mdixon Reviews

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

maybe on jakku it's an 8.2, on earth it's about a 4

[4/10 · 11 June 2016]

hooboy does this one leave an odor.

I saw the original star wars in a theatre with a massive screen a few months after it was released. I saw the next two as well but understandably nothing could ever match the impact of the first, in all ways it was special and will always stand alone - all unknown actors (mostly) doing a good enough job so no distractions there, exceptionally well-written and as a result rich and endearing characters, fantastic real-life special effects, engrossing story, true-to-life grubbiness and so on.

that said, my review of this new one is hardly from a biased standpoint, if #7 wasn't a "star wars" movie it might never have been made, it's pretty bad right from the start through to the end. it's a gta movie with a star wars title, mostly flash and very little substance (ironically, the opposite of what makes or had originally made star wars "star wars"). much of it made little sense - the girl's sudden/inexplicable devotion to a robot she'd never seen before, high octane action much too soon/too often without preparing the audience for why, on and on and on. all in all it looks like a star wars movie made by someone who saw the original but had the sound off.

after the last three star wars movies I was conditioned to have almost no interest in seeing another. I did want to see what they'd do with han and the rest and now that I've seen it I'm kind of sorry I did - it's like watching a 75-year-old mick jagger rocking away like nobody told him he's 40 years past his heyday. carrie fisher mostly stood there stiffly, trying to not dribble or something. it was saddening if not pathetic seeing these icons of 20th-century americana in what were basically pointless appearances.

but I guess this is a bit like the star treks where they pass the torch from the ones who made the franchise famous to a new group in order to carry on milking sequels out of it. but unless movie goers these days are like mental patients that sit spellbound by shiny objects flashing back and forth on the TV screen I don't see how this one isn't totally out of gas.

Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel (2009)

little gem of a movie

[7/10 · 14 May 2014]

had never heard of this before, ran across it on someone's list of favorites and after watching it I can see why. it looks like the movie was made with pocket change but the main characters are so likable and the writing so clever that it reminds one at how nothing but a good idea and good execution are all that's really needed to make a movie worth watching.

I was engrossed in it almost from the start and thankfully spent most of my time thinking "can't wait to see what happens next". I find that a large majority of movies are a disappointment in one way or another and by 1/3 or halfway through most of them I don't even care to watch any more. that in part is what makes stumbling across something like this so special but it does make one wonder how many other terrific little movies like this are out there that hardly anyone will ever see.

The Best Offer (2013)

watchable I guess

[6/10 · 11 April 2014]

if I didn't enjoy a good geoffrey rush performance so much, didn't enjoy many of the settings and mood of the movie I would've given it a 5 instead of the 6 I did. I'm not a film buff so maybe that's why I can't understand how this could currently be rated almost an 8 at IMDb.

while I wouldn't withhold my recommendation, it did seem to drag on almost from the start, mostly because of the numerous preposterous circumstances (shoulder-length bright-white hair on an auction shill never drew anyone's attention in the past? really? a person repelled by the thought of physical/emotional contact soliciting not only love advice but from a virtual stranger?) - I felt like the movie very clumsily and practically trumpeted "this is a setup and you just saw another element to take note of".

the movie more or less screaming at me what to pay attention to each time I was supposed to took away almost all of the drama, so much so that less than halfway through all I kept thinking was "I'd be happy to see the last 10 minutes to see how they wrap it up". that's not really what a mystery/thriller should be invoking in its viewers imo.

Last Vegas (2013)

total stinker

[3/10 · 24 February 2014]

I love (love!) morgan freeman, michael douglas and especially robert deniro. deniro is easily the best and most versatile of the three and I've loved his films from all phases of his acting career even though some of his later ones seem to mostly be just a reason to keep busy. this is all to make the point that I'm willing to give a chance to almost anything any of these three guys make.

but this movie is horrendously bad, tired, boring, unfunny, predictable, and tbh the acting wasn't much better. I can suffer through garbage movies if I enjoy someone's performance but there's absolutely nothing redeeming about this thing whatsoever. just from the premise I knew this might be hard to sit through and it was.

this movie doesn't deserve this much commenting but if I save just one other fan of theirs from thinking somehow this is a hidden gem that deserves its current 6.7 IMDb rating it will be worth it.

At Any Price (2012)

better than IMDb rating indicates imo

[7/10 · 3 September 2013]

after watching I was surprised by its low IMDb rating (5.6 currently). I liked it, it held my attention, felt on its own it was entertaining and was one of those I think to myself "I'm glad I watched that". I'm not a film critic or film-making buff so don't know mechanically what makes a movie good, it's more a thing of you know it when you see it.

to be fair before writing this I read some of the less favorable reviews and can see they have their points. but in imd-land the mid-5s kinds of movies are getting into the range where a movie is clearly not well-thought of and it's hard to see how that can be true of this one. also I don't watch previews/trailers or really read much besides the brief IMDb synopsis at the top so maybe my lack of expectation helps.

I watched this because I like dennis quaid, he's one of those actors that on the screen I find easy to like and his performances are usually good. this isn't the kind of role I'm used to seeing from him (the clever/charming/gregarious kind of guy) but I thought he played it quite well.

the overarching theme seems to be there's no overarching theme. it was more or less an hour and a half of stuff involving people that happened to be in iowa, some of which happened to be farmers. it didn't seem to me it was pushing any kind of viewpoint, we just get to witness some unusual things that can make one think "what would I have done in that spot?" it almost had the dryness of a documentary in that there's no crescendos (musically or otherwise) trying to tell the audience what to feel where. to me the movie was more about what's inside the characters rather than what happens externally when they interact. from that standpoint I wasn't put off by some of the disjointedness other reviewers rightfully point out.

I did notice in hindsight once the movie was over that much of it seemed formulaic and had many of the kinds of twists every other movie has, but what struck me was being engrossed enough that as it unfolded I didn't really notice until it was over with.

bottom line for me is it was entertaining and worth the time spent watching it.

Date Night (2010)

pretty awful if you had no idea who these two were

[3/10 · 20 May 2013]

I think Steve Carrell is brilliant in the awkwardness/kookiness of "40 yo virgin" and the stuttering sensitive/insensitve clod/huge heart guy in "the office". he's one of those comedians with a great character schtick (think Tim Allen), not an inherently funny person like Tracy Morgan. iow Steve's characters are hilarious, "Steve Carrell" not so much.

I know little about Tina Fey except that when doing her hair the right way she bears a striking resemblance to a famous politician. I've seen a couple of the bits and she does nail the impression itself but if her only other role on snl was newsreader on "weekend update" (where the marginally funny comics are relegated) she's really just some forgettable personality with lifeless delivery and without her famous impression would probably be a nobody (in celebrity terms). she seems like the straightman for a comedy duo that's missing the comedian half.

so basically if you perceive these two similarly, you won't crack a grin and either be deep asleep in ~15 minutes or stop watching. it's awful. idiotic plot, unfunny people, unfunny writing, no redeeming features at all imo. real boring stuff.

otoh if you think one successful impression based in large part on looks alone makes everything she touches funny and that steve carrell can do no wrong, chances are you'll enjoy this movie.

I believe it's that simple. if you like them you'll like the movie, if you're ambivalent you won't.

Rock of Ages (2012)

hard to see how this could've been worse

[3/10 · 14 November 2012]

I'll never understand how you can get a pile of top actors and end up with such a piece of garbage. I guess this was supposed to be some mindless/fun summer movie and obviously was supposed to be over the top but it ended up just being stupid. well maybe the music will save it? puhleeze! the plastic/corporate poser metal reminds you why you hated radio during that period. power ballads, bleech!!

almost from the start I had the fingernails-on-chalkboard sensations but stuck it out for awhile to see tom cruise who at least in non-singlng spots was his entertaining self. paul giamatti is also one of my favorites so there's that but this kind of copycat/boy-band metal isn't something I can bear sitting through a whole movie of.

if you liked "rock star" and thought wahlberg was a good front man knockoff plus actually liked the tunes, "rock of ages" will make you cringe and run away.

21 Jump Street (2012)

at least the 7.4 rating is funny

[3/10 · 15 July 2012]

this is an objectively abysmal movie, there's just no way around that. it isn't even mildly funny unless you're maybe 6 or 7 years old. although jonah hill certainly has his awkward teen schtick down, the movie is just a bad rehash of what's been done a billion times before but with new people. no one expects these dime-a-dozen summer teen flicks to break new ground all the time but jeez, at least try to make something marginally entertaining since not all moviegoers are 10-year-olds.

I should've stayed away based on the red flags so it's not like I wasn't warned. usually though when your expectations are so low it's hard to be let down but they did it with this one. I never saw the TV show and don't even know if that was a comedy so it's not like I'm comparing this to memories of that. I thought jonah hill was fairly awesome in superbad (a close 2nd after mclovin) and liked him in the russell brand English rocker movie. but I saw the high IMDb rating on this one (7.4 or something like that) and figured I was missing a new napoleon dynamite or something.

wrong. in the real world this movie is a 3 or 4 at best. maybe sit through the whole thing on a dare but for anyone else you'll do more yawning and checking your watch than laughing or even cracking a smile for that matter.

Horrible Bosses (2011)

"horrible" is a better title

[28 September 2011]

what a cruddy movie, no redeeming characteristics at all. I knew it had colin farrell (of which I'd say I'm a moderately lukewarm fan of his although was more impressed after having seen "in bruges") and I guess that's why I was thinking this would be a better movie than it turned out to be. therefore I can't say it was a major letdown from my expectations but its current IMDb 7.x rating is about twice as high as it deserves to be.

I couldn't watch the whole thing, it was too unbearable. the guy from "hancock" I like and find humorous but the other two main characters seemed to be trying too hard to be cute/funny/goofy or something and didn't appeal to me at all since they couldn't pull it off.

** mild spoiler alert **

the story isn't just dumb, it's incongruously stupid and I find this sort of disconnect a big block to my temporary suspension of belief in order to enjoy what follows. think about it - 3 milquetoast/beta males that for purposes of the movie leap without effort to the conclusion that they must murder their bosses. 3 human beings will intentionally kill 3 other human beings - this from guys who wouldn't dare to throw away a parking ticket?? their bosses aren't mass murderers, aren't Satan incarnate, aren't child rapists, they just happen to be mean or uncaring people. yeah, they.must.die! /sarcasm.

I suppose I could've continued watching if I had otherwise found one of the characters entertaining or funny or more interesting than mayonnaise but I couldn't so didn't.

The Perfect Game (2009)

crappy movie (note I didn't say uninteresting story)

[4/10 · 2 July 2011]

this isn't a good movie, it seems as if it's made by someone that's seen all the archetypal feel-good, rags-to-riches movies then tried his hand at making one without understanding how the good ones actually work. in this genre "the blind side" is fantastic, "rudy" superb, even "the sandlot" is head and shoulders above this.

the main problem with this movie is that it has the gruff embittered coach who didn't really want to be, check, the grandfatherly advice giver, check, a side love interest, check, impoverished kids who want to beat the odds, check - but when strung together as things we want to cheer for it falls completely flat. everything is too shallow.

I mean I know as viewers we're supposed to do xyz at abc but the movie's job is to lead us to those points which make us want to reflexively cheer. this movie seems to use those recognizable spots simply as the indication that "ok audience, here's where you cheer". that's not how it works. things in this movie seem to just happen for no real reason except the feel-good format requires them. the build-up scenes seem disjointed/incomplete so there's no build-ups, the pay-offs ("hurray" "cheer" "you go!") appear out of nowhere making them utterly unsatisfying because they were unexpected.

I had very little expectation other than to watch something fun and marginally gratifying for a couple hours but even with such a low bar this movie fails. I should add that I could only take a little over half of this movie but in fairness how many times can one watch something lousy saying "this stinks, I hope it gets better; this stinks, I hope it gets better; this stinks... the end"?

Unstoppable (2010)

"unbearable" is more like it

[4/10 · 31 January 2011]

how on earth can this in any way be a 7.0-rated movie??? this is horrendously bad in every area, in fact so bad it can't even excel at being a bad movie. the only three good things about it are 1) it's denzel, 2) it's about trains (which I like) and 3) it wasn't longer. in olden days IMDb would've had this about a 5 at best and saved me from wasting my time with it.

the story may be true but too many elements are mind-numbingly stupid (sure, miles away in a city of 3/4 million people the guy's wife just happens to live at the focal point of disaster), the acting is awful, the script is nothing but a checklist of clichés and the filmwork is juvenile - shaking/zooming cameras are not a substitute for action, they just alert one to the fact that the director really doesn't know how to create genuinely intense interest.

this is unstoppably stupid and IMDb is not doing their longtime followers any service by letting smelly cr4p like this be rated so unjustifiably high.

Salt (2010)

my review is worth more than this movie

[4/10 · 4 January 2011]

I had no high hopes due to this being an angelina jolie poseur movie, maybe expected just a bit more due to IMDb's 6.5 rating but was tricked (again). the upside is that this is definitely the last one of these kinds I take a chance on.

the plot has the expected twists and villains and whatnot and while it's no gem it's not awful. but what kills movies like this for me is seeing some 5"7' 110lb stick-armed girl manhandling groups of hefty police officers and other assorted villains one after another, walking around with her pretend "I'm so cool" scowl. it's just too stupid to take.

yes all of Hollywood is in fantasy-land and movies are supposed to be a fun escape but there is such a thing as being too over-the-top ridiculous. ever since the 1990s and latent title 9-inspired activism, Hollywood and its insatiable political correctness have been on some fantasy kick that girls with pipecleaner arms are as fearsome as anyone else in unarmed combat. sure, whatever Hollywood.

the point is, the distraction of such intentional idiocy keeps one from actually paying attention to the movie. most of the time I was watching this I kept thinking "would a guy action hero in this role still have stunk up the theater?" I don't really know but tbh I'd rather just watch a mindless movie like this instead of constantly being annoyed by "this is so effin stupid I can't believe it".

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

a "classic", are you serious?

[5/10 · 8 December 2010]

I got on a kick of watching two things recently: 1) good courtroom dramas and/or 2) classics. imo this is neither.

maybe way back in olden times this movie was something special but all I kept thinking was "why are these kids in every scene?" and "when do we actually get to the court stuff?" the former is apparently what the movie is about and the latter came and went before I knew it. I guess I could complain the court drama was too short but in hindsight that was actually a blessing.

the afi top-10 all-time court dramas incomprehensibly has this as #1!! are you kidding me?? I mean I'm not a totally unsophisticated person but not only does the court portion come very late in the movie, almost as an afterthought, it was as thrilling as peeling potatoes.

see this movie if you must but I hope you know more about why you want to see it than I did.

ps anyone that actually was looking for an old-time court drama, "witness for the prosecution" was fantastic. quite corny in parts but good drama, very good legal stuff and charles laughton was riveting.

The Escapist (2008)

glad I stumbled on this

[8/10 · 23 November 2010]

I hate it what that happens. I enjoyed this movie very much, moreso than most but only found it by sheer accident. makes me wonder how many other little gems I've missed.

it's hard to say a lot about the story w/o giving something away but I liked that this was just a simple/solid movie, well-edited and well-done. no fancy script, no navel-gazing, no big action per se, just an undercurrent of intensity that held my attention. I'm a tough grader and gave it an 8 but I think not so much on its merits but in comparison to so much of the garbage out there.

maybe it's just my kind of interest but unlike a lot of movies, this one not only has a pay-off but the editing makes it easy to stay interested until then. it's not nearly as complex as memento for example (a 9 or 10 in my book) but is done better than most in that what they selected leaves you wondering what's going to happen next in b when they cut back to a and vice-versa.

this one is what makes me like watching movies, just wanting to be entertained for an hour or two, not bored to tears or wonder "wtf??" when it's over.

Pitch Black (2000)

real yawner

[5/10 · 10 June 2010]

perhaps mild spoiler-alert.

OK so I'm a little late to the party, this movie is 10 years old. I never got around to seeing this new but post now because given its rating expected something a whole lot better.

I realize anyone under 14 may not know what "cliché" means but while I had small hopes this wouldn't be as bad as its cast of nobodies, headed by a poser lead more suited to brief bit-work indicated it should be, it was. "cliché-laden" is all that comes to mind. I could only watch about half the movie - nothing is any fun when every strand of a film is nothing but one overworked cliché priming the next overworked cliché.

it was often nonsensical as well. a body is savaged to the point the area he disappeared was awash in blood. yet the 'villain', clean as a whistle moments after, is still ridiculously and repeatedly accused of knifing the victim to death, ostensibly only because the movie's lameness required it.

where I gave up is their mad dash to do something before the solar eclipse occurs. you see, bad things happen when it gets dark. so our band heads to another site (for some reason) to madly collect all their gear (for some reason), and get back to where they started (for some reason), before the eclipse occurs. why? I have no idea. I've never been in an eclipse but do know they last for minutes then viola! sun and light are back to normal. so my best guess why someone didn't just say "hey, we'll lockdown for a few minutes and *then* at a leisurely pace go get our gear" is because that would only use up 10 seconds of film.

cliché-ridden, mindlessly contrived, a lead for whom saying he's one-dimensional is too kind; this is a 4, maybe a stretch as a 5. the current 7? not even close.

Jarhead (2005)

OK I guess

[4/10 · 9 January 2006]

I didn't know anything about this movie and wasn't really expecting much; and that's about what I got. Really kinda drones on. And admittedly, these days, it's hard to not see everyone's political point of view peeking through but even though I don't know this Swofford fella or the ppl that made the movie, seeing just about every anti-military liberal stereotype portrayed you can't help but wonder what is the real point of this?

So liberals will be thrilled with the frothing and barely-sentient psychopaths that populate the military, the ever popular suppression of truth by the mighty, the either 1) impossible to believe or 2) grossly distorted goings-on, the inhumane DI that mostly just hates ppl so abuses them for his own pleasure, etc., etc., etc.

Obviously I'm not a liberal so not being able to cheer on "what I always knew was true about the military", for everyone else probably all you're going to see is the insides of your eyelids...

The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream (2004)

8.9/10??? As the prophet P.T. Barnum said...

[1/10 · 20 March 2005]

Doesn't anyone bother to check where this kind of sludge comes from before blathering on about its supposed revelations? Ask yourself a question: Is my skull an open bucket that I allow anyone to dump their propaganda into? Do yourself a favor and take a look at the bomb-shelter mentality of pathtofreedom.com before you waste your time with this screed.

These sorts of Mother Earth/People's Republic of Berkeley urbanite fruitcakes that openly despise a way of life only because it doesn't match theirs must believe their case fails miserably on facts and objectivity. Else why resort to willful distortion and blatant one-sidedness? Pathetic.

Don't be a sap. Take two seconds and cast a skeptical eye before falling for yet more 'end of the world' hysteria from it-takes-a-village types with a political agenda that's probably even to the left of your own. Mi. Moore (rather his unthinking followers) have really opened the floodgates with this kind of one-sided political trash passed off as a *cough* documentary. But apparently they understand the sentiment of an ever-gullible public: "If it's on a movie screen, it must be true."

God gave you a brain - act like you know what you're supposed to do with it...

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

A 6.7 IMDb rating???? Are you serious?

[2/10 · 19 December 2004]

As Oddball might say "this is one dirty rotten awful stinking awful movie". I say it too.

I don't get this place (IMDb). How could this 'TV star makes hour-and-a-half movie from five-minute TV skit that wasn't all that funny' get a 6.7??? After using IMDb for a few years, a 6.7 is a pretty high rating. IME a 6.7 is something of a safe bet. Maybe there's something wrong with the HTML code and that 6.7 should actually show up as a 2.7 - 2.7 is fair for this piece of crapola.

But I admit I only watched the first ten minutes - it was all I could stand. Too often I'd watch a movie, not too impressed but thinking "something will happen, give it some time. Something will happen, give it some time. Something will happen, give it some time. 'The End'". I've succumbed too often to that naively hopeful (and unrealistic) 'it will get better' line of thought. Will's character is central and so poorly done that ten minutes was enough to tell me that this was definitely a 'something will happen movie'. But this time I took the hint.

I'm a HUGE Will Ferrell fan. He was hilarious and a real standout on SNL and most/all of his characters struck me as very original. And extremely well-played. If this movie was his SNL audition he would've ended up bussing tables or something. IT STINKS! It looked to me like this was going to be a rip-off of the John Travolta weatherman in "Lucky Numbers". The problem was that THAT was well-played. And it was hysterical (the Denny's scene). This was neither. Subject myself to an entire hour and a half of this? I think not.

I'm pretty sure this never was an SNL skit but it makes my point. Ferrell has such a huge and uncommon talent for playing an over-the-top caricature with such nuance that it's hysterically believable. I think his caricatures are hysterical not on their own but because with his talent he can bring so much to them. In "Anchorman" Ferrell looks like "I don't know about this; let me give it a try and see if I can get something out of it." He doesn't.

So, aggravated at the huge let-down I made the decision to not be suckered into yet another POS that I would've ended up kicking myself for wondering why I couldn't take the hint early on and get out. So I got out.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

This is one "sweet" movie :-)

[9/10 · 6 October 2004]

I LOVED this movie - it was "awesome" :-) It's one of those quirky sort-of offbeat goofball movies, uncommon because in this one everything just works.

Especially the lead actor - he was great! (Or as he might say "awesome"). Nothing really seemed to get in the way of anything else - it all just sort of falls together.

What I really liked about it was that it had no big agenda, didn't try to blow you out of your seat, no tiresome social commentary, etc. Just a great way to spend an hour or two simply watching, not thinking and being entertained.

The "quirky" gameplan doesn't seem to work too often for one reason or another, usually because of an overt sense that the people in the movie were trying to prove to the audience just how quirky their movie is. Which of course alerts you to "this isn't really a quirky movie although I'm supposed to think so". It's kind of like that U.S. Justice instead saying he can't define "quirky" but "I know it when I see it". He would certainly recognize it here.

The lead actor (I thought) was sensational but never having seen him before it's kind of hard to say if maybe that's the way he really is; maybe it didn't require a lot of acting on his part (when you see him you'll know what I mean). Like Carroll O'Connor playing Archie Bunker - it's done so well you can't tell if maybe there's no acting going on or O'Connor just plays that one part to perfection.

Most of the main characters were really well written, what there was of it. But with what little there was, and some inference, you got a good sense for who they were (especially Uncle Rico). The editing was great in many spots - appropriately dramatic enough to really seal the deal (jokewise). And what often really cements one of these kinds of movies is the music - perfectly selected in this one, right down the line.

The one complaint I have is that it's not enough - I want another "Napoleon Dynamite". I could easily watch this movie many times (and plan to), over and over, thoroughly entertained each time.

8/10 (where a 9 would be "The Big Lebowski" or "Punch Drunk Love").

PS There is more movie after the very last credit (I hate it when moviemakers let you discover this by accident). Nothing you'd feel cheated in missing but a little more "Napoleon Dynamite" before departing.

PPS I've read some of the comments here and it occurred to me that maybe since I was more likely to be the kind of kid that would 'torture' a kid like Napoleon (not in a devilish, brutal manner), I therefore could not identify with him and consequently might have a different take on this movie. Perhaps because of my perspective I judge this movie not from a personal sense where I know what it is to be a kid like that, but instead dispassionately from the outside being entertained by an uncommonly well-made offbeat movie.

The In-Laws (I) (2003)

Death by firing squad or watch this again? Um, let me think about it...

[10 October 2003]

This movie is unbelievably awful - just rotten. I'm stunned that it even achieves a so-so rating of 5. I'm not a critic and never saw the original. And I enjoy movies not so much for realism, sensibility or anything else - just entertainment. This was painful to watch. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" could be nuclear, biological, chemical... or this movie in wide distribution.

If you like clever comedies ("Mother"), quirky comedies ("The Big Lebowski"), plain stupid comedies ("Dumb and Dumber"), entertaining comedies ("Full Moon Over Blue Water"), or any other comedy whatsoever, you will find nothing at all to like about this movie. It's sickeningly stupid, moronically idiotioc - I just can't think of enough bad things to say about it but this movie is so rotten I'm tempted to go on and on.

This is one of those movies that you just wonder how on earth it could ever be made let alone attract stars such as Brooks and Douglas? And I am huge fans of both. Didn't the people working on it at the time have a hint at how entirely bad the thing was going to be? The writing is hideous - like a "D" grade film student's first draft term paper. (He did the editing as well.) Wasn't there a studio executive somewhere deciding whether or not to release it thinking he was committing career suicide by doing so?

It's not always easy to find movies that are simply a complete waste of time. This movie is in lonely company in my opinion as having absolutely not a single entertaining thing going for it and therefore no reason to bother watching it. I guess that means "death by firing squad" for me because there's no way I'd watch this again.

The Hunted (2003)

could've been an OK flick except...

[15 August 2003]

** mild spoiler **

I can certainly see why many people dislike this movie - there's much to criticize (I saw it before checking here). But I would've enjoyed it anyway except for one major problem - political-correctness.

It starts out with much promise if you like intensity and aren't too picky when it comes to plots and believability (I view movies strictly for entertainment and to me entertainment can be any of either great filming, performance(s) or story). In short, it held my interest.

But when it got to the politically-correct, bad-ass but model-beautiful skinny female cop who isn't strong enough to bench press grapefruits that today's movie makers are so want to force on us, I immediately lost all interest. Yeah - like some bony chick, painfully uncomfortable portraying toughness (with her face properly made up no less), is going to be in charge of any crime scene she shows up at barking orders at grizzled police veterans and putting the fear of God in scary-looking criminal-types three times her size. What crap.

I can overlook Tommy's out-of-place age (because he's damn entertaining), many cliches (because the intensity was pretty good), etc., but this kind of laughable 'tough-chick' crap that too many movies have these days kills it for me. The reason is because I can just see some idiot 'hey we have to put a girl in this to show how modern we are.' And that's their only reason! Fine, but do they have to make her a 105lb Hell's Angel?

So I think this could have been a decent, mid-intensity movie. But laughable PC isn't my thing so I'll just bemoan that yet another movie I could've gotten into and watched more than once for entertainment only will be forgotten ASAP...

Mike