Norman_French Reviews

Shadow in the Cloud (2020)

Based on a True Story!

[8/10 · 9 June 2024]

NOOOO -- it's not. It's clearly ridiculous fiction. I could write a negative review going on and on about the low believability and missed potential, but instead I'll do something different.

This film has SPIRIT. Seriously. I like Chloë Grace Moretz because of the weird roles she takes on, but to me she's more of an action figure, not a super-deep actress. She's well-cast here and does a good job carrying the film.

The WW2 setting is great; the tension of the war, the uncertainties involving Maude (Chloë Grace Moretz's character), and her being locked away in the belly turret (filmed like a 1-man play) for awhile are quite compelling.

Overall, this movie is weirdly refreshing; maybe it's just well-packaged insanity. Who TF knows?

I did NOT like the abrupt ending and the historical pics that played during the end credits; I would have preferred some "coda" scenes that indicate what happened later. Of course the audience ASSUMES they were rescued and a happy ending ensued, but why not drop some hints? A few B&W old-timey photos of our intrepid heroes would have sufficed. The historical pics of actual female pilots feel irrelevant in a movie this fanciful and pseudo-historical -- why not keep the focus on the characters? DUH!

I give this film seven stars for (admittedly bizarre) entertainment value, minus one star for the ending, plus TWO bonus stars for the scene of Maude dramatically firing the twin 50-caliber machine guns in the belly turret. Her intense facial expressions and throaty roars make this a visceral experience; I had to rewatch several times. So the total score is eight (8) stars.

PS: A single pseudo-historical pic of military (rescue) personnel examining the gremlin's body would have been a nice touch.

The Skeleton Twins (2014)

Veiled narcissism as two SNL alums play commoners

[4/10 · 8 June 2024]

{NOTE: The 2-star review "Not an Original Bone in Its Body" provides some useful context}

This film has some rather dark material regarding suicides (and attempts). There's little doubt that Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader (who play estranged twins Maggie and Milo Dean) are talented, and I'm sure this film looks good on each of their resumes. I even think this movie has a positive message (regarding overcoming trauma and family drama). But there are issues that weigh this film down.

Hader and Wiig don't go for outrageous comedy (unlike most SNL alums), and this is commendable. However, the poignancy and subdued humor in their dysfunctional relationship feels forced. The film varies between intentionally and unintentionally awkward. Part of this is due to leakage of the Hollywood mindset -- the best career one could POSSIBLY have is that of a famous movie star. This is one of the few points Maggie and Milo fully agree on. Competency in any other area is evidently for boring people. Well, how LUCKY we are that these two celebrities were willing to "slum" for us in this picture. It certainly changed my life!

Just one example of the film's "attitude" can be found in the Halloween celebration. Maggie and Milo go to great lengths to dress up and take part in the festivities, but when a guy in an amusing headless-horseman costume attempts to playfully interact with them, Milo inexplicably tells him to shove off. There's nothing funny about this; it's just plain rude.

The bizarre takes on ordinary people seem to indicate a theme -- everyone has problems (except George Clooney), disillusionment and hypocrisy are everywhere, but don't give up -- there's always a chance you'll find happiness and your true calling (acting or writing) in LA. But on the surface -- sure, blood is thicker than water, damaged people are stronger together helping each other, etc. The INTENTIONAL message is good. Also, there are some good moments, where the film actually works, but they are fleeting.

I give this five stars, minus one star for the subtle but pervasive urban-elite snobbery. That's four (4) stars total.

Trancers (1984)

Poorly-paced low-budget cult film

[4/10 · 7 June 2024]

This science-fiction/zombie/police film had potential as a Bladerunner spoof. Not much mind you, but the beginning was actually a bit intriguing. Alas, what little potential there was devolved into (mostly) tiresome low-budget Grade-Z schlock, but with some redeeming humor sprinkled in.

This is a word-of-mouth cult film, but I'm not sure why. Aside from the laughable take on the 23rd century, there's not much here besides Helen Hunt (yum). There are just SO many better low-budget films out there. Many have better acting.

Tim Thomerson is suitably cast as a gruff world-weary detective from the future. He's the source of a lot of deadpan humor (much of which didn't work for me, but I'm clearly in the minority). Strange happenings (often involving pseudo-zombies) give this film a campy vibe. Personally, I think more/better deadpan humor and 23rd-century absurdity would have helped. However, there are worse films out there (JCVD's "Cyborg" comes to mind).

I give this slow-but-strange film two stars, with half-star bonuses for Tim Thomerson, Helen Hunt, the bizarre "Future", and other tiny bursts of creativity. That's four (4) stars total.

The Dark Tower (2017)

"Have a great apocalypse"

[7/10 · 7 June 2024]

I did NOT read the books; I had not even heard of this movie; it's a random DVR grab from cable. I enjoyed it, despite some minor flaws.

PROS: We have some great casting -- Mathew McConaughey is creepy and effective as The Man in Black and Idris Elba is perfect as the slightly washed-up Gunslinger (capital G as there is a knightly connotation). The pacing is pleasantly fast; the director expects the audience to piece together some of the background story instead of having it entirely spoon-fed to them. I liked this approach; it exercised my brain a bit.

CONS: The underlying plot structure is quite standard, and this makes some developments rather predictable. Also, it's rather convenient that everyone in the universe speaks English.

IN SUM: It's fun and a bit different. I like the mixing of tech from different worlds. I give this seven (7) stars for escapist entertainment.

The Flash (I) (2023)

Tone fluctuates wildly from Goofy to Genre-Worship to Grandiose Spectacle

[6/10 · 6 June 2024]

TL/DR: This film is best for those who like Ezra Miller ... A LOT. Others may find it to be a bit of a mess.

I didn't think much of this film when I first saw it, but was oddly tempted to watch it again later, and the second viewing gave me more perspective. The film is real mixed bag (gad). There are a lot of fawning Justice League references (that's franchise loyalty, folks!).

The film showcases Ezra Miller's talents, especially his goofy charm. However, his interactions with a younger version of himself are borderline cringe-worthy; the film's quality drops noticeably when they meet. But this is a necessary plot point so ... what choice do we have?

Casting Sasha Calle as Supergirl was a stroke of genius. She doesn't steal the film the way Michael Keaton does, but her brooding character is FUN -- in a suitably dark way (just my taste perhaps).

The time-warp scenes are an exercise in grandiose spectacle (and poor CGI). They can be annoying unless you're in the mood for this (as I was on my 2nd viewing).

I give this five stars for superficial entertainment, minus two stars for all the problems, plus one star for Michael Keaton, and TWO stars for Sasha Calle. That's six (6) stars total.

PS: I initially disliked the George Clooney cameo and what it meant (things are not *quite* the same as before), but after a second viewing I'm actually liking it. The loose tooth at the end may seem like a dumb gag, but it represents the remnant of a discarded timeline -- it's meaningful; this is ACTUAL science fiction!

Tracers (2015)

Taylor Lautner leaps into action

[5/10 · 5 June 2024]

The parkour fad (which is heavily milked here) and YA flavor mask a derivative crime story; it's engaging in some ways and tedious in others. The direction and editing aren't crisp; the goal was to use urban antics to stretch the napkin-sketch plot into a feature-length movie.

Taylor Lautner does a good job portraying a sympathetic character. Despite his limited range, Taylor has some stage presence and basically carries the movie. He clearly did a lot of stunts himself, so some credit is due. The story feels very contrived but the (few) plot twists help.

The parkour stunts are sometimes silly; several times people leap dramatically onto cars and trucks when simply running between them would have been quicker and easier. The leader of the thieves often explains the heist plan in motion -- basically at the last possible moment (sigh). These logic fails hurt the film's credibility (not that there was much to begin with).

Overall, this film is a bit more engaging than it should be. I give it six stars for superficial entertainment, with half-star BONUSES for Taylor Lautner and the slightly memorable ending, and one-star PENALTIES for the (annoying) logic fails and the general tedium (poorly-paced weak story). That's five (5) stars total. It's watchable, granted, but mostly forgettable.

Inkheart (2008)

Just Awful

[3/10 · 4 June 2024]

I haven't read the books (which are reportedly MUCH better), so I'll just review this movie at face value. It sucks. It's goofy and lighthearted, but not in a good way. It's an exercise in watching Hollywood stupidity. It's just sad.

There's never any sense that anything (permanently) bad could happen; with this type of film there is ALWAYS a happy ending. Therefore it's not engaging, and the ridiculous premise means it's not believable either. So we're left with mere crumbs -- do any of the actors rise about the dreck? Well, no, not really, with one exception. The marvelous Jim Broadbent (Enchanted April) is here, and while he doesn't rescue this dimwitted production, his presence is a breath of fresh air.

I give this two stars, plus a half-star bonus for Jim Broadbent, and another for the scenic locations. That's three (3) stars total. I say AVOID.

Dune: Part Two (2024)

Epic and properly visionary

[9/10 · 3 June 2024]

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, given the great story and masterful execution. There were some changes from the books, but they were modest in scope and actually seemed like smart decisions -- that's kind of amazing all by itself.

Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson, Léa Seydoux, Josh Brolin, Stellan Skarsgård, Charlotte Rampling, and IMHO even Christopher Walken were all well-chosen for their roles. I appreciate good casting.

I happen to have read the books, which I thought were so-so (unlike my friends), so I don't understand the reviews whining about the movie being disappointing. The story and specific effects are top-notch. The experience is highly immersive. What else do you need?

I give this seven stars, plus a one-star bonus for the excellent adaption, a half-star bonus for the perfect pacing, and quarter-star bonuses for Javier Bardem and Florence Pugh*, whose performances I particularly enjoyed. That's nine (9) stars total.

* She didn't get much screen time, true, but I thought she was great. She seemed a tiny bit awkward and/or uncomfortable, which (for me) is just part of her realism and stage presence. Oh, what complexities must lie hidden beneath the surface.

Snowden (2016)

Decent docudrama misses some points

[7/10 · 3 June 2024]

I liked this film, but it's not the documentary that Citizenfour is. The look inside government agencies is fun of course, and while the girlfriend coverage makes the character more relatable, we miss out on some salient points.

The real Snowden is extremely articulate -- some of his posts are concise, penetrating, and quotable. The man has rock-solid principles, and such people are in short supply these days. I do not think of Edward Snowden as a hero; I think of him as a PATRIOT.

While the film shows a little bit of what happened to older whistleblower Thomas Drake, the lesson here isn't sufficiently clear. Going through "proper channels" in the US government DOES NOT WORK. Some of the reviewers are missing this point; they don't seem to realize how badly Drake was screwed. Snowden knew his best option was to leave the country and live in exile, and he was right.

Many of the government's spying programs had been discussed in conspiracy channels. The claim that Snowden "hurt our security" is fallacious -- any competent adversarial intelligence agency would have been unsurprised by Snowden's revelations. What Snowden did is to bring these issues to the attention to the US public, and that has been quite beneficial in terms of overall security, as US corporations realized they needed to do a better job. I saw this attitude change first-hand.

The NSA happily exploits security flaws in various products; they're not motivated to have them fixed. Pre-Snowden, most Internet domains used HTTP protocol (except for payment windows). Now they're almost all HTTPS, which is far more secure. This is just one example; there are many others. Better security (including encryption) makes life better for EVERYONE (except the NSA and copycat nations like China), as corporate espionage and hacking become more difficult. Of course on-site human spies ("plants") are still an issue.

The ending, with the ACTUAL Snowden, is nicely done. I give this seven stars, and I'll leave you with this quote (from the movie -- see the Teddy Roosevelt memorial scene):

IT IS HARD TO FAIL, BUT IT IS WORSE NEVER TO HAVE TRIED TO SUCCEED.

Madame Web (2024)

Weak in every respect

[4/10 · 31 May 2024]

This film starts off slow, is watchable for awhile, but then has a contrived and disappointing ending. Given I LIKE the precognition concept (and even the casting of Dakota Johnson), this was quite a let-down. I feel like a sucker for watching this. None of the characters felt like real people.

Despite official Marvel approval, this film seems full of missed opportunities. I didn't buy the concept of fighting a dark Spiderman with advanced parlor tricks -- it's cute enough for sidekick action, but there needs to be a physically capable hero in the mix. If not, well, you end up with a film like this. Did no one at Sony realize this?

The trio-of-girls-with-powers thing has already been done, and it's made worse by the shameless marketing of a sequel at the end. Apparently Cassandra Webb is the female Nick Fury in this universe (face-palm). To be clear, I LIKE strong female characters (see many of James Cameron's films), but this cartoonish politically-correct stuff is quite tiresome.

I give this 5.5 stars for superficial entertainment, with half-star penalties for the weak story, poor pacing, and lame ending. That's four (4) stars total.

Atlas (2024)

Jennifer Lopez is OK, but she's no Linda Hamilton

[6/10 · 29 May 2024]

J-Lo is surprisingly adequate in this. She's not fully believable, but by nerdy S/F-action standards she did an OK job. However, J-Lo's acting is inferior to, say, Linda Hamilton's in the first two Terminator films. Regardless, Atlas is engaging and fun -- totally suitable for popcorn.

I liked the AI banter. Also, the film's tech was sufficiently advanced that I couldn't find much to complain about (in terms of blatant disregard for physics), so that was refreshing. The main problem is the logic fails.

Why was a single ship sent against a dangerous foe? Why was it assumed there wouldn't be any orbital defenses? I'm not an analyst or a soldier, but everyone on the ship was. Moreover, I thought of these concerns in real time (not in hindsight) -- why couldn't they?

The film is derivative (as others have pointed out), but it's a pretty smooth blend overall. The focus on J-Lo and her learning curve gives the film an engaging, you-are-there appeal. The special effects are quite good, but the pacing and editing feel slightly video-game-ish, almost like we're not supposed to notice that J-Lo strikes relatively few notes in her performance.

I give this 6.5 stars for fun, with a half-star bonus for the sappy AI moments (they're contrived, as is everything else, but they worked for me), and a one star penalty for logic fails. That's six (6) stars total.

PS This film is much better than Damsel, another recent Netflix production (though my five-star review was widely disliked), even though that film had Millie Bobby Brown (and a nasty dragon!). Perhaps I don't think like most Netflix viewers. Oh well.

Chain Reaction (1996)

Morgan Freeman is the main value add

[5/10 · 27 May 2024]

This film is modestly engaging but the laughably bad physics is embarrassing. The scriptwriter apparently flunked high school. We have supposedly brilliant scientists confusing nuclear fusion, chemical reactions, and sonoluminescence. A large plastic cylindrical tube of water is able to create fusion inside a small bubble (which supposedly gets hot to the tune of MILLIONS of degrees) with a laser, and this somehow breaks down the water into hydrogen, which can then be burned as fuel. No one explains where the oxygen went (isn't water literally H2O?), or why the water isn't boiling.

Anyhow, the contrived plot is all about who Keanu and Rachel's characters can (or can't) trust as they go on the run. The government conspiracy angle propels the story, but it never feels particularly credible. Morgan Freeman does a nice job here; the film would have been FAR worse without him. I give this five (5) stars.

Arctic Circle (2018– )

Atmospheric, but plot twists become sadly formulaic

[5/10 · 25 May 2024]

This review is for Season One (viewed with subtitles)

As many reviewers have noted, this series starts off well. The acting is strong, the (few) locations are starkly beautiful, and the local culture sufficiently rich (and flawed) to be mildly fascinating. I'd say this series had (seven-star) potential. But there are flaws (hence deductions).

The plot twists get increasingly ridiculous. The show is trying to blend "real" (semi-soapy) characters, biology, and international intrigue. They ALMOST pull it off, actually, but end up resorting to formulaic plot devices that detract from the otherwise engaging vibe. I started to lose interest around episode 8. The familiar yet nonsensical "We have to find Patient Zero to cure this" trope is particularly annoying. This downhill spiral is unfortunately quite evident (so minus one star).

It seems like a character receives (or makes) a cell-phone call every 3-5 minutes. This continues for the entire season, and unsurprisingly this gets rather tiresome (so minus a half star).

The family drama is interesting but there's just too much of it. This also gets tiresome (so minus another half star).

That's five (5) stars total.

Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult (1994)

Sight-gags galore

[7/10 · 22 May 2024]

I liked this film better than the previous one, which was essentially a remake of the first film. Some of the sight-gags are LOL-worthy. Anna Nicole Smith does a fine job with quizzical expressions; she's often in the background frowning, looking puzzled, or rolling her eyes at Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielson). One could argue her character is actually more intelligent than the others with her (hmm).

The Academy Awards scene (with Raquel Welch and Anna Nicole Smith in stunning dresses) is nicely done; there's some pointed humor.

I give this seven (7) stars for clever entertainment value.

DRIFTING OFF-TOPIC (for most, not all)

{Welcome to my Under the Silver Lake (UTSL) distributed essay. This is Part 9. Part 8 was attached to my review of Dr. Strangelove.}

Under the Silver Lake (2018) is a strange film with an unsolved (audience) puzzle that references dozens of other films, often in very subtle ways. NG33:TFI has a surprising number of connections to UTSL. I'll list a few of the more interesting ones for your consideration. However, unlike with my Soapdish review, I'm not going to list that many, and I'm going to use a more abbreviated style. I suspect any readers who have gotten this far are more than capable of connecting the dots for themselves.

The Turning Teeth lyrics contain the word NAKED.

VANNA WHITE is in this film. Remember Sam's discussion of her?

Raquel Welch is in this film. Remember her "life-mask" in UTSL?

A chessboard is shown. Also, a white limo (hmm).

The Coneheads movie is mentioned, as are cookies.

Anyhow, there are many more tie-ins. And of course the "payoff" is a couple of subtle "operational" clues, which frankly aren't unique, but watching this film could help tune your pattern recognition.

SEMI-RANDOM HINT

NG33:TFI cleverly spoofs several movies, including Thelma and Louise (with Geena Davis) and Jurassic Park (with Jeff Goldblum). What film were Davis and Goldblum both in that is referenced by the UTSL coffee-shop menu-board?

STAY TUNED FOR MORE LINKS (eventually/probably). I'm going to take a break from this, especially given no one seems to have noticed this material, which is very time-consuming to generate.

NF 2024/05/22.

Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018)

Surprisingly Good Sequel

[7/10 · 20 May 2024]

I thought the first film was OK despite various logic fails (e.g., why not use nukes?) and gave it a 6. This sequel didn't go down the usual path of remaking the original with a new, poorly-chosen cast and a stupidly derivative story; it takes place ten years later when people have moved on and are in recovery mode. Salvaging (stealing, really) tech from the giant robot carcasses is a career path for the desperate -- or the obsessed. I found the attitude towards the heroes (and results) of the first film plausible.

So while I enjoyed the characters (esp. John Boyega's), there are predictable moments. But I had a good time; there's a lot to enjoy here. Plus, it's a welcome break from the Marvel Universe, which can get a bit numbing after awhile. The MCU films are good, but there's just so many of them, and they're all in the same universe, more or less.

I think the original Pacific Rim had better robot fight scenes (arguably with a vague sport-competition appeal). This sequel is more thoughtful, perhaps. What WOULD come next in such a world? I think they did good job, considering. They went in a new, interesting direction but maintained continuity with the first film, using it as leverage. Getting some of the original cast was smart.

I'm in the minority, but I think this film surpasses the original (again, not in the fight scenes). There's a lot going on here, and it's interesting. There are even some memorable lines.

This film had the potential for eight stars, but I'm deducting a half-star for semi-predictability, and another for the (arguably juvenile) scene with the highly-trained pilots repairing the giant robots -- as if a giant military base had no technicians at all. That's seven (7) stars total.

Spider-Man: Far from Home (2019)

Completely contrived, overly-long, and thoroughly juvenile

[5/10 · 19 May 2024]

This film starts off well. But alas, my high hopes were dashed by an increasingly contrived story made worse by poor pacing. The stuff that was supposed to be funny wasn't. The CGI action that was supposed to be involving wasn't. The film was just a long, tedious slog. Others (teens?) may feel differently; this is simply my vote.

The main value this film has is to set up the far superior Spider-Man: No Way Home (which I gave 8 stars).

Far from Home contains the usual Spider-Man tropes: unlikely villain(s), chaotic fight scenes, inane high-school drama, and a script bent on interfering with Peter's love life.

I give this four stars, with a half-star bonus for Zendaya's refreshingly reserved performance, and quarter-star bonuses for the ever-hot Marisa Tomei and the surprising content of the post-end-credit scene. That's five (5) stars total.

The Roads Not Taken (2020)

Character and film both struggle to make a point

[3/10 · 18 May 2024]

This arthouse film has poignant moments (some I could relate to -- ouch) but I don't feel like I learned anything, nor was I entertained. What's the point here? Getting old sucks?

Javier Bardem's character is arguably a poster-child for someone who's out of control and needs to live with a care-giver (but ideally not institutionalized). The fact that his daughter is NOT treating the situation realistically borders on elder abuse. I know the film has artistic pretentions that overlook such mundane issues (that I happen to have lived through), but it's difficult to overlook the obvious here.

The alternate reality theme is weak. The boring present-day story is interrupted by a plethora of flashbacks to memories of other boring times (some of which are apparently the imagined results of different major decisions -- i.e., forks in the timeline).

I give this 2.5 stars, with a half-star bonus for an above-par ending (though it reeks of film-critic bait). That's three (3) stars total.

Soapdish (1991)

Rare comic gem has LOL moments

[8/10 · 16 May 2024]

This is 90's humor -- goofy, silly, and overacted -- but it WORKS in this excellent satire of the soap-opera industry. I wasn't impressed by the beginning, but after the momentum (and various complications) build, the cynical/indignant/sniping humor finds its footing and the result is hilarious. There are some great lines; here's one example.

"What if she can't act?"

"That never stopped us before."

Elisabeth Shue plays Lori Craven, the newcomer to The Sun Also Sets, a long-running soap opera.

Cathy Moriarty plays Montana Moorehead, who plays a raspy nurse character (on The Sun Also Sets). Montana is a schemer and (according to Lori) a deranged *****. Montana's vicious staccato threats to producer David (Robert Downey Jr.) never get old. Cathy Moriarty mixes these rapid-fire throaty snarls into relatively normal conversations in a bizarre way that must be seen to be appreciated. She's intense -- almost as if she's unstable and dangerous (who knew?).

The story-within-a-story format has been done many times, but it's done WELL here; the behind-the-scenes drama is actually better (and more soapy) than the show's nominal script, and this fact gradually dawns on people.

The casting is excellent. Garry Marshall is wonderful as the worried no-nonsense top exec who is dumbfounded (but delighted) with the increasing chaos.

I give this seven stars, plus a bonus star for Sally Field's pitch-perfect performance. That's eight (8) stars total.

DRIFTING OFF-TOPIC (for most, not all)

{Welcome to my Under the Silver Lake (UTSL) distributed essay. This is Part 5. Part 4 was attached to my review of The Phantom.}

Under the Silver Lake (2018) is a strange film with an unsolved (audience) puzzle that references dozens of other films, often in very subtle ways. Soapdish has a surprising number of connections to UTSL; it's debatable how many are intentional. I'll list a few for your consideration.

Both movies feature balloons and mention the homeless.

Both movies have a scene with a bucket oddly placed in the background; in UTSL it's in Bar-Buddy's backyard. In addition, when the Homeless King walks Sam through a park, there's a bucket with four balloons attached, ostensibly for a family B/D party. Two of the four balloon colors correspond to the balloons Lori Craven (Elisabeth Shue) was toting, and two correspond to (fancy/shiny) dress colors she wore later.

The patient bracelet Lori wears in her hospital scene is shaped a bit like Sarah's metal bracelet in UTSL. I'm sensing a pattern here with Elisabeth Shue (see "Speculation Dept" far below).

"Horse****!!" is the expletive-of-choice in Soapdish. In UTSL, Riki Lindhome says this when she's dressed like a nurse (and again, Soapdish has a nurse character).

In Soapdish, a small Wizard of Oz poster (beside Montana Moorehead's make-up mirror) highlights Judy Garland's name. In UTSL, the closest poster to The Songwriter displays Liza Minnelli's name. Liza Minnelli is Judy Garland's daughter.

Soapdish has a frequent red-and-black color scheme. In particular, compare the stacked display cases in David's office with the artwork behind the "lingerie model" that Bar-Buddy spies on with his drone in UTSL. A coincidence seems ... unlikely.

I could go on, but we'd get into (known) operational clues, and I don't want to solve the puzzle FOR you. Loosely speaking, Soapdish is in the same category as Monster vs Aliens; there's one or more important clues buried in each movie. However, Soapdish is somewhat unique in that there are connections to more than one blob.

SPECULATION DEPT

We've established some connections to Bar-Buddy's backyard, which has an owl. A major subplot of Soapdish concerns a kiss (and Lori). Could this relate to the Owl's Kiss? Let's do a thought experiment.

Elisabeth Shue was in two Back-to-the-Future movies, and these obviously concern time travel, as does Doctor Who. The owl hoots twice, which could relate to The House that Dripped Blood, which has TWO actors that played Doctor Who -- Peter Cushing and Jon Pertwee. This movie isn't chosen lightly; the UTSL coffee-shop menu-board has "drip" (coffee) written in a wavy fashion that matches one of The-House-that-Dripped-Blood movie posters. Plus, one of the end-credit toons shows the Owl's Kiss' fingertips literally DRIPPING BLOOD.

Comic-Man's house has a bunch of owl figurines, but that's to be expected given his obsession with the Owl's Kiss.

Now let's return to the B/D party in the park with the bucket-balloons. There's a croquet set there. Croquet IS mentioned (exactly once) in the Doctor Who universe; it's in the audio drama Caerdroia. A caerdroia is a Welsh "turf maze"; basically a type of labyrinth built by shepherds and apparently used for long-forgotten rituals.

So ... in sum, this could be some sort of Easter Egg, additional fan-out, or simply wrong. Bear in mind that Elisabeth Shue could be relevant to UTSL in a completely differently way (which I'm not going to discuss), and this could explain the emphasis on her without invoking owls and time-travel.

SEMI-RANDOM HINT

While Riki Lindhome's outfits ARE important clues, it's best not to read TOO much into them. Each outfit links to multiple films, so ... don't cry "Eureka!" when you see a potential connection. I think the brains behind UTSL were simply using a biggest-bang-for-the-buck approach towards selecting the outfits (i.e., they saw a pattern and capitalized on it).

FOR MORE ABOUT UTSL PUZZLE CLUES

See my (6-star) review of Hang 'Em High.

Riverworld (2003 TV Movie)

Tawdry travesty eventually gave me a smile

[4/10 · 15 May 2024]

I read the books and all the negative reviews are accurate. However, something about the ending, and just gliding serenely along the river in the coolest boat on the planet kind of worked -- I found myself smiling. And then the abrupt ending (with a blatant sequel tease). I didn't realize this might have been a pilot for a series, but it DOES explain a few things.

The beginning of the movie is pure schlock, and as someone who read the books, it was jarring. The entire Nero story arc is a fabrication because "the series needs a villain" -- and Riverworld can make said villain immortal, right? Well yes, but ... when you're reborn your new location is randomly chosen; you're not going to always be perfectly positioned in front of (upriver from) the steamboat so as to frequently attack it -- but it sure looks like that's how the series would have unfolded (gad). They probably would have mixed it up -- Nero shows up either every 3rd or 4th episode or something

The continuity of the "river" is badly done. In some shots, where a beach is needed, it appears that the filming was done on a barren rocky OCEAN beach (waves, no sign of far side, etc). But other shots (typically looking down from the air) seem to show fjord-like waterways with lush vegetation (but still not a river).

This had *potential* for six stars, but deduct one for the schlock (especially the beginning), and another for bastardizing Philip Jose Farmer's fine books so badly. So four stars total.

Alternatively, I can start with 3 stars for mid-grade schlock (it's better than JCVD's Cyborg which I rated at 2 stars) and add one star for my happy smile. So either way, it's four (4) stars .

Cyborg (1989)

Badly-Acted Low-Budget Schlock

[2/10 · 13 May 2024]

Where to begin? The acting is terrible. The villain Fender grunts and postures like a pro wrestler might if he was chained to a post in the Thunderdome. The special effects (e.g., matte paintings) are worse than a cheap TV-Movie. The martial-arts sound-effects (THWIP! WHACK!) sound really fake. Some throwaway henchman lines are clearly dubbed -- the lip-sync is clearly wrong.

There is JUST enough "cyborg" content to explain the title -- but it's stupid/unnecessary/pretentious and clearly just a marketing gimmick.

There are plenty of logic fails too. JCVD manages to make his trail easy to follow when on the run (by not bothering to replace a manhole cover). Later, he throws away the advantage of surprise -- when greatly outnumbered -- in order to stand tall (and show off his pecs). I probably lost some IQ points watching this.

Albert Pyun, who has a bad rep as a movie director, apparently thought he was doing a good job -- the movie is quite pretentious; the corny line the cyborg says to/about JCVD at the end is almost barf-worthy (probably a "howler" for a suitably rowdy group of viewers).

I give this three stars, minus a half-star for killing off the ONLY character I (kind of) liked, and another for doing it in a badly clichéd way. That's two (2) stars total. A Roger Corman film would have been a step up.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

How is a sulking self-absorbed Spider-Man a role model?

[4/10 · 12 May 2024]

{NOTE: the 1-star review "A Hero without Principles" is a must-read}

This film is problematic. It works as an action film, sure, but the entire plot feels contrived -- especially the relationship angst. Peter's timing for breaking up with Gwen is extremely selfish, given she was at a fancy restaurant with other people who were all expecting him to show up.

Much as I like Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone as actors, I couldn't suspend disbelief -- this is a BIG problem when one is trying to enjoy the movie. I don't blame them; I blame the script. Did Andrew and Emma have any chemistry -- maybe; I'm not sure, the entire situation seemed so cartoonish. Does it even matter?

The sheer number of silly villains seemed like a ploy to distract the viewer from the film's flaws. But having Gwen insist on being present in an extremely dangerous situation is just STUPID, and it p***es me off -- her character was otherwise likeable. Yes, her demise was very sad, but it was death-by-script.

Spider-Man stops helping people for FIVE MONTHS after Gwen's death. OK, sure, he's hurting, but how many folks were maimed or killed while he sat on his butt? Such superficial behavior (i.e., helping others only when he feels like it) is perfect for a role on The Boys -- he's almost as screwed-up as The Deep (but not as comically dumb, granted).

This film is a blend of generic CGI entertainment and sadly misguided superhero formula. An exact rating is tough, but I'll give it 4.5 stars, with a half-star penalty for portraying passenger jets as prone to collision without ATC assistance. Has no one heard of TCAS? That's four (4) stars total.

Hang 'Em High (1968)

Thoughtful western needs more spaghetti ... or thought

[6/10 · 11 May 2024]

I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood and appreciate his trademark attitude (and hat). Clint plays wrongly-hanged Jed Cooper and ends up with a permanent neck scar. Jed's passion to bring his would-be murderers to justice is initially fueled by a completely understandable burning desire for revenge, but this becomes tempered with time.

Pat Hingle's depiction of a self-righteous hanging judge is excellent and the friction with Jed Cooper and his ethical concerns highlights the grey areas in the frontier justice system.

Some of the distractions seem pointless, such as Dennis Hopper's crazy Prophet. I would have preferred that screen time to have been devoted to Marshal Dave Bliss (Ben Johnson), who died violently off-stage despite his importance to Jed for saving his life. This seems like a poor decision, probably caused by a simplistic studio desire to showcase Eastwood. Bliss seemed like an interesting, thoughtful guy, but got very little screen time considering.

I give this 7.5 stars, with a half-star penalty for slow pacing and a one-star penalty for missed opportunities. That's six (6) stars total. This movie had real potential, but it's unfortunately a "near miss".

DRIFTING OFF-TOPIC (for most, not all)

{Welcome to my Under the Silver Lake (UTSL) distributed essay. This is Part 6. Part 5 was attached to my review of Soapdish.}

Under the Silver Lake (2018) is a strange film with an unsolved (audience) puzzle that references dozens of other films, often in very subtle ways. Hang 'Em High is one.

Hang 'Em High is an excellent example of a film with some connections to UTSL, but you don't need to watch it; just knowing the title and looking up the cast (on IMDB of course) is sufficient (but glancing at some of the pictures is usually a good idea).

To my way of thinking, Hang 'Em High is a stepping-stone movie. If you find your way here, you know you're (probably) on a valid path given the hanging-dog images in the UTSL end-credits.

I don't have a lot to say about this film, but if you need motivation, you're only two steps (hops?) from a puzzle-answer word. Does this path contain enough information to identify it? Of course not!

REMINDER

There are multiple paths to every puzzle-answer word. Luckily, humans are good at pattern-recognition. So ... find more paths, and take notes. They do pay off.

SEMI-RANDOM HINT

My favorite rabbit hole is the scene with five angry women in the rooftop pool-party bathroom (I found a nice still image online). If that purple hair doesn't remind you of anything, ask someone older (like a boomer), or more nerdy.

FOR MORE ABOUT UTSL PUZZLE CLUES

See my (3-star) review of Fever Pitch.

Everybody Wants to Be Italian (2007)

Embarrassing rom-com with cringe-worthy plot

[3/10 · 10 May 2024]

This film is intended to be a light-hearted romp with some outrageous gags, but is actually an inept cliché-ridden mess with key characters who vary between gullible, unlikeable and delusional. Infantile Jake (Jay Jablonski) pines for women he can't have. He's obsessed with his ex, who's married and has kids. They broke up EIGHT years ago! It's too insane and too implausible to be cute or funny. The word "stalker" comes to mind.

I only watched this because of Cerina Vincent, who has an amusing reaction to a date-gone-wrong with Jake. This was probably the best part, given the film dwells on socially awkward and painfully contrived situations.

While there are some amusing characters in the fish market, it's not enough to save this fiasco. To be fair, I thought the film might redeem itself in the second act and turn into something decent. But NOOO ... the third act is a HUGE shark-jump. The pat happy ending is one big soapy cliché and doesn't help except to signal relief from watching this disaster unfold. This movie is one long FACE-PALM. I give it three (3) stars, as there ARE some (barely) OK moments.

The Dead Don't Die (2019)

The movie where A-listers went to die

[4/10 · 9 May 2024]

Case in point: Bill Murray. I can see why he was cast, but he is largely wasted here, because his comic delivery doesn't work -- nor does anyone else's, except Adam Driver who actually IS amusing. The sheer number of A-listers who contributed so little (not that it was their fault) is astonishing. The film is clearly trying for low-key ironic humor, some of it very meta. But it fails to be amusing at least 95% of the time. Also, the ending is weak.

Selena Gomez made me laugh as she was introduced; she's oh-so-casually driving a classic Pontiac that's probably over twice her age. A rare moment when the intended absurdity worked. Tilda Swinton similarly has exactly ONE funny line.

The logic fails are painful to watch. An armed crew of police, who have exactly the correct weapons (and mobility) to SAFELY "thin the herd" of zombies (and even DEMONSTRATE this capability), squander this HUGE (and extremely obvious) tactical advantage, and don't even come to the rescue of folks trapped in a building. It's galling.

Despite its flaws, this film is somewhat engaging. I give it 4.5 stars, plus a half-star for Adam Driver, minus one star for logic fails. That's four (4) stars total.

Gargoyles (1972 TV Movie)

Cheesy but Charming Schlock

[6/10 · 8 May 2024]

Gargoyles has decent acting and some likeable characters. Cornel Wilde is actually believable as an author and researcher of ancient myths. Jennifer Salt plays his eye-candy daughter who screams at the monsters and is even kidnapped by them. The monsters are ridiculous (they act a bit like monkeys in lizard suits), but if you're old enough to not be scared by them, they're kind of fun to watch. The head Gargoyle has a nice prosthetic face (thanks to Stan Winston) and some enjoyably stilted lines. It was fun to see Scott Glenn in an early role.

Considering this low-budget TV-movie was shot with a single camera, it's surprisingly well-edited. It's not great, and if you're looking for a LOT of action, well ... look elsewhere. But I found this flick oddly charming (in some weird retro way).

I rate this at six (6) stars. It's probably best-viewed at a Drive-In.