Change Your Image
pgr-fw
Reviews
Leonard Part 6 (1987)
Not as awful as that
I'd wanted to see Leonard Part 6 for years, but never caught up with it. The monstrously awful reviews put it on a short list of classic bad cinema, something that no aficionado of trash could die without seeing. Finally it appeared on my local oldies channel one Sunday morning and I got the chance to cross it off my bucket list.
Wow, was I ever disappointed. It wasn't nearly as awful as I'd been led to believe. This is a SPOOF of a spy picture, folks. It's intended to make fun of the James Bond super-spy genre. In other words the amazing escapes and fantastic spy gadgets are supposed to be over-the-top and implausible. And they are, although by not much more than Moonraker.
Maybe the gags are a bit too far apart, but not tremendously so. How Leonard takes out the bad guy's lair at the end makes it worth it.
No matter what else, Gloria Foster is fabulous as the super-villain-ess.
The closest thing to Leonard is Austin Powers. And I'd say it's no worse than Goldmember, without all the gross outs and cheesy sexual innuendo. For my money, I'll take Leonard.
Baby Geniuses (1999)
Spectacular! (ly awful!)
Stunning! Agonizing! Painful! I didn't think it was possible that there was a worse movie than "Manos: The Hands of Fate". I was wrong. "Manos" has an intelligible story arc. "Manos" has characters I care about a little. "Manos" left me with at least a little admiration for the producer/director/star for having the guts to make it despite having no budget and no talent. Campy, and you can at least have fun laughing at it.
"Baby Geniuses" on the other hand, has none of these redeeming qualities. Full of producers, directors, and stars who know better, along with a multi-million dollar budget. Blech! Makes my brain hurt. I don't think it can even be enjoyed with excessive quantities of intoxicants.
What's really astounding is that they had the nerve to make a sequel! As much as I enjoy rotten movies, I'm not sure I have the guts to watch "Superbabies". A man has to know his limits.
From Justin to Kelly (2003)
Spontaneous Song and Dance in Bikinis
I was disappointed. I'm an aficionado of bad movies, and this doesn't even have enough going for it to be called a respectable bad movie.
I was expecting spectacularly awful, but it was only quite awful. It doesn't rise to the level of godawful horror of, say, "The Room" or "Manos: The Hands of Fate". It's not even that redeeming. It doesn't deserve to be on the IMDb bottom 100, because it implies that it has some sort of notoriety, which doesn't deserve. It's just saccharine yech, in bikinis.
I was going to give a full plot summary, with all the details, but that would violate IMDb's policy on spoilers. Besides, anyone with enough brains to log into IMDb will have the whole movie figured out in the first five minutes anyway.
I was tempted to give it 10, in an attempt to knock it off the list, but I have standards.
Unlike the makers of this film.
A Face in the Crowd (1957)
Interesting, but not perfect
This is indeed a good movie, but two things about it are off.
First, the transition between the Lonesome who crafts the brilliant campaign for Vitajex comes right on the heels of the Lonesome who is too homespun to stick to the copy about the mattress. Where did all that skill suddenly come from? The transition is too jarring.
Second, Marcia seems to have disappeared through the middle of the movie. What was she doing? Then, suddenly, when she's needed, whoops, turns out she's indispensable after all. It seems she was holding the whole Lonesome Rhodes empire together without us noticing.
Both of these flaws lead to the same question: was Lonesome a native genius of marketing, or was he someone's puppet? Was this genius wandering in and out of Arkansas jails all this time, just waiting for the right manager to come along? That doesn't make sense. Someone with that much manipulative skill wouldn't be spending nights in the county jug, he'd be playing much bigger hustles.
It seems like the director didn't know himself. So it gets a 7 (pretty good movie). Close to something better, but with significant flaws.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1981)
Fairly Weak
One can claim that this was so good for it's time, or otherwise make excuses for it, but as a piece of entertainment this show is pretty weak. I'm not one to gripe about weak special effects, so I won't. That could be overlooked given budgets and production pressures. Quality entertainment doesn't require it.
Something that is required in great comedy is a surprise. If you've read the book there's absolutely nothing surprising about the show.
At least nothing surprising in a good way. Some say it's "campy" or "corny". I don't think it even rises to that level. A funny face, a gesture, even a raised eyebrow could have made the transition to tape worth the trouble; instead we got mailed in performances. They spoke the lines, they stood in the right spot, but that's about it. Arthur was flat, Trillian played as an airhead, but Ford was the worst. In this series he comes off as a rather affable, friendly fellow, not the deeply misanthropic (or should I say mis-pan-sentient) Ford Prefect that we love from the book. The properly two-headed Zaphod at least gave it a shot, and Marvin had potential.
If you're taking a class on the history of low budget television production, this is a good vehicle. If you're looking for an evening or two of entertainment, you'll be better off with, dare I say it, the movie. It at least gave me a reason to keep my eyes open, if only to see where they mangled the original story.
Wo de fu qin mu qin (1999)
Should be an 11
First off, I'm a very hard grader. I think 10 should be resolved for culture changing movies: "Gone with the Wind", "Casablanca", "The Godfather." "The Road Home" is in that category, or it would be if enough people had heard of it. It deserves to be an 11; it raises your expectation of what a movie can be.
I can't explain why this is such a moving film, but since this is a review I guess I'll have to try. First off, the cinematography is stunningly beautiful. No, it's not grand vistas of spectacular mountain ranges, it's just that every frame is a photographic masterpiece. I have some experience with still photography, and I think that every single frame in this film would stand on its own as a fine art photograph. (There's one little hiccup with the chronology; those who don't care about such things won't care, and those who do (like me) will readily forgive the slip.)
The story: man returns to the village of his birth to bury his father; and his mother is a irascible, stubborn old bat. Why is that so good? I think that's it: you start with one expectation, and you find out over time why she's like that. Simple really, but wonderful, told with a marvelous pace. I like to pretend I'm a tough guy, and I really resent it when people try to manipulate my emotions, but I can't hold the tears. And not because it's sad. It's joyous, wonderful, a story of lives well lived under less than optimal circumstances.
Is there some propaganda involved, considering that this is China in the beginning of the Communist era? Gosh, I don't know. There are pictures of Mao, and it's clear that without him none of this would have happened. I'm about as far from Mao as one can get, but it's not about politics, it's about people, living their lives nobly in the environment they are in.
I'm stunned that this movie is only 90 minutes, it seems much longer, and I mean that in a good way. It does so much in such a short time that it's hard to believe that it's so short. There's so much more substance in half the time of, say, "Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End" that you feel there must have been something happening involving a black hole.
The first time I saw "The Road Home" I only caught about the last 30 minutes, and couldn't forget it. It really stick to your ribs. There's no movie I recommend more highly.
10,000 BC (2008)
Preposterous
Preposterous premise, weak story line, ridiculous dialogue. But the special effects were good. I suppose if I could just put my brain in a sack and not notice the geographical juxtaposition of frozen mountains, tropical swamps, and great deserts, the logistical difficulties of armies of men walking across trackless deserts carrying nothing but spears, animals and plants in places that they don't belong, then it would only be a rather hum drum boy-gets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl-back movie. I still would have it a 3 because there's no particular drama to it.
I am looking forward to the DVD. It will be a lot more fun at home, where I can ridicule it with sufficient quantities of intoxicating beverages. I sure hope there will be a rifftrax.
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
What can you say about a comedy that's not funny?
What can you say about a comedy that's not funny? There's just nothing particularly interesting about the entire movie. The highly untalented Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson are playing their usual characters, in their usual way. Gweneth Paltrow and Luke Wilson are of no particular interest. Even Bill Murray is a stiff. He looks like Robert Fulghum, but isn't nearly as interesting.
It has the appearance of being an adapted novel. Lots of scenes that don't really make any sense and aren't necessary to drive the plot. Seems that they just needed to be thrown in somewhere.
And some unnecessary nudity just tossed in for no particular reason, except perhaps that the director wanted to look at some nekkid chicks.
I call it a three, but writing about it makes that seem generous. It's not in "Manos, The Hands of Fate" class (which actually would have been more entertaining), but it certainly was a waste of two hours and NetFlix pick.
La Môme (2007)
Best movie I've seen in years
I'm a very stingy rater. I hate the way so many people are willing to toss tens around with abandon. Tens should be reserved for culture-changing moments in film-making. This one qualifies.
It could have been another run-of-the-mill a biopic, and still been pretty good. The performance of Marion Cotillard alone is enough to put it into the very good category. But the direction by Olivier Dahan pushes it far beyond merely very good; it should become the standard by which all who follow are judged.
I won't write a spoiler, but the non-linear way the scenes are coupled together is always surprising and interesting, and somehow, miraculously, never gets confusing. Pay attention at all times! You never know when what you're seeing now will get tied back in.
It's a shame that a movie of this caliber is playing in the indie theaters. As of this writing it's grossed $9,238,655 (USA) (19 August 2007). If "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" is worth $300 million, "La Vie en Rose" deserves to gross at least $30 billion. Yeah, it is 100 times as entertaining.
Fletch (1985)
Can't decide what it is, doesn't do anything well
This movie couldn't decide if it wanted to be a comedy or a mystery. It's possible to be both ("48 Hours" comes to mind), but this one doesn't do either well. The basic concept seems usable, but the jokes are lame and far between, and the drama doesn't hold up under all the weak attempts at humor. There are a few giggles (the airplane mechanics and the basketball fantasy are the best) but it generally goes down with hardly a smile.
It's not a 1 (e.g. "Manos, the Hands of Fate"), but it certainly doesn't meet my standard of "an hour and a half well spent" required to get a 5. It's about midway in between. Call it a three.
Sad to think that this is rated as Chevy Chase's fourth-best movie.
Snakes on a Plane (2006)
Snakes! On a Plane!
It has crazed snakes! On a plane! With Samuel L. Jackson! Need I say more?
This has been the most anticipated movie in my household since "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest", and that sucked big time. Fortunately, SoaP is surprisingly un-awful. They set up a fairly decent story, moved it along with a good pace, threw in lots of action, and generally put together a decent escapist movie. Some of the basic premises are ridiculous, and there's too much crude snickering teenager caliber sexual humor, but on the whole, not a bad way to spend the evening.
I had high hopes that it would turn into a rubber snake-fest, but it seems I was the only one who came armed. I'm looking forward to when it comes to the dollar theater and gets a lower caliber crowd.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Not awful, just a long way down from "Black Pearl"
It's rare that I go to an opening night, but we love "Black Pearl" so much we just had to. The theater was full 20 minutes before show time, the anticipation was electric. I was expecting the audience to be as much fun as the movie.
And in a way, I was right. Once the film started rolling, the air went out of the crowd pretty fast. A slow, boring opening, followed by a rather ridiculous sequence that just provided a vehicle for Will to meet up with Jack Sparrow. You might ask how I could condemn something in a POTC movie as "implausible", but I will. The whole sequence wouldn't have been less forced if Will and Jack had bumped into each other at a Starbucks in Tampa.
It picks up somewhat after that, I suppose, but it still has more stuffed in that it needs or can competently carry. It seems they had a lot of ideas from people they couldn't say no to, so they threw it in somewhere.
Jack Sparrow was considerably less animated than in "Pearl". It looked more like someone playing Johnny Depp playing Jack Sparrow than the brilliantly eccentric performance of the first movie. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, well, they're still gorgeous.
Davey Jones is particularly interesting visually, as are some of the other human/sea creatures. Many of the humans are a waste, sometimes overdoing old jokes from the first movie. It's only ironic once when a pirate shows a surprising flash of educational sophistication.
This whole second movie is just a setup for the third movie, and that's not the only way it reminds me of "Star Wars". One of the creatures in particular I think ILM just pulled out some of their old work from "Return of the Jedi". Others in my clan noted similarities to Indiana Jones movies, and that some of the bad guys seem to have patterned their characters on Orcs.
Sigh. I wanted so much to love "Dead Man's Chest." And I don't hate it, just like I didn't hate "The Empire Strikes Back." But both left me unsatisfied, for a lot of similar reasons. I don't like paying full price for what's essentially an extended trailer for the next sequel. I'm disappointed when a terrific actor playing a terrific character comes out flat the second time around. (Let's hope Johnny Depp doesn't fall as far as Harrison Ford did the third time around.) And it's only a minor compensation when the character special effects are drastically improved over the first round.
Advice: See "Dead Man's Chest" but don't knock yourself out. It will be in the dollar theater soon enough.
Madagascar (2005)
Not bad
Issue a warrant for the arrest of Sacha Baron Cohen. The charge? Grand Theft Movie. As Julian the Lemur King, he totally steals the show from the alleged star power headlining "Madagascar". This is one of the few movies I want to see sequel to, so long as it's exploring the personality of King Julian and his cronies.
The story is somewhat interesting, although the main characters are mostly swept along in the situation rather than creating it. The responses are somewhat obvious, but not quite enough to make you groan. The humor is rarely rises above a good snicker. The biggest jokes are TV references that go over the heads of the kids. I like a good anachronism as much as the next guy, but it wears thin pretty quickly.
The ultimate conflict arises when one of the star animals has to deny his basic animal nature so as not to upset his anthropomorphic relationship with his animal friends who happen to be of different species.
I'm going to seriously over-intellectualize a kiddie movie here, but I find that treatment hard to follow. I don't have a problem with Sylvester and Tweety, because Sylvester is never asked to be anything but a sentient cat, and he's always fully a cat when he's around people. I can deal with Animal Farm because the animals are really humans in animal suits, and they're always that way. But I have trouble staying in the fantasy when the creator can't quite decide which way he wants to play it. Sentient, speaking animals sometimes behave in a civilized manner, but you can never tell when they are going lapse into being animals again.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Very good, could be better
Visually stunning. I'm not one to rave about the special effects, but the overall appearance of the movie is fantastic.
Excellent story line. There were also a lot of loose ends that had do be tied here, and they were tied up in a satisfying manner, while presenting a story that could stand on its own legs as a compelling adventure.
Sadly, however, they seem to have left the details of the writing to the summer interns. The dialogue is flat, predictable, and uninspiring. It says what is obviously occurring on the screen. Example (to avoid a spoiler), late in the film character x gets off the ship and really needs to go to the y, quickly, and someones says, "Take x to the y, quickly!" Gag! Even Padme's big scene, something that they should have worked hard on if for no other reason than to put it in the trailer to bring in the chicks, is spoiled by corny lines.
Carrie Fischer complained about some of the dialogue in the first (or fourth movie, if you reckon it that way), but, "Governor Tarkin. I should have expected to find you holding Vader's leash. I detected your foul stench when I was brought on board." is probably better than the best line in ROTS.