Change Your Image
nightwing60
Reviews
The Flight That Disappeared (1961)
Morality Play, No Give Me A Sadistic Play Instead.
This movie is more of Twilight Zone or Outer Limits Episode than a Full Length. But Overall its a Good/Decent Movie for a movie on a Low Budget 60's Movie. What gets me is other reviews who the movie is Extreme when it comes to Morals. Really? I would hope if a weapon that is easily assessable that could destroy the whole world. That maybe, Just Maybe Morals and Ethics would be talked about. Otherwise the nihilist should just resurrect Hitler and get It over with. Sci-Fi has always been used to talk about situation humanity might find themselves in and how they should handle those situations. That is why Twilight Zone, Outer Limits and Star Trek are great shows and why The Day the Earth Stood Still and Jurassic Park are great movie. Was this kind of plot used all the time in the 50 and 60. Yeah but it was also because we just drop to Nuclear Bombs in Japan. And if anyone Notice. But that was damn horrible. Maybe the reason they used these kind of plot. Was Because they were honestly worried about the future. Anyways don't listen to the Naysayers. For a Low Budget Movie is one of the better movies with the "Will Humanity Survive" of plots
The Birth of a Nation (1915)
Achievement, Sure. Good, Not Really. Entertaining, No. Racist, HELL YEAH.
Just because something is the first of something doesn't necessarily make it good. Its also pretty moronic to look at the achievement without looking at its context. "Pong" or "Tennis for Two" could be considered a achievement in Video Games. Dose anyone considered them to be the best video games ever made. Clearly the movies that came after were clearly superior. Can you really say this is better than Citizen Kane, Casablanca, 12 Angry Men and other classics. Not to mention that Trip to The Moon, Nosferatu, Any Charlie Chaplin or Lon Chaney movie are far more entertaining. Sure did this movie give to new techniques to film making, Sure. But that alone dose not make it good. Nor should the context of the movie be completely ignored just because of it. Not to mention Historians (Not Film Historians) don't put this movie in a positive light. Most of them credit for the boost of recruitment in the KKK. Its only Crazy Film Critics that think that achievement comes before context. We don't look at Nazi Propaganda Films and say "Well its a hateful film. But its just so well made. Its must be a Masterpiece." If this movie was made today. It would be put down for being as a racist movie and rightfully so. The fact its the first feature length movies. Doesn't make it great.
Battlestar Galactica (1978)
What made the original Battlestar Special
I think what made the original special was its universal themes of Family, Friendship, & Survival. But beyond that is the fact the show had character you actually care about. I mean the relationship between apollo, starbuck and boomer is good enough to watch the show. This were i think most shows today fail to do including the New version of BSG. TV use to be full of great character that you actually cared about. From Spock to Data to Magnum P.I to David Banner (Incredible Hulk) to even to Kevin Sorbo's Hercules.
To tell the truth i was big into the new BSG until the end of the first season. When they did the whole Space Munity (witch is a name of a very bad movie) episode. It took me some time for me to realize that BSG was just Law and order in space. Unlikeable Characters, Tired Plot lines, and after a while just kinda boring. As for the Character Changes, Well with new version of BSG. While the original Starbuck fun, exciting and likable character. in the new version Starbuck is pretty much a bitch/slut. By the way i believe the word Buck refers to a male. Maybe if the named her Stardoe it would make more sense. As for Adama, Instead of a kind and loving leader. You get the same old stereotype a military man with a family and Apollo is just plain boring.
Some people say that the fight between old fans of BSG and fans the new version is like the fight between Star Trek vs Star Trek TNG. I think this isn't a fair comparison. First off both shows were created by the same man and the theme of the both show where the same. Sure the shows were different. But what star trek was about was the same. The same really cannot be said about the two version of BSG. Beside the main theme of Survival. They are really drastically different. Some say the original version was cheesy and while it was to a curtain extent. Doesn't mean what the show was about was any less veiled. Beside people say the same thing was said about the original Star Trek and beside TNG i think was still one the best Sci-Fi shows ever. Why i think the original was special is because its everything that the new version isn't and the new version of BSG is like everything else on TV today, overrated and pretentious.
Some people might say that I'm looking at the old series through the lens of nostalgia. The truth is i never even bother to watch the old series until the new version came out. So i really don't have an nostalgia for the old show. I just compared the two and found the new version dull in comparison. Some fans of the New show have said the old version is to immature and the fans of the old need to grow up. Since when has growing into a adult means you have to become a dull person who has lost all his sense of fun and watch nothing but boring drama with dull & unlikeable characters. The truth is the state of TV today is sad, dark and depressing. Television was far better in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and mid 90's. So in closing, I think the golden age of television has pretty much ended and all we have left is a sad hollow shell of what it once was.
Superman Returns (2006)
Superman the Movie is still Superior.
I not going to say this movie is bad. But its not great either. First off it there's to many similarities to the original. To the point i felt like i was watching a Different Version of the original movie. Heres what I'm talking about. In SR Superman save Lois from a falling plane. In Superman 1 it was a helicopter. In SR & STM Superman Goes around stopping crime after saving Lois. In SR & STM Lois & Superman go flying around the city. In SR & STM Lex is going to kill many people for Real Estate. Superman Return is a o.k. But it takes to many of its idea from the original. In other words it lacks Originality. If anything i would say its a Remake disguised as a Sequel with a little Jesus thrown in. Some of you will say these are Homages. No homages are suppose a familiar line here and there. Not whole scene's & plot. Some also say the original was cheesy. My i ask if any of them have ever seen the Wonder Woman or 66 Batman TV series lately.
As far as Routh goes, hes not bad. But hes no Christopher Reeve or even George Reeves for that matter. First off he didn't have that much Dialog. At least not compared to Reeve. Hell George Reeves had more dialog in one Episode of the 50's TV show then Routh had in the whole movie. The thing both Chirs Reeve & George Reeves had was Charm & Charisma. Witch is sorely lacking form Routh as Superman. Plus his Clark Kent seem to be bearly there. As for Lois Lane, well Kate Bosworth lacks the Pizazz or Passion that Margot Kidder had. Hell, Noel Neill & Teri Hatcher were both better Lois Lane's. I think giving her a kid & soon to be husband was bad idea. First it totally breaks away from the comics. Where Clark & Lois are married and have no kids. Second Richard White is likable. Where not suppose to like the person who is the rival for Lois's affection's. We should want Superman to end up with Lois. Witch actually happened in the comics. Plus Kate Bosworth is far to young to make me believe she's the same character Margot Kidder played. When it comes to Lex Luther. Kevin Spacey Lex was little more dark. But it still doesn't compare to the Lex in the Comics. Not to mention at time he seemed like he was trying mimic Hackman. Plus Kitty Kowalski is Ovouisly a replacement for Miss Teschmacher. But i have say i like Hackman better. Personally Sam Huntington's Jimmy Olsen was the only fun character in this whole movie. Everyone Else is just a stiff shirt.
Some say it better then the original. I don't know how. Beside's the subplot with Lois Lane's Kid, Richard White & Superman. The movie had about the same plot from the original and it try's to turn Superman into Jesus. Which he is not. I also hear people say that this movie was more emotional & mature. Really because i didn't feel anything. The original had much more emotional moments. Like Jor-el saying goodbye, Jonathan Kent dieing, Clark saying goodbye to Ma Kent,Superman holding a dead Lois in his arms & Supes Turning back time. As for Mature, What about Lois Crying her eyes out in Superman 2. Because She cant be with the man she loves. Some people say that Routh is better then Reeve. Again i don't see it. First Reeve was just a all-around better actor. Plus he had confidence in the role. He could do a whole scene full of dialog. Beside a few scene here & there. Routh bearly said anything. When he meets luther he says only 2 lines. "I see a old mans sick dream" and "you have something that belongs to me". Compare that with same scene in the original and you know what i mean. Overall its not a bad movie. But it doesn't have the Magic & the Sense of Wonder the Original had. I think it would have been a better idea to just to did a reboot. Some people think would be a bad idea. But Superman has change since 1978 (aka 1985, Crisis on Infinite Earth). It would be nice to have a fresh prospective on the character. Plus they could have cut out the stuff about Lois's kid & her so to be and stayed truer to the comics.
Hulk (2003)
One Thousand Times Better than the Movie.
First off the People who love the Movie need to get over themselves. The Hulk Was Not That Good, and was a Boring Movie and there have been Far Better Comic Book Movies Made than the Hulk (i.e Batman Begins, Sin City, X-Men, Superman, Spider-man 2, The Punisher (2004), The Crow, Hellboy and Many More). The Video Game was Great and It really says something when the Video Game is better then the Movie its Based On. I haven't Played it for a while, But the Game and the Storyline in it really is more interesting than the Movie. Being able to have the Hulk Smash what ever you wanted was Great. Instead of suffering through hours of Bad Dialog, Acting, and Directing. In This Game you get right to the Main Character "THE HULK". and unlike The Movie, This has Classic Hulk Villains. Overall i would give the Game a 7 or 8. the Movie on the other hand i would only gets it 1. And TV Show is still a 9. Sorry Ang Lee you really should stay away for Stuff you know nothing About.
Smallville (2001)
Not Superman
The Best Movie Superman will always be Christopher Reeves. The Best TV Superman will always be George Reeves. Tom Welling and this teen soap-opera called Smallville, about young and horny Superman. and is a Superman Show without Superman. doesn't come close. and has little or nothing to do with the Superman Character. i am one who believes if you going to make a show or a movie about a beloved Comic Character. make it true as possible to the Character or don't make it at all. Otherwise you only serve to misrepresent the Character. Marvel had done a better job of this. and Smallville is not true to Superman. Many Real Superman Fans (People who have read the Comics for years) would Agree.
P.s. Shame on Jeph Loeb he is to good a writer to write for one of the Dumbest show on TV.