johnno-17 Reviews

Flashforward (2009–2010)

Inane

[1/10 · 29 September 2015]

Despite enough spent on this series to give it a glossy 'dark noir' look popular in sci-fi and suspense thrillers these days, the fact is the plotting here is so bad, it might just as well have been put together by Ed Wood (crown king of bad movie making).

This is what we have to believe: That out of 7 billion people, only a handful of FBI agents have any interest in figuring out a global phenomenon magnitudes greater than all natural catastrophes experienced beforehand. Oh, and some conspiracy assassins and a couple of science geeks - eventually.

Uh... no.

All right, I was only able to get through episode two, parts of E 3, and the last ten minutes of the final episode (just to find out if any of this made sense - it didn't). But it was enough to convince me that I needn't bother with the rest of this utter garbage.

Look, a global phenomenon of this sort would be addressed by governments, businesses and other private agencies, scientists and institutes across the global. The notion that a handful of FBI agents would be needed to deal with it - while also dealing with their soap-opera lives - is ridiculous on the face of it - laughably so, if the premise - flash-forwarding to the future - weren't somehow intrinsically interesting. But the disappointment of the unfulfilled premise closes off the laughter and just makes one feel... somehow used and dirty, like the final episode of "Criminal Minds: Suspect Behavior."

But not interesting enough to continue watching stories so banally plotted and badly written. You have more important things to do with your time - like, picking lint from between your toes.

The Beverly Hillbillies (1962–1971)

Wretched

[1/10 · 29 September 2015]

In order to like this show, you need to believe that the four Clampett hicks are so stupid, they can live in Southern Cal suburban culture for 9 years - 9 years! - and not learn a single thing about that culture. And that the two 'young-uns' are completely sexless, despite being many years beyond puberty. Or that anyone with half a brain would be amiable towards the diseased Clampetts simply out of nostalgia for white-trash 'down-home' cooking and banjo playing.

Watch "Deliverance" and grow-up.

If you think this show is funny because you believe you are smarter than they are - you aren't.

Evidence suggesting that there may be no intelligent life on this planet. Nothing believable or even remotely humorous here - move along.

The Ten Commandments (1956)

It's all about the money, baby

[1/10 · 3 July 2015]

Empty spectacle, fake religiosity, snooze-inducing narrative, cheesy cheesecake and beefy beefcake, crappy back-lot cinematography, bombastic dialog and music to match,endlessly mind-numbing moralizing, and acting that wood would be embarrassed to own -

Speaking about wood, this is Ed Wood on steroids with a big budget. DeMille knew just how to play the game (and Wood clearly did not), so he was able to splash garbage on the screen and get Hollywood to pat him on the back for doing so. He pandered to the basest instincts of his low-brow middle-American audience and dressed it up with biblical quotations and pretentious promises of moral rectitude. He was basically a con-artist with a camera, a P.T. Barnum let loose in cinema and given the green light by financiers and media mavens - and he got job done for them. 10 Bore-mandments made a ton of bucks, and film critics who should know better continue to sing its praise - Now that's the mark of a truly great con-artist!

It was unfortunate for DeMille that he died when he did - he would have made a lot of money as a televangelist.

Old joke - God comes down to Moses: God: 'Moses, I want to give you a commandment.' Moses: 'How much does it cost?' God: 'It's free.' Moses: 'I'll take ten.'

This little story tells the whole story - forget the film.

Delta Farce (2007)

One point for the money spent to produce it (but why did they bother?)

[2/10 · 1 August 2014]

I don't know where to start about how unfunny this film is. I suppose the first important point to make is that three guys who live in the south-mid-west - an area teeming with immigrant workers from Mexico - could possibly spend a whole day in Mexico thinking they are in Iraq. That level of dumbness is simply not allowed. True, the Three Stooges could get very close to this, but their comedy was rapid fire and unsentimental. This film, on the other hand is pretty standard sympathy-for-the-dummy fair, meant to appeal to people who suspect their own inadequacies, so they want a comic hero dumber than they are but who validates their values. That in itself tells you that this is a bad movie.

Anyway, on top of that general disorder, there is the unfunny humor about Iraq (Fallujah was a horrible blood bath); unfunny humor about gang murder; unfunny Mexican stereotypes; unfunny redneck stereotypes; unbelievable, and unfunny two day bootcamp scenes - well, what's the point of going on. The operative word is "unfunny." Toilet humor, of course, and unfunny slapstick. What more could you ask from a film this childishly amateurish? Oh yeah, you can ask it to end - or just pull it out of the DVD player half-way through, which is what I did.

Godzilla (2014)

Godzilla rocks!

[9/10 · 16 May 2014]

I saw this with a friend, who liked it a little better than I did. He's just a hound for Godzilla films, and he loved it. I like old monster films, but this is the 21st Century, and everything is different now. But I admit I was impressed. We can't believe in floppy rubber suit monsters anymore; but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy some good old monster bashing when it's done well. And I think it is here.

The FX are very good - but this is not just another comic book FX romp. I actually came to feel for the Big Green guy here. And while I didn't quite feel so deeply for the humans, I think they (both the characters and actors portraying them) did what they had to do under the circumstances - they were all quite believable to me.

As for the action - I can't believe anyone found the first part dull; it isn't monster-ridden, but it segues into the monster action quite well. And there's more to Godzilla himself here than some critics are reporting.

There are lots of memorable moments through-out the film. The moment when the MUTO walks by the while the soldiers are lying on the bridge trying not to be noticed really had me on edge. And I won't spoil the final battle, but it's a keeper.

I found the whole very riveting and entertaining. It moves well and is well made. That the heaviest action moments are played out between the monsters but seen through the eyes of human observers worked well for me. I really felt like I was there, I saw as much as I needed to, to be thrilled and entertained.

And that's the word for it - entertainment. "Citizen Kane" this ain't, but it's a great movie for chills and thrills (and frankly there ain't many of those these days). The old Big Green is back - and he's cleaning house the new style way! - What more could you want from a giant monster movie for Godzilla's sake!

Doctor Who: The Day of the Doctor (2013) Season Unknown, Episode Unknown

Mixed bag; but the Doctor continues...

[6/10 · 28 November 2013]

After the disaster that was The Name of the Doctor, I really felt that the 50th anniversary episode might bring an end to the adventures of my favorite time traveler. Fortunately, that didn't happen. But The Day of the Doctor was not the complete success that it could have been or that New Series fans are claiming for it. Let's try to look objectively at what works and what doesn't.

Working: Salvaging Gallifrey and tucking it into a pocket universe for safe-keeping needed to happen; the Time War guilt had been dragging the Doctor down for far too long, and his being "the Last of the Time Lords" gave him an unsettling god-like status; adventure stories need a hero, not a divinity.

Matt Smith and David Tennent worked very well together, and although their teaming up was a self-conscious reminder of previous multi-Doctor anniversaries, they pulled it off with proper aplomb and tongue-in-cheek humor.

Although the Zygon threat falls apart at the end, weakly resolved through a Doctor enforced treaty, until then it worked well and was well handled. The Zygons are remembered fondly from one of Tom Baker's best stories, and they are indeed rather unsettling; the one transformation scene was suitably scary.

The post-climatic coda with Tom Baker suddenly showing up as the curator of the underground exhibits was wonderful. And when we consider (as I do) the Paul McGann featuring minisode Night of the Doctor as a proper prologue to this episode, then we see that for all the denials, Moffat gave the Classic Series fans two older Doctors they were clamoring for.

Queen Elizabeth, Osgood, Kate Stewart - nicely handled strong female supporting characters.

Not working: Although John Hurt can act impressively in his sleep, he never quite convinced me he was any kind of Doctor, he is simply miscast. (Saving grace: Throughout his performance he repeatedly reminded the Smith and Tennent Doctors of their immaturity. It's about time the New Series admitted its greatest weakness since Eccleston left.)

The Bad Wolf Rose never really worked for Russell Davies, and here borders on the magical - and I don't like elements of magic in science fiction. (Saving grace: At least Tennent's Doctor never had any dialog with her - that much sap would have ruined the whole show!)

The Time War is portrayed in a Star-Warsy fashion - big explosions and big threatening spaceships and all. Moffat seems to not have an idea about what a TIME War could mean (e.g., constantly shifting parameters of uncertain history). (Saving grace: At last it's over, and the Doctor can get on with real adventures, if Moffat will let him.)

The big finale is rushed through - as seems to happen with every Moffat produced story. (Saving grace: Sorry, none; this is just a bad habit on Moffat's part that fans need to live with, I guess.)

The episode is NOT 'casual viewer' friendly; if one isn't a long time fan of the series, one is going to get pretty lost pretty soon. That this story was such a hit world-wide only reveals the fact that long time fans have known all along - that the series in fact has millions of fans world-wide. (Saving grace: Moffat is to be commended for trying to include as wide a range of fans as possible in the story.)

Clara Oswin still lacks personality and still has nothing to do except intervene when (un)necessary - Ms. Plot Device, as one reviewer referred to her. (Saving grace: Fortunately, every companion leaves the Doctor eventually.)

Summing up: The Day of the Doctor was served its several purposes fairly well, and saved the series from the mess that Series 7B ended with. The show can continue now, and seems to have some real adventures and real surprises in store for its audience. We'll keep watching - the Doctor is still with us for another few years at least.

Doctor Who: The Name of the Doctor (2013) Season 7, Episode 14

Moffat vs. the Doctor - Who wins

[1/10 · 30 October 2013]

My real worry is that Steven Moffat has decided to end Doctor Who.

The series should not be about the Doctor; it should be about the adventures he has traveling time and space. Moffat has lost that, and I'm not sure how it can be regenerated.

Moffat did some wonderful stuff- A Christmas Carol is absolutely beautiful - But he has done too much trash to be taken seriously, and The Name of the Doctor is the absolute nadir.

Will someone please exterminate Clara? Besides destroying the show's continuity, she is a lifeless, personality-less drone.

By the way, a reminder - Peter Capaldi is not the 12th Doctor, but - thanks to Moffat and John Hurt - the Thirteenth -and that's the end of the show, and I think that's just what Moffat and the BBC intend.

If so - they don't get it. The Doctor's greatest charm is that he always continues.

And he will continue, long after Moffat has retired....

As for the story itself - it's virtually non-existent. The Name of the Doctor is a mess of explosions, innuendo, and regurgitation Of fan faves. Totally wankery and wonkery. In other words - zip.

And whether Moffat and HIS fans acknowledge it - the STORIES were what the Doctor was all about.

And will be again, once Moffat is gone.

30 Days of Night (2007)

30 Days without a story

[1/10 · 19 July 2011]

Sorry, just doesn't work for me.

Primarily, the lead human characters just are unappealing and frankly a little dumb. The Sheriff at one point finds someone he knows turning into a vampire and first he wants to reason with him? Huh? The drifter is a kind of interesting character, but no real use is made of him. The vampires let him live at one point and then they come back and - kill him. Why did they let him live? Why did they kill him? What was his purpose in being? Apparently he was some sort of vampire-slave, but there's no telling how that came about.

In fact there are only three type of human characters in the film, the dumb, the underused, and the screaming. There's a lot of screaming in this film.

Admittedly the camera-work and editing are quite good. But without believable, appealing characters, there's no real story here. Suddenly vampires attack! Scream! Blood everywhere! Roll credits.

Actually, I admit I didn't get to the credits. With no story to follow, my mind started wandering until at last it... fell asleep.

(Yawn.)

Straw Dogs (2011)

Dull, unnecessary remake

[1/10 · 23 June 2011]

Sam Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs" remains a most disturbing, morally ambiguous confrontation between the brute code of uneducated farmboys with the complex attempts at rationalization by a sophisticated, neurotic, hyper-educated urban college professor attempting to escape the responsibilities of living in an increasingly complex world. It is also a magnificently constructed motion picture, elegantly photographed, brilliantly edited, hauntingly scored, with powerhouse performances from every actor.

This wholly unnecessary remake on the other hand is amateurish swill - banal photography, drama-class acting (and why not? all the characters have been reduced to caricature), and soap-opera rewriting. It's basically a television movie with some sex and violence thrown in for the fan-boy crowd. It's even got the requisite car-chases, and supposedly pointed dialog about adultery and motivations, blah blah blah.

Graceless, visually dull, with no sympathetic characters, but a lotta boom! crash! foe those who think loud noises and pyrotechnics make up for lack of intelligence and imagination.

The League of Frightened Men (1937)

Walter Connoly is Nero Wolfe - NOT!

[2/10 · 4 April 2011]

A "rare-films-on-DVD" seller has posted the first 7 minutes of this at Youtube as promotion. Their sales would improve if they took it down. They certainly won't get many fans of the Rex Stout novels picking up a copy any time soon, except for the 'must-have-everything' fanatics. I certainly have no interest in the remaining 67 minutes that I haven't seen.

It is said that Stout refused to have any other films made from his books because of gruff-voiced Lionel Stander's slightly pugilistic performance as Archie Goodwin. But the real disaster, screaming from his first appearance on screen, is Walter Connolly pretending to play the role of Nero Wolfe.

Don't get me wrong - Connolly was a fine character-actor of the old school. The problem here really isn't completely his - after all, he didn't cast himself in the role, and he is definitely miscast. So not only does Connolly apparently have no idea who Nero Wolfe might be or why his character is popular, but neither do the producer, the director or the scriptwriter - wow, could Stout have been unluckier in his choice of whom to sell his movie rights to? Let's get some basics straight: Nero Wolfe does not wear a smoking jacket; he does not have a mustache; he does not sit beside a fireplace that his office doesn't have. He does not have a 'butler' whom Archie views with some contempt, he has Fritz Brenner a Swiss chef whose cooking Archie really enjoys. He doesn't smile, he doesn't make light banter, he abhors bodily contact, he doesn't like to make any visitors feel welcome, because they're not - as clients they are a necessary burden to keep him in beer, good food, and orchids - speaking about which, the beer was noticeably absent from the first 7 minutes of this film - so obviously this couldn't possible have been about Nero Wolfe.

I thought the bearded William Conrad miscast in the old Nero Wolfe television show, but at least he was allowed to play Wolfe as smug and self- satisfied and somewhat overbearing, which Wolfe certainly is. And I thought Sidney Greenstreet's appearance as Wolfe on the old radio series was a bit of miscasting, too, but at least they had him drink plenty of beer.

But this film hasn't anything of Wolfe in it at all. A lot of literary series characters get rewritten for the screen, but nothing quite like this, short of open parody. And if this was meant to be parody - it ain't funny.

If you don't like the Nero Wolfe novels by Rex Stout, or haven't read them, you might like this; what I saw was the beginning of a pretty typical low-energy '30's B mystery. But if you have any admiration for Stout or his characters - STAY AWAY - you will certainly experience some frustration, or like me you will be flat outraged.

Henan Songshan Shaolin si (1981)

great fun

[9/10 · 30 March 2011]

Another Ching-vs-Shaolin conflict film, this one has a young princess sheltered at the temple with a dedicated soldier to protect her, and a slew of earnest monks to teach him their special kung-fu styles.

One of the most out-right fun martial arts pics of its era. The heroes are all bold determination and wide-eyed wonder, the monks perform with wit and energy - even the villainous general has an attractive side to him, an undeniable charm. The pace is furious and the martial arts action never lets up - it's by Joseph Kuo, one of the legendary non-Shaw directors of the 'chop-socky' era, who really knew how to work Buddhist themes into his films.

Particularly love the interpretation of drunken boxing in this film. Highly recommended.

Clan of Amazons (1978)

One of the great B-movies world-wide

[10/10 · 6 March 2011]

The Embroidery Bandit is stealing treasures while blinding his victims. The hero Liu Xiaofeng is called in to solve the mystery. The evidence points to the all-woman Clan of the Red Shoes - but appearances can be deceptive....

This is not only among the top films of its genre, its one of the real B-movie gems of world cinema.

This film has everything - an honest to gosh detective mystery; a noble action hero who is also highly intelligent and insightful, supported by a capable but pesky female side-kick; a clever villain who somehow retains his humanity; swashbuckling sword-play kung-fu; witty repartee (the poem-contest really brought a warm smile to my face, but the dialog is sharp throughout); friendly enemies as well as friends who turn out to be enemies; plot-twists and stratagems throughout; gorgeously atmospheric sound-stage cinematography as good as any of the best from Shaw Bros.; the acting is neat, very neat; there are beautiful women for the guys, handsome men for the gals. There's something for everyone here - even a touch of tragedy at the end.

While the twists and turns may leave one confused at first, especially among Westerners unfamiliar with the rather complicated traditional Chinese mystery, give it time. Just let the film roll on and it offers rewards aplenty - amusing, exciting, intriguing by turns, and never dull.

One of the more truly entertaining productions from late period Shaw Bros.

Creature from the Haunted Sea (1961)

Topical political satire still amuses

[10/10 · 28 November 2010]

Cuban refugee Sergio Aragones drew the credits for this movie. He went on to become famous drawing "Spy Vs. Spy" for Mad Magazine. Although I doubt Aragones had much more to do with this movie, somehow his connection to it tells the whole story - and also explains why so many reviewing the film here seem to be scratching their heads, since the satirical edge of the film depends on knowing something of its context.

Corman and crew are making connections here that politicians of the time would have preferred left buried: The mafia's involvement in the Bastista government and the CIA's initial support for Castro's revolution. This informs a "drive-in horror" movie turned on it's head. In a world where secret agents, criminals, dictators and revolutionaries are all exposing their cupidity and stupidity (leaving the people of Cuba to suffer - or, like Aragones, escape), only the raggedy z-movie rubber monster makes any sense.

Miss this edge, and you miss the film. You might still not have a taste for Mad-magazine style looniness of this beatnik variety, but please allow that there are those of us who do.

Frankly I think it's a gas.

Wyatt Earp (1994)

the search for adventure - but not the adventure itself

[3/10 · 20 January 2010]

Beyond contemporary newspaper reports and court testimony, there are two primary sources of information about the central moment of the Earp saga, at least as most people find it interesting, the gunfight at the OK Corral. The first book-length memoir of the event was by Deputy County Sheriff Billy Breckinridge, which painted a very bleak portrait of the Earps as thugs and criminals. This was answered by a book by Josie Marcus, Wyatt's common-law wife. Her book is by far the more credible, as she makes no effort to white-wash or hero-ize the Earps - they come across as complicated men with a complicated ethics. The film that came out shortly before this one, "Tombstone," unabashedly adopts the version of the story Josie presented; there are few media presentations of the Breckrinridge version, the most notorious being the poorly received Stacy Keach film of the early '70s "Doc." The interesting thing about "Wyatt Earp" is that it tries to avoid either of these perspectives; that's a mistake, because the middle ground is already held by Josie thanks to her honesty; the legend of Earp-as-hero (e.g., "My Darling Clementine" or the old Wyatt Earp TV show) is actually derived from word-of mouth folk-tales and dime novels, not based on any experience or record, so if you're going to dispel the myth without accepting the Breckinridge propaganda as the basis of your story, you have to resort to Josie's version, and if then you reject that what you need is some theme to define your focus, otherwise you're just going to cram your story with incidental biographical details that never congeal into a dramatic whole - which is precisely what happens here.

This film is a mess - it is literally all over the place. One loses track of all the minor characters we meet in locations all over the West. Incidents are framed as though they portend dramatic implications, which never at last come to light. The dialog also fails to make its impact. Costner's Wyatt certainly comes across as dour and enigmatic, but never as complicated or as ethically complex as he appears to have been in real life.

Put bluntly: Wyatt Earp was a Puritan (i.e., Calvinistic) atheist, a precursor to the 20th Century existentialist, who committed himself to action (sometimes very violent) and adventures, not because he loved excitement or discovery, but because there was really nothing else to do that would make life meaningful. The 19th Century literary equivalent would be some sort of synthesis of the obsessed Ahab and the meandering Ishmael of Melville's "Moby Dick." Now such a personality could give us a helluva story, even if not completely realized - and while "Tombstone" is a fine portrayal of the basic narrative, there's no doubt that it is too 'Hollywood' to capture the real depth of the character in Russell's Performance.

But while Kostner seems to understand how deep Earp's personality runs and in what direction, he seems to keep trying to figure him out, as if he could find the key to this enigma that would open the door to the core of Earp's personality. But Despite the greater superficiality of Russell's performance, Russell is actually closer to that key, which is defined as Earp's apparent determination that any such personality core simply doesn't exist and that the proper response to this discovery is to act rather than question.

So think of the Kostner Wyatt Earp as an Ahab without a white whale to hunt, an Ishmael without a Pequod to sign onto. Thus the film "Wyatt Earp" just wanders around the 'wild West' equivalents of the whaling towns Melville describes in the opening of his novel looking for some thematic purpose to focus on. It never gets there.

Hercules and the Princess of Troy (1965 TV Movie)

solid

[8/10 · 9 December 2009]

It's silly to complain that this is a B-movie made for television - because that's exactly what it is, and doesn't pretend to be anything else. And here's the good news - it's a pretty darn good B-movie made for television. One of the major problems with standard Italian Hercules films is that the are usually 100- 120 minutes long, too long for the amount of story they have to tell; consequently there's a lot of padding to them, usually in the middle. This film is kept lean and tight at 47 minutes - only the highlights of the story are here, and that's all we need.

I must remark that production values are gorgeous for mid-60s television. The acting is professional, the pacing is snappy, the story interesting (for this genre), the special fx are on a par with better television sci-fi/fantasy shows of the period - this is solid B-movie entertainment. Worth checking out.

State of Play (2009)

dull and confusing

[2/10 · 30 July 2009]

what a snooze fest! the least thrilling 'thriller' i've seen in many a year. stereotyped characters, a plot that convolutes itself into incorrigible inanity, a 'surprise ending' that makes no sense at all, and static performances that make TV game show hosts look like skilled shakespeareans.

I like russell crowe - a lot - but not in this film. here he's dumpy, unfocused - and that hair! AGH! utterly unconvincing and unpleasant, growing worse and worse as it winds on and on....

look, i don't care about the politics - the film is depressing, but not for any political reason; it's just so dam' disappointing given the critical hype for it. I don't like any of these characters, feel no sympathy for any of them avoid.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Planet of the chumps

[2/10 · 18 July 2009]

I'm giving this an extra star for having so much money thrown away on it; I mean the film stock was of the highest caliber, very nice color schemes.

On the other hand the plot just stumbles along, getting more and more incredible until the end, which is a bafflingly pointless and pretentious "alternate world" vision of an American city that comes out of god knows where. Anyway, you'll leave the film thinking Darwin had it all backwards, evolution was all downhill until it reached this movie.

Unnecessarily dark without being insightful or thoughtful; occasionally violent without any exciting action; confusing and even slightly embarrassing; largely forgettable but for the sour after-taste; lacking any of the wit, force, or panache of the original.

Bedtime Stories (2008)

one big happy UNfamily

[1/10 · 18 April 2009]

It's not the cuteness that offends - it's the obviousness of the effort to be cute.

Everyone involved in this pic - even the children actors - are trying to find 'the formula' for a cute Disney kids' movie. So there's no effort to tell a straight story as well as possible, to define and perform interesting characters in interesting situations. Instead, obnoxious cuteness (21st Century style, so it's utterly tasteless) abounds. The guinea pig has disturbing bug eyes and craps and farts a lot - but it is, after all a guinea pig, so it just must be 'cute' - right?! Well, no. Cute for cute's sake is a kind of porno-of-the-mind for anxiety-ridden parents, since like the sex-for-sex-sake of porn, movie cute gets awfully tiresome after a while.

There are some good jokes at the beginning, but once the movie enters the main excuse for a plot, about bed-time stories coming true in odd (and oddly unremarkable) ways, the sheer effort to get cute gets less and less bearable as the film drags on.

And yet, one thing really bothered me - the supposed theme of the film is the coming together of an estranged family - and I found this movement in the plot completely unbelievable. In fact the members of the movie family play against each other like total strangers - a bit unnerving in a 'kids' movie.'

Twilight (I) (2008)

awely totalsome - not undead, just bored-to-death

[1/10 · 23 March 2009]

... I vaguely remember what knocked me out... was it the moment Bella Lugoswan first met the deathly pale Edward Cullen? That was a like a half-hour into the movie, after chat chat chat with her divorced parents, and then with her too-average-for-words highschool friends... Edward - smelled her. Heck, I smelled her, everyone in the theater smelled her. "Oh, wow, he's totally awesome!" my niece remarked - ah, it was that phrase, "totally awesome," it's meaningless generality shot through me like a venom. I swooned. Flashing lights swirled all about me. I imagined I was watching a vampire movie - the undead stalking in the night, springing on their victims with bared fangs, tearing throats open, letting loose great spouts of blood! Then the vampire slayer burns the mark of the cross in the arm of the Prince of Evil, who springs back howling, crashing through the stained glass window of the ancient castle, plummeting to earth where the vampire slayer hammers the stake home just before the sun's first light at dawn rips the bloodsucker's skin into flakes of putrid, decaying rot - ! Slowly I came out of it, only to realize my nightmare had been in vain, I was still watching "Twilight." It was nearly an hour later - and nothing had happened yet! - they were still talking - and talking and talking! The vampire glistened in the sunlight. The vampire used superhuman strength to save the innocent. The vampire was "beautiful," and sensitive, and sweet, and very well-educated (he graduated highschool 20 times!) and he supported all the popular liberal causes. The vampire ate... tofu? And he jumped over boulders in a single bound! The vampire was "so cool" in a super-hero kind of way, he was... "totally awesome."

GAAAHH! My niece has cursed me! I have entered the ranks of those bored beyond death, bored to the point of - undeath! Yes, we victims of this infection must wander the malls late at night, searching for the one screen in a whole multiplex that might actually be showing - a vampire movie! Because "Twilight" sure as heck isn't one!

The Postman (1997)

In Costner we trust - not

[1/10 · 17 March 2009]

I suppose one could say that parts of this film aren't as bad as parts of "Waterworld," but that obviously doesn't pay it any compliments.

Actually, this film reminds me a lot of the old Italian post-apocalyptic thriller "The New Barbarians" (I Nuovi barbari,(1982)) - except that it's nowhere near as fun.

The two films share much the same plot. But the Italian film cost less than $200,000 instead of tens of millions, has a lot of funky looking cars instead of horses, takes place in gravel pits rather than the grand Northwest, and the rape scene is very gay. But it is fast paced, completely unpretentious, unabashedly ridiculous - a real hoot.

The acting in "The Postman" is just as bad as that in the Italian film, but the dialog is far worse without being any funnier, the characters much less interesting. And it drags and drags. Also, there's nowhere near the sheer amount of action that there is in the Italian film. And it's so pretentious, you'll look for cues for genuflection. Actually, pretty depressing - after watching this, you'll realize there was nothing worth preserving from apocalypse.

Overall a B-movie pretending to be an A-movie, ending up just a plain old bad movie.

Titanic (1997)

another fine con-job

[1/10 · 17 March 2009]

I find it hard to believe people are still spending money to see this. The clichés, the glitz, the kitsch are enough to make one choke - like some plastic Madonna designed as a back-drop to a Wagnerian opera by Walt Disney on a Sterno binge. But the real flaw is that it just goes on and on, milking every possible tear from the eyes of deluded teenagers who read one historical 'romance' novel too many.

I don't even know why I watched it through the end - except it was on cable, and a documentary on the real Titanic tragedy was immediately scheduled after. (Watching it free is the only way to see this wretched excess without giving the studio hacks behind it the wrong idea, that it might have been worth making - it wasn't.) Anyway, I thought the people freezing took an awful long time going to meet their maker. But perhaps they were waiting to meet the maker of this movie, who obviously took a vacation during the corporate filming of it. Needed extra time to count the money from the suckers, doncha know....

A complete travesty of anything like real historical drama.

It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

It's a wonderful reason to jump off a bridge

[1/10 · 17 March 2009]

Of all the male stars of Hollywood's studio-dominated 'classic' era, James Stewart was the hammiest. He almost always shouts when a whisper would do; instead of striking an impressive pose, he's always squirming about, arms flailing. He's the melodramatic version of Jerry Lewis.

His way-over-the-top performance in "It's a Wonderful Life" lingers like the taste of lettuce fried in lard atop a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich on a moldy McDonalds burger roll.

But then there's the story itself. It's notable that Capra waited until the Depression was largely over before putting together this dreadful lie about it (which is what this film is really about). Apparently the banks didn't spend years foreclosing homes and farms? No one was displaced, we all held together in the small towns we grew up in? Family's weren't shattered and careers not ruined? It's wonderful baloney to serve with peanut-butter and fried lettuce.

It's deplorable that American's think of this as a "Christmas classic." Christmas should be about joy, not self-centered delusion. The truth is, the world would have been the stronger is Stewart's character had never been born. The people in it need to find real reasons for living, not Capra's pandering.

Godzilla (I) (1998)

legendary... waste

[1/10 · 17 March 2009]

Roland Emmerich does not make movies. Roland Emmerich is a human resources specialist in charge of devising schemes to hire thousands of carpenters, painters, explosives experts, CGI hacks, and marginally employable actors in constructing showy, noisy demonstrations of Hollywood's ability to donate money to pop-corn vendors.

The big tip-off to the rip-off is that the monsters here are just plain ugly - and not in a monstrous sort of way but in a "worst graphics I've seen in a computer game" way.

The story, a ponderous, overblown, overlong remake of 'Beast from 20,000 Fathoms' (uncredited) doesn't seem to have any real focus, stumbling along through B-movie clichés, pseudo-romantic comedy, Spielberg-style action film, without much terror or monster-bite. The dialog is sub-childish, which is why the actors avoid wasting whatever little talent they possess in trying to energize it.

The original Godzilla films may be dated - the whole Godzilla phenomenon really belongs to the 20th Century - but at least the Toho left a body of work that stands as something of a legend.

There's something legendary about Emmerich's film, too - it's a legendary waste of time and money. Don't waste yours over it.

Independence Day (1996)

Let the aliens win!

[1/10 · 9 March 2009]

I must be an alien - what do I want from this film? I want it to die, die die! Explosions. Lotsa explosion - the most memorable parts of the film. And enough corn to feed a nation.

Oh, love that President - jump in the jet and save the world! Oh yeah, that's why we have heads of state, who needs the military? The acting is either over the top, or underdeveloped. The dialog - ha! Had me rolling. The story? those parts of it not stolen were stupid.

I see now that Roland Emmerich cannot make a motion picture, although he'd be great designing video-games - Oh, that's really what he's doing, isn't it.... And I thought I paid to see a movie; silly me.

Wanted (2008)

not depressing just lacking in anything upbeat

[1/10 · 24 February 2009]

Well, a friend said it wouldn't be that bad... he was wrong.

I've seen a lot of action films that are 'dark' or even downright depressing, but few that have been so utterly joyless as Wanted. Even given the special effects, including the ridiculous 'curving bullet' effect, there's so little sense of play I just felt nauseous from the action rather than exhilarated. This is like riding a roller-coaster while hung-over and with a flu. I never identified with the lead adolescent, couldn't understand why they wanted an adolescent lead to begin with. And I happen to think Angelina Jolie is sexy - but not here, the director seems at pains to make her look skinny and sickly and cold and clammy - brrr, I get a chill think about it.

Definitely a film by misanthropes for teenagers. Pass.