Viewed in
2008
Premise
The first in the franchise, in which a mysterious, killing alien stows away on a human cargo ship.
Who should watch
Those who like effective, scary science fiction.
Thoughts
While I am not a fan of horror, I enjoyed this influential film. Not only did it launch Sigourney Weaver's career, it also proved that a female action star was possible. Had this film failed, director Ridley Scott might not have been able to create his masterpiece, 'Blade Runner'.
In addition to Weaver, the well-acted cast included Ian Holm and Tom Skerritt. What was interesting was because the story took place entirely on a cargo ship of seven (or eight), it sometimes felt like I was watching a play.
Considering when this was filmed, I was pleasantly surprised by the special effects, as they were very convincing even by 2000's standards. Well, except for the giant computers with monochrome monitors and archaic code.
What made it so scary was the Hitchcock-style suspense. I was expecting a big monster just tearing the place up for two hours. Instead, there was a lot of nerve-wracking waiting. The camera was often from the character's point of view, so I was as clueless as the characters, until it was too late.
This film contained one of the most famous scenes in cinema history, which I will just call 'the dinner scene'. Unfortunately, since I watched this nearly 30 years after it debuted, I had already seen the scene in tributes and parodies. I felt a bit cheated out of the shocking experience of seeing it for the first time.
Even though the late great Jerry Goldsmith did not like how his score was altered for the film, I thought the end result was very effective. The minimalistic music and long pauses of silence enhanced the unknown danger awaiting the hapless humans.
Thanks to special effects, Sigourney Weaver, and great pacing by the film makers, this horror film did what it was supposed to do, it made me sit on pins and needles wanting to know what happens next.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
I put a question mark on whether I had seen the 'Director's Cut' because according to sources, there were two added scenes, but I only recall seeing one in my viewing. While it explained the demise of two of the characters better, I thought leaving that up to the audience's imagination was the right choice initially.
Was this the first film to start the monster-behind-the-trash-is-a-cat cliche?
Showing posts with label 1979. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1979. Show all posts
Apocalypse Now
Viewed in
1999, 2002 (Redux)
Formats
DVD
Premise
Francis Ford Coppola's epic masterpiece about an American captain (Martin Sheen) sent into the heart of Cambodia during the Vietnam War to kill a renegade Green Beret (Marlon Brando).
Thoughts
My memory is probably hazy on both versions, but I loved the original. This was definitely one of those films in which the journey meant more than the destination. I still remember those haunting visuals, scenes, dialogue, and characters. It was a surreal, chaotic, maddening, insightful, and ambiguous trip. A must-see for movie buffs.
The Redux version had a couple of gems of a scene, but I do not think they really added to the entire aura of the film. In fact, they kind of stalled the momentum.
What I would change
Nothing.
1999, 2002 (Redux)
Formats
DVD
Premise
Francis Ford Coppola's epic masterpiece about an American captain (Martin Sheen) sent into the heart of Cambodia during the Vietnam War to kill a renegade Green Beret (Marlon Brando).
Thoughts
My memory is probably hazy on both versions, but I loved the original. This was definitely one of those films in which the journey meant more than the destination. I still remember those haunting visuals, scenes, dialogue, and characters. It was a surreal, chaotic, maddening, insightful, and ambiguous trip. A must-see for movie buffs.
The Redux version had a couple of gems of a scene, but I do not think they really added to the entire aura of the film. In fact, they kind of stalled the momentum.
What I would change
Nothing.
Being There
Viewed in
2011
Formats
Cable TV
Premise
Peter Sellers stars as a peculiar, simple-minded gardener who finds himself becoming the United States President's advisor.
Liked
Sellers' performance.
Disliked
Preposterous plot.
Thoughts
Movies that rely on all the characters turning a blind eye to the obvious can be difficult to sell. This was no different.
The best part was the performances. Sellers was virtuoso as the protagonist, playing a man with limited range of knowledge, awareness, and emotion. It also boasted strong performances from Melvyn Douglas and Shirley MacLaine.
Unfortunately, that was pretty much the only thing I enjoyed. Watching it in 2011, many aspects and sensibilities of the film have definitely aged badly. The idea of not having a single shred of evidence of a man's existence was laughably implausible to me.
Equally bad was the whole premise and its execution. I found myself bored by the halfway point, and dreaded watching another repetitive hour of characters misunderstanding his tunnel-vision as words of wisdom. It felt like a short story stretched beyond its limits. Every speech about life becoming more and more pretentious.
One interesting moment was that they had outtakes during the credits as Sellers kept cracking up while delivering bad jive talk.
Aside from the acting, this movie did not work for me one bit. Similar premises have succeeded in the past, such as later titles, Dave and Forrest Gump. Here it failed because of its outdatedness, as well as its inability to be more than a one-joke movie.
What I would change
No idea.
2011
Formats
Cable TV
Premise
Peter Sellers stars as a peculiar, simple-minded gardener who finds himself becoming the United States President's advisor.
Liked
Sellers' performance.
Disliked
Preposterous plot.
Thoughts
Movies that rely on all the characters turning a blind eye to the obvious can be difficult to sell. This was no different.
The best part was the performances. Sellers was virtuoso as the protagonist, playing a man with limited range of knowledge, awareness, and emotion. It also boasted strong performances from Melvyn Douglas and Shirley MacLaine.
Unfortunately, that was pretty much the only thing I enjoyed. Watching it in 2011, many aspects and sensibilities of the film have definitely aged badly. The idea of not having a single shred of evidence of a man's existence was laughably implausible to me.
Equally bad was the whole premise and its execution. I found myself bored by the halfway point, and dreaded watching another repetitive hour of characters misunderstanding his tunnel-vision as words of wisdom. It felt like a short story stretched beyond its limits. Every speech about life becoming more and more pretentious.
One interesting moment was that they had outtakes during the credits as Sellers kept cracking up while delivering bad jive talk.
Aside from the acting, this movie did not work for me one bit. Similar premises have succeeded in the past, such as later titles, Dave and Forrest Gump. Here it failed because of its outdatedness, as well as its inability to be more than a one-joke movie.
What I would change
No idea.
Game of Death
Viewed in
2007
Premise
Made five years after Bruce Lee's death. The movie makers started with old demo fights, and added new scenes with Bruce Lee stand ins.
Who should watch
Martial arts fans?
Thoughts
Before I found out this was not even a real Bruce Lee movie, I already thought was a pretty bad movie. Now I feel gipped, like listening to one of Tupac Shakur's posthumous albums.
As a movie, it had bad dubbing, bad acting and bad editing. So it was really high on the unintentionally funny scale. As an added bonus of hilarity, the movie makers tried to make it into a James Bond martial arts flick; they even employed the original James Bond composer to write the score.
The only redeeming qualities were the appearances by Chuck Norris and Sammo Hung, and the absurd yet cool fight between Bruce Lee and Kareem Abdul-Jabber.
What I would change
Never made this movie. Just release the Kareem fight as a short.
2007
Premise
Made five years after Bruce Lee's death. The movie makers started with old demo fights, and added new scenes with Bruce Lee stand ins.
Who should watch
Martial arts fans?
Thoughts
Before I found out this was not even a real Bruce Lee movie, I already thought was a pretty bad movie. Now I feel gipped, like listening to one of Tupac Shakur's posthumous albums.
As a movie, it had bad dubbing, bad acting and bad editing. So it was really high on the unintentionally funny scale. As an added bonus of hilarity, the movie makers tried to make it into a James Bond martial arts flick; they even employed the original James Bond composer to write the score.
The only redeeming qualities were the appearances by Chuck Norris and Sammo Hung, and the absurd yet cool fight between Bruce Lee and Kareem Abdul-Jabber.
What I would change
Never made this movie. Just release the Kareem fight as a short.
Kramer Vs. Kramer
Viewed in
2007
Premise
A to-be-divorced couple fight over custody of their son.
Who should watch
Fans of Dustin Hoffman or Meryl Streep.
Thoughts
I can see why it won so many awards; it pulled all the right Oscar strings. Maybe it is because I have never married/divorced/fought for custody, but I was never emotionally involved with the story.
What was interesting was that the movie felt like a play, due to no special effects, camera trickery, nor even music.
What I would change
Nothing.
2007
Premise
A to-be-divorced couple fight over custody of their son.
Who should watch
Fans of Dustin Hoffman or Meryl Streep.
Thoughts
I can see why it won so many awards; it pulled all the right Oscar strings. Maybe it is because I have never married/divorced/fought for custody, but I was never emotionally involved with the story.
What was interesting was that the movie felt like a play, due to no special effects, camera trickery, nor even music.
What I would change
Nothing.
Mad Max
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Mel Gibson stars as a cop in lawless Australia run amok by motorcycle gangs.
Liked
Chase scenes.
Disliked
Brian May's score.
Hated
Pretty much everything else.
Thoughts
Wow, that was a horrible action movie.
Some of the action scenes were pretty cool, especially the car and motorbike chases. Too bad we all know a car is usually stronger. The best moment was a car running over a group of bikes off a bridge. Thanks to its low budget, there were plenty of repeating, Benny Hill-like sped up action footage .
That was the only good thing I could say about it. One main problem was the incomprehensible story. I guess they were trying to portray a post-apocalyptic world, but it seemed pretty stable with the existence of middle class, uncorrupted police force, and working telephones. Even during the numerous road scenes, I saw smoothly-paved roads with vegetated fields in the background.
The bad guys were supposed to be bad-ass and imposing, instead they came off as plot-driven buffoons. As for the good guys, they were pretty boring, including Mel Gibson as the title character. There was not much "mad" in his Max.
Equally worse was the extremely choppy pacing. It was like reading a book, but with blank pages between each chapter, or the following chapter starting before the previous chapter had ended. For a 90 minute flick, it dragged on forever.
With biker gangs, loud muscle cars, leather jackets, post-apocalyptic themes, boring characters, lame story and uneven editing, it was like a student film. At the same time, Mad Max jump-started Gibson's career, pioneered post-apocalyptic movies, and gave Australian cinema world recognition. Clearly one of those movies that was more important than entertaining.
What I would change
A lot of stuff.
2010
Premise
Mel Gibson stars as a cop in lawless Australia run amok by motorcycle gangs.
Liked
Chase scenes.
Disliked
Brian May's score.
Hated
Pretty much everything else.
Thoughts
Wow, that was a horrible action movie.
Some of the action scenes were pretty cool, especially the car and motorbike chases. Too bad we all know a car is usually stronger. The best moment was a car running over a group of bikes off a bridge. Thanks to its low budget, there were plenty of repeating, Benny Hill-like sped up action footage .
That was the only good thing I could say about it. One main problem was the incomprehensible story. I guess they were trying to portray a post-apocalyptic world, but it seemed pretty stable with the existence of middle class, uncorrupted police force, and working telephones. Even during the numerous road scenes, I saw smoothly-paved roads with vegetated fields in the background.
The bad guys were supposed to be bad-ass and imposing, instead they came off as plot-driven buffoons. As for the good guys, they were pretty boring, including Mel Gibson as the title character. There was not much "mad" in his Max.
Equally worse was the extremely choppy pacing. It was like reading a book, but with blank pages between each chapter, or the following chapter starting before the previous chapter had ended. For a 90 minute flick, it dragged on forever.
With biker gangs, loud muscle cars, leather jackets, post-apocalyptic themes, boring characters, lame story and uneven editing, it was like a student film. At the same time, Mad Max jump-started Gibson's career, pioneered post-apocalyptic movies, and gave Australian cinema world recognition. Clearly one of those movies that was more important than entertaining.
What I would change
A lot of stuff.
Manhattan
Viewed in
2011
Formats
DVD
Premise
Woody Allen stars as a divorced New Yorker, dating a high-schooler, who looks for love in his best friend's mistress.
Loved
The music.
Liked
The dialog.
Disliked
The black-and-white cinematography.
Thoughts
A decent Woody Allen flick.
The best part was the excellent selection of cool jazz music from beginning to end. It was very fun to listen to.
Like most of his films, I enjoyed his delightfully funny dialog writing. Here, the characters talked about all sorts of topics, such as relationships, marriage, fidelity, and the typical neuroses that bug Allen. I also got a kick out of the love-triangle twist. It was more like a love-open-square. Or a love-mini-constellation.
The actors were charming, and I appreciated the degree of difficulty in memorizing verbose dialog in elongated takes. It was cool to see Diane Keaton reuniting with the bespectacled whiner.
What bugged me was the intentional black-and-white cinematography. It made some master shots of the city rather interesting, but for the rest of the time, New York City lost its visual beauty and created moments of indecipherable shots during dialog scenes.
I consider myself a fan, though I would never do a Woody Allen marathon. Compared to his other works, Manhattan was on par with the rest, but still a notch below Annie Hall. His films tend to be more fun to listen to than watch, and with the questionable camera choice here, this was more true than ever.
What I would change
Used conventional cinematography.
2011
Formats
DVD
Premise
Woody Allen stars as a divorced New Yorker, dating a high-schooler, who looks for love in his best friend's mistress.
Loved
The music.
Liked
The dialog.
Disliked
The black-and-white cinematography.
Thoughts
A decent Woody Allen flick.
The best part was the excellent selection of cool jazz music from beginning to end. It was very fun to listen to.
Like most of his films, I enjoyed his delightfully funny dialog writing. Here, the characters talked about all sorts of topics, such as relationships, marriage, fidelity, and the typical neuroses that bug Allen. I also got a kick out of the love-triangle twist. It was more like a love-open-square. Or a love-mini-constellation.
The actors were charming, and I appreciated the degree of difficulty in memorizing verbose dialog in elongated takes. It was cool to see Diane Keaton reuniting with the bespectacled whiner.
What bugged me was the intentional black-and-white cinematography. It made some master shots of the city rather interesting, but for the rest of the time, New York City lost its visual beauty and created moments of indecipherable shots during dialog scenes.
I consider myself a fan, though I would never do a Woody Allen marathon. Compared to his other works, Manhattan was on par with the rest, but still a notch below Annie Hall. His films tend to be more fun to listen to than watch, and with the questionable camera choice here, this was more true than ever.
What I would change
Used conventional cinematography.
Moonraker
Viewed in
2014
Formats
HDTV.
Premise
James Bond (Roger Moore) investigates the mid-air theft of a space shuttle and discovers a plot to commit global genocide. Also, SPACE.
Loved
Water chase scenes, 007 and Q banter.
Liked
Jaws and his girlfriend?
Disliked
Jaws and his girlfriend?
Hated
Stupefying movie logic and physics.
Thoughts
I'm a big fan of the Roger Moore era, but yeesh, this was horrible. Thankfully it was laughably horrible.
There were a handful of good stuff that still withstood the test of time. Mainly the two great water chases scenes, a gut-busting gondola chase in Venice, and an exhilarating chases in the Amazon. My other favorite moment was the obligatory Q and his gadgets scene. Moore and the late great
Desmond Llewelyn's back-and-forth banter was top-notch, and R & D was chock full of ridiculous inventions.
Meanwhile, in the WTF? department, there was a bizarre Wily Coyote-ish running gag of Jaws falling to his death, only to cartoonishly spring back in pursuit. And the subplot of his nerdy girlfriend? I didn't know if I wanted to punch the movie for stereotypes, or hug it for their stupidly charming romance.
Anecdotally-speaking, anytime a franchise or series decides to go into space, they're out of ideas, and it's going to be terrible. This was no exception. The plot was mind-bogglingly ludicrous (even by James Bond villain standards), the movie physics of manipulating gravity had me in stitches, and THE LASERS!!! Last complaint: the title of the movie, and the name of the shuttle is "Moonraker", and they never get near the moon!
The only other redeeming aspect of Moonraker was that it brought back memories of Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery. It was clear that Moonraker was one of the main inspirations for Mike Myer's hilarious parody/tribute. This film was indefensibly bad, so enjoy it for the unintentional comedy. But don't make this your introductory entry into Roger Moore era 007 flicks.
2014
Formats
HDTV.
Premise
James Bond (Roger Moore) investigates the mid-air theft of a space shuttle and discovers a plot to commit global genocide. Also, SPACE.
Loved
Water chase scenes, 007 and Q banter.
Liked
Jaws and his girlfriend?
Disliked
Jaws and his girlfriend?
Hated
Stupefying movie logic and physics.
Thoughts
I'm a big fan of the Roger Moore era, but yeesh, this was horrible. Thankfully it was laughably horrible.
There were a handful of good stuff that still withstood the test of time. Mainly the two great water chases scenes, a gut-busting gondola chase in Venice, and an exhilarating chases in the Amazon. My other favorite moment was the obligatory Q and his gadgets scene. Moore and the late great
Desmond Llewelyn's back-and-forth banter was top-notch, and R & D was chock full of ridiculous inventions.
Meanwhile, in the WTF? department, there was a bizarre Wily Coyote-ish running gag of Jaws falling to his death, only to cartoonishly spring back in pursuit. And the subplot of his nerdy girlfriend? I didn't know if I wanted to punch the movie for stereotypes, or hug it for their stupidly charming romance.
Anecdotally-speaking, anytime a franchise or series decides to go into space, they're out of ideas, and it's going to be terrible. This was no exception. The plot was mind-bogglingly ludicrous (even by James Bond villain standards), the movie physics of manipulating gravity had me in stitches, and THE LASERS!!! Last complaint: the title of the movie, and the name of the shuttle is "Moonraker", and they never get near the moon!
The only other redeeming aspect of Moonraker was that it brought back memories of Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery. It was clear that Moonraker was one of the main inspirations for Mike Myer's hilarious parody/tribute. This film was indefensibly bad, so enjoy it for the unintentional comedy. But don't make this your introductory entry into Roger Moore era 007 flicks.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Viewed in
2011
Formats
HDTV
Premise
A decade after its cancellation, Captain Kirk and crew return in movie form!
Liked
Bringing the band back together.
Disliked
Lack of character development.
Hated
Sleep-inducing pace.
Thoughts
Yep, my friends were right, this was hard to watch. Remember the elongated opening shot of Mel Brooks' Spaceballs of a ridiculously long spaceship? Well, this movie sported a thirty minute sequence showing the Enterprise moving from point A to point B. No joke. This was one of the worst instances of film makers infatuated with special effects over everything else. Really shocking considering it was directed by Robert Wise.
The only good thing about the length was that it easily masked the other numerous flaws, such as lack of any interesting dialog or cool things for characters to do. The story felt more like an extended episode than a movie, though it had its moments of smart science fiction, like V'GER's origin. Not surprisingly, the then-expensive special effects did not age well.
The only redeeming quality was the reunion factor. While I didn't have to wait ten years for it to happen, but even I couldn't help but smile watching these people reunite on that bridge. It was totally cool to see the less famous recurring characters, Dr. Chapel and Yeoman Rand, back one more time.
I think even hardcore fans would admit that watching Star Trek: The Motion Picture in its entirety was a badge of honor of survival and endurance. If you're not a fan, don't bother with this bloated sloth.
What I would change
Shortened it by at least half an hour.
2011
Formats
HDTV
Premise
A decade after its cancellation, Captain Kirk and crew return in movie form!
Liked
Bringing the band back together.
Disliked
Lack of character development.
Hated
Sleep-inducing pace.
Thoughts
Yep, my friends were right, this was hard to watch. Remember the elongated opening shot of Mel Brooks' Spaceballs of a ridiculously long spaceship? Well, this movie sported a thirty minute sequence showing the Enterprise moving from point A to point B. No joke. This was one of the worst instances of film makers infatuated with special effects over everything else. Really shocking considering it was directed by Robert Wise.
The only good thing about the length was that it easily masked the other numerous flaws, such as lack of any interesting dialog or cool things for characters to do. The story felt more like an extended episode than a movie, though it had its moments of smart science fiction, like V'GER's origin. Not surprisingly, the then-expensive special effects did not age well.
The only redeeming quality was the reunion factor. While I didn't have to wait ten years for it to happen, but even I couldn't help but smile watching these people reunite on that bridge. It was totally cool to see the less famous recurring characters, Dr. Chapel and Yeoman Rand, back one more time.
I think even hardcore fans would admit that watching Star Trek: The Motion Picture in its entirety was a badge of honor of survival and endurance. If you're not a fan, don't bother with this bloated sloth.
What I would change
Shortened it by at least half an hour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)