Change Your Image
elefino-912-408457
Reviews
Jurassic World Dominion (2022)
Embarassing
What a load of dinosaur manure!
What really puzzles me, though, is how it gets a 5.6 rating (as I write). We all know that's not good. But it's still way higher than it should be. Take a look at all the 1, 2, and 3 star reviews and tell me how this dog-osaur rating anything over about 2-and-a-half?
You've already heard from other reviewers, I'm sure. Too long. Too many subplots. And those subplots somehow miraculously coalescing into one climax. Too many coincidences. Too many inconsistencies. Yada, yada, yada.
Still, the biggest offense of all is the sappy kumbaya ending. Every "good guy" makes it out alive, despite a whole lot of close calls, multiple "no escape" situations, and a bunch of geriatrics who no way, no how, could've made it. And only Dodgeson and Biosyn were the problem (in case you missed my tone, read that sarcastically)... NOT VICIOUS DINOSAURS RUNNING AMOK!
C'mon, don't give me that "we have to coexist" garbage. Every sane person on the planet (not that there are a lot of us left, seemingly) would absolutely and unequivocally be DEMANDING the eradication of every dinosaur on the planet.
Thankfully, it's not real. And what we demand is an end, once and for all, of the Jurassic movie franchise. It's a dinosaur!
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
I hated every single moment of this boring mess
That's right. I hated every single moment of this mess. I watched it for my wife's sake. And because when she put it one I realized I'd never actually seen it from beginning to end, only bits and pieces.
Well, let me tell you, bits and pieces should have been enough for me to just say "no thank you". And you should too! That is, unless of course it's a class assignment. But even if you're an actor cast in a stage production of "Streetcar Named Desire" you'd be better off creating your own interpretation than trying to mimic the horrible overacting displayed here by three of the four primary characters.
Sorry folks, but Vivien Leigh should have just relaxed and been more herself, which was enough of a nut-job already. Typically, Marlon Brando's "method acting" only served to create a one-dimensional character, though Tennessee Williams wrote Stanley Kowalski as more of a man torn between his baser instincts and his own "desire" to protect both is wife and his best friend, not simply the lout we see in this production.
Supporting actors were a split decision. Karl Malden showed a little more depth, but still way overplayed his hand. Only Kim Hunter, as the ubiquitous "Stella" from Brando's signature line(s), showed the restraint her role demanded. It's only for her that I added a second star to the default minimum of one.
I've read that director Elia Kazan was none too pleased about being saddled with Vivien Leigh and had to be talked into trying to fit her overly schizoid approach into his vision of "Streetcar". I sincerely hope this end product wasn't really what he'd hoped for.
And, God help me for saying it, but as great a playwright as Tennessee Williams was, if this version of "Streetcar Named Desire" was even close to what he intended he should have burned the manuscript before it ever allowing it to be published, much less put on film for untold generations to be subjected to forever and ever.
All in all, I cannot fathom how this boring slow-burn of disjointed madness ever came to be revered as one of the great plays of all time.
Primrose Path (1940)
Reviewing the review you really should read
I'm really writing in response to another review entitled "How did this one get past the production code?" by AlsExGal. What an excellent review! Mind you, it also is one that contains spoilers and is marked as such. So, if you're like me you'll likely want to read it after watching the movie. Same for my own review here.
At any rate AlsExGal gives you an in-depth look at the characters' motivations, and some of the plot devices employed. And it's a great summation of the movie, unlike so many reviews that read like a 5th grade book report and amount to little more than a play-by-play synopsis.
Most of all, though, I want to address one particular point made by AlsExGal. And that is, her assessment of the mom's sugar-daddy as an "unlikely hero... who reconciles the young couple". Her point drove home the importance of this character and made me think on the scene where he helps bring Ellie and Ed back together. It is at this point that he is revealed to be the same Mr. Hawking that had apparently been supporting Ellie's family, through her mother, and arguably was also the root cause of her father's long-term alcoholism. And that raised a question for me that I hadn't thought of before.
Could it be that Mr. Hawking was, in fact, Ellie's real father, or at least he thought that might be a possibility? We're not told how long he's been in the mother's life. And he kindly and willingly gives up Ellie after an off-screen talk with Ed. Perhaps it was only then that Mr. Hawking realized who his red hot date really was? Obviously we'll never know. But if that was an intended inference, however thickly veiled, then it adds yet another layer to the story... and to AlsExGal's astute observation, "How did this one get past the production code?"
Fury (1936)
Compelling, but...
Yes, Fury is compelling - a good and innocent man railroaded into a position he could not extricate himself from until a lynch mob burned down the jail he was being held in.
Though he, Joe (Spencer Tracy), secretly survives, it's no wonder that he wants to see those responsible held accountable and tried for murder. The town remains mum, but the testimony of his fiance, Katherine (Silvia Sidney), who is still unaware he's alive, along with Joe's own last-minute ploy to bring the mob to justice, seems sure to be their end.
Yet Katherine's conscience and confrontation with Joe, as she learns he survived, prompts Joe to make an appearance in court and save the townspeople on trial as guilty verdicts are being read. Very dramatic!
And I say "Katherine's conscience" because Joe himself states that he would choose no mercy on the perpetrators were it not for its affect on his prospect of a life with Katherine.
So the mob is saved by the very man they tried to lynch. And apparently everyone lives happily-ever-after.
But the film leaves out one important fact. That is that attempted lynching is a felony. Therefore, those who were to be convicted of murder/lynching should or would still have faced punishment, though perhaps not as severe.
I do also want to make note of one feature of Fury that I find hilarious, however macabre. And that is, the script and director Fritz Lang bar-no-holds in blaming the gossipy women of the town being at root-fault for inciting the mob. Brings a whole new angle to The Music Man song "Pick-a-Little, Talk-a-Little", doesn't it? LOL.
The Set-Up (1949)
Just one punch away
I love seeing Audrey Totter in a leading role - not that she doesn't spice up any flick even in smaller supporting roles. And so much the better it being a sympathetic character. She's always amazing as the "bad girl", but just as good in a part like this, though she still exudes a bit of a hard-nosed persona. Likewise, George Tobias handles his part with ease, as do Alan Baxter and Percy Helton.
On the other hand, Robert Ryan is a hack. But that's not unexpected; Ryan was always, has always been, a hack. If acting chops were punches, he'd still be "just one punch away". A perennial palooka. And with him as the focus, well, that whole "suspension of disbelief" thing, otherwise well crafted by director Robert Wise and supporting cast, goes right out the window. At least it's short, if not particularly sweet.
The story itself is okay, though no surprise, Ryan rather ruins my interest in the whole thing. I mean the IMDb intro "expecting the usual loss, a boxing manager takes bribes from a betting gangster without telling his fighter" sums up the rather simplistic plot perfectly, and it goes exactly what you expect. But the cinematography is excellent.
Maybe the most interesting aspect of The Set-Up is a peek into something that exists today only rarely, if at all, the seedy world of small-time boxing at a time when it still drew avid spectators and fairly general interest.
Naked Alibi (1954)
Just awful
Such a shame two such greats of noir as Sterling Hayden and Gloria Grahame allowed themselves to be associated with Naked Alibi. But even they couldn't salvage such ill-conceived garbage. I'm quite a fan of both, but they deserved better. On the other hand, Gene Barry was a hack and this stinker is right up his alley.
The plot is weak with too many absurd contrivances employed to move it along. And worse yet, the dialog comes across as if it were written by a dullard of a high-schooler making a lazy attempt at meeting a creative writing class assignment deadline they left until the night before it was due to throw down on paper.
I would say you shouldn't bother, but if you must it's probably best to leave it on mute and just enjoy watching Gloria Grahame going through the motions and Sterling Hayden displaying his usual intensity, even if the script doesn't do either one of them justice.
Road to Paradise (1930)
Disappointing, except...
Ten stars for a double dose of Loretta Young, one of the most beautiful women to ever grace the silver screen. Now deduct one star each for the awful script, dialog, acting, directing, cinematography, sound, and plot.
It seems as though Hollywood thought audiences would be so enamored with the new addition of sound in these early talkies that they wouldn't notice the exclusion of all else a movie needs to hold their attention.
No action, combined with a feeble plot and too many implausible coincidences and plot holes simply adds up to a complete boor. Except - and this is a massive exception - except when the screen is filled with images of the lovely Miss Young, albeit at a still tender age and not quite yet adjusted to the pacing of the new form nor yet yet displaying the artistry she would develop just a few years later. Still, she is the ONLY reason to watch this stinker. And that is reason enough to give it a peek even though you've been warned not to expect much else.
Two on a Guillotine (1965)
Fun, but flawed
Connie Stevens plays the daughter of a magician required to spend seven nights in his creepy old mansion in order to inherit his fortune after his passing. And Dean Jones is a reporter who falls for the ever adorable Miss Stevens while trying to get the scoop on the story.
Dean Jones and Connie Stevens are great together. The chemistry is undeniable. And there are lots of silly scream scenes and not-so-scary scary bits. And the twist is entirely predictable.
Cesar Romero's performance is creditable enough as the "ghost", a magician driven to madness by the inadvertent death of his beloved wife in his guillotine magic trick. Predictably he's not actually dead. But a twist reveals that in his addled state he believes Stevens to be her mother, brought back to life (or rather never actually killed). But therein lies the problem.
And it's a huge problem, a glaring plot hole that essentially makes the entire plot one massive plot hole. And that is, if Romero's character actually believes Stevens is her mother, why then does his will require his daughter to spend time in the mansion in order for him to draw her back in as his wife?
It's still a fun romp of a pseudo-horror flick Not quite a farce or a send-up. But not overly serious either. Light enough that it clearly was not intended to take its place in the genre seriously.
The Devil's Disciple (1959)
Ugh!
A silly and flippant look at the American Revolution as viewed through the eyes of writers who quite obviously understood little of the prevailing issues at the heart of it.
Yet, that's not the worst of it. That would be three of the actors playing main characters, Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, and Janette Scott, who are bad enough individually, but together would ruin even a well crafted script, which this is not.
As always, Burt Lancaster is a one trick pony - passably good at what he does, but nonetheless incapable of creating anything resembling the proverbial "suspension of disbelief" necessary to make the actor into the character rather than the character into the actor. Still, he's not the movie's poison.
That would be Kirk Douglas. He likewise has only one gear. The difference is, his "acting" is colossally bad - irritating and cringe inducing. Whereas Lancaster is at least entertaining.
And then there's Janette Scott. What can be said of her except that she is just awful? Her performance here leaves little doubt that the Peter Principle applies to actors too.
Only Laurence Olivier and a few of the more notable supporting actors, such as Harry Anderson and George Rose, provide proof of any actual skill at the craft. Not enough to save this poor excuse for a movie, but just enough to earn it one star apiece... but only if you also count interesting sets and costuming worth slogging through the awfulness of Kirk Douglas and Janette Scott to the final, merciful end.
Absolutely Anything (2015)
Fairly Lighthearted Fun
If you're reading the reviews I'm sure you've already got a good idea of the plot. Way too many reviews that read like a book report (which I find silly anyway). So no need for me to rehash it again.
What I will say is that Absolutely Anything is a fun little movie that doesn't take itself too seriously and shows remarkable restraint, sticking to delivering "all audiences" entertainment by avoiding taking sides or devolving into the political lecture that it could easily have been in the hands of Hollywood these days.
In typical fashion, Simon Pegg is... well... Simon Pegg. And Kate Beckinsale proves she can be equally fetching as "the girl next door" (actually the girl in the flat downstairs).
All in all, a fun little romp.
The Menu (2022)
A romp!
"Ten Little Indians" for the modern age, with a nod to "The Most Dangerous Game" tucked in briefly for good measure. Maybe a bit of "Psycho" too.
The send-up of foodie culture "The Menu" provided was hilarious. Not in a schmaltzy one-liner kind of way, but somewhat more subtly with dead-pan delivery mocking the pretentiousness that sometimes accompanies "fine dining" in this day and age. I'll admit, this was expected, though delightful nonetheless.
I had a suspicion the movie would also lean dark, but the progression into madness was still a well-crafted surprise, thanks especially to Ralph Fiennes' fine performance as Chef. We've always suspected that gourmet chefs and their minions despised their clientele. With "The Menu" we now we have ample confirmation of just how deep that hatred can run and to what ends it might lead, if only in the imagination of service professionals.
Likewise, Anya Taylor-Joy's turn as Margot, eventually revealed as the "hooker with a heart of gold" (with a bod and a mind to match, I might add) simply stole the show. I couldn't take my eyes off of her whenever she was on the screen. While "The Menu" isn't exactly a psychological thriller, ATJ's satisfying coup de grâce injected a bit of that.
The rest of the cast held their own admirably, though I could have wished for some deeper dive into the backstories that brought them to be held in such "regard" by the Chef and, as I wrote at the beginning, reminded me of "Ten Little Indians", "And Then There Were None", and other such films and stories of that ilk.
All in all, though, a very worthwhile way to spend a couple of hours.
Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)
A classic for all the wrong reasons
Let's be serious, while "Creature From the Black Lagoon" is a classic creature feature, the script and the acting are both simply atrocious. Unforgivably bad. And it's a shame, because the concept was a good one.
The good? Well, the creature costume itself is well executed for the time. And, as a SCUBA diver who grew up on Sea Hunt, Flipper, and of course, The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau, I love seeing the equipment of the era in use.
But that's not enough to make "Creature From the Black Lagoon" stand up beside the great monster films like Frankenstein, Dracula, The Mummy, and Phantom of the Opera.
Two Loves (1961)
Just awful
Why do people feel the need to post a plot synopsis as their review? I don't get it. I don't need anyone to walk me through the trajectory of the film. I just want to know if it's worth seeing. And this one is most assuredly not!
The story line is tepid, at best. Cinematography acceptable, though nothing special. But it's the acting that really kills this one. In particular, Laurence Harvey is a hack.
MacLaine and Hawkins are fine; or they would be on their own. But Harvey's performance is so bad it absolutely drowns any chance of taking the other actors seriously. He is the skunk that invaded your neighbor's backyard barbecue. It would be okay that they're only serving hamburgers instead of steak - can't have everything every time. Even so, it's still impossible to enjoy a single bite with such a stench in the air!
The Skeleton Key (2005)
Old school scary movie that requires engaging your brain
If you like old-school creepy movies in the Hitchcock vein, you will like The Skeleton Key. I suspect a lot of naysayers prefer shallow slasher horror, which this is decidedly not. Regardless, it certainly deserves better ratings.
I just watched it again for the second time, after first seeing it about 10 years ago. I had forgotten the twist (yes, of course, there's a twist). I only remembered that I found the ending surprising and satisfying the first time. Well, sure enough, same response the second time!
As I wrote in the title of this review, it requires engaging you brain. Even after the movie ends you need to retrace your steps. Gotta' love a movie that makes you think about what happened, not merely what is happening as you see it, to realize the entirety of the plot. I don't want include spoilers. Just remember to think back in time to the beginnings of the revealed story (not the beginning of the movie). It's easy to miss one of the greater tragedies depicted because it is not spelled out, merely implied by the big reveal at the end.
Inventing Anna (2022)
Julia Garner is remarkable!
You need no other reason to watch Inventing Anna than to see Julia Garner transform into Anna Delvey. Her performance is the epitome of an actor's ability to provoke the viewer's proverbial "suspension of disbelief".
The story is interesting, even if it drags in parts (-1 star) and.fills space stretching some non-relevant scenes (-another), or at times portrays Anna as a victim in the whole affair, which she is most definitely not .
But Garner's turn as Anna is even more captivating (if that is possible) than her Ruth Langmore in Ozark. Perhaps because she is the focus as Anna, but mostly becasue her ability to become the character fills the screen. Julia is THE reason Inventing Anna is so binge-worthy, rather than simply a glimpse into the life and times of a fame & fortune obsessed sociopath (the real Anna) it might have been without Garner in the lead.
Cruella (2021)
Tough crowd!
Ignore the self-absorbed reviews pretending to either be too deep or too shallow to appreciate Cruella. Just see it. It's fun. It's entertaining. It's great!
Sure, it riffs on The Devil Wears Prada. No surprise that, since Prada was riffing on the original 101 Dalmatians' Cruella in the first place. And, yes, there's a certain fairness to comparisons to Harley Quinn. But like the twisted Miss Quinn, crazy can be fun if you just give in to it.
And yes, from a certain perspective it's a bit cartoonish. But hey, that shouldn't be surprising either. Cruella DeVil was born of ink and paint. But, like Pennyworth, it does an admirable job of straddling a fine line between it's roots and the obvious goal of origin stories to take a 2-dimensional character into the almost-real world of conflicted emotions and motivations.
At any rate, it's really well crafted. The story line is great. The script excellent. The casting couldn't be more perfect. The performances superb, across the board. The soundtrack is fantastic. And, yes, even the fashions wholly believable, to both this fashion illiterate and the more design-critical eye of my wife.
For entertainment value alone, it's a sold 10 worth getting lost in for a couple of hours of pure fun.
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
Utter garbage
OMG this is bad. It's impossible to "suspend disbelief" with this stinker. You watch, horrified not by the monsters, but by the gall of some screenwriter who penned the ridiculous dialog. The entire cast absurdly overacts, even the CGI monsters. Can't believe this garbage is rated as high as it is.
Salomé (1922)
Frighteningly bad!
Awful rubbish. Made by, and for, the same sort of self-absorbed elitists who today consider it art to hang a toilet seat in a gallery and call it brilliant conceptualization.
Some of the more critical reviews have called it posing and "tableau". But it can't even live up to that sad commentary. It's merely posturing... and poorly executed posturing, at that!
The only satisfying aspect of this, what may well be the worst garbage ever preserved on film (pronounce that GAR-BAZZZH), is that it ruined Nizimova financially and she never recovered. Well deserved recompense for the punishment those of us who've watched this horrendous thing were subjected to.
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)
Impossibly bad!
Some movies are so bad they're entertaining. This one is so much worse it can't even rise to that unlofty goal.
The plot is laughable and the "action" is pointless and predictable. Angelina Jolie, had yet to actually learn how to act. But, alas, in typical Hollywood fashion, that was never a prerequisite for casting her in this role (and sorry to spoil it for you pre-adolescents drooling over her, but skanky is not the same thing as "hot").
The only thing worse than the "acting" is the CGI. The whole thing forced and lifeless. Nothing but a money-grab.
Divergent (2014)
Enjoyable
If you liked Hunger Games you should enjoy Divergent. Very similar feel and I thought Divergent was quite a compelling story.
A lot of reviewers pan it, but I think there's a lot of the typical IMDb bandwagon-jumping going on. Some fans of the book hated the movie, so it must be cool to hate it. I guess I'm not cool - I liked it! Most movies require that proverbial "suspension of disbelief" and Divergent is no exception.
Acting (main characters): Excellent / Supporting cast: Good to average / Concept: Excellent / Screenplay (dialog): Could have been better / Scene Direction: Excellent / Cinematography: Good / Editing: Meh!
Do a few flat spots or supposed plot-flaws ruin it? I didn't think so. Some others did. No need to over-think it, though. There's still a lot to like here.
My advice: see it and decide for yourself.