Change Your Image
jdranetz
Reviews
Dracula (2013)
Great show, but don't like use of magic.
First, some have taken acceptation to Jonathan Rhys Meyers' "American accent". They have to keep in mind, he is not playing an American. He is playing a 15th century eastern European warlord passing himself off as an American.
I always preferred some far fetched biological reason for vampires, rather than some mystical. Like the movie "Daybreakers". So, I was a bit disappointed (spoiler) in the use of mystics to track vampires. But, that's my personal taste. Which would also mean,(SPOILER) I liked the mechanical, real world use of intense electricity to transmit electricity to light bulbs wirelessly. Tesla got himself fired from Westinghouse for diverting large amounts of R&D money to this pet project. It turned out, as shown (SPOILER), doing so would require far more electricity to transmit, than the amount of the usable electricity at the remote location. Today, contactless "charger" pads uses switching magnetic field to physically move tiny generator parts in special wireless recharge batteries for cell phones, etc. I think they have already fallen out of use, due to tiny size of the actual battery carried in the battery generator pack.
John Carter (2012)
Underrated and underpromoted
I heard what a box office bomb this movie was, I set my expectations low when I got our Netflix Blu-Ray loaner. This was a GREAT movie. Exciting, action packed. I knew of the John Carter of Mars books when some of my friends talked about them. However, when I first hear "John Carter", I thought of Noah Wiley's character Dr. John Carter on "E.R." The title and promotional material fell short descriptively. The title needed to convey that this was 19th century Sci-Fi, like a story from Jules Verne or H.G. Wells. I have the suspicion that someone a Disney wanted this project to fail in order to necessitate Disney's eventual purchase of Lucas Films. Someone had a private agenda that was served at the expense of this movie, film makers, and stockholders. The fact that this movie did very well abroad is an indication that the problem was in promotion, not production. Let's hope for a sequel soon. It is worthy of it.
Mockingbird Lane (2012)
Not funny, miscast. No one seemed to have actually watched original show.
The original Munsters were a family that looked like monsters, but acted very normal. Fred Gwynne's Herman was childlike, dim witted, and had poor impulse control. Gwynne had actually raised his voice to a higher octave, mimicking a kooky Aunt he had. He normally had a deep voice. He was not unlike Fred Flintstone or Homer Simpson. Yvonne De Carlo, an actress that had played glamorous roles, in fact, played Lily as a very normal, grounded housewife, who spent much of the time getting Herman and Grandpa out of the trouble they got themselves into with their foolishness. Her shaking her head in frustration and scolding Herman could have been from anyone's own family experience. Eddie acted like a normal kid, but had problems because he looked different. Al Lewis was hilarious as a fast talking, scheming "New York Ashkenazi" (In the same way as Jerry Stiller, or Mel Brooks) Vampire/mad scientist. I have known members of my father's family very similar to him, all most to a "T". It was just SO FUNNY.
I realize this show has been relaunched a number of times, with no success. With Edward Hermann, and John Shuck, trying to fill Gwynne's shoes. Any effort to emulate Gwynne just didn't go over.
I can see why the producers of this show wanted to take a different direction. Grandpa is evil, not kooky this time. Lily is too glamorous and magical ever to touch an oven mitt. Eddie looks normal, but transform into a very dangerous creature on full moons. Herman, this time, seems the only normal one, even Marilyn is a bit strange, and trapped in 1960.
It is as though these writers had heard about the Munsters, couldn't get hold of a copy of an episode, and watched the "Addams Family" instead. That was a marginally more normal appearing family that were a bit on the sociopathic side. It was John Astin's "Gomez Addams" that seemed the normal one getting the rest out of trouble. WRITERS, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME SHOWS. It's like watching "I Dream of Jeanie" to study "Bewitched".
I am embarrassed for Eddie Izzard in this. I have come to find him a very talented comedic and serious actor. It was a crime that FX canceled his show "The Riches" after two seasons. I am sure he must have had problems with the material they handed to him. Jerry O'Connell, it just seemed like he didn't care. His character was no different than the other times we've seen him, save "Stand By Me", it was as though his character from "Sliders" slid into another alternate universe were he was Herman Munster.
American Psycho II: All American Girl (2002)
Shatner thought it was going to be directed by the more famous Morgan Freeman
William Shatner thought this movie was going to be directed by the more famous Morgan Freeman. AFter he signed, and found out that it was not the "Driving Miss Daisy" Morgan Freeman, he tried to get out of doing the movie. Not only does Capt. Kirk phone in his performance as the college professor looking for his new assistant, he seems to text message it in. When upset, Shatner in the past passively aggressively performs his contractual duties. A famous audio out take from a documentary narration has his give a narration "exactly" as the director directed him, sounding void of an enthusiasm. He argues with the director on having the director read the part if he wants it that way. In American Pycho 2, its as though, after feeling tricked into performing in this movie, he deliberately gives a "work to rule" performance. "Work to Rule" being a union workers, particularly teachers, tactic of providing work as described only in job description, and refusing to do anything out side of it; no coaching sports, no after school help, or any other task no mentioned specifically in the job description. Here, Shatner, "Works to Rule" to satisfy the requirements of his contract, giving a a completely bland performance, void of any emotion.
American Gun (2005)
Movies have to have unique names!
Not to be confused with a 2002 movie starring James Coburn.
This is an insult to him, and his last piece of work!!! Movies have to have unique names! Is that so difficult. I'm giving a bad rating just for this fact!
Aren't there enough words in our vocabulary?
It really does a disservice to the earlier film of the same title if it is not a remake.
It's confusing for the viewer and may take away potential income from the previous film.
SAG requires all actors to have unique names, why not the same with movie titles? Is it so difficult, Richard Dean Anderson had to stick the "Dean" in because of the existence of Richard Anderson, known by many as Oscar Goldman on Six Million Dollar Man. Let us not forget Bill Macy from "Maude" and "The Jerk", still a cut up in his 80's, , and William H. Macy frequent David Manet collaborator. Jeff Dranetz
Alexander (2004)
I had expected the "Revisted" edition to fill in plot holes, but instead.........................................
I had expected the extended revisited edition would have had deleted scenes inserted, filling in plot holes. Instead, each scene seemed extended; Clietus is driving us nuts, kill him already! And of course more needless sodomy, a cringing amount of sodomy. How many times do we have to see Alexander with that effeminate Persian dude. I had expected more scenes like the execution of Bessus, who betrayed Darius. For regicide, Alexander, in history, had him pulled apart by bent back trees. I really would have like to have seen that. I would have like to have seen the siege of Tyre, also. Instead, we get more sodomy! I would have like to have seen the crushing of the Greek rebellion, early in his reign. Instead, sodomy. Did Issus and Gugamella have to be compositted? I would have preferred that they were reenacted separately.
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
A better movie was made, then was released.
I saw ST:Nemesis when it initially came out. I was confused and disappointed. While having plenty of action, the plot did not seem to make sense; why was Shinzon wanting to destroy Earth? Why were some Senators helping him? Why was Troi some vindictive against the telepathic Remian. Recently, I got to see the movie again on AMC, running time 150 with commercials. The original ran 116 minutes. There were scenes I never got to see before; depiction of Shinzon's enslavement, Riker and Troi in bedroom, scenes regarding examination and reconstruction of Data's "brother", more footage in Romulan senate, exteriors of Romulus Senate building after zoom in on planet. The execs at Paramount did not understand what Star Trek is all about. It is not an action series in space like Star Wars, which rennouned for it's lousy dialog. Star Trek is a drama, that happens to take place in the future with some action thrown in. Had the movie been released with these "extra" scenes, undoutbably, it would have done much better. Paramount did the everyone who hand in making this film, and everyone who first saw this film a disservice. No wonder after this experience, Patrick Stewart said he was not going to play Picard again.