WHCernan Reviews

Alvin and the Chipmunks (2007)

Makes one wish for a train wreck.

[2/10 · 9 January 2008]

You know the old saw about a train wreck? The one about how you can't look away? This movie isn't that good. The only reason you're still there is because you brought your kids and you can't leave them alone in the theater. You might catch a nap.

Tim Hill should never work in film again after delivering this awful piece of junk. He manages to take a decent comic actor in Jason Lee and turn him into a robotic, unsure actor in this production.

I didn't have much hope for this movie in the first place, I admit. If it weren't basically the only family film I could take my son to around Christmas, my wife and I wouldn't have gone. God, I wish we could go back in time and stop ourselves. I leaned over to my wife about 10 minutes in to tell her what a stinker I thought it was, but she beat me to the punch.

I'm not kidding. It's putrid. Only David Cross's terrific-as-usual work saves this review from being only 1 star.

The story is cloying, insulting and stupid, as might be expected for a movie in this genre (although the recent "Curious George" was blissfully intelligent and enjoyable). The acting is mostly poor. The decision to "update" the Chipmunks songs for today's audience was inadvisable at best and boneheaded at worst. It does not work.

The chipmunks of old were clever, mischievous and sly. These chipmunks are dumb, somewhat mean-spirited, obnoxious, and in a surprise, needy to the point of uselessness.

Either as a retrospect, a tribute, or as a completely new production, this film totally fails. The final straw? My son couldn't wait to leave. Spend your money renting Curious George instead.

Galaxy Quest (1999)

Second-best Star Trek movie ever

[9/10 · 27 February 2006]

Even though it's a comedy, it out-Treks almost all of the Star Trek films, with a better plot and better writing. The laughs are continuous and the dramatic elements are quite good.

I not generally on the Tim Allen bandwagon, but he nails this performance, mocking Trek's Kirk & Riker without caricaturing them. Alan Rickman is terrific, as always. Tony Shalhoub is great, too, with a lovely understated humor. Sam Rockwell steals the show as the terrified Guy Fleegman ("Crewman #6").

There are so many little things that are just for Trek fans, like the ridiculously Rube-Goldbergesque corridor dangers on the way to the ship's core. Even if you don't like Star Trek, you'll probably find it funny when the film pokes fun at the venerable TV and film franchise.

But it's not just a Trek spoof. It's got a compelling story with great comic acting and timing. My wife is definitely not a Trek or even a science fiction fan, but she loves this film. That's the ultimate endorsement.

E.T. (1982)

The gaping hole (spoilers within)

[5/10 · 25 March 2002]

Don't read this if you don't want a spoiler. Just one, but it's a big part of the film. It's last, prefaced by asterisks, just in case you're intrepid.

I have a rule about "classic" movies. If a movie is to be considered a classic, it must hold up to repeated viewings. I've seen "E.T." now probably about 6 times, but 4 of those times were at the urging of family members. The last time, of course, was for the newly-released 20th anniversary edition.

I first saw this movie in 1982 and I liked it OK. I was moved by the story and I felt that the adults in the story didn't all look like idiots, and that the kids weren't made out to be extremely precocious geniuses. Of course, I was only 18 years old then.

I saw it again, a few weeks later, on a date. It paled massively on the second viewing. I wasn't looking for flaws, but I felt like I could see every string Spielberg was pulling. Furthermore, I was unhappy about how hard he was trying to manipulate me. Below in the "HERE'S THE SPOILER" section is what I saw the second time.

And now, the gaping hole. E.T. is shown to have powers of telekinesis, healing, and intelligence. He can touch-heal a cut finger, bring dead plants to life, fly several bikes through the air and craft an interstellar communicator out of a saw blade and a Speak-n-Spell. I just can't see how a weak, slow-waddling creature with less manual dexterity than a raccoon could ever achieve interstellar flight. He certainly seemed much less intelligent when he was snarfing Earth food and drink left and right. Smart enough to build an ansible from toys, too dumb to fear food from another planet. Go figure.

*************** HERE'S THE SPOILER *******************

If you're going to fool movie viewers into thinking something has happened, you shouldn't make it blatantly clear that it HAS happened if you're going to contradict it later. You should leave some room for doubt. When E.T. comes "back to life", your manipulated emotions feel ripped off. We saw him die in extreme detail. The movie doctors describe degeneration of the body. We are led to believe that E.T. is dead in every way possible. Then, voila, he's back. Yippee.

Sure, you can argue that he's alien and that we don't understand aliens, but to me, that's a cop-out. Spielberg went too far to show death. Bringing E.T. back after going to so much trouble is cheap and soap-opera-like.

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)

Great movie, especially without "Cheer Up Charlie"

[10/10 · 5 October 2001]

I'm not the first to say it, but the song "Cheer Up, Charlie" is horrible. It's painful to listen to, and when this movie was shown on TV while I was growing up, I always left the room when Charlie's mother sang it. It doesn't help that the song adds nothing to the film; every other song in the production gives us exposition or mood. "Cheer Up, Charlie" just makes it drag and tells us what we already know: Charlie's sad that he hasn't won a golden ticket. Thanks, Mom.

Thanks to the magic of VHS and DVD, however, I haven't had to put up with that awful song for years. Now I can see the rest of a beautiful, funny, scary, magical film that I first saw at age 6 in 1971 (!) It truly is watchable again and again. Compare this to, say, "E.T.", which seemed good the first time I saw it and awful every time since.

Gene Wilder is brilliantly cast and does an excellent job of playing an eccentric just-this-side-of-loony Willy Wonka. Jack Albertson also turns in an excellent performance, as do most of the child actors and parents, not to mention Mr. Turkentine, Charlie's teacher. Peter Ostrum (Charlie) does a fair job; his role is the deepest and most difficult to play of all the children and I can't fault him for not being a ten-year-old Robert DeNiro.

Was I scared, age 6, watching the decapitation of a chicken? Sure, but for.. what, 3 seconds? The movie (save for "Cheer Up, Charlie") moves fairly quickly. Who has time to think about chicken butchering when there is exploding candy to be seen?

Roald Dahl is famous for bizarre stories involving children and cruel or incapable parents/caretakers ("James and the Giant Peach", "Matilda"), but he always puts the blame where it belongs and the deserving are rewarded. "Willy Wonka" is a worthy, if slightly different, adaptation of Dahl's book.

I give the film a 9/10. Without "Cheer Up, Charlie", make it a 10.

Akira (1988)

Different, detailed; but a masterpiece? Not really.

[5/10 · 24 April 2001]

I've been a big fan of science fiction and fantasy in both literature and cinema for at least 25 years. I love the cutting edge, yet until the year 2000, I had never seen any anime. My anime-loving friends urged me to introduce myself to the genre with either "Akira" or "Princess Mononoke" or even "My Friend Totoro". Since my friends only had "Akira" on video, I chose that. I watched this in November 2000, so please forgive me for forgetting the character names.

Right away, my viewing frame of mind fell once the English soundtrack came squealing its way through my sound system. What is it about US distributors of Asian movies? Why do they think we want to hear grown women talking in baby imitations? I'd much rather read subtitles and hear the original soundtrack than these peevish, cartoony caricatures.

When my friends had hyped the incredibly detailed, fluid animation style that put American animation to shame, I looked forward to seeing it. In fact, every review here seems to glorify the skill and talent of the animators. Although the frames did contain a lot of detailed artistry and a large number of independently animated objects, the movement was jerky as all hell. It was very easy to see where the frames were linked. It was like playing an action game on a PC when it gets overloaded trying to keep up with the game. Disney may be pablum for the masses, but its theatrical releases certainly are a hundred times more smoothly animated than "Akira".

I had to put the "viewing experience" aside and concentrate on the plot, theme, and characters. I've done it enough times in the age of VHS rentals, so it was no problem here. I found that the character development for everyone except the protagonist was weak and shallow. I never could understand any motivation for the erratic behavior of the friend. Now, this is more like an American movie than some cutting-edge Asian import.

The plot.. well, very poorly explained, especially the last 20 minutes. I think I understood the ending of "2001" better the first time I saw it. I don't want to spoil anything, but there is no explanation for what happens at the end of this movie. Those of you who have seen it will understand... bigger and bigger and bigger... why? Just to be grotesque?

Finally, the theme made sense to me. Our world faces great danger from our misunderstanding of technology and humanity's preoccupation with it. We will be our own downfall if we are not careful. Good message, I get it.

So, overall, I gave it 4/10. I thought it was sloppy in direction and the story was utterly lacking in interest. Those of you here (and on the video jacket) who compared this film favorably with "Blade Runner" are, in my opinion, not paying very much attention to "Blade Runner". That is a hugely superior film to this.

Finally, as to "My Friend Totoro", I saw it too. It had the same problems with animation jerkiness as this does. Is "Princess Mononoke" going to let me down too? I'm going to watch the SUBTITLED version of that anime just to get away from those baby voices.

Mystery Men (1999)

Underground comic = Comic potential

[9/10 · 21 February 2001]

First, I'd like to say that I've recommended this film to several people, and all have liked it. One who had seen it and panned it watched it again and came back to tell me that he was wrong the first time. He enjoyed it thoroughly.

Enjoying this movie hinges on your attention to the dialog, in-jokes, and visual environment. The concept of "superheroes with powers not quite super" is rich in comic potential. Not all of that potential is tapped, but you only get 2 hours... and you have to squeeze the plot in too. I felt like Kinka Usher did a nice job of developing almost every character (except Lena Olin as supervillain Geoffrey Rush's psychiatrist) and providing a plot that did not seem stripped down. Throw in a lot of sarcastic humor and a great underground comic atmosphere in "Champion City" and I think it's a tight little movie.

If you've been avoiding it, or if you have seen it once and found it odd or off-putting, give it a shot. I think you'll enjoy it.

And, if you think the bionic man joke is the funniest thing in the movie... geez has time passed you by.

Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

I had to see it a second time to like it; now I love it.

[9/10 · 28 November 2000]

I saw this movie when it came out in the theaters in 1986. It was basically marketed as an action drama. I hated it; it was unrealistic and the characters did unbelievable things. I didn't understand the motivation for Carpenter to make this film.

I didn't see it again for about two years. The second time was an epiphany; well this film is a comedy! I didn't get it the first time. It wasn't just a comedy; it was really, really funny.

This movie attracts my attention whenever it pops up on the tube. My old recorded-from-Cinemax copy wore out years ago, and I look forward to seeing it on DVD (hurry up DVD!). Kurt Russell is a hoot; genuine in the role of a knows-less-than-he-thinks truck driver.

The story is so original and so non-categorical that you can't explain it. Chop-socky Asian-American comedy-adventure supernatural superhero/supervillain action drama is the closest I can describe it, and I'm still miles away.

Personally, I think this film is much better than "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai", which has achieved cult status for no reason I can figure. Well acted, well directed, and very funny.

It's all in the reflexes.

Meet the Parents (2000)

Why I can't watch Gomer Pyle

[4/10 · 27 November 2000]

First things first: I WANTED to see this film. I think Ben Stiller is a hoot and De Niro is an excellent actor who is perfect for this material. De Niro did not disappoint and Stiller was exactly right for his role. Everyone was well-cast.

So, then, why did this movie stink?

I'll start by saying, I can't watch "Gomer Pyle, USMC". It's not that I don't like Jim Nabors; it's just that the show is about how Gomer always does things that are painfully and blatantly obviously STUPID and WRONG. Gomer asks out Sgt. Carter's girlfriend because the Sarge has to work in town and Gomer doesn't want her to feel lonely; then Sarge sees Gomer and goes on the rampage. Well, DUH. Nobody would do anything so stupid unless they really wanted to pursue the girlfriend. It's painful because I see it coming a mile away.

Ben Stiller plays the Gomer Pyle role in this film. DeNiro is superb as the suspicious and unapproachable father in the Sergeant Carter mold. Stiller's character does so many things that are so STUPID and WRONG that you wonder how he could have survived to adulthood. I don't want to give anything away, but you and I and everyone else in the world knows that you don't try to "replace" a highly trained animal with one you found at the pound! Well, DUH! You see everything in this movie coming - a mile away.

At least Gomer Pyle was only a half hour long. I kept wanting to get up and leave but several members of my family were along and I couldn't very well leave them there. At least I was treated, at the very end of the film, to a fantastically hilarious airline subplot that really made my wait mostly worthwhile. Every time I am in a situation with obvious airline morons in the future, you know that I'll be thinking, "Step Off!"

4/10 stars, only because the acting was terrific.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

Stunning visually; overlong; insincere in its message

[5/10 · 27 November 2000]

Wow. Whoville lives. It sure looks like Whoville, and Jim Carrey sure looks like the Grinch, and the Whos look more like Whos than anybody could. The look, the atmosphere, the visuals are excellent. Can't complain about that.

It's a tad overpadded, though. It starts to drag a bit and the major-league test of movie interest failed; that is, I looked at my watch during the film.

Jim Carrey does a fine Grinch, but unlike most of the reviewers here, don't believe that Carrey is the guy who had to play this role; any decently physical actor could have done it. All he had to do was be relatively animated and convincingly emotional. In fact, post-production work sped up the body movements in many scenes to look cartoonish, so Carrey didn't really have to look cartoonish while he was acting. He was great, but they probably didn't need to get a guy who wanted a Carrey-sized paycheck.

What spoiled it for me was the message. The story really made a point about the overcommercialization of Christmas that is both true and is not approached enough in film. The problem is that this movie is going to be sold through Happy Meals and toys galore just in time for the Christmas season, which is sort of sickening. It's about as hypocritical as you can get.

I gave it a 5/10. Not a waste of money, but you could go see something else and get more entertainment, even if you are a kid.

Finally, I didn't need to see a guy kissing a dog's rump, or the dog wiping its rump on the carpet, or any wife-swapping jokes. That content is just stupid (and disgusting in the kissing part) and doesn't belong in a Dr. Seuss picture aimed at kids. No wonder his widow disavowed this picture after seeing it.

Fantasia 2000 (1999)

A wonderful and superior successor to a Disney classic

[9/10 · 27 November 2000]

Saw this at the Sony IMAX theater in Manhattan. I recommend viewing it at an IMAX theater if possible; the presentation is glorious.

Fantasia, although breathtaking and a wonderful experiment, was boring in many places. Fantasia 2000, on the other hand, is never boring, yet is neither frantic nor aimed at 5-year-olds. It is truly inspired in the visual representation of the music and the choice of the music itself.

I'd have paid just to see the visual feast and full-circle development of the piece accompanying Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue". A segment with flying whales was very well done but not quite as inspired. "Pomp and Circumstance" tied to a biblical classic? You betcha. Well done, Disney. I've been bored with your late efforts but this film is a new classic.

If you love animation, see the film. 9/10.

Cobra (1986)

Can a film actually be zero-dimensional?

[2/10 · 4 August 2000]

What a hideous, pathetic film.

The Hollywood story goes that Stallone was originally tapped to play "Beverly Hills Cop", but that he didn't want to play up the comedy so much. He wanted it to be a "Stallone Film(tm)". Thank the stars that those in charge dumped Sly and retooled "Cop" for Eddie Murphy. "Cobra", as the story has it, is Stallone's idea of what "Beverly Hills Cop" should have been.

There are always people who will say "oh, just because it's a brainless action flick doesn't mean it's bad." That's okay for a small budget production like "Death Race 2000" (which also features Stallone). "Cobra", on the other hand, is a big budget movie with a 2 dollar script and 50 cents worth of direction. It's hard to believe that this is essentially the same guy who wrote "Rocky".

This movie is more than stupid; it actually reaches out from the screen and transfers some of its stupidity right into your head. You walk away with a feeling of being dumber for having watched it - especially if you paid to see it.

Stallone acts horribly. The script makes no sense - any episode of "Starsky & Hutch" seems like Hemingway by comparison. The action isn't just unbelievable (all action flicks are that way), but it's also just plain stupid. Cobra stands firing a gun in the back of a speeding pickup on a dirt road at high speed as the back end of the truck fishtails in the gravel.

No, it's not the worst film in the world. It's not even Stallone's worst. It is nonetheless absolutely, unforgiveably horrid.

Night Shift (1982)

Michael Keaton's signature role

[1 August 2000]

Adam Sandler and Pauly Shore can only DREAM of being as funny as Michael Keaton in "Night Shift." Keaton's hilarious performance only serves to underscore the fact that he's never been near as funny since.

Sure, the movie will never be in the AFI's top 100 list. But when I was 18, a loony pre-college me dreamed of being as funny as Billy Blaizejowski, Keaton's character in the film. I credit the script for great lines, but I doubt anyone could have made an annoying character like Billy loveable - except Keaton.

Henry Winkler does a bang-up job with a straight role that affords audiences little to get excited about. He is completely convincing as an in-over-his-head nebbish with a nervous stomach, and deserves credit for pulling it off without seeming whiny. We identify with Winkler's character even though we can see how cowardly he is.

The plot, of course, is contrived, as is any plot involving hookers with hearts of gold. It's hard to see Shelly Long as a prostitute, but she plays it gamely and has fun with the role.

I recommend this film if you have any craziness to your sense of humor, or just if you're a male between the ages of 17 and 25. That's the target audience, but even in my mid-30's, I still find Keaton's performance refreshing and laugh-out-loud funny.

Half Baked (1998)

Makes Pauly Shore look like an intellectual titan

[2/10 · 13 July 2000]

Apparently, it's funny just to smoke, sell, and talk about smoking marijuana, because that's all that happens in this film.

I will say that Jim Breuer does an amazing job of acting like he's stoned on weed. He must know the same guys I knew when I was in school, because he nails them to a T. Unfortunately that doesn't sell this movie. I don't know what would, unless the only other movie showing is "Barney".

16-year-old kids love this movie. One of the dumbest things I've ever sat through.

Titan A.E. (2000)

Breathtaking visuals. Excellent setup. Moronic plot.

[5/10 · 6 July 2000]

This movie was worth my money just to see. The computer animation sequences are nothing short of awesome.

Unfortunately, a promising setup leads into a very thin plot with some characters who essentially rebel against everything they believe in and, in the end, do things they obviously would never do. This all sounds very vague, but I don't want to give the story away. I'll just say that at least one character performs a savioristic stunt that goes against that character's very definition. Then, that character DOUBLES the stakes. It's just so unbelievable.

The film has a decent score and good editing. Again, it is absolutely picturesque. But this is like eating pizza with painted-on pepperoni. Looks great, but it leaves you unsatisfied in the end.

Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993)

Mel Brooks: barely original, not funny

[3/10 · 12 November 1999]

Once upon a time, you knew that Mel Brooks would skewer a genre with a hilarious parody. He also had quite a good body of completely original comedies.

So what happened?

We had "Blazing Saddles", which borrowed from every western ever made and knocked down the wall between the audience and the film. We had "Young Frankenstein", which successfully lampooned the Frankenstein films, yet had an original story line and a fantastic slew of performers who, well, performed -- brilliantly. Even the off-kilter and uneven "History of the World: Part I" was hilarious in parts, and was original throughout.

But "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" suffers from the same maladies as another recent Brooks film, "Dracula: Dead and Loving It". Its plot is lifted entirely from another movie; in this case, the other movie is "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves". Brooks changes nary a plot line, lifts practically the whole set of characters, and adds maybe 50 jokes. 4 of those are funny.

With the exception of Cary Elwes and Brooks himself, the acting is horrible, especially by Amy Yasbeck, who plays Maid Marian. This is no surprise, since she was equally disastrous in "Dracula: Dead and Loving It".

Brooks' humor doesn't seem pointed or hip any more, even though his older films stand up to the test of time quite well. He just hasn't got that edge that he had then. In fact, he hasn't had it since before "Spaceballs", which was the beginning of the end as far as I can tell.

The Avengers (1998)

Worst movie I've seen in 10 years.

[1/10 · 12 July 1999]

I haven't seen a movie this bad since the movie "Homework" which I saw in high school (a dreadful piece of tripe). This film has better production values, but it makes no sense, the acting is horrible, the writing is awful, the direction stinks and the plot is idiotic. Its attempts at camp are just stupid, and Sean Connery is a dud.

How can Sean Connery be a dud, for crying out loud? You know the movie's a stinker if Sean Connery can't even rise above the material.

If you see this movie, don't say I didn't warn you.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Brilliant effects don't mask bad dialogue, story, acting

[5/10 · 3 June 1999]

Amazing vision is what we expect from George Lucas, and he doesn't disappoint. Yet if this man would just spend a few trivial dollars AWAY from the cinematography, he could get his dialogue rewritten to be, well, acceptable.

I'm a fan of "Star Wars", and a huge fan of "The Empire Strikes Back", but I didn't like "Return of the Jedi". This new "old" chapter in the story contains many of the problems that "Return of the Jedi" did: its dialogue is wooden, the actors are not given proper direction, and there is no continuity to the story.

Yet these are not the biggest problems. The biggest problem is that we basically don't know the characters. Is there anyone who didn't know, 20 minutes into "Star Wars", who Luke Skywalker was and wanted to be? Yet in this movie, we never learned anything about the motivations of Qui-Gon Jinn, Darth Maul, Obi-Wan Kenobi, or, most importantly, Anakin Skywalker (although he was SLIGHTLY more developed).

We're supposed to like Anakin because he's a kid and he's a slave and he's amazing. We're supposed to like Qui-Gon Jinn because he's a Jedi and because he likes Anakin. We're supposed to hate Darth Maul, but the only reason I can figure that out is because he's, well, ugly. That's not character development.

If so much time in this movie wasn't devoted to Jar Jar Binks, a most annoying, wretched character, there would have been plenty of time to develop everyone else's character. This, more than anything, spoiled the movie for me.

Yet, I'm glad to have seen it. It was a stunning vision and contained the best Jedi battle of all the movies to date. An unbelievable pod race sequence was brilliantly done. The effects were, of course, peerless.

But George, next time you do a movie, have your dialogue ghost-written and leave Jar Jar on the cutting room floor: Meesa find Jar Jar very bad, very bom-bad. And stop playing to the kiddie audience: that's not how "Star Wars" attracted viewers!