Machiavelli84 Reviews

Thumbelina (1994)

Entertaining family film

[7/10 · 9 April 2024]

I'm old enough to remember seeing "Thumbelina" in theaters. At the time, I was a ten-year old boy being dragged by his mom and two sisters to see what I perceived as a "girly movie". (And I know some reading this will immediately protest whether or not this actually counts as a "girly movie", but keep in mind when you're a ten-year old boy, anything with a female lead seeking after the prince of her dreams tends to be automatically labeled "girly movie".) At the time, I hated it. Cut to decades later, and now I'm a father with two young daughters of my own. We were trying to think of a family movie to watch, and I brought up this movie. All I remembered was I didn't like it as a kid. Curious, we all sat down to watch it. Within five minutes, my daughters were already in love with it. As the end credits finally began to roll, even I had to openly declare, "Alright, it was cuter than I remember it."

If you're already familiar with the Thumbelina story, this movie follows it fairly faithfully. The only difference might be that the character of the toad is now the primary villain, with the beetle becoming his secondary accomplice. The role of the prince is also expanded, so that Thumbelina meets him early on, and much of the movie involves the two of them trying to relink with each other. Voice acting overall is well done, with Jodi Benson doing her thing as Thumbelina (man she can hit those high notes), and even John Hurt doing a great job as the Mole. The songs are surprisingly good and catchy, to the point that I got the soundtrack for my daughters to listen to, and they still enjoy it to this day. (And my wife and I can't help but sing the final line of "Let Me Be Your Wings" to each other.) Of course, one of the biggest highlights for me is Don Bluth's animation, which is smooth and crisp. I must admit that sometimes I watch scenes from his movies just for the animation quality alone.

Is this the greatest movie ever? No, I'm not going to say that. Let me also add that, while I love and adore Don Bluth as an animator, and I think he's a master of his craft, I'm willing to lambaste his movies when I think they deserve it. (Don't get me started on "The Pebble and the Penguin"...) Sure, there are some legitimate complaints you can make about the film. For example, "follow your heart" is one of those corny moral lessons that sounds great in fairy tales, but tends to do really poorly in real life. Also, it's kinda funny that for a movie that seems to make that the front and center lesson, very little of the movie involves Thumbelina following her heart until the very end. But hey, it didn't affect my opinion of the movie too much too much. On that note, I think the film has gotten way too much criticism over the years, and I think it holds up a bit better than some people will give it credit for. For example, it got the Razzie for worst song ("Marry the Mole"), which just goes to show the Razzies are more focused on poking fun at mainstream films than making objectionably true statements. As someone who was sitting there in a theater when this film was fairly new, I can promise you nobody during the "Marry the Mole" scene was cringing or thinking "This is the worst song ever." In fact, people were enjoying themselves, and I even remember the room breaking out in laughter at the "They're DEAD! DEAD! VERY VERY DEAD!" line. (I'll add that, while I do love the soundtrack, "Marry the Mole" was probably the only song I remembered from the movie as a kid, which adds to the fact it wasn't all that bad.)

If you're looking for a simple family feature, I say give this a go. Or, if you're looking for one of Don Bluth's better hits than one of his misses, I suggest giving this a go as well.

Paganini (1989)

An ego stroking for sure

[1/10 · 29 October 2023]

It's a question that has been asked by film critics and casual moviegoers alike for as long as cinema has been a medium: can you separate the art from the artist? There are some who take one extreme and say that no, you never, ever, ever can separate the art from the artist and vice versa. There are some, like myself, who take a middle position and argue that it really depends on the circumstances. There are others who take another extreme and say that you should always separate the art from the artist, regardless of the person or medium. For those people, this movie is an 800-pound gorilla plowing through the wall in a King Tiger tank and saying, "Hold my kegger."

"Paganini" is a pet project by Klaus Kinski done near the end of his film career. It's about Niccolò Paganini, the famous Italian violinist and composer... though music aficionados expecting another "Amadeus" should probably look elsewhere. A lot of other reviewers have referred to this film as if it's an art house project or some kind of avant-garde experiment, but even there one is stretching it. The first half of the movie largely deals with Paganini's romantic conquests (although I use the phrase "romantic" loosely... more on that later), while the second half deals with the relationship between Paganini and his son Achille. Those are really the prominent focuses on each section. As I said, if you're expecting an interesting character study like "Amadeus", you're instead going to be treated to something that feels like a low budget porn film. If you're expecting at least a pretty period film, you're also going to be disappointed: a lot of this film feels either too cheap or too ugly to really be visually appreciated. Heck, it doesn't even feel that well filmed, and Kinski's direction is bare bones when it comes to that. ("Barry Lyndon" this film is not.)

Some reviewers have said the movie is a lot like Kinski himself... and therein lies the problem I mentioned at the beginning. What do you do when a man known to be an egotistical, abusive sexual deviant makes a movie wherein he plays an egotistical, abusive sexual deviant?

Read some of the behind-the-scenes stuff about the actresses involved, and most of them are about how Kinski sexually assaulted and raped them on camera. (I know the real Paganini was a horndog, but apparently Kinski interpreted him as a serial rapist.) How exactly are we supposed to take scenes where Paganini is holding women down while they struggle or scream, and take it all in stride as "just a movie", when in fact that was probably how the woman actually felt? Add to this the very real fact that Kinski was a pedophile who sexually abused and groomed his firstborn daughter Pola Kinski, then later attempted to do the same to his other daughter Nastassja Kinski. Supposedly Natassja was almost going to be in this film along with her half-brother, but quit after one day of shooting. (I can only imagine why.) So when I accuse Kinski of being an abusive sexual deviant, I'm not kidding.

And as for ego? The first five minutes of the film are literally Kinski standing there, as Paganini, while a whole theater claps for him and women pine over him. And before anyone accuses me of reading too much into that scene, remember this is a guy who threw food at a supporter because he felt like the man didn't compliment him ENOUGH. Look up his spoken word performance as Jesus Christ, where he loses it and leaves the stage as soon as he's heckled, and even after the hecklers are removed and his most loyal fans are gathered around, he still loses it because he feels like they're not paying attention enough. Read his autobiography, where he claims to have had numerous sexual escapades himself. (Most of which have been denied by the women.) So no, when Kinski's standing there, being applauded by everyone, and all the women in the theater look like they want him then and there, it's hard for me to think that wasn't how he perceived himself. He probably really thought he was like Paganini: this great, underrated genius that women desired more than life itself.

I said at the beginning that as far as the idea of "separating the art from the artist" goes, you can only take that so far. Yes, there are times you can do that. I can watch Andrew Robinson in "Dirty Harry" and still love him as an actor because I know that, in real life, he's not the kind of man who would take a busload of elementary school kids hostage, threaten to shoot their mommies, and force them at gunpoint to sing "Row Row Row Your Boat". I can watch John Travolta in "Battlefield Earth" and still like him as a person because, from everything I've heard, he's a super nice guy in real life, and the Scientology stuff is, for him, more about personal faith than something he tries to push on everyone he knows. By contrast, when I see Kinski in his movies assaulting women, screaming his lungs out, declaring himself to be a god, and tossing monkeys around, it's hard for me to say, "He's just acting" and move on. No, that's not acting - that's really who he is.

If you're a die-hard Klaus Kinski fan who likes to tell everyone he's a fantastic actor while covering your eyes and ears to the fact he was abusive to his own daughters and regularly maimed and abused (verbally and physically) fellow actors and crewmembers on set, then by all means see this movie. If you're looking for a real biopic, then look elsewhere.

Adventures in Dinosaur City (1991)

Melting what you love

[4/10 · 25 April 2023]

The film centers around three kids - Timmy, Mick, and Jamie - who are huge nerds for a cartoon about dinosaurs who fight cavemen known as "The Rockies". Timmy's parents are scientists who happen to be experimenting with sending things through time and space, and who also happen to leave for a convention and leaving their young son all by himself. Timmy invites his friends to the lab to watch their show on the big screen, which results in them being sucked right into the cartoon... only now everything is live action. Now in dinosaur world, they learn that the show's villain, Mr. Big, is planning to cause a lava meltdown of Saur City in order to take over. The kids rush to Tar Town to find Rex and Tops, the nominal heroes of the cartoon, to get them to stop Mr. Big and the Rockies.

Like a lot of people, I remember seeing this film on the Disney Channel during the early 1990's. Like a lot of youths, I was huge into dinosaurs, and I also tended to like stories with action and adventure, so at the time, this was good mindless entertainment. I also had vivid memories of random scenes, like Mr. Big laughing at his reveal (which actually scared me a bit at the time), the fate of Rex's father, or Forry's tree house. Out of curiosity, and a sense of nostalgia, I found copies of it online, and watched it again. Holy cow, it didn't exactly hold up. What is wrong with this movie?

For one, this movie has plot holes a brontosaurus herd could storm through. The biggest of all is... why exactly is Mr. Big trying to melt down Saur City? He says it'll help him take over, but it's established early on that he and his Rockies are pretty much in charge of it. They extort the people and have them under the thumb. How is destroying the entire city going to make him in charge? (I can just see Mr. Big and his Rockies standing there amidst the smoldering ruins. "What now, boss?" / "Now we... uh... oh crud, I didn't think this far...") The people of Tar Town don't seem to care that Saur City may go up in flames, so they clearly wouldn't be in fear or worrying about Mr. Big's power. So... again, why exactly does he want to melt down Saur City? I was reminded of the villain from "The American Rabbit", who couldn't back up his evil motivation with anything other than, "Because we're bad! That's what we do!" Also, why is Mr. Big initially hiding his identity? Yes, the allosaurs used to rule and were kicked out, but again, he's pretty much in charge of Saur City, and they later establish that everyone knows that he's an allosaurus already, so... why hiding? Also, how did the control for the machine suddenly become like a remote control in the dinosaur world? Never fully explained, you just have to sort of accept it as fact a la deus ex machina.

Another problem are the dinosaur costumes. Some of them are impressive enough, but some are rather lacking. Many of them seem to have eyes that barely move, so that for characters like Rex, about the only emotional change you'll get with his face is blinking. It also seems that most of the costumes, save for Tops, weren't designed well for action scenes. When Rex fights, he mostly just kinda stands there and lets the Rockies come to him, after which he swings a punch when they're close enough. This results in a lot of the fight scenes being boring, since they're a lot of the same moves over and over again.

Perhaps most shocking was just how adult this film can be. Seriously, there are enough jokes and innuendos to make me never want to show my younger kids this. Forry checks out Missy's butt as she's walking away. (The camera even does a close up of it.) Missy makes a lot of clear sexual references, like, "That's not the kind of action I had in mind!" Mick gets shoved face first into dinosaur boobs. (I'm NOT making this up!) And I'm pretty sure Tops is touching Jamie's breasts when he catches her from falling. There's also a scene in the trailer with dialogue that's not in the original movie, where Jamie tells some prison guards that she's looking for some guys to "get off" with. (Again, NOT making this up!) Seriously, this movie is for kids? Okay, granted, it's technically rated PG, but the plot and delivery is so dumb that only a kid would love it, but the content reaches adult levels so often that you'd probably feel awkward showing this to your 8-year old. I know some family friends will throw little things in there for adults... but they can usually be good about making it subtle enough. This film, however, is not subtle.

If you remember this film from your childhood, then by all means give it a watch. Laugh at it, enjoy it, and relish it, because, at the end of the day, it CAN be an enjoyable bad movie. That's why I've given it at least four stars here, rather than, say, one or two. Just be ready TO laugh at it, because trust me, this movie gives you plenty to laugh at.

Lion of the Desert (1980)

A hit and miss epic

[5/10 · 20 April 2023]

It seems like a match made in epic movie heaven. Wonderful actors in the cast like Anthony Quinn, Oliver Reed, Rod Steiger, and John Gielgud. Directed by Moustapha Akkad, who did a marvelous job with "The Message". Music by Maurice Jarre, famous for doing the soundtracks of classics such as "Lawrence of Arabia", "Doctor Zhivago", "The Longest Day", and countless others. A large budget. Sweeping sets. Hundreds of extras. What could possibly go wrong? As this film shows, sadly, quite a bit can go wrong. But a lot can go right as well.

Let's talk first about what went right.

"Lion of the Desert" is a film funded by Libyan during the time when it was still under the command of Muammar "We Came, We Saw, He Died" Gaddafi. It tells the story of Omar al-Mukhtar, the titular Lion of the Desert, who fought against the Italians during both Italo-Senussi Wars in Libya. It follows his struggle from the time when Italy appointed General Rodolfo Graziani until his eventually capture and execution. It also showcases the concentration camps employed by Italy against the Bedouin. As an epic film, this movie certainly delivers. Battle scenes are epic on the level of "Lawrence of Arabia". All the sets, such as Mussolini's headquarters and the Libyan camps, are sweeping and massive, and do a good job capturing the larger than life story. The uniforms also seem accurate (although I'm sure someone out there can correct me), and it's near to see a film about a particular era and conflict that you rarely get to see portrayed on film.

Acting overall is also wonderful. Anthony Quinn does a good job as Mukhtar, and from what I heard he actually traveled around Libya and studied how their old men acted to see just how he could best imitate the Bedouin leader. Oliver Reed must have thought the film was made of gum, because he chews just about every scene he's in - but with the character, it certainly works. Rod Steiger, though only in a few scenes, does a good job playing Mussolini. Even minor actors do a wonderful job in their roles. Sadly, the acting in this film also leads into one of its major problems, but I'll get to that later.

The editing and use of music is also very commendable. The greatest, and most powerful, example of this is seen with the film's handling of the concentration camps. You see the suffering of the Bedouin, and see carts full of dead bodies moving between the tents. Suddenly, the film cuts to black and white stock footage of the camps. Maurice Jarre's music reaches a shrill right at that very moment. It's like the film is jolting you away from the actors and sets and props, and dropping you right into history. It's like the film is telling you, "No, really, this happened. It's not just in a movie. People truly suffered and died." It's perhaps one of the best handlings of a people's suffering put to film. I dare say it's even more powerful than a lot of cinematic handlings of the Holocaust. I could feel my heart skipping a beat, and feel my blood turn cold, as I watched that scene.

Now... let's talk about what went wrong.

As I said before, acting overall is well done... but there's a catch to that. Reed is over the top and conniving as Graziani, while Quinn is way too reserved and moral as Mukhtar. As a result, Graziani comes across as a bigger player in the story, while Mukhtar mostly just lumbers around and reacts to what Graziani does. In fact, some of the best lines of the film come not from Mukhtar, but from Graziani. ("Look... the mice... they could never resist the cheese, could they?") As the film progressed, I found myself ironically becoming more attached to Graziani than I did Mukhtar. It reminded me of a complaint a lot of people had for the Kevin Costner "Robin Hood": Alan Rickman's sheriff was so much more memorable and well acted than Costner's Robin that the audience ends up feeling more connected with the villain than the hero. I had no reason to feel connected to Mukhtar other than he's the nominal hero of the story, and well, I have to like him then, right? Because he's "the good guy". But that's all he has going for him. Even when Graziani begins to attack Kufra, Mukhtar's response is basically "Meh" and lets Graziani takes the city. Again, because Reed's Graziani has more personality and flair than Quinn's Mukhtar, you end up wishing that the movie was more about the Italian than the Bedouin.

Another problem is the film's pacing. While the film starts out well, the story starts to becomes really episodic. Graziani does something. Mukhtar reacts to it. Graziani comes up with another scheme. Mukhtar reacts to it. Graziani comes up with another scheme. Mukhtar reacts to that too. Rinse and repeat. I grew up watching films like "Gettysburg" and "Lawrence of Arabia", so a film's long length doesn't bug me... but at some point even I found myself getting BORED with the film. It also got annoying, because it felt like every time they battled, some of Mukhtar's men would die off like he was about to be defeated... but JUST ENOUGH would survive to keep the film going. Again, this happens over and over and over and over. At some point I could hear Elaine from Seinfeld yelling in a movie theater at Mukhtar, "Just get captured already!!" Because this film is so long, this results in the viewing being something of a chore. This is also rather unnecessary, as a lot of the planning Graziani does was, in real life, done much quicker than as portrayed in the film. (For example, he set up the fence between Libya and Egypt shortly after he took command.) Obviously they were wanting to drag the film out a bit longer than this would have made it, but, as I pointed out, this ends up hurting it.

Some of the battle scenes are also incredibly goofy. Italian soldiers are basically one step above Storm Troopers, with the only difference between the Italians manage to land a few shots. While I know the Italian military has a rather bad reputation in the World Wars, this film takes it to a whole new level. This reaches a climax at the part where Mukhtar tricks the Italian tanks into parking in an area filled with detonated mines. This plan only works because the script says it does, because the whole set up is waaaaaay too convenient: Mukhtar and his men just happened to know WHERE the tanks would drive, and EXACTLY where they would stop, and the fact that they even WOULD stop, and Mukhtar's men happened to plant all the mines EXACTLY where the tanks would be parked... Yeah, if it sounds really absurd, that's because it is. The whole scene seemed to exist only because Gaddafi wanted a few more exploding vehicles in his movie.

This comes to the biggest problem, which is the film's clear bias. It's well known that this was funded by the Libyan government, and well... it definitely shows. Italians are portrayed as overly evil, with no good in them save for perhaps three characters. (One of whom gets shot by his fellow Italians for liking the Libyans too much.) I'm not saying the Italians DIDN'T do anything bad in the war, mind you (remember several paragraphs ago I was commending the film for its portrayal of the concentration camps), but this film looks at one side's evil way too much while portraying the other side as near innocent. You don't get to hear about how Italian farmers were being attacked and murdered by Libyan guerillas, which was one of the reasons why the Italian government wanted the war ended so quickly. You don't get to hear about how Mukhtar actually agreed to make peace with the Italians, then broke that agreement once his men got enough weapons and supplies. You just get to watch Italian troops entering villages and killing civilians. (In fact, this is really the only time you ever see Italian soldiers doing well in battle... when they're up against unarmed civilians.) Even the Battle of Kufra, which was actually a major strategic and tactical achievement for the Italian military, and quite a show of brilliance from Graziani, is mostly portrayed as another chance to show how mean the Italians are. As most people know, this film was banned in Italy for a long time, due to heavy criticism from Italians against it, and... well... I really can't blame the Italians on this one.

This film is definitely a one time viewing. It certainly covers a larger than life story, and does so with enough positive traits to keep you interested. Sadly, it's negatives hurt it far more than they would in other films. I would recommend it to those interested in seeing epic films like this... just remember that Gaddafi foot the bill.

The Social Dilemma (2020)

Interesting - yet flawed - documentary

[5/10 · 4 October 2022]

"The Social Dilemma" is a Netflix-funded documentary looks at the affects of social media upon society as a whole. While focusing largely on Facebook and Twitter, the methods employed and discussed in this film could be analyzed by anybody. Various people, inside and outside the social media business, are interviewed to discuss how it was all developed. Intercut here are scenes from a docudrama detailing a suburban family and their own dealings with social media.

There are really four different kinds of films here: a good analyzation of the addictive nature of social media; a bad (or perhaps just flawed) attempt at pinpointing the exact problem; a really bad attempt to analyze recent problems with social media; and a really TERRIBLE docudrama.

THE GOOD - The film does an excellent job of discussing the many problems with social media, not only in our human interaction, but also in the addictive nature of the beast. Most apps, they explain, are designed like slot machines, to make you keep flicking down. Even when you leave the apps alone, there are tricks to make you come back again... and again, and again. They also discuss how it feeds into a person's need for attention, making them rely on social media for approval... and causing great depression when they don't get it. Honestly, it made my wife and I rethink our social media exposure, to the point of basically reducing it to a joint-Facebook account that we keep just to stay in touch with a few close friends.

THE BAD - Perhaps the greatest shortfall of this documentary is where it places the blame. While it correctly discusses how the social media platforms are designed to be addictive, and the companies themselves did little to stem this, they also portray the companies as far more innocent than they are. They give the viewer the impression that the platforms were something like Frankenstein's Monster, where the companies just made a system that then got out of hand. As the past decade or so have pretty much proven, that's far from the case. Facebook has countless accusations - most of them outrighted admitted to - of censoring contrary thought on their platform. Twitter has been caught fidgeting with the trending part of their algorithm, so that hashtags that should be at the top aren't. YouTube was called out for deleting negative votes on certain videos, then promptly removed the negative vote count altogether. Almost all social media companies have been shown to be corrupt or attempting to influence people in one way politically.

THE REALLY BAD - A strange fault in the film is the way it gets a lot of facts wrong. For example, it talks about the "Pizza Gate" scandal, and claims that it told people that pizza restaurants were fronts for child trafficking. I don't personally hold much weight to the Pizza Gate stuff, but I did keep an eye on it as it was unfolding, and followed a few accounts at the time that were discussing it, and I can tell you that it's NOT how it was portrayed in the film. The issue with Pizza Gate was the claim that politicians, celebrities, and members of the elite "powers that be" were using slang related to ordering pizza with one another in order to ask for child prostitutes. Whether or not this is true, for the film to portray it like people were claiming pizza stores were child trafficking fronts is just erroneous and misleading. (Then again, this was funded by Netflix, the same company that tried to market the pedophilic movie "Cuties" and had to backtrack like mad when it bit them in the butt.) Another error is when, right after talking about how social media supports conspiracy theories... they talk about the idea of Russian hackers swaying the 2016 elections, which is in and of itself a conspiracy theory. (Consider that Maxine Waters, an adamant proponent of the Russian hacker conspiracy, was asked point blank on MSNBC if there was ANY evidence for this, and, with an embarrassing look on her face, she admitted that no, there wasn't.) So the film basically tells the viewer that conspiracy theories propagated by social media are bad... unless it's the conspiracy theories THEY believe in.

THE TERRIBLE - Part of this movie, as I said at the beginning, involves a fictional docudrama that follows a family around. This docudrama is REALLY bad. First, it has the usual token interracial couple that you see so much in Hollywood these days. (And I have nothing - zip, zero, nada, nothing - against interracial couples. However, I'm dead set against Hollywood capitalizing on them to virtue signal like they did the "token black guy" trope not too long ago.) Second, some of the scenes in this are REALLY ridiculous. For example, the mother decides to put all the smart phones in these locked glass containers. The teen daughter proceeds to grab a hammer and break it open, snatching her phone from it. I'm not kidding. She even went so far as to put on protective goggles before doing so!! (What teen girl would think that far?) And the family acts like this is no big deal, even though I think most people would realize their daughter was one step away from being the digital version of a heroine addict. Third, you really don't feel much sympathy for this family, because it seems like they brought themselves into this mess. The mother says she got all the kids smart phones because "Derp derp their friends have it!" Even though people I know who are pro-technology will still distance their children from smart phones until an older age. Add to all this bad dialogue and a mixture of decent to bad acting, and... yeah, those were the worst parts of the documentary. It's like the filmmakers wanted to prove they could do fiction as well.

This documentary is worth a one time viewing, but I definitely think you should go into it with a critical mind.

Coffee Shop (2014)

No, my dear, it's NOT in the coffee

[2/10 · 9 June 2022]

"Coffee Shop" is about a coffee shop. Okay, granted, there's more to the story than that, but do you see the amount of creativity behind that title? That gives you a clue about how much effort was put into the creativity of the film in toto.

Said coffee shop is owned by Donavan, a single woman looking for love. She's still pining over her ex, Patrick, and so her sister and her fiancé, Becky and Kevin, decide to help her by setting her up with someone. Kevin ends up writing to an old writer friend of his, Ben Carson. (Yes, that's his name. I'm not kidding. I was half expecting to encounter another character named Jeb Bush.) Ben comes over to the small town, and before you know it, Ben and Donavan are making oogly-googly eyes at each other. Cue Patrick returning to try to woo Donavan again. At the same time as all this, the bank that handles the mortgage is looking to foreclose on Donavan's coffee shop, and she's desperately trying to find a way out of that.

Since this is a Christian movie, it ultimately fails on two counts. Let me try to detail each:

1) It fails as a movie.

One of the biggest problems with this movie is that it's EXTREMELY predictable. If you've seen more than one romantic movie, you'll have absolutely no trouble predicting what's gonna happen next every five minutes in this movie. Every cliché is here: the two characters hating each other's guts before falling head over heels for each other a few seconds later; the old fling who throws a wrench into the new fling's plans; the completely random chance to start dancing together; the phone call that interrupts a kiss; the insufferable third act break-up that does absolutely nothing except drag the movie out for another ten minutes; etc., etc., etc. Honestly, I'm unsure why I need to put a spoiler alert for this review, since the "spoilers" are themselves about as predictable as a Roger Moore Bond film. It almost became a guessing game for my family on what was going to happen next, and whaddya know, every single time we guessed it right.

Yet another problem lies in the script, which can often be ridiculous. Donavan and Ben's feelings for each other are pretty much insta-love. Other romantic moments are overly dramatic. One example is at Donavan's fundraiser, where she plays the piano and Ben goes up to talk to her. Patrick shows up, to which Ben reacts with pain and anguish on his face, as if a childhood sweetheart has been nabbed from him. (Rather, than, say, a girl he's known for about five minutes total turns out to be in a relationship, which almost every man has experienced at least once and usually gets over in a few seconds.) Another example is when Donavan finds out her coffee shop is going to be turned into a parking garage (see below), and she goes on a one-minute spiel about how terrible parking garages are. I mean, seriously? I know parking garages aren't the most fun place in the world, but the way she goes on about it you'd think it was a Vietnamese sweat shop. Did your grandma get run over in a parking garage or something, Donavan? Yet another moment is at the very end of the movie, where a character comments on how everyone is falling in love. Donavan turns to the camera, breaking the fourth wall, says, "It's in the coffee," then winks, making a little twinkle sound. I am NOT MAKING THIS UP. It's about as absurd as it sounds.

Another problem with the script is that it often expects you to just accept certain things as true. There's no bigger example of this than at the end, when, after deciding there's no way to save her coffee shop, Donavan enters to find that her coworkers have gathered all the people of the town who love her shop to talk about how wonderful and selfless and welcoming she is. They're basically trying to do like the end of "It's a Wonderful Life", when all the townspeople come in to repay George Bailey for the kindness he's shown them. The difference is that "It's a Wonderful Life" showed you all the good stuff that George Bailey did for the town, and all the ways he sacrificed for them, which makes the ending extremely touching. Here, we have no knowledge of Donavan's interaction with people, other than she remembered what some people drank. (Granted, she did a charity for an African village, but that didn't really involve the townspeople directly.) If they had actually bothered having scenes showcasing her being so selfless and wonderful to others, it might have made the scene work - otherwise, we're basically told to accept that about her character because the script tells us to. Another poor moment in the script is the third act break-up, where Donavan discovers that Ben took her situation and turned it into a Broadway play. Most people I've known feel flattered when people they love use their stories for their material, but Donavan? She has a meltdown and ends their relationship. (More on this later!) It was so senseless and pointless that it'll make you roll your eyes and say, "Can they just get back together now?" (Which, again, only adds to the predictability of the whole thing.)

Another problem lies in the characters, many of which are completely unlikeable. Donavan's sister, Becky, is extremely shallow, insults (or even physically assaults) Kevin, spends the entire movie trying to sabotage Ben's efforts to be with Donavan, and keeps trying to get Donavan with Patrick, even after it gets established Patrick is also a shallow jerk. Speaking of Patrick, it gets revealed that, without consulting Donavan beforehand, he convinced the bank to sell the coffee shop to someone who intends to turn it into a parking garage. How anyone in their right mind would have thought this would sweep their former love off their feet is beyond me. (Imagine someone saying, "Hey, you know your beloved family dog that needs expensive surgery? I went ahead and hired someone to shoot him, burn his corpse, and urinate on his ashes. Isn't that wonderful?! Have my babies!") Unfortunately, one of the biggest offenders is Donavan herself. On at least two occasions in the movie (once when they first meet, and again at their third act break-up), she completely flips out on Ben, raising her voice, insulting him, and making judgmental calls that could have easily been avoided by just asking him to clarify. Ben, for some reason, still loves her after all this, even though most guys would have probably realized by now that she's an emotionally unstable woman and hightailed it outta that small town. What's even more hilarious is at the end of the movie, at her little fan shindig, Ben shows up, and - after everyone had been fawning over her about how loving and welcoming she is - Donavan yells at Ben and literally says, "You don't belong here!!" I outright LOL'd at that part because it was so contradictory to what had just happened a few seconds before. Really, I had no reason to like Donavan, nor feel any sympathy for her. Heck, they suggest early on that she wasn't all that great at running the business to begin with, so a lot of my sympathy was towards the bank. ("Jeepers, y'know, we'd like to be nice, but she's ALREADY behind on her payments, and y'know, ya kinda sign a CONTRACT to pay back that money...") Again, as I said earlier in my review, the only reason you have to like Donavan is because the script tells you that you have to.

2) It fails as a *Christian* movie.

There is very little influence from Christian theology in this movie. If you're looking for some lesson to be drawn from scripture, let alone how to handle a situation such as is portrayed in the story, you're a bit out of luck. There are perhaps two Bible verses, loosely mentioned, throughout the whole movie, along with one Christianese cliché ("The Lord works in mysterious ways"). That's about as much influence from a Christian worldview that you're gonna get. No scene was more telling than the one where Max meets Donavan with a Bible in his hand, yet doesn't open the Bible, but rather shares a slip of paper with a used-out-of-context verse to hand to her. You get more theology out of a Jeremiah 29:11 bumper sticker from Lifeway.

Even worse is the fact that you'll question the salvation of most of these characters. For example, Donavan is set to go on a date with Patrick, but he calls and says he'll be late. She bumps into Ben, and immediately goes on a date with him, having ice cream, engaging in a slow dance with his arms around her... and you know what happens then? They almost kiss. What unfolds next? She IMMEDIATELY goes on her date with Patrick, and kisses HIM. Seriously, Donavan? I've seen more sanctified behavior towards relationships on "The Bachelorette". This isn't even covering a few dresses Donavan chose to wear during the movie, which made even my 7-year old daughter quip that they were incredibly immodest. I remember in the secular movie "Pearl Harbor", one of the biggest complaints I heard from people - even non-Christians - was just how easily the female lead seemed to go from one man to another and back again. This movie basically does the same thing, but we're supposed to believe the character is a Christian, or at least a semi-Christian. Or something. Point being, you'll find yourself asking a few times, "This is a CHRISTIAN movie, right?"

So yes, all in all, it's like someone at Salt Entertainment decided to write a cheesy romance tripe, throw in a few Bible verses and... voila. A movie for PureFlix to showcase. As I said at the beginning of the review, there's very little creativity or originality put into it. That being said, if you want to do a Christian version of Mystery Science Theater 3000 with your friends or family, then by all means crank the movie up and have a blast. Also, the only reason I gave this two stars instead of one is because that "YOU DON'T BELONG HERE!" line did give me a good laugh.

Burning Hearts (1945)

A last ditch propaganda effort about a last ditch defense

[7/10 · 7 May 2021]

Most people who know about this movie are aware that "Kolberg" was financed by Joseph Goebbels near the end of World War II, when Nazi Germany was in its final death throes. (Supposedly, Goebbels wrote many of the speeches himself.) Fittingly (though perhaps also surprisingly) enough, it was also one of the biggest budgeted German films at that time, with thousands of extras (and thousands of horses) employed - many of them taken off the front lines. The result is a big budget propaganda that actually, on its own, holds up pretty well. You don't have the blatant pro-Nazi message of "Triumph of the Will", and you don't have the blatant antisemitism of "Jud Suess", so it won't make even the most open-minded film critic squeamish. At the same time, and much like Soviet films that served similar purposes, if you know the worldview of the filmmakers and who budgeted them, then you can, at times, read between the lines.

The film opens in Prussia, in the period following Napoleon's ill fated Russian campaign. The Prussian (read: German) people are calling for the nation to go to war against Napoleon. Gneisenau, the famous Prussian general, goes to King Frederick William III to convince him to go to war. In the process of so doing, he begins to recount the story of the siege of Kolberg, which he himself participated in. The tale recounts the days shortly after the Battle of Jena, with the Holy Roman Empire dissolving into the pro-Napoleon Confederation of the Rhine, and with French troops storming across German lands. In the midst of all this, there is a hold out of hope in Kolberg, where the city mayor, Nettelbeck refuses to give in. After sparring with Loucadou, the military commander of Kolberg, Nettelbeck seeks help from the monarchy, and receives relief with the arrival of Gneisenau. Defenses are prepared, and the French launch their attack. The defenders manage to hold on until the bitter end, after which the French withdraw. Going back to the contemporary time, King Frederick is overcome, and decides to declare war on Napoleon.

As I said before, you can read between the lines about the message they were trying to convey to a German audience that was constantly hearing about shrinking front lines and constantly having Allied bombs fall on their heads. The setting here is almost the exact same one they would be in: an enemy force is overrunning Germany, and struggling German defenders are forced to make a last ditch stand as their society crumbles around them. The scene where the French begin to bombard the town mercilessly, resulting in destruction of homes en masse, was obviously a reference to the Allied bombing in the past, and an effort to ask the people to keep firm despite it. Nettelbeck is clearly presented as a man of the people, much like Hitler was portrayed by the party, and the people rally around him as their last hope. Also noteworthy is the emphasis on the unity of the people in working together to better the nation - it's easy to forget that the National Socialists were, at their core, socialists of a certain caliber, and hence they often spoke of themselves as friends of "the little guy". Perhaps the saddest part of the film's propaganda undertones is the ending. The film ends with the French merely giving up, realizing the city cannot be taken; in reality, the French only withdrew because Prussia signed a treaty that effectively made it a neutral nation. One wonders if the Nazi financiers and advisers for the film hoped that the war would end this way as well: with the Allies giving up after realizing how hard the Germans were willing to fight. Given how World War II ended, this makes the film exactly what it is: a Nazi fantasy.

The film's cast is also an interesting cavalcade of who's-who in early-to-mid 20th century German cinema. Kristina Söderbaum, who also played the ill-fated heroine in Goebbels' more well known pet project "Jud Suess", stars as the main female lead here. Paul Wegener, of "Der Golem" fame, plays Nettelbeck's foil Loucadou. Otto Wernicke, who played the police inspector in Fritz Lang's masterpiece "M" (as well as starred in two other Nazi propaganda pieces, "Uncle Kruger" and "Titanic"), also plays a part. Surprisingly, an actor with very little film experience, Horst Caspar (check out his IMDB page - only four films are listed), probably shines the most as Gneisenau.

As I said before, the film stands well on its own, and is worth at least one viewing, even if out of mere curiosity for its historical significance. It's rare that people outside of Germany get to see films about Germans in the Napoleonic Wars, so perhaps from that perspective alone, it might be worth a viewing.

Home Sweet Home (I) (2020)

Egads. No.

[4/10 · 20 September 2020]

"Home Sweet Home" is about coffee barista Victoria, who goes from guy to guy in her relationships. She gets a crush on Jason, a guy who was recently hired by her boss' megachurch, and who also happens to run a charity for building homes for people. She volunteers for it just to get closer to him, only to discover that everyone there is Christian, and knows what they're doing. As she's used to faking things, she learns a few bits of Christian lingo and some things about building. Just as Victoria and Jason start to bond, both of their old flings enter the picture, threatening to ruin things. I'd put a spoiler alert here, but... well... it's a predictable rom-com, so I imagine half the readers of this review knew where the story was headed as soon as the premise was said.

Part of the problem with this movie is that the acting can be bad. To be fair, a lot of the performances aren't TOO bad (Natasha Bure and Krista Kalmus actually do a decent job in their roles), but others will leave you underwhelmed. Ben Elliott felt like he was trying to be the Christian version of Robert Pattinson - and that probably is all you need to know. Even more hilarious is one scene where he was supposed to be distressed, but all he does is stand there and breathe heavily. Seriously, my wife and I were cracking up at that part, and actually rewound it a few times to watch it again. It became a meme for the rest of the movie, and we referenced a few times in other "Christian" movies we watched.

Part of the problem is how goofy the script can be. For example, when Victoria finds out the people she works with are Christians, she actually Googles HOW TO TALK LIKE A CHRISTIAN. I'm not making this up. And she only learns like three catch phrases. Really? Watch a clip of IFB preachers, and you might learn ten more. On top of this, Victoria is later shocked - SHOCKED, I tell you - that BIBLE STUDIES are a thing! Whoa, Bible studies?! What sorcery is this?! I mean c'mon, have the screen writers NEVER spoken with non-Christians before? Even the most die-hard, Christopher Hitchens school, foam-at-the-mouth atheists I've known would at least have some idea of how Christians talk, or would have some idea that Bible studies existed. Then later on it's revealed that her grandmother, who raised her and her sister, was a Christian... which you would think would have given her a chance to learn a few things about Christianity. Even her sister is revealed, while not being overly religious, to have at least some knowledge of Christianity - so, again, how did Victoria get as ignorant as a Martian straight off the spaceship?

Another part of the problem is, as I suggested earlier, the movie just gets way too formulaic. In fact, the cliches and tropes whop you like the hammers the characters banged nails with. The climactic kiss, for example, happens in the rain. Also, you know that old cliche where someone drops a fork, and two characters bend down to pick it up, accidentally touch hands, and look at each other all goo-goo eyed? Oh yeah, this movie has that, only with a tool instead of a fork. I'm not kidding. They actually do that in this movie. And the third act breakup? Yup, this movie has it, because what's a rom-com movie without the predictable and overdone third act break up? And like many third act break ups, it makes NO SENSE. Right after Victoria has helped them build a house they thought they were never going to be able to finish, and right after Victoria and Jason have clearly shown attraction for each other, Jason explodes at Victoria after her former fling shows up again and tries to ask her out. Most guys, you would think, would at least give her a chance to explain herself, but Jason? Nope, just some heavy breathing and then slamming of truck doors. It's even more hilarious when Victoria admits to a friend that she's not really a Christian. The friend says "You didn't have to lie, we would have loved you any way"... then proceeds to storm off in an angry huff. Wow. You sure did show her some Christian love. Seriously, I'm a church-going, Bible-believing Christian, and this movie had me rooting for the NON-CHRISTIAN characters at this point.

And, of course, there's the theological issues with this movie. On this note, I highly recommend lyrafowlpotter's review, which goes into really great detail on just why this film fails even as a "Christian" movie. Anything I say would only be repeating her review. The only thing I might add is I was really amused by how little Jason's fellow Christian friends sought to protect him from Victoria. For example, the husband of Victoria's boss, who knows what a man-eater she is, only says she's trouble, and leaves it at that. You'd think he'd be all like, "Buddy, that girl's gonna break your heart - STAY AWAY from her." Heck, you'd think people would be quoting THE BIBLE to warn Jason. Man, if only there were, like, entire sections of Proverbs warning young men about sinful women who like to sleep around and seduce men...

Like I said, this movie could have been cute, and it's not the worst one I've ever seen, which is why I gave it at least four stars. However, if you're looking for something that is semi-decent or might edify you a bit more than the average t-shirt at Lifeway, you might want to look elsewhere. On the other hand, if you want to get it and do the Christian version of Mystery Science Theater 3000, by all means go ahead.

Princess Cut (2015)

Important topics handled in an amateurish fashion

[2/10 · 20 September 2020]

Let me start out this review by saying that there are topics discussed in this movie that the filmmakers and I (all of us being Christian) would see eye-to-eye on. Faith, the importance of parents in the decision-making of a spouse, the importance of preserving yourself for marriage, etc., all those things are important topics to discuss. Done well, they could have made for a good movie. Unfortunately, whatever potential there is to deal with this topic seriously gets completely and utterly wasted.

The gist of the plot is that a young woman in a small rural town (because these types of movies always seem to take place in one of those) named Grace has had a series of bad relationships. She gets in a relationship with a boy named Jared, only for him to push himself on her a bit and make her get more physical than she intended. She confesses this to her parents, breaks up with Jared, and vows to be more cautious and honoring to God in her next relationship. Enter Clint, a doctor who just moved in next door, and who eventually asks Grace's parents permission to court her. All is not well though: Brooke, Clint's old fling, enters the picture. Again, it's an interesting story, and could have been done well, but the film's delivery just ruins it.

For one, there's the acting, which is absolutely terrible. Most of the actors look and sound like their scenes were done in only one take, and with little enthusiasm done in the project. Scenes that were supposed to be serious actually had me cracking up. For example, there's a part where Jared tells Grace about how he came from a broken home, and Grace says things like "That's terrible" or "How sad"... but in absolute deadpan delivery. Seriously, it made Kirsten Stewart's performance in "Twilight" look like the final scene in "Schindler's List". The dad, played by Rusty Martin Sr. (whom many will probably recognize as Javier's sinister boss in "Courageous"), is supposed to be wise and sagely, and at times he is supposed to be commanding and forceful, but, again, because the scenes feel like the actors were forced to recite their lines and move on, come out as flat. Admittedly I was okay with Joseph Gray's performance as Clint, but, again, it comes out as weak enough that you have to wonder if anybody enjoyed themselves while filming this.

For another, there's the film making. Seriously, why could they NOT keep the camera still during this?! Were they shooting a family-friendly rom-com or a gritty police drama? Other reviewers have complained that it looks like it was filmed with a handheld camera, and that's not far from the truth. I half-wondered if the director gave his elderly grandmother the camera and had her film the whole thing. Note to directors: you can buy cheap tripods off of Amazon - or heck, go super cheap and just stack books or boxes on top of a chair or something. Anything! Not to mention that half the scenes are awkwardly shot, so that the camera has to jerk to correct the angle, or actors and elements will be covered up by other actors and elements. (It's hard to describe this in a review, but trust me - if you watch the film, you'll notice it.) Then there are some weird soundtrack choices, like when Grace goes to visit a secular therapist. There were weird animal noises in the background, and my wife and I had to mute the TV to make sure that the noises weren't coming from outside. What were they thinking with that?

The biggest problem with this movie is that 99% of this script MAKES NO ABSOLUTE SENSE. Here's a list of problems to highlight what I mean:

* Actions done by characters will make little to no sense. At the start of the movie, Grace goes to meet her (then boyfriend) at a restaurant, only to find his old college friends there, who then proceed to burp and do other rude stuff, which she is shocked by. (Really? He showed no sign of being this rude or crazy before?) Then when she mentions that he had something to tell her, he reveals that he's engaged to another girl. Wait, what?! Why would he invite his girlfriend, and even mention he had something to tell her, only to reveal that it was him being engaged to ANOTHER GIRL?! Then Grace gets up and storms out of the restaurant, and nobody - not the people at the table, not her (now) ex-boyfriend, not the waitress, nobody - stops her or asks what's wrong. It doesn't end there. When Grace meets Jared at a coffee shop, he asks, "Hey, didn't we meet at the jewelry store?" and she blurts out, "Thanks for reminding me of the worst day of my life!" and storms away. What?! Who talks like that! Then when Grace is talking with her friend Tessa about Jared's physical advances, Tessa outright blurts out, "Did he force himself on you?" Again, who talks like that to people? There are more examples, but so many parts of this movie will leave you going, "Wait, what?"

* After Grace confesses to her parents about how physical her and Jared got, her dad confesses that he's been so distracted lately with his work and forgot about checking in on her. Wait, what? They'd established already in the movie that ALL of Grace's relationships HER WHOLE LIFE had been duds. Dad, this isn't an oopsie on your part... You've been asleep at the wheel for most of your daughter's tenure on this earth.

* So much of this film skips time, forcing you to just accept the fact that characters are supposed to be developed between the lines. For example, there are two or three scenes of Jared and Grace hanging out together in coffee shops or at park benches, then a minute later you're told they've been together for weeks. Then when Clint helps out around the farm (how is he able to have time to do that when he's a doctor?) you see one scene of him goofing off with hay with the family, then the next scene? BOOM! He's asking the parents permission to court their daughter, to which it's mentioned that he's been helping "for months". What?! Could we have seen those months, or gotten a little more than hay tossing as character development? Relationships in this movie literally only work because it tells you they do. You feel zero connection with these people or care about their relationships.

* When Brooke, Clint's old fling, comes over to Grace's home with the intent to win him back, nobody - I mean NOBODY - tells her that he's courting Grace. Even Grace, when she has a chance, doesn't bother to do it, even though you'd think any girl at this point would be like "Back off my man!" Eventually Clint does tell her, but even by then it's gone on ridiculously long. (I was having nightmarish flashbacks of "While You Were Sleeping"...) On top of this, Brooke's character, for some odd reason, is done EXTREMELY creepy. Every scene with her is unintentionally weird, to the point that my wife and I started joking that she was like a Batman villain.

* Grace is friends with this girl named Tessa who sees completely opposite to her when it comes to worldviews, always talks down to her, and always offers the worst advice. In the middle of the movie, Tessa bumps into Clint (literally, that's their entire interaction) then gets upset as all heck with Grace for getting together with him, and even storm over to her house and accuses Grace of stealing Clint. Eh? Throughout the movie you'll be finding yourself constantly asking, "Why in the heck are these two even friends?!"

* Near the end of the movie, Jared attempts to sexually assault Grace (nothing over a PG-rating happens, but it's implied what he's about to do) until Clint intervenes, and then the dad comes in, but all that happens is that the dad tells Jared to get off his land. This, despite the fact that I'm fairly certain most dads, finding his daughter's manipulative ex-boyfriend about to rape her in the barn, would have either committed a citizen's arrest or killed him and buried him in the soybean field. (Having two daughters myself, I personally would have done the latter... but that's just me.)

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Again, this movie COULD have been good, but it ends up being really, really bad. It's a good movie if you want something to riff on, or you need another example of why many films aimed at Christian audience are just Hallmark knock offs (which isn't much to begin with), but if you're looking for something actually decent in terms of writing and film making... just look elsewhere.

Deadly Friend (1986)

Oh, what it could have been

[5/10 · 7 July 2020]

"Deadly Friend" is the story of Paul, a science whiz kid who moves into a new town with his mom and robotic friend, BB. He soon befriends neighbors Tom and Samantha, with Paul eventually falling in love with Samantha. However, Samantha's abusive father knocks her down the stairs, leaving her comatose. Desperate, Paul takes the brain chip from BB and puts it in Samantha's own brain, which revives her. However, Samantha becomes mechanical and near emotionless, and soon begins to take revenge on those who have wronged her and her friends.

I want to like this movie. Really, I do. And there are plenty of moments where the movie is begging you to like it, but in the end it feels like a bit of a mess. When you look into the history of this movie (read the Wikipedia page, or heck just look at the "Trivia" section on IMDB), you see it really was a production nightmare, with Wes Craven wanting to do a PG-rated film about tragic teen love, only to be forced to make a gory horror film thanks to unhappy test audiences and nervous producers. As a result, the film is a series of hit-and-miss traits.

What works in the film? Here's a list:

* All in all, the tone works. Film making is fine, sets are fine... you can get into the world of this film pretty easily.

* Kristy Swanson does an OUTSTANDING job in her role as reborn Samantha, and some of her robotic motions work when the scene calls for it. Other times they don't work... but more on that later. Point is, Ms. Swanson did a good job in her role.

* In fact, everyone does a good acting job. I didn't have any complaints with any of the actors.

* I actually did care about the characters, and got into the friendship between the three kids.

* Some of the dream sequences work, like the head in the bed sequence. Other dream sequences REALLY do not work, but, again, more on that later.

What doesn't work? Here's another list: * I really don't know what Charles Fleischer was going for with BB's voice. It sounds like Howie Mandel after a couple of cigarettes, mixed with that "p-p-p-p-p-p-p" sound Fleischer would later famously do with Roger Rabbit. Some parts it feels like BB is supposed to be this sinister, ominous creature. This hurts the fact that they're trying to make him a "cute" robot, and also seems nonsensical since when bad stuff goes down, it's Swanson, not Fleischer, doing most of the talking.

* Kristy Swanson's robotic motions, while commendable in their execution, actually hurt some scenes. For example, the chilling moment when she confronts her abusive father is somewhat ruined when you see her jerking around like she's doing the robot dance. It adds an unintended level of comedy.

* For some reason, Samantha develops superhuman strength. How? I don't know. All they did was plug a chip into her brain - they didn't do complete reconstructive surgery on her. How is a teenage girl suddenly able to lift up grown men or toss bodies through the air with ease? How is she able to jump through windows and not get cut up or land with broken or sprained bones? Never fully explained.

* The infamous death-by-basketball scene? OH MY WORD does that scene fail on so many levels! Not only is the idea of dying by basketball goofy in and of itself, but the scene isn't even that well done. After the head explodes, the character runs around with arms limp and the chest deflated, so that you can tell it's just somebody wearing a fake body running around. Seriously, it looks like something from Saturday Night Live.

* As I wrote before, some of the dream sequences really do not work. The one that stands out the most is when Samantha dreams about stabbing her dad and he just laughs and squirts blood everywhere... seriously, what were they going for with that? It's too goofy to be scary, and too cheesy to be even considered all that gory. Again, it feels like something you'd see in a Saturday Night Live sketch.

* The ending feels incredibly forced. I've read about the original ending (which is shown both in the trailer and some of the posters for the film), and really wish they had stuck with that. I don't want to give anything away, but it will leave you thinking "Huh?" and make you wonder if the producers just wanted a "Carrie"-style shocker ending. (Except whereas "Carrie" established the ending sequence was a dream, this film leaves you realizing that, no, this really is how it's ending.)

In the end, the film feels like such an unintentional comedy that it really does reflect the production history of this film: as one big joke on everyone. I've heard that there have been talks about releasing a kind of "director's cut" that portrays more of what Wes Craven had in mind, and I would definitely love to see something like that come to light. It would probably be about as night and day as Terry Gilliam's original cut of "Brazil" and the "Love Conquers All" version. Somebody out there with the power of Ted Turner please make that happen!

Peter the First (1937)

Interesting film with clear Soviet undertones

[6/10 · 3 July 2020]

This film is the first part of a two-part film series detailing the life of Peter the Great, the famous Russian czar and emperor. It starts with the aftermath of the Battle of Narva, with the defeated Peter reeling from the battle with the Swedes. Realizing that he needs to upgrade Russia's military and get the nation out of the past, Peter proceeds to recreate the army (which involves a surprising scene of male nudity) and get more funding for the war effort. Despite opposition from the boyars and other sources, Peter, aided by his buddy Alexander Menshikov, gets things back in order. He takes a Swedish fortress and begins construction of Saint Petersburg. Meanwhile, Peter's son, Prince Alexei, is being influenced by his enemies to oppose him, and is slipping into madness as he seeks a way out of inheriting the empire.

Some parts of the film are interesting when judging it from a historical context. It opens with a great Russian military defeat, only for the Russians to recover, organize themselves, and launch a successful military counterattack - something seen much later when the Germans invaded. One also wonders if things were awkward for Stalin with the scenes between Peter and Alexei, knowing the turmoil Stalin had with his own son.

What also makes the film interesting is the clear Communist influence in it. On this note, I find it surprising that another reviewer says this film "has none of the Stalinist propaganda or dull Soviet ethics", when both are clearly seen in the script. The Boyars, for example, are depicted as incompetent nobles who, in one scene, argue about whose family line goes deeper than whose. They later mock and laugh at Alexander Menshikov for being born a lowly peasant. The humble beginnings of both Menshikov and Marta Helena Skowronska (later Catherine I, and hence why she's called Catherine in this movie) are highlighted, and Asian servants and humble blacksmiths are shown to be more competent than the nobles and merchants - clearly to emphasize proletariat characters over and against the more privileged classes. Religious characters are treated as insane nutjobs who oppose Peter based on silly or superstitious reasons. Peter himself is depicted as a man of the people: in one scene, when he meets the boyars and merchants, he forgoes the throne and instead sits on the steps of the dais; in another scene he is seen working alongside the blacksmiths in regular clothes, so that visiting nobles at first almost don't recognize him. You almost forget, midway through, that this man is a monarch. Add to this that all the boyar characters are cruel and merciless to their peasants, while Peter is shown to be humble and loving to all of them, offering chances where no one else can get them.

The emphasis on promoting a Stalin-like figure in Peter is clearly seen here as well. Everything centers around Peter the Great and how marvelous and beloved he is, and how everyone should accept what he does. How far does this go? Near the end of the movie he takes Catherine from Menshikov and sleeps with her, and everybody - Menshikov included - treats this as no big deal. I'm not making this up! There is also a scene between Peter and and Alexei where Peter laments Alexei's opposition to what he's done for Russia, which he claims is being built up by his own blood and sweat. Again, the idea of a "fearless leader" is so exaggerated in this movie, and in particularly that scene, that you had to think Stalin was nodding his head up and down as he reviewed this. It gets so obvious at times that something is lost compared to more subtle Soviet films.

Acting-wise, everyone does a competent job. Nikolai Simonov is good, if not a bit over-the-top, as the title character. Mikhail Zharov is great as Menshikov. Perhaps best of all is Nikolay Cherkasov, most famous for his roles as both Alexander Nevksy and Ivan the Terrible, who here plays Prince Alexei.

If you're looking for historical accuracy or a proper film biography of Peter, you may want to look elsewhere, but as a piece of Soviet history, it might be worth a viewing.

A Matter of Perspective (2017)

A Walk with God to Remember

[3/10 · 13 January 2020]

This is a short film regarding Garreth, who works for a Christian gift company, and who is grumpy as all heck. The film starts with him driving like a madman through the streets of his small rural town (why do these films always take place in small, rural towns?), then arrives at his work, back talks his employers, flirts with the receptionist, and complains about people from California the way a racist would minorities. Suddenly he's taken into a meeting with HR and his boss, and they tell him bluntly that he's going to be moved to another department or fired because of his attitude. This is where Garreth has a waking moment about how far he's gone.

The problem here is that this feels like a storyline that should have been better done in a full length film rather than a short film. Garreth's character turn happens WAY too fast, and WAY too easily. It's literally: "You need to change." / "Okay!" Considering that for the first half of the film I got the feeling Garreth was a cranky person with some signs of being a narcissist (eg., thinking people are after him, looking down on anyone, even management, who disagrees with him, etc.), I couldn't foresee this quick of a character turn being that realistic. If the film was an hour and a half, it might have been far more realistic, or explored the topic with more room for Garreth's room to breathe. (To give a positive example, the film "Flywheel" covers a Christian man's character turn, but does it much slower and much more realistically.) Add to this that his character turn is REALLY over the top. On the drive home, he looks out the window, and - as the music reaches a crescendo - he sees a bald eagle flying gloriously in the sky. I am not making this up. It was so ridiculous I actually burst out laughing.

The other problem is that they portray Garreth's problem as just having a problem with his "walk with God." Uh... excuse me? He insults other people, acts like a hypocrite, and even HITS ON WOMEN AT WORK. And he's a married man, mind you - according to Biblical standards, that's adultery. By contrast, the film tries to pass it off as if he's being too "friendly" - uh... no. You go up to someone not your wife, especially a coworker, and start saying, "Hey beautiful..." that goes well beyond the limits of being friendly. This isn't having a problem with your "walk with God"... this is called living a life of blatant sin. The movie acts like Garreth made a few oopsies or some innocent stumbles here and there, when that's not the case.

I give this three stars because it's not the worst thing ever, but it really is ridiculous. I understand this was probably meant as a quick moral lesson, but even there it has shortcomings.

A Christmas Tree Miracle (2013)

First World Problems: The Movie

[4/10 · 16 December 2019]

"A Christmas Tree Miracle" centers around the George family, a rich family who live a very modern, materialistic life. Around Christmas, the dad is laid off from his job, and suddenly the family is forced to try to make ends meet while still living their same lifestyle. Unfortunately, things don't go so well on that front, and the family is eventually forced to move out to a motel. Things continue to go downhill, until someone's generosity makes the family learn the true meaning of Christmas through embracing the simple life. Or something. Truth be told, this is a plotline that could have been cute, and could have been endearing, and could have delivered a great message, but the overall delivery ruins it.

Part of the problem is that, as a whole, you REALLY don't feel for the characters, namely because all their decisions make no sense for someone in their situation, and most of what happens to them is really their fault. For example, the mom says they're trying to live "normally," but this involves going on ski trips, buying new cars, etc., and ALL while the dad is unemployed. The dad doesn't seem keen to get any job for a sustainable income, and I'm guessing he's not even pondering looking outside their small community for a job, because you never hear about him going for interviews elsewhere and, as far as moving goes, the family never seems to even leave the county. The wife also REFUSES to sell the house and move elsewhere, for no other reason than "I love this house." Yes, I know, this is supposed to be a movie about character development and how the characters change over time. I get that. However, the characters are so over the top ridiculous in their reaction to their condition, and exhibit zero common sense in how to handle it, that you won't feel ANY sympathy for them. And I write this as someone who has not only been laid off in the past, but has had to make lifestyle changes, temporarily move in with extended family, and make personal sacrifices, all while supporting a wife and child. To be fair, there is a scene at the 30-minute mark where the dad visits grandpa, and gramps lets loose into him with all the mistakes he's done. My wife and I were literally cheering for that character, because he was basically saying all the things we had opined up to that point. Unfortunately, nothing changes in the family, and they still suffer the consequences of their decisions - which, again, leaves you unsympathetic to their plight. Even after the family gets some help, the dad is ready to back stab the person helping them - which, again, makes you really not like him, and by the end of the movie the only reason you care about the parents at all is because the script basically tells you to.

That being said, there are perhaps three characters who stood out to me: Nick George (Barrett Carnahan), the oldest son who exhibits more common sense than his parents; Henry Banks (Terry Kiser), the kind old man who runs a Christmas tree farm and helps the family out; and Nina George (Siomha Kenney), the youngest daughter. These characters stood out for me for two primary reasons: 1) they're played by the best actors in this whole movie; and 2) they're the only likable characters in the whole flick. This is especially true for Nina: Siomha Kenney plays her role remarkably well for a girl of her age, and outshines older actors around her, and Nina is so selfless and thoughtful as a character that you actually feel REALLY bad for the kind of environment she has to grow up in. Seriously, there are scenes in this movie where she'll be so sweet and be met with such coldness that THOSE parts broke my heart more than anything involving poverty. (This also, once again, makes you feel very little sympathy for the family.) I'm saddened to see that her page seems to involve only this movie, as I feel like she could go on to do bigger and better things.

In terms of the script, the writing can be really ridiculous. I've already written on how unsympathetic you'll be about most of the characters. On top of this is some really laughable dialogue. For example, when the oldest daughter is told she'll have to rely on a landline phone, she responds, "A landline phone? Gross!" Seriously? "Gross"? Who talks like that? She also thinks take-out pizza is only $2, even though I think even the most spoiled teenager would be well aware that even the cheapest pizza does NOT cost $2. Add on top of this some character turns that make no sense. For example, later on in the movie the daughter learns to sew from an old timey sewing machine... but this character change makes absolutely no sense given how we've established her as a selfish, ignorant brat who would have had zero interest in hard work and old-time values. Also, the politician character in this movie, while not portrayed as perfect, isn't portrayed initially as evil, but at the very end of the movie he suddenly comes across as a major sleazeball to such an extreme that I half-expected his mustache to grow a few more inches so that he could twirl it like Snively Whiplash. Besides this, there are elements in the script that are introduced but not really explored. For example, the relationship between the oldest son and the homeless girl seemed like a good premise, but all they do is hint that it's gonna happen and leave it at that. (I actually cared more about that minor subplot than I did the relationship between the mom and dad.) Another example is the politician's wife, who reveals early on that she's struggling with her husband's political duties, and later on covers for the mom to save her from embarrassment, but after that she's basically written out of the film. She could have played a larger part at the end, or had her own character turn, but the script doesn't really give you anything close to that.

I rate this 4 stars because, as I said at the beginning, this film has a good premise, and there are a few moments that, if they had been in any other movie, COULD have been great. Also, I commend once again Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Kiser, and Ms. Kenney for their acting jobs.

The Amazing Bulk (2012 Video)

Some movies must WANT to be bad

[2/10 · 13 December 2019]

It's hard to even know where to begin when reviewing this movie, because I can only imagine most people are coming to this page with some knowledge of what this movie is like, either from an internet review, word of mouth, or watching it with friends.

If the title doesn't clue you in, this is a rip off of "The Amazing Hulk." There's a scientist (check) with a girlfriend (check) who is working for a general (check) and who turns into a big hulking monster when enraged (check and check). Yet that doesn't even scratch the surface of what watching this film is like.

Acting is bad. Writing is bad. That almost comes with the territory of these low budget direct to video films. However, the most astounding, and perhaps infamous part, about this movie, is the fact that almost all of it was filmed over a green screen. "What, like Star Wars?" some of you are asking. Sure!... if Star Wars was done with a budget of ten dollars and the green screen was inside someone's garage. Almost every background looks like something bought off stock websites, and to top it off... nobody actually moves in this movie. No really, they don't. Whenever people are walking or running or even chasing people, they're clearly walking in place. I'm not making that up. It has to be seen to believe. Remember when you were a kid and you played inside your house, but you had to pretend to be running so you didn't crash into things as you pretended to shoot your gun? That's what it looks like, only with grown adults doing it.

Strangest of all is the choice to have terrible CG animals and figurines. They're REALLY bad - like, remember the paper clip guy from Microsoft? Yeah, THAT bad. They pop up at random times, and why they're there is never made clear. I've read interviews with the director where he says that it's supposed to be like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" where animated and human characters exist at the same time. Okay, that COULD have been a cool idea... with a higher budget and a better job at making that clear in the story itself. "Roger Rabbit" worked because they established right at the beginning that it was a world where cartoons and live action people existed. By contrast, "Bulk" doesn't even attempt to do anything like that. The result is you've got live action characters running in place behind bad stock CG backgrounds and surrounded by bad stock CG animals. This a good film don't make.

I give this movie 2 stars instead of 1 because there was one scene that did make me laugh. It's near the end, where the main bad guy says, "Where are my personal guards?! Oh yeah, I killed them..." That did make me laugh. Otherwise, the only reason I would watch this is for a so-bad-it's-good experience, because honestly, when all is said and done, it is at least enjoyably bad.

But it's still bad.

Santa Girl (2019)

The "Birdemic" of Christmas Movies

[1/10 · 7 December 2019]

Some of you are probably wondering what my title means. Well, one of the most common criticisms of the film "Birdemic" is that EVERY ASPECT of the film - from the acting to the writing to the editing to the special effects - is bad. It gets to the point that the viewer is left wondering if the filmmakers were TRYING to make a terrible film, because some of the mistakes and problems are so glaring and amateurish that you have to imagine someone in production was causing problems on purpose. That was going through my mind as I watched "Santa Girl". It's not hyperbole for me to say this is the absolute worst Christmas movie I have ever seen... and I've seen some stinkers! This was apparently a film project done at Shenandoah University, so some might want to give it a passing grade, since it's in essence a big budget student film. I don't accept that, since I've seen student projects that were actually well done, even if they were low budget. This film? It ain't one of them. Like "Birdemic", every aspect of this film is bad.

The Writing. My gosh, was the writing WRETCHED. The plot centers around Cassie Claus, daughter of Santa, getting accepted into college. Wait... who were her referrals? The Easter Bunny? The Great Pumpkin? Wouldn't her dad have to sign off on some paperwork or pay deposits? Stop trying to make sense of it, because it just gets more confusing from here on out. Santa says no, then immediately changes his mind in the next scene. Why does he change his mind? Reasons. Jack Frost is upset because Cassie is supposed to be getting ready to marry his son by Christmas, merging Frost's and Claus' businesses (although later on in the film he says if she doesn't marry his son the company will "revert" to his control, which suggests he already owns the business, and why would he want her to marry if... man my brain hurts). Cassie goes to school with Pep, an elf buddy, and meets JR and Sam to begin a round of insta-love from the planet love triangle. JR turns out to be Jack Frost's aforementioned son, who is also in school, and Jack desperately wants him to woo Cassie to secure the deal. So what does Jack do to ensure this? He hires Sam, the OTHER GUY Cassie is interested in, to follow her around and get to know her. Why does Jack, who wants Cassie to fall in love with JR, set her up to get to know and possibly fall in love with another guy? Reasons. Oh, and this whole time, Pep (pretending to be Cassie's sister) is walking around with big ears sticking out of her head, and everybody seems to think this is normal. At some point Cassie tells Sam that her father is Santa. Sam is shocked... even though Cassie's last name is well known to be "Claus", and her "sister" is walking around with HUGE ELF EARS on her head, so you'd think a fun-loving guy like Sam would laugh it off and just presume her family was really into Christmas or her father worked as Santa seasonally... but nope. They need to break up, because you need that third act breakup, and you can't have a love story without the third act breakup - that might actually make it original! By now I've already written a paragraph on all the problems with the script, and I could write a few paragraphs more, but for now you get the idea. A lot happens simply because reasons, while a lot more is just convoluted and absurd.

The Characters. I seriously did not care for anybody. Partially this is because nobody really sticks out, and partially because the characters are so poorly developed. When Cassie is introduced, she's obnoxious, self-centered, looks down on others, and insults people who help her (including Pep, who is a frequent target of her abuse in the first ten minutes alone). Suddenly when she goes to college, she's nice to everyone, eager to make friends, and is even shelling out $500 to help Sam get college books. It's like the writers realized, "Oh fudge, we need to make her likeable! Quick, rewrite her character!" Yeah no, it doesn't make her likeable, it just makes me further realize how shoddy the script is.

The Acting. Overall, the acting ranges from abysmal to just mediocre enough to be tolerable. Part of me wants to say Hank Stone, who plays Jack Frost, is the best performer in this, but part of me wonders if that's because he's actually doing a good job, or because everyone else does such a poor job that his over the top performance actually stands out. Again, I don't like bashing college film projects, because I've seen some great actors in college film projects, but there are moments where this FEELS, in terms of acting, like a college film project. In fact, I didn't know it was a college film project until after I had watched it and looked it up - but while watching it, I kept saying to my wife, "This feels like something you'd see college kids making."

The Editing. Holy cow, the editing. There were jump cuts in the middle of scenes consisting of the exact same shots - one scene had about three of them! And some of these cuts would have been easy to fix: in one scene, you see Cassie's dorm room, then you see Santa and Cassie looking in, then there's a jump cut - same shot - to Pep walking in. You could have put in another shot of the dorm room in between the two cuts of Cassie and Santa - boom, problem solved. Then there's a scene near the end where Santa is supposed to be looking at Cassie, who is at a party, but the way it's cut, the scenes are clearly shot in three separate rooms, making everything feel jarring.

The Art Directing. You know how some Christmas movies, like "The Santa Clause" or "Santa Claus: The Movie", mold modern technology with antiquated design seamlessly, making you believe they coexist? This film doesn't do that. You have people clearly inside a modern home and wearing modern dress, yet at the same time are holding scrolls like something from Biblical times. On top of this, I'm pretty sure they used the exact same Christmas lights on every set, or at the very least it looks like it. The worst offender, however, is the fact that they show a large castle on a snowy mountain as the North Pole, and yet all interior shots are clearly filmed inside someone's house. In fact, in one scene, you can look in the back and see a back door with someone's backyard! Who seriously thought those scenes molded together? Who thought a suburban living room and kitchen looked like something inside a medieval castle?

The Special Effects. Oh. My. Gosh. These were the worst. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting "Jurassic Park", but I've seen low budget monster movies from the 1950's with better effects. There's cheesy twinkling and snow effects that look like they were pulled from stock footage. The makeup job on Jack Frost makes him look more like a Lich King of the underworld than a winter spirit. The absolute worst, however, was a flying car effect they did in a scene with Santa and Sam. It's literally nothing more than a stationary cutout of a car being shrunk down over video. Literally, that's it. The tires aren't moving, I don't think you even see people sitting in it, it doesn't fade out as it's going into the distance... it's BAD. Like REALLY BAD. Like, wow, someone saw that in a daily and didn't think they needed to have it worked on a bit more bad. It was so bad I actually paused the video so my wife and I could talk about it some before rewinding to see it again. Give me an image of a car, b-roll, and an hour in After Effects, and I PROMISE you I could come up with something better.

So yeah, a lot of bad went into the making of this film. An hour later my wife and I were STILL going on about how bad it was. Like I said at the beginning, it gets so terrible that you really do have to wonder how much of it was done poorly on purpose. If you want to watch a bad Christmas movie, then yeah, crank this sucker up. If you want to watch something enjoyable, go see another bad Christmas movie - because I promise you it won't be as bad as this one.

Married by Christmas (2016 TV Movie)

Convoluted plots and Mary Sue characters a holiday special do not make

[3/10 · 21 December 2018]

My wife wanted to watch a cheesy Hallmark Christmas movie, and we decided to give this one a shot. We weren't expecting much, but twenty minutes in, we found ourselves riffing on the film in the vain of MST3K, and we wouldn't stop until the end credits.

The premise of this film is that Carrie Tate, a successful career woman who hasn't had time for a personal life (because every Hallmark movie needs one of those), has discovered her late maternal grandmother, who inherited the family business from her husband despite strong views on marriage roles, wrote a will which said that whichever one of her granddaughters marries first, the business will be inherited by their new husband. As it so happens, Carrie's sister, Katie, is engaged to be married before Christmas, hence threatening Carrie's dream of taking over the business.

I have to note that at this point, my wife and I had to actually pause the movie to discuss this plot, because it was just so incredibly convoluted. If the grandmother wanted a man to inherit so badly, and was fine with settling with an in-law, why didn't she just let her daughter's husband inherit? Why one of the granddaughters? Why bypass the daughter? Also, how was this able to be kept a secret from the daughters so easily? Wills involve lawyers, some notification of the people involved, and if a company is part of the will, someone high up at the company would have to be made aware of this, or would have to prepare for this as part of the long-term business planning - so again, why was this part of the will such a tightly kept secret? There's something in script writing called "suspension of disbelief" where you take an implausible situation and make it plausible through the story's events (eg., Number Five becoming a sentient being after being hit by lightning in "Short Circuit") - and at the very start of this film, its very premise is simply unbelievable. It sounds like a convoluted plot to a Hallmark movie because... oh wait... that's precisely what it is. It's basically just there to get the ball rolling on Carrie finding a husband before Christmas and hoping nobody stops to think about it too long.

Getting back to the story, Carrie begins looking for a husband. She decides to hook up with an old high school friend, Paul, and basically try to woo him into marrying her. A love triangle develops (because what's a Hallmark romance without a love triangle?) when Carrie gets to know Ethan, the friend of Katie's fiance, who also happens to work at another company, one which Carrie's business had tried to obtain.

Here I need to discuss one of the biggest things that fails about this movie: Carrie, as our main character, is COMPLETELY UNLIKABLE. She's a jerk to everyone she knows: her sister, her secretary, Ethan, even Paul. She's petty, insulting, and manipulative. It got to the point where I would keep pausing the film to see the running time, so that I could say something like, "Okay, she's got thirty minutes left to be likeable." I wasn't even sympathetic to her desire to own the company, because the film portrays her as completely inept there. I happen to work for a distributor, like the company in the movie, and if I showed my boss the scene where she first met Ethan to talk about the business deal, where she talks to him in a snarky tone and then refuses to shake hands, he would laugh his head off at how bad a "business deal" scene it was. On top of this, the film keeps acting as if her attitude is no big deal. Ethan keeps acting like he's in love with her, and keeps warming up to her, even though she treats him like crap in every scene, and any sane guy would have cut off all contact with her days ago. By the end of the movie, everybody still loves her, if not more... and why? Because she said she was sorry to her sister? There's no major character turn like in "A Christmas Carol" or other holiday movies. She doesn't even apologize to other characters she wronged. For example, there's a gay character she makes an anti-gay crack at, but at the end of the film he's being friendly to her as if that jab at his orientation never happened. And Ethan, of course, is all heads over heels for her even right at the end, though it's for no other reason than the script says he has to be. (Keep in mind that when they first meet, it was hinted at that Carrie wanted to lay off people at Ethan's company, which he was obviously opposed to.) Even my wife, who is usually forgiving towards romantic films, and can get into the stories and characters, found absolutely ZERO connection with Carrie, and had no idea why any male character would be into her.

I was tempted to give this film 1/10 stars, but there were one or two scenes where I legitimately laughed, and some of the other actors do a decent job in their roles, so I want to give it some leeway. Either way, I would really avoid this movie. It's just bad. Or, if you want to see a bad Hallmark to riff on, have at it with this. With both guns blazing.

Nothing But Trouble (1991)

It is what it is

[5/10 · 14 May 2017]

When we look for pieces of nostalgia from our childhood and rewatch them as adults, reactions can vary. I've found some movies from my childhood are EVEN MORE enjoyable in adulthood (for example, "The Last Unicorn"). I've found other films, while the flaws are a bit more obvious, are still a lot of fun to watch (for example, "Little Monsters"). Other movies... well, come out a tad bit disappointing. This was one of them. I remembered watching it with my parents as a kid. A lot of the goofiness was amusing to me, and the peculiar aspects of the film struck a chord with my childlike mind. This was different when viewing it as an adult.

This film received a lot of criticism when it was released, and to be perfectly honestly, a lot of it wasn't undeserved. The plot feels rushed, and comes across like it's just trying to get an excuse to move the characters to Valkenvania as soon as possible so that the weirdness can begin. With the sets (including the infamous bonestripper) and bizarre characters (including Dan Akroyd in another role as an overgrown baby), this movie is trying REALLY hard to up the surreal factor. I can see why it appealed to me as a kid; in fact, one might argue the movie comes across like it's trying to be a Rust Belt version of "Labryinth." The problem is a lot of times the film's humor relies on the weirdness, and the jokes can range from moderately funny to flat. (Strangely enough, most of the laughter for me came from the scenes with Fausto and Renalda, especially that "Flipper's dead?!" line.) Some parts of the movie also don't make any sense - for example, if law enforcement is behind the judge, why send literally A HUGE AMOUNT OF STATE TROOPERS out to Valkenvania just to prove this?

That being said, is this the WORST movie ever? Not at all, and in that respect I think some film critics (eg., Roger Ebert) were WAY too harsh on it. All of the actors do a decent job in their role: Chevy Chase plays the usual snarky character he was often doing in the 80's and early 90's, and of course John Candy is great in any role he's in. Yeah, it feels like they could have fleshed out the world of Valkenvania just a bit more rather than hop from one weirdness to the next, but what you see is still interesting. It's a pity Dan Akroyd didn't go on to do any other, more refined personal projects.

So no, I wasn't as amused by this as I was when I was a kid, but I wasn't bored either. It's worth at least a one time viewing.

Monsturd (2003 Video)

"Very bad people were being very bad"

[6/10 · 11 February 2017]

This is a movie about a giant piece of poo that kills people.

Get them giggles out now.

You get the feeling going into "Monsturd" that the crew knew exactly what the heck they were making. The film doesn't take itself seriously at all, and feels more like a satire of monster films than one trying to be a serious one. You have the law enforcement officer with a bitter family past, you have the government official who serves also as the film's love interest, you have the evil scientist, you have the big even that of course CAN'T be postponed because reasons...if you've seen it in a monster movie, you'll find it in here. The only difference is, instead of a giant shark or a giant dinosaur, this happens to be a giant piece of poop.

As you can imagine, poop jokes abound. The name of the town is Butte County (yeah yeah, they pronounce it "bewt," but c'mon). The name of the convict that turns into the monster is Jack Schmidt (think about it...think about it...). Thankfully, the entire movie isn't just one giant poop joke, and when they actually do make poop jokes, it doesn't feel as forced as it could have been. Let me put it this way: Happy Madison films only WISH they could do poop jokes as funny as this.

You also get the feeling that most of this movie was filmed over the course of a weekend. Some sequences are a bit awkwardly edited, as if they were filmed at different times and edited together later (eg., the interrogation of the little girl). The special effects are low budget, although the monster itself is pretty impressive as far as costumes go. The acting overall is terrible, and it comes across like every scene was done in one take. The only exceptions might be Dan West and Rick Popko as Deputies Dan and Rick respectively: seriously, almost every scene with these guys is hilarious, and their delivery is great. The best scene in the whole movie has them taking out a ventriloquist dummy as part of an anti-drug campaign for kids, and turning it into a case of police brutality. There are some other scenes obviously played for laughs, including one where the evil scientist tries to summon the poop monster by making fart sounds (no, really, it's a lot funnier than it sounds, trust me).

A lot of times these low-budget horror comedies are duds, but this one was actually pretty enjoyable. It's hard for me to rate it properly, but it definitely is worth at least one viewing if you're into this kind of stuff.

Rawhead Rex (1986)

"I don't believe in the devil - but something started the rumor."

[4/10 · 5 May 2015]

In a quiet town in contemporary Ireland, an ancient pagan monster dating back to pre-Christian times, and known as Rawhead Rex, is unleashed from the burial site where he was contained. He proceeds to kill at random, striking at country homes and trailer parks. An American writer doing research on ancient religious sites becomes involved in taking down Rawhead after the monster kills his own son.

Generally speaking, the acting is decent in the film, and the setting of the simple Irish town is well realized. The music, composed by Colin Towns, is awesome. As for the overall delivery of the story, well...like a lot of horror movies, it's a cool premise, and the story has potential, but a lot of problems end up marring the experience.

Part of the problem is the use of the monster. Rex is pretty much exposed in his full form just about seven minutes into the movie - no build up to the exposure, no suspense about this mysterious thing in the dark, nothing. He pops out of the ground, lifting up his arms and crying out right in front of the camera...and it's not scary. In fact, he looks like a professional wrestler making his entrance. I seriously expected John Cena's theme music to start playing in that scene. It's like taking out the build up of a joke and cutting straight to the punchline; there's something lost in the process.

Another problem is how the monster looks. For one, the reason he's called "Rawhead" in the original story is because his head looked like raw meat. The monster in the film, by contrast, looks like an orc from some fantasy movie. I can see why Clive Barker later said he was unhappy by how the monster came across in the movie. For another, the costume looks like something designed for quick close ups or mid shots, rather than prolonged long shorts or action scenes. In some sequences (such as when Rawhead attacks the little boy, or when Rawhead slashes about in the church), it comes across way too obvious that it's a guy in a suit, given how little Rawhead's face moves aside from his mouth.

Perhaps one surprising fault was all the clichés or tropes in this movie. You have the lovers out kissing who encounter the monster. You have the police who are annoyingly dense and hostile to the hero's common sense. You have a girl who gets her clothes ripped off by Rawhead for no discernible reason other than we need those bare breasts. And of course, the ending gives you the typical monster cliché of "OH HEY THE MONSTER'S NOT REALLY DEAD! DERPY DOO!" There's absolutely no purpose to the latter - it's like someone said, "Hey! We need to put that in there! Because if a horror movie needs anything, it's an overused jump scare at the end!" All these clichés were especially shocking for me because one of Clive Barker's other films, "Hellraiser," is one of my favorite horror movies precisely because it's so original and unique.

It also doesn't help that a lot of things explained in the original story aren't really explained here, or it adds things that aren't satisfactorily explained. Why does Declan automatically join Rawhead? Never explained. What's the deal with Rawhead urinating on people? Never explained. Why is Rawhead so afraid of pregnant woman, and what's the backstory of the special idol that can defeat Rawhead? Never fleshed out. Why is he called "Rawhead Rex" when they establish that he existed before the Roman Empire, and hence the Irish use of Latin ("rex" is Latin for "king") wouldn't have been utilized? Why does NO ONE at the Roman Catholic church know about the story of Rawhead and what lies in the altar, when most Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches out there openly claim to have the pinky finger of some saint from 2000 years ago? Never explained. At some points in this movie I imagined Clive Barker sitting next to me saying, "Yeah, uh...just go with it for now." I've heard Barker and others have thought of remaking this film. I say go for it! It's a cool story, and there's a lot of potential that could probably be realized in a refined second take.

Carrie (2013)

See the 1976 version (or just read the book)

[4/10 · 20 February 2015]

Recently my wife and I got into a bit of a "Carrie" craze. She had just finished reading the original Stephen King book, whereas I hadn't; I had seen the 1976 film version as a young'n, whereas she hadn't. With these two factors, we decided to watch the 2013 version, and provide input into how faithful it was to the book, as well as how it held up to the 1976 version.

I've often heard that this was a "reimagining" of the original story, but I found this to be both true and untrue. There are many lines lifted directly from the book that weren't in the 1976 version...however, there are many changes and elements which weren't in the book but were in the original film. Two examples: Sue is there at the prom and is kicked out by Ms. Desjardin (in the book, she went to the prom after the crap hit the fan); after attacking her with a knife, Carrie's mother is crucified to the wall (in the book, her heart was slowed down). With this in mind, I found it harder and harder NOT to compare this film to the 1976 original. Like the newer "Planet of the Apes," all the blatant references to the first film compelled me to do more and more comparing.

The acting, for the most part, is fairly decent. Chloë Moretz, who plays the title role, does a pretty good job playing an awkward shy teen, though at the same time she looks TOO good to be Carrie; I found it hard to believe that, even if she was made fun of, absolutely NO ONE would EVER be attracted to her. In the 1976 one, Sissy Spacek isn't ugly, but she looks more like a girl who would be made fun in school. Most of the minor characters do a decent job in their roles, including Gabriella Wilde as Sue and Ansel Elgort as Tommy. Julianne Moore's performance as Carrie's mother, however, presents a couple of problems. For one, she doesn't play her as the aggressive psycho that she was in the book, and as she was portrayed in the 1976 version. I got the vibe that they were trying to make the audience more sympathetic towards Margaret, or perhaps add more of a bond between her and Carrie, but considering the story portrays her as a secondary villain, it just doesn't work. It doesn't help that Moore's performance is mediocre (I kept seeing her character from "The Lost World", only with religious lingo thrown in), and it can't hold up to Piper Laurie's Oscar nominated performance in the original film.

Another problem with this film is, like so many horror remakes that have come out recently, any sense of suspense or mood is ruined with unnecessary blood and gore. The biggest offender is one scene where Margaret is encountered by Sue's mother and proceeds to stab herself in the leg with a needle. Why? I don't know. It just sort of happens, and then the movie continues without another thought.

Perhaps the biggest thing that ruined the movie was the famous "Black Prom" sequence. For one, Carrie doesn't just look at things like she did in the book and the 1976 version - instead, Chloë Moretz waves her hands about and gets a stupid grin on her face. I don't know if this was Miss Moretz's idea or the director's, but either way it hurts the scene. My wife and I actually started LAUGHING at it, and we dubbed her "Evil Elsa." The whole point of Carrie's powers was that it was telekinesis; that is, she was using her mind as an extension of her desires and wants, in the same manner (but not in conjunction with) the way we use our body. Also, it doesn't come across as the big massacre it was in the book, and as it was in the 1976 film: it looks more like Carrie kills off the bullies who were mean to her, then just leaves. Nothing about the scene stands out, except Chloë Moretz's goofy faces and hand waving, which actually hurt it.

If you want to know how much the original excels as a film, then let me tell how our "Carrie" night ended. The Black Prom scene in the 2013 version had absolutely no affect on my wife; yet after we watched this movie, I went on YouTube and showed her the Black Prom sequence in the 1976 original, and she became TERRIFIED. I don't scare quite as easily as her, but even I felt chills go up my spine as Sissy Spacek looked around the room with those unfeeling bug eyes of her. The use of sound, the use of split screen, and the build up of the chaos just made it work. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the 1976 version is the BEST FILM EVER, but as an interpretation of the story it holds up well after all these years. Furthermore, there's a good reason why the Black Prom sequence is still one of the most remembered from all horror films.

I won't say this is the worst remake ever, but as a film it was just disappointing. I've read other reviews that have said there were missed opportunities to reinterpret the story in a successful, unique way, and I wholeheartedly agree. If you want to see a movie about the Stephen King book, just stick with the 1976 one.

The Runestone (1991)

Note: Bullets don't work on Fenrir

[3/10 · 23 January 2015]

You know those movies with a cool idea and set up that should have been a lot better? This movie is one of them.

A mysterious runestone is discovered in Pennsylvania and taken to the city, where it turns out to have housed the Norse wolf Fenrir. Fenrir escapes and goes on a killing spree. It turns out that the ancient Viking explorers who arrived to America left Fenrir off inside the runestone (thanks, Nords!) and now that he's been unleashed, he's set to begin Ragnarok (aka, Nordic doomsday).

Again, it's a cool premise, and with an awesome soundtrack, decent acting, and capable directing, this film has promise. Unfortunately, the movie gets dumb, and it gets dumb quick. For one, I'd like to know how Fenrir intends to destroy the world when he seems to mostly just do random killing on the street (I've read a little on Ragnarok, and Fenrir's role is a LITTLE MORE involved than just going around killing thugs and homeless guys. Furthermore, it is established early that guns don't work on Fenrir. One character, a police detective, even figures this out from firsthand experience. Despite this, people seem to continually think that a bunch of guys armed with guns are able to fight Fenrir off. Nobody seems to stop and think, "Hey! Wait a minute! Guns don't work! Maybe we should look for SOMETHING ELSE to fight this beast with!" As a result, a lot of policemen needlessly die (and of course, nobody in the city or press ask why half the police force just went bye bye). It's a personal pet peeve of mine when characters don't seem to adjust accordingly, like any sane rational person would. Remember the "Prince of Space" episode of MST3K where Crow shouts to the characters, "YOUR WEAPONS HAVE NO AFFECT ON HIM!" That's how I felt near the end of this movie. I have to also admit that the monster design is a bit disappointing. No, I'm not bummed it wasn't CG. The monster suit itself is actually pretty impressive...however, I just feel like a powerful Nordic spirit would look a little different than a glorified werewolf.

There are also some unintentionally funny moments. For example, when the character of Martin attacks a girl, another character says, "Martin! What the h--- are you doing?!" to which Martin replies, "Martin is doing THIS!" and punches him. Then there's another scene where Fenrir puts on a police cap and kills a policeman while wearing it. Really?! The film lost all seriousness for me at that point. I seriously expected Abbot and Costello to appear on the scene after that.

Like I said before, the film had amazing potential. It started out really well for the first forty-five minutes or so, but then it starts to go downhill quick. There is plenty to commend this film for, but in the end it just doesn't work out.

Nutcracker Fantasy (1979)

"True love is not like the puppets of the forest - there are no strings attached!"

[9/10 · 22 December 2014]

I first saw this film as a young'n, when it was perhaps shown on the Disney Channel or somewhere else. I remembered the stop motion; I remembered Drosselmeyer disappearing into the darkness while chanting "Tick tock tee"; I remembered a two-headed mouse queen talking to her son; I remembered a girl getting her feet stuck on the steps. Those were all I remembered as an adult, but nonetheless I also remembered liking it when I was a kid. So recently, when I was on a Nutcracker high and wanted to watch various interpretations of the story, I remembered this one and found it online. After watching it for the first time as an adult...I found that, amazingly enough, it still held up. In fact, I loved it even more.

The plot of the film is basically a mix of the original Nutcracker short story, and elements of the ballet. A young girl, Clara, is visiting her Uncle Drosselmeyer and Aunt Gerda. She comes across a Nutcracker owned by Drosselmeyer, and immediately takes a liking to it. During the night, however, mice attempt to steal the Nutcracker away, and when Clara pursues them, she encounters the two-headed mouse queen Morphia. The Nutcracker comes to life, fighting off the mice before Clara passes out. When she awakens, she wonders if it was all a dream. Investigating the scene, she finds Drosselmeyer running into the clock, into which she pursues him, leading her into the kingdom of the dolls, where Princess Mary has been turned into an unconscious mouse by Morphia. Clara and Franz, the handsome captain of the guard, work together to attempt to break the spell...and from here begins a chain of events that will bring the two closer together, right up to the film's climax.

"Nutcracker Fantasy" is a stop-motion animated movie from Japan, but the only version I am really familiar with is the English dub, which had quite a few celebrities putting in their hand. Usually celebrity ensemble dubs can be a mixed bag, but the talent here does an amazing job: Melissa Gilbert is wonderful as Clara; Roddy McDowall is charming as Franz; Eva Gabor does her thing as the Queen of Time; and Christopher Lee, who plays Drosselmeyer as well as a number of side characters, is absolutely splendid (as usual). Overall, the dub cast did a great job (although Gar's voice was at times perhaps too comical when it should have been serious).

Part of what I love about this version is that Clara is a wonderful character. Oftentimes Clara exists in the Nutcracker story simply to be an observer, or to be the obvious love interest. Here, however, Clara is not only a character who actually contributes to the plot (for example, it is she who discovers Morphia's weakness), but her personality is absolutely charming. She's caring, selfless, and has a love that isn't just in words. This is especially true in the film's final act, where she reveals just how willing she is to prove her love for Franz. I currently have a young daughter, and I can't wait until she's old enough to understand this film and can watch it with me, because I would love her to have someone like Clara as a role model for someone her age.

Another thing I love is the music. Obviously, you hear a lot of familiar tunes from Tchaikovsky's ballet, but there are some original songs in here that were haunting and beautiful. The main song, "Dance of the Dolls", is especially wonderful, and perfect for the story (I actually found a copy of it and put it on my iPod - that's how much it stuck with me).

The visuals for the film are also amazing. The animation quality is akin to your average Rankin/Bass stop motion affair, but far smoother (although you do have that odd jerkiness every now and then). Many of the sets, such as the doll castle or the land of happiness, are beautiful to look at. Some of the sequences are memorable, such as the doll attack on the mouse base, while others fit into the surreal world of dreams, such as the candy dancing sequence. Unfortunately, many copies of the English dub have poor video, so that much of the detail in the set designs are lost on the viewer, and you can't really appreciate how much work was put into the project.

Granted, as much as I love this film, I won't deny that it's not for all tastes. Some people don't like the seemingly random ballet dance sequences (although considering this is all from the point of view of a young girl who likes dancing dolls, and she participates in one of the scenes, I could only imagine ballet would fit in her dreams somewhere). Some people are freaked out by the infamous Ragman sequence. I'll also admit the only thing I don't like is the Asian stereotype voice that the English dub gave the Chinese wise man.

That being said, this is perhaps one of my favorite Nutcracker adaptations, if not one of my favorite animated films. It's charming, it's lovely, and it's enduring. If you remember this from your childhood as well, I would definitely recommend seeing it again. It still holds up, even today, and even when you are a child only in heart.

Legend of Frosty the Snowman (2005 Video)

I agree with other reviewers: one of the worst Christmas specials made

[1/10 · 11 December 2014]

In the town of Evergreen, Mayor Tinkerton, who has a gold statue of himself in front of city hall and thinks he controls the sun, enforces tight rules and regulations upon his town, with everything from the street being clean to all children walking with their backs straight. (Pretty sure that's not how most American towns operate, but we'll roll with it). Enter this picture the disembodied magical hat of Frosty, which begins to go around town stalking certain kids. He waits until they're alone, then leads them away from their parents and compels them to break rules with the promise of having fun together.

Did that last part sound a little creepy? Yeah...

Parents, unable to notice Frosty (even though he's BLATANTLY RUNNING AROUND THE CITY IN BROAD DAYLIGHT), are curious why their children now disobey them, sneaking out at night, and spending time with this Frosty fellow. While Charlie Tinkerton investigates the story of Frosty, the kids begin to love Frosty so much that they are practically worshiping him, getting mad at one another when Frosty shows special attention.

Did that last part also sound a little creepy? I seriously thought they were going to head down a "Children of the Corn" route. I was half expecting the kids to start talking about "He Who Walks Between the Snow Banks".

Things worsen when Principal Pankley (whom the mayor disturbingly refers to as "Hanky Panky") melts Frosty by dropping him in ice water (not making this up), then proceeds to suspend habeas corpus and install himself as a tyrannical parent state over the children (again, I'm NOT making this up!). It's up to the kids to resolve things in the predictable conclusion.

A lot of holiday specials nowadays have the feeling of being rushed in order to cash in on the holiday season, and this is no exception. As hinted at from my plot description, the storyline is extremely convoluted, introducing elements that are either never fully explained, or never resolved. For example, the magical comic Charlie comes across is never fully explained; you never know how it came into existence, why it exists, or why it acts the way it does. It solely exists as a plot convenience to explain things to the viewer.

Another big problem lies in the inconsistencies in the story, as well as plot holes that you could drive a semi through. Frosty's Hat is perfectly capable of breaking out of the chained box, but for some reason he just now decides to break out? Why? Never explained. Furthermore, they establish that Frosty's power rests in his hat, not in his body, and yet after Frosty "melts", nothing remains but his hat, as if he's been defeated. There's also a scene where Frosty's hat leads Charlie into the library...while, at the same time, Frosty appears to two boys at the school. Huh? Is Frosty omnipresent? Are we supposed to assume Frosty is some kind of winter demiurge?

There are other problems. For example, Frosty and a kid go to a lake of thin ice, and Pankly removes the sign which says "DANGER: THIN ICE"...though he does it AFTER they've already been skating on the ice. What, they didn't notice it? Then the kid asks Frosty to do a figure eight, in order for the ice to crack under him. You know how this works? Because instead of doing a figure eight, Frosty just goes into the middle of the lake and spins around like a top. What? And apparently, Frosty has control over the elements of snow, winter, and ice, but ice water melts him. Makes sense, sure. Then later on, even though Mr. Pankly KNOWS Frosty is gone, the kids made a Frosty similitude that just looks like a tall pile of snow, and Pankly thinks it's Frosty come back. Again, what? Then when Charlie finds the comic in the library, he reads the title as "The Secret and Neverending Adventures of Frosty the Snowman"...even though the comic on the screen simply says "Frosty the Snowman". Did no one in the animation department notice that?

Perhaps one of the strangest parts of this special is how it supports breaking the rules. Now, I get the whole "let kids just be kids" shtick a lot of these specials try to get across, but they go well beyond in this. In one scene, Frosty vandalizes someone's car and gets a girl involved, and it's treated as a GOOD thing. What's more, one of the charges lodged against Frosty is that the kids are being disobedient to their parents - and again, this is treated as a GOOD thing. I have children, and I fully support them expressing themselves, having imagination, etc...but sorry, I'm still their father. I still have authority over them until they're adults.

Yet another major problem (I could probably write a book) is the length of the special. It's literally just over an hour, but the story feels like something that could have been resolved in thirty minutes. A lot of it is just corny visual gags or fluff that does nothing to the story. It doesn't offer any laughs. It doesn't offer anything groundbreaking to the plot. It's just there.

Let me make it clear that I realize this is meant for little kids. Sometimes you have to give leeway in regards to suspension of disbelief. However, I think children deserve at least a decent story, and shouldn't be treated like idiots. I also think they deserve a better Christmas moral than "car vandalism is cool so long as you're stickin' it to the man". As a parent, I ask other parents to just avoid this, and not subject your kids to this. Not only will your mind hurt, but they won't get anything from this. If you want a Frosty cartoon, stick with the two Rankin/Bass specials. I'm not going to say they're perfect, but they still hold up.

Strike Commando (1987)

Ice Cream from the Trees, yo

[3/10 · 12 November 2014]

Reb Brown (of "Uncommon Valor" fame and "Space Mutiny" infamy) stars as Sgt. Mike Ransom, a member of a commando unit which is betrayed by their superiors while on a mission during the Vietnam War. Ransom is the sole survivor, linking up with a group of Vietnamese refugees and attempts to link up with his superiors, in order to get back home.

At this point, the story starts to get a tad bit familiar...so he's betrayed by his rescuers, is captured by the Russians, is tortured, is told to speak into a microphone and doesn't say what he wants his captors to say, escapes, takes down the enemy one by one, has a female acquaintance who gets blown away, and runs around screaming while stuff blows up...hmmm...now where have we heard this before? Oh yeah! Rambo II! Yes, this movie pretty much becomes a Rambo II ripoff after the end of the first act. The only thing it was missing was a showdown with a Russian helicopter at the end (I doubt they could afford it with the budget).

As one might expect with a low budget rip off of Rambo II, the acting is poor, the action scenes your usual staple of a guy waving a gun around while baddies flail their arms and fall down, etc. Most notable is the scene where Ransom holds a dying Vietnamese child and tells him about Disney World, and all the while Reb Brown is trying to feign sadness. Also, remember how Reb Brown ran around screaming a lot in Space Mutiny? Yeah, he pretty much does that here. I think half his lines are "YARR!!" Is the film enjoyable? Sure. It's not great, but if you want a cheesy 80's action flick, this might suit you. It's not overly entertaining, but it's good background noise or source for mindless violence.

Space Mutiny (1988)

Move! Move! Move! Move! Move! Move! Move! Move! Move! (etc.)

[5/10 · 12 November 2014]

Like a lot of people, I first saw this movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Mike and the bots did a great job riffing it, and it's probably one of the best episodes they've ever done. I went online, and found the original, unedited version, as I was curious to see what had been taken out, and wanted to see if maybe the movie was a lot better without someone riffing it.

The storyline is actually not half bad: a spaceship known as the Southern Sun is moving through space looking for a planet to call home, and disenfranchised officers within the ship form factions, planning a mutiny to take over the ship. A fighter pilot named Ryder who has recently arrived must stop the plot, since he is one of the few aboard who has specialized combat training. Again, the story itself has potential...unfortunately, as so often happens with movies, a good idea can get ruined in the execution.

One of my biggest gripes with the film is the editing. Entire sequences are reused and easily recognizable ("They're having the same party!" as Mike Nelson lamented). Some scenes are completely useless; for example, they have a sequence where Kalgan learns of the Bellerians (when just a few seconds before he was setting up the bombs - what?), then several minutes later Blake calls Kalgan and tells him about the arrival of the Bellerians...which he already knew about! There is also the infamous scene where Lt. Lemont appears alive and well...after she was killed (even without Mike and the bots, you'll find yourself yelling, "Hey wait a minute, she's dead!"). I'm also curious about the stock footage from Battlestar Galactica used for all the outer space scenes: just how did they get the rights to use that footage, and did they really think people wouldn't recognize the ship designs? It was almost as bad as using X-Wings and Tie Fighters.

The acting is a mixed bag. Reb Brown can be a good character actor, but here his role amounts to running around screaming for no reason. John Philip Law, who is usually a hokey but likable actor, is played out like a cartoon villain, cackling madly while making corny speeches and insults. James Ryan is immensely over the top as the limping MacPhearson. The only capable actors who aren't completely wasted (Cameron Mitchell and Graham Clarke) don't have enough film time. Also, interesting trivia: Camille Mitchell, Cameron Mitchell's daughter, plays the voice of lead Bellerian Jennera (which makes the semi-seduction scene between her and the commander rather... interesting). Another bit of trivia: Cisse Cameron (who plays Lea, the "sexy senior citizen") is actually *younger* than Reb Brown; she was born in 1954, while he was born in 1948.

Perhaps the one thing I appreciate about this movie is that, as a hokey sci-fi action film, it delivers. Yes, you've got plenty of "railing kills", and if you're looking for a movie where lots of people die and lots of laser guns get shot, this one delivers. Honestly, even after all I've said, it's not the WORST movie out there; yes, it's bad, but it's bad in a fun way. Yeah it's got the usual tropes of the sub-genre ("Why can't they hit this huge, slow-moving white thing?!"), but that's part of what makes it enjoyable.

If you're curious about what was taken out for the MST3K episode, most of what was removed was done for time: there's a scene where Lea and Ryder talk after they make love in her garden; there are extra scenes in the dogfight with the pirates; there are extra scenes in the initial Enforcer chase between Ryder, Lea, and Kalgan, as well as the laser fight beforehand; the commander's council (where Ryder is given command) is much longer; you actually see MacPhearson's flaming body flail around before he dies; etc. The only two significant scenes of note are: one where you actually see Kalgan get up and run away after the big gunfight at the end - that explains why he's still alive for the climactic Enforcer chase at the end (whereas in the MST3K edit, it's like "Hey, wait, I thought he was killed"); and another where MacPhearson reveals that it was Ryder's squadron that caused his limp.

Like I said, the movie's bad, but it's an enjoyable kind of bad. Watch it with your friends, see how much of the MST3K riffs you remember, and enjoy the badness of it all.