Change Your Image
ireide
Reviews
Jinxed! (1982)
Fun and Entertaiing
I first saw this movie way back, it must have been not long after the original release-and I enjoyed the move. Finally, four decades later and I have just watched it a second time. Guess what? I still enjoy it.
There are a lot of negative reviews on imdb about the movie, and, to be fair, the criticisms are mostly valid. The acting is not the best, the story is shallow, and obviously the movie was shot on a budget, but with all that I enjoyed my rewatch.
So, why do I enjoy this B- flick? First, the story appealed to me, the down and out habitual gambler (Rip Torn) was a character. Second, of course, the great Bette Midler, her acting varied but overall she played her character with energy and appeal. On my rewatch I realised I enjoyed how she turned her character around. From a passive and abused girlfriend she became the mastermind who conned the blackjack dealer (who first roughly seduced her) into murdering her boyfriend, (Torn's character). Last, she turned the tables around and turned the dealer boyfriend into her new Jonah.
If you are considering watching this movie for a grand cinematic experience, don't. It isn't. If you just want 90 minutes of fun with a few twists give this a look.
Prometheus (2012)
Disappointing, but still entertaining.
I have been a lifelong fan of Ridley Scott, and I have just seen his latest movie 'Prometheus', so thusly it falls upon me to review this movie. What do I think?
The answer—good, I enjoyed it, entertaining, but if any reader is sensing any hesitation in my answer, you are correct. While it was a good SF movie, with all of the expected twists and turns, and a few not so expected, it lacked originality. Admittedly, it is hard to be original in a prequel, and certainly a prequel to a franchise with so many different episodes as this, but, even so, it was just a little bit of a let down—so much hype to live up to...
The movie was billed as something that would discuss the origins of humanity. Well, it did not. There were some unexplained scenes in the movie that hinted at this, certainly the opening scene where one of the aliens drinks/eats something, his body/DNA dissolves, and he falls into a waterfall (presumably on Earth—but are there not less deadly ways to spread DNA?), a few half-hearted references to god (the xian god). The closest to a direct response to this question is a finding that the deceased (not entirely) human-like aliens are 2,000 years old, "give or take", but that is hardly far enough in our past to count as the human origin. Lets just say that there are lots of loss ends in the story, loss ends which no one even attempts to tie up.
I will add to this that sitting in a cinema in Thailand, watching this movie, made me confront (again) the ethnocentrism of Hollywood. The crew of the ship was a geek cross section of US culture (but no Mexicans). The aliens 'engineers' were all tall, space-out Caucasians. If nothing else this does reflect a lack of imagination on the part of the movie makers, their audiences, or both.
A second problem I have with the movie is the technology. It is both too advanced and too primitive. First, the advanced. It is the end of the 21st century, and humans have mastered interstellar travel. Ummm. No specifics, but two years of suspended animation carried the crew to a "distant" solar system. Strangely, I am reminded of the opening of the first 'Planet of the Apes' movie. OK, way to go to the unnamed scientific genius, who figured that one out. Hope you got a Nobel and much more. The primitive is the other tech seen on the ship. It is not advanced enough. Many little things. For example, the 'glass' space helmets reflect light, whereas it would not be too much to expect these helmets to not be covered with glossy, distracting reflections, and no smart materials, sliding doors which make a sound, and where are the google glasses? Most of the tech looks like stuff from today and tomorrow, not a lifetime from now, however, I will mention one pleasing bit of hardware. The explorers used remote sensors, laser emitting flying balls, to scan and map the "creepy, underground caverns" they were walking through. For the first time in "Alien" history the crew of an advanced ship used tech to map areas of extreme danger, rather than just wander in.
Having said of all this, I was entertained by the movie. There were numerous, well crafted minor references to the previous movies. Dr Shaw's self-medicated abortion will go down in movie history (that woman has balls). The android David is played supremely well. He is neither a mere copy of previous "Alien" androids nor a stock figure, he is the character for this movie and his role.
The criticisms I have made here I do admit are extreme, it is a movie, not a documentary, and certainly not an attempt to paint a picture of life in the last decade of this century. However, I am clearly becoming more demanding of my entertainment as I grow older. I expect it to be better (did someone say "Limitless" (2011) ?), not merely more of the same. The big question, the measure of my opinion of a movie: would I go and see it again? The answer, at this time—I am not sure.
And, while I am here, the movie was in 3D, which, as always, disappoints, me. The 3D effect was not overly pronounced and did not add a great deal to the visual effect. What is did do was darken the movie, making it just a little too dark. I am not a fan of 3D, and I see no reason to change my mind.
Nickel Queen (1971)
35 years later...
I saw this movie when it was first released, 35 years ago, and only once. As such my recollection is reduced to a few scenes, and a lingering regard.
The film revolves around a nickel mine scam, set in Western Australia. There are a number of squabbles between various participants, each eager to lay their hands on the cash, and a number of very amusing scenes and characters. One of which, and one which has firmly lodged itself in my mind, is that of a topless girl diving into a swimming pool!
At the time of the movies screening I lived in Perth, Western Australia. I remember how startled I was to see places and people (several WA politicians appeared in the movie) with which I was personally familiar.
I hope that someone, somewhere has a copy of this delightful movie safely stored away, and that one day, it will find itself re-released for those who enjoy a light, but entertaining movie, and a fine example of Australian film making.
The Lion in Winter (2003)
Inferior in every regard
This is a poor and unnecessary remake of an outstanding original.
The 1968 version, which starred Peter O'Toole and Kathryn Hepburn (who were accompanied by an excellent cast of supporting actors), told the story of the animosity and conflict which took place between the King of England, Henry II, and the members of his family over Xmas 1183. Their interpretation of this relationship produced one of the great movies of the 20th century.
The remake is inferior in every regard. To begin, the acting can at best be described as mediocre. Stewart and Close are tolerable, but their supporting actors seem little more than cardboard cut-outs staggering through their dialogue without enthusiasm or animation. Entirely absent from their performance is the purported purpose of the movie, to reveal the drama of a group of people battling and scheming for survival and power. The actors seem to be doing little more than reading their lines from cue cards. This performance is doubly painful to watch as the screenplay is a near word for word copy of the outstanding James Goldman original. Even the sets, which I hoped would be an improvement, are inferior. The original had an authentic air of grubby decay and dirt, while the new is filled with clean people inhabiting tidy surroundshardly convincing for the Middle Ages.
The term 'dumbed down' comes to mind when comparing the two.
To be frank, I did not watch all of this movie, however, I am certain I am not the worse for this lack. If anyone wants to see a great movie, see the original, ignore the remake.