Change Your Image
briantrash
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Hunt for Red October (1990)
A thrilling undersea adventure with a solid cast
My rating: 7.5 out of 10 (I really liked it)
I've read so many reviews of 'The Hunt for Red October' that argue over whether or not it portrays submarine operations believably, that criticize the actors for their inability to speak Russian or mimic the accent; but to focus on these things is, in my opinion, to really miss the point of going to the movies.
The point of movies is fantasy, not realism. You see, real life is usually pretty boring. I wouldn't want to watch a movie that was too close to real life. I love movies precisely because they take me away from real life; they create another world and then immerse us in it for a couple of hours. Therefore...So what if real submarines aren't capable of some of the things we see in 'Red October'? So what if a Russian captain speaks English with a Scottish accent? If 'Star Wars' and 'Star Trek' can create worlds where you can actually hear lasers, explosions, and ship engine noise in the vacuum of space, then I say 'Red October' can create its world however it wants to.
'Red October' is a very well-made film – nothing particularly deep or profound, I suppose, just a suspenseful thriller and rousing adventure that keeps your interest from start to finish. It's very much a plot-driven movie. There are all kinds of movies – some that move the emotion, and some that engage the mind. 'Red October' is in the latter category...a movie that entertains us by putting a group of highly skilled characters into a series of dilemmas and then letting us observe the fascinating ways they get out of the dilemmas. As such, you won't find any character studies here because there just isn't much time for them; the script calls mainly for stereotypes. I don't say that as a criticism in this case; with a complicated plot, a large cast, and a lack of time to develop the characters, stereotypes and typecasting become somewhat necessary so that we the audience can more quickly and easily identify with them. And despite the possible pitfalls with this approach the performances are very competent, for the most part avoiding clichés, the leads so naturally charismatic that we easily care about them and root for them despite any lack in character development. Really, I'm probably making too much of this whole "character development" thing; the truth is that you really don't miss it in this case because the details of the cat and mouse game are just so interesting and absorbing.
If I have one quibble with the movie it would be regarding an action that Ramius takes early on. I won't spoil anything for anyone reading this, but let's just say that this deliberate action directly results in his entire crew very nearly getting killed, on multiple occasions. If he hadn't done it, his plan could have been carried out with complete ease, very little chance of danger...and of course, then there wouldn't be much of a movie. But still, it seems hard to believe a man in his position would really do this considering the potential cost, despite his very flimsy justification. Oh well, it didn't affect my rating at all, and I'm perfectly willing to concede that even highly intelligent people sometimes do very foolish things.
All in all, a very fine film that aims to keep you on the edge of your seat and succeeds. I give it seven and a half stars. Why no higher? Well, it's not because there are any glaring flaws. It's just that, like I said at the outset, 'Red October' is engaging but there's certainly nothing deep or profound here. Not that there has to be in order for me to enjoy a movie, of course. I guess it's just like food – everyone has their favorite kinds but that doesn't mean you don't sometimes feel in the mood for other things, too. My favorite movies are those that move the emotions, or better yet, both the emotions and the mind. I love the genres of science fiction and fantasy. I love great character studies. And no, 'Red October' isn't these things, so it will never be my favorite. But sometimes, after I've eaten my favorites over and over, I find I have the appetite for a good old-fashioned adventure, and 'Red October' more than satisfies.
The What a Cartoon Show: Buy One, Get One Free* (1996)
Slightly Ren and Stimpyish, but without enough laughs
My rating: 5 out of 10 (it was so-so)
Alright, consider yourself warned - I'm about to give an unnecessarily serious review to a 7 minute cartoon. Why? I have no idea. Maybe I just feel like wasting some time by writing something ridiculously pretentious. Anyway, here goes.
'Buy One, Get One Free' is one of the episodes in the 'What a Cartoon' series shown on the Cartoon Network in the 90's. I just happened to stumble upon it while searching YouTube, so I thought I'd go ahead and share my opinion. Now, to try and give this cartoon a serious review is pointless, and if I had any sense I would no more do that than give a serious review to a 'Looney Tunes' or 'Tom and Jerry' cartoon. And yet, here I am, doing it.
First of all, this is not high art; it is intended to be brainless fun. So the question is, does it succeed as brainless fun?
Well, as to whether or not it would be classified as "brainless", let's just say that no one's mental faculties are going to be particularly taxed in trying to understand the cartoon's plot. I mean, really
we're in 'Looney Tunes' territory here. It's not as mindless as Wile E. Coyote making endless attempts to catch the Road Runner, but this is a simple story, a variation on many that we've seen before. It begins with a man named Reilly answering a personal ad for a young woman who is looking for a relationship with a fellow cat-lover. Eventually, a bunch of cats wind up having a party in his bachelor pad while he is out on his date. I won't say any more about the plot, but let me just add that this cartoon follows the familiar theme of a character watching as events around him spiral out of his control, a theme that generally causes me to cringe rather than laugh. I found 'The Cat in the Hat' difficult to read and 'The Money Pit' difficult to watch for the same reason; I have never enjoyed watching people's lives and/or property slowly ruined.
And now for the second part of the question – is it fun? Well, since the story is treading no new ground, the interest is obviously going to have to be in the details. For instance, take the art direction. It's very much in a 90's Ren and Stimpyish style, and in fact several of the animators also worked on that cartoon. It's a style that many people apparently like. Unfortunately, the effect on me is a little strange and unnerving. I think it's mainly something about the eyes...they're kind of freaky.
Then there is the humor. Now, this really isn't a "detail" at all, but the actual crux of what makes this kind of cartoon a hit or a miss. 'Looney Tunes' and 'Tom and Jerry' were definitely nice to look at in the art department, but art was not what defined them. What defined them was the variety and creativity of ways in which the characters could make us laugh by crushing, burning, and pulverizing one another. And ultimately this is why I am only able to give 'Buy One, Get One Free' an "average" review...because it really didn't make me laugh all that much. Okay, I admit I did find it amusing when Reilly lost his cool at the end; the humor at that point contained the bizarreness that made 'Ren and Stimpy' so popular. But other than that, there really weren't all that many jokes, and what jokes there were didn't do a whole lot for me. In fact, some of them were slightly disturbing. For a cartoon to be brainless fun it really needs to be fun-NY, and I just didn't find enough "NY" in this one. I suggest watching some of the other episodes in the 'What a Cartoon' series...there were definitely funnier ones than this, and some that eventually became their own series.
Well, as promised, I just gave this cartoon a way longer and more serious review than any such cartoon could possibly deserve. I mean, it's only 7 minutes long for crying out loud. In the time it took you to read this, you could have just watched the cartoon on YouTube and judged it for yourself.
Chain of Command (1994)
Par for the direct-to-video course
My rating: 4 out of 10 (didn't care for it)
'Chain of Command' is a direct-to-video actioner, the last film and dying breath of The Cannon Group.
Well, for those who watch these kind of films regularly I hardly need to describe it. It's merely a variation on the same movie you've seen many times before, par for the course. The script doesn't make much sense a lot of the time and the acting is flimsy with very little if any character development, but that's okay because those things only exist to provide a framework for lots and lots of low budget shooting, stabbing, and exploding.
Watching the action sequences, I started feeling kind of nostalgic because they are sooo 70's and 80's in style – lots of slo-mo. Slo-mo of guys flying through the air when a grenade goes off, slo-mo of guys falling from ledges after getting shot, slo-mo of bombs exploding
so dramatic! Anyone who grew up watching television in that era knows the style I'm talking about; I guess at the time we all thought it was very theatrical. I suppose that technique hasn't been totally abandoned today, but still...the way it's done in films of that time has a look all its own.
Another element of the style that I got a kick out of was the way the main character can stand right out in the open in a gunfight without a care in the world. Despite there being a group of at least 10 guys blasting away at him he never gets a scratch, and, of course, manages to easily shoot every one them. Silly...oh well, you can't complain too much because even great movies like Star Wars pulled that kind of stuff.
Funny, too, are such wonderful scenes as when the villain has our weaponless hero on the run and forces him to take cover behind a hotel bar. Does the villain, emboldened by the fact that he has two submachine guns and our hero has nothing, walk behind the bar and shoot our hero at point blank range? No! He proceeds to use up every last bullet firing at the bar, the drinks, the stools, the mirror behind the bar, and the ceiling, finally stopping when he runs out of ammo so that our hero can make a run for it.
What we have here is a case of little boys who like to play with little firecrackers growing up into big boys who like to make movies where they play with big firecrackers. Films like this are really for one purpose...destruction porn. The thrill of watching all kinds of stuff get smashed or blown up. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no different than the next guy. I love a good action movie. But I also like an interesting script and engaging characters.
I said before that the acting's pretty flimsy but I guess I can't totally rip all of the performers in this movie. Michael Dudikoff, a legend of this genre, is really not all that bad at times. R. Lee Ermey is in this! Now there's an instantly recognizable character actor. Ermey's main henchman, Todd Curtis, has some surprisingly good acting chops; I actually found him to be the most natural and believable. Looking on IMDb I see that his resume ends not long after this movie, though. I wonder what happened.
Anyway, to sum up...movies like this are made for people who LIKE movies like this, and who am I to judge? It's not my cup of tea, but if you love tongue-in-cheek action flicks then you'll probably get a kick out of this. It has all the right ingredients: the unstoppable hero, the hot girl, the cheesy dialogue, and a healthy dose of mayhem and destruction.
Nell (1994)
A profound, superbly acted meditation on love and loss
My rating: 8 out of 10 (I really liked it)
I just watched this and wow, what a movie.
I hope no one would let the "average" rating this movie has received on IMDb dissuade them from giving it a try. I can't predict what people will like and what they won't like, but I know that for me it was an experience I didn't want to end. The point of movies is to immerse you in another world, to make you believe you're watching real people going through real experiences. For 2 hours 'Nell' did that for me.
The acting in 'Nell' is some of the best I've ever seen. There wasn't a false note to be found from a single person in the cast – these actors BECAME those characters. Never once did I feel that I was watching a performance. It was all incredibly real, and that's rare. I was in awe the whole time.
'Nell' is full of wonderful things. The cinematography is utterly gorgeous. Normally visuals don't carry much weight with me, but even I couldn't help but notice. And the music, while simple, was so weighty and effective.
This is not a movie for people who are bored unless there's fighting and explosions and such. This is a thoughtful movie. It's about people, their life experiences, and how they deal with and are shaped by those experiences.
It's interesting
I've read a number of reviews of 'Nell', and the mixed reactions it's gotten for the last 20 years tell me that sometimes even highly intelligent people can see a movie and yet not really see it. Many reviewers would have you think 'Nell' is about language, about the phenomenon of "idioglossia". Trust me, that's NOT what this movie is about. Yes, that may be the framework for the story, and "Idioglossia" is the name of the play on which this is based, but that's not what 'Nell' is about. Simply put, the story of 'Nell' is a story of two of the most basic and yet most profound of human experiences – love and loss. For two hours we are given a window into the lives of these characters, watching them as they help one another deal with these two matters together.
I won't say any more about the plot because I would hate to spoil anything for someone reading this, but I will add one more thing. Watching Jodi Foster in the very last scene of the movie
maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but wow. Rarely have I seen an end to a movie that so simply, effectively, and profoundly reflects on a human being's experience of love and loss.
My rating of an 8 in no way implies that I found flaws with this movie. When you reach a certain level of quality in art it becomes simply a matter of preference. In my scale, 9 and 10 are generally reserved for movies of certain genres and certain subjects. Therefore, I would not argue one bit with someone who gave this movie a perfect score.
Studio One: The Medium (1948)
An opera that makes for less than appealing television
My rating: 5 out of 10 (it was so-so)
This particular episode of Studio One is a performance of the short opera "The Medium" which was popular in the late 1940's. If you find a copy of it either on DVD or on the internet you'll notice that the quality of the picture that has survived is quite poor, but that's to be expected because live broadcasts at this time were filmed using kinescope recording (video wasn't invented yet). But don't let that scare you away from watching because this is some of the earliest television ever produced and is therefore historically significant.
And you shouldn't let my rating scare you away, either.
Now, don't misunderstand my low rating; it has nothing to do with the fact that this is an opera. I'm sure many people would stay as far away from this episode as possible if they knew what it was, but I was a music major in college and I have a great appreciation for classical music, including opera. So, my rating is not because I hate opera or something like that. No, it's simply that I don't happen to be crazy about this PARTICULAR opera. Some may find the music beautiful but it just doesn't appeal to me so much (and neither does a lot of other 20th century classical). I apologize to any fans of "The Medium" who might be annoyed with me on this
as with all music, it's just a matter of personal preference that's hard to explain.
However, I probably would have given this episode a 6 if it hadn't been for one other thing: I had no clue what was going on because I couldn't understand the words, even though they were sung in English. I know, I know
English-speakers can't understand the majority of opera lyrics, anyway, because most of them are written in foreign languages. However, I just wasn't in the mood to sit back and concentrate on the music like I would in a concert hall. When I watch a TV show what I want is a good story. So, eventually the only thing I could do is scour the internet for a copy of the text to the opera and follow along. I suspect that I'm not the only one who found this frustrating. I think a lot of people, even back in 1948, would be turned off if they watched a TV program and had no idea what the story was about, which is too bad because it turns out that it's not a bad little story. Dark, mysterious, creepy, tragic
some good stuff.
Anyway, having said all that, I encourage you to watch it. The performers were all very competent, and it may well be that you'll really find the music to your liking. One man's 5 out of 10 is another man's 10 out of 10.
Connie Gomper & the Pack (1996)
For fans of pro football and the Green Bay Packers, a funny tribute by a funny lady
'Connie Gomper and the Pack' began its life as a 20-minute segment produced for the nationally syndicated television program 'NFL Films Presents' in 1996. However, the segment was so popular and NFL Films received so many calls from fans requesting copies of it that a deal was made with PolyGram to distribute it on home video.
The star of the segment is Connie Gomper, a fictional resident of Green Bay, Wisconsin who loves to discuss all things football-related on her own public-access talk show, and who is slightly, um
OBSESSED with the Green Bay Packers. Actually, "obsessed" is a mild description. Fortunately, this is a comedy, a lampoon of the famously dedicated Packer fans, so while her fanaticism would be disturbing in other contexts, here it is amusing and rather endearing. Besides, the real subject and theme of the film is not Connie but the Packers themselves, with Mrs. Gomper providing narration for a showcase of the interesting people, places, history, and culture surrounding the team.
I watched this recently on YouTube, and pretty quickly I discovered the reason this short film was so highly requested by audiences. That reason is Cindy Sandberg, the actress who plays Connie. I'm not sure how Cindy would fare in other types of roles, but here she accomplishes a feat that is very difficult for an actor to pull off. She creates a character who ordinarily would be considered obnoxious in every way – in appearance, in voice, in behavior – and who instead somehow comes across as lovable. Connie is the type of lady who, if she moved in next door to you, would motivate you to think about finding a new place to live, and yet it's often the case that personalities that are annoying in real life are quite funny on screen. It really all boils down to the way she talks; if anything about Connie Gomper is going to get under your skin, it will be that. Her speech is a wildly exaggerated parody of the Upper Midwestern accent and its idioms (although at times it seems to take on a strange Irish-sounding lilt and sound rather leprechaunish). Being the most prominent aspect of Connie's character and the foundation for almost all of the humor in the show, it could have been disastrous if it hadn't worked. However, with Connie Gomper the whole is greater than the sum total of her parts. Much like Mira Sorvino in 'Mighty Aphrodite', Cindy Sandberg has the charisma to not only make an annoying voice work to great comedic effect, but also make all of her exaggerated mannerisms combine synergistically to create a very charming and extremely humorous character. That was a really fancy and long-winded way of saying that she does a great job.
And yes, the film is funny. I do not normally laugh out loud at comedy, even when I find it hilarious (it's just my stoic disposition, I suppose). However, even after watching it several times, there are still parts that can make me chuckle. Incidentally, there are several jokes in the film that are references to famous movies and characters. There are, in fact, two references to Arnold Schwarzenegger/The Terminator. One is very obvious, but the other is more of an indirect reference and is a little trickier to spot. Well, it's actually a lot trickier. If you can pick it out, you're pretty good with your movie quotes.
I believe football fans will definitely appreciate this film; it's funny, you learn some things about the Packers, and meet some interesting people. Some of the players even get cameos, including a young Brett Favre. Now, you may notice that despite all the good things I've said about this film, the rating I gave isn't as high as you might expect. Well, truth be told, I'm not a football fan. I did think Connie Gomper was a funny gal, but as charming as she is she just can't solve the basic problem of my lack of interest in the game. If I loved football as much as the Packers fans do I'm sure my rating would be a perfect 10, you betcha.
Now, if this were a TENNIS parody, it would be a different story
Buy One, Get One Free* (1996)
Slightly Ren and Stimpyish, but without enough laughs
'Buy One, Get One Free' is one of the episodes in the 'What a Cartoon' series shown on the Cartoon Network in the 90's. I just happened to stumble upon it while searching YouTube, so I thought I'd go ahead and share my opinion.
Now, to try and give this cartoon a serious review would be pointless. I would no more do that than I would give a serious review to a 'Looney Tunes' or 'Tom and Jerry' cartoon. This is not high art; it is intended to be brainless fun. So the question is, does it succeed as brainless fun?
Well, as to whether or not it would be classified as "brainless", let's just say that no one's mental faculties are going to be particularly taxed in trying to understand the cartoon's plot. I mean, really
we're in 'Looney Tunes' territory here. It's not as mindless as Wile E. Coyote making endless attempts to catch the Road Runner, but this is a simple story, a variation on many that we've seen before. It begins with a man named Reilly answering a personal ad for a young woman who is looking for a relationship with a fellow cat-lover. Eventually, a bunch of cats wind up having a party in his bachelor pad while he is out on his date. I won't say any more about the plot, but let me just add that this cartoon follows the familiar theme of a character watching as events around him spiral out of his control, a theme that generally causes me to cringe rather than laugh. I found 'The Cat in the Hat' difficult to read and 'The Money Pit' difficult to watch for the same reason; I have never enjoyed watching people's lives and/or property slowly ruined.
And now for the second part of the question – is it fun? Well, since the story is treading no new ground, the interest is obviously going to have to be in the details. For instance, take the art direction. It's very much in a 90's Ren and Stimpyish style, and in fact several of the animators also worked on that cartoon. It's a style that many people apparently like. Unfortunately, the effect on me is a little strange and unnerving. I think it's mainly something about the eyes
they're kind of freaky.
Then there is the humor. Now, this really isn't a "detail" at all, but the actual crux of what makes this kind of cartoon a hit or a miss. 'Looney Tunes' and 'Tom and Jerry' were definitely nice to look at in the art department, but art was not what defined them. What defined them was the variety and creativity of ways in which the characters could make us laugh by crushing, burning, and pulverizing one another. And ultimately this is why I am only able to give 'Buy One, Get One Free' an "average" review
because it really didn't make me laugh all that much. Okay, I admit I did find it amusing when Reilly lost his cool at the end; the humor at that point contained the bizarreness that made 'Ren and Stimpy' so popular. But other than that, there really weren't all that many jokes, and what jokes there were didn't do a whole lot for me. In fact, some of them were slightly disturbing. For a cartoon to be brainless fun it really needs to be fun-NY, and I just didn't find enough "NY" in this one. I suggest watching some of the other episodes in the 'What a Cartoon' series
there were definitely funnier ones than this, and some that eventually became their own series.
Okay, I think I just gave this cartoon a way longer and more serious review than was necessary. I mean, it's only 7 minutes long for crying out loud. In the time it took you to read this, you could have just watched the cartoon on YouTube and judged it for yourself.
Felony (1994)
B-movie with an all-star cast and a silly script....it's sort of likable if you're in the right mood
'Felony' is a B-movie. No doubt about it.
Of course, if you take a look at the cast lineup you might have some high hopes for its entertainment potential. This film is stuffed with all of those wonderful character actors that you grew up with, the ones with the faces you immediately recognize even though you probably don't know their names. It's amazing that the filmmakers were able to get all of these people together on one project, almost like they decided to do a B-movie actor reunion. The cast even includes a couple of really first-rate actors: David Warner, who most people will recognize from 'Titanic' (although my favorite of his roles is Jack the Ripper in 'Time After Time') and Lance Henriksen, who many will remember as Bishop in 'Aliens'. These two actors have done some excellent work in their long careers and made some very fine films.
However, as impressive as this collection of actors is, their talent is never fully manifested on the screen. The writers of 'Felony' spent a lot of money to assemble a dream-team cast and then missed their golden opportunity because of one important factor, the common denominator of all B-movies: a silly script.
We start with a silly premise. The bad guys are caught on tape committing a gruesome murder and they relentlessly pursue the film crew in order to acquire the videotape and destroy the evidence. But honestly, why bother? In the time it takes them to track down the film crew, a thousand copies of that tape could be made and circulated to every law enforcement agency and media outlet. The criminals don't seem to realize how futile their effort is, and they talk as if stealing and destroying the one original videotape is going to solve the whole problem. Silly...but I suppose if the bad guys were so logical there would be no movie.
Then there is the dialogue. It is at times silly, at times cliché, and at times unbelievable...everything you have come to expect from a B-movie. Of course, I have always believed that strong performances can overcome a lot of weaknesses in the material. This cast includes actors who are definitely capable of strong performances, and although a number of the cast members are not good actors at all and have achieved B-movie status quite deservedly, one still might be hopeful that the stronger part of the cast would be able to infuse some life into their parts. However, it's disappointing to see that few of the actors in this film really seem to take the movie seriously enough to give it their best shot. There's not much inspiration evident in these performances, but then again it's an uninspiring script. Now, I'll admit that some of the more colorful actors in the cast do manage to add a certain amount of pizazz into the delivery of their lines, but honestly, even the very fine actors I mentioned earlier seem mostly disinterested and uninvolved with the story.
Speaking of the story...even if the acting had been of a high enough caliber that it made the dialogue seem a little less cheesy, it still would not redeem 'Felony' from the fact that its writer commits the ultimate faux pas of low budget action movie scripts: a plot with as many holes as a block of Swiss cheese. You can watch this movie a hundred times and you still won't figure out how everything adds up. In an effort to create suspense and always keep the viewer guessing, the writer throws in all kinds of surprises and unexpected twists into his script and ends up with a jigsaw puzzle, but when you get to the end you find there are a bunch of pieces that just don't fit anywhere and others that are missing. I admire a good thriller that keeps me guessing, but creating plot twists that exist just to confuse you and which are not consistent with the rest of the story is amateurish. There was so much that was never explained that I felt extremely frustrated at the end. If you decide to watch it, be prepared to be confused.
I haven't even mentioned all kinds of other silly things about this movie, but I won't bother. The funny thing is that despite everything I've said, I have to admit that I can't give 'Felony' 1/10 stars. Although I can't exactly put my finger on why, I actually found this film to be somewhat likable. The silliness can actually be fun at times if you are in the mood for it. Plus, I really like some of these character actors, and even though their performances are somewhat lackluster considering their talents, I still got a kick out of seeing them.
Now, I realize I have been rating this film from the standpoint of a serious moviegoer. It's entirely possible I have completely missed the point. It could be that the filmmakers' intention all along was to make a B-movie. Maybe the silliness is all completely intentional. If that's the case, and if I were to rate it on those terms, I would have to say that 'Felony' is a classic in the genre of tongue-in-cheek action flicks. B-movie fans will love seeing all of their favorite actors together in one film, will get some chuckles from the script, and will be entertained by the healthy dose of guns, explosions, and chases.