Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Kennedys (2011)
10/10
A Little Slow, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a better cast
25 March 2023
My mom got too bored to watch all the way through the first episode. The "plot" is merely known historical events or at least accusations, so there is nothing new there. But I was impressed by the casting: to pick people who looked quite a bit like the actual people, but then were also good enough actors to adopt their mannerisms, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better cast. The only one I had trouble with was Rose: the actress actually came across as intimidating, whereas the real Rose is just naive and pathetic. It's a little hard to believe Diane Hardcastle's version would put up with Joe's infidelities.

Sadly, not enough time is spent on the relationships between the siblings: how did the sisters relate to JFK and RFK, etc.

But even with these minor flaws, it is a "10."
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wow I have actually discovered a horror flick stupider than "Basket Case" or "Truth or Dare"
4 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Certainly sounded interesting. The concept has potential. This version, though, is mind-numbingly bad. Where to begin: #1 The pace of the movie is half-the point of view of a third person, half-home movie nonsense. The first half is so dull I would have fallen asleep if I hadn't been doing chores while I had this on. #2 The editing is horrendous... you see the camera stops in some of the jumps in footage. They attempt that technique of flashing back and forth between one side of a character and another - to build suspense? - but all it actually does is make you wonder what the movie is doing. One switch was so abrupt I had to back it up to make sure I hadn't missed anything. #3 The plot spends half the movie developing the characters' frustrations with each other and arguing about whether the Devil is real or not. Yawn. #4 Acting is pathetic. In one scene, one of the campers is crawling - bloodied - through the woods, ostensibly to try to stay alive. From one angle, he looks genuinely anguished (though the blood looks more like water with a little red dye in it), but from the other angle, he just looks tired. A victim in one scene screams before the hit. Plenty of screaming somebody's name and "is somebody out there?" with no reason to expect any answer.

SPOILER: And, the coup de gras! In one scene there are actually very fake looking lighted red eyes peering from inside the woods (stolen from "Amityville Horror"?), but the end of the movie all but says it's not the Devil doing the killing. So what were those eyes supposed to be?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Burn Notice (2007–2013)
10/10
So much fun!
14 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
When I saw the ads for this, I dismissed it without watching because it looked like just another Miami Vice ripoff, and Miami Vice was stupid. My wife happened to have it on one night, and I watched while eating my dinner. The bank robbery-hostage episode was my first. I was pleasantly surprised, amused and craving more. It is serious to a degree. But there is an undercurrent of humor with Sam, Fiona and mom that add a nice twist to the whole spy genre. Narration adds an element of what the lead character is thinking, which in many cases is important because the viewer would have no idea what he's doing otherwise. Building his own contraptions adds to the fun, making the situations seem possible.

Spoiler: some of the tidbits Michael provides in his narration are not true. Example: Putting pressure on the jugular will not actually make your opponent pass out. A basic judo class will teach you pressure points that actually work, but that one was debunked as a myth by my sense.

It's also refreshing to see a petite woman cast in the role of a gun-loving explosives expert. She has her girly side, but Fiona is quite the tomboy, making her more fun and less drama. And mom's meddling/loving strength makes it all seem more human.

All in all, Burn Notice has become my favorite TV show. Hunting down all the DVDs...
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Night Court (1984–1992)
10/10
Danny Got His Gun Among the Funniest of All Time
27 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Once you've seen enough other episodes to be familiar with Dan's personality, the series of episodes called "Danny Got His Gun" is among the funniest TV episodes of all time. It's the type of comedy my friends and I quote and laugh about over card games, on the order of Monty Python. While Dan is living with an Eskimo clan who rescued him, Dan is at his all time selfish best until he has to perform an appendectomy in place of the doctor. And yet even as he comes to grips with his own failings, the comedy doesn't subside, as he tells God "you could have given women TUSKS or something... Not that that would have stopped me." Guaranteed laughs!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Town (2010)
2/10
Sadly, a wasted opportunity
14 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I rented this because the idea sounded like a rare good one. Unfortunately, what few good ideas Hollywood has any more, they somehow manage to screw up. The Town is 125 minutes of my life I'd like back.

The movie starts with a bank heist, that kind of seems semi-professional but they take a hostage as a precaution. After they let the hostage go, one of the robbers follows her to make sure she's no threat. They meet, and they accidentally end up falling in love. Romance dramas aren't my preferred genre, but that's a pretty good story line to start with. It's definitely problem for the protagonist to try to get out of without hurting her. Etc.

What they did with it, though, was boring, slow and full of pointless twists and turns in the plot. Was the writer trying desperately to confuse the viewer so as not to guess the ending? I almost shut this one off a couple times, and the only reason I didn't was, to find out if I guessed the ending right. And the actual ending was far stupider than I had guessed, which means this writer has a lot to learn about suspense and climax. It's too bad, because the premise was really box-office hit material. No wonder I never heard of this when it was out!
16 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Same old stuff, mildly amusing
26 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
After getting some comic value out of the first movie (I know, critics hate comedies, but normal people don't have to be "moved" to enjoy a movie.), I was looking forward to this one. Big disappointment! Same stuff, just a bigger museum, with some new characters added in. But as Stiller and Amelia Earhart try to find someone who can help decode an Egyptian tablet, it seemed such a forced way to add in the other exhibits-come-to-life.

Throw in more of the standard Ben Stiller so-called comedy (which just annoys me), including seemingly five long minutes of getting slapped by the monkeys, the comedy well had clearly run dry.

And then we bounce back and forth between, serious introspection on what makes him happy, to attempted humor in Custer, I'm no longer sure if this flick was meant to be very stupid comedy or lame attempt at real human drama.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Valkyrie (2008)
7/10
Gripping drama
1 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is not a WWII action movie, and that's the reason it works. I don't know the history of this story, but knowing how Hitler died historically made me wonder where this was going when the plot seemed to be succeeding. I was thinking, something has to go wrong, or this is not historical. Yet I was surprised to watch it all play out - call the end an anti-climax perhaps? Anyway, it helps to be a history buff watching this: if you put yourself in the shoes of a conspirator-traitor it will mean more. The story is intense, though the action is not so much. I would have liked the writer to have explored the Wagner-Hitler connection more; why name this operation after Wagner's opera? Tom Cruise makes the Colonel character work; probably other actors could have done just as well - no Oscar here. I would have liked a bit more time spent on the motives of Olbricht and Fromm for their actions and inaction. It is fear of ending up on the "wrong" side that usually causes these decisions - that should have been further explored. My wife was pleased that the producer at least saw fit to explain what happened to von Stauffenberg's family at the end.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Bond is Dead
16 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I am thoroughly disappointed by the way they are "re-making" James Bond. It's been a successful franchise for 2 generations +, but it's over now. They've strayed from the formula, and now it's just another action movie, indistinguishable from the others.

There's no Q, Moneypenny, gadgets. He's not really even sophisticated any more, just a secret agent with a chip on his shoulder. I don't mind him having a harder edge, that's what I liked about "Die Another Day," where he went rogue for a while seeking revenge, against M's will.

But the sophistication is now gone. It's not the actor's fault, either. I couldn't care less if Bond is blonde or not, the script is just "Bourne," not "Bond." The producers should not be allowed to continue churning out this garbage.

Don't waste your money on this, thinking you're going to see "Bond, James Bond" 007 "shaken, not stirred." He is apparently no more.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
"The Dark Knight" Is Not For Kids, and That's Why It's So Good!
22 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It is dark and disturbing and worth every penny. A great movie should be about the characters and the story, not the special effects, stunts and other tricks.

Christian Bale: a good performance given the script. After the evolution into Batman in the first movie, he seems a little too willing to just give up the alter ego because he doesn't understand the Joker. In the first movie, Alfred warned him that he was getting lost in this "monster" he had created - that angle would be far more interesting than throwing his hands in the air over him. Still, there is some interesting philosophy here regarding Wayne's unwillingness to cross the line into being the executioner - and the extraordinary attempts to rescue hostages while also not permanently damaging police officers towards the end is the apparent result. But I would like to see Batman revert to the behaviors more like an animal of "Batman Begins" like crouching in the dark as if waiting to pounce, and more fist-fighting and jumping off rooftops.

Bruce, Alfred and Lucius Fox: I enjoyed watching the development of their relationship. Alfred continues his reluctant role as the dutiful butler who really is companion to Bruce because of the prior relationship with his father. And Morgan Freeman was awesome in a scene where he calls the bluff of a Wayne Enterprises employee who thinks he's going to bribe Bruce Wayne. But why they allow someone outside the inner circle access to the books of the front for Batman's technical needs is never explained, never really corrected and is a major error in the story. As carefully contrived as this grand plan was in "Batman Begins," one would think the secret would have been more secure than this.

OK, next: Rachel Dawes. I DESPISED her character in "Begins." She was such a b****, bossy, presumptuous, sanctimonious, condescending. I was so disappointed at the end of "Begins" when she rejected Bruce instead of him telling her to take a flying leap. After all he had been through, he should have dumped her like a bad habit. At least her character was nicer in "The Dark Knight." A flatter performance, but she did not annoy me. They did a good job finding a decent actress who looked a lot like a little older Katie Holmes to maintain some continuity between movies.

And finally, just like everybody else I have to say Heath Ledger as the Joker made the movie. Far and away better than Nicholson. Not just the silly sort of crazy from "Batman" of '89, but truly demented psychosis. My 16-year-old niece wanted to see this because of him for 16-year-old girl reasons; I was never a fan of Heath Ledger. His performance here was incredible. I don't think it crossed my mind once who the actor was; I believed every bit of his chaos-loving creepiness. I don't think anybody will ever be able to top this performance. The "Dark Knight" ends with an opening for a return of the Joker in a future film, but since Mr. Ledger is no longer able to fill that role, they should let it rest in peace with him. There were plenty of other villains from the comics that could make appearances without having to try to force someone else to fill Ledger's shoes.

I am pleasantly surprised by the depth of philosophy presented. Most action movies these days are just eye-candy. Wow everybody with special effects and fight scenes, and morons flock to the movies without any further thought given to story. Reasons for the violence are seldom fully explained and typically are not expected, just shut off the brain and watch the carnage. So I'm impressed that although a character like the Joker almost would not need a reason, he explains his demented self nonetheless. One could argue, of course, that his explanation was a lie. But it still goes further than most in contemplating something deeper than you're seeing an explosion because explosions sell tickets.

I'm all for riveting action, but some of these fight scenes were actually too quick. But the motorcycle was awesome, and how it came into being was better still. Not just a contraption Fox is requested to create, it demonstrated a weakness in the Batman toolbox that emphasized the human side of the hero: Batman's gadgets can fail. The will to act supersedes training or technology. Definitely should show that more often. The scene in Asia involved a "Mission Impossible"-style stunt, and I hope to see more of that in future installments. After all, part of the Batman mystique involves his ability to "fly." This one was more cerebral than muscular, and a delicate balance is to be achieved.

My wife tells me someone on a news or talk show commented that she didn't "get it." LOL There's a surprise! Morons and bimbos can expect to enjoy this for the action, intense hostage situation, and even some brief comedy without noticing too much logic and reasoning - just tune out some of the dialog and they'll be OK.

All you parents who are upset this thing wasn't made for kids, get over it. Just because it started as a comic doesn't mean the director should have to make it kid-friendly. Leave them with grandma for a night and go see it on a date with your spouse. This is not for the kids, and that's WHY IT'S SO GOOD.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Batman Begins (2005)
10/10
The best "Batman" movie ever!
8 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This one seemed the best because it was dark and yet real. It seemed this producer tried to put together a plot based on the idea of: what would it take for a normal real person to be willing to become a dark superhero? I always liked Batman most because he did not rely on super "powers" like Superman, or experiments-gone-wrong like Spiderman or the Hulk.

The best part of this one, though, is the relationship between Lucius Fox (the guy who creates the gadgets) and Bruce Wayne. It's so wink-wink-I know what you're up to but I won't say it, just the way it would be in the real world. Example, one of the best lines: "Mr. Wayne, if you don't want to tell me exactly what you're doing, when I'm asked I don't have to lie. But don't think of me as an idiot." Can't wait for the sequel, with a Joker who seems more psychotic and criminal than Jack Nicholson's Joker to square off with a Batman who seems more passionate about what he's trying to do than Michael Keaton's character ever did. (That, and I can believe Chistian Bale beating up on bad guys. Michael Keaton beating people up? Please. Stick to Beetlejuice...)
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A big disappointment from Eastwood
27 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Outstanding battle scenes, but I nearly fell asleep through the other plot intertwined about the propaganda campaign. And the point was made well before the narrator bothered to state it at the end of the movie.

I think my grandfather, who fought in the 2nd wave of the invasion at Normandy, would agree with the basic premise that these men fought for their country but died for their buddies. I think he would disagree, however, with the rejection of the "hero" title. Every war story he has told me had another theme: Sure, war is ugly. But sometimes it is necessary. We did what we had to do, and millions of people are not living in Nazi Germany or their concentration camps because of us.

As WWII movies go, "Saving Private Ryan" was far better. Clint Eastwood should stick to battle scenes and leave political commentary to... well, actually nobody in Hollywood has made a movie with political overtones that I didn't have big objections to, so I should close by saying Hollywood needs to learn to stick with entertainment and get off their political high horses!
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Entertaining, if completely preposterous
22 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The Book of Secrets is entertaining more for the Indiana Jones-style booby traps and the amusing bickering between Gates' estranged parents than the lackluster plot. The concept of a villain is seriously underdone. The bad guys are willing to shoot people and wreak havoc on the streets of London to get what they want, but towards the end the villain agrees to self-sacrifice as long as he "gets credit" for the find? Please. Any personality so motivated by greed would have forced more of a confrontation than we see here - a Lara Croft or James Bond sort of duel is in order.

I realize that conspiracy theories are the "in" plot line lately, and they do provide an intriguing element beyond any special effects or the supernatural. But the Book of Secrets poses other believability problems than just whether the viewer accepts the idea of secret inscriptions on the Statue of Liberty or coded writings in a Civil War diary. For example, the Secret Service would not allow an uninvited Gates walking past them at the dinner party just because he's dressed like a waiter - Secret Service screen everybody in attendance at such events. Similarly, sneaking into Buckingham Palace was amusing, but it would not be as simple as depicted. Hidden tablets in desks locked by ancient tumblers and a book concealed by the presidents in the Library of Congress were interesting, but far-fetched. Top it all of with a few Indiana Jones-style devices such as rock carvings that one turns to open secret doors and a lever that one pulls to reveal a tunnel in a boulder, and we have the makings of a completely preposterous story. While entertaining, I never forgot I was watching a movie.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed