Change Your Image
ApeLieUproar
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Matlock: The Ghost (1993)
Weird
I just started watching this episode and, at the very least, the setup of this episode is similar to the movie 'Ghost' which was released in 1990. This episode, "The Ghost" aired in 1993.
A deliberate tribute to the hit movie or did the show's producers simply run out of ideas?
Tiger Zinda Hai (2017)
Has its moments but overall fairly embarrassing.
The setup was interesting and promises a decent film. Then there's a lengthy interlude where the lead of the film makes goo-goo eyes with his wife, the co-lead.
Then the film finally gets under way and much of the film is not terrible. It's toward the end where things get really awful. The film straight-up goes "Rambo" on us. These tropes were laughable back in the 80s. It's hard to believe there's anybody left in the world who doesn't find them a joke.
I would give this one a pass.
A Quiet Place (2018)
Be vewy, vewy quiet...
...we're hiding from monstuhs!
I don't know where to begin. This movie irked me from the get-go.
Other reviews pointed out the implausibilities and flaws of this film, some of them I didn't even realize, perhaps because I was hung up on certain points.
Namely:
1) The film starts with the words "Day 89". Day 89 of what? The 89th day since the monsters mysteriously appeared? Since they somehow reduced the world to a post-apocalyptic reality? What?
2) Going along with point 1, the film does almost nothing to explain these creatures: where they came from, when they appeared nothing. We see some newspaper clippings and dry erase boards with some writing on them and nothing else.
3) There's evidently nobody around, yet newspapers are still being printed. Who delivers them? If those papers have been out for months or whatever, why are they still in such good condition? Why are none of them wet, for instance? Also, printing presses print papers, right? Printing presses are pretty damned loud. Trucks deliver papers and trucks are pretty friggin' loud also.
4) The parents tragically lose a child to one of the monsters...so they have another baby to replace it??? This made me seriously angry. Why? WHY would you bring another human into this world? WHY???
5) The baby is delivered by the mother alone in a seriously short time in the bathtub. Somehow the monsters hear none of this. Sorry, but fireworks are not that loud that they would completely drown out the all the sound in the area, especially when the mother screams in labor pains (as well as the pain from stepping on a nail) before the fireworks go off. The monsters are supposed to have this super-sensitive hearing, with what looks like multiple ears, or special apparatus that, presumably, helps them localize sound. So, sorry, I don't buy it. Also, that the fireworks are activated just as she goes into labor is just a wee bit convenient. Later, the woman moves into the shower stall for some reason; the reason is probably to provide a jump scare later.
6) After the baby is born and the father finds mother and baby, he moves them into the "quiet place" in the basement, but the baby is still too loud, I guess, so the dad puts a mask on the baby to quiet it and puts it in a casket. The mother then falls asleep on the couch, completely forgetting the baby for the next undefined length of time. But, however long it is, surely the baby needs some kind of attention in that time? Food, maybe? I dunno, seems like none of this is going to be very good for the health of the child. Anyway, at some point, a pipe breaks and the quiet place is flooded. Then the monster goes into the basement for some reason. If the monster hunts by sound, what is it hunting if nobody's making any sound? Which is it, movie? Also, how do the monsters know where they're going? We don't get the sense that they know by echolocation.
7) The monster is killed at the end by a shotgun. But we see one of the newspaper clippings say it's "indestructible". So what gives? Evidently, sound distortion from speakers and headphones renders them invulnerable to firepower. As stupid as that sounds, what other explanation is there? Or is it that the monster opened its mouth because of the sound frequency and its mouth is its vulnerable area? But the mouths would be open when the monsters attacked people, so I honestly don't know what the hell.
I give this a 2 out of 10. Despite the utter stupidity of the premise and the characters, I found myself caring what happened to them despite that; I found I didn't want them to die horrible deaths for some reason.. That's a testament to the direction and performances. But I just can't bring myself to rate this any higher. I actually feel insulted after watching this movie.
Silent Rage (1982)
Sort of entertaining but pretty toothless and stupid
I caught the last hour or so of this, so no comment on the film as a whole. I remember seeing it when I was younger but I don't remember a lick.
Anyway, the film builds up to the confrontation between the un-killable killer and the kung fu fighting sheriff-with the revenant killer murdering a bunch of people and the sheriff trying to figure out what's going on-but then fizzles out.
Chuck Norris, who plays the sheriff and the killer (played by an actor you may who you may recognize if you've seen 'The Shawshank Redemption') fight a bit, with Norris kicking the killer in the face a good many times. Predictably, none of this fazes the killer much so the sheriff's solution to the problem is throwing his opponent down a well. After seeing the mute murderer survive several bullet wounds to the torso and an explosion in a truck, why did he think throwing him down a well would finish him off? It's possibly the lamest ending to a movie ever.
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
The Theory of Humor
This show simply isn't funny at all. Don't believe me? Search "Big Bang Theory sans laugh track" on YouTube or the Internet and watch what you find. See if you can still laugh at the show when the audience is silent. I never cared for this show. I never found it particularly funny or appealing in any way. But I admit, the laugh track does give the illusion that there is some humor present. But take it away and there's just an awkward silence. You might wonder if you're watching some weird drama series.
This show is a total sham.
Quincy M.E.: Sugar and Spice (1981)
Entertaining but flawed
I happened to catch the latter half of this episode on Cozi and a few things stuck out for me.
1) Quincy can't prove a certain weight-loss diet proves a girl's death. He's a medical examiner. How can he not possess a shred of proof? What did he find in the deceased body if not proof? Isn't that the job of a M.E.? To find and document proof? What does medical examination of cadavers entail if not finding clues?
2) How much proof do you need to show that taking amphetamines (surely by then to be proved to be habit-forming) and not drinking water is bad for you? Aren't these two things proof enough? The dehydration angle alone should constitute sufficient proof that a thing is bad for you. Not drinking water alone is hugely dangerous even before you enter amphetamines into the equation. It's fairly absurd.
Both of these things point to a rather contrived conflict and kind of mars the whole episode, which addresses a very important issue.
Fan (2016)
Impressive
This review doesn't really contain any spoilers but I think everyone should watch this movie as I did, with absolutely no prior knowledge of it. So consider that a spoiler warning, of sorts.
Anyway, some friends brought the DVD of this movie over one day. Prior to this, I'd never even heard of it. I knew the lead actor's face but forgot his name, Shah Rukh Khan, if I ever knew it. Seeing the cover with the two faces, I assumed it starred two actors that just happened to closely resemble each other, and not being able to read the extremely small print on the DVD I was not disabused of this notion. I even thought, "Isn't it interesting that these two actors look so similar."
Watching the film further enforced the idea that I was watching two different actors. Gaurav looked somewhat like his idol, fictional movie star Aryan Khanna but not identical. For one thing, Gaurav had less of a curve to his nose than Aryan. Gaurav also looked younger and there is one scene where Gaurav take his shirt off, showing a less impressive physique than the one I've seen in pictures of the Khan; Gaurav also seemed to be shorter than Khanna. Also, of course, the two characters appear in scenes together.
When I later checked IMDb later to see who this actor and saw that the two parts were played by Khan, I was dumbfounded. I could hardly believe it. I'm still having trouble believing it.
This is even before taking into account the seamless way the two characters are integrated into scenes. While that is obviously amazing and reinforced the idea that I was watching two actors, Khan's performance as Gaurav is what impresses me the most. Khan basically plays himself as Aryan Khanna but he utterly disappears into Gaurav, albeit with some help from the impressive makeup, prosthetics and/or digital wizardry to make him appear 20-30 years younger; but the performance is still impressive, any way you look at it. I thought making Robert Downey Jr. look young in Captain America 3 was impressive, but it's simply nothing compared to this.
As for the story, it starts off a bit slow, but picks up the pace soon enough. It features a couple of chase scenes that may drag on a bit too long, but they're certainly not a deal-breaker.
Finding Dory (2016)
Finding Dory Boring
What can I say? Maybe I'm just becoming a curmudgeon but I just don't find the fact that Dory lost her parents as a child and has been looking for them ever since very (read: at all) interesting. The movie opens with Dory as a small child, who features in several flashbacks thereafter. The cuteness factor of young Dory has been dialed up to 11 in a rather obvious attempt to invest the audience in Dory's plight that much more. But, to me, it just came off as saccharine.
The movie wasn't very plausible either. Yes, I am fully aware this is a cartoon aimed at kids. But we're expected to believe Dory, having severe (and entirely plot-driven) memory loss somehow found her way as a small child from California all the way to Australia all by herself.
Anyway, if I'd been able to find the basic plot interesting, I might have forgiven the movie's list of other other implausibilities and errors but, as it is, they just come off as irritating, and in service of a dull story. Some example:
- An octopus (actually, a "septapus", as it's missing a tentacle; more on that later) that can not only stay out of water indefinitely and disguise itself as anything, but can also learn to drive a car within seconds and drive it blind with only Dory to guide him.
- A fish tank in the kiddie section of an aquarium, where the kids are allowed to grab the creatures within the tank. This, incidentally, is where the octopus lost a tentacle because a kid pulled it off. And the aquarium was totally okay with this and let the kids go on grabbing fish. GTFOOH Pixar.
- The octopus finds himself back in the tank where kids can freely grab them. Conveniently, he forgets he can essentially become invisible, to force tension into the plot
- The octopus steers a stroller past milling throngs of people, none of whom think it very remarkable.
- Whale sharks are not whales and do not eat fish. This is the most egregious, or at least most irritating, error committed by this film. Did Pixar not do research or did they just not care? Honestly, I find this error shocking coming from Pixar.
- Several fish-eating animals are seen throughout this movie that are only to happy to forget their dietary requirements: sea lions, loons, otters, it doesn't matter. The otters are even willing to risk their lives for this fish they don't know to help her do something about which they have no way of knowing anything. At least in the fIrst movie, there was some explanation given as to why pelicans and sharks would not eat fish. Here, it's just whatever serves the plot. It just feels lazy and cheap.
- I have a feeling echolocation doesn't work anything like it's portrayed here, but I won't make too much of it. But, wow, did that "whale speak" get REALLY annoying REALLY fast.
I have usually considered Pixar to feature strong characters, but after THE GOOD DINOSAUR and this movie, I'm disappointed in how dull and/or annoying the characters are. Dory was fine as a supporting player (and in a better movie) but as the star, she's simply insufferable.
Overall, I have always considered Pixar as synonymous with quality. But no longer. It will no longer be a given that a Pixar movie is going to be a winner.
Prometheus (2012)
Problemetheus
I think if Prometheus were a real-life figure, he'd be embarrassed to have his name associated with this movie. Honestly, how can this have scored 7.0?
Practically everything about it is wrong. Nothing seems to happen for any good reason, not even story reasons. Other reviews have already mentioned the most prominent problems with the movie, but maybe I can touch on some that haven't been discussed as much.
Let's start with the (more or less) trifling stuff such as: Shaw, the protagonist of the story is British, as we see from flashbacks (scene as dreams) to her childhood. Yet, her adult accent is as poor an approximation of a British accent as I've ever heard. It doesn't seem as if she's even trying. What's the point? Why establish that she's British if you don't follow through? In her flashback dreams, her father is played by Patrick Wilson, who does a decent British accent (as far as I can tell). But, again, I have to wonder what's the point? Would it make any difference if a real British actor played such a minor role? Along the same vein, Guy Pearce, who is unrecognizable albeit under a very bad makeup job plays an old guy. Why? You might think it means he's going to regain his youth later on in the movie. But no, he just dies later on. It almost feels like the film is trying to trick the audience here.
Poor characterizations: when you're not even 20 minutes into the movie and you already want everybody to die, it's not a good sign. I had to wonder why some of those people are even there. For instance, they take the time to establish Fifield (a geologist, who does very little geology) as this incredibly surly fellow, who's only there to "make money" no to make friends, as he tells Millburn, a biologist (like Fifield, his skills don't come much into the story). The pair become buddy-buddy anyway, when both become lost in an alien spaceship (despite the fact that it was mapped out by Fifield's nifty flying mapping devices). What's the point of the earlier scene? Is it supposed to warm our hearts that they become chummy later and feel saddened by their eventual deaths. Sorry, no sale. Nobody cares that they die.
Flagrant plot devices: In one scene, there is an exchange between Vickers and Janek, and the latter assumes the other is flirting and wants to "get laid." She tells him she's not interested, to which he asks her if she's a robot. Her response is to invite him to her cabin for sex. To prove she's not a robot, I guess! Utterly laughable. This is just to set up the scene where Fifield and Millburn both die, of course; where no one is there to hear their agonizing screams as they are killed by aliens. The scene happens completely off-camera; we don't even see Janek entering Vickers' cabin. A sex scene between Idris Elba and Charlize Theron is not something I'm eager to see here, but the lack of such a scene underlines the sheer egregiousness of the reason for their having sex.
The squid-alien that Shaw "aborts". I put that word in quotation marks because although she has it removed from her body, it doesn't die. In fact, it later grows to an an enormous size, despite being locked up in a lab with absolutely nothing to eat.
Effects: they're very good but they don't help the movie. They only serve to emphasize how incredibly stupid it is.
Gwoemul (2006)
Infuriatingly bad.
I think most of the budget must have been used on the monster, with almost nothing left for the script. Because the script is pure nonsense. It's infuriating because there seems a germ of a good idea here that was squandered.
Okay, so the deal here is, a giant fish-monster suddenly appears and goes on a rampage, killing a bunch of people and kidnapping a bunch of others. So the first thing the government cares about is a virus that doesn't exist?
Meanwhile, the government seemingly has no interest in capturing or killing the monster, despite the fact that the monster is not shy and frequently goes out into the open to catch its prey. No military personnel staking out the monster, no monster hunts (despite a palpable lead), no inquiries or news reports into what the f**k this thing even is or how it came to be. No, all they care about is a fake virus and quarantining people for no discernible reason. Perhaps the point is to try and establish martial law, but this is never explore and nothing comes of it. It's completely bizarre.
So it's left to a family of idiots, of whom one's daughter has been captured by the fish- beast. The family does enormously stupid things but they're apparently the only ones who care about the existence of this mutant creature and somehow end up fulfilling, with the help of a hobo, what should have been the government's responsibility of actually killing the thing. The daughter ends up dead, and this is quite sad, but I felt annoyed as much as or more than sad about this, especially since the movie ends with the father and a boy he adopted eating dinner (?!)
I realize there is some kind of social commentary going on here. Something about the unfeeling of government officials and such. But why can't a commentary be made in a way that makes actual sense???
The Karate Kid Part II (1986)
Stupid but watchable.
Apparently, very little Japanese is spoken in Japan if this film is any indication. But why let such details bog down a good story?
Did I say good? Eh, it's okay. Fairly cloying and cliché, but entertaining enough at times, even (or especially) when it ventures into the farcical, such as when, after Danny and Kumiko randomly wander into a bar where bets are taken over how many sheets of ice can be broken through with an open hand. When Danny is challenged by a contestant after mouthing off about how they were all doing it wrong, his newly made enemy, Chozen suddenly appears, without explanation. This is understandable since his karate class is only a short way away and Danny was probably spotted by one of Chozen's underlings. But then Kumiko runs off and quickly returns with Miyagi, who was last seen in the village. Did one or both of them teleport to and fro? Shortly afterward, Chozen's uncle (who has a mad-on for Miyagi) materializes to cover Miyagi's bet. How he got word and then arrived so quickly is likewise brushed over. As ludicrous as this is, it still makes for an entertaining scene.
Sharknado (2013)
Simply hateful
I haven't seen this movie, only a video review of it, but I've seen enough footage from it from the review (as well as other movies of its kind) that I honestly wonder if I wouldn't rather be eaten by a real shark than watch a cruddy movie featuring horribly animated ones.
Anyway, forget how cruddy the acting, dialog and "human drama" is, the most offensive part (to me anyway) is how it promotes hatred of sharks animals that are less likely to kill you than a bite from an ant (http://natgeotv.com/ca/human-shark-bait/facts) among other things (sharks kill a minuscule 5 people a year). Peanuts are far more deadly. Perhaps SyFy should make PeanutNado and have one of the main characters relate her backstory of how she lost a loved one to a peanut allergy while she arms herself with bombs to disarm the tornado.
Meanwhile, there is a long list of shark species that range from Vulnerable to Endangered and can little afford more idiots being inflamed against sharks.
Also, does the writer of this dreck not understand that sharks are fish and can't breath out of water?! If a human being was drowning and saw a steak floating in it, would that person be trying to eat it? I don't want to hear anything about how I shouldn't take this movie seriously when those who made it obviously did.
*U*K this movie!
Gulliver's Travels (2010)
Embarrassing
This film missed a good chance to tell Jonathan Swift's 18th century satire in a modern, humorous setting. With the comedic talen of Jack Black, it could have been interesting. Instead, it's reduced to standard Hollywood formula. But it doesn't even do it well. It's all paint-by-numbers, with all the actors palpably filling in the numbered areas. As another reviewer pointed out, Jack Black basically plays his School of Rock character. The other performances are uniformly wretched and even the effects aren't that great. But even if they were, the movie wouldn't be improved.
Avoid.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
An Unbearable Journey
I hated pretty much everything about this movie, but here are the main points:
Expanding on Tolkien's mythology: Presumably, the reason you should "never trust an Elf!" (Gimli's line in TFotR) is because Elves turned their back on the Dwarfs when they were being attacked by Smaug? What were they expected to do against a dragon and why were they just standing there anyway? This is basically adding a whole new level of mythology. A no-no, unless it's an improvement and that's not the case here.
The dwarfs: They looked ridiculous to me and their behavior was annoying. But no dwarf was more off-putting than Thorin with his ludicrous fur-trimmed leather duster, Rob Zombie do and constant glowering. Ugh.
The introductory scene takes too long but, given all this time, you'd think Jackson would try and be more faithful to the book. But, no, he still manages to mangle it. Anyway, the next day, after Bilbo has decided not to go the day before (he wasn't really given the choice in the book), he just
goes. And it's very interesting that he's able to, on foot, overtake Gandalf and the dwarfs all riding along briskly on horseback. And when he does catch up, he's offered a pony, which he at first declines. Why? Bilbo had nothing against riding a pony.
Azog: The footnote springs to cinematic life and has a vendetta against Thorin. But the character in the LotR Appendix, for all of his two-pages of appearance and death at the hands of Dáin, is still more bad-ass than the video game reject in AUJ. Anyway, if Jackson wanted to go this route, it would have made more sense to just go with Azog's son Bolg, who will appear anyway.
Trolls: or, how to take an amusing sequence from the book and drain it of any humor whatsoever. Actually, that opinion applies to the whole movie. But, instead of Gandalf employing ventriloquism on the trolls and getting them to fight each other, Bilbo tells them the dwarfs have parasites and Gandalf gets to break a rock in two. Yawn.
Radagast: An utterly ridiculous and repellent visualization of another footnote character, with his ridiculous dying hedgehog, rabbit-drawn sleigh and poo-smeared face. But that's just my opinion. But why is he in the movie at all? To tell Gandalf about the Necromancer, I guess. But if Gandalf doesn't already know this (as he does in the book) where did he get the map and key from Thráin (Thorin's father) who (in the book) was a prisoner in Dol Guldur? Presumably, he wasn't in Dol Guldur in the movie. So where is he? It's basically glossed over. In any case, the very idea that Greenwood is turning into Mirkwood right before Radagast's eyes at the start of the movie just strikes me as a desperate and weak attempt to create a sense of urgency and menace. The spiders are even seen entering the forest as if to take up their positions. Also in any case, Gandalf's very reason for being in Middle Earth is to help combat the Necromancer (aka Sauron). For him not to know about his presence in Mirkwood is, sorry, just witless.
Apparent invulnerability: None of the protagonists get hurt in this movie. Stone giants fall on them, they get up. They fall a hundred feet, they just walk it off. Goblins (who, for some reason, are portrayed as distinct from orcs) attack in droves, they just cut them down like wheat. Thorin does later fall unconscious (from a blow that should have crushed his skull), but he later turns out none the worse for wear. Even if these characters weren't profoundly irritating, why should I care about them if they're not in any danger? And enough with the fake deaths. Did anyone watching this really fear the titular character might fall to his death halfway through his own movie?
Riddles in the "Dark": Finally, some resemblance to the book, except even here there are details changed for no good reason. And couldn't they have toned down the lighting just a bit more to give some impression of darkness? As for Gollum himself, it's hard to find fault with Andy Serkis, except that Gollum is now basically a celebrity and practically played like one in the film. He no longer surprises, frightens or disturbs in the least. The cosy lighting doesn't help at all.
Bilbo the Badass: Bilbo kills a Warg (which, though strong enough to uproot a tree, will drop with a single arrow or sword thrust/hack). Later he savagely kills an orc. Where'd this come from? Perhaps to make up for Frodo being a wuss in those other movies? Whatever the case, it's so far out of left field, it's just seems tacked on.
Eagles: Gandalf just happens to spot a moth nearby in the tree he's climbed up to avoid the orcs and wargs. How convenient. And the book's explanation for the eagles doesn't work because
? There really is no good reason. Jackson wants to make full use of the eagles, but only as devices; he's averse to giving them any back story or personality or anything. You'd think with his apparent love of exposition and the characters making speeches all the time, something could have been said about them, but no, the eagles just drop them off and depart. They're nothing more than deus ex machina. Granted, there are challenges to following the book more closely here but I still think Jackson takes the cheap way out.
Final scene: Bilbo blithely states "I do believe the worst is behind us." Really? Why would he believe this while looking at a mountain that is 1) still leagues distant; and 2) he knows contains a fire-breathing dragon?
I will be surprised if even morbid curiosity compels me to watch any more of these.
Lincoln (2012)
Not worth a penny...
It's bad enough that this movie is such a deadly bore but it is also misleading. I suggest people educate themselves about the real Abraham Lincoln. He was not as this movie portrays him. The movie does, interestingly, mention a few of the tyrannical actions committed by Lincoln, but these go unremarked upon (and uncontested) for the rest of the movie.
Daniel Day-Lewis does a top-notch job but I feel compelled to point out that this is my least favorite role of his. I'm disappointed that he chose to come out of semi-retirement to play it. I think even Bill the Butcher was a more positive role model; he was certainly responsible for far fewer deaths.
Mickey's Christmas Carol (1983)
A Rush Job
I agree with Roger Ebert, that MICKEY's Christmas CAROL felt like a "forced march" through the famous Dickens novella. Watching it with the running time (26 min.) in mind, the viewer might wonder how the story will be told. Somehow it is, but it's a rush job. The animation was fine but the adaptation is too short and misses out on too many key developments and nuances in the story.
This was before animation experienced a renaissance in the late 80's so perhaps there wasn't much of a budget to do a full-length feature, but still, it's disappointing. I wish Disney had waited to do it proper, with Scrooge McDuck or without (and I don't count the Zemeckis-directed version).
Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)
Uh...what?
I can't fathom how this scored a 6.4 here and a 67% critics rating at Rotten Tomatoes. But even the worst reviews are too kind. This movie is a complete wreck. The only thing missing was riffing by Mike or Joel and the Bots. In fact, nothing I've seen riffed on MST3K or RiffTrax is any worse than this.
At first I thought this was some kind of joke, that the comedy was intentional. But after about half an hour of this dreck, I was dismayed to discover even Rutger Hauer was playing it totally straight.
Just a thoroughly awful film. Possibly at the very bottom of a long list of truly wretched films.