jbirtel
Lifetime Total
75+
Lifetime Trivia
10+
IMDb Member
21 years
Reviews
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A Milestone in Storytelling ! Often Misunderstood (& understandably so)!
In 1968, a movie critic that had panned 2001 on its original release (and later retracted) wrote: "Everyone hates 2001 except people".
The Odyssey demanded: "To appreciate 2001, is to see it again. And again! "
2001 defies conventional rules of any generic movie. Multi-layered enough to deceive its audience by zeroing its focus on the 'HAL' crisis.
Subplot is presented as 'The Major Plot'! And 'The Major Plot' is demoted to Subplot. But it is that 'Major Plot' that ultimately fascinates. That; and the realistic hardware that is subjectively presented as if you, the viewer, were a passenger along for the ride. That is the core of the movie's mystical power that entices people to revisit over and over again.
And because of its subplot, it's no accident that HAL steals the show.
A question that asks 'What If...'
What if human evolution was the outcome of extra terrestrial manipulation.
A 'Part 1' and 'Part 2' story covering humankind's 2 stage evolutionary process.
Part 1 is told in 16 minutes! Part 2 takes the 2 hour remainder.
Because novel and film were simultaneously 4 years in the making (Arthur C Clark couldn't release the book until 2 months after the general release), Kubrick takes full artistic license to go full speed ahead in defiling any previous sci fi movie; any previous book adaptation; and reinvigorating the silent film format all at the same time.
Plus the most intensive science/movie research on space travel technology ever conceived up to that point that, 36 years later, hasn't been outdated yet. Every detail, down to the low hum of air filtration, was incorporated.
Using 'real time slices of life' sections of only a few chapters, Kubrick, at his command, displays his brilliant understanding of the film median. He stretches the bonds and bounds of film rules, breaks many along the way and creates some of his own.
It is one of the most subjective and kinetic movies ever produced. It's a film that demands to be sensed, watched and listened to.
And one of the few times where book & movie go hand in hand.
In space, no one can hear...anything! As far as I know, Stanley is the only film maker who had the balls to use the dead silence of space to create the story's tension.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" tantalizes us with food for thought; and in that tantalizing area, it doesn't disappoint.
If you don't 'get it' the 1st time you see it; get in line. I saw it the 1st time in 71'. And I didn't fully appreciate it for 14 years and a few viewings later.
A word about Alex North's original score. By itself, the score is awesome. If you start the CD when the MGM logo appears you can actually sync the music to what appears on screen for the 1st 6 or 7 minutes. It creates a flavor all its own. And that's why Kubrick was (unfortunately) justified in yanking it. By placing music over the 'Dawn of Man' sequence, it destroys the desolation and near extinction that early man/ape faced. And nothing could replace Kubrick's selection of existing music for Heywood Floyd's space journey. The main problem is SOMEONE should have told Alex that his music wasn't used before he attended the premiere.
Perfect Acting! (contrary to a lot of reactions). People in the high risk, professional space program are trained to react with minimal emotion. To do otherwise, could mean the difference between life and death...even when death occurs. And the underrated William Sylvester does a brilliant bit of camouflage during his morale speech to the troops; and drops his 'nice guy' mask for 1 split second to reveal how ruthless he is for the sake of (so-called) security. If you literally blink, you miss it. He's got these people by the balls and there's nothing in their power they can do about it.
Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood gave exceptional performances that made you believe they were astronauts actually aboard the Jupiter bound Spaceship Discovery
When I purchase my wide screen projection and 8 ft screen, guess what movie is going on 1st?
The Odyssey demanded: "To appreciate 2001, is to see it again. And again! "
2001 defies conventional rules of any generic movie. Multi-layered enough to deceive its audience by zeroing its focus on the 'HAL' crisis.
Subplot is presented as 'The Major Plot'! And 'The Major Plot' is demoted to Subplot. But it is that 'Major Plot' that ultimately fascinates. That; and the realistic hardware that is subjectively presented as if you, the viewer, were a passenger along for the ride. That is the core of the movie's mystical power that entices people to revisit over and over again.
And because of its subplot, it's no accident that HAL steals the show.
A question that asks 'What If...'
What if human evolution was the outcome of extra terrestrial manipulation.
A 'Part 1' and 'Part 2' story covering humankind's 2 stage evolutionary process.
Part 1 is told in 16 minutes! Part 2 takes the 2 hour remainder.
Because novel and film were simultaneously 4 years in the making (Arthur C Clark couldn't release the book until 2 months after the general release), Kubrick takes full artistic license to go full speed ahead in defiling any previous sci fi movie; any previous book adaptation; and reinvigorating the silent film format all at the same time.
Plus the most intensive science/movie research on space travel technology ever conceived up to that point that, 36 years later, hasn't been outdated yet. Every detail, down to the low hum of air filtration, was incorporated.
Using 'real time slices of life' sections of only a few chapters, Kubrick, at his command, displays his brilliant understanding of the film median. He stretches the bonds and bounds of film rules, breaks many along the way and creates some of his own.
It is one of the most subjective and kinetic movies ever produced. It's a film that demands to be sensed, watched and listened to.
And one of the few times where book & movie go hand in hand.
In space, no one can hear...anything! As far as I know, Stanley is the only film maker who had the balls to use the dead silence of space to create the story's tension.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" tantalizes us with food for thought; and in that tantalizing area, it doesn't disappoint.
If you don't 'get it' the 1st time you see it; get in line. I saw it the 1st time in 71'. And I didn't fully appreciate it for 14 years and a few viewings later.
A word about Alex North's original score. By itself, the score is awesome. If you start the CD when the MGM logo appears you can actually sync the music to what appears on screen for the 1st 6 or 7 minutes. It creates a flavor all its own. And that's why Kubrick was (unfortunately) justified in yanking it. By placing music over the 'Dawn of Man' sequence, it destroys the desolation and near extinction that early man/ape faced. And nothing could replace Kubrick's selection of existing music for Heywood Floyd's space journey. The main problem is SOMEONE should have told Alex that his music wasn't used before he attended the premiere.
Perfect Acting! (contrary to a lot of reactions). People in the high risk, professional space program are trained to react with minimal emotion. To do otherwise, could mean the difference between life and death...even when death occurs. And the underrated William Sylvester does a brilliant bit of camouflage during his morale speech to the troops; and drops his 'nice guy' mask for 1 split second to reveal how ruthless he is for the sake of (so-called) security. If you literally blink, you miss it. He's got these people by the balls and there's nothing in their power they can do about it.
Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood gave exceptional performances that made you believe they were astronauts actually aboard the Jupiter bound Spaceship Discovery
When I purchase my wide screen projection and 8 ft screen, guess what movie is going on 1st?
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Ferocious Beginning; Downhill From There!
Why remake a good movie? (Oh! the money...duh!) Personally, I'd like to see more movies that WEREN'T done right the first time get remade.
My expectations were a little low. Then the movie starts!...and Hey! there's hope after all. A creepy beginning that gets sca-aarr-rry! OK! I can live with 'super-zombies' if this quality is maintained. Unfortunately, the opening is the best part.
For any film to succeed ya gotta have something called characterization. And except for Sarah Polley and (the always reliable) Ving Rames; everyone else is snoresville. There's just too many characters filling up space and not enough quality writing to justify their being there. Where's the acting? The shock or panic? They seem to be just running thru their lines as if they can't wait for "lunch is here" to be announced.
Even in horror movies, a certain logic has to prevail to make the surrounding apocalypse feel believable. This has holes large enough for a fleet of semis. It feels like everyone was so impressed with themselves that they were somehow part of horror history with their involvement with a 'Romero Dead Remake' that the logical details were forsaken for shock sake. And this list of plot holes are too long to take up time to start listing.
Conclusion: Stick with the original and rent for curiosity sake. Not without merit, but it just didn't work for me...I'd rather watch a scary movie the scares!
My expectations were a little low. Then the movie starts!...and Hey! there's hope after all. A creepy beginning that gets sca-aarr-rry! OK! I can live with 'super-zombies' if this quality is maintained. Unfortunately, the opening is the best part.
For any film to succeed ya gotta have something called characterization. And except for Sarah Polley and (the always reliable) Ving Rames; everyone else is snoresville. There's just too many characters filling up space and not enough quality writing to justify their being there. Where's the acting? The shock or panic? They seem to be just running thru their lines as if they can't wait for "lunch is here" to be announced.
Even in horror movies, a certain logic has to prevail to make the surrounding apocalypse feel believable. This has holes large enough for a fleet of semis. It feels like everyone was so impressed with themselves that they were somehow part of horror history with their involvement with a 'Romero Dead Remake' that the logical details were forsaken for shock sake. And this list of plot holes are too long to take up time to start listing.
Conclusion: Stick with the original and rent for curiosity sake. Not without merit, but it just didn't work for me...I'd rather watch a scary movie the scares!
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Ferocious Beginning; Downhill From There!
Why remake a good movie? (Oh! the money...duh!) Personally, I'd like to see more movies that WEREN'T done right the first time get remade.
My expectations were a little low. Then the movie starts!...and Hey! there's hope after all. A creepy beginning that gets sca-aarr-rry! OK! I can live with 'super-zombies' if this quality is maintained. Unfortunately, the opening is the best part.
For any film to succeed ya gotta have something called characterization. And except for Sarah Polley and (the always reliable) Ving Rames; everyone else is snoresville. There's just too many characters filling up space and not enough quality writing to justify their being there. Where's the acting? The shock or panic? They seem to be just running thru their lines as if they can't wait for "lunch is here" to be announced.
Even in horror movies, a certain logic has to prevail to make the surrounding apocalypse feel believable. This has holes large enough for a fleet of semis. It feels like everyone was so impressed with themselves that they were somehow part of horror history with their involvement with a 'Romero Dead Remake' that the logical details were forsaken for shock sake. And this list of plot holes are too long to take up time to start listing.
Conclusion: Stick with the original and rent for curiosity sake. Not without merit, but it just didn't work for me...I'd rather watch a scary movie the scares!
My expectations were a little low. Then the movie starts!...and Hey! there's hope after all. A creepy beginning that gets sca-aarr-rry! OK! I can live with 'super-zombies' if this quality is maintained. Unfortunately, the opening is the best part.
For any film to succeed ya gotta have something called characterization. And except for Sarah Polley and (the always reliable) Ving Rames; everyone else is snoresville. There's just too many characters filling up space and not enough quality writing to justify their being there. Where's the acting? The shock or panic? They seem to be just running thru their lines as if they can't wait for "lunch is here" to be announced.
Even in horror movies, a certain logic has to prevail to make the surrounding apocalypse feel believable. This has holes large enough for a fleet of semis. It feels like everyone was so impressed with themselves that they were somehow part of horror history with their involvement with a 'Romero Dead Remake' that the logical details were forsaken for shock sake. And this list of plot holes are too long to take up time to start listing.
Conclusion: Stick with the original and rent for curiosity sake. Not without merit, but it just didn't work for me...I'd rather watch a scary movie the scares!
Shaun of the Dead (2004)
What A Pleasant Surprise!
I spotted "Shaun..." in the upcoming releases of IMDb and dismissed it for several weeks because of its lackluster (ok! I get it) title. Only after curiosity compelled me to click on some film critic reviews was I wowed by the response. Any zombie flick that results in so much positive feedback has to be worth a look.
And after looking, the good news is: that in spite of an (almost) slow beginning; and a laughless 15 minutes toward the end (but not THE END; which, in retrospect, could not (and) should not end ANY other way...it is FUU-UN-NY and Fitting); this has more belly laughs than any movie I've seen in years. It's sharp, clever and still manages to respectfully retain the horror element (if not so much the scary element). At no time during the movie did I slap my knees while cursing under my breath for the on screen characters to "run faster" or "get out of there quicker"; instead I was reduced to a glob of jello with laughter BECAUSE the characters weren't "running faster" or "getting out of there quicker" (especially in the slow buildup scene that displays the dangers of 'child resistance car locks'). Not without flaws; there seemed to be too many times when flocks of zombies just stood there waiting (for what??) before the director gave the go-ahead to jump start their lunge toward their victims. But for comedy's sake, sometimes you don't mind.
Romero's original "DEAD" trilogy is THE thrilling fun and THE creme-de-la-creme in zombie horror. Why? oh why? did it take so long for another zombie movie, that's mostly a comedy, to FINALLY get it right, with characters that ARE right, for this genre
And Shaun and Ed make a wonderful comedy team with great on screen chemistry. That alone was worth the price of admission.
Now, the faster "Shaun of the Dead" dies a quick death in America (no pun intended), the faster it can rise from the undead and into the realm of DVD. Sorry if it sounds selfish...but 'what the hell', I've already made room for it in my DVD library. So let's release it already! After all... the Brits got it. And there's still too many great movies made in Queenland that don't receive their due recognition in the states (so what else is new?).
As tempting as it is, no way, NO WAY am I spoiling anything of what happens. Too many reviews already gave away some very choice moments. For some reason, even knowing some of them did not ruin the belly laughs. I laughed just as hard anyway.
And after looking, the good news is: that in spite of an (almost) slow beginning; and a laughless 15 minutes toward the end (but not THE END; which, in retrospect, could not (and) should not end ANY other way...it is FUU-UN-NY and Fitting); this has more belly laughs than any movie I've seen in years. It's sharp, clever and still manages to respectfully retain the horror element (if not so much the scary element). At no time during the movie did I slap my knees while cursing under my breath for the on screen characters to "run faster" or "get out of there quicker"; instead I was reduced to a glob of jello with laughter BECAUSE the characters weren't "running faster" or "getting out of there quicker" (especially in the slow buildup scene that displays the dangers of 'child resistance car locks'). Not without flaws; there seemed to be too many times when flocks of zombies just stood there waiting (for what??) before the director gave the go-ahead to jump start their lunge toward their victims. But for comedy's sake, sometimes you don't mind.
Romero's original "DEAD" trilogy is THE thrilling fun and THE creme-de-la-creme in zombie horror. Why? oh why? did it take so long for another zombie movie, that's mostly a comedy, to FINALLY get it right, with characters that ARE right, for this genre
And Shaun and Ed make a wonderful comedy team with great on screen chemistry. That alone was worth the price of admission.
Now, the faster "Shaun of the Dead" dies a quick death in America (no pun intended), the faster it can rise from the undead and into the realm of DVD. Sorry if it sounds selfish...but 'what the hell', I've already made room for it in my DVD library. So let's release it already! After all... the Brits got it. And there's still too many great movies made in Queenland that don't receive their due recognition in the states (so what else is new?).
As tempting as it is, no way, NO WAY am I spoiling anything of what happens. Too many reviews already gave away some very choice moments. For some reason, even knowing some of them did not ruin the belly laughs. I laughed just as hard anyway.
Gone with the Wind (1939)
Still A Milestone Entertainment!!
Back in 76' (geeessh, that long ago?), this movie played to a packed theater in college (showtime @ 7pm & an intermission)...and ranked as one of my best movie going experiences. 80% of the audience was (probably) between 18-22, and this audience rocked. They cheered at the opening titles; they cheered at each of the 4 main character's intro scene; the 'scandalous' waltz; Melanie & Ashley's (cliched)reunion; Gable's return after a lengthy hiatus; Scarlett's smitten 'morning after' reaction to Rhett's drunken seduction (an especially loud cheer as Leigh awakens, then stretches and purrs with guilty satisfaction; it's hysterical!!), Rhett's exit line; and on and on...and on. The audience's reaction was contagious and their (my) attitude toward the film was treated with equal camp and respect. Ya just don't get that much fun at the movies with regular movie goers at regular theaters (unfortunately). 25 years later when the movie was restored and rereleased at the theaters (98 or 99), it played at some colleges and the reaction was...the same. Now that's a testament to the durable and indestructible power that this film will always have. (Note: this experience was in upstate New York, not down south)
There's no allusions to the fact that this is a self-centered southern (and very outdated...sometime insulting) fantasy soap opera. Scarlett is mostly a despicable character that has strength fueled by her selfish ambitions. So is Rhett! (but at least with half a heart). The fact that we still care about the characters is the real power of this film as our emotions are jerked between rooting for them and despising their actions at the same time. What this film reveals the most is...the viewer!!! If the viewer defends Scarlett's actions, is repulsed by her antics, or tries to maintain some clarity of the type of person Scarlett really is...that, in itself, can be as revealing about just what type of person the viewer is as about the characters themselves.
This movie has color! It has scope! It has a big story to tell in its (short) 4 hour running time. The direction is tight, it moves quick. There's no time for an actor's ego of "hey, let the camera linger and linger...and linger on ME to show the world what a great talent I (think I) have". Especially nowadays when so many performances are obsessed with (hollow) Oscar ambitions. This is a film where the story comes and is served first...the way a film's story should be.
All the actors (it seems) were born to play these roles. They come off with conviction (if not in reality). But, then again, this isn't a reality movie. It just wants to tell its story and move the story along in the same spirit as the story is told in the book. You don't have to agree with its philosophies or its perceptions to deprive yourself of its entertainment. And 65 years later, entertains it does!
And contrary to popular belief: Vivien Leigh was chosen by David O. Selznick as early as 37' (revealed by his many memos). His masterminded scheme of conducting a bogus 'free publicity' casting search for Scarlett was brilliant! After all these years, many people are gullible enough to still believe he started filming the 'burning of Atlanta' scene without securing the star of a massive, expensive 4 hour flick. But as one of director John Ford's movie character once said; "When the legend becomes fact...print the legend".
Still a 10!
There's no allusions to the fact that this is a self-centered southern (and very outdated...sometime insulting) fantasy soap opera. Scarlett is mostly a despicable character that has strength fueled by her selfish ambitions. So is Rhett! (but at least with half a heart). The fact that we still care about the characters is the real power of this film as our emotions are jerked between rooting for them and despising their actions at the same time. What this film reveals the most is...the viewer!!! If the viewer defends Scarlett's actions, is repulsed by her antics, or tries to maintain some clarity of the type of person Scarlett really is...that, in itself, can be as revealing about just what type of person the viewer is as about the characters themselves.
This movie has color! It has scope! It has a big story to tell in its (short) 4 hour running time. The direction is tight, it moves quick. There's no time for an actor's ego of "hey, let the camera linger and linger...and linger on ME to show the world what a great talent I (think I) have". Especially nowadays when so many performances are obsessed with (hollow) Oscar ambitions. This is a film where the story comes and is served first...the way a film's story should be.
All the actors (it seems) were born to play these roles. They come off with conviction (if not in reality). But, then again, this isn't a reality movie. It just wants to tell its story and move the story along in the same spirit as the story is told in the book. You don't have to agree with its philosophies or its perceptions to deprive yourself of its entertainment. And 65 years later, entertains it does!
And contrary to popular belief: Vivien Leigh was chosen by David O. Selznick as early as 37' (revealed by his many memos). His masterminded scheme of conducting a bogus 'free publicity' casting search for Scarlett was brilliant! After all these years, many people are gullible enough to still believe he started filming the 'burning of Atlanta' scene without securing the star of a massive, expensive 4 hour flick. But as one of director John Ford's movie character once said; "When the legend becomes fact...print the legend".
Still a 10!
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
'LORD OF THE RINGS' PART 2!
Like it or not, 'Lord Of The Rings' is ONE movie. It's the precedent of a very brave commitment made by a single studio to tell an epic story...on the grand scale that it deserves.
To say that one installment is better (or worse) than the other 2 installments, is the same as taking ANY movie; splitting it in 3 equal parts; then analyzing which section is better. Go Ahead! Try It! Pick Any Movie.
Definitely...'The Two Towers' adaptation is getting more screen time. And I've enjoyed the artistic license that Jackson and Co took to let the story unfold and accelerate. Bookwise...'Two Towers' ain't over yet.
All the actor/characters have fleshed out their counterparts beyond expectation (already proven in 'Fellowship...). Gollum's performance is deservedly unanimous (and loved those Ents too...hey it's a fantasy!) And glad to see the Wargs make their debut that featured in Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' and 'Fellowship of the Ring' (the "Journey in the Dark" chapter); but were sorely missing up till now. Also loved how Jackson inserted Gandalf's battle with the Balrog.
10 out of 10! (Same as the 1st one...can't wait till the last one)
To say that one installment is better (or worse) than the other 2 installments, is the same as taking ANY movie; splitting it in 3 equal parts; then analyzing which section is better. Go Ahead! Try It! Pick Any Movie.
Definitely...'The Two Towers' adaptation is getting more screen time. And I've enjoyed the artistic license that Jackson and Co took to let the story unfold and accelerate. Bookwise...'Two Towers' ain't over yet.
All the actor/characters have fleshed out their counterparts beyond expectation (already proven in 'Fellowship...). Gollum's performance is deservedly unanimous (and loved those Ents too...hey it's a fantasy!) And glad to see the Wargs make their debut that featured in Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' and 'Fellowship of the Ring' (the "Journey in the Dark" chapter); but were sorely missing up till now. Also loved how Jackson inserted Gandalf's battle with the Balrog.
10 out of 10! (Same as the 1st one...can't wait till the last one)
Night of the Living Dead (1968)
The Worst Thing About 'Night...' Is Its Public Domain!
First off; this refers to the original 1968 theatrical version and not the bastardized (so-called) 30th anniversary edition. (On that edition, 15 minutes are cut; and 15 minutes of pointless 'newly filmed' material is added that is insulting to the whole 'DEAD' storyline that undermines the entire worldwide apocalyptic horror). For one of the few times in horror movie history; the phrase "there's no where to run" means...well; there's really no place to run. They're Everywhere!!!
Second! The transfer! I was absolutely floored by the high quality THX transfer from Elite Entertainment's Millennium Edition. If you haven't seen this film on this particular DVD transfer, then (unfortunately) any comment on the poor black and white film quality is in error. The blacks and grays are rich, the lights have a sharp contrast; in short: it is the best quality version of this film I've ever seen. I don't recall the film looking this good even at the theater back when I sat quaking to it in the early 70's (70 or 71). And all this time I was suspicious that this was shot in 16mm. Thank You Public Domain for all the greedy distributors making the fast (unearned) buck and depriving the rest of the world who were ripped off from seeing this movie the way it was meant to be seen.
Third! The Movie! It's still scary after all these years (aided by this DVD transfer) and arguably the scariest of the three ('Dawn' and 'Day of'). Its low budget is its asset (rare in a horror flick) and its approach to the mounting terror via radio and TV broadcasts that reveals the catastrophe on a global level is achieved with stark realism. A few shocks; then a slow buildup to its ripping climax; let's face it: today's directors don't have the guts (or intelligence) to tackle such an approach without feeling an obligation to standardize their story with "blood and guts every 16 minutes". This story feels real; the characters react realistically (even with spotty acting) and the audience is carried away to horror heaven.
In hindsight and ironically; our hero Ben's well intentioned but short sighted plan is another tragedy. If only everyone believed and listened to poor misunderstood Harry, who had a true sense of what the 'house of seven' were up against. It is a symbol of the collapse, caused by human arrogance that is another staple that brings about the characters' downfall: a downfall that will continue to escalate in "Dawn of the Dead" and reach rock bottom in "Day of the Dead".
The One That Started It All! Justifiably; and for good reason! And for once...I'm not sure I can recommend popcorn to munch on while watching. There'll be enough "munching" taking place on screen that could curdle anyone's butter coating.
Bring on Romero's "Land of the Dead"!
Second! The transfer! I was absolutely floored by the high quality THX transfer from Elite Entertainment's Millennium Edition. If you haven't seen this film on this particular DVD transfer, then (unfortunately) any comment on the poor black and white film quality is in error. The blacks and grays are rich, the lights have a sharp contrast; in short: it is the best quality version of this film I've ever seen. I don't recall the film looking this good even at the theater back when I sat quaking to it in the early 70's (70 or 71). And all this time I was suspicious that this was shot in 16mm. Thank You Public Domain for all the greedy distributors making the fast (unearned) buck and depriving the rest of the world who were ripped off from seeing this movie the way it was meant to be seen.
Third! The Movie! It's still scary after all these years (aided by this DVD transfer) and arguably the scariest of the three ('Dawn' and 'Day of'). Its low budget is its asset (rare in a horror flick) and its approach to the mounting terror via radio and TV broadcasts that reveals the catastrophe on a global level is achieved with stark realism. A few shocks; then a slow buildup to its ripping climax; let's face it: today's directors don't have the guts (or intelligence) to tackle such an approach without feeling an obligation to standardize their story with "blood and guts every 16 minutes". This story feels real; the characters react realistically (even with spotty acting) and the audience is carried away to horror heaven.
In hindsight and ironically; our hero Ben's well intentioned but short sighted plan is another tragedy. If only everyone believed and listened to poor misunderstood Harry, who had a true sense of what the 'house of seven' were up against. It is a symbol of the collapse, caused by human arrogance that is another staple that brings about the characters' downfall: a downfall that will continue to escalate in "Dawn of the Dead" and reach rock bottom in "Day of the Dead".
The One That Started It All! Justifiably; and for good reason! And for once...I'm not sure I can recommend popcorn to munch on while watching. There'll be enough "munching" taking place on screen that could curdle anyone's butter coating.
Bring on Romero's "Land of the Dead"!
Dracula (1931)
A Cure For Insomnia!
First; I love the old Universal Monster Classics...er...most of them. Any that has the Frankenstein Monster and/or the Wolf Man; George Robinson's lighting; Salter, Skinner or Waxman's music and Universal's trademark backdrop settings; and it's fantasy land I can revisit over and over.
But unlike the others, 'Dracula' hasn't aged as well. It's near unanimous that the film's opening reels are a staple in horror history. But after that it becomes a yawner. Too stagy, too talky...and too bad! It could of (and should have) been a definitive 'Count' movie, but like the book, its midsection becomes terminal. It's forever unfortunate that Universal didn't give Lugosi the role for 'Son of Dracula', 'House of Frankenstein' and 'House of Dracula' (and also his proposed involvement in 'Dracula's Daughter' before negotiations fell thru), because he's much more relaxed, smooth and three dimensional in 'Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein'. What a contribution he could have brought to those other films.
Part of the reason why Dracula doesn't go over as well is (maybe it's a guy thing) that I never saw the Count as a romantic, hypnotic, smoothie. Dracula is first and foremost; a monster with rank breath, powerful strength and evil cunning. And I never bought the accent either. If actors like Meryl Streep, Russell Crowe and Guy Pearse (and even James Doohan) can master any accent after a few years in the acting profession; you'd think that Dracula would be capable of the same skill; after all he's over 500 years old (in the book Jonathan Harker flatters the Count about his English being excellent). But Lugosi (who had recently just learned English) has influenced other interpretations including "Frances Coppolla's Dracula" and the more recent "Van Helsing"...unfortunately it remains a camp imitation. It worked in 1931 and the ensuing years of re-release and TV airings, but it just doesn't cut it now.
As for the Phillip Glass score; did he bother to run the film while composing??? I thought I had a tough time staying awake without the music; this was an instantaneous ass kick from the sandman. Thanks to the score, I'll never have a sleepless night again. Ten minutes and forty three seconds and I'm down for the count(no pun intended).
Still moody and creepy...but too slo-ooo-ow for me.
But unlike the others, 'Dracula' hasn't aged as well. It's near unanimous that the film's opening reels are a staple in horror history. But after that it becomes a yawner. Too stagy, too talky...and too bad! It could of (and should have) been a definitive 'Count' movie, but like the book, its midsection becomes terminal. It's forever unfortunate that Universal didn't give Lugosi the role for 'Son of Dracula', 'House of Frankenstein' and 'House of Dracula' (and also his proposed involvement in 'Dracula's Daughter' before negotiations fell thru), because he's much more relaxed, smooth and three dimensional in 'Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein'. What a contribution he could have brought to those other films.
Part of the reason why Dracula doesn't go over as well is (maybe it's a guy thing) that I never saw the Count as a romantic, hypnotic, smoothie. Dracula is first and foremost; a monster with rank breath, powerful strength and evil cunning. And I never bought the accent either. If actors like Meryl Streep, Russell Crowe and Guy Pearse (and even James Doohan) can master any accent after a few years in the acting profession; you'd think that Dracula would be capable of the same skill; after all he's over 500 years old (in the book Jonathan Harker flatters the Count about his English being excellent). But Lugosi (who had recently just learned English) has influenced other interpretations including "Frances Coppolla's Dracula" and the more recent "Van Helsing"...unfortunately it remains a camp imitation. It worked in 1931 and the ensuing years of re-release and TV airings, but it just doesn't cut it now.
As for the Phillip Glass score; did he bother to run the film while composing??? I thought I had a tough time staying awake without the music; this was an instantaneous ass kick from the sandman. Thanks to the score, I'll never have a sleepless night again. Ten minutes and forty three seconds and I'm down for the count(no pun intended).
Still moody and creepy...but too slo-ooo-ow for me.
An American Werewolf in London (1981)
Going Out On A Limb (no pun intended)!!
A Film maker's film that's an homage and a refreshing take on the werewolf legend. It's scary; rich in dialogue; practical... (in a horror movie???) AND Funny!
Especially in DTS sound... It's Scary!!!
Specifically...for anyone who enjoys the old 'Universal Studios' classic renditions of the "Wolf Man" saga, this modern 'fairy tale horror' doesn't violate any traditions. If you haven't seen the old classics, not to worry;...this flick stands on its own.
The story unfolds!...And the tension begins!...slowly!
Actors Naughton and Dunne are perfectly cast as your typical college students, backpacking their way thru Europe for...well...for what ELSE!!?!! Their back & forth banter is priceless!! Their 'on screen' chemistry is, unfortunately, too short (that's kinda redeemed in the DVD commentary by both actors). And their trek across the fog laden moor ranks as one of the most frightening scenes in movie history.
But the real star of the film is director John Landis!
Along with the Cast!
And make-up artist Rick Baker.
Not since "Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein" has Comedy/Horror worked so well. The difference is: unlike "A&C Meet Frankenstein", this film is a horror story laced with a sharp and clever 'comic relief'. And Landis captures that fine line balance between horror/humor that is unprecedented.
A near definitive werewolf movie that's bloody! scary! funny! satirical! funny! intelligent! sexy! charming!...and ultimately sad!!!...(did I say funny twice?). HEY...if you ever take time to see only one werewolf movie; then...
Well...everyone's got their opinion.
But this film ranks way up their in horror. A Classic!!
With a soundtrack that's perfectly placed! And composer Elmer Bernstein perfectly placing the music.
Grab the popcorn! And Hang On!
Especially in DTS sound... It's Scary!!!
Specifically...for anyone who enjoys the old 'Universal Studios' classic renditions of the "Wolf Man" saga, this modern 'fairy tale horror' doesn't violate any traditions. If you haven't seen the old classics, not to worry;...this flick stands on its own.
The story unfolds!...And the tension begins!...slowly!
Actors Naughton and Dunne are perfectly cast as your typical college students, backpacking their way thru Europe for...well...for what ELSE!!?!! Their back & forth banter is priceless!! Their 'on screen' chemistry is, unfortunately, too short (that's kinda redeemed in the DVD commentary by both actors). And their trek across the fog laden moor ranks as one of the most frightening scenes in movie history.
But the real star of the film is director John Landis!
Along with the Cast!
And make-up artist Rick Baker.
Not since "Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein" has Comedy/Horror worked so well. The difference is: unlike "A&C Meet Frankenstein", this film is a horror story laced with a sharp and clever 'comic relief'. And Landis captures that fine line balance between horror/humor that is unprecedented.
A near definitive werewolf movie that's bloody! scary! funny! satirical! funny! intelligent! sexy! charming!...and ultimately sad!!!...(did I say funny twice?). HEY...if you ever take time to see only one werewolf movie; then...
Well...everyone's got their opinion.
But this film ranks way up their in horror. A Classic!!
With a soundtrack that's perfectly placed! And composer Elmer Bernstein perfectly placing the music.
Grab the popcorn! And Hang On!
The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939)
If You Only Watch One Holmes Movie...
Then this is the one.
I had the pleasure of seeing this at the theater during it's revival in 1976 and found myself silently mouthing the quotes lifted directly from Doyles' novella. At that time, our local TV affiliate station was airing the other 13 Rathbone/Bruce films every Sunday night at 11:30pm called (naturally) 'Sherlock Holmes Theater'. With that steady diet of Watson's blundering, it was a real eye opener that Nigel Bruce portrayed a more rounded 3 dimensional interpretation of the beloved doctor that was refreshing.
Also refreshing was that this was one of two from the 20th Century Fox studio set amid the gaslit Victorian age. What a loss that Fox abandoned their original intentions of continuing the series on a yearly basis that would have kept the stories in the late 19th century.
But it is Rathbone's persona that displays Holmes' razor sharp cunning and methodical science of deduction that allows him to steal every scene he's in. It's his brilliant acting abilities that actually crippled his chances (and ours) of showing the world exactly how versatile his abilities were (catch 1938's "If I Were King" for his excellent Oscar nominated performance). Equally rewarding is watching Bruce's reactions to Holmes (gentle) ribbings that was just one aspect of the chemistry that existed between these 2 characters that was true in spirit for their fondness for each other (if not in accuracy). It is their on screen relationship that carried all 14 films.
The DVD transfer is excellent and this is one black and white film that should not be viewed on anything less. The 1939 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" is a great double feature that's highly recommended cause chances are your appetite won't be satisfied with just one Holmes story.
I had the pleasure of seeing this at the theater during it's revival in 1976 and found myself silently mouthing the quotes lifted directly from Doyles' novella. At that time, our local TV affiliate station was airing the other 13 Rathbone/Bruce films every Sunday night at 11:30pm called (naturally) 'Sherlock Holmes Theater'. With that steady diet of Watson's blundering, it was a real eye opener that Nigel Bruce portrayed a more rounded 3 dimensional interpretation of the beloved doctor that was refreshing.
Also refreshing was that this was one of two from the 20th Century Fox studio set amid the gaslit Victorian age. What a loss that Fox abandoned their original intentions of continuing the series on a yearly basis that would have kept the stories in the late 19th century.
But it is Rathbone's persona that displays Holmes' razor sharp cunning and methodical science of deduction that allows him to steal every scene he's in. It's his brilliant acting abilities that actually crippled his chances (and ours) of showing the world exactly how versatile his abilities were (catch 1938's "If I Were King" for his excellent Oscar nominated performance). Equally rewarding is watching Bruce's reactions to Holmes (gentle) ribbings that was just one aspect of the chemistry that existed between these 2 characters that was true in spirit for their fondness for each other (if not in accuracy). It is their on screen relationship that carried all 14 films.
The DVD transfer is excellent and this is one black and white film that should not be viewed on anything less. The 1939 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" is a great double feature that's highly recommended cause chances are your appetite won't be satisfied with just one Holmes story.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Relentlessly Powerful!
So Powerful...that regardless of anyone's opinion, this film stays with the viewer for days. The printed word has finally been transformed into a visual, harsh reality. The word 'scourging' that is read on a page, pales in comparison to seeing the horror of it. The crucifixion is brought to life in a subjective approach that is deeply felt by the audience. Brought to life by an outstanding film maker.
One sentence is read in seconds. It 'sums up' very quickly what is happening. It's over before the senses can truly digest what took place.
But in Film? In film, the event takes on a 'real time' presentation. The harsh reality of the suffering hits home. Is it disturbing?...Absolutely! Did Mel Gibson accomplish his intent?...Undoubtedly! Should everyone (of appropriate age...whatever is 'appropriate') see it?...A loud and resounding...YES!
The viewer's religious beliefs, or level of, is not the determining issue. It's an understanding of the message that is being portrayed: One individual who loved humanity so much, that he endured such pain and such suffering.
There were many phases with the life of Christ. This is a film that concentrates on just one phase, while briefly touching on others. "Jesus' Last 12 Hours". It defies the standard Hollywood movie, because it is not made by corporate committees or authoritarian input. Scenes are not omitted because of two or three negative comments written on 'preview cards'. This is Pure Film; untouched by outside interference.
And no dubbing! Any language can be subtitled. To the benefit worthy on a grand and global scale.
(On a personal note) Believe me! I'm not religious. But this film touches the heart in a way that no other film has ever done. To deny yourself, by delaying your 1st time viewing experience for the DVD release, would be an injustice. Home, can invite too many distractions. Being in the theater, the viewer, like Mary, is forced to stay and endure the seemingly never ending ordeal her son suffers. But stay she does. And for very similar reasons, the audience stays too.
And if you let it; this film can offer the viewer a new-found courage; a courage that can not be cheapened by words...but a courage that is ultimately felt through the heart.
Very Highly Recommended!
One sentence is read in seconds. It 'sums up' very quickly what is happening. It's over before the senses can truly digest what took place.
But in Film? In film, the event takes on a 'real time' presentation. The harsh reality of the suffering hits home. Is it disturbing?...Absolutely! Did Mel Gibson accomplish his intent?...Undoubtedly! Should everyone (of appropriate age...whatever is 'appropriate') see it?...A loud and resounding...YES!
The viewer's religious beliefs, or level of, is not the determining issue. It's an understanding of the message that is being portrayed: One individual who loved humanity so much, that he endured such pain and such suffering.
There were many phases with the life of Christ. This is a film that concentrates on just one phase, while briefly touching on others. "Jesus' Last 12 Hours". It defies the standard Hollywood movie, because it is not made by corporate committees or authoritarian input. Scenes are not omitted because of two or three negative comments written on 'preview cards'. This is Pure Film; untouched by outside interference.
And no dubbing! Any language can be subtitled. To the benefit worthy on a grand and global scale.
(On a personal note) Believe me! I'm not religious. But this film touches the heart in a way that no other film has ever done. To deny yourself, by delaying your 1st time viewing experience for the DVD release, would be an injustice. Home, can invite too many distractions. Being in the theater, the viewer, like Mary, is forced to stay and endure the seemingly never ending ordeal her son suffers. But stay she does. And for very similar reasons, the audience stays too.
And if you let it; this film can offer the viewer a new-found courage; a courage that can not be cheapened by words...but a courage that is ultimately felt through the heart.
Very Highly Recommended!
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
What Tolkien Did For Literature; Jackson Has Done For Film!
No matter what anyone says; Jackson and Co. did the near impossible. They brought their vision (& sound) to worldwide acclaim to the best heroic-fantasy film ever made (and likely for many decades, this will be the film to top).
Having read LOTR 33 years ago (& 14 times since), I also had certain prejudices on how the story could justifiably be filmed. And the same thing happened that happened with 'Fellowship...' and '...Towers'. I enjoyed the 2nd & 3rd viewing more than the 1st. Why? Because of a visual interpretation that had been stewing for over 30 years. Film is a different medium. As Jackson stated: "You just can't shoot LOTR as is". So alot of dramatic licences were taken that were minor diviations. And once you surrender yourself to the film makers vision, the rewards are enormous.
No... Sam would never have abandoned Frodo at anytime during the quest no matter how hurt his feelings were. But so what! He returns with a vengence. His absence allows more of a thrill to Shelob's deadly threat, especially when you take into account that the majority of the movie-goers will have not read the book.
One reason the film 'Lord of the Rings' (notice I didn't say films or that over-used label...'trilogy') works so well against all odds is because the production team never lost sight of the story's heart. And the only way to do justice to the heart of the story was to present it in the length that this film deserved. Applaud Jackson & Team the courage to slow the action down and display the loyalty and love that existed between the characters. Because the characters cared so much for each other for honorable reasons; we, the audience, were able to jump on the care wagon right alongside them.
And applaud New Line Cinema for taking the biggest gamble in movie history (and shame on Weinstein for thinking it could all be done in 2 hours; why is his name even in the credits?)
The Minas Tirith battle was beyond expectation.
The book is not without flaws (but still remains my favorite). Neither is the movie! But because it was done with so much meticulous care and detail, the flaws are forgivable and forgettable (huh? what flaws?).
Minor Spoiler: Always felt the book's Crack of Doom's climax was a tad weak with Gollum's careless trip over the brink. But what if...
According to the appendices: Sauron had already begun to take shape at Deagle's finding of the ring 500 years before the fellowship (may not be accurate). And when Frodo stands at the brink of the fire and claims the ring as his; Sauron is suddenly aware of him. And in an earth-shattering roar of terror and fear, he summons his most foul beast, instantly mounts and crashes forth through the top of Barad-dur and races toward Mount Doom. And Gollum and Frodo are grappling for final possession of the ring when Sauron and beast burst forth through the doorway's opening. And instinctive reaction causes them both to topple over (Frodo is saved because he lets go of the ring). And Gollum plunges down as Sauron hurtles toward him. And Sauron's beast grabs Gollum just as Gollum hits the fire, but not enough to prevent Sauron to rear his beast upwards in time to prevent the 3 of them to be engulfed by the molten lava. And Sauron makes a grab for the ring just before it is unmade. And...and...
Naa-aa-ah! That may have upset the many leagues of Tolkien purists. Besides...I'm out of breath just thinking of the sequence done that way. Don't matter cause the movie still gets a 10 overall.
As far as I'm concerned, the theatrical release is a major tease to the extended version that will (will it?) be released in late 2004.
Christmas ain't over yet. Bring on 'The Hobbit'.
Having read LOTR 33 years ago (& 14 times since), I also had certain prejudices on how the story could justifiably be filmed. And the same thing happened that happened with 'Fellowship...' and '...Towers'. I enjoyed the 2nd & 3rd viewing more than the 1st. Why? Because of a visual interpretation that had been stewing for over 30 years. Film is a different medium. As Jackson stated: "You just can't shoot LOTR as is". So alot of dramatic licences were taken that were minor diviations. And once you surrender yourself to the film makers vision, the rewards are enormous.
No... Sam would never have abandoned Frodo at anytime during the quest no matter how hurt his feelings were. But so what! He returns with a vengence. His absence allows more of a thrill to Shelob's deadly threat, especially when you take into account that the majority of the movie-goers will have not read the book.
One reason the film 'Lord of the Rings' (notice I didn't say films or that over-used label...'trilogy') works so well against all odds is because the production team never lost sight of the story's heart. And the only way to do justice to the heart of the story was to present it in the length that this film deserved. Applaud Jackson & Team the courage to slow the action down and display the loyalty and love that existed between the characters. Because the characters cared so much for each other for honorable reasons; we, the audience, were able to jump on the care wagon right alongside them.
And applaud New Line Cinema for taking the biggest gamble in movie history (and shame on Weinstein for thinking it could all be done in 2 hours; why is his name even in the credits?)
The Minas Tirith battle was beyond expectation.
The book is not without flaws (but still remains my favorite). Neither is the movie! But because it was done with so much meticulous care and detail, the flaws are forgivable and forgettable (huh? what flaws?).
Minor Spoiler: Always felt the book's Crack of Doom's climax was a tad weak with Gollum's careless trip over the brink. But what if...
According to the appendices: Sauron had already begun to take shape at Deagle's finding of the ring 500 years before the fellowship (may not be accurate). And when Frodo stands at the brink of the fire and claims the ring as his; Sauron is suddenly aware of him. And in an earth-shattering roar of terror and fear, he summons his most foul beast, instantly mounts and crashes forth through the top of Barad-dur and races toward Mount Doom. And Gollum and Frodo are grappling for final possession of the ring when Sauron and beast burst forth through the doorway's opening. And instinctive reaction causes them both to topple over (Frodo is saved because he lets go of the ring). And Gollum plunges down as Sauron hurtles toward him. And Sauron's beast grabs Gollum just as Gollum hits the fire, but not enough to prevent Sauron to rear his beast upwards in time to prevent the 3 of them to be engulfed by the molten lava. And Sauron makes a grab for the ring just before it is unmade. And...and...
Naa-aa-ah! That may have upset the many leagues of Tolkien purists. Besides...I'm out of breath just thinking of the sequence done that way. Don't matter cause the movie still gets a 10 overall.
As far as I'm concerned, the theatrical release is a major tease to the extended version that will (will it?) be released in late 2004.
Christmas ain't over yet. Bring on 'The Hobbit'.
The Exorcist III (1990)
Caught By Surprise!
I don't get scared! The last movie to really do that was Romero's 'Night of the Living Dead' in the early 70's (I was 15). So not expecting much cause the original 'Exorcist' was more fad than frightening (to me). And '...II: The Heretic' shouldn't even exist.
So the biggest mistake for this flick is the title. They should have just stuck with 'Legion'. And the 1st shot of George C. Scott (taking over the role from Lee J. Cobb) suggesting (by a desk photo) that he and Jason Miller's character were best friends(?) starts the continuity on the wrong foot. But immediately after that...whoooooo!
This is a great example were an (intelligent) viewer can let their imagination create a more horrifying experience than what a filmmaker can show. Just turn up the volume and let the eerie music and sound effects (& voices) do their magic. And a character's description on how someone was tortured, then murdered is more scary than what a lesser director would have exploited by visuals.
Author/Director Blatty said he put on film what scares him. And that works just fine. It's a shame that 'the suits' insisted on tacking on an exorcism ending instead of letting Blatty committing his vision to film the way he intended. The exorcism did nothing; but the scenes preceding it is what gave my wife and I nightmares the same night we saw it. My 1st nightmare in over 20 years...that was cool.
This film is full of flaws, but the creepiness far outweighs the (sometimes) spotty dialogue. And a few nice jolts too! Highly recommended for late at night; and turn that sound WAY up. I agree with some previous reviews that this is a very underrated horror film.
7 out of 10! Stylishly done!
(Note: This was originally filmed in the 'TV' 3:4 screen ratio, so you actually loose some visual information on the top & bottom of the widescreen version. 'Reservoir Dogs' {1:66 ratio} and the 'Godfather' films are 2 more examples were widescreen actually shows less.)
So the biggest mistake for this flick is the title. They should have just stuck with 'Legion'. And the 1st shot of George C. Scott (taking over the role from Lee J. Cobb) suggesting (by a desk photo) that he and Jason Miller's character were best friends(?) starts the continuity on the wrong foot. But immediately after that...whoooooo!
This is a great example were an (intelligent) viewer can let their imagination create a more horrifying experience than what a filmmaker can show. Just turn up the volume and let the eerie music and sound effects (& voices) do their magic. And a character's description on how someone was tortured, then murdered is more scary than what a lesser director would have exploited by visuals.
Author/Director Blatty said he put on film what scares him. And that works just fine. It's a shame that 'the suits' insisted on tacking on an exorcism ending instead of letting Blatty committing his vision to film the way he intended. The exorcism did nothing; but the scenes preceding it is what gave my wife and I nightmares the same night we saw it. My 1st nightmare in over 20 years...that was cool.
This film is full of flaws, but the creepiness far outweighs the (sometimes) spotty dialogue. And a few nice jolts too! Highly recommended for late at night; and turn that sound WAY up. I agree with some previous reviews that this is a very underrated horror film.
7 out of 10! Stylishly done!
(Note: This was originally filmed in the 'TV' 3:4 screen ratio, so you actually loose some visual information on the top & bottom of the widescreen version. 'Reservoir Dogs' {1:66 ratio} and the 'Godfather' films are 2 more examples were widescreen actually shows less.)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
A Definitive Tale of Descent Into Madness
There's so much that's already been said in previous reviews that it's senseless to repeat, but hard not to.
On my 1st viewing 15 years ago, 'Treasure...' got catapulted into my top 10 best "1st time movie viewing" experience and it still remains there. Bogart, who displayed such cool confidence in "Maltese Falcon", "Casablanca" and "Big Sleep" is devastating as Fred (don't forget the 'C.') Dobbs. Hollywood brass wanted a more uplifting denouement, but that would have undermined the whole powerful impact of the story. It's dirty, gritty and unrelenting in the power of greed that comes with the lure of wealth. I totally understand if anyone places this as their #1 favorite.
Another testament on the shallowness of the Oscars. Time is the only true testament on the truthful quality of a movie...and this movie stands high.
Can't wait for the 2 disc edition being released in Sept, 2003.
Not for all tastes, especially for those looking for the typical glamorized Hollywood product of a bygone age. This is a simple tale of gold and greed that is uncompromising...and refreshing.
10 out of 10
On my 1st viewing 15 years ago, 'Treasure...' got catapulted into my top 10 best "1st time movie viewing" experience and it still remains there. Bogart, who displayed such cool confidence in "Maltese Falcon", "Casablanca" and "Big Sleep" is devastating as Fred (don't forget the 'C.') Dobbs. Hollywood brass wanted a more uplifting denouement, but that would have undermined the whole powerful impact of the story. It's dirty, gritty and unrelenting in the power of greed that comes with the lure of wealth. I totally understand if anyone places this as their #1 favorite.
Another testament on the shallowness of the Oscars. Time is the only true testament on the truthful quality of a movie...and this movie stands high.
Can't wait for the 2 disc edition being released in Sept, 2003.
Not for all tastes, especially for those looking for the typical glamorized Hollywood product of a bygone age. This is a simple tale of gold and greed that is uncompromising...and refreshing.
10 out of 10
Casablanca (1942)
Time Hasn't Gone By This Classic!
I saw this movie in college 20 years ago with over seventy 18-23 year old fellow students. And the audience reaction was like the movie just came out yesterday. Here's a movie that assumes that the average audience has intelligence. And the tons of laughs were all in the right places for the right reasons. Twenty years later, I can still hear the laughter and applause...and the cheers; especially for that now classic closing line.
If more black and white classics were given this kind of DVD treatment (the recent 2 disc release), then I'd own more black and white classics. Bogart's brilliant portrayal was ahead of its time and no one else but Bergman could of been Elsa. Same for Rains, Henreid, Sakall, Veidt and EVERYONE else. Perfect cast, perfect acting.
It's a shame most people will never see this with an audience because this is a crowd pleaser if ever there was one. So the next best thing is the quality and care that was put into the new DVD. Believe it or not, this makes a great "at home" date flick. And even have a few friends over...but not the 'chatty' ones. There's just too much to miss if so and so starts to "yackitty! yackitty! yackitty! during the many (& there are many) priceless and subtle moments. This movie deserves full attention. And the nice thing is...you pick up more the 2nd time seeing it (& 3rd, 4th...etc).
My favorite line (no way am I repeating it or any others) is Rick's "poor salesmanship" rejection. This one film has more great 'one liners' than some hundred movies put together. And it still seems as fresh today as when...well; when I saw it the 1st time.
It's not that "they don't make em like this anymore" applies to 'Casablanca' because most movies, for every year, in every era (since the 1920's); aren't very good. It's always the very few that rise above the heap, every year; especially when you take into account that over 100 movies are made every year. But 'Casablanca' represents a sample of damn fine storytelling for that particular era that time has proved to be...timeless.
A 'must see' for most movie lovers (but not the 'yackitty' ones).
10 out of 10!
(Can't wait for Bogart's "Treasure of the Sierra Madre"s 2 disc DVD release next month. Another sample of just how brilliant Bogart's acting is.)
If more black and white classics were given this kind of DVD treatment (the recent 2 disc release), then I'd own more black and white classics. Bogart's brilliant portrayal was ahead of its time and no one else but Bergman could of been Elsa. Same for Rains, Henreid, Sakall, Veidt and EVERYONE else. Perfect cast, perfect acting.
It's a shame most people will never see this with an audience because this is a crowd pleaser if ever there was one. So the next best thing is the quality and care that was put into the new DVD. Believe it or not, this makes a great "at home" date flick. And even have a few friends over...but not the 'chatty' ones. There's just too much to miss if so and so starts to "yackitty! yackitty! yackitty! during the many (& there are many) priceless and subtle moments. This movie deserves full attention. And the nice thing is...you pick up more the 2nd time seeing it (& 3rd, 4th...etc).
My favorite line (no way am I repeating it or any others) is Rick's "poor salesmanship" rejection. This one film has more great 'one liners' than some hundred movies put together. And it still seems as fresh today as when...well; when I saw it the 1st time.
It's not that "they don't make em like this anymore" applies to 'Casablanca' because most movies, for every year, in every era (since the 1920's); aren't very good. It's always the very few that rise above the heap, every year; especially when you take into account that over 100 movies are made every year. But 'Casablanca' represents a sample of damn fine storytelling for that particular era that time has proved to be...timeless.
A 'must see' for most movie lovers (but not the 'yackitty' ones).
10 out of 10!
(Can't wait for Bogart's "Treasure of the Sierra Madre"s 2 disc DVD release next month. Another sample of just how brilliant Bogart's acting is.)
Behind the Planet of the Apes (1998)
Outstanding for Most Movie Lovers
A labor of love and a fine example of what a well done documentary should look like. AT LEAST watch the original 68' version first; watching the sequels before or after has its pros and cons (the insight of knowing the diminishing budgets of each successive sequel may increase an appreciation for them...even if you're not a POTA fan).
Some facts are condensed (and distorted) that was necessary for the sake of running time (POTA didn't get the green light till after the box office returns for 'Fantastic Voyage' proved favorable enough to convince Richard Zanuck to take a gamble on a then big budget for a sci fi outing). And the million dollar monkey masks budget was closer to half a million...but a million dollars is better publicity.
NOTE: The DVD versions have about 3 1/2 minutes more footage than the VHS & AMC broadcast versions...most notable is the religious comparisons of the ape and mutant cultures from 'Beneath...' and more summations from cast and crew toward the end.
An intelligent and well researched documentary that's filled to the brim. And thankfully, no mention of the 2001 remake as this was produced in 1998.
Some facts are condensed (and distorted) that was necessary for the sake of running time (POTA didn't get the green light till after the box office returns for 'Fantastic Voyage' proved favorable enough to convince Richard Zanuck to take a gamble on a then big budget for a sci fi outing). And the million dollar monkey masks budget was closer to half a million...but a million dollars is better publicity.
NOTE: The DVD versions have about 3 1/2 minutes more footage than the VHS & AMC broadcast versions...most notable is the religious comparisons of the ape and mutant cultures from 'Beneath...' and more summations from cast and crew toward the end.
An intelligent and well researched documentary that's filled to the brim. And thankfully, no mention of the 2001 remake as this was produced in 1998.
Ride the High Country (1962)
Simple Story! Deceptively Complex!
Black and White & Shades of Grey. Honor, redemption, greed & corruption. And the list goes on. All set to the grand, colorful vista of a dying west and a dying breed.
This is the rare movie that seems so simplistic on 1st viewing. Yet nearly every line of dialogue underscores a deeper meaning laced with hidden values...or lack of. A classic example of people who live and die by their words.
I'm not going to defend why I consider this to be Peckinpah's finest film. If anyone argues that 'The Wild Bunch' is his best...well, I agree! But I can't put my finger on why I ENJOYED this more than any of his other movies. At times, it seems to come off as sort of "Mayberry-ish" in its presentation. But for this film...it works!
Too bad MGM didn't have enough confidence to give this a wider circulation upon its original release, but that works in its favor because people are pleasantly surprised when they discover it for the 1st time.
A nice way for two western icons to ride into the sunset. And love those screaming bullets echoing through the canyon. Just another sample of the research that went into even the smallest details.
Absolutely, DO NOT watch this unless it's WIDESCREEN! Unless you enjoy watching half a movie. Any review based on the pan & scan is invalid.
9 out of 10!
This is the rare movie that seems so simplistic on 1st viewing. Yet nearly every line of dialogue underscores a deeper meaning laced with hidden values...or lack of. A classic example of people who live and die by their words.
I'm not going to defend why I consider this to be Peckinpah's finest film. If anyone argues that 'The Wild Bunch' is his best...well, I agree! But I can't put my finger on why I ENJOYED this more than any of his other movies. At times, it seems to come off as sort of "Mayberry-ish" in its presentation. But for this film...it works!
Too bad MGM didn't have enough confidence to give this a wider circulation upon its original release, but that works in its favor because people are pleasantly surprised when they discover it for the 1st time.
A nice way for two western icons to ride into the sunset. And love those screaming bullets echoing through the canyon. Just another sample of the research that went into even the smallest details.
Absolutely, DO NOT watch this unless it's WIDESCREEN! Unless you enjoy watching half a movie. Any review based on the pan & scan is invalid.
9 out of 10!
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Looks Great! Sounds Awful! (and we ain't talking about the brilliant sound effects)
First off, George Lucas is an elite for having so much influence on the art of movies; and why we go to them. He's put his hard earned millions back into improving the art form, so story tellers can better realize their vision on film (& digital). He constantly pushes the envelope to take the medium into new and wonderful directions. And he has vision!
His 'THX' and 'Industrial Light and Magic' companies have elevated films to a brilliant quality thought unreachable. He is unquestionably a movie maker. But recently, he's fallen far short as movie director. And as for writing dialogue...it's spotty at best (even with help).
And that is the problem with 'Attack of the Clones'. I so very much wanted to like this movie alot more than I did. And I do like alot of it. It has many, many grand moments. But the problem stems from the fact that Lucas, simply put, is wearing too many hats. By itself, directing is a huge undertaking. So is producing! And so is writing! And how many different companies does he head?? With so many talented directors and dialogue writers...it's not like he didn't have the money to invest in them. It would have been better if he had 'kicked himself upstairs to executive producing'(again), bit the bullet and allowed some talented people who know their jobs to step in to help bring his vision to life.
Ya git what ya pay for! And because he took on so many duties himself, he didn't have to pay out the extra money (or points). So his talent is spread pretty thin.
Where did the money go toward? The fantastic special effects and the digital domain. The movie looks...stunning!!! The visuals are like a work of art AND a work of genius. Great color spectrum! The sets are wildly imaginative with little dashes of familiar cultures sprinkled through out. 'Star Wars' has always been synonymous with 'eye candy' and 'Attack...' is no exception.
But it's hard not to cringe at some of the dialogue that even insults the intelligence of a 12 year old (my 10 year old picked that up on his own). If money was the issue; then Lucas should of sold barf bags during the Ani/Padme love scenes at 10 cents each. That alone would have netted him a billion dollars.
Three years ago, I assumed Lucas' administration duties made him a tad rusty for directing (& writing) 'The Phantom Menace'. And that things would improve with the next chapter (and there was alot I liked about '...Menace', and alot I didn't). But the warning bells began to sound during a theatrical preview for '...Clones' in December of 2001 when Padme recited that god-awful line, "Ani??? My Goodness! You've grown!!". Uh-oh! Here we go again!
'Empire Strikes Back' remains in my top 10 faves! It's a landmark film because: it improves upon the original (arguably); has better special effects than the original; and dares to end in a cliffhanger. Most importantly: the acting; the direction; and the dialogue is more mature and more natural. The actors are also more natural delivering their lines with a more leisurely pace. It bridges that difficult gap of giving equal entertainment to both children and adults. Screen writer Leigh Bracket (for 'Empire...') whose credits include 1946's 'The Big Sleep', is a far cry from choosing a screen writer who wrote 'The Scorpion King??'. The difference in quality is obvious.
(A hypothetical example: In 'Empire Strikes Back', Han and Leia are escaping from the ice planet Hoth during the Empire's assault on the planet surface. As 3PO lags behind, Han yells, "Hurry up, Goldenrod! or you're gonna be a permanent resident." That line, in the new films are on the quality of, "Come-on, 3PO! Run faster or they're gonna catch us." See the difference?)
'AOTC' actors have already proven their talent in other movies. But when actors are forced to spout kindergarten dialogue, get substandard direction AND work off a blue screen: it's just too big a challenge that's gonna result in getting them unfairly lamblasted by fans and critics alike. Audiences don't need characters to spoon feed them dialogue that tells them what's going on, while the audience can already SEE what the screen is already SHOWING them what is going on. Too bad the film makers didn't realize that 'audience intelligence' and 'film language subtlety' make a wonderful marriage.
And Lucas can be a good director...he proved that with 'American Graffiti' (another movie that broke the rules...successfully). But he's just wearing too many hats of responsibility.
AND JUST FOR FUN! What's with that name Count "DooKu"?? Sounds like a messy case of dog diarrhea left steaming on someone's carpet.
Or Yoda's quick wit when he tells Dooku (that name again), "I sense the dark side in you". OH REALLY??? Let's give Yoda a gold medal as 'Champion of the Obvious'.
And how we're supposed to believe Padme is a great politician, when it seems her biggest contribution to the Republic is breaking the record for the most wardrobe changes in one hour.
And speaking of her wardrobe...ain't she 'The Tease'!!! while wagging her finger "No! No!" at Ani's advances.
And speaking of Annie!!! (I know it's spelled Ani...but still). Is anyone else uncomfortable that there's gonna be an "Annie" under Vader's helmet??? Why not "Gertrude"??? Or "Patty"!!!
The direction the prequels are heading for is turning A New Hope for episode 3, into A No Hope!
I, along with millions of movie lovers, am forever grateful for Lucas in providing hundreds of hours of repeat entertainment he has created with the Star Wars universe. This has NEVER been a story of the future (even though it's so often erroneously referred to as a story that takes place in the future). His mythology will continue to entertain generations for a long time to come.
As the logo for 'THX' says, "The Audience Is Listening". Besides movie magic special effects...the audience listens to dialogue too, something the film makers forgot.
The DVD does sound phenomonal! And I'm happy to own it (for the kids sake, of course).
For Episode 3...if I hear that line one more time: "I have a bad feeling about this!", I may start looking around to make sure I know where the exit signs are.
But I still feel indebted for 'Star Wars' for giving sights & sounds never heard before. And love that homage to Ray Harryhausen!
His 'THX' and 'Industrial Light and Magic' companies have elevated films to a brilliant quality thought unreachable. He is unquestionably a movie maker. But recently, he's fallen far short as movie director. And as for writing dialogue...it's spotty at best (even with help).
And that is the problem with 'Attack of the Clones'. I so very much wanted to like this movie alot more than I did. And I do like alot of it. It has many, many grand moments. But the problem stems from the fact that Lucas, simply put, is wearing too many hats. By itself, directing is a huge undertaking. So is producing! And so is writing! And how many different companies does he head?? With so many talented directors and dialogue writers...it's not like he didn't have the money to invest in them. It would have been better if he had 'kicked himself upstairs to executive producing'(again), bit the bullet and allowed some talented people who know their jobs to step in to help bring his vision to life.
Ya git what ya pay for! And because he took on so many duties himself, he didn't have to pay out the extra money (or points). So his talent is spread pretty thin.
Where did the money go toward? The fantastic special effects and the digital domain. The movie looks...stunning!!! The visuals are like a work of art AND a work of genius. Great color spectrum! The sets are wildly imaginative with little dashes of familiar cultures sprinkled through out. 'Star Wars' has always been synonymous with 'eye candy' and 'Attack...' is no exception.
But it's hard not to cringe at some of the dialogue that even insults the intelligence of a 12 year old (my 10 year old picked that up on his own). If money was the issue; then Lucas should of sold barf bags during the Ani/Padme love scenes at 10 cents each. That alone would have netted him a billion dollars.
Three years ago, I assumed Lucas' administration duties made him a tad rusty for directing (& writing) 'The Phantom Menace'. And that things would improve with the next chapter (and there was alot I liked about '...Menace', and alot I didn't). But the warning bells began to sound during a theatrical preview for '...Clones' in December of 2001 when Padme recited that god-awful line, "Ani??? My Goodness! You've grown!!". Uh-oh! Here we go again!
'Empire Strikes Back' remains in my top 10 faves! It's a landmark film because: it improves upon the original (arguably); has better special effects than the original; and dares to end in a cliffhanger. Most importantly: the acting; the direction; and the dialogue is more mature and more natural. The actors are also more natural delivering their lines with a more leisurely pace. It bridges that difficult gap of giving equal entertainment to both children and adults. Screen writer Leigh Bracket (for 'Empire...') whose credits include 1946's 'The Big Sleep', is a far cry from choosing a screen writer who wrote 'The Scorpion King??'. The difference in quality is obvious.
(A hypothetical example: In 'Empire Strikes Back', Han and Leia are escaping from the ice planet Hoth during the Empire's assault on the planet surface. As 3PO lags behind, Han yells, "Hurry up, Goldenrod! or you're gonna be a permanent resident." That line, in the new films are on the quality of, "Come-on, 3PO! Run faster or they're gonna catch us." See the difference?)
'AOTC' actors have already proven their talent in other movies. But when actors are forced to spout kindergarten dialogue, get substandard direction AND work off a blue screen: it's just too big a challenge that's gonna result in getting them unfairly lamblasted by fans and critics alike. Audiences don't need characters to spoon feed them dialogue that tells them what's going on, while the audience can already SEE what the screen is already SHOWING them what is going on. Too bad the film makers didn't realize that 'audience intelligence' and 'film language subtlety' make a wonderful marriage.
And Lucas can be a good director...he proved that with 'American Graffiti' (another movie that broke the rules...successfully). But he's just wearing too many hats of responsibility.
AND JUST FOR FUN! What's with that name Count "DooKu"?? Sounds like a messy case of dog diarrhea left steaming on someone's carpet.
Or Yoda's quick wit when he tells Dooku (that name again), "I sense the dark side in you". OH REALLY??? Let's give Yoda a gold medal as 'Champion of the Obvious'.
And how we're supposed to believe Padme is a great politician, when it seems her biggest contribution to the Republic is breaking the record for the most wardrobe changes in one hour.
And speaking of her wardrobe...ain't she 'The Tease'!!! while wagging her finger "No! No!" at Ani's advances.
And speaking of Annie!!! (I know it's spelled Ani...but still). Is anyone else uncomfortable that there's gonna be an "Annie" under Vader's helmet??? Why not "Gertrude"??? Or "Patty"!!!
The direction the prequels are heading for is turning A New Hope for episode 3, into A No Hope!
I, along with millions of movie lovers, am forever grateful for Lucas in providing hundreds of hours of repeat entertainment he has created with the Star Wars universe. This has NEVER been a story of the future (even though it's so often erroneously referred to as a story that takes place in the future). His mythology will continue to entertain generations for a long time to come.
As the logo for 'THX' says, "The Audience Is Listening". Besides movie magic special effects...the audience listens to dialogue too, something the film makers forgot.
The DVD does sound phenomonal! And I'm happy to own it (for the kids sake, of course).
For Episode 3...if I hear that line one more time: "I have a bad feeling about this!", I may start looking around to make sure I know where the exit signs are.
But I still feel indebted for 'Star Wars' for giving sights & sounds never heard before. And love that homage to Ray Harryhausen!
Superman (1978)
Reeve Immortally Flies High...Forever!
Another staple to what DVD is all about.
A Director's Cut! Added scenes not shown since it's 1st (& 2nd?) network broadcasts.
Remastered sound AND 'new' sound effects.
Insightful commentaries, isolated music of John Williams super score, more promos; what more could you want. And the original teaser trailer I saw in 77' for Hackman's 'The Domino Principle' (the 'Supe' preview was better than the feature I came to see). That was a major thrill! That big name cast and not knowing the 'Superman' was even in the works till the end of the trailer.
5.1 Dolby Digital is an absolute must! The opening credits 'whooshing' past you is startling and surpasses any video or laser release before it. Krypton's destruction, helicopter rescue, police chase (with a newly dubbed "move your ass" dialogue thrown in), Luthor's gauntlet, missiles and earthquakes sound better now, than it ever did in the theater. They even color corrected some key scenes where Superman's blue suit came off as green in all previous releases.
These are Reeve's and Kidder's signature roles. The original movie rescues were noble and heroic. Unlike the following 2 sequels, the victims were blameless when placed in harm's way (it's hard to sympathize with Lois in Paris or the bratty kid at Niagra Falls in part 2).
It's a shame the producers didn't bite the bullet and allow director Donner to finish part 2 (almost 70% of Donner's direction remain in the final cut of 'Superman II'). Or allow Brando's scenes to remain for '2' (he got paid points anyway). They brought an epic quality to the story.
The humor! Hackman, Beatty and Perrine make a wonderful comic trio. And love that mischievous Clark Kent 'copping a feel' from unsuspecting Lois that's so fast, I had to pause the DVD frame by frame before seeing the part of her anatomy that was the intended target. Ironically, it's funny without being offensive.
Nostalgic, warm and funny. A big story that's well told. Excellent pre-CG effects. The original still flies high! Why are they even CONSIDERING doing a remake (oh yeah...money...duh!)
9 out of 10!
Like Donner, I always heard the word "SU-PER-MAN" on William's opening fanfare when the Superman title appears. Listen closely, you could swear it's followed by "THE MAN OF STEEL'.
A Director's Cut! Added scenes not shown since it's 1st (& 2nd?) network broadcasts.
Remastered sound AND 'new' sound effects.
Insightful commentaries, isolated music of John Williams super score, more promos; what more could you want. And the original teaser trailer I saw in 77' for Hackman's 'The Domino Principle' (the 'Supe' preview was better than the feature I came to see). That was a major thrill! That big name cast and not knowing the 'Superman' was even in the works till the end of the trailer.
5.1 Dolby Digital is an absolute must! The opening credits 'whooshing' past you is startling and surpasses any video or laser release before it. Krypton's destruction, helicopter rescue, police chase (with a newly dubbed "move your ass" dialogue thrown in), Luthor's gauntlet, missiles and earthquakes sound better now, than it ever did in the theater. They even color corrected some key scenes where Superman's blue suit came off as green in all previous releases.
These are Reeve's and Kidder's signature roles. The original movie rescues were noble and heroic. Unlike the following 2 sequels, the victims were blameless when placed in harm's way (it's hard to sympathize with Lois in Paris or the bratty kid at Niagra Falls in part 2).
It's a shame the producers didn't bite the bullet and allow director Donner to finish part 2 (almost 70% of Donner's direction remain in the final cut of 'Superman II'). Or allow Brando's scenes to remain for '2' (he got paid points anyway). They brought an epic quality to the story.
The humor! Hackman, Beatty and Perrine make a wonderful comic trio. And love that mischievous Clark Kent 'copping a feel' from unsuspecting Lois that's so fast, I had to pause the DVD frame by frame before seeing the part of her anatomy that was the intended target. Ironically, it's funny without being offensive.
Nostalgic, warm and funny. A big story that's well told. Excellent pre-CG effects. The original still flies high! Why are they even CONSIDERING doing a remake (oh yeah...money...duh!)
9 out of 10!
Like Donner, I always heard the word "SU-PER-MAN" on William's opening fanfare when the Superman title appears. Listen closely, you could swear it's followed by "THE MAN OF STEEL'.
Army of Darkness (1992)
Laughed My Ash Off!!
I'm not an 'Evil Dead' fan. I've only seen 1 & 2 once some dozen years back (in the same weekend). Having said that, I am getting antsy to give them another shot. So I'm probably part of the minority that thoroughly enjoyed part 3 over it's predecessors. Why? Director Rami was beginning to graduate into a more polished film maker by this time with less of the rough edges that were in the first two (many may rightfully debate that this is part of their 'cult status' appeal). And Campbell had many moments that proves he's 'leading man' material. His acting is much more assured and FUNNY in this one.
So at $12.99 plus tax for the 'Official Bootlegger's Director Cut', just couldn't pass it up. Love that original ending (equally love the 'reshot' ending too!). Miss that "I'm the guy with the gun" line though. And Campbell and the Rami's bantering in the commentary made me a believer that some commentaries are worth listening to (which usually aren't justified except as an added selling tool).
7 out of 10! Wish there were more movies that were this much fun.
So at $12.99 plus tax for the 'Official Bootlegger's Director Cut', just couldn't pass it up. Love that original ending (equally love the 'reshot' ending too!). Miss that "I'm the guy with the gun" line though. And Campbell and the Rami's bantering in the commentary made me a believer that some commentaries are worth listening to (which usually aren't justified except as an added selling tool).
7 out of 10! Wish there were more movies that were this much fun.
Spider-Man (2002)
A Well Done Bubble Gum Approach!
Comics are made for the kids. It's the kids that read them over and over; get obsessed; get lost in pure escapism.
It's the movie that bridges the gap between the kids and the adults (that have a little bit of the kid in them). And that's all this movie tries to be. An homage, made by a 'comic fan movie director' that covers so much in so little time, the same way that one frame on a comic page has to show & tell so much in so little time. It's nostalgic, warm and respectful to the Spider-Man legacy. To ask for more...well...we won't go there.
I enjoyed this at the theater as much as my 10 year old (and the rest of the audience). Director Rami thankfully avoided the pitfall of misinterpreting the costumes into a "why can't we see more mobility in the masks" approach. That's the real challenge! A less talented director would have opted for the obvious "let's improve the masks" mentality, while ignoring the human story that made the original comic endure for so many years. This movie adaptation stays true to the spirit of Stan Lee's creation.
Well cast, great music, great sets (& colors) and a contemporary view on a 40 year comic legacy that's fast and fresh. And love that "Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man" music lifted from the old Saturday morning cartoon at the close of the end credits.
8.5 out of 10! One word...Fun!
It's the movie that bridges the gap between the kids and the adults (that have a little bit of the kid in them). And that's all this movie tries to be. An homage, made by a 'comic fan movie director' that covers so much in so little time, the same way that one frame on a comic page has to show & tell so much in so little time. It's nostalgic, warm and respectful to the Spider-Man legacy. To ask for more...well...we won't go there.
I enjoyed this at the theater as much as my 10 year old (and the rest of the audience). Director Rami thankfully avoided the pitfall of misinterpreting the costumes into a "why can't we see more mobility in the masks" approach. That's the real challenge! A less talented director would have opted for the obvious "let's improve the masks" mentality, while ignoring the human story that made the original comic endure for so many years. This movie adaptation stays true to the spirit of Stan Lee's creation.
Well cast, great music, great sets (& colors) and a contemporary view on a 40 year comic legacy that's fast and fresh. And love that "Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man" music lifted from the old Saturday morning cartoon at the close of the end credits.
8.5 out of 10! One word...Fun!
Star Trek: Generations (1994)
Nimoy: "You've Got Some Problems Here!"
Oh boy, was Leonard Nimoy right. The producers and writers had such a disregard for the original series characters, their growth and their story continuity. They ignored so much of what had happened previously. They even wrote (originally) having Sulu back in the navigator's chair. Nevermind that he's a captain of Starship Excelsior.
(Spoilers ) 79 episodes! Five Trek movies! (Sorry...'Final Frontier' simply doesn't exist...my choice) Adds up to alot of hours of Kirk & Crew's adventures. So raise your hand if, after all that, your final image of Kirk is a lingering close-up of his lifeless eyes staring upwards with (painted) blood trickling out of the corner of his mouth. I'll pass! And so did Nimoy and Kelly. And Nichols and Takei; and they can't be blamed. As for Shatner, a 5 million dollar payday is hard to pass up.
It's so obvious that Nimoy has a firm grasp on the spirit of what makes Star Trek endure (he proved that with #4 and #6 where he had creative control). It was an insult to approach him to direct 'Generations' AFTER a story was already concocted...then to squash all his suggestions to eliminate inconsistent continuities, plot holes and improvements. Just 'Shut Up & Direct'????? Nimoy did the honorable thing and passed. And it's easy to see why.
This is 'Next Generation's movie all the way...as it should be. If they couldn't come up with a more believable gimmick to unite 'The Originals' with 'The Next Generation', then they should have skipped right over to 'First Contact' (excellent entry). At least that decision would have broken the odd number Trek curse.
Opportunity lost forever because Stewart and Shatner have a wonderful on screen chemistry. It's too short lived. The characters deserved much more and a much better scenario.
The acting is decent (including the always reliable Doohan and Koenig), the colors and effects are super. The suspense all but falls apart because of the poor foundation of the initial story. The best thing about the movie is the poster that promises; but fails to capitalize. There's still a lack of regard for 'Generation'(s) supporting characters; they don't really go beyond their robotic function of their ranks (except Data). And there's something very wrong when we're supposed to feel relieved that the tearful Data finds his cat, but no word of rememberance for Kirk and his sacrifice. You'd think they owe him that little bit...but noo-ooo! Let's just get RIGHT back to 'Next Generation'.
(And if Alan Rickman's captain was the best guy for the job of commanding a new starship, ya gotta wonder what dumb shmoe is in charge of promoting these people. What's even scarier is that supposedly he was the best candidate for captain. After all, you're only in charge of hundreds of crew members (responsible for thousands of lives being that a starship is a protecting emblem in a planetary crisis). So what if it's a constant barrage of life & death situations.
Given the decision to film this story, everyone does their job well (the actors, technicians, etc). It's just that the story is all wrong to begin with. Blame the writers and the producers who gave the go-a-head!
6 out of 10
(Spoilers ) 79 episodes! Five Trek movies! (Sorry...'Final Frontier' simply doesn't exist...my choice) Adds up to alot of hours of Kirk & Crew's adventures. So raise your hand if, after all that, your final image of Kirk is a lingering close-up of his lifeless eyes staring upwards with (painted) blood trickling out of the corner of his mouth. I'll pass! And so did Nimoy and Kelly. And Nichols and Takei; and they can't be blamed. As for Shatner, a 5 million dollar payday is hard to pass up.
It's so obvious that Nimoy has a firm grasp on the spirit of what makes Star Trek endure (he proved that with #4 and #6 where he had creative control). It was an insult to approach him to direct 'Generations' AFTER a story was already concocted...then to squash all his suggestions to eliminate inconsistent continuities, plot holes and improvements. Just 'Shut Up & Direct'????? Nimoy did the honorable thing and passed. And it's easy to see why.
This is 'Next Generation's movie all the way...as it should be. If they couldn't come up with a more believable gimmick to unite 'The Originals' with 'The Next Generation', then they should have skipped right over to 'First Contact' (excellent entry). At least that decision would have broken the odd number Trek curse.
Opportunity lost forever because Stewart and Shatner have a wonderful on screen chemistry. It's too short lived. The characters deserved much more and a much better scenario.
The acting is decent (including the always reliable Doohan and Koenig), the colors and effects are super. The suspense all but falls apart because of the poor foundation of the initial story. The best thing about the movie is the poster that promises; but fails to capitalize. There's still a lack of regard for 'Generation'(s) supporting characters; they don't really go beyond their robotic function of their ranks (except Data). And there's something very wrong when we're supposed to feel relieved that the tearful Data finds his cat, but no word of rememberance for Kirk and his sacrifice. You'd think they owe him that little bit...but noo-ooo! Let's just get RIGHT back to 'Next Generation'.
(And if Alan Rickman's captain was the best guy for the job of commanding a new starship, ya gotta wonder what dumb shmoe is in charge of promoting these people. What's even scarier is that supposedly he was the best candidate for captain. After all, you're only in charge of hundreds of crew members (responsible for thousands of lives being that a starship is a protecting emblem in a planetary crisis). So what if it's a constant barrage of life & death situations.
Given the decision to film this story, everyone does their job well (the actors, technicians, etc). It's just that the story is all wrong to begin with. Blame the writers and the producers who gave the go-a-head!
6 out of 10
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
Redeemed by 'The Voyage Home'
I remember being disappointed after leaving the theater because expectations were so high from 'The Wrath of Khan'. But on looking back in hindsight, this IS a huge movie for any 1st time director.
On the plus side, the acting by Bill Shatner ranks right up there amoung his best in the series, with hardly a false note (especially when he receives the bad news). The other regulars all have their moments, some are a little over the top...but ALL of them are better in #4 (and perfect in #6, just like they were perfect in #2). The non-series supporting roles are a little spotty, Kristie Alley is sorely missed (a tough act for any actress to follow). And Spock's clumsy metamorphosis was a story snag that was deemed necessary because 'learning while directing' AND acting in a larger role would have been too much for any performer. Too many closeups that was so 'in your face' on the big theater screen (did we really need to be so close to Sarek's upper lip? good thing the guy flossed); but it was a lesson Nimoy obviously learned because those distracting TV style closeups are absent from 'The Voyage Home'.
The music by the returning James Horner elevates the film to a grand type space opera that contain alot of epic set pieces (and explosions) and tries to camouflage some of the sillier moments. Too bad he didn't return for one or two more installments for continuity's sake because his music is phenomenal.
After #4 came out, I re-saw #3 and appreciated the movie's finer moments (there are many). At the very least the story actually MOVES (unlike #1 'The Motionless Picture'). And #3 prep'ed director Nimoy to free himself from the studio shackles and make the next installment his more personal film; and accomplish what many thought would never happen: to bring the Trekkers and general public together in an audience pleasing 'laugh out loud' adventure; #4 is a fond memory of one of the best times I ever had at the movies.
6 out of 10
Note: And lucky Spock even gets to break his cherry!
On the plus side, the acting by Bill Shatner ranks right up there amoung his best in the series, with hardly a false note (especially when he receives the bad news). The other regulars all have their moments, some are a little over the top...but ALL of them are better in #4 (and perfect in #6, just like they were perfect in #2). The non-series supporting roles are a little spotty, Kristie Alley is sorely missed (a tough act for any actress to follow). And Spock's clumsy metamorphosis was a story snag that was deemed necessary because 'learning while directing' AND acting in a larger role would have been too much for any performer. Too many closeups that was so 'in your face' on the big theater screen (did we really need to be so close to Sarek's upper lip? good thing the guy flossed); but it was a lesson Nimoy obviously learned because those distracting TV style closeups are absent from 'The Voyage Home'.
The music by the returning James Horner elevates the film to a grand type space opera that contain alot of epic set pieces (and explosions) and tries to camouflage some of the sillier moments. Too bad he didn't return for one or two more installments for continuity's sake because his music is phenomenal.
After #4 came out, I re-saw #3 and appreciated the movie's finer moments (there are many). At the very least the story actually MOVES (unlike #1 'The Motionless Picture'). And #3 prep'ed director Nimoy to free himself from the studio shackles and make the next installment his more personal film; and accomplish what many thought would never happen: to bring the Trekkers and general public together in an audience pleasing 'laugh out loud' adventure; #4 is a fond memory of one of the best times I ever had at the movies.
6 out of 10
Note: And lucky Spock even gets to break his cherry!
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
Nimoy and Meyer Strike Back!
I had dismal hopes for # 6 after the embarrassing 'Final Frontier' until it was announced that Nimoy was executive producing and Meyer was writing and directing. Whew! The impossible happened and the Enterprise crew got their dignity back. After that "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" campfire scene from # 5, I was half expecting Kirk, Spock and McCoy to start chasing each other round the fire while yelling "Duck, Duck, Goose!".
Instead, we return to the high quality continuing storyline that was last seen in 'The Voyage Home' (an excellent addition in the recently released Special Edition series). Even with some minor flaws, everything about this movie works. The acting, direction, cinematography...the story, the mystery and some surprising twists are all handled with thought provoking intelligence (and some obvious homages to a few movies past; a dash of the Bard thrown in for good measure).
All the original characters are served well once again (after that one film hiatus) and are given the added dimension that they're allowed to grow; and go out in style. This has the greatest ensemble acting and probably qualifies as THE Trek movie with THE all star cast. So many secondary characters carry over from # 4 and some new key characters are introduced. It's a tribute to Meyer's discretion that everyone's screen time is so well balanced.
And Spock FINALLY returns as the wise and noble Spock we knew (and loved) from 'The Wrath of Khan' (he even has a great line in reference to his noble sacrifice).
'Undiscovered Country' is right up there with #2, #4 and # 8. 'Search for Spock' is a weaker but very necessary chapter that tells a complete story. You could...almost...ignore the rest. Star Trek VI sends the original crew out in a satisfying, fresh and grand style.
8 out of 10
NOTE: the more you know about classic movies, the better you'll appreciate director Meyer's love and homage of the classics, including: 'Judgement at Nuremberg', 'Bridge on the River Kwai' and doesn't Chancellor Gorkon's assassins look like Gort(?) from 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'?
Instead, we return to the high quality continuing storyline that was last seen in 'The Voyage Home' (an excellent addition in the recently released Special Edition series). Even with some minor flaws, everything about this movie works. The acting, direction, cinematography...the story, the mystery and some surprising twists are all handled with thought provoking intelligence (and some obvious homages to a few movies past; a dash of the Bard thrown in for good measure).
All the original characters are served well once again (after that one film hiatus) and are given the added dimension that they're allowed to grow; and go out in style. This has the greatest ensemble acting and probably qualifies as THE Trek movie with THE all star cast. So many secondary characters carry over from # 4 and some new key characters are introduced. It's a tribute to Meyer's discretion that everyone's screen time is so well balanced.
And Spock FINALLY returns as the wise and noble Spock we knew (and loved) from 'The Wrath of Khan' (he even has a great line in reference to his noble sacrifice).
'Undiscovered Country' is right up there with #2, #4 and # 8. 'Search for Spock' is a weaker but very necessary chapter that tells a complete story. You could...almost...ignore the rest. Star Trek VI sends the original crew out in a satisfying, fresh and grand style.
8 out of 10
NOTE: the more you know about classic movies, the better you'll appreciate director Meyer's love and homage of the classics, including: 'Judgement at Nuremberg', 'Bridge on the River Kwai' and doesn't Chancellor Gorkon's assassins look like Gort(?) from 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'?
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
'LORD OF THE RINGS' PART 2!
Like it or not, 'Lord Of The Rings' is ONE movie. It's the precedent of a very brave commitment made by a single studio to tell an epic story...on the grand scale that it deserves.
To say that one installment is better (or worse) than the other 2 installments, is the same as taking ANY movie; splitting it in 3 equal parts; then analyzing which section is better. Go Ahead! Try It! Pick Any Movie.
Definitely...'The Two Towers' adaptation is getting more screen time. And I've enjoyed the artistic license that Jackson and Co took to let the story unfold and accelerate. Bookwise...'Two Towers' ain't over yet.
All the actor/characters have fleshed out their counterparts beyond expectation (already proven in 'Fellowship...). Gollum's performance is deservedly unanimous (and loved those Ents too...hey it's a fantasy!) And glad to see the Wargs make their debut that featured in Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' and 'Fellowship of the Ring' (the "Journey in the Dark" chapter); but were sorely missing up till now. Also loved how Jackson inserted Gandalf's battle with the Balrog.
10 out of 10! (Same as the 1st one...can't wait till the last one)
To say that one installment is better (or worse) than the other 2 installments, is the same as taking ANY movie; splitting it in 3 equal parts; then analyzing which section is better. Go Ahead! Try It! Pick Any Movie.
Definitely...'The Two Towers' adaptation is getting more screen time. And I've enjoyed the artistic license that Jackson and Co took to let the story unfold and accelerate. Bookwise...'Two Towers' ain't over yet.
All the actor/characters have fleshed out their counterparts beyond expectation (already proven in 'Fellowship...). Gollum's performance is deservedly unanimous (and loved those Ents too...hey it's a fantasy!) And glad to see the Wargs make their debut that featured in Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' and 'Fellowship of the Ring' (the "Journey in the Dark" chapter); but were sorely missing up till now. Also loved how Jackson inserted Gandalf's battle with the Balrog.
10 out of 10! (Same as the 1st one...can't wait till the last one)