im_veritas_photo Reviews

Interceptor (1992)

You Have Just Got To Be Kidding! Give Me A Break!

[2/10 · 26 April 2010]

This flick gets two dubious "awards" from me: 1) Most Loopholes of Any Movie Award, and 2) Most Predictable, Dumbest "Plot" Award.

I can't count the number of loopholes. I won't waste my time (or yours) by trying to list even a small part. They ruined what should otherwise have been a "just-drop-thinking-entirely-and-enjoy-an-action-flick" experience. The loopholes were just too intrusive for anyone, even one with only a few active braincells like me.

Here's the plot. SPOILERS. MANY SPOILERS. Experimental fighter plane pilot appears to screw up, although he claims it was an equipment failure. He heads home for an inquiry, just happening, by strange chance, to be riding in a transport plane which can, miraculously, hold two flight-ready experimental fighters within it. And it does, indeed (or within Hollywood "reality") hold both of them.

Terrorist band ruthlessly kills many, many U.S. Air Force folks on the way to boarding transport in mid-air, to capture said experimental fighters. Head terrorist, the chief murderer, is, inexplicably, fully capable of flying these experimental fighters, and using the virtual-reality helmet, which just happens to be the equipment which doesn't work too well. Head terrorist has an assistant, call him Vice-Head Terrorist, who is equally qualified.

Extremely attractive female transport pilot, a Major, becomes allied, of course, with the fighter jock. They manage to, miraculously, kill every terrorist, trashing one transport and one experimental fighter in the process. Two Air Force pilots, one female, the other male, limp off romantically into the Australian sunset.

Other user reviewers said things like, "Surpisingly Good," "My Favorite Movie," etc.

Are You Kidding Me? Give Me A Break!

The Contractor (2007 Video)

"The Contractor" Fuels One of my Worst Flick Fears

[2/10 · 21 March 2010]

I once used Wesley Snipes' name as a clue to go ahead and watch a new, untried film in which he appears. So now, for the first time, my Snipes-Method of film recommendation has failed. Utterly. I should first have come here to see these reviews.

Snipes ought to be ashamed to allow his otherwise earnest efforts to be so wasted in "The Contractor".

One of my worst flick fears has come to bitter fruition. I feared that the shaky, blurry, pseudo-documentary, "unconsidered" directing and editing style (first brought to my attention by the Paul Greengrass-directed "Bloody Sunday") might propagate to other films. Greengass' sickening style was then brought to nauseatingly new heights in the last two of the Bourne trilogy films. My fear had come to pass. In my opinion, these films are made really bad by these motion-sickness-inducing methods, which mistake blurry swipes for "action-enhancement". But the "Bourne Franchise," as Greengrass so loving calls his cash cow, apparently convinced others in Hollywood to go unprofessional in the quest for fast, big bucks.

Read my lips, you Hollywood types. Action needs to be clearly photographed and presented, not merely hinted at by poor, lazy cinematographic techniques.

And "The Contractor" goes so far as to emulate "The Bourne Ultimatum" in inanely-repeated sound bites, in hopes their juvenile (apparently-evaluated) audiences can't sense them. For example, if I hear a cop radio crackling "Yankee-Romeo" one more time, I'll just scream. The chances are good I won't hear it again: I certainly won't ever view "The Contractor" again.

I recommend to those of you who have yet to see "The Contractor": just be content with the tranquility this lack affords to your life.

2 out of 10; I am tempted to lower that to a 1.

Starship Troopers (1997)

An Erstwhile Political Satire That Takes Itself Way Too Seriously

[2/10 · 12 January 2010]

This is, without a doubt, one of the worst films I have ever seen. It milks every cinematic- formulaic emotion to the absolute hilt... and beyond. It fails miserably on every score except one: the prurient appeal to extreme violence, which permeates it from its inner core to its outer (arachnoidal) exterior shell.

Here's the core of my disgust: I kept waiting for the obviously over-the-top asides from "Federal Central," internet-style ads (meant as propaganda), to be revealed as a gigantic hoax put on by evil global-political dominators to reduce the population of a crowded planet (ours) by shipping much of it off to outer space to fight a fictitious enemy, and then secretly eliminating all of them. The Starship Troopers, that is. As a nefarious side-effect, this would cement their control of Earth by making everyone believe they had to group together under these dictators, subservient themselves to them, to better fight a hated enemy they believed would destroy Earth entirely.

Not exactly an original idea, but wouldn't it have worked well here? But it never came; there is no relief. Zilch. Nada. Zero. This cesspool of a film believes in its own juvenile claptrap to the point where it becomes absolutely real, completely unending , and forms a living cinematic Hell for all of us. No relief. Ever. The very concept is completely nauseating to anyone with a mind of greater capacity than a bug. (Sorry, I just had to say it).

I'm ashamed to admit that the violence factor got my interest enough to give it a two, rather than a one.

One question: What is Neil Patrick Harris doing as a hired actor (with a completely unbelievable role) in a movie so horribly bad? Shame, shame on you NPH; I no longer believe in your integrity. What a bloody sell-out!

Excalibur (1981)

Makers of Obviously Fake Plate Armor Unite!

[1/10 · 30 November 2009]

How could any film-maker possibly come up with a more sleazily-Hollywooded (in the worst sense) version of the Arthurian Legend? Answer : I doubt anyone could outdo this film for being in bad taste, being crammed full of historical and literary inaccuracies, being full of over-the-top melodramatic claptrap, replete with a complete lack of common sense. This film is an absolute waste of any viewer's time. I just could not believe how terrible it was. Is. Every actor, except the one playing Morganna (and she even falters on occasion), cheerfully mistakes intense voice-breaking volume for earnestness. This includes, worst of all, the actor ineptly playing the pivotal part of Merlin. People shouting at each other for the entire length of the film gets very old, very quickly. People, go watch something else. Almost anything else is bound to be be better than this.

The Devil's Own (1997)

Hard To Rate --- Flawed, But Ultimately Worth Watching

[9/10 · 10 August 2009]

I watched this film on Netflix. That becomes important only when I say that I cut it off exactly halfway through and went to bed, muttering, "... Why can't they make this thing move a little faster?".

I was disgusted with the slow pace, which just seemed to get ever slower as I watched.

I am not talking about some guy-flick action-all-the-time reaction. The pacing really slowed to what was, to me, an intolerable crawl in mid-film, using anyone's definition. I was genuinely surprised that Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt would agree to star in such a dramatic plodder.

But, days later, I fired it up on my computer again, vowing to plod through the remainder. Mere masochistic stubborness, I suppose.

It never got up to a really quick pace from mid-flick on, but the emotional impact just knocked me over.

This is a great film, taken as a whole.

Be patient; let it play out.

Negative reviews are here, some denigrating the lack of understanding of the Irish Troubles.

They are wrong; this film does a better-than-average job of, at least, trying to depict the intricate complexity of modern-day Ireland and its Problem.

Kudos to the whole crew.

Watch this film, be patient, and you'll be rewarded for all time to come.

I'm not overstating things.

The Snow Walker (2003)

One of Those Gems Which Never Made The Big Time

[10/10 · 1 July 2009]

This is a rarity. Absolutely brilliant. A gem which never made the Big Time, but it certainly should have. How wonderful to find and view such an unfortunately-neglected masterpiece!

You will never see a more apt cinematic environment for the John Gillespie Magee, Jr. Poem, "High Flight":

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings; Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth

of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of—wheeled and soared and swung High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there, I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung My eager craft through footless halls of air.... Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace Where never lark nor even eagle flew— And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod The high untrespassed sanctity of space, Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

The story upon which the film is based, "Walk Well My Brother," by famous Canadian author Farley Mowat, is completely fictional. But never have I seen such a story (and its film) ring so true-to-life. It surely could have been true. Maybe it _should_ have been true, but then it would have been so bitter-sweet it might be almost unendurable.

Farley Mowat is quite a character. His appearance on the DVD "extra" track is interesting and fun.

As the male lead, Barry Pepper, states: This is a purely indigenous Canadian story, and it needed a real Inuit woman as female lead. Young Annabella Piugattuk, as "Kanaalaq," was chosen out of 100 candidates. The two leads are absolutely brilliant. Mowat expressed his amazement at how they so faithfully fulfilled his vision of the central characters in this remarkable story.

Charles Martin Smith wrote the screenplay, and directed the film. Kudos of the maximum degree to him; his job is without flaw. And the film score is sublime beyond description. Thanks, Mychael Danna. Wow.

I kept thinking, for some reason, this ought to rated a 9 out of 10. No. It is a 10, and deservedly so. It passes all my tests for film perfection, so give it its rightful due.

Just superb. A family film all will enjoy for a long time to come.

Rounders (1998)

Good Acting Rescues an Otherwise Niche-Market Drama

[7/10 · 14 February 2009]

"Rounders" is, actually, almost entirely enjoyable. The actors give you most of the enjoyment; a very good music score adds quite a lot. But, unfortunately, the screenplay hardly helps.

No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em is supposed to be the real star here, I guess... But most of us will just dismiss this as poker hyperbole. "The Cadillac of Poker" is a title I do not respect; I don't even like Cadillacs. The game is the all-surrounding ocean in which the actor-players swim, but it is just... a... game... after all, folks. Yeah, the cameo appearances of real-life Poker All-Stars (so-called) are supposed to awe us. Sorry; I'm not at all awed. Their whole life is, I think, mere sleaze.

But there is an impressive list of top supporting actors: Gretchen Mol, Martin Landau, John Malkovich, Edward Norton, John Turturro... All provide a fine foundation for Matt Damon's great job in the leading role. These good folks help to rescue the viewing experience.

I finally figured out why I always like watching such films as "Rounders, "The Hustler," and "The Color of Money". Objectively, all movies of this kind just over-glorify games to the point where they take on life-threatening proportions. I know better than to gamble, but these films deliver vicarious thrills without the dangers.

I bought this DVD at a $5 cut-out bin. Just the right price. Enjoyable, even with repetition. 7 out of 10.

Eragon (2006)

Eragon : Only A Few Redeeming Characteristics

[5/10 · 12 February 2009]

A true introduction: Once upon a time, though not so long ago, in a Far-Southwestern Wyoming High-Desert town, a once-proud theater burned. Essentially gutted, its ruined walls still precariously half-stand. Its roof is gone; the winter snow on the sloping floor is stained grey with the ashes left behind. Even the name of the business was eradicated, but one readable item remains, a movie poster in a somehow-still-intact glass case facing the street: "Eragon".

It is said that this movie Eragon stems from the first book of the Inheritance Trilogy, written by Christopher Paolini. The entire structure of the film indicates planned followups, the 2nd and 3rd parts to come on film; I don't think anything has been done with these plans. After seeing this jewel, I personally don't care if this as-yet-unsequeled situation remains forever unchanged.

This is a film of very mixed blessings. At times, the dialog is sublime; at other moments, it makes the worst Hollywood hack-written scripts seem positively wonderful in comparison.

The production values are, I think, better than average. There is a really fine musical score. I usually dislike computer-graphics in most films, but these are better than just acceptable to me.

Eragon was filmed, apparently, in Hungary, Slovokia, and British Columbia. The mountain shots, very nicely done, bring to mind the New Zealand mountains of the Lord of the Rings films, but these just don't quite equal LotR. As a matter of fact, once those comparisons begin, Eragon just comes off as a second-or-worse-rate swipe at the Lord of the Rings, in so many ways. I think the LotR series is not nearly as superb as do other folks; but Eragon isn't even that good.

The actors range from fine to those who can only be described as wooden-faced, monotonic, emotionless, stumbling mumblers.

Jeremy Irons has a big part as a forcibly-retired dragon rider; I think he brings much class to an otherwise mediocre film. Unfortunately, the script has him killed off two-thirds of the way through; too bad, it only went downhill from there.

John Malkovich, always good as bad guys, is fine in his bit part: the evil king Galbatorix (where did the writer come up with these ridiculous names), bringing as much professionalism to his part as humanly possible. But he is eclipsed by Robert Carlyle as the hyperbolic meanie Durza, Galbatorix's right-hand-baddie. Carlyle brings the appropriate amount of campy, over-the-top, demonic evil into this sword-and-sorcery (-and-dragon) epic.

Impossibly handsome young Edward Speleers, in the lead role, undoubtedly appeals to pre-pubescent females, and to those with IQs and hormonal levels of that ilk. I give him fair-to-good marks for his acting, but it's just wasted on this juvenile pot-boiler.

It is ironic that the best actor in the film is, for me, the made-totally-by-special-effects dragon, Saphira, voiced so well by actress Rachel Weisz. Are all dragons female? So this movie implies. But, of course, that begs the question: How are dragon eggs made? Oh well... There are thousands of never-to-be-resolved questions of this nature engendered by the seriously-flawed script.

So, all-in-all, this is a bad-to-good-to-flawed film that is, nonetheless, fun to see at least once. One viewing is all of Eragon that most folks can tolerate. 5 out of 10.

Concert for George (2003 Video)

Production: Superb! Content: Unbeatable!

[9/10 · 15 October 2008]

I have rented two different DVDs covering this 29.Nov.2002 event. I have been bowled over by all of it, with only a few minor exceptions.

I have always thought that the George-Harrison-written songs were, by far, the best of the Beatles' big catalog, and his solo career song-writing and performing after the breakup of that seminal group need take a back seat to no one.

These DVDs prove my hypothesis. Exhibit A. No other evidence required, in any court of musical fame. These are truly GREAT!

Spoiler: I was aggravated at the appearance of the female backup vocalists in this event. They seemed to be vying for Self-Aggrandizing-Tart-Of-The-Year honors. The men were, for the most part, understated and played as a team, as befitted this Tribute for a deceased great musician; almost all performed without intrusive egos.

Some of the women, however: Another story entirely. Sam(antha) Brown performed a knock-out lead vocal on "Horse To The Water" (George Harrison / Dhani Harrison), but her attire was so over-the-top ego-driven in-poor-taste, this definitely detracted from the cut. This, after all, was supposed to be a tribute to Harrison, not a low-brow contest to see which female could dress as close to a night-walker as possible...

So, If it weren't for that niggling item, I'd have rated this a ten.

Anyway, I'll most likely BUY these DVDs, a drastic step for me. This is because every song just gets better and better every time I watch it.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Harry Potter Needs to Cultivate A Bit of Common Sense

[5/10 · 23 January 2008]

Order of the Phoenix: Production and acting: very fine. Music: very good; sound and special effects: superb; and it is easy to enjoy all the well-formed characters.

That is the absolute full extent of my praise. The screenplay for this fifth Harry Potter movie needs more than just a bit of critical review. As a matter of fact, the plots for each entry in the series seem to be getting progressively poorer.

Why would anyone in their right mind continue to live with Uncle Vernon, Aunt Petunia, and totally spoiled brat (and sadist) Big Dudley Dursley? My answer: The authoress needs a dramatic fulcrum, and some comic relief, to start each episode. Otherwise, I do wonder about Harry's lack of common sense in this issue.

Why doesn't Harry Potter just take steps to effectively neutralize Lucius Malfoy and his son, spoiled brat (and sadist) Draco? Through how many more spoiled, sadistic creeps must the audience suffer? After all, Lucius is known to be in league with He-Whose-Name-Cannot-Be-Uttered. My answer: We need all the villains we can get, no matter how illogical it is to keep them around. Actually, the villains seem to have longer life spans than the heroes in this series... Is there a moral pattern here?

Daniel Radcliffe was 17 years old when this film was released; Harry Potter is supposedly at least a year younger than that in this episode. Close; nothing a short haircut and owlish spectacles cannot help. Emma Watson plays Hermione Granger; just the right age for her character. Rupert Grint was 18 at the movie's release; he's beginning to look a bit aged for his part. Why don't they get new actors, or stop producing the series now, before these actors start to appear markedly aged? Answer: What? Lose all that fan base, and all that money? Sorry, what was I thinking...?

Why did J.K.R. have to announce to the assembled press corps of the world that Professor Albus Dumbledore is (fictionally) gay? What purpose did she have in doing that? Does that have any bearing on the story? Apparently not... (but future movie screenplays may tell)! Should parents warn their children about this useless fictional fact before the tykes partake of the books or movies? This does nothing to enhance anyone's enjoyment of the series, but it does, I fear, change my view of it, and cast niggling doubts about whether the authoress is in her right mind...

5 out of 10. The Harry Potter series seems to follow the apparently immutable rule that sequels cannot possibly be as good as the originals. Too bad this series is, apparently, no exception.

Fight Club (1999)

Great Comedy, with Interesting Twists

[9/10 · 11 January 2008]

Theory: The entire population of Planet Earth can be divided into three groups: 1) Those who categorize "Fight Club" as a true comedy, 2) Those who think "Fight Club" is something other than comedic, and 3) Those who have yet to see "Fight Club".

I'm in group 1). Seriously, folks, if you miss the humour of "Fight Club," you're too darned serious for your own good, and you're missing much more than half the content here. It is a very, very funny movie. You might think the jokes rather dark, but after a short while I forgot about the humour's blackness, and just laughed out loud at the pervasive hilarity.

This film is not really about young-adult-male-on-male fisticuffs. Although there is a lot of that in there, it is not really the central theme. Yes, those who named the film put another joke over on all of us. But it kind of backfired on them: That misleading title most likely prevented "Fight Club" from garnering more well-deserved film-industry awards than it did.

Once I say that the acting is truly superb (especially from Edward Norton and Helena Bonham Carter); and that the screenplay makes a fine plot, just full of interesting twists and turns; and that the production values are top-notch... Well, there isn't much more to say about this movie, as far as I'm concerned. In a good sense.

What really intrigues is the way this film makes me think about other works of art that might be comparable. Here's a rather trivial example: Consider "Forbidden Planet," a sci-fi flick released a full 43 years before "Fight Club". Yeah, the one with Robbie the Robot. A definitely schlock-ridden film, but it had a fine central premise: Left-over "ancient" technology of an alien planet sensed the monsters resident in the ids (that's as in brain theory, folks, not "identities") of the humans investigating the place. They are attacked by their own brain waves made real. Took them a long time to figure that out.

To me, "Fight Club" is a work of art that invokes memories of prior art, emerging to become even more superior with every invocation.

So good, I might even buy the DVD, rather than just renting it. Loved it. Nine out of ten.

The Color of Money (1986)

Scorcese, Newman, and Cruise --- Great!

[9/10 · 7 January 2008]

I love this film. Paul Newman puts in an understated, masterful performance. The "Werewolves of London" scene is full of happy Tom Cruise energy. I didn't realize, until just recently, that Martin Scorsese directed this movie, but another viewing shows what a fine job he did.

"The Hustler" is a true ahead-of-its-time gem, and not only because of Paul Newman; I've always thought that Jackie Gleason, George C. Scott, and Piper Laurie really helped to make it a masterpiece.

"The Color of Money" is perhaps the best "sequel" ever, even if it showed up a long 25 years later, and even though it bears scant resemblance to its "Fast Eddie Felson" predecessor. This is a fine team effort, and it shows it.

Thoroughly enjoyable. I watch it often. And I can't say that about many films!

The Crow (1994)

Among the Worst That Hollywood Has to Offer!

[1/10 · 3 January 2008]

I wish there were a zero rating on IMDb. The movie industry ought to have a "Toxic Waste" rating, the kind that damages our society with absolutely no chance of cleanup. Yes, I believe that The Crow is the Love Canal of movies...

I can't believe this motion picture was directed by the same person who directed "Dark City." If I had seen The Crow (an earlier film) first, I would never have viewed Dark City, and that would have been a shame. The two don't belong on the same planet... They truly don't reside in the same universe. The only thing I can figure: The Crow came out of Hollywood, while Dark City came out of Australia.

Regardless of what Roger Ebert says about The Crow (he called it "good" ?), to me it is the worst piece of ultra-violent dreck I have ever seen, even including "Narc," the only other film I've rated a "1" here. Both richly deserve a complete zero. I detect a pattern here: Both films' stories take place in Detroit. Moral: Never watch any film whose setting is Detroit! The Crow is genuinely scary to me, but not in the way you might imagine. I think the horribly ultra-violent spirit of the film, completely unrelieved throughout (no matter the insipid, unbelievably saccharine "good guys win" ? ending) contributed directly to Brandon Lee's death. How else can you explain something as bizarre as a "blank" movie-prop round killing someone during the filming of a motion picture? It is obvious to me that so many (way-over-the-top many) "blank" shots had to be fired at the (so-called) "hero" that this must have contributed to Lee's death. Someone said this film is a fitting memorial to Lee. Indeed. No further comment required.

Even the music during the ending credits: "It Can't Rain All the Time," or whatever it's called, is nausea-producing garbage. The singer is horribly flat (pitch, that is). Just listen to it, if you dare; it is totally forgettable trash. Thank heavens it has been forgotten! I made the mistake of starting to play the comment track by the Producer and Screenwriter. I do wish English grammar allowed me to de-capitalize their titles. I think they are quite demented, totally out of touch with reality... I believe their warped view of the world has caused them to descend into the depths of self-aggrandizing insanity.

People: Do not view The Crow, ever. Unless you like flirting with brain-damaging toxic waste. If you let any teenager view this film, it should be considered that you should be jailed for launching sociopathic violence on the rest of us.

Thank Goodness I watched The Crow only once. I am hoping that Time Will Heal All Wounds.

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

My Ultimatum: Don't Ever Make Me Watch a Paul-Greengrass-Directed Film Again!

[6/10 · 26 December 2007]

I do like Matt Damon in most of his films, and as the lead actor in the three Bourne Films. The supporting actors are uniformly fine. The music is also fine, although I did get just a bit tired of the same themes repeated in all three movies... And the "new" cover of Moby's "Extreme Ways" theme at the end of The Bourne Ultimatum is definitely inferior to the original. Unlike the original, the vocalist (hard to believe it's really Moby) cannot hit or hold a correct note pitch, ever. Why does Hollywood always try to "improve" things? If it ain't broke, guys, leave it be!

But here's my big, related, question: What did poor Doug Liman do to anger Universal so much as to drop him, after The Bourne Identity, in favor of Paul Greengrass as Director? This move was, in my opinion, a horribly big mistake. Others have pointed out Greengrass' gratuitous "camera-shake" style of "creating energy". For example, just try to watch his "Bloody Sunday"; it's just bloody awful! Greengass' style just creates motion sickness for me.

The Bourne Identity, directed by Limon, has great energy; he did it just right. But Supremacy and Ultimatum went right over the pseudo-documentary, camera-jiggling, jangling-noise, blurry-take edge into pools of deep nausea.

More aggravation: The sound mix, especially during the protracted, over-long Tangier chase-and-fight scene, contains bits and bites of "vendor shouting" repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Nothing makes me more angry than this lazy, unprofessional approach to "movie-craft," or rather lack of it. Anyone with any sense of professionalism could have avoided this; these repeated sounds, once noted, become extremely intrusive.

Notice: This ends my watching anything directed by Greengrass, forever.

Watching the Bonus Features just made me even more angry. Watching them makes it obvious that the amount of equipment and the number of people have grown, for this third-in-the-trilogy film, to absurd proportions. For example: A traveling horde of movie-making people and tons of equipment transported from London to Paris via the Eurostar train produced a final Paris sequence so short, in the final cut, that we know it was merely a fine but useless junket for them, a gratuitous expense representing the worst kind of waste imaginable.

The "Bourne Franchise," as the director and others like to call it, became a bloated pork-pig beyond their wildest, most greedy desires. Usually, success breeds success, but The Bourne Ultimatum became a poor, overdone failure as the crew partied all over Europe and North Africa.

Six out of ten. I would have bought the DVD, just to have all three, but they'll never see my money now.

Blade Runner (1982)

Sci Fi + Film Noir = Stunning, Yet Believable, Vision of the Future

[10/10 · 13 November 2007]

There are so many reviews of "Blade Runner," most of them, mainly, positive. It forms, I think, a significant milepost in film history.

I just got the "Director's Cut" DVD... which is, they say, much better than the original "commercial" release of the film. I know I saw that release, but cannot remember it after seeing the DVD.

I would really love to sit next to Sir Ridley Scott for one good evening meal. I'd ask him just how much "Film Noir" movies really influenced his "Blade Runner," if he studied and viewed them extensively beforehand, if they had any significant influence... Or if, somehow, his own vision just happened to coincide with that dark genre. In any case, I think it is Scott's dark vision in "Blade Runner" that makes it truly great.

There are all sorts of arguments for/against the human (and replicant) characterizations in "Blade Runner," but playing them out in that apocalyptic view of 21st-century Los Angeles somewhat reduces their importance as rating factors. For example, Harrison Ford's lead character is quite understated, compared to any other role he's played, as far as I am aware. And I love his, and other, characters for that very reason.

Yet there is more-than-ample plot to interest thoughtful audiences. This is _so_ refreshing compared to the usual Hollywood pandering to idiotic 12-year-old brains. For example, try a super-intelligent android who, knowing he must die soon, finally comes to understand, better than anyone else in the film, that killing in revenge just makes no sense at all. Think about it.

Great film. I could count some factors as negative, but that dark vision just rules supreme. 10-out-of-10.

Death Proof (2007)

Why Is This Ultra-Violence Acceptable To Me? Hmmmm...

[6/10 · 10 November 2007]

Violence (usually) counts very much against films I've rated; most of them make me nauseous, truly.

But: "Death Proof" helped me to analyze why some ultra-violent films don't get panned as badly as I might. Why? "Terminator," with its up-close eye-mutilation and multiple murders: I think its plot was so unreal that the violence was accepted by me as somehow totally imaginary. "Fargo," with its believable portrayal of homicidal psychopathy, was all too realistic: but in "Fargo," I think the violence exactly matched the film's requirement to show what was needed. There are a few other examples of "acceptable" violence in films I have seen, usually with an accompanying reason for my "acceptance," if I analyze them very carefully.

Everyone who knows anything about Quentin Tarantino knows his works are as violent as anything seen on the silver screen. So I don't know exactly why I rented "Death Proof," knowing it was directed by this guy, but I did.

Tarantino walks the fine line between clever use of a made-up genre we might call "B-Film-Bad-Quality-Spoof," and merely making the film disgustingly bad (bad taste, bad quality) because he happened to choose the right spoof for it. I cannot decide if, or exactly when, or why, he drifts below the line, because it is difficult to decide just how much is spoof and how much is just gratuitous badness.

And, I suppose, that is what makes this "Death Proof" at least marginally "acceptable" to me. Although when one young lady gets her face ripped off by a tire revving at over 100mph, and another's leg gets severed from her body and flops bloodily to the tarmac... I did come close to barfing. Yes, it was quite shocking. And yes, it was... I admit... morbidly fascinating, at least for the one and only time I've had the courage to view it. I won't be viewing it a second time, if only because I fear the addictive stigma of giving in to morbid fascination.

No one under the age of about 65 or so should be allowed to view this film, and, even then, age and experience might not prevent nightmares after seeing it. If anyone allows a teenager to view it, that person should be locked away for fostering severe anti-social behavior on the rest of us.

Acting: Fair to good by the lead roles. Screenplay: Horrible, just the absolute pits, dragging on interminably through most of the film, punctuated by only a very few minutes of sheer terror and frantic action. Cinematic Quality: Purposefully awful, I guess to go along with the spoof. But neither the dragging screenplay nor the lack of cinematic quality were sufficiently excused by the spoof they were supposed to reinforce.

Six out of ten, and that is, perhaps, too kind of me...

300 (2006)

Great Graphic Novel Adaptation, But the Director Did NOT Really Hang the Moon

[8/10 · 3 November 2007]

I thoroughly enjoyed watching "300," acknowledging all the while that it is a graphic novel (a.k.a. Comic Book) by Frank Miller, brought to the silver screen, albeit, apparently, fairly faithfully.

Even though the film "300" contains little that is truly historical fact, and much that is completely outrageous fiction arising directly from insanely fevered "graphical imaginations," it is, nonetheless, quite inspiring. One fine example of a fevered vision in the film: The Uber-Immortal! Watch for him!

And yet, despite all that, this film made my heart fill with real admiration for those 300 Spartans who defied Xerxes at Thermopylae (480 BC), only to die in glory there. If your heart does not react in this way, then you are letting your preconceptions get in the way of enjoying life.

Did you know that, when the body of the Spartan King Leonidas was recovered by the Persians, their King Xerxes, in an uncontrollable rage, ordered the head cut off and the body crucified...? Xerxes the Great reigned for 15 years more. It was not until 40 years after the battle that Leonidas' bones were exhumed and returned to Sparta, where he was buried again with full honors. Afterward, funeral games were held every year in his memory. None of this appears in the film...

The acting is Over-The-Top Fine (because it deserves to be over the top). But this film is completely unlike, and so much better than, the laughably despicable 1962 flick "The 300 Spartans" (see my review, or rather total pan, elsewhere)...

Now let us discuss the sickening display of self-aggrandizing hubris (a good ancient Greek word, so useful here) brought forth by the Director. I am quite sorry I listened to that special audio track; it has caused me to seriously lower my rating of the film, and has reduced my enjoyment and admiration of it, even though the final result would have been close to tops without hearing it.

Yet there it is, a Director's track, like so many disgusting Director's tracks on DVD, arrogantly ignoring the real need of the audience to learn how such a film is made. He describes each scene in gratuitous, needless detail, using insider-terms and unfathomable acronyms which few outside Hollywood can understand. Nor need they understand them! He could have said one line: "Most of the stuff you see in this film, as is only to be expected for a film made from a comic book, was painted in using computer graphics." And then he could have given praise-worthy details about the actual actors and real people who helped him make the film we see. But, for the most part, he doesn't. One acceptable detail: the "Crazy-Horse" three-camera method of slow-and-fast-motion zooms; this was cool. But honor here should go to the Director of Photography, I'm sure. So, in my opinion (the only one that really matters in this case), this Director's track stinks to high heaven. He is definitely NOT the guiding genius he would have us believe... That title belongs only to the creator of the graphic novel, Frank Miller.

My heartfelt advice: See "300," you should enjoy it... And skip almost everything the Director has to say.

The 300 Spartans (1962)

One of the Best Examples of Hollywood's Absolute Worst Schlock

[1/10 · 30 October 2007]

This "sword-and-sandal" pseudo-epic film did one interesting thing for me: I will now perform careful research to prove my personal theorem that the absolute worst era of Hollywood Movies covered the late-1950's to mid-1960's, when the "Star System" had broken down completely, but the ultra-stupid Hollywood execs refused to accept it. No originality at all occurred then in Hollywood, I think; I'm out to prove it. "The 300 Spartans" will form Exhibit A.

Awful. Just Horrible. Wooden acting. Soapy, over-the-top "dramatic" Only-Hollywood-Would-Dare-Do-It music. Flimsy, obviously fake spears and shields. Gratuitous, unnecessary exposure of female "starlettes" in cameos adding nothing to the film. Dialog that just has to make any intelligent person vomit. Anyone who thinks this was a "good movie"... Really? Really? I fear for your sanity.

1 out of 10 is too good for this film. It needs a Great Big Zero.

December (1991)

I Think "December" is Wil Wheaton's Best

[8/10 · 28 July 2007]

... acting role I have ever seen him perform. By Far. Someone said he was better in "Stand By Me". I respectfully disagree; Wil's role in "Stand By Me" was an easy walk-through compared to the acting ability required of him in this film.

In format, this is really a play, recorded on film. The play starts late in the evening of 8 December 1941, the last day this country ever declared war. It ends early the next morning. Three of the five leave on a bus, headed to enlist; the other two stay behind. I'll bet no one can guess which two, before you see it! I was born six weeks to the day before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. So these characters are half a generation ahead of me. 1941, 66 years ago; it was a totally different time in our history. It takes hard effort on the viewer's part to wrap his head around that simple, supremely important fact.

Wil plays "bad influence" Kipp Gibbs; Brian Krause plays Tim Mitchell, the star-swimmer-jock everyone admires; Balthazar Getty plays Allister Gibbs, Kipp's younger brother. Jason London and Chris Young round out the kid cast. They are all students at "Green Mountain," which is meant to be a prep school in New Hampshire, it appears. They all do a good job, but Kipp is the most difficult of the five characters to portray. I really heartily disliked Kipp at the start, but felt the strongest empathic admiration for him by the end of the movie. That takes top acting talent, and Wil Wheaton really shines at pulling it off.

It took me two viewings to sort the characters out, get them pegged in my mind. Maybe I was tired during the first viewing, but it was a bit confusing. The second viewing was much more satisfying.

A pretty good film, worth seeing. And kudos to the young actors, especially Wil Wheaton. 8 out of 10.

Scent of a Woman (1992)

Am I a Hopeless Romantic?

[10/10 · 30 June 2007]

Do you want to begin to understand why the Tango, of all possible dances, is the ultimate expression of erotic romanticism? Watch the "Tango Lesson" scene in "Scent of a Woman"! If someone bawls uncontrollably EVERY time he sees this scene, is he a hopeless romantic? Yeah, I guess so... In this case, however, I am proud to admit it. You must watch the entire movie before that scene to get its real impact. But that's a pleasant task, indeed. I will never tire of that scene. It is truly beautiful on every level, from the first sighting of that lovely young woman, through the tour-de-force blind-dancing performance by Al Pacino, until she is spirited away by her boyfriend, the one who thinks the tango is "hilarious". Watch this movie! Watch this scene! There are other scenes which rate close to tops: The Ferrari Test Drive... And, of course, The Pseudo-Courtroom "Speech" by Frank Slade, Lt. Col., U.S. Army (Retired). But, to me, that amazing Tango scene rates absolute first place.

The entire movie is wonderfully understated, in the sense that one can so easily imagine neat additional dialog: rejoinders, exposition, wise-cracks, "score-one-for-me" stuff that was so intelligently never added, or perhaps eliminated before the final release. That one characteristic makes the movie excellent, above all else. Kudos for everyone involved in its production. This movie really is one of the great ones. It needs to be on everyone's top-rated list!

Ten-out-of-ten. I can't give it any less.

The Hustler (1961)

Can I Dare to Call The Hustler (1961) a Film Noir Classic?

[10/10 · 15 June 2007]

After many weeks of back-listed waiting, I finally received Robert Rossen's classic 1961 "The Hustler" on DVD. It was definitely worth the wait. The film is better than I remembered it to be; that is a real rarity. Not only did the "main" actors (Paul Newman, Jackie Gleason, Piper Laurie, George C. Scott) put in stellar performances, but none of those playing the "lesser" roles fell even remotely short of what should be expected.

I really admire Paul Newman's entire career as an actor, and also his truly exalted status as a great citizen who has given back more than anyone can expect. This lead-actor "Hustler" role is now universally recognized as the one which propelled him into the top echelon; his successful career was truly launched in 1961.

But, for me, Jackie Gleason is _the_ memorable actor in "The Hustler". Gleason played this role with quite amazing understatement. His performance was totally foreign to his usual brash, comedic, wise-guy persona, and that takes a _great_ actor. I believe Gleason was never honored enough for it; he did receive Best Supporting Actor nominations, but, as far as I know, never garnered those awards.

Gleason was so cool, so smooth... He presented an iconic presence that, I think, completely dominated every scene in which he appeared. From now on, Minnesota Fats will forever be remembered as looking, moving, and talking just like Jackie Gleason. The (estate of) the real Minnesota Fats should be proud.

On the larger scale, I think "The Hustler" should be considered a film noir classic, although I have never seen any reviewer mention that aspect. But does not "The Hustler" possess many film noir characteristics? Cinematically: The blues-jazzy filmscore. The black-and-white medium, with many dark scenes lit by one source only. The lack of exposition, leaving the viewer to squint, think, and wonder about scene meanings...

Characters: Dark and flawed (except, perhaps, for Gleason's Minnesota Fats). Every character pulls the wise-guy quips, in more-or-less failed attempts to conceal their real natures. Even the "hero" role of Paul Newman is really quite obviously bent, in many respects. Fast Eddie Felson may logically be considered an "anti-hero".

I admit the usual noir factors of the "false" and "real" facades are missing, but to me that is minor. There is no mystery here, just true character development in the search for winning... at the game, and in life overall.

I am not a film noir expert, by any means; I am just beginning my collection and study. But, currently, I cannot think of any film as late as 1961 which truly belongs to this genre. Many recent films, of course, pay direct homage to the noir ambiance; "Dark City" comes immediately to mind. But, if we admit that the true film noir movement is decades dead, then "The Hustler" may be one of its last masterpieces.

I don't think I am watering down my "10" ratings by awarding "The Hustler" one also. This is just a perfect, classic film.

The City of Lost Children (1995)

A French Gem: Perhaps the Best Movie I Have Ever Seen!

[10/10 · 21 May 2007]

One of the principals involved in the production of the film "Dark City" gave credit to the earlier "City of Lost Children" for its original visualization of fantasy. That remark is what led me to "La Cité des Enfants Perdus" in the first place. I think "Dark City" is a great film; but "City of Lost Children" is a true, spotless, priceless gem. It is valuable, perhaps, beyond normal human comprehension. Yes, that is over-the-top, but it's my opinion and I'm sticking by it!

If my French were better, I'd be tempted to write this review in that language. As it is, I very much prefer watching and listening to the film in its original language! It's not that the English dubs are so very bad, but the movie is so much better viewed and heard in French, I believe... I need the English sub-titles, but that's fine.

This is a very difficult movie to review for me; even my native English vocabulary feels inadequate to the task! The top adjective to fit this film must be, pour moi, incredible! (Say it, shout it in a really bad fake French accent: ON-kray-DEE-bluh!) Yes, we must laugh long and hard about it! This film is so genuinely cute, so horribly evil, so deliciously sweet, so side-splittingly hilarious, so full of heart-wrenching pathos... I just cannot find the correct words. It is self-contradictory in every scene, in the best meaning that phrase conveys. Yet the final entirety is one of the sweetest, most lovely film experiences...

Whoever wrote the screenplay (writing credits: Gilles Adrien & Jean-Pierre Jeunet & Marc Caro) are geniuses. I can't imagine how their fertile minds ever came up with such a wondrous plot line. The story is quite complicated, and yet weaves together perfectly into a tight, glorious tapestry of imagination! Whoever designed the sets and props (Art Direction: Jean Rabasse, Production Design: Marc Caro & Jean Rabasse) are geniuses. This is a small rural village, but covering many square kilometres, whose every view is decidedly urban, a miniature-yet-sprawling Paris of over a century ago.

The village-city is populated with futuristic (yet stylistically far-outdated) alien folk in rubberized black trench coats, all wearing eyesight and hearing enhancers whose gains are set, always, too high. Like all in this movie: a tad scary, and yet oh so very funny! Populated, too, by circus performers of a bygone era, by little self-reliant street urchins who'd be right at home in a Dickens novel... There are "modern" telephones, creaky old diving suits, huge rusty ships, Edison phonographs playing those big thick records, and enough Rube Goldberg devices to amaze and make you laugh all night long.

Whoever wrote the sweetly evocative music (Original Music by Angelo Badalamenti), and whoever matched it to the film's images (Film Editing by Herve Schneid, Music Mixing by Thierry Lebon), are geniuses par excellence.

The directors (Marc Caro & Jean-Pierre Jeunet) are geniuses off the top of the IQ scale. How on earth did they get these beautiful young children to cry, to act in such sweet-childish yet professionally adult ways, to look straight at the camera with such amazing aplomb, to exhibit perfectly the emotions needed to make their characters so believable? Jeunet attempts to describe, in his Special Feature commentary (with Ron Pearlman), how he accomplished some of this stuff, but it comes off in such a way that he himself appears genuinely amazed at how well things went, especially with the many scenes including the precious child actors...

One of the principal children, Petite Frere Denree (Joseph Lucien), perhaps all of six years old, does absolutely nothing throughout the film but eat a lot of good food and, occasionally, burp. And yet he will steal your heart away, right from his first appearance, guaranteed.

Alexis Pivot, as "Tadpole," gets special mention from director Jeunet in the DVD's Special Features commentary. Apparently, even at the tender age of eight or so, he gave Jeunet some very effective ideas about filming some scenes. One shows Tadpole walking slowly away from the camera, in a beautiful scene evoking "The Little Tramp," but much better, I think... Jeunet's remarks about Alexis Pivot should encourage us to look, in a few years, for that young man as a director of note.

The "adult" actors are truly superb, as well. Judith Vittet (Miette) was nine years old at the time the film was produced, but she must certainly be counted as one the professional adult actors...

A good scene for Dominique Pinon involves his playing only four clones at one time on the screen! He is absolutely, wonderfully hilarious.

Daniel Emilfork (the monstrously evil Krank) is certainly a remarkably strange vision of a character. He is the archetypical villain in this bizarre melodrama; we all boo him at his every appearance. Yet, at the end, we do feel small pangs of sadness for him. He was a child once, too, before he became so evil. His over-the-top pantomime of "Papa Noel," which aims at getting some toddlers not to fear him, fails so spectacularly... The harder he tries, the worse he gets! I think this is the funniest scene in the film, wildly hilarious, even though it ends in half-a-dozen little kids crying, screaming in absolute terror of the horrible Krank apparition. How can such a contradictory scene be so endearing? Well, it surely is!

I have seen little of Ron Pearlman, but I want to see more, now!

There are so many more actors, too numerous to detail, and yet they all fit so well into this tapestry.

I could go on and on, and I have gone on too long. Thank you, dear reader, if you have gotten far enough to receive these thanks.

I think I will never lose my love for the perfect "City of Lost Children". C'est Magnifique! Ten out of ten. Finis.

The Matrix (1999)

How Can Anyone Watch The Matrix More Than One Time?

[3/10 · 14 April 2007]

I may spend more time writing this comment than any of the 26 others I have completed for IMDb. For one thing, I really need to examine why I have such a totally negative view of this movie, which many others adore so. I do think they must either be 12-year-olds, or older folk with their mental development permanently stunted, stuck forever at the 12-year-old level. Sorry, but that's really the way I feel about anyone who raves about "The Matrix". It is sad that I'll spend (waste) my time in this way.

Certainly, there are worse movies in the same genre. One example is "Equilibrium," which has achieved the dubious distinction being one of only two films, the other being "Bloody Sunday," with my "2 out of 10" rating. Only "Narc" got a lower rating (obviously, a "1") in my list of IMDb voted-on films. I think that pegs The Matrix at a "3", although that may indeed be too generous.

I think Keanu Reeves is, generally, a good actor, although many, if not most, of the films in which he has appeared do scant justice to what acting ability he possesses. "Speed" comes to mind; a very bad movie. And Reeves definitely comes off as badly in The Matrix as he did in Speed. On the other hand, the relatively unknown film "Johnny Mnemonic," although it obviously falls far short of fulfilling the wild vision of William Gibson's fine short story, gets at least my mild applause; Reeves was as good as he gets in that film, I think. And, guess what? For his Johnny Mnemonic effort, Reeves was nominated for the Razzie Award, as worst actor of the year!

I don't know what you call the genre, if only one exists, for The Matrix and Equilibrium. Science Fiction? Cyber-Noir? Impossible Future-Fantasy Kung-Fu? "Dark City," I think, also belongs to this indeterminate genre, but Dark City resides at the best end of its spectrum, as opposed to the other two, which are so abysmally bad they inspire nausea in me. The stunningly beautiful images of Dark City stand in huge contrast to the formulaic shallowness of The Matrix. Well, there can be no comparison, really. Dark City is a great film; The Matrix just isn't. I will try to explain why I have these starkly-opposed opinions...

I believe there ought to be at least three criteria for rating any film: Screenplay, Acting, and Production. Of the three, Acting must be at least a bit more important than the other two. Good acting can go far towards rescuing marginal writing or poor production. And bad acting can absolutely ruin an otherwise excellent story and image.

The Matrix: The acting is unconvincing. Screenplay: Shallow, displaying no redeeming or memorable story. Production: Dominated by gratuitous special effects, which have little relation to furthering what story there is.

I just decided to drop this project. The Matrix deserves no more of my time. 3 out of 10. Finis.

The Old Man and the Sea (1958)

Memory Plays Tricks on Old Movies Such As This

[7/10 · 14 April 2007]

I must have seen "The Old Man and the Sea," with Spencer Tracy in the title role (released in 1958), first when I was in High School or College. A very long time ago! My memory, after so many years away from seeing the film, was definitely faulty. For example, I "remembered" that there was no dialog, only the music, the sound effects of the watery sea, and, occasionally, the voice of a narrator reading selected passages from Hemmingway's famous novel. That turns out to be wrong, of course. But now, after seeing it again after decades, I wish that it might have been true. I think that scheme might have been better than what is the reality of this old Warner Brothers' movie.

I am afraid the film has not aged particularly well.

The portions where Tracy is shown super-imposed against an unsaturated rear-projection screen are, unfortunately, all too obvious. And these occur all too often.

The music is very "Hollywoodish" and out-dated, by turns too saccharin or too "dramatic".

The footage of some famous sport fisherman's champion marlin catch have color cast and focus all too obviously mismatched with the feature film.

And yet, one must graciously allow for the 50-year age of this film, and make allowances. If the viewer can do this, he or she may yet appreciate this classic for its beauty and sincerity. I make the effort to forgive it. And I enjoy it once again.

Ike: Countdown to D-Day (2004 TV Movie)

After "Ike: Countdown to D-Day," I Will Never Disparage "Made For TV" Again

[10/10 · 1 April 2007]

Tom Selleck scores an honest tour de force in his portrayal of General Dwight David Eisenhower, Commander-In-Chief, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force, European Theatre of Operations, in the weeks and final days leading up to June 6, 1944. (I am so proud to have gotten that entire title correct.) The plan for the invasion of Hitler's Europe was developed primarily by General Eisenhower, with the help of his allied staff. This made sense. Eisenhower was, as he himself admitted, primarily an organizer and planner. That he indeed was a supreme planner led to the ultimate success of Operation Overlord.

Eisenhower had to fight hard, against fractious political forces, for Churchill's and Roosevelt's acceptance. They eventually granted Ike unfettered command of all the allied forces engaged in the landing at Normandy.

Few people, myself included, really appreciate the mass of details which had to be coordinated for D-Day. Watch this movie and learn at least some of them. Almost three million troops crossed the English Channel to land in France on, and immediately after, D-Day. Nothing like this had, of course, ever occurred in all of human history. One can only hope nothing like it ever need occur again.

This 2004 film has me convinced I'll always, from now on, carefully examine those "Made For TV" movies for gems like this one. All this praise for a movie that has not one bit of "action" in it. It's all docudrama, all about planning and preparation. It is better than anyone might predict.

Tom Selleck was, as I indicated above, masterful. I have always liked him as an actor; now I truly admire his acting ability. Selleck belongs with the best.

Kudos! A perfect movie, in every way. To hear me say that is really quite rare.