Reviews

TRANSFORMERS is a thoroughly depressing movie for all the wrong reasons. I knew it wasn't going to be particularly good, as I am in no way a fan of Michael Bay, but literally EVERYONE I know who saw this film has been raving about all year long. I finally Netflixed it and I'm sorry I did.

The original Transformers wave hit when I was in the middle of my teen years, so it pretty much passed me by, but I was aware of the comics and toys (never watched the cartoon). I "get" why they were and are huge. If I were a kid, I'd probably love this stuff unconditionally. But maybe I'm too old or too discriminating, 'cause TRANSFORMERS is without a doubt the WORST film I've sat through all year long. All of the "Sins of Michael Bay" are here... the obnoxious characters, the migraine-inducing soundtrack/sound effects, the ridiculously over-done explosions, the hyper-editing and the over-the-top schtick.

None of it works. What's worse is that most people couldn't see through what a completely lazy, talentless and unimaginative movie this really is. Steven Spielberg should be ashamed of himself, but he's sitting on a giant pile of money thanks to this dreck, so what do I know? Just bloody awful. If you were having doubts about seeing/renting this, trust me... you'll hate yourself for it afterwards.

It took me forever to finally get out and see this film with my wife, and it was worth all the long weeks I had to wait. Take all the best conventions of the super-hero genre, mix in a bunch of "James Bond" nods & influences, add the best elements of the very best "Johnny Quest" episodes and sprinkle liberally with warmth, humor, '60s architecture & design, a swingin' soundtrack and Saturday-morning thrills, and you have THE INCREDIBLES, quite possibly one of the greatest movies I've ever seen, simply because it taps into everything I loved as a child, while telling a rock-solid story that adults (and certainly parents) will appreciate.

I don't want to spoil it for anyone else who hasn't seen this film yet, or are waiting for the DVD, but suffice to say, you will not be disappointed in THE INCREDIBLES if you happen to love: 1) CGI animated movies, 2) the super-hero genre, 3) a good action flick, 4) a moving family-bonding story, or 5) GREAT movies in general.

THE INCREDIBLES is an absolute JOY to watch and look at, and even to listen to (dig the John Barry-inspired score, which I plan on picking up on CD this week). It's funny and warm, without resorting to an overabundance of cheap laughs and gags, and it's suspenseful and gripping, without resorting to too many "dark themes" or angst. All around, Brad Bird, Pixar & Co. have struck the PERFECT balance for a super-hero action/adventure family comedy.

As a died-in-the-wool movie, animation and comic book nut, I can safely say that THE INCREDIBLES stands proudly among the very best of the super-hero genre films, including the original SUPERMAN, X2: X-MEN UNITED, SPIDER-MAN 2 and BATMAN. It truly is THAT good.

JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH (1959) was released in the wake of other classic 1950's Jules Verne adaptations... 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA (1954) and AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS (1956). Although not quite as successful or convincing as LEAGUES, it is a far more enriching and enjoyable film than the overrated and overblown 80 DAYS (a film that some say is one of the worst to ever win a Best Picture Oscar).

If you can get past Pat Boone playing the world's most-tanned Scotsman (and with an accent that drifts in and out) and some admittedly dated visual effects, you'll find this to be a fun way to spend a weekend afternoon. James Mason and Arlene Dahl are perfect foils for each other; Gertrude the duck is endearing without resorting to cutsey antics; and you even get a Dolph Lundgren look-alike in Hans, the Icelandic teammate.

Some moments are a tad silly, and the science doesn't exactly stand up to close inspection, but it's all thoroughly enjoyable, inoffensive and great family fun. I remember first watching this on TV back in the late '70s and it always stuck with me. I was happy to see that it has held up extremely well over the years and am glad to have it as a part of my DVD collection.

This supposed cult classic was on sale for about 7 bucks at the local shop where I buy my DVD's, so I figured what-the-hey, I'd give it a shot, as I was in the process of buying/renting noted films from the 1950's. Let me say that too many reviewers on this site have been WAAAY too generous with their praises.

IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE stinks. Pure and simple. This is not about being dated... it's about having no budget to speak of and being just plain idiotic. Look, FORBIDDEN PLANET, THIS ISLAND EARTH and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS could be considered "dated" to a degree, but they still had decent budgets and smart scripts, which is why they hold up today. IT! has none of these things. No real sense of scope (other than a brief shot/painting of Mars' surface), wooden actors with zero charisma and chemistry, haphazard use of guns, rifles and grenades (!) ONBOARD the ship, a silly monster costume that would barely pass muster in an Ed Wood flick, and repeated shots of the spaceship going up, up, up, while the same musical piece plays over each time, to the point of being self-parodying. If anything, IT! comes off more like an episode of "The Twilight Zone" or "The Outer Limits," and a lesser one at that.

Yes, IT! obviously inspired ALIEN (and to a smaller degree, ALIENS), but is that any reason to heap praise on it? Sure, the POTENTIAL is there for a great story and film, but this one doesn't deliver. It's just laughably bad and stagnant.

I realize cultists love to latch on to any old film and sing its praises, simply because it's old and quaint, a relic from a bygone era, but that still doesn't make a film any good. Sometimes, grade-z sci-fi flicks from the '50s are simply BAD. You watch them once for a good, ironic chuckle, and then completely forget about it. This is one of those flicks. Films like THEM!, TARANTULA, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE and EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS are much better examples of low-budget '50s flicks transcending their material. Check out ANY of those before you even go near IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE. Don't say you weren't warned.

Personally, CINDERELLA seems a tad redundant... there's simply a few too many Disney features that concern a female title character who is "saved" at the end by some sort of Prince. SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937) had already come before CINDERELLA (1950), and SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959) seemed like a "greatest hits" version of both movies. And in the grand scheme of all things Disney, CINDERELLA, overall, is probably not one of the greatest features Walt oversaw (props should rightfully go to other efforts such as FANTASIA, SNOW WHITE, PINOCCHIO, BAMBI and DUMBO). But before I get too stuffy about all this...

CINDERELLA is still funny, charming and loaded with fun songs and absolutely superb animation. If I only have one minor quibble, it's that the business between the mice and Lucifer the cat seem to take up a little too much time of the film. If you have children, or are simply a fan of old movies or animation in general, no collection is complete without this. It may not be perfect, but it comes closer than most animated films of today and is still a minor classic at the very least.

For all intents and purposes, WEREWOLF OF LONDON is the first major motion picture to deal with werewolves. Originally released in 1935, in the wake of other Universal hits such as DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN, THE MUMMY and THE INVISIBLE MAN, WEREWOLF was planned as another "franchise" picture in the Universal arsenal. However, this first attempt was botched so badly that they had to hit the restart button in 1941 with Lon Chaney Jr's THE WOLF MAN, with infinitely more satisfactory results. WEREWOLF OF LONDON is more of a footnote in horror movie history. Just 'cause it's old doesn't mean it's a classic...

Henry Hull's performance, his wolf make-up and the moody atmospherics of the opening Tibet scenes are the best things in the entire movie. Some think Hull comes off as stiff, but I dare say he would have made a more convincing Larry Talbot than the hapless and perennially over-rated Lon Chaney Jr. The germ of a great performance is here, but Hull is ultimately done in by an inept script. The make-up is fantastic for its time, again far more menacing-looking than what came later in the WOLF MAN series. And the day-for-night scenes in Tibet have a beautiful, eerie quality to them that the rest of the film never capitalizes on. (Incidentally, the scenes were filmed at the "Vazquez Rocks" sites in California, made famous by countless episodes of the 1960's STAR TREK! If you know what I'm talking about, you'll recognize them right off the bat!)

Other than that, I can't say I recommend this film at all. It certainly has gained a new lease on life with its inclusion on the new WOLF MAN LEGACY COLLECTION DVD, but you really need only watch it once. The pacing is atrocious, the acting overly-stiff and mannered (this is supposed to be 1930's London, after all), the chills non-existent and the supposed comedy of the two bantering old landladies is annoying and shoe-horned in. The 1941 WOLF MAN was never the scariest or best-made horror film, but it practically looks like THE EXORCIST next to the boring drivel of WEREWOLF.

All in all, a rather dull experience. To catch only the best bits, it's better to simply watch the Behind-the-Scenes special on the WOLF MAN DVD--it covers ALL of the werewolf movies of the '30s and '40s.

Let me start with a comment that will make die-hard Tolkien fans cringe: I have not read the books. I am familiar with the '70s animated versions and have only recently started reading "The Hobbit," but I knew almost next-to-nothing about what I'd be seeing on the screen. The good news is I liked what I saw. The not-so-good news is that it sure ain't perfect. Because the filmmakers obviously wanted to cater to the hardcore readers of the original trilogy, the end result becomes somewhat stiff. There isn't any real flow to the narrative. Gripes you may have heard about "chase, battle, rest; chase, battle, rest; repeat, etc." turn out to be true. In many ways, in terms of filmmaking and narrative, LORD OF THE RINGS gets stuck in a predictable rut fairly early on. After awhile, well, everything starts to look and sound the same. The score doesn't seem to have enough color in it, and many of the CGI-rendered landscapes, while pretty, still end up being fairly ho-hum, because in this day and age, no one can seriously gawk at a fantasy film and marvel, "How did they do THAT?" The common one-word answer: Computers. Hence, a little bit of magic is lost.

Before this becomes a pan of a review, however, let me say there is still much to enjoy. ALL of the actors are superb, even if some of their dialogue comes off as stilted (but then, that's the case with most fantasy and/or historical films) and there certainly is real drama and action to suck you in. Even though I'm not the biggest fan of CGI, many effects are still gorgeous to look at.

(There is only one sequence that I just did not care for at all, and actually had some audience members cracking-up in the theater I saw the film in... the battle between Saruman and Gandalf was just plain laughable. There's something about two old guys throwing each other around with invisible forcefields and grunting at the top of their lungs that is just flat-out silly. Surely, there could have been a classier way of showing these two characters metaphysically duke it out?)

All-in-all, if you're a die-hard, I'm sure you'll absolutely love seeing literary characters you've loved for years come to life on the big screen. Others, like me, who don't walk into a theater expecting ANY film to be a life-changing experience, may still enjoy a first-class production, but may leave the theater scratching their heads and thinking, "What was all the hubbub about?"

Every year gives us at least a few films that seem to fly over the heads and under the radar of the general public, and then, as time marches on, people rediscover them and say to themselves, "How could I have possibly missed THIS?!" WONDER BOYS is one such film.

While I remember this movie getting above-average or great reviews when it came out last year, for some reason I missed it. I finally rented it last night and was so pleasantly surprised that it's now on my personal list of the top films of 2000, right up there with CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, TRAFFIC, ALMOST FAMOUS and ERIN BROCKOVICH. Anyone else reading this like those films? Then run right out and rent WONDER BOYS right now!

Just look at the cast! Michael Douglas, Frances McDormand, Tobey Maguire, Katie Holmes, Robert Downey Jr., Rip-freakin'-Torn?!?! How can you resist this after just that list of names? Hey, even Richard Thomas (John-boy from "The Waltons") puts in an appearance!

I'm quite frankly amazed at some of the other comments below. I don't know what film they were expecting, but it most definitely is NOT slow, boring or pretentious. It's perfectly-paced, with lots of amusing or flat-out hysterical twists and turns, and above all, honest and mature. DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR this ain't. Look, any film that opens with one of Bob Dylan's best songs in years certainly isn't pandering to its audience, right? Okay, if you're under 18, sure, you may find it boring. But for those of us who have actually lived, gone to college, love to read and/or write, or may have found ourselves in an awkward relationship or two, then this film-- with Michael Douglas's BEST performance ever and a cast of quirky (but not overly-so) and nuanced characters--is for you. * * * * 1/2 stars out of five!

Most science-fiction films seem to fall into one of two camps: One, the ponderous, serious, "adult" flicks a la 2001, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and BLADE RUNNER; and then there are sci-fi flicks that TRY to take themselves seriously while dealing with utterly silly effects, dialogue, acting and pseudo-science and end up becoming camp classics. THE BLACK HOLE is one such example, and yet it's just as entralling as the afore-mentioned classics.

Don't get me wrong... when you get down to it, THE BLACK HOLE is not a great flick, but there are some elements and/or scenes that at least border on the VERY GOOD.

Most grown-ups who first saw this film as kids, when it was released in December of '79, can immediately recall 3 major points that impressed them the most at the time: The 2 major robot characters, V.I.N.CENT (one of the good guys) and the evil Maximillian (easily one of the greatest cinematic robot creations this side of Robby); the haunting John Barry score (who DOESN'T remember that opening credits theme?); and the eerie, atmospheric way the spaceships were shot against a blue & green star-field (versus the traditional black).

I always loved this movie growing up, and when I finally caught it again on cable a few years ago, I had to admit, it hadn't exactly aged well in my eyes as a late-twentysomething. Any scene that requires someone/thing to "float?" Wires are visible every time. Looking for dirt-poor acting? Check out Joseph Bottoms and (the overdubbed) Yvette Mimieux. Want a bogus, pseudo-profound "2001"-like ending? The last 10 minutes of this should fit the bill.

Dialogue is horrendous, the evil robot army is inept, special effects are amazingly inconsistant and logic is thrown completely out the window; and yet why do I find myself constantly jumping to the defense of THE BLACK HOLE, even after more than 20 years? I guess it just brings out the kid in me. Adults seeing it for the first time may scoff, but younger kids of today may find a lot more to like. If you happen to have children, use them as an excuse to see it yourself. Who knows, you may find a fairly decent, entertaining flick underneath all the other junk that comes with it!

...but still worth a look-see. I, too, only saw it for the first time recently, based on a friend's glowing recommendation, and I have to say that, for the most part, it didn't live up to my friend's hype. George Segal is the best thing in the whole movie, a true master of the comedic slow-burn. Ruth Gordon, and I realize she has plenty of fans, is given little more to do than just spout "Where's Poppa?" all the time, which gets a bit annoying after awhile (although her best single scene is when she accosts her son--Segal--at the dinner table in front of his date).

I suppose my one real complaint is that the movie lacks heart, which may actually be a plus, depending on your comedic tastes--this is one mean-spirited movie, even for today's audiences. Certainly not for everybody, and DEFINITELY un-P.C., but it's got just enough laughs to warrant at least one viewing. I will admit, the best sequence of the whole film is the Rob Reiner/Bernard Hughes courtroom scene, which had me laughing out loud and is arguably the least politically correct bit in the movie (next to the black muggers in Central Park, of course).

One note: See if you can find a newer print, if it's available--the VHS copy that I saw had a HORRIBLE transfer.

Hmmm... what can be said that hasn't already been said at this site? What have we already established? NOSFERATU and DRACULA (Spanish Version) are superior. Bela Lugosi, Dwight Frye and Edward Van Sloan are priceless. First half is classic, essential viewing. Second half is duller than dirt. Phillip Glass: Beautifully moody at first listen, painfully repetitive on closer inspection. Biggest (unintentional) laughs: The rubber-bat-on-a-string and David Manners.

I suppose there's just as much to like in DRACULA as dislike. If you're an avid historian of film or a fan of horror/monster movies, you without-a-doubt have to see this film at least once. If you consider yourself only an average movie-buff, it won't kill you to miss this one.

By the way... my personal favorite line/delivery in DRACULA? Dwight Frye as Renfield: "Dracula? Dracula?! I've never even HEARD the name!" Cracks me up every time.

The 1976 remake of KING KONG has gotten a severely bad rap over the years, but why? I think a majority of the critics who lambasted this flick failed to take into account that, at heart, KING KONG '76 is a camp spoof! Critics may sing the praises of the 1933 original, but even that one was so over-the-top as to be ridiculous. The filmmakers of the remake set out to have some fun and poke some good-natured jabs at the inherent goofiness of the King Kong story. How can you take this one seriously when it's got lines like, "Let's not get eaten alive on this island--bring the mosquito spray!" And, "Who do you think when through there--a guy in an ape suit?" (Which is true--that's Rick Baker under all that fur!) A story about a fifty-foot ape that falls in love with a dumb blonde is inherently stupid--KING KONG, therefore, is big, stupid fun. It's a good adventure with great laughs sprinkled throughout. Relax and enjoy.