Reviews written by registered user
Kane III

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
11 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

8 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Excellent and honest - with a killer last line!, 21 January 2002

Now most likely to be seen as featured material in the DVD release, this is an excellent documentary. George Roy Hill himself narrates and is refreshingly free from the usual Hollywood hype and bullsh*t, as he honestly and entertainingly describes the hassles (and fun) of making this movie.

Even better, he swears like a sailor and his final line will crease you, I promise.

Fail Safe (2000) (TV)
47 out of 53 people found the following review useful:
What's the problem?, 24 December 2000

I just watched this on DVD. I'd already read some of the lukewarm comments by some here but bought it anyway - not having had the chance to see it on TV.

I simply can't fault it. It was well done in every department, it was just as tense as the original and just as well acted. Far from over the top scenery chewing, Dreyfuss's performance was on the money. What, he wasn't "statesman" enough? How many *real* presidents are?

Maybe it was the fact that most of the reviewers had to suffer the standard multitude of commercial breaks wrecking the tension, but viewed in one sitting on DVD, this thing packed a wallop.

And I'm not easily pleased.....

2010 (1984)
108 out of 156 people found the following review useful:
Fine film., 14 June 2000

The reactions to this film sum up a problem of perception that many film buffs seem to have. To such people, Kubrick was a genius. Kubrick made 2001. 2001 is a *Kubrick* story. Therefore 2010 is by definition a presumptuous attempt to explain what Kubrick deliberately left unsaid. etc. etc.

Sorry, 2001 is an *Arthur C Clarke* story. He wrote a sequel to his own story, called it "2010" and *he* explained what Kubrick left unsaid. I'd say he had a right. Then someone buys the film rights and produces a fine movie from it.

And it *is* a fine movie. Intelligence far in excess of the usual Hollywood SciFi garbage (Independence Day or Starship Troopers anyone?).

The scenes with Keir Dullea were far more chilling than anything in the original.

Arteur theory is still alive and well, I see.

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Revisionist history:- after only 30 years., 3 January 2000

The thing that really spoils my enjoyment of this film is the way history is re-written.

Not ancient history, but history which I lived through. In real-life the anti-war protesters were venting their disapproval of what they earnestly felt was an immoral war. They took a lot of knocks from the powers that be for their troubles as well.

This movie depicts them as shallow, selfish, manipulative, power-driven, and even violent people (there's irony for you!) who were "Unamerican" in every sense of the word.

The odious message of this movie is that ignorance is bliss. Don't think about things and everything will work out nicely and you will be happy. Well at least you'll get rich - which in most American movies is close enough.

It's enough to make a person gag.

Oh, and the fact it beat Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption to the best picture Oscar doesn't help either.

Thinner (1996)
0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Not bad at all...., 2 November 1999

A lot of Stephen King's stories have been destroyed in transition to the movies, so when this came on my cable channel I started watching with my thumb on the remote. Surprisingly, I never pressed a button. This really was quite good as adaptations of King's work go. Very watchable, decent performances, great makeup, never boring, and from what I remember about the book, reasonably faithful to the source material.

Worth watching. Beware the "Curse of the White Man from Town".

Alien³ (1992)
0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Ambivalence. Ambivalence., 1 September 1999

If this was a one-off movie, everyone would be raving about it. Fine acting and special effects. Dark story (brave to be so downbeat in Hollywood nowadays).

Nevertheless, I wish this film had never been made. It is a complete betrayal of Aliens and its hard-won happy ending. If it was a better movie that Aliens then the plot might have been justified. But it isn't. I go out of my way to avoid this movie. And that's a shame.

Titanic (1953)
2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Wet, 24 August 1999

Several comments have been along the lines of "well ok it wasn't very accurate, but it was a great story". In that case the makers shouldn't have pretended that it was a true story.

Cameron's version really was quite accurate. It is a common human trait to backlash against something which has been immensely popular. I guess this has now started with the 1997 Titanic. But to try to maintain that this movie is superior in any way is just rubbish.

Almost *everything* about this movie was historically inaccurate. They even have the iceberg slicing the wrong side of the ship!

And all that singing?. LOL. Yeah right.

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Disappointing., 19 August 1999

My girlfriend and I went to see this last night. She thought it was the most moving film she'd seen in years. I was hardly moved at all.

Best Actor? A one note performance as far as I could see. Constantly manic, ignoring rather than reacting to what was going on around him. Very few nuances suggesting what his character must have *really* been feeling in the camp. There was only one scene where he managed to do this, and it was well put over. This was where he finally realised that Horst Buchholz was not going to help him. The mask disappeared briefly. Excellent scene.

I suppose you have to like Guido in the first place to be moved by him. I thought he was a shallow and selfish jerk. Maybe that's where the film and I parted company. I never cared that much about him because of that.

It's seems to me that this film was less about the triumph of the human spirit, and more about extolling the virtues of self-delusion. This runs counter to my philosophy of life (too much of this in the world) and is yet another reason for my dislike of this film.

Contrary to what my girlfriend jokingly said of me after she heard my reaction to the film, I *do* have soul <g> and am quite easily moved by a good movie. This one left me cold...

Irredeemably stupid movie., 2 August 1999

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


OK I realise this is meant to be a satire of sorts but satires are supposed to be intelligent. This was one of the dumbest movies I've seen for years, unless it was a fiendishly clever p*ss take of the Beverly Hills 90210 fans in the audience.

1. Near the beginning Carmen is flying her little spaceship at the limits of human skill *inside* a bigger ship, yet she's only a novice pilot. You'd have thought this would require at least some concentration yet all the actress can portray is a vacant grin.

2. Why is the fleet always crammed together like sardines? So much so that they seem to crash into each other whenever something unexpected happens. This is outer space y'know. There's *lots* of room out there.

3. The troopers spend ammo like popcorn seeming to never run out until the going gets *really* tough. Then someone says "Make every round count". Are you kidding me?

4. Hollywood pretty boys and girls trying to convince us that they're tough hombres/hombre-esses and not airheads. No sale.

5. Superior medicine seems to cure all at the beginning, but the captain asks to be killed near the end because his legs have been cut off. Hey what's the problem?

6. Carmen's had her chest skewered by a bug. Not only does she remain conscious and alert. But when the bug withdraws its talon she just carries on as though nothing has happened. Hey babe, you've lost a lung and probably had your aorta pierced, but you've got more energy than *I* have.

On the plus side, at least the film kept my attention and I watched it right to the end. The special effects were good, if repetitive. But why, oh why, use that cast? They were crap, Clancy Brown and Michael Ironside apart. They always give good value. You felt they were aware of the basic sillyness of the script. If only the same could be said for the younger cast members. They played it absolutely stony-faced straight. Dina Mayer and Jake Busey were not bad though. Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards should be fed to the brain bug. We might win then.

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
The opposite of "The Original Series"., 5 July 1999

The original Star Trek was my favorite show of my childhood.

Even today many of the first season episodes stand up as classics. Well written, well acted, and with a sense of professionalism from the characters (you felt these people were adults). But by the third season everything had disintegrated to the point where even I (world's biggest 12 year old fan) thought it was just embarrassing. I was almost pleased when it was cancelled.

TNG started off horribly. "Farpoint's" main plot line was a rehash of the very worst elements of the original series. Seemingly omnipotent entity takes over the Enterprise for it's own idiotic reasons. God I used to hate those episodes in TOS.

But.... Unlike TOS, which started great then ran out of steam. TNG just got better and better. In the first season, the stories seemed to be all too obvious morality plays. This got a bit better in season two. By the third season, it was like a different show. The character interaction, which had always seemed forced in the first two seasons, suddenly had real chemistry. You cared for these people.

Plots became much more complex over time (TOS plots got simpler to the point of idiocy). TNG gave the audience far more credit than TOS ever did. No longer were there any easy answers to problems. Intelligence rather than raw adventure was now the hallmark of this show.

Even "Q", the hated (by me anyway) omnipotent being from the pilot show was developed into one of the most popular semi-regulars of TNG, and one of the funniest too.

TOS followed the classic trajectory of American series. Good going to p**s poor over time.

TNG bucked this trend totally. Any show that gets better with age has to be taken seriously.

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]