Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Magellan (2017)
2/10
If only this was a 1960's Twilight Zone Episode...
2 May 2023
I enjoy bad movies. I am rarely compelled to journal my thoughts on them. I do not get a kick out roasting low budget movies, but I am so disappointed by Magellan that I can't resist sharing my thoughts. I think the problem lies with the fact that I wanted so much to like this movie.

As stated above, this would have made a classic episode of The Twilight Zone back in 1964. We would think of the Major Nelson episode as representing that series instead of Willam Shatner looking at a gremlin on the wing of an airplane. Sadly, this was a movie made in 2017 and not 30 minute black and white piece of nostalgia.

Not every film has big budget sets, but that's no excuse for how poorly executed this film was even given it's obviously minimal budget. A suspension of disbelief aside, even if we throw out a basic understanding of high school physics, it's a bit hard to swallow a story this lacking in even kindergarten science in the 21st century.

In the abandoned rental hall that served as the astronauts's home on Earth, they couldn't even bother to completely scratch off the "for rent" sign on the kitchen window. On a frozen moon, he had to siphon some gas with a hose. Its shocking they didn't complete the scenario by Nelson sucking on the tube with his mouth to get the flow started. At least opening his face mask would remove some of the condensation visible on his helmet. How much more would it have cost to have a suit that pretended to be air tight?

For a giant spaceship with two rooms, perhaps it would have made sense to draw the cartoon ship a bit smaller. A smaller ship might even explain the reason only a single man was sent to complete potentially the biggest discovery in the history of mankind.

If you are a fan of the American version of The Office, you can't help but think of the Dinner Party episode when Major Nelson tells his artificial copilot to put his messages up on the "big" screen. It was akin to Micheal Scott showing off his 13 inch plasma TV.

They worried about Chinese hackers when the only visible equipment was one tiny Korean television, a laptop, and a 1950s glove box. His insistence on touching the alien artifacts reminds one of the Ren & Stimpy episode where he was warned never to touch the big shiny red button. (Didn't that take place on a spaceship too?) Once all three objects were collected, it was of concern which intimate body part he was going to rub on the next once both hands were full.

The whole wife story was pretty much superfluous considering how little thought Major Nelson gives her in the end. It's unclear if we are supposed to like the astronaut character or not. If he is indeed the man who always follows orders and loves his wife we are shown in the first half of the movie, then the AI isn't the only one in this movie to have his firmware corrupted.

Calling this movie Magellan is a bit of a stretch, the name denotes an epic journey of discovery. Maybe calling it Hudson after explorer Henry Hudson might be more apropos. He went on an epic journey and against orders and better judgement got his ship and crew marooned and frozen to death.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lopez vs. Lopez (2022– )
3/10
You Can't Win a Race When You Shoot Yourself in the Foot at the Gate
5 November 2022
I think the general concept of this sitcom is truly a great idea and one that is relatable to many Americans. Although the show focuses on Latinx culture, America is the great melting pot, and which of our cultures doesn't have "dads who drink too much beer"? If we haven't lived it ourselves, we all know people touched by the infidelities of their parents or felt the sting of our generation not being understood by our parents. All this stuff sounds great on paper, with a semi-bankable star such as George Lopez involved, it's clear to see why the network execs gave it the green light. Now those execs, and America, are cringing at what was produced given such a promising concept.

This show fails superbly right from the start from its initial messaging. From all the advertising, you get zero understanding of what this show is about. The only thoughts it evokes are "oh, look another George Lopez vehicle", perhaps I'll tune in as long as it doesn't show at the same time as his old show on Nick at Nite. Any thoughts beyond that are total confusion.

The name in itself is misleading. Millennials are not the highest demographic of network television viewers. The name of the series will probably remind older audiences of 1979's Best Picture "Kramer versus Kramer". This Hollywood flick explored the effects of divorce on a family. It takes its name from how a divorce action is filed in the court system.

Lopez v Lopez tries to be topical with its inclusion of TicTok, but keep in mind many older folks (the ones who still watch network television) are probably aware the platform exists, but this might be there first actual exposure to the videos in practice. If you are an avid TicToker, there is a chance you may have seen Mayan Lopez before and be aware of her famous father. If not, the promotional material is all the more perplexing.

The trailer contains lines like, "I love it when we do things together, have fun, and then you leave". This is something a divorced couple may say to each other while trying to successfully co-parent a child after divorce. If, like the large percentage of America, Mayan Lopez isn't a household name, you may look at the actress and wonder if that was the wife from his old show. Granted there isn't that much real resemblance, but after being out of the public eye for 15+ years, I have no doubt people wonder if Angie from the old show got a facelift or gained some weight.

Then the trailer goes on to introduce the feisty older mother figure. I seem to recall his last show having one of them as well. Then he promptly makes a "single" entendres (not clever enough to be double) penis joke. So given this introduction to the new series, people are left scratching their heads and wondering, "So there is a new George Lopez show where he plays a drunk that broke up his marriage to have relations with his mother in law?"

When a new show fails so miserably to introduce the audience to its most basic premise it is doomed from the start. It's truly a shame, it was a great idea that had the potential to resonate with America. I honestly hope they take steps to more clearly state their message, but it may already be too late.
14 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"Lars and the Real Girl" meets "The Goonies"
12 October 2022
A very cute and family friendly little picture, but far from movie of the year. Despite winning best of show at a film festival, it does not guarantee this is a legendary movie. Then general public is unaware of the kind of garbage shown at most festivals. Still this low budget flick tells an off beat story with heart.

It combines elements like overcoming loneliness in a manner very similar to "Lars and the Real Girl". Instead of a rubber sex doll, this lonely Geppetto cobbles together a companion out of trash. Both the resourcefulness and the success rate of his inventions take a page from the character of Data from "The Goonies". The robot, Charles, is also a bit reminiscent of Johnny 5 from the "Short Circuit" films.

This story picks the best elements from classic films and literature and combines them in a unique way. Since this film debuted around Halloween, audiences expecting anything Frankenstein-esque will be sorely disappointed. It does not contain any mishaps with introducing the robot into society. It does however contain an accelerated period of growth and maturity for the robot. It was very enjoyable to see Charles go from infant to adult with even a rebellious teen phase in the mix.

This film doesn't preach about artificial intelligence nor does it philosophize. It does not even answer the question of what Charles the robot does with the massive amounts of cabbage he consumes. It does not need to...It's just a cute little modern day fairy tale.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Split Image (1982)
4/10
Ultra Simplistic "Cult-splotation" Flick
9 October 2022
This film comes across more as a made for TV movie than an actual piece of Hollywood cinema. The biggest flaw takes place in the first act with the very lazy telling of the Olympic hopeful gymnast's conversion to a cult.

We are expected to believe a pampered spoiled upper middle class athlete training for the Olympics can be brainwashed to join a cult over a 3 day weekend. His home life is happy and comfortable until he hits on a cute cult groupie. It's clear he went to the commune only in the hopes of bedding down the cute chick with issues. After spending the first two days being appropriately appalled at the clear cult activity, somehow on the 3rd day he has drunk the kool-aide.

It's a bit silly to think after 3 days of singing Kumbaya around the campfire and abstaining from masturbation is enough to make even the most disenfranchised youth shave his head and change his name. Yet there was no back story to suggest he was even slightly unhappy with his normal life.

A bit of real mind control factors are briefly explored. The athlete being initially approached by an attractive girl takes a page from the real practice of "flirty fishing" from the Children of God child molester cult known as The Family. They also briefly touch upon sleep deprivation and starvation (proven mind control techniques) but only in the briefest sense.

Everything else that follows is as lazy. The deprogramming is just as over the top and poorly executed as the original conversion. Cults and mind control are a very real thing and this movie does not educate or inform. It's a very cartoonish depiction of a very real thing.

This movie was released in 1982. This was an era when the original flower children of the 1960s grew into young urban professionals. It is truly a representation of the boogeyman that the baby boomers (who had now become parents) thought would come in the night to steal the American dream. This movie is best enjoyed only as a cultural snapshot of what parents feared in the halcyon days of Ronald Regan.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Just as Good as ANY Roger Moore 007 Movie
3 March 2019
Sometimes the things you can find on Amazon Prime Video surprise you. Buried in the C level drive in movies and made for television dramas of the 1970s I found this gem. It impressed me enough to write a review. Considering I've rated thousands of movies on here and this is maybe my 3rd review, it made a lasting impression.

If you're a fan of any of Roger Moore's work as James Bond, invest some time into watching this movie. The locations, underwater footage, fight scenes and chases are just as spectacular as anything to come out of Pinewood Studios. What impressed me most is that this movie achieved the same result with a budget that is likely the smallest fraction of the cash the British threw at 007 movies of the era. The plot is honestly slightly more plausible than anything James Bond faced at the time.

Now it's also no masterpiece. It's never been restored so video quality is subpar, it's also rather poorly dubbed when compared to a Hollywood movie. Compared to 1960s Spaghetti Westerns, however it ain't bad at all.

Arch villain Joseph Cotten was apparently either being kicked out of his nursing home or was running out of incontinence pads, but either way must have needed a paycheck VERY badly. In every scene he looks like he was just dragged outta bed to sit behind a desk and mumble nonsensically. Although I'm rather certain this applies to all of Joseph Cotten's work after 1965.

I can't really fault Van Johnson's portrayal of the Concorde pilot either, he knew he was there for nothing but a cameo and seems to have had fun with the part. James Franciscus did well with his starring role as well. It's almost a shame they were unable to turn his high intrigue investigative reporter character into a franchise. It's almost as believable as a high intrigue archeologist and that seemed to pay off for Indiana Jones. Perhaps Franciscus's early death played a part in the character being forgotten.

I think another factor that hurts this film is the similar title to the literally horrible film Airport 1979. Now I'm certain the Italian film makers did this on purpose without actually seeing the film. They were hoping the popularity of the previous 3 Airport movies would help their box office returns. However with how poorly Airport 1979 was made and performed, I think it's only hurt the film.

I don't consider it a spoiler to say: This is NOT an airplane disaster movie. It's a low budget James Bond movie that did a great job with little money. Perhaps you could call it a "Spaghetti Spy" movie. If you got a kick out of Roger Moore as 007, then count on having a smile on your face when you finish this film.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gloria (1982–1983)
2/10
Nope... Still Not the Last Show to Beat the Dead Horse
30 June 2016
Television can milk a good thing and beat a dead horse better than Hollywood can in the movies. All in the Family was television gold that broke new ground and will be just as funny two generations from now as it was when it originally aired. Obviously Gloria was yet another attempt to capitalize upon the success of the original. I suppose it can be considered an excellent example of the law of diminishing returns. Even the most in depth reviews of this show consist of vague memories of catching one of the 22 episodes around 35+ years ago, so it's probably best this show is totally forgotten. With a classic like All in the Family it's best to use your imagination to envision the future of everybody's favorite Queens, New York family. I don't think any fan's fantasy consists of Gloria being a struggling single mom. For that reason this show is best left in obscurity to be completely forgotten.

Although you'd think a series like this would have taught television a lesson, it did not. Nor was it the last attempt at a spin off. Take a moment to look up a show from the early 1990s which took place at Archie's old address called 704 Hauser Street.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Provides Insight into the Sick Mind of William Shatner
15 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This is a movie only true Star Trek fans would ever endure. In fact, in order to get your official Trekkie membership card and decoder ring, you have to wear a costume, go to at least one convention, and explain why you hate Star Trek V. So here is my critique:

This abortion directed by William Shatner is by far my least favorite Star Trek movie. Given the quality of The Motion Picture, that alone should attest to how truly bad this movie turned out. There are many reasons why, not all related to Shatner, but he sure didn't help either. Just like when Spock mind melded with V'Ger, I think examining why this movie is so utterly horrible gives you great insight into megalomaniac mind of William Shatner.

The fact that he insisted upon directing this movie shows he has something in common with Kirk. He was jealous of the success Nimoy (his second banana on the show & in Shatners mind distant second in talent) had in directing Star Trek III and IV. Sounds a bit like Kirk marching into his boss's office during the first movie to demand the Enterprise back because would never allow anybody to steal his glory.

Second, Shatner isn't as funny as he thinks he is. Big surprise, right? (It's blatantly obvious Shatner thinks not even God can do something better than he can) This movie followed the wildly successful 4th movie (yup, the one with the whales) and what was different about it from the previous movies, beside how much money it made, was that it made you laugh out loud. This was due to the whole "fish outta water" routine of refined and evolved Starfleet officers of Roddenberry's enlightened future interacting with the violently barbaric Dark Age degenerates of 1986. It was funny without trying to be funny. The characters were just being themselves, but Shatner was clearly unaware of that fact. He saw comedy as the key to box office bucks. The forced comedic elements of The Final Frontier provides clear evidence why Shatner's lounge act wasn't exactly a smashing success.

Finally, and most disturbingly, being director meant he had more input on the character of Kirk than ever before. So what does Shatner make Kirk do that he has never done before? He orders Spock to murder somebody in cold blood. Spock refuses and when his logical and peaceful first officer refuses the order to execute a living being, Kirk is shocked. He acts like Spock didn't notice the fine print on the Prime Directive user agreement where he agreed to blow away any creature on demand. So how does the great Captain Kirk handle his best friend refusing to follow his order to murder? Right out of the Starfleet Academy manual, of course. When trapped in the brig of his own ship he proceeds to pout, call Spock names, then throw a temper tantrum, all while being totally ambivalent about stopping the mad man has stolen his ship. Shatner, the director, wanted to show us that Kirk earned the respect of the fleet by reacting like a spoiled toddler in times of crisis. Clearly we were seeing more the method Shatner would react than Kirk in that situation.

Again, as I originally stated, it's not only Shatner's fault the movie was so poor. Don't forget the scene where the enemy runs toward, and not away screaming in fear, at Uhura's elderly nude body dancing in the moonlight. Clearly the bad ideas were coming in from all sides. In fact the entire movie was deemed to be non-cannon in the Star Trek universe. The keepers of official Star Trek mythology finally said, screw it. It was easier to disregard the entire movie than to explain why so many issues were contrary to already established facts.

The Final Frontier was William Shanter's big chance to put his own personal touch on the role that made him famous. Upon seeing the results, all this movie proves is that Shatner's mind is a very scary place.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Totally Misses the Mark & Tells Nothing but a Stalker Story
22 June 2013
Everybody knows the Jodi Arias story, so the whole movie is pretty much an exercise in futility from the very start. This movie provides no insights, revelations or alternate theories. It's a 2 hour television movie that dramatizes a creepy girl stalking a guy who is "just not that into her" for all but the last 10 minutes. Who hasn't been involved, or at least know somebody who has been affected by, a significant other who just couldn't let go? The reason this story captured our attention as a nation was what happened the day Travis Alexander was killed and everything after. We are fascinated by the totally emotionless narcissistic liar that is Jodi Arias & her unstable behavior after the murder. This movie totally misses the mark by spending 99% of its time telling a boring story. A director that is responsible for a classic like Eight Men Out should have been able to provide a better perspective on a tragedy that captured the American imagination. It's not poorly acted, poorly directed, nor even really poorly written... it just totally missed the mark of what made this case stand out. They spent zero time establishing what caused Arias to become such a monster. She wasn't just a pretty normal girl who cracked one day. Jeffery Dahmer wasn't just a mixed up kid who got jealous one day & neither was Jodi Arias. This movie totally misses exploring anything that made this incident stand out. If you want to watch a movie about a creepy stalker, check out Marky Mark in the movie Fear & don't waste your time with this.
20 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Marooned (1969)
4/10
It Ain't No Cinematic Masterpiece...
3 June 2013
As a frequent user of the IMDb, I rarely write reviews but I feel compelled to put my 2 cents in on this one. I'm a science fiction fan, so I have seen and appreciated some very obscure works, yet I never heard of this movie. There is a big reason why... it's not good, it's not a classic, and that's why it's forgotten. First, I have to ask... why do people who rate movies like this a perfect 10 think anybody reads their reviews? You are stating this is the most superb piece of filmmaking art you have ever seen. Seriously? All you have proved is that whatever you have to say is totally worthless.

This movie is from 1969, so it's important to look at it in context. They threw together a few big stars & capitalized on the two biggest fads of the era: space & The Cold War. This could have been a classic if it were a 30 minute Twilight Zone episode. It's over 2 hour runtime borders on painful. It represents Hollywood appealing to the nation's lowest common denominator by combining a fad with star power and little else. Obviously they are masters of exploiting public stupidity since there are still people tasteless enough to keep raving about this flick 40+ years later.

Considered historically, it provides indisputable proof that the moon landing was 100% real, because not even Hollywood could fake it. It's award winning special effects make you wonder how the actors were able to keep a straight face while doing their zero G "acrobatics". Winning the Oscar has to be the Academy's version of dark humor considering the winner in its category the previous year was 2001: A Space Odyssey. The only reason this movie should be mentioned in the same breath as Kubrick's masterpiece is to point out how it's the opposite of everything that makes 2001 a work of art.

I respect the fact that many reviewers have a soft spot for this movie because they still look at it with child's eyes. I'm a little younger so my child nerd affection goes to movies like Space Camp. Yet even though I thought Space Camp was "wicked awesome" as a kid, I won't waste your time telling you it was a cinematic masterpiece. In fact Marooned can't even stand up to other Sci-fi disappointments with big potentials and poor execution, such as The Black Hole or Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Those two stinkers don't exactly set the bar very high either.

Just like Marooned is no perfect 10, it's not the very worst movie in the world either. It's got big stars and its about the space race & that can go along way. Just not a 2 hours and 14 minutes long of a way. It's a bit sub par of average in the history of Hollywood. Watch it if you wish to relive a piece of your childhood or get a slice of what America was crazy about at the time. Just do NOT expect a grand story or an amazing cinematic experience & you won't be disappointed.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Star Trek: The Next Generation: Sub Rosa (1994)
Season 7, Episode 14
1/10
Literally Awful in Every Way
25 July 2012
In any television series that runs for seven years, there are bound to be some bad episodes, but Sub Rosa is an exceptional stinker. I think the other reviewers did an excellent job picking apart the ridiculous plot and pointing out Gates McFaddin's poorer than usual acting. However it takes an exceptional piece of garbage for the person who wrote the episode to provide their own review. The author was attempting to justify why the episode was not a blatant rip off of a vampire pulp novel and how pleased they were at creating the proper Scotland in space atmosphere. Perhaps if we added the author's disclaimer to the start of this episode, it would somehow make this disaster any better to watch.
50 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed