TIALI Reviews

I Am Legend (2007)

tremendously disappointing

[4/10 · 18 December 2007]

There are only a few ways you can mess up a plot with only one survivor of a mass-epidemic, and this movie manages ruin this simple plot. First, how does the last man on earth spend his day? In this story he drives around chasing deer, or some animals, for some reason that's never clear. If it's for food, his hunting skills are pretty poor. Next we need to learn how he copes with being alone. In this, we have the benefit of having Sam, his dog, accompany him. It's not wrong to say that each scene with Sam works, and that when she's gone, the movie falls apart. When we learn that there's an enemy that wants to kill the last man, we suddenly learn that the enemy is so vastly superior in hunting and fighting skills that we wonder how the last man survived for as long as he did. It's here that the whole movie reveals the truth that there really isn't any story that makes sense. We learn that there may be survivors in the north because the virus can't survive the cold, but instead of confirming this news with a simple experiment, the last man and scientist, ignores it. Then we find that the area around his home is booby-trapped for a final confrontation, and again, we have to wonder how his superior enemy never stumbled upon the gigantic spot lights lining the street. Or even how the last man on earth managed to run multiple generators within his home without dying from carbon monoxide poisoning. The problem is that it takes so long to get us to a point where we discover that there really isn't any story that it's hard to admit that I wasted my time. But that's what really happened. The last man on earth wasn't very entertaining company.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

really the end?

[7/10 · 27 May 2007]

Jumping into this third act is kind of confusing for someone who hasn't seen the second part in the last month, but you get up to speed pretty fast. I like much of the added plot, with Davy Jones's locker, the new pirates, and especially, the multiple Jack Sparrow's. Don't be confused by the somewhat confusing intersecting plots; as far as I can tell, everything makes sense eventually. The only real problem I had with the story is with the final sea battle where many, many people are killed on screen. I remember that the second movie had lots of death at the end, but it didn't seem as real with the giant tentacles as it does in this finale. And for a movie that's supposed to have a romance at its core, the resulting union between Elizabeth and Will is a little sad because of the subsequent curse. Overall, I enjoyed this more than the second film, and as a trilogy, this is a very satisfying way to kill a weekend watching TV.

The Black Dahlia (2006)

sad. sad. miserably bad.

[1/10 · 2 May 2007]

Oh man, this is just miserable. It's spiritless and clumsy. It's like Basic Instinct minus the sex and violence. There's lots of huffing and puffing and people spitting out their lines as if they're trying to convince themselves that something interesting is going on; but nothing is going on. This is painful to watch, not even boring. Just sad like a dead animal on the road. You want to help it, but you know it's too late. Everyone looked uncomfortable, except for Hartnett who doesn't have the experience to realize the script sucked. The actors even smoke uncomfortably as if at any moment some enviro-terrorists might storm the sound stage with water pistols filled with kerosene and squirt them in the face. There was only one interesting scene when Bucky (Hartnett) goes tho the rich guy's house: it's a great five minutes on a truly worthless film. Avoid this mess, please.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)

what a bunch of babies ("G" version of what I'd like to say)

[7/10 · 13 April 2007]

I give is a good rating for the informational value, but man, this makes me mad. my outrage comes from the use of the word "censorship." these filmmakers claim that the mpaa censors their movies because filmmakers want PG-13 or R ratings so they can make more money, and the mpaa is denying them the ability to get rich. but no filmmaker claims that they are forced to make movies a certain way or is denied the ability to put their vision on film: they only complain that an NC-17 rating will keep them from making more money. I don't always agree with the ratings applied to films, but I support the system, even as secretive as it is. These people want oversight so they can complain more effectively. If they really want to be effective, all these directors and producers should boycott the mpaa completely and then when there are no rated films released and theaters are forced to show the same movies over and over and lose money, they will finally accept unrated films. But it's all about money. nobody is denying anybody their right to make whatever film they want. But when you want to distribute your film and get people to pay you for your product, you need to follow the rules. same as when you bake some cookies: you take them to work and nobody cares what's in them, but try to sell them at the grocery store and now you need to put the ingredients on the label and list the calories. it's the same thing. shut up and play by the rules. seriously. if you really cared, you would start your own system and avoid the mpaa...do it and stop crying. I think their hearts are in the right place, but man, now that we have people downloading movies and dvds being released sooner, the rating should matter less. it doesn't matter artistically, only monetarily. and stop digging through people's garbage because you think you have a right to know who is rating your movie, that really made me angry, you stalkers.

Eragon (2006)

like death from a thousand tiny cuts

[3/10 · 24 March 2007]

must suffer through it...keep saying, it's only a movie... What preteen manipulation factory turned out this garbage? you need to be ten years old to be immune to its clichéd dialogue and structure. ERAGON: "but how will I defeat him?" DRAGON: "not you. we will succeed together." ERAGON: "how will I do this?" DRAGON: "we will do this together." ERAGON: "me?" DRAGON: "us. together. how many times do I have to say it. together. are you some kind of idiot? t-o-g-e-t-h-e-r." I understand the rule of screen writing where you're supposed to have emotional peaks, but this was insane. every scene had two lines of dialogue then there would swell up some important music, creating a thunder clap of emotional release. ERAGON: "how did the dragon choose me?" PRINCESS: "dragons choose with their heart." Dun-dun-dun. DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN. Duuunnn Duuuunnnnn. (that's the music). I got to the point where I was trying to decide if this movie could have been about anything, a tennis player, a mountain biker, a witch, a Jedi, a poker player, and yes it could have been about anything. our hero is at an emotionally sensitive age and discovers a new power or skill. our hero is also aware of an outside force or enemy who wants the power or skill. our hero has an internal struggle between using the skill and keeping it secret. if he uses the skill, the enemy may try to take it away or destroy the hero; if he hides the skill, he may be able to develop it, but he could miss an opportunity to use it for gain. now our external characters come in to influence the hero's decision, in this case, a pretty girl and an old man. So far, this movie sounds just like Star Wars. I couldn't tolerate the formula. but like I said, I kept telling myself it's only a movie. But then the end came and I realized that there would be a sequel: aaaaahhhhhh! now I have to tell myself, it's only two movies!

Millennium: Jose Chung's 'Doomsday Defense' (1997) Season 2, Episode 9

"don't be so dark"

[10/10 · 5 November 2006]

The is the ultimate Millennium episode: Jose Chung (from one of the best X Files episodes, appears as an author who writes about "Selfosophy" (a movement with many similarities to another Hollywood celebrity movement whose members include Tom Cruise and John Travolta). Charles Nelson Reilly plays Chung, a writer who claims his story-spinning powers rival the profiling skills of Frank Black. And this episode contains several of Chung's (and others) dramatized theories, which are hilarious, including one with a blonde Lance Henriksen. Even David Duchovny appears on posters in the Selfosophy offices. This is a really funny episode which mocks many subjects and I had almost forgotten about. Most of the Millennium episodes are very dark with a seriousness that bordered on self-parody. Well, this is the episode where the show lets off steam and plays it for laughs.

Saw III (2006)

keeps you occupied enough to not notice its flaws

[7/10 · 29 October 2006]

there's enough going on to keep you entertained. the biggest problem is that much of the story seems to be back-story for the 2 previous films. I would have been confused if I thought about previous victims or Shawnee Smith's involvement in the murders, but as I said, the strength of the film is how it keeps you interested in what's happening to the characters now. since we have a terminally ill Jigsaw, we get to see how he's dealing with his illness; we also have the tests given to the latest victim(s). and as with any good puzzler like these, we shouldn't be able to guess how all the victims are related until the final piece is revealed. and this is why this movie succeeds. we have four characters to follow through their ordeals, we get several mini tortures to enjoy, and we are filled in on details from the previous films. under any level of analysis, these stories are silly, this recent film had me wondering whether Jigsaw buys tape recorders in bulk as he uses about 7 in this movie. I'm not sure if the Saw franchise has anything left to tell us, but it's fairly obvious that Jigsaw will be back again since he's been given a mini-reprieve from his terminal illness.

The Browning Version (1951)

My favorite movie (okay, tied with Sleuth)

[10/10 · 20 September 2006]

When I first saw this, I think I was taking a college course on Thomas Hardy because all I remember was reading The Return of the Native and thinking, "mygod, this is the same story, but years later." At one point in the Hardy book, a beautiful woman is disappointed that her husband, who was supposed to take her away to an exciting life in Paris, develops an illness while struggling to become a teacher. So she takes a lover. In The Browning Version, we see the result of a beautiful woman who hitches her future on a man who could give her an exciting life, but develops an illness and his prospects evaporate, so she becomes bitter and takes lovers. Something about these stories strike me as having the most tragic plot imaginable. Shakespeare and Oedipus have tragedy, but not tragedy that most people could ever face. But the story of two people with totally antipodal expectations of each other marrying and making each other miserable is so common that it affects me each time I watch it. There is something about good literature that affects humans deeply and to have those same emotions translate equally on the stage or screen is rare. This isn't really a good review, but I've never seen an essay where someone compares the two. Maybe you will read this and get the inspiration.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

the dumbest story ever told

[3/10 · 20 May 2006]

So I asked my friends if they knew how many DNA samples it takes to discover the parents of a child and they each answered, 3. You need a mother, father and child so you can sample the DNA to see if they are related. So if this is true, why does the Da Vinci Code tell us that they can sample the DNA of a mother (Mary Magdeline) and a daughter (Sophie) to tell us if Sophie is the daughter of Jesus Christ? Who has a sample of Jesus's DNA? Now, this bothered me through much of the movie, since the whole plot relied on each secret group either protecting or trying to destroy the holy grail, meaning the daughter of Mary Magdeline and Jesus. Sure, Mary could have had a kid, lots of kids, but no one can prove who the father was. So the protection of Mary's body is pointless. Hence, the entire story is pointless. I don't understand anything that happened. I don't understand why a man who has been shot walks around a museum leaving clues at several locations then removes all his clothes before he dies; it seems like he could have made it to the hospital in that time. And why does the dying curator leave a secret message to a Harvard professor pointing to the Mona Lisa, but makes a point of including the name of the artist in the clue? Wouldn't the professor know who painted the Mona Lisa? Is the clue meant for the dumb reader/movie-goer who doesn't know who painted the Mona Lisa? This is an incredibly dumb story based on bad science/logic meant for dumb people who failed that subject in grade school.

Action (1999–2000)

v.f.f.

[27 February 2006]

I would say in the same sentence that Jay Mohr is what was wrong with this show, and then say he was perfect for it. He was too young, too sleazy, but exactly the right age and sleaze for Peter Dragon. The reality of Hollywood is that fat men run it, but who wants to watch fat men? Jay had a baby face and an acid tongue which was hilarious and repulsive simultaneously. I remember clearly that I would turn on the TV thinking, "I hate this guy, but I love this guy." Now on DVD, this show should find followers from the same crowd that worship Arrested Development, The Job and Family Guy. This is very funny show that lasted the perfect number of episodes (if you count the full 13 and not when it got canceled). The final episode sums up everything the show was about: ex-child-star and temporarily ex-prostitute Wendy, trades her body to buy back a script. When Peter wonders why she wants to leave Hollywood after this, he says, "you just had to sleep with two fat guys, what's wrong with that?" Wendy tells him she has to leave because that's the kind of thing he would say. In the "making of" on the DVD, it's revealed that Illeana Douglas ("Wendy") didn't like playing a whore, so the final episode gives her character back her self-respect; ultimately, the show was about a town full of whores and one prostitute. Very funny, and right on target.

A History of Violence (2005)

Some people can change, some won't

[8/10 · 1 October 2005]

This is about violence. HoV starts with 2 murderers who complain about the life and want to stop all the moving from town to town. But they only talk. Every chance they get to kill someone, the do it. They don't really want to quit. But Tom/Joey is different. He really abandoned his old violent life and raised a normal family. Tom is the stick by which is family is measured. His wife is loving, and his son is passive. But when Tom reveals that he's really Joey, he gives permission to his family to change: his wife transforms into something wild and his son explodes. Tom's web of violence spreads across his family: this is like a lesson in nature vs. nurture. Is violence learned or part of our genes? In this case it's both. We see that violence can be controlled through Tom, but we also see that once violence is seen as normal, it can infect others. Tom is able to escape his own violent tendencies, but he can't control others. He might be able to influence his family, but only as long as he can keep the outside world away. So the story takes us back to Tom's brother--his only other flesh and blood relative. Tom needs to break the bond with his violent genes, otherwise, how can he ever expect to nurture his family back to a peaceful existence? And when Tom returns home, he's unsure whether he's succeeded. So the one person who seems to be immune to the violence is Tom's daughter, who offers a solution to her family's problem. If you look at A History of Violence realistically, you'll notice a major flaw: you can't kill 2 serial killers and 3 mob guys without attracting Federal Law Enforcement attention. But in this movie, the only attention Tom/Joey attracts is from the local sheriff and one local news station. In the real world, his front yard would be filled reporters and police. (Unless no one knows about the 3 mob bodies--if they're hidden in the woods, then that would explain why no Feds show up to question Tom and possibly take his prints and discover who he really is.) But this movie isn't about that world. I gave this a high rating, but I'll admit that none of the images stay with me. This was a good story, and a movie worth seeing. But the style of the movie was pretty dispassionate. The violence was represented without much emotion. The scenes in the beginning and the final dinner scene had more emotion. But that was the point, wasn't it.

Land of the Dead (2005)

an intelligent zombie movie?

[7/10 · 26 June 2005]

If anyone could pull off creating an intelligent zombie movie, it would be Romero. He must love zombies because he manages to turn his films into messages about human-haves and zombie-havenots, and does it so subtly that it might take a while for you to realize that you just saw a social commentary zombie movie. I still don't believe that he pulled it off; he took flesh eating walking undead horrors and made them "human." As the film progressed, I looked for the zombies I had learned to sympathize with to make sure they hadn't been killed off. How can Romero do that? When people call him the master of the genre, they aren't spouting hyperbole. If there are any flaws with this film it's that it's too short: Romero's take on the zombie/human situation demanded 30 more minutes to "flesh out" (sorry) some of the secondary characters. I didn't there there was much more one could say about zombies and make it seem fresh, but this movie did it. You might think a rating of "7" is low for all this praise, but give me that longer director's cut and I'll go to "9."

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

mostly harmless, mostly

[4/10 · 2 May 2005]

What's wrong with the Hitchhiker's Guide is that the big screen version attempts to advance the visual elements of the story while sacrificing the words. If you go back to the original BBC presentation, those people knew how to punch the dialog so that each joke had focus. It the movie version, a lot of the humor is just thrown away. And the biggest complaint I have is that the worst element of the original series is the pathetic second head on Zaphod, yet the movie doesn't do any better with it--the second head still looks stupid. And Marvin looks wrong: he doesn't look paranoid or depressed; he looks like a vampire bowling ball. Other than that, the cast is great, but so many of the gags written for them are lame or delivered quietly without any zing, which is something that doesn't play well in a crowded theater with fatsos munching at bags of kibble sitting all around you. The "wow" factor of the new visuals is only really an "ah." And why didn't they subtitle the song the dolphins sing? It sounded funny, but who could make out all the lines? Anyway, I'm going back to my copy of the original show and my copy of the radio show and I won't look forward to the Guide in any other format until its publication as a cool talking book.

House of Flying Daggers (2004)

visually lavish; emotionally empty

[4/10 · 15 January 2005]

I'd heard many good things about the visual style of this film, and I agree that it looks "fantastic" like a graphic novel, but it all just seems like style without substance. The plot of course is that a police officer attempts to infiltrate a rebel gang by helping one of the gang's members to escape from jail, and they fall in love. It seems simple enough. But instead of concentrating on a believable love story, this story goes from chase/fight/escape to chase/fight/escape until the core love story is almost lost. Then, seemingly to redeem its love plot line, a love triangle forces a conclusion that again, is visually overwrought (because by now, the scenic elements have become tired and overused), and all emotional ties to the lovers have been exhausted. I stopped caring by then.

National Treasure (2004)

reminds us that our history is our treasure

[7/10 · 21 November 2004]

sure, it's a weak history lesson, but it's a boy's patriotic view of history. it's a boy scout's view, and a dying view in today's amoral America. National Treasure is basically a boy's treasure hunt movie, The Goonies with adults solving clues to claim an impossible prize. It never stoops to cheap laughs and only slaps on one car chase and one overblown explosion. It's a love story and an adventure and anyone who longs to feel the vicarious passion of an adventurer can do much worse than this. Nicolas Cage might not be the best actor to convey this passion, his boyish charm fading years ago, but he's sincere in his love for his country's rich history. The real stars here are the locations with Cage following ancient clues that lead him to Independence Hall and the Library of Congress. Americans have their own national treasure in their history and in the stories of the founding fathers, and National Treasure is the only movie in recent years that attempts to remind us of this.

The Village (2004)

It's a Cookbook!

[5/10 · 31 July 2004]

C'mon, you know twenty minutes in what the big twist is going to be or you're at least entertaining the thought...but that's not the point when it comes to enjoying this movie. There are also several small surprises that are worth waiting for, but there are also a few idiotic moments that destroy the charm and the suspensful momentum. M. Night Shyamalan has produced better writing, but he still has the talent to create multi-dimensional characters whose motivations are honest. So even if someone spills the surprise and tells you, "Vader is Luke's father," it shouldn't ruin your enjoyment. This is not a great movie, but it offers a few great moments.

I, Robot (2004)

I, Liked It

[6/10 · 17 July 2004]

I found it easy to overlook the flaws in I, Robot. Of course, there's no Consumer Reports in the future to evaluate the quality and reliability of robots, and there doesn't seem to any problem with the apparent monopoly US Robotics has on their production. There doesn't seem to be any government oversight at all, as if the movie tells its story in a vacuum. And what about a robot designed to perform menial tasks yet has the power to leap 30 feet effortlessly? Who would design a slave with that capability? So, I ignore these weaknesses and think about the mystery, the "bread crumbs." The story is interesting and the dialogue is smart and funny. And the story has an honest sci-fi ending which speculates on the future of human-robot relations.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

so awful, I almost couldn't balance my checkbook

[1/10 · 9 November 2003]

Revolutions was so boring, I took out my checkbook and began to deduct my debits from my current balance using my pocket flashlight to see--but somehow this terrible film kept distracting my work with such amazingly bad dialogue and pointless fight sequences (Merv's club? 10 minutes of wasted time; the train station? none of this advanced the story at all) that I forgot to carry the one, twice. How can I get my account in order when these characters keep talking about whether they believe Neo will succeed at whatever it is Neo is supposed to do that no one knows what it is including Neo?? So they talk and talk and no one wonders why there are no EMPs in Zion until a ship returns, and no one wonders how they're going to have enough ammunition to defeat the sentinels when it takes someone with a mortar and pestle 2-3 minutes to make one shell. Wow, now I need to transfer money from savings to cover that last check. I almost didn't catch that because it got really dark on screen with lots of rain and lots of Smith's; I hope Neo didn't get hurt because he needs to succeed at something or other, because so many people believe. Oh, forgot to deduct the atm charge...

Batman: Dead End (2003)

why DC and Warner shouldn't let amateurs mess with Bruce

[4/10 · 1 August 2003]

this short film is meant to showcase the talents of unknowns and (maybe) convince some corporates to let them produce a Batman story: based on this, I wouldn't let them touch the Batman mythology. This is an awful script--the Joker escapes from Arkham, fights Batman with brass knucks (not even gaily-colored brass knucks), tells Bats that he created him (seen before), then after 3 minutes it finally gets interesting. I won't spoil it, but there's a mix of characters from other action films, but then, that's it; the idea peters out. My disappointment isn't with the actors or the directing, just the story. If you're trying to convince Warner Bros. to let you have access to one of their most valuable properties, you either need a really interesting story or big name actors: Batman Dead End has neither. This short is no better than sitting at your desk and playing with some toys and imagining....speaking of which, Bender is about to give the beat-down to an uppity R2-D2....

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

so unnecessarily convoluted, it approaches genius

[6/10 · 18 May 2003]

The Matrix Reloaded has many flaws--flaws common to genre-crossing stories: what percentage of the movie should be action and what part should be narrative, or is there a way to combine the two. The first Matrix was able to combine narrative and action, but Reloaded fails to make these aspects seamless....but it does surpass the first Matrix in sci-fi theology: what is free will, etc.....not a bad movie, but the fabric of the story is thin in the crotch...

The Animatrix: Final Flight of the Osiris (2003 Video)

real humans should be this good

[9/10 · 24 March 2003]

flawless short from The Animatrix marred only by the irony: computers create better drama than people can (the point of The Matrix). The animation is truly exciting: you have to remind yourself that it's not real people up there (but then the actors in a movie aren't real people either...just light reflected off a screen...hmm). Yep, hmm.

Die Another Day (2002)

A Love Letter to Bond

[6/10 · 23 November 2002]

I liked that Die was like a love letter to Bond films: it has silly action and a "golden gun" like from the Roger Moore days, solid punches, potential laser dismemberment, and an Astin Martin from Connery, many interesting elements...but ultimately not very interesting. And why doesn't Bond remember events from past films like when he smelled Klebbs' shoe like he didn't know why it was dangerous (poison?)? It's like there's a vat of Bonds being grown somewhere and each one is given just enough info to continue as the next Bond. Die Another Day packs much into it, but was spread a little too thin.

Minority Report (2002)

a few brilliant moments, but mostly terrible

[6/10 · 22 June 2002]

spoiler alert...













many problems with the story: Rollo Tomassi.....

when you get to the seemingly-bad-guy-who-turns-out-to-be-good and the evil guy who reveals himself; that moment is brilliant: "I don't hear anything" is a magic moment, but the scene has been played so many times before, most notably in L.A. Confidential. And the "precogs" are not considered human, but in the end, they are human, so one has to wonder what rights they had while they were kidnapped and held against their will at Precrime????? Suddenly, at the end, they get freed, but how can you free someone who was at Precrime voluntarily???? What if they like predicting murder? What if Florida wants to set up Precrime??? Are they still being held against their will in retirement? And wouldn't you think that if Anderton was a convicted murderer that they would *finally* erase his eyeball data from Precrime: how can his eyescan still give his wife access to Precrime after Anderton has been sought, caught and convicted of murder???

Another problem with Minority Report is that the minority report plays no part in the story--you could argue that that red herring is useful, but I started to think about "why should I care?" I found many ugly moments in the story (Tom escaping in the new-built Lexus; the rolling eyeballs) which ruined my enjoyment of the magical moments (like in the greenhouse). So I can't recommend this movie.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

a movie about a movie about a movie about movies

[7/10 · 15 May 2002]

I've heard some opinions on whether Mulholland Dr. is a dream or something else--so I vote for something else. Mulholland Drive is a movie which includes criticism about Hollywood and filmmaking. Watch the movie and observe the various directing styles. How does the story change when Betty reaches Los Angeles? It looks like a bad movie like Showgirls. But other times, MD is moody like an independent film, and sometimes it's weird with long wide lens shots and a floating camera like a David Lynch film: so is MD telling one story from the several different POVs? Is it showing us how Hollywood might butcher something but how an independent filmmaker might shoot a story and how Lynch sees it, all running together in a linear plotline??? Like Rashomon, but without the obvious separation of storytellers---And it's a story about Hollywood and the business of filmmaking. Sometimes Hollywood looks like the Mob, and sometimes it's just business; Sometimes Betty is in our story, and sometimes she's in one of the other director's stories....and what about the key? Is it blue because the French distributor of the film has a blue logo? Is the commentary about how difficult it is to make a film woven into the story? I'm only at the one hour mark on the DVD, but that's my view so far......should I even comment before the film is over? Of course not, but Lynch didn't allow chapter stops in the DVD, so I'm stopping intentionally and giving my opinion before I even know what the whole story is....Mulholland Drive (to me) is a story given to us as if by three different directors: independent, Hollywood Big Budget, and Lynch, and it includes backstory commentary on how Hollywood bullies filmmakers......but again, I'm only at the 1:00:00 mark..........

De Düva: The Dove (1968)

very amusing parody

[13 May 2002]

I say "amusing" because this short film isn't laugh out loud funny without the appropriate context: I've never seen a Bergman film, but I understand what "Bergmanesque" means,...so the jokes might be just outside my experience. I taped this off USA Night Flight many years ago, so I've been able to show it to others and have had mixed responses, again, because you need the right background of understanding. Otherwise this is just a short comedy about an old man taking a dump and remembering his youth filled with bestiality, lesbianism, incest and watching Death take a dove's money shot right in the eye--if you think that's funny, then God bless you...