Change Your Image
gc123517
Reviews
Troy: The True Story of Love, Power, Honor & the Pursuit of Glory (2004)
A horrible and useless documentary.
This boring piece of crap features ugly clay masks and random artwork for the visuals and a dry narration about the legends and history of Troy. The downfall of this film is its complete lack of visual inspiration (and I do mean COMPLETE). Although the narration itself is somewhat informative, it is tedious and could have been presented in a different format such as an audio book. In fact it would not surprise me if this film started as an audio book with random images thrown in to make a 'film'. You are much better off to read Homer's Iliad yourself than to bore yourself to death with this dry and uninspired movie.
Dark Assassin (2005)
A Jason Yee vehicle that needs to be impounded.
Jason Yee stars in this miserable dreck. He also wrote, directed, and produced it, so all the blame falls squarely on his shoulders. Honestly, I couldn't sit through it from beginning to end. I found it so boring I fell asleep about 4 times during the film and missed about half of it (mercifully). Obviously Jason Yee is a talented martial artist and he wanted to showcase his talents in a film. Unfortunately he has no talent as a filmmaker, and he should have stayed in the ring and out of the studio. He has some good moves, but the choreography for the fight scenes is awful. Timing and position are waaaaay off. Sound quality is horrendous and every time there is dialogue it is drowned out by an unwarranted and overloud score. The acting is wooden, stiff, and heartless. The plot is ill-defined and ambiguous. One has no sense of where this story is heading, where it originates, or why it is even being told. Watching this movie is a complete waste of time, unless you happen to be suffering from insomnia.
Ticker (2001)
So bad it's laughable.
Tom Sizemore is the tormented cop with something to prove. Steven Seagal is the "Zen Master" (yet again) of the bomb squad. Dennis Hopper is the mad bomber who looks like he dropped straight in from filming "Speed". Jaime Pressly is the eye candy. This movie has many illogical and ridiculous gaffes that, if you bother to take 2 seconds to think about, will leave you stunned and wondering "What the *..*?" There is no rhyme or reason to this non sequitur. However, with a beer or two, a light-hearted attitude, and a few irreverent buddies to yuk it up, you could actually enjoy laughing at. I know I laughed at this movie from beginning to end, even without the beer. But trust me, you'll want the beer.
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Final Problem (1985)
Most Excellent Dramatization of Sherlock Holmes! Perfection! Flawless!
Well, I just watched this 1984 Granada production in October 2007 having read the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes in the late 1990's. And I must say that not only was the screenplay as faithful to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's story as you could get - it was an absolutely faithful production. For anyone who has read "The Final Problem", you will know that this is a very special and perhaps the most significant Sherlock Holmes tale. To those who are unfamiliar with the story, I shall be careful not to convey spoilers which will diminish the key plot points for you. But let me say that this tale takes Holmes and Watson beyond the bounds of England to face a formidable enemy, and in doing so expresses the depths of the friendship between Holmes and Watson, while also showing some spectacular scenery. Every minute detail was vividly shown and expressed, and I ACTUALLY applauded Granada at the conclusion of this episode, because their standards of quality and faithfulness to every detail of the story and characters is absolutely flawless. Bravo Granada! Bravo!
Kentucky Rifle (1955)
Horrible film, painful to watch.
This awful movie was really painful to watch. A small group from a wagon train linger behind to repair a broken down wagon in hostile Indian territory. They spend most of their time arguing and filibustering and take forever and a day to repair the wagon and attempt to catch up with the wagon train - I felt like I was watching Gilligan's Island. Any excuse to stay behind and mingle with the Indians was used to prolong the situation, (*spoiler*) including a slender pregnant woman who wasn't due anytime soon going into labor 3 days later (*spoiler* - NOT!...if you couldn't see this lame plot device coming, you must be living in a cave). The agony of this movie was painfully protracted. Of course, they have 4 cases of 25 Kentucky Rifles each (100 rifles) that must get through...or must they? Hmmm, why don't we show these rifles to the Indians and see if they want them? For that matter, why don't we see if the Iranians would like a few nuclear weapons? Yes, there is a lot of moralizing here, and if you don't know by now that giving your best weapons to your worst enemies because you are afraid of them is not an intelligent thing to do, then this movie will hammer that obvious point home and do it with a psychopathic vengeance that is firmly rooted in the belief that every dead horse requires a really good beating! But, then again, with the size of the wagon train and the firm belief that these rifles are excellent protection against hostile Indians, it would have made much more sense to distribute 4 or 6 rifles to each wagon for protection than to leave these vitally necessary items behind packed in crates on a broken down wagon. It would serve these dolts right if their entire wagon train was slaughtered by Indians. But then we wouldn't have a movie, would we? That would have been a blessing.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
A puzzle without a purpose.
*SPOILERS*
Well, I saw this at the theater on May 21/06 and I have never read the book (and don't intend to). I did not go into the theater with great expectations, I was merely killing time and curious. But I really thought this movie was lame, pointless, and dull. The Catholic church and other Christian groups opposed to the theology of this film have given it much publicity which it does not deserve - they would have done better to ignore this white elephant for the claptrap that it is.
On the characters: Tom Hanks is surprisingly dull, but he bears a striking resemblance to the Mona Lisa, and although he is the protagonist and "hero" he does very little to move the story along or bring it to any conclusion. Audrey Tautou is obviously a descendant of Jesus, but she doesn't make anything at all of it when the "great truth" is revealed to her, but she's a decent driver and fighter when the plot calls for action. Ian McKellen is a very interesting and complex character, and he relieves the boredom which permeates this unwieldy film, but his character also falls victim to a plot riddled with so many conspiracy theories that his role is eventually lost in its own sophistication. Jean Reno reprises Robert Vaughn's role in Bullitt, that of a useless but irritating antagonist. Paul Bettany plays the "albino" monk with blue eyes - he is more Aryan than albino - and he is certainly an interesting and dedicated villain. Alfred Molina is the Opus Dei puppet-master, but his motives are as vague as the mechanics of transubstantiation. For all we know, he could be Paul Bettany's secret gay lover...
As for the plot and storyline, this movie is about a Catholic Opus Dei vs Priory of Scion conspiracy which makes no sense. At the heart of this movie is the idea that the tomb of Mary Magdalene must be kept hidden from the world so that Christians would not know that Jesus had children by her - this is a deeply flawed premise as the finding of her bones would offer no evidence or proof that Jesus had jumped those bones when they were covered in flesh. What would have been a better conspiracy is if they were hiding the bones of Jesus, or even of Mary the mother of Jesus (as this would threaten the Catholic doctrines of Assumption and Perpetual Virginity). Further, since both the Priory and the Catholics want to keep this a secret, why all the fuss?
Some other blunders are the references in the film to Fibonacci numbers without any elucidation...it would have been better storytelling if Tom Hanks had explained the significance of these numbers to the audience, but Ron Howard can't tell a story to save his life.
Also, clues which are hundreds of years old inexplicably lead to modern architecture.
Also, there are not enough Catholics protecting "the secret" to really justify calling this a conspiracy...Tom Hanks should have been pursued by an army of monks made up of rank and file average Catholics, and not simply by a lone psychotic who sticks out like a sore thumb.
Also, Mr. Hanks quickly jumps to the conclusion that Ms. Tautou is "the last living descendant of Jesus" without even knowing about her relatives...she may have had hundreds of aunts, uncles, cousins.... In fact, when he meets her grandmother he should have realized she would have a 1 in 4 chance of also being descended from Jesus, and any serious scholar would have immediately questioned her lineage, yet Tom simply ignores her like she was bland wallpaper. And when Audrey finds out the truth, she just grins like an idiot, and apparently loses all concern for 1)her slain relatives, 2)a worldwide deception, 3)the ongoing threat to her life, and 4)substantiating the validity of Tom's claims by finding the proof of her lineage.
In short, this "conspiracy theory" story doesn't have enough substance to be either a conspiracy or even a theory. It's just a load of bunk.
Hollow Triumph (1948)
"The Scar" is laughably weak....
SPOILER ALERT!
Well, I just finished watching this on DVD (St. Clair Vision "Classic Film Noir" collection), and numerous questions came to my mind. Initially, I was going to rate this movie as a "3", but I will change that to an "8", simply because the critical error in this movie may be deliberately intended to mock the viewer of average intelligence. I will describe this critical error later....(but if you haven't noticed it after watching this film, you ought to feel like a first rate idiot)....
John Muller is a "smart guy" just out of prison - there's a contradiction right there - and his buddies are willing to get in on his plan to knock over a casino, and that shows how dumb they must be. Muller gets away with the dough, but his brother leads the mob to his doorstep, so John is looking for somewhere to hide.
Enter Dr. Bartok, a twin for Muller except for a scar. Muller hatches a plan to assume Bartok's identity, but think...if another doctor and Bartok's secretary can mistake Muller for Bartok, why would Muller think that the mob wouldn't make the same mistake? Bartok happens to be a psycho-analyst, and psychology plays heavily in this film and I believe this movie makes the point that the movie viewer is no more observant than the asinine characters in this film.
Muller gets a good view of Dr. Bartok from his office window, where it can clearly be seen that his scar is on the left cheek. He also dates Bartok's secretary and could easily get information from her. He also follows and stalks Bartok to learn his manners and plan his murder. He even takes Bartok's picture, a process which should have afforded him a good view of the doctor's face at the time of taking the photograph. So it should have been plainly evident to Muller that Bartok's scar was on his left cheek.
Then comes the surgery, and the critical error in the film...Muller is using Bartok's photo as a reference in front of a mirror as he cuts himself. The photo clearly shows that the scar is on Bartok's left cheek, but Muller cuts himself on the right cheek in the mirror. The photo is not incorrect, so I assumed that Muller's error in failing to account for the mirror image was simply due to "nerves". Yet, we have the photo lab explaining that they had reversed the negative, which in fact they had not done.
When Muller kills Bartok and assumes his identity, he notices his error, and has doubts of his plan. Really, a smart guy like Muller would have simply put an identical scar on his left cheek, cut up his right cheek and then faked an automobile accident which "further scarred him and affected his memory" and taken a few weeks off in the hospital as Bartok. This would have been safe, easy, and logical.
Now, apparently no-one notices that the scar has moved, which to me would be the most obvious thing in the world to notice, but I am speaking hypothetically of course. Although this relieves Muller, it also breeds cynicism, and proves to be his undoing in the end as he finds out it is not so good to be Bartok either. Incidentally, when his brother catches up to him after not seeing him for about 2 months, his first reaction should have been, "How did you get that scar brother?", and not, "I'm sorry Mr. Bartok."
That the audience in general fails to see these points justifies the film's premise that people are not very observant.
When Things Were Rotten (1975)
When Things Were Rotten
It was 1975 and I was 11/12 years old when I first saw this program. This show was a comedic version of Robin Hood's adventures. It immediately became my favorite program and I watched it every week. Needless to say, I was very disappointed when it left the air. What is more amazing is that I have never seen it in syndication over the last 30 years. However, thanks to A&E and the internet, I have been able to re-watch this program this past weekend and really enjoyed it.
I remembered Dick Gautier as "Hymie" from "Get Smart", but I was surprised to recognize Bernie Kopell as "Seigfried" the second time seeing "WTWR". Frankly, reviewing IMDb's web page shows that many stars and guests from "WTWR" have done prominent work. 2 guests were regulars on "Barney Miller", Prince John was a regular on "Alias", and Dick van Patten appeared in "Robin Hood: Men in Tights". Dick Gautier has been doing voice work on prominent animated series. It's hard to believe he's about 74 years old now.
I would encourage anyone who misses this program to check all the actor links on IMDb for this show, and you will be surprised at what the "WTWR" cast has been up to; also, contact A&E and see if they will rebroadcast this show. It would be nice if they included updates on the cast.
Christmas with the Stars (2001)
Magic of Christmas?
I believe this is possibly exactly the same show listed as "The Magic of Christmas" 1995. Other guests are Rita Coolidge and Lou Rawls singing traditional Christmas classics. Also Patrick McNee doing a prose narrative. Crystal Gayle is fabulous. Barbara Eden is probably lip-synching to someone else's voice, although it may be her own. Lou Rawls is good. Paul Sorvino is surprisingly good. Really a mixed bag, but timely for the holidays. I didn't get to see the whole show, so I tried to research it on IMDb. That's why I figure it's actually the same program as "The Magic of Christmas" simply re-titled as "Christmas with the Stars". The sets were very festive and generally the music was pretty good, which is why I gave it a 6 out of 10. Some of it is a little bland, but overall I felt it was pretty classy and traditional.