marzolian Reviews

Interstellar (2014)

Major disappointment

[6/10 · 16 November 2014]

I didn't like it nearly as much as I hoped.

**** SPOILERS AHEAD **** The first 20-30 minutes were a great setup - earth dying, society turning its back on technology to focus on survival. Scenes reminiscent of the Dust Bowl, but then in the middle there's this modern ruggedized laptop computer. Wow. And having the girl be the scientific one was a very nice touch.

After that, it started to go off the rails. The sentry robot was preposterous. It was obvious which characters were going to die and in what order. The first spaceship launch was cool, showed two booster stages with immense fuel tanks. Then, once they're past the wormhole, the same ship is able to land on a planet with higher gravity, and take off, with no external fuel tanks? I just couldn't get into the "tesseract". As Neal Tyson pointed out, if he can make objects move that way, then why not just write his daughter a note? Wouldn't it be easier to fix what's wrong with the Earth rather than repopulate a different one? It reminded me of other movies, most of which I liked better: 2001, Deep Impact, Contact, Silent Running (early 1970's).

Finally, it was just too long. I kept looking at my watch, always a bad sign). Some of the science in "Gravity" was just as preposterous, but at least that one kept me interested.

I'll give it a C for effort, maybe a B-. And I really did like the part where the daughter is struggling on earth at the same "time" that her dad is fighting to survive on his planet.

Assignment: Venezuela (1956)

Close to what it was like

[7/10 · 22 September 2014]

People who are comparing this video to Venezuela today, or of American corporations, are totally missing the point. That's really close to what it was like. Thousands of Americans lived in Venezuela in the 1950's and 1960's can testify to this. (I came a little later and lived there for over 20 years.) This film was made at a time when many Americans were going to college, often for the first time in the lives of their families. To them, a very high-paying job, generous benefits, and a sense of adventure were worth the minor inconvenience of living in a Quonset hut for a few years.

The country was not a democracy, but it was economically stable, with little crime, very little anti-American sentiment, no drug problem, and no tradition of violent political unrest. The Perez Jimenez government welcomed foreign investment and was spending a lot of money on things like schools, hospitals, roads, etc. and living standards were improving a great deal during this era. When he was overthrown in 1958, the transition was very peaceful, compared to many countries before and since.

There are hundreds of natural oil seepages in and around Lake Maracaibo which brought the international oil industry there in the first place. The lake is polluted now, but mostly due to untreated sewage treatment from more than 2 million people who live around it, not the oil industry.

P.S. The Spanish is just fine. The Venezuelans shown are speaking slowly and clearly for the camera. And no, they don't sound like Mexicans, Spaniards, or Argentinians.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

For once I disagree with an IMDb consensus

[6/10 · 8 May 2014]

It's gorgeous to look at, often witty, and has a few brilliant casting choices. But two thirds of the way through, the charm wore off.

It's not certain now exactly where it started to feel wrong. Maybe it was the nested story within a story within a story; maybe it was the way that the older Zero M. didn't match the appearance of the younger one (the eyes?) Maybe it was the unfortunate things that kept happening to M. Gustav, which were unexpected after seeing the trailers and poster. Maybe it was the shifting accents of the Americans in the cast; Jeff Goldblum started talking about "Mah-dem", then switched to "Mah-dahm". Maybe it was the that M. Gustave, who is usually quite aware of his surroundings and predicament, was sometimes clueless. When Bill Murray finally made his appearance, nothing special happened. Whatever it was or whenever it happened, it was disappointing.

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

Liked very much, but some of it was "too much"

[8/10 · 3 January 2012]

It's like nothing I have ever seen before, and that's some of the highest praise that I can give to any piece of art. Most of the time, the characters' faces are almost completely lifelike and yet there's still a hint of their hand-drawn origins. The backgrounds are often entirely believable, but in some scenes they erupt into detail that has simply never been shown on screen before. A fantastic job by the director, the cinematographer, the graphic designers, or whatever all these people's titles are.

There is a downside: several times I turned to my companion and said "That's too much". I don't want to be a spoiler but often there was just too much action and too much detail, and a couple of scenes just went on way too long. Occasionally, a scene had me wondering whether it actually shot and then digitally manipulated, or created using motion capture, or created entirely in a computer. But the fact that I was thinking such things meant that I had been distracted; there was so much going on that it had overloaded my brain.

Class (2010 TV Movie)

Stereotyped, predictable, clichéd ... no reason to like it. But I did.

[5/10 · 15 August 2010]

Very contrived plot. Almost the entire plot can be sketched after watching the first few minutes. Every character is a stereotype, even their names, and their actions and attitudes are entirely predictable from the first minute you meet them. I remember just one single surprise, and it wasn't much.

And everybody is just too gorgeous. The story might have have been halfway believable if two or three of the female characters had even average looks.

BUT ... for some reason I enjoyed it, despite all of the above. Maybe because it was late at night and my brain didn't want to work too hard. But the main characters are likable, and the right things happen, as Hollywood likes to do.

The Sins of Rachel Cade (1961)

Horrible, had me laughing at all the wrong places

[5/10 · 8 August 2010]

Somewhere in the novel, I'll assume that there was a story with a heart. Portions of it are can be sensed here, but just barely.

A theme I found intriguing was the conflict between western civilization represented by Rachel Cade. She represents western ideals such as equal rights for women and the advancement of science and medicine. However, the "civilized" nations are involved in a horrible war, and she becomes involved in a moral conflict of her own.

Many of the actors played dignified and serious characters. Angie Dickinson was enjoyable to watch. But that's it, as far as things about this movie that I found watchable.

For example: every other character had an accent that wandered all over the map. Other than Dicksonson and Peter Finch, everybody else's was ridiculous, including Roger Moore as a doctor from "Bahston". As a result I could not take most scenes seriously.

House M.D.: The Tyrant (2009) Season 6, Episode 3

I agree it can be skipped ...

[8/10 · 28 December 2009]

But I liked it. My main thought when watching it was: the kids are finally growing up. Chase, Cameron, and Foreman each do things that they normally let House do, and this time they think for themselves. The results aren't pretty, but that's okay.

I don't know if the show is in its last season or not. I agree that it may have passed its prime, but I thought that the last few episodes of season 5 (Amber's death and House ending up at the funny farm) were among the best bits of television I had ever seen.

I'm still optimistic that they will pull off something just as good this year.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Completely unwatchable

[2/10 · 26 December 2009]

The movies that I have most enjoyed most are the ones that I went to see with very little advance knowledge. With that in mind, and with good memories of performances by Robert Downey Jr., I avoided the reviews and trailers for "Sherlock Holmes", and went to see it this afternoon.

This time, I wish I had taken just a little time to get familiar with it beforehand. What a crock. Bad from the opening scenes. When reading more about it here on IMDb, I realized, it's probably because of Guy Ritchie.

I really feel sorry for Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. They have each been in some good movies, but this time, we walked out after an hour.

There was nothing wrong with the idea of updating Holmes, showing a more physical or emotional side, compared to the dry, almost emotionless way that he's usually been portrayed. In a couple of scenes, I thought, he reminds me of Dr. Gregory House, from the TV show "House MD". That would have been an interesting treatment, if it had been consistent or well done. But this was a totally wasted effort, by all concerned.

UPDATE: Reading some other reviews, I should add that the costumes and sets were great. But they weren't enough to counterbalance the ludicrous, confusing mess that is the rest of the production.

Fargo (1996)

Why isn't Frances McDormand listed among the stars of the movie?

[8/10 · 21 August 2009]

We were watching Mississippi Burning tonight, and someone remarked that Frances McDormand had appeared in the movie Fargo. I wasn't sure ... her southern accent in M.B. is totally believable. So I visited the IMDb to check.

Sure enough, there she is. But she's not among the top few actors. In fact, her name does not even appear on the first page, among the first 15 cast members in the listing at IMDb. She's on the second page.

Sheesh ... Frances won an Academy Award for Best Actress for this role (not Supporting Actress). Shouldn't she be among the first cast members listed? How does IMDb determine the order of the actors' names in the credits?

Idiocracy (2006)

Not as good as I hoped, but still a hoot

[6/10 · 5 July 2008]

It opened with plenty of promise, and the sight gags last all the way through. There's a lot to like about it, and some things to think about after it's over.

However, about 2/3 of the way through, I had the thought that most of the premise, as well as the funny and meaningful parts could have been made as skits on "Saturday Night Live". Lots of scenes to laugh out loud at, but other parts dragged. When I was finished, I had no desire to watch it again, or any of the extra parts.

I had this feeling that Maya Rudolph's character sounded like a black woman, but didn't look quite right and it confused me the first half-dozen times she said anything.

Even with these gripes, it was definitely worth watching.

Hollywoodland (2006)

Excellent, except for one casting detail ...

[9/10 · 11 September 2006]

... and it's a big one: Ben Affleck is simply too young today to play George Reeves. Reeves was born in 1914, and started working on the TV show "Superman" in 1952, at about 38 years old. At the time of his death in 1959, he was 45. Ben Affleck is now 34; he does a fine job (and I can't even say I am a fan of his) but his character needed to look the age: sagging chin and neck line, a little gut. Although his character is fictitious, Adrien Brody has a similar problem playing his character, detective Louis Simo.

However, everything else about the movie was excellent. Diane Lane is a knockout, Bob Hoskins wears his role like a well fitted suit, and all the other characters are also stars. And the biggest star was the story itself. It's much more than simply George Reeves.

Scoop (2006)

A bit of a mess

[6/10 · 4 August 2006]

My wife and I went to see 'Scoop' today, largely because of the positive reviews here at IMDb. However, we were both disappointed.

The actors were great and there were many funny, unexpected lines. But, most of the plot is just plain silly.

I was looking forward to some interesting scenes of London, but there were almost none. There's a line about the English country side, but we hardly see that at all. It looks to have been shot mostly in a studio. I realize that Woody Allen doesn't make widescreen epics, but this film in particular fits very well on a small TV screen.

The most annoying parts were scenes with Scarlett Johansson and Woody Allen. Although both characters are likable, and the two of them appear in most of the scenes of the film, I often wondered whether the writer (Allen) had forgotten while writing some scenes, which character held which point of view.

Mary (II) (2005)

Offbeat, creepy/sweet

[9/10 · 1 May 2005]

It's about a little girl who sees the Virgin Mary, tells her mother about it, and suffers a modern consequence.

We saw it right before the British film "Millions". That was very appropriate, because "Millions" has a similar theme.

I think it's playing at Landmark's "art" or "independent" theaters. We saw it twice in the last few weeks (late April 2005). The other time was before "The Downfall" (German, original title "Der Untergang")

It's listed at five minutes long. The credits take about two minutes out of that. Amazing that it takes so many people to make such a short film.

(Sorry if this seems like padding, but there are times when a comment that is less than 10 lines long is perfectly appropriate. IMDb, give us a break.)

Steven

Red Rock West (1993)

Hidden treasure, make time for it.

[9/10 · 22 April 2004]

I came home late one night and turned on the TV, to see Siskel and Ebert summarizing their picks of the week. I didn't hear anything about "Red Rock West", except two thumbs up and see it before it went away. It wouldn't stay in theaters very long because of the distributor's money problems and lack of promotion, but they said it deserved better.

The next afternoon, I followed their advice. They were right, it was some of the most fun I have ever had at the movies. As some readers point out, there are a few plot holes and the last 10 minutes don't ever seem to end. But it's well worth it, for the fine craftwork that went into the first hour. It's the best role that I have ever seen for Nicholas Cage, but almost everybody seems perfectly cast. Dennis Hopper goes almost over the top, which gets silly but reinforces how well everything else works. The sets and the music contribute a great deal to almost every scene.

When I rented it later for my family, it didn't work as well. The long scenes that built the tension in the theater were difficult to appreciate, with the distractions at home. It deserves your full attention; turn off the phone, make sure you won't be disturbed, watch and listen to every scene, especially in the beginning.

Tank (1984)

I enjoyed it

[7/10 · 16 March 2004]

I didn't see this when it came out, so when it appeared on cable late one night I didn't expect very much. But it exceeded my expectations. It's the story of an honorable man who is pushed too far.

Yes, there are some stretches of the imagination to be made. For example, with all the gunfire, I don't remember anybody getting killed or seriously wounded. The good guys are too good and the bad guys are too bad.

But I enjoyed a few scenes a great deal. For one, the portrayal of the small town, that seems idyllic at first but is rotten to the core. I especially appreciated the scenes between Sgt. Carey and his son, the way that the military was shown pulling together as a family, and the others who help the group trying to get to the state line. These were all people that I wanted to cheer for.

The Last Samurai (2003)

Very well done, enjoyable despite echoing scenes and characters from other films

[8/10 · 24 January 2004]

I really enjoyed this movie. It's one of Tom Cruise's best, my favorite since Magnolia and Rainman. Its original setting (for us in the USA, that is) makes me wonder more about the history of Japan, and how it changed from a rural to a modern industrial society.

I didn't quite get lost in it, hoping that it wouldn't end as I have done while seeing other epic films. At times, the story strains at my willingness to suspend my disbelief, but each time it backed off just before it "jumped the shark". I'm very curious to learn what Japanese audiences will think of it and several unrealistic scenes.

The actors complement each other and there are very few scenes where the camera lingers too long on them. Most of the time, I want to see and hear more from these characters.

But so many parts of it reminded me of other films, books, even TV shows. Can you say "derivative"? Maybe I'm just confused because I'm getting older but here's how I remember the story:

(a few spoilers ahead)

Our hero Lt. John Dunbar ("Dances with Wolves") / Capt. Nathan Algren goes west, accompanied by an irreverent companion who doesn't last long enough in the film. Rhett Butler ("Gone With the Wind") / Algren plans to get rich as a mercenary in the Civil War, paid by modern-thinking Japanese business interests ("Rising Sun"), to fight Indians / Japanese rebels. During a battle, Inman ("Cold Mountain") / Algren suffers multiple injuries that should have killed him, but keeps on going through the winter snow and is eventually nursed back to health by a woman.

As Blackthorne ("Shogun") / Anjin-san ("Shogun") / Algren recovers, he is held prisoner in a house with a Japanese family who thinks that he is a stinking unmannered barbarian. But Jack Elliot ("Mr. Baseball") / Algren learns to appreciate Japanese culture, as he wisecracks about guys in dresses ("Tootsie"). Then Danny Larusso ("Karate Kid") / Algren learns Asian fighting techniques and becomes an adviser to the honorable Indian / Samurai leader in a civil war in Japan, while having flashbacks to his Vietnam / Indian fighting days when he killed civilians ("Blue Thunder") alongside the arrogant Gen. Custer ("Little Big Man"). He fights against black-suited Ninjas (Tekken, the martial arts video game, and "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles").

Finally, in the climactic battle, William Wallace ("Braveheart") / Algren helps lead the Indians / Scottish / Samurai into battle against the U.S. Cavalry / English / Japanese army, against impossible odds, arrows raining down upon the bad guys. ("Lord of the Rings" and "Braveheart" again, probably a few dozen guys in costume and the rest added using computer effects.)

Other viewers can probably pick out even more films that "echo" or reverberate in this one. There is even an allusion to a movie that should be made one day; about the military advisers who are supposed to be non-combatants, sent by the USA to Vietnam and other locations around the world to put down the rebels.

Even while distracted by all these other movies, I really did enjoy the film, and I look forward to watching it again in a few years.

Steven

Saturn 3 (1980)

Prime candidate for the bottom 10

[1/10 · 26 November 2003]

I remember seeing this when it first out, in a theater, and thinking ... why? It was on cable a few nights ago and I watched it again.

You know those shows on TV about bad drivers running from the cops? The only reason to pay attention is that at any moment you're going to see something incredibly stupid. That's what this movie is like, only in slow motion.

If God were truly merciful, he would have destroyed all the copies of this movie before it made the theaters, and long before cable.

(tiny spoiler) ......

Did Kirk Douglas appear in it, it just to see Farrah with no clothes?

The Swarm (1978)

One of the worst things ever made

[2/10 · 19 September 2003]

The only thing to add is: there's a scene where Katherine Ross and Michael Caine supposedly go to the airport in Houston, Texas. There are mountains in the background.

I don't know where they filmed that scene, but there are no mountains like that within 300 miles of Houston.

Stupidity pervades throughout.

Dive Bomber (1941)

Interesting, different WWII movie

[8/10 · 19 September 2003]

Like many of the other posters, I stumbled across this on AMC late one night. I recommend it highly. It will seem slow for people used to today's movie pace, but it has some details that I had not seen in any other movie from the era, and that I enjoyed very much.

It tells the story of three Navy officers, in 1941. Blake Lee, (Fred MacMurray) is a squadron commander, in charge of training new flyers. Lance Rogers (Ralph Bellamy) is a flight surgeon, examining new fliers but also responsible for a long line of safety improvements to Navy airplanes. Doug Lee (Errol Flynn) is a newly arrived doctor, who works with the other two and helps to devise solutions to two important problems faced by the Navy. Their heroism is the true theme of the movie.

There's lots to like, and not to like. MacMurray and Bellamy are excellent in their roles, as serious men determined to do their best for the Navy and their country. Flynn doesn't fit at first -- the other two dislike him at first, for reasons that seem contrived. And his acting doesn't fit in with theirs either. However, they eventually come to respect him and Flynn makes himself at home. Curiously, Ballamy and MacMurray have almost no memorable scenes without Flynn.

The comic relief offered by some of the minor characters, including all the women, goes nowhere. On the other hand, the bright Technicolor is a pleasure to watch, especially in most of the flying scenes. You certainly get the impression that the people who were technically responsible took great care and were very proud of what they they were showing onscreen. Only a few scenes look fake, and most of them are simply glorious to watch. I would have liked to learn more details about the models of airplanes that were shown.

My other feelings about the movie mostly involve in a set of unanswered questions, and subjects that were not explored in detail. Some of these questions seriously detracted from my enjoyment of the movie, while others heightened my experience. Some of them could have been corrected at the time, while others are important only because of the historical events after its release.

My first question was: Is this movie based on the true story of the men who had worked on these problems, or simply a dramatization of the contributions of several? This question, which is ultimately unanswered, distracted me for much of the film. Given the importance of the two issues (blacking out because of G forces and the effects of high altitude), it seems strange that these two were the only people in the Navy working on the problem. On the other hand, maybe the reduced effort portrayed in the film was a true indicator of the lack of attention being given to those issues by the Navy at the time.

Some of the science presented looks rather strange, when looking back at that era of aviation through the experience of the jet age and space travel. Some technical points are presented in great detail, such as the scenes in the altitude chamber, while other items are left unstated. Maybe they didn't think that audiences of the time could handle the science. However, I remembered my high school chemistry and I wanted to yell, "why don't you just say partial pressure!" I was very interested in learning more about the "index" used by the doctors to determine flyer fatigue, and the failure to provide any more explanation detracts from the movie.

On the other hand, I was fascinated by their solution to the blackout problem. It's not the G-suit that was developed later, but you can see its origins.

Watching the movie provides a sensation of unreality. The informed viewer knows that Pearl Harbor is just ahead, but there's not a hint this or the long war ahead. There's only the feeling that pilots needed to be better and have better equipment than the "enemy", but this search is almost leisurely and not at all urgent. Compare this to to so many times movies that were made in the next few years and afterwards ("The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell" comes to mind). This sensation of innocence permeates the movie, but it heightened my enjoyment, unlike some of the other unanswered questions.

(minor spoiler ahead)

Another curious note: The movie shows a pressure suit that was developed as the solution to the effects of high altitude. I consider myself somewhat of an airplane buff. However, I have never seen that suit, or anything like, in any other movie or documentary about aircraft in World War II.

Steven

Slackers (2002)

Enjoyed it, surprised

[7/10 · 4 September 2003]

I'm glad I didn't pay to see it at the theater, or bring it home from the video store. And I don't know many other people who would like it.

But it showed up on TV as I was about to go to sleep, and I stayed awake to the end. No regrets. The opening scenes especially were very imaginative. I got a big kick out of the sound track, which was mostly pop songs by played by orchestras and choirs (IMDB missed the "The Sign" by Ace of Base).

The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)

Fascinating glimpse at old Hollywood

[8/10 · 27 August 2003]

This came on TV late at night this week, and I didn't know a thing about it. That's the way I enjoy movies the most, and this one didn't disappoint.

Although it's now more than 50 years old, it wouldn't take a lot of rewriting to remake it today.

I only saw a couple of minor glitches, but they really don't take away much of the impact of the story.

*** SPOILER WARNING ***

*** SPOILER WARNING ***

*** SPOILER WARNING ***

This was pointed out by the host on Turner Classic movies: the scene where Georgia (Lana Turner) drives away from Jonathan Shields' house at night. There hasn't been a hint of any kind of outdoor weather in the whole movie, and then in this scene all of a sudden she's in a driving rainstorm.

Next, as James Lee (Dick Powell) and Shields (Kirk Douglas) stop at a gas station at night on their way back to Hollywood, James Lee spots a newspaper with his wife's death reported on the front page. In the next scene, still at night, the two of them reach the accident scene, where he identifies her body. Now, how is it possible to publish a newspaper, for the paper to get delivered to a gas station, for somebody to see it, then to drive to the accident site, and the crash site looks like it happened minutes or hours ago???

However, for every clinker scene like this, there were many others that made you think you were watching geniuses at work.

Steven

Jaws (1975)

Instant Classic

[9/10 · 18 April 2003]

I once heard a definition of a "masterpiece": a work on which the artist has taken the exact same care with every brushstroke. Whether you look at it through a magnifying glass, or from far away, you are still in awe of it.

I first saw _Jaws_ the summer that it came out, and I kept comparing it with the book. That prevented me from enjoying it as much. Now, 25 years later, I realize that the movie is a better work. The movie is on cable television constantly, and each scene still stands alone. Like a masterpiece of a painting, almost every detail is just right.

Since then, I have seen the "Making of" videos, and I have noted some of the details that aren't quite right: some scenes in sunlight, some in cloud, sometimes the angles don't match up just right. Those little things only tell me how difficult it can be to make a movie, and makes me appreciate even more what a fine work actually made it on the screen.

Steven

Barbershop (2002)

Fine film, better than I expected

[9/10 · 17 February 2003]

I finally got around to seeing this on DVD. I admit, I was most curious about the scenes which have angered supporters of Jesse Jackson. But the movie is about much more than that: neighborhoods, family, and friendship. Some of the highest praise that I can give is, although some of the characters are foolish, the movie never assumes that its viewers are foolish.

Only a few elements are somewhat uneven. One is the slapstick portrayal of the thieves, another is the decisions made about the barbershop, and finally a bit of a plot twist near the end, that felt like a gimmick. However, that device enabled the story to have a "good" ending, and by then I felt the characters deserved it.

Steven

Blazing Saddles (1974)

One of the greats

[8/10 · 26 December 2002]

I can't believe how low some critics here rate this movie. This movie came up recently on a discussion group, as an example of the difficulty of translation. If you didn't come of age in America during the 1960's or 1970's, much of it simply won't be funny at all, or only on a superficial level.

It has some loose ends and some slow moments, the plot is thin and disappears entirely near the end, but it stands out for its nonstop attacks on racism and for the immediacy of its sight gags. It's one of those movies that I will always stop and watch for at least a few minutes when it's on TV, which is several times a year in the USA. Because of misplaced political sensibilities, some of the best scenes are cut out or redubbed during showings on American television.

Steven

The Tailor of Panama (2001)

Extreme disappointment

[4/10 · 14 December 2002]

Friends had invited us to see the latest Bond film, but we decided to stay in and rent this instead. Big mistake.

There's some promise but the movie is too uneven. Brosnan isn't quite convincing in most of his scenes as an amoral spy, Jamie Lee Curtis isn't quite convincing as a bureaucrat, and some of other characters were confusing. I was put off by the discrepancy between the realistic and human portrayal of the tailor, played by Rush, as a caring man on the fringes of intrigue, and the almost cartoonish behavior of most of the other characters.

By the time the story begins to involve more important people, it gets more and more ludicrous until somewhere about the one-hour mark we all just gave up on trying to understand it.

It's too bad, because beyond the near-parody of a spy thriller, there are some interesting hints at more real-world themes -- the brutality of the Noriega dictatorship, meddling by the US (in both propping him up and overthrowing him), cynicism and hopelessness of the people in those countries. But not in this movie.

If I had seen it in a theater, I would have been even more irritated at the waste of my time. The only improvement might have been a better view of the scenes of the streets and skyline of Panama City and the countryside, as well as the canal itself.

Steven