johnmovies-3 Reviews

The Interview (II) (2014)

weak and horrible

[3/10 · 28 January 2015]

It makes me wonder if Sony didn't set up the whole thing as a hoax to get buzz going on this miserable POS.

Kim Jong Un has no reason to go after these people - they killed themselves in making this movie.

The premise is weak. The script is weak. The acting is horrible.

I tried, I really tried to give it a chance but about 1/3 of the way into the movie I could take no more.

When will the current crop of writers realize that loading a script with crudity is NOT humor. It is not wit. It is just a lack of wit and character of the writers. And actors should be ashamed to partake of such a script.

I could find nothing in this movie to praise. The current trend of movies and TV seems to be to say to the audiences "Ain't we clever, ain't we smart, ain't we young?" I am old enough to remember when movies had good writing, good directing, great character actors, great lighting and great cinematographers. This movie is a nail in the coffin of good movie-making. Stop watching this crap and maybe the west coast crowd will get the message.

Extant (2014–2015)

not up to expectations

[5/10 · 16 August 2014]

Spielberg, Berry and sci fi, how could it not be good? I found it to be rather dull, not much action and not much science fiction. I've also found it somewhat confusing - did it happen or not and flashbacks are gimmicks I don't much like.

It is not often that I watch 4 episodes of something and then stop, but Extant has not shown me enough promise to keep me sitting through 18 minutes of ads and an hour out of my life.

Mr. Spielberg's name on a project has, in the past, been enough for me but in the past few years I've been rather disappointed in projects under his name.

another line and another line

Why can't I be terse in writing reviews? Extant sure isn't terse, maybe it could use my help.

Les Misérables (2012)

Hollywood just doesn't get it

[4/10 · 20 April 2013]

I was unable to see Man of La Mancha on Broadway and was pleased when they made it into a movie. My pleasure faded rapidly. Peter O'Toole and Sophia Loren are not singers. Why does Hollywood spend all that money to make a musical and then not use singers? They did it again with Les Miserables. In even the opening song "look down" there were many notes missed. Of the primary stars the only one who came close to singing the part well was Russell Crowe as Javert. Hugh Jackman would be OK at a party singing beatles tunes but he does not have the strength or range for the role of Valjean. Neither of the Threnadiers (Helena Carter and Sacha Cohen) can sing. Anne Hathaway is a fine actress but has a weak voice with no range.

Visually it was a good movie but I did not watch it for the visuals. I watched it for the story and the music. The visuals are secondary.

Come on, Folks. this is a musical, with lots of singing. Why couldn't you find some singers who could act rather than actors who can't sing worth spit? I did not, thankfully, waste the money or time to see it in a theater. I saw it at home on DVD and found myself jumping through many of the songs as it was too painful to listen.

Four Lions (2010)

insipid, poor sound

[3/10 · 14 March 2011]

First, the sound is mediocre. This, combined with the heavy London accents, makes it hard to understand much of what is said. English subtitles would have helped. Sedond: I am not Muslim but if I were I would be very offended at a comedy about Muslims born in England plotting terrorist deeds against their native country. I am related to Muslins in the USA and know many others and I doubt they would find the premise a laughing matter. Next, I found it an un -funny movie. It is a series of events which are supposed to be humorous. They may be to a Brit but certainly not to me. To me they varied from boring to inane. Dressing up in chicken suits worked for Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder but it falls short here. They could have been in their jammies and been no better or worse. This is NOT Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World or The Russians Are coming. Bring back writers and directors who understand humor and farce. They seem to be sorely lacking these days.

Moonshine Mountain (1964)

loved the movie

[5/10 · 15 September 2008]

I saw this movie in Morehead City, NC when it came out and would love to see it again. It is a thoroughly enjoyable low B movie. The world needs this one on DVD. Compared to many of the A movies coming out the past few years this one shines. There was some really good humor in it. I remember only bits and pieces of it, such as the idiot drooling blonde sitting on the log who had a great voice, the stereotyped moonshiners and a body in the moonshine vat. The big city singer going into the mountains to collect music is the basic plot but it soon extends well past that. I do remember laughing my head off when watching this one. I'm now 40+ years older and wonder how I'd react to it today.

Centennial (1978–1979)

one of the best mini-series

[9/10 · 29 July 2008]

AT LAST!! It comes out on DVD today. This is one of the best miniseries ever. At 6 discs it is a long one but worth the viewing. Aside from the softness of the ending it is a well written, well acted, well directed and generally smoothly moving series with few dead spots. Robert Conrad is excellent as Pasquinel and Alex Karras does his best acting as "Potatos" Brumbaugh. Basically this work covers over 200 years in the history of an area in Colorado, the central town of which became known as Centennial, from the trappers and Indian wars to the early settlers to the modern ranchers. Mudh of it was filmed at Alamo Village in Texas but there are enough scenic spots used in Wyoming and Colorado to make it somewhat majestic. Do yourselves a favor and rent or buy this one. It is the best miniseries from a Michener novel.

Cloverfield (2008)

phewwww

[4/10 · 12 April 2008]

My first impression was a high-budget "Blair Witch" type movie. It was shot entirely with a hand-held camera.I found it incredibly dull on first viewing. I then read many reviews which raved about it so I decided to pay more attention on a second viewing.

The first few seconds tell us that this movie was recovered by the government in Central Park. We then go into 18 minutes of bad photography and inane dialog at a Manhattan party. At about 19 minutes there is an explosion and people start running around. The hand-held keeps on running. The rest of the movie is basically panic, people running around, screaming, more inane dialog (much of which is hard to understand because of ambient noises,) Monster movie? NOT. It might as well be an attack by a foreign power or a bunch of crazies.

Is this a realistic depiction of what it might be like in Manahattan during an attack? Yes. Does that make it a good movie? No.

A good movie requires a blending of many elements - Screen writing, acting, directing, cinematography. A good script should have a few basic elements such as meaningful dialog, plot, character development. This movie falls way short on all these factors.

If you liked the art films of the 60's you might like this. Otherwise don't waste your time

A Girl, Three Guys, and a Gun (2000)

sloooow

[3/10 · 30 March 2008]

Based on the comments above I rented the movie. If it was a gem, perhaps it was garnet. It was in the Comedy section at the rental but I found no laughs in it, not even a chuckle. I would put it on the low side of m mediocre. Early Henstridge, otherwise nobody I've heard of in the movie. The acting was sub-par, everything was predictable except the actions too irrational to be expected. Basically three half-wits hold up a bingo parlor and get away with a few hundred bucks to cover a trip. then their car breaks down and they steal one belonging to a couple who were out necking. They bring along the couple. a few "zany" events ensue.