Change Your Image
jmholt87
Reviews
Fallen (2007)
A series with some flaws, but a lot of heart
I enjoyed watching this miniseries when it first aired and I have come back to it occasionally since then. The real triumph here is the characters and the acting and that is why I continue to enjoy it.
The plot is creative but there are some holes in it, and there is a bit too much teenage angst for my taste and I'll be blunt and say in general I could have done without the dog who the main characters can understand, he serves very little purpose most of the time. The fighting is cool, but at the same time is a bit too star wars meets kung fu at times.
The real triumph here is the acting. The main character has the right amount of determination, drive, and youthful uncertainty and angst about his quest(think Luke in the original Star Wars trilogy rather than Anakin in the new). The supporting characters, good and bad, all have a lot of heart, depth, and personality to them. How much of that is the writing and how much the acting is hard to tell but I personally think the quality of the actors they got is what really elevates this series. Particularly worth mentioning is that Bryan Cranston is superb as Lucifer(particularly his voice). He hits the charm, manipulation, and pride of the character perfectly.
If you like shows dealing with questions of good vs evil, humanity, salvation, damnation, angels and demons, and other such metaphysical discussions, this is well worth checking out. The plot may have its problems but the acting here is well worth it.
Wild Target (2010)
A Testament to what a good actor can accomplish
Wild Target is a fun, but rather disjointed affair in which every moment of comedy is paired with a moment that is either too forced or too awkward. The biggest problem is that there are too many characters, many of which are played by fairly well known actors who often simply don't have enough to do in this relatively short movie.
All of these problem however are masked by the two leads. The charm and charisma of Emily Blunt and the brilliance of Bill Nighy drive most of the humor, sell the concept of what is going on, and hold what would otherwise be a very disjointed film together.
If you are looking for a good movie, good comedy, or some kind of gritty drama, this probably isn't the movie for you. If you are looking for a fun film, with a fair amount charm, that doesn't take itself too seriously, and especially if you are a fan of Bill Nighy, I would recommend checking it out.
The Plan (2009)
Psychology of a Cylon
While I agree with some of the other commenters that The Plan in some ways does not hold up two well in terms of plot. While it does, as it claims to do, answer quite a number of open ended questions form the show, the majority of those questions are relatively unimportant or are things that the audience could deduce on its own(for example, it isn't a big revelation that in the Miniseries when Baltar's Six turns around and says "its about time, I wondered when you'd get here" she is talking to a Cavil, it could easily be assumed, even without watching the rest of the show, that she is talking to one of the other Cylons.) However, as a psychological study of the Cylons, their personalities, motivations, and why they are trying to destroy humanity The Plan is utterly fantastic. While the movie centers around two of the Cavils and gives quite a bit of insight into their determination to destroy humanity the psychologies of two Simons, the Leoben who torments Starbuck, Boomer while she is a sleeper agent, Several Six's, Anders, and to some degree Tyrol as well, is dealt with extremely well. While the 'plan' of the Cylons really is quite simple you get quite a bit more incite into the Cylons themselves as a result, and why they continually fail to destroy humanity.
The acting here is superb, all around, although special mention must be given to Dean Stockwell for his brilliant portrayal of the two Cavil's on which the plot hinges. The visuals, as always with this series, are also fantastic as is Edward James Olmos's direction.
While this piece is not necessary to the understanding of Battlestar Galactica the psychological aspects that this movie introduces gives the show, especially some of the events in the first two seasons(although it is relevant to later events as well) a lot more depth to them and it serves as a good companion to the series and I would heartily recommend it to anyone who is a fan of the series.
I, Claudius (1976)
Excellent Show, Incredible Acting
I have always been a great lover of history and the Historical fictions that Robert Graves weaved in his Claudius novels is not only some of the best novels I have ever read, it is some of the best history of have ever read, even if large portions of it are at least partially fabricated or stretched history. Graves has a very easy style of writing and his books are very readable anyway but he knows what to add and where to make the already enthralling history even more interesting to the readers.
This miniseries is one of the best translations of a book into film or television that I have ever seen. There is very little major that is changed or removed from the story. The story is excellent and the acting is absolutely incredible. Derek Jacobi conveys Graves's Claudius perfectly in all his innocence, wisdom, foolishness, and nobility. He effects the stutter perfectly and twitches and limps incredibly convincingly. With very little makeup he looks fairly convincingly as a teenager in the brief scenes where Claudius is meant to be in his late teens. Brian Blessed is excellent as the families original patriarch, and the first master of the Roman Empire and possibly the greatest political mind of all time. He conveys the historical Augusus very well who was both amicable and good natured but also very imposing and powerful. Sian Phillips is excellent as the ultimate uncompromising matriarch whose mind alone was nearly equal to Augustus, but much more harsh and uncompromising. George Baker is excellent as the dark and brooding Tiberius who is slowly pushed into the evils which he committed later in life. John Hurt is Amazing as the psychotic Caligula. The rest of the large cast is excellent with such mentions as Patrick Stewart as the power hungry Sejanus, Patricia Quinn as Claudius's vile sister Livilla, Margaret Tyzack as Claudius's mother, and John Rys-Davies as the sadistic and violent Macro.
I definitely recommend this to anyone who has any love for history or just great television.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Stop with the Remakes
It is so incredibly annoying that Hollywood finds it necessary to constantly remake its own work because it is a rule with few exceptions that the original is a better movie, in fact remakes are usually terrible.
In the case of Pearl Harbor it is even worse as the movie is a remake of not one, not even two, but three other movies with bits of several others thrown in as well. To start with Love stories with the backdrop of war are a Hollywood staple and somewhat of a cliché. A guy falling in love with his best friends girl when the friend 'dies' is also a movie cliché. The first movie they have 'remade' is From Here to Eternity, one of the best films of the war-romance genre and this love story is nowhere near as well made or acted as its more famous predecessor. The second film they tried to remake was Tora, Tora, Tora an excellent movie about the planning and execution of the attack. The third film is Thirty Seconds over Tokyo about the Doolittle raids, which features everything from two friends, to one of the friends dying in China and the other returning home to his pregnant wife. Not only is it a pitiful attempt at remake three excellent films but some of the scenes, especially the FDR scenes are totally pointless(Don't get me wrong I like Jon Voight but he was poorly used in this movie).
Some of the special effects are neat but that is about it, why can't Hollywood do more original stuff.
Troy (2004)
Good, not Great
Despite not really living up to it's epic expectations I found this film fairly enjoyable. I personally like what they did with the story and humanizing it, I do agree with some who have said that removing the gods removes a huge chunk and focus of Homer's legendary story and the culture as well, but when you consider Hollywood's previous failures with attempting to bring the Greek Gods to the screen I am glad they did not attempt it in the end. The primary acting in this movie leaves something to be desired and is on the whole weakly lead, what makes this film truly work is the brilliance of the supporting cast. Eric Bana was on the whole good as Hector but the other primary players: Pitt, Bloom, and Kruger are where the weakness lies. There are some scenes with these actors where I feel like crying BRILLIANT, and then the next scene with them I feel like yelling, Who in their right mind would hire this person, that was terrible. To be fair I am not sure that is entirely the actors fault as the characerization is a little weird. The Supporting cast on the other hand was all terrifically and brilliantly characterized. Sean Bean, Brian Cox, Brendon Gleason, and Julian Glover are all excellent character actors, Julie Christie steels the single scene she is in with Pitt. And of Course rounding out the supporting cast is a man who I believe cannot give a bad performance, Peter O'Toole, and Kings seem to be his forte. He plays the tragic Priam brilliantly. The two best scenes in the movie are the initial fight the Achilles is in and the fight between Hector and Achilles. Definitely a good film, just not great.
7/10
Cleopatra (1963)
Ugh
This movie is befuddled, inaccurate, and above all else, Too Long. I can understand the desire to tell this story as it is one of histories most fascinating but the story in this case was botched in the telling. There is some neat Cinamatogrophy but on the whole the movie is to grandiose for my likes. The only redeeming quality to this move is the wonderful Roddy McDowell as the eventually victorious Octavian. Even his character is portrayed wrong. He is seen on the Senate steps conversing with senators as if he where one of them at the start of the film when JC is still in Egypt which is impossible considering Octavian hardly ever came to ROme and was only 15 at the time and would not have been allowed anywhere near the Senate house at that age. He is also portrayed as a cunning, power mad, and callous who skillfully forces Antony into war. Octavian did take advantage of what Antony was doing to force a war but it was Antony who foolishly declared war, thinking he could somehow win beat 300,000 Battle hardened Legionares with 3-4 proper Legions and 100,000 largely untrained and untested Egyptian Soldiers. This movie tries to glorify Antony as some kind of Doomed Hero and Romantic Martyr which makes the movie absurd because even using largely incorrect history Antony is revealed to be a rather stupid Thug which is truly what he was.
1/5 terrible
Doctor Who (1963)
A Unique and Remarkable bit of Television
I bet that If you asked anyone who has never heard of Dr. Who to tell you what genre of television the longest running once weakly prime time television show was hardly anyone would say science fiction. Well its true the huge fan base it built in the early 70's and the shows amazing ability to reinvent itself catapulted to an astounding 26 years in original run. What started out as a kids educational show in late 1963 evolved into a gripping and suspenseful Sci Fi Drama that young an old alike loved to watch. From the beginning, though the historical episodes where not really all that bad, it was the purely science fiction episodes that made the show truly popular. It went on for 3 successful years but then the great doom of many a TV show occurred, the leading actor in failing health wished to leave, but the producers and the BBC made an astounding decision and recast the lead finally confirming the alien origins of the mysterious Doctor. This ability of reinvention was what pushed the show to it amazing 26 years. Granted this how did have low points and at its worst the show was as cheesy, corny, and badly made as any other Sci Fi show ever created, but at it's best, it was truly incredible. For any of you who have not heard of the show and would like to see it at its best, in my opinion Tom Baker, the 4th Doctor, is the best of the 7 and specifically the first three of his seven seasons are the best the show ever did. Keep in mind those are only opinions.
5/5, Excellent
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
Wow
Wow is all I really have to say. I have seen the stage version of this which is excellent and this film, though somewhat different from the stage version is excellent in its own way. The sets where beautiful and there was some excellent acting. This movie was really helped by that fact that you can do more with film than with theatre. All three primary characters where excellently portrayed and excellently sung and the music is as always terrific. A true Triumph that Sir Andrew and Joel Schumaker can really be proud of. Gerard Butler as the Phantom did take a little getting used to because at first he seemed to young for the part but I warmed to him very quickly and I thought his vocals where excellent. I thought the characters of Christine and Raol where perfect from the start and I really and amazed by the singing. The staging was excellently done and the camera work by Schuemaker is really excellent, there is some really excellent editing and the transitions between the old film real style to the color movie was a really neat Idea for the film.
5/5, Excellent
Alexander (2004)
Horrible History
To start off with I do not consider myself one of those individuals who judges a film based solely on its historical correctness or closeness to the book/original, etc, but this movie goes WAY beyond my tolerance limit.
I understand they have to cut out and edit some parts of the history to fit it into a 3 hour movie, and I can tolerate some historical editing to make the movie run a little better but common Mr. Stone, if this movie was supposed to have been a HISTORY of Alexander, maybe you should start reading some different history books because the almost the entire history presented in this movie is WRONG, and for the record I am not talking about his relationship with Hephaistion.
To start with, Alexander won the battle of Gaugemela more or less before it even started. It was the SECOND time the Alexander and Darius had fought and while Alexander was outnumbered 100,000 to 40,000 the majority of the Persion army were green untrained troops who where facing what was quite possibly the best trained army in the world, NOT a bunch of military trained sheep herders as they are depicted in the movie, these guys where the BEST of the BEST. Alexander charged down a hill onto the plain of Gaugemela and the majority of the Persion army ran before even fighting.
The battle of Issus, quite possible one of the most pivotal engagements in History was totally cut out. In there first meeting Darius finally decided to engage Alexander with a force of roughly the same size by trapping him between a cliff and the sea. Alexander had his soldiers physically turn themselves around and lead his cavalry along the tide line and annihilated the Persion forces which Alexander to ramain unchecked while he slowly liberated Asia minor and Egypt from Persian Control.
And lastly on the battles. Alexander NEVER crossed the Indus river but consented to his soldiers demand to go back. The battle that is depicted on the other side is semi-accurate. At a subsidiary of the Indus he faced off against an Indian army that did have Elephants and in a brilliant bit of planned tactics Alexander won the engagement. It was his bloodiest battle but it wasn't that bloody and it was a VERY decisive victory for Alexander, and he survived the engagement unhurt.
Now onto Alexander's character. Colin Farell was not a wise choice as Alexander as there is something about his eyes that makes him look like he is either scared or about to cry. To things states that Alexander was very rarely if ever in. Every scene in this move feature Alexander either crying or on the point of tears, or pleading with someone, or looking shocked or looking unsure of himself . Alexander was very bold and incredibly gutsy individual, he would not have be sobbing when he made is legendary rebuke of his father about being to drunk to lead the men into Persia and he would have likely been the one to put his father's crown on his head after his murder. He would not have been unsure of himself in battle, he was to worlds greatest general and would not have been that indecisive. Alexander reputedly had very piercing eyes and such a potent aura that no one question him to his face, yet all his generals are constantly questioning him in this movie. Whether or not he was bisexual, i do not know, so the only thing I have to say about that is either portray it completely or ignore it, don't pussy foot around with it for 3 hours.
Minor notes: Phillip did trust Alexander for the most part and recognized his talents, making him commander of his cavalry at age 16, they only didn't get along for a short time after that argument until philips death, a couple months at most. The wars of the successors didn't begin until nearly 20 yrs after Alexanders death when his son died. There would have been little/no complaining about Alexander giving the land back to the Indian kings as that is exactly what he did with everyone he conquered, gave the land back with the promise of tribute and military aid. Those battle scenes, while realistic to any real battle situation where a little to confusing for this movie. Christopher Plummer and Brian Blessed, to great actors are totally wasted in their 3 minute parts, if you are going to hire talent like that either really use them or don't use them at all. I like Anthony Hopkins and thought he did a good job trying to give this movie some credibility.
On the Whole 1/5 stars, PATHETIC