Aside from a title that's awful fun to say out loud in a crowded dining room, there's not much to recommend this very ill-conceived Roger Moore outing. The villains are boring, the action sequences anemic-except for the tuk-tuk chase of course-and the titular Bond Girl is so forgettable that I can't think of anything to say about her. If there's one saving grace, it's that the plot is fine. Just fine. Not great, innovative, or original, but fine. Honestly, this movie makes me kind of sad. Moore could have bowed out of playing Bond with the above-average For Your Eyes Only, but instead made this, and then another one that I hear is even worse. If you're a Jame Bond completionist, then you might as well suffer through it. For casual fans, this goes in the "skip" column.
Reviews
7 Reviews
Sudden Impact
(1983)
First Dirty Harry I legitimately didn't like.
25 May 2022
Look, I'm not the biggest fan of the Dirty Harry movies. I've been watching them because they're famous, but in the end, I think they're just fine and not much more. The character is iconic, and there are some famous lines, etc, etc. I'm just not that into it. That said, I did find something in the first three to like, and I can honestly say I don't regret watching any of them. This movie, number four of the series, is a different story. I can't say I hated every minute of it-the end credits were pretty good-but everything else was painful. It's like a caricature of a Dirty Harry movie, as if someone took all the worst parts of the other films and shoved them together, but with an 80s soundtrack because that's what all the kids are listening to, right?
Also, the movie has a very strong opinion about how law enforcement should be run and is absolutely not down with other opinions. The characters, especially the villains, are cartoonish at best. Harry is a nearly unbeatable, infallible killing machine who always knows what's right and always gets his man. Now, it's been a while since I've seen the first Dirty Harry, but I remember him being fallible, imperfect, and even comedic at times, and that made him likable, even if you disagreed with his philosophy. Here, he's a parody of himself. If you think you'd like to try Dirty Harry out for yourself, here's my advice: Pretend it's a trilogy. Watch Dirty Harry, Magnum Force, and The Enforcer, then call it a day or at least skip this one. Haven't seen The Dead Pool yet, but I can't imagine it's worse than this. And if it is, I may have to call the police, because that would be a crime.
Also, the movie has a very strong opinion about how law enforcement should be run and is absolutely not down with other opinions. The characters, especially the villains, are cartoonish at best. Harry is a nearly unbeatable, infallible killing machine who always knows what's right and always gets his man. Now, it's been a while since I've seen the first Dirty Harry, but I remember him being fallible, imperfect, and even comedic at times, and that made him likable, even if you disagreed with his philosophy. Here, he's a parody of himself. If you think you'd like to try Dirty Harry out for yourself, here's my advice: Pretend it's a trilogy. Watch Dirty Harry, Magnum Force, and The Enforcer, then call it a day or at least skip this one. Haven't seen The Dead Pool yet, but I can't imagine it's worse than this. And if it is, I may have to call the police, because that would be a crime.
Buffalo '66
(1998)
Loved the filmmaking, just not the film.
20 April 2022
On one hand, some of the filmmaking is really top-notch. Gallo uses some interesting little tricks and techniques that give this movie a unique, charming, indie feel. There are tap dance and musical numbers, fake freeze frames, creative camera angles, and just stuff that'll make you go, "Hey, that was kind of neat." There's something about this movie I can't help but respect. I just wish all those great tricks and techniques were used in service of a character I didn't want to punch for two hours.
That's my biggest gripe: Gallo's character is thoroughly unlikeable. The movie tries to excuse his behavior by showing his background, and you can't help but feel a little sorry for the guy from time to time, but boy did I never come around to liking him. I never believed his journey or felt that he really found redemption by the end. And I really didn't believe how his relationship with Christina Ricci ended up. I would have pushed him into traffic the first chance I got, but that's just me.
This is apparently a classic of 90s indie filmmaking, and as I said, there are some great bits in it. The biggest flaw is the main character, and he's in almost every scene. This, by the way, isn't an indictment of Gallo himself-many others have done that and with more information than I have-I'm just talking about the movie. I'm glad I saw it, just to say that I have, but that's about it.
That's my biggest gripe: Gallo's character is thoroughly unlikeable. The movie tries to excuse his behavior by showing his background, and you can't help but feel a little sorry for the guy from time to time, but boy did I never come around to liking him. I never believed his journey or felt that he really found redemption by the end. And I really didn't believe how his relationship with Christina Ricci ended up. I would have pushed him into traffic the first chance I got, but that's just me.
This is apparently a classic of 90s indie filmmaking, and as I said, there are some great bits in it. The biggest flaw is the main character, and he's in almost every scene. This, by the way, isn't an indictment of Gallo himself-many others have done that and with more information than I have-I'm just talking about the movie. I'm glad I saw it, just to say that I have, but that's about it.
April Fool's Day
(1986)
Might help to have the ending spoiled.
20 April 2022
This is one of those movies that has a famous--by which I mean infamous--twist ending. The ending is divisive, controversial within the horror community, and the one thing that makes this film stand out amongst all the other 80s slasher films clogging the cineplexes. And that's too bad, because the movie itself is pretty good, for what it is. The acting is surprisingly top-notch, as if they hired actual actors as opposed to the craft services guys; the script is more clever than you'd expect, though not without clichés; and the humor--it is called April Fool's Day, after all--kind of works. I actually laughed out loud a few times. That doesn't happen often in horror movies. Well, not on purpose. Overall, if that ending wasn't so divisive, this would be a fine, if not groundbreaking, example of a genre that was at the height of popularity.
But, let's talk about the ending. As it happens, I knew how the movie was going to end going in. It was featured in a documentary about slasher films, so I was prepared for it. I'm not sure how this might have affected my enjoyment of the film. Had I not known about the ending, and known what hints to look for along the way, would I have liked it as much as I did? Would I have seen the ending coming regardless? And would figuring it out on my own have made it better or worse? I'm really not sure. I suppose if you go into this expecting more of the same-another Friday the 13th clone, for example-then the ending might leave you feeling a bit cheated. It certainly is unusual, and while unusual is good, it can also be enraging.
So I don't know. You now know there's a twist at the end, but you don't know what the twist is. You might be able to guess, but guessing isn't knowing. All I can say is, I had it spoiled for me and I still liked this thing a lot more than I'd expected. Whether that's because I knew the ending or in spite of it, I'm not sure. Two more things: First, it's not a masterpiece. There are some rough edges, and it helps not to think about it too hard-though it does cover its bases surprisingly well. Second, there are actually two twist endings, the one everyone knows, and another one added on by the studio. There was yet another ending in the script, but it got canned after test screenings, from what I understand. For me, it's the studio ending that takes the shine off. Aside from that, this was a pleasant surprise, and a film I'll probably come back to again. If you want the ending spoiled, watch Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film. If you don't, then just watch the darn thing and keep an open mind. You might like it. I'm not joking.
But, let's talk about the ending. As it happens, I knew how the movie was going to end going in. It was featured in a documentary about slasher films, so I was prepared for it. I'm not sure how this might have affected my enjoyment of the film. Had I not known about the ending, and known what hints to look for along the way, would I have liked it as much as I did? Would I have seen the ending coming regardless? And would figuring it out on my own have made it better or worse? I'm really not sure. I suppose if you go into this expecting more of the same-another Friday the 13th clone, for example-then the ending might leave you feeling a bit cheated. It certainly is unusual, and while unusual is good, it can also be enraging.
So I don't know. You now know there's a twist at the end, but you don't know what the twist is. You might be able to guess, but guessing isn't knowing. All I can say is, I had it spoiled for me and I still liked this thing a lot more than I'd expected. Whether that's because I knew the ending or in spite of it, I'm not sure. Two more things: First, it's not a masterpiece. There are some rough edges, and it helps not to think about it too hard-though it does cover its bases surprisingly well. Second, there are actually two twist endings, the one everyone knows, and another one added on by the studio. There was yet another ending in the script, but it got canned after test screenings, from what I understand. For me, it's the studio ending that takes the shine off. Aside from that, this was a pleasant surprise, and a film I'll probably come back to again. If you want the ending spoiled, watch Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film. If you don't, then just watch the darn thing and keep an open mind. You might like it. I'm not joking.
Eden Lake
(2008)
A rare movie that left me shaken.
10 February 2022
This movie is not for the faint of heart.
Others have called it bleak, brutal, and depressing. And it is. I ignored all that and went in thinking it'd be another British neo-horror flick like The Descent, but boy was I wrong. Now, don't misunderstand me: it is a horror movie but in the most literal meaning of the term. The events in this film are horrific, and it leaves you feeling horrible at the end. To tell you why would require spoilers-and I won't do that-but you might want to spoil it for yourself to save some heartache. Let me just say it doesn't have a happy ending. You can thank me for that warning later.
I get why the rating is relatively low, and I don't begrudge anyone their low scores. It is not a movie for everyone and isn't trying to be. I can't say I liked it or enjoyed watching it, but films so rarely leave me palpably affected. I had no choice but to give it a higher score. I'll probably never watch it again. If you watch it, I recommend having a collection of funny cat videos on standby. But the movie is excellent. Bleak, brutal, and depressing for sure, but excellent.
Others have called it bleak, brutal, and depressing. And it is. I ignored all that and went in thinking it'd be another British neo-horror flick like The Descent, but boy was I wrong. Now, don't misunderstand me: it is a horror movie but in the most literal meaning of the term. The events in this film are horrific, and it leaves you feeling horrible at the end. To tell you why would require spoilers-and I won't do that-but you might want to spoil it for yourself to save some heartache. Let me just say it doesn't have a happy ending. You can thank me for that warning later.
I get why the rating is relatively low, and I don't begrudge anyone their low scores. It is not a movie for everyone and isn't trying to be. I can't say I liked it or enjoyed watching it, but films so rarely leave me palpably affected. I had no choice but to give it a higher score. I'll probably never watch it again. If you watch it, I recommend having a collection of funny cat videos on standby. But the movie is excellent. Bleak, brutal, and depressing for sure, but excellent.
It's Alive
(1974)
Bizarre concept makes for shockingly underrated movie.
10 November 2021
I think I know why the IMDb rating is so low. When people hear about a 70s movie featuring a killer baby, they make assumptions. They expect it to be cheesy, cheap, poorly made, with bad acting, terrible effects, and a stupid script. And, presumably, that's what they want. Then they watch it, and instead, they find a mature, serious, even emotional film that takes its absurd concept and treats it as seriously as possible. The problem is, the people who made It's Alive didn't know they were supposed to make a shlock fest. They thought they were making an actual movie. The acting is top-notch, the script well written and paced, and the effects are about on par with most creature features of the 70s. Put it this way: the monster-baby is as believable as the shark in Jaws, but I don't hear anyone complaining about Bruce. What we have here is a lesson about judging a film sight unseen. When you watch a movie, it's best to keep an open mind. Rather than expect crap-in either a good or bad way-expect nothing. Or, I should say, expect the unexpected because It's Alive delivers. I went in curious but not hopeful, and it ended up being one of my favorite horror flicks of the decade. It's not great cinema, perhaps, but it's legitimately trying to be, and in my opinion, gets awfully close.
Just One of the Guys
(1985)
I thought it would be good. I was wrong.
8 June 2021
I searched high and low for this movie. Don't ask me why. When I found a copy, I was elated. Don't ask me why. When I settled in with my popcorn and raisinets and pressed play, I held high hopes. Don't ask me why. Very quickly, I was in hell. Let me tell you why.
First, let's talk about the acting. There isn't any. Oh, sure, words are coming out of the mouths of people on-screen, but I wouldn't call it "acting." I'd call it something like "reading lines." Literally. I think people were standing just off-camera holding up cue cards. Or, more terrifying, maybe there weren't, and that's the problem. Oh, sure, Joyce Hyser has some screen presence. She can't act, but she does have a certain something, I'm just not willing to say what it is in public. Then there's Clayton Rohner, who handles himself well and I suspect is the only cast member who ever took an acting class. Aside from Zabka, of course, who is stuck playing the same character he always does. Hard not to feel sorry for the guy, honestly.
Then there's the script. There isn't one. Oh, sure, someone typed away on a keyboard or typewriter and applied words to paper, but I wouldn't call this a script. "Script" implies some level of planning and thought, maybe even a certain amount of skill. This has none of that. Okay, fine. I was told if I couldn't say something nice, to say nothing at all. So, here's something nice: the concept is solid. Not original, but solid; there's a lot of places a movie can go with the good ol' gender switch storyline. The 80s produced some real classics in this sub-genre, so I won't complain about the overall idea. And the "script" isn't a complete write-off. There are some good scenes here and there-the big scene in the cafeteria being the standout-and I may have chuckled once or twice, I'll admit it. Okay, nice over. Now back to tearing it apart. Which is easy, because the holes in the plot are massive. Decisions are made, both by the characters and the writers, that come out of nowhere. I was more confused by this movie than a Fellini picture. This would be a good move to show a screenwriting class to illustrate what not to do.
I could tear apart this movie all day-and I might, just for fun-but you wouldn't be interested in that. You're reading a review. You want to know if this movie is worth your time. Well,
tldr; it isn't.
Hope that helps.
If you like cross-dressing comedies, watch Tootsie or Victor/Victoria. If you want a High School comedy, watch Ferris Bueller or Easy A. Not this. At the end of the day, the best thing about this movie is the poster. Now that I think about it, that might be what caught my interest. Don't ask me why.
First, let's talk about the acting. There isn't any. Oh, sure, words are coming out of the mouths of people on-screen, but I wouldn't call it "acting." I'd call it something like "reading lines." Literally. I think people were standing just off-camera holding up cue cards. Or, more terrifying, maybe there weren't, and that's the problem. Oh, sure, Joyce Hyser has some screen presence. She can't act, but she does have a certain something, I'm just not willing to say what it is in public. Then there's Clayton Rohner, who handles himself well and I suspect is the only cast member who ever took an acting class. Aside from Zabka, of course, who is stuck playing the same character he always does. Hard not to feel sorry for the guy, honestly.
Then there's the script. There isn't one. Oh, sure, someone typed away on a keyboard or typewriter and applied words to paper, but I wouldn't call this a script. "Script" implies some level of planning and thought, maybe even a certain amount of skill. This has none of that. Okay, fine. I was told if I couldn't say something nice, to say nothing at all. So, here's something nice: the concept is solid. Not original, but solid; there's a lot of places a movie can go with the good ol' gender switch storyline. The 80s produced some real classics in this sub-genre, so I won't complain about the overall idea. And the "script" isn't a complete write-off. There are some good scenes here and there-the big scene in the cafeteria being the standout-and I may have chuckled once or twice, I'll admit it. Okay, nice over. Now back to tearing it apart. Which is easy, because the holes in the plot are massive. Decisions are made, both by the characters and the writers, that come out of nowhere. I was more confused by this movie than a Fellini picture. This would be a good move to show a screenwriting class to illustrate what not to do.
I could tear apart this movie all day-and I might, just for fun-but you wouldn't be interested in that. You're reading a review. You want to know if this movie is worth your time. Well,
tldr; it isn't.
Hope that helps.
If you like cross-dressing comedies, watch Tootsie or Victor/Victoria. If you want a High School comedy, watch Ferris Bueller or Easy A. Not this. At the end of the day, the best thing about this movie is the poster. Now that I think about it, that might be what caught my interest. Don't ask me why.
Tell Your Friends