salorkent Reviews

Cloverfield (2008)

Close, but as they say, no cigar.

[6/10 · 23 April 2008]

By the end of the first season of "Lost," I was hooked on the show. By the end of the second season, I'd all but given up on it. Now, I'm a casual watcher, but if I miss an episode, it really doesn't bother me (even though I know that's heresy to some.) I feel kind of the same way about Cloverfield. I wanted to like it. I wanted to like it a LOT. I bought the DVD, taking a risk. I watched it back-to-back three times. Sorry. No cigar. I almost like it, but that's because there are elements I do like about it. Those elements almost swing me over to it's side. But not quite. So what do I like? I actually liked some of the characters, particularly the female friend (I forget the character's name) who survives. She played her role with honesty and believability. I even liked Hud. He was annoying rather than funny, but that was his character. I like the fact that the creature was revealed to us in fits and starts, so that we were still left, to the very end, with a sense of dread and wonder, because we still knew so little about it. Finally, I liked the fact that the green-screen effects were done so seamlessly, that a great deal of reality was created, and that reality almost saved the movie. There were other factors that were so-so. The opening party scene was longish, though not painfully so. There were several other 'bridge' scenes that ran long. Also, I was really only surprised by an appearance of the creature only one time. But the main thing that sticks in my craw, is that J.J. did the same kind of "explain one thing, create two mysteries to replace it" manipulation that finally burned me out on "Lost." It was obvious from the get-go that he had "sequel fever." It was obvious that this movie was almost a throw-away to set up a franchise of sequels. Maybe not, but it sure seemed that way. Argh. The movie was technically well made, the acting was mostly adequate, the creature was indeed uniquely ugly and threatening. Still, it didn't win me over. Oh well, I think a friend will take the DVD off my hands for enough to make the cost equal to a matinée ticket. I can live with that.

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (2007)

One of my BIGGEST movie-going disappointments

[3/10 · 20 November 2007]

I've been a movie lover all of my life (which means almost sixty years of loving movies); saying that, I'm also one who tries to find something good to say about nearly every movie I've seen. I even defended such turkeys as "Ishtar" and "Mom and Dad Save the Universe." Sorry. No can do, this time around. "Magorium" was such a total disappointment, I hardly know where to begin. So instead, let me point out my disappointment by asking a few questions. Just who the heck IS Magorium? We learn almost nothing about him, most importantly, we get no back story as to his connection to the toy shop (most importantly, WHY a toy store.) Same with Natalie Portman's character. How did she get the job at the Emporium? Clearly she loves the shop and it loves her, so why does she suddenly find it so difficult to take over? Moreover, what is Bateman's character all about, and why did NOTHING happen in developing his relationship with Portman? So many more questions --- so little time. You get my drift. Dustin Hoffman is one of the great actors of our time. What a waste. Portman is more than competent, and there were brief flashes of character development. But a few flashes weren't enough. Jason Bateman had so much potential that the script clear didn't cash in on. Okay. Sorry about the rant. I'm so deeply disappointed. I gave up going to see "Fred Claus" for this? Especially giving that the movie just stopped. No wrap-up. No ending. It just stopped!!! Wha?

Flash Gordon (2007–2008)

I agree ... give it a chance

[6/10 · 12 August 2007]

This is a tough one for me. Over all, I was disappointed with the pilot (which I saw on USA, not Sci Fi); but here's the problem. By nature, the character is campy and more than a little goofy. This NEVER was good sci-fi. Flash was ALWAYS over the top in one way or another. Think about it; even the 'famed' 1980 movie dishonored the original serial in the comic strips. Then there's the debate of do we play the plot line straight (ala Ming in skullcap, Flash as ripped superhero) or do we update the story? While I think Zarkov is really weak, I think the updating made sense for the millions (yeah, there are that many) who've never seen the Buster Crabbe serial, the comic strip, and probably even the 1980 movie. I doubt if the series here will succeed, but given the amount of set-up an updating requires, I agree with the person who said, 'give it a chance.' I'm going to give it four or five episodes. If they solidify their internal universe, bring in Vulcan or Prince Barin, well .... we'll see.

Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006)

A very good documentary that put its biases up front

[8/10 · 15 June 2007]

I'm neither a liberal or a conservative (yes, there are other options!)and while I expected to read the usual 'party lines' concerning the politics of this movie ... I was AMAZED at how many people missed the point of the movie. This wasn't, at its heart, a movie about the politics of energy. Rather, it was a human story about people who found, and even fell in love, with a preferred form of transportation, only to have it taken away from them against their will. ***CAUTION --- POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD*** I don't think what I'm about to say will spoil the movie experience, but I decided to play it safe. The most amazing part of the story, to me, concerns the quiet battle between General Motors and the EV1 lessees who wanted desperately to keep their vehicles. Why did GM take such a hard core approach? It seemed to me a more conciliatory approach would have done the embattled auto-maker a world of good. To me, that was the question that drove the story. Yes, most of the people who apparently leased one of GM's electric cars were celebrities and/or people of some measure of wealth. So what? Anyone who likes electronic gadgetry has heard the expression "early adopter," referring to those with money who purchase state-of-the-art equipment at high prices, thereby fueling the development and investment that pushes products to consumer-level pricing. GM's inability to realize this is what makes the whole story fascinating. I encourage anyone who would, to watch the movie closely, and see If this doesn't ring true. Now, having said my piece about the movie, let me throw some comments about energy policy into the fray. 1) We absolutely, positively need gas to reach a price of $5 a gallon or more. Why? Supply and demand. Only when it HURTS to drive a gas guzzler, will most of us finally get off that doomed bandwagon. 2) We had a solution to coal produced electricity in our laps twenty years ago, and a piece of Hollywood drivel ("The China Syndrome")turned us into weenies. Yes, folks, I mean nuclear power. It CAN and IS producing power safely, and environmentally soundly. Just not here in the U.S., by and large. Finally, 3) Supporting the development of electric-only cars is a viable choice. With the improvements being made in solar panel technology, I suspect a working battery-solar hybrid may be a very real option in the NEAR future. If we avoid the stupidity this movie helps us to understand.

Cars (2006)

The top of the Pixar Heap!

[8/10 · 12 June 2006]

I was quite surprised to read a number of less-than glowing reviews of this film. But then, I realized that because "Cars" is really quite different from most of Pixar's previous fare, I can now understand it, in a way. When you look at the "Toy Story" movies, as well as "A Bug's Life", you see anthropomorphism, of course. In this one, it goes to a whole new level. This IS a universe of cars ... no people, no grounding in reality, as with "Toy Story", etc. Now this could have presented a real difficulty. As with LOTR and Narnia, you create a whole world at your peril; nevertheless, Pixar's ultra-creative staff pulled it off. The voice casting was superb, and I was particularly pleased with Paul Newman's and Bonnie Hunt's efforts. But in fact, everyone "fleshed out" their characters beautifully. Oh, and the animation was kicked up another level, too. The scenes of Monument Valley were breathtaking ... and finally, this movie is up another whole level thematically speaking. You have Pixar's usual "what's really important in life" theme, along with the usual "learn to value friendship" admonitions. Along with these, though, is a sly, carefully crafted message about living life in "the slow lane," done in a way that made me want to plan a hip trip down Route 66. All in all, I've seldom been as moved, surprised and satisfied with a movie as I have been with this one. My only complaint? The story did sag a little in the middle ... something I've noticed again in several other Pixar efforts. However it wasn't a big sag, and things revved up fairly quickly. #Spoiler Alert# You'll never again pass a tractor sitting in a field without wanting to tip it!

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

A sweet and faithful adaptation

[7/10 · 9 January 2006]

I've not read the Narnia books since early adulthood (over a quarter-century ago), but this adaptation has inspired me to do so. The young actors are superb, and the cinematography seamless and sound. I sincerely hope they continue to be faithful to Lewis' incomparable stories. Oh ... and LOTR fans should, of course, refuse to make comparisons. Lewis and Tolkein, though friends, wrote from very different points of view and with very different audiences and intentions. Other than the facts that both stories are fantasies, and both deal with (on some level or another) Christian themes, there is little to compare. Rather, the Narnia books and the LOTR stories are wondrous bookends to the vast field of allegorical fantasy. Enjoy each for what they are. I'm looking forward to the next installment of Narnia, and (hopefully) Peter Jackson will soon turn to making "The Hobbit."

Talent for the Game (1991)

A Good addition to sports movie buffs

[6/10 · 13 July 2005]

I suppose I could be prejudiced in commenting on this movie, since I was a member of the cast ... however, my scene ended up on the cutting room floor (fairly typical) and since I was scared to death when I filmed it and was just shy of awful, I hope you'll cut me some slack! Edward James Olmos is good, Lorraine Bracco gave some zip to an otherwise marginal role. Using real-life location settings in my beautiful home state of Washington, as well as Cour D'Alene, Idaho, adds some spectacle and reality to what is, admittedly, a somewhat clichéd story. But then again, so is just about every other baseball movie I've seen, and yet I love 'em all. Perhaps the most cogent part of the story is the battle between corporate greed and the simple love of the sport, which Olmos portrays well. He is an excellent actor (and I'm happy he's found success with Battlestar Galactica.) This movie had a very limited theatrical release and was rushed to video shortly thereafter. If you really love baseball, and in particular if you dislike the way the sport (and many other sports, too) has been sullied by big bucks, I think you'll enjoy it. Oh, and Olmos was a real gentleman to the rest of the cast, something I'll always appreciate. You'll have to overlook plot devices (in that, it makes me think of "It Happens Every Spring") and you won't have the awe-making spectacle of "Field of Dreams." What you get is a mostly realistic depiction of the sport, and the hope that beats eternal that another "phenom" is about to make an appearance.

War of the Worlds (2005)

A Good, not Great Sci-Fi Movie

[7/10 · 6 July 2005]

I've only read a few of the other comments; yet, I'm fairly sure I'm going against type by saying that Spielberg/Cruise came up with a solid, technically gorgeous movie that was, nevertheless, good but not great. There were three things that tarnished the effort. First, was over-use of the patented swoop and freeze close-up. I counted no less than a dozen times this technique was used (Spielberg seems to love this technique). Second, the attempt to imbue the film with the 'everyman' feel by constantly including crowd shots, actually ended up irritating me. Telling a story like this involves getting us to identify with and care about a major character or group of characters. While I appreciate that Spielberg was giving some homage to those lost on 9-11, I still think the effort was heavy-handed. Finally, the ending wasn't corny, as some have thought - but it definitely cut off too abruptly. The use of the novel-faithful opening and closing didn't work as well as I would have liked. Having said that, let me give the movie several accolades. Tom Cruise turned in a definitely powerful, believable performance. Dakota Fanning was superb. (There was a close-up of her where you could see the woman that she will grow into shining through the child she now is --- she's gonna be gorgeous!) By and large the rest of the cast was good. While Tim Robbins did well, his character was not well-written, and again I found him almost an annoyance. Okay, no more slams, I promise! The special effects were wonderful, and the pacing was excellent. The faithfulness of the story to the original novel made me very happy, as it is one of the better-written novels of its era. I enjoyed the movie, and I will still most likely buy it when it comes out on DVD. But for all of that, I do not rank it as a great movie. Solid, good ... maybe even very good. But not great. Sorry.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

It's Great, but...It was still somewhat a let down.

[29 December 2002]

Sorry, but I did something in Two Towers I never thought I'd do. I actually dozed off a couple of times! I wasn't sleep-deprived, and overall I've enjoyed Peter Jackson's effort. Still, I thought this movie somewhat less than Fellowship. First, Character development suffered...and yes, that was the job of Fellowship; but still, each installment should develop all the characters to SOME degree. Gimli became the comic relief; Legolas's character was almost totally ignored. He became a kind of elvish Terminator. Frodo and Sam went well, and I actually enjoyed what Jackson did with Gollum/ Smeagol. Still, the introduction of 'new material' concerning Arwen and Aragorn seemed almost silly. Helm's deep took WAY to long to tell (at the expensive of almost the rest of the story) and while it was visually wonderful, it too took way to many detours from the original story line. I fully understand that Jackson - or any director, really - would have to take some liberties to tell the story. But some of Jackson's liberties simply haven't made sense to me. The cast remains solid however, and visually this is one of the greatest movies ever made. Please, Mr. Jackson...not so many liberties with the story! Compress,but please don't make so many wholesale changes!