Change Your Image
alanjunior
Reviews
Law & Order: Bodies (2003)
I liked it but it wasn't realistic.
The serial killer was great, the idealistic young defender was great, but McCoy never asked the right questions. I suppose if he had the episode would have turned out very differently.
So the reason I take 4 points off this one is because of the writing.
Gone with the Wind (1939)
A young woman learns what really matters to her.
At the very beginning of the movie, Scarlett is told by her father: "Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the only thing that lasts."
And, basically, the first half of the movie is when Scarlett learns the truth in that, and the second half of the movie is when she convinces the audience that she believes it.
We see the character grow from a willful, stubborn and immature girl into a very strong woman as she finally recognizes her infatuation with Ashley Wilkes as just that and Rhett Butler as the only man in her life she doesn't have to dominate.
The Monster Squad (1987)
Pretty good kid's movie
Another entry in the "drop-'em-off-at-the-mall-so-you-don't-have-to-hear-them-whining-all-weekend" genre pioneered in the 1980's, this movie is loved by kids.
The production values are pretty good, the script is completed and turned in on time, the acting is up to par, and the direction is just good enough to pass muster. You can safely park a small child in front of this picture with no worries.
It follows the classic quest formula: the maguffin is established, the heroes are assembled, the bad guys are assembled, the bad guys get the upper hand as the heroes are separated, one of the bad guys turns, the heroes regroup minus a casualty, the maguffin is saved and the bad guys are dispersed, perhaps to return another day. All in all, a treat for the kiddies, but definitely something they should outgrow.
Shadrach (1998)
A true portrayal of race attitudes in the Jim Crow South. SPOILER
In the South I grew up in, many if not most Whites viewed Blacks paternally, they weren't at all rabid lynchers. They felt a responsibility for their employees and families. The Dabneys are an old tidewater plantation family that fell on hard times after the Civil War and moved to North Carolina but have managed to hold on to the old Virginia property. Shadrach, a former slave who was sold south by Dabney's grandfather around 1860, just before the war, shows up at the Dabney's Wilmington NC house, having walked there from Alabama. He wants to be buried on Dabney land. The story takes place about 1935, making Shadrach close to 90 years old. The Dabneys honor Shadrach's wishes because they have to. This adaptation hews pretty closely to Styron's short story until the second half, when a plot element is added to create a conflict and to stretch the story. Unfortunately, the reason given is invalid. Virginia is full of old family plots on private land, and as long as the owner of the land consents, anyone can be buried there. This is still a good, small film, and the portrayals are dead on, especially Andie MacDowell. I think every one of us who comes from the South knew the Dabneys.
Time Changer (2002)
Good production values for such a low budget.
Warning, may contain spoilers.
The 1890s seems to have a hold on some people's imaginations as an idyllic time. No electricity, no vacuum cleaners, no washing machines, no water heaters. When I saw the opening scene, the first thing I thought was what an incredible amount of labor it would have taken in those days to create such a setting. These people must be fabulously wealthy. Then I realized that whoever wrote this movie had absolutely no clue about the old days.
The main character is able to successfully bluff his way into a modern hotel using cash alone with no id, yet he has no idea about tipping. For an 1890s man he does not blink at using a public fountain after a black person or seeing a classroom with the whole rainbow of American ethnicity. He expresses no wonder at seeing a movie, only high dudgeon at the language therein.
In a lecture to his class, the professor says "My advice to any scientist is to make sure that his findings coincide with God's word. That is...if he wants to be a good scientist." That's exactly what Chairman Mao would have said, only he would have been talking about Marx's word. That kind of scientist doesn't come up with airplanes or vaccines in either regime.
The problem with "fundamentalist" teaching, no matter what religion, is that it believes that the whole of human purpose has been defined with the coming of the word, and that having been defined, the whole of human purpose has been achieved, which therefore leaves us with no other purpose than to submit and await the end.
This movie preaches the peculiar Christian belief that there are no moral absolutes other than those defined by Christ Himself. Christ says, "Do ye so unto others as ye would have others do so unto thee." A sane person cannot argue with this idea because it hinges upon self-preservation. This "golden rule" is found in all the major religions. Animals in the wild do not prey upon their own kind. God hard-wired certain moral absolutes into all of His creatures.
I picked up this DVD because it looked like science fiction, and the box blurb made it seem as if the time traveler would find the 21st century to be different than it is, for example, what if the Nazis won WWII, and what he takes back gives Americans the moral spark that tipped us away from totalitarianism.
Instead I get a rosy picture of a past that never was, and a ham-handed lecture on impressing other people with your salvation. Christiano has a good handle on how to make a movie, look at the job he did on such a low budget, but he can't write because he has no insight. His only success comes in "preaching to the choir," but he doesn't seem to be able to challenge the general audience.
Timequest (2000)
Intriguing Sci-Fi
An interesting "what-if" story: a man from the future goes back in time and prevents JFK's assassination. This movie presents an optimistic view of how history turned out. The narration follows three threads; our time, following the death of JFK at 84; the presidency of JFK after Nov 22, 1963; and the Kennedy's involvement in the life of a young artist. Bruce Campbell does parody again, it's nice to see Ralph Waite, and Larry Drake looks like he may explode soon. Like any good time-travel story it leaves you bewildered at the end. It's a bad political history, though, and I found much of it unbelievable. The conservative Republican revolution would have happened anyway. The oil shocks of the 1970s would have happened anyway. Sure, Dan Rather stays in Dallas and the Beatles never break up, but whatever happened to Nixon? What happened to Barry Goldwater? What would have happened to Vietnam?