Change Your Image
bobtheplanet
Reviews
Zygote (2017)
Short homage to clichéd monster movie tropes
Quick and without much context, this OATS production shows its influences from H.P. Lovecraft (Shoggoth chase, and Quinn's reference to insane light and vision a la Azathoth from "At the Mountains of Madness"), the "Thing" with its similar fleshy amalgams and frozen isolation, and really, any "old, dark house" movie ever made, as well as video games like "Doom". It was well-made, but seemed clumsy and undeveloped. Some of Quinn's dialog was incomprehensible to me. Fanning did more gaping than speaking - was she supposed to be this dumb? All in all, cool cgi, crappy story.
Interstellar (2014)
Inter... STELLA!
I only give this movie 3 stars because, like many others, I believe it will balance out the mindlessly effusive reviews that IMDb seems to generate for highly-anticipated movies. I must say, however, that I would honestly give this movie about a 5 or 6 and no more. The main problem I see with it is typical of many modern movies - poor screen writing. Doesn't anyone read this stuff between the final draft and filming? At 2 hours and 45 minutes I did not think it was overlong. I wasn't bored so much as flummoxed. I actually believe there is a magical extra 15 minutes somewhere that might steer this titanic disaster away from the critical icebergs that may doom it.
Down to particulars:
Too Much Damn Corn! (In more ways than one)
The future in this movie actually does not look too bad. There's plenty of beer, pickup trucks, and no okra (yay!). So what is the beef? There really is no convincing reason to leave Earth because of some piffle about environment degradation. The effort involved to create artificial environments in space would seem to me to be exponentially more time consuming and expensive than the same effort on good old terra firma. The whole ecosystem collapse story is unnecessary. Why have we gone into, and continue to go into, Outer Space even though wars, famine, and pestilence beset us continually? Nolan should have bit the bullet and gone for the real answer instead of making up a fairy tale - that is, our innate curiosity and desire for knowledge will drive us to the limits of the Universe and beyond. We don't need hokey dust storms and blights (Say, how did those spacelings solve the food blight problem in their massive cylinders - and why position them out by Saturn? Why didn't they just go underground instead of into space? ) And the seriousness of the situation on Earth just wasn't conveyed well except during the massive dust storm. Another odd thing never explained - no dogs, no cats, no chickens, pigs, or cows... not even a crow or a rat to be seen. Where are the animals? Where are the insects? Some of the 15 min. could have been used to clarify these points, but better yet... chuck the whole first hour.
Too Much Damn Noise!
Some people may like Hans Zimmer's work, but I don't see him as the next Jerry Goldsmith or Bernard Herrmann. It was like listening to Philip Glass at 110 db and certainly did not sound as spacey as Vangelis' work for Blade Runner. Especially annoying when it covered up important dialog in the dramatic moments, but that may be due to sound mixing. Overall, I rate him as flat and innocuous at best. And speaking of dialog, was MC channeling Marlon Brando for his role? Some of his dialog was barely comprehensible. For a movie heavy with exposition that is a bit unacceptable.
Too Many Damn Holes!
Speaking of exposition: how the hell did MC learn to fly those new-fangled space machines so fast (everyone else had simulator classes); How did they get all that junk into space to build their starship with no one on Earth noticing dozens of Saturn V rockets blasting into the sky? Why didn't MC just say "Murph" instead of "Stay", he already knew he would leave, because HE ALREADY KNEW HE WOULD LEAVE GRAVITY TRACES TO COMMUNICATE AND SOLVE THE EQUATION! When they surfed down the wave why didn't the ship crash into the surface of Miller since it was only covered with 12 inches of water most of the time? They never did get it straight about the 5-D beings - are they us, or something else? Why? Why? Why? Too many unanswered questions glossed over amid all the physics mumbo-jumbo in this convoluted mess.
I'm sorry, it was a dud, nothing stellar about it.
King Kong (1933)
Why is this not in top 250 anymore?
Of course, everything is dated in this movie: the characterizations, the effects, the cinematography. But the story shines! The two main characters are Kong and Carl Denham - predator and prey; human and monster; master and slave... the roles are never clear who is who. But "when monkey die, people cry" to paraphrase a another Shlockmeister. The first of the giant monster films where Nature attempts to overwhelm the upstart Humans and loses. We are all sad to see the past die. To take away innocent memories of our youth. To destroy the Wonder of Creation that begat the seed of our dreams. The Ninth sentence! The Tenth Sentence!!
AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem (2007)
Awful vs Predictable: Redux
I just re-watched my exceptional dark DVD (purchased as a double billing with AVP from the $5 bargain bin) for the second time looking for something that I missed the first time. Nope-It was all still there: every cliché lifted from both franchises; a tough chick who can drive any tank, payloader, or helicopter laying around; a little girl that screams every time she sees a "monster"; soldiers who are instantly wiped-out because that can't see an alien in front of their face; nuclear power plants and hospital roofs that look like terraforming factories; lots of flashing lights; incoherent plots; and, of course, lots of goo and gore just for the hell of it. I got my $2.50 worth of movie I guess.
I recently saw the new "Predators" movie and it seemed a few notches above this one, so there may be some hope left for these movies--but I seriously doubt it...once a movie franchise becomes a video game it loses all credibility and generally no one puts any effort into improving it.
Avatar (2009)
Dances with Pterodactyls, or, I'll Have a Blue Quetzalcoatlus Without You.
Have IQ's dropped sharply while I was gone? The overwhelming special effects of Avatar simply cannot hide the vacuousness of its story. As just about anyone who can read has noticed, the plot is a rehash of the "civilised man goes native" fable popularized from "Last of the Mohicans" to the present day (I'm sure even the ancient Egyptians have a version preserved in hieroglyphs somewhere on a dusty temple wall). The CGI is realistic enough that you can become engaged with the digital characters... except, then your attention is focused on the story. Which is almost as lame as a 6th graders summer vacation essay.
I did not see the movie in 3D as I assumed it would be pointlessly distracting. I have seen polarized 3D movies before. Starting with one of the first, "The Bubble" in the late 60's. The peak of this in-your-face technology was reached years ago in the 70's with the release of "The Stewardesses". Nothing in this movie can compete with real 3D boobs.
District 9 (2009)
Wackiest "Fooking" Comedy of the Year
I cannot believe that anyone is taking this movie seriously as some great scifi masterpiece or a philosophical indictment of apartheid. It's a fookin' joke, man. Cockroach-like aliens that love cat food (cans and all!), can't find the door out of their fookin' spaceship for 3 months, can turn humans into tomato soup with lightning bolt bioweapons yet live in a slum garbage heap. It's all fookin' hilarious! I haven't laughed so hard since Mike and the Bots left the airwaves. Sharlto Copley must be the Peter Sellers of S.A. His whole performance seemed like an Inspector Closeau parody. He's the new fookin' Jerry Lewis.
The Mist (2007)
I must have "Mist" something here...
Imagine you are stuck in the only American small town general store that does not sell firearms and ammo, and it is filled with the cast of a Canadian produced Sci-Fi channel B-movie on their lunch break. That's about all there is to this movie. Oh, except for the tagged on "Oh, crap! what have I done!" ending.
Typically, for most modern horror/science-fiction films, there is no imagination involved in this production. Tension between the clichéd characters is noticeably forced, the strategic choices made by this group of dunderheads would have a group of baboons howling with laughter, and you could find better monsters in the pages of old comic books like "Tales to Astonish". Come on, toothed tentacles, big hornets, pterodactyloids, spiders ( ...not spiders again, my god ), and a giant, long-legged, tentacled cow-something that walks around mooing like a foghorn. Why don't these guys try something new... like giant comb jellies or flying toasters.
At least the Sci-Fi channel has silly titles like "Mansquito" that are clear cues to lower your expectations and/or stock up on beer. I don't understand how this cornball stuff gets taken any more seriously than the film fodder used on MST3K. And, "No", it's not about the psychology of crowds - it's about marketing to clods.
Phase IV (1974)
Serious Seventies Science Fiction
After "2001: A Space Odyssey" came out, science fiction suddenly came into it's own as a "serious" venue for film drama. Movies like "The Andromeda Strain", "Logan's Run", "The Forbin Project", and "Soylent Green" addressed human-caused futurological disasters in a style that stressed dialog and ideas over force fields and ray guns. Of course, this all ended with "Star Wars", "Alien", and "E.T." - unfortunate for hardcore scifi fans. Now they're all Space Cowboys... and you know where that's at.
"Phase IV" belongs in the previous category of "thinking man's" scifi - and provides plenty of atmosphere and subtle effects for the "eye candy" crowd. Not many explosions - but live insect actors in some of the most remarkable animal sequences seen on film. The movie also sports a Pink Floydesque sound track that complements the mood of otherworldliness during the (obviously) non-speaking ant scenes. The lack of explanation of the studied ant phenomenon pulls you into the attempts at discovery by the two scientists - just what is it that they want? (well, what do humans want, anyway?)
Unfortunately, we never really learn more as the ending drops off with the two LEAST interesting characters supplying an uninspired ending. For me, Michael Murphy, as the young computer "genius", and Lynne Frederick, as the naive spoiled brat, really were miscast. Dull, and Duller. Someone like Michael York would have been a better choice than Murphy, who showed no intensity at all. The girl was simply too young for this role - a more mature young woman as a scientist would have added immensely to the story. However, Nigel Davenport, as the old, aggressive, and maniacal scientist is great and holds the story up until his inevitable demise. He, alone, makes a Formidable Foe for the Forceful Formicidae. See it, if only just for the great photography.
La cité des enfants perdus (1995)
If you live in a dream, but cannot dream it... you die...
As all dreams do... An excellent movie, a favorite that I watch time and again. I have a VHS English language copy and I find no fault with the dialogue - the story flowed very well for me from the first viewing. But I haven't seen the subtitled version, so perhaps there are some subtleties I have missed. I especially like the surreal sense of humor that runs throughout the story. No need to go into the plot and repeat what others have said, but it definitely is in the same mold as Terry Gilliam's and Tim Burton's works. If you like them, you will like this. A moody, bittersweet musical score - capped by an excellent performance by Marianne Faithful over the final credits of the theme song. Great performances by Ron Perlman, Dominque Pinon, Daniel Emilfork, Judith Vittet, Jean-Claude Dreyfus and cast. Dank and mysterious sets, flowing cinematography, obtuse plot connections, phantasmagorical editing synchronicities... what else is needed? One minor quibble. Why need a map for the minefield if all the mines are floating on the surface and quite visible? Otherwise the carnival logic holds up well in a movie that should become a cult classic and more.
Minority Report (2002)
Typical Spielberg SciFi Nonsense
More lame pseudo-science fiction from Spielberg - the second in his Trilogy of Turds; "A.I.", "Minority Report", and "War of the Worlds". Glossy, but unsatisfying pap from his "Dark Disney" period of the 21st century.
I only watched this to see Max von Sydow, but since his role was so small he should have just phoned it in. They should have dumped Cruise and given Max the lead. An excuse for a chase movie with jet-packs and rolling eyes. This stuff is getting old already. None of it makes sense, and, of course, Sherlock Cruise has to explain everything at the end! Duh. Retire already.
Children of Men (2006)
Lowest Common Denominator
Hair-thin plot line - kids nowadays are multitaskers, forget that linear single-threaded structuring. Half our audience can't think anyway! In vitro fertilization? Cloning? What happened? Or is this a really bad case of Brewer's droop in the UK (cut off the Guiness supply maybe?)
Mindless violence - hey,... it's real! Or as real as our mind wants it to be. Why does anyone do anything in this film? What the Hell are they fighting for?
Political posturing - give them slogans, Incite, not Insight. ...and a little button-eyed girl walks out at the end and belts out, "Tomorrow...Tomorrow... "
Eye Candy with patented "HIP" sugar-coating applied. Buy the new "Dystopia" snack bar (available at the concession stand).
If this review makes no sense to you, then you have just experienced "Children of Men".
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Homage, Pastiche, or Kitsch?
I bet Dave Fleischer or Willis O'Brien would have given their eye teeth for the visual tools they had to make this movie. The look is a little too soft for modern audiences, but the effects are suited to the period (if you have seen, or remember 30's films) and all-in-all seems thematically cohesive.
However, the main leads (Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow) are what really drag this movie down for me. Jude Law's features are too "soft" for the combat pilot/adventurer type. When he's worried or concerned, he looks confused and henpecked. Gwyneth Paltrow seems smarmy and unanimated - I don't recall her hair being out of place once in the film. I've seen better "chemistry" between Nancy and Sluggo in the Sunday funnies. Since the movie concentrates on this tepid duo, it loses a lot to their limp antagonism. Jolie does her minor role to perfection - and apparently understands how acting completely natural in absurd situations always reflects well on yourself. Ribisi is similarly outstanding as the whiz kid sidekick. Oh,... and those CGI modelers must have perused a lot of "Magnus, Robot Fighter" comics in their spare time. Too bad the effort was wasted here.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
The Electric Pinocchio Doomsday Acid Test
I won't go through what I don't like about this movie - see it for yourself (at minimal cost) and decide for yourself what you don't like about it... it has something to dislike for everyone. No "intelligent design" here. Just no intelligence - artificial or otherwise - to speak of. Hollywood should just be cut off from science fiction themes. They have no respect for them, they use them as a tool to pull in a younger audience and nothing more. As the special effects improve, the screen writing and direction go further and further downhill. Why not let the FX grunts just write and direct these films... they couldn't be any worse.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Spielberg Screws Us Again
After the crap that was "A.I.", Spielberg takes another dump on the film-going audience with another SciFi extravaganza made up of annoying, unsympathetic characters; disjointed, pot-holed plot line; and a sappy ending that sucks the life out of this picture much as the aliens do of their hapless human victims. I must admit... some of the effects looked good... and that my dislike of this film is intensely fueled by my loathing of Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, and the other kid (I was rooting for the aliens). But it was in the discount bin and completed my collection of all 4 of the War of the Worlds films - of which only the George Pal version is worthy of more than one viewing!
When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth (1970)
When Loincloths Rolled in Dirt!
This is what movies are supposed to be like... pure escapism. Stop-motion dinosaurs supplied by Harryhausen protégé Jim Danforth and jiggle-art supplied by ex-Playmate Victoria Vetri (aka Angela Dorian) - what else do you need? Oh,... no interfering dialogue to distract your brain from your eyes, of course! The guys are all grunts and the girls are to grunt for... and you know what, they still ran like girls back then.
I can only believe they had a HIGH time shooting this movie. Running through batches of euphorbias and opuntias, patches of sulfurous fumes, in loincloths... in the desert heat of a volcanic island... they must have been stoned! Too bad VV couldn't have made an "Invasion of the Dinosaur Girls" also, I would have loved to have seen that.
The Ninth Gate (1999)
Intriguing, but unsatisfying "Sorcerer's Apprentice" tale
Apparently Polanski is not acquainted with American 20th century stories of "those who seek knowledge beyond Human ken". You know, the pulp musings of Merrit, Lovecraft, Ashton Smith, et al (for that matter, most of American filmmakers can't seem to grasp it either). Or perhaps he chooses to ignore it. Such is our loss. I always enjoy stories about hidden mysteries and covert histories, but his effort here just doesn't present enough eerie juxtaposition between the mundane elements of modern life and the supposedly preternatural parallelism of the supernatural stream of forces hidden just below our grasp. Polanski's satanism is like a dull bureaucracy made up of silly regulations - take nine engravings and call me in the morning. "Rosemary's Baby" showed a little more quirkiness, but still gets bogged down in ritual... I guess it's all those centuries of feudalism in Europe. There is no awe and wonder in this movie - certainly not from Johnny Depp. He's done better elsewhere.
Contrast this movie with something like "The Resurrected" and you will see what I mean - and not just for the bizarre shocks, of course they are there to pull in the "correct" audience of jaded young video gamers, but are limited and dispersed for story effect also. It's the same story of ordinary humans confronting a traditional and historical "evil" in the modern world with a considerably more cohesive effect.
Dune (1984)
Flawed, but pleasantly surrealistic adaptation.
Back in the 60's I tried reading Frank Herbert's "Dune". I got as far as the part where Paul puts his hand in the "pain box" and then got bored and put it away ( I think the paperback is still somewhere in my attic ). Frankly, the novel seem to me like a cross between "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Stranger in a Strange Land". Too plodding, too religious, too political - not Science Fiction material at all. Give me "The Lensman" series by E.E. "Doc" Smith or Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy for world-shaking epic story-telling. "Dune" did not cut it with me.
However, when I saw David Lynch's vision of the novel I was quite intrigued - not with the story, messianic story lines don't intrigue me, my opinion of the novel is unchanged - but the quirky visualization really seemed to project the correct atmosphere for a future human civilization. Something that's usually missing from Hollywood space operas. If you could somehow splice the visual richness of Lynch's "Dune" with the characters and storyline of Goddard's "Alphaville" I think you would have one helluva good movie. I'm sure Eddie Constantine could handle a "weirding module" with the best of them.
Unbreakable (2000)
Unbelievable... in the truest sense of the word.
Man finds out that he is a "real" superhero because his self-proclaimed arch-Nemesis says so. They punch their time-cards and slowly start circling each other.
Zombie-like Bruce Willis plods through almost 2 hours of a 25 minute "Twilight Zone" script. Style and atmosphere without any punch to it. The theme appears to be that some people don't know their own strength, and other people's reach exceeds their grasp. Shyamalan's autobiography? One-hit Wonder writer/director takes the first step onto the wooden plank that will drown his career. Unbelievable and pretentious.
Signs (2002)
Sign of the Times
Preacher loses his faith in God, gets it back by whacking an Alien.
What is wrong with this picture? There it is... poor craftsmanship due to Superfluous Novelty. Shyamalan's "style" seems to just that... all style, no substance. Maybe he is trying to use the William Burroughs method of "cut-up" storytelling - you write something - chop it into snippets - and then reassemble it randomly. I believe that Anime is written this way. Put a lot of unrelated ideas on little slips of paper, mix them in a bowl, and then pull out a few to create characters and plot.
Like: Samurai/Robot/Bus driver - good protagonist! Amphibious/Demon/Wombats - what a villain! Moon Landing/Nuclear/Earthquake - sets the stage!
All this makes you SEEM to be creative and innovative. But it all falls flat without some thread of continuity to it. Some people can do it (i.e., "The Birds") and others can't (i.e., "Signs").
This movie tries to do 2 things simultaneously and succeeds at neither. As a morality fable of 'lost faith', it's main character is not believable to me - he's just a plot device. As some sort of Science Fiction 'thriller', it was not suspenseful and relied on pointless and overused 'boogeyman' thrills - I suppose it looks good in the trailers to get the crowds in.
I liked "The Sixth Sense" , it was OK. I watched "Unbreakable" and found it pointlessly arbitrary and confusing; like a jigsaw puzzle made from several different boxes. I have not seen "The Village" or "Lady in the Water", but they both sound like a further deterioration in his film-making career.
The Atomic Submarine (1959)
Cyclopic Submarine
8 out of 10 for effort in the category of lo-budget Sci-Fi Tomfoolery.
What can I say
old "B" grade sci-fi films from the 50's and 60's are really fun to watch. This one is favorite of mine; I'll watch it over and over again. Somehow these movies re-ignite childhood memories of Saturday afternoons at the show or late night TV popcorn fests. Sure they're stinkers, but the odor they emit is as evocative as an exotic fragrance that stimulates half-forgotten memories.
Lots of stock footage; voice-over narration; maps with squiggly chase routes; a solid cast of character actors; cheap, but eerie and imaginative effects
all earmarks of the trashy Drive-in and Matinée fare. Remember "Double Features" or "Triple Features"? Movies like "Atomic Submarine" were the Chinese takeout menu of the 50's cinema scene – quick and filling, but not much else!
If you like ATOMIC SUBMARINE, you'll also like KRONOS; IT, THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE; TARGET EARTH; THE CRAWLING EYE; FIEND WITHOUT A FACE; I MARRIED A MONSTER FROM OUTER SPACE; THE BRAIN EATERS; THE CURSE OF THE FLY along with many others too numerous to mention. All flawed by their cheapness, but remembered for a few minutes of imaginative storytelling.
Die Schlangengrube und das Pendel (1967)
Decent & Atmospheric 60's Gothic
I have the Aikman Archives 2003 DVD release which has a quoted running time of 81 minutes, but I do not know if it is uncut. It says that it is digitally remastered... but that is a pretense only. The opening scenes have some severe film scratches on it, and minor scratching is visible in many later scenes, although the color is not too bad.
The charm of this film is obviously the sets and general creepiness. Story wise, it is typical of the "Revenge" and "Curse" plot lines in horror movies, but adds a few twists to make it a little more bizarre. It's mostly a vehicle for the well-realized castle and torture chambers. Huge Hieronymus Bosch paintings dominate the walls while trained vultures greedily peck at bloody leftovers. Corpses hang along dimly viewed roadside trees; and with every move a spiked portcullis or oaken door closes behind the protagonists sealing their passage. With a more coherent plot and more subtle and cohesive dialog and editing this would have been more than a "B" movie. To me, it lacks some measure of suspense, although the torture chamber sequences aren't too bad. Christopher Lee needed more screen time and better lines, and Lex Barker could have been replaced with Ron Ely or Gordon Scott (my favorite Tarzans).
Dreamcatcher (2003)
Craptacular!
I only saw a portion of this movie on cable ( somewhere around where they meet the infected farting guy and some of the flashbacks ) and I know I didn't miss anything by changing the channel when Morgan Freeman began attacking the stupid worms with his helicopter gunships. The whole thing looked patched-up and rushed. I have not read this book as I am not a fan of Stephen King - "IT" was the only book of his that I finished; generally enjoyable, but with the silliest ending to a book ever printed. SK seems to concentrate on "psychic" ghost stories. And when he tries to introduce science-fiction elements into his horror writing - like this "Dreamcatcher" thing - it seems to fall way short of the Lovecraftian "Cosmic Horror" that he seems to aim for.
King Kong (2005)
King Wrong is right!
If this is Peter Jackson's tribute to his favorite movie I would love to see what he would do to something he hated - it would be infinitely better!
Everyone here has found all the obvious flaws and I can add very little. Editing out all the bloated excess added by Jackson would leave us with the same story as the original, but without any of the fire that made it into a great story. The girl-loves-ape twist was obviously added to give Naomi Watts more screen time (or justify her salary, or ego, or whatever) and ruins the primitive horror of the story. Jackson's contrived and pointless additions to the story simply drag it down to the level of a dull video game.
"King Kong" (the original) is simply one of the first (and probably the best) of the "Giant Monster Runs Amok" movies. A direct descendant of "The Lost World" of 1925 which also showcased the master craftsmanship of animator Willis O'Brien. It's MAN VS NATURE on the most Exaggerated and Monstrous scale - and nothing more! It's pure Movie Spectacle. But it's a good, terse, well-timed story - not some lame fan boy wet dream like the big budget turd Jackson plopped into the theaters.
Inept and ridiculous - as a fan of the original, he should be ashamed!
Starship Troopers (1997)
Don't kid yourself - it is Awful!
If someone could remove the vacuous TV brats, the nonsensical plot, and Verhoeven's trademark "teasers" from this film then there might be enough stock footage of bugs and spaceships to sell to some acolyte of Bert I. Gordon or Roger Corman who knows how to make a decent piece of trash. I really think there is about 15 minutes of salvageable CGI in here looking for an episode of the Outer Limits to inhabit. It is not satire - it is stupidity, pure and simple. I read the original Heinlein novel as a boy in the 60's, and then reread it before I saw this flick - obviously, there is no comparison. Although the book is not anything I ever raved about, it is far more cohesive than this movie - and presents the casual acceptance of militarism much more powerfully than the "Itchy and Scratchy in Outer Space" show that Verhoeven shat out on the screen. If you must, just fast-forward to the cool parts - it really does suck that bad!
Alien³ (1992)
Sucked!
That sums it up - the most disappointing sequel I have ever seen. A remake of the first film with moronic skin-headed gits running around. Tie some wet towels on their heads and call it "Monty Python's Alien Buggery Ball". They're just movies, but they should be CONSISTENT AND ENTERTAINING!
Shambling direction, despair, wobbly acting, despair, black holes in the plot, despair, too many low camera angles (what... is Fincher an upskirt voyeur?), despair, creature effects that remind me of a squirrel chasing it's nuts around, more despair...
What was the point of making this POS?