myrddyn Reviews

Starship Troopers (1997)

Saw it again; still no substance

[3/10 · 2 November 2000]

Before you ask, seeing this again was the price of maintaining a long-distance friendship.

I still can't figure out what Paul Verhoeven was trying to do with this picture.

SCIENCE FICTION ? Decidedly not. We're supposedly 200+ years into the future. Think back to the weaponry of, say, the US Revolutionary War. Compare it to current weapons. Now make a leap of similar magnitude beyond that, and what do we get? Heinlein postulated MI in powered-armor suits, dealing death in a dozen ways as personal as a punch in the nose. Verhoeven has our troopers still fighting with machine guns and hand grenades. No "smart" weaponry whatsoever, not even hand-held energy beams, and communication systems that are still blocked by canyon walls and bugged with static. Food service is still slop served with spoons from a heated aluminum tray. Bathing is still bar soap rubbed on by hand under a shower of running water. Finally, how did only 200+ years of immigration wipe out the genetic heritage of Buenos Aires? I see no influence of the original natives, only Carmen bears Spanish features, and nobody shows any of today's huge mixed-Japanese population.

THE HORRORS OF WAR ? Forget it. First of all, the technical and continuity errors left this a slapstick affair. Second, to get me to feel the horrors, you have to engage me in the characters. The shallow formula characters continuously reminded us that they're only cardboard cutouts of people. Even John Wayne got better character depth. Third, you have to engage me in the plot conflicts. Verhoeven needed to decide whether or not he had time to work on relationship tension -- four lines to work out a deep emotional attachment just doesn't cut it, and merely exposes the development problems. As for the war itself, we never get any real tension of battle or long-term planning.

PARODY OF WAR MOVIES ? Perhaps. War action scenes with stupid tactics even at the squad level ("They can spit napalm: let's bunch up!"), one technical error or discontinuity after another ... and after that's established, we have to suspend belief in *those* "world rules" whenever there's a mano-a-mandible close-up (note the changes in pace of battle and troop reaction time). Even then, some great foreshadowing and set-up opportunities go by unharvested, and the utterly superfluous shower scene defeats its own purpose.

SPECIAL EFFECTS ? Nah. The formula stuff in action films gets standard-of-the-art computer simulation; the day-to-day details are incredibly cheap. For instance, when Rico is recovering from his leg wound, they give him a huge floatation tank, some cute wound-knitting creature, but force him to breathe through a gas-can hose and lie inconvenienced for "three more days". At first, I wondered why their established Name Actor (Neil Patrick Harris) was shuffled to a peripheral role. I finally figured it out: if they hadn't, Dr. Doogie would never have let them get away with all the errors in human physiology. With Carl out of the way, we get the classicly hilarious brain-sucking scene and Carmen's Polyanna attitude some 5 minutes later (when she should be bleeding heavily while Rico radios for a medic).

Overall, "Starship Troopers" erratic, sloppy, and ill-planned.

Blind Date (1987)

Technically uneven, but fun

[6/10 · 5 June 2000]

Blake Edwards is in his element, but the script is too choppy for the cast to maintain a veneer of credibility. Nadia's motivations appear to be utter fantasy much of the time, taking away from Basinger's excellent portrayal. The various technical goofs and discontinuities should have been repaired before shooting began; instead, they go to the silver screen.

This should have been a career milestone for Willis and Basinger. Instead, the relationships are a few cents short in development, and the final product is a second-rate laugher.

Specific beefs:

(1) Ted and Nadia have separately warned Walter that Nadia can't handle alcohol. In response, Walter pressures Nadia to drink 2-3 glasses of champagne just before a critical business meeting.

(2) David rams through 3 storefronts during the movie, ending up covered with the store's product. Twice, this requires a right-angle turn, at speed, in the middle of a city street, caused by his merely taking his eyes off the road for 1-3 seconds.

(3) After each of these accidents, he somehow manages to track Walter & Nadia down at their next stop -- through LA traffic, without knowing where they were going. Also, despite these three storefront accidents, he punctures nary a tire (nor his radiator).

(4) In one evening during the work week, our lucky couple manage to (a) meet at her hotel after dark (b) attend an art show and escape from her ex (d) attend a taping session (e) get most of the way through a fancy business dinner (f) stop for gas (g) drive significantly elsewhere in the LA area and get mugged (h) and STILL make it to a society party in full swing. Given the daytime weather, this appears to happen in less than 5 hours.

(5) On the basis of one disastrous date, in which they rarely connected on a personal basis, Nadia and Walter decide they can't get along without one another and make life-changing sacrifices with almost no encouragement from the other side.

The Wonderful World of Disney: Annie (1999) Season 3, Episode 5

Slightly weaker than the 1982 version

[5/10 · 8 November 1999]

The role of Miss Hannigan was made for Carol Burnett or Bette Midler; Kathy Bates is merely above average for the part. Alicia Morton is good in the title role, with excellent mugging for the camera, but isn't any more believable as an orphan than Aileen Quinn was. Victor Garber has a wonderful voice for musicals, but his acting is quite inconsistent for Dady Warbucks, a classic Silas Marner role that requires very quick development. Overall, the cinematography, choreography, and set design felt as if they were merely adapted from "The Wizard of Oz" and "Mary Poppins", with perhaps a bit of "Beauty and the Beast" (Disney version) thrown in. When someone with a lot of money remakes a well-known picture, I expect a better treatment than this. It's worth 90 minutes to watch, but I won't see it a second time.

The Parent Trap (1998)

Used & improved on the original

[8/10 · 31 August 1999]

I read the book club paperback in the late 60s, saw the 1961 movie (note that this is *not* the 1950 original) in the 70s, and this 1998 remake last night. I enjoyed all thoroughly; the remake is the superior movie because it gave tribute to its forebears and built well upon the 1961 version. The most memorable cinematography from the original movie were reprised in the remake, and several points of acting and direction were improved.

I've long been a fan of Haley Mills (and her older sister); Lindsay Lohan has done an excellent job of studying both Mills and Patty Duke (several of the Hallie/Annie interactions were lovingly stolen from Patty/Cathy Lane). She acts like a young Jodie Foster, which brings credible depth to a role that is easily left shallow (ref. Olsen twins in "It Takes Two").

There were a few weak points. First of all, the first "tingly" scene, where Annie deduces that they're twins, has the slow timing aimed solely at the younger audience. This is one of the few points where the direction fails to accomodate the wide range of ages who will love this flick. Next, although split-screen technology is much improved, those of us who grew up with the play-my-own-twin genre get a little tired of the uncreative cuts and framing after about an hour; George Lucas taught us how to do better. Also, a "family" movie should not have a single word of vulgar profanity, but this version slips one in (the example is left as an exercise for the viewer).

In keeping with the 90s, the parents are much more developed, and Meredith is played much better than Vicki was, especially as she steals a few mannerisms from Glenn Close in "101 Dalmatians" (which origianl also appeared in 1961), and gets appropriately tagged for it. Not to be left behind, Joanna Barnes (1961's stepmother-to-be) reappears as "Vicki Blake" (Meredith's mother), and repeats her 1961 interpretation for an excellent cameo (as well as supporting Meredith's characterization).

I heartily recommend that you see both Disney versions of the film. Start with the 1961 version (or the 1950 German version if you're a real cinema lover) so you can properly appreciate the updating. Keep in mind that this movie was made in the "Ozzie & Harriet" days, when divorce was rarely discussed and a shame on the children, and movie characters could be rather well defined by a single tragedy such as this. Enjoy it for what it is ... and then see this remake. It certainly beats a Raiders-Packers game on a Sunday afternoon.

What Love Sees (1996 TV Movie)

Inconsistent execution lets down a great story

[5/10 · 29 July 1999]

This is a guaranteed heart-warmer about the romance and marriage of two blind people in the early 20th century. The screenplay is an excellent vehicle for the story, but the character direction comes up short. The supporting characters are generally formula reactions to the circumstances, bringing nothing extra that makes us feel they are real people instead of merely actors in the lives of the young couple. Also, the reactions of the main couple themselves are often tempered for some reason I could not fathom.

Some scenes showed that the supporting cast are quite capable of the pathos and execution the script deserved; for some reason, the director chose not to insist upon excellence in every scene. Because of this, the occasional critical scene or line would fall short of its full potential, and the overall product suffered therefrom.

That stated, do take the time to see this once or twice. It's a worthy way to spend a couple of hours with the family.

The Karate Kid (1984)

Classic formula, great until the end

[22 July 1999]

Pat Morita (Mr. Miyagi) and William Zabka (Johnny) are excellent in their roles; I hope they find Oscar-nomination vehicles some day. Ralph Macchio does a credible job as the protagonist, especially as he avoids maturing too much during the movie.

The classic formula is done well, although the bad guys are just a touch overdone for my taste. I've seen the movie 4 times over the past 14 years, and the story still holds up very well. The character backgrounds are good, nothing is overdone, and the movie progresses at a very good pace.

The movie's one glaring error is the ending. It works for the USer audience naive in karate-do, while screaming "SELL-OUT" to those trained in the art.

Faerie Tale Theatre: Cinderella (1985) Season 4, Episode 5

Delightful rendition of the classic tale

[9/10 · 2 June 1999]

This is the best of Shelley Duvall's high-quality "Faerie Tale Theatre" series. The ugly stepsisters are broadway-quality comedy relief, and Eve Arden is the personification of wicked stepmotherhood. Jennifer Beals does an excellent job as a straight Cinderella, especially in the garden scene with Matthew Broderick's Prince Charming. Jean Stapleton plays the fairy godmother well, although I'm not sure I liked the "southern lady" characterization with some of the lines. Steve Martin's comedy relief as the Royal Orchestra Conductor is quintessential Martin, but a tiny bit misplaced in the show's flow.

As is customary with the series, there are several wry comments thrown in for the older children (ages 15 and up). With a couple of small bumps, the show flows well, and they live happily ever after. Children up to age 8 will continue to watch it after the parents finally get tired of it -- I found 3 times in one day to be a little too much.

Practical Magic (1998)

A fun movie, despite a few weak points

[7/10 · 1 June 1999]

It appears that director Griffith Dunne tried to keep this film from being as powerful as it could have been. The movie fails to fully develop the town's overt fear of witches (missing only slightly), the full foreboding of "something wicked this way comes" with Jimmy (although the script lets them get away with it), and the magical love bond between Sally and Gary. A few small changes, such as more supportive background music, would have made these points support and counterpoint the lighter parts of the flick.

Bullock and Kidman are very good as the central characters, very believable as different-but-bonded sisters. Kidman is a little too flaky at times to be a fully credible witch, but this characterization runs well enough in context. Channing (whom I rarely enjoy) and Wiest are excellent in major supporting roles, outdone only by Webb and Wood (Sally's daughters) who show their abilities by *not* overacting their potentially cutesy roles. Instead, they do a great job in stating variations on their mother and Aunt Gilly.

Overall, I think most aspects of direction and production could have used one more iteration of quality improvement. Still, the movie is quite enjoyable, and worth watching again some time.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Wait for the rental: great FX, bad script, wooden acting

[3/10 · 28 May 1999]

SPECIAL EFFECTS: Nothing less than we have come to expect from Industrial Light & Magic. The close-up work, the computer-generated scenes of massing armies, the battle scenes, all stand up to pretty close scrutiny. The only true giveaway is that they are a little too perfect, lacking the sense of chaos from floating smoke, tiny variations in mechanical response, etc. This aspect is well worthy of an Oscar nomination, and probably another statue for Lucas & Co.

SCRIPT: The starting point for creation of a movie, and the weak link in most of the Star Wars series. The script is *supposed* to be minorly complex swashbuckling, but Phantom Menace is more like "Fan-Tome Minus". We have several prominent characters and at least 5 clashing cultures to build and resolve, but the script gives most of them criminally short shrift. The dialogue is unforgivably choppy. It was pretty schmucky in the original Star Wars, but consistent and smooth enough that competent, campy acting carried the show and made a legend. This script is a poor excuse for a plot outline.

CHARACTERIZATION: Weak, weak, weak. The Gunga and Naboo cultures are poorly developed cartoons of something indefinite. Two early scenes, perhaps 90 seconds of movie, could have filled out the two mass protagonists and allowed full use of Jar Jar Binks, Queen Amidala, and Padme. Note the hints dropped early in the movie to establish the reputation of the Jedi; then, note how similar comments are missing for the Naboo and Gunga. These are *major* lacks in the movie, especially when a couple of the battle scenes could have been cut by a few seconds to help the pacing. Darth Maul is a (expletive) waste, a plastic bad-guy ninja with no character and no discernible internal motivations, not even those inherited from his Sith master. Wasting a pivotal character on this two-shot plot element was a horrible writing mistake. If he is *supposed* to be a non-entity, support it in the surrounding characters -- the Sith master should make a comment like "There are more where he came from" right after the Jedi council question which Sith was destroyed. Similarly, Queen Amidala is poorly written. I was immediately looking around for the true Naboo leader. Padme was about as subtle as a bonfire under crepe paper. Finally, the Jedi council are not believable. I get no sense of The Force acting in that room, whereas the old Obi-Wan wore it like a second skin. Also, Yoda is the only council member who uses English in a distinctly different manner -- the others are Anglic characters in various shapes and colors. I get no sense of senior wisdom, no sense of arcane capabilities at work. Personally, I thought that the stupidest moment of the movie was near the end, when Yoda and Obi-Wan are alone in chamber. Yoda delivers the council decision ... but he's PACING THE FLOOR! Gimme a break -- I've worked in a "disagree and commit" culture. The senior Jedi master would not lose that much control and pace the floor.

ACTING: Wooden. There are a few individual moments of hope with Shmi Skywalker and Padme. Jake Lloyd gives overall reasonable life to his character. Ian McDiarmid sets a decent pillar for others to act around, but nobody picks up on it -- and he can't carry it alone in this setting without maturing his role too early for the long-term effect he has to have on the Star Wars series.

MUSIC: John Williams did a wonderful, classical job of matching themes and modes to the characters and action in the first Star Wars movies (although he pilfered the theme from a 1930s sound track, this, too, is somewhat in keeping with classical tradition). In FanTome Minus, he lived down to the quality of the script. Anakin is represented by simple juxtaposition of Luke & Leia's themes; this lack of imagination is repeated all through the movie. There is little variation on the early themes, and not much consistency in application. Why aren't those themes played for Amidala? The critical point of foreshadowing would have been when Padme and Anakin declare how much they care for one another, that physical souvenirs are unnecessary. *That* would have been the time to trot out a Luke/Leia contrapuntal sequence from legato strings.

I.Q. (1994)

Silly physicists, but fun

[5/10 · 28 May 1999]

The two lead characters are actually written and played well enough to save the overly silly script. Matthau has a couple of moments of believability, but knows enough to play a silly role as a silly person. If you have any respect for the history of physics and the reputations of the people who formed non-euclidean theory, leave it at the door. The movie is a nice love story, and worth the rental. They just shouldn't have gone so far as to claim famous physicists as the supporting characters; fictional brilliant physicists would have accomplished the same thing, and made the characterization better support.

First Monday in October (1981)

Excellent rapport between stars

[8/10 · 28 May 1999]

Clayburgh did a fantastic job of balancing Matthau's usual strong performance. The two struck a rapport that I never expected, and they ran off with the movie. I gave it an 8 instead of a 10 mostly because the script and cast couldn't keep up with them. Also, they have some weak spots when they go for light-hearted comedy. For me, the real shining light of the entire show was the way the two managed to continue an understandable discussion of the hot issues in jurisprudence of that time -- at least fifteen minutes of viewing are justified by that historical perspective alone. In short, it's heart-warming, well-acted in the leads, and technically tighter than most viewers would realize.

Hercules (1997)

Thin acting, inconsistent plot, good animation

[5/10 · 24 May 1999]

The animation is up to full Disney standards, but the writers and director need to be upbraided for not following through. The plot departs critically from Greek legend in most respects, but assumes that the viewer knows the legend in enough detail to recognize the Seven Labours. The music and the one-liners were excellent, but they merely made the flick worth watching -- they couldn't make up for the criminal lack of central action. James Woods did an excellent job as Hades, and Danny DeVito did credit to Phil, but the other voices needed more motivation from the director. Hercules came off as a clone of Aladdin between scenes.

When a writer violates The World As We Know It (real or legendary), the audience has reason to expect proper remuneration for our suspension of belief. This is true with Science Fiction, superheroes, or slapstick. In this coin, "Hercules" returns about ten cents on the dollar. There is rarely later justification for most of the changes. The Fates, for instance, could have been left complex and ominous instead of a frivolous interjection.

Finally, I was personally and generally offended by the rotten parent-child development in the movie. A "family movie" shouldn't show such frivolous disregard for any sort of family stability. I can hear someone crying "But we're dealing with Greek Gods here, by Jupiter!". No, we aren't: Herc's biological parents are shown as a stable couple in Olympus. Once Herc discovers he's not a regular mortal, he drops his adoptive parents out of the movie (except for a walk-on appearance in the final scene), and goes ladder-climbing after the parents who give him little to no guidance. I am a Disney fan, a step-child, and an adoptive parent myself -- and I was offended by the lack of treatment in the name of entertaining my kids.

The First Wives Club (1996)

Formula characters, good slapstick

[6/10 · 14 May 1999]

This is a good rendition of several formula situations: divorce, money, predictable antagonists, and revenge by the protagonists. The title characters are played well, but not consistently enough to pretend that these are career-defining roles. It's a good, light-hearted comedy for the family, unless someone in the family is recently divorced -- then it's going to look stupid. I put it in the same comedy class as "Sister Act", but not as deep or well-acted.

Fantastic Voyage (1966)

Good, classic SF flick

[7/10 · 14 May 1999]

This is a good, focused, suspenseful movie, a classic in its genre and of lasting interest. Since the Good Doctor was allowed to fix plot problems, this movie is pretty tight in scientific accuracy and consistent suppositions. This sets it *way* above the typical fantasy junk the studios foist upon us as "science fiction". On a small screen (like 17" TV), the grandeur of the effects loses something, and the movie develops slow spots. Of course, the effects of 1966 appear a bit tame against current technology, but still hold up well overall. Also, this being an Asimov/1960s combination, the characters are a little shallow, as the story focuses on roles and plots more than depth of characterization. This focuses the viewer on the adventure rather than complex motivations -- the simple roles are plenty to drive the secondary plot. The casting also supports the movie well: strong, established character actors in their accustomed range. For the intended audience of adolescent male science geeks (remember: 1966), there is Raquel Welch in a white, form-fitting uniform.

The Patty Duke Show: Still Rockin' in Brooklyn Heights (1999 TV Movie)

Good reunion for "Patty Duke Show" fans, but average for others

[5/10 · 28 April 1999]

The Patty Duke show was one of my favorites as a kid. "Still Rockin' in Brooklyn Heights" is a nicely done reunion, preserving the tone of the original show with appropriate updates. The main change is that Duke's acting has matured incredibly over the years, and her solid performance in both roles is what makes this piece work. The cast are comfortable reprising their old roles, and do a good supporting job. Duke does a good job of differentiating Patty and Cathy, much deeper than the shallow characters of the original show -- while remaining true to the originals. The movie has a few critical weak points that make it Yet Another TV Movie. First of all, the plot is merely a Disney-style formula from the 50s and 60s. No real surprises, simple characters, ending predicatble from minute 20. Penny Marshall as the antagonist is a cartoon villain (by the way, she's turning the school into a mall, not tearing it down), joined in shallowness by the principal as sidekick. Finally, the rest of the Lane family characters aren't augmented as much as Patty and Cathy over the years, and the balance suffers a little. Still, if you liked the show in the 60s, this is well worth the time. The cast enjoys the reunion, despite aging, weight, and a little trepidation over Duke's personal life back then.

Starship Troopers (1997)

Where's the Heinlein?

[3/10 · 10 August 1998]

The box in which the video came said "based on the novel by Robert Heinlein". Fortunately, Oregon has a basic Statute of Frauds, and the video store refunded my rental price.

The movie "Starship Troopers" lacks the book's character development, plot, motivation, terrene form of government, time line, character interaction, and literary merit. Instead of a government run by responsible veterans "simply because it works", the movie proffers an out -of-control fascist regime. This brain-sucking obliterates Juan Rico's personal development; that very maturation process is the cornerstone of the book. His rise as a responsible human being, culminating in his passage through the rigors of officer's training, is simply impossible within the context (I can't call two threads a "fabric") of this movie.

So, let's start from scratch -- assume that the Heinlein hook wasn't on the box. "Starship Troopers" still has no discernable character development and little discernible plot. There is simply nothing on the emotional or intellectual planes to get me personally involved with the movie. The special effects are excellent, but I can get equal impact from a fireworks display on the 4th of July.

However, this does not make a watchable movie, any more than a pyrotechnical display and a naked assistant make a great magician. When I come to see prestidigitation, I'm hardly satisfied with the distractions.

I'm disappointed that Hollywood can't seem to recognize a good story even when it bites them. "Dune" was overdone, underacted, and missed the mark somewhat. "Enemy Mine" was a forgettable hack job. "Starship Troopers" is a waste of good pyrotechnics.