Change Your Image
arglebargle-47893
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Incognito (1997)
Overlook the 4 rating
It's so hard to decide on watching movies that get a 4 rating on IMDB. Sometimes they are cheesy, low-budget indie films with stilted acting, absurd plot, etc. On the other hand, they can be decent movies that somehow didn't capture the public's attention. On the other hand, I've been seduced by scores that led me to such wretched wastes of time like "Gone Girl" (with implausible plot and absurd characters) and "Oldboy" (fer crissake, why was this awful film made twice?).
"Incognito" is about a man who forges a painting that was lost to history. Due to twists, the forger is assumed to be stealing his own creation and has been framed for murder. The forging sequence is immensely fascinating and the writers took very good care to make sure it was realistic.
I think the film's downside is that Patric's Harry Donovan is a bit of a jerk. I get that. I don't particularly like jerks in movies. However, he's at the top of a criminal field (forger) and he knows it. I think Patric plays the character for what he's worth. If I'm being honest, it's a good portrayal and one that has to be accepted.
The other downside is how the murder and framing are played out. It's simply awkward. I'd personally have upped this a point if that plot angle could have been handled better. (This is not a spoiler: Donovan's arrest for murder begins the film.)
If you like drama and action films (and I will add that Irène Jacob is very easy on the eyes) but you're put off by the IMDB score, give it a try. It's a decent watch.
Revenge of the Pink Panther (1978)
Herbert Lom's Greatest Hit
The former Chief Inspector Dreyfus played by Herbert Lom provides this movie's funniest moments. Sellers is at his peak in this film, but without Lom, more than half of the laughs are gone... along with the plot. "Revenge..." is one of the greatest comedies of all time, but let's not forget the other side of the coin that made it possible.
Who can possibly forget Dreyfus' eye twitch and the fantastic physical comedy at the start of the film? Or, for that matter, the whole fake dentist routine with the laughing gas proving that Herbert Lom's comedy chops were right up there with Peter Seller's.
Vanishing on 7th Street (2010)
Another chant of "underrated"
I watched a couple movies recently with 4.8 stars on IMDB. The first deserved it. This one does not. The acting talent is known and solid. Like a few other choice movies like "Night of the Living Dead" we're never given a cause. That we never get one adds to the whole creepy feel of this movie. And that's what it's all about, isn't it? A horror film should give you some sense of dread or terror. A few bits left you wondering if people were experiencing something or hallucinating. For a movie with no gore or jump scares, this one managed to make me creeped out.
The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)
31 Years Between
I'm writing two reviews simultaneously of two films I had never watched until the last two nights. The two films are "The Thomas Crown Affair" from both 1968 and 1999. Portions of both reviews are copied from one to the other. It's the middle of May, 2022 and both films are on Amazon Prime and I deliberately watched them both back to back. If you can possibly do the same, do it. These are both genius works of plot and film-making. It's an absolute delight to see Faye Dunaway in both films. While I'm not a huge fane of Faye, she turns a great performance in both. It's also great seeing Steve McQueen and Pierce Brosnan with their own takes on the eponymous role. I will not say one is better than the other. I give both 9 stars. The more recent film is one that I identify as I was an adult when it was filmed. I was a boy of 7 when the first was filmed. A little of the feel is lost on me, and I'm a computer programmer now, so I find the computer scenes in the first film to be very anachronistic, but that won't cloud my review. Thus ends the common section between my reviews.
I'm going to toss out my main negative for this film: "The Windmills of You Mind." It was written for this film, but my experience with this song was with later versions that were more languid, dreamy and reminiscent. The closing credits of the 1999 version feature the song in such a style. But the original sounds breathless and rushed to me. Frankly, I found it grating. I know it won an Academy award, but I stand by my opinion.
In film style, I absolutely love the period trend of splitting the screen into panels where you can see simultaneous action in different places. I'm well aware that this can be abused, but "TTCA" works it beautifully. The original crime begs for the treatment it gets.
Finally, it was good to see Yaphet Kotto in this. It's a brief part, but I've been a fan since "Alien." Most of Yaphet's career has been TV and I'm not a TV watcher, so I enjoy him in the films where he shows up.
Also, I'll note that Jack Weston plays a great sleaze in so many films. Perhaps he's a bit typecast, but versus the 1999 film, we are pulled emotionally into the gang that Thomas Crown uses.
The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)
31 Years Between
I'm writing two reviews simultaneously of two films I had never watched until the last two nights. The two films are "The Thomas Crown Affair" from both 1968 and 1999. Portions of both reviews are copied from one to the other. It's the middle of May, 2022 and both films are on Amazon Prime and I deliberately watched them both back to back. If you can possibly do the same, do it. These are both genius works of plot and film-making. It's an absolute delight to see Faye Dunaway in both films. While I'm not a huge fane of Faye, she turns a great performance in both. It's also great seeing Steve McQueen and Pierce Brosnan with their own takes on the eponymous role. I will not say one is better than the other. I give both 9 stars. The more recent film is one that I identify as I was an adult when it was filmed. I was a boy of 7 when the first was filmed. A little of the feel is lost on me, and I'm a computer programmer now, so I find the computer scenes in the first film to be very anachronistic, but that won't cloud my review. Thus ends the common section between my reviews.
Acting changed a lot between the 60's and the 90's. This version drops almost all the value of the gang that Tom uses and concentrates more on the investigation and love affair than the earlier film. This is neither good nor bad. It's just how this film plays out.
During that time period, acting styles shifted to a more casual and realistic style. Women no longer needed to seem hard to be strong. (I thank "Alien" for that change.) And I feel like the ending did a better job of closing the relationship between the two protagonists than did the first film.
"Windmills of your Mind" is in both films, but I liked the more recent version better. The feel is more dreamy and romantic and adds character to the film.
To summarize: don't miss this film nor its original. For the movie buff, it's time well spent.
200 Motels (1971)
Zappa: the hands of fate
For me to give a film of any genre a 1 star, I have to ask myself "did I dislike it worse than 'Manos: The Hands of Fate?'" I managed to sit through "Manos" with Crow and Tom Servo. Maybe they have dragged me through this hot mess, but sadly they were not along for the ride. I couldn't manage 10 minutes of it. Random nonsense by people with the acting chops unsuitable for a high-school play is not my idea of any fun.
The thing is, I like a lot of Zappa's music. Every so often I listen to the whole of the Apostrophe album. But his music is most definitely pretentious. While I can endure some pretentious music (I like Rush and Yes), pretentious filmmaking is a waste of my time.
Flight World War II (2015)
Better than current rating
There is a bit of a feel of this being a made-for-TV movie. It's fraught with some visual mistakes. But also unfairly accused of false plot points. For example, ME262 jets weren't around in 1940, but Dunkirk evacuation also wasn't a failure. The characters all remark that they are in a WWII that isn't quite as anyone remembers.
The plot itself isn't spectacular, but it's still good. Acting is also very good. Faran Tahir gives a spectacular performance as the captain. (He's in the reboot of Star Trek as another captain.)
The movie has some other redeeming features. American soldiers who have both brains and brawn. People with emotions and then consent to logic in ways that would make Sherlock Holmes happy.
Give it a watch. It won't feel like a wasted 90 minutes.
Accident Man (2018)
Left me wanting more...
... and apparently I'm going to get it. I love exactly this kind of action flick: rough with a little dark humor. The different characters were delightfully different from one another. The killing styles and so on set everyone apart. I couldn't work up a lot of emotion over his relationship with his ex, but apart from that, the various interactions were marvelous. If you liked "Deal Pool" this film is in the same class but with its own unique charm.
As the credits began to roll, I thought "this film begs to have a sequel, but a lot about this story I think will mean it won't happen." I headed to IMDB to write a review and discovered to my delight that a sequel was in post production.
Sheena (1984)
This movie has only one purpose
It's to show off Tanya Roberts' boobs. That's pretty much the most interesting thing in the movie. Otherwise, the movie is packed with a lot of deliberately stupid things.
Let's start with a truck full of gasoline tanks. What happens when it catches fire? It goes kaboom, right? Or maybe something stupid happens, like the fire blown out by a helicopter. Or maybe it's possible to do something stupider.... like both things in the same movie with the same truck.
Sadly, this movie matches Tanya Roberts' acting skills. Save yourself the trouble of watching for 90 minutes and fast-forward to the nude scene and move on (if that's your sort of thing).
The Night of the Hunter (1955)
I'm not sure I get the great ratings
I just finished watching this on Amazon after seeing it got a 8 rating on IMDB. The story is great. I can even see this done as a remake. I'll even go so far as saying that this movie was on par with most movies of the time period: that is to say, klutzy, wooden dialog, implausible actions and inept stunts.
For example, Mitchum's squabble with the children in the basement was simply hokey. It reminded me of Lugosi struggling with the rubber octopus in "Bride of the Monster" or any number of cheap zombie movies with a creature deliberately moving slowly with arms outstretched. Mitchum's assorted weird, non-verbal outbursts don't make any sense at all. And why exactly did the film need a torch-wielding mob straight out of "Frankenstein?"
Midsommar (2019)
Student file with a big budget
Two and a half hours! I watched this only because of some clickbait that praised it. Ugh! I could have watched anything else tonight. The movie drags in the way that self-important movies drag. I'm not giving this a 1 star precisely because the acting by the American actors is good and believable and the cinemetography is excellent. The content of the film is silly nonsense of the kind you see from film students trying to seem more erudite than they really are (and I chose the word "erudite" deliberately). Frankly, if you think this movie is profound, then you're a pretentious fool. If you want to watch it, there's some "almost porn" in the film. It's got naked people doing non-erotic erotica. If pr0n's your thing, then you'll find 2 1/2 hours on xhamster more rewarding. At least on xhamster you'll have more plot.
OK, I'll stop ragging on the awfulness of the plot. The opening shots of Sweden are gorgeous. Visually the movie is a treat. Settings and costumes and scenery are good. Technically there's not much wrong with the film. As I said in my title, it's got a budget to be technically good. But my measure of bad movies is "Manos: The Hands of Fate." "Manos" contains more entertainment value than "Midsommar" provided that you watch it with Tom Servo and Crow.
Are you pretentious? Do you think movies involving Swedes makes the movies great by that virtue alone? Then this movie might be for you. I love my Swedish great-grandparents, but this movie was not for me.
Summary: Technical gives this an 8 or 9 stars. Story drags this down to 2.
Hellzapoppin' (1941)
What a fricking hoot
I'd love to give this a 10 star rating, but I reserve that for such absolute classics as "A Clockwork Orange" or "The Shawshank Redemption." That said, I'm only 1/3 the way through this film and tears of laughter are running down my face. I found this oldie through the remap of "Uptown Funk" to oldie films. Give this a watch and have a belly laugh.
Out of Time (2021)
Good movie that could have been great with a bigger budget
I enjoyed this film and -- despite a few people claiming it's terrible -- I found nothing really awful in it. Effects were about what you'd expect from the original Star Trek series. However, it's not a special effects film. All-in-all, they were in keeping with what was happening in the film.
The film has a distinct low-budget feel, but as it progressed I noticed that the camera angles and scene staging gave the impression that the director knew what he was doing. I looked up his previous efforts and found that he had directed a few well-reviewed shorts as well as having his hand in the film business in a variety of roles.
A few people pointed out that the dialog seemed wooden. I agree. I think the script could have used another re-write to smooth things out a bit. However, I was grateful that the film was devoid of the usual pile of idiots who are blind to the obvious. In other words, the types of characters that have to do certain things to move plot points: 1) see alien/strange behavior yet ignore it 2) do something nobody sane would do ("I'm going to give the terrorists what they want. Surely they will let us go then") 3) panics needlessly. I suppose that list could grow longer. Fortunately for my sanity, our time traveler at least tried to keep that to himself knowing the incredulity he'd face. And the incredulous tended to wise up when they saw the evidence.
Obamaland (2017)
Impossible to take seriously
I mean this in a good way. It's packed with politics and yet, somehow, manages to tweak everyone evenly. It's loaded with enough sight gags and other film spoofs that if it actually offends your political sensibilities, then you probably need either more introspection... less.
The Scam (2012)
Low budget
This has a $350,000 budget. So what can you do with that kind of budget? Movies like "Clerks", "Napoleon Dynamite", "Night of the Living Dead" or "Halloween" (adjusted for inflation, of course).
"The Scam," like most low budget films, has no special effects. That cuts costs. But for some reason, the other films managed to have good writing, good acting, good directing, good editing, good sound, etc. all with a low budget.
Lately I have been reading "The Screenwriter's Bible" by Trottier. He's nice enough to give long lists of "Don't do this." I think the writers could have spent some time with this book. There are exceptionally awkward lines. Even some lengthy exposition thrown in.
On the plus side, a few actors managed to turn out decent performances. However, most of them gave the film the feel of those dorky Christian movies from the 70s I was subjected to as a kid. Also on the plus side, it wasn't boring. I did manage to make it to the end without hating myself.
True Grit (2010)
One of my few perfect reviews. Compare with the original
I loved the original "True Grit", a movie that I would give a solid 9 rating to it. But it had so many fails that I like the remake so much better I should be allowed to give an 11 by comparison. Movies, by their nature, are contrived stories. The degree to which that contraption makes us feel it's real adds to the quality of the movie. The dialog feels so skewed and awkward to modern thinking, but fits with my understanding of language and dialog of the time period that I quickly grew to love every line of it.
The decades between provide some beautiful technical changes. In "Deliverance" the filmographer had to underexpose to produce night scenes. In this film the night scenes beautifully capture moonlit nights in ways so rarely seen.
Perhaps the best part of this film is the presentation that 19th century civilization was as both sophisticated as we are, but as primitive as we can be.
This is nearly perfect a western as they come.
Dark Iris (2018)
Not the worst I've seen, but darn close
The current 6 star rating for this movie is fraudulent. The one positive review comes from someone who has reviewed nothing else, so I can safely assume it's a shill for the director.
The special effects (what few exist) are on par with films from the 1940s. I think I can safely say I could have done a better job with After Effects than we see in this movie.
The acting is -- at best -- on par with stage drama at a mid-sized college. Throughout the entire Agent Fry acts precisely like an annoying 13 year old girl. (Imagine the stink-eye scene from "Juno" or Jennifer Grey's character as this sister in "Ferris Beuler's Day Off") making snarky faces and juvenile remarks.
In fact, the entire script was sophomoric. The writer (director AND producer... this is generally the sign that it's going to be bad) didn't even bother trying to figure out police procedures to work with the story. Included in the story were two MI6 agents, neither of which was British. One was Russian. My guess for the casting is that the actors were friends of the director.
The only reason I didn't give this 1 star is that there are actually worse films (like "Manos").
Geostorm (2017)
Ruined by bad script and science
Despite the hyperbole from the people who only seem to be aware of a 1 or 10 star rating for films, this is neither a disaster nor the best weather film since "Twister."
Modern major studio productions seem to have minimum production values. That means competent actors and at least competent filming and technical work with CGI. But these are tools. You use the tools to make a good script and good directing ideas to come alive.
This is where the movie fails. While it's cool to, say, have effects that make people appear freeze like Popsicles in seconds, you couldn't actually do that people if you dunked them in liquid nitrogen. But "Geostorm" gives us moments like that. Remember in "Airplane" when we heard propeller airplane sounds for the jet? It was a gag, but we get something equally silly in this film. You also get the idea that every object in the movie is wired with 4kg to 400kg of C4. Flipped cars can certainly catch fire, but does every car have to go up like Vesuvius?
In short, $millions tossed at the CGI and acting talent, $hundreds thrown at a script. And if more was spent on the script, someone should get some money back. Bad science aside, the script was hopelessly predictable and not very interesting.
Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970)
Why did I wait so long to watch this?
Holy Mackerel! I've known of this movie forever, but got around to watching it only tonight. I started this review before I finished watching and I had already given it 10 stars.
For the combat scenes, everything is thrown at the viewer as realistically as possible. There are no hokey miniatures nor restrictive sets. The destruction of a fighter during take-off is a masterpiece of practical effects. I'm trying to figure what kind of budget this movie had just for explosions. The merging of new footage of a 2-wheel touchdown and crash-landing of a bomber with real footage of the same was nearly seamless.
Acting and dialog was top notch for 1970. (I'm a firm believer that both things were dramatically improved circa 1980.) Some of the dialog as a bit contrived but it was needed to push home some of the political and historical points.
I gave this film a 10. It was an easy choice. "Tora! Tora! Tora!" will remain a must-see film for another generation or two. Pearl Harbor", as good as it was, lacks this film's staying power.
Phantom of the Opera (2014)
Couldn't finish watching this
This is the familiar story, presumably modernized. I watched this on Amazon to kill a little time while doing some busy work. The opening scene seemed like it was filmed as part of a college theater piece. As the film progressed, everything seemed that way. It's as if.... wait! I had to visit IMDb to confirm my suspicions.
No, it's not "AS IF filmed by a bunch of friends out to make a movie", it IS a bunch of friends out to make a movie. Most of the cast were also in "A Christmas Carol" also directed by Anthony Mann. Everyone seemed to act as if they were in a college production of "Diary of Anne Frank." No-one ever rises above this.
The film isn't merely low-budget. It's pretty close to no-budget and possibly funded by cookie sales or something. We get a scene where a young boy is presumably watching an opera, but all are closeups of the boy and his father for the "audience" and some shadowy shots of a conductor, soprano and a french horn player and that's our "orchestra." I guess we have to imagine the rest.
One conversation scene with three people is so differently lit between shots of the 3 actors I had to wonder if Ed Wood wasn't directing. Other scenes where deliberately filmed by hand-held video camera -- and that's fine when it's part of what they are doing -- but scenes that didn't involve a hand-held camera were still filmed in the same style.
If you're friends of the people in the film, by all means, watch it. After all, we don't go see high-school/college theater pieces for the professional acting. But if you're not, avoid this film.
Deterrence (1999)
A gem of a low-budget thriller
I found this on Amazon and pulled it up to watch based on the IMDb rating of 6.5 (at the time I'm writing this). If I like the film genre, I generally find I can spend a pleasant 90 minutes or so doing other things and watching any film on the tube in the 5.5-7.5 range. Better than that and I want to concentrate on the film a little better.
As to the movie itself, there are no special effects. No twisted plot (although this film has a decent one). There is one cliché jerk, and it was confined the local redneck. And we also have a lunatic (can't have a thriller without one). What improves this film is what it lacks. What we don't have is military personnel that don't act military. There is no politician who has no people skills. There are no bull-headed advisers who can't acknowledge compromise. There's no loose-cannon army general. No security guards that were either constantly jerks or couldn't be trusted watch the White House dog.
I really get hating films like this when professionals get reduced to caricatures created by ignorant screenwriters. Bogus behavior to create tension just stinks. In "Deterrence" the characters remained realistic and competent. The situation and moral dilemmas were in place to create the tension. That's the nature of good drama. The actors weren't spectacular, but everyone turns in a professional performance.
Final note: the live news felt much better for this film than any other I've seen. The reporter tripping over his words saying "White house" and then correcting to "house of representatives" smacked beautifully of a reporter under fire. Live news has goofs. There were elements of this low-budget thriller that would do well to be added to the big budget films.
Phantom of the Opera (1943)
I want to watch the others now
I usually dislike movies from this period. Normally the content is maudlin, the acting stiff or hokey, the sets a bit dorky, the plot weak, the camera angles and shots pedestrian.
However...
I really liked this film. A little of the dialog was typical of the era, but I didn't feel awkward listening to anything. There's some light comedy between two suitors that got a little over-the-top, but I got a laugh. I hated the bit at the beginning with the fake violin playing. It's one thing to shoot such scenes at a distance, but a closeup of a violinist mostly holding still while music plays loudly is as ridiculous as as putting a cowboy on saw horse and keeping that in the scene. Other than that, most of the film plays quite well. What I think I liked best was a combination of the play of shadow throughout and some very good camera angles. The opera work was very good, but I haven't seen a lot of that in movies outside "Amadeus" so I'm hard pressed to say much more about it other than I'd like Opera if there weren't sopranos. (I won't blame this film for those bits for seeming like fingernails on a blackboard.) Anyways, I think the studio could have coughed up a few bucks for basic violin lessons for Rains so that scene would't have to be so awkward. Unfortunately, we put up with fake music crap for 30 years following that and decades preceding.
Enough rambling. It's a good film for an oldie. No regrets of losing 90 minutes of my life or anything. Now I want to see the Lon Chaney version and others. This gets a solid 7 as a great classic.
Killers at Play (2015)
Couldn't take it any longer
I'm about 20 minutes into this and can't watch any more. I've seen videos my kids and their friends made in high-school and college. That was just amateur and goofing off stuff. This movie isn't much different except in length. What passes for cinematography mostly just feels like someone wandering around with a video camera with sound capture by the built-in mic. Probably because that's what it was. Motion leaps from one camera angle to another without an clear feeling of how you got there.
As for the acting, if you've ever seen "Boogie Nights" and watched good actors pretending to be bad porn actors, then you know what bad acting is like. And that's just how the acting is in "Killers at Play."
Anyways, if you want to find out how this movie ends, you'll have to watch it yourself... if you dare. There are no spoilers in this review because I can't make it to the end.
Sticks & Stones (1996)
Bad, but not that bad
I can't bring myself to give 1 star to a movie that isn't as bad as "Manos" but this film definitely does not merit the current average rating of 6.5. First off, Gary Busey and Kirstie Allie are excellent actors and their professionalism shows. The cinematography is adequate.
If you remember the assorted 70's era religious films, the dialog and most of the other acting is about on par with that. (Some of the more recent religious films are far and away better than this movie.)
Even though the kids cuss in this film, a lot of their dialog seems like how 1940's era script writers wrote for kids. "See you later, champ." Champ?
Generally speaking, I think bullies are grossly mis-represented in films. (The exception being "Napoleon Dynamite" where the bullies are as lame and dorky as everyone else.) In "Sticks&Stones" we have a bully who looks almost a bit too angelic... and that's probably not too bad for casting... but he manages not to be intimidated by a crazed Gary Busey. Busey can intimidate adults. Said bully isn't especially big or threatening himself, but manages to push around 3 kids who could easily brush him off collectively. The 3 are friends who display remarkable solidarity in everything... except to stand up to their most hated person. One-on- one bullying scenes make a bit more sense, except the ones that don't. Like one locker room scene that makes you wonder if there are any teachers at this school. And there's a scene with a student locking an outside door on the school. Um. No. Did the writers never go to school?
Anyways, other reviewers are right. It's a sappy, overly sentimental movie. This might be a good movie to watch with kids... unless you'd rather your kids not use bad language. But generally give this movie a miss and find something else to watch.
Avarice (2007)
Home movie?
As I watched this, I got thinking this felt like some family's art project or something. Then I checked the credits. It was. "Mom, dad, kids, let's make a movie!" Now imagine the results. Yup. It's what you're imagining. I gave a couple points for the music. It's not half bad. I thought it better than the crap John Carpenter used to turn out for his films. Otherwise, the acting is stilted. The props were either what was laying around or something that looked like it was constructed for a college play. I'd say "high-school" but it wasn't quite that bad. At least the monster's face was appreciably monstrous. This might be a good film given the MST3K film, but unfortunately, I don't think it can rise to the status of cult film. It's just too dull.