Change Your Image
The_StarWolf
Reviews
Starship Troopers (1997)
Read the book, skip the idiotic movie
There's good reasons why the late author's family sued to have his name removed from the title. Those who comment that the film is a parody prove the point. The novel was serious social commentary, NOT a parody. The characters sure weren't the jackbooted thugs of the film. Military tactics made a lot more sense and the humans' weapons system were as advanced as you'd expect that far in the future. And the core concept of the novel - the Mobile Infantry's power armour - was ignored for reasons which really don't stand up. Verhoeven is a hack and the only thing which might have salvaged part of this fiasco is if he'd resisted using the title as a marketing ploy. This would have helped avoid the painful comparisons between a fine, memorable novel, and a laughable shoot-em-up nonsense fest.
Royal Canadian Air Farce (1993)
Time to retire
The first several years were very original and truly funny. Unfortunately, when head writer John 'I'm Mike, from Canmore' Morgan retired, the quality dropped sharply. It's often still amusing, but not nearly as much so as when he was on board, and the sort of humour these days often verges on the simply vulgar, something the earlier seasons saw no need to indulge in. Get the early seasons if you can. And, while you're at it, consider looking into the radio series which has (had?) been on the air for over twenty years. This is the sort of thing which makes me wonder why Canada has such a difficult time putting together successful comedy series. The talent is obviously there. For those who think 'SEINFELD' was funny, I recommend an early AIR FARCE End-Of-Year special. In the words of my idol, Slappy Squirrel, "Now that's comedy!".
Department S (1969)
They don't make them like that any more
Like NIGHT STALKER and then X-FILES, the show set up a fantastic situation and the main characters had to sort it out. Unlike these, the hero(es) weren't left holding an empty bag at the end. They had usually tangible results. It was also made clear that the 'good guys' were in a dirty profession where they occasionally had to pull some nasty things. Imagination, wit, acting which didn't always take itself too seriously ... I miss it. One reason being, I'm hard pressed to think of too many shows - BANACEK aside - which did as good a job of taking the viewer and grabbing their attention right off the bat. The writers excelled at setting up hugely improbable, if not downright impossible situations which the characters then had to find an explanation to. explanations which often took 90 degree turns into the clearly unexpected yet, for all that, still made sense. Too, I agree with another reviewer that the Anabelle character was somewhat underused, but when she was on screen, it wasn't just for eye candy. She was quite competent in her own right and stood up to the two male leads when she felt the point she was making warranted it. A rarity in those days. Sullivan? If he wasn't in the Department, he'd be working for the KGB or CIA. He's that sort of coldly efficient, ruthless type. He knows how the world works and realizes what it can take to get the job done. King? It's clearly a game to him. One he excels at and which he parleys into ideas for the detective/spy novels he writes as his ostensible 'real' job. He's probably the most fun to watch of the three, although they all have their moments and often, too. I do agree that the eventual spin-off series featuring only his character lacked the interest of the original, however.
Bon Cop, Bad Cop (2006)
It IS a satire, after all
Lola Campbell must have seen a different film than I did. The murderer's motivation is quite clearly established.
As for the character of the Québecois cop being overdone, of course he is. It IS a satire, after all. But one which was done so well that, even when one sees a gag or punchline coming, one can't help laugh because it is generally superbly executed.
The one thing which cost the film a couple of points is that it gets rather grim near the end and the laughs fade until the very end punch line. SHAUN OF THE DEAD handled that better. Still, I have no reservation about recommending it.
The Creeping Terror (1964)
Wow, just ... wow.
As founding president of Ottawa's Waldorf & Statler Bad Film Appreciation Society (named after the two old hecklers in THE MUPPET SHOW) I sit in unabashed awe of this film. So much so that I'm not sure how the 'spoilers' rule can apply here, given how thoroughly rotten it already is.
Yes, what you may have heard of it is true. While PLAN 9 deserves recognition for its eye-popping badness, and many other films have one howling at the silly plots and ridiculous scripts (LIFEFORCE anyone?) incompetent direction and "special effects by Billy", one has to agree with the writers of THE GOLDEN TURKEY AWARDS when, in the sequel book - SON OF ... - they admitted the only reason CREEPING TERROR hadn't been given the all-time worst film EVER title in the first book was that they'd not been able to find a copy to view at the time.
Don't believe my 1 out of 10 rating. It's just that the scale here won't allow for "0" or negative numbers.
Hard to believe, but the intergalactic alien starship crashing to earth is depicted by taking stock footage of an army rocket being launched, and running the footage backwards through the projector. Not even PLAN 9 was that cheap. As for that ship? One of its consoles featured a standard, black Ma Bell telephone dial. Talk about 'advanced technology'.
Yes, the monster moves at such a slow pace (hard to go fast when you can't see from under that rug, I suppose) that an arthritic snail could get out of its way, yet people keep falling prey to it. Darwin in action.
And, 'stock footage'? Have a look at the sheriff's station. Note the exact same cloud in the sky in every scene it appears in. I've heard of constant weather, but this is ridiculous.
Yes, they lost part of the soundtrack, necessitating a narration which often lasts longer than the dialog it replaces. Can you say "awkward"?
The extras? The film people drove a flatbed truck through a small town with the 'monster' on the back and a sign telling people "If you want to be in a movie, go to ..." so forth. People who showed up there were told they could be in the film if they paid $25. This explains much about the quality of the acting. Oh, sorry, did I say "quality" and "acting"?
At least the director won't be foisting any more such on us - he disappeared four days before the end of the production, never to be seen again.
Possibly the worst part of it all is that this was committed in 1964. A full EIGHT YEARS after the outstanding FORBIDDEN PLANET. Weren't things supposed to IMPROVE in the meantime?
Demonwarp (1988)
PLAN 9 for the 80s.
While not as bad as THE CREEPING TERROR (how could anything be?), this confused mess definitely ranks (literally) right down there with some of the worst. As someone else wrote, even a couple of topless bimbos can't begin to save this dreadful piece of crap. It wouldn't have taken much for a competent director/screenwriter to turn this into a truly hilarious comedy. As it was it had me giggling in frank disbelief at the absurdities on screen. A 'Bigfoot' monster that's taken high school auto shop classes? Must have, given how it cleverly disabled that engine. But wait! It's not a monster movie, it's a zombie movie, as shown by the Romero retreads seen shuffling about. Although that's not right either as you've got aliens. But are they aliens? Where does the 'demon' part from the title come in? Actually, this film doesn't know WHAT the heck it wants to be. I can only conjecture that George Kennedy, an otherwise fine actor, is staying up nights wishing he could find ways to destroy every copy of this abomination.
V for Vendetta (2005)
Close to perfect
The only reason I gave it a "9" is that perfection (implied by a "10") is a physical impossibility. Otherwise, this film would rate it. It discards the plot-stopping padding elements of the comics while retaining the key points and character facets which made the comic such a successful, thought-provoking work. The sad part being, those who desperately need to see this - to set THEM thinking - probably won't.
One thing, however, in the "synopsis" section someone wrote that V's name is "Rockwood" or some such. It isn't. That was a cover name - belonging to a man long dead - used to draw Inspector Finch to him. One of the side effects of the treatment at Larkhill was to erase much of V's memory. He doesn't know who he was, nor do we, either in the film or in the comics. Just 'the man in room 5' or "V" in Roman numerals.
Memoirs of a Survivor (1981)
One of the ten worst - ever
It's easy to take shots at 50s horror flicks featuring people you'd never heard of before, nor will ever hear from again. But that such a comparatively modern film, featuring name stars such as Nigel Hawthorne and Julie Christie could be so mind-numbingly bad beggars description.
The opening screen reads "When Things Stopped". It's puzzlingly inaccurate as we know officials have working helicopters. Could the film makers be unawares of the complex infrastructure needed to keep those delicate machines flying? Hardly something you'd expect after societal collapse. The opener is accurate in one sense, though as much of the film left me feeling the plot - what there was of it - had stopped.
Christie? She practically send a surface mail letter in to stand for her performance. Much of the film has her so listless that one wonders if the character (or actress) has been shot with an elephant tranq dart.
The bit with the wall that's a gateway to another reality? Excuse me? What possible reason would Christie's character have for wanting to return to her dismal reality after her first time through? The whole concept made absolutely no sense whatsoever. And the kids dancing around the giant egg? Just what drugs did someone slip in the writers' drinking water?
A memorable passage from Ayn Rand's book THE FOUNTAINHEAD has a character reading something which is essentially gibberish and thinking it "...must be profound because he didn't understand it." Wanting to be sure about that here, I showed it to a friend who, at the time, was working on her psych doctorate (with a Lit minor). The film over I asked her if there was something, some deep, subtle meaning I was missing. She replied by pointing out that some non-conforming stories are trying to tie into (she spewed forth psych-babble-double-talk) and make reference to literary (more jargon). Pausing, she looked at the now turned off TV screen, then back to me and went on ...
"And then there's films such as this which are just garbage, plain and simple."
Memoirs of a Geisha (2005)
Steven, Steven, Steven ... how could you?
In SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, Stephen Spielberg twisted German manufacturer Porsche's arm into having them dig up WWII blueprints so they could build him authentic German tanks for the film.
This makes all the more incomprehensible how he could lend his name to MEMOIRS.
Those who point out the lead was Chinese and LOOKED/FELT Chinese were quite right. She's a fine actress, but she's not Japanese and when your central character is supposed to be that's Not A Good Thing. 129 million Japanese and they couldn't find ONE actress suitable for the role? Did they even look?
What were the costume designers thinking of? Lady I know who is licensed to teach the making and wearing of kimono in Japan was wincing visibly at some of the design goofs. Even *I* could spot them. This is not typical of Spielberg's attention to details.
The main dance number? My God! That was right out of a 70's disco. Whatever possessed the drugged-out choreographers to come up with that? It was painful to watch.
****************Spoiler?**************
They quite correctly state that Geishas are not prostitutes and it's not about sex.
OK. So why the heck do they then spend all that time going on about selling her virginity as though it WAS about sex???
****************Spoiler Ends**************
There were some wonderful touches, to be sure. One seasonal transition scene stands out as one of the all-time best I've witnessed, for example. And I agree there were some lovely visuals, though bad focus rendered many not nearly as effective as they might have been. (Perhaps a projector problem?) But the main character just didn't 'feel' right, and there were enough other things just plain wrong with it all that, given Spielberg's name on it even as just producer(?), it really should have been better and doesn't merit more than a charitable '3'. The book deserved more.