theemaster Reviews

Cherry 2000 (1987)

What makes cherry special?

[8/10 · 7 August 2008]

Imagination.. Heart..

Very few sci-fi's have this much heart and this much story packed into a beautiful movie.. So how can I describe Cherry?

Cherry starts out like every good story and builds up to it, by first establishing the universe.. a post-apocalyptic world (or sum such) where recycling is important, new fashions are in play and sex robots are possible and people (at least from the characters point of view) have to have contracts to date/copulate

Cherry then shows us one of the first *real* female action hero's (basically Tomb Raiders Laura Croft v1.0) and some great desert and action sequences that are widely unpredictable and done well

All the while this stories carries on with credibility and imagination, Cherry 2000 is one of the most successful B movie sci-fi's ever accomplished it's these kinds of movies that give me hope to see more.. I personally love and still love a lot of 80's movies and 80's style we have yet to recapture in our let's make it all more real setting.. I'm not saying that gems aren't still made today they are; they've just been rarer to find as of late..

Since Cherry is a special vein of movies all its own it's important we list e'm - Mad Max - The Road Warrior (this one is very special) - Dead-End Drive In

What I can say about Cherry after multiple viewing maybe 5-7 now in my lifetime since I first caught in cinemax or one of the movie channels one night.. is that's its very, very special..

That the story is so good that it can play catch-up or compliment movies like "A.I." another one of Kubrick's unfigured out masterpieces..

Normally I would say this movie is 7/10 but I'm upping my vote to 8/10 for now do to shear appreciation of this movie vs. some of the crap we have been getting these past 2 decades.. (note of course sci-fi had a great few years from about 1997 to 2001)

On my last viewing this time I noticed again how good Basil Poledouris score compliments the movie.. (and there is some noticeable re-use of Conan in there but all composers even the great John Williams seem to re-use in part some of their stuff)

Iron Man (2008)

The Best Super Hero movie in 2 decades..

[7/10 · 3 May 2008]

I'm not one of those that is impressed by "Spiderman" or recent incarnations of "Batman" (I think they all have poor story's and boring remake style) including a fan favorite "Batman Forever" but for the 1st time I found myself liking a super hero movie when they all make me yawn.. the last one that wasn't so terrible was actually the newest Superman but this movie actually beats it out..

So what do I claim the last best super hero movie was.. Tim Burtons "Batman" starter of whole franchises...

What I liked about this movie was that it had plot, it had acting and it wasn't over the top or too long (spiderman is a great example of this) and maybe it's possible that it stems also from the fact that I haven't seen any cartoon series of the show.. (though I'd never seen Fantastic Four cartoons and those movies were generally terrible) I like that in this movie Robert Downey Jr. has a ironic or albeit poke fun at self sense of humor.. and the fact that in some ways his character really does embody his Hollywood persona

One thing I noted is that this movie wasn't rife with Hollywood cliché's I expected to here it time and time again.. Jeff Bridges (the bad guy) killed his father.. never said it once (as far as I know) and in the end the comment about his father was more of a compliment to Roberts's character.. and what about the fact that Robert didn't exactly get the girl this isn't exactly a Hollywood typical fair..

So what can I say about this movie.. Best Super Hero movie in 2 decades!! Original, interesting, good plot, good acting.. worth watching.. it won't shake you with awesomeness but it won't leave you bored either.. thank Allah, (cliché') that Hollywood can still turn out something original.

Serenity (2005)

Another disappointment..

[7/10 · 31 January 2007]

How exactly do movies/series like this gain dedicated fanboys?

Where, were you for farscape?

This movie and or show reminds me of Stargate another crazed fanbase.. that doesn't have much imagination..

What throw some sex in? Make it a western and it's the most awesomess show ever!

Having watched some of the show I can comment and or say.. I was very put off by watching a western where they crossed a river in a wagon and then pulled out sophisticated weapons when they were attacked by horse wranglers..

Let's see.. we have technology to travel to the stars.. but these poor folk in the middle of nowhere transport stuff like the omish?

I'm sorry, sci-fi fans.. this show and or series sucks.. the movie was mediocre with not much imagination and nothing new.. Why is it you fanboys can't rally behind ground breaking good stuff?

Why do you rally behind so much bad out there.. (obviously we all have our own tastes) but this show and Stargate are so non sci-fi and so cheap it's shocking to see you get this crazed.. 27,000 10 votes.. you people are nuts..

Why I don't like this movie and or show? Boring, not very imaginative (the whole dead world bit wasn't bad in the movie), not great acting, popcorn movie

Is this movie watchable? Yep, once.. (don't expect much.. okay visuals)

One word to sum this movie up? yawn

Recommend? If you're desperate for sci-fi, yes this or the show.. will cure you a little.. I'd put Wild, Wild, West the series higher in imagination though

Danika (2005)

Started off not to bad.. slowly got worse..

[6/10 · 23 December 2006]

Movie has some atmosphere and some elements like those of "Sixth Sense" but ultimately fails to deliver.. something goes wrong in the last part of the execution and the movie loses all coherence and logic..

You could sum it by saying bunch of weird stuff happens and in the last 10 minutes you find out why that weird stuff supposedly happens (that of a fractured mind they hint at.. however given the way the movie played I don't think of it as a fractured mind.. I thought of it as supernatural) Anyway.. I would suggest if you're bored give it a watch.. it's better than some Hollywood productions but this is not shear movie making excellence..

Grim (1996)

Wasn't made by the sci-fi channel.. umm that's a good thing..

[4/10 · 23 June 2006]

I don't typically like cheap horror movies or shall we say cliché but surprisingly I liked this more then I would if it had been made by the sci-fi channel.. (which watching it I realized.. it wasn't a sci-fi channel original because the movie would have been much worse had it been) It actually did have originality unlike a typical sci-fi/horror movie and yah the special effects are just awful (almost looked animated.. yah know before computers) It seemed to me and maybe I'm just wrong but the pacing was terrible, aka there where a lot of useless shots the director couldn't find any thing else to do with.. so he spend 3-5 minutes of celluloid on climbing down a ladder But underneath it all this movie had more heart then your average crap fare.. it had a cave, a sort of interesting premise (call a devil/troll) through a wiji board and sets and or monster looks that where sort of interesting (and sort of terrible) this movie is definitely cheesy and can be appreciated it for it's uniqueness and it's cheese and really not following the formulaic plot lines we expect (there isn't a plot but even for not having one it's.. not formulaic) I also make a note for those interested that this movie has limited bondage scenes; for those looking for it..

ReGenesis (2004–2008)

Season 1 Amazing..

[5 April 2006]

I don't usually post comments on stuff I like, I cannot possibly name a list of favorite sci-fi or favorite sci-fi shows but I can name some contenders and this one is on that list so far..

Since I'm a bit of a amateur scientist.. I can understand a lot of the concepts this show talks about because I do enough scientific reading to understand. (basically speaking this deals with a lot of modern scientific issues)

And I have to say that the first two hour episode of series 1 is just amazing.. I would highly recommend to people interested in a science related fiction story.. with a plot! (and this is science.. it's a science drama really)

I can't say however watching season 2 at the moment that I'm as awe inspired as season 1.. but we'll see..

Primer (2004)

Of course time travel is a bad idea (theoratically)..

[5/10 · 28 November 2005]

It's as simple as this.. you travel back in time you BREATH, you occupy space and you can destroy the future time line.. it really is that simple.. (you should see The Simpson's Halloween episode (forgot the number) where homer kills a fly in the dino age and changes the future.. smart kind of comedy)

If your looking for theory's from science on time travel believe I saw a article in Scientific American around 1998-2000

Any way, my first interpretation of the movie and there's probably not going to be another.. (I mean I won't re-watch for a hidden message/missed plot what not) uninteresting characters, uninteresting dialog, uninteresting plot.. (in the end) and has already been mentioned confusion..

Maybe, I don't like this movie because I'm interested in time travel and it makes 0 sense and has 0 logic.. But to be honest if these characters where experiencing time travel and talked about the logic involved it did not TRANSLATE to the screen.. hence the director did not want to or didn't know how to explain this to the audience..

Any way I consider myself a intellectual and I didn't think in this movie.. I starred dumbly and just said, wtf! Maybe this works on people not interested in time travel.. btw.. for the record and scientifically speaking it really bothered me when these guys where EXPERIMENTING that they just jumped into the box (after being some what afraid of it) and just let loose.. the real truth is some one would have sent a Test animal into the box.. also the scene where there doing the WATCHES was poor.. A real director making a real movie if he was showing that watches go back in time.. he would show shots of the CLOCK FACES

The Time Machine a H.G. Wells classic that today of course makes no sense is a better book and movie just do to it's classic nature and it's sheer storytelling, this is not.. for those that liked it you've just been sapped into a bad indie project; if it makes you think that's okay but for some of us this concept is better served on a episode of the outer limits or stng

Alone in the Dark (2005)

When I watched the opening story flow by..

[2/10 · 26 November 2005]

I thought is this a comedy? Are these people serious that is the funniest thing I've heard of.. and then the movie played on and they where serious..

I believe I had already read that the movie was considered bad by IMDb folks but I had forgotten when I finally played this one.. I'm sure most people can sum up synopsis on this movie.. Uwe Boll is a terrible director and this movie is really, really bad.. To be honest I think the opening story is great comedy (if you start looking at it like a MST3k kind of thing)

I told my friends about this terrible movie.. and then I started playing the opening sequence to see there reaction.. they never made it past the opening sequence on there insistence.. ;) Any way to sum up.. don't watch unless you do MST3k impressions or study bad movies to recognize good ones.. Ed Wood's movies are great in comparison to this pile..

American Experience: Guerrilla: The Taking of Patty Hearst (2004) Season 17, Episode 12

It's sad..

[6/10 · 24 October 2005]

to watch this documentary and not have clear answers. The documentary leaves you with a confusion answer, I guess if I'm understanding right that's what was left for people in the 60's and 70's and still today? And I'd say the confusion is what happened to Patty Hearst and what was the mindset of the SLA. Both things we don't see.. It's also hard to understand from the interview's what the Interviewers roles are in the TOTAL picture, this I think this can effectively be blamed on the documentary makers.

One thing this story does recant is human stupidity, which is a age old tale that is endless and never ceases and ironically re-occurs a lot.

Futureworld (1976)

Maybe, I'm just unique to live in a time of bad sequels..

[7/10 · 4 September 2005]

I didn't think this was such a bad movie.. listening to people rave on here and looking at this score of this movie, you'd think it was bad but I honestly thought it was better then Westworld it asked better questions then I recall in Westworld..

In my era of sequel crap movies we have movies like Jason 2,3 - Hellraiser 3, 4, 5 - Scream 2, 3 - Tomb Raider I, II (can you say no plot, whatsoever) Movies that replay the same formula not so well; they replay the formula badly.. this is a sequel movie and yet it has a plot totally different from the old one.. and people find this a bad thing? My god this plot is much better in my opinion, the acting was about the same maybe better then the original "Westworld" maybe.. in both movies you have crappy 70's clothing, you have unbelievable technology that I'm not sure was given a date meaning it could have been the 70's it could have been this year There are examples of even Michael Crichton's sequels being bad.. for example I think Jurassic Park II is utter trash.. sad that it was one of the highest grossing movies ever.. I just think with it's two parts one in the jungle and one part king kong, it's terrible..

So back to this movie.. I liked some of the questions raised in this movie.. the biggest question that was raised in my mind though was.. Was Delos run by robots or by humans?? for a second I almost thought the plot was going to say "Robots" which came to my mind as lame/cliché.. but the thing is they didn't clarify, which was probably great.. (there was no real main bad guy to gather information on) the invisible heads of daxos we never really saw.. truth is humans was the better bad guy.. also when there getting the plot explained by there tour guide he says there replacing the humans to save the planet and help Delos.. but it seems more like he believes the save the planet jive, when we know if a corporation could replace leaders they'd do it for there profit and own gain, no one else's..

So my point is this plot is a thinking man's movie, it leaves more to think about.. and maybe most of you old "Westworld" fans weren't looking for thinking, you where looking for rehashed Westworld II Honestly and thinking about it like I do, I think this movie beats out Westworld as a movie.. Futureworld is not spectacular by any means but missing a true/real bad guy makes you think, who is really behind this? What is the real purpose? Because what the robot says only meshes a little bit with what we know about ourselves and our own capabilities I mean honestly today if the runners of Daxos came out with a type written statement that they had replaced all our human leaders cause they thought we where going to destroy ourselves and there sorry! Would you by that B.S.? no one trusts corporations that much.. the immediate reactions of critics would have been they where controlling our politicians to ease up sanctions on there own company's (among other reasons), exactly by the way as they do today in corporate/politician dollar America.. least in this case our politicians are still humans and can think of themselves rather then "I obey, master" As I said this is a thinking movie (and perhaps not even by design) all these scenario's are purely imagined and not even totally in part about what the movies is about.. but as I say the movie makes you imagine who's in charge, who is the real enemy..

Independence Day (1996)

Generally, well done.. certainly not perfect..

[7/10 · 1 September 2005]

It's been about 10 years since I've seen this in the theater (or getting close) in theater my reaction was generally mixed.. didn't hate it.. and generally liked it.. I do a re-watch on average of every 4-5 years..

I think in some ways this movie details a great scenario of what if, we where attacked.. chaos in the streets (certainly maybe not as much as was shown) Use of Nuclear Veapons or non-use (yes, I did miss-spell weapons) Ability on a short time scale to even be able to react.. and a ability to get organized.. realistically though if the supposed aliens where smarter they would have killed every one by the end of July 2nd in movie terms..

Of all Roland's movies, I like this one best.. still despise Godzilla (some thing about that damn 2nd/4th act with eggs) and can stand to watch "The Day after Tomorrow". He described this movie as a "Popcorn Movie" and that it is.. this movie has a nice array of comedy, acting and style along with a plot that's semi-believable.. (be willing to stretch imagination and the law of odds) And it's one of those movies that has "SHOWY" special effects but it has a actual STORY; with so many ample cheap special effects movies these days.. story/plot some times becomes easily forgotten While theoretically speaking the odds of knowing nothing useful about a alien technology after 40 years of scientific study is borderline stupidity and the odds of attacking a unknown enemy with a computer virus are staggering.. if you look past some of the impossible or impractical and let it slide the movie's enjoyable in all manors including plot I should of course make a note that as always.. I am a total sucker for sci-fi all other stories honestly bore me.. I have too much imagination to be suckered by common Fiction and even some Fantasy, sci-fi's too me are the best movies only because it's possible reach a unknown

Intermedio (2005)

Good God!

[10 April 2005]

Don't be fooled by any of these it's a indie film or they did okay with what they had.. this movie is generally awful and the only redeeming feature it had was use of it's sets and props and I mean for me it wasn't the same cave they kept going through; it was more like some of the boarded up houses that where interesting. (though Edward ramming into the plywood boarded wall multiple times was kind of funny/stupid)

At the core this movie is original and it's crap.. sorry.. For a guy like Edward Furlough to do this he was either desperate or became a has been.. he's had a remarkable on and off career with T2 his starting point and American History X his finishing point that I know off.. and then bad horrors like Pet Sematary 2 and the like/ilk (he shows several movies in production for 2005, whether these are all total garbage like this one only time will tell)

The dialogue is poor, the acting generally laughable.. the sound not too great and the bad guy just ridiculous. Sure it was shot cheap but if you gave a talented director the same budget and actors he/she could do it 400% better IMHO. (maybe the director was smoking the weed, the characters where supposed to pick up ;) )

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

A re-review..

[3/10 · 2 April 2005]

A modern scare film? Yep it is..

The hippies, peaceniks and environmentalists got together to deliver us a fear film.. I didn't recognize it when watching it only 2 years ago that it was a fear film but that's exactly what it is..

There's no difference between this film and films the nazi made about us in ww2 and the same films we made about them.. this is pure propaganda and speaks only to those.. that believe in aliens, 9/11 conspiracy plots, faked moon landings, peak oil and major environmentalism What I can say is this film does push buttons, make you ask questions and ultimately just forget about it.. It's a scare film.. so if your scarred get in your houses, lock your doors and stock up for that nuclear winter we all know is coming when bush provokes the Chinese into nuclear war..

Battlefield Earth (2000)

Defender of a underdog..

[4/10 · 28 February 2005]

Okay, so this movie isn't the greatest but I'm a scifi fan so it automatically leaps beyond other normal movies for me just because I think scifi/fantasy requires MORE imagination then most of your other types of movies..

Pepper isn't awful and neither is Travolta/Whitaker but there not awesome either at the core I'd say this movie is missing most likely a creative script or just really good direction..

This movie lacks some thing but I can't pinpoint exactly what it is.. words like excitement, caring for the characters etc. seems to narrow it down..

A scan of the director's career shows nothing but bomb's since he first got started (big mistake choosing him then) the only redeeming movie he made based on IMDb was in 1982 called "The Sender" it's on my todo list to see as well

Any way let me point out what I like about this movie - Use of nuclear weapons (always peaks my interest) - Interesting some times technology like the transportation at the end and the device used to teach Johnny to be smart - A plot that likely could have been much better your typical Star Wars plot almost..

I think my synopsis here is that the Director failed in the mission on this movie and since he has repeat failures here on record, (all the actors involved have proved there talent or a director has made them look good in other movies say Travolta/Whitaker in Phenomenon and Pepper in Snow Walker/Private Ryan etc.) I'd say he was a poor choice for the job.. Maybe the huge Budget on this movie went up the Director's nose

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Sad that a director/visionary could go so low..

[4/10 · 29 December 2004]

I think there's about 1,000+ words to describe how disappointing this movie is for fans of the genre and fans of science fiction, I look to science fiction cause it's the only interesting thing my mind I can't predict well.. And so in the original trilogy we saw much of that greatness in this cheap cash in we saw little of the original..

I finally wanted to know more about why Lucas the man behind the series destroyed the former glory of the series and a little research easily turned it up Gary Kurtz original producer of the first 2 of the original trilogy is largely responsible, a good interview with Kurtz done by FilmForce shows that he was responsible for hiring the director of The Empire Strikes Back and for keeping the film highly original Kurtz described a concept which I think is true of Lucas's writing and directing work to date, he described a movie term called the "Roller-coaster Ride" and that's what Phantom Menace is clearly it's a roller-coaster ride without question..

Why should movies be great? Why should movies inspire to push our moral/social limits? Why should movies have story or imagination? When all we need is a good ride and this is sadness to phantom menace because it comes from the push of movies to a roller-coaster ride..

It's easy to spot the roller-coaster ride in the sequel or #3 in the trilogy "Return of the Jedi" why a 2nd death star? why the ewoks? Where was the originality in #3 we see the originality sapped and the beginning of plagiarisms And Lucas's career continues in this saga with more Indiana Jones with Willow and with Howard the Duck.. there is a extra feature on the DVD of Willow where Ron Howard (Director) and George Lucas (producer writer) talk and you can tell the relationship between two great artists is strained and this was the truth in every movie Lucas made that was good he was strained in both Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back he was challenged and pushed to do better..

In these movies he is not challenged he is in charge and he wants what he wants.. he's lazy and he let's ILM cover his butt on challenges he doesn't want to handle..

George was Director, Executive Producer and Writer on this movie that means that every thing you saw was what he wanted there was no one to say no to him, no one to say what if we did this better, he shot every scene with his movie in mind and in this case with no one there to tell him his vision missed what the public wanted.. this is his movie, this movie will not connect with a audience and therefore it's just wasted cause we know George's film past that George could connect with audiences really well he just didn't want too he was going his own way.. so this film will be forgotten and his original legacy will live on..

This movie is a sad excuse because it provides little enlightenment and shows a once semi-competent producer/visionary/director in a utter-cash in half -ss attempt And I recently watched a re-work of this movie dubbed MAGNOLIAFAN this one edited and slightly changed movie increased the overall feel of this movie by 25%, I have seen this movie perhaps 3 times now and this re-work beat out my previous viewing experiences.. this re-work helps make this movie better and if Director's continue to get rewarded (our money) in the theater for sub-par crap then the Roller-coaster movie cycle and re-works will continue to be in our future..

No one who wants more from movies should ever support the industry in failures such as this one.. the pocketbook speaks to these guys more then anything.. I think old George has gotten too much approval for sub-par work and I'm sure he thanks his marketing people most generously

The Deep End (2001)

One big plot hole..

[4/10 · 9 September 2001]

The accident/murder killed it for me too.. perhaps if the screen writer or director had taken some time to do character development it might have worked more..

The performances where good.. it just seems that the movie had no point given one plot flaw or failure to give rational explanation of decision based on flaw..