Change Your Image
ark30inf
Reviews
Riverworld (2010)
Fatally Flawed Garbage
It appears that they were told the basic plot outline of the book in about 10 minutes and then tore the books into little pieces and randomly selected some to be included in their treatment.
Evil Burton. Waking up in the river. Waking up at different times. Everyone having clothing, some nicely pressed. Nice lighting, glasses, craps tables, prints of sailing vessels, printed playing cards, keyed doorknobs, magical waterboarding, able to climb the mountains, etc. Yeah, you might build a riverboat...but create a lithography process and crystal goblet industry to decorate it? No.
You could also spare a few bucks for special effects to create shores teaming with people. The visual impression is that about 200 people were resurrected in a wilderness area with no other people.
The ONLY good thing about this movie was the guy who played Samuel Clemens. That is a hard character to play in the best of circumstances, and this was nowhere near a good circumstance. He somehow managed to pull it off and stay pretty true.
All I can say is....read the books.
Earthstorm (2006)
Steven Baldwin Does Scientific Calculations.....Suspension of Disbelief Problems Ensue
OK,
1) Main Shuttle Engines don't run without fuel tanks.
2) Shuttle tiles will not stand up well in debris fields at speeds in excess of 20,000 mph.
3) Gravity in space is problematic.
4) Baldwin doing on-the-fly astro-magnetic calculations in his head is somehow not believable.
5) Constructing magneto-bombs that will weld the moon back together out of duct tape and empty food packages is asking too much suspension of disbelief except in Canada.
6) Why are asteroids magnetically drawn to impact only major cities.
7) If you have mission control for space missions, you should have a good backup electricity generating plan...which includes more than one can of diesel fuel for the generator.
What a mess.
The Lost Angel (2005)
Crazily Taped Together Movie
The lead guy wrote it. I guess thats why the jarring switch to an unnecessary and unexplained sex scene with Allison Eastwood occurred. I would rewrite to drop that in also if I was him.
I am guessing they also found out that Judd Nelson was coming onboard after the script was written and had to duct tape him in. That would explain him dropping out of the sky for no apparent reason as an FBI Priest. FBI Priest? It would also explain why his character was clueless each time he appeared and seemed purposefully written to have no impact on the plot at all, he was like the ghost of a dead career haunting this movie.
This movie has an almost artistic way of leading you on to think its going to get better. A secret ancient ritual with a nude killing each day? Let's stick around! Is the ritual ever mentioned again? No. Weird cuneiform writing? Must be something weird! Lets stick around. Was it? No. Start out with babe victims and then move to old friars and old ladies. Blah. Why are these bad guys mutating into some other guy? Must be supernatural lets stick around. Was it? No. It's weird, but its a fairly watchable pointless mess.
Need to explain why the Priest heard nothing...lets make him deaf. Need to have the Friar not say what he knows....lets make him a mute. Need the sister grabbed at school but the bad guy can't do it because he would be recognized....have a random guy do it who is never seen again. Need a way into a building.....create a secret tunnel and give a lame one-off explanation that has nothing to do with the plot.
The acting was not that bad except at the start. In fact, the movie was starting to drag me in a little until Judd Nelson suddenly dropped out of the ceiling into the movie and jarred me back to my senses. If you want to see a watchable exposition of bad writing this will do.
Why is there snow in one part of town and not elsewhere? The secret tunnel goes to the "East Forest".....but this church is downtown is it not? Why is the first bad guy washing out bloody cloth with gasoline?
United 93 (2006)
Reality as Art
Sometimes an artist tries to interpret reality, heighten it, and massage it in order to make clearer its real meaning. But there are some rare realities that are so overpowering that they stand alone and any massaging can only diminish it. Unfortunately, in most cases, the ego of the artist cannot resist the imperative to try and clarify further. The director in this film has successfully resisted these natural artistic impulses, and in so doing allowed the art of reality to manifest itself, as itself. That in itself signals an artist of a higher caliber.
This is not a documentary. It is indeed an artistic film.
Beyond art, the reality of the events are straightforward. There are no political statements, no indictments, no rah-rah. We see failure and we see heroism in equal parts as normal people react to crisis. We see competence and incompetence hand in hand. We decisions made and responsibility taken in one moment, to be negated by incompetence or a flawed system in the next.
This film shows us a massive system designed to protect us break down in chaos and confusion. Those elements of the system capable of processing information and those capable of acting were not in concert. The weakest link of the chain doomed the system.
The only group who was able to process information effectively and act on it were normal Americans just like us. The North American Air Defense Command, the FAA, the Air Force, the CIA, the FBI were unable to save thousands of lives and an irreplaceable American landmark of the soul on that day despite the desire and will to do so. But Tom Burnett and the others on Flight 93 were.
If there is a message in this film. Perhaps that is it. Each of us may be required to take action some day in defense of ourselves, and something larger than ourselves. We are America, not some far away FAA official, not a local police agency, not some Colonel in some underground command center, not a Department full of federal employees.
We must take our survival, and that of our country, into our own hands from time to time. Be ready.
The Bounty (1984)
Straightforward and fairly well done
This film is a straightforward retelling of the well known Bounty tale. The film sticks pretty close to the historical record and does not demonize either side in the conflict. Bligh is portrayed as a capable and determined officer with conflicting humanitarian impulses and bouts of temper. Most of the officers and crew opposing him are also likeable and understandable which makes the drama of the mutiny even more appealing.
I am not a fan of Anthony Hopkins, but he does marvelous work portraying the complexities of the Bligh character.
Mel Gibson does a capable, if uninspiring, job of portraying Fletcher Christian. Liam Neeson and Daniel Day Lewis make the most of their relatively minor roles as does the Tahitian King.
The script, camerawork, and editing are very nice but not surprising and the focus is squarely on the historical story.
The Tahiti sequences were filled with stunning, topless young ladies jiggling to and fro and giggling which is always a plus. But it made one wonder whether Tahiti had any middle-aged ladies or grandmothers or whether they kept them all in a cave.
The one big disappointment I had with the film is the score by Vangelis. This film needed an orchestra badly and Vangelis's new age synth was jarringly inappropriate. This was particularly evident during the "storm at sea" sequences and when the Bounty got underway.
The film ended with the arrival at Pitcairn Island which is only a part of the story. Since this is a historical drama it might have been good to list what actually happened to the characters at the end of the movie. But I suppose explaining that the white men and Tahitian men kill each other over the women might have spoiled the romantic nature of the ending a bit. It would have been interesting to note Bligh's long career with the Royal Navy and reaching the rank of Admiral.
All in all, a very good and fair rendering of this historical event with appealing characterizations of the participants.
Le pacte des loups (2001)
What the heck was that?
-- A few spoilers -- If Vincent Van Gogh painted my toilet bowl it would be the most beautiful painting of a toilet bowl ever. But then, it would still be a toilet bowl wouldn't it? This movie is sort of like that.
I think the scriptwriters wrote this using one of those magnetic poetry sets. Sort of like they drew a bunch of random words and had to make what they drew out into some sort of plot...."what do we do with Africa, Mohawk, Wolf, Revolution, Amputee?" Hmmmmmm.
Take a big hunk of "Last of the Mohicans" and throw it in the pot, then add a cup full of "Dangerous Liaisons", toss in a handful of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", a spoonful of "The Matrix", a pinch of "Name of the Rose", a little "Musketeer", suck all the charm out of those references, and then add a huge dollop of pure French incomprehensibility and you have a big disjointed mess.
If you are interested in visuals, then turn the sound down and watch the alternating pretty and bizarre pictures. You might even make up a story to go with them. You couldn't do a worse job really.
Gods and Generals (2003)
If You Don't Know Who Sandy Pendleton Is, Stay Away
Seriously, if you have no idea who Sandy Pendleton is then you have no business seeing this movie. If you are clueless about the Civil War and the 1860-65 period then it will seem downright weird and you won't like it.
Some of the reviews of this picture are hilarious. The person who couldn't believe the soldiers WALKING or STANDING UP during battle needs a good history lesson. Those who think the dialogue was stilted need to read a few hundred Civil War letters.
Those who don't like the portrayal of Confederate victories for modern political reasons need to stay away from movies about Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville, and Mannassas at all times because GASP! the north lost those battles.
Ted Turner, as much as I dislike him, put together a straightforward movie that describes the period and the leaders on the Confederate side during this period of Confederate success in Northern Virginia. This is a gift for future generations of Civil War buffs. I am sure that some would love to see a movie made where Joshua Chamberlain wins the Battle of Chancellorsville singlehandedly but unfortunately THAT AIN'T WHAT HAPPENED.
The closeup shots of battle at Fredricksburg were extremely well done. The flank attack at Chancellorsville was extremely well done. The Manassas battle was okay. But the overview shots of Fredricksburg and the long range shots of the battlefield were TERRIBLE. The cannon bursts were the fakest I have seen in a while. They attempted to make the fuzzy, poorly drawn, aerial views of the city more realistic by having fake birds fly below your position EVERY TIME.
If you are a Civil War buff you will find it interesting. If you are a politically correct "southerners were all devils" type then you are going to detest it. If you are just a movie-goer who really cares nothing about history then you will be bored.
I crudeli (1967)
A Heaping Plate of Spaghetti
Good grief. I think this is the ultimate caricature of a Spaghetti Western. Its almost to the point where its an unintentional parody of a Spaghetti Western.
I'm not sure they even wrote down a screenplay. I think they just got some horses, a coffin, some Mexican clothes, and a girl and made the whole thing up as they meandered along.
Joseph Cotten is horribly miscast as a twisted Confederate officer bent on somehow reconstructing the Confederacy by dragging a coffin full of money through the desert with his cruel psychotic sons in tow. None of it works out right for them (or makes any sense for that matter...not that you would care) but they do all manage to remain remarkably clean-shaven throughout their horrific and agonizing ordeal in the desert which is a plus for them I'm sure.
The best acting in this film comes from the assorted bit players that wander in and out of the story line for no apparent reason. The Reverend, the blind Sergeant, the Yankee Fort commander, and the card player all have more memorable performances than the main characters even though they only have one or two lines.
The film was gritty enough to have some realistic feel to it, in that weird Spaghetti Western way, but there are a few jarring things that spoiled even that for me. I know I shouldn't be looking too close but its hard to ignore Joseph Cotten's 1966 service station attendant outfit that is supposed to pass as a Confederate uniform (belt loops and all) or Ben's 1966 jacket with the funky pockets. Every time I saw that coffin I had to wonder where they came up with that weird looking lizard flag. The feel of the film would have been improved drastically just by using a regular old Confederate battle flag.
The musical score was good and had that familiar Spaghetti Western eeriness to it that I love. Some of the cinematography was quite interesting, particular the opening credits with the yankees trying to manhandle the wagon across the river. That scene was designed as filler for the opening credits but turns out to be a real gem. I particularly like the detail of the yankee guidon bearer using his guidon to urge the horses forward, nice work. It makes you wonder what this crew could have done if they had taken the rest of the visuals just as seriously.
This film was fun to watch even though it went nowhere and there were no characters to love, empathize with, or even care about. When I get hungry for a little pasta I'll probably watch it again with friends just for the camp value.
Drums in the Deep South (1951)
Quirky Little Civil War Film
I had a really hard time figuring out whether to give this a 5 or a 6. The film has a few things going for it but on the other hand it has some definite problems. I finally settled on a 6. I gave it a point for quirkiness.
The casting of James Craig was obviously intended to evoke Clark Gable and Rhett Butler. Too obviously. Craig's vocal performance seemed to indicate that he also wanted to play up the Clark Gable angle. It was a bit distracting during the love scenes but he seemed to, thankfully, drift away from it during the action sequences.
Guy Madison was cast because he was easy to look at. But his performance was anything but easy to look at. His character gyrated wildly from manic damnyankee enemy to soft hearted friend of the family. I couldn't tell if he was possessed or just in serious need of some mood stabilizing drugs.
I never developed an empathy with the leading male and female characters. Every time they passionately kissed I kept thinking about her poor naive husband off surrounded by Sherman's Army while she played footsie with his alleged old best West Point friend.
The special effects were very interesting and quite well done. But its hard to imagine that anybody ever grew any cotton in the rocky scrub that looked remarkably like Southern California during wildfire season. If you are going to spend the special effects money to matte in a giant plantation house you can at least matte it into a rich green landscape rather than a rocky gulch.
I won't even mention (well actually I will) the fact that the main geographical feature of the movie is a hollowed out, honeycombed, Devil's Tower from Close Encounters. Only this one is smack dab in the middle of Georgia! The makers of this movie would have had better luck just using the real Stone Mountain and pretended it was hollow. I kept expecting the mother ship to hover over the mountain.
The explosive ending seemed to be the result of the writer suddenly realizing that he had to finish his script in the next two sentences. I can't say I've seen a film that only needs 2 seconds to wrap everything up and turn off the lights.
But there are a few good things that made this movie appealing. Your generic Civil War movie has a smashing good Cavalry charge in it and lots of dashing guys on horses waving swords and flags. You know they do. This film went WAY off the beaten path. The heroes of this film are the artillery.....yes....you heard it right.....the heroes are exclusively the Confederate Artillery. That deserves a rating point right there. They even got the Confederate artillery uniform colors right. Its not often you see a Civil War film where the difference between a Dahlgren gun and a Brooke's Rifle is essential to the plot. The artillery battles were handled quite skillfully.
This is essentially a fifties matinee action picture. But the makers did manage to insert a couple of quite beautiful moments into the film. For a moment, a hard-hearted, oppressive, damnyankee skulker becomes human when he presents a photograph of his two babies and thinks wistfully of his family and his farm. More than one character mentions that he didn't start the war, that he was just playing the role assigned to him on the great stage. A few quiet moments about the war's real meaning and effect in this odd little shoot 'em up.
Gangs of New York (2002)
Place and Time But not People Picture
If you have an interest in obscure corners of history that affected the development of what we are today then you will enjoy this picture. If you are looking for pure entertainment, a classic story, or an appealing romance, then you probably want to just move along.
But I am one of the former and I enjoyed the spectacle. Watching the movie prompted me to head on out to the net and do some "Five Points" surfing to get the real facts behind a story I had not heard before. This is a "place and time" picture that is visually rich and does a great job of capturing the mood and atmosphere of an obscure, and not very pretty, moment of our history.
But the people who inhabit this world are pretty much cardboard cutouts, or worse, with the exception of the villain who successfully possessed the body of Daniel Day Lewis. Despite Lewis's grand attempt this is not a character driven movie. The real main character was the city of New York.
Lewis puts on an incredible performance. One of the finest characterizations of the villain I've seen. Even though the character is palpably evil every time he appears on screen, Lewis makes you understand him and, at times, empathize with him.
Nothing of the sort can be said for the supporting cast. Leonardo DiCaprio waltzed through this film without even bothering to maintain his fake Irish accent in half his scenes. The idea that any character played by DiCaprio could have survived 16 years in an 1846 New York Reform Prison is ludicrous. Miscast AND bad acting is an unpleasant combination
Cameron Diaz went to the outer edge of her limited range, but unfortunately that range does not extend to any role that takes place earlier than 1994. Seeing Cameron Diaz in this picture was, in some ways, more shocking than seeing a Chevy Corvette drive past Boss Tweed's carriage would have been.
Speaking of Boss Tweed, a passable job of acting in that portrayal. But in this movie, passable acting stands out.
But I did enjoy the movie. I was able to concentrate on Lewis, ignore all the rest, and learn something about an interesting place and time.
Gangs of New York (2002)
Place and Time But not People Picture
If you have an interest in obscure corners of history that affected the development of what we are today then you will enjoy this picture. If you are looking for pure entertainment, a classic story, or an appealing romance, then you probably want to just move along.
But I am one of the former and I enjoyed the spectacle. Watching the movie prompted me to head on out to the net and do some "Five Points" surfing to get the real facts behind a story I had not heard before. This is a "place and time" picture that is visually rich and does a great job of capturing the mood and atmosphere of an obscure, and not very pretty, moment of our history.
But the people who inhabit this world are pretty much cardboard cutouts, or worse, with the exception of the villain who successfully possessed the body of Daniel Day Lewis. Despite Lewis's grand attempt this is not a character driven movie. The real main character was the city of New York.
Lewis puts on an incredible performance. One of the finest characterizations of the villain I've seen. Even though the character is palpably evil every time he appears on screen, Lewis makes you understand him and, at times, empathize with him.
Nothing of the sort can be said for the supporting cast. Leonardo DiCaprio waltzed through this film without even bothering to maintain his fake Irish accent in half his scenes. The idea that any character played by DiCaprio could have survived 16 years in an 1846 New York Reform Prison is ludicrous. Miscast AND bad acting is an unpleasant combination
Cameron Diaz went to the outer edge of her limited range, but unfortunately that range does not extend to any role that takes place earlier than 1994. Seeing Cameron Diaz in this picture was, in some ways, more shocking than seeing a Chevy Corvette drive past Boss Tweed's carriage would have been.
Speaking of Boss Tweed, a passable job of acting in that portrayal. But in this movie, passable acting stands out.
But I did enjoy the movie. I was able to concentrate on Lewis, ignore all the rest, and learn something about an interesting place and time.
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
Loads of Fun
Thrill ride of a movie with a memorable quirky performance by Johnny Depp. Destined to be the classic Pirate movie. Has the same fun feel as Indiana Jones went it first came out. Plenty of cannons, undead creatures, curses, gold coins, grappling hooks, and plenty of Johnny Depp. An excellent supporting cast, particularly Geoffrey Rush's portrayal of a pirate captain and a Royal Governor's Daughter who looks good in both a corset and British Navy pants. The kids and adults loved it. After a long dry spell, Disney remembers what entertainment is.