Change Your Image
sonofagun
Reviews
Surviving the Game (1994)
A 5.8 rating - are you kidding????
I rated this G-awful turkey a 1 just to try to get its rating down to about where it belongs - a 2 or 3 at best! Unbelievable that such high caliber actors would take part in such a cinematic mess - they must have been paid well or desperate for something to do. Normally only a bunch of unknowns would act in such a turkey. The events and actions portrayed are absolute nonsense and totally unrealistic - did anyone with half a brain read the script before shooting began? Could have been much better with a better script.
SPOILER: One of the biggest nonsense parts (towards the end) was how the heck did Mason (Ice_T) get back to civilization when he was stranded in the middle of nowhere AND IN ONLY 3 DAYS! Just one of the MANY ridiculous story elements.
Don't waste your time with this.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Uhhh...
First off I must say that I consider virtually everything done under the "Star Trek" moniker including ALL the films and ENDLESS TV spinoffs to be at best nothing but juvenile sci-fi and at worst, the most blatant example of hack writing, production, direction, and acting ever foisted off as legitimate sci-fi. Basic problem with the series is that it limits it scope by always having to be tied to the "Federation" especially a ship and its crew. They are all obviously written to appeal to no more then a 10 year olds intelligence level.
I can ONLY recall a couple episodes that perhaps stand out (God knows I have NOT seen them all - I quit wasting my time years ago) - "Arena" and "Doomsday Machine (was that the title?). Arena astounded me as it is based on my favorite S-F short story by my favorite author...IF YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT REAL SCI-FI IS LIKE, READ IT SOMETIME AND IMAGINE WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE FILMED EXACTLY AS WRITTEN.
Roddenberry tried but obviously had to adapt it to the SFX and budget he had at the time. I give him credit for his occasional choice of good source material however.
Anyway as for The Wrath... (I liked Mad magazines parody better ("The Wreck of Khan"). Gosh they really tried hard to make an exciting film (especially after the BIG disappointment of TMP) but alas...
Does it make sense that the Captain (or in this case Admiral was it?), in fact supposedly the very BEST commanding officer of the top Star Ship of the Federation would carry around enough emotional baggage to keep 3 or 4 shrinks busy ( seems "Bones" was always psycho-analyzing him)? Man what a screwup! Conveniently violates Star Fleet rules at the outset and jeopardizes the whole ship and crew. Sheeesh.
Overacting abounds in this mish-mash of space swashbuckling. If I was an actor, I think I'd be ashamed to admit I was in this film (or any others like it). This film is so full of illogical plot elements, flaws, and plain laughable scenes that I won't bother trying to list them all here. I take it there were no Academy Awards nominations for this film which tells you something. Talk about a clash of the egos - Kirk vs. Khan. Ricky Montalban overplays the uber-evil Khan to the max! God, anybody seething with that much hate inside would have burned himself up long ago. I think any serious actor would laugh their ass off when Khan (his face all torn to ****) looks into the camera and spouts "From Hell's Heart I spit at thee! For Hate's Sake, I breath my last breath at thee!!!!" (or something like that).
Give it a rest pal!
Perhaps he should have added "Have a nice day!".
Jurassic Park (1993)
Long time sci-fi fan speaks:
A great movie...for 10 year olds
and down to about 5.
Seems obvious (to me at least) the actors (all adults) realized they were in a silly kids flic, so really didn't try that hard. Story was really no great challenge to their acting abilities.
I gave it a 2.
Seinfeld (1989)
Frankly...
The only reason many post here is that they came here in the first place because they are fans of the show, so I think you can take the fact that most of the posters think Seinfeld is "the greatest sitcom ever" with the proverbial "grain of salt".
Well, I didn't come here because I'm a fan of the show - I came here to see if anyone else thinks what I do of the show: somewhat funny at times, but mostly badly written with many situations or story lines that barely tickle your funny bone at all - I mean how much brains does it take to think up some of the nonsense on that show (like dropping a toothbrush in the toilet). Shows about "nothing" obviously require very little to make. Some of the characters are funny at time, but mostly seem to be awkwardly straining to make something REALLY funny out of what is really only a lame-brain concept. Seinfeld's stand-up comedy is pretty low key and his show reflects that methinks. I've watched very few episodes because I found the ones I did watch definitely not worth seeing again!
Newman was perhaps the most honestly funny one of the bunch and George Costanza (you have to laugh at him out of pity!). But cripe that Kramer was just a bad imitation of Shemp Howard and nobody in there right mind would put up with his s**t for any more than one day!
IMO there are plenty of other shows that showcase REAL comic talent and intelligent writing that will be long remembered more than this one.
Quigley Down Under (1990)
Really only a so-so flic
Potentially could have been a much better film if it's producers had been more serious and realistic in it's making. Too much of a comic element detracts from taking it seriously, but the worse is the great degree of unfactual/unrealistic content typical of far too many hollywood films. For example: do you really think anyone could take the punishment Selleck gets at the end and still feel well enough to defeat three assailants in a gunfight with a gun he's just been handed and never shot before? Also, ask anyone experienced in marksmanship and they'll tell you that much of the long range shooting portrayed in the film is quite unrealistic.
I know the actors wouldn't have done this film if they weren't paid well. Talk about cliched characters!
Alan, Tom - I, at least, know you can do better.
World War III (1982)
Exciting film.
I've always enjoyed this film mainly due to the fine acting of David Soul (Kudo's Dave!). Many other fine performances are also present - Kathy Lee Crosby's sexy and rugged portrayal gets high marks too. But here's something interesting: the film is good, but if you liked it, you must get the book and read it. The only reason they didn't film it as in the novel is a limited budget (read the book, you'll see what I mean). There were something like 800 russian troops against 50 or so GI's but they had more ammo, weapons, and choppers! And the finale is even more exciting! Read it!