SmokeyTee Reviews

Fresh Meat (2012)

A train wreck with few redeeming features...

[3/10 · 28 October 2012]

Racing away to a 8.3/10 you can tell that reviewers are unbiased and informed in their opinion of films. I mean what a fantastic addition to New Zealand cinema. Not.

Firstly respect to the filmmakers for the ballsiness of casting a slightly-too-old, definitely-not-hot-enough, white girl with a mousy mustache as the to-die-for, lesbian and, most significantly, Asian hit woman. WTF..?

Clearly they wanted the kind of clichéd Anime femme fatale that runs around in ridiculous outfits designed for over-sexed 14 year old Japanese girls. You know like the hench-woman with the ball and chain in Kill Bill... You know, like a Tarantino film...

Trouble is Tarantino is derivative pap anyway, so copying him recycling someone or something else is just lame.

The film has about two good lines of dialogue which will probably (sadly, only) resonate with New Zealanders...

Its a crass, clumsy film with lots of awful, clunky, sexual sight-gags and voyeurism that seem a little out of date for today. Confessions of a Window Washer or Alvin Purple era stuff... Two captive women having to untie each other by undoing each other's ropes with their mouths, while in a top-and-tail position - i.e 69ing. Obvious and cringe-worthy... there are many such moments where the intended audience reveals itself to be 14 year old males.

There were some small charms but the characters, excepting the heroine (who was quite good), were all dull as hell. Morrison had a bit of fun in his role but it would have been nice if they had given him the chance to earn the alignment of the audience before revealing himself a crazy cannibal (who happens to be Maori). Instead he was a boring villain.

There were no surprises and the film plodded along, apeing Tarantino as it went.

The film IS clearly trying hard to do 'Tarantino': for example Mariachi music scores a gunfight during a prison escape (actual police, never mind the prison guards, don't carry firearms in this country.

The son of Mr.Cannibal is probably the worst character in the film, there is no acting involved and he is just freaking dull. Apeing Mr.Blonde in Reservoir Dogs before he butchers people he puts his headphones on and has a boogie for the camera. This might have been 'cool' if he could dance or this wasn't done in Reservoir Dogs which these filmmakers really wish they had made. the actor is a flash in the pan with one music video out so this was clearly his music to film career cross over.

It's shame he has no talent for music, dance, or acting... otherwise he'd be the total package.

Missed opportunities abound. The dialogue is lazy. See it on $1 Tuesdays on DVD.

Choice.

Sneakers (1992)

Has dated well but a very 'light' thriller.

[6/10 · 2 July 2012]

I thought this was a GREAT film when it released and saw it a few times - I guess I was 16 or so at the time.

Seeing it again it is a by-the-numbers caper film. James Horner's music sets the mood often over-the-top intense or super light "boy's adventure"...

There is a lot of 'humor' which is very light and usually very dry. I think this film, despite it's being a tricksy one is best for oldies who can keep up.

The story is a simple double caper setup - steal the goods and then steal them again except harder. But anyone watching will notice that for a bunch of crack security experts the characters behave a little stupidly...

Plot holes, occasional sub-par dialogue, out-of-place music and characters that are a bit dull this remains a solid, undemanding thriller.

The Cars That Ate Paris (1974)

Quirky, dark film surprises

[8/10 · 6 June 2012]

This is a well made, at times bleak, dark and funny film - you never quite know what to expect. This is no more obvious than with the start of the film which commences with what appears to be a sexed up cigarette commercial (the kind that would have invariably preceded the film when it was in cinemas) featuring a hot couple blasting about in their convertible. This all ends very, suddenly and very badly and decades later Tarantino would steal/borrow the same device and make it the pivotal moment in Deathproof...

The film drifts along introducing you to a fairly bizarre town called Paris in the Australian countryside and there is a lot of brooding and suspense but it doesn't really build because you never know quite what is what or what will come next.

The film terminates with a fantastic scene of violence that I will not reveal in any detail here. It really, really appealed to my sense of humor and I hope it does yours - if you take the time to see it.

Rambo (2008)

More of what made the series stupid.

[4/10 · 2 April 2012]

First let me qualify my appraisal of Rambo by saying I love Rambo: First Blood despite it's many flaws. Flaws that include the ultra-cheesy Colonel Trautman and the fact the film smashes the viewer over the head with its rightwing political poppycock. All it was missing was a Rebel Flag, or a coloured or homosexual women's rights protester being castrated or shot in the head in every other scene to really capture the rage of an emasculated white America in need of a hero like Rambo...

That said it First Blood was a tense actioner and an early character study of the (now clichéd) haunted, war-weary reclusive, Ex-Vietnam, elite special forces dude fated to kick arse... once again.

Where First Blood was bright and original, leaving aside the fore mentioned rightwing rhetoric, Rambo(4) fulfills it's obligations to the subsequent sequels, continuing their legacy, and making only passing nods to the spirit of the first film and offers very little to merit praise - save the massive bodycount and computer generated gore.

The violence of Rambo was a talking, and selling, point. Sure war films have become more "realistic" with their violence recently with big films like Private Ryan, Thin Red, Black Hawk. However the increased violence has served the purpose of focusing the audience on the harrowing circumstances of war and is matched by the film-makers attempt to render the strain of combat upon the combatants involved and their relationships.

Rambo makes abstract gestures at humanity that might be confused as genuine but it is ALL about the violence. Like the character Rambo the film feels fake, his motivation feels fake, the events seem ludirous. But according to Sly this is supposed to highlight the very REAL suffering of the people of Myanmar..? To whom is this message intended? Most of the people that are attracted to such a stupid, violent movie won't give a rat's arse about little 'Chinamen' in Myanmar. Such viewers actually believed Rambo sorted out their problems for them in Rambo 1,2 & 3 already.

Rambo certainly delivers the violence but the Rambo of 2008 is not the Rambo of 1984. Firstly Stallone looks like a smooth plastic action figure that has been put in the oven to melt and contort. I doubt Rambo (the character) would have gone in for unnaturally distorting plastic surgery)...

I appreciate the spirit of the project - presenting ultra-violent action because modern warfare involves ultra-violence. often distorted by media and Washington spin into some kind of sterile, clean affair for the boob-tube masses. The problem is Rambo is just as distorted and warped in it's depiction.

The American, Rambo, only helps the Myanmarans because a big-titted blonde American woman is scripted to inspire pathos in us, the viewers by her concern for the poor Myanmarans. This is puke. Rambo goes in and kills all the evil Myanmarans so they stop killing the good Myanmarans.

So once again a weak, coloured people require the services of the big white American 'cock' to come and sort out the other, weak, coloured, but distinctly evil, coloured people.

Of course it is fascistic, violent pap, hell that is fine, but why do we need the tears of a white American woman, or Rambo, to make this plot work and the Myanmarans achieve their freedom, ostensibly from themselves...!!??

Answer: Hollywood.

Noise (I) (2007)

I warmed to it. However, the end left me wanting.

[6/10 · 22 October 2011]

This was one of those films that, at least initially, inspired me to reach for the eject button in frustration.

The main reason for this was the obtuse characters :the Sergeant/boss, the detective, the girlfriend etc. The near victim and witness to a multiple homicide is treated in a manner that was just ridiculous - her rights ignored, no support or sensitivity exhibited by the police this was one of those stupid films that just frustrates from start to finish... it got better.

The photography is expressive: particularly when capturing the flickering, decaying, night-lit scenes of Melbourne.

The sound is interesting but I wasn't really sure that the protagonist was even someone whose experiences we were supposed to privilege when the soundscape became filled with his tinnitus' ringing...

This was a film that could have had many interesting characters but I felt it failed on some human level to empathize with its' subjects. A lone cop (he acts more like a security guard) minding a community outreach "office" in a low rent suburb might have invited all manner of intersecting lives and interesting stories.... Unfortunately this wasn't THAT kind of film, emotionally stark and ending with a rather heavy- handed closure that was unfortunate.

I'd rather it had ended ambiguously (and risked further frustration) than force a redemption or closure upon us. Leave it at that - and make your own mind up.

Happy, Texas (1999)

A very hit and miss comedy.

[9 October 2011]

This script had the potential to result in a very amusing film with a lot of reversals for a pair of convicts as they bumble their way out of jail and into a case of mistaken identity as a gay couple hired to coach and manage a small town pageant.

Steve's Zahn's caveman half of the comedy 'duo' delivers some laughs as he is challenged to provide tuition to young girls. Sadly the other half, Jeremy Northam's handsome conman, remains stuck in a dull romance with the town's only pretty blonde - when he isn't being pursued by the local sheriff.

It's a weird film with characters that are a struggle to like or believe and while there are a very few laugh out loud moments for most of the film it feels like hard work to find anything genuinely amusing.

Northam is particularly boring to watch due to his apparent inability to produce facial expression. Perhaps he attended the Roger Moore School of Facial Acting... He was much better as an equally (but suitably) 'blank' corporate spy in the low budget sci-fi Cypher. Which I recommend.

Tracker (2010)

Enjoyable - good dialogue, some laughs.

[7/10 · 28 September 2011]

The cat and mouse/hunter-prey theme is pretty well rought but this film adds a convincing human element to a film that might otherwise get caught up in the landscape or action.

The early scenes and some of the supporting cast are a little lackluster, and reminded this viewer how difficult it is for New Zealand films to escape a sort of provincialism (for want of a better word) that can often be detected in kiwi films trying to be 'international'. Winstone, Morrison and Andy Anderson as the colonial tracker all stand out in this.

The film has plenty of action and fistycuffs and ballyhoo but the focus is firmly on the tension of the hunt and the connection that forms between Winston and Morrison's characters.

Without adding a spoiler I will say the ending, while not disappointing, might have been 'more'. You make your own mind up!

Lebanon (2009)

Disappointed.

[4/10 · 21 September 2011]

I had mixed reviews prior to seeing Lebanin and sadly this was a film that lacked in many departments and I am glad I resisted ordering on blu-ray.

Situated inside a tank for several claustrophobic days during the Israel-Lebanon war and seen, largely, through the gun sight of the gunner this could have been a tense, gritty film with much in common with submarine films or the decent 80's film The Beast.

Some reviews I have read complained about the emotive or manipulative images or events portrayed and I share these sentiments. The camera unnaturally/gun focuses in close up on "evocative" images like corpses, a poster of the virgin mary, more corpses, crying women - the gunner is spends the film watching like a tourist providing the audience with dramatic/tragic scenes in close up. Which feels unnatural, scripted and left myself and other reviewers feeling manipulated.

The grime of the tank is palpable and the soldiers become dirtier as they creep further into (or out of) contested territory. This might have been a device designed to reflect the mental state of the soldiers (and interesting) - but the psychological states of the inexperienced and uninteresting crew was beyond us. We just didn't care by the time things got tense.

Perhaps if the driver's view, and the commander's, were included instead of just the gunners this might have helped the film. As it was the gunner spent the whole time turning the tank barrel to follow people in close up instead of doing his job and watching for enemies. It felt wack.

Viewers that think a camera being shaken in the last word in action and that believe what is put on screen before them is implicitly true and authentic might love this film. The wife gave up at about 30min, I fast forwarded the last 20 min.

Get The Beast out or watch Das Boot again instead...

Battlefield Earth (2000)

Cheesy, silly, weird, fantastic. bad. GREAT!

[7/10 · 9 September 2010]

People expected a lot more from the support cast and Barry Pepper doesn't have the screen presence to role. He's a sexless, emotionless figure and so is his love interest int he film - who everyone takes orders from late in the film apparently because she is Barry Pepper's squeeze.

It's a Scientology film starring one of Hollywood's big scientologist actors.

It has Ray Bradbury Theatre level effects and sub-Ray Bradbury story/dialogue. Basically expect some perfectly adequate effects for television but ofr a blockbuster sci-fi (which this, despite its aspiration NEVER was) don't get your hopes up.

The plot holes are legion, but the narrative keeps moving along at a steady pace. The final battle is fairly trite with some of the worst models/effects effects giving the film the aesthetic quality of a 1970's disaster movie.

*IF* you can make it past these glaring flaws and enjoy *CHEESE* and silly science fiction this film definitely has the ability to provide a great deal of pleasure.

Travolta is as good as Travolta ever was... Forest Whittaker is walking, or limping, through his performance but still provides a good deal of comic relief. The heavily shoed Psychlos are quite delicious as they back stab and torture each other mercilessly.

The Protector (2005)

The blunder from Downunder

[3/10 · 2 December 2009]

I tried this one twice when I started doubting myself given the favorable reviews. No luck this really is just a stupid movie with some big stunts.

Ong Bak really set the bar for Tony Jaa and this films departure from such a successful formula into Tony Jaa VS Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles,DayGlo-motocross-riding, street-gang-hoodlums in Sydney just didn't lift my skirt.

Like Jackie Chan's Australian film (whatever it is called) it's weak and feels like 'Hollywood on the Goldcoast'. Unlike Chan's Rumble In The Bronx which went all out for cartoon silliness and was much more successful.

There may be some great stunts and if you can watch a film purely for that then this one might be the greatest film you've ever seen.

Lost in Space (1998)

Worst dialogue of all time?

[3/10 · 29 March 2009]

Arguably one of the worst films I have seen.

I saw this one in the cinemas on release and even in my relative youth felt the film was weak. The crass Silicone Graphics product placement could have been quite funny now 10 years later but when so many awful minor roles kept popping up I had to wonder if SGI executives were given minor acting roles as part of the collusion. Witness the launch announcer when Jupiter is taking off. I vote him for the worst actor of the century award - how about you? Then there is the costuming. Every member of the space family has either great plastic breasts on their suits sharp enough to take out an eye or if male Romanesque pectoral muscles. It just looks lame/distracting and completely unnecessary.

I'm surprised we made it past the first scene with a space dog fight.. This might have just been a bit of fun but the scriptwriter felt it was necessary to have Joey (you know from Friends) say some really, really cheesy lines every 15 or so seconds. Again distracting - just for it's BADness.

Perhaps the scriptwriters had been taking laxatives and it had effected their writing, some of the absolute worst dialogue can be found within this abomination of a movie. Enjoy PS - Avoid this lemon.

How to Lose Friends & Alienate People (2008)

Simon Pegg - grossly overrated.

[3/10 · 29 March 2009]

I felt I was watching some dreary 1950s 'comedy' throughout most of this film. Jack Lemmon/Walter Mathau would have been right at home or perhaps Elmer Fudd as the main character.

Clichéd plot devices are recognisable a mile away and you might find yourself wondering "Will they really adhere to this formulaic rubbish? Or will they surprise me and turn it all on its head - & hopefully soon!" Unfortunately they don't and this film is neither fresh, funny or exciting. My partner and I snored our way through this one and looked at each other searchingly before declaring our mutual disrespect for it once it was over.

It's a shame when utterly stupid American pap uses British talent to attract a semi-intelligent audience. To be honest though Simon Pegg hasn't delivered consistently in any of his films I've seen, Shaun was rubbish after the drunken walk home at the start and Hot Fuzz was pretty unbalanced - and arguably saved by Timothy Dalton and supporting cast.

Contrary to some reviewers opinions I thought Jeff Bridges was weak, in the final minutes of the awful, awful awards scene I actually cried "Nice acting big guy!" as Bridges produced the most unconvincing 'acting' I'd seen since Lost in Space.

Turkey Shoot (1982)

Probably one of the worst movies of all time...

[1/10 · 18 February 2009]

This may have been a 20 minute short. But they stretched this farce to feature length. Every scene groans along at a snails pace, action sequences feature gunfire after gunfire, crossbow shot after cross bow shot, MISS MISS MISS for the later half of the movie. This could have been a hoot but it was a dull premise and the characters were all rubbish. Obviously they had a cast of extras available for one days shooting the rest of the time the film is filled with about 7 people all of them not terribly clever walking through various parts of Australia's bush and magically managing to track each other. There's the usually late 70s - early 80s Orwellian plot about big brother ruling everything and no freedom. Yawn. We watched the whole thing because this was in fact one of those rare movies you can't stop watching because it is so unbelievably bad. You want to see what more bad, bad cinema will come with each scene. Save your money or enjoy a really, really awful movie. This dog won't hunt.

Fire Down Below (1997)

In my opinion the best Seagal out there...

[9/10 · 18 February 2009]

Most of his other films are childish and fascist. There really is nothing to save the first few films apart from the bone crunching brutality. If you like films with a bit more 'soul' this one has it.

It's hokey and Seagal is certainly at his cheesiest but that doesn't detract from this film in my opinion. Under Siege 1&2 were good actioners, and stunts and thrills were right up there. But what really saved them was the villains - Tommy Lee Jones in 1 and Macgill/Bogosian in the 2nd. But there were fairly poor die hard clones...

Fire Down Below again gives Seagal a chance to highlight an issue he felt strongly about - environmental pollution, which he also explored more fully in On Deadly Ground. Kudos to this guy for inserting important issues into what is otherwise a meaningless format.

Nice characters no big haired, big lipped, 80s women flocking to get with him. Harry Dean Stanton is fairly miss-able but carries it and Kristooferson just does what he does.

We've seen it a few times and we're going to watch it again tonight. If you like Seagal maybe this one will grow on you too...

Speed Racer (2008)

Fun, well made family film but overcomplicated & 129 minutes!!!!

[7/10 · 15 January 2009]

I remember speed racer although I don't think I ever watched an episode. It was kinda cool, kinda Japanesey. This films goes super Mario with over the top colours and video effects. Which actually works.

My only 2 complaints apart from poor old John Goodman looking like the bug man in a human skin from MIB was that 129 minutes of *very* samey movie is just too damn much for most people and way too much for a kids film...

Also the corporate intrigue might have been aimed at adding a level of depth to the movie but it just complicated it beyond what it needed and I suspect would have been, well, lame to younger viewers.

A lot of people complained about the kid and monkey but I thought the kid was great. And chimps, well, whatever.

I guess if it was 60 minutes it might have kept our interest. We just couldn't be bothered after 2 hours of racing and fastfowarded the big finale... The main character was yawn as well, one Chris O'donnell in the world is quite enough thank you Hollywood!~ See it in 2 screenings, maybe.

Elephant (2003)

Pointless, clichéd, uninspired.

[3/10 · 11 December 2008]

A very disappointing film.

The 'villians' (if you will) feel like every tabloid version of what a high school shooter should be. They are outcasts by their own choice, wear black all day, listen to Manson and play online shooting games.

There is no obvious cause for their rage, and in reflection there was no obvious point to make the time for this film! Nothing surprising or unpredictable in this lengthy piece of waffle. I might have found solace if we had been drawn into the lives of these cardboard cutouts only to have them laid to waste in the final minutes... (Deathproof did it so well)

Full Eclipse (1993 TV Movie)

Poor film but entirely watchable

[5/10 · 11 July 2008]

Let's face it this is a bad movie. It has a TV-movie average budget and an average b-list cast. But it keeps the pace up throughout most of the movie, yes a bit slow in places but if you like cheesy aging actions you will probably go in for Full Eclipse.

If you want something just a little better try *One tough Bastard*. It doesn't have werewolves, the main actor is torture and the child's character is dumb as a fence post but Bruce Paine as the villain saves it with some of the best one liners you are likely to get in an action movie - much better than any of the Die-hard sequels anyway! Plus it scores about .4 points better than Full Eclipse. You can't lose!

30 Days of Night (2007)

Unoriginal, slow, stupid nonsense but some quality persists....

[5/10 · 24 June 2008]

I thought the idea of vampires raiding a town eclipsed from the sun for 30 days was unique enough to warrant some merit but overall this film was not very impressive.

The good: The film looks nice and is clearly made with some skill - film(?) quality, lighting and special/makeup effects are all above board.

The bad: Retarded plot stretched to oblivion.

Ancient order of stupid vampires. Only one speaks the rest roar and hiss, presumably because they are New Zealand extras and can't actually act beyond the roaring and hissing...

New Zealand Maori pretending to be natives of Alaska.

Casting - Having leads with any energy or dynamism might have kept us interested. Hartnett and George are just not interesting enough to warrant my caring about whether they live or die in this film - sorry.

Not one single fright in the WHOLE FILM. We watched this with the lights off and my missus is a fraidy cat. Even the cheap boo scares failed to get any result.

Ultimately you should recommend this to a simple viewer that doesn't question what they are watching or hasn't seen many films. Otherwise you might find it distracting wondering why the hell they are doing what they are doing for the last hour of the movie...

Vampire/movie lovers will probably be disappointed with the derivative vampire lore, unsexy-uncreepy vampires and uninspired action sequences.

Underworld is better than this film, nuff said.

Dogville (2003)

Goof film. We'll never see it again!

[7/10 · 15 March 2008]

I started writing a response in the thread and it quickly became a review of the entire thing so just popped it here instead....

I wasn't sure about this one when I realised the concept and kept resisting my urge to expunge it from my player during the first 30 min. But it was a good film despite my partner and I wishing to crush the life out of all the players... The ending as it was became an inevitability. Both to satisfy us as viewers that had suffered along with the girl and also to make the point - a point that might have arguably been made just as succinctly in a 60-80min movie...

A bit less NYPD blue camera work would have been appreciated - shaking a camera doesn't fool the audience into thinking you had more than one rolling on any given take and can be REALLY annoying. But there was also some very nice camera work and a similar film done ina more conventional means on location would have been dazling.

Great cast, I guess filming in a tight timeframe, in a studio and giving the cast one outfit to wear throughout you can splurge on casting. It paid off in my opinion... and what a treat to see who turns up! I couldn't help but liken my experience seeing this to sitting through Angelas' Ashes. Frsutration - but at least this one gave you one hell of a payoff.

Not one we will be seeing again ever!

Backroads (1977)

Boring, disjointed farce filled with agendas to bash your skull in.

[3/10 · 20 January 2008]

We stomached about 30 minutes of this silly film.

I'm all for finding new, raw 'talent' and dealing with 'reality'. The two main characters are social bottom feeders and although they are poles apart presumably through their one-track dialogue about the plight of the aboriginal peoples they eventually find understanding... unfortunately we didn;t make it there with them! Their (constant) debates seem forced and completely unbelievable and clearly just there to provide a medium to push the left-wing agenda of the film maker. This grew tired VERY quickly.

The film jumps haphazardly from scenes of rest or waiting to driving with little purpose or direction. Where are we going? Why did we do that!? These sorts of questions valid in any other film are best left at the door...

I wanted to see this because I enjoy Australian films and especially like time capsules from the 60s and 70s. Avoid this agenda packed snore fest, see 'They're a Weird Mob' for queer vintage Aus instead...

28 Weeks Later (2007)

Suspension of disbelief can only take a film so far..

[3/10 · 18 December 2007]

I enjoyed 28 days later. My only criticism when seeing it and it was a small one was that I found the physicality and mentality of the zombies the weakest part of that film. Singular zombies were good and scary but when 10's or hundreds of them are running, yelling, collaborating to get the human's it all seems a bit weak... they looked/ran/acted like people - not zombies.

The basic premise and events that transpire were interesting in 28weeks and could have resulted in an engaging film (in abstract). Unfortunately these ideas (virus immune carrier reinfecting repopulated Britain etc) appeared clumsy and this film came off dumb. For serious horror like this you can't expect people to be actively suspending their disbelief every 5 minutes.

*Let me be perfectly honest and say I switched off this film after 20 minutes. I saw one scene later in the film before I watched the start and this suggested to me it wasn't going to get any better! So my giving a few examples here won't spoil anything if you watch more then 20 minutes of this awful movie* Here's how to move forward a zombie movie if you know your target are undemanding idiots:-

1). Refugee civilian population reintroduced to London behind military cordon. Entire situation seem artificial and unbelievable down to the unconvincing military personnel complete with artificial command structure...

2). (Civilian) Survivor of zombie attacks given limitless access to all facilities in a secure (military) compound.... cos he is the janitor/manager/whateverer.

3) Wife of said civilian is only surviving example of the virus that nearly wiped out humanity and her blood could presumably produce a cure. Yet she is held in a barely secure quarantine lab without guards or constant surveillance... This allows hubby to walk straight in (they didn't think to limit his electronic access to his own highly deadly infected wife!) - remember he is the caretaker so he has a key to walk straight into her quarantine and reinfect the whole area.... WEAKKKKKK (I nearly gave up here but wait..)

4) Hubby gets infected and because this film is pretty much for idiots who are numbed by films like Saw, which was also crap, we need to have him rip her to pieces and push his thumbs into her eye sockets in full colour and surround sound. CRAPPPP (I waited for the next bit before committing to cancel this awful movie).

5) Unbelievable-airport-novel-army-personal move all civilians into underground bunker. Their individual apartments were secured at the ground floor and probably needed card access to even get their floors... This presented a major difficulty for the plot to get enough zombies to really cause a stir. So the army people had to decide they would be safer all shoved into a dingy hole/bunker without explanation or support people - they were literally moved in and the army all buggered off... - this underground bunker is attached to the quarantine lab by unlocked emergency exit doors (the kind you find in a gym/highschool or other unsecured facility and designed to be openable by rage infected zombies...) allowing infected hubby to reinfect the population and get the whole thing rolling again....

TOTAL RUBBISH, ONLY SEE THIS MOVIE IF YOU LIKE CRAP, OR POSSIBLY HAVE A PROFESSIONAL INTEREST IN CRAP OR DON'T MIND CRAP!

The Sum of All Fears (2002)

Average fair

[4/10 · 4 May 2007]

I read the book this was based on many years ago.

In Tom Clancys' book (if I recall correctly..) it was a Palestinian militant group that recovered the undetonated nuclear payload from an Isreali fighter. This was then used by the group against the United States for it's (perceived, although arguable) propping up of the 'Isreali Terrorist State'.

When it came time for Hollywood to make a film of it however things changed course and it was a radical right-wing group working for Aryan(?) supremacy that became the villain.

I have to laugh when a book following the fictional, although believable, course of events when a Muslim group bombs the financial backers of the Jewish state gets engineered into 'euro Nazis' attack the U.S for world domination.

The idealogical stranglehold of Hollywood continues and anyone who questions it is usually sanctioned and/or accused of antisemitism.

Let's see if this one makes it to the board...

Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972)

Ambitious film but resulting film was silly waffle.

[4/10 · 4 May 2007]

Interesting plot but overall badly acted and badly scripted.

Film feels disjointed and poorly put together. Scenes roll onwards with no perceived planning or forethought.

We watched after the first 30 minutes only to see what happened as it was the weekend and a rainy day....

Very few rewarding moments. The version we watched on DVD was full-frame and dubbed into English. In German the poor acting might be better concealed but still the support actors were mostly average or below.

Klaus Kinski (an over-rated cult actor in my books) was mostly in there for visual effect, as he was always an interesting face to watch.

See this film if you like epic, medium-budget foreign films that attempt to achieve more than their ability and budget permits. Are a die hard Klaus Kinski fan or have a saintly streak of patience and generosity.

Spartan (2004)

Awfule dialogue, a effort worthy of Mamet

[3/10 · 4 May 2007]

We saw 10 minutes of this film.

Val Kilmer spouts more of that Mametesque tripe called dialogue as a super-secret agent type guy that is in a world class of his own. Does this sound like a pulp novel? Yes indeedy.

Avoid this lemon unless you liked Mamet's other directing efforts, where you are shown what a clever, clever man he is and how twisty turny the real world really is or at least is when you try really really hard.

Avoid this director unless you are completely anal and entirely ignorant of how humans communicate (as opposed to Mamet's fictional ones).

Moonwalker (1988)

Unbelievable.

[1/10 · 2 May 2007]

Almost 20 years after it's release I decided to see just how bad this film really was. Needless to say my expectations zero...

It is surely one of the worst pieces of cinema I have ever seen.

This film can only have value to mental health patients or researchers wishing to better understand the strange creature known as Michael Jackson.

Weird, silly, pretentious pap. But then what would could you expect when the plasticene mans' vision is brought to fruition...

I can imagine that Joe Pesci to this day wakes up from nightmares resulting from his involvement in this horrible, horrible film.

Smooth criminal? The *real* crime was not burning M.J's script prior to production or recasting MC.Hammer to play the lead role. Or Bobby Brown. Or Milli Vanilli. Or my dog Vino...