Hotmail
|
|
|
|
|
All reviews by user Date  Helpful Rating 1 out of 2 users found this helpful  Masterpiece TheaterPosted: 7/22/2004A review of 2001: A Space Odyssey by SviSvi Words alone are futile if one wants to champion director Stalnly Kubrick’s landmark ode to the free artistic expressionism that film presents. Sweeping in it’s magisterial glory, atoned by a classical score irrevocably tied to the visionary balladic-dance of man in space, “2001” crosses the bounds of cinema to become a relic of pure art: the likes of which we are fortunate to have, but could never produce again. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 1 users found this helpful  Heeeere Fishy Fishy!Posted: 7/16/2004A review of The Neptune Factor by SviSvi Let’s try to imagine a pitch meeting for thus film. “Well, gentlemen, movies about disasters are all the rage right now; and since Universal has already started production on a film we were going to produce about earthquakes, we’ll place our quakes under the sea. We’ll stock up on the best all-star cast unoccupied with other projects at the moment. And what comes to your mind when I say the words BIG FISH. No, gentlemen, not the lunch special! The idea is simple: tow a model sub around whatever aquatica the local pet store can provide, and it’ll all look ten feet tall on the big screen. It’s got Thrills, Chills, Spills….” Ect. Ect.<br> “The Neptune Factor” (or, “Finding Nemo Without A Brain”) was never a good idea to begin with. It rests on a terrible formula; combining the panic of “Earthquake” and wonder of giant creatures (i.e. “Godzilla”) with a cookie-cutter “Help! My husband is in jeopardy!” dose of suspense. It’s also a Canadian production, which is not to say that all Canadian films are bad, just that a lot of the industry’s credibility was lost on this one. The BIG FISH sequences are handled so sincerely (sincere as in “Hey, look, BIG FISH!”) as to become hilariously overblown.<br> Well, having said my case, I would like to offer all those folks out there in Hollywood my bright idea for a sequel. I call it “Neptune Factor Two: The Sharks!” A priority-one nuclear submarine is stranded on the seabed just off Marianas Trench and the rescue sub (piloted by a recently-divorced strapping young man, and his partner-a hot, virgin, marine biologist-along with two or three expendable extras) must save the crew while going up against a school of massive, genetically-mutated Great White Sharks that strangely enough resemble hand-puppets! It’s got Thrills, Chills, Spills…<br> Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful  I'm Living In The Future-The '80's!Posted: 5/1/2004A review of The Last Starfighter by SviSvi For all its timeless storytelling attributes, “The Last Starfighter” remains very much a movie caught in a 1980’s vision of progressive technology. While the trailer park scenes on Earth are transplantable in the present, the minute we leave for outer space the future doesn’t look so nearly advanced when compared with present hypothetical futurisms. Granted, the spaceship designs are truly revolutionary and can stand on their own in any decade, but everything else feels like one big cliché: the Delorean-style car, the control panels with reams of blinking light, and the oval cathode ray-tube monitors.<br> Then there are the special effects. As monumental as they were in 1984, the critical side of me almost wanted to cry at some points. Luckily, the content side won over because, lets face it folks, this was 1984. Computers were ant-brained smart at the time, and considering the sheer volume of effects utilizing that “primitive” technology the creators got an astronomical return on their investment and plowed-through the developing process light years ahead. If it looks cheap now, that’s only because it was the first real stab to do something that would be CGI without trying to appear CGI. Miniatures and Stop-Motion were just as phony in their origins.<br> Anyway, don’t let that distract you from having a good time! This is a fun movie!<br> Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful Trial of The CenturyForget OJ Simpson, or Charles Manson, or any of the individualistic serial murderers, assassins, or crazed maniacs whose specters taunt us over the eons; this was The Trial of The Century. In 1945-1946 the allies rounded-up all the top *^*#s they could find (and those whom hadn’t escaped the hangman’s noose either via suicide or fleeing to abroad) to be judged before an international war crimes tribunal on the charges of four counts; including the previously unheard-of “Crimes against Humanity.” Gone forever were the days when men could order to purge the innocent while hiding behind the gentlemanly conduct of war. Nuremburg set an example for every genocidal Milosevic and Hussein to come. Here they are: the top murderers on the planet paraded before the world, having to face the unspeakable music which they played across six million victims. Some are cowards, knowing fill well their paddles fell into the creak long time ago and will do anything to save their skins. Some are defiant, resolute to the end that they are at the mercy of equally heinous foes that seek scapegoats for actions that could not possible be construed as wrong. And there is one, the regretted, a man whom would later remark that he was unable to recognize the devil’s hand on his shoulder. Welcome to Nuremburg ladies and gentlemen; and may God have mercy on our souls. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 2 users found this helpful  Lost Horizon 1973Posted: 1/15/2004A review of Lost Horizon by SviSvi ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS! There's a reason this film was included in a book entitled 'The Fifty Worst Films of All Time.' Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful It Defies Explaination!Posted: 1/16/2004A review of Plan 9 from Outer Space by SviSvi They'll never make another film like this again, and considering that the picture basically hangs together with glue and tape, it's amazing they made it in the first place. Basically, the movie has all the production values of an independent film; a BAD independent film, a really BAD independent film; a REALLY BAD independent film! I mean, seriously, this is the eternal textbook, idiot’s guide, and chicken soup for the soul template on how to never ever, ever make a movie if you are striving for a serious piece of artistic integrity. But if you’re looking for the ‘Das Kapital’ of ‘so-bad-it’s good’ filmmaking, search no further. Here it is; Edward D. Wood Jr.’s masterpiece of the absurd, the bombastic, the excruciatingly mindless dumb and the giddy-with-guilt horror that makes it unaccountably and deservedly the most tastefully atrocious picture of all time. But be forewarned; one viewing is never enough. You’ll have to reshow it for all your friends otherwise they would never believe its existence. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 1 users found this helpful What is History?History is not about the who, the when, or the what...but about the WHY? 'JFK' presents us with that why, but it is not THE why. And that's the problem, because alot of people like to quote this film as their 'source,' their 'background' for information regarding the Kennedy assasination. On the back of the packaging, Oliver Stone writes, "'JFK' is our alternative myth to the Warren Commission myth, an opportunity for people to rethink history." As I read between these lines, I find Mr. Stone's use of the word "myth" to mean that he has not fabricated a story based entierly on fact, but relying on the "what if?"-in the same vein the TV movie "Two of Us" depicted "what if?" had John Lennon and Paul McCartney conversed with each other on the day they were offered the $3000 check to appear on 'Saturday Night Live.' This is not a film to be taken literally as the fundamental guide to Kennedy's assasination-conspiratorial or otherwise. But it gets four stars becasue Stone is a master of pizazz directing. His camera never settles down, it runs all over the place, in and out of people's thoughts, and in and out of time. He's brilliant at capturing the temsion and sheer panic of the assasination, of combining his own footage to the past, of recreating the past, but also the making of a very confusing case. The problem is that he covers so musch 'evidence' supporting a conspiracy that he never fits all the pieces togehter. We are overloaded with facts, but they sit like a desk covered in reports; seperated and dishelved. And when you get right down to the bare bones of it all-when you really logic this thing to pieces-it won't hold enough water. It's not THE truth-THE why? It's a guidebook to the why, an outline for the why. But it belongs in a time capsule somewhere nevertheless, not for it's historical accuracy, but for what the film represents: the human race's unquellable curiosity of it's own past and the longevity of our facination with cases involving unsolved murder. Was this review helpful? Sign In 2 out of 2 users found this helpful All Scrooges: Take NotePosted: 12/31/2003A review of A Christmas Carol by SviSvi If it were up to me, people would have stopped making Christmas Carole films right after The Muppets; who utilized the last possible spin on the old tome. Everything since has been a retread. Nobody in their right mind can ever be expected to turn out a performance equating that or even superior to that which is given by Alastair Sim. Mr. Sim approaches his role with all the humanity and sincerity that become pedestalled among the true great performance ever witnessed on film. His reformation is the be all and end all to all reformations. He never seems to be mouthing the script, but rather taking in and living in each moment as it happens and reacting according-not to expectations, though he must follow certain Dickensian guidelines-but to his own personality. To put it bluntly, and crassly, SIM RULES! After witnessing his Scrooge you will never be capable of watching another Christmas Carole without thinking about this man and likewise drawing the inevitable comparisons. But a word to the warning, some misguided fools have run a print of this film through the controversial colorization process; and I must say that it is garish! It reminds me of the cheap jobs given to black and white photographs back in the 1930’s. The colors look as though they were hand-picked from the icing of a birthday cake! Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful BAH! HUMBUG!Posted: 1/10/2004A review of Santa with Muscles by SviSvi BOO and PHOOEY and EWE and YUK! This film takes everything to a new low. I think it would best fit under the title “Everything you’ve seen before rehashed but ten times worse under a premise ten times stupider than the last.” This film is stupid enough to qualify for distanced cousin of ‘Santa Clause Conquers the Martians.” Poor Clint Howard; being Ron Howard’s brother must mean diddley-squat in Hollywood. You even have two stars from ‘That 70’s Show’ during the “I’ll do anything!” phases of their respective careers. And as for Hulk Hogan’s acting…um, man; dig those crazy eyebrows! They could give Steven Frost a run for his money. Okay, okay: horrifying, sickening, appalling, shocking, gruesome, dreadful. These are words distributed by my thesaurus and I still can’t quite reach the exalted heights of descriptive reasoning that would apply to his…well, even calling it a ‘performance’ (or ‘acting’) would be a crime against actors all over the world! DUMB, STUPID, POINTLESS, PITIFUL…the list goes on and one. TRUST ME: you had more fun reading this article that you would loosing ninety minutes of your life to ‘Santa with Muscles.’ Was this review helpful? Sign In 1 out of 2 users found this helpful Could have been worse...Posted: 1/12/2004A review of Raise the Titanic by SviSvi In the past, this movie has been subjected to unfairly-harsh criticism and I for one feel that someone ought to stick up for the poor thing. Come on, compared with ‘S.O.S. Titanic,’ this film has the quality of the James Cameron epic; though the quality definitely lags miles behind that feature. <br> Okay, let’s get a few things strait: history has not been kind to ‘Raise the Titanic.’ The cold war is over (Byzantium!), the ship is in two pieces that are far removed from the creator’s prophesized preservation, and the special effects range from borderline jaw-dropping grandeur to borderline jaw-dropping fakeorama. And then (SPOILER ALERT) at the very end, the guys go through a miraculous soul-rectifying change-of-heart that prevents them from getting a hold on this super mineral? Hello, you just coughed-up the freaking Titanic, and after all that trouble for a few measly rocks you cannot bring yourself to dig up the guy’s grave. They desiccated the graveyard of a marine disaster for crying out loud! <br> Anyway, this movie could have done a lot worst (one shudders to think how the effects would have looked in the pre-Industrial Light and Magic era) and it almost gets there, but it’s a little to engaging to throw away. I mean, they are searching for the Titanic; then they are going to raise her two-and-a-half miles off the ocean floor. Now this I gotta see!<br> Was this review helpful? Sign In 4 out of 4 users found this helpful Favorite Film of 1996.Posted: 12/31/2003A review of That Thing You Do! by SviSvi ‘A Hard Day’s Night’ was the film that set standards for all acts to follow. Immediately upon its release, everyone wanted to be in a Beastles-esque band, play Beastles-esque music, and, above all, achieve that same heady level of Beatles-esque fame. ‘That Thing You Do!’ is a portrait of how four young men reacted, along with all of America’s youth culture, to the onset of the new ‘60’s rock ‘n roll and strove to achieve those same goals with exhilarating results. Brilliantly executed by writer/director/co-star Tom Hanks, ‘That Thing You Do!’ lovingly returns us to the days when the music was fresh and fame was achieved through measures that appear ludicrously uncoordinated and improvised when you consider the market-saturated push-to-manufactured-stardom today’s acts have subsequently achieved, enjoyed, and lost in a fortnight. Boasting what may be the most original soundtrack of the decade; ‘That Thing You Do!’ is a feast for the ears, the eyes and, ultimately, the heart. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful Again, What is History?Posted: 1/5/2004A review of Hitler: The Last Ten Days by SviSvi I’m not going to give ‘$*^*#$: The Last Ten Days’ a full five stars because it just doesn’t reach the same five-star-glory worthiness. There are a couple of problems. First of all, Alec Guinness as Adolph $*^*#$. While Guinness’s $*^*#$ is admittedly a real force to be reckoned with, he never completely evokes the man. He never inhabits the soul of $*^*#$; he never stops being Alec Guinness. The likeness is remarkable, but there are enough opportunities for the accent to slip and remind us the man is Guinness to ruin the proceedings. And then there is the ending. You’ll see what I mean, but without giving anything away, let’s just say that it leaves much to speculation. Throughout this film, events have been certified by a participant whom was actually within the bunker. We know who he is because he is present throughout the film; but he leaves the bunker before the end. He never saw the ending. And take a good look at how it ends; the participants, the proceedings. Are you conclusively sure that it couldn’t have happened another way; that it actually occurred THIS way? Was this review helpful? Sign In 1 out of 1 users found this helpful Peace, Love, and Music!‘Woodstock’ is a symbolic, disembodied echelon of humanity. For three days a half-million pacifists had conjugated on a single farm in upstate New York with the dual purpose to launch a massive anti-Vietnam war demonstration, and at the same time to hear some really proficient music! In the years that passed the concerts may reach larger attendances and the artist’s roster becomes mind-numbingly all star; but it is all a game to dismount the impenetrable high standards of cultural affluence set by‘Woodstock.’ Not since have we been witness to a more profoundly mind-altering experience in such an encapsulating setting. ‘Woodstock’ proves that, under the right conditions, high-density concentrations of people whom share homogeneous yet diverse beliefs can live together without conflict; that not even forces of nature or subversive propagation by the establishment can bend the will of a people committed to reaching their goal as one. ‘Woodstock’ is not just a concert, not just a gathering, not just a film; it is an experience. And it is an unrepeatable experience; which is why no festival under the name of Woodstock has since managed to replicate the formers glory. There’s only one ‘Woodstock;’ just as there’s only one Woodstock generation. But in order for you displaced newcomers to truly grasp even the tiniest glimmer of stardust that permeated the whole event, you must, find the Director’s Verison; with more artists, more performances, and more interviews with individuals on the path to their own self-discovery. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful Made-For-Television Budget ShowsPosted: 1/11/2004A review of S.O.S. Titanic by SviSvi I’m still attempting a telekinetic download with the creators of this film. I can understand their intentions good and well, but the execution is dreadful. Did they honestly believe that their viewing audience wouldn’t posses even the merest scrap of knowledge concerning the most famous maritime disaster in history? I will now refer to my easy-reference menu of factual errors that completely screw-up the production.<br>1. None of the actors even remotely bare a resemblance to the historical figures they are meant to portray.<br>2. The ‘special-effects’ are totally rank! One establishing scene of the ship ay sea was apparently taken thirty miles from the vessel!<br>3. Filming of exteriors was done aboard the Queen Mary-a vessel which only vaguely resembles the Titanic.<br>4. Interiors in no way resemble the Titanic. They are far too modern, luxurious, and the First Class Dining room resembles nothing so much as a five-story ballroom.<br>5. During the sinking, wide visuals of the ship show some sections submerged that are above water in the close-ups.<br>7. The ship sinks on the wrong day!<br>Now, if you can handle al that, you might be entertained.<br> Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 1 users found this helpful Indy would spin in his grave...Posted: 12/26/2003A review of Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold by SviSvi I just saw this 'film' on (of all places ) the Hisotry Channel! Well, it's certainly set a historic low for the adventure franchise. A BOMB in ever sence of the word: hackened editing, cheapola special-effects, wooden, caricature acting, and can you believe the government of Zimbabwe actually let these people into their country to film THIS? They should have kept them! Indiana Jones' fouth quest should be a systematic trackdown for every print of this film. People, if you must, MUST, endure this trash, wrap your head in one of those towels the bad guys wear-without the eye holes! Was this review helpful? Sign In |
||
