Change Your Image
JT-Kirk
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try again(Only Eon productions. 1967's Casino Royale isn't even a good farce of a Bond film, it's just a mess; and Never Say Never Again is just an odd remake of Thunderball with an aged Sean Connery back in the saddle.)
Reviews
Blast from the Past (1999)
Some good performances in search of a little more of a story
This story of a 35-year-old Brendan Fraser raised in a fallout shelter and then has to navigate the world for the first time is cute, but doesn't quite coalesce and lacks the comedic or story punch it should.
Fraser's a perfect fish out of water, nice boy from raised from the pretense of '60s suburban life. Christopher Walken and Sissy Spacek play his parents and they're fantastic, we spend a lot of the first half of the movie with them and it works well. Alicia Silverstone plays the love interest trying not to fall for Fraser as she helps him gather what he's looking for on the surface world, she's giving the same performance she always does. Dave Foley plays the gay roommate and this was not a bad character, he's played this character on KITH a million times but they wrote the character around some pitfalls so he doesn't feel fully fleshed out, but he's not a total cliche.
The movie's got charm, but not enough laughs, and misses some logic to the way the story moves throughout. It's "cute" but feels like it could have been raucously funny or a smarter, better story at nearly every moment.
After the halfway mark, the film loses steam until we get to a very forced ending, literally coughed up in the moment to create the dramatic finale, and it doesn't quite work for it.
That said, I would absolutely watch a sequel starring Walken, Spacek, and Fraser in those same roles made today.
Immortal Combat (1994)
There's a fun movie buried in this one, but patience required
Roddy Piper and Sonny Chiba as buddy cops tracking down a murderous fight club in Mexico gets the good things right, but can't just keep that going all the way. The pacing after the first 15 minutes drops considerably, act 2 is lead at times when the main characters separate and the tone shifts over and over. Meg Foster hams it up considerably to great effect, while Lara Steinick does her best with a tourist with ulterior motives. Tiny Lister doesn't get quite enough to do, there's too many moving parts in general, but there are enough highs to keep you going until you get to a fun third act.
Some great fights and stunts, some interesting story beats too, and the leads are charismatic with a good rapport.
Reminiscence (2021)
Shallower than it thinks, but not the worst way to kill some time
Reminiscence: from the co-creator of Westworld (the tv series) comes this rock-stupid future-noir that reeks of film school bunk and empty COVID-safe filming sets.
This film wishes it was "smart Inception" but ends up "even simpler, dumber Inception" instead, with heavy-handed allegory and metaphor, clumsily creating a post-war Philip Marlowe-esque world in the near future of global warming (the least-believable thing? The lack of mold everywhere).
Hugh Jackman plays "protagonist with dubious American accent" who is paid to peer into people's memories and gets wrapped up in the most boilerplate noir plotline possible, with drinking and a femme fatale and hard-boiled lines and fist fights. The spoilers don't even matter once you know that and have even a cursory understanding of cinematic tropes in noir and later-day sci-fi.
I will say exactly this: it was adequate, inoffensive late-August entertainment that's at least more tolerable than most streaming platforms' originals, less stupid and insulting than The Tomorrow War, but in no way would I have ever gone to see it in a theater or paid for it beyond its inclusion with HBO Max. Straight up a 6.
Terror Squad (1987)
Come for the schlock, stay for the action!
Wonderful, amazing schlock with a surprising gritty feel and some amazing stunts and effects. Surprisingly, nearly every security officer and cop in this movie isn't portrayed as a dolt, and there's a 30 minute stretch from minutes 15 through 46 that has one of the best, most exciting car chases ever - it has everything except a boat chase. The story is unimportant but, aside from the nerd's choice towards the end, and the finale action sequence, everybody's character arcs feel like they make sense and fit within the framework presented.
If you want cheese, schlock, silliness, action, shooting, and just plain ol' 1980s B-movie fun, you need to watch Terror Squad.
The Tower (1985)
So bad it's bad
Canadian TV movies from 1985 seem to be the equivalent of mind-poison. This low-budget loser has nothing to offer whatsoever, nothing of note happens for the first 27 minutes yet the film hammers home foundational exposition twice in that time. There are no scares, thrills, chills, nothing. The best I can say is it ended eventually, but even that felt about 30 minutes too late. There was a whole sub-plot just to set up a sequel that nobody could have believed would happen.
A "high tech" computerized building is left on autopilot and decides it needs to eat people for their energy. They try to escape, there's standard disaster interpersonal drama, and then they try to turn it off. It's awful.
Just... don't.
Last Action Hero (1993)
Not the lost treasure some claim it to be
Last Action Hero is deeply flawed and incompetent both as a dumb film and a smart one. The script wants you to think it is being clever, yet never once takes time to actually delve into what it's trying to say; the closest we get is Jack Slater, freed from celluloid, experiencing his first genuine conversation outside his action-filled life, yet that moment misfires by being woefully brief and shallow. It's also incapable of creating a real-world tone that feels grittier or more dangerous than that of the celluloid one; there's a scene that should have a shocking impact from the real world where Danny is assaulted in his apartment, so lost that it's hard to know if it's the celluloid world, the real world, or a dream.
The movie tells us time and time again it's being a clever, tongue- in-cheek, meta look at the world of big Schwarzenegger-style action films of that era -- it screams this into the audience's face. But never does it actually succeed at commentary in a meaningful way, instead relying on cutesy moments and the same shallow style it's mocking to cover up for not being remotely smart enough to justify itself.
I can't blame the cast, they seem to be doing an adequate job of what they're being told to. But too much of this film falls on young Austin O'Brien's shoulders, his character of Danny Madigan feels only slightly more authentic than Jake Lloyd's Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace. His character is given too much to do and too much to carry without any real character integrity, and as a kid he struggles to make it all compelling. He's not bad at all, but his character is an oddball and a bad fit, and O'Brien is wearing a lot of "early '90s kid" traits that just didn't translate to likability *or* believability.
A lot of blame can be put on the shoulders of the writers, especially when Shane Black is mocking his own Lethal Weapon films by doing what he always does of making this script into yet another Lethal Weapon film - look at Die Hard 3, The Last Boy Scout, Iron Man 3, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, etc., and you'll find many of the same exact buddy cop film tropes pouring out of them as you will here. The writers don't get the difference between a cinematic universe that feels like movie Los Angeles and a real world that only feels like movie New York; it's not enough to just change locations and put in one scene pretending to show real consequences.
"Jack Slater" is an intentional sendup of Schwarzenegger films, a direct pastiche, yet the Jack Slater movies contain a cartoon cop detective paired with a human while a clown detective waits in line with a rabbi cop -- is this supposed to be an Arnie film with that stuff, an R-rated violent kiddie movie? Arnold hadn't done anything remotely kid-friendly, and nothing stupid approaching a ripoff of The Naked Gun or Roger Rabbit, yet the Jack Slater film universe that stuff is constant and we're asked to relate to that at face value. Jack Slater the film series seems to be something akin to Space Jam, and we all loved that, right?
But the truth of the matter is that this movie's failure is its choice of director. Having come off a pair of action/adventure successes with Predator, Die Hard and Hunt for Red October, John McTiernan is the absolute worst choice for directing this film and it shows in every scene. McTiernan shows no experience in comedy or satire of any kind and directs every scene as if it were a standard, heavyweight action scene. There isn't one instance of comedy that works on a smart or funny level, much less the more nuanced need for satire and parody that Last Action Hero's complex premise demands. His version of storytelling is semi-gritty and action-based; while his version of comedy is the dumbest, simplest, shallowest type, right down to a giant fart bomb, and it's all tonally incompetent, directed as straight action. There's over 2 hours of this, couldn't something have been cut out?
The movie also looks shockingly cheap considering how big its budget. The cinematography looks lazy and slapdash despite a competent D.P.; the special effects are mostly middling but there are some downright terrible. The gang members' casual car explosion at the end of a chase scene looks like an afterthought created on the video toaster, undermining what could have been a funny gag of our hero totally ignoring a giant fireball behind him, if not for the fact that it looks like that premise was added late in post despite coming from the shooting script, otherwise they wouldn't have shot it that way. Production doesn't even feel bloated and lazy, it just seems entirely out of its element and scrambling to put together something, anything because there's a release date and a mountain of cash riding on this, not to mention toys and soundtracks.
Last Action Hero wasn't misunderstood when it came out, it was seen as the sloppy, wrong-headed mess it still is. The film is filled with action yet every scene drags, the plot is bloated and lost, the characters are shallow and paint-by-numbers despite pretending to be "realistic". The producers, writers, and director all got it entirely wrong, this is a dumb movie pretending to be a smart one, substituting subtlety and cleverness. Last Action Hero yells its gag into your face endlessly while telling the joke wrong the whole time, and then it's also bad at being a regular dumb movie! It's movies like Last Action Hero that paved the way for even more studio schlock like Batman & Robin and Speed 2, movies that were driven by corporate spreadsheets instead of vision.
Little Big Man (1970)
A challenging film that's entertaining and powerful
I can see why some folks won't like this film: it has a tone that is incredibly uneven, at different times diving deeply into very funny comedy and utterly tragic drama; it has an utterly unforgiving sense of violence and death; it doesn't pull any punches with the concept of the destruction of the Native Americans by the "white man"; and it's exceptionally long. If someone doesn't engage with the material on a strong level, they're going to feel every second dragging on them. Yet at two and a half hours, I found myself wanting a little more of the character's story, no matter how mundane or even more tragic it would become.
Dustin Hoffman - even while donning heavy makeup, red-face, and a settler's accent - is incredibly engaging and mastering his craft with the zeal of a man knowing his own limits and stepping directly to them without hesitation. He embodies the comedy aspects with ease, yet never fully letting up of the layered nuance of the character within. And he's not alone, the majority of roles both big and small don't let the audience down, the director and the casting work on this film deliver a very complete story.
The film's story is itself an interesting one, an aged man telling very personal tales of growing up on the frontier under incredibly challenging and varied circumstances, some of them historically famous. The character of Jack Crabb is a bit passive at times, observing the mania of the frontier from the perspective of both sides, having been born a white man but raised during puberty as a Cheyenne, then ping-ponging back and forth over and over between those worlds. Jack Crabb, also known as "Little Big Man", eventually comes to witness and suffer at the hands of George Custer, which becomes a greater and greater focus as the film shifts more of its focus from comedic to dramatic. Yet there's also a sense of letting go in this man's life, he has seen great and terrible things, he has had hope and hate, but he continues on. How he gets from the end of the story to his place at 121 years old is not told though, and that I would have liked to have seen at least a little of how he got from that life to the modern one, and what toll that took watching as the worlds he came from changed drastically around him. It might be easy to view Crabb's tale as a yarn spun by an old man wanting attention, there are elements lightly suggesting that possibility, yet Hoffman's acting tells a silent tale that maybe it's all real, and that right there is movie magic.
Little Big Man isn't a movie that has only one character though, so throughout the story we meet characters once, twice, or many more times that all have their own story arcs, their own personalities -- some are for laughs, some are considerably more nuanced, and some are downright tragic. The film is rich with characters and consequences and flaws. Choosing to tell a story of the white man and the native man's interactions from a perspective that only very recently has become accepted is a strong choice and one that not every audience member can probably accept even today.
The movie also sounds and looks great, shot on location in a wide format and filling each shot without overstuffing it. I'd like to say more, but the truth is that the production felt so right that it did its job perfectly - it told the story without being distracting. I also applaud the choice to have the Native American characters speak in their tongue but we hear English, this is after all a tale being told, not a cinematic attempt at an authentic recreation of Cheyenne life, otherwise half the film would be in another language and it just wouldn't have worked as well. This truly is a film of the '70s, having one foot in the cinematic movie-making of the past and the brutal honesty of that present.
So while I think this movie was fantastic, I suppose I cannot recommend Little Big Man to everybody. It is a very good film and yet it will be a challenging film for some; it doesn't ask a lot of its audience but not every audience will be able to embrace the material. There are a lot of great performances including and beyond Dustin Hoffman, and production is rock solid, yet it doesn't quite fit in the world of comedy or drama, and Little Big Man runs too long for the impatient. But the rewards for those who find this film are significant.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Like the plague
ROTF is awful, it's a putrid, hateful piece of cinema - and by "hateful" I mean it hates the audience, it craps on them, it insults them, it assaults them, and it yells at them constantly. This movie is cinematic diarrhea, it has nothing to say so it shouts as loudly and confusingly as it can. I was dragged me to see it in the theaters by a buddy, and I am confident they will some day have to answer to their maker for that misdeed.
ROTF is a visual cacophony of a million moving parts all over the place on top of shaky-cam. It's incredibly stupid, it stands for nothing and inverts itself on its morality time and time again - especially for our "heroes" - its so-called plot is nonsensical to a degree that is mind- numbing, it's base and cheap and racist and ugly, it uses its camera to leer at every woman in the cast under the age of 30 with an eye-rapist manner, it's unholy bloated, and even its helmer - Michael Bay - called it "crap" despite having an active loathing for the audience who he says will go see it no matter how bad it is.
It's not clever or creative or interested in the franchise it's representing or concerned about the audience whatsoever, it is a 2.5- hour long slugfest to sell GM cars and toys and tie-in merchandising opportunities and it doesn't care a lick about entertainment beyond the lowest common denominator.
It is a dump truck full of Lucky Charms and McDonalds hamburgers and Twinkies, slowly turning rancid, being poured over the audience until they eat so much that they hate the taste of that junk food which they used to crave.
It made action scenes and giant robots and explosions incredibly boring by their utter lack of novelty or restraint.
My Dinner with Andre (1981)
A character study, a statement, an ability to convey rhythm of personalities
Philosophy, existentialism, transcendentalism all collide over quail dinner. Some may see this movie as a time-suck, when in fact it's not, it's compelling and lets the viewer feel as if he's dining at the next table, listening in on something beyond the normal dinner conversation. There's no question as to how anybody else on the screen or talked about feels, it's simply two men having conversation, and that conversation ends up being exceptionally colorful and deep and full of crap at times, but never boring.
For the first quarter, it feels as if Andre's existentialist dilemmas are so farcical and ridiculous that they must be pretense, yet once the infinitely-traveled (both the world and the being) Andre calls his own behavior out as abhorrent, things flip on their ear and get your attention.
Wally and Andre agree and disagree on the nature of (then-modern) life within the same breaths, rarely exposing anything other than a friendly listening ear, hardly daring to show conflict as that would be outrageous in a conversation such as this between these two people.
Some of what Andre says about the fundamentals of society have been proved prescient when a trip on the bus has the majority of riders interacting only with their phones, never truly communicating or living with those people around them. In that way, it's impossible 33 years later not to view truths in the wild stories being told by a man who may not be as nuts as he seems at times, but definitely has let his enlightenment cloud his ability to actually live his life. Yet time after time, we are faced with the very real possibility that Andre's crisis comes from losing his mother, an event which comes up over and over in tales - or maybe he's right on track, and using that event only as a stinging example of the blind men describing the elephant.
Wally meanwhile plays the polite ear for a time, then a sounding board, finally even making counterpoints to a much more "here and now" life, but he never fully gives himself over to fighting his friend's ideas, and he rarely shows a hint that he might be bored or glazing over. The fact that Wally, our "protagonist" - if that's what you can call his role - refuses to disengage with Andre the way so many of their friends have shows a kindness and an ability to truly take in the ideas behind a man seemingly broken and on the fringes of society.
I remember overhearing talk like this when I was a kid, some of those conversations were the best ideas and some were the absolute worst dreck. How they were used ended up being where their true value mattered, and this film touches on that, but doesn't force it down the viewer's throat.
By the end of the few hours, the viewer is a little exhausted, the voice-over narration bookends feel clumsy, but - despite a lack of answers or anything of that nature - something happened and because of that, the viewer felt. That's where entertainment and art must collide to be successful.
Part of me would love to find out how Andre's wife and children, how Wally's girlfriend, how their theater community friends, even how the waitstaff dealt with the repercussions of that conversation, there are a lifetime of ideas that have come and gone since this film was made, a near-total abandonment of the type of "self-examination at all costs" behavior Andre lives by in the film, so in that way the film leaves us with the possibility of going anywhere we want, viewing sequels in our own minds. That's a strong tale told then, a movie that's just two New Yorkers having dinner being so much more without pushing at all.
Some audiences, perhaps most, won't be able to take this film in. It is longwinded and "nothing happens", it doesn't even entirely look good at times, but where it succeeds is in engaging far beyond the audience's expectations without anything other than some dinner, conversations, and coffee.
Batman: Year One (2011)
Batman Year One mostly faithful, but without any its soul
At San Diego Comic-Con 2011, Warner Bros held the world premiere for their new animated telling of Batman: Year One. Unfortunately, after the end of the film I was disappointed enough that I walked out on the panel with the major voice cast and directors.
The story is faithful to the comic, to the point where they could have used a little rewriting for fresh air. A few spots felt too anchored to the original page, dialog in a comic explaining an emotion or a type of action doesn't need to be taken literally for a movie. Being too faithful has the film feel like it's lacking any soul or spirit, it's just flatly reading lines, lacking inspiration, simply flipping through pages of the comic to get itself back on track. That is a complaint I had with Zack Snyder's Watchmen as well, just a sense of lifelessness, being stuck on the page treating the original material as cinematic gospel rather than being properly inspired by it. Unlike Watchmen, Year One is a short runtime of an hour, while it doesn't feel rushed, there are a few elements that could have spent a little more time on, most notably Bruce Wayne building up the Batman persona.
Another issue I have with Year One is the art. The style is inspired by Batman The Animated Series' simplicity but not its bold styling, which feels confused - it's not terrible, but it's not quite anything either. Batman in costume looks pretty decent, but Bruce Wayne's character art is like a classic animated Bruce Wayne in his late 30s, it's a tad distracting when he's voiced as a young man and other characters talk about him that way but he looks far more mature. That's perhaps subjective, but the movie's art fails in a second way that's less so: the use of CGI for vehicles - it's abominable, utterly terrible at every glimpse. The drawn artwork is left unsupported by cheap-looking CGI vehicles that move in an entirely robotic and stilted manner. It seems worse than any CGI cartoon TV show from the last 20 years, and every time a car or helicopter is on screen it's a significant distraction.
A smaller flaw in the film is the one big change to the climax of the story. This is the only SPOILER in my review, but it's part of the film's final act: In order to get Gordon more involved than the original, they have changed the events so that Gordon now shoots an unarmed, seemingly-uninvolved motorcyclist and takes his bike to chase after the kidnapper - Gordon shooting a bystander is insanity, well outside of character, turning him essentially into a murderer, whether or not that motorcycle-rider turns out to be secretly wearing armor and eventually gets back up. That chain-reacts into a second problematic change for the climax: Bruce Wayne now no longer has a vehicle to chase the kidnappers, so he takes to the rooftops, without gadgets or costume or even his motorcycle helmet, leaping around like a cheesy cartoon. That comes after an hour of being a grounded, fairly realistic guy - could you imagine the Batman of the Christopher Nolan movies doing that stuff? No, and this story up until the end had played it pretty much the same realistic manner, yet out of the blue Bruce Wayne becomes a super-powered cartoon character.
My final issue is that the voice acting simply does not hold up. Bryan Cranston as Gordon is the center of the movie, he's not a terrible choice, but there's a natural lightness to his reading which doesn't always quite match the depth of what's called for. Batman/Bruce Wayne himself is a big problem, voiced by The OC's Ben McKenzie - Ben has a younger voice without a lot of weight or darkness behind it, so he's directed to try to put on that Batman sound, it doesn't work. He's not experienced with voice acting either, and the combination of those two issues ends up really holding the character back - considering he's the titular character, there should be something believable to the performance, yet McKenzie often struggles with over-pronunciation of his lines, and keeps a "light brooding" going nearly all the time. And Alfred, I'm sorry, I just cannot get behind such a sleepy, disconnected performance - it's a small part in this tale, but I found it very distracting after so many years of great screen Alfreds, from the Nolan films through The Animated Series and going back to the 1960s TV show, only to have... this throwaway work.
What does work: James Gordon being a rounded character, it still plays well, Gordon seems quite adept at carrying these things.
Katee Sackoff brings some fairly convincing voice acting for her character, I've never really entirely been sold on ol' Starbuck there, but she was the lone bright spot that felt like a natural performance.
The movie is a period piece, set in the 1980s, which is an excellent choice, the story exists in a specific era and this movie plays to those strengths, no cellphones or modern conveniences to muck things up. There are even recognizable '80s cars like the first-gen Mazda RX-7.
There are a handful of small moments of humor natural to the story which play pretty well in the film, like Bruce Wayne's sit-down with Gordon and his wife, and Selina Kyle's frustrations with the press.
In the end, this animated version of Batman: Year One just doesn't deliver too well. Uninspired story presentation, middling art, and tepid voice acting work all create a rare animated DC misfire. And because it's such a major story in the modern DC universe, at a time when Batman screen tales are being done well left and right, it disappoints that much more to watch this one fizzle.
Knight Rider: Knight Rider (2008)
The word "abysmal" is thrown around a lot...
Here it is most deserved. Knight Rider is by no means sacred material, the original was cheesier and made on a far smaller budget, yet surpasses this waste of time.
Being a lifelong Knight Rider fan and critic, I could tell you all the ways this was unfaithful and disingenuous to the original. As a TV fan, I could spend a lot of time telling you that the production and direction are hopeless, the writing is awful and full of plot holes (how exactly are these villains beating the 200mph car everywhere?), or that the acting is unbelievably poor (you're in trouble when Hasselhoff's cameo is the best acting in the show). But all that I will spare to get down to brass tacks: what's really wrong with this Knight Rider are 3 fundamental problems, the 3 C's - conceptualization, casting, and the car.
The concept behind this doesn't work, there are too many players on the hero team, many of which feel completely extraneous, and too many interrelationships. It doesn't lay down a solid foundation and gives an incredibly overreaching threat. While trying to modernize Knight Rider, it's almost funny that they've unintentionally ripped off 2 other TV shows, "Viper" and the unpopular "Team Knight Rider", at the same time and done neither particularly well. Yes, there is more money poured into this, the visual effects are of a higher quality (though the fx is still surprisingly weak), but there's just nothing behind this, it's quite empty and doesn't really get to the point until its second ending, a final act that completely flops.
The casting's problem is likely with the conceptualization really, as Mike Traceur is unlikeable and fairly generic as a character. But they just cast the character too young and too flat. He doesn't stand for anything, he's just a tall, unimposing kid in a leather jacket, not remotely impressive.
Finally the car, which should be the star of the show, came off totally uninteresting - an intensely fatal flaw. The Mustang was a poor choice for KITT, it's aggressive instead of sleek, and lacks that slight futuristic quality the car should have had. I know Ford put money into this, but I wish they had used a different sporty car... oh wait, Ford doesn't MAKE another sporty car right now!
In the show, KITT is essentially a talking version of the supercar from "Viper" without the good looks or cool toys, it just changes color and morphs into super mode, but this Mustang supercar is somewhat boring to look at. The pimpin' wheels are not very Knight Rider, and the double-spoiler is downright embarrassing. So what else does it have then? Extra large intakes and a blocked grille, big deal. Oh, and it changes color twice, whoopee. They hyped that this KITT was designed by the creator of the movie Batmobile, what they don't focus on is the fact that the movie was "Batman & Robin" and it was easily the most forgettable Batmobile ever created, lacking all the heart and soul that makes a star car special - just as this new KITT suffers. Even the interior of KITT is bland, right down to the pathetic single computer touchscreen in the center console, way to suck the life out of Knight Rider, that crazy dash and all those buttons were so awesome back in the day, but it's all gone now. KITT's moving lightbars for when he talked? Replaced with a standard blobby line, the kind you could see in an old version of Windows Media Player and Sound Recorder. Glen Larson's legendary red sweeping scanner has been rendered boring here with a dull glow in the nose intakes which moves symmetrically.
The morphing into battle mode is done through CGI, but it's incredibly dull, not remotely as inspired as either version on "Viper", here the car simply has little tiny blocks appear and build out the extra bits in an unconvincing manner. We also get a few looks at how the car deals with invulnerability through slow-mo shots of bullets impacting and then fixing, throwing out the previous Knight Rider tech that was far less complex and didn't create such a gaping plot device when the car's computer goes offline. The concept has been seen before in other projects, quite often really and with far more effective means, and to be honest this nanotech concept still reeks no matter where it's used.
But the biggest issue with the car is it doesn't DO anything! Sure, it auto-drives in a few lackluster chase scenes, and KITT talks about all the satellite-tracking and computer mumbo jumbo he can do, but we really don't see it, and most of that cyber stuff is played out at this point. You know what KITT did really well back in the day? Turbo boost. KITT's aerial acrobatics that came 3/4ths into every episode were a huge source of entertainment. Ski mode on 2 wheels was good too. Showing the cool scanning going on, video conferencing with Bonnie in her sexy jumpsuit, grappling hooks & winches, voice projection, silent mode, oil jets, smoke screens, microwave jammer, auto-tinting windows, ejection seats, and more - nothing even remotely cool like that appears in this car, it does NOTHING. Hell, even the ridiculous final-season Super Pursuit Mode was better than this morphed Mustang of theirs. There's just nothing about this new KITT worth mention, it steals the "super" out of this supposed supercar.
Ultimately, this is a bad TV movie on its own, and worse, an utter insult to KITT.