Steviereno Reviews

Don't Look Up (2021)

No argument here, for those who think this movie sucks.

[1/10 · 30 December 2021]

I hate to be harsh, and I rely am on IMDB, but this just is not good. Meryl Streep is overacting one or more of the Three Stooges, and Leonardo is doing doing the worst overacting of his life. Did those two seasoned actors actually let the director TELL them to act like that?

It's a fairly serious topic, what with tens of thousands of Near Earth Objects out there, but you'd think it was a Weird Al Yankovik movie, from what I saw before I turned it off at about the 30-minute mark. Leonardo overacting I could handle. Meryl Streep, too? Yowch!

Scoring 55 on Rotten Tomatoes is about 30 too high. It was an embarrassment to watch. It's not a spoof. It's not a send-up.

What the hell is it? Don't answer. I don't care.

On an IMDB scale of 1 to 10, I couldn't even give it a 1.5 (halve aren't allowed), and 0.5, well, like I just said. . . I have NEVER give a 1 on IMDB before. But this one gets it.

Don't Look Up. Really? How about Don't Look At All.

At least two careers may have been thrown in the dumpster on this one.

The Time Traveler's Wife (2009)

I'ts taken me 12 years to watch this. Glad I did.

[9/10 · 19 August 2021]

I should not have waited so long. Yes, I noticed Rachel McAdams is type cast as the love interest of a time traveler. She does it so well. A heartfelt movie. I was grinning from ear to ear so many times, and welling up at so many others. In a time travel love story, how does one not do any spoilers? With the circularity of the time thread, even in the story they kept spoiling it - decades ahead and behind! This was such a lovely and unique love story. LOTS of time travel books have romance in them. Not so many movies. I think the casting of Eric Bana and Rachel was perfect - they are able to express loving so well. Hahaha they never do say how he makes a living. But... - sorry, not gonna spoil it. Besides, I am probably the last person to have seen this movie.

Travelers (2016–2018)

A late comer to this series, I can say this is one of the best 5 shows I've seen since 2000

[10/10 · 28 June 2021]

This series was great. A bit like a larger scale 12 Monkeys project. Complicated, yes. Complex, yes. Intelligent plots, yes. Screw ups by people at every level? Little ones sometimes, big ones here and there. Dedicated team members, and it was mentally fun following how they kept to the rules - mostly. The problems with their love interests in their new bodies added a lot to the plot line.

If they bring this back, I am all for it.

I didn't give it 10 because a few of the episodes had plot lines I thought were a distraction.

I gave it a 9.

Excalibur (1981)

A great treatment of the Arthurian legend

[10/10 · 1 July 2019]

I checked the spoiler box, yet how can a story 800 years old be spoiled by one review? Reviewing the eternal story can hardly miss telling something of the story.

Lo, these many years since I first watched Excalibur, and a few viewings, I have nothing but praise for this movie. Another review pointed at the final battle with Mordred, and I have to put down what I realized the first time watching that scene. I realized that all the main characters were analogs for parts of a person's psyche - male, female, dark side, light side, core energy, wisdom, purity, emotional, hero, warrior, saboteur, logical, etc. (My terms, borrowed from others.) At that moment, I had to flash back through the story to each character and do a quick test. In doing all that I had two linkages that came to mind. One is that eternal stories need to have all these, like Arthur, and like Star Trek, and like hero stories everywhere. For them to last, the more of those essences have characters, the longer the story lives on in the human psyche. I didn't force this - it just hit me. Star Trek had Kirk and Spock and Bones and Uhura and Chekov and Sulu, etc. Each was a part of KIRK's psyche. It was a hero story about the Kirk character. Kirk was the hero. Spock was his logical self. Bones was the emotional self. Uhura was the feminine self. Where the Arthurian story had the MacGuffin item of the sword, Excalibur, Star Trek had what? The Enterprise, perhaps.

In Excalibur, it was a hero story about Arthur, the hero. Guinevere was the feminine self. Merlin the logical self and magical self. Mordred was the dark side of self. Morgana was the feminine dark side. I am not any sort of expert on mythical stories, so I can't take it past that very far. But that both hero stories have endured - Star Trek LONG after I had the first inkling in 1981 (a decade before TNG came along to carry the story forward with Picard and HIS archetypal crew) - and that I DID apply it to Star Trek, too - this suggests that I was onto something. Hero stories last and last. WHY? Because we can see and identify the parts of ourselves in the story and the characters and the challenges and the resolutions, too - in our own self-hero story, of our lives.

Arthur and Mordred HAD to kill each other and die such a wonderful death, to merge their essences, their archetypes, if you will, and to make the hero whole, dark side and light side both within him, and extinguishing both.

Is any of this correct? I find it correct for me, and how I have now viewed both for 38 years. A Long time. All this is besides how lush and textured this telling is. Boorman had become my favorite director before this, but Excalibur took him up to levels unforeseen in my mind before. (I wish he'd been more prolific, but I generally have loved his work.) Even his actors were so excellently chosen, though I can't remember their names. The actress who played Guinevere was so magically and unprotectedly feminine. The Lancelot actor depicted such a pure warrior, almost feminine himself, unable to fight love, his weakness his heart. The Arthur actor was so innocent to so much in life, a Tarot's Fool card, bumping into life even though lord of all the domain. Merlin's actor was so able to allow the powers to rule everything, though he had his fingers on the pulse all the time. Mordred's actor's dark portrayal showed how we are doomed to follow certain paths even to our clear demise, out ahead. The actress's Morgana manipulated for purposes she thought she commanded, so darkly, so insistently, and so doom-pointed for all. It simply was a nearly perfect portrayal of a hero and the many sides he is oblivious to, as the story ends, a fool off into the wild beyond. (Now apply any or all of that to Star Trek, and it fits a lot. Kirk, off 'where no man has gone before" - really? No MAN? This alone tells us it is the story/mythos of the hero, Kirk. That Arthur was also the story's uniter of England, he was taking England where it had not gone before, but also himself.) Carl Jung must have had fun with the Arthurian hero story. I did.

A WONDERFUL movie, with lessons for all us humans, and wonderfully done. A movie not to miss.

Logan (2017)

Resolutions and well done

[9/10 · 11 May 2019]

I am not a big X-Men fan, but I have seen most of them. Compared to most of what passes for movies these days, they are well done and have good story lines. This one was no exception. Put upon people of any kind tend to just wish it could all go away, and would those a-holes just STOP? Drama galore and violence galore here, in a fairly basic plot, but one fleshed out well.

I rated it a 9, and it deserved it.

Pixels (2015)

What's with this pompous need for character development when you've got Ghostbusters?

[8/10 · 11 October 2015]

In perusing the reviews for this movie, the usual Adam Sandler haters seem to be out in force, demanding that he give them their full measure of character development.

Well, in a word, they are wrong.

The other big word in the reviews seems to be something called "FUN".

This is a fun movie, with no pretenses and no pomposity, just a basic plot - our heroes save the world in THEIR way, and the hero gets the girl. Adam Sandler plays his usual humble character who starts out as a loser and ends up with impressing the girl and doing the seeming impossible. He came up with a novel scenario and meets the fun needs of the viewers. At least the ones who didn't start out the movie intending to hate it.

MY OWN TAKE ON IT was that it was an update of Ghostbusters, and even included ghosts of a sort (PACMAN ghosts) in the process. It was pretty much Bill Murray and company battling surreal enemies, engaging in witty repartee with the heroine, and using similar pasted-together high-tech devices to battle the enemy with. I was half expecting "Don't cross the streams!" somewhere along the line. Or "...Cats and dogs living together".

I thought it was a nice romp.

I DO wonder if anyone panned Ghostbusters as much when it came out.

Chappie (2015)

Quite Enjoyable

[9/10 · 4 June 2015]

To begin with, I like Sci-Fi, so read this review with that in mind. The action was excellent and frequent, so anyone who doesn't like action at all won't like this. I have my limits on action, but this movie didn't exceed my capacity. I THINK that it was because the main characters wee allowed to show multiple sides - what in school we called "rounded characters". Chappie certainly was multi-faceted, as was the gang-banger who was Chappie's "daddy". Chappie's "mommy" showed different sides, a human side, after starting out as only a gang-banger.

I thought this was going to be something like Millennium Man, but wow, was it not. At first I didn't like it that Chappie was 'signed up' with the bad guys - the gang-bangers. But it went in clever directions, almost with the entire story. The movie was fast-paced, and Chappie developed quickly and perhaps too fast to really follow - but that really helped keep the pace of the story moving.

The resolution was very heart-warming, to me, but I won't give it away.

Having Hugh Jackman as a flawed bad guy was a trip. A bit monomaniacal.

I thoroughly enjoyed this flic. I easily could have given it a 10, but also perhaps an 8, so ended up at 9.

The ending seems to have allowed for a sequel. If there is one, I will watch it and hope it is as good as the original. I am a Chappie fan now.

The Postman (1997)

Much, MUCH better than the critics rated it

[8/10 · 8 January 2015]

The first time I watched this movie, I was expecting it to likely be crap. Siskel and Ebert had given it 2 thumbs down. But then, being a Chicago resident for all of their years together and knowing their schtick, I almost never agreed with Siskel. Ebert yes, and after watching this that first time, I disagreed with Ebert, too. I am sorry they are neither one still with us, but they had a good run.

As far as I know, those friends of mine who've seen the movie thought it was a decent movie, too.

As to the movie itself, I just read that the movie was supposed to be a dark movie with a dark ending. I am glad it didn't. What the hell is the matter with the idea that has a positive ending?

I LIKED the characters except the antagonists (aren't we supposed to?). I liked the story line, and I liked Costner's character and was pulling for him the whole way.

At the time I had a clear sense that Costner had gotten on the bad side of the Hollywood press after Dances With Wolves. Too much success for one guy? Jealousy in a me-me-me LA society? They all seemed to be VIPERS, after his blood. Maybe even Siskel and Ebert didn't want to rock their boat when word came down to sink Kevin's ship.

I've seen the movie 4 times now, and will probably see it 2 or 3 times more. COMPARED TO THE UTTER AND TOTAL CRAP - CAPITAL C!-R!-A!-P! - MOVIES OUT THERE THE LAST 15 YEARS OR MORE, THIS MOVIE IS A FAIRLY GREAT MOVIE.

I recommend it, and my name is Steve Garcia. 8 stars out of 10. I don't care what the Opinion Popes of Hollywood say about it.

Timequest (2000)

What emotions this brought out about what might have been. . .

[9/10 · 6 September 2014]

(I am not sure if what I've said has spoilers or not, so I checked the box, just in case...)

Wow, this movie ended up getting to me.

First of all, I think the script writer and director did their homework. So many of the details of that day in Dallas, of Jack and Bobby and Jackie, they had SPOT ON. The Abraham Zapruder parts - as small as they were - were amazingly correct.

The idea of going back and stopping the JFK assassination has been around a good long while. It is probably THE moment millions of people would want to change. Me included.

So much changed that day in Dallas.

Even today, it seems like there was so much more that America could be, could do, and could inspire, in us and in the world. So much was cut short, and so many live with that loss.

This movie doesn't go into what JFK and RFK would have done (except for Viet Nam and the CIA). And I think leaving that open was the right decision. But even just a world without Richard Nixon as President would be a better world to have lived in. Without Reagan and his voodoo economics that have sold the USA to the highest bidders and the economic rapists - that would be a better world to not have gone through (and that rape isn't over yet). The turn to the right surely would have been forestalled, if not pushed back forever. America has been in demise since the end of the 1960s, and that did NOT have to happen. It's good that the rest of the world has increased in prosperity. It was NOT necessary that the USA slid so far.

I thought the cuts made in time were especially spot on.

I literally teared up near the end of the movie, just being reminded of what we lost that day, how horrible it was, and the pain that reached round the world.

For such an obviously low-budget movie, I thought this was terrifically well done. The atmosphere was terrific, and capturing the spirit of Jack and Jackie, plus Robert - it was really a trip down memory lane, and three such tragic figures on OUR history.

If there are parallel time lines - alternate histories - those with Jack and Bobby not getting murdered I think certainly have better histories for the USA from 1963 till now.

If I myself could go back and change that day, I would - in a heartbeat.

I hope that someday the director reads this review and realizes how much of a cord he struck with me - and I think with many others who will someday see this small but very wonderful movie.

Coupling (2000–2004)

Oh, Gawd. . . This sitcom may have redefined funny... especially sexy funny

[10/10 · 1 August 2014]

THIS show is absolutely the funniest show ever. The first three seasons, anyway.

Some years ago I arrived at the conclusion that humor is at its core, simply absurdity - the absurdity of the unexpected punch line. You have a set-up - called a straight man in the past - and then you deliver a line out of left field, and then everyone blurts out (laughs) their reaction to the absurdity. And the more absurd, the funnier. If the unexpected isn't part of it - if any of it can be seen a mile away - then it won't have the impact.

Well, this show has the most absurdity you will find anywhere, any when. The impact of the humor is just amazing. At any moment, a line out of nowhere. And topping the charts even within this Top O' The Charts ensemble, is Jeff. Bumbling Jeff. Absurd Jeff. Ohmygod Jeff. I am not sure they ever wrote a line for Jeff that wasn't off the wall, over- the-top absurd. If they did, I must have missed it while tending to my aching abdomen muscles and wiping the tears. You name it, and Jeff put his foot in his mouth over it - and the greatest thing about it is that he (the character) never even knows he's stepped in it. Well, actually, not quite true - but his efforts to extricated himself are even more absurd than his initial blurts. Jeff the Burter. Jeff the abysmally horrible self-extricator.

Situational comedy is, then, setting up absurd situations and letting fly with all the silly absurdities that will arise. Well, welcome to the capitol of all absurd situation comedies. They don't miss a punch line - and often slip in 3 or 4 even before the one you might expect.

So MANY times you the audience just want to let your head sag, as Jeff digs himself deeper and deeper.

And yet, Jeff is not the star, though he steals the show so often. Steve bumbles his way out of the arms of one and into the arms of another, and does such a cuddly Jeff-imitation in the process that even the one left behind can't hate him. Susan, even while being the "straight man" for so many situations, manages her full share of "yowch" lines and physical humor. (Episode #1 has a doozy.) Jane is the dizziest woman since Gracie Allen, 50 years earlier - but 10,000 times hotter. And yet, as hot as Jane is, Susan is more so. Wow, one of the all-time beautiful blonds. Even if she is a bit "perky"...LOL Über oblivious, womanizer Patrick and his manhood are the object of many a scene (mostly unseen scenes, except in the imagination), and the audience is the beneficiary of the great writing that exposes them to his prowess. Cosmetologist Sally is the most normal of the ensemble, and yet her aging "vanity" (and its situations) still outdoes anything on "Sex and the City."

A gem of gems, Coupling is to die for, to laugh out loud at, and to watch again every year or two, just to wallow in the absurdity of it all.

If I could give it as many as 20 stars, I would. Alas! 10 is all they allow, so 10 it is...

p.s. In Season 4, when Jeff no longer is on the show, the replacement character is simply 7 notches down from Richard Coyle and his characterizations. For that season, the show drops to about 6. What a loss Coyle was to the ensemble. . .

Who Was I?: My Past Lives (2014– )

A topic long overlooked

[7/10 · 4 June 2014]

I hadn't known this show was out. Not sure it still is. Only 2 episodes. I enjoyed it. It is a little bit over-dramatic, but the four stories I've seen were pretty moving. Some may say reincarnation is hooey, but more people in the world believe in it than don't. So it is every bit as valid a topic as many other religious or philosophical subjects. To tackle it at the street level like this is overdue. He regresses people who think they might learn something about why they have certain worries or concerns. None of the people turned up famous lifetimes, so that is one thing in its favor: Not everybody can be Napoleon or Cleopatra, after all. Their past life accounts were about really ordinary people for the days and ages asserted - a soldier, 2 mothers, a circus family member, a sailors. Their pertinent past lives each included some tragic event or situation that did seem to bear on their current life concerns. I've seen other past life connection videos, and this one had a feel of those others, even if it is produced in a slightly over-dramatic way.

The counselor/hypnotist seems as well grounded as I would want in a hypnotist - not a lot of bull, not a lot of pandering, just trying to help the patients come to their own realization. I'd give HIM an 8.5 or so on his solidity. I did enjoy the episodes and I hope the show is still going.

For those of us who DO believe in reincarnation (most of the world), it is nice to see this presented at all. I was into it with them. I'd like to see more. I guess that latter is the bottom line for a viewer, isn't it? Make my vote a 7.5.

Cannery Row (1982)

Great Movie, Uninformed Reviewers

[9/10 · 10 March 2014]

An astounding number of people here went off half crazed that this story didn't match the book. The joke is on them. Continue....

I saw this movie nearly 30 years ago and thought it was terrific and that the critics were abysmally wrong about it. Having found it again, and streaming, no less, I decided to treat myself and a friend. As I was waiting for the friend to arrive, I took the time to look up "Cannery Row" on both IMDb.com and Wikipedia. I found out that there was a sequel to Cannery Row, called "Sweet Thursday." It being available for Kindle, I bought it and started reading it.

"Sweet Thursday" begins at the beginning of this movie. Same scenes, same characterizations, same development. This movie is about Sweet Thursday, not Cannery Row, per se. This movie having been out there for 32 years now, that information should be readily available to everyone.

Blame it on John Huston for putting the more well-known name on the movie - but at the same time, the story standing on its own is a really lovable movie. Yes, he gave them more fodder for the "OH.MY.GOD. The script wasn't faithful to the book at all!!!!" brain-dead complaints.

Thus you can tell when reviewers are ill-informed. In this case, they all went in expecting one story and got the other - and they (the ones from the last few years, at least) could have known that, if they'd merely looked it up. But those same people go into a movie judging it not on its own merits, but how they expected it to look and play out. In other words, they weren't judging it based on its own merit, but on their expectations. And HOW is that a fair review???

Of course. It isn't.

This movie has DELIGHTFUL characters - several of them. This movie has a "Boy meets girl" plot. This movie has TERRIFIC atmospheric music. This movie has FABULOUS bemused narration by John Huston. If those aren't enough for people, all of you reading this can just write them off as numb skulls or pompous twits.

Huston's narration is some of the best EVER in Hollywood history, right here in this little gem of a movie. The only movie I can compare it to is the great live-action cartoon "Popeye," the one with Robin Williams and Shelly Duvall (1980). It is the same level of not-quite-reality, with a similar sort of semi-cartoon village, even - Huston's Monterey and Popeye's Sweethaven. (In looking that up, it has a much WORSE rating on IMDb. Which is amazing and unbelievable. EVERY single person I've ever talked about "Popeye" has expressed nothing but awe and amazement at how great it was. There must have been a lot of idiot reviewers for that, too.)

How anyone thinks that a better movie could have been made here is truly mind-boggling.

I give it 9 stars, and I thought about 10.

'Til There Was You (1997)

The Panners are Wrong, including Ebert

[8/10 · 24 November 2013]

The people panning this movie - do they even LOOK at the assembly line, derivative, crap, crap, crap movies Hollywood puts out year after year? No one should pan this movie who has gone to any derivative movie in the last 20 years.

This movie stacks up just fine against many of the light romantic movies of, say, the Jean Arthur or Clark Gable or Spencer Tracy days, or even some of Kate Hepburn's. I tried to watch "Adam's Rib" last week and it was just PAINFUL dialog and stage acting. ["Let's all act like we are acting!"]

Most of the writing and acting in those black and white movies was every bit as cheesy as in this gentle film. And let's not even get into film noir and its cheesiness. Or vampire movies or coming of age movies, in particular.

No, Sarah Jessica Parker couldn't act her way out of a thin paper bag - then or now. Yes, Jean Tripplehorn was miscast and her pratfalls should have been edited out. Dylan McDermott I thought was cast well and performed well, and HIS character was quite sympathetic.

Also, on all three viewings, the movie did engage me enough in wanting the characters to find what they were looking for. Coming back to it 16 years late, this was just as true as my first viewing.

To me - don't laugh - the REAL star of the movie was the open courtyard of La Fortuna, the apartment building. I watch this movie mostly to see the courtyard again. It has a magical atmosphere. I even went looking to find out if it was a real place (it isn't). And the story really does revolve around the courtyard. It's a place I'd have loved to live.

And as it turns out, in watching this movie again (late 2013) I recognized that I actually found an entire TOWN with the atmosphere of La Fortuna, and I live there now. People mill about and come together in any corner, and smile to each other. When I first beheld my current town, I had the same reaction that Tripplehorn had when she stepped into it - and McDermott, too. So now I can be pleased with myself, for having found myself a magical town (officially, even!) to live in.

Zardoz (1974)

Still one of my favorite movies

[10/10 · 16 May 2013]

Goodness. I saw this movie when it first came out, in the theater. Those who have not - even its greatest fans here (and from these reviews this movie has some remarkable fans) - are missing out. From the moment the giant stone head comes floating out of the mist, I was enthralled. I consider it one of the best opening scenes in all of movie history, though fell free to disagree with me. The opening monologue is to die for, ending with, "And you, who conjured you out of the mists?" putting a ten-minute smile on my face. As we walked out of the theater, my friends and I all couldn't stop talking about it. We immediately ruled it one of the best movies we';d ever seen.

I had it in my Top 5 of all time for a really long time. I shortly thereafter moved to a new city, and the crowd there was different. No one had seen the movie, and I was disappointed. Over the next 10-15 years I only found about three people who had seen it. But when I mentioned it, all three were immediately enthused at having found someone else who had seen it. All three considered it among the best movies they'd ever seen.

This was in contrast to the reviews of it. It was everywhere panned as pretentious babble. All that lowered my opinions of professional film critics for a long time to come.

As to the story, dealing with the theme of immortality had (to my knowledge) never been done before (and I don't think it has been tackled since), so Boorman was on new ground, and he picked a good theme out of all the possibles: The utter boredom. The safety of being immune to even accidental death he saw as a killer of the human spirit. Though he had mortal humans "win" in the end, the story was not about the mortals. Their lives were dreary, if an awful lot like Mad Max, sans leftover technology. They were much like the scenes in "Holy Grail" such as "Bring out the dead!" and Arthur confronted by the muddy, dirty rabble who challenged him and the class system.

While the main theme was the total ennui, Boorman didn't stop there. He brought in (as some reviewers here have pointed out) the ideas of the Internet, totally invasive IT, hands-off cell phones, cloning, and massive memory/data storage. I very much liked the topless women, which had only recently become possible in movies. (About 1970 was "I Am Curious Yellow," for example, which caused a furor and more than its share of prosecutions. Does anyone remember the principle of "significant social content"?)

The movie's study of the arousal of Connery's character has been commented on here as being cheesy, even by those who rave over the movie. I disagree. In a small conclave long since bored to tears and with each other, the entry of some excitement of ANY sort - anything at all that hadn't been dealt with 20 times over - this would certainly occur. That it wasn't done artfully enough or subtly enough - hell, the man only had a million dollars to produce the movie with, after all.

This movie made the audience THINK. I do still recall that my friends and I were not the only ones exiting the theater all abuzz. I wonder if today's viewers can find 3 movies in 10 years that does that.

I later watched "Excalibur" and for the first time noticed the name of John Boorman, Director. (I equated the characters in the Arthurian tale with the characters in Star Trek. No, I am not a Trekkie, but find sci-fi one of the most creative of movie genres.) Not so long afterward was "The Emerald Forest," and Boorman became my favorite director. I had those two movies on my Top 10 list then, too. Only a bit later did I realize Boorman had also directed Zardoz, and I was thrilled. One director in my Top 10 three times, and one I didn't even know about!

Oh... Someone else mentioned this, too: Zardoz was the very first VHS movie I ever bought. It cost me $69 plus tax in about 1985 (about $150 now). It was money well spent, though they scrunched the opening scene with the flying head, taking away ALL of its capacity to awe.

This is a movie that needs to be seen on one of those REALLY wide screens that they don't have in theaters anymore.

I also encourage any women who think Sean Connery is hot to see this movie. Him running around in a loincloth and hairy chest, with a long ponytail - I think they will think he is even hotter.

Zardoz is one of the first movies I actually liked Connery in. This and "A Fine Madness." At the time I thought the hoopla about the Bond movies was pretty silly. I thought he just was another face from the '50s. When I found out he could act, I became a fan, too.

BTW, like everyone else, the derivation of "Zardoz" blew me away, too.

I heartily give Zardoz 10 stars out of 10. Especially on a budget of one measly million dollars, it's a hell of a movie. I encourage anyone reading this to read the other 10 and 9 star reviews here. I think every one of them makes terrific reading. I agree with all of them.

For people who don't want to think: Go watch the derivative movies of the last 20 years and enjoy yourselves.

Eli Stone (2008–2009)

An all-time favorite of mine

[9/10 · 10 April 2013]

"Eli Stone" was a magical show, and I am seriously sorry it went off the air.

Oh, I thought most (but not tall) of the dance scenes were just too Broadway and silly for my taste. Some of those performances were a bit embarrassing.

But even with those, goodness, was this show excellent. Eli was an innocent, enough so to make it seem like, yes, even a lawyer can have magic in his life. He was wearing down the other lawyers, bit by bit, too. These were lawyers even Shakespeare wouldn't have wanted to kill first. But some of them took a while to get there - and might not have, if the producers and director didn't want to wind them down, knowing the show was coming to an end. There was plenty more nastiness the show could have shown, to keep tensions up.

Eli Stone was a show that put heart into lawyers, in a way even Ali McBeal" didn't (though without the overall humor).

But it also was a show that simply allowed us to believe that there might be a place in the world for magic.

James Saito (Frank Chen) was excellent as Eli's inscrutable Oriental touchstone. Julie Gonzalo (Maggie Decker) - wouldn't I have loved to take HER home to Mom and Pop.

I gave it 9 stars, and it deserved it. It should never have been canceled.

Chasing Amy (1997)

A little late, but not TOO late, I hope

[9/10 · 10 April 2013]

Spoiler alert.

"Chasing Amy" is a small movie that does everything it set out to do. It is the kind of small movie all independent movies try to be, but that almost none achieve. It shows little lives, little people, little events in ways and language we all can understand and identify with. Even if we haven't fallen in love with a lesbian or written a successful comic book, we all want to know what it might be like - and the former, would be, for most of us, confusing; the latter would be less glamorous. And no, neither one for any of us would be a subject for an epic film - but would most likely be a film like "Chasing Amy."

There are moments of confusion for Holden, as his absorbed ideas about homosexuality are challenged by reality, and his feelings when confronted with open sexuality in an undisguised, un-Hollywood young hotty, in Alyssa. He's lived a cloistered life; that is made abundantly clear by Kevin Smith's excellent reality-based writing and directing. Smith obviously know the world he is portraying.

"Chasing Amy" is, in a way, like "Before Sunset" but with a lesbian, and without Paris - the one that got away, and with Holden wondering what in the world he was supposed to do.

This is a movie I loved from moment one. I had not seen "Clerks", so it was my introduction to Kevin Smith. I got a thing going for Joey Lauren Adams that is still going on. And Jay and Silent Bob are the funniest two characters I've seen in films in decades. Any of us who doesn't know a Jay has simply not lived in the USA of the late 20th century till now.

This is a movie I never miss seeing if the opportunity comes up.

The bar booth scene with Banky and Alyssa comparing dating notes is priceless - right up there with Jack Nicholson ordering a sandwich in the diner in "Five Easy Pieces."

I'd give "Cahsin Amy" a 10, but, though it achieves everything it sets out to do, it is just that one little bit that Kevin Smith didn't try to do with it that holds me back. Heck, if he had tried for more, he might have messed it up, so I should be glad he didn't. It is pretty much perfect the way it is. I debated between 9 and 10, and my 9.49 has to round down...LOL

Great flick!

Herman's Head (1991–1994)

One of my All-Time favorite shows

[10/10 · 17 October 2012]

Yeah, 10 stars. This quirky show had me blurting soup out of my nose once - after that I didn't dare eat soup while watching it, ever again. I have enjoyed reading the earlier user reviews, and everything they said about how funny it was I agree with. Mr Bracken would come out and say some of the most absurd things, but then would spout out facts like the script writers wrote them for him (LOL). Heddy was so hot, I would liked to have been Herman, but I would have shut up the girl and scared dude i his head. Lust would have won out, and why not? Heddy was so totally hot. Jane Sibbett played her to perfection. Jay was as shallow and callous as they could make him, and that was fine with me; it set up lots of funny scenes. I agree with some here about Louise - I thought she was also hot in her way. But the funniest character on the show was Mr Crawford. The way he couldn't get Herman's name right was always a hoot, and then he got himself into such ridiculous situations. I wish they had spun him off - a show based on him would have been hilarious. This is one show I totally wish they would put on the air SOMEWHERE. I loved it. Herman's Head and Northern Exposure.

Someone said Herman was a flat character, but that isn't possible, since he did have the four characters in his head and he was alternately devilish (read: horny) and angelic. At the same time, the least funny person on Seinfeld was Jerry. He was just a grounding character so everyone crazy around him would have a touchstone to (semi-) reality. Herman was the same.

10 stars out of 10. Heck, ten stars out of 5! I loved this show.

No te mueras sin decirme adónde vas (1995)

Reincarnation done wistfully

[10/10 · 1 April 2012]

This is why I watch foreign films, because once in a while I can find a movie like this. This movie manages to take wistful and make en entire movie out of it. Even at that, I never knew what was coming next (always a good thing). The ending was not what I would have expected. And then it was the next day before I got what the entire movie was about. Oh, it already stood by itself, in my mind. But when it hit me, it was like, "Oh, wow, yeah, NOW I get it!" It's possible some may watch this and never get it - what I realized later - but I hope they do.

Reincarnation is dear to my heart, which is why I put this in my Netflix queue and then moved it to the top. There is so much you can do with reincarnation themes. And this film treats it both respectfully (not totally necessary, but nice if it happens) and explores the implications and how it might work for some (maybe for all). Few films do the latter well.

It treats love across the lifetimes warmly and at a soul level, never letting us forget that desire is part of it, but never letting that be the driver.

Whether life goes on or it doesn't, our thoughts on it and the way we treat it in movies won't make any difference. But this film does present a love story/sci-fi version that is well worth it.

I give it 10 stars, not because it is about reincarnation, but because the story is well told, has surprises, and allows our minds to get involved. We should all have an across-the-lifetimes love like Leopoldo and Rachel have in this film.

Bringing Out the Dead (1999)

A God awful film - has to be Scorcese's worst

[1/10 · 6 February 2010]

If it was not his worst movie, it is scary to contemplate something worse.

I simply could not have given this anything but a 1. Negative scores were not available. If they had, I'd have given it a negative 5 or 6.

From the opening moments, the over-theatricalization of this film was cartoonish. Every scene in the ER was packed with concentrated on-camera ridiculousness. Every over-loaded cliché about "how hard life is in the Big City" was compressed into the waiting room - people yelling at anyone and everyone, blood all over the place, rudeness piled upon rudeness, and everyone a Puerto-Rican, a black or a loser/street person/alcoholic/druggie/psycho - or some combination of the above.

The makeup was unbelievably bad.

The dialog was written by whom? My god, the worst, most over-the-top in any movie in recent memory. The actors must have asked for bonus pay, just to be required to utter such stupidity.

The driving scenes may have been the worst of all. Cage went several seconds on several occasions without even looking at where the vehicle was going. All this while his driving had the steering wheel movements enough to have crashed into cars on both sides of the street. And the psychotic, sociopathic qualities of the characters.

The actors must have been originally glad to be cast in a Scorcese film, but with this movie they must all cringe when they see themselves in it.

This movie's overall quality is something below "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes." While some readers may take that as a compliment, I assure you I meant it as a scurrilous comment.

To paraphrase the line from "Billy Madison," everyone here is dumber for having watched this; I award it no points, and may God have mercy on Scorcese's soul.

Were I able to give this a minus score, I would have.

An utter waste of time. I only watched it through to the end because a friend's film discussion group was going to discuss it and invited me, so I felt obligated to watch it all. The comments by others were quite decent, so since I was new to the group, I just shut my mouth so as not to seem like an a**hole. It was, "Oh, Scorcese!" this and "Oh, Scorcese!" that. I wanted to puke.

This movie is just BAD. Had it been a Weird Al Yankovic movie I could see the silly characterizations. I expected WAAAAY more out of Martin Scorcese.

The January Man (1989)

Godawful writing

[1/10 · 12 October 2009]

IF YOU ARE THINKING OF WATCHING THIS FOR THE FIRS TIME, SAVE YOURSELF THE TIME AND GO TRIM YOUR TOENAILS...

This movie is a perfect example of 1970s shlock movies. It was a transition period for Hollywood, so it was a period they had to go through, as they came out of the 1950s-1960s with the terrible acting styles of the Doris Day era. We, the viewing audience had to endure it all, but holy jumpin' jehosephat, some of them sucked.

The words they put into these actors' mouths - I am shocked they didn't rebel against the writers and directors with, "WTF? Are you seriously expecting me to speak THOSE words?" Who wrote this, the kid in Pink Floyd's "The Wall" video who "makes himself out to be a poet"? It is just PAINFUL to listen to the dialog.

The term "gratuitous nudity" probably began with this movie. Rickman as a bad Maynard G Krebs slash Vincent van Gogh is bad enough, but the nude bimbo "model" in this one is just plain embarrassing for American cinema.

And Rod Steiger somehow forgot how to act some time before he signed to play the mayor. Or was he that bad all the time and we just didn't notice? Actually, I have to put the low level of this on the director's shoulders - he has authority to overrule bad writing and bad acting and turn it into something palatable. Danny Aiello, Harvey Keitel, Sarandon are just abysmal in this one.

I award this 1 star, which is about 2 stars more than it deserves. I give it -10 stars on both writing and directing. May God have mercy on their souls...

Stargate Universe (2009–2011)

I watched the pilot of SGU on Hulu (all 3 hours) last night. . .

[3/10 · 11 October 2009]

UPDATED COMMENT NOV 21 2009: This show can't keep on the way it is going. All the potential in the world, and they are just doing the biggest downer show ever. The writers have to come out of their collective clinical depression, and soon, or they will lose me. It is taking them, what? Half an entire year and they haven't gotten anywhere except back to Earth two by two with the stones, where the clinical depression is not ameliorated, but exacerbated. My god, writers! Producers, let them have a success at SOMETHING, PLEASE!

You're losin' me, people! And you had me drooling just a few weeks ago. This show has become all TALK TALK TALK TALK, YAK YAK YAK. The biggest drama is a psycho among the "crew" itself and what happens on Earth? WHAT KIND OF SCIENCE FICTION IS THIS? They are billions of light years from Earth and the biggest drama is family issues? Oh, heart, don't fail me now! That is sarcasm, just in case no one got it.

Who in their right mind wants to watch such depressive people and plot twists? And even the psychology is weak, ground trod over a gazillion times here on planet Earth, in soap operas day and night.

I won't watch more than a couple more episodes before I abandon ship on this turkey.

Seriously, the one guy who is trying to be the biggest optimist and who has the best chance of getting them anywhere is held on a short leash by some guy with a TSA mentality. There isn't a damned character in this with any gumption except Rush, and he's the most depressive, dark, secretive one of the lot. Eli's lightness is 95% too weak to save this and make it entertaining.

Entertainment - has anyone involved with this show heard of entertainment? (A hint: It starts with good writing and good plots.)

This is not just disappointment; this is NOT a good show at the moment. They are giving us less and less reason to root for these people. NO PROGRESS IS BEING ALLOWED FOR THEM TO DO ANYTHING POSITIVE. They don't get anywhere, geographically (as in no planets with aliens - hint, hint) and no appreciable technological breakthroughs. The one device they found in this episode, rather than letting them use it or try to find out who if anyone can use it, they stifle the hell out of it.

This is about as entertaining as watching a boorish father send his kids to bed without dinner. WOW! That's exciting! (more sarcasm...)

UPDATED RATING: 3, vs 7 earlier. Down 4 points in 6 weeks IS NOT GOOD.

DOWNSIDE DOWNSLIDE The downside is that 3 is still on the downslide, too, so a later review update might come in at 2 or even 1.

. . . . .

ORIGINAL RATING: 7 out of 10 (OCT 11 2009)

Welcome Danger (1929)

Happy to discover this movie

[7/10 · 23 September 2007]

*** Spoiler alert *** In reading the other reviews of this movie, I realize that I am not up to snuff on silent movies or Harold Lloyd. I have only seen a couple of his films and they were so long ago I can't remember their names. But he left an impression, and when I saw that American Movie Classics was showing his first talkie along with Buster Keaton's first talkie (Free and Easy) in tandem, why I had to make time for them. It was one of my most enjoyable evenings in a while.

The first real revelation to me in this movie was the young Barbara Kent. Ohmygod is she a doll in this - bubbly, energetic, pixie-ish, and with a very delightful voice. Yes, her character is monumentally dumb for taking Lloyd's abusive treatment up until the moment he realizes she is the young lady in his double-exposed quickie photo that he has become enamored of. But she was a true delight to discover. I'd never even heard her name before.

As a sidelight, I discovered tonight that she is also still alive, at least as of earlier this year (2007). She is now 100 years old, and living in Sun Valley, Idaho, apparently. I'd like her to know she is still winning fans and admirers even at this late date.

As for Lloyd and the rest of the picture, it was quite a bit similar other films I've seen of the era, yet quite a bit better. I enjoyed his Harry-Potter-like characterization, Bledsoe's ability to call on luck, pluck and sharp mind to get through scrapes. It actually hearkened to a Jack Armstrong view of young men that - at least in Hollywood - seemed to abound in that time period. That he would win out in the end and get the girl seemed to be taken for granted by the film makers of the era, who had only to show how it was accomplished. With Billie (Ms Kent) as both his encourager and his goal, it was a delight to watch him Bledsoe fight through to the end.

I hope to have the opportunity to see many more of Lloyd's films, and especially to find more films with Barbara Kent.

I agree with those whose reviews admired how well Lloyd adapted to talkies. I was apprised before the film started of the fact that some of this was filmed silently and then dubbed over, so I could not be critical of that aspect. I can imagine and appreciate the newness they all faced, and the shifting of gears necessary. For a transition film, I thought this was an ace - not perfect, but tackling it head on and letting the chips fall where they may. I liked the story line, and did not think - like others have stated - that it was too long.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

Such an overrated made-for-TV flick

[5/10 · 30 June 2007]

Back in 1977, I was able to go to the theater and go right into the theater in Kankakee, IL, and thought, "Wow! Everyone everywhere else is standing in line, and we got right in!" Then, two hours later, I was asking myself, "What the hell? THAT was what all the hoopla is all about?" I'd seen better science fiction flicks as a kid in the 50s.

Prior to seeing it, a co-worker had gushed about it, and I asked him what it was about. He told me the plot, and when he got done, I asked, "And then...?" I thought he'd described the opening half hour. And he said, "That's the story. That's all of it." After watching it, I was still asking that question, "Where is the rest of the story?"

The plot was simplistic, the dialog inane (when everyone thought that about the three new Star Wars episodes, they were in the majority), the characters really 'flat' and not very interesting. C3P0 and R2D2 as comic relief were just plain inadequate.

To this day, I think people were just sheep, thinking that they had to say wonderful things about this movie, so they did. The amazing thing to me is that 30 years later, they are still not seeing this as the average B-movie that it is.

Look, I LIKE Harrison Ford, and I LIKE the other actors in the movie, especially Alec Guiness. Okay, Mark Hamill wasn't Larry Olivier, but he is at least likable. And James Earl Jones has the best voice ever. But for this movie to be considered one of the best 20 movies of all time? Color me out of the mainstream.

I agree with probably 8 out of the other 19 top-20 movies, so I must not be too freaking alien. Why is this movie given such status? I just don't get it.

March of the Penguins (2005)

Incredible - as in incredibly boring

[1/10 · 18 September 2005]

I saw essentially the same story on a nature TV program several years ago. That one took a half hour, which is - as Goldilocks would put it j-u-u-u-u-ust right. . . This one she would have fallen asleep during, so she would have mistaken it for the just right bed.

This - THIS - was monumentally SLOW, glacially so. Ohmygod, so slow!

And why did they have to have Morgan Freeman use his hypnotist-like, sleep-inducing narration? Couldn't they have spiced it up with SOME enthusiasm?

THIS is the movie we all fell asleep in class in 6th grade. I challenge ONE science teacher to show this without half the class sawing logs.

This is the most overrated "small" movie I can remember.

I rate it a 1 here, but would give it a 1.5 if I could. I am not sure why.

B-O-O-O-O-ORING. . .

Jet Lag (2002)

I finally like Binoche, at least a little bit

[7/10 · 12 February 2005]

Jean Reno. Has he ever done a portrayal I wouldn't like? Probably, but so far, I haven't seen it. With longer hair, he even looks attractive - in between "fits". Well, speaking of fits, he and Juliette Binoche fit quite well here. Well done, well done, well done, Jean et Juliette.

Unlike the users whose reviews I just browsed through, I am not a Juliette Binoche fan AT ALL. In the "Unbearable Lightness of Being", she did the most godawful concept of a female orgasm ever. I got the distinct impression she had never been present when a woman had ever climaxed. In "Chocolat" I kept looking at my lady love with a quizzical look of "Are you kidding?", and she reciprocated with a "My god, this is the most overrated movie of the year". And her part in "The English Patient" was a non-part, at least as she portrayed it.

All that bashing over, FINALLY here is a part where all the hoopla about her shows some meat behind it. That it happens in a Rock Hudson-Doris Day type movie that could have been done in 1955 (not counting the movie's Best Supporting Actor candidate - Reno's cell phone) is remarkable. Maybe Binoche is an actress out of her time, who knows? Most folks apparently would disagree with me on that, but that IS my story, and I am sticking to it, come hell or high water - or French air traffic controllers on strike.

I recommend this flic for a really good time at the movies, albeit showing on the small screen at your local living room. I call it a French flic rather than the usual "film", because it seems more American than French. I give it 7 stars out of 10, Reno a 9 and Binoche a 9. -2 for the flic due to fluff, but some of the best fluff out there. Normal flic fluff gets a -5!