Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Big Bang Theory (2007–2019)
10/10
A new and improved "Odd Couple"
15 September 2008
While the pilot didn't hook me, and the geekishness of our heroes is sometimes annoying, the chemistry between the characters and the tight scripting has made this a must-see for me. For those who think Penny (Kaley Cuoco) is dumb, consider the fact that the big plot element here is the cultural gap. Sheldon, Leonard, and their friends are incredibly smart and highly educated, but when it comes to things outside of their limited frame of interest, they're all as dumb as rocks. Penny, while not a theoretical physicist, is sharp as a tack when it comes to what she's familiar with. The intersection of their cultures is where the real comedy comes in.

That, and Sheldon's obsessive-compulsive spasms...

This is a great sitcom, and worth your time to get hooked on. Enjoy! Oh, BTW, I classify as a computer geek, I'm a science fiction and comics fan, and could, I suppose, be classified as some sort of nerd. But honestly, we're not all as bad as these guys...
15 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Avengers (1998)
1/10
A bloody mess, wot?
22 September 2006
How could anyone make a film this badly and still get it into theaters? Someone tell me that, please.

The Avengers is not a total waste, as I think Uma Thurman is quite possibly one of the most alluring women alive, and she pegs the sexy meter in this one. But she's not Emma Peel. Only Diana Rigg can claim that moniker.

Ralph Fiennes is a very talented actor, of great range and ability. But he's not John Steed. He phones this role in, and is painful to watch.

There are other, highly talented actors in this mess. Patrick MacNee, the original John Steed, plays an archivist named Invisible Jones, and has maybe five minutes screen time. Fiona Shaw and Jim Broadbent play the bosses of the Ministry, Father and Mother, in that order, and are wasted in the roles. Sean Connery has a blast chewing scenery as Sir August de Wynter, a lunatic who can control the weather and is out to blackmail the world for all the money he can get, as if he really needs it. And Eddie Izzard is his chief flunky, Bailey, who has very few lines and is wasted here. All of these actors have next to nothing to do, and their presence does nothing to redeem this horrid mess. The attempt at clever banter between Steed and Peel seems forced, and the feeble attempt to inject some small bit of romance between them is totally false. Fans of the original show, of which I'm one, will be hugely insulted by this perversion of the old series.

But, if you ignore the source material, it's almost worth seeing just for the set pieces and Uma's fine form in a skintight leather catsuit. However, if you've seen even one episode of the old series, you'll realize very quickly just how bad this abortion is. Find something better to watch than this. If you must watch The Avengers, switch channels over to BBC America; at least there you can see what Steed and Mrs.Peel are supposed to look like.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sunday Showcase: Murder and the Android (1959)
Season 1, Episode 5
7/10
If this is what I think it is...
11 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
...it's an adaptation by Alfie Bester of his short story "Fondly Fahrenheit", where a plantation owner, James Vandeleur, has an android that keeps going berserk and killing people. The android's psychosis is triggered by the heat rising above a certain point, at which stage the andy starts getting twitchy. The punchline is that Vandaleur himself is the psycho, and the andy is acting out the suppressed mania of his owner. Bester based this story on an account of a slave owner prior to the Civil War who refused to surrender a murderous slave because the man was too valuable. In this story, Vandaleur sells his property and moves because the andy costs too much to part with. And, as with all of Bester's tales, there's a nifty little twist at the end...
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Spectacular film, horrible acting, unsympathetic characters
23 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was fully prepared to hate this movie before I even saw it, for three reasons.

1)Tom Cruise. He's an annoying, self-absorbed, posturing jerk of a movie star, with no acting talent, who phones in what little performance he delivers here.

2)Dakota Fanning. Give her some time to mature, and she might be a great actress. But in this, she's a midget clone of Joan Crawford who just gets on my nerves, and that's before she starts screaming.

3)As good as this is, and it's pretty good, it still hasn't been done right. Except for the Jeff Wayne-produced musical version, which was done in the late Seventies, no one has ever tried to do this story as a period piece.

In spite of those gripes, I have to admit that this is pretty good. The visuals will melt your brain. Doug Chiang's design of the not-Martian tripods is creepy. Spielberg makes it very plain that he's not following Wells exactly from the git-go, by starting in New Jersey and making a dockwalloper his protagonist. And that's where my complaint about Cruise takes full voice.

I know Teamsters make good money, but show me a dockworker other than maybe Hoffa who drives a vintage Mustang Shelby Cobra GT350H and wears a $15,000 Omega chronometer. Cruise's character, Ray Ferrier, is a jerk. His kids call him that. And since Cruise is a jerk himself, playing one isn't much of a stretch. He's nasty, unsympathetic, and you really want the man to die, which would kinda leave it to Fanning and Chatwin, and they're not exactly the most sympathetic characters either.

I chalk this up to David Koepp's script. This is the way he writes people; complex, real, not very likable, with problems that get in the way. But real people are not very pleasant to be around. They're cranky, idiosyncratic jerks. I know. I'm one. In fact, there're only a couple of people you feel anything for. Tim Robbins is one. His character, Harlan Ogilvy, is an ambulance jockey who's got the notion that people can burrow into the ground, rebuild a combat infrastructure, and fight back. It takes very little time for him to go snap! and start screaming. The other person you feel something for is Maryann Mayberry, who's got less than two minutes screen time but still makes you feel for her. She's a barmaid who meets Ray at the Hudson Ferry crossing. They get separated during the riot when the Martians show up, and Ray winds up on the ferry while she's stuck on shore.

That brings me back to the visuals. Over the years I've gotten ticky. I want my fx to be invisible. I want them to serve the story and be as seamless as possible, because I hold to the same feeling as Ray Harryhausen, Chuck Jones and Orson Welles; you must respect the medium, all the way down to the single frame, the single page, the single word. You must show as much or more respect to the individual parts as you do to the whole item. And you need to know where you're coming from to understand where you're going. Some people don't get that, and it shows. Dennis Muren and Doug Chiang get it. They pretty much run ILM, and they have the feel of the tripods dead on. They did the one thing that makes this movie really work: these tripods really are three-legged battle machines, just as completely alien and creepy as Wells imagined them over a century ago. No fixed legs, though, because tripedal motion is tricky, even with multijointed limbs. They got around that by making them more tentacular, but still giving them some mass. The three legs are for the purpose of propulsion, but there are other tentacles, as well as some potent weapons. The Heat Ray of the book is given a slight alteration, becoming some sort of disruptor that'll blast you to ashes in less than a second, leaving little more than a cloud of dust and some clothing flying though the air. And lemme tell ya, it gets used a lot. Regrettably, not on Cruise.

I've seen this movie half a dozen times now. For the spectacle. Because it's that, for sure. Crowds of people driven from their homes by vicious aliens bent on wiping humanity out of existence, either killing us outright or eating us, or liquefying us to fertilize the red weed, towering battle machines stalking through the darkness along the banks of the Hudson, vaporizing humans by the thousands, an Amtrak train blasting though an intersection on fire… those things are spectacular. Gene Barry and Anne Robinson playing the in-laws, that's a nice touch. Tiny little nods to the original George Pal version from the Fifties. These little things redeem the presence of the most overrated actor of our time.

To give Cruise credit, there are spots where he seems to actually be trying to act. But it still boils down to the fact that he's not an actor, he's a movie star. What was needed here was an actor. An Ed Harris, or Tom Hanks. An Everyman. Not a preening glamor-puss movie star who has no way of identifying with the character he plays. Cruise has all of the range of a stalk of celery. I can think of a hundred actors, all much more talented, who could have played this role a thousand times better. But Cruise has the box office clout to headline this film and make people want to see it. And that's what brings in the big bucks.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
This is not your father's Willy Wonka. Nowhere near.
23 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
When I heard about this, I thought Depp and Burton had lost their collective mind. After all, the original is a classic. It's a defining moment in Gene Wilder's career. To remake it would be sacrilege.

Burton has passed miracles before, and Depp is a good enough actor that he could do the role justice. But… no. Can't work, won't work. No way. Dahl's book is a little dark, it might not translate well. And Elfman always does music for Burton, there's no telling what sort of operatic craziness he'll come up with.

Finally I broke down and watched it. Several times. And it's a hoot! Depp's Wonka is sorta clueless. The reason for this is explained early on; after ten years in the candy business, Wonka got tired of being ripped off by his competitors, closed his plant, and fired everybody. A few years later, Wonka reopened, but no one knew who was running it. Supplies came in, product came out, but no workers were ever seen. It went on that way for ten years. And then came the Golden Ticket business, and that's where we come in.

What this version does is cover the backstory, including Wonka's start in the business, his father, the burst of rebellion that made him become a candy maker, Charlie's father and the rest of the Bucket family, and the origin of the Oompa Loompas. They're not the same as the ones in the other film Not midgets in white suits with poufs on their toes and orange skin. There's really only one of them. And through CGI and animatronic trickery that you have to see to believe, they're all played by little man actor Deep Roy, who works harder than any dozen regular-size actors in this. He does intricate choreographed dance numbers, synchronized swimming, acrobatics and gymnastics, and plays all the instruments in two rock bands, one patterned after the Dave Clark Five, the other a cross between Queen and any number of other Eighties hair bands. And he's funny! Deepie doesn't actually talk, and he certainly doesn't sing, but without saying a word he's funny. When he does say something, it's in someone else's voice, usually Danny Elfman's. Danny does all the singing, usually in some massive multi-track overdub harmony.

Willy's dad, Dr. Wilbur Wonka, is a protective, domineering figure essayed by the only man who could do it, Sir Christopher Lee. Chris is a forceful presence under normal conditions, but as Wilbur Wonka, DDS, he's flat unnerving. He loves his son, but won't say so, just tries very hard to show him so, and like most men of that ilk, scares the hell out of his kid. And like most kids, Willy finally takes all he can and leaves.

There are changes in the minor characters. The Beauregardes are now from Atlanta, and instead of Smilin' Sam the used car salesman, we have Sissy or whatever her name is, played by Missi Pyle, possibly the most delectable woman to come out of Memphis in the last twenty years. Violet is now a karate-kicking little girl who's obsessed with winning. Mike Teavee is in the company of his dad, a bland geography teacher. Mike is like the character in the book, only more so; when he first appears, he's sitting on the living room floor, playing some sort of first-person shooter on his Xbox, mowing down bad guys and screaming "DIE!" The gaggle of reporters look suitably wigged out. In the book, he likes gangster shows and wears a huge number of toy guns. Here, he doesn't need them; he's scary enough without them.

Veruca is a skinny, fox-faced little Brit whose father looks like the wealthy estate owner he's supposed to be, as opposed to the pudgy, henpecked fellow played by Roy Kinnear in the original. Only Augustus and his mother are almost the same as they were before.

Charlie Bucket and his grandfather Joe are the most changed here. David Kelly's frail Grandpa Joe is far more believable than Jack Albertson was; in places he reminds me of a British Martin Landau, something I think Burton had in mind. Freddie Highmore is a lot more believable than Peter Ostrum; he always struck me as being a little too robust, where this Charlie is frail and underfed. He's also a lot smarter; when he comes home with the Golden Ticket, he tells his family that he's gonna sell it, because they need the money a lot more than they need the chocolate. They won't hear of it. Grandfather George tells him that money is not that big a deal, but this ticket is, there're only five and he might never have this chance again.

Depp as Wonka is a marvel to behold. He's got almost no social skills, having spent the last ten years of his life with nobody but Oompa Loompas to talk to. He wears purple rubber gloves, a pageboy haircut, and reads his responses off cue cards. His skin's an odd bluish-white, he dresses like an Edwardian dandy, and is as odd a duck as you'll see in your lifetime. He's like Michael Jackson without any social skills. Yet for all this, there's something sweet and endearing about him. A lesser actor could not have done this role justice. But Johnny Depp's dysfunctional take on Willy Wonka, man-child chocolatier, is superb.

This movie's worth seeing just on the strength of the set design and Deep Roy. The rest of the performances are really delicious gravy, and make an already cool movie seem even cooler. Burton knocked this one out of the park, and between it and Corpse Bride he has renewed his credentials as one of the greatest filmmakers of his generation. Don't just rent this movie, buy it. You'll want to watch it repeatedly.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thunderbirds (2004)
2/10
It really could have been better
18 August 2006
I still haven't gotten to see all of this; it's running on cable right now, and I seem to keep coming in on the middle of it. My main reason for being interested in it is that I'm a Bill Paxton fan; he's a pretty good actor, and has turned in consistently good work over the course of his career.

The other thing is that, while never really a fan of the old series, I kinda liked Thunderbirds for the ships and effect work. Derek Meddings was quite possibly the best in the business during the sixties and seventies, and his designs for the International Rescue craft are wonderful. The current team has done a fine job of translating his work to the big screen.

BUT...

This is one lame story. The kids are asked to drive it, and while they do an okay job, it's hard to suspend your disbelief, especially when you have Brains' eight-year-old son flying T2, an enormous multi-ton transport with all the aerodynamics of a Buick. Everywhere you look, you see a Ford logo. Product placement is way over the top here, and it's annoying. Ben Kingsley does an good job as The Hood, but he can only do so much with a one-dimensional role. If you can accept the film on its very slim merits, Thunderbirds is a fun, enjoyable ride. Just don't look too closely at the machinery that drives it.

ADDENDUM: I finally got to see all of this, and it's worse than I thought. The acting is fairly uniformly poor, and while the effects are fairly good, the story on multiple viewings has gotten cheesier. The overdone product placement for Ford is annoying, and the kids as central characters grate on my remaining nerves. As with The Avengers, if you ignore the source material, it's bearable. But not very. Watch the original show, and you'll see what I mean.

And a word of advice to Jon Frakes. Take a refresher course at the Director's Guild. You can do better than this, old friend.

Another footnote...

I saw this again. Last night. On Telemundo. Dubbed in Spanish, with cheesy comedy sound effects. And yes, I came in roughly in the middle, with Ben, Ron and Sophia in their fight scene on Tracy Island.

I didn't think it was possible for an already lame movie to be worse, but it was. It was embarrassingly bad.

If this had been done straight, no kids-to-the-rescue, no tongue-in-cheek jokes, it might have worked. As it is, it's just another beloved childhood joy that's been ruined.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed