Tim-130 Reviews

Aliens from Another Planet (1982 TV Movie)

It's the perfect example of 'it's so bad it's good'...

[6/10 · 4 September 2006]

The aliens wear oven mitts; the aliens speak perfect English but don't know what 'trouble' means; and best of all Robert Duvall with the classic 'what am I doing here?' look. This is a great one to play MST3K to. The chase through the lab is great...one lap around the set with a few cubicle walls thrown in for the classic 2 hour wait from this point sign! Oscilloscopes, tape reels and lots of flashing lights...this is a great time waster. I watched Time Tunnel as a child and loved it then,although I had no idea it was in color. I also didn't remember it lasting only 1 season, as IMDb says. If I recall, we watched it Saturday morning. If you can't laugh at this then you don't have a funny bone in your body

Poseidon (2006)

I was expecting better from WP

[4/10 · 13 May 2006]

Can I get a job as a screenwriter? You obviously don't need any experience. In fact the dialogue was probably just thrown in to waste paper. Were there any technical advisors on the crew? I mean besides the chimps behind the typewriters. The actual wave sequence was decent, but a little underdone, (except for those is the flash fire sequences, they were well done). I kept expecting it to get better, but it never did; in fact it got worse. Can I ask just how Kurt Russell knew exactly where the controls for the engines were? About 150 yards down this corridor, under water! Seems like most ship movies I've seen there are a full set of controls in the engine room. Why would the motors be running anyway? How could the tanks fill so rapidly if they were upside down? And do workers normally go into these huge tanks to turn the pumps on? Yes the deeper they got, they deeper my heart sank. How come the boyfriend show absolutely no signs of injury 10 minutes after being freed from the lighting rig? Dreyfuss should have been dead after getting hit by that door. Was there a Christmas tree? Seems to me that there should have been one. I guess pc has struck the luxury cruise lines too. I guess I'm getting old.

War of the Worlds (2005)

A really good, so close to great it hurts, popcorn flick

[8/10 · 3 July 2005]

I rated WOTW an 8 out of 10. I really enjoyed it. Basing it on the 1953 George Pal flick, I thought it was nearly as good, taking into account the f/x of the new vs. the old. The key 'redone' scene at the farmhouse was actually more exciting then the original, in my opinion. And the makers did a decent job in updating it from the original. Making Tom Cruise a part time Dad was good, as it seems to reach back to ET, when there was no Dad in the film. Here, he could be that Dad. And keeping it simple, isolating a small family, rather then concentrating on the military, as was done in Independence Day, made for a much more suspenseful film. Although, I would have liked to have seen a much more detailed battle in the countryside with the military, like in the original film. But at least they stayed away from nukes. The fact that there were only quick meetings with the Army worked though. That the son wanted to join the fight was a bit contrived, IMO, because he didn't seem to show those tendencies early on. In fact he seemed to be more aloof and alone in his solitude at the beginning. Of course, we only met him when he was dropped off for the weekend, so there could be a little more to him, but I just got the feeling he wasn't really like that, or his character wasn't fleshed out enough to want to see him join up. The biggest letdown was the ending. I just knew SS wouldn't allow the son to die, and I thought this was the BIGGEST detraction of the film. Thinking about the death in hindsight, no major character dies, ( Tim Robbins was not a major character, a mere cameo, unnecessary at that. More on that in a bit). Because of the fact that no one of record dies, it's hard to imagine Ray ever growing up, or learning anything about family etc. The fact that only a couple of minor characters die on film really doesn't allow us to build up any rage at being invaded. This is where the original film really brought us in. The audience were witness to several key deaths that brought them into the film. And the other big detraction, the crazy cameo! Who was that masked man! An ambulance driver? An AWOL soldier? A death row pervert who managed to escape? I couldn't figure it out! Maybe all three. He was an unnecessary addition to an otherwise well done farm house scene. The fact that Ray had to kill him, (off screen, so did he really? Or maybe he just gagged him, knowing he would have to leave him for dead), did nothing for his character. You think it would, and the fact that it was done behind closed doors, would give you a new more mature Ray, but I didn't get that feeling. I got nothing out of it. Otherwise the updated farmhouse was great. Technically, the film was a marvel. It's so nice to see so many f/x shots of this magnitude done in daylight. WOTW puts ID4 and the like to shame in that manner, and I really enjoyed ID4 on that level. The first attack on Jersey and the final Boston fight were fantastic, nary a glitch on first viewing. And the set up in the basement leading to the scene of the downed aircraft was really exciting, I wasn't expecting a crashed jet, and what a set piece that was. All-in-all a really good , so close to great, popcorn flick. and I will probably see it again in the theaters, and it will definitely be an addition to my getting-so-huge-my-wife-is-complaining-about-it DVD collection. (At least it takes up a heck of a lot less room then my 20+ years of VHS collecting.

Identity (2003)

Hitchcockian in the 1st degree

[7/10 · 1 January 2005]

My wife and I found this to be a very entertaining edge of your seat thriller. Lots of jumpy moments, and very little blood letting, which is a relief. We had it figured out pretty much 1/3 of the way through, but it still made for an entertaining evening in front of the fire. I think maybe the filmmakers gave us to much info. Our only problem was the timeline; we felt it was out of sync between the Rivers storyline and the motel. I don't want to give anything away, so I'll leave it at that. We also felt that the ending was to simplistic, and extremely Hollywood typical. I likened it to the end of Carrie in a way. The cast was first rate; I didn't even recognize DeMornay at first. Make sure you pay attention at the beginning, and I think you enjoy this.

I, Robot (2004)

Good old (futuristic) detective

[8/10 · 31 December 2004]

I read IA's books years ago as a child, and I was really looking forward to this film, (I don't read nearly as much as I used to, or would like to). As far as this being like the stories, much of it seemed new to me, or I don't remember large parts. But as a film this was really enjoyable. I found it to be entertaining, and never dull. Will Smith gives a good performance, not Oscar worthy, and just a tad over the top, but he keeps you locked on throughout. I loved the look of the film, mixing in old with new, showing a world in transition, similar to Blade Runner, but not as bleak. The robots were quite amazing, and blended in well. Of course it had a story and characters with a little meat! Unlike my last review for The Day After Tomorrow. So the effects simply added to the story instead of just being the story. As far as I was concerned this was just a 1950's style detective movie set 80 years into the future. I really liked it, and would recommend it as a movie to watch, especially to people who hate movies with bloated FX. This gives you both, and you kind of forget the FX, which is the way it should be.

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

Blah...blah..blah...SMASH...blah...blah...blah...

[5/10 · 31 December 2004]

Talk about clichéd and predictable. TDAT is simply a rehash of 70's disaster flicks with modern effects. I gave it a 5 on the IMDb scale. OK time waster, but don't expend even a trace of energy thinking about it, or you'll realize that you just threw away hard earned money. My biggest complaint was the number of story lines thrown in that were either filler, or never concluded. The Sela Ward character, and her storyline were the most obvious. The simple fact that she was the mother should have been enough, but then she was given the filler part with the terminally ill child. (wouldn't you at least attempt to move the child if it were the last resort instead of stupidly staying behind, knowing that it meant sure death?) Maybe it's me, but laying down in the face of adversity makes for crappy storytelling. There were many other examples of this simpleton stuff, but that was worse. Wait, maybe it was the end. Dad and assistant make it to NYC just as the storm breaks. Jeez, If he had just waited the 7 days, he could have taken the helicopter up! The real star was of course the FX division. They were impressive. Unfortunately, films built around FX generally lose out in the character and story area.

Ray (I) (2004)

An extraordinary portrayal

[9/10 · 15 November 2004]

One of the best bio-films I've ever seen. About the only thing I would have like to have seen more of was his early life, and mastering the piano. I think the scene where he is introduced to the instrument was way to short. He talked of his ability to mimic his favorite artists, but we didn't get to see the progression. Foxx's rendering of Ray is truly Oscar-worthy. The rest of the cast was exceptional too. Regina King should be getting nomination too. Taylor Hackford did a great job, except what I noted above, he stayed on theme throughout. This film mostly reminded me, in style, of The Buddy Holly Story. This film is a must see, even if you aren't a fan of Ray's music, if there are any.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

On it's own it's a decent flick, as part of the story, an unsatisfying conclusion

[4/10 · 6 November 2003]

Saw the flick opening day, third show of the day. I went in with little expectations. After all, I loved the first, like the second, and was somewhat put off by the direction they were heading. I pretty much figured out what was going to happen from watching Reloaded several times.

THERE WILL BE MANY SPOILERS COMING...

So, to digress slightly, #1 was and opening, giving us the basic outline and introducing characters. A great flick, definitely one of the all-time great scifi's. #2 moved the story along, but wasn't near as groundbreaking. The story lines weren't all that. #3should be the climax, the conclusion. But we are left with a huge hole that isn't filled. So why... Well, to the makers credit, they made a decent film. Sure most of the acting is stilted, and the dialogue is corny, but it is somewhat great in it's own right. As a part of The Matrix story though, it's dull, muddled and ultimately unsatisfying. Look at the titles. The Matrix Reloaded, pretty much what it implies, more and more of what made the first so good. Maybe a little too much. The Matrix Revolutions, huh, did I miss something, there was no revolution folks, Revelations, ok there were a few of those, but no revolutions. And this is just for starters... The first had all the mythology, and pseudo-religious overtones. The third reveals that all of that was pretty much a lie. It's all based in a man/machine world. The Cynics of Zion were correct, he is no savior. He's an extremely poor negotiator. The end of the film pretty much blows away everything the brothers had worked so hard to establish in the first. Love, faith, the enduring spirit of man, are all cast aside by Neo in the end. At the end of the first, he said ‘I'm going to show them what you don't want them to see', and he delivers. We saw an extremely unsatisfying conclusion. Neo forsake the people of Zion, and the folks caught up in the world of the Matrix, to help the machines conquer an out of control program that they helped create. Hello! The title is Revolutions. There was no revolution. The great battle ended without a victor. Just a very fragile treaty. The Architect says those who want, will be set free. This is garbage to the extreme. Mankind by nature does not want to be kept in bondage, and these weren't the conclusions so easily defined in #1. But now it's apparent that Neo isn't working for Zion, he is a machine. So everything stated in #1 about faith and believing was all lies. Morpheus was duped, all the believers were. We should have at least been shown the aftermath in Zion when everyone found out what it was exactly that Neo did. It seems Cypher was right all along, better to be reinserted into the Matrix, then live he way they were. Morphues would have been strung up by his Buster Browns.

Why do I say all this? Because now it has to start all over again. And this is where filmmaking bugs me. In 5 or 6 years, a new set of (cheap) actors, More money spent on Special Effects, less on story development, (it's done now), to tell the whole darn thing again. Why? Because the Architect says so. It has to be done to keep the Matrix in balance, or whatevr he calls it. This Matrix had no conclusion. It was supposed to be rebuilt, and never was. The fields will still be grown for harvesting, and eventually those in bondage will get the same sense that Trinity and the others got in the first. Someone has to stand up and say, ‘Let my people go'. It's human nature. We are the cattle. And the brothers are the herdsmen. I will not be pushed down a chute.

Dillinger (1973)

A fine film...

[8/10 · 17 October 2003]

I watched this for the first time in years after picking up the Widescreen DVD in the bargain bin. As a youngster, I remember many of these films for the bloodletting. How we used to talk them up afterwards. Often I'm disappointed after watching it many years later. 'Hey, that's not how I remember it. Well, 'Dillinger' isn't one of those films. This is a fine film, in fact, it's probably the number 2 film, behind 'Bonnie And Clyde' from that time that portrayed the Depression Era robbers. Warren Oates is excellent. He didn't get the chance very often to play the lead, but this was an excellent chance for him to bust out a little. And there are lots of recognizable actors in smaller roles. But this is Warren nearing his peak. It's as exciting as I remember, actually better then I remember. Well paced with a couple of slower interludes, that towards the end are kind of framed together. If you get a chance watch this film. You'll be pleasantly surprised. Oh and this DVD has the original 'We're In The Money' opening credits, plus it has the diclaimer at the end after the feature is over. I gave it a 7 out of 10.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Moments of flash, with a lot of trash...

[5/10 · 11 October 2003]

I know the point. I grew up on many of the films he hits upon in the movie. But you know what, he went too far. It's all right to give your nods to the filmmakers you love, but there were just so many, that it's not even his film anymore. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed much of the movie. Great camera work, limited use of wirework, the music was amazing, and it is very stylish. But there is no need for two movies. There is so much that is wrong with the two-movie plan. Without even seeing Vol. 2, I can say that his could have been edited into a very crisp, butt kicking 2-½ hour rock 'em sock 'em powerhouse film.

His non-linear timeline is obviously an attempt to structure Vol. 1 so as to get the huge fight placed at the end. When actually it's the beginning, (after the church massacre). While it is a cinematic treat of excess, it could have been honed down, and given its proper place to hook you in one long flick. See my personal opinion is that something went to QT's head during the making. Far too many references are going to go right over peoples' (the average moviegoer) heads. There were things I recognized right away, things I knew but couldn't place, and some things that I missed. And I've seen most of the movies he has referenced in articles, the credits, and movie connections listed here at ImdB. All in all I would have to say I was disappointed. I gave it a 5 here for average. There were parts that bored, parts that were very very good, and parts that could have been dropped completely. Like the anime; sorry, it was out of place in the context of what he was doing. I know some will disagree with me on that. But for what he was working with, Revenge/Samurai/Shaw Brothers, anime did not belong there. And considering how well done it was, it was probably a fair size chunk of the budget. If he had done away with that 10 minutes, removed some of the repetitive narrative, trimmed down some of the excess, then combined the 2 films, I think it would have worked, and would have been great. Oh well...

Bride of the Monster (1955)

Why did I give this film an 8?

[8/10 · 26 May 2003]

Good question. I feel Ed always had to know what he was doing. I mean if this had been an A film, do you think any of it would have made it past the dailys? Sure he was slightly demented in his thinking. But he was also having fun. He knew just how bad his film were, yet he kept doing them. I give him an 8 mostly for effort. But they are almost hypnotizing to watch. BOTM isn't long enough to bore you to tears. The dialogue is sparse enough that you can remember most every line spoken, the acting keeps you on your toes! I mean, most of us can't act, but we love to scream at the screen...'You are so bad!'...The sets, in fact everyhing about this fim, (all of Ed's films, really), are so bent that you can't help but smile while watching. About the only sad thing about this is Bela Lugosi. He wasn't really exploited, but you can see pain in is eyes. Yet Ed gave him employment. He wanted to work, Ed wanted him to work. But there was nothing left of him, just the shell of a great actor. Not the greatest way to go out, but then, it's still great to see him hamming it up. I don't know about anyone else, but I pull my Ed Wood movies out every few months and sit back and enjoy them for what they are, true schlock cinema from a guy who thought of himself as one of the greats, in his own little world...

The Core (2003)

A not-so-good time-waster...

[4/10 · 17 April 2003]

I forgave them for the tech stuff. Most of the time I had no idea what they were saying. So that's that. My main problem is that nowadays, a B Movie seems to be one that cost millions and makes no money. They are trying to pass B movie material off as an A-movie release. Hilary Swank obviously wanted a mega-crowd pleaser on her resume to bolster her price after winning an Oscar. Why else would she chose this. Why did she chose this one though... Stock dialogue, lot's of throw away characters. Standard fx. Nothing new, or groundbreaking here. The one exception would be Delroy Lindo. He always seems to stand head and shoulders above the rest of the cast, and the material.

Basic (2003)

Yuck! More tripe...

[4/10 · 14 April 2003]

So I saw Basic, and The Hunted a week apart. Basic is the superior film, but not by much. The Hunted got a 1, this got a 4. Terrible acting from Connie Nielsen, I could have sworn that accent was slipping in and out. Travolta doing the same shtick he's been doing for several years now. McTiernan just seems to be doing whatever is thrown his way these days. And I like the guy! He had a great early string of films, but the last couple of been bad...very bad...Rollerball getting my vote as worst film of 2002.

Too many twists, needless twists. I had it figured out after the first 15 minutes. The last 15 tried to throw of my guess, but only made me groan. All this set up for a drug sting? Far to many people in the same deep cover scenario for me. And Jackson was woefully under-used, perhaps if he had been given more scenes to chew on, it would have lifted the film another notch or two...

Them! (1954)

Probably one of the best of the 50's horror B-Movies...

[8/10 · 14 April 2003]

This is a film that someone should be looking to remake. Unfortunately, my copy is around 20 years old, and it shows. But it's still an exciting, well made horror flick. Even with the cheesy looking ants. James Whitmore's no nonsense state trooper plays great against James Arness as a, well, goofy, FBI agent. He didn't seem to have much going on upstairs. A very impressive supporting cast, and quite a list of uncredited appearances by many of the days best bit players makes this film a must for film buffs, and fans of the genre...

The Legend of Bagger Vance (2000)

Great camera work; so-so story.

[7/10 · 14 April 2001]

I thought it was a beautifully filmed story. And thats about it. Matt Damon looked the part. Will Smith gave a good performance, although his character wasn't very 'mysterious'. Bruce McGill was, as is usual for him, a stand out. The story itself was kinda hokey and predictable. I gave it a 6 for story, and an extra point for the photography.

Scary Movie (2000)

One of the dumbest films I've ever seen

[1/10 · 25 December 2000]

Rented the DVD over the holiday weekend, and boy am I sorry about that. What a waste of money. Totally unfunny! The only scene that made me laugh was when the girl was being chased by the killer up the stairs and she was pushing things down at him, (bike, grandma, piano). How this 'comedy' could have possibly earned the kind of money it did is beyond my realm of thinking. The Wayan brothers and company should have sent it back for about a thousand re-writes. I love comedy, and I'm not a prude by any means, but this kinda of gross out gag comedy got stale very fast. Dumb and Dumber made me laugh, as did Something About Mary, but not this. Keenan Ivory Wayans, (I hope I spelled it right, comments about taking this kind of comedy to the next level was way off the mark. Does he think outdoing the hair gel scene in 'Mary' by having a girl plastered to the ceiling by a stream of semen make it ten times funnier? Sorry, the answer is no. Not only is it not funnier, but parodying another comedy is just plain dumb. And simply re-making 'Scream' into a comedy is a one-joke routine too. I hope 'Scary Movie II' is a bit more original, (yeah right!). The first parody films, (Kentucky Fried Movies and Airplane) were hilarious because they were original in the material based on previous work. And they spoofed normal life, ('No stopping in the red zone' routine). Scary Movie was simply an un-funny ripoff piece of crap.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

The lesser Stars Wars

[5/10 · 25 December 2000]

Jar-Jar Binks You were a bore You had us gnashing our teeth and pulling our hair Simply not nearly as good as its predecessors. Nuff said.

Hollow Man (2000)

Should have been great...

[3/10 · 7 August 2000]

Well, it should have been, but instead we were induced into a coma after the first 45 minutes by this Alien-Basic Instinct-Freddy Kruger stew.

Paul V. seems so preoccupied with certain subjects, he lets it get in the way of his filmmaking. This is not an adult oriented sexual thriller story. The Invisible Man is a tragic story, Cane was an egomaniacal bastard, with no real redeeming values, so how were we supposed to feel sorry for him. We can't. We should have been cheering when they found a way to reverse the procedure, but of course they never did find away and off the story went into Kruger mode, deep underground, confined Alien- like in the lab. Of course all the explosion didn't matter to the Army above, just another day in the 'hood. Man, how very dissappointing. The effects were quite a sight to see, but Special Effects do not a movie make. You would think the stiffs in the big chairs would know that by now. Did they preview it to a test audience? The audience was laughing when I saw it. I was crying. A great movie shredded by a man so preoccupied with sex that he loses the passion, and compassion. I don't care what films he did in Europe, in the US we want a story! We want to feel something for the characters. We want to something other then latex sex, rape, and lewd behavior. As for the cast, they were handed a lame script and ran with it. Both Shue and Bacon are known for taking a wide variety of roles. And I like them both, but they should have passed on this. Filmmaking is an art, but Paul V. is just painting by the numbers.

Three Kings (1999)

Not as good as the hype...

[5/10 · 23 April 2000]

Rented the DVD over Easter weekend. I must be old school. Did not enjoy the film at all. The DVD extras were great and I watched all the commentary, but I couldn't make myself enjoy the film. Most everything the director talked about in his commentary I saw while viewing 'the film', but again I saw no new ground being covered. If you want to see a real anti-war flick, get Dr. Strangelove. I gave it a 5.

Godzilla (I) (1998)

Fares better when viewed on TV

[7/10 · 22 April 2000]

I just sat through Godzilla '98 at home in widescreen format. I had seen with my family when it opened, and frankly we were very disappointed. My feelings then were: the film was murky, anytime the creature made an appearance it was dark, or raining, or very grey. There was never a ray of sunshine. I felt this is what may have turned people off about it. In the theater it was very hard to follow because of the lack of color. I was also distracted by the sound, it did not enhance the movie for us one bit. My wife and kids felt pretty much the same way. But now nearly 2 years later, I picked up a widescreen videotape, and to my surprise, it was much easier to sit through on a smaller scale. I was able to control the sound so that distraction was easily remedied. The film itself seems so much more entertaining as TV fare, then it did on the big screen. What little color there was to the film seemed to stand out better on the TV, probably because everything was condensed. Although this updating of a classic is not one for the books, it does seem to stand up when viewed on a smaller scale. I think people who saw it in 98 should find a tape and view it again, but, remember to put aside your thoughts about the old Godzilla,and enjoy for what it is-a 2 hour time waster. One more thing, try to get a widescreen version, it does help.

The Sky's the Limit (I) (1943)

Fred dances up a storm...

[8/10 · 16 April 2000]

I see many people really have an affection for this movie. Unfortunately, I don't have the same enthusiasm. Its a good flick, and I gave it an 8, but only because of Freds routines, and Robert Benchley. Fred can dance up a storm, and Benchley's oration is thunderous, but the rest of the film drizzles...

A Night in Casablanca (1946)

They were and are the greatest comedy team.

[8/10 · 28 February 2000]

The Marx Brothers are the greatest comedy team of all time. Even in their later films, including this one, which weren't among their best efforts, they still manage to make you laugh. They filled their films with social commentary, sexual innuendo, and slapstick, all with effortless ease, and without being offending. The scenes of Groucho going from one hotel room to another, trying to get Annette alone, with brother Chico as his bodyguard thwarting his every attempt, are gems. I introduced the Marx Brothers to my son while he was very young, and he loves them. Now, more then ten years later he still pulls out the old videotapes occasionally. Then for the next week all we hear in the house is, ‘I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. How they got in my pajamas I'll never know.' Nothing compares to the Marx Brothers, before or since.

Eye of the Devil (1966)

Standard English thriller

[8/10 · 25 February 2000]

I consider to be one of those English thrillers that just looks good. It uses a lot of standard elements, is sometimes a little jerky in its storyline, but in the end produces the desired effect. I also like the camera work, which is also standard, but it again gives the desired effect. I also like Deborah Kerr, she is always effective in her roles.

The Gauntlet (1977)

A-list actor in a B-movie

[7/10 · 24 February 2000]

I love this movie. I recently watched it for the umteenth time, and I find it a highly entertaining time waster. The first time I saw it in the theater, way back in '77, my friends and I sat through 4 consecutive showings, (back when theaters would let you do that for the price of one admission). The one-liners became part of our vocabulary. Admittedly it isn't Eastwood's best effort, but its not his worst. Over the years I've lost track with the three best friends I've ever had, but every time I see this movie, it takes me back to my youth...

The Verdict (1982)

Better than The Color Of Money

[10/10 · 12 December 1998]

In my view, both Paul Newman and James Mason should have taken the Oscar that year. In Newman's case, although he was good in The Color Of Money, it was familiar territory. The Verdict was much more intense, I actually was repulsed by the opening scenes of him at funerals handing out his business card. And it happens no matter how many times I see it. He and Jack Warden also worked very well together, it was like they had actually known each other all those years. My hats off to Paul in his best film since The Hustler!