crooow-2 Reviews

Broad Street Bullies (2010 TV Movie)

Memory Lane

[8/10 · 20 February 2015]

This is an HBO documentary that focuses on the 1974-1976 seasons of the Philadelphia Flyers. It is mostly of interest to older fans of the team and hockey historians. Nothing ground-breaking or fascinating but lots of fun for those of us who grew up idolizing the team. It gives a short history of the franchise and tries to provide rationale for the team going to the strategy that it did. There is some rationalization but it also does take them to task for "ruining" the game.

Lots of interviews with the former players and short focus periods on Clarke, Parent, Shero and Schultz (it is "Broad Street Bullies" after all). I would have liked it to be longer but I imagine most people would find it long enough. Some players are hardly mentioned (Bladon, Nolet, Crisp, Ashbee, MacLeish) but there's only so much you can do in the time given. It does a good job of covering their impact on the NHL. They were a disgrace but at the same time, they brought a lot of attention and attendance to the NHL and helped make it a major sport in the USA. It helps when there is a good villain. Also it covers the irony that after the Red Army team breezed through the NHL, it took the team that everybody hated to become the "hero" and beat them. Lots of good clips including Kate Smith.

Great to see the guys today and hear their reflections - not a single one regrets anything. The funniest line to me was when they were describing their off-ice appearance: Fu Manchu mustaches, long hair, loud clothing. One of the interviewees said "He all looked like porn stars". Hilarious.

The Poughkeepsie Tapes (2007)

Bad script and acting kills any chance (pun intended)

[3/10 · 3 September 2014]

This fake documentary had promise. I didn't mind the grainy film shot by the killer. It masks most of the actual violence (which they have characters tell you about afterward). It got more graphic near the end and I didn't need/want to see that but what can you expect going into a movie like this? What made this almost unwatchable was the incredibly bad script and bad acting by the peripheral players. The killer and victims were believable. The police, parents, news reporters and FBI agents were not. In one interview an FBI agent says "You know the funny thing about this?" which was unbelievable from all angles (including the delivery). Another interview has an agent saying "Maybe he thought I would admire him but I could never do that after what he did to Cheryl Dempsey". Oh so you were thinking of possibly admiring him? A couple of the cops were believable but it was so distracting to have these completely ridiculous interviews interspersed with the actual investigation footage and the killer's tapes. I persevered to the end but I thought about turning it off many times. For people who said that made it more realistic, try watching actual interviews with police and FBI agents on IDTV.

The other aspect was that the police work didn't hold together. They claim to have the killer on a gas station video covering his face and they also have the mother of a victim who saw him up close so they have a sketch and his car and yet they have zero clues. And the killer got enough sperm from a sperm bank from one police officer with a history of violence and no alibis who was near all the victims so that the killer could frame him? Ridiculous. I guess the sperm bank just gives out huge samples to random guys in their mid-20s with no documentation. And you can go in and request a specific person's sperm and keep it "fresh" enough to plant on multiple victims.

The more I think about it, the stupider this whole movie is becoming.

Richard III (1995)

Not as good as the Olivier version

[7/10 · 5 September 2010]

First the good: the movement to modern neo-fascism was interesting, the twist on many of the speeches was fascinating (which is one of the pleasures of re-doing Shakespeare - viz. the interpretation), McKellen is great, and most of the supporting cast is solid.

What I didn't like as much: some of the choices regarding what dialogue to keep and what to discard. Losing some of the opening soliloquy was unnecessary and a crime to Richard III fans. Benning and Downey Jr are not good in this - I like them in other films but here they sounded as if they were reciting lines that they had carefully memorized - very unnatural. But mostly where I think this falls short of the Olivier version is in the believability of Richard as a charmer. Olivier makes you believe that Richard could fool people. In this version, Richard is so blatantly evil that nobody could be deceived by him. Maybe they aren't supposed to be in this version but Richard III is one of the all-time great villains because he could charm people (a la Hannibal Lecter). Not here.

The Mist (2007)

Sorry attempt - let's look at the flaws

[2/10 · 24 July 2008]

There are plenty of posts out here saying "It's great" or "It sucks". I had heard good things so went into my viewing very positively. Unfortunately, I found this tedious and annoying. There were a few good moments but they were heavily unweighed by a bad script, bad acting, and bad effects. There is much less suspense than you would imagine in a thriller. But after some extremely wooden acting in the first ten minutes ("A tree fell on our house, oh well") with a storm that looked milder than the three thunderstorms that passed here in the last two weeks, we get a quick succession of ridiculous scenes:

(1) A guy runs into a grocery store from some fog and yells "Close the doors, there's something bad in the fog". People do and suddenly the whole store is in terrified silence. Very realistic.

(2) In the storeroom, a redneck yells at the artist "I'm tired of all your pretensions" after about 30 seconds of dialog of which none is pretentious.

(3) The schoolteacher has a gun but they need someone who can shoot it and the second-rate clerk just happens to be state pistol champion. Oh yeah, don't even think about the three soldiers who are in the store as they probably don't know how to use a gun.

(4) A big city lawyer believes that four people are playing a joke on him in the middle of a crisis situation.

(5) You reason that you can probably make it next store to the pharmacy because the one guy who left made it about 200 feet before being horribly killed. But you forget about the stock boy who made it about 6 inches before being killed.

(6) A huge creature (which is never seen again) pounds and pounds on the heavy metal loading dock door when the entire front of the store could be entered in a second.

It goes on and on - just horrible. Never believable for a second and I don't mean the alien creatures, I mean the script for the behavior of the characters. If you enjoy good suspense or horror, avoid this. There is a 25 minute segment (starting about 60 minutes in) that has good action but the rest is bad. The ending has been thoroughly debated and whether you like it or not, it is totally obvious.

The Watcher in the Woods (1980)

Weak Effort but not all bad

[4/10 · 27 September 2007]

I can see why kids like this film and can even understand why adults who saw it as a child could be sentimental for it. But if you are over 14 and haven't seen it, I think you would be pretty disappointed. First off, the acting. Bette Davis and David McCallum are good, the rest are pretty bad although Kyle Richards gets a pass due to her age and her creepy performance in the original ending. The special effects are weak even for that period. The storyline is very weak as you can see every setup and turn coming a mile off (Narek indeed, the overlapping circles). So what was good? The directing - the pacing of the film is perfect - and it does reasonably hold your interest by revealing little bits and pieces are regular intervals. The cinematography is also good and the music. The sets were well chosen.

But, and here come the spoilers, the biggest problem is that it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Bette Davis will only rent to the right people which means a family that has a daughter who looks like her lost daughter. And she talks to the entity in the woods about whether this is what it wants (I guess you can accept that she's somewhat psychic). Even though Bette has no idea why she should have someone like this around (you think it would be painful). Then there are all the scenes where the entity seems to be trying to hurt Jan (e.g. at the pond, on the bridge). How does three kids doing some club initiation open an interdimensional wormhole? Or is that just the biggest coincidence in the world (lightning and the eclipse and the ceremony)? If so, why do they have to do it again - what does it really accomplish? Why does breaking the circle matter? Why was Karen frozen but the entity could move around in our world? If the entity was just trying to prevent Jan was leaving so she could be at the ceremony, why would they be in danger at the bridge? And the motorcycle accident scene - yet another giant coincidence or is Jan the girl most likely to die in freak accidents? Sorry folks, just way too many "huh?" moments in this to make it watchable.

And the alternate endings are horrible. Stick with the original (84 minute version) as at least it leaves you with a sense of wonder.

Masters of Horror: John Carpenter's Cigarette Burns (2005) Season 1, Episode 8

Okay but needs a better scriptwriter

[5/10 · 11 August 2007]

The storyline is interesting enough (although it's a blend of 8 MM, The Ring, and In the Mouth of Madness). The acting is fine. Cody Carpenter's soundtrack is good. I didn't really mind the angel portion even though it doesn't seem necessary. My problem is that you shouldn't set up a difficult situation and then try to resolve it in a one hour episode with lots of subplots thrown in. The film has had many people searching for it (some are willing to spend lots of money for it), yet Kirby finds it way too easily. He is told that the critic doesn't see anyone and won't talk about the film, yet how does he gain immediate entrance? By saying he is there to discuss the film. He is told it is difficult to get anything from the wife yet she buzzes him in on no basis whatsoever and hands over the film easily. And of course, when you are killing someone and demand information, the victim will spend his dying breath telling you exactly what you want to know. Just weak and lazy writing all around. Chop out the subplots and maybe you can do a better job of moving the main plot along intelligently. Another writer's error is to build something up throughout the story (the most horrific film ever) and then actually show it so the audience can be let down. Otherwise the story could have worked fairly well.

Masters of Horror: Jenifer (2005) Season 1, Episode 4

Wow. Terrible.

[1/10 · 9 August 2007]

I would like to give credit for a semi-original idea but it was taken from another source so I can't even give them props for that. Just about everything in this film is terrible. The incidental music is borrowed from Psycho. The acting is lame especially the partner who delivers his lines like he's imitating George Dzundza from Law and Order. The story line is ludicrous - I kept thinking that this was meant as some kind of comedy but they played it straight right up to the totally predictable ending. In the first two minutes you know exactly what the last two minutes will be. The plot holes are enormous. The asylum lets you come in while a patient is showering and just take her out. You take her home and install her on the couch and don't tell your spouse. She kills and eats your cat and then attacks your wife. So your wife packs up and takes your son somewhere. She kills the neighbor girl and eats her and you don't do anything except say "Bad girl". Nobody ever comes looking for the neighbor girl - oh well. A circus guy comes to your house with your keys but you both think it's breaking and entering? He is killed but apparently he didn't tell anyone where he was going either as nobody comes looking for him. She kills and eats him but you just bury him out back. You take her to a cabin and leave her alone while you work late in town - what bad could happen? Then finally you decide that's she evil and decide to kill her so you can recreate the opening. And of course, with your dying last words you just say "Jenifer". Wow, it would have been hard to have done any worse on this film. It will gross you out but that's about it. Don't enjoy.

Elektra (2005)

How the movie may have been pitched.....

[3/10 · 12 July 2007]

Okay, okay, okay, so 'Daredevil' didn't do as well as we thought. But what did everybody love in that movie? They loved Elektra. So I'm thinking "Hey, why don't we make a movie about her?". Yeah, I know she died in the other one but we'll fix that. And we want her to be supercool so we'll make her a cold-blooded assassin. Well no, no, not totally cold-blooded, she'll have these vague inner turmoils. We can do a lot of those shots on her staring straight ahead emotionlessly that were so popular in 'Alias'. With soaring music. What's that? Well I know she can't really act but she's gorgeous so we'll just give her some tight outfits. What? Okay, we'll put her in some fashionable business-wear as well ---- in scenes where she counsels a young girl who's kind of her protégé. Well she won't know it but we'll make sure it's obvious to the audience real early. And we'll have to have some supercool villains - just pick a handful from the comic. And one should be a hot chick. Oh, there's one that can sap life by kissing? Perfect, we'll have her kiss Elektra for a full five seconds so the teenage boys can get their ya-yas. But it won't kill her, she'll stop early. And we can do a real cool fight scene in a room full of flying sheets like they did in that artsy movie. But again she'll escape when the bad guy just stops using an attack even though it's working extremely well. We can do lots of character development - what? well we won't make it real talky - we can just have her mope around a lot. How will she kill the bad guys? Oh, we'll figure that out later as there will not be a lot of time left for that anyway. And we'll get one of those famous serious British actors to play some kind of mentor. And the girl can have a hot father that Elektra falls for. We'll just get one of those guys from another network seriodrama. If this works, we can get a sequel where she meets up with the Charmed Ones and their studs for a total CGI fest.

The Descent (2005)

Well-crafted thriller

[8/10 · 30 June 2007]

I enjoyed this film because of the attention to detail. For a "monster" movie, it was surprisingly believable (unlike "The Cave"). Many of the "flaws" mentioned on this website are because people didn't pay attention (or perhaps couldn't understand all the dialogue due to the various accents). In fact, this would have worked well without any monsters at all. The cavers show a nice variety of reactions (mostly fear and panic) - I never felt like any of them were acting inappropriately. Suspense is built up well and the few subplots actually contribute to the story. My only criticisms: it is too obvious who will go first and who will remain until the end (or near end); it would have been nice to develop all six of the characters instead of 3 or 4; and there are early sequences where it is hard to tell which person is doing what or where. The last is probably intentional by the director to convey the claustrophobia and confusion but it was still annoying as a viewer. I found myself thinking "Okay, just wait this part out and we'll see who is where."

Also the opening whitewater rafting sequence is fairly weak but don't let the first couple of minutes deter you.

Hannibal Rising (2007)

Good considering the source

[7/10 · 2 June 2007]

Having read the book and having seen the newspaper reviews, I went into this with very low expectations. The book is flat out bad with Harris spending more space on showing us his knowledge of fine wine and foods than he spends on character development. Knowing that he had done the screenplay also worried me. However, the director did a nice job of skimming the crap and focusing on the story instead. The first 25 minutes in Lithuania are excellent. The use of limited flashbacks is well done and the holding of the key element until the very end is handled well. Unfortunately just about every scene with Li Gong is terrible, mostly not her fault although her delivery is somewhat wooden. Gaspard Ulliel does a nice job especially with the mannerisms; you can believe that this boy could become the Anthony Hopkins version of the man. The bad dudes are all good especially Rhys Ifans and Richard Brake. Also excellent cinematography.

The weakness is the source material. Many will be disappointed by the motivations behind the Lecter character. The childhood trauma and the confused feelings towards his aunt explain some of his transformation but just doesn't seem "enough". The deaths are interesting and plentiful but not as gruesome as many would have you believe (which is okay by me anyway). The coincidences and ridiculous "schemes" are just plain bad writing. But if you realize that this is a revenge story more than a detective story or a character development story, it's very watchable.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

Disappointing

[4/10 · 1 May 2007]

I have not seen the original. This one was so hyped with statements akin to "The most shocking scenes ever put to film." So I watched it on HBO and frankly I was bored. It isn't poorly made. It isn't poorly acted. But it's nothing that you haven't seen before. I was expecting either to be unsettled or grossed out. Nowhere near as disturbing as say "House of Wax". Nowhere near as gross as "Dead Alive." The burning alive scene in "Silent Hill" is more gut-turning. Plenty of stock jump scare scenes. At least three occasions on which the bad guys don't finish off someone who is completely defenseless. Don't get me wrong, it's not a comfortable film. But it's a lot tamer than you're lead to believe. Unless you are particularly upset by impalement - then you will be plenty disturbed.

Saw III (2006)

Middle of the Road

[6/10 · 3 February 2007]

I rate the original Saw as an 8, Saw II as a 7 and this one as a 6. Held my interest but I doubt I'd ever watch it again. I think it is the best acted of the three - Robert the Bruce is definitely a step up. But it lacked the cleverness of the first two - the twists are minor and easy to see coming. Also, it promises much more than it delivers: "Suffering? You haven't seen anything yet." The first Saw had acting problems and a few too many jump cuts - other than that it was solid. The second Saw had better acting but the script was somewhat implausible - I mean Jigsaw's plan relied on everyone doing exactly as he planned. But the final twist was brilliant. This one has far too many implausibilities. You live with Jigsaw the master game player and never suspect he may be playing you? You come across people in deadly peril and you stop to lecture them on how they didn't help when your son was killed? I think I would save them first then administer the lecture. Also it was unclear whether he was allowed to continue regardless of whether he passed the test or not. He didn't seem to pass all of them. The most annoying part was near the end when they started playing back stuff that happened in prior movies so you could understand the "master" plan. But then they started showing scenes that had just happened three minutes ago. We really didn't need those flashbacks, thank you. And the whole movie is a setup for a sequel (presumably the last possible film in the sequence unless they do prequels as well). Another poster commented that Jigsaw's early traps were unfair - I believe this is explained near the end of the movie. But the victims in this one do seem a lot more "innocent" than in the first two films.

Invincible (2006)

Great film

[10/10 · 3 February 2007]

I'm a Philly boy who went to St. Joe's from 1976 through 1980. I was disappointed that they never mention Papale's alma mater (St. Joe's) by name. Other than that, I thought the movie captured the feel of the times perfectly: the people, the neighborhoods, the music, the attitude. I found it very inspirational - a true life Rocky story. Of course, being an Eagles fan and former Hawk, I am a little biased. I agree with all the other submitters that Kinnear's portrayal of Vermiel is spot on. He earned the respect of his players by working harder than any other coach and working them harder than any other coach. I went to high school with the prior coach's son (Mike McCormack, Jr) and they were nice people. But Dick Vermiel was the reason that the Eagles turned it all around. Vince helped.

Frankenstein: The True Story (1973 TV Movie)

Effective Interpretation - Bravo Victor

[7/10 · 23 November 2006]

I first saw this as a two-part miniseries on TV in the early seventies. Several scenes left a strong impression on me (see below). When the DVD version recently became available, I bought it on the first available day. Of course, it did not live up to my childhood memories but I was not disappointed. However, my wife found it boring (too slow) and a friend thought it was stupid (with bad production moments and some silly dialogue). I agree that it is slow and that there are many portions that could have been edited down. But I still find it very worthwhile particularly for the storyline interpretations and the character issues raised.

Being familiar with the novel, I realize that this version is not "true" to the original story's plot. But I believe it is much truer to the spirit of the novel than most other productions. The creature is sympathetic while still doing horrific things. Frankenstein's behavior is difficult to understand: obsessive yet easily frustrated.

The bad: the added prolog, the first 5 minutes (rushed - would have been better as backstory in voice-over), bad production value (the carriage scene), silly plot devices (the hypnosis, Clerval's sudden attacks, the housekeeper's death by fright, the Polidori plan for Prima, Victor's explanation for who the creature is), the stock footage of the Arctic (not even the same film resolution).

The good: the acting, the creature's makeup, the ending, the script in general ("Bravo, Victor").

My favorite scenes: the severed arm banging on the cabinet during the creation, the creature's heartbreaking realization that he is no longer beautiful, Victor and the creature on the white cliffs, the creature and the blind hermit, Prima playing the piano and playing with the white cat, the horrific ballroom scene, the final Polidori scene (despite the weak special effects), the frozen deck, and the final conciliation between Frankenstein and the creature).

The interesting: why is Prima evil while the Creature starts out good? Is it Polidori's training? Can either of them be considered good or evil or are they amoral? Why does Victor treat the creature poorly? Frustration over his own failure? Why is the creature never given a name?

In summary, not great but a welcome mental break from the high-action low-thought films of today.