Change Your Image
peterson_charlie
Reviews
Jack Reacher (2012)
Tom Cruise is not Jack Reacher but...
Jack Reacher is an imposing man. That's a key part of the character. In the Lee Child novels he is 6'5" and 220+. His size and strength are key character elements.
Tom Cruise might be 5'7" but that's probably being generous.
So, if you are not a fan of the novels, it probably doesn't matter. If you are, you will have to suspend your feelings about Cruise terribly miscast as the lead.
The plot is great. The other character in the story are pretty well cast and do an admirable job. The action is pretty well done (with the exception of a terrible, against-the-traffic chase scene). The fight scenes are OK but certainly not great and they don't make up for Cruise's diminutive size.
There are several scenes that suffer terribly from his small stature. Cruise is a great actor and does his best but you simply can't act your way into an extra foot of height.
Here's hoping they find a different star for the next installment.
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Greengrass has the shakes, again
The Bourne Ultimatum could have been a great movie. Unfortunately, it was marred by the director's affinity for the Blair Witch Project. While not as bad as the second movie, the camera shakes again marred what was otherwise a very good movie. The plot, script, action, were all very tight. Casting was great and everyone did their part very well. Matt Damon is oh, so convincing in the role of Jason Bourne and he is, again, the highlight of the film. He carries it through the weak areas and when the action is high, he's in the middle of it. There's plenty of action but much of it loses its punch because of over-editing. Paul Greengrass did a better job on this one than the last, making this the second best of the three. Let's hope he gets over his case of the shakes before someone else trusts him with another script as good as this.
Fury to Freedom (1985)
Good story - OK production value
This is based fairly closely on a true story. The truth within is where the power lays. It tells the story of an LA youth who is rebellion in a dysfunctional family. His dad is an alcoholic and his mom is unable to cope. He follows a path that many then and today would appreciate. His life is changed both completely and unexpectedly and he goes on to great things. Raul Ries has gone on to serve in an even more powerful way than the movie suggests, pastoring several very large churches in southern California. His messages are currently heard all over the world on radio and especially in south America. The production value is pretty low, just above college project level, but the story is strong and holds up well. The strength of the story more than makes up for the relatively low production value.
Commander in Chief (2005)
West Wing revisited
More liberal tripe - as if we needed it. Of course the Republican president is brain dead (oh, sorry, had a stroke) and the Dem is a genius. What a creative approach. If you're a dem, you won't watch more than two or three episodes before you realize the plot is cliché and the acting is bad. If you're a Rep, you probably were smarter than me and didn't bother to watch in the first place. And Hollyweird wonders why ratings are down.
Any doubts about the political bent of the show?
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN OCT 02, 2005 21:04:37 ET XXXXX
'COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF' SUTHERLAND: BUSH WILL DESTROY OUR LIVES
Choking back tears, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF star Donald Sutherland warned this week: President Bush "will destroy our lives!"
The star of the new ABC drama, which follows the first woman President of the United States, lashed out at the real White House during a dramatic sit down interview with the BBC.
Sutherland ripped Bush and his administration for the war and Hurricane Katrina fallout.
"They were inept. The were inadequate to the task, and they lied," Sutherland charged.
"And they were insulting, and they were vindictive. And they were heartless. They did not care. They do not care. They do not care about Iraqi people. They do not care about the families of dead soldiers. They only care about profit."
At one point during the session, Sutherland started crying: "We stolen our children's future... We have children. We have children. How dare we take their legacy from them. How dare we. It's shameful. What we are doing to our world."
Sutherland went on rip Karl Rove's "methods and means" against people like Cindy Sheehan.
"We're back to burning books in Germany," Sutherland said of NBC's editing out of Kanye West's comment on Bush during a hurricane relief telethon.
Developing...
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Better than the first
As good as Spiderman was, II is better. What set Spiderman apart from other comic book heroes was his alter ego. You got to know who Peter Parker was and felt an empathy. Sam Raimi really brings Peter Parker out in this movie. Spidey II has better visual effects, an arguably better villain, great dialog, a super plot and MJ looks as good as ever, Jameson is as big a butt as ever. Perhaps the best part about this movie is that it set up Spiderman III perfectly. Perhaps the weakest part of this movie is the soundtrack. I forgot it before I left the theater. However I paid to see the webslinger in action and that's what we got. What more can I say? Get in line and fork over your bucks to see this one.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
The Return of the Epic
The critique that Saruman was noticeably absent is accurate. The critique that the ending went on a bit too long is accurate. The critique that the score was unoriginal is accurate (however it does provide continuity with the previous movies-as it should).
HOWEVER - those critiques are in the deep shadows of this brilliant final film. Overwhelming is perhaps the best adjective for this.
Jackson demonstrates not only great direction, but incredible vision, and huge cajones. It will be a long time (maybe never) before anyone tries anything as ambitious as this and not only pulls it off but does so spectacularly. If they ever run all three movies together, I'll buy a seat cushion and be first in line.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
Not a bad follow up - just not as good as the first two.
What had to be the toughest job in making T3 was developing a good enough bad guy. Surprisingly, that is the best part of T3. They did it right. Don't think so? You try to come up with a better bad guy. It ain't easy. The action was pretty solid and the movie doesn't waste time getting uncorked. There are very few slow points to the movie. The plot has holes in it. So what? It's good enough to support the action and it's pretty hard to come up with a time travel plot that doesn't have holes in it. Only Bill and Ted could manage most excellent time travel. Bottom line: Action was solid, direction was pretty good, the acting wasn't as good as T2 and the music didn't have the drive of either of the first two. So - - not as good as the first two but definitely worth the admission price.
Gods and Generals (2003)
Too accurate for the critics to appreciate
The problem with this movie is that many people can't (or won't) believe the South fought to defend their homeland, that people of the 1860s were well educated and could turn a phrase, that they actually prayed (routinely!!!). The problem with this movie is that it is so accurate in many respects that it shatters a lot of myths. Gods and Generals characterizes so many key participants as Christian and that seems to be accurate. What's amazing is that it was produced by Ted Turner, who once called Christianity a religion for losers. If you try to portray history accurately, you end up with a movie like this and not everyone will like it. I certainly did.