Reviews

I'm a fan of low-budget movies, and even of entertainingly bad movies, but I struggled to maintain any interest in this one. As so often happens in bad movies, the acting, locations, camera work, sound, effects, costumes, etc. Were all adequate, only to be dragged down by a script that requires every character to be stupid, crazy, or both. The premise had potential; it's sad all they could think of for a plot was a crazy person doing bloody things. (P. S. Even craziness has a logic to it; I'm tired of movies that treat mental illness as permission to have the character do any unmotivated thing they want.)

Not everyone will like this movie. The premise is wonderful, but director John Favreau had a difficult choice to make. Does he play up the absurdity, or does he make a sci-fi horror movie that just happens to occur in the old west? It may have been because of the actors he was able to recruit that he decided to go with realism (of the War of the Worlds type). There actually is a lot of humor, but it's all deadpan, grounded in the craziness of the situations rather than in obvious parody or cheap one-liners (which will not be to the taste of a lot of viewers), though I would have preferred a little more open parody myself. There are also some plot elements that are not well explained, but anyone can enjoy the terrific ensemble acting, including Harrison Ford's over-the-top bad guy (who is as well realized as, say, Johnny Depp's pirate).

I loved the book, and best aspects of this miniseries were those aspects that followed the book. The production--settings, costumes, cast, special effects--were very good. The worst aspects were when the director tried to punch it up by adding "more drama." Jeez, we got Nazis, we got heroic resistance, we got suspenseful moments, for the love of Pete, we've got a blind girl! This story didn't need to be made more dramatic or tear-jerking or poignant than it already was. I found the intrusive music constantly especially annoying, constantly shouting at me so I'd know what I was supposed to be feeling. The whole last episode would have been better with no music whatsoever (except when it plays in the story).

I'm very good at suspending disbelief, so the preposterousness of the story''s scientific premises didn't bother me much. However, if that's the reality you want me to live in, you have to stick to it. The acting was great and the series did have its suspenseful moments, but too much was left unexplained, including a few logical leaps critical to the plot that made no sense in the context of the premise. From halfway through the series it got way too easy to guess what would happen next; then you had to watch it unfold at a painfully slow pace. And, alas, the closer to the end the series got, the stupider the humans acted; at times it was easier to believe in the science than to believe real people would act as they did. The director seemed much more interested in wringing as much melodrama as possible from each and every moment than in telling a story that made sense.

I'm a big X-Files fan, though I wasn't able to watch anything past the fifth year until recently. I consider the first and second episodes of the seventh season to be a total mess, in which almost nothing makes any sense in terms of what wehave learned in previous seasons nor, more importantly, in terms of the motivations of the characters involved (including the aliens, by the way...I found myself asking exactly why would they do this? Are they just sort of randomly crazy?). I liked the visit to Africa and the implicit source of the symbols found there, but I was pretty baffled by the actions of the characters, in the sense of "having done THIS, why would he do THAT?" My complaints continue in my even more aggravated review of Season 7 Episode 2.

I've always been a huge X-Files fan, but wasn't able to watch episodes from the sixth season on, so I've had to catch up later. I consider this the WORST episode of the X-Files I've ever seen. I'm thinking the writers must have written themselves into a corner with no idea how to get out of it (like what happened to "Lost"). Obviously Sci-Fi requires a certain suspension of disbelief, but the story still has to make sense within the context of the imagined universe it has created. Nothing in this episode--along with the one before it--makes any sense whatsoever. One trivial but obvious example: In the midst of a crisis, Scully goes to see Michael Kritschgau, where she deletes a bunch of files from his computer that she didn't know he'd hacked, then immediately leaves. Uh...why she did she go there in the first place? There are a whole lot of unmotivated actions or ones that contradict everything we've learned about a character. I decided by the first commercial that a lot of this had to be a dream, but even dreams have a certain logic to them. The two "Sixth Extinction" episodes do not.

So I think I've seen enough fragments of "Assassin's Creed" (2016), directed by Justin Kurzel, to have a sense of the whole. I'm impressed that they spent $125 million making this, some of it, no doubt, on the A-List cast, but much of it on artwork, CGI, and special effects, all of which are fairly impressive. As is so often true, the problem is in the writing. I gather the video game, in its various iterations, had a rather complicated story, so trying to capture it in a two-hour movie was probably unrealistic in the first place. There was too much exposition, and teven so the exposition was inadequate in clarifying what was going on. The best news: Kurzel did a fine job making the movie as much like a video game as possible. The bad news: Kurzel did a fine job making the movie as much like a video game as possible. I mean, watching someone else play a video game can be entertaining, but then you start to think: But wait, why aren't I playing this video game myself? I suspect this was the purpose of the movie: to encourage people to play the video game(s). But if only the people who are already playing the game(s) can understand the story, how does this encourage new people to get on board?

I often like "B" movies, but the main reason I watched Surabaya Conspiracy (called "Stoney" on YouTube) is because it's so hard to find movies with the delightful Barbara Bouchet that aren't in Italian. The version I saw clearly had the reels out of order, but it hardly mattered. There was no character in the movie who wasn't in it for him- or herself, other than possibly a revolutionary Colonel who didn't have a large role. Nor did the plot make a great deal of sense. Thus, competence at filming and acting hardly mattered. A film that is only for committed Barbara Bouchet enthusiasts.

I recently watched this film on Turner Classic Movies, thinking that since I am long time fan of Dorothy Sayers' detective stories, I would probably like it. The opposite is likely true: someone who has never read a Sayers mystery might find some enjoyment in the film. It's hard to count the number of ways the film went wrong. First, the title. "Haunted Honeymoon?" There is no haunting whatsoever here, and no character in the movie who thinks there might be. Second, casting. I like Robert Montgomery, but he is too obviously American too play pass for such a quintessentially British character as Lord Peter Whimsey. Has anyone read Sayers' books? Constance Cummings, an American who'd lived in England for a number of years by the time this was filmed, does a little better as Harriet Vane. The movie handles this problem by ignoring it, and just assuming Montgomery--who doesn't even attempt at a British accent--will be accepted as Whimsey. Third, premise. At the film's beginning, we learn Whimsey has given up detective work and his bride-to-be Vane has given up writing novels. Are you kidding me? There is no way either character from the books would do that; it would be especially outrageously for the fiercely independent Vane. What's she planning to do? Be a little house-wifey? Fourth, characterizations. Here we have Bunter as a long-suffering valet who stumbles around, dropping things and not always understanding what's going on. Harriet Vane's Bunter is entirely masterful; it is one of the sources of humor in the book that he can solve problems that even the talented Lord Whimsey can't. Fifth, script. So much time is wasted on the ridiculous giving-up-detectiving premise that we get hardly any chance to get to know the villagers who comprise the supporting cast; each one gets to have a one-dimensional character with a single motive. Moreover, the investigative part, which is the core of any Peter Whimsey story--as it is of any good detective story--is delayed for over half of the movie. Two stars for fine acting all around--even from the miscast Montgomery--but the writers, director, and producer should all have been mysteriously murdered.

DeepStar 6" (1989), directed by Sean Cunningham (who directed the original "Friday the 13th" in 1980), was about an underwater science project that accidentally disturbs a deep sea monster (and they gave someone a "story by" credit for this!). I had to disqualify it from so-bad-it's-good status for a couple of reasons. First, the acting was too good. The cast was made up entirely of B list TV actors, and every one of them actually did a pretty decent job, especially considering a lot of dialogue was technobabble that I couldn't imagine applying to the real world. Second, the special effects (with one exception, see below) were fairly classy. On the other hand, it was so by-the-book you could make a drinking game out of guessing what will happen next and everyone would stay completely sober (unless a correct guess earned you a shot). Or perhaps you could guess the order in which order the characters will die; that way someone might have to take a drink at some point. But the most distinguishing feature of the movie was one of most ridiculous and scientifically implausible monsters I've ever seen, which for me made the movie memorable. Additional points must be given for the movie-long contest between Nia Peeples and Nancy Everhard over whose t-shirted braless boobs look better (though there's no actual nudity). I personally thought the smaller-boobed Nancy just nipped Nia. Good for a boring Sunday afternoon; certainly more riveting than golf.

I like to watch old B movies, even though I never know quite what I'm going to get. This low-budget mystery-slasher has an actual plot, a number of interesting characters who are not cardboard cutouts, and decent enough acting all around, led by the great Bo Hopkins, who's always good. I do agree with the review by merklekranz that the final ending is ridiculous and stupid--which is why I'm not rating it higher--but, hey, you get nearly an hour and a half of B-movie enjoyment on the way there. Check it out!

This is a really bad movie. It starts off with a couple of good scenes, then becomes entirely predictable. There are no interesting characters and nobody does anything interesting. It has no suspense, no wit, no irony, no plot twists, no near escapes, nothing. Even the jump scares are too obvious to surprise us. The fantasy element is idiotic. The only good thing about it is that it reminds us how good the original "Halloween" movies were.

This pre-code comedy is the only sound film that starred legendary stage actors Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontaine. They had starred in the play on which it is based and they thought they'd give talking films a try. I watched it because I wanted a glimpse of Lunt and Fontaine, but as I watched I kept laughing and laughing. It's a silly comedy, a piece of fluff really, but Lunt and Fontaine (along with a great supporting cast) transform it into one of the funniest films I've ever seen. Lunt plays it big and broad while Fontaine keeps it small and subtle, but for the script they were working with, this worked beautifully. Although both actors were nominated for academy awards for their roles, the film was not a box office success, and the couple decided to stick to the stage thereafter. But this film is not just a curiosity. It's a masterpiece.

Low budget action/exploitation flick with lots of plot, mostly incoherent. If you like so-bad-it's-good" movies--and you know who you are--this is for you. Inane dialogue, forced set pieces, extraneous nudity, mindless violence. Must watch with friends so you can share all those "what the F was that?" moments.

Written, directed, and starring Daphne Kastner, this smart, sexy comedy may not be perfect, but it is quite good; moreover, it's a film both men and women might enjoy. Zoe, a writer dissatisfied with her relationships with men, goes to Spain to write a book about machismo, where despite of her feminist leanings and general wariness of men she finds there's something she likes about being seen as a sex object, and she's aware of her attraction to some of the more macho men she encounters. Not everything in the film works. For instance, I found it hard to believe a smart woman would come to interview men in Spain when she herself speaks no Spanish. Wouldn't she have lined up a translator beforehand? More importantly, I thought an elaborate dramatic subplot about Zoe coming to terms with her mother and father's history was ham-handed and overdone. On the other hand, Zoe's uncomfortable self-recognition of her longing for unbridled, lusty, passionate romance and her dubious efforts to experience it produce many funny moments. Along the way, the film also pokes fun both at stereotypes of Spanish machismo and at the romantic fantasies they can stir in some women. For this male viewer, it also didn't hurt that Kastner the director makes sure Kastner the actress keeps getting sexier as the movie progresses.

It's hard to rate this movie because of the combination of artistic admiration and cultural disgust it evokes. Following new archaeological finds, the elite classes of the U.S. went gaga in the 1920s and early 30s for the anything Middle Eastern, especially Egyptian. At this same time, Europe and the U.S. were in the process of shedding Victorian restrictions and recognizing that women, too, could have sexual feelings. Alas, what was called Orientalism did not stop Americans or Europeans from feeling superior to West Asians, but it did make the latter seem exotic and "romantic." And alas, again, the male film-makers of the time believed that one element of "romance" for a woman was a fantasy that some exotic brute would carry her off by force and ravish her (thus allowing her to express her long-denied sexual feelings). "The Barbarian" is a product of that era, a version of the same fantasy that had been seen in many earlier silent movies, most famously in Rudolph Valentino's "The Sheik." Its artistry is by no means perfect. The technical elements--sets, costumes, cinematography, editing, sound--are fine, but there is a jarring disconnect between the comedy of the first half of the movie and the drama of the second half. Some movies have found the right mix to pull this off (for example, "The Graduate"), but "The Barbarian" is not one of them. The character played by Roman Novarro is initially presented as a lascivious con-artist and later as a particularly annoying hustler (both of which are supposed to be "cute"), which makes it nearly impossible to later accept him as a sincere and honorable hero. The final scene is especially cringe-worthy. On the other hand, Myrna Loy gives an astonishing performance, both as the harassed female of the "comic" first half and in the dramatic second half (though even she can't save the last scene). She remains a believable human being in a role that is about as sexy as any role Loy ever played (and she played a lot of sexy roles). If you think the worst elements of U.S. cultural history are better denounced and rejected than tolerated as appropriate to their times, you will hate this movie. But if you do watch, please do it to mainly to admire Loy's wonderful performance.

Sessomatto ("Sex Madness," but released in English as "How Funny Can Sex Be?") is comprised of a series of eight comic sketches, each on average 10-15 minutes long, all having to do with sex, and all featuring two of the giants of Italian cinema in the 1970s, Giancarlo Giannini and Laura Antonelli. The sex in the movie is pretty tame by 21st century standards, and much of its humor comes from things that would have been shocking in the 1970s but aren't any more, a lot of that humor having been diluted over time. However, what interested me most was the sharp contrast between the acting styles of the two talented leads. Giannini is consistently cartoonishly exaggerated, following in the tradition of many great comedians, from Chaplin to the Marx Brothers to Jerry Lewis to Lucille Ball, Whoopi Goldberg, Jim Carrey, and Jackie Chan. Antonelli, on the other hand, takes a completely opposite tack bu trying to ealistically portray how someone might actually act if caught in a ridiculous situation. This follows the style of equally wonderful comic actors like Carole Lombard, Jimmy Stewart, Bill Murray, Julia Roberts, and Will Smith. Antonelli is also one of the finest examples of how to act with just one's eyes. I rated this based on how most audiences will see it, which is as mildly amusing and mildly sexy. But for those with a special interest in comedy acting, I would rate it much higher: maybe even a 10.

This 1988 comedy about an Irish hotelier who decides to market his castle based on rumors that it's haunted is sadly underrated on IMDB. OK, it's a farce, which few Americans appreciate; and yes, there are some gags that don't work; and yes, Daryl Hannah turns in one of her lesser performances. But there are another dozen actors/actresses in the cast who are wonderful comedians, led by Peter O'Toole--who's as funny as he's ever been--and including Beverly D'Angelo, Steve Guttenberg, Jennifer Tilly, Peter Gallagher, Connie Booth, and Liam Neeson. I've watched it three times over the years, and every time I've thought it was funny. Worth a look.

I enjoyed this film. The story is about a woman who, through no fault of her own, becomes the carrier spreading a nightmare disease. Director David Cronenberg, before any of his major successes, didn't have much money to work with, but he does well within his limited resources. For the lead he cast Marilyn Chambers, one of the prettiest porn stars ever, and by keeping her in a coma early in the film and in a trance for much of the rest, he adeptly disguises the limits of her acting ability. He surrounds Chambers with a large number of lesser known but quite competent actors, male and female. While Cronenberg can be fairly criticized for never sufficiently explaining the origins of the horror, by keeping it ambiguous he does anticipate many 21st century horror movies and TV series that don't tell the audience any more about what's going on than is known by the characters in the story. While this movie is far from a masterpiece, it is reasonably entertaining and would be especially interesting to fans of Cronenberg's later work.

I actually wanted to like this movie, but the combination of a terrible script and a terrible lead actor doomed me to never be able to get past the obvious question: Why would an attractive, smart, charming young woman like this want to have anything to do with such an immature, insecure a-hole? I've got nothing against the specific sexual practices--hey, whatever gets you through the night--but the wooden (!) male character's insistence on being in control every second was profoundly off-putting and decidedly un-erotic. I did like the character portrayed by Dakota Johnson. I hope Johnson (as an actress) outlives this series and goes on to have respectable career. I'll give the movie 2 stars because the music was pretty good.

In 2007, two different films titled "Days of Darkness." One was a French drama/fantasy/comedy called "L'Âge des Ténèbres" but translated as "Days of Darkness," written and directed by Denys Arcand and starring Marc Labrèche. The other was this low budget zombie movie directed by Jake Kennedy. For your own sake, do not confuse these two. One is a good movie. This is the bad one. It's not utterly without redeeming qualities. It deviates from classic zombie premises in some respects and so takes some turns you don't usually see, which I liked, and for a film with a low budget, the special effects aren't that bad. But the dialogue is terrible, the acting is bad, and parts of the plot are so forced they make no sense. As so often occurs in horror movies, everyone behaves like an idiot. Worst of all, it's boring. Don't watch this "Days of Darkness." Watch the French comedy instead.

Well, what have we here? How did I fail to watch this film until now? I must have mistakenly expected this to be a run-of-the-mill romantic melodrama, but writer-director Sally Potter has far more ambition than that. With "Yes," she boldly offers us a fully Shakespearian drama, complete with chorus, rude mechanicals, asides, and a long philosophical disquisition from a character not central to the plot--and just to make sure we don't miss it, she does all this in iambic pentameter. As with Iñárritu's illusion of continuous tracking in "Birdman," I both admired this achievement and found it quite distracting throughout. Potter is thoughtful about big issues and shows an acute understanding of human emotions, but she's not really a very impressive poet. The cast, good on the whole, varied in how well they could make the rhymed verse sound natural--with none better at this than star Joan Allen, who is luminous (and sexy) throughout. The pacing is also a problem: at times the story seems to be moving too slowly, while at other times sharp emotional transitions feel too abrupt (but note that one could also say such things about Shakespeare). Nonetheless, you do care about these characters, and there are many piquant moments. The music is excellent, the photography thrilling, and Sheila Hancock's one long soliloquy is quite glorious. The movie is well worth taking the time to watch. I recommend it to anyone who loves film, loves Shakespeare, or both.

This attempt at a Hitchcock-like thriller is one of those leave-your-brain-at-home movies. It's nice to watch Isabel Huppert and Elizabeth McGovern when they were young, both fine actors and each, in her own way, beautiful and sexy. However, pretty much everything in the script/plot is painfully forced. Steve Guttenberg has to play a complete idiot who can't think more than 30 seconds ahead, which is required for any number of improbable plot turns, one of which leaves a hole you could steer an ocean liner through. I can't comment more without giving spoilers. If you're the kind of person who doesn't get annoyed when a storyline has you asking "Why doesn't he just...?" you might enjoy it.