Change Your Image
TxCracker
Reviews
The Great Escape (1963)
A World War II Masterpeice
I gave this film a 9 out of 10. The only reason I didn't give it a 10 is because it tells one lie. No Americans actually participated in the escape.
It is a historical fact that the escape was originally to be made by the Americans, but their tunnel, Tom, was discovered by German camp guards just a few days before the scheduled break. The movie shows how Tom was busted, but unfortunately does not reveal that it was the American tunnel. The second tunnel, Dick, was used instead, but that particular tunnel originated in a British barracks; therefore all the escapees were in fact British soldiers.
Other than that, the rest of the details were unusually accurate, given the fact that Hollywood is not well known for sticking with facts. The Great Escape is an excellent chronology of a group of brave men attempting a nearly-impossible task with an amazing degree of success.
The actual escape belongs on the list of greatest human efforts in history, and the movie belongs on the list of greatest films ever made.
Rat Race (2001)
Not too bad for a copycat flick.
I actually prefer It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World - but sure, it was the original. I've gotta say though that this one wasn't bad either. Many of the scenes were really funny and I thought it was a worthy effort.
The only thing that bothered me was the ending, which was so unbelievably bogus and corny, I felt like I was gonna gag. That part seemed like it was written by Anne Landers or Aunt Bee, or some other old lady, ruining the whole wacky Bundy-type image of the movie. I really thought John Cleese would have had more class than to be involved in a dorky ending like that. I'd be willing to bet he wasn't happy about it.
I recommend this movie for all those who enjoy slapstick comedy, but turn it off before it ends! Of course you won't...not knowing how it ends would be even worse than hating the ending.
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Oh Boy, more impact journalism
This film is packed full of irony, but the most ironic thing about it may be the way film-maker Moore condemns the media for creating unfounded fear throughout our society. I mean, Jeez, ain't it obvious that he's attempting to do exactly the same thing? Moore, how 'bout taking a look in the mirror...you ARE the freakin' media. By making a film for public exhibition, you have given yourself that status, and through its content you are intentionally alarming and misinforming the public.
It would be nice if he could have actually presented the facts in an unbiased fashion, and let the rest of us use our heads to process those facts and come to our own conclusions. But Moore, as is the case with most film makers, looks through the camera with only his left eye and makes damn sure we all know he intends for us to see it his way.
His little animated bullet cartoon is the worst of it. While mildly entertaining, it paints a portrait of white people as a weak and tremblingly fearful race, prone to kill everything they don't understand, while blacks are decent, kind and strong, only wanting to have a family picnic as the horrible whites hide behind trees with their guns. Next, he has to take issue with the makers of the show "Cops" for having the audacity to show black people being arrested on television for committing crimes, when, as we have already learned, black people don't ever do anything but go on innocent picnics.
I got tired of watching Cops a long time ago, but I seem to remember them showing plenty of white and hispanic lawbreakers too. I think most of us have watched the program and laughed at the nasty-looking white drunks as they pitched their equally nasty-looking fat wives through the windows of their trailer houses. But people like Moore want to nurture the image of minorities being mistreated, stereotyped, and harrassed by whites, which is in fact a stereotype in itself. This way he can do his part to keep racism alive and flourishing in the "Land of the Free" forever.
One part of this documentary I do agree with is our government's lack of good sense concerning its intrusion into the affairs of other countries. Sure, if somebody comes over here and blows up our real estate and personnel we should not hesitate to find them and send them back to kingdom come. But, on the other hand, if we weren't in their country to begin with, helping their enemies and supplying them all with weapons, they wouldn't have felt a need to attack us in the first place.
So now I get to read these comments from people in various parts of the globe who, after having viewed this movie, have the United States all figured out. They sit back, feeling smug and superior, telling us what is wrong with our country and our lack of legislation (too much legislation in my opinion), shaking their heads sadly at our shameful stupidity, laughing at our supposed fear of each-other, not getting the idea that the "fear" is only a media myth to begin with.
Well, I don't know why we have the most bloodthirsty citizens in the world. America was founded by men with guns, has been traditionally defended by men with guns, and is being constantly protected by men with guns. Freedom comes with a price. Lives are lost every day, for many reasons, some right, some wrong. As portrayed in the 100th episode of South Park, we need hawks to protect our way of life and keep us from being annihilated, just as we need doves to keep the tempo toned down to a level somewhere below insanity and to show we aren't just a nation of killer rednecks. I, for one, feel plenty safe here, but if I do happen to catch a stray bullet some day, you can bet your ass I won't blame it on K-Mart or Charlton Heston.
Human Nature (2001)
The question on all of our minds:
After perusing the other viewers' comments on this site and noting the plethora of pertinent sociological questions that arise from the viewing of this obviously intellectual piece of cinematography, I can't help but notice that the most obvious question of all has not yet been touched upon, therefore, I will ask it now.
If you were locked in a room with Patricia Arquette and an electric grooming shear, would you shave her body before making love to her?
Maybe the reason this question has not yet been asked is because the answer is so obvious it pretty much goes without saying. That answer is, of course, no. If you were to buzz-cut Ms. Arquette's body with such a tool, you would, without any doubt, leave a stubble that would be rough and scratchy, causing you so much discomfort during the act of intercourse that the whole experience would inevitably become somewhat unpleasant, relatively speaking.
Leaving her hairy, on the other hand, would give you the sensation that you were rolling around with a large, fluffy dog...a feeling which could only add a new measure of pleasure to the whole coital experience. This should not be construed as bestiality, being that the "fluffy-dog" sense of pleasure would be separate from the "doing Patricia" feeling of prurient ecstasy, which means the whole scenario could be pulled off guilt-free.
That would be superb, especially for me, being that I have been totally hot for this particular actress ever since I saw her in True Romance. I would be happy to be in bed with her even if she was a toothless quadruple-amputee covered with hair from her head all the way down to her...uh, never mind.
Dirty Little Billy (1972)
The other end of the spectrum
Watch Dirty Little Billy back-to-back with Young Guns for a testimonial to how little faith you can place in Hollywood to give you an accurate portrayal of history.
In the latter we have William Bonney, aka Billy the Kid, portrayed as the fastest, cleverest, most ruthless and domineering youngster ever born...a boy capable of shooting it out with a dozen experienced gunfighters and living to tell about it. Then, in the former, we have the very same William Bonney, aka Billy the Kid, now portrayed as this skinny little punk with his hands wrapped in bandages because farm work is too rough on his delicate skin. He follows his hero, Goldie, around obsequiously, and trembles like he's giving birth to porcupines whenever he's got a gun in his hands.
So which one is accurate? Neither, of course; they're both Hollywood characters. They're both historical B.S., just like almost every other movie ever made about any other famous person who ever lived. I'm sure the real Billy the Kid fell somewhere far in between those two portrayals. No human being that ever lived could have survived all those gunfights that super-bad Emilio Esteves won so easily. (must be kin to Sylvester Stallone), just as a sissy like Michael J. Pollard could never have survived for two days as an outlaw in the Wild West.
But, is the movie good? Yeah, for entertainment value it's O.K. I guess, but my being an old fart that saw it at the drive-in, back in '73, may have something to do with that opinion. (It came on Encore Channel last night, which is why I'm writing this) I also kind of enjoyed Young Guns, even though I had to roll my eyes alot at the ridiculosity of it all. (It IS a word...I just invented it)
If you're a teenage badass wannabe, you probably won't like this flick. It will make you feel uncomfortable as you spot your own sad little weaknesses in Pollard's character. Someone like you is better off fantasizing that you're Vin Diesel, while you watch Fast and Furious or something equally low-brow and gangsta-oriented.
Le pacte des loups (2001)
Great substitute for a sleeping pill.
I watched this garbage because it was recommended by a friend. I had written the title on a scrap of paper. Now I wish I could remember who recommended it so I'll know never to take his/her advice ever again.
I kept wanting to abort, but something would tell me surely it's nearly over, so I might as well see how it ends...But it never ends! It just drags on and on and on until you feel like ripping your hair out by the roots. I was cursing the unknown jerk that told me to watch it and I'm now convinced that whoever-it-was must have done it as a joke, or maybe as punishment or revenge for some horrible crime I may have commited.
So, unless you're into watching a lot of French sissies running around in the woods pretending to be badasses, be warned to stay away from this abortion.
Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)
Almost as amusing as staring at tropical fish.
I'm completely amazed that so many people claim to have laughed so hard at this lame comedic attempt. I thought the first two installments of the series were both full of hilarious slapstick, ("They're always after me lucky charms", and "What the hell did you eat?") which gave me high hopes for this one. All the media hype and critical acclaim helped to reinforced my expectations. The opening scene was well-done and hilarious. Then, suddenly, the whole project died and rotted in a stinking heap. Jeez, I even TRIED to like it, but finally had to give up. All those stupid cameos seemed to have been thrown in out of desperation, to draw in stargazers and make up for a marked lack of writing ability. I got the feeling that all those stars just HAD to jump on the Austin Powers bandwagon to be in vogue Then, lines had to be written in for them, no matter how little they contributed to the quality of the film. Not one of the Myers characters had any decent lines. Corny, but not funny-corny, just groaner-corny. Fat Bastard's new personality didn't suit him at all. The thing that made him so funny before was his mammoth self-confidence that ran counter to his grotesque ugliness. He's not even good for a chuckle as the repentant, considerate type. Goldmember himself was just plain disgusting, with no comic value, and Dr. Evil's jokes just seemed to fall flat, one after the other, as did Austin Powers.
To sum it all up in one word...BORING.
Welcome to Collinwood (2002)
Crime, violence and death in a Walt-Disneyish format.
This movie was recommended to me by a friend. I never saw an ad or a trailer, so I didn't know Clooney was in it and was not bothered by the fact that his role was so small. I thought the whole cast was suitable, and found the film pretty enjoyable, all in all. The opening scene, with the small crew of bandits standing at the side of the road, looking whipped and haggard, caught my attention immediately. It had a way of telling you, "don't go away; this won't be boring", and it really wasn't. It turned out to be an interesting, light-hearted comedy with enough twists and turns to keep you in your seat to the very end, but when the ending did arrive, I felt a little bit cheated....just a little bit. The events kept building up so that you expect them to continue building, but at a point that I can't define, it sort of levels out, making the ending a slight disappointment. I reckon I expected a bigger bang of a climax, but it turned out sort of low-key. If you watch the movie with that in mind and you can live without high dosages of George Clooney, you should find this flick very entertaining and well worth watching. Now I'd like to see the original (Big Deal on Madonna Street), but it's probably a rare find in the United States.