mg! Reviews

His Girl Friday (1940)

Witty dialog, unsympathetic characters, no replay value

[5/10 · 29 April 2009]

Somewhere between Charlie Chaplin and Richard Pryor, I watched this film in its entirety as part of my college class in study of comedic films. (Not quite a dream class since the essays were difficult) When asked by my professor, I said out loud "I didn't like it." I cared more about the fiancée then all others characters combined. He was treated like dirt and I did not find humor in it. The film does glorify the two main characters and their rude personalities. And that's the point of the film. Their dialog is very witty, though (of course) scripted. In compliment of the film, it did keep my attention. However, I wouldn't want to see it again and with all honesty have more sympathy for characters of The Three Stooges.

Yes, this film is worthy to study use of comedy in film making, especially the history of.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Pirates of the Caribbean: The World of Tia Dalma

[6/10 · 29 May 2007]

Tia Dalma was the darling of Pirates 3. She was the center of almost the entire film, with the whole universe spinning around her. Personally, I think she was THE WEAKEST and MOST UNINTERESTING of every single character ever introduced since the opening credits of Pirates 1. She appears to have as much face time and lines as Captain Jack Sparrow. Johnny Depp's character was too few and too far between. The film makers tried to make up lost time by "duplicating" a technique ripped from the pages of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

It is a very, very long movie with a great deal of talk and serious discussion of pirate politics that was near NPR quality. Keira Knightley was wonderful to look at despite of her "Braveheart" moment. The plot was incoherent with a great deal of emphasis extracting sympathy of piracy as a respectable, productive profession out of the audience.

Still, it was not a miserable movie and any who enjoyed the first two will not regret watching the 3rd. With high production values, there was a lot to look at. Other supplemental characters truly pulled their weight and made Pirates 3 enjoyable.

Highs: Johnny Depp, Keira Knightly, Yun-Fat Chow, and most supporting characters, production values.

Lows: Talk, talk, talk. Not enough Sparrow, too much Tia Dalma. Infertile plot twists.

Score: Pirates 1: 8, Pirates 2: 7, Pirates 3: 6.

The Brothers Grimm (2005)

I like chili and chocolate ice cream but I would never eat them together

[5/10 · 2 September 2005]

Who you gonna call? Ghostbusters!

What the movie is about: Two humorous fellows who exploit folklore by conning locals they can banish witches, ghosts, and goblins. Hired by the French army, they seek out an evil presence located deep into a dark forest where encounter the real thing. By spinning together a variety of fairy tales ... behold a story of fantasy, courage, and heroism! It's a summer let down.

At first impression, The Brothers Grimm is a present day Ghostbusters. It's a fantasy/comedy dealing with creatures taken from myth and heroes, mistaken or not as con-artists who tame such spirits at the request of politicians. Instead of a mayor from New York, it's a general in French-occupied Germany who hires the team to banish evil.

There is where the similarities end. Essentially no character development exists save a reference to beans. And that didn't grow anywhere. The film jumps forth and back between humorous fantasy to all out spoof. Is it interesting? Somewhat. Is it clever? Never. It's "Monty Python" meets "In the Company of Wolves". I like chili and chocolate ice cream but I would never eat them together.

Finally: the "Gilliam factor". It's difficult to find positive reviews who are not apologists mentioning the director by name. Are there those locking themselves in darkness while the sun glows ever so warmly outside ... stalking IMDb hoping the movie doesn't rate below six? Is Gilliam getting extra points because viewers fear meeting him in a party and don't want to offend him? The Brothers Grimm is an interesting concept pasted together from previous ideas. It's a typical summer movie let down by its quality based on the price of admission.

Hide and Seek (2005)

Ask yourself first - do you want to be entertained?

[6/10 · 23 August 2005]

An interesting film, though unoriginal. Its more disturbing than the 6th Sense, it relies on the audience empathy with the lead character to legitimize the story. If you're wanting to figure out the movie before it ends, you won't be entertained.

"Hide and Seek" is like a detective story for the viewer who can resist skipping to the last page. It has clues and well as others purposely false. Granted, I over thought the movie. Watch the wife taking pills. Is she in pain? Is there a jilted lover? Who emotionally suffered worst from the loss of the wife? The ending is a bit long and cliché, so try not to think too much and enjoy the film. Watch the alternate endings on DVD, they're as interesting as the "twist" in the end.

The Forgotten (2004)

Mother defeats god-like aliens with ... LOVE.

[4/10 · 30 July 2005]

Forgotten is everything I was warned about. Intriguing until the awful ending. Because of the Sixth Sense, its fun to look for another but doubtful we will anytime soon. In the meantime we stretch our imagination a bit more, forgive plot convenience, and lower our expectations throughout the movie - but never the ending.

In a movie like Forgotten, it's not what but how and why. The movie lays out the premise quickly, very quickly. It lays out the acts: WHAT, HOW, then finally WHY. The simple plot sounds like a recycled X-Files episode: Government conspiracy surrounds child abductions by aliens.

But it's the ending we all talk about. The awful, awful, ending. It's the "Why! What were they thinking?" ending. It felt like an studio executive made a decision far into the movie to end the on an up-note without regard to continuity, story or plot. It felt like I *must* feel guilt if I disapproved the ending.

It was determined, the ending must be feminine and emotional. Those too male who disapprove should made to feel especially bad from expressing their opinion.

I don't think ulterior motive was to feel good. I think the motive is to make others feel bad if they didn't fall in line. Sort of like Telly.

For every person who truly needs a happy ending there is another who loses sleep because someone somewhere does not. The movie wasn't awful, just the studio edit ending. Many were swept out of reality. But I won't let go.

I defeat the happy ending with ... my humble opinion.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

If you don't laugh, a hitchhiker's fan will laugh for the both of you to save this movie from a poor rating

[4/10 · 1 May 2005]

It is sad when some in the audience offer contrived laughter after desperately waiting for something to laugh at that wasn't all that funny. And that's how I sum up the movie. Maybe they felt if they forced themselves to laugh louder the feature would be better received by others. Sorry, no. There was no story, no plot, just a series of skits joined together with spit and CGI. It did have references to the television series, but just enough to hijack the title. Hitchhiker's reminded me of a throw-away script for Men In Black 3. In many ways it has its feel. The best parts of the movie are the scenes with alien interaction. However I think MiB was a better movie though Hitchhiker's is currently much higher rated. I'm sure it is garnishing extra points from fans who waited such a long time for any movie that comes anywhere close to the book/series with the Hitchhiker title.

The film's opening is weak, dry, and absolutely uninspiring. Just minutes after spending $16.50 for two tickets, I lowered my expectations. On the other hand, Marvin the manic-depressive robot, is the best element of the picture. Alan Rickman's voice acting was good.

I admit those in the theater influenced my vote, and I rated this 5/10 minus 1 for contrived, insincere laughter. P.S. I did watch the TV series and enjoyed it but owe the producers of this feature nothing extra and looking for a more reasonable rating for this movie.

Gigli (2003)

Being seen walking out of Gigli - next great fad!

[1/10 · 6 August 2003]

This is America's newest cult movie. It was out of our idol-worship culture this beast was conceived. Why else would this movie and "From Justin to Kelly" be the worst two rated movies on this site? Even worse than Manos, the Hands of Fate. 10 years ago this movie would go straight to video. 10 years before that this movie would never been made.

Have you noticed? Openly hating this movie is now an "in thing". People are actually paying money to be seen walking out during the movie. After the Gobble-gobble scene of coarse, where the entire crowd mocks Lopez doing their own turkey impersonations. The entire theater sounds like a turkey farm on the day before Thanksgiving!

But she has her fans, who may be calling "Stop the J-Lo boycott!". They faithfully watch the movie, shake their fists and cry "U-Go girl!" after every J-Lo wit and worse of all boo and hiss anyone who gets to their feet heading for the exit.

The truth is, the movie was doomed with extremely poor writing and directing. Was it a comedy, romance, drama, action? No, it was an ego feeding frenzy. Our money, the main course. Ask yourself: if J-Lo was offered 100% of the ticket sales, would she be grateful or insulted? C'mon you know the answer! And that too is why critics and the general population showed J-Lo and company no mercy, and no $$$. (0/10)

Lessons I learned: A movie title that is not easily pronounced is not cute. "I am J-Lo. Love me!" is not a magical incantation to bring box office success. Greedy movie execs are too afraid of J-Lo and would rather lose multiple millions of dollars rather than stand up to her even though their opinions are reinforced by millions of movie goers.

The Hobbit (1977 TV Movie)

It's a musical!

[4/10 · 10 January 2003]

The animated Hobbit was made in the last days of its time (the 70's) where those who thought the answer wasn't violence but rather folk music.

The Hobbit was made for the children of the 70's with great care not to frighten or scare them into aggressive behavior when becoming adults. The producers went out of their way to reword and rewrite Tolkien in an occult ritual to revive him from the grave!

I hadn't seen it for years, (I was 11 when it came out) and recently saw it on DVD after LOTR parts 1 and 2. Instead of seeing a children's MTV movie for those ignorant of J.R.R, I saw an animated prequel to one of the best fantasy sagas ever made.

The evil "One Ring" in the LOTR, became a trinket of invisibility for The Hobbit. And I saw "Scooby Doo" TOO MANY times to recognize character voices which distracted me. But I did like how Bilbo met with Gollum and it was nice to see scenes I long remembered.

Be kind to those who made the movie, they looked out for you. They couldn't forsee the technology 20+ years later that made LOTR possible in all its violent glory. They wanted you to sing about peace and grow up with innocent imaginations about the "greatest adventure". (4/10)

Superman (1978)

A brave critical review.

[4/10 · 6 May 2002]

The reviews for Superman, do not reflect the overall score somehow. So, I'm going to be one of the few (if not only) contribute a critical review of Superman. Though there are lot of good things about the movie, I think its extremely dated. I thought Reeve was stilted and clumsy. Perhaps it was considered hip when it was made, just as Margot Kidder was considered sexy??!!. Kidder's role of Lane was self-centered, self-serving, and self-ego. She probably played herself. Perhaps a 1978 audience demanded camp. And unlike other comic book villains, Lex Luthor was not insane - but a criminal.

To be balanced, here is what I liked: Marlon Brando and the Krypton world. Life in Smallville with the teenage Clark. Gene Hackman as the over-the-top villain.

Many initial super-hero movies have simplistic plots. Superman is one of them. Though I'll buy Luthor's real estate scheme, I didn't like the execution. It's ending was contrived and the "I'll just go back in time" was eye-rolling. Why don't Clark do that in every movie?

A modern PG-13 audience, (filled with 13-year olds) are more sophisticated today than the adult that went to the movies back in '78. And perhaps that's why we may see "Superman: Reborn"

Do away with the camp, please.

My grade 4/10.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

Politically correct environmentalist babble

[28 March 2001]

If you haven't seen it yet - minor spoilers ahead.

I have the VHS-widescreen edition of LW. I hadn't seen it in a long while, thus I decided to watch it again. I remembered very little of it, so it was like watching it for the first time. First off, the magic of "Jurassic Park" is the hint that cloning dinosaurs could happen. If you accepted that, the rest of the movie was just fantastic. However, " Lost World" was nothing but two hours of "I told you so!", unable to finish the lecture from the first movie.

Yes, I want to gripe about this movie. It's full of flaws and really one-dimensional characters.

The premise: Whoops! There's site B - surprise!!! Dr. Malcom is sent to help bring back proof of the existence of dinosaurs? What did Dr. Hammond burn all pics and proof of these creatures? Did he dope up all the staff from the first movie and brainwashed his grandchildren? What about the lawsuits? Surely all the lawyers know.

The characters: Malcom's daughter's character was really unnecessary. It added nothing. I didn't read the book so I'll be forgiving if she was in there. The earth-firster who fought to defend an abomination of man against it's creator - was hollow. We get the idea. Don't trust anyone who walks upright. Got it. Got it. Got it. Guns are bad, even if it means you're going to be chomped in half.

Laws of physics: I don't care, I don't see how a teen-aged girl can kick a beast out of a window.

Did anyone notice, in the end CNN's Shaw refused to called the T-Rex's "dinosaurs"? Why? In the real world, if tigers or lions, who are endangered, kills people they are hunted and destroyed. In LW, they're coddled and sent back first class. Think about it, they're clones - an abomination. Just wipe them out and clone a couple more if you want to later.

JP was a modern day Frankenstein. Man was warned from creating creatures. However, LW became a Greenpeace lecture, man is warned from disturbing creatures (not just harming or killing). Even if man shouldn't of created them in the first place.

With LW in 1997 to "The 6th Day" in 2000, we see how differently movies approach the idea of cloning.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

You can fool yourself, but this movie bombed!

[1/10 · 31 May 2000]

Ladies and gentlemen, this movie was bad. The high-priced glossy marketing lured me into a rush-hour show that left me more disappointed the more I thought of it. Only Tom Cruise apologists can only be so forgiving. If he had run around a pink dress and clown make-up they would still call this work of garbage as a "rockin' movie!" The acting was poor as its premise. And I don't appreciate action scenes that rewrite the laws of physics. Even those who would dare vote a 10 of 10 on MI2 would have to admit the story was lame. (another inside job, oh the originality!), the end was per formula (with the villain getting what he wants but chases Cruise down anyway, uh why?) And the Tom Cruise's s-l-o-w--m-o-t-i-o-n--c-l-o-s-e-u-p-s was just t-o-o--m-u-c-h! Only those who want to see his gruntal facial expressions up close will appreciate it greatly (again with the pink dress). Here is my final summary of MI2: * story (lame) * love story (don't be fooled by the marketing, there was none) * action (summary: Cruise kicks, lands on back, repeat) * ending (yawn) * supporting actors (they took screen time away from Cruise therefore all but eliminated) * acting (Cruise with uncomfortable facial gestures) * direction (I Woo never watch any of his movies again) * taking of my money (very successful)

Pitch Black (2000)

How can a simple movie bring out such hatred?

[6/10 · 29 February 2000]

Seeing some comments, I really wonder how a simple sci-fi movie can bring out such anger. It's just a movie - and they have made worse (remember The Avengers?; now that's a BOMB)

It is true that Pitch Black is not for those who seek originality. It is filled with extremely one-dimensional characters and a thin premise. But non-campy, sci-fi movies are so rare that any credible attempt should be appreciated. (Unless you think Mars Attacks! is the highlight of film-making).

I was not disappointed because I paid a rush-hour price. But I understand those who were let down if they stood in line and paid a full ticket price. I give it a 6/10.

As a side note, I liked the direction when the movie was in daylight. It was different, and fast-paced. However it was a different movie in the dark. As if the director got tired.

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

A good made for TV movie.

[23 September 1999]

This is not a bad movie. However, for a theatrical release it was not worthy waiting 2 or so years production. Unfortunately, The X-Files, beat them with offering a TV quality story. I was expecting more action and tension. This after all was no more than a two-hour reunion episode.

I am a Star Trek fan, back to the original series. Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan is so far the best. But I'll list the things I liked about the movie. Picard acknowledges that the Enterprise no longer explores, and perhaps made a mention that these were "perilous times". List over. List of things I didn't like. Lame-O story. Yet ANOTHER time Data goes berserk and the Captain has to save him from being taken apart and sent to the nearest galaxy land fill. Yet ANOTHER time the crew of the Enterprise runs into a highly evolved society that can manipulate space and time. Yet ANOTHER time, the Captain can't seem to get the girl.

Singing scene. (but its funny, some say - right) Did I mention the originality of Data going berserk again. He may need androidal Prozac. This movie is worth no more than rush-hour if you're a Star Trek fan.

Good news, it was not as bad as Star Trek 5. (nothing can) Bad news, there may never be a Star Trek 10.

Angel Heart (1987)

Before The Sixth Sense or Devil's Advocate there was Angel Heart

[9/10 · 22 September 1999]

Because of its the film style, done in the late '80s. Angel Heart is not as polished as The Sixth Sense or The Devil's Advocate. However, it is just as shocking and mysteriously seductive. I had to watch it several times to understand all the movie's complexities If you watch Angel Heart after The Sixth Sense and Devil's Advocate, you'll see many similarities between the 3 movies. Even Mickey Rourke gives a very "Bruce Willis" performance. Right down to the smirk!

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997)

Studios wanted our money, they got our money.

[3/10 · 15 January 1999]

The studio cashed in on Mortal Kombat's success. They wanted to get as much out as quickly as they could. I loved the first one. The sound on DVD is excellent! When I saw MK2 at the theatre I missed the first 15 minutes. Then I rented it - paying $3 for the first 15 minutes and I walked away. How MK fans must of been shocked by the first 30 seconds alone. 1. The egoist Cage lingering silently in the background only to make a quick "exit" per se, and had his glasses broken (again!) 2. Sonya Blade losing half her hair and heaving much larger breasts (no complaint there). 3. And, oh my, Rayden (no explanation necessary)

Liu Kang still has problems with his confidence? Did anyone notice how often Sonya was on her back in the movie? She also dries quick when fighting in the mud. Jax - needs therapy.

Let me end with my (least) favorite line that sums up acting.

"Mom? You're alive!" "Ha ha ha! And now you will die!"

Batman & Robin (1997)

Joel Schumacher hates Batman

[4/10 · 15 January 1999]

Yes, I'm on the I Hate Schumacher bandwagon. Though I wish I could lead it. I'll be upfront, I liked Tim Burton's vision of the Dark Knight. It is dark and disturbing. Why not? In a world where there are Jokers, Penguin Men, and Two-face killers, it would be pretty screwed up. If you want bright camp - go watch Superman. I will give JS one credit, it opened my eyes what a director can do with a movie. Arnold was a brave, risky choice as Mr. Freeze and I liked it. Uma was fair as Poison Ivy. One was enough for a movie, but not both. Not to mention Batgirl! Haven't we learned anything from Batman Returns? Schumacher wanted camp, so badly he would destroy a franchise and bankrupt a studio. After all, he's always right, and millions of paying customers are wrong. Now it's time for my quick gripes: Batgirl is the commissioner's daughter, not Alfred's long lost niece! (Her introduction could have waited a movie or so) Alfred had more lines than Batman. Rename the movie to Alfred Returns. Bane was not supposed to be so wimpy. (and not a cab driver!) Now I'll attack the story, let's compare to Batman Forever: BF: Batman fights off two villains. BnR: Batman fights off two villains. BF: An employee of Bruce Wayne goes insane, threatens company. BnR: An employee of Bruce Wanyne goes insane, threatens company. BF: Explanation of villain on video (2-face) BnR: Explanation of villain on video (Mr. Freeze) BF: Wayne goes to fund raiser, event gets crashed. BnR: Wayne goes to fund raiser, event gets crashed. BF: Teen pokes around mansion, discovers bat cave, becomes sidekick. BnR: Teen pokes around mansion, discovers bat cave, becomes sidekick. BF: Movie ends with heroes falling to their doom. BnR: Movie ends with heroes falling to their doom.

My wish: Pretend Batman 3 and 4 NEVER existed, bring back Carrey and Arnold, and rewrite the movies. Sure it'll cost half-a-billion dollars! But the world would be such a happier place to live.

The Avengers (1998)

I know my girlfriend still loves me...

[2/10 · 15 January 1999]

I know my girlfriend still loves me because she continued to see me after taking her to this god-awful movie. You could hear a pin drop when the movie finished. Shame brought absolutely no eye-contact in the theatre from moviegoers. I take full responsibility giving the studio my money and I make a public plea for my apology and ask for patience with my therapy.

A quick summary what was good about the movie: It did have the surreal imagery of the '60 show, ie. the teddy bear scene, the snow storm. It did have the Steed-Peel imitations down - but it just wouldn't stop! It kept going, and going.... Connery was a good choice but he gave away the story too quick. Peel walks up to him and he goes, "Hello Mrs. Peel, I'm the villain." Peel's clone: too convenient. Winter's partner, Father: too convenient (an inside job, how original!) And was anyone else as annoyed as I at the end where there were close-ups after close-ups of Mother (and his dandruff, yuck). Why? I want to see Peel. But the camera was in love with Mother, why? Is there a God? The movie should of started how it ended, with the terrible twisters and unyielding weather. The world's in peril and Steel and Peel must save us. There will be no sequel. But we'll pray for a remake.

Steed: "I thought I was seeing double."

Peel: "That makes two of us."