Reviews

22 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Timeless (2016–2018)
8/10
Fun series that also provides great history.
27 November 2020
This series was a rare gem among the sea of reality show/sitcom/crime drama dreck. While the time travel-driven plot line requires the usual suspension of disbelief, this show actually excelled at teaching history with engaging stories and characters. Adults and older kids alike should enjoy this series.

My only criticism is that the plot twists surrounding the mysterious Rittenhouse organization become become too cute by half in the second season to the point they're a bit tiresome. Despite that minor complaint, I highly recommend this series, especially for history buffs.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino (1995)
7/10
Too much of a good thing.
22 October 2020
There is a potentially great movie here, but it is somewhat lost in three tedious hours. The story and characters are engaging, the violence and profanity cringe-inducing. DeNiro and Pesci have performed their respective roles so many times they could do them in their sleep, but the singular performance comes from Stone, who shows a range and skill heretofore unseen. Her fight scenes with DeNiro are jaw-dropping in their intensity. There can be too much of a good thing, and this movie proves it. Better editing could have made it a true classic, but it drags at points and brings in too many secondary characters, thus losing focus. It's worth watching, but it's not for the squeamish or for those with short attention spans.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mr. Jones (2019)
8/10
Effective Telling of the Best and Worst in Journalism
1 September 2020
"Mr. Jones" delves into one of the great man-made tragedies in a century full of them: the famine in the Ukraine engineered by Stalin's regime in the early 1930s. The movie quite effectively - if imperfectly - charts the saga of the young, resourceful, and exceptionally courageous Welsh journalist, Gareth Jones, and his quest to discover and tell the truth of the horrors of the Soviet rule to a Western audience both skeptical and disinterested. The film also contrasts Jones' uncompromising willingness to report appalling and unwelcome facts with that of the New York Times Bureau Chief, Walter Duranty, who is content to remain in warm, well-fed Moscow serving as Stalin's mouthpiece and, with extreme irony, earning a Pulitzer prize in the process.

James Norton does an excellent job portraying Jones as one of the unsung heroes of journalism while Peter Sarsgaard radiates Duranty's smarmy complicity with relish. While the pace and direction of the film is uneven at times and the ending seems rather perfunctory, it still succeeds in encapsulating examples of the best and worst journalism of the twentieth century in the same story.

It is a shame that this rather small production will never get the attention of larger films on journalism such as "All the President's Men," "Spotlight," and "Shattered Glass," with which it should be compared. It is far superior to "Truth" and "The Post," two of the most self-indulgent examples of the genre.

In 2003 the Pulitzer Board considered but declines to revoke Duranty's award, a shameful act that brings discredit to the prize.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Lifeless Portrayal of a Short-Lived Candidacy
5 May 2020
A rather uninspired take on Gary Hart's doomed 1988 campaign for the Democrat Party nomination. Hugh Jackman tries very hard to capture Hart's detached personality but seems miscast. J.K. Simmons is, as usual, a real treat but otherwise this movie has no standout performances. The direction is so understated as to give the film no pulse. I thought Gary Hart was rather dull in the 1980's and still feel so after this movie.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Overly Melodramatic Film about the Man Who Was "Deep Throat."
27 March 2020
I was surprisingly disappointed by this film. While Neeson and the supporting cast do commendable work trying to pump life into this rather lifeless portrayal of Mark Felt during Watergate, it just isn't enough. The overall tone of this film is so dark and moody as to be almost parody, whether it's the contrast of the film itself, the overbearing score, or the script which could be confused with that used by the Imperial Staff in a "Star Wars" movie.

Those wanting to get a more reliable picture of the real Mark Felt May have to wait until true documentary vice this dreary docu-drama is released (History Channel, where are you?).
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Life of Brian (1979)
10/10
It's Not a Movie That's Great! It's a Great Movie!!
18 February 2020
I watched this movie for the first time in at least 30 years and wondered if it still holds up. It does!! The hilarious gags keep coming at such a rapid clip that even the ones that don't work well area quickly run over by those that do. For all the controversy about it's alleged offensiveness to Christians, RELAX! The troupe is really just having some harmless fun with organized, monotheistic religion of all sorts. However, they have even MORE fun with the radical left, and THOSE jokes are even more relevant than ever. The classic exchange in which Eric Idle's character demands the right to not only become a woman but to have babies ("you're oppressing me") - a joke at the time - has become a case of life imitating art. To say this movie is not to be taken seriously is an understatement. The good-natured irreverence and silliness still gets big laughs. But remember, they're NOT the Judean People's Front, they're the People's Front of Judea!!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Leave Brain Behind
17 January 2020
We moviegoers accept a certain quota of inaccuracies in a war movie, but this one blows through that quota in the first half-hour. I could start with the fact that Spain, where this movie was filmed, looks a lot like, well, Spain and NOT Belgium during December 1944. However, there'd be no end to the list of historical goofs after that. Wooden characters, a terrible script, and completely implausible story lines lead to the all-star cast's talents being wasted. At least Telly Savalas is fun to watch.

Watch the classic 1949 film "Battleground" instead. It's more compelling AND far more realistic.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The Thousand Cliche Raid
15 January 2020
This is one of those movies that you may have thought was pretty cool when you were about ten years old and seeing it for the first time. Now, decad3s later, yikes! It has every typecast character ever seen in a cheap war movie, perverts history at British expense, and follows a completely predictable storyline. A forgettable movie that was, in fact, pretty much forgotten.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Truth (I) (2015)
5/10
Well-executed movie presenting one, and only one, side of the story.
3 July 2019
"Truth" is a film much in the ballpark as "Argo" - cinematically excellent but factually questionable. The script is smart, the film proceeds at a rapid clip, and the performances, especially that of Cate Blanchett as Mary Mapes, are excellent. It's worth watching. It's also worth, however, realizing that this film is based on Mapes' own book on the disastrous 60 Minutes II "expose" questioning George W. Bush's National Guard service in the early 1970s, which quickly lost credibility shortly after its airing weeks before the 2004 election.

There is no law requiring that movies or documentaries be fair, accurate or reflect all sides' recollection of events, and this movie is clearly sympathetic to Mapes, Dan Rather, and the other staffers at CBS that rushed the piece into production despite the shakiness of both human and document sources. Network executives, as is usually the case in such films (think "The Post" and "Kill the Messenger") are depicted as spineless in the face of attacks on the network's staff by Republicans and other networks. Those real-life individuals have blasted the movie's depiction of events but, alas, a film based on their perspective wouldn't fit the normal Hollywood narrative concerning the idealization of "plucky, brave, intrepid reporters only seeking the truth in the face of partisan and corporate pressure." What's peculiar about this movie is the near-godlike depiction of Rather by Robert Redford. Whether such marbleizing of a veteran but VERY flawed journalist was driven by Redford's own ego or infatuation by the actor, producer and/or director is a mystery.

An unstated, and unanswered, question hovering over this movie is whether CBS's personnel (or those of any other mainstream news organization) pursued this story with such doggedness over five years had it been a Democratic candidate or president, especially a progressive one. Enjoy the film, but don't expect tough questions like this one to be addressed anytime soon.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Plodding, absurd political screed that was behind the times.
21 June 2019
While it may be unfair to criticize a movie for looking dated over 40 years after it came out, I have a feeling this movie looked outdated the day it hit the screens, which could explain its brief and unsuccessful run in theaters. The plot, centered around a rogue but "principled" ex-general and a few compadres seizing control of an ICBM site and threatening Armageddon if the government doesn't reveal the real origins of the Vietnam War, is not only absurd but rather offensive to service personnel who wouldn't be too keen on the supposed protagonists killing fellow servicemen in the process, not to mention threatening mass murder. Being released 6 years after the Pentagon Papers had become available, the movie seems to have missed the boat.

A good cast is largely wasted thanks to the insistence of Robert Aldrich and Burt Lancaster to use the film as a clumsy means to promote their politics. Charles Durning gives a solid performance as President, but otherwise the only really standout performance is that by Paul Winfield, whose character is far more believable and interesting as one of the supposed antagonists. The excessive use of multiple screens, an early-seventies fad that never really caught on, further gives the movie the look of a cinematic dinosaur and kills the suspense rather than building it.

Bottom line is that this movie was one of the last of several, mostly mediocre, films stoking images of a dark conspiratorial government in the post-Watergate era (The Parralax View, Executive Action, Capricorn One). It was quickly forgotten and, if you can sit through all 144 minutes, you'll understand why.
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Capricorn One (1977)
6/10
Epitome of a Guilty Pleasure Movie
13 July 2017
If you're willing to overdose on suspension of disbelief pills and overlook the multitude of absurdities in Capricorn One, you can enjoy it for what it is: a silly, campy, thriller that only the most gullible conspiracy theorists would take seriously.

Okay, the idea of (1) a shady element within NASA planning and executing a plot within a few weeks designed to fake a mission to Mars AND FOOL THE REST OF NASA, (2) erasing the existence of a suspicious engineer without anyone else at NASA, his neighborhood, family, etc . . noticing, (3) O.J. Simpson being taken seriously as an actor, and so on is all perfectly absurd. But hey, it's only a movie, and Telly Savalas' cameo is worth the price of admission.

Bottom line: pop this movie into the DVD player, open a beer, remove your brain, and enjoy this generally fun movie. If you believe any of it is remotely plausible, you'll believe Oliver Stone's "JFK" as well.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not-So-Classic Clint Eastwood Movie that Hasn't Aged Well
3 December 2016
It's hard to believe that "Coogan's Bluff" was made just three years earlier than the iconic "Dirty Harry," for it looks ancient in comparison. Eastwood is portraying a very similar character - tough, cynical old school cop trying to maintain law and order in a world that doesn't seem to want it.

While "Dirty Harry" still holds up well today (2016) due to an engaging story line, tight script, and a tremendous supporting cast topped off by a mesmerizing Andy Robinson as the deranged Scorpio killer, "Coogan's Bluff" looks like a pair of bell bottom jeans we find in an old foot locker. The clothes, the sets, and the slang look like they were out of date within a couple of years after this was made, and Don Stroud is about the least intimidating adversary ever cast in an Eastwood film. He's more pathetic than pathological. Lee J. Cobb and Susan Clark do their best with the material given to them, but it's no use.

Watch this only to get a glimpse of late-1960s American pop culture, much like what you'd look for in an American museum display. As for convincing crime drama, forget it.

Only "Easy Rider" looks more outdated than this film.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spotlight (I) (2015)
9/10
Tight, Unsentimental, and Engrossing Film
5 September 2016
With so many movies about investigative journalism elevating their protagonists to near-godlike status, to the detriment of the film's credibility, "Spotlight" is a welcome relief. Focusing on the Boston Globe's investigation into pedophile priests' abuses and the shameful effort on the part of the Catholic Church's leadership - and a fair amount of the congregation - to avoid the problem rather than fix it, contributing to the life-shattering abuse of countless children.

The reporters and their bosses are portrayed as skilled, determined, and dogged, but still human, struggling with their own backgrounds and concerns about their sources. More surprisingly, the managing editors and senior reporters are NOT portrayed as spineless, risk-averse roadblocks so common in journalism movies. Instead, the clear villain is the leadership of the Catholic Church and the lawyers for clients that profited from settling cases ad nauseum for decades, contributing to the abuse.

As someone raised Catholic, this scandal didn't shake my faith in Catholicism but it certainly shook my faith in the institution. This movie is unsentimental, avoiding subplots that would have been needless distraction. In essence, this is a template for movies about investigative journalism.

Also, this is the movie that "Kill the Messenger" wanted to be but instead fell into the normal, drama-enhancing traps (stereotyping the reporter's editors, stretching the facts, making the reporter a martyr, etc).
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
If you're looking for something close to "Manchurian Candidate," keep looking.
31 July 2016
I found myself rolling my eyes 10 minutes into this movie as it unimaginatively rolled out every conspiracy-theory movie formula from the 70s. The direction and editing are uneven, to be charitable. Warren Beatty, as usual, poses more than he acts. Some of the more effective scenes of Beatty's character pretending to be recruited by the shadowy Parallax Corporation are fairly tense and effective, but are quickly overwhelmed by plodding, predictable nonsense.

This may have been a good made-for-TV movie at the time, but not much more. Like so many conspiracy movies, the mounting implausible characters and plot details eventually lead to this being an unintended comedy.

If you want good, engrossing and even plausible conspiracy movies, just go buy or rent "The Manchurian Candidate" again (the original, not the silly remake, which wasted a terrific performance by Meryl Streep).
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lenny (1974)
7/10
Great performances carry a painful-to-watch film.
10 July 2016
"Lenny" is a movie better appreciated than enjoyed, much in the same class as "The Unforgiven," "Taxi Driver," and "Bad Lieutenant." Dustin Hoffman, as one might expect, literally crawls into Lenny Bruce's skin in portraying the groundbreaking but fatally flawed comedian/social critic's short, tumultuous life. What is an unexpected surprise is Valerie Perrine's stunning performance as Bruce's unstable wife, Honey Harlow. Those who are more familiar with Perrine's performances as glorified eye candy will be blindsided by her acting chops as demonstrated here.

The use of black-and-white film captures the bleak mood of the film, which strains under the pressure of persuading viewers to follow two unlikable characters for two hours. While Bruce may have been brave and visionary in breaking down taboos at the time, this film correctly avoids making him a completely sympathetic figure.

Despite the great acting performances, the film's quasi-documentary approach leads to a disjointed narrative that is more distracting than effective. "Interviews" with the actual relatives and colleagues of Bruce rather than actors portraying them - still possible when the film was made in 1974 - would have been more convincing in laying out Bruce's intentions and persona.

Bottom line is that this film is worth watching, though one will leave depressed. Bob Fosse's approach to portraying Bruce's career will be appreciated by some more than others, but if he was attempting to make the audience bemoan Bruce's John Belushi-style exit from life, he failed with this viewer.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Overrated, By-the-Numbers Drama
10 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was a surprising disappointment to me. Despite a potentially riveting story and a strong performance from the always-engaging Jeremy Renner, this film followed a predictable, cliché-ridden narrative, rarely deviating into the original. The praise from critics and viewers can likely be attributed to two factors: the image of a courageous, talented journalist (Gary Webb) pursuing and defending his story against pressure from multiple angles, and the fact that the target of his investigation was the Reagan administration's CIA, frequently a target of Hollywood. Considering these factors, this film was NEVER going to get a bad review. A far superior film within this genre is "Shattered Glass," a more credible, sophisticated story about a young crackpot who nearly destroyed the New Republic.

Alas, this film goes from zero to tedious very quickly. Webb is portrayed in an idealized fashion more suitable to Frank Capra movies of the 1940s - the earnest moral giant surrounded by relative pygmies, save his loyal wife (also well-portrayed by Rosemarie DeWitt). Only a previous extramarital affair with a tragic ending blemishes his character.

All the remaining characters are figures straight out of central casting that we've seen a hundred times before. The spineless newspaper editors and executives who get cold feet when the story gets questioned - check. The jealous competitors who gleefully go after the hero instead of his story - check. The shady, sinister CIA agents - check. The ex-CIA agent who gets an attack of conscience - check. This last character, portrayed by Ray Liotta, laughably implies that the Central American radicals of that era that were being opposed by the CIA wanted elected governments. Their motto of "bullets, not ballots" suggested otherwise.

While the wisdom, legality and morality of Reagan's support to the Contras can and is subject to legitimate debate to this day, longtime critics of the agency and, seemingly, the producers of this film, seem to think that gaining information on America's enemies can never involve nefarious characters. Maybe they think that we can stop the next ISIL-inspired terrorist attack by getting information from the Boy Scouts, but I digress.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Dust Bowl (2012)
5/10
Good Documentary, Though Not Burns' Best Effort
5 June 2016
Ken Burns really doesn't know how to make a bad documentary, but all of his documentaries have acquired the very familiar style that now borders on the repetitive, and thus borderline boring. "The Dust Bowl" reflects this problem. As is always the case with Burns' documentaries, the images are striking, the interviews moving and insightful, and the narrative - usually - is quite gripping. There's a lot to be learned about the Dust Bowl of the 1930s from this film, and it's generally worth the time. The problem with this film is that no documentary should feel like it takes longer to watch than the event itself. Coming in at nearly 4 hours, this is a bit more narrative about the dust bowl than this particular viewer wants to absorb. After so many great works, Burns' editors seem to have shied away from trimming his films to a length and pace more suitable to the topic. The middle portion of this documentary in film in particular drags on incessantly with tales of one dust storm after another until one is compelled to exclaim "enough - I get it! For Ken Burns fans and those really interested in the dust bowl, this is a worthy watch. For those with a more passing interest, I suggest the PBS documentary from the "American Experience" series.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Conventional But Very Engaging Film
17 March 2016
Coming in at a mere 93 minutes, this hidden little gem of a movie seems to take a bit longer to watch, but for all the right reasons. Watching a young, bright, but terribly flawed young man commit slow-motion career suicide that both betrays his friends and endangers their own reputations and livelihood is indeed uncomfortable, but is also what makes this film mesmerizing knowing that it is mostly real.

Hayden Christensen's portrayal of Stephen Glass is that of a rather pathetic character whose willingness to not only deceive his readers and colleagues in pursuit of instant fame but also to continue to dig his professional grave ever deeper rather than cop to his fraud. Christensen's performance is convincing and workmanlike but not particularly memorable.

The performance that IS memorable - so much that his character becomes the moral center of the film and steals the show - is that by Peter Sarsgaard of editor Charles Lane. Anyone who has been unwillingly thrust into a seemingly premature promotion under unfavorable circumstances (in this case replacing a much-loved editor who's been fired for sticking up for his writers) can immediately appreciate Lane's discomfort. That discomfort, expertly exuded by Sarsgaard, becomes interlaced with panic and eventually anger as he slowly realizes the magnitude of Glass' fraud and his ever-more-desperate attempts to maintain it. While his anger grows, so does his confidence in his own abilities, which is demonstrated with expert subtlety.

The film's ability to end on an upbeat note, as the writing staff finally comes to appreciate Lane's predicament and concern for their feelings and reputations, both of which have been damaged by the colleague they've wrongfully defended most of the film, is welcome.

The only criticism of this film is that it never really explains what was unique about Glass that made him fabricate stories, sources, and characters on such a scale. Most professional writers seek the approval of their peers, readers, and editors and the success that comes with getting great stories printed, but don't normally go to Glass' lengths to reach those goals. What drove Glass to go in such a misguided direction is never laid out.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Australia (2008)
2/10
"Pearl Harbor" With an Accent
10 February 2016
I saw this move over seven years ago when it came out and I still haven't seen a movie as bad since. Prepare to dodge the clichés that are fired out of this movie faster than a machine gun. The characters are wooden (the good guys are VERY good, the bad guys are VERY bad, and nothing in between), the plot is straight out of a Harlequin Romance novel, the script is riddled with lines that garner unintended laughs, and the direction is unbearable.

Having endured nearly three hours of this disaster, I fully expected to see Michael Bay and/or Jerry Bruckheimer in the credits, as it had all the earmarks of their work but, to my surprise, even THEY wouldn't have anything to do with a movie this simple-minded. I couldn't help immediately comparing this to "Pearl Harbor." Both movies have so much in common - all for the wrong reasons - and, in both, the audience is hoping a Japanese bomb or two takes out the lead actors. It would've helped their careers.

Only one notable quote spoken in this movie kept it from getting a "1" score in my eyes: "It wouldn't be a war if someone wasn't making money." That was the highlight of a film that all respectable Aussies should disown outright.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mean Streets (1973)
5/10
A dull, disappointing movie, though with hints of Scorsese's greatness to come.
15 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Having an appreciation for so much of Scorsese's better-known films and believing that most artists/musicians/directors' best work is the earliest work, I expected perhaps too much of this movie. Instead, I found it ponderous, poorly edited, an uninteresting plot with even less interesting characters, DeNiro's excepted.

While Scorsese captures the New York City of the early 70s well, Harvey Keitel's talents are largely untapped, and I found myself wondering why there was no apparent movement in the plot 45 minutes into this film. With DeNiro's standout performance being that of a completely unlikeable character, the final climax of the film left me, well, uncaring and glad the credits were rolling.

Watch this if you're a Scorsese fan and want to say you've seen all of his flicks. Otherwise, don't bother spending two hours you can't get back watching this snoozefest.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Used Cars (1980)
10/10
The Most Underrated, Overlooked Comedy EVER!
2 January 2016
This classic was largely overlooked back in 1980, due to a botched release and competition from Airplane! Even 35 years later, it still provides huge laughs and is a great vehicle for a then-young Kurt Russell. Truly raunchy, but not gratuitously so, this is definitely a movie for guys (and maybe some women who have a good sense of humor) and takes advantage of the era before political correctness took over(think Blazing Saddles). The supporting cast is terrific (including "Toby" the dog), the faux commercials are priceless, and the wild ending unforgettable, regardless of the silliness of it all.

One last thing: if you get the DVD, definitely watch the movie with the commentary by Kurt Russell, Bob Gale, and Bob Zemenkis. It's by far the best commentary I've seen for any movie and is nearly as funny as the movie itself. The fact that it was made 20 years after the movie was released means they have fun pointing out the films technical flaws and back stories.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Natural (1984)
3/10
Overblown and Overrated
2 January 2016
This is one of those movies that I realize I'm in the distinct minority by disliking so strongly, but I feel this epitomizes the type of vanity platform for Robert Redford similar to these demonstrated a few years later by Kevin Costner, especially in Wyatt Earp and The Postman.

I recall this film having an excessive use of slow-motion, especially after Redford's character hits a home run (he never seemed to do anything but hit those or strike out - not even a triple could be written into the script). Other characters were clichés right out of central casting, particularly Robert Prosky's. Like so many sports movies that try to adopt story lines with nearly biblical meanings, this one takes itself WAY too seriously.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed