Reviews

11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Three Kings (1999)
1/10
The Ugly American
28 May 2012
I quit this movie after maybe a half hour. American adventurers disgrace their flag, allow a woman to be brutally murdered in front of her daughter because stealing gold is more important to them, and I am supposed to accept that whatever comes after might be some sort of redemption? Sorry but I am already gone.

If someone wanted to encourage Islamic people to hate Americans they scarcely could have done a better job so excuse my French but who the god-damned hell is responsible for this double (fiction and fact) treason?

The movie is gratuitously disgusting right from the start and goes out of the way to be visually gory in offensive ways.

Ethnic slurs are also prevalent and disrespect is rampant.

Others might be able to, but I cannot see past these grievous faults.
18 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Texas (1994 TV Movie)
7/10
As Good As You Are Going To Get On This Subject
15 May 2012
For historical fiction with accurate underpinnings this strikes me as a pretty good effort. Not perfect but considering the loaded nature of the subject it is the most even-handed treatment I have ever seen.

So far as being an entertaining film, it is a bit slow to get going. For historical accuracy and attention to detail it rates higher than others. For one, Jim Bowie actually has a genuine Bowie knife. The Alamo has the correct front. Rarely has anyone else portrayed these two simple details properly.

Performances are tour-de-force and in general this is a well made and acted film.

I should live to see the day when Hollywood can make a film about Texas and/or The Alamo and not ignore what many historians point to as the central issue, that being slavery. In 1836 one out of eight persons in Texas were slaves. We don't see even one in this movie. The subject is not mentioned or alluded to once.

Overall this film has many more strengths than weaknesses and clearly took great steps towards accuracy and fairness.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lonesome Dove (1989)
2/10
Totally Boring Waste Of Time
11 May 2012
I have tried on no less than three occasions to watch this supposed classic and I have never been able to make it to the cattle drive.

My question is which of the characters are we supposed to like and why? When you look close they are all a bunch of jerks. They treat women and minorities like dirt, they think nothing of invading a foreign country to commit capital crimes, they kill innocent bystanders and dismiss it out of hand.

This is what our country is built on? The sad part is that too many people have these attitudes to this day. Lonesome Dove is not a testament to a great American past, it is a look at everything that is and was wrong.
10 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
K2 (1991)
1/10
Improbable Tripe
11 May 2012
Plainly an insult to anyone who knows the least about mountaineering and mountain climbing, there are any number of mountains in the world where this story might have taken place but K2 is not one of them. People like Pete Athens and Conrad Anker do not shoot themselves with methamphetamines to complete a climb and the premise that a previous climber died because someone stole their drugs is pathetic.

This movie is a series of bad scenes compiled of bad stock characters played by bad actors. Look at the credits list for this film and you will note that there are no photos for most of the actors even the stars. That is because they have no talent and they never made any good movies so that anyone would load their photos anywhere.

Bad story badly made and an insult to the genuine sport.
1 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Setting Progress Back Four Hundred Years
25 April 2012
This piece of fiction is little more than an neo-Renaissance anti-Catholic vitriolic morality play diatribe thinly disguised as literature.

Although told from the viewpoint of innocent Jeremy Irons as Charles Ryder, the plot revolves around Claire Bloom as Lady Marchmain and how her disingenuous religion destroys her family and friends. Lady Marchmain was forced to marry to achieve her position and has never forgiven her God for forcing her into this carnal action to achieve what she saw as her due.

In return Lady Marchmain is punished first in the vulgar world when her husband deserts her, and then she is further punished by Providence which destroys her son and their relationship through his alcoholism.

Always taking center stage is a great personal vanity which suggests that the faith which they swear by is merely another affectation, another lordly possession found somewhere after the fox hunt and before the lobster thermidor. No mercy is granted towards those who follow the Pope; even the kindest member of the family balks at the notion that a priest might better serve God by ministering to a larger number of people rather than the four or five family members who insist on maintaining a personal chapel for their convenience.

The author and film-makers go out of their way to note that the servants of the family are Protestant, not Catholic, thus making more apparent the vanity of the personal chapel. We don't learn anything else about any servants. This is not about rich vs. poor, this is not about liberal vs. conservative, this is not about Manchester United vs. Chelsea, this is about Catholic vs. Protestant.

Lady and Lord Marchmain both spend their final days in mental torment passing to their graves unredeemed by those who should have been their loved ones. The *cough* sinister hand of Popery also reaches out to deal rude slaps to family best friend Rex and eldest daughter Julia. No Protestants are punished by heaven, and former Protestant Rex is punished only after he turns Catholic to marry into the family.

If instead of making a complex parable the curse was out in the open and instead of turning into a sot the Anthony Andrews character Sebastian Flyte turned into a vampire or werewolf, this would have been a lot more engaging. As it is, what we really have here is the closest thing to Elizabethan era anti-Catholic propaganda as you would be able so sneak into a good library or on public TV.

As a work on film, it fails to make me care about any of the characters. In fact, after finishing episode three I was hoping the Sebastian character would maybe kill himself and quit wasting any more time. When you look over the entire cast, there is no more than one good human being among them, that being Lady Marchmain's youngest daughter.

Even Charles, who is put forth as an innocent caught up in it all, is as much to blame for much of the misfortune as anyone else and demonstrates no less a failure of responsibility.

Although this story is not about class, it does not do much to flatter nobility. But that is a function of fact, and behavior is portrayed realistically. If we want to look for a proverb here, we can say the film represents that those who shout at God the loudest, are heard by him the least.

As a final insult to the gentry depicted here, none of them are ever shown to have any productive activities. They are highly wealthy aristocrats with large estates and many top notch servants, they run about the continent as they please. But not once does anyone have to run off to tend some family business or anything. There is just endless money for everything. Maybe the money is part of the religion thing. Their choice rewards them in the profane world with riches, but penalizes them in the divine world with damnation.

Whatever their economic or social standing, most families will face some crisis at some time, and often more than one. It is not likely that every different crisis would have the same root cause. Religion could cause an issue, a family member marrying out of faith could cause problems for example. But problems also are caused by gambling, infidelity, politics and other catalysts. Here every problem is caused in some way, direct or indirect, by religion.

The only thing you could add to this would be a Mother Courage type old woman in rags screaming "Bloody Papists! Bloody Papists!" Remember this principle: Never mistake effort for accomplishment.

It's a street whore in a prom dress. It is a bottle of Château Lafite de Rothschild 1879 that has turned. It has John Gielgud and Laurence Olivier but before you harrumph too much might I say, "Inchon"?

My final judgment? The opening segment showing troops in WWII is a portent. The British lost many lives fighting against the religious intolerance of the Nazis, but the author to begin with and those who made the film later seem not to have learned anything from it.
6 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ruby (1992)
2/10
Nothing For Nothing
3 April 2012
Whatever his role may or may not have been in the Kennedy assassination, Jack Ruby was not a good or nice man. Trying to make anything positive out of him is imbecilic to start with and the premises for this picture don't improve any on that. Danny Aiello playing Ruby as a kind person is out of touch.

There were in 1963 more than 200 million Americans so tell me what the odds are that three people who know each other closely and work together could all independently have some role in the assassination? Jack Ruby's bartender just happens to be the gunman who fires the fatal shot from the book depository window? Come on now.

Anything of intelligence is hard to find in this story and there is as much evidence to support the theory that Rootie Kazootie was the gunman as there is evidence or believability for the first concept here.

So far as film-making goes we can only grade C+. Never really makes you much take notice and when they get to what should be the climax they just rush through it with even less thought or effort.

At worst this epistle is an insult to history. The liner notes on the inexpensive VHS I found state "forces us to reconsider the 'truth' of Kennedy's death." Well, horsepoop to that, but I will reconsider wasting time on any film by John MacKenzie. If the same mysterious shadowy people held a gun to his head and forced him to film a bad script, well then let him come forward before someone has to make another bad movie so we can find that out too.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I Saw A Different Movie Than Anybody else
22 March 2012
This is a story about ugly America and ugly Americans whose incessant greed and self-interest have caused their karma to destroy them and their families. At the center is a heartless and two-faced career NY police officer who makes his living busting everyday people for average offenses while at the same time writing off the murders committed by his own father and son as "mistakes".

What we see is ecological karma at work as Mother Earth Gaia or perhaps even Jehovah punishes those who squander precious resources. The central family is typical of New Yorkers with heavy expenses and of the mentality that to have everything is the minimum expected. In one way or another this destroys three successive generations.

The director is attempting to portray victimization as something that passes on down, but the plain fact is that each of these generations created their own issues.

What I see as different from most, is to look at how much money and time society is forced to spend on these people. All the money made by the husband and wasted by the wife and child to begin with, add to it the expenses for a number of murder investigations, destruction of property, so on and so forth. What makes this dysfunctional family, this tiny group of selfish people, worth any of it? The resources and money that this family has used up would be enough to feed every person in some small countries for years. Better than 95% of the world does not live in a house like this family did, and does not drive cars like they do or eat or dress like they do.

Yet we are supposed to find something rewarding about all this. I think not.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beautiful Joe (2000)
4/10
First Impressions Last
10 March 2012
This could be the right movie for the right people at the right time but I have a big big problem with the title. "Beautiful Joe" is a famous child's story about a dog and to use that for the title of this movie epitomizes the worst of present day Hollywood which is that they have no respect for the audience. The lead role could have been a Jerry or a Walt or anybody else and the title would have worked even better for this movie. But since we know the two groups of people in this country most cut off from reality are always those in Washington and those in Hollywood, we get "Beautiful Joe".

This movie would be just the thing for a middle aged or older couple on a date or romantic evening at home. I bought the VHS tape at a yardsale for a quarter; it is represented as a dark comedy perhaps similar to Get Shorty or A Fish Called Wanda. That is only in their dreams as it really is not funny beyond the most basic of stock gags. In fact from what I watched, about a third of the entire movie, it is really nothing but tired stock bits strung together. E.g. mugger attacks couple but woman kicks his butt, man goes home with sexy woman but ends up buying food for kids instead. Safe proved techniques, all very boring to me.

Sharon Stone's character is your slightly aging, could stand to lose just a few pounds but still hot Miami or Catskills resort gold-digger type. She doesn't do badly but she doesn't do enough. If this is to be a sexy funny movie, she could have been a bit sexier and a bit funnier. In general the film works harder not to be sexy, than to be sexy; and not to be funny, than to be funny.

As a date movie or a chick flick for the right people, this movie could do just fine. I don't expect that single men or any younger viewers would find much in it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
OK But Little To Do With Title
20 February 2012
Mission Impossible (TV) was where a selected team worked as a team. Instead smarmy star superspy with high-tech gadgets and little support but opportunistic aide from sexy babe fights arch-rival to save the world. More like an unused James Bond script.

It is all too cute and loses touch with whatever reality you can assign to such films. I don't believe the storage unit for the super-virus would be open to the air where a bird could poop on it. I don't believe a woman who has slept with both protagonists can't tell who is who even if they are wearing a mask. The mask bit was way too overdone.

When the market is for fx and car crashes and explosions, this is what you get. A film that is by production standards well-made, not without action, but glossing over flaws so you get stuck with them.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
On the Beach (2000 TV Movie)
1/10
There Is Some Point Here?
29 January 2012
Blame the author of the book I guess but I don't see any point whatsoever to this film. The human race dies in a nuclear war, most presumably in horrid flames, but we see it from the viewpoint of neat and tidy deaths of affluent suburbanites. Three hours to tell you what I could say in a few seconds, if there is a big nuclear war we would all suffer and die. The makers of this film chose to illustrate this point with a slow and tedious bomb of their own. The final moment is the greatest insult of all. The author envisioned the triumph of love over all else, but I see instead the refusal of the protagonist to acknowledge humanity from any motivation short of its' destruction.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dirty Duck (1974)
1/10
Worst Film I Ever Saw
19 November 2011
I am a major Zappa fan and I think the later Flo & Eddie albums were excellent, but this movie is wretched. No time, effort or money were put into the production. Absent of plot, horrible line drawing animation, crappy soundtrack. Very bad movies can be fun if they are campy enough, but this one offers nothing. Stupid from start to finish and incredibly BORING to one and all. I saw this film at a late show on it's first and only run, it was billed as "Cheap" in fact. "Cheap" was not the "working title" it was THE title of the movie in the credits and as advertised on the radio spot that brought it to my attention. The "Duck" re-title was a shameless re-package of a total loser. There is a reason this film was never shown again and never released on videotape IT IS THAT BAD so forget any fanciful comparisons made to anything worthwhile, it is a complete waste of time to watch.
0 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed