poly-nikes Reviews

Body Double (1984)

Terrible film

[3/10 · 19 July 2012]

Great God, what a terrible film. Many films "date" badly, but this one is possibly the worst I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. It comes across as a hopelessly amateurish movie, rather than a mainstream Hollywood production. You can figure out who the killer is before too long -- even a blind man could tell the guy is wearing a hokey rubber mask. I've seen better makeup on children calling at my house on Halloween. And the murder, with the cord of the electric drill popping out of the wall at the last minute -- a break, render unto me one. Even the over-rated Hitchcock wasn't that lame, although he came pretty close at times.

Finally, does anybody out there think that Craig Wasson looks like the love child of Jeff Bridges and Bill Maher? That was so distracting to me, that, even if the film had been any good, I couldn't have sat back and enjoyed it.

Monsters (2010)

Emperor's new clothes? Not really.

[1/10 · 8 July 2012]

The reason this film was made on a relatively small budget is simple -- there are no sets (everything's filmed on location) and no discernible story.

A number of the reviewers predictably trotted out the old "emperor's new clothes" cliché, i. e., those of us who didn't like the film are too stupid to "get" it. But the sad truth is that this is simply an extremely boring film. To market it as a thriller is just downright misleading and dishonest. I counted no thrills at all in this turkey.

It did attain a measure of achievement in my eyes, however, by knocking my previous choice of "Meek's Cutoff" as the most boring film I've ever seen out of first place. Move over "Meek's Cutoff" and make room for "Monsters." At ninety-four minutes, sitting through this film was like watching an uncut version of Sergey Bondarchuk's 1967 "War and Peace," which, at almost seven hours, actually seemed shorter than "Monsters." No mean feat.

There was one bright spot, however, in Whitney Able, a very attractive and charismatic actress, so all was not lost. Had it not been for the presence of Ms. Able, I would have given "Monsters" a zero rating, rather than a 1. Please, Mr. Gareth Edwards, no more like this.

Unforgiven (1992)

How did he get so good with a gun?

[5/10 · 6 July 2012]

I think a lot of viewers read more into this film than is there. I didn't think it was all that good. For one thing, near the beginning, the Eastwood character cannot hit a stationary bucket with his six-gun at very close range; yet, in the denouement, he goes into action like Wild Bill Hickock on steroids, taking on a whole room full of bad guys and taking them all out on his own. Where did he acquire this acuity? We don't see him taking intensive target practice throughout the film.

This is an overrated film, no more realistic than the average John Wayne shoot-'em-up, yet most reviewers were drooling and falling over themselves to praise it. The more recent "Open Range" was much better. The Kevin Costner character could have had Clint Eastwood's character for breakfast.

Game Change (2012 TV Movie)

George Orwell would love the Republican response to this film

[9/10 · 2 July 2012]

Boy, the righties really came pouring out of the woodwork like rabid cockroaches after they watched "Game Change." The accusation that it was a liberal hatchet-job is amazing -- didn't they see the same Palin interviews that everybody else did? Much of this film contained Palin's own words, and this can easily be checked by referring either to one's own memory or to the Internet.

One reviewer even said that the film was based on only a small portion of the book, but this isn't true -- the book can be broken down roughly into three parts (like Gaul): one third on Obama; one third on Hillary Clinton; and one third on McCain and Palin.

It's hard to believe the righties when they claim that Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace are liberals with an axe to grind. Last time I looked, both Schmidt and Wallace were, and still are, Republicans. The fact that Schmidt occasionally appears on MSNBC doesn't mean he's now a Democrat.

If they weren't such a nasty crowd, you can almost feel sorry for the Republicans; but it's hard to feel sorry for a party that believes the rich don't have enough money and the poor have too much.

Henry V (1979 TV Movie)

Listen to the Chorus

[8/10 · 29 June 2012]

Reviewer "anne-25" from England was evidently so exercised by what she perceived as shortcomings in this excellent production of "Henry V" that she neglected to listen to the words. In the opening Chorus, we are advised that, since the entire combatants of Agincourt could not be incorporated into the production, we must "into a thousand pieces divide one man." A little further along, the Chorus enjoins us thusly: "O, pardon! since a crooked figure may attest in little place a million." Shakespeare obviously knew something that "anne-25" does not -- it's unfeasible to expect two medieval armies to be incorporated into a humble stage production; therefore, we must use our imaginations, as per, again from the Chorus, "upon your imaginary forces work." Even Olivier's and Branagh's film versions left a lot to be desired in this aspect. Olivier's Agincourt was confusing and brief (although the arrow flights, abetted by Walton's glorious music, were stunning); and Branagh's, although more realistic and bloody (fought in the rain as was the real Agincourt), made us suffer through excruciating and over-used slow motion, a device that never adds to action sequences. And by my count, there were far fewer than sixty thousand French soldiers in either production.

So, "anne-25," a little advice -- listen to the Chorus next time, and perhaps you'll enjoy yourself much more.

Meek's Cutoff (2010)

Thank God for the fast-forward button

[2/10 · 27 June 2012]

Dear God, Kelly Reichardt, the director of this film, makes Terrence Malick look like John Woo. I don't think I've ever seen such an excruciatingly tedious film in my entire life.

We all know how desperately hard the lives of pioneers crossing the desert must have been, but do we really need to be shown every single second of it? All right, already -- it was rough. We get it, so let's move it along.

I should have realized what I was in for right from the start. The river crossing, showing what seemed like every single slow step the pioneers took, seemed almost like a "Monty Python" pastiche -- except it was not. This has to be the slowest sequence not shot in slow-motion that I've ever seen. Unbelievable.

Please, please do not let women direct Westerns -- they haven't the glands for it.

The Magnificent Seven (1960)

Slow pacing

[7/10 · 20 June 2012]

Some reviewers mentioned the slow pacing of this film. A number of years ago I met the composer Elmer Bernstein in Oakland, California when he was there as part of a movie-music seminar at the Oakland Museum. He actually also considered the film to be slow paced, saying that after an initial viewing, he found it so slow that he composed the music the way he did to speed up many of the scenes. In my opinion, he was quite right.

The score he wrote has moved into the pantheon of great film music, up there with the giants. The way the music punches you the moment the film opens is absolutely unforgettable.

Amazons of Rome (1961)

Too many cooks ...

[3/10 · 19 June 2012]

You know you might be in for a less than stellar time when a film has more than one screenwriter. There are exceptions, of course, but this one has at least four, and thus is no exception to the rule.

My favorite part in this turkey is during the fight at the flimsy wooden bridge at the beginning of the film when one of the extras playing a barbarian puts his hands up to his face and you can clearly see a Band-Aid on his thumb. Once you see something like this, it's hard to take the rest of the film seriously.

It's amazing when you think that Sylvia Syms played the female lead in the excellent Dirk Bogarde film, "Victim," in the same year she appeared in "Amazons of Rome."

The Borgias (2011–2013)

Not a documentary

[8/10 · 19 June 2012]

Not for the first time is it necessary to point out to several of the reviewers of "The Borgias" that the show is not a documentary. The creators have used a historical basis as a jumping-off point and then gone on a riff for the sake of poetic license, much like a jazz musician might do with a standard piece of music.

I think "The Borgias" is a fascinating show -- the story lines are excellent and the production values are breathtaking. Almost every scene looks as though it had been lifted in its entirety from a Renaissance painting.

I'm also amazed that at least one reviewer believes that Jeremy Irons cannot act. I'd be interested to hear what criteria that person has apropos of acting excellence. Jeremy Irons is a fine actor, one of the best.

I don't believe I'm alone in the hope that there will be a third season -- and many more seasons to come. The era is a cornucopia of rich material for a drama such as "The Borgias." Thank you, Neil Jordan, and the rest of the crew and cast. You've enriched my life.

The Killing (2011–2014)

Third season

[5/10 · 19 June 2012]

Please, not another season of this overblown pretentious mess. If you can't tell a good mystery yarn in less than twenty hours, there's something badly wrong. There were so many red herrings in this bloated behemoth, it could qualify as an episode of "Most Dangerous Catch."

I can't remember the last time I've been so disappointed in a TV series. The time we all wasted watching this thing is criminal. The story could have been pared down to a much shorter length and told its tale in a fraction of the time. Even the Russian film version of "War and Peace" was much shorter and the tale it told was epic in scale compared to this flimsy little whodunit.

Finally, would it have been too much to ask that the Mireille Enos character take a laxative and crack a smile once in a while?

Frank & Jesse (1994)

Six-guns?

[4/10 · 17 June 2012]

The whole sequence of the ill-fated raid by the gang on the Northfield bank was totally unrealistic. Anybody count the number of shots the outlaws fired from their revolvers in that scene? I always thought the pistols of that era held a maximum of six rounds; well, five actually, to be safe. You wouldn't want to be bouncing around on horseback with the hammer of your pistol resting on a live round. It's silliness like this that spoils so many Westerns. In "Open Range," for instance, the Kevin Costner character fires far more than six shots from his revolver before reloading in the otherwise pretty good climactic gunfight. And at the end of "Wild Bill," another good film, Jeff Bridges fires at least twenty shots from his pair of six-guns.