Rusty-34 Reviews

Dicky Moe (1962)

The cartoons of nightmares...

[11 December 2001]

I simply don't know HOW Gene Deitch was able to come up with award winning cartoons, especially after watching his "Tom and Jerry" dreck. You cannot blame MGM when they decided to switch to Chuck Jones and Abe Lebtivow afterward.

This obsessed captain is almost pure evil, or at least that's what he depicts. He forces Tom to work on his ship when he tries to retrieve the whale. He keeps going "Dicky Moe" in this angrily, demonic voice that makes you wonder how much of a cold-hearted demon this person really is. This goes with the majority of all the human characters in Deitch's shorts, they are utterly downright cold, you wouldn't want to be near them! In the Hanna Barbara cartoons, at least the human characters had a REASON to be mad at Tom when he was destructive.

If you want to get into Tom and Jerry, PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM THE GENE DEITCH ERA, maybe with the exception of the "Tom and Jerry Cartoon Kit."

Calypso Cat (1962)

Usual Gene Deitch fare...

[4/10 · 17 September 2001]

I have to admit, I am not too crazy about the Gene Deitch T&J shorts. They're not as funny and somewhat disturbing. It's more watchable than some of the other Deitch-directed T&J cartoons, but it contains the usual elements; the nightmarish synthesized sound effects. At least the steel drum-playing cat that seduces Tom's crush is not that disturbing than some of the other characters.

It's better than most of the other Deitch T&J cartoons (some could really give you nightmares) but not a good T&J short overall.

Tall in the Trap (1962)

3rd world Tom and Jerry

[4/10 · 5 September 2001]

I am never too fond of the Gene Deitch Tom and Jerry shorts. Some of them really feel like you're going through one heck of a nightmare. The scenics are not as good as the Hanna-Barbara cartoons, and the human characters...they're terribly one-dimensional and usually very cold and terrifying to be near. Some of them are downright creepy.

This certain one didn't give me the creeps fully, but it also wasn't that funny. Those human characters (the Sheriff and the Cheese Store owner) were no laughing matter, and were more like monsters of pure evil. William Hanna and Joseph Barbara did this MUCH better. They are disturbing and nightmarish. Now sure the Hanna Barbara-era had it's share of this, such as the Hell scenes in "Heavenly Puss," and the "Don't you believe it!" phrase in "The Missing Mouse," although they weren't used as frequently as the way Deitch did. These cartoons are disturbing often all the way through.

If you want go get started on Tom and Jerry, start with the original MGM Hanna-Barbara theatrical shorts; the way T&J were meant to be seen. The Chuck Jones and company team are also worth a view, IMHO.

Sorry Safari (1962)

Yeesh, what is this?

[3/10 · 22 August 2001]

You can't blame MGM switching to Chuck Jones and company to do Tom and Jerry. I never saw his award winning cartoons, but Gene Deitch made Tom and Jerry rather nauseating and creepy.

Here we see them on a safari, with one macho mad man who gets p***ed at Tom for every little bad thing he does, especially when he attempts to get Jerry the mouse. The mad man is EXTREMELY bitter towards Tom (you feel sorry for the poor feline).

The music and scenery is far from relaxing and the music seems to get to your head like nausea. This is true of some of the other Gene Deitch T&J shorts.

The jungle safari man is so one-dimensional and cold that he isn't funny. Some of the dog foes of Tom, most noteably Spike, had a personality and audiences could laugh every time Tom caught him, but this guy...

This particularly falls with the rest of the Gene Deitch T&J ones...his directing style did NOT fit Tom and Jerry. It's like putting a round peg into a square hole.

Buddies... Thicker Than Water (1962)

More like a horror cartoon...

[4/10 · 22 August 2001]

Sure I haven't seen Gene Deitch's good cartoons, but definitely I hope they're not like these Tom and Jerry shorts he directed.

You can't blame MGM for changing from Gene Deitch to the minds of Chuck Jones and Abe Lebtivow, which were definitely better than Deitch.

I really don't get the strange synthesized sound that is used in the Deitch shorts, but it makes them very creepy, and not very funny, such as the scene when Jerry disguises himself as a ghost.

If you are just starting with this franchise, stick to the Hanna-Barbara cartoons for MGM. They're the best. The Chuck Jones ones are also worth watching.

Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid (1942)

Disturbing... *SPOILERS* - just wanted people to know...

[5/10 · 6 June 2001]

The inept Beaky Buzzard in this was quite funny, and they brought him back on several different occassions.

However, there's one scene that I do not get and I find disturbing, and that is the animal bone gag. What the heck was going on there? We see Bugs Bunny falling over the remains of a buffalo and the remains are in front of him and there was a carrot in the rib cage, he feels the rib cage and the carrot inside. Bugs then cries over it and goes "Gruesome, ins't it?" Did he think he was dead? I have no idea what it was supposed to be.

I'd say if you are Bugs fans, stick with stuff like "Rabbit Fire," and the hunting trilogy as well as others.

Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid (1942)

Disturbing...

[5/10 · 6 June 2001]

The inept Beaky Buzzard in this was quite funny, and they brought him back on several different occasions.

However, there's one scene that I do not get and I find disturbing, and that is the animal bone gag. What the heck was going on there? We see Bugs Bunny falling over the remains of a buffalo and the remains are in front of him and there was a carrot in the rib cage, he feels the rib cage and the carrot inside. Bugs then cries over it and goes "Gruesome, ins't it?" Did he think he was dead? I have no idea what it was supposed to be.

I'd say if you are Bugs fans, stick with stuff like "Rabbit Fire," and the hunting trilogy as well as others.

Sniffles Bells the Cat (1941)

Nauseating...

[1/10 · 6 May 2001]

Chuck Jones is a good director, but Sniffles has to be his low point. I never really liked any of the Sniffles cartoons. They're not exactly funny, IMHO.

The mice in this, including Sniffles, are very depressing to look at, and listen to. And Sniffles is such an idiot thinking that he could NEGOTIATE to put a bell on that cat! They make you want to fall asleep or depress you throughout the cartoon. If you want to see cartoons for some relief or lighten up, do not watch this one. I personally wanted to see Sniffles get the axe in some of his cartoons!!!

* out of ****

Sniffles Takes a Trip (1940)

A lousy cartoon...

[1/10 · 6 May 2001]

Chuck Jones probably was a bit new to direction when directing these cartoons. Sniffles is this mouse that is trying to be cute as he is taking a retreat to the countryside to camp. He runs into a lot of mishaps. I personally did not find the scene with Sniffles in the dark funny. I am not too fond of Warner Brothers mouse characters (Speedy Gonzales was the only good one, IMHO), but Sniffles to me was unlikeable. I wanted to see him eaten by that angry duck which he set of a hammock in between his legs!

Thank heaves Chuck Jones improved!

Naughty But Mice (1939)

Chuck Jones wasn't always good...

[2/10 · 6 May 2001]

And this cartoon proves it. It's a tiring cartoon that makes one want to sleep. Sniffles comes across an electric razor who has a cold as well as he does, and it all seems so droopy and melodramatic. I don't see the humor in these cartoons at all.

Thank heavens Chuck Jones changed later on. I do not like Sniffles at all!

* out of ****

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

THIS is an underrated Bond movie...

[19 March 2001]

Why all the bad vibes about this movie?

Sure this isn't the best of Bonds, but I find myself coming back to this one quite a few times.

I didn't like Jill St. John too much...even though I haven't seen OHMSS, I hated them having to pair up Bond with her after Diana Rigg. Her character was a bit too much of a bimbo.

This is the first Bond movie that I have seen Blofeld in; later I found out that Blofeld was in all the previous Bonds except "Dr. No" and "Goldfinger." He wasn't the creep that Donald Pleasance was.

When I first saw Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd, those two characters REALLY gave me the creeps. I know some people find them as comic relief, but the two were pretty scary looking to me.

One gripe I have with this Bond movie is the scene where Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd put Bond in the coffin in the funeral parlor and try to cremate him alive. This was, in my opinion, a bit too creepy for a Bond movie.

This movie really had you guessing with the plot and all the diamonds being smuggled for unknwon reasons, but when the real reason came out, it was cool. I liked that laser satellite.

The scenes in Las Vegas have to be the best in the whole movie. It picks up when Bond goes to the Whyte House. It gave you a sense of good feeling inside afterward.

All in all, not a bad Bond flick. A good one, but not up there with "Goldeneye," "Goldfinger," "FRWL," "TSWLM," and "TND."

And some people are complaining about no tie-ins to OHMSS. I think the opening sequence well explains Bond's anger toward Blofeld (he even strangles a woman who Bond could fall in love with!).

*** out of ****

Campfire Tales (1997)

Sloppy horror movie

[18 March 2000]

I'm not much of a horror movie fanatic, but I came across this movie when channel surfing. It is sloppily written. From what i know, a bunch of young people wreck their car, and then go to these remains of a church to tell ghost stories. I didn't see it all the way through, but what I saw was rather dumb. The only redeemable part with any morale is the one with the chatroom friend who is really a stalker and a murderer. Then there was this one where a guy goes to a haunted house after his motorcycle conks out. He meets this colonial chick who doesn't say much until the very end. There's this psycho in the house that kills all visitors. Then the guy retreats with the woman, and it results in some silly melodrama that doesn't go together.

And with the twist ending...was it REALLY necessary? Sure didn't fit with what the story was about.

I don't know what you guys saw in this movie. In my opinion, it was hastily slapped together at the last minute. I don't get it. Sure some of what was in that movie freaked me out, but otherwise, its an utter dud. Only for horror fanatics.

This movie gets ** out of **** but just barely. One for the fact that it was creepy, and the Internet Stalker story which actually has good morale warrants it a second star. But that's all its getting.

A Christmas Carol (1999 TV Movie)

Stick with the 1984 version

[10 December 1999]

Even though Stewart probably put off a big performance in this TNG original, this seems to fall short of the 1984 version with George C. Scott. Why? Well, for many reasons. Some of the other actors didn't do too well. The spirits were not played very well. The Ghost of Christmas Present - he's sadistic. The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is not creepy either. Some of the scenes have a Tim Burton feel to them (you know what I mean), but it doesn't match up to the 1984 version. Watch that one.

A Christmas Carol (1984 TV Movie)

Forget the Patrick Stewart version...

[10 December 1999]

This version has to be the best version of "A Christmas Carol" to come out. The acting was wonderfully done in this, kudos to all, as the musical score was a perfect touch to it. George C. Scott plays the best Scrooge of them all. Also for once, they made Tiny Tim look really ill. The ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Yet to Come were also well portrayed, well in short, all were.

And about the earlier comments about the setting seeming dimmer, dirtier, than before: that is quite true. It would be. This movie put a lot of realistic touches on it.

Space Mutiny (1988)

It couldn't get worse

[1/10 · 1 December 1999]

I don't think you could ask for a worse Sci-Fi adventure than "Space Mutiny." Re-used "Battlestar Galactica" footage, filmed in a factory with cement floors, Miss Universe women (the costumes). Captain Santa was rather funny as well. Oh, and the BIGGEST hole in a plot I have scene yet...that female lieutenant who dies and then in the next scene is back at her post! And the use of ancient PC's as stations complete with 5 1/4" floppy drives!

Watch it on MST3K is the safest measure. Otherwise, stay away!

Superman III (1983)

Not as bad, but not really good either...

[3 November 1999]

"Superman III" was definitely not as good as the first two intallments, however it did have its moments, like Superman straightening the leaning tower of Pisa when he was evil, or perhaps the Chemical Fire scene. Another good element to this film was that they got Margot Kidder out of the way for the better Annette O'Toole as Kent's old crush, Lana Lang. It was a big break to see less of Kidder. Superman being evil was good, how he looked like more and more of a dark wreck.

To the bad stuff. Superman isn't supposed to be a comedy, yet they snuck in a whole lot of uneeded humor, especially at the beginning with the slapstick sequence at the beginning. Wasn't very powerful like the first two. I know the network TV version has a different main title sequence. Mainly this was due to Richard Pryor, who is known for his comedic skits. I like this one sinfully though.

** out of ****

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

Wrongfully Abused

[10/10 · 14 October 1999]

This movie took quite a few bits of abuse by critics. I didn't find much wrong with "Star Trek: Insurrection." It was a very good movie, as well as one of the best Trek films out there, even surpassing "First Contact!" It goes back to the roots of Star Trek, the way we used to see it, instead of the pathetic series DS9 and Voyager which have deteriorated. It was also released at a bad time as well. Does Sci-Fi always have to be so serious? Does it? I think not! I loved the humor numbers like the HMS Pinafore number that Picard and Worf were singing. It had you guessing for what was going on! Most of my friends enjoyed it as well! Plus a more redeeming battle sequence than the one we saw in Generations. It being another "Star Trek V?" I don't think so! I don't think Frakes would direct as bad as Razzie Award winning Shatner. Added to the fact that Star Trek movies don't have to be about saving Earth or the galaxy from Armageddon each time. And they didn't have time travel, which has been overused in Trek.

Now the film did have a few bad sides to it - the mild use of technobabble. We don't need to hear "extreme flux, isolitic, inertial dampers, coupling," blah-blah-blah. This has made the recent Treks, especially Voyager, suffer. At least it wasn't used for solutions. If I were editing, I would cut all those non-necessary parts out. You don't need to hear them.

Now I won't rant too hard, but we need to get some more "alien" looking aliens. Enough foreheads and makeup. We need the Star Wars kind. Perhaps they can do CGI, or perhaps hire the Jim Henson company to help them. Hmmmm? But the fact that the Son'a were falling apart was original, and their attempts to make themselves look better (flesh stretching sessions, genetic manipulating), the mere fact that these people were falling apart! Well, maybe the next movie.

Otherwise, it's good to go. *** out of ****

Superman II (1980)

Just as good as the first one. ****

[4 October 1999]

"Superman II" gives us possibly the best villains for Superman to take on, three of his own kind, evil and malicious, and make Lex Luthor look like the good guy. The whole Metropolis fight-scene between Superman and the three bad guys was wonderfully done. It puts Earth in a worst-possible situation. When the three super-villains led by General Zod wreak havoc, Superman ignores it for love for Lois Lane, enough for him to give up his powers for her! I liked the desperation in the President when he called out for Superman when he already gave his powers up. Even though I KNOW he gets them back, it feels so desperate still. And the twist ending keeps you at the edge of your seat. This was also a movie that has been missed too much.

**** out of ****

Superman (1978)

Priceless Epic!!! ****

[10/10 · 4 October 1999]

This has to be THE best superhero movie. And I agree this movie has been forgotten and underrated. It's a classic not to be missed. Christopher Reeve is to Superman as Sean Connery is to James Bond. The only problem I really had with this was Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, the rest of the movie was fine, and flawless. I don't care how much in style they'll go on "Superman Lives," it will not match up to this classic in any ways. Richard Donner did a superb job directing this movie as well. It also had the humorous twisted Lex Luthor, who Gene Hackman played magnificantly, as well as Ned Beatty who was his dimwitt henchman Otis. Who could ask for a better story? So much has been missed! And I mean MUCH!! This movie deserves better, and I mean BETTER!!!

**** out of ****.

Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman (1993–1997)

BLAH!!!

[10 September 1999]

OK, this TV series BLEW!! This is basically a soap opera version of Superman with plenty of sexy viewing. I am sorry, but this is NOT what the Man of Steel is all about. It's dumb and rather, rather lame. The choice for Superman was a bit too young (need someone better than Dean Cain). The good part was Teri Hatcher though. If they hired someone like her in the movies, it would be more worth it.

Horatio Hornblower: The Duel (1998 TV Movie)

Wonderfully done...

[10/10 · 29 May 1999]

Okay, these movies should fare good if these were on the big screen. Well-written adventure stories about a handsome young hero going out to save the British navy from many problems. He knows his duty and he's one of the most clever officers in the British navy. The actors and actresses also have the British accent and feel to prove it. Their remaking of the Indefagitable was wonderfully done, spectacularly! Hornblower pulls off some clever stunts. The brutality of the conflicts were done well. Ioan Gruffudd is excellent at the character of Hornblower himself! He's one brave fellow!

Batman Returns (1992)

It was made too much like "Edward Scissorhands"

[19 December 1998]

I think this movie is the reason why Tim Burton was chosen not to direct the other two Batman sequels. Burton was making another "Edward Scissorhands" while directing this. He made Penguin too tragic, and made you feel too sorry for him, just like Edward Scissorhands, despite his horrific schemes like ruining a tree-lighting celebration in Gotham City. Batman movies are NOT SUPPOSED to make you feel sorry at all for the bad guy, when this one actually does. This definitely is not Batman at all, not what he really is.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

A good way to close out...

[15 December 1998]

Harve Bennett left the Star Trek movie franchise after his idea of making a movie based on Kirk and Spock's early days at the Academy. Luckily, it didn't come to this. This adventure is filled with a dark conspiracy in which factions within Starfleet and the Klingons do not want peace between the two sides. The sets looked better than they did in "Star Trek V," as the plot was a 100% improvement over the trashy fifth Star Trek film. In addition, Sulu, who wanted to be on the Excelsior in ST4 (final scene), finally gets it. Kirk gets framed, as the Klingons have more than enough reasons to punish him for the crime of killing the Chancellor, in which this time he does not do. Superbly directed by Nick Meyer.

Rating: A-

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

My view on "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home"

[14 December 1998]

The reason why it's likeable is utterly clear: this one seemed to be lighter than the other movies, for Kirk and crew go back in time to 1986 and they attempt to interact with people from that era, with very humorous results. It was also blended in with a good premise; it shows a moral of what could happen if humans caused the extinction of one species on earth, for example, humpback whales in this movie. They needed to give the crew a good time, to make up for the rough time in after the incidents in Star Treks II and III, and a way for them to resume their careers after what they did in Star Trek III would mean the end to Kirk's career as well as his fellow officers. This film does just that. There were, like usual, a few minor flaws, but those didn't dig in to this exciting flick.

Rating: B+

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)

My views on Star Trek III: The Search for Spock...

[14 December 1998]

Well, this movie seems to stand out from the other odd-numbered movies. It was better than the first movie for the fact that of comradeship, Kirk finds that his need to recover McCoy and Spock is much greater than his career. James Horner does a good job in indicating Kirk's state as a mess as he has to deal with the fact that he has an empty feeling in him. The destruction of the Enterprise at the end was also dramatic, as Kirk looks at his old ship in flames over Genesis; he has a guilty feeling in him. Vulcan in the movies seemed much more interesting as well, as this one proves an example. It's also the first movie we get to see the popular Klingon Bird of Prey.

Rating: B