Change Your Image
sap-4
Reviews
Deja Vu (2006)
Bad title...disappointment
The title is completely misleading. This movie has nothing to do with the feeling of Deja Vu (except maybe on the audience's part). This title caused me to expect that the movie was about something else, and I was disappointed because I was not interested in a time-bending movie. A more relevant title would have indicated what I was getting when I rented it.
Otherwise, the movie was okay but not spectacular. Denzel did a good job and the special effects were good. Story could have been more interesting. There are better movies on the subject of time travel, etc. but not much on deja vu.
The Miracle of Morgan's Creek (1943)
You have to suspend belief
In reference to another reviewers comment: "After all, Trudy only wanted to do the best for the boys going to a war where most of them wouldn't come back alive." Fact is less than 3% of soldiers (mostly army) would die. (Less that 2% of those that served died in actual combat.) Apparently Trudy may have had multiple partners. Or was it what we might now call 'date rape'? And if Trudy were driving impaired (not her car so probably uninsured) today, we'd probably not think it very funny either. But the by gone days of WW II, you can drink unsweetened lemonade (diluted lemon juice), hit your head, have sex, get a man to raise another man's children, and it's all in fun.
Red Eye (2005)
bad! Main message: customer is always Wrong.
A stinker. Unfortunately people so starved for entertainment think it was good and that Rachel McAdams is a great actress. Actually, it is a dumb movie with little plot and the acting is terrible and worse it is not believable. Yeah, sure, this wimpy girl is the main hotel big shot and cleverly defeats the terrorists. I didn't buy it for a second. Nor did I believe that a government official is so well paid to afford fancy champagne and politically dumb for insisting on illegal Cuban cigars... not to mention the jet and swanky hotel room, etc. I didn't believe that an 11-year old would be wide awake on an overnight flight. And most of all I did not believe that hotel customers (even regulars) would need to be pacified by two free hotel nights (at least a $200 or even $400 or more value) and still not be satisfied for their non-existent inconvenience. Not to mention that after checking in a mere few hours before, they are wide awake in the morning to complain again even though they could not fail to know that a missile had been fired into the hotel. Note also that the customer at the airport was also made out to be a jerk even though he was probably really inconvenienced and although Jack claimed the airline employee had "worked for 18 hours straight" he would have no way of knowing that and in reality the airline people would probably have worked no more than a regular shift. I really don't like movies that go out of their way to make ordinary people look horrible. The smug hotel manager looked arrogant to me, not the customers that I was supposed to think were terribly rude. I guess the film makers wanted to make the statement that the customer is always wrong, and the abused heroic young dedicated selfless 24/7 people-pleasing managers were always right. Hogwash.
When a Stranger Calls (2006)
better than original in parts, worse in others (not enough drama)
If you remember the original, after the psycho is caught, there is another half of the movie as he gets out of prison, is tracked, almost kills a woman from a bar, etc. Boring rubbish! In the case, of this re-make, all of that junk was wisely thrown out. Unfortunately, they needed to add another half of a movie, so instead of putting it at the end, they added new stuff to the beginning. Boring rubbish! Yes, it sets up the doctor's house, the babysitting, the blonde friend, the housekeeper, the step-son, etc. All of which are unnecessary. The main departure between the two movies is that instead of the children being killed, the housekeeper and blonde friend are. I guess that's better than killing off the kids. The security system was a good idea, but the high-tech house and housekeeper and the guest house are all distractions. One good point is that the babysitter is more responsible than in the original, because in the original, the babysitter NEVER checks the children. This babysitter checks them right away. At least that makes more sense. What the film-makers really needed to do is start the movie when the babysitter arrives and throw out the prelude with the carnival, the high school, the long drive, and the bonfire party. I suppose they had to update it to include cell phones, but I think people are getting very tired of the poor reception story. Next, lengthen the psycho phone stalking and stick only to that part of the story. This version just didn't have the same drama as repeated "Have You Checked The Children?"... "Have you Checked The Children?"... "Have you...?" We only get to hear the psycho say it once in this. Mainly, he just breathes. That's no fun.
The Butcher (2006)
Retread of other horror movies
If you saw the new version of Texas Chainsaw Masacre, Wrong Turn, People Under the Stairs, and a few others, you've already seen this movie. It steals scenes and almost line by line from these others. It is so predictable, I knew what characters were going to do or say down to their exact words a minute before they did just that. There's a chainsaw, there's even an engagement ring, bottled body parts, barbed-wire , and even the ending is a copied. Also, the acting, especially from the mother, is terrible. Absolutely nothing is particularly original. Do not waste your time. It stinks. And as a horror movie, there's not even too much horror. Also it is mis-titled. Was obviously supposed to be called "The Farmer" or something like that judging from what probably was intended as a signature line "It's Harvest Time!". There's no mention of anything connected to a butcher. P.S. Venom is a MUCH better movie.
Columbo: By Dawn's Early Light (1974)
unanswered questions
So who was the 'officer of the day'? Who took over cleaning the night before for the cadet? Columbo uncharacteristically does not ask these obvious questions. Usually he determines who all possible suspects are. Oddly, these are left out. He usually examines the question of intended victim and motives. All these are only slightly investigated. Furthermore, Columbo never calls his (never seen) wife at home to say he'll be staying at the campus for two nights. Some very odd omissions and not much of a climax either. Was 'old thunder' replaced? When did that happen? The only place the cider could be seen was near the cannon which supposedly exploded, so it must have been replaced. Nothing was said about this however. Very odd.