nankipoo Reviews

Cleopatra (1963)

A Leaden Performance by ET

[5/10 · 6 October 2004]

I wouldn't presume to question the acting abilities of either Rex Harrison or Richard Burton. Both actors left admirable legacies and deserve the credit they received while living, and continue to receive now. Both Harrison (Caesar) and Burton (Anthony) bring their acting depth to their parts that make us realize why they're revered. More than that, we care about their characters.

On the other hand, or on the other planet, we have the world's most overrated actress, Elizabeth Taylor, bringing a "presence" to the screen that could only be equalled by most high school senior girls in a Spring play. ET plays Cleopatra with all of the consummate woodeness that only years of practice and misguided praise could account for. The film cost millions and millions of dollars in 1963, and gave Burton and Taylor a showcase for their off-screen hijinks, but failed to raise the bar even a little, except for the jaw-dropping sets.

By the time ET's "Cleopatra" finally expires, I was remembering the old 1934 version with Claudette Colbert and wishing for the over-the-top style of Cecil B. DeMille.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Nothing to compare to.

[10/10 · 8 September 2004]

I purposely put off seeing this film when it was initially released, and have just seen it for the first time on DVD in my home, with my children sitting close by. The furor raised by the critics and commentators concerning the ultra-realistic punishments and abuse heaped on Jesus in this movie kept me away, I'm sorry to say. When I finally did sit down and watch it, it wasn't the scourging or the crucifixion that stayed with me, but the masterful manner in which Mel Gibson had unfolded this most familiar of stories. There was no wasted motion or dialogue, even though the film is just over 2 hours long. I don't think that one has to be a theologian to understand that "The Passion" indicts all of us (humanity) equally; personally, I think that the charges of anti-semitism are empty and misplaced. The Bible clearly states that Jesus voluntarily gave himself to be The Sacrifice, and that includes everyone, from Caiaphas to Pilate to me and you. Real people were certainly involved in seeing to Jesus' physical suffering and death, but I shudder to think what I would have done if I had lived in Jerusalem in those days.

This film is absolutely a must-see for anyone who thought that any predecessor film didn't fully depict Christ's agony. It also does something that I have never seen in a film about Jesus: it shows Him at home with His mother, working as a carpenter, and sharing a humorous moment with her. With that brief scene, Gibson shows us the humanity of Jesus: He did laugh and smile, and He got hungry. Usually, storytellers create a cool, scripture-quoting Jesus, who dies as if He were taking a nap. But not here. When Gibson's Jesus dies, you will feel relief. "The Passion" has taken this story and asked us to look at what happened when unbelievable cruelty was swallowed up by an even more incredible love.

Much better than I imagined it could be. 9/10

Jezebel (1938)

Better than GWTW?

[10/10 · 20 August 2004]

Actually, I believe that "Jezebel" is a very different film "animal" from "Gone with the Wind". GWTW is a mega-epic, with the whole Civil War and Reconstruction period as backdrops. "Jezebel", on the other hand, plays out over a much shorter period of time, historically. I'm not even a big Bette Davis fan, but I'll say that if "Jezebel" doesn't convert you, you can't be impressed. All of the performances are excellently crafted and satisfyingly deep, as would be expected from a stage play taken to the big screen. I love GWTW, but "Jezebel" works as well or better at capturing the same basic period in US history, while also keeping you waiting expectantly for the heroine's next outlandish maneuver. William Wyler was one of the great directors, and his gift shines through in every scene. I give "Jezebel" 10/10 stars, and Davis more than deserved her Oscar.

Green Acres (1965–1971)

Only gets better with time

[19 August 2004]

I kinda re-discovered GA after having watched it as a kid. Back then, it seemed funny enough, but I wasn't intelligent enough to appreciate the show's genius for absurd situations and dialogue. Of course it helped tremendously that the cast was perfect, and that the chemistry among the actors was ideal. I watch the re-runs nearly every day and am freshly amazed at the wacky plots and how Oliver (Eddie Albert) always finds himself virtually alone on this distant "planet" of Hooterville. Even the lamer shows are still very funny. Too bad television had to "grow up" and produce "serious" comedies like "All in the Family" and "MASH", two distinctly shallow and smart-alec shows, void of all of Green Acres' charm and endearing insanity.

Bringing Up Baby (1938)

Bringing Up Baby & Casablanca

[5/10 · 12 August 2004]

Trust your basic instincts and pass on the chance to view, or re-view this tedious "classic". Pushed for decades as the "quintessential screwball comedy", "BUB" is right up there, in my own opinion, with "Casablanca", whose cheering sections drown out its legitimate critics and intimidate movie buffs so they march along lockstep. The movie is simply a dated, stagey, endurance test...for the audience. "My Man Godfrey" is a screwball comedy, and keeps its viewers floating; same for "It happened One Night".

Will someone please put the "Baby" out of its misery? Part of the problem is the "Katherine Hepburn is a Goddess Society". Sorry, Ms. Hepburn's acting style is more of an acquired taste, like esgargot. Her best work was "The African Queen", a true classic. "Bringing Up Baby" is as funny as great-grandpa's high-buttoned shoes.

Still We Believe: The Boston Red Sox Movie (2004)

Imperfect but resonant.

[10/10 · 21 July 2004]

First, this movie is definitely for seasoned Red Sox fans, who will swear they've said the same lines used by fans in this film, or felt the same "code-blue" emotional highs and lows. If you hate the Sox, of course you won't bother with "Still We Believe"; but it might just spur on a newcomer to enter the madness with the rest of us, who feel weird when the Team appears on the very brink of finally entering Valhalla, only to have our worst, worst fears played out before the rest of baseball fandom.

The movie follows the entire 2003 Red Sox season in what I felt was a very interesting and engaging way. True, I think more highlights of the games would've helped, but we learn more about the "terminal" disorder of being a Sox fan from the expressions on the faces of the people chosen to "star" in this documentary than we would from images already etched in our collective memory. A great effort nonetheless, and worth watching. 7/10

Spartacus (2004)

See it for Alan Bates

[6/10 · 21 April 2004]

Alan Bates' Agrippa is about the only reason I'd recommend this edition of "Spartacus". Olivier's (1960) Crassus towers over the one dished up here, and Kirk Douglas' title role certainly dwarfs the one offered by Vlicisc Globvc. The scenery is good, though. Bates can't help but shine. He was a truly great actor. Too often, I found myself checking the clock to see how much longer the movie would last, and I really hated that, since my expectations were high, and I'm partial to historical films. This re-make reminded me of the similar attempt to reconstruct Orson Welles' "Magnificent Ambersons" a few years ago. The sets were great, but the acting was incredibly limp (Bates not included).

Point of No Return (1993)

Good suspense; well acted thriller

[10/10 · 17 February 2004]

I've never seen "La Femme Nikita", so when I saw "Point of No Return", I had no point of reference by which to judge the merits of the second film as a worthy re-make of the non-American original. I just watched the movie. I really like this film. I can suspend my disbelief for 2 hours and just enjoy the incredible premise for what it is. I thought the supporting cast was fine, including Dermot Mulroney as J.P. As the film went along, I was drawn in and was never tempted to switch channels (I saw it uncut on some premium channel). I wanted to catch every scene. Which brings me to the main reason I find this totally implausible movie hard to pull myself away from: Bridget Fonda. It's that simple. In this movie, she'd get my vote for the most irresistible woman ever filmed. Absolutely gorgeous, whether she's wearing a business suit or just her own skin. She plays her part perfectly: I particularly like the scene where she's in the supermarket trying to buy food like an actual everyday shopper. Another good scene is when "Uncle Bob" comes to dinner and the tension builds really well. With this movie alone, Bridget Fonda gives me the best reason I've ever had for buying a large screen television. I might try and catch "La Femme Nikita" sometime, somewhere. Maybe. As for now, I think I'm pitifully hooked on the re-make...but that's not bad at all. Movie: 6/10 BFonda: 11/10

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

A Masterpiece. But don't tell screenit.com

[10/10 · 24 December 2003]

First, I want to thank IMDB for allowing users to vote on films, rather than having a reviewer on staff. By the time a film receives tens of thousands of votes, it becomes clear that there is more to a movie than a die-hard core group of admirers could conjure up.

Take your children to "Return of the King"...then take them again. It's scary and chilling in some places, but those incidents are outweighed by the wonderful examples of leadership, bravery, dedication and undying hope, along with some gentle humor that (believe it or not) doesn't go the typical Hollywood route of being obnoxious or gross. It really is a film for all ages. Really. I can easily ignore the random IMDB user who dismisses the LOTR Trilogy because I know that those who sing its praises aren't all cave-dwellers who have to "escape" to Middle Earth to feel alive. In fact, I'd bet that a lot of the film Trilogy's most devoted fans are people who have never read the books, but are responding to 3 of the most moving, beautiful, and memorable films ever made. LOTR speaks to the best parts of human nature: courage, loyalty, commitment, and true friendship, just to name a few. As a parent, I am indebted to PJ and his colleagues for bringing an uplifting and inspirational story to the screen; one I can bring my family to and not cringe every ten minutes. Yes, these are hobbitts, elves, dwarfs, wizards, humans and one very nasty eye, but the lessons are here and now; good for the home and for the world today. Most all agree. I've found that, almost without exception, the "External Reviews" for LOTR as listed by IMDB, are 90% ecstatic, with the remaining 10% still conceding that the Trilogy is both exceptional and absolutely worth seeing. So, when I popped over to ScreenIt.com (which presents itself as a parents' guide to films), I was both amazed and disgusted that their invisible "reviewer" had virtually nothing good to say about ROTK. The review was totally biased against all aspects of the movie. The site begrudgingly yielded the film a 6/10 rating, complaining all the way. As someone said here earlier: to those who rate LOTR 0/10, please cancel your registration to IMDB, for there simply is no intelligent way that a person can slam these movies across the board. And so I'm hoping to alert parents and moviegoers alike that not all "professional" reviewers feel the need for objectivity or responsibility, even in this case, which seems clear-cut to most of us who have seen the films and who would wholeheartedly recommend them to anyone who asked, or anyone who didn't ask as well!! I suppose that in the case of anything that is unabashedly positive, there are always those who (like Saruman) cannot resist the shadows. Time will prove that the Trilogy is a milestone and a masterwork. And then misguided websites with axes to grind will be exposed as lacking the basic credentials to be advising parents, or anyone else for that matter. Again, take your children to ROTK over these holidays and you'll have even one more reason to celebrate.

King of Kings (1961)

Not an easy subject.

[10/10 · 24 November 2003]

Any life of Christ is going to be extremely difficult to produce because you're dealing with words and actions that are known by virtually every literate person in the Western hemisphere. I think that "King of Kings" reflects the reverence that producers of that time still had for their subject. By the time we get to "The Last Temptation of Christ", the gloves are completely off with regard to the central character and notions of respect. To us in 2003, "King of Kings" seems somewhat unreal, because we just aren't motivated by the same things that informed the filmmakers in 1961. Today, disrespect is seen as intellectualism.

Reptilicus (1961)

The best of the worst!

[1/10 · 19 November 2003]

Without a doubt the best BAD movie ever made. From beginning to end, "Reptilicus" has it all:

1) Weird Location: Copenhagen 2) Bad Dubbing: Phonetic English over Danish 3) Cheesiest Monster: Rubber snake hand puppet thingy 4) Worst acting: Carl Ottosen as Gen. Mark Grayson, plus the whole cast! 5) Worst stock footage: Obviously unrelated to the movie 6) Worst special effects: Acid vomit + cut-out farmer entree' 7) Worst crowd control: Copenhagenagers running amok!

I know there are CHEAPER monster flicks out there, but "Reptilicus" gets the honorary "OsKar" for totally bad in all major respects. I dare you to watch it and not laugh... a lot.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Great on several levels

[10/10 · 29 August 2003]

"The Two Towers" is every bit as engrossing and well-developed as its predecessor, plus I believe its new characters (those not introduced in "Fellowship") are some of the most intriguing ever conceived and put on film. You have Gollum, King Theoden, Eowen, Faramir, Grima, Treebeard and many others. Peter Jackson chose the absolute best actors for his trilogy, I'll give no ground on that point. One might argue about Gollum and Treebeard's categorization as "actors", but I say that whether they're CG or human, someone had to write the script and imagine the expressions. The existing characters are developed even more deeply in TT. Sam's humanity, Frodo's compassion, Aragorn's evolving kingship, Arwen's deep love, Gandalf's new transcendent presence, all add richly to the middle chapter of the trilogy. For epic "sweep", you'll have to go far to match TT. The scenes at Helm's Deep, with all of the defenders bunkered in as the numberless forces of Sauron converge on them, is the very picture of desperation, and Jackson masterfully gives us both breadth and detail. Gollum's split-personality conflicts as "Smeagol/Gollum" are nothing short of perfect, and unlike mainstream movies, we aren't spoonfed the reasoning behind his condition, we just get to puzzle it out for ourselves, like intelligent humans! What a relief. Howard Shore's score is again one I'd buy for myself.

I think that the main criticism of TT on this board is that the movie is dull, or that it relies too heavily on special effects. On the "dullness" comment, I'd say that what's one viewer's "dullness" is another's character development, dialogue, and foreshadowing. It's called "filmmaking", along the lines of Kubrick and the Merchant/Ivory team. On the special effects comments, I'd counter that if special effects add to the plot and don't distract, then I'm perfectly OK with them. Now, I wouldn't be drawn to a film totally comprised of special effects, but TT is nothing like that. It's employment of them is only for the sake of plot and believeability. Would you want some guy playing Gollum, heavily made up, and totally false? No thanks. I bought the general release DVD yesterday, instead of waiting for the extended version, which I will purchase also. I only hope that TT's extended version is as fantastic as Fellowship's turned out to be.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Amazing

[10/10 · 23 September 2002]

I came to this film expecting to be bored, but now that I've watched it about 7 or 8 times all the way through, I'm amazed at how fantastic a movie it is. The cast is absolutely perfect...that's the only word for it. The story is totally entrancing, the locations and the sets are jaw-droppingly beautiful and mystical, and the screenplay is practically flawless. There is so much screen presence at work here: decades of great acting experience and faces that could only have played these parts. If the creators of this film can repeat the magic they captured here, then we may have a real milestone on our hands as movie fans. Don't let ANYONE tell you this movie wasted their time; that sounds more like a comment from a person who's lost their heart. "Lord of the Rings" is exquisite.

King of Kings (1961)

Still a great film

[10/10 · 22 May 2002]

I saw this film when it came out, on a big screen. The music, the intensity, the reverence, all just blew me away. The Sermon on the Mount scene is a great one, among many. The image I'll always carry with me is not of Hunter, but of my Dad, with tears streaming down his face, as Christ teaches the Lord's Prayer. This movie has some real staying power.

The First Wives Club (1996)

Predictable.

[1/10 · 5 April 2002]

Today, this "movie" is holding a 5.5 rating on the IMDB, but it should be much, much lower. The ONLY draw here is to see the 3 main actresses exploiting the over used theme of "men as pigs"...the good news is that the "film" is probably almost totally forgotten.

E.T. (1982)

O.R. = Overrated

[1/10 · 5 April 2002]

I hate to play the "heretic", but this flick is mildly entertaining, at best. It was, and is, about as much of a "classic" as a Cabbage Patch Doll, or a "Tickle Me Elmo". If anything, it's a monument to MARKETING.

The Magnificent Ambersons (2002 TV Movie)

Jonathan Rhys-Meyers' portrayal of George Minafer

[1/10 · 4 February 2002]

In response to those defenders of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers' portrayal of George Minafer in A&E's "Magnificent Ambersons", I can only say that watching JRM in this role is just plain painful. I suppose the director gets to share responsibility with his leading man, but at what point do we just chalk this up to a bad job? All actors and actresses have "off" films. Perhaps this is that "bad day at the office" for JRM. What he's done before, or will do in the future has little bearing here. This role calls for a subtlety that did not show up in Rhys-Meyers' performance. Calling this an "interpretation" makes intelligent film lovers scratch their heads; and I believe even the professional critics had problems with this bizarre display. This "Ambersons" is destined for the ash heap, unfortunately.

Boy Meets World (1993–2000)

Would someone open a window?

[22 January 2002]

Sorry if I don't go into extensive detail about this excuse for a television show. I will stop only to say that Ben Savage is as annoying as an actor can be without coming out of the screen and spitting in your face. He and his brother, the other annoying Savage, deserve a special Lifetime Achievement Award for obnoxiousness. Only Disney could afford to air this miserable program.

The Magnificent Ambersons (2002 TV Movie)

A near miss.

[1/10 · 14 January 2002]

Re-making a so-called flawed masterpiece must be a very daunting task. For anyone who's seen the original 1942 version, I'd have to believe that this 2002 attempt is a mixed bag, at best. Technically, it's a pleasure to look at: the time periods are represented beautifully; the costumes and sets are perfect; and many of the memorable scenes are recreated word-for-word. But when you get down to the acting, different things begin to happen. Madeleine Stowe and James Cromwell are adequate in their roles, as is William Hootkins. Bruce Greenwood and Gretchen Mol fare much better, in my opinion, bringing real depth to their characters. I'm sorry to say that Jennifer Tilly as Aunt Fanny and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as George Minifer are so overdrawn that I had difficulty caring about them at all. George is so cold and calculating in this version that his character is almost one-dimensional, the same for Tilly's Aunt Fanny, and it hurts to state it, because I dearly love the story of the Ambersons. The '42 version, "flawed" as it supposedly is, has pure magic in it, from its unusual editing, its excellent cast, and its Wellesian pacing and dialog. I'm not so sure we needed an updated view of the Ambersons. 5 out of 10

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

O Brother, This is Excellent!

[10/10 · 14 September 2001]

I am still kicking myself for not seeing this film in the theater when it first came out. Oh well, at least I had the good sense to catch up with it on my local pay-per-view cable channel about a month ago. I can honestly say that I've only been surprised by a movie a few times, and this is one of those times. I saw George Clooney in "The Perfect Storm", and thought he did a very good job in that film, but I wasn't prepared for what "O Brother" had in store! I've seen "Raising Arizona" and "Fargo", and am definitely a Coen fan, but OBWAT is in a league ALL BY ITSELF. It's spirit is simple and poetic, its actors are dead-on, its screenplay is virtually flawless, its cinematography gorgeous, and its soundtrack is one that with have you humming/singing/whistling for a long time after. "Surreal" is a word that comes to mind to describe many of the scenes. The escapees are 3 of the funniest characters you'll ever meet on film; Charles Durning as Gov. Pappy Lee O'Daniel makes me laugh just thinking about his portrayal, along with his "advisors" and his rotund son, Junior; and all of the other supporting characters make for a superb collection of contributors to this rare jewel. I replay my tape of it to the auditorium scene over and over, just to savor the exuberant return of "The Soggy Bottom Boys". If you haven't seen OBWAT, you're missing a treat. 10/10

The Charmer (1987)

See it. Dream it.

[5/10 · 4 April 2001]

This is one masterpiece of a mini-series. The twists and turns of this thriller will leave you remembering it for a LONG time. Havers is perfect, as are the rest of the cast.

Clash of the Titans (1981)

The Clash

[1/10 · 3 April 2001]

Well, I've only got 1,000 words to dig into this "treasure trove" of worm food. But, I have to ask, WHY did they ever cast BURGESS MEREDITH in this lame flick??? And, of course, there's poor Laurence Olivier sitting up there as Zeus, and Maggie Smith, too...so, I suppose the pay must've been worth it for them, but the film never gets to first base as far as engaging the viewer, and seems as lifeless as can be. Now, "Jason and the Argonauts", THERE'S a mythological movie!! Maybe CLASH'S problem was Harry Hamlin...no, I'm SURE he was the problem.