alecwest Reviews

Jurassic World (2015)

Spielberg is back!

[10/10 · 12 June 2015]

"Jurassic Park" was a great film but the two sequels following it were not quite up to par. But the 4th sequel (this film) redeemed the franchise. Spielberg is back and firing on all thrusters.

It's odd. I expected a different kind of movie. But the movie delivered was one I liked nonetheless.

(spoiler warnings) The part that worried me the most was the idea that the park trainer could become the "alpha" member of the raptor pack. But in a way, it made sense. Remember that raptors are the forerunners of birds. And domesticated birds (like parrots, for example) begin to identify with their owners as if the owners (and sometimes an owner's family) were considered part of the flock. I remember hearing once of a parrot that flew throughout a house, squawking loudly to warn family members that their house was on fire. This is not atypical behavior for domesticated birds. However, I was heartened later on when the raptor pack showed that their loyalty to the "alpha" member was fickle when a new potential "alpha" entered the fray - at least until the new "alpha" demonstrated weakness.

My favorite part of the film is when the aunt wondered out loud how they'd get the better of the hybrid dinosaur - and one of the kids replied, "We need more teeth." And that was pretty-much the first time in the film we got to see a T-Rex in action ... even though a different dinosaur ultimately got the better of the hybrid (a neat surprise).

"Jurassic Park 5" (or "Jurassic World 2")? There were two hints at a potential sequel. First, the flying reptiles were free. They'd likely fly to the Costa Rican mainland where they could easily travel North, South, and East throughout the Americas. Secondly, the "military" toadies on Isla Nublar (minus their leader) did make it to safety with the genetic samples and the Asian scientist who reprised his role from "Jurassic Park."

The Green Mile (1999)

Just one problem.

[9/10 · 12 June 2015]

Almost all of Stephen King's novels end badly for one or more of the protagonists. For example, in "Cujo," the boy dies. However, Hollywood has a problem with kids dying horribly and re-did the ending of the movie version, allowing the boy to make a miraculous recovery.

This movie remained true to the novel in that the protagonist (John Coffey) dies. Perhaps King insisted that the movie remain true to the novel because King is anti-death-penalty - and wanted the novel & movie to make a "statement" in that regard - that some innocent people get executed.

In any event, when Coffey was explaining to Paul "why" he wanted to die, he said, "It's the way things are all over the world."

(possible spoiler warning) Knowing what they knew, Paul, Brutal & Harry could have provided Coffey with a far better outcome. First, and this wouldn't take much convincing, they'd need to convince Coffey that it wasn't the way things were "all" over the world - that there were places where he could find peace and contentment. Then, all they'd have to do is sign a statement to the effect that they witnessed Wild Bill's deathbed confession ... admitting he'd committed the crime John Coffey was accused of. A deathbed confession witnessed by three people of good reputation is almost never disregarded by a court of law. With that signed statement given to the prosecutor & Coffey's public defender, a new trial would have been a given ... if it even needed to come to trial.

Afterward, Paul could have found a job for John doing manual labor (for room/board only) in, for example, a Buddhist monastery - a place where John would be surrounded with peace and contentment for the rest of his life.

I can see only one possible negative ... involving the farmer and his wife. Knowing that it was Wild Bill who did the deed, they'd both realize they'd "hired" the man who killed their daughters - and it might put a strain on their marriage that couldn't be overcome. But, heck, the truth would set them free.

So, I give the movie an overall 9 rating ... taking away 1 point for John Coffey's needless death.

Poltergeist (2015)

a yawner

[2/10 · 21 May 2015]

Two stars for the squirrel. Otherwise, the acting was somewhere between lousy and god-awful. I walked out after the first hour because I felt absolutely no connection to nor empathy for the characters. Some of the special effects I saw were borderline-OK. But I didn't come to see FX. I came to see a movie without cardboard characters. Special effects are all well and good. But if everything else makes you want to go to sleep (or leave the theater as I did), what's the point?

Bottom line?

Bad remake.

Save your money and see if you can find the 1982 "original" at a video store. It's a much better movie.

Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)

Just doesn't cut the mustard.

[3/10 · 9 May 2015]

It's hard to write a review of this film that "doesn't" include spoilers. So, consider this entire review a spoiler. Also note that I've not read the trilogy of books.

At age 64, I've been around the block a few times and am certainly not a prude. But while the acting was good (the 3 stars), the premise of the film is one I found disturbing. Christian Grey is a deviate, pure and simple. And the idea that a virgin would first experience sex with a deviate just turned me off. The only good thing about this film occurred just before the credits rolled at the end - when Anastasia Steele had the good common sense to end the relationship.

I realize there are 2 sequels in the works - the first one ("Fifty Shades Darker") comes out in 2017. The second one, "Fifty Shades Freed," will likely come out in 2019. And I can tell you right now that I will NOT be seeing them. I honestly don't care if Grey is ever redeemed. Or worse, I worry that by the end of the 3rd film, Steele might be "converted" to the darker angels of her nature. And that would be a major bummer.

Like I said earlier, I've not read the books. So, I have no idea how the trilogy ends. But keep in mind that Hollywood often "tinkers" with the story lines of novels on which movies are based. In other words, the ending of the 3rd film could be much different than the ending of the 3rd book. Forewarned is forearmed.

Man of Steel (2013)

Characters void of character.

[1/10 · 14 June 2013]

I fell for the buildup hype so much that I went to the "just after midnight" sneak-peek. And after the film was done, I was left with one suspicion - that the reason there weren't more characters in the film is because David S. Goyer (screenplay) must have run out of cardboard from which to cut them.

Action movie fans may like the action sequences in this film. But I felt no sympathy for any character. It was almost as if I was watching an old-style movie about zombies ... trudging through their roles until the movie reached its conclusion. Normally, I doze off during soulless films like this. But, I forced myself to stay awake ... hoping to catch even a glimpse of "depth" or "flesh" given to any character. Didn't work.

Army Daze (1996)

Forbearance.

[8/10 · 16 May 2013]

A friend loaned me his DVD of this film, perhaps knowing that I once visited Singapore. After watching it, I decided it was a fun film that was, to some extent, better than some reviewers have painted it to be.

To properly judge this film, you have to put it in perspective. The U.S. film industry has had over 100 years of film-making experience. Singapore, on the other hand, is just celebrating it's 50th year as an independent nation. And, it's a nation only 3.5 times the size of Washington, DC with 3 official languages - Mandarin Chinese, English (used to be a British colony), and Malay - with multiple other dialects spoken. Point is, I doubt if the U.S. film industry would have done so well under these restrictive circumstances.

Also, the U.S. has never had a long-standing peacetime draft. Singapore, on the other hand, does. Over the years, their culture has come to accept it as the norm - leaving it open for comedic portrayals. And as we all know, what constitutes comedy and/or humor is in the eye of the beholder.

I will not give any spoilers to this film. I'll only say that if you watch it, you should watch it in perspective as you would any film from a small young nation - and apply some forbearance in your judgment.

Movie 43 (2013)

yuk

[1/10 · 24 April 2013]

Out of all the films I've seen in my life (and I'm 62), I can only recall two films that I wish I could "unwatch." The first one was 1977's "Eraserhead." This film is #2.

Mind you, it's not that I dislike sophomoric humor. In fact, I like a lot of such films that critics tend to pan - films with a core market of manic teenage boys living in a dysfunctional family situation. This film was obviously targeted to such an audience. But, that's not the problem.

The film itself looks like it was designed by committee. It moved from one disgusting vignette to another with nothing shown that might tie them all together - other than kids farting around on computers. It was kind of like throwing paint balls at a bare canvas - then, afterward, cutting out all the paint blotches to sew them together into some sort of cohesive whole. Well, it just didn't work.

But I did give the film 1 star for "educational" value. There may be a few people out there who still believe that acting is a noble profession. But largely, acting is simply a business to most actors. If you pay most actors a certain amount of money - even actors whose names are associated with more worthwhile projects - the content of what they act in is non sequitur. So, this should educate people who believe in the nobility of acting to see actors as they really are - commodities willing to sell themselves for just about anything.

Ernie Kovacs: Between the Laughter (1984 TV Movie)

Grace under pressure.

[9/10 · 19 April 2013]

Like one person already mentioned, there are noticeable embellishments on the life of Ernie Kovacs - specifically on his performances. But that's not really what this movie is about. It's about a courageous man trying to make an inroad in a new medium - television. And while he was doing that, he had to deal with a failed marriage and the kidnapping of his two daughters. But the most interesting thing about the film is what "wasn't" seen in it.

(Spoiler alert - maybe)

If you know Ernie Kovacs' bio, this won't spoil a thing. But assuming you don't, here's the summary. Ernie Kovacs was the first father in the history of U.S. justice to be awarded "full" custody to his children. Before Ernie's case, mothers "always" got at least partial custody (but usually full custody). Men almost always got the short end of the stick in a custody battle. Even so, here's what you "didn't" see in the film.

When Ernie's private investigator brought the cops to the place where his first wife was keeping the children ... and after the children were reunited with Ernie ... NOTHING happened to the first wife. Had the sex roles been reversed, the father would have been arrested, taken away in handcuffs, and charged with violating a court order (custodial interference) and Federal kidnapping charges because the children were transported across a state line. But the first Mrs. Kovacs? Not a darn thing was done. The private eye told Ernie, "I'll ride back with the officers" ... and the officers were leaving without arresting anybody.

In 1955 custody battles (and even in 1984 when the film was made), men were treated like criminals if they absconded with their non-custodial children. But if women did the same thing, they usually got off scot-free. And even in our 21st Century "enlightened" times, the same double-standard treatment can sometimes be seen in custody battles.

I took away one star because of the way the film concluded. Remember his first wife's threat to take him back to court? Well, she didn't follow through with it - at least not while Ernie was alive. But when Ernie died in the unfortunate 1962 auto accident, his first wife tried to regain custody again - taking Edie Adams (who'd since married Ernie) into court. Remember that Ernie's divorce took place in Pennsylvania. But afterward, Ernie, Edie and the kids moved to New York. His first wife tried to convince a New York judge that it was "Ernie" who kidnapped the children in 1955. And, the court almost believed her until Edie could produce the Pennsylvanian divorce decree and custody order. And even though she did, the New York court "still" proceeded with a new custody hearing.

During the hearing, Ernie's daughters referred to Edie as "mom" ... and their mother as "the other lady." And Edie won custody.

Anyway, I wish this part of their lives had at least been brought out so that viewers would know just how low his first wife went to get back at Ernie - even after his death.

Flight (I) (2012)

Great film but not without flaws.

[7/10 · 26 January 2013]

NOTE - THERE ARE POTENTIAL (and real) SPOILERS THROUGHOUT THIS REVIEW.

This is probably not going to be a politically-correct review. The politically correct part is that the film dealt with a pilot coming to terms with lifelong alcoholism and substance abuse ... admitting guilt perhaps due to an epiphany he had when he realized that he was possibly "part" of the problem that caused the crash.

The film's plot was well acted and well played out. However, given the known facts presented in the film, I was left with the impression that the crash (and fatalities) would have occurred regardless of whether or not the pilot was sober.

During the meeting between the union and management, it was clear that management considered the event a matter of pilot negligence. The union, however, pointed out that the toxicology test given to the pilot was invalid due to 3 critical errors made during the test. In short, the union was telling management that the NTSB could not use the test against the pilot ... and that "management" could not use the test for disciplinary purposes. But, the union also pointed out (rightfully so) that the aircraft had issues - and that they planned to pursue "manufacturing defect" as the cause of the crash.

Then came the surprise. During the NTSB hearing, they released findings indicating that the crash situation came about because a "screw" that should have been replaced a year earlier had NOT been replaced. This put the onus (blame) squarely on their airline for poor maintenance. And the intoxication of the pilot (or lack thereof) would have made no difference to that defective screw.

The thing that left me scratching my head was the NTSB testimony about the two tiny vodka bottles. It doesn't make any difference whether or not the pilot suspended drink service. Consider this.

How many of us have gone to grocery stores to buy candies, etc. - later going to a theater to see a film? I have, that's for sure - because I know that candy from Walmart is much cheaper than theater candy. Likewise, it's much cheaper to buy those tiny liquor bottles from a liquor store than it is on a plane. Individual passengers could have brought the tiny bottles on board ... and those two vodka bottles could have been put there by the flight crew as part of their patrol to pick up trash. With two flight attendants dead, there'd be no way to know for sure what they did or didn't do in that regard.

So OK, the pilot was intoxicated. But his grand admission near the end of the film did nothing to remove blame from the airline for poor maintenance on the screw that caused the accident. And whether or not one of the dead flight attendants had an alcohol problem is neither here nor there because the origin of the bottles could have been one or more passengers. And THAT is a possibility the NTSB didn't consider.

(Devil's advocate mode) - Had I been the pilot, and after knowing of the mechanical failure of that screw (and that it was the airline's fault), I wouldn't have felt guilty at all. Even the NTSB said his handling of the crisis was great (and people in the hearing audience responded with applause when the NTSB said so). Rather, I'd have seen this as a wake-up call. Due to the stress of the accident, I'd have requested a one-year leave of absence to deal with the stress. During that downtime, I'd have gone into substance abuse rehab on my own dime. And if successful, I'd likely have courted employment with other airlines who'd be more than happy to hire a "hero."

P.S. I'm a 64 year-old guy who doesn't drink or use any medication (even aspirin) ... outside of the glipizide I take for my type 2 diabetes. And while I see intoxication as a serious issue while operating any vehicle, I sometimes wonder if, in some cases, intoxication is used as a "scapegoat" to minimize the effect of other factors involved in an accident. Drunk is drunk and stoned is stoned. But broken is also broken.

This movie would have been much different if it had featured the inappropriate service record of the aircraft (and its "screw") as the overriding plot device ... with the pilot's alcohol/drug use as a minor player in the incident. Remember that even sober pilots recreating the incident in simulation killed every passenger on board. The "affected" pilot, on the other hand, saved all but 6 passengers. Clearly, without the defective part, the flight would have likely been uneventful ... even if the pilot was intoxicated (since a sober/trained copilot was also onboard).

Good Deeds (2012)

A testament to coincidence.

[9/10 · 5 March 2012]

First, the only reason I took one star away was because I felt that 2 hours wasn't enough time to tell a deeper story. This could have been Tyler Perry's fault for not writing a deeper story ... or Gary Ousdahl's fault (as story editor) for cutting the story too deeply.

Thoreau once said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them." This is so true. And sometimes in our lives, we need a coincidence to occur ... something that jars us from our predictability ... to act as a catalyst for an epiphany that will induce fundamental change.

WARNING! POSSIBLE SPOILER FOLLOWS!

In this film, Lindsey's chance meeting with her boss led this boss to have his own epiphany. In time, he realized (as his fiancée suggested) that his life was predictable ... that he'd sacrificed his personal aspirations to become what others wanted him to become. And when Wesley Deeds' epiphany caused him to change, it became an epiphany for his fiancée to realize that their marriage was destined for failure.

Later, it became an epiphany for Wesley's mom ... to finally realize that Wesley had found his own path in life and was determined to follow that path. And by Wesley leaving the family business, Wesley's brother realized he had no one to sabotage anymore ... that he had to stand on his own two feet and become the man that sibling rivalry had held him back from becoming.

This film was not a "man saves damsel in distress" movie. It was far deeper than that - a testament to coincidence and the importance it can play in our relationships (including relationships with ourselves).

Two final points. Earlier, one reviewer suggested that had Tyler Perry done more research, he would have discovered that servicemen (like Lindsey's deceased husband) had access to a cheap $400,000 life insurance policy - making it unlikely that she should be so much in debt. However, when a person is the recipient of a life insurance payout, and if the insurance was acquired through an employer (military included), only the first $50,000 is not taxable. The remaining $350,000 is taxable as ordinary income ... and would put Lindsey in the highest tax bracket. Living in San Francisco, where the movie is set, things can get pretty expensive very quickly. And as money managers, people are sometimes compromised by grief - making them poor money managers. The IRS was after Lindsey, after all. This could have been fleshed out better - but it's nothing for which I'd take a star away.

Also, near the end of the movie, Wesley's mom sees him off at the airport. Before 9/11, this was possible. After 9/11, no one gets to an airline's boarding gate without passing through security screening. And no one gets through screening without a valid boarding pass - which Wesley's mom didn't have. This "goof" has been submitted to IMDb. But, it's a forgivable goof.

Until this year, Tyler Perry had a morbid fear of flying. He's never been on a post-9/11 airline flight. However, this year, he conquered his fear of flying by taking flying lessons - and is now a licensed private pilot. So, I didn't take away a star for that either.

All in all, it was a most enjoyable film. However, some scenes might be too intense for children.

Holy Flying Circus (2011 TV Movie)

Summing it up.

[2/10 · 13 February 2012]

I've been a Python fan for a very long time - buying their comedy albums on vinyl before their "Flying Circus" show ever aired in the U.S. I have the entire "Flying Circus" series and every one of their films on DVD. And when I heard "Holy Flying Circus" was coming out, I anticipated a totally different film than what I ended up seeing.

When "Life of Brian" premiered, I was managing a theater in Portland, Oregon. Two of my snack bar workers (sisters) were members of a fundamentalist Christian sect. And before the film had even been released (so they could personally judge its worth), they both refused to work as long as the theater was showing the film. I tried very hard to explain to them that this film was NOT meant as a satire on Jesus Christ himself - but was, instead, meant as a satire on the times in which Jesus lived. But, their minds were already made up.

Out of respect for their feelings on the matter (though I disagreed with them), I did not fire them - choosing instead to hire temporary replacement workers until the film ended its run.

To sum this film up in a word, it was "unfunny." But it was an unfunny film that was trying to be funny. As it happens, I was hoping for an unfunny film that was unfunny on purpose - a film that seriously explored the ordeal the Pythons had to go through as a result of the film's reception by fundamentalist Christians.

Now ... I suspect the actors in this film were trying to offer a tribute to the Pythons by imitating their style. And as the old saying goes, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." But I found it unsettling considering the real-life pressure (ie., death threats, effigy burnings, etc.) the Pythons were under during this time (not to mention certain theater managers).

In Time (2011)

Exciting movie but doomed concept.

[7/10 · 3 December 2011]

This entire review might be a spoiler to the concept. But, if you like high-action movies, you'll probably enjoy it like I did. Still, the concept behind the society envisioned is on very shaky ground.

If prices keep rising, taxes keep rising, interest on loans keeps rising, but wages are kept low for the working class, this would inevitably lead to a halt in the production of "things" needed to keep the infrastructure in place (as workers "timed out"). Even before that, working class citizens would be less likely to "breed" children to replace them when the costs of raising a child became prohibitive.

If no one is around to produce food, generate electricity, and fix what breaks, the lifestyles of the super-rich would eventually take a giant nosedive. All Justin Timberlake's character does is speed up the process (with Amanda Seyfried's help).

But, I did enjoy the fast pace of the film ... not to mention the presence of two hot actresses (Amanda Seyfried & Olivia Wilde).

Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)

Impressed ... but the vote is still out.

[9/10 · 31 October 2011]

Let me start off by saying that I consider myself a political moderate and have never read this book.

My local mom/pop video store apparently forgot about the "official" release date (grin) and made it available for rental. After watching it last night, I'll have to say that I was very impressed. I knew the budget was small and that no "A-list" actors were on board. But, it didn't seem to matter.

WARNING! POTENTIAL SPOILERS FOLLOW!

The film envisions a future America ruled by an oligarchy of political liberals and labor unions - all seemingly hellbent on turning the USA into a "socialist" democracy. And, they'll stop at nothing to do so. They use a willing liberal media machine and pressure on scientific institutions dependent on government funding to twist the truth about a breakthrough product from Reardon Metals - all because they fear that the company is becoming "too powerful." Fortunately for the company, a railroad executive is a believer in the product and orders a large quantity of the new metal for new tracks and a new bridge. And, the successful inaugural run of the new train at speeds in excess of 250 mph proves the truth about the metal.

Throughout the film, there is an ever-present reference to a man named John Galt. And those unfamiliar with the book (like me) might first suspect that Galt is a government assassin - getting rid of the country's movers, shakers, and doers (aka captains of industry) in order to protect the power interests of the liberal government oligarchy. But in the last few seconds of the film ...

REAL SPOILER FOLLOWS ...

... you hear the spoken words of Ellis Wyatt, one of the investors in the railroad (and one of the "missing" captains of industry). And from his words, you realize that Galt isn't a government assassin at all - nor did these captains of industry die. Instead, they were (woo woo) "recruited" for a purpose that will be fleshed out in the next two parts of this film - to be released in 2012 and 2013.

For me, the suspense of this film kept me riveted to it. And if the actors seemed a bit dull and myopic, I think it was because our captains of industry really ARE dull and myopic people (grin) ... but are otherwise "focused" on their dreams and unstoppable. Example from real life. Who can say that Bill Gates was ever thought of as an "exciting" person (grin)? You don't have to be exciting to get things done ... only "driven." So ... why only 9 out of 10 stars? As I said, I'm a political moderate. And I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where captains of industry are set up to "succeed" in an environment that would seem to be a situation of "too many chiefs and not enough Indians."

To remedy this, I now intend to buy and read the novel ... before part 2 of this film comes out. If the book provides a believable future for the protagonist characters, I'll look forward to the next 2 films. If it doesn't, I won't see them.

The Human Jungle (1963–1964)

One of the best dramatic TV series of the early 1960s

[10/10 · 27 July 2011]

I remember watching this series when I was a young boy. And I've always been dismayed that the series never made it to home video on either VHS, Laserdisc, or DVD. Fortunately, someone uploaded the entire two-season, 26-episode series in 480P to YouTube. And using Firefox download helper, I was able to download the entire series - which I'll shortly be converting to DVD format.

I've re-watched most of the episodes and am convinced this series was one of the best dramatic series of its time. That doesn't mean the content is always pleasing. In one episode, after his patient had undergone some drug therapy for an unreasonable fear of sunlight, Dr. Corder reassures his patient by telling him that "electro-shock therapy" will begin shortly. Yup, back in 1963, it was considered a viable treatment in the psychiatric community (now abandoned, thank goodness). But on the side of progressive thinking in a different episode, Dr. Corder didn't even bat an eyelash when a 62 year-old patient admitted that her guilt had come from a Lesbian attraction she experienced when she was younger. He treated her "guilt" as the problem, not her sexual orientation. And in 1963, the psychiatric community still considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder.

The writing was superb. The acting was superb. The settings and the stories were all very believable and, in many cases, riveting. You can't ask for much more than that in a dramatic series. If it's ever digitally remastered and released on DVD, I'll be one of the first people to buy it. Until then, I'll still enjoy the downloaded episodes on DVD - though some of them have a weathered look.

UPDATE!!! The complete series is being released on DVD but, so far, only in the U.K. The release is set for mid-June 2012.

The Human Experience (2008)

Good film - but would rather see it done again differently.

[5/10 · 31 March 2011]

Any film that exposes the lives of those not as fortunate as their more mainstream counterparts is a worthwhile film. However, after watching it, I was left with a sobering truth - that this was a film about two people who had the power to "go back" to their normal lives after it was all over ... interviewing others who knew it.

I'd actually like to see such a film done again. Only the next time, I'd like to see it done "Candid Camera" style where the interviewees are unaware they're in the spotlight - and where the interviewers appear to be persons in the same situation. I think the reactions of those interviewed would be different and far more honest.

The Sunset Limited (2011 TV Movie)

Good acting and powerful script ... but ...

[5/10 · 17 February 2011]

I admire the acting skills of Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson. And Cormac McCarthy can write a powerful script that brings out these skills. All 5 stars go to the abilities of these 3 men.

But...

(SPOILER FOLLOWS)

Ultimately, this film is a 90 minute sermon with which the preacher (Jackson) fails to redeem the sinner (Jones). Or, at least it seemed that way as Jones left the room. If I want to hear a 90 minute sermon, I'll go to church - not to cable TV.

Still, the ending scene will stick to me ... with Jackson collapsing to the floor and, with a vacant look, asking God, "Is that OK? Is that OK?" Jackson had the look of someone who'd been "deprogrammed" from his faith, replacing it with Jones' sense of futility. And he had the look of someone who realized he'd just finished preaching more to himself than to Jones in a vain attempt to cling to his own beliefs.

If that was going through Jackson's mind, it could be that the NEXT scene (after the film ended) might show Jackson waiting on that same platform for the Sunset Limited to come by (for the same reason as Jones).

2012 (I) (2009)

The good, the bad, and the timid.

[7/10 · 18 November 2009]

My rating of this film is divided into three parts.

THE GOOD - I gave this film a solid 10 for special effects alone. I've not seen better. Bravo.

THE BAD - I gave this film a rating of 6 for content and character. It was clearly an attempt to tell a good story. But, I took away 4 stars due to an over-abundance of scenes, characterization, and dialog that could be considered cliché - reminding me of some less than memorable disaster films of the past.

Between the two parts above, the average came to 8 stars. However, I took away 1 star for this:

THE TIMID - Roland Emmerich has said publicly that he decided not to destroy any Muslim holy sites in his film because he was worried that some cleric might issue a "Fatwa" against him. And before you begin to think that I wouldn't have done it myself, consider this.

Remember the British teacher who was jailed because she and her students (in Sudan) decided to name a teddy bear "Mohammed?" Shortly after the story broke, I sent this to the Sudanese embassy in Washington, DC:

http://www.cafepress.com/bobmccarty.194693988

I also sent a (ahem) comment which I'll not repeat here.

The bottom line is that I'm very crestfallen when I hear of producers, directors, and film studios with so little backbone that they won't risk ruffling someone's feathers in a film project.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Huh???

[1/10 · 22 October 2009]

I'm almost suspicious that the film company hired professional "screamers" to visit local showings of this film and scream at least three or four times at random moments. Because when I heard screams in the theater when I watched this film, I quite honestly didn't see or hear anything worth screaming about. The screams were all coming from the same people, too. Perhaps they're part-time theater employees (grin).

Sadly, this isn't even a new movie. It was first shown at the ScreamFest 2007 horror festival - where they probably ALSO had paid (or volunteer) screamers planted in the audience. I suspect that Paramount was short on horror films this year (2009) and canvassed the "indy" scene for likely films they could buy up on-the-cheap. Then, they over-hyped the film in such a way as to attract people most likely to see a horror film. Mea culpa. I fell for the hype, too, just like everyone else.

In any case, this movie left me flat - and $7 poorer, not counting the popcorn.

District 9 (2009)

Surprisingly good.

[9/10 · 20 August 2009]

I went to see it knowing only the basic premise - that alien beings were being kept in a sort-of refugee center. And when I saw the first aliens, the first thought that popped into my head was, "They look a lot like PREDATORS." As someone else said earlier, this film "borrows" a lot from earlier science fiction classics. And that is why I took one star away from the film. Other than that, I was mightily impressed.

Actors didn't sound like "actors" - mouthing out meticulously scripted lines. The actors sounded like "regular people" caught up in a dilemma that strained the boundaries of humanity and humaneness. And the central figure who came in contact with the alien "liquid" substance was forced to choose between allegiance to two species.

Beyond that, I'll say no more since it might be construed as a "spoiler" comment. Suffice it to say that this film will satisfy every expectation of the science fiction fan and, in some cases, will exceed them. If you like science fiction (and have a strong stomach), you owe it to yourself to see this film.

Twilight (I) (2008)

OK, I'm hooked.

[10/10 · 26 March 2009]

First, let me say that I'm a 58 year-old guy. Secondly, because of eyestrain issues, I got and listened to all four books via Audible.com audio-books. And, I like to think of myself as being extremely fair when it comes to comparing books to their film versions. So, what did a guy my age like about the film?

I don't know why but I've always liked vampire films. This is especially true if the screenwriter or novelist (or both) re-invents the vampire myth. To me, these re-inventions add spice to the lore. Imagine - vampires without fangs, vampires whose reflections can be seen in mirrors (remember James in the ballet studio), vampires who can move about in the daylight (with certain skin issues), etc., etc. That's the main reason I liked the film. The lore re-inventions were refreshing.

I also lusted after Alice Cullen (grin). This doesn't make me a dirty old man, though. Notice that I said "Alice Cullen" and not "Ashley Greene." I figured that, as a vampire, Alice was likely older than me ... making her a cradle-robber if she had mutual feelings (grin). Basically, I loved the grace with which she moved. And I liked the way she voluntarily became her "brother's keeper" ... doting on Jasper and helping him through his difficult time as a new vegetarian.

Another positive note for me was the musical score. I think it was well considered due to the mood of the film. And though I'd never heard of them prior to seeing the film, and even though their music was confined to the very last song as the credits rolled, I'm probably going to become a new fan (possibly the oldest fan) of Paramore.

Of course, being a person who lives in the Pacific Northwest, I always welcome films that feature the natural beauty of the area. And this movie was chock full of "scenery" in that regard.

I was also very impressed with the Carlisle character. His quiet strength made him a great father figure for his "family." And his profession showed an unmistakable respect for human life ... uncommon in many other vampire stories and films. One thing puzzled me, though, after I'd seen the film and had time to think about it. Carlisle is the oldest vampire of the family and a physician who has all the time in the world. It probably wouldn't have taken him too long to complete coursework required to qualify him in a sub-specialty - hematology. As a hematologist, especially if he called himself a "research" hematologist, he could easily (and legally) acquire all the human blood he and his family could handle from blood banks/labs ... claiming he was doing research into various blood-borne diseases. And (ahem), who'd be the wiser?

Overall, the film was a good variation of the book ... which was, in essence, a romance novel with vampire lore tossed into the mix. And for me, each part of the film contributed to the whole in a very plausible way. I even went to a local DVD release party and bought the two-DVD set. I've watched it several times already, am still not tired of it, and am looking forward to the film versions of "New Moon," "Eclipse," and (I hope) "Breaking Dawn."

Knowing (2009)

Knowing not to know.

[5/10 · 23 March 2009]

All five stars go to the special effects crew. Everything else? Well...

POSSIBLE MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW

Nicolas Cage plays an M.I.T. astrophysics professor. Initially, we see him giving a lecture on the difference between determinism and randomness ... with him confessing to his students he believes in the latter theory. I was enjoying the film up until the last part where Cage all but admits to his father (a pastor) that he's now a determinist - a couched reference to him "finding God." The problem? Well, there are several. But I'll just stick to the biggest bugaboos. Assuming one believes the alien premise laid out in the film, we see neither the determinist nor the randomizer position proved. Rather, we see the situation described by Tom Hanks in the film, Forrest Gump - that they're really both happening at the same time.

People who believe in the theory that life on our planet was "transplanted" by superior aliens will love this film. But the aliens, by their very actions, appear less godlike and more like high-tech experimenters. And the test subjects of these experimenters (namely, all plant and animal life on Earth) are nothing more than guinea pigs - to be sacrificed ALTOGETHER (with certain pre-selected exceptions) at the end of the film for the dubious purpose of "starting over again" on another Earth-like planet. Had I been Cage's character during the spacecraft departure scene, I'd have asked my son to mentally convey two important questions to his alien saviors. I'd have asked, "If your grand experiment on Earth failed, what assurances can you give me that your next experiment involving my son will succeed?" And... "Do you REALLY respect life or are you just content to shoot craps with it until such time that you perceive yourselves *winners*?"

That final scene with Cage reuniting with his pastor dad - blubbering in religio-euphoric "I know this _really_ isn't the end..." psychobabble? Had I been Cage, that scene would never have happened. Rather, I'd have just burned to death in the solar firestorm, knowing (ugh, that word) that I was merely a guinea pig in a cosmic experiment that failed - and I'd not have been a happy camper at all.

So, overall, there are great special effects for this otherwise depressing movie - championing the idea that the entire history of the human race "didn't matter" (outside of procreating guinea pigs for future experimentation).

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Yuk ... DON'T take me to your leader.

[3/10 · 18 December 2008]

What a waste of money. Keanu Reeves' acting proved that, if he runs out of roles to play, he'd still be able to do a great Mr. Spock in a future Trek film. Jennifer Connelly was equally bland and looked like a younger version of Demi Moore. And the CGI version of Gort LOOKED like CGI. The only reason I gave it three stars is because I wanted it to be so much better than it was - and got the feeling this film wasn't so much bad acting as it was bad writing, bad direction, and bad FX. And I suspect that when veteran actors like Reeves and Connelly saw the theatrical version of the film, a part of them wanted to "disown" their participation.

This film is scary in one other way. It makes me worry about other upcoming SF remakes - like "Forbidden Planet," "When Worlds Collide," and "This Island Earth." This TDTESS remake really pales in comparison to the original. And I only hope the other SF remakes won't be able to prove the same thing.

The God Who Wasn't There (2005)

Preaching to the choir?

[10/10 · 5 November 2008]

Someone earlier criticized this film, stating that it was "preaching to the choir," and that he'd not share it with his Christian friends because they might take offense to it. However, I think he's missing the point.

You have to realize that believers in any faith (Christianity included) generally begin their indoctrination into the faith at a very early age. Jesus (if he really existed) is supposed to have said, "Suffer thy children to come unto me." That was later updated by a Jesuit monk to, "Give me a boy by the time he is seven and I'll give you a Christian forever." Similar tenets of teaching exist in other faiths, however, and all have the same purpose. Put simply and bluntly, brainwash a child to believe this claptrap while they're still too young to differentiate between claptrap and rational thought. Even if they stray from the faith later, it would only take a few "hard knocks" in life to bring them back under the comfortable umbrella of their prior brainwashing.

Such brainwashed children grow up to be brainwashed adults. And like an alcoholic, they cannot be "cured" by rational non-alcoholics. The only person who can cure an alcoholic is the alcoholic himself/herself. Likewise, the only person who can cure a brainwashed person is the person himself/herself. So ... why even consider sharing this video with a Christian? They'd be offended anyway, retreat behind their blinders, and (grin) probably "say a prayer" for you.

Still, I'm tempted to buy a few copies to keep around the house. Every spring, it seems (in my neighborhood, anyway) that all the door-to-door evangelists come to my house to "save" me. Rather than listen to the diatribe, I'll just give them a copy of the DVD and close the door. And later, if they come back to tell me how offended they were, I can reply, "Yes, I imagine you WERE offended by the DVD's diatribe ... but no less offended than I was when you came to my door uninvited to dump YOUR diatribe on me."

This would probably not make them non-believers. But, it would give them something new to think about ... that their uninvited visits are considered just as offensive to non-Christians as the DVD was to them. It would show them that, as people, we're on a level playing field ... and perhaps teach them the lesson that if they mind their own business, I'll mind mine.

I don't mind Christians at all if they keep their beliefs to themselves. But once they start proselytizing their beliefs in my direction, that hits my hot button.

Burn After Reading (2008)

Fargo meets the CIA

[8/10 · 27 October 2008]

When the Coen Brothers deliver comedy, it's usually not the belly-laugh kind of humor. Their humor is more subtle, resulting from the activities of ordinary humans caught up in ordinary life situations. BURN AFTER READING is no exception. I took away 2 stars for only one reason - that I've seen the "basic" plot done before (and done better).

The basic plot - a CIA employee is called into his supervisor's office to be given a demotion. The CIA employee then decides to leave the agency and write his memoirs. Afterward, all hell breaks loose. This is the basic plot behind BURN AFTER READING ... but is also the same basic plot behind the 1980 film, HOPSCOTCH.

But back to BURN AFTER READING. The motivating force behind the plot has less to do with the CIA analyst's memoirs and more to do with one woman's fierce determination to raise enough money to pay for four cosmetic surgical procedures. It would not be a spoiler to say that, by the end of the film, she gets her wish. This is because the complicated maze of intrigue and farce needed to achieve that end is what propels the film.

Again, the Coen Brothers deliver a solid film that connects all the dots of plot in such a way that it entertains - in a deadpan way, perhaps, but that's their forte. I only differ with other reviewers in one respect. I think the MOST solid performance was delivered by John Malkovich ... who plays the somewhat manic CIA analyst whose memoirs create deadly headaches for himself and a number of others who come into contact with those memoirs - directly or otherwise.

Hancock (2008)

Loved two-thirds of it.

[7/10 · 6 July 2008]

There are some movies I hate at the beginning but warm up to as they progress. There other movies I enjoy at the beginning but hate by the ending. This is one of those strange films where I love the beginning, love the ending, but have issues with the middle.

This MAY be a spoiler but I'll try not to make it so. Suffice it to say that somewhere in the movie, Hancock begins to learn a little about his origins. Shortly after that point ... and during the slow-released tale that becomes an "awakening" for Hancock ... the movie begins to rub me the wrong way. And, it continues to do so up until the liquor store scene (followed by the hospital scene). Then, it picks up to an exciting and heartfelt climax.

Now -- this middle part of the movie was "acted" well. I take nothing away from Will Smith or his "enlightener." But in my opinion, the writing was insulting. Hancock's interaction with his enlightener did NOT (repeat NOT) have to be handled in such a childish manner. The bickering and fighting added NOTHING to the movie. That whole section of the film could have been written SO much better. The movie was already headed in a serious direction and should have continued along that path. Fortunately, the final scenes of the film redeemed the story that was almost destroyed by the idiocy of the film's middle.

Having said all that, however, I want to see a sequel ... several sequels, actually ... IF they are better written throughout the films. With skillful writing, this could end up becoming a franchise for Smith and costars.