Change Your Image
warrenf_peace
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
65 (2023)
Who funded this turd?
I like Adam Driver - he's an interesting actor, and Sam Raimi seems to know SciFi, but nothing could save this revisionist fake history retread. The execs who green-lighted this should be fired, because they are morons. I know, I worked in Hollywhack for almost 10 years.
The reason starts and ends with the script. From its intro telling us "Before Mankind, other civilizations blah blah", and then we see humans. Bad writing.
Then, we see the motivation scene - a sick daughter who needs expensive healthcare to save her - in a star-fairing civilization? Bad writing, and unnecessary.
Then we see a starship - one for exploring the universe- and it runs into some asteroids it cannot navigate through, without shielding to protect it? They won't be a successful star-fairing civilization for long, so... bad writing!
And dinosaurs, well, we're into fantasy now, so they happened to crash on Earth 65 million years ago (spoiler - that's why the title is 65!). Bad writing, but they can re-use all the Jurassic Park CGI renderings, which should have saved millions in production budget.
Ugh! Sony, you morons. Keep this stupidity up, and you'll be bankrupt in no time.
Save your shekels, and go fishing instead.
The Expanse (2015)
Huge SciFi Fan Calls "The Expanse" close to Perfect SciFi
*small spoiler hidden below*
There's little I don't like in Sy-Fy's "The Expanse". And I have been a huge sci-fi fan for 50+ years. Reading Asimov, Clarke & Heinlein (& Anderson, Philip K Dick, Herbert, etc...) as a kid, and watching everything Sci-fi from Hollywood since "Forbidden Planet" (actually, before that!), as well as having an aerospace background, computer career, etc., I am VERY particular on the science being right. largely, this program is nearly perfect (although the disinfo about "little grey robot cannibals with dark almond eyes (sic)" was kinda cheap, and wrong. The Emerthers are not cannibals. Well, most of 'em..).
The characters are GREAT! The writing is GREAT! the set design, costumes, post, it's all GREAT! It's all done so well, it's a nearly perfect depiction of an alternate future.
If you like SciFi, you will love this (and if you don't, you're an idiot). Even if you don't like SciFi, I'll bet you still might find the show compelling, because the story lines are so good. Let's keep this show on the air for a decade or more. And I hope we get to *SPOILER* see Miller again* !
Star Trek Beyond (2016)
Star Trek Beyond Bombs
Well, I love Star Trek. Watched 'em all, and I worked at Paramount Pictures in the Gene Roddenberry Bldg, and got to work with ST:TNG a few times. And I really love the Pine/Quinto/Urban (Cho/Soldana/Pegg..) & company's version, even though I think JJ Abrahms is all too often a derivative writer who re-writes (plagiarizes) too many prior films, yet directs very well. So I'm a fan. And right near the beginning, either the continuity dept./ the writer (Simon Pegg/D Jung/ etc.), or whomever buggered it for me when they showed Ambassador Spocks' birth/death date as "Stardate 2230.02 - 2263.04" (or something close to that), which means the older Spock was only 33 when he died. This obviously doesn't take into account his years from the future (And tells us how old Spock Jr. is at present). Seems to me in the future, they'd be smarter than that - perhaps by adding the time travel/ alternate time line date in the middle.
I liked the humor in it, especially the horse excrement! and the tech was really good, along with set design, costumes, Acting (with this cast, Always excellent!). My criticisms duplicate what others have said, about the motivation of Idris Elba's character, for example. They should have gone WAY further with political relevance, like the way Gene & D.C. Fontana used to with TOS TV show, for example, the failing global economy; the bastardization of religion to cause terror (which has been rampant in recent years), or many other grand themes (yeah, I should have been a screenwriter..). The acting was excellent as always, and I saw a few new things now done before. However good the action was, there was too much of it. And the series has ALWAYS been about the characters and ideology. Let that mantra reign!!
So even with my less-than-STELLAR critique, go see it. It's entertaining, and I guarantee it's worth watching. I'll see it again I'm sure!!
The Phoenix Incident (2015)
The Phoenix Incident Could have been good, But failed
The film started out well, and built suspense fairly decently. The integration of actual footage was really well done. When the air battle began, I thought it looked pretty good. And the crash was very cool. Alas, the protagonist quartet of unlikable twenty- and thirty-something 'adolescents' were so two-dimensional (as was the suicidal hermit Gayson), I felt like "are these the only archetypes we can come up with? They are always such douchebags!" And as soon as the jar head Marine (the MOST unlikable of the bunch) takes off to 'rescue the downed pilot' (perhaps?), the descent into bad horror film ripoffs began, and I was looking forward for the jarhead to be anally probed (if ONLY the aliens would have done that sort of thing...). And please, ET's that walk on 4 legs (and who pilot sophisticated anti-gravity machines in the nude) are NEVER going to be believable!!! Next, STOP IT with the monster aliens - they are more ridiculous than frightening - PLUS, the ending was less than satisfying, which is why I scored it less than 50%,
The film had potential, and from the IMDb reviews, I thought, "Heck, it's only $4 on Amazon, so I'll give it a chance (Amazon rated it 3 of 5 stars, IMDb Said 5.6 (of ten). From now on, if a film has this score, I Am gonna KICK myself.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
5 Reasons Why BvS is a Really Good Movie *Minimal Spoilers*
Critics are like complainers at an event: "Well, the music wasn't very good", or "Did you try the watered down sour mash?" - there's one in every crowd. And in Zack Snyder's latest superhero tentpole, I have to admit that I had big expectations (and when one does, it's easy to be let down). But I REALLY liked this film (and then again, I really liked "Man of Steel", Zack' first Superman event, and I really liked Chris Nolan's "Dark Knight" trilogy, too). When Batman v. Superman began, I was relieved when I saw that Chris Nolan was one of the exec producers - plus, I liked what I saw on the trailers. So here are 5 Reasons why I REALLY liked this film:
1. The Talent
With all the grumblings about Ben Affleck as the Caped Crusader, I thought it was an excellent choice - his acting has really matured, and I was curious to see how he'd pull it off. And boy, did he! He was REALLY REALLY good - different than Christian Bale's Batman of course, but played even darker. And he got 'the voice' right! That was one thing I disliked about the Bale-Nolan version. Also,
I LOVE Henry Cavill as Superman. He's the BEST By FAR!! He has the dorky Clark Kent part down, and his Superman is really a perfect blend of strength, valor, and good guy heroics. I'm not gonna spoil the film, but let's say, he'd better star in the next one!!
Jesse Eisenberg got slammed by some for his Lex Luthor, but again, I really liked his portrayal. He played the insane genius very, very well. Amy Adams is quite sexy and all (loved the bath scene!), but she didn't have that much to do in this film, although what she did was typically good. Jeremy Irons was a very unique and capable Alfred, and I really want to see him and Affleck together in a film!!! PLEASE, guys, do another Batman Film!!!! I wish they'd had a really good Jimmy Olsen!!! Gal Gadot is an interesting choice for Wonder Woman, and I'll reserve judgment until her film comes out. She certainly looks the part when in costume, but I was less convinced when she was in street clothes. Of course, no one can ever beat Linda Carter's WW - my personal fav. Notable mentions to Diane Lane, Costner's cameo, and Lawrence Fishburn - all under-utilized.
2. The Writing
The writing in this film was generally exceptional, and the theme was clear and almost perfect. Zack knows his craft, and I really, really, really liked the dialogue when Lex talks about God and Good and Evil. There were many tasty quotes (Affleck's "freaks dressed like clowns" and Eisenberg's "three syllable word to big for little minds" comes to mind). The fight scene between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton was EPIC! The outcome was totally unexpected, as was the film's ending... but all the little pieces in-between really drove the film well. I Do think these films would be even better without as much fighting, and at least Zack showed some restrain here. He should have shown more, though.
3. Production Design
Without getting too technical (I worked in Hollywood for 7 years), I wanted to highlight how well this was done, because when films get it right, you get a masterpiece, otherwise, you get a stinker. First off, of course Zach got the Suoerman stuff right, and the crashed ship of general Zod was sound. The Bat suit - all versions, from the standard fighting suit, to the hardened Supe-buster, to the desert warfare cover, was a home run. And the Batcar, while no 'tumbler', was exotic sports car-like, and the Bat plane - all done to perfection. The Bat lair was especially cool! So hats off on this - I'd give them an Oscar nom for the effort.
4. The Music
A GREAT score is one you don't notice, and in BvS, I can't even remember the score, which means it fit into the background as UNDERSCORE IS MEANT TO!! Music should serve the film, the film is not meant to be an ego-vehicle for the composer (which is why I have an issue with John Williams - his scores are more instantly recognizable on their own, like a hit song). The sound effects blended in nicely, and together, created the perfect atmosphere for this epic match.
5. Gestalt
The whole is definitely greater than the sum of its parts, and that's why I expect this film to continue making money for some time. I plan on seeing it again this weekend, because it works so well on the big screen. You should see it too, even if you've seen it already. I'm no shill for the business, nor this film, but when I honestly like a film, I want others to see it. The 2+ hours went by too quick, and the ending was the PERFECT cliffhanger that will ensure I come back to see the next film. Everything in the film fit together so well (my one criticism was with the 'Boss' - from video game terminology - the bad guy, who should have been more closely resembling Michael Shannon's Zod). So pay no attention to those critic fools, and see this film. Twice. If ANY film is worth your $10, this one CERTAINLY IS!
The Blacklist: Sir Crispin Crandall (No. 86) (2015)
Crispin Crandall meets Red; Tom Shines *Spoilers*
This was a terrific episode, the best this season I'd say. It had me exhilarated throughout, unsure where it would turn at each fork. Red shows his brilliance at strategy, the FBI team was solid, and Tom (or is it Jacob?) - what a surprise! I can't spoil this episode but let's say now I really understand why Tom was chosen. This guy must have been an ex-Navy Seal, spy or something - I would surely like to know his upbringing, which so far has been a bit opaque. But I'm very pleased with the writing, and where the story is going. And the newer characters, like Edi Gathegi's Mr. Solomon, or Fisher Stevens' Marvin Gerard are really great characters. Great casting agent!
In this episode, Liz doesn't have much to do, which is fine as she's been the focus for far too long; and I love it when Red gets to gloat, and the Director has to squirm. I'm still looking forward to seeing more of Dembe, as he's still a bit too quiet, but that silent strength is the role I suppose. Ressler and the FBI team don't have much to do, but when they do, they are solid, and Ressler is fearsome! I liked the whole Crandall sub plot, and the sets of his lab were state of the art! Glad they are making enough money to do this show right. Can Spader do anything crappy? His entire career has been a success - he has the golden gift!
I hope they get 5 years, and they end it soundly (unless they want to keep it going- the chemistry is quite strong). Talented thespians get bored, as do all creative people who need new challenges to keep things interesting. As a springboard to greater pastures, I hope all the cast members continue to get work that allows them to shine as in The Blacklist - my favorite series this year.
Black Mass (2015)
"Black Mass" Reminds Us Why Depp, Cumberbatch Are So Good
* SPOILERS *
I saw "Black Mass" yesterday at a matinée, with no expectations, even though there is some buzz about the film. I wanted to see from an unbiased perspective if Depp still had the brilliance he'd displayed in the early part of his career with films like "What's Eating Gilbert Grape", "Ed Wood", and of course, "Edward Scissorhands". I was curious if his tent pole films ("Pirates of the Caribbean") had made him lazy and cynical. The first thing I noticed was his hair (obviously), so turning the heart throb into an older, hardened criminal was completed. But what I then noticed was the subtle way they introduced his predator blue eyes. And as the film ran, his eyes became more and more evil - it was a great makeup job, and the way Depp used them to great affect was chilling.
Another interesting thing about the film is the way they presented Jimmie Bulger at first as a sort of reformed criminal, having "done a dime at Alcatraz", and ever the Irish Catholic altar boy, looking after the elderly ladies, with whom he had a fondness for. Seeing him dote on his young son, you could feel his pain after his son's passing, where you almost feel sorry for the guy. But his anger and blood lust just keep on escalating, empowered by his cohorts and FBI friend, and as you watch him strangle the niece of one of his crew, any empathy you had for the man is rapidly torn away. He is an animal, predator, socio- ("or is it psycho-") path, murderer.
So Depp indeed does show why he deserves his fame - and a good part of the reason is usually due to the director, as his recent performances have shown that a great actor is only as good as his director (what was Wally Pfister thinking in "Transcendence"?), so part of Depp's success in "Black Mass" must be credited to Justin Kurzel. Likewise, Benedict Cumberbatch as Bulger's brother Billie is barely recognizable, and holds to his reputation as one of the finest actors in the current era. The rest of the team is solid, if under-exposed - there are some excellent performances, notable Joel Edgerton as FBI mole John Connolly, and Julianne Nicholson as Connolly's stolid wife. The production design, sound, and other film technicals are ably handled, giving that cold, hard "Southy" Boston atmosphere. This was an excellent film, and held my interest throughout. And while the story was fascinating, Depp really shines, giving one of, if not the, the best performances of his career. And though not a lead role, Cumberbatch also really shines (let's face it, he always does..), as does Edgerton. If you are a fan of film, you must see "Black Mass".
Diamond Ruff (2015)
Diamond Ruff is Rough, and no Diamond in the Rough *Spoiler Sport*
I actually acted in this disaster of a film, but looks like they took me out (thank god!). It was my first speaking role, and the best part of it was working with Missy Fiore, who was cute as a button. I had previously worked in film out at Paramount in Hollywood, as well as several years free lance - mostly in production (special effects & music), so I do know how real movies get made. This shoot was so low-budget, they just couldn't get the money where they needed it - specifically the direction. It was so bad, and perhaps my 1 star reflects more of my experience than the film itself, but trust me, if you watch this, you will hate yourself. To say it's a stinker is to give stinkers a bad name.
*spoilers in this paragraph* The book that the movie is based on - basically the author's fantasy life - and what he would like it to be - isn't bad (I actually liked it), but the movie goes off in too many directions and fails to keep to the story, which is certainly their prerogative, but it was a very bad decision. Instead of the protagonist, who's an African American playing a white con man ripping off the big bucks, I believe the writer/ producer, Joe Young, is using the movie as a con to generate money. That's why it took him 7 years to complete this. But regardless, this amateur effort - for all the skilled folks working on it - fails because it's a jumbled pile of rushed scenes, or too many long shots of uninteresting, hence, the pacing is atrocious.
Do yourself a favor and find a film that is a true diamond in the rough, like a foreign film, underground or independent picture; better yet, watch a real movie. Unless you acted in this too, and watched it to see how you did. BTW, they said they would pay me and give me SAG credit. Never happened. What goes around comes around, and this karma just completed the circle.
Jupiter Ascending (2015)
Critics are Dickics, cuz Jupiter Ascends! *Spoil Sport Motors*
So I read the critiques before seeing "Jupiter Ascending' today, and from the trailer, I was concerned it might agree with the critics (why was I concerned... friggin critics..); for I did NOT want to see Jupiter Ass-ending!
I was pleasantly surprised, because it was better than I thought, indeed, I enjoyed it, and found some excellent ideas never before realized on film. Good Ol Wachowski Bros (Sibs now?). I thought Mila was excellent as the down-to-earth pooper cleaning gal, and Channing T was a kick Ass to the G (for galaxy..), my only complaint was that the alien royalty was British. Well, they did rule the Earth for 1000 years (the Brits, that is - apparently the aliens have for much longer..); I love the soft-spoken psychotic brother character. Sean Bean could have been utilized more, but so what, the movie was worth the $5. If you like SciFi, DEFINITELY go see it; If you want art, go to the museum.
Interstellar (2014)
As Seminal as 2001, with near perfect execution, Nolan creates another Masterpiece that brings the audience on a journey to themselves. *SPOILER*
I cannot give Nolan's SciFi epic "Interstellar" a 10, because he got a little loose in places (especially towards the end, where he could have tied up just a few niggling bits), that being said, he gets closer to the perfect Kubrick "2001: A Space Odyssey" than anyone ever has before, and can now raise his glass as having cemented himself as the true Master auteur we all knew him to be.
Nolan was in inspired form, getting phenomenal performances from everyone; there was not a weak link in the bunch (and I'm not a big Topher Grace fan - even He turned in an excellent performance). And I was kind of expecting Matt Damon to overplay his role, but he was reeled in just right for the picture, and I think he added a nice little dark aside- hooray for him.
The sets were literally out of this world while being in it; the tech was really solid (my dad worked on Apollo, and I KNOW...)
I enjoyed the robot(s) - just enough cheese, without being too much. The space ships Nolan got right (especially the interiors, and all the important stuff like gravity and propulsion). Most importantly, he got his astrophysics and relativity right (FINALLY! Someone Gets it Right!! Yippee!). The cryo sleep chambers, while not the same future as the Nostromo, was serviceable.
I could go on, but it's late. The main genius of "Interstellar" is the script, (and a certain segment near the end, that might get you to sing "When the moon is in the seventh house.."). Nolan wrote a great script, and executed it beautifully. His actors should all be up for awards (as well as direction, visual effects, and ESPECIALLY the Music!!!) The haunting underscore set the mood and added an extra dimension. Mr. Nolan, Thank You for a really fulfilling film! I want a sequel!!
The Giver (2014)
"The Giver" Presents a Thought-Provoking Look at Our Future *SPOILERS*
******* SPOILERS *******
I went to "The Giver" this weekend with no preconceptions; I hadn't read the book, and had only seen one marketing trailer beforehand. All I knew was that the always excellent Jeff Bridges was in the title role, the Queen of American Cinema Meryl Streep, pop-princess Taylor Swift, the intelligently beautiful Katie Holmes and some Australian I never heard of (who ended up being quite good) Brenton Thwaites, rounded out the talented cast. I did read the IMDb blurb, so I knew this had something to do with a dystopian future, but with some artful black & white photography would be in play. As soon as the film opened, I settled in for the ride, and immediately the music, and the tone of the film, reminded me of Gattaca (which I consider a very good thing).
It starts out establishing the principle characters, and you can tell straight away that Streep's Chief Elder is the "heavy", and Bridges as the "Giver" is the anti-hero. I love the way they played with humor in the film, and how his name was derived is certainly no exception (Thwaites is the "Receiver of Memory", and he asks Bridges what that made him, having passed his 'job' on to the younger lad, wherein Bridges coquettishly replies, "Well, I guess that makes me the Giver." Indeed, and give, he does - perhaps more than he is expected to.) As one might surmise, their relationship grows, while 'The Giver' starts crossing the powers that be (Streep). As Thwaites (as 'The Receiver') evolves and begins to learn about the ruin the previous society inflicted on his world. Hijinks ensure, working towards the exciting finish.
I refrain from giving away much more, because the more left unsaid, the better movie-going experience one should have. Let me conclude by saying "those fools in Q branch" ( the film critics..) should be spending more time gardening, or doing anything else but writing reviews, because from my read, they seem to be utterly jaded beyond the hope of a conscience. They seem incapable of writing a fair and accurate review. Hence, my diatribe here, now!
As a SciFi fan (and I loved Tron: Legacy, as well as Gattaca, and Fahrenheit 451 - another film it reminded me of..), I may be more forgiving to this film than a regular movie goer, and if so, I apologize. But due to my love of the genre, I think I have a high standard, which should make me a tough judge (and should explain my comments, and my 7.5 score). I actually think the film is better than that, but because of some other minor production issues too trivial and picayune to mention, I won't. So don't give me any grief - I don't take that from the public. You see, I'm not a taker; I'm a giver!
Thor: The Dark World (2013)
Excellent Sequel needing Thor 3 and "Thor Four" *SPOILERS*
I loved the first film, and with good reason - Kenneth Branaugh directing is always top shelf, and the cast was really strong. I looked forward to the sequel, knowing well it would be hard to match the freshness, art and grandeur of the first film. And the movie-going experience indeed started strange: I showed up right at the start time (11:00 AM matinée'), which by AMC Lowes standard means that I would have 4 - 6 previews to sit through, plus a few ads. Curiously, as I sat down (at 11:03, expecting to see ads..) I came midway into the "X-Men: Days of Future Past" preview. I asked my neighbor if there had been other previews, and he said, "This is the first preview," and I thought 'Goodie! I can see what other Sci Fi or Superhero films are coming soon.' But to my surprise, the movie started next! Totally out of character for AMC.
The intro was a laconic (low-key) teaser, which did set the tone for the film (it was a little flat). While I liked the movie (I love the characters - Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard and Tom Hiddleston - not to mention Sir Anthony Hopkins - are all excellent thespians), I blame the director Alan Taylor for not getting as much emotional reach from them and the story as I would have liked, (but then, I am a genius, and super- critical :<)
There were fantastic, well-conceived story ideas in this film, great action, nice unexpected surprises, some cute humor (Dr. Eric Selvig is great as usual - he better be in Thor 3 and "THOR 4/Thorfour?"!!), and Darcy even has some great humorous scenes, too. Plus, I could look at Natalie Portman all day. My chief complaint was the emotional flatness after a certain queen's fate, which could have brought down the house, but the story didn't have time to develop certain relationships, and that is my other complaint; it felt slow in parts, hurried in others. But still, it's one I want in my library, because Marvel has a great franchise here. The fact that Thor was one of my favorite superhero comics as a kid has nothing to do with it, although they have cast the characters as perfect as you can get.
I wish I could get hired for the next installment, because they have teed up the trilogy nicely, with many possibilities, and I Hope the actors will find a way to sign contracts for 2 more films, before any other actors are changed (*SPOILER* Switching actors for the part of Fandral wasn't a show-stopper, but I would have liked for them to have kept Josh Dallas from the first Thor).
So I give the film an 8/10, although I nearly gave it a 7 (7.5 is probably where it belongs). It's a GOOD movie, not GREAT, and not the first Thor, but an entertaining, exciting, visually compelling, well-acted sequel that I Hope makes enough box office to guarantee the next 2 movies (with Hemsworth, Portman, Hiddleston, Skarsgard at a minimum reprising their roles, and hopefully the others, too). They could do a nice love triangle intrigue between Jamie Alexander - who looks great in this, BTW, and kicks ass convincingly! - and Portman.
If you are a fan, you HAVE to see Thor 2, and if you are new to it, by all means see Thor 1 and Avengers first, if you can, as it will be much easier to follow - at a minimum, see Thor 1. The key to the success of this franchise will hinge on the next film, which I can envision as being the best of the series IF they get the story right. This should lead to an Avengers 3, and then back to Thor 4, by which time Hemsworth might be ready to give 'Meow meow' (as Darcy calls Mjolnir) to the next red-caped, crusading Asgardian.
Oblivion (2013)
Very Good (I LIKED Tron: Legacy) - Maybe a Spoiler
Tom Cruise is very likable, even in a stinker film, of which he has few, and this was in no way a stinker. It had a slower pace than roller coaster rides like an 'Armageddon' (in that way, like Tron: Legacy), but it held my interest and kept me engaged. Yes, there was some predictability's, but some surprises, too! And how can you not like his female counterparts.. yes, Tom always gets the girls (in that way, I'd like to see him fall down once in awhile in the movies instead of his personal life), but you can't have everything... that is, unless you are Tom Cruise... ha! I'm jealous.
I agree the CGI is GREAT! And the Story, once it got past the setup, was very good - not GREAT, but I'd give it a 7.5 (I give it an 8 overall - Production Design was first-rate, like Tron).
The music, well, not so great.
Tom's acting gets better most of the time, and he's great as a 'come-from-behind' hero. Again, you just can't help but root for this guy. If you like Sci-Fi, Definitely Go See it!!!
Prometheus (2012)
I loved it and saw it 3 times in 2 days and I want to see it AGAIN!
The critics have a point, as every film (critic) has issues. As Ridley says, "this film lives in its own universe," so of course the differences between Prometheus and Alien are correct - The continuity gaps that the reviewers pull at - (the infamous Giger 'Space Jockey') - will increasingly spotlight their own lack of imagination. I found the film spectacular Sci-fi, and saw it 3 times (once in 3D) over 2 days. For me (*SPOILER ALERT*):
The violently sexual attacks by the aliens in this film suggest Ripley's British buggery beyond the bravura thespian ism by Noomi & Fassbendy; The tech is spec-tech-ular , for a future in our universe; The more philosophical themes were indeed a bit 'flan', but whether to accommodate the general public's lack of facility in this era, or to leave open the doors to a quintillogy (or "infinitillogy!" - Scott is no one's fool, as the back-end participation would be obscene - much like the excess American profiteering being flaunted by current corporate elites - in this aspect, Scott's prescience is spot on with Theron's character)
So in the final analysis, Prometheus will delight visually; the underscore has a main theme that may haunt you; the questions left unanswered may hopefully inspire some of our race (unfortunately, not enough to actually get there). Scott's biggest flaw is in the economics of this journey. His 'luxury yacht'/research starship will not be available at the end of the 21st century for $1 trillion dollars. But oh, "Make It So, Number One"! (Oops! Wrong Universe )
I believe in God, but I define it much like those who see Phi Tori at the heart of it all. Scott does the impossible task of proposing a definition of our God (who may be simply more scientifically adroit 'bio-engineers'), and only fails to answer that impossible question to Justin at Variety. What did you expect? ∞=42? I could go on (and hopefully, I will go on - through eternity..) Unfortunately, Peter Weyland won't. And Justin wants to know Why not? (I figured that part out for myself.)
Weyland wasn't a Believer.
I hope Riddles has started working on a sequel, as I'd like to get as much of Ridley Scott's thinking on film as possible, before he, too, meets his maker (rather, 'Our' maker). And I'm enthralled that he pulled off this inspirationally epic sci-fi masterpiece. Like 'Blade Runner' was in its day, 'Prometheus' should become a similar landmark for this artist, indicating his evolution of style, mastery in his medium, a unique voice and groundbreaking ideas. The man deserves an Academy Award with this one.
Now we wait to see what James Cameron delivers with Avatars 2 & 3 (good luck with those. Anyone can relate to the troubles of a purple eleven-foot-tall, native American-like-with-a-tail), whilst I try to find time to propose some ideas at taking Elizabeth and David through the heavens. While the perverse greed exploited through consumer capitalism ravages our resources, and petty materialists govern, our planet is being pillaged, and our future is being stolen. There will be no Research Expeditionary Vessels darting through the universe at warp speed in this century, (or the next), except, perhaps in our imaginations. And I envy (not worship) the species that achieves this great conquest of physics and engineering. Are they truly Gods? Demigods? Angels (or Demons)? Or are they just great engineers? Will they, too, be forced to follow the law of the jungle, so that only the strongest survive? God, I hope not! For that vision, go see 'Prometheus'! Then go see it in 3D. (and get off yer arse, and do something good for the planet, so that we'll be around long enough to become that which we seek - The Answer! (And no, sorry Douglas, it isn't 42. Just then, I hear a voice, which says "what is six times seven equal to?"..). I keep looking.
I Am Number Four (2011)
*May Contain Spoilers* - Predictable, yet disjointed
When I read the review, it sounded like a cool movie idea. How wrong was I this time (and I can usually pick a good film, like 'Battle: Los Angeles", (which was really good, BTW). Anyway, after an intro/teaser that was darkly lit and hard to make sense of, they switch production style and go with a sunny "90210-like" FOX-style tween-between (the title protagonist, John "#4 " Smith (Alex Pettyfer), who looks like a 27 y.o. going to high school - that was just bad casting/writing! Then here comes hottie blondie Twiggy (Dianna Agron), and the was this dude acted, he HAD to be an alien, or gay (or a gay alien - not that there's anything wrong with that!) Next, the post-punk Mod bad guys (dressed in black leather - what else? - with 'Xander-Zone Triple X' head logo tattoos, these retards were scary because I'd be more afraid of their bad breath than the Hot-rodded Super Soakers they were packin'! Anyway, after scene after scene of witless dialogue and predictable behavior, like Number Four's 'Guardian' (played by Timothy Oilyphant, who I generally like, but who reminds me of Transformers Josh Duhamel,, but I digress), and as the climax approaches, it's just a big shoot out. Guys get the girls, and too bad Rodney Dangerfield wasn't there to shout "Hey, we're all gonna get laid!" When the durn DVD came out before the very end (I hit the "open" button instead of "rewind" - my damn remote broke, so it's a pain getting up every time to...), well, I didn't bother to watch the last 5- 10 minutes, but at that point, I don't think it mattered. The director definitely picked some high quality tail - a little more gratuitous nudity couldn't have hurt! Instead, save your money for Thor, Green Lantern, or Captain America - all were far superior to this dog.
Tron: Legacy (2010)
Tron Legacy shows Jeff Bridges acting Brilliance, as well as an excellent sequel (that rivals 'The Matrix' trilogy *Spoilers
What a past few years for Jeff Bridges - I mean, he was OK as a young actor, but has he come into top form. His low-key approach suits his Neo-Zen Master character (and he sure knows a good role - 'American Heart', 'Tron Legacy', 'True Grit' - he just keeps getting better! I totally dug the young Kevin Flynn/ CLU - how'd they pull off that CGI? And the sets - GREAT production design. Garrettt Hedlund is well cast as Sam Flynn, and who's gonna complain about Olivia Wilde as Quorra ** SPOILER** the Iso?
I sure hope they make Tron 3 - the possibilities are 'Tronless' (but I like Alan Bradley/ Bruce Boxleitner, too!)
FYI - I dug The Matrix Trilogy, but this series had a deeper message, with a touching father-son relationship, played with emotion (unlike Keanu, who emotes like a lump all too often (and I like him). But he's no 'DUDE!
Green Lantern (2011)
Green Lantern Excellent - the NY Times critic is wrong! *SPOILERS*
What is up with professional movie critics like the dick at the Times who said Green Lantern was bad? It's not bad- on the contrary, it's really, really good - especially for such a cosmic concept. Sure, there were some script issues, but mostly trivial (unless your expectation is in the way), but these in no way impeded my enjoyment of this film adaption of my favorite comic book superhero series from my childhood.
The Times tool also said something cynical, like ".. Are superheroes relevant in today's world.." or some such tripe, and the fact that he makes such an insipid comment demands the answer 'YES', because in our cynical world, kids need positive role models (as do their parents), and Ryan Reynolds does a great job delivering one for us. Especially the idea about the most powerful force being will - if only we'd embrace that - the missing component in today's effed up world is in such idealism offered in this entertaining, visually stunning, cosmic (and cosmically beautiful), scientifically accurate, and exciting film. I am certainly looking forward to a sequel, which is implied, so make it so!
Without giving much away, I can say that the film moved a little too quickly for me, perhaps because some of the visuals were so compelling that I wanted the camera to linger there (instead, it occasionally lingered in the wrong spots a few times, for example, in some scenes that were tangent to the main story), but again, the errors were forgivable when the end result was so enjoyable.
The Green Lantern can manifest anything he can imagine, and my main criticism would be the writers didn't go far enough exploring this - when one has an infinite blank slate in which to create, it can be a challenge to find new ideas that folks can relate to - I get that - but the writers could have, should have spent a bit more time on the aspect of training ones mind to the discipline of harnessing thoughts. I can imagine yoga-like mental exercises and let the fun begin! But these can be explored in a sequel.
I hope the box office grows fat enough to convince the idiots in Hollywood to continue this franchise. I want the idealism and the valiant heroism of the Green Lanterns to inspire my son more than the hedonistic Tony Stark (although he can too, a little!). So check it out - I saw the 3D version, but it should be good in 2D, too. See if you can imagine a universe that looks out for the 'rest of us', where the good guys win, and superheroes exist. That's a place where I want to live!
The Last Airbender (2010)
The Last Fartbender *SPOILERS
I thought there could be something cool with the idea of doing something with the four elements and a Kung Fu fantasy (a la' 'Crouching Tiger/ Hidden Dragon'), but this piece of sh*t should be burned, banished and bent! Bad directing, really bad writing, bad acting; the only thing worthwhile were the sets and the scenery. I agree with the majority here that no one involved in the creative processes of writing, or directing should ever work in this medium again! They have no sense of story in this impossible-to-follow film. What a waste of money. When you see a big budget looking film like this, you wonder who the brain fried weasels were that green-lighted the final cut. They need to be fired! This is the worst film I've seen in years.
SAVE YOURSELVES! DON'T RENT THIS PIECE OF CRAP!
Hereafter (2010)
Eastwood Falters Badly *A Spoiler or two*
When I see an 8 point IMDb rating of a Clint Eastwood film, I have some expectation that the movie will be good. Well, I can no longer make that assumption, because this sentimental, plodding, uninspiring mess is worth 4 stars at best. For such a profound subject as 'what happens when you die?' to have been treated so vaguely is a mistake. There is so much one can say, and the script treats the subject like a date movie.
I think the subject of afterlife must be on Clint's mind - after all, he is rapidly approaching his own mortality, even though at 80, he still looks great. His previous film, 'Gran Torino' had so much more story and feeling, I was surprised at how plodding this movie was. After a great opening (a simulation of what it must have been like for those caught in the 2004 tsunami), a young woman briefly experiences what we assume is death, but the visuals here go nowhere. It's almost as if Eastwood never read all the accounts of those who experienced death, to then be revived (or chose to ignore them). With all the CGI available, he could have had a field day (while staying far away from the afterlife visuals of Robin Williams movie, 'What Dreams May Come'). At a minimum, I expected the 'tunnel of light', but all we got was out-of-focus silhouettes.
This film is very slow; Damon is uninteresting - his character had so much potential, but they failed to develop it beyond a few vague hints, and his constant whining "I don't Do That anymore!" became laughable. In the end, the film's theme came across as if the meaning of life is to simply get laid. And Damon's wardrobe, Yikes! Not even badly dressed professors wear corduroy jackets anymore!
The script was plain bad, Clint's direction was amateurish, and Damon wasn't even right for this role. Do yourself a favor and skip this movie until it comes on free cable. Watch with a friend or spouse; then, perhaps it might invite dialog on the afterlife, (or you can just rant about how bad the film is) without it costing you $10.50. Otherwise, about an hour in, when you realize the film is going nowhere, you'll be craving your own afterlife.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Heath had Oscar-worthy Performance, but Nolan's Direction w/ Bale - C minus
The cast was great, the script a bit too majestic, so it's yin versus yang, not the Tao.
Heath Ledger's performance of 'The Joker' really is the best acting job in 2008 (he probably would have been in that class of the greats like Olivier, Brando, etc), so it's really sad he died. But since we all have to die, let's move on to Bale's Batman. When did Batman develop a speech impediment? The voice thing was just bad, bad - it killed an otherwise great film. This one thing takes it from a 9 to a 7, because it's all about the bat, baby. Unfortunately, Maggie Gyllenhaal (why is she famous?) had a forgettable role that she did a good job with, and Arron Eckhart was excellent as Mr. Dent. Morgan Freeman is always an A, Michael Caine has finally mastered his craft, and nails the part with flair. Oldman's Gordon - wow, first time I've been fooled in awhile. Eric Roberts and the rest of the cast - really damn good.
Without the voice effect, a 9.2, but with the director dropping the ball on this, a 7.5.
The View from Another Armchair Director
Direct Hit (1994)
Not a Hit
I wish Hollywood producers would remember "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage," and for DIrect HIt, not only was it not on the page, it wasn't in the mind, either. Forsythe is a good character actor, but in his chance at a leading man role, I think the pot belly ruins it for him. Clearly, he's no Jason Bourne, but for 1994, one can see some ideas that could have influenced both the Bourne and Matrix films. Jo Champa plays doey-eyed bimbo Savannah, and the director must have been sleeping with her, considering how much screen time she gets. The best line is:
Savannah: "You're a psychopath!" Daniels: "That's why I'm running for office."
The writing goes downhill from there. George Segal will do anything for a cigar as he plays the same talentless dick he plays in every movie he's ever made. If you are in a coma on a Saturday morning, and you see this for free, why not waste 90 minutes of your life in this stinker, just to see how not to make a movie. Actually, the coma would be time better spent.
Diva (1981)
Top Ten Film of All Time (for all the cinema/music/intelligent loving)
Being an American who's been lucky enough to travel around the world a bit to places like Paris, which is a really cool place (and Parisians are no more assholes than New Yorkers or anyone else for that matter), I absolutely LOVE this film. If I had ten films to take with me through eternity, this would be one of them. The music is perfect, the story keeps you guessing and the climax is held for a long time. There's nothing unnecessary to the film (like too much action, too much sex, too much of anything) - it is a perfect balance of elements, from acting (which is superb by the entire cast), Beineix's direction is great, the cinematography is stunning, and the pacing is couldn't be better. If you don't rate this film at a 7 or higher, you must be a dimwit.
When I looked up the cast's careers, I was surprised to see Wilhelmenia Fernandez (Cynthia Hawkins' character) has done so little in her career after this film - what a voice! I hated opera until I saw this film, and she helped change my mind (as did Cantalini's composition "La Wally"). I heard Richard Bohringer's character Gorodish (my favorite hero/anti-hero of all time), was going to do a 'sequel' but I never found it. So enjoy - it's a great film.
In case you're curious, here's my top eleven (as in "Spinal Tap"), in no particular order: 1) Diva 2) Casablanca 3) 2001: A Space Odyssey 4) Il Postino 5) The Matrix 6) Apocalypse Now 7) Gladiator 8) Contact 9) Deep Impact 10) Schindler's List 11) Saving Private Ryan
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Good, but typical sequel *spoiler*
I loved comic books as a child, and I think the X-men movies are the best adaptation from the comics. The acting has always been superb, the direction excellent, and the scripts have been strong. Unlike many superhero movies, X-Men has always taken itself seriously (with just a few campy moments for needed comic relief). This is how I read the tone in the writing as a boy, and the films succeed at so many levels. With much anticipation about the release of X-Men III:The Last Stand, I was preprogrammed to believe this could be the crowning jewel of the series, however, I was a little disappointed in a few things. So, this is a SPOILER next:
1. They should have used the 'massive' system by Peter Jackson's company (Lord of the Rings), and had way more mutants - some of the staging was unimpressive. Then again, the production design was great as always.
2. Kelsey Grammar and Patrick Stewart are two of the finest actors, so they could have used some more interaction - the script writers should have realized that and let these two riff a bit more.
3. Even when a comic book character dies, they should stay dead. Unless the actor's agent holds out for more money on X-Men 4.
4. This film shows the potential for this series in other media - much like The Matrix did with Animatrix, X-Men is a long-term franchise, and could even be spun into a cable or network series. I wonder what number the accountants have set up for that to happen?
5. Famke was kind of uninteresting to me this time around as Jean Grey/Phoenix (was that how her character died in the comic book? I don't recall the details from my youth!). She looked very wooden at times (I guess she was kind of dead already?), and maybe that's how Ratner directed her, but something was missing. Maybe I felt no emotional connection between her and Wolverine (the script? what I "read into it"? their chemistry)?)
Choosing a script is probably the first decision that impacts a film's success as an art, and in the case of this X-Men movie, The Last Stand only gets a 7.5; it's special effects, while excellent in places and well integrated, the live action overlays looked thin at times. The story script would have benefited from some character relationship development. All in all, a competent, but not ground-breaking. Probably a good time to do away with the specific characters, and bring some younger blood in. Although I would like to see Halle and Hugh get together (in the next one?) - if I were Wolverine, I would've been on Storm in about 2 seconds, but those actors are probably past their "sell by date" for steamy love scenes.
There, I've torn it apart. Now I'm going to buy it for my DVD collection because it is a part of the series. In other words, "two thumbs up", "I loved it", and "destined to be a classic". They better make X-Men 4. If only someone would pay me to write it.....
The Sentinel (2006)
The Sentinel Sucks (MIGHT CONTAIN A SPOILER)
What a waste of time this horribly written and poorly directed move was. There's no character development, and the bad judgment of the CIA characters is unbelievable. And there's no logic half the time. It really looks like a film version of Sutherlands 24 TV show.
Kiefer and Douglas do what they can, and are professional enough, but the way their characters were written makes them seem like idiots in many ways - whether it's Douglas behavior with the first lady, or Kiefer dumping his wife over an alleged affair. Longoria has a wicked body that gives a man wicked thoughts, but that"s all she's good for. She has no personality in this role and looks ridiculous trying to be a cop.
If Hollywood made any sense, they would not have bought this script (and since they did, they should fire the executive who green lighted it). Michael D and K Sutherland - you come off as either pathetic greedy bums who did it for the money, or you have no taste in selecting scripts by doing this piece of crap project. If your fans can't trust your word, they won't watch your work.
Save your money and don't go see this film. If you're bored out of your skull needing a new video, I'd suggest putting this film second to last on your list (after all, Longoria's cleavage isn't a total waste of film).
Ultimo tango a Parigi (1972)
Great acting, directing - for true thespians
This film is a masterpiece of emotion. Bertolucci's directing is brilliant, and the acting wonderful. Brando is a great actor. And the French actors are superb as well. Yes, there is brutal truth here - sex, violence, sexual perversion, and pain. The hurt one feels at a seemingly pointless death. It's got European and American flavor mixed with comical bits and some touching moments. If you don't appreciate this film, you are an uptight tool with no sense of the real world. Go back to your corn flakes and baseball and Madonna and let life pass you by. While the ending is almost Fellini-esquire (was Bertolucci going for that?), this is the movie's only failing - it wraps up too neatly, while not being neat at all. For the more mature or sophisticated audience, and a movie I'll watch again & again because it's fascinating.