Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
60 Minutes (1968)
Um, where is the investigative news?
60 Minutes has some occasional moments of juice, but it lost its edge. 60 Minutes years ago was a lot more interesting, had harder-hitting stories, more "raw" interviews, capturing priceless moments on camera of innocence, guilt, glory, fame, whatever.
However, the show today is tired and boring. There is no gusto. Is it a coincidence that once Lowell Bergman left, the show started to suck? Anyone who saw The Insider knows the story here. 60 Minutes "sold its soul" in the 1990's due to the tobacco scandal. Stock-owning executives from 60 Minutes falsified dangers that 60 Minutes would be the target of billion-dollar lawsuits from tobacco companies that would fell CBS if they aired a controversial public news piece from a former tobacco executive.
A partial result of the fallout was that Lowell Bergman, the main producer of the 60 Minutes tobacco segment, left the show and now works for Frontline, a brilliant PBS documentary news show. Frontline is FAR more interesting and hard-hitting than 60 Minutes has been in years.
Back to 60 Minutes...they seems to "go easy" these days and have one easy to medium news story. They mix that with some other "profile" type story, and throw in a non-threatening interview with some easygoing person. Something a teenager with a camcorder could do (follow around some singer and throw in some good writing).
All very boring for the most part. Too easy, no more edge.
60 Minutes used to the finest show around. Frontline years ago supplanted it as the best investigative journalism show around.
The Dark Knight (2008)
It's not that it's a "bad" film...it just has so many flaws
WHAT is all the hoopla about? The Dark Knight is a mediocre film that drags on too long, has too many plot lines, and action sequences way out of step from Batman Begins.
It seems like the screenplay has too many "edits" with plot lines that sprout from nowhere for seemingly no reason. The filmmakers should have done what James Cameron does: stop production because the story starts to suck, and rework it.
The Dark Knight's basic premise is that a deliciously creepy character named "The Joker" wants to kill Batman so that he can get a huge piece of a mobster-group's money. Sounds good, but the story starts sprouting uncontrollably with little plots here and there which the film tiresomely follows to all their useless ends.
The action sequences are totally over the top, way out of step with Batman Begins. In Batman Begins, much of the action, or physics, is somewhat believable yet far-fetched. In The Dark Knight, it is science fiction.
Does anyone die in this film? There are lots of gunshots and beatings, but nobody seems to die. People seem to die then come back from the dead. People are implied dead, then we see them again later. When one character does die late in the film, there were so many others who became "undead" that I seriously expected to see them again later. It was farcical.
Maggie Gyllenhaal is TOTALLY miscast as Gotham's District Attorney. In Batman Begins, Katie Holmes was the D.A. and was MUCH more believable. Gyllenhaal, on the other hand, has the softness and sweetness of Katie Couric, and I don't believe her at all especially in the painful moments she tries to stand tough against crime.
Heath Ledger was good as The Joker, however, he did not achieve the depth of character that Jack Nicholson does in the original. Ledger seems to be a "one-note-wonder". Creepy, yes. Very creepy and dark, but on a shallow level. I think that more than anything the poor editing of the film is to blame for that.
The film has some positive sides. Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman are all excellent in their roles.
Cillian Murphy makes a brief appearance as Scarecrow (who knows why). While he is a good villain, his character makes a humorous comment about diagnosing Batman after he is caught in a drug bust which seems totally out of character for him.
The film goes on, tiresomely, with more characters, more villains, more action. Like an oil spill gone amok, The Dark Knight seemingly has no end.
I Am Legend (2007)
Yes I like Will Smith..Independence Day and Men in Black were excellent films.
What a WASTE of time "I Am Legend" is.
From the rubbery, silicone-looking "infected" people to the pointless ending, the movie was a profound disappointment.
First of all, we have seen this, done MUCH better, in 28 Days Later. Well, except for the part when they get to the army base in 28 Days Later.
My guess is, if you liked the film War Of the Worlds, and did not find it to be a vapid piece of science fiction trash with no point you might like I Am Legend.
If, however, you enjoy strong science fiction and a good script, and think that special effects should be used with some reasoning behind them (say like in The Matrix), you probably won't like this film.
Lame screenplay, lame special effects. The infected looked like they were rubber balls bouncing around. Is it any wonder that animatronics is still going strong?
Here's the plot:
A military virologist is about the only one left alive in NYC. He tries to develop a cure while staying alive. He drives, runs, and keeps running, and runs some more, and drives, to stay alive.
That's it. Very "War Of the Worlds"-like (as pointless).
The ONLY good thing about this movie was his dog, "Sam".
Deep Impact (1998)
Thinking person's film
I like this film. It came out the same time as Armageddon, and at that time Armageddon seemed like a more entertaining film. However, Deep Impact withstands the test of time. I definitely did not appreciate Deep Impact as much when it came out as I did later.
Deep Impact is a thinking person's film. I am tempted to say it's a "thinkpiece" but that seems so pretentious.
The film sincerely explores the possibility that humanity might be wiped out by an Extinction Level Event (ELE) -- a comet named after a young man played by Elijah Wood who spots it at an astronomy club event.
The pacing of the film is excellent. Upon announcement, there is a one-year timeframe before the comet is predicted to hit Earth, which is much more realistic than the couple-week asteroid doomsday deadline of Armageddon. The science in Deep Impact is much saner than Armageddon which is utterly ridiculous in its science fiction.
The best parts of the film are the explorations of how the comet affects the people on Earth. With excellent music, the film goes deep into many peoples lives and shows us how such an event would affect anyone.
I think the film spends a little too much time on the Messiah space mission. It was well done, that's for sure. But Deep Impact took a completely different route than Armageddon, and I think they should have stayed on Earth even more. That's what the film does best.
Excellent film, way underrated.
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
More of the same and as bad as the TV show
The Simpsons Movie..after waiting for the particularly-restrictive non-forwardable FBI warnings, and the cutesy animations, I finally got to watch the movie.
Unfortunately, the movie is just as bad as the TV series, post 1998/1999, when the Simpsons resorted to physical slapstick humor and lost its edge.
Gone are the cunning, razor-sharp scripts that Simpsons had in the olden days of the 1990s. What remains is humor that has been dulled down to a blunt instrument, and a lot more lame physical comedy.
Is the Simpsons movie any different than the TV show? I could only watch about 20 minutes of it before deciding it sucked as bad as the latest TV show and returned the DVD.
I love the earlier Simpsons, up until about 1998 or so. After that, they lost their edge. The movie is an extended, sad commentary on the decline of one of the best cartoons of all time.
12 years later, I can still watch this film and be immersed in the cinematography, plot, acting, music, urban landscape, everything. I like everything about this film. From the opening to the somber ending, Heat is a masterpiece.
The casting seems rare. There are only fine actors in the film, and no extraneous token actors thankfully. Incredible work, the likes of which Hollywood has not seen before or after (in my opinion).
From a cinematic perspective, Heat is astounding. The scene with Eady and Neil overlooking LA at night sets up their relationship beautifully. Later they are atop the hill overlooking some mountains in the dawn, pink sky. Michael Mann has a wonderful command of complex, deep relationships in fleetingly beautiful perspectives.
One of the best films of all time.
disaster - 3 minutes are good, that's it
This show is a complete disaster. I was looking for a show full of his stuff on Jay Leno, but only about 3 minutes is that. The rest is a fictional / real like show like Curb Your Enthusiasm but not as funny. They somehow figure a way to comingle a few minutes of his hidden howie stuff. Usually he's trying to sell a Hollywood producer his show, and they watch a minute or so. Sometimes a few seconds.
Bottom line, this is NOT Hidden Howie, it's a sitcom with a couple of minutes of hidden stuff.
In one of the scenes, his teacher is mad because Howie's son brought in a video of a guy going to a coffeeshop in just a shirt and shoes, nothing else. That lasted about 10 seconds, and was a hidden howie moment, what we have seen on Jay Leno.
In another scene, Howie is obnoxiously talking on his cell phone right next to a guy on a payphone, and that scene is truly funny.
Howie Mandel is a master of the hidden camera, I love his Jay Leno routine and was excited to see this show come on the air. After watching about 10 minutes of the first episode, I was very disappointed to see the show is only about 10% hidden howie, the rest is just filler.
What a pathetic mess.
the cinematography is the best part of the film
sorry Michael Mann. I loved Heat beyond words and still think it's one of the 3 best films in motion picture history.
Collateral is basically about an unbelievable character (played by Tom Cruise whose acting abilities are in dire need of help) who, for some reason out of the blue, hijacks a cabbie and makes him drive around Los Angeles.
That's about it. Just as I was about to turn it off, because it was going nowhere, the movie devolved into some story involving some predictable thugs who had some part in the film.
Basically it turns out that Cruise really is some badass who forms some kind of "bond" with Foxx. Problem is, Cruise is not scary. In the scenes when he is trying to be bad, I laughed.
Anyway I'm not gonna waste any more time on how bad this film is.
I will say the cinematography is the best part of the film. The urban landscape is spectacular, rivaling and sometimes beating Heat.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Science Fiction LITE
Steven Spielberg just doesn't know how to make a science fiction film.
When the film began I thought it had all of the trimmings of a good science fiction film. Fascinating premise, good special effects and strong tension. Good action. About 7/8 of the way through the film I was waiting for the payoff but there was none.
The film is an interesting diversion from the day. It starts out exciting as hell and then goes flat in a big way. The end of the film is spectacularly unexciting. The movie has a great setup. Aliens invade earth and start destroying everything in sight. Humans run around getting killed. The film spend 90% of the time showing us this (way too long).
Tom Cruise plays, let's see, like his character in All The Right Moves, except the backdrop is different. There is minimal depth to his performance.
If you want to see a film that does it right, see Independence Day. By FAR a superior film.
The Corporation (2003)
By the end of the 2nd hour I got the point!
Interesting movie, but WAY TOO LONG!
The Corporation is an important movie and has a lot to say. Problem is, the pace of the movie is monotonous. The movie is simply point after point of how bad corporations are. "Hey everybody, here is a bad example of how bad corporations are. Here's another. Here's another, here's another, AD NAUSEUM.
I got the point!
Despite the fact that I was snoozing into the film's 3rd hour, it mentions important topics that I did not know, such as how insidious Monsanto's BGH is. I was shocked to learn that Bechtel owns water rights in Bolivia and doesn't allow citizens to capture rainwater. They must BUY it.
There are some interesting interviews too, with the likes of Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Milton Friedman.
Important movie, but WAY TOO LONG and repetitive.