Reviews

If I was a die hard fan who sat six weeks waiting to get in to see this movie, then you might think, well, you were expecting too much. No, I'm an average movie goer who snuck in to the early Friday show.

This was awful! I felt more like someone had licensed the "Star Wars" franchise and made a big budget overblown rip-off. I can't believe this was made by the same man who did the original, I only hope Lucas opts out on directing the next two.

The dialog was stale, the pacing was off, the lines were read, not spoken, the music didn't have any memorable rhythm and intruded more than accentuated, and things like the two headed announcer seemed a little too earth like.

Lucas even rewrote some of what made his original movies so good.

But what I hated most about the movie wasn't the character everyone loves to hate- Jar Jar Binks, it was cute little Anakin Skywalker. I've never understood why film makers want to stick in a kid to make it more "appealing," the effect is more often to ruin the film. And Jake Lloyd just isn't right for the part- THIS is going to be Darth Vader?

Not only that, we are told over and over about how wonderful and intelligent and here to save us Anakin is, and how he's the "chosen one." If Lucas expected us to feel foreboding at the tragedy that will forefall Anakin, he missed the mark. I was more irritated at how Anakin seemed to be there for product placements for games and toys.

George, you blew it this time, big. But you can still save it; let someone else direct, spin Jar Jar off into a Saturday morning show, and ditch the kid. Especially the kid.

I'm not a fan per se of the Japanese monster movies, although I do know who Godzilla is, but have never heard of Gamera before. This movie modernizes the Japanese monster movie agenda with newer and better special effects; several sequences work very well and are just as good as mainstream Hollywood, others are pretty lousy. Many scenes were shot outside in, where before it seemed all Japanese movies were filmed entirely on sound sets. At the heart though, is the main event of all these movies, two guys in rubber suits stomping all over a model of downtown Tokyo. It's nice to know in the era of CGI animation that model makers still have a bright future.

Gamera is not quite as heroic as Godzilla; he's a chubby tortoise with upward pointing tusks, but he does get around with a jet "engine" he has built in his shell. He also has a tendency to suddenly fall from huge heights and go ka-boom. As for the plot, well, the main part I remember about the movie was Japan looks really nice in the springtime.

In my deepest hopes I'd like to think that somewhere in Hollywood one of the producers of "Armageddon" wakes up after a fitful night of sleep, splashes cold water in his face, and looks at himself in the mirror, thinking, "My God, what have I done?" But I know the truth is they're thinking "people went to see this movie, let's make more!"

It's easy to see what they were planning on; take the formula of "The Rock," add in some good 'ole boy characters to liven it up, and a healthy dose of patriotism, and you get a movie everyone will love and have a good time with.

At least "Armageddon" showed me what happened to all the Junior High drop outs who never did anything but get into trouble ended up at, they're working on off-shore oil rigs. A key to any movie is liking or identifying with the main characters; but here they're like the loud next door neighbors, you just wish they'd go away. When they get let out to see "what they're trying to save" and they make a beeline to a strip joint, maybe we're better off getting pulverized by the asteroid.

And in a tradition that runs from Fred Flintstone and Archie Bunker, brawn and know-how takes the place of training and skill. I'd love to see it where a highly trained and educated scientist or engineer can do the job, rather than Bruce Willis stepping in the door and telling everyone in two minutes how things ought to be done.

Finally, about all the scenes of run down small town America with little kids running around in denim overalls toting US flags and toy space shuttles- let me put it to you this way, I'm an American midwesterner in a small town, and I couldn't believe the false patriotic hype. May this movie mercifully slide into obscurity.

In the mid to late eighties it seemed as if Arnold Schwarzennegger could do no wrong. Practically every movie he made was successful, people loved him, and things were good. "Predator" is typical of the movies he was turning out, just enough schlock and humor to add some fun, serious enough to get your attention, and gobs of special effects and action. Carl Weathers and Jesse Ventura complement rather than compete in the drama, and there's enough shoot outs and one-liners for everyone. (Bad Idea, Stick Around.)

What's always stuck in my mind about this movie was where the final battle took place, a forest with huge trees and an almost primeval look to it. I've always felt the director was trying to symbolize going to the basic instincts of survival and conflict; when the identity, race, and origin is stripped away, and all that is left is two beings fighting to the end. Maybe I'm just reading in too much.

Most people would agree that "Terminator Two" was the peak of Arnold's acting talent, but "Predator" is a sample of what he did when making hit movies was his bread and butter.

"Biggles" aspired to be an adventure movie in the sense of the old serials and dime novels; it comes close to succeeding on some levels, but blows it where it matters. The story itself centers on a bland frozen food marketer who keeps finding himself transported back in time to help a pilot.

Some things worked out very well; the close up shots of biplanes dogfighting and streaking down to just graze the ground, the accuracy of the equipment and weapons for the time period. (For those who don't believe machine guns existed back then, the one they use is a Bergmann MP-18, which was correct for 1917-1918.) You also get to see Peter Cushing in one of his last roles.

Other things required some suspension of belief, namely the Germans developing secret weapons in World War ONE.

But what ruined the movie for me was the god awful eighties pop music soundtrack, and a lead actor who has as much charisma as a wooden door. You can tell they were thinking of making a TV series or move franchise from this one, with different music and a better lead, they might have.

"Deliverance" is a thriller that forces the viewer to think about the consequences and meaning of our actions, no matter how justified. If you kill someone out of defense, would you take your chances going to the authorities, knowing the dead man's family and friends would be judging you?

It is also a movie from the "old school" of films, modernized for the seventies in content. Rather than relying on endless explosions and special effects, it instead focuses on a few dramatic scenes. Modern viewers might find this boring, but real life isn't non-stop action either. It also had Jon Voight playing the character of the "civilized" man, unwilling and unable to defend himself in the wild; a modern movie with today's cynical views would have no place for such a person.

I was surprised at how a pre-mustache Burt Reynolds showed some serious acting talent; I wonder how his career might have been different if he hadn't become the character he played in "Smokey and the Bandit."

My final comment is that this movie strikes close to home to me on many points. As a child I lived as a transplant from the suburbs to rural appalachia, and this movie shows the degenerate qualities of the South more openly than any other movie I've seen.

This movie had the kernel of something different in its concept and layout, but blows it completely. Back from death movies with an action twist have been done several times, (good ones being "Robocop" and "The Crow") but this one doesn't even approach the philosophical aspects other than people looking at Rutger Hauer and saying, "I thought you were dead."

No, what made this movie start off different was the bizarre mix of old Eastern European backgrounds and settings with near future technology and lifestyle. This different look was reminiscent of (and done better) in Rutger Hauer's other recent movie, "Fatherland."

If the movie had tried it could have been a so-so Bladerunner set in Russia, or if it really made a leap it could have been something uniquely it's own. Instead it ruins any hope it had with endless shoot-outs and sex scenes. These in and of themselves don't make much of a plot or a movie, and I kept thinking of those parodies of Hollywood movies, which this one quickly became.

Stallone returned after a break from action movies to make "Daylight." Here he tried to make his character more three dimensional, a human with weaknesses and flaws rather than the mute and destruction minded heroes of some of his other movies.

Making Latura as a human was a good idea, and you get to like him, although the rest of the movie doesn't quite hold up it's end. It plays as some cross between the "Poseidon Adventure" and an Irwin Allen disaster film, with an uplifting musical score. You know pretty quickly who's going to live and die, and even though Latura is a mere mortal, only he can save those lives.

Still, "Daylight" makes a good diversion, and the "good guy really is a good guy" concept works for the most part.

"Freejack" has one of the more unique twists on time travel, with people of the present being snatched away from a certain death to the future. It also begins to develop a unique feel and look to it. However, it's slow in several spots and doesn't develop the imagery as well as it could.

Emilio Estevez didn't seem right for the part, he looked and came across as a kid playing in a role meant for someone older and wiser. Rene Russo is wonderful as always, and Anthony Hopkins does the best he can with his limited character, but both of them are spent on the sidelines.

The real surprise was Mick Jagger, who made a wicked villain. I wonder why he hasn't tried acting in more movies. "Freejack" has largely been forgotten, but it's still worth a look.

Sylvester Stallone has made good movies and bad, and this is about as bad as it got. Sometimes the image of a tough guy in sunglasses with an attitude works, like Wesley Snipes in "Blade," who exuded image, while in the case of Cobra all he amounts to is sunglasses.

Of all the characters getting killed and destroyed in this movie, the only one I felt empathy for was the hot rod. Yes, the hot rod. It had a more fleshed out personality than any of the bad guys.

Very little of this movie makes sense - In the real world Cobra would park his custom mega buck hot rod on the street outside his downtown apartment building and it would be gone in about ten microseconds. And how is it Cobra dresses like a hood when the rest of the police dress, well, like police?

And finally, I think any cop who announces to the bad guy in a hostage situation "You're the disease and I'm the cure" would be looking at some serious vacation time.

Don't bother watching it, you won't care what happens.

"Rambo" goes off in another tangent completely from the first movie. In "First Blood" Rambo was an embittered Vietnam Vet who brought the war to America when his own country rejected him. Here he goes back to Vietnam to carry out unfinished business. The first movie was almost believable, this one is more like a hyper-action cartoon.

"Rambo" made Stallone a running joke for several years (don't get me wrong, he's great, but we all make mistakes) and almost single handedly spawned the genre of "back to Vietnam" movies that were everywhere in the mid eighties.

If you like lots of action and violence, "Rambo" will suit you well. If you want to take a movie seriously, look elsewhere.

I first saw "Threads" in high school, and saw it again recently as a grown adult. It does make a measure how old you are when viewing this movie; you take the actions on screen more seriously.

"Threads" plays like BBC documentary about a catastrophic nuclear war, interjecting live scenes with a bland monologue and various statistics, although one wonders what audience would be viewing this documentary.

Since it does play like a documentary, it feels no need to either overplay events or sugarcoat things for our sensibilities. There's no speeches or heroic actions, everything occurs as it happens, no matter how horrifying.

The gore is moderate (it was a TV movie after all) but is unsettling because it's taken to be real. Throughout you look for some hopeful thought to intrude, even comic relief, but "Threads" stares you down, making you watch the horror and woe to the bitter end. There is no hope or salvation, only despair.

It's worth seeing a movie like this as a reminder of the horrors of nuclear war; the threat of a mututal destruction by superpowers seems to be fast fading, but there's always the possibility of terrorists or new enemies.

"Threads" is to nuclear war what "Saving Private Ryan" is to war movies, a landmark film that delivers a strong political message without ever really mentioning it.

But didn't. This movie had all the right elements, but it just seems to miss. It's a visually opulent movie, it captures the look and feel of the victorian age better than most any movie I've seen. Excellent special effects blend in with the imagery, as often we see several events happening at once on screen. Thankfully this movie only indulges slightly in the MTV video inspired zig-zag mile a second camera action so many modern movies use. The cast was wonderful, and it's more true to the original story than probably any other Dracula movie.

So where did it go wrong?

I'd say most of the problem was a weak story; fantastic and wonderful images are placed on screen, but there's not much to tie them together. There's too much gore for a movie that claims to have a love story at the center, and finally Gary Oldman appears in more incarnations than you can count. He's a fine actor, but when you don't know what he's supposed to be from one moment to the next - it gets confusing. Still, the imagery makes the movie worth watching.

Did I like Air Force One? Absolutely! Do I think Harrison Ford would make a great president? I'd vote for him!

Air Force One had plenty of thrills, chills, and death defying scenarios, almost to the point it was too much. Half a dozen places along the way the movie could have ended and been sufficient. Still, it goes all the way, and the special effects are above par. Gary Oldman broke the recent trend in movies that instead of playing a comic over-the-top villain, he plays one that's just plain evil.

Watching Harrison Ford duke it out mano-a-mano with the bad guys made me think about our current president. Some have said that showing a heroic president is jingoistic and unreal, I'd say it's good to have a character who DOES take charge and is an idealized concept of what we would like our president to be.

"North by Northwest" is one of those movies that is both ageless and squarely set in a different time. I enjoyed it as a child, and I still like it now.

Newer movies have bigger explosions, more special effects, and more sex, but Hitchcock showed you can make suspense just by careful editing and development of the story.

Cary Grant was in top form in this movie, and it goes without saying there will never be another like him. He had just the right balance of suave, intelligence, and bravado to pull it off. Other actors trying the same thing would either come across as a smart aleck or a foppish intellectual.

"North by Northwest" is a true classic.

I didn't despise this movie, but I certainly didn't like it. All I can say is, how many times do we have to endure watching people achieve "education" by osmosis and enthusiasm, including the inevitable scene where they do a rap rendition of what they've learned? How about showing what it's really like, students poring over texts and books, memorizing and testing? But then I guess that would be pretty boring. This movie was a missed step by Penny Marshall, although Gregory Hines surprisingly made a believable drill sergeant.

"Circle of Iron" is a movie that looks beyond the action of martial arts into the mystique and philosophy associated with it. It was originally intended to be made by Bruce Lee, but he died before it could be brought to the screen, so David Carradine steps in to fill the role.

How well the movie accomplishes it's goal depends on how seriously you take eastern philosophies. It's all too easy to watch a few minutes of it and dismiss it as some weird barbarian movie with lots of karate. It is decidedly low budget.

However, if you watch the movie and *listen* to what it's trying to tell, it's extremely engrossing, as it addresses questions and concepts that all of us wonder about at some time or another.

The man making the journey in this movie, "Cord," is acceptable, if a rather generic role. David Carradine plays several roles, but his most striking is that of an eerie blind man who fights off his opponents with a hollow staff that whistles as he twirls it.

This is a hard movie to find, but it does crop up sometimes on late night TV or cable, and is worth checking out.

There's schlock, which is bad movies that you can enjoy, and then there's dreck. Dreck is an awful retrograde refuse reject of a movie that makes you wonder how things this bad get made in the first place. "Laserblast" is dreck grade F-. Stars a vaguely Mark Hamillish actor who shoots everything around him. Why? Who knows, by the time it's over you don't care.

"The Gauntlet" isn't one of Clint Eastwood's better films, but it's still watchable. While he's supposed to be playing a weaker character than normal, an alcoholic cop who's not thought capable of much, he still seems able to take charge and set things straight. The twist on this movie is extreme violence (although it seems pretty tame today) and shooting things full of holes. Lots of holes.

To say much more would give away the plot, but before you dismiss the final scenes as unbelievable, there was a mental patient in LA six or seven years ago who did just what Clint Eastwood did, and ran amok for over five hours because the police were powerless to stop him. Maybe he'd seen "The Gauntlet" too many times.

The Fifth Element is one of my favorite movies. At least some of the reason I like it so much was I first saw it right after I'd had some bad times in my life, and it was a real break to watch something that was just plain FUN.

Most people who don't like this movie probably either expected an action film or sci-fi adventure. It's neither and both at the same time. Just sit back and enjoy it, don't bother trying to rationalize. A wonderful, exotic soundtrack, humor and comedy in spades, and a future New York that has COLOR. Most people are so used to the dark and grim future bit that seeing a world brightly lit and animated is a sight for sore eyes. You have to admit it takes a certain chutzpah to decorate the President's office in lavender!

Berlin, 1964, Nazi Germany.

"Fatherland" is one of Ruger Hauer's better recent movies. It takes a look at what would have happened if Nazi Germany had survived, even if the US had never gone to war with Germany.

The movie shows the grandiose architectural empire that Hitler had planned to make out of Berlin, as it would look on his 75th birthday. The special effects are notable more for their subtlety than dramatics, many of the fictional monuments look perfectly natural. The appearance of Nazi era clothes and uniforms against a sixties era eastern europe looks both plausible and surreal.

The movie itself focuses on a patriotic cop (Hauer) and an american journalist who look into a series of murders that involved the "greatest secret" of the Reich.

"Fatherland" is a better than average drama and at the same a very disturbing look at how history could have turned out differently.

One person I know saw this movie and called it "Ramblonde" after Nick Nolte's long hair. Other people have characterized as an adaptation of King Lear.

"Farewell to the King" is really neither. It's a story about a man who finds his kingdom and himself against the backdrop of World War Two Borneo.

The movie is touching and dramatic about a man who leaves behind a war he didn't want and everything he knew, only to have to face it again. Many questions are raised about the meaning of loyalty and honor, and who is your enemy and your friend.

Not, it's definitely not a "Rambo" movie, more a tight and involving drama the way they used to make them.

Rutger Hauer must have known that he's not the first person people think of when you mention martial arts, so he deliberately hams up the role of a blind Vietnam Veteran who learned the art of sword play in a remote village. The result is an often funny movie, with some very good sword play in the fight sequences. The villains are cartoonish and corny, but hey, that's why they're the bad guys!

"THX-1138" is George Lucas's "other" sci-fi film, which isn't mainstream entertainment and thus not as well known or circulated at the Star Wars trilogy, but is eminently worth watching.

You can see in this film clearly where many of the sound effects, camera angles, and close ups of gadgets in Star Wars came from. If I can criticize the movie at all it seems Lucas spent too much time on sound effects and gadgets, to the point you sometimes can't tell what's going on, but it does add to the mood of the movie.

It's easy to draw parallels with "1984," but while that movie was about an oppressive government, here the focus is on a world run by economics and conformity. People (and everything else) are numbers, everything is white, people are encouraged to produce and consume, yet they own nothing. There's no color, no life or vitality.

Many things about the movie are almost completely unique, and stay with you afterwards; a prison "cell" that is white emptiness stretching forever, skinny robotic police who want you to stay clam as they're just here to help, and McLaren bodied race cars that the police drive. (!)

A definite great first by Lucas.