I would had loved to have seen a Family guy show critical of Trump, but they only shown him sexually assaulting 1 person, made his hands far too big and shown him being able to fly an airplane while making Eric seem far too intelligent. At least Trump's orange face was tastefully underplayed.
Reviews
21 Reviews
Jack Ryan
(2018–2023)
The Goods and the Disappointments
15 September 2018
I had high expectations for this show but it was padded out for 8 episodes which included huge logic holes and the depiction of the 2 toxic agents and biohazard were just too much for me.
The Goods: Jack Ryan is actually an analyst. The depiction of good Muslims with the far too educated terrorists having their values worked well. Going to various places in France and the Arab world was a good fit. The development of Jack Ryan's personal life was great. And there was some end of the seat suspense moments.
The Disappointments: the 2 toxic agents were badly misrepresented in their lethality and the biohazard exposure would not had needed a quarantine of the government big wigs that included the President. The Drone pilot with the guilty conscience was a waste and needed axed. The massive built in ineptitude, bad logic and plot holes to move the story alongwere annoying, leaving just a plodding predictability for the end.
BTW, I love thinking action flicks and am happy to suspend disbelief when it comes to the science, as with Breaking Bad with it's surreality. I don't mind some plot holes if the show pulls you into the mythology. I love dumb action shows that are fun, this was an unfun dumb action.
It'll help if you don't know the science to the terrorists weaponry, the usual terrorists would get themselves killed with their cavalier handling of their exotic kill stuff. Hoping for better attention to detail next season.
Let There Be Light
(I) (2017)
Usual Atheist Strawman From Kevin Sorbo
16 January 2018
No need to go past the previews for this one. Kevin Sorbo plays the same angry antitheist that he played in 2014's God is Not Dead, who doesn't exist. What an atheist really says: there is as much evidence for a Christian God as there is for Piranha Sharks, another 2014 movie Sorbo was in where he is far down in the list of credits. I am comfortable in my skin in saying YOUR God doesn't exist and a minute away from believing in any God that cares to contact me, as what happens to Sorbo's character in this movie.
I suppose those embracing the frothing at the mouth atheist converting to God the way Scrooge turns into a decent guy trope might find this entertaining. I am entertained by beyond reality movies, not so much by unhinged from reality Sean Hannity. Added a star for what appears decent production values.
Kong: Skull Island
(2017)
Another Case of Big Budget Gives You Small Quality
7 September 2017
The opening act of Kong Skull Island stated off strong with a well imagined 1973 with a scientific mystery reluctantly green lighted for an odd government agent with scientist in tow that recruits an intrepid explorer and a Colonel yearning for war. The movie jarred me from reality when 5 helicopters dispatched for exploration transforms into an invasion force. I tried to get back into the story yet could not as 1. King Kong was shifting in size at points and always too large for him to relate to humans 2. The indigenous people seemed intriguing yet treated as nothing more than furniture even by a guy who had spent 28 years with them 3. the Colonel turning into a vengeful psycho was not plausible and 4. the real evil monsters struck me as unreal cartoons. I wanted to like this movie as I have liked previous King Kong flicks. What could had been a very good daunting tension filled quest with great fleshed out characters became just a video game.
Spectral
(2016)
OK Remake of a Great Jonny Quest Cartoon
29 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"The Invisible Monster" is widely regarded as best 1960's Jonny Quest cartoon and is quite scary. This movie makes Dr. Quest and Race Bannon into an army fighting an army of monsters instead of 1 monster, which makes for a good spin.
What made "The Invisible Monster" better was the 4 characters going on an adventure. This movie opted to go the mystery route through the 2nd act, which I didn't buy and felt a bit of a let down, a giant secret facility is never so secret that the protagonists are clueless how the monsters were created, there would be many survivors from a warzone. The perfunctory explanation of the science involved was great providing a guise of plausibility. Yet super speedy monsters inflicting instant death is not a good trend and hurt this movie with removing suspense and horror. Lower body count with more plausible monsters is not a bad thing. The visual effects and wartime grime were outstanding. The actors were good in their roles, the problem was the action rolled over knowing much about them. Lack of character development is such a common shortcoming for movies in this genre. Overall, I was entertained, this movie is a bit underrated. The good news for anyone that can make a Jonny Quest movie is this shows you make a version of "The Invisible Monster" while recreating Dr Quest the super scientist as a full character to have a great movie. Dr Zinn comes in the 2nd movie
What made "The Invisible Monster" better was the 4 characters going on an adventure. This movie opted to go the mystery route through the 2nd act, which I didn't buy and felt a bit of a let down, a giant secret facility is never so secret that the protagonists are clueless how the monsters were created, there would be many survivors from a warzone. The perfunctory explanation of the science involved was great providing a guise of plausibility. Yet super speedy monsters inflicting instant death is not a good trend and hurt this movie with removing suspense and horror. Lower body count with more plausible monsters is not a bad thing. The visual effects and wartime grime were outstanding. The actors were good in their roles, the problem was the action rolled over knowing much about them. Lack of character development is such a common shortcoming for movies in this genre. Overall, I was entertained, this movie is a bit underrated. The good news for anyone that can make a Jonny Quest movie is this shows you make a version of "The Invisible Monster" while recreating Dr Quest the super scientist as a full character to have a great movie. Dr Zinn comes in the 2nd movie
In a Valley of Violence
(2016)
Spoiler Alert: The Anti Clint Eastwood Western
18 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I liked the post Spaghetti Clint Eastwood westerns of the late 1960's and early 1970's. This movie deconstructs those stories and presents you with real characters. This movie fleshes out real people from those movies as I would expect to meet them: the Preacher was from 2 Mules For Sister Sara was nasty and mean while the man with no name reluctantly gives a name. Ethan Hawkes character is not just a loner, but also lonely with a haunting past. The gang of men who try to kill him as in the movie Hang 'Em High are fleshed out as readily manipulated men with a mean guy who is the son of the Marshall. The Ethan Hawkes character comes back for vengeance is not the man who wants to paint the town red like High Plains drifter, but a man who wants to kill only those who killed his dog, a true companion that has personality and charm you care for. John Travolta's Marshall is perceptive and brave, the antithesis of the sheriff in Joe Kidd. Yet it's Taissa Farmiga's character Mary-Anne that steals the scenes she is in with a strong female character (not a version of a woman playing a man's role) that is distinctive from what I have seen in a movie. There was humor and intelligence with a restraint of no guns being fired until the 3rd act. This is not a great movie (few are) but it took me into an interesting relatable world (where many movies fail). It deserves a wide viewing and not the current low rating.
Terminator Genisys
(2015)
Another Reimagined Movie Which Fails to Understand It's Origins
12 October 2015
There seems to be a trend of remaking action movies from the 1980's which seem to believe more hyper kinetic fights for those with attention deficit dis order is better while discarding the building of sympathetic characters can go by the wayside. I found it disturbing that the Mad Max Thunder Road received high ratings when it completely failed to show me why i should care about him or Furiosa. At least that movie had a great 2 minute fight scene, Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron were well cast along with interesting visuals and a clean if uninteresting plot. None of that can be said for Terminator Genisys. Arnold Schwarznegger is the only good thing in this movie, he was given a lot of dialogue to set up the confusing scifi rules, he did as well as could be expected. Emilia Clarke was a horrible Sarah Connors, too short, not focused and mean with the self awareness dialogue ruined it for me. The Jason Clarke weirdo laugh at the opening was too much of a tip off he was part machine (that's given away in the previews), he's simply not a good actor to pull off such duplicity. Finally, I don't get why Jai Courtney has large roles, he's off putting in everything I have seen, just another Hard Dead performance, yet another reminder why the original Die Hard movie was great while he stunk in the 2013 sequel. Regarding the action pieces, there's more of the unmemorable crowding out the reason to care to be in 2 hours of escapism.
Cut Bank
(2014)
A Movie Which Has Everything Out of Coen Movies & Fargo
25 July 2015
The actors who have been in Coen Brothers movies: John Malkovich and Michael Stuhlbarg. The actors who have been in the television version of Fargo: Billy Bob Thornton and Oliver Platt.
Other Fargo Take offs: The Peguin town statute of Cut Bank is done in the same kitsch of the Lumberjack statute. John Malkovich's Sheriff Vogel character is every bit Frances McDormand's Marge Gunderson, yet just marginally competent. David Burke's Native American Match is the same character (plus being the mute Indian from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) as Steve Reevis Shep Proudfoot.
The plot of Cut Bank has the same theme of Fargo: a half baked criminal conspiracy to get a large sum of money in a small town where things go awry. Where things went wrong is a parcel was not delivered to the town hermit, Derby Milton, told by several people "I thought you were dead". Derby Milton proves to be a better crime investigator than the sheriff with a meek underwhelming smallish appearance, a bad stutter, pop bottle glasses with overpowering fighting abilities revealed to those who underestimated him. A quite bizarre and unique character.
The protagonists are Teresa Palmer, who is excellent as the gal wanting to get out of the small town, and Liam Helmsworth, as your boy next door who resorts to crime.
Where the movie falls short is in story telling. The reviewers critical of Helmsworth acting overlook that he's supposed to be a good guy when he's not much better than William Macy's Jerry Lundegaard Fargo character. That flaw takes this movie to the level of very good and not great, so I recommend Cut Bank.
Other Fargo Take offs: The Peguin town statute of Cut Bank is done in the same kitsch of the Lumberjack statute. John Malkovich's Sheriff Vogel character is every bit Frances McDormand's Marge Gunderson, yet just marginally competent. David Burke's Native American Match is the same character (plus being the mute Indian from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) as Steve Reevis Shep Proudfoot.
The plot of Cut Bank has the same theme of Fargo: a half baked criminal conspiracy to get a large sum of money in a small town where things go awry. Where things went wrong is a parcel was not delivered to the town hermit, Derby Milton, told by several people "I thought you were dead". Derby Milton proves to be a better crime investigator than the sheriff with a meek underwhelming smallish appearance, a bad stutter, pop bottle glasses with overpowering fighting abilities revealed to those who underestimated him. A quite bizarre and unique character.
The protagonists are Teresa Palmer, who is excellent as the gal wanting to get out of the small town, and Liam Helmsworth, as your boy next door who resorts to crime.
Where the movie falls short is in story telling. The reviewers critical of Helmsworth acting overlook that he's supposed to be a good guy when he's not much better than William Macy's Jerry Lundegaard Fargo character. That flaw takes this movie to the level of very good and not great, so I recommend Cut Bank.
Unbroken
(I) (2014)
A Movie Judged by What Is and Not By Expectations
2 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I liked the movie Unbroken and it is interesting by the standards others are judging this movie, which isn't fair. These are a summary of the detractor: -Knocking Angelina Jolie is not fair: I thought the story was told in excellent manner and the script put on the screen what I would want to see. -The movie could had been a mini series: agree this could had been a 2 part movie with the first part fully dealing with Zamperini's track career and ending at Zamperini taken to Kwajalein island. The 2nd part could include the parts where he was kept in a secret prison and going through Zamperini meeting with the Japanese POW's in 1950. Jimmy Sasaki could had been in such a 2 part movie. However, that is not the movie which was made. -Should had included Billy Graham: agree, provided it was Zamperini's change and dealing with PTSD that was the focus. -Japanese were much more brutal that depicted: agree,the movie could had shown that and the ways men held up as POW's.
I am happy with the story as told and making it to the screen, but it fell short of a great movie. I just did not get Jack O'Donnell as Zamperini. It wasn't that he was terrible, it was that he didn't have Zamperini's presence which comes through in his a autobiography and the Hillenbrand book. I expected far more from the Cohen brothers script, they have done far better, this was rather flat compared to their best efforts. Making the Bird more human was a mistake, he was 22nd most wanted war criminal by MacArthur. Its like this was a concession to get into the Japan market. The men were far less healthy at the end of the war than as shown. A story with humor relief that could had come from how the men coped, elements in the book but left out, allowing the movie drag. My 9/10 could be an 8, but the I appreciate that the movie got made as it was long overdue.
I am happy with the story as told and making it to the screen, but it fell short of a great movie. I just did not get Jack O'Donnell as Zamperini. It wasn't that he was terrible, it was that he didn't have Zamperini's presence which comes through in his a autobiography and the Hillenbrand book. I expected far more from the Cohen brothers script, they have done far better, this was rather flat compared to their best efforts. Making the Bird more human was a mistake, he was 22nd most wanted war criminal by MacArthur. Its like this was a concession to get into the Japan market. The men were far less healthy at the end of the war than as shown. A story with humor relief that could had come from how the men coped, elements in the book but left out, allowing the movie drag. My 9/10 could be an 8, but the I appreciate that the movie got made as it was long overdue.
Eyeborgs
(2009)
Movie That Deserves A Remake
23 August 2014
When I saw this movie on the Syfy channel, I couldn't get into it and was surfing around to other channels, this movie was cheesy where there should had been a tension and suspense, but I came back toward the end to see what might happen, as this is so bad it was good and I wanted to see where this movie would end. And I was surprised, it was if there was another movie that had come on. The 3rd act of Eyeborgs presents a thought provoking concept and has good action. It could had been done better with better actors and sharper writing, yet so surprising that I give it a bit higher rating to recommend it. So remake this movie with a decent budget and script, it's a great story.
Argo
(2012)
Spy Thriller Fiction Movie Inspired by a True Event
4 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie just vaguely knowing it had high praise and won best motion picture and vaguely aware that there were people upset by it being inaccurate. I then read about what the actual events. This movie is nearly all fiction in its depiction of the extraction of the Americans from Iran. Of course, there would be no movie but a documentary devoid of drama if it was providing a historic account of what happened.
So I review as Argo as to the entertainment it provided as a Spy movie. On that level, it's above average, but far from great, let alone best picture. I found it engaging for a majority of the movie as that it drew me into the story and engaging. It did a great job of providing the historic background, costumes, news reports and the mindset of Americans in 1980. I enjoyed the fictional subterfuge of creating Argo the movie setting the stage for the CIA to rescue the Americans.
Argo falls far short after that . The subplot of Ben Affleck's relationship with his son seemed contrived and as I learned afterwards was fiction. The constant over the top message these escaped Americans faced certain death was forced, a far more likely scenario is they would had been placed with the other embassy hostages. The movie starts falling apart at the end of the 2nd act with Ben Affleck clichéd spy decision to buck the boss' orders to call off the mission. I can't envision the real life spy Bob Mendez doing such a thing. The 3rd act plunges into the ridiculous with its overwrought climax of the sinister hyper vigilant Revolutionary Guard chasing the plane carrying all 6 passengers in military vehicles and police cars. What would had happened was Iran would had ordered the Swiss Airline to land or the Iranian air force would had been dispatched to force the plane to land, if any of that were true.
Ben Affleck as director was great, Ben Affleck the actor, not so much. He would had serve this movie better by giving much more credit and screen time to the Canadians role in assisting the Americans. I give this movie a 7, but deduct 1 point for the deception this was a true story.
So I review as Argo as to the entertainment it provided as a Spy movie. On that level, it's above average, but far from great, let alone best picture. I found it engaging for a majority of the movie as that it drew me into the story and engaging. It did a great job of providing the historic background, costumes, news reports and the mindset of Americans in 1980. I enjoyed the fictional subterfuge of creating Argo the movie setting the stage for the CIA to rescue the Americans.
Argo falls far short after that . The subplot of Ben Affleck's relationship with his son seemed contrived and as I learned afterwards was fiction. The constant over the top message these escaped Americans faced certain death was forced, a far more likely scenario is they would had been placed with the other embassy hostages. The movie starts falling apart at the end of the 2nd act with Ben Affleck clichéd spy decision to buck the boss' orders to call off the mission. I can't envision the real life spy Bob Mendez doing such a thing. The 3rd act plunges into the ridiculous with its overwrought climax of the sinister hyper vigilant Revolutionary Guard chasing the plane carrying all 6 passengers in military vehicles and police cars. What would had happened was Iran would had ordered the Swiss Airline to land or the Iranian air force would had been dispatched to force the plane to land, if any of that were true.
Ben Affleck as director was great, Ben Affleck the actor, not so much. He would had serve this movie better by giving much more credit and screen time to the Canadians role in assisting the Americans. I give this movie a 7, but deduct 1 point for the deception this was a true story.
Get Smart, Again!
(1989 TV Movie)
Missed a 10 by THAT Much!
4 November 2013
This is way a reunion movie should be done! Quick explanation of where everyone has been in the past 20 years and on with a new adventure. The plot is familiar, KAOS has a weather machine to alter the climate with a ransom demand of $250 Billion not to unleash its fury. It falls to Maxwell Smart to be reactivated stop KAOS.
All of the gang is back except for Ed Platt as Chief. The gags and jokes that were gems include Smart answering his shoe phone as a pallbearer,the Hall of Hush to thwarting a hit-man with remote controlled file cabinets to Hymie taking every order literally. Few of the gags and jokes fall flat, unlike nearly all comedies now as they reach . Don Adams was still spot on with the catch phrases, one liners and quite amazing with the physical comedy at age 66. Harold Gould does the villain role in his unique style and John de Lancie as Maj. Waterhouse was great. Hymie and Larrabbee were fabulous as if nothing had changed after 20 years. Agent 99 Barbara Feldon didn't miss a beat as the comic foil and looked as lovely as ever, who I had a crush on when the show was first on the air. If you're reading this Barbara, don't have anything to do for a Saturday night and like dating guys 50 years younger, (or would you believe 24 years younger?), go and contact me.
The movie has a few minor issues, Kenneth Mars as Commander Drury doesn't pull off the exasperated Chief role as Ed Platt would had done, Bernie Koppell Siegfried's comic timing wasn't as sharp as it could had been and Don Adams looked rather ill in a few scenes. The movie should have had a laugh track and Get Smart music in keeping with the TV series.
It's a real shame that this movie isn't remastered to restore the fading of VHS transfer, (Digitally touching up Don Adams, adding the laugh track & music would be a bonus.) This is an underrated gem (far better than the Steve Carrell remake) that stacks up with the best comedy movies.
All of the gang is back except for Ed Platt as Chief. The gags and jokes that were gems include Smart answering his shoe phone as a pallbearer,the Hall of Hush to thwarting a hit-man with remote controlled file cabinets to Hymie taking every order literally. Few of the gags and jokes fall flat, unlike nearly all comedies now as they reach . Don Adams was still spot on with the catch phrases, one liners and quite amazing with the physical comedy at age 66. Harold Gould does the villain role in his unique style and John de Lancie as Maj. Waterhouse was great. Hymie and Larrabbee were fabulous as if nothing had changed after 20 years. Agent 99 Barbara Feldon didn't miss a beat as the comic foil and looked as lovely as ever, who I had a crush on when the show was first on the air. If you're reading this Barbara, don't have anything to do for a Saturday night and like dating guys 50 years younger, (or would you believe 24 years younger?), go and contact me.
The movie has a few minor issues, Kenneth Mars as Commander Drury doesn't pull off the exasperated Chief role as Ed Platt would had done, Bernie Koppell Siegfried's comic timing wasn't as sharp as it could had been and Don Adams looked rather ill in a few scenes. The movie should have had a laugh track and Get Smart music in keeping with the TV series.
It's a real shame that this movie isn't remastered to restore the fading of VHS transfer, (Digitally touching up Don Adams, adding the laugh track & music would be a bonus.) This is an underrated gem (far better than the Steve Carrell remake) that stacks up with the best comedy movies.
Bangkok Dangerous
(2008)
Nicolas Cage now as lousy an Actor as Stephen Seagal?
12 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I have given up on watching Stephen Seagal movies as even where he has a decent cast and script, like Pistol Whipped, he's by far the worst thing in that movie. Which is sad, because Seagal's earlier theatrical releases he had an electric presence.
However, I am still a fan of Nicolas Cage movies so even if they are half way decent, I'll watch them, like Next. On the other hand, I haven't seen Ghost Rider (looks like a cheesy cartoon from the trailer) nor The Wicker Man (why the hell would you even think about remaking the best horror movie of all time is beyond me). So I have my limits on seeing Cage in terrible movies. This movie was also better unwatched as well.
Well, Bangkok Dangerous has got to be one of the worst movies of the Hit-man genre ever made. It has absolutely no redeeming features. EVERYTHING is a derivative of some other far better action movie, I found myself wanting the hit-man to get killed in the first half hour.
To save you time of watching the movie: Here's the whole story: Nicolas Cage is a ruthless killer who goes to Bangkok to do 4 last jobs where he gets a low life courier turned student, a girlfriend and a conscience where he can't complete the last assignment. The bad guys decide they need to kill the hit-man so Nicolas Cage has to kill an army of bad guys and kill himself as the police are closing in. The "artsy" stuff was tired crap, with a lousy script, directing and editing with Cage just phoning in his performance, just like Seagal.
I give the movie a 2nd star simply because it does give you a bit of Thailand scenery, but it could had been filmed anywhere .
However, I am still a fan of Nicolas Cage movies so even if they are half way decent, I'll watch them, like Next. On the other hand, I haven't seen Ghost Rider (looks like a cheesy cartoon from the trailer) nor The Wicker Man (why the hell would you even think about remaking the best horror movie of all time is beyond me). So I have my limits on seeing Cage in terrible movies. This movie was also better unwatched as well.
Well, Bangkok Dangerous has got to be one of the worst movies of the Hit-man genre ever made. It has absolutely no redeeming features. EVERYTHING is a derivative of some other far better action movie, I found myself wanting the hit-man to get killed in the first half hour.
To save you time of watching the movie: Here's the whole story: Nicolas Cage is a ruthless killer who goes to Bangkok to do 4 last jobs where he gets a low life courier turned student, a girlfriend and a conscience where he can't complete the last assignment. The bad guys decide they need to kill the hit-man so Nicolas Cage has to kill an army of bad guys and kill himself as the police are closing in. The "artsy" stuff was tired crap, with a lousy script, directing and editing with Cage just phoning in his performance, just like Seagal.
I give the movie a 2nd star simply because it does give you a bit of Thailand scenery, but it could had been filmed anywhere .
Indoctrinate U
(2007)
"I know all about it" is all you need to know
7 March 2009
That was the opening statement by Evan Coyle Maloney, start with your conclusions, cull the information to find your agenda. This obscure documentary went to obscurity because it lives up to it's title to indoctrinate. I hope that a conservative that will make a documentary that is informative and not shrill preaching, but this documentary leaves me with only that hope.
This documentary has decided that colleges are censoring conservatives and proceeds to cherry pick a few excesses, attempts to make generalizations and ignores the concept there are other possibilities than bad evil liberals being the cause of censorship. Maloney attempts a few Michael Moore style ambush interviews, but quickly falls back to a boring lecture. This is partly a function of not having a budget, but is more of a function of being dishonest and lazy. I expect little from conservatives, but this was much less than little.
This documentary has decided that colleges are censoring conservatives and proceeds to cherry pick a few excesses, attempts to make generalizations and ignores the concept there are other possibilities than bad evil liberals being the cause of censorship. Maloney attempts a few Michael Moore style ambush interviews, but quickly falls back to a boring lecture. This is partly a function of not having a budget, but is more of a function of being dishonest and lazy. I expect little from conservatives, but this was much less than little.
W.
(I) (2008)
Near Masterpiece of a Film
17 February 2009
I am not surprised that how Bush supporters are bashing this movie and mildly amused at how there are a lot of people who hate Bush who dislike this movie. I see numerous complaints of what was left out, how people in Bushs's cabinet were made into caricatures, that Bush was made undeservedly sympathetic.
What I say to all of this is what could had been done better in the constraints of a movie? The contrived high level meetings portrayed the essence of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Powell. All of the actors had me believing they were the people they portrayed who were part of the George W Bush Presidency. The movie brilliantly showed Bush's great ability to remember names and ingratiate himself to them. The movie provided a positive portrayal of Christian minister helping George Bush, something you shouldn't expect to see from a "liberal".
The choice of James Cromwell as George Bush Sr was genius. Cromwell did not portray Bush as America had seen him, he portrayed a father a son is trying to live up to. Trying to live up to daddy's approval as a driving force is the distinguishing trait of Bush's Presidency and one this movie was did an admirable job of showing and making the main theme, albeit a bit heavy handed in spots.
There will be future movies made about Bush which will be far more critical than this movie. But it will be difficult for any to be better.
What I say to all of this is what could had been done better in the constraints of a movie? The contrived high level meetings portrayed the essence of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Powell. All of the actors had me believing they were the people they portrayed who were part of the George W Bush Presidency. The movie brilliantly showed Bush's great ability to remember names and ingratiate himself to them. The movie provided a positive portrayal of Christian minister helping George Bush, something you shouldn't expect to see from a "liberal".
The choice of James Cromwell as George Bush Sr was genius. Cromwell did not portray Bush as America had seen him, he portrayed a father a son is trying to live up to. Trying to live up to daddy's approval as a driving force is the distinguishing trait of Bush's Presidency and one this movie was did an admirable job of showing and making the main theme, albeit a bit heavy handed in spots.
There will be future movies made about Bush which will be far more critical than this movie. But it will be difficult for any to be better.
This should had been a 2 part episode
29 January 2009
The original "It's a good Life" was one of the creepiest show I have ever seen, with a terrifying 6 year old Bill Mumy as Anthony Fremont.
Now, 40 years later, Bill Mumy reprises his role. Try as his may, it's just not as good. Bill Mumy was a great child actor but only a good adult actor. A better actor like Edward Norton could had sold over an older Fremont as terrifying, although it seems more plausible to have a 25 year old Anthony. Cloris Leachman was outstanding and Bill Mumy's daughter was up to the job of being Anthony's daughter.
There are 2 reasons why this should had been a 2 part episode: 1. what happened to Anthony's girlfriend/wife? That could had made a good back story. I would had had her character breaking from fear of Anthony, getting married out of fear as much as love, and incapacitated some way, not put in the cornfield and 2. A half hour TV show in 1961 is now just a 25 minute show in 2003, with the extra commercials. The plot and suspense couldn't develop now as the did 40 years ago in the original Twilight Zone.
This was still a very good story and keeps in spirit with the original. Given a long history of great successful shows with disastrous sequels, that is an achievement.
Now, 40 years later, Bill Mumy reprises his role. Try as his may, it's just not as good. Bill Mumy was a great child actor but only a good adult actor. A better actor like Edward Norton could had sold over an older Fremont as terrifying, although it seems more plausible to have a 25 year old Anthony. Cloris Leachman was outstanding and Bill Mumy's daughter was up to the job of being Anthony's daughter.
There are 2 reasons why this should had been a 2 part episode: 1. what happened to Anthony's girlfriend/wife? That could had made a good back story. I would had had her character breaking from fear of Anthony, getting married out of fear as much as love, and incapacitated some way, not put in the cornfield and 2. A half hour TV show in 1961 is now just a 25 minute show in 2003, with the extra commercials. The plot and suspense couldn't develop now as the did 40 years ago in the original Twilight Zone.
This was still a very good story and keeps in spirit with the original. Given a long history of great successful shows with disastrous sequels, that is an achievement.
Get Smart
(2008)
It's the Old "Do an Inferior Remake of the Original" Trick
14 November 2008
I watched this movie and did find a few isolated sequences funny, but that was about it. Then I watched some of the old Get Smart episodes, which I had not seen for many years. There was some real inspired bits and I had more laughs in 15 minutes than the whole movie.
Here's my review of the character in this movie compared to the original TV series: Steve Carrell: playing a different, more sweeter agent 86 than Don Adams. The problem with changing this character came when Steve Carrell tried to deliver all of those catch phrases of the original series. They all fell flat.
Anne Hathaway: played a much more assertive down to business agent 99 than Barbara Feldon. This worked fairly well. The chemistry between her and Steve Carrell didn't work that well, Terence Stamp: played a grim intense Siegfried. What was up with that? Siegfried was a quirky screw ball villain. In fact, all of the best KAOS villains of the original series were in some manner odd. Stamp does grim and intense well, it has no business here.
Fang: What just a little do nothing dog in this movie. The Fang in the original TV series saved Maxwell Smart's life at least twice. This movie could had used the improved technologies (as well as a talented dog) to give a Fang a quasi super dog status saving Smart from precarious situations, improving on the TV series.
Agent 23: Dwayne Johnson was quite good in the movie, adding a nice, if predictable twist at the end.
Chief: Alan Arkin was totally wasted here. There was none of the entertaining interactions between Max and the Chief that played well in the series.
Agent 13: Bill Murray was stuck in a tree as well as mediocre material. The tree disguise seems rather tame compared to some of the places CONTROL agents were hiding in the series (mail box, Ice cooler, lockers Etc). The alternate scene on the DVD places Steve Carrell in a tree and Bill Murray talking to him is much more funny.
My take on other aspects of the movie: action sequences were better choreographed than the TV show, but that's not much of an accomplishment, action sequences were never the point of the TV show. The verbal interplay between Maxwell Smart and others was scarcely present, a huge minus.
The movie didn't flow from one situation to the next very well, it wasn't a disjointed mess, but it could had been far better. I'll try to end this review on a positive note: at least it didn't completely trash the original as what happened with the Wild Wild West.
Here's my review of the character in this movie compared to the original TV series: Steve Carrell: playing a different, more sweeter agent 86 than Don Adams. The problem with changing this character came when Steve Carrell tried to deliver all of those catch phrases of the original series. They all fell flat.
Anne Hathaway: played a much more assertive down to business agent 99 than Barbara Feldon. This worked fairly well. The chemistry between her and Steve Carrell didn't work that well, Terence Stamp: played a grim intense Siegfried. What was up with that? Siegfried was a quirky screw ball villain. In fact, all of the best KAOS villains of the original series were in some manner odd. Stamp does grim and intense well, it has no business here.
Fang: What just a little do nothing dog in this movie. The Fang in the original TV series saved Maxwell Smart's life at least twice. This movie could had used the improved technologies (as well as a talented dog) to give a Fang a quasi super dog status saving Smart from precarious situations, improving on the TV series.
Agent 23: Dwayne Johnson was quite good in the movie, adding a nice, if predictable twist at the end.
Chief: Alan Arkin was totally wasted here. There was none of the entertaining interactions between Max and the Chief that played well in the series.
Agent 13: Bill Murray was stuck in a tree as well as mediocre material. The tree disguise seems rather tame compared to some of the places CONTROL agents were hiding in the series (mail box, Ice cooler, lockers Etc). The alternate scene on the DVD places Steve Carrell in a tree and Bill Murray talking to him is much more funny.
My take on other aspects of the movie: action sequences were better choreographed than the TV show, but that's not much of an accomplishment, action sequences were never the point of the TV show. The verbal interplay between Maxwell Smart and others was scarcely present, a huge minus.
The movie didn't flow from one situation to the next very well, it wasn't a disjointed mess, but it could had been far better. I'll try to end this review on a positive note: at least it didn't completely trash the original as what happened with the Wild Wild West.
Apocalypto
(2006)
This Movie is "Die Hard" of the Mayans
7 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Or should I say "Aztecs", as there was no Mayan civilization in 1520, as we are shown at the end of the movie with Spanish conquistadors coming ashore.
I believe Gibson's first priority was making a commerically successful movie, certainly a challenge given the subject matter of Mayans in pre Columbia America. The problem I have with the movie claiming to give a historically accurate representation, but delivering a story with a 2006 plot and characters.
"Super cool" weapons are contrived and used in a manner you would not see them used in pre Columbian America. The DVD extra shows how proud the technical people were of the craft of making their awesome arrows, maces, etc. That is made abundantly clear at the start as a super cool weapon REALLY kills a Tapir at the beginning of the movie. So much for the realism that was supposed to be presented.
21st century western civilization views and action are merely projected onto 16th century native Americans. The movie starts off with: 1. Peaceful village is raided and destroyed by bad guys. 2. Bad guys ritualistically slaughter villagers in their city 3. A villager escapes and is pursued by a huge gang of bad guys who have a staggering array of weapons. The bad guys are killed off in different and colorful ways throughout the rest of the movie while trying to kill the escaped villager who is also trying to save his family. All of which is done is a sprint and quick swim in a "jungle" that must be more like a woods with little a svegetation. In other words, its the same story as Die Hard. A story of trying to depict a mindset of people from that place and time is simply not here.
If you expect nothing more than a mindless comic book style action movie , then the Mayan language is a distraction and not needed for showing an exotic locale. Costumes and cinematography are outstanding, making this movie better than awful, but a far cry from the lofty rating of an 8 given in the ratings.
I believe Gibson's first priority was making a commerically successful movie, certainly a challenge given the subject matter of Mayans in pre Columbia America. The problem I have with the movie claiming to give a historically accurate representation, but delivering a story with a 2006 plot and characters.
"Super cool" weapons are contrived and used in a manner you would not see them used in pre Columbian America. The DVD extra shows how proud the technical people were of the craft of making their awesome arrows, maces, etc. That is made abundantly clear at the start as a super cool weapon REALLY kills a Tapir at the beginning of the movie. So much for the realism that was supposed to be presented.
21st century western civilization views and action are merely projected onto 16th century native Americans. The movie starts off with: 1. Peaceful village is raided and destroyed by bad guys. 2. Bad guys ritualistically slaughter villagers in their city 3. A villager escapes and is pursued by a huge gang of bad guys who have a staggering array of weapons. The bad guys are killed off in different and colorful ways throughout the rest of the movie while trying to kill the escaped villager who is also trying to save his family. All of which is done is a sprint and quick swim in a "jungle" that must be more like a woods with little a svegetation. In other words, its the same story as Die Hard. A story of trying to depict a mindset of people from that place and time is simply not here.
If you expect nothing more than a mindless comic book style action movie , then the Mayan language is a distraction and not needed for showing an exotic locale. Costumes and cinematography are outstanding, making this movie better than awful, but a far cry from the lofty rating of an 8 given in the ratings.
Path to War
(2002 TV Movie)
A Movie That Shows How History Repeats Itself
14 February 2007
When I saw this movie yesterday, I was struck by the language and how it echoed the arguments made now about the Iraq War. In fact, I thought certain phrases were inserted into this movie to criticize the Iraq war as they are the EXACT same things said today about the futility of the the US presence in Iraq, given how "liberals" Donald Sutherland and Alec Baldwin were involved in this project.
Then I noticed this movie came out in 2002, BEFORE George Bush decided to invade Iraq.
Path to War covers the period of time in US history from Lyndon Johnson was inaugurated in January, 1965 to March, 1968, when he announced he was not seeking a 2nd term for President. We get to view how LBJ was a champion for voting rights and committed to improving the lot of poor Americans with the Great Society. But the movie focuses on how the United States came to get drawn in and bogged down in the Viet Nam war, to the downfall of Johnson. It illustrates how Clark Clark Clifford went from being opposed to the war to being it's most vocal supporter, and how Robert McNamara went from promoting the war to being forced out as Secretary of Defense for coming to opposing the war. How Johnson was tentative about pursuing the war, micromanaging combat operations and the demoralizing effect the Tet Offensive had on this country. The movie has expertly woven in numerous television broadcasts, cartoons and other historic artifacts of the era to drive the point how the Johnson administration acted in carrying out the Viet Nam war and their effects.
This is the movie to watch if you want to understand how the Viet Nam war came to be a large conflict with it's divisive effects on this country. It's a movie that should be required viewing for any future President ever contemplating a "small" foreign war in the future.
Then I noticed this movie came out in 2002, BEFORE George Bush decided to invade Iraq.
Path to War covers the period of time in US history from Lyndon Johnson was inaugurated in January, 1965 to March, 1968, when he announced he was not seeking a 2nd term for President. We get to view how LBJ was a champion for voting rights and committed to improving the lot of poor Americans with the Great Society. But the movie focuses on how the United States came to get drawn in and bogged down in the Viet Nam war, to the downfall of Johnson. It illustrates how Clark Clark Clifford went from being opposed to the war to being it's most vocal supporter, and how Robert McNamara went from promoting the war to being forced out as Secretary of Defense for coming to opposing the war. How Johnson was tentative about pursuing the war, micromanaging combat operations and the demoralizing effect the Tet Offensive had on this country. The movie has expertly woven in numerous television broadcasts, cartoons and other historic artifacts of the era to drive the point how the Johnson administration acted in carrying out the Viet Nam war and their effects.
This is the movie to watch if you want to understand how the Viet Nam war came to be a large conflict with it's divisive effects on this country. It's a movie that should be required viewing for any future President ever contemplating a "small" foreign war in the future.
Flags of Our Fathers
(2006)
Overuse of Flashbacks and Flash Forwards was a Distraction
12 February 2007
The battle scenes of Iwo Jima were stunning, it provided both a panorama of the battle as well as the personal on the ground fighting. The young men in their early 20's who had the status of heroes foisted upon them and how they dealt with that status was a compelling story. Two separate and distinct stories which could had stood on their own and been told separately, but aren't.
The flashbacks and flash forwards really took away from this movie. It used to be a movie making standard to restrict the use of flashbacks, something that would had served this movie. Too often, just as I was getting into the movie and the story it was telling, the movie would then flash back or flash forward. It allowed the men who were fighting and died on Iwo Jima to get lost and from caring about them.
I realize this was Clint Eastwood's intention, as his focus was not on the battle itself, but on the 3 survivors of the flag raising at Iwo Jima. The portrayals of Ira Hayes, Rene Gagnon and John Brady seem quite true to what has been written about them. It made for an ending that is quite moving. But this movie about war would not had become a war movie had the battle of Iwo Jima been told as a separate chapter for the 1st part of the movie, it would had provided a more marked contrast for the part of the movie Clint Eastwood wanted to emphasize.
Everything about the movie, the story, battle scenes, the acting, and history (although a lot of the dialog seems doesn't seem like it's from 1945 and that there are 2005 sensibilities about war highlighted), all seem right. But if you're looking at this movie making a statement against war, it certainly wasn't making a statement against WWII. In that sense, this is an outstanding movie.
While this movie is very good, it could had been even better. Perhaps this movie could be re edited someday with the story told in a more linear manner.
The flashbacks and flash forwards really took away from this movie. It used to be a movie making standard to restrict the use of flashbacks, something that would had served this movie. Too often, just as I was getting into the movie and the story it was telling, the movie would then flash back or flash forward. It allowed the men who were fighting and died on Iwo Jima to get lost and from caring about them.
I realize this was Clint Eastwood's intention, as his focus was not on the battle itself, but on the 3 survivors of the flag raising at Iwo Jima. The portrayals of Ira Hayes, Rene Gagnon and John Brady seem quite true to what has been written about them. It made for an ending that is quite moving. But this movie about war would not had become a war movie had the battle of Iwo Jima been told as a separate chapter for the 1st part of the movie, it would had provided a more marked contrast for the part of the movie Clint Eastwood wanted to emphasize.
Everything about the movie, the story, battle scenes, the acting, and history (although a lot of the dialog seems doesn't seem like it's from 1945 and that there are 2005 sensibilities about war highlighted), all seem right. But if you're looking at this movie making a statement against war, it certainly wasn't making a statement against WWII. In that sense, this is an outstanding movie.
While this movie is very good, it could had been even better. Perhaps this movie could be re edited someday with the story told in a more linear manner.
Open Water
(2003)
This movie says " This could happen to you"
14 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
A very simple premise is here, what would happen to a normal couple if they were left behind in the middle of the ocean after scuba diving by a careless tour operator? This movie does a very good job of saying" imagine what this would be like".
The problem with movies and television today is that they try to throw in another plot twist, another special effect, some sort of surprise where a NORMAL person would not act, or some situation where a normal person would not find himself. You are provided NO relief from reality with such devices in this movie. The movie worked on the level that here were 2 people you could relate to. Which is why this movie is NOT about gratuitous nudity, it's about a couple interacting in a natural way (to be fair, showing the guy naked could have happened as well). This movie is also not about sharks, but about the menace shark would present to a 2 people left in the middle of the ocean. The tediousness which people complained about is the essence of creating true horror, how to escape the inescapable, that you're not facing a scary monster, but that the monster has you engulfed, yet not striking out. That's how real life horrors scenarios play out
SPOILER What made this movie work for me was that I was reaching out for hope the couple would be rescued, or that they were going to find a haven. Instead, there was no lifeline to hold onto. When the guy died, I turned to the woman with hope she would be rescued by a boat, helicopter.... something! That is the final reason people hate this movie, a happy ending was expected, but not provided, sticking to the true story of what happened.
The problem with movies and television today is that they try to throw in another plot twist, another special effect, some sort of surprise where a NORMAL person would not act, or some situation where a normal person would not find himself. You are provided NO relief from reality with such devices in this movie. The movie worked on the level that here were 2 people you could relate to. Which is why this movie is NOT about gratuitous nudity, it's about a couple interacting in a natural way (to be fair, showing the guy naked could have happened as well). This movie is also not about sharks, but about the menace shark would present to a 2 people left in the middle of the ocean. The tediousness which people complained about is the essence of creating true horror, how to escape the inescapable, that you're not facing a scary monster, but that the monster has you engulfed, yet not striking out. That's how real life horrors scenarios play out
SPOILER What made this movie work for me was that I was reaching out for hope the couple would be rescued, or that they were going to find a haven. Instead, there was no lifeline to hold onto. When the guy died, I turned to the woman with hope she would be rescued by a boat, helicopter.... something! That is the final reason people hate this movie, a happy ending was expected, but not provided, sticking to the true story of what happened.
Tell Your Friends