pawtrax67 Reviews

Drácula (1931)

Different. Better in some ways, inferior in others

[10/10 · 14 September 2020]

Filmed in the evening at the same time as the Lugosi, in 1931. This time for Spanish audiences. Same marks (places on the set) as the English cast. Technically there are some better camera angles. It tells more of the story. However, the two parts that are better. Are Lupita Tovar, and Barry Norton. Lupita and Barry are more natural and believable. Manners and Chandler were a bit more melodramatic, and honestly, for the characters of Mina and Jonathan, they should have been more sympathetic and easy to root for. Norton and Tovar do a very good job. However the same can't be said for Villarias, Rubio, and Arozamena. It's not that they didn't try. Just few if any actors can top Lugosi. Had Universal been able to borrow Gilbert Roland, or an unknown that would have been interesting. There are some shots like the smoke and Villarias rising out of the coffin that look very good. Some shots are taken directly from the English version. It's not bad, just some scenes are almost bordering on comedy. (The breaking of the mirror, I like the concept of using the walking stick to smash the cigarette box. But the way over the top that is done almost ruins it.)

Lupita and Norton have good chemistry, and seem very natural. So it's creepy to see Eva getting vampiric with her fiancé. Great movie for film buffs. And an interesting take. But it's good, and bad.

Hawaii Five-O: Ten Thousand Diamonds and a Heart (1971) Season 3, Episode 16

One of my favourites

[10/10 · 17 July 2018]

Excellent cast. Great story. A heist caper squeezed into 51 minutes. You see the plan from start to finish with a few curveballs thrown in. Tim O' Connor plays a criminal "mastermind" that never goes after anything small. Nice to see police work being used, from marble dust, cigar ash, to bullets from a Luger with a long history of murder, to a drug to simulate a heart attack. It all pieces together. You are almost rooting for Orwell to get away with it. But McGarrett and company cover the angles. Enjoyable episode. Very re-watchable.

The Defenders (2017)

Good and Meh at the same time

[8/10 · 18 August 2017]

Yes, I binged watched all 8 episodes. I would agree with the critics the way they write Danny Rand he's a mixed bag, and the weaker part of the team. Personally I would have liked them to change Shang-Chi into Iron Fist. The supporting cast did great. I really liked Elodie Yung and Jessica Henwick, and of course Signorney Weaver pretty much never gives a bad performance. Charlie Cox, Mike Colter, and Krysten Ritter were all great.

Was it entertaining? Yes. Could it have been better? Yes as well. I don't think Finn Jones is a bad actor, it's just Iron Fist is as written is not a great character, and you just were hoping for more. The supporting cast, even in cameos were great.

It has an interesting ending, which of course leads to some speculation. I'd give it a B+. Check it out yourselves though.

Cat Feud (1958)

More great Chuck Jones moments

[7/10 · 3 April 2016]

First of all the previous poster, must be some type of Cartoon snob. Despite the Marc Antony and Pussyfoot as character names. The reality is the dog is a different colour and it put a similar scenario in a different setting. So what? It's still funny. It is more in a Road Runner/Coyote vein. It's a more realistic setting, and it's hilarious that the dog barks and the ears blow back with the wind effect of his barking. The kitten just ignores the barking and proceeds to show affection to the bulldog.

There is also listing of sympathy for the alley cat as he was just trying to get food. If you watch again, the alley cat is looking to get the food, and if the kitten dies, it doesn't care. The watchdog takes his job seriously, protecting it. Is it the best Warner Bros. cartoon? No. But it still has Chuck's facial expressions. And comedy along the construction site.

How the previous reviewer says its to be avoided at all costs. Maybe cartoons aren't for you then? Lighten up and relax and enjoy. It's better than a lot of drivel out these days.

Star Trek: The Next Generation: Relics (1992) Season 6, Episode 4

Great episode, but the writers are clearly Pro-Next Gen

[4 February 2015]

An excellent episode that should be a fan favourite. But the writing and some of the interactions on the show are nothing but disappointing.

First of all the title, Relics. This is a slap at the TOS basically describing Scotty as a has been, and no where near as good as LaForge or the Next Gen crew. LaForge is written entirely out of character, acting like an engineer on a modern nuclear aircraft carrier, talking with a cold war engineer. Laforge should have reverence for this man, as being the prototype miracle worker. On top of it, they paint Scotty as always over estimating his repair times, so he gets more respect. What??? I for one am shocked that Doohan would have allowed his character to be portrayed this way. The fact he was smart enough to keep himself alive by using a transporter in diagnostic mode shows Scotty indeed knew his stuff. The interaction with Picard saves this episode, comparing first commands or first loves of old starships and sharing a wee dram on the holodeck. The fact that Picard had to "chew out" Laforge once again shows how much Laforge was out of character. This could of been so much better. But the Next Gen writers had to keep their anti-TOS agenda going.

Wanted (2008)

Wanted....to walk out of the theatre twice.

[1/10 · 29 September 2012]

Yes this movie is that bad. Not art film bad like Eraserhead (Waste of beautiful black & white film). Just plain bad. Yes other Action movies have stupid and unbelievable scenes. I can suspend belief to a point. Curving a bullet trajectory? Uh..does someone understand physics? If it wasn't for my friend grabbing my shoulder and trying to get me to just try and watch further I would have walked out...twice.

The premise is plain stupid. The twist? Even more stupid.

But no, there was no thought, not even entertaining action. Jolie isn't good looking enough to carry the film. I actually was hoping the CIA would show up and liquidate all the characters in the film, because they all were basically retards with guns. No characters to identify with. No plot. Even an action nut needs some kind of story.

Next time Hollywood, pick a good comic book to use. Not awful ones. Then again they botched the Green Hornet too...

Magnum Force (1973)

More action than the first, but less suspense

[10/10 · 11 August 2012]

First of all, this is my favorite of the series. I edge it out slightly over Dirty Harry. It is a pity but basically the series ran out of gas after this film. There is lots of action, and a very interesting story. People who thought Harry was judge, jury and executioner (A line used in the movie) see that there is a line that Harry won't cross.

If there's one thing I'd like to gripe about it's the ending. I won't give anything away but it was disappointing. I'm not sure if they were looking for a more exciting ending, instead of a satisfying ending.

I would have preferred Harry using a .357 Magnum (As he lost his .44) to finish the job. The cast was great, and there's still discussions on if his friend Charlie was in on the conspiracy or just been on the streets too much (A red herring?).

Great motorcycles, great revolvers, action, some sexual content. (I wish I had women proposition me like that, then again it was the 70s and it is Clint Eastwood we're talking about!) An interesting story all make it a great (Maybe not perfect) movie.

Too bad the series started going downhill in The Enforcer...

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Not like this! NOT LIKE THIS!!!!

[1/10 · 13 June 2012]

When you see prairie dogs pop up in the first few minutes like a Disney film, that should have been the cue for me to walk out of the theatre.

But how? This is George Lucas. This is Steven Spielberg! THIS IS FREAKING HARRISON FORD!!!!!!

What did we get? Indiana Jones meets the Chariots of the Gods. How could Spielberg have allowed this steaming pile of camel dung to be chosen as "the script?".

I've read Indiana Jones comic books with better plot lines!

Writing: To say epic fail would be a compliment. Direction: Orson Wells couldn't have directed this and made it work.

Acting: Harrison Ford: Here's the guy I really felt sorry for. He was the only one in character. He was the only one giving the audience what they were craving for. One last epic ride for Indiana Jones. I hope he got a percentage of the gross because he was the only one that deserved it. Grade: A

Karen Allen: OK I understand, this is her first feature movie she's done in ages. But did she have to be giggling like an idiot in every scene? It was like she was thinking "Oh my God, I'm in a big budget movie! I'm so happy!". The chemistry Harrison and her had in Raiders seemed like a distant memory. Grade: D

Shia: I swear this guy is Spielberg's love child. How else does he keep getting work? He's pitiful as an actor. He was not cool as written. He was pretty hopeless, and I wish he'd been bumped off early in the film. Grade: F- and I'm being generous.

Cate Blanchett: Weak writing didn't help her. Could have been an outstanding villain but she really wasn't that menacing. Grade C-

Ray Winstone: What the hell? Triple Agent? Double Agent? Schizophrenic? Awful. Grade: D

John Hurt: You've got to really have a bad script when John Hurt can't even give a good performance. Grade C-

In short, unless you're one of those folks who watch a car crash for entertainment, or a glutton for punishment, just skip it. My Dad and I saw the first 3 Indy movies. I'm glad he wasn't around to watch this piece of trash.

If it was just another Hollywood flop/cash grab I'd be OK with it. Considering the time between movies, this was the best they could do? I basically consider the movie was a nightmare, and they just never made a fourth Indiana Jones movie. That's how bad it is.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

When Making a Star Trek Movie...

[3/10 · 8 June 2011]

A. Pick a director/writer who has experience and has a story to tell.

B. Don't copy one of the worst episodes of Season 3 and revamp it.

Basically, Star Trek V is "The Way to Eden", but instead of Hippies in Space, we get Ham in Space. The storyline is similar. The sad part is the characters much like in that ill-fated season 3 episode are completely wrong.

In The Way To Eden, Chekov was made into a neo-con, career minded officer. Spock was playing his groovy Vulcan lyre, Scotty was this close minded, establishmentarian, griping about lazy, no good young people.

In Star Trek V we have Spock with a half-brother rebelling against the logic of Vulcan and searching for the Supreme Being. (For a logical man Sarek seemed to get around a lot!) There are some good spots. But the humour was awful. The effects were plain bad. There was zero continuity. I actually felt sad for Takei, Nichols, Doohan, and Koenig as they were made mockeries of their characters and were the butt of the jokes.

Perhaps if the writers strike and a better budget weren't in the way this might have been a decent film. I'm not sure if anything could have been done with a pretty flimsy plot. I'm not sure if the whole film was simply to stoke Shatner's ego or what. Fortunately, they got it right on Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Merry Christmas 007....

[10/10 · 27 December 2010]

On Her Majesty's Secret Service had a lot stacked against it.

First of all to look at the context, Sean Connery got tired of the role of 007. So the producers needed a replacement. But, how in the heck to you send someone to match up to Connery???

Next, it was 1969. Movies were moving in a different direction. Spy movies were now becoming a mockery of themselves with In Like Flint, Casino Royale, and others.

So with all this stacked up against it, and a very merciless British media, what were the odds the first Non-Connery movie would be successful? Well upon release there was mixed-reviews, and despite the fact the movie cost $7 million to make and made $87.4 million gross, it was viewed as not as successful as previous Bond movies.

My view? I first saw the heavily edited ABC TV version, and figured with all the editing it really didn't make much sense, and although I liked the winter sports angle. But I felt well I guess they didn't want us seeing much of Lazenby.

Fast forward a couple of decades later, I pick up a box set of James Bond DVD's with On Her Majesty's Secret Service in it. Since I had only seen it once, I was curious to see if it was really all that bad.

What did I find? A great script, with lots of character development, and "gasp" real spy work done by 007. Lazenby played 007 not as Mr. Suave, saving the world type spy. But as a human being with real foibles and weaknesses. Diana Rigg was fantastic as the woman who is pretty much Bond's equal, and not as an air-headed bimbo who's there just as a notch on the bed.

The rest of the cast was great. The women were beautiful. Beautiful locations. And the action sequences were excellent. (For the exception of the sped up scenes and choppy action sequence when he meets Draco for the first time.)

There are some quirks (What Bond movies doesn't have them?). Why is Blofeld so intent on getting his title, instead of power and world domination? Why was Tracy acting suicidal? Why would bodyguards attack her and Bond? Why was M so antagonistic? 007 has saved the world and done big jobs before, why be so uptight about Operation: Bedlam? One other beef was probably just the fashions of Lazenby in the beginning of the movie. Then again it was 1969.

Overall I gave the movie 10 out of 10 as one of the best films. Yes, Telly Savalas was an odd choice for Blofeld, but he gives it his own menacing charm. I think the press should have issued Lazenby an apology, because for a guy in his first movie, he did a great job.

I like that the current Bond takes his cues from OHMSS. I'm just not sure if anyone could have saved the disaster that was known as Diamonds Are Forever. So maybe Lazenby would have only lasted one more film anyways. But I'm pretty sure the tone of Diamonds Are Forever would have been different, and perhaps better as just a straight revenge yarn, with diamond smuggling as a source for Spectre's criminal activities.

Judge for yourself. I felt it was an excellent movie.

The Musketeer (2001)

Average but better than some

[8/10 · 27 September 2007]

I for one don't understand how people can rate this as a 4 or less and then say Eraserhead is a masterpiece. The whole reason the movie was called "The Musketeer" is it pretty much has no relation to Alexandre Dumas' classic novel. The 1973 Three/Four Musketeers is about as close to the book as we're going to get. This movie the acting is hampered by really stupid dialog. It made George Lucas movies look literate.

The action is great, but completely out of historical reality, then again its a movie, not a documentary. Entertaining? Yes, I thought so. Not as much as seeing Oliver Reed and Micheal York. As bad as the lead was, he was Oscar caliber compared to the absolutely useless Chis O'Donnell in the 1993 version. Given a choice between the 1993 version and this movie, I'd take this one.

If you want a good swashbuckler, stick to Errol Flynn, or even Mask of Zorro. If you want Musketeers see the 1973/74 version. Better yet, just pick up the book.