atlant

Lately, I seem to be writing a lot of really negative reviews about a lot of recent sci-fi movies but I guess that's because I'm becoming frustrated with the dross that the streaming services are offering to us.

"Somnus" is another movie in this series of duds. Filmed substantially in an old British Hawker Siddely Nimrod airplane from the 60s, the film has a plot that could have been lifted from a casual acquaintance with "2001" but without any of Clarke's or Kubrick's wit or intelligence. You probably won't care about the characters and you probably won't even care about the "big picture" thing that might or might not be going on.

I wonder: have we burned through all the truly creative ideas so now we're reduced to recycling everything, but only after it's been through a waste treatment plant?

Two thirds of the way through the movie, I decided I didn't care one bit about what happened to any of the characters in the movie so I turned it off.

I found the constant time shifting jarring to say the least. I also found the very violent interrogator unpleasant although we do eventually at least learn something about their motivation.

BTW: My wife left the viewing much sooner than I did. This may be due to her having better taste than I do or her having less hope that a given movie will ever turn out to be some sort of hidden gem rather than just being unremittingly awful.

This is another entry in what is becoming a long, dismal list of dreadful "supposed to be sci-fi" movies produced (or at least distributed by) the various streaming services.

The first three quarters of this movie is nearly unwatchable. The aliens, when they finally show up on screen, are laughably awful and the human weapons, as usual, are utterly inadequate for the job. (Verhoeven showed real satiric genius when he sent his Starship Troopers out armed with mostly nothing more than "modern sporting rifles".)

Having said that, if you make it to the last twenty or thirty minutes of the movie, it gets remarkably better. It's only for that reason that I gave it 3 stars instead of the minus ten that the first 3/4 of the movie deserves. I'm not sure you could just fast-forward through the movie and understand what's going on, but it might be worth a try.

Aside from pretty good production values, this movie has absolutely nothing to recommend it. You've seen all the plot devices many times before. You've seen the story before. You could predict the ending by about ten minutes in and I spent the last half hour of the movie wondering "Is it over yet?" and checking the progress bar on Prime Video to see how close we were to the end.

When it finally did end, I turned to my wife and said "That was one terrible movie!" and she said "You thought so too? I was only watching it because you had picked it."

So take my advice: Don't pick it.

Hmmm... J. J. Abrams. Netflix. Yup, that's an almost perfect recipe for an absolutely terrible movie and that's what "The Cloverfield Paradox" is: an absolutely terrible movie. Mixing together the clichés from a dozen sci-fi movies you've seen before, this movie can only be withstood if you envision Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo adding background commentary. So here's your chance to practice. Three, two, one... Ignition!

Having not watched this movie in a few years and having recently watched Mummy 1, Mummy 2, and The Scorpion King, we thought we'd try Mummy 3 again. But no, it was just as awful as I remembered it. So I thought I'd log-on to IMDb and give it a "1", but lo-and- behold, I'd already done that the first time we watched it years ago.

Please, do yourself a favor and *DON'T* watch this movie; it has *NO* redeeming qualities whatsoever! You'll regret it for thousands of years.

"God willing, we'll all return in the sequel:

Mummy 4: The quest for even more money!"

This is clearly a movie that was made by the Disney Marketing Department. You first get that feeling at the beginning of the DVD when you're shown trailer after trailer after trailer for *OTHER MOVIES*. Is this one so bad that even the producers of the DVD are loathe to get to it?

In a word: yes.

There is no plot to speak of. There is no character development. (In fact, most of the characters have gone far retrograde since the first episode, and they continue to devolve throughout this episode.) There *IS* a lot of action, and as action movie action goes, it's pretty well-done. And its for that reason alone that I'm giving this movie a "2" rather than the "1" (0, -1, etc.) that it really deserves.

The worst insult is that after you've wasted your time watching this tediously-long movie, you find out it's just *HALF A MOVIE*, ending in a cliff hanger so Disney can sell you "Pirates of the Caribbean Three: The Hunt for Even More of Your Treasure." Save your money and save your time: skip this movie.

(mild spoilers follow)

Perhaps one needs to go to film school to appreciate this film? I didn't go to film school so I spent 187 minutes waiting for something or someone in this film to actually grab my emotions and make me feel something, but nothing and no one ever did.

A whole bunch of characters walk through the film, all of them damaged in various ways: several drunks, quite a few philanderers, and not a few at-least-latent sadists. Along the way, relatively predictable things happen to them each, mostly according to their mien. Okay, but I never felt I was given any real cause to empathize with any of these folks so I just sat there and watched. And watched. And watched. And then the movie ends. Maybe they used up all the film stock?

And when it was all over, I wished I had just had the good sense to have gone to bed instead of staying up late to watch this over-rated movie.

If you're a fan of either the books or the original BBC TV series, then there's nearly an infinite probability that you'll want to give this movie a pass and it's almost infinitely improbable that it could have been any more awful than it already is.

The trivia describes it as not being a literal adaptation of the books. Well, they sure got that right. Even the parts that are trying to be a literal adaptation of the book are atrocious, shortened to the point where the gags are simply lost, and the new material that was written simply doesn't fit and isn't entertaining.

Sam Rockwell as George W. Beeblebrox spends the whole movie perfecting the art of being annoying. Ford Prefect doesn't appear to have anything to do or anything to say; perhaps next time he should try reciting the Vogon poetry. Arthur Dent and Trillian are at least mildly entertaining.

Siriusly, get the BBC TV series; it's available on DVD and far, far more entertaining; this version of the movie is complete and total dog!

Some sci-fi movies are good. Some sci-fi movies are bad, but they are *SO* bad that they are good in a "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" sort of way.

This movie is neither of those; it's just plain bad.

Here's how you should approach this movie: Watch the first reel, stop the movie, and then write down all your predictions of how it will all play out. Predict which characters will live and which will die, and what casually-dropped hints will come back as major plot features later.

After the last reel, check your work. The odds are that you'll have scored 100%; the movie is *THAT* predictable. And the worst part of it is that it wastes a huge amount of time getting to the proof of those predictions. Even when you know, even when it is a dead-bang *CERTAINTY* that, say, Hint #3 is about to be activated, the movie rambles around doing nothing in particular for about five minutes before it actually happens. I guess the only thing to do during those interminable lulls is to go get popcorn. Or maybe you could get a better movie. Or a worse movie. But not this movie.

I'd have given it a zero except that IMDb doesn't go that low, and I suppose the competent visual effects deserve something. So I'll be charitable and say "2 stars out of 10".

Please! I implore you: don't waste your time watching this movie! If you disregard my advice, you'll wish you were dead!

This is one of those alleged "mystery" movies where, when the answer finally is sprung on you, you'll say "where did *THAT* come from???". You know, it's like when you find out that "the butler did it" only there has never been a butler present at any previous time in the movie. In fact, the main characters spent the entire movie living in a cardboard box and have no idea what the word "butler" even means!

This movie might make nice background noise, but it should never have any larger purpose in your life. 1 out of 10, and if IMDb offered an option for 0, I'd have chosen that instead.

When we started watching this, we couldn't tell from the satellite TV blurb whether this was serious or not, but this very soon became clear: This is a hip, funny satire that knows where it's going and what it wants to say. Not only that, but this movie provides some of the principal source material for "Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery", a movie that I guess we must now call "second-order satire".

I've never liked Sly Stallone in his serious roles, but damn!, he's funny when he's parodying himself, both here and in "Antz".

("Atlant G, Schmidt, you are fined one credit for use of offensive language in an IMDB comment.")

Sandra Bullock sure seems like she's having a good time in this movie too, and her malopropisms are fun to try to interpret before Stallone gets to decoding them for us. And having seen Wesley Snipes in a variety of serious roles, it's wonderful to see him in the off- the-wall role he plays in this movie; we were constantly having to remind ourselves that that was, indeed, Wesley Snipes.

So if anyone tells you this movie isn't any good, just tell them to "shovel it!"

("Atlant G, Schmidt, you are fined one credit for use of a terrible joke in an IMDB comment.")

At one point, one of the American "Interceptor Force" officers asks a Russian officer "What are you going to do, shoot me?" The Russian, in a wery, wery bad accent, replies, "No, I'm not goink to shoot you."

What a sadistic guy! He could have saved that poor character the entire rest of the movie if he had just shot him right then and there.

And after you watch this movie, you'll wish he had shot you too.

Your only hope of surviving this movie is to warm up your best possible MST3K impression right from the first frame; otherwise, you are beink doomed!

This isn't a serious movie, it's fluff, but it's wonderful, fun, enjoyable fluff in the form of a romantic comedy with some Bollywood sensibilities.

Take: One boy, just come to America from India to make it big; One girl, a good-hearted porn actress saving up all of her money so she can buy a house for cash in Throgs Neck and marry her very sexually uptight boyfriend (who has no clue that she's a porn actress). Mix in the seasonings provided by a fine supporting cast including Marisa Tomei, Anita Gillette, and others, and let the plot unroll.

It probably helps if you've seen a Bollywood movie (perhaps "Monsoon Wedding') or a movie that references Bollywood (perhaps "Ghost World") because some of the thematic elements and dialog come right out of that genre, but it's not essential; if you like romantic comedies, you'll probably enjoy this movie. 7 out of 10.

If you like to see lots of things get blown up and lots of people mutilated, then this is the movie for you. Quite a few things get blown up and quite a few people get dead in a variety of ghastly ways. And there is a plot (of sorts) that sort of wraps around the action. Some of the characters are interesting as well with Poitier doing a credible job as an FBI agent and Willis doing a credible job as a non-human Terminator.

But unless you're looking for a mindless Saturday/Sunday afternoon movie to use as background explosion sounds while you read the newspaper, give this one a miss.

3 out of 10.

Atlant

Don't think of this movie as a horror movie; as such it would be a disastrous "1". It's almost entirely predictable and you've certainly seen everything in it before in movies that are far, far better. Instead, think of this movie as a comedy/parody. If you do so, then it's at least a "5" (out of 10).

It begins ordinarily enough, but as the movie goes on, watch as Barry Corbin goes farther and farther over the top. By the end, it has truly become hilarious.

Some weekend afternoon, when it runs on The Mystery Channel or some other cable/ satellite channel, cue it up and practice your Mystery Science Theater 3000 routine but in the horror genre: You won't be disappointed -- this movie is the Mother of all horror movie Bombs.

Atlant

Let's get one thing out of the way early: This is *NOT* a direct re-make of the 1962 movie. While many characters, pieces of the plot, and even lines in the screenplay come directly from the '62 movie, a few critical plot elements have been substantially altered. It's rather fun to see one movie and then the other, just to spot the similarities and the differences. (Rather than post them as spoilers, I'll leave finding these difference and similarities as an exercise for the viewer.)

More importantly, both are fine movies. In this new version, Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep, and Liev Shreiber all give strong performances. The new movie is probably more accessible to modern audiences, following modern movie sensibilities whereas the '62 version is clearly of that period. The new movie is grittier and harder hitting, and I was spell- bound from the first frame to the last. This movie doesn't pull emotions out of the viewer with artificial tricks; instead, you will deeply care about the characters as the plot unfolds.

Finally, it's also interesting to note how deeply this movie apparently offends a certain subset of the IMDB readership. Like "Fahrenheit 9/11", a large number of reviewers are giving this movie a rating of "1" simply because it strikes a bit too close to where they live. I think you can safely disregard all of the "1" ratings.

I'm not applying any political spin to my review but rather, simply reviewing it as a movie: 9 out of 10.

"Purgatory" probably isn't a good movie, but it's one of my "guilty pleasures" and I'll watch it just about any time my wife will tolerate it.

I'm probably drawn to it because it casts a nice simple world where good and evil are drawn in simple, bold strokes (as compared to our world, where evil spends most of its time trying to masquerade as "good" and we usually let evil get away with it).

(Mild spoilers follow)

This clarity of vision makes the movie enjoyable to me. Once in a while, it's a pleasure to watch an un-nuanced story where the bad guys and the good guys both get what's coming to them. (Unfortunately, because of this use of plain, bold strokes, if you're paying attention, there probably won't be many/any surprises along the way; you can see retribution coming from a mile away.)

Sure, I should be watching a Bergman, Kurosawa, or Fellini movie; that's why this one is a guilty pleasure. But it is a pleasure, none the less. 8 of 10.

This is just another movie in that well-trodden genre of "Mysterious aliens intend to take over the planet". It adds a unique twist or two to the plot, but nothing you couldn't have predicted in the first reel.

Plot: so-so. Effects: basically non-existent. Characters: With the exception of the detective, nobody you'll really care much about.

If you need some sci-fi background noise, this movie will do just fine. But if you're looking for entertainment, you'd do far better to go outside and watch the birds.

By the way: CD-RW discs are silver, not green/blue. The green/blue ones can't be re-written.

Unlike many of the alleged "reviewers" who comprise the 31% who gave the movie a "1", I actually *HAVE* seen this movie, and you should too! While there's very little in it that wasn't known before, Moore's contribution is to wrap the anti-Bush indictment up in a neat and, yes, entertaining package.

The movie is at times funny, poignant, and, occasionally, very hard to take. The reality of war is that it is bloody and brutish, and in the middle section of the movie, Moore pulls no punches, showing us both the Iraqi civilian victims and the American military victims. And all along the way, he builds the case that our leadership do not belong in the White House but rather in the Hague, on trial as war criminals.

Cinematically, the film is probably Moore's best. He manages to avoid inserting himself into as many scenes as he has previously, and this avoids some of the sequences that, in his previous films, almost rose to painful levels. The one extended sequence where he directly participates (the attempted recruitment into the military of the children of congressmen) is entirely appropriate and very, very striking.

This movie is a 10; it certainly deserved the Palm d'Or, and it deserves to be watched by *EVERY* American!

Okay, let's get past the big stumbling block first: In real life, no matter how fast global climate change occurs, we probably won't go from the here-and-now to an ice cube in a week. So let go, and suspend disbelief in that one aspect of this movie.

If you've succeeded at that, then you'll probably enjoy this movie quite a bit. It's a well-done action thriller with a great first two-thirds or so, although it does peter out a bit in the last third. And it certainly zings right in to one of the central issues of the whole global climate change debate: Why do certain American officials (who coincidentally may look and act a lot like Dick Cheney) ignore the science until it's far too late?

I don't want to give away any spoilers so I won't discuss much of what happens, but if you've seen "Ice Age", you'll certainly be amused by the business at the very start of the film. After that, though, things get very serious very fast. The action is dramatic, and fast-paced. Don't just recline your seat, but be sure to fasten your seat belts and stow your tray tables as well.

Because of this, and because of the political courage shown merely in the making of this movie, then even in the face of the weak last third, I'll give this movie 8 out of 10.

Okay, if you like science, you may very well think this is the funniest movie you've ever seen. I'm not sure there's a single scientific fact that they get right; it's like George Bush trying to explain why his policies on the environment are good for the planet: the dialog is great but you know it's all complete and total BS.

Still, if you think of this as pure fantasy, it *IS* a thrilling movie; there's tons of stuff going on in every second of this movie. There are some great visuals. There's the terrific Sensurround effect on the subwoofer several times. And it's fun to sit there and catch the references: David Brin's "Earth", Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth", "Armageddon", every movie where you've ever watched where the digital timer on the nuke counts down, and on and on.

So I guess if you're just trying to be entertained for about two hours, give it a whirl. But pray that no one ever assumes they've learned any actual Earth Science from this movie, not even George W. Bush.

We happened across "Happy Accidents" by happy accident: there was nothing worth watching on any other channel and the description of the movie on IFC was enough for us to give it a go.

We made the right choice.

This is a sweet little romantic comedy. I had never heard of it before through the mass media; perhaps that's because nothing gets blown up in the movie, no guns are drawn, and only a few punches are thrown. Instead, Marisa Tomei and Vincent D'Onofrio mostly interact with each other (as aided and abetted by Tomei's therapist and girl-friends). (Nowadays, does that make it a "chick-flick"?)

One cautionary note: If you've seen "K-Pax", you may feel "Happy Accidents" is a bit derivative, almost like a trip back into the past, but hang in there. If you're a fan of either Tomei or D'Onofrio (probably most famous for his role as "the bug" from "Men in Black"), or even if you're just looking for a pleasant way to pass an hour and fifty minutes, catch this the next time it comes around on cable/satellite -- you won't be disappointed.

I gave this a "1", not because it is objectively *quite* that bad, but because, given the high expectations and the extremely high production values of T1 and T2, this movie is just about the biggest under-achiever I've ever seen. The plot is recycled. The characters are recycled. The whole movie is, in a word, lame. And boring. I suspect that if Ahnold hadn't been planning a run for Gov, this piece of garbage would never have been made.

Perhaps someday someone will make another Terminator episode that actually advances the story while holding the audience's interest. But this movie certainly isn't it.

This movie is easily the archetype for its genre of movie: The action/adventure movie with a heavy dash of comedy stirred in. It hits nearly every note that it strives for, and the audience comes right along with it, right from the first strains of "Bad to the Bone" to the demise of the Terminators. It easily deserves its place in the Pantheon.

And looking back from 2004, I'm glad we didn't need the SPF 1,000,000 sunblock on August 29, 1997, but the overall themes of the movie still ring eerily true.

Perhaps someday an adequate sequel will be made.