mgruebel Reviews

Tucker and Dale vs Evil (2010)

Comedy of errors

[6/10 · 25 December 2021]

We all know how misunderstandings can balloon into major conflict when the parties involved don't understand who the other is, and where they're coming from. In the middle of this horror comedy, a would-be psychologist college students tries to get the warring parties together, but quickly fails. Goodwill is not always enough to solve problems.

The film has a hilarious premise, that evil among college students out in the woods, not misunderstood hillbillies tucked away in their dilapidated cabin, is responsible for Texas Chainsaw Massacre-style mayhem.

As this is a comedy, the horror sets are muted to just about the right level: one sees the aftermath, or maybe some progress during the bountiful mutilations, but not the onset, which is the most shocking in such set pieces.

T&DvsE loses points for meandering a bit at times, and for the usual unbelievable behavior patterns. It also, wink wink, introduced some if its artificial devices (camomile tea, anyone? Support beams?) just a bit too obviously, almost creating a 'groan' effect when they finally are put to use. In the end, it was fun to watch once, but once it has sent out its message, there's not much left for the viewer to want to go back. The latter is for me a criterion for moving from 6/10 to 7/10: you want to see it again. Amused as I was for 90 minutes, I don't feel the slightest need to.

The Prestige (2006)

Twin annihilation

[8/10 · 25 December 2021]

I am not as unconditional a fan of Nolan's work as some people on iMdb, but in this case, I think he did it (again).

The setting will be compelling for anyone who loves steam-punk, or in this case electro-punk: the story of two magicians, whose rivalry turns into a relentless tit-for-tat of revenge, beautifully fits the Victorian era when stage shows were the internet of the day.

Bale and Jackman trade of well at every turn, although the brighter side of one and the darker side of the other is revealed only rather late in the plot. Both deceive themselves and each other - and most everyone else - because their trade is engrained in them, and both actors make it believable. Perhaps practicing in real life what one needs to do on the stage is the only way to brilliance; or perhaps it is the other way around?

I initially did not like the SF element introduced in Nikola Tesla's work, but in the end, I had to admit it was just short of brilliant: as a plot device, it achieves turning a true achievement, when someone else is just using trickery, into failure. The theme of pairs crops up in innumerable other ways beyond the Tesla invention plot device: supportive pairs, deceptive pairs, self-annihilating pairs.

Finally, the film is just transparent enough that one can guess where the outline goes next, but I at least, who likes second-guessing the plot while watching for the first time, was only roughly right half of the time.

It's an 8, right up there with some of the best films about deadly rivalry; the use of a MacGuffin, and the fact that its twist will not be as suspenseful on further passes, bring it down to 8. To rise a step above one has to, like Hitchcock, show the tricks right out in the open and make them compelling enough that the viewer wants to see them over and over again.

Extinction (2018)

Phil Dick-ish idea, but without the sharp wit

[5/10 · 27 April 2020]

The theme of androids who think they are human has been well grazed over, and especially in a short story by Philip K. Dick (also filmed). The idea is intriguing, but here doesn't quite gel. Like we don't find out very convincingly how the androids after 50 years don't notice their android children are not growing up. And why would humans disguise themselves as weird looking aliens to get Earth back? A similar fallacy was seen in the Tom Cruise vehicle 'Oblivion,' where humans need to distort their voices and were weird masks so ... we think they're aliens and the clones are humans!

Thus the ending of the film, although intriguing, does not really satisfy because it lays bare a lot of plot holes. The film itself is short enough (85 minutes) that after being mildly entertained, one does not have to be too sad that the whole story doesn't quite hold together.

2012 (I) (2009)

CA going down in chunks

[6/10 · 2 April 2020]

Emmerich really seems to be in love with runways collapsing behind airplanes taking off. We get this three times in the movie. Probably once would have been OK. Same with buildings on precipices so narrow due to everything around having collapsed a mile deep, that it is structurally impossible.

But of course this is a disaster flick, not a documentary. So we can't expect the slightest physical accuracy in megavolcano explosions, continental shelf sinking into the ocean, etc.

If you just hit the 'suspension of disbelief button' and get into the non-stop disaster action, the movie delivers pretty well, hence a 6/10. Not worth seeing more than once, but with a beer in hand, it can while an evening away. And Woody Harrelson is always great as the insane guy.

Oddly, the 'bad guy,' played by Oliver Platt is actually right: you do not open the slowly operating hydraulic door of a humanity-saving ark a couple of minutes before doom, thereby endangering humanity's survival; you do not, like Danny Glover's US President, dramatically remain on the White House lawn while a tidal wave sends an aircraft carrier tumbling your way. Hurray to Platt for being the only person with common sense and the courage to make very hard decisions in this film. That was rather odd: most films at least manage to make me root for the hero and against the villain, but not here.

Fortunately, neutrinos are not that bad in real life, even when the solar flares get big. And luckily, (big surprise!) then end of the Mayan calendar in 2012 was just one more of those doomsday prediction/conspiracy theories that did not come true.

Skiptrace (2016)

Chan chopping away

[6/10 · 26 December 2019]

I liked this Chan vehicle better than most, mainly because Chan always remains endearing, but also because of the high quality locales for this odd-couple road trip.

The central conceit is pretty standard: to solve the crime of his former partner's death, Chan has to enlist the help of con-man Connor Watts (Knoxville), and the odd couple bumble across the world fighting a persistent Russian strongwoman and assorted Hong Kong mafia to uncover the evil guy behind the scenes.

The latter is a 'surprise' reveal, although one can guess early on given the importance given to his former buddy's daughter.

The set pieces in the film are beautiful, the mud fights, houses-on-stilts fights and factory floor fights are fun, while the humor sometimes misses the mark, but often hits it pretty well - from used car salesmen in Mongolia to awkward situations with bowling balls.

I was entertained for an hour and a half+ (brevity is a virtue in such flicks), and give it a strong 6 because it fulfills the premise that such no-pretense films should.

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019)

The Empire Strikes Back - Again!

[7/10 · 22 December 2019]

JJ Abrams had a tough job cleaning up loose ends, making sure all the main characters can make a meaningful appearance and still developing character relationships. With that in mind, the film came out pretty good, about at the level of Episode VII, a bit better than episode VIII.

The film unfortunately has plenty of weaknesses, mostly due to scripting full of plot holes and fake emotional moments, pulling the viewer out of the story. Some examples:

It overdoes the "Oh Chewbakka is dead ... Oh, he's alive" "Oh C3-PO is wiped ... Oh, he's back" artifices. If we know tragically wiped out characters are going to be restored within minutes anyway, the writers might as well spare us the cheap emotional tug. At least in "Wrath of Khan," Spock was dead until the next sequel!

There are just too many plot holes that are critical to the plot and require heavy-duty apologetics to explain out of the way: If the Emperor's Plan A is to get Rey to kill him out of anger so the essence of the Sith goes into her, why tell her about it? She was coming to do exactly that, and explaining that this will seal his victory only deters her from doing what he needs to get done. After all, presumably he made himself hard to find via those Wayfinders to convince her that he does not want to be killed. It's like the bad guy at the end of old James Bond movies giving away the master plan, enabling Bond to push the self-destruct button.

The list of such gaffes goes on and on, putting a dent in the beautiful set pieces, solid acting by the ensemble cast. nice John Williams music as always, glimpse of a young Luke training a young Leia, cute robots instead of overly cute little animals, and all that good stuff the film has to offer.

A harsher judge might give it less than 7 because of the plot hole-filled script, or because of dissatisfaction that the Palpatine family ultimately pulls the strings, not the Skywalkers. A more effusive fan might give an 8 perhaps. For me, a 7 sounds about right: it was entertaining, it didn't do anything grossly negligent to the Star Wars Universe (besides suddenly making the Palpatines, not the Skywalkers, the ultimate driving force of the story), and I might see it again some day - but not too soon!

Race to Witch Mountain (2009)

Give me Milland and Pleasence any day!

[6/10 · 15 November 2019]

Well, Donald Pleasence and Ray Milland were way better evildoers in the 1970s original "Escape to Witch Mountain." The story of the 70s flick also made more sense and was better paced out. (OK, I'm old, so I can handle movies that are paced out instead of one lamb-bang action scene after another).

Nonetheless, the remake is not all bad. The two kids are suitably alien (definitely acting on the part of Robb, judging from earlier movies with her). Dwayne Johnson delivers plenty of dry humor that feels as well-placed as Arenold-quips of the 80s. And there is a certain Chemistry between his cab driver and Carla Gugino's scientist that works fairly well.

Still, the special effects are largely infantile, the alien assassin moves like a wooden puppet (although it's a guy ion a costume), and the story of getting the kids back to their spaceship so Earth can be saved is simplistic, leaving out the relationship development that happened in the original. And as I said, the original Milland/Pleasence evil guys were intelligent and sinister, and just all-around much better.

It was OK to watch once though, so I give it a 6/10.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Forced writing

[5/10 · 15 November 2019]

Spiderman 3 had two very interesting villains - one who could 'demolecularize" into sand, and the other a snubbed photographer who links up with an alien critter after Spiderman manages to rid himself of it.

Sadly, the writing for this film is stilted, to force artificially and rapidly plot points that would otherwise take too long to reach because there are oh-so-many such plot points. The worst case-in-point is the deteriorating relationship between Spidey and MJ. It relies on a hilariously artificial set of misunderstandings, as well as completely un-Peter-Parker-characteristic public displays (e.g. a kiss on the lips of someone other than MJ during a celebration, with the mask purposely pulled up to make it 'wet'). Likewise, the contortions of Harry Osborn as frenemy are beyond plausible, and scientists operating a demolecularization device getting a weird reading are not going to say "Bah, just a bird, it'll fly away when we turn it on." As a scientist who operates expensive equipment at taxpayer's cost, I have to say this is plain ridiculous. Of course they would have a closed-circuit camera imaging the area of the experiment!

The writers could have streamlined this script while developing the stories of the villains better. All in all, it's either totally implausible (sandman's genesis) or totally annoying (MJ and Peter's deteriorating relationship) as executed. 5/10 because I did not leave as a happy camper, despite to villains with a lot of potential.

Papillon (1973)

Theater at its best

[8/10 · 6 October 2019]

I first saw this film in the mid-70s on Austrian TV, probably not long after it came out. Too young to fully understand it, I was still impressed - it stuck to my mind for many years, unlike most films that I saw. I saw it again decades later, still impressed.

The film is theater in the grand sense. It is sometimes grandiose and pompous, and heavy with symbolism. But this only enforces that human beings who really should be hopeless can never afford to be without hope. It's an example of how collaboration and the dream of freedom can prevail in a way. The only stranger sense of escape into hope that I have seen in a film is Gilliam's Brazil, where the main character finally has no choice by to escape into a dream of happiness while being tortured. Things do end happier in Papillion.

Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman gave great performances, as did the other actors: the guards are really as much prisoners as the convicts, and respond with anything from brutality to compassion. The film then becomes a series of set pieces to illustrate a man who never gives up, and ultimately, after many years, prevails, despite throwing his pearls to treacherous sows.

Angels & Demons (2009)

Religious (Anti)matters

[7/10 · 19 August 2019]

While I like Tom Hanks, I'm not a big fan of religious machinations, so I watched this with some skepticism. I was quickly turned around.

This taut thriller directed by Ron Howard keeps you on your toes as a Harvard historian (Robert Langdon played by Hanks) is called in by the Vatican police to find who deployed a bomb using antimatter stolen from CERN that will destroy central Rome in 24 hours.

Langdon teams up with the CERN scientist who created the antimatter, and together they slowly catch up with the hired hand who is killing papal candidates (the pope appears to have died, but was actually murdered). Plenty of potential evildoers are highlighted, from shadowy Illuminati who leave too many clues, to a cardinal who seems to eager to become the next pope, to the deceased pope's personal servant, to the chief of the Swiss guard sworn to protect the pope.

In the end, the day is saved and a new pope is elected, but not before an antimatter blast lights up the skies above Rome at the proverbial midnight hour. This is one of the many forgivable gaffes in the film, as a 1 gram antimatter explosion even high in the sky would have blasted Rome anyway. There's a reason 5 kiloton nuclear weapons are detonated well above ground as they drop, to maximize blast damage. At least the film, unlike the book, shows some damage being done. There are other little weaknesses in the plot (an experienced assassin who gets in a getaway car supplied by his contractor without worrying about said contractor wanting to erase all traces of the crime?!). Nothing that requires enough suspension of disbelief to ruin the plot, though. As always, view the film on its own merits rather than worrying about the book, which of course has more motivation, more detail, more character development.

It's a (antimatter) blast, and even after the denouement (which was not easy to guess ahead of time because there were, as I said, plenty of bad-guy-candidates), one could see the film again for all the loving little details.

The Revenant (I) (2015)

DiCaprio CAN act when he wants to

[7/10 · 14 July 2019]

One of the worst bits of acting I ever saw was DiCaprio as King Louis Quatorze in "The Man in the Iron Mask." But then, one of the better bits of acting I have seen was DiCaprio as a man who gets mauled by a bear, watches his son get killed, falls off a cliff with his horse and then has to use the animal as a bivouac ... and so forth. Only reality can bring on such a series of life- and sanity-threatening events, and yet a human being is strong enough to survive and make it back to civilization, such as it is.

The film tries to be ultra-realistic with settings, costuming, and language, and it mostly succeeds very well. The generally excellent camerawork is marred by a few strange choices. For example, when characters are breathing heavily in the cold, there is condensation on the camera lens (more likely, on a glass plate held in front of the camera!). If this is to elicit a 'documentary feel,' well, that would work if the movie were set in 1933, when Technicolor film cameras existed, but not in 1823. Pretending there was a camera catching real life in 1823 actually has the opposite effect: it takes you out of the story thinking what I just said above, and that diminishes the experience of the film.

Not perfect in all respects, but very worth seeing for those who can handle harsh violence, scalping, (simulated) distress and death of animals, and so forth.

The Dark Tower (2017)

A brighter tower than the reviews

[6/10 · 10 April 2019]

Don't look to "Dark Tower" as an accurate filming of the King novels, if you enjoyed the Gunslinger's hunt for the Dark Man, across universes. However, as a fairly short fantasy film, this is far more cohesive than the reviews led me to believe.

In this rendition, the boy Jake, just one of many characters sacrificed in the books, is cast as the main character, whereas the Gunslinger shows up to destroy the Dark Man only with Jake's help. This actually works, a retelling of the gist of the story from the boy's point of view, so to speak. I could not say the same of Jackson's "The Hobbit," which retold the story from the point of view of pretty much everyone except for the Hobbit.

The special effects are OK. The plot moves along swiftly from New York to the Gunslinger's world, and back to New York at the end, drastically simplifying the characters and story from the 70s shorts or 80s book. I can understand why King thought this was a pretty good summary of his story.

Still, it does not rise above a "6" or a one time mildly entertaining view: the characters are not given enough time to develop, hence the tragic elements (e.g. the Gunslinger comforting Jake over his mother's death at the hands of the Dark Man) do not bear full fruit. The movie becomes too sequential, with each episode part of a perfectly logical progression, but one is left wondering why each episode was there other than being an arbitrary set piece in a quest. There is just not enough motivation or back story for any of the characters.

So if you like an unpretentious, professionally crafted fantasy-action movie with an interesting premise, and you can live with the fact that it glides along a little too glibly, you'll enjoy this coming-of-age fantasy.

Backtrace (2018)

Some good intentions, but weak execution

[5/10 · 10 March 2019]

What have we here? Amnesiac bank robber Matt Modine turns out to have become a criminal for his kid's sake because he got cheated out of his pension plan. When he gets his memory back 7 years later, he becomes a threat for corrupt FBI agent Chris McDonald, who wants to put his hands on the hidden millions that Modine robbed. Stallone is a cop caught in the middle trying to figure out who's really the good guy and who's really the bad guy.

On the bad side, in few films do so many machine-gun bullets spray around and still miss the mark, characters hide their identities when not doing so would produce better results, or cops risk their careers for criminals. So 4 for the writing, editing and directing. On the good side, it does move along, has plenty of little plot twists, and Modine, McDonald and Stallone work professionally with the material on hand, as one should come to expect. So a 6 for the actors and good intentions.

I saw it with my buddy while riding a stationary bike in the basement, and for that purpose it did the trick. A see-once flick though, hence a (4+6)/2 = 5.

Logan's Run (1976)

Cult classic with longevity

[7/10 · 12 February 2019]

I am one of those people who saw Logan's Run in the 1970s, so perhaps that makes my view rosy. But I saw it as recently as 2019 and still enjoyed it again.

The story is about humanity enclosed in a domed city long after a war made the outside go afoul. Everything is run by an AI system that puts anyone over 30 through a 'renewal' ceremony (i.e. kills them off so they are replaced 1:1 by a baby grown in an artificial womb). Sandmen take care of 'runners' who try to escape the city once they reach 30 years of age.

One thing that immediately sets this film apart is the loving effort and detail put into sets and special effects. Yes, they are pre-Star Wars (and far from 1969's 2001) miniature effects, but the scenes of people on walkways while monorail trains rush over their heads, or the 3-D light show that plays during renewal, or the beautiful matte work on a destroyed Washington, D.C. later in the film are real works of art. This is true even if the supposed helicopter fly-over right at the start looks like a camera hovering over a miniature, unlike similar effects of X-wing fighters going into the Death Star Trench, which were done with a computerized camera and a much better choice of lighting and f-stops.

The characters in this film all have a childlike affectation to them, and this could get annoying. However, it suits the premise well: humans coddled by an AI and left without any substantial education so they don't start asking tough questions (or 'be too smart' like a little rogue girl in the middle of the film) would pretty much behave like sheep content to wallow in sex and parties while being fed and clothed in a color scheme according to years left before 'renewal.' Peter Ustinov plays a free human outside the dome at the end of the movie, and brings a different kind of simplicity, that of a nature-child. And the hapless inhabitants of the dome finally do get to see the outside world, which has healed from the impact of ancient war.

The film has enough self-knowledge and humor to poke fun at its limitations (e.g. naming a boxy robot, who wants to off the hero after he becomes a 'runner', simply 'Box'). This film leaves one wistful at a simpler life, yet wary at what cost it would come. Ignorance is bliss, but not really, is the simple message of the film.

I still enjoy it after seeing it 4 times, and that's worth at least a 7. For a younger generation, the miniatures special effects, fake laser pistols and oddly childish humans may be too much to take - my warning to you. On the other hand, if you enjoyed the original "West World" with Yul Brynner, "Soylent Green," or similar 70s dystopias, you'll appreciate this film.

Speed Kills (2018)

Slow speed

[5/10 · 10 February 2019]

A mob-linked big-league contractor moves to Florida, falls in love with boat racing, but ultimately cannot escape his past because he makes many bad choices. We know there's no happy ending because the film starts with John Travolta getting shot to death.

The film has the incongruence of real life events that it is based on, as well as the mix of excitement and boring stretches. However, this is one of those situations where good film making departs from the literal, and hones the story to make it spellbinding. Here the scripting and directing fell short of that, despite passable attempts by the actors to fill in the story of a man who deserts his family for boat racing, makes a new family, and ultimately is haunted by his past when he is forced by bad business deals to come back to the fold of his mob connections.

The film is an interesting 1960s to 1980s period piece, but it simply falls short on the quality of the storytelling, often being quite boring or having elements that do not move the story along and could have been cut. Nice try, but no cigar! 5/10.

Hunter Killer (2018)

Sub-par? Naw, it's OK

[6/10 · 3 February 2019]

I like Gerald Butler. He plays in action flicks like Olympus/London Has Fallen with just the right level of tongue-in-cheek to make the improbable plots enjoyable nonetheless. If Roger Moore had been as good at it, the 70s and 80s James Bond films would all be classics.

Hunter-Killer is in that vein: Not to be confused with serious sub films like "Das Boot," or Robert Wise's drama "Run Silent, Run Deep" (1958), but a fun one-time watch with a beer and some friends.

The story is pretty straightforward: Evil Russian defense minister Durov wants to start his own Private Little War with the US, and to do so, takes the Russian Premier hostage, blows up a Russian sub, and then sinks a US sub to create a fake incident. In comes Gerard Butler as Captain of the Arkansas, who rescues Captain Andropov from the blown-up Russian sub, and then gets him to cooperate to rescue the Russian Premier, get the bad guys blown up, and generally save the world from World War III.

The movie features four deftly interwoven story lines: The Arkansas, a crack team of Seals dropped into remote Russia to extract the Premier, the story around Durov, and the story in DC where generals tussle about who's making the right calls and who's not. One of them is Gary Oldman, and actor I first saw as the villain in "Fifth Element" and really like. He does a good job here as Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff making life hard for Rear Admiral John Fisk (played by rapper Common!).

Everything in this film is professionally done, so it's easy to give it a 6. Where it falls short is in predictability and some badly chosen and improbable plot elements, generally introduced to create fake tension in slow-moving parts of the film. Really good films don't need to do this. A typical example among many: the first officer of the Arkansas loudly confronts his skipper in front of the men when Butler decides to recruit Andropov's help to make it through a mine field. I'm not a military expert, but I hear from my friends in the service that this would never happen. If Number One has a misgiving, he'd take it up with his Captain in the ready room, not in front of the enlisted men. Like in "Star Trek The Next Generation," when Picard pulls his first officer off the bridge whenever the two have a little disagreement. (Star Trek generally gets this stuff right.)

So this flick must remain in the domain of predictable action fare, congenially written, directed and acted, but not rising above a fun "B" movie worth a single watch. 6/10.

Hellboy (2004)

del Toro's imagination is always interesting

[7/10 · 3 February 2019]

Just for being different from typical action/monster/horror fare, this film is a 7/10. del Toro directed and scripted, and the film is very much with his themes (e.g. Nazis and demons in "Labyrinth") and yet quite unique in its look and story.

John Hurt as the professor who raises a demon captured from a Nazi experiment, and especially Ron Perlman as said demon (named "Hellboy" and affectionately called "Red" by his coworkers) deliver great performance. How nonchalant can a demon get? Well, Perlman will show you. Everyone on the cast, down to the German dominatrix, or Jeff Tambor playing the somewhat knuckle headed FBI agent who is not all bad, clearly enjoyed making this.

Through flashbacks envisioned by a fish-man-demon and plenty of action involving subway trains, the movie leads us through Perlman chasing egg-laying hellhounds to dispose of a dead Nazi brought to 'life' by a mechanical clockwork, to climax in a final confrontation with none other than Rasputin, who holds Perlman's would-be fiery girlfriend hostage in a sub-sepulcher labyrinth to get him "Red" destroy the Earth.

If this sounds a bit weird and complicated, it's weird, but not too complicated. The film is well written and the somewhat unusual action and characters are easy enough to follow and empathize with.

del Toro is a classic auteur like Terry Gilliam, with a touch more horror and a touch less social commentary, although films like Labyrinth and Hellboy clearly show del Toro's fascination with demons of the imagination, and demons of reality - such as Nazis.

A strong 7 and a clear cult winner, fun to watch again even when you know already how it plays out.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

Tried and true formula

[6/10 · 26 January 2019]

Big game hunter sent by bad guy (Jurassic Park II) cheats good guys, who get stuck in a museum with dinosaur skeletons, hunted by meat-eating-o-saurs while Jeff Goldblum pontificates (Jurassic Park I), and at the end escaped dinosaurs rampage on the mainland (Jurassic Park III).

In many ways this flick pays homage and rips off earlier installments just like Star Wars VI ripped off IV (or I-II-III ripped off IV-V-VI). The acting in 'Fallen Kingdom' is routine but solid, the plot filled with minor (i.e. avoidable) plot holes but moving fast, the music a solid Williams rip-off, the evil corporate characters suitably slimy.

But why do they have to: make food elevators in a mansion operate soundlessly without the bad guys noticing; make the good bedridden guy tell the bad guy 'to call the police' when (a) either the bad guy is innocent, no need to call or (b) the bad guy is guilty, in which case he has to kill the good bedridden guy; and so on a hundred more times.

The sad thing about such plot holes is that they are totally avoidable without messing with the big picture of the plot. For example, the bad guy could overhear the granddaughter (actually cloned daughter) giving the good bedridden guy the heads-up on the situation, and then kill him after toying with him. Or the girl could not have moved the food elevator, and the bad guy left the room without checking it. And so on, and so forth.

Bad screenwriters of blockbusters just don't seem to be able to resists cheap momentary thrills at the cost of plausibility. Which sucks because there's already enough suspension of disbelief required without that.

But on the positive side, Fallen Kingdom, although formulaic, is solidly acted, stuffed with great action set pieces, gives its dinosaurs real character as much as possible, and of course, who can resist a film with a volcano blowing its top to annihilate an island.

6/10 for nice action and badass 'saurs. Can't wait for Jurassic World III: 'Saurs Eat the Suburbs.

Stargate: Continuum (2008 Video)

Solid TV fare for fans of the Stargate universe

[5/10 · 23 January 2019]

The. Stargate team witnesses the extraction of an evil Lord (a small slug-like creature) from its host, but things go wrong: the Lord made arrangements in 1939 to mess up the future, and the Stargate team finds itself in an alternative timeline where the Lord is going to take over the Earth. Plenty of mayhem ensues.

For a $7M budget, it's not bad, but on a big screen scale, it's only a passable 5: a good single watch for Stargate fans or those who like fairly mindless SF adventure. Among the biggest drawbacks are a lot of badly written dialogue, wooden acting, the usual time travel plot holes, and pompous villains that make you groan. Among the advantages are plenty of mindless action, locations (actual polar locations) and some good moments for the main characters (for those who know the series).

Nothing special, but nothing terrible either: a popcorn movie for those who like straightforward SF or Stargate, or both.

The Old Man & the Gun (2018)

Interesting idea

[6/10 · 20 January 2019]

What happens when a horse-loving farmer with a stable, normal life falls for a gentleman bank robber whose life, punctuated by prison escapes, is anything but stable and normal?

This is an interesting premise, and the film does it some justice with good actors such as Sissy Spacek (horse lover), Robert Redford (bank robber), and Danny Glover and others thrown in with cameo appearances. But it does not do full justice, hence a 6/10.

The story is unevenly paced and edited, with some brilliant moments, and some not so brilliant moments. Brilliant: when Redford taunts the detective who pursues him by mailing him an autographed robbed banknote - and the detective later returns it to him in prison with a silent smile. Not so brilliant: the detective's interview with Redford's abandoned daughter, who fingers her own father in a muddled speech.

I remember the 80s more fondly than this 1981 period piece makes them out to be: sure, the microprocessors were running at a Megahertz instead of a Gigahertz, but perhaps that's part of why the nationalism and tribalism that mar the 2010s did not exist back them. In 1981 I thought a unified world government could be reality in 50 years. 30 years later, I think: not a chance! Or perhaps I'm just getting older and less optimistic. Anyway, this movie did not do anything to change that.

A solid one-time watch, the type of film that they release a couple of months before the Oscars as dark horses, but not good enough to deserve one.

Coco (I) (2017)

Wow - ¿podria estar muerto, por favor?

[8/10 · 20 January 2019]

I remember being blown out of my socks by the first Pixar movie, which I saw at an animation festival in the mid-80s: A child-lamp playing with a ball, squishing it, and getting consoled by mother-lamp. It was only a minute of computer graphics, and the CGI was amazing for the day, but the short film differed deeply from similar efforts of the era: it actually had a story!

Fast forward, and things have not changed: still state-of-the-art in visual quality, and still outstanding stories. Even their second sequels (Toy Story 3?) are far above the level of most animated films.

Coco is no exception. The story of a boy, who first has to learn the value of family to understand that only that knowledge can fulfill his life's dream, is amazing. How do you make skeletons charming? Well, that question is answered in Coco! In all aspects, from the musical numbers, to the voice characters, to the storytelling, and of course the colorful animation, this is a superb film.

I almost feel guilty for not giving it a 9 or 10, but while the film did give me a lump in my throat, it did so using well honed plot twist techniques, such as turning an apparent hero into a demon, or swiftly reconciling people even though one of them has hated the other for 100 years. The tricks of the trade are applied here as deftly as I have ever seen, but the best of the best don't need to apply them at all.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)

Hitch-tino

[7/10 · 19 January 2019]

Much is made in reviews about the Tarantino-esque nature of BTER, but this film's homage goes much further back to Hitchcock. A character that seems central is suddenly knocked off at a motel? Hmmmm. For those that complain that this film is ripping off Tarantino, well, Tarantino ripped off Hitch aplenty. And John Williams ripped off Dvorjak aplenty, who ripped off Beethoven aplenty. They're still all good!

The story warms up quickly as a set of seedy customers check into a motel exactly on the CA-NV border before the proverbial dark and stormy night. Where all could have gone quietly, mayhem ensues as they interfere with each other's shady purposes. In a way, this film is a horror movie (aka a group of people are confined in a place they can't escape from, and then terrible things happen to them). Just like the director's first feature, co-written by Joss Whedon, "The Cabin in the Woods," also a 7-star film.

Great style and set design are definitely assets of this film, with all the customers symbolically checking into the dark Nevada side of the hotel instead of the sunny California side, which costs $1 more. I loved those CA- and NV-shaped room keys!

These days, it's not easy to surprise viewers with the untimely death of a character, especially one NOT played by a rich and famous actor (like Sam Jackson in Deep Blue Sea), but BTER actually manages to do so. As a minus point, much of the surprise arises because it seems almost unbelievable that a trained FBI agent wouldn't start out by handcuffing a perp he just knocked unconscious.

There are a few such plotholes in this film, but not too many to get really annoying. For example, it's hard to believe that word did not eventually get out that the management is filming customers through one-way mirrors for extortion, and really big fish would still check into the place to be victimized.

The film lovingly introduces its seedy characters one-by-one with flashbacks. I enjoyed every one of these, which were evenly spread throughout the film. For some young audience members with smart-phone-age attention spans, this may be a bit much, but anyone who enjoys a bit of backstory to divide up the often brutal mayhem will find this a nice relief. Frankly, without these flashbacks the film for me would be an overly intense sequence of gruesome killings; with the flashbacks, the killings become choreographed mayhem with just enough of a pause to recuperate for the next one. Just like a good horror flick. Kudos to director Drew Goddard for making that time.

Another amazing feature is that Goddard manages to impart some 2018 sensibilities to his 1969 period piece, but without heavy-handed political correctness that would be totally out of place for the era. The interactions of down-on-her-luck singer Darlene Sweet with the other characters are handled very deftly.

This is a fun film to watch, and I think it will attain minor cult status. It is a bit of a rip-off of various thrillers from the 60s to 00s, and has some improbable plot elements (unlike the Hitch or the Quentin), so 7/10.

The Happytime Murders (2018)

Let the Silly String fly

[5/10 · 11 January 2019]

If the idea of Silly String shooting around a room while a muppet detective is j....ing off is your idea of funny, you are going to love this flick. Otherwise, stay away.

The simplistic tale revolves around members of a muppet sitcom cast getting knocked off one-by-one. The last one standing will get syndication income; well, in the real world the last one standing would be the prime suspect for the murders! A disgraced former muppet cop, now a private eye, teams up with his former buddy Melissa McCarthy to solve the case. In the process, they evolve from sworn enemies to friends, and muppet detective Phil Philips (played and voice ed by Bill Barretta) redeems himself for a bad thing he did to Melissa years back. Well, he redeems himself sort of: if you call killing an innocent man, and then later killing his family redemption.

Along the way, a series of silly lewd jokes plays out (like the Silly String or worse), uncouth language is thrown around, car stereos are shot, and plenty of muppets get blown to pieces.

The film is not terrible, but it's clichéed and forcé in many places, and even a fan of foulmouthed muppets probably is not going to want to see it more than once. Very average fare, hence a 5. Bring beer and pizza for this one.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

Devilishly surreal

[8/10 · 9 January 2019]

Master Gilliam is at work again, in a duel between a monk and the Devil, initially for eternal life, and then for something far more precious.

Sadly, Heath Ledger died during filming, although not due to the film, unlike Lee in "The Crow." Gilliam manages to take this sad disaster and somehow make it come out right. And he has plenty of help, from the inimitable Christopher Plummer as the titular Dr. Parnassus to the 'not a dwarf' Verne Troyer.

The biggest plus of this film is the Dali-esque surrealism that pervades the set pieces inside the Imaginarium, where the battle between Good (sort of) and Evil (definitely!) takes place. The story moves along well within the twisted logic of these surreal landscapes, and of the bets for life and love that frame the story.

I was very surprised to see that Roger Ebert gave it a 'meh' rating. Ebert usually got these slightly more complex plots, although he seems to have been dumbfounded here. It does get complicated right at the start, with Anton and Tony, or should I say 'Antony'? Anton/Tony are the two faces of the suitor for the hand of Parnassus' daughter Valentina, mirroring the Parnassus/Devil pair of good/evil. Eventually the trick of swallowing a brass flute to escape a hanging death fails the bad suitor, and the good one gets to marry Valentina. Let's not get into the Freudian implications of swallowing a brass rod in a film about a 16-year old girl reaching age of consent.

Well, no matter. The key to this film, as to "2001" is not the plot, but the surreal landscape (inner space in Imaginarium, outer space in 2001) that frames very basic human questions in both films.

For the Gilliam fan, there are interesting nods to past work. For example, when Anton runs away, newspapers begin to fly in the air and stick to him, including one with a nasty headline about Tony. Anton does not quite disappear, like Tuttle the plumber in "Brazil", but there is a hint that he is a good force, just like Tuttle, and that good can disappear oh so easily.

The Imaginarium is not quite up to Brazil or even Time Bandits standards, but I think it beats Münchhausen, and we can argue about Grimm, which interestingly featured Heath Ledger as one of the Brothers Grimm.

It's one of those auteur works that one can watch many times and discover a new detail each time. Since films are a visual medium and watching them again should be like seeing a familiar but artful painting (like a Hieronymus Bosch) over and over again throughout the years, this one gets a clear 8.

I Am Number Four (2011)

4 + 1 = 5

[5/10 · 8 January 2019]

Teenage boy + dad, who really are alien in hiding + guardian-protector, being chased down by a bunch of ruthless aliens for no really compelling reason. Oh, in numerical order - hence the "4."

On that premise are built a bunch of chase scenes, some teen romance, and other ingredients loosely connected by plot holes, as one might expect from a (very) young adult book. Indeed, that's what the film is based on. If that's OK, you will find a bundle of well-choreographed action scenes, narrow escapes - and of course the bad aliens get it just in the nick of time.

If that's not OK, you are watching one of those films where you feel you wasted the time instead of seeing something better, but somehow don't feel to terribly guilty about it after all. Forgettable, but somehow not all bad\: hence 4+1=5 as my score.