Change Your Image
Intermopper
Reviews
Max Dugan Returns (1983)
Neil Simon's most un-original work
Neil Simon, did ya read Les Miserables recently? To say that this movie is loosely based on a modernized version of that book would be accurate; the script would be totally different if Victor Hugo never existed. Let's run down the list of parallels. Robards is Jean-Valjean: he served time in prison and now dedicates his life to the happiness of a young child, Matt(Cossette). Like Valjean, he has three aliases and --SPOILER-- disappears at the end. Although in Les Miserables, Hugo meant his disappearance to symbolize death. Robards' life in this movie revolves around being pursued and followed by a detective(Javert in Les Miserables). Javert's life-long ambition was to wrest Valjean, just as Sutherland becomes obsessed with this concept as it applies to Robards. Simon's theme is that family ought to be highly valued--one of the multiple themes contained in Hugo's novel. Swirl corny 80's elements--the baseball games--into to the rancid bowl, and a movie compiled of Hugo's ideas forms.
This "comedy" has some other horrific extras that force the characters to act like slow-witted Kawala bears. When Robards goes out in public, he wears a dark jacket, a black hat, and sunglasses...because that doesn't look suspicious at all. Were you trying to look like a criminal, Roby?
If you're into typical family-oriented 80's slosh(and many people evidently are) then I recommend this film with one reservation. Sutherland and Robards, the two best actors in this treasure, only have one scene together because that makes sense!
Free Willy 3: The Rescue (1997)
A movie that had to be made
Finally, a movie that conveys a fresh, new message: hunting whales to extinction is wrong. Now, I heard there was some movie made a few years ago with these same characters and a duplicate message, but that's all a blur because it was made so many years ago. In 1993, the first Free Willy was in theaters, but in movie years, 1993 is as far away as the Stone Age. Therefore, this movie's theme remains original, enlightening, and inspiring. In 1986, a Star Trek movie may have also revolved around a "save the whales" proclamation; again, that was eons ago, so who remembers?
Well, anyone with enough self-pity to admit that he/she is part of the fan base for these movies either chooses not to remember or does not care how many times this theme has been over-used. Ofcourse, they could also be big, fat idiots who honestly don't remember. That's likely the case.
The ten year-old in this movie is a real role model; he's afraid to stand up to his mom, and he still needs her to dress him, undress him, and tie his shoes. He can't even take his shoes off by himself! Does he have some learning disability that we don't know about?
If you're the type who likes to experience pain, then this movie ought to be on your hot list.
The Replacements (2000)
For everything holy, please make a sequel!
Anyone who's read two words of any of my other reviews knows that I am being sarcastic(Hmm...I'm developing an ego). In response to the person who said, "Turn your brain off and enjoy the movie," I can only warn that that act is not going to be enough. In order to appreciate this visual disturbance, you need to surgically eliminate all the judgemental parts of your brain and sedate yourself with a heavy drug--Soma tablets from Huxley's book Brave New World would be preferable.
That random dancing scene was just a little repulsive. Why? Why are they doing that? That type of crap belongs in a horrible soft drink commercial. On that subject, the 7UP man had such a fruitful career ahead of him, but he had to go an ruin it by accepting this role. And Gene Hackman in a Knute Rockne look-a-like role? During the making of this movie, he probably had to go home and vomit everyday before he cried himself to sleep. Keanu Reeves, what in astro-turf/this movie is going on with you? You were so slick in The Matrix, but now you are back to your old robot self.
Ofcourse, there is a worthy scene with the cheerleaders, and Pat Summeral is in this film, and he's not drunk! Rent it just for those two directorial accomplishments.
Star Trek: Generations (1994)
Kirk inadvertantly drops the baton down a pit of fire
Oh, the wonders of rushed production! Most Star Trek fans would have waited another year for this movie to come out if they knew that the script was going to be better. That's exactly what could have happened if Piller and Berman were not the only two people with an opinion that matters. Lenord Nimoy and other original cast members would have appeared in this movie if the changes to the scipt that Nimoy wanted could have been made, but Berman said, "It's too late for that. The special effects company etc. have already been booked. We don't have time!" Those words were not actually a direct quote, but you get the point.
So instead of waiting another year or however long it would have taken to finalize the tweaks to the script and produce a better movie, Berman decided to release this pile of pig fat, generally speaking since some redeemable qualites to the movie exist.
Let's start with the cons. 1.) Shatner's attempts to play a realistic person--not a stereotype of himself--are now totally dead. 2.) Why was the Enterprise-D destroyed? So that its bridge could be replaced by a crappy re-fit version of the battle bridge, ofcourse! The writers claimed that the bridge needed to be altered to one where people were in closer quarters because that's more dramatic on the big screen. However, if they had taken a poll, they would have found an overwhelming opposition to the destruction of the ship. 3.) The campy fighting scene at the end was repulsive. 4.) The writers again succeeded in making a main character look like an idiot for one scene; this time Picard was the victim. When he wants to leave the nexus and Guinan tells him that he can go anywhere, he says something similar to, "Alright. I know exactly where I want to go--to the moment before Soran activates the launchpad. Yes, it would make more sense to go back to an event much earlier than that when stopping Soran would be easier, but then there wouldn't be a melo-dramatic fight scene at the end of the film, and I wouldn't meet Kirk." 5. Why give Data an emotion chip? To deprive him of what makes his character unique, clearly. 6.) One of the most noted lines(it's unfortunate that this line is noted) was lifted from the TNG episode "Relics." Scotty says, "I don't need to be lectured by you[Laforge]. I was out saving the universe while your grandfather was in diapers." The writers had so much confidence in their abilities to come up with original lines for Kirk that they went and borrowed that semi-unamusing line.
The pros are predictably not as lenghty. Some of Soran's lines such as the time stalker one were memorable. Stewart's acting was actually better than in First Contact:he did not come across as melo-dramatic at all. His mourning over his family member's death and his impatience and irritation with Soran at the beginning were superb scenes. Also, the campy lines part of the fighting scene at the end can be justified by saying that Picard and Kirk really had no pressure to succeed, so they were allowed to make dumb jokes. Why did they have no pressure? Becuase they knew that if they failed to stop Soran, then the worst thing that could happen was that they would get sucked into the nexus again. Then they could leave again and attempt to stymie Soran again. They really had an infinite number of times to dispose of this weakling villian.
The main problem with this movie is that it slowly becomes worse. Turn it off after the Enterprise is destroyed in that horribly edited crashing scene.
The Karate Kid Part III (1989)
Heart-warming tale of a 30 year-old boy trapped in the early 80's
Getting a little fat there, Daniel? (I'm not even going to try to seriously evaluate this film.) It's comforting to know that after all his intensive training throughout the film, he doesn't gain any muscle mass or lose any chubbyness. He does learn how to act like a baby though, and thank God for that.
It's also nice to know that even though he has lived and worked in America for x-number of years, Mr. Miyagi's broken english has progressively become worse. This movie marks the transition of Miyagi from philosopher to caracterture/comedian. We get to witness him act out of character and say things like "You want to learn the sweep? I teach you the sweep," and sweep a broomstick on the floor. Very, very mature move there by Miyagi. What lesson was he teaching Daniel-son then? The even-I-can-act-like-a-pre-teen lesson?
But, as one reviewer has already mentioned, this movie is so egregious that it's fun to watch. Every character is a stereo-type(Miyagi and Daniel-son are stereo-types of themselves from previous films), and that means that the film is automatically going to be amusing.
Honestly, though, I would like to see another Karate Kid movie with Daniel and Miyagi; it would have to contain a spoof premise. People would pay to see that, still.
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
Average, nothing more; nice score
Kirk's son dies! Hip! Hip! Hooray! Why did the 2 worst actors in the movie, Kirk's son and Alley's replacement, get so much screen time? Perhaps they just seemed worse than they actually were because they were surrounded by upstanding actors like Chris Llyod. Perhaps not.
One of the problems with this movie is that I am not able to justify a technical error in a Star Trek movie for the first time. I don't ever delve into minor plot flaws, but I am going to in order to prove my point. SPOILER: After Kirk kills Klingon Commander Kruge and barks into the Klingon communicator,"Beam me up,[odd Klingon name]," he is beamed aboard. The Klingon sensors randomnly were not able to decipher the difference between a Klingon and a human anymore, but that's fine because I can justify that by saying, "The writers just did not point out that sub-space interference suddenly engulfed the planet" or "The Klingon transporter officer got caught in the heat of the moment and turned into an idiot."
But the fact that Lt. Saavik was replaced by another actress cannot and shall not ever be justified. Okay, fine, I guess I could say that Lt. Saavik got plastic surgery for no apparent reason between missions and also had her voice box altered. But outside of that, that plot flaw cannot be explained. It would have been easier and just better to cut Saavik from the movie and have her plot role replaced by Lt. Uhura. Ofcourse, Uhura had so many lines in the movie, so I could see why the writers would not want to do that (sarcasm). Like most--but not all--Star Trek movies, the other characters were just thrown in because they had to be, and that's a problem for a literary critic. What plot significance did Checkov have? Oh, none as usual.
Like every Star Trek movie, good or bad, one or more lines always stand out that mark the movie. Some have multiple ones like VI; some have just one, such as V that only had Kirk's, "Excuse me, but what would God need with a starship?" Even Insurrection had....alright fine Insurrection had zero memorable lines. The Search for Spock had just two. They were the following: 1.) Spock's "Jim, your name is Jim." and 2.) Bones' "You did what you had to do. You gave death a fighting chance to live."
Well, I say bring the old characters back for just one more movie! Nothing can tarnish their legacy. Look, Kirk survived mediocre lines and a disturbing exit in Generations. In this new movie with the old cast, Bones--now deceased--can appear via computer generated images with the help of a person who can impeccably imitate his voice.
Gandhi (1982)
Superlative acting coupled by witty dialogue, but still too long
Kinglsey was great; Charlie Sheen was great yada yada. The movie was too over-dramatic, long and boring. As good as the directing was, most people would find it hard not to fall asleep during this movie. It does not glue one to his chair by any extension of the brain. No, it's much too drawn out to do that. I'm sure I'm biased because I knew what was going to happen during the entire film since I studied Gandhi, but oh well.
That brings me to another point. I never liked the fact that it won movie of the year becuase it's not original enough. Think about what the writers had to focus on. Dialogue and symbolism and other extras but not plot because that was already created for them. All they had to do was fit words to historical events, but plot is supposed to be a major element in determining which films are the elite of the year. And shh, don't tell anyone, but there's no climax or closing action in this movie. He just suddenly gets shot. That's a cop-out ending, and the writers can justify it by saying, "Well, that's what really happened, so what are we supposed do."
Another annoyance of this film: pinpoint historical accuracy. The writers prided themselves on being overly historically accurate, so that's why I feel the need to badger them on minutia. Gandhi would never have said some of the things he said in this film. When someone asked him why he advocated passive resistance, he said, "I never advocated anything that was passive" because civil disobediance achieves ends in an aggressive way by getting people to passively act (if that makes any sense.) In reality, Gandhi referred to civil disobediance as passive resitance many times.
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
It singlehandedly ended TNG's(Next Generation cast's) run
What makes a Trek film bad? Well, when the plot has less depth than about 40 Next Generation episodes, that's never a bonus. The main plot problem lies in the fact that any astute person would take the side of the Federation conspiritarsnot the Next Gen cast. Why? Becuase Yes! it's worth violating the prime directive(oh noo! we can't violate the prime directive)to save millions of lives in the universe if all we are doing is tampering with one culture, and a boring one at that. That plot flaw was pointed out by Spiner and others during production (and no, I'm not making that up) but the writers choose to ignore their pleas. nstead, they choose to release a movie that would make the cast look like idiots and cause Paramount to say that the next Trek film would be the last for TNG because no one went to see Insurrection. The fact that they choosea horrible special effects company because they couldn't wait for the good one to be done with Star Wars does not bother me nearly as much as the scrap-pile script. If this film had made as much money as First Contact, then P. Stewart would not have said that he's creatively bored and that the next one should be the last. Also, take my word for it, Spiner would have said that he's too old to play Data, either. (Whatever that even means. How can you be too old to play a character who wears globs of make-up with Paramount's de-aging make-up at your disposal.) Congratulations, writers, you ended TNG's run.
The Blue Lagoon (1980)
They blast the film from a directorial standpoint but explain the benefits of watching it
The person who wrote "enjoy the film; don't criticize it" is exactly right because it's too easy to tear this piece of crap in the guise of a film to shreds. Those people who wrote that the cinematography is superb obviously never went to film school. The scenery is grand, but the director has the creativity of a door. It's filmed like an advertisement put out by a travel company. The writers/director leave the audiance with nothing to look forward to in the movie but the eventual sex-scene. I wonder if the people who love or are obsessed with this film would still be if Atkins and Shields were fully clothed at all times. The blatant answer to that question is "no," so enjoy this movie for what it is: a high-budget, borderline porno.