russedav Reviews

Geostorm (2017)

Terrible flick but for Butler and Sturgess & cast

[4/10 · 7 November 2018]

I always love manly Butler even in bad movies like this one. Sturgess was new to me but he was so good I'll have to look for him in future. Others in the cast were fine too. I'd have rated the story itself a zero but for the cast for you can't blame a fine cast when they act out the bad script they're given, and this was really bad, not even remotely true science fiction just totally laughable fantasy but worse. It was appropriate for the intro and exit to be voiced by a child in view of the absurd, childish, fact-free, delusions of godhood, enviro-wacko basis for the nonsense too ridiculous to describe. One reviewer laughably groundlessly condemned America being the savior in the film in view of her allegedly deficient environmental bona fides, the usual silly hypocritical, virtue-signaling accusation in the fact-free fantasy of mindless green hate-America bigotry that gives a pass to real polluters like China while condemning America's proven superiority in environmental responsibility. It's the proven incompetence of greens that promotes various insufficient "renewable" power like solar and wind power while conveniently ignoring its proven pollution contaminating the environment, any lie or omission to promote the power mad agenda.

The Saint (2017 TV Movie)

Get a life

[9/10 · 30 June 2018]

It seems to me the real main problem with those foolishly giving this a bad review is their inability to distinguish reality from fiction. While of course dear Roger Moore was really incomparable as Simon Templar, though more so in the first two seasons than later where he sadly more abandoned the character's really fine ethos for the world's corruption, Rayner's version is far better than his detractors give him credit for and I suspect this is at least part of Moore being involved in it, though not as much as I wish he'd been. Sadly we'll not likely see Rayner again, much as I wish we could. I was too shocked to find who Ogilvy was, not prepared for the aging, a sign of my own inability to deal with reality! I do wish they'd not altered Patricia's marital status from the original, but was glad they vastly improved on and avoided the perverse nature of the relationship in the 1997 version. Ogilvy was good and I really liked and watched all his episodes, but to me Rayner has the edge on him in terms of finesse and flair. Those who didn't watch this all the way through by definition literally don't know what they're talking about so you shouldn't let them decide for you. If only someone had enough sense to give Rayner another shot at this; of course I won't hold my breath for that considering how badly they ruined the last Star Wars, as well as the laughable PC misandry of the latest Dr. Who!

I Deal in Danger (1966)

I didn't know Robert Goulet was so good an actor.

[9/10 · 23 April 2018]

This is really just an FYI that this 1966 American spy "film" is actually a compilation of the first four ~25' episodes of a total of seventeen of the on-season series, "Blue Light, that aired on ABC-TV from January 12 to May 18, 1966: 101, Jan. 12, 1966, The Last Man 102, Jan. 19, 1966 Target, David March 103, Jan. 26, 1966 The Fortress Below 104, Feb. 02, 1966 The Weapon Within The negative critics really offer no legitimate criticism in view of how FAR worse much of today's stuff is.

Code Name: Eternity (2000)

Good mostly due to Gruner

[8/10 · 23 February 2018]

The main part of the problem so many critics seem to have seems to be their own fault of a frankly rather childish lack of the suspension of disbelief too often masquerading as sophistication. For me, the only reason I watched the show was for Olivier Gruner. What really frustrated me was the seeming cliffhanger that ended the series. Does anyone have an idea of what actually happened; I couldn't figure it out. Did Banning or Ethaniel win ultimately or what?

The Snoop Sisters (1972–1974)

Unsung heroines

[9/10 · 23 October 2017]

As in the classic Olympics of yesteryear before today's crass sellouts where 10s are a dime a dozen, in classic understatement I never give 10s, so don't let my "9" fool you, as it's the highest I give. I was glad to see both Hayes & Natwick nominated for an Emmy for this show (1974?) but was sad it had to go to just the latter. Having seen all the episodes I can vouch for how their brilliant & intuitive tag-team acting and repartee is just outstanding. As some have said, they were evidently ahead of their time to a sadly unappreciative audience undeserving of them. If you ever have the chance to get the DVDs, take it; you'll be glad you did, seeing these two classic gems shine easily carrying their lesser costars, growing not just older but better. The great Hayes didn't gain the title "First Lady of the American Theater" for nothing, and outstanding Natwick is surely her peer!

Seven Days in May (1964)

Hypocritical left-wing and right-wing bigotry fingering one another

[6/10 · 16 October 2017]

I'd have rated this a 9 in terms of actual film craftsmanship (as in the days of the circumspect classic Olympics long gone I never give 10s) but the work's utterly arrogant left-wing self-righteous misrepresentation of military preparedness utterly oblivious to history made a 9 impossible. This film shows why many (though not enough) Americans are thoughtful independents eschewing the gross, arrogant hypocrisy of both left-wing and right-wing bigotry, each fingering the other in delusions of godhood without honestly confessing its own sins; 1 John 1:7-10. While it's obvious from history, especially America's great Founders' provision of the Second Amendment and our armed forces, that lethal force was necessary, as the Bible also says in Romans 13 "for he [=the ruler] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that does evil," that nevertheless does not prevent God from ordaining their overthrow (e.g. the American Revolution) when they overstep his appointed bounds. The only hope left-wing and right-wing have (an eagle needing both wings to fly) is the fear of God that alone can sustain their understanding of their need one for the other (1 Corinthians 12). Modern godless secularism, even in the days of the making of this unreal fantasy of a film, is wholly insufficient for the task, something America's Founders understood in their stern, God-fearing warning of the certain fatality for the nation of such an abomination, as it's proved to be, the opening riot of the film being a far more accurate picture of what would have been than the actual ending.

The Genesis Code (2010)

God's Word vs man's

[2/10 · 15 May 2017]

If you want an intelligent worldview of creation and the Christian faith, forget this and see the following for why: creation.com/genesis-code-review Sadly too many professing Christians are as ignorant and gullible as unbelievers concerning the truth and authority of the Bible, God's Word, in the scientific realm, unlike days gone by when people were literate and so took the Bible seriously (vs. today's illiterates). It's sad how those who deny absolute truth are so blind to their own bigotry & self-refutation seen in being absolutely sure of it! Those who know true history vs today's useful idiot propaganda know creation (e.g. that held by Newton, Pasteur, Galileo, Copernicus, Keplar, the Curies, NASA's Von Braun, and many others) is the basis for true science, vs how evolution is the basis for bigoted anti-Christian religion, usually following apostate Anglican clergyman Darwin, masquerading as science, really rather mere nonsense that any good creationist can refute easily (e.g. evolution's inability to explain the low rate of oceanic salinization and sedimentation rates in view of present processes at present rates). Since most are largely illiterate in most fields, evolutionists continue to get away with their attacks, rightly banking on the current lawless, fascist degeneracy people prefer to civilized behavior as the world tragically descends into mindless, lawless, fascist, bigoted, egotistical cultural and intellectual decadence and depravity like that C.S. Lewis ably depicted in his 1940s Space Trilogy, especially vol. 3. God save us.

Asteroid vs Earth (2014 TV Movie)

You've got to be kidding

[5/10 · 7 May 2015]

The only reason I didn't give this loser, appropriately made by a group called "The Asylum," the 1 (really 0) it richly deserves is because I love Jason Brooks, the only reason I watched it in the first place. It doesn't say anything good about the nadir to which we've degenerated that this irrational piece of mentally incompetent trash could even be considered for production, much less actually wasting more than $1 in creating it, having nutty plot holes big enough to drive the entire US Army abreast through. If I needed more evidence of the vast incompetence of scy fy vs actual technology (but I don't), this would be an unmitigated howler of a candidate.

Voyager from the Unknown (1982)

Not the best but really a good single-shot intro to the series

[8/10 · 27 February 2014]

This is a combination/remake of episodes 1, Voyagers + 15 Voyagers of the Titanic. The negative reviews are really VERY uncalled for so I had to give this to even up the score at 2+ & 2-. I grant that the special effects aren't fantastic, but that misses the point. If you stand back and look at the big picture, as with most action adventure sci fi this is about RELATIONSHIP, and considering this is Jon-Eric's first starring role, it's really good for those with eyes to see, unlike the bad reviewers. It's absurd how just like blind brainwashed people talk about folk being "black" or "white" when scientifically everyone is really different shades of melanin brown, so too, the sickos that say this is NAMBLA territory are also useful idiots for perverts. Those who aren't mindless tools know this is the wonderful gift specifically of Phineas being the dad Jeffrey never had and generally of him being a hero saving history, though I do think it would have come off better if it had been less camp/silly and more serious, but most audiences are sadly too childish for that. What's particularly irritating about these negative reviews is their at least potentially fatal interference with what might have been an attempt at reviving the series, which would be a wonderful idea, though pretty hard to follow in Jon-Eric's heroic footsteps, though I'd love to see Star Gate Atlantis's Joe Flanigan take that lead. Don't let the inappropriately negative reviews fool you into missing out on this. They have a right to their opinion but that doesn't make them authoritative and I can guarantee many disagree.

Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

Everyone's a critic

[10/10 · 8 June 2013]

I have to rise in opposition to a reviewer's misguided notion that dear James Franco "lacks the dramatic stature necessary to make the character a more compelling one" when his is certainly no less so than beloved Frank Morgan's. Everyone's a critic, but beauty's in the eye of the beholder and thankfully my eye is not so jaundiced. Whether or not the negative reviewer has some special alleged higher theatrical "education" or "training" to make such an arbitrary, self-important, value judgment gravamen of course has little to do with the grossly fickle nature of Hollywood where manifestly stellar performers are inexplicably panned or passed over, manifestly terrible ones inexplicably idolized. For some of us who are rather willing to give Franco the benefit of the doubt and risk embracing his presentation whereby to enter into it as the negative reviewer so sadly set in his hostile mindset sadly was unable to do, the experience is rather a joyful one of encountering an enjoyably genuine (wittingly or no) craftsman, one sadly missed by the negative reviewer, regardless of being heretofore unknown as he was to me. There's sadly a special stupidity reserved and only possible for the self-important, highly educated that show why the first will be (and even now often are) last. I've seen but a few of Franco's artistic endeavors and look forward to many more.

Call Me Mrs. Miracle (2010 TV Movie)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

[10/10 · 30 April 2013]

I really pity the unjustified Scrooge mentality of the 3 negative reviews of 4 before mine. I'm sorry they fail to realize that what one perceives as "plastic" in acting is often just as much a failure on the part of the viewer even to be WILLING to connect with the actor, a willingness I've had for some years with Eric Johnson/Jake & Jewel Staite/Holly and now appreciate having with Doris Roberts/Mrs. Miracle.

I realize the suspension of disbelief can be overused and often is, but in my viewing there was little needed on my part. I thankfully already knew Jewel Straite from Stargate: Atlantis days but was happy to find the two new "jewels" of Jake & Mrs. Miracle, though not realizing that Jake's Eric Johnson was the same old lovably affable self in Flash Gordon of a few years ago. Why they pass up wonderful guys like him for leads or cancel the shows in which they ARE leads is a sad testimony especially to the bad nature of the media and to some extent the viewers. Long story short, don't listen to the Scrooges that panned this jewel; be like Scrooge himself became, joyful adherent to the joys of Christmas by joining Jake and Holly and fellows in this warm-hearted "Merry Christmas" celebration movie. Don't miss it!

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Too dark to watch

[1/10 · 6 October 2012]

If you love kids, don't let them watch this darkness but warn them against its cruelty; have them see the 1971 Wilder version instead: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/ though even it is regrettably dark, parental discretion & warning strongly advised. I have no desire to be negative about Johnny Depp's considerable gifts; it's rather the film's monstrous concept that's the problem, though I've no idea whether this or the 1971 Wilder version is closer to the book original. While Gene Wilder's 1971 version is a not-quite-so-dark delight, this darker version is needlessly and gratuitously cruel (not knowing which version is truer to the book original), kind of like the current vile, sadistic "angry birds" phenomenon that kids also don't need, as harshly as the cold, selfish, senseless world in which they're made to suffer already seeks their destruction. So much for the high price of post-Christian anti-God "freedom" (e.g. the hypocritical Star Trek delusions of godhood) where the imagined "cure" is vastly worse than the disease so grossly ignorantly and hypocritically condemned by lawless fascists, as the once great and literate civilization sinks ever lower into gross illiterate barbarism, as seen in this film, significantly surpassed by the 1971 rendition & its wonderful musical nature, seen at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/

The Time Tunnel: Secret Weapon (1966) Season 1, Episode 11

Typical goofy Irwin Allen

[5/10 · 8 May 2012]

That of which Lost in Space is the epitome, Irwin Allen is mainly about creating silly-weird-looking aliens with misshapen heads and action, action, action, even if it never helps the plot and electronic machines that always explode when you touch them and when you don't. Lots of his shows and episodes are fun, but their mental maturity level is rarely above the six-year old and there were stories of trying to keep him off the set as much as possible to get things filmed without his goofy ideas, though they obviously came through even without his presence. Of course sci-fi, that should usually properly be called just "fi", since most of it's pure fantasy with no connection to real science, is heavy on the suspension of disbelief, but it's a major stretch to imagine that the inconceivably vast and huge Time Tunnel complex in the Arizona desert that would dwarf most American cities into tiny insignificance could actually be replicated in what amounts to little more than a Russian basement apartment!? Please! I know the Russians did some incredible things with the little they had, but this beggars belief and it only works because it's cool to see something that looks familiar to what we've already seen. Really a silly idea though I must say it works, hence the 5 rating instead of the 1 or 2 I was tempted to give it as with most of the episodes and most of Allen's shows, being plot less, characterless and generally just plain clueless, like most Americans of the time that proves getting to the moon wasn't about competent American ability but the brilliance of the select few that ran NASA at the time that is sadly no more.

Cinderella (I) (1965 TV Movie)

This is THE "Rodgers & Hammerstein" Cinderella to see

[10/10 · 9 April 2012]

Well actually, we'll never know if Hammerstein would have approved of the wholesale redo of his lyrics since he had died (maybe so since it was so beautiful, but maybe not since his lyrics crafter the initial farce, who knows?), so perhaps it should more accurately be called the Rodgers Cinderella. Every positive thing said about this gem is true and the negatives negligible, but I wanted to mention a couple of things I've not seen noticed (sorry if they were and I didn't see them): 1. If you know about the near-fairy tale bio of Stuart Damon, the biggest reason he was so successful and believable as the Prince is that he wasn't acting but being himself, his own wife of ~50 years having been his own true love at first sight like the Prince! 2. Another unsung hero I was sad to see seemed to have gone strangely unnoticed (http://www.IMDb.com/name/nm0374736/) in a non-exhaustive web search is Don Heitgerd, the great herald of "The Prince is giving a ball" with his wonderfully rich baritone voice, who doesn't seem to have gotten further deserved recognition, though hopefully his delightful vocal talents received many audiences unknown to IMDb.com.

Though it's not nearly as good as the actual show due to it being so canned and regrettably editing a number of the lines in a way for which I didn't care, a still beautiful "original cast recording" can be heard at http://www.masterworksbroadway.com/music/cinderella-1965 I'm so glad Rodgers ditched the regrettable farcical nature of the 1957 version & the even far worse 1997 reversion that proves that even Disney's multiple millions years after Rodgers death couldn't even begin to make up for the loss of his genius. As much as I love Julie Andrews (1957 star), the distasteful nature of the farcical quality and the bizarre handling of the traditional story ruined it so much that the masterful 1965 cleansing revision was an indescribably wonderful radical beautification far eclipsing the 1957 original, an unusual occurrence. I usually dislike remakes, e.g. my hatred of the 1997 reversion, but the 1965 is a glorious exception.

A Princess for Christmas (2011 TV Movie)

WATCH THIS GLORIOUS GEM or you'll be sorry!

[10/10 · 13 February 2012]

Those "grinches" voting down this beautiful piece are stupid and incompetent bigots blind to what they saw because of the mirror they really rather looked into. Those cruel saps who put down Roger Moore as looking old seem to think that 84-year-olds like him should all look 50 or some such nonsense, too blind to see past the surface to the heart of his performance. I've just finished watching all of his original Saint TV episodes so it's difficult to vault the half-century gap from his dashing 1960s Simon Templar persona to his 2010s grandfather figure, but those who aren't fools know that fiction is supposed to be about the SUSPENSION of disbelief, not the embracing of it as most dimwit and daft post moderns who pretend and insist they don't know anything about anything and then proceed to order us around to tell us what to believe so that it agrees with them! All the characters are wonderful if you let them be and if they aren't, it's your fault, as with half the dimwitted reviewers since this should have been rated at least an 8.5. Don't let the naysayers ruin your Christmas by convincing you they have a clue as to what they're criticizing; they have the same spineless sponging leech morals as the sick and degenerate hypocrites that are the occupy wall street scum and Washington/state houses and especially noble Sam makes Prince Ashton outshine them all as a glorious model man, son, husband and father you will miss out on if you listen to the fool naysayers putting down this glorious Christmas movie by criticizing something about which they blindly haven't a clue. Wisely WATCH THIS GLORIOUS GEM, unlike the naysayers, and thereby love it or you'll kick yourself & regret it!

Mister Roberts (1965– )

Heroic, noble Roger Smith makes Mister Roberts great

[7/10 · 26 December 2011]

While overall the series isn't so great, contrary to the narrow-minded opinions of some, Roger Smith rather really makes the show, and was anything but bland for those who live in the real world instead of Hollywood delusion; he carries it well in a noble way unknown in our day where sleaze and stupidity reign, why there are so many remakes that exhibit the sad extent of the gross inability of today's demented narcissist fascist perverts to make watchable films with only rare exceptions. So casually and foolishly to label him as "bland" is merely to demonstrate appalling lack of appreciation for his great and heroic soul and talents, first of all as a man, that inevitably spills over into his noble character, Doug Roberts; one of the things I love so much about this man is how I find him merely being his own heroic self rather than merely acting a part, and those of us who know the manly battles he's fought in his own life love him so for it, a truly great man by any realistic standard; his devotion with sole custody to his three children from his first marriage, as well as his devotion to his second marriage of 40+ years to Ann-Margret in spite of the great struggles both had says more than words ever could. The silly reviewer who criticized the show for not being realistic enough needs to get a life, for, being a situation comedy, it never intended to be realistic and surely it's creators didn't imagine anyone would be foolish enough to expect it to be!

Cyber Bandits (1995)

A bad movie, but Robert Hays shines even as his evil character doesn't

[1/10 · 24 December 2011]

As another said, this movie is SOOOOO bad; I just watched it because I loved Robert Hays in Starman (1986). If one ignores Morgan as evil here, he can still imagine him being a similarly heroic character to the one he played in Starman. Martin Kemp (Jack Morris) seems like a guy as similarly nice as Robert Hays, but he is sadly waylaid by this movie's stupid obsession with porn typical in our day of infantile debauched sadistic narcissism that long ago abandoned adulthood. I'll just fantasize about what a wonderful virtuous movie this could have been with Kemp & Hays, like if Henry Gibson had been the bad guy and Kemp & Hays were our heroes who saved the day, for after admiring seeing Hays in virtuous roles like Starman & Incredible Journey, I refuse to accept him in such a degraded role.