pinbyte Reviews

Taken (I) (2008)

I was pleased, but not at all Taken

[6/10 · 7 June 2009]

Adverts for this film had me looking forward to, at the very least, a formulaic that cannot fail: Bad guys get their due by the hand of a righteous good guy. Vengeance is served somehow, and all that. Overall, the film delivers on its promise.

It is not exemplary in its genre however. I wish I could cite a title that really gives that satisfaction that is set up by the words 'I will find you and I will kill you'. A film or TV show that does that is a rare find.

To get that vigilante righteousness where you can applaud the protagonist for banging heads and killing everyone that crosses his/her path is a key issue. It most often requires that the antagonist be really really bad, to the point that that their crimes are so disturbing as to be unimaginable. This is perhaps why I cannot name a more satisfying film. I may have blocked it out.

Perhaps "Die Hard" could be called into play here, because I recall it was eminently satisfying and not too disturbing. But "Die Hard" does not exactly fit into this genre. It should not be a spoiler to say that kidnapping is an element of both, but that alone would hardly describe either film.

"Taken" does not spend enough time on the guy that offered 'good luck'. You barely know who it is before it is gone from the story. Once you see it, you will agree that this is no spoiler, the film and the adverts did that already. Action sequences are implemented with more cuts than bristles on your toothbrush.

It is more convenient to have a series of action sequences filmed and then piece them together in an ineffective effort rather than choreograph them before the start. This shortcut has plagued many an otherwise good film and "Taken" is no exception. See, I just did that. You have no idea what I am saying.

I will now make it clear, this movie is not all that great. It was not bad, I enjoyed it. I watched it alone and was expecting to re-watch it with someone else once I could recommend it, but I cannot. I will not invest another 14000 heart-beats that would be required for a 2nd viewing.

Dexter (2006–2013)

The sum of its parts yields a Dexlicious show

[9/10 · 4 January 2009]

I applaud the creators of this show for daring to make a mass murderer a hero. They have taken an even bigger risk by wrapping each season up so neatly that even their fictional protagonist would be astounded. I just finished watching the complete second season on DVD and I am doubtful I could be more pleased with the balance of tension and satisfaction played-out in this show.

Unlike other shows with an ongoing story line, this one does not leave you on the hook waiting for next year. I don't know about season 3, which I expect is in progress, but the first two seasons kept me on the edge of my seat throughout, but didn't leave me hanging until next year. I really appreciate that. I will be a repeat customer.

As for the content, it is really tough to recommend this show. I usually skip the very disturbing opening sequence. When I force myself to endure it, I can recognize its brilliance. This show is so 'out of the box' which is a sad cliché I know, but that is the point. It takes a bizarre concept and fleshes it out so expertly that I cannot turn it off.

This show rarely drags, but it does annoy. I really feel that those that create this show are working hard to mess with the viewer and take us on unexpected twists and turns. Unexpected twists are essential to making the show really enjoyable to watch. But they also have characters like Deb and Rita that I think other viewers will agree, are extremely annoying. I suppose that without these characters, the show would be incomplete somehow.

I take the time to write this review because I think this show is truly extraordinary. It is not for everyone. The subject matter is very disturbing and makes the viewer have compassion for a mass murderer. What is up with that? It is exactly that conflict that makes this show unique. The writing and story lines actually make it good. They really pull it together after throwing out a web of questions… and answering them satisfactorily.

I will patiently await for season 3 to come out on DVD and watch it start to finish in just a few days as I have done with seasons 1 and 2. I cannot imagine experiencing it any other way. It is intense and very well done.

South Park: Major Boobage (2008) Season 12, Episode 3

Had to watch it twice to get the punch line. Top-ten episode.

[1 May 2008]

I have always been 'slow on the uptake', meaning I miss jokes that are obvious to most people. Having read the other reviewers of this episode, I,think that others may have missed a key joke here. Perhaps it is just so obvious to them, it isn't worth mentioning, but it took watching it two times for it to dawn on me.

Before I get to it, there is the homage to the animated film "Heavy Metal", which was enough to put this in the top-ten SP's for me. It caught me off-guard, made me laugh, and it was a fun to watch. Enough so as to get me hooked into watching the re-run for a 2nd time a few hours later in the same night. This brought me back in time, and was a well-done spoof of that rather unique animated feature film.

Did anybody catch that the name of the plane was "Jewish Princess"? Though not relevant to the spoof of "Heavy Metal", it did tie in to the episode as a whole loosely. I only mention it because I did not catch it until my 2nd viewing.

But there is more. The obvious theme about kids doing anything to get high was done before. This time, they take it to the max though. Who would take cat spray in the face just for a trip? Give me a break. That is so absurd, it is funny. First the kids just do an experiment, and Kenny goes on the first "Heavy Metal" trip. One of his friends breaks him out of his trip just shy of reaching his otherworldly bulbous ambitions.

But when Gerald, the instigator of the cat ban law is seen with a contraption to hold the cat and with the movie projector in his basement specifically for the purpose of 'cheesing' I am perplexed, but also amused. The fact that he has a projector, instead of a second cat is so absurd, it gives me a laugh. Before he indulges though, he states to us that it has been 10 years since he quit but decides to go for 'one last cheese'.

In between all this are the often-used Jewish references. In this case, we find Cartman smuggling banned cats into his attic. In a clear and obvious irony, we find Cartman playing the 'good guy' in that he is risking himself to save the cats (a.k.a. Jews). When he stashes his own cat at first, he drops a book on the floor and suggests to the cat "write a diary". A clear reference to a major icon of the Jewish holocaust known as the "Diary of Anne Frank".

Now that is tasteless as all get-out, but that is Trey and South Park. I got the joke and it became funnier when this lady comes by who knows he is saving cats and pleads with Cartman to save her cat and he complies. This character is intended to bolster the reference. Later in the episode, they add to this joke that Cartman, the supposed Jew hater, makes a statement that the cats (a.ka. Jews) 'are just victims'. If you know Cartman, this is all too much. They even cap it towards the end with Kyle making and indirect reference to a time in 'history' like this and Cartman feigns ignorance.

Finally, there is the obvious reference to the Elliot Spitzer scandal. Seemingly thrown in to make it timely to early 2008 (SP is at its best when spoofing current events). Some have called it lame, others funny. It was clearly noticed by other reviewers. It took a 2nd viewing to realize that this pulls together seemingly unrelated stories. The message of this episode is not clear? It became clear to me, but I cannot be sure it is what Parker and Stone may have intended. They often get lucky by accident, seeming to send off a joke for everybody.

If there was one coherent message, it seems consistent with the generally libertarian bias in the themes of South Park. That is: Do not persecute, imprison, or judge anybody for who they are. Also, do not pass laws that are designed to take freedoms from those that are not a harm to others than themselves. Oh, and I almost forgot, lambaste anybody who even remotely publicly states they are right about something. I may be reading it all wrong, but for 12 years now, I think there is, though a bit jumbled, a very libertarian message throughout SP.

With this in mind, all of the above was all about Elliot Spitzer at the end of the day. The 'chessers' were 'cheaters' (Elliot) and the 'cats' were 'prostitutes' (which he denounced). Like Gerald, he was a 'cheeser', preaching against it, and then later caught in the act. To me, that was the rather clever wrap-up that made this SP work. The punch-line, so to speak. The whole thing about the kids sniffing cat spray was just a contrivance to make it silly, and to fit the message into the South Park formula which might be called 'High Potty Humor'.

I think the overall message was actually strengthened by drawing together the persecution of the Jews, the prostitutes, and the drug users… all of which have fallen as victims to arbitrary laws that make them bad automatically. Are they all bad? Some perhaps, but who is to judge?

In a way, I think this episode has cleared my mind about SP. I am amazed how much they pack into such a short time.

• P

Enchanted (2007)

Okay, I am not the only one that thinks this is a gem among Disney films

[8/10 · 24 March 2008]

For me to award an 8 is very rare. This film I just got finished watching poked fun at the Disney genre and I laughed out loud at least a dozen times. It is not fair to compare this film to those of the Shrek series which I also hold in high esteem. Both offer a tongue in cheek lampoon of the 'fairy tale', but this one was totally unexpected.

It is refreshing to see Disney lampoon themselves. I also think it is pretty clear that this film took a poke at Shrek too. I think it will take several viewings to get all of the jokes and homages. "Enchanted" appears to be a relatively low budget film yet the special effects & CG that were there were very convincing and downright funny as all get out.

Best go in without reading the blurb on the back of the DVD box. I was very surprised by this new approach to the 'Happily Ever After' and was glad I knew nothing going in. I expected to just walk away but was glued to the screen and very pleased. 'nuf said.

Underdog (2007)

This Under-rated adaptation of an old cartoon made me laugh

[6/10 · 21 December 2007]

*SPOILER* I've seen many a comedy that does not make me laugh. I'll have to say the high point of this film was when the 'dog' says to the boy (approximately) "I am going to learn manners from someone who pees in my white porcelain drinking bowl". I almost fell to the floor as most who have lived with cats or dogs will do. Thank heavens for 'pause' when viewing on DVD. There were a few other very good laughs for me in this film. *ENDSPOILER*

I also enjoyed the homage's to the 60's cartoons. I actually appreciated that they went to the trouble to do that, though it may have been wasted on audiences who did not see this cartoon in their youth like me. If you rent or buy the DVD, there is an original cartoon in the extras you should watch first if you have never seen Underdog before. If you have seen Underdog cartoons before, you may want to watch the movie and be amazed at how much you recall about something you've not seen in about 30 years or so. I was.

I think that this film gets a very low rating is because of two things:

1) Some people have a distaste for a realistic personification of animals. We have come a long way since "Steamboat Willy" and to see realistic dogs talking on-screen might even result in night terrors. 2) This is a 'live action' adaptation of a silly cartoon, both of which, are horrendous and stupid.

Still, I can tell you that the Underdog Movie made me laugh and brought back long lost memories. The production value of the movie is really high and I find the mix of CGI and live-action are state of the art. I did not think for a minute that anything was 'faked' even though most certainly it is surely a contrivance. It was reasonably convincing and fun to watch. I recommend it to anyone between the ages of 4 and 144.

The Ex (2006)

"The EX" is EXtraordinary

[8/10 · 20 October 2007]

I am awarding this movie an 8/10 not because it was the especially enjoyable nor do I think I would watch again. Forgive me but it was so unEXpected and well crafted that I think it deserves a high rating. There were a few moments of angst that were hard to watch. The movie redeemed itself in the end. It was filled with fresh twists and a bizarre approach to what might be called a romantic comedy that I have to declare, this is different. It did not drag and kept me wondering what would happen nEXt. I don't think I should totally base my rating on how well I liked a movie, though I did like this one. I award points for a movie taking me by surprise and showing me something I have not seen before. It should also be noted that Zach Braff completely dropped his over-inflated ego and really pulled-off a convincing performance. Oh, and one more thing, I laughed a lot.

The Verdict (1982)

A good movie with an abrupt ending, worth a view

[6/10 · 26 July 2007]

I enjoyed this movie but it had a few flaws. Without spoiling it, I have to say there was a subplot element that escaped me. I was never satisfied that there was a point to that aspect of it. Call me stupid if you got it.

Newman's performance is certainly noteworthy, but borders on the overacting of "CSI Miami's" David Caruso (the King of overacting). But that was Newman's performance over 25 years ago, so we'll let it go.

This film features the direction of Sidney Lumet who has to his credit "12 Angry Men" which I must say is so engaging, I watched it until 4 in the morning after having seen it on DVD only a few months before (as of this writing, that film is #14 on the IMDb top 250).

"The Verdict" is not a bad movie, but it does not compare with anything I've seen in terms of genre. I was enamored with "Runaway Jury" which can loosely be argued as among the same 'genre'.

"The Verdict" ends so abruptly, giving you pause to wonder what the actual end might be. This can be thought of as an artful approach, or a disappointment. I view it as the latter. I see the film as unfinished.

While it is well worth watching and kept me engaged quite successfully, I cannot say this movie will pass the test of time. If you are a fan of "The Practice" or some other court room drama, I expect that you will find this falls short.

If you enjoy seeing a character redeemed by their new outlook on life, this picture will not disappoint, but only by a fraction of a hair.

The Last Mimzy (2007)

Elements of sci-fi and mysticism make for an enjoyable film

[8/10 · 19 July 2007]

I did not really know what to expect from this kid's flick and was pleasantly surprised. Don't let the term 'magical rabbit' turn you away from this film. It is not as hokey as it sounds.

If you enjoy elements of mysticism à la "Da Vinci Code", or sci-fi à la "Contact", you will probably get a kick out of this film. Set in the here and now, it also throws in a bit what is scary about our government today.

Toss in a wee bit of eye candy and wrap it up nicely at the end, and you have yourself a very satisfying movie experience. This 40-something kid found it exceptional.

The Good Shepherd (2006)

The Godfather of boredom (and non-linearity)

[3/10 · 16 April 2007]

This film was beautifully shot and well acted (I think) but why? Nearly 3 hours wasted and I have barely a clue as to what I watched. As the film shifts about a dozen times from past to present to somewhere in between and back again, the story, the continuity, and the point, is lost.

I suspect maybe there is something to this film if one were to watch it several times intently. Then one might go… "oh yeah… wow what a story". Sorry, I cannot afford the time and effort… I want to see a story unfold, not fold in upon itself.

I usually enjoy 'spy' movies. I like the intrigue, conspiracy, covert operations, and unexpected betrayals. While this film has some of that, it is not enjoyable. This film is really just a boring tale of the life of a CIA agent, told in such a non-linear way as to be an effort to watch.

I feel I am being generous to award it 3/10 stars, as it has monumentally achieved the 3 things a good film should not be: boring, boring, and even more boring.

300 (2006)

Can you count how many heads are lopped off?

[7/10 · 13 April 2007]

Normally, I would not elect to watch a movie like this. But as circumstances would have it, I ended up seeing this film and I cannot say I am disappointed. I really did not know what to expect which I suppose helped me enjoy it more. I generally don't go for violence and blood. If you can stand it though, you might just want to see it. It is more comical than disturbing.

This film is an over-the-top fantasy war drama 'epic' taking place centuries in the past. Don't rate it for historical accuracy or you will be sorely disappointed. Don't look for great acting. If you need a 'story', please avoid. It is pure eye candy rendered by quality CGI and bigger than life characters. Well-choreographed fight scenes that slow down from time-to-time… and are not so cluttered that you cannot figure out what is going on and follow the action.

I must admit a guilty pleasure at the sight of a big bad guy's head taking leave of his body in slow motion. There are quite a number of heads lopped off, I counted four before I lost track. All in all, this was about the action and the over-the-top characters… the story was just an excuse. Still I could not take my eyes away from it, and I believe I could even sit through it once more should circumstances have it. I was not bored, and I enjoyed the two kings especially.

The Spartan king Leonidas with his strong voice and steadfast determination was an interesting character to watch. I liked him. His enemy, king Xerxes, was the real star of the show to me even though you see little of him. He had an even more resonating voice (as if that were possible) and what must be a computer enhanced screen presence. With his bizarre adornments and self-absorption he is an over-the-top sight to be seen. You just won't get it unless you watch the film.

Those self-proclaimed intellectuals who berate this movie because it IS stupid and pointless just don't know how to have fun. I expect adult females will not be disappointed with the myriad of half-naked idealized men in action. Few adolescent males would object to the overt violence and blood. This movie is not for everyone. But, this 40-something, educated straight male was entertained far beyond expectation and I am giving it a 7/10 (much to my amazement).

P.S. I think I said 'over-the-top' 3 times. Oops… make that 4 now. At least I am keeping up with the 'head' count.

Casino Royale (2006)

James Bond is Dead and where is Q?

[5/10 · 23 March 2007]

They started messing with the 'formula' for a James Bond film in the last movie, and now they have just done away with it almost entirely in Casino Royale. I fear we shall never again see the fun, over the top villains, gadgets, and secret hideouts. The charismatic and impenetrable James Bond is dead. The franchise as it is often called, is no longer.

Sure, the bulk of the James Bond movies were a bit silly. That is why you take a special suspension of disbelief pill before you watch and just enjoy. The makers of this (and also the last film) made the mistake of humanizing James Bond. Clearly, many liked it, but I was disappointed. My other half was so disappointed that she has vowed not to even consider the next installment.

Whether or not true to the books, as I have heard this one is more so, the James Bond MOVIE franchise is well established. I understand that times change and even an established franchise I suppose must adapt, I am not happy with it. The Sean Connery and Roger Moore films epitomize what a James Bond 007 film ought to be.

The invulnerable character with chiseled good looks, suave and debonair portrayed in those films is what I have come to expect to see in a film labeled with this brand. To see him humanized and being treated seriously is all wrong. If they wanted to do this, could they not have invented 'Brad Strong 006' or something. The older films have been light and fun and full of surprises.

Sure, Casino Royale has managed to capture some of the requisite elements of a quintessential James Bond film, but has done enough outside of the formula to ruin it for me. There was no 'Q' sequence, a part of the older films that I really enjoyed. The 'M' sequences were too serious for me. The 'look and feel' of James Bond has been done away with by the new actor.

I cannot actually call this a bad film. If I had not seen any 007 movie outside of this one, I might have given it a 6 or 7. In light of the other movies, I call it a 2 or 3. But due to some great action sequences, fabulous locations, and realistic cinematography, I must begrudgingly award it a 5/10.

Ultimately, as a fan of the old James Bond, I suspect I would have enjoyed my precious 2.5 hours much more if I had just watched "You Only Live Twice" or "Moonraker" for the 10th time. If you are looking for the savior faire portrayed in the James Bond of the past, you will be disappointed with this film as I have been.

Schindler's List (1993)

The least enjoyable film I've had the satisfaction in viewing

[13 March 2007]

I dare not rate this film but only give some thoughts. If I was watching it to be entertained, it would receive a negative number. If I was watching it strictly with a critical eye as to judge if it is a well made film, I might have to give it an 11. Be it contrivance or not, this is the most powerful and disturbing film I have ever experienced.

The violent and disturbing scenes depicted in this film are based in fact. They are recent history for that matter. That makes it very hard to endure. And worse, the inhumanity of genocide continues to this very day. I have little doubt that the scenes depicted in this film are tame compared to the realities of what occurred at Krakow and elsewhere.

The film brought me there convincingly, and the pain was there. It was hard to watch, and disturbing as I ponder that at any moment a political tide might derail my own life.

There are characters that kill for sport. But these are not characters. These are characterizations of real evil people that recently existed, recreated in the film based on the recollections of those who have witnessed the atrocities. Then there is Schindler, who is not characterized as sweet, but as a unique person who will not trade inhumanity for money. It is quite an intriguing story.

On one hand, I say this movie should be seen by every human being on the planet. On the other hand, I have found that this movie has brought within me a feeling of depression that is long lasting. For sure, we must not forget the Holocaust. With a revived knowledge of this history from viewing this film my eyes will be more open.

I could have spent my time more enjoyably. But this well-made film has a reason to exist. You won't care unless you watch it. Yet, you will pay the price whether or not you are indifferent to the messages in this film. You will never forget it.

I propose that is the point of it.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

An enormous atrocity

[3/10 · 10 January 2007]

Did anybody edit this movie??? I have never seen more attempts at grandeur fall so flat. They threw the baby out with the bath water on this one.

This movie was mostly a 2 and 1/2 hour blur for me. There were times I could not even make out the dialog, much less follow the action scenes wet with stuff that cost too much to cut. It was WAY too long.

Was this movie intended to be silly or serious? I found it overall, incoherent. Perhaps I am one of the few who just did not 'get it' (or one of the few that did not see the emperor's new clothes). It had some humorous but overtly silly moments that made me laugh. It was rarely engaging.

The special effects were over-the-top, and in many instances, first rate. On the other hand, there were many scenes where the green screen was so obvious, I could figuratively puke. Aside from the expensive eye candy, this film did nothing for me. All told, maybe 20 minutes of entertainment at too high a cost.

This movie just goes out of its way to WOW you, but I keep thinking... 'what is going on?'. Perhaps the fact that the preceding movie took flight from my brain years ago might have contributed to this lack of understanding (that movie wasn't all it was cracked-up to be either). Still... should this movie not stand on its own?

I also think that this movie could be scary for children. Even as an adult, I found the characters aboard Davy Jone's ship somewhat disturbing. Not exactly stuff you market under the Disney brand (except for the silly stuff). I won't even address the racial biases this movie inadvertently promotes.

I will not fault Johnny Depp for participating in this atrocity, as he has already been grandfathered into the franchise. It is always fun to watch him, and he contributes some to the limited entertainment value of this film.

I expect that many movie goers who saw this on the big screen walked out with stars spinning around their heads... thinking they had seen a tremendous blockbuster. Really, they were just inundated with incoherent WOW and knocked over, not realizing that they had bumped their heads.

If you can, give it a miss. It will be time well not spent.

Silk Stalkings (1991–1999)

A cop show that brings a colorful twist to law and order.

[6/10 · 11 October 2006]

Before I offer any description of this TV show, I want to point out that the 'opening sequence' rates in my top 10. It is a sexy and overt grabber sequence that rivals that of "Hawaii Five-O", "Miami Vice", and even "Mission Impossible".

It is usually followed by Rita's narrative of what is yet to come.

So... we have this pair of police detectives. They are based in Palm Beach Florida. They are undoubtedly solving a murder that takes place before they even run the credits. A formula that remains in use.

Chris and Rita, the two main cop partner characters continue to have a professional but close relationship which adds some spark to the show. Others will acknowledge a real chemistry there, though perhaps awkward. When fire was added to the relationship it burned out the show. Keep the spark, prevent the fire, now that keeps us wondering what will happen next week.

Perhaps, the actors were done. The show still went on to much disappointment (at least by me). Forget the 'second cast'. The formula doesn't mix. Please don't dismiss the first few years.

Silk Stalkings presented a very new and different scene for a police detective environment which borrows from "Miami Vice" and then takes it over the top. It never takes itself too seriously, which really adds to the enjoyment.

I am pleased that it is now offered on DVD, and can now be rented. When you get sick of commercials, just pop a Silk in the DVD player and enjoy. Sure it is fluff... but when you get to the commercial break YOU DON'T GET ANY COMMERCIALS. You are right back into the show. Pause to pee if you like, but it does not really matter, you'll pick it right back up.

Perhaps I am biased somewhat... I used to watch it when it was actually on TV. This is a landmark show in my opinion. The outrageous police department decor and the dress of the main characters helped keep me interested.

Ignore the predictability, "Silk Stalkings" is a one of a kind, and worth a few enjoyable hours.

Star Trek: The City on the Edge of Forever (1967) Season 1, Episode 28

A significant and memorable episode

[14 August 2006]

I have been re-watching the original Star Trek series from time to time on DVD and I generally cannot remember which one I re-watched 3 months ago on DVD. It has been so long since I have watched them on TV, many of them are new again.

This episode though, is an outstanding exception. Not because I enjoyed it... I REMEMBERED IT from years ago because of the awful conflicts of ethics that still remain unresolved. Supposedly, if Kirk did not take action, life as he knew it would not exist.

Still, it could have been wrong or right. We just don't know. The story was softened so we would feel it was right.. but, what could have become of the bigger picture if time is expanded and we are not locked into our Star Trek box? Maybe it is because of my particular age that this is an indelible episode. Similar concepts have been indulged in other shows. The original Star Trek to me remains a life-time keeper, and this episode a stand out.

It offers an end to a particular evil in its box, so we are satisfied. But it still leaves questions. It makes XXXX travel a four-letter word, (even for a Dr. Who fan).

Contact (1997)

A very exciting, thought provoking, and well executed film

[9/10 · 9 August 2006]

It has been nearly a decade since this came out and it still echoes in my mind from time to time. I need not repeat what others have said in this forum... just to assert that this is one of the best films I have seen in the past 10 years.

I am not a spiritual person, so I found the ending a little bit weak, so I vote a 9/10. Still, how better could one have ended it? I do not know.

I found the build up to be very exciting and unique to a film that comes across as drama more than sci-fi. Yet it was all about the fact that science is just a subset of what can be known. No one has all the answers... not spiritualists or scientists.

I think this film taught me just that, while getting me excited, disappointed, and then excited again. It recognizes some very deep thoughts that pass through many a human mind. At the same time, you can follow Ellie's adventure and be engaged, thrilled, disappointed, and enlightened.

I need not mention the fine cast... so I won't (somebody else has certainly already done so). Needless to say, it was great.

Not all will find this film as spectacular as I have found it to be. For them, I am sorry. This film opens the mind... it does not contradict your faith. It may seem to suggest that you examine your beliefs, but it also makes clear that you are free to believe what you believe.

That is a brilliant balance.

Aquamarine (2006)

A fun 'fluff' film, nothing special or terrible about it.

[4/10 · 3 August 2006]

If I write a review about a movie, maybe it will stick with me... but generally I expect that I will have forgotten I've seen this one a mere two weeks from now. So why bother? Because again I find myself watching a low-rated movie that was fun to watch. I didn't expect I'd to be able to stay in the room while it was on.

It wasn't great, but at least it was not unbearable... not a comedy of errors which always makes me cringe. It was just sweet fluff... and if you can't take it, stay in the locker room boys. I agree with those who defend this movie because it is sure to please its targeted demographic, and won't be a total bore to an adult.

It offers a few good chuckles here and there, but nary a side splitter. Sure it is silly and only mildly entertaining, but at least it doesn't suck (as so many have said it does). Maybe those folks are afraid of their sensitive sides?

I have a tendency to grade on the bell curve, so a 4,5 or 6 is actually an okay all-around rating in my book. Giving it a 4 makes sense and will bolster its rating at the time of this writing. Giving it a 1 or a 10, as most have done thus far, makes the rating numbers meaningless. I cannot believe how strongly people feel one way or the other about this forgettable fluff (or that I am even bothering to write about it). Am I missing something?

Anyway, it should be noted that Emma Roberts performs her role as Clairedycat quite convincingly. Ariell Kebbel often written into b*ch roles does not disappoint when her character gets her due. You might also recognize Bruce Spence playing Leonard, though his role is ancillary.

Surely you can miss this one if you are an adult. But, if there is a pre-teen girl in your life, rent this movie for her... and be prepared NOT to hate it (you might even enjoy it).

Predator (1987)

Pays homage to both "Alien" and "Aliens", but falls short of great cinema

[6/10 · 9 July 2006]

As a big fan of the movies Alien and Aliens, I was compelled to watch the so-called 5th Alien move, Alien vs Predator. AVP was not bad, it was fun. But, I had never seen Predator and wanted to see the back-fill. Now that I have, I cannot say that Predator is a bad piece of cinema.

However, the accolades I've seen for it on IMDb are astonishing and unwarranted. This movie was neither Arnold's best, nor a superior sci-fi or action film. It was only mildly entertaining. I did not find myself drawn in by it, or caught up in the suspense.

This is perhaps because I saw AVP ahead of time, or am completely jaded by the awesome movies that clearly inspired Predator: Alien and Aliens. Maybe I am disappointed that the set and setting were not other-worldly. To Predator's credit though, it pays homage to both Alien and Aliens while adding a fresh touch all it's own with the main characters' special effects.

But c'mon guys... even if you first saw this when you were 15 years old, can you not recognize now that it is formulaic and mediocre? The story is unoriginal and the build-up is poor. Suspension of disbelief is shattered toward the end. Where did Dutch get all that stuff anyhow?

If you like a good shoot-em-up, go ahead and watch it. The action sequences, for the most part, are easier to follow than average. But overall, I think I would have been happier spending my time re-watching the films that I believe are the inspiration for this picture. A rating of 6/10 for Predator is generous.

Batman Begins (2005)

Batman begins for real this time

[7/10 · 26 March 2006]

I really enjoyed this film. I did not hold up high hopes for another 'Batman' film, and was really surprised.

I don't think this film should be viewed as part of the preexisting Batman franchise. In a way, it erases those films and starts all over again. Don't expect it to fit in with any prior films or the campy TV series.

This is a serious film, and is much more sophisticated than anything else with Batman in the title. There is a somewhat complex story, and it brings up serious issues to think about.

The movie starts off somewhat subdued as we learn the genesis of Batman. It flourishes into a full blown Hollywood action adventure, that maybe goes a bit over the top. Because of this, there is some lack of balance or coherency that bothered me a bit.

Still, this minor point can be overlooked as the film was thoroughly entertaining and engaging. Never a dull moment. The production values were top notch, as was the cast. Forget what you know about previous 'Batman' films and view this as a fresh start. Batman begins for real this time.

Flightplan (2005)

Keep your head in the clouds for this one

[5/10 · 22 March 2006]

This movie comes in two parts. The first part is lengthy and taught making you wonder what is to come. You somehow know that Jodie Foster's character is going to find her daughter. Where did she go? We wonder. She has to be on the plane, or in her mother's imagination??? At some point, we find out... or rather are handed on a platter a somewhat lame explanation in about 5 minutes of film. The poor transition is a weakness in this film, but it is not lame enough to make you wonder how the second part is going to play out. The tension is broken only to give way to another.

All told, not bad... but the believability factor in this film requires you to keep your head in the clouds. I don't think you need a background in avionics or propulsion to realize now stupid it is to portend that JF's character knows thing one about how the two-story, 400+ passenger aircraft is laid out.

I could go on about how 10,000 people could engineer and build a plane that large and not one of them know how it is laid out, or why the other 'technical' parts of this film are as ludicrous as the way computers were portrayed on 70's TV, but I won't anymore because it is already a run-on sentence.

With your disbelief suspended, you can enjoy this movie. If offers a lavish set of a gigantic airplane which those of us who have flown can identify with. We also have the performance of Jodie Foster, whose reputation seems beyond reproach. Her character is not fun to watch, but she does it well. There's an interesting story, but it doesn't unfold well. It ends somewhat satisfactorily, so the time is not totally wasted.

Just Like Heaven (2005)

Two seconds made this movie

[5/10 · 4 March 2006]

First let me say that the phrase 'romantic comedy' always makes me cringe and not want to watch that particular 'chick flick'. Even worse is that there is a character that nobody else can see. But, other IMDb reviewers helped me give this a try.

This movie was not bad, and was entertaining. A good solid piece of fluff. Nothing to write home about, or even to IMDb, but I am doing it anyway since I just watched it. Thankfully, the jokes weren't about how stupid the person that 'was the only person who could see the ghost' looked to those who didn't. (If it were, I would be unqualified to write a review, because I would have not viewed it in its entirety.) It's funny how like many men, the romantic comedy idea is a put-off for me, but yet I still find I enjoy many of them anyway. Put this film in that category. Watch it with your wife/girlfriend/family/kids/in-laws, I think most people will enjoy it despite its flaws.

I don't want to give this mediocre film too much reverence, but the last two seconds put the icing on the cake for me.

Vegas in Space (1991)

Has a tendency to drag a bit

[2/10 · 22 January 2006]

I watched this movie because, if I recall correctly, it was on a worst 100 movies list somewhere. It was my hope that it would be soooo bad, it would be good. As it turned out, I almost couldn't get through it.

I've enjoyed other movies with drag queens (eg. Priscilla), and was hoping that the campiness alone would be the redeeming quality of Vegas In Space. As it turns out, the story about the making of the movie, which is both a triumph and a tragedy, is what is interesting.

In that respect, I am pleased that Doris and crew finished their apartment-made movie. It did provide a few laughs. I especially liked the 'set' where they landed their space ship. That, and the fact that I was able to endure the whole thing gives it 2/10.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Entertaining, but certainly no classic like 1971 version

[6/10 · 22 January 2006]

First let me say I don't care which movie version is closer to the book. I am interested in the movie itself. This new version, taken by itself, is pretty good entertainment.

Burton provides a well put together piece of eye candy, let there be no doubt. I found Depp's off-the-wall portrayal of WW quite fun to watch. I was not as impressed with the music as so many are. It was okay, but I found the words in the musical numbers hard to understand.

As for the storyline, anybody over 10 years old already knows its a great story. So this movie obviously has that going for it... so a 6/10 rating is warranted for this movie on it's own. However, it will never be the classic like the 1971 version.

Now is the time where I draw a few comparisons with 1971's "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". The following may contain SPOILERS.

When compared with the 1971 version, the 2005 version pales. The adaptation of the story did not offer much complexity or richness. For example, the 1971 version goes out of its way to show the greed of the children. It uses the Slugworth sub-plot to illustrate this.

Charlie does not inherit the factory just because he is the last one standing as in the 2005 version. He proves himself by being the only child with integrity. The 1971 version teaches a lesson of decency that is all but lost in the 2005 version.

In the creativity department, the 2005 version also pales. With today's CGI, they could have really had some fun. For example, the coat room scene in 1971 has a bunch of hands mounted on the wall which grab your coat.

In 2005, the coats are just dropped on the floor and that's that. I was really expecting hands to come out of mid-air and pick up the coats, keeping them eerily suspended. It would have been great, and still fit in with the dark and creepy Tim Burton style.

As for the musical numbers, the 2005 version offers far fewer, and none as entertaining as the 1971 version. Both try to teach a lesson as each child succumbs to his or her failings. Only the 1971 version succeeds. The 1971 version also features a fabulous solo by Veruca as she adamantly exclaims "I want it now" in song. No such numbers in 2005.

I could go on indefinitely as to why the 1971 version was far superior to 2005, but this review is about the 2005 version. One just cannot help comparing the two. I think those who see both should view them as two completely different movies based on the same story.

In my opinion, the 2005 version is just a good movie but the 1971 version is a true classic. It will continue to stand the test of time as the 2005 version fades away.