brucewla Reviews

Marnie (1964)

The ONLY Hitchcock Film I Didn't Care For

[2/10 · 4 June 2012]

This move was....a disappointment. When I compare it to films like NORTH BY NORTHWEST, or FRENZY, it's like it was made by someone else.

Slow. Boring. "Marnie" was the most unlikable female character I can remember. The move took forever to get anywhere, and when it finally did, it wasn't anywhere I wanted to go.

I won't be watching this again.

Who ever thought I'd give a bad review to a HITCHCOCK film? Kind of my point.

Two stars. It would be one, but out of respect for Hitch, I'll give it two.

After.Life (2009)

Pretty Silly

[3/10 · 22 August 2011]

Well, I saw this the other day on cable, and I only recorded it, because I saw that Christina Ricci was in it (I love her). As other uses have said it starts OUT with a promising premise (but you have to TOTALLY suspend your disbelief, especially if you know anything about EMS and know that trauma victims with no autopsy generally don't go to the funeral home, but oh well), but then SLOWS DOWN and gets TEDIOUS.

Basically we (and she) have to figure out, wait..is she dead? The funeral director says, she is, but has not "crossed over" yet, and he has the "gift" to help people that won't let go do so. Eh, Ghost Whisperer. OK. So, we go back and forth for awhile "I'm not dead!" "Yes you are...accept it." etc. and we want to get into the story but start thinking....as other users have pointed out...wait...she's trapped in there for days...no food...no water....no um...powder room...no leg stubble (lol). Now you can go awhile without food, but NOT water. People have pointed out, well when you're very ill, etc....but still.

So we have Eliot (Neeson, trying to convince her she's dead, Anna pretty sure she isn't, her boyfriend not so sure either, and so on. This goes on for quite awhile, until, seemingly, at least, we see the truth.

Just moves too slow, too unbelievable. A very interesting premise though, but falls sort of flat. As someone else pointed out, it's sort of like a feature length Twilight Zone (but not as well done, though).

I can only give it three stars due to (1) Neeson's Performance and (2) most importantly, for close to an hour Miss Ricci is naked. (God I love her).

Not really recommended.

3/10.

The Ace of Hearts (1921)

Very Interesting On Several Levels

[8/10 · 22 August 2011]

After all the years (well all my life, really) that I have spent being addicted to movies, the one category that I was not much interested in until recently is the most historic: silent films. I have always found them interesting in one way; because I am a "history geek," I found them fascinating as a sort of living record of say, how Los Angeles looked back then, watching actual people from 1917, and so forth, but as far as sitting through most of them, especially the feature length ones, I wasn't really interested. The combination of them being of another time, for another audience, very few have survived, and so on---I just didn't spend much time with them.

But recently this changed--I read two books by Scott Eyman, "Lion Of Hollywood," about L.B. Mayer, and "Empire Of Dreams," about Cecil B. Demille. These books made me very interested in viewing some of these films, but my first problem is, of course, most of the silent films discussed in film histories have not survived, and, secondly, for those that are still available, what is the best source? For most people with a casual interest in the material, that would be Turner Classic Movies. TCM shows silent films fairly regularly, for part of the season they show them on Sunday nights, and when they feature a certain star, they might run all day, as in the case of Lon Chaney recently. This is invaluable for people like me, with a casual interest; I think most people have seen The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, and Phantom of The Opera, (I have), but few of this generation have seen films such as The Unholy Three, Tell It To The Marines, Laugh Clown Laugh, and the one that I have spent all this time bloviating to get to: The Ace of Hearts.

The Ace of Hearts is about a "secret society" or "dark brotherhood" (with one sister, though), i.e. a group of assassins, that have decided a "certain man" has "lived too long." They discuss how he has become more greedy arrogant, etc. The story is, evidently, deliberately generic, but I would suppose that you could interpret the group as being communists, the "man who has lived too long," capitalism, the group as an anarchist, the "man" as the U.S. President, and so on and so forth, but the story is laid out as, the group decides that this man, whoever or whatever he is, should die, and one of them will be the one to kill him.

The way this is decided, by the society's rules is, a deck of cards is shuffled, and a card dealt to each person in turn, whomever gets the ace of hearts, will be the assassin; this person will be provided with the general plan and anything needed to carry out the execution. One complication is, Mr Forrest, who is chosen, and Mr. Farrallone, (Chaney), are both in love with Lilith, the only female in the society. That's one level where the film is interesting--if it weren't for that part of the story, there probably would not be a female involved. Secondly, this is one of only two films that I know of, where Chaney appears with his true face, i.e. no layers of makeup as usual. His hair is sort of long, that's all. The only other film that I am aware of where you see his "true face" is Tell It To The Marines.

So now, the action is set in motion. The method of execution is chosen, and Mr. Forrest has his appointed task. But of course complications ensue, (I won't detail those), and a relief assassin has to step in for Mr Forrest (guess who)? The Society is not happy. I will leave the ending for you to discover since I am assuming you have not seen the film and I have told you plenty, already.

Finally I am fascinated by how Lon Chaney was able to convey such emotion in films that had no spoken dialog. Many silent stars could, because they began as stage actors, but he could do it to an entirely different level. Many believe he would have been a huge star in sound films also, but unfortunately he passed away in 1930, just as sound films were beginning. I am very interested to see "The Unholy Three" sound version, as I have never heard him speak.

If you have not seen many feature length silent films this is an excellent one to start with.

8/10.

Tell It to the Marines (1926)

Very Interesting Chaney Performance

[6/10 · 30 May 2011]

I saw this on Turner Classic Movies "Silent Sunday." For a long time, I have been interested in silent movies (though some are hard to follow for modern viewers--it was after all, another time), but as so many of them are lost, and the survivors are usually hard to find, I've only been exposed, really, to the ones shown on TCM.

I was interested in this one, because of Lon Chaney, interested for 2 reasons; first it's said that it is his personal favorite of the roles he played, and second, this film is one of the few, if not the only, one where Chaney appears as himself (I have never seen that, just Phantom of the Opera, Hunchback, etc).

So this film features Chaney as a marine drill Sergeant, and his big challenge is to turn a reluctant recruit into a marine. There is a romantic complication, (naturally both men like the same gal--gee that even went on in movies back then), and a good amount of action, but the point is (at least what I took away from it) is that while Chaney's character is gruff and tough, he has a good heart.

The only shortcoming to me, was there were only two women in the film Both are quite attractive, of course one is the "good" girl and one is "naughty" (the naughty one was a bit hotter I think). One thing I enjoy about silent movies is, they are a historical record, i.e. you are seeing people, cities, etc as they were in 1914 and so on.

I enjoyed this film a lot. I am hoping that TCM shows silents that are even rarer.

Mogambo (1953)

Boring!

[3/10 · 30 May 2011]

Wow. This film, I have heard about, but I have never seen it. Reportedy, it is a remake of Red Dust (never saw that either) which also starred Clark Gable. I hate to say it (Being a fan of Gable, Grace Kelly, and ESPECIALLY--Ava Gardner.....this was a disappointment.

Yes there were big stars, yes, it was beautifully photographed, yes, you got to see Ava Gardner (hey I never get tired of that), BUT what is it that was going on? Not much. They hung around camp, talked, talked, and talked some more. Ava decides to take a walk...not a good idea considering where they are....he has to go save her, etc.

A lot of people have concerns about how the animals were treated, the implicit racism etc. but you have to remember, this was made in 1953. You can't really judge what when on in 1953 but 2011 standards. People still try though.

Eh I don't know what else to write about the movie...because to me...there was nothing there.

Sadly disappointed.

Brazil (1985)

Over Rated Clap Trap

[2/10 · 6 February 2010]

Well, as addicted to movies as I have been most of my life, this is one film that for whatever reason, I had not seen yet. It was playing on one of the Encore cable channels recently, so I recorded it, so I could finally check it out.

Now, taste in movies is, of course, subjective. There are many films that the "critics" raved about that I didn't care for, and many that they hated that I really liked watching--but i'm sorry to say that this film just does not live up to its reputation. Yes, I understand it, and all the layers, and the smart little Orwellian references, and all that. I just don't like it. (except the title tune is catchy but-it'll get stuck in your head for days).

The whole thing revolves around a man who is a "cog in a wheel," that becomes aware of a mistake in the "infallible" bureaucracy, tries to correct it for his paranoid section leader, and gets in worlds of trouble himself. The movie is smug, pretentious, and thinks it's just so full of cute inside jokes, but the problem is, most of us aren't in on them.

My opinion: If you like things like this, watch "Gattica" or "Minority Report" instead. NOT Recommended.

Fast Food Nation (2006)

Tired Story-No Solutions

[2/10 · 7 June 2008]

Anyone past high school age (wait, do they still make them read "books" in high school now? Probably not) remembers Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" a novel about families of immigrants working in the horrific conditions of slaughterhouses and other factories supposedly long since reformed, but most people know, a lot of those problems are still there. Most of today's "immigrants" are illegal, we have the "FDA" and "Dept of Agriculture" that supposedly oversees food safety, but the reality is, the slaughtering and butchering are done by untrained people in hazardous conditions that are far from sanitary. Big corporations exploit the workers (and the customers) just as they did 100 years ago.

So this film tries to "wake the public up" and inform us how horrible it is to eat meat, both because the cattle suffered being made into the patty, (which everyone knows they do), the processed meat is almost always tainted ("cook it! that's the answer!" one of the film's characters explains-also, basically true-throughly cooked meat + the acids in your stomach usually = bacteria killed, but, still--) and, of course, the big bad conglomerates only care about one thing-making a few more cents per unit sold (also true).

All of this, I think would have been better in the format of Morgan Spurlocks "Super Size Me" -rather than a fictionalized account-Spurlock directly confronted the conglomerate he had the issue with (McDonalds) instead of making up a company name), and I think that if the film had been a documentary rather than fiction-it would have achieved more of an effect. Talk to real packing house workers, ex employees, etc. YOu don't need "Syriana" entwining story threads and sex scenes to tell this story effectively, and if you want to outrage the public, you need to cover the story for real. This wound up just a preachy story with no solutions.

A famous wit of the last century or so--I don't remember if it was Will Rogers, or Mark Twain, said something like "If one has any regard for laws or sausages, they should not see how they are made." Will watching this film really make you give up meat? I doubt it.

Rocky Balboa (2006)

A Nice Surprise

[8/10 · 25 May 2008]

Well the first "Rocky" of course was a classic, but the sequels suffered because they tried to add to the great (but standard) story, that was already so brilliantly told in the first film. So when this one was released, I thought, oh, no, "Rocky VI? That will probably be, just, sad." I was wrong-Stallone went back to the basics of the story, vis. the point of the story is not the characters themselves, or even the boxing, but that, if you aspire to something, no matter how unlikely, and work hard for it with all you have, you can attain it, no matter how tough life is you can be tougher, etc. It reminds me of what my mother used to say "tough times don't last, tough people do." This is the great thing about the "Rocky" story at its pure level, a guy with heart, being smacked down by life, keeps plugging and won't give up, and has everybody rooting for him, and when he makes it, we are all even more elated than he is. It's simple way to tell a story but hugely effective.

Now, a lot of people make fun of Stallone for being a poor actor. In this role, though, he plays the part beautifully. This is the role for whatever reason he is natural at, I think because the "Rocky Balboa" is a lot like him. The action movies he was in, those characters are entertaining to watch, to a degree, but they don't have the realistic personality that Rocky does. I have often read that the easiest role for an actor to play is himself, a great example of that is Stallone playing Rocky.

The other reason this movie fits so well, is that it is quite obviously the end of the Rocky story. Rocky is widowed, owns a restaurant ("Italian food cooked by Mexicans" - CLASSIC) and meets a woman, who, it turns out he used to know when she was a kid down the block. She is sort of like Adrian, quiet, sad, not quite so bashful, and they sort of make it (not so) obvious that she might be a romantic interest, later. Rocky's son is grown up and works in some sort of yuppie high pressure executive position with a jerk boss. He loves his pop, but resents "lving in his shadow." Well, the fun starts when some big mouths on ESPN are contemplating what would happen, if a boxer from the past, could fight the current champ, a young guy called Mason Dixon (lol), who, of course, is smart, fast, agile, and fit-Rocky's opponents of course are always better athletes and more skilled, but that's never the point-they don't have HEART! Anyway, the talking heads blab about how an old school fighter can't beat todays stars etc, and they put up a computer simulation that looks like the xbox360 version of "Fight Night III" with fighters made to look like Balboa and Dixon ("Cartoony fight" as Paulie calls it), and the Rocky PC wins, which leads to elation on the part of the Rocky fans, and anger in the Dixon camp. Dixon's handlers then try to get Rocky to actually go through with the fight, an "exhibition" bout for charity, with no belts on the line, they just want to see what will actually happens if the greatest of yesterday fights todays UDC (Dixon holds like 6 or 7 belts in the movie, they look like all the heavyweight belts, plus one that looks like the WWE United States belt, lol).

I won't tell the rest, but I recommend this movie, even if you're not a Rocky fan, I think you will enjoy it; it's a great "neighborhood" story besides being a pretty good boxing movie.

8 out of 10 stars.

Edmond (2005)

Very Poor; Disappointed

[2/10 · 25 January 2008]

I expected more from this film, considering the writer (Mamet) and the lead (Macy). Basically it's about a quiet, middle aged man who suddenly gets sick of his life, from his (evidently irritating) job to his loveless marriage, and one evening, apparently due to a bad Tarot reading, he decides to quit his wife and go for some adventure, which of course leads to bad events.

It goes downhill from there. Also very dumb-it's supposed to be in NYC but as a lifelong resident of Los Angeles I recognized numerous locations. Macy's character had warp drive I guess--he went from what I guess was supposed to be the Battery Park area to a little church in South Los Angeles in just a few minutes! And wait-an LAPD 77th st division cop in NYC? Is someone lost? Don't waste your time, skip this one

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008–2009)

Not So Bad

[6/10 · 15 January 2008]

I've seen the pilot and I actually liked it. While I agree that some of the casting was a bit kooky, I think too many people are expecting the show to be just like the movies; i don't think that was the intent. If so, it seems to be a "transitional" story between the events of T2 and T3. A lot of folks are taking it way too seriously though, like the trekkies do-I'm not going to dissect it like that I'm just happy something new is on.

Anyway the story joins Sarah Connor and John, now 15, thinking at first they found a place to hide, but that's proved wrong. Terminator(s) are still after John, so they must go on the run again; of course law enforcement adds to their problems. I don't want to relay the whole plot, but it goes on from there.

Also I don't have a problem with a female terminator as the guardian, I think it's sort of cool. The fact they make her "more human" is interesting. I say give the show a chance.

Flyboys (2006)

Excellent!

[10/10 · 23 July 2007]

This film follows Americans who volunteered to fight Germany during World War I, before America entered the war. To do this you had to enlist with European forces; some American men chose the Lafayette Escridelle (pardon my spelling) which was a group of men from different countries who trained, basically as the first fighter pilots.

The story follows each of the main characters as they begin to travel to France, and shows them meeting their commanders for the first time, getting their quarters, starting training, and so on. They progress from a group of trainees that are literally baptized by fire, to a tight confident squadron with growing skill. There is a 'red baron" type German pilot who flies with some honor, including letting an obviously damaged aircraft (that couldn't continue the fight fairly) go for that time, and also a "black ace" that strafed downed pilots on the ground. The flying scenes and aerial combat sequences are awesome. There are a few historical inaccuracies (the anti aircraft guns are the wrong generation) but by and large it's a great depiction of the horror and carnage that was WWI, including depicting the horrific trench fighting.

Of course there's the usual assortment of characters, the renegade smart ass, the rich boy, the daredevil, the guy that loses his nerve, the devoutly religious guy (he was cool, singing "onward Christian soldiers" to himself as they attacked a capital ship/dirigible), and even an expatriate black man, who had been performing as a prize fighter in France. (And who becomes one of the best pilots). There is also the tough but fair squadron commander, the gruff but caring instructor, and a lion that thinks its a dog (you'll see).

I think the love interest part could have been skipped, but that's just my opinion. All in all it's a great film, well acted, awesome special effects. Anyone into early aviation or WWI stories should definitely check it out Highly Recommended

Into the Blue (2005)

Much Better Than You'd Think

[7/10 · 23 July 2007]

Alright I admit it, I never heard of this movie (I sure don't remember it being advertised for theatres) but once I saw Jessica Alba was in it, I decided to watch it (I will sit thru ANYTHING with her in it). I was pleased to see that (a) she spends the whole film with very little clothing on and (b) it was actually a pretty good )albeit formulaic and a bit predictable) movie.

Basically, Samantha's boyfriend/fiancé whatever is some sort of treasure hunter/salvage guy, trying to get his damaged boat going again, because in the area that they live there's rumored to be sunken treasure. The b/f's (I think) brother comes to down, along with a dangerous looking girl he just met. I don't want to give too much away, and to be honest I can't remember a lot of the plot aside from the action scened because I was too busy ogling Jessica, lol, but the search gets sidetracked by something else, everyone's in danger, there are drug runners, sharks, police, and enemy salvage guys to deal with; it's actually a pretty good story.

If you're looking for something to watch on cable late at night, especially if you love Jessica, check this one out. It's a lot better than a lot of "blockbuster" movies out there.

King Kong (2005)

Old School Saturday Afternoon Adventure Meets 21st Century Technology

[10/10 · 12 July 2007]

I have been a movie addict all my life (I'm 52) I have seen many many movies. I used to go to 2 movies every week, then I got a VCR, and would rent 5 or 6 to watch on a Saturday (I never got out much, being a geek, but that's another story), then, I got digital cable, with all of its movie channels, VOD, etc. So, I have seen hundreds of movies, and very few of them truly impress me (in fact I don't agree with either the critics or other viewers on what the good movies are, most of the time; very few "blockbusters" or "hits" impress me at all.

But this film here, is absolutely astounding. That's a superlative that says a lot, and I make scant use of it, but I truly can't think of another word that fits. It's astounding. It is several things all at once: An homage to the "Saturday Afternoon Adventure Serials," (ask your grandparents), an homage to the original "King Kong" (1933); and a jaw-dropping, breathtaking showcase of what can be accomplished today with visual effects.

******SPOILERS WITHIN******** One caution I want to give though: if you have little children (maybe, say under 10) you should probably NOT take them to/let them watch this. There are numerous scenes of "action violence," as well as some images that would be very frightening for small folks.

Now, the film is considered a 'remake' of the first "Kong," which it is, in effect, but it's not a scene-for-scene new version, but does include several key scenes/story points from the first film. (Note: when discussing "King Kong" I only reference the "original" and this one. I pretend like the one from 1970 something doesn't even exist, it was so awful). We see the shady movie producer find out he has to sail early, has to find another actress, the boat trip, finding the island, exploring the island, etc. It's all there, but fleshed out and elaborated upon. In fact, most of the time they spend on the island is the part where little children should not be watching; as an example, the portrayal of the Skull Island natives is much more realistic, given today's makeup effects, then was possible, or even would have been considered, back in the 1930's. Rather than some black girls walking around with shell necklaces, and some black guys with stone age weapons looking mean, these people look just as you would imagine a group of people who've lived 20 or 30 years in a place without dentists barbers or medical care would look: matted hair, filed teeth, infected eyes, etc. Some of this is quite scary (Remember why the PG-13 rating was created in the first place).

As you would expect of Peter Jackson's work, the visuals, exteriors, process shots, mat scenes, etc are all breathtaking. Visual effects in general and the use of CGI are perfect; it's very difficult to tell what's a real exterior, for example and what's enhanced; I know I couldn't discern it. The depiction of all the creatures, especially Kong, is awesome.

At this point I have to comment on the performance of Naomi Watts as Anne Darrow, which was absolutely brilliant. She conveys, with very few words, but use of absolutely perfect facial expressions, all of the emotions she's being overwhelmed with; when first taken by Kong, you can see the outright terror, then, sympathy, gratitude (Kong saves her life SEVERAL times), and, finally, an absolutely amazing depiction of a deep love between her and Kong, and it and her. I've never seen anything like it; I'm amazed this performance didn't get her a best actress Oscar. (But that's MPAA politics, I guess).

I could write all day about this film, but what I'm trying to express to you, is SEE IT. In fact, this is one of the very, very few films that are out of the theaters, that I would recommend spending money on; i.e, renting it if it's not on cable. In fact, it's one of the even more rare films that I would consider purchasing. Do NOT miss it!

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

All In (2006)

You Guys Are Kidding, Right?

[2/10 · 6 July 2007]

I mean, were we watching the same movie? I saw this stinker last night on, I think the movie channel, and it was awful. The beginning of it, the production looked so bad, i thought I had tuned to an "adulit" movie by mistake. The acting was on a par with one, except for Micheal Madsen and that little girl. They didn't even show the poker action well; they flashed the person's hole cards, then showed the flop and board cards at a bad angle; it was hard to figure out what they were trying to portray. Did she have a set? A flush? Huh? wait, there were 4 clubs, no, or was it more spades? Oh, it was a straight. Just awful.

The story such as it is, follows a young lady who is the daughter of a well, depending on how you look at it, professional or addicted, gambler. (I think the difference is, you're a professional if you gamble all the time, and make money at it). The dad tries his best to give his little girl a good life, but there's all these problems, his wife changed, he owes money to the local capo, etc etc, I won't give away too much but there's some standard plot devices at work here. The story is actually OK, it's the mostly bad acting and "indy" production quality that makes it a bad movie.

If there's nothing else on cable, and you don't mind throwing away about an hour and a half of your life (it seems much longer), you might take a look at it. If you're expecting a good poker movie, like the Rounders, or something, don't bother, though.

The Ladies Man (1961)

Truly Awful

[1/10 · 6 July 2007]

As the reviewer said before me, this just wasn't funny. I had prepared a review of this film after seeing it last week on TCM, but I guess I was too harsh and they didn't post it, but I still want to share my thoughts, so if you all don't mind, I'll try to be kinder and gentler.

I have always been (sort of) a Jerry Lewis fan, in fact when I was a small child, I really loved him, and I think that maybe, when I was maybe 10 or 12 years old, and saw a movie like this, I probably thought it was much funnier, than I do now, as a middle aged person. As I have stated in other reviews, I think that Jerry's films from this time frame where he was in complete control of the production suffered from that, because they focused too much on him, and his antics, and not the story per se. And as I stated, when you compare a film like this to one of the very good ones that were made back then (like the Nutty Professor), it just seems all the more a shame.

Basically Jerry plays his "the little boy that never grew up" character, again, and here he finishes college I think but finds out his girl friend evidently found someone else, so he decides he hates girls now, and runs away west, looking for work, and wouldn't you know it the only job he can find is working at a (get ready for it) women's boarding house, that has, of course about 511 gorgeous girls running around. So for about 2 hours we have: Jerry making noises, Jerry making faces, Jerry destroying things, Jerrry making more faces, Jerry making more noises, etc. In fact, as far as "spoilers," I can't tell you how it ends, because I only made it halfway through.

It was a shame how bad this movie was, truly truly awful.

Ultraviolet (2006)

Pretty bad

[2/10 · 5 July 2007]

I have to agree with some other users that, this movie looked a lot better from the trailers, probably because, as with most stinkers, the best scenes are given away there. I like this type of move, and definitely like Mila (all her outfits seem to have the bare tummy look), but the story was ridiculous, the fight scenes were un realistic (it's too bad, because like Jennifer Garner, Milla has that mix of being incredibly hot and being believable as a violent, skilled fighter. Jennifer is a much better actress, though).

*SPOILERS* Well anyway the story involves an evil corporation (of course), which, from what I think I understood, cloned its leader in order to take something from his blood that would be fatal to a race of vampires (of which Mila is one, I think). This clone is a very annoying little boy who Mila decides to protect from the villain. Then, things are found out that are supposed to be a big surprise, there's a climactic battle (in the villain's huge compound, of course). All that's missing is the "backwards counting digital display" and the "talking killer." But they tried hard.

I would suggest you pass on this one. If you like Milla, she's in a few better movies. (Even the Resident Evil ones are better than this junk). I only sat through it because I like Milla; if you do, and it's on late on Showtime, or whatever, check it out if you must, but definitely, don't pay a dime to see it.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

Like the rest of them....BORING

[2/10 · 28 June 2007]

I'm sorry but i just don't understand why so many people think these xmen movies are so great. They aren't; this one in particular, was loud, and boring at the same time. And, it annoys the hell out of me, by the way that all these "big blockbuster" movies, for some reason, the sound levels go WAY DOWN when the people are talking, but then, when there's action BOOM volume level 100. Makes it tough to be a good neighbor, when you're up late at night watching TV and don't want to disturb the people in the apartments next to you.

Anyway some quasi evil/semi government lab has produced a serum that somehow reverses the mutations of human cells, that make someone a, well, mutant, and are offering it to the public. Apparently the teenage girl mutants that are full of angst and don't want to be "different' want it, but a whole other big group of mutants are offended, stating they aren't "diseased," and don't want it, and thus of course everyone else is now a "racist" and a "xenophobe." The boss good mutant, Captain Picard, um, I mean, Patrick Stewart, then gets embroiled once again with the boss of the evil mutants, Gandalf, um, I mean Ian Mckellan, and hilarity ensues.

Hally berry, Rebecca Romin, and Famke Jensen are all smoking hot, that's the only reason I'm even giving this turkey 2 stars. Let's hope this is the last chapter, there's so many good Marvel Characters they can make cool movies about (I'm hoping for Iron Man).

Never Say Never Again (1983)

I'll never get back the 2 hrs + I wasted on this again

[1/10 · 27 June 2007]

What a cheap stupid film. It's supposed to be a "james bond" film, and it does have Sean Connery, who tries really hard, but, at that point he was already getting too old for action type roles. He should have left the classic Bond he did back in the 60's.

This has James Bond in it, but it's NOT a James Bond film. Wny? Mostly not made by the production team (A. Broccoli) Studio (MGM) and distributor (United Artists) that made the "official" Bond films. It DOES make a difference. From what I remember, there was some STUPID legal battle back then because other film makers wanted the rights to the James Bond characters, I guess so they could cash in, but I wish they would have left things alone, and left the work to Cubby and co.

"M" was horrible. "Moneypenny" a pale, weak shadow of the MGM one, "Q" horrible. Felix Lieter isn't black, and Blofeld looked like an effete college professor or something. The "Bond Girls" were OK, the dark haired killer was hot, but Kim Basinger, even back then, was very plain. I never figured how people found her so attractive. She's not that attractive, and she can't act.

I'll assume the ending was the same as Thunderball, I don't know because I fell asleep for the last 10 minutes. Don't waste your time. Get all the 60's Sean Connery Bond films, and the Pierce Brosnan ones. Leave the rest of the junk alone.

Superman Returns (2006)

Why Do So Many "Blockbusters" Seem To Run FOREVER?

[2/10 · 18 June 2007]

Well, I wasn't going to review this movie either, I sort of had an inkling, from the running time, that it would be too long (it was) and sort of boring (ditto). But I didn't expect it to be as lifeless as it was. I watch a lot of movies, and usually only write about any of them if I'm either extremely impressed, or so disappointed that I just have to share my feelings. This film falls under the latter.

Now, I have been into "Superman" and the "Superman legend, since I was a kid, through the comic books, the old movie serials, and of course the (hokey now but pretty exciting for a kid back then) TV show with George Reeves and everyone. Many people under 40 have never seen many of the shows, and certainly not the old serials so their "Superman" experience starts with the Christopher Reeve films. Even those were a bit too "blockbuster" for me.

Anyway, my problems with the film are mainly:

(1) It runs too long. "Action" films just shouldn't clock in at much more than 90 minutes; most people's attention span for most movies (including mine), just doesn't go much past that unless it's something REALLY extraordinary, and folks, this film is NOT extraordinary.

(2) Casting: Here's the old Hollywood thing of casting an unknown in a huge role, and backing him/her up with dependable, veteran character players as the villains, parents, side kicks, etc. If the new guy/girl has "it" or potential, or "charisma" this could work. Nothing against Brandon Roth, I just don't think this was the first role for him. He seems more of a romantic lead than an action lead. The casting of Lois Lane was terrible, I won't even get into that.

(3)In line with the above, there is absolutely NO chemistry between Lois and Clark and even Lois and Superman! Later in the movie, something is inferred that will make this especially silly. You'll know what I mean if you make it that far.

(4)The few times Superman actually goes into action, he seems to be having a tough time for someone with unlimited strength. In the comics he could fix orbits of planets; he cant grab an A310 and set it down gently? (An earlier reviewer made the excellent point, also, of how Lois got slammed around in the cabin; that's just unrealistic, she would be (a) dead and (b) at least thrown out of her shoes. I agree that her hair would be just a bit mussed, too.

I bet that if they would have shot the JJ Abrams script, it would have zipped along, told all the story we needed, and run about 100 minutes. I just wish I could get the 2 hours and 24 minutes I spent watching this back. Please Hollywood, spare us from the sequel, make an Iron Man movie instead.

Underworld: Evolution (2006)

It Was OK.................

[3/10 · 13 January 2007]

I finally watched this movie, because (1) I love Kate (oy in that leather outfit...sigh) and (2) I wanted to see how the story progressed from the first film (assuming this was a "where we left off" type sequel, which it sort of was.

I think this movie was actually better than the first, maybe because it had more action, maybe because they took a little more time putting in details of the war between the vampires and lycans. However a few things still seemed silly.

(1) The whole business of western legends' two premier monsters fighting each other with modern firearms sort of silly. Hand to hand, blades, sure, but machine guns? And, come to think of that here's a tip for Kate: if you're fighting the primeval vampire, and you have a combat shotgun, don't keep shooting him in the chest, destroy his head!!!!!!!!!! (oy).

As several others have said, if you didn't see the first film, this one won't make much sense. If you have about 4 hours to kill, I would recommend getting both of them, just don't expect masterpieces.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Pretty Good-Sort of Over Hyped, though

[4/10 · 13 January 2007]

As some others have stated, many people have lost sight of the fact that this story is FICTION. Dan Brown and Ron Howard aren't trying to subvert Christianity. In fact, most history buffs know, some of the things depicted in the film aren't historical at all, but that's another story...

As to the movie review, I enjoyed the film. It was entertaining. We all know Ron Howard can cut film. Tom Hanks is a very good, well, excellent character actor (although this film is really more of an "action lead" role), he is very believable in the "average guy thrust into mortal danger" type situation.

I did figure out who the true bad guy was sort of early (I won't give that away though), but still enjoyed watching to see if any of the other characters caught on. You have to pay close attention, because there are several major characters that move in and out of the story, just as one storyline advances they go back to another one.

One thing I wondered about though, they spent so much on the "secret societies" of Opus Dei and the Templars---in a "church conspiracy" type of mystery, but didn't touch on the Rosicrucians the Masons, or any other conspiracy ripe protagonists. Sort of curious, but oh, well.

Now I can understand, to a degree, why some of the 'faithful' may be upset. It's why, quite frankly, I don't discuss religion with most people, because when one is raised in a tradition, for a lifetime, and suddenly hears things that dispute whatever that tradition or faith is, be it, alternate theology, textual criticisms, alternate gospels, and so on and so forth, they many times feel threatened and upset But religious beliefs are based, and predicated upon faith, and as someone stated previously, if you have faith (whatever that faith is), then a movie, or book, or discussion, should not affect that faith. Finally, as an American, I feel quite angered when ANYONE tries to tell me what I should and should not read, or see, or discuss. Remember many of those that condemn this film the most, have never seen it, and never intend to. It's entertainment, nothing more. Calm yourselves.

Inhumanoid (1996 TV Movie)

Don't Waste Your Time, Let Alone Your Money!

[1/10 · 2 January 2005]

Wow I have sat through some awful movies but this one--it's in a group by itself. When I saw the "Roger Corman Presents" at the beginning I thought, uh oh this is going to be cheesy, and bad, but I was looking for something to watch so I thought, well, I'll try it. Oy what a mistake, except for ONE THING, which I'll get to in a bit.

Now, the advantage of having digital cable is, you get dozens of movie channels, but the disadvantage of having digital cable is, you get dozens of movie channels. By that I mean, you don't just get to see films like The Last Samauri and such, you also get all of the direct to video stinkers, like this one evidently was. Basically the story is, an engineer of some type, his wife and daughter are on some kind of cargo ship in deep space doing something or other, they get s distress call from a damaged ship, and rescue a mysterious guy from it (it's not that much of a spoiler I guess that of course, he'll be EVIL). I'll leave the plot at that, because I really don't like to give spoilers, even when there's almost no plot.

As far as the technical side of the film, the photography is horrible, the effects are cheesy, the sets are cheaply made, the acting is horrible, and the writing is hackneyed. To give you an idea of the production values, this production is so poor and cheesy, it looks like a porno video. That's how bad the sets and acting are, a porn video! (At least, in porn you get to see pretty girls having explicit sex-this film has almost NOTHING worth viewing).

As to the cast, we have Richard (21 Jump Street) Grieco, looking tired, as the mysterious castaway, Corbin Bernsen, a good TV actor doing his best with the script he got, but isn't quite enough to save it, as the engineer/scientist, or whatever, Brittany Ashton Holmes as his daughter (about 5 or 6 years old I guess),who lives on the station with her parents,and finally,the one person that saves the whole thing from being a DUD, a young woman named Lara Harris, who I had never heard of, but she basically saves the whole thing, well, at least makes it watchable. She plays the (good character) in peril well without having to say a lot, which is good considering the quality of the script. She is also exactly the type of woman I find most attractive i.e. small boobs, slender body, long legs, big feet), so if it weren't for continuing to want to watch HER, I would have stopped watching this film, it really is that bad. One thing you'd have to wonder, in the near future before the Star Trek like ships, would people bring their little children into space with them? I sure wouldn't!!!! So, long story short, if it weren't for the sexy, barefoot girl I would not have watched this crap for more than 5 minutes! I would rate it as one-quarter star-BARELY up from "DUD." Avoid it if you can!

Charlie's Angels (2000)

Not as bad as I thought

[15 August 2001]

I know that many fellow IMDB users (as well as professional critics), have written many disparaging things regarding this film, but I have to say that it wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting, although it was pretty darn silly. For the first ten minutes or so I was thinking oh geez can I sit throught this? But then it sort of won me over. I also must admit that the main reason I finally decided to watch this film was not any huge interest to see how well they did making a "Big Budget Hollywood Blockbuster" out of yet another thirty year old TV show, but to be able to watch Cameron Diaz again. (I'm a fool for her).

Anyway, I never watched the old TV show much, so I can't compare the two efforts; however this movie seems to follow a similar tack from what I do remember--three resourceful (and gorgeous) private detective working for a mysterious agency for a boss they never see take on assignments that would be impossible for anyone else, but of course are vital to save the world on some level. The women are shown wearing various sexy outfits, always with perfect hair, just like in the 70's.

One point you have to keep in mind is that this film is about action 'and showing off the gorgeous girls..you can't go into it expecting a mulilayered plot and Grisham-like dialog. Anyway, basically you have the theft of a critical system which (naturally) if it fell into the wrong hands would mean world wide disaster. That's where the Angels come in. Only problem is, things are more complicated than they realize.

The fighting sequences, which many have complained about, seem well-done to me. The girls are all gorgeous and do their best to keep things light hearted and fun. I didn't see the movie in the theatre, but I'm sure that the draw was there for many guys like it was for me--to see Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Drew Barrymore in the same film! Wow! The only thing that sort of disappointed me was that somehow Bill Murray didn't get much to do. Otherwise the casting is kind of predictable Tim Curry and Crispin Glover do their ususal competent character performances, but I keep thinking...if the film had more of a plot (i.e. script), both of them, as well as Bill Murray, would have figured in things more.

I'll conclude with the thought I began with--I viewed this film because it was an oppurtunity to see Cameron Diaz. I adore her, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. For the rest of you..I'd recommend that you watch this film. It's a nice diversion. If you're in love with Cameron Diaz, it's a must see.

5 of 10 stars