Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
This cartoon special is one big turkey! Running around with it's head off.
When you sit down at your dinner table on Thanksgiving Day, and says thanks, don't thank the person that cook the food, don't thank the people that got the food, and don't even thank God for allowing you to live one more year. No, remember to thank a squirrel for making this all possible! At less, that is what the 1972 made-for-television animated special, 'The Thanksgiving that almost wasn't' was trying to tell us. Directed & produced by William Hanna & Joseph Barbera, the special tells a fictionalized telling of the first Thanksgiving celebration in America in which a talking squirrel, Jeremy Squirrel (Voiced by Hal Smith) must save the holiday, when young Pilgrim boy, Johnny Cooke & a young Native American boy, Little Bear go missing in the woods. He goes on a daring mission to rescue the stupidest kids ever. They say they are the greatest hunters ever, but they have no clue, how to survive in the forest. How did these children, ever made it through the winter? Anyways, how are these animals cool about helping out these kids, anyways? They spent most of the time, with the animals acting like they are hunting them. Don't they know that, they are going to kill them? Why is Jeremy so against the Native Americans and Pilgrims fighting against each other? Wouldn't he be more OK, with that? Seem better for Jeremy, if they are killing each other, rarely than him! It's funny, how the Native Americans and the Pilgrims are cool with a talking squirrel. It doesn't surprise, nobody. They should be capturing Jeremy and testing him on how he able to talk by now. If not, the pilgrims and Native Americans should be eating him by now, and wearing his fur coat to keep cool. It's also weird in a way, that Jeremy choose to speak English to the children, yet to the adults, he talks like a random squirrel. He's been speaking plain English this whole time and all of a sudden he's squeaking and chitterling like a squirrel when it matters the most. WTF!? It's get even more puzzling, when the adults know what's he's talking about and choose to follow the squirrel to their children. Did they all go to Emperor New Groove Kronk's school of learning squirrel language? It doesn't make any sense. Another thing about this special, is the lack of historical accurate. Yes, it's more historical accuracy than a lot of other specials, but to believe that the Indians are just outright willing to teach the Pilgrims, how to grow crops seem like a understatement. It's not like guns play a factor in why the Native Americans help the Pilgrims. It's also untruth, that this is the first thanksgiving. American holiday's true origin was the New England Calvinist Thanksgiving. For a film, called the Thanksgiving that almost wasn't, it could had done better, with its story. The film plot is a bit nothing. You would think the movie would have more conflict. Have the Native Americans mistrusted the Pilgrims, and the Pilgrims mistrusted the Indians for thinking, they kidnap their kids, and they have both groups work together to find their kids. Sadly, the movie doesn't do that. They already mostly trust each other, and so willing to talk the advice of a talking squirrel. It was disappointing. A lot of people might get confused with the film due to the fact that a novel share the same name. It's isn't an adapted of the novel, The Thanksgiving That Almost Wasn't. So don't bother. The animation is already for the time, but they were pretty cheap. They reused a lot of animation shots throughout the special. It's seem like a lot of sound and background music was taken and recycled from old Scooby Doo's episodes. The dialogue in this special is awful. The voice actors sound like they're just reading it, without giving much emotional. They were just descripting what is going to happen. It wasn't needed. Aside from the nostalgia, I think the best thing about the special is the music. Too bad, the movie overplays some of the music, way too much. The opening song is use throughout the video. Don't get me wrong, it's pretty catchy. I love the Thurl Ravenscroft vocalizing with the moonshine jug, thud-puckin' theme. "Cornbread, pie and biscuits risin', mmm that smell is tantalizin'. I can't get that voice out of my head. Still, the music getting over played get really annoying. The TV Special isn't that hard to find. In recent years, it has been aired on the cable channel Boomerang or Cartoon Network during the Thanksgiving season. You can also find it on Youtube. If you do find the DVD. Look for the one that comes with "Casper's Halloween Special" as a double feature. The DVD transfers is very good. Colors are generally decent with a few expected levels of grain and minor screen anomalies, like dirt and scratches. The audio track is good, with a few slight hissing. Sadly, it doesn't have subtitles or closed-captions available, though. Overall: This being from 1972, before political correctness had seeped out of the universities to infect and destroy most national pop culture. It's alright in its tone. It's no way, deserve any Anti-Thanksgiving hatred. It's a family friendly film that was pretty OK at the time. Check it out if you feeling nostalgia or need something to watch after the feast. So happy Thanksgiving, everybody. Dinner now, then the football game, and then it's off to bed for the early Black Friday sale.
Cujo will take a bite out of you! It's a pretty scary film.
I don't know, what some critics were thinking when saying Cujo is not as menacing or frightening as other film adaptations of author Stephen King's popular stories. It's pretty damn scary! It's a better film than films like 1983's Christine & 1986's Maximum Overdrive, combined. Director Lewis Teague did unleashed a semi good horror movie into the screen and it's a bit overlooked. It had some bite with its bark. I remember seeing this film when I was a kid, and being very afraid of the huge St. Bernard. It was like if the dog, Beethoven got rabid. It's a scary thought of a family pet turning against the owners. Unlike the other horrors novels, that go deep into the supernatural and fantasy genre. This film, portrays something that could honestly happen. Based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, the movie tells the story of a mother, Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace) whom wants to get her car fixed, only to find herself with her son, Tad (Danny Pintauro) trapped in a car, when the neighborhood friendly family dog, Cujo becomes crazed and started killing people after being bitten by a rabid bat. I think, some people give this movie a bad rating, due to that reason, that it's feeding into the hype that certain dog breeds are dangerous. Yes, it's a bit prejudice and ignorance to think of all St. Bernard are evil, but to claim that the movie is too far fetch to be taken serious is an understatement. There has numeral cases of dogs turning against their owners. Yes, abuse, hunger and poor breeding play most of the factors to those accidents happening, but ruthless behaviors coming from normal well-kept dogs, do happen as well. Dogs do bite and dogs could kill you if they wanted to. They are indeed animals, no matter how tame they can seem. You do have to suspense disbelief, somewhat because the movie makes Cujo look something out like a monster. It's like 1993's Sandlot, in the humorous ways, they make Cujo look more than a normal dog through means like puppetry, forced perspective and a guy in dog costume. Still, some shots were pretty good, like the JAWS like animal point of view shots and how they show that loud sounds hurt Cujo. The movie does show how rabies does in fact lead to behavior changes in animals, but a rabid dog would either be hyperactive or lethargic, not super-crazed. This is a lethal disease that would cause the dog to be weaker and weaker, by the time, the Trenton family comes into play. A rabid dog is more likely to attack humans when prone, but it's normally it is too weak to be, even that vicious. It wouldn't have the strength to kill multiple people. Most rabid dogs would not be a killer like Cujo. Still, there's always going to be a slim chance that your dog will turn on you. But the odds of this are so astronomical that to be honest, I would not worry about it. It rarely happen. This movie shouldn't stop people, from buying St. Bernard. Most of them, are truly friendly. It was genuine problem in the making of the film because they simply could not get the St. Bernard to act aggressively. They had to replace him with a cunningly disguised Rottweiler for several crucial scenes, and tape his tail to his leg so he didn't wag it constantly. Large breed dogs like St. Bernard perfectly stable if purchased from a reputable breeder or pound. As long as you meet the requirements of taking care of the breed, this movie shouldn't stop you from buying dogs like that. One thing that I love about the film, is the sense of Man Vs Nature. Thank God, Stephen King didn't add the supernatural into it. The original novel was supposed to be a sequel of sorts following Stephen King 1983's The Dead Zone, in which a previous dead serial killer character, kind of bogeyman, supposedly haunted Tad and possessed Cujo to kill him. I just glad, it never came about, in the film version. I do like how Cujo stakes his prey, as if a Lion or a wolf, waiting for the right moment to attack. You really get the race against time, as conditions inside the car, become more and more unbearable, as heatstroke and dehydration, starts to kick in. The only thing, I kinda hate about the film is how annoying, the child is. The way, he's scream is ear-bleeding. It's super loud. It's doesn't help that the kid is nearly ten year old, yet, he acts like a useless toddler. How lame! He could do more, to help his mother. He was just a burden to watch. He's way too sensitive. I just wish, the movie had the same ending for the kid as the novel. One thing, I didn't like is the sub-plot that the novel had, about Donna cheating on her husband. It never added much to the story. The movie also brings it in, to help push the story, on why the police couldn't find, Donna and the kids, but the movie doesn't give us a conclusion on what happen to the Trenton's marriage. It ends with a cliffhanger note. The same, goes with the Camber family. They go away, for plot reasons, so Donna and the kids can be stuck with the dog, most of the film, but still, you would have thought, they would be used for the big climax, but no, they don't return. The movie would have, more depth, if Bret (Billy Jayne) was the one that had to take his own dog down. It would have been a great Old Yeller type of an ending. Sadly, it never came. Overall: It's a dog eat dog world out there and Cujo indeed deserve another look. Like me, you're be really surprise, how good, it was.
Dio non paga il sabato (1967)
Movie had a wicked start, but it kinda killed itself toward the end.
This movie made me absolutely livid, because this film honestly could had been one of the better Spaghetti Western films, I have ever saw; but instead, it plays out, really effervescence. 'Kill the Wicked' tells the story of a Good Samaritan drifter, Benny Hudson (Larry Ward) and a stranded woman, Jenny Matterson (Daniela Igliozzi), whom finds themselves being torture; when they accidentally walk into an gang's hideout in a ghost town. The ghost town backdrop gives the film, it's eerily unsettling creepy atmosphere, but the characters rarely act upon it. You never see them, show any fears of the place, they were staying at. The film could had use that as a psychology tool, showing the breakdown of the group, showing the complications and mistrust weaving its way into their plan. It could had play more of a paranoia factor cause by their lust of the gold. The movie doesn't capitalize on that, as it should have; because of this, the audience is left, wanting something really intense that never truly appear in the film. For the most part, the pacing is pretty bad. All the good action is in the beginning, as the movie continue to dull and hold off from the drama, until a badly deliver climax. Today, the psychedelic visuals are pretty dated. The haunted abandoned hotel looks like a cheesy left-over set from a Hammer Film Production. It was indeed low-budget. Director Tanio Boccia was sometimes called the Italian Roger Corman, because of his ability to make movies in no time, with hardly any money. The main lead, Larry Ward is a veteran American television actor, best known today for voicing the Jabba the Hutt character in 1983's Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. He was OK in the film, but his character is badly written. The movie tries to put a lot of religious metaphors with Hudson. He's a lame Jesus Christ archetype, character whom a drifter whom ride on a white horse, help people, only to get wipe, and tied down on a cross like tree. You see him get torture time after time, without much attempt to fight back. It got so lame in the action; that an animal and old lady had to do most of the work to save him. Once, he does, pick up a gun, he's does little to nothing, and let's most of the bad guys killed each other. He has little to no personality to claim for, and the movie kinda knows that, so they focus, most of time, getting to know the bad guys. The bad guys are well played. Men Fury AKA Furio Meniconi was great as the lead bad guy, Braddock. You really can't help, hating the guy. Massimo Righi AKA Max Dean plays the lunatic, a little bit over the top; that it's not convincing. He's probably the most familiar face to spaghetti western fans. Despite, getting second billing, Rod Dana AKA Robert Marks is barely in the film as Randall. His character really comes out of nowhere, just to make sure, the nearly pacifist hero, Hudson doesn't killed any of the bad guys toward the end. It's such a disappointment. One of the biggest drawn in the film is the erotica nature that comes from main vixen, Shelley (María Silva), who loves to sleep around to get closer to the gold. Maria is very attractive, indeed. Her near nude scenes were pretty sexy. Still, her character lacks anything else, besides a Femme fatale that is there to look pretty, and have catfight with All-American girl, Jenny. I like how the filmmakers put random shot of Jenny dropping a Bible is added in. We get it! The Ghost town is serving here as the catholic limbo, the flames of the final scene representing hellfire. The original title, 'God doesn't pay on Saturday' is an Italian saying, referring to the old custom of paying wages on Saturday night. The idea behind it is that God is not committed to any earthly habit, but will sooner or later pass his judgment on all mortal souls. It's nice that they add religious overtones to the story; but they need to be craftier on it. Screenwriter Mino Roli would later, try to do this, by retelling the same story a few years later with producer/director Cesare Canevari in the 1970 film 'Mátalo!' with mixed results. The movie has one of the coolest opening credits to any Spaghetti Western film, with colorful animation sequence with title song about the price of gold. The song by Angelo Francesco Lavagnino & Gordon Scott is pretty catchy. Sung by Roberto Matano, the song seems more like a 1960s James Bond opening theme song, than a western theme. One of the biggest problems with the music is that the movie is overplayed, way too much, that it gets annoying. Other music throughout the film wonderfully enhances the atmosphere and action. The English dubbing isn't that, bad. It's a bit off, but not off-putting. Still, it was a bit weird that the English version left the production credits still stuck in the original Italian lettering. The movie is presented in an uncut version which I did watch. The picture is sharp, vivid and almost without much scratches. It was a decent transfer. Some versions of this film under the Wild East Distributors has this film as a double billing feature with the movie 1966's Kill or Be Killed, also directed by Tanio Boccia. Overall: It's a very uneven very amateurish little film. I can't recommended this film for Spaghetti Western fans. Watch 1970 film 'Mátalo!' instead.
Interstellar was indeed pretty stellar.
Interstellar will divide the audience. Some of them will love and enjoy this movie, while others will see it as a boring film and feel the long 3 movie pace. Interstellar is no way, a popcorn fun film. It's a smart man film. It's remind me, so much of 1968's 2001: A Space Odessey, both in visuals and how people reaction to it. Both films, receive mixed reactions from critics and audiences alike. I think like 2001: A Space Odyssey, this movie, Interstellar will garnered a cult following and slowly became a bigger box office hit, but right now, it's up in the air. While, the movie seem to taking a lot of homage to that film, Interstellar seem grounded by the director own identification. It's a film that couldn't blast away, even if a lot of determination went into making this film. The reason is, because people have become so aware of what Director & Writer Christopher Nolan will do. Without spoiling it, too much, the movie has a lot of overused Nolanism tropes & clichés. This means a lot of exposition dialogue with characters explain through dialogue their innermost feelings, instead of, acting those emotions out. Add the elaborate, flashback-heavy narrative structure, and lots of science mucho jumbo, and you get a film that will confused people. Some people think, it is a fallacy, but in my opinion, it's not inherently bad. They're alright in the right doses. People need to be challenge in films. People need to think. If you're so caught up on Nolanisms, you'll never let yourself enjoy the film, as a whole. I think some people just didn't get it. I don't blame them, I love the film, but parts of the film are indeed slow pace, and hard to understand. Even with a love for Quantum physics, space travel and psychology before this film, I had a hard time following what's going on. Like 2001 Space Odyssey, this movie lacks the broad appeal to an audience whom unaware for a need of such deep intelligent research. Maybe, it was a bit overreaching in its direction; as the film feels less a film, a more of a science lecture. You really have to tune in; to get, most of it. The trailers were no help, coming in. The film is about a team of astronauts whom travel through a wormhole in an attempt to find a potentially habitable planet that will sustain humanity, because Earth cannot longer manage life. I found a lot of things jarring in the film, like example, how they use a Saturn like rocket to escape out of Earth's astrosphere, but later on the film, they're able to leave, most planet's upper astrosphere with ease with their little spacecraft. A major error that I have spotted is the matter of the planets where gravitational forces cause such extreme time dilation that an hour on that planet equals seven years for us on Earth. Technically, yes, it's a possible, but the gravitational forces necessary to bring this about, would be so extreme that no planet, let alone people, would survive such gravity pull. Why couldn't they go to Saturn's moons? After all, scientists have pointed out that Saturn's moon Titan possesses an abundance of all the elements necessary to support life. Save you the time, and effect. I know, everyone on Earth has infinite resources, despite large blight dust-clouds, but come on! The movie felt like two movies, mixed together. I think the first half of the film movie is very Sci-fiction, with the second half of the film after the wormhole, a bit Sci-fantasy, because how much, it lacks true science. Even if we can make a wormhole, the equations show that they're unstable and they would collapse upon you if you tried to go through. So, that's where the science fiction comes in. Kip Thorne put an amazing amount of research into the film, but the film does have some moments that you might have to suspend your disbelief in. I'm glad, the second half is that way, because it got really boring in the first half of the film. Way too much talking into the first part of the film. Most of the action and tense moments, play out in the second part. One of the biggest fears in the film is Einstein's special theory of relativity. I think the problem of relativity, played very well in the film as characters are afraid of wasting time. Matthew McConaughey as Cooper, the former NASA test pilot-turned-farmer is a great role for him. I love the tense relationship with him, and his daughter, Murph played by Mackenzie Foy (Age 11) & Jessica Chastain (Age 37). You really see the pain that Cooper goes through, when he sees his children, growing up fast in front of him. While the ending is very clunky, it was very emotionally and physically draining to watch. Indeed, Matthew could act. He was the anchor that kept the story, grounded. Still, it was bit a stretch, at times, hard to believe, that his character spend most of his later life, farming, but still able to be an accurate ace pilot who can play a spacecraft through black holes, and dock on spinning out of control space station. Jessica Chastain is great in the secondary role. Anne Hathaway, while overacting in her role as Brand, Coop's co-explorer; was mostly alright, despite her character, doing a lot of stupid selfish things. The rest of the supporting cast were pretty good with their parts. I do love the smart ass robots. I thought the visuals were amazing. Must watch on IMAX. I thought the music by Han Zimmer was absolutely beautiful and really made the dramatic scenes including the end scene with the twist all the more engaging. Still, it was overbearing, and the sound mixer were pretty bad as I couldn't hear the dialogue, when the music is playing. Overall: Despite its faults, it's a good movie.
It's time to look into the spirit of the age and to find out if it's a good think or not.
While it's full of conspiracy thinkers, it's better to listen and take in what they're saying rather than keeping yourself out in the dark. You don't have to agree with what they are saying, but at less give yourself an open mind when watching this film. The more you know, the better. Having watch, both right wing and left wing documentaries, these movies does have more standards of journalistic integrity than the others. Directed by Peter Joseph, the Zeitgeist documentary style films (2007's Zeitgeist the Movie, 2008's Zeitgeist: Addendum & 2011's Zeitgeist: Moving Forward) are all pretty well-made films, that does give light into a lot of things that hasn't been talk about, much. Most of things talk about in the films, I found interesting and agree often on, but sadly, the first film is in the series, is by far, the weakest one of them, all. It felt too out there to be taken serious. It's also badly put-together. Zeitgeist: The Movie is split into 3 parts with showcase how Western Civilization is control. The first part talks about how the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the Bahá'í Faith) control people, using Christianity as an example. Yes, historic, it's true that many of the modern day religions do hold some control over people, but it has little differents if paganism or an atheism society came into control. In such a society, control would still be manual for society to exist. Is giving control to a higher power, a bad thing? Not always. Having faith in something doesn't make it, all bad. Without it, we wouldn't have the wonders of cultures. Does civilization need to more from religion like beliefs to a science like belief to achieve greater means? It's really up in air. About Christian religion specifically is mainly derived from other religions, astronomical assertions, astrological myths and traditions. Yes, part of the Jesus myth does, but it also derived to those events that Jesus went through. Peter Joseph forget to mention that. Indeed, there were some historical proves that Jesus might have live. Is he a deity? That's for another debate. However, some of the parts that director Peter Joseph bring up is either distorted, out of context, or completely made up. Some of his sources are also either non-existent or heavily biased. Still, this sequence was pretty alright. The next sequence is the one that really bogged me down. The movie lost so much credit, when it talks about the 9/11 attacks in 2001. It states that it was orchestrated by the US government in order to generate mass fear, initiate and justify the War on Terror, provide a pretext for the curtailment of civil liberties, and produce economic gain. Let me break this illusion, down. This film has no credible information because the film didn't add anything new to already well-spoken conspiracy theories that been surrounding 9/11 since that day. It didn't go to Washington D.C, Pittsburgh, or New York crash sites to search for clues, and it damn didn't go to Afghanistan. Let's note that this film is created in 2007, so it's a bit outdated. There are a lot of documentaries that came after this, that pretty much show that there is no way, the US government could had done an attack like that. It would first be costly. Let's remember the years after 2001 had an economic bust than a boom. Second off, war isn't as profitable as it was in the old days due to technology grown in the private fields. Third, if the government did do it, do you really think that all those people would cover up a horrible act for so long? NOsomebody will come out. I do think there are honestly some good people in the government. I don't think our government planned 9/11, but perhaps they knew, some information of the terrorist attack ahead and couldn't stop it happening. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying trust your government! I might be against the idea that the government did 9/11, but no way, believe everything they say. I do know about the government covering up events in the past before, such as the 1964's Gulf of Tonkin incident, the whole Operation Northwoods, the whole pre-knowing of Pearl Harbor, and even the Remember the Maine incident. The film asserts that such wars serve to sustain conflict in general and force the U.S. government to borrow money, thereby increasing the profits of the international bankers. I do think the banks do have too much power, and need to be review badly. Still, if an secretive power elite like the Rothschild's family had a globalist agenda conspiring to eventually rule the world, then why do the Rothschild wealth have subsequently declined. They lose more money than gain. That's why I don't think all bankers are evil like the film says. Even, if the banks have control, why are we able to watch film like this? It would be total George Orwell's 1984 state by now. While, I'm not against Globalization, and capitalism, I don't think it's as evil as the documentary state it is. We do enjoy some freedoms under a capitalism system. I'm not the biggest fan of it, or socialism, personally. I do have to believe that some kind of order is better world than total chaos like the film wish to have. Capitalism is no different than religion. It works because people believe it works. If the people in charge didn't believe in it, it would quickly show its flaws and fall apart. At some point I dream people can abolish the monetary system completely, instead use automatic systems which would monitor all the useable resources on the planet like the Venus Project, but it will take years of economic evolution for such ideas to be successful. With that, go see these films. Can we believe in absolutely everything that these films say? Obviously not. But it's worth looking at and do your own research.
I'm pretty hooked on watching this movie. It's alright.
When Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman) kidnaps his children, an adult Peter Pan (Robin Williams) must return to Neverland and reclaim his youthful spirit in order to save his children & challenge his old enemy. Hook, line, and tinker. Some people might not think its Barrie good: but I think it's alright for a children film. Directed by Steven Spielberg, the movie ask the question, most people never thought before; what if Peter Pan grew up? This movie look like a sequel to the Disney's 1953 animated movie version of the novel J.M Barrie's 1911 novel Peter and Wendy. Still, it has some of the mature elements of the original novel, which was more geared toward adults than children. It digs deep into the psychological of Puer aeternus AKA Pan syndrome. Like Wendy in the original novel, the modern day, Peter Pan learns the bad side of never growing up, when he learn that due to his neglect, his relationship with both Wendy and Tinker Bell went soured. He was never able to witness the joys of adulthood. When he does choose to grow up, his quest for success, often came with the price of his family feeling neglected. It's nice to see the one-dimensional Peter Pan, have a character arch, here. The movie tells why it's so important, to grow up, but not too fast that you lose your inner child. The collision between responsibility and eternal boyhood is a great conflict. Not surprisingly, those portions of the film that involve Peter Banning and his family are considered the most genuine heart-felt and emotional affecting aspects of Hook. You really felt for him, when Captain Hook brainwash his child, in thinking that he can be a better father than Peter Pan. I love the clock breaking scene. The troubled relationship between Peter and his son echoed Spielberg's relationship with his father and you see it in this film. Robin Williams is great in the lead role. You would never think of him, as a Peter Pan character, but he tries his hardest to look and play the part. I just really glad, they never gave the role to pop singer, Michael Jackson, a over obsessed fan, because he doesn't have the acting range that can show that conflict. He never truly understood the reasons of growing up. Jackson was disappointed that he wasn't able to play the role on screen that supposedly he tried to put a voodoo curse on Spielberg. Talk about somebody needs to grow up. Another great memorable performance is that of Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook in one of his best performances, ever. He has the right balance of villainous. Even supporting characters like Dante Basco as Rufio, Bob Hoskins as Smee & Maggie Smith as Wendy were amazing in the roles. Julia Roberts as Tinker Hell is questionable. She has that sweetheart look, but lacks the jealous and deceiving nature of Tinker Bell of the original novel. She was hard to work with. It's weird to see cameos like Phil Collins, Gwyneth Paltrow, Glenn Close, David Crosby, George Lucas, and Carrie Fischer, but it didn't hurt the film. While Hook look pretty epic, Hook was shot almost entirely on sound stages rather than real life locations. It gave that felt of the early 1930s fantasy Golden Age of Pirates movies. The set designs were pretty good, despite it looking kinda unrealistic and cheap. I love the whole Pirate ship set. It's a bit weird, that Tinker Bell drop Peter Pan off here in the beginning of the film than the Lost Boys tree. It's like dropping off, a deer in a wolves den. I guess, she was indeed deceiving. I like, how Hook can't find the Lost Boys hideout, despite its being clear, that it's the tree, anyways. There were so misguide attempts to get 1990s children, watching this film. I found it a bit weird, for the majority of the Lost Boys act like children of the 1990s, than turn of the Century children. I didn't know, the 1900s had Basketball, Mohawk hairstyles and skate boards. I kinda wish that Michael and John from the original book made an appearance, but it does makes sense why they weren't there. The action is a hit and a miss. I know, it's a children movie, but why is the Lost Boys fighting the Pirates in such non-lethal ways with Eggs and pies? Children do die here, yet they're fighting them as if it's a fantasy kid friendly Home Alone corny style action. Despite that, the sword fights, the movie does have, are pretty good. The music is another good, about the film. John Williams's music is beautiful to listen to. The movie does have some stupid over the top whimsical music clichés moments like a child singing badly in the moonlight. She's no American Tail, Tanya. The movie does other stupid moments like the imagination food scene. Yes, children, rather than search for food, just imagine food, so you don't starve. Some stupid plot-holes things are hard to overlook like how a baby grown up to be 12 years old in Neverland despite the place, being a place, where nobody grows old. It's also seem odd, that the Pirates knows everything about Peter Pan's life after he left Neverland, but still shock to see him as an adult. I guess, there were a lot of foreshadowing; since there were lots of Hook symbolism. I like how the voice of the plane captain in the beginning was indeed Dustin Hoffman, and the trash sweeper in the end, could be Smee. Its Easter eggs like this that make it, a good re-watch value. Overall: People either love or hate this movie. Personally, I love it. I will say it, it was a great nostalgia family film that could need a little bit more work. Compare to other live action sequels to animated movies. It's a lot better than them. If you haven't seen it, check it out. Bangarang!
This movie is so overlooked. Another look could heal this fracture.
This movie is a hidden gem of court room crime drama mystery/thriller/suspense. Directed by Gregory Hoblit of 1996's Primal Fear and written by Daniel Pyne, this movie was one of the sleeper hits of 2007. It's really need to be awoken, again for new fans to see. The movie tells the story of a meticulous wealthy and talented Irish aeronautical engineer, Theodore "Ted" Crawford (Anthony Hopkins), whom is accused of attempted murder on his wife, Jennifer (Embeth Davidtz) for having an affair. A young district attorney, William "Willy" Beachum (Ryan Gosling), believes the trial is going to an open-and-shut case, due to the overwhelming evidence and agrees to go to trial immediately, without much research. Beachum is much too busy, making preparations for his transition from criminal law to corporate attorney for Wooton & Simms, a well-known law firm, and having a romantic relationship with his future boss, Nikki Gardner (Rosamund Pike). When the day of the trial come thru, the young assistant district attorney find every evidences, backfiring on him, as he gets locked in a battle of wits with the crafty opponent, Crawford. Can William find a way to win or will Crawford get away with murder? Watch it to find out! Without spoiling too much, the movie story is packed with twists and turns that weave in and out of the courtroom as the pair try to outwit each other. A lot of things, do kinda spoil the movie. One thing to avoid is the trailer. As the movie trailer, pretty much, give you very clear clues on what's going to happen. There is a good debate, between 'Fracture' fans if any of the events really state out in real court. The ending of the film is a good example of such; do to the fact; that many question, if it's logical. Makes you wonder if the act of pulling the plug constitutes murder or is this truly legally permissible? Does that make the hospital staff accessories to murder? Also, does it work or not work in a Double Jeopardy Clause? If I remember, if you're acquitted of one, it applies to the other as well. It's really up to question. Even well trained lawyers have a hard time, answering this question. One thing, I do know, is the ending was absolutely ingenious and perfect. The end was hinted at throughout the movie, about how there's a crack in everyone and everyone makes mistakes. Hopkins is great as the main villain. He evokes the same dark area that his 1991's Silence of the Lambs counterpart character, Hannibal Lector, lives for this role. While, Crawford isn't as vicious as Lector, he does have that creepy factor put in. Still, the Irish accent is a bit, too much. Anthony Hopkins keep slipping in an out of an Irish accent during this film. Ryan Gosling is good in the role as the young lead, but it's really hard to believe that he's a hot shot lawyer with such a baby face. I think the film would have work better, with a more mature looking male lead like Matthew Mcconaughey. He's a bit too young looking for somebody who went to law school. Still, Ryan Gosling hold up against Anthony, and his intonation level of his voice makes it worth, rooting for him when things go wrong for him like evidence being inadmissable in court as fruit of the poisonous tree since it was obtained under duress. You really see him, taking up the challenge to find a way to prove Crawford's guilt. After all, there is nearly nobody else, worth rooting for, as the other characters are pretty unlikeable. One thing, the movie could do without is the unnecessary romance between Nikki and Willy. It felt forced and wasn't needed. It felt like filler. The movie was beautiful shot with constricting camera angles. The opening shot was great in foreshadowing the film. You see both Crawford hubristic confidence and his ability to quickly identify weaknesses. The Rolling Ball sculpture, represented the story so well; symbolic of the numerous complicated and crafty plot twists that Crawford has create. You find overall, that the movie is like the six foot high rolling ball sculpture. Crawford is the one that put the ball into motion, slowly rolling, it might be boring at first, but after a few minutes gathering momentum, the film is delighting as it twist and turns to its final stop at the bottom. You can't help feeling amazed, on well build, it was.
Into the Storm (2014)
Like a tornado, this movie sucks.
This movie deserves to be destroy. Honestly, it does! Try to survive watching this movie. It's a really hard sit, because all logic has gone with the wind. It's a really stupid movie. All, the audience have left to look forward to, is hope; hoping that these idiotic characters meet their end, because of the dumbass things, they do, such as paparazzing the tornadoes. Most of the action is shot in first-person video. Everyone has a camera in this movie, from the storm chasers scientists to the unwitting suburban family to the MTV's type Jackasses rednecks. This results in a jarring movie confused if it should be a home movie or a cinematography film. You really can't tell, what's the movie direction is. The trailer gives no indication that the film is shot in hand-held camera style. The opening to the film, looks like something out of an horror found footage film with shaky cam that will make you dizzy, and confused. It's has little to no purpose, being there. Then the film cuts to what looks like a documentary about school graduation that makes you wonder if you're indeed watching a Tornado film. 20 minutes in, you still waiting for the Twisters, as the film filler it-self with Youtube stunt gone bad. The first half of the movie is just people walking around with camera filming crap that has nothing to do with storms. It's also funny to see that everybody has HD wet proof camera, and great amazing sound to go with their footage. You will see more shots of people holding cameras, than you'll see tornadoes in this film. It's so annoying. Movies like 1996's Twister had more of a point plot. The storm chasers in Twister were trying to save lives by improving data for tornado research. In Into the Storm, the storm chasers are thrill seekers hoping to cash in, on the next viral tornado video. None of them, are really entertaining or well-acted. They do like a stupid things that makes you hate them ever more. Storm chasing itself is quite dangerous, but the characters in Into the Storm makes a joke out of it. It's such a mockery. One should never act like them, during it. It's insulting to those who spent time, studying tornadoes, to help those in need. Even the science of how the tornado works in this film, isn't accurate. Directed by Steven Quale, and written by John Swetnam, the movie is indeed attack of the killer tornadoes as the town of Silverton is having a really bad day! God must hate the town of Silverton, because tornado love just rolling thru, time after time in one single area. You don't have to be a weatherman, to know that, is really rare. Horrible science and poor decision-making aside, the movie did have some redeeming qualities. Humor is mostly a miss than a hit, but when it does it really hits. I did like the clever 2010's Walking Dead joke about Allison (Sarah Wayne Callies). Another good thing about the film is the special effects. Still, surprising the Tornadoes in the early years of CGI, like the ones used in Twister looks more realistic than the ones in this film. The tornadoes in this film, are way too clear. Real tornadoes do pick up a lot of dirt and debris. Also, the tornadoes were very sneaky, that people can't notice that a tornado is coming up to them. The deaths in the film have little to no emotion buildup to them. You don't feel attached to them. People seem to survive in the most unrealistic ways. For crying out loud, storm drains and underpasses are just about the worst possible place to take shelter from a tornado. I'm surprise that they didn't drown. You know, your movie is bad, when the crazy redneck Tornado hunters survive more than the real tornado hunters. What a really bad twist! The movie ends in the most ridiculous and out of place cop out ending, I have ever saw. It felt like a Sci Fi or Asylum movie of the film, in how below standards, it was. Overall: The movie suffers from being bad disaster porn. Too much tornadoes, lack of anything else. This movie needed some more brainstorming. The movie could work, if you really brain-dead, or turn off your brain, but for me, it was a mess of a movie that will not blow you away.
Mortal Kombat (1995)
Mortal Kombat isn't a flawless victory. Still, it was a pretty good video game movie.
For a video game adaptation, this fantasy martial arts film written by Kevin Droney & directed by Paul W. S. Anderson isn't that bad. Mortal Kombat incorporates a lot of elements from the series' first two games into its plot. Unlike the Street Fighter movie, product a year earlier, this movie has an underground fighting tournament. It's here, that Shaolin warrior Liu Kang (Robin Shou), U.S. Special Forces agent Sonya Blade (Bridgette Wilson), and Hollywood superstar Johnny Cage (Linden Ashby) meet each other. Handpicked by Raiden (Christopher Lambert), the god of lightning and defender of the Earth realm; the three mortals must travel to an uncharted island to overcome their powerful adversaries in order to prevent Outworld, an evil realm build on constant fighting from winning their tenth straight Mortal Kombat tournament. The premise of the film is greatly influenced by 1973's Enter the Dragon, you really see it in the movie pacing. Each of the three has a character arch for his or her own reason for competing: Liu seeks revenge against the tournament host Shang Tsung (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa) for killing his brother; Sonya seeks revenge on crime lord Kano (Trevor Goddard) and Cage, having been branded as a fake fighter by the media, seeks to prove them wrong. The character of Art Lean (Kenneth Edwards) doesn't appear in the games. He was created exclusively for the film. I kinda wish, they used another character from the game to replace him, because it's really predictable, whom of the good guys will probably end up dying during the tournament. While, that part of the tournament, makes sense, the whole idea of the tournament as a whole, doesn't. Mortal Kombat is held once a generation to determine Earth's fate. Outworld need to successfully defeated Earth's best challengers in ten consecutive tournaments to conquering humanity. Why? I guess, the tournament existed; as Raiden explains, the tournament is designed to give humans a chance to fight for their world against realms with greater powers, which keeps the realms in check so the strongest ones simply cannot invade the less powerful ones at will. Why again? It's seem like they can travel to Earth, very easy. While, the story doesn't make any sense, the action was alright. Still, you can tell, the different between those actors with some fighting skills, with those with none. Some of them are so slow, and choreograph as hell that it doesn't look real. The PG-13 rating kinda hurt the film, due to the game, being known as very violent and gory. Still, they did what, they can do with it. Lots of freeze deaths, falling off cliffs, and stabbing with no blood. Lots of Easter eggs like finishing moves, and a hint of the 'Friendship' finisher. It was very funny to see that. The special effects are a hit and a misses. The 1990s CGI is barely realistic for me, but at the time, it was alright. The character, Reptile looks kinda stupid, due to that. The puppeteer that control Goro's movement were pretty good. Kevin Michael Richardson did pretty OK job in the voice acting for him. The sets are pretty haunting with the abandoned Kaiser steel mill, being used for Outworld. I love that the movie used the location of Old Ayutthaya as the temples of the Shaolin Monks. It was a nice touch. The movie moves really fast; there is little to no slow moments in the film. I'm pretty glad, they cut the idea of Liu Kang was supposed to fall in love with Kitana (Talisa Soto). It's also pretty cool to see an Asian character in the main role, with white supporting characters. I don't even mind, the fact, that supporting characters like Kanos whom is Japanese-American in the game, and Raiden whom is Chinese in the game, were played by white actors. I just glad, to see Liu Kang as the lead. You rarely see Asian actors in the main role in films. The acting is over the top, and mediocre at best. There were a lot of cheesy dialogue that could had been cut. The soundtrack of Mortal Kombat became a huge hit on its own, becoming a fitness jam that seriously gets you pumped for anything. The movie was well received by fans and was a box office hit at the time, leading to a sequel, 1997's Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, which was not well received, even by camp movie standards. Also check out the 1995's prequel animated film The Journey Begins or the spin-off television series, 1996's Mortal Kombat: Defenders of the Realm and 1998's Mortal Kombat: Konquest for Mortal Kombat fix. Nonetheless, the original introduced its own take on the mythology, some of which was integrated into the canon of future games. Overall: Movies based on video games have never been great, but I believe most can agree that Paul W. S. Anderson put more effort into creating this movie than what other directors have given their video-game film adaptations. This movie is an great example. It was very memorable. I consider this one of the top video game films to date.
In Time (2011)
This movie was a waste of time for me. Great concept, badly executed.
It's time to review this dystopian sci-fi thriller film. Written & directed by Andrew Niccol, the movie open up in 2169, where people are born genetically engineered with a digital clock on their forearm. To help avoid overpopulation, when people turn 25 years old, they stop aging and their clock begins counting down from one year; when it reaches zero that person "times out" and dies instantly. Time has become the universal currency. The country has been divided into "time zones" based on the wealth of the population. The movie focuses on two specific zones: Dayton, a poor manufacturing area where people like Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) live day-to-day and New Greenwich, the wealthiest time zone, where Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfield) can live nearly forever. This is an everyday struggle for Will until he ends up rescuing a rich guy named Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer). For this favor, Henry gives his time to Will, so that he take revenge for the death of Will's mother (Olivia Wilde). Now with plenty of time, he plans to give the people, the freedom of their lives, by making the upper class pay. Too bad, Will Salas is a hypocrite. He delays all this, so that he can spent time, buying nice cars, eating at fancy restaurants, trying to hook up with Sylvia, attending rich people parties and playing high stakes poker. It takes forever to get to the 'Robin Hood' plot that the movie trailer promise us. Lots of filling scenes that slow down the pace to a crawl. The movie plot is a thinly-veiled allegory for the Occupy Wall Street movement against the 1%. It's supposed to be social commentary about the growing global divide between the haves and have-nots. It's an intriguing premise, but unfortunately, the movie follows a really predictable formulaic plot, ending with lousy satisfying conclusion. Robbing banks will solve the economy?!? What? This is a good example of Hollywood not understanding economics. Do they think, robbing banks would solve the economy? It would make it worst. "Is it stealing if it's already stolen?" quotes the movie. Yes, it is. This movie is just a mess; trying to add a Bonnie and Clyde type heist story with political overtones doesn't work. There was no depth to the movie's resolution other than everyone deserves equality. The movie lacks good exposition. It's too heavy-handed, explaining a lot of things that didn't need to. The movie takes a lot of Artistic License in science and economic causing a lot of things to make no sense. Obviously made for a teen demographic, everybody in the film cast is beautiful as hell. It's implied, they are genetically engineered, but still, I didn't know, the really poor, can still look amazing gorgeous, despite only have hours or minutes to live. It's really jarring. I do hope that the film makers know that aging isn't a gene. Even if the rich can live forever, the skin will still be thinner and wrinkled by time manly due to exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Aging can't be stop. Only postponed. Also, why 25 year old is the cut-off date? Isn't that the age frame where most people do the most work? Why not, use the ones that you selection to be born, longer like until 50 or 60 year old until terminating them? They isn't no point to eliminate them in the first place. You kill a lot of young people, who does the majority of the work? There is no reason why children should even being born, if they're genetically engineered and nobody dies from old age. Another thing, why waste resources waiting for the children to reach 25 in the first place? Just create a fully grown male and female. It doesn't make sense why people still need to eat and drink, when they don't feed on energy. How can you get alcohol poisoning if disease are eradicate in this world? There are so many loose-ends that I can go on, about like what happen to the time, when people die due to mauling to their bodies. If they are genetically engineered, couldn't they just get fix up? The movie even forget sub-plot like what happen to Will's late father. The movie is also very insulting. A lot of over the top rich people have Jewish last names pushing the Greedy Jew stereotypes. The acting is mediocre. Justin Timberlake is pretty lackluster. The best actor in the film, had to be Cillain Murphy. Amanda Seyfield is just there to be the love-interest, despite Will kidnapping her at gunpoint and almost killing her in a car accident. How romantic, Stockholm Syndrome, Patty Hearst right there. How stupid! The good things about the film is the score, the action, and the set design. It really does look futuristic. I love the time fighting race against the clock tense moments. Still, there were a lot of stupid suicidal disregard of time allowance by characters that makes you wonder. Are these people, stupid? Will himself keeps coming into large quantities of time, then giving it away and leaving himself only a few hours or even minutes instead of a few years. There is a strongly reminiscent of this film to other media works. Due to that reason, the film got often dealt with copyright lawsuits. One is Harlan Ellison whom believe that the film's plot was based on his 1965 short story 'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman". Another is Lee Falk who believe it was taken from "Mandrake and the Goldman: Time is Money", a comic issue. Many of the elements of In Time can be found in the 1987 short film 'The Price of Life' & the Hannu Rajaniemi's novel 'The Quantum Thief' as well. Overall: There isn't enough time in the world, to get me to re watch this bad movie. You're probably better off just watching 1997 Gattaca than wasting time and money on this movie.