Reviews
Man of Steel (2013)
Long movie with a thin plot
The opening scene (the birth of Cal (aka Superman, Clark Kent) should make the movie unsuitable for small children.
The (male) editor of the Daily Planet has a earring? Doubtful. The actor should have taken it off for the movie.
An Air Force Captain driving an Army LTG around? Highly unlikely. And, she's made out to be weak; if I was a woman, I'd be offended by the way she was portrayed.
The same fight scene over and over and over again ... I guess the writers couldn't come up with anything else.
Yes, good special effects, but so what? We're also there to see a story told.
Overall, very disappointing. If I wasn't with my wife (who liked it, though agreed it wasn't very good), I'd have walked out. I found it tedious.
Avatar (2009)
Want an anti-white, anti-American, anti-capitalism movie? This is it!
Such political crap. The "Navi" people (inhabitants of the plant Pandora are clearly supposed to represent American Indians (they wear war paint, shoot with bows and arrows, ride horses, wear loin clothes, can read trails, live in the woods, relate so well with Mother Earth (their God is even a woman!). They are being overtaken by inhabitants of the Earth, who have destroyed their planet (no more green ... one for the Global Warming Crowd). A capitalistic company doesn't care about the impact on these lovely folks, as long as they strike it rich. To add a bit of color, we have a few folks take the name of God in vain ("Jesus Christ!" "Goddamit!). Lovely. I wanted to score it a "1," but the special effects deserved something, even though it only enhances this political piece of crap. I know I'm in the minority and know that I take these things too seriously, but brainwashing isn't a good thing, regardless of how it's attempted.
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
One horrible movie
I had no idea what we were about to witness. I knew the movie was about WWII but that was about it. If you're into gruesome movies with no plot, this is it. Is it historical? No. Why paint Americans in such a horribly barbaric light: having someone take a baseball bat to a brave (for not giving up secrets to Americans, in spite of threats) German soldier's head and with his fellow soldiers cheering! Carving swastikas into German soldier's heads when you let them live? Scalping those you kill? Having Hitler and his 2nd, 3rd, 4th in command die in a theater when it didn't really happen? And the point of this movie was what? It was sick. I should have left but had hope that surely there would be something worthwhile. By far one of the worst movies I have ever seen. My wife is mad at me because we didn't leave. Hard to stomach, but I stayed and should have left after the 2nd scene. Probably my last Tarantino movie.
Shooter (2007)
politics only Danny Glover would love
I thought this would be a thrilling movie ... I didn't expect it to be filled with Bush-bashing. Do we really need Hollywood to define our politics? I guess they think so. They take it for granted that we all know that Bush lied about WMD. Right. The acting is fairly good and the plot reasonable. If only they could avoid the politics, this would have been a better film. I don't know what Walberg's politics are but know that Glover now sides with a communist in Venezuela, so it's obvious why he'd like to be part of a film like this. I guess from now on, I just need to check who's in the film ... see "Danny Glover" and suspect that it's more politics-his-way. Fortunately, I saw this on a trans-Atlantic flight so it didn't cost me any money. I only wasted my time.
Bug (2006)
One of THE worst we've ever seen
Please understand that we've seen some PRETTY bad movies over the years (with "scenes from a mall" probably ranking as the worst). But, this movie was almost THAT bad. It starts off very slow but then just gets very weird. How Ashley Judd could have agreed to have done such garbage only says that she's either not a good script reader or is hard up for movies. It has just about everything: profanity, nudity, violence; and, the acting isn't bad; it's just that the plot is horrible. It could have been saved had some creativity been added, but no, it was just bad. Save your $$$ and see something else. Even Shrek III wasn't this bad.
Premonition (2007)
it takes a while to figure it out which makes this film interesting
When my wife and I walked out of the movie, we both agreed that the film was bad. We then spent the next couple hours discussing it and realized it really wasn't that bad. But, it was confusing.
One day the husband is there, the next he isn't. Characters come in out of sequence. What's going on. How does one make sense of this.
Then it hit me: the title says it all ... premonition.
My take (I of course could be wrong) is that the wife (who, after reading another review I got this idea) may be depressed, thus her reason for sleeping late every morning while her children are trying to get themselves ready for school, is having some pretty strange dreams. In each case, her husband is dead. Is she subconsciously wishing her husband? Perhaps. But the death is first revealed with the knock on the door, and then we see the funeral and other events about the death. But every other morning, she wakes up and her husband is there! What gives? Her dreams are her premonitions ... she's having a premonition that her husband is dead which ultimately leads to the fulfillment of that very premonition at the very spot she dreamt it would occur.
I like films that make you think ... this one does and I'd recommend it.
Match Point (2005)
Good film; too bad it has an unnecessary anti-Christian remark
I haven't seen a Wood Allen movie in years; I guess it's my personal protest against his affair (and marriage?) to Mia Farrow's adopted daughter. I've always thought that Allen is a sick man; but, no doubt he's also quite talented.
This movie is a bit slow, but offers some interesting twists. The movie starts by referring to one rather being lucky than good, and no doubt our main character reveals on multiple occasions how luck can be quite beneficial.
The one thing I didn't like was a totally unnecessary anti-Christian remark: at dinner, a remark is made about someone loosing their legs and then finding Jesus; the response was that it wasn't a fair trade, and laughter followed (from the characters, not the audience, fortunately). Why? Woody Allen, who is SO sensitive about being a Jew, can inject an anti-Christian comment, that was (a) unnecessary, (b) served no purpose), and (c) was offensive in what otherwise is a decent movie. Fortunately, it was the only such remark, but I guess just reinforces the fact that Woody is, I guess, anti-Christian. The only answer I can come up with.
Would I recommend the movie? Yes, it was quite good (I gave it a 7). And, offers a lot to reflect upon following it, which I quite enjoy. Too bad his anti-Christian sentiments had to be revealed.
Rumor Has It... (2005)
Hypocrisy lives on in Hollyweird
While there's plenty to dislike about this movie, the thing that REALLY "got my goat was" the hypocrisy shown by the Kevin Costner character, who was a multi-multi-millionaire, who had created and sold 3 companies in 10 years, who was about to invest $75 million on another company, who had a private plane, multiple houses, and loads of $$$, but who also chummed around with Fidel Castro - give me a break. I love communists but made my bucks as a capitalist? Oh, and he's clearly a Dem, to, given his relationship with Bill Clinton. Such hypocrisy is reality in Hollywood, of course, but do we have to see it in our movies, too? Oh, what a dumb question, of course we do. The acting is okay (make that, fair) but given the plot (what plot?), what can one expect. No wonder Hollywood is loosing money with this kind of garbage being peddled. Shirley MacLain overacts (but then again, her script isn't much to work with), Kevin Costner is his usual bland self (I guess his good looks (?) is what keeps him getting movies. While my wife liked it, I thought it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen - granted, not as bad as "scenes from a mall" or other movies I've gotten up and walked out of, but not much better. My "4" was being generous.
The Greatest Game Ever Played (2005)
Why alter history? It was a great story without revisionism
Writing a movie script based on Mark Frost's excellent book was no doubt a daunting task; doing a movie about any golf game has to be a challenge. And this rendition of the 1913 US Open was fair but perhaps failed most in not holding to the truth.
First, Francis Ouimet didn't beat Harry Vardon by one stroke - he beat him by five (72 to 77). Second, Ted Ray didn't drop out of the final round as the movie depicted; granted, he did tell Vardon that he had basically given up, because of his poor play, but he was too much of a professional to walk off the course. He continued to play and carded a 78.
Another distortion was having Ouimet drop out of golf completely for two years - didn't happen. And, when he is asked two weeks before the Open to play, this was a fabrication as well.
Perhaps the greatest injustice, not to the movie but to the game, was to have someone utter the words that "this was the greatest game ever played." Okay, fine, up to 1913 this was the greatest game, but since then we've had 90+ years of thousands of games so this is just a memory. NO, THIS was the greatest game ever played, as-of 2005, not 1913. In the book we never read these words, so why implant them? And talk about missing opportunities for a great laugh: after the first day of competition, when Ouimet looked like quite a competitor, a club member suggested to Francis that he had proved his point and that he should drop out and let the pros take over. While Francis reacted in shock, Eddie Lowery responded by asking the man if he was drunk. When I read the book I was sure we'd hear that line - but no, the writers preferred to alter history rather than take advantage of a truthful and humorous episode.
Would I recommend the movie? Perhaps, as it is a fair rendition and gets the point across about this 20 year old overcoming all obstacles, even his own, to beat the greatest British golfer of all time. But I'd recommend the book even more.
The Manchurian Candidate (2004)
a disappointment
I don't know why people insist on making remakes of great movies, as if they can do a better job. While I don't object to them changing the plot, they fail to carry it through in a reasonable way. Al Franken's appearance in the opening of the movie is the director's way of letting us know that this is actually a subtle anti-Republican flick. This time, instead of the Chinese being the ones who brainwash the soldiers, we have a US Corporation (Manchurian Global) which goes beyond simple brainwashing to implants to carry out their evil ways. Meryl Streep does a poor job of pulling off Shaw's mother - Angela Lansbury was much better in the original. This movie is like a jigsaw puzzle, with lots of pieces missing. Denzel Washington does a good job but doesn't measure up to Sinatra. And Liev Schreiber's stiffness and lack of dimension aids nothing to the overall poor production.
The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
where'd they come up with this?
It would kind of be nice if the movie had some resemblance to the book - okay, there's a character named Jason Bourne, who's really David Webb, but that's where the similarity ends. I read the book - this isn't even close. And, as a movie, where's the plot? 90 minutes (not 2 hours, 1 1/2 hours) of excitement and thrill, but too many missing pieces and again, nothing to do w/the book. You can't follow what's going on, a character who is alive in the book is somehow dead in the movie, instead of China, we're in Europe. What gives? Who came up with this garbage? I had to check - no, nothing like the book. I'm sure the author was pleased with the money he was paid, but the book was great, the movie is, how should I put this, isn't (I'll be kind).
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Powerful!
Mel Gibson has produced a phenomenally powerful movie. One that brings to life the Gospels. Good Friday will never be the same after seeing what Christ had to ordeal.
Those who suggest there's anti-semitism are simply looking for negatives -- it was clear that there was disagreement amongst the high priests, and Gibson shows this, as well as among other Jews who were loyal to Christ, a Jew himself. The Romans are portrayed in a much more negative light.
Wonderful job. One I'm sure we'll see as a regular part of our Lenten season going forward.
The Human Stain (2003)
Definitely one to reflect upon
Quite an interesting movie. Anyone not from the '40s, '50s, or '60s probably can't relate to the degree of prejudice that existed at that time. Silk was the first "jew" admitted to a classics professorship -- imagine if he had lived the life of a black man! He wouldn't have been hired, and the school wouldn't have seen the improvement he brought to it.
All the characters do great jobs in their roles. Nicole Kidmann continues to be one of the best actresses around, and Anthony Hopkins does a superb job. Who cares about the accent.
This is the kind of movie that a group can watch and then sit around for hours to discuss. Wonderful job!
The Sixth Sense (1999)
WHAT an Ending!
Simply magnificent. Keeps your attention the entire time. Quite interesting plot as we watch the progression of the relationship between the young patient and his psychologist.
But just as everything seems fine we're thrown an ending that causes us to revisit portions of the movie to confirm what we've just learned and alas discover that the ending DOES make sense and that it adds just another ingredient to a great movie. Although my wife found much of the movie emotional, I didn't get choked up until his unexpected ending.
Simply great - Bruce Willis at his best.
The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)
The remake is never as good as the original...
Overall, I enjoyed the movie. Brosnan is a classy actor, and this comes through. He comes across as devilish and clever. Russo's laugh drove my wife crazy - it's a bit overdone and piercing at times. Also, I don't think she was the ideal pick - just didn't fit the role as someone else might have - seemed like trying to put a round peg into a square hole. The wardrobe people could have done a better job - Brosnan's attire was a bit boring at times - too many solid blue shirts - the only variation was white - boring. The final scene at the gallery was quite clever and highly unpredictable. I'd say it's worth seeing, but don't expect to see anything as good as the original.
Sophie's Choice (1982)
One of THE most powerful movies I've EVER seen. Her "choice" is gut-wrenching.
Wow, what a movie. When I learned what one of her choices was, I cried so hard - so powerful a movie. Meryl Streep is fantastic. Great, great movie. So very moving. It really brings home some of the pain and anguish that took place during WW II; the suffering of families that were divided when they were taken to concentration camps; the questions as to what happened to one's children; to their parents. How anyone could watch this without some heavy crying would be beyond me. Highly recommend. I gave it a "10."
There's Something About Mary (1998)
Great comedy - a lot of funny scenes
This was a wonderfully funny comedy. Kept me laughing throughout the movie. Wonderful cast - evident that they enjoyed making this movie. The only problem I had was when Mary and Ted were smoking what appeared to be marijuana - didn't fit - served no purpose. We gave the movie an "8" - Strongly recommend to anyone looking for a good laugh!