gregopego12 Reviews

The Muppets Take Manhattan (1984)

The City with the Muppets

[8/10 · 15 June 2021]

The first movie has amazing cameos and jokes. It, also, has the songs, the coast-to-coast locations, the songs, and the special effects. The second movie is all about the crazy story. If I could label a "best" scene of the second movie, it'd be the one where the SPOILER ALERT the criminals are going through their check list, and the muppets are going through their check list.

The third movie has songs and cameos, but the real reason for this movie is to see the New York scenery and how the Muppets interact with, seemingly, every part of Manhattan. It's pretty amazing. The restaurant looks real.

Don't get me wrong, the cameos are fun in this one, too.

Pan (2015)

There is a genuine spirit to this movie

[8/10 · 1 July 2016]

I'll tell you right off, there are elements borrowed from other stories. The Blitzkrieg from Chronicles of Narnia, comes to mind.

And, then, the nun raises the Jolly Roger, and something gets. . . .odd. In a good way.

And, then, you have an unorthodox chase sequence that can't possibly end in a way you imagined. Unless, this sequence is from the book.

I'm writing this review as I'm watching it. I've never done that, before. But, you meet Blackbeard, and the movie has this energy that could either blow up it's premise, or launch it towards something very entertaining.

Let's just say, I'm typing to get my minimum words in, now, so I can go back to watching this. I have, absolutely, no idea what is going to happen next. But, I want to find out.

Captain America (1990)

Confusing but Amusing

[8/10 · 22 July 2011]

Menahem Golan liked to film Americans, especially Chuck Norris, womp on bad guys. I wasn't surprised when I learned that he filmed a movie about Captain America. Now, I didn't see all of it, but I saw a lot of it, and, while it's confusing, it is fun to watch. I said the same thing about the Transformers movies. And, anyone could say the same thing about my upcoming review (you won't have to find it amusing). When this was filmed, I think there was a long battle over the rights of Marvel Comics heroes. It was why you could see a lot of DC heroes, but no Spiderman or X-Men for years after. Spiderman would have been the biggest draw, but even if anyone could have gotten the rights, there was no Peter Parker or costume. Golan found a very good Matt Salinger and a good costume (letting big brothers Warner do the heavy work on the one-piece latex). He found fun and famous American actors to co-star (Ned Beatty, Darren McGavin, Ronny Cox), and an easy-to-root-against villain (Red Skull). The special effects are small compared to today. Of course, no CGI, no giant explosions. A lot of it is filmed in exterior locations and the scenes are, usually, wide shots. There's a girl who, I think, is helping Captain America navigate through the modern world. Had I seen more, I probably would know more about her, or the plot. But, I've seen entire big budget movies and couldn't tell you more. I can tell you one particular chase scene looks like it inspired one found in Tomorrow Never Dies. Another interesting thing is that there is no post-modern angst in the script. No heavy brooding or moody atmosphere. No shrieking or screaming (those are all pluses, by the way). Don't judge this movie because it didn't have a big budget. It's fun to watch, and I'm glad the fight to distribute it in the U.S. is over.

The Bank Job (2008)

Engaging and suspenseful

[9/10 · 24 September 2010]

You have a movie where the good guys aren't exactly good, and the bad guys aren't exactly bad. It's a peak into a world of elites who think they can pull strings like puppeteers, only to find that they aren't as clever as they think they are. And, since it's partially a true story, people in England may be feeling the ripples of the events today in their press and politics. The Center of the story shifts around, but all the arcs get pulled together at the end. We start with someone photographing someone for blackmail purposes. The blackmailer happens to be a criminal with pretensions of being a civil rights leader. He successfully mingles with celebrities and the gentry who want to entertain the rebellious side of society for a bit. He's busted, and decides to threaten to release the photos (kept in a safety deposit box) if the case against him continues. Then, he flees to Jamaica (I think) with a noble family's daughter spying on him for crown and country. Enter a model/ lord's secret girlfriend who now needs her own "get out of jail" card. She's given the task to round up a crew to break into the safety deposit vault and steel the photos. She enlists some old neighborhood chums who are a bit down on their luck with their honest professions and see the job as a foolproof score. What makes this movie great, is the fact it gives enough time for the bank job, and then the fallout. Just about everyone involved is an amateur criminal who thinks they're pulling off the perfect crime, until bad news lands on their doorstep, and they have to learn on their feet, their survival depends on it.

Tropic Thunder (2008)

incomplete but clever

[9/10 · 16 December 2008]

For starters, the movie starts out really well, and I won't say any more about that. However, the story starts to drift about forty minutes in, and it seemed like a long movie. I actually fell asleep during the climax but did wake up in time to see the end. And, I did not see any of the extras. There were pacing problems, and, at times, you wonder if the production had a director with a single vision. Ben Stiller and company kind of improvise a story around the making of a war movie based on a soldier's experience in Vietnam. When the actors start fighting, and wreck the director's schedule and budget, the technical adviser (Nick Nolte with a couple of years of grit on him) suggests they move production to a part of 'nam infested with real drug traffickers and shoot the movie "guerilla style." The director agrees, and drops the crew off to "act" against real danger. Unfortunately, the narrative isn't strong enough once it leaves the confines of the broken Hollywood production.

It simply isn't strong story telling. If this movie had been released during the height of Vietnam war movies, that problem would be incredibly obvious. So, without a strong story, the acting alone must sustain the comedy, and, sometimes, it doesn't. Also, some parts are downright disgusting. Tom Cruise's bombastic producer character and Robert Downey Jr.'s character are given too much to do, and Jack Black is sort of left in the background. Sure, they're funny, and they are given some really good material. There are good cameos, and the "bad guys" offer some brief moments of humor. There are some good digs at the "actor playing soldier," but few of them are truly funny. Most of the problems could have been fixed if Jack Black's character had as much depth as Downey Jr.'s. Maybe, he should have been the "butt kickin'" sergeant. There's a lot of byplay (usually involving Downey Jr. against anybody). It has it's moments, but it does leave you wanting more. Perhaps, the extras can fix that.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)

Fun for kids (and fans)!

[8/10 · 18 August 2008]

I admit, that I wasn't going to see this in the theatre until I visited my brother-in-laws family, and he has two boys (6 and 12). For those of you who won't be convinced no matter what I type, I'll start with the negatives. The plot gets a little convoluted, and one of the characters is a whiny teenager. I am still trying to figure out what gender Jabba's uncle really is (trust me). R2-D2 can still fly, and Yoda is still making odd cameos. This movie will not give you any more insight into the Sith world or Count Dooku's motivation. The action takes logical leaps that Warner Brothers (not 20th C. Fox) hopes those under the age of 13 won't notice. There are familiar things missing from this addition to the Star Wars story, but they won't spoil the story, and some elements have just been re-worked.

Now for the positives:

George Lucas's new team of creators let's the story play for itself; in other words, Lucas doesn't try to blatantly force the story to the inevitable that you already know about from Episodes IV, V, and VI. There is no uneasy interactions between Anaakin and Amedala, and they aren't trading awkward dialogue for giant chunks. When you think back on I, II, and III, those are the scenes that you probably wish Lucas would have re-written.

If you saw the Final Fantasy movie (and I did), this movie is better, because--HEY! it's the Star Wars universe! Not only that, but the creators had fun with the material. This story takes place after Episode II; it's a segment of the, no surprise, Clone Wars. There isn't much more to say, other than it has good action, fun segments, and engaging animation. I miss the live action, but the special effects of I, II, and III could be pretty messy in some parts. You can tell George Lucas did his homework for this installment, and worked on some shortcomings. Unlike the recent debacles that are the Chris Nolan Batmans, the "serious" James Bonds, or even the moody and somewhat Dark Episode III, this movie is kid friendly, and adults (especially fans) can be entertained. I'm looking forward to another one.

Batman Begins (2005)

beats up the comic book genre

[6/10 · 13 June 2007]

I decided to comment on this one after watching Batman Forever about a week ago. I have watched Batman Forever (B.F.) more than once; I have yet to rent Batman Begins.

What the team behind B.B. tried to do is a true revolution back to the ideas of Tim Burton's first Batman movie. Burton wanted to strip away the lumpiness that was layered into both the Adam West T.V. show (the "go go" set design), and the Comics (Batdog, Batboy, Batgirl). D.C. put out a great hard cover book on the history of Batman for better reference. And then, many people felt that the lumpiness was creeping back in even during the second movie, and the lumpiness may have damaged Batman and Robin. The team behind B.B. never considered that a heavy-handed treatment might be just as bad as having a "go go" fight sequence at a disco ice arena (or whatever it was supposed to be) in B.&R. There is a lot of mean-spiritedness in B.B. that does a lot of disrespect to the "comic" element of the stories. Tim Burton may have borrowed from Frank Miller, but he got more entertaining results than Brian (?) Nolan. There are some really cool parts to B.B., but the movie doesn't think that a plot to "microwave all of the water in the city" isn't ridiculous. Didn't Arnold (I mean) Mr. Freeze want to freeze all of the water? Wasn't that ridiculous? To wrap this up, a big problem with B.F. were the scenes with a guy standing in a full rubber suit talking to a psychiatrist, but the big problem with B.B. is that it replaces silliness (except for the Batmobile car chase) with scary meanness. Michael Caine, Christian Bale, and Morgan Freeman did a good job, though. Keaton is still the best.

The Good Shepherd (2006)

Long and Frustrating

[5/10 · 19 January 2007]

This film has Robert De Niro as director, and I'm sure his name on the project got him his choice of actors and actresses. The movie he made is beautifully textured. Even if you own a HD DVD player and a wide-screen television, you might miss the lavish attention to detail in such things as men's shirts, manilla folders, vintage radios, and the way paper catches on fire--and there is more. Near the first ten minutes of the movie or so, there is, however, an out-of-place "zoom and pan" camera shot on Matt Damon; it's the kind of shot you expect on an action hero in a comic book to establish his righteousness, not the kind of shot you'd expect to use on a character who's little "day at the beach" got ruined. It would be out-of-place if it weren't for the fact that DeNiro uses the same shot near the end of the movie to convey the same sense of personal or professional disaster. The movie is put together like a Rorshach (chek speling) test in which DeNiro made half a movie and folded it in half, then that half gets roughly translated (in different nuances) onto the other half of the film. (Example: Young "Yalies" sing in the first half; old "Yalies" sing in the second half). This movie is about one man's, Matt Damon's character, experiences with the O.S.S., the C.I.A. and the toll being a waspish American hero-with some flaws. There are bigger events, but Damon is there, as unemotional as he can possibly be, for all of them. Unfortunately, this movie (2 hours and 47 minutes long) is too long to be about such an uninteresting character. DeNiro never does let us know what drives Damon's character. His initiation into Skull and Bones (in fact all of the Skull and Bones story) could've been left on the cutting room floor. Many of the scenes succeed on there own, but, when put together, they don't tell a great story (and part of the problem may be because there is way too much flashback and flashback from flashback). Also, I really didn't know what William Hurt did, and I didn't know that one of the friends turned traitor and skipped to Moscow, like real life Philby. Also, the way it ends would probably keep it off of a lot of people's "must own" lists. In summary, good performances, great scenes, but overall too long to be compelling.

Spaceballs (1987)

Don't Get Me Wrong . . .

[8/10 · 23 August 2006]

I like Spaceballs. But, I think there are some problems with the movie. I think I know why Mel Brooks had these problems: He didn't want to do a straight re-enactment of scenes and characters from major science-fiction movies (mainly Star Wars)--with the exceptions of Dark Helmet, Dot Matrix, and Yogurt. He also didn't want to copy the costume look of any movie in particular (except with said exceptions). Some parodies are so slick that you'd think that the crew started shooting right after the genuine movie crew (or along side) but they're not that clever. However, that's where the problems arise: When the scenes aren't based on the "Tattooine" planet or on board a starship, Mr. Brooks has a tough time getting the look right for a space movie. He also had costume problems. Again, it's doubtful that George Lucas would've let him borrow ship or costume designs (for the most part), and Mr. Brooks, probably, had a tough decision to choose between "futuristic space" or fake "Star Wars" costumes. So, basically, Lone Star wears a leather jacket and drives a Winnebago. Perhaps, a ship design that looked too closely like a Winnebago would've been better. There's also no space fight, and the music is a little flat. The genre Mr. Brooks is spoofing usually pays attention to the music. Joan Rivers doesn't have much room for her own jokes as Dot Matrix and Barfolomew--"Barf" is kind of a wasted gag for John Candy's character. Having said that, the movie is very funny, and you can't wait to find out what dumb thing the Spaceballs are going to do next. Rick Moranis "brought his 'A' game" as Dark Helmet--in fact the best scenes involve the Spaceballs. Yogurt does a fine send-up of the whole Lucasfilm Ltd. "world," and I also enjoy John Hurt's cameo. Mel Brooks may have problems with outer space fiction, but Spaceballs still proves that he knows comedy.

Downfall (2004)

It captures a great moral catastrophe well

[8/10 · 1 August 2006]

First of all, this movie was incredibly well made (and much better than Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List). I am examining these movies as to their usefulness as teaching tools about that period in history. You're better off with Band of Brothers than Saving Private Ryan. Schindler's list is probably easier to show to an American school audience, because their are lines delivered in English (weren't there?) Also, Schindler's List exposes the evil of Nazi Germany better than Downfall. Downfall. . .is all in German (with subtitles)--very hard for high school students to sit through, and is much more subtle in it's presentation of the evil of the Third Reich. That doesn't mean that the message isn't there (or clear), but the viewer needs a lot more background to the story to understand that this movie is not pro Nazi or pro Hitler. The movie's only shortcoming is that the historical players seem to wander in and out of the story for the first 45 minutes or so, but the movie certainly starts threading all of the pieces together. The actors do a great job, and the attention to detail is correctly used (not overused). This movie shows the chaos of Berlin, the military, and Hitler's Government shortly before they surrender to the Red Army. If one thinks that this movie is pro Nazi, he or she has to juxtapose the obvious displays of fanaticism for Hitler's cause with the obvious frustration of his General Staff (they're left in a drunken heap by the end of the story) along with the ruin of Berlin (with no concern for the civilians at all). Do not confuse an excellent performance of Hitler with a sympathetic performance. This is still the same monster who murdered millions of people and held on to impossible delusions until he surrendered to cowardice. Also, do not confuse the fact that 98% of the story is told through the German side as being sympathetic. When they finally confront the reality of Soviet occupation, they all react as cowardly as possible.

A good movie to show in a college classroom.

Bandits (2001)

It's a romance movie!

[5/10 · 19 July 2006]

I remember liking this movie the first time I saw it, but I must say, it did not hold up to a second viewing. Bandits is near the middle (in rankings) of the caper/romance/comedy movies with Oceans 11 (Clooney and Pitt) and The (updated) Thomas Crowne Affair at the top (I'm not sure what is on the bottom of this list).

The movie starts at the end with a bank-robbery gone bad and Thorton and Willis arguing while the place is surrounded by the authorities. And then, it brings you back to the beginning of the story with an implausible jail break (unless, these two were in a minimum security lock-up). Someone else's review said it best. The story does not lead up to the "climax" at the bank, but you are supposed to believe it will. In fact, our anti-heroes get away cleanly from a pretty messy car crash. And even though they're supposed to be stealing cars all the time, the same vintage GTO keeps showing up throughout the movie. You have to suspend a lot of disbelief to make this one work. That's not unusual for this genre, but this movie's payoff isn't as good as Ocean's 11. What Berry Levinson should have done is told this entire tale through Cate Blanchette's perspective as a female romance fantasy, because this is exactly what this movie is. The only thing missing was "ripping shirts off and heaving chests." Bruce Willis could've been anybody, Billy Bob Thorton does all right, but Cate Blanchette, as a "neurotic" runaway housewife, chews scenery almost every time. However, 3/4 into the movie, you realize that every character exists for her, because she is the only character with any emotions. There is even a secondary female romance fantasy in which a hitch-hiker finds her "dangerous" boyfriend in a cool car. So, bottom line is, chicks dig dangerous cool types who can make every dream come true by running away with money. Great, thanks for the advice. Also, Bruce Willis is obviously impersonating Nigel Tuffnel in his "interview" with the America's Top Criminals guy, but there is no "David St. Hubbins" or "Marty DeBerg" to make these scenes work as a comedic pieces, so they just fall flat. The best way to have told this movie, would've been from the "female" fantasy perspective, because then you can accept all the implausible conclusions to all the set pieces. Fabio could've replaced Willis. This was a "chick flick."

American Beauty (1999)

Ridiculous

[1/10 · 13 July 2006]

I just saw how highly-rated this movie was on the IMDb top 250 films of all-time (I want to say it's in the top 30). This movie belongs in the bottom 100. However, I did see this movie only once, and nearly every scene was indelibly etched into my memory (I've thankfully forgotten a lot of it by now). That's because most of the scenes (including a misuse of shampoo in the shower) are completely over-the-top. The director should have cut out any dramatic pretenses and went with a Zucker-Abrams-Zucker comedy concept. Kevin Spacey's character is a jerk; he loses his job "unfairly," and immediately turns around and blackmails his boss. Then, he buys a sports car, smokes "100% safe weed," and hates his life as it is, until he re-discovers "puppy love." Good for him? Annette Benning's character is all right, the rest of the characters are stupid, and I forgot Allison Janney was in the movie. Question: in real life, is the "boy next door" who acts like a real creep actually the wisest person in the world who knows "what's it all about?" Oh, he's also the coolest drug dealer in town. Yikes! pass me some G-13. There really are only two good segments: Lester in the drive-up window, and Lester with the R-C car. That's about 3 1/2 minutes worth of movie. Were there plot twists? Maybe, but none of them created a story that I cared about.

House of Flying Daggers (2004)

Total Disappointment

[3/10 · 13 July 2006]

First of all, I too was expecting another Hero--a fantastic work of art for the action genre. I've only seen parts of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but I can imagine that it is better than HoFD.

Basic elements from Hero are found in HoFD: Great landscapes, mesmerizing cinematography, and sincere acting (I mean, if you can't understand a word they are saying, without the subtitles, but you still care--that's good acting)

What went wrong? What begins with political intrigue wanders into a love story. Worse, it's a soap opera-like love triangle. You have three characters who, I guess, fall in love with each other- for no good reasons. This movie basically falls apart after the escape from the jail (I fell asleep about forty minutes into it). It's almost as if they changed writers at that point. The remainder of the movie is about how a character is "like the wind." Ick. Also, you really have to stretch your suspension of disbelief to believe the action set pieces. This isn't unique to this genre, but since the story is weak, you can't wait for the action, and then, when the fighting does breaks out, it really wasn't that good. The beginning grabs you, but then this movie just runs out of gas.

Dream Warrior (2003)

What I expected

[7/10 · 10 July 2006]

Yes, this movie has a low budget. Yes, it has Sherry Lynn Fenn (chek speling) in a damp fur coat. Yes, it looks a lot like the segment where our "hero's" from Eurotrip end up in the former Eastern Bloc (before they pool their financial resources) A lot of this movie will be familiar and derivative. You shouldn't be surprised. For whatever reason, the meteor that destroys most of civilization has left both "regular" people and "mutants" with special powers alive. You'd think that people would need special powers to live through an apocalypse, and the "regulars" wouldn't survive, but survive, they do, and their king, Lance Henriksson, (chek speling) needs to eradicate the mutants--even though one of them can heal people.

I must say, that there wasn't much behind the hero (for most of the movie), and I'd like to know what he planned after the rescue of "the healer." But I think, on the whole that the actors took their parts seriously enough, and the director used his budget wisely (real stunt work and good enough editing). One segment of the movie is confusing, but the scenes, themselves are all well made. I enjoyed the movie, because it knew what it had to work with and I could see a real effort. Enjoy it. P.S. (chek speling) is a little joke--I know there's a silent "J" ;)

Up in Smoke (1978)

surprisingly fresh

[7/10 · 2 June 2006]

While Up in Smoke isn't one I can watch every time that it is on (why would I want to watch this one on T.V., anyway?), I own it, and watch it, at least, once a year.

It's amazing that a major studio would make such a risqué comedy. Surprisingly, most of the dope use in the movie is entirely "accidental"; in fact, our character's entire motivation for just about all that happens is that they are in constant search of dope that is always out of reach (so they think). While it looks dated, Cheech and Chong knew what makes a "slacker buddy comedy" work.

This may be the best "one note" comedy yet. Bevis and Butthead Do America was good, but the original series was better, and I have yet to see Harold and Kumar Go to Whitecastle. A good supporting cast makes a above average comedy, and this one has Strother Martin and Edie Adams who are probably in it for a priceless minute and a half. But, Officer Stedenko (Stacey Keach) and his bunch steal the show. And, I think, they use a reoccurring character from their albums--"Right On Washington" as a incompetent scam artist that "almost" gets away with his cons. Besides lacking gratuitous nudity (c'mon, admit it. what's a R-rated comedy without it?), this movie isn't loaded with memorable quotes like the movies that one can always watch no matter how many times they've seen it, but you can find them. "SHOOT THE MOON!" comes to mind "Ohhm, ohhm, ohhm, mellow, mellow. . .AHHHHGH!!!" is another one. "This looks like Peuruvian Flake." "fiberweed" "Harry, get over here!" "This is codename: HARDHEAD" "Bye, Lardass!" And the "battle of the band" song will get stuck in your head "da da da da da da DUNT DUNT DAAA!"

Unbreakable (2000)

disappointment/ depressing

[3/10 · 18 February 2006]

I liked the Sixth Sense, for the most part, and Signs (I haven't seen the other ones), but I can't recommend Unbreakable for the same reasons that I don't like parts of the other two, mentioned, movies. M. Night Shamalayan's movies contain nuggets of scary "real world" situations that I really don't want to sit in a movie theater and watch. I don't want to think about gun play or psychotic mothers a la The Sixth sense, or slow deaths from car crashes a la Signs. However, both of those movies had very compelling stories and Mr. Shamalayan managed to keep me to the end (fine acting helped also). Unbreakable could've been as good, but it's long and just too bleak. It's great the way Bruce Willis discovers his superpowers, and there is some fine interaction between Samuel L. Jackson and him, but the movie veers into the dark corners of the minds of everyday lowlifes committing wanton acts of abuse that this story leads you to believe are commonplace--they could be going on right now outside the theater or in your very home! The climax features a burglary that ventures into disturbing Thomas Harris-type situations. After the resolution and the surprise ending, you're left wondering "what did I watch this for?" If you rent this, I suggest you pick up Anchorman, Eurotrip, or your favorite comedy to chase this one down--you'll need it.

Alien (1979)

improbable but captivating

[6/10 · 3 December 2005]

I just bought the Special VHS edition from 1997(?). I've never seen it on the big screen, but I wonder if that treatment would clarify some of the murky alien planet shots. The back cover of the box offers a doctored up still from the alien spaceship, so that you see the set detail, but all the while in the movie, you can't help but wonder "what IS that thing, or where are they?" The best visuals are in establishing exterior or interior shots that resemble 2001 (truely dumb movie) or the original Star Wars (think Millenneum Falcon).

I'm a science fiction fan, and not a horror fan. This movie has more horror than science fiction with it's improbable plot and characters that are, simply, "monster chow." Are modern corporations in the habit of taking stupendous risks with multi-billion dollar equipment for the sake of curiosity? Couldn't they have just sent a probe? establish a communication link? ignore the transmission and bring their precious cargo and the Nostromo home? Plus, I noticed an awful lot of foreshadowing in the first two acts of the movie. Gee, who is going to "buy it first?" Is Ash a bad guy?--I dunno. . .

However, the cast is terrific, and they do their best. Not only that, but I'm not really disappointed with this movie; I just think it could've been better. The android subplot is really cool. Maybe this movie was a risky experiment, but it is a valuable film.

Aliens is more exciting, and has better characters and dialog (except Newt--horrible child actor!), and I haven't really bothered with the other two--maybe about 12 minutes viewing time for both combined. Alien is not easy to watch, but impossible to ignore, that's for sure.

The Erotic Misadventures of the Invisible Man (2003 Video)

Lame--not "really" what I expected

[3/10 · 16 November 2005]

I rented this type of "soft core" before, but I can honestly say, I wasn't expecting this to be in the same type as "Rod Steele: You Only Live Until You Die"--which was both sexy AND funny. It had a good script, a sincere leading man, and a sense of purpose. It also has Gabriella Hall who is hot. The reason why I didn't expect this movie, was because the box was missing the "Must be 18 to Rent" Sticker. I was looking for more "cheese" and less "cheesecake."

First of all, I think movies shouldn't be allowed to start with "actors" rehearsing for a part at a talent agency (or wherever "actors" rehearse). In this movies seeing the "actors" rehearsing highlights the lack of preparation that went into acting out the real characters in the movie.

Okay, having found out that this WAS a soft core movie, I didn't necessarily turn it off and demand my money back. But, the dizzying way the extended video "erotic" scenes are added to what was probably a late night pay-cable release are very annoying and easy to fast-forward through without the sustained quality of, say, Rod Steele. You know they must've had some money, because I think some of it is filmed overseas.

I will have to say the main actor trying NOT to spill the invisibility potion on himself is one of the most baffling acting jobs I've ever seen. And, I've seen Torgo from Manos! It may actually have been worth the dollar rental fee (that and Gabriella Hall). Still, there are better corny movies to rent with your friends.

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

Believability

[4/10 · 11 July 2005]

I have always been a huge Bond fan. I don't think there is any way to rate the Bond Actors. Connery's movies had a consistent writer--Maibaum--(might've even written for Lazenby and Moore) and could use more of Flemming's source material. The writers and directors make up Bond's movie world, not the actors. This isn't the only uneven Bond film; Roger Moore's episodes suffer the most. And, ask yourself, is Denise Richards worse than Grace Jones? Sophie Marceau has her own problems; her character belongs in a Spanish soap opera. My rating of 4 is in comparison to other Bond movies (10 going to Goldfinger; 1 going to Die Another Day). In one word, this movie is frustrating. There are many great elements for a Bond story here, but they are messed up by the wrong kind of action elements (later half of the movie). Bond becomes Rambo--shooting two guns without cover, then he outruns explosions (more than one), then he is attacked by a helicopter with a giant saw/weed whacker. I can't help wondering if that saw device even exists--that is too distracting (and I can accept Bond driving around Paris in half a Renault (AVtoaK), because it was a throwaway gag, not a significant plot device). If EON Productions still exists, they should stop using the over-the-top action set pieces (enough with outrunning fireballs). I'd like to see them make Casino Royale. It also wouldn't hurt to have Bond rescued by his friends in the C.I.A.; this has always been a part of the Bond universe.

Silverado (1985)

lost classic

[8/10 · 27 June 2005]

I just saw Silverado again this weekend again for the first time in about 15 years. It's not fair; cable stations run the same movies over and over again, and some they should abandon all together. But, this movie got lost in time.

It is easy to call this movie derivative, only because Hollywood and Television made hundreds of westerns that everyone and their grandfather must've seen before this was made. That doesn't make it a bad movie--and, at least, Lee Marvin doesn't sing.

I saw this movie a few times when I was in junior high, and didn't get much of a chance to see it later. I will admit, I don't think it's easy to follow, but the movie is so well made, that I don't mind watching it again to figure it out. I don't know why I didn't buy it.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

too real/ not entertaining

[5/10 · 29 May 2005]

Anyone else have dreams about Omaha Beach after watching this movie? While I say the movie is too real, I do have one comment on the authenticity. If Tom Hank's character was in the first wave onto Omaha, he, and the rest of the cast probably would've been killed, too. Gosh, how's that for an entertaining thought? I remember feeling like I got hit by an 88 after the first 20 minutes. And then you get to see lingering individual death scenes after almost every sequence (the slow knife death in the house fight was senseless). I am a history major, but I don't like accurate history movies (a lot of history is depressing). I'll read about it. So, I guess I am not the target audience for this movie; I do like some war movies (Big Red One, Blackhawk Down, Platoon). I'll give Steven Spielberg credit for honoring the memory of World War II vets in demonstrating the horror and frustration they went through, but I can only watch that once. When you watch someone die in The Longest Day, you think "oh no, there goes Sal Mineo"; with Ryan, you know that was a real person who just flopped out of his landing craft and drowned. I'm sure that is what war is really like, I just don't want to eat popcorn in front of it.