Change Your Image
idave
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Mahogany (1975)
Not terrible but not great either
A rags to riches story of a young woman from the Chigago projects who longs to become a fashion designer who has an on and off again relationship with a political activist boyfriend who doesn't do much to encourage her aspirations. Through an encounter with a fashion photographer in the department store she works with she ends up in Rome as a model.
It has many of the tropes of when it was made: that if a woman succeeds it has to be a Pyrrhic victory, that the success of her man should be put above her own without considering that it might be possible for both to succeed in their respective interests.
The ending is unclear. Is she giving up her dreams to be with her man? It doesn't seem to present the possibility of a bright future that the makers intend.
Ultimately this story comes off as kind of standard for the era - watchable but not memorable. It seems more of a vanity project for its star, Diana Ross, than something made for the audience.
The Bridges of Madison County (1995)
Amazing Feat
This motion picture achieves the remarkable feat of making an extramarital affair boring. With the lifeless acting of the male lead, especially the infamous "wet dog" scene where a soggy Clint Eastwood bids farewell to the married Italian housewife in the rain, the scene comes across more pathetic than heart rending. A seriously overrated movie where the book, as sappy as it is, is much better than the movie.
Ghostbusters (2016)
An Almost Movie that is still overall satisfying
First of all a response to all the morons who have given this a bad review without seeing it: You actually have to see a movie in order for a review to mean anything. Otherwise all you are doing to revealing an irrational prejudice that does nobody any favors, especially yourself. It reveals more about your character than it does the movie.
Now on to the movie. Most bad reviews of this movie are based on one thing: that the title characters have been made women. There is no consideration of whether they are funny women or if the parts as written have been performed well. Much of the bad feelings are based on not wanting memories of the original besmirched by a remake, especially with female leads. Somehow this level of outrage never seems to bubble up to the surface of other, far worse, remakes of popular movies and television shows.
So for these people, let's consider a thought experiment. You remember what that is, don't you? - Thought? It involves using your imagination? Remember that? Imagination? Try it. You might like it. If you can have the guts to see this movie (I don't care how. I don't care if you find a way to see it for nothing because that's not the point.) Imagine that the four leads were male and that they pretty much performed exactly as these women did. Would the movie be as bad? Remember, you actually have to see a movie for your opinion to mean anything. So let's say you have a higher opinion of this movie, all else with it being equal. What does that say? It says that your opinion is based on lies that you've told yourself.
Now I'll tell you MY opinion of this movie and I actually spent the time to see it.
The movie didn't overall blow me away but how could it? It's a reboot. The concept has been done before so it is no longer a surprise. When the original "Ghostbusters" came out this type of story with its particular combination of story elements had never been done before (at least not successfully enough to gain popular notice) and when it came out it was a delightful surprise for audiences. The casting was quite strong and made the movie come alive. The casting for this current incarnation is good too but not quite as strong and some of the writing is not quite as strong either, but you can't blame the people playing the parts for this. They've got to work with what they've been given.
There are a few weak parts in this movie that revealing I doubt would count as a spoiler.
When one of the lead characters is first slimed, there really isn't much of a reaction. There's no "ooo, this is gross" kind of a thing that would be funny. Instead one of them launches right into what this stuff is which robs us of the comedy of the thing.
After they spot their first ghost it's all a "hooray, hooray" kind of a scene in front of you. No sense that there was any really any risk in encountering this phantasm. This scene left me kind of flat.
When the "crazy" one (I can't remember this Ghostbuster's name - it's the inventor) tosses out all that technical gibberish the other characters just go along with it. There's nobody really who comes across as skeptical and everybody acts as though they know exactly what's being talked about. In other words, there's nobody acting as a representative for the audience.
There's lots of CGI in this movie and I think most people will take it for granted since movies have so much of it already in general. It makes the scenes bigger and more spectacular. There might be something lost in the loss of some more intimate scenes where it is just one character confronting just one ghost.
There is one great scene that involves Thanksgiving parade balloons but I won't say anything more about that.
So, if you can leave your prejudices at the door, you will be in for a satisfying movie - at least as satisfying as the average content coming out of the studios right now, perhaps a little better (comedies have been overall bad these past years). If you are offended because women have been cast for the leads of this movie and your mind can't handle it, by all means stay home and more importantly shut the hell up. You know nothing about this movie because you haven't seen it. Just watch the old one and forget about this one and leave it to those who can appreciate it for what it is.
Undercover (1994)
Huge Plot Hole
Another non-typical Columbo episode, this one is based on a story by Ed McBain (according to the screen credits), it features the annoying time stamp feature of a previous episode based on another story by the same author. It definitely diverts from the standard Columbo formula and seems more focused on being a treasure hunt than solving a murder (or, in this case, several murders).
The story concerns a double homicide where two men kill each other and one is found clutching and cut out piece of a photograph. A man claiming to be an insurance investigator comes into the police station as Columbo and another detective are discussing the case and fills them in about their being a robbery which ends in a car crash where all four robbers are shot dead. The piece of the photograph is one of many that is supposed to identify where the money was hidden.
Now here's the problem and the giant plot hole (a spoiler?): The photograph when reassembled near the end of the episode turns out to be an aerial shot of a pier with an "X" on it marking the place where the money is hidden. There are a number of problems with this, considering the information given about the robbery. Why is it an aerial shot? The pieces were given BEFORE the robbery. How could it mark where the money is hidden if the money hadn't even been stolen yet? In the time between the bank robbery and their car slamming into another with them dying in a shootout with police, just when would they have the opportunity to hide this money in this remote location? The episode is entertaining but not really a Columbo episode. It was fun seeing Columbo go undercover, especially with the first criminal type he encountered, but he never seemed like he was trying to solve a homicide, which what he's all about. It was only near the end of the episode where he tried to do this and I saw little effort on his part to examine the scene of the crime for most of the murders that happened.
It's definitely not the worst episode but hardly the best. It's a fun diversion from what we expect from a Columbo episode at best.
Cheatin' (2013)
Best Movie Bill Plympton's Ever Done
After a chance encounter involving bumper cars, Ella, a woman normally engrossed in books, and Jake, a muscular gas station attendant, have sparks fly literally and fall in love. However a misunderstanding engineered by a jealous women creates a rift between the two and Jake starts cheatin'. That is the gist of the story without too much elaboration and no spoilers.
This tale is very beautifully and poetically told with no actual spoken words and portrays the highs and lows of relationships with great depth and much humor. It is not a children's cartoon in either what it shows visually or its themes - that is, it is about things that concern adults, and it is not just about sex.
The pacing is about the best of all the Plympton feature films and the story is quite coherent. The only problem it has, like most of his features, is feeling a bit stretchy about three quarters in but not intolerably so.
There are many rewards to reap from viewing this film, both visually and emotionally and it gets to the heart of the complexity of relationships better than many live action movies. If it weren't for the pacing issues on the last quarter of the film (which aren't as bad as I'm making them sound) I'd give this film a 9 or a 10.
Every Girl Should Have One (1978)
A Forensic Examination
This movie was never released into theaters or any other market and all we have to go on are three user reviews. The first and last are somewhat informative. The middle one though shows bias and reveals that the user to be either a friend of the director, or perhaps even the director himself.
It makes absolutely no sense that, if this movie was the work of genius they claim it is, that the producer would feel compelled to take it into the editing room to change it. Usually in such cases there are significant problems that have to be remedied to save the picture and make it releasable.
The feature in question is not available in any form. There must be a reason why and the middle review is trying to place the entire burden of blame on the producer. But it appears that there were others who share this responsibility.
"Every Girl Should Have One" was a first time directing effort of a former child actor who had also written the screenplay. His IMDb profile indicates no other directing experience before this movie was made. The third review indicates that he was unable to get good performances out of the younger actors. Only the old pros were able to pull their weight. The first review indicated that the movie had a number of clichés in it and had a dated feel. Comedy heist movies certainly do not have to be dated and many hold up well over the years. (Example: the Pink Panther series). The movie promised to be a light heist comedy but this obviously didn't quite happen due to who wrote it and who directed it. The producer was not on the set or in direct control of the decisions made there. The writer/director was. Unfortunately there was a disconnect for whatever reasons (other business responsibilities perhaps) and the project was able to go along too far before the producer could discover the state of things and attempt to repair the film.
There are certain lessons to learned from this film: If are a producer and you are using a first time director, keep close tabs on what they are doing - especially if they are also the writer, because their judgment may not be as critical as someone looking at the script with a fresh eye. Also it is important to spread the risk if you can by not financing the whole thing yourself, or at the very least, be intimately involved with the day-to-day details to protect your investment.
So while this is not, and can not, be a review of the actual movie, I hope it can be at least a rebuttal of the unfair middle review (the one that reveals insider information as in the original title). Hopefully it reveals the cautionary tale that is behind the making of this movie.