Change Your Image
markbond
Reviews
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980)
We finally understand what it was meant to be...
"Superman: The Movie" (1979) is without question or debate the greatest superhero film ever made, and will stand as the standard by which all other superhero films (DC, Marvel, etc.) will be judged. The quick answer as to why it remains THE BEST can be summarized in three words: Reeve, Donner, & verisimilitude (i.e. realistic believability). Unfortunately, for the past 30 years, we have been forced to accept Superman II without Donner or his demand for verisimilitude in a Superman movie. With director Richard Lester, we got a slapstick, comical, ridiculous, unbelievably awful sequel. With Lester, we had Superman throw a plastic "S" off his chest which became a suffocating blanket to the villains. We have the three villains fly by Mount Rushmore to carve their faces into the mountain. And, we have Superman's most ridiculous power: the amnesia kiss, which makes Lois Lane conveniently forget her adventures with Superman.
Thank God we can finally watch Superman II without cringing in pain.
The Richard Donner cut edits-back-in the serious continuing storyline of the father-son dynamic between Superman & Jor-El (Marlon Brando). When Superman relinquishes his powers, its a heart-stopping moment. When he returns and begs his father's forgiveness, it nearly brings you to tears. The action is serious (the attack on the White House) - the jokes are surgically removed (the honeymoon suite) - and the verisimilitude (i.e. the notion that the world on-screen is relatable to the audience; they believe they could inhabit the fictional world on screen because its shown so believably) has returned. Though its not perfect (as it only would be if every single frame would have been shot by Richard Donner) it gives us a glimpse of the intended perfection the film would have been. And that glimpse is wonderful, exciting, and satisfying.
I don't care that this version does not go in sync with "Superman Returns" nor that the ending is basically the same as "Superman: The Movie" ...what I care most about is that this DVD has absolutely NO RIGHT TO EXIST, and yet here it is sitting beside me. A lost Christopher Reeve Superman movie, directed by Richard Donner...this is the stuff dreams are made of.
The Legend of Zorro (2005)
Worth the 7-year wait
Someone needs to defend "the legend of Zorro". I am reading all kinds of reviews which criticize this movie for very minor details, when, in fact, this movie is really just trying to have fun.
First - "Legend of Zorro" is nothing at all like the "Spy Kids" junk, which critics claim to see remarkable similarities. Yes, we know Antonio Banderas was in both films, and in both films his kids come to save the day...but the similarities stop there. The young actor they found to play Joaquin isn't there to be scenery, but is involved in the story like any other character, and even better - he's not painful to watch act (and he's got some great dialogue, too).
Second - I enjoyed the fact that the storyline did not become a predictable, routine sequel. If we waited seven years to just watch Zorro fight another bad guy while mom & son stayed home...I would be angry. But the story used Elena and Joaquin in very creative ways. The only way its predictable is that Zorro saves the day - but just as to how he gets there, I never saw it coming.
Third - I will admit, this is nowhere near the same level-of-quality that we saw in "Mask of Zorro". They set the bar far too high (and they let two other jerks BESIDES Ted Elliot & Terry Rossario write the movie). The comic relief was at times excessive, there were a few unnecessary Zorro backflips, leaps, and jumps in the fight scenes...but how can you absolutely dismiss a sequel for not being perfect? "The Legend of Zorro" met my expectations for a sequel, though did not surpass them. I still consider "the Mask of Zorro" to be THE BEST action/adventure film of the last 20 years. But to say "Legend" was outright horrible is just not fair. This is meant to be fun escapism, set in a beautiful 1850's California, starring actors who clearly are having a fun time, filled with sword fights, evil villains, great chases, and a clever story.
Its only unforgivable sin was not finding one "in" - any "in" - that allowed Anthony Hopkins a cameo (like a flashback or a dream or something).
If Only (2004)
Second Chances. Destiny. Love. Hewitt.
As a single guy, I don't usually go out of my way to watch romantic "chick flicks" (especially if you need to have the DVD mailed to you from Asia). However, after viewing the trailer and seeing promise, as well as a scantily clad Jennifer, I bought the movie without having seen it.
After watching the movie, I'm still not sure whether I liked it or not.
Don't get me wrong, the movie was incredible. Without any bias or exaggeration, Jennifer Love Hewitt was amazing. She portrayed such a genuine presence on the screen, such a true character, you easily lose the fact that is is JLo. Maybe I just really got into it, but I believe her performance validated the movie.
More so, the writing in this movie was incredible. Though you naturally compare the story-form with Bill Murray's "Groundhog Day", with using second chances to find love, this movie uses the theme of inevitability far better. But...
(Spoiler Below) ...it was the "inevitable" theme that just did not sit right. Call me a girl, but I wanted a happy ending. One thing, something, ANYTHING should have been done to prevent that ending. Don't get me wrong, I understand the "moral" or "lesson" given, but I just can't stand it.
What went wrong? In so many words, 'a woman wrote the movie'. A female screenwriter decided that themes of "giving your life for the one you love" and "tis better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all" were better than "happily ever after".
I completely disagree. And for the first time in my life, I will do what my mother does when she sees a movie ending she dislikes: I'm writing my own. I'll stop the movie 5 minutes before it ends, and breath a sigh of relief that they live happily ever after in Ohio.
Fever Pitch (2005)
Better than most romantic comedies
Speaking as a die-hard Red Sox fan, I can say this is the movie I've waited for all my life. The Farrelly brothers document the historic 2004 season and incorporate it remarkably well into the storyline. However, anyone who enjoys baseball will enjoy this movie if you go into it expecting a fun, romantic comedy.
Though its directed by Bobby & Peter Farrelly, they did not write it. Therefore, do not expect "Dumb & Dumber" humor - but rather a clever, original comedy that is not over the top.
Jimmy Fallon is perfectly cast, though you wouldn't necessarily label him the romantic lead. The disappointment was Drew Barrymore. You got the feeling that she was, well, bored. It didn't look like she was having fun - and that took away something I think.
Otherwise, this is definitely something to check out. It is a far more intelligent movie than it lets on. The conversations that Jimmy Fallon's character has with his "Summer Family," for instance, are really well done.
So check it out - unless you're a Yankee fan. If you're a Yankee fan, firstly I pity you, and secondly rent the film "Damned Yankees," you'll like it better.
Die Another Day (2002)
An insult to any true Bond fan...
(Spoilers below)
The first hour of this movie is perhaps the best hour filmed by Brosnan as James Bond. The opening chase, the great twist before the credits, and Bond being ripped of his license to kill...
but then the writers & director manage to kill whatever dignity was left in the character of 007
an invisible car?? Bond willing his heart to stop??? A fight amongst laser beams?? A 'death star' with heat beam?? DNA-altering identity changes???
Who writes this crap!! This is an insult to the audience, especially if you're a James Bond fan. This is an insult to everything that Connery, Moore, & even Dalton put into the character. Bond is a man - albeit an extraordinary man - but he's human. Ian Fleming (God rest his soul) said "Bond can go wildy beyond the improbable, but never beyond the impossible". Fleming himself would not watch this crap. Albert R. Broccoli - producer for 35 years would never have filmed this monstrosity. It breaks my heart, but i want this movie to fail at the boxoffice. Maybe then the producers will come to their senses, that they have nothing to fear in competition with "XXX" and "mission: impossible". This movie series has always had an audience. Why try to become a clone of "XXX"...which in itself is a clone of Bond?! Dismal.
Dr. Otto and the Riddle of the Gloom Beam (1985)
Jim Varney alone is worth the viewing...
The only reason that the movie is considered to be part of the Ernest P. Worrell series is because the character of Ernest appears for 2 minutes at the beginning and end of the film. But you should not track down a copy of the film only to see Ernest. The best part of the movie is the very dark, very funny characters that come right out of Jim Varney's imagination.
This is a very dark comedy about an evil, dispicable, deformed guy named "Dr. Otto Von Schnick-ick-ick-ick". He had a horrible childhood which he blames on his parents (whom prayed nightly that Otto would run away), and on his days in High School. Now, he hates everyone and everything, and hopes to destroy the world with his "gloom beam". He is heard to remark, 'my gloom beam will level entire cities, and maybe, hopefully, take out a couple homeless orphans and their puppies as a bonus!!'
Varney also plays 4 other characters in the film. A stuttering Australian mercenary that runs a Day Care Center for teaching children how to become militia. A Pirate with a parrot permanently on his shoulder who calls everyone "Jim". The old woman with the neck brace (who appears in every Ernest movie) who complains about her sons who no longer care for her. And 'Jim Dandy'- the richest man on Earth.
this is a must for any Ernest fan, and for everyone else, watch the movie, but fast forward whenever Jim Varney isn't on screen.
EDtv (1999)
Nothing AT ALL like "the Truman Show"
This poor film can't have one single review without the film "The Truman Show" being mentioned in comparison. I get sick and tired of this happening constantly to great films. "The Truman Show" is a drama, about a person being taken advantaged of without his knowing, and his fight for freedom and the truth. "EDtv" is a comedy (albeit, with some drama), about personal privacy, fame, and relationships. You cannot compare these films just because of ONE similarity: the main characters life is on TV 24-hours per day.
A similar example can be seen with "The Sixth Sense". This was a fantastic film about certain characters being able to see ghosts. Two weeks later, a film named "Stir of Echoes" is released, and automatic references to "Sixth Sense" are made. Each film is fantastic in their ghost stories and twists. And yet, "Stir" didn't have a chance after reviewers compared it to "Sense". It was a great film, but it was killed before people had a chance to see it for themselves. Unfortunately, "EDtv" has this disease too.
I never laughed so hard after seeing Matthew McConaughey's character bumble through fame, public opinion, and his relationship with (perfectly cast) Jenna Elfman. Even funnier is the supporting character (again, perfectly cast) of Ed's brother: Woody Harrelson. The most surprising, and perhaps most likable character, is the one portrayed by Ellen DeGeneres!! This is one of those lost, great comedies that few people have seen. I highly reccomend it - if you can, see it on DVD.
The Fantastic Four (1994)
A Fun Disaster
The Fantastic Four is by no means a good movie. However, I didn't think it was totally terrible. Although it was made in 1994, if you ever find a copy to watch, just believe the film was made in 1974. Then you can forgive it's shortcomings.
While there is horrible dialogue... ("Hey Mrs. Storm, can Johnny and Susan come and ride in a spaceship with us?"),
and "what-the-hell-were-they-thinking" characters...('The Jeweler' is a Leprechaun-like, hideous-looking bad guy who lives underground commanding idiot homeless people),
and the fact that some characters can't be understood...('Dr. Doom' is incomprehensible because the metal mask he wears muffles his voice),
it is still fun to watch and laugh at.
Jurassic Park III (2001)
It's a blast!!
For all those who left "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" with a bad taste in their mouths, rest assured that "Jurassic Park III" is a dessert that makes up for the meal.
Of course the orginal JP will always be recognized as the best. When Speilberg tried the sequel (which was mediocre at best) 'The Lost World' was simply a ridiculous insult to the fans of 'Jurassic Park'. Thankfully- that wrong has now been corrected.
Jurassic Park III is not a Speilberg movie, it is not a Michael Chrichton story. It is pure Hollywood, and for once, Hollywood did something right. Hollywood remembered that what made the first JP movie wasn't the real-ness of the dinosaurs- it was that the movie was scary! Part III has some of the scariest moments of the trilogy. It's a scary movie, and the writers brought the story back to the basics. It's a resuce mission. It's got scary dinosaurs, unlike it's predessessor 'the lost world' with the ridiculous T.Rex in San Diego.
The new dinosaur of course is king of the movie. The "Spinosaurus" scenes will genuinely scare you! If you've read the Chrichton books, you will recognize that the writers of JP3 stole and adapted some scenes from both books for the film. The movie is pure fun, and a relief that the 'jurassic park' name was not wasted again. You will leave this movie satisfied, scared, and cheering!
The Dark Crystal (1982)
Horrible Film!!
Within this film, this children's film, we see images that, rather than captivate your imagination, they disturb and frighten you. This is a horrible children's film. Albeit, the visuals are truly visual, and the story is bland enough to pass the grade. But Henson, it seems, WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO DISTURB YOU. He not only shows you death, but keeps the camera rolling so you can see the moment of death, and at times, the decomposition! He straps friendly, muppet children into chairs, and literally sucks the life out of them, and the camera doesn't miss a beat. You see the muppet kid's face wither into a skeleton, his "essense" become a liquid- WHY??!! He makes it a purpose to keep the camera on the nicest thing possible, dying a horrible, painful, disgusting death. The images of the "skeksis" will give your children nightmares, guaranteed. Giant beetles with crab like claws hunt down innocent children, and at times are seen killing other nice creatures. What kind of sick children's movie is this? At every advantage to show muppets in pain, being killed (eaten, decomposing, and even stabbed!), i don't care if it is visually unique, this film is horrible- nothing like LABYRINTH. This is SICK.
Hannibal (2001)
Superb
I can't praise this movie enough. I can forgive Ms. Foster for not returning, but if it was anyone else but Hopkins playing Hannibal, it wouldn't have worked. Hopkins stole the show, and held Julianne Moore through the film so she would be able to stand in his presence. She held her own magnificently.
To those who think any less of this masterpiece than 'excellent', you should have your head examined....by Dr. Lector. :)