D Airey Reviews

Alien Siege (2005 TV Movie)

Another truly terrible movie from Sci-Fi

[2/10 · 27 February 2005]

I've learned my lesson. I was going to skip this movie until I checked it out on IMDb. Wow, three people gave it a pretty good review. Maybe it's worth a chance. After watching the movie, it now appears these people had some vested interest in posting other than a fair review of the movie. Take, for instance, Jon H Ochiai. After I saw this terrible movie, I wondered who in the world would recommend an obvious stinker like this. So I took a look at some of Mr. Ochiai's other reviews. This guy appears to be someone with classical training as a movie reviewer, except there are no bad recommendations in his voluminous collection of reviews. I'm guessing there must be some cottage industry for people that can't land a steady gig for a real media outlet, so they pump these movies while they wait for an honest job.

Lesson one: Sci-Fi makes terrible movies. I'll not watch another premier.

Lesson two: There are people that pump these movies just like they have people pumping stocks on Yahoo. Though I still have trouble envisioning the economic model (are they really paid, or like the bad guys in these movies, are they just pure evil).

Lesson three: There are no low budget movies with four writers that are worth watching.

Peter Pan (2003)

Why mess with the original story?

[4/10 · 14 December 2004]

As something of a purist, I enjoyed most of the movie. It appeared to be an attempt to tell the story as Barrie had written it. While I realize that taking a play to a movie invariable involves filling in some parts, the additions spoiled the story for me.

The effects and the acting were wonderful. However, the dodgy bit about the Aunt was a total distraction? Why did we need to put that idiocy in the ending where the Lost Boys showed up and everybody jumped up and down for joy? It might have made a nice Hallmark special, but why bother changing an essential part of the story? The one thing this movie had over the Disney version was that it was a more faithful retelling of the Peter Pan story. I don't understand why the director squandered that advantage with an ending that had to be even happier than the original. A spoonful of sugar makes a cake sweet, four spoonfuls spoil the recipe.

Earthsea (2004–2005)

How many clichés can you cram into four hours?

[1/10 · 14 December 2004]

This mini-series is a waste of time. My overall reaction after watching the opening segment is that you couldn't have placed more clichés in the movie if you had been trying to make a parody. In fact, if you had given the actors instructions to ham it up a little, it could be called "Not Another Fantasy Adventure". Now some may argue that it's unfair to review a four hour movie after just the first two hours, but my conscience compels me to warn others: This is an empty story that doesn't contain a single original thought. Everything is predictable.

We have Luke/Harry Potter/Ged meeting Obi Wan Kenobi/Gandalf and being sent to Hogwarts. While at Hogwarts, Luke/Harry Potter/Ged meets the generic, fat, comic relief sidekick. Later, Dumbledore/Gandalf/Archmangus is killed by the generic, twisted bad guy King/General because Malfoy/Jasper is a traitor (and not a single wizard saw it coming). We have the sisterhood from Dune and elements of Lord Foul's Bane in the indestructible beast that is controlled by knowing its name.

This is a good movie to watch if you are hooked up to a life-support system and you've already seen every movie and television show ever made. This story is also a good idea for people who've never read a book or seen a movie and want to jam the entire fantasy genre into a single four hour sitting.

5ive Days to Midnight (2004)

Dumbest Ending Since "The Stand"

[4/10 · 11 June 2004]

My overall reaction is that I feel like I completely wasted five hours of my life watching this miniseries. While there were a few red flags in the beginning, the writing seemed to be carrying the movie. First, the red flags: the director had an extremely annoying habit of throwing in slow motion in places where it was completely out of place. Actually, there's almost never a reason for slow motion. Directors and writers don't normally write "This scene is done in slow motion" into the script. If the action in the take appears to be incredibly lame during the editing, they'll try a slow motion effect before throwing the scene away. So the high frequency of slow motion shots is a give away that the director is a hack.

** Spoiler Ahead **

Other than the director's attempt to sabotage the movie, the writing was very good for the first 4 hours and 50 minutes. It wasn't typical Sci-Fi fare, but a seemingly well crafted murder mystery. The twist was that the victim was investigating his own murder. Not bad. But there was no mystery to the ending. It was the equivalent of having the cavalry ride in at the last minute, only dumber. There was no attempt to clean up the loose ends. No attempt to explain how the professor escaped his destiny. It might have been modestly satisfying if there was an attempt to explain how the future benefactor knew that a single bullet would be needed at the last moment.

Not since Steven King's "The Stand" was there a more disappointing ending to a promising story line.

Dragonfly (2002)

A Hack Version of Sixth Sense

[20 March 2004]

From my perspective, this movie was made to cash in on the positive buzz surrounding 'The Sixth Sense'. Its as if an incompetent apprentice watched the work of a master and thought he could do the same job. That is why most people found some parts to be plodding. While in the original, the lengthy close up shots of the actors built on the suspense, in this movie they just seemed to add to the dull timing of the movie.

You know how foreign movies have subtitles for people that can't follow the dialog. This movie provides the same thing for people that can't follow a thriller. We'll call them 'Thriller Subtitles'. Obvious lines like 'The bird only talked when she walked in the door.' Then, a short time later the bird says 'Honey, I'm home'. This movie didn't have an original twist in it.

Battlestar Galactica (2003)

A clearly superior remake

[10/10 · 10 December 2003]

First, the original series was bad. The fact that the series ran for only one season at a time when Star Wars fans were ravenous for any space adventure should tell you something. Even 1970s Trekkies thought the show sucked. I'm amazed at the number of people who talk about it as if it were art. The acting was emotionless. This was most likely due to the fact that the plots were all some variation of an impossible mission to blow up the death star of the evil robots. The effects, even for the 1970s, were lame. A viper blows up, a robot ship blows up, repeat. The only remotely cool thing about the show was the shiny robots with the bouncing red eye.

Twenty five years later they finally got it right. This is what television Sci-Fi should be all about. The plot is intelligent; the actors get to act out real-life situations. The effects are nothing less than groundbreaking. They achieve a sense of realism with the far-away shots of large objects (instead of yet another close-up of some large, glued together model). And finally, the plot moves along with REAL motivations. Baltar is driven by arrogance and lust, Six is a religious zealot, and the President is trying to do a job for which she isn't prepared.

This show is the one that the next generation will remember. The trivia games will have one or two questions about the original series. Most people won't know the answer.

The Black Hole (1979)

Do you hear a big, sucking sound?

[1/10 · 25 September 2003]

That's the sound of this movie. I was morbidly fascinated by the bad acting and the positively awful dialog. I had the feeling I was watching Mystery Science Theater 3000 without the three little guys down in the front row. I've never seen so many well-known actors all suck so badly at the same time. It would be easy to just say 'Avoid this movie at all costs', but anyone who is interested in film should sit through it just to see how wrong things can go. This movie sucks so bad that it makes you appreciate the talent that goes into mediocre movies.

Slow Burn (2000 Video)

Half-baked Story needs some plot holes filled

[2/10 · 28 September 2002]

WARNING: SPOILERS (THOUGH I SAW THE MOVIE AND STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED)

They had all the ingredients for a good film, they just didn't cook it long enough. Acting was so-so, though James Spader was good imitating Dustin Hoffman in "Midnight Cowboy". The dialog itself was good, but the overall story was incomprehensible. Some additional plot holes that need to be mentioned: Frank must have known where the diamonds were if he buried Catalina, so why the heck would he let Trina spend her entire life in a vain search for the diamonds? If Trina saw the diamonds in her Mom's backpack, why would she spend her life in a vain search for the diamonds? Do we seriously believe a 12 year old would shoot her mother because she saw someone fondler her breasts? Why did Trina put the diamonds back in the box? Other than McGuyver, who the heck has all the materials for a forge in the back of their vehicle? Why did Marcus chain himself to Duster (to give him privacy to finish the key?) Why did Trina chain herself to Frank? What happened to Trina at the end (are we to believe that she wasn't able to shoot the chain with the gun to free herself)? Why did Duster just turn around after finding the bird?

Seriously, it's as if three different people wrote this movie and none of them talked to each other after reading the outline. The only redeeming feature of this film is that the plot holes were so annoying that you spend a good deal of time after the moving just trying to figure out what you just saw.

Brave New World (1998 TV Movie)

O Brave New World, that hath such nonsense in it.

[2/10 · 26 August 2002]

Why do they do it? Why do they pick a novel like this which obviously has a following (seeing how it's still around after 75 years), and screw around with the story line? Are the writers thinking "Yeah, that Aldous guy is OK, but I'm much better." Or are they thinking that we simply wouldn't understand the story in it's original form? This trash is going to offend anyone that can actually finish a book without pictures in it. Watching what they did to this classic is similar to watching "Romeo and Juliette" rewritten to have a happy ending. I can't think of any demographic that's going to be pleased with the result. I would seriously like to attend the brainstorming session where they worked out the screenplay just to hear the rational behind rewriting a classic.

Star Trek: Enterprise (2001–2005)

Unbelievable that space could be so boring!

[21 May 2002]

Being an fan of the series, I'm sorely disappointed after the first season of Enterprise. First, there is something about Scott Bakula that puts me to sleep. I thought 'Quantum Leap' was a plodding excuse for a series. You would think that between Time and Space Travel, he'd have something interesting to say or do. And while I'm ranting on the choice of Captain, who's idea was it to bring along the dog! Here, I'm trying to believe that this guy is some sort of space hero, and he's holding his lap dog like he's some feeble-minded spinster. As a captain, the character of Jonathan Archer is poorly conceived and executed.

The series started out with promise; Kingons, Suliban, sexy Vulcans. But they've gone no where with either the story arc, characters or space travel.

After the first season of politically-correct story solutions, I've lost interest. I think this might be the series that kills the franchise.

Babylon 5: The River of Souls (1998 TV Movie)

This drek is worst than any of the regular season episodes.

[2/10 · 9 December 2000]

I'm a big fan of B5, having caught on only at the end of season three. I faithfully watched all the previous seasons when it was syndicated, concluding that it was one of the most well-thought out story arcs to ever hit television. Even the filler episodes were interesting. The movies, also, were well produced and as entertaining as anything to hit the theaters.

Which brings us to 'River of Souls'. Naturally, after seeing everything else, I had high expectations. Martin Sheen appears to be acting in an Ed Wood movie rather than a serious Sci-Fi story. The story itself, might have looked good in outline form, even made it to the story board. However, it suffers obviously when it came time to filling this notion out into a two hour movie. There are no special effects to keep us entertained in the total absence of a compelling story. There are places where they were obviously short of time and just improvised the dialog to fill the story out. Had this made the regular season, it would have rated among the worst of the episodes.

Dune (2000)

They did it right this time!

[9/10 · 6 December 2000]

I think every fan of 'Dune' cringed when they heard a new version was coming out. After David Lynch's first attempt -- which I judge the worst movie of all time -- I was once bitten, twice shy. I'm happy to say the Sci-Fi Channel's version, done in a Mini-series format, finally got it right. The casting and acting were excellent. I loved accents on the actors working the Freemen roles. It gave the movie a middle-eastern feel that you got from the book. The sets, though mostly computer generated, were still artful and set the mood. Finally, the cinematography was unbelievably well done for a made-for-TV fare. The lighting and attention to shadows and ambient light are good enough to make this one a classic. Finally, Frank Herbert's story has gotten the treatment it deserved.

Eraser (1996)

Color by the Numbers Action by Aunauld

[3/10 · 12 November 2000]

Take every action movie made by Arnold, put them in a blender, set for chop, put the pieces together when you're done and you have Eraser. Now I'm not saying that Arnold makes the most intellectually challenging movies I've seen, but generally there's either a tenuous story or sense of humor to hold the whole thing together. This movie has nothing to make you care about the bad guys or the good guys. The action, while complete with lots of explosions and guns, is never very interesting. What Showgirls did for nudity, Eraser does for action.

Titan A.E. (2000)

A Stylish Repackaging of Anastasia

[7/10 · 8 November 2000]

For all it's gloss and special effects, the story is basically a rehashing of Don Bluth's semi-successful 'Anastasia'. The background special effects were worth watching though the characters, themselves, appeared flat and lifeless. The fact that we've seen these same characters in the same situations removes what little interest there might have been. I didn't feel there was any real chemistry between the Matt Damon and Drew Barrymore characters like there was in Bluth's previous movie. In all, it was barely watching once. I was sorely disappointed because it appeared to have the makings of another 'Heavy Metal' in the beginning. But the movie loses it's tempo quickly and you were left with nothing more than a prolonged chase scene with little real interest in what happened in the end. Wait for this one to come to HBO.

Supernova (I) (2000)

SuperDud!

[4/10 · 20 October 2000]

About the best thing I can say for this movie is that it wasn't totally stupid. You didn't have people doing idiotic things to move the story along. Having said that, no one, especially the writers, is terribly bright. This appears to be a Star Trek story that wasn't good enough for the TV show, so they made it into a movie. Go figure. The SFX make it so that it isn't a bad way to pass the time when you have absolutely nothing else to do and the action is plausible if not very original. I'd rate it as good entertainment for insomniacs.

The Maxx (1995)

The most intelligent animation ever

[21 September 2000]

The Maxx is the most intelligently written story every to hit the genre of animation. The story -- a psychological thriller -- is complimented with a haunting, other-worldly style of animation. It's a shame that this movie hasn't had a chance to collect a larger audience. Perhaps if MTV replayed it's "Oddities" series instead of endless repeats of "Real Life", there might be more postings for this series. I think I got the last copy that Amazon had to sell. Hopefully, someday, the movie will make it back to the airways. Don't miss it if you ever get a chance.

Mission to Mars (2000)

Bland, Bland, Bland

[3/10 · 20 September 2000]

This movie is the Wonder Bread of Science Fiction. To abuse the metaphor a little more, putting actors like Tim Robbins, Gary Sinise and Don Cheadle in this flick was like putting caviar on Wonder Bread. It has enough eye-candy to keep things going, but you're left with a very empty feeling after the formulaic plot and ending. Overall, it's worth watching if you're a sci-fi fan and you need some time to kill.

Clerks (1994)

It's unbelievable what some guys can do with $26,000

[9/10 · 5 July 2000]

This movie rocks! It was smart, fresh, raw, clever, and above all, entertaining. It's funny how money can actually ruin some directors. I hope Kevin Smith learns to use his relatively unlimited resources wisely now. I don't think "Dogma" was nearly as good as this movie.

"Clerks", made on a shoestring budget, is ten-times better than most of the crap that Hollywood is churning out. The dialog is great and the tempo of gags and insights is non-stop. It's a straight, unprocessed slice of New Jersey in the Nineties. One of the best recommendations I can make for a comedy is that it was hilarious stone cold sober. Go out of your way to catch this movie, it's worth it.

The only reason I'm giving it 9/10 is the poor sound. I expect something made on a low budget to have bad sound, but at some parts it makes the dialog unintelligible. If you watch it, turn up the treble and turn down the base. You may still want to put on the subtitles for parts.

Dogma (1999)

An good idea executed poorly

[5/10 · 1 July 2000]

I like Kevin Smith's general idea here, but I thought the execution was immature. Not that I have anything against puerile humor, I just didn't think it mixed well with the deep thoughts he essayed. It's sort of like "Wayne's World" meets "The Prophecy". At times, Smith appeared to be beating the Catholics over the head with the same message. While I'm no fan of dogma or organized religions, I thought a more subtle approach would have been more entertaining and more effective. There were times where you could just about see Kevin lecturing (preaching) through the dialog of the actors. It was OK for a Pay-per-view evening, but I wouldn't put any more effort into watching the movie than that. Kevin Smith is a real talent. However, I think his youth worked against him here. If this movie were a wine, I'd say it needed about ten more years.

House on Haunted Hill (1999)

A Very Disturbing Movie, not!

[1/10 · 18 June 2000]

The only disturbing thing about this movie is that someone thought it was worth making in the first place. I can't imagine anyone being seriously frightened by the silly Hollywood, computer-generated effects. There is absolutely no psychological dimension to the movie beyond what a thirteen-year-old might dream up. What could have been a clever who-dunnit, or who's-doing-it-to-whom, degenerates towards the end to a prolonged chase scene. Normally, I'm bothered by flaws in the script, but this one as so far out in left field from the beginning, that finding flaws in it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. In short, I was sorry I paid $4 to watch it on PPV. I have to admit that I stayed with it out of a morbid curiosity to see if it would end as badly as it appeared to be heading. It did.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Can anyone tell me what this movie was about?

[3/10 · 7 May 2000]

I'm a huge fan of Stanley Kubrick but I'm totally mystified as to the reason he made this movie. What story was he telling? A man's odyssey into Soho after hours? I thought Griffen Dunn did a better job in "After Hours". At least that plot line was believable compared to this one. Was it some sort of subliminal sexual message? As pretty as the girls were, I wasn't moved. Go watch "Blue Velvet" if you want to be disturbed on a sexual level. Perhaps it's art, I don't know. I wasn't all that impressed with the cinematography. I put this movie up there with Professional Wrestling as one of those things I don't understand, but other people find entertaining.

Double Jeopardy (1999)

Not everything should be recycled. Sometimes you just have to throw it out.

[3/10 · 16 April 2000]

Why can't Hollywood buy some of those BBC writers to make a Murder-Mystery instead of recycling the same old garbage? What were the producers thinking when they cast Tommy Lee Jones in the same role he played in the "Fugitive"? Why does the dupe being framed ALWAYS pick up the murder weapon? Who goes to bed in the middle of nowhere in a bathrobe? These are the only mysteries in this movie. Not enough thrills to be an action movie. Not enough intrigue to be a mystery. Not enough boxing to be "Rocky". Pass on this one and rent "Fugitive". Same story, more mystery, better acting.

10 Things I Hate About You (1999)

A very entertaining, though formula, movie

[9/10 · 31 December 1999]

This is a great movie if you are simply in a mood for a light, funny, entertaining movie for the evening. The casting is great. You can't go wrong with a plot that's still popular after 300 years. This flick works as well for guys as it does for girls. It has about as many surprises as "The Nutcracker", but you go to these productions to see how it's done, not who dunnit or why. I would put it in the same league as "Something about Mary" as far as sheer entertainment and low neuron drain.

The Thirteenth Floor (1999)

Good entertainment for serious sci-fi fans only

[21 November 1999]

This was a tight plot without any visible flaws, which is important for a sci-fi plot. However, the format was all wrong. Slow to get started, this story would have made a great "Outer Limits" episode. At 2 hours, however, it dragged in places. The story is well done, but if you've watched Star Trek:TNG, you've seen this reality play before. Still, in all, it was a worthwhile evening of entertainment.

Village of the Damned (1995)

Could have been better if John C. had more faith in the actors.

[6/10 · 6 November 1999]

I'm a big fan of John Carpenter. I think his remake of the 'Thing' was far superior to the original. The story, acting and special effects made it a better movie. I think it was the other way around with his attempt to remake "Village". In the original, the truely terrifying element was children that appeared to be normal children, but weren't. Had the director worked with better child actors, he could have frozen your blood with a stare instead of relying on the goofy special effects for the eyes. A pretty good movie, but only by virtue of the great original story.