard Farnsworth (for which he received an Academy Award nomination). The other cattle spread is owned by James Caan, recently released from the Army near the end of WWII. Inside Fonda burns a deeply rooted and awful hatred of Robards, for which we gradually learn the reasons. She and Caan form what is at first an alliance of need and indebtedness, which as you might correctly assume develops into something deeper (and nicer, I might add). Throw into this mix a rich oilman played by George Grizzard, who wants to get oil out of the land wherever he finds it, regardless of whose land it is, and who exerts some mighty strong leverage against Robards. What makes this movie good is an interesting plot, made more interesting by the actors -- Fonda and Caan in particular play their roles as authentic western ranch types, as people of relatively few words, with easy-going outward appearances, but strong emotions underlying those facades and hard-edged attitudes attained through a rugged life of hard work. This was one of 3 movies in 1978 for Jane Fonda, one of which being "Coming Home" for which she won an Academy Award. A comparison of her acting in that movie vs. this one, is that this role required more nuance and subtlety, to hold her character's emotions in (which of course she in turn must convey to us, the audience), as she had to completely become a stoic western rancher and horsewoman...which also required greater physical (including facial) control and physical agility. Regardless of which of these 2 major starring roles one might prefer her in that year, it seems obvious that she was at the top of her form. Also to be admired in this film are the cattle herding, roping, and round-up sequences, and one major sequence of chasing and gaining control of stampeding cattle -- the scenes look real, and were obviously done by some professional cowboys. There's also the big, open feel of the country provided by the beautiful cinematography of Gordon Willis, whose movies include "The Godfather" films and Woody Allen's fabulous 1979 black-and-white masterpiece "Manhattan". So, plenty of good reasons to watch this one.
Purple Rain (1984)
Not as bad as some reviewers say, GREAT music!
This is NOT as bad a movie as some reviewers, and as the summary at the IMDB page for this movie, say it is. Why? First is the fact that in 1984 the movie makers were daring enough to confront, as one of the plot elements, the issue of domestic violence -- so reviewers who complain about the plot are sadly missing one of the main points! Second, without the plot element of Prince's movie relationship with his abusive father, the musical climax wouldn't work as well as it does -- so those reviewers who say that only the music is good have, once again, missed one of the points -- specifically, WHY it is so good...because all of the music in this film has a plot element backdrop that makes the music more effective. Third, give this movie a break! For first-time movie producers and director, this is just not that bad! There are far worse movies out there by accomplished movie people!! And last, the reviewers who say that the music is "good" have also missed the point -- check out the range of stylistic musical treatments, the variety, the musicianship, and the stage performance of Prince -- truly one of a kind, going musically where no one else was going during the 1980's, and with a style seen in the work of other artists (clothes and movement: which costuming elements came first, Michael Jackson's or Prince's? Also, see if you can spot the splayed fingers sweeping in front of the eyes that Prince does in this movie, long before Quentin Tarentino's "Pulp Fiction"). As the sum of its parts, not a bad movie at all.
Gangs of New York (2002)
Bold, epic, magnificent movie
"Gangs of New York" is a big, bold and magnificent; it is glorious movie-making, period. The brilliance starts right away in this film, because it opens upon a seemingly alien world that the audience has never seen, but as it pours itself out into a small and poor inner 1846 New York City neighborhood we come to realize that what we are witnessing is not a "Mad Max" scenario, but something different out of American history with which most of us are unfamiliar. A violent clash of Irish immigrants and anti-immigrants then ensues, preparing us not only for the individual human drama of the main characters, but for a drama much larger than those characters, and the horrific nature of the violence is cinematically accentuated by the staining of the snow-covered ground underlying the feet of the combatants with crimson (and, yes copious, blood). From this point on we are led further and deeper into the lives of the main characters, with the backdrop of a burgeoning metropolis rife with political corruption and a nation divided by the Civil War. The various effects that these larger issues have, or do not have, on all of the characters populating this movie is sometimes apparent, sometimes not, which is a tribute to the intellectual aspect of the film -- it lets the viewer think, ponder, and reach individual insights and conclusions. The heart and soul of mid-19th Century Irish immigration, prejudice and poverty are well-portrayed with immaculate attention to detail in all aspects of film-making, most notably acting, set decoration, costuming, and cinematography, truly made to be seen on a big theatrical movie screen (those who wait for this to be released on dvd for their smaller home screens will have missed something special).
The Majestic (2001)
Sappy and Sappier
There was almost nothing about this movie that I liked, with one exception, which is the precise element that I believed beforehand might be problematic for me, that being Jim Carrey's performance. Him I liked; I found the rest of the movie far too trite, pretentious and unbelievable. The town portrayed in the movie is more Norman Rockwellian than Norman Rockwell could have painted! The townsfolk are mostly one-dimensional, and what transpires between the main characters is contrived nonsense. There are scenes that are overblown and, thereby unbelievable. Even the threading in of the historically factual House un-American Activities Committee of the early 1950's is not compelling here, because it is not portrayed with believability -- Committee members as portrayed by Hal Holbrook and Bob Balaban (both of whom are good actors) are over-the-top mean. Nor could the venerable Martin Landau and James Whitmore save this one, which is pitiful.
Nope...the symbolism of the small town movie theater, for which this film is named, doesn't work because the town itself is way, way too perfect, with people who are way, way too goody-goody, and both the federal government and the Hollywood movie establishment are way, way too evil. Sorry...life ain't like this, and it wasn't like this in the 1950's when the story takes place!
I Spy (2002)
Should be renamed: Another Shanghai 48 Hrs.
I usually like Owen Wilson, and only occasionally enjoy Eddie Murphy anymore. I must say there was some fun in it, but not for all the right reasons. Wilson plays the same character that he did in "Shanghai Noon", a movie in which I enjoyed him, but it did not work in this movie because he is supposed to be a modern spy. On the other hand, the Murphy character totally worked, because he perfectly portrays a successful-egotistical-arrogant-big mouth prize fighter (with a touch of his "48 Hrs." cockiness). Malcom McDowell's talent is virtually wasted because he is used as a one-dimensional villain, almost always just in the background; writing and directing his character as evil up close and personal would have allowed for a far more effective portrayal and would have better utilized his talent. There is only one very good, sustained action sequence in this flick, with excellent effects. But ultimately, this movie plays as just too dumb and it lacks the class of the old Cosby-Culp T.V. series' characters.
Tuck Everlasting (2002)
Purity of spirit and beauty of life
In the jaded world in which we find ourselves, this movie comes to us refreshing as the crystalline waterfall featured in one of the purest, sweetest young love scenes to appear in any film. The movie evokes the souls of the characters, not merely the superficial. Hardcore pragmatists should be forewarned that this movie is not their cup of tea (sadly), while steadfast idealists who believe in deeper meanings of life and, especially, the lessons of first young love, can take heart and virtually soar with this fine film. Spacek, Hurt and Kingsley are acting masters, and their charismatic performances lend a palpable humanity to this movie without which the two young stars may have failed. However, in fairness to the young lovers, they (especially Jackson) make us fall into youthful love and spirit again, and they show promise as luminaries of future cinema.
Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)
This is the only sequel since Halloween II worth watching
This movie is done as a genuine and worthy tribute to the original "Halloween" by John Carpenter, and to "Halloween II" which was also scripted by Carpenter. This film has some excellent touches, such as several false startling bits that make it fun to jump in fright, multiple tips of the hat to "Psycho", and of course the return of Jamie Lee Curtis. Add the film intro of Josh Hartnett and some comic relief by LL Cool J and this is a fun ride!
Doctor Zhivago (1965)
Motion picture masterpiece of the second half of the 20th Century
This is, in all respects, as much a film masterpiece for David Lean as was "Lawrence of Arabia", if not more so. Criticized by some for being "too ambitious", I say how can an epic this haunting, beautiful and romantic be too ambitious? When this film was made, Omar Sharif was as strikingly, exotically handsome a masculine film persona as could be cast, and Julie Christie is superb and lovely as Zhivago's elusive Lara. A rare and exceptional supporting cast of talent par excellence is utilized to the maximum potential, with not one weak performance to be found! Ice and snow are extraordinary visual punctuation marks throughout this film, with the cinematography maximizing movie big screen potential and surpassing all else put out on the last half of the 20th Century, with perhaps only 2 exceptions, those being "Ran" and "Apocalypse Now", which certainly are not rivals to this film because of their distinctly different genres. Any criticism aimed at this movie based an assertion of lack of clarity, or that it is not easily understood, must be taken with the proverbial grain of salt because I and most others in my peer group and family understood everything in this motion picture when I first saw it at the age of 15. Indelible images abound in this masterpiece, from the stark funeral procession in the beginning of the film and Zhivago as a vulnerable child, to glimpses of violence in the streets during the revolution, and of course the exquisite isolation and temporary freedom of the country house. Anyone who can appreciate fine motion pictures as an art and story-telling form should be able to find something to admire in this film, which in turn serves as a testament to David Lean's extraordinary artistic vision and mastery of the large-screen motion picture medium.
xXx (2002)
Great slam-bang Saturday matinee popcorn fun!
This movie is what truly entertaining Saturday matinees were once all about! It has a hero, a bad guy, a love interest, and more action than you could wish for. In fact, it has more action than the last 2 James Bond movies combined, while actually paying homage to the James Bond genre, which having been around now in movies for 40 years was way, way overdue to be given a makeover for the 21st century and handed over to a younger generation. Yes, there are several critics who call the plot of this movie dumb -- they either conveniently forgot that a great many matinee action movies aren't to be watched for intellectual forays into what lurks in men's hearts and souls (these movies are made to be fun like an amusement park ride), or they never went to many Saturday matinees when they were younger. And the plot in this movie isn't any worse than any James Bond movie script, period. The icing on this cake (yes it's all eye candy, and I just couldn't get enough) is that unlike dozens of other fantasy/action flicks, the actors are all good in this one -- and especially unlike some James Bond movies, the main female love/spy interest is not played dumb. Sure the stunts are exaggerated and over-the-top; do not see this movie if you want something reality-based. But do see it if you want adrenalin-filled movie fun.
The Shipping News (2001)
Man Near Death in Poughkeepsie Revived in Newfoundland
Thank goodness this film can't truly be reduced to a sensationalistic newspaper headline, in the manner part of the story conjures. Rather, this is a sublimely eloquent character-driven story of exploring beyond one's own subjectively perceivable limits, and in so doing replacing quiet strength for what was once weakness, building emotional and psychological assets to overcome deficits. The gentleness of the Kevin Spacey character set against the rugged terrain and lifestyle to which he moves from the safety of Poughkeepsie, NY is at once both intentional and poignant. Julianne Moore and Scott Glen give surprisingly excellent performances of characters we haven't seen from them before, and Judi Dench expertly portrays yet another woman of substance. Watch this movie quietly at home, with no distractions...perhaps even more than once.
Windtalkers (2002)
Too low profile on native Americans, too high a body count
This is a very uneven movie, because it seems John Woo can't make up his mind about telling a truly compelling tale about the critical role that some native American soldiers played in WWII, or bombarding the hell out of the audience with repetitious and, ultimately tedious action, or telling us a tale about a dysfunctional human being (Cage) who becomes a highly functional Marine who becomes conflicted. Woo also borrows too many old WWII movie cliches, shows us the same type of explosion scenes over and over and over and over, and even makes a critical casting mistake with Peter Stormare as a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant (Peter can't overcome his thick Swedish accent). Thank goodness for the gentle, understated acting abilities of the real native American actors cast in this movie, and a little welcome gung-ho swagger from Christian Slater, which are the only things that got me through this one.
Minority Report (2002)
My report is bound to be in the minority
I do not know how so many of the film critics got this one wrong! I would also defer some of my review to another review that appears on this IMDB for this film, specifically the review by Shark-43, who got it right. This movie is slick as snot with regard to production, effects, and cinematography (you know, the superficial stuff that is really only important if the movie is ultimately honest). And, yes it does dabble in some of the darker arenas that plague men's souls. But the slickness of Spielberg's mega-production ability and the star power of Cruise are not enough to win the day when, ultimately, this movie delivers one of the most Disneyland-like contrived, naive, phony, and pretentious endings I have ever encountered in a so-called movie of substance and intelligence.
Spider-Man (2002)
This flick is ALMOST a snoozer...
If you like slick action sequences, I have some good news and some bad news. First the good news: "Spider-Man" has sharp and fun action sequences! Now the bad news: "Spider-Man" does not have enough sharp and fun action sequences to keep it from bogging down with monotonous and mundane dialogue and sappy characters. Willem Dafoe is the standout actor, but if you want to see him in an intelligent film that doesn't bore or bog down, see "Shadow of the Vampire", or even the older movie, "Platoon". Sadly, anyone over age 14 could skip the "Spider-Man" movie and not miss much.