Change Your Image
hurtstotalktoyou
Reviews
The Enforcer (1976)
Terrible movie. Almost nothing good about it
It's "so bad it's funny." It's just bad. It gets two stars instead of one because Tyne Daly is lighthearted and easygoing. But the movie even ruins her character in the end. Why did they keep making these?
Magnum Force (1973)
this movie is ridiculous
For mostly any movie you have to suspend your common sense at least a little bit, but this film just asks too much. Meanwhile, it's just sooooo cheesy. But I guess that's better than an unrealistic film taking itself seriously. I mean, it kept my attention until the "climax" at which point I sort of drifted off.
I give it three stars for capturing the early 70s vibe, which is of historical interest to me.
Love & Friendship (2016)
Fantastic movie if it fits you, but it may not be right for everyone
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, so much that after my first screening I watched it day after day after day for about a week. It's funny, charming, and boasts beautiful costumes and scenery. The acting is stellar.
On the other hand, this is an artsy flick, and so if you're not into that kind of thing then you probably won't like it. I did. But even I had to be in the right mood to really "get" it.
Unfortunately, it's hard to know going into it how you're going to respond, whether you will like it or hate it, and so forth. I expected to be only mildly entertained and was delighted to be surprised with what I can only describe as a masterpiece of period art and comedy. But that's me, and I can definitely see how other people may not appreciate this film to the same degree.
All I can say is, try it and see what you think. Many of you will fall in love with it, like I did, while many others will hate it for its pretensions. But it's a fine film and well worth a shot.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
an otherwise amazingly entertaining film with one glaring flaw
Everyone who has seen the movie knows its one huge flaw. But, other than the fact that it rips off plot elements from EpIV, why haven't more people noticed just how well done this movie really is?
First of all, casting was darn near perfect (with one exception). John Boyega is of course the star of the show, but Daisy Ridley is also captivating in every sense of the word. Oscar Isaac is probably next on the list of impressive new faces, in his swarthy- good-guy portrayal of Poe Dameron. I also enjoyed Domhnall Gleeson in the role of General Hux. Really, the only new guy I didn't like was Adam Driver, but as long as he keeps his mask on he should be fine in the next couple of films. The choice of old faces also came close to perfect. Let's be honest---everyone wants to see Han again, not so much Luke or Leia. And the film delivered exactly that, with a bit of Leia too I guess. C- 3PO was present as he must be, but blessedly low-key. Same with R2D2. The new non-human characters were great though, especially the new droid BB-8 and the aged Maz Kanata.
Then there is pacing. It is a long movie, and the ending perhaps lingers on for longer than it should have done. However, the first half of the movie seemed to me perfectly paced, and the second half was well-paced if not perfectly so. We could have probably used a bit of a longer dialog-driven lull about 1/2-to-2/3 into the film, to rest up for the climax.
The dialog was an entertaining blend of the quintessentially Star Wars and the quintessentially 21st-century blockbuster. An example of Star Wars dialog: "He almost killed me 6 times... which is okay!" An example of blockbuster dialog: "Is there a garage chute. Or trash compactor?" But most of it felt like Star Wars. I felt that Han's dialog was a bit cheesy sometimes, but no more than always happens in an action-adventure flick.
Then, of course, we have the visuals. Seriously, they were mind- boggling! But here, that one big flaw crept in a bit. We should have seen more of a blend of old and new, rather than the 90-95% old that we ended up seeing. Nevertheless, it was still an amazing visual experience, the whole way through.
Let me close this review by giving an analogy. In rock music, we have a drum beat, guitar, lead vocals, and a verse-chorus-verse- chorus-bridge-verse-chorus structure, or something almost identical to that. It is always better when a song breaks out of that mold, but we can still enjoy it when it doesn't. The beauty is in the execution, and the new frills added to it. In Star Wars, we have just that---a beautifully-executed film which fits a predetermined mold but adds some fantastic new frills.
That said, Abrams surely will learn from his mistake in this film. As everything else was so well done, I am very optimistic for the next two. And yes, I did enjoy this one too, despite the huge glaring flaw.
How to Survive a Plague (2012)
not very interesting
After having been very surprised and impressed with the AIDS documentary We Were Here, I thought I'd check out this one too. Unfortunately I found myself very disappointed.
The documentary follows the political activism of ACT UP and TAG, and doesn't stray very far from that main track. The filmmakers took a clear political stance on the side of the activists, and much of the documentary smacks of "preaching to the choir." Serious issues are not always taken seriously, and public figures such as George Bush Sr. and Jesse Helms are openly mocked by both the people in the documentary and also the filmmakers themselves.
My main disappointment involved the documentary's focus, which fixed unwaveringly upon the activists. To be fair, this might be a good thing if you happen to be interested in ACT UP and TAG. But some websites (e.g. wikipedia) misleadingly suggest that the documentary also discusses more generally the early period of the AIDS epidemic in the United States. In fact, rarely do the filmmakers show us anything beyond the activism itself. It does not delve into any serious scientific issues, nor does it help us understand the early development of attitudes and expectations people had regarding HIV and AIDS. Also note that it only covers the years from 1987 onward. So we don't get to see anything at all about the beginning of the epidemic in 1981-1986.
Maybe others would appreciate this film, but I did not enjoy it at all. Even for those who are interested in the subject matter, it's hard to imagine this being a compelling documentary. But for those of us who aren't already interested in this particular thread in the history of AIDS, it falls even flatter. It's not as bad as some documentaries, but I certainly don't recommend it either. Sorry to be so negative, but that's just how I see it.
Forever Knight: The Fix (1995)
One of the best, but not without its flaws.
In "The Fix," Nick comes closer than he ever has before to a cure for his vampirism. This is the main plot point of the episode, and as such it makes for an extremely fun ride! Predictably, the would-be cure is only a temporary "fix," but much to the surprise of the viewer, it causes some other serious problems, as well. In the mean time, Nick and Schanke must determine whether or not a cop's death is a suicide or a homicide. The episode also follows the flashback formula where Nick is shown encountering trouble in the distant past which is relevant to his current situation.
The major drawback to this episode is that it is only one episode. It deserved at least two parts, and perhaps even a season-long story arc. Yet the writers in this case made a wise decision which helped make up for that limitation, launching right into the action and ending just after the climax. Because they didn't devote any running time to an introduction or epilogue, the episode is just long enough to develop the central story in sufficient detail. Just make sure you're paying attention from the beginning and not disappointed by a cold ending.
Saw III (2006)
The pros and cons of formula film-making
Probably the most obvious thing a viewer will notice about SAW III is that it follows the formula of the first two films. That's not always bad, of course: It worked for Last Crusade and Die Hard With A Vengeance, for instance. Unfortunately, the third film of a trilogy can often end up noticeably inferior to its predecessors. This is far more common, apparent in films such as Jurassic Park III, Final Destination 3, T-III and many others. Sadly, Saw III falls into this last category.
Don't despair, however; for there are benefits to a formula, too, namely that you can count on a movie providing an entertaining if not spectacular experience--assuming you enjoyed the first two, of course. And that's where Saw III works. If you want gory traps, daring escapes and a mysterious master plan that's not revealed until the very end, then Saw III will deliver! Also keep in mind it's not completely formulaic. The relationship between Amanda and John has been developing for some time now, and continues to do so in this new film, which adds a different dynamic. The point of view is increasingly focused on John, which also gives a unique flavor to this sequel.
The problem, though, preventing me from giving a completely positive review, is twofold: Firstly, the character development of the new faces is very lacking; secondly, for a formula based on plot twists, this film is a little too predictable. Given the pros and cons of the final product, I'd give it a six out of ten. In my rating scheme, that basically means it's worth watching, but I'd wait till it's out of the theater.