hdavis-29 Reviews

The Life Before Her Eyes (2007)

Excellent film - but avoid the spoilers before seeing it

[8/10 · 10 December 2023]

Let me repeat the excellent advice that appears in many of the film's reviews here. Do not read the spoiler reviews before you've seen the movie. You need to watch this film cold. Once you've seen it, you will probably want to do a fair bit of reading - either to figure out the meaning of what you've just seen, or to compare notes with other viewers about what it all meant.

At the risk of branding myself an idiot, I confess that I was baffled by the film. I had an inkling of what might have gone on, but I doubted my own conclusion. I went straight to the director's commentary on the DVD ( which is excellent, by the way) and had everything explained to me.

I'm purposely staying away from specifics here so I don't have to use a spoiler alert. That will increase the number of readers. I can say that once you realize what you're watching and you see how brilliantly it all fits together, your admiration for the film will grow even higher.

The closest I'll come to giving you a spoiler is to suggest that if you like the premise of this film, go read a 19th century short story by Ambrose Bierce called "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." Like this film, I'm sure that story both challenged and polarized its audience over a hundred years ago.

All Together (2011)

Jane looks too good

[6/10 · 19 November 2023]

I hesitated writing this review because in some sense I don't know what to make of the film. I applaud the filmmakers taking on the multiple challenges of growing old , many of which are disturbing and undignified. It's likely that few people under 30 will want to see this film and many under 20 might find it absolutely yucky. The thought of Grandpa or Grandma having a sex life is probably a turn off to most mainstream moviegoers. It has rarely been handled credibly or tastefully. The current TV show Grace and Frankie is one of the rare exceptions and that has to do with both writing and casting.

Which gets us to Jane Fonda. I think she is brilliant in the TV show but sounds a jarring note here. I suppose the reason is a compliment to her. She just doesn't look her age. She appears to be 20 years younger ( at the least) than the other actors in the ensemble. Nobody talks about it, but it is unmistakable. And it becomes more disturbing with each passing reel. It is the elephant in the room. For this film to work, you needed actors who look their age. Otherwise much of the dialogue rings hollow. All of the men in the cast look their age. There is no stretch of credibility there. The women - not so much. And it is never more jarring than in the case of Ms. Fonda.

There is nothing wrong with her performance. In fact a US audience might find it quite startling to watch her speak French throughout her performance. Think about that. Jane Fonda had to be subtitled for an English speaking audience. But it's not nearly as jarring as having someone who appears to be 50ish, interacting with and claiming to be the equal of characters who are in their mid-70s.

Good for you, Jane. You really do look terrific, and not just for your age. But casting you in this film has undercut its credibility.

Cop Car (2015)

Nothing to see here, folks. Just move along.

[1/10 · 12 November 2023]

Nothing To See Here. Folks. Just Move Along

This is a total, mean-spirited, disaster area of a film. The DVD cover draws comparison to the Coen Brothers. Don't believe it for a second. Sure, films like Fargo are laced with plenty of violence, but it's in a comic book like, surreal style. It's so over the top that it's impossible to take seriously. This film is an entirely different matter.

Just what did these filmmakers have in mind? And who were its intended audience? A character who might pass for the neighborhood school teacher or librarian has her brains blown out. Literally. An inoffensive, slow-moving cow is run down on a highway by a pickup truck. A 10-year-old boy is shot in the stomach and graphically suffers on-camera. Again, who is supposed to be enjoying all of this, and should his taste be catered to by filmmakers?

The worst thing about all of this is that the movie appears to be geared to young, perhaps even preteen boys. Certainly it is written and shot from their point of view. A pair of them roam around a field and find an abandoned cop car that they take for a joyride. But everything that happens from that point on will not be a source of innocent, anti-authority joy to them. It will scare the crap out of them. So, again, who is the intended audience? If it's not the kids, themselves, is it the people who enjoy harming them? Are they really a demographic that deserves its own product? Presumably, they are, because the film's R-rating should keep it out of the hands of the kids. But God help the ones who manage to see it. They're going to need some emotional debriefing after this experience.

Coherence (2013)

Blair Witch Meets Quantum Physics

[6/10 · 7 November 2023]

The Blair Witch Project was inspirational gold for a lot of would-be filmmakers. All you needed was a handful of willing friends, a couple of handheld cameras, and something that passed for a script. Suddenly the woods were alive with the sound of movies.

Coherence is certainly cut from that cloth, although it's makers seem to be a lot more intelligent than the folks behind Blair Witch. (Admittedly, that's a pretty low bar.) This film starts with the old "a comet passed by and now everything is going crazy" cliche. The best example of that premise remains John Wyndham's Day of the Triffids.

The folks responsible for this script have been exposed to some of the more bizarre premises of Quantum Physics. Clearly, they were fascinated by the idea that parallel timelines can coexist, and so can the people within them. Imagine eight friends who suddenly realize that their counterparts are alive and bickering within most if not all of the houses in their suburban neighborhood. All you have to do is look in the window of one of these homes and you might see your best friend hitting on your wife. When you go back to your own timeline, does it make sense to be upset with your "real" partner or your best friend? Are they responsible for the actions of these parallel versions?

These are the kind of questions and dialogue that drive this film. Many of the scenes appear to be improvised and there is a lot of overlapping dialogue, a technique that wears thin after a while. Yes, it adds a dimension of reality to what we're seeing, but at some point we yearn for well-recorded sequential dialogue.

This is an indie film in every sense of the term and the people who put up the $50 K to shoot it were no doubt looking for the kind of breakthrough success that Blair Witch enjoyed. They didn't find it and this is surely not a film for mass market taste. But it does have its moments and you have to honor all the participants for pouring their time and energy into its making.

Shelter (I) (2014)

Both gly and beautiful

[8/10 · 5 November 2023]

It's pretty amazing that this film got made and distributed. I don't think there is a culture in which it had a chance of being a hit. To everyone's credit, it was picked up by Netflix and ended up on a DVD - which is how I saw it. The packaging referred to the film as "Brave". It is. Just about everything about Shelter pushes the envelope. I'm not sure what its rating is, but even if it were an R-rated film, it sets the record for body fluids. As film goers, we're used to seeing plenty of blood. This film takes us well beyond that.

As just about every review I've read agrees, the performances by the two leading actors are spectacular. If there is a scale out there ranging from mindless entertainment to its extreme opposite, this film is what appears on the other end of that scale. Like it or not, it will haunt you.

One thing I'm curious about: when the IMDB lists the film's stars in its capsule description, Jennifer Connelly's name doesn't appear. That seems unimaginable.

A Cure for Wellness (2016)

"Visionary direcctor", my a**

[2/10 · 13 September 2021]

This film will be enjoyed by those who raved about Get Out, the Academy Award nominee in 2018. It is hard to imagine that the creators of that film were unaware of this one. Certainly, this has none of the PC racial elements of that hit film. But there are otherwise strong similarities in the subject matter. In both films, the hero is trapped in a perilous and crazy-making situation. He can't get anyone to take him seriously. Just when he thinks someone is on his side, they turn out to be part of the conspiracy.

This is a stylish, big-budget, major studio production with some admirable and memorable moments. It also contains some of the most repugnant and extreme images to appear in a mainstream film. It is hard to take the positive features seriously without acknowledging the negative ones. These include the rape of a child (by her father) and enough animal cruelty to repulse any mainstream audience. Since the film was not made in America, there are none of those reassuring notices in the final credits telling us that the American Humane Society supervised the making of the film and no animals were harmed in its production. Nor is there any indication that these were CGI effects.

Maybe the argument is that there are those among us who enjoy seeing a graphic depiction of a 12 year old girl being raped, or an animal being mutilated or struggling in agony. Don't those people deserve entertainment too? If you are persuaded by that argument, then this film needs no further justification.

I'm not one of them, and the fact that the actress who portrayed the 12 year old victim was actually over 18 is little comfort. She is made up to look 12 years old, she acts 12 years old, and tells us repeatedly that she is 12 years old. This is a child rape by any reckoning. Who is its intended audience? And what are we trying to convey to them other than titillation? For those who think this is a prudish argument, why draw the line at 12? Why not an eight-year-old? How about a 4 year old? Would those even be meaningful questions to this "visionary director"? Or to his audience?

Beyond the child rape and the animal cruelty, the film does offer some stylish visual moments. They are the sole basis for the two stars in my review. I particularly enjoyed the POV shots of the train winding its way through the Alps, and the dream like sequence of dancers in Gossamer gowns. There's no denying it: there's some real visual style here and moments of Gaslight-like tension. But again, whatever moments of style or plot tension we can identify, are not justified by the horrible excess this director has showered upon us in the name of shock value. And by the way, if you've got an eel phobia, you've got one more reason to stay far away from this film.

Piranha 3D (2010)

Jaws with T&A

[8/10 · 30 May 2021]

I'm giving this film a high rating, not because this is the sort of entertainment that I recommend or seek out, but because it accomplishes exactly what it intends to. And it does it quite well. The title of my review really covers the essentials. It combines human vulnerability in the water, fear of a dreaded underwater creature, with a healthy dose of bare breasted young women. It's an unbeatable combination for the demographic that will find its way to this film. Oh, and did we mention that the whole thing is in 3-D? Just think of the possibilities. And think about the fact that just about every one of those possibilities, including at least one you wouldn't even have imagined, come true.

Despite the T and A, films like this are often deeply prudish. There is a parade of sexually liberated teens showing off their ample, bouncing breasts. You just know that it's not just anyone who will get consumed here. The film makes it clear that these young people are sinful and, inevitably, they must be punished. In this case the punishment predictably entails being eaten alive by prehistoric fish. Not surprisingly, none of these effects are subtle or off-camera. We get a full measure of blood and gore.

Here's the thing, though. It's extremely well done. You don't have to suspend much disbelief as these horrible, primitive-looking fish things, with jaws agape lunge three-dimensionally into our faces. And we don't have to wonder what's being done to all these nubile bodies. The pieces float right by us, including one rather shocking scene involving a male body part. There's also a graphic dismemberment scene borrowed directly from the 1970 film Catch 22. It was shocking then, and it's still shocking here, more than half a century later.

Interestingly, the film has its limits. It's clear there are certain things an audience would not tolerate, at least the mainstream audience intended for this film. The producers knew what they were doing and stay well within those boundaries. Unlike the real world, these predators draw the line at attacking children. The two kids in the story remain untouched, despite ample opportunity for carnage. The other bit of prudery, if that's what it is, concerns which body parts are fair game for the piranha. In the real world, flesh is flesh to a carnivorous fish. It's all dinner. That rule applies to the male characters in the film: no body part is spared. But the women operate in a safer universe. Despite continuously displaying their breasts with full benefit of 3-D, no such violations appear in the film. It's not that these are PG-rated fish. They do more than their share of munching and tearing of human flesh. It's just that they're rather circumspect about female anatomy. Better a leg than a breast.

One norm that this film does violate to our benefit is to include some credible acting (Elisabeth Shue performs her role quite well), some decent dialogue and characterization, as well as some excellent cinematography. The only acting that is comically over the top is by Christopher Lloyd as the "scientist" trying to explain why these extinct fish are suddenly terrorizing the local revelers. But Lloyd plays his role exactly as it is written. It's the same lovably exaggerated character he played in the Back to the Future franchise. It's simply who he is and what we expect of him.

The punchline is that this movie is better than you'd expect it to be. If the genre is offensive to you, stay away from it. This film isn't pretending to be Citizen Kane. It wears its Gore on its sleeve. But what it does, it does very well. It may be a bit harder for some viewers to defend themselves against what happens on screen simply because the film is so well made. It's easier to distance oneself when the characters are silly, the dialogue is wooden, and the cinematography and F/X are inept. None of that is true here.

Event Horizon (1997)

Empty-headed garbage

[2/10 · 11 April 2021]

This is a brutal, gory, soulless movie whose best ideas are shamelessly ripped off from or shared by other films. If you are impressed by the idea of the ship having a will of its own, or reaching into the minds of its crew in order to torment them, then go see the far superior Sphere, or for that matter, go see the '50s classic Forbidden Planet. In fact there's plenty of it in Stanley Kubrick's 2001. The point is, there is absolutely nothing original here.

There are some good actors (Laurence Fishburne is a case in point) whose talents are absolutely wasted on this hackneyed script. About the only thing positive in this film are the special effects, and they are the sole basis for the two points in my numerical rating. But they don't come close to saving this movie. I really feel sorry for viewers and critics who are impressed by this film. It either speaks to how impoverished their experience with earlier/other science fiction films is, or how compelled they are by visual effects alone without needing anything deeper for enjoyment. If all you need for entertainment is a lot of cursing and a few bodies liquifying or blowing up real good, then you've come to the right place.

The Swarm (1978)

A Real Stinger

[2/10 · 2 February 2021]

I may have seen this movie back in the 70s. If I did, thank God for repression. I saw it last night on TCM in a double deal with Plan 9 from Outer Space. If this were a contest for likability, let me tell you that Ed Wood, Jr. won that competition by a landslide.

The Swarm is just unspeakably bad. There's no excuse for a film having a budget this large, and a cast so talented, and turning out so colossally bad. Virtually everything that could have gone wrong, did. Ed Wood had an excuse for the incompetence he put on film. There's no such excuse here. It's a safe bet that everyone in this sizeable cast would tell you that they did their worst work here. That's no small feat! If you are a director or a producer, how do you manage to get the very worst out of all the actors you've hired? This cast looks like it is literally cringing. They knew what they were doing and one can only hope they were paid handsomely for this sort of humiliation.

I think the primary blame goes to screenwriter Stirling Silliphant. This is not dialogue that humans speak to each other. Daytime soap operas sound like Dostoevsky compared to this drivel. It's hard to judge the acting when the writing is so bad. I've given the film a 2-star rating. You might wonder where that second star comes from. I've awarded it for the train wreck scene. There was something about that toy train careening around the side of a mountain while being attacked by killer bees, that I found oddly compelling. I didn't stop to ask obvious questions like, how do bees knock a train off the rails? Or, where did the fire come from? Was the waiter serving cherries jubilee when the bees struck? But no matter. I simply like the look of that scene, as unrealistic as it was. And for that reason alone, this is a 2 star rating, rather than the one star that is so richly deserved.

Apparently The Swarm lost a lot of money. Good! If nothing else, that reaffirms my faith in humanity.

The Final Cut (2004)

Just doesn't work

[4/10 · 21 October 2020]

I just read about 20 reviews of this film on the IMDb. They all seem to reach the same conclusion and, sorry to say, the passage of 15 years has done nothing to call that verdict into question. This is a terrific idea for a science fiction short story. It's intriguing and thought-provoking. Having said that, this is not a good movie at all. There's simply no guarantee that good ideas will turn into good movies. If you don't believe that statement, just seek out a copy of this DVD. You will when you finish watching it, assuming you get that far.

Boy Erased (2018)

Excellent Horror Film

[8/10 · 12 October 2020]

I enjoy horror films. I have watched hundreds of them, everything from the classic 1930s Universal titles like Dracula and Frankenstein, to some of the more modern high-tech efforts. In general they don't scare me. This film does. The amount of ignorance and cruelty portrayed in this film should warrant it an X rating. The truth is, I wasn't even sure at the beginning whether it was for or against its subject matter. You'd think in the 21st century that there would be more members of The Flat Earth Society than people who truly believe you can "pray away the gay." Obviously I'm wrong. In fact, the VP candidate of a major party is a strong advocate for that belief. So I'm not sure what this film really is. Is it a documentary? Is it a melodrama? Is it just a flat-out horror film? Whatever it is, it put me squarely in touch with the amount of ignorance and cruelty that exist in my fellow humans. We criticize other cultures who practice female genital mutilation, yet we - decent Christian folks - do this? If I go see a film about some shape-shifting mutant who eats human brains for dessert, I wouldn't be particularly troubled by it (other than the graphic FX). At the least, I know that there were no shape-shifting mutants in the theatre audience with me. I wish I I had the same confidence about who sat in the theatre with me watching this film on any given night. Folks like this are out there, and the unspeakable pain they subject others to in the name of their religious beliefs is truly frightening. This is a good film, competently cast and acted, and well written and directed. I hope it finds the audience it deserves. I hope it alleviates some pain and suffering somewhere, which is an odd mission for a horror film.

Margaret (I) (2011)

Close to perfection

[10/10 · 19 July 2020]

If I had just about anything to do with making this film, I'd be smiling, maybe even gloating for the foreseeable future. It is damn near flawless, if you can imagine such a thing. Plainly, it is not going to appeal to everyone and there is little sense trying to make a case for why it should. But for the rest of us, stand back! The acting is just about Flawless. The writing is spectacular. The cinematography is amazing. The direction is wonderful. One of the film's really amazing qualities is revealed in how even the secondary or peripheral characters seem to be three dimensional. It's as if the director sat down with every actor, no matter how minor their contribution to a scene, and discussed who they were, and what their motivation was. The film just pulses with life. It's not easy to appreciate some of these performances because of the characters they play. Many of the characters are really unlikable. Even unsympathetic. Compassion is a precious commodity in this film. Think of how many memorable and well-received performances are associated with characters you really liked or admired. You won't find that happening here. I'm surprised that the two main plot summaries for this film both have inaccuracies in them. (These are not spoilers by the way, I'm simply repeating what is in the plot summary.) One of them describes the victim of the accident as being a blind senior citizen, or words to that effect. She most certainly is neither. The other synopsis places some emphasis on whether the woman's death was "intentional." That was never raised as a serious possibility here as in premeditation. I cannot imagine how a reviewer would reach such a conclusion. Then again, it's pretty clear how deeply this film polarized viewers. Just look at the ratings and the titles of some of these reviews. This film was really a brave endeavor for everyone involved with its creation. It's hard to imagine that anyone thought they were going to make money with this project. Brilliant, it may be. But commercial? Hardly. Have a look at these numbers (all obtained from the IMDb website.) The film cost roughly 14 million dollars to make. That's a pittance by today's standards. But if you want to hear an even more extreme pittance, the total US gross for the film was approximately $47,000. Worldwide it was under half a million. So all those horrible reviews on the IMDb site actually reflect how filmgoers in the real world responded. We can call those viewers all the names we want to, but let's face it: most filmgoers these days would rather see a Superhero take on a tentacled monster from Jupiter rather than watch a poignant and beautifully crafted film like this.

Return to House on Haunted Hill (2007 Video)

Predictabe pile of dreck

[1/10 · 28 April 2020]

There is no level at which this movie can or should be taken seriously. It is moronic and inept in every way. The writing is sub-literate, the acting is amateurish, and the direction doesn't generate one iota of suspense. The sets are impressive but any value they might have held is squandered once the cast and crew set foot on them.

I was glad to see that quite a few people gave this film a one star rating (out of 10). More disturbing was the fact that some reviewers actually gave it a 5 or a 6. Did they really find that much value here? How many films have they seen? Horror is a genre that can bring out the best and the absolute worst in film making. Yeah, I know, this went direct to DVD, and that should tell you something. It does, but there were also people who gave it undeservedly high ratings. It's really a shame that people at every level of the industry can turn out dreck like this and see profits. It's even more disturbing that viewers can spend 2 hours with this product and come away thinking they'd just seen something credible, much less enjoyable. If all an audience requires is a gore fest, then go watch an autopsy. It's really a shame to confuse this piece of junk with film-making.

Serenity (2005)

A High Tech Snooze

[2/10 · 7 January 2020]

Sorry boys and girls but this is nothing more than an extremely high tech version of a 1940s Republic serial. Back then it was a car chase and a fist fight in every reel. It was just what the adolescent boys wanted. 60 years later, things haven't changed very much. The fights are better staged and instead of 1946 Fords careening down the highway, we have futuristic ships in outer space. Film-making has gotten a lot more sophisticated since then. Obviously, audiences have not.

Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)

Simply the best

[10/10 · 23 September 2018]

I watched this DVD for the third time last night. (I seem to come back to it every few years). I also seem to like it more each time. Given that I've just given it a "10," I'm not sure what'll happen next time. I also scanned all the reviews before writing this one. Has a film on the IMDB ever polarized an audience more than this? It's rare to find a rating other than 1/2 or 9/10. Viewers either accept the film's quirky rhythm and style or they find it unfocused and off-putting. Some are upset by the combination of sexuality and young actors.

I'd rather focus on the positives. The acting: it was uniformly stellar and realistic. . I'm sure everything was scripted but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this was improv. The kids: The two youngest were the best, but they were all terrific. I can't even imagine how anyone evoked a performance like the one offered by the Robby character. Finally, Miranda July. She's a gifted and natural actress. She has written a showcase for her own talent. Some reviewers only saw the dittsiness. There's a lot more.

If you need super-heroes and aliens and car chases (and many do!) then stay the hell away from this movie. You'll hate it and in the unlikely event you review movies, you'll give it a "1". For the rest of you, especially those not corrupted by Hollywood formulas, you've got a real treasure in store for you.

The Tale (2018)

Daring and difficult

[9/10 · 3 June 2018]

In an industry dominated by super-hero adventures and teen comedies, it took courage to produce this. It is sensitively and creatively structured and Laura Dern is so damn good, it's scary.

By far the most shocking moment for me came when I saw the photograph of Dern's character at age 13. Up to then I had simply imagined a younger version of the confident, composed adult we've seen. So she was involved in a sexual relationship with her coach. Precocious, perhaps, but nothing to outrage me. And then I saw that photograph. She was a CHILD. This wasn't simply Dern minus a few years. This was a child who couldn't possibly be involved in consensual sex. Judgments like 'predatory,' and 'evil' started to overtake me. It was only then that I understood how costly it must have been for the adult Dern character to keep the "truth" at bay all these years.

It was brilliant, btw, to externalize the younger version of the character and have her dialogue with the adult.

Finally, I wondered why Ellen Burstyn's character (the mother) who was central to the story was so marginalized in the credits. Did she ask to be dissociated from the project? If not, she wasn't given her due.

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

Enterprise Meets The Space Hippies

[8/10 · 9 April 2018]

Highly entertaining entry in the Star Trek Universe. In fact, there are more laugh-out-loud moments than I recall in any other ST film. And it's always fun to see dynamic actors like James Cromwell ("Babe") and Alfre Woodard in roles from their younger days. I have one overriding question and it concerns the soundtrack. Which one of these actors (or producers or the director) is the Sun Records fan? I was shocked to hear an extended guitar solo from Roy Orbison's "Ooby Dooby." It wasn't the original Sun Record from 1956, but it was an almost note-for-note recreation. Too bad they didn't use the original, but it was still startling to hear this bit of pop culture resurrected 40 years later.

Die Hard 2 (1990)

One Dumb Movie

[2/10 · 19 November 2017]

It's true, stuff blows up real good here. And lots of guys get shot. And most everyone curses a lot. A real lot. If those are your criteria for a good movie, then look no further.

But, my god, the movie is dumb. Nowhere is this more obvious than what passes for dialogue. If in doubt, curse. There's rarely a line of dialogue or an exchange that rings remotely true. I'm not looking for the Oxford debating society here; but this stuff is really embarrassing. What am I comparing it to? Since Fred Dalton is in DH2, let's compare it to Law & Order. A bad episode on L&O has more intelligent, human-sounding speech than this whole juvenile mess. And how about Dennis Franz. His role on NYPD Blue reminds us how compelling and intelligent a script can be. His lines here, indeed his entire role, are an embarrassment to his career. What have you done to my hero Andy Sipowicz? I understand that acting jobs like this pay the rent and this was probably a good gig for Franz. His role on the TV cop show is 3-dimensional and character driven. This is a cartoon. A 14-year old boy's fantasy of how a man sounds: loud, crude, bossy.

It's sad that this film made money. It's an indictment of the sophistication of movie audiences, and worse yet - it encourages the idiots who crank out this trash.

Life (I) (2017)

Unoriginal and Unimaginably Stupid

[3/10 · 5 April 2017]

If this film were a high school essay it would receive a failing grade for two major reasons. One is its sheer stupidity (more on that in a moment). The other is its lack of originality or – as it's known in school – plagiarism. Is there a rule that says we've got to remake Alien for every new generation? If you love the old "confined in a small space with a bloodthirsty alien" routine, go see Alien. Indeed, go see any of its sequels before you waste your time on this not-very-bright remake. If you're a real film historian, then go see It – The Terror From Beyond Space. Despite its silly title, this low-budget 1958 original shows you where the whole Alien franchise got its shtick from.

But by far, the bigger sin here is stupidity. Even the most original film concept couldn't survive a script like this. Suspension of disbelief is one thing. But this goes way beyond that. Consider: these guys are doing the Star Trek thing. They're looking for new life and new civilizations. They're geared to finding new life forms, and we find them eagerly going through what look like soil samples from Mars. So you'd think they'd have some protocols in place just in case they get lucky. Even more, you'd think the people on the mission would show a little sophistication about dealing with possible alien forms of life. And you'd think their vehicle would be designed with the dangers of such possibilities in mind.

So what do we get? The highest priority seems to be naming the alien. Then some clown on the crew actually poking his finger at this not-so-benign looking life form! Ask yourself - if a 10 year old kid finds an orphaned raccoon in the woods and brings it home, what does he do? He names it and tries to pet it. So why can't we expect a little more from this highly trained space crew than that 10-year old kid? And when this alien goes quiet for a while, guess what that space explorer does. He sticks an electric prod into the alien to try to rouse it! It's hard to tell for the rest of the movie whether the creature's behavior towards the crew reflects inherent evil (which the writers conveniently assume) or because it's just plain p*ssed off. Lord knows, I am, and all I did was buy a ticket.

The three stars in my review are for (1) hearing Norman Greenbaum under the closing credits - what an unexpected payday for him! and (2) the CG effects. At least, I'm assuming they're CGIs. If not, I'm even more impressed with the acting job done by somebody's pet octopus. Next to the lab rat, who didn't have much to do before being absorbed, the creature deserves star billing. And FWIW, neither of us could figure out what happened at the end. It was plain the producers were going to pull a Night of the Living Dead "nothing turns out OK" ending. But I couldn't even guess the "logic" behind how this one went so horribly wrong. Maybe the whole movie is simply meant to be a political satire revealing that ultimately our species is doomed by its own stupidity.

Sunday (1997)

Daring and unique

[9/10 · 17 January 2017]

I doubt many people will care about this review of a 20 year old movie. I've read over 30 previously posted reviews and the verdict seems pretty consistent. This is a unique, brave, sensitive project with two stellar performances at its center. There's a lot of ambiguity and confusion in the script, leading to quite a range of reviewer interpretations. Is he, isn't he? Can they, can't they? These two lost souls have the ability and opportunity to rescue each other as friends and lovers, but come the crunch seem to back away from it. They come tantalizingly close, but just can't make it happen. They're both too broken. She refuses to let him be who he is, even though he's risked everything to admit his identity. She just won't have any of it. When he wanders off into the lonely night at the end, you realize they aren't capable of more.

Only two reviews I read here, both "professional," commented on the nudity. It is so refreshing to see un-self-conscious nude scenes by two middle aged actors. Lisa Harrow was a beautiful 54 year old woman when she made this film. Women everywhere, especially those who rail against the cult of youth, should applaud Ms. Harrow for her willingness to bare all for her art. One critic observed that her character seems more comfortable in her body than in her life.

The documentary-like footage of a homeless shelter was my least favorite part of the film, but arguably it is necessary to establish the indignity to which David Suchet's life has fallen. All in all, this is a rewarding film. It's not a date movie (unless you want to get a real quick read on your partner). It's not a family movie. Are they still making indie films like this? If not, the loss is ours.

I wrote that review seven years ago (and forgot that I had). I re-reviewed it 7 years later, almost to the day. Here is the new review: I've watched this film ( on a VHS tape!) three times over the last 25 years. Each time I take it out, I think, this is it. This time I'll get rid of it and free up some space. And each time I come away thinking, what a fantastic piece of filmmaking. Other than the ending, which I still don't like, this is a damn near perfect film. It is essentially a two actor piece (probably originally a stage play) that has been beefed up into an extremely low budget New York film. The central roles are perfectly cast. The writing is terrific and the story is clever as hell. It is essentially a "small" film with one core idea that is strong enough to support the entire enterprise. That it got filmed and distributed in the first place speaks well of the industry 25+ years ago.

The audience for this kind of film is admittedly small. No car chases, no explosions. Yes, it's got nudity and some explicit sexual references, but it's middle-aged sex. No flawless 20-year-old bodies on display. The ending, as I've suggested, is very downbeat and perhaps even disturbing. In fact of all the ways this film might have ended, this is perhaps the least uplifting. And maybe the most realistic. It seems to have been shot entirely on the streets and subways and diners of Queens, New York. For all its low budget charm, you won't see the plot twists coming.

Seek it out if you can. Keep your expectations in check and this film might just blow you away.

Desperate for Love (1989 TV Movie)

What do you expect from an 80s TV movie?

[2/10 · 9 January 2017]

This old VHS tape was resurrected and dubbed to DVD (with little skill) because and only because Christian Slater's name has come to have commercial value. Without his presence in this film, there is no DVD. From the IMDb reviews I've read it seems unlikely anybody got rich on this threadbare scam. Most reviewers here seem to have found their copies in 99c bins.

Slater is fine and so are the actors around him. The person of greatest interest to me was actually Veronica Cartwright (who plays his mother). I've seen the face (and those haunted eyes) before, although perhaps not so young-looking. What really amazed me though was how many acting credits the woman has. It looks like she didn't take many holidays during a peak 20 year period. Seriously, have a look at her resume. Can you name a lot of TV shows she HASN'T appeared in?

Just to use up my spoiler warning, let me point out the question many of you did: Who dun it? Are we supposed to assume Christian did? That was far from clear to me.

The Gathering (2002)

Welcome back, Kitty Genovese

[8/10 · 16 December 2016]

If you're of a certain age, you may remember Miss Kitty's name. She was a real New Yorker who was viciously attacked and killed on the street in the 1960s while dozens of bystanders watched and did nothing. Kitty gave her life for a concept that now appears in thousands of psychology textbooks, known as "bystander apathy." It's the cornerstone of this movie, except they've ramped up the crimes to include Jesus, John Kennedy, an anonymous lynching victim, etc. Apparently, it's the same folks who turn up at all these horrible events, time after time, and do nothing but gawk. And now we've got photographic evidence to prove it.

This is the tantalizing premise of The Gathering and it's more than you get it most horror films. That's part of the problem (and maybe why the film went direct to DVD). It's too classy for horror and too horrific for class. It's full (arguably too full) of startle/shock effects. They seem to come from a different universe as the stunning settings filmed on the Isle of Man. Too many horror clichés for all this old English countryside.

As many reviewers lamented, the DVD version is nearly 10 min shorter than an existing theatrical print. Moreover, much of that 10 mins consists of a sex scene involving the luscious Ms. Ricci. Although the red-blooded male part of me protests that cut, I wonder if some judicious trimming didn't ultimately help the final product.

The only outright stupidity in the script occurs midway when one of the priests brings the film's core premise (the idea that the same people, appear as gawkers over and over again), to a Bishop's Council. Instead of dismissing the idea as lunacy (and thus strengthening its power for the audience), the Bishop says, in essence, "Yeah, yeah, everybody knows that." Huh? They do? Then I guess this movie ain't so clever after all.

But I still like it, and apparently more than most reviewers around here.

The Girl on the Train (2016)

feminist cartoon

[1/10 · 11 November 2016]

Utter waste of time. The villain is an angry woman's ideal bad guy: he's a violent, disrespectful liar who "can't keep it in his pants." Quote. So once revealed, you know he needs killing. And in a gory, on-screen way. How about a corkscrew to the throat? Sounds perfect. And how 'bout a couple of his victims teaming up? Check. Sisterhood is beautiful. Guys are hideous. Sure sounds like the stuff that'll have them lined up at the box office. Maybe the book was good, but this film sure ain't. Is this a new generation chick flick or just a angry woman's revenge fantasy? According to IMDb figures, it's already covered production costs. Too bad. We don't need to inspire more "entertainment" like this.

The Dogwalker (2002)

Brilliant and haunting

[10/10 · 12 October 2016]

Just about every review I read here was a 9 or 10 so I'm not sure why the overall score was considerably lower. I guess there are some folks out there who hated this film or didn't find its small dark charms irresistible. Most people seemed to have caught it at a festival, which is an ideal venue. This is really an indie film in every way I understand the term. I saw it on a DVD which gave far greater depth to the whole experience. Two big stunners to me: (1) learning that Pamela Gordon died almost immediately after the film wrapped. And (2) watching the deleted scenes which truly would have changed the film's substance. Maybe it's better without them; I'm not sure. But it sure is different. The ending, which doesn't get altered in the outtakes, is wonderful. The film really is about redemption.

Me Before You (2016)

Hokey, manipulative and overdone

[2/10 · 5 June 2016]

Don't get me wrong. I like a weepy, romantic chick-flick as much as the next guy. But this one is so manipulative and over-the-top that I felt myself getting hostile about a third the way through. It took self-control not to make rude comments at the screen.

Part of the problem is Emilia Clarke. He character is modeled after the Brigit Jones style of self-consciously, klutzy, heart on her sleeve heroine that holds appeal to many viewers. Clarke's acting is filled with so many facial tics it almost becomes unintentionally comic. If you shaved Ms. Clarke's eyebrows, she'd convey no emotional range. But with them, she'd be a natural silent movie actress. Her eyebrows literally stole every scene they were in.

The music, especially the segments used between scenes goes beyond intrusive. It is downright offensive. If a character is about to die and is falling in love, do we really need an overwrought vocalist singing "Oh poor me, I'm falling in love, yet I'm about to die." This is like a Greek chorus with one eye on the AM playlist. I'm exaggerating here, but the point is real. We don't need treacly vocal music to mimic what we've just seen. Most of us got it the first time. You need a break between scenes? Instrumental segues would work just fine, thank you.

I've given this a "2" out of 10. In every way this big budget film deserves a rock bottom "1" for its manipulative and overdone approach. I've given it the extra point for the lovely location shooting. At least the castles don't have eyebrows.