Change Your Image
Rovin
Reviews
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Too much hokey soap opera--too little amazing Spidey action
Spider-man was my favorite comics character. I did not care for the first movie--which missed many opportunities by not staying more faithful to the spirit of the comics from the early 60s, instead trying to meld with the post-Mary Jane marriage era comics from the late 80s--and adding a soap opera 'forever love" aspect that was far hokier than anything I had ever read in the comics. Unfortunately, Spider-man 2 continues to display the same problems.
Maguire and Dunst are still ill-suited for their roles. It was more obvious this time around. Parker should not be so whiney--and Spider-man should be more witty--taunting villains at every turn. Where's the fun? Yes, Parker has a bad personal life--but that should at least have been balanced by the joy he has being Spider-man, swinging through the city and catching bad guys. All this is still absent in chapter 2. Maybe if Maguire had better dialogue to work with--but I am not so sure. He has this buggy eyed look that makes it difficult to buy into his plight. I fear its a charisma issue--and he--but especially Dunst, don't have it--especially for this type of story.
Perhaps the filmmakers were concerned that they needed to make the film appeal to every demographic--every generation of spider-fan, but focusing so much on Mary Jane--her career, her love life, was, I thought, a great misuse of time. Perhaps they should have called the movie Mary-Jane.
And for the middle section of the movie he wasn't Spider-man at all--and when he dons the costume again--he keeps taking his mask off(this was a particularly bad decision during the train sequence).
Mild spoiler***
The idea of him having second thoughts about being Spider-man wasn't bad--I could even tolerate the "Raindrops" song though I had to keep from thinking I was watching a 1970s coming of age movie--but it was sloppily handled. A similar thing occurred in the early comics--where Parker, out of illness, frustration and worry loses his powers--but when he comes back--the excitment and energy is palpable. In a movie--it should have been even more so. Alas no.
**end of spoiler
Molina's Doc Ock. Never a favorite Spider-man villain for me. I imagined a European-accented voice, menacing and stern. The scene where he advises Parker to use poetry to woo...Mary Jane--really dulled the edge. The whole energy weapon subplot was lost amid the soap opera, and rather boring to begin with.
X-men 2 was a far better sequel and blending of drama and action within a comic book framework.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
A well made big budget B movie that could have been much worse.
If Cameron can do a sequel to Alien then why can't someone do a sequel to his baby? Overall it was a well made big budget B movie with a few surprises and more skill than I would have expected. The action sequences were quite good--especially the first chase. No, the T X was not as memorable as the T-1000--but give her credit for trying. She really could take abuse while holding the same expression.
Granted, I did miss Cameron's epic blue steel "look" and Brad Fiedel's music. The first Terminator was a decent low budget eighties thriller(the only flaw for me was that they cooked up the ludicrous notion that only organic tissue could time travel--which neither T2 or T3 held to). On the other hand, T2 was never what it could have been. It had the advantage of introducing computer graphics in a big action film--but its heavy handed social commentary (the children playing with guns sequence, the closing narration etc.) and often goofy out of character dialogue("I need a vacation") made my eyes roll . Cameron decided to make a nicer, friendlier terminator who discovers human emotions. Noble effort but I do not think he pulled it off. He also wanted us to believe that some good ol boy computer specialist is going to throw away his career and civilian life just because a kid, a crazy militia woman, and some guy with a mechanical arm shows up. And I cannot forgive him for missing the most obvious closing action sequence by not having a stripped down stop motion animated endoskeleton duking it out with the computer generated liquid metal shapeshifter in the steel mill. That would have been a spectacular sequence and probably made the final terminator-father moments less hokey than they appeared.
Anyway--back to T3
SPOILER WARNING
Arnold's Terminator: I thought he was less jokey than in T-2, and closer to a machine. And its fair to say that this Terminator actually succeeded (or will succeed) in completing its mission(ironically, including those of the first Terminator and the T-1000). As in T2--there were times when he came across as too human in his responses (though the first sequel did establish he was reprogrammed to adapt). Also the conflicted cyborg/car smashing sequence was too much.
Story-wise, the screenwriters evidently tried to put something into the story. The ending was brave--especially given the current international climate and new nuke technologies being discussed.
Overall it could have been much worse given hollywood's record of late, though another sequel would really be stretching it.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
More watchable than Phantom Menace but still bad
Okay, it is official. The success of Star Wars and the Empire Strikes Back is due in no small part to the input of Gary Kurtz, and other people who left the franchise before Return of the Jedi was completed. This left George Lucas to make all the major creative decisions, which unfortunately, were not always good choices. The Special Edition changes were mostly not good ideas, and the Phantom Menace was awful. Just awful. Attack of the Clones is an improvement(less Jar Jar helps), but it still suffers from Lucas' unfettered direction and writing. Hales could not help. The dialogue is flat and unmemorable. The acting is uninspired, lifeless. MacGregor's Obi Wan Kenobi is good, but he is much too whiney. Christensen may be a good actor(havent seen him in anything else to compare), but he comes across very bad here. And Portman--she is wonderful to look at, but she has no charisma. C3PO is an asset, but his lines are basically bad puns. And Yoda? Well, his fight scene at the end was just ridiculous. The audience I saw it with was laughing--for all the wrong reasons. Lucas apparently does not care about continuity. It was bad enough to make Darth Vader the creator of C3PO, but to find him (mild spoiler) doing the precise job that he is purchased from the Jawas to do for the very same person in ANH is just insane. (end of mild spoiler) And the biggest let down may be John Williams score. Oh, how times have changed. Maybe JW just could not get inspired by what was on the screen, but whatever the case, the score is very uninvolving. It is quite sad to see George Lucas destroy his own reputation. This film lacks the spirit that made the original films so much fun. No, they were not high brow, but they were mighty entertaining. Sadly, AOTC was not. I wont look forward to Episode 3, I just hope Lucas has the good sense to make the original trilogy available on DVD--without the SE changes.
Spider-Man (2002)
watchable action fantasy undermined by unfaithful adaptation
There are two ways to look at Spider-man. One is as a summer escapist movie about a teenager undergoing a startling transformation from nerd to superhero. The other is as the first motion picture based on the 40 year old comic book character. In the first sense, Spider-man is a modestly entertaining summer action pic. The characters are sympathetic and there is just enough story cohesion to make the film satisfying. I didn't feel cheated, but I wasn?t anxious to step in line to see it again either. The dialogue could be mediocre at times, but no worse than some other films of this genre. There were some ridiculously melodramatic touches like the two romantic leads having lived beside each other for 12 years and never having spoken a word to each other but overall the film delivered what it promised. And that was all.
But as a longtime Spidey fan I could find some other faults with the film, changes to the accepted history, which in one case actually undermined the film as a coherent drama.
Sam Raimi demonstrated that he could visualize a comic book world like no one else with Darkman(1990), although that heavy-handed melodramatic film suffered from a cruel streak--as if mocking the trials and tribulations of the tortured main character. Echoes of Darkman are found throughout Spider-man. Nevertheless, I welcomed the selection of Raimi--until word spread that he had decided that an audience could not accept that a high school science nerd in an IMAGINARY, FICTITIOUS, LARGER THAN LIFE, COMIC BOOK-INSPIRED movie would be able to come up with mechanical webshooter devices--a trademark attribute of the comic book character and every television incarnation. Instead, they would be organic--existing as part of the mutation Peter Parker develops from the spider bite. Now, one could point out that developing super powers from a spider bite is also difficult to accept, as is the idea that a man from another planet who looks completely human could fly around in a red cape and shoot laser beams from his eyes. But alas, the decision was made. High schooler Peter Parker would have to demonstrate his scientific genius by... writing a term paper on nano-technology, and prove his creative genius by being a rather skilled fashion artist and costume designer! Some Hollywood apologists counter that we could not expect any screen time to the webshooter fabrication because of the length of the movie. Nonsense. A one minute-montage would have sufficed. No audience member would have walked out in protest. But the webshooter issue is actually minor in comparison to another change in the origin story. In the comics, Peter originally had no friends, and while he was interested in girls he did not have any particular crush. The decision was made to condense his social experiences so that his later friend Harry Osbourne would be introduced from the beginning(thus removing Parker?s status as a loner) , and to establish that Mary Jane Watson was his destined love(an embellishment not established in the comics until 20 years later). This latter change undermines the story of Peter Parker, devoting far too much screen time to the personal problems of Mary Jane as well as Harry, and creating an awkward moment for the film?s conclusion. In the comics, Peter was always concerned that some super-villain would discover his true identity and hurt his loved ones?-but the manner in which this is conveyed in the film?s final moments is problematic and left some members of the audience I viewed the film with wondering: ?Huh? After all that talk about how he loved her, he rebuffs her advances??
One other change worthy of note: The character of Flash Thompson is reduced to a one dimensional bully, in the comics he tormented Peter Parker but was actually Spider-man?s number one fan.
The cast was certainly competent, given the material they were working with. Maguire and Dunst were sufficient in their roles, although i would not say that neither of them embodied the spirit of comic book characters. Maguire's Peter Parker was sympathetic, but subdued, lacking the introspection and expressiveness of his comic book counterpart(and as stated above, wallowing too much on his relationship with Mary Jane). As Spider-man, he did not employ many wise cracks and taunts, another trademark of the comic book and cartoon persona. Dunst's Mary Jane was well played, but her interest in Peter Parker was obvious from the beginning?a very artificial love story.
With the exception of the final shot of Spider-man, the FX work relied too much on computer graphics that were not always convincing, and in some cases distant, detracting from an epic feel to the visuals. The biggest design problem would have to be the decision to hide Willem Dafoe?s face under an expressionless helmet rather than make up prosthetics. It detracted from the performance in a couple of key scenes. And the music was truly sub-par. Recycling the tv cartoon theme from the 1960s would have contributed more energy (although they did find a way to incorporate it into the film at one brief point). Overall, Spider-man does not achieve the accomplishment of the original Superman, nor does it fall as flat as Batman.
Spider-Man (2002)
watchable action fantasy undermined by unfaithful adaptation
There are two ways to look at Spider-man. One is as a summer escapist movie about a teenager undergoing a startling transformation from nerd to superhero. The other is as the first motion picture based on the 40 year old comic book character. In the first sense, Spider-man is a modestly entertaining summer action pic. The characters are sympathetic and there is just enough story cohesion to make the film satisfying. I didn't feel cheated, but I wasn?t anxious to step in line to see it again either. The dialogue could be mediocre at times, but no worse than some other films of this genre. There were some ridiculously melodramatic touches like the two romantic leads having lived beside each other for 12 years and never having spoken a word to each other but overall the film delivered what it promised. And that was all.
But as a longtime Spidey fan I could find some other faults with the film, changes to the accepted history, which in one case actually undermined the film as a coherent drama.
Sam Raimi demonstrated that he could visualize a comic book world like no one else with Darkman(1990), although that heavy-handed melodramatic film suffered from a cruel streak--as if mocking the trials and tribulations of the tortured main character. Echoes of Darkman are found throughout Spider-man. Nevertheless, I welcomed the selection of Raimi--until word spread that he had decided that an audience could not accept that a high school science nerd in an IMAGINARY, FICTITIOUS, LARGER THAN LIFE, COMIC BOOK-INSPIRED movie would be able to come up with mechanical webshooter devices--a trademark attribute of the comic book character and every television incarnation. Instead, they would be organic--existing as part of the mutation Peter Parker develops from the spider bite. Now, one could point out that developing super powers from a spider bite is also difficult to accept, as is the idea that a man from another planet who looks completely human could fly around in a red cape and shoot laser beams from his eyes. But alas, the decision was made. High schooler Peter Parker would have to demonstrate his scientific genius by... writing a term paper on nano-technology, and prove his creative genius by being a rather skilled fashion artist and costume designer! Some Hollywood apologists counter that we could not expect any screen time to the webshooter fabrication because of the length of the movie. Nonsense. A one minute-montage would have sufficed. No audience member would have walked out in protest. But the webshooter issue is actually minor in comparison to another change in the origin story. In the comics, Peter originally had no friends, and while he was interested in girls he did not have any particular crush. The decision was made to condense his social experiences so that his later friend Harry Osbourne would be introduced from the beginning(thus removing Parker?s status as a loner) , and to establish that Mary Jane Watson was his destined love(an embellishment not established in the comics until 20 years later). This latter change undermines the story of Peter Parker, devoting far too much screen time to the personal problems of Mary Jane as well as Harry, and creating an awkward moment for the film?s conclusion. In the comics, Peter was always concerned that some super-villain would discover his true identity and hurt his loved ones?-but the manner in which this is conveyed in the film?s final moments is problematic and left some members of the audience I viewed the film with wondering: ?Huh? After all that talk about how he loved her, he rebuffs her advances??
One other change worthy of note: The character of Flash Thompson is reduced to a one dimensional bully, in the comics he tormented Peter Parker but was actually Spider-man?s number one fan.
The cast was certainly competent, given the material they were working with. Maguire and Dunst were sufficient in their roles, although i would not say that neither of them embodied the spirit of comic book characters. Maguire's Peter Parker was sympathetic, but subdued, lacking the introspection and expressiveness of his comic book counterpart(and as stated above, wallowing too much on his relationship with Mary Jane). As Spider-man, he did not employ many wise cracks and taunts, another trademark of the comic book and cartoon persona. Dunst's Mary Jane was well played, but her interest in Peter Parker was obvious from the beginning?a very artificial love story.
With the exception of the final shot of Spider-man, the FX work relied too much on computer graphics that were not always convincing, and in some cases distant, detracting from an epic feel to the visuals. The biggest design problem would have to be the decision to hide Willem Dafoe?s face under an expressionless helmet rather than make up prosthetics. It detracted from the performance in a couple of key scenes. And the music was truly sub-par. Recycling the tv cartoon theme from the 1960s would have contributed more energy (although they did find a way to incorporate it into the film at one brief point). Overall, Spider-man does not achieve the accomplishment of the original Superman, nor does it fall as flat as Batman.
Jurassic Park III (2001)
In some ways superior to JP, but I'll take the Lost World instead
JP 3 brings back Sam Neill, who tended to be overshadowed in the first movie by Jeff Golblum's character. Goldblum got the better lines and poor Mr. Neill(who I will always remember as the grown up Damien) was left babysitting the two annoying children for much of the film. Here, Neill gets to do more as Dr. Grant, interact with the dinos of Isla Sorna and come out
with more appreciation for the genetically engineered dinos than he had after part 1.
Story wise--its pretty standard bubblegum fare--though they tried to give it a few twists. In some ways the characters were more developed than in either Jp or the Lost World, but somehow they were still far less interesting than the dinosaurs. At least in LW most of the character decisions were directed at issues involving them. The child in the movie wasnt as annoying as in the other two films, although the recovery of lost offspring was already explored twice before.
As for the dinos themselves--they had a little more personality than they had in part 1, but were not as well depicted as they were in the Lost World. In that film we saw dinosaurs acting like dinosaurs(as opposed to monsters). They were shown defending themselves, fighting off pesky humans with cameras, drinking water, slipping on the ground, scratching themselves, creeping over shyly with the encouragement of a parent to give the villian his comeuppance--much more in keeping with the spirit of a Ray Harryhausen or Willis O'Brien film. JP3 returns us to the monster depiction for the carnosaurs(exception for the velociraptors, who for a change arent quite the one dimensional baddies they were in the other two films).
There are a couple of good scenes, namely the Spinosaurus and the Aviary sequences. But the fight with the T-rex and the Spinosaurus was a BIG letdown. It must have lasted all of 30 seconds. Compare that with the Ymir-elephant fight in 20 Millions Miles to Earth, or a smilar confrontation in Valley of Gwangi--or better yet: the original King Kong.
All three JP films seemed to take every opportunity to cut away from the dinosaurs. It is most infuriating!
The T-rex fight really should have been moved to the end and expanded.
It would have been spectacular.
The ending of the movie is rather rushed--but the final sequence from the plane is really what should have bene seen at the end of the first movie.
As it stands the three Jurassic Park films have their pluses and minuses, but for my money, the Lost World was still the most impressive in a film series that had so much more potential than it realized.
Jurassic Park III (2001)
In some ways superior to JP, but I'll take the Lost World instead
JP 3 brings back Sam Neill, who tended to be overshadowed in the first movie by Jeff Golblum's character. Goldblum got the better lines and poor Mr. Neill(who I will always remember as the grown up Damien) was left babysitting the two annoying children for much of the film. Here, Neill gets to do more as Dr. Grant, interact with the dinos of Isla Sorna and come out
with more appreciation for the genetically engineered dinos than he had after part 1.
Story wise--its pretty standard bubblegum fare--though they tried to give it a few twists. In some ways the characters were more developed than in either Jp or the Lost World, but somehow they were still far less interesting than the dinosaurs. At least in LW most of the character decisions were directed at issues involving them. The child in the movie wasnt as annoying as in the other two films, although the recovery of lost offspring was already explored twice before.
As for the dinos themselves--they had a little more personality than they had in part 1, but were not as well depicted as they were in the Lost World. In that film we saw dinosaurs acting like dinosaurs(as opposed to monsters). They were shown defending themselves, fighting off pesky humans with cameras, drinking water, slipping on the ground, scratching themselves, creeping over shyly with the encouragement of a parent to give the villian his comeuppance--much more in keeping with the spirit of a Ray Harryhausen or Willis O'Brien film. JP3 returns us to the monster depiction for the carnosaurs(exception for the velociraptors, who for a change arent quite the one dimensional baddies they were in the other two films).
There are a couple of good scenes, namely the Spinosaurus and the Aviary sequences. But the fight with the T-rex and the Spinosaurus was a BIG letdown. It must have lasted all of 30 seconds. Compare that with the Ymir-elephant fight in 20 Millions Miles to Earth, or a smilar confrontation in Valley of Gwangi--or better yet: the original King Kong.
All three JP films seemed to take every opportunity to cut away from the dinosaurs. It is most infuriating!
The T-rex fight really should have been moved to the end and expanded.
It would have been spectacular.
The ending of the movie is rather rushed--but the final sequence from the plane is really what should have bene seen at the end of the first movie.
As it stands the three Jurassic Park films have their pluses and minuses, but for my money, the Lost World was still the most impressive in a film series that had so much more potential than it realized.
Twilight Zone: Rod Serling's Lost Classics (1994)
This show sent parcel post from the Twilight Zone
This show, hosted by the Serling scripted "the Man" star James Earl Jones, consists of two lost episodes of the Twilight Zone--scripts that were either started by Rod Serling (and finished by Richard Matheson, a TZ collaborator of his from the original series) or written by the master himself.
The first episode is pretty much forgettable.
It is the second story, concerning a Civil War surgeon who seeks a way of prolonging the lives of his patients, that should provide some amusement for Serling fans. It was indeed eerie(or should I say "twilight zone" like?) to recognize the famous writer's voice in the dialogue(especially Palance's). The tale is a decent variation on Frankenstein and like the best of Serling's work, has some biting commentary on human nature. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say this is a "classic," and the ending was predictable, it has more depth than alot of similar efforts in genre tv airing today.
I just wish they would have filmed it in harsh black and white--now that would have been a blast from the past!
Trekkies (1997)
Entertaining and multi-layered
Despite what some people think, Star Trek(TOS) was one of the most daring and thoughtful shows on television, and it explored every issue from racism, to war, ecology to vegetarianism way ahead of its time. Though it certainly has succumbed to commercialism in an ugly way--it was fascinating to watch this doc. As I have never been to a convention, many of the fans were indeed extreme in a scary way, but then, others showed amazing intelligence and talent. That 15 year old did some incredible computer animation(he is after all--15!). And it was also interesting to see how the actors in star trek had been affected by the fans. Like host Denise Crosby keeping all that fan art(those data/tasha yar sex drawings were bizarre yet expertly rendered!) and James Doohan's moving story about the suicidal fan. One of the best points made was the fact that a sports fanatic can waste his life collecting junk (and can recite pointless 50 year old sports trivia) and is seen as perfectly normal and yet a fan of an art based medium is seen as stupid or foolish. The dentist didnt seem to be hurting socially or financially from his fandom and those cuties at that Klingon language camp had me thinking: Where do i sign up?
CBS Schoolbreak Special: Frog Girl: The Jenifer Graham Story (1989)
poignant, thought provoking and based on a true story
This was a rather memorable episode of the ABC afterschool specials--a series which gave children and teens a variety of dramas or comedies based on issues of the day. In this one, Ellen Dunning plays Jennifer Graham, who had her 15 minutes of fame in the late 80s for refusing to dissect a frog in biology class on ethical and religious grounds(she was an animal rights supporter and vegetarian). Instead of being respected for her compassion and integrity however, she is chastized by her teacher and ridiculed by her schoolmates. She is sent to the principal's office--where the school official tries to find something not "cruelty-free" about her wardrobe in lieu of an intelligent argument to challenge her with. When that fails--he tells her that she can skip the dissection class, but it will be deducted from her grades. This proves unacceptable since she needs a high grade to go to college. Ultimately--the soft spoken teenager takes her fight to the media and the California Supreme Court.
The filmmakers did a splendid job of showing how compassion is often subject to regulation in our society, and in particular the prejudices that animal rights-minded people must face. Kerrie Keane plays her supportive mother, and Joan Rivers makes an unbilled appearance in a scene where Jennifer is a guest on her talk show. Leslie-Anne Down(who must have done this on principle) is in a very quick scene where she plays a witness explaining the influence of the $6 billion a year vivisection industry(supplying the animals and cages) on school and government policy. Ellen Dunning gives an effective performance and the real Jennifer makes an appearance in an epilogue suggesting further reading on law and the Constitution!
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Disturbing--with perhaps the best homage cameo ever
I remember seeing this at a drive in. No doubt about it--you will not forget the ending.
The whole film is creepy--and disturbing, and the original(which I saw later) never grabbed me like this(it seems too dated). However, in a sense--this movie is a sequel as well as a remake--with McCarthy's shocking cameo. Has there been a more appropriate cameo or homage to an original film?
And you'll never trust restaurant food the same way either!
Hollow Man (2000)
Terrible movie
This film was an absolute mess. First--the characters. They were among the stupidest scientists ever to grace the screen. Bacon's character starts out as a complete S.O.B. and only gets worse from there. Shue's characters obviously had no taste and no brain to match. Perhaps the only character to show some sense was Dickens.' Especially when she gave Shue a well deserved slap. But even she was guilty for remaining quiet after that "invisible dream."
Then there is the invisibility goofs. Allright--invisibility simply doesnt work. Bacon's character wouldnt be complaining he ahs no eyelids--he would be complaining that his eye optics are now invisible--thus rendering him blind! But that is a minor point. Lets look at what he does when he gets back to his apartment: he eats a twinkie. Excuse me! But wouldnt that woman he rapes notice the twinkie bits floating around her apartment. Dumb. There many such problems as this. Coating him in blood...burning the clothes off him...everytime he emerges nice and clean again.
They gave no consideration to the story--it seemed they were more concerned with seeing how many new situations they can exploit with special effects.
Overall--a terrible misfire. Memoirs of an Invisible Man was far more enjoyable.
Conan the Barbarian (1982)
Slow, dull, unimaginative
Conan the Barbarian is another example of Hollywood taking a work from another medium(pulp fiction) and being unable to translate it properly for the big screen.
While some of the themes were high brow("flesh is stronger than steel") they cant make up for a very dull story, some terrible performances, and an absence of monsters. Where were the monsters?? A rubber snake???
I used to think Schwarzeneggar was the ideal Conan--until I read some of Howard's work and realized he was all wrong for the part.
And where was the fantasy? There was alot of sword in this sword and sorcery flick--but not much sorcery. It cries for a scene out of Harryhausen's Jason and the Argonauts(a far better genre picture).
One final note: the women were not particularly attractive! And Sandhal Bergman is NO Lucy Lawless. Stick with Howard's writings if you really want to delve into a fantasy world.
Spider-Man (1967)
Lots of fun
This show was a great memory! Okay--I cant remember how bad the animation was--and I do remember the episode where they reused the same villain and sets from Rocket Robin Hood(Dimentia Fiiiiiiveeeeee!!!!!!). There were two kinds of Spidey shows--one had him in this simple comic book like colour--blue skies in the background, simple shadows--battling spider slayers and his traditional villains...while other episodes had these psychedelic and often depressing mixed colour backgrounds(ugh I hated those).
Funny how Parker's voice changed as soon as he put on the mask.
Classic moments: Spider-man uses this can of pepper to nab the "Rhiiino." After the can gets stuck on his horn, the Rhino starts going "Ahhh ahhchoooa! Ahhhchoooaaaahhhh!!!" Like that. Damn funny. Then there was the guy who controlled "shadohhhwwwsss." And Spider-man had to fight this shadow creature that looked like boxer. He lost.
And of course--how can anyone forget the opening cacthy tune? "Spider-man, spider-man, does whatever a spider can!""
Spidey rules.
Spider-Man (1967)
Lots of fun
This show was a great memory! Okay--I cant remember how bad the animation was--and I do remember the episode where they reused the same villain and sets from Rocket Robin Hood(Dimentia Fiiiiiiveeeeee!!!!!!). There were two kinds of Spidey shows--one had him in this simple comic book like colour--blue skies in the background, simple shadows--battling spider slayers and his traditional villains...while other episodes had these psychedelic and often depressing mixed colour backgrounds(ugh I hated those).
Funny how Parker's voice changed as soon as he put on the mask.
Classic moments: Spider-man uses this can of pepper to nab the "Rhiiino." After the can gets stuck on his horn, the Rhino starts going "Ahhh ahhchoooa! Ahhhchoooaaaahhhh!!!" Like that. Damn funny. Then there was the guy who controlled "shadohhhwwwsss." And Spider-man had to fight this shadow creature that looked like boxer. He lost.
And of course--how can anyone forget the opening cacthy tune? "Spider-man, spider-man, does whatever a spider can!""
Spidey rules.
X-Men (2000)
pretty good if it was a made for tv flick
I was not an active reader of the X men comic, and I am no expert on the characters. I found the movie to be more enjoyable than I expected, but it lacked the epic quality one associates with these types of films. For example: the scenes at the Statue of Liberty were very modest--not as spectacular as they could have or should have been. It was very claustrophobic--much like a tv movie of the week on Fox.
In fact--that is what this movie seemed to be: made for television. It is unfortunate that Fox not only slashed the budget on this film, but also forced the filmmakers into a summer rather than Xmas release.
As for the plot, without revealing too much, I will only say that the threat of mutant registration came across as rather lame. Could this idea have come about because of the budget restrictions? I would have preferred something more grand--like legislation to allow the military to use a virus to seek out and neutralize mutants. Now that would have been a threat--and Magneto's response in the film would have been more understandable. Furthermore--the Nazis are featured early in the film. This sequence was truly dead weight. It was jarring and not as relevant to the story as some may suggest. It would have been cheaper and more effective to have Magneto talk about his childhood when he is facing Xavier--or Senator Kelly.
On the plus side--Sterwart and Mclellan did the best they could with their roles, but the real stars were Jackman and Paquin. They brought some emotional power to this flick--while the rest of the cast were not well developed.
I understand that there were scenes removed from this film to cut the running time down--perhaps they would have improved the film, but not enough I suspect. I certainly did not find this film to be as disappointing as Batman, but it didnt soar like Superman either.
Gilligan's Island (1964)
Skiipuurr!!!
Hey--this show had its charm. It was sort of like the Canterbury Tales and the Decameron-with an assortment of characters on different adventures--but it was also something of a horror story. Here's my theory--the castaways actually died on that three hour tour--and went to Hell, the Skipper was God, trying to shepherd them to salvation, while Gilligan was the Devil-tormenting them each week(hey-- he did wear a really RED shirt)!
Seriously though--it was fun how they milked every possible concept. I remember the ghost one with particular fondness(that spook floating past the huts was darn spooky!!!), and then the one where the Professor and the Skipper are Holmes and Watson, investigating the castle of Gilligan as Dracula and Ginger as his bride.
Or the one where the castaways end up switching personalities.or the one where Ginger's geeky double shows up on the island--they doll her up--then she goes back and takes over the movie star's fame! Or the one where they plan to use a glowing serum to make a signal--but Gilligan drinks it all--and ends up shining like a light bulb-..or the totem one previously mentioned. So many!
Note: one of the most perverse spoofs of Gilligan's Island was on the series ALF, when the alien has a nightmare where in he visits Mary Ann, the Professor(has some hilarious lines), Gilligan and the Skipper at the island's classic bamboo dinner table.
They are all sitting around bored and miserable, and after the Skipper calls his first mate by his usual nickname, the moping Gilligan responds: "Would you stop calling me your 'little buddy?' I am in my forties for christ's sake!"
The Green Mile (1999)
Good--but not anxious to walk that mile again
The Green Mile was well-made I thought, but it was too cruel and manipulative for my tastes. Darabont doesnt spread it on as thick as Spielberg though--I give him credit for that.
I didnt mind the tacked on ending either--but i wonder if anyone else noticed that it is very similar to the ending of the Asphynx?
Anyway--the movie's heart was in the right place.
Kundun (1997)
Quite simply a great achievement
I was very pleased to discover that this film wasnt the Scorcese dud some of the user comments and critics had suggested it to be. While I am no expert on Buddhism, I know enough about it to see how brilliantly Martin Scorcese and Melissa Mathison weaved the core philosophy into this tale of the Dalai Lama's formative years. They did it without succumbing to ostentation, sentimentality, or populist good vs evil film dramatics. And yet it showed us how human the child was--laughing as the monks meditated while a rat drank the ritual offerings; being frightened in the dark monastery; taking on the very great responsibility of leading a truly wise, noble and compassionate religion while being confronted by the threats of the modern world. I appreciated how they didnt portray the Chinese as simple villians--by including the scene where he dreams the army personnel are explaining to him why they embrace Mao's communism. And they also presented enough of the Buddhist ritual and way of life to show us how alien it is to western religions(the scene where they cut up the body for the vultures comes to mind), though they dont gloss it over by excluding comments about the Lama's isolation and loss of childhood or the corruption surrounding his first Regent. It was also quite moving to observe the devotion of his monks and people.
Scorcese really demonstrates here that he is a true film artist and master storyteller. I wholeheartedly concur with the commentator that compared this film to the Last Emperor--despite similar story frames and lengths, this motion picture doesnt drag at all. If this had been say, Steven Spielberg's project you would have expected to see some manipulative melodramatics and insincerity. And how can one not be impressed by the performances he got out of mostly non actors! That alone was amazing. The film maintained its pace from the early years to the Lama as an adult. From what little of the man I have seen on tv, his humor, and wisdom was conveyed remarkably well by Mathison's script and the actors chosen for the role.
Finally, his comment to the Indian guard near the end after being asked if he was the Lord Buddha--encapsulates the wisdom and the humility of its spiritual leader perfectly.
Dinosaur (2000)
computer effects + dinosaurs = bad movie
Before Jurassic Park dinosaurs in movies had to contend with hokey effects and bad stories(most of the time). then, after JP, dinosaurs just had to contend with bad stories.It was hard enough to sit through JP for a few minutes of cg-rendered effects with such annoying human characters...Lost World was better-but had some baaaad moments, then came Godzilla(ugh). Walking with Dinosaurs, despite its own melodramatic liberties, was excellent however. Now we have this. Making the dinosaurs talk was a huge huge creative mistake, but that has been covered already. A couple of other comments mentioned that real animals dont flock together in groups--but actually during droughts animals have been known to travel in mass--with predatory animals walking close by. Making the carnivorous dinosaurs "bad" was especially ironic considering the current burger chain ads that show the "veggiesaurus" dinosaur puppet behind the cash register serving burgers to mammalian "carnivores by choice!"
G.I. Joe: The Movie (1987)
Could have been alot better
Gi Joe the series(like Transformers) was a well made toy commercial expanded into diverting half hours of action, humour etc. Gi joe the movie missed the boat unfortunately--despite a cool new intro song and animation.
The big mistake was the fantastical explanation for the existance of Cobra. From what i have read they had planned a different origin for the series(a Karl Marx-like political philosopher)--but the toy producers opted for a fantastical Cobra-la scenario. Too bad.
Still--it was somewhat better than Transformers the movie--though i really hate what they do to Cobra Commander--my favourite character(along with Snake eyes)!
The Transformers: The Movie (1986)
Disappointing to this series fan
I loved the original series. Along with Gi Joe...sure they were toy commercials but they had some interesting characters thanks to the imput of Marvel comics and some good cartoon writers. I really looked forward to the movie--but was disappointed. It was neat how they jumped the action to 2005, and had the Decepticons winning on Cybertron. I remember cheers from the audience when Grimlock and the dinobots appeared..Starscream's treachery was classic--but then, after 15 minutes, they had killed off the likeable old series regulars and added some less than attractive new ones(Rodimus Prime for example). It seemed as though they aimed the movie at a slightly younger audience than the tv show too(Blur and the Junkions were really annoying). The fact that these robots who had been routinely blasted in the series and then recovered were wiped out so easily seemed quite strange. The Matrix of leadership had no connection to the series--surely they could have come up with a better story but I guess they had to satisfy the toy makers.
And then there was the music! The music was absolutely terrible. One of the best things about the tv Transformers and Gi Joe was the fantastic musical score by Michael Walsh and Johnny Douglas(I think Anne Bryant and Ford Kinder did the song lyrics). I felt nothing when Ironhide and the others were blasted thanks to that terrible screaming nonsense. As Wheeljack might say: if it aint broke--dont fix it!
Dungeons & Dragons (1983)
This show was good
I just caught an episode of Dungeons and Dragons after viewing a preview of the cgi series Action Man on the Fox network. I was a bit surprised to see this show listed since I remember it from almost 20 years ago! Shadowdemon was my favourite character.
At first the crude animation seemed a bit jarring, but after the first ten minutes I was hooked(again). Its a wonderfully imaginative and memorable series.
In addition to the comments already made by others I have to highlight the fantastic musical score by Robert J Walsh and Johnny Douglas. I remember their rousing music for Gi Joe and the Transformers. I had forgotten their work on D & D and now wish i could get in on tape!
Those shows from the 80s were so much better in story and execution than the sterile cgi shows pushed on saturday mornings these days.
Jason and the Argonauts (1963)
Great fantasy
Jason is one of Harryhausen's best. It has exciting visuals, a fine supporting cast(co-stars Armstrong and Kovak are so-so, and their voices were even dubbed!), a rousing score, and even some decent writing. Douglas Wilmer as the devious Pelias gets one particularly memorable line: "When your father defended his kingdom, no man fought harder than I." And Patrick Troughton, as Phineas the harpy-tormented seer, gets this poignant quote: Lord Zeus, I was a sinner. I have never tried to deny it. But I didnt sin every day, why then do you punish me every day?"
Both went on to appear in other Harryhausen films.
The Greek gods are not portrayed in a joking fashion either--and that helps lend respectability to the story. And the final sequence has got to be one of the most incredible film sequences ever! Thanks to films like this I became interested in Classical mythology and epic literature. Not a bad way to be inspired by a film!
Jason and the Argonauts (2000)
Harryhausen has nothing to worry about
I was looking forward to this tv version of the myth, but was very disappointed. First of all, Jason (the actor) plods through the story as if he were still "Dazed and Confused," he lacks the necessary charisma and it doesnt help that he closely resembles Kevin Sorbo. In the 63 film version, Todd Armstrong(who got the role because he was a relative of a studio exec) wasnt a great actor, but he did a much better job(and this despite his lines being dubbed by another actor!). Second, Dennis Hopper was terrible as Pelias. And he looked absolutely ridiculous when he dons the golden fleece near the end.
Third--It was a poor decision to have such young actors playing the "father and mother of the gods." Zeus and Hera should have been middle aged--not twenty-something! And the idea of having them materialize in the clouds...laughable.
I could mention how Derek Jacobi is unrecognizable and wasted in his part, and the odd choice of making Orpheus an African, but why bother?
The only good points are the location shooting, and some of the effects/monster sequences(the Minoan bull and the dragon especially).
But the 1963 film with fx by Ray Harryhausen was much more enjoyable.