johnscook Reviews

The 24th Day (2004)

Better than expected

[8/10 · 25 May 2006]

I never knew this movie was originally a play, but I can see how it was moved from the stage to the screen. From a technical production standpoint, the movie is light on professional production. It was probably made with a hand-held camera, but that also kept the costs down. They haven't made a lot of money off this movie from what I can tell. The most annoying problem is the sound quality and editing. I had to hit the reverse button 2-3 times to listen to dialogue to understand some of the things they were saying.

Otherwise, this is a very good movie, much better than I expected. It's very thought provoking. Although a few of the scenes don't seem quite believable to me, they weren't at all preposterous. I never got the impression that Tom would actually kill Dan, but I wasn't quite sure. Up to the end, I wasn't sure what was going to happen so it kept the suspense up.

Death Wish (1974)

Why is this so good?

[3/10 · 27 December 2005]

I've seen this movie twice and I cannot figure out why so many people think it is such a good movie. They must be die-hard Charles Bronson fans who would love any Charles Bronson movie just because it has Charles Bronson in it.

I just don't believe that Bronson played the character of Paul Kersey very well, or he wasn't directed very well (or both). At the scene of his wife's burial he shows no emotion at all. He didn't serve in the military because he was a conscientious objector, and his wife was just brutally murdered in their own home. His daughter was also assaulted and left mentally incapacitated. Yet, he shows no emotion. He handles the whole scene like he is leaving work and telling his co-workers "see you tomorrow". I guess if you are looking for the ultimate Bronson-esquire mental detachment from reality, this is it. Unfortunately, he doesn't even play the scene like he is detached, like he is about to mentally go off the deep end.

He opposed his involvement in the military and he doesn't own a weapon and, presumably, never has. Yet, when he has the first opportunity to fire a weapon he nearly hits the bullseye. Right. It's not like he has natural ability, making a few mistakes and then we see him taking a few weeks to sharpen his skills - no, the first round out of the weapon is ready to kill. At least when this happens in a Schwarzenegger movie, we realize that the movie is poking a little fun at itself and we chuckle a little. There is nothing to chuckle at in this movie. Nothing is tongue-in-cheek in this movie.

During the 1970s the crime rate in New York City was high, but it still wasn't like anything portrayed in this movie. Death Wish would have you believing that in 1974 in NYC that there was a criminal around every corner and on every subway car waiting to pounce on a victim. They would have you believe that 8 out of every 10 citizens were getting mugged. Not only is this not a fact, it's beyond fiction. I realize that the premise of the movie requires crime, but the movie portrays the crime rate so high that you have to wonder why it takes somebody who doesn't own a gun to become a vigilante. If the crime rate were really that high, even for 1974, there would have been hundreds of Bernie Goetz's running around NYC. Paul Kersey wouldn't even have had the opportunity to be a crime victim, much less become a vigilante.

At least they did portray Paul Kersey's first act of vigilantism somewhat realistically. I would believe that Paul Kersey would go home and vomit after hitting a stranger, albeit a criminal, in the skull with 2 rolls of quarters and leaving him for dead. It's a stretch to think that he could be transformed into a vengeful killer without any other thing happening to him (other than being given a weapon to use). His wife was just murdered yet he goes from quarter-roll clubbings to deadly-accurate assaults with a firearm. No further mental transformation was required. Right.

He is also completely detached from his daughter's mental incapacity. There is only one scene where he shows any emotion over her predicament, and it occurs well after her assault and it is displaced. When he is trying to be upbeat to disguise his anger, and then he shows an outburst of anger, the anger and its disguise are just not believable. Death Wish wouldn't pass muster as an average made-for-TV movie. The supporting roles are either played over the top or without sufficient emotion to tell us what they are really thinking. Why don't we see more discussion from the city officials about how to handle the vigilante situation? Oh, right, that would take up valuable screen time for Bronson to randomly murder criminals that he entraps.

I'm really surprised by Roger Ebert's 3-star rating. He must be an avid Charles Bronson fan. This is a poorly made movie.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Special effects masterpiece, but lacks charm and pacing

[6/10 · 23 July 2005]

This updated version certainly provides exceptional special effects that were not possible when the original movie was made; I never thought that something wasn't possible. Although, I wondered how Augustus Gloop could be sucked into a machine with such force that his eardrums or eyeballs wouldn't explode, but that would be an awful scene for a 6-year-old to witness.

Johnny Depp usually provides a great interpretation of the characters he plays, and he certainly put forth a lot of effort to create Willy Wonka. However, Willy Wonka comes across not as eccentric, but just plain weird. In the original, Gene Wilder provided an element of eccentricity that would be appropriate for a business man who spends most of his day dreaming up new ways to entertain the senses rather than counting money. He had excitement and despair. Johnny Depp doesn't count money, but he seems to have created a character that plays like a weird assistant to Willy Wonka rather than Wonka himself. Other than the disappointments of his own childhood, he didn't seem to have a heart. There was no element of goodness sneaking a peak now and then. This is distracting to the movie because I never got a sense that I understood Wonka, nor did I want to. This persona is someone to avoid.

I've read that this new version interprets the darkness of the book (that I never read) more than the original movie did. There is nothing wrong with being dark, but there needs to be charm. Even dark villains can have charm, but there was no charm here. For example, Veruca's father bought thousands of candy bars to find the golden ticket before we ever saw Veruca demand that he get her a ticket. This reduces the effect of Veruca's spoiled behavior and makes her just seem whiny. This is one example of the moving putting the cart before the horse and screwing up the pacing.

Another disappointment is that the original movie gave us an immediate way to watch and measure the integrity of the children and their parents by finding out who was ready to give away an Everlasting Gobstopper. There is a similar test of integrity in the new movie, but the test is only on Charlie and only at the very end of the movie. Charlie does want to sell his ticket at the beginning of the movie in order to serve the greater good of his family, but his family members prove their integrity by telling him that it would be impossible for him to sell a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. However, we go through the rest of the movie without a test of integrity for all of the other children. Why? We are left to assume that they were all ugly and obnoxious and without any redeeming qualities. Augustus may be a glutton, but we weren't shown any other failings. In the original, we got some peeks at what Charlie and his grandpa thought about the other kids' obnoxious behaviors, but not so in this movie. It seems that obnoxious behavior is normal and results in mistakes rather than revealing them as life-long character flaws.

While some elements of this movie were presented in the same manner as the original, the lack of charm and pacing in this movie made me understand how the original movie provided an overall better effect (except for the FX). I just wasn't impressed with this movie. Every other movie that I have seen Tim Burton make is a good or great movie. And, every other character Johnny Depp has created has been dead-on and quite often original. This movie experience is so-so. I give it a 6 for special effects.

Road Rage (2000 TV Movie)

A good example of a bad movie

[1/10 · 23 March 2005]

While the plot of the movie is somewhat ridiculous, there is nothing in this movie to make me believe that any of it could ever happen in the way it is portrayed. The acting is bad, the dialog is bad, and the scenes are not believable. This movie is supposed to be a suspenseful thriller, but there is nothing suspenseful or thrilling about it. I don't sense that the two main characters are ever really in danger or that they seem scared. The characters show as much fear as a 14-year-old on a roller coaster at Six Flags. You can just listen to the movie without watching it and have not missed a single thing. Slow motion on action sequences is a giant red flag for poor film-making. The Dukes of Hazzard was a more entertaining work of art. At least they had T&A, which is something a film like this normally flaunts but is totally absent. No suspense, no thrills, not even cheap ones.

The Incredibles (2004)

Amazing! Or should I say Incredible?

[10/10 · 13 November 2004]

During my childhood I was never a fan of comic books or superheroes. After I read a few, they all seemed the same after that, whether it was storyline or superhero powers.

The Incredibles is a different movie than any superhero comic book story I ever read. The main character has super-human strength, as expected, but then you get Elastigirl and the two kids who don't have superhero names yet but have growing powers. They have found ways to use their superpowers in creative and unique situations unlike any comic book story I ever read.

The graphics are amazing in this movie, and they should be. I was surprised by the absolute creativity throughout the entire movie. Frozone could be the main character for his own movie.

Superman was a great movie back in 1978, but this beats it hands down. The Incredibles greatly ratchets up the standards for superhero movies.

Butch Cassidy (1973–1974)

Rip off

[24 April 2004]

I never saw this show when I was a kid. It was on Cartoon Network one day and my daughter (7 yrs old) wanted to watch it.

I immediately took it as a direct rip off of Scooby Doo - the characters, including a dog, visual style, cheap animation and barely a story to follow. The only real difference is that they sing as a band, and that's not a plus for this show.

After about a couple of minutes of watching the show, my daughter looked at me and said that she thinks this was Scooby Doo when they (the characters) were younger. Can't fool a 7-year-old either!

October Sky (1999)

Inspirational, and true to life ...

[10/10 · 10 February 2001]

After seeing this movie, I'm very surprised and disappointed on the negative comments already posted about this movie (albeit, only a few).

I grew up in a town not far from Coalwood, but I no longer live anywhere near there for many of the same reasons Homer had for getting out of Coalwood. Although my years near there occurred later than Homer Hickam's, I can see so many things in common with his experience in Coalwood and my own growing up.

When an earlier comment about his movie said that it was just another movie about adversity and overcoming odds, I don't think they quite understand the point. Homer Hickam grew up in a place that was far away from anything -- even the math book he needed for building the rockets had to be ordered because although it wasn't stated, I assume that at that time there was no library around that carried such a book. Just think about that for a moment. It's very difficult for young people in that area to see anything more in their lives than what they see outside their windows. I'm sure the same could be said for some urban kids who live in depressed areas. But, I would be less impressed with this story if Homer Hickam grew up in suburban New Jersey or urban Chicago, for example, where so much of the world is just a few minutes away and finding people to help you is so easy. Remember, Homer had to walk 8 miles just to leave coal company property, and the men at the coal company who supported him did so even though they risked losing their jobs (and there were no other jobs to be had).

Luckily, Homer had a teacher who recognized a student with a dream and potential. Homer was a student in the middle of the pack (academically and socially) who dared to defy the odds. Even Quentin, the brain, needed Homer. In fact, one of the things that clearly separates this movie from so many other stories of achievement is that it was done academically.

While sports achievements are great, why do so many movie makers shy away from other achievements? Many people in Coalwood didn't care too much for academic achievements, but tackle somebody on the football field and you are off to college. Too many people glamorize sports, and as time marches on we have more and more examples of exactly how unglamorous (and felonious) some sports figures are. It's impossible to compare a touchdown with a rocket going to the moon (at least aimed at it). Homer didn't make a touchdown, but if he had it would just mean a trip to Disneyworld. Instead, Homer built rockets and there is no end to where he can go except in his dreams. Truly, an inspirational movie!

The Black Hole (1979)

Disney rarely has bad moments, but this is an example of one.

[23 July 2000]

I'm watching this movie right now only because it is holding my daughter's attention (she's only 3). She's also half asleep.

I think they forgot to ask Kurt Russell to star in the movie. This movie should have been a thriller; however, it is like a stale action movie. The plot did not need a crazed person as the center of the plot. The robots look like they were a creation of The Absent Minded Professor ... the special effects people invested heavly in cardboard. The laser fx are good, but I can't understand why since everything else is so bad - they must have reached a creativity burnout after the laser fx.

Ernest Borgnine does not belong in this movie. He has played too many characters of every day life. Anthony Perkins was at least a psychotic killer, and Yvette Mimieux was from the future.

Suddenly Susan (1996–2000)

This is a good show, folks. Give it a break!

[18 July 2000]

Even though this show was not original, it was light entertainment on a Monday night. Given all of the other garbage available on TV, I don't know why so many people have slammed this show.

I think there are people who just hate Brooke Shields and, as a result, will hate anything that she is in. The actors were talented, funny people who made their characters come alive. I've never been a Brooke Shields fan, but I think this show actually worked for her. She didn't have to be the center comic, but rather a constant victim of comedy.

I do think that the absence of David Strickland and Judd Nelson caused the show to die. I stopped watching at that point because I liked that group of actors/characters. That's the problem with formula sitcom; it cannot stand up on its own because the actors and characters carry the show. Even the actors were limited because of its formula foundation. Three's Company was the same setup, but even less to enjoy. It's amazing how long Three's Company lasted. Consider that Law & Order is story driven, not character driven, and therefore Law & Order can go on in spite of actors leaving the series. The characters in Law & Order simply set the stage for the story rather than the story setting the stage for the characters. Good Morning Vietnam is a reasonable balance between story and characters.

A Bug's Life (1998)

An Excellent Movie for Anyone

[10/10 · 2 May 2000]

This is an excellent movie. The plot, story and animation are great, and it is an excellent piece of entertainment for anyone at any age. It includes a lot of comedy, a lot of drama and a lot of action scenes. Anyone disappointed by this film should consult a psychiatrist.

Executive Power (1997 Video)

Why did they make this film?

[3/10 · 4 February 2000]

While I watched this movie, I tried to figure out why they bothered making it. Though the main plot of the movie is potentially good, there are all sorts of unrelated/unnecessary subplots. The marketing people in Hollywood must have dictated the multiple bad guys, perpetual double-crosses and the man and woman who get too close and have sex. It's odd that we see more of them having sex than we did of the President and his mistress. The many plots and subplots make the film too broad and none of the characters are properly developed - I really didn't feel like I knew any character, except that everyone is corrupt and evil. The ending is totally incomplete - it left me more than just wanting what might have been, but what was supposed to be. In the end, there is really no explanation of why anyone does what they do, except to serve as additional corrupt characters who commit a double-cross. I'm surprised that so many established (and good) actors agreed to make such a hollow movie. This seemed like a movie made by college students who are working on their 2nd or 3rd project.

Don't waste your time unless you are in a film class and want an example of what not to do when making a movie.