stageneral Reviews

The Shallows (2016)

Blake Lively bikini fest

[4/10 · 18 July 2023]

I don't think the rating would be even as high as it is if it weren't for Lively in a bikini for the better part of the movie. Predictable, unimaginative, and pretty boring. Less than an hour-and-a-half, but sitting through it felt much longer. Followed the stereotypical terror script to the letter, nothing original to redeem it. (It's odd that these reviews need to be a minimum number of characters, because how many ways can you say the movie was mediocre?) Lively's acting was OK, the premise was kindof silly, the setting was... limited, the supporting cast was... limited. The star was the bikini.

Clockstoppers (2002)

Great fun!

[9/10 · 22 November 2021]

C'mon, people, it's not _supposed_ to be artful film making, or scientifically accurate! This movie is great fun. Zak and Francesca are very cute together. Dopler is an absolute riot! The premise is clever, and who cares if you have to suspend disbelief as to whether or not the science is consistent. It's a comedy/romance/teen movie, not a documentary or sophisticated speculative fiction! I rewatch this occasionally even as an adult just because it's light, cute and fun!

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

So bad...

[3/10 · 17 October 2020]

I really love the original, and was so looking forward to this one. Now I wish I could un-watch it. It's poorly paced, poorly acted, and just uninteresting. The only good thing is that, since it's been a while since I watched it, the memory is starting to fade.

Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life (2016)

Apparently didn't know what created the original magic

[1/10 · 19 July 2020]

In my opinion, this is a perfect example of the writers not knowing what exactly made the original series so magical to viewers. Did this one have the same setting, characters, actors, snarkiness (albeit maybe not quite this rude)? Yes. Did it have the same endearing appeal, magic, and charm? No. Overall, by the end of the four episodes, my overall assessment was depressing. Sure, the girls had there ups and downs over the years in the original series, but this new mini-series just seemed to have an underlying sense of negativity that never really went away. And what the heck was the point of that extended musical? With just four short episodes, there needed to be a big Sutton Foster vehicle? Did they owe her something, or were they perhaps trying to gain momentum for a spin-off of some sort (Bunheads certainly didn't work out very well!) I'm very glad that Amy Sherman-Palladino was able to get her envisioned four-last-words ending out there, but these four new episodes leading up to it were a disappointment, and if anything, only tainted the memory of the original series.

D.E.B.S. (2004)

Love this movie! I pop it in whenever I need a smile

[9/10 · 6 July 2019]

It's campy and silly, but the spy stuff is fun and the love story's cute! I like Scud & Janet, too! Sara Foster and Jordana Brewster are perfect in their roles. Meagan Good is great, too. Not sure why the low ratings. It's light, fun, sexy - basically good entertainment. Not every movie has to be an Oscar chaser (in fact, there's a lot of Oscar chasers that I wish I hadn't wasted my money on!) I'm so glad they made this movie!

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

Crazy range of ratings! Here's why :-) (spoilers)

[9/10 · 24 November 2017]

I'm flabbergasted at the number of "1" & "2" ratings. Seriously? You people need to watch more movies if you think this rates that low against all movies. There's a lot of REALLY bad movies out there, and this certainly doesn't fall into that category. At least it's not another movie of comic book superheroes throwing buses at each other :-). I know, you've got your Star Wars fanatics who are disappointed that this somehow violates the rules of the SW universe, but personally I put it in the top 3 with Empire Strikes Back, and the original Star Wars. Here's why (in no particular order).

(spoilers coming)

• an excellent bridge story between the creation of Darth Vader, and the emergence of Luke (of COURSE there's a Death Star, people, that's what this part of the saga is about, for Pete's sake!)

• a credible explanation for why the Death Star contained such a blatant vulnerability

• a strong protagonist who is neither apologetic nor exploited for the fact that she is female.

• K2SO the best comic relief of any of the movies - clever, a tad snarky, never stupid or over played

• male/female leads who eventually develop a mutual respect for each other (as opposed to falling in love at first glance)

• a darker, more realistic look at the cost of war (yes, the toll is bigger than one little Ewok friend)

• a look inside the politics of the rebellion (and without all the convoluted plot lines of the prequel trilogy)

So ignore the haters, watch the saga in sequence (Phantom Menace, Attack of Clones, Revenge of Sith, ROGUE ONE, New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, ...) and appreciate what a good movie this is!

The Secret Life of Pets (2016)

Not much here

[4/10 · 26 June 2017]

Unlike some of the better Pixar animated feature length films (like Finding Nemo and Toy Story) there's really not much here. (In spite of the fact that it borrows liberally from these movies, and certain Disney classics.) Don't know if it was just a "me too" money grab, or if the writers/producers intended to convey more depth, and just missed. The gags are cliché, the characters are very flat and rehashed at best, boring at worst. It drew laughs at a couple of points, but mostly my reaction was "yeah, that was much funnier when (fill in movie here) did it". The movie clocked in at less than an hour-and-a-half, but seemed much longer. That's not a compliment - it dragged. Maybe it was targeted only at young kids, and maybe young kids will enjoy it more. It actually did seem to have more of a Saturday morning cartoon feel than a feature-length film feel.

Maybe you'll enjoy it - there certainly are more than a few positive reviews here - but it's not one that I'll watch again (unlike some of those Pixar and Disney movies which stand up to repeated re- viewing).

Barbarella (1968)

Still great

[8/10 · 10 October 2016]

I've been a fan of this film for years, but just recently re-watched it - on Blu-Ray and a big screen. Outstanding! It's a visual treat.

Yes, if looking just at the surface, it's campy to the point of being silly, but that is the point. Jane Fonda, Anita Pallenberg and Milo O'Shea are just perfect. They, and the movie, are over the top, but actually do a great job of capturing that ethereal late-60's vibe (I was there and remember).

So find the Blu-Ray, a big high-def screen, and maybe a glass of your favorite elixir on the rocks, dim the lights, settle in, and let this cult classic psychedelic moving picture art just flow over you!

The Rock (1996)

Why is this rated so highly?

[4/10 · 10 October 2016]

I don't look at IMDb until after I've seen a movie, but it's pretty rare that the IMDb rating is far off from what I would rate (or at least in the same general goodness or badness range). This is apparently one of those rare cases, though. I had to double check that I pulled up the right title when I saw a rating of 7.4 (at least at the time of this writing).

I honestly can't understand what people see here. It's over 2 hours long, and I was watching the clock after the first hour, hoping it was getting near the end. I mean, it's a light enough action ride - I was leaning towards rating it a "5", but then the number of things that bothered me just kept mounting, and I finally decided "4" was more appropriate. Here's some of those things (I don't intend any significant spoilers, but clicked the spoiler alert just in case):

• The movie couldn't seem to decide whether it was a gritty war drama (lots of scowling, shooting, and F-bombs), or a slightly tongue-in-cheek action movie (comic relief characters, trying-to-be-witty dialogue). Heck, it even seemed like Nicolas Cage couldn't decide either, because he bounced back and forth between the two.

• Similarly, a fair amount of carnage during the shooting scenes, but Nicolas Cage and Sean Connery dove, walked, or swam away from everything, no matter how many people were shooting, or how big the explosive device, or how far their bodies were thrown.

• The characters were wooden and stereotypical. A flamboyant gay hair stylist? Some "Sir, yes sir!" Marines, the wronged ex-con, the never-been-in-the-field agent, the trolley driver, ...

• The plot was predictable and cliché

• The drawn out shoot-em-up, crash-em-up sequences. I haven't seen so many cars trashed in a chase scene since the Blues Brothers. And geez, that Humvee didn't even get a broken headlight.

In short, it was just one cliché scene after another, strung together over a tired and predictable story line. OK, I watched it in 2016. Maybe it was fresh in 1996 when it came out, but I find that hard to believe.

The Avengers (1998)

Amazingly bad

[1/10 · 4 May 2016]

I'd never seen this before, but it's currently on HBO NOW, and caught my eye. I thought maybe the beginning was a spoof of some sort before the actual story started, but no, the whole thing was like this. It's so boring. I believe it was supposed to be campy, but it's just dry. There's no chemistry between Fiennes and Thurman. And why do they talk in that monotone drone?!? I stuck it out, but it's one of the few times when I really felt like the time spent watching a movie was a complete waste. Yikes. The story itself is pretty non-existent, too. It's like a string of cliché spy and action movie scenes strung together. It's actually hard to believe it's a major studio release with big name actors.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)

Liked it! Victim of "bad review momentum"

[9/10 · 6 April 2012]

I anxiously awaited the movie, then circumstances prevented me from getting to the theater, and by the time things settled down (for me) and reviews rolled in (for the movie), it was out of the theater. I just watched it on Blu-ray for the first time, and I really enjoyed it! Having read the book, I noticed that it moved fast - not sure someone who hadn't read the book would be able to immediately jump into the characters' situations and be able to relate to the dynamics (i.e. to become fully invested in the story), but I was definitely hooked. I like the book, but am not a Randite. In the book, the characters were very flat (probably intentionally - they represent good and bad, black and white, no shades of gray). In that respect, I like the fact that the movie characters have more depth and dimension. They come across as more human. I was pretty happy with just about all of the casting choices (I could not have seen Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart...) There's a few I haven't made up my mind about yet, but I'll let you form your own opinions. Liked the fact that the time period was updated (after all the book was a contemporary setting at the time), but that they managed to keep the railroad as the central industry. Go ahead and read some of the negative reviews - there's some valid points, but I think the overall bad press and dismissive opinion has a lot to do with the initial critical response setting expectations for a bad movie. That's why I normally try to get to the shows as quickly as possible, before I can be swayed (in either direction) by the media or mass-opinion. Clear your preconceptions, rent or buy this one, and enjoy!

What a Girl Wants (2003)

Cute, fun. Enjoy it!

[8/10 · 20 June 2009]

Fascinating to read through the comments on this film. Both extremes - loved it or hated it, and a lot of liked it in the middle. Definitely not a critically acclaimed movie. Ratings guides will typically give it only 1-1/2 stars out of 4. However, on MY scale, a movie rates well if I enjoy it, and especially so if I enjoy watching it repeatedly. Based on that, this movie is up there! Amanda Bynes is cute and likable, Colin Firth and Kelly Preston are perfect, and Oliver James is a a delight. Yes, it's predictable, yes it's a formula romance, BUT, who cares? Every movie doesn't have to be cutting edge and innovative. (I enjoy that, but definitely NOT all the time. Sometimes you just want to watch something nice). Every scene isn't perfect, but there are some real gems (not listed, in order to avoid spoilers). Just watch and enjoy! (P.S. the DVD extras are fun and interesting, too).

Hitch (I) (2005)

Call it a guilty pleasure, but it just keeps getting better

[10/10 · 28 February 2009]

So, it's been 4 years since this movie came out. I just finished one of many re-watches on DVD. I swear, it gets funnier every time. And it stands up - it just never gets old. It made me laugh out loud (again). The pacing is great. The chemistry between Will Smith and Kevin James is outstanding. They are just hilarious. And it's a cute romance (romances?). If you haven't seen it - ignore all reviews, make a batch of popcorn, and settle in for a fun watch. My favorite scenes - the last first kiss, and the speed-dating scene. Oh, and probably the dance instructions at Hitch's apartment. And some of the little touches are just icing on the cake. Like the music drop-off at the end of the scene where Hitch is talking to Sara through the door of her apartment. Enjoy!

Mamma Mia! (2008)

Mainly disappointing

[4/10 · 31 December 2008]

Having seen & thoroughly enjoyed it on stage several times, most comments (pro & con) are based on the comparison to this. (I would give anything to have the first stage performance I saw on DVD!)

Pros:

• The casting of everyone except Meryl Streep (including Pierce Brosnan), and particularly Amanda Seyfried - she was cute and enthusiastic, and her singing was fresh and nicely in character.

• The setting and the scenery - gorgeous!

• The music and the book (not unique to the movie, of course, but a huge part of what made this musical the success that it is!)

Cons:

• Didn't like Meryl Streep's acting OR singing. (The singing could have been acceptable, but I've never seen a seasoned pro over-act so much = see "Winner Takes it All" or numerous other scenes). To some extent, in musicals, you need to let the music do the talking.

• Pierce Brosnan's singing. Sometimes it's a GOOD thing to either dub the stars, or select stars that can sing. Actually, while on the subject of the singing in general, whether you are an ABBA fan or not, nobody can deny that Agnetha Faltskog and Anni-Frid Lyngstad could belt it out. One of the pleasures of the stage play was that they were great SINGERS. The closing mini-concert in the stage play was a treat - a chance to see some of the cast really cutting loose in a flashy performance. The analogous scene in the movie was a parody of that, at best.

• Continuity - the screen version didn't flow as nicely as the stage play. Maybe it's because they didn't have to pace it to a live audience, or maybe it's because the editing chopped it up too much, or maybe they just screwed up.

• I didn't think the "Take a Chance" or "Does Your Mother Know" scenes were nearly as funny as they should have been (or maybe I was just disappointed with the whole thing by then).

Overall, you can probably tell, I was disappointed.

The Bourne Identity (2002)

It's nothing but a car chase...

[3/10 · 27 August 2006]

Maybe I would have enjoyed it more, or viewed it more objectively, if it had been called something else, but come on. If you're gonna name the movie the same as the book it is supposedly based on, shouldn't it at least resemble the original story?? Enjoy the movie for what it is - a non-stop action flic, but if you like suspense and spy-vs-spy stories, I recommend reading the Ludlum book for a completely different experience of the Bourne Identity.

Here's some of the things that made the book interesting, but were nowhere to be found in the movie:

BOOK SPOILERS FOLLOW

The piece-by-piece unraveling of Jason Bourne's true mission before he lost his memory.

His violent abduction of Marie, and the slow turning of her feelings toward him.

The traps and counter-traps in the spy-vs-spy duel with the assassin Carlos the Jackal.