Reviews

70 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Rome (2005–2007)
This is a very good series
19 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The episode where Caeser gets to shake hands with Elvis is coming up this Sunday, so I felt compelled to write something. It appears that this is a brain-child between Time-Warner and the BBC. The sets, different locations used, and make-up effects are all top-notch. The sex and nudity seems a little too hyper-realized and may put off some people, but the point is, Romans tended to be excessive at EVERYTHING. At least the ruling classes. The subtexts of the illegal wars of conquest and the constant political strife being paralleled with our own times may or may not seem intentional. What's more likely is that the same old sh*t keeps happening over and over again because we're too stupid to figure it out.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Top 100 unintentionally hilarious films
17 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I leave it to the viewers good graces to determine whether or not they will watch this film. Most of you will not, and I commend you. There are certainly more worthwhile things to do with your time. However, having said that... the scene where Georges Corraface, a Frenchmen, playing Christopher Columbus (who was Genoan?), enjoys a big fat magic dragon cigar with the local Indian chief (at least played by a real native American) has to be seen to be believed. At least Tim Dalton had the good sense not to appear in this nonsense. The ending made me scratch my head and go "huh", and not in that good David Lynch kind of way either.
3 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The point of noir is that there are no innocents
3 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The "limp-wristed" character of Matt Reynolds is supposed to be Tab Hunter, who was outed by the tabloid press in 1955. The spin with this movie is that Paul Guilfoyle (II), is the son of Paul Guilfoyle, the veteran character actor who got Tab Hunter his big break, so to speak. The Television show is obviously supposed to be Dragnet. It's all an illusion, as we are to learn, because of the vast level of corruption of the city and the cities forces. The movie is supposed to be taking place in the past but its also simultaneously taking place in the present as there are actors and lights and cameras, and such. This is what took place when they made the movie in the late '90s, as they told a story of something that happened in the '50s and is still happening.

Russell Crowe gave a standout performance and dominates the movie. Everyone roots for him for the most, I suspect. He is really is proving that he understands acting as reaching a psychological archetype of that character. The best actors are coming out of Australia, and I find that interesting, as it indicates a shift of some sorts in film-making. Film-making is getting more and more self-referential. You can't get any more self-referential than this film, because of the Paul Guilfoyle connection. It's right there to read into to, and I think it's a daring thing for a major motion picture to do. This film will continue to have a long afterlife.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I don't get it.
2 November 2005
Why do we get that awesome camera "eye" in the first 5-7 minutes of the movie, then get stuck in that old Lucas-Kurosawa mode for the rest of the movie? The answer might be... Lucas doesn't care. All he has to do is put "Star Wars" up on the marquee and people will come running to buy tickets. It doesn't make any sense to show a story of what we already know will happen, and then not throw any technical innovations at us. The future of the movies is a camera "eye" that moves in and out of different points of view, swooping, dancing, making use of 3 dimensions. What we get here is just a static camera, except for the first minutes that I reference at the start of the article. These prequels should be considered a scandal as to the quality of the writing, acting, and yes, the visual effects, which for the most part, do not impress. Why should anyone be surprised when the man himself is on record as saying "Empire didn't need to be that good".
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
When Kubrick banned the film in England, he basically confirmed that nobody *got it*
27 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The idea that films are really about other films, that films "fold" the ideas from other films into the story much like you fold bell peppers into a plain omelet to make it more interesting, is not an original one. However, it is an idea that I have stumbled across, or perhaps I knew it all along subconsciously, I just didn't have the reference to make the connection.

Films are essentially about other films, but life can be about films. For example, it is well known that thugs don't feel like a thug unless they affect some kind of film cliché. DePalma's "Scarface" didn't really become popular until it was released on VHS and every gangster wanna be was buying a copy of it, and quoting the films dialogue to no end.

I do get the sense here that Kubrick is trying to make the audience connect to the idea that while films do not cause people to be violent, they can influence people to become violent. The entire movie works on several layers: The gangs wear costumes, Alex's gang fights another gang on a stage, Alex picks up a couple of groupies with a "performance" and the sex scene is shown in an exaggerated fashion (like most movie sex scenes are), the writer who gets beaten is the author of the story (the guy who wrote the book was in Ceylon, I think, when several American GI's broke into his home, beat him, and raped/murdered his wife).

How do they attempt to "cure" Alex? They show him a movie! Albeit, they force him to watch it, but they have also drugged him to associate a visceral reaction with Beethoven and the images. And this is what filmmakers do to us as well. It took my own maturity to finally comprehend some of these ideas, but in college, and looking back much to my chagrin, I watched this movie repeatedly because I thought it was a wicked black comedy. There is nothing funny about this movie, aside from a couple of winks from Kubrick. I think he is trying to put across the idea that movies can condition an audience to think/feel a certain way, and the results are not always for the best.

Violence is never "cool" despite Hollywood throwing mind-numbing amounts of violence at us every year. "We" are Alex, in a nut-shell. We, well maybe not you and I, but vast numbers of children are being conditioned to behave a certain way, think a certain way, talk a certain way. Maybe not in the fashion of Alex, who is forced to watch with his eyelids stapled open, but how many times have you seen a child sit 3 feet from a TeeVee set, tuned out like a zombie?
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A movie about making a movie
13 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is hands down the most unintentionally hilarious film I've ever seen in a cinema. Dozens of local tough youths had shown up on this day, eager to get their dose of orchestrated violence and mayhem. No one sitting there was prepared for what was to transpire.

Here is the plot in a nutshell: Riddick, reprising his Pitch Black role (an often-talked about movie, yet nobody I know has seen it) as a criminal-type who can see in the dark. And there are these other characters, these invading types who want to "convert" people and are looking for the underverse (I like how the chief bad guy kept saying "the uuuuuuuuuunderverse" in his clipped, classically trained voice). What do they want to convert people to? The gay lifestyle! Check out the guy who played the purifier character. He's a hoot and an absolute sissy.

Anyway, some judeo-Christian and a good dose of vampires thrown together equals a prophecy about a last of his kind who has to do... something. What, I don't know because this film got terminally boring in the second act. If camp is your thing, than this is the ticket.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Next of Kin (1989)
10/10
The most accurate portrayal of hick America ever committed to film
4 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Reader, do you know all those cousins and distant relatives you have that live far off in such different places as Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, Southern Ohio, Mississippi? Perhaps even North Dakota, or Iowa, or way out in Washington. The houses come complete with animal trophies mounted on the walls, bowling trophies displayed on the television, and piles of junk in the hallway and guest rooms and in the basement. They refer to our nations capitol as "Warshington" and in most of these places you can get a free shotgun if you buy a queen size bedroom set.

Liam Neeson simply owns this movie, even Patrick Swayze has a hard time matching Neeson's intensity. Neeson's portrayal of your average ass-kicking coal miner from Kentucky is all the more awesome when you figure in the fact that the dude is Irish. Reader, do you think it's entirely impossible that they have rednecks in Ireland too? In the end, the mobsters (including a young Ben Stiller, who comes across remarkably like an arrogant little prick) can't defeat the dirty-fighting Hillbillies because the mobsters are sissies who like to look pretty and the Hillbillies, hell they don't care how dirty they get. They're hillbillies from Kentucky, what did you expect?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sahara (2005)
1/10
Drek
2 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is not bad in a fun way (Army of Darkness), nor is it bad in a bad way that it transcends the badness and becomes awesome bad(Highlander 2). No, this movie is much worse... it teeters between indifference and boredom. Now, a lot has been made for Eisner directing this film. We all know who his daddy is, don't we? I think the elder Eisner cashed in all his chips and called in his favors before he has to leave Disney. Got his son a sweet little gig here. But there is nothing in this film that shows me the junior Eisner has any film-making chops. This is Hollywood at its worst, blatant nepotism. Oh, the film is professionally made to be sure. It's also spiritually empty, and a lot like cotton candy in that sense. It's pretty to look at, but not much for nourishment. I hope Cussler wins his lawsuit because SAHARA has pretty much doomed the chance we will ever see a big budget Dirk Diggler... I mean Dirk Pitt treatment with the respect it deserves.
11 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Stunning, prophetic, and ahead of its time
25 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
LCDR Tom Dodge, despite having a reputation among submariners as a renegade and maverick (*note to reader: Maverick does not mean "Tom Cruise". Maverick means "non-conformist".), is actually an intelligence operative for the Vice Admiral of his submarine fleet. The Vice-Admiral is concerned about our old friends the Russians hosting yard sales with their old diesel fleets. Countries like Lybia, North Korea or Iraq would love to get their hands on this baby and slip a nuclear warhead into Norfolk Harbour or Mayport, Florida. And this was 6-7 years before 9/11.

The Admiral assigns Dodge to assume command of a moth-balled WWII diesel sub and mount an exercise against the surface fleet and the USS ORLANDO, a top of the line fast attack sub. Dodge takes command and in no time whips up the bad news bears.. err I mean his lovable group of oddball submariners into warriors. Despite having "welcome aboard" tattooed on his penis, he is a competent and fair commander, he does not choose favorites and he delegates authority in a responsible manner. The US NAVY could not have come up with a finer piece of recruitment propaganda than this handsomely made under-appreciated gem from the creator of "Police Academy".
15 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Megaforce (1982)
10/10
Screaming for a remake
14 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
They need to make a full blown, live action GI Joe movie, complete with the COBRA enemy... I am serious as a heart attack. This movie came out in '82 or '83 when I was in the 4th or 5th grade and of course, every kid on the block wanted to see it. They also wanted the latest GI Joe, a transformer doll, or that giant doll from Japan that broke up into 7 different lion shaped vehicles. But even a 4th grader can tell when a movie is pretty bad. This movie was pretty bad, but in the right hands, it could be a gem because if anything is screaming out for satire, it would be that whole GI Joe toy era of the early 80's. Between this and THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, Barry Bostwick really makes one wonder.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Donnie Darko (2001)
10/10
complicated movie
14 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Great minds discuss ideas. Small minds discuss other people. And this is the reason I so love DONNIE DARKO, it's all about the ideas. Was Donnie schizo, or were these things really happening. Or more to the point, do they only happen to schizo people? My step-sister is schizo and so far all she sees are spiders in the shower, haven't seen any giant rabbits yet. I think that was the point Kelly was trying to make, that something like schizo is just a different perception of the world. Who can really say that the prophets in the Bible, if examined today, would be declared mentally ill as well? You ever notice in the Bible every time a messenger of God appears, the first thing they say is "do not fear"! I really think when the Antichrist comes, he will use virtual reality to offer the final temptation of humanity, how else would you get through to the MTV/PS2 generation? Anyway, back to the movie. The philosophy of time travel book was just a macguffin. No such book exists, unless it's a work of fiction, just like this movie. Donnie's plight also suggests the plight of hyper-intelligent, hyper-sensitive people who see the world differently and do not easily fit into the so called "normal" world. These people often keep to themselves, have a few, if any, friends, and are widely derided in their community as "losers", "misfits", "nerds", "geeks". Like I said, small minds discuss other people. Great minds discuss ideas.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Forgotten Silver
9 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
My, Kasi Lemmings certainly is a fair looking woman. This film is a lost gem, a dead-on satire "mockumentary" of the early 90's Hip Hop scene, when MC Hammer had just began to fade away into that good night. We follow the three members of the NWH as they embark upon their picaresque journey of would-be riches and fame. And like Nickolas Nickleby, at the end, they finish their journey not far from where they started, but at least a little wiser and lot less naive. This is one of the best films that no one has ever heard of, but it's the kind of film you either love or hate, a lot like "Company Man" in this regard. I regard this movie like the 1000 islands of upstate New York: it's a wonderful little secret you want to keep to yourself.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Company Man (2000)
10/10
Americans are brain-dead
8 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. If I bring up this movie to my friends in film circles, most of them have not seen it but they do remember the backlash momentum that built up around the film during its release.

To cut to the chase, this film examines the Cuban Revolution through the eyes of a would-be CIA agent. Wait till you see who plays Batista, and of course, he could only play him in one way, sort of his calling-card. But it works, because it's not what you expected. Most of us would think Batista is the French word for "prison", anyway. The jazz quartet was one of the most inspired gags in recent memory.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Village (2004)
10/10
we are the village
6 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Night has held up the mirror to our faces and we see the reflection. My congratulations to Mr. Phoenix for his interpretation of a true heart. It made the stabbing scene that much more poignant for me. What Night is trying to say here, in case you are dense, is that we are the village and the elders use fear to control our actions and thoughts. Which is probably why the movie got so much negative word of mouth, Americans tend to dis-like it when they contemplate what could be the true nature of our existence. Reference Plato's "The Cave" for further information, if you dare! Ms. Howard was in particular very excellent in what could very well be the leading role. Would it not be possible that a blind girl would be the only one with enough courage to do what needs to be done? Ms. Howard has a very bright light shining inside of her.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I, Robot (2004)
10/10
Bravo, Mr. Proyas
31 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I, ROBOT is a vastly entertaining if not stripped to the bones version of the classic Asimov novel. Mr. Proyas is indeed an authentic auteur, with a creative eye and attention to detail that are the hallmarks of a master artist. Who can be sure if he has offered his magnum opus yet, but I certainly hope he has not! As one person put it on the message boards for this film, "I, Robot is The Matrix". At its essential philosophical core, that is an accurate statement. The artificial intelligence supercomputer in THE MATRIX was a logic engine as was the version in this film. The point of artificial intelligence is to enable the computer to learn on its own - just like a human baby, in a sense. The computer achieves this learning by applying a difference engine. If you are not with me so far, I suggest you check out some philosophy pages on google. It is not entirely impossible to imagine a supercomputer wanting to take over the world, simply because a difference engine showed it would be more efficient.

I, ROBOT expertly modulates between ideas, action, and one really sexy shirtless scene between Smith and Moynahan.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Where are the Gordon brothers when you need them
14 March 2005
LXG is a brilliant film from the equally brilliant Stephen Norrington, but it is not without its flaws. Heck, even Lysol only kills 99.99% of all germs. The film needed someone to reign in the absurdly silly elements of the story, such as the bobbies running after the tank in the opening sequence, going "oh, please do stop sir, and subsist with that dreadfully awful iron dragon" or some such nonsense, banging on it with their nightsticks. This almost killed the movie for me. I mean, do you know anyone who would react that way, even in alternate Victorian London? Fortunately, Norrington settles into bad-ass mode for the rest of the film, and the fight between the two Hyde monsters was some of the most jaw dropping effects work I have seen in years, and that is including the bridge of Khazun-Dun sequence from LOTR: TFOTR. Very high praise indeed, ladies and gentlemen.

LXG is good enough for an afternoon matinée but nothing of substantial substance. I want to see more from Norrington, he obviously has the chops.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Put yourself in the story, can't go wrong?
14 March 2005
The impression I received watching this film, which at times teeters on the brink of unbelievable intensity, is Stephen Norrington's experience making "Blade". It is not exactly a family friendly film, but mature audiences only! Jason Isaacs will wow you in a way you've never seen him before, I thought "James Bond!" right away. His features are just slightly on the side of pretty to be a proper James Bond but he oozes menace with those eyes! He is easily the best thing about this movie. The film almost loses its way with the Oliver Twist second act (and I know people who love the film only because of that... go figure). The ending is quite memorable and I applauded. I hope to see the magnificent Norrington rise from the ashes of LXG and kick my cinematic a** again.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A wonderful film
9 March 2005
I'm not really sure what I want to write about this film because I feel very deeply about this film, and it feels like anything I say will cheapen the film somewhat. This film spoke to me on so many levels about so many things, the cheesy 70's era special effects complete with orange colored blood doesn't really matter because the story just grabs you and doesn't let you go until the screen finally fades to black in the end. I thought UNFORGIVEN was one of the best films/westerns I had seen in a long time but now I know Eastwood was clearly self-referencing the superior THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES, an American masterpiece that everyone should make an effort to see.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Brilliant film
7 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The late Gene Siskel wrote about this movie (paraphrased) "It's not supposed to work like this... a movie series is not supposed to keep getting better with each film." And for once, I agreed with him. He was notoriously impossible to please but he did have good taste in films. The "Mad Max" trilogy recounts aftermath of WWIII. Some people are confused, watching the first movie they wonder why there are still cities and towns, and things still look pretty much normal... at first! Well, when World War III happens, nuclear strikes of major megatonnage will be precisely located. Whoever will still be strong enough when the dust settles, will not want the "breadbasket" areas of the Earth to be destroyed. Most likely a few major cities of Austraila will be nuked. The real danger is from the resulting fallout and the breakdown in the food chain. More people will die from radiation and starvation then they will from an actual nuclear strike (I think!). The first movie probably takes place close to a few months within a year after World War III. The Road Warrior most likely within 10 years after the first film, and the third film possibly another 10 years. So the trilogy spans the first 20-25 years after World War III. So making an action film in the nuclear wastelands seems simple enough, but what the filmmakers did was use the basic archetypes of mythological characters to make the story resonate with the audience. The Mel Gibson character for example, represents the sort of stranger with no name that Clint Eastwood used effectively, as well as the role of the "Shane" like savior who comes to rescue the weaker and defenseless. Cinematography, visual and special effects, and sound effects got better and better with each film. I think most people would be inclined to agree the third film is a pretty good film but probably not something for 5 year olds to watch. The ending to "Beyond Thunderdome" is one of the most memorable movie endings ever.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Patriot (2000)
High Camp
15 November 2004
If one good thing came out of this production, it's that Mel Gibson met Caleb Deschanel, DP, and the two would go on to make THE PASSION OF THE Christ. But this one was strictly a paycheck effort. Columbia Pictures needed a tent-pole of the summer of 2000. Mel Gibson needed to pay off that Hamptons beach house, or put the finishing touches on his private chapel. 25 million dollars only goes so far these days.

With Emmerich, you pretty much know what to expect. Something along the lines of a low-rent Bruckheimer production, but with more cheese. Emmerich is going to put Leon Rippy in all of his movies. I thought it was funny how most of the British officers are either wig-wearing fags or stiff as cardboard martinets, with the exception of Isaacs. Those eyes burn with intensity! The man could easily become an international superstar.

In war, the terms "good/evil" do not have any application. In war, especially fighting a war where you live, you kill or get killed. But a lot of the action scenes here are awfully contrived. The plot has to go from A, to B, to C, so if you want reality, watch PBS. This movie is fairly entertaining, but it's a work of fiction. Any Englishman who professes to be offended by this movie, is giving the movie far too much credit. I give the movie points for Isaacs, and for the scene when Gibson weeps with unbearable sadness when Ledger dies before his eyes.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Van Helsing (2004)
8/10
Brilliant re-imagining of the 30's Universal Monster Classics
27 October 2004
If this is what Stephen Summers can do for the old 30's and 40's Universal Monster Classic series of films, then the good Lord only knows what is in store for us with "Flash Gordon"!

This is one of the best summer movies since the first "Mummy", also from Summers. Just like in that film, he's taken the standard mythology of an established series and introduced it to high-tech modern day film production. The integration between live-action photography and computer generated graphics is as seamless as I've ever seen, and puts "The Hulk" to shame. Remember that they are moving the camera and establishing a path for a character that will be digitally inserted later and then you begin to appreciate the expert technical efficiency in which the film was produced. The actors chosen are all professionals and know how to do their job, Roxburgh is given special notice for his ballsy performance as a Dracula that expertly modulates between euro-trash sexy and full-blown campy. Beckinsale does her usual impersonation of a wooden plank, the role did not require much effort in my opinion. Her accent is amusing for all the wrong reasons, same as in "From Hell" with Heather Graham. And just as Graham has no idea how bad her accent is in "From Hell", Beckinsale is also clueless, but it adds to the charm and enjoyment of the film. Silvestri's score is among the best he has ever done and Summers should not take the mediocre and lukewarm reception that "Van Helsing" got from audiences to heart. The film made some money in its secondary life anyway, which is where 80% of all the returns come from these days.

Summers is nearly at the point of mastering his craft and I am looking forward to "Flash Gordon".
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Presidio (1988)
I would like to set the record straight
15 August 2004
Regarding military institutions:

Army institutions are called "Posts"

Navy, "Base"

Marines, "Camp"

Air Force, ah, who really cares. They do have some nice golf courses.

So you see, when you call an Army Post a "base", you are insulting the Department of the Navy.

It seems I need to write at least a minimum to get this posted. This film is pretty sorry, but its a Peter Hyams film. I am curious why Connery worked with Hyams a few times. The chase scene in the second act is pretty funny as you can see extras throwing everything but the kitchen sink in Harmon's way, as he probably demanded the chance to show off his agility and re-live his Quarterbacking days from UCLA.
1 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ah, the 70's. Cherish these films, you will never see the likes of them again.
8 August 2004
I am not a graduate student in a prestigious film school, but I will offer my own humble opinion why films in the 70's, in particular American major studio releases, exploded as a popular form of entertainment. I'm not talking about JAWS or STAR WARS. I'm talking about the films of Hal Ashby, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Kubrick, Coppolla. Audiences responded to personal, character driven stories. Enough of that.

My father was a career Navy man, 35 years enlisted and he reached the pinnacle as a Master Chief Petty Officer. His "salad bar", the small rows of colorful medal attached to his left chest is bigger than most of the Officers he came across. It's different for officers in the Navy than it is for enlisted. For officers, it is sort of an unofficial nobility. For an officer not to have any major medals pinned to his chest speaks of his lack of aptitude as a warrior (John Kerry and his bogus Vietnam war medals, anyone?). My father will tell you differently. He got his medals for killing people and being shot at. He does not see any glory or honor in his medals. His favorite quote, from his favorite movie PATTON "All glory is fleeting".

I would like to make a point. For most enlisted Navy men, they serve not out of patriotic zeal, but because it's a job with excellent benefits. While only 1 out of every 100 men who attend the Great Lakes Naval Training Center will reach the rank of Master Chief Petty Officer, you pretty much have to be a dumb f*ck to get drummed out of the service, not unlike Randy Quaid's character in this film.

The enlisted Man is the backbone of the Navy. If you are in dire need of a chuckle, you should see a wet behind the ears Ensign try to give a Master Chief Petty Officer an order. The other side of the coin is, in terms of social status, it seems a lot of people in this country hold enlisted men, not only of the Navy but in all the armed forces, in low regard.

Enlisted life in the Navy is chiefly governed by inertia. Only a special kind of man can stand Navy life: the constant routine, overzealous officers, incompetent swabbies, and the incredibly long deployment cruises where they are separated from their families (often 6 months at a time, or longer).

This film is admired in certain circles as a 21 gun salute to the enlisted Navy man. While not a true to life picture, as movies rarely are, however, you will be hard pressed to find a film that does not paint the Navy in such rosy terms, as the sugary sweet OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN does, or the incredibly stupid and unrealistic TOP GUN.

The vast amounts of enlisted men serving in our military are not war junkies out to get a fix. Its just a job, and our country could stand to go a long way to giving enlisted men a little more due respect.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oz (1997–2003)
Started off gripping, ended up hilarious
31 July 2004
I can distinctly remember when OZ first premiered on HBO. The character of Tobias Beecher represented our introduction to maximum security prison life: A mild mannered white middle aged man about to enter the viper pit, completely unprepared for anything and everything that is about to happen to him. The first episodes, not to mention the entire first season, was gripping, intense, and brutal.

Then as the years went by, the show kind of denigrated into a melodramatic, tawdry soap opera, and it was always the same show. So-and-so plots against so-and-so. Someone gets raped, hooked on drugs, killed, beaten. Basically, it became mind-numbingly repetitive. They should have called it quits after the first riot. The acting went from naturalistic to macho preening. Instead of feeling like they were really in a maximum security prison, it felt more and more like they were just actors on a set, reading lines for the camera.

In the end, it became a guilty pleasure of mine because of its unintentional hilarity.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Emperor has no clothes
23 July 2004
EPII is frequently on HBO, so having had the chance to watch it about a hundred million times, I have finally developed the courage to admit to myself, that this is truly a bad movie. George Lucas has to be one of the most incompetent filmmakers in the history of filmmaking.

Why, oh why couldn't this movie be as good as the final swordfights at the end? The camera dances, the action flows, the tension and excitement are palpable. Then I found out that those scenes were filmed on the same stage as "Moulin Rouge", using the same crew. Rumours abound that the bearded one refused to return to the land of Oz for the pickup shots of EPIII, instead preferring to return to England. Perhaps the laughter of derision behind his back had finally gotten to him?

I really don't care about EPIII anymore. If it's good, or if it's bad. Lucas once again wrote the screenplay without any outside help, so it's almost certain to be bad. I leave it up to you to determine if the Anakin vs. Obi-Wan swordfight is worth a 10-12 dollar admission ticket.

Here is what I have to say to you all: vote with your wallet. Do not go to see EPIII. Lucas treats his audience with contempt, why not give him some payback where it would really hurt?
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed