fung0's Reviews

Moon Rock for Monday (2020)

8/10

2 April 2024

What's with the title? How do you get from the wonderful and very appropriate "Moon Rock for Monday" to "Cvghsfg"??

Never mind. By any name, this is a really good movie, and a great example of the kind of off-kilter material that Australia seems to turn out with great regularity.

The premise is peculiar enough: a young killer kidnaps a ten-year-old girl. The two not only hit it off, they go on a crazy road trip and a strange philosophical transformation together.

The journey is filled with wacky people and odd episodes. The one (slight) weakness of the film that there are perhaps too many of these episodes. It's one reason I don't give a full ten stars. But all the events are great fun, and the important thing is the continuous evolution of the two lead characters, which remains both rock-solid and endlessly surprising.

The acting is notably good - especially Ashlyn Louden-Gamble as the kid, Monday. (The original title starts to make sense now, doesn't it?) She nails the cute-and-precocious thing, but then goes way beyond to create a character with unexpected depths (which I won't spoil).

Typical of Australian movies, the ending of Moonrock for Monday does not sugarcoat, does not stoop to lucky accidents. It's harsh in some ways, yet boldly life-affirming - in a strange, left-handed way.

If you've enjoyed Australian movies like Muriel's Wedding or The Castle, you'll like Moon Rock for Monday. It's more of a stretch, not simply a comedy. Something deeper, but equally likeable. And equally memorable.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dunkirk (2017)

2/10

Feeble, Dismal and Unblievably Over-rated

2 April 2024

I rate "worst" movies in proportion to their budget. I have no trouble seeing the half-hidden merits in a low-budget indie effort. But when the budget is up in nine figures, I expect exceptional work, admirable in every respect.

On this basis, I have to rate Dunkirk as without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made. Certainly one of the dumbest and most pointless. And, for some reason, also one of the most preposterously over-rated.

To itemize just a few of its glaring flaws:

* THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEXT. We learn nothing whatsoever about the tactical situation, or the vagaries of war that led to it. There's no map, no background. Compare this to a great film such as A Bridge Too Far, which has no trouble explaining a complex military situation in great detail, while introducing the personalities behind the tactics and also telling several compelling individual stories.

* THE HUMAN STORY IS WEAK. Nolan's Dunkirk focuses on a couple of craven lamebrains - out of thousands of brave, remarkable, peculiar or even average individuals who'd have make for a much better story. Nolan's decision to focus on these two goof-offs is indefensible. It gives us no useful insight into the range of emotions and reactions within the large group of desperate individuals who were trapped on Dunkirk beach. Nolan's primary job as screen writer was to find *interesting* stories to tell. The phrase 'epic fail' was never more apt.

* CILLIAN MURPHY's CHARACTER IS POINTLESS. He's a sizable yet utterly pointless digression, a needlessly miserable sub-plot that shed no light on the overall story of Dunkirk. Rather, it burns up screen time that could have been used to develop the historical background, get inside some interesting characters, or develop an overall story arc of some sort.

* THE CLIMACTIC DOGFIGHT IS LAUGHABLE - one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on the big screen. (Even dumber than Nolan's depiction of a black hole, which at least lies in the realm of speculation, rather than well-established engineering.)

For the record: a Spitfire *does not* shoot down multiple Messerschmitts.with its engine disabled. It doesn't do *anything* other than plummet steeply earthward. The Spit was a "fighter" - a very big engine bolted on to tiny wings. It would have had amazing maneuverability - under power! - but *gliding* ability only slightly superior to that of a really good sports car.

Anyone who knows *anything* about aircraft can only be appalled by such blatant nonsense. Supplied with a $100,000,000 budget, a director like Nolan has an obligation to hire really good technical advisors - and then *pay attention* to them - not simply display the depths of his ignorance about his chosen subject.

Apart from these obvious detriments,Nolan's Dunkirk exhibits a complete lack of any real merits. There's not much story, no deep drama, no memorable characters, and no catchy dialog. The action is haphazard and uninteresting - and, lacking any historical context, effectively meaningless.

I'll freely admit that Nolan is not a bad director - when it comes to putting images on the screen. But he seems to have great difficulty distinguishing a clever script from a load of horse manure. Two of his three Batman movies are silly and tedious. Interstellar is as insulting to physics as Dunkirk is to aerodynamics and history. I only wish someone would pay me Nolan's salary to be similarly incompetent.

And yet, much to my surprise, Nolan's recent Oppenheimer managed to be coherent and historically accurate. Was it truly written by the same guy? Or does Nolan have a ghost writer who only works on every other project? It's a mystery.

Even more of a mystery is the reason for the insanely high ratings for Nolan's Dunkirk- many of them from reputable reviewers who might be expected to know better. Is it really enough nowadays for a movie to *look* good, courtesy of copious computer graphics?

Personally, I'd have to say no - especially when that movie competes directly with really excellent treatments of the same story. The best by far is the 1958 Ealing Studios (UK) production also entitled simply 'Dunkirk." On a fraction of Nolan's budget, it manages to be dramatic, gripping and insightful, while offering a reasonable overview of the historical reality. Also worth a watch is the French movie 'Weekend at Dunkirk,' which goes deeper into the state of mind of the troops on the beach - especially the French troops, who were very doubtful of being rescued by the British flotilla.

RATING: I give Dunkirk one very generous star for its slick CG visuals, and another for the competent acting. I deduct any other potential stars for its complete emptiness and relentless stupidity.

0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Trap (1959)

8/10

Better than one might expect

17 March 2024

The Trap isn't quite a classic, but it's much better than its current 6.6 rating would indicate. It's a genre movie that hits all the right notes.

The cast does some surprisingly good work. Richard Widmark could be stilted and awkward at times, but in this movie he's energetic and convincing, with no tendency to over-act. Lee J Cobb makes a good villain, and puts a nice spin on his lines but stops short of hamming it up.

But the real star is the outdoor location. Almost the entire movie is shot in actual desert terrain. You can see the characters sweat, and after a while you start to feel the gritty sand on your skin.

Much of the movie is a cat-and-mouse chase. It's handled well - both sides act logically, nobody does anything conspicuously contrived. The end result depends as much on character as on circumstance.

The Trap reminded me - in a good way - of several other movies. It starts with the desert setting and lone protagonist of Bad Day at Black Rock. It shifts into the sweaty verbal sparring of 3:10 to Yuma. The ending reminded me of a more recent crime film, but I won't mention the name so as not to give anything away. Overall, there's also a strong feeling of 1950s westerns - if they'd done it with horses instead of cars, The Trap could have been a western.

The Trap is maybe a bit more generic than some of those movies, but it still deserves to be better-known. It's tense without being annoying, and it has just enough drama to support the action.

I had to double-check the credits to convince myself that Elmore Leonard didn't have anything to do with the script. However, I found that co-writer Richard Allan Simmons did work, much later, on the excellent suspense movie Juggernaut.

Apart from any other virtues, The Trap is unusual as practically the only serious movie directed by Norman Panama, better known for comedies like The Facts of Life, the Court Jester or even The Maltese Bippy. His work was always above-average, and The Trap proves he had more range than we might give him credit for.

If you're a fan 1950s crime movies, or of Richard Widmark, you'll be pleasantly surprised by The Trap.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Madame Web (2024)

8/10

In what crazy universe is this "the worst movie of all time"??

17 March 2024

There's some sort of madness that sweeps over movie critics and movie fans every so often. Some pundit, reviewer, influencer or other nitwit sounds off about how feeble, terrible, horribly BAD a movie is (or is *going* to be - these opinions often predate any viewing of the actual movie). And then the herd instinct takes over and generates a tsunami of contempt.

Case in point, Madame Web - a truly ridiculous number of one-star reviews, completely unjustified by the actual experience of watching the movie.

The surprising truth is that this is actually quite a decent little movie. It's no work of genius, but it is a workmanlike, efficient, competent piece of entertainment. Not only is it not "the worst," it is far more entertaining than a whole host of bloated, forgettable superhero flicks of the past few years.

Start with the characters. We have an interesting heroine, Cassandra Webb, nicely embodied by Dakota Johnson. She's likeable, believable and suitably challenged by events she doesn't really understand. I can't speak to Johnson's acting range, not having seen her in anything else, but she seems to fit this particular part perfectly.

Most of the movie has to do with Cassandra's attempts to protect three teen-age girls. All three of them are presented as distinct personalities, and are elevated beyond mere stereotypes by earnest and appealing performances by the trio of actresses. I not only believed them, I was happy to spend time with them.

Then there's the story. It's nothing we haven't seen before, but it's done well. The origin of Cassandra's odd powers is novel, and revealed in stages that keep us guessing. Refreshingly, Cassandra needs to hold a super-villain at bay without actually knowing there's such a thing as a super-hero movie - or that she's in one.

Better yet, Cassandra's super-talent is inherently unpredictable, in an interesting way. It reminded me of the excellent Nicolas Cage film Next, in which he has the ability to see the future - two minutes at a time. The storyline of Madame Web is somewhat formulaic, to be sure - but it's a good formula, and well-executed. I never felt my intelligence was being insulted, and I certainly never felt bored.

The inevitable computer effects are used sparingly. Action is kept on a human scale - far more engrossing than watching CG heroes destroying planets with their pinky fingers.

I tip-toed into Madame Web with dire forebodings of a wasted evening. Two hours later I found myself wishing the movie was longer - and wondering what ghastly childhood traumas must have prompted the vast torrents of vitriol that have been aimed at it.

Sure, Madame Web isn't a breakthrough of any kind. But it's a completely professional piece of work - a solid two hours' escape from the troubles of the real world. Maybe it doesn't follow the comics - I don't know, and couldn't possibly care less. Maybe there were some nasty studio conflicts during production - again, not my concern. The end result was good. I had fun. Unless you come in solidly determined to hate, I can't see why you wouldn't have fun too.

Rating: 8 out of 10. To me, 7 indicates a movie that succeeds in its aims - that entertains and does nothing conspicuously off-putting, worth seeing for anyone who likes the genre. However, I felt compelled to add an extra mercy star to offset the numerous undeservedly low ratings.

48 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Frank vs. God (2014)

2/10

Warning: REMAKE. See the original first!

10 September 2023

Remakes should come with a prominent warning. So I hope you're reading this BEFORE watching Frank vs God.

The glowing reviews for Frank vs God are clearly from viewers who are unaware that it's a remake of the miraculous 2001 Australian film "The Man Who Sued God." The main thing in favor of this new version is that it follows the original script more or less faithfully. (Up until the ending, of which more in a moment.) Beyond that, there's no comparison.

It might be argued that some stories are worthy of multiple treatments, and that various filmmakers can each bring something new that's worthwhile. True: sometimes the third version of a particular story turns out to be the best. That's not the case here. Like far too many remakes, Frank vs God cannot rival the freshness and style of the work it's copying. This is especially obvious in the substitution, in the leading role, of the earnest Henry Ian Cusick for the brilliantly acerbic Scottish comedian Billy Connolly.

Losing Connolly is just the start. Frank vs God shifts the overall emphasis, becoming darker and adding a very American denouement (which I won't give away). The US ending is more shocking - I guess the filmmakers felt the existential Australian ending was too subtle for the US audience. That's an ironic and rather insulting lack of faith on their part. And a poor substitute for the wit and effervescence of The Man Who Sued God.

To be fair, the revised approach of Frank vs God isn't terribly bad. Ultimately, however, The Man Who Sued God is the superior film, not to mention the one and only original. It's only fair that The Man Who Sued God should be seen first, without any preconceptions.

(And while I'm at it, beware also of the Nicolas Cage movie The Family Man - a lame Americanized remake of another amazing Australian film - Me Myself I.)

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hypnotic (2023)

8/10

A new style of movie-making

4 June 2023

To understand Hypnotic, it helps to have seen Robert Rodriguez' 2018 movie, Red 11 - reputedly made on a budget of just $7,000 (the same as his career-launching Mexican production, El Mariachi). It also help to check out some of the special features on discs of his early movies, where he explains his approach to visual creativity.

Considering that background, it's clear that Hypnotic is another Rodriguez low-budget 'guerilla' project. In the era of streaming overload, Rodriguez seems to be moving to a quick-and-dirty model, where he may use one or two big-name actors - or none at all. Where he may use a few minutes of cost-efficient CG effects - or none. Where he'll churn out a script with a collaborator or two, in a minimum amount of time. And where the end result is to create entertainment in its purest, rawest form.

Those who say Hypnotic is rough around the edges are not wrong - but if they think this is accidental, then they're missing the point. Hypnotic is carefully designed to feel edgy, unpolished, immediate. It doesn't shy away from a digital HD look. It does omit literate soliloquies, in favor of serviceable dialog that propels the story forward at a breakneck pace.

This may not be to everyone's tastes, but before deciding to hate it, at least take note of the movie's strengths. Hypnotic has a convoluted SF storyline that remains surprising even after you think you 'get it' - and gradually becomes more logically consistent the more it's folded and crumpled. It's got solid acting. There's sweaty confusion from Ben Affleck, in a role reminiscent of his very entertaining turn in John Woo's 2003 movie Paycheck. William Fichtner is a particularly creepy deadpan villain. And Alice Braga, recognizable from numerous SF/action movies, is the suitably ambiguous femme fatale.

Without following Rodriguez' career too closely, I'm tempted to believe he's taking a path similar to that of John Carpenter, who preferred to make lower-budget movies on his own terms, surrounded by his own collaborators, and unsupervised by what he called the "trailer people" who inevitably move in on every big-budget shooting location.

Be that as it may, I thoroughly enjoyed Hypnotic. I'd say it's a solid 7/10 - but I add one star for Rodriguez' many creative touches: a number of simple yet amazing shots, lots of cheap yet clever action sequences, and the enormous inventiveness (increasingly apparent as the film goes on) in getting a big-budget feel out of some incredibly simple locations and camera tricks. If you've liked Rodriguez' previous movies at all, be sure to check this one out.

7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Journey Together (1945)

8/10

A very good film from an unexpected source

31 May 2023

I had no idea what to expect when I started watching Journey Together. The intro didn't help: in lieu of credits, it merely states that the movie was acted and produced entirely by "Members of the Royal Air Force."

Well, it must have been a grand time to be in the RAF, because the star turns out to be a very young Richard Attenborough. He's supported by a roster of faces familiar to any fan of old British movies. It's harder to believe that Edward G Robinson was in the RAF, but maybe they gave him an honorary commission or something. He's got a very nice bit as a gruff American flight instructor.

It's typical of British film-making that what could have been a dreary propaganda film, badly dated as soon as it was made, turns out to be cracking little drama, with interesting characters and clever situations. Not to give away too much, Attenborough wants to be a pilot, but his plans take an interesting left turn. Will he rise to the occasion?

That question is presented with a good deal of very realistic piloting detail. I did some flying myself at one time, and this movie brought back a lot of my training. The flight-crew accoutrements of the period were particularly interesting, and realistically portrayed.

If you're debating whether to bother with yet another WW2 wartime propaganda flick, fear not: Journey Together is much more. It's a satisfying little drama, evocative of its time, and highly entertaining. It's also a particularly good depiction of the experience of aviation.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Court Martial (1954)

9/10

Brilliant drama, beautiful 1950s UK production

31 May 2023

The overall rating for this movie is much too low. Anyone who gives this film less than an 8 or 9 clearly has a bias against intelligent British drama. (I reserve my 10-star ratings for movies that push beyond the merely excellent.)

Carrington VC is a clever character piece, typical of the best British films of the 1950s. Ignore the ham-handed "Court-Martial" title applied in the US - the story isn't about the details of British military justice, nor about Niven's fitness as an officer. (In stark contrast to movies like The Caine Mutiny or Rules of Engagement). It's purely about Carrington's personal integrity. Did he or did he not lay the proper groundwork for a rather foolish action he took? What kind of person is he, really?

The "VC" of the original title is emphatically NOT incidental - it's what the whole story is about. We are asked to consider what traits might make someone a true hero. To help us decide, we are offered a comparison between Carrington and people who, for reasons of their own, would like to see him fall.

The acting is spot-on. Niven has rarely been better - he takes what could be a straightforward portrayal and adds the necessary nuance to bring out Carrington's personality. The supporting cast consists entirely of British stalwarts who couldn't give a false performance if they tried.

The black-and-white cinematography is elegant, but stops short of drawing attention to itself. (In contrast to some of the more spectacular-looking Ealing dramas of the same period.) But while the production is relatively simple, it does not, as some reviewers allege, feel "stagy." Action shifts fluidly across a number of locations, with several key scenes taking place outdoors on the parade ground.

There are even some nice touches of wry humor that keep things from becoming too oppressive - and serve to humanize some of the peripheral characters, whose opinion of Carrington is ultimately an important part of the drama.

To sum up, I'm extremely glad I managed to catch up with this movie. Anyone who appreciates British dramas of the 1950s - or who simply enjoys a solid script, solidly performed - will not be disappointed.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Expedition Mars (2016 TV Movie)

8/10

Superior coverage of the Opportunity and Spirit Mars rovers

30 May 2023

I'm not always a huge fan of recent National Geographic documentaries, which can be superficial and over-dramatized. But NG's space docs are often quite good, and Expedition Mars is one of the best. It tells the story of how the two rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, have fared in their travels across the planet Mars. And it gives ample background about the project, the people and the science.

I actually saw Expedition Mars after the more-recent documentary Good Night Oppy. I was surprised to discover how much better it was, despite it's lower budget. Good Night Oppy tries so hard to reach a 'mainstream' audience - that presumably doesn't care about its subject matter - that it does a disservice to that subject matter. It's light on science, long on manufactured melodrama.

Expedition Mars doesn't skimp on the human stories behind the mission. But it spends a larger proportion of its time on technical and scientific issues. It summarizes the travels of the rovers in a more brisk and more useful way. The CG is not quite as sophisticated as in Good Night Oppy, but it's more than sufficient to let viewers visualize the various events on Mars.

Bottom line, both Expedition Mars and Good Night Oppy are worth seeing, especially if you have any interest in space exploration. But if you're only going to see one, skip Oppy and watch Expedition Mars.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Good Night Oppy (2022)

7/10

Slick documentary, but a bit over-done

30 May 2023

This overview of the Spirit and Opportunity rover missions covers all the bases. It takes us through the highs and lows of the adventure, shows us the personalities behind the technology. And it's all presented with high production values, highlighted by detailed computer-graphic visualizations of the rovers as they travel the Martian terrain.

That said, I found the whole thing a bit over-done. The effort to drum up emotional involvement was so relentless, I found it distracting and gushy. The voice-overs are full of needless hyperbole. There's a strenuous and rather ludicrous effort to anthropomorphize the robotic rovers - which, in the end, have about as much personality as the family car.

Good Night Oppy does do a good job of presenting the human side of the Mars project - but it completely misses the larger story, about Mars itself. By pitching everything on the level of Hollywood melodrama, it explains almost nothing and obscures the real excitement of scientific discovery.

The exploration of alien planets is exciting enough that it doesn't need to be 'hyped up.' I'd have much preferred a deeper dive into the science - but, alas, the nature of the experiments performed by the rovers is barely alluded to, and the results of those experiments are not fully explained. (Perhaps because they've been 'negative' - in that they've failed to find unequivocal signs of ancient life. That's important science, but the filmmakers obviously didn't trust the audience to understand.)

To be sure, Good Night Oppy is worth seeing if you're interested in space exploration or Mars or rover technology. But if you're only going to see one film on this topic, I'd strongly recommend the 2019 National Geographic documentary Expedition Mars. On a much lower budget than Good Night Oppy it offers more science - and, for me, stronger drama - in a shorter running time.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

It's Quieter in the Twilight (2022)

9/10

Unsung Heroes of Outer Space

30 May 2023

It's Quieter in the Twilight is an important and fascinating documentary, in two ways.

First, it's a look at what happens to a scientific program after the glory days have passed. It's a reminder of how awesome Voyagers 1 and 2 have been - and how they are now even more awesome as they've become the furthest man-made objects in the universe, by an incomprehensibly vast margin. It's an acknowledgement that these probes, primitive by today's standards, are still sending back priceless data, after decades hurtling through space. And it's a jaw-dropping reminder that these little craft are still responding to commands from Earth - in a sense a human presence, traveling a long way beyond the furthest planet in our Solar System, even beyond the limits of the Solar System itself.

Second, this film gives us a feeling for the kind of individuals who take on this kind of responsibility. Managing these two ageing yet priceless spacecraft does not bring accolades, and yet it's difficult, demanding work. The people involved today have been with the Voyager program almost since the very start. They've dedicated their lives to this one mission, both when it was in the media spotlight - during fly-bys of the outer planets - and today, when there are no obvious moments of glory.

It's Quieter in the Twilight does a great job of letting us get to know the latter-day Voyager team. It's a rare celebration of how great deeds are often accomplished not by single heroic acts, but by the dedicated effort of regular people over a long period of time.

Anyone who feels excited and inspired by space exploration should see this documentary. It's absolutely one of the best.

6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Robots (I) (2023)

7/10

A very good adaptation - silly, yet surprisingly intelligent and well-acted

21 May 2023

When I saw Robert Sheckley's name in the credits, I knew right away what I was in for. And that's the best thing about Robots: it's the best cinematic rendition so far of Sheckley's unique mix of SF and satire.

To be sure, that mix may not be to everyone's taste. The main reason is likely to be historical. The story The Robot Who Looked Like Me, upon which the movie Robots is based, dates back to 1978, and is bound to show its age a bit. On the other hand, the basic concept remains fresh and amusing: robot stand-ins being used for devious purposes, thereby bringing out the worst in weak personalities.

The execution isn't perfect. Some gags are side-splitting, others barely worth a giggle. The relationship between the two leads follows an obvious but not entirely believable trajectory. And yet, the movie overall achieves what it sets out to do. It's both funny and thought-provoking, suggesting ways of thinking about 'AI' that may not have occurred to us even as the technology is being deployed around us.

The acting is solid. Shailene Woodley and British comedian Jack Whitehall both do a good job in their double roles - triple, in the case of Woodley). Their 'real' personalities are suitably loathsome and venal. The robot personalities are convincingly genteel and obsequious. And Woodley's bit as a sex-toy version of herself is hilarious.

But what I liked most was that old lunatic feel of Sheckley's writing. He's not the best-remembered author of the SF golden age, perhaps because he took a very different approach. I haven't pulled any of his books off my shelf for many years, but certain passages, certain zany situations, still ring in my mind. It's great to see this kind of material rediscovered and respectfully adapted. I wish Hollywood would get busy adapting more SF classics works for 21st-Century audiences.

(FYI: previous Sheckley adaptations have included The Tenth Victim - La Decima VIttima, starring Marcello Mastroianni and Ursula Andress, and Freejack, starring Mick Jagger. Not great films, but stylish fun.)

31 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Shazam! Fury of the Gods (2023)

1/10

Literally Unwatchable

13 April 2023

I usually give a bad movie 20 or 30 minutes before giving up. But after 15 minutes with Shazam: Fury of the Gods I felt my will to live draining away.

Every line is a cliche. Every character is cardboard. The stupidity, the pure commercial banality, spills off the screen like a hideous multicolored tsunami. Make it stop!

Just for reference: I didn't hate the first Shazam! Movie. It was lightweight, but not horrible. I liked Black Adam even more. It's a truly weird movie, and I never did figure out why the title character had the Shazam lightning bolt on his chest - but it kept me interested all the way.

Unfortunately, Fury of the Gods really did feel like the gods were punishing me for not doing something more intelligent with my time. Truly, a new low for comic-book adaptations.

(On an entirely separate note: I still do hope that someone, someday will do a proper movie starring the REAL "Captain Marvel" - nowadays known for idiotic copyright reasons as Shazam. The old 1940s comics, beautifully drawn by CC Beck, are well worth a look. They were more overtly humorous than their obvious competition, but never tongue-in-cheek. And they had a certain fairy-tale quality that could work really well on the big screen.)

12 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Interceptor (2022)

6/10

Not bad, for what it is

13 April 2023

It seems redundant and needlessly cruel to give a movie like this a one-star review. What you have here is an extremely low-budget production that turns out a lot better than it might have done. Better, in fact, than a lot of hundred-million-dollar atrocities.

The plot is simple: one of two radar stations that can protect the US from ICBM attack is hijacked by some loons trying to start WW3. The newly-appointed station commander must try to defeat them.

The action is essentially confined to one room and a stretch of hallway, other than the final sequence which expands to a hokey CG view of the exterior of the station, floating in mid-Pacific like an oil rig.

There are moments of originality in the back-and-forth between hijackers and defenders, and also plenty of cliches. But the story works well enough if you keep your brain in Neutral.

Some low-budget movies are just pure garbage - unwatchable performances, rambling script, amateurish direction. Interceptor is better than that. It's a professional-looking movie: well-directed, with a script that just about hangs together, supported by acting that's really not bad at all. I particularly enjoyed the way the filmmakers exploited their meager resources and managed to wring a few surprises out of an admittedly minimal premise.

To put things in perspective, I recently saw Avatar: Shape of Water, and, despite its billion-dollar aspirations, I can't say it made much more sense than Interceptor.

Final verdict: Interceptor is a worthwhile popcorn flick. It's not great, but it's far from terrible. Enjoy it for what it is... or just change the channel.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Linotype: The Film (2012)

9/10

Heartfelt tale of an important technology

13 April 2023

As someone who's had a long career involved with the publishing world, I found Linotype: The Film a very welcome tribute to the amazing machine that really made print accessible to the masses.

The documentary does an excellent job of presenting the allure of a mechanical behemoth that sold in huge numbers and ruled the world of print for almost 100 years. It also pays suitable tribute to the last generation of skilled operators who ran Linotype machines, and witnessed the end of an era as the machines were phased out and junked, made obsolete by the advent of cheap digital typesetting solutions.

I particularly appreciated the explanation of how the Linotype machine actually worked. As one person says, it was almost a Rube Goldberg contraption, employing complex cams, belts and chutes, delivering a squirt of hot molten metal to create each line of type. Quite amazing.

That said, I wished the movie had taken just a bit more time on the denouement of this tale. The various optical and electronic successors to the mechanical Linotype machine are mentioned, but it would have been interesting to hear how they took the world of print forward - and about what may have been lost along the way. For example, metal type being an analog process, it provides near-infinite 'resolution' - razor-sharp lettering that does have a certain unique quality.

On the other hand, digital technology did bring typesetting literally to any desktop. One consequence has been that terms like 'font' and 'typeface' became commonplace (even if often misused). The movie does touch briefly on the evolution in typefaces that the Linotype enabled. But, again, it could have gone just a bit further in talking about how that accumulated art has been evolved and popularized by the transition to digital.

Nonetheless, Linotype: The Film does well at dramatizing the story of the Linotype machine, and capturing the enthusiasm of the people still working today to keep its legacy alive. It's a lively, entertaining documentary, highly recommended for anyone with an interest in print or media in general, or with a love of clever mechanical devices for their own sake.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Farmer's Daughter (1947)

7/10

First half shines, second creaks

1 April 2023

Warning: Spoilers

This is a highly entertaining film that takes a strange turn in the middle.

The first half of the film introduces a wonderful character, played by Loretta Young at her most charming. It slowly builds a romance between her rustic but sensible Farmer's Daughter and the cynical politician Joseph Cotton. It's great stuff, in the grand old Hollywood tradition of comedy/dramas.

Then Loretta's character gets into politics. The transition is implausible, and the pay-off unrealistic even by the standards of 1940s Hollywood. It's still fun, but it's not on the same level of sharp romantic comedy as the first half.

The net result is a film that's still very much worth seeing. Loretta Young is great, and Joseph Cotton shows a real flare for comedy in his lighter-than-usual role. The Farmer's Daughter isn't quite a classic, but it's a solidly entertaining movie, perfect for an idle evening.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

6/10

Who Killed James Cameron?

1 April 2023

Warning: Spoilers

I have one question for the director of Avatar: The Way of Water: what have you done with the real James Cameron?

Cameron is one of the most reliably entertaining movie-makers in the business. He's a guy who knows how to build tension, to use reliable dramatic tropes and make them fresh again. He knows how to hook our emotions and take them to every extreme. Given an almost unlimited budget and total creative control, he should have created a masterpiece.

Instead, some alternate-universe 'Cameron' has apparently spent over a decade creating a dog's-breakfast of a sequel. This unknown person had multiple writers working for him, yet managed to barf up nothing better than a barely-entertaining mess. The real James Cameron had sole writing credit on the original Avatar, and his passion for the story was evident in every shot. The Way of Water lists four writers in the credits, including this 'Cameron' doppelganger. Yet despite its insanely long gestation, it feels rushed and poorly thought-out.

A few key comments (BEGIN SPOILERS):

* Bringing back Stephen Lang's character was a FUNDAMENTAL mistake. Characters who are killed should remain killed. Bringing them back destroys any real sense of drama. (Let us not even speak of what was done with Sigourney Weaver's character.)

* Worse, in reviving Lang, the antagonist was surreptitiously switched. In the first film, it was the nameless Earth corporation that's bent on destroying Pandora. It was the whole attitude of exploitation and colonization. It was intriguing and relevant. In the sequel it's just Jake vs Quaritch - two military morons, bashing away at each other for no clear reason. All other ramifications of the original Avatar conflict are given negligible screen time.

* Even with this feeble premise, The Way of Water fails to tell ANY story at all. The 'plot' boils down to Jake's kids getting stupidly captured - over and over and over again. By about the fourth time, I was ready to scream. A whole fantastic world of possibilities to explore, all we get is the same tedious cliffhanger, mindlessly repeated with no roots in character or situation.

* The feeble plot is brim-full of goofy logic. Jake's move to the sea kingdom is so CLEARLY going to endanger the people living there, and comes off as the ultimate act of arrogant self-preservation. There were so many other ways it could have been justified more plausibly. Similarly, the need for Jake's clan to learn "the way of water" is remarkably flimsy - especially compared to Jake's need to prove himself in the first movie. Meanwhile, Quaritch acts entirely on his own, despite the backing - and industrial might - of the Earth corporation. In the whole movie, almost nothing really smart ever happens.

* Along the way, there are endless missed opportunities. We learn nothing new about Jake, Neytiri, or any of the other original characters, and almost nothing about the new generation of generic bratty offspring. The most interesting new element, the intelligent cetaceans, are dropped in abruptly with little explanation and only a trivial role to play. Cameron could have cut numerous silly rescue sequences and spent more time with this interesting new element.

* Most obvious of all, the Way of Water is NOT REALLY A SEQUEL to the original, absolutely brilliant, Avatar. None of the key threads are followed up: the politics and morality of Earth invading a virgin planetary paradise; the insurgency of a low-tech indigenous population fighting for its home; the ramifications and possibilities of a single world-spanning intelligence; the depths of the Na'avi culture, as part of that intelligent ecosystem. The Way of Water does absolutely nothing to progress the grand Avatar saga.

(END SPOILERS)

While it does have quite a few enjoyable moments (hence my rating), The Way of Water comes off as just another cookie-cutter action/adventure. At times I felt as if I were watching a recent James Bond installment. Weird, mindlessly ultra-evil villain? Check. Endless poorly-justified chase sequences? Check. Arbitrary McGuffin? Double-check. Reduction of grand themes to a personal battle between two knuckleheads? Alas, also check.

The Way of Water does LOOK amazing. The technology, the staging, the performances, the environments - both above and below the waterline - are spectacular, even in a time when CG makes the most amazing conceptions seem banal. But seriously - would the real James Cameron truly spend $300 million (or so) and a 13 years making this sequel, and NOT get better writers - or, to be fair, give a stable of competent writers the appropriate requirements for a decent script?

Real James Cameron: if you happen to read this, please, PLEASE make Avatar III a true sequel, with the dramatic qualities that have made you such a huge success over the years. Pick up the narrative where you left off in your first Avatar movie, and admit to your fans that The Way of Water was a misconceived side-trip that should simply be ignored and forgotten.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dead for a Dollar (2022)

9/10

Excellent Walter Hill revival of the Western

6 February 2023

I'm astonished and appalled at the low score for this film. As a long-time fan of Walter Hill's work, I'd call this one of his best.

Starting with the title, Dead for a Dollar is a film that never goes quite where you might expect. It takes its time, savors its oddball characters and immerses the viewer in its old-time locations.

Hill loses no opportunity to subvert our expectations. Willem Dafoe takes the lead at first, but we're never quite sure if he's going to be the hero or the villain. All the more surprising when Christopher Waltz takes over, playing a bounty hunter who seems to be neither hero nor villain. Meanwhile, Rachel Brosnan is perfect as a heroine who doesn't need as much protecting as we might expect. (Reminiscent especially of the heroine of the Coen's 2008 True Grit - simultaneously tough and vulnerable.)

There's no fat here - this film builds methodically to a climactic shoot-out that takes traditional formulae and subverts them. Hill carefully builds atypical characters, then allows them to work things out in their own unique yet realistic way.

I'd rate Dead for a Dollar in the same league as Open Range in 2003, or Appaloosa in 2008. These latter-day films offer all the virtues of the top old-time western: strong characters, big moral choices, and the romance of the wild days of the west. But they overlay a modern sensibility, go deeper into the moral and dramatic situations, take realism and historical accuracy further than before. Like Kevin Costner and Ed Harris, Walter Hill reinvents the western. He brings his own style, and takes the action in a new direction.

No, this isn't Randolph Scott's west, or John Wayne's... or Clint Eastwood's. This is Walter Hill country, and he makes it memorable.

4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Old Way (2023)

7/10

Solid western in a modern style

6 February 2023

This is both a typical Nick Cage move and a solid Western. It's an unlikely combo, but welcome nonetheless.

The plot is traditional: one act of violence leads to another, until our protagonists are led into a search for vengeance. The twist is that they're a father and his very young daughter.

Cage does a satisfactory job as the emotionless killer who's not sure how to be a dad. Ryan Armstrong steals the show as his precocious daughter, who never bats an eye at danger.

It's all fairly predictable, but good fun. The supporting performances are flavorful, especially Noah Le Gros as the villain and Nick Searcy as the crusty old marshal. My biggest complaint: I wish the film had been longer, and given us more time with these people.

This is very much like the better Westerns that were cranked out by the dozens in the 1950s. Wish we had more of them today.

38 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Glass Onion (2022)

6/10

Silly and lacking sparkle

6 February 2023

The first Knives Out succeeded against all expectations, for two reasons: its emotional involvement with the central character, and the fact that she seemed unquestionably guilty of the central crime. It was a clever paradox: a sympathetic protagonist and a crime whose resolution is given right at the outset. The unraveling of that premise is carefully paced, and the revelations are both surprising and believable.

Alas, Glass Onion is entirely lacking in that level of cleverness. It's a brash, incoherent film, enlivened only by low humor and superficial caricature of outrageous real-world personalities. The crimes are contrived, the clues are not fairly planted, and the plot actually makes little to no sense. Daniel Craig's detective comes off as even more of a buffoon than in the first film, leaving very little to clutch onto.

This isn't a terrible film - it's simply a weak, uninspired one. The first Knives Out is a must-see. This sequel is a don't-bother.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Confess, Fletch (2022)

8/10

Excellent new take on the Fletch character

6 February 2023

As a big fan of the original Fletch, with Chevy Chase, I was leery of this new film. We've seen so many dismal attempts to revive a character who's already been definitively portrayed. Usually they're just a quick cash-grab, or an easy vehicle for some flash-in-the-pan would be star.

Not so with Confess, Fletch. The dialog is fresh and witty, the mystery is clever and reasonably credible. John Hamm's Fletch is just nicely understated compared to Chase's version, making him feel more real yet not less amusing. His quips are just as sharp, and they have more bite being delivered in a more realistic setting.

This film version of Fletch accomplished something the Chevy Chase film did not: it made me want to read the books. I'd recommend it highly to anyone who like the original Fletch, or who simply enjoys a good whodunit with a spicing of humor. I hope Hamm and the rest of the Confess, Fletch team get to do many sequels.

6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Water Diviner (2014)

10/10

Stunning

6 February 2023

I'm trying to think of a reason to give this film less than 10/10, and I can't find one. It's that rarity, a film that succeeds at everything it attempts, that's as insightful and powerful as it is surprising and entertaining.

Don't be fooled by the seemingly downbeat premise. And don't expect some kind of hocus pocus about water divining - that turns out to be just a metaphor for something much more interesting. This is a thoughtful film that manages to be exciting, a sad story that's ultimately uplifting. A sweeping epic that's extremely personal.

Russell Crowe does a beautiful job as both star and director, clearly supported by a great cast and behind-the-scenes crew.

So many movies fail to live up to their promise. This one surpasses all expectations. Don't pass up a chance to see it.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)

2/10

Meaningless and repulsive - avoid at all costs

6 February 2023

Banshees of Inisherin is the most tedious, unpleasant, mindless, pointless, worthless film I've ever seen. It has beautiful photography, great acting, and absolutely nothing to say about anything. It's about horrendously unlikable people, doing horrendously violent and unpleasant things - for no particular reason. And then it ends, making no point whatsoever. You come away nervous and depressed, in every way poorer than you came in.

I'm at a loss to explain the critics' view of this as some work of genius. I can only surmise that professional critics have become so wrapped up in their own need to one-up each other, in discovering some kind of hidden treasure, that anything sufficiently 'artsy' starts to look brilliant. This film is the opposite of brilliant - it's dull, miserable, repetitive and above all unfunny by even the 'blackest' standard.

I give Banshees a very charitable two stars, one for the acting, one for the scenery. I should probably deduct at least one of those for the gruesome and entirely needless violence, but I don't want to seem vindictive.

15 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Decision Against Time (1957)

10/10

Masterpiece

16 May 2022

This is probably my favorite Ealing film - and that's saying a lot. It tells a 'small' story but does it with absolute perfection in every way.

The story is classic drama - the simple man, who faces desperate circumstances at home and then at work. The real conflict is internal - can he make the right decisions, handle the most delicate task, while weighed down with all the cares and doubts of life.

The presentation is beyond brilliant. The photography of the airfield is impeccably composed and wonderfully evocative. Crichton uses a lot of up-angles to create a sense of space. (Has any one else noticed the importance of the open sky in so many Ealing films?)

The performances are, of course, top notch. Hawkins is perfect as the middle-age test pilot. Elizabeth Sellars is superbly understated in what could have been a mawkish, melodramatic role. And a young Donald Pleasance adds a lovely touch of humor, with his bowler hat.

Apart from its other virtues, The Man in the Sky - like so many Ealing films - offers a wonderful snapshot of its time and place. The struggling aircraft company represents a time when England was rebuilding itself, with hope and ingenuity. A time when the British had a unique affinity for aviation. A time when a young family could - just barely - aspire to a new home and a better life.

The Man in the Sky is also evocative of seat-of-the-pants aviation. It recaptures the feeling I've known in many weekends spent hanging around airports. The helpless worry felt by onlookers when something goes wrong up in the sky. The do-or-die spirit of pilots who really love what they're doing, and would rather go down in flames than give up.

Ealing's dramas are sadly underrated and overlooked. It's hard to say if The Man in the Sky is the best of them - the competition is stiff. But it's certainly my favorite. And one of my favorite films of all time.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Gentle Gunman (1952)

10/10

Outstanding!

16 May 2022

Hard to understand the mediocre reviews for this classic. Don't be put off - The Gentle Gunman is a must-see.

The story is engrossing - reminiscent of better-known Irish-revolution films like Odd Man Out and The Informer, and every bit their equal. The two brothers - one headstrong, the other cool and clever - are perfectly matched in a love-hate duel to the death.

The casting is hard to beat - John Mills and Dirk Bogarde together in one film. Wow. The supporting parts are excellent as well, especially Elizabeth Sellars in an unusually negative role.

Then there's Basil Dearden, one of the best UK directors of the 1950s, doing what is surely his best work ever. The photography is breathtaking, especially the scenes out in the hills of Ireland. These contrast perfectly with the dark and gritty scenes in London.

Unlike so many films dealing with the IRA, The Gentle Gunman manages to embrace both heartbreak and hope, while detouring expertly from the obvious love and revenge subplots.

I don't hand out 10/10 ratings lightly, but in this case it's barely sufficient.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

fung0

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed