Change Your Image
Topgallant
Reviews
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Entertaining But Not For Die Hard Fans
No real spoilers here, just some overall criticisms and warnings to real Trekkie's. First of all, I'm not a 3-d expert, but this movie -- having been converted from IMAX -- treats 3-d as an afterthought. There are no surprise moments. That said, here's what you can expect.
Consistent and well-channeled characterizations from the cast, who give us young versions of Kirk, Spock and the gang as envisioned and portrayed by Roddenberry, Shatner, Nimoy, etc. This follows in the footsteps of the Abrams' reboot, and kudos to all the actors for not trying to find a new spin on a tried and true winner.
Given the above, there seemed to be a little too much emoting forced on the characters in the story, as if the producers tried extra hard to hit the audience with "special" relationship moments. When this happens in the movie, and it happens several times, you can't help yourself from rolling your eyes a little. There is no subtlety in this respect, just on the nose character stuff, and you can see it coming from a parsec away.
Telegraphing is chronic problem here, as once again we find ourselves skirting an alternate time-line scenario, in this case, lifted directly from one of the original series' story-lines. Without giving away details, I will just say, there is homage, and there is just plain lazy writing. Again, when stuff starts to happen here, and fans recognize the parallels between the original story and this one, there is virtually no doubt what will transpire. Fans familiar with the original story will be one step ahead of the writers during the entire third act, which means, don't expect to be on the edge of your seat. Trust me, for Trekkie's, the suspense in the third act will disappear like plasma through a black hole.
Another negative is the blatant disregard for Trek Universe logic. The opening sequence is a prime example. It's designed to establish a character plot point -- and that's all. Nobody paid any attention to the design and operational parameters of the original USS Enterprise, or, if they did, they deliberately ignored them for the sake of creating eye candy.
Bottom line: Good acting. A great antagonist. Decent effects. An OK story. Bad Trekkie Universe logic. Good Trek character interactions. Unnecessary melodrama, including a major character moment that needed to wait for the 6th installment. A telegraphed third act with no surprises. Not as good as the first one. Unnecessary 3-d. Three or four very funny come- backs (my favorite being about "attitude".) Fun despite the problems.
Even a bad trek movie is a great time at the theater. And this one isn't bad, just slightly disappointing.
Clash of the Titans (2010)
Better Than IMDb Reviewers Say
I just finished watching this at home (BlueRay, Surround, 55" TV) and came to the IMDb to read some reviews. I have to admit. Reading some of the critical reviews here made me laugh out loud. One guy actually complained about the movie's logic as it related to what the Gods/Titans could do and not do and what they should have known and not known. Another complained that the main character's motivation of vengeance failed in comparison to the one in the original movie, which was love. Are these people serious? They act as if they know Greek mythology. Alas, dear Yurik, they don't. They're all bent out of shape because a Hollywood movie didn't take Greek myth seriously. Pleeeaaaaase....
First of all, in truth, Perseus seeks Medusa's head because he's embarrassed for not bringing a present to a wedding. The cheap bastard is basically shamed into doing something brave. Yeah, great stuff for a big CGI movie.
Secondly, who the hell cares that there's no Kraken in the ancient myth? There are all kinds of other mythological creatures. And this is a great Kraken. Beats the hell out of Godzilla.
I'm sorry, if you want to learn about Ancient mythology, go back to school. Don't try and learn stuff from a Hollywood movie, and don't think you're getting much wisdom by reading reviews from a bunch of whiny IMDb know-it-alls who wouldn't know a Harpy from a Sharpie.
If you want have some fun on a Friday night, and you liked the original, and you don't want to waste time searching for deep and meaningful cinematic allegory, Clash of the Titans might fit the bill. Grab some popcorn and a soda (or a beer), sit back and relax. It won't hurt a bit.
Crank (2006)
I would Give it Zero Stars if I could
I'm shocked there are people who actually found value in this trite, stupid movie. It's 2-hours of moronic action that seems to have been made for dopers, written by drug dealers and financed by a Mexican cartel. And to think they actually made a sequel.
If you like taking drugs and playing Grand Theft Auto then you'll probably like this. I found it baseless and offensive in the extreme. Too bad, I used to be (and sort of still am) a great fan of Jason Stratham, but he seems to be making the worst choices for movies of late.
Honestly, if I was on the street and saw this guy doing the things he does in the film, I'd probably shoot him on the spot or run him over in my car. I'd probably get the Presidential Medal of Freedom for it.
Any comparisons between this movie and real actioners like Die Hard or Lethal Weapon are somebody's idea of a joke. This movie should have been titled, Baseless, Stupid Crap.
You want a great tongue-in-cheek, wink-at-the-genre actioner with a decent story and a great action star, rent Shot 'em Up with Clive Owen.
In Bruges (2008)
Different Kind of Hit Man Movie
Every budding film maker seems to cut his feature teeth on a hit man movie. In fact, I've always thought hit man movies should be in their own genre. Instead, they fall into the action/adventure category.
In Bruges (pronounced like the sled, luge) is it's own kind of hit man movie. It breaks new ground in much the same way Pulp Fiction and The Professional did. But while Pulp Fiction is about cartoon characters who love to act 'cool' and hear themselves talk (can you tell I'm not a Tarantino fan?), and The Professional relies on the Lolita effect and blatant sentimentality for it's characterization (it still worked for me), In Bruges is filled with real humanity and real drama. It takes very, very few cheap shots, and those it does take seem to be the film maker winking at classic cinematic conventions.
This doesn't mean the story is completely free of plot devices and such. There are McGuffins and other devices in all hit man movies. In Pulp Fiction it was the briefcase, in The Professional, the plant, to name just two. I won't give away the device in In Bruges but you'll know it immediately when you see it.
The two main characters, played by Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson, the hit men, are not meant to be likable, but we empathize with them because of each one's emotional struggle. I like this about the movie. Bad characters doing bad things, and yet we feel for them because of what they're going through. However, not all the characters have the same emotional wallop. The two female characters aren't as deep, and one of them, Chloe, isn't the least bit likable to this viewer. Also, the character Harry, played by Ralph Fiennes, suffers slightly from a lack of screen time.
I guessed the final resolution about five minutes before it arrived, and you'll probably see it coming, too. That's OK. You don't have to be entirely surprised by this movie to appreciate it.
Lastly, I'm glad the writer/director edited out the scenes on the disk labeled "deleted scenes." The movie was much better leaving the audience to fill in the blanks on the individual back stories.
The Perfect Storm (2000)
Ocean Melodrama with Great Acting and Not Much Reality
Not that it was a bad movie, or lacked drama and good characterization, but there were enough technical inaccuracies to cause this mariner trouble.
First of all, let's ask some questions: Why were the outriggers out and the paravanes down when the seas were in the 80' to 150' foot range (as depicted; more if you consider the last wave)? Why did the crew wait so long to batten down the wheelhouse windows? They knew the storm was coming. They knew how bad it would be. Why didn't they make proper preparations to meet it? Why wasn't the crew in the wheelhouse? I've been in some bad blows, and when it gets really bad, everybody usually hangs out in the wheelhouse with their survival suits within arm's reach. When it's that bad, and the boat has to turn around in monster seas, riding out the turn in the fo'c's'le or galley is the last thing anybody wants to do.
Why would anyone think they could remount a SSB antenna in a 50 knot wind when the smallest whip antenna is about 23'? If the antenna doesn't rip your arm off, how are you going to splice the coax? And why not just lay out an emergency long wire antenna on deck? Speaking of which: I thought the Andrea Gail had a long wire antenna and not a whip antenna. I believe that in the photo of the Hannah Boden, which Linda Greenlaw states is a sistership of the Andrea Gail, you can see a long wire antenna running aft from the masthead to the goal post.
By the way, Greenlaw states in her book that her boat, the Hannah Boden, was 100'. Sebastion Junger, the author of the book, stated on a pre-movie hype news program that the Andrea Gail was 80'. I tend to believe Greenlaw over Junger regarding LOA. And I tend to believe it had a long wire antenna. You'd think it would given its range of operation. Also, if the boat was 100' , the wave at the end would have been about 200'. My understanding is that the largest non-seismic wave ever recorded was 112', measured scientifically in the North Pacific by researchers aboard the USS Ramapo on February 7th, 1933.
Also....
Where can I get one of those blow torches that stays lit after it gets dunked in seawater? Don't get me wrong. I liked the movie. I liked the effects. I thought the film makers did some good things. But I don't think the movie paid homage to the crew of the Andrea Gail or commercial fishermen. I think Junger's melodramatic overspeculations of the sinking (not to mention his speculation about what it's like to drown) are an insult to the thousands of fishermen and other seafarers who've lost their limbs and worse in much less spectacular ways. In truth, the vast majority of commercial fishing accidents and sinkings, aren't caused by gigantic Hollywood waves. They're the result of separate incidents and seemingly insignificant details stacking-up and falling like a house of cards.
With all due respect to the people of Gloucester and the friends and family of those who died on the Andrea Gail, and to the film makers and the actors, I humbly submit a different cause and effect scenario with regard to the sinking.
In my opinion, had the crew been given the time depicted in both the book and the movie, the ending might have been quite different. Those men were experienced and capable fisherman who had previously handled anything the sea had thrown at them. What probably happened was they started home with a freighted boat. It got rough, very rough, and the vessel started taking on water, probably from some insidious place in the stern, e.g. the rudder box or shaft seal. They didn't know she was taking on water until it was too late, at which time the vessel rolled and sank before they could launch the raft, get into their survival suits, or trigger the EPIRB. How many times has it happened that way? A freighted boat. A slow leak. Bad weather.
Of course, the enormous wave makes for greater popcorn fun.
Interstate 60: Episodes of the Road (2002)
It Just Might Surprise You
I watched this the other night on my Roku box and found myself thoroughly entertained. Sure, it's not perfect. James Marsden, playing the main character, seems to be channeling a young Tom Cruise a lot of the time. And some of the situations or adventures he finds himself in come across as a little forced, as if there's a point to be made and damned if the writer/director, Bob Gale, is going to let anyone stop him from making it. But don't let these things interfere with your viewing enjoyment. The story, the cameos, the subtext and the movie's rhythm work like a charm. Oh, yeah, by the way, charm is the operative word.
This movie comes to you with some serious pedigree. Bob Gale, the writer/director, wrote Back to the Future, one of the cleanest, sharpest movies ever made. Whether you like this type of film (mystical, fantasy) or not, you have to agree Back to the Future is flawless from a purely technical, three-act point of view. Interstate 60 has this same kind of flawless energy. So often today movies get re-written and massaged to the point where structure falls by the wayside to make room for more effects and whammies. Other movies seem so formulaic it's as if they were written by a computer.
Basically, Interstate 60 is a fantasy road movie. It's Homer on acid. Or Ken Keasey on a magical mystery tour. Actually, it's more like Gulliver's Travels. If you like Gulliver's Travels, you'll like this.
I Know Where I'm Going! (1945)
Classic, Romantic Fare...
Here's a film I would have never ventured to watch had I not come across it by accident on Turner Classic Movies.
This woman, Joan Webster, played by Wendy Hiller, is off to Scotland to marry some guy she obviously doesn't know too well. We know this ourselves because she has dinner with her father the night before she's scheduled to leave for the Hebrides. Her father tries to tell her to slow down and think about it but she: "KNOWS WHERE SHE'S GOING." (She doesn't scream it, as implied by the caps. But she might as well have. The setup is movie perfection.)
Joan has these directions to the island on which this guy has planned to marry her. She has to take the train from London to East Bumshoe, then another train from Bumshoe to Overloafen, a bus from Overloafen to Pudgydubby, a cab from Pudgyduddy to Shaddycrack, the ferry from there to some other weirdly named town, then the water taxi to yet another Scottish backwater, and finally a private skiff to the island.
Unfortunately, when she gets there, it's thick of fog. Swirling, smoky, impenetrable fog. Fog like you won't believe, unless you live in Scotland or Great Britain or Maine, like I do. Or you own a Hollywood fog machine, or work in a Russian spa, or live next door to Sherlock Holmes. You get the point.
So she can't get to the island. She has to stay at someone's house with a bunch of other people who are similarly stuck. At this point, we're only about five minutes into the film, which is just more of this movie's magic, because it's here she's dealt the classic "Call to Adventure" of the hero's journey. She meets a man, and not the one she's supposed to marry.
The man is Torquil Macneil, played by Roger Livesey; he wears a kilt and speaks in a heavy Scottish brogue, and although he's not exactly the most handsome leading man you ever saw, he does wear a kilt and speak in a heavy Scottish brogue, which makes him, apparently, very hot. Don't get me wrong, he's always the perfect gentleman. It's 1945 for God's sake.
Later that day, feeling rather threatened by this charming kilt-wearing Scotsman, she tries once again to get the boat to the island. She's told it's way to foggy but as soon as the wind comes around northwest, the fog will lift and they'll be able to go. That night, Joan, while lying in her bed at the Inn, prays for wind from the northwest.
In the morning Joan wakes to find her prayers answered. The fog has cleared. Unfortunately, it's because of a full blown northwest gale, which ends up sticking around for more than a week. She never makes it to the island.
This special gem of a movie is the product of one of the most creative collaborations in movie history, that of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.
They had a gift for storytelling that is almost gone. Very often when you see a film today you're struck by inconsistencies, failures of logic, plot holes, gimmicks, etc. Or you're faced with a movie that just doesn't come together. Not the case with Powell and Pressburger films. Their movies have perfect structure; they engage you, keep moving toward a goal and wrap up all neat and tidy.
If you ever see this one on the video rental shelf, grab it and take it home. I guarantee you won't be disappointed, especially if you're trying to score some points in the romance game.
The Proposal (2009)
Not What I'd Hoped For
I like these characters. I like the actors. In fact, it's a terrific cast. Ryan Reynolds is great. He has the looks, the build, the acting skill and the screen presence to be a leading man. I hope someday soon he finds a role that challenges him and exposes his true talent. Sandra Bullock does what she does best: she's a master of comic subterfuge and misrepresentation. The supporting cast, a few of my favorites, are left with table scraps and cliché.
This movie suffices as passable living room entertainment but misses the bulls-eye by a mile. Some of it is banal and some of it falls victim to bad writing and directing. It's supposed to be an adult comedy and yet there are times when it's moments away from a fart joke. It also suffers from poor timing. The three-act structure collapses and it ends abruptly and without conviction.
If you go into it without expectations, and you're happy with the way actors look at each other in a movie, you'll be entertained. I enjoyed myself but I have no interest in ever watching it again. For that, I blame the writers, producer and director.
Chef! (1993)
Great British Sitcom
I have watched all episodes of all three season, in their entirety, twice in the last few years. This is one of those sitcoms I can't get enough of. The only other sitcoms that fall into this category with me are Star Trek: The Original Series, which, coincidentally, also ran only three seasons, and Red Dwarf.
What can I say? It's the snappy dialogue, character rants and character interactions that make this work so well. It's a show with superb production values, a comfy score, a quaint English location, and consistently funny plots and situations that never, ever try to tackle 'serious' issues. Sit back and enjoy.
It makes me wonder if Chef Ramsey got the idea for Hell's Kitchen from watching this show.
Henry Poole Is Here (2008)
We Are Our Brother's Keepers
Caveat: This review may contain some spoilers. However, I'll keep it vague and I promise not to reveal any plot or story twists.
I'm not a religious person per se but I do on occasion like a spiritually uplifting movie. Is this that type of movie? Well, sort of. Let's put it this way, it has a spiritual message. But getting there is a bit of a downer.
The movie is about a guy who moves into a rental house that's a few houses down from the one in which he grew up. To say this guy is depressed is like saying Homer's Odyssey is a story about a boat trip. The thing is, this guy wants to be left alone. He wants to sit in his rental house and stare at the walls. He's short on patience, and he's quite rude to his neighbors and some of the people he meets in town.
Obviously, and you realize this right away, this movie is about a person who is about to go through a character arc, and with all character arcs, something needs to happen to trigger the transformation. The 'something' in this story turns out to be what one neighbor -- and soon the whole neighborhood -- believes is the image of Jesus in a stucco stain on the side of the main character's house.
I actually liked this movie. I'm a fan of Luke Wilson, and I thought the supporting cast did a terrific job. This is a slow, purposeful movie with a strong spiritual and even a religious side to it. I won't give away the ending except to say that I think it does something unintended. On the face of it, it delivers spiritually and religiously, but it does so in a way that makes you question the depths of the main character's true motivation. Was he simply depressed because of his situation, or was something else going on in his head? For me, when the movie ended and I thought about it a little, I realized it was all allegory.
Bob
Monarch of the Glen (2000)
Beautiful, Cinematic Setting . . . Strong Cast . . .
I watched two episodes of this on my Roku Box the other night because I love stories about Scotland. I love the scenery, the accents, the culture, the mythology, you name it. With "Monarch..." the concept intrigued me: A restaurateur heads home to take care of the family estate. And what an estate it is, complete with castle, Land Rovers, pristine mountain lake, snow covered highlands, wildlife, thick forests, dirt roads. The setting itself has kind of a fantasy feel to it, as if it exists outside of modern times.
And that's why the show doesn't get any more than 7 stars from me. In the first two episodes it can't seem to decide whether it wants to be reality-based or fantasy-based. Nor is it completely sure it wants to be a comedy or a drama. It's somewhere in between on both counts. The situations in which the characters find themselves are a bit far-fetched, and the resolutions that follow occur without a great deal of foundation. They just sort of happen, as if on cue.
That said, the show has a great feel and look to it, and the characters are fun to be with.
Below (2002)
Sea Story with a Twist
It seems to me so many reviewers on the IMDb often use this forum as a means of getting rid of their personal angst or anger. Or maybe they're just harder on movies than I am. Maybe I'm easier to please. Either way, it's hard for me to understand how anyone could go into this movie voluntarily and then be disappointed by the outcome.
Let's start with the premise. It's a submarine story that takes place during WWII, and it's listed in the horror, suspense genre. It's a haunted submarine. What does that tell you? It tells me that this is going to be no ordinary war story. In fact, there's a damn good chance it's going to be an extra-ordinary war story, with maybe some supernatural elements. I don't know about you, but when I see a dust jacket with a blurb about submarines and haunting, the first thing that comes to my mind is . . . weird.
Now, if you go into a theater and buy a ticket for a WWII submarine story with a supernatural component, and you expect Saving Private Ryan or Mutiny on the Bounty, you are most definitely going to be disappointed.
In fact, to this reviewer, Below is very much a classic story, not a classic war story, but a classic story in the vein of the TV series Twilight Zone. That's not a spoiler, it's just a note of caution to people who don't particularly like these types of stories. In other words, the film makers are playing with you, they're trying to deceive you.
I enjoyed this movie. I like sea stories. I like submarines. I like stories of the supernatural. (Actually, Below is only somewhat supernatural. If you think about it, the movie is an allegory. It's really about conscience and morality.) As I said, for me, the story is a blend of all the things I like to see in a movie. It has a good look, too, claustrophobic, urgent, and mysterious, just what you would expect from Twohy. Enjoy the ride, and don't try to think to far ahead.