bek-12 Reviews

Campus Code (2015)

Something fishy is going on

[4/10 · 12 February 2017]

The concept was actually pretty good. The acting wasn't bad. The movie did suffer due to some of the dialogue, and I'm not expert on cinema, but I suspect the directing and budget hurt it as well. I was shocked to see Liotta and Martin Scorsese, then I realized that the director was Cathy Scorsese. I can only assume a family member decided to break into directing and Martin and Ray gave them a little help. Hey, that's cool. I would do the same for my kids. Everyone wants their kids to be successful. In any event, it's a weird ride that comes together at the end... well, as much as a low-budget mediocre movie can pull that off. It wasn't the worst way to spend a Sunday afternoon.

Banshee: The Truth About Unicorns (2014) Season 2, Episode 5

Different directorial feel...

[4/10 · 15 March 2014]

It felt like someone was trying to give it an emotional impact through slow motion, stop motion, lots of music with nobody doing anything. Miami Vice pulled it off in the '80s, but not much else has done it successfully since then. This episode failed miserably. It was very slow. However, if you liked the movie Drive (I hated it), then this may be the episode for you, as they have directorial similarities. This episode felt very different than most of the other Banshee episodes, especially the early ones, although some of the more recent episodes are introducing the stop motion editing (I also hate this). Moving car... music... long stares at nothing or each other... this episodes got it all. Perfect for the insomniac.

Fantastic Four (I) (2005)

Another lost opportunity....

[7/10 · 9 July 2005]

Okay, I saw this movie tonight and it was fairly enjoyable, but nowhere near great. (I'd like to give it a 6.5/10, but since we have to choose whole numbers, I went ahead and gave it a 7.) Marvel is blowing it big time. With every mediocre movie, they are further "expending" their most valuable characters. They've now used up X-Men, the Hulk, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Elektra, the Punisher, Man-Thing, Spider-Man, and more to come, like Ghost Rider. With the exceptions of X-Men and Spider-Man, the movies ranged from absolutely terrible (Man-Thing) to various shades of okay/decent (Punisher, Hulk, Daredevil, Elektra). Avi Arad of Marvel just doesn't seem to be getting it--once these characters are used, they're done for at least several years! Not every mediocre comic book movie gets revitalized like the Batman franchise. More likely, they'll fade away and be forgotten, and the more often it happens, the less Hollywood will want to create comic book movies. Marvel should know this! So why are they letting mediocre and little known directors/talent work on their their flagship characters? Where is Stone, Cameron, Howard, Spielberg, Singer (okay, he did do two X-Men movies) and the other A-list talent that should be spearheading the biggest comic book movies? And why the heck would Marvel put a great brand like Fantastic Four in the hands of a guy that did "Barbershop" and not much else? Sadly, I just don't get it.

So from all that, I'm sure you can tell I wasn't overly impressed. It was an okay action flick and decent special effects. The acting seemed wooden at times, and some scenes were either edited heavily or just didn't make much sense. The actors gave it a valiant try, but at least two of them weren't even close to up to snuff. The writing was cheesy and not nearly serious enough for the epic this movie should have been. And of course, we had the obligatory change of events from the comic to the screen. You know what I mean--when the Hollywood writer/director decides that the comic story was "silly" and adds his own ideas into the character's origin, thus alienating many comic readers by ignoring comic book cannon. This doesn't bother me IF the change is really necessary or adds to the story, but too often it's an arbitrary change (i.e. changing the Hulk's name from "David" to "Bruce" in the TV show) that really adds nothing to the story. Also, a few cheesy lines are fine, but this movie went overboard. My personal (un)favorite for "Absolute Worst Line in this Movie(tm)" was the Johnny Storm one-liner: "You're Hot", "Why thank you--so are you!" Ugh. How lame.

I do admit that Chris Evans, who I wasn't familiar with until now, did an excellent job as the Human Torch, but it wasn't enough to turn this movie around.

If I had to briefly describe the movie's faults, I'd say it's a combination of mediocre acting and mediocre writing/directing. Avi, please start demanding top talent for your movies. I promise you it will pay off!

The Longest Yard (2005)

This movie is crap

[4/10 · 28 May 2005]

I really hate to say that, because I wanted to like the movie. I just couldn't. It was the same old tired gags that guys like Chris Rock and Adam Sandler have been peddling for years. Sandler had a chance to make a serious motion picture with some real drama, and he blew it. There were various changes made from the original movie, from specific lines to entire scenes, and I honestly can't think of one that was an improvement. All the times where Crewe was a tough, underspoken character that really shined, well... he just became a smartmouth in the new movie. They also "sanitized" a couple of scenes that really bothered me...

**SPOILER ALERT** Crewe no longer slaps the girlfriend at the beginning, but now locks her in a closet. Not a big change, and at the time I didn't think much about it, but later on when it's revealed that he actually did shave points for money, the new movie subtly changes it so that a reason is given, and he says that his life was in danger if he didn't do it. I guess Sandler wasn't happy with Crewe having real, human flaws like the rest of us, and needed to justify Crewe's actions. I liked the original better, where Crewe just made a mistake and felt regret for doing it. It somehow felt more real to me.

**END OF SPOILERS** They basically turned a great movie into a movie with nothing but cheap gags. It was very disappointing.

Catwoman (2004)

Not great, but underappreciated

[5/10 · 27 July 2004]

I kept hearing how Catwoman was SO bad, so a friend and I went to see it today. Don't listen to the hype. It's certainly not great, but it's getting way more abuse than it deserves. Halle Berry does an excellent job--she's quite talented. Some scenes are genuinely good and interesting, athough it did have many flaws. Berry hissing at the dogs was very funny (unfortunately), and the director/writer chose not to delve into the duality nature of Catwoman to any degree, which would have made for an excellent story (remember the dance/discussion between Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle in the Batman movie?).

Lastly, why do people seem to love when villains are constantly "over the top", ala Bullseye in Daredevil and Sharon Stone's character in Catwoman? I'm incredibly tired of hearing how great the acting was because the character was "over the top." Well, guess what? That over the top villain is the one that's farthest from real life behavior! They're positively goofy. That's not a plus to me.

Overall, 5/10.

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)

Truly horrible

[4/10 · 24 December 2003]

The great soundtrack and great acting from Demi Moore in a couple of scenes are not nearly enough to save this horrible production. I enjoy wild summer action flicks as much as anyone, but this movie was just plain stupid most of the time, with no real "acting"--more like posing.

4/10 stars.

Sleeping Beauty (1959)

Fantastic!

[9/10 · 22 November 2003]

The old cliche, "they don't make 'em like they used to" is certainly true here. I grew up on Disney animation in the 70s-90s and even today. I used to think Disney has pretty good animation. I'd never seen anything from them as old as this movie. The animation is SO MUCH SMOOTHER and more realistic than the stuff Disney cranks out today. You can actually take the villain in this movie seriously, as opposed to the "gnashing teeth" villains in today's Disney movies. Everything today has been so watered down and "PC" that the scary edge is gone.

Disney, take a clue from your old work. Sleeping Beauty is enjoyable by both kids and adults, yet doesn't need subtle references to adult topics in order to maintain that enjoyability.

This easily ranks 9/10.

Feardotcom (2002)

This movie is a piece of crap

[4/10 · 12 January 2003]

I am very generous when it comes to rating movies. If a movie has any entertainment value at all, I'll usually give it a 5. Feardotcom got a 3. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The dialog and the plot are the main culprits. Most of the actors seem reasonably competent.

This is going on my "avoid at all costs" list, right up there with Crazy Six.

You've been warned.

24 (2001–2010)

An innovative, original, extremely entertaining series!

[8/10 · 27 September 2002]

I honestly have to say that I'm not sure if I've ever seen another series this entertaining. It has the slick feel of a movie, with some twists that even good movies can't compare with. I was repeatedly exasperated, shocked, and fearful for the characters.

Don't be fooled by some people's comments that implied the "real-time" gimmick is what makes this show innovative, because it's actually just an incredibly well done series. The idea that the series takes place in a 24 hour period simply heightens the intensity.

Buy Season 1 on DVD. It makes my other favorite series (Oz, Sopranos, X-Files) look slow.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Disgusting

[6/10 · 4 June 2001]

This movie goes beyond disappointing, and is downright disgusting. A friend of mine who was a history major laughed all the way through it. It tried to show the Japanese as the "honorable enemy" who regretted their attack, but thought it was necessary. Ha! The movie did not show all the motivation behind everything. We showed that the US intended to block oil shipments, but not why. We did it because Japan had invaded China (which was apparent at the end of the movie, but the link wasn't made clear). Does anyone really think the Japanese didn't want this attack? If they wanted a fight, why not call us out and face us down? It was a low-life dirty attack, and the writer should be fined for presenting such a ridiculously "politically correct" joke such as this.

Oh, but the hour-long massacre of men, women, and children had great special effects.

The Omega Code (1999)

An interesting film, but eerie to watch

[5/10 · 12 February 2001]

If I gauge this film on the story, without accounting for the religious implications, I'd rate it a 7/10. It's a decent film, but the ending is a bit unexplained to me. I'm a little surprised it has earned such a low rating, but I imagine it could be considered offensive to some people.

I'm not a religious person, but I don't think the antichrist would be so blatant with his identity. I can't imagine people in the world not rising up to stop such an evil force, much less that many people siding with him. That is, if they know who/what he is. I fault this movie on the religious side for that, because the antichrist would come like a sheep in wolves clothes, or so I would think.

Still, an interesting concept that seems somewhat based in truth.

The Rock (1996)

The Unsung Villains Steal the Show

[7/10 · 25 December 2000]

This movie is definitely for action junkies. If you enjoy disecting a movie looking for silly dialogue, plot holes, or looking for inner-meaning in a movie, you might want to skip The Rock. This movie is 2 hours, 15 minutes, but the action is almost nonstop and the movie moves briskly. It's typical Jerry Bruckheimer fare, including plenty of action, an implausible storyline, and big stars doing a fine job of acting.

Some Bruckheimer characteristic events were obvious, such as the scene immediately after the car chase where Cage stands, and the camera rotates around him. This is reminescent of a similar scene in Bad Boys, another Bruckheimer film, where Martin Lawrence and Will Smith are standing in a similar pose with the same rotating camera view. Also present was the presidential address and accompanying slow-motion dramatic scenes near the end, ala Armageddon. I'm not saying it's bad for Bruckheimer to reuse his old ideas, just that if I was able to spot them, other people probably did as well.

Some of the dialogue was way over the top, and tended to get a bit macho and silly. When Mason tells Lomax, "...you're between the Rock and a hard case", I felt like groaning. There was plenty of self-referential comments, such as this one where Mason refers to himself as a "hard case". There were also other comments where the characters would try to "build up" the other characters, such as when Lomax says, "You don't know Mason." I hate it when movies do this. They try to make you believe how tough a character is by other characters talking about him. I would prefer to SEE how tough he is by his actions, rather than be told about it constantly using dialogue. Several parts of the movie, such as the stalemate in the shower, seemed melodramatic and reheased. I couldn't imagine Michael Biehn, in real life, giving the "We spilt the same blood in the same mud" speech to a general that's holding a gun on him, but that's just my opinion.

Cage plays the geek very well, with some very humorous scenes. The scene near the beginning where he's difusing the bomb, and finding the Playboy mags and gas mask, and his assistant screaming about the long needle, was darkly hilarious. I love that sort of humor. There were lots of very good scripting, such as the dialogue between Cage and Connery about the difference between winners and losers, and Cage's "Actually, I'm a chemical SUPER-freak" response was a great one-liner.

I did feel like there some were plot holes, or at least some weird occurances. For example, when Cage calls his girlfriend and tells her not to come to San Francisco, she yells back into the phone, "Like hell I won't!" and hangs up. Why would she do that? Wouldn't she more likely ask something like, "Why not?" Or at the very least, maybe start accusing him of being with another woman? Of course, this was the perfect vehicle for her to come to San Francisco against his wishes and have to be rescued. It didn't make sense, but it made the story move along. Also, she runs away from the FBI agent when he comes to pick up her. Why? Because the FBI agent refused to answer her questions about where her boyfriend (Cage) is. Why would she run away? I would assume the FBI agent is there to take me to safety or to her boyfriend. But again, by running away this furthers the plot--now she's in danger and Cage can agonize about her fate, and thus he has motivation to disarm the poison rockets. If she had stayed and allowed the FBI to whisk her to safety, he would not have been motivated to save the city. He'd already been shown to be a bit of a coward in the scene where he's throwing up out of nervousness. Of course, in other scenes he's terribly heroic. His character was a bit inconsistent, but you could explain it as him being thrust into the situation and once there, exceeding his prior limits.

The incinerator was another weird plot device. It looked a bit unrealistic. It was obviously something dreamed up for an action movie, with moving cogs (wheels) that would turn and have to be dodged by the hero, all the while fire is rushing through the same area. I've seen an incinerator, and it didn't resemble this monstrosity at all. I have no idea if the motion sensor that detected the marines arrival was accurate and if the military really has something this sophisticated, but I thought it was an ingenius idea.

You may feel differently, but I actually enjoyed the villains of the story more than the heroes. Most of the lines that struck me as powerful were delivered by the noble villains, Harris and Morse. I found the combination of Ed Harris, David Morris, and Michael Biehn (admittedly not a villain in this movie) a powerful combination. I consider all these actors excellent, and the stalemate in the shower room was especially powerful, as well as the standoff with the villains near the end. These scenes didn't feature Connery or Cage, or the occasional humorous tension breaker. These scenes showed us that all villains are not the same, and that some villains are evil, and some just misguided. This degree of gray, in an otherwise black and white character movie, added a level of complexity to the film. Thus, a film that I would have otherwise said was "okay" became a really good action movie with some characters that I actually cared about.

There was lots of violence and profanity, and a brief sexual situation (although no nudity) near the beginning. Despite my problems with some of the dialogue and plot, I found this movie enjoyable and engaging. If you don't mind overly macho acting and some silliness in the dialogue, and you love action, then you'll probably love this movie. If seeing serious characterization and motivation if more your style, you might want to check out Steel Magnolias and leave The Rock at the video store.

Unbreakable (2000)

A Unique Comic Book Genre Movie

[8/10 · 16 December 2000]

Unbreakable is a difficult movie to review without revealing the plot, and trust me, if you've not seen it you don't want the plot revealed. The plot being a surprise is the key to enjoying this movie. Knowing this, I will not reveal elements to the plot. I hope you rate me with this in mind.

This story involves two men, Samuel Jackson and Bruce Willis. They are opposites. Jackson plays Elijah, whose bones are brittle and even a small fall can cause fractures and breaks. As a child, he lives in fear of going outside. As an adult, he knows there is someone out there who is his opposite in every way. Willis plays David Dunn, a man who has survived one accident and tragedy after another. A man, to Elijah, who appears unbreakable. That's all you should know going into the movie. I'd strongly advise against reading details about the plot.

Unbreakable is getting split reviews. Most people either love it or hate it. This makes perfect sense because of the nature of the movie. If you're a heavy-duty comic book fan, you will probably love this movie. If you care nothing about comics, you could go either way, but I am willing to bet you will consider it a bit boring at times (maybe the whole time). I think this movie relies somewhat on you being in on the "in joke" of comic book super-heroes. For example, Willis' character David Dunn--his initials are "DD". Double initials are a common trait that many older comic book characters exhibit. A few other examples are Matt Murdock (Daredevil), Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, Peter Parker (Spider-Man), and Bruce Banner (The Hulk). Sure, everyone will get the gist of the movie, but comic book fans will get the most out of it.

The buildup is a bit like Sixth Sense, and even more so because Bruce Willis stars in both movies. Even if you didn't know the same guy (M. Night Shyamalan) directed both movies, you could probably see a lot of similarity in the style. The same slow, intentional buildup with the same mind-bending twist at the end. Shyamalan makes a cameo appearance as a drug dealer in the stadium. Watch for him if you haven't seen the movie yet.

Don't let yourself get distracted during this movie. We brought our 2 year old with us, and it was a mistake. This is the type of movie you need to settle in for, relax, and take in every word. Try to figure out what's going on. If you miss important pieces of the dialog, you're doing yourself an injustice.

It's a comic book movie, but unlike anything we've seen so far. Whereas X-Men smashes the genre in your face, Unbreakable taps you lightly on the shoulder and quietly says, "I'm a super-hero movie." It's not obvious until the end, and depending on the viewer, sometimes not even then.

From a comic book lover point of view, I'd rate it 4 out of 5 stars. From a non-comic reader viewpoint, I'd give it 3 or 4. Overall, I'm calling it a 4-star movie because I enjoyed it tremendously.

Hellraiser: Inferno (2000 Video)

What? What? This is the worst movie!

[3/10 · 28 October 2000]

If anyone understands what happened in this movie, please email me and let me know. Was the cop in hell at the end? Did his wife and daughter really die of frostbite? Was Pinhead really gabbing around morals at the end? I am truly stunned at how bad this one is. I'm a sucker for catching all the sequels of movies I've grown up watching, especially the 80s horror flicks (Friday 13th, Freddy, and Hellraiser). I love 'em, even when they're not that great, but this one was just too bad. I don't even understand what happened, and Pinhead was in the movie AT MOST 5 minutes. No exhaggeration. Why was it called Inferno? Why did he shoot everyone at the end? What was that about him shooting himself in the mouth and then having to relive that period again? Nothing makes any sense with this movie.

Natural Born Killers (1994)

So many bad traits and so few good

[2/10 · 24 September 2000]

I don't know what tramatic event happened to Oliver Stone between Platoon and Natural Born Killers, but it must have been a dozie. I can easily see why Tarantino wanted his name left off this movie. Fortunately, bits and pieces of his original work still shine through the crap that is this movie--a few lines of dialogue, sometimes a scene is very nice. Unfortunately, Stone's dramatic weird "jumping around" (for lack of a better description) is very strong all through this movie. More so than in any other Stone movie. There are scenes that do such weird stuff that I can only guess what he is trying to convey. The sad thing is that underneath all that crap, there was a good story. As it is, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Crumb (1994)

Of Interest Only to True Crumb Fans

[2/10 · 15 August 2000]

This looks like a somewhat revealing documentary of some of Robert Crumb's life and what shapes it. I am a comic collector of 27 years now (as of the year 2000), but I found myself skipping chapters and fast forwarding after chapter 15 of the DVD. The whole story is just boring. It's obvious that Crumb and his family are disfunctional, but it's not what I'd consider "interesting". There are a couple of interesting tidbits, but to *everyone* except true Crumb fans, this documentary will bore you to tears. I'd avoid at all costs. I rated it a 2 of 10.

Blindfold: Acts of Obsession (1994 TV Movie)

Much sought after drek

[4/10 · 6 August 2000]

This is one of those movies that go out of print and are very expensive on eBay. This movie is a little-known, fairly amateurish flick that has the strong advantage of being the only movie that Shannon Doherty appears in multiple nude scenes (looking very seductive, I might add). It also has the minor advantage of being popular in the smoking fetish arena. It's a fairly mediocre attempt at a horror/drama/whodunit movie. It tries a little misdirection, but you can see what's coming a mile away. Shannon does a decent job with her role, but the woman playing her sister is straight out of amateur-night, as is Shannon's husband character. Avoid, unless you're one of the groups I mention above. Now, let's hit eBay and see if we can unload this thing. 8)

X-Men (2000)

Wow, GREAT, GREAT, GREAT flick! Gonna go again!

[9/10 · 16 July 2000]

Comic movies tend to suck, or at least be a little embarrassing for us normal, well-adjusted comic readers. It's painfully true. Amazingly, X-Men was great! It was easily the best comic adaptation to date. Even the reviews are better than average, and as of today (7/16/00) imdb score is an 8.3, which is very respectable. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like people are turning out for the movie like I expected. It had a few flaws, such as rushing into the movie, and a couple of hokey lines (not many, though). The humor was cute, and the interplay between the characters was essential to having a decent story. The few 15-20 minutes were absolutely incredible (my favorite part), as it explored the characters as human beings, rather than super-heroes. There was lots of action as well, so we didn't get bored. My biggest problem (and I can overlook it) was that some of the characters (I'm mostly bothered by Mystique) weren't true to the comics. I mean, Mystique fought Wolverine to a standstill using incredible martial arts... no way would this have happened in the comics. Of course, Wolverine was trying to kill everyone, so that was pretty cool. :)

This comic movie even stands up to "normal" movies. It was really great. I was split between giving it a 9 or a 10, but I ended up giving it a 10. If you're a comic fan, you'll really enjoy. If not, it's still great.

They Won't Believe Me (1947)

Really, really entertaining flick...

[9/10 · 2 July 2000]

I'm not a fan of old movies, but I got up early this morning and intended to go back to bed. Something about this movie caught my eye, so I thought I'd watch a few minutes of it before heading back to bed. I ended up not going back to bed because I couldn't turn the tv off. I couldn't believe how interesting this story was! Despite another reviewer's comments, I found the main character to be flawed, but sympathetic. I wouldn't do the things he did, but I imagine someone out there would. He had everything going for him, but screwed it up, and hardly ever made the right move. I did find the end to be... strange, let's say. I can't imagine THAT happening in any year, 1947 or 2000, but otherwise, it's a great flick. If you like older movies, beautiful starletts, solid acting, and an interesting storyline, you shouldn't pass this movie up. I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Zzzzzz...

[6/10 · 27 May 2000]

I can't believe some guy thought this movie "rocked the world". All it did was rock me to sleep. This flick wasn't nearly as well-acted or interesting as Mission Impossible 1. The only saving grace was that we were thankfully not subjected to John Woo's (in)famous slow motion scenes continuously throughout the movie at inappropriate times. There were a few, but they weren't too distracting. Cruise wasn't his usually best, but he did an adequate job. At times I found myself talking to my girlfriend... the movie was just not interesting between the lulls in action. Don't expect any surprises, like part 1 had. This movie is a straightforward slug-fest. I give it a 6/10 (5 being an average flick).

Being John Malkovich (1999)

B.I.Z.A.R.R.E.: There's no better description than this.

[4/10 · 13 May 2000]

If you loved Braveheart, Lethal Weapon, There's Something About Mary, Office Space, or Die Hard, then this movie is probably not for you. I don't care what most of the voters think--this movie is far out, and best watched when you're drunk or high. A few good one-liners and an original concept is mostly all I found enjoyable about this flick. I could never figure out whether it's a comedy, a dark comedy, or just dark. I gave it 4 of 10.

The Late Shift (1996 TV Movie)

Really, really interesting... makes you wonder if it's true

[8/10 · 22 April 2000]

I don't even like watching those late night talk shows, but I found this one really interesting. I imagine it's probably close to the truth---it "feels" like an honest account, if that means anything. Kinda feel for the people somewhat when you watch it. A nice movie for a Saturday night.

Best of the Best (1989)

One of the best action movies ever -- VASTLY Underrated

[9/10 · 18 March 2000]

I'm a big movie buff, and Best of the Best is vastly underrated. If you've read a review and the review trashed it, don't panic. Maltin hates it, but I'm very picky and can't stand cheapo B action movies. This one isn't just a notch above... it's one of the best action flicks ever made.

Dr. Strange (1978 TV Movie)

Amazingly Bad Comic Movie! Avoid at all Costs, True Believers...

[2/10 · 27 February 2000]

Wow, that was a horrible 1.5 hours of my time. I didn't expect Saving Private Ryan, but neither did I expect this to be one of the worst movies of all time. I think the worst thing about this is that if they had changed the name of the characters, I wouldn't have recognized this movie as Dr. Strange. No character resembles the comics characters, and the actors are horrible. This is the one of the worst movies I've ever seen (right down there with Crazy Six and Spaced Invaders). The Punisher was much better, if that tells you anything. I give this one a 2 out of 10 stars. AVOID!

Comic Book Confidential (1988)

Interesting, but good have been better...

[5/10 · 26 February 2000]

This is a very interesting video, especially for people that are new to comics or just a general audience. My biggest reservation is that it didn't concentrate enough on the BIG companies and creators. I would have liked to seen more of Frank Miller's Dark Knight, and Art Spiegleman's Maus, and Robert Crumb, Will Eisner, and Stan Lee, instead of the whole list of people I've never heard of that work on underground comics. Heck, this video spends a disproportionate amount of time on undergrounds, and then hardly mentions the other big names.

Still, there is very interesting stuff about Frederick Werthem and the CCA, and it's a serious video about comics. It gets a 5 out of 10 just for that.

Maybe next time, we'll have a video for non-underground comics.