cybertigger1 Reviews

Ryan vs. Dorkman 2 (2007 Video)

The lightsabre fight you really wanted to see

[10/10 · 5 August 2007]

*bit of a SPOILER*

Face it, if you're in your 40's and were in your glorious childhood when Star Wars came out, you probably weren't that interested in plot, relationships between characters, and all that silly stuff. You just wanted to see mega space battles and cool lightsabre fights. You wanted to see people meet in big, dank, abandoned warehouses and factories full of junk and have at it.

Ryan Vs. Dorkman 2 easily surpasses all the lightsabre fights in all the Star Wars movies, yeah, even the super-fancy battles in the new films. Fantastic choreography, humor, amazing special effects, graphic violence and dismemberment! Wicked!

(spoiler) I thought of taking off one point because I can't imagine Dorkman would have been able to move his left arm after having a lightsabre blade driven through his chest so near his shoulder (actually, I can't imagine that he wouldn't have passed out). But that would've been anal. Just suspend disbelief and enjoy the show.

The St. Francisville Experiment (2000)

Sucks big time!!!

[1/10 · 8 July 2007]

The Blair Witch Project was stupid and not scary. No wonder somebody thought he could do better. Unfortunately, this is even worse. The acting is the scariest part of the film, with the dialogue a close section. The character "Madison" is incredibly, awesomely annoying, with her lame New Age mystic mumbo-jumbo ("white light! fiery white light!"). The scene where she bugs and bugs and BUGS the rest of the group about doing the "cleansing" RIGHT NOW without taking five minutes to eat had me wondering that they didn't all strap her down to a table and torture her themselves. Eating took five times as long because she ... just ... wouldn't ... stop ... yammering! Nothing realistic or vaguely scary about this worthless amateur piece of crap at all. I saw it on the "Chiller" channel, so at least I didn't pay anything for it, except a slice of my life of course.

Ratatouille (2007)

Is this a Cars bash-fest, or what?

[26 June 2007]

I haven't seen Ratatouille yet, but I'm sure I'll enjoy it. Just like I enjoyed Cars. I really fail to see, from reading the reviews, what makes Ratatouille so much better than Cars, and what makes Cars such a gosh-darn "dismal disaster" as one reviewer puts it. I know that this is not the place to plug Cars, but for heaven's sake. Whenever I find myself mourning America's slower, simpler past, I think of Cars and its soundtrack and the beautiful way the film evokes a bygone era.

I think a lot of people just weren't able to relate to the talking cars, and therefore didn't get the movie, so they feel a need to cut it down. But everyone loves a talking rodent.

Big Trouble (2002)

Pretty funny

[8/10 · 9 February 2007]

I just happened on this one on TV and at first was thinking "stinker" since it had Tim Allen in it. He's a funny guy, but has done some pretty awful comedies with only a couple of exceptions. This is one of them.

When I saw he played a former humor columnist for a Miami newspaper I immediately thought Dave Barry, one of the funniest guys alive, but I had no idea the movie was based on a novel of his (thought he might have written the screenplay, though).

Everyone in the cast plays his or her role to perfection and it's just nonstop laughs and fun. This film deserves lots of success on DVD.

Open Season (2006)

Cute, a few laughs, nothing original

[6/10 · 4 February 2007]

I saw this movie today and I have to disagree with those who compare it to "The Incredibles" or "Cars." It's only slightly above average and not in any way original. There are a couple of laugh-out-loud scenes: When Boog and Elliot are fighting behind stage curtains and to the audience who can see only their shadows on the curtain, it looks as if Boog is gutting Elliot and splashing blood everywhere (actually the "guts" are ropes Elliot is tangled up in, and the "blood" is paint); and the scene where Elliot is explaining to Boog how to go to the bathroom in the woods, and suddenly just lets go with a stream of deer nuggets (thank heavens they don't show the grizzly dropping his droppings, though).

Silly, harmless fun (except for the bunny abuse ... what was up with that?), but again, nothing at a "Cars" or "Incredibles" level.

The NeverEnding Story (1984)

Ending kind of messes it up

[7/10 · 28 January 2007]

I never did watch this movie all the way through until today. It was pretty good (and interesting to see Deep Roy in what must have been a very early role), but the ending really messes it up a lot.

******SPOILER!!!******* Our hero Bastian is pretty much a coward, running away from three school bullies who call him "chicken" and toss him into a trash bin. We're led to believe that he has learned more about himself and his potential, and become a braver, more confident boy, as a result of his saving Fantasia.

Yet after using the power of his imagination to restore Fantasia, Bastian has one last wish for the Luckdragon; help him terrorize the three bullies. "How do you like it, CHICKENS!" he screams as he rides the back a 50 foot flying beast who chases the boys down an alley and makes them hide in the same trash bin they tossed him into.

Seems to me Bastian hasn't grown much at all; if he had he would have faced the bullies on his own, just like Atreyu who faced most of the dangers of his quest alone. (Or, he could have brought a couple of smaller Fantasia denizens to make it an even fight.) The bullies may fear him because he can call on his friend the Luckdragon, but they won't respect him.

Maybe I'm over-analyzing, but I just felt that ending was very poorly thought out and messed up an otherwise good film.

Mystic River (2003)

Just a fair film

[6/10 · 27 December 2006]

I honestly don't understand why some consider this a great film. It's got mostly decent acting, directing, cinematography, music, and the like, but frankly the drama seems mostly manufactured out of unlikely coincidences which destroy any illusion of reality. Take away those and you're left with an average episode of "Law & Order: Criminal Intent." Three childhood pals encounter a couple of pedophiles pretending to be cops. One is abducted and abused for four days before escaping. Over the years the friends drift apart ... one becomes a cop, one becomes a criminal (now supposedly reformed), and the third, the one who was abducted, manages to get married and raise a family but has trouble keeping jobs.

One night the daughter of the ex-criminal is murdered. That same night the ex-abductee comes home covered in blood and with his hand injured, and he gives people different stories about what happened. Meanwhile, the cop is called in to investigate. The police initially suspect the ex-abductee but then their investigation pulls them in another direction as they learn more about the ex-con's past. While this is going on, the ex-con and his crooked friends are doing their own hunt for the killer.

So how's it all turn out? Well, it seems the murder was actually committed by a couple of idiot kids in a prank gone bad. They intended to pull this prank on a random motorist, but that random motorist just happened to turn out to be the girlfriend of one of the kids' older brother. Meanwhile the ex-abductee really had killed someone that same night, but it was a pedophile he saw molesting a kid in a car. But the hotheaded ex-con kills his old friend before the cop can unravel the mystery and catch the real killers.

Come on. This requires more suspension of disbelief than your average fantasy film. We are asked to accept far too many coincidences. Let's list them: 1. One childhood friend, who suffered trauma as a kid, sees the daughter of another childhood friend, an ex-con supposedly gone straight, on the night she's murdered.

2. This girl is killed by a couple of kids trying to pull a prank on a random motorist. However, the random motorist just happens to be one of the kids' older brother's girlfriend.

3. This older brother happens to have a father who had reason to dislike and want to seek revenge on the girl's father.

4. Meanwhile, this same night, the first childhood friend kills somebody else, injuring his hand in the process, and leaves that person's body someplace where it's not found for several days, which coupled with his seeing the victim on the night she was killed naturally leads to him becoming a suspect in that murder.

5. The cop who is called in to investigate the girl's murder is a childhood friend of both the victim's ex-con father and of the man who was abused as a kid and who saw the victim on the night she was killed.

How often does anything remotely like this happen in real life? Yet I've heard this movie praised for its stark realism. Please.

Don't get me wrong, if you can manage to suspend your disbelief and focus on the acting and other good aspects, this is an OK film, even though there are other problems besides the coincidences. For example, the way the ex-con's wife is revealed to be a rather cold-blooded b***ch who easily rationalizes away her husband's inexcusable crime, when there is no inkling of this aspect of her character earlier in the film. And the cop character's inexplicable behavior after his ex-con childhood friend basically confesses that he has killed their other childhood friend out of a mistaken belief that this man had murdered his daughter. He not only does not arrest the ex-con on the spot, as he gets into his car and drives away he smiles and talks happily on the phone with his wife as she tells him she's coming back home.

Yeah, I suppose it's a kinda "gritty drama," but realistic it's not. And it's not particularly profound, either.

Dragonslayer (1981)

Not your average fantasy movie

[9/10 · 17 December 2006]

Every now and again in articles about people who starred in this movie (mainly Sir Ralph Richardson and Peter MacNichol) I see it put down as being awful or silly. I have to think the people who say this never actually saw the movie. This is an intelligent, well-scripted, well-acted, well-paced film, with excitement and suspense to spare, and it makes you think. The dragon Vermithrax is beautifully realized with "go-motion" photography, giving it a fluid and realistic movement that is equal and in some ways better than any CGI you've ever seen. I haven't seen "Eragon" yet, but I have a feeling "Dragonslayer" is probably a much better movie.

The movie portrays the king and his enforcer, Tyrian, as ruthless men, but not as overtly evil ... they honestly believe they are doing the right thing by the kingdom and its people. One gets a sense that the king initiated the lottery out of sheer desperation but over time was corrupted by it as the nobles and wealthy commoners paid large sums into the royal coffers to keep their daughters' names out and as (spoiler warning) he hypocritically kept his own daughter's name off the lists.

I can't believe some people say that someone other than Peter MacNichol, such as Tom Cruise, should have been cast as Galen. They say MacNichol doesn't look heroic enough. Duh! That was the whole point of the casting. Galen is not supposed to look like you'd expect a dragonslayer to look. The other characters get a look at him and don't expect much of him, and the audience isn't supposed to either.

SPOILER: About the only problem I have with this movie is that it's impossible to believe no one would ever have realized the blacksmith's "son," Valerian, was really a girl.

CSI: Miami (2002–2012)

Cool show

[8/10 · 29 November 2006]

I got hooked on crime/cop/forensics/legal dramas pretty late in the game, watching them in repeats. "Crossing Jordan," the "Law & Order" shows, the "CSI" shows. What I actually like about them is that the primary focus is NOT on the characters' personal lives, but on the investigation. I never got into shows like "Hill Street Blues" and "NYPD Blue" because of all the tangled soap opera stuff that went on. I do want the characters to have feelings and to see their varying reactions to the crimes and tragedies they investigate, but mainly I like to watch them unravel the "whodunnit." Because I'm not watching these shows for the character development, I like all of them pretty much the same and don't have a preference. They have their similarities and differences and I really don't understand people who nitpick about things like, say, "The L&O spin-offs don't give as much attention to the "Law" part." So? Enjoy them for what they are or don't watch, it's that simple.

In the case of "CSI: Miami," I really enjoy the beautiful locations and the cinematography, and all the characters are interesting and the actors do a great job with them. Emily Proctor as Calleigh is beautiful ... she looks sexy picking through garbage or combing bloodstained clothing for trace evidence. David Caruso's grave demeanor and quiet, deliberate reading of his lines can grate at first but you get used to it. Miami is a hotbed of drugs, money, sex, crime, and violence so there is no lack of plot possibilities. A pretty good show.

The Notebook (2004)

Not your usual chick-flick

[8/10 · 28 August 2006]

I think a lady friend of mine wanted to rent this a few months ago and I passed on it. Then I saw part of it at a relative's house and the same day rented it and watched it with the same lady friend! I thought the performances were all very natural and believable. Nothing was forced or overly dramatic, and there was a lot of humor. My favorite scene is probably when Allie is a nurse and first meets Lon who is wrapped in a body cast. He asks her for a date and says "Before you say no, I'll have you know I'm an excellent dancer and my intentions are entirely dishonorable." Lon is such a likable and confident guy that you can understand why it's a tough choice for Allie ... despite what Noah claims, it really isn't about the money and the security for her. Lon is every bit as great a guy as Noah is, he's just different.

Even though they're very different films, this movie kind of reminded me of "Murphy's Romance" (which also featured James Garner). Both movies have a kind of easygoing quality to them while still packing an emotional punch. The Notebook definitely has a more "epic" quality to it, though.

Would have rated it a 9 but I did have a little issue with the casting. I didn't think the woman who played Allie in her 80's looked anything like Allie would have looked at that age. She did do a good job though. James Garner didn't really look much like an older Noah either, but, well, he's James Garner.

Other than that, a very good film.

EDIT:

You know, after reviewing the negative comments about the film, I have to admit I can't disagree with many of them. This film really was flawed in a lot of ways, but somehow it still worked. But the more I think about it, the more I want to downgrade my rating. I now think I'd put it at a 6.5.

Ghost Story (1981)

Good casting, but the book was better

[5/10 · 22 August 2006]

Peter Straub's book scared the hell out of me as a teenager. Like an idiot I read it alone in the house on a cold winter evening. It's one of the best ghost novels of all time (although it's really more about a kind of witch-demon than it is about a ghost).

The movie was well-cast, Astaire, Houseman and Fairbanks Jr. especially were absolutely perfect for their roles. However, from what I remember the film relied too much on "rotting corpse" scares, and not enough on building up the atmosphere of menace and suspense and overwhelming terror, despair, and hopelessness that permeates the book. Snowed in, unable to escape, the hapless denizens of Milburn fall victim to an ancient supernatural evil bent on exacting horrific (and wholly disproportionate!) vengeance.

Admittedly it would have been very hard to bring all the themes and subplots from the book into the movie, but still, I think this film could have been a lot better.

War and Remembrance (1988–1989)

A masterpiece

[9/10 · 30 July 2006]

The cast changes made between the series were perfect. I enjoyed Winds of War, although I didn't really care for Jan Michael Vincent as Byron or Ali McGraw (who I never found attractive) as Natalie. Hart Bochner is excellent as Byron and a much better actor than Vincent, and Jane Seymour as Natalie delivers the performance of a lifetime. The scene where (SPOILER!!!) she eats an entire apple, seeds, stem and all, on the train car taking her to Auschwitz is stunning in its power, its portrayal of true hunger and of Natalie's indomitable will to survive and see her son again.

John Houseman is a fine actor, but rather cold and unreadable, so replacing him with Sir John Gielgud, with his warm and expressive grandfatherly face, was a smart move. And anyone with a lick of sense would have replaced that comical, cardboard cutout of a Hitler from the first series. Steve Berkoff does a pretty good job in that role. And Sharon Stone is ... hmmm ... delicious as Janet. You can understand why Byron is so attracted to her.

I guess they couldn't replace Bob Mitchum as Victor Henry, and he does a fine job, but I kind of wish they had chosen a younger actor for the role originally. Mitchum was in his 70's and in the novels "Pug" is in his early to mid 50's. Still, he does give the role a gravity that perhaps not many actors in their 50's at that time would have been able to pull off.

Anyway, after Winds of War I remember someone saying in an article in TV Guide or someplace that they would never make War and Remembrance because it was just too big. Then a few years later here it is (I wasn't even aware they were filming it ... that would never happen today with the Internet, lol). I was so excited when I saw it was coming to television (I was in my early 20's at the time) and I watched every minute of it and taped most of it. It is one of the most amazing productions I have ever seen. I was mesmerized.

The death camp scenes, shown without commercial interruption, are graphic and gut-wrenching to watch. War may be hell but this deliberate, calculated, methodical "processing" of men, women, and children plumbed the deepest depths of human evil. What is truly terrifying is that the Auschwitz commander, Rudolf Hoess (Gunther Halmer) is never portrayed as an out-and-out "evil" man. He feels some guilt for what his job calls on him to do but feels he nevertheless must do it as best and efficiently and "humanely" as he can. He is just another fellow, a family man, trying to do his job and get ahead. It just so happens that his "job" is presiding over a mass slaughter of helpless men, women, and children whose only crime was being Jewish.

Other standout scenes for me included the submarine battles, which were every bit as suspenseful and terrifying and claustrophobic as "Das Boot." The final scene is perfect in every way--I've watched it dozens of times. It's done a little differently than in the book but the changes are just right. I won't describe it but it will lift your heart and make you cry like a baby at the same time. Powerful and deeply moving.

Planet of the Apes (1968)

One of my top 10 favorites

[9/10 · 20 July 2006]

I was born in 1966, so I didn't really become aware of the Planet of the Apes franchise until I was perhaps 7 or 8, about 5 years after the original movie premiered. However, it was still a real cultural phenomena around that time, and there were lots of toys, comic books, coloring books, sticker books, etc. etc. which I collected hungrily. And all this without having ever seen an Apes movie in the theater, even the last couple, Conquest and Battle. I saw the entire series on television. Even so, "Apes" was the centerpiece of my fantasy life as a young child, until Star Wars came along to replace it.

The first film definitely remains the best. Plenty of people have had their say on it already and I really don't have anything to add. I do want to say, however, that I disagree with those who automatically trash the sequels. IMO all of them were very well done and quite thought-provoking, if a bit heavy-handed on the social commentary at times.

One way in which the films are seriously dated, however, is that they present the Chimpanzees as the pacifists and the Gorillas as the aggressive, warlike types. Since then, of course, researchers have shown that Chimpanzees are far more aggressive and violent than Gorillas. (And chimpanzees are also more closely related to man than gorillas.) SPOILER: One thing I think lots of fans of the series have missed is that the character of Caesar is a wild card. He's a savior, a Christ figure. I've seen many post Battle for the Planet of the Apes timelines that lead to essentially the same future Taylor encounters in the year 3950.

But Caesar's "purpose" is to be a savior. In the original history, it is the Gorilla, Aldo, who first speaks and then leads the Apes in rebellion against their human oppressors. In "Battle," Aldo is subordinate to Caesar, and Caesar kills him at the end of the movie. By bringing Apes and Humans together as equals (whereas Aldo probably made them slaves and humiliated them, then drove them out), Caesar introduces an element of hope by, at the end of the film, bringing Apes and Humans together as equals. The threat of the Earth's destruction via the Alpha-Omega Bomb remains, but there is also the possibility that Caesar's presence has introduced a subtle change that will alter the course of the future.

The Last of the Mohicans (1992)

One of my all-time favorites

[9/10 · 9 June 2006]

This movie is "why they make movies." If movies were meant to be claustrophobic little art films then there would be no point putting them up on the big screen.

Lush scenery, magnificent cinematography, glorious music, harrowing battles and ambushes, suspense, action, honor, duty, bravery, savagery, corruption, passion, love, unrequited love, revenge, redemption, good and evil and everything in between.

The acting is uniformly excellent and practically every scene is memorable.

Even though there are few surprises you will still be swept up in the story, in the powerful emotions, surging action, grand natural vistas, and brutally realistic battle scenes.

The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl 3-D (2005)

It isn't THAT bad

[6/10 · 26 March 2006]

Let's see. I went to see Disney's "The Shaggy Dog" with a friend and her grandkids. It was dull, stupid, predictable, and unimaginative, and the characters were utterly forgettable, every single one, including the dog.

Then the next night I watched some of "Sharkboy and Lavagirl" on DVD with the same kids. I thought it was funny, clever, and imaginative. And people criticizing the acting just don't seem to get it ... the actors deliberately played their roles in an over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek manner. You're not supposed to take it seriously.

There were some nice little funny moments, like when George Lopez asks Linus and Max if they can "just be friends" and they sort of swing their heads to look at each other, turn back and say, "No." I thought it was OK. So sue me.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Very beautifully done

[8/10 · 24 December 2004]

I've seen Phantom on stage once, and while it's rare that a film of a stage production transcends the thrill of a live performance, this one is an exception. I think being able to see the emotion on the faces of the performers, particular the Phantom, made a big difference. Also, Emmy Rossum is heartbreakingly beautiful as Christine, not to mention an excellent actress--the way she manages to combine sweet innocence with smoldering sensuality is something to behold. "The Music of the Night" is an incredibly erotic sequence. Cold shower time after that was over.

I loved the glorious opening scene with the chandelier, as well as the hauntingly beautiful graveyard scene ("Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again"). And "Masquerade" of course.

This is one of those "why I love movies" movies. See it!