Change Your Image
Sam_Youno
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Godzilla vs. Kong (2021)
The Godzilla Vs. Kong Awards
Best Actor: Kong
Best Human Actor: no entrants in this category
Best Line: "Gaaaarrhrhhhh!" (Skullcrawler 10)
Best Human Line: no entrants in this category
Least Appealing Character: multiple tie among entire cast, with Honorable Mention to the little girl
Screenplay By: Skullcrawler 10
Based On An Original Concept By: no one, not a living soul
Worst Soundtrack Song: multiple tie among all entrants
Special Effects: Well okay, yeah, some of the special effects are pretty good
Largest Plot Hole: Aw, hell---take your pick
High-Tech Flying Vehicles Based On: eyelash mites
Fight Choreography By: André the Giant.
Season of the Witch (2011)
Hardly a towering masterpiece, but fun
Okay, sure, this not a great movie---your fairly standard "take all the liberties you want with history" Crusades action/fantasy thingie. But what kept me watching was how much fun Ron Perlman and Nicholas Cage appear to be having. Their lines are far less cheesy than one would expect, with considerable humour, and the stars do a good, professional job with them.
Other reviewers have pointed out some of a long list of errors. Allow me to add to them:
Dates are given in the form "1232 A. D." Correct would have been "A. D. 1232" ("anno Domini---in the year of our Lord"). And people, even witches, are hanged, not hung.
And one correction to another imdb reviewer: Tony Curtis never, in any film, uttered the words "Yondah lies da castle of my faddah." A cinematic urban legend---but such a good one that I feel mildy ashamed to be puncturing it.
One of a Kind: The Rise and Fall of Stu Ungar (2006)
Pretentious, puffed-up documentary
What we have here is maybe 10 minutes' worth of interesting video footage---Stu Unger at the poker table, reminiscences from world-class poker players and others who knew him---expanded into a 45-minute documentary through supposedly atmospheric dramatizations of Unger's life and soggy, stilted, clichéd narration. The result is repetitive, pretentious and completely unsatisfying.
Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well and Living in Paris (1975)
More is less. Stick to the cast recording.
I saw the original cast of "Jacques Brel . . . " in NYC in the '60s, and have loved the cast album in all the years since, both for itself and for the introduction it provided to clips and recordings of Brel singing his own songs. I bought this DVD in the hopes of seeing Mort Shuman and Elly Stone singing the songs I first heard them sing at the Village Gate. Big bummer. Mort and Elly---and Jacques---are here, but they're buried beneath the frenzied prancing of the extras, the silly stagings, some remarkably horrible lip-syncing and all the rest of the unnecessary, overproduced hoopla. The songs, as presented here, approach the unwatchable. My own favourite Brel song, "Timid Frieda" ("Les Timides"), mesmerizing on the CD, becomes twittering and trivial. This film adds nothing to the original cast recording, with the exception of several songs not on the CD. Those include Brel's moving performance of "Ne Me Quitte Pas," which even the notes on the DVD case call "the true showstopper"---a telling admission that the rest of the movie ain't gonna measure up. Wish I could have read that before I bought the DVD.
The Meg (2018)
Excellent effects. Screenplay by a tubeworm.
The Meg provided exactly what I wanted at the time: a monster movie with spectacular effects and good action sequences, intelligence and originality optional. The writers clearly took the "optional" part very seriously: The film is one long cliché, comprising a whole lot of little clichés---from the overall plot to the ninth-grade-level dialogue, right down to the movements and gestures of the actors. The main "surprise" can be seen coming hundreds of fathoms away, and the two people you'll most want to be eaten, aren't. Still, enjoyable: A first-time viewer will feel that he's watching an old, often-viewed favourite. Watching The Meg is like sinking into a warm bath---with a very large fish.
Hellboy (2019)
David Harbour tries hard . . .
. . . and that's about the only thing one can say in defense of this horrible film. The creators were clearly trying to make the movie faithful to the Hellboy comics, but jeez!---couldn't they tell how moronic those comic-book lines would sound in a live-action context? The dialogue might have been written by a 14-year-old; most of what were supposed to be witty one-liners are embarrassingly bad. The CGI is passable at best; most of the effects---particularly the giants---simply look computerized. The rock songs seem to have been dropped in randomly, as if a pounding soundtrack would automatically add excitement to a scene.
Harbour, in the midst of this mess, somehow manages to create a workable variant of the Hellboy character: heavier on the monster side, quicker to anger. In a better vehicle he would have been truly fun to watch. But he simply drowns in the unrelieved awfulness of the idiotic script, unoriginal cardboard characters and derivative plot. Two out of 10.
Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
Excellent thriller, and bravo, Gerard Butler!
This film flew under my radar for a decade; not sure why I'd never heard of it. Jamie Foxx is solid and excellent in the part of the straight man (always the toughest character to put across), and Gerard Butler is an outstanding 10+ as the "good guy/bad guy" villain. The plot, up till the very end (when things do spiral a bit out of control) is excellent, and the writing is top-notch throughout: understated and menacing.
Reviewers' criticisms tend to focus on:
First, the wide liberties taken with legal procedure, police procedure and reality. I can't disagree, but I had no trouble enjoying this as an action/psychological film, start to finish. If we held every movie to a strict burden of accuracy, there'd be damned few films left. Sometimes---frequently, in fact---one must put aside the real world and simply take a film on its own terms.
Second, the ending. Again I agree; it's a comedown from the previous hour and a half of tight action---but that wasn't enough to spoil the film for me. The ending flashes by quickly, and we are spared any after-the-fact moralizing or explanations. Didn't really bother me at all.
P. S. - I can't resist commenting on one of the "Goofs" posted on IMDb: that the cello fingerings in the recital scene do not match the soundtrack. I'm a professional musician, and that's certainly true. But even worse is that Nick's daughter DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE HER ACCOMPANIST! Major faux pas!
Incredibles 2 (2018)
A big step down from the first film, but still good---except for one unfathomable giveaway.
Thoroughly enjoyable, with (no surprise) astonishing animation, including a few sequences that manage to surpass the original. The increased focus on the Parr family's dynamics is handled with humour and restraint, and works far better than I'd feared. Jack-Jack is a complete delight, as of course is Edna Mode; and Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter and Samuel L. Jackson manage to bring even more nuance to their characters---which were pretty damn good the first time round.
But. . . . The plot, compared with Incredibles #1, seemed sprawling. Not ridiculously complex, but it lacked the original's laser intensity and clarity. Still, my main disappointment came early on, when we are told who the villain is, before any hint that there even IS a mastermind villain. We're introduced to Evelyn Deavor, and it takes about a quarter of a second to translate that into "Evil Endeavor." That reveals most of the subsequent plot, and the end of any suspense.
I'll be watching the first "Incredibles" movie again, certainly, but not this one. And I hope there won't be a third.
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
Many spots of brilliance, but falls short of the Lansbury/Hearn theatre version
I'm a huge fan of Johnny Depp, and Helena Bonham Carter is one of the most versatile actresses in the business - - - but I still came away from this film disappointed. Carter, I thought, was good but miscast; Mrs. Lovett, I think, works best as an older character. Angela Lansbury, after all, was Stephen Sondheim's and Hal Prince's personal choice to play Mrs. Lovett on Broadway, and there are hints in the libretto as well, such as " . . . a woman alone, with limited wind. . . ", that strongly point to an older Mrs. Lovett.
Depp, I felt, was not so much miscast as misdirected. His Sweeney is a humourless man, which deprives many of the songs of the flashes of savage fun that George Hearn brought to the part. ("A Little Priest" and "Pirelli's Miracle Elixir" are the most obvious examples.)
I saw Lansbury and Len Cariou in the original Broadway production (damn, I wish I still had the Playbill!), and my opinions are certainly coloured by having seen the stage version and the Lansbury/Hearn film first, but still - - - despite being a thoroughly effective production, with some screen effects that do improve on the original, this film remains a distant second to Broadway.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)
De Niro, No Longer Typecast!
We've all seen De Niro, mucho times, as a good cop, a bad cop, a good crook, a bad crook and other, similar roles. Watching him as the Monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a real treat. He remains recognizably Bobby De Niro, but he manages to bring to the part nuances of emotion---and aggression---that are utterly different from his other work, before and since.
Alas, the rest of the film (plot, script, acting) is exactly the sort of thing that has put us to sleep in innumerable mawkish Victorian romances and melodramas. With some careful pick-and-choosing, and despite a good dash of Hollywood, the plot is acceptably close to Mary Shelley's novel, but creating a compelling cinematic version of the novel is a different matter.
De Niro has, maybe, 20 minutes onscreen. 'Tain't enough.
Best line: "Don't bother to scream."
Add one full ratings point for Kenneth Branagh's earnest effort to avoid giving this movie a feel-good ending. Subtract half a point for failing. Add back the half-point for casting John Cleese. Final sum: 5 points.
Thick as Thieves (2009)
Watch it for Antonio
I was planning to give this film a 7 until the final scene, when the bubblegum-disco credits music kicked in. Deduct 1 star for the bad taste left in my mouth.
"Thick as Thieves" (alternatively titled "The Code") is your standard high-tech heist film, with serious tips of the hat to "Mission Impossible" and "Ocean's 11." A number of nice plot twists along the way, some of which you'll probably see coming and some not. The obligatory 40 seconds of moderately graphic sex. (Why did I get the odd notion that the producers were trying to bump this up to an R rating but couldn't quite manage it?) And, my main reason for the high rating, exceptional performances from Morgan Freeman and Antonio Banderas.
Freeman is his usual stolid self and always worth seeing, though we've all seen his persona before. But Banderas is a particular joy to watch. At least one IMDb reviewer commented that he's getting a bit old to play the wisecracking buddy-movie younger guy, but I didn't view his character that way at all. I saw a cool-headed, competent crook, still young enough to have all his abilities but aware that the tide is ebbing quickly. (Banderas was 49 when this film was released, though his character can pass for considerably less.) And he doesn't take himself seriously; watch his facial expressions, some of which are hilarious, some self-mocking, and all expressive and beautifully in character.
In fact, the entire film doesn't take itself seriously; I think that's why I had such fun watching what is, at bottom, a modest, not particularly original story. The ridiculously high-tech alarm systems and burglary gadgets, the juggling of identities and motives, the light, understated script (including some wonderful scenes featuring fully expendable bad guys): The mood of the whole is simply fun. Crack a beer and enjoy it.
Machete (2010)
How in Hell Did They Get De Niro for This Pile of Crap?
I love a good bloodfest as much as anyone, and in films where stage blood accounts for 50% of the production budget, I'm not really particular about plots. (Actually, the plot here is halfway decent.) So far, so good. But the script is boring, clichéd and predictable, and the acting---the main reason for my 3 rating---is just plain dreadful. Danny Trejo is okay, because he doesn't have more than three or four sentences in the whole film, and it's fun to see an action hero who's shorter than I am. But every time one of the other characters opened his or her mouth, I cringed, hoping that he or she would be immediately decapitated---a wish that was fulfilled surprisingly often.
And then there's Robert De Niro, playing a scheming, anti-immigration Senator with a Texas accent as deep as the Rio Grande. Oh, Robert, Robert, Robert: Did you really need the money that much? In any event, De Niro is fine, as always, and almost makes "Machete" watchable. Almost. 3 out of 10.
Mimic (1997)
Guillermo del Toro drops the bug on this one.
I lived and worked and rode the subways in Manhattan for 15 years, and I think that the MPAA should have included a notice at the beginning of this film: "All insects shown actual size."
I'm a huge fan of Guillermo del Toro, both his horror/fantasy films and his all-for-fun monster movies, and I simply couldn't understand how the mind that created a masterpiece such as "Cronos" could turn around and spew out something as just plain ORDINARY as "Mimic." I found at least part of the explanation here on IMDb: After repeated on-set changes by the producer, Bob Weinstein, del Toro apparently disowned the film. Still, his name is up there as Director, so he can't escape all the blame.
All the usual horror ingredients are here: the dark, cluttered, brooding sets; the blink-and-you'll-miss-'em split-second shadowy glimpses of the creatures; the monstrous jaws trailing strands of slime as they open; the cute young heroine who is also a world-class scientist (and, of course, half of the love-interest subplot); and so on. The problem is not that any of this stuff is done badly; it's that everything has been done before (and since). That is not what one expects from Guillermo del Toro. I've seen all his full-length films; some, such as "Pan's Labyrinth," are in my opinion among the best movies every made, and even the least serious of them, "Pacific Rim," shows an ingenuity and attention to detail that pull it out of the "comic-book film" category and make it something special. "Mimic" is the only one of his films that simply drags.
Still, it's probably the only film ever made in which the line, "There's some weird sh*t in here!" can be taken absolutely literally.
Slither (2006)
"Meat!"
Aw, c'mon now, how can anyone NOT like this movie?
My high rating assumes that anyone starting in on "Slither" has at least a suspicion - - the title alone is the biggest clue, and the theatrical trailer flat-out tells you what to expect - - that this is an over-the-top, affectionate, tongue-in-cheek paean to B-grade horror movies past. ("Tongue-in-cheek" may in fact be a bit too revolting a description.) At the very least, a first-time viewer will be expecting a standard gross-out sci-fi movie.
"Slither" works either way.
If you go in wanting nothing more than an hour and a half of **CGI Slugs Terrorize Small Town!**, you'll get everything you wanted. (More, in fact, because the production quality is far, far above the norm for that type of film.) But if you know, or suspect, that "Slither" is really a takeoff on, and a tribute to, every horror, suspense and sci-fi film ever made, then you'll be able to appreciate its real joys. You've got your slimy aliens, brought to Earth aboard a meteor (always the transport of choice for slimy aliens); you've got your small, isolated town, presumably in the southern U.S., being overrun by (in this case) giant sluglike things, controlled by a single central intelligence; you've got your curvaceous alien-fodder local girls, ready to remove their shirts at the first sign of danger; you've got your square-jawed Chief of Police, doing his duty in the face of something that was definitely not covered in his training. . . .
And you've also got an astonishing number of truly hilarious moments:
* The first-infected human (Grant Grant, played by Michael Rooker), early in his transformation, preparing a cozy nest for himself in the dirt and debris of his basement;
* The same poor guy (his increasingly disgusting makeup is in itself a loving parody of B-grade SF films), indulging his rapidly escalating hunger for flesh---from the contents of his fridge, to the entire stock of the butcher's rib-eyes, to his neighbours' livestock;
* The deadpan performance of Nathan Fillion as Police Chief Bill Pardy, who seems to be thinking, at each new repulsive incident, "You've gotta be kiddin' me";
* The foulest-mouthed Mayor in cinematic history;
* The ever-popular "short scene after the credits," which is definitely worth waiting for.
* Among the Extra Features (most of which are unimportant, unused scenes), one wonderful scene titled "Filing Meat." I can't understand why this scene didn't make the film. You should by all means check it out!
The effects are not overly ambitious, but top-level for quality. And there's one brief, remarkable scene in which we get a glimpse of the world from which these creatures have come. For about five seconds the level of the CGI, both in content and detail, jumps to an entirely new plane--an immensely effective and jarring device.
Do yourself a favour and check out "Slither," if only for Michael Rooker's makeup. I mean, when was the last time you saw a room-size mutant squid from outer space reach out a tentacle to switch on a country-music radio station?
Basic (2003)
Don't assume you're certain of anything---and don't assume that it matters.
A number of reviewers have complained, with justice, that they couldn't follow the tortuous, flashback-laden, ever-changing plot of this film. It took me a couple of viewings and (I swear it) written notes and diagrams to figure out what was going on---or not going on---or what the director wanted me to think was going on---or what the director wanted me to think was going on so I'd think it really wasn't, though it actually was. . . .
Let us turn, as I often do when confronted with a plot of which I've lost track a long way back, to Raymond Chandler, the greatest detective novelist who ever lived. In his famous essay "The Simple Art of Murder," Chandler defined the purpose of the detective novel (and by extension detective movies---which, at bottom, is what "Basic" is) as "an effect of movement, intrigue, cross-purposes, and the gradual elucidation of character." Chandler notes that in Dashiel Hammett's most famous work, "The Maltese Falcon," the only "formal problem" in the story is never resolved and, in fact, quickly becomes irrelevant.
Viewed in this light, "Basic" works brilliantly. Forget about the plot holes. Yes, there are some large ones. Forget about the places where fact and fiction (the characters' fictions) can't be told apart. Forget what you think you "know." Instead, view this film as a mosaic of facts, falsehoods and motives. Keep an open mind. When you've reached the end and know the truth---watch it again in that light. It'll make sense.
And mainly, watch it for John Travolta.
The Spirit (2008)
"I am sorely disappointed!"
I had high hopes for this film. I like Frank Miller's work and distinctive style very much, I'm a huge fan of Samuel L. Jackson, and I have no trouble enjoying most "made from comic book" films, even though I'm not a big comic-book fan myself. But "The Spirit" somehow manages to be both simultaneously over the top and banal; it would merit a much higher rating if it had been intended as parody of comic-book films. I mean, what is an actor or actress, even a good one, supposed to do with a line such as "Who knows how far his tentacles may have spread!" Or "I am death! You are the only man who has ever escaped my cold embrace"?
Gabriel Macht looks the part of The Spirit, but can do nothing with the role. I doubt that anyone could. Samuel L. Jackson is fun, but it's just too much of the same thing; even he gets tiresome after a while. And almost without exception, every other role is laughably flat. I found myself pitying the actors and wondering whether they listed this film on their resumes.
I think what it comes down to is that if you're going to make a movie based on a comic book, there ought to be some difference between the two---some reason for making the film in the first place. No reason at all here.
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
One of the great zombie movies - - - if you're not too picky
A random group of Navy SEALS sharpshooters, Israeli SWAT team members and Wild West gunslingers find themselves trapped in a Milwaukee shopping mall. . . . Okay, they're really supposed to be an ordinary group of strangers. I merely wish to point out that of the roughly 47 gazillion shots fired in the course of this film, not a one of them misses. To kill a zombie, of course, you have to shoot it in the head---not an easy shot even if both shooter and target are stationary. But we get a feeble old man shooting two handguns while being dragged backward; a guy who didn't know where his safety catch was, dispatching dozens of zombies - - - BANG!--Another zombie down. You get the idea.
This isn't criticism; I'm giving this film 8 out of 10. But you should know, if watching it for the first time, that you'll be asked not only to suspend disbelief, but to hang disbelief by the neck until dead. Plot holes are too numerous to mention; logic (even the film's internal logic) is gently slid off to the side and into oblivion; numerous major questions are never answered, notably how the sudden zombie virus originated, apparently overnight. Oh, lots of stuff.
How, then, an 8 out of 10? Because "Dawn of the Dead," unlike any other zombie film I've seen (full disclosure here: I have NOT seen the 1978 original), clearly had someone with a brain behind it. Maybe even two such someones! There's good, chiseled dialogue; consistent understatement (an early, excellent example is the TV news flash while Ana and her hubby are otherwise engaged; we're not told what the news flash is about---just that there is one); and even some character development! (Well, not the zombies; they pretty much just keep on doing what zombies do.) Also, as other IMDb reviewers have pointed out, very effective flashes of humour, the best being the scene in which the lead characters, communicating by sign with a gun-shop owner stranded atop his store across the street, suggest targets---"Burt Reynolds"--- and the gun guy takes aim and blows away the shambling zombie who resembles Burt Reynolds.
My only serious complaint with this immensely entertaining film is the portrayal of the zombies. You'd think that someone would find some workable variant on the universal zombie standard: arms outstretched, bloody mouth, eyes circled in kohl for that sunken look. It's a tried and true formula, but watch enough zombie films and you just get tired.
Push (2006)
Why such extreme reactions - - - on either side?
The reviews here seem to be divided between those who consider "Push" a 10-star masterpiece and those who say it's total garbage. First of all, there's no way in hell this movie rates 10 stars. I can't imagine why anyone would rank it that highly; and yes, one does wonder whether some of the more enthusiastic reviewers were involved with the production in some way.
But I'm just as baffled by those who panned it top to bottom and gave it the lowest possible rating. If "Push" is one of the worst films these folks have seen, then I'm sorry, but they're simply not watching enough bad movies. Much of the plot is predictable or silly, and the sets and settings are limited and unimaginative, but the atmosphere is enjoyably tense throughout (helped by excellent, nervous editing), and the script is, for the most part, sharp and tight. There's quite a bit of overacting---the cast may have watched "Scarface" one too many times---but it never falls below professional level. No Pacinos here, but a talented young cast doing a solid job.
I found "Push" in the local bargain bin for $2, and fully expected to watch it (or part of it) once, then sell it back to the store for a buck. Instead, I'm keeping it.
Soldier (1998)
Straight-ahead sci-fi action flick, with a terrific Kurt Russell.
This is a good, tight, unassuming sci-fi film, with a lot of standard themes, settings and characters swirling around the impassive, almost silent figure of Kurt Russell.
Russell's character, Todd---raised from birth to be a soldier through a ruthless training program, then supplanted by a new breed of genetically engineered soldiers and discarded---is an utter change of character for Russell. "Soldier" isn't "Star Wars" or "Blade Runner," but it doesn't try to be. It's thoroughly enjoyable, completely satisfying escapist fare. The special effects and action sequences are nothing eye-popping, but they're solidly put together, and the acting (though some of the minor characters are pretty thin-grade cardboard) is generally quite good. Jason Scott Lee is a thoroughly effective villain---with even fewer lines than Russell.
The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)
An almost flawless film
This is Woody Allen's favourite of all his films, and it's easy to see why. It combines hilarious comedy with serious themes, as all his best films do, and it does so in lapidary style---not a word wasted, not a joke added just for yuks. The comedy, particularly the bickering among the actors stranded on screen, is as funny as anything Allen ever wrote, and the squalor and cruelty of the real world are a perfect counterpoint, managing to make the film's fantasy premise completely believable.
Several IMDb reviewers have complained that they were disappointed by the sad ending of "Purple Rose"; I strongly disagree. The ending as Allen wrote it is almost inevitable. A happier ending would have brought the real-world half of the film firmly into the area of fairy-tale fantasy, and would have shattered the balance that lies at the heart of the movie. If anything, Jeff Daniels's brooding, regretful look in our last view of him, and Mia Farrow's half-smile in the final shot, soften the power of the ending a bit more than I'd have wished.
If you watch only films with happy endings, you're missing a lot of very good movies.
Diggstown (1992)
Brilliant; a pity it's not better-known.
There are very few movies, including most of my all-time favourites, that I can watch more than once a year without getting bored. In fact, "Diggstown" is the only one I can think of. As other IMDb reviewers have pointed out, not a scene or a line is wasted; the movie pulls you forward. It's as much fun as any good "con" movie, but has a lot more to say than "The Sting" (a film that I love) or any other such that I can think of. If the reason for its relative obscurity is the usual one---the studio held focus groups and decided not to put much advertising money behind the film---then I'm baffled.
Do they give Oscars for casting? "Diggstown" deserves one. Gossett and Platt are extraordinary. (Gossett, in my opinion, gives the best performance of his career---high praise indeed.) Woods and Dern, two actors whose work I haven't always been crazy about, are perfect here. It's fast, hilarious (with Gossett getting most of the best lines) and, as The New York Times wrote, "improbable (and) vastly entertaining." Oliver Platt's fleecing of the locals in the bar early on is one of the funniest scenes I know of.
I love introducing friends to "Diggstown." Without exception, their reactions are, "Holy crap! How come I've never heard of this movie??!!" Then they ask to borrow it.
Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (1999)
Andrew Lloyd Webber gives me hives
"Joseph" is probably Andrew Lloyd Webber's best show, because it's intentionally derivative, and everything else he's written has been unintentionally derivative. Take one calypso number, one country number, one French-bistro number, etc., et al., and you've got a hit! Throw in an astonishingly illiterate script ("Famine's hand will stalk the land" -- how's that for a mixed metaphor?), and you've got a mega-hit.
I did, to my surprise, like Donny Osmond in "Joseph." Ain't enough. The overwhelming unoriginality, tedious score and 2d-grade libretto easily make it one of the worst musicals ever.
As Tim Rice candidly stated in an interview, "The best line in the show was the list of the colours in Joseph's coat. And I didn't even write that."
TITanic 2000: Vampire of the Titanic (1999)
Better than Cameron's "Titanic" (but worse than everything else in the history of the planet)
A few years ago I came across this extremely soft-porn film on eBay, while looking for theme gifts for the musical director (a very religious woman) of our community-theatre version of Broadway's "Titanic: The Musical." Naturally, I had to watch at least part of the video (originally titled "TITanic 2000") before giving it to her (lots of fraud on eBay these days). I still find it difficult to believe that this "film" (giving it the benefit of the doubt) was ever made. Suffice it to say that every piece of hard porn, soft porn, mindless violence, mass-produced kiddie animation, carpet sweepings, 10-week-old popcorn, doggie poop and anything else in your local video store is vastly superior to this (with the exception of James Cameron's "Titanic").
But do I consider my purchase a waste? Not at all!! Since that first year, the presentation of "Titanic 2000" to the most -- ahem -- DESERVING member of the orchestra has become a valued tradition. Every honoured recipient so far has vigorously denied even opening the case, but there sure were a lot of fingerprints on the disc when it was returned to me yesterday, ready for this year's ceremony.
Jealous of all the fun we have, down in the dark of the orchestra pit? We still need a harpist and a bassoonist. Drop me a note!
Happy Feet (2006)
yawn . . .
My wife and I watched this with our 6-year-old daughter. We're all fans of animated films, in particular many of the Pixar and Dreamworks movies, but this one just drags. Mommy and daddy sat there stoically, willing to see the thing through for the sake of the kid, but it was my daughter who asked (well before her bedtime!!), "Can we turn off the movie now?"
Some terrific animation (the hungry seal was my favourite), and some very funny bits and characters, such as the Adelie penguins, but way too much dead space in between.
I found the casting mediocre. Elijah Wood, whom I've liked elsewhere, was just blah in this (not his fault, given most of his lines). But I thought that Robin Williams, whom I usually find annoying, was quite good in his four roles---especially Ramon.
I would FAR rather have watched an hour and a half of Savion Glover doing the actual dancing that was used for Mumble's steps.
Titanic (1997)
The only entertaining thing about this movie is the seasickness it will induce.
Pure glop. Wooden acting. Astonishingly unconvincing characters. Boring, generic music (descending to banality in the case of "My Heart Will Go On"). Good sets and effects (no surprise, considering how much money was spent on them). Overall, the cinematic equivalent of a Big Mac, but even more tasteless.
The first time I watched "Titanic," I lasted 20 minutes. "I'm going upstairs to read," I told my wife. "Call me when it starts to sink." The sinking was lots of fun (that, and the effects, are why I rate it a 2 instead of a 1), but not enough to counteract three hours of turgid, sentimental ooze. If the film had BEGUN with the sinking scene, it would rate a 10.
I did watch it again, in its entirety, and that's three and a quarter hours of my life that I will never get back.