adamapp Reviews

Doctor Who: The Woman Who Fell to Earth (2018) Season 11, Episode 1

Interesting take

[8/10 · 10 October 2018]

Spoilers but mostly rants.

Lots of typical DW reviews on here. Meaning the review is "THIS ISN'T MY DOCTOR!" Tennant fans complained Smith was too young. Smith fans complained the older Capaldi was an attempt to recapture classic Who fans. Now many previous fans are complaining HOW CAN THIS ALIEN WHO HAS TWO HEARTS AND NORMALLY A BRITISH ACCENT BE A WOMAN?

The least rational argument I've heard. And to be fair if it we're just a casting point made just to fulfill some ideas of politically correct DW it might have some validity. But really, a character that becomes a completely different person every couple of season's every few years and your upset that for the first time in years it isn't a white guy? Go back to talking about how The Last Jedi ruined the SW franchise. True Whovians will be fine.

Having gotten through that let's get in a real review. The cinematography had improved greatly. The effects were a bit better but the CG with the alien craft/pod/giant purple garlic pod it managed to look like they spent all their money on the logistics of the later crane scene. The new alien threat was creepy as hell. Kind of gross to look at.

The storyline did something you haven't seen since classic Who Instead of the Doctor selecting companions, they got stuck with him (a la Teegan).

It also reintroduced an element of danger by making it dangerous to help the Doctor again by having a character actually die. I seriously thought they were going to Moffat it and have her resurrect the person with left over regeneration energy.

The characters aren't going to be with us for long. Not designed to. I think Ryan is designed to test out the idea of, "will people accept a black Doctor?"

Having said all that, I feel like it was a typical introduction episode. Thought I do feel like the writing is fresher. Chibnall obviously isn't suffering from the burn out Moffat did.

The Innkeepers (2011)

A well thought out and well executed ghost story

[8/10 · 15 January 2012]

Somewhat more psychological than supernatural, "The Innkeepers" is a nod to more elegant ghost stories of the past, such as Robert Wise's "The Haunting." That is to say that the story builds its tension slowly. A well done movie which isn't afraid to let it's audience wait for a jolt. A movie that's confident enough in it's story to allow the camera to linger on the ghost for more than a moment. The film allows for the possibility that the events that occur are only occurring to the lead character and that the audience is seeing them from her POV, leading to an ending that works much better than most horror films of the day.

"The Innkeepers" was a great horror film. 8/10

8213: Gacy House (2010 Video)

It's difficult to explain just how bad this is.

[30 October 2011]

As a (wannabe) filmmaker this is the kind of movie you pray you never make. It isn't just bad. Bad movies at least earn their audience for being bad. This isn't just bad. It commits a worse cinematic crime than that. It's boring. It's exceptionally boring.

The writing seems almost improvised, but improvised by people at a table audition. There isn't enough actual scares here to make an episode of your basic A&E reality show. It seems like the most obvious line heard on this set was "we will fix it in post."

The continuity and improbability of it don't help either. For example, the concept that the show is shot in a house built on the land where Gacy's old house was is faulty at best. This place should be BRAND NEW then. The house is at least 50 years old or more. Not 20 years old, not by a long shot. Then the goof at the end (look at the goofs so I don't have to write "spoiler" okay?) Just careless.

Additionally, and this is an aside, I find using Gacy as a paranormal entity a bit... disturbing? It's gratuitous and feels off putting.

Between the scares manufactured in editing, the complete lack of continuity and, let's face it, the gratuitousness of it make it for a terrible flick.

Day of the Dead (2008 Video)

In defense of...

[7/10 · 26 March 2008]

I've given this a 7/10 stars on a curved scale. First, the negatives...

A) Never should've been considered a "remake" I can't recognize a signal element from Day in it, except zombies and a character named Bud.

B) This movie isn't great, not by a long shot.

Now, here's where I defend it. It isn't that hard. It does something the past two Romero films have not done. Try to be scary. Land and Diary, both of which I saw in the theaters, hold little promise of the filmmaker that made Night of the Living Dead and even less of the dark humor that was in Dawn and Day. Land and Day spent a great deal of time simply beating us over the head with principals and value judgments. Romero's most social commentary was Night, and that was, according to him and all other reports accidental as opposed to intentional.

This film has no such compunction. What this film does is try to be suspenseful, entertaining and scary. And you know what? It succeeds. The production values are ten times higher than the last real Romero flick. it's got some moments in it that are so graphic you simply pause and go "eww" or jump. But yet, it does NOT take the audiences intelligence for granted. It knows its a schlocky horror flick and has the appropriate amount of fun with that, without trying to be a political statement. The lead, Mena, holds her own in a movie that if done with a T&A style actress would've been ham-handed. Nick Cannon, while the trailer seemed awful, was a typical army grunt.

As for plot. Hmm, how to say this delicately? It's a ZOMBIE movie. You already have legions of the undead, and you want completely realistic exposition? Certainly not as well done as 28 Days Later, but it was more sensible than the last two Romero films.

All in all, I would say that as a sequel to the remake of Dawn of the Dead, it worked. As a remake, it didn't, and the original pales in comparison. However, as a stand alone, it's good to put on, have a few friends over and watch for 90 plus minutes of non-stop zombie gore.

The Man from Earth (2007)

The best sci-fi film you've never seen

[9/10 · 5 January 2008]

This film, a low budget science fiction film, may very well be one of the best science fiction films of the past 10 years. This film is intense. It provokes thought in such a way and belongs up there will films such as 2001; A Space Odyssey, The Quiet Man, and any series, including Star Trek.

Considering the writer of the script wrote some of Star Trek:OS most memorable episodes, it's little wonder that the movie manages to resonate so much.

The story focuses on a professor who, at his going away party, reveals himself to be a cro-magnon over 14,000 years old. The score is understated, which is fine, because the material doesn't require a musical cue to tell you when to feel or think something. The material already has you.

Combine great script writing with epic performances by John Billingsley, David Lee Smith and Tony Todd and you have one of the most riveting pieces of science fiction made in a long time.

Noah's Arc (2005–2006)

Simply beautiful

[10/10 · 2 July 2006]

Say it doesn't represent you if you like, I have yet to see a positive image of two black men in love on TV anywhere. The series, unlike the pilot, alternates between touching and melodramatic. Possibly one of the best series ever and the best representation of black gay love ever done, period.

And not just because it's the only one, I've seen plenty of grab and grope movies, this show is sweet and thoughtful in its main storyline. THe characters aren't convicts forced to fall in love because they're aren't any women around, a common theme in some gay black films. They aren't both terrified of who they are. They come into their own love and accept it for what it is, besides Noahs' idiocy in the season finale.

All in all, one of the best love stories I've seen and I can't wait to see where it goes. I hope it actually gives us a happy ending.

Mrs. Pollifax-Spy (1971)

Not good, but not horrible

[4/10 · 11 December 2005]

Waited for many years to see this, being a lifelong fan of the books by Ms. Gilman.

However, the film left a taste in my mouth as dry as the sands of Albania it seems.

The film did make good use of the actors. The script was poorly written dialogue though, not as much humor as needed for this film.

I would say the film had an essential problem but there were entirely too many.

First, poorly written dialogue. Just not humorous.

Second, Roz, while appearing somewhat matronly, still looked a little too young for the role. Although her performance was outstanding.

Third, for the attractive thief/rogue agent Farrell, we get Darin McGavin? No, not the blond haired lout I had read about, not even close.

Fourth, Carstairs. Sigh. Just totally not done well at all. Written as an uncaring unfeeling government agency employee who didn't really care at all that he had sent an elderly lady on a courier mission. he humor of the whole situation was contained in the fact that in the book, her mission was an accident. Leaving out the first 20 pages or so and completely changing that plot point, well, it made for a completely unlikable character.

Fifth, they never, ever told her family members in any of the novels she was on assignment. Ever.

Essentially it took a few elements, not nearly enough and compiled a poor movie whose most interesting aspect was its lead actress'es charisma in the role and its musical score.

If you enjoy the books I think you will not like this movie. If you haven't read them and like 70's era comedies, go for it.

New York Minute (I) (2004)

A movie much better than it was received

[9/10 · 15 May 2004]

This movie is much better than it was given credit for.

A much more positive film than "Mean Girls." Its actually a much more family oriented flick. I think that may have been its downfall.

That and that godawful trailer.

I swear advertising executives really, really need to not be allowed NEAR the editing room ever.

Their acting was competent, the story was well done, for the audience it tried to attract and most importantly it was FUNNY.

Four stars out of five.

Love Don't Cost a Thing (2003)

A movie that got less credit than it deserved

[9/10 · 5 January 2004]

Having seen "Can't Buy Me Love" I thought to myself, why would they remake such a bad film?

This version seems to insist on hitting the notes that the first one didn't. I enjoyed the storyline, the cast, everything more.

Patrick Dempsey, I found annoying. I found the fact that for him falling in love with the single most shallow person he could find annoying. The character of Cindi was abrasive to me, and I just wasn't feeling moved by anything I saw.

Then I saw the remake. The lead female character always had depth, and showed affection right away for this dork. The transformation sequence was much more enjoyable, and the ending, when he rattles off, "I like Michael Jackson's Bad album, that's who I am!" I loved it. His friends were fun to watch.

True in ten years, this movie will be dated, but the performances will stand out to me much more than anything in the original.

I give this movie 7 out of 10.

Half Past Dead (2002)

This is a poor excuse for an action film, period

[18 March 2003]

This film is just such dreck. My jaw dropped when someone compared this to "The Rock."

That's like comparing the Mona Lisa to a 3 year old's finger-painting.

Let me say, I had high hopes for this film. I loved "Exit Wounds" and thought that Seagal was getting over himself enough that maybe he might be able to kick ass and show some humor.

In this film, he did neither. The action scenes were poorly choreographed and staged. The acting was hokey all around. I thought that like in his last film, he had an African American co-star so that he could have someone to engage with.

Nope, turns out, he is just there to draw viewers Seagal can't get on his own. Ja Rule spent the entire movie getting his ass kicked. The relationship between the two felt forced and phony. There weren't any good lines of dialogue.

The whole movie is excruciating. We see Seagal's character trying to be "down" wearing a do rag throughout most of the film. At this point I was asking myself, "How much worse can you get?"

This is how much worse, an aging prima donna action star who won't allow himself to be shot from the waist down because his is getting heavy, so we have to stare at his jowly face for 3/4 of the film.

Uggh, go see anything but this film.

Vulgar (2000)

Possibly the most underrated and poorly summarized films ever. MAJOR SPOILERS INSIDE APRIL 2002 LIONS GATE PICTURES

[21 February 2002]

I saw this film at Vulgarthon 2002, where it was screened by the director of this film for any audience of about 200 in the theater I was in. Bear with me a sec.

I had just gotten off the beltway after getting lost and missing the first film, which I was immensely looking forward to. Only to find out about Vulgar.

I was hoping, beyond all hope, that the first film was Vulgar and that I was going to miss it. I had heard about the subject.

Clown rape. I mean how horrific can you get, and this guy is having someone play it for laughs? That actually was not the premise of the film, just what I had been led to believe by the talk surrounding it.

Wow, was I wrong. I must say, I was extremely glad I saw this film. Finally, HERE IS THE REVIEW: Please note this is major spoiler area.

I felt so uneasy. However, it wasn't as described at all. The film dramatically focuses Will Carlson, a guy who plays a kids clown. His latest gig he shows up and the father is being taken away by the police. He has a conversation with the embarrassed mother and daughter and promises to come back next time for free.

Next scene he enters a diner, where he discusses being broke with his best friend Sid, played by director Bryan Johnson. Sid is perfect, as he hoards free refills on his sodas and sometimes getting others to pay. He tries to think of a way to make money.

Boom, he comes up with be a gag clown, Vulgar. He'll go to bachelor parties and dress up as a clown in a g-string. The guy expects a girl, he'll be there instead. Everyone will get a big laugh out of the clown, then he'll get paid and they will bring in the real stripper. I love the scene where, when discussing the idea of what to name the act, Sid says to him, "call it what it is, Vulgar."

The next major scene we see is of him dressed as this clown, which he called Vulgar, standing in front of a door. There is a gag on the door for any true askew fans.

Then the laughs totally stop. The very next scene the lead character is knocked unconscious.

What happens next is possible the hardest scenes I have ever had to watch. The lead is used as the entertainment for 3 of the strangest, most sadistic family members ever as Ed Fanneli and his two sons, brilliantly played by Ethan Supplee and Matthew Maher, sadistically torture and rape Will. Though we never see anyone actually do anything, what's implied is always pretty horrific.

The aftermath is as much a recovery period for the audience as it is for the character. We see him stumble home, bloodied and go through all the stuff that trauma victims go through. Except we never see these type of trauma victims publicly because this is a guy. At this moment I thought Brian O'Halloran was acting at his best on screen, ever.

Well the movie gets even more interesting from there, gunshots, blackmail, revenge, all rolled up in an incredibly tight film. I can't tell you much more, although I can tell you that what I described, poorly, is only the first 25 minutes of the film and ALOT more than that happens. I can assure you the film is worth the wait as it was filmed in 1997 and is just being released in APRIL of 2002 by LIONS GATE films in movie houses around the country.

Special accolades have to SOMEONE, but I can't think who, really. Or maybe the problem is I think of too many folks. I mean, this was a first time directing effort for $80,000 that contains some of the tightest editing not to mention the best CASTING I have seen to date in an independent film. I would give the film 4 out of 5 stars. You lose a point cause there needs to be more Walt in some movie. Any movie.

Well, I thought it was worth my money.

Adam

That's My Bush! (2001)

Man did that suck

[4 April 2001]

Wow. Let's make this president likable by giving him his own show where we can show how sweet wholesome and goshdarn loveable he is!

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.

The jokes, far from being cutting edge as most South Park fans were anticipating, were formulaic. The laughter had to be canned, no one could have found those lame jokes funny. The acting was first rate. The material was another matter entirely.

I would give this series 1/2* out of a possible *****

Drawing Flies (1996)

Surreal to say the least

[27 January 2001]

I actually saw this during a View Askew film fest in Red Bank, NJ hosted by one of the producers, Kevin Smith. This movie had absolutely no idea where it wanted to go. It was an independent film, one of the first few by the View Askew studio. It was directed by two directors at once. They didn't collaborate on what exactly they were going to do. It wound up being a very funny and surreal film. I actually really enjoyed it. Hopefully it might one day get released on DVD. Let's hope if these guys collaborate again they watch the others dailies though.

Q: The Movie (1999)

Nothing great, but not bad

[26 January 2001]

It is basically a BBQ type of movie. It takes a little from House Party, Friday Don't Be A Menace and every other bored teens movie. I guess the difference is this was an independent film made for peanuts compared to the budgets of even Friday or Next Friday. Rent it if for no other reason then to support independent film.

The New Scooby-Doo Movies (1972–1973)

Wonderful!

[25 January 2001]

I used to love watching this show. This show had so many things and the humor I can still enjoy. One of the many clever elements was the introduction of the "guest stars" such as Jerry Reed, Cass Elliot, Jeannie from "I Dream of Jeannie." I thought that was a nice touch. My ONLY beef was. . .

Scrappy of course. I understand that it was being done similarly to a sitcom (think Mad About You) but WHY would you introduce a young pup to the show to boost ratings for a KIDS show already? Big mistake. The only mistake worse was not making a mystery of "What Happened To Scrappy Doo?"

Switchback (1997)

SPOILERS Disappointing film at best

[4/10 · 4 January 2001]

Wonderful actors.

Lousy script and not too great direction either. My main problem was I simply didn't CARE about any of these people. Not the killer not the victims. The settings were pretty drab. Dennis Quaid's character was so poorly written in, I didn't even care when the end came. He got his kid back. Big deal! I wanted my money back.

The Exorcist III (1990)

Much better than given credit for

[8/10 · 16 December 2000]

SPOILERS AHEAD

The main fault I can see in this film is marketing.

This should never have been given the title of Exorcist III. The title alone raised expectations.

This film simply can't be compared to the original. This film is at its heart a mystery. Ending with a similar battle for good vs. evil.

George C. Scott's performance is as usual very well done. If I can say there is anything wrong with the film it is with Blatty's direction and scripting.

It's written for the stage, it seems. Alot of what we see is filler. Had this film been paced just a bit quicker with less of the talk with Brad Dourif's character, it would have been great. Can you imagine Damien coming out to describe Hell? Instead we have the Gemini Killer spouting off.

I would have liked alot more screen time from other actors. Which is WEIRD because I absolutely ADORE Brad Dourif. Just not in this role. It was time they could've spent better elsewhere.

And of course Jason Miller was absolutely SQUANDERED on screen. His only lines, although well delivered were just too brief. And poorly written too. Would rather have seen them invest some money into re-doing this film (of course it would've required quite alot since George C. Scott passed away) than on messing up the original. That one was fine. This one needed the help.

Holiday Heart (2000 TV Movie)

Good film, great acting

[9/10 · 10 December 2000]

**** Minor SPOILERS ****

A movie with everything I would expect from a high quality film. It was touching, endearing and EXTREMELY well acted and directed. I can't stress this enough. Ving Rhames in this role is incredible. I cant stand him in a dress though and the singing is pretty darn horrible. But his is the most realistic portrayal of a gay person i have ever seen in my life.

Alfre Woodard is absolutely believable and breath-taking in her role as an addict.

The direction is quirky enough you NEVER can guess where this movie will take you and you aren't quite sure when its over either. the ending is a stunning surprise. One which will forever stay with you. I think this movie is wonderful. I give it 9 out of 10 ***** if only because of Ving Rhames singing.

Phantasmagoria (1995 Video Game)

Ignore the hype, just play the game

[25 February 2000]

This is a wonderful piece of work, considering the budgetary concerns. True, alot of the early game is simply getting from point A to point B but it isn't a bad trip. Its not as predictable as some would have you believe either. Its pretty graphic in a cheesy Ed Wood type of way. The story does have enough twists in it to make it interesting. As for it being boring, the purpose of any point and click environment is to make you interact with the game. If you really want to play, it has its rewards. I just wish that the FMV scenes would make the lead female character a bit stronger and the blood looked less like raspberry syrup.