folkie-imdb Reviews

Battlestar Galactica (2004–2009)

Most LAME ending to any series EVER

[7/10 · 15 June 2009]

Well, I haven't seen EVERY series ever made, but still, I can't imagine any series having a more lame ending than BSG.

As for the series...great characters, great acting (granted...a little heavy-handed at times), OK story-line (a bit heavy on the "this has all happened before and will happen again theme"), with many unexpected, clever and satisfying plot twists.

But skip the last 50 minutes of this series. Your disappointment at missing the ending cannot possibly be matched by your probable disappointment at seeing the ending.

It doesn't matter how good a movie like Robin Hood might be, how good the characters, acting, sets, cinematography are, if suddenly at the end of the show all the Merry Men decide to fan out across England, making Dutch wooden shoes. BSG's ending, by comparison, is much more absurd.

...been looking at some of the comments from other people.

First, I don't think I would have enjoyed watching this show AT ALL with commercials. More: I'm pretty sure the series would have suffered a LOT if I had to dribble it in across 4 years of real time.

Second, wow...people really watch that many episodes of a show they hate? The quality of the series (except for the final episode) is fairly consistent. If you don't like it and watch more than 3 or 4 episodes...what's WRONG with you?

Third, WHY would anyone compare the latest series to the original BSG? They're completely different. Compare the original BSG to its inspiration: Star Wars (BSG fails) and compare the latest BSG to a contemporary dark serial like...True Blood (True Blood is better (so far), but not by such a huge margin).

Charlie Jade (2005)

Wonderful

[9/10 · 10 November 2008]

This is a response to someone who called the show "Mesmerisingly bad".

Charlie Jade is NOT a show that you can jump into as you channel surf.

More to the point, I can't think of any other show that would come close to Charlie Jade in *seeming* to be "mesmerisingly bad" if one tried to jump in to the occasional episode now and then.

I really liked the show. I cared about the characters. I didn't know how I could deal with their problems. No clever and satisfying solutions presented themselves. Often the characters' progress seemed barely worth their trials. And the writers introduced one very neat twist to alternate reality story-telling: that some people might behave very differently while visiting different realities.

I was very disappointed when they wound up this show prematurely. But in hindsight, it seems predictable: despite PVR's and TV-series transferred to DVD, it's still too expensive to make television shows that are horrible for channel-surfers.

Evan Almighty (2007)

Awful

[1/10 · 21 October 2008]

The only redeeming feature of this movie is Steve Carell. Like John Wayne, I've never seen Steve Carell stretch too far as an actor, but it doesn't matter. He always plays his one role perfectly.

As Marty Feldman once said, comedy must have internal consistency. You can have 4 men on stage sitting in garbage cans, and that's fine, but if you bring a fifth man on stage who isn't in a garbage can, you must then explain to the audience why he is not also in a garbage can.

Why doesn't Evan accept his role as a messenger of God? Why, when he does accept it, is he so profoundly embarrassed by it? Why isn't anyone more impressed with the way that animals follow Evan around (they are explained away by the unthinking doubters as "trained animals" possibly from a circus). There's a terrible flood at the end, and most everyone we see hops on the ark and is saved, but surely thousands of people would have been killed by the flood; there is no post-disaster emotional atmosphere at the end. Instead, most of congress has finally seen the light and is about to prosecute the lone incorrigibly bad congressman for "profiteering".

I gotta admit: I also liked the fish in the aquarium reacting to the presence of Evan.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

Depp can't sing

[7/10 · 25 April 2008]

Tim Burton is not a fan of musicals and it shows. The leads were cast before they were able to sing their parts. In particular, Johnny Depp (Sweeny Todd) can just barely get by musically, and most of the other actors in this show can do no better. The only people I liked listening to were Cohen (Pirelli, and utterly unlike Borat) and Sanders (Toby the boy). Everything visual in this production is marvelous...although I do wish the blood looked more like blood. The acting...I don't know acting well enough to fault it anywhere. Helena Bonham Carter...well,she's just draws one in, wanting to see what she'll do next. Considering this is her first singing role, wow. Her voice keeps the movie from falling flat. A quick check on Wikipedia reveals that about half the songs from the musical were cut for the movie. That's my main feeling after seeing this: what would the complete show, with professional singers be like. I bet it's good. But I'm not sure I'll get around to making a special trip and shelling out $75 a ticket. 7/10

Outpost (2008)

Where is Titus Pullo?

[6/10 · 15 April 2008]

If you haven't seen Rome, then you should. In Outpost, Ray Stevenson plays the patrol leader. Initially, I was reveling in seeing a new John Wayne - no range, but simply one perfect identical character in every film. Sigh. Ray can act. He's still a fine, charismatic actor, but he's definitely not Pullo in this show, and I liked Ray better as a second in command. Still, for some reason, I kept hoping for a great horror/military show like Dog Soldiers or Predator. The first two thirds of the movie seemed to be going that way, I was happy to see the hardware that we all play with in CoD4, a little bothered that the mercenary band seemed to be composed of men from too many countries (NONE of them became mercs with similarly minded buddies from their home country?) and then in the last third of the show, things fell into a classic horror movie motif whose appeal I simply don't understand.

Apocalypto (2006)

Could have been great

[4/10 · 20 April 2007]

This movie could have been great. It takes itself very, very seriously, yet it's somewhat less realistic than Raiders of the Lost Arc. It's beautifully photographed, the sets and costumes are amazing, the action is well choreographed, the film is well paced and yet...this film really didn't work for me because the main character suddenly becomes superhuman. Mel Gibson just went a little too far, too often. In a film like "300", which I really enjoyed, the characters are fairly superhuman too, but not so much as the lead character in Apocalypto. And in "300", the filmmakers don't try to flip back and forth between down to earth, normal life, and superhuman exploits. If you want to stay serious, you must stay on theme. In "First Blood", also very serious, the hero's exploits are impressive and improbable, but still believable. I didn't believe what the hero in this show was getting away with, nor did I believe in his pursuers.

Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter (2001)

too long

[8/10 · 27 February 2003]

The outrageousness of the ideas are wonderful. But...

Things run a little too long. Especially some of the fight scenes. I mean, the first time you see a really crudely cut, obviously faked punch it's pretty funny. The fortieth time, it starts to wear thin. Sure, there's lots of variations, but the running joke of amateurism never changes. Similarly, the outrageousness of Jesus as a somewhat ineffective vampire hunter is also funny...but wears thin in time.

And what the heck was the religious moralizing doing in the last few minutes of the film? Follow my teachings, not me...yada yada yada. That was a stroke of idiocy. If you're not offended by the title, you don't need moral pabulum tossed at you to conclude the show. I would have preferred a simple "Yes, Santos, wherever there are Vampires to fight...etc."

I would have been much happier if the film had run 45 minutes instead of 85.

I always rate film on how much I enjoyed them personally. I gave the film 8 out of 10, mostly because I enjoyed seeing Ottawa backgrounds in a film. And by gosh, I hadn't realized it before but Caucasian artsy 20ish to 40ish Ottawa people even have a particular look that it was enjoyable to recognize (film people usually don't look so "normal" to me). However, anyone who isn't from Ottawa, might enjoy this film a bit less than I did. I know I wouldn't have watched it through to the end.

Wasabi (2001)

a bit too dumb

[5/10 · 18 February 2003]

Austin Powers as made by the French just doesn't quite work. I think it would be a great show to watch if one was really, really drunk. The plot makes a little bit more sense than The Flintstones, a little less than The Simpsons. This show sure ain't Le grand blond avec une chaussure noire.

Fortunately, the actors are all very likeable and nothing drags anywhere. 5/10

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Special edition so much better

[8/10 · 29 July 2002]

I just saw T2 Special Edition. The extra fifteen minutes vastly improve the movie (possibly with the exception of the dream sequence where Michael Biehn appears again). The absolute WORST deletion was the glitches in the T-1000 after being frozen and thawed. They add less than a minute to the movie. Without the glitches he looks like he's just walking more slowly simply to be dramatic: the old "good guys are *just* out of reach" routine. With the glitches shown, we understand that the T-1000 is not all powerful and that the drama of the continuing chase is more believable. Some of the other deleted moments, like Arnie learning to smile are wonderful...and I just wonder what editors think of audiences? So often the special editions and directors cuts are leaps and bounds better than the theatrical releases. Das Boot. You haven't seen that one until you've seen the director's cut.

Black Hawk Down (2001)

Makes a defeat seem like a victory

[7/10 · 18 February 2002]

The film ends with the summary: a thousand bad guys died while only 19 Americans were killed. Wow. Even during a total SNAFU, 50 baddies get killed for every American. Makes one wonder why the Americans left Somalia.

The film is a wonderful example of how a battle plan can be go awry. If the kill rate was as high as claimed, the film does a bad job of showing why special forces are so much more deadly than semi-trained militia. For example, I found it hard to believe that the baddies would run up to the second downed helicopter, a few at a time, getting gunned down so easily by the 3 remaining Americans. The whole film seemed to give the baddies about as much sense as Indians riding in a circle around the covered wagons while the smart settlers sit behind cover and gun them down. I say baddies, because the "skinnies" certainly weren't fighting like real people.

Remember Saving Private Ryan, where some troops were so angry when they broke through, off the beachhead, that they shot some of the German prisonners? I can't even remember any good guys getting angry. Special forces don't get angry. Instead, they just cry when they have to shoot a woman. Yeah, right.

This film is dreck compared to Private Ryan. But it's ok entertainment, so 7 out of 10.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Lord of the Rings has scope; no other fantasy film does

[9/10 · 23 January 2002]

Well, I saw the film again and I've read the books again. My earlier review's tag-line was: disappointed but not disgusted.

There were very few new disappointments in the second viewing and I noticed a lot of great stuff that I'd missed the first time: like the horse-shapes in the flood which sweeps aside the black riders, and many nuances of expression from the actors (Aragorn's face when he moves to fight the Urak-hai on the hill top! wow). If you really like this sort of stuff, I'd recommend a second viewing, even if you were disappointed the first time through.

But the film isn't the book. The director doesn't appreciate epic music - there is only workman-like music throughout the film until the credits roll and Enya sings. Jackson, for whatever reasons, didn't try to make the elves bright and attractive.

It's not the great film I think it should be. But when I tried to think of better high fantasy films, I was stumped.

Too often, fantasy turns into really disappointing stuff like Krull (1983) or Legend (1985) or Labyrinth (1986). Dungeons and Dragons (2000) was happy, but simply felt thin (and WHAT was their idea in the utterly unbelievable comic-relief Snails character, wonderfully acted by Marlon Wayons who almost made an impossible role human). Conan the Destroyer is great (1984), is the best sword-swinger to date, but I don't really identify with mono-sylablic, burly sword-swingers. Dragonheart (1986)? What a forgetable show. Dragonslayer (1981) does almost everything right. Ralph Richardson is a great wizard. The lead characters are OK, and the sense of an ordinary guy with hidden strength faced by big troubles is handled well. It only lacks scope; it's plot would fit easily into about 35 pages of Lord of the Rings.

And that is what makes Lord of the Rings the best high fantasy film to date: scope. Tons of stuff is left out from the book, muddled from the book, yet still, you have the feeling that something really big, and really important is being played out, and that evil is being defeated. And that's wonderful. I wish they'd released the films closer together. I'm ready for the next one NOW.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

disappointed but not disgusted

[9/10 · 7 January 2002]

Jackson has made a good film, not a great film.

Probably the single thing that ticked me off the most is Jackson's fear of a slow spot. For example, instead of having Gandalf describe to Frodo some of the history of the ring, we see a flashback of ancient history. A chance is lost for interaction between Gandalf and Frodo. A chance is lost for the audience to understand Gandalf better, and to appreciate the relationship between Gandalf and Frodo.

The characters of the film are strange people, not easy to identify with. Only slow spots can build this identification. When Gandalf ran into trouble near the end of the film I just couldn't see why everyone was so upset; I hadn't seen any fierce personal loyalties develop.

I've also got some minor quibbles: (spoilers ahead) like: why did Jackson have to let a black rider get about a foot away from Frodo before being distracted by someone throwing a stick? why did Jackson allow the fellowship to be surrounded by goblins in Moria, only to have the goblins all run away when their friend the balrog showed up? why did we have to have that dumb wizard's fight (at the time I thought it was neat, but later I thought: better if they hadn't actually fought), couldn't the plot condensation have been done a bit better so that Gandalf didn't abandon Frodo five minutes into his flight to Rivendell?; why did the black riders have to get within arm's reach of Frodo in the last desperate ride to Rivendell? and why, o, why did the black riders have to be such wimps in battle...Aragorn fought off five of them that easily?

The first book was done badly. However, Jackson's style will probably shine brightly in the next two installments because they are more action-oriented. So far, the fight scenes have been fabulous, and I look forward to the battle of Helm's Deep and the great battle in Gondor.

Maelstrom (2000)

strange

[6/10 · 16 November 2000]

This is not a movie for the squeamish or for folks who need to understand everything...and frankly, I didn't see the point to one part of it...what the heck was that fish all about? The movie would have been better with no narration, let alone narration from something horrible and divorced from reality.

But there are a lot of great moments. Don't take your date to this one, kids, but if you're in the mood for a look at some somber drama, consider this show. It's different. 6/10.

The Perfect Storm (2000)

The best storm movie AND the best fishing movie so far

[9/10 · 3 August 2000]

For a few minutes I thought: they're gonna take a LONG time before they get to the storm, aren't they? But then I relaxed into a really fascinating, beautifully shot movie about modern fishermen. When the storm came, well, all I can say if that you've ever been in a boat that wasn't suitable for the wave conditions, this movie will really move you.

*SPOILLER* The ending was a complete surprise to me. I'd seen a documentary on this storm and all through the movie, I was amazed at how close the story was sticking to actual events. Despite that, I was certain they'd go for a "Hollywood" ending, especially because there was no "based on a true story" headline. That was no Hollywood ending. But I already knew this was from the director of Das Boot...

U-571 (2000)

didn't quite work

[7/10 · 13 May 2000]

I love WWII tales. I love action. I love suspense. But this movie didn't quite work for me. I didn't care about the characters enough. I stopped accepting the long string of near-disasters-narrowly-avoided about five minutes before the end of the film. Thin gruel compared to the director's cut of Das Boot. 7 out of 10.

Starship Troopers (1997)

mindless escapism for action fans

[6/10 · 13 August 1999]

Great special effects. Thin characters. I didn't grimace for a moment when any "heroes" died. Stupid, stupid technology -- even less believable than Star Trek (ya mean we can disintegrate a man on the planet's surface and then reintegrate him with the transporter, Scotty, but we can't hold a stable orbit when the engines are turned off?) Click, turn your mind off, and it works pretty well. I especially loved the newsreels. 6 out of 10.

The Secret of Roan Inish (1994)

Just see it. Preferably in a theatre.

[10/10 · 13 August 1999]

I heard the best review for this movie that I've ever heard for ANY movie. It went something like: "I would happily tell any friend, 'Go see this movie, then let's sit down together, have a drink of something warm, and we'll talk.'" That was the whole review. Simple, unqualified approval. I'd never before gone into a movie with such high expectations without being disappointed. Ten out of ten. This show is in my top twenty favourites.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

lost in the woods at night

[9/10 · 10 August 1999]

Blair Witch is a great show that succeeds despite its problems.

Problems: The hand-held camera jostles irritatingly in the opening, but that allows you to better ignore the subdued bouncing that is often present later in the film. Probably the dumbest thing in the film is that the film-makers always keep shooting film or video. Personally, I would have been more impressed if most of the shots were less carefully framed, shot from the hip as it were, suggesting that the camera was being used more as a light source than as a recorder of events. While I was able to suspend disbelief *while I watched*, the thought of all that running around (without tripping) while a camera is plastered to one's eye boggles the mind. I was also p***ed that the trio mentioned following a stream but decided instead to completely rely on their obviously non-functional compass.

Succeeds: All that aside, I loved this show (nine out of ten). Woods don't scare me. Lost in the woods doesn't scare me. The woods at night doesn't scare me. But oooooo I'd be scared if it went on for days and nights and days and nights and something/someone maybe? was stalking me. I've been too tired to think straight. I can empathise. Ever see "Things to do in Denver when you're Dead" Remember the guy who decides to stay awake several days, waiting for the assassin? That's the last half hour of Blair Witch. I was expecting the trio to turn on each other at any moment. And Heather? Loved her acting. First time I can remember an actress allowing her voice to break while screaming -- it's bad for your voice, hurts, and pretty well nobody does it. But it sounds so much more authentic. That's the neat thing about this film -- it feels authentic. I believed in these people. I was glad when the film ended. I was tired of being scared.

Mystery Men (1999)

everything worked for me

[9/10 · 10 August 1999]

I loved this movie. 9 out of 10. It's about ill-prepared people trying desperately to succeed and become heroes. It's full of second-rate jokes that kept me smiling, but it's the hero-thing that MADE the film for me. I just liked the characters and felt uttlerly comfortable when, predictably, they believed in themselves, supported each other, and narrowly triumphed over evil.

I've seen many action flicks where I didn't care about the characters. A friend asked me about Starship Troopers -- did the hero die? Lots of the good guys die, I said, but it's OK; you don't care. Now, I can't fathom why I cared about the bumbling heroes in Mystery Men, but I did. Great acting, I guess.

Anaconda (1997)

a solid four out of ten

[4/10 · 10 August 1999]

I'm not sure exactly what didn't work in this movie. I almost believed in the snakes. I almost believed in the characters' motivations, actions and reactions. Anaconda is better than most TV fare...but that's faint praise.

Jesus of Montreal (1989)

one my top 20 favorites

[10/10 · 4 August 1999]

I'm utterly astonished that any thinking person wouldn't love this show...though perhaps it may offend "every word of the bible must be taken literally" Christians. I'd recommend this show to anyone and think less of the person if he or she didn't enjoy it.

Mars Attacks! (1996)

ugh!

[2/10 · 8 June 1999]

It's like getting a ride in a wonderful tall ship...in a dreadful calm with a bunch of student-sailors who despise tourists. I was sure I was going to like this show. I knew of the bad reviews, but I love sci-fi and I love idiotic comedy and I've had a good time with everything else that Tim Burton did. Absolutely nothing worked for me. 2 out of 10

The Phantom (1996)

Almost works

[5/10 · 7 June 1999]

Shades of Indiana Jones except the guy wears a purple skin tight suit. Would you have liked Raiders if Indy had worn a purple suit? I liked the dialogue. I liked the acting. The stunts were OK. The plot was OK. The purple suit though...it may look fine in a comic book but it looks kind of silly on film. At least when they made Batman, they turned the costume into bulletproof armour.