klinefelter3's Reviews

Justice League (2017)

7/10

One of the better DC comic adaptations in recent years.

19 November 2017

Warning: Spoilers

I have been a DC fan since my childhood in the early-mid-80's, a time when I would get up early to watch "Super Friends" via antenna TV, or read the John Byrne reboot mini-series "Man of Steel" when it first hit newsstands. By my teens, Christopher Reeve and Michael Keaton personified Superman and Batman on the big screen and had not been recast or rebooted or reloaded or re-whatevered. And they had not been surrounded by countless Marvel competitors for moviegoers' increasingly limited attention spans. It is this audience that "Justice League" must contend for, which is sad, because the movie deserves a less hostile audience than the spoiled "rotten" one it has ultimately found.

This is not a perfect movie. But the good absolutely outweighs the bad, especially if you're specifically a "DC fan" and seeing some classic imagery done justice on the big screen is a treat. There is a good handful of images in this movie that genuinely tickled the DC comics nerd in me in ways that none of these films have as of yet. I don't think "Justice League" is quite made for general audiences in ways that Marvel films have tended to be; with geeks Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon calling the shots, it's no surprise that this film will appeal more to geeks than general audiences. That's not a defense of the movie, just an attempt to say who this may work for and who it may not.

The worst thing, by far, is the villain: Steppenwolf. I am simply baffled that talented and highly-paid people allowed this horrible CGI monstrosity to happen. He is every bit as terrible as the CGI villain from 2011's "Green Lantern" or the Necromancer from "The Hobbit"- suffering from having a complete lack of personality and expressiveness.

Apart from Steppenwolf my complaints are mostly nitpicks... I really do love a lot of this flick. Perhaps most importantly, and I expect this will be general sentiment: I loved the whole League! Flash is hilarious. I want his movie out much quicker than 2020. Aquaman- a joke of a hero just a few years ago- is rad in this, and I very much look forward to more of him. Cyborg was never very interesting to me in the comics, and he's surprisingly good here. Wonder Woman gets to take her character up another notch from her movie, and Batman is much more likable here than in "Batman V. Superman". And... my god. My favorite superhero of all time, Superman: THANK YOU FOR GETTING SUPERMAN RIGHT. It was soooo refreshing seeing him SMILE. And be NICE. And LAUGH.

Danny Elfman's score is a lot of fun, particularly for its nods toward classic hero themes. CGI- aside from Steppenwolf and a certain hero's digitally-erased mustache- is mostly quite good. The pace was very quick- which is good and sort bad; I really hope a longer cut comes out at some point- the idea that "Justice League" is far shorter than all other DCEU films to date is very odd, and I did feel it was a little too light in some aspects. Being a fan of the 3 hour Ultimate Cut of BVS, I would personally love to see an extended cut of this.

I don't think this movie is for everybody. But I do feel it is worth viewing more than critics may have you believe. It is not the "Citizen Kane" of superhero movies, however it is a very fun ride and if these characters mean anything to you at all it may be all you need to enjoy the ride. Snyder and Whedon treat these heroes as genuine icons and don't overburden us with origins and dramatic or pretentious dialogue. "Justice League" is fun, surprisingly light, epic, and quick. I am looking forward to seeing this team assemble again.

9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Angry Video Game Nerd: Sega Activator Interactor Menacer (2016)

Season 10, Episode 5

10/10

Underrated

22 October 2017

I'm a bit shocked by this episode's current poor rating. Perhaps fans just didn't understand what it was trying to do?! The "wire squid" segment alone qualifies as one of the funniest moments in the entire series, at least for me. The episode is consistently hilarious, and I'm not often one to laugh so hard I cry.

James Rolfe is, as usual, terrific- and in this episode, he's in top form in every way (actor/ writer/ director etc.). Nathan Barnatt is PERFECT as Keith Apicary; I hope he returns at some point. It was a lot of fun watching the Nerd hang out with a fellow nerd, especially set during Christmas.

Absolutely fantastic.

20 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jurassic Prey (2015)

2/10

There have been worse movies.

8 January 2016

I have very few positive things to say about "Jurassic Prey". Like most dinosaur flicks from the last few years, it's neither a good movie nor a so-bad-it's-good movie. It probably isn't one of the absolute worst movies I've ever seen, but I'm fairly sure it is somewhere in the "bottom 100" I have watched. It is one of the worst of the prehistoric genre and should be avoided or watched with extremely minimal expectations and some hard liquor.

The cast is generally awful in uninteresting ways; there are in fact ways B-movies can save a poor script with colorful characters and/ or colorful character actors, and this movie doesn't attempt to give us anyone to really care or root for, let alone laugh at. The visual effects are hilariously bad, however I cannot condemn them to the degree some reviewers have. Yes, the puppetry and stop-motion is not commendable, but I still prefer it over most of the cheap CGI in low budget dino-flicks the last few years. In fact I was bothered far more by other effects, such as the bad digital flames, blood, and gun flares among other poorly-executed shots.

If there were at least a few more redeeming elements (better gore, characters, and script for starters), I'd elevate my rating to a "3" or "4"; as it is, a "2" feels fairly generous.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Land That Time Forgot (2009 Video)

2/10

Fails as both an adaptation and remake.

7 January 2016

Warning: Spoilers

There are worse movies than this, including within the "lost world" genre it is a part of. I suppose that is the most praise I can give the 2009 film adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' "The Land That Time Forgot".

While the previous 1975 film was by no means devoid of flaws, it has a charm that hasn't gone away despite recent prehistoric CGI-enhanced epics like the "Jurassic Park" films. Only the best films of the dinosaur/ lost world movie genre make you feel like you're a kid while watching them, and the '75 film is one of them. It does not possess the kind of technical wizardry of stop-motion classics like "One Million Years B.C." (1966) or "The Lost World" (1925), but it is a very fun movie that is a fairly faithful adaptation of the book (which I have read).

The 2009 movie features shoddy CGI effects which make one miss the puppets and men in suits from the earlier film. The effects here are perhaps suitable as "previsualization" FX shots, but generally don't hold up to much scrutiny: the dinosaurs have extremely limited movement capability, and their skin and mouths look extremely fake. I think the best rendered-creatures were the giant dragonfly (cleverly filmed a good distance away from it) and carnivorous Pterodactyls, while generally the T-Rex was pretty hard on my eyes.

The original film and book took place on a giant lost continent called Caprona; the interior was lush and tropical. The '75 film was shot at a variety of exotic locales including the Canary Islands, plus utilized Shepperton Studios to realize Caprona on the big screen. This film settles for dry Southern California, and takes significant detours from the original book and film- including no mention I can recall of "Caprona" itself.

I don't feel anyone out of the cast particularly shined or slumped, but I do wish C. Thomas Howell had been able to anchor the movie more effectively. He makes a poor successor to Doug McClure, who was far more effective as a protagonist and was too macho to spend over half the movie looking worried or freaked out.

There are certainly worse films out there, but this one is really only for fans of Z-grade cinema. Watch it with extremely low expectations and try to appreciate it in a "so bad it's good" kinda way, and you might have an OK time.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fantastic Dinosaurs of the Movies (1990 Video)

10/10

Great for Genre Fans

1 January 2016

This documentary goes beyond expectations and includes a wealth of trailers for prehistoric creature features, as well as additional classics that may not quite qualify as "dinosaur movies" but are a hoot to watch. It's a very fun nostalgic collection if you dig Harryhausen FX, dinosaurs, and B-movies.

This came in a DVD set I got many years ago which also included "The Lost World" (1925) and "Planet of Dinosaurs". I had such low expectations for it I didn't watch it until now (I never expected Good Times to produce a competent documentary). I'm impressed by how many trailers are on here!

The picture quality leaves a bit to desired, and I hate that Good Times slaps a "GT" watermark on the bottom right of the frame (I seem to remember them doing that to "Plan 9" in one format or another). Regardless of DVD-mastering issues, I recommend this for anyone into prehistoric cinema, and it's an especially helpful way to get to introduced to the history of the genre for newcomers.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lost World (1992)

4/10

Not nearly as good as its predecessors.

30 December 2015

I love Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original book and the 1925 silent film classic. I even have a soft spot for the 1960 Irwin Allen film; despite the lackluster effects, it had colorful cinematography and an appealing cast.

The 1992 adaptation does not compare favorably to what came before in almost every single way. The first film of "The Lost World" is 90 years old and yet it still has impressive visuals; the magnificent stop-motion showed us full-body shots of the dinosaurs in full motion. Due to budget restrictions, the 1960 film ended up using lizards with various added appendages to pass off as dinosaurs.

As low as that was, the effects in the 1992 film are atrocious in their own right: we never see full-body shots of the dinosaurs. What we *do* see are low-budget puppet heads with very minimal articulation in movement. These are perhaps suitable for a kid's dinosaur exhibit at a museum, but do not work as the only effect employed to make us believe these animals are real. In 1992, CGI was in its infancy and "Jurassic Park" hadn't even come out yet. Still, some stop-motion or at the very least men in suits would have been preferred over such limited footage.

The whole movie feels cheap despite Zimbabwe providing the "lost world" location. It only very loosely adapts the book, resulting in minimal dinosaur encounters and too much time spent dealing with "rival African tribes" which I am almost certain are there because the effects budget was too low. The original film successfully convinces us it is set on a plateau, isolated from the rest of the world. This just feels like it's set in some place in Africa that you could probably easily drive to.

The best thing that can be said is the cast. For the most part, I liked everyone in the film. I give high marks especially to John Rhys-Davies as Professor Challenger, and David Warner as his rival Professor Summerlee. They perfectly capture how I feel Challenger and Summerlee should be portrayed, and are probably the biggest reason to see the film.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

King Kong (1933)

10/10

A beautiful and awe-inspiring classic.

13 December 2015

"King Kong" is one of the most memorable and important films of the early sound era, and to this day it remains more impressive than any of the many remakes/ spin-offs/ sequels which it inspired. Willis O'Brien takes his stop-motion craft from "The Lost World" to a whole new level with "Kong": unlike that film, this stars more than "just" various prehistoric monsters; Kong is a character whom we come to care and root for in the end. O'Brien's work here introduced the concept of a creature becoming the central focus of a story, laying the foundation for everyone from Ray Harryhausen to Andy Serkis. A hundred years from now people will still be talking about THIS film, and the remakes and knock-offs will at best be a mere footnote in film history. Hopefully someday this makes it into the top 250 on IMDb; it is far worthier than many of the titles currently on there.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lost World (1925)

10/10

An amazing and groundbreaking classic.

13 December 2015

Any film buff with half a brain who has seen this film will appreciate its place as one of the most important special effects films of all time. It baffles me the rating stands at a mere 7.1 on this site. While not a masterpiece in every sense of the word (the dinosaurs are far more compelling than the humans), this 1925 gem was single-handedly responsible for pioneering stop-motion animation and inspired countless filmmakers to pursue their dreams well after the film's release. Factoring in the film's outdated stereotypes and racism into one's opinion of how it holds up today is pathetic and pointless! It's hard to say how things would have been different and what rate visual effects would have evolved had this not been made. Willis O'Brien refined the methods he used on TLW for "King Kong" a mere 8 years later, a classic which owes its special effects, story, and legacy to "The Lost World". The craftsmanship and wonder that TLW displays is beyond comparison; no "lost world" movie since has given such an epic display of prehistoric life. Remarkable. See the restored edition if possible!

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Lost Continent (1951)

10/10

Underrated "Lost World" flick

13 December 2015

I first saw this film courtesy of MST3K, and for years only knew of it from that hilarious episode. Years later I picked up the Image DVD and quickly found it to be an addictive little film with replay value. As a lover of both classic and trashy prehistoric cinema, "Lost Continent" may not necessarily be a good movie, but I feel it has plenty of entertainment value. The stop-motion is not on the level of Harryhausen or O'Brien, but it is solid and I enjoy the fact that only herbivorous dinosaurs are seen (certainly the result of the low budget). I can't help but love the macho characters; the nearly all-male cast is very much of that time period: these tough men climb a mountain and explore a vast lost world, with ample smoke breaks and reminders to the audience that these men are men, and American to the bone. The green tinted-footage is an interesting, if simple, visual effect. I am giving this a high rating for its entertainment value; it's not nearly as bad as some have suggested with their reviews, and better than MST3K may lead you to believe.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Gentlemen Broncos (2009)

10/10

One of 2009's Most Underrated Comedies

1 April 2010

For some reason I managed to miss the reviews for Jared Hess' "Gentlemen Broncos" when it first opened in limited release. I saw the trailer for it some time ago, and was excited for it; "Napoleon Dynamite" and even Hess' follow-up "Nacho Libre" were two of the most off-kilter, refreshing comedies I've seen in the past decade. "Broncos" is absolutely no exception, expanding on and arguably perfecting the "geekverse" that Hess started with "Napoleon." This third film in the "Crayola Trilogy" may be so well designed for sci-fi geeks and lovers of Hess' first two movies, that it simply had no way to possibly survive in the mainstream market.

Me? I loved it. Not seeing any reviews beforehand, I was expecting a film that hit the same high notes of "Napoleon," and for me, I got them. I am also a sci-fi nut, and I like my comedies full of bizarre and strangely real people- this, Hess excels in, as well. I went to bed last night rating it a "10" on IMDb; I was shocked to see the rating at a mere "5.5/ 10." Flip over to Rotten Tomatoes; it's a "Rotten" at 16%. I also find it worth noting that neither of Hess' previous releases have been treated on IMDb much better--- I seem to remember a time when "ND" was in the Top 250, or at the very least had a much higher rating than it does today (6.9). I recall "ND" being hailed as a cult classic, only to see its popularity seemingly cripple later opinions of the film (regardless of the fact it started very small).

Anyway. I'm just saying I think Jared Hess' work has been roundly ignored for being truly great cinema. I can see why "Gentlemen Broncos" has not enjoyed the success of "ND"--- it is a truly far-out film, that only "nuts" such as myself are likely to enjoy; I spent my youth much like the lead character writing short stories and dreaming up far-off worlds--- for kids like that, and their adult counterparts, I can only say "See This Film." You won't regret it.

72 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Punisher: War Zone (2008)

10/10

Eats the previous films for breakfast

5 December 2008

Taken on its own terms, "Punisher: War Zone" is everything it is supposed to be: excessively violent, larger than life, fast paced, and almost always loads of fun. War Zone doesn't take itself seriously and it doesn't ask the audience to do so, like the '90 and '04 films did. It never ponders the morality of its hero any more than necessary; it's The Punisher for gods' sakes.

The casting of Ray Stevenson as Frank Castle is, in a word, perfect. He is commanding, intimidating, and always fun to watch. If you can't enjoy Stevenson as The Punisher, you shouldn't even be watching the damn movie. Though the film is shot tongue-in-cheek, Stevenson stays consistent but is almost always interesting to watch. The supporting cast, led by Dominic West as Jigsaw, also shines in several scenes. There are no weak links in the cast to undermine WZ the way, say, John Travolta undermined the already-suffering Thomas Jane-"Punisher" movie.

There are many reasons to fault the first two Punisher pics for perhaps giving the character a bad rap, because the critics sure seem to be roasting this more than necessary. One perplexing review comes from Roger Ebert, who seems to praise the film in several ways while outright damning it to the same exact two star rating he applied to the first two (far dumber and less entertaining) Punisher movies: "The Punisher: War Zone is one of the best-made bad movies I've seen. It looks great, it hurtles through its paces and is well-acted. The soundtrack is like elevator music if the elevator were in a death plunge. The special effects are state of the art. Its only flaw is that it's disgusting."

I don't see what's wrong with that. This isn't an average mainstream film. This is an extremely gory film, with a level of violence that is rarely seen on the big screen outside of the "Saw" movies. And yet it remains entertaining, even comedic in how far it goes. The superb and colorful cinematography, action choreography, sound effects, score, and editing make "Punisher: War Zone" a must for (dark) comic book fans and action film junkies.

122 out of 219 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

klinefelter3

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed