Change Your Image
keith-774
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire (2023)
Remake of "Battle Beyond the Stars"
It's certainly true that Rebel Moon is a merger of Star Wars (1977) and Seven Samauri (1954) / The Magnificent Seven (1960). But when you really boil it down, it's a remake of Battle Beyond the Stars (1980) and in many ways it's just as cheesy. Poor character motivations, unbelievable loyalties, no depth of backstory... As other reviews have mentioned, the CGI is spectacular. The movie looks beautiful... but the acting is stiff, the writing is awful, the editing is OK, and it's been done before. It's very true that it's hard to find a truly original story in book or film, but it takes a pretty good story to be better than the original(s) you're copying. As an example, when you watch Silverado (1985) you can see the influence of The Magnificent Seven (1960), but you don't dwell on it. Here, you dwell on it. This film had a lot of hype and I wanted to really enjoy it. But it's simply too two-dimensional and obviously not an original film to really enjoy. It's probably better than Battle Beyond the Stars (1980), but not enough.
Alienate (2016)
Had the director simply told the alien story, it would have been pretty good
With scenes lifted from "Signs" and Tom Cruise's "War of the Worlds," editing so choppy that I couldn't always tell what time line was being presented (and I understood "Primer." Hint: copying the editing style of "Lost" without actually understanding why they did it won't make a good movie), a cultural view of relationships and marriage that only Millenials who thought "90210" represented real life would believe, and what appears to be a sincere desire on the director's part to tell two stories, I simply cannot recommend this movie.
I was once a micro publisher and we regularly received books for review that wanted to tell one story, but thought that telling another story would make it successful. In every case, the story the author wanted to tell was a human drama story (the heartache of affairs, lost love, yadda, yadda, yadda), but they knew that other stories were much more popular. So they would couch the story they wanted to tell in another story: time travel (often civil war romance), westerns, vampires, etc. The result was always a terrible story, and this is no different. Which is a shame, because the special effects where better than average for a low-budget flick and the acting wasn't bad for a bunch of new-comers.
Unfortunately, the biggest problem in the flick (ok, the second biggest, it was SLOW) is that the director actually thinks 20-somethings experience life-altering moral issues. At 50+ it's actually quite tedious to see 20-somethings bemoaning how their lives are over and they're all alone. Kids that haven't actually experienced a lot of real life - and yet that was the story the director wanted to tell. Which, once again, is too bad because the alien story was actually quite well presented. (Well, except for the rifle. A bit too obvious as a plastic toy. Guys, you should have at least glued, sanded, and painted the plastic seam. I'm just sayin'.)
So, end result, not a movie I can recommend.
The Shannara Chronicles (2016)
Not a bad interpretation of Terry Brooks' series ... except for all the bad acting and sex.
My wife and I binge-watched S1 of tSC and were frankly disappointed. A good story line with breathtaking CGI, sets, costuming, etc, was really hard to choke down due to bad acting and sex that doesn't exist in any of Terry's books.
Do you remember the first "Zoolander" movie? Where the antagonist complains that Ben Stiller's eponymous character had only one "look?" Poppy Drayton has but three. Most of the time she's on the verge of tears. When not, she's usually startled. Occasionally she looks confused. I actually found an article that celebrated Amberle as a "strong female character." Um... no... she's pretty weak, actually.
Ivana Baquero's character isn't much better, though at least she improved as the season progressed. "Syruppy" was the only word we could come up with. It grated.
But the real disappointment was all the sex... that didn't exist in the books. And while I've been supportive of the LGBT cause, it's getting tiresome to see it in every show I watch, especially when it has no actual reason to be there other than to be "supportive." Frankly, if the sex is actually needed to keep viewers watching this show (and considering the bad acting, maybe it is needed), then the show shouldn't exist. Too bad, too, since the story line was good and the sets beautiful....
Once Upon a Time: Ruby Slippers (2016)
Nobody Should Be Happy With This Episode
My wife and I binge-watched OUaT S1-S5 having never before seen the show. S1 and S2 were wonderful. S3 was somewhat tedious. S4 was tedious (Yet another wicked witch!). S5 mined Disney's "Hercules" to try and reinvigorate the show. It worked for a while, but yet again became tedious. Honestly, this show is past its expiration date. But, let's focus on my review summary. The only people who will appreciate this episode are same-sex groupies. Here's why.
1) The Fandom was cheering something awful for Mulan to be one half of the lesbian couple. Expecting Disney to risk the revenue of the 99% to show solidarity with the 1% by outing one of their trademark princesses was laughable. How many of the 99% are going to buy their little girls Mulan costumes when suddenly everyone perceives Mulan as a homosexual? Disney doesn't receive revenue from Doroty or Little Red Riding Hood costumes, so they were perfectly safe to use. In the end, no matter how much Disney wants the LGBT community to believe their supportive, the truth is they'll never risk their cash flow for anybody.
2) Which means two non-trademark heroines were used, and not just non-trademarked heroines, but absolutely minor characters. Until this episode Dorothy had, what, 8 minutes of total screen time? And Red hadn't been seen in, what, more than two **seasons**? Both these characters just became throw-away characters. You might see them again, but because they've become disposable, if there's too much flak about this episode, then you'll never see them again. Does the LGBT community think this is representation? It seems more like a slap in the face to me. It was the very least the Disney team could do to placate a very noisy minority.
3) Finally, this is really over-representation. Where the LGBT community should be pitching entertainment to develop meaningful story lines that establish credible relationships --- you know, "normal" things --- instead they appear to be pitching and/or producing content in every possible show. Being at best only 1% of the nation, equal representation is either constantly in 1% of the shows, or represented by 1% of all characters. Not every show, that's unequal over-representation, better known as indoctrination. Don't believe me? Then why did the movie Storks end with the storks delivering a baby to a lesbian couple. I didn't know storks delivered adopted children, and the movie was created for an age group that doesn't even know what sexual attraction is. The scene had no meaningful reason to be in the show save one: indoctrination.
So, nobody should be satisfied with this episode. It was a shallow episode in a dying series that served the least possible representation of a political purpose. Honestly, don't we deserve better television than that?
Howard the Duck (1986)
Even Worse than I Remember
My wife, bless her heart, has occasionally heard me comment about Howard the Duck. So when the DVD came available in a $5 bin she picked up a copy. Hoping that the film's apparent cult status meant there was some redeeming value I had missed as a teenager, we started to watch it.
We lasted 30 minutes. What a pile of tripe. I kid you not, we actually found greater entertainment reading the reviews from Rotten Tomatoes than we did watching the film --- by a considerable degree.
The script is slow and boring, the acting is bad, after 30 minutes there still wasn't a plot (I suppose one would have materialized after the bad guy appeared, but he hadn't in 30 minutes...), the sets were bad, the editing was bad. Honestly, it's like Ed Wood had risen from the grave to make one last clunker of a movie.
Finally, I'd like to echo the words of the eternal Gene Siskel... "Who was this stupid film made for?" It's too brain-dead stupid for adults, it's too coarse for children (even by today's standards). My wife and I literally couldn't figure out the intended audience. It's all over the map. Ten-year-old cuddly one moment, condom-vulgar the next. Sheesh! So, save your money and watch anything else. Even Youtube videos of kittens are a more valuable use of your time than Howard the Duck.
The Air Up There (1994)
A Fabulous Popcorn Movie
Sometimes I wonder about reviewers. Too many reviewers here focus on the fact that The Air Up There isn't Academy Award material. Tough bananas you party poopers! The Air Up There is one of my favorite popcorn movies. What's a popcorn movie? It's a movie you can enjoy mid-afternoon with your family when you want to avoid the rest of the world for a couple of hours (the modern descendant of matinée movies). The fictional Winabi tribe and African actors and actresses were absolutely charming playing a tribe whose life is considerably simpler than the average American family's. They're happy! and that makes connecting with them when simple crises arise much simpler. The movie is your standard underdog-takes-the-day movie with moral messages about prejudice, commitment, greed, duty, and family. A fun and enjoyable watch for people looking to rest for a moment. And what can I say to the gratefully few miserable, self-important reviewers on this list but, "lighten up!"
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
I Want My Money Back
This movie wasn't just a huge disappointment, it was boring. Why? Because I've seen it before. It was a duplicate of Star Wars Episode IV (1977). Force-blessed child is found on a desert planet where he (she) meets a droid recently runaway from Darth Vader, they are helped off that planet by Han Solo and the Millennium Falcon, they get entangled in yet another Death Star where the shields must be lowered and a target must be destroyed to destroy the construct ... even the canyon scene with X-wing fighters was rehashed. Was there an Obi-Wan? Yup, the incomparable Max Von Sydow plays the role of the old geezer who provides the path to learning about the force but is killed in the process. Scenes from Episodes V and VI were also rehashed, like setting bombs to blow up a facility and a father/son team meeting on a bridge with a single light saber. The death of Han Solo was SO PREDICTABLE that the entire scene dragged on and on into utter boredom. I almost started laughing when Luke (Yoda) is finally found on a water (swamp) planet where Rey (Luke) will learn to be a Jedi ... that's Episode VIII, which promises to be a complete rehash of Episode V. I won't waste my money on it. Regrettably, I was fooled into forgetting my first rule of movie marketing: if the movie is bad, it will often be over-marketed before its release to try and make the investment back before anyone realizes how bad it is. Disney marketed the snot out of this movie. I should have seen this lemon coming, but I hoped. Oh, how I hoped. So, just to be clear, why do I want my money back for Episode VII? Because I already paid to see this movie ... in 1977. It even had the same cast!
Gåten Ragnarok (2013)
Good, if only a more imaginative ending
I liked this film. It was a solid 7 until the end. I'll get to that in a moment. As others have mentioned, the landscape is gorgeous, the CGI is better than average, and the acting was nowhere near as bad as the Nords think it is. It's a good popcorn movie. I especially liked the Soviet link. Where the story lost its imagination was first, the guide (who ended up a stock character) and second, the ending, where I saw very little Ragnarok and far too much Jurassic Park III. I almost subtracted another vote for calling the thief Allan, but I'm feeling generous (if you don't understand why, go watch Jurassic Park III). Regrettably, novelty and originality is often hard to find. Oh, well. I'd watch it again, though.
Jupiter Ascending (2015)
Gorgeous, but hollow
I had higher expectations for this film. The only expectation that was met was the breathtaking CGI. The story was beyond unbelievable, reused far too many story lines from better movies and/or books (everything from Soylent Green to Cinderella), and there was zero, zippo, nada character development. Worse, the story was jumpy with everyone suddenly in sync with current action without any description of (or even a hint about) how characters got to that point. The worst was when Jupiter starts spouting legalese at Titus. The story even laughs at itself when he responds "you're a quick study." No kidding, let's ignore the possibility of alien languages and ignore even further the bureaucracy that is as slow as ours but different in any other way and yet, when she steps off the ship after being captured by Titus' people, she's already up to snuff on the specifics of law regarding royals relating to the very situation. My My! That is a quick study! The whole movie's full of nonsense (in every sense of the word) like that. The only character that developed to any degree was Caine. Good dog! The Wachowski's haven't had a clear home run since the Matrix, and this sets them back. Way to go back to cleaning those toilets, your majesty!
Into the Woods (2014)
What a waste of time
Granted, I didn't know this movie was a musical -- but that shouldn't have mattered. I actually like musicals. Les Miserable was amazing and I still enjoy The Sound of Music --- but this was horrible. I was bored stiff ten minutes into the show. The music and singing is monotonous. The melody may change from song to song, but the cadence never does! It's like listening to a metronome for two hours. My wife and I rented it and I refused to shut it off because I'm proud of the fact that I've only ever walked out of one movie in my life --- but this tested my fortitude. About 45 minutes left in the show my wife started fast-forwarding past the monotonous singing and stopped only when it appeared plot development was occurring. The movie was, in the end, a complete waste of 2 hours of our lives, second only to the 1978 Star Wars Christmas Special. I gave it two stars instead of one for only two reasons: it was a surprise that Meryl Streep could sing (and reasonably well) and Anna Kendrick is beautiful. Thanks to this movie, I couldn't be forced to watch the Broadway play to save my soul.
RoboCop (2014)
People who hate this movie have never worked in the market-driven corporate world
I decided to watch this film with mixed feelings based on the quantity of negative reviews all basically citing the PG-13 rating, the lack of a clear main villain, and the failure of the remake to reflect the same gritty feeling of the original movie. I did not see the R-rated original movie, nor do I care to. I did see the edited-for-TV version and believe anyone claiming that I am somehow unable to understand the movie without the language and violence to be themselves callow and shallow. While I very much enjoyed the original, I always found it campy and even (at times) silly. The presentation of corporate America was so over-the-top as to be wholly unbelievable. However, Ronny Cox and Kurtwood Smith were clear villains that could be easily hated, which made the movie (like so many westerns) an easy-to-enjoy popcorn movie.
Fast forward to today. Robocop 2014 has some obvious flaws. Without a clear villain it was tougher to feel the good-vs-evil joy of the hero winning the day and the second half of the movie moved somewhat slowly. But...
Anyone claiming that this movie wasn't worth their time to see or failed to live up to its predecessor has no blooming clue about corporate America. I'm sorry, but you folks missed the point of this film (and probably the point of the original, which was somewhat lost in all the campy action). I recognized the terrifyingly casual screw-the-world-at- any-cost behavior of Michael Keaton's CEO from very real CEOs of multinational companies that I both know and have worked for. I recognized the terrifyingly money-and-success-driven behavior of marketing staff from teams I both know and have worked with. I even recognized the smoothly organized and over-biased presentation of modern political commentary. It was like watching Bill Gates or Kenneth Lay on the Sean Hannity show calmly and positively explain how their business will make America successful as it sucks its people dry. The writers hit their mark so well that by the end of the movie the fears, concerns, frustrations, and exasperation of 30 years in corporate America all reared their ugly heads in a 2 hour movie that left me wanting to pack my camper and run for Alaska.
The writers of Robocop 2014 should be given the Academy Award for spectacularly good writing and the best presentation of modern corporate and political reality that I have ever seen in a movie. They not only hit the mark they were aiming for dead-on, but they did a better job of it --- a much better job of it --- than those who wrote the original Robocop.
And the "I can't believe it unless the F* word is clearly spoken at least twice and I see people's brains splattered on a wall" crowd needs to stop pretending they understand anything about making a good movie.
The Hunger Games (2012)
Wow, slow
I saw this movie a bit under duress. As I get older, I get much less tolerant of violence against children. While the brutality didn't warrant an R rating, it was over the top ... and children as young as six were watching the film at the time. It was frustrating that there was so little back story that it was really nothing more than a story about kids beating the snot (and the life) out of each other. But what really bothered me is that the movie is SLOW. Really, really, slow. So slow that my discontent with the violence against children was almost irrelevant. My wife agrees that the movie is slow, and my wife and mother both assure me that Twilight was worse, much worse, but it's hard to believe. Stan Tucci was good. Woody Harrelson was better. The children were OK, but it was hard to tell because the characters were so shallow! And the writing was predictable. When the "scores" for Peter and Katniss were announced, I turned before hand and told my wife what they'd be. I had a perfect score.
Like Twilight, fans of the book will freak out and love this show. For the rest of us... well... it's not going to win any academy awards.
Quantum of Solace (2008)
Great action, dumb movie
I'd add spoilers, but there isn't anything to tell. This movie's entire plot could be described in detail on a single sheet of paper. There was certainly plenty of action, and lots of exotic places, but NO PLOT! There was no story to tell. The movie was obviously a stepping stone from the "what's the new evil organization?!" moment at the end of Casino Royale, but it was one small stepping stone. This movie was such a waste of time that I don't plan to ever buy it. Here's hoping that there's actually a plot in the next Bond movie, or maybe it's time to retire James and move on to the next super spy.... (*Ah... apparently I have to put in ten lines of text to satisfy IMDb's minimum comment size requirement. Are they kidding? What do they want, a book? Sheesh...)
Cloverfield (2008)
Not What I Expected
This show is a combination of Alien, Godzilla, The Blair Witch Project, and Beverly Hills 90210. It wasn't what I was expecting (which was a good monster movie).
1) The first 20-30 minutes which, theoretically, was setting up all the character interrelationships was BORING! It was worse than watching a soap opera. (Note to J.J. Abrams: twenty-somethings who pout in their bedrooms because their childhood sweetheart is dating another guy DON'T become corporate vice-presidents. Sheesh!) My wife and I were literally leaning forward to stand up and walk out when the first bang happened (we're still not sure if staying was the better choice). Most of the info delivered in this prelude went unused in the movie, so it could have been shortened to five minutes without losing a thing.
2) The FAQ is dead wrong about Beth's wounds. She had a piece of rebar through her shoulder, for crying out loud. All the adrenaline in the world wouldn't have stopped her from bleeding out in about twenty minutes after they lifted her off it. If, by some divine miracle, she didn't bleed out, her left arm would have been utterly useless, and rapidly and overwhelmingly painful. The movie portrays Beth as fundamentally uninjured by the end of the movie. Dumb.
3) People talented enough to become corporate vice presidents rarely associate with people as brain-dead stupid as Hud. I'm surprised they didn't show his urine-soaked pants after he died.
I'd go on, but it's not worth it. "I Am Legend" was much, much, much better. Better suspense. Better storyline. Better acting. Better movie. And that's despite knowing the storyline from watching "The Omega Man" years ago. When you remove the effect of motion sickness caused by the bouncing camera or the rising pulse of the beeping emergency strobes in the buildings (did you think we wouldn't notice, J.J.?), there isn't much to be scared about in "Cloverfield." By the way, other than being the secret document name of the government file we are purportedly watching, the word "cloverfield" has absolutely NOTHING to do with the movie.
Dumb. I'm glad I only paid matinée pricing to see this movie.