Dr-RJP Reviews

Divergent (2014)

DETERGENT: This movie was a total wash for me

[4/10 · 17 August 2014]

Utopias are by their nature, dysfunctional - so it is redundant to call this society who appear to be living outside of the city limits of a major city destroyed in some previous future war.

UTOPIA can be thought of as a classic Marxist/Socialist fallacy in which class warfare constantly takes place between the Haves' and the Have-Nots', the Workers versus the Owners, the Proletariat versus the Bougeiouse. In "Divergent," society is allegedly divided up into five factions that are meant to represent the inner person. It is a choice that never happens in Utopia because there is always a group of Elites who make all of the decisions for everyone else.

As it turns out, about 45 minutes into the story, you get to find out who really is in charge, aka the "goverment or ruling faction who want to have a world bereft of all "human nature" because they see it as the root of all evil.

Now that I said this, I wouldn't back it up with a bet because I had to come back here to learn how others viewed the movie before I, as a fairly savvy film critic, would venture my own critique.

From my perspective, what is most "Divergent" are all the plot contrivances. The actress who played Nikita on CW17's popular series was inserted into the drama, but if there was a reason for her insertion beyond just someone else telling Tris to watch her step, I didn't see it. What a waste of acting talent! It would have made much more sense if the people were born into the different factions paralleling the kinds of caste system,s that still exist in our world. Choosing a faction looked more like a reality TV game show than a life-changing experience.

Divergent, so the story goes, don't "fit" into any one faction because they still have personal choice to make and change their decisions thousands of times. Unlike the Dauntless faction, the Peace-Keepers, aka the police, they are eventually set up to become automatons controlled by the Erudite - that faction supposedly smarter than everyone else. In other words, our present day, liberal elites.

There is a grand plan that became hatched out of nothing and on the spur of the moment for all the members of the Abnegation faction to be executed. The reasons why were never made clear - especially from all the movie trailers, it seemed that only the Divergents, the "misfits," were the enemy of the State and had to be eliminated.

This movie diverged into far too many directions without any divulging of what was happening and why.

Shoved into the training time set aside for the Dauntless, we come to learn that both Tris and her "boot camp" instructor are Divergents, and you can imagine what the last scene of this movie will contain if you know that both survive an insurrection apparently let by a small group of Divergents - and not the Sheep known as the Abdegnation faction.

It seems that Tris's mother and father were members of Dauntless at one time (well maybe just her mother) and had switched factions to the Abnegations. Or, they were Divergents hiding out there.

Like I said, this movie was a total washout in terms of plot, of character development, of story idea, of plot lines, and a very predictable ending. The dialog was forced as was the acting. Shailene Woodley would have made a great actress back when they had no sound tracks. Tris' constantly changing expressions that often had no correlation to her actions were the most annoying feature of her performance,.

The ONLY bright spot was the acting of "Four" - Tris' trainer and love interest, actor Theo James.

Four stars - and that's a generous rating, too.

Person of Interest (2011–2016)

"Person of Interest" grabs your interest and doesn't let go

[10/10 · 29 April 2012]

First of all, the Machine lives! I read a story in February 2012 about a super spy system that actually monitors people in the same way that the "hidden star of the show" does.

POI is about a super-smart electronics expert who built a massive computer system right after 9/11 and designed it to capture predictive intelligence on potential terrorist attacks by monitoring all forms of person-to-person communication at the same time it tracks them on camera.

The system would feed all of the data is collected over time and spit out the social security numbers of potential terrorists. The problem was that the machine could also identify potential criminals, but this information was considered nothing more than "Noise" and discarded every evening.

The computer designer, whose name is Mr. Finch, and played to a "T" by Michael Emerson, ("Ben" from "Lost") cannot get over the idea of how useful this machine could be in saving lives by identifying the victim ahead of time. So, one day, instead of discarding the "noise," Finch decides to hold onto it for another 24 hours before purging it.

The machine has no problem spitting out SSN's - the problem is how many of them come every night. Seeing the need for an anonymous assistant who can carry out dangerous assignments without batting an eye or having a need to be trained.

Here is when Finch meets Jim Reese: a former elite CIA agent, like a super Seal, who got tired of being an assassin and had escaped from his handlers about six years ago.

New York's first encounter with Finch is on a subway train. A dilapidated-looking homeless guy is sitting in a corner seat sipping his flask of booze when he is approached by a bunch of punks looking for some fun. Well, they got a lot more than they bargained for - like a bunch of broken bones - and Mr. Finch has met his soon-to-be new assistant.

As he gets himself cleaned up it is time for Reese to meet Finch's brain-child. As we learn from the first episode, it spits out a card with the social security number of what we are led to believe will become another "statistic" on the NYPD crime blotter.

But, something unexpected happens - and this is exactly what makes Person of Interest unlike any other show on TV: the totally unexpected.

You see: the person whose SSN comes up may be the victim, the perpetrator, or merely a causal link to an entire army of monsters or drug dealers. Every time and level of crime that can be tied to a single individual becomes the trigger point for the story, but what transpires is really a journey down many paths - some, like "Lost" - are retrospective back stories, while others are interlocking stories taking place simultaneously, and you never know when or where their lines will cross.

Friends become foes. Foes become friends. Friend and foes trade places at the moist inconvenient times. But, nothing ever happens in POI without a reason.

The one rule for you, the TV viewer, is "Expect the unexpected." Jim Caviezel is an A+ list actor that lives up to his billing. As others have noted, this show has the best fight scenes ever played out on a home entertainment box. When you grimace after someone takes a bullet to the knee, it's like it being your knee. Reese does not like to kill the bad guys, and prefers to knock off their kneecaps, but when he has put someone down, there isn't anyone you would want, armed and standing between you and the bad buy with his gun pointed to your head and his arm wrapped around yours.

JJ Abrams and Jonathan Nolan have got a real winner here. Just the chemistry between Reese and Finch is enough to warrant a look-see.

Emerson and Caviezel are also blessed with a supporting cast of cops who clearly came from different sides of the tracks.

Detective Lionel Fusco is a dirty cop that initially was supposed to dispose of Reese but who becomes his inside partner after Reese turns the tables on him and sent him back into his world of dirty cops and dirty crooks.

Detective Joss Carter is the lone female regular (I hope) in the story. She is a strong, blue-collar type that the NYPD is famous for. Technically, she is supposed to be hunting Reese down, but when he saves her life and learns how many other lives he's saved, she becomes another not-so-silent partner for Reese, Finch, and Fusco.

Reese, unfortunately, is also wanted by his former CIA bosses, so he has to stay on the run while fulfilling his prime mission of saving the world, one SSN at a time.

Puss in Boots (2011)

Love the Puss but story stunk worse than month-old cat litter

[29 October 2011]

The animation is the only reason I did not rate this giant hairball lower. I'm really mad as Hell! I was so looking forwards to watching it, having been a huge fan of PIB in the Shrek series. I never thought that I would sit through 90 minutes of the most irritating, repetitive, and pointless story in a full-length, mainstream cartoon.

Puss returns to the town where he grew up as an abandoned kitten left at the doorstep of an orphanage in a small, 17th Century Spanish town. Puss is looking for work and hears about some Magic Beans (the Jack & the Beanstalk story) and the Goose that laid the Golden Egg. The goose is a the castle in the sky, and the only way to get to it is by planting the Magic Beans and then climbing up the giant beanstalk.

After encountering a "cat burglar" by the name of Kitty Softpaws, who is after the same thing, Puss and Kitty engage in a novel version of a cat fight. They form a partnership with Humpty Dumpty who had formerly met Puss at the orphanage and became "blood brothers." What follows is what made me want to run screaming out the exit.

The obsessive neurosis of Dumpty dominates the screen and the script, making you wonder if this was just a vehicle made for Zach Galifianakis. The only positive thing about Zack's Humpty's is that we don't need to see his squirrel's nest beard.

Turns out that Dumpty is the mastermind of the Goose Heist and double-cross of Puss on who Humpty took a big Dumpty by tricking him into robbing the bank of his home town.

At any rate, wait for this to come to DVD and then you will only be out a $buck.

Manhunter (1986)

"Manhunter" is Bill Peterson's movie and his coming out party

[10/10 · 18 October 2008]

I saw this movie before "Silence," and quite frankly, neither Cox nor Noonan did anything meaningful for the characters they were playing. This movie is all about the birth of a young star who would be picked to lead the most successful TV franchise in history, and become the prototypical FBI profiler for every show and movie to come out since.

Just as Michael Mann changed the TV landscape with "Miami Vice," by melding MTV-type music videos with kitsch, cops, and fast cars, Mann also foretold the future of all forensic crime dramas with the introduction of a young William Peterson, who I would argue was born to play GIL GRISSOM .

Am I the only one who sees the parallels, beginning with the similarity in name? GIL GRISSOM/WILL GRAHAM. Not at all coincidental.

If Cox had been given the time and the acting latitude that Tony Hopkins was handed on a gold platter, who knows how much better he could have been as Lecktor.

Noonan's character was somewhat frightening in the scene with the Tattler reporter, but compared to the average bad guy in Criminal Minds, he could be mistaken as the Easter Bunny.

Let's face it. "Manhunter" was not so much the first debut of Hannibal Lecktor as it was of Gil Grissom and the sheer level of emotional intensity that a top-notch profiler has to personally invest in every bizarre and bloody case he tackles.

Take away the loud and annoying 80's music. Leave in InnaGaddaDavida, and "Manhunter" is a masterpiece for all time.

Black Hawk Down (2001)

Hands down, the best COMBAT movie ever made!

[10/10 · 24 July 2008]

**SPOILERS AHEAD** The reason I said, COMBAT movie, instead of WAR MOVIE, is the perceptions that we, as Americans, have sown over many, many wars. We tend to think of wars as being either noble or ignoble, just or unjust, and won or lost. For the people who serve in the military, there is none of this lofty pretense about why they fight.

Two of the more memorable lines in the film could have been made very kitschy, as is the typical style of Hollywood filmmakers. Unlike the war films of the 40's and 50's, BLACK HAWK DOWN is not a "feel good" movie that paints heroes in all white, and villains in all black. Unlike wear movies in the 60's and 70's, there isn't any internal angst about "Why we're here." Unlike the movies of the 80's and 90's, BHD does not present gratuitous graphic violence, and does not try to shock you with the "horrows of war." And, unlike "SAVING PRIVATE RYAN," BHD is not weighted down by the star power of its cast, or the creds of the Director, or the cheesy -- yes, cheesy way it tries to portray the "fog of war,such as when Tom Hank's" character is temporarily rendered deaf by an explosion.

In fact, there is a comparable seen in which two soldiers are pinned down, and attempting to cover each other as they reload. One soldier turns to his buddy and says, "Quit firing that thing so close to my head," and, not more than a few seconds later, his buddy sees Somalis approaching from that side, and fires his automatic weapon right next to his head, and the other guy goes deaf.

With anybody else at the helm instead of Ridley Scott, we would have gotten the now overdone, "muffled silence," a la SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. b(There was a scene in BHD where Scott did hit the "mute button," but it was only done as a means of creating the POV.

I've been in a similar situation, standing next to a cannon, and being deafened momentarily. When that happens to you, you do exactly what the soldier did in BHD: you have a dazed, wide-eyed look on your face, and start screaming because you cannot hear your4self speak.

Soldiers rely on all six senses (five + intuition) when on the battlefield, and losing one's hearing can be catastrophic. Rangers and Delta force are trained to use hand signals to maintain silence, but the chaos of the battle in "Mog" as they called it, rendered that skill superfluous. BHD handled these scenes rather well.

What makes this both a poignant and believable scene is that no soldier ever stops to think about, "Gee, I'd better stop firing my weapon near his head," when he's got unfriendlies coming at them by the hundreds.

And by the hundreds and thousands they came. Not disciplined Somali soldiers, but ever male who was old enough to carry a gun in a society where dying for your God in battle was glorified above all else.

When you're a soldier, and you are alone, cut off from help, your first thought is to stay alive and your second is to do your job. When you're with one of your fellow's soldier, your first thought is keeping your buddy alive.

This was the second time I had seen BHD, with the fist coming when it opened in theatres. It felt as though I was watching for the first time. The battles are as intense as it gets. What you see is not the typical, unrealistic "scenes where some of the soldiers seem to get through it without a scratch.

Not in BHD-- EVERY soldier was wounded in battle.

Another realistic scene that most filmmakers ignore, is how often a soldier has to replace an empty ammo clip with a filled one. How many times have we seen guns being fired like they have an endless supply of bullets? Also, BHD doesn't make a seminal scene about it -- none of this slo-mo in watching the empty magazine being released and falling to the ground. As a total opposite of that, Scott not only has the soldiers accurately removing the empty magazine with their dominant hand, and loading in the hew one, BUT ONLY after they tap the FRONT of the magazine with their other hand or against their boot or helmet.

WHY is that important? Because the bullets in a magazine do shift positions in all the movements in battle, and if the back of the bullets are not flush against the back of the magazine, they can jam the gun or misfire.

People who know about weapons appreciate things like that.

The movie wastes no time in getting into the heat of battle, and the scenes are so intense, so graphic, that you may want to wear a mouth guard to keep your teeth from clenching throughout it. Basicially, until the move is over, you don't move an inch because you really do feel like you may, yourself, get shot if you do.

The musical score is superb as Ridley Scott again chose Hans Zimmer, as he did in "Gladiator", to compose it. You may notice the similarities in it with "Gladiator," as well.

All in all, this is a ten out of ten. Not a perfect ten, mind you, but one that earned it the hard way.

Haven (I) (2004)

Haven and Hell!

[1/10 · 28 January 2007]

What started out as a promising drama with Bill Paxton leading the way, mysteriously disappeared and was replaced with a tedious bunch of nonsense. It was as if they were trying to set the Guiness Book of Records for how many times the "F" word can be said, in an island accent, in a film.

Imagine a cross between a commercial for Parrot Bay Rum and the worst Gangsta film ever made. That's "Haven." This film proves that Hollywood mainstream producers do not hold a corner on garbage film-making.

This film, along with "The Night Listener," rank as two of my Bottom Ten worst films in the last five years.

Do yourself a favor and pass on this one.

The Night Listener (2006)

"Listen to this!" The only mystery here is why people liked it.

[1/10 · 28 January 2007]

I echo the comments of other reviewers who thought they would rather have all their teeth pulled than to watch this movie. I have seen all of Hitchcock's movies, and this epic bomb is about as far away from one as possible. The good news is that I rented this snore instead of shelling out $13 at the cinema.

The DVD is the greatest friend to the beleaguered movie watcher ever invented. With the old VCR, all one could do was fast forward. With a DVD player, you can jump whole chapters, and I made ample use of it just to get away from the incessant phone calls and find some action.

No such luck. By the time I jumped forward to anything resembling a plot revelation, the movie was over.

I expected the film to be good based on Williams' past performances in "Insomnia," "One Hour Photo," and "Good Will Hunting." Smack me one. What am I thinking? This is Hollywood where actors and actresses do it for the money moreso than the script.

I have rented so many of these crummy movies from Blockbuster that their name should be "Lackluster Video." Anyway, do yourself a favor and steer clear of "Night Listener." Rent "Insomnia" instead...even if you have seen it already.

ANYTHING is better than this.

Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006)

Ice Age 2: A stinky sequel to a great original

[5/10 · 17 April 2006]

First of all, let me say that if it were not for the excellent animation, I would have rated this bomb a lot lower.

Before Ice Age: the Meltdown finally made its way to the screen, I had to sit through a slew of current and upcoming animated comedies that, taken together with Ice Age 2, confirm the death of this genre as we know it.

Seriously, the scriptwriters lack any semblance of storytelling, not to mention what tasteful jokes are supposed to be like. Instead, they appeal to the lowest common denominator and basest form of humor such as constant references and exhibitions of bodily functions and childish acts like sticking straws up one's nose.

In short, if you liked Ice Age One, do yourself a favor and watch it again so that you will never have to subject yourself to Ice Age Too (The "Too" is to indicate that this movie has too many characters who make too many useless comments and redundant jokes).

I am going to tell you that this movie has two of the most annoying characters since Jar Jar Biggs of Star Wars fame. Not only are they incessantly annoying, the movie cannot seem to let a minute go by without having them express some sort of supposedly street kool lingo like "Homey," and such, and hand actions like high fives.

These rodents are neither hip, cool, tight, phat, or anything remotely resembling a bunch of boys from the 'hood. I will say that there is regrettably one death in the movie, but even more regrettably is that is was not one of these miscreants.

Now, about the movie itself. The major laudable difference -- worth noting --between the original and this sequel is the animation. Thanks to advances in computer graphics, all of the characters are now fully rounded and exquisitely detailed versus the first film where angular shapes dominated the painted landscape.

Manny (Ray Romano), Sid (John Leguizamo), and Diego (Dennis Leary) reprise their roles as the members of a "herd" that formed in the first film out of necessity. Once again, John and Dennis put their own unique spin to the characters voices. Unfortunately, Ray Romano once again sounds (and acts) exactly as he does on "Ray." Back again is Scrat, the indefatigable squirrel-like creature constantly battling the elements while trying desperately to hold onto his most prized possession, the acorn from the first film. Thank goodness for Scrat because without him this film would be hard pressed to produce a legitimate funny moment. However, as is the case throughout the film, Scrat's situations are exaggerated to the extreme. In fact, every element of this film is so over the top, and consequently unbelievable even for a 'toon, that it grates on one's nerve. I will give an example after I introduce the newest member and misfit to this ragtag herd.

The new character is "Ellie" a female mammoth who thinks she is a possum thanks to the two annoying characters mentioned above, who also are possums. Queen Latifa, who plays the voice of "Ellie," shows yet another talented side of her. As it turns out, Ellie has what I consider the best gag of the film when Manny tries to convince her that mammoths may become extinct if they do not help to further the species.

However, pairing the two of them together does not work at all because the viewer cannot escape seeing Ray Romano when Manny speaks and trying to imagine a love interest between Romano and Latifa is virtually impossible.

Of course, they do hook up in the end after one improbable sequence after another in what amounts to the cartoon that would not die. you know what I mean when a film just cannot seem to find a simple way to end, and just goes on and on and on until the writers run out of ideas.

Well before the writers ran out of lines and gags, I could not wait to run out of the theatre and get a breath of fresh air. Ice Age: The Meltdown is as stale as it gets.

If you are under the age of five, then you will love it. For everyone else, I recommend staying at home for awhile until Shrek returns.

Madagascar (2005)

Mad about Madagascar

[8/10 · 11 February 2006]

I am writing this review after having watched "Madagascar" for the third time. for the sake of the movie, this is a good thing since I really did not like it when I first viewed it, which was in the theaters. I am a big 'toon fan and like many other "toonheads" and movie reviewers, I felt that "Shrek" and "Ice Age" set the standard for adult cartoons that are as entertaining as they are side-splitting funny. It is no coincidence that these type of cartoons are intentionally designed to get more laughs from adults than kids.

Even though there are countless references to other cartoons, I feel that this deserves to be seen without looking through the prisms of other works. It really does not matter how Madagascar stacks up to Shrek anymore than trying to compare Brokeback Mountain to Cinderella Man. View it as if it were the only adult cartoon ever made.

I initially went into "Madagascar" thinking that I would be seeing another "Shrek," since that is how it was promoted and that is primarily the reason why I left the theater feeling cheated. They say that some movies need to be seen more than once to be appreciated, and after watching this two more time on video, I can say, unequivocally, that this one gets better with each sitting.

At first, I did not like the voice characterizations for a few reasons. First of all, I do not like Ben Stiller at all, who does the voice of "Alex, the Lion". Secondly, I thought that giving the role of "Marty, the Zebra," to Chris Rock, was being blatantly derivative of "Donkey" in Shrek both from a character standpoint, and because, like Eddie Murphy, Rock was another black alumnus from "Saturday Night Live". Now, don't get me wrong: I think that Chris Rock is a great comic actor, although nowhere close to a seasoned Eddie Murphy, but he has one of the most grating voices in showbiz since Louie Anderson.

One the other hand, the choice of Jada Pinkett Smith to play Gloria, the "Hip-Hop", Hippo, and David Schwimmer to play Melman, the Narcoleptic Giraffe were casting gems.

All of the criticisms that I initially had about Madagascar faded away during the second. Upon final review, Madagascar is one, really funny cartoon that I recommend be seen more than once.

Madagascar is actually two stories in one about two sets of four animal friends that reside in New York's Central Park Zoo. The main story centers around the longings of Marty to be back in the wild and wide-open spaces of Africa rather than couped up in a technologically-controlled synthetic jungle "environment." His best friend, Alex, is a ham at heart who loves to be the center of human attention at the daily zoo shows. Gloria is the stabilizing force between these two opposites and frequently acts as mediator between them. Melman seems perfectly happy just to have a life that has some constancy.

As you have read in other reviews, the four wind up getting accidentally shipped (dumped) to Madagascar where they meet the wackiest bunch of lemurs you will ever see.

The second group of animal friends in the movie are four commando-like penguins who are more intent on getting out of the Big Apple, and do so by breaking out of the zoo, commandeering a huge cargo ship, and hijacking it to Antartica! The penguins are a needed comic-relief to a few, overly serious moments in Madagascar.

Like Shrek 2, there are plenty of inside jokes and send-ups of other films (such as Planet of the Apes, American Beauty, and From Here to Eternity). More funny, however, are the more subtle gags which I will not reveal here lest they lose their desired impact.

What makes Madagascar work, in the final analysis, is that it stays true to its storyline, and never forgets the importance of friendship in all relationships.

Logan's Run (1976)

Classic Sci-Fi flick that only suffers from a very-spoiled audience!

[9/10 · 10 December 2005]

Remember when class sci-fi flicks were lauded more for their plot than their special effects? "Day the Earth Stool Still," "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," are two that come to mind. The viewing public is spoiled by CG effects, and anything that is not CG looks dated. The special effects in Logan's Run were very good in their own right. Caroussel, the Love shop, and the Mind probe are examples. What I find very interesting in reading the other reviews is that none mentioned the ELECTRONIC MUSIC!! Music can make or break a movie and the electronic music in Logan's Run is what really gave it its futuristic flavor (even if the Disco costumes did not).

The REAL plot of the story is a metaphor for the class warfare that was really happening in America during the late 60's and early 70's, due in large part to Vietnam, the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the Civil Rights movement, among others. Class warfare in the sense of the younger generation being sent off to Vietnam by the older generation. The message was, "Do not trust anyone over thirty!" And so, what better Utopia for the younger generation than one in which there is none older than 30!" Rather than go onto more detail, this movie is a must-see for the messages it delivers. Don't get hung-up on the datedness, or the costumes, or the special effects. See it for the great acting and pulse-pounding action sequences as Logan begins his real run.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Should have been called, "Saving Dakota Fanning"

[3/10 · 9 July 2005]

Summer blockbuster? More like Summer lackluster. Pairing the genius of Spielberg and the draw of Tom Cruise should have been a no-brainer for another big box office hit. Instead, WOTW turned out to be a no-brainer of a film, as in "What were they thinking?" The year is 2005, not 1965, meaning that today's audience is a very savvy group, having cut their teeth on fantasy tour-de-forces like "Lord of the Rings," "Star Wars," and the "Matrix" trilogy. It is not enough just to throw a lot of CG-effects at an audience and hope that they would allow a weak story line to accompany the "Wow" factor of the movie. To be successful, Summer popcorn movies must have characters to which people relate, a clear start and finish with consistent plot lines, a message to tell, and at least some plausible plot elements to accompany the FX. Sadly, WOTW has none of these.

The movie was a mishmash of overdone, derivative elements from very familiar Hollywood movies. DO NOT DARE to compare it to "Independence Day!" That masterpiece was intentionally derivative in order to pay homage to Sci-Fi movies of the 50's and 60's. WOTW was merely a rip-off of previous genre clichés.

WOTW is a remake of a very good, 1954 film directed by the master of Sci-Fi, George Pal. Normally, I do not make references to source material, but it is definitely warranted here. Unlike its 50-year old predecessor, the 2005 WOTW has more plot holes than Swiss cheese.

Here's a sampling (**WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD**): Supposedly, the Martian war machines had been buried under the Earth's soil for a million years before man walked over it, and the aliens had been planning this invasion all this time. These machines are massive, 100ft tall tripods that somehow evaded decades of underground sonar, seismic scans, and numerous excavations occurring over the millennia. Yeah, right! Okay, so these machines have been sitting undetected under the ground at a depth of about 50 feet. How do the Martians hop in them and bust through the Earth's crust like they were exotic dancers popping out of a cardboard cake? Ready? Are you sitting down? They travel a distance of 350 million miles in capsules down to the Earth's stratosphere -- (no one knows how) -- and then, suddenly hitch a ride inside bolts of lightning that penetrate the ground where these Leviathans are just waiting to be cranked up after a million years. Meantime, are there any scientists - or at least someone with more sense than our two protagonists who together have the IQ of a wet mop? No way.

In Spielberg's WOTW, there is a 5-second scene where a bystander offers his scientific take on what the invaders have in mind. Yet, there are so-o-o many things that desperately need some explanation, but none are anywhere to be found. What is the deal with the red roots? Why do Martians need to drain humans of all their blood? Why does the war machine's death ray only vaporize humans and leave their clothes unscortched?

Another big flaw in the movie is the machines themselves. They are supposed to be big, scary things, but they are anything but that. Listen, we've seen equally large, mechanical war machines with legs in "Star Wars -- Attack of the Clones" as well as seeing tall, massive, elephant-like creatures in "Lord of the Rings." Throw in the giant, Jurassic Park residents with whom we come to know and love (or loathe), and we've seen it all too often before. In the case of these "terrible tripods," bigger is just not better -- especially when they are just, too darned big to be believed. They were not at all scary -- mainly annoying with their loud, fog-horn blasts to signal other tripods (or maybe to scare us poor humans)?? In the original WOTW, the war machines were the most elegant-looking, flying machines ever seen in a sci-fi flick. These green, swan-shaped, triangular flying saucers had two primary weapons: a heat ray attached to a long, goose-neck arm that emanated from the top and fired white lightning-like bursts, and two plasma-generating devices on each corner that spewed green plasma -- very reminiscent of the "Green S***" (as Will Smith described it) in "Independence Day." Unlike the articulated tripods in WOTW 2005, WOTW 1954 glided along on virtual legs created by force fields. There is a little bit of trivia as to why this came about.

The original saucers were models mounted on metal tripods that rolled along the sound set. During the shooting of the scene where the saucers came out in droves, the tripods got entangled in the wires along the floor and caused a fire that destroyed the models and most of the set. Ever since then, George Pal decided to ditch the metal legs in favor of force fields.

It was a brilliant move born out of disaster, with the result being the most memorable-looking flying/gliding alien spacecraft in movie history.

Another bothersome aspect of the machines is that their movements were MORE articulate than the creatures that built and drove them! In fact, when we finally get to see the aliens in full view and full form, they look like a cross between the aliens in ID4 and chimpanzees.

All in all, the movie had a few interesting scenes, but in total, it was a big bore and a waste of my precious time and money. So much of the movie was concerned with Cruise's efforts to protect his banshee of a daughter from the big. bad aliens, that the film should have been called "Saving Dakota Fanning!" Please -- go rent the 1954 version instead!!!

Hitch (I) (2005)

Get "Hitch-ed!!!!!!"

[10/10 · 26 February 2005]

Based upon what I saw in the trailers, my assumptions about the movie was that it would be yet another example of Hollywood's predilection with formulaic scriptwriting and lame comedies.

Boy, was I wrong, and glad of it, too! Most of the syndicated movie critics (and IMDb reviewers here) have tended to focus primarily on the performances of Smith and Eva Mendez. Since Will Smith is one of my favorite actors, comedic or otherwise, I felt that his presence could do nothing but help any film, no matter how bad. Yet, I really loved this film, and it is due mostly to the break-out performance turned in by Kevin James.

I have never watched the TV show, "King of Queens," because I think of it as a "Raymond" rip-off. Consequently, I knew virtually nothing about the comedic talents of Kevin James. He can do the kind of physical shtick that made Chris Farley famous, but unlike that one-dimensional SNL player, James can also turn in a whole range of emotional and psychological performances.

James is a comedic genius and steals every scene he is in, but does so in a way that endears himself to the audience. He does so by always turning the focus back to Smith. In both the fictional world of the movie’s story, and the reality of working in a movie with an A-list star, James knows how to defer to the lead of his partner and mentor.

“Hitch” is first and foremost, a buddy movie, and the comedic timing and chemistry between Smith and James is the best I have seen in many years. Unfortunately, there is not enough of Smith and James on screen to satisfy this movie-goer.

Smith plays Alex Hitchens (known only as “Hitch” by his clients and friends), a date counselor whose job it is to help romantically-challenged, and socially inept guys get the girl of their dreams. In the film’s beginning, Hitch meets a new client named Albert Brennerman (Kevin James) who turns out to be Hitch’s his greatest challenge to date The problem for Brennerman, and for his counselor, Hitch, is that he is head-over-heels in love with a beautiful, and filthy rich celebrity named Allegra – a woman who could get any man she wants. Brennerman has the good fortune to work for an accounting firm that has taken on Allegra as its new client.

Initially, Hitch has gave doubts that Albert could land any member of the opposite sex, let alone superstar Allegra. Yet, Hitch seems to relate to hopeless situations, and takes Albert on as his client. What follows is one of the funniest guy-to-guy relationships to ever be seen on screen.

Both Smith and James are likable individuals in their own right, and their characters reflect those likable traits as well. They play off each other in a way rarely seen on screen since the Lethal Weapon duo of Gibson and Glover.

The other subplot in the movie concerns a budding love relationship between Smith and a gossip column reporter who works for a local tabloid similar to the Enquirer. Although there are also lots of laughs to be found in this part of the film, and although the chemistry between actors Smith and Mendez seems genuine, their appearances on screen break up the overall continuity, and relies too much on Hollywood formulaic scriptwriting to get through it. Plus, their on-screen time takes away the time that would be spent between Smith and James.

I whole heartily recommend this film. It is the most delightful film I have seen all year. Although one might classify this as a “date-film,” I see no need to take a partner with you when you go.

Pandora's Clock (1996)

"Pandora's Clock" an intense thriller of the highest order

[10/10 · 27 December 2004]

Sometimes, Lady Luck smiles on me. I had originally made -- and copied over -- a VHS tape of this wonderful TV presentation. I was heartbroken when I realized what I had done since I had been unable to obtain a copy of it anywhere else.

Recently, I subscribed to digital cable, and while searching through upcoming movies, there to my surprise was a scheduled broadcast of the movie. This time, however, I made a copy of it to DVD so there's no chance of repeating my mistake.

I finally got to watch it again after eight years, and it was just as exciting and tense as when I first saw it. There is a little bit of prelude to this story in that my first contact with "Pandora's Clock" came with a live reading of the book on public radio. I just happened to tune in to the broadcasting station on my way home for lunch, and from the first installment, I was hooked. Each day, I waited with anticipation for the next chapter to be read.

When I learned a few months later that the book was going to be broadcast on TV as a movie, I made sure to clear my schedule for that event.

First of all, I'd like to say that the movie was very true to the book, contrary to what another reviewer had said. That, in itself, is a rare achievement for TV movies.

Secondly, I agree with others about the casting. I could not imagine a better choice for Captain Holland than Richard Dean Anderson. Literally, the movie could have crashed and burned without a proper cast for this pivotal role. Anderson has never been better, and it is a shame that we have not seen more of him. In fact, all of the cast members did a superb job.

My only complaint with the movie -- and the book -- was the interjection of the "terrorist plot" to arm a private business jet with air-to-air missiles and have its pilot stalk and shoot down the stricken plane. Basically, we are talking about less than 36 hours to orchestrate and execute a plan like this one, and folks, that is just not realistic at all given all the players involved. Also not realistic was how little the airliner was affected by having first one, then two of its engines blown off.

That beef aside, I enjoyed the building suspense and found to be very believable how the reactions of foreign governments were portrayed in the film, as well as our own.

If you have an opportunity to see this movie, do so by all means.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

A window in time, and the best film ever made about tall ships!

[9 November 2004]

Normally, I do not begrudge someone their opinion about a movie, but when they cast aspersions about other reviewers here, I feel compelled to respond. One disgruntled reviewer of this film stated that she cannot understand how anyone could like this movie, let alone love it. Further, she claimed that we, the other reviewers, only believe what we are told to believe. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That someone would loathe what others have lauded is not surprising, really. I have to admit that I, too, have disliked films that were highly rated by a large majority of film critics. 'Fargo' comes to mind as does 'Moulin Rouge' and 'Mystic River.' However, unlike the reviewer, I watched these films several times over before reaching a final judgment in the event that I had been too hasty in my initial impressions. Neither of these films, though, were hailed as classics like 'MASTER AND COMMANDER'

Many people go into a theatre with a preconceived notion of what they think they will see, only to be disappointed when what they see is not what they expected. Each person carries with them their own set of experiences and no amount of explanation or arguments will change their mind, either. Yet, once in awhile a movie transcends the boundaries that define it, and its true genius is not something that everyone is going to apprehend. This is the case with 'MASTER AND COMMANDER'.

All I can say to that reviewer is simply, 'I am really sorry that you were not able to see what I saw.'

Movies like 'MASTER AND COMMANDER' only come around once in a generation. It is, without question, the finest movie ever made about tall ships. However, its greatness lies not in the story line but in those elements that typically ruin what would otherwise be great historical films, namely: dialogue, special effects, and sound track. Take for example, 'Gangs of New York.' The cinematography and sets were outstanding but the dialogue of everyone but Daniel Day-Lewis was severely lacking in historical authenticity. Another example is the 'Passion of the Christ' which used a mix of Aramaic and Hebrew to add its authentic feel, but it came across as highly artificial.

'MASTER AND COMMANDER' brought to life a language totally forgotten: the language of the sea, circa early 1800's. Every actor spoke the language as if they were born into it, and that element alone made the viewer feel as if they were viewing a window in time of a world rarely seen.

The sound editing alone was worth the price of admission. I have never been to a film where I actually felt that I was part of the environment. 'MASTER AND COMMANDER' did that, and even if you play the DVD on a plain TV, you would still marvel at the realism of the sound.

Finally, unlike every other sea movie that preceded it, the special effects were seamlessly integrated into the real footage of the ships at sea. At no time, did I get the sense that I was watching a scale model in a tank. In reality, the actual ship passed through rough seas on its journey around the Horn and these real scenes were added to the movie.

All these factors I mentioned above set the movie apart but that does not mean it had a substandard plot and mediocre acting. On the contrary, Russell Crowe was at his best playing Lucky Jack Aubrey with a panache that could only be matched by the late Errol Flynn. If I were a seaman aboard the HMS Surprise, I would truly feel that I could follow him anywhere. Crowe commands both the stage and the ship wherever he goes.

Paul Bettany as Jack's most trusted friend and the ship's doctor, turns in his best performance to date. Another unusual part of this movie is that while no seagoing fare would be complete without a love affair, the one in this movie is a platonic one between the captain and the doctor.

The two have a special relationship that is constantly strained by Crowe's call to duty and his overarching ambition. Having served with the great Lord Nelson, Lucky Jack does his best to emulate him and carve out a piece of British naval history for himself.

The film reminded me of works like 'Run Silent, Run Deep' which although dealt with more contemporary battles at sea (WWII), also featured a classic battle of wits between unseen adversaries. We never get to meet Jack's nemesis directly, but we learn by his battle tactics that he is a worthy opponent and a lot like Jack himself.

'MASTER AND COMMANDER' is a movie that I never tire of watching, and each time I see it I learn something new. It has its weaknesses like every movie does. It lacks continuity and subplots. It lacks character development of some of the more interesting supporting actors. Often I found it hard to keep track of who is who when everyone is referred to by their last names. Yet, all in all, 'MASTER AND COMMANDER' is a must-see movie and a must-own DVD.

Rescue Me (2004–2011)

Works on so many levels

[5 November 2004]

What really floored me with "Rescue Me" was how well the ensemble of male actors worked together. Usually for a first series, it takes time for the characters to sort themselves out, but here was a show that, from the get-go, gave you the feeling that these guys had been working together for five seasons!

Usually, the typical camaraderie among male actors on TV and in the movies seems artificial by comparison. Here, it is as real as it gets. Also, there are no clones on this set: each character is unique.

Kudos to the casting directors!

"Rescue Me" blends humor, drama, action, and real pathos with male characters that are not afraid to show their vulnerable sides. Everyone in the firehouse reminds me of someone I knew personally, so maybe it is easier for me to care about them.

The season finale was reminiscent of The Shield's first season finale where Mackey's wife, Corrine, also left him at the end. The ending brought closure to the questions I had about why Tommy's wife needed all that money from him -- she used it for a down payment on a house.

How she was able to pull up stakes so fast without alerting Tommy will be interesting to see next season.

Nip/Tuck (2003–2010)

If you wanted "Father Knows Best," this is not it!!!

[27 August 2004]

I have little patience for people who get bent out of shape about TV shows like "Nip/Tuck" that push the envelope when they are warned, up front, that the show contains material not suitable for the average viewer.

There is a lot of mindless, self-serving crap on Network TV today with all the reality garbage that only appeal to the lowest common denominator. Thankfully, "Nip/Tuck" is not one of them. What makes "Nip/Tuck" different is not that it seems like a cross between "ER" and "Jerry Springer," -- which it is -- but that it keeps the viewer engaged by being both off-the-wall and unpredictable.

Yes, all the characters on the show are dysfunctional (with the possible exception of Liz), but they are far more realistic than all the characters on "Father Knows Best" where everyone only had a good side.

On "Nip/Tuck," both the good sides and the dark sides of each character are brought to the fore. Irony has a field day on this show as those who you deemed to be stupid and insensitive turn out to be just the opposite when situations change.

The main problem with this series lies in where you, the viewer, make your entrance. You will be at a great loss to figure out what is going on now if you have not followed the show from its inception. Every successive show builds upon the events of all the previous ones, straight back to the pilot episode. For example, the turmoil in Sean and Julia's marriage was there from Day One as was the competitiveness between Sean and his womanizing partner, Christian Troy.

At the core of it all is Sean's ongoing identity crisis in which he has gone from a prudish wimp to a man at war with himself and everyone around him.

Although the tagline of the show is when Drs McNemara and Troy ask patients what they do not like about themselves, the underlying theme is about all the things that these two perplexed plastic surgeons hate about their lives. In trying to make others "feel better about themselves," they confront their own inadequacies, and invariably direct their hatred of themselves towards others.

Psychobabble aside, the show is damn funny, too!

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Overly long ending and contrived situations ruined the experience

[30 December 2003]

I enjoyed the first two films and was expecting the third to be a slam-dunk, especially given the reviews it received. A week has gone by and I am still angry at the filmmakers and sore from the sit.

First of all, the film should have ended at least 20 minutes earlier...perhaps 40 minutes earlier. What followed after about two hours-forty was a series of anti-climactic, "wrap-up" scenes" that should have been cut and saved for the extended DVD version. They totally took the air out of the balloon for me (not to mention killing my lower back).

I guess Peter Jackson just hated to say, "Good-bye."

Next, a number of the scenes in the big battle were contrived and predictable (e.g., "No Man can kill me") -- as was the rescue of Frodo and Sam (who somehow were unaffected by the searing heat and poisonous gasses emitted from an erupting volcano). I won't even mention the incredulous "survivability" of Gollum.

Yes, I know it is a fantasy story, but people did die in it...albeit VERY, VERY slowly. I would have preferred just a tad more realism. After Legolas, Arragon, and Gimli fought off about 10,000 Orcs themselves, you would think they'd be a bit bruised. Heck, I've had worse scratches after shaving than they had.

My biggest gripe was that only at the end of the Trilogy did I learn how much time had elapsed (13 months). Other than that, I had no sense of how long anything took to happen.

Overall, I liked The Two Towers a lot more than ROTK.

Independence Day (1996)

Am I the only one who gets this film???

[22 July 2002]

Maybe the problem is the relative youth of the reviewers who did not grow up watching all the corny, Earth-versus-alien movies in the '50s.

As a kid, I loved them all: "The Mysterians," "Battle In Outer Space," "Invaders From Mars," and so on. What made "Independence Day" work for me - and for countless others who got the main message of the film - is that it was a giant tribute to all those sci-fi movie matinees.

Yes, it was derivative BECAUSE it was supposed to be! Duh!

Beyond the throwback quality of the film, it really had all you could want in a Summertime flick: comedy, action, major special effects and even pathos!

My only real gripes with the film were (1) how Jeff Goldblum arrived at his solution to the problem and became an instant alien spacecraft expert, and (2) Judd Hirsch's stereotypic Jewish performance.

I watch this film whenever I need a lift and it never fails to do so.

Holy Smoke (1999)

"Wholly" Awful!

[1 July 2002]

Sorry...but this is the MOST ANNOYING film I have even seen in 50 years of movie watching. The story line was ridiculous. The acting was atrocious. The dialogue was about as meaningful as a bumper sticker. But, I will say this: the photography was interesting.

However, I would not send my enemies to see this film!

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

20 minutes of this mess was all I could stand

[7 March 2002]

I tried to like it. Really, I did. Maybe, if I were on drugs, I might have. Maybe, if this was really a Monty Python skit, I might have. Maybe, if I wasn't ready to blow chunks after trying to follow the flying camera.

Unless you truly enjoy this nauseating, "Zoom and Pan" camera technique as used in the film -- the same technique introduced by Prudential in their TV ads and aped by other, stupid videographers -- I would advise you to find something else to watch.

I threw in the towel after 20 minutes of the most, painful sit that I can ever recall. And, I was not alone in my assessment -- my date felt the same way.

If there are any redeemable parts to this movie, then, maybe they ought to be "dog-eared" like the pages of a dirty book so that, we, the "supposedly unenlightened" movie public could find them.