Reviews written by registered user
stoney24

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

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

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Well now then....it all comes down to this..., 30 January 2009
5/10

Doug Masterson has been shot down, but he's not dead as we've been lead to believe, instead he bailed out at the last second and became a POW in Russia. Now, he's out and living the life of a crop duster and possible alcoholic, fun times. Sidney J. Furie returns to finally tell a further adventure tale of Chappy and Doug, but this time with a different actor taking over Doug's role. I always wonder what the original actor was doing that was so much better then this. The two team up, all be it reluctantly on Dougy's part, to try and teach some delinquents how to fly planes...and also fight with some corrupt air force guys. It's not a bad movie, but with is tight bottom of the barrel budget, and some borderline acceptable performance, this one is just barely watchable.

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Well it's clear why your not a star!, 30 January 2009
6/10

Aces: Iron Eagle III is the first and only film in the series not directed by Sidney J. Furie, and I have to say it's all the better for it. However that doesn't make it good. The Film came off as more a rejected episode of the A-Team then as a great stand alone film. While the film is not exactly horrible, it's fun and it has a nice pace and energy, it's Sonny Chiba that really drew me in. In one of his few American film appearances, Chiba turns in a performance that in some ways raised the bar a little, that was then subsequently lowered very single time Rachel McLish opened her mouth. It was funny to watch her shot a gun, as she tried to hold it like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone, yet also sort of flinching too. If only she could of acted, even a little, she might of had a career as an action star, but she flat out sucks! If she had any less emotion in her voice she might have been suspected of being a robot. Gossett Jr. tries his best to keep the film moving, and for it's time and budget it worked alright. Overall it felt like a made for TV ripoff then a actual sequel. I wished they would of explored Chappy's and Doug's further adventures in these sequels, but alas they chose to churn out stuff like this, that while not bad, it's Still better then number II...just isn't enough to make it work.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Where'd the fun go?, 30 January 2009
4/10

What do you do when you're a young director with a hit on your hands? You go off and direct a flop like Superman IV. Then you get talked into doing a needless sequel to your big hit, only a few years ago. Well that's what happened to Sidney J. Furie. In an attempt to tell a more serious, or adult story Furie reject everything about the first film that made it work. Instead he chose to take all the fun out of the film with in the first few minutes of the picture. The first film was more of a Teen movie, it stood out because of that fact. It was fun and energetic, but this one is dry and slow. As a stand alone film, it's sort of boring. As part of the Iron Eagle franchise, it's down right depressing. First it's about the US and Russia teaming up on a mission to stop some terrorist from launching a nuclear bomb, but it never really is clear why one or the other can't just take on the mission by themselves. The characters seem either cardboard flat, or outright dumb. The biggest mistake they make is the under use of Louis Gossett Jr. His character doesn't seem to really have a place, except standing around and barking orders. He never seems to have the same energy as he did in the first film. The ending was fine, if not reminiscent of Star Wars. The contrived Love story didn't work at all for me, it felt like they were again trying to take the story into more adult territory and in that lost the point of what makes the first one so good...

Iron Eagle (1986)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The 80's! What else can you say?, 30 January 2009
7/10

In the 1980's patriotism, and in some cases flat out Jingoism, was pretty high. "Do we get to win this time" a line famous from Rambo: First Blood part II, could almost sum up how many people felt at that time. A longing for the style of films they grew up with, flat out balls to the wall "we're good, your bad...now let's blow something up, and go home" While Rambo, Rocky, and for the most part Top Gun seemed more geared towards attracting an older crowd Iron Eagle went straight for the kids. Canadian writer and director Sidney J. Furie brings out everything that you love and hate about that time period. The kick in the pants rock out 80's anthems (never say die, Road of the Gypsy, etc) to the over the top, and sometimes almost unbelievable action adventure. Iron Eagle succeeded for one reason...it was F.U.N - Fun. It's the type of movie you can turn on and sit back and enjoy every ridiculous totally 80's moment. You don't have to think about if it could really happen, or if the acting is truly believable, it's just fun...and that's all you can really ask for in this type of movie...

0 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Close But No Cigar, 21 May 2008
7/10

For most of the 1960's and almost all the the 70's Wayne made one Comedy/Western after the other, and most of them more the just watchable. Many films are so enjoyable they almost demand multi-viewings. After catching "True Grit" on TCM one night, while in the mood of a great Wayne Western, I was more then delighted at the wonderfully colorful character of "Rooster Cogburn" his drunk cat and his litigious and all too pushy boss "Mattie Ross". All in all it was one of best films Wayne made, and was certainly worthy of the Oscar he received, so with all that praise and attention there was bound to be a follow up, and as Wayne himself enjoy the character it seems that it was inevitable. On page the combination of Wayne and Hepburn was so irresistible that even if I hadn't heard of the original I would have checked this sequel out. What this film contains is little more then a rushed rehashing of the original story, with a tad of the feistyness of African Queen thrown in for good measure. While thematically the story follows these other films, the characters are really nothing alike. Wayne is much more agreeable then Bogart ever really was, and much more agreeable then he was in the first film. What the film lacks over the original it certainly makes up for in it's two leads. There's something about Wayne and Hepburn that just glides gleefully across the screen and makes for a good time for all. The biggest complaint I can wage against this film is the script, the tone and dialog aren't exactly poor, but I couldn't call it poetry either. In the end it's just a pretty good late in life Wayne film.

Alibi (1929)
5 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Moving Sound, 11 September 2007
3/10

It's hard to watch this film out of the context of 1929 when it was first released. The Idea of a talking moving picture was still a novelty. In fact this film was released simultaneously with a silent version for those theaters that had yet to convert to sound. That said the biggest problem with this film is that it doesn't seem to know which side of the law it wants to side with, first it makes the cops out to be, I don't want to say bad guys, so let's just say unlikable. Then towards the end it's creates the criminal as well lets also say unlikeable. The problem is that it has one of the worst transitions I've ever seen. Again one has to go back to the time in which the film was made, this at the height of Al Capone and the bootlegging racketeering of that period and just before the stock market was to crash in October. Today many people see the police forces in a dualistic light, as being both there to serve and protect, and as villains with a corrupt politicized agenda. With this the film should hold up, but it doesn't. The main problem is that the characters are so flat and unlikable. It's hard to care one iota about who lives and who dies. In the end it's a film about jerks, plain and simple. I doubt however that when the film was released the audiences of the day had this same feeling. The idea of beating or threatening a criminal suspect was most likely looked at as not only acceptable but necessary. It's hard to come down on the film one way or the other, as I have mixed feelings about it as a whole. With that said the ending is one of the most anticlimactic endings I've seen since Chinatown. In that film, the whole concept of the movie was based around this idea of the inevitable of the outcome. Alibi fails in that it doesn't seem to hold on to any one concept for too long, instead making leaps that just feel awkward and clumsy. I think that what most likely amazed the audience was the fact that Alibi is one of the first films to start to play around with the sound design, having a moving camera and dancing and sound all working simultaneously creating a spectacle that most film goes of the day had never seen before. I can't say stay away from this film as it has it's place in the pantheon of cinema history, in part because it was nominated for Best Picture at the academy awards. However, if you're just looking for a classic film to watch on a Saturday night, you might want to steer clear of this one.

12 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Welcome Back, 10 September 2007
8/10

I suppose I'm in that weird age group that sort of grew up with Haim and Feldman, and yet not really. I am of that weird niche group that came just after their mega success and caught the "HBO" and "CABLE" rerunapalooza of "License To Drive" "Dream A Little Dream" and so on and so forth. I have over the years seen every one of the films these two guys have been in, some great "Lost Boys" "Licence To Drive" some awful "Busted" and "Last Resort", but no matter how horrid the script is or even sometimes how down right painful the acting can be there's still something fun about watching these two guys. I suppose they're the Crosby-Hope or Martin-Lewis of my generation. You knew even the crappy roads movies were going to be watchable because of the chemistry between Bing and Bob, and I have to say the same about Haim and Feldman. They're OK to watch separately, but together it's a complete set. I can't really explain why, it's just the way of the world. Unfortunately They're not on that same page. So, when I heard they'd be back together on TV(!) I was super excited. I was unaware that the show was scripted and because of that the show had an oddness to it...however once you realize it's totally scripted, it's really funny. They are so over the top at times that you can't help be laugh, were as if it were real, it's just totally uncomfortable to watch...I have to say that every ep. has it's ups and downs and that Suzie is so One dimensional that she's annoying to watch and listen to, they turned her into an unsympathetic character that seems spoiled and pampered. However, it's the moments, like when they're playing pool, or shopping, that you realize why you watch the show...it's fantastic. I just wish, they would have put just a little more effort into a convincing storyline...drew out the characters a little more and fleshed out...well everything. It's sort of sad in away, they only gave us enough to wet the appetite and now it's all over...damn you A&E!!! I only hope that the Coreys can put their differences away and come out with a second season, and this time leave Suzie at home with the kid.

Long and Lean., 21 February 2007

what can one say about David Lean? I suppose you have to first talk about his greatest works "Bridge on the River Kwai" and "Lawerence Of Arabia", but when it comes to Ryan's Daughter, the only other film that matters is "Dr. Zhivago. Why? Because that was the last film he did before this one...and it was a huge hit. Zhivago had spawned a hit song with "Laura's Theme" it went on to be nominated for a bunch of Oscars most notable Best Picture and firmly established David Lean as a master Director...then came this film. First let me say that the cinematography is truly breath-taking. It stands along side any thing Lean had done before or since. The acting however is a different story. Both Mills and Mitchum give outstanding performance, but the rest of the cast seems to be phoning in much of the drama and pathos. You end up liking Mitchum character so much that you began to totally dislike the main character of Rosy. She seems to be a character who doesn't know what she wants so she just goes after everything, and ends up with nothing at all. Yes the movie is dealing with Ireland and the British government around world war one, but that isn't even of any concern until about 2 and 1/2 hrs into the film, at which point your just biting at the bit for this thing to be done with. Over the years people have speculated about why this film works or doesn't work, and with each person you talk to they all seem to have a different opinion. One thing that is clear about Ryan's Daughter is that it's long...to be exact it's 3hrs and 26mins long, and for me that's the film's greatest flaw. If the film was cut by at least and hour...it could really amount to something...but as it stands you'll spend more time wait for something to happen then it ever will.

Let It Be (1970)
0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
The truth is this film is to the Beatles what "Eat the Document" is to Bob Dylan, 13 June 2006
3/10

I sat down tonight and watched this film, after a full week of re-watching the Beatles Anthology, I was really excited to see this film because it's suppose to be so hard to find, well let me tell you I was so disappointed I can't even begin. The truth is this film is to the Beatles what "Eat the Document" is to Bob Dylan. It's interesting but it's also boring and pointless. They don't explain anything, if I hadn't watched the Anthology Doc I wouldn't even have a clue why the hell they're in this big film studio, plus, I don't think John Lennon says more then three words in the whole film (Paul never seem to shut up though). It's more footage of them singing and playing the songs then anything else. I'm sure for some people that's going to be really fascinating, but for me I can listen to the CD, I want to hear them talk, argue, get into it, tell a joke something, but no they just sort of sit around and don't do anything. The only part of this film that I really really liked was the footage of "I Me Mine" where John and Yoko waltz around the empty sound stage. More of that kind of stuff would have made for an interesting film, but instead it's all music and not much else. If someone that really, and I mean really loves the Beatles said hey should I watch that film, I'd say have you seen the Anthology, if they say yes I'd say don't bother, because most of the good stuff is on that anyway and it's properly formatted. If you really must go ahead and watch this film but be warned if you're looking for anything other then a series of them playing various songs, forget about this one.

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Review, 31 January 2004

if someone out there was to wonder onto this site, and wonder what the hell am I doing looking at this, you might want to pause and reflect awhile on the 1980's. The deceade that brought commercialism to the forfront of motion pictures, and created a nich market for advertisers also was one of the most profitable, and imaganative time periods ever. This film was one of the few that didn't hit it's mark. Howard the Duck, which is now imfamous for being George Lucus's floop, isn't really that far outta left field. In only a few short years America would learn to love an alien puppet name ALF. Where Howard fails mostly is it's inability to go anywhere. There is nothing for the Duck to really do, and the odd semi-crush he has on Lea Thompson, places the audience in an uncomforable possition. The thing that saves this movie, is the fact that if you can set aside your predermined ideas about what films should be, and walk into this film with the idea that it's stupid, silly, and just plan rediculas, then you will be amoung the first to see Howard the Duck for what it was meant to be, Fun and nothing else.


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