Owen-13 Reviews

The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)

Not the most awful movie ever made, but why make it?

[3 January 2007]

The Thomas Crown Affair was a very different movie in the original release, the crime made more sense, and they didn't quibble about the bad guy getting away with it all. The remake just lacks depth and class by comparison. I had great hopes, as I am a long time Pierce Brosnan fan, and indeed his work is good in the movie, but what he gets to do is just not worth doing. Rene Russo, on the other hand, is NO Faye Dunaway. And the rest of the cast is just there, could be anyone, they are just filling space, waiting for the big love interest to take place. Overall, I regret wasting the time it took to see the movie, and the money I spent.

Onionhead (1958)

It's not a comedy but..........

[3 December 2006]

I have seen the movie a few times over the years, and usually enjoy it for what it is. Its not a comedy, though it has funny moments, and the characters are interesting even though none of them is really appealing. I suppose it would have to be classified as a drama, though it isn't really dramatic in theme or treatment, and it isn't exactly slice of life, its too scatter-shot to be that. A series of incidents that define the character and development of a man from callow youth through cynical adult to something a bit more compassionate and understanding by the end of the movie. This movie was apparently something of a departure for Andy Griffith, as he rarely returned to this sort of material in his career, seeming to prefer a more slapstick, comedic role, but it does indeed demonstrate his capability of handling material outside that venue.

Joe Versus the Volcano (1990)

Its a pretty good movie but.......

[8/10 · 15 November 2006]

This is one of those movies that people keep saying you either love or hate. I like this movie a lot, I think it has lots of good points, and I have watched it several times, but thats about it. I don't LOVE it, I don't see it, as some have said, as a litmus test of whether I will like a person or not by how they feel about this movie, nor do I think it deserves to be burned and the people who made it shot. Its a fun movie, with some truths about life, some falsehoods, and a lot of just movie stuff. Like I say, I like it a lot, and would recommend it as a fun movie to watch along with several other Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan pairings. But no more than that. You won't learn anything you didn't already know by watching the movie, and it won't cure you of terminal depression or anything else, but it will certainly while away a couple of happy hours basking in the glow of romance and happy feelings.

Hot Millions (1968)

I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed this film.

[8/10 · 1 February 2006]

I saw the description of the movie on TCM and only let it run because I like both Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, so I was delightfully surprised to find that I really liked the movie and found it quite exceptional. Of course, it is seriously dated, but as a period piece it is well worth watching just for the subtle humour in insight into life and lifestyle almost forty years ago. Now the only problem is trying to find it on DVD so I can watch it more often. I also was quite taken with the performances of Smith and Ustinov as the leads, and of Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, and the cameo appearances by Robert Morley and Cesar Romero.

Robots (2005)

Lame. really, really lame.

[4/10 · 31 March 2005]

I suppose I shouldn't have expected any more, but I did. The animation was good, sometimes really good, though not nearly as good as the pre-release hype built it up to be, but the story was weak. Really weak. Then there were the truly insipid and lame jokes (fart jokes? why would ROBOTS even understand fart jokes. That sort of humor was very distracting. And those may have been the high points of the script. The cast worked hard with it, tried to give it some sort of freshness, but the script was so weak and dated that it just never had a prayer. The material was old and tired, and the sight gags were even older (did they resurrect Moe Howard to choreograph). All in all, I was bored and disappointed in this movie and hope to never see its like again.

Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959)

Excellent for its day, and still fun to watch.

[9/10 · 23 August 2004]

I saw this one when it first came out (and I was about 9 years old) and was hugely impressed with it, though I couldn't understand why they needed to add a girl to the plot. 40 some odd years later, I am still impressed by what they achieved in the way of plot, acting, and even the special effects still look not bad, but I still don't really see why they felt the need for adding a woman to the mix.<G> But Arlene Dahl is good enough in the part that I no longer feel bothered by it. James Mason is excellent as always, Pat Boone is not, but sings nicely, and the villain is villainous, and comes to a fitting ending, though i do regret that they left out the encounter with the ocean going monsters from the tale. All in all, a very pleasant way to spend part of your day.

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

Worst movie ever made? Well, not quite.

[23 December 2003]

SPOILER There are worse movies available out there, but not many. This one at least does have nice use of colour, and Salma Hayek looks nice, but I can't think of many other redeeming points. The action/thriller is boring, and incredibly predictable, the morality is non-existent, the characters are ludicrous and the acting tends to be over the top and cheesy at best. Then it tries to be a vampire movie, with all the success of the worst of that genre, and none of the class of the best. If you didn't know it was a vampire movie, I suppose the twist might have been surprising, but it quickly turns to a step beyond the most moronic of such movies, even worse then Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which I like despite its weaknesses). I watched this movie because so many are raving about the great Quentin Tarantino, but it this is an example of his work, I will go back and watch old Ed Wood movies in preference. Oh, it also claims to be a comedy. How? Comedies are supposed to make you laugh, even horror/comedies, but this thing was so ploddingly boring that nothing humorous ever emerged. And Seth Gecko actually is a ******* b****rd for abandoning that girl at the end.

Night of the Eagle (1962)

based on a really good book, and an honest attempt to deal with a complex theme

[7/10 · 16 June 2003]

The book is rather deeper and more involved in the psychology of the characters than is possible in the movie, but they have made a good, honest attempt to translate that to the screen, and certainly achieved a nice spooky atmosphere in the process. It is a little jerky and awkward in the beginning, but once the movie hits its stride it manages a decent air of gothic chill. All in all, it is a movie well worth seeing.

Hannibal (2001)

I wasn't impressed the first time through, but it gets better on repeated viewing.

[7/10 · 5 June 2003]

When I first watched this movie, I found it rather boring, extremely predictable, but on repeated viewings, there is a little more quality to it than I thought. The characterizations aren't as razor sharp as in Silence of the Lambs, but the Lector character is still crisp, and the villains are less well drawn, and sometimes a little contrived and silly, but they are still there, working against Lector and Starling both. Paper tigers though, all of them, you never expect them to be able to win. Anyway, I would recommend seeing the movie more than once if you are going to see it at all

The Trouble with Angels (1966)

One of my all time favourites

[9/10 · 5 June 2003]

Except for the performance of June Harding, this is just an exeptional movie in every respect, good casting, excellent location, clever script, and besides, it has Hayley Mills doing what she did best, being irrepresible. And if you get a chance to read the novel it was based on, that is a delight too.

Hannibal (2001)

Ho-Hum

[7/10 · 23 May 2003]

The evil Dr. Lector is a yawner, and so is this movie. Talkie where it needs action, and mindless where it needs suspense, I have rarely been so bored at a suspense/horror movie. And I missed Jodie Fosters much more succinct style. Anthony Hopkins is ok, but has almost nothing to do in the movie but leer occasionally.

A Knight's Tale (2001)

Definitely not worth wasting time on.

[30 October 2001]

I could forgive the utter lack of historical accuracy, after all I have seen and enjoyed other inaccurate movies, but this one combines boredom with completely uninteresting characters. Rufus Sewell is pretty lazy as the villain, and I never did really accept Ledger as being much of a hero (or even much of a protagonist). As for Chaucer, the performance was laughably unconvincing, seeming to try to go every which way but toward a recognizable character. Definitely worth a miss, and I am just glad I didn't even pay the rental fee (saw it with a friend).

Laserblast (1978)

Probably the worst movie I ever liked, for no apparent reason.

[9 October 2001]

This may well be the worst movie ever made. It has no perceptible story line, very little, if any plot, and some really poor acting. I can't think of a single positive thing to say about it at all, really, and I have no idea at all why I sat through the whole thing, but I did, and didn't feel cheated at the end, which I also cannot explain. Looking back on the experience, I think there are parts of two or three not-too-bad sci-fi films, just loosely cut together, with scenes that seem to have been edited out of some other movies, and just inserted here and there in the movie, and maybe that was its vague appeal to me. A sort of da-da approach to film, that almost worked.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992)

Worth seeing for the fun, and silliness

[29 September 2001]

This is not the best vampire movie I have ever seen, but it definitely isn't the worst, either. The action is passable, the characters are at least interesting, and the situations are well enough handled to keep your interest flowing from scene to scene. I think Paul Reubens as assistant to the big, evil vampire was pretty inspired, and Rutger Hauer is suitably sinister in the supporting role as supreme vampire. The movie is not much like the tv series, but it never tries to be.

Sleuth (1972)

An all time classic.

[9 January 1999]

This movie really stands the test of time, as I like it fully as much now as when I first saw it on the big screen. The performances are great and the settings are perfect to complement the action. When the movie was first released, some people seemed to feel that Michael Caine wasn't up to performing with someone of the calibre of Laurence Olivier, but they were certainly wrong about that, as both this movie and his subsequent career have proved. All in all, a really worthwhile movie to watch again and again.