sburke Reviews

The Exorcist (1973)

Brief Comments on the New Version

[25 September 2000]

I just had a few brief comments on the "New Version", which I saw this past weekend. I won't say too much about the film in general, because the public consensus on "the Film" speaks for itself.

The addition of the medical examination and "spider-walk" scenes were a definite plus. The first actually made the story more coherent, while the second was just damned cool!

The additional dialogue between Father Merrin and Father Karras was okay, but it wasn't necessary.

The new ending is c**p. The original ending was perfect for the original movie, and would be perfect for the new version. Some of the additional subliminal shots of the demonic face were quite effective, but most of these extra touches just seemed gimmicky.

The new sound mix. Wow! One or two speakers does not do this movie justice. The DVD, 5.1 digital mix is great. But the new mix for this theatrical release is perfect!

So that's what I think. Of course, they could've re-released the original version in theaters, and I would still have seen it. This movie must be experienced in a theater at least once!

Battlefield Earth (2000)

To those who thought this movie's stupidity was genius....

[1/10 · 1 September 2000]

I have a comment directed to those who think that this movie's stupidity is a work of genius, and that those of us who supposedly "didn't get the joke" have no sense of humor.

Films like "Ace Ventura" go out of their way to be ridiculous and stupid, and they don't conceal that from the audience. So, it's unapologetically stupid, and people love it for that reason.

But a similar argument can't be made for a film like "Battlefield Earth", simply because it NEVER winks at the audience and lets them know that "We know that you know that this movie is insipid and stupid, and that's what is fun about it."

In other words, "Battlefield Earth" takes itself SO SERIOUSLY that its utter stupidity has no redeeming value whatsoever. If it would have given the audience ANY clue that it wasn't taking itself seriously, it might have become an interesting piece of film camp. But because it's so serious, it's dreck.

By the way, I think "Ace Ventura" is one of the stupidest, but funniest, movies ever. And I also think "Battlefield Earth" is one of the most disgusting, terrible, and deplorable movies ever made.

Battlefield Earth (2000)

Congratulations to All IMDB Members Who Voted on This Film

[1/10 · 29 June 2000]

I just wanted to say "Congratulations" to all those IMDB members who voted on this movie. Your votes counted for something: "Battlefield Earth" is now in IMDB's "BOTTOM 100", ranking a very solid #97. Although I would place it much closer to number 1, it is good and proper that this piece of crud passed off as a movie is where it belongs among all films--near the bottom of the barrel.

Battlefield Earth (2000)

Yes, it's a Must-See

[1/10 · 18 May 2000]

Yes. "Battlefield Earth" is a MUST-SEE film.

Okay, to be more specific, it must be seen to be believed.

It must be seen in order to believe and truly understand how wretched it is.

I could wax eloquent for pages and pages attempting to describe how awful this pile of Psychlo-Dung really is, but I could never do justice to the utter disaster that is the film "Battlefield Earth."

I feel this movie will have its place in future film schools. It will be required viewing for all film students, as the perfect example of what NOT to do.

Now, before all of you start comparing me to Mr. Cranky (the internet film critic who manages to find the awful in every movie), I must remind you that as of this time, 1,100 IMDB users have given this movie an average rating of 3 out of 10.

The plotholes (big enough to drive Battlestar Galactica through). The scenery (I've seen more realistic matte paintings in movies where you're supposed to know they're matte paintings). The ridiculous lift shoes the Psychlos wore (Gene Simmons would laugh his butt off if he saw this film and saw what these people had to wear). The Psychlos overall appearance (whatever reviewer said "They're Jamaican Klingons that speak like Ferrengi" hit a bullseye). John Travolta's dialogue (Oh my God, I can't even begin to get into that dreck). The effects (visible wires holding the model ships up would have been better--at least they'd be enjoyable to laugh at). The truly inconceivable stupidity of the Psychlos (how could they possibly conquer so many other civilizations when they repeatedly demonstrate utter idiocy). And Barry Pepper's "fight for freedom" speech (I half-expected Mel Gibson to make a cameo appearance as William Wallace, knock Pepper to the ground, and serve him lawsuit papers for plagiarism).

I have to stop. This is just too much. Please see it for yourself, and discover the magic of a truly awful, deplorable movie.

U-571 (2000)

Grow Up!

[27 April 2000]

For all those people from Great Britain blasting films such as `U-571' and `Saving Private Ryan,' I have two words for you-- GROW UP! "Saving Private Ryan" and "U-571" make no claim whatsoever to your comments that "America won the war single-handedly." Give me a break! "U-571" is clearly a fictional story based on an idea that was inspired by your countrymen's heroism in obtaining a real decoder. "U-571" is simply a "good yarn." As for "Saving Private Ryan," it is clearly an American Film that chose to look at ONE story among millions that all WWII veterans (American, British, French, German, Italian, Russian, Japanese, etc.) could share with us. In your opinion, should Steven Spielberg be REQUIRED to choose a story with a British framework when he chooses to make a war-film? Do you honestly think FOR EVEN A SECOND that by making this film, Spielberg intended to downplay all the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that Great Britain had to endure during this war? If you do, then you're a fool. And anybody (British or American) that walks into a film starring Hollywood's finest and expects complete historical accuracy needs to get their head examined. And while I'm on that thought, perhaps you should contact David Lean or Sir Richard Attenborough, and ask them if any artistic license was taken when making "Lawrence of Arabia" or "A Bridge Too Far," respectively.

Perhaps you should be complaining to the British film industry about their lack of WWII films that focus on your countrymen's stories. As far as I'm concerned, it's not Hollywood's responsibility to release films that tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In fact, it's not even the British film industry's responsibility to do so. If you want historical accuracy, READ A BOOK OR WATCH A DOCUMENTARY! DUH!

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

OK, People. Let's all calm down

[20 April 2000]

I was just looking at a number of the negative user reviews for Episode 1, and most of them find fault with really bad acting.

With that in mind, I pose the following question to all of you. With the possible exceptions of Harrison Ford and Alec Guiness, who "DIDN'T" do terrible acting jobs in the first three films?

All three films from the original trilogy still rank very high among my favorite films of all time, but when I look back on them now, it's painfully obvious how whiny Mark Hamill's Luke is. And let's talk about the woeful hyperbolic rantings of Carrie Fisher's Princess Leia. Has anybody else ever wondered why Mark Hamill can't get arrested in Hollywood now? Has anybody else wondered why Carrie Fisher became a writer? BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T ACT!!!!! But does that matter within the Star Wars context? Of course not.

So why should it matter that Jake Lloyd sounds pretty whiny himself? One could argue "Like Father, Like Son!" Maybe Luke picked up a tendency to whine from his Dad!

And don't pick on Liam Neeson and Ewan MacGregor. They're playing Jedi Knights, for God's sake! They're not supposed to have personalities that jump off the screen.

And quit picking on Jar-Jar. Yes, he can be annoying, but

C3-PO, R2-D2, Chewbacca, The Ewoks, and even Yoda had their truly annoying moments. Heck, Yoda's still a crotchety old curmudgeon.

I'm afraid people expected the same revelatory experience from Episode 1 that they received watching "Star Wars." But let's face it--we live in a radically different world now, and films such as Episode 1 can't possibly have the same impact that "Star Wars" did. However, I will still look forward to owning this film, and the complete sextet, once it's available.

(IF I WERE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING--IT'S THAT THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE ON DVD. THAT DEFINITELY BLOWS, NOT THE MOVIE)

Mission to Mars (2000)

My additional two cents about "THE WORST FILM OF THE MILLENIUM"

[3/10 · 21 March 2000]

Given the number of reviews found here, it's unnecessary to describe film details once again. I just have a quick comment directed at those people who approved of this film.

To anybody who liked this film--DO YOU WORK FOR THE DISNEY COMPANY? DID DISNEY BUY YOUR POSITIVE REVIEW THE WAY MIRAMAX BUYS OSCARS? This film is so riddled with factual holes and plot holes it makes Swiss Cheese look structurally sound. For one, the film takes itself so seriously (and remember, they keep reminding us how much input they received from NASA to make it accurate), you have to laugh when Fourth-Grade science students can point out the errors it makes in basic physics, biology, and/or chemistry. So I find it implausible that anybody who knows anything about space travel or science wouldn't find this film insulting.

But that's only half the story, because there are audience members out there who don't give a darn how closely the film resembles reality. They go to the movies strictly to be entertained (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with this). On this level, even cheesy, formulaic, laughable movies like "Armageddon" work, because "Armageddon" never promises to be anything more than a helluva ride--and it delivers. However, "Mission to Mars" abjectly fails in that way, as well. Awful dialogue, characters, action sequences, music, aliens (Don't get me started on the most pathetic extra-terrestrial to ever grace the silver screen), and a story that seemed to be put together by placing scripts for "Contact," "Close Encounters," "The Abyss," "Apollo 13," "Deep Impact," "Star Wars," "2001," and "2010" into a shredder and taping the shredded remains back together.

C'mon people. This movie is a total failure. In fact, the only way this movie will ever be entertaining is if Mike, Servo, and Crow get back together and SLAM IT on "MST3K"!!!!!!!!

Mission to Mars (2000)

The Lamest Movie I've Seen in Quite Awhile

[3/10 · 13 March 2000]

During the summer of 1999, I saw many great films, but two horrible ones--"The Haunting" and "Wild Wild West." Since then, I've seen many more films, but none that I could call truly horrible. Until now.

For one, the movie is an amalgam of several Science Fiction motion pictures, stealing from "The Abyss," "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," "Total Recall," "Apollo 13," "Deep Impact," "Armageddon," and most obviously of all, "2001: A Space Odyssey." In and of itself, borrowing ideas from other films isn't that bad. However, this movie seems to pride itself on taking key scenes or ideas from all the films listed above, then making those ideas as ridiculous or stupid as possible. Even the scenes that are not all that bad, and are actually quite effective (the "Final Approach to Mars" segment), I couldn't help but think that all of this had been done before.

Secondly, the beginning of the film was a multi-layered hodgepodge of space exploration film stereotypes (which is supposed to make the viewer care for the characters), but then turns around to become completely detached when the action shifts to outer space. All of a sudden, I really didn't care what happened to these intrepid explorers. It felt sterile to me.

Take all of this so far, you have a flawed film, but not horrible. Unfortunately, the film had to end sometime, and the ending of this film was so cheesy and lame it was laughable. In fact, quite a few people in the audience were laughing, when they weren't shaking their heads in disbelief at the crud they were watching. The premise was a veritable carbon-copy of "2001," the effects were awful (including a pathetic-looking extra-terrestrial), the dialogue of the characters was beyond lame, and the way everything was neatly tied up just made me hold my head in my hands, wondering why I just spent $7.50 on this pile of junk.

And I thought the end of "The Haunting (1999)" was bad. "Mission to Mars" ending made that other awful ending look like Shakespeare.

So Please--for your own sake, and the sake of the future movie-going public--don't justify the continued release of film-swill like this in the future. JUST SAY NO TO THIS MOVIE!!!!!

Fantasia 2000 (1999)

Not Bad, But Not As Great As I Expected

[8/10 · 3 January 2000]

I saw "Fantasia 2000" in Irvine on January 1. And I really, really hate to say this, but I left the theater mildly disappointed.

Was it the animation quality? No way! The animation was superb.

Was it the IMAX presentation? No, except for the poor transfer of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" to the format. I realize that Disney went to great lengths to restore the original print of this segment, and even processed it to remove a great deal of the "graininess," but it still didn't cut it. Perhaps it was simply asking far too much to transfer a sixty-year-old piece of film to IMAX. Otherwise, seeing such images on such a gigantic screen was wonderful.

Was it the IMAX sound? Certainly not! I would say that if you are unable to hear a live symphony perform these pieces live in an actual concert hall, then this would be the best alternative.

Was it the interstitial segments where celebrities introduced each piece? No. I found nothing wrong with a little break between each musical segment. And most of them were quite entertaining, in my opinion.

So was it the music pieces themselves? Well, the performances of the pieces were quite good (although Kathleen Battle's shrill soprano near the end of the "Pomp and Circumstance" segment was needless excess, and sounded awful), and the selection of music was wonderful. But having listened to many of these pieces prior to this film, it really annoys me that they were severely cut in length and presentation. Okay, I understand that you can't animate the entirety of "The Firebird." But when you have a piece such as "Beethoven's 5th, 1st Movement," it simply seems ridiculous to me that a 5-minute music piece needed to be cut to 4 minutes. How much more would it cost to present an animated segment that last the entire duration of this piece?

So how about the segments themselves? Well, going in order:

"Beethoven's 5th": Terrible. I would assume that the filmmakers wanted to begin this version of "Fantasia" in a manner similar to the original--an abstract interpretation of a piece of "Absolute Music." However, the images presented in the original made sense when matched to Bach's "Toccata and Fugue," while the Beethoven segment made no sense whatsoever.

"Pines of Rome": Absolutely incredible. I would pay money to watch and listen to this segment alone. The idea of whales flying might seem farfetched, but the way the story matched the music was phenomenal.

"Rhapsody in Blue": This segment underwhelmed me when I saw it, but now that I've thought about it, it's not bad. It's incredible the way a story was created to match the highs and lows of the musical piece. The animation style takes some getting used to, though.

"Steadfast Tin Soldier": I've heard this segment called "Toy Story's ugly stepsister." They're right. I guess it's a decent story, but I wanted something spectacular and grand, and for me, it was "just there," offering nothing special.

"Carnival of the Animals": I would compare this to the "Dance of the Hours" segment in the original, and it's Wonderful stuff! Absolutely tremendous! So why was it SO DAMN SHORT! That's my only objection to this segment--it's TOO DAMN SHORT!

"The Sorcerer's Apprentice": In the original movie, this was a highlight among highlights. But its inclusion here on an IMAX screen just destroyed it, no matter how much labor and love went into its restoration.

"Pomp and Circumstance": Great stuff. Donald Duck gets to show off his unique personality and talent for physical comedy in the epic story of Noah's Ark. SO WHY WAS IT SO DAMN SHORT!

"Firebird": Excellent work here, but the close of this phenomenal segment was just a bit flat. This musical piece is widely regarded as a prime closing number for a concert, so it would seem that its place at the end of "Fantasia 2000" would be a foregone conclusion. But for some reason, the end of the piece just didn't have the emotional impact I was expecting, especially after the chills I experienced at the end of the "Pines of Rome" segment.

So, I guess I was disappointed because two of the segments were absolute Turkeys, one should have been left alone in the original version, and two of the remaining 5 segments left me hungry for more, since they were too darn short. "Fantasia" (1940) was two hours long, while "Fantasia 2000 was a mere 75 minutes. Why? What would it have hurt to develop a few of the segments' stories a bit more, and increase the film's length just a bit? I believe doing so would have enriched the experience. But in examining the five new "Good" segments on their own, I would have to say that they were excellent.

So, in short, I was disappointed because of the film's brevity, disappointed with at least 1/3 of the movie, and disappointed that I had to pay nearly double the admission for a normal movie. However, because I loved such a large part of the movie so much, I can't give it a bad review. Maybe my attitude will change when I can scrounge up the extraordinary amount of money it costs to see it again.

The Green Mile (1999)

A Wonderful Film, Critics be Darned

[9/10 · 13 December 1999]

I found this film to be powerful, heart-wrenching, and simply everything I expected. I have read the complete book (twice), and this film exceeded my expectations. I didn't think it would generate such an emotional response after getting emotional while reading the book, but it did. And it did for most of the people in the theater; I heard sniffling and the ruffle of tissues all over the room. During both of my viewings.

As for the movie's length, and the flak it's getting as a result, all I can say is that if the people who are complaining about the length of the film actually read the book, they'd understand that everything in the film was necessary to drive the story. What's the problem with our world today? Have we reached the point where people lack the attention spans to not only shun literature, but also disapprove of films that are longer than two hours?

This film tells a wonderful story. The story development flows almost perfectly. It has the perfect blend of humor and drama. Everybody in the cast (and I mean everybody) did a superb job (Michael Clarke Duncan IS John Coffey, swear to God), and knowing exactly how everything would turn out did nothing to turn me away from being captivated by the whole film experience. If I had to find fault with something, it would have to be the ending, which seemed to be "slapped together" to tie things up (Of course, the ending of the book had the same feel, as well). So I give it a 9/10. Go see it!

Dirty Dancing (I) (1987)

All of You are Just Sick!!!!!

[1/10 · 9 December 1999]

I just read a number of user reviews, and all I have to say is that "You're all sick!!!"

This lamebrained, terribly scripted, terribly constructed, terribly acted movie is your "Favorite Movie of All Time?"

This is the movie that made me avoid "Ghost" for over a year (definitely a mistake), because after seeing this, I incorrectly assumed that anything with Patrick Swayze in it was just going to be BAD.

The story's been told before (repeatedly, I might add). Even if the story hadn't been told before, every aspect of the movie is completely predictable. Most of the dialogue is more laughable than most spoofs of "Star Trek" (at least when those people are spoofing Shatner as Kirk, they're "trying" to be funny). And the acting--ugh, even if the dialogue wasn't so bad, most of the principals are so wooden you could use them as surfboards.

The dancing scenes--okay, they were pretty good. But unless you're Kelly, Astaire, or Rogers, dance scenes do not a good movie make.

I can see people being entertained by this movie. I really can (just not me). But to call it your favorite movie of all time? AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!

Toy Story 2 (1999)

Wow!

[10/10 · 2 December 1999]

I'm not going to say much. Don't need to.

I have read nearly a hundred professional and user reviews of this movie, and every single one of them was ecstatic about it. I can also honestly say that although this year has had a tremendous share of quality films, this ranks up there with all of them, perhaps surpassing all of them. It definitely was the most fun I've had at the movies this year.

John Lasseter deserves something for his work. He's directed all three of Pixar's feature films, and all three have been brilliant. I, for one, can't wait for his next film. But until then, I'm guess I'll have to console myself by seeing this one a few dozen more times! Because it's worth it!!!!

[Note: For anyone who didn't like this movie, you had better check your pulse. You're probably beyond dead. And as you can see by the praise showered on this film, most people would agree with me.]

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

Disappointing

[22 November 1999]

To all other IMDB reviewers out there: Please explain to me why I disliked this film. I have seen every Bond film (repeatedly, I might add), and I have thoroughly enjoyed every one of them, except for "Never Say Never Again" (Gus Van Sant from Psycho must have been inspired by that one--a virtual carbon-copy of "Thunderball"). So I am wondering what's wrong with me, because this film disappointed me.

It certainly wasn't the actors or performances--they were first-rate. Brosnan is rapidly becoming my favorite Bond (the perfect hybrid of Sean Connery's ruggedness and wit and Roger Moore's style and class). Robbie Coltrane was awesome, albeit underused. Sophie Marceau was great, Robert Carlyle actually brought a new dimension to the Bond Villain by earning a degree of sympathy for his character, and even Denise Richards wasn't bad (for what was expected of her).

But the film seemed to jump all over the place, and didn't bother to explain itself. I found myself wondering why I couldn't follow the story, even though I've had no trouble following every other Bond flick, not to mention countless movies with plot structures far more complex.

And the action sequences were so tired. The skiing sequence seemed absolutely boring compared to the ones in "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "For Your Eyes Only." The boat chase at the beginning was okay, but I expect more than "okay" from a Bond chase, especially when the boat chases from "Moonraker" and "Live and Let Die" were better than okay. And why did this scene seem so darn sleepy compared to the hyperkinetic boat chase in "Face/Off?"

And what about all the sexual innuendos and witty comments that usually come from Bond's mouth? They seemed lacking in this one. In fact, this film was a "downer" compared to every other Bond movie, with the exception of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." And they killed Bond's wife in that one, for God's sake!

So I ask all of you--please tell me what is wrong with me, because this is the only Bond film I've ever disliked, and I don't want to dislike it!!!!!

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Let's Get This Straight

[10/10 · 8 November 1999]

For those people who feel "Saving Private Ryan" was nothing but an excuse to put some gratuitous violence on screen, or feel that the violence was "over the top," I have just three words for you--Read Your History. Read Stephen Ambrose's book on D-Day (Ambrose just happened to be the historical consultant for the film), and you will learn exactly what bullets, mortars, grenades, etc. actually do to a human being. You'll discover that the violence that television and other movies have fed us for the last 20-30 years is a bunch of c**p.

And for those people who have been involved in war, then watch this film and claim that the violence is excessive and false, then obviously, your experiences in wartime didn't mirror those men who's accounts were used in the book mentioned above and in "Ryan." And they don't mirror those memories of countless men who saw this film and left the theater visibly shaken, because their story was finally told the way it should be.

Steven Spielberg was not trying to "Out-Gross" "Braveheart." He was attempting to open our eyes. And if he was successful, then maybe those truly gut-wrenching scenes would serve a noble purpose--if not "An end to war," then at least an end to the Romanticism of War. Which is, at least, a step in the right direction.

So "Shakespeare In Love" received the Oscar. Is it ever going to be referred to as " A National Monument?" I doubt it. "Saving Private Ryan" is still getting coverage that refers to it in those terms.

So, to sum up, before criticizing this movie based on its level of violence, try accumulating a little background before making such accusations.