Change Your Image
stratowing
Reviews
John Carter (2012)
Fantastic but should have been trilogy
I haven't been to a theater-release movie in quite a while, because I suppose at my age (48) you begin to see the repeat formula in most of what Hollywood studios create. They all seem alike now, and 'bored' is how I exit the theater. I suspect those of us who grew up on Lucas & Speilburg are all waiting for the next StarWars. No - Avatar wasn't it: ground-breaking movie visually, but not nearly as expansive a tale. Enter John Carter. I saw the ad on TV and thought nothing of it. "Another cliché formula flick thrown together with big CG armies clashing, and less-than-interesting dialog/story lines going on" : so I thought. I was wrong. At the risk of committing great "blasphemy", I dare say this movie actually had the potential of being *the* next StarWars. DARN they missed an opportunity! I walked into the theater barely willing to give this movie (or *any* movie) a chance, so I was the proverbial "tough crowd" - but the acting, visuals, and cool story drew me in anyway. By the time the wedding scene occurred, I was thinking 'darn - they rushed this movie -waaay too fast'. It should have been 2 movies or possibly a trilogy. I'm not going to blab on, but I don't post unless a movie is really bad, or really good. This one was really good, to me, and it kinda grows on you, because instead of leaving the theater bored, I left thinking about the story. *That* is a good sign. Film Score: Great! Character development: very good Directing: very good Acting: very good Story uniqueness: (based on ERB 'Princess of Mars' - very good) Visuals: very good!! PS> I also did not look for any "symbolism" while watching; just enjoyed the story for what it was, so if there are political messages in there, I wasn't aware of them.(Sometimes films' symbolic political messages are rather 'overt', sometimes less overt. I'd prefer to enjoy a sci-fi adventure than to be manipulated by politics during a movie. JC of Mars seems to be straight-forward entertainment w/ no bs.)
Apollo 18 (2011)
pathetic
...actually, unbelievably pathetic to be precise. Since I have nothing else to say about this movie, but need 10 lines (to enable submission) I'll say: the decision to do the entire movie from the perspective as though it were shot from actual lunar module onboard cams, and 1970's hand held film cameras was quite a bad decision. The script was as if written by a 12 year old. It was boring, with poorly written lines. Bad ending. Cliché. Studios know how to show a few short clips to make a movie look good, but they no longer know how to stretch that 10second excitement out to 1 or more hours. Moon spiders?? c'mon people. Bottom line- Save your money. Or if you're into really bad movies, you could go see another catastrophe like devil inside.
Avatar (2009)
anti USA :(
Well - I was real excited about seeing this one...that is, until I saw the preview trailer about 5 mins ago. So I'm going to write a pre-judgement, and then go see it to see if I have to eat my words. OK?- here's my prediction:
We've all seen this plot 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Guy has mission. Guy falls for girl on enemy side. Girl complicates & compromises mission, and guy questions / doubts his mission. etc. Blah- I'm tired of it.
Secondly- By the reviews I'm reading, it seems most people will swallow the anti-American message of the film as long as the eye candy "tastes" good. Isn't the US being portrayed as a "raper" of foreign-owned resources ? (or maybe there were some Nazi SS patches on their sleeves that I didn't notice... But gee those accents sounded American to me).
OK - there's my pre-judgement based on the short trailer. I'll go see it and do a post-review and eat my words if I'm wrong.
ps> the music in the trailer is beyond cliché. I'm pretty sure I've heard it in car commercials.
** UPDATE ** DEC. 22: OK, I've been around the internet looking at various opinion posts from sites are *aren't* promoting the movie (which generally means they're more honest), and the general consensus is that the movie's story & general 'message' is cliché & blah. Visual fx is the only thing I hear that's good. So I still haven't seen the movie, but I'll see soon and post whether or not I agree. But since so much effort was made on visual realism, I'm going to bump my original rating up 1 notch.
The Inn (2004)
Director may have attempted to offset acting w/ visual
I've noticed several comments sort of said the same thing: "the director tended to focus more on creating visual artistry and thus story-telling, dialog suffered" (or similar words)... to which I'd like to offer this: perhaps the director, being an indy filmmaker was of the mindset, "I only have amateur actors, thus dialog / acting will be sub-par. Therefore I'll try to offset that with cool visuals, etc. " ? just a thought.
I haven't seen this film, but would like to see some of Mr. Singh Khara's work in the near future. I'm now just writing sentences because IMDb has this bizarre rule which won't allow me to post until I have enough sentences, but you see, i'm finished talking, so I'll just amble on...
White Lightning (1973)
Good Movie
I disagree with "helpless_dancer", from brokeback...um I mean Brokenbow, Oklahoma. I recently saw this movie after many years of not having seen a Burt Reynolds film.
I'm quite certain my IQ is above that of a "coon dog", although maybe not as high someone from Oklahoma...yeee haaa...
True- the STORY doesn't seek to explore some deep philosophical issue or impart profound wisdom to the viewer. It's not complicated, nor does it have twist & turns, and complex relationships filled with intrigue, mystery, and profound statements about the universe. No. Its enough story to carry the film's intent, which I believe is character & locale driven.
Its a visual presentation that develops the "richness" of the locale... The texture,if you will. The humanness of the gritty, sweaty characters provides an emotional connection. You have the deep south, a small town, unpretentious acting, ordinary people, (yes some are 'rednecks'), good character acting, old 70's car chases on dusty dirt roads, etc. Its just good fun in a setting and style that you just don't see anymore in films.
Band of Brothers (2001)
Get it now - seriously.
This series of DVD's is an absolute must for any good war movie collection, because its not a "war movie", as much as it is a dramatically realistic chronicle of Easy Company's fighting from the bootcamp training in Georgia, to the beaches on D-Day, across France, into Germany, and straight up to Hitler's "Eagle's Nest". Very cool stuff. Truly some of the best war footage(recreation) I've ever seen. Why am I just now commenting on this? (April 2008)... because I bought it a couple of years ago, and never had time to sit down and watch it. I broke it out last night, and literally could not stop. Watched all 8 (or 9?) DVD's (took a 5 hour break to sleep after #4, then finished the set Sat morning). I always felt that Saving Private Ryan set a new standard by which all other war films would be measured, until I saw this stuff -- wow. I realize Speilburg and Hanks worked on both, but this Band of Bros stuff is extraordinarily comprehensive, historically accurate, and amazingly realistic -just like SPR - and even more so. Lastly - I was extremely impressed with every single actor! There is not a weak one in the bunch. ...Go get it.
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Great ! -- but shaking camera overused.
Great movie, very entertaining and great ending....but geeezz...
I had a headache 5 minutes into the film! Every scene- regardless of mood - was shot with an excessive amount of "shake, vibrate, move, quick-pan, zoom-in, zoom-out, etc" technique. :( good grief!
The following is very "opinionated" and subjective I suppose...
I like the use of these techniques(shaking/zooming/partially obscuring subjects with foreground objects or people) in films like Babel or Saving Private Ryan, but this one went way way overboard with it and hence the effectiveness (of the camera) is quickly destroyed, because there's no visual dynamic to contrast dramatic to subdued scenes.
Its great stuff at times, but I shouldn't have to guess at what MIGHT be happening in the fight scenes, and sort of make up my own version as it plays out in front of me... "ok, I guess there he twisted his arm and, wow! that must have been a kick or something...and oh dude! what happened then? I guess maybe he stabbed him or something". And I shouldn't have to wonder "why is the camera shaking, jerking, zooming, panning left/right during this subdued scene with regular conversation between 2 people??"
Music varies with scenes to convey the intended mood, right?... Well, if there's no effort to vary the cinematography techniques to convey the mood of individual scenes, isn't that like painting a picture of a grassy field against a sunset and using red for the grass and red for the sun and red for the sky? ...imho.
I don't know - some people might like it constantly shaking with no attention to "composition" (in its classic sense) and no slow steady dramatic pans- but I need a little break from the jerky movement occasionally.
Great film otherwise... great ending too.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Can you say EPIC ?
Epic Fun. I give a "9" simply because I would have handled the "flying sail parachute" scene a little bit differently. I won't give a spoiler here, don't worry. GREAT movie. Go see it. Now. GO.
I don't have anything more to say about this film but I have to continue to type because for some bizarre reason, I'm not allowed to make a simple 2 or 3 line comment. IMDb demands at least 10 lines, so now I'm trying to fill space so my comment will be accepted. So I think I'm getting close to line 10 now -- therefore after this sentence I'll stop typing. Oops...still didn't take, so I'll now type 1 more line of ridiculous text to meet the all-important 10-line minimum. Please change your policy, IMDb.
The Departed (2006)
Worth Seeing for DiCaprio's acting alone. Pretty amazing.
Double infiltration -- interesting movie. DiCaprio & Nicholson are amazing actors, no doubt. I give it a 7, because there are places that could have been much better directed in the telling of the story, but it was pretty killer overall - except for the fact that it leaves you feeling depressed instead of hopeful. Also- I left the theater right when they shot DiCaprio and the whole theater gasps in disbelief... I thought to myself: "yep- yet again the good guy, the glimmer of hope in all of this corruption get's wacked...in typical 'new Hollywood' style; it seems they like to have 'evil' triumph now-a-days. (I wish I'd stayed to see Walberg get Damon, but it didn't matter at that point, because a typical viewer is naturally pulling for DiCaprio to overcome the enormous dangers he's in and expose the bad guys. So when he get's shot - its like "crap- that sux - i'm outta here.") Oh well - I'll have to counter the psychological fx by watching a good indie film. lol . Enjoy -
Flyboys (2006)
Formula, Rushed, BS. Disappointing. :(
Disappointing :( Have fun with it, but don't expect an "epic" serious film with a carefully developed story with attention to detail. 1. it was formula bs. 2. music was canned uninspiring. 3. character development was nearly nill, rushed, & cliché. For some bizarre reason, I'm not allowed to make a simple 2 or 3 line comment. IMDb demands at least 10 lines, so now I'm trying to fill space so my comment will be accepted. I think I'm getting close to line 10 now -- therefore after this sentence I'll stop typing. Oops...still didn't take, so I'll now type 1 more line of ridiculous text to meet the all-important 10-line minimum.
The Wicker Man (2006)
Very well made - but disturbing.
Pretty good - but disturbing and yucko ending. I really don't have much more to say about this movie - I never saw the original and don't want to after seeing this one. It was well-made and great acting by Nicolas Cage.
For some bizarre reason, I'm not allowed to make a simple 2 or 3 line comment. No...IMDb demands at least 10 lines, so now I'm trying to fill space so my comment will be accepted. So I think I'm getting close to line 10 now -- therefore after this sentence I'll stop typing. Oops...still didn't take, so I'll now type 1 more line of ridiculous text to meet the all-important 10-line minimum.
Superman Returns (2006)
Sucked Beyond Belief.
I'm quoting from a friend of mine who saw the film and regretted it. I knew not to go see it after what he said. Here's what he said...
Terrible. The movie casts Superman as someone who knocks up his girl friend, then skips out of town.... Lois Lane is a shack-up kinda girl after that.... and oh yes, Jimmy Olsen is gay.
So -
Superman is a Whore,
Lois Lane is a Slut,
Superboy is a bastard child,
and Jimmy Olsen is gay,
Welcome to Metroplois!
Next episode: Lois and Superman have it out on Jerry Springer.
Poseidon (2006)
Disappointing - Could've been good though.
Movie could have been good, but instead was a rushed, formula, no-character-development, blah film.
Don't waste your money.
I don't have anything more to say about this film but I have to continue to type, because for some bizarre reason, I'm not allowed to make a simple 2 or 3 line comment. IMDb demands at least 10 lines, so now I'm trying to fill space so my comment will be accepted. So I think I'm getting close to line 10 now -- therefore after this sentence I'll stop typing. Oops...still didn't take, so I'll now type 1 more line of ridiculous text to meet the all-important 10-line minimum. Please change your policy, IMDb.
Walk the Line (2005)
Acting Cinematography Directing - Superb
This was an excellent film. I've never been a Johnny Cash fan, nor do I listen to that kind of music. But a friend said it was a great movie, so I rented the DVD. Now I wish I'd seen it in the theater! Fantastic cinematography, and actually great music too. But here's the deal....As far as actors go, Phoenix & Witherspoon are amazing to watch in this movie. I'm fascinated by great actors as it is, but these two unleash some serious SERIOUS talent in this film. There are a few films I can watch just for the acting alone - Training Day (Denzel Washington & Ethan Hawke), Gladiator (Phoenix, Russ Crowe) for example... and now this film, Walk the Line, I add to the list due to Phoenix and Witherspoon's performances. Great story too, and well directed. You won't be disappointed, even if you've never heard of Johnny Cash.
A History of Violence (2005)
shocking sex = LESS $$
OK film but sex scene was needless, negative, and bizarre actually. Acting was great, but poor decisions on the tasteless sex.
I don't have anything more to say about this film but I have to continue to type because for some bizarre reason, I'm not allowed to make a simple 2 or 3 line comment. IMDb demands at least 10 lines, so now I'm trying to fill space so my comment will be accepted. So I think I'm getting close to line 10 now -- therefore after this sentence I'll stop typing. Oops...still didn't take, so I'll now type 1 more line of ridiculous text to meet the all-important 10-line minimum. Please change your policy, IMDb.
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004)
Yuk-Not Science at all
This film sux. Its not what you think its going to be. I thought it would be an enlightening look at new discoveries being made in quantum physics etc. Instead, its an occult channeler named JZ Knight, allowing "Ramtha" to speak through her, and Ramtha informs us that the classical "Christian" belief of God is rubbish.
Several 'scientists' who have sold out to the "there is no right or wrong" doctrine, also get their 2cents worth in.
Then it progresses on to a rather absurd wedding reception scene in which we are treated to scenes of sex by a lying, unfaithful groom and his whore girlfriend (probably the brides best friend) during the reception. Wonderful.
Then - back to "science & God". God himself has no control over anything, you see, because God is not an "individual". This is the new, brilliant scientific finding of quantum physics scientists in this film. YOU are God, I am God, and we have complete control over everything. Wow! I tried to make the sun go back down this morning so that I could sleep a little longer, but it didn't work! Oh well, I'll try again tomorrow.
From what I could understand, Ramtha says that God has no real individuality, nor does He desire to be loved and obeyed as a father does, nor does He love, either. What's interesting is Ramtha seems to claim everyone is God...except Jesus, of course. He doesn't count. Doesn't this kinda show what Ramtha's real objective is?
With that being said, I do feel like they make some pretty valid points regarding influencing things in your life. It does seem as though our world's are, to some degree, determined first by our thoughts, which lead to actions, which affect a myriad of minute variables around us which build into bigger events. So, quantum physics is not bologny, but to use it to promote occult channelers or to diminish or discredit Christ, or claim there is no "good or bad" or "right or wrong" is rather lame and silly.
<>
War of the Worlds (2005)
Wow. This year's Best
You can pretty much rest assured that those placing poor reviews of this film, are simply 'following orders' from the "attack-Tom-Cruise- for-speaking-his-opinion-on-the-drug-industry" crowd.
It is a fantastic film. Chilling. Intense. Epic. Visually stunning, and I have not had this much fun at a theater in years. After having seen both originals (made in the 70's) - the European version, and the American version - you'd think, since I knew what was coming I wouldn't be on the edge of my seat. Well...I was on the edge of my seat many times thru-out this movie. Well directed, well acted, and true to the original story. Its great. Go see it.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
GREAT-depressing-Stunning visually
I'm updating my first post because I saw the movie AGAIN, and now have different view of it. The first time I saw it was 12 midnight and I was very tired with a headache too. So I saw it again the next day, fully rested, feeling good, and now can give a fair assessment of it.
Acting is fine in this film with the exception of Portman in 1 or 2 scenes, and Jackson in a few scenes. Portman is weak with her "oh Anikin - let's go somewhere where its just you and me and our love" bs. Jackson isn't "official" and "military" enough in his demeanor and presence. He struts when he walks. No disciplined use of the English language- casual and lax in word pronunciations. It doesn't seem appropriate for the military "flavor" of "Jedi-status" individuals. He and Portman are A-list, fine actors who are fantastic in other roles but not in these.
We all know this is the story of the fall, so I wasn't expecting a happy ending. However, Lucas chose to end this thing with a scene that I thought was absolutely FANTASTIC. In the first movie, there is a scene (which I won't reveal) which became a sort of Landmark for its emotion, power, and uniqueness at the time. I thought that I was the only one who really loved this scene and remembered it. But Lucas, obviously recognized it as well and it was a fantastic way to end this movie. That being said...
My problem with the film: I personally don't think we're given proper motivation for Anikin to fall to the dark side. If Lucas had shown slight clues of instable character, betrayal tendencies, or character flaws inclined towards evil previous to this movie, then this fall would have been more believable, as this sort of "hidden" but dark side started to grow. When Anikin falls to evil, it is so tragically depressingly unbelievable that I simply wanted to walk out of the theater; I mean - there was no well-developed REASON for him so suddenly turn to evil, I was like- so "what's up wid dat"!??
Regarding endless fight scenes, Its a time of war; there's going to be much fighting. Deal with it. Just don't go to the movie tired with a headache; it'll wear you down fast if you do.
The Amityville Horror (2005)
No Tension-building - Just a bunch of "Boo!"'s
If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.If you never saw the 1st one, this one may scare you. But... I doubt it.
Sahara (2005)
If handled seriously- would have been major hit
Had this movie been handled more seriously, with limited and clever comic relief...it would have been a huge hit, imho. But... Its a formula-flick with ridiculously unrealistic scenarios, and perhaps the dumbest, lamest, overused comic relief lines I've ever heard.
Cool scenery and locations, but it had the typical scenarios: 100 guys armed with military weapons firing at you at near point blank range.... you roll on the ground and mow them all down with your little pistol.
5 or 6 machine-gun-armed military men in military boats firing on a single UNarmed(for the most part) civilian boat a few yards in front of it, and miraculously the boat's seats, sides, rear etc get filled with bullet holes, but NO ONE gets hit! WOW cool.......NOT.
I'm not complaining that the "good guys" don't get hit, but rather, that the audience is not given a REASON TO BELIEVE that the gunners could miss. That's whats missing ...a plausible reason to believe.
Have fun with it, but don't expect to be absorbed in the story. (maybe the whole thing was a tongue-n-cheek comedy and I didn't get it)?
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
WoW - blown away
Great, great movie demonstrating that Clint Eastwood understands cinematography and directing like no (or few) others. Go see it. Now. Go. --- you still here??? GOOO!
I don't have anything more to say about this film but I have to continue to type because for some bizarre reason, I'm not allowed to make a simple 2 or 3 line comment. IMDb demands at least 10 lines, so now I'm trying to fill space so my comment will be accepted. So I think I'm getting close to line 10 now -- therefore after this sentence I'll stop typing. Oops...still didn't take, so I'll now type 1 more line of ridiculous text to meet the all-important 10-line minimum. Please change your policy, IMDb.