rbsjrx Reviews

Baby's Day Out (1994)

Guilty pleasure, perhaps...

[9/10 · 17 May 2009]

...but I really love this movie! It's a pity this was released on the coattails of "Home Alone", since it's inevitably perceived as a knock-off. But the comparison is really unfair. "Home Alone" featured McCauley Culkin as annoying, precocious, and self-sufficient far beyond his years. The criminals who were his foils were reminiscent of The Three Stooges in their ineptitude. The one quality both Culkin and the criminals shared was a being mean spirited to some degree.

Baby Bink in "Baby's Day Out" is a true innocent who survives on luck while remaining adorably unaffected. His criminal foils are more reminiscent of Laurel & Hardy than The Three Stooges - cleverer and more subtle. In this case, the quality shared by Baby Bink and the criminals is innocence and an underlying decency.

The supporting cast is superb, led by Joe Mantegna in one of his best comic roles.

If you're not too jaded to appreciate it, I highly recommend this movie.

Jaws (1975)

Iconic but still less than the sum of its parts

[8/10 · 3 January 2009]

"Jaws" is an iconic American film, as pervasive within its generation as "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Star Wars", "The Godfather", or "2001: A Space Odyssey". However, it remains a flawed film.

So, what's good about it that it achieved icon status? The cast could hardly be better with Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, and Robert Shaw all at the top of their game. John Williams' score is just about perfect. The dialog and pacing are uniformly excellent for a top-notch thriller.

So where does it fall down? First of all, the animatronic shark is somewhat anticlimactic and generally unbelievable. Fortunately, it doesn't get much screen time and what it has doesn't leave the audience too much time to think. And that brings us to the second problem. Spielberg failed to achieve the suspension of disbelief that the film requires. Although the audience doesn't have quite enough time to see the holes in the plot or the shabbiness of the FX, both are lurking in the viewers' collective subconscious.

Everyone should see "Jaws" at some point in their lives, but I can understand those from later generations wondering what the big deal was.

Leverage (2008–2012)

Generally positive, but the jury's still out

[8/10 · 8 December 2008]

I could tell from the trailers that Leverage would be the kind of show I'd enjoy - good guys vs. bad guys without the ambiguity of the legal system to get in the way. It did indeed deliver on that promise. It was cleverly paced and scripted and populated with interesting, likable characters.

So why is the jury still out? The short answer is that I DVR'ed it and watched it more than once.

Although it's slick, the script had holes it just hoped you wouldn't notice. When compared to a show with really clever scripts (e.g. Burn Notice), I found too many "wait a minute" moments - places where your successful suspension of disbelief depends on the viewer's short attention span or lack of reasoning ability. I won't drop spoilers to name some of the more obvious ones - if anyone doesn't notice them, who am I to point them out?

There's a lot of talent in this series. I only hope that in the future they allow the scriptwriters a little more time to work out the kinks before shooting.

Burn Notice (2007–2013)

Almost a 10

[9/10 · 8 December 2008]

Burn Notice is that most rare and refreshing of TV shows - one with truly clever scripts that doesn't assume the viewers have millisecond attention spans and the IQs of ornamental shrubbery! More than being simply an entertaining actions show with undercurrents of humor, it is also a showcase of the ways that most action shows may be criticized - one that proves that "intelligent" and "realistic" can be paired with "entertainment" without creating an oxymoron.

So, why not 10 out of 10? Simple - none of the characters are all that likable. This is, I suppose, a side effect of the show's attention to realism. Still, there are simply too many character flaws to really root for everyone. Michale Westin (our hero) is a realistic spy - which is to say someone who can easily blend in and be overlooked. His mother? I find myself rooting for her to succumb to her multi-pack per day smoking habit. His brother is pretty much a waste of groceries and best left unmentioned. His bast friend Sam (the always excellent Bruce Campbell) is the only character to strike just the right balance. His erstwhile girlfriend is OK, but I can't help but wonder why he'd ever be attracted to her.

In short, recommended, but I have to say I admire it a little more than I like it. That doesn't stop me from being a regular viewer, but it does keep it from being an all-time fave.

Depth Charge (2008 TV Movie)

UInder Siege, underwater, underwhelming

[2/10 · 2 September 2008]

In "Under Siege", a group of terrorist/extortionist wackos hijack a battleship and threaten devastation with a nuclear cruise missile. Unknown to the bad guys, they don't completely get rid of the crew and the hero (Steven Seagal) kills them off in reverse order of billing.

In "Depth Charge", it's a submarine rather than a battleship, Trident missiles rather than cruise missiles, and pair of generic white and black guys as the heroes. The only big names were Eric Roberts (villain) and Barry Bostwick (president), both of whom I noticed were missing from the credits list.

As a TV movie, I might have given it a 5 or 6 for most of the show. However (and here comes the spoiler) I bumped it down to a 2 because of the ending. The script was passable and the performances reasonable (we won't go into the plot), but the direction was terrible - an example of paint-by-numbers direction! Toward the end, it got rushed which made the big climax anticlimactic. Worse, there was one bad guys left alive on the ship who's conveniently ignored as the two heroes congratulate each other on a job well done.

I really wanted to throw things at the screen because of the director's incompetence! AVOID!!!

The Cassandra Crossing (1976)

A standout in the world of 70's clichéd disaster movies

[8/10 · 23 August 2008]

The 70's were rife with disaster movies. All were formulaic and most were pretty bad. Aside from the formula, they were bad because they hung flimsy plots and characterizations on spectacle and hoped we wouldn't notice. Two that stood apart for me were "The Cassandra Crossing" and "The Towering Inferno". "The Towering Inferno" was among the most technically silly of the bunch, but it had some good performances to redeem it. "The Cassandra Crossing" took a different tack, eschewing spectacle to tell a good tale.

Another hallmark of 70's disaster films were the roster of capable performers who weren't current A-listers. "The Towering Inferno" broke the mold with a number of A-list talents. "The Cassandra Crossing" followed the trend but made up for it with shrewd, savvy casting choices. Richard Harris spent a lot of time flirting with A-list status, but never rose above an A- despite his talent. Sophia Loren is a classic, but this film was made when she was getting old enough that the studio suits considered her a relic. Obviously, Ava Gardner and Burt Lancaster were past their career peaks, but still capable of turning in a better performance that the material could justify. And with only a little screen time, Lee Strasberg delivers a master's class portraying the (minor spoiler) Heroic Sacrifice character.

The two weakest characters were cast for obvious reasons that had nothing to do with the film - O.J. Simpson at the height of his celebrity, Ann Turkel because she was married to Richard Harris. Another interesting point is the international flavor of the cast. Ingrid Thulin, in particular turns in a memorable performance.

The plot is a mishmash of terrorists, government conspiracies, with a central plot device that anticipated "Speed" by 17 years. As with most disaster movies, the plot is almost incidental. We know going in that some characters will die, others will live, but disaster will be narrowly or partially averted. As in all disaster movies, it's the journey rather than the destination that's important. "The Cassandra Crossing" takes us on a better than average trip.

Big Fish (2003)

A(nother) review of two films

[8/10 · 20 August 2008]

This review is of both "Secondhand Lions" and "Big Fish". Both films share common themes, but develop them in different ways. Although both have been out long enough to be seen on TV and DVD, still this review does contain minor spoilers for both.

Both films deal with boys growing into manhood with male parent figures who are notable for telling tall tales. Both are feel good movies with bittersweet endings where the children have grown up and the parents die at the end. But the devil is in the details and despite such similar plot synopses, these films could hardly be more different.

In "Secondhand Lions", which I consider to be the superior film of the two, the father figures are two uncles of the protagonist with a secret related to their seemingly endless supply of money. In "Big Fish", the father figure is the biological father of the protagonist.

The essential difference in the two is honesty. In "Big Fish", the tall tales are just that - stories with a grain of truth (which is revealed at the end), but which the dad exaggerates into fantastic lies. The dad, a big-mouthed salesman, spouts his tales as naturally as breathing - and just about as often. In "Secondhand Lions", the uncles are quite taciturn and only tell their stories to the boy after being prodded, and then over a period of time. Not surprisingly, by the end of the film, you learn that the tales were essentially all true.

"Secondhand Lions" has a lot of heart and is based on characters you can believe in and admire. "Big Fish" is nothing more than a film which preaches tolerance of lies if they make someone feel good.

The performances in both films are first-rate, but "Big Fish" is handicapped by the fact that it is ultimately a fantasy. The cast of "Big Fish" also lacks the depth of talent on display in "Secondhand Lions". While "Big Fish" contains some standout performances, "Secondhand Lions" features Robert Duvall, Michael Caine, Halley Joel Osment, and Kyra Sedgwick at the top of their games. I really liked all the principle characters in "Secondhand Lions", but the characters in "Big Fish" were either not particularly likable or were fantasy caricatures so it was hard to feel much of anything for them.

I own both DVDs and enjoy both films from time to time, but "Secondhand Lions" is a personal favorite. I watch it about three times as often as "Big Fish".

Secondhand Lions (2003)

A(nother) review of two films

[10/10 · 20 August 2008]

This review is of both "Secondhand Lions" and "Big Fish". Both films share common themes, but develop them in different ways. Although both have been out long enough to be seen on TV and DVD, still this review does contain minor spoilers for both.

Both films deal with boys growing into manhood with male parent figures who are notable for telling tall tales. Both are feel good movies with bittersweet endings where the children have grown up and the parents die at the end. But the devil is in the details and despite such similar plot synopses, these films could hardly be more different.

In "Secondhand Lions", which I consider to be the superior film of the two, the father figures are two uncles of the protagonist with a secret related to their seemingly endless supply of money. In "Big Fish", the father figure is the biological father of the protagonist.

The essential difference in the two is honesty. In "Big Fish", the tall tales are just that - stories with a grain of truth (which is revealed at the end), but which the dad exaggerates into fantastic lies. The dad, a big-mouthed salesman, spouts his tales as naturally as breathing - and just about as often. In "Secondhand Lions", the uncles are quite taciturn and only tell their stories to the boy after being prodded, and then over a period of time. Not surprisingly, by the end of the film, you learn that the tales were essentially all true.

"Secondhand Lions" has a lot of heart and is based on characters you can believe in and admire. "Big Fish" is nothing more than a film which preaches tolerance of lies if they make someone feel good.

The performances in both films are first-rate, but "Big Fish" is handicapped by the fact that it is ultimately a fantasy. The cast of "Big Fish" also lacks the depth of talent on display in "Secondhand Lions". While "Big Fish" contains some standout performances, "Secondhand Lions" features Robert Duvall, Michael Caine, Halley Joel Osment, and Kyra Sedgwick at the top of their games. I really liked all the principle characters in "Secondhand Lions", but the characters in "Big Fish" were either not particularly likable or were fantasy caricatures so it was hard to feel much of anything for them.

I own both DVDs and enjoy both films from time to time, but "Secondhand Lions" is a personal favorite. I watch it about three times as often as "Big Fish".

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

Ignore the reviews, make up your own mind

[7/10 · 9 August 2008]

I almost didn't see this in the theater due to all the bad reviews. What changed my mind was Roger Ebert giving it a rare positive review. Since I agree with Ebert more than most critics, I decided to go see it.

I have to say that none of the reviews or comments I've read tell the whole picture, IMHO. Neither Ebert's praise nor other critics' pans are entirely appropriate. Lets' start with the basics... "The Mummy" was a modern retelling of a 30's "B" monster movie with up to date FX. It wasn't great drama, but it was a rousing thrill ride that capably did its job of entertaining you if you weren't too picky about plot, etc. The two sequels have continued this tradition. I'd rate this as inferior to the original but slightly superior to "The Mummy Returns".

Much has been made about the casting of Maria Bello in the role originated by Rachel Weisz. While I'm not a Rachel Weisz fanboy, she is a very capable actress and I just don't believe Ms. Bello was up to the role. There is simply no chemistry between Bello and Brendan Fraser. There are basically only two legitimate reasons to make a sequel: 1) either there are loose ends to tie up, or 2) people really like the characters and want to see more of them. Each film in the Mummy franchise ties up its own loose ends, so the producers are risking commercial suicide to change the characters in any significant way. If they couldn't get Rachel Weisz, they should have been much more careful in recasting the role. There's very little physical resemblance between the two actresses, and Ms. Bello simply doesn't seem to have the acting chops to carry it off. That unfortunate casting choice casts a pall over the whole enterprise - but not enough to sink it.

Some have criticized the film because they don't believe that Brendan Fraser looks old enough to have a son Luke Ford's age. That's arguable (all of the holdover cast is starting to show their age - especially John Hannah) but, again, it's not a deal-breaker.

OTOH, the secondary roles are excellent. Michelle Yeoh and Isabella Leong are excellent while Jet Li gives another great performance as the evil emperor. Luke Ford is somewhat bland, though, and doesn't appear to be a good candidate to carry the franchise into the future.

The CGI FX are generally excellent but nothing we haven't seen in the first two films. The exception to this are the yetis! With only a few minutes of screen time, they pretty much steal every scene they're in. Where the FX do seem lacking is in imagination, scale, and scope when compared to the previous two films. Perhaps that's because more of the action in the previous films took place in dark, claustrophobic settings, while here many of them are in brightly lit sunlight. The battle scenes in particular suffer in the inevitable comparison to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Was this film made principally to milk the franchise? Almost certainly, but then so was "The Mummy Returns". But that doesn't mean it fails on its own terms. It is entertaining and supplies much of the same appeal as its predecessors. If you can watch it on those terms and if Maria Bello's casting isn't too disappointing to you, then go see it - you may have a good time. I did.

Eight Legged Freaks (2002)

Amazingly entertaining

[8/10 · 27 July 2008]

Arachnophobia is one of the most common phobias, and one of the strongest among those subject to it. I tend to be one of those and so have never much enjoyed horror films featuring giant or menacing spiders. To my surprise, I was never particularly uncomfortable during "Eight Legged Freaks". This and "Arachnophobia" are my two favorite spider films.

This is a horror-comedy, a genre that's difficult to pull off effectively. What makes it work are the personalities (sic!) of the spiders. They're not unlike the title characters in "Gremlins" (another favorite) as they gleefully go about, rampaging and wreaking havoc among the humans (it's worth noting that the film never actually shows anyone meeting their gruesome death nor do any of the humans you come to know actually die). And that's the key - although these spiders are physically typical of their kind, their actions have been anthropomorphized to make them much less creepy. Just as in "Gremlins", they've been given voices - which "real" giant spiders undoubtedly wouldn't have. The human actors, while uniformly competent are consistently upstaged by the CGI spiders. Also, like "Gremlins", the small town setting is populated by a collection of eccentrics, which only helps. The plot is just a device on which to hang the action and comedy. It's silly, but no sillier than nay other giant creature film.

Arachnophobia (1990)

Just barely within the tolerance level for real arachnophobics

[8/10 · 27 July 2008]

Arachnophobia is one of the most common phobias, and one of the strongest among those subject to it. I tend to be one of those and so have never much enjoyed horror films featuring giant or menacing spiders. Although I was uncomfortable during "Arachnophobia", it was tolerable. This and "Eight Legged Freaks" are my two favorite spider films.

"Arachnophobia" benefits from an excellent script, great casting, uniformly good performances, and the injection of enough comic relief to calm anyone from getting too uncomfortable. Jeff Daniels is as reliable as ever, but it's John Goodman's gung-ho exterminator character that balances what would otherwise be a really uncomfortable movie. This isn't to say that it's light entertainment, as was "Eight Legged Freaks". It's not, it's a real horror film. But it will only make you squirm, not run for the theater exit.

WALL·E (2008)

With the right mindset, this is a must see

[10/10 · 13 July 2008]

I came here intending to write a glowing review of the best movie I've seen this year. However, as is my custom, I first read what others had to say. Since the movie was so good, I started reading the most negative comments first to gain perspective. I shouldn't have been surprised at what I saw, but it did take me back a bit. The majority of the negative comments turned out to be a referendum on environmental politics.

That being the case, I suppose I should declare my views going in so others can fairly evaluate what I say in light of their own perceptions. I'm not ashamed to admit I try to live a very green life. I recycle, buy wind power, etc. I've been this way since long before environmentalism became a word or even fashionable (back then, I was simply considered a "conservationist"). I am not, however, political. I promote environmental responsibility by actions rather than voting green (actually, I don't vote at all).

If everything you see is filtered through right wing glasses, then you will not like this film. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh and the staff at Fox News aren't going to be fans. Like "The Day After Tomorrow", it exaggerates (how much is debatable) to make its point. If, on the other hand, you're a certified tree hugger or you see the world through left wing glasses, then you'll love it. If you fall in the middle, you'll find a sweet, charming, unabashedly sentimental story wrapped around a cautionary tale.

When dealing with the non-human characters, "Wall-E" isn't a movie, it's a work of art - as good as any film ever made. It's incredible that Pixar has invested robots (and an insect) with such heart. The humans, by contrast are caricatures, but deliberately so. The only way I might recommend improving the movie would be to make the humans as realistic as the robots, but then that would rob the film of much of its humor. As you watch it, be on the lookout for references to other films. Some are obvious and some are more subtle, but they're all enjoyable.

If you have, or can muster up, the innocence, this is a film you shouldn't miss. I haven't seen the films for the second half of the year, but for right now, I have to wonder whether a film can be nominated for both best picture and best animated feature in the same year? From today's perspective, I believe "Wall-E" deserves both.

Thriller (1960–1962)

The scariest half hours ever shown on TV

[10/10 · 1 July 2008]

Using only B&W, atmosphere, and high quality scripts from writers who really knew how to scare you, "Thriller" remains unsurpassed in creating hauntingly memorable shows that people remember. No gore, no expensive FX, just great scary storytelling. I can still watch episodes from almost 50 years ago and get really creeped out.

Compared with other similar anthology shows, the only one which approached it for scare value was "One Step Beyond". As much as I liked "The Twilight Zone", its shows never scared me as much as "Thriller". "The Outer Limits", OTOH, never impressed me much. It was too far ahead of its time and needed to wait for the age of CGI FX to be effective.

Like those other shows, it's interesting to see them again and see the talent involved - both in front of and behind the camera. Going through the credits, you'll see lots of people who would go on to become household names.

UPDATE: I recently found an online specialty video dealer who sells a complete DVD collection of the entire series. It's not cheap ($75), but I was glad to pay it. I'm not sure whether the guidelines will allow me to post the vendor's name, but I found them through Google.

Jumper (2008)

An OK movie

[6/10 · 15 June 2008]

I've read the comments and the ones who got it right are those who observe that this is a good way to spend of couple of hours of your life with your brain in neutral. With minimal expectations and open to its entertainment value, you won't want those two hours back.

I didn't particularly like Hayden Christensen in Star Wars and he wasn't any better here. Fortunately, the rest of the cast took up the slack. OTOH, the effects are generally good and the director exhibits both a good eye and some wit. The plot, although derivative, has a refreshingly original spin to it. Better yet, no effort is made to explain cause of the phenomenon, only its effect on the people who intersect it.

Still, that does leave some gaping plot holes that you could drive a truck through, but that gets back to the point of leaving your brain in neural for the duration. This is not SF, it is fantasy, so you shouldn't necessarily expect the rules of physics (or logic) to apply.

The greatest criticism I could level at this film is that there was no character with whom I felt any particular empathy. Hayden Christensen's protagonist is self-centered and cares for little more than his own minute-to-minute gratification. How can you care about what happens to a character who doesn't care about any one else? I suspect the villains are as two-dimensional as they are because if they weren't, you'd care more about them than the "hero".

As I said, entertaining enough, but devoting more than the minimum required number of brains cells to it is to quickly reach a point of diminishing returns.

Orca (1977)

A simple recommendation...

[8/10 · 3 May 2008]

...if you liked "Silent Running", then you'll probably like "Orca". Both are allegories lamenting human misunderstanding, neglect, and mistreatment of the natural world. Both are "downer" movies with a message - not an especially subtle message, but one definitely worth considering.

This was one of the first movies I bought many years ago on the old RCA CED video disc format. But then, RCA bailed on CEDs, so I hadn't seen it for years (it never came out on LaserDisc and rarely shows up on cable). While browsing Amazon, I found it is now available on DVD, so I bought a copy. The DVD is quite rudimentary and could stand cleaning up and remastering, but I still like it as much as ever.

Yes, the plot is a bit silly and overwrought, but then so was "Silent Running", hence my comparison. At least the plot has some weight to it which, when you get right down to it, "Jaws" lacked.

The "Jaws" comparison is apt, however. Both films came out within 18 months of each other (IIRC), so "Orca" was dismissed as a rip off of "Jaws". But they're two entirely different films which had been in simultaneous development. "Jaws" is a scary thrill ride while "Orca" tries to get the audience thinking about something of substance.

As usual, Richard Harris chews the scenery. Will Sampson occupies his usual wise old Indian role. Charlotte Rampling is excellent as a marine biologist who dilutes the testosterone with a thoughtful, excellent performance. It's also enjoyable to see a young Robert Carradine and Bo Derek (her first movie) in minor roles.

What a Girl Wants (2003)

OK, so I'm not in the target demographic...

[8/10 · 3 May 2008]

...I still enjoyed it. Call it a guilty pleasure if you will, or merely evidence of my incipient senility. This isn't a movie for middle aged men. (Who am I kidding? I could only be considered middle aged if I expected to live to be several decades past the century mark!) Still, it was sweet and charming with a disarming innocence that was totally refreshing.

The plot has been more than adequately synopsized. And yes, it is formulaic in its way. Still the performances are excellent all around. You pretty much know what will happen - or at least you know what you'd like to see happen, and the script doesn't disappoint. Everyone is excellent. Amanda Bynes (who I'd never heard of before this film) more than carries the production on her amazingly mature shoulders. Others have noted that Colin Firth as her dad is "wooden", but that's part of the point of the film. Even the minor characters are all pitch perfect. The actors inhabiting even the smallest parts make their screen time memorable.

If you're not too cynical, this is an enjoyable, charming film.

Flatland (2007 Video)

Two reviews in one

[8/10 · 8 April 2008]

This review covers both versions of "Flatland" released in 2007, one by Ladd Ehlinger, Jr. with a mostly unknown voice cast, and the other by Jeffrey Travis with some Hollywood big names providing the voices.

The source material for both is the 1884 novella by Edwin A. Abbott, but the approaches of the two films differ radically. The book is a staple of science fiction, and one of the few to address mathematical issues at its core. Being a product of its time, the book is technically naive, and politically incorrect based on current sensibilities.

The Travis film is visually slicker, but significantly shorter, and tackles philosophical issues relative to the passage of time from initial publication. As such, it tampers with the plot to mixed effect. Unlike some others, I have no problem with some of the revisions to the underlying plot since they do help bring some of the book's major issues into somewhat sharper focus. On the other hand, they also add a "feel good" and politically correct sensibility that seems out of place.

The Ehlinger film is much truer to its source material, which is both a strength and a weakness. Given a current perspective, its 19th century depiction of the political and social subjugation of women is a distraction that the Travis film avoids. It's also a longer film and could have been more effective with some of the same plot and editing license employed in the Travis film. Where it does tamper with the plot, some of the decisions are questionable as other reviewers have pointed out.

So which is better? In my opinion, the short answer is the Ehlinger film. Despite its length, political incorrectness, and technical inferiority (the animation of the Travis film is much more sophisticated), it resonates at a technical level to a degree that the Travis film can't match. As a scientist, this means a lot to me. On the other hand, the Travis film resonates on an emotional level that the Ehlinger film can't match. So the answer may be whether you're looking for technical insight or emotional satisfaction.

Most jarring in the Travis film is that, unlike the Ehlinger film, the animators never quite caught on to the implications of a two-dimensional universe. It is filled with objects which are instantly recognizable to us, yet would be clearly impossible or meaningless in the film's reality (e.g. the protagonist's daughter has toys which only make sense to someone with a 3-D perspective, and how does he open his briefcase?). The cover art is an obvious first impression example. The Travis film's characters look more human, but ask yourself how their eyes work. One detail of the book is that looking at a Flatlander from above, all of his internal organs are clearly visible, as they should be. Travis' animators hint at this, but don't meet it head-on. The Ehlinger film's animators may not have had the resources to make as slick a film as Travis', but they obviously gave a great deal of thought to what they were doing (or maybe not, since the necessary designs were all in the book). In short, Travis had the budget, but Ehlinger had the passion for the project - albeit perhaps a bit too much respect for the source to create a truly superior adaptation.

The differences reflect different target audiences, though. The Travis film is an educational short film which was obviously meant to be viewed by classrooms of middle school and high school students. As such, it had to be socially inoffensive while conveying concepts of geometry that would never occur to non-mathematicians. That it includes recognizable names voicing the characters will help it grab a bit more attention - an educational short film for the "X-Files" generation. The Ehlinger film would mostly appeal to people with a college level interest in mathematics, or others who are already familiar with the book.

Neither film is perfect, but I'm giving the Ehlinger film a rating of 8 and the Travis film a rating of 6. Depending on your sensibilities, your conclusion may be exactly opposite of mine, so I hope this review includes enough information to guide you to an informed selection.

Or, like me, you could simply buy both... ;-)

Flatland: The Movie (2007)

Two reviews in one

[6/10 · 8 April 2008]

This review covers both versions of "Flatland" released in 2007, one by Ladd Ehlinger, Jr. with a mostly unknown voice cast, and the other by Jeffrey Travis with some Hollywood big names providing the voices.

The source material for both is the 1884 novella by Edwin A. Abbott, but the approaches of the two films differ radically. The book is a staple of science fiction, and one of the few to address mathematical issues at its core. Being a product of its time, the book is technically naive, and politically incorrect based on current sensibilities.

The Travis film is visually slicker, but significantly shorter, and tackles philosophical issues relative to the passage of time from initial publication. As such, it tampers with the plot to mixed effect. Unlike some others, I have no problem with some of the revisions to the underlying plot since they do help bring some of the book's major issues into somewhat sharper focus. On the other hand, they also add a "feel good" and politically correct sensibility that seems out of place.

The Ehlinger film is much truer to its source material, which is both a strength and a weakness. Given a current perspective, its 19th century depiction of the political and social subjugation of women is a distraction that the Travis film avoids. It's also a longer film and could have been more effective with some of the same plot and editing license employed in the Travis film. Where it does tamper with the plot, some of the decisions are questionable as other reviewers have pointed out.

So which is better? In my opinion, the short answer is the Ehlinger film. Despite its length, political incorrectness, and technical inferiority (the animation of the Travis film is much more sophisticated), it resonates at a technical level to a degree that the Travis film can't match. As a scientist, this means a lot to me. On the other hand, the Travis film resonates on an emotional level that the Ehlinger film can't match. So the answer may be whether you're looking for technical insight or emotional satisfaction.

Most jarring in the Travis film is that, unlike the Ehlinger film, the animators never quite caught on to the implications of a two-dimensional universe. It is filled with objects which are instantly recognizable to us, yet would be clearly impossible or meaningless in the film's reality (e.g. the protagonist's daughter has toys which only make sense to someone with a 3-D perspective, and how does he open his briefcase?). The cover art is an obvious first impression example. The Travis film's characters look more human, but ask yourself how their eyes work. One detail of the book is that looking at a Flatlander from above, all of his internal organs are clearly visible, as they should be. Travis' animators hint at this, but don't meet it head-on. The Ehlinger film's animators may not have had the resources to make as slick a film as Travis', but they obviously gave a great deal of thought to what they were doing (or maybe not, since the necessary designs were all in the book). In short, Travis had the budget, but Ehlinger had the passion for the project - albeit perhaps a bit too much respect for the source to create a truly superior adaptation.

The differences reflect different target audiences, though. The Travis film is an educational short film which was obviously meant to be viewed by classrooms of middle school and high school students. As such, it had to be socially inoffensive while conveying concepts of geometry that would never occur to non-mathematicians. That it includes recognizable names voicing the characters will help it grab a bit more attention - an educational short film for the "X-Files" generation. The Ehlinger film would mostly appeal to people with a college level interest in mathematics, or others who are already familiar with the book.

Neither film is perfect, but I'm giving the Ehlinger film a rating of 8 and the Travis film a rating of 6. Depending on your sensibilities, your conclusion may be exactly opposite of mine, so I hope this review includes enough information to guide you to an informed selection.

Or, like me, you could simply buy both... ;-)

Bicentennial Man (1999)

Sweet, touching, and thought provoking

[10/10 · 3 February 2008]

At the core of any good robot story is the issue of what it means to be human. This film explores that issue better than any other I know of.

Robot films are not generally blockbuster crowd pleasers, with the exception of "I, Robot" which was a Will Smith action flick. Let's face it, the average movie goer has trouble connecting with immortal sentient machines. This film stacks the deck against itself by dealing directly with the immortality issue and adding in an unfashionable amount of raw sentimentality.

The result is a truly great film - one of the few here I've rated a 10. I don't watch it as often as I'd like because it is a two (or more) hankie film that always gets to me. For those who don't mind thinking and who are not too jaded to appreciate the sentiment, it's a wonderful experience.

Cloverfield (2008)

I liked it, but can only rate it an 8

[8/10 · 23 January 2008]

First of all, this comment does contain MAJOR SPOILERS, so turn back now if you don't want to know what happens!

While you're deciding whether to read further, what can I say that won't spoil it? "Cloverfield" has been summarized as "Godzilla" meets "The Blair Witch Project", and that's a fair description. The hand-held camera documentary effect does hark back to TBWP. That may be something fairly new to much of the film's target audience, but it's really not. Whether it's innovative or simply annoying is a judgment call, although it does help set the tone of the film. I saw the film with my adult granddaughter who is subject to motion sickness and although she liked it, she doesn't particularly want to see it again. That doesn't bode well for its box office "legs". I'd also like to add that I'm past 60, so ignore what others may say about this not being for folks over 30-35.

*** Spoiler Pause ***

Still here? OK, here goes... I should qualify my first comment with the fact that I don't necessarily consider the spoilers all that major. The opening titles set up the biggest spoiler, so it wasn't really that unexpected.

So what is new and/or fresh about it? The answer is point of view (POV). Most traditional monster films have central characters who are scientists or military people engaged in battling and/or understanding the monster. The monster's victims are traditionally part of the background. "Cloverfield" turns this around... There are no scientists in sight and the military personnel are all secondary characters. The protagonists are some of the same people you see simply running and screaming in a traditional monster film. The scant plot is simply their trying to survive and save friends and loved ones. The hand held video is simply a plot gimmick to facilitate this unique POV.

Some have criticized the characters as being vapid, self-absorbed twenty-somethings, which I don't think is entirely fair. It's largely true of the party group at the beginning, but then once we shift the focus from scientists and high-ranking military types to everyday people, you can't really expect everyone to be all that interesting. The audience doesn't need to admire them, only to identify with them and/or like them at some level. The core group at the focus of the film may not be heroic or deep thinkers, but they are types we all know and are mostly likable enough.

So, what's not to like? Again, just as with TBWP, many people won't like the jerky hand held camera work. So that much is a matter of taste - I find it mildly annoying, but that's just me. What's more troubling (here come the spoilers) is that almost everyone dies! OK, that's not too surprising in a modern horror film. And again, this is foreshadowed in the opening credits. As they rolled, I was prepared that some or most of the characters would die, but not all of the most sympathetic ones! Doing it this way is arguably more realistic. But, since the whole premise of any monster film is unrealistic, my gut reaction is that if I wanted to see a show with a really depressing ending, I'd watch a documentary and learn something in the process. Once I've spent the whole time investing some feelings for the characters, having them killed off seemingly at random may be realistic, but it doesn't leave me with a good feeling as I leave the theater. This may also affect the film's box office "legs".

I also have to add that this is one of the most intense films I've ever seen. It's only about an hour long yet leaves you wrung out, feeling that it was a much longer film. In addition to being nauseous from the camera work, my granddaughter was sore from tensing her muscles and generally felt like she'd been through a real workout by the time the final credits rolled.

Conditionally recommended with significant caveats... (However, my all-time favorite giant monster movies are "Gojira" (the original Japanese version), "Godzilla vs. Destroyer", "Godzilla: Final Wars", "Gorgo", "Mighty Joe Young" (the original version), and both the original and Peter Jackson versions of "King Kong").

You Light Up My Life (1977)

OK, I'm a hopeless romantic, I admit it

[7/10 · 27 May 2007]

Yes, the song is catchy, but hardly great. Yes, the plot is pure soap opera. But Didi Conn delivers a great performance. With anyone else, this film might have deserved all of the scorn heaped upon it. But Conn's earnest likability really sells it. The supporting cast is good, but it's Conn's show. It's a pity she's just so nice - if she were trashier and more traditionally attractive, she could have a much bigger career. As some others have said, the award winning title song is also good the first few times around, but gets a little tiresome after a while. But the movie is one I can watch over and over (well, at least several times a year) and still enjoy.

For anyone who's also a romantic and prefers films with heart to those with an edge, it's a must see.

Shrek the Third (2007)

At least as good as Shrek 2

[8/10 · 26 May 2007]

As is often the case, I'm out of sync with most of the critics and movie-going public. C'est la vie...

I loved the first Shrek and gave it a 10 vote. Shrek 2 was a bit of a disappointment and I only gave it an 8, although many critics and other folks seemed to like it better than the original. It was edgier, I suppose, but that's not what floats my boat.

As with number 2, this wasn't up to the level of the original, but I gave another 8 as equally worthy to carry the franchise banner as #2. Like #2, it had a few spots that fell a little flat, but overall I liked it a bit more than #2.

As with all Shrek movies, the devil is in the details and this was rich with goodies, some of which will only become obvious on the 2nd or 3rd viewing. If I had to score #2 and #3 side by side, I guess that, individually, #2 did have a bit more going for it. However, #3 did turn away from edginess to the sort of innocence that made the original so charming, so it simply felt better to me.

[..minor spoiler alert..]

One big disappointment was the lack of a closing musical number as in the first 2 movies. Donkey & Puss did have some over the credits business, but it was a letdown from the previous Shrek films.

Lake Placid 2 (2007 TV Movie)

A travesty on so many levels

[1/10 · 29 April 2007]

I've come to expect very little out of the SciFi channel's made for TV movies, but this ranks tight alongside of "Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers" as am egregious example of how SciFi's clueless network suits can prostitute a great work with an appallingly bad sequel.

I'm a great fan of the original "Lake Placid". David E. Kelly's writing in the original is among the sharpest of any film in memory. It had a delightfully witty script and excellent performances by talented actors. The characters were well textured without a stereotype among them.

By comparison, the script of this film is drek. Thre is almost no wit evident. It's trite and formulaic. The characters are all 2-dimensional stereotypes from central casting. The "special" effects were everything I've come to expect from SciFi channel movies - ham-fisted and amateurish.

I might have given this film a rating of 2 or 3, but for potentially tainting the reputation of the original, I give it a 1 - but only because there's no option to give it a zero!

Aftershock: Earthquake in New York (1999)

If there were an award for best film made from a silly premise...

[8/10 · 29 April 2007]

I'd avoided this movie for years. Unlike the writers, I understand the geology under NYC, so I was expecting it to be every bit as bad as "Volcano", based on a similarly silly premise. Finally, last night I needed some mindless entertainment to help me get to sleep so I tuned in.

Yes, the premise is just as silly as it sounds. However, the writers, while technically clueless, did craft one of the best disaster flick scripts I've ever seen. The acting is uniformly excellent, and the direction, after the typically slow disaster flick setup, was taut and effective. The special effects were quite decent for TV - certainly better than most SciFi channel made-for-TV films. Unlike "Volcano", the characters are sympathetic and believable. After the viewer has swallowed the basic premise, everything else goes down well. Altogether a very involving film, which is, after all, the goal of all disaster flicks.

Given a chance, I will watch it again (I missed the first 10 minutes or so). Heartily recommended for disaster flick fans, conditionally recommended for everyone else.

The Prestige (2006)

A major disappointment

[5/10 · 7 March 2007]

"The Prestige" wasn't really a bad movie, but it did try too hard to be altogether too clever. The problem isn't the cast who are uniformly excellent. The problem is the plot and the script which simply have too many holes, compounded by confusing presentation which jumps back and forth through time and expects the audience to keep up. Not that it's really that hard to keep up, but in the end I got the feeling that it was all just fancy footwork to keep you from realizing just how weak the plot really was.

WARNING: Spoiler ahead!

Without trying to spoil too much, the ending was especially lame and ultimately unsatisfying. Specifically, it morphed without warning from a well-executed character-driven picture with involving the mechanics and psychology of illusion, into a sci-fi film - and not a very good one at that. Nicola Tesla's descendants should sue everyone involved!

A great actor's showcase, but still not recommended...