MovieKen Reviews

Love Crazy (1941)

Mildly amusing in some parts, but feels like it drags on too long

[5/10 · 24 June 2020]

William Powell and Myrna Loy are some of my favorite actors, and I loved the Thin Man series, so I was really looking forward to seeing this movie. Others have already revealed the plot, so I'm not going to say anything about it here.

It starts out ok and there are some amusing scenes here and there, but then it seems to take a crazy turn with about 20 minutes left. The last 20 minutes of the film just seem to take forever, and it's painfully bad. I wish I hadn't wasted my time with this one. It has none of the clever wit of the Thin Man films.

The Sand Pebbles (1966)

Not as good as I'd hoped

[5/10 · 5 June 2020]

The Sand Pebbles has been on my list of Epic War Films I'd Like to See for a very long time. I honestly don't know why it took me so long to finally see it, but it was probably the 196 minute running time that scared me off. I started watching it yesterday and finally finished it today - sometimes it's hard to watch a 3 hour movie. And this one is certainly not easy to see.

I won't share any spoilers, but honestly there is nothing in this movie that I really needed to see. This really is a three hour movie that can't make up its mind about what it really is trying to say. But maybe that's the point. Maybe it's saying that war ultimately is useless and a waste of time. I only wish it could have made that point more concisely.

Two Tickets to Broadway (1951)

Just OK

[5/10 · 15 April 2020]

I'm not a big fan of musicals in general, so I tend to like only the really good ones (Guys and Dolls, Anchors Aweigh, Singing in the Rain, American in Paris, etc.). I thought I'd give this a try because I usually love Janet Leigh movies. However, I found this film to be rather mediocre.

First what Iiked. Janet Leigh and the supporting cast did well with their roles. Some of the songs were kinda catchy and I enjoyed several of the performances. Tony Martin really sings well, and Eddie Bracken is his usual dopey self.

Now what I didn't like. Tony Martin can't act. Or at least he couldn't in this movie. Plus I didn't like his character at all. He seemed way too old for this role. He looked old enough to be Janet Leigh's father - and he acted like it too. It was very creepy and I didn't care for it at all.

I didn't like the deli owners, either. I found them to be annoying and I was tempted to fast-forward all of their scenes. The movie plot was rather weak, as is usual in musicals. But this one especially seemed like a disjointed collection of song and dance routines. For me, a good musical is one that can weave songs and dances into the narrative more organically. This didn't do it for me.

I thought Bob Crosby's number making fun of his more famous brother Bing was amusing, but honestly I thought it detracted from the flimsy storyline in the first place. I probably would have left it out of the movie entirely.

And near the end of the film, there's a rather insensitive (if not offensive) routine when the main characters dress up like Native Americans and portray them in a stereotypical manner. I didn't care for this at all, and I'm sure there will be many people who would find it to be offensive. True, this was made in 1951 when such portrayals were not seen negatively, but I still didn't like it. If you are offended by such content, you shouldn't see this movie - or you should at least fast-forward the film through this part.

Overall, I give this a 5/10, though I think it's probably closer to a 4.

The Barbarian (1933)

Not recommended

[3/10 · 9 April 2020]

I am a big fan of classic films, so I was looking forward to seeing what I thought would be a good screwball comedy. Myrna Loy is a frequent performer in that kind of film. However I didn't find this to be very enjoyable at all. In fact I found it to be insulting. All throughout the film I was hoping it would get better but it gets worse. The biggest insult is how it ends.

I will not spoil the film but I will say that the way the Prince treated Myrna Loy's character is offensive. If you would like details, please read other reviews that contain spoilers.

I give it 3 stars only because the production quality of the film is excellent. It looks like it could have been made in the early 1950s.

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Nothing special

[5/10 · 19 February 2019]

I've been a huge fan of Star Trek for a long time, but I'm very glad I didn't see this in the theater. I would have thought of it as a great big waste of money. I agree with those who say the plot is very thin and the characters are not well defined. I also agree that this film suffers on too much dependence on explosions, action scenes, and gimmicks.

I'm used to Star Trek movies that are actually about something important, where the dialogue is intelligent and where we can identify with both the good guys and the bad guys. Sure, not all Star Trek films are great, but Star Trek Beyond is just mediocre. If you've seen any action film at all, you've seen this movie. There's very little in this movie that can even really identify it as a Star Trek film.

Chris Pine really does a great job playing Captain Kirk - or I should say playing Kirk the way William Shatner did. He's by far the best part of this movie. And yet the story is just boring. Watch it if you must, but this really contributes nothing to the Star Trek franchise.

Wonder Woman (2017)

Disappointed

[5/10 · 21 January 2019]

I have a confession to make. I'm not a big fan of superhero movies anyway. There are just so many of them, and only a few of them are any good. I finally got around to seeing this movie a couple of days ago. While I enjoyed watching it, I also thought it really didn't live up to the hype.

I enjoyed the movie overall, and I thought Gal Gadot's performance was very good. I also liked finally seeing a superhero movie directed by a woman. I believe Patty Jenkins did a very good job in directing this film. Chris Pike also did very well, and as far as characters go, Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor are very good.

On the other hand, there was plenty that I didn't like about this movie. For example, I thought most of the characters were shallow and not developed well at all. Most of the villains in the movie seemed to have no motivations whatsoever. In other words, they were "bad" only because the script required them to be.

It was very hard for me to accept the dialogue. It seemed to have been written for a Saturday morning cartoon. I did my best to ignore what the characters were saying and just watched the visuals.

I was annoyed at the overuse of slow motion. Once or twice would have been fine, but seeing it over and over again was really tiresome.

At 141 minutes, this movie is too long. I would have preferred somewhere around 110 minutes instead. Superhero films are not supposed to be epics. The script was too weak to hold up for that long.

There were a lot of plot holes that never were answered. I won't mention them here because I want to avoid spoilers. But the script needed a little more work to fill in the missing details.

Overall, this was a fun movie, but it really could have been so much better.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Visionary (1995) Season 3, Episode 17

Didn't really work for me.

[6/10 · 16 August 2018]

This review contains spoilers, so don't read it if you haven't seen the episode.

While this is a very well acted and scripted episode, it really didn't work for me. Near the beginning of the episode, Dax mentions a quantum singularity floating around outside the station. It takes almost the entire episode for the crew to figure out where this thing comes from.

Starfleet discovered 18 months before this episode that the Romulan ships use quantum singularities as their power source. Certainly this information would have become common knowledge among Starfleet by this time. And yet it takes the entire episode before O'Brien mentions it in passing.

Hmm. We have crazy things happening, we have Romulans on the station, and we have a quantum singularity orbiting DS9. And yet it takes the whole episode to figure this out? Sorry, that's just lazy writing.

Very good episode otherwise, but really, this could have been over in 10 minutes if the crew used their heads.

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

"I'll destroy you, and her, and all of it"

[3/10 · 20 May 2018]

It has been a while since I reviewed a film on IMDB. Most of the time, I just enjoy watching them, but this time I just had to say something. I can't guarantee that I'll avoid spoilers, so don't read below the asterisks this if you haven't seen the movie.

In a nutshell, I'm a lifelong Star Wars fanatic and I do not like this movie. In many ways, I rate this lower than the maligned Prequels. The film was released for purchase well over a month ago, but I will not be buying a copy. In my video library, there is not going to be an "Episode 8".

There. I said it. I feel better now.

Let the spoilers begin.

***********

I rate this film as 3/10. One star for John Williams' soundtrack. One star because it's Carrie Fisher's very last movie. One star because Luke tells Leia toward the end of the movie: No one's ever really gone." If it hadn't been for any of these, I'd give it 0 stars. Well, actually IMDB requires votes of at least 1 so I'd have to find some reason to give it one star.

There's something different about this movie and about this series now that Kathleen Kennedy is in charge. She is just fine with allowing the directors total control over the plot and character development of every film. If that means that all continuity with the rest of the series is destroyed, then so be it. At least the "creative freedom" wouldn't be bridled.

If you were a movie director, could you think of a better job than this? You have complete control to do whatever you want - no rules here. Rian Johnson knew that it wouldn't matter what he did in this movie - even if the fans rejected it, they'd all see it dozens of times and the film would make well over a billion dollars world-wide.

So he was free to: 1) kill off beloved characters, 2) destroy Rey's parentage, 3) give BB8 special abilities he didn't have in the previous movie, 4) introduce brand new paper-thin characters, 5) destroy the entire Rebellion and the Jedi, 6) re-define the Force, 7) burn down the ancient Jedi tree, and 8) add Yoda's stamp of approval on the entire mess.

At one point in the movie, Kylo Ren says, "I'll destroy you (Luke), and her (Rey), and all of it." This is just what Rian Johnson set out to do. All of his decisions about what to do with this film point in only one direction: He wanted to bulldoze the franchise so he could start his own trilogy at some point in the future and re-do the entire series.

I'm going on record right here and right now. I'm not seeing any more Star Wars films created, directed, produced, or even influenced by Rian Johnson for the rest of my life.

The Night of the Iguana (1964)

I don't get it

[3/10 · 2 May 2012]

I just watched this movie for the first time today, after having heard so much about it and Burton's performance. And since I've seen a few other Tennessee Williams films, I thought this would be a good one to watch. Unfortunately, I came away very disappointed.

This seems to be one of those films that you are required to love if you want to be taken seriously as a fan of classic films. Well, if that's the case, I'll have to turn in my membership card, because I thought this movie was a complete waste of my time.

Probably the biggest reason I didn't like this movie was that I just didn't care about the characters. I've seen The Sandpiper several times, which is another Richard Burton movie in which he plays a minister who struggles with temptation. Though I don't like The Sandpiper all that much, at least I was interested enough in the film to watch it all the way through. In fact, I've seen it multiple times. But I wouldn't watch Night of the Iguana again unless you paid me to do it. Quite frankly, I didn't buy Burton as a former (or current) minister. Plus, I didn't really care for the character anyway. And I didn't think any of the other characters were particularly likable or interesting, either. Simply put, the characters in this movie are just bland, one-dimensional and not at all endearing.

I can enjoy a good character sketch every now and then, which is exactly what I've come to expect from Tennessee Williams. In all of his films that I've seen, characters are always more important than the plot. But considering the fact that I didn't care for any of the characters in the first place, the plot certainly becomes much more important. There have to be enough events in the film to keep the viewers interested in watching the characters develop. But that's just not the case in this particular movie. I was bored almost to death when watching this movie. I really couldn't tell you what happened in this movie, but if I had to try, this is it:

Richard Burton gets fired as a minister. He takes a job as a bus tour guide in Mexico. He goes nuts one day and drives the bus to a friend's Bed and Breakfast hotel outside Puerto Vallarta. Then he prevents everyone from getting back on the bus and going to the hotel they had already booked inside the city. When this movie ended, I wondered why this movie was even necessary.

It seems they didn't know what kind of movie they wanted to make. Is this a comedy? Is it a tragedy? Is it a character drama? Most likely. But as I said before, nothing happens and nobody cares about these characters. So if that's the kind of movie it really is, then it stinks.

As far as acting, nobody does a very good job here -- the best actors seemed to be mailing in their performances, while the rest of them just didn't have any talent. I didn't buy any of the characters at all because they weren't credibly portrayed.

So that leaves just one thing - the cinematography was excellent. But unfortunately, that's just not enough of a reason for me to recommend this movie. After all, you can find travelogues of Mexico that are just as beautiful and don't require you to waste two hours of your time.

Pirates of the Great Salt Lake (2006)

Who thinks this is funny?

[1/10 · 3 August 2011]

I have to admit I only made it through the first 37 minutes of this movie before I realized it wasn't going to get any better. I probably could have watched the next 49 minutes, but I couldn't think of even one reason why I'd want to see any more of it. I don't like to review movies I haven't seen all the way through, but I felt a moral obligation to warn as many people as possible about this piece of junk.

Please, do not watch this movie. The whole thing is only 86 minutes long, but it felt like it would go on forever. The script is terrible - I can't believe anyone even spent five minutes writing it. I'm sure I've seen worse acting someplace, but I can't remember where. The plot was horrible, and though it was supposed to be a comedy, I didn't laugh at anything because nothing was funny.

This is an independent film, but don't be fooled. This is no Napoleon Dynamite. That movie was actually funny. Pirates of the Great Salt Lake should have been buried at sea before it was ever committed to film.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

What's so great about this?

[5/10 · 12 December 2010]

I don't often feel a need to review a movie - especially when it's one that I didn't like much. But since this movie is so famous and so highly regarded, and since I found it to be such a mediocre film, I had to voice my opinion. If you're like me, you'll want to skip this movie.

After years of putting it off, I finally saw this movie the other day. I could not believe that what I saw is considered a classic and a "must see" film. OK, so I know it has some pretty good lines and scenes, and it has some iconic actors, and the screenwriter has a pretty impressive list of films he's done before. But there's a lot more to making a good movie than just having famous people work on it. And in my opinion, this is a very boring movie.

Whenever I watch a movie that I consider boring, it's usually because I don't care about the characters or the story, and when that happens, it's the screenwriter's fault. William Goldman wrote one of my favorite movies, the Princess Bride. That had a great story and some really great characters. And for the most part, it was done with relatively unknown actors.

This film, however, had some very famous actors and was about some very famous actual historical characters. I love stories about the Old West, and I really should have enjoyed this movie. Instead, it was very hard for me to watch this film. I fast-forwarded through many parts of it just to finally get through it.

The "raindrops" scene with Newman and Ross on a bicycle was completely out of place. How does a late 1960's pop song have anything at all to do with Butch Cassidy? This scene is horrible. It added absolutely nothing at all to the film. We already know Katharine Ross's character has relationships with both of the title characters. The bicycle scene was totally unnecessary, and I can't imagine why that wasn't cut out of the movie entirely. Even if you watch it on 2X, you'll still waste 5 minutes waiting for the scene to end.

There's another scene when they're traveling to Bolivia. This takes forever as well. Do we really need to see the sepia-toned pictures of these actors making their way down to Bolivia? I don't think so. It certainly doesn't have to be as long as it was, either. I hate it when screenwriters don't give the audience enough credit. We all know how far away Bolivia is. We don't need to see 12 minutes of footage to know it took a really long time for them to make it there.

Finally, a word about the acting. Newman, Redford and Ross have done some great work in other movies. In this one, though, I'm not sure they were necessary at all. Just about anyone could have done just as well as they did. I didn't see any reason at all that they were needed for this film to work.

My advice to you is to skip this movie. It is terribly overrated.

Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Enemy (1989) Season 3, Episode 7

Wonderful episode.

[9/10 · 29 September 2009]

I could write a very long review of this episode, but I'll try to keep this brief. This is one of my very favorite episodes in the Star Trek franchise - Star Trek doesn't get any better than this. The script is expertly-written, and the episode deals with some very weighty issues in a very impressive manner. The acting is superb - especially from Michael Dorn, LeVar Burton, and the actor who plays one of the Romulan survivors on the planet. The characters are deep and very well-developed, and the storyline gets better and better throughout the entire episode. I highly recommend it.

It's also one of the best episodes to show your friends who are not familiar with this franchise. It requires very little understanding of the Star Trek universe to enjoy. It is also a very intelligent episode, with a myriad of references to history, politics, racism, duty, honor and trust. If you watch this, I hope you'll agree with me that it compares very favorably to any expertly-written drama on television.

The Woman in the Window (1944)

Worth a look.

[7/10 · 17 February 2009]

Edward G Robinson and Joan Bennett star in this film directed by Fritz Lang, one of Hollywood's best directors, in my opinion. While his family is out of town, a college professor (played by Robinson) becomes enamored with the woman who posed for a painting in a store window. One night, he actually meets the woman and spends the evening with her, but then he becomes involved in the murder of another man.

This film could be a classic noir from 1944. I say "could be" because I'm not even sure what that means. All I know is that this is a good mystery film. The mystery isn't about who is responsible for the murder, but it's just to see if the culprits get away with it. Maybe that's what makes it a noir.

In general, this film is worthy of your time if you enjoy this kind of story, or if you are a fan of Edward G Robinson's work. Joan Bennet does a good job, though I honestly think her part could have been played better by a few other actresses. The supporting cast also performs well in their roles. Overall, I would recommend this movie.

***** Possible spoilers below *****

Having said that, I personally would rate this movie a lot higher without the ending. For the first 94 minutes, the film is very good. The scenes are set up well, the editing is great, and the mystery and suspense are done very well. We know who committed the crime and we know why, but we don't know the victim. Eventually, we know the detective knows who committed the crime, but he's just waiting to see if the culprit will come clean on his own.

But the ending is a complete let-down. In my opinion, it's bad enough to drop this movie down at least a couple of points. If the movie had ended about 5 minutes earlier, I would have easily rated this movie an 8, and possibly a 9. With the ending as is, I can't rate this film higher than 6. I think it's pretty sad, because this is a great film otherwise. The ending just ruins it.

WALL·E (2008)

Sorry, I'm not impressed

[3/10 · 17 February 2009]

I didn't like this movie, and I think it's overrated. I expected a lot better from Pixar. I can't really explain why I didn't like this movie without sharing details about the film, so stop reading now if you don't want to be spoiled.

Spoilers start here.

First, this is a very boring movie for the first 45 minutes. As I've said in other reviews, I don't need constant action to be entertained. Some of my favorite films of all time are very heavy on dialog and very light on action - for example, 12 Angry Men, Vertigo, and Judgment at Nuremberg. These three films have virtually no action, but they do have intelligent dialog and realistic story lines. I'd rather watch any of those three films all day long than sit through even one more viewing of WALL-E. It has no intelligent dialog at all. Why should anyone want to see a movie with two robots repeating each other's names 100 times? Well, I certainly didn't. Besides, I couldn't figure out why these robots should have been programmed to speak in the first place.

Second, it takes forever to find out that humans have completely wasted the Earth and turned it into a lifeless chunk of rock. Then we're supposed to be happy that humans want to return to Earth since it's safe to live there again. Humans created this mess in the first place, and I don't think they should deserve to come back. I'll say more about this alternate ending later. But if the point of the story was that the humans are lazy and ignorant, a better ending would have been for them to have returned to space in their cruise ship where they could live the life of ease they are used to living.

Third, I was really turned off by the Robots in Love storyline - it was just ridiculous. What purpose would it serve for a trash compactor to have feelings? Sure, it's a kids' movie, but they'd love the robots anyway. And for me, there were just too many scenes showing WALL-E's emotions. It didn't make me care about the character - it just annoyed me.

Fourth, the trash in orbit was insanely stupid. If humans go through all of the trouble to launch garbage into space, why would they go to the additional trouble of putting it into orbit? Sooner or later, all that trash would come crashing down onto the Earth. Why not launch trash into empty space or into the Sun? At least then it would burn up and never have the chance to return to Earth.

Fifth, the names of the robots were so contrived, and that did nothing but bother me even more. Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth Class? Really? He doesn't allocate waste, nor does he lift loads of allocated waste. He compacts it, and then stacks it to make lovely skyscraper-sized piles of junk. His name should have been Waste Disposal Artist. But you can't make a nice name out of WDA. So we get some nonsensical contrived name that another robot can repeat until you go insane.

Sixth, the ending was just stupid. So the humans all come back and rebuild the Earth and everyone is happy because we're all living an agrarian lifestyle. The ending I actually expected to see was all the humans getting back onto their cruise ship and going back into space because they couldn't handle the rigors of life on Earth. Then, WALL-E and EVE are left on Earth to take care of it and repopulate it with their robot-kids. I'm not sure I would have liked that ending either, but when one of the robots is named EVE, what would you expect to happen?

I could go on and on, but there's no point to that. I just can't understand why this movie is rated so high. If I ever wanted to see a film about environmentalism and robots, I would watch Silent Running. At least that one is more interesting.

Prince Valiant (1954)

Mediocre

[5/10 · 11 February 2009]

Robert Wagner is Prince Valiant, who is on a quest to restore his father to his rightful throne. He travels to Camelot in an attempt to become one of the Knights of the Round Table, serving under King Arthur. While doing this, he discovers a Black Knight who has his own evil quest.

I usually love films like this, so I thought I'd check it out. I'm sorry to say that though it took place in one of my favorite time periods, I wasn't very impressed with the film overall.

The script was pretty much what you'd expect from films of this kind, and the scenery and costumes seemed pretty authentic. The plot was fine, though it was a bit disjointed in places, and at times, it was a bit boring. But once everyone stopped talking and the action started, it became pretty enjoyable. The attack on the castle and the last sword fight were by far the best parts, and both of those take place in the last 30 minutes of the film. The rest of it was rather forgettable.

I don't need constant action to be entertained. In fact, one of my favorite films of all time is the Henry Fonda version of 12 Angry Men, which is all talk and no action. But the difference is that 12 Angry Men had an intelligent script, detailed characters and excellent acting.

Prince Valiant had none of these things. In fact, I never thought I'd say this about any film starring James Mason, but the acting here is just terrible. Mason's performance is OK, though anyone could have played his part just as well, because it wasn't a very demanding role. There are no other memorable performances, and in all honesty, most of them were just awful. Robert Wagner has never impressed me with his acting skill, but in this picture, he's completely wooden. Just listen to the way he recites his lines. It's as if he put no attempt whatsoever into becoming the character. Actually, the same goes for just about everyone, except Mason. The actor playing Gawain was especially bad.

I guess what plagues this film the most is the director. Judging by how the film turned out, it seems he mostly cared about the action sequences and nothing else. As I said before, the action in this movie is by far the best thing about the entire film. If this film's director were working today, he'd be just like George Lucas, who creates films with all style and no substance.

The bottom line: 1 point for costumes/scenery, 3 points for action, 1 point for entertainment value, 0 points for acting, 0 points for directing. Total 5/10.

Escape from Alcatraz (1979)

Not as good as I had hoped

[6/10 · 3 November 2008]

I have to agree with others who say this film is a tad overrated. It's based on a good story, but it still leaves a lot to be desired.

By now, you know what this movie is all about - several prisoners held at Alcatraz island plan their escape from the prison. Clint Eastwood is the star of this film, and he does a pretty good job portraying the ringleader of the prisoners who will attempt to escape.

I hope you don't fall into the same trap that I did, before I saw this movie. I was expecting it to be similar to the Great Escape, which deals with the escape of several prisoners held in a German POW camp during World War II. But in reality, Escape from Alcatraz is almost nothing at all like the Great Escape.

The biggest flaw in Escape from Alcatraz is that the characterizations are far too shallow. For one thing, if we're supposed to want the prisoners to escape, we need to see more examples of what is so bad about the prison in the first place. Are we supposed to just go along with the prisoners who say that the warden is a bad guy? Just imagine how much worse Star Wars would have been if we hadn't seen Darth Vader torturing and killing people. That's what this movie was like.

It would have been a tremendous improvement in this movie if there were more scenes with the warden that would allow us to see his character for ourselves. We also need much more depth on these criminals so that we can empathize with them and hope for their escape. In any heist or escape film, the audience needs a reason to side with the crooks - it doesn't happen automatically, just because Clint Eastwood plays the main character. So the movie isn't as good as it could be.

But it's not all bad. I think it had a great ending, and in some places, it has a very interesting and exciting storyline. But a few highlights aren't enough for me to overcome the lack of depth in the characters and the storyline. This movie is not a "must-see", in my opinion.

The Pink Panther (1963)

Mildly funny in some places, but generally overrated.

[5/10 · 29 October 2008]

I'd heard for years about how funny this movie is, and last night, I finally gave it a try. I haven't seen any other Pink Panther films, so I thought this would be the best place to start. Honestly, I wasn't very impressed.

The first hour or so of this movie moves at a snail's pace, if even that fast. There seems to be an endless list of characters in this film whose backstories have to be established before anything happens. Though all the loose ends are tied up eventually, it just seems to take so long to get there that even the most patient viewer will find it hard to watch all the way through in one sitting.

The "comedy" amounts to little more than Peter Sellers falling down repeatedly. There are moments of witty dialogue, but not much to speak of, and while some scenes are mildly funny, even these scenes drag on so long that the comedy becomes stale and tedious.

David Niven and Robert Wagner are both annoying more than anything else, and same with the actress who plays Sellers' wife. Claudia Cardinale is pretty, but there just wasn't much else here that I really needed to see.

On top of all that, the ending was extremely disappointing and unsatisfying. It left a bad enough taste in my mouth that I'm actually sorry I wasted the time to watch this movie in the first place. I most likely won't watch the sequels.

Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)

Entertaining, but not for everyone

[8/10 · 13 September 2008]

I've seen this film twice, and I liked it better the second time. Once I knew how it ended, it was easier to piece together the clues that were scattered throughout the rest of the film. This is a Tennessee Williams movie, so you should know there is going to be a lot of dialogue, and not very much action. In fact, like the rest of his films, this one feels like if it had been filmed on stage. But his work usually tends to be more successful on stage than on film.

Katherine Hepburn and Liz Taylor really stand out in this film. I am usually impressed with Taylor, but she really did an outstanding job portraying a young woman who has gone insane after witnessing her cousin's death. Hepburn seems to have really sunk her teeth into the role as her aunt, and a widow. Both actresses were very impressive, and their performances are worth the price of admission by themselves.

Montgomery Clift plays a medical doctor whose specialty is operating on the brain. Hepburn's character wants the doctor to perform a lobotomy on her niece to help cure her insanity.

The storyline is not very pleasant, and in some places, it's hard to watch. You really have to listen to the dialogue, and you might have to rewind a bit to catch everything. But in general this is a very impressive and well-made movie that will be entertaining for fans of Hepburn, Taylor, or Williams. But the subject matter and nature of the film won't appeal to everyone.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Disappointing

[3/10 · 28 May 2008]

Like many others, I was also disappointed by this film. Certainly there were aspects of the film that would be familiar to long-time fans of the franchise. But in general, this movie doesn't seem much different to me than any random action/adventure film of the past 10-15 years. In fact, I thought both National Treasure films were better than this was.

I read another review that said the script could have been written by an 11 year-old. I can't agree more - the writing for this movie was far below the other Indiana Jones films. The adventure itself was rather boring, and the ending was extremely disappointing. I can't believe the rejected scripts were all worse than this was, despite what Lucas has said.

It's a common trend these days to hide a bad script and shallow plot with lots of computer animation and CGI. Most action/adventure films do this. This movie is definitely a victory of style over substance. It's fun to watch at times, but when you leave the theater, you feel like you've just eaten too much cotton candy.

I don't usually let goofs made in film-making bother me too much. But this one made blatant errors in geography and history that should not have been made at all. Indiana Jones is a university professor of archeology, and he's supposed to be an archaeological genius. For him to talk about the ancient Maya in Peru is just inexcusable. I'm not an archaeologist, but even I know there never were any Maya in Peru, because they lived thousands of miles away from there.

This mistake and many other geographical and historical errors made this movie insulting to anyone who paid attention in Ancient Civilizations class in high school. Just because the people making this film don't know the difference doesn't mean the character shouldn't. These geographical and historical mistakes are fatal for a movie that is supposed to be historically-based.

Many people have said if you go with low expectations, this film won't be a disappointment. It sounds great in theory, but compare this film to any of the previous Indiana Jones films (yes, even compared to the Temple of Doom). Should it really be too much to ask for us to see an entertaining film with deep characters, an interesting storyline, an intelligent script, exciting action and adventure, etc.? So I don't buy this argument. I don't go to a new restaurant and expect the food to taste like a cardboard box. I expect to have a good time when I go to the movies, and not look down at my watch 2-3 times, wondering how much longer this film will last.

Bottom Line: Lucas, Spielberg and Ford have plenty of money already. They don't deserve to make any more if they make junk like this. If you have to see it, save your money and wait until it comes out on DVD. That shouldn't be too long.

The Last Time I Saw Paris (1954)

An effective film, though it could have been better

[6/10 · 15 February 2008]

Charles Wills (Van Johnson) is an aspiring American writer, living in Paris for the time being. After France was liberated near the end of World War II, he meets Helen Ellswirth (Liz Taylor) at a party. She is instantly attracted to him, though he at first prefers Marion (Donna Reed), her sister. But when Charles starts to take a liking to Helen, Marion becomes very jealous and holds a grudge against him for many years. Over the next few years, Charles marries, has a daughter, and struggles to have his novels published. Over time, the struggle to become a successful writer alienates his family from him, and threatens to tear apart the family.

I usually like Liz Taylor movies, and I have never seen a bad performance from Walter Pidgeon, so I was looking forward to seeing this movie. Taylor is beautiful in this film, and she gives a fantastic performance. Pidgeon also does a great job playing the father of both young women. The rest of the actors also do very well in this movie, especially Donna Reed, Van Johnson and George Dolenz. In general, this film has good acting and a well-crafted script.

Overall, I wanted to like this movie more than I really did. At the beginning of the film, I thought it was one I would like, and it starts off well. There are some great points in the movie, such as Van Johnson's character gazing at a mural of Liz Taylor's character, and then later seeing someone create it. The scenes with Johnson's character and his young daughter are especially effective, and that makes the end of the film so much better than it would have otherwise been, as you'll see.

Donna Reed does a wonderful job in her role. She doesn't need to say much in order for us to know exactly what she is thinking or feeling throughout the movie. I was not impressed with Roger Moore, however. Tony Curtis is about the same age as Moore, but he would have been much better at this role. In fact, I think just about anyone could have played Moore's part better than he did.

This movie also moves pretty slowly and seems a lot longer than the nearly 2-hour running time. There are several scenes which serve almost no purpose except to increase the running time. All of these excess scenes could have been cut out without any negative effects on the overall production. I do not want to say too much about the film, but if you watch this, you'll know what I mean about several stretches of the film that seemed unnecessary.

The last 15 or so minutes of the film are by far the best. By then, the viewer knows exactly what happened to these families, but there is still a very compelling reason to watch it to the end. Maybe one reason the middle is so slow is to help set up the end of the film. That's what I'd like to believe anyway. Still, if it could have been slightly quicker to the end, I'd rate this movie higher.

Finally, a note on the DVD. I watched the Madacy version of this movie, and I do not recommend it to anyone. The movie itself is fine, but the DVD transfer is absolutely horrible. There were several skips/jumps in the film and several obvious cuts that should have been done a lot better. There were no special features, and when the DVD loads, you get only one option: "play." This is at least the fifth Madacy DVD that I've seen, and they're always the same - terrible picture and sound quality.

The Shaggy D.A. (1976)

Good family film, but not great

[5/10 · 1 February 2008]

Attorney Wilby Daniels (played by Dean Jones) and his wife Betty (played by Suzanne Pleshette) return to their home and find out that it has just been robbed. After the robbers return a second time to take everything else that they had left, Wilby decides to run for District Attorney so he can clean up the town and lock up the criminals for good.

Meanwhile, the same robbers who broke into his house have also stolen the famous Borgia ring from the local museum. Unfortunately for Wilby, every time someone reads the inscription, he turns into a sheepdog again. This of course, happens at the most inconvenient times, and the result is a silly, family-friendly comedy.

The Shaggy D.A. is a sequel to the 1959 Disney film, the Shaggy Dog. Though it's not quite as funny as the original, there still is a lot to like about this version of the story. The acting is pretty much on par with what we've come to expect from these Disney films, and the characters are pretty interesting, even if they are one-dimensional. The transformation from human to dog doesn't seem to work as well here as it did in the 1959 film, for some reason, but it's fine. If I had a complaint about this movie, it's that it goes a bit long and the same gags are used a few times too many. Other than that, it's nice to find a film that doesn't resort to 7th grade humor that seems to be in every "family" film these days.

The bottom line is this is a decent movie if you'd like to have a good time with the kids, but adults will be a bit bored from it fairly soon. It's not as good as some of the other Disney comedies from the 1960s and 1970s.

Empire of the Ants (1977)

Terrible movie

[2/10 · 7 January 2008]

By now, you probably already know what this movie is all about. But just in case, here is a brief overview of the film: A ship dumps several barrels of nuclear waste into the ocean, apparently too close to the shore. One of the barrels washes onto a beach and begins to leak. Marilyn Fryser (played by Joan Collins) is an unscrupulous land dealer whose only intent is to take money from people. She hires a yacht owner (played by Robert Lansing) to take her potential investors to the proposed building site to see if she can convince them to invest their money in her project. Her plans fall apart when the group discovers the area is populated by dangerous ants who have apparently come into contact with the nuclear waste mentioned earlier.

I'm actually a big fan of bad movies. My DVD collection includes a bunch of bad films that probably never should have been made. Watching these films helps me appreciate the really good films even more. Sometimes, these really bad films can also be accidentally hilarious because of how poorly created they are. I recently watched Empire of the Ants because I like Joan Collins, but also because I wanted to see if it was really as bad as everyone says. They were right. This movie is absolutely terrible. Watching this film was a complete waste of my time.

The storyline could not have been more boring. Nothing unexpected happens except for one silly thing at the end. The characters are one-dimensional, bland and completely unremarkable. The script was horrible, and the special effects are just awful. I've seen films that were made in the 1920s and 30s that look better than this.

I hope you do not make the same mistake I made. There is nothing here that you should want to see. Skip this movie, at all costs.

Next (2007)

Just so-so

[5/10 · 11 December 2007]

Every morning and evening, Cris Johnson has a martini sitting in the same chair at the same diner. He knows he will meet the woman of his dreams there at either 8:09am or 8:09pm, but not the day. Cris is also a magician who can see two minutes into the future. After watching his act, the FBI is convinced of his ability and they ask him to help them stop a nuclear terrorist attack.

All things considered, this is a very mediocre film. The action is exciting, and the CGI is pretty good. The film's premise is interesting (what would you do if you could see 2 minutes into the future?), and the movie generates a lot of good questions. It's an enjoyable 96 minutes, and you could do worse than this movie if you just want to turn your brain off and waste your time.

But on the other hand, the plot is very thin, and none of the characters have much depth. Aside from Nic Cage, every actor in the movie is just an extra. Julianne Moore has done better acting while asleep, and Peter Falk could have only been used less if he acted as a portrait hanging on Cris Johnson's wall. Jessica Biel is beautiful, but her character had almost nothing to do. Anyone could have played her part. Her only purpose in the film seems to have been to distract us from all of the movie's flaws. The dialog is awful in many places, and there are far too many stretches in logic for this film to be taken as seriously as it wants to be. The film is also short and it ends pretty abruptly.

Having said that, I give this movie 5 stars out of ten. Three stars because Jessica Biel is nice to look at, and two stars because she's in the movie at least 35 minutes.

* ****Spoilers start here. Stop reading if you don't want to read any spoilers.**** *

For this movie to work, there needed to be a suspension of disbelief. Personally, I can accept a lot of outlandish things in movies, but there were several plot holes in Next that make it harder for me to just enjoy the story. There are just too many unanswered questions that distracted me from fully enjoying the film. A lot of people really liked the movie, but I'm not one of them.

For one thing, why would the FBI be at all interested in Cris Johnson once they found out he can only see two minutes into the future? What good would a 2-minute head start be when you're chasing down a nuclear bomb? It's pointed out in the film that Cris can see farther into the future with Liz than by himself. Because this is only used once and because it is never explained why, this point seems to be little more than just a convenient plot device to be exploited later.

I think the writers missed out on a great opportunity to give more depth to this movie. Imagine what could have happened in this movie if Cris and Liz both realize how important they are to each other because they can get so much more done together than when they're apart. What if the FBI knew this before Cris did? What if, in fact, the FBI actually used Liz to meet Cris and make his visions of the future more effective, so that they could more easily stop the terrorists? There are literally hundreds of ways this movie would be better if the writer had added just a little more depth to the plot.

Speaking of the bad guys, who are they, and where are they from? I heard several different European accents among them, and I couldn't tell how they are connected or why they are together. Why would this particular group of Western Europeans want to detonate a nuclear bomb within the United States? I can only guess that they are working for someone else or they simply hate Americans. Maybe they stopped at a McDonald's in Paris and were offended by the French Fries. Who knows. Regardless, just a little more information on their background would have really helped add depth to an otherwise very shallow film.

And what was the deal with Nic Cage's hair? At first, I thought it was just a bad wig that he used for his Vegas show. When he didn't take it off after the show, that's when I realized the makeup artists tried to make him look younger. I'm sorry, I was never fooled for a second. Cage was 18 when Biel was born, and coloring his hair to a random shade of brown didn't make the romance between the two of them any less icky. They really should have picked someone younger to play his part if they didn't want to gross everyone out. I actually think it would have been better if Julianne Moore and Biel had switched parts. At least the romance would have been more palatable.

I have a lot of other unanswered questions about this film, but not all of them are that important to the storyline, so I'll ignore them. But small plot holes can be just as distracting as large ones. I'll just say that I wouldn't rate this movie above average. It's more fun than taking out the trash, but probably not more fun than waxing your car.

American Graffiti (1973)

Just OK

[5/10 · 11 April 2007]

Many people love this film and consider it to be a brilliant classic. At the risk of offending them, I'm going to have to admit I don't find this movie to be particularly brilliant at all. I respect everyone's right to their opinion, but if you're like me, you'll wonder why there's so much buzz about this movie at all.

First of all, I'm not sure what is so brilliant about this movie when all it amounts to is watching several characters wander around doing whatever enters into their heads. Nothing really happens, and the many different story lines never really interact. There are so many different things going on that it's hard to follow what's happening, and there's no compelling reason for me to want to care what these characters are doing. It's really just an aimless film without any point. What's so brilliant about that? Personally, I thought it was pretty boring. I wouldn't watch this again, and I really wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

On the other hand, you may like this movie if you are nostalgic for the early 1960s, or if you want to catch a glimpse of some young actors early in their careers, or if you'd like to see a 1973 version of a teen drama. It just wasn't all that great to me.

Lifepod (1993 TV Movie)

Could have been better

[5/10 · 5 April 2007]

I just watched this last night, which was just a few days after I saw the original Hitchcock film that it was based on, called Lifeboat. I wanted to see this movie because I was pretty impressed by the original film, and I almost always enjoy sci-fi movies. After having watched Lifepod, though, I'd suggest sticking to the original. It's not that Lifepod is all that bad, but it really isn't all that good, either. Overall, I gave it 5/10 stars because that's about what it deserves. There are plenty of films that are worse, and plenty that are better. Lifepod does some things well, and it does some things poorly.

For what it's worth, I wasn't surprised by anything that happened in the movie, but you may be. I guess it all depends on if you are able to pick up on the clues. You'll know right off if you can.

Honestly, I'm not sure this really should count as a remake. It's more like a new film based on the same material. Everything that the Hitchcock movie did well, this one either didn't do at all, or it did it very poorly. On the other hand, Lifeboat didn't rely on lots of action or highly tense scenes, but Lifepod did. I guess what this means is that if you liked Lifeboat, you probably wouldn't like Lifepod. And vice-versa.

One last thing, neither film is appropriate for the younger kids. They would be bored with Lifeboat, and they would be spooked by the violence and tension in Lifepod.