Change Your Image
HarVSatan
Reviews
The Return of the Man from U.N.C.L.E.: The Fifteen Years Later Affair (1983)
"An Affair To Forget"
I saw this on television when it first aired , and remembered it as being terrible. But with the recent DVD issue , I had to Return To The Man From U.N.C.L.E....
One cannot deny the natural chemistry between Macallum & Vaughn , but it's a shame the writers didn't give them a decent script.
This is the lamest U.N.C.L.E. venture ever! ( Yes , even worse than some of Season 2 & 3's worst episodes. ) The trouble begins with a terrible "updated" version of the theme song , and spirals from there! ( Apparently they couldn't find the original logo or typeface either - how do you ignore something so iconic? ).
There is far too much time wasted on setting up the affair - which in itself is far too simplistic and easily resolved - and not enough time developing...well...anything else. The writers would rather spend every other scene with one character or another mentioning that "15 Years" have passed...read the title , got it. There's also just a plethora of terrible jokes - including the lame James Bond inclusion, ( Yeah , Ian Flemming , co-creator , got it , back in the 60's , carry on! ), and the typical "Oh you're so out of step" gags ,and throw in a few "old guys teaching the new pups a lesson" gags , and you've got a confused stew that is neither comedy nor drama. Also , since this is the 1980's , all car wrecks or "dangerous scenes" , have to show the bad guys running to safety just before the big bang! ( Makes you miss the days of the sleeper darts! )
The acting is fairly plastic , including an appalling role for Gayle Hunnicut. ( As a "Russian" operative , the writers weren't even clever enough to have her and Illya interact! ). And a major waste comes by way of getting Solo & Kuriyakin back together only to spend most of the Affair in different countries and not performing as a team! A waste of time. A waste of Vaughn & Macallum. A waste of Anthony Zerbe & Keenan Wynn! CLOSE CHANNEL D!
Underdog (2007)
Is Disney Smoking Crack?
When I heard Disney had the rights to "Underdog",I figured at the very least it would be a cool Pixar partnership affair,and we'd get a great Adults & Kids film like "The Incredibles". Alas...I forgot how Disney must dumb down classic material for today's dumbed down youth. What were they thinking? "Underdog" was a product of the 60's,your Prime Fanbase is in their 40's and 50's,why would you refocus it to 5 year olds? It should have been done ala "Roger Rabbit",half animated half real. Instead we get characters like Riff Raff ( a WOLF!! ) dumbed into another dog."Underdog" can't have an "energy pill",as we're now so "enlightened" it would obviously be a steroid or drugs reference.The only good casting was Patrick Warburton as "Cad" because he actually sorta resembles the cartoon version. Otherwise,old school "Underdog" fans should avoid this like the plague it is. What next? A live action version of "The Go-Go Gophers" disguised as a re-visionist history lesson? ( My advanced apologies if Disney jumps on this! )
Valiant (2005)
May Day!
One might wonder how a film using the vocal talents of some of Britain's top comedians could be such a boring flop. You have folks representing Monty Python (John Cleese),The Young Ones (Rik Mayall),The Office (Rickey Gervaise),The Blackadder Series (Jim Broadbent & Hugh Laurie),and The Rocky Horror's Tim Curry as "the villain"...and it is still a nightmare! Ewan McGregor is worth mentioning,as he does do a good job,but in a boring film.
I saw this film at a matinée with adults and children,and there was hardly a laugh to be heard! The Adults were patiently waiting for the comedy...ANY comedy.The children were trying to grasp the whole concept of World War II and the use of carrier pigeons.
It basically falls into no mans land. It's not done as smart and hip to entertain both Adults and Children. (Like say, "Shrek" or "The Incredibles".) On the other hand,the subject matter is just too heavy to dumb down for grade school age children,whom you have to presume the "cutsie" characters are geared toward.
The animation is slightly substandard too. All the backgrounds look two dimensional,and what is supposed to be the English Channel,here resembles a rolling and boiling black pudding.
This film is only for the VERY valiant indeed!
Red Eye (2005)
Strangers On A Plane!
This film turned out to be a great choice for a Saturday afternoon bit of escapism! Wes Craven tries his hand at a Hitchcock style thriller,and pulls it off nicely. ( Without the use of any form of supernatural entities,I might add! )
Rachel McAdams is a young hotel executive with a busy schedule trying to escape the horror that is Chicago's O'Hare Airport! During her time there,she keeps having these chance run-ins with Cillian Murphy,a slightly creepy young man. After a long wait,her flight to Miami is underway,but guess who her seat-mate is on the airplane? And it only gets creepier,as we learn that Cillian Murphy is a man who knows too much,and Rachel McAdams is in for a VERY long flight!
He hogs the pillows! He hogs the free peanuts! How much can this woman withstand!?
The suspense is wonderfully tense,the twists are intelligent and clever,and the ending is pretty good too! Is it 100% original? Probably not. The story probably liberally borrows from some other films,but it's such a well mixed collection of ideas,that it works.
The characters are well developed,and their actions actually make sense! This is probably the "spoiler": Rachel McAdams character has a hand to hand,knock down,donnybrook with Murphy...but it's not a case of her character suddenly turning into Rambo,like most films would have you believe...her character has some background issues,and Murphy messing with her,ignites her primal need to take it out on the first jerk male that presses her button.
An enjoyable film,and well worth your time!
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
Demons Need Exorcising? Bore Them To Death!
Good Gravy! What a flat and boring piece of celluloid this film is! Laura Linney & Tom Wilkinson,prove they are exceptional actors,but they are stuck in a thanklessly boring story.
When I saw the trailers,I assumed,that this was NOT going to be like "The Exorcist",that would've been a fools course. That's the one good thing,they didn't try to go beyond the supposed "true story". But this comes off about as "true" as "The Amittyville Horror".
The characters don't hold your attention. You don't really care too much about "Emily Rose" as she is too under developed as a character to be concerned about. ( Her boyfriend has better character development!). The promises of "horrors" are nothing more than what you see in the trailers! (i.e. people's faces distorting ). "The Devil" appears in shadows and silhouettes as a cloaked figure...an interesting device,if it hadn't been done a million times before.
Then there is the bulk of the film,which is about an hour and a half of courtroom drama. Really boring courtroom drama. Perry Mason would've solved this in minutes!
Another curiosity about this film is that it gives you no specific time-line. If it's based on a "true story",WHEN did it take place? There's really no clues to the era. It's obviously post 1970,but we are told little beyond that.
There probably IS a really good draft of this story,with developed characters,and less courtroom babble...but this ain't it!
Guess Who (2005)
Sidney Poitier Just Grabbed A Shovel To Dig His Own Grave!
Yet another Hollywood re-make,of a film that DOESN'T need remaking! Oh wait...you mean the black folks is now white folks and vice-versa? Golly...how original.You know there's a real problem when the director says the original film worried too much about "race issues". Did he miss the point of the original film ENTIRELY? The director said the film should be more about the uneasiness and humour of meeting new in-laws. ( Guess he's missed about a hundred other films including "Meet The Parents"). If this film isn't about "race issues",then why not just have an all black cast? ( Because then what would the writers do with all those "white" jokes they wrote for the film? ). Sidney Poitier should walk up to everyone on this film and punch them upside the head. (Repeatedly)
Batman Begins (2005)
Holy Bat-Reruns!
So,it's an all new original Batman film? HA! this film can't even get past the opening credits without "borrowing" from the other Batfilms! The Warner Brothers Logo morphs ,just like all 4 previous films.
What else have we seen before?
Batman pulls up criminal by lapels: "What are you?""I'm BATMAN!" Hmm... didn't we see that in BATMAN?
Batman standing on pillar among Gotham's skyscrapers as heroic music swells...add a Batsignal behind him...and yep..already done in BATMAN.
Batman knows KungFu? See BATMAN & BATMAN RETURNS.
Bruce falls through a hole and finds the BatCave... wasn't that in BATMAN FOREVER? Bats frighten Bruce into becoming Batman...also part of BATMAN FOREVER!
Batman hands his secret identity over on a silver platter? See all 4 previous BatFilms.(This only worked as a plot point in BATMAN RETURNS!)
"Batman Begins" wastes about an hour telling you he's a secret KungFu expert. And wastes even more time trying to make Duchard & Ra's Al Ghul the same man.(Why does Liam Neeson claim he's Ghul?). Speaking of Ra's,he should have been of Arabic origins,not a feudal Japanese warlord.Ken Watanabe is a fine actor but Arnold Vosloo would have been THE Ra's Al Ghul.And speaking of Ra's,where is his daughter Talia? She was a MAJOR Batplot character as she was obsessed with Batman! (Would've made a better female lead character!)
Why not give us more story by advancing the film,and logging the previous four "as read"? (i.e.: Batman is a superhero,destroying villainy,knows all sorts of fighting techniques,has cool toys,do not mess with him. Need we know anything more?)
If you read the comics,BATMAN became a bat not out of HIS fear,but the fear bats give others. He does not find the cave as a child.(Stupidly drilled into us in two films now.).
Much as I love Michael Caine...sorry,Alfred is NOT a Cockney. Gary Oldman looks right as James Gordon,but it's a thankless role.Morgan Freedman is relegated to Alfred#2,as they basically take most of the meat from Lucius Fox's character.(He's a shrewed Wayne Business exec.,not a technological errand boy.).The Scarecrow is reduced to a 2nd class villain,only slightly better than the crummy version they did of BANE! Where is The Scarecrow's scarecrow outfit? (Oh,right...we're trying to look "cool").Cillian Murphy makes a cool Dr.Crane,but he isn't given enough screen time!
What did the film get right? Well,Joe Chill DID kill the Waynes in the original story. Carmine Falcone is/was the head of Gotham's mafia. Mr.Zsz does carve a notch in himself for every murder he commits. That's about it.
And how does this disaster end? By suggesting their next NEW idea:The Joker!(Rumour of Two-Face is also in the works.). Let's erase this film from your memory,and imagine a Batman vs. Scarecrow directed by Tim Burton and starring Michael Keaton...we'll forget all about those other three BatFlops.