Reviews

This arthouse film has poignant moments (some I could relate to -- ouch) but I don't feel like I learned anything, nor was I entertained. What's the point here? Getting old sucks?

Javier Bardem's character is arguably a poster-child for someone who's out of control and needs to live with a care-giver (but ideally not institutionalized). The fact that his daughter is NOT treating the situation realistically borders on elder abuse. I know the film has artistic pretentions that overlook such mundane issues (that I happen to have lived through), but it's difficult to overlook the obvious here.

The alternate reality theme is weak. The boring present-day story is interrupted by a plethora of flashbacks to memories of other boring times (some of which are apparently the imagined results of different major decisions -- i.e., forks in the timeline).

I give this 2.5 stars, with a half-star bonus for an above-par ending (though it reeks of film-critic bait). That's three (3) stars total.

This is 90's humor -- goofy, silly, and overacted -- but it WORKS in this excellent satire of the soap-opera industry. I wasn't impressed by the beginning, but after the momentum (and various complications) build, the cynical/indignant/sniping humor finds its footing and the result is hilarious. There are some great lines; here's one example.

"What if she can't act?"

"That never stopped us before."

Elisabeth Shue plays Lori Craven, the newcomer to The Sun Also Sets, a long-running soap opera.

Cathy Moriarty plays Montana Moorehead, who plays a raspy nurse character (on The Sun Also Sets). Montana is a schemer and (according to Lori) a deranged *****. Montana's vicious staccato threats to producer David (Robert Downey Jr.) never get old. Cathy Moriarty mixes these rapid-fire throaty snarls into relatively normal conversations in a bizarre way that must be seen to be believed (and appreciated). She's intense -- almost as if she's unstable and dangerous (who knew?).

The story-within-a-story format has been done many times, but it's done WELL here; the behind-the-scenes drama is actually better (and more soapy) than the show's nominal script, and this fact gradually dawns on people.

The casting is excellent. Garry Marshall is wonderful as the worried no-nonsense top exec who is dumbfounded (but delighted) with the increasing chaos.

I give this seven stars, plus a bonus star for Sally Field's pitch-perfect performance. That's eight (8) stars total.

DRIFTING OFF-TOPIC (for most, not all)

{Welcome to my Under the Silver Lake (UTSL) distributed essay. This is Part 5. Part 4 was attached to my review of The Phantom.}

Under the Silver Lake (2018) is a strange film with an unsolved (audience) puzzle that references dozens of other films, often in very subtle ways. Soapdish has a surprising number of connections to UTSL; it's debatable how many are intentional. I'll list a few for your consideration.

Both movies feature balloons and mention the homeless.

Both movies have a scene with a bucket oddly placed in the background; in UTSL it's in Bar-Buddy's backyard. In addition, when the Homeless King walks Sam through a park, there's a bucket with four balloons attached, ostensibly for a family B/D party. Two of the four balloon colors correspond to the balloons Lori Craven (Elisabeth Shue) was toting, and two correspond to (fancy/shiny) dress colors she wore later.

The patient bracelet Lori wears in her hospital scene is shaped a bit like Sarah's metal bracelet in UTSL. I'm sensing a pattern here with Elisabeth Shue (see "Speculation Dept" far below).

"Horse****!!" is the expletive-of-choice in Soapdish. In UTSL, Riki Lindhome says this when she's dressed like a nurse (and again, Soapdish has a nurse character).

In Soapdish, a small Wizard of Oz poster (beside Montana Moorehead's make-up mirror) highlights Judy Garland's name. In UTSL, the closest poster to The Songwriter displays Liza Minnelli's name. Liza Minnelli is Judy Garland's daughter.

Soapdish has a frequent red-and-black color scheme. In particular, compare the stacked display cases in David's office with the artwork behind the "lingerie model" that Bar-Buddy spies on with his drone in UTSL. A coincidence seems ... unlikely.

I could go on, but we'd get into (known) operational clues, and I don't want to solve the puzzle FOR you. Loosely speaking, Soapdish is in the same category as Monster vs Aliens; there's one or more important clues buried in each movie. However, Soapdish is somewhat unique in that there are connections to more than one blob.

SPECULATION DEPT

We've established some connections to Bar-Buddy's backyard, which has an owl. A major subplot of Soapdish concerns a kiss (and Lori). Could this relate to the Owl's Kiss? Let's do a thought exercise.

Elisabeth Shue was in two Back-to-the-Future movies, and these obviously concern time travel, as does Doctor Who. The owl hoots twice, which could relate to The House that Dripped Blood, which has TWO actors that played Doctor Who -- Peter Cushing and Jon Pertwee. This movie isn't chosen lightly; the UTSL coffee-shop menu-board has "drip" (coffee) written in a wavy fashion that matches one of The-House-that-Dripped-Blood movie posters. Plus, one of the end-credit toons literally shows the Owl's Kiss' fingertips DRIPPING blood.

Comic-Man's house has a bunch of owl figurines, but that's to be expected given his obsession with the Owl's Kiss.

Now let's return to the B/D party in the park with the bucket-balloons. There's a croquet set there. Croquet IS mentioned (exactly once) in the Doctor Who universe; it's in the audio drama Caerdroia. A caerdroia is a Welsh "turf maze"; basically a type of labyrinth built by shepherds and apparently used for long-lost rituals.

So ... in sum, this could be some sort of Easter Egg, additional fan-out, or simply wrong. I'm not sure (although I have a theory), but I hope you found this conjecture interesting.

SEMI-RANDOM HINT

While Riki Lindhome's outfits ARE important clues, it's best not to read TOO much into them. Each outfit links to multiple films, so ... don't cry "Eureka!" when you see a potential connection. I think the brains behind UTSL were simply using a biggest-bang-for-the-buck approach towards selecting the outfits (i.e., they saw a pattern and capitalized on it).

FOR MORE ABOUT UTSL PUZZLE CLUES

See my (9-star) review of Dr. Strangelove.

Where to begin? The acting is terrible. The villain Fender grunts and postures like a pro wrestler might if he was chained to a post in the Thunderdome. The special effects (e.g., matte paintings) are worse than a cheap TV-Movie. The martial-arts sound-effects (THWIP! WHACK!) sound really fake. Some throwaway henchman lines are clearly dubbed -- the lip-sync is clearly wrong.

There is JUST enough "cyborg" content to explain the title -- but it's stupid/unnecessary/pretentious and clearly just a marketing gimmick.

There are plenty of logic fails too. JCVD manages to make his trail easy to follow when on the run (by not bothering to replace a manhole cover). Later, he throws away the advantage of surprise -- when greatly outnumbered -- in order to stand tall (and show off his pecs). I probably lost some IQ points watching this.

Albert Pyun, who has a bad rep as a movie director, apparently thought he was doing a good job -- the movie is quite pretentious; the corny line the cyborg says to/about JCVD at the end is almost barf-worthy (probably a "howler" for any suitably rowdy group of viewers).

I give this three stars, minus a half-star for killing off the ONLY character I (kind of) liked, and another for doing it in a badly clichéd way. That's two (2) stars total. A Roger Corman film would be a step up.

I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood and appreciate his trademark attitude (and hat). Clint plays wrongly-hanged Jed Cooper and ends up with a permanent neck scar. Jed's passion to bring his would-be murderers to justice is initially fueled by a completely understandable burning desire for revenge, but this becomes tempered with time.

Pat Hingle's depiction of a self-righteous hanging judge is excellent and the friction with Jed Cooper and his ethical concerns highlights the grey areas in the frontier justice system.

Some of the distractions seem pointless, such as Dennis Hopper's crazy Prophet. I would have preferred that screen time to have been devoted to Marshal Dave Bliss (Ben Johnson), who died violently off-stage despite his importance to Jed for saving his life. This seems like a poor decision, probably caused by a simplistic studio desire to showcase Eastwood. Bliss seemed like an interesting, thoughtful guy, but got very little screen time considering.

I give this 7.5 stars, with a half-star penalty for slow pacing and a one-star penalty for missed opportunities. That's six (6) stars total. This movie had real potential, but it's unfortunately a "near miss".

This film is intended to be a light-hearted romp with some outrageous gags, but is actually an inept cliché-ridden mess with key characters who vary between gullible, unlikeable and delusional. Infantile Jake (Jay Jablonski) pines for women he can't have. He's obsessed with his ex, who's married and has kids. They broke up EIGHT years ago! It's too insane and too implausible to be cute or funny. The word "stalker" comes to mind.

I only watched this because of Cerina Vincent, who has an amusing reaction to a date-gone-wrong with Jake. This was probably the best part, given the film dwells on socially awkward and painfully contrived situations.

While there are some amusing characters in the fish market, it's not enough to save this fiasco. To be fair, I thought the film might redeem itself in the second act and turn into something decent. But NOOO ... the third act is a HUGE shark-jump. The pat happy ending is one big soapy cliché and doesn't help except to signal relief from watching this disaster unfold. This movie is one long FACE-PALM. I give it three (3) stars, as there ARE some (barely) OK moments.

Case in point: Bill Murray. I can see why he was cast, but he is largely wasted here, because his comic delivery doesn't work -- nor does anyone else's, except Adam Driver who actually IS amusing. The sheer number of A-listers who contributed so little (not that it was their fault) is astonishing. The film is clearly trying for low-key ironic humor, some of it very meta. But it fails to be amusing at least 95% of the time. Also, the ending is weak.

Selena Gomez made me laugh as she was introduced; she's oh-so-casually driving a classic Pontiac that's probably over twice her age. A rare moment when the intended absurdity worked. Tilda Swinton similarly has exactly ONE funny line.

The logic fails are painful to watch. An armed crew of police, who have exactly the correct weapons (and mobility) to SAFELY "thin the herd" of zombies (and even DEMONSTRATE this capability), squander this HUGE (and extremely obvious) tactical advantage, and don't even come to the rescue of folks trapped in a building. It's galling.

Despite its flaws, this film is somewhat engaging. I give it 4.5 stars, plus a half-star for Adam Driver, minus one star for logic fails. That's four (4) stars total.

Gargoyles has decent acting and some likeable characters. Cornel Wilde is actually believable as an author and researcher of ancient myths. Jennifer Salt plays his eye-candy daughter who screams at the monsters and is even kidnapped by them. The monsters are ridiculous (they act a bit like monkeys in lizard suits), but if you're old enough to not be scared by them, they're kind of fun to watch. The head Gargoyle has a nice prosthetic face (thanks to Stan Winston) and some enjoyably stilted lines. It was fun to see Scott Glenn in an early role.

Considering this low-budget TV-movie was shot with a single camera, it's surprisingly well-edited. It's not great, and if you're looking for a LOT of action, well ... look elsewhere. But I found this flick oddly charming (in some weird retro way).

I rate this at six (6) stars. It's probably best-viewed at a Drive-In.

I watched this in two pieces, taking a break after the first hour. I didn't "get" the character really, he's clearly a very different person than I am. I didn't expect to leave a review, but after watching the last 15 minutes, that changed.

The last 15 minutes covers the funeral (which is well-edited and brought a tear to my eye) but also contains some the most profound aspects of the film. We see Daniel talking to *us*, the audience. He is making direct eye contact with the camera.

"In fact, I'm looking at you ... right now ... from across the {blah}. I think you're beautiful."

The {blah} word is a bit profound and saying it here, out of context, would cheapen the message. Watch the film and you'll find out what it is.

For me, this rates seven stars, with a half star bonus for the editing and another for the guts to not push this to 90 minutes (as many documentaries do). That makes EIGHT (8) stars total. I think some scenes will stay with me ....

Despite the limitations of using English subtitles to understand what was going on, I think this film could have been better. It seems like the main goal was a gorefest, but a more interesting (and less derivative) tale could certainly have been told -- if anyone involved cared (but they didn't). The pacing was not great; the film often dragged.

The first act is the most interesting, as we're trying to figure out what's going on. The rest of the film slowly devolves into supernatural horror (possession and murder). I didn't like many of the characters, and it's hard to feel sympathy for people who aren't behaving or communicating well (even when lives depend on following rules and sharing information).

The cultural differences were mildly interesting -- at first -- but when the film got into gory-exorcism mode the disgusting happenings dominated (but not in a good way). I also found the use of seemingly generic prayers (by exorcists) to accomplish very specific goals quite unconvincing. Not sure if this was to avoid offending certain people.

I don't recommend this unless you specifically like Malaysian horror. I give it 3.5 stars, with half-star penalties for excessive gore, missed opportunities, and poor pacing. That's two (2) stars total.

This film is structurally a clone of The Naked Gun, not that there's anything wrong with that. Robert Goulet plays the villain this time, and instead of The Queen being the VIP-in-danger, we have an energy advisor to the President.

Overall, this film is pretty good, but IMHO not quite as good as The Naked Gun, which I rated one star higher. BUT -- this sequel had more intense LOL moments (e.g., the "dance" and "shower" scenes); the original simply had me smiling more consistently. So which film is "better" is probably a personal value judgment. For me the original was better on *average*, and the short-lived TV show (Police Squad!) was actually the pinnacle.

I give this six (6) stars. It has some good movie-spoof scenes.

Priscilla Presley does a fine job of playing a parody of a stereotypical love interest, and George Kenney's character is almost a self-parody of his many B-movie roles. But after several viewings, the supporting actor that I really enjoyed is Ricardo Montalban -- he plays villainous Vincent Ludwig straight, which makes for hilarious moments when Lt. Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen) is accidentally destroying precious objects in Ludwig's palatial office.

This movie is based on the excellent but short-lived TV series Police Squad!, which despite being popular, was canceled because the network felt the near-constant sight-gags would cause the audience to focus too much on the show, and not enough on the commercials. In other words, the clever humor would DISTRACT the audience from the advertising (though I'm not aware of any actual study of this theory). Way to go, CBS!

This movie, being the first in the Naked Gun series, retains the most characters from the TV show. If you liked Airplane!, which was made by the same folks, you'll probably like this. I give it seven (7) stars.

I very much enjoyed this twisted spoof; it's inspired. The tone is perfect, but I give a lot of credit to James Lorinz and his amusing patter. I think most B-movie guys (you know who you are) will like this. It gave me a BIG smile!

The "special" effects are deliberately bad, but match the tongue-in-cheek story. I may even track down the unrated version, which is two minutes longer.

How Director Frank Henenlotter kept everyone on the same page here is a mystery. No one stood out for (inappropriately) bad acting. The weird set pieces and oddball props work great. There is a nice progression from bizarre low-key humor to complete absurdity. It's really well constructed.

I happily give this six (6) stars.

PS Patty Mullen is a poster child for a blonde who IMHO looks better with black hair.

I planned to title my review "WTF Did I Just Watch", but that had already been used. While atmospheric and technically well done, this film is unpleasant to watch. It's basically an ultra-dysfunctional mash-up of Moby Dick and The Shining. I managed to watch the entire nauseating mess because I was curious about the ending, which instead of providing some satisfaction or at least an explanation, is pretentious garbage.

The entire movie feels implausible. The lighthouse itself was OK as a setting, the mechanisms made sense (FYI, the coal-fired steam engine is strictly for the foghorn), but the cistern situation was insane. The two keepers should have died (or at least been violently ill) from the polluted water. PRO TIP: Cisterns preserve water by keeping it cool and DARK -- there is NO WAY the access hole wouldn't normally be covered with a light-tight panel -- keeping it open is SUICIDE in a place like this; things will grow in it. And yet Robert Pattinson's character wanders over and sees dead/dying seagull(s) floating in there.

I learned nothing and would like my 109 minutes back. I give this abortion two stars, as it's useless IMHO except as film-critic-bait, but with a one-star penalty for a HORRIBLE "mental aftertaste". That's ONE star total folks -- the film was just THAT pointless and disgusting.

I think Tye Sheridan was good in this movie. Colin Farrell was fine as well. Lily-Rose Depp was intriguing, but seemed to be trying for some gravitas by underacting. She was not entirely convincing in this, and her model-esque looks made it a bit strange. Quintessa Swindell (Cyclone in Black Adam) had some impressively sultry expressions once her character became hot-to-trot. Like many of the other kids, once she was weaned off the impulse-control drugs, it was HELLO HORMONES!!

There are a lot of "space-arc" films, and most suffer from the rather stupid idea that building and then traveling inside (for a century or more) a giant spacecraft is easier than saving (part of) the Earth, or simply building a large, super-fancy underground bunker (which would be less isolating than being in space).

This particular arc-ship sported artificial gravity, which clearly isn't centrifugal, as the gravity suddenly disappears when one goes out through an airlock (spacewalkers aren't flung into the distance). Yet the gravity remains in a room when the power is cut. Huh? Also, if we have such super-advanced tech in the future, why no anti-gravity (UFO) tech? The physics here make no sense.

While I appreciated the Lord-of-the-Flies storyline, it seems implausible that intelligent, highly-trained science-oriented kids are going to fall for evidence-free tales of a mysterious malevolent force and instantly become a paranoid mob.

The ending is a bit pat (and rushed). Also, the audio was annoying; the sound effects and associated bursts of music were too loud relative to the dialog -- unusual for a film with a decent budget. Apparently, some exec wanted more (cheap) drama.

I give this seven stars, with a one-star penalty for various plausibility flaws, and half-star penalties for the audio and the unsatisfying ending. That's five (5) stars total.

This low-budget film rises above schlock; it's rather charming at times -- in its own little way, it was trying to be a minor classic. This film influenced both Star Trek and The Time Tunnel. John Hoyt, who plays Varno, was in the Star Trek pilot and in two episodes of The Time Tunnel. The ending is not what you'd expect -- it's actually decent (and perhaps briefly thought-provoking).

All the casting was good, but model-turned-actress Merry Anders and Playboy Playmate Delores Wells are cast members I appreciated for, ah, "various reasons". But they did a fine job and livened things up.

I give this six (6) stars. The "mental aftertaste" is quite good.

PS Although you don't see anything naughty (as in R-rated), some of the spa babes actually WERE naked -- the director insisted (for the best "vibe"??). Hey, it worked for me.

I enjoyed elements of this film (due to the miracle of rock-bottom expectations) despite Jaden Smith's acting. I actually knew someone like Will Smith's depicted character, and so the sentimentality *initially* worked for me. But I saw how contrived this movie was, so I gave it a middling score of 5 stars and went to bed, wondering if I'd been too harsh.

The next morning I woke up with an odd sense of "buyer's remorse" -- that I had been suckered (by M. Night Shyamalan), and so I rewrote this review from scratch, thus exorcising the mental demon (IMDB is great for that).

To be fair, I thought there was real tension in many scenes, so I don't fully understand the terrible (1-star) reviews. Also, it was nice to see Sophie Okonedo and Zoë Kravitz, despite their small roles.

Starting with six stars for "unrealized potential" (or brainless entertainment), but subtracting one star for the blatantly contrived set-up and another for the manipulative style (i.e., sentiment-as-distraction), I arrive at four (4) stars.

This documentary is nicely done, but not perfect. It could easily have been three to five minutes shorter, which would have helped with the pacing. Nevertheless, this is an interesting presentation of archival footage.

I like the way this film covers optimists, realists, and pessimistic survivalists. As someone who lived through this, I can tell you there was a LOT of hype back then. Scaremongers selling books were saying things like freeway accidents would occur as power brakes failed at the stroke of midnight. These sorts of claims were laughable of course -- no engineer is going to increase his workload by making systems more complex than needed -- especially when the system MUST be reliable. Why on earth would a power braking system need to know the time and date? It's ridiculous.

As the New Year came and went, the film shifted into covering some interesting and (mostly) uplifting thoughts about global connectivity and the uncertainty and possibilities of the new Millennium.

While not highly structured, this documentary has a straightforward (linear) time-flow, a decent cross-section of opinions, a low-key tone, and a good ending that raises questions about the future. I would have changed a few things, but not much, so I'm *tempted* to give it seven stars. HOWEVER, the film did NOT excite me, and I doubt it will be of great interest to the average viewer. So I think a "proper" rating, considering the big picture, is probably five (5) stars, which is also an accurate reflection of the entertainment value I received.

Bottom line, this film is better than expected, but that's a low bar. The directing is uneven; Fred Ward starts off playing a painfully goofy version of his Earl Bassett character, despite being a decent actor. But the film does find its footing, and even flirts with competence after Burt Gummer (Michael Gross) shows up.

The set pieces are terrible; a crappy warehouse is called a "refinery". The oil angle is apparently justifies someone paying $$$ for help and having a female geologist (who's confusingly also a paleontologist and ex-Playboy model) laying about. The goofy replacement for Kevin Bacon adds zero value beyond acting as an all-too-familiar plot device.

I think the central question here is whether ANY of the original film's magic is still present. I say YES, there is some fun to be had with the Graboids (and a new way of killing them).

I rate this at three stars with some bonuses: two stars for getting original cast members Ward and Gross, a half-star for still using lots of practical effects (not just CGI), and finally a half-star for Burt Gummer's deuce-and-a-half with the "mil-spec engine". That's six (6) stars total. This may sound generous for a low-budget sequel, but be aware that I rated the original at NINE (!!) stars.

The previous film, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is excellent (I gave it an 8), but at this point, with the third film in the series, we've reached franchise-milking. The good news is we have the same cast. However, for an unknown reason (lack of good ideas?), regional and ethnic accents are now supposed to invoke hilarity during body-swaps. To make matters worse, two characters are elderly. The ensuing age jokes wear thin rather quickly.

This film is basically equivalent to an old, worn-out tire with some shiny new tread glued on (i.e., a "retread"). It's an OK watch if you keep your expectations a bit low. I give it five (5) stars given I still like many of the characters.

PS The ostrich running down the street at the end is a nod to the original film, where the Jungle came OUT of the (board) game, versus the (video) game sucking players IN.

Although Robin William's amazing improvisational skills are muted here, he's still great fun in this ground-breaking (for the time) movie. Whether the now-dated goofy humor is endearing or boring is largely up to the viewer's taste. Jumanji was released 15 years after Airplane! (with its far more modern/clever humor), but the creators of Jumanji probably wanted to ensure a family-friendly result (note how many reviews mention seeing it with your kids).

IMHO, this is a movie that most everyone should see at least once; not only is it a classic, but it's also a precursor of the excellent Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. I think it's worth noting that only in the original film (Jumanji) is it possible to have characters lose their memories of the game when their timeline is altered. In other words, only those who NEEDED to remember do. Alternatively, one could say that the oldest participants retain free will; it's up to them how to use what they've learned. Because this (technically) changes history (the younger participants end up never playing the game), a new timeline is created.

Jumanji is easily the most charming and sentimental of the three movies. The Christmas scene at the end is quite moving. I think it rates seven (7) stars.

This self-referential sequel is completely watchable, but seems like an attempt at a shallow self-parody. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's goofy -- but not always in a clever way. The original film was fresh and inspired, but this one is hit-or-miss.

There's some great sarcastic writing here and there. For my taste, Emma Stone has the best lines (and facial expressions and sarcastic accents). To be fair, the entire cast IS trying; but there's only so much they can do with the script, and the overall result flirts with tedium.

The characters are fine, but it's hard to care a lot about them in this goofy self-aware pseudo-parody. I never felt they were real people, or were ever in real danger (because of script destiny).

This is OK light entertainment; I give it five (5) stars.

The first toon, "Laser Baby's Day Out", is by far the best. The gentle retro flavor, combined with OTT violence and gore, is brilliant. Highly recommended.

The other toons vary greatly in quality. They're ALL watchable, but expect some to not be to your taste, as there is a lot of diversity here.

One wonders what someone new to the Vought universe would make of all this (hmm ...).

I do think it's great that folks like Awkwafina (The Farewell), Christian Slater (Archer), Aisha Tyler (Archer), Nasim Pedrad (SNL), Andy Samberg (SNL), and so many others helped.

I rate this at six (6) stars overall. The Boys and Gen V are better.