themightyservo Reviews

The Sand (2015)

Needed Burt Gummer!!!

[7/10 · 11 October 2021]

I didn't expect to watch the whole thing.

It felt like a feature-length version made immediately after someone watched the Creepshow 2 short "The Raft".

The underground monster is clever, the whole "floor is lava" concept taken to a new level, and done fairly well.

One of the best writing hooks is thrown in immediately during the setup for the film as characters are told to all put their phones in a bag due to "Vegas Rules" (what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas). One guy's idea is to make it so they don't end up having stupid things posted on the internet afterwards. It's very clever, and it short-circuits the whole issue of a cellphone call ending the movie.

Towards the end of the movie, when the monster has evolved from little tentacles to bigger tentacles, and things have gone from bad to worse, I really, really, really was hoping they would've called up Michael Gross to cameo.

I would love to see an alternate version of the movie with Burt Gummer from Tremors rolling up in a deuce-and-a-half truck with a flamethrower and casually saying "You kids okay? Didn't you see the purple flag for the beach worms? Damn tourists." a la Lost Boys' grandpa's "One thing I never could stomach about living in Santa Carla - all the damn vampires".

There's some pointless drama that might well be there as filler to push the movie run time along since it doesn't really matter to the plot, there's also a scene opening a car trunk that could've been done the exact opposite way in complete safety, and there are character decisions that are clearly "you're going to die if you do this and there's no penalty if you don't", but whatever, it's a cheap horror flick. CGI is cheap but it doesn't really matter.

All of it could've been improved on with Burt Gummer rolling up in a humvee, effortlessly wasting the beach worm, and casually strolling out to the shock of the main characters.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2010)

We're All Really Here For The Cave Art

[9/10 · 10 October 2021]

I like Werner Herzog's work, but you watch Cave of Forgotten dreams for the access to the cave art that's almost impossible to see in life.

With modern high def TVs, it really lets you get a good look at the cave, the art, the bones and debris, and with limited equipment, Herzog & crew did a fantastic job giving us something to look at and watch.

There's some discussion with anthropologists about what life would've been like and in those asides there's a discussion with an anthropologist about the use of an atlatl (la propulsier/woomera/etc.) spear thrower tool in the documentary. The anthropologist isn't the best shot with it, but there are people who are good with them. Specifically there was an anthropologist in the late 1990s who went to Africa to hang out with a licensed elephant hunt in order to test the effectiveness of his paleolithic spear with atlatl on a humanely downed elephant. Turned out it worked rather well. Tragic they couldn't find that guy for the documentary. I add this only as a note for those unconvinced of the atlatl's usefulness - it really is a large advantage for spear usage.

There's a lot of good background and discussion of the cave given, as well as discovery of the cave, the immediate area, the people involved in the research, and it's a solid documentary that gives a good impression of both the cave in a basic and specific sense and the work done in analyzing the cave's art. There's also time taken to let the audience appreciate the cave art.

And then there's the bit about the crocodiles, where Werner Herzog goes his Werner Herzogiest and rambles for a while in a way that probably feels deep to him but sounds more like late night college drinking discussions. That's not even a criticism, I just found some of his non-cave speculation to be so off-the-wall as to be amusing.

Overall, highly recommended, and watch it in the best possible quality you can.

Sorceress (1982)

Awesome! If You're 12... And It's 1982.

[5/10 · 10 October 2021]

To some degree, it's kind of what you'd expect from the second-third-fourth tier sword & sorcery boobs & broadswords of the early 1980s. But it's both much less, and a little more.

You've already read a plot synopsis above, so what's really in it worth seeing?

In no particular order:

The satyr has some interesting character design, and the actor has a bit of fun playing him, adding some movements that make him stand out. It's a shame he wasn't used in a better way.

There are some dead/undead creatures that make an appearance at one point, and the design for them is pretty good.

There's some classic early 80s T&A that tends to be a bit more "fun sexy" and less "creepy exploitative don't do that for this movie", though of course there's some of the latter as well, because for some reason sword & sorcery flicks tend to bring out the sleaze.

There's some utterly terrible acting, and some serviceable acting.

There are a handful of decent fight scenes, and a plethora of abysmal ones.

Without spoiling anything, there's a climatic battle that takes a hard left turn into making no sense, but that hard turn is impressive in its own way.

There are a handful of dumb jokes and attempts at humor that would've fallen flat in 1982, but could be perceived as charming today for how lame they are. If you're old enough to remember 1982, you know they're actually less charming than baffling.

Biggest positive is that the movie genuinely seems to be having some fun.

Biggest negative is that with a bit more effort, the elements to a really good sword & sorcery flick were here. Probably not a Dragonslayer or a Conan, but it still could've been better. That's the sad coda to the entire post-Conan barbarian schlock spawn of the early 80s. People spent money and time on so many of these movies that could have been better.

Sorceress is still fun to see a few of those ideas cranked out, and for a pretty standard low-tier knockoff s&s flick.

The Bride and the Beast (1958)

Cheese With Interesting Stock Footage

[5/10 · 19 July 2020]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is better viewed as a RIfftrax episode than as a standalone movie.

It's got a lot of dumb writing, a lot of dumb character decisions, a lot of goofy concepts, and it's kind of what you'd expect from the poster art - dumb but with some amusing surprises.

What I found most interesting about it was the short bits of stock wildlife footage that was used, just because some animals don't quite look that way anymore, nor do you see that kind of footage really anywhere (sometimes for good reason).

As is explained early on in the film, part of the "safari" the characters go on is to capture wildlife and I'd never seen a zebra roped before this movie. Not something I went looking for, but it was quite the surprise. Probably not pleasant for the zebra, but it's just a visual you never see. (If you feel bad about it, keep in mind that it was a long time ago, and all the people who filmed it are dead now. Of course the zebra is, too.)

There are other cuts of film with rhinos, giraffes, tigers, and other animals in their environment that were probably taken well before Bride and the Beast was made, which probably puts them at least early 50s, if not late 40s or mid 30s.

The rhino stock footage shows rhinos in the wild that still have their horns as they weren't cut to protect them from poachers yet. It shows other wildlife in areas that presumably weren't wildlife parks, nor game preserves.

For that alone, it's somewhat interesting, even though those clips make up only a few minutes of the movie.

As a Rifftrax episode, I'd give it 8/10. Standalone, it's worth 5/10 judging it by so-bad-it's-good standards.

Daybreakers (2009)

Big Budget Deleted Scene As A Movie

[6/10 · 19 July 2020]

There's a deleted scene in Blade where Deacon Frost is asked how his clan of vampires will survive if everyone is consumed by the blood god. It's got a silly shot with humans in blood bag/body bags and explaining that they'll have their supply.

Sam Neill's vampire character is basically the overlord of that human blood bag enterprise in a vampire-dominated world. Like some other reviews have said, it starts off really strong with a unique scenario, then by the end gets a little underwhelming. Sam Neill is great, and comes across pretty sinister. It'd be interesting to see him in a villain role in some larger series like this.

There's a really good "throwaway line" in the movie that's properly done in the midst of Willem DaFoe's character's backstory that sets up an escape later in the movie. After watching reviews of other movies (Mauler's TFA Part 3) that bring up how movies often miss ways to provide setup and payoff for little things like that, it was refreshing.

Looked like Sam Neill and especially Willem Dafoe were having a good time with the movie, and overall it's pretty watchable, moreso for the little touches acknowledging what post-vampire takeover world might look like.

Slither (2006)

Surprisingly Meh, Keep Your Brain Turned Off

[5/10 · 25 October 2019]

Loving reviews seem to be much closer to the release date, and I'm guessing the film had some initial enthusiasm.

I found this as part of a DVD 4 pack along with a couple better movies. Watched it with no setup, no knowledge of anyone or anything associated with the film itself, and it didn't really do much for me.

It seems derivative rather than creative, less an homage than just recycling, and the whole time I kept thinking about how this reminded me of "The Giant Spider Invasion" with victim characters who are frequently unsympathetic, a movie that mocks its victims just enough to make you not really care, and some horror elements that can't quite decide if they're funny or not.

What initially tipped me to it was having Nathan Fillon's sheriff character voice contempt for the people who ostensibly voted for him at the bizarre over-the-top town deer hunt celebration. It was an odd choice, unless it's setting up some kind of "these people are all bad and deserve it because animals are nice" idea which is so weird. If he were the outsider reporter kind of character who voices that kind of view, it would make sense, would allow for him to mock people, would make scenes later funnier, would work, but it's just... odd. It sets up contempt for townies getting killed on a faulty moral basis, which isn't really horror anymore, it's more a kind of gore fetish thing, but in an odd way.

It breaks connection with characters on one side or the other and makes them less sympathetic, which means you're just here to watch them get killed, which is its own thing, but it can't balance the act as it tries to be serious a few times.

The practical effects are great, the CGI effects are adequate. CGI in horror almost always looks inferior to practical effects, so that's not a harsh criticism. There are a few interesting body horror visuals. There are a few scenes that are good, but overall it didn't do much for me.

I kept thinking of things like Tremors, Squirm, and other great and bad horror movies and overall was just underwhelmed with Slither.

If it were lower budget and messier, it would have worked better, but actually taking a Troma movie and making it high budget doesn't translate well.

The Return (2005)

Pretty Good and Visually That Sure Is Central Texas

[7/10 · 25 October 2019]

No saguaro and a whole lot of stubby trees with thorns. Yup.

For those who've been to the area, it's very distinct, and this movie gives a good visual feel for what the area around San Antonio and central Texas looks like.

SMG's character wants to come back to Texas for work to get a shipping contract for her company, and it's a realistic job for the area, as well as a realistic position to have a "face" like Sarah Michelle Gellar in that kind of business. She's very realistic as one who goes to make deals with businesses, and she's completely believable in that role.

The exchange with her boss is realistic and great. The coworker jealous of her success makes sense to begin with... and then less so partway through.

There are other reviews that discuss more plot. I watched this cold, pulling it from a horror movie 4 pack, without even a menu screen. I was not disappointed, and letting it unfold without knowing anything about it probably made it more enjoyable.

I'll just address in vaguest terms minor issues I found that on viewing, you might see... or might not.

The movie has what seems like a few jarring errors that could be solved with a few lines of dialog. Without spoiling any plot elements (these are all peripheral issues):

1. What's up with jealous coworker after the first scene?

2. Why is she staying in that dismal hotel? Were there no other choices available? What woman chooses to stay somewhere that looks like that?

3. Why does a character give a warning where the character clearly knows why they're giving the warning but provides no substance to the warning? And why doesn't SMG just ask "why are you warning me about that" or "what's the story"?

4. Why don't people talk about the problems they know about when someone is clearly interested in them in more than a superficial way?

There are a few plot errors/bad decisions that seem needless and easily fixable with a couple lines of dialog, and they're not "turn your brain off" bad, but they're what takes the movie from great to just pretty good.

The visuals are fantastic, there's good use of showing changes in time, and aside from a couple scenes that drag a bit (and not in a bad way), its pretty solid.

Altered (2006)

Proof You Can Do More With Less

[9/10 · 25 October 2019]

I picked this up in a horror 4 pack and watched it without knowing anything about it. Movie started when I hit play, didn't even have a menu screen to spoil anything. What a pleasant surprise!

To start, you're introduced to characters who all have "show, don't tell" introductions. You don't get a lot of "this guy is this, this guy is this", you get character interaction and dialog, and character actions, with hints of a backstory that you piece together as the movie goes on.

There's a lot that happened in the past with these characters, and as each scene progresses, we learn a bit more. It's never entirely clear what all happened until we're close to the end, and even then, we don't fully know - there are no clear flashbacks, only descriptions that the audience can piece together.

There are one or two "horror movie bad decisions", including characters who get worked up about something they really don't need to at the time, but most of that is still close to in character enough that you can forgive it.

It's not the best movie ever, but for a movie with just a couple locations, a few actors, and pretty tight script, it does well.

Bonus points for having Yuengling beer in the movie and country characters who feel like real people. Big Hollywood tends to portray everyone from "flyover country" in as gross a stereotype as possible, and Altered is a delightful exception.

The Descent: Part 2 (2009)

Bad Writing, Bad Sequel, Everything Wrong With Bad Horror Movies

[3/10 · 25 October 2019]

(Note on spoilers - only small spoilers, big ones purposefully avoided.)

An utter waste of budget that better writing and some attention to detail could've salvaged.

In no particular order:

1. They set it in Appalachia, and they didn't have an American consultant, or if they did, they didn't listen.

The actors and actresses are so European it's not funny. Greg (Josh Dallas) is the only one who doesn't sound like he's from Europe, and he's the only one whose accent doesn't sound bizarre. As an American watching Europeans try to be American, it's like watching extraterrestrials try to mimic humans. They're close, but you can still spot them.

On the positive side, after seeing this, Americans will be able to empathize with the pain Scots feel every time they have to watch someone butcher their accent.

There are a couple of Euro actors who played European characters, and this itself was fine. The globetrotting caving team is less jarring than accents that are, for lack of a better term "off".

I'd cut them slack on things like the environment not looking right, the fact they couldn't get North American wildlife in an early scene, the road signs and pavement markings all being wrong, and things they can't fix without filming in the US, but there's a limit. It makes things look "off".

When you have the caricature hillbilly local wearing a NY Yankees cap, you've missed the mark.

2. Smell and show, don't tell

When your characters fall in a pit filled with gross liquid and chunks that's at the very bottom of a cave filled with CHUD goblins, we could probably guess that's poop.

We know you're not throwing your actors in a puddle of poop, but the characters don't have to swim in it, pick it up, and then ask what it is, only to have a cannibal kobold drop a deuce on them just so you can show us it's poop.

The characters will know it's poop. Poop smells. Carnivore poop is rank.

Characters could have reactions to this. They could hack, they could gag, they could puke. Then we'd know it's utterly vile. You could do a shot of some partially digested human parts in it if you wanted to do gross out.

Forgetting your characters can smell is pretty bad.

When "The Long Kiss Goodnight" forgot that gasoline smells, it was asinine and broke the plot.

When The Descent 2 forgot that poop smells, it was just lazy.

3. Jump scares

Jump scares are cheap. Overuse them and the audience stops caring, and looking for the next jump scare rather than follow the story.

4. Phenomenally Bad Character Decisions To Setup The Movie

I know it's a horror film, and I know characters frequently make bad decisions, but the true reason for those bad decisions is typically bad writing because the writer has to get characters to a place to do a thing and can't come up with a good reason.

The idea that a sheriff anywhere would have such exceptionally bad judgement as to try to drag an unspeaking semi-comatose woman who just emerged from a cave covered in blood and use her as a guide through a cave of horrors is so bizarre that it just breaks the plot from the get go.

Now, laziness and ineptitude, sure. Those things are commonplace in law enforcement. You could have a sheriff who doesn't call for more help, doesn't think the deaths were really a thing, comes up with some plan to cover his own ass while distracting from the real problem, and those would all work in the context of the story quite well. (Florida's Broward County Sheriff Israel and his department's complete inaction on 37 visits for various complaints and crimes to a mass shooter's house before he murdered a dozen people comes to mind)

The sheriff being like the mayor in Jaws saying "everything is fine" because he doesn't want the county to look bad, it's an election year and he wants to wrap this up, etc. Those all work for excuses for bad decisions. In none of those would he take the traumatized woman down into the cave again.

It's an easy fix that they didn't do. Send high speed team of search trauma rescue guys down there, have them killed/disappear. Sarah hears this, begs and pleads that she has to go down if they're going to go again. Second string amateur globetrotting Euro cavers she goes with argue that she may know the cave route and her flight plan and she should go. Sheriff faced with balance of bad publicity from losing team and prospect of things going better decides "this may cost me the election, but if you think you can, and I'm going with you to turn you around if this gets worse". Problem solved.

5. Excruciatingly Bad Character Decisions In The Cave

So your fellow caver gets jumped by a maneating troglodyte and there's three of you and one of it. You're in a cave filled with rocks and you have a bag full of climbing tools. If you:

Grab your rock axe and plunge it in the thing's neck, turn to page 87 Grab a rock and smash its head, turn to page 38 Run away in horror, turn to page 3 Grab your friends mouth so she can't scream and watch the monster kill your expedition leader, close the book and go away now.

There are a lot of "get killed" decisions that unfortunately make sense only in the context of killing characters off.

Each cheap death pulls the audience further from the story. The Descent didn't make light of or have stupid deaths, the Descent 2 doesn't know what it's doing.

6. Chekhov's Cave-In and Lights

I'm just a tad skeptical of the idea that "a gun going off in a cave is like dynamite". Decades of warfare in Tora Bora has proven that to be absurd, but let's give the benefit of the doubt and attribute that to individual cave architecture and plot magic.

The sheriff with his revolver (complete with the obligatory "triggerhappy Americans and their guns" line) runs into one of the creatures early on and rather than turn on lights and shoot the thing, turns off lights and uses a thermal scanner to make his ability to see and shoot worse.

This may come as a surprise to absolutely no one except the makers of the Descent 2, but cops have flashlights. Right up there with cave explorers, they're people who use flashlights a lot. They tend to have good flashlights. Circa 2009 when the movie was made, Surefires and Streamlights were already a thing. The days of the XFiles Maglite were already over.

The logic of "turn lights off to see better" is so terrible it destroys tension by making it laughable. You just wait for the jump scare.

7. Forgetting Your Own Rules

Horror movies tend to have monsters with some kind of rule so we understand how they work. The ones in the Descent can't see, but can hear really well. IIRC the original they were entirely blind, which would suggest you could just put on as many lights as you want and then just stay quiet, which would have its own creepy aspect - like the Star Trek scenes walking around Borg ships.

In the Descent 2, they can still hear really well, but apparently stop hearing whenever its convenient. If I were some kind of subterranean ogre where my cave had recently been invaded by surface humans and I heard humans talking at the bottom of my toilet after hearing my friend scream from the toilet, I'd wonder "are there humans down there?"

There are too many "monster hears, then monster leaves" scenes to list, but they're all bad. We don't get real tension like the first movie.

8. General Horror Contrivances and Overall Bleh

There are plenty of other really bad, pointless scenes, scenes that exist purely for jump scare, dialog is so basic it's just sad, and overall it just sucks.

The Descent has a few horror contrivances, but makes up for it with better writing, good claustrophobic environments, good lighting and a thoughtful way to approach its material.

The Descent 2 is filled with tedious horror contrivances and decisions that exist to put characters in terrible situations. And therein lies the problem.

Horrible decisions don't pull you into a story, they take you out of it. You don't empathize with the characters, you say "that's stupid, I'd never do that" or worse "that's stupid, NO ONE would ever do that" and then you're just there waiting for the next jump scare, which is more jarring than scary as you come to expect it.

9. Positives (mostly wasted)

The gore effects were clearly something that someone enjoyed making, even if the blood looks like tomato soup. If that was a stylistic choice to show vivid colors of life, it wasn't really that helpful in light of the rest of the film.

The stunt players doing the crawling as the monsters are good, they're effective at making them look strange and disturbing, and it's a shame that it was wasted in this film. Even if the monsters parallel the ones in half the Resident Evil movies and Pandorum, I'll cut them some slack.

There's one twist I didn't expect that was a surprise, but then turned bleh very quickly, because the characters don't act like people.

Overall, the movie is a waste. With actual writing and some attention to detail it could've been a decent sequel. Ha.

Babylon 5: GROPOS (1995) Season 2, Episode 10

Some Good, Some Bad

[7/10 · 2 March 2019]

The story-moving parts of the episode are good, and there's some good character development with Dr. Franklin.

But alas, another review, another opportunity to quote Lore Sjöberg's Law of Cinematic Inaccuracy: "Movies get everything wrong. Hacking-based movies are laughable to hackers, military-based movies are laughable to members of the armed forces, and Indiana Jones movies are laughable to archeologists." (Still around on web archive's version of Brunching Shuttlecocks.)

JMS would've benefitted from hiring on a military techincal advisor, or else having pushed one onto the production crew to keep this from looking silly. All it would've taken was an average NCO to trim away the ridiculous.

I'm not going to fault any tactics issues messed up (another reviewer already did that, with spoilers), but I will fault the military culture that isn't understood. The ground force units are undisciplined bordering on absurd.

The lack of uniformity in haircuts gives it away to begin with (seriously, how hard is it to hire actors and actresses with short hair for this sort of thing? even if they're all low-regs?), and with the fact that they're a military force that consists of men and women who look to largely be in their late 20s to early 40s and who seem incapable of promoting.

We're told Dodger, for example, is a PFC. In pretty much all modern land militaries, initial ranks begin at private, with Private First Class being a "promotion" that is typically a gimme. It's a promotion earned in a matter of months, if having to be earned at all. It's the rank that most 18 year olds in the US military achieve simply by being present. It's the "trainee" nametag coming off.

If we're to assume that Earth Force is a volunteer military, the rank and age conflicts prevalent in the cast are silly. If we're to assume they're a conscript military where age is irrelevant, then the discipline issues and trope "motivational" stuff is silly.

There seems to be no Guard force or Shore Patrol at all for the Earth Force unit, leading to unrealistic escalation of conflicts. Troops going on liberty at a friendly port is something militaries have had to deal with for thousands of years, and there are procedures for it that could be acknowledged and still leave room for drama.

I don't consider any of these to be massive faults because the substance of the episode related to the main characters is good (well, without going into spoilers there is a character who's oblivious to something they shouldn't have been especially based on their background that ties in with my military culture complaints, but it's not a dealbreaker) - I do however lament that in a series that otherwise really does good looks at characters and backgrounds that there's such a lost opportunity to actually look at ground force units in a more meaningful way.

Babylon 5: Sleeping in Light (1998) Season 5, Episode 22

Powerful Dirge - And Storytelling Formats Then vs Now

[10/10 · 2 March 2019]

Many people consider the saddest thing in sci-fi to have been Futurama's tragic episode "Jurassic Bark". Sleeping In Light gives a sweet Minbari ambassador's smile and replies "as you humans say... hold my beer and watch this."

The last three episodes of Babylon 5 are a solemn wrap for the show, with Sleeping In Light being the most powerful of them. Objects In Motion and Objects At Rest are a quiet wrap party as the saga winds to a close. Sleeping In Light is terribly, personally mournful for characters and especially the audience.

If you've followed the series to this point, it will feel like losing a loved one.

The note on storytelling is this - audiences when this episode originally aired were watching it on TV, and audiences now will watch it on DVD, BluRay, streaming, etc.

In the tabletop RPG Twilight 2000, a discussion between characters is had about how TV prevents dictatorships and societal madness because the impact is lost: "Then they interrupt him for a commercial for a blender that makes salads or some damn thing, and then some cereal that's gonna make you regular, I mean who can take him seriously?"

Sleeping In Light watched when it first aired would have been interrupted by commercials with Carrot Top telling people to use 1-800-COLLECT for phone calls. You'd go from characters you've known for half a decade dealing with their lives and changes and losses as they age and then be interrupted by a 30 second spot blasting you with some Smash Mouth garbage earworm. The episode would've been impactful, but not the same as today.

Sleeping In Light as viewed today without interruption is a powerful funereal dirge that is stressful bordering on heartache painful, because as it would've been viewed, there would've been moments where it let up and had to rebuild the feeling it was trying to evoke. Today's viewers don't get the show's emotions diluted at all.

As I thought after viewing, and as another reviewer also noted, it's been about 20 years since the last episode and much of the cast has passed on. For those getting back to the series and looking up what's happened since, it's almost as impactful as the episode, as much of the male cast is gone by 2019 - some of them fairly early. For those old enough to have watched the series on TV, even if infrequently, it's also sobering to see that 20 years has passed in life.

Mine (II) (2016)

I Wish I'd Stepped On A Mine Instead

[2/10 · 6 April 2017]

-Spoilers, but it'll help you save almost two hours.-

Ughhh...

Positives:

I give the film two stars because the berber guy played by Clint Dyer is really likable. I'd rather have seen a film about him and his story by itself.

They do some transitions between scenes/hallucinations that involve the main character Mike the sniper taking a step and then hearing a "click" like stepping on the mine as significant life events take place. Those transitions are really, really good. Too bad they didn't make a better film for them to be in.

Negatives:

Lore Sjoberg, professional sarcast, years ago coined what he calls "The Law of Cinematic Inaccuracy". "Movies get everything wrong. Hacking-based movies are laughable to hackers, military-based movies are laughable to members of the armed forces, and Indiana Jones movies are laughable to archaeologists." File this one in the military category.

It's glaringly obvious they either didn't hire any military script adviser or they didn't listen to that adviser. To anyone who's served or even been around anyone who's served in any nation's armed forces, it's terrible.

Marines don't call each other soldier, just like soldiers don't call each other "marine", and lawyers don't call each other "plumbers", and IT specialists don't call each other "deep sea divers".

American military missions (by ground force elements, for those rare few who've read about what happened during Red Wings from military sources and not from media) also don't leave people with no comms, nor stranded in the desert by themselves with no air or ground support for days.

They also have contingency plans, fallback points, rally points, recovery points, and so on. Missions (by ground force military elements) are not seat-of-your-pants things, especially as depicted in the film. The 5 Principles of Patrolling begins with "Planning".

Desert survival involves wearing something to block the sun. Hats are thrown away for dramatic effect to show actors sweating. It's silly. Everyone who's been in any desert knows this.

The generic "mid-east" war setting didn't bother me, but the fluff of people wandering through the desert to have a "wedding" was pretty lame. High value targets don't wander into dunes where air assets can spot them from 30 miles away, they shuffle around settlements.

The whole setup for the initial sniping scene is preposterous, especially when they give us specific information the filmmakers don't understand. They give an exact range for the target Mike's sniping at well over 1000 yards. I seem to recall it's 1708 - nearly a mile (1.6km). When a glint of light reflecting from his scope is spotted (because his hide sucks and he doesn't run a tenebraex killflash or sunshade tube like everyone else has for decades), ragged terrorists start dumping rounds on them at 1700 yards... which is a very tough shot for a very good sniper, and well outside of the effective range of guys with AKs.

The breakdown in discipline between the two "friends" and subsequent wandering into a minefield that's marked by a plot device sign landing literally at their feet is something that no one with discipline would ignore. But Mike the sniper and his friend do, and his friend gets his legs blown off for his troubles, which is the only scene I laughed at because the wagging stumps were somewhat limited technically, but mainly because it was so hackneyed and plainly stupid. There was zero subtlety, and the film failed with its intended mission there completely. It could've been a really disturbing moment, but because it was so front-loaded it came as a joke like Dead Meat in Hot Shots.

Mike gets his buddy to calm down enough to hit himself up with the morphine that he carries...which ain't exactly standard issue. And then after some more war hackneyed war tropes play out, Mike is left in the desert standing on a mine by himself having heard the "click" movie mines make that real ones tend not to.

From there, we get all the lazy hack writer crap you could stuff into the film, from having to save his girlfriend Jenny from 5 "ranger/delta" guys who apparently are not professionals but instead loud abusive drunks who go to bars in partial uniforms, fighting with his abusive dad/stepdad, watching his mom die, not knowing why he's fighting, yadda yadda.

He gets stalked by the wolf from 300, he does a Bear Grylls and drinks his own urine, he has some more hallucinations, and it's just all around the kind of stuff you'd expect to see in this kind of movie that's trying to be smart but just can't make it.

One of the highlights was the berber, but he rather quickly falls into becoming the trope of "magic negro" who helps the white man learn a valuable life lesson. If it were slightly less blatant, it would've worked better, but frankly I could see Clint Dyer carrying a whole film as the berber in a totally different kind of movie.

The group I watched this with started calling out what would happen next, and by the end of the film, we had guessed pretty much the entire course of the movie, with the exception being the berber's interaction with mines.

The very ending is a mess, but by that point you won't care anyway.

In summary: if you want to make an intelligent, introspective look at humanity by trapping a character alone with their thoughts in a desperate situation, watch this first to see what errors to avoid. Otherwise, treat it like UXO and stay far away and call EOD to detonate it in place.

War on Everyone (2016)

Tragically Unfunny, But Could've Had Potential

[2/10 · 6 April 2017]

-No spoilers that aren't already revealed by having looked at the main page of this film concerning filming locations; or are so vague as to be harmless.-

First off, the positives, and the only thing that saves this from a 1 star review:

1. They did some location filming, and it visually looks pretty.

For those who've been to Albuquerque, you know that's what it looks like, and you know that's the peculiar vibe of New Mexico. I'll give credit where it's due that they at least spent some money to go somewhere. And they went to Iceland.

2. There are about three funny jokes. One was part of them going to Iceland. One I remember vaguely existing, but don't remember what it was about. And one ties in with the failings.

Second, where they went wrong: It's not funny. That's where it fails.

Reason 1: Overdoing Politics: The bits with Paul Reiser and Skarskard and Pena being crooked cops and all cops are crooked and racist and so on made the guy sitting next to me in the theater wearing the Free Mumia shirt get up and leave because he thought they were too hamfisted in beating home their politics.

I count as one more positive one line/scene in the movie that's actually really, really sharp and without all the rest of that would've made biting social commentary - about the Albuquerque SWAT team arbitrarily killing a guy that the detectives were looking for. It's a nod to the city's SWAT team killing a homeless man in the hills near the city on video a few years ago, and by itself is biting satire, and it's funny, and by itself it would do a really good job of "show, don't tell" when it comes to the writers' politics, too. But it's in the middle of a movie that apparently was focus-grouped by people kicked out of Copblock for being too extreme, so it loses what would other wise be really good meaningful impact, as well as being really hilarious dark humor at the cops' expense.

Reason 2: Unfunny banter.

The banter between Pena and his kids is dysfunctional in a way that goes from black comedy to just mean, and not entertainingly mean.

His banter with his wife strays well into the realm of pretentiously unfunny - though the discussions hint at the writer's proclivities.

Skarsgard's character is like a film student exploration of Riggs from the more cartoonish Lethal Weapon sequel combined with the more absurd aspects of Trainspotting. And he's equally unfunny.

War On Everyone would probably benefit from a "What's Up Tiger Lily" treatment and having much of the dialog changed. It could be funny, but isn't.

Reason 3: It's trying too hard to be edgy and indie. This is where the trying-too-hard dialogue and politics really converge to be a crappy movie. It also converges with an overuse of dutch angles that just make it obnoxious.

It's like watching a parody of movies written by people who gather in indie circles with their indie friends to watch things so obscure you've never heard of them.

It could've been funny, but it wasn't.

Long story short: don't waste your time. If you're from Albuquerque or Iceland, watch it on mute for the scenery.

300: Rise of an Empire (2014)

Too Sympathetic A Villain

[5/10 · 9 December 2014]

The problem with 300:Rise of an Empire straight up is that the villainess's story is too sympathetic.

When her backstory is explained, it's far too easy to empathize with her, and at that point the protagonists' struggle doesn't seem as engaging.

She may be harsh, but there's reason for much of it; and it made me lose interest in both the ostensible heroes and the movie.

To give a parallel, it would be as if Kirk knew the Ceti Alpha system was unstable and knew he was dooming Khan's people. Khan's rage would be rather justified, and even Kirk's appeal to peace, while good for the innocents caught between the two fighting leaders, would ring hollow for the audience. Khan would be a much more rational madman, and Kirk might still be a hero, but one who'd done something wrong, and thus one that many in the audience would have difficulty siding with.

300:RoaE suffers from roughly the same kind of thing.

It's not really "bad" per se, but the issues with the main conflict mean it's difficult to get invested in the film. Without getting invested in the story, it turns into 300: Waterworld, with fights on boats, intricate character design, stylized shading, and a lot of ramping. It's pretty, but falls flat because there's less reason to care.

Maybe there's a part in the director's cut that fixes Eva Green's character's interaction with the heroes and explains why we the audience are supposed to care about her loss and their victory, but from the viewing I had of it, I found her much more appealing as a heroine who'd been wronged than as a villain.

22 Jump Street (2014)

Surprisingly Sharp, With Theater & Film In-Jokes

[8/10 · 9 December 2014]

I didn't go in expecting much out of this, but was very pleasantly surprised.

The plot itself is pretty simple, the acting seems to be done by a cast that was really enjoying itself (Tatum as a jock really isn't a stretch), most of the bad jokes are at least grin-worthy, and there are a handful of really, really good in-jokes, as well as a lot of poking fun at the idea of sequels.

Specifically, there was one theater/storytelling reference used in the early-middle of the movie that struck me as genius. The people I watched the movie with who weren't even superficially familiar with theater/storytelling terms didn't catch it, but for those who do, it's great.

By that itself, it has the clichéd "something for everyone". Dumb humor, smart humor, and subtle humor - the latter two of which were unexpected.

It's got some dumb elements, but it's a comedy, and the handful of scenes that are bad thankfully don't drag. The end drags a bit, but not so much that it's aggravating.

Overall worth seeing, and fun... something I did not expect to write about it at all.

Grizzly (1976)

Wonderfully Fun Campy Schlock

[7/10 · 13 April 2014]

Grizzly is, as many reviewers have noted, basically Jaws on land. Except cheaper. And not as well written. And not Jaws.

It is wonderfully fun for what it is. The gore effects aren't too over-the-top, but they represent the budget this movie must've been made on back in 1976.

One thing that's really worth noting is that the color effects are delightfully 60s-70s. The colors are rich and vibrant, with strong dark contrasts. The visual texture of the film has a very gritty feel to it, a heavy realism that is both reminiscent of filmstrips and such of the 60s and 70s that were used well into the late 80s. It's a rich color that becomes nostalgic for the time period.

The writing and characters are often what you'd expect, with a couple surprises, but the actors take their roles seriously and some of the over-the-top clichéd dialog is delivered with such a straight face that it's actually good. Exchanges like "Listen -" "NO, YOU LISTEN!" carry a lot of acting talent with them - even if they were clichés then - they're played straight and played well. There is a lot of manly manliness in the movie, but none of it is parody, and that gives it a wonderfully dated charm as well.

Richard Jaeckel's character is great every time he's on screen. His proto-Timothy Treadwell is a great addition to the story, and is a lot of fun.

The monster effects, like the gore effects, are limited by a small budget, but they're adequate for the story, and are still fun.

The ending is unintentionally wonderful if you watch it as a bad movie, and adequate if you watch it as a good movie.

Overall, if you like bad movies, you'll be pleasantly surprised by this as a really good bad movie. If you like good movies, you'll be pleasantly surprised with the earnestness of the film, and you'll enjoy the visuals as well as the often quite good acting.

-- The above review was written in April of 2014. Now, in July 2020, there's a Rifftrax of Grizzly.

The Rifftrax version is 10/10, comedy gold. As the movie takes itself seriously, the jokes land really well.

Born to Race (2011 Video)

Good Popcorn Racing Flick

[8/10 · 9 April 2014]

This movie was a pleasant surprise. I went in expecting a dumb car movie that's a knockoff of any number of other dumb car movies and was treated to a well-executed thoroughly enjoyable fun dumb car movie.

I say dumb because the teen drama part of the film is really predictable. It's a paint-by-numbers movie that hits all the required tropes and stereotypical characters, but it's very well done.

You know the tropes when you see them, the actors know them, the movie is conscious of them, but it plays it well and moves on.

Dumb things the movie does (including dumb character actions) are forgivable, because it's a fun movie.

On to the cars...

I'll preface this by saying I'm more of a fan of older generation car movies (Vanishing Point, Dirty Mary & Crazy Larry, etc.), and tend to be an American car guy who finds imports dull. Chipping a car doesn't have the same appeal to me as wrenching on one, so I'm a viewer with a bias. BUT...

That said, I was very pleasantly surprised. There were plenty of new and old cars to look at, some less common, some more common, some domestic, some import. One of the people I watched the movie with was a huge import buff, and enjoyed it for the imports that were highlighted. I enjoyed it for some of the less-common domestics in the film.

The good racing scenes are done well, and the speed of the races is done well also. There's not a huge amount of time distortion done to most of them during drag racing sequences, just good editing to add to the feel of the movie. The road racing sequences are done pretty well, edited well, and are engaging (and even if one or two may fall in the "dumb" category, it's still a fun movie, so you can forgive it).

The car tech-speak I'm familiar with (non-import stuff) struck me as showing the movie hired at technical adviser at least, and also elevated itself a bit. So it wasn't completely dumb.

Overall, it's a well-executed, thoroughly enjoyable fun mostly-dumb car movie that left me smiling.

The Postman (1997)

Wholly Underrated - Would've Been A Huge Hit In 2002

[7/10 · 19 May 2012]

The Postman suffered from its release date. Had it come out the first couple years post-9/11, it would've been seen as an uplifting epic and been a huge hit.

Instead, it came out in the middle of a period of relative discontent with the US, where there was no threat of anything to be lost, where therewas no threat of stability lost, where there was no greatness to see, as people were absorbed in their own lives and oblivious to the wonders of having such a great country. (Yes, the movie is very focused on the US.) As a national epic, it just came out at the wrong time.

There are plenty of bad elements to the film, and the reason why it's a good film and not a great film. The theme is sometimes missing and then returning in a heavy handed way that makes for inconsistency that could've been done better, but it's still a good film. There are cheesy lines, there are characters or their actions that sometimes seem to be a bit forced, but there are others who are completely within the realm of possibility, and some that are very, very believable.

Larenz Tate as Ford Lincoln Mercury is one of the most uplifting, motivating, idealistic characters on film in a long time - his spirit by itself is inspiring. There are several scenes in which he really shines, as his character takes responsibility for his actions.

Will Patton does a truly outstanding job as General Bethlehem. The character is portrayed every bit as you'd expect a character with his backstory to be - done well, and a character whose occasional seeming overacting would be consistent with how the character - a megalomaniac - would really act. Some small touches towards the beginning really set down who the character is.

Kevin Costner is just pretty good. His low-key attitude sometimes comes off as disinterested and not terribly into the role. Costner does have the physical presence to carry off the role, but on occasion he seems just out of it. Sometimes the movie sometimes seems to dwell on Costner too much, even though he is the main character, the changes in the world that he sets in motion are fascinating. He's not bad, he's just good, not great. The other options for leads that were considered would've been far worse. Costner does pull it off well, but he could've put more effort into his own role. Once in a while his own stated motivations (notably at the end) don't seem to have been developed, and it's possible there was something left on the cutting room floor. This goes to the theme as mentioned above and below as well - there may be some scenes that just didn't make the cut that would've expounded on how the theme developed better.

Olivia Williams is excellent through most of the movie, though her role becomes a bit conventional at the end, limiting what she can do. (Incidentally, she's great in "Below", which I highly recommend as a WWII sub movie - but it's best watched without any reviews, and even without looking at the box - it's best viewed totally fresh, with zero foreknowledge. Seriously, don't go look it up, just cue it on Netflix or order it online and don't read about it. It's really, really, really good.)

Tom Petty's role is fantastic. His first few lines, "I was..." are rather haunting, when you sit down to think about it; they convey a lot of the atmosphere of the film, and go far towards reminding you the world of the Postman is very different.

Daniel von Bargen is excellent, and provides a very good foil for Costner to play off towards the beginning of the film. Almost every scene he's in he manages to convey a seriousness and depth that helps ground the film.

Ron McLarty is fantastic. His character is great, and the way he plays into it is great. He's another of the supporting cast that provides atmosphere to the film, conveying the setting even more; he also sets up some great lines that foreshadow a lot of action in a way that is just subtle enough that it's not cheesy at all, but clear enough that the audience can see something big and satisfying is on the way.

The scenery is majestic, the setting is made to be truly epic - often it is, the score is fantastic (though sometimes a bit heavy-handed, but that's okay), editing is good, lighting is used well, and there's some subtle symbolism tossed in every so often to go along with the overt themes. Some of the costuming stands out positively (especially the improvised uniformity of the Holnists and the carriers), while the costuming for pretty much everybody else is slightly overdone - you can tell there was work put into it, but sometimes almost too much.

Overall, the theme is one that may be lost on many folks, and was especially lost at the time. It's a wonderful, patriotic flick that was released at the wrong time. Just remember it's good, not great.

Across the Line (2000)

A Great Movie For All The Wrong Reasons

[8/10 · 29 April 2012]

***No major spoilers here - nobody likes their movie ruined, just a fairly critical review.***

I just watched it, and I loved this movie, but not for the reasons anyone else listed.

Professional sarcast Lore Sjöberg's Law of Cinematic Inaccuracy goes: "Movies get everything wrong. Hacking-based movies are laughable to hackers, military-based movies are laughable to members of the armed forces, and Indiana Jones movies are laughable to archaeologists." I believe the original version also included cop shows are laughable to cops.

I found Across The Line so unrealistic that it was downright hilarious. I found myself laughing through almost every scene.

As someone who's lived and worked on the border - including many of the towns portrayed and mentioned in the film, this movie is comedy gold.

The portrayal of the Border Patrol is so over-the-top that even members of The Race (not the Harry Turtledove space lizards, the racists at "The Race" aka La Raza) wouldn't buy it. But it's SO unbelievably over-the-top that it's hilarious unintentional parody of what a certain political mindset thinks.

"The coyote" is singularly hilarious on his own, and Eagle Pass, TX as an _actual pass_, as opposed to a city of about 50,000 people (which is really just the nicest neighborhood in Piedras Negras, Mexico with a population of 170,000 or so) is comical.

The "touching story" tells a wonderfully fictional narrative of a college-educated woman who runs from political oppression in Central America and seeks to get into the US to get away from it. In real life, all she'd have to do is go to a regular Port of Entry and declare asylum. There's a lot of paperwork and hassle, but no need to hike through the desert, let alone go through Mexico, where she can be detained and arrested even by Mexican citizens as an illegal alien. She can actually fly to an international airport in the US and just declare asylum there.

One thing that was done right, though hamfistedly, was that coyotes exploit OTMs. They know they can always turn them over to Mexican authorities - who actually are as bad as Ms. Erez wrote the USBP to be. The sad thing is that for less than the coyote's price, they can usually get visas or resident papers if they didn't choose to break the law.

From a technical standpoint, the movie is visually fun to watch. The lighting work is excellent, and both indoor and outdoor scenes were filmed pretty darn well. Editing was solid, and a few scenes that weren't related to Ms. Erez's overt and hilariously wrong political narrative were actually humanizing.

Brad Johnson is excellent in his part, quite believable, even if he's a bit wooden at times, and many of the lines he (and every other character) delivers are forced, or the kind of cheesy, ridiculous political commentary thrown into characters' mouths that's just laughable by itself. When he's given good lines and scenes - even unintentionally humorous clichéd ones, he does quite well, as does Marshall Teague.

Sigal Erez's character is... well, she wrote it, and she used the character to tell the story she wanted to tell (however disparate from reality it is). Her perception of the border is every bit as fictional as her film, sad to say. She CAN act - if given something that was more than a just an unabashedly political piece, I think she'd do very well. She'd do quite well if she did a political piece that was a bit more subtle than a carpet bombing raid. Ms. Erez herself is very pleasant to watch on screen, and her film is genuinely made with good intent. She'd do well to do significantly more research and write a realistic story. With the same effort she put into Across The Line, she could've made a genuinely good film.

The supporting cast does a pretty good job as well doing what Ms. Erez wanted them to do, even though they're also caricatures and stereotypes. The characters being so vividly, overtly, intentionally out to tell Ms. Erez' unreal message makes them laughable, even if they're portrayed technically well by actors.

Adrienne Barbeau being in the movie reminded me of when Alice Cooper showed up in John Carpenter's "Prince of Darkness" as "street schizo". It makes no sense, you just realize "hey, that's Adrienne Barbeau!", and you just run with it.

To sum up, it was so woefully inaccurate and consistently absurd that it made me laugh the whole way through, the scenes were well-lit and technically done well, the casting was good, and the apolitical scenes are sometimes quite good. Too bad the story wasn't one grounded in reality - it would've made a great film all-around - instead, the story turns it into 24 karat comedy gold to anyone who actually knows the border.

The Machinist (2004)

Good Suspense, Fantastic Music

[9/10 · 8 March 2012]

The Machinist starts off a tad strange, then takes a turn for the stranger. Pacing is good, the suspense elements are excellent. What attracted my attention the most (that could be reviewed without spoilers) was the music. There is a lot of use of stringed instruments and what sounds like a theremin to generate a feel that seems to be a very peculiar, otherworldly twist on 1950s film noir.

The music is haunting and really sets the tone of the film. Visuals are used to good effect, and while the movie can be "figured out", it's very easy to sit back and let the movie lead you along without trying to "solve" the film.

A very good film overall.

Blown Away (1994)

Great Early 90s Action/Cop Drama Flick

[8/10 · 8 March 2012]

An excellent early 90s action/cop drama flick, it has much of the feel of the Tom Clancy films of similar timeframe. Extremely watchable, with good performances from Bridges, Bridges, and Whitaker. Tommy Lee Jones turns out a very sinister character, and conveys the look of who and what his character is supposed to be surprisingly well.

A pretty smart film with good internal consistency, it's well worth watching.

One minor negative is that there are actions that police characters take that are distinctly inconsistent with how a real PD would operate - those with EMT/law enforcement backgrounds especially may find it breaks suspension of disbelief. This can be explained away by one of the key elements of a main character's story arc, and doesn't detract from the film very much, but may leave you scratching your head if you think too hard about it. Obviously it's a movie, not a documentary, but analyzing the story arc's impact on judgments allows for many of the actions taken by all of the characters to make perfect sense and maintain that good internal consistency. Being vague enough not to spoil anything - if something seems odd, think about why a character does it.

Overall, a very solid, enjoyable film.

South Park: City Sushi (2011) Season 15, Episode 6

Some Potential, Not Good, Not Bad

[5/10 · 8 June 2011]

(Not really any spoilers, but a mention of a character who doesn't appear... who you may be expecting to, and sadly does not.)

There are a few laughs to be had, but much of this episode revisits ground that's already been covered in previous episodes. It's kind of a cross between episode 1102 "Cartman Sucks", 514 "Butters Very Own Episode" and all the episodes involving City Wok. It's adequate, but in contrast with other episodes, not that great.

Most viewers probably won't get much out of the episode - a few might (depending on their ethnic group), as the over-the-top shock that the episode goes for may catch some attention, but for many viewers, the critical over-the-top shock they go for just won't hit home.

One thing that this reviewer sees is that one of the major themes of the episode would've been made greatly funnier with the inclusion of Mitch Conner.

South Park: Crack Baby Athletic Association (2011) Season 15, Episode 5

Not Bad, Worth Watching

[7/10 · 26 May 2011]

South Park has had a few recent episodes that didn't work too well.

Crack Baby Athletic Association is one that does work well. If it had aired a few years ago, the shock value would've worked better, but as is, it still manages to deliver a few solid punches.

Those familiar with licensing of "student athletes" will recognize the social commentary that's made in and through the episode as it progresses, and the elements of Kyle's arc soliloquies through the episode add to that commentary. The ending, as well as the story elements that show up partway through are a harsh juxtaposition, but actually work somewhat well - they make as much sense as some of the bizarreness of the early episodes.

Overall it stands on its own merit. It should be enjoyable for most fans, though it isn't up there with the best of episodes, for folks familiar with the real-world subject matter being discussed via crack baby metaphor, it may take on a different life.

South Park: T.M.I. (2011) Season 15, Episode 4

Depends on your point of view

[5/10 · 22 May 2011]

(No big spoilers, maybe a little one if you're looking hard for a clue as to what the episode is about.)

TMI goes for the low-hanging, or rather, short-hanging, fruit. Whether or not you agree with the points of view of the "angry" characters halfway through will probably determine whether or not you like the episode. For example, if you liked "Manbearpig" or "Goobacks", you'll probably dislike "TMI", and if you disliked "The Deathcamp of Tolerance", you'll probably like "TMI".

tsbrownie from United States wrote this about the previous episode (1503): "Hey, maybe it's me, but the last few episodes seem to be re-hashed punch lines and clichés from old shows. Not one guffaw, snort nor belly laugh in the whole show. Not even a chuckle.

They still go for the shock value thing, the parody of race, creed, color and place of national origin, but it's just not getting there."

And it applies to TMI as well.

If you identify with the POV that mocks the "angry" characters, you stand a good chance of enjoying it a lot, but it's not very highbrow ridicule - there's nothing really clever or noteworthy, and there's no "I learned something today" moment to punctuate the joke and give you some intellectual satisfaction. You'll probably enjoy it, but sadly it won't be anything new for you.

If you don't identify with the POV that mocks the "angry" characters, it's probably something that'll shortly make you mad. Or you might take the longer view and see it for what it is - just kind of a series of clichéd gags that have been around for a long, long time. Whether or not they're short or long. It just makes for an entire episode of "neener-neener-neener, you ain't got ____NOT-QUITE A SPOILER_____".

Note that were the political views of most of the "angry characters" reversed, the other half of the audience would stand a good chance of finding it funny - but the jokes would be just as cheap and the wit just as lacking - and then the other half of the audience would dislike it.

The first several minutes of the episode are funny, showcasing Cartman's penchant for overdoing things. Some of the timing through the episode is good, and a few of the non-plot related jokes are pretty sharp. But mostly it's somewhat lackluster.

Overall, you'll probably rate it a 1 or a 10, depending what you think of the characters mocked. Honestly, it doesn't rate either level - it's neither that good nor that bad, as it works on the level of lowest or shortest common denominator (maybe that's part of the equation).

They need to put some more idea balls in the tank, but ever since 200 and 201, their main writers have probably just been floating since there are things they can't write about.

Hang 'Em High (1968)

Adequate filler western, but it ain't the Ox-Bow Incident

[5/10 · 9 May 2011]

The last time I'd seen Hang 'Em High was probably during a cable channel (TBS, most likely) holiday western marathon. I don't remember much of it then, and after having just picked it up on DVD, I can see why it's so forgettable.

Visually, it looks like a western, and the opening scenes showcase some attractive western panoramas. Clint Eastwood does a decent job squinting and staring, but his persona is somewhat ruined by having a weak character by the middle of the movie. His motivations become unclear as the movie progresses, as the film tries to make a statement, but it isn't even sure what that statement is. A lot of viewers take something from it that it's anti-death penalty, but it's too muddied to even make that point well.

The film starts off good, with good pacing, and with actors who melt into their new roles well. Alan Hale is instantly recognizable, but he fits into his role well, and was cast quite well. Several of the opening scenes are quite good. Many of the other character actors we see towards the beginning are familiar, including Bruce Dern, who also plays his role well.

Rather quickly the film shoehorns Eastwood's character into a role he doesn't seem to belong in, and by the time Hingle's character is introduced, the office scenes were reminding me a lot of Hedley Lamarr in Blazing Saddles. Some of that resemblance is due to the film having a standard western look, some of it was due to boredom.

The romance in the film seems entirely forced, and there are scenes where you wonder if the movie has just wandered off and forgotten the audience is watching. Or maybe they expect the audience to wander off, too.

Something that is quite noticeable is the lack of any quotable lines. Outlaw Josey Wales, Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good The Bad & The Ugly, High Plains Drifter, Unforgiven, etc., all have quotable lines, ones that stick with you. Hang 'Em High doesn't. The few really good scenes in Hang 'Em High are blurred by the rest of the film's blandness.

The music is quite good, but the lack of motivation for the characters really undercuts what otherwise would be powerful music. The music should augment and pump up the emotion felt by the audience about a character's motivation, but since the characters are often so lacking, the music seems to be playing to a different film - one you wish you were watching.

For a good western about the questions of frontier justice, go see the Ox-Bow Incident. For good Eastwood westerns, go back to the Sergio Leone films or any of the others listed above. If you need filler to make a 24-hour Eastwood western marathon, use this one for early morning hours when no one's really watching.