Reviews

It may not be quite fair to say that Disney kids animation has essentially one plot line, and multiple settings; for one thing, the lead is a male here. Still, the ubiquitous Disney themes and tropes are there, and if someone says Disney princesses, you know exactly what they mean.

I went in with a party of four adults and two very young children. The kids loved it. The adults thought it was humorous at times, and we caught the video game references. Meh, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World did the retro-video game humor better.

This is essentially Shrek, substitute 'video arcade universe' for 'fairy tale fantasy universe' and remove the anti-Disney snark. Production values were Pixar quality; visually, you will not be disappointed.

Take your younger kids, then impress them with your arcane knowledge of video characters from the primordial days of 8 and 16 bits. Watch the group therapy humor, targeted at you, not them. Enjoy the excellent silent arty short, The Paperman, that plays before the main movie. If you stay for the credits, watch for "The Caffineator".

I'd rate this 10 out of 10 for very young kids, maybe 8 out of 10 if you are a video gamer that remembers the older games, and no more than a 6 out of 10 if you are not a gamer. If 'Disney cute' isn't your cup of tea, this will definitely not be.

Lots of action, good eye candy. Just don't think too hard about the stupid stuff. ... and there's a lot of it. See it with a friend, and rip on it afterward. A couple of beers would help your appreciation of this fine cinematic masterpiece. Hey, any movie with a psych ward can't be all bad.

While different from the original, this reinterpretation of the material is true to the spirit of the original. The roles are well cast.

Some mention has been made of the fact that in the TV series, in spite of egregious gunfire, no one ever died. I consider it a good thing that the movie portrays guns as dangerous weapons.

I picked this up in a bargain bin, and was shocked. Nothing major is wrong with this movie. It's not a great movie, but it is imaginative, clever, technically head and shoulders better than most sci fi, has great CGI. The set design was on par with Total Recall.

I'm not connecting with the criticisms at all. I can see it not winning awards. I cannot see it garnering the universal criticism it did.

Someone called the action scenes weak and wooden. For 1/6 g? Have you seen footage of the astronauts walking on the moon? I wouldn't even call the plot weak. The twist ending was genuinely surprising, certainly as good as Freejack.

In fact, the thing that bugged me the most seemed to be among many people's favorite. I thought Randy Quaid's libidinous android felt unrealistic, and marred the overall emphasis on a possible future. Imagine Marvin the paranoid robot taking Data's place. A bit hard to take seriously, no?

I'm glad I took the minor risk and made the purchase. I will keep the DVD and watch it again occasionally.

Star Trek was more than a Sci Fi series (argueably, it is not even a Sci Fi series; more of a Space Opera - Outer Limits was a true Sci Fi show), it was a visionary series. There were other, prior cosmopolitan, multi-racial shows, but Star Trek did it well and took it to a new level. Star Trek showed us a vision, not of space travel, but of cooperation and harmony. Whether you by Roddenberry's vision or not, it is a compelling portrayal of such a society.

There are many shows which advance the state of the art when they are released, but do not look as well when looked back upon. Star Trek TOS was head and shoulders above anything else available in its genre at the time; but even compared to its own offspring it pales today.

This series was ahead of its time in many ways, not the least of which was the cost of doing FX. Star Trek TOS effects seem cheesy compared to modern effects. They in fact cost much more, which was a major factor in the show's cancellation. Every effect in ST TOS was processed optically, one frame at a time. By ST TNG, cheap computers were available to handle the load.

The characterizations are weak, and the central one of James T. Kirk is unrealistic. Good for the day, but expectations have changed.

10 for breaking ground 10 for vision 8 for nostalgic rewatching 5 for a modern viewer who has seen an offspring ST series "Dammit Jim, I'm a reviewer, not a doctor."

I enjoyed Airwolf for its action, but watching it required leaving the brain on hold. 1) The premise involved an advanced attack helicopter, which among many capabilities can travel at supersonic speeds. While such an airframe is possible, it would not look like a conventional helicopter as used in the show. (For a more realistic take on a supersonic copter concept, see the Arnold Schwarzenegger film, "The 6th Day".) 2) The series protagonist, Stringfellow Hawke, has stolen the Airwolf helicopter from the government, and routinely hides it in the Southern California desert, but the government makes no attempt to reclaim their property. This should be trivially easy for them despite any stealth features; ATC tracking, satellite recon, grab during a set-up "mission" - not to mention the odds that passers by will spot an out of place helicopter in the desert. 3) Stringfellow and his mechanic, Dominic Santini, manage to keep the Airwolf in tip top shape - where did they get the materials? Helicopters require CONSTANT maintenance. Where did they get the replacement munitions for those that are fired during the show? 4) Is it realistic that two people with a stolen helicopter would allow a third into their circle? (Caitlin O'Shannessy) Set these objections aside and the show had a lot going for it. Furthermore, none of the objectionable premises were necessary. The aircraft's ability to 'be supersonic' had little impact on the show. The missions made sense in the context of being sanctioned, the airframe's being stolen added nothing. Fortunately, Donald Bellisario seems to have taken this to heart; his later material like JAG and NCIS reflect a very highly realistic slant.

I enjoyed Airwolf when it was on originally but would not go out of my way to see it again.

I only give Bridge to Terabithia a nine because I don't think this movie will appeal to everybody. It has a happy end of sorts, but is far more downbeat than upbeat. The Bridge to Terabithia deals with heavy issues; death, responsibility, eternal consequences. If you as an adult take your children to see this, be prepared to spend some time talking with them afterward. This movie has more in common with Old Yeller and Where the Red Fern Grows than with Chronicles of Narnia, but it's a tougher movie than either of the doggy movies.

It is a very good movie, very well done. Many good nuances; the entire production crew deserves a lot of credit. The uncertainty of parenthood is portrayed especially well, the ease with which we make mistakes with our kids. Jesse's father treat him coldly until tragedy strikes.

The marketing, the trailer and such, is very misleading and deserves a very low rating. Disney Studios needs a lesson about honesty.

MadKaugh

I guess it is all about expectations. The trailer for Hot Dog ... the Movie was hilarious, a non-stop sequence of extremely funny material. So ... imagine our surprise when Hot Dog was nothing like it's trailer. Oh, all of the material in the trailer was in the movie. In fact, every funny moment in the movie was in the trailer, down to the split nanosecond. In context, most of the material was not as funny, the movie took away from the humor.

In fact, it is basically lame softcore porn in a ski context.

Comments relating to other reviews: "Tracy N. Smith (Sunny) was a total FOX in this flick." - yes, but she was a total bitch loser. In fact, none of the characters was likable. None.

"the unedited version is one of the classic lines in a comedy--the Japanese skier (Kamikaze), who doesn't utter one word of English in the whole movie up til this point saying 'Whatta da fukka is a Chinese downhill?'." - classic for being stupidly unfunny? Much of the so-called humor is based on stereotypes. The funniest thing about this line is that it implies that the film maker does not understand that Asia has more than one country and culture. Ha, ha, silly film maker.

I may have seen a worse movie, but I don't remember it. It gets a one because IMDb does not have anything lower.

The trailer is genuinely funny. Watch it instead and save your other hundred odd minutes.

MadKaugh

This is not the worst movie I've ever seen. I did not feel like I wanted to remove my eyeballs forcibly after watching Galaxina. It just is not good. The jokes are almost funny, but fall short. All of them. The few gags that come close are beat back down by repeating them over and over. The production values are, well, non-existent. The sound is bad, the lighting is bad, ... it just seems cheaply made; overly so. The dialog ... well, often it is missing - many awkward silences; they are all just standing around, and it seems like someone should be saying something. The film even seems ambivalent about what it wants to be - it is not always clear that it was intended as a comedy - like maybe that developed after shooting started. It feels like someone's film project that they threw together the night before it was due, and if they had put two weeks into it, it could have been good.

And I'm easy to please. I thought "Mom and Dad Save the World" was a hoot. I like "Pluto Nash". "Mystery Men" is one of my favorite movies. "Spaced Invaders" is well nigh unto a classic. This turkey just doesn't do it. "Space Truckers" was more believable.

Avery Schreiber, who can be very funny, tries too hard. His part calls for a straightman, and he plays it leaning toward sitcom. Dorothy Stratten is OK in her role, but not particularly noteworthy.

Oh, yeah, the "My watch is always slow." line was funny. I'll give this movie all the kudos it can get, it needs it.

The space vehicle models are not bad, but they are few and are not used effectively. The space scenes are vague. No sweeping passes, no close up detailed fly-bys, not even appropriate action scenes when they dock. (The Infinity does crash land very oddly at one point.) The flight dynamics are terrible; worse than anything you've seen, they're jerky, not smooth. The initial battle is stilted and static; even though the two ships have just shown that they can maneuver in their jerky fashion, they trade (slow) shots at close range in a manner that is more reminiscent of a 16th century sea battle, except not as exciting.

The aliens - imagine if all of Star Wars was the cantina scene. That many rubber masks could get dull rather rapidly, no? A few are used as sight gags that work OK the first time, but not the fifth.

Mercifully, if you attempt to watch Galaxina, you are likely to fall asleep. (I got busy doing something else and missed the last ten minutes, and did not feel like it was worth replaying it. If that doesn't say "It sucked", I don't know what does.) Sadly, there is a lot of potential, and this could easily have been a good movie. It would be easy to remake this and have a decent film.

MadKaugh

I do not understand the criticisms. This movie was not much of a stretch of reality. The characters were mostly believable; a few a bit over the top. Tom Dodge was not; Kelsey Grammar was well cast and believable. Rip Torn, Bruce Dern, and William Macy played very believable characters; I've known people like them. The scenario was reasonable. The anomalies had a good rational presented to explain them. The movie managed to be a reasonable action film and a decent comedy at the same time. That's no small feat.

There is a little bit of crude humor, mostly the running gag about Tom Dodge's tattoo on his dick and cat call stuff aimed at Lauren Holly's character. Neither of these are unrealistic for the character situation portrayed, and are not out of place; the crude humor does not seem as forced and childish as it often is in movies.

The "In the Navy" video in the closing credits isn't bad, either.

Yo ho, me maties! 8 of 10! Aargh! MadKaugh

When I saw this movie in the theater I was expecting a comedy, and I was not disappointed. I agree with many of the various comments, but do not see them as relevant. Yes, various actors/actresses are poorly used, it was still funny. Yes, some of it is hard to swallow, but not so bad that I can't laugh. It is a bit crude and pokes at stereotypes, but not too much. The poke-ees do not come out on the short end. Maybe Spielberg knows that he did a poor job on this; so what, it is still funny.

If you like The Three Stooges, you should try 1941. If you don't think The Three Stooges are funny, pass this by.

7 out of 10. I would not go out of my way to get the DVD, but I snatched it up as soon as it hit the discount area. I will watch it every now and then.

MadKaugh