Viewed in
2011
Formats
Netflix streaming (Xbox 360)
Premise
Dudley Moore plays a drunk millionaire who is forced to marry or sacrifice his riches.
Liked
The cast.
Disliked
The messy third act.
Thoughts
To my surprise, this film still held up, mainly thanks to the likeable cast.
This was truly Moore's greatest achievement. He managed to transform an annoying, undesirable, unrelatable character into an absolutely charming, memorable protagonist. This film would not have succeeded without the audience buying and sympathizing with Arthur. Even his high-pitched, overused cackle was somehow enjoyable.
As great as Moore was, the rest of the cast was equally strong. The dialogue and and acting allowed the supporting characters to be more than just foils. Liza Minnelli was spunky and charming as the love interest. There were some hilarious performances by the supporting actors throughout the film. But the true scene-stealer was the late, great John Gielgud as Hobson the unflappable butler. His deadpan delivery of tough love got the biggest laughs. I could see why he won best support actor.
The weakest link was the last act. First, it lost some momentum with tragedy, though it was well executed and did not come out of nowhere. Then the climax and resolution was a rushed, jumbled mess of attempted humor, suspense, and happy endings. Lastly, Arthur's character arc felt incomplete.
Going in, I figured Arthur would be antiquated and unlikable. Turns out I was wrong. Thanks to irresistibly charming performances by Moore, Minnelli, and Gielgud, and some sharp dialog, this film remained a timeless, enjoyable romp. Now if I could just get than annoying "Arthur's Theme" song out of my head...
What I would change
Improved the last act, just not sure how.
Showing posts with label 1981. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1981. Show all posts
Body Heat
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
William Hurt stars as a sleazy lawyer who falls for femme fatale Kathleen Turner. Together they decide to murder her rich husband.
Loved
Pretty much everything, especially the leads.
Thoughts
Sometimes it's just plain entertaining to watch bad people do bad things to each other.
This was probably the last great film noir to come out. (My favorite film, Dark City had elements, but it's far from being pure noir.) The only flick of its kind that could touch it would be Double Indemnity. It had everything you expect. Sexy broads, shady characters, sultry flirtations, double-crossings, unexpected twists, suspenseful murderous moments, distinct score, and plenty of night shoots when morality goes to sleep. The only things absent were the hard shadows and main character voice overs. I didn't miss either in this case.
I always thought Faye Dunaway was the reigning queen of that era, now I'm no longer sure. Good googly moogly, did Kathleen Turner amp up the sexy in this film! Every curve, every innuendo, every look, every feign made me weak in the knees and hard in the... never mind. The first flirtatious twenty minutes with William Hurt were just pitch perfect in dialog, performance and execution. I could watch that section on a loop forever.
As for Hurt, he ain't no slouch either. Completely believable as a sleazy womanizer, yet able to be Turner's (near) equal without being a dick. I don't know what the secret was, aside from writing and acting, but somehow the film was able to create two shady, yet totally memorable and lovable leads.
The rest of the cast was excellent, and quite amusing. I had never seen a non-white-haired Ted Danson before. Nor had I ever seen a svelte, handsome, and smooth-skinned Mickey Rourke prior to this.
Body Heat was more than just a great exercise in style and acting. The story was very intriguing, full of well-timed reveals and twists. I thought it would be the standard kill-the-rich-husband-but-it-gets-messy tale, but the third act was juicy. Another great aspect was its timelessness. Even the old school telephones gave it a time and place that was familiar to the genre. Nothing else, not even the pace, felt outdated. My only complaint of the story was the resolution, when I think they tried too hard, and I'm not sure if everything made sense while watching.
A must-see for film buffs and film noir fans, this masterpiece was one of the best of its decade, thanks to its seduction, subterfuge, style, and story.
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
William Hurt stars as a sleazy lawyer who falls for femme fatale Kathleen Turner. Together they decide to murder her rich husband.
Loved
Pretty much everything, especially the leads.
Thoughts
Sometimes it's just plain entertaining to watch bad people do bad things to each other.
This was probably the last great film noir to come out. (My favorite film, Dark City had elements, but it's far from being pure noir.) The only flick of its kind that could touch it would be Double Indemnity. It had everything you expect. Sexy broads, shady characters, sultry flirtations, double-crossings, unexpected twists, suspenseful murderous moments, distinct score, and plenty of night shoots when morality goes to sleep. The only things absent were the hard shadows and main character voice overs. I didn't miss either in this case.
I always thought Faye Dunaway was the reigning queen of that era, now I'm no longer sure. Good googly moogly, did Kathleen Turner amp up the sexy in this film! Every curve, every innuendo, every look, every feign made me weak in the knees and hard in the... never mind. The first flirtatious twenty minutes with William Hurt were just pitch perfect in dialog, performance and execution. I could watch that section on a loop forever.
As for Hurt, he ain't no slouch either. Completely believable as a sleazy womanizer, yet able to be Turner's (near) equal without being a dick. I don't know what the secret was, aside from writing and acting, but somehow the film was able to create two shady, yet totally memorable and lovable leads.
The rest of the cast was excellent, and quite amusing. I had never seen a non-white-haired Ted Danson before. Nor had I ever seen a svelte, handsome, and smooth-skinned Mickey Rourke prior to this.
Body Heat was more than just a great exercise in style and acting. The story was very intriguing, full of well-timed reveals and twists. I thought it would be the standard kill-the-rich-husband-but-it-gets-messy tale, but the third act was juicy. Another great aspect was its timelessness. Even the old school telephones gave it a time and place that was familiar to the genre. Nothing else, not even the pace, felt outdated. My only complaint of the story was the resolution, when I think they tried too hard, and I'm not sure if everything made sense while watching.
A must-see for film buffs and film noir fans, this masterpiece was one of the best of its decade, thanks to its seduction, subterfuge, style, and story.
Chariots of Fire
Viewed in
2011
Formats
HDTV
Premise
A movie about the 1924 Olympic runners for Great Britain.
Liked
Epic slow-motion shots.
Disliked
Music choice, slow pace.
Thoughts
Visually and character-wise, this was very strong. I really enjoyed the poetic, epic, and glamourous slow-motion shots. They're really well-done and probably would look gorgeous on the big screen. I also really liked the two lead characters, and was very much invested into how race and religion really drove these people.
The cast overall was very strong and all put in good performances. It included a young Ian Holm, Richard Griffiths, the late, great John Gielgud, along with Star Trek films alums Alice Krige and Ben Cross.
Meanwhile, I'm torn about Vangelis' famed score. It was well-done and remarkably memorable, but was it truly appropriate to have 1980's synthesizer music to help tell a story that takes place in 1920's posh Europe.
Not surprisingly, the pace was rather slow at times. While I liked the main characters, I had trouble telling the rest of their friends apart, and the self-important, grandiose dialog made it hard for me to really pull for these privileged characters during their triumphs and falls.
Chariots of Fire held up pretty well after three decades thanks to elegant visuals, strong characters, and a wonderful (though arguably inappropriate) score.
2011
Formats
HDTV
Premise
A movie about the 1924 Olympic runners for Great Britain.
Liked
Epic slow-motion shots.
Disliked
Music choice, slow pace.
Thoughts
Visually and character-wise, this was very strong. I really enjoyed the poetic, epic, and glamourous slow-motion shots. They're really well-done and probably would look gorgeous on the big screen. I also really liked the two lead characters, and was very much invested into how race and religion really drove these people.
The cast overall was very strong and all put in good performances. It included a young Ian Holm, Richard Griffiths, the late, great John Gielgud, along with Star Trek films alums Alice Krige and Ben Cross.
Meanwhile, I'm torn about Vangelis' famed score. It was well-done and remarkably memorable, but was it truly appropriate to have 1980's synthesizer music to help tell a story that takes place in 1920's posh Europe.
Not surprisingly, the pace was rather slow at times. While I liked the main characters, I had trouble telling the rest of their friends apart, and the self-important, grandiose dialog made it hard for me to really pull for these privileged characters during their triumphs and falls.
Chariots of Fire held up pretty well after three decades thanks to elegant visuals, strong characters, and a wonderful (though arguably inappropriate) score.
Clash of the Titans
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Ray Harryhausen contributes to a retelling of the story of Perseus.
Liked
Harryhausen's signature stop-motion creatures. Unexpected boobies!
Hated
The mythology-butchering, boring storyline, and the special effects.
Thoughts
Watching this as an adult, this was practically unwatchable.
What I liked best was that it had an old Hollywood feel to it, thanks to the music, sets, dialogue and dialogue delivery style. I think it was a tribute to those films from the 1960's. As expected, Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion creatures were quite excellent, ranging from giant vultures to the slithering Medusa monster.
Except Harryhausen's cool critters, the special effects were laughably outdated. It looked pretty good for a 1960's movie, except Clash of the Titans was made in 1981. I swear I've seen better special effects in earlier Godzilla movies.
As for the story, bleh. I did not like all the rearranging of the myths just to add more monsters. Half the time, I was distracted by thoughts of "That's not how I remember it". Also, the mechanical owl seemed like an R2-D2 ripoff.
The wooden acting did not help the cause either. While it was fun to see a young Maggie Smith (via Harry Potter movies), she lacked much presence for a goddess. Same for the late, great Sir Laurence Olivier as Zeus.
Despite the stop-motion monsters and tribute-like feel, I found this movie boring and very outdated.
What was the rating of this movie? There were two boob shots! And this was meant for kids?
What I would change
The misleading title. It sounded cool, but there was no clashing of any titans whatsoever. Perhaps if it was called "The Legend of Perseus", I would have liked it better.
2010
Premise
Ray Harryhausen contributes to a retelling of the story of Perseus.
Liked
Harryhausen's signature stop-motion creatures. Unexpected boobies!
Hated
The mythology-butchering, boring storyline, and the special effects.
Thoughts
Watching this as an adult, this was practically unwatchable.
What I liked best was that it had an old Hollywood feel to it, thanks to the music, sets, dialogue and dialogue delivery style. I think it was a tribute to those films from the 1960's. As expected, Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion creatures were quite excellent, ranging from giant vultures to the slithering Medusa monster.
Except Harryhausen's cool critters, the special effects were laughably outdated. It looked pretty good for a 1960's movie, except Clash of the Titans was made in 1981. I swear I've seen better special effects in earlier Godzilla movies.
As for the story, bleh. I did not like all the rearranging of the myths just to add more monsters. Half the time, I was distracted by thoughts of "That's not how I remember it". Also, the mechanical owl seemed like an R2-D2 ripoff.
The wooden acting did not help the cause either. While it was fun to see a young Maggie Smith (via Harry Potter movies), she lacked much presence for a goddess. Same for the late, great Sir Laurence Olivier as Zeus.
Despite the stop-motion monsters and tribute-like feel, I found this movie boring and very outdated.
What was the rating of this movie? There were two boob shots! And this was meant for kids?
What I would change
The misleading title. It sounded cool, but there was no clashing of any titans whatsoever. Perhaps if it was called "The Legend of Perseus", I would have liked it better.
Das Boot
Viewed in
1999
Premise
Wolfgang Peterson's masterpiece about a WWII German U-boat.
Who should watch
Those who like suspense more than action.
Thoughts
The story and the acting were well done.
I enjoyed the film because of the filmmaking degree of difficulty. The film managed to be entertaining and exciting despite the fact there was practically one set and the entire plot took place in this submarine. I loved the claustrophobic tone.
What I would change
Nothing.
1999
Premise
Wolfgang Peterson's masterpiece about a WWII German U-boat.
Who should watch
Those who like suspense more than action.
Thoughts
The story and the acting were well done.
I enjoyed the film because of the filmmaking degree of difficulty. The film managed to be entertaining and exciting despite the fact there was practically one set and the entire plot took place in this submarine. I loved the claustrophobic tone.
What I would change
Nothing.
Escape from New York
Viewed in
2010
Formats
DVD
Premise
With New York City turned into a giant prison, Kurt Russell stars as Snake (not to be mistaken with video game Snake) as a convict sent in to retrieve a hostage: the U.S. President.
Liked
The art direction.
Thoughts
Director John Carpenter created some spectacular post-apocalyptic city landscapes that were gritty, dirty, and other-worldly. It even seemed to have its own culture and hierarchy in this forgotten society.
There were a lot of amusing moments, such as outdated sensibilities, archaic computer technology, and odd casting. Russell was likable, but did not really pull off the believable badassery required of the lead. Supporting him was Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, Isaac Hayes, and Dr. Sam Loomis from Halloween.
It excelled visually in atmosphere and attitude, but fell short in everything else.
What I would change
Paid some attention to character or story.
2010
Formats
DVD
Premise
With New York City turned into a giant prison, Kurt Russell stars as Snake (not to be mistaken with video game Snake) as a convict sent in to retrieve a hostage: the U.S. President.
Liked
The art direction.
Thoughts
Director John Carpenter created some spectacular post-apocalyptic city landscapes that were gritty, dirty, and other-worldly. It even seemed to have its own culture and hierarchy in this forgotten society.
There were a lot of amusing moments, such as outdated sensibilities, archaic computer technology, and odd casting. Russell was likable, but did not really pull off the believable badassery required of the lead. Supporting him was Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, Isaac Hayes, and Dr. Sam Loomis from Halloween.
It excelled visually in atmosphere and attitude, but fell short in everything else.
What I would change
Paid some attention to character or story.
Evil Dead, The
Viewed in
2007
Premise
The controversial, indie horror cult classic that put Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell on the map.
Who should watch
Horror fans.
Thoughts
Before there was 'Blair Witch Project', there was 'Evil Dead'. This was made for allegedly $375,00.
Granted I gave it extra kudos for its budget, but it was squirmy, scary and entertaining. I enjoyed every creative trick, including clay-mation and well-done makeup.
The first half was effective at just spooking the audience. Then the gore kicked in. It was just spectacular. I had not see so much bloody since that elevator scene in 'The Shining'.
Last but not least, watch out for evil trees that rape young women. I wonder if tentacle hentai got their ideas from this...
What I would change
Nothing.
2007
Premise
The controversial, indie horror cult classic that put Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell on the map.
Who should watch
Horror fans.
Thoughts
Before there was 'Blair Witch Project', there was 'Evil Dead'. This was made for allegedly $375,00.
Granted I gave it extra kudos for its budget, but it was squirmy, scary and entertaining. I enjoyed every creative trick, including clay-mation and well-done makeup.
The first half was effective at just spooking the audience. Then the gore kicked in. It was just spectacular. I had not see so much bloody since that elevator scene in 'The Shining'.
Last but not least, watch out for evil trees that rape young women. I wonder if tentacle hentai got their ideas from this...
What I would change
Nothing.
For Your Eyes Only
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Roger Moore stars as James Bond who helps a cross-bow touting lady get revenge for her parents' deaths.
Liked
Exciting stunts, Moore's performance.
Disliked
Pretty much everything else.
Hated
Too much Vaseline on the camera.
Thoughts
Definitely one of the most action-packed Bond films I recall watching.
The movie opened up with a roller-coaster-like helicopter stunt work over London. In the middle of the movie was a thrilling ski chase in the Alps, complete with biathlon assassins and spike-tired motorcycle gangs. Lastly, I liked the creative scene of Bond dragged across Mediterranean coral reefs to attract sharks.
Moore's effortless cheeky performance was fun to watch. I was amused by the partly funny/creepy subplot of an (possibly) under-aged female skater falling in love with Bond.
While the action and Moore's Bond were fun to watch, the rest of the movie did not really bring much else to the table. For one, there was little sex. The main Bond girl was gorgeous, but her acting was too stiff. Not much could be done with the skater chick.
The villain and his motivation was rather underwhelming. Bill Conti made it sound outdated with its disco/trumpet score. And once again, its broad comedy fell flat, such as the Margaret Thatcher scenes. Lastly, what was up with the overuse of soft lighting? Obviously, Moore has gotten older, but it was annoying to feel like watching the non-action scenes in a fog.
It had some awesome action, but everything else was forgettable.
What I would change
Less soft lighting!
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Roger Moore stars as James Bond who helps a cross-bow touting lady get revenge for her parents' deaths.
Liked
Exciting stunts, Moore's performance.
Disliked
Pretty much everything else.
Hated
Too much Vaseline on the camera.
Thoughts
Definitely one of the most action-packed Bond films I recall watching.
The movie opened up with a roller-coaster-like helicopter stunt work over London. In the middle of the movie was a thrilling ski chase in the Alps, complete with biathlon assassins and spike-tired motorcycle gangs. Lastly, I liked the creative scene of Bond dragged across Mediterranean coral reefs to attract sharks.
Moore's effortless cheeky performance was fun to watch. I was amused by the partly funny/creepy subplot of an (possibly) under-aged female skater falling in love with Bond.
While the action and Moore's Bond were fun to watch, the rest of the movie did not really bring much else to the table. For one, there was little sex. The main Bond girl was gorgeous, but her acting was too stiff. Not much could be done with the skater chick.
The villain and his motivation was rather underwhelming. Bill Conti made it sound outdated with its disco/trumpet score. And once again, its broad comedy fell flat, such as the Margaret Thatcher scenes. Lastly, what was up with the overuse of soft lighting? Obviously, Moore has gotten older, but it was annoying to feel like watching the non-action scenes in a fog.
It had some awesome action, but everything else was forgettable.
What I would change
Less soft lighting!
The Great Muppet Caper
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Kermit and Fozzie play news reporters sent off to London to find a stolen necklace.
Loved
John Cleese scenes, first two songs.
Liked
Snappy pace and comedy.
Thoughts
Overall, it was fun and snappy. The comedy frequency was pretty high, with a strong mix of self-referential, fourth-wall breaking, satirical twists on cliches, and a dash of vaudeville. My favorite was a gut-busting sequence in which Miss Piggy sneaks into the mansion of a stuffy rich man, played hilariously by the great John Cleese. A perfect blend of Monty Python and Muppets.
Aside from Cleese, I also very much enjoyed Charles Grodin's over-the-top performance as an obvious sleaze-ball. As for cameos, Peter Ustinov and Oscar the Grouch took the crown.
Sonically, three songs shined memorably. The first two were absolute masterpieces of fun and musicality. I also adored the sweet "The First Time You See Her" and Miss Piggy's fantasy (a Busby Berkeley send up). While the song wasn't that great (in fact I already forgot it), there was a number in the park, in which I was floored to see muppets riding bicycles, legs and all. I'm assuming some great puppetry and expensive rotoscoping to make that magic happen.
If I had to nitpick, I thought the plot wasn't well executed. The characters went to London, but after some b-roll of famous landmarks and using a couple of British actors, it seemed like the entire film forgot where they were. Also, aside from Cleese and Grodin, the rest of the human characters were forgettable.
Despite watching it three decades later, The Great Muppet Caper still held up very well, thanks to memorable songs and jokes that stood the test of time.
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Kermit and Fozzie play news reporters sent off to London to find a stolen necklace.
Loved
John Cleese scenes, first two songs.
Liked
Snappy pace and comedy.
Thoughts
Overall, it was fun and snappy. The comedy frequency was pretty high, with a strong mix of self-referential, fourth-wall breaking, satirical twists on cliches, and a dash of vaudeville. My favorite was a gut-busting sequence in which Miss Piggy sneaks into the mansion of a stuffy rich man, played hilariously by the great John Cleese. A perfect blend of Monty Python and Muppets.
Aside from Cleese, I also very much enjoyed Charles Grodin's over-the-top performance as an obvious sleaze-ball. As for cameos, Peter Ustinov and Oscar the Grouch took the crown.
Sonically, three songs shined memorably. The first two were absolute masterpieces of fun and musicality. I also adored the sweet "The First Time You See Her" and Miss Piggy's fantasy (a Busby Berkeley send up). While the song wasn't that great (in fact I already forgot it), there was a number in the park, in which I was floored to see muppets riding bicycles, legs and all. I'm assuming some great puppetry and expensive rotoscoping to make that magic happen.
If I had to nitpick, I thought the plot wasn't well executed. The characters went to London, but after some b-roll of famous landmarks and using a couple of British actors, it seemed like the entire film forgot where they were. Also, aside from Cleese and Grodin, the rest of the human characters were forgettable.
Despite watching it three decades later, The Great Muppet Caper still held up very well, thanks to memorable songs and jokes that stood the test of time.
On Golden Pond
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn play an elderly couple who welcome their estranged daughter's family to their summer home.
Liked
Performances.
Disliked
Implausible resolutions.
Hated
On-the-nose music.
Thoughts
Overall, it held up pretty well over time.
Not surprisingly, Fonda and Hepburn owned the screen. I really enjoyed Fonda's grumpy old man routine. The supporting cast was very strong, especially Jane Fonda's fiance and his kid.
There were some strong moments, light and heavy. At times, the film had impeccable observational wit that made the elderly leads genuine and relatable. But you could also feel the weight of mortality in select tender scenes.
While there was some excellent dialog, the writing was mostly weak in terms of adaptation (from the play). Characters spouting emotional diarrhea can work on stage, but rarely on screen. Poor Jane Fonda got stuck with most of these scenes, and had to overact to get the words out of her mouth. Had this not been an issue, I might've forgiven it for the implausibly neat-and-happy ending, or the screaming symbolisms.
Another problem that bugged me enormously was the score. Every time someone would say something angry/serious, the music always kicked in with something blatantly sad. The result was multiple scenes ruined by cheese.
Two more thoughts on the performances. While I enjoyed the leads, I can't help but suspect they won their best acting awards on reputation and Oscar's occasional "old legends can still act!" swoons. Granted I haven't seen most of the other performances, but a quick look up the competition and you're looking at a murderer's row of talent, including Dudley Moore's Arthur Bach.
As for the late great Katharine Hepburn, I sadly found her tremors and wavering voice to be too distracting. Yes, it was brave of her to keep doing what she was born to do, but maybe I had too much baggage of seeing parodies/impressions, which took me out of the moment constantly. I wonder if I'll have similar issues when Michael J. Fox attempts something like this in his later years.
Film buffs should watch this out of respect for Henry Fonda and Hepburn, but On Golden Pond suffered from lack of a believable adaptation and cheesy use of dramatic music to make it truly timeless.
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn play an elderly couple who welcome their estranged daughter's family to their summer home.
Liked
Performances.
Disliked
Implausible resolutions.
Hated
On-the-nose music.
Thoughts
Overall, it held up pretty well over time.
Not surprisingly, Fonda and Hepburn owned the screen. I really enjoyed Fonda's grumpy old man routine. The supporting cast was very strong, especially Jane Fonda's fiance and his kid.
There were some strong moments, light and heavy. At times, the film had impeccable observational wit that made the elderly leads genuine and relatable. But you could also feel the weight of mortality in select tender scenes.
While there was some excellent dialog, the writing was mostly weak in terms of adaptation (from the play). Characters spouting emotional diarrhea can work on stage, but rarely on screen. Poor Jane Fonda got stuck with most of these scenes, and had to overact to get the words out of her mouth. Had this not been an issue, I might've forgiven it for the implausibly neat-and-happy ending, or the screaming symbolisms.
Another problem that bugged me enormously was the score. Every time someone would say something angry/serious, the music always kicked in with something blatantly sad. The result was multiple scenes ruined by cheese.
Two more thoughts on the performances. While I enjoyed the leads, I can't help but suspect they won their best acting awards on reputation and Oscar's occasional "old legends can still act!" swoons. Granted I haven't seen most of the other performances, but a quick look up the competition and you're looking at a murderer's row of talent, including Dudley Moore's Arthur Bach.
As for the late great Katharine Hepburn, I sadly found her tremors and wavering voice to be too distracting. Yes, it was brave of her to keep doing what she was born to do, but maybe I had too much baggage of seeing parodies/impressions, which took me out of the moment constantly. I wonder if I'll have similar issues when Michael J. Fox attempts something like this in his later years.
Film buffs should watch this out of respect for Henry Fonda and Hepburn, but On Golden Pond suffered from lack of a believable adaptation and cheesy use of dramatic music to make it truly timeless.
Stripes
Viewed in
2005
Premise
Bill Murray and Harold Ramis join the army. Hilarity ensues.
Who should watch
Bill Murray fans.
Thoughts
It reminded me of 'Good Morning Vietnam', in which a big star joins the army, then does his schtick and ruffles some feathers. Instead of turning sappy in the second half, this movie became a slapstick action-comedy. I liked it better in the first half with the typical Bill Murray stuff.
What I would change
Ask the MPAA why this PG-13 movie was allowed to show naked breasts, while others could not.
2005
Premise
Bill Murray and Harold Ramis join the army. Hilarity ensues.
Who should watch
Bill Murray fans.
Thoughts
It reminded me of 'Good Morning Vietnam', in which a big star joins the army, then does his schtick and ruffles some feathers. Instead of turning sappy in the second half, this movie became a slapstick action-comedy. I liked it better in the first half with the typical Bill Murray stuff.
What I would change
Ask the MPAA why this PG-13 movie was allowed to show naked breasts, while others could not.
Superman II
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
In the sequel of the Christopher Reeve era adaption of the Man of Steel, General Zod is freed from the Phantom Zone and wrecks havoc on Earth.
Liked
Reeve and Gene Hackman.
Disliked
Everything else.
Thoughts
It was way too cartoony for me to like it at all.
The best part of was seeing Reeve reprise his role. He was believable as Superman, but mainly, he was very charming as the clumsy, awkward Clark Kent. But was it me, or has his Kent voice morphed into Kermit the Frog?
Terence Stamp was cool as General Zod, although I've been clouded by Kevin Smith's impression of the famous "Kneel before General Zod!" quote, so I had expected a more flashy villain performance. The great Gene Hackman also had his moments, but I hoped there would be more screen time for his lovable cronies, Jackie Cooper and Ned Beatty.
Unfortunately, everything else was borderline unwatchable. Maybe it was intentionally meant more for kids, but I don't recall the original to be this cartoony. How am I supposed to take this serious when this dialog exists: "The Phantom Zone is indestructible, except from the shockwave of a nuclear explosion in space."? Characters changed personalities and behaved stupidly constantly. For example, Zod wants to show his might, so he beats up a small town, not a large city?
There was too many confusing moments. How did Superman regain his powers? Why did the Kryptonians suddenly gain super-duper powers in the Fortress of Solitude when it's the yellow sun that gives them powers? And what's up with Superman's sudden ability to neuralize someone a la MIB?
So yeah, maybe I was expecting something a bit more grown up and charming, so Superman II was a huge letdown.
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
In the sequel of the Christopher Reeve era adaption of the Man of Steel, General Zod is freed from the Phantom Zone and wrecks havoc on Earth.
Liked
Reeve and Gene Hackman.
Disliked
Everything else.
Thoughts
It was way too cartoony for me to like it at all.
The best part of was seeing Reeve reprise his role. He was believable as Superman, but mainly, he was very charming as the clumsy, awkward Clark Kent. But was it me, or has his Kent voice morphed into Kermit the Frog?
Terence Stamp was cool as General Zod, although I've been clouded by Kevin Smith's impression of the famous "Kneel before General Zod!" quote, so I had expected a more flashy villain performance. The great Gene Hackman also had his moments, but I hoped there would be more screen time for his lovable cronies, Jackie Cooper and Ned Beatty.
Unfortunately, everything else was borderline unwatchable. Maybe it was intentionally meant more for kids, but I don't recall the original to be this cartoony. How am I supposed to take this serious when this dialog exists: "The Phantom Zone is indestructible, except from the shockwave of a nuclear explosion in space."? Characters changed personalities and behaved stupidly constantly. For example, Zod wants to show his might, so he beats up a small town, not a large city?
There was too many confusing moments. How did Superman regain his powers? Why did the Kryptonians suddenly gain super-duper powers in the Fortress of Solitude when it's the yellow sun that gives them powers? And what's up with Superman's sudden ability to neuralize someone a la MIB?
So yeah, maybe I was expecting something a bit more grown up and charming, so Superman II was a huge letdown.
Victory
Viewed in
2010
Premise
A group of Allies P.O.W.s in a Nazi camp form a futbol team to play against the German national team for pride.
Loved
Pele footage.
Liked
Sylvester Stallone, Michael Caine, and the film's goofy charm.
Thoughts
A fun film to watch.
The cast was quite likable and eclectic. For the leads, they were a young Michael Caine (suave Brit) butting heads with Sylvester Stallone (smart-ass Yankee). Legend Max von Sydow had a small role as a benevolent general. Lastly, there was the greatest footballer of all time, Pele. Yes, that Pele.
Basically, Stallone played macho, Caine played cool, and Pele ran circles around everyone on the field, I mean, pitch. One of my favorite moments when there was a misunderstanding between Stallone and Caine on how to "tackle" in the game of soccer. I also loved Pele's bicycle kick. Obviously I never got to see him play, except for grainy YouTube clips, so his scenes were actually like historical footage.
The story was predictable, with some implausible/unintentionally funny/boring moments. Surprisingly, the futbol scenes were actually pretty accurate and based on realism. Since the movie clearly was not trying to be more than what it was, these silly flaws added to the charm.
I enjoyed this well-executed underdog story, as I cheered for the motley crew of Allies characters in their eternal struggle against cinema's most popular bad guys, the Nazis.
What I would change
Had more Pele futbol scenes.
Personal
Yes, I timed this review to kick off the 2010 World Cup. USA! USA! USA!
2010
Premise
A group of Allies P.O.W.s in a Nazi camp form a futbol team to play against the German national team for pride.
Loved
Pele footage.
Liked
Sylvester Stallone, Michael Caine, and the film's goofy charm.
Thoughts
A fun film to watch.
The cast was quite likable and eclectic. For the leads, they were a young Michael Caine (suave Brit) butting heads with Sylvester Stallone (smart-ass Yankee). Legend Max von Sydow had a small role as a benevolent general. Lastly, there was the greatest footballer of all time, Pele. Yes, that Pele.
Basically, Stallone played macho, Caine played cool, and Pele ran circles around everyone on the field, I mean, pitch. One of my favorite moments when there was a misunderstanding between Stallone and Caine on how to "tackle" in the game of soccer. I also loved Pele's bicycle kick. Obviously I never got to see him play, except for grainy YouTube clips, so his scenes were actually like historical footage.
The story was predictable, with some implausible/unintentionally funny/boring moments. Surprisingly, the futbol scenes were actually pretty accurate and based on realism. Since the movie clearly was not trying to be more than what it was, these silly flaws added to the charm.
I enjoyed this well-executed underdog story, as I cheered for the motley crew of Allies characters in their eternal struggle against cinema's most popular bad guys, the Nazis.
What I would change
Had more Pele futbol scenes.
Personal
Yes, I timed this review to kick off the 2010 World Cup. USA! USA! USA!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)