Change Your Image
CelluloiDiva
Reviews
Taking Liberty (1995)
Taking Liberty, Indeed!
"Taking Liberty" does just that -with military and political facts, social strata, clothing, food, drink, music, all the day-to-day minutia of 18th century Colonial life. Within the first three minutes of the opening credits, we are treated to the unbelievable sight of a Tory woman riding astride. Never mind that she's wearing petticoats, too: it just would not have been done, certainly not by a woman of her class. David Odgen Stiers may be well-cast as Benjamin Franklin, aka "Poor Richard", but the part as written reduces this incredibly significant and complex man to a cartoony caricature, one surrounded by gewgaws and experiments gone awry and prone to spouting pithy parables and folksy sayings masquerading as wisdom. Some of Franklin's words are, in fact, incorporated into the narrative to give some color and shading to the times. Points to the movie for that, but beyond that bit of grounding, this is purely made-for-TV tosh.
It's bad enough that we have become so ignorant of our own beginnings of a nation, the hard truths buried under bunting and masked by a mythology of our own making, but it hasn't become quite so awful as to let pseudo-history such as "Taking Liberty" stand in for the real deal. Alan Alda once said that making a movie about the American Revolution was an exercise in futility - and then he went and made a movie about making a movie about the American Revolution. "Sweet Liberty" took certain liberties of its own, but it does offer a glimpse as to why Rev War movies are difficult, to say the least. If you cannot take yourself seriously, then you must take yourself completely lightly. Instead, "Taking Liberty" wants us to take their zipped-up-the-back dresses and button-down-the-front shirts as seriously as it wants us to take a Benjamin Franklin played for laughs. Were it not for the ever-hammy, scenery-chewing David Warner as Sir Leopold, this turkey would be utterly unwatchable.
RevWar reenactor types, however, may LOVE this movie, as it is a non-stop gagfest of farby clothes, fabricated history and outrageously inappropriate and anachronistic conduct. Good for a laugh but not much else.
Ogre (2008)
What a load of Shrek!
This is a hateful little movie, confused about what it is, although it is perfectly clear why it was made. Give the folks at SciFi a half-baked idea, throw in some frat boys and stick girls, alcohol, sexual innuendo and a bad guy of some kind (space alien, psycho killer, genetically altered bat, shark, ogre) and - voila! - another cellu/digital monsterpiece is, er, born. And why is it always so obvious that these movies are filmed in either Canada or a former Soviet bloc country? Moving on...
The story begins in 1859 Ellensburg, Pennsylvania, a town that has magistrates and lords, an odd premise for a setting in post-Constitutional America where there are no magistrates OR lords and the term "sir" is not a formal title, as it apparently is here. Are these descendants of Crown loyalists or are the writers completely oblivious to their own history? The movie doesn't really tell us. All we know is that Bo Duke is a "magi" - who wheedles himself the job of "magi"strate (ha ha) - who can save their town from destruction by sacrificing one person per year to save the lives of all the others. "One life for all life" is apparently the town motto. How feeding one person per year to an ogre - and what's an ogre doing in Amish country, anyway? - will preserve the town is not quite explained, either, especially since no one in the town ages, marries, gives birth or changes clothes over the course of the next century and a half. Their numbers dwindling, they're still letting Magi Bo brand one poor sod a year to give up to the ogre.
In present day, four "kids" head out on a camping trip to the Pennsylvania woods, ostensibly to find the mysterious town of legend - Ellensburg. Doofus finds it, promptly breaks his ankle and then sets about opening the door to the ogre's lair. Fittingly, he is eaten within minutes of breaking his ankle, as is the screeching, shrewy girl along with him. The other pair, Scrawny and Second Shrew, go off in search of help, which, of course, leads them right into Ellensburg, the town that doesn't exist. One thing follows another, the CGI ogre - green and broody, the Hulk crossed with a sea turtle - rampages, roars and attacks, people are eaten, certain truths hinted at but not really revealed and no one changes clothes.
Ogres might work better in a European setting, considering that the lore - of which there is plenty - places them there. Ogres in America, it just doesn't play. It's like Dutch cowboys - who would believe it and why? What for? Even Bo Duke and his magic zappin' stick can't do anything with this one, not even as a laugher. Another major bonk for SciFi Channel Originals...now there's a shocker!
10,000 BC (2008)
Histrionics, not History
I went into this blind, uninformed and unarmed, alas, led by my 14 year old son's trailer-based enthusiasm. Oh, that should have been a warning to me! Anything that makes my otherwise intelligent kid blurt "Dude! Cool!" should be approached with the same caution as active nuclear material or nocturnal rodents.
I don't know that "dreck" is strong enough a word to describe this waste of time. At the outset, "10,000 B.C." seems harmless enough, perhaps even interesting, except that the time and place are merely backdrops to be used and abused in this wretched story-telling. Once the raiding party shows up, any hope of historical relevancy becomes as extinct as the woolly mammoth.
There are problems galore with this movie. Where are we? Someplace snowy and mountainous, obviously northern, where the mammoth are plentiful and people dress in fur. Then we're dragged from the snowy mountains through a jungle populated by giant, angry ostrich-looking birds, then out into the desert to be brought as slaves to work on the Pharoah's construction projects. From the mountainous snowy north to the flat dry desert south without having to cross any major body of water AND with jungle in between. WHERE are we? Nevermind the obvious problems with inconsistencies with the use of iron (the Iron Age began in 12,000 BC for some peoples, as late as 6,000 BC for others), shipbuilding and construction - WHAT ON EARTH ARE MAMMOTHS DOING AS PACK ANIMALS FOR CONSTRUCTING THE GREAT PYRAMID?!?! Doesn't Emmerich understand that, in America, if it even appears to be fact-based (mammoths were real, the Egyptians were real, the pyramids are still real) it IS fact-based, because too many of us are too tired, lazy or bored to pick up a reference book? So, then, one wonders - what the hell did they make this movie for? What was the point? Guess the old guy-wants-girl, guy-loses-girl, guy-beats-tiger, guy-kills-bad-guy, guy-gets-girl story needed some dressing up in fake fur, fake bone and really, really bad haberdashery. Emmerich could have set this thing in any time period against any backdrop and done far less damage than he did here. This thing is a work of contempt - contempt for the average film-goer's intelligence and contempt for the story writing process. Razzies all around! Wanna see a better movie on life in prehistorical times? Catch Ringo Starr in "Caveman" or Raquel Welch in "One Million Years B.C." - they may not be any more historically accurate, but they are eminently more watchable movies. Save yourself $8 or $9 or $12 and consign this bit of digital dreck to the dustbin.
Landslide (2005)
Beware the Diamondbacks of Vermont!
Truly terrible. A movie populated by the kind of actors that prompt an "Oh, it's that guy!" recognition - you know you know the face, but heck if you can recall the actor's name! Any hope of investment in a plot evaporated when we noticed that the license plates all said "Vermont" and not, say, Colorado or Arizona, which actually have Diamondback Rattlers within their borders. The "twist" was too incredible - as in, NOT credible - to bear support. "Landslide" kinda went downhill from there, ortortort.
The big event happens within the first minutes of the movie: the remainder of our time is spent wondering how those trapped will escape and will they do it in time to avoid the dastardly plot of the Bad Guy, in this case the eely Stuart. Apparently, massive landslides that take out power towers are minor disturbances in bucolic Vermont - or perhaps the developers' privacy takes precedence in an emergency. In either event, the landslide occurred, condos were buried and nary a cop nor firefighter nor EMT guy was to be seen until the very tail end of the movie. Are these guys all powerful or what? Of course, there's little edge and the plot is your generic, paint-by-numbers, connect-the-dots formula requiring only adequate suspension of belief to be moderately enjoyable. If you're the least thoughtful of viewers, you'll enjoy this for its MST3K potential. In fact, it's about the only fun we had with this one.
Fire Serpent (2007)
Truly terrible, no redeeming value
Sometimes, a SCIFI original movie is worth watching simply because it is so awful, it's good. An MST3K-like guilty indulgence, if you will. In this case, the guilt stemmed from wasting two hours of my life on this dreck.
Malicious fireballs from space land in Minnesota and take over "host" bodies to ensure survival, although why the fire would need to do this in a woodland is never quite explained. Guess it's just cool to see that "fire-eyed" effect on the actors.
Although the movie was called "Fire Serpent" - and there was fire - there wasn't much serpent. There was a dragon-y looking critter within the flames at times, but only when it was fully erupted and not stuck in a human host's body. "Fire Parasite" might have been a more fitting title.
The plot was Chinese take-out menu predictable, the effects schlocky, the credibility strained to the breaking point. Did anyone believe that decrepit, rust-infested and weedy-looking pumping station made any sort of parallel to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?? In Minnesota??? And the big mystery: what did any of this have to do with William Shatner? Bill, c'mon, 'splain! There are some interesting thought points along the way in this miserable journey, such as the danger posed by religious extremist zealots in positions of political power, which are perhaps relevant in some small way to these times. There's no misunderestimating the potential consequences of elevating ideology over objectivity and reason, especially that of a scientific nature. While religion and its most driven promoters (or slavish adherents, take your pick) are a natural foil for objective (if not altruistic) science, the inclusion of this subplot is utterly lost amid the rampant silliness of the primary plot itself. Better had they skipped it altogether.
"Fire Serpent" will make a great drinking game some day, perhaps, but it is not worth watching for its own merits, as those are entirely lacking.
Disaster Zone: Volcano in New York (2006)
Is it intentional?
Such was the question occurring to me as I struggled through yet another disastrously ridiculous SciFi Channel disaster movie. Do they intend for their homegrown movies to be so cheap, so silly, so patently obvious in what passes for plot? I have watched half a dozen of these "SciFi Channel World Premiere Event" movies in the past year and each is uniquely, achingly bad in its own right. Disaster Zone: Volcano in New York, however, brings bad into a new light.
Every hackneyed device of disaster movie development is employed to predictable, hackneyed affect: the hero, a burly tunnel digger, leads his crew of rough-but-capable misfits (Local 147 "Sand Hogs") in a daring race against the volcano to save New York City from certain incineration by lava. Along the way, he encounters his bitter ex-wife, a USGS PhD who, apparently, is woefully unfamiliar with the indications of volcanic activity and must be convinced by Mr. Sand Hog that what has been happening across the city is not actually terrorism. Throw in some incompetent DHS and FBI investigators; an incredulous mayor and his scheming, corrupt deputy; a female Sand Hog whose daddy was a legend among Sand Hogs; a foreman who is overly safety-conscious, except when he's not; and the unfortunate but gruesome deaths of several supporting "color" characters and you've got your standard disaster movie fare, all dressed up with nowhere to go except straight down the tubes.
As seems to be the new standard, the volcano is not itself the "enemy," typically the case in classic disaster movies; no, the volcano is the unfortunate result spawned by a greedy (read: evil) scientist of the "mad" persuasion who has drilled a 7-mile deep hole beneath Manhattan into the Earth's molten core so as to capture the thermal energy and make bazillions of dollars. Really. Greedy, Evil Scientist guy has been able to pull this off with the help of the Deputy Mayor, who has greased palms all over the city in order to keep the drilling secret until such time as the thermal energy could be captured and the resulting power plant used to "open franchises" the world over. Oh, and make Greedy, Evil Scientist guy and Deputy Mayor filthy, stinking rich.
Once Mr. Sand Hog has convinced Dr. USGS that there really is a volcano developing beneath Manhattan, it is up to Local 147 to stop it. Of course. With just 5 guys, two of whom die in the process. C'mon, you know how this goes: the greedy, evil scientist guy dies, the safety-waffling foreman dies, the homeless guy dies, the black guy dies, the Hispanic pyromaniac dies in a column of lava, the female Sand Hog survives and Mr. Sand Hog and Dr. USGS get back together and suck face as the credits roll.
In the 50s and 60s, we were subjected to horror movies populated with monsters created from nuclear testing. In the 70s, disaster movies became an art form, with man struggling - often in futility - against the ravages of nature: no way did George Kennedy try to stop that 1975 earthquake, but he sure managed the aftermath really, really well. We would see disaster as the result of man's folly - think "The Towering Inferno" for example - but also as the quirky acts of nature they are. There is no moral imperative in an avalanche: the best one could be accused of is getting what's coming to them for being in the wrong place, against instructions.
In these modern disaster movies, we are treated to scenarios in which garden variety pests (bees, bats, locusts and the like) become monsters created out of genetic engineering or toxic waste dumping, or the very planet itself rebels against its victimization at the hands of mankind, specifically, Greedy Evil Scientist guys and their investors. That the Department of Homeland Security plays so prominently in this story is, I think, indicative of the scare level living just below the surface of the American consciousness. Perhaps we can console ourselves with thinking that we can have some control over terrorism when faced with the towering realities of volcanic activity. How much more helpless can a person be than in the face of a volcano? Instead, as the FBI and DHS chase their tails around looking for bogeyman "terrorists," science and tunnel workers overtake and control nature. One wonders if the SciFi Channel folks intended for this to be the moral of the story: terrorists, we can't catch 'em but, boy howdy, we can put a hurt on a natural disaster! One doubts that such a "lesson" is the purpose here, as it seems very little in this TV movie is planned out that well. The clichés are working overtime, the special effects aren't, and you and your sweetie can project the plot line almost to a certainty. There are no surprises in Disaster Zone: Volcano in New York, except perhaps your own surprise at your willingness to waste two hours of your life on such dreck. Not a bad way to snozzle away two hours on a bitterly cold Saturday night, but those are two hours of your life you will never get back. If you must watch this movie, invite some friends over and make it a party.
Category 7: The End of the World (2005)
So vile, so pathetic, it's not even laughably bad
I tuned in to "Category 7" primarily to have a good laugh at a mediocre TV network movie. I was sorely disappointed to discover that I had set my sights too high: mediocrity would have been an improvement over the fetid braindump that is "Category 7." And I don't mean "dump" in a nice way, either.
What struck me more than anything is the movie's contempt for the viewer. Story elements are presented that are beyond belief, no matter how far one might stretch one's imagination for the sake of fiction: there is a limit to suspended credulity. I could take Gershon as a scientific expert, head of FEMA, perhaps even as mother to a teenager if I didn't think about it too much. But when her character starts going on about shutting down the power to kill DC's "thermal plume," well, that was my limit. I'm used to TV productions using overly pretty people in ridiculously simplified complex characters, but this was beyond the pale. Anyone who knows even two basic rules of physics knows that the whole "thermal plume" bit was a sack of crap. It's one thing to cut corners, cut budgets, cut creativity, but f'crying out loud, don't insult your intended audience!! I could go on, but why bother? At one point, I remarked that it seemed the sole purpose of "movies" such as this, its prequel "Category 6" or similar drivel like the dreadful "10.5," is to test out the capabilities of a new generation of CGI software. Producers rip off popular movies or books, adapt them to television, then subject them to the most special effects development possible on their budgets. A live field test, as it were, of new tools to eventually be used elsewhere in the industry.
It is pointless to nitpick all the mistakes, assumptions, bad science, plot loopholes, etc. rife throughout "Category 7." Suffice to say that with its turgid, twisted "logic," heavy use of effects rather than plot devices to develop the story and that damnable, annoying reliance on camera tricks and goofy angles (as if such were supposed to be artistic and/or contribute anything to the story or mood - they aren't and they don't, tho I suspect this is how the CSI series and others of that ilk are filmed these days), "Category 7" was indeed a disaster, but not the way the producers intended. Any bets on how long it'll be before it's released to DVD?
Raptor Island (2004)
Sugar Maples in the South China Sea Jungle
This move was a 10.5 on our Cheez-o-meter, the highest ranking possible, thanks to the earthquake movie of the same name. We knew we were setting ourselves up for a lambasting with "Raptor Island", we just didn't realize how badly.
OK, so the movie is made on the super cheap, with crappy CGI, models that scream "REVELL!!" and an utterly ridiculous plot scenario. I can get past a lot of cheapness necessitated by TV movie budgets, but what I cannot accept is the flagrant carelessness of the director. C'mon, people, the story takes place on an island in the South China Sea: so why are we looking at boreal forest, replete with ivy-covered trees, in what is obviously fall? During the scene where Hack and Jamie are holed up in the plane wreckage, their breath is clearly visible when they speak. Sorry, folks, no matter how you slice it, British Columbia can never stand in for a tropical island.
And what was with that weather at the end? The captain says their "socked in" "in this pea soup", but the island is having a lovely red sunset. Cut to helicopter pilot guy, shown in the cockpit with a raging ocean behind him. Cut to island sunset. Cut to helicopter flying over wrecked zodiac - it's night. Cut to Hack and Jamie, fighting off the bad guy, in full daylight. Cut back to pilot, shown in cockpit with that same raging ocean behind him. Cut to sunset. WASN'T ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION? Could they have at least TRIED to seem as though they were trying to be credible? Though this one was ripe for Joel and the Bots, we had plenty of fun of our own. Sublimely silly and purely ridiculous, there is no excuse to watch "Raptor Island", unless you're socked in by pea soup. Which we were.
Night Train to Mundo Fine (1966)
Utterly unwatchable
I rented this for a Friday night lark - gotta love MST3K for brainless fun - but "Red Zone Cuba" was an abomination. I forced myself to watch the whole thing, if for no other reason than I'd already paid for the right to do so. Yegawds! Even with the worst that MST3K dishes out, usually the in-between bits offer some relief, but not this time. The entire episode should be avoided.
Now, to "Red Zone Cuba" itself: Story? What story? The sound was so bad, it was hard to discern what the plots points were, presuming there were plot points to begin with. The visuals were as muddy as the audio and it became rather difficult to figure out what, exactly, was supposedly going on. What was the point of the deaf woman? What was the significance of the frog legs? What on earth motivated Francis to create this monstrosity in the first place? There was little to tie the happenings in the, ah, movie to the actual Bay of Pigs invasion: was this supposed to be commentary? Or was it just an excuse to make a really bad movie on the cheap? Either way, the movie is a total disaster, unintelligible and unpleasant - it's not even any fun to make fun of, that's how bad it is.
Avoid "Red Zone Cuba" at all costs!
Super Size Me (2004)
Should be required viewing!
Spurlock's zany self-dare, to spend an entire month eating nothing but McDonald's food, is a wild ride into a place where the United States fears to tread: the realm of personal accountability and consequence. Spurlock effectively sacrifices his own good health for the enlightenment of the masses, but the masses are reluctant to receive the message.
There is indeed something diabolical about the notion that Country Time Lemonade or Gatorade are viable "healthier" alternatives to Cokes and Mountain Dews -- especially when found in a school lunchroom! Sugar is sugar is sugar, and Spurlock averaged a consumption of a pound of the stuff a day during his month-long experiment.
We know better, perhaps, but taking action is for the "other guy". Not only does Spurlock highlight the effect of fast food on the American waistline, but its pervasiveness throughout American society. Our demand to "have it our way" in a matter of minutes may save us time, but what does it cost us in the end? Immediate gratification is a harsh master and once in its clutches, it is very difficult to break free. We see this reflected in the marketing of everything from burgers and fries to self-propelled vacuums to bleach-infused towelettes to the latest in disposable razors. And it is especially prevalent in the advertisement, distribution and promotion of weight-loss aids, programs and devices: Slim-Fast, 6-Second Abs, 20 Minutes a Day, 3 Days a Week. It is stunning to see how many people fall prey to these come ons of easy weight loss, but all the more amazing when compared to the reality of Spurlock's own experience: it took him nearly a year to lose all of the nearly 30 pounds he gained IN ONE MONTH!!
"Super Size Me" begins as it ends, highlighting the lawsuit brought against McDonald's by two obese teenagers. In the end, the lawsuit is dismissed as frivolous and thrown out of court. No doubt, some lawyer will try another approach to the same issue (love the scene where the girls' attorney, when asked for the motivation for his case, sputters and stammers, finally saying "You mean besides huge financial gain?" before falling into a puzzled silence), seeking the success of the tobacco company suits. But Spurlock has built a case for personal accountability that cannot be ignored. However, providing information is not enough, in and of itself. As demonstrated with his visits to school lunchrooms, that education MUST be coupled with appropriate opportunity to make the best choices. It is not enough to tell children to make smart food choices then provide them with little but pizza, fries, burgers, chips and other junk at lunchtime.
Like smoking, we all know that eating junk food will give us junk bodies, but we still persist in the behavior. In time, perhaps the only thing that will motivate us to change will be the same motivation that has brought big tobacco to its knees: money. When it starts costing the taxpayers too much to keep providing bypasses to fatties on the federal dime, then we will see change.
Bugs (2003)
I give this movie a "10.5"
Of course, if you saw that dreadfully histrionic earthquake disaster of an NBC movie last month, you know exactly what I mean! It's become my new standard for rating truly bad, unbelievably cheesy movies. The SciFi Channel's "Bugs" ranks right up there - or should we say it is merely rank?
With movies like this, it is almost as if the plot (such as it is) exists only for the sole purpose of tying together bombastic action sequences. In the case of "Bugs" the "action" wasn't enough to justify the convoluted story line. How many times did they recycle that same clip of the critters racketing down the rails towards the train?
How is it in movies like this that the scientist always has some expertise that takes substantial time, if not decades, to acquire, but looks younger than most women in Oil of Olay ads? How is that credible? Naturally, the purpose of such diversions isn't so much credibility, but good, clean entertainment for a few hours...oh, and exposure to the ads of the sponsors.
"Bugs" was utterly predictable, right down to the miserable end of Reynolds - when he picked up the pistol at the end of the movie, you just knew what was coming next. We had a ball picking out inconsistencies, predicting who was gonna get it next and laughing over the ridiculously cheesy effects.
I'll give it a solid Stilton on the CelluloiDiva Cheese-Meter and recommend for a night when you want to hold a "MST-it-yourself" party at home.
10.5 (2004)
Deliciously, Laughably Bad
It was obvious in the opening credit sequence that "10.5" was going to be one doozy of a stinker. The cyclist outracing the collapsing Space Needle - how contrived, how ridiculous, how utterly physically impossible to ride a bicycle during an earthquake so tremendous.
This movie is so bad, it "MST's" itself!
There are so many gaps in logic, fact and production, it's impossible to keep up with them. Cheesy "effects" (that train was soooo obviously a model!), preposterous plot, lousy continuity and terrible timing (yeah, right - Science Chick and Doubting Guy DRIVE from LA to Redding and back in the same afternoon and, oh yeah, neither one of them gets dirty...). However, my absolute favorite gaffe in the movie comes in the first minutes of Part 2, in which a newscaster is detailing the arrival of troops in San Franciso. Across the bottom of the "news crawler" is the phrase "Marshal Law". What, did Marshal Faulk and Ty Law have a baby? When the military takes over local control, kids, it's called MARTIAL Law!! The fact that the editorial and production teams did not catch this simple error is, to me, indicative of their overall approach to this, ah, er, um, film. It seems painfully obvious that the entire company - actors, writers, gaffers, prop masters, everyone - have no respect for the movie they're making.
It is a great mystery how a bit of dreck such as this can get made, especially by network television, which is notoriously conservative. Rank this turd up there with "Atomic Train" and "Tidal Wave" - the only thing missing from "10.5" is an impassioned performance from Corbin Bernson.
A rank pile o' poo, but so much fun to watch! 1/2* out of *****