Reviews

722 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Spectacular scenic Western that succeeds where lame spaghetti failed
10 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
No doubt the usual Beavis and Butthead bubble boys will hate this Western for being entertaining. Speaking of course about the dead head spaghetti fans.

Here, we have a 1964 entry into Westerns featuring Alex Nicol as his usual charismatic villain, in what preceded the spaghetti garbage.

A word about Alex. He may win the prize for being in the most underrated great films ever. THEN THERE WERE THREE is one of the greatest war films ever, and he plays a very similar character there.

Unlike the spaghetti crap, we have the best of both worlds in this tale of demi gods. The spaghetti movies were totally back flips to classic Greek heroes, demi gods who could only be defeated by other demi gods. No "demi god" can be shot in the back by a mortal.

So this Western does match the spaghetti in showing classic heroes and villains as opposed to anti heroes. The spaghetti Westerns pretty much NEVER have an anti hero. These are definitive classic clones of Odysseus and other Greek heroes.

However, instead of the worst of both worlds given to us by the spaghetti crap, in which we are given dull scenery (giving us the idea that the movie is "realistic") and non identifiable one dimensional characters, GUNFIGHTERS OF CASA GRANDE does the opposite, giving us the spectacle and grandeur that makes a film superior, along with more identifiable and credible characters.

The characters are still "demi god" characters, but at least they have motivation. The villain is more eighteenth century fun lover than what the geek today will accept, but which is totally credible to sane and objective viewers.

Alex plays a charismatic creep very similar to Dan Duryea's villains. He is mostly just a low IQ tough guy who is great with his guns. He doesn't think much, as we see throughout, although like most such low mentality leaders, he believes he is a great thinker. In fact, his resemblance in personality matches a certain U.S. president whose last name rhymes with "Chump", but I won't mention any names.

Alex is about a hundred times more handsome than the president I mention, but he plays a character here whose personality is identical.

I'll likely get hate mail from people complaining that I underestimated Alex as being "only" 100 times more handsome. I apologize. I do understate some things.

The characters are very interesting. "Doc" comes closest to "anti hero" status, and makes this film stick out. "Traveler" and "Kid" are also more "anti hero" than a spaghetti Western will usually show. They have actual motivation in their actions.

The action is extreme, and this has "sprawling epic" appeal. We want the villain (named "Daylight" ironically) to turn out good, and to change, but his character is really just a dumb thug who finds himself the leader of a band of more intelligent outlaws. There is great pathos in his story. He's like a tragic Shakespearean king.

This is a fantastic Western. It will leave you emotionally charged, and a bit sad, but it works on every level.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Change of point of view
28 October 2018
There are three major components in this drama about a sadistic oil tycoon who wants to play God with other people's lives.

It begins with the future tycoon (Daniel) surviving a disaster, crawling to safety. From that point onward, he becomes a worshiper of the Devil, not so much in name, but in his worship of Evil. He believes he is a god by virtue of his good fortune.

His sadistic character, which this dark age of Psychiatry likes to pretend is actually a lack of empathy, is actually just pure Sadistic evil in a desire to play God with other people. That is what psychopaths do. We're in the darkest age of Psychiatry and Science that has ever existed among humans.

It's proven when he just arbitrarily decides to treat one twin boy with fairness, and the other with absolute evil, for absolutely no reason. That's the second component of this film. When the second boy greets him with friendship, Daniel immediately sneers the sort of demonic hatred that many of us have found in such people in real life.

The hatred is totally unprovoked. That happens in real life. Daniel just decides to torment this young man and satisfy his devil worshiping lust.

The third component is the point of view. It becomes obvious about two thirds of the way through the film, or at least I thought it was obvious, that the movie was an experiment in point of view, changed from the Disney sort of POV from the fifties.

By that, I mean the usual heroes are never seen. The "holdout" family of heroes, who are the film's biggest winners, represent what were once the Swiss Family Robinson, the McCahans, the space family Robinson, all the usual heroic groups.

But we never see them. Instead, we see the other components, from outside their world. However, this is also exactly what the heroic family sees, and it does enable them to be able to combat the evil of Daniel and his demonic force.

One character gets to see all of this, and learn from it. Daniel's adopted son. He becomes a helpless character early on, helpless against the evil of Daniel, and at first tries to fight fire with fire, quite literally. He learns the passive approach. One could say this is a fourth component of the film, but I think of it more as a product of the first three components.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Too gritty and realistic for modern age dorks
26 September 2018
This is a good example of why older Westerns, pretty much before 1965, were grittier and more credible than the ones that showed modern day dorks in the old West.

The movie seems light hearted, yet mixes in the grit just the way it fits in real life, in ways uncomfortable. Audie Murphy plays a very real character, a backwoods nineteenth century trapper who ventures into the big city. His "good eyesight" becomes critical as the film continues. Indeed, good eyesight is something of great value in the old West, and it makes the two main male characters what they are.

The supporting characters are also very believable for nineteenth century characters. A great diversion from the usual garbage that made you think more that the actors were playing video games off set. Fortunately, there has been a resurgence of the reality and grit that made the fifties great.

The "mood" comes across very clear and works great. The old West city struggles between civilization and savagery, as we see in the way the store owner played by Jim Backus behaves. The store owner depicts pretty much the status quo of the town.

This film has a lot going for it, particularly in believable character motivation.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cattle King (1963)
8/10
Mature action Western
23 September 2018
Robert Taylor, Robert Middleton, Richard Devon, William Windom, and Ray Teal are just some of the actors who quite obviously had some say in the roles and films they were in during this period, and picked an action Western with actual credible motivation in the characters. This old fashioned "my kind of range will be corrupted if we allow..." is something that might not be recognized by people in the information age of computers, but it's something quite obvious for people in the nineteenth century, whose information came from telegraphs and newspapers and rumors and what they saw first hand. The fears of losing livelihood was quite real. The unusual part of this film is how the characters aren't treated as stereotypes, aside from the sadistic one played by Devon. They have credible motivations, and the one unmotivated sadist is par for a realistic course in human events. The somewhat sadistic character played by Middleton pairs up with Devon to form an evil alliance. In comparison to the evil alliance of Shane's Stark and Wilson, this one doesn't come out nearly as well. Stark and Wilson made one of the most credible evil alliances in Western film history. This one is in the next tier. The brother character played by Windom is a pivotal one, as are many others. It is the supporting characters that make a film great, and this one has great supporting characters.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
No motivation
24 July 2018
This story about aimlessly joining a group of Nazi Gestapo thugs during WWII could have been better done with better writing and directing.

The unfortunate fact is that this movie has no motivation in any of the characters that is credible. It looks like a writer and director preaching their own neo Nazi ideology.

That is not opinion, because the very reviews so far of this movie sustain my observation that there are people here engaging in the preaching and brainwashing. As of the date of this review, if one reads through the existing reviews, one cannot help but realize that over half of the reviews are carbon copies to the extent that it is undeniably the work of one control freak using many fake user names. The differences are minimal, and the focus is always on the same two or three minute details that don't even stand out, and some are even made up.

One made up item in the reviews by the control freak is that Lucien falls in love with a beautiful Jewish girl. Laughably, the girl shows lots of skin, but pales in comparison to the knock out beauty that Lucien is supposed to be disinterested in, because of her dark hair it appears, which shows that the director is indeed preaching a neo Nazi ideology that the savage male is Nazi. No doubt, the women like this idea, out of jealousy, but no man could buy into this.

So, we see no credible motivation at all in Lucien from a male standpoint, though the women want to believe it.

Next, the reviews claim Lucien is ambling through it without any real evil in him. His only motivation is causing evil. The entire escapade involving the Jewish girl and her father is one that is not motivated. It can't be lust, because he has the hot hotel maid claimed, and the maid is stunning, while the woman he supposedly lusts for is just average looking at best, and exhibits no real sensuality, though again I'm sure the woman will want to disagree, the same women who want men to like the plain Ginger who needs make up and royal garb to begin to compete, over the centerfold May Ann.

Every move Lucien makes is one of spurring up evil. The Jewish tailor and his daughter live in danger, but everything Lucien does is to put them in more danger, and indeed his only motivation is evil for evil's sake. Of all the Gestapo, he is the worst, and again the reviews I speak of are obviously written by one control freak, as they try to maintain Lucien has some other motivation, and is ambling along with evil men, whereas it's clear they are ambling along with the demon that controls him.

The director and writer fail miserably. Their buddy writing reviews under fake user names here fails miserably. That individual probably has a relative that was part of this bomb of a movie, or has some equivalent incentive, but there is no credibility to those reviews, and unfortunately, you would have to sit through this poor movie to realize that, and I wouldn't give that control freak the satisfaction if I were you.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Okay, but that's it
25 June 2018
This venture into the space flying adventures of the Star Wars Universe is very ordinary.

We know it's going to be about the early days of Han Solo. And since it begins without Chewbaca, we know we'll learn how they meet.

This venture is a bit too high on sound and fury signifying nothing, but not as much as some of the other movies being made lately. Still, it's so much bang and bang with no thrill, just for the sake of making the viewer dizzy, that it's hard to care.

The main characters, particularly Han, are impossible to relate to. They're too much like demi gods. Han sits in a poker game and simply has luck that can only come from a god. He does have a good streak in him, but his demi god talents make impossible to relate to.

Fortunately, we are give the wookie and a few other characters to follow along with. They're the ones the audience empathizes with.

Over all, it's very ordinary and predictable, but it doesn't pretend to be anything else, so that's okay.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not as bad as Jurassic World, but what is?
25 June 2018
The Jurassic world of dinosaur movies has gone way downhill since Jurassic Park III

It hit rock bottom with Jurassic World, so there was nowhere to go but up, a safe position, and the reason many hacks like to make movies as poor as Jurassic World.

This one begins with the worst dialog you'll hear in a movie. Blame that on a writer guild so poor on talent for so many years, and movie makers so poor on talent for so many years, that now the clueless are giving the instructions and deciding which scripts to use. The words spoken sound like someone just randomly picked words out of a dictionary, not big words, just words and phrases no one uses naturally.

Then there's the sound. It goes from whispers of characters to the loudest bangs, up and down, and you'll spend the entire movie turning the volume up and down if you can.

Then, there's the muddled directing and editing. The idiots making this movie think we can tell one dinosaur from another when they're on screen about a millionth of a second at a time, and everything just whizzes by. The story and characters are just as confusing. This is a muddled mess, period.
24 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Perfect example of why it's tough to make a submarine movie
17 June 2018
This is a movie that pretty much takes place totally on submarines, and that's the dilemma of movie making. It's really close to impossible to get any good film making quality this way. You can't make it exciting. It's a dull milieu. You can't get atmosphere on a submarine. The old movie and TV series "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" did all they could, but in the end they had to rely on characters. When you deal with a plodding "cold war" style of plot, you really set yourself backwards. There is nothing that can be done to save this dull effort. It is not possible to stay awake in one sitting. It can't be done. This is even worse due to all the clichés that can be mustered up, and the dull characters you can't possibly care about.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
One of the weaker golden era Westerns
8 June 2018
I had hoped to like this grandiose railroad Western as much as the other epic railroad Westerns: Canadian Pacific and Western Union are great, and UNION PACIFIC is simply the best Western ever made, the definitive Western. This one has some assets. The hero, played by Sterling Hayden, maybe the homeliest lead actor in film History, is likable, as are the other good guys. The most interesting of the good guys is killed off in a bit of a contrived way, however, and the contrivance seems to be very Republican in that only low level people are killed, giving the impression of demi god qualities among the elite, an impression needed by the elite to keep the minions in line. Always suspicious. The romance angle works well enough. In fact, it's good to see two people who are more "next door" types being in the lead.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Harvest (I) (2013)
8/10
Interesting film
29 May 2018
This horror-drama has a lot going for it, namely the characters. A young girl befriends a crippled boy whose parents are a bit off kilter. As the movie moves along, we find one is really off kilter, and both are dangerous. The mother is a doctor, and the father a nurse. True to form, the more professional one is the more dangerous and more apt to be playing God. A few incidents along the way that I won't spoil, but the "twist" I did see coming, because it was what I thought when I first saw the "other kid". The best thing about the movie are the characters in between the heroine and villainess. Making such characters three dimensional, as this film does, is what makes a film great. The father is one of the best film villains I've seen in a long time. Multi-dimensional, and certainly motivated, his character makes the film work. The mother is you usual one dimensional Hollywood evil tyrant, and I'm not saying such characters don't exist, because they do, and this film does the correct thing in making this character the one true nut job in the movie. Lots to like.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mist (2007)
3/10
A true WTF did I just watch failure
20 May 2018
This horror movie about isolated people in a grocery facing unknown horrors outside is the opposite of what Stephen King usually does. Generally, King captures three dimensional characters, or at least attempts to give "credible characters in incredible situations" more than most Hollywood writers. But here we get the opposite. These characters don't even come close to being one dimensional. They're simply seen from a demon possessed point of view of one person. This one simply rationalizes how the others behave. They don't behave in any realistic way, though he tries to look calm. It's obvious that this character is a true human monster simply deciding how others act out of his own convenience for the Hell he wants the world to be. Trouble is that the makers of this movie don't make that clear enough for the feeble minds already totally brainwashed by Western culture's dark ages of Psychiatry, and that means this movie is part of the problem, not the solution.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Waco (1966)
2/10
Pretty horrid waste of big names
16 May 2018
WACO is the name of the character who is the stereotypical Western hero in Hollywood Westerns. He's fast on the draw, tough, and an outlaw in the beginning, which is standard for Western heroes.of that would be okay, except we never really care for this Waco guy played by Howard Keel. Don't expect the joy ride of THE WAR WAGON. This is strictly Hollywood hate formula. Waco has absolutely no credible motivation. Keel comes across a bit like Joe Don playing Buford, but without the incentive. Absolutely none. Motivation has to be a key, but in the sixties, Hollywood would have none of that. For about three decades, they threw characters who were spoiled brats with unrelenting and unprovoked hatred at us, expecting us to empathize with them. Well, only the sickest and most demon possessed were able to do that, and they were generally the control freaks who decided what the rest of us had to watch. This is a perfect example of what was wrong with the Hollywood era of mid sixties to mid eighties All of that is made worse by the big names being wasted here. As in the hero, motivation is suspect, although Waco is the worst written character perhaps in any Western. That takes away any thrills, and makes this all ho hum, no matter how many horses you see, no matter how many gunshots are fired.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fascinating low budget thriller
23 April 2018
This journey into outer space flick is fairly typical of the B movies, the low budget films that weren't supposed to be liked. As a result of being the low man on the totem pole, those involved made the most out of a little. That often resulted in the superior sci-fi flicks. Such is the case here. The overwhelming factor in these cases is the use of "credible characters in incredible circumstances", something I believe I was the first to use in critiques some thirty or forty years ago. Here, the astronauts are three men and a woman. They begin as seeming to be one dimensional, but that's where the writing, directing, acting team fool you. They gracefully become real characters, particularly the two supporting astronauts. I admit I usually pay more attention to the "supporting players", and usually it's the women who care about the romantic leads. The romantic lead pair go through this as a bit of a cliché, but show some dimensions in character near the end. All together, the quartet was superior to most of the "A movie" astronauts in credibility. The character of John Andros must have been the delight of the team making this film, and it's fascinating in the way they bring him along late, almost as an after thought, as though he would be just "hanging around". He is basically the story here, and I believe the story is told through his eyes, which I won't spoil by how it ends. There's a lot to like here. It is craftily directed. Despite the low budget and limited action, there's not a dull moment. It grips you throughout. That's some directing, writing, editing, acting, the who shebangs! There's even a terrific Gilligan's Island style dream sequence. A hidden gem. I probably won't put it on my top 20 sci-fi films of all time, but it's definitely in the top 40. Of course, as I noted before, this is more of a "man's movie" than a chick flick.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Warkill (1968)
9/10
Credible cynicism
23 April 2018
This war film was one of the early "super cynical" war films. Don't be mislead by that category. There have always been cynical war films. Most books made into films were about the disillusionment-ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE, and so forth. But Hollywood has always been biased towards the cynical. In the late sixties, they got very self righteous and arrogant about it. This film, one of the early "super cynical" films was different than the usual Hollywood fare. It dealt with the cynicism credibly. The characters have very credible motivation, instead of the usual Hollywood "Oh love me cause I'm full of cruelty" characters with no motivation. In this film set during the second world war, a published writer has made a livelihood on the exploits of a war hero. He has never met the man, so he decides to play war correspondent and get first hand details. That's when he finds this "war hero" isn't heroic, but rather an anti hero of sorts. He plays to win, period. This means some cruel ways, which is war. Does he go too far? Probably not as far as Hollywood wants to take it, but he does it in a believable way. The film takes turns, and has an unexpected ending. Certainly not a Hollywood hate formula ending. This is a great war film in my opinion.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fort Dobbs (1958)
4/10
Kind of a waste
22 March 2018
This isn't a "terrible movie", but it's a very mundane Western. The hugest problem is the contrivance of characters. Clint Walker is the essential hero, but not just that, he's pretty much Superman. Of course his physique does give this impression to begin with, but it loses the male audience with the "demi god" nature. Brian Keith plays a bit better role as a more convincing bad guy. He's got a few more dimensions than the hero, but not much. He's still more a "one dimension and a half bad guy", though not as corny as modern movie bad guys. There just isn't much going for this movie. It's simply mundane. We don't hate the characters, but we really don't care one way or the other. Kind of a waste.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Marauders (1955)
4/10
silly
22 March 2018
This Western gives an effort, but the writing is sorely contrived by the mind of someone wanting to accuse the wrong sort of people of being deranged. It smacks of modern dark ages Psychiatry that "mob mentality masses" want to believe, but in fact are opposite of reality. The "lunatic" of the story just isn't reality based. In fact, the writing of his character is dangerously misleading. Dan Duryea portrays a man who is insane. The reasons given are "silly", and made by idiots who think they understand human behavior. The story begins with the characters usually designated as identifiable all being massacred in the usual Hollywood contrived way. Hollywood has always been big on this device, although it really became the "cliché" after the mid sixties. But don't be fooled. Even in 1955, when this mess was made, it was still the "formula", not the exception that today's liars like to pretend it was. It was not "risk taking", but "safe" procedure. Leaving the audience with nothing but hateful characters has always been the Hollywood device to try to make you root for a minor sicko over a major sicko. It does fool the feeble minded, but it won't fool anyone else. The biggest problem is that Duryea's character is contrived to fit the hate mongering of the writer and director. Only a moron would believe an accountant would dress up in his dead brother's Confederate uniform and become an unexplainable psycho. It looks like someone trying to make a false story to explain something he doesn't want to admit really happened.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Godzilla (2014)
3/10
Ho hum
22 March 2018
Hard to believe that a Godzilla movie could be dull, but this is dull. The production team makes the mistake of modern movie making. They try to confuse the audience with a bunch of special effects that make you feel the headache of an annoying arcade or a goofy casino full of those annoying lights flashing over and over. Pretty much everything is contrived for the sake of what little the writer and director have in mind. We never feel we're there. We only feel we're in the presence of people making a movie, and that's a poor sign. If you can stay awake for the first two hundred years of this movie (it will seem like two hundred years), you'll finally see a monster. The biggest problem is we just get the same characters over and over. Hollywood thinks all men have to be married with families, or they're worthless garbage. Again and again, we are alienated by Hollywood "superiority" complexes. Not pathetic, but this movie is tedious and annoying.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Criminal Minds (2005– )
1/10
Same old Hollywood neo Nazi brainwashing.
27 February 2018
No telling where the neo Nazi influence of this sick TV series is from creator Davis or star Mantegna, but it can't be denied. It's strictly preaching hate and neo Nazi ideology. All that I've ever seen on this TV show is the relentless butchering of young beautiful women with dark hair, eyes, and skin. It's completely depressing to the men who aren't totally brainwashed already by the neo Nazi Hollywood agenda, though no doubt the women love to see the preaching of wiping out the competition. One would think the dialog itself would turn people off. Like all the other such shows, the dialog is "unnatural", poorly written, and the actors and actresses speak way too fast to possibly be understood, let alone natural. It is literally impossible to understand people speaking that fast. The show relies totally on closed caption, and there one can plainly see the poor writing of dialog. This is no surprise. The poor writers were long ago inducted into the highest positions in Hollywood, and now they are the "judges", so only poor writing of dialog makes the first cut to begin with. Creativity, talent, and inspiration go totally out the window due to the jealousy of the idiots in the board rooms. There is nothing credible about the show, and to top off the horrible dialog and horrible delivery, there is the horrible "contrivance" of plot to fit what the feeble minded people involved want to preach. It's all terribly contrived to fit their narrow scope. You cannot possibly watch this without groaning, unless you are on the same drugs that the cast and writers are on. Hard to get worse than this, and in 20 years, when the idiots involved in this crap are venerated as "experts", they'll continue to advance more lack of talent, more lack of inspiration, and more lack of excitement. One would think their dullness and relentless self righteousness in their dullness would end their careers, but the emperors have no clothes, and these emperors are ugly.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Storyboard with no inspiration
11 January 2018
SKULL ISLAND isn't a terrible movie. It's just lame.

This depiction of another adventure for King Kong, involving modern day military and civilians, along with a WWII castaway, has many problems, but it boils down to two main ones that affect any possible enjoyment of this action adventure.

First, there is not one piece of credible motivation other than some running from monsters. Not one character is believable, particularly the one played by Samuel Jackson. For the actors, this has to be a huge embarrassment.

Fans will claim it's meant to be just dumb fun, but it isn't "fun" when it alienates the viewer the way this movie does. The "likable" character has to be from Chicago, which is just another of the three big cities (the other two being NYC and LA) that alienate everyone else. There has never been a likable character from the three cities of self righteous superiority complex beings, and only the geeks keep them in power.

Aside from a few bits of running and fear, nothing is credible. And so there is nothing any person can relate to.

Which leads to the second problem. The movie abounds with the usual ho hum overuse of action shots that just deaden the air. The people who make this ignorance and the people who enjoy it are apparently the people who try to eat an entire wedding cake in one bite. Aside from those people, this movie alienates everyone else.

The problem is obviously that it is maintained first by "storyboard" first, with story second. This failure is the result of that philosophy. There is no inspiration, which leads to no credible character motivation.

Best example is the "storyboard" depiction of Sam Jackson glaring at carnage. It looks more like a comic book artist at work, not an inspired writer. People whose hands can make pictures don't necessarily have inspiration, as we see here. It's just goofy poses for pre-first grade thinking.

The movie doesn't stink. It just doesn't do anything special. It's a waste.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The way Hollywood geeks want it to be
6 December 2017
This is an aptly named Western, as we learn there are eight hateful characters involved, although the one played by Kurt Russell isn't really hateful, just experienced.

It's another of those Hollywood geek movies, made for the geeks who worship "Hate" and Satanic ideology. The difference, however, is that again Tarantino pokes fun at the very dorks who love this sort of propaganda.

It's a bit of a comic sneer at the hate filled spaghetti Westerns. Tarantino does sneer at his own fans, it's obvious. And who can blame him? Again, we will hear all the Beavis and Butthead, brain dead, pothead, meth head, loud mouth brats insist this is the real West, but it isn't. These characters wouldn't last long in the real West, but the brats will never want to believe that.

It's a story of people who just think their demonic ideology enables them to be supermen, which is what Hollywood turned into after about 1965.

Still, with Tarantino, you get a few chuckles, so it isn't as bad as most modern movies.

But it's still worthless.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inside Man (2006)
6/10
Hits and misses
5 December 2017
There really isn't any incentive for watching these movies, because of the poor directing that is set as a standard for modern movies, and because of the lack of inspiration caused by establishment writers stealing ideas from the better writers, as this movie so obviously shows us.

It isn't a bad movie, but it has the flaws of modern movie making.

It's a "bank heist with hostage" movie, but it's clear from the start that something else is happening. When the robbers separate the many hostages, and make everyone change garb over and over, including the garb of the robbers, we know they are intending to blend in with the crowd at the end in some way.

In effect, it's much like the 1960 war movie, THEN THERE WERE THREE, in which a German is disguised as an American during a big battle involving many units that get split apart. The war movie is a hidden classic because of low budget and few big names, but it is written and directed skillfully.

The first problem is the inane modern day use of "mixing time frames" which not only doesn't fit here, but is stupid, because it is contrived. It's a device meant to confuse whereas it doesn't work in real life. It only serves to hide the flaws of the plot. If you see the movie, you'll understand.

Second problem is that every one of the hostages and robbers looks exactly alike. I believe there are about 4 that don't fit the pattern. All the men look alike, and most of the women look alike. And yet we're supposed to understand who is saying what at any time? Added to the "time frame mix".

Third, no detective is as astute as Denzel's character. Of course, this is spoken of in the movie. Detectives are unimaginative and have no sense of reality compared to the cop on the beat. They're upwardly mobile machines who are incorrect about everyone most of the time, because they adhere to these dark ages of Psychiatry and Sociology meant to give the squeaky wheel the grease and avoid being hurt themselves.

Fourth, the flood of information. That means all the useless crap we get that is purely in the movie to showcase or advertise someone's dialect, product, etc.. Because of the nature of this movie, that works as long as it doesn't interfere with the reality of the viewer piecing together the puzzle. It sets the viewer back from what the actual detective is piecing together.

This fourth flaw is important, because it a simulation of modern culture, including Academia. Colleges and businesses pretend to give tests to grade students, but for the past 30 years, at the very least, have instead cheated. For example, a professor will ask a question in an oral test to a student, and then after the student answers, the professor will change the question, and will be backed up by the students who are part of the establishment. This happens in all U.S. universities I have attended. Businesses do this, too. It's the modern norm to keep control in the hands of the mob.

Herein lies also the strength of the movie. The fact that no one really knows anything, and everyone is lying. However, the script is not very good at showing that.

The fifth flaw is characters that no one can relate to. Again, this is because of modern culture, and because the control freaks are in control. They actually think we enjoy them bragging about their hatefulness, but only the geeks enjoy that. There is absolutely no explanation or credibility in some of the characters, particularly the blond woman who acts as a go between for police, bank president, and robber. She would never have been let into the situation by any of them. But then, this also serves as a strength of the movie, because Tarantino is telling us that the control freaks in charge are too moronic and self righteous to realize this woman is nothing. She has no assets. She's normal looking, not pretty by any means. She says nothing, offers nothing, and yet the ones in authority kowtow to her. That actually works. However, when Denzel's character gives in to her, we lose respect for him, too.

The characters are mostly poorly written and done. The usual Hollywood preaching of "bank robbers are cool" fools the naïve, but not the rest of us, and it irks sane people.

There are other modern movie flaws, but the production team was wise enough not to show that this "modern movie making" was indeed a flaw. It's a self depreciating bit that does make a point.

Hits and misses. The worst part is the "mixed time frame" element. Get rid of that, and the movie will be a lot better.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Con Air (1997)
7/10
Silly fun
5 December 2017
I'm not a fan of big budget goofiness, but this pokes enough fun at itself to be enjoyable.

No one really takes their goofy roles seriously in this convicts take over everything movie, and that's good.

It's just shoot 'em up action, and funny lines.

I could do without all the ignorant special effects and the fires and the explosions, but at least here the production team uses it all for laughs. It can't be taken seriously.

It's best to call this a comedy, although a dark one.

Nothing irritating in this movie, and the many subplots and supporting characters really helps this movie. Generally, it isn't good for movies to simply showcase actors (Superman III comes immediately to mind), but as in Superman III, it is for laughs. Though here it works better.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Layer Cake (2004)
1/10
More Hollywood formula brainwashing-preaching
5 December 2017
This is just another of those continually stupid movies of continually Beavis and Butthead nonsense that the maniacs who make such movies feel powerful about, with the Bundy family fans being their goofy sheep and praising.

There's no plot here. It's just people going through a contrived script by someone who doesn't know how to write, but is eager to be one of the Nazi propaganda machine.

It's really just an excuse to kill the dark hair woman as often as possible, which is the only real goal of this movie, Nazi propaganda and brainwashing. That's it. Anyone who says it is anything more is missing the point of this chick flick. It's meant to depress young men, period. It's the same Hollywood hate formula we see over and over. New names are added to the mix of the demonic Nazi machine, and it's obvious the writer and director idolize Adolf Hitler, and want to keep his spirit alive. To be honest, this demonic spirit was in effect long before Hitler. He was just another part of it. It's not natural, but these human monsters possessed by the Nazi demon want to keep preaching that it is.

The movie is just another bit of Hollywood Nazi preaching, and overkill. Fortunately, the script is so ridiculous that it can't convert anyone with an IQ over 51.33, but that still leaves a lot of fans. True, they're all Beavis, Butthead, Al Bundy, Peg Bundy, and the like, but they are too many.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A monster and a kid
23 November 2017
There's a complex nature to this Western, but it is poorly thought out in respect to what the directorial team tries to accomplish.

The title is as misleading as possible. In this story, Robert Ford is a mixed up kid, and any cowardice on his part is simply animal survival instincts. He worships Jesse James, who turns out to be a complete monster, void of natural instincts and natural motivation.

Jesse's motivation is pure demonic possession, nothing more. The animal instinct of eliminating the weak from the pack is lost in him. He wants to eliminate, but he has not the slightest idea on how to judge what is weak.

And truly it is lost in human beings, for whatever reason. There are actual people, and I'm sure most people of this era have met them, who have no motivation that is natural. They simply are possessed of demons, and are determined to play God with other people's lives, without the slightest natural instinct of how to do it.

Such is the case with Jesse in this movie, and that much is depicted correctly, although the old History books make it seem that Frank James was the "God playing" brother, while Jesse may have been more likely to relent.

Still, as depicted in this movie, that part succeeds. Jesse is a monster.

However, for some reason, the ending indicates that Jesse was a winner because his corpse was paraded around and people got to applaud the end of a monster. Jesse wasn't there. Just his rotten corpse in all its humility, scoffed at by those who were glad a monster no longer lived among them.

For some reason, the director-writer team seemed to believe this made Jesse superior to Ford, because Ford didn't have to contend with the notion that his corpse would be vilified some day. An odd thought that only makes sense to those brain dead sheep who think they do have the natural instincts of an animal, yet are as poor to judge as the Jesse of this movie was.

Some hits, some misses.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wonder Woman (2017)
7/10
Back to basics
2 November 2017
The super hero movies have been rampant for a few decades. This one is about the Amazon beauty called Wonder Woman.

The rage has usually been to go for blinding, numbing special effects and hate mongering demonic love, particularly with the Beavis and Butthead approach to the Batman series.

This one goes back to basics. It has special effects, but they're on the side, not the front. There is too much use of special effects in this movie, but at least time out is taken for story and characters. And the love for demons isn't here. Instead, we get more of a mortal look at real people you can find credible.

The gusto and bravery of the Amazon women is explained, so we can understand their fearlessness. When Wonder Woman meets the mortal men in combat, she finds a different credibility.

In fact, this film is very symbolic of the times that the first world culture has entered. First world culture has produced a slew of bubble boys who think they are as fearless as the Amazon tribe. One way to identify these bubble boys and girls is if they claim they would be like the Amazon women or the other fearless characters. If so, they've labeled themselves as the very people this film is identifying.

So, the creators of this film let them stand in with Wonder Woman herself, to see the frailty of Man. Unfortunately, the point will be moot with these viewers. They will not see themselves among the mortals. They'll continue in their bubbles. Still, this film does make the effort.

As of this date, most Americans, most first world people, at least those who don't live in poverty, haven't an inkling about the horrors of war. Oh, they claim they know, and love the hate mongering demon worshiping movies, but if they really had pain in their lives, they wouldn't need to look for pain. In fact, most of them will not like this film, because it isn't demonic enough for them. Hopefully, they can stay in their bubbles and never know horror.

But this is a pretty good film. I would rather see fewer special effects. Less dulling play from special effects people. I suppose they have to prove they can do it, but it is dull. Sane viewers, like myself, would rather see the story and characters.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed