Change Your Image
Bascoda
Reviews
Harbinger Down (2015)
Not bad, but could have been better.
I'll give them an E for effort.
Overall, this was an homage to non-cgi creature features like "The Thing" and others of that era and genre. A nice effort, but it fell short in a number of areas.
First - and most of my carping in this section is personal in nature - when they establish the opening scene as "Dutch Harbor, Alaska," and they show me a heavily forested landscape, my willful suspension of disbelief takes a major hit. I spent many years in the Aleutians, and there are very few trees there. Matter of fact, on most of the islands, trees are such a rarity that the locals can tell you exactly how many there are, when they were planted and who planted them. Side note here, most of them were imported by the U.S. Navy during WW2.
Second nit-pick - the boat (and they are usually referred to as crabbers, not crabbing boats) is depicted as way too spacious. That many people on board would be shoulder-to-shoulder.
Third - and this isn't a nit-pick it's a major complaint - there was no cohesive presentation of "the monster." It's a fine old creature-feature tradition to only give the audience fleeting glimpses of the creature until the final climactic battle scene. I'm fine with that, but the fleeting glimpses should add up to a coherent whole. They didn't here.
Contributed to the crowd-sourcing for this movie, and would happily contribute to another attempt, but I'd like a little more attention to detail next time around.
The Imitation Game (2014)
The dramatic performances are excellent, the historical accuracy leaves much to be desired.
I'll check the "spoiler" box just in case I inadvertently include one.
Benedict Cumberbatch may come to be considered one of the best actors of his generation. I would agree with that.
Considering the script he was given, he did a masterful job of portraying the tragically complex character of Alan Turing. Sadly, the script did not do justice to the character or his singular achievements in helping to break the Enigma code and that contribution to the allied victory in WW2. The rest of the cast was equally outstanding.
Several reviewers have objected to the sympathetic portrayal of Turing's homosexuality as "having an agenda." Society's very unsympathetic attitude towards homosexuality at that time is integral to the story, particularly considering what was done to him by society in general and the British government in particular after the war.
That part of Turing's life was portrayed with a reasonable degree of fact. The rest, not so much.
I base my review rating on the performances of the cast, and the fact that any telling of this story is better than none.
As far as historical accuracy is concerned, the writers, directors and producers really need to go back to school.
Backstrom (2015)
Please, not another one.
Another attempt to provide us with a thoroughly obnoxious character we are supposed to like, be interested in, or at least tolerate, because he is good at his job.
No, thanks, the whole premise is getting tiresome.
Were I in the position of having to deal with Backstrom in a professional capacity in real life, I would do so to the extent that the job required and not one iota more.
Would I be interested in him as a person? Not in the slightest.
Would I care to associate with him socially? No.
Would I want to watch a TV show about him or someone like him? Sorry, I have better things to do with my time.
Rake (2014)
Another little creep getting away with things . . . .
I guess I have known and disliked (and in too many instances had to put up with) people like Kinnear's "Rake" to want to watch a show about one. This guy is supposed to be some sort of lovable rogue that we like in spite of his many flaws.
Sorry, not buying it; saw the first episode, that was more than enough. The best writing, acting and production values aren't enough to overcome the fact that I can't stand the main character and don't want to have anything to do with him.
Based on the construction of the show's premier, what will be presented are repeated instances of the main character's reprehensible behavior that are supposedly offset by him doing something brilliant, and probably only marginally within the bounds of legal ethics, in the courtroom. This is supposed to make us forgive, or at least ignore, the fact that in most other respects he is a pretty miserable excuse for a human being.
No thanks, I'll pass.
The Fantasticks (2000)
They really should have called it something else ....
because this isn't The Fantasticks that I fell in love with the first time I saw it some 50 years ago and later had the pleasure of performing in on 3 different occasions.
I avoided watching this movie for many years, mostly because I didn't want to spoil my memories of the play. Recently, however, I found a copy in the local thrift store and thought to myself "why not?" I wish I'd left it in the scratch and dent bin.
Another reviewer described the stage version as "a bubble balanced on the head of a pin" and that's as good an analogy as any of the fragility of the magical effect the play has on its audiences. This doesn't translate to the film version, not at all. To anyone reading this review: if you've seen and enjoyed a stage production of The Fantasticks but haven't seen the movie, don't bother; if you've seen the movie, but never the stage play, do yourself a favor - see the stage play if ever you have the chance, and also buy the original cast album to learn what the music is supposed to sound like.
The Grey (2011)
Urk!
Let me begin by saying that I have a great deal of respect for Liam Neeson as an actor and have enjoyed many of his roles, so I guess he's allowed a turkey every once in a while. I can willfully suspend my disbelief with the best of them, but this movie just asks too much. I tried to look at it as an allegory, or a metaphor or whatever else you care to call it. I really wanted to like it, but I have had too much survival training, have spent too much time in Alaska, and know too much about both wolves, and cold and its effects on the human body, to be able to make the leap into pure fantasy that this movie demands. Just couldn't do it. People who work in Alaska learn early on that one of the cardinal rules of survival if your plane crashes in the bush - and a lot of them do - is to STAY WITH THE PLANE! So, of course, the first thing that Liam and his merry band of survivors do is leave the crash site. It goes downhill from there. I won't go into detail, there's just too much, except to note that the dip in the river that the last two survivors take (one of them drowns but the other, Neeson, lives) makes the final scene an impossibility - he would have been incapacitated by hypothermia long before he got to the wolves' den. The acting was excellent, as was the cinematography, otherwise, I would have rated this a zero.
The Avengers (2012)
Well done!
OMG Scarlett Johansson looks good in tight black pants!! OK, enough of that. This is as good a translation of comic book to film as any of us are likely to see - ever. Each of the actors chosen for the roles draws their character on like a glove, and the fit is perfect. This is what separates The Avengers from most other movies in this genre - the characters have depth, their interaction with each other is real and eminently believable, and the willful suspension of disbelief necessary to enjoy this type of movie is so effortless as to be unnoticeable. The CGI effects are spectacular, as is to be expected, and kudos to the designers for some really over-the-top bad guys and hardware. If I have one minor quibble, it is that I wanted more from Colbie Smulders as agent Hill. Her screen presence is so intense that I kept waiting (and wanting) more from her than to just be Samuel Jackson's aide-de-camp. Ah well, maybe next time.
The Hunger Games (2012)
A pretty good adaptation, with one huge exception....
Let me begin by saying I am most definitely not the target audience for this movie. Even so, I read and enjoyed the first book (my wife writes YA fiction, so I try to keep up), and was quite happy to take my two teenage granddaughters, who are the target audience, to see it. While not quite as brilliant an adaptation of book to film as some - the Lord of the Rings trilogy comes immediately to mind - it is still a worthy effort. Worthy in most respects, that is, with one glaring exception, which I will get to in a bit.
First, the good points. The film is a faithful adaptation of the book, with a few minor changes that mostly work. The differences in the two media require different handling. What can be explored at length with the written word must be compressed, implied or, in some cases, made obvious in the visual world of film. The reader's imagination, which is the writer's best friend, becomes the viewer's preconceived notion, which can be the filmmaker's worst enemy. I felt the film did a pretty good job of translation.
In general, the casting and characterizations were good. I have long been a fan of Donald Sutherland, Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci, and they didn't disappoint. Jennifer Lawrence was a pleasant surprise - I was unfamiliar with her work, but the young lady can definitely act, and her portrayal of Katniss was eminently believable. I had a bit of a problem with Josh Hutcherson as Peeta appearance-wise, but setting that aside, overall he acquitted himself well. Elizabeth Banks created an absolute gem of a character with Effie Trinket.
Some have complained that the film sanitized the violence which is such an integral part of the book. I disagree - the violence is there, it is just implied more than explicitly shown. This is a perfectly respectable, although currently little-used technique (consider the murder scene in the original "Psycho", for example) and was necessary for the PG-13 rating the film required for its target audience. Costumes were good, settings were good - some, like the Capital, were superb, and one - the control room - actually improved on the book. Overall, pretty good marks except for that one glaring flaw ....
The camera work was awful! It intruded, it interfered, it irritated, it gave me a headache, dammit! The hand-held jitters and the constant rapid-fire jump cuts were just too much for these tired old eyes to handle, and seriously detracted from my enjoyment of the film. If not for that, I would have scored the film a couple of points higher than I did.
Footloose (2011)
Not as bad as it could have been, but not as good as it should have been.
In general, I'm not a fan of remakes; if it isn't broken, it doesn't need fixing. "Footloose 2011" is "Footloose 1984" with a different cast, some additional (and mostly unnecessary) back-story, and a few minor plot changes. Unlike the original score, the 'updated' music was mostly pretty forgettable, even the covers of the songs from the 1984 movie.
In the 1984 version, Kevin Bacon pretty much carried the show, with an able assist from Chris Penn, while Lori Singer was along for the eye candy. Bacon wasn't a dancer (Peter Tramm was his dance double)and Lori Singer's dancing was at best merely adequate, so director Brewer's idea of casting two professional dancers as leads in the remake seemed like a good idea - he was half right.
Kenny Wormald is an excellent dancer and certainly looked the part of Ren, but he lacks the charisma that Kevin Bacon brought to the role. His acting is adequate, but that's about it. I didn't actually dislike him as Ren, but he didn't do anything to make me particularly like him, either.
Julianne Hough, on the other hand, was a very pleasant surprise. She is a beautiful woman, a superb dancer, and (here is the pleasant surprise part) shows real promise as an actor. One of the things that makes her such a delight to watch (besides the obvious physical attributes) is that when she is dancing, she looks like she is loving every second of it.
In reprising Chris Penn's role as Willard, Miles Teller came pretty close to stealing the show a couple of times, especially in the sequence where Ren and his two young cousins are teaching Willard how to dance.
For a movie supposedly all about dancing, there wasn't nearly enough. What there was of it was nicely choreographed, in some cases a step-for- step recreation of the 1984 dance scenes, but shot with a confusing mishmash of close-ups, very awkward mid-range shots and not nearly enough long shots that would actually show the dancing instead of just hinting at it.
When I left the theater after seeing the 1984 film, I couldn't get the music out of my mind, I was humming "Let's Hear it for the Boy" for weeks afterward. Sadly, not so this time.
I'll give Julianne Hough and Miles Teller B+'s for their roles. Overall, I give the production a C+.
War Horse (2011)
Black Beauty does World War 1
Essentially, this film is a do-over of Black Beauty in a WW1 setting - that's your basic story line. People will view the film from two different perspectives, depending on how much they know about horses. Anyone who has ever owned, trained or spent a lot of time around horses will find that a healthy dose of the willful suspension of disbelief is not only helpful, but necessary to enjoying the movie. Getting a horse to agree to do what you want it do in real life is a lot different than what is shown in the movie. That's the downside. The upside is that people familiar with horses will more easily understand the intensity of the bond that can form between a person and a horse. There are some plot holes that require an additional helping of that same suspension of disbelief, but nothing so egregious that it will ruin anyone's overall enjoyment of the film.
OK, those are the nit-picks. Now, on to the good stuff. The story is unashamedly sentimental, and a bit corny in spots. This is counterpointed by some pretty intense battle scenes. If nothing else, Mr. Spielberg sure knows how to stage a battle. Not quite as intense as the opening sequence in Saving Private Ryan, but equally impressive. No sides taken here: war itself is the bad guy. The scene where a British soldier and a German soldier named Peter cooperate to free the horse from barbed wire in no man's land has a basis in historical fact. There were documented instances of similar actions (none, to my knowledge, involving a horse) occurring more than once. The casting was excellent and the acting very good. Nothing exceptionally brilliant perhaps, but every character was eminently believable. Composer John Williams has created, as he usually does, a score that does precisely what a movie score is supposed to do: it punctuates and enhances the story line without being intrusive. The art direction and cinematography are superb. I have no idea what the competition will be like when Academy Award time rolls around, but I would bet on War Horse in both of those categories. This is one of those instances where words are inadequate, you have to see it. Overall, I'd say "try it, you'll like it." I intend to see it again, probably more than once.
Firefly (2002)
One of the best TV sci-fi shows - ever! Why did Fox torpedo it?
Firefly took a standard science fiction premise and ran with it in unexpected directions. A dystopian future set on the fringes of the settled universe, i.e. the frontier, with a distinctly cowboy/western mythos. The ship is the space-going equivalent of a tramp freighter crewed by an unlikely assortment of social misfits. Nothing terribly unusual here - it was the telling of the stories that made it special.
The ensemble cast were either C-list or virtually unknown at the time, but together they worked! I became an immediate fan of David Fillion and fell in love (platonically, I assure you, I'm old enough to be her grandfather) with Summer Glau. The show never claimed to be anything other than what it was - space opera. But it was space opera of a very high order indeed.
Why Fox went to such lengths to sabotage a show that could have become one of their best ever is beyond me. Firefly had everything going for it - cast, writing, special effects, and an audience hungry for some real sci-fi instead of more Star Trek pablum. So why did they treat the show so poorly? Episodes shown out of sequence, two and three week gaps (unexplained) between episodes, and being pre-empted by second-tier sporting events at every turn. Why?. What was the reason for airing the show in the first place if there was never any intention of giving it a chance to succeed?
Fox has a lot to answer for.
Terra Nova (2011)
Good premise, lousy execution.
The only thing consistent about this show is the regularity with which it insults the intelligence of it's viewers. The initial premise had possibilities, but those have never been realized. The characters are stock to the point of being caricatures, and plot absurdities and internal inconsistencies multiply from episode to episode. The story lines are so predictable that it is almost possible to lip-synch the dialogue along with the actors. There are dinosaurs out there, we are told - big, bad, hungry meat-eaters. But only when it is convenient to the present story line. In one episode, it is so dangerous that to be banished from the colony, even when armed, is a sure death sentence. In a later episode, the leader of the colony takes off into the "jungle" on his own for the majority of the show (which makes about as much sense as the entire command structure of the Enterprise beaming down to a hostile planet) and winds up offing a dino with a homemade bow and arrow. In that same episode, a DNA test crucial to identifying a spy in the colony is left percolating merrily along out in the open and completely unattended. This, of course, allows the spy to easily mess up the test. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I would suggest to everyone involved in the production of this show that they spend some time reviewing episodes of "Alien Nation" to observe how internal consistency in a series show should be done.
The best special effects (and they are pretty good) in the world can't rescue this turkey.
Mr. Spielberg should be ashamed of himself.
Grosse Pointe Blank (1997)
An interesting twist on the hit-man genre
John Cusack creates a very believable hit man in Martin Black, albeit a rather strange one. When he returns to his home town of Grosse Pointe, Michigan on a job, he discovers, coincidentally, that his high school reunion is taking place at the same time. It gets stranger from there, and much of the fun in the movie is the twists and turns of plot development. The dialogue is rapid-fire, witty and often hilarious. The supporting cast, featuring Alan Arkin, Dan Aykroyd, Minnie Driver and Hank Azaria, is delightful, and the action sequences are beautifully choreographed.
One thing that detracted from my enjoyment of the film shouldn't bother most viewers: I grew up in Grosse Pointe Park (there are actually 5 Grosse Pointes) and aside from the opening helicopter shot coming in from Lake St. Claire and over the Grosse Pointe Yacht Club and Lakeshore Drive, the film was shot someplace else. I have no idea where, but it wasn't Grosse Pointe. Other than that, it is a most enjoyable movie.