Reviews

From this reviewer's perspective, pay little heed to the "mass" of negative reviews of The Ring Two (as of this writing I'm stunned to see a cumulative rating of 5.1) and go ahead and WATCH this follow-up to The Ring, particularly if you're looking for answers and/or much deeper meaning to the symbols, story and legacy that put "Samara" on her hell-bent for leather cradle to grave terror.

This movie has the fantastic Naomi Watts returning as Rachel, along with her on-screen son Aiden. (hey, I'd spend two hours staring at Naomi Watts for no reason, but that's not the reason I'm recommending viewing this movie!). I'm not going to give things away, but the special effects are fantastic and directly linked to the first Ring movie. The story from start to finish takes you further along the path to understanding the ENTIRE storyline, along with pulling you in along with Rachel and Aiden in a steady stream of consciousness. If you enjoyed The Ring (of course you did, which is why you're looking at these reviews for The Ring 2), set aside much of what you'll read in these parts along with the dreadful rating and enjoy the ride, along with the insight into the story-line. Frankly, after viewing this I'll probably watch the original Ring again now better equipped. Oh....don't forget to watch the superb extras on the disc, which provide even MORE background into this story as well as great behind-the-scenes. (I'll probably have to watch "Ringu", the Japanese version after seeing the director's in-depth commentary).

Watched this after browsing my Netflix steaming que-seemed harmless and short. Figured how bad can a Bruce Willis "action" flick be? Answer-very poor indeed! Just seemed like the special effects weren't special at all for a sci-fi flick, and the script was a been there done that but hardly as good (thinking of fun favs like "Logan's Run" and "Total Recall" that had FAR better scripts and effects and were done many years earlier). Not thought provoking, very predictable-actually bored me. It seems to me that this was a quick payday for Willis as his peer actors in this movie were all second tier and the budget was obviously low. Nothing memorable or notable about this one, AT ALL.

I guess I've just got too much Basil Rathbone in my idea of Sherlock Holmes; suave, sophisticated, brilliant, imaginative, creative and always a step ahead. Throw in that certain hat, tweed jacket and subtle humor and you've got the man from 221B Baker Street. For that matter, several other "Holmes" both in older times and more recent have captured that essence and symbiotic relationship with good old Dr. Watson. What we've got here is a total re-interpretation of a good thing, to the point of making this an action adventure instead of a psychological who-dunnit of old.

For my money, Robert Downey Jr. doesn't cut it as Holmes much as he tries-he reminds me too much of Charlie Chaplin. He's short, squatty and feigns to be a brawny muscle figure in this adaptation. The relationship with Holmes is never quite developed and the chemistry isn't there as it should be, nor is the humor. Frankly, if I want a technology driven action/adventure I wouldn't have sought this movie out. I'll go back to my set of Rathbone classics anytime, and I will tune in to the Jeremy Brett version as I've heard that is quite good as well. This particular Holmes doesn't strike me as Holmes at all-missing the essence by trying to remake something other than what it IS.

I just saw BOTH 2001 A Space Odyssey and 2010 this weekend on TCM, for the first time. 2001 is subject to so many varied interpretations, it was both enjoyable and enlightening to peruse many of those over the internet. After doing so, I viewed 2010 under the guise that while it seemingly doesn't rate nearly as high it might/would provide some additional light on the "monolith" and it's aura. Taken under that simple premise, 2010 was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. It takes nothing away from the spectacular mind provoking saga that is 2001, it just adds further perspective without taking away your individual perspective to interpret as you wish Kubrick's original. Don't try and compare it to 2001, just view it as some additional information to add to the pantheon. What's wrong with enjoying something that expands upon the wonderment of the next enterprise, instead of the typical gloom and doom? Surprisingly good performances, reprise of HAL and Dave, and interesting effects make this a must view if one feels like exploring the concepts introduced in 2001 a bit further. Just don't take an artistic or arrogant viewpoint that anything beyond Kubrick's 2001 pales; if you view it on it's own individual basis you'll find this a worthwhile viewing experience.

It's October so what better time to watch an old classic horror film? I've seen only a handful of silent films, but this one is hardly "silent"! First off, the version I just saw via TCM was beautifully restored with Carl Davis's orchestration-that alone is worth the show. The orchestration is right on, organ's in place, even perfectly calibrated bell tones/chimes in time with an entrance knocker-spectacular! As for the movie, what can one say about the masked Lon Chaney except that once unmasked.......true horror personified! This "restored" version has some subtle color in components showing the opera house, it's fabulous. The lower chambers where "The Phantom" rules create an incredible visual atmosphere. I truly enjoyable experience.

Being a fan of anything Hitchcock, I decided to go back in time and view some of Hitch's early British period productions, via a packaged set. Well, I just realized that it all started way back when-all the elements of Hitchcock's epics are right here in this 1930's era espionage thriller. It's all here: the everday man caught up where he's not supposed to be, the blonde femme fatales, the humor; it's almost an early day Man Who Knew Too Much or North By Northwest. It's just Hitchcock gone Scotland Yard for this To Catch A Thief. If you enjoy the prototypical Hitchcock spy drama with a twist, you'll have fun viewing this early product. It really really was Jolly Good Fun!

Call me a recent convert to Frank Sinatra, or shall I say his music-particularly since I've been viewing TCM's 10 year anniversary of his death as the featured May artist. After buying Frank's "Nothing But The Best CD" at a local Best Buy, another fan doing same suggested I see "Man With The Golden Arm" (oh, and buy Sinatra at the Sands!). TCM's showing of this classic was timed perfectly for me.

Frank as Frankie machine is one of those film noir's that hit you straight at the undercurrent of life. A great jazzy soundtrack provides the grounding and serves to tie together this man's struggles. And boy does this guy have struggles; life has hammered him with more than he can handle. In the midst of all of this, Frankie displays a heart and soul along with a will to fight that not even he can comprehend. I've also become a Kim Novack fan (probably because of Hitchcock's "Vertigo"); she is tremendous in this film-both visually and artistically. This movie cuts hard and deep, moves along at a great pace particularly given it's content, and has tremendous atmosphere. I've now just realized that Frank Sinatra was more than one of the greatest of the great standard's era singers. A great performance from Frank, and a movie that hits on all cylinders of emotion and redemption.

I thoroughly enjoyed this true to form take on the Dick Tracy persona. This is a well done product that used modern technology to craft a imagery filled comic era story. If you are a fan of or recently watched some of the old Dick Tracy b&w movies then you're sure to get a kick out of this rendition. The pastel colors and larger than life characters rendered in a painstakingly authentic take on an era gone by is entertainment as it's meant to be. I personally find Madonna's musical element to be a major part of this film-the CD featuring her music from this movie is one I've listened to often over the years, it's just so well done and performed musically and tuned to that era. In my mind, Madonna's finest moment both on-screen but especially musically. This is sure to bring out the "kid" in you.

If you're a dog lover like me, you'll find this one hard not to like! Good old "Friday" steals this show-with some able assistance from a very keen and rugged blind man. I found this one easy to follow and it kept my interest all the way. A really neat mix of intrigue, mystery, and humor to boot. Oh...and some espionage thrown in as is per this era's thematics. The gal who plays the enemy is quite wicked!

This is a murder mystery that will get you smiling! A fun and easy frolic minus a tangled plot that uses all the "senses". Oh, and a young Donna Reed.......not bad at all. This one makes Rin Tin Tin and Lassie look like amateurs!

Just finished watching this as one of a 50 Classic Thriller Box set-this is a keeper! Thoroughly enjoyable on many levels-it was a real pleasure watching something from days gone by done so well. This has all the elements-murder, deceit, redemption and return to innocence. Oh-and some really great scenery and acting. The gal that played Marcia Peters is quite a looker for any day! Charles Coburn was a treat as the old retiring police detective-this one keeps you focused and moves fast with interest all the way to the end.

This movie is really much deeper than it appears on the surface-pay attention to the story behind the story here, it's a tale that one can appreciate given the trials and tribulations of life.

I just watched this as the last Holmes movie in a CD set I bought-it's really quite interesting to see Holmes evolve over the different eras and actors. I'd like to rate this particular Holmes movie higher except for the fact that like most packaged movies of this era the sound quality is relatively poor which makes viewing difficult. In the end, it's fun to watch period films like this and for one hour take a stroll back in time to the 1930's.

Raymond Massey has a fine 1930's take on Holmes, including partiality to lounging around in a houserobe while making numerous deductions along with some light-hearted needling of Dr. Watson. The essence is here, much to appreciate but again just a tad bit lacking on the sound quality for total enjoyment.

Just returned from a viewing of "I'm Not There", something of course this Dylan fan wouldn't miss. I'm certainly steeped in Dylan's history as well as legend, and all of the iconic moments that go along with all of that. I own every piece of Dylan music, video and film that I can and will ever get my hands on. This movie does it's job portraying the surrealistic aura that is Bob Dylan, along with a decent sampling of music from his various incarnations. While it would be hard for me not to enjoy something Dylan of this magnitude, I can't say that I was even nearly overwhelmed like most of the posts I've read here. I simply left the theatre with much imagery in my mind along with sound sensations and Dylan personas floating around. It didn't have the dramatic or emotional impact for me that I had hoped.

Frankly, I may be one of the few that would still like to see something more akin to a movie biographic portrayal that contains the same artistic integrity but shows a direct timeline and all the changing personas in a more direct fashion. I feel the world/nation really needs something of this fashion to really hit hard the LEGEND that is Bob Dylan in sound, life, philosophy, and attitude. For Bob Dylan is a shining testament to truth and direct plain-speak about life and living. I for one would get goosebumps if something more lifelike could be portrayed for the ages in bringing this all together. While "I'm Not There" certainly can be seen as an artistic product, it doesn't capture the real Bob Dylan and his message as I'd like to see it. I know again that many who've posted will disagree with me, but I can only tell it as I see it-just like The Man!