Change Your Image
filmbuff-63
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
The man with the hat is back, and this time...
It's hard to look at this movie on it's own merits, which does it an incredible injustice. There's so much to like about it, yet so much to make you say, "Hmm." How do you not compare it to the three films that came before it? And yet it's a story told in a completely different style- a fifties style as opposed to the thirties serialized movies that the others are an homage to. In that regard, IJATKOTCS is amazingly effective. From the studio sets, to the camera style to the dialog and indeed to the story itself.
It's not giving anything away to say that this story is more sci fi than mystical. The Crystal Skull macguffin is more otherworldly than legendary and in my opinion, less interesting. I'd seen the ending of this movie already in the summer of 1998, even though it looked better here.
Indiana Jones, and Harrison Ford are so stinking likable that I can overlook (no need to forgive) the things I didn't like about it. Still, there's something gnawing at my noggin about this movie that's leaving me unsatisfied. And it's not the plot point that is so cliché that it was obvious months before the movie came out. It's not the ending which was obvious from the first time you saw one of the characters appear just before the midway point. I can't even put my finger on it. It's something elusive.
I'm a huge fan of the series- I remember vividly seeing RAIDERS when I was fourteen and falling in love with the whole idea: an academic/adventurer, used by the government to find ancient artifacts that may or may not hold mystical powers. It worked in spades for the first three movies and through a series of 12 paperback adventures which are all entertaining and well worth checking out (I strongly recommend the books by Rob McGregor- GREAT stuff!). I don't think it's that I'm 40 now and considerably more careful about where I spend my hard earned (I bought the novelization of CRYSTAL SKULL too). I haven't outgrown Indy at all. There were scenes in this movie that made me giddy and one that left a lump in my throat that my Icee did little to cure. The action is great- that whole opening before he goes back to the college was amazing.
The supporting cast was great too. How many Academy Awards were represented here? What the heck was it that keeps me from giving it a higher rating?
Maybe the pace was too fast. Maybe it sacrificed wit for story. Maybe the flow was a little too frantic. Come to think of it, I didn't much care about John Hurt's character until he appeared and I didn't know why Indy and Mutt did. Then when he appeared it was, "Oh, this is they guy they've been talking about for 30 minutes. They didn't string you along with Abner Ravenwood so long in RAIDERS, but Marion's pain and Indy's empathy made that revelation work.
Maybe that's it.
No, it's not. I didn't like the alien angle. Just didn't work for me.
But man, is it great to see Indy back in business.
Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005)
Even BETTER than I expected! Lohan haters are losers.
Being old enough to have seen the original series in the theater, and NOT being a petty, pusillanimous, anonymous Lindsay Lohan hater, it was easy for me to like this movie. And I did. In fact, I left the theater thinking it had been even better than I thought it would be.
Some little girls gave it a poor rating just because of Lohan. That's hardly fair. the fact is this movie is a tasteful, family film that I was not embarrassed to laugh out loud in. Is it Coppola? No, but it never tries to be. Is it Herbie? Heck yeah! It even uses the Herbie music from THE LOVE BUG.
The basic story is: Herbie is rescued from a trash compactor by the daughter of a former Nascar driver. She and a friend make Herbie race worthy and take on an arrogant driver played by Matt Dillon.
In the course of the story Herbie helps to bring couples together. Hence, THE LOVE BUG.
Hopefully Herbie: Full Throttle will re-energize the series and be the first of many Love Bug films. If we're really lucky we'll get Dean Jones back for a film or two! That would be great, and the whiny brats wouldn't rate it at 1 simply because they don't like Lindsay Lohan.
After the Sunset (2004)
The bottom line
You know, having actually been a film critic for a newspaper and knowing how they think, I've decided to do something different cut through the bullocks. The fact is, other people rehash the film and you can read their reviews.
I'll just tell you whether it was entertaining.
Yes, it was very entertaining. Good cast, great locations, clever plot (that didn't get played out to it's full potential- oops! Sorry...). I enjoyed it in the theatre but will NOT buy the DVD. How much clearer could a review be?
And Dante Spinotti's work was stellar as always. Almost as good as LAST OF THE MOHICANS.
Murder by the Book (1987)
A fun little tale of two minds meeting.
Very simply, this is an obviously fictional tale about what happened the night Hercule Poirot paid a visit to Dame Agatha Christie and accused her of murder.
And Hercule Poirot is the victim.
Poirot visits the author and asks why she has chosen to write a book where Poirot dies. The book was "Curtain," one of Christies best novels, even after a half dozen reads. He becomes particularly indignant when he reads the novel and finds out Poirot dies of a heart attack, as a man of extremely advanced age, and not in a dynamic, exciting way. He even rants about the style of dress Christie has attired him in for over fifty years.
The writing is clever, and the acting is wonderful. Ian Holm is no David Suchet, but it doesn't matter. He is always wonderful, and he seems to enjoy playing this character. He does it very well.
Clearly this is a tale that takes place in the mind of Agatha Christie. Fans of this delightful author will enjoy this movie.
The Village (2004)
A change of pace from Night
I just finished watching THE VILLAGE and have to say... I was disappointed. Whether it was because of my expectations or the ungodly slow pace, I don't know, but I left the theater less than satisfied.
There are some cool, intense scenes but the film lacks the character and drive that drove his other films. Before you jack me around and say that I didn't like it because I only like scary films and I'm unable to accept anything else from Shayamalam let me just say, I enjoyed Stuart Little.
Unfortunately the acting even seemed a little stiff- and from some calibre actors besides! As I mentioned earlier, the pace was ridiculous. At several points the theater was filled with the blue light of people checking the time on their cell phones. It felt longer than Doctor Zhivago at half the time!
I don't have to be surprised or scared when I watch a movie. God knows Hitchcock didn't always do the same type of films. I only ask that when I'm done I feel the time would not have been better spent watching reruns of THE SIMPLE LIFE.
See you at M. Night's next film. Hope it's better.
Ten Little Indians (1989)
Not the BEST version, but still packs surprises
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!
First, I need to correct one notion put forth by the previous critic: the "happy" ending to the theatrical versions of TEN LITTLE INDIANS or AND THEN THERE WERE NONE was not something that the filmmakers arbitrarily added to make people feel good watching it. It was, in fact, written by Agatha Christie herself when she adapted the story for the stage. This was done for two reasons.
First, she wanted people to enjoy the play even if they've read the book. She wanted them to be surprised anew, something she did with every play she adapted.
Second, she knew that what worked and satisfied in a novel may not work or satisfy in dramatic form, and I agree with her. I mean, how can you argue with her level of success.
Now, to the 1989 version of TEN LITTLE INDIANS: This is NOT the best screen version of the story, but it still genuinely surprises. It was the first version I'd seen and I was truely shocked when th ekiller was revealed. I enjoyed the adaptation and the cast. My only complaint is that having the story take place in a remote location in Africa it loses the sense of claustraphobia that other versions had.
For better adaptations I recommend the 1945 AND THEN THERE WERE NONE or the 1965 TEN LITTLE INDIANS. The stage version is also wonderful- and lets not forget the book!
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
Not as good as the others, but a fun movie all the same!
I approached Terminator 3 with a fear that it wasn't going to hold up to the other two films. Sure enough, it didn't- but I still enjoyed the heck out of it. Where the script lacked the scope of Camerons films it makes up for most of it's shortcomings with spectacular action sequences.
There's also a few surprises for people who have the last two films memorized. The ending lacks the "feel good" sense of the last two, if you can call it that. I think we've gotten to a point where we know Judgement Day is going to take place no matter what happens, so the writers don't try to avoid it. There is, however, much more story to be told- maybe in T4? Anyway, vis: the ending, some people will complain but I loved it. It made perfect sense! And it doesn't kill the franchise! In fact, it may renergize it! Let's hope it finds the audience again.
As for Arnold? Yeah. He's great. Bring on KING CONAN!
The Core (2003)
There's hope for my career! Oh... The Core...
The sad fact is, this movie's gonna make a bundle of money despite it's cookie cutter plot that we've seen a hundred times before- and not just in Armageddon. I admit it: I and a half dozen friends caught a matinee knowing that it would not be very good, but since we're all comedians we knew we could get a few laughs. A couple early scenes made me think that we'd misjudged THE CORE. The opening sequence in Boston- very cool. The scene in London- even cooler. Then the movie went south quickly. Some great actors chewed up some not so great scenery and then die in predictable ways. Then the movie follows some other predictable paths to the core of the Earth where some other predictable things happen. Then it gets predictable and ends.
SPOILER ALERT! Like you need them... Maybe it's time to take a clue from the European film makers and do something bold- like kill off one of the characters we know are gonna live. I knew in the first 20 minutes which two of the characters were gonna be alive in the end! The only surprise was that Josh eats pepperoni on his deep dish pizza.
As is so often the case with big movies like this there will probably be another "center of the earth" movie coming soon. Let's hope it has some depth- unlike this piece of junk.
The Core (2003)
There's hope for my career! Oh... The Core...
The sad fact is, this movie's gonna make a bundle of money despite it's cookie cutter plot that we've seen a hundred times before- and not just in Armageddon. I admit it: I and a half dozen friends caught a matinee knowing that it would not be very good, but since we're all comedians we knew we could get a few laughs. A couple early scenes made me think that we'd misjudged THE CORE. The opening sequence in Boston- very cool. The scene in London- even cooler. Then the movie went south quickly. Some great actors chewed up some not so great scenery and then die in predictable ways. Then the movie follows some other predictable paths to the core of the Earth where some other predictable things happen. Then it gets predictable and ends.
SPOILER ALERT! Like you need them... Maybe it's time to take a clue from the European film makers and do something bold- like kill off one of the characters we know are gonna live. I knew in the first 20 minutes which two of the characters were gonna be alive in the end! The only surprise was that Josh eats pepperoni on his deep dish pizza.
As is so often the case with big movies like this there will probably be another "center of the earth" movie coming soon. Let's hope it has some depth- unlike this piece of junk.
The Hound of the Baskervilles (2002)
Not much of the book left in this retelling
As I write this there are no reviews posted yet. I assume that there will be several before too long. It's hard not to comment when a great book is adapted so poorly.
I must admit, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is not my favorite of the Conan Doyle canon, but it is quite a moody, remarkable tale. This adaptation maintains some of that mood, but little of the mark. It looks good, it is well cast (for the most part), but it takes liberties with the character of Sherlock Holmes that have always bothered me.
For instance: Holmes is portrayed shooting cocaine- AFTER the mystery was brought to his attention. First of all: at this point in his career Holmes no longer used cocaine. Secondly: Holmes only ever used cocaine when he was bored- when there was nothing to occupy his mind I, for one, am tired of dramatists making so much of Holmes drug use. Nicolas Meyer brilliantly said the last >word about it in THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION. Let it go.
In this version Holmes tracks down the cab that they saw outside in Baker Street and physically threatens the cabbie- picking him up off the ground with a cane at his throat. In THE FINAL PROBLEM Holmes is described as "the foremost champion of the law of (his) generation." That doesn't describe the Sherlock Holmes of this film.
The Barrymore's lie about the woman Barrymore is signaling to adds nothing but a lurid LACK of Victorian values.
One of my pet peeves occurs early on when Holmes calls Watson an idiot. This is a sad remnant of the Rathbone/Bruce era, when to make Holmes look smarter, Watson became a buffoon. I can't remember one moment in Doyle when Holmes berated Watson that way. Sure, he commented on Watson's lack of observation- but not his inteligence. Remember, he was a doctor!
Seldon, the Notting Hill Strangler, attacking Sir Henry was just another way to add action to a dramatic piece. Didn't like it. The seance scene and the appearance of the hound- didn't like it.
Let me say, Ian Hart as Watson was a very nice choice. He's an actor I've admired since I saw Backbeat, and I enjoyed him in the role of Watson.
I've long thought the time was right for another HOUND adaptation. I just wish it could have been done with a better script and budget- with Francis Ford Coppola directing it. Until then, the Jeremy Brett version will do nicely.
For the record, my favorite story is THE BRUCE PARTINGTON PLANS.
Die Another Day (2002)
Red wine with fish. That should have told me something.
Let me say, right off the bat, I am a James Bond fan. Have been since I saw Diamonds Are Forever the first time it was shown on network. I've read all the books (Fleming, Amis, Gardner, Benson) and own all the special edition DVD's. I've watched every bonus feature on all of them. I love the series and think that Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson are doing a fabulous job continuing what Cubby (and Harry Saltzman) started.
That said, I have to admit I was devastated by DIE ANOTHER DAY. There were moments that were among the best moments of the series, but when I start thinking, "You know, Moonraker was really plausible compared to this..." I know I'm headed for a railway wreck.
What I liked: Pierce Brosnan. Always liked him. Always will. The highlight of the movie, as he should be.
The way the formula was shaken, but not stirred. Okay that sounded stupid but it's true. The first 45 minutes are not the typical Bond formula. In fact, the pre-title sequence may have been the most action packed ever!
The music was great. I really like David Arnold's Bond scores. Almost makes me forget John Barry. Almost.
Rosamund Pike. Fresh and beautiful. Truly talented.
Judy Dench and Samantha Bond are wonderful as always.
The action sequences were very nicely done. Vic Armstrong proves again that he is the best Second Unit Director in the business.
Halle Berry. 'Nuff said.
What I didn't like: Almost everything else.
The parasurfing scene looked ludicrous.
The script was adolescent. If I hadn't seen photos of Neil Purvis and Robert Wade I'd swear they were high school dorks who wrote this script while they indulged in PORKY'S marathons. Remember that horrid line about Christmas coming only once a year in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH? Imagine that times 50! I could hear the ten year olds snickering throughout the entire film!
Is this the worst Bond film ever? No. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and A VIEW TO A KILL still tie for that honor. Will I see it again in the theater? Tough to say. I'll buy the DVD for the extras if nothing else. Maybe Michael Wilson will do an audio commentary where he explains the decisions they made.
I must say: Purvis and Wade also cowrote THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, which I believe is superior to DIE ANOTHER DAY in every way (except Denise Richards). I've read their first draft screenplay, before Bruce Feirstein rewrote it AND LIKED IT! They're not hacks. I have no idea what happened here.
Richard Maibaum was the writer for most of the first 16 bond films. He seems to have imbued Bond with a sense of class (the films, not the character) that is missing from the latest films. Feirstein seemed to add some of that in his scripts, but not to the same degree.
Michael Wilson cowrote 5 films with Maibaum, and 4 of the 5 were wonderful. Mister Wilson, I know you're a busy man, but some of us would like you to get back to the typewriter.
I know this is the 21 century now, and a 60's era Bond film is not what we should expect, but I think we sometimes need to ask ourselves a question: "What would Sean do?" We now have the man who could be the best Bond ever, but the scripts that won't allow him to get there. Imagine Brosnan in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. It's easy. He'd be great!
Mister Brosnan says he'll do another Bond film, which is great! This time around lets give him a script worthy of his abilities and the Bond tradition. As for DIE ANOTHER DAY? Who knows? GOLDENEYE grew on me.