Whale Wars is an OK introduction to the Sea Shepard conversation organization, but follows PC sensationalism in exclusively keying in on human stories, and therefore misses on the real story that Sea Shepard is about: the whales!! There is essentially nothing about what whales are about, how humans have terrorized and murdered these creatures for centuries, how terribly whales die by harpoons and other torture devices utilized by modern whaling ships, how little we know about whales' consciousness and social behavior, how much we do know about them. Without any providing emphasis about the most justifiable reasons for not murdering whales, the series misses out on the main points that should be made in support of Sea Shepard. Even so, this series provide a good introduction to the organization, and should help with awareness and fund raising. Paul Watson obviously approves, but one has to suppose for pragmatic reasons.
Reviews
22 Reviews
King Kong
(2005)
Really not that good
30 December 2005
Special effects and some good moments do not a great movie make. As with the Lord of the Rings series, Jackson overdoes King Kong to the point of nearly ruining the experience. It is hard to believe that nearly everyone in the theater wasn't thinking "let the monkey fall already" at the end of this way-too-long movie. The special effects, especially with Kong, are outstanding. And there are some other good moments in the movie. But there are some very bad moments as well: the awful ending, and the encounter with the tribe on Skull Island stand out.
As with the Lord of the Rings, Jackson has taken a great story and made it so serious as to be no more than just OK.
As with the Lord of the Rings, Jackson has taken a great story and made it so serious as to be no more than just OK.
Ghosts of the Abyss
(2003)
ghosts of the deathly bored (and sick!)
20 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Unless you are a BIG Titanic fan, this movie (better described as a poorly done documentary) will be one of the most unpleasant 70 min movie experiences you will encounter. Any thoughts that something other than the mud-slimed Titanic might be covered--like the animal life down there, or the geology, etc.--will be completely left in the mud. Cameron clearly is _only_ interested in seeing the old ship, and imagining--with some interesting special effects fill-ins--what it was like back when. But all this loses interest pretty quickly: 15 mins would have been plenty. Unfortunately, the 3D glasses added significant physical discomfort to an ultimately boring final hour of the movie. For example, toward the end of the movie, I was wondering whether or not to keep my eyes shut to keep myself from getting physically sick. And I was quite bored by this time. So Cameron this provides "the big moment" in the movie (SPOILER): he takes the joystick controls on a "bot" to save the 2nd bot from being lost on the Titanic. We were supposed to believe that the little "bot" had some real sentimental value: perhaps true for the crew, but nothing was included in the movie to get the audience to the same place. Then we're told that, anyway and after all, the little guy was "quite expensive." This coming from the multi-multi-multi-millionaire Cameron. One of the least effective moments I've ever seen on screen.
But Cameron tops that with the advertisements that state that the 3D effects will change the way we will think about movies in the future. What a sleazy sales pitch, and from a director that I (used to!!) respect! The old premise that only really bad movies are put into 3D--this gimmick has been used many times limit their losses--is not put to the test here. Worse, the 3D effects on a big IMAX screen, unrelentingly continued throughout the full 70 min movie (10 min would have been plenty!) gave me a serious headache, and a sick stomach; both hung around for more than an hour after the movie. Something about the big screen, fast movements, and the length of time staring through the goofy glasses made for absolutely the worst IMAX experience my family and I have ever had. The 3D effects _SERIOUSLY_ detract from the normally wonderful IMAX visual effects.
Forget GOTA, and see whatever the other IMAX feature(s) is in your area. I rate this movie 1 out of 10: it left me bored, dizzy, and sick to my stomach. I can't remember another movie that left me feeling so unpleasant afterwards.
But Cameron tops that with the advertisements that state that the 3D effects will change the way we will think about movies in the future. What a sleazy sales pitch, and from a director that I (used to!!) respect! The old premise that only really bad movies are put into 3D--this gimmick has been used many times limit their losses--is not put to the test here. Worse, the 3D effects on a big IMAX screen, unrelentingly continued throughout the full 70 min movie (10 min would have been plenty!) gave me a serious headache, and a sick stomach; both hung around for more than an hour after the movie. Something about the big screen, fast movements, and the length of time staring through the goofy glasses made for absolutely the worst IMAX experience my family and I have ever had. The 3D effects _SERIOUSLY_ detract from the normally wonderful IMAX visual effects.
Forget GOTA, and see whatever the other IMAX feature(s) is in your area. I rate this movie 1 out of 10: it left me bored, dizzy, and sick to my stomach. I can't remember another movie that left me feeling so unpleasant afterwards.
Signs
(2002)
A very odd story
27 January 2003
Just saw this on DVD, and wonder about the high rating it's received on IMDB. Great acting helped very much with this slow moving piece. But the scares are non-existent, so there really was not much build up in suspense; OK, maybe a bit with the basement scene, but with the slow pacing of the movie, it seemed to take forever to get there. The story has some very odd twists that in the end just don't work.
The most interesting parts of the movie were the religious conclusions. I didn't expect a religious theme in this movie, and am always pleased when Hollywood chooses to deal straightforwardly with such difficult topics. Introducing aliens and combining a large series of weird character traits and actions are very odd--and certainly not straightforward--ways to surmise that "God exists." I'm still not 100% certain what to think, and perhaps that's a good thing to say about a movie like Signs. Even so, the movie mainly leaves you with that uncomfortable feeling that it could have been a lot better.
The most interesting parts of the movie were the religious conclusions. I didn't expect a religious theme in this movie, and am always pleased when Hollywood chooses to deal straightforwardly with such difficult topics. Introducing aliens and combining a large series of weird character traits and actions are very odd--and certainly not straightforward--ways to surmise that "God exists." I'm still not 100% certain what to think, and perhaps that's a good thing to say about a movie like Signs. Even so, the movie mainly leaves you with that uncomfortable feeling that it could have been a lot better.
Scooby-Doo
(2002)
silly fun, but unfortunately overboard
27 January 2003
This movie nearly succeeded in all that we could ask from Scooby Doo: harmless silly fun. Unfortunately, there are a couple scenes that just go waay overboard with the gross-out jokes; is there no end to how far Hollywood will go with this stuff? Apparently not. Too bad. I wouldn't recommend any parent take their child less than 12 to this movie.
Race to Space
(2001)
good for young children
21 January 2003
This was a movie that had a lot of potential, but took excessive liberties with the plot, one supposes due to Hollywood trying to market the movie to kids. These excesses will cause serious problems for all adults, and will likely degrade the enjoyment for any but the younger group of viewers (I would guess 10 years old or less). After all, kids are pretty good at knowing when someone or something is not telling the truth.
Young Billy (Alex Linz)--nicely chosen as the son of Wilhelm von Huber, the lead scientist of the Mercury program--is having a tough at school. Billy is having problems with his new schoolmates because of his German background. He also struggles with the remoteness of his father, and the recent loss of his mother. He makes friends with a chimpanzee being trained to go into space on the first Mercury rocket, and the story goes from there. Bads guys, pretty older and younger girls, a strong soundtrack, and comedic characters give this movie a lot of positives. Add in the factual basis for the movie, the strong nationalistic themes, and the cute chimps, and one would predict a winner of a family movie.
Unfortunately, there are a few serious flaws in this movie. First is the movie's lack of depth about behavioral and rocket science. Anyone might believe that a boy that, for some unknown explained reason, forms a strong bond with a chimpanzee might be able to assist in its training. But this movie unfortunately provides no meaningful dialog or action along these lines.
Parents will be disappointed in the lack of truthfulness in the presentation of NASA security and engineering. Billy discovers, in a nice plot twist, that the rocket is sabotaged the night before the launch. He, his father, and two German scientists proceed to check the rocket themselves. Billy ends up inside the rocket fixing a fuel line connection himself. Parents will wonder why the plot took such a silly, and potentially dangerous, twist (do we want our kids really thinking that they should be helping fix anything remotely close to this kind of problem?!!). Kids will be left without any understanding of the effort that literally hundreds of engineers and scientists go through to make certain that everything is "right" with such launches.
Worst are the later scenes of chaos in the mission control room, with Billy saving the day by literally screaming into a headset for the chimp to flip a switch in the rocket. I cringed at these unnecessary scenes; no doubt Billy could have saved the day by talking to the chimp in a calm, realistic mission control room. Did the writers, director and producers of this movie really think parents--and even the kids?--would react positively to these ridiculous scenes?
Oh well, as I said above, younger kids will like this movie. Adults will go away wondering about the lack of intelligence in the movie industry.
All said and done, not a bad family movie, just not a very good one.
6 out of 10
Young Billy (Alex Linz)--nicely chosen as the son of Wilhelm von Huber, the lead scientist of the Mercury program--is having a tough at school. Billy is having problems with his new schoolmates because of his German background. He also struggles with the remoteness of his father, and the recent loss of his mother. He makes friends with a chimpanzee being trained to go into space on the first Mercury rocket, and the story goes from there. Bads guys, pretty older and younger girls, a strong soundtrack, and comedic characters give this movie a lot of positives. Add in the factual basis for the movie, the strong nationalistic themes, and the cute chimps, and one would predict a winner of a family movie.
Unfortunately, there are a few serious flaws in this movie. First is the movie's lack of depth about behavioral and rocket science. Anyone might believe that a boy that, for some unknown explained reason, forms a strong bond with a chimpanzee might be able to assist in its training. But this movie unfortunately provides no meaningful dialog or action along these lines.
Parents will be disappointed in the lack of truthfulness in the presentation of NASA security and engineering. Billy discovers, in a nice plot twist, that the rocket is sabotaged the night before the launch. He, his father, and two German scientists proceed to check the rocket themselves. Billy ends up inside the rocket fixing a fuel line connection himself. Parents will wonder why the plot took such a silly, and potentially dangerous, twist (do we want our kids really thinking that they should be helping fix anything remotely close to this kind of problem?!!). Kids will be left without any understanding of the effort that literally hundreds of engineers and scientists go through to make certain that everything is "right" with such launches.
Worst are the later scenes of chaos in the mission control room, with Billy saving the day by literally screaming into a headset for the chimp to flip a switch in the rocket. I cringed at these unnecessary scenes; no doubt Billy could have saved the day by talking to the chimp in a calm, realistic mission control room. Did the writers, director and producers of this movie really think parents--and even the kids?--would react positively to these ridiculous scenes?
Oh well, as I said above, younger kids will like this movie. Adults will go away wondering about the lack of intelligence in the movie industry.
All said and done, not a bad family movie, just not a very good one.
6 out of 10
Hugely disappointing!!
18 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I had some real concerns during the last half of The Fellowship of the Rings about how unrelentingly gruesome, dark, and finally tortuous the movie was. Jackson never gave us a break. Think about it: we go through Moria with Gandalf's apparent death; there's no joy in Lothlorien; and then the agonizing-to-watch death of Boromir. In the book, Tolkien had us (and the characters) relax and wonder in Lothlorien. Then following the breakup of the fellowship, he gave us this funny scene with Sam swimming after Frodo, who'd just taken off in the canoe, even though they both knew he couldn't swim. It was a place to laugh with them at the great friendship they had. Did Jackson give Tolkien his due, as one of the greatest storywriters of all time? Would he simply use common sense, and know that the audience needed something cheerful to leave the movie with. No!! He gives us a slow-motion near-death experience with Samwise. Yuck!! So my worries kept coming back at me all year.
Even so, with spectacular special effects in Moria, and some great story adjustments (with Aragorn, in particular), I was very happy overall with The Fellowship of the Ring.
Unfortunately, The Two Towers shows Jackson at his worst. Not only is this movie unrelenting in being dark in appearance and in tone (Gimli provides a few--far too few--upbeat moments), but now the story "adjustments" are way out in left field, and terribly done. As a huge Tolkien fan, I won't be able to forgive Jackson with this movie. I give the movie only 5/10; as a Tolkien fan, I can say that it is only just bearable to watch.
Gollum was truly terrible. Comparisons to the BBC radio production-- Gollum is incredibly well done--leave us wondering how Andy Serkis could have landed the role in this movie. There is very little range in his voice. The animation, perhaps predictably (can anyone say Jar Jar Binks?), does not help at all. The primary problem, as with the movie overall, is the nearly complete lack of humor in Gollum's characterization; he comes off as completely unlikable-I find it hard to believe that anyone could even feel pity for him. Jackson seems intent on making everything as gloomy and downcast as possible. Very slow pacing doesn't help.
SPOILERS
In the first movie, Ian McKellen was incredibly strong in his performance as Gandalf. Here he gets very little to work with, and Bernard Hill as Theoden is a miserable substitute. Hill's completely unnoteworthy performance was given no help with the screenplay. Theoden is written in as a very weak character, hardly a King to admire or care for. For some reason, Jackson decided all the other main characters should show weakness as well. Aragorn is weak, not as a warrior, but in his relationship with Arwen. In the first movie, this was somewhat acceptable as an excuse Jackson invented to explain why Aragorn had not assumed his heritage as the true king. Aragorn's weakness there also helped in contrasting the strength of Arwen, a very nice update from Tolkien. But in the Two Tower's, Jackson destroys all with Arwen losing faith in her own decisions and love. So much that was positive in the first movie was destroyed here. Dada says go to the Grey Havens, being mortal will be too tough for you, and off she goes! > Faramir?!?! What the heck did Jackson think he was doing here. This whole part of the movie takes a complete departure from Tolkien. One of the main points of Tolkien's Faramir was to show that the wizard in Gandalf and the Numenor in Aragorn still existed in the men of Gondor. Faramir was a promise that although many good things might fade away, perhaps even better things can come through to the future. The depiction of Faramir in the Two Towers was a final nail in the coffin for me. If my family had not been with me, I might have gotten up and left the theater at that point.
These fatal flaws in the screenplay were only compounded by some true silliness in the action. The powerful Nazgul has a mighty flying stead (dragon-thing?) that is cowed by a single arrow, and apparently just flies away! Please!!! Mr. Jackson, I've read Tolkien, I _know_ Tolkien, and trust me, you are NO Tolkien!!!! Cut the super-crappy story changes!!!!!!!
Jez, I really gotta calm down...
The only part of the movie that I thought was reasonably well done was Treebeard. His voice and animation were very good.
But did Jackson slow down and give us a moment with Treebeard in his cave serving the Ent water to Merry and Pippin? No. That might have broken the dark, somber, unrelenting tone of the movie. And was Jackson satisfied with how Tolkein did the Entmoot and the finale at Helm's Deep? No. For no reason at all, he changed both, to the very huge detriment of his movie (it sure as heck is no longer Tolkien's in any way, shape or form!). The point of the Ents and Helm's Deep was to show us that men were not strong enough to defeat Saruman, much less Sauron. After Helm's Deep, we _knew_ that Gondor would have no chance against Sauron; only Frodo could save the day. Instead, Jackson wants us to believe that if Gandalf can ride out and gather up a few hundred men, anything can happen (what the hey, Aragorn, Theoden, and a couple other riders can simply ride out through the gates and brush thousands of Orcs right off the battlements like a knife through butter!).
Oh well. This particular fan will stay faithful to Tolkien. Jackson is no longer in that realm, and should not be forgiven. How depressing...
Even so, with spectacular special effects in Moria, and some great story adjustments (with Aragorn, in particular), I was very happy overall with The Fellowship of the Ring.
Unfortunately, The Two Towers shows Jackson at his worst. Not only is this movie unrelenting in being dark in appearance and in tone (Gimli provides a few--far too few--upbeat moments), but now the story "adjustments" are way out in left field, and terribly done. As a huge Tolkien fan, I won't be able to forgive Jackson with this movie. I give the movie only 5/10; as a Tolkien fan, I can say that it is only just bearable to watch.
Gollum was truly terrible. Comparisons to the BBC radio production-- Gollum is incredibly well done--leave us wondering how Andy Serkis could have landed the role in this movie. There is very little range in his voice. The animation, perhaps predictably (can anyone say Jar Jar Binks?), does not help at all. The primary problem, as with the movie overall, is the nearly complete lack of humor in Gollum's characterization; he comes off as completely unlikable-I find it hard to believe that anyone could even feel pity for him. Jackson seems intent on making everything as gloomy and downcast as possible. Very slow pacing doesn't help.
SPOILERS
In the first movie, Ian McKellen was incredibly strong in his performance as Gandalf. Here he gets very little to work with, and Bernard Hill as Theoden is a miserable substitute. Hill's completely unnoteworthy performance was given no help with the screenplay. Theoden is written in as a very weak character, hardly a King to admire or care for. For some reason, Jackson decided all the other main characters should show weakness as well. Aragorn is weak, not as a warrior, but in his relationship with Arwen. In the first movie, this was somewhat acceptable as an excuse Jackson invented to explain why Aragorn had not assumed his heritage as the true king. Aragorn's weakness there also helped in contrasting the strength of Arwen, a very nice update from Tolkien. But in the Two Tower's, Jackson destroys all with Arwen losing faith in her own decisions and love. So much that was positive in the first movie was destroyed here. Dada says go to the Grey Havens, being mortal will be too tough for you, and off she goes! > Faramir?!?! What the heck did Jackson think he was doing here. This whole part of the movie takes a complete departure from Tolkien. One of the main points of Tolkien's Faramir was to show that the wizard in Gandalf and the Numenor in Aragorn still existed in the men of Gondor. Faramir was a promise that although many good things might fade away, perhaps even better things can come through to the future. The depiction of Faramir in the Two Towers was a final nail in the coffin for me. If my family had not been with me, I might have gotten up and left the theater at that point.
These fatal flaws in the screenplay were only compounded by some true silliness in the action. The powerful Nazgul has a mighty flying stead (dragon-thing?) that is cowed by a single arrow, and apparently just flies away! Please!!! Mr. Jackson, I've read Tolkien, I _know_ Tolkien, and trust me, you are NO Tolkien!!!! Cut the super-crappy story changes!!!!!!!
Jez, I really gotta calm down...
The only part of the movie that I thought was reasonably well done was Treebeard. His voice and animation were very good.
But did Jackson slow down and give us a moment with Treebeard in his cave serving the Ent water to Merry and Pippin? No. That might have broken the dark, somber, unrelenting tone of the movie. And was Jackson satisfied with how Tolkein did the Entmoot and the finale at Helm's Deep? No. For no reason at all, he changed both, to the very huge detriment of his movie (it sure as heck is no longer Tolkien's in any way, shape or form!). The point of the Ents and Helm's Deep was to show us that men were not strong enough to defeat Saruman, much less Sauron. After Helm's Deep, we _knew_ that Gondor would have no chance against Sauron; only Frodo could save the day. Instead, Jackson wants us to believe that if Gandalf can ride out and gather up a few hundred men, anything can happen (what the hey, Aragorn, Theoden, and a couple other riders can simply ride out through the gates and brush thousands of Orcs right off the battlements like a knife through butter!).
Oh well. This particular fan will stay faithful to Tolkien. Jackson is no longer in that realm, and should not be forgiven. How depressing...
The Sum of All Fears
(2002)
The title says so little
8 December 2002
Anyone that's read the book will be seriously disappointed with this movie. Why Clancy approved a screenplay that has almost nothing to do with his book's exciting, convincing, and scary story has me mystified. The movie switches from an Arab based plot to Russian, perhaps not a momentous shift. But the screenplay makes so little sense in actions, characterizations or politics that it's only real interest is again what the matter with Clancy was in approving it. Some of his more recent books suggest, as here, that perhaps he no longer really cares. Too bad. Skip this one, it's not worth even $2 at your local rental store.
The Big Blue
(1988)
Pointless and Depressing
27 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
OK, OK. I sent in the following comment just after seeing this movie for the first time:
"The summary [Stupid, Pointless, Terrible] pretty much says it all. Save yourself 2.5h of boring, hard-to-watch stupid movie. Perhaps the only conclusion about this movie is that accidents involving parents during childhood can really, really mess someone up."
I admit that I was upset, and not just a little bit. After some relaxing and thinking, the above needs some elaboration to be useful to anyone that has not yet seen this movie.
First, this could have been a very good movie; it comes close in a lot of areas, especially in the cinematography. The Greek locations are spectacular. But I have to say that the underwater shots left me unimpressed.
**SPOILERS** More importantly, this movie _seems_ to be a movie about love: the lead male (Jacques Mayol) is conflicted between his love of the ocean, love of his "family" of dolphins, and love of his human partner, Johanna.
This is where I just don't get this movie, and the almost overwhelmingly positive response to it at IMDB. Mayol is in many respects a classic male lead: he reminds me of Clint Eastwood in many of his westerns, and as Dirty Harry. Does Clint portray a loving male role model in these movies? Not in my book, and Mayol misses even more so in this movie. Mayol doesn't communicate with anyone in a reasonable fashion, except, it seems, his dolphins. My initial response to his adult character is that he's just a really messed up individual that never got over the abandonment of his mother and the death of his father, who was a diver for his living.
Nothing I saw in the movie leads me to believe otherwise about Mayol. One wonders why Johanna would possible stay with this guy. He and she never have anything more than extremely tense, completely dysfunctional interactions. Johanna tries to get him to interact with her, but other than sex, absolutely nothing happens that one could view as positive in any way. Mayol has sex with her, tells her he _thinks_ he's in love with her, and then takes off and spends the rest of the night swimming in the ocean with his dolphin friends (lovers?).
A lot is made about the "friendship" between Mayol and his boyhood bully Enzo. Forget it; Enzo tries his best to be friends with Mayol in their adult life, but again Mayol seems completely disinterested in this other form of human contact. Enzo and Mayol compete in free diving, but Mayol clearly just doesn't care about the competitions, taking any real interest away from this part of the movie.
Mayol is just flat nuts in the head, and the end of the movie proves that he is more seriously suicidal that Enzo. Enzo dies trying to prove he is the best; Mayol dives away from the love and family that is offered to him with Johanna.
So my anger has to do with watching such a destructive, unhappy, dysfunctional individual not only mess his own life up, but also that of the people that need and love him. There's some weird talk in the movie about the call of the deep blue, and mermaids that await males in the depths of the ocean "if their love is true." What a load of baloney! It would work if the movie went toward showing how Mayol was psychologically damaged by his father's death, and how Johanna (and Enzo's death) help bring him back to humanity. But the movie goes in just the opposite direction.
I found this movie utterly depressing and pointless. It's clear a lot of other people saw something else in it. Even as a fairytale--Mayol swims away to live as a weird human/dolphin--the movie just doesn't work. He leaves a wife and unborn child for no justifiable reason.
I finally gave the movie a 4 of 10 rating, only for the cinematography. If you like weepy love stories, there have to be many better movies out there! This one just makes no sense at all.
"The summary [Stupid, Pointless, Terrible] pretty much says it all. Save yourself 2.5h of boring, hard-to-watch stupid movie. Perhaps the only conclusion about this movie is that accidents involving parents during childhood can really, really mess someone up."
I admit that I was upset, and not just a little bit. After some relaxing and thinking, the above needs some elaboration to be useful to anyone that has not yet seen this movie.
First, this could have been a very good movie; it comes close in a lot of areas, especially in the cinematography. The Greek locations are spectacular. But I have to say that the underwater shots left me unimpressed.
**SPOILERS** More importantly, this movie _seems_ to be a movie about love: the lead male (Jacques Mayol) is conflicted between his love of the ocean, love of his "family" of dolphins, and love of his human partner, Johanna.
This is where I just don't get this movie, and the almost overwhelmingly positive response to it at IMDB. Mayol is in many respects a classic male lead: he reminds me of Clint Eastwood in many of his westerns, and as Dirty Harry. Does Clint portray a loving male role model in these movies? Not in my book, and Mayol misses even more so in this movie. Mayol doesn't communicate with anyone in a reasonable fashion, except, it seems, his dolphins. My initial response to his adult character is that he's just a really messed up individual that never got over the abandonment of his mother and the death of his father, who was a diver for his living.
Nothing I saw in the movie leads me to believe otherwise about Mayol. One wonders why Johanna would possible stay with this guy. He and she never have anything more than extremely tense, completely dysfunctional interactions. Johanna tries to get him to interact with her, but other than sex, absolutely nothing happens that one could view as positive in any way. Mayol has sex with her, tells her he _thinks_ he's in love with her, and then takes off and spends the rest of the night swimming in the ocean with his dolphin friends (lovers?).
A lot is made about the "friendship" between Mayol and his boyhood bully Enzo. Forget it; Enzo tries his best to be friends with Mayol in their adult life, but again Mayol seems completely disinterested in this other form of human contact. Enzo and Mayol compete in free diving, but Mayol clearly just doesn't care about the competitions, taking any real interest away from this part of the movie.
Mayol is just flat nuts in the head, and the end of the movie proves that he is more seriously suicidal that Enzo. Enzo dies trying to prove he is the best; Mayol dives away from the love and family that is offered to him with Johanna.
So my anger has to do with watching such a destructive, unhappy, dysfunctional individual not only mess his own life up, but also that of the people that need and love him. There's some weird talk in the movie about the call of the deep blue, and mermaids that await males in the depths of the ocean "if their love is true." What a load of baloney! It would work if the movie went toward showing how Mayol was psychologically damaged by his father's death, and how Johanna (and Enzo's death) help bring him back to humanity. But the movie goes in just the opposite direction.
I found this movie utterly depressing and pointless. It's clear a lot of other people saw something else in it. Even as a fairytale--Mayol swims away to live as a weird human/dolphin--the movie just doesn't work. He leaves a wife and unborn child for no justifiable reason.
I finally gave the movie a 4 of 10 rating, only for the cinematography. If you like weepy love stories, there have to be many better movies out there! This one just makes no sense at all.
The Big Blue
(1988)
Stupid, pointless, terrible
24 August 2002
The summary pretty much says it all. Save yourself 2.5h of boring, hard-to-watch stupid movie. Perhaps the only conclusion about this movie is that accidents involving parents during childhood can really, really mess someone up.
Mimic 2
(2001 Video)
better than the first
18 May 2002
I liked this movie a lot, in many ways much more that than the original Mimic. In particular, Alix Koromzay is great playing the slightly flaky, completely adorable bug-nut scientist/teacher. She is much more interesting than Mira Sorvino, who wasn't bad in the first movie. The story here is simpler, not a bad thing in a horror flick, as the plot stays on a straight course with good effect. For those looking for big-time special effects, Mimic 2 might not satisfy. But for some good campy fun and scares, check this one out.
Top Ten Worst Plot Elements forced on George Lucas
18 May 2002
Forget the reviews suggesting Attack of the Clones is better than the Phantom Menace. Episode II is by far the worst of the Star Wars movies. The only truly interesting aspect of Attack of the Clones is how _force_fully it proves the fact that special effects cannot make up for a poor (awful!!) story. In this case, not only is the screenplay poorly written and the acting terrible, but the story elements themselves make absolutely no sense. The plot failings are so strong as to spoil any assistance the special effects might have rendered. Although I'm a big Star Wars fan, the movie is so bad that I give it only a 3 of 10 rating.
Attack of the Clones should not appeal to any movie demographic, certainly not young children, who will be driven to sleep or bored desperation by the first 90 minutes of the movie. Not to females, as the big love story is as poorly done as any in recent memory. And not to males, as the big action scenes have been much better done in many other recent movies. My sixteen-year-old came out of the movie saying that the most interesting part was the Matrix 2 trailer!
The story is so bad that trying to laugh at it seems appropriate. Here's my Top Ten List of Worst Plot Elements the Dark Side Forced upon George Lucas:
10. One million clones. Who ordered, who pays, who cares?
9. Which deleted planet from the infallible archives is that? Just ask your local chef.
8. Can't find that deleted planet from the infallible archives? No problem. Just fly right on in and say howdy. They'll give you a million clones!
7. Who are those guys on that deleted planet from the infallible archives? They're still nice, those Close Encounter's aliens (a Richard Dreyfuss cameo would'a helped).
6. What's a once-Queen, now hugely important Senator do with her time? No problem. Turns out she actually doesn't have anything to do (well, she does carry her own luggage, and she takes the occasional picnic).
5. How do we protect a once-Queen, now hugely important Senator? No problem. We'll assign a lone, ready-to-freak, not-quite-yet Jedi Knight to escort her (wouldn't want an additional armed escort to interfere with the wooden--rotten to the core--love story).
4. Who's that powerful dark-side-of-the-force guy? The name's Dooku, and don't you forget it. Repeat three times--Dooku, Dooku, Dooku--and you'll know the dark side too.
3. How good is that powerful dark-side-of-the-force guy? Remember how Darth Vader knew when Luke was entering the edge of the same galaxy. This Dooku guy can't sense six Jedi Knights sneaking up on him from the very next room.
2. How do those wonderful, million-star-system-protecting Jedi Knights test their new recruits? All moms must stay in slave purgatory, unvisited (no phone calls allowed!!), until they die.
1. How to bed that bored, once-Queen, now hugely important Senator? Put up with kisses slightly better than Pinocchio's, followed by no-sex muddy rationalizations. Go completely off your rocker, light-sabering the heads off all women and children in a close-by village. Apologize by claiming that god-like powers will be yours. If she rips her shirt up to show off her abs, she's yours!
Attack of the Clones should not appeal to any movie demographic, certainly not young children, who will be driven to sleep or bored desperation by the first 90 minutes of the movie. Not to females, as the big love story is as poorly done as any in recent memory. And not to males, as the big action scenes have been much better done in many other recent movies. My sixteen-year-old came out of the movie saying that the most interesting part was the Matrix 2 trailer!
The story is so bad that trying to laugh at it seems appropriate. Here's my Top Ten List of Worst Plot Elements the Dark Side Forced upon George Lucas:
10. One million clones. Who ordered, who pays, who cares?
9. Which deleted planet from the infallible archives is that? Just ask your local chef.
8. Can't find that deleted planet from the infallible archives? No problem. Just fly right on in and say howdy. They'll give you a million clones!
7. Who are those guys on that deleted planet from the infallible archives? They're still nice, those Close Encounter's aliens (a Richard Dreyfuss cameo would'a helped).
6. What's a once-Queen, now hugely important Senator do with her time? No problem. Turns out she actually doesn't have anything to do (well, she does carry her own luggage, and she takes the occasional picnic).
5. How do we protect a once-Queen, now hugely important Senator? No problem. We'll assign a lone, ready-to-freak, not-quite-yet Jedi Knight to escort her (wouldn't want an additional armed escort to interfere with the wooden--rotten to the core--love story).
4. Who's that powerful dark-side-of-the-force guy? The name's Dooku, and don't you forget it. Repeat three times--Dooku, Dooku, Dooku--and you'll know the dark side too.
3. How good is that powerful dark-side-of-the-force guy? Remember how Darth Vader knew when Luke was entering the edge of the same galaxy. This Dooku guy can't sense six Jedi Knights sneaking up on him from the very next room.
2. How do those wonderful, million-star-system-protecting Jedi Knights test their new recruits? All moms must stay in slave purgatory, unvisited (no phone calls allowed!!), until they die.
1. How to bed that bored, once-Queen, now hugely important Senator? Put up with kisses slightly better than Pinocchio's, followed by no-sex muddy rationalizations. Go completely off your rocker, light-sabering the heads off all women and children in a close-by village. Apologize by claiming that god-like powers will be yours. If she rips her shirt up to show off her abs, she's yours!
Panic Room
(2002)
What's Jodie Foster doing here?
27 April 2002
This story is predictable and pointless. If you're into seeing women and young girls being psychologically tortured, this one's for you. There's also the trinity of bad guys: the good, the bad, and the stupid. Is that what people like about this movie? I just don't get this one; it was mostly a bore, at least when it wasn't being revolting.
Hannibal
(2001)
The sum is less than the parts.
27 April 2002
There is a lot to like about this movie. The sound track and the Florence settings are absolutely fabulous. Anthony Hopkins is still wonderfully creepy extreme. Julianne Moore is good enough to make us (almost) forget about Jodie Foster. The cinematography is exceptional. The special effects are not overdone, and extremely well done where needed. They provide the punch for a few unforgettable scenes.
The problem: the story. It just doesn't go anywhere. There is no build up of mystery, no growing suspense. The DVD deleted scenes suggest Ridley was aware of these problems, and just couldn't resolve them. Other glaring problems exist. Hannibal is caught way too easily. Clarice is uninteresting in the extreme in the first half of the movie. The ending with Hannibal and Clarice didn't work for me (I just don't believe Hannibal would be so easily trapped, and didn't really believe the solution he took to escape). All in all, a beautifully made, wasted movie.
The problem: the story. It just doesn't go anywhere. There is no build up of mystery, no growing suspense. The DVD deleted scenes suggest Ridley was aware of these problems, and just couldn't resolve them. Other glaring problems exist. Hannibal is caught way too easily. Clarice is uninteresting in the extreme in the first half of the movie. The ending with Hannibal and Clarice didn't work for me (I just don't believe Hannibal would be so easily trapped, and didn't really believe the solution he took to escape). All in all, a beautifully made, wasted movie.
Requiem for a Dream
(2000)
Ellen Burstyn is stunning
27 April 2002
This movie is really, really(!) depressing. Punishing is the word another reviewer used, and that seems a good description. I felt like someone had used a mental sledge hammer on me after watching. I will not forget this movie for a long, long time.
Considering the issues involved with "recreational" and more serious drug use, and the real world consequences from both types, the movie is completely successful. Ellen Burstyn is absolutely stunning and captivating: her performance culminated in one of the most memorable, spellbinding, punishing (yeah, he was right about that!) endings I have ever seen in a movie.
Jennifer Connelly's performance is riveting, and completely, depressingly, agonizingly believable. Leto and Wayans do not detract with excellent performances.
Aronofsky provides incredible visuals with the movie. I really enjoyed the kinetic elements involved with the drug use. The movie has a great sound track.
Trainspotting is another absolutely riveting movie about drug use that I would compare to this. Requiem is much more directly depressing, and especially through Burstyn and Connelly, more effective. Watch this movie. Pick a night when you want to see something serious. See if you can get your parents to watch it. Make sure your older (at least the adult) children do.
Considering the issues involved with "recreational" and more serious drug use, and the real world consequences from both types, the movie is completely successful. Ellen Burstyn is absolutely stunning and captivating: her performance culminated in one of the most memorable, spellbinding, punishing (yeah, he was right about that!) endings I have ever seen in a movie.
Jennifer Connelly's performance is riveting, and completely, depressingly, agonizingly believable. Leto and Wayans do not detract with excellent performances.
Aronofsky provides incredible visuals with the movie. I really enjoyed the kinetic elements involved with the drug use. The movie has a great sound track.
Trainspotting is another absolutely riveting movie about drug use that I would compare to this. Requiem is much more directly depressing, and especially through Burstyn and Connelly, more effective. Watch this movie. Pick a night when you want to see something serious. See if you can get your parents to watch it. Make sure your older (at least the adult) children do.
Bringing Out the Dead
(1999)
Gripping, but fatally flawed fantasy
27 April 2002
I hope I'm right in my summary. Scorsese portrays a New York that I never want to see. It's a post-apocalyptic setting--but portrayed as current New York--that we've seen in so many scifi flicks, where the city seems completely crazed and demented. Fantasy we hope, but clearly fatally flawed: in this movie's New York city, paramedic rescue teams are portrayed in unforgivable ways.
One can allow the writers and director some license, and believe that Cage's problems as a stressed out, overworked paramedic are not so far from what might occur today. Cage does a good job with his "I'm going crazy" persona. Patricia Arquette's problems are well within the believable, and are gripping. So is the movie a somewhat gripping fantasy? Is it worth watching? Not for me: I could forgive the portrayal of Cage's character, but not those of the other paramedics he works with.
One can allow the writers and director some license, and believe that Cage's problems as a stressed out, overworked paramedic are not so far from what might occur today. Cage does a good job with his "I'm going crazy" persona. Patricia Arquette's problems are well within the believable, and are gripping. So is the movie a somewhat gripping fantasy? Is it worth watching? Not for me: I could forgive the portrayal of Cage's character, but not those of the other paramedics he works with.
Jeepers Creepers
(2001)
Very enjoyable, classy horror flick
23 April 2002
This was a smart, creepy movie. It starts absolutely great, and does lose a little steam about halfway through. But it stays interesting to the end. The ending is quite unusual, however, and I expect that much of the negative voting about this movie might well have to do with that. Otherwise, negative votes are cast because people were expecting a slasher type movie, which this is not. If you enjoy older horror movies, and want something similar but much more up-to-date, this will work for you.
story changes better than lacks
23 December 2001
There are a couple hard to understand failures with this movie. No Elven music in Rivendell or Lothlorien? The movie needed some, as the last 1.5 h are quite gloomy with no break. JRR, I am certain, would not have approved! And no gifts from Galadriel except for Frodo at the parting? Perhaps this will be corrected in the later movies (they better be!).
But there are wonderful story twists. The change for Arwen is definitely all for the better! And I very much liked the change with the breaking of the fellowship: more favorable for Aragorn, and combined with the changes with Arwen, make his character fuller and better defined. The movie is so good that even with a couple flaws I rate it one of the best movies I have ever seen.
But there are wonderful story twists. The change for Arwen is definitely all for the better! And I very much liked the change with the breaking of the fellowship: more favorable for Aragorn, and combined with the changes with Arwen, make his character fuller and better defined. The movie is so good that even with a couple flaws I rate it one of the best movies I have ever seen.
The Cell
(2000)
Do yourself a favor and stay away
26 August 2000
Take the most gruesome parts of Silence of the Lambs--those sections with the girl in the pit in the basement--and multiply by quite a bit. Now take away all the interesting dialog and great acting. Throw in some very interesting special effects and you have The Cell.
I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would want to watch a movie that so intensely depicts abduction and torture, and the sick mind that might do such things. I am not squeamish, but The Cell went waay too far. Don't let the special effects draw you in--that's why I went. The story and acting here cannot come close to justifying having to sit through even one of the at least six or seven extremely disturbing scenes in this movie.
I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would want to watch a movie that so intensely depicts abduction and torture, and the sick mind that might do such things. I am not squeamish, but The Cell went waay too far. Don't let the special effects draw you in--that's why I went. The story and acting here cannot come close to justifying having to sit through even one of the at least six or seven extremely disturbing scenes in this movie.
Heidi
(1937)
One of Shirley's best
20 March 2000
This is one of my favorite movies of all times. Love of family, love of friends, interesting locations and people all make this a great family movie. And to boot, it's one of Shirley's best, which puts it at the top. Put your sophistication and thinking hat away, and sit back and enjoy the emotions this film evokes.
Mission to Mars
(2000)
Turn the music off!!
12 March 2000
I won't waste a lot of words on a movie you shouldn't waste any time on. Three major areas sunk this movie: the plot is terrible (quite predictable through most of the movie, and hopelessly silly at the end), the 2001-style cinematography doesn't work (slow pans plus plot pacing make for some very slooww moments), and most important, this movie has to have one of the worst musical scores ever for a big budget film--in a number of spots, we actually starting laughing at how bad it was. We weren't really amused, but the chuckles kept us awake. The movie has a couple of decent moments, but forget this one.
Tell Your Friends