Change Your Image
tonyhaines-spp
Reviews
The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch (2020)
It's Alive!
Full disclosure, I have read every book, article, I've watched every show, video and listened to every radio show about Skinwalker Ranch. Needless to say I'm into it.
The History Channel has a production style that repeats the narrative too many times. It's like Dori the fish is the audience. In a hour long (48:50) program there is maybe 15 minutes of new content. Once you get past this annoying style the show has potential. I like the team. Each one plays an important role in the story, cool!. There's a medical doctor who has a science background. There's a security guy who is packing serious heat. There's a tech savvy ranch AV guy. And my fav, Tom the cowboy. But here is the problem I see in this show. There needs to be one more expert on the team, an expert in optics. The team gets befuddled over stuff that shows up on video. This expert could help them understand the phenomena better. There is a real phenomena at the ranch. It might be that the History Channel producers pushed dumb story lines because they think we are stupid. I did enjoy the series but like I said, I'm into it!
First Man (2018)
There is NO issue with the U.S. flag!
My pedigree in the "NASA Universe" requires me to see this movie.
Watching it on IMAX was a mistake. The huge screen and the movie full of close-ups is a bad combo. I barely survived it.
As a teenager in 1969 I was a volunteer at a science museum in Florida. Our rocket nerd circle got regular trips to the Cape for launches, some lucky ones even got press credentials. Needless to say, we were, and still are rocket nerds.
This film does a nice job telling the story of Neil Armstrong. His story would not have been noticed in an Apollo 13 style production. His story is small compared to the space program and the monster-sized flame throwing rockets. This film is about the man not the mission, perhaps a gutsy move by the director.
NASA selected Neil Armstrong to be first man on the moon because of his modest and meticulous style. There were few modest personalities in the astronaut corps. The last thing NASA needed was blow-hard "First Man" on The Tonight Show. Neil was known for being a man of few words but, when he did speak he would say exactly the perfect words at exactly the perfect time. The movie over-did the quiet Neil a bit, which added about 5 minutes to the film. It's too bad because when Neil spoke in public the "Hero First Man" came out. This contrast would have been powerful in the movie.
First Man mostly uses realistic in-camera effects techniques, as opposed to computer 3D models and green screen. Combining fresh new sound effects and extreme closeups these flight scenes are breathtaking.
For the propeller heads, great cockpit stuff, launch stuff and I really liked the X-15 sequence.
I'm glad I saw it. I did learn something about Armstrong and that's good!
Dunkirk (2017)
I am Embarrassed for Nolan!
We saw Dunkirk on opening night, I was excited, I'm a huge WW2 buff. The incredible human drama at Dunkirk has mostly been overlooked by Hollywood. So July 20 has been on my calendar for a while. Boy did I fall for the hype!
I must say something positive first... great war footage! I loved the spitfires! Knowing that Nolan shot this move with only a few post effects is impressive. The scenes inside the ships were fantastic.
Now, onto the sad truth as I see it. I wish the producers would have spent some of the $150 million on a script. I didn't know you could shoot a historical period movie with a steep budget and not have one. It's as if this was just a big historical re-enactment of the Dunkirk rescue and the film crew said, hey, we should grab a couple of decent actors and throw some cheesy lines at them, we'll make a movie! There was an old-timer from the business that once told me, "if you've got a great story you can shoot your movie thru banjo strings on black & white film".
I got the impression that Nolan was hell-bent on shooting realistic war footage and he fell in love with those shots and scenes, forgetting that the audience would appreciate a plot. There are so many interesting plot twists from the actual event. We never really saw anything from London, France or Germany where most of the strategy was planned. Nolan focused on the beachhead and the channel. The realism was quite good, but too long and confusing.
The sound track had many problems too. The mix was hot, if you wanted to listen the sparse dialogue, good luck. For some reason the director chose to loop this maddening drone sequence throughout the movie. It was so obvious it had to be intentional. I was hoping the version we saw was just an advance copy with a rough mix, nope. One last thing, I'm not sure the average movie goer will appreciate the way Nolan repeated scenes. Apparently the footage was so good from 4 different angles we should show all of them, back to back.
I get it, great film makers take chances. There have been many examples, especially in the indie- film world of masterpieces that tried risky new techniques, sadly, Dunkirk isn't one of them.
To wrap this up... I'm glad I saw Dunkirk. I think most WW2 buffs will see it no matter what anybody says.
Passengers (2016)
This science nerd liked it!
Some of the early reviews waved off this movie for it's lack of "plausible science". I beg to differ. I had way more issues with Interstellar. Passengers is a complete movie, executed perfectly. You will not hate yourself for buying a ticket. For me Passengers is a "next-day" movie, I'm still thinking about it the day after. The effects are perfect. The script is organic and at times funny. The story is compelling. The acting was excellent. It's a movie that has something for everyone, not just sci-fi nerds. I'm glad I saw this movie!
There are few Hollywood movies that depict the laws of nature perfectly. The movies that get science right tend to be stiff and pedantic. Films that abandon science tend to be goofy comic book fair. There seems to be a trade off, give up science for story. Passengers is the perfect blend for me.
I Am Wrath (2016)
This close to being a comedy!
I am giving "I am Wrath" 5 stars because I had so much fun watching that wig and thinking of alternate lines for the script. Travolta is a great actor and at times it seemed like he could save the movie. It wasn't to be. In case you're thinking about watching the film you will find yourself looking at that hairline, guaranteed! I don't care who you are, you're looking at it!
Had the writer or director been a brave sort he could have made Travolta's character an impossibly vain, aging ex cop. Washed up, retired but with a stranglehold on his youth. His buddy-cop pal could rail on that hair piece and get some laughs. After all his buddy is a barber in his retirement. Example line...you know Stanley, they make wigs with a touch of gray...or...is that a disguise? That would end the distraction and create some opportunities for real dialogue. It would also earn John Travolta endearment from the folks. Is that you Elvis? Oh, sorry Stanley. I bet you get that a lot!
The film is loose. The music is all wrong. There was no imagination with lighting and camera angles. The scrip was stale but it did have a few good twists. All this said, I'm glad I watched it. I now have a new standard that was previously held by John Wick!
The Last Man on the Moon (2014)
I loved this film for these reasons...
I highly recommend this movie for anyone, but if you are a NASA buff you will see footage that is rarely seen. As an avid NASA fan boy from the 60s it's difficult to show me shots I have not seen before. This movie did that well.
I appreciate how they mixed the old footage into this modern retrospective. Instead of expanding the old 4:3 footage and exploding pixels they just let it be. The Last Man on the Moon is unique film because of the elements that are not in the movie as well. Not in the movie are the rehashed NASA film angles that we are all kinda done with. Another standard of NASA movies is the heroic main characters and astronauts. Most of the personal stories still known today were products of the NASA press office and Time magazine. This movie avoids those fictional narratives. I loved the way we get to know Gene Cernan the man. Here's a guy with many flaws but he was good enough to fly into space three times. The film makers took their sweet time telling his story from early childhood to now, an 82 year old grandfather.
The sound track is excellent! The film uses a perfect mix of original and period music. I was there when Apollo 17 launched from pad 39a in 1972. It was my fourth time watching a Saturn 5 lift off. This one was different however. It was late at night, delayed a few times. When it finally took off the night turned into day, it made a fitting end to the Apollo story.
Bridge of Spies (2015)
Missing something
It was opening night, the theater was packed and I was expecting greatness. After all, this story is right in Spielberg's wheelhouse. The time period, cold war, Tom Hanks, the stars were aligned. I will start with this notion, Spielberg's movies are always well acted, always well shot and always beautifully scored. Bridge of Spies does not fail this standard. There are clearly some remarkable acting performances. It wouldn't be a surprise to see some trophies handed out for this work. The director got what he needed, superb acting. The actors did not get what they need, superb story telling. It is the only thing missing here but it's a biggie.
If you know anything about the real life story of James Donovan you could easily imagine a truly exciting movie. The opening credit sequence included this line...Based on Real Events. This disclaimer gives license to the director to "Hollywood up" the story. So basically there are no excuses. In Munich, the director pealed your sole with great story telling, tension and acting. Bridge of Spies had that potential, at least, that's what I was expecting. Tension was left out of this movie for some reason. I theorize Spielberg did this intensionally. Why? Somebody should ask him.
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)
There's a lot of meat on those bones!
I love walking into a movie not really knowing much about it. Sometimes what you read jades you, it's only human. I will try to jade you properly. This movie is brilliant on many levels and it's not loud, it's not CG crazy or shot on green screen. You won't see a lot of flashes and explosions or fast paced editing. There is no 80s hair band post score. What it does have some fascinating humans that are roped together by this Broadway play and reality.
To US movie goers Michael Keaton is a face we've known for a long time. I felt old when his first closeup comes, I thought to myself, Batman was made in 1989. But Keaton aged in good way. His character, Riggan is the once celebrated box-office action hero, Birdman. The film does a beautiful job analyzing his conflict between art, his stage debut and the prospect of doing Birdman 4. I love the technique Alejandro González Iñárritu chose for this first person style narrative. And that's all I'm saying about that.
This movie is not for everyone, but if you happen to be in the production business, you will see it and you'll learn something you didn't know. To me, that's the bonus but to the art film buff Birdman is the next great superhero!
John Wick (2014)
This is the worst movie I have ever paid money to see!
If you took this movie back in time 30 years, it would still be a bad movie. There are two story lines here; my review of the movie and how this movie got a 7.9 IMDb rating.
First the movie. There was a early moment in the theater when I thought maybe this is all a gag, a clever gag. Kinda like those mini feature spots reminding you to turn off your cell phone. They do a nice job on some of those in theater messages. Perhaps this will evolve into a Djangoesque tongue in cheek graphic novel. All this critical analysis language doesn't belong any where near John Wick. On location the actors must have looked at each other and said...really? Or maybe, my agent said we are supposed to shoot a movie today. Any movie fan with an eye for action movies will notice the poor fight scenes. I counted 6 identical fight moves straight out of the 70s cop shows on TV where somebody is flipped over using one arm and a throw. Every fight scene was the same fight. Movie audiences have evolved quite a bit since the 70s. John Wick is predictable, it's heartless, it's painfully slow with no shortage of terribly awkward dialog. I am done throwing fancy words at this mess.
Now the rating. I have relied on IMDb for solid reviews for many years now. For the most part I have agreed with their rating, I could argue a half point here and there but 4-6 points? My guess is the John Wick studio has found a way to game this system. Crazy idea, right? To me it's more plausible than the plot line of the movie. Somebody at IMDb should look into this because it would be our loss if this gets out of hand.