Change Your Image
adamzad
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
Another bad Superman Movie. Marvel does so much better.
Possible spoilers...
First Problem: After saving the Russian Cosmonaut, Superman speaks to him (in Russian). With no air in space to carry the sound waves, there would be no sound from Superman's voice for the Russian to hear.
Second Problem: Unilaterally disarming every country in the world is not Superman's decision to make.
Third Problem: Lex Luthor, "The Greatest Criminal Mind of the Modern Era" is, apparently, not smart enough to pronounce "nuclear" correctly.
Fourth Problem: Recreating bricks, with his eyebeams, to rebuild The Great Wall of China is not one of Superman's powers.
Fifth Problem: Superman just stands there and lets Nuclear Man blast dozens of vehicles, instead of jumping him.
Sixth Problem: How is publisher girl breathing in space?
Seventh Problem: If Superman figured out Nuclear Man's weakness when he was sick, why didn't he take advantage of it when battling Nuclear Man near the terminus line on the moon?
Superman III (1983)
The worst Superman movie I've seen, so far.
Possible spoilers...
Just a bad implementation of anything Superman. Here's a typical example:
Question: If Superman's Super Breath is capable of freezing a lake so he can carry the ice to the scene of a fire five miles away so as to melt the ice, put out the fire, and cool the acid that shouldn't boil... why can't Superman's Super Breath put out the fire and cool the acid, directly?
Answer: Bad writing.
This type of thing is endemic throughout this film. Don't waste your time.
Three (2005)
Call CalTrans to fix the plot holes...
Plot holes so big you could run the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford through them, and enough of them to handle the rest of the CVN-78's support vessels... the most glaring of which is the Zippo that, despite being submerged in sea water for two days, still lights the cigarettes that spent the same two days underwater. Also, the whole voodoo priestess subplot was ancillary and a complete supererogation of pretense.
Ill-conceived and poorly executed, this film's biggest problem was that there is too much time between the opening and closing credits. It was supposed to be a thriller, but it wasn't the least bit thrilling... except when the wife was behaving like the trophy she was (since she didn't display the least bit of intelligence, competence, or ability). None of the characters are the least bit likable, and the "plot" is absurdly predictable, so you find your attention wanders easily. Furthermore, none of the characters learn any lessons, so there is no growth from the shallow, superficial, self-absorbed snots that start the movie, and the shallow, superficial, self-absorbed snots who end it.
Final analysis: Don't waste your time.
Nightlight (2015)
High School film project from a D student.
Boring. Insipid. Uninspired. Banal. Inane. I will, certainly, run out of adjectives before I can adequately communicate how bad this movie is. First of all, the entire movie is shot from the perspective of the girl's *flashlight*. It is slow, with long pauses when there is nothing in the view of the flashlight. I started the flick and, four hours later, when I checked the time, 20 minutes had passed.
I never thought I would find a movie less intelligent and/or less cohesive than Blair Witch Project, but this one is it. Don't expect any kind of explanation for what few doings there are in the movie. There is no message, no moral, no plot, and not one single, solitary thing to recommend about this film. Nothing.
Bottom line: Don't waste your time, tape, or HD space.
Childhood's End (2015)
Don't waste your time.
Unfortunately, I haven't, yet, read the book. The mini-series, in the end, was a waste of six hours of life. Loose ends are not tied up; major questions are left, not only unanswered, but completely unaddressed; and several segments are preachy.
I am assuming that the book makes more sense and rambles less. The only good thing about this is that I can recover lots of HD space by deleting it from the DVR.
** Possible spoiler in next paragraph ** Making Karellen the living description of the Christian Satan was altogether too obvious. I was hoping that his intentions were, truly, honorable, so the moral of the story could have been to not judge a book by its cover. No such luck.
The Limits of Control (2009)
Skull-Crushingly Dull.
I never thought I'd see a movie that was more boring than Ordinary People. No, let me rephrase that... I was absolutely convinced that I would NEVER see a movie more boring than Ordinary People. Let me be the first to admit: I was wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I caught this on DirecTV's free Cinemax weekend and fished it onto my DVR because the description looked like it might hold some promise... "A mysterious stranger embarks on a journey across Spain and through his own consciousness as he completes a task that remains outside the law." Well. His actions "outside the law" consisted of about five seconds worth of garroting Bill Murray's character (Bill, what were you doing in this dog? I would have thought you'd be more discriminating about your roles). That was the entirety of the "Violence" about which Cinemax advised parents. They were right about the Nudity, though... there's a brunette who never has on a stitch of clothing beyond a pair of sexy librarian glasses and a clear plastic raincoat. The "Adult Language" consisted of the naked girl saying the word "ass" exactly once. I suppose the five seconds of murder and the nudity count as "Adult Content," so I can't fault them too much for that one.
Now, plot-wise... uh... well... there wasn't one. We have a taciturn character who wanders about getting little slips of paper with gibberish letters and numbers passed to him in tiny matchboxes, which he reads and swallows (the slips of paper, not the matchboxes). What little dialog there was in the script was inane and repetitive. This film was, quite frankly, stillborn. It was badly conceived, badly written, badly acted, badly directed, and badly produced. Three hours into the movie I realized only 15 minutes had passed since the opening credits. That was when I began to suspect that this was a screenplay project for a Junior High School creative writing course. Who are these people? What are they doing and, more importantly, WHY are they doing it? What's the point?! Nobody knows... not the writer, not the cast, not the crew, and certainly not the viewer. And, oh by the way... why does he always get two cups of coffee in separate cups? Nothing (and I DO mean NOTHING) was EVER explained. In the final analysis, this monumental waste of time, effort, energy, and money failed (dismally, I might add) to answer THE Question: So what?
What's worse: The title... "The Limits of Control." What limits? What control? I never saw anything in this movie that required any control... other than the main character not jumping Naked Girl's bones when she wants to have sex with him... that and restraining my thumb from hitting the "Delete" button on the remote before I slipped in to a boredom-induced coma.
It's too late for me, that two hours of my life is already gone... but you can still save yourself. I would run, screaming and naked, down the middle of Sepulveda Boulevard at the height of rush hour to avoid having to sit through this again. The only reasons I'm giving it one star are because A) IMDb won't let me give it zero and B) Naked Girl WAS... well... pleasing on the eye... that was the only thing about this film that came anywhere close to holding a candle to being the least bit remotely interesting.
Burn After Reading (2008)
A better title: Burn Before Viewing.
This movie made no sense. It was a rambling, disjointed farce of movie-making. Fourteen sub-plots in search of a story. It's too late for me, but you can still save yourself the two hours of your life that you could spend watching a GOOD movie. Better yet, read a book.
Since IMDb insists I have at least 10 lines of text, here are a few more comments:
Avoid this movie at all costs.
Spend the money you'd spend renting or buying this movie on Botox injections, it'll be less painful.
Remember: Burn first, THEN watch.
The Mighty (1998)
Another POWERFUL Movie...
I'm one of those guys who just does not cry at movies. There are 5 films powerful enough to bring me to that point: Saving Private Ryan, The Green Mile, Pay It Forward, Copland, and Ladder 49.
Now there are 6. Add "The Mighty" to that list. I happened on this gem, this diamond in the rough, on KTLA this afternoon. I had never heard of it, but the first few scenes I saw were enough to tell me it would be heartwarming, so I kept watching. That time was NOT wasted. This is a movie well worth watching... repeatedly.
Everything about it (writing, direction, acting, story, the whole ball of wax) fairly screams quality. Yes, it's a family movie. Yes, it's a kids-buddy movie. Yes, it *could* be considered sappy (though it doesn't come off that way). Yes, it will take you by the heartstrings and lead you out on the floor for a waltz (*especially* if you were ever bullied when you were a kid). Short version: This flick is worthwhile. Period. No matter who you are.
It takes a lot to get me to give a good review (I'm usually pretty savage), so this speaks volumes: Why this film was not HUGE is beyond comprehension. Why it didn't get the promotion it patently deserves is unfathomable.
Why are you still sitting at your computer reading my review? GO RENT THIS MOVIE!! Better yet, BUY IT!! Go! Go! Go!
Frostbite (2005)
Oh Traci, why did you waste your time
on this quagmire of mediocrity? You are SO much better than this.
Simply put, Frostbite is worthless. Bad acting (and I use that term loosely), minimalist "plot," sophomoric humor, and lackluster snowboarding. There's not even a sufficient display of feminine pulchritude to spark the prurient interest of socially inept, but red-blooded, males.
Top Gun had spectacular flight sequences to goggle at. Days of Thunder had heart-pounding racing action. Even Point Break had skydiving scenes to its credit. Frostbite has none of these. It's not worth your time, my time, Traci Lords' time, Carmen Nicole's time, nor the time of anyone involved with this destruction of celluloid that would have been perfectly usable on something worthwhile had it not been wasted on this fodder for the recycling center.
The world will be a better place when we forget that Frostbite ever existed.
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004)
Someone made a movie about my religion!
First of all, some warnings about this movie: It's deep. It's profound. It challenges everything you *thought* you knew.
It's very helpful to have at least *some* exposure to the concepts presented. Theoretical Physics/Quantum Mechanics is not for the faint of heart. Now, don't freak out thinking there's a ton of math involved in this movie. There isn't. The *concepts* presented, however, are difficult to catch the first time they're thrown at you. You'll probably have to watch this movie 4 or 5 times before all of the pieces start to come together. On the other hand, this is one of those movies you can watch over and over and get something new out of every single time.
Some 10 or 12 years ago, I created my own "religion," based on quantum mechanics, that I call Quantum Theology. Starting out with an understanding of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Schrödinger's cat-in-the-box thought experiment, and a basic grasp of Relativity, I took to this movie the first time I saw it. I got a lot out of it and I still notice something new every time I watch it again. It's remarkably similar to Quantum Theology, presented in a multimedia format with special effects that are much better at illustrating the concepts than my own paltry words could ever aspire to.
Having the "Greek Chorus" of experts (scientists and "spiritual advisers") to clarify and flesh out the visual segments was the stroke of genius. This movie is eminently watchable, provided you keep an open mind and don't stress out on the idea that, well, it's *physics*! Watch it at least 3 times, though, if you don't already have a basic idea of the items in the last paragraph. It may take some time to sink in.
Those with the fortitude to actually *think* about the concepts in this movie will understand why I am about to do something I thought I'd never do... something I all but vowed never to do... something I didn't think was possible: I'm giving this movie the first perfect 10 I've ever given and probably ever will give. Simply put, watch it. It will change your life.
Resident Evil (2002)
Even low expectations weren't enough...
to save this pile of rubbish.
There is only *one* thing that can be said in favor of this movie: Surprisingly, for the first time in my memory, Milla Jovovich actually looks GOOD. In flicks like The Fifth Element, it never ceased to amaze me the lengths she would go to to make herself look hideous. In this, I didn't even know it was her until I saw the name in the credits here on IMDb. Yowsa. Yummy.
Now, about the movie... It's worthless. The "plot" is weak, character development is half a step from non-existent, the premise is a rehash of dozens of old zombie movies mixed with the crazed supercomputer taken from dozens of other flicks, the acting is as you would expect from low budget B-Grade horror fare, and the scenery & effects are of the level that could be achieved in my basement with odds and ends I have lying around the house.
This is what I will begin calling a "Time-Machine Movie." Meaning I wish I had a time machine to go back and recover the 2 hours of my life that I wasted on this schlock. It's too late for me, but you can save yourself from this impressive effort to lower the standards of mediocrity even farther than they already are.
Cold Mountain (2003)
A rare, less-than-brutal review...
Those of you who have read my other reviews will know 2 things: Most of my reviews are written without remorse (they're either very good or savagely bad), and I don't waste either your time or mine on plot summaries. Someone else already wrote that, so on to my review
As I said in the subject line, this is a rare less-than-brutal review. There are flaws to this movie, but they don't drag it down into a quagmire of mediocrity.
First, the good
Renée Zellweger is brilliantly cast as the crotchety (and all the more lovable because of it) Ruby Thewes. She is a strong woman (which is immensely tantalizing to begin with), competent, and independent. She brings verve to the role, especially in the scene with the "floggin' rooster."
Nicole Kidman is also perfectly cast as the ornamental-without-any-real-redeeming-value Ada Monroe. She is completely believable in the part. You might wonder if she could pull off going from the charming southern belle with nary a marketable skill to an independent, functional, and prosperous farm owner, but there it is.
The cinematography gets a nod as well. Good location work and visuals.
Now for the bad
This movie is at least half an hour too long. It wanders, repeatedly, away from the point and seems to forget where it's trying to go. Better editing could have made this movie top-notch, but not enough of it found its way to the cutting room floor. The excessive length and meandering plot are a serious detraction from the overall quality of the film, preventing a higher score, but the core of the movie is reasonably solid, so I can't knock it TOO badly.
6.5 (maybe a 7) out of 10.
The Princess Bride (1987)
I am not left-handed!
This movie is a spoof. A spoof of adventure movies. A spoof of medieval pirate romances. A spoof of just about everything. It is fun. It is funny. It is tongue-in-cheek. AND it is eminently quotable.
"Inconceivable!"
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
"Good night. Sleep well. I'll probably kill you in the morning."
"If only we had a wheelbarrow!"
This film is a favorite of the most disparate people. It doesn't matter what kind of movies you like or don't like, if you enjoy laughing (and I haven't yet met anyone who doesn't), you will love this movie.
If you've read my other reviews (e.g., Gattaca, Wild At Heart, Blue Velvet, Mo' Money, etc), you know I am a harsh critic. I can think of exactly 2 positive reviews I have posted (counting this one... Finding Nemo is the other). For me to post a positive review means the movie MUST be worthwhile.
Doesn't matter who you are... see this movie. 'nuff said.
9 out of 10
The Crow (1994)
The comments saying it's a good adaptation...
of the comic must have been written by people who haven't read the comic.
*Possible* spoilers...
When the producers adapted the comic to the movie, they left behind the core of the character. The major characteristic that made The Crow who he was. To describe the revenant of Eric Draven requires only one word: laconic. He was an avenging angel who said very little, and that was a big part of what made him so terrifying to his victims. He appears and they recognize him. He doesn't say much. He doesn't really seem angry. He just, calmly, proceeds to extract the full measure of justice they deserve. Nothing they do can stop him. This is the definition of a revenant. Someone who has died so wrongly that their spirit remains in the earthly plane with a single driving purpose (in this case, vengeance). Nothing diverts the revenant from that purpose and it's damn near impossible to stop it from accomplishing said purpose.
Making all those long-winded speeches is, simply, something that a revenant would not do. There is no need and it distracts from the purpose.
So. Go back and read the comic, it's better than the movie (which, with 2 exceptions, is always the case). It's not a bad movie, it just doesn't do justice to the source.
4 of 10.
Gattaca (1997)
A Good Idea, Poorly Executed.
Whenever someone asks me the inevitable question of what is my favorite movie of all time more often than not Gattaca is the last film to come to mind.
As I stated in my summary line, it was a good idea, poorly executed. Which bothers me more than a poor idea, excellently executed... at least I can give the poor idea an "A" for effort. Taking a good idea and mangling it with poor execution is the height of bad cinematography.
So. I can hear all you fans of the movie are sitting there at your computers yelling, "HEY! What was wrong with it??!!" Accordingly, I'll tell you:
A) This is supposed to be so far into the future that they have DNA sampling and testing in real time, interplanetary travel all the way to Jupiter, and a colony on one of its moons... yet they're still using the same old rockets to get there (which would take a *minimum* of 4,392 days or more than 12 years... each way). The auto body styles are circa 1950-1960. The clothing is old style as well. If you're going to do a futuristic movie, make it LOOK futuristic. If it looks old-school, that detracts from the futuristic setting. If they could do better with Star Wars in 1977, the CERTAINLY could do better with Gattaca TWENTY years later, in 1997.
B) None of the characters were particularly likable, Dr. Lamar (played by Xander Berkeley), was the least unlikable of the lot. Jerome was an arrogant, bitter, self-absorbed <expletive deleted> who had little better to do than wallow in self pity; Irene could have been replaced by an inflatable date without anyone really noticing; and Vincent wasn't much more than an automaton, displaying no fear, stress, or passion in spite of his precarious situation.
C) The writing and acting were cardboard, at best. We get no sense of the stress that Vincent is under on a 24/7 basis (that's the writer's fault), and the thespians involved run the gamut of emotions from A to B (the actor's fault, with an assist going to the director).
D) What a boring, uninspired title. It should have been called "Borrowed Ladder."
Mo' Money (1992)
Another one of "Pat's Picks"
Several years ago, I had a roommate whom I will call "Pat" to protect the not-so-innocent. He had a history of selecting the WORST movies. Schlock like Blue Velvet, Naked Lunch, and Wild At Heart. Mo' Money was another one of "Pat's Picks." It's a waste of good celluloid. I've seen detergents leave better film.
The writing was sophomoric. The acting was weak. The "humor" was juvenile. A 12 year old would find this movie funny, but no one over the age of 14 could think it anything short of an insult.
It might be worth the price of a rental for one reason and one reason only: Stacey Dash. I would turn down the sound and just enjoy that glorious smile, but then I'd miss her incredible voice. A little surgical clipping is in order. Blessed be the "mute" button.
Beyond that, don't waste your time or money. If, like myself, you want to see Stacey, look for her in other movies... Renaissance Man, for example... Heck, even Illegal In Blue had some redeeming aspects that are conspicuously lacking in Mo' Money.
Finding Nemo (2003)
Never thought I'd recommend a Disney movie...
but here I am so grab shell, dude, 'cause I'm giving this film 9 out of 10.
This was one of the best movies I've seen in several years (even glossing over the fact that 90% of the most recent movies have been schlock, that's still saying something)! This movie was terrific! Take your sweetie. Take the kids. Heck, go alone! See this movie! It is hysterical. There are one-liners you'll find yourself quoting afterwards. "What is it with men and asking directions?" Christopher Columbus didn't need directions and neither do I! That's what GPS is for. (-;
It's got a cute story (see the plot summaries), good characterization, good acting, good writing... the only minor deficiency was that Marlin and Dory tended to get a little annoying after a while. It was in-character, it was just an annoying aspect of their characters.
Whatever. See this movie. Rent it. Heck, BUY it! I plan to. And no hurling on the shell, OK... I just waxed it.
The Perfect Storm (2000)
Eye Candy.
There is nothing worthwhile in this film excepting the dramatic storm scenes. If you want plot, forget it. If you want outstanding acting, forget it (the acting wasn't bad, but wasn't overly good either). If you're in the camp that says, "I didn't see Top Gun and Days of Thunder for the plot either" then this could be worth a look.
I saw it in a theatre and, having the storm scenes on the big screen was incredible. HOWEVER, as I left the theatre, I said to myself, "So what? What was the point of this movie?" And I answered myself, "There isn't one."
If you want something more than brainless entertainment, rent something else. If all you're looking for is spectacular scenes, rent this, but don't pay too much for it.
3 out of 10.
The Matrix (1999)
Great Movie with a Couple of Plotholes
Since there are already plot summaries of this movie, I won't waste your time rewriting them. On to my review...
I only had 2 problems with this movie:
1) Since the machines are dependent on solar power, (as if they couldn't CHANGE where they got their electricity from) the world governments decide to block out the sunlight. Well. Isn't that bright. Wakie, wakie... without sunlight, plants don't grow. Without plants, animals don't have anything to eat. Without plants and animals, PEOPLE have nothing to eat. So... Let's kill off every living thing on earth, just so we can say we won. We beat the machines. Someone's got the IQ of a grape. Peeled. Still, that's par for the course with governments, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
2) Even accepting that our twits... er... governments DID block out the sun, here comes Morpheus, the freedom fighter. His plan is to release all of these people (who are COMPLETELY unaware of their actual situation are are living perfectly happy "lives" INSIDE The Matrix) into the real world... where their muscles have to be rebuilt, where there is no sun, no plants, no animals, and NO FOOD. What's the phrase? From Scylla to Charybdis, perhaps? From frying pan to fire? Given that we only know what our senses tell us, and the input from our senses is interpreted by our brains, wouldn't these people be better off INSIDE? There they may be "slaves," but they are living comfortable, happy lives (according to the sensory data that their brains are registering, at any rate). They get to determine the course of their virtual lives just as if they were living in the real world (excepting that they're more comfortable than they would be aboard the Nebuchadnezzar).
Now, having gotten THAT off of my chest, this is a great movie, provided it is approached from the correct perspective. I didn't see Top Gun for the plot. Nor did I see Days of Thunder for the plot. This movie is EYE-CANDY. Great special effects, decent (while not outstanding) acting, lots of action sequences, and visually pleasing thespians (Carrie-Anne Moss and Belinda McClory are both knockouts and, I assume, the feminine gender appreciates the surface aspects of Keanu Reeves). Perhaps the best acting was done by Hugo Weaving (compare Agent Smith with Elrond in "Lord of the Rings" and you'll see the range that Weaving achieves).
I have to dock the movie a point each for the plotholes mentioned above, but, subsequent to the suspension of disbelief, the storyline follows the expected paths and provides substantial entertainment (which is what we were watching it for in the 1st place). "If one expects plot, one will be disappointed. If one does NOT expect plot, the lack of it goes unnoticed." (Credit: C.S. Knepper)
8 out of 10