Change Your Image
norse76
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
No Holds Barred (1989)
The Wrestler? No Thanks. I'll Stick With This
In the history of sports movies, there are characters that will stand the test of time: Rocky Balboa, Apollo Creed, Rudy Ruettiger, Daniel LaRusso, and Randy "The Ram" Robinson. All of these pale in comparison to the most well-rounded, charismatic, and fascinating character, Rip Thomas, in Thomas J. Wright's gritty masterpiece, 1989's "No Holds Barred".
This film is a stunning portrayal of a scenario that's all too real in our society: a struggling television network looks to turn their fortunes around by seeking to hire the world's greatest athlete, professional wrestler Rip Thomas, portrayed by classically trained actor Terry "Hulk Hogan" Bollea. Although I'm sure it was a close call for the voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, this is a performance that should have easily won an Oscar for one of our most treasured artists.
Not to be outdone, is Tommy "Tiny" Lister, as one of the most quotable characters of the '80s, Zeus, a man struggling with brain damage who's determined to achieve what many believe to be impossible by beating Rip, the Establishment's "Great White Hope".
This movie will leave you wondering which of these heroes you want to cheer for, as we, the audience, have a chance to see all facets of their characters' backgrounds and motivations. You'll find yourself applauding one minute and holding your breath in anticipation the next, as Rip and Zeus battle to reach their ultimate goal of proving why America is the greatest country known to both man and alien lifeforms.
Amadeus (1984)
Should Have Been Called "Salieri"
Make no mistake, although this movie is titled "Amadeus", it's really the story of tortured composer Antonio Salieri, who was forced to acknowledge that he would never be the musical equal of the brash, crass, immature prodigy Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
The framework for this movie is a "confessional" by Salieri to a priest who is visiting him while he is recovering in a sanitarium after a failed suicide attempt.
As portrayed by actor F. Murray Abraham, in a performance more than deserving of his Academy Award, Salieri is both pitiful and terrifying in his desire to destroy a man who he feels was unjustly given his talents from God. Abraham does an incredible job portraying a man who seethes with fury while plotting his perceived rival's undoing, all the while maintaining his composure in public.
Tom Hulce turns in a great performance as the incredibly gifted but reckless Mozart, a man with immense talent who tends to squander what he gains on living lavishly and wallowing in alcohol.
Also of special mention is the work of Jeffery Jones as the tone-deaf Roman Emperor Joseph II, and Elizabeth Berridge as Mozart's long-suffering wife Constanze Mozart.
This film is both a testament to incredible acting as well as a feast for the eyes and ears.
Dear Murderer (1947)
Bad People Doing Bad Things
I happened across this movie on Netflix and, due to my love of noir films and its 94-minute running time, I decided to give it a try. I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this.
The plot set-up is fairly simple: a wealthy British businessman returns home early from a business trip to America, discovers evidence that his younger, seemingly devoted wife has been stepping out on him, and decides to get his revenge. That's where the fun begins.
His seemingly foolproof plan doesn't quite go exactly as he thought, which is the case in a lot of movies like this. What separated this movie, though, was that even as the husband's plan began to lose its original shape, what he was able to mold it into became even more diabolical than it was at first intended.
Although all of the cast does a decent job in their assigned roles, it's really the lead roles of the husband and wife played by Eric Portman and Greta Gynt, that deserve special mention. Both play their parts quite well, Portman as the well-spoken, egotistical husband, and Gynt as the manipulative, philandering wife.
I especially enjoyed watching Gynt's character, who plays the role of the femme fatale here as a treacherous vixen who could stand alongside noir's best. In certain movies where wives seek the affections of someone other than their respective mate, they're portrayed as a character who just desires attention from an emotionally distant husband, or one who is either emotionally or physically abused at the hands of a domineering brute. Here, however, she is a truly terrible person, and some of the reactions she gives when hearing information that would normally be very troubling to a person is pretty fascinating.
I don't want to build this movie up as anything more than it is, an enjoyable hour-and-a-half of a formula most of us have seen before, but check this one out on a rainy day when you don't feel like going outside. You might find that it's a bit better than you'd expected.
RoboCop (2014)
A Very Different Take on the Robocop Origin Story
First of all, let me just get the comparisons out of the way. Did I like this as much as the original? No. There's the nostalgic value and overall coolness of concept in Paul Verhoeven's 1987 sci-fi classic that can't be replaced. This reboot is also missing much of the original's satirical humor, brutality, and a truly despicable bad guy (Kurtwood Smith was amazing as Clarence Boddicker).
Does that make it a bad movie, or something that should never have been done in the first place? No. This movie has a very different, although interesting, tone than the original, and is much more dramatic because it doesn't strip away Alex Murphy's humanity immediately after he's built in to the robotic suit as happens in Verhoeven's film. It doesn't totally turn its back on its predecessor though, and makes some nice nods to it in the form of showing the original suit, and using the original's theme from time to time.
One more thing that I'd like to get out of the way before I delve in to this review: I get so sick and tired of people whining about how it's impossible to make a satisfying action film without packing on the blood and swearing (aka "realism") in order to get the R-rating. I have seen plenty of great films featuring action that aren't rated R (Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Bourne films, and The Dark Knight come to mind). The action scenes in this movie were very well done, and don't go unnecessarily overboard. I know that the brutality I mentioned earlier regarding the original film is one of its selling points, but for the tone of that film it fit. In this version, I don't think it would.
The reason for this is that this version of Robocop is more interested in the human side of the story, and how a person would react and deal with the reality of no longer being fully in control of oneself. Joel Kinnaman does a very good job in the title role, conveying the emotional toll this experience has on Detective Murphy, and Abbie Cornish handles herself well in the role of the wife desperate to have her husband back in her family's life.
I also enjoyed much of the work done by the supporting cast, particularly Jackie Earle Haley as the drone controller for OmniCorp, Michael Keaton as the CEO of OmniCorp, and Gary Oldman as the sympathetic doctor responsible for creating and taking care of Robocop.
The plot deals with crooked cops, crooked corporations, and the politics involved with replacing humans with robotic drones. While none of this may sound particularly original, the storyline has some good twists and is rarely uninteresting.
You might wonder why I didn't rate this higher than a 7-out-of-10, when it seems that I liked it quite a bit. Here are my main complaints. First, the bad guys here just aren't as evil or menacing as they should have been. The central heavy, a gun runner responsible for Alex's transformation, is not developed nearly enough, nor does he have much dimension. Second, there's not enough of Murphy busting common thugs and their reaction to this new form of law enforcement. And third, there are some slow segments of the film that kind of break up the pacing.
Overall, I liked this movie a lot more than I had anticipated and am actually quite hopeful for a sequel.
L.A. Noire (2011)
A Truly Mature Game
I won't lie. I picked this game up due to the overwhelming hype surrounding it, and the track record of Rockstar. What I didn't expect was an experience as close to playing a movie as I've ever seen. A narrative full of characters that talked and acted like real people, and a hero that is flawed in realistic ways. Team Bondi put a lot of work in getting everything to look and feel as authentic as possible, and it shows. I've played through this twice now, nearly two years apart, and been completely and totally engrossed by the story and the amazing facial motion-capture technique that just adds an extra dimension to the characters you'll come across during it's very long running time.
Some comments have been made about the extended cutscenes and what can be viewed as tedious and repetitive gameplay, but I had no problem with either of these aspects of the game, as the plot completely sucked me in.
Make no mistake about it, this is a very mature tale that features brutal crime scenes, language, and violence, all of which are handled very matter-of-factly. There was never a point where I felt these things were over-the-top, however, but, rather, I felt these aspects added to the realism. Along with this, the whole city of Los Angeles in the 1940's has been lovingly recreated, from the buildings and locations, to the vehicles, fashions, and entertainment of that era.
If I were to pick anything that I had issues with, it was the noticeable lack of side missions or random events. Given the attention to detail that went in to creating the city, I would have thought the development team could have found more creative things to do within it. There are crimes outside of the main narrative that you can respond to that gain you extra "intuition" points to be used during questioning or clue hunting, but not nearly as many or nearly as diverse as there should have been. Also, this is more than likely a game you won't be turning around and playing again immediately after finishing it. It's probably something that's best revisited maybe every year or two.
Overall, I found this to be a stunning and eye-opening look at what games can look and feel like. If this is any indication of what we can expect in the future, I, for one, can't wait to see what's around the corner.
Adventures in the Magic Kingdom (1990)
An Underrated Game
I have fond memories of picking up this game at a local Toys R Us in the heyday of the NES. I think most people would look at a game like this and think, "What a shameless attempt to cash in on the Disneyland theme park!" I, however, really enjoyed this game. It featured attraction-inspired stages such as Pirates of the Caribbean, the Haunted Mansion, and Space Mountain. Although in most respects a straight forward platformer, it also included reflex tests (Space Mountain's "push the D-pad in the direction of the arrows that appear on-screen) and even a racing stage (Autopia). The goal was to beat each level and collect a golden key to open Sleeping Beauty's castle. Graphically, for it's time, the game featured some impressive visuals, most notably in the Haunted Mansion level in which the busts produced some pretty cool facial expressions. Initially, the game could become quite frustrating, especially the Space Mountain portion of the game. But, after awhile, I had no problem beating the game within a half an hour. And yet, I still found myself playing it months afterward. An underrated game and yet another feather in Capcom's cap.
Psycho (1960)
Still Amazing After All These Years
Being an avid movie fan, I have seen too many motion pictures to even bother trying to count. I love all types: drama, comedy, action, sci-fi, foreign and horror. But I would have to say that my favorite genre is suspense. Something about thrilling audiences without the use of special effects, and creating realistic settings which cause a sense of dread for the audience. And nobody, in my opinion, accomplished this with a greater sense of style, polish, and dignity than Alfred Hitchcock. His films are full of great dialog, well-rounded characters, and genuine and original shocks.
Of all of his films, my favorite would have to be "Psycho". This masterpiece uses amazing black and white cinematography and a very low bodycount (yes, that's correct, a very low bodycount) to weave a fascinating story of a woman caught in a criminal web of her own doing who stops off at the wrong motel on a wet and rainy night. She meets the inn-keeper, a fragile and soft spoken young man who is emotionally and verbally pushed around by his overbearing mother.
What follows is a tension filled and horrifying tale of psychological suspense. I have heard others comment that this film is not really "scary", and I beg to differ. Nothing to me could be more terrifying than the reality that people like some of those presented in this film truly exist in our world. It takes a lot more than fake blood and overly-gory special effects to impress me, and the sad thing is that today's "horror" films and even some claiming to be suspense films rely too much on the supernatural or just plain disgusting to achieve their affect. None of that for me thanks.
One of my true pleasures is to see someone view this film for the first time. Moments in the film tend to shock or surprise people who think they've seen it all. Those who have seen enough knock-offs (and there are a TON of them) may figure out some of the story's plot before it is revealed, but only because so many films have shamelessly ripped this one off. See it for the first time (and even a tenth) and enjoy a master director at the peak of his craft.
Batman Begins (2005)
Holy Batgoodness!
As a kid, I enjoyed comic books. Whenever I had the money, I would go to the corner store and pick up my favorites. But, unlike many comic book readers, I never really connected with Superman or Spiderman. For me it was always "Batman". Something about the gritty realism and dark atmosphere drew me in. I also respected the fact that Bruce Wayne never had to rely on superhuman abilities to get the job done.
Needless to say, my expectations were quite high for this latest installment. And I was not disappointed in the least. As much as I adored the two film incarnations brought to the screen by Tim Burton (yes, I truly and completely enjoyed "Batman Returns"), I always felt something was lacking. The films, including the horrendous Joel Schumacher train wrecks, seemed to focus way too much on the villains (Jack Nicholson's Joker remains one of my all time favorite movie bad guys) and not enough on the protagonist, Bruce Wayne.
This new "Batman" fixes this problem with a truly remarkable look at a tortured soul who decides not to turn his back on the city that took his parent's lives.
Christian Bale was made to wear the Batsuit. He looks truly menacing and delivers his lines with growling intensity. The supporting cast is, for the most part, equally up to par. The only exception I have to this is Katie Holmes. She just doesn't seem all that believable in the role she is required to play. She's not really bad, just not that great. Michael Caine, Rutger Hauer, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, and (in a surprising "good guy" role) Gary Oldman add some class to the proceedings.
In regards to the action scenes, a very sensitive part of comic book adaptations, the film was truly remarkable. Part of Batman's strategy of fighting crime is to strike fear into the hearts of criminals, and this is where director Christopher Nolan really hits the mark. The first real scene of Batman taking on some thugs is filmed in such a way that it is difficult to truly see what is going on. This may sound sloppy or cheap, but it actually gives the feel of being attacked by some unknown creature, and the glimpses of the cape only adds to the thugs' terror.
The movie features all the gadgets and gizmos you would expect from a Batman movie as well as a re imagined Batmobile that is quite an impressive vehicle. The dialog is great, as well as the appropriate moments of humor. As difficult as it is for me to admit this, this is the way Batman was meant to be (Sorry, Tim). A dark and gritty masterpiece.
A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)
Unfortunate Adaptation?
I have read several reviews regarding this film complaining about the fact that it doesn't stick close enough to the source material. Realistically, how many book-to-film adaptations do? Although I admit that the film does not contain all of the wit and dark charm of the books (I am currently reading the sixth volume, my children have just finished number 11), I really enjoyed this film. I had been anticipating it for quite some time, and this generally proves to cause me to feel let down by over-hype (Can you say, "Phantom Menace"?). This film, however, captured the overall spirit of the books quite nicely. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, could have captured the feel of an enormously failed actor quite as convincingly as Jim Carrey. Not only does he provide great comic scenes when adopting Count Olaf's disguises, but his sense of menace is wonderful.
I agree with other reviewers that if you are looking for a picture perfect rendition of the books' events, look elsewhere. This film is more of an adaption of the plot of the first three books, mixing the timeline of the first book around the second and third. I applaud the books portraying children using their intelligence to figure things out rather that relying on magical powers. The movie also captured this quite well, showing each of the children using their natural abilities to solve their problems.
A perfect movie? No. Certain dangerous situations from the books are completely omitted from the film that I think would have added a further degree of menace and sense of dread. Also, by cramming three books into one movie, the film can feel rushed at times.
Minor problems aside, I truly enjoyed seeing this film with my family and am eagerly awaiting the next installment (how are they going to film the finale of the Miserable Mill?).
Lord of the Flies (1963)
Great Movie-Making
Whereas Edward Turner decided this movie was quite disappointing, I was fascinated. I too read the novel and felt this film did an admirable job of capturing the children's descent into savagery. While incapable of capturing all of the symbolism and imagery of the book (and really, who could?), the director did a remarkable job for the tools available to him at the time. Several scenes are filmed in a way in which it is difficult to say for sure what is happening, which to some may be annoying, but which I found effective in creating a sense of genuine dread. An extremely well made film and definitely worth a look. Immeasurably superior to the 1990 version.
Memento (2000)
What A Rush...
When I first heard about this film, I was curious. Playing with time, while not a completely original concept, could make a film feel gimmicky and artsy. I am happy to say that this is not the case with "Memento", a clever and twisted thriller that makes the audience sympathize with the lead character by giving them, in essence, the same lack of info that the protagonist has. By telling the story in the fashion that the writer and director have chosen, if you don't pay keen attention to every line and every character, the film will definitely lose it's impact. The final twist is a whopper that I never saw coming and yet I didn't feel at all cheated. On the contrary, I wanted to watch it again (which I did immediately) and see if I could pick up on clues (which there are in abundance). If you like movies that challenge you to think while you watch, give this one a try.