Change Your Image
gro
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Buddy vs. Duff (2019)
Craftsman versus artist
Buddy is a craftsman. He has all the skills accumulated over a life time in a bakery. He brings this to each cake and can tweak a cake with gadgets to make entertaining cakes. He has also spent his life being praised by his family creating a very egotistical character. Duff creates original works of art. Probably not all the time but certainly on demand. Skills are high but more artistic than just craftsman like. Confident but not a fragile ego structure. The show reveals the difference between the 2 products and the personalities of the bakers. Duff has soared in my estimation as he achieves remarkable products and a truly artistic talent. Buddy demonstrates years of honed skills but ultimately a limit on creativity and a serious personality deficit too understandable if you have watched the Cake Boss over the years.
Buddy for a wedding cake that people say is beautiful but forget as they walk out the door. Duff for a cake that people will remember for ever.
Anne (2017)
Sick
You take a gentle story of a young girl growing up and turn it into some intensely dramatic stories and think this is good? Pathetic. The acting is obviously less than the original but they are working with such valueless dialogue that it is not their fault. This is close to the Scrooge scene where they pervert A Christmas Carol. If they wanted a story on these lines don't pretend it is based on the original.
Imaginary Mary (2017)
Waste
Assuming this is a comedy someone should be funny. Good luck finding the character. Horrible concept, poor casting, and awful writing. The stuffed Mary does not match anyone's imaginary playmate. Elfman is supposed to a successful adult. This is hopeless with no where to go for help. Amazing that they got 9? episodes filmed.
La La Land (2016)
So So
Anyone who finds the chemistry between Stone and Gosling wonderful will be divorced in a few years. Seriously a better male figure would have made this a classic. Stone is wonderful. The music is good. The story is pretty good. Still the story needs a more accessible male figure and that is not overcome by the rest of the story.
A Christmas Carol (1984)
Poor
George Scott didn't phone or mail this in. It was worse. There is no decent acting on his part or most of the characters. Pick any version from 40 years ago and see what the main characters do with their parts. How anyone who has ever seen a movie thinks this is the best version is ridiculous. Tiny Tim is at best poor. Some of the supporting characters are OK but how do they rise above Scott who sleep walks his way through this production? My god you have to have never read the book or seen the movie to rate above 2. I go 1 because Scott had the ability to do something but never got the energ to do it. Why do a movie if you don't want to invest anything in it? Don't bother with this. Go for a 1930 version and see what actors do.
Up (2009)
Up is Down
In the past couple months I've seen Coraline, Aliens vs Monster and now UP. UP is the weakest of the 3. Balloons are beautiful and the scenery is great. And that about sums up the 3 D. The story? Yes Bambi and Lion King have the sad beginnings from which our "hero" emerges. Carl, however, is an old man who at the end defeats a guy who has to be 90+ years old. Dogs flying airplanes? Please. The talking collars are maybe believable but come on. The hero of Carl's youth kills people who come to "steal" his elusive quarry Kevin? Just one more "loss" for Carl and the much missed Ellie. Why does Russell remind me of Dash, check his mouth. Why does the black father at the end look like Ice or whatever his name was in The Incredibles? What happened to Russel's father? Why is Carl there at the end and "mom" is sitting in the audience? They needed Russel to be an orphan and they couldn't come up with a story line for it. The whole no child section is just too much at the beginning. If you are looking for a good cry about lost lives, lost loves, lost dreams and some ridiculous resolution when you throw away your cane and become an adventurer, here is your movie. Maybe they'll make a 3 D animate version of Sleepless in Seattle next?
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Waste
Both my wife and I decided that the screening audiences had to have been too intimidated by George Lucas to comment on the fact that there is no dialogue or story underpinning the very pretty pictures. Maybe George just sees more in a scene than the rest of us and tries to minimize lines to avoid taking away from the pictures. Still this is at best boring, stilted, and at times comical in the inconsistencies of the actions, powers, and knowledge of the characters. Really, until the end no one is supposed to suspect that Darth is the father? Please! Everyone could have died at the end and there would be no sense of loss. I've seen them all from the beginning and after the first 3 there has been no quality in these films worth mentioning. The critics live in world of awe for the directors or executive producers and have had to swallow Kubrick's last picture and most of Spielberg's recent stuff knowing that they are addressing icons. Sorry. Nothing worse than genius that has lost its special gift. Few are great for a life time. These have left their great works far behind them. We can only be glad that the first 3 had a special quality. Enjoy the good and try to tolerate the rest.
Forbidden Planet (1956)
Forbidden Planet
Forbidden Planet came out in 1956 and had as I recall free tickets from some cereal. It was and may be still the movie I saw more times than any other thanks to the free tickets. Last night I watched the DVD of this and was fascinated by the quality of the picture and the "reasonableness" of the plot structure (LCD is nice). Yes we've come a long way in 49 years but this was well worth watching then and still holds even modern viewers interest. The cast was excellent and anyone can just run through the careers of these people to recognize their quality. In the last several years so many movies have come out that were based on works from the 50's and 60's that have little left in the way of "modern" imagination. It is fun to watch a movie this old that still is at least slightly fresh in its thoughts.
Back 49 years ago a 10. Harsher standards now but still a pretty solid 8.
Glenn
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
The Series is a 10
I'm grappling with the overall view of this final piece of the series. The initial 90 minutes were in general not up to what I expected. All the involvement of the prior movies was missing. I can recognize Jackson's desire to set up the final character developments but as a stand-a-lone piece, I believe he would lose an audience that wasn't already committed to the series. So how do you rate the movie by itself? I love the multiple conclusions because they address the issue of how someone who experiences something so outside the realm of anyone else can continue to "live" in the world of everyone else. Pippin and Merry didn't in the book. The moral turmoil resolutions for the main characters where they decide who they are and what they want to achieve are great. I agree with everyone who says Sam was the best character and should be up for an Oscar (not that Hollywood matters). I was less impressed with Gollum after the not so good piece in the beginning where he kills the character who actually finds the ring. Did Jackson think that furthered the development from the hints from prior movies?
Battle scenes: amazing. Scenery: wonderful. CGI: good but problems with size again: look at the elephants and Legolas.
Superb performances by the Rohans and Gondors. Still find Liv Tyler weak.
I really wanted to love this movie and despite some expected tears during the various conclusions, felt I hadn't got what could have been based on both the prior movies and the books. So still the best epic that has ever been done but I suspect that someone someday will surpass this. Until then, here is the mark, beat it.
The Wonderful World of Disney: Annie (1999)
More True
Certainly the TV version is not without flaws compared to the various stage presentations. It does however stand out as being infinitely more watchable than the 1982 Huston version which shifted the conclusion to July 4 primarily as I dimly recall due to problems in getting access to the Grace Mansion. I will avoid commenting on the choreography but wonder what was going through his mind in the staging. The 1999 version benefits from a better Warbucks in Garber and McDonald's voice which soared beyond Reinking. The ending which was not over powering at least avoided the ridiculous movie ending. Overall, the 1982 movie had so much overacting and poor decisions that anything had to look better in comparison. Its been a while since I first saw both of these products but it was fun to see the TV version again recently.
Vanilla Sky (2001)
Too Slow
Ebert describes this as requiring heavy lifting. Seems to me that at some point the viewer decides if the reward is worth the lifting and personally by the 90 minute mark I had decided that no "explanation" in the conclusion was going to balance out the tedium of the action. Did Cruise deserve to be wealthy? Probably no. Was he responsible? Not much. Did he "use" Diaz? Yes. Was she using him? Seems like it. Did his getting into the car with Diaz after his night with Cruz justify the results? By what yardstick? Do we care about Cruise or Diaz as people? Cruz was "cute" but Cruise was unconvincing. Weak science fiction at the conclusion. And if the first voice saying "open your eyes" is Cruz's voice, then there is no moment of objective reality in the entire movie-it is all dream.
Turbulence 2: Fear of Flying (1999)
Almost Bad enough.
All airplane flicks tend to throw in the kitchen sink to fill the time but this may have surpassed even the spoofs in having a "and then what happened" motif. How many times can the passengers rise up against the villains and then back down like sheep can you handle? How many shots can you fire in an airplane and not lose pressure? Do you believe you can throw a passenger from a plane at 10,000 feet and have the body crash through the control tower landing in front of the "good guys"? Kidnapping, toxins, fights, missiles but they won't toss the luggage until they find the exact baggage. Gosh that's better than most airlines on a normal day. And so it goes. Acting level? Well, find any one who wasn't a caricature.
Its bad but it starts to turn the corner and just be laughable and that is about all that can make you sit through this movie. Now the real question is what was Turbulence 1 like that they made another one?
Minority Report (2002)
Spielberg
It is sad when critics reach the point where the name of the director automatically insures a positive review. Genius that he is or was, the last 2 films are by any standard poor. Here again despite the appeal of Cruise, is a movie that lacks any cohesion, sensitivity, vision, or logic. There is no "minority report". Rather there is an echo. There is no sympathetic character, only a world devoid of any redeeming characteristics. Craft maybe high but the story is totally lacking. Why is Spielberg so fascinated by the loss of children? How do you justify motivations covering 6 years? Why do the plots have to be transparent? Why does the movie drag on? Watch it without the thought that this was done by the same man who gave us Jaws, ET, Indie etc. Even the best directors often run dry, Kubrick for one. Here is another.
Gladiator (2000)
Overrated and derivative
To give Gladiator its due, the music is good and aspects of the filming are also much above average. Unfortunately, there is little to either the story line or the acting to understand the ridiculous comments regarding the quality of this movie. The antagonist is reminiscent of Caligula with over-acting and a twisted personality that defies understanding where his political strength came from. The protagonist is wooden and compares poorly to all the prior "heroes" of this genre. Russell Crowe manages to make Victor Mature look good which is quite an accomplishment.
When you start a movie by having the aging caesar far removed from the political center of Rome decide that he will confront his perverted son and announce that the son is getting the shaft and the general is getting the glory, credibility drops like a stone. No one but Maximus, the son and the daughter know of the plans for succession. Oh, surprise! son kills father. Son kills Maximus' family. Maximus spends the movies going through slavery, remote gladiator contests, Rome and final confrontation. If there was one clever plot element along the way, I missed it. Gladiator=glad it was over.
Cast Away (2000)
Well, Hanks is good.
There are movies that are part very good but in the whole unsatisfying. This is one. The plane crash and struggle to the island are well shot. Hanks is great in his struggle to survive on the island both physically and mentally. Wilson as a companion and primitive god is a good device. Unfortunately the love story that surrounds the action in the movie's construction is too thin and doomed from the outset to eliminate any reasonably "happy" or meaningful conclusion. Two people pretty well absorbed by their respective careers, Hanks a Fedex exec and Hunt working on a PhD, cannot quite find time or the full commitment to formalize their relation. A dramatic accident that creates the action and one person show for Hanks. Finally, rescue after 4 years and confrontation with Hunt who has moved on. Hunt however does deliver both a "you are the love of my life" speech and a "I had a really hard time after you were lost" line. Please. How could Hanks have a meaningful relationship with Hunt if she honestly believed that her hard times had any comparative aspect to being lost on an island for 4 years of near Hellish suffering? Who can believe that Hanks would want or expect Hunt to leave a husband(why cast "Big" from Sex in the City?) and child? The three items that kept Hanks going were Wilson ( a mixture of god and inner values), the package ( a commitment) and the picture of Hunt (love interest). In the end he's left Hunt, delivered the package and lost Wilson. Yes he can wander any of the roads open to him as in a new life. No, it doesn't make sense or pull the movie together.
Do Not Disturb (1999)
Campy quality is the Saving Grace.
Amsterdam certainly didn't put up any Chamber of Commerce money to produce this very low view of the city. Truly every stereotype for the city is present while any European flavor is missing as one is confronted with a pretty Americanized group of characters in "drama" that is quickly seen as too funny to be taken seriously. Between inept killers and a mute 10 year who could rival Arnold's best super hero moves, humor or attempts as it, drive the story forward. It is interesting to see the scenes in Amsterdam and wonder why William Hurt and Jennifer Tilly agreed to play in this but trying to accept Hurt's ocassional attempts at a Texas accent and the parent's leaving their traumatized daughter alone while they drink with the killer are just a bit much. Any one believe William Hurt grabbing the fleeing ambulance?
True Crime (1999)
Waste
No imagination. Weak writing. Poor decision to cast Eastwood in this role.
He is far too old for the part and his energy level reaches new lows. His low keyed portrayals in the action movies work because there was an underlying sense of strength. He is an "old man" now in physical appearance and totally unconvincing as a ladies man.
In the first minutes, once we get through the artsy camera shots, the final minutes of the movie are obvious. All the phone lines etc. Is some part of this creative?
The only serious acting may have been in trying to convince the audience that the affair Eastwood was having with Bob's wife was believable.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Stone Soup
The Blair Witch Project deserves an A as film class final project. The concept is good. The throwback to the pre-special effects days where the imagination was loosed to create horror/fear is fine. As entertainment a C is much closer. The "forest" has been great in myth and literature as a frightening place where trees blot out the sun and poor lost waifs wander. So how do we get stuck with this scrubby excuse of a forest? I've been lost in far scary forests and this one would have been a joke. Then we have the acting... There isn't much worse than reaching the end of a movie and the only remaining character is someone you hope dies quickly and painfully. Fortunately, from the beginning we knew all the characters had disappeared and were undoubtedly dead so we had little to stress over. It is just amazing how many people have seen this "ink blot" of a movie and managed to project their own imagined story lines, fears, stellar performances etc into it. I haven't been a fan of all white or all black paintings that profess to have some deep insights into life. It is commendable that with not much more than that the directors were able to catch an audience willing to fill in not only the details but all of the main ingredients. Any one remember Stone Soup?