"Ratatouille" is the best Pixar movie ever made. The story, the humor, and the score are all terrific. I love Payton Oswald as Remy. Peter O'Toole as Anton Ego, the food critic, is also a great performance. The Paris atmosphere mixed in with the irony of a rat being a world class chef is excellent. I find it similar to "The Menu", it's just a great movie that kind of flips the idea of general criticism on its head and suggests that most people who nitpick and critique every little thing miss out on a lot of enjoyment of some of the simpler things in life. Also the idea that not everybody, but anybody with enough drive and talent, can achieve greatness. Great animated movie that's not dumbed down or just to throw on something for the kids.
Reviews
285 Reviews
2001: A Space Odyssey
(1968)
Immaculate
20 April 2023
It's got probably the strangest ending of any movie I've ever seen. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is what most science fiction films attempt to emulate. Every single frame of this movie is beautiful to look at, a testament to Kubrick's keen sense of camera framing and shot composition. The use of classical music, such as the iconic theme "Also sprach Zarathustra" by Strauss.
I personally really liked the inclusion of brands like IBM and Pan Am in the movie, retro futurism is something that I enjoy quite a bit. Brands that were big in the 1960s, but Pan Am is defunct today.
Themes of god and humankind, exploration of the unknown, a rampant artificial intelligence; this movie has everything in it and it does not miss a single beat. One of the greatest films ever made and one that I absolutely recommend as a must-watch.
I personally really liked the inclusion of brands like IBM and Pan Am in the movie, retro futurism is something that I enjoy quite a bit. Brands that were big in the 1960s, but Pan Am is defunct today.
Themes of god and humankind, exploration of the unknown, a rampant artificial intelligence; this movie has everything in it and it does not miss a single beat. One of the greatest films ever made and one that I absolutely recommend as a must-watch.
The Usual Suspects
(1995)
Disappointing
19 April 2023
I thought "The Usual Suspects" had a plot twist that was way too obvious to anybody who's ever seen an episode of "Scooby-Doo." I also thought the dialogue was pretty crappy, it either had way too much vulgar swearing for no reason at all other than to sound "cool" like a twelve year old boy, or it was way too convoluted with characters referencing events and other characters that are never shown on screen. It's really baffling to me that this movie won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. I also thought that Benicio Del Toro did a pretty poor job with his performance. Most of the other actors fall somewhere in the "decent" category.
Kevin Spacey does a great job though, definitely the highlight performance. The score for the film is also excellent, as is the cinematography. It's honestly a really pretty movie stylistically. Unfortunately it's the substance of the movie that I take issue with, it relies too heavily on its final ten minute "zinger" of a plot twist. The plot twist itself is executed quite well but it doesn't take away from the fact that anyone with a pair of eyes could see it coming from a mile away.
As to how this movie ranks among the top fifty of all time on this site, that's something I'll never understand. I don't really recommend it, I think there are far better crime mystery movies out there, such as "Se7en" (which also came out in 1995 and which also stars Kevin Spacey in a similar role).
Kevin Spacey does a great job though, definitely the highlight performance. The score for the film is also excellent, as is the cinematography. It's honestly a really pretty movie stylistically. Unfortunately it's the substance of the movie that I take issue with, it relies too heavily on its final ten minute "zinger" of a plot twist. The plot twist itself is executed quite well but it doesn't take away from the fact that anyone with a pair of eyes could see it coming from a mile away.
As to how this movie ranks among the top fifty of all time on this site, that's something I'll never understand. I don't really recommend it, I think there are far better crime mystery movies out there, such as "Se7en" (which also came out in 1995 and which also stars Kevin Spacey in a similar role).
Team America: World Police
(2004)
Ehhh...
18 April 2023
I'm a big fan of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. I love "South Park." There's just something off about this movie. I think it has to do with the fact that the movie is kind of all over the place. Like there's no clear point to it. It seems to me that they wanted to make a commentary about the wars in the Middle East but they kind of had an overflow of ideas where they also incorporate riffs on Hollywood actors and also North Korea. I think it would have been a lot funnier and better of a movie if they had focused their ideas more on one of those topics.
The "South Park" movie got it done a lot better, it's a critique of helicopter parents, culture war, and the MPAA. Which are three different topics that are a lot easier to combine into one movie.
Also it just seemed a lot more juvenile than their other work. Like in "South Park", the crude violence and sexual content is rarely the butt of jokes. It's honestly a lot more clever than what most people give it credit for and contains a lot of heart and some really introspective points of view on American society. This movie is everything that critics of "South Park" claim that the show is. There's a scene where the main character, Gary, just starts throwing up, over and over, in an alley behind a bar. With no real purpose other than cheap gross out humor that'll appeal to teenage boys. Also the whole name, "Film Actors Guild." It all just seems so much less clever than I know these guys are capable of producing.
The marionette idea is awesome. I actually think that it's stylistically a very pleasing movie. It honestly kind of makes it more painful for me to hate, because you can tell that this wasn't a cheaply made movie or something that there wasn't a whole lot of effort and heart put into it. I just feel like the script should have had a major overhaul. Cut out all the unnecessary cheap laugh humor and replace it with a plot that is more focused and this could easily have been one of their best works.
I also gotta say that I loved the music in this movie. It's got some really funny songs. The scenes parodying "Star Wars" and "Kill Bill" are also funny, as is the overall plot being kind of a "Bond" spoof. And, I gotta say, I find it less obnoxious than "Austin Powers" was as a spoof movie.
I'm not sure if it's due to the fact that "South Park" was still an ongoing show when they made this movie, they were also in the middle of the eighth season of the show. Check out the episodes "Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants" and "Smug Alert!" if you want to see Parker and Stone make a lot better riffs on the Middle East and Hollywood liberals.
I'm gonna give this movie a 6 though because I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think that a lot of the jokes were still absolutely hilarious. Personally, unless you are really curious about it, I'd just say skip and watch more "South Park."
The "South Park" movie got it done a lot better, it's a critique of helicopter parents, culture war, and the MPAA. Which are three different topics that are a lot easier to combine into one movie.
Also it just seemed a lot more juvenile than their other work. Like in "South Park", the crude violence and sexual content is rarely the butt of jokes. It's honestly a lot more clever than what most people give it credit for and contains a lot of heart and some really introspective points of view on American society. This movie is everything that critics of "South Park" claim that the show is. There's a scene where the main character, Gary, just starts throwing up, over and over, in an alley behind a bar. With no real purpose other than cheap gross out humor that'll appeal to teenage boys. Also the whole name, "Film Actors Guild." It all just seems so much less clever than I know these guys are capable of producing.
The marionette idea is awesome. I actually think that it's stylistically a very pleasing movie. It honestly kind of makes it more painful for me to hate, because you can tell that this wasn't a cheaply made movie or something that there wasn't a whole lot of effort and heart put into it. I just feel like the script should have had a major overhaul. Cut out all the unnecessary cheap laugh humor and replace it with a plot that is more focused and this could easily have been one of their best works.
I also gotta say that I loved the music in this movie. It's got some really funny songs. The scenes parodying "Star Wars" and "Kill Bill" are also funny, as is the overall plot being kind of a "Bond" spoof. And, I gotta say, I find it less obnoxious than "Austin Powers" was as a spoof movie.
I'm not sure if it's due to the fact that "South Park" was still an ongoing show when they made this movie, they were also in the middle of the eighth season of the show. Check out the episodes "Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants" and "Smug Alert!" if you want to see Parker and Stone make a lot better riffs on the Middle East and Hollywood liberals.
I'm gonna give this movie a 6 though because I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think that a lot of the jokes were still absolutely hilarious. Personally, unless you are really curious about it, I'd just say skip and watch more "South Park."
Studio Demands?
17 April 2023
I personally feel as though "The Hobbit" trilogy of movies suffers from both the studio's and also the general public's confusion that this movie would be more of a prequel trilogy to the excellent "Lord of the Rings" trilogy that Peter Jackson had directed a decade prior to this. The book that this movie is based off of is not a prequel, it is a predecessor. And it becomes very apparent that Warner Bros., or whoever, really wanted desperately to fill this movie with a whole bunch of prequel elements that were not in the original Tolkien fairytale novel and also to pad it out over three movies. Personally, instead of three movies, I feel as though it should have been limited to, at the most, two halves. And it definitely should have been marketed more as a companion set of films instead of an outright prequel series similar to "Star Wars." Whereas the "Star Wars" prequels fail due to some poor dialogue writing and some really boring cinematography and special effects, these movies fail because of bloat.
The new prequel-esque filler content takes its toll when it completely ruins the pacing of the original story, which is all about the hero's journey. "There and back again." Going on a grand adventure and returning home, never quite the same as you were before. It spoke to me a lot when I was reading the book a few years back as someone who left home as a young adult, and the reality that you've changed but that home hasn't. It's ruined in this movie because you have scenes that interrupt that and try and tie this in more with "Lord of the Rings", which was a concept that Tolkien hadn't even really fully fleshed out in his mind and was published over a decade after "The Hobbit." The scenes that don't have anything to do with the book aren't necessarily bad, it's just really weird and they feel out of place and don't mesh well.
The movie is really well made though. Excellent performances from old, returning cast members such as Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee are good to see. Martin Freeman is an excellent choice to play a young Bilbo Baggins, I loved him here. I also really liked Richard Armitage as Thorin.
The production values are quite good, pretty much on par with the original trilogy of Tolkien movies. I feel as though the movie perhaps relies too heavily on CGI. There's no reason a character like Azog the Defiler (voiced by Manu Bennett, and who is a completely made up character for this movie) should be CGI.
Overall it's a pretty good movie but I'd be on the lookout for maybe a fan edit of the film that guts out a lot of the stuff that's not from "The Hobbit." I'd love to see an official release of that, I think it would do both Tolkien and fans of the original "Rings" films a lot more justice than these three bloated attempts at prequel backstory have done.
The new prequel-esque filler content takes its toll when it completely ruins the pacing of the original story, which is all about the hero's journey. "There and back again." Going on a grand adventure and returning home, never quite the same as you were before. It spoke to me a lot when I was reading the book a few years back as someone who left home as a young adult, and the reality that you've changed but that home hasn't. It's ruined in this movie because you have scenes that interrupt that and try and tie this in more with "Lord of the Rings", which was a concept that Tolkien hadn't even really fully fleshed out in his mind and was published over a decade after "The Hobbit." The scenes that don't have anything to do with the book aren't necessarily bad, it's just really weird and they feel out of place and don't mesh well.
The movie is really well made though. Excellent performances from old, returning cast members such as Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee are good to see. Martin Freeman is an excellent choice to play a young Bilbo Baggins, I loved him here. I also really liked Richard Armitage as Thorin.
The production values are quite good, pretty much on par with the original trilogy of Tolkien movies. I feel as though the movie perhaps relies too heavily on CGI. There's no reason a character like Azog the Defiler (voiced by Manu Bennett, and who is a completely made up character for this movie) should be CGI.
Overall it's a pretty good movie but I'd be on the lookout for maybe a fan edit of the film that guts out a lot of the stuff that's not from "The Hobbit." I'd love to see an official release of that, I think it would do both Tolkien and fans of the original "Rings" films a lot more justice than these three bloated attempts at prequel backstory have done.
Shrek
(2001)
Great for All Ages
16 April 2023
I love "Shrek." This is a movie that we had growing up on VHS, it's a movie that I've seen so many times and know the whole story and can quote so many lines from.
The soundtrack and the animation are both a little bit dated but it's also really charming in that late 90s, early 2000s kind of way.
Eddie Murphy and John Lithgow are definitely my favorite parts of the movie. I love how it plays as a parody of fairy tales and Disney movies.
Personally, probably as a result of having seen it so many times, I feel as though the movie goes along too quickly. I would have loved for this movie to go on for maybe a half an hour more. I know that it's an animated comedy film and they're usually shorter by default, but it's really a shame in my opinion that the movie doesn't give us more scenes with Farquaad (Lithgow).
A minor complaint is that I really would have liked to see this as a PG-13 movie. I know that it was probably going to make a lot less money that way, but it already has some very minor curse words and some innuendo in it, it already pokes fun at Disney a whole lot. It's a shame that the ratings system and the prudishness of some parents probably prevented this movie from being as laugh out loud funny as it could have been. And I don't think it was really marketed towards kids in the first place, they already had plenty of stuff with the amount of gems that Pixar and Disney were both pumping out at the time.
Great animated film, one of the best of the genre, period. Definitely worth watching and it's a great family movie that people of all ages can enjoy.
The soundtrack and the animation are both a little bit dated but it's also really charming in that late 90s, early 2000s kind of way.
Eddie Murphy and John Lithgow are definitely my favorite parts of the movie. I love how it plays as a parody of fairy tales and Disney movies.
Personally, probably as a result of having seen it so many times, I feel as though the movie goes along too quickly. I would have loved for this movie to go on for maybe a half an hour more. I know that it's an animated comedy film and they're usually shorter by default, but it's really a shame in my opinion that the movie doesn't give us more scenes with Farquaad (Lithgow).
A minor complaint is that I really would have liked to see this as a PG-13 movie. I know that it was probably going to make a lot less money that way, but it already has some very minor curse words and some innuendo in it, it already pokes fun at Disney a whole lot. It's a shame that the ratings system and the prudishness of some parents probably prevented this movie from being as laugh out loud funny as it could have been. And I don't think it was really marketed towards kids in the first place, they already had plenty of stuff with the amount of gems that Pixar and Disney were both pumping out at the time.
Great animated film, one of the best of the genre, period. Definitely worth watching and it's a great family movie that people of all ages can enjoy.
Rocky V
(1990)
Yikes
16 April 2023
Man, I don't really know what to say about "Rocky V." Stallone really tried with bringing this movie back to the roots of the original movie. But he infused it with this really convoluted and cheesy plot of the obnoxious fight promoter, George Washington Duke (Richard Gant) causing a rift between Rocky (Stallone) and his new protégé, Tommy Gunn (real life boxer Tommy Morrison).
The most damning thing about this movie is that Morrison is the one who probably gives the best performance, and he was a boxer, not an actor. Stallone is just too much in this movie. He's charming in previous films, but I feel like Rocky is given way too many lines of dialogue here. Richard Gant as Duke is awful too. A completely obnoxious character that just brings the whole movie down whenever he's on screen. And Rocky Jr., played by Sly's real life son, Sage Stallone, is probably the worst performance from a child actor I've ever seen.
I honestly don't mind the premise. It's interesting, but the idea of the Balboa's going bankrupt due to Paulie (Burt Young) signing power of attorney over to Rocky's accountant is pretty stupid. Like first off I'm pretty sure his brother-in-law wouldn't be legally allowed to do that. Secondly, the script could have easily had Rocky be the one who signed over power of attorney, Rocky is that clumsy and gullible of a character.
The whole "Rocky with protégé" story was done a million times better in the "Creed" movies, as it involves a character that the audience actually cares about. Tommy Gunn is pretty boring and literally just shows up out of the blue. The final street brawl is pretty dumb, but it is unique for a movie in this franchise so I'll give it to them.
Also I've seen some people complain about the hip-hop soundtrack, it's okay. The music in this movie is not nearly as good as the other movies in the series, the original song that plays during the end credits is pretty bad.
This movie is dumb. If you're a fan of "Rocky", just skip this and move straight ahead to "Balboa" and the "Creed" movies.
The most damning thing about this movie is that Morrison is the one who probably gives the best performance, and he was a boxer, not an actor. Stallone is just too much in this movie. He's charming in previous films, but I feel like Rocky is given way too many lines of dialogue here. Richard Gant as Duke is awful too. A completely obnoxious character that just brings the whole movie down whenever he's on screen. And Rocky Jr., played by Sly's real life son, Sage Stallone, is probably the worst performance from a child actor I've ever seen.
I honestly don't mind the premise. It's interesting, but the idea of the Balboa's going bankrupt due to Paulie (Burt Young) signing power of attorney over to Rocky's accountant is pretty stupid. Like first off I'm pretty sure his brother-in-law wouldn't be legally allowed to do that. Secondly, the script could have easily had Rocky be the one who signed over power of attorney, Rocky is that clumsy and gullible of a character.
The whole "Rocky with protégé" story was done a million times better in the "Creed" movies, as it involves a character that the audience actually cares about. Tommy Gunn is pretty boring and literally just shows up out of the blue. The final street brawl is pretty dumb, but it is unique for a movie in this franchise so I'll give it to them.
Also I've seen some people complain about the hip-hop soundtrack, it's okay. The music in this movie is not nearly as good as the other movies in the series, the original song that plays during the end credits is pretty bad.
This movie is dumb. If you're a fan of "Rocky", just skip this and move straight ahead to "Balboa" and the "Creed" movies.
Rocky IV
(1985)
Rocky IV (or Montage: The Movie)
16 April 2023
The "Rocky" series is one of those film series that slowly gets lesser and lesser as you move down the line of movies. At least for the first five. Each subsequent movie feels like the previous but with just more and more dramatic storytelling gone. This might as well be called "Montage: The Movie", cause I wanna say there's at least five or six of them in the movie and they probably take up a third of the runtime. It's already a shorter movie at ninety minutes.
I don't think it's a terrible movie, it's got a lot of heart and it's definitely just as entertaining as "Rocky III", but this one really cranks up the comedy. Paulie (Burt Young) is particularly annoying in this movie. I never really loved the character; I thought he was kind of rude and awful to his sister in the first two movies. Racist in the third movie. But in this one he's just downright an awful character. He's only there as the butt of all jokes, and also whimpering and cowering around Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) like a puppy. The scene where he gets the robot as the birthday present is just awful too. Talia Shire's Adrian also takes a backseat to the plot in this one.
For a Cold War film, it honestly doesn't take a strong political stance, more so just that the war itself and the cultural differences between the US and the Soviets is all kind of stupid.
The final fight is mediocre too. Out of all of the original movies, I think "Rocky III" definitely had the best one. But they're blown out of the water anyways by all of the fights in the "Creed" movies.
The further you go down the original five movie "Rocky" pipeline, the worse it gets. If you've made it this far, you'll probably think it was a fun and innocuous sports movie. That's all it really is, it's just kind of there as entertainment. It does its job nicely but I really prefer the original film over any of the sequels.
I don't think it's a terrible movie, it's got a lot of heart and it's definitely just as entertaining as "Rocky III", but this one really cranks up the comedy. Paulie (Burt Young) is particularly annoying in this movie. I never really loved the character; I thought he was kind of rude and awful to his sister in the first two movies. Racist in the third movie. But in this one he's just downright an awful character. He's only there as the butt of all jokes, and also whimpering and cowering around Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) like a puppy. The scene where he gets the robot as the birthday present is just awful too. Talia Shire's Adrian also takes a backseat to the plot in this one.
For a Cold War film, it honestly doesn't take a strong political stance, more so just that the war itself and the cultural differences between the US and the Soviets is all kind of stupid.
The final fight is mediocre too. Out of all of the original movies, I think "Rocky III" definitely had the best one. But they're blown out of the water anyways by all of the fights in the "Creed" movies.
The further you go down the original five movie "Rocky" pipeline, the worse it gets. If you've made it this far, you'll probably think it was a fun and innocuous sports movie. That's all it really is, it's just kind of there as entertainment. It does its job nicely but I really prefer the original film over any of the sequels.
Rocky III
(1982)
Mr T. Is Great
16 April 2023
I got a soft spot for this movie, I gotta admit. I used to have all of the "Rocky" movies on VHS in the box set, this one and "Rocky IV" were my favorites as a kid. Personally, I feel as though I like the first two movies a lot more as I've grown older; I like their more grounded feel and them billing Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) as a true underdog. But I still really love the third and fourth movies, they're a lot more like action movies and both of the songs by the rock band Survivor made for these movies are awesome.
The fight near the beginning with Hulk Hogan is pretty cheesy. Also, like I said, pretty much all of the drama is gone too and this is just the series having its fun at this point. It's really jumped the shark and I'm cool with that. We trade in the cold streets of Philadelphia for the sunny beaches of Los Angeles as Rocky trains with Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) for a championship fight with Mr. T's character, Clubber Lang. Mr. T is definitely the highlight of this movie for me, he's so funny and the "I pity the fool" line is one of the best movie lines from 80s pop culture.
I liked the final fight too, I thought it was better than the one from "Rocky II", I also liked how we're shown Rocky truly indulging in a better life for himself and his family. They have a mansion and a sports car now, the film has a montage at the beginning showing Rocky take part in a whole bunch of advertising campaigns, getting his picture on the cover of magazines, meeting famous people, and also defending his championship.
Talia Shire, Burt Young, and Burgess Meredith all return, it's nice to see. I don't think Stallone or Shire give anywhere near as good of a performance in this movie. There's a scene when they're on the beach about halfway through the movie that's just downright awful to me in terms of overacting, they're basically just yelling at each other.
It's good to watch if you're running a marathon of the franchise. Definitely a fun 80s sports movie that will really get you pumped all the way until the bell rings at the end.
The fight near the beginning with Hulk Hogan is pretty cheesy. Also, like I said, pretty much all of the drama is gone too and this is just the series having its fun at this point. It's really jumped the shark and I'm cool with that. We trade in the cold streets of Philadelphia for the sunny beaches of Los Angeles as Rocky trains with Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) for a championship fight with Mr. T's character, Clubber Lang. Mr. T is definitely the highlight of this movie for me, he's so funny and the "I pity the fool" line is one of the best movie lines from 80s pop culture.
I liked the final fight too, I thought it was better than the one from "Rocky II", I also liked how we're shown Rocky truly indulging in a better life for himself and his family. They have a mansion and a sports car now, the film has a montage at the beginning showing Rocky take part in a whole bunch of advertising campaigns, getting his picture on the cover of magazines, meeting famous people, and also defending his championship.
Talia Shire, Burt Young, and Burgess Meredith all return, it's nice to see. I don't think Stallone or Shire give anywhere near as good of a performance in this movie. There's a scene when they're on the beach about halfway through the movie that's just downright awful to me in terms of overacting, they're basically just yelling at each other.
It's good to watch if you're running a marathon of the franchise. Definitely a fun 80s sports movie that will really get you pumped all the way until the bell rings at the end.
Rocky II
(1979)
Great Sequel
15 April 2023
"Rocky II" is kind of a rehash of the original, but I really enjoyed it. Mostly for the first half of the film, I loved the dramatic bits when Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) is struggling to handle his newfound fame and fortune. He's not super duper rich and famous like that, but it's nice to see him have money and not be the bum he is in the first movie. So it tells a little bit of a different story which is appreciated. Overall the majority of the plot line is the same, Rocky as the underdog and he's going up against the same opponent, Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers). Both actors do a great job, as do the other returning cast members such as Talia Shire, Burt Young, and Burgess Meredith.
The final third is really similar to the first movie, and the final fight itself is kinda clichéd. I do like the fact that this movie is still very grounded in reality and aims to tell a much more dramatic and heartfelt story, something that's pretty much gone from this series until the "Creed" movies.
It's not nearly the classic that the original "Rocky" is, I really don't think there's a whole lot here that warrants this being a necessary watch. It's very good though, and if you want to see the continued adventures of Rocky Balboa, there are lesser movies to seek. I just wish that the film had expanded a little bit more on the whole "handling fame and fortune" story angle a little bit better.
The final third is really similar to the first movie, and the final fight itself is kinda clichéd. I do like the fact that this movie is still very grounded in reality and aims to tell a much more dramatic and heartfelt story, something that's pretty much gone from this series until the "Creed" movies.
It's not nearly the classic that the original "Rocky" is, I really don't think there's a whole lot here that warrants this being a necessary watch. It's very good though, and if you want to see the continued adventures of Rocky Balboa, there are lesser movies to seek. I just wish that the film had expanded a little bit more on the whole "handling fame and fortune" story angle a little bit better.
Avengers: Endgame
(2019)
Great Finale
15 April 2023
"Avengers: Endgame" is probably the biggest cinematic event of the twenty-first century. It's hard to describe what it was like seeing this movie in the first few weeks when it came out, people were going nuts over this. When it came out, I personally didn't like it as much as "Infinity War", but upon rewatching, I actually like it better and I personally think it's one of the best Marvel films.
First off, the story goes in a completely different direction than I had thought it was going to go. By the half hour mark, we're introduced to a really fun time travel plot. Then it concludes with an epic final battle. Personally, I thought that the ending was really nice and it was a good sendoff to the first generation of MCU heroes. In hindsight, knowing where the series has gone in the past few years since this movie, I kind of wish that it had just ended here and there weren't movies like "Black Widow" and "Multiverse of Madness" that changed a lot of these characters.
Although I said that I liked the final battle, I will also say that it came off a little bit rushed. Like it's basically the exact same ending battle that we got in the previous movie.
Definitely watch this, if you're one of the five people that hasn't already. Definitely one of the best superhero movies of all time, a huge entertainment spectacle with great special effects and a heroic triumph.
First off, the story goes in a completely different direction than I had thought it was going to go. By the half hour mark, we're introduced to a really fun time travel plot. Then it concludes with an epic final battle. Personally, I thought that the ending was really nice and it was a good sendoff to the first generation of MCU heroes. In hindsight, knowing where the series has gone in the past few years since this movie, I kind of wish that it had just ended here and there weren't movies like "Black Widow" and "Multiverse of Madness" that changed a lot of these characters.
Although I said that I liked the final battle, I will also say that it came off a little bit rushed. Like it's basically the exact same ending battle that we got in the previous movie.
Definitely watch this, if you're one of the five people that hasn't already. Definitely one of the best superhero movies of all time, a huge entertainment spectacle with great special effects and a heroic triumph.
Out of Africa
(1985)
zzzzzz
15 April 2023
I've always held the belief that the worst sin that a movie can commit is to be boring. Give me a poorly made piece of light-hearted entertainment over a "well-made" Oscar bait snooze fest any day. I tried really hard to enjoy this movie, but as it kept droning on and on, that effort evolved to me battling to merely keep my eyes open. This movie reminded me a lot of "The English Patient." Boring, boring, boring.
First off, Meryl Streep's character is uninteresting. Robert Redford's character is also uninteresting. The plot is a melodrama romance that takes the point of view of European colonizers in Africa. That's literally all there is. It just goes on and on. And on. It could have been an hour shorter and still probably too long. It just never gets to the point.
Avoid this movie, it's not worth the time spent. I give extra points because I must admit that while I hated the characters, I can't deny that Streep and Redford are both very good here. I also really enjoyed the photography of the African plains. Other than that, this movie has no merit and has no purpose in existing. Complete snoozer.
First off, Meryl Streep's character is uninteresting. Robert Redford's character is also uninteresting. The plot is a melodrama romance that takes the point of view of European colonizers in Africa. That's literally all there is. It just goes on and on. And on. It could have been an hour shorter and still probably too long. It just never gets to the point.
Avoid this movie, it's not worth the time spent. I give extra points because I must admit that while I hated the characters, I can't deny that Streep and Redford are both very good here. I also really enjoyed the photography of the African plains. Other than that, this movie has no merit and has no purpose in existing. Complete snoozer.
From Here to Eternity
(1953)
Very Realistic Portrayal of the Army
14 April 2023
I loved this one. Montgomery Clift is great, I also really liked Burt Lancaster. It's basically got three different storylines going on, all intertwining and under the negligent watch of the company commander, Captain Dana Holmes (Philip Ober). Frank Sinatra also plays a supporting role as Private Maggio.
Personally, I didn't really care for the plot of Burt Lancaster's character, the first sergeant. I would have preferred more of an emphasis on Clift's character and maybe a little bit more boxing action going on. Also some more bits that focused on the Pearl Harbor attack right at the very end would have been nice.
Overall it's an excellent drama about the type of stuff that goes on in a peace time army. A whole lot of nothing and a whole lot of crappy politics that are out to really haze the enlisted soldiers and some really crappy leadership that doesn't really care all that much about the well being of their soldiers. I definitely recommend checking this one out if you get the chance.
Personally, I didn't really care for the plot of Burt Lancaster's character, the first sergeant. I would have preferred more of an emphasis on Clift's character and maybe a little bit more boxing action going on. Also some more bits that focused on the Pearl Harbor attack right at the very end would have been nice.
Overall it's an excellent drama about the type of stuff that goes on in a peace time army. A whole lot of nothing and a whole lot of crappy politics that are out to really haze the enlisted soldiers and some really crappy leadership that doesn't really care all that much about the well being of their soldiers. I definitely recommend checking this one out if you get the chance.
The Simpsons Movie
(2007)
Very Funny, But It Feels Like Just a Longer "Simpsons" Episode
14 April 2023
"The Simpsons" is definitely one of the greatest television shows of all time. Absolutely hilarious satire on pretty much anything that has to do with American culture and lifestyle. If there's a topic, there's probably an episode of the show that at least somehow mentions it or relates back to it.
As for "The Simpsons Movie", it's also very funny. But the entire premise of there being a definitive feature film adaptation of the show is kind of weird to me. It's true that the show has been pretty poor in quality for over two decades now, and that the movie is probably the best thing that the series has put out during that time period, but it also seemed like it would be an averagely rated episode from its prime during the 90s.
Very good animation and a lot of laugh out loud moments, it's just a shame that it doesn't really scratch the whole "Simpsons" itch that I feel like it needs to. If someone were to ask me what the best episodes of the show were, I don't think that the movie would even be in the conversation.
Put it on a watch list, it's still a very good laugh but it's a bit of a letdown compared to seasons 3-11 of the TV series.
As for "The Simpsons Movie", it's also very funny. But the entire premise of there being a definitive feature film adaptation of the show is kind of weird to me. It's true that the show has been pretty poor in quality for over two decades now, and that the movie is probably the best thing that the series has put out during that time period, but it also seemed like it would be an averagely rated episode from its prime during the 90s.
Very good animation and a lot of laugh out loud moments, it's just a shame that it doesn't really scratch the whole "Simpsons" itch that I feel like it needs to. If someone were to ask me what the best episodes of the show were, I don't think that the movie would even be in the conversation.
Put it on a watch list, it's still a very good laugh but it's a bit of a letdown compared to seasons 3-11 of the TV series.
John Wick
(2014)
I Don't Get It
14 April 2023
I really don't understand the love that "John Wick" receives. It's just kind of a generic action thriller to me. No different than a "Bourne" or "Taken" movie. It gets a slight bump for me in a rating of 6 instead of 5 because I did think that the cinematography was really good and also the fight choreography was top notch. I can definitely see the influence of martial arts films on this.
As for the story, it's basically not there. What's worse is the fact that the movie goes out of its way to constantly remind you that John Wick (Keanu Reeves) as a character is someone who is incredibly lethal and dangerous and feared by criminals. In my opinion, this completely kills whatever dramatic weight the cheesy storyline that "they killed my dog and stole my car" plot has to begin with.
I guess people liked it well enough because it's got three sequels and more to come. Personally I don't think it's any better than the average Netflix Original action movie. Huge skip in my opinion.
As for the story, it's basically not there. What's worse is the fact that the movie goes out of its way to constantly remind you that John Wick (Keanu Reeves) as a character is someone who is incredibly lethal and dangerous and feared by criminals. In my opinion, this completely kills whatever dramatic weight the cheesy storyline that "they killed my dog and stole my car" plot has to begin with.
I guess people liked it well enough because it's got three sequels and more to come. Personally I don't think it's any better than the average Netflix Original action movie. Huge skip in my opinion.
The Sting
(1973)
The Audience Gets Stung
13 April 2023
This is a very good movie from the 70s. Robert Redford and Robert Shaw definitely give the best performances in this film, although the rest of the cast is also quite good. It gets a slight knock from me; I appreciate the fact that it is heavily an homage to films of the 30s and 40s, but it led to the movie having a bit of a slower pace than I had wanted. It's also billed as a "comedy" on this site; it definitely had its comedic bits and an overall light-hearted tone, but I wouldn't necessarily think of it as a side-splitter. The plot is also a little bit confusing on my first viewing, but the last 10 minutes of the film does a nice job of connecting all of the dots for the audience and pulling back the curtain. I loved the finale. I felt as though I had been the one who was swindled. The use of the song "The Entertainer" by Scott Joplin got a little bit too much by the end of the movie, in my opinion. It's also kind of weird that the movie takes place in the 30s but they picked a ragtime tune from the 1900s. It fits the overall tone of the movie but it still seemed odd.
Overall it's a pretty good movie and the screenplay was very good. It has great moments but for me personally, there was just something here that didn't click and that's why I can't honestly give it a 10. Definitely watch it though, it's one of my grandfather's favorite movies and maybe you'll appreciate it like he does.
Overall it's a pretty good movie and the screenplay was very good. It has great moments but for me personally, there was just something here that didn't click and that's why I can't honestly give it a 10. Definitely watch it though, it's one of my grandfather's favorite movies and maybe you'll appreciate it like he does.
Creed III
(2023)
Best of the Trilogy?
13 April 2023
Finally able to step out of the shadows of Sylvester Stallone, the "Creed" franchise is able to breathe on its own. Not that I dislike Sly, I absolutely love the original "Rocky" film, it's one of my favorite movies of all time. It's just that by the time "Creed II" rolled around a few years ago, you can tell that Sly as a writer had kinda hit the limits of where he could produce creatively. Thankfully, the franchise is in good hands. (I do really wish that Sly was given a small nod, even just a throwaway line of expository dialogue to let us know that the "Italian Stallion" was doing okay or just something that acknowledged his influence on the franchise).
"Creed III" is definitely a black story. And also a story of brotherhood and guilt. Michael B. Jordan does a phenomenal job, once again, as Adonis Creed. And he also does a great job in his directorial debut. Jonathan Majors is fantastic as Damian Anderson, and is probably given the most depth out of any opponent in the entire franchise.
Thematically, the movie reminded me a lot of "Black Panther" in a lot of its story beats. Like a bit to a fault, if you think about the story that that movie told and the one that this one tells. Almost a carbon copy. It's cool though, I liked the idea of this one being obviously more grounded in reality as it centers around boxers instead of superheroes. I also felt that it drew a little bit too much from the "Rocky" well, it's also a really similar plot to "Rocky III."
Anyways the cinematography is great, in particular I loved the way that the final fight was executed. Amazing visceral imagery. Great script, a lot of great character moments that Adonis shares with his wife, Bianca (Tessa Thompson) and his daughter, Amara (Mila Davis-Kent).
Great movie, my favorite of the year so far but it's still early and I haven't been to the movies as much. I definitely thought it was a huge improvement over "Creed II" and possibly just as good, if not better, than the first movie in the spin-off series.
"Creed III" is definitely a black story. And also a story of brotherhood and guilt. Michael B. Jordan does a phenomenal job, once again, as Adonis Creed. And he also does a great job in his directorial debut. Jonathan Majors is fantastic as Damian Anderson, and is probably given the most depth out of any opponent in the entire franchise.
Thematically, the movie reminded me a lot of "Black Panther" in a lot of its story beats. Like a bit to a fault, if you think about the story that that movie told and the one that this one tells. Almost a carbon copy. It's cool though, I liked the idea of this one being obviously more grounded in reality as it centers around boxers instead of superheroes. I also felt that it drew a little bit too much from the "Rocky" well, it's also a really similar plot to "Rocky III."
Anyways the cinematography is great, in particular I loved the way that the final fight was executed. Amazing visceral imagery. Great script, a lot of great character moments that Adonis shares with his wife, Bianca (Tessa Thompson) and his daughter, Amara (Mila Davis-Kent).
Great movie, my favorite of the year so far but it's still early and I haven't been to the movies as much. I definitely thought it was a huge improvement over "Creed II" and possibly just as good, if not better, than the first movie in the spin-off series.
Juice
(1992)
Tupac Is Scary in This One
12 April 2023
"Juice" is a very good thriller movie. When I started watching it I thought it was going to be more of a social drama about life in the hood, kinda like "Boyz n the Hood." Or maybe a hip-hop movie, there's bits of that in here, especially with the casting of Tupac. But what we get is even better, a thrilling crime movie where Tupac's character, Bishop, is an unhinged psychopath. Tupac is the best part of this movie, although Omar Epps is also really good.
My main issue is that it takes until you're about halfway through the film for things to really heat up and for Tupac's character to fully snap. After that moment, everything about this movie is pure gold. I wish that the majority of the film was this way; it's nice that we have a little bit of time to connect with all the characters, but maybe if they had replaced about twenty minutes of that stuff with more of an emphasis on what we see later on in the movie, this would definitely be more of a classic.
Definitely check this out, Tupac was honestly a really good actor, and it's sad that this movie perhaps foreshadows a real world tragedy that took place when he died.
My main issue is that it takes until you're about halfway through the film for things to really heat up and for Tupac's character to fully snap. After that moment, everything about this movie is pure gold. I wish that the majority of the film was this way; it's nice that we have a little bit of time to connect with all the characters, but maybe if they had replaced about twenty minutes of that stuff with more of an emphasis on what we see later on in the movie, this would definitely be more of a classic.
Definitely check this out, Tupac was honestly a really good actor, and it's sad that this movie perhaps foreshadows a real world tragedy that took place when he died.
Boyz n the Hood
(1991)
Gripping Story
12 April 2023
"Boyz n the Hood" is an absolute classic movie. An excellent portrayal of African American life. Great performances from Cuba Gooding, Jr., Laurence Fishburne, and Ice Cube. The story is very sad and it will definitely make you a lot more culturally aware of things. It's also a cautionary tale of violence, a great movie about a strong father figure and male role model, and what the absence of that looks like as well. I can't recommend this movie enough.
Excellent screenplay, cinematography, and directing from John Singleton in his debut film. It is a movie with many social and cultural messages that I'm afraid we still haven't quite learned in America.
Absolute must watch movie.
Excellent screenplay, cinematography, and directing from John Singleton in his debut film. It is a movie with many social and cultural messages that I'm afraid we still haven't quite learned in America.
Absolute must watch movie.
"The Greatest Jesus Movie Ever Made"
12 April 2023
I'm gonna completely ignore the religious controversy surrounding this movie; if you're too close-minded to at least try and examine some of the themes and subtext of the film, then I'm afraid film might not be the art form for you. This isn't some bland and boring regular old Jesus story that you've heard a million times before. This is something fresh and exciting and interesting.
I'll just say that it tells a lot more of a humanistic version of the biblical stories than most people are familiar with. A lot of it completely contradicts what the Bible says as well. And that's okay, there's a short little disclaimer at the beginning of the film that should have been enough to dispel any controversy anyways, plus it's art so it doesn't need to conform to whatever other people say that it ought to. If anything, if you're extremely devout, just think of it as a work of historical fiction, like a what-if scenario.
Anyways, Jesus (Willem Dafoe) is an extremely interesting character here. He almost comes off as a schizophrenic man. It's an excellent performance by Dafoe. Can't really say so much for Harvey Keitel's version of Judas. I'm not a fan at all. He wasn't terrible, it's just I couldn't stand his weird northeastern American accent that didn't fit the style of the movie at all. There's also a very short segment about an hour into the film when Jesus is out in the desert. He's encountered by three different spirits who tempt him. One of these is a lion (I'm not sure who voiced the lion, I looked through the cast lists on IMDb and Wikipedia and had no luck), and the lion's dialogue has some really bad audio mixing and the voiceover performance is just awful. He only says like three lines for about thirty seconds but it's just bad and goofy looking. Minor complaint from me, but it kinda through me out of the scene.
The cinematography and the directing are both beautiful. Scorsese made a very visually pleasing film here. I think it's a shame that this movie wasn't nominated for more awards, but I think the main reason Dafoe wasn't nominated for Jesus is because of the amount of further controversy that that would have sparked. He probably wouldn't have won over Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man" that year, but I definitely think that, overall, this is a much better film than "Rain Man" and should have scored a lot more gold in 1988.
For me, this was an extremely intelligent and beautiful look at the story of Christ. Not as a perfect god, but as an ordinary man who's prone to all of the stuff that we're prone to as human beings. The whole message, to me, was that it's a lot healthier to not beat yourself up over past sins that you've committed and instead make amends through actions. Which is honestly a lot closer to the actual words that Jesus speaks in the biblical gospels than what we hear from so-called religious "leaders" nowadays. The last thirty or so minutes of the film were a complete mind-bender too, it was almost like something out of "Twilight Zone" or that one episode of "Star Trek." Not trying to spoil anything but it's really cool.
Definitely recommend this. I've heard even some people who are Christians say that, although they don't believe that it happen this way, they still thought that the film emboldened their faith and came away with a stronger, more loving and human perspective on the story of Jesus. Believers and nonbelievers alike will find something from this film, although I will add the slight caveat that you'll probably want to be somewhat familiar with the Christian faith and the stories of the gospels, otherwise you'll be completely lost.
I'll just say that it tells a lot more of a humanistic version of the biblical stories than most people are familiar with. A lot of it completely contradicts what the Bible says as well. And that's okay, there's a short little disclaimer at the beginning of the film that should have been enough to dispel any controversy anyways, plus it's art so it doesn't need to conform to whatever other people say that it ought to. If anything, if you're extremely devout, just think of it as a work of historical fiction, like a what-if scenario.
Anyways, Jesus (Willem Dafoe) is an extremely interesting character here. He almost comes off as a schizophrenic man. It's an excellent performance by Dafoe. Can't really say so much for Harvey Keitel's version of Judas. I'm not a fan at all. He wasn't terrible, it's just I couldn't stand his weird northeastern American accent that didn't fit the style of the movie at all. There's also a very short segment about an hour into the film when Jesus is out in the desert. He's encountered by three different spirits who tempt him. One of these is a lion (I'm not sure who voiced the lion, I looked through the cast lists on IMDb and Wikipedia and had no luck), and the lion's dialogue has some really bad audio mixing and the voiceover performance is just awful. He only says like three lines for about thirty seconds but it's just bad and goofy looking. Minor complaint from me, but it kinda through me out of the scene.
The cinematography and the directing are both beautiful. Scorsese made a very visually pleasing film here. I think it's a shame that this movie wasn't nominated for more awards, but I think the main reason Dafoe wasn't nominated for Jesus is because of the amount of further controversy that that would have sparked. He probably wouldn't have won over Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man" that year, but I definitely think that, overall, this is a much better film than "Rain Man" and should have scored a lot more gold in 1988.
For me, this was an extremely intelligent and beautiful look at the story of Christ. Not as a perfect god, but as an ordinary man who's prone to all of the stuff that we're prone to as human beings. The whole message, to me, was that it's a lot healthier to not beat yourself up over past sins that you've committed and instead make amends through actions. Which is honestly a lot closer to the actual words that Jesus speaks in the biblical gospels than what we hear from so-called religious "leaders" nowadays. The last thirty or so minutes of the film were a complete mind-bender too, it was almost like something out of "Twilight Zone" or that one episode of "Star Trek." Not trying to spoil anything but it's really cool.
Definitely recommend this. I've heard even some people who are Christians say that, although they don't believe that it happen this way, they still thought that the film emboldened their faith and came away with a stronger, more loving and human perspective on the story of Jesus. Believers and nonbelievers alike will find something from this film, although I will add the slight caveat that you'll probably want to be somewhat familiar with the Christian faith and the stories of the gospels, otherwise you'll be completely lost.
Creed II
(2018)
Good Sequel
11 April 2023
"Creed II" is basically the same plot as the first movie. Which is also to say that it's the same basic plot as all of the "Rocky" films.
I like Dolph Lundgren's inclusion and the plot of Adonis (Michael B. Jordan) having to fight Drago's son (Florian Munteanu). It serves as a really nice sequel to "Creed" as well as a nice sequel to "Rocky IV." Especially considering the fact the connections that all of the characters have with each other now.
I personally didn't really like the final fight, it wasn't anywhere near as well executed as the fight from the last movie. Stallone and Jordan are both very good, but I would have liked more scenes with the Dragos. We get a couple here and there but they seem kinda bland as villains. If you didn't see "Rocky IV" before, you might be lost as to why Rocky and Adonis are both so emotional about going up against this Russian father and son duo.
Again, it contains a lot of the same themes of fatherhood that the first film had. But personally, I don't think it pulled them off as well as that movie did either.
It's a good movie, watch it if you're looking for more boxing, more of the franchise. It's not for everyone and I'd say that watching the first movie is plenty enough for most people.
I like Dolph Lundgren's inclusion and the plot of Adonis (Michael B. Jordan) having to fight Drago's son (Florian Munteanu). It serves as a really nice sequel to "Creed" as well as a nice sequel to "Rocky IV." Especially considering the fact the connections that all of the characters have with each other now.
I personally didn't really like the final fight, it wasn't anywhere near as well executed as the fight from the last movie. Stallone and Jordan are both very good, but I would have liked more scenes with the Dragos. We get a couple here and there but they seem kinda bland as villains. If you didn't see "Rocky IV" before, you might be lost as to why Rocky and Adonis are both so emotional about going up against this Russian father and son duo.
Again, it contains a lot of the same themes of fatherhood that the first film had. But personally, I don't think it pulled them off as well as that movie did either.
It's a good movie, watch it if you're looking for more boxing, more of the franchise. It's not for everyone and I'd say that watching the first movie is plenty enough for most people.
Chariots of Fire
(1981)
Decent
11 April 2023
I thought "Chariots of Fire" was pretty good. No terrific performances that had me on the edge of my seat. Not really my type of story either. It was nice to watch as a sort of feel good movie, but I think it's more well known for its opening scene and the epic Vangelis theme. Ian Holm is pretty good too. The filmmaking is all good, you can tell by this point in the 1980s that most of the filmmaking techniques that we still use today were pretty standardized.
Not a whole lot for me to say about this one. I feel like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" definitely should have won Best Picture in 1981, that one's got a much larger impact on pop culture. I can see where they were trying to go with the whole "two men battling with pride and ambition" but it just didn't have any really tense dramatic weight to me. It's probably not helped by the fact that it's set in the 1920s and a more higher class British group of characters. Just wasn't really my cup of tea.
Not a whole lot for me to say about this one. I feel like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" definitely should have won Best Picture in 1981, that one's got a much larger impact on pop culture. I can see where they were trying to go with the whole "two men battling with pride and ambition" but it just didn't have any really tense dramatic weight to me. It's probably not helped by the fact that it's set in the 1920s and a more higher class British group of characters. Just wasn't really my cup of tea.
Bad, Just Plain Bad
11 April 2023
"Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" is just a downright terrible movie. You can tell that there was an enormous amount of content that was lazily edited out of the film from the hour and a half runtime and the fact that the plot kinda just shambles along. Story beats are introduced that either have no context whatsoever or are ignored and never brought to a conclusion. None of the actors give an ounce of effort. Hackman's enthusiasm is gone, and has terrible dialogue written for his character. Lex's nephew, Lenny (Jon Cryer) is a terrible stand-in for the character Otis from the first two movies. I would say that he's insufferable (which he is) but he's barely in the movie to begin with so he's more inconsequential. Reeve is just kind of there, and he even has some terribly delivered lines. The chemistry that he had with Margot Kidder's Lois Lane is either completely gone or just incredibly flimsy. The special effects are awful and incredibly cheap looking, even for 1987 standards. The score is little more than them replaying the original John William's theme over and over again. And Nuclear Man (Mark Pillow) is just one of the worst and most boring villains of all time. All plot points are nothing we haven't seen from the previous three films.
The only real saving grace is the fact that they somehow managed to cobble together most of the original cast that's stuck through all four of these movies for one last rodeo. But even that is a double edged sword as you see that this is the last whimper to recapture whatever magic they had from the first two movies.
Just bad. Don't watch it. Watch any of the first three "Superman" movies over this. Watch "Batman and Robin" over this. Watch literally any other superhero movie ever made over this.
The only real saving grace is the fact that they somehow managed to cobble together most of the original cast that's stuck through all four of these movies for one last rodeo. But even that is a double edged sword as you see that this is the last whimper to recapture whatever magic they had from the first two movies.
Just bad. Don't watch it. Watch any of the first three "Superman" movies over this. Watch "Batman and Robin" over this. Watch literally any other superhero movie ever made over this.
Creed
(II) (2015)
How to Do a Reboot Right
10 April 2023
"Creed" basically follows the majority of the plot points from the original "Rocky." But it also shines a lot on its own as a story of a man desperately searching for closure with a father that he never knew and finding comfort in a father figure that also has problems of his own. Both Michael B. Jordan and Sylvester Stallone do remarkable jobs in this movie. The fight cinematography is also amazing, it blows the rest of the "Rocky" films out of the water in that regard. It's definitely a better movie than all of the other sequels.
Honestly not much else to say, other than it kinda felt a little generic at times, especially with the ending which is way too similar to the original ending. It's a great movie though that I definitely recommend checking out, it will definitely please "Rocky" fans.
Honestly not much else to say, other than it kinda felt a little generic at times, especially with the ending which is way too similar to the original ending. It's a great movie though that I definitely recommend checking out, it will definitely please "Rocky" fans.
Superman III
(1983)
Not Terrible
10 April 2023
This is the film where the "Superman" franchise really fell off, but it's definitely not without its merits and there's also a lot of small things that could have been changed, added, or subtracted that would have made this movie much better and possibly on par with "Superman II."
The main problem is the script, it definitely could have used a rewrite to focus more on certain aspects of the plot. I honestly don't mind the more comedic and light-hearted tone, that's not terrible to me. It's really the fact that there's an incredibly half-baked romance plot between Superman (Christopher Reeve) and his hometown sweetheart Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole) that doesn't really go anywhere at all and doesn't have anywhere near the chemistry of Reeve and Margot Kidder, who's still in this movie but just barely. There's also the problem of the "evil" Superman personality crisis. It's a similar problem that I have with "Superman II" when he gives up his powers just for a brief moment and then all of the sudden gets them back in that movie; it's an incredibly underutilized plot point that could have gone a lot further.
And then we get to the actual meat and potatoes with the plot of the supervillain here. I'll start off with saying Robert Vaughn is definitely not a good stand-in for Gene Hackman. I find it kind of strange that Hackman returned for the fourth film but not this one. Vaughn lacks all of the charisma and vigor that Hackman had. I actually didn't mind Richard Pryor, to tell you the truth. I thought he was one of the better parts of this movie and definitely added a lot of much needed comedy to a dull performance from Vaughn.
Anyways the plot is that Pryor's character is a lower level computer programmer who's tasked by Vaughn's character with hacking into a weather satellite in order to disrupt the harvest of Colombian coffee beans, thereby raising the price of his own stock via supply and demand. Then doing the same thing with the world's oil supply. Honestly some of the plots in these movies are more similar to something you'd see out of a "Bond" movie, it's a similar criticism I have with the first "Superman" film. I wish they had done something with Bizarro or maybe Brainiac. There's hints of those things with the alter-ego and the super computer at the end.
The movie itself isn't boring, it's entertaining and none of the performances are completely terrible. There's nothing really "so bad it's good" quality either, it's just a very ho-hum movie that's kind of in that murky area between competent and incompetent. I'd honestly say leave it unless you just can't get enough of the Reeve era "Superman."
The main problem is the script, it definitely could have used a rewrite to focus more on certain aspects of the plot. I honestly don't mind the more comedic and light-hearted tone, that's not terrible to me. It's really the fact that there's an incredibly half-baked romance plot between Superman (Christopher Reeve) and his hometown sweetheart Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole) that doesn't really go anywhere at all and doesn't have anywhere near the chemistry of Reeve and Margot Kidder, who's still in this movie but just barely. There's also the problem of the "evil" Superman personality crisis. It's a similar problem that I have with "Superman II" when he gives up his powers just for a brief moment and then all of the sudden gets them back in that movie; it's an incredibly underutilized plot point that could have gone a lot further.
And then we get to the actual meat and potatoes with the plot of the supervillain here. I'll start off with saying Robert Vaughn is definitely not a good stand-in for Gene Hackman. I find it kind of strange that Hackman returned for the fourth film but not this one. Vaughn lacks all of the charisma and vigor that Hackman had. I actually didn't mind Richard Pryor, to tell you the truth. I thought he was one of the better parts of this movie and definitely added a lot of much needed comedy to a dull performance from Vaughn.
Anyways the plot is that Pryor's character is a lower level computer programmer who's tasked by Vaughn's character with hacking into a weather satellite in order to disrupt the harvest of Colombian coffee beans, thereby raising the price of his own stock via supply and demand. Then doing the same thing with the world's oil supply. Honestly some of the plots in these movies are more similar to something you'd see out of a "Bond" movie, it's a similar criticism I have with the first "Superman" film. I wish they had done something with Bizarro or maybe Brainiac. There's hints of those things with the alter-ego and the super computer at the end.
The movie itself isn't boring, it's entertaining and none of the performances are completely terrible. There's nothing really "so bad it's good" quality either, it's just a very ho-hum movie that's kind of in that murky area between competent and incompetent. I'd honestly say leave it unless you just can't get enough of the Reeve era "Superman."
Tell Your Friends