Reviews

25 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
uhmm Really? this is what the hype is all about?
23 March 2012
I confess that until this week, I was unaware of the anticipation over the release of this film. I had some time available and didn't want to things I should have been doing, so I saw it. After some research on it, I understood what the plot was about. I confess it sounded interesting. What I didn't understand until the movie laid it out, was the whole televised spectacle that was driving it. As soon as that was put forth, I thought "oh, The Running Man from the 80's". As it turns out it's a lot more boring. The plot often contradicts itself, the action is mostly filmed in shakeycam and the hackneyed concept of the 'good hero' not able to kill just sours it for me. Maybe the other novels continue this story to it's expected conclusion. I do not know. I DO know I won't pay money to see the sequel.
8 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not Oscar worthy
12 February 2012
I went to see this for multiple reasons and knew that it was a drama about a man dealing with his family. The script and the director do a good job of pacing this kind of movie. The trouble with this is it makes this story almost boring; at the least it's plodding. This movie is really a vehicle for Clooney. Unfortunately he is playing a role very similar to his character in Up in the Air; an emotionally detached person with suddenly too much on his plate. His performance is fair, but I found it lacking. His shell never really cracks and events of the magnitude he is going through should have cracked it, hard. The better performance is by Shailene Woodley. Her character shows a growth into maturity. Overall the story has too many loose ends and bits, the performances are nothing we haven't seen before, the direction is measured and stock. A 5 out of 10.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Immortals (2011)
4/10
A hash-up of a mash-up.
14 November 2011
I knew character depth was lacking. No problem, it's a Greek myth/action movie. I expect it. I knew the story would be weak, but by Zeus! such a mash-up! Why can't people leave history alone? The story of Theseus is a classic; if the character wasn't named this and they removed the 'Minotaur' then I'd have no grounds to complain. No wait, I'm lying. I'd still have much to complain about in this mash-up of all sorts of myths, legends and total fabrications. (I know that would make it 'Fiction', but presenting it in the 'Greek mythos' veneer is what is appalling.)

Moving on to acting. Who is the voice coach in this? Sure is a lot of {speech unintelligible} going on here. Otherwise, fairly bland except for Roarke who goes all crazy on folks. So why would someone follow King Crazy? No idea. While it's fine that they used a 'diverse cast'..well, it's fine as long as the next movie about Indian/African/Nipponese mythology and legends does the same.

Visually the director made a lot of the scenes very stunning. Fight scenes are well done. Someone used the 'white clay people', a possible interpretation of what titans looked like, literally. Meh. a 4 out of 10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In Time (2011)
3/10
Who can I blame for this?
2 November 2011
I went into this movie hoping for a reasonable remake of the 1976 SF movie "Logan's Run". Well, that's not what I got. What I got was an unworkable premise, bad actors(or un-actable scenes and/or dialog) and extremely unbelievable situations. Premise - In a way that is not even attempted to explain, you are born with an embedded time clock that will 'go off' at 25 and begin counting down your last year of life, BUT this clock can be manipulated by 'pert near anything. So, as we find out (eventually) the poor work hard to afford a little bit of luxury, while the rich live forever. Immediately I saw that it would never work. If there was a device that interfaced with the clock, then it could be reversed engineered and THEN where would the system be. Acting - How would someone behave if your world revolved around this concept?? That thought gives my critique of the acting some slack. Since I have no baseline on how emotionally retarded the extreme classes presented in the film would be, it's hard to be too damning. But damning is what my instinct say be. Wooden, purposeless? I suppose Flat would be my best one word for the acting. Unworkable situations - Without being a spoiler, there are several scenes in the movie which are just... ridiculous. Even if I had put my brain in a jar, my butt was smart enough to see the implausibility of several scenes. I gave it a 3 simply because there were a few entertaining moments, the nice set on Amanda Seyfried, and the acting may have been inhibited/warped by the director (& screenwriter).
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Misses the Mark (for me)
31 July 2011
I've not read the book (books?) so I have no bias in that regard. For me there were several plot issues that I had issues with. This isn't a spoiler, so I won't go into details. A simple one is size of scout ship vs. size of alien. The way the story weaves in all the players of the wild west, Cowboys, Indians and Outlaws is very well done. The performances are pretty good, but Craig plays it too much like James Bond for me. Maybe Favreau wanted him to play it quiet-cool, it just comes off as too 'Bond-ish' for me. Ford is terrific as the tough-as-nails ex. Civil War Colonel. The effects are first rate. I enjoyed it, but they could have done a little better.
50 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fast Five (2011)
5/10
How to mess up an action movie
24 May 2011
I confess to not being a big fan of the 'Fast..." series. I do enjoy a good action film. I didn't enjoy this one due to it exceeding my ability to suspend disbelief quotient. Cars CANNOT do those things. If you show the stars having their first hot meal in a while eating like hungry dogs, then how do they later afford the stuff they need for the 'job'?. How, in a country run by the criminal they rob, do they get fake passports? Fast Five is too full of these issues for my mind to sit there on idle. It wakes up and busts out of the jar I put it in prior to going in to thee movie, and kicks the inside of my skull. Stop it! get out now! But no, I stayed to the end. Rental Only.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unstoppable (2010)
5/10
A bit formulaic + shakeycam
13 November 2010
So, I was hoping for something more...intense?..maybe I was not in mood, but in a nutshell here is what I didn't like. 1.) The stereotypes. Old, retiring, know-it-all and young whippersnapper new partner that rub each other the wrong way until they face a crisis. 2.) The idiot upper level vs. the knows-whats-going-on-manager-in-the- trenches. 3.) The random guy in a brief scene who shows up later to 'save the day' 4.) ShakeyCam and swooping shots. Tony REALLY likes them. 5.) I will never-ever believe that putting a penny on the tracks is dangerous. 6.) Predictable oh-so-happy ending. 7.) Did I mention ShakeyCam? I really HATE ShakeyCam, it is a poor substitute for good stunt work.
17 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Who wrote this?
1 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
OK, first thing is I stopped reading X-Men about 20 years ago (around issue #230?) So, I can't speak for the 'accuracy' of this story. But, as a movie script..it's weak. So, I'm to believe that Wolverine and Sabertooth are related, that they both are practically immortal, and Wolverine was just FINE with war and killing until about 100 years had past? Just a bit weak to me. And it's short! 107 minutes!? This franchise has lots of fans, they'll be willing to sit through 120 or so for a better story. Normally I don't do spoilers but I have to mention the following as examples of poor writing. 1. Wolvie is sick (with the puberty/mutant change I suppose) and then he hears a shot, jumps out of bed, runs to see his dad die, freaks out, and kills the murderer; except Surprise!, it wasn't his real dad, the killer is. oops! ..say What? 2. Doesn't anyone notice how these two soldiers are fine after battles? Even though their clothes would have holes and blood? 3. Firing Squad scene - I'd much rather have their lawyer argue that since sentence was executed, they should be free. Not their fault they can't be killed. 4. Boy! the 'Team' sure has some fast jumping dudes! Oh and that rock they went in after...uhm...why not send Teleport fella in, *pop*, grab rock, *pop*, all done! 5. OK, wife's death a fake. Why? Her objective was to goad Wolvie at Sabertooth, which in turn gives him to Stryker. Fine, Stryker is a cold SOB so is Sabertooth..she's done, DO IT for real and then she's out of the equation. Besides, Wolverine's animal senses should have detected the blood that isn't her's or something. 6. That was fast! So, presto adamantium is now in him. My he moves well for someone just made quite a bit heaver, IMO. 7. Got Adamantium bullets!? He's escaped! GIVE THEM TO Agent Zero! jeeze! he can shoot like Alvin York! but no,..

I think that's where I pretty much lost interest. But there is quite a bit more... Oh! I did forgot to mention the Scott Summers and the How-the-heck-did-he-find-out-that-ruby-quartz-stops-his-power bit.

The effects are nice and I'm a fan, so It gets a small bump.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Duplicity (2009)
4/10
A Caper movie done wrong
24 March 2009
I love caper movies. Ocean's 11, Heist, How to Steal a Million, and of course The Sting. All of these types of movies share one important aspect; The Audience is in on it. Too bad writer/director Tony Gilroy, who has done such a fine job on earlier efforts, decided to stretch the bounds of the genre. Having the two lead 'con men' be seemingly at odds with each other, it didn't heighten the tension, it just made it confusing. See, the tension should be with the 'victims' being more and more nervous about what is going to happen next. I'm sure, in my gut, that I've seen movies with this twist, I just can't recall one. Maybe it's the flat chemistry between Julia and Clive. I'm betting that director Gilroy was so focused in keeping all the pieces in place with all the flashbacks that he left no time to actually direct the stars. So, we're left with a story that has a number of flashbacks, is twisty in the first place and two leads who wander thru the script, two 'victims' who we like more than the leads and the end result is a confused lackluster mess. a 4 (Hey! it IS Julia) out of 10.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Taken (I) (2008)
5/10
Why don't Directors learn?
15 February 2009
So, I see this new movie out; an action flick with Liam Neeson..his daughter kidnapped! Hmmm..has potential, it's an inherently suspenseful situation. I like Liam work to date, so yea I'll go. Wished I hadn't. To many issues with the plot, without being a spoiler, things like: He has 'special' buddies, why aren't they helping?, These bad guys obviously do this a lot, so why the 'screw up' with the friend?, lastly Why no repercussions for the violence!? Lastly and most negatively, WHY THE SHAKEYCAM!?? I can not stand this 'technique' of filming an action scene! Just because you CAN use this method, doesn't mean it's ALWAYS a good idea. In some places it's OK. But this director uses it for every scene. Is this a way to avoid hiring stunt men? Liam's acting is on center stage and it is OK. I was hoping for a bit more emotional turmoil or intensity. The issues with the story and the poor directing choices left me unsatisfied. 5-plot-7-acting-4-dir-6-fx-5 entertainment = 5.4
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
WALL·E (2008)
8/10
Beautiful but Flawed
1 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Was looking forward to this latest offering from Pixar for quite awhile so maybe that is contributing to my disappointment. The story's heart is simple; a lonely robot doing it's job finds love(?) and struggles to keep it. Fine, I can deal with the 'robots with emotions' bit but there are too many plot distractions for me to enjoy the simple story. 1.Why are all the other WALL-E's non functional? 2. Why would they be nothing more than robotic trash compactors? 3. If everyone is gone, why is there power? 4. If all the plants are dead, then why is there air? (this is an assumption on my part, all left due to over garbage, bad air (seen in video message), but we see that the oceans are still there, so plankton should still be present, I thought I saw birds, so I'm confused as to why 'we' left. 5. Probe sent to search for plants back on Earth, even though the ships Autopilot has taken control and initially prevents the return to Earth, so why send probes at all? 6. Why the huge automated probe ship? oh, that's right Wall-e has to have something to cling to on the return...duh. 7. How did a plant live in a sealed refrigerator? 8. If the space yacht is dumping garbage, where are they getting the raw materials to survive 700 years in space in the first place?

There are other flaws, and any movie will have them, but when there are so many, it exceeds my suspension of disbelief factor and then I get annoyed.

..why would Wall-E awake and be the first robot in the movie to exhibit 'robot like' behavior?

I can only assume that Lassiter was Ex.Producer in name only, and didn't lend his steady hand to this project.
6 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Why film it this way?
4 August 2007
Just saw the third chapter of the 'Bourne' franchise and I must say I was disappointed. Paul Greengrass needs to understand that the use of the Steadycam worked very well in United 93, a hypothetical documentary (I refrain from calling it a mock-umentary), it's use is NOT optimal with this subject. The action scenes are way to shaky, even the excessive close-ups are shaky. I noted this same problem when he directed the 2nd film of this series. This is an ACTION picture, I need to be able to make out what action is happening, not just that action is happening. The first director, Doug Liman, did a far better job of filming action scenes. In addition to that, there are a number of plot issues that I'll not outline in detail, but are notable enough for me to go "What? they're just now figuring out she lied?" or "How did he get in there?" Also, are supposed to have any character depth? Aside from Bourne having some flashbacks, where we mostly see the top of Jason's head, no one has or shows much emotion. There is some possible spots where some humanity could show, but we never get there. So, if the focus is supposed to be "Who Am I...Really?" and we are supposed to care, then this isn't that film.
7 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
4/10
Once again they try too much
4 May 2007
Why is it that all Hollywood super-hero adaptations, if they start well, eventually go overboard? Spider-Man the comic book has been on going for, what, 40 years? Yet Hollywood insists on trying to cram 5 years of story into 2+ hours. With that off my chest let me say that it's obvious that Sam Raimi loves Spider Many and tries to make a good script, but there is just too much involved to do it justice. What there is has problems, mostly plot holes. One of the biggest is one of my favorite Spidey power, spider sense! It is on the fritz for most of this film. The REASON it is on the fritz is so that the over-the-top battle scenes can take place. Now I know spidey regenerates quickly, but he's not superman! he does cut and bleed and his bones will break...not in this cartoon version. But having Spidey dodge his opponents would not satisfy some know-nothing Hollywood big wig by having enough 'action'. Now for the good. Good dialog, except for the lack of snappy patter during combat that is part of the Spiderman mystique. The love story and relationships, well done. Super effects, solid acting & direction. It gets a 7 from me, simply for being entertaining, and I was entertained, when I wasn't noticing problems.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ghost Rider (2007)
7/10
Why trash this film?
17 February 2007
I'm scratching my head at some of the vitriol that is put forth in reviews; both hear and by professional film reviewers. IT'S COMIC BOOK! This is not a film like Spider Man that is good, both on the level that these folks are looking for and from the 'comic book' action level. I went into this film KNOWING it was going to be a bit stupid, but I left my belief at the door, and prepared for some visual/action entertainment. I wasn't disappointed. The writing could have been much better, and I'm not talking about character issues, I'm talking about oddities. Ghost gets stabbed and as Johnny has to be stitched up? OK… Later Ghost gets shot, uhmm, a lot, hmm. There are a few others like that and that is just not good writing. Plot:5 Acting:7 Direction:6 F/X:8 Entertainment:8 = 6.8 , call it a 7.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Did a 8 year old write this?
5 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Normally I don't include spoilers, but it's difficult to highlight the bad script without actually describing what is happening. I've been 'rating' movies for 20+ years and I think I have an idea what makes a movie work, and what doesn't. SR is visually stunning, but the script, and the direction is mentally stunning as well. Yes, it is WAY cool to see just how invulnerable Supes is to bullets, but then you ask "Why do the bad guys have a Minigun mounted(?) to the building, when they have a helicopter? shouldn't they have it mounted on it?" and "Why, after shooting a couple thousand rounds into Supes to no effect, does the bad guy pull a gun and try yet again to shoot Supes?" The answer is so that we can see a bullet bounce off his eye. The script is full of stupid. Lex Luthor goes back to the Fortress of Solitude and tells the 'computer' to tell him 'everything about crystals' so, just how long would that take? After all in the first movie, the young Kal-El becomes a man in there learning about his past and the science of Krypton. Lex pops out after an afternoon. HA! And Lex's plan!! Make a new continent?! Lex is a genius, there is no way I can believe that he thinks that if he did his 'plan' he'd live to see a dime. Not to mention the global weather disaster he'd create. And if your idea is to make appealing land, would you make your land look like a volcanic wasteland located in the north Atlantic? How about nice rolling hills in the South Pacific? Other insane bits... No chemistry between Lois and Superman. His kid?? no way! the kicking in the womb would have ripped poor Lois open. (http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html) and lastly... Lex learned something by making LexLand kryptonite impregnated. In fact it affects him so well he, and some friends, are able to kick Superman's butt. Later Superman is able to PICK UP THE WHOLE CHUNK without a) Him punching thru it b) making him so weak that he couldn't pick it up. Whew.. It's just I was expecting much better.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sin City (2005)
8/10
Very Original
30 March 2005
Got lucky and scored a free pass to a sneak preview of this Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller collaboration. From the start, I knew it was going to be very interesting 'cinematicly'; shot mostly in a 'black and whiteized' color film, with some elements left as true color. The substantial use of voice overs to narrate the characters thoughts. All contributed to the 'feel' of the film. I was pleased with the results. For me it made the film take on a more'graphic novel' look than a typical action movie; which is what (I guess) they were going for. The story is set in Basin City, thus the title baSIN City. A play on words I enjoyed. Taken further you could make it Base Sin, and what is more base of a sin than murder, which is what the movie is about; murder, revenge and justice. The plot is weaved around 3 separate story lines, so be prepared. They don't flit from one to the other, but are shown mostly in total, then weakly tied together. The script is very Film Noir with a good dash of sarcastic edgy humor thrown in. The acting is solid, but no real standouts to me. I feel that was the way RR/FM wanted it. The F/X were fabulous. I loved the splashes of color used in spots standing out amongst the gray gritty city. Overall I found the movie an enjoyable and Original movie experience, one well worth seeing. 8/10
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Van Helsing (2004)
3/10
A big pile
10 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers within... Normally I'll vote on a file, but rarely will I enter a comment, but this one has earned it. Where to start! ok, I like a good action flick as much as the next guy, but the sheer number of plot holes just made the whole picture unenjoyable. Why are so many villagers in the village with their shovels, rakes (and implements of destruction), sickles, etc. and not out in the fields? Why can't a vampire that can pick up and hurl a cow, but when a second person jumps on the legs of the first person being picked up it's 'too heavy' and they let go. Holy water sure is potent! a few drops is enough to kill a vampire (hadn't been one kilt in a hunndered years!) Why does the basin exist? If I was Dracula, I wouldn't allow holy ground/church to exist. It just goes on and on like that. I must have missed how Van Helsing was alive after so many years, I never did see much to explain that. Why can a werewolf kill Dracula and noting else can? Why can a woman take multiple falls and poundings be killed by the only bit of comfy furniture in Drac's lab(?) I think it was a particularly vicious divan. The only redeeming element in the script was the idea of drac's children and the Frankenstein 'process' tied together. Hugh Jackman tries, but we don't get enough about his character. Kate is fine, in more ways than one. The Friar and Igor were the two best characters in the movie. Drac was....a bit overdone, but I blame S.S. for that 2 out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Core (2003)
2/10
Science? what is science?
30 March 2003
Warning: Spoilers
(Spoilers ahead) When going to see a movie, oft times the audience is asked to 'suspend disbelief'. The Core asks us not only to suspend our disbelief, but to leave it in the car. My mind boggles at the amount of bad science...from a single scientist that invents the amazing laser drill and(!) a totally new material that is impervious to temperature, pressure and converts those elements into energy (but not used for an energy source until...later). A series of PRECISION blasts must be made, and in the end a lump of plutonium is 'duct taped' to the bomb, this will produce a bigger bang?? I seriously doubt it. A hole that allows raw microwave energy appears...not at the poles, where the field is naturally weak, not over the 7/10ths of the earth that is ocean, but right on top of a major city. And these suits! wow! fabric that is capable of zillions of pounds of pressure? and they pop in and out of them so easily! Too bad they didn't have them later, just swim up in your supersuit...(heck, ida never took it off!). The crew! NASA pilots?? why not deep oceanographers? closer to the environment involved. I could go on and on, and who knows maybe a list will be started on the sheer number of bad science events in this steaming heap. One more point..the scene in Rome..<Boom!> the FX department has rubble flying thru people, who then continue to live, and even run..(it was short, but I swear I saw it.) ENOUGH. Wondered why this was put out so early, now I know.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Drifting away from the Past
23 December 2002
Just a quick comment. The producers of this series are forcing the writers to write more action than is desired. I know, Bond IS an action series, but , for me, the last few Bond flicks have too little witty repartee and too much action. Also..the action...fantastic stunts is another Bond (tm)..now we're doing it via CGI/Computer enhancements...not good. Liked Cleese as Q.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Love does NOT make you this stupid
15 October 2000
Hollywood seems obsessed with the character type played by Ben Stiller. Supposedly intelligent but displays amazing levels of stupidity, but in the end proves that he does have a brain. I thought things were looking up with the early scene with the kids. I thought it was clever, funny and romantic, but due to the overheard comment he backs down on this planned event. His intelligence went down from there. The gags are all predictable as were the characters. De Niro & Danner give solid performances. What is it with Stiller and animals? The bit with the volleyball...one minute he's a dork, the next he's Michael Jordon...lame. Other reviewers have said it better than I, in summary, wait for the video. P.S. The trailer bits would have been SO much more funny if the cat DID flush...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not the best effort
17 July 2000
The fact that Roger Corman exec'ed on this should be a warning that cheap will be used over quality. But with this particular subject, doing it cheap is a bad idea due to this file having a pre-made audience of comic book fans. The actual plot is not that bad, but the weak dialog and corresponding bad acting totally kills it. The F/X are good and bad. They could have just had Ben Grimm (The Thing) just be strong, but they made a nice orange rocky rubber suit for him and it looks ok (he needs to be bigger) Mr. Fantastic's stretching is comical but I wonder if any F/X group could make it NOT comical. The method of turning Sue invisible reeked of Corman. Run, stop moving, bad camera fade, bad guys get hurt, fade back in. Last but not least the 'acting' done by Dr. Doom was SO bad it defies comparison
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
This is NOT Mission: Impossible
26 May 2000
I gave this movie a 4 simply due to it NOT being a 'Mission: Impossible' episode. In the TV, and even in the first movie, it was more of a team espionage show, but this was just another action movie. One major flaw was the ‘recruiting' phase of the movie, where Tom has to charm Thandie Newton into doing the right thing. In the show, and even in different parts of the movie, they always use IMF members with those patented MASKS to fool the bad guys into spilling the beans. So why did they fell the need to ‘recruit' an outsider? Well, that give Tom more screen time and the writers an excuse to put a sappy love interest in the movie. Weak. On the plus side John Woo's choreography of fight scenes is still superb. Too bad they're used in excess, probably due to a lack of an intelligent script.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Big Bus (1976)
8/10
Give this one a look!
16 March 2000
OK, why, given all of the positive feedback for this movie, doesn't this classic parody score higher? I don't know. I give it a solid 8. As long as you go into the movie with your brain on hold, you'll be thoroughly entertained. The writing, direction, acting and F/X's are all first rate FOR THIS TYPE OF MOVIE. If you can, buy this movie. You'll want to see it again and again.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
You got to ask WHY?
11 March 2000
I awaited this film with much anticipation. Oh good! An actual science fiction film, not a horror film thinly disguised as science fiction. Ah, but what I, and the public, got was something else. Some of my problems with this movie comes from the lack of research into some basic scientific laws.particularly Newton's laws. I won't go into detail, but if you choose to see this abomination, either put your brain in neutral, and enjoy the pretty pictures or keep it in drive, and really look at the scenes and ask how and why? More problems come from the advanced civilization concept. Why use a 'Death Tornado?'. Why go to deep space when a lovely blue ball planet was next door? Why is so important to continue to investigate something that has been there for millions, maybe billions, of years when your job is a RESCUE mission. You bring back documented evidence of what you find, and the whole world will be pushing to get back. I question the first group of 'astronauts' they are about as dumb as red bricks. Why was De Palma chosen to make this film? It's not a horror movie, but he tries to inject 'scary' elements like the deserted camp scene; like the wind flapping the tarpaulin. (Tarpaulin? Surely they have better stuff than that in 2020.) And what about this wind? Is there that much wind on Mars? I'm sorry I'm rambling a bit, but the upshot is: If your going to make a science fiction movie; make your science make sense! Why does an automated resupply module have seats?.etc, etc, etc.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sneakers (1992)
Excellent movie...until the end.
27 February 2000
I'm not going to go into detail about why this movie is defiantly worth watching. The director has blended the big name cast and the big-brother paranoia script with excellence. Redford is the head of the team, but it is a team. He shows his reliance on the others and the actors know their support roles and play them well. The pace is constant and builds in suspense until the hokey end. <<sigh>> Without spoiling the ending, I'll just say that the government that found them in the first place, sure would find them again after what they pulled. I'd been happier with a less sappy ending.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed