Change Your Image
pcernea-1
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
Ranks Up There With 4, 5, and 6.
No, it wasn't perfect, but I have to give it ten stars. At this point, I think it's impossible to make a Star Wars movie that doesn't have a few flaws. When I saw the initial corny exchange between Poe and the red-haired general, my expectations tanked. But then so much of the movie was good, the corny parts were few enough, that I really, really enjoyed it and want to see it again. In fact, I think it stacks up with the original trilogy, and that's the most important part. Plus, hey, no spending one third of the movie with the Ewoks, am I right?
What I really liked about it:
* Luke - He was always a pure and perfect character, and I never expected him to have any flaws. I thought he was going to play the exact role to Rey that Yoda played to him on Dagobah. Instead, they made Rey a stronger character, and made Luke weak, though short of being a badguy.
* The communication between the Jedis to the point where things can materialize on the other end. - This is an expansion of the Jedi power, very psychological, but not involving gratuitous action, or hokey pseudo-explanation like the mitochlorians.
* The heroes don't always win. - Poe's plan fails. The conflict between him and the older female general was interesting. Yes, it was a slightly contrived conflict between two archetypes - the man of action versus the wise woman. But it was interesting nevertheless, and I think it worked pretty well.
* The scene with Snoke (what's his name again? Snoop, Snork?) and Rey and Kylo-Ren. Very well acted on everybody's part. I wasn't expecting it to resolve the way it did. I actually thought Kylo-Ren was going to kill himself (obviously Rey wasn't going to get killed). I just thought Snoke was going to survive until the third movie, and I guess I liked him more than Kylo-Ren (who was pretty annoying especially in Episode 7). I think what would've been really interesting at that point would have been for Rey to agree to rule the First Order with Kylo-Ren (in an effort to win him over to the Light). That would have made for a very interesting, different, political third movie. Also, I have to add, I really liked Snoke. The fact that they don't really explain him makes him more sinister, more of a primordial force, like Cthulhu.
* The movie teasing you with Rey's parents. - They kept bringing it up and teasing the audience with it. It's a testament to the series that so much suspense can be built with a trivial MacGuffin like that. They kept dangling it over your head, and, to me, there was only one logical thing it could be. I mean, obviously Kylo-Ren and Rey weren't brother and sister. But Rey is more powerful than Kylo-Ren, way more powerful. So I started thinking they were going to say Luke and Leia were the parents. But then, I thought, this is a Disney movie, they're not going to say that! Maybe Luke and Leia weren't actually brother and sister? Then who? Yoda? I think the way they handled it was really good, instead of having her materialize from the Force.
* The fact that there was not that much action. - In a time where special effects dominate, and character actors like you saw in the seventies are going the way of the dodo, it was refreshing to see less action and more dialogue and more tension.
* To conclude, I would rank it up there with 4, 5, and 6. It's hard to order them from best to worst, because sometimes you remember the best part from one movie, and that makes it seem like the best. Then you remember a flaw like the Ewoks in Episode 6, or the primitive special effects in Episode 4, and the movie seems worse.
The Dirty Dozen (1967)
Not A Real War Movie, But A Perfect One
When I was 10 I went to Romania over the summer (even though I would've rather been in America) right before communism fell. Predictably, there wasn't much variety in the offerings on TV. But sometimes they would show older movies in the evening, probably because those were perceived as having less political impact. This was my exposure to "The Dirty Dozen", and what a fond memory. I'd always wanted to see that movie again, and recently re-watched it in full at age 31.
Although dated, I still have to describe it as a perfect film. That is, the only criticism I could level at this film is that the dialogue seems a bit hokey by today's standards. But that's made up for by excellent character acting (at least from the leads: Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson) with a dignity but also a restraint you rarely if ever see in today's movies. Now let's talk about the movie itself. Lee Marvin plays an American major in WW2 Britain who has to turn 12 felons into a commando unit and lead them to infiltrate a château occupied by Nazi generals, who are to be killed.
When I saw this as a kid, I thought it was an extremely cool war movie. Seeing it as an adult, it's clear that most of the events could never happen in real life, and it's meant more as a fantasy. For instance, Lee Marvin is a rebel, who resents having a straight-laced Colonel poking around his business. So at some point he fires a machine gun in the direction of the Colonel. Of course he would get imprisoned for that, maybe sentenced to death. And he hires prostitutes for the soldiers. Maybe that could happen in real life, but it seems to me both an act of compassion for men who are about to die (who are forced to live a monastic lifestyle even as they sacrifice themselves) as well as an indictment by the filmmaker of the way women are often treated as objects in times of war.
That's the beauty of this movie: the heroes are no angels--yet it never moralistically bashes you in the head with that fact. In particular, Lee Marvin's Major is simultaneously the most heroic and the most brutal/cold-blooded character in the film. He's heroic because he does what he needs to do to discipline his men into commandos, in a manner that's sometimes tough, though never sadistic. His brutality becomes apparent in the climax, possibly one of the most thought-provoking action scenes a WWII movie. We think of the Nazis as monstrous serial killers, but here the Major's mission is to actually murder generals, rather than taking them as POWs. This is an expedient solution, yet it's a war crime, and wouldn't have been done as such either by the Allies or the Nazis. It's relevant to keep in mind that most Nazi generals were not convicted as war criminals, though many probably turned a blind eye to much that was going on.
After a lot of fighting, the Major traps not only the generals, but also the women who were with them, in a bomb shelter, and maniacally pours grenades and gasoline through the vents, to set the château ablaze. He, however, had let the French go (could he not have also released the German women?) I think this scene might be an allegory for the fire-bombing of Dresden. What's so compelling is that, as he keeps taking time to pour more gasoline, more and more of his team keep getting sniped. He does not take on the responsibility of setting off the blaze himself, but delegates that duty to one of his men, who then gets sniped.
All in all: completely exciting and action-packed. Impossible to describe in this brief blurb. Well worth watching!
Macbeth (2015)
McMacbeth - Best Comic Interpretation of Immortal Tragedy
Okay, to start with, there were a few good things about this movie. Mainly, the lush landscapes, and the individual performances of the actors with what they were given. And it's great to see a revival of interest in this masterpiece of a play.
But beyond that, many of the choices made were so laughable that it's hard to see this movie as more than a joke. It's almost a fast-food version of what Macbeth should be instead of a juicy steak: a parody of the play. And if that's the case, I would either prefer a real action movie, or a better version of Macbeth, such as the Roman Polanski version or the BBC version with Nicol Williamson. Especially check out the samurai version Throne of Blood.
So what was so bad about the movie? Alright, fasten your seat belts (see/read the play first before reading this review, as spoilers abound):
* During the scene where Lady Macbeth is convincing Macbeth to kill Duncan, they seem to start doing you-know-what. When that's done, he says, "I am settled." This is when I realized it's better to view the film as a comedy. * Malcolm witnesses the murder right after it happens, making it obvious who did it. Why wouldn't he go tell the others? Granted Shakespeare's plot is itself a bit thin, but this is really stretching it. * Macduff pukes after seeing Duncan's dead body!!! He also generally hams up his dialogue, like when shouting, "Murder!" and later "He had no children!" * Time is taken up for that, but famous lines are left out, such as, "Wake Duncan with thy knocking, I wish thou couldst" and later "Something wicked this way comes" and "Double, double, toil and trouble" * I am not kidding about this one: during one dialogue, Macbeth slips his hand under Lady M's dress!!! * They cast Fleance as a little kid, yet he outruns the murderers!!! * They leave out the witches' prophecy of Banquo's line of kings, so that it doesn't make sense why Macbeth should be mad at the witches. To make up for that, after Macbeth curses the witches by saying, "Infected be the air whereon they ride!" they have him cry "Woo hoo!" so that it seems like a compliment. * During the "Out, damned spot!" speech, not once does Lady Macbeth scrub her hands. She just stares into the camera and gets weepy. * When "the Queen, my lord, is dead" is announced, Lady M is right there in the room and doesn't look dead! MacB picks her up and starts acting romantic, which arguably misses the point of the scene--he is supposed to be desensitized to human emotions at this stage. * They don't chop down the forest!!! Instead, Macbeth burns it! It's not called "Burn 'em wood"! How did it come to Dunsinane, unless by way of smoke? The burning actually makes the climax less visually stunning, because everything is tinted orange. * Finally, there is a point where Macbeth could easily kill Macduff during their fight, but he doesn't.
All in all, I'm glad to see Macbeth being brought to the big screen again, and I commend the filmmakers for trying new things. But when there's a lot of money to spend and acting talent of this caliber is brought together, it's really important to try to make things perfect. This is especially true in light of the fact that, "if we should fail" it'll be a while before Macbeth can be brought to the big screen again with the same "sound and fury".
Trainwreck (2015)
With a name like Trainwreck...
Unfunny. The main characters have zero charisma (at least I didn't think so, but I am sure many will agree). There's no chemistry between them. I just wish I hadn't paid money for this in the theater.
I can see this film is trying something revolutionary: combine a romantic comedy or Sex-in-the- City-type movie with the gross-out humor you find in a movie like 40-Year-Old Virgin that might be more geared towards guys. But it doesn't work for several reasons, and I think time will ultimately testify to that as the rating declines.
Movies like Dumb and Dumber and Forty-Year-Old Virgin which have stood the test of time aren't just a series of gross one liners with no rhyme or reason. There's a comic timing, and consistency in the characters and their motivation. And although Lloyd and Andy are losers, they're likable.
For example. In Dumb and Dumber, when Lloyd does the fart jokes at the party in the fantasy, it's spontaneous, and it's funny because he _thinks_ he's being witty. In 40-YOV when Andy makes up his fake sex story, it's expected, but he's pushed into the situation, so it's funny. In this movie, when Amy tells the story about the cervix condom, there's no reason she needs to say it (other than for shock value), and it's totally predictable.
Motivation: Why are all these guys so eager to settle down with Amy? Not explained. If that's a pattern, why is Amy afraid that Aaron won't want to settle down with her? In fact, why does she like him more than the others or at all? There's no real consistency, no solid characterization. Even Amy's character is inconsistent: she is unlikeable and often does mean things, but she is not mean-spirited.
It's hard to convey what's not compelling about this movie without actually showing it, because there's much that is forgettable, so I don't remember everything. Here's an example of where an opportunity was missed to show rather than tell. Amy talks about different levels of menstrual blood being left in the toilet. This may be gross, yet it's not compelling: it's not shown, nor is it situational--it's only recounted incidentally. (Maybe it's too gross to show?) Wouldn't it be better and funnier if she was having her period when Aaron was coming over and that created some conflict? Even good standup is not a litany of different things that are gross; instead gross situations come up naturally.
On the other hand, when LeBron's blood spurts on Aaron, it is indeed shown, and it's repulsive. But it doesn't really lead to any consequences. Does Aaron react to it with disgust? Does Aaron get fired for botching the medical procedure? It's unnecessary. Overall the character of Aaron is wooden and doesn't react with gusto to anything that happens.
Another inconsistency: how does the article at the end get published if Amy already got fired?
Bottom line: Not laugh-out-loud funny. I only got a few chuckles and those were far between. I paid money for it in the theater because I knew it would be gross and that Apatow was involved, but I wish I had skipped this one and seen something like Pineapple Express when it came out. I'm glad this movie made money, though, because hopefully the next Apatow comedy can be better.
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
Halt on Ultron
Despite the expensive special effects and excellent actors, I believe this one will be remembered as a B-movie in the near future. I was wondering why I heard no one commenting on how awesome the new Avengers movie was, but I decided to see it anyway. I think the only Marvel movies that are worse are X-Men 3 (the one with Phoenix) and maybe the Ang-Lee-directed Hulk.
All superhero stories (in fact, most stories) follow the same basic pattern: the good guys need to stop the villain who wants to destroy the city or the world. What sets them apart is the depth and likability of the characters, the consistency of the plot, the quality of the dialogue.
In the Thor (and Iron Man) movies, you have intelligent heroes with a lot of power, but too much pride and hubris. They get set back because of their arrogance, but they are always compelling and inspire sympathy.
In this turkey, all the heroes are one-dimensional with no defining personality. I felt like the actors were tired of playing the same role (understandable) but they wanted to rake in more millions of dollars (who wouldn't). Even so, the movie could've been saved by a good script, but the dialogue was the worst part. Every sentence was a cliché, every joke a forced, unfunny one- liner. You can't explain this away by blaming it on the fact that it's a Disney movie, because this installment actually has more sexual innuendo than any other.
The one saving grace, though, was the cameo of the actress from Freaks and Geeks. She gave a heartfelt performance, but didn't have good dialogue to work with. Still, for her I raise my rating to a 2. The Olsen sister was fine, but why not hire a Russian actress? Is it so critical to have a famous name that they can't get an authentic Russian accent?
Actually, even worse than the dialogue, the worst part was the villain Ultron. If you think about it, the name is pretty stupid, and subconsciously, I think this kept me from seeing the movie for a while. From the title "Age of Ultron" I thought he was going to be a supervillain on par with Apocalypse. I thought he was going to take over the world and have some kind of dystopian world government which the Avengers would infiltrate. Instead, he's this goofy robot that sounds like a badguy from a Western. He's not threatening, just cartoonish, and personally I cringed or laughed every time he came on screen. I feel about him, in many ways, the same way I feel about Nuclear Man from Superman IV.
In fact, there is another parallel with Superman IV. (I'm thinking of the space scene in that movie.) Ultron brings up the floating island in order to crash it down. When it's falling, you see the fire of the atmosphere burning it on reentry. But it was never burning when it was going up! So there's that inconsistency, but also, wouldn't the vacuum of space and the heat of the atmosphere have killed the heroes who weren't wearing suits?
Frankly, I feel this movie insults the intelligence of the audience and demeans the actors. I don't think we're the ones that should be blamed for watching these movies, it's the people who write these scripts. Only from a TV movie might one expect such an illiterate, rushed script. I don't want to dissuade anyone from seeing the movie, but you'll thank me if you see it without paying for it as an MST3K-style comedy.
The Unbelievers (2013)
Self-Aggrandizing. Preaches to the Choir and Alienates Converts.
I'm a big fan of Dawkins and Krauss, but I was somewhat disappointed by this offering. It was self-aggrandizing, a lot of shots of them driving around in fancy cars. I think they would do better to avoid belittling the intelligence of their adversaries: it will lose converts. They need to realize that not everyone is lucky enough to be as smart as they are or have gotten their level of education. Most people respond better to emotional appeals than to pure reason, especially in crowds. Maybe they were trying to play on that, but especially Dawkins came off as narcissistic.
I was looking forward to seeing the debates, but they just cut off their opponents at the beginning. Not very sporting. Come on, "why" is not a stupid question!
That said, I believe that cosmology definitely provides a better answer than organized religion: it has predictive power, and it provides a sense of urgency for getting off the planet. I'm not a cosmologist, but my impression is that the best evidence for the Big Bang is that Hubble observed the universe to be expanding in all directions. Running this backwards, common sense dictates there would have been a Big Bang. Why didn't they once say this? Why just state "Big Bang is fact", "evolution is fact"?
My sentiment is that these guys come off as being dogmatic themselves--about the status quo of science. I'm willing to bet there are general relativity solutions out there that don't posit a Big Bang that perhaps also involve a universe that seems to expand, maybe depending on where you are in it. Or solutions that don't involve an end of the universe. Maybe that could explain dark matter/dark energy? Just a thought. I don't think that the Big Bang has been proved as a mathematical necessity within relativity, or that all physical arguments to the contrary have been exhausted. Even less so for an end of the universe. Even general relativity is not the final word in physical theory.
It's important to keep in mind that physics has its limitations. Computer science has allowed us to prove that there are questions which are undecidable--which cannot be answered. The classification of four-dimensional spaces, if I remember correctly, is one of those questions. That probably also applies to relativistic space times, a subset of the 4d spaces. If so, I'm betting the Big Bang debate is far from being settled.
I don't find anything endearing or heartwarming about the universe needing to have an end. So indeed we should be trying to find a way out of that. Maybe one possibility, even if the universe does have an end, is to use a black hole's gravity to make OUR sense of time seem infinite, even if a farther-away observer would see an end in finite time.
Alexander (2004)
Not Good Enough
The movie itself is a self-fulfilling prophecy as characters warn about sacrificing traditional austerity for wealth and pomp: Perhaps this happened to the filmmakers who had upwards of a hundred million dollars to work with. So maybe they felt they had to make it over-the-top instead of relying on a decent solid script.
There are good things about this movie, but it is outweighed by negatives. The good is that there are many historically accurate facts: Aristotle was Alexander's tutor. Olympias raised Alexander to think he's a son of Zeus. Although the Greeks won by masterly employment of cavalry, the Persians also used cavalry. Cleitus and Parmenion were indeed killed.
But the focus is somehow off. There is too much talking, too much reiteration, not enough action (there was a wealth of battles to choose from). That would be fine if the talking taught us more about history, but it usually happened in a totally unrealistic way. For instance, the scene where Philip is drunk and attacks Alexander. It was too verbose, and why was Olympias watching from afar? Why not keep it simple and true to the account? Why not have Alexander say simply and proudly, "What am I then, a bastard?" Then have Philip rush at Alexander immediately and trip--that would be spontaneous, interesting.
For that matter, why rename Attalus' daughter from Cleopatra to Euterpe? Is it because Oliver Stone felt audiences would confuse her with the queen of Egypt? Why use the word 'guerilla' in a BC film unless the film was consistently anachronistic (like Shakespeare)?
The worst part of the movie was Alexander himself. It is true that Alexander was sensitive, intelligent, brave, and disturbed. They tried to show his sensitive side too much, and as the movie went on he got more and more whiny, and this is where I turned the movie off. I think it would have been much more compelling to portray him as a narcissist who snaps without warning.
Take the scene where he kills Cleitus: Alexander was blubbering a lot, and you could tell exactly what was going to happen. It would be far more compelling if Cleitus talked to him like that thinking that Alexander wouldn't get mad. Then suddenly Alexander snaps and throws the spear at him. Only then Alexander bursts out crying realizing what he's done.
Also, going back and forth in time was really irritating and destroyed a lot of suspense that could've built up. Sorry for such a longwinded review on my part, but it is a really interesting story that needs to be done right. This and the film "W" confirm my impression that Oliver Stone is overrated.
The best thing about this movie is that it made me want to cross-check it with the real historical facts.
Columbo: Dead Weight (1971)
Oh Come On!
Oh come on! Like the girl would really fall head over heels for the aging general? After she was so sure of what she saw for the first half of the episode? It would've made more sense if he had gone for the girl's mother, who liked him to begin with. The first two episodes were more believable and realistic. Still quite entertaining, and Columbo's brilliant as always.
Two other things: is Columbo never armed? You'd think one of these guys would try to off him. Second, why does no one (or hardly anyone) ask to see his badge? He doesn't look like a cop-- would you just let that guy into your house after he says he's a cop?
Cyber Seduction: His Secret Life (2005)
Best Comedy of 2005
I wonder if they made this intentionally funny. I'll bet the writers were told by their bosses to do a movie about porn addiction, and they sat around trying to come up with the zaniest plot they could imagine. How could the actors keep a straight face while saying lines like, "Pornography! I'm watching PORNOGRAPHY!"? Or: "Because you brought this pornography into our house...!"
I think the actors must've thought this was a big joke, because there are other Kelly Lynch movies (even a Lifetime one, I believe) where she does scenes which are quite R-rated.
I don't know that there's much I can say about this gem that hasn't already been said. I just want to emphasize the genius of choosing the Dad character. It's like they tried to have an uglier version of Al Bundy who hasn't taken a bath. One of the funniest scenes, I think, is when the mom (Kelly Lynch) is on his back giving him a massage. He's slovenly and unkempt while she's wearing a nice sweater. And why does he wear that shirt that's clearly too big for him if he cares enough about his appearance to wear a tie?
One observation I'd like to make: I think the Linkin' Park music knock-off reference has already been alluded to, but I think there's also a part of the movie where they rip off the intro of "Sowing the Seeds of Love" by Tears for Fears.
This Is the End (2013)
Hilarious, Chilling, Philosophical
It's easy to give "This Is the End" a bad review, because it makes the viewer uncomfortable. As some reviewers have rightly pointed out, it's a horror movie. If it were just a screwball comedy with immature jokes, it would be on par with 40-Y.O. Virgin, and indeed many such (hilarious) jokes are used throughout to lighten the mood (the argument over the magazine leaps to mind). But in fact this movie is a thriller worthy of Hitchcock, and it raises deep philosophical questions: how would people start acting if the rapture really started taking place? What does it mean to "be good"? Do we envy movie stars for making way more money than us? How does a group of buddies start acting when things get serious? Because of this comedy mixed with depth, and its audacity, I give it a 10.
People have commented that the acting is bad. I would say the acting is so good that a lot of times you think the cameos are as obnoxious in real life as they portray themselves to be in this film.
The demise of James Franco is particularly poignant. I would venture to say he has the best character out of any of the (anti)heroes. (True, he hoarded food, but it was his to begin with, and he provided sanctuary to his friends, as well as leadership.) Yet Franco meets the same fate as the sadistic cannibal McBride because of Franco's hubris/arrogance. Rubbing it in the badguy's face is as bad as being bad. This illustrates, I believe, an unfortunate fact: that society often has as little tolerance for the "proud" as the "bad".
I found the ascent of Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel to be extremely cathartic, and with the blue light and beautiful music of Whitney Houston, it made me (a 28 year-old man) almost start crying. The saving of Seth Rogen reminds us that sacrificing for friends and loved ones, being truly good, more than being good "by the letter" is what really matters.
Finally the end leaves us unfulfilled/uncomfortable, asking, what would heaven really be like? Is it just hedonistic pleasure? Might it be as good as something we already have on earth if we're lucky? It reminds us that we should appreciate the good things we have.
Absolution (1978)
A Unique Movie, Brings Up Issues No Other Movie Does
This movie is somewhat hard to watch because it is slow-paced and low-budget, but the great acting by Richard Burton and the others make up for this. More importantly, it brings up a unique set of issues that other movies do not, at least not in one single movie. The effects of Father Goddard's favoritism towards apple-polishing Benji at the expense of the more intelligent Dyson. The homoerotic dynamics between Goddard/Benji, Blakey/Benji, Goddard/Dyson, and basically everyone, and the sadism of Benji towards the masochist Dyson (who ultimately is more clever). The biggest issue, more important now than ever, is how crimes can be hidden within the Catholic church which sees itself as above the law and above family/friendship, and well- meaning priests will perpetuate this, because they are inculcated that this is their highest duty. This simple yet extremely intelligent movie shows how the Catholic church can be rendered impotent to protect people because (in theory) its priests are sworn to secrecy, and may not appeal to secular police.
Pledge This! (2006)
Unfunny and Degenerate
It's hard to put into words what's so inhumanly bad about this movie. You have to see it to understand, but be warned that this isn't one of those so-bad-it's-good flicks. There's something deeply perverse about this movie. Now a lot of movies are full of perverted humor and are very funny, there are many more that are full of lewd humor and are not so funny, but this one is not only unfunny. There's a sadistic undercurrent to it all.
This film is like a propaganda piece made a by a dictator in an attempt to seem self-effacing: it only makes him appear more ruthless. Here Paris Hilton thinks she is making fun of a "hot chick" image she imagines herself to have! Instead of humor, however, follows a series of unbelievably barbaric and dehumanizing hazing ritual/pranks inflicted upon other girls and Hilton's boyfriend. For instance, getting the girls to pick up used condoms which results in their bouncing a ball of used condoms; getting the girls to advertise themselves as sl*ts by the side of the road; fooling the boyfriend into copulating with a poodle. Intentionally or not, there's something about the way the movie's shot which makes it seem as if this is to be enjoyed, that Paris is enjoying it, and that's what makes the movie especially disturbing.
I don't know to what extent the plot and feel of the movie are the brainchild of Paris, so maybe she's not the one to blame. But she seems right at home in the movie. If this movie came from any one mind, it must either be a twisted mind or a vapid mind, probably both. This tripe makes "1 Night In Paris" look like Casablanca. It makes a classic like "Animal House" look tasteful, and so it is, because any gross and irreverent humor is included with precise effects in mind, not shoveled on gratuitously. Even "American Pie" seems highbrow in comparison!
Revenge of the Nerds (1984)
A Funny Comedy, But Flawed
I agree with most of the reviews on here saying that this is a very funny movie, etc. But, at the risk of being a party pooper, I feel compelled to point out what I consider a big flaw in this film. (Warning: this is a spoiler.)
That flaw is the following. This movie is supposed to make us feel that nerds are oppressed by jocks, and we are meant to see the nerds beat the jocks while not stooping to their level. However, I think that the nerds exhibit worse behavior in this movie than the jocks. All the jocks do is vandalize the nerds' house or insult the nerds. They don't ever, say, beat up the nerds. Nor do they sexually harass the nerdy girls. But the nerds go on the panty raid (maybe this is just petty theft, not so bad) and install cameras to spy on the popular girls when they're naked. And they distribute the naked pictures to the whole school during the carnival. This is ungentlemanly to say the least. But the cherry on the icing is how Lewis puts on the Darth Vader mask to have sex with Betty Childs. Yes, she's happy about it in the end, but what if she hadn't been? Do the ends justify the means? Lewis' behavior was deceitful and sleazy at best.
The point I want to make is that, because of these behaviors, the nerds have stained themselves, and they are not really sympathetic characters, although we overlook it because they're nerds, overgrown children essentially. Would we turn such a blind eye if they were jocks? I think that the makers of the movie should have tried a little harder and made a similar film where the nerds had more moral fiber. Ask this: are these really the role models we want young nerds growing up with?
Onna hissatsu ken (1974)
Fast-Fisted Supervixen Chops Her Way Through A Cavalcade of Thugs!
I don't understand people who give a movie like this a low rating because of a few plot holes, or because it's not the paragon of realism. If total realism and an airtight plot were the goals, these movies would lose a lot of their charm and just become the unremarkable action flicks you see so much of nowadays. This movie is a fantasy. And it eclipses many films of its martial genre precisely because it has so many and such creative fantasy elements. And hot chicks, did I mention the pretty girls?
OK, if realism were the goal of this movie, the gangsters could all pull out guns and plug sweet Etsuko full of lead. Instead, we get something much more entertaining. We get a mohawked assassin who shoots darts into people's necks, a defrocked priest who shoots armor-piercing arrows out of a gun, seven Thai-boxing amazons with hairy armpits, a police agent who works as an exotic dancer and has a tattoo of a rose on her inner thigh, a karate school that chants its philosophy of mixing power and love to us for a while, and more... And did I mention the most sadistic of all villains? A hedonistic drug lord who sports a Vega-style claw on his hand, tortures Li Long by continually giving him more heroin, tortures Tina by having a gorgeous femme fatale whip her, all the while maintaining a bevy of bathing beauties that let him fondle them at will. It's not cheese, because all the fights are cool, the villains are really truly evil and sadistic. All the exaggerations are done with purpose, like in a painting of Dali.
The movie maintains suspense with plenty of plot twists. In a run-of-the mill flick, Tina Long might kill Hammerhead right off the bat. Instead, he overpowers her, and kicks her off a bridge. Some of the dramatic scenes are truly poignant, right out of a Shakespeare play with terser dialogue--the brutal scene in which the old man is forced to betray his own niece, the suffering of Li Long as his sister rescues him!
Not the least of what makes this movie great is the abundance of hot girls. Just when you think there's enough to keep you happy, they keep adding more. First there's Tina Long herself. Then there's the exotic dancer--right at the get-go, what more can you ask for? Then there's Emmy. Sometimes the girls even play-fight each other, and then end up hugging. All in all, I think it's safe to generalize that it's much more appealing for straight men to see hot girls kick butt, than brawny guys, and this is something that Quentin Tarantino realizes and capitalizes on.
Finally, this movie is clearly anti-drug, or anti-hard-drug, but it clearly rises above propaganda like Reefer Madness, because it portrays the horror of heroin addiction in a quite realistic way. It even weaves this creatively into the film by using heroin as a torture device, a great plot device which I can't recall seeing often in movies.
Warui yatsu hodo yoku nemuru (1960)
Masterful Film-Noir Adaptation of Hamlet
First, let me say that I give this a only 9 because it is not quite a perfect film, but it is almost perfect.
Second, Kurosawa does a great job of basing this film on Hamlet without making the plot predictable at all. The characters are all there, although some are merged together, and some are split into multiple characters. The amazing thing is how Kurosawa manages to keep the atmosphere of Hamlet there, even while the plot is different. For instance, the opening scene is reminiscent of the scene where Claudius is throwing a party after taking power. In the play, everything goes smoothly until Hamlet steps out of line. In the movie, it's not the Hamlet character that steps out of line, but rather the Laertes character, as we realize later. For another example, there's a scene where it seems the Hamlet character forces an analog of the King to drink poison. For these reasons, I would not call this movie a "loose" adaptation, but a quite faithful one, unlike, say, The Lion King, or the Zeffirelli version ;)
Third, this movie explores some themes not discussed in Hamlet. It covers revenge, but in more detail than Hamlet, in this fashion resembling Romeo and Juliet. In fact, there are many parts where it seems Romeo and Juliet motifs are blurred in with Hamlet motifs. It explores the subject of corporate inhumanity, an issue relevant to our own time, the corruption of man when he begins to value money over human life. It covers forgiveness and pity, and the question, "What is the best way to deal with people who have no conscience and cannot be reformed?" Again, this theme is not explored so much in Hamlet. Toshiro Mifune's Hamlet is much less introspective than the real Hamlet, but develops much more intricate schemes. So another issue in this movie is how to infiltrate a corporation.
Fourth, this movie maintains suspense throughout, not in spite of the fact that it's based on a well-known play, but partly with the help of that fact, since the outcome is often not what we would expect, and this always leaves us asking, "What happens next?" Also, "What is real and what isn't?"
Finally, and this is a big spoiler: The ending. The Ophelia and Laertes character arrive to find the Horatio character bewailing the death of Nishi-Hamlet. At first, you might think he's faking it. This suspicion, if you have it, will detract from the drama of the scene, and that's the only reason I don't give the movie a perfect score. Then it dawns on you he's not faking it, and the movie ends the way it does. That's ending 1. But it's open to another interpretation. Notice, there's no body in the car, at least I don't remember one. What if Horatio was using Ophelia and Laertes, according to Hamlet's instructions, and Hamlet's still at large? That's ending 2. That means that Hamlet was manipulating Ophelia even more than Claudius, what a jerk!
The Three Musketeers (1993)
An Unintentionally Funny Butchering of the Immortal Classic!
This purported "family film"-ized Disney Version of The Three Musketeers looks like it was written by Alexandre Dumbass. Many reviews defend this version by saying that it is a family film. In fact it is probably less tame than the novel. For instance, Cardinal Richelieu is always (hilariously) looking down the shirt of every woman he comes into contact with, including Queen Anne of Austria. At one point, he actually tries to grab the breasts (!!!) of Milady deWinter, but she stops him with a dagger. No mention is made of D'Artagnan's adultery with Constance Bonacieux; however, towards the beginning, priest Aramis is about to commit adultery with a bombshell whom he is coaching in theology!!! There's plenty of death (albeit without blood) and even a bit of torture. So you see, this isn't really a family film, so why not stay true to the original plot? Perhaps, if the intention is to lower the IQs of movie-going families, the filmmakers have succeeded.
That's not to say that the movie has no saving graces, which is why I gave it a 3, not a zero. There are actually plenty of witty lines, but that's all this movie has going for it, besides the inadvertent humor. Most of the funny lines revolve around sex, like when Milady tells Richelieu, "I don't think you're burdened by chastity."
Now let's talk about funny things that make this movie so bad. D'Artagnan's name is laughably pronounced in an American accent, "Dartanian". Chris O'Donnell interprets the role of D'Artagnan as an imbecile. He lands himself in prison for confronting a bunch of the Cardinal's guards alone, and then he threatens his captor ("Captain" Rochefort) during interrogation. It's a miracle he didn't get killed right then and there. D'Artagnan is supposed to be boorish but smart, not a numbskull. Much of O'Donnell's acting is absolutely wooden!
The Cardinal has this goofy goatee that makes him look ridiculous when he smiles. His plan is to make a secret alliance with the Duke of Buckingham who is going to invade France, and then make himself KING OF France!!! Why this complete reversal of the plot into something completely unrealistic and stupid? Anyway, I could go on and on. I think even as a kid I thought this movie was stupid. Any kid could benefit more from seeing the Richard Lester version or, better yet, reading the book! To sum it up, this movie would probably make Dumas roll around in his grave.
Kung Fu: An Eye for an Eye (1973)
Interesting and Entertaining, as Kung Fu always is, but Flawed
I won't go into too much detail about this episode, since it's summarized well in the synopsis. To make a long story short, after the Civil War, a Southern woman Annie suffers a series of wrongdoings at the hands of three immoral Yankee soldiers. She wants revenge, but Caine counsels her to let go of her hate.
My criticism with this is, first, how stern, almost dismissive Caine is, given the colossal nature of the wrongs Annie endured. One of the soldiers raped her. Then, when her brother challenges him to a duel, he shoots her brother in the back, and tries to kill her. During the duel, by the way, for a kung fu master who can hear rustling leaves and dodge spears, he's incredibly oblivious, looking in the other direction while the brother gets shot in the back. Then, his reaction is not, say, to throw a ninja star at the killer, but to shout, "Enough!" which does nothing with a skinless guy like that soldier who can't be reasoned with. Luckily, with his last ounce of strength, the brother manages to kill that soldier before the soldier kills Annie and maybe Caine.
Next, the hypocrisy of Caine. He's quick to be critical and stern concerning Annie's feelings of hate, but he forgets that she hasn't been trained in a shaolin temple to control her feelings. In fact she's holding up remarkably well for someone who's just been raped, had her brother die, etc. Moreover, he neglects to mention the little fact that he himself killed the Chinese emperor's nephew for killing his Shaolin teacher Master Po, as you find out during the pilot. Couldn't he at least say, "I know how you feel" instead of acting like this mysterious kung fu master? I know there's only so much time for the show, but they could've made the emotional parts a little deeper, while excising pointless (though cool) parts like the fight with the Native Americans.
Finally, the way he handles her pregnancy by the rapist. She says she doesn't want the child, and he quickly throws back something along the lines of, "All life is sacred" and proceeds to ignore her. Then as she's giving birth, she's in pain, and he doesn't give her any ancient Chinese medicine, he just starts talking to her about the wonder of birth and life. Boy, I tell you, I'm not a woman, but I can imagine, if I was passing a kidney stone, say, and someone was telling me about the wonder of the urinary system, I'd probably punch them in the face!
These weaknesses, notwithstanding, it is another great episode, so go on Youtube and see it!
Valkyrie (2008)
Excellent Movie With One Problem
Valkyrie is a great film, important because it is the first (to my knowledge) to illustrate an incident in history too remarkable to be forgotten. The film is well-acted with lush cinematography, and it does a good job of building and maintaining suspense throughout. For this I would give it a 10 out of 10. However, it leaves out a crucial part, and, in doing so, it fails to do justice to Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg and the other protagonists.
Namely--and this is a spoiler--there have been various failed coups dealt against Hitler and other dictators, each one more or less successful. But this coup did not merely end with the execution of the rebels by firing squad. Rather, and I quote from a book, Hitler 'sadistically condemned the men responsible to a slow--and deliberately prolonged--death by piano- wire strangulation while hung on meat hooks. As they were about to expire, they were cut down, revived, and then rehung--repeatedly. (The gruesome spectacle was filmed in graphic detail for Hitler's later enjoyment.)' [--_The Intimate Sex Lives of Famous People_ by Irving Wallace et al.]
The movie only hinted at this. In the movie Hitler said he wanted the rebels alive. Some rebels commit suicide instead of going to certain death by uncertain means. Towards the end the film shows the top brass among the rebels hung by piano wire, which was in turn hung on meat hooks. I presume that in real life the people themselves were hung on meat hooks, Mafia-style. (After all, what are Fascist dictators, if not violent thugs who control the government?) I take it that this scene was meant to be symbolic of the torture, but someone who doesn't know the history might not understand this.
Maybe the filmmakers thought that a torture scene would be too much for the audience. Personally, I was dreading the idea of seeing the rebels get tortured to death, and I was relieved when that was glossed over. Unfortunately, real life is sometimes crueler than Hollywood, and the real protagonists actually had to go through the hell of being tortured to death by Hitler. So to remember that, I think, is worth sacrificing the psychological comfort of the viewing audience for a few minutes. It's important to understand that Hitler wasn't just oblivious to the torture being carried out under his regime, he was actually a sadist.
Anyway, I think there should be a director's cut where they make this scene a little more realistic. After all, other films out there do this without becoming unwatchable. If this happens, I will give the altered version 10/10.
Rope (1948)
A Masterpiece of Suspense But Falls Short of Perfection
I first read the history of the Leopold-Loeb murders, on which this film is based, because I was interested in Clarence Darrow who defended Scopes in the Monkey Trials. He also defended Leopold and Loeb. So I wanted to see this film, especially since it was directed by Hitchcock.
Intellectual giants Leopold, 19, and Loeb, 18, wanted to commit a perfect crime because they believed themselves to be Nietzschean supermen. Leopold agreed to act as Loeb's accomplice on the condition that Loeb would be his homosexual lover. They kill a 14 year- old boy. Leopold's birdwatching glasses are found at the scene of the crime, like the ROPE in this movie, and gives them away. Because of their arrogance when interviewed, it seemed they would be sentenced to death, but Darrow's eloquence "reduces" their sentence to life. Darrow argued that you could not hang boys for the philosophy they learn in school. Loeb is killed in prison by another inmate who claimed Loeb tried to sexually assault him. The news headlines read, "Loeb, despite his erudition, today ended his sentence with a proposition." Leopold learned 27 languages in prison, and was released after 33 years. He married a widow in Puerto Rico.
I give this film an 8/10 because the suspense continually mounted. Towards the end my heart was beating fast, and I was short of breath, partly because I have a cold, partly because of the anxiety. But there were disappointments. For one, I hoped Jimmy Stewart would've played the analog of Clarence Darrow. There was no such figure. Rather, the closest analog to Stewart's character was Nietzsche, whose philosophy influenced the duo. I found this character redundant. Also, at the end of the movie, when Stewart finds out their crime, he instantly renounces them and separates himself from them and calls the cops. He ceases to account for his influence, or the fact that the cold unfeeling killer put the submissive one up to it. And then the movie ends. In other words, there is no catharsis. It doesn't do justice to the characters involved. I was also thinking, if Stewart was there with the gun in his hand, wouldn't the cops implicate all three??? But these oversights (if you want to call them that) are probably not Hitchcock's fault, but that of the playwright.