Change Your Image
gbmcleod
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Cleopatra (1999)
Cleopatra (1999) both Sounds (And Acts) as though Cleopatra was a Kardashian born in 1999
The acting is juvenile and Cleopatra has NONE of her historically documented dignity or cunning. One would think she was more likely a "Girls Gone Wild" alumni, or someone from Beverly Hills 90210.
I realize some people just look at the sets, and settle for simple entertainment, but the filmmakers themselves must have decided that this was the audience they wanted to attract. Nobody with the slightest historical acumen of who Cleopatra ACTUALLY was, and how powerful and formidable a woman she was, will find this re-enactment anything more than a letdown.
Cleopatra could never have ensnared Caesar or Mark Antony with this display of utter girlishness (with little or no charm).
Enjoy it. Just please don't pass this off as a "good movie." It's Kiddieville all the way. Cleopatra 90210 would be more accurate. 1999 was a Very Bad Year for films, it seems...
Doctor Strange (2016)
Strange, Indeed
First things first:
Stephen Strange's spells are spoken incantations, not gestures. Without invoking an Entity, his spells should not work. There is magic of the mind (very few movies do this), magic with wands (Harry Potter) and magic of the spoken word (Dr. Strange and most other Marvel sorcerers). Yet, no words are used in the movie.
It is more akin to Kung Fu meets the Leonardo DiCaprio movie 'Inception' with the moving landscapes and folding buildings.
If that's what makes a movie good for some, great. But hardly creative. And certainly NOTHING like Dr. Strange comic books.
And making Hilda Swinton The Ancient One just go get good box office and not offend China (the Ancient One was Tibetan, but we wouldn't want to upset China, would we? So, they changed the entire background of The Ancient One to make it palatable to China. Go, Team!) There were many more qualified MALE, ASIAN actors who could have filled this role more admirably.
The movie is gimmicky, although passable enough for those who haven't been reading about Stephen since 1970. But overall, just passable, although the Dormmamu scene was cleverly carried out. I should point out that Mordo is Strange's enemy in the comic books. He is jealous that the Ancient One chose Strange over him, and in fact, Mordo conspires WITH Dormmanu to kill Stephen in the comic books. But never let history stand in the way of a movie, right?
Cumberbatch was a good choice for strange, but his speeches lack the gravity ("Who's laughing now, a**hole?") WHAT?!?!? That's the language of a 22 year old. Stephen is 45, a little past trendy colloquials popping out of his mouth. Also, the astral self cannot appear in the physical realm (such as when he reveals himself in the operating room to his former colleague).
Gaping plot holes and flaws prevent me from giving it more than a 5, although I can see why others enjoy it: they like the flash and spectacle. Dr. Strange should be much more nuanced and subtle than having the Cape of Levitation pulling him backwards, as though it is sentient (it is not), in a hilarious, Keystone Cops moment.
But take this with a grain of salt. At 70, I've been reading this more than probably 2 or 3 of you combined. Just call me the crusty old curmudgeon - who insists on a more realistic portrayal of a character. To date, ONLY Wonder Woman is COMPLETELY who she is in the comic books. (Well, that's slightly unfair. Iron Man comes close, as does Spider Man, but the Iron Man in the comic books is not nearly as glib as Morton Downey plays him). Thor is a joke (been reading him since I was 12, so...58 years).
But, back to Strange.If you want something to feel supernatural, take a page out of Harry Potter, or Lord of The Rings, and do it RIGHT. This is kiddie stuff splash-the-special-effects-across-the-screen moviemaking. Pedantic, but I grant you, "entertaining" as long as you don't know enough about the characters. And I'm not sure I agree that there is much character development. Just moments of gravitas, which is not remotely the same as actual character development (Again, see Wonder Woman for TRUE character development).
Decent, but no more than that.
Locke & Key (2020)
You got a Lock(e)? I got a Key!!! OOPS...don't know how to use it!!!! OOPS, you're Dead!
I've read the raves, including "how could anyone give it less than an 8?" Well, because we've been watching these kinds of shows since the 50s, and have, oh, 4 or 5 decades on ya!
That said, I liked the show. Right off, the brightest character is nearly ALWAYS the youngest child, unburdened by the angst of the teenage years, and almost always the one who can most quickly grasp - and believe - in things that go 'bump in the night.'
The mom? Allowances have to be made for her somewhat simpering character, akin to Winona Ryder in 'Stranger Things,' although, in both series, 'mom' comes around and when she does, WATCH OUT!! (But it takes a while).
A mystery: dad is killed in front of his children, so PTSD is a given (and completely understandable). In the spirit of 'The Spiderwick Chronicles,' they all move out to a house in the country. These "houses" always have enough room to house several Army platoons (nobody EVER has a small ranch or split level, at least, not since 'Poltergeist,' made back in the dinosaur age of the early '80s. I suppose it's spookier to hear noise 12 rooms away, walk out and start calling "Andy, Susanna???.....who's there" as if a murderer (or monster) is going to identify itself. One point for stupidity.
The teenagers are typically lost in the twin pillars of angst of popularity (common to teens up to the age of 23 these days!), and don't make friends easily, sulk, blah, blah, blah.
But the little boy, Bode, is the bright spot here (another parallel to the 'Stranger Things' cast), and picks up the magic found in the keys (of which there are a-plenty, each key giving a certain magical ability).
Now, if the kids were sensible, they wouldn't do unbelievable things like split up when there's a monster in the house - but they do! Stupidity point #2.
That said, it you can get past the moments of extremely foolish decision-making on the two teens' part (the little boy almost NEVER goes wrong. Here, Here!), it is an enjoyable movie, although none of us is going to be thrilled iwth the ending. And WHY they didn't anticipate certain actions on the part of the 'Bad Lady,' I must again attribute to the fact that the human brain doesn't mature until age 25 at the earliest (these days, it seems, not until 35) and so the children make dumb mistakes (staring at the monster coming at them for 5 seconds instead of running like hell immediately; not having the common sense to look behind them to make sure there's no monster there. They back away without ONE SINGLE LOOK over their shoulder to make sure there's nothing sneaking up behind them? They need Jamie Lee Curtis for a mom to teach them how to "PAY ATTENTION, YOU IDIOTS!!!"), but she's not available for consulting on this movie, apparently.
Enjoyable, really, but one finds oneself grinding one's teeth at the puerile strategizing of the two teens. Okay, let me put that away. A fun series. I actually DO look forward to Season 2. And remember, this review is from a 70 year old 'old fogey' who's seen more horror movies than the rest of the reviewers put together (well, only a slight exaggeration). A little more originality (like Stranger Things) and this could well BE the next 'Stranger Things.'
Ragnarok (2020)
Decent, but Sloooooowwww...
I liked the show, but it spent 6 episodes with Magne (the protagonist) looking - the entire time - like he'd just come out of a coma. Lost, confused. It took until the very last episode for ANYthing to happen.
As for Norse mythology, I read that back in the 1960s, and yes Marvel's version is just a bit "comic-bookey" (how could they sell issues without creating entire storylines?), but it is essentially correct in legend. The tv series takes over supposedly after Ragnarok has befallen the Gods.
Again, no point in going over endless scenes of Magne looking dazed (I found this extremely annoying) and never realizing who he actually was for 6 episodes, AND I did fast forward through episodes for exactly that reason, but I saw the first few episodes without flinching.
Perhaps it is less compelling because it was made in Norway, and the culture is different there, but LORD! Did Magne HAVE to be so dimwitted for 6 episodes?? Couldn't they have made him dimwitted for 3 or 4 episodes, and smarter and more clever in the last two? That's why I gave it a 5. It is, as I said, decent. Just not compelling. The evil characters were more interesting, and I'm hardly a fan of that, normally, but at least they had brains!
The only other character who was interesting was Magne's younger brother, who is gay? I half-expected he would turn out to be Loki: he had the devil in his eyes. But. No.
Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)
Rather pedestrian, time passes, you age, and age, and age...
A half-baked remake of the 1959 classic, and it lacks one rather important feature -- an actual journey to the Center of the Earth! Instead, the viewer is treated to a world within a world (the Earth is hollow -- who'd have guessed?!?) where there is a sky and actual sunlight (how else would vegetation grow?? the bigger question is: how does a star exist within the center of the Earth and not burn it to cinders?) The actors are passable, not good. The characters are foolish: the main female character decides to take a swim in a lake.Nobody bothers to tell her "Strange world, stay on the land." (A lake, one asks?? Yes, if there's sunlight, how could there not be lake? If one must be stupid, well then, lets be completely stupid.A good point: the only consistency in the movie is stupidity, so go with the flow, must have been the thinking. If they'd thought less, it might have gotten better.) Then,throw in to the mix, the usual "savages," indigenous to this world and an us vs. the savages ending and you have nothing out of the normal. Oh, by the way, everyone talks in 20th century English, as usual, although it's the 19th century. Writers lack any sense of the speech of different eras, common in writers under the age of 30. Watch. Snooze.