Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Brilliantly Over-blown Propaganda...
15 August 2010
What a masterpiece--beautiful film, beautiful acting, incredible characters, strong setting, interesting story...

And ridiculous. A pure piece of political bully-pulpit pounding shame.

When you whittle away the bare bones from the withered flesh of a story, you find a simple message: BIG GOVERNMENT GOOD, STATES & LOCALS BAD. The way they portrayed it was crazy obvious. What I don't understand is why people sympathize with a double murderer, though motivated to such actions. It is a slanted logic that dictated men's lives as worthless where local justice is involved....in America. Never seen a message so ridiculous in film, the opposite being the truth--abuse and lack of justice within centralized government (just read the news).

The question in the beginning of "who is to blame" for taking the farms points to the evil bankers, the evil overlords all up the ladder of capitalism, as if the owners had no rights to their own land, and their own financial mismanagement wasn't the fault of the grassroots- decision-maker. But, never mind that: details get in the way of a good leftist message. By the end it portrays a world that will never change and the people who try will just wither and blow away for the sake of cigar smoking, besuited fellows in brand new cars with extensive peach orchards and businesses.

When I moved to California in the early 90s I met a lot of the old transplants who moved to CA in that time of need. They did pretty well for themselves. Ultimately, a displacement creates need and need is sated by people creating work and making things, people finding their place in the world. Maturity to understand how the world changes and corrects itself is what the story lacks completely. But, it wasn't a film made to reinforce the nature of the world, just to stir up some wrath.
9 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Woof.... this is a good movie?
14 August 2010
I found the first problem with the movie to be Demi Moore and Tom Cruise. Their acting and characters were just horrid. Almost everyone else surrounding them was quite good to excellent. The two mains were stiff, stilted, unappealing, and illogical. That whole "rich white slacker" thing was so comic-booky it ruined any suspension of disbelief. Overdone. Overacted too often. The only thing it missed was a scene of Cruise dancing by himself in the street with a transistor radio blasting pop music.

Then there was the lack of a good hook in the first half. Every character aside from Jack's was bland or over obvious, obnoxious or pure plot-device. It began to turn a little more appealing as the turgid court scenes began and rolled on.

Next, the lack of logic. Enough threads and reviews here have covered how un-courtly many scenes are, also how it makes little sense how the witnesses were motivated. Most court dramas are pretty sad, because in order to make a good court drama you have to get drama in a court. Courts are orchestrated to present plain testimony and evidence, not to have surprise evidence and emotional outbursts.

Ultimately, the only memorable thing in this movie is Nickolson's riveting acting. The plot wasn't particularly clever, the premise average, the characters forgettable (aside from Jack), and the ending comically convenient. Jack N. made the movie, and thus made Sorkin. Nice.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Not so softly....
10 August 2008
The Moto films were 'cheaps', made quickly and inexpensively, and also rather short to pack in with other films for a cinema experience packed with a variety of films in a string. Where most other films of the time have either risen to heights through brilliance or, as most have done, fallen from interest completely due to mediocre or lackluster efforts, the Moto films have found quite an enthusiastic audience that still thrills to the honest, entertaining portrayal of an exotic crime fighter.

Mysterious Mr. Moto is the first film in the series where the crew seems to have 'gotten it together'. The acting, acing, story, and film work were all quite a notch above the previous three. Though the stories are always rather linear they keep an audience by balancing thrills, violence, mystery, character and mild romance.

The criticism of racism is odd. Lorre plays the character slightly off Japanese, his accent being obviously Germanic, but his mannerisms are keen. Moto is an American schooled Japanese, which was very typical in those days, and it gives him an obvious bridge in understanding western culture. It is a pity they didn't find more Asians to fill key roles in these films, but generally the American actors used were quite good despite looking too Caucasian. I can forgive authenticity for acting ability, especially in the days when there were few stories written for Asians.

Moto always comes off as a powerhouse. He's an admirable figure for anyone undersized in a brutal world. Kids must have loved Moto in the day as he proved someone tiny could trash giant brutes with guns and ham hock fists. He's a great roll model for more than just Asians or Japanese, he's a hero for everyone. These films are fun, matinée film that portrayed the shrinking world with a metropolitan and international flavor. I think they are admirable. Lorre proved himself adept beyond any doubt with these movies. They are a credit to the entire crew.
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kolchak: The Night Stalker: Mr. R.I.N.G. (1975)
Season 1, Episode 12
Overlooked episode of pulp sci-fi series...
10 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know anyone that likes this episode, but it always stuck with me since I saw it on the original TV run.

All criticisms tend to be rather blind; the same critique could be applied to any Kolchak and any sci-fi film ever made. In essence all science fiction is ridiculous when assumed to be reality, or a believable mock of reality. Well written sci-fi provides a story that entertains while giving commentary or reflection on issues and attitudes of the times in which it was written. R.I.N.G. did that all quite well.

The core of the story is about a bloated, expensive government creating an out of control black project monster. Sound familiar? It might have seemed like a cheap plot device, but it was clever embodiment of the hidden workings of the USA government. Kolchak was always a zeitgeist for the modern everyman caught below the salt at the table of information, so his dealings with all authority display how the common man was being shut out from any ability to deal with injustice around him.

On the other side of the story was a monster that unravels to the viewer. RING goes from an insane, random, brutal monster and becomes a logical antagonist with recognizable needs. The essence of the robot is a play on Oedipus; kills his father, desirous of his mother - a very adept archetype I never notice critics of the program recognize. With most monsters in the series there is a mere 'monster must kill - we must kill monster' motive, but RING broadens out quest for the monster by giving the monster deeper mysteries and characteristics outside of pure mayhem and murder.

The monster was well designed enough for the story. The mask hiding the face helped give the robot a creepy air, and they never missed a chance to show the quick, brutal power of the robot helping the monster be terrifying. OK, it's a guy in a costume... so is C3PO, so get over it.

And the producers/writers/directors of Kolchak were adept at swathing good story lines in a constant array of very live, fun side characters played by seriously adept character actors. This series was like a comic-book-pulp-sci-fi-novel-monster-movie every week, and it was great because TV can generally become staid in character and story.

I like RING, and I love Kolchak. The shows that worked least for me had a lack of visible monster, or lack of reason behind the monster. Kolchak's nobility always helped stories, like righting the dead in CHOPPER, or saving Madame Trevi, or taking the mantel of Rahkshasha hunter to save humanity, but in this story it was more about Carl's nobility to find the truth that helps the story rise above some of the weaker episodes.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
New TV series doesn't match the old...
30 July 2005
I was just looking over the new series made for ABC TV. Good god. I was just contemplating what a new series would be like, and then I find it...and I guessed right; watered down, fancy boy crud.

The old series of Night Stalker was a zeitgeist, about being a regular guy, trying to find the truth, which was always hidden by authorities. Much like the times, it had a soul that went to the heart of public feelings, while working in the frame genre of horror/suspense. But, instead of writing to connect the public to their inner feelings about society wrapped in entertainment, the new series is about black and white working together, hot and fancy, to find less then archetypal mysteries. Kolchak brought a pulpy sense of reality to light, and portrayed the seedy side of life without being moralistic. It was Columbo of the supernatural. It didn't create fanciful immorality, like the goth culture today, and it didn't put searing political statements all over. It tried to entertain. And it did. Hence the popularity through the years. Anyone, like myself, who saw this in their childhood remembers it today.

The new series is destined to be another watered down bastardization of brilliant TV.
61 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Brilliant look at WW2
12 October 2003
To find this mini-series repulsive is ridiculous. Its a more intricate and enjoyable version of 'Hogans Heroes'. Taken from some actual plots used by Nazis during the war, it uses brilliant writing, acting and producing to twine a tale of counterfeiting to smash the English currency and topple the war into Germany's favor.

Brilliant humor. It should be released of DVD!
35 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Phenomena (1985)
Doesn't ANYONE get this film??
17 June 2003
Yes, people talk about how amazing this film is and YES people talk about how BAD this film is....but no one really understands how AMAZINGLY GOOD THIS BAD FILM IS!

Phenomena is truly a Phenomena. When I saw this film the first time I was rolling on the ground laughing. Tears streamed down my face from the agony of continuous laughter! It is SO BAD it is BRILLIANT! Scenes from this film are burned in my mind! the inane dialogue, the transparent plot, the roughly edited film stock and slow motion disasterpieces shoved into horror sequences. And...who can forget THE CHIMP! That chimp really made this film in almost every scene. Jennifer was a support for the Chimp! Who was that Chimp? He wasn't even credited on IMDB!! CRIME! Looking at this film as a turkey or a masterpiece just advertises your ignorance. This is one of the top 10 classic GOODBAD films of all time and should be recognized as something so bad, yet failingly ambitious, that it has become one of the most memorable and entertaining flicks ever produced. Kudos D'Ario! What a movie. What an ENDING! WHAT A CHIMP!

The American DVD has an Argento interview on the old JOE FRANKLIN show from WOR- TV in New York. That is just the cherry on top of this sweet, fudgey, train wreck. If you love bad films that make you love life and ingrain bizarre imagery forever try PHENOMENA....possibly better then DEATH WISH 3.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed