Change Your Image
dvdeugs
Reviews
Paycheck (2003)
The Bourne Identity part 2
Let's be honest; this wouldn't have been too implausable as a sequel to the Bourne Identity. It's almost the same movie; a man loses part of his memory and must figure out how he got where he is with the help of a few clues. In both cases, reality and plot consistency go to the wayside where necessary to make a better action film. After all is said and done with, the Bourne Identity did it better, but there's not much difference in quality between the two films.
The plot was from a short story, and it felt like it. It was there to carry the movie along between action scenes. You get the short, Hollywood version of what would happen if you saw the future instead the extended science-fiction edition.
Don't go see it for the plot. I wouldn't go see it for Uma Thurman, but that's a personal choice. If you want an action movie with a touch of plot, but not too much, you should go see it.
Timeline (2003)
A pretty movie that could use a plot
The plot is these archeologists get mixed up with the inventors of a time-travel device and get sent back to 14th century France during the Hundred Year's War. It was fairly realistic for Hollywood; everyone spoke modern English and French, wore spotlessly clean clothing and apparently visited a dentist frequently, but there was no magic or obvious historical errors. Weapons tended to be fatal but deaths were very clean. (I guess it's an improvement over the movies where limbs get hacked off and blood everywhere and the victims keep on moving.)
(Some light spoilers follow) It didn't do much for me. There was too much Hollywoodism; a huge plot point was blatantly foreshadowed at the start of the movie, and the only question was who. They did the standard "take too many characters into a dangerous situation, and kill a few to show this is a dangerous situation, but the rest are now Characters and are only to be killed Dramatically." The characters are all archeologists who were exploring the ruins of the time they are sent back to; but they frequently don't use common sense and the information they are should have to figure out what's going to happen. Once or twice they get in what are effectively prisons with the door left open, because apparently people from the Middle Ages are too stupid to see the obvious way out. Lastly, I'm getting tired of Michael Crichton's evil inventor business men who cuts corners and ignore safety, the same one that's shown up in several other movies. He's just not a believable character, especially not here. The ending was cliché, to top it off.
But, if you can get beyond the plot, it's not a bad movie. The actors are decent and cute enough, it's a beautiful countryside with a nice reconstruction of what was apparently a fairly accurate France of the time (I'm sure a historian could pick nits, but I couldn't.) It has some nice battle scenes; nothing as good as Braveheart, but that's a high standard. Stick some plot in there, and it could have been a very good movie; right now, the best it qualifies for is a pretty movie.
Cops (1922)
Overrated and poorly acted
I don't understand why this film is so highly considered. The first thing I noticed was the actors, who weren't expressive at all. The character who got his money stolen was almost deadpan. Even Buster Keaton seemed flat. I didn't find this film funny at all; it had light physical comedy, but not pressed to the extreme like good physical comedy, and no real social comedy. Comparing this film to those of Harold Lloyd, I don't get the sense of life or action that made Harold Lloyd's films of the same era so funny.
Labyrinth (1986)
A beautiful, but not superior movie
Labyrinth is a fantasy movie by Jim Henson, and it shows in all the (non-human) characters. This movie is beautiful, with excellent detail work throughout. One could not ask for a better Sara then Jennifer Connelly, who kept Sara from coming of as spoiled, instead of merely unhappy and frustrated. The story is right out of a fairy tale.
This is not a bad movie, by any account, but there are distinct flaws that keep it from reaching the heights of The Dark Crystal or The Princess Bride. For all the work on the special effects, there are points where there are dark lines around all the foreground characters and the bluescreening is clear. Far too much of Sara's travels were dependent on luck, rather then intelligence or wisdom. And both the Fieries and the battle in the Goblin City were long, "wacky" action scenes that lost me due to their being random and not being about Sara.
Death Race 2000 (1975)
Cheesy classic
When considering this film, one part of me wants to stand back and discuss it objectively. It's a cheaply made film, with shallow characters and lots of exploitation and violence to carry the weak plot. I thusly conclude that it's not a very good film.
But I bought the DVD, and I don't regret it in the least. Once I shove that 'objective' part to the side, I remember that I love this movie. There's a lot of broad humor and excitement. It may not have the gloss that a big budget Hollywood blockbuster has, but it has action and drive and energy and none of the pompous attitude that many blockbusters have. The movie was made to be fun, and it succeeds. And, okay, the nudity doesn't hurt either.
Invasion, U.S.A. (1952)
A boring piece of propaganda
This movie has all the pieces of a worthless movie. It starts off with a bunch of talking heads, including someone with the radical idea that if the government of a democratic capitalist state wants tanks, it should make it commercially feasible for the seller. Follow that with a bunch of stock footage that advances the story not at all, and make sure it's clear that it's stock footage by using the Ed Wood technique of showing the stock footage interspersed with real footage with no connection, in the hopes that the viewer can make the connection. Then end that with a lame cliche ending and a political quote to make sure that no one thought that this was entertainment instead of propaganda.
SPOILERS: The ending, of course, was the oldest most cliche in the book: a dream, where everybody wakes up and realizes they must fulfill their 'responsibilities'. There were many boring stretches of stock footage, but the worst was the blowing up of Boulder Dam. Nothing connects the bombers to the dam, which we don't see anything happening to - we just see some fire cracker going up. Then follows the stock footage of a flood and the people driving through an area that looks nothing like the area around the dam, nor does the foliage in the flood look like anything that grows around the dam. To top it off, the president gives his big speeches with the camera pointed at the back of his head.
Yet another low budget movie that doesn't deliver the thrills, but this one had the arrogance to be preachy on top of it.
Laserblast (1978)
Perfect MST3k piece
Most movies aren't really perfect for MST3k. There's action or people talking on the screen that the bots interrupt, or there's not enough bad stuff so the bots have to make cheap shots, or it's just too dull and not enough stuff to mock. Laserblast, however, happens to be the perfect MST3k fodder; people stand around or wander around for large parts of the movie, giving the bots plenty of time to mock. The movie is perfectly stupid, making it easy to mock, but had enough completely absurd random things to mock. The special effects aren't bad, but aren't interesting enough to carry even a bad B-movie. Rule of thumb for a good B-movie is to keep the action moving and provide a plot that keeps things connected and moving - without action (besides the 'protagonist' shooting a few defenseless targets and getting shot down himself) and with no real plot (aliens leave gun, guy gets gun and starts shooting things up), this movie is worthless except for a MST3k movie.
National Lampoon's European Vacation (1985)
Even good actors can't move bad material
I picked this up as a Dana Hill fan, and found it rather depressing. Those who blame the actors for this turkey aren't being fair; the actors to blame are those who could have killed the script - Chevy Chase and possibly Beverly D'Angelo.
Simply put, the material isn't funny. A lot of it is stupid physical comedy, lame jokes and stuff that I wonder why anyone thought was funny, and way too much of the last. (The flight scene in Germany, and subsequent train trip, for example). And they should have gone all the way with the dog, like in UHF.
There are some briefly funny parts in the movie, most of which were the family trying to communicate who didn't speak their language. Eric Idle added a slighly Monty Pythonesque note to the movie, which I found out of place, but was slighly funny.
I'm not to usually blink at vulgarity and nudity, but "Ich weiss nicht doch" is not "Beats the s**t out of me" (the mandatory subtitle) and obsenity is out of character for that particular character. (It's closer to "I really don't know".) There are a number of instances of topless nudity and sex jokes, which would be better excused if they were funny.
If you're looking for a better Dana Hill comedy then European Vacation, I suggest Combat High; if you're looking for a better Vacation movie, Christmas Vacation (my favorite) or the original Vacation are better; Vegas Vacation was a failure.
Night of the Blood Beast (1958)
More literary science fiction than prop filled space opera
This movie was not deserving of being MST3K'ed. It clearly predates the American space program, and didn't have a huge budget. But what this movie had was a decent plot that didn't use random action sequences to move things forward, and several very thoughtful moments. It owes more to literary science fiction than to the ray guns of space opera, a very good thing in my book.
Okay, I'll admit there were some very hokey lines and some very ludicrous special effects. But it was still a good movie, all in all.
Alien from L.A. (1988)
Starts with promise, but substitutes sex
I watched the MST3K version of the movie, and this review includes minor spoilers.
When I started watching this movie, it looked like it might have promise as a cheesy sci-fi flick, but the more I watched it, the more disappointing it got. The first reason is pretty idiosyncratic - I liked the mousy shy girl with glasses a lot more than the model Wanda became by the end of the movie. More deeply, it was the fact that the loss of glasses and change in clothing replaced any actual character growth. Instead of growing into a character that could take care of herself, Wanda was just as dependent on males to do everything for her as she was at the start of the movie. The acting could have been better (though I got tired of cracks about Ireland's voice - they were even in the movie itself! It's not that bad.) The background was okay, but it was a little hokey (aliens = humans with facepaint), and could have used more explanation.
Maybe it was just that I was interested in the movie itself, but Joel and the bots did little for me. The movie might have been better without them at all.
Overall (for the movie itself, not the MST3K), a 3 out of 10. It was an okay flick, for what it was.