Reviews

13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
DragonHeart (1996)
5/10
A feel-good but ultimately mediocre fantasy film (minor spoilers)
8 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
As other reviewers have noted, Dragonheart does provide some noble and uplifting themes. It *is* nice to see a medieval fantasy movie, especially one released the year after Braveheart, where not all is dark and sinister, blood and pain. There is humor here, and a positive message.

Unfortunately, Dragonheart suffers from several problems.

The special effects were pretty good; the dragon was seamlessly integrated into scenes, for example. However (and granted, maybe this is just a problem with my DVD or player), it seemed as though the animation stuttered, like stop-animation. That was distracting -- a disappointing sight in a film that came out four or five years after Terminator 2, which introduced fluid, realistic computer-rendered animation. The dragon reminded me of something from Harryhausen - it would have looked great twenty years earlier, but not in 1996. And aside from the dragon, not much else in the movie's effects seemed all that special, including the overdone ending.

The writing and the acting, too, leave much to be desired. Right from the start, the situations and the characters' reactions to them are often just not believable. The dialog in particular often seems forced - especially that of the dragon. It didn't seem to make a difference whether the dialog was intended to be serious or humorous; it often came across as contrived or wooden. Connery has done better work.

The combat scenes are somewhere above average, though some of the swordplay (presented as serious combat) echoes the fakery of the spear-catching scenes, creating unintended humor and drawing the viewer out of the illusion of the movie.

The humor is generally satisfying (with some exceptions), and many moments *are* genuinely touching here, though I found myself affected more by the *idea* that Draco was the last of the dragons and less by anything that the story presented or that the acting did to evoke pathos. The scenes meant to tug at the heartstrings were mostly either overdone or simply fell flat.

In all, Dragonheart is an entertaining enough movie - good enough for killing a Saturday afternoon, but substandard compared to other films of the genre. I felt my time was better spent watching the recent TV miniseries Legend of Earthsea, despite its shortcomings. The writing there was somewhat better, and the acting was more believable.

G-

5/10: average, but could have been much better.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Stock plot with many laughs
2 August 2003
Overall, I wasn't too impressed with the quality of this stock-plot film. In some places, you have to work hard to suspend your disbelief, because the characters' actions didn't always make sense based on their circumstances. (Wouldn't either of them have become even a little suspicious of the bizarre behavior of the other?) Also, I thought that Andie and the other female characters were written largely with stereotypes of women in mind.

In spite of these shortcomings, after accepting that it was more a "light" comedy than a well-written movie, I found myself frequently laughing out loud: the saving grace of the movie is the humor, which works well in most places.

The movie's not excellent, but its' not atrocious, either. There are worse ways to kill a couple hours on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Classic martial arts movie: so bad, its' good!
2 August 2003
Don't watch this movie expecting some slick, high-budget martial arts thriller. Instead, expect to be awe-struck at Bruce Lee's obviously amazing martial arts talent. This movie is everything good martial arts movies should be: poorly dubbed (English over English), humorous in places that shouldn't be, and a showcase for some excellent martial arts acting/action. (Looking convincing as a martial artist in a movie requires real talent in the martial arts; that's why so many successful martial arts movie stars started out as successful martial artists.)

Enter the Dragon is a very entertaining movie, despite its shortcomings (or, rather, in part because of them). Watch The Kentucky Fried Movie afterward for some real belly laughs; the well-made part of the Fried satire that was inspired by Dragon will make you appreciate this 70's classic even more.

---

Edit: Having just watched the Kentucky Fried Movie (KFM) again, I must warn you that the humor is quite outdated and juvenile. (There are several parodies of then-current advertisements and trends that many people today won't recognize.) Still, it's worth seeing KFM and fast-forwarding to the "Fistful of Yen" satire couched in the middle of it.

G-
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Event Horizon (1997)
3/10
What dimension was that, again?
14 July 2003
It comes from a dimension of "pure evil?" Give me a break. I'm sorry, but up to that point, the movie was somewhat enjoyable.

Why do movie makers so often feel the need to interject fantasy and horror elements into an otherwise perfectly good science fiction movie? Perhaps it's because they're unable to write a quality story to the level of Aliens, Star Trek (most of them), and the first three Star Wars movies. Where have all the good writers gone?

There were many enjoyable effects and sequences in this movie, but the fantasy-horror element ruined it for me. If you can get past that, you'll probably enjoy the movie. But don't set your expectations too high.

G-
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Abyss (1989)
9/10
Great underwater drama plus light science fiction
14 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
James Cameron did an excellent job with this movie. (That's par for him, of course.) [Warning: minor spoilers...] I can never get past the whole drowning and recussitation scene without getting a knot in my chest and a tear in my eye, thanks largely to the great acting up to that point. I hated seeing Michael Biehn play a bad guy, especially after Aliens, but he did a great job here, too.

For some reason, the movie doesn't feel quite like a 10 in my book... but it's definitely a solid 9.

G-
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Excellent, except for the fake Vulcan
13 July 2003
This is by far the best Star Trek movie. However, as I'm sure most will agree, Kirstie Alley was the wrong choice for Saavik. When I first saw Search for Spock, I didn't like Robin Curtis (I), their new choice for Saavik (I was young & resisted the change), but after watching both movies again recently, I've come to realize that Curtis did an excellent job and would have been a far superior choice for the part in Wrath of Khan.

Aside from the whiny and emotional human-in-Vulcan's-clothing, Wrath is excellent. Still very entertaining and watchable, even after 20 years! Got to love the space battles, especially the quiet, graceful way that smoke from the ships trails off into the nebula. And what a great villain! Khan was the best.

G-
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Get the Director's cut; it's much better.
13 July 2003
I know it's a bit unorthodox, but I gave this a 7: somewhere in between my rating for the original release (the rushed version) and the new director's cut release. On the commentary track, the director explains what went wrong on the original release and what they've done for the director's cut to make the movie the way they'd originally wanted. They even added some things. The new version is much better in terms of pacing (which was the problem with the original release) and in many other areas. It's well worth watching; you'll forget the previous version and come away thinking, "dang; that was good!"
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bolero (1984)
1/10
Bad, bad, bad--even from a teen's perspective
12 July 2003
I saw this movie on cable late one night while staying at a friend's house, around that age when you're young enough to think "squiggle porn" is cool. (For those of you who don't know, that means trying to catch a glimpse of nudity on a scrambled cable channel.) Even at that easily-impressed-by-nudity age, this movie dragged. The story was terrible. The acting was agonizing, making even the nudity-laden scenes unwatchable. And I was a teenage boy. Now *that's* a bad movie.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Very entertaining, yet often misunderstood.
10 July 2003
This movie inspires different reactions from people, depending on the expectations they bring to their first viewing. It's a semi-serious, semi-spoof Action/Comedy/Crime/Thriller/Martial Arts movie that doesn't fit neatly into any category. It is tremendously entertaining, as long as you aren't expecting something totally serious or totally comical. This movie is often misunderstood, and that, coupled with its somewhat-lower-than-average-budget look, may explain why there was no sequel to the movie, which was subtitled in the US "The Adventure Begins." It wasn't quite big-budget enough to satisfy people wanting to see a competitor for James Bond, and it wasn't quite like any other movie enough for people to "get it" right off. Taken at face value as an action movie, therefore, Remo Williams isn't all that noteworthy. However, viewed as an entertaining mixture of action and fun, the movie delivers quite well.

Fred Ward does a fine job as Remo, especially in his scenes with Chiun, his Shinanju master played fantastically by Joel Grey. Some have argued that Ward was too old for the role, which would be debatable even if this were a straight-out action movie; given its true nature, Ward was an excellent choice, and the dynamic between him and Grey makes for some of the most entertaining sequences in the movie.

Joel Grey's Asian "sensei" character stereotype can be forgiven in the context of the semi-spoof, tongue-in-cheek nature of the movie. Chiun's humor shines through his sarcastic commentary about America and Remo; the success of the humor relies on the Korean Shinanju master's strength and ability. Chiun is the most powerful, competent, intelligent, and witty character in the movie. There is also the pleasant story line of Chiun passing on to Remo the legacy of his Shinanju wisdom and knowledge... and wit.

People have also criticized Kate Mulgrew (Star Trek: Voyager) for her performance of Major Rayner Fleming. Overall, her performance is very good, and appropriate for the character, especially before her character meets Remo at Mount Promise. I am still somewhat disappointed, however, to see Major Fleming change from a competent military career-woman into a bewildered character smitten by Remo and Chiun and carried along in their wake. In the role of the army major, Fleming is competent, witty, and believable: an appropriate portrayal of a mid-1980's woman military officer. The directors could have let the character carry that competence through to the end of the movie.

The movie does have some great action sequences, especially the chase around the scaffolding surrounding the Statue of Liberty (remember when they were remodeling it, back in the 80's?), and it is very funny in many places. (See the "memorable quotes" page.) If you watch the movie expecting to have fun and to be entertained, if you suspend your disbelief just a little and don't take it too seriously, you will really enjoy it. It has just enough action, just enough "buddy movie" dynamic, just enough tongue-in-cheek humor, just enough spoof, just enough comic-book type fantasy elements, and just enough enigmatic and amusing martial arts to make it terrifically entertaining. Watch it with your friends on a lazy Saturday afternoon, have some laughs, and be entertained. You'll be glad you did.
78 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well-crafted, funny, and touching, with great visual appeal
9 July 2003
The Iron Giant presents a well-written and visually appealing story that works better than most Disney movies. Set in 1957, it explores half-seriously, half tongue-in-cheek the stereotypes and the reality of "G-men" and the US military mindset, the cold war, and life at the start of the space age.

The story is told from the point of view of the boy, Hogarth, who is a believable and sympathetic character. A couple of anthropomorphic elements can be seen in the robot, but it's not hard to suspend disbelief since these elements are subtle and not the primary driver of character development. The robot character is somewhat enigmatic/alien, which only serves to make the story more intriguing rather than confusing.

The other characters are enjoyable, even though they are somewhat flat (to varying degrees). The humor is not as sophisticated as, say, The Simpsons, but it's never annoying, overly juvenile, nor over-the-top as it can be in most Disney movies.

By the conclusion, I found myself unexpectedly moved, thanks to the well-crafted sympathy-inviting character development. Despite the use of some standard plot devices, The Iron Giant is certainly a movie I plan to share with my future children, and one that I will enjoy right along with them. Highly recommended. Overall score: 9.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not terrible, but certainly below average.
8 July 2003
Overall, I thought this film was below average, even for a Disney kids' movie. I love the cartoon "Inspector Gadget." Unfortunately, I thought this film was a cheap hack of a vehicle mainly used to promote products like Coke and Skittles. (As it is, in the theatre I'm already sick of being shown commercials before the trailers. This isn't television, dangit; didn't I *pay* for this? Why weren't these ads booed away like they were in the 80's the last time the theatres tried this?) And why is it only 70 minutes from Disney logo to roll credits?

As an adult, I found the Gadget movie to be tedious in many places and largely lacking development. The slapstick humor, such as when Gadget accidentally grabs a man's crotch, generally did not make me smile even a little. However, I can see how this kind of humor would appeal to children.

I enjoyed some of the gags, like the "Minions Anonymous" bit, but if this were an adult movie, I would have been hard-pressed to give it a 3 because of the annoyingly overt product placement and the repeated direct address of the audience with references to Disney. (Not to mention my disappointment since the cartoon Gadget was so superior.) Disney has produced much better movies.

Rating this as a kid's movie, and considering the aforementioned issues, I gave it a 4.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yes, David Byrne *is* a musical genius
8 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I agree with what others have said re: the brilliant lighting, concept, etc. etc. etc. Also, I love Talking Heads music. This review is based on a viewing of the DVD.

Two things prevented me from rating this film higher than an 8: first, although I did find myself dancing and singing along, I wasn't really moved in any deep sense. Second, probably because the film was a composite taken from three performances given at the same theatre (which *did* allow for some innovative camera work and good editing) and was combined with some post-production music overlays, when I watched closely, I noticed a few places where the sound for an instrument or voice didn't *quite* sync with the picture. (No, it's not the off-stage vocal in "Heaven.") This happened a few times with the drums, in particular. I don't know if the sound problem was present in the original film. It isn't really all *that* noticeable (especially if you're up dancing around and singing), but it did bug me.

Overall I loved the film; it *is* the best concert film, and more. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is interested in good film, good music, or both. Also, I'd recommend listening to the commentary track if you have any interest in the Heads whatsoever. It's worth your time.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
R.O.T.O.R. (1987)
1/10
(Almost) The Most God-Awful Suckfest Ever Conceived!
22 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
After watching the first fifteen minutes of this "festering bowl of dog snot," I longingly wished that I'd been hit by a truck on the way to the video store. After suffering with fading hope through several excruciating minutes of a movie none of which was even 0.1% as cool as the videocassette box cover art, I watched the last 4/5 on fast forward, and it was *still* the most bash-your-own-head-in-with-a-brick, brain-numbingly, agonizingly *awful* piece of trash I've ever seen. (I make a special exception for Alien3 [WARNING: SPOILERS of series-spoiling elements in Alien3 & 4 FOLLOW], which, though not bad overall, will forever be my choice for worst movie because of the GLARING PLOT HOLE and contrived, character-killing plot devices at the start of the movie that COMPLETELY DISREGARD the plot, characters, and story lines that Cameron et al. developed in Aliens. I mean, really. There's an EGG on the Sulaco? How did *that* get there? The escape pod ... *broke* on landing, killing two of the most important characters? Everybody Dies? Argh!!! *sigh*) (And don't get me started on Alien4 and the whole Ripley-clone-automagically-recovers-the-dead-Ripley's-brain-contents thing. Sheesh.)

Anyway, back to ROTOR (but why bother?!): Completely devoid of "acting" - it was more like watching those animatronic dummies on the stage at Chuck E. Cheese writhe and jerk around after they're 1,000 hours overdue for their scheduled maintenance. As for dialog, imagine the same jerkiness translated into speech. Now conceive of a "plot" written by selecting random snippets from twenty seconds of Gumby dialog (a la Monty Python), and you'd still be imagining a less torturous movie than ROTOR. Even the "special" effects (think "special" as in "the short yellow school bus") were worse than the worst special effects on television. Transitions into "robot view" or "design view" or whatever they were trying to do were abrupt, discontinuous, and more amateurish than showing a spaceship waving around on the end of a stick. I'm still trying to figure out how to collect compensation from the production company for the hour of my life they wasted... and concurrently how to involve them in some appropriate form of torture. The existence of ROTOR makes a solid case for adding the "0" rating, and perhaps negative numbers, for movies at imdb.com.

But hey, I could be wrong! :-).
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed