Not sure if a spoiler in here but out of an abundace of caution decided to add the warning. I very much disliked this film although Denzel Washington was very good in it. It is a cautionary tale, but it goes way over the top in terms of taking a real issue and turning it into a Flight of Fancy. Nothing in the film is real, everyone is a enabler, everyone things pilots are "special", which just isn't so, and drug abusers are nice and clean. The world of Flight is a journey to Oz where the brick road is paved with whiskey bottles and cocaine but the characters are flat. The real nastiness of alcoholism and drug addiction is ignored, the only beautiful women are those who abuse drugs and alcohol and alcohol only produces a hangover that can be cured by more abuse. Religion is recognized in this film but it hovers only in the background like a watchful but uninvolved presence, like the Fairy People of Oz who have no strength, no real character. The film itself has no courage, no heart,no intelligence, not even a Toto (unless you count John Goodman's character), as it stumbles along. It gives no revelation, it stands for nothing.
Reviews
13 Reviews
Ca-Ching, this one appears to be done solely for the money
17 December 2012
Although I enjoyed the Lord of the Ring trilogy, I found this film to be very poor in terms of visualizations, costuming, plot, and character development. The film can't make up it's mind if it wants to be serious or slapstick. As a result it's a muddle of fantastically silly contrived action scenes, poorly made up Dwarfs (apparently proper make up was not important to the budget), and lifeless script that didn't even try to make the adventure interesting. What is really disappointing is that this film had an opportunity to excel, but Jackson did not attempt it. I get the impression that this part of the story was not interesting to him so he just tried to get past it in the hopes that the second film will make up for this close to crummy effort. This is not a film I would want to see again. I can't say the film was a complete stinker, but it was not what I expected in terms of professionalism. The good thing about this film it will surely make the second film appear better.
Fahrenheit 451
(1966)
"451" Should Never Be Burned
1 September 2012
This is a film that you literally see past all the little flaws and become totally engaged because their is so much truth in this story, it transcends being a movie and gets down to the fundamentals of human nature and the uneven "progress" of civilization and how individuals react in it. Although this film does not rigidly follow the book, Bradbury did not object, and both the novel and the film can stand alone or together as significant works of art. Oscar Werner is perfect for this film, just as he was for "Shoes of the Fisherman"--he is a master of internal conflict within himself and with his world. Julie Christie's beauty, like in Dr. Zhivago does not distract from the film because it is so much a part of the fabric of the film, the contrast in her duality of role shows two kinds of contrasting beauty. The sets and costuming are basic, almost laughable, but their simplicity focus you on the acting which is well supported by the very non-American but yet very recognizable cast to Americans. The interesting Anglo/Germanic appearing cast was done in a manner to not introduce and distract with new faces, but to allow focus on the story. I give it a nine, not for it's technical elegance (which it never intended to obtain), but for a serious film telling a very serious story in a fictional future environment in a very elegant manner. Some films need to be allowed to fade away, "451" needs to be one of the "keepers". It is a film that should never be burned.
The Black Knight
(1954)
Terrible film, no redeeming qualities
1 September 2012
This may be Alan Ladd's worst film, I have not seen them all, heck, I was named after the guy and he starred in at least two great films and supported others, so you can't call me biased against him. Of course, one could argue that it was just bad casting as his "type" did not match the film, but the film is so terrible on so many levels that it is almost as if it was done for a purpose other than making a film, just thrown together in haste, perhaps to fulfill a contractual obligation but done so in order to perhaps kill a contractual relationship. Obviously money was put into the film, not "Hollywood" money, but where a decent film might have been made with normal across the board talent. Incredibly amateurish, and one wonders the dynamics involved with Tay Garnett, who had done much better in the past. There is no redeeming quality to this bizarrely bad film. It does have some so-bad it can't be serious funny moments, perhaps these moments are "statements" of protest or perhaps deliberate attempts to make this film as badly as possible, perhaps a real inspiration for "The Producers". The film is so badly done on ALL levels which makes it hard to criticize the parts. I've seen low-budget British films that scrimp on props and special effects to the point of absurdity and feature little talented supporting acting, but still deliver fine lead acting performances and scripts that overcome the obvious deficiencies. In this case, it would have taken a masterful over the top enthusiastic lead to overcome the so many flaws in the film (even with the at least three supporting actors in the film with talent), but Alan Ladd's performance wasn't even "dialed in". He apparently just did the"minimum" he was directed to do (or maybe he was ill), or perhaps just horrible casting. Peter Cushing at least tried to be the nefarious bad guy despite the total ridiculousness of his role. I try to find good in films, but it just isn't here. This is not a film that deserves preservation.
The Title Tells it All
25 August 2012
Lady Chablis absolutely upstaged the rest of a very interesting cast. After seeing it recently after a hiatus of six or so years, I was amazed to see so many memorable actors from so many films making subtle cameo appearances. It was To Kill a Mockingbird meets Planet of the Apes meets Every Which Way but Loose, a combination of Classic, Cult, and Strange but in a fun way that John Cusak exploits as the observer who is enjoying the strange duality of the characters that he meets without embracing them and yet finds himself becoming part of their lives. The courtroom scenes were surprisingly realistic despite the constant presence of bizarre characters...yet beneath the bizarre is a tolerant reality...two different worlds co-existing and only rarely jarring together. This is a very unusual film, very, very "different" and hard to pigeonhole. It is memorable if just for that. The duality of Spacey's dripping charm character with a contempt and loathing for the very things he covets creates a conflict that is interesting to watch. The ending of the film makes more sense to me now than it once did, perhaps this is the type of film that grows on you. Lady Chablis, you go girl.
Leatherheads
(2008)
1920's style and wit gets it a 10
17 August 2012
I saw this film again the other night and thought it was better the second go around as there were no preconceived expectations. It's a reserved celebration of the twenties, showing the optimism of the period after surviving the first great debacle of the century and the realization that something has regretfully become lost but also there was something new that ought to be experienced. It was a period transition and the film is true to that concept. It's more witty than funny and you need a bit of appreciation for the history of the period to fully enjoy this film. Unlike Clooney's voyage into the 1930's film, it isn't quite as over the top, but it doesn't have such a difficult period of history to overcome. You have to take this film for the narrow slice of time it covers, it doesn't look back and it doesn't look forward. The characters are not deep or larger than life, but this does not hurt the film as the story is in a relatively small pond. The film is more like strangers passing by and stopping and having a very pleasant conversation, then moving on...you are not going to take anything away from it other than feeling good. It gets a ten because it goes a road less traveled in a pleasant way and that is rare nowadays. If you are thoroughly grounded in the present, or are entrenched in only the low points of history, this film is not for you.
The Dark Knight Rises
(2012)
The Dark Knight Trudges On Interminably
23 July 2012
Interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, interminable, did I say interminable yet? What a waste of acting talent, the only bright spot was the good casting /production values which made the film tolerable to sit through but I never want to see it again although I did enjoy the first two films and have watched them several times. The directing was poor, the writing was poor, character development was poor, and the actors were not allowed to act to their potential. Scenes were drawn out, some were dead ends (long and drawn out dead ends, perhaps this was an even longer film and too much was cut out to shorten it? The film was as a dirge. Perhaps it should have been named the "The Dark Knight Trudges On". Only ONE moment of comedic relief and it was not original but the film was so droll the joke, any joke, was appreciated. This movie could have been standard length and been much better or much longer (with fewer dead ends) and perhaps better. Another film which was clearly done to just rake in the residual dough.
Only the Valiant
(1951)
Peck thought it was a stinker, so do I
10 July 2012
This film was one of the worst waste of good actors that I have ever seen. A terrible movie, about as amateurish as they come, something you might have seen on TV in the late fifties early sixties, terrible script, some great/good actors Peck, Bond, Brand, Young and a few others with no decent lines nor character development and some lousy actors that should never have gotten lines. The directing was slovenly at best, the set was just awful, looked like something out of star trek....oh heck, it had no redeeming features. For anyone to say this film is even mediocre they much have been as drunk as Ward Bond pretended to be. I have seen worse movies but not with so many good actors time totally wasted. This film must have been done as a favor to someone who thought they could write/make a movie...a case of the actors being forced by contract into something hideous. Put it in the trash. I was relieved to read that Peck said it was his least favorite film.
Prometheus
(I) (2012)
Poor casting/character development ruins Prometheus
22 June 2012
With the exception of Fassbender and Theron, the casting was very poor. These actors had zero charisma. It was a mistake to not cast more well known actors that don't need a lot of character development. Fassbender's character development was the only attempt (Theron didn't need it) and it worked. Guy Pearce would have been great if cast in a real role. The young actor made up as an old guy NEVER works. Pearce, so strong in the trailer was totally wasted in this film. Maybe a prequel might be in store for him, that would be an excuse. The plot also got a bit too coy, it was thought provoking but went overboard trying not to be transparent and not explain ANYTHING (characters while being developed in a film often discover things with the audience...not in this film). Rapace was just awful, no way to compare her to the strength that Weaver had in her many Alien appearances. Overall a disappointment when there was such a good potential story with which to work. Not a film I would want to see a second time.
The Dirty Dozen
(1967)
Entertaining but an awful war movie
21 June 2012
As war movies go, it's pretty pitiful. However, the casting was excellent and as a result the movie makes good entertainment but don't expect to be educated in any fashion about WWII. It's a classic example of a poorly produced and written movie literally being carried by good acting. This movie is more of a farce than a serious film. But then again the audience that loves this movie doesn't have high expectations or intelligence and of course it is always good to the see the particular cast. But if it turns up on TV I won't turn it off as it is so much fun to watch the excellent combination of A and B list actors. Lemon Tree o so pretty, lemon flower smells so sweet, but the fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat--Trini Lopez's hit song pretty much sums up this movie. Even Trini, non-actor, was good in this flick.
The Avengers
(2012)
Best Written Film of this Genre Ever?
8 May 2012
It is appropriate that this film was better than the sum of the films that preceded it. It is very close to be the best written film of it's genre and it ought to be in the Oscar running for best screenplay. Just a few redundancies from other films kept this film from becoming great and those redundancies may have been mandatory as this type of film has to be slaved to a legacy of comic history. It was the first film of it's type, at least to my knowledge, that generated appropriate spontaneous uproarious laughter/cheers from the audience from brilliantly surprising scenes. And you won't see them coming, they will just happen. The acting is uniformly excellent throughout. A highly recommended film.
John Carter
(2012)
Old School Meets New School Flawlessly
18 March 2012
OK, a ten is pushing it, but this is a very, very well done film with a very good story. Not a campy adventure like Flash Gordon (which was fun) but a serious science fiction/fantasy film literally from another age. Makes Star Wars seem childish and is a significantly better story than Avatar and certainly does not have the environmental sop you see in so many films. Serious actors, serious script, and serious direction. No attempts at cheap humor (although there are bits of humor here and there and there is one character you HAVE to like)nor juvenile distractions and none of the self flagellation you see in so many sci-fi and fantasy films where the characters wallow in dark misery and keep a stone faced grimace all through the film. I really can't compare it to another film, it stands alone and you come out of the theater with a spring in your step. I think this film will gain increasing acceptance...and it is a great stand alone film. Will it get an Oscar, no, but it is a film that hits on all eight cylinders which is a quite rare event so I give it a ten for that. Disney spent 250 million on it to get it right. They should be congratulated.
Avatar
(2009)
Won't be a classic
26 April 2010
State of the art graphics (which will be surpassed in time) , but everything else is just average or even bad. The helicopter sounds were awful, Cameron doesn't know squat about torque and rpm. The characters were not likable, not ONE likable character, even among the computer generated characters--same problem with Titanic, think Cameron has a personal problem, doesn't want to be upstaged? Steven Lang's character had probably the most promise, but Cameron apparently held him back, would not let him be anything but a one dimensional character. Cameron is not apparently concerned with making this film a classic, just raking in the dough. I don't hate the film, but one time is enough, kind of a kiddie movie. This film is not a disaster but Cameron has no respect for his craft.
Tell Your Friends