Crazy Ian Reviews

Across the Universe (2007)

Meh...

[7/10 · 7 June 2008]

Across the Universe will likely go down in history as the movie that "got it right" in terms of translating the Beatles' music to the big screen, but part of me thinks that they haven't quite got it yet.

Let's summarize major Beatles' movies to date: A Hard Day's Night had music translated into a film, and although it was amateurish and manic, they did well.

Help! had music translated into a film, an although even MORE manic, did OK.

Magical Mystery Tour had music translated into a film, and was a mess. I could barely sit through 20 minutes of it.

Yellow Submarine was a very good mix of music/film, with a bit of non sequiter.

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was a wacky interpretation of more Beatles' music than it should've been, tainted by the music producers of the 70's. It was definitely a product of its time.

Across the Universe was a simplistic love story spanned over two countries interspersed with real-life events. Charming, but shallow. Nostalgia and music carry the brunt of the film. It is the Forrest Gump of Beatles' music movies.

Who's Your Caddy? (2007)

It's not so bad?

[4/10 · 2 April 2008]

I saw that this was rated #6 on the Bottom 100 of IMDb, and frankly that seems ridiculous. It's a harmless comedy about golf. Let's face it, there have been a number of African-American themed comedies that have ranged from The Honeymooners to Soul Plane. The majority of audiences have found that these films were NOT that funny. These films tend to be trite, tired recycles of previous fare. Should that relegate them to the Bottom of IMDb? NO. Although they're not great movies, they're a long way from awful. Who knows, folks of a new generation may really enjoy them? Maybe those same folks will seek out the "original" works (in this case Caddyshack) and benefit from more "classic" films. In my opinion, there are not ENOUGH comedies about golf, or hockey for that matter. Lots about baseball, basketball and football, but not so many about golf. I LIKE golf comedies, and I found myself laughing a fair bit at this movie. Is it brilliant? No. Was Caddyshack? Nope, but it was a lot better. Was Happy Gilmore? Umm, yeah, I really liked it, and Who's Your Caddy doesn't come close, BUT it's still OK. I really liked Jesper Parnevik showing up, but I didn't really like him being treated like a "bad guy". I kind of hoped that in the US Open finals, Jesper would've been in there simply because he had played the course before but maybe now I'm looking for too many layers in a fairly simple film. Oh well, it's STILL not #6 on the worst films of all time, not even close...

Balls of Fury (2007)

I liked it, I don't understand other people's problems with it...

[7/10 · 12 September 2007]

I laughed at this movie. I laughed a LOT. True, some of the laughs were simply because some people were in this movie that had NO BUSINESS being in it, because they are considered to belong to a higher echelon of movies. Christopher Walken and Maggie Q are usually seen in LARGE blockbusters or high-profile indies; George Lopez has a very successful TV series, not to mention MANY cameos from well-known comedic actors. These people are GOOD. When they are on the screen, funny stuff happens. The script is an obvious parody on the movie "Enter The Dragon", but with ping-pong in lieu of kung-fu or karate. It also spoofs the "underdog" motif like the "Rocky" movies. I dunno, all I can say is that I REALLY enjoyed this movie. I didn't expect much, and I got a lot back because of that. True, I was a little liquored up, and a second sober viewing might not pay off repeat dividends, but I had a good time. Isn't that really what it's all about? Honestly, it ain't Citizen Kane, but I've seen crappier movies... a contemporary comparison: I was NOT disappointed by this movie, and comparatively much more disappointed with the 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean movie...

Yaaarrrr, thar be worse things under the sun, matey...

Touch of Evil (1958)

This film is so SLOOOOOOWWWWWWWW...

[6/10 · 7 July 2005]

I saw this movie. Rather I TRIED to see this movie. It's NOT that long, but it is SO SLOW I just couldn't make it through. I watched it again and again (signed it out of the library). I think it took 5 watchings before I finally finished.

NOTHING happens. I mean, it's cool, it's slick, and the characters are compelling, but everything that happens is a lateral move! I watched the opening scene rapt with attention, and this is supposedly one of the greatest "one-shot" scenes in cinema history, but in the end, NOTHING HAPPENS. :[ The big problem is that there's no conflict. We are taught in junior high school that a story needs conflict. The problem is that the conflict is superficial and tangential. The ending is predictable and anti-climatic.

I was disappointed. I was led to believe it's a friggin' classic, but it just doesn't rate. The DVD box made a big deal about the "unedited, unexpurgated version, never seen before, yada yada". I'm sorry, it just didn't pump my crank.

I gave it 6/10. It's competent. That's it. Maybe it was ground breaking in the 60's or whatever, maybe it's a paradigm of film noir, but it just doesn't hold up with age.

Frankly, the only word I can use to describe it is LAME. It left me flat, and I required several viewings to plod through it.

Spartan (2004)

It left me flat...but

[5/10 · 8 January 2005]

WARNING, THIS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS This movie left me flat. Any character that I had any empathy towards, died. Any character that I really couldn't give a da*n about, lived. In the end, this wasn't much better than a creative made-for-TV movie. It grabbed my attention, but I'll probably never see it again. The ONE entincing part about it was that it was NOT entirely clear who or what Val Kilmer's character was until about 30 minutes into the film. At least I didn't pick up on it. I felt that this very gradually introduction of a character was very novel.

The overall outcome was given away by the trailers, though.

Not very disappointed, because I didn't expect much in the first place.

I WILL go on a rally for Val Kilmer, though. I honestly have not been overly disappointed with a Val Kilmer movie. I know, most people say that Top Gun was it, but frankly, I have enjoyed every Kilmer film I have seen. I loved "The Doors"; I didn't mind "The Saint"; I loved "Real Genius". Many blame him for the decline in the Batman franchise, "Batman Forever", but even that wasn't that bad (at least not compared to the follow-up "Batman and Robin"). I feel that Val Kilmer is very dedicated to his craft, and is an exceptional actor. I think that he really needs to find the right "role" for himself (such as the "Ice Man"). If he can do that, he will be a prominent acting force to be reckoned with, like his +$10 million peers (e.g. Nicholson, Willis, Cage, Carrey, Cruise, etc.).

Taxi (I) (2004)

I didn't think it was that bad...

[7/10 · 8 January 2005]

I saw the flick. I didn't pay much to see it. I liked it. If I had paid full ticket price I probably would've been disappointed. But I didn't, so I wasn't. It was fun. It was reasonably clean. It was a nice movie. I gave it 7/10.

I will likely seek out the original material because tout le monde seems to think that it's far superior. By hey, this was based on stuff written by the dude responsible for "The Fifth Element" (Luc Besson), so it can't be that bad.

It's not a stellar movie. But let's face it, not every movie is a "Die Hard". But at the same time, not every movie is "Gigli" either. "Gigli" blew chunks. Compared to "Gigli", this movie is Best Picture worthy. Compared to "Gigli", this movie is a masterpiece.

Try it on the cheap side!

UFO (1970–1971)

Brilliant, just brilliant

[10 December 2004]

I recently had a chance to review ALL of the UFO episodes in the order that they were numbered. Now I realize that this is not the order that they were originally presented, however they were great. Just great. I saw Star Wars in the theater. I have been weaned on science-fiction, so I think that I can say when I see good stuff and when I don't. Another reviewer said that the basic premise of this story could go for at least FIVE YEARS. I agree. 100%. Even the LAST episode (which was obviously not meant to be THE last episode) was very high quality and an appropriate ending, where it referenced the original pilot.

My friend highly recommended this show to me, and I cannot say that I'm disappointed. I've seen people complain about the acting? Unreal. The acting is top-notch, and many of the principals have been (or were) involved in high-end British acting gigs at the time. To me, the characters and the story were the driving forces. At the time they were very original. In fact, I am not surprised that many of the 'key elements' have been recycled in other places.

If Hollywood were to make a movie of this series they had best hold true to the original notion(s). As I said before, one review said that this idea could go for 5 years. It could. They could have COUNTLESS plots with the Moon Base, SkyDiver, the Mobiles, people from the past, people about to expose SHADO, budget funding, and so forth. Frankly, I think that they quit while they were FAR AHEAD. I'm sure that the fans would salivate for more, but only if the quality was as good. More often than not any sort of revival is often met with disdain. It would be unfortunate if UFO was met with that sort of inane fandom. It was far classier than that.

To me, probably one of classiest sci-fi show I've ever seen. Awesome. Truly awesome. Don't ruin it. Please! Cheers! PAYROLL

The Beatles (1965–1969)

This show replayed in Canada

[8 August 2004]

I remember several of this show's episodes because it replayed on Teletoon in Canada (I think, it might've been the Family Channel). Anyways, the cartoons were very Monkey-esque, that is they usually ended up in some sort of a jam or situation, but then they sang a song and everything worked out well. I realize that it's silly to describe the Beatles' cartoons as Monkey-esque, because the Beatles predated the Monkees, however that seems like the most apt way to describe these cartoons. They were NOT very good. They typically invoked rarer songs that really didn't get a lot of airplay (not the hits). For the longest time I understood that the Beatles actually voiced themselves, however this apparently was not the case. They don't really voice themselves in 'Yellow Submarine' either, except in the live-action epilogue. These cartoons seemed very formulaic for the time, and the basic premise was often redone to correspond to the musical group of the time. For example, I recall large similarities between the Beatles cartoons and the Jackson 5 cartoons, however the Jackson 5 typically had a more 'futuristic' viewpoint (they went into space and encountered aliens and stuff like that). I'm also reminded of old Scooby-Doo cartoons, where there were those interminable chase scenes over the dubbing of a musical number. Apparently the Beatles themselves were not overly enamoured with these pieces either. Having said that, I'm sure that now is a good time to get these cartoons out as a DVD collection to span the entire Beatles' media contributions. I'm sure that a lot of people would be all over them purely for the sake of nostalgia, entertainment, and curiosity.

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1978)

It's not nearly as bad as everyone says...

[7/10 · 3 June 2004]

I first watched this movie being relatively oblivious of the Beatles' music.

THUS, I didn't necessarily experience 'the horror' of this movie destroying an establishment. However, upon hearing the Beatles' music, I was never actually convinced that THEY knew what they were talking about. This movie is a LOOSE interpretation of several songs, and OBVIOUSLY they had to stretch to make everything fall into a 'cohesive' plot. It's NOT brilliant. In fact, at times, it's downright stupid. However, it was probably very 'appropo' and 'avant garde' at the time. Now, sadly, it's a failed experiment. However, I CANNOT stop myself from looking away. As bad as it may be to some, the music itself is impervious to the apparent butchering that it receives. Having said that, there are EXCELLENT covers of the Beatles' work. Anything involving the BeeGees, or the Aerosmith cover, or the Earth, Wind and Fire cover are FANTASTIC. These have been acclaimed as some of the best Beatles' covers of all time. The space-filling efforts by the 'actors' of the time (George Burns, the guy that plays Mean Mr. Mustard, Steve Martin) are weaker affairs which detract from the spectacle. I think, in retrospect, that the whole point was that is WAS a spectacle, NOT meant to be taken too seriously, but a good, clean romp. And it WAS. It is FAMILY entertainment featuring good clean music. It's enjoyable, fun, and no one dies in the end! It's an uplifting feature that should be taken at face value, not based upon its musical family tree. YES, it's disco-esque. YES, it has Peter Frampton and the BeeGees covering the Beatles, but JUST LET IT GO. I personally sought out the DVD (formally I owned the Laser Disk), because I really liked this movie. I gave it a 7/10. It's good. It's not THAT good, but it's good. Everyone should get off of their high horse and take this feature at face value. It was never meant to be more than good, clean fun. Hey, I realize that it was MEANT to be a cash cow at the time. A lot of movies have been made on the basis of economics (Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, Gigli?). And obviously this movie dates itself. It's NOT a period piece . But it's a MUSICAL! Not a lot of people can appreciate a musical either. This is a movie that is NOTHING but music.

It's not Chicago. It's not Phantom. It's hard to accept nothing but music in a movie. Most people cannot relate to it. Especially when it's nothing but 70's covers. There's a lot going against this movie, but I still like it. Most people I've shown it to have appreciated it as well, once they've sat through the whole thing. Cheers!

Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997)

The biggest problem with this movie was that it was called Speed 2!

[16 July 2001]

Speed was an awesome movie, and an exciting, original concept, IMO. Let's face it, it was pretty hard to follow with a sequel. Added to that the fact that you didn't have the majour hero star, well, it was pretty impossible. Yet, the producers decided to soldier on. They got a new hero, and Sandra Bullock, and they made a go of it. It's not brilliant, but let's face it, I don't think they we're trying to be brilliant. Frankly, I believe that the largest problem with this movie is that it tried to be a sequel to the first movie. Also, it was on water, which had been done to death e.g. The Poseidon Adventure, Under Siege, one of the Airport movies, etc. Strictly as a stand-alone feature, it may've done better without referring to the original. Mind you, maybe it would've been better as a direct-to-video feature. Looking at it strictly by itself, I liked it, but I've been known to like crappy movies in my day. I certainly wouldn't rate it higher than a 5 out of 10. It's no Speed, and it's not even worthy of being a sequel to Speed, but it's got its merits. It's not a compleat piece of crap as some would have you believe.