I haven't seen it, and based on the trailer, why would I? It's not alone, I've watched several trailers just today, and none of them told me what the movies were about. Trailers, it seems, like many other aspects of filmmaking, is a dying art form. I'm sorry, a dying marketing form...
Reviews
15 Reviews
Rocketman
(I) (2019)
Underwhelming...
4 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
How can you have a movie about Elton John doesn't even mention, Nigel, Dee, or Davey? Whose names are not even in the credits because their characters are nothing but background. That being said, there is some great stuff and you do get some insight in EJ... AND, Taron was amazing, it's worth seeing just for that.
Mary Poppins Returns
(2018)
Hit the mark just right...
27 December 2018
Not a copy of the original but not so far from the point you didn't feel you were back in that world... the scripts was good, the songs were brilliant, familiar yet of their own, the characters were perfect... they only thing I missed was Julie and Emily did a magnificent job (could've been a tad happier now and again, but...). Nicely done, especially Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman whose songs made it a new memory in an old, comfortable template.
Mortal Engines
(2018)
You guys are nuts...
27 December 2018
I don't know what the detractors here are talking about. I held off seeing this because of the poor performance and negative reviews, and I'm sorry I did and glad I saw it before it went away. It was grand and epic, and I did find myself identifying with certain characters and caring whether those with better intentions won the day. A great idea, an interesting world, not perfect by any means and had its deus ex machina moments and logic leaps, but that's the kind of movie it is. If you like this kind of thing even a little, I would say go, decide for yourself.
Justice League
(2017)
I disagree...
4 December 2017
...with every negative review and most so-so reviews I've read... certainly not a perfect movie, but very enjoyable. Good action, good humor, the characters got good screen time. It nicely set up things for the future, told a decent story. I've read some saying the villain was weak, again disagree, thought he was just right, strong enough that needed to go the extra mile, and had some character that was both smarmy, annoying and egocentric.
Supernatural
(2005–2020)
Not liking Dean...
26 November 2017
Maybe it's just me, I hope not, but Dean is a straight up dickhead this season, annoying to watch. I know, he's always been difficult, hard to reason with, but this season he's self-righteous, arrogant and pissy all the time, hope it changes, it's no fun to watch, getting old quick. That is all.
Star Trek: Discovery
(2017–2024)
Still watching, but not feeling it
19 October 2017
As general sci-fi entertainment, I'm marginally enjoying Discovery, somewhat interesting and well-made.. but just like the JJ movies, they're decent movies, they're not really Star Trek. Discovery is harsh, has a violent, harsh edge to it I don't find appealing. I like Jason Isaacs a lot, but I don't like Lorca, yet. Also, it is falling victim to an oft-repeated Hollywoodism... characters who are stubbornly stupid in the face of logic and good advice from other characters who have proved themselves.
Bill Nye Saves the World
(2017–2018)
Really a good show...
18 May 2017
This is not a great, but it is a good show. Everyone is comparing it to Bill Nye the Science Guy... he was being a teacher then, it was aimed at children, this is not... it's called "... Saves the World" precisely for the reason that it's not about the mechanics of science, it's about counteracting the wave of anti-science, anti-intelligence, that has pervaded our society. It's exactly what he needs to be doing right now. Demonstrating that science is not only relevant but essential to who we are and how or if we progress. And people who recognize the backlash against reason and thought should be getting behind him, or we devolve into the pending idiocracy that much sooner. Be part of the solution, not part of the stupidity.
Lizzie Borden Had an Axe...
(2004 TV Movie)
Ridiculous...
7 June 2014
Unintelligent conclusions derived from poorly thought out assumptions clumsily strung together. IE., To decide the maid could conclusively hear the murder from outside on the far side of the house is ludicrous, not knowing other contributing sounds that might have been involved, including her own cleaning activities... much less, even if she had heard a nondescript thump to expect that she would conclude it was anything untoward or suspicious. That's only if it could be shown beyond doubt that Abbie actually fell to the ground in a dead fall... she could have dropped to her knees first and slowly been beaten to the floor, hit the bed first and slid to the floor, broken her fall with her hands, significantly deadening the impact... sounds like they wanted to present a specific outcome despite easily considered circumstances... I find this kind of writing to be present in many shows of this kind.
Quantum of Solace
(2008)
Very Solid Bond film
17 November 2008
This was a solid Bond film, harking back to Licence to Kill, another great film that stepped out of the standard Bond mold. If every film has every element without fail, how boring would that be. The story called for a different kind of film and it was a great one. Sure, I missed some elements, but there was enough suave Bond, great chicks and plenty of excellent action, other elements will return in future films, I'm sure. Personally, I was a little disappointed in the opening sequence and the song was... serviceable... but after that it was very good, highly entertaining. I have to admit that I miss the gadgetry of the earlier Bond films, but at the same time I agree that these days, as an audience, we can be hard to impress with gadgetry...
Five Weeks in a Balloon
(1962)
Classic Tongue-in-Cheek Adventure
28 December 2007
This film is right in line with some of the better soft science adventures from the 50s and 60s that hark back to 19th or early 20th centuries; Journey to the Center of the Earth, Around the World in 80 Days; and touches on the humor and silliness at times of Those Daring Young Men in their Jaunty Jalopies and The Daring Young Men in their Flyings Machines or even How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 Hours 11 Minutes and The Great Race. Trying to take full advantage of CinemaScope and the new technologies in Deluxe color, the filmmakers concocted a fun and funny adventure that looks big and beautiful. Not for everyone, I suppose, at times dry and at other times over-silly and contrived, but always fun, and with the added bonus or a memorable theme song performed by The Brothers Four.
Riverworld
(2003 TV Movie)
Poop, feces, excrement
5 February 2005
I couldn't agree more that the direction on Riverworld was incompetent, but its problems started long before the director got a hold of it. The writing/re-visioning of Farmer's fabulous world was simplistic, monstrously derivative, contrived and hopelessly unimaginative. If this is the fault of studio executives (which is true of almost everything bad that comes out of Hollywood) then my apologies to the writer, but in the end, that's the effect. Whoever is responsible for what we saw on the screen had no concept of the Riverworld Farmer created. And why do "Riverworld" at all if you're not going to try to represent the original vision, because wasn't it the original vision that became respected enough to copy in the first place. If you think you're a better writer than the author, write something of your own.
I really am amazed and appalled at the weak-minded arrogance of the studios... don't they get it? If they do it well, (in other words; let the creative types do their job; re: Peter Jackson) not only will they not alienate the loyalty base of the original concept, but they will foster a new more visually oriented audience that will not only enjoy the show, but want to buy it. If you're not going to do it well in the first place, why bother? That's my two cents. The music was nice. Since I was young I dreamed of writing Riverworld for a cable-type series and was looking forward to this when I heard about it. Oh well... this was sooo wrong, maybe there's still room for a good one down the road.
I really am amazed and appalled at the weak-minded arrogance of the studios... don't they get it? If they do it well, (in other words; let the creative types do their job; re: Peter Jackson) not only will they not alienate the loyalty base of the original concept, but they will foster a new more visually oriented audience that will not only enjoy the show, but want to buy it. If you're not going to do it well in the first place, why bother? That's my two cents. The music was nice. Since I was young I dreamed of writing Riverworld for a cable-type series and was looking forward to this when I heard about it. Oh well... this was sooo wrong, maybe there's still room for a good one down the road.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
(2001)
Mistaken Identity? (MINOR SPOILER)
7 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I won't go into a lengthy review or critique here, a lot has already been said. (MINOR SPOILER COMING AT THE END OF THIS COMMENT) You either like it, don't like it, or both. I fall into the later category. It was brilliant in some respects, visually stunning, wonderfully acted (for the most part) and fundamentally flawed. If you are saying it 'sucked', then you are no better at reviewing than you are implying Spielberg is at filmmaking. It's monumentally difficult to bring such a vast idea to fruition and please everyone. It doesn't present a new vision of the future, in fact it borrows from many other post apocalyptic films. If it was trying to make us care about David, it failed. Or did it? Was it trying to make us care about David, or just presenting us with an idea, caring only how we react? If you cared, are you simple? Were you fooled? Did you miss his obvious flaws, flaws we would call creepy in a person? If I told you I loved you, would you buy that too? If you didn't care, are you insecure? You can care about C-3PO, but he's a cartoon, for all intents and purposes. But we cared about Data. Of course, we were exposed to Data over a course of years. You can love your car, a house, even your remote, but they don't threaten to look like you, cry like you, be mistaken for your kind . . .or replace you. So, all the elements were there; the boy-robot being provoked, misunderstood, abandoned and treated in'humanely'. But we don't cry when he so expertly does. Hmmm. Too long an ending, off on a tangent? That's a matter of taste. Not sure how you feel about it, still talking about it? Were I a film maker, I'd be happy with that. By the way, (SPOILER) why does everyone believe the beings near the end are aliens, when they are so obviously the advancement of robots after men have outlived their existence? This, though not in-your-face, is obvious from bits of dialog, and the mechanical sound attached to the captioned voices. Plus it's deducible from the very point of the story. Well, time to sit back and wait for Fellowship of the Ring.
The Mummy
(1999)
Common eye candy with county-of-the-art effects & a good cast (for the most part).
9 May 1999
For all those who say to me, "it's only a movie" I say (insert raspberry sound here). It's only a ride, it's only a book, it's only a picture, it's only a song. Do you listen to bad songs just because they're there?
"The Mummy" is a formulaic compendium of over used Hollywoodisms, text book cinematic devices, attempts at humor that manifest as cliches and overall bad directorial judgement. The old saying being "when you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance . . .baffle 'em with . . .well, you know the rest (especially if you're a script writer in Hollywood).
A very workable cast with unrealized potential plays second fiddle to an effects extravaganza without substance. The use of tongue-in-cheek to stand-in for character and story development is the oldest trick in the trade mag. It seems to be the only trick the movie industry has left. "The Mummy" is full of inconsistencies within it's own set of rules, sound effects for no purpose, other than to make those audience members with Saran-Wrap for eardrums jump, without establishing the sonic environment.
I could go on but it's Mother's Day and I have a phone call to make. I was hoping for another "Raiders" and instead got "Grifted". HOLLYWOOD! Watch the old classics and figure out why they were. 'Nough said.
"The Mummy" is a formulaic compendium of over used Hollywoodisms, text book cinematic devices, attempts at humor that manifest as cliches and overall bad directorial judgement. The old saying being "when you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance . . .baffle 'em with . . .well, you know the rest (especially if you're a script writer in Hollywood).
A very workable cast with unrealized potential plays second fiddle to an effects extravaganza without substance. The use of tongue-in-cheek to stand-in for character and story development is the oldest trick in the trade mag. It seems to be the only trick the movie industry has left. "The Mummy" is full of inconsistencies within it's own set of rules, sound effects for no purpose, other than to make those audience members with Saran-Wrap for eardrums jump, without establishing the sonic environment.
I could go on but it's Mother's Day and I have a phone call to make. I was hoping for another "Raiders" and instead got "Grifted". HOLLYWOOD! Watch the old classics and figure out why they were. 'Nough said.
Tell Your Friends